PDA

View Full Version : For those wanting a second 1st round pick



The Unknown
06-25-2008, 12:18 AM
Portland just bought the Hornets' (#27) for "cash considerations". :mad:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/news/story?id=3459658

croz24
06-25-2008, 12:27 AM
it's very difficult watching portland buy pick after pick after pick and acquire all of this young talent, while the pacers just stand still and do nothing.

tadscout
06-25-2008, 12:35 AM
Larry said he was looking in the late lottery - 20th pick range to get another first rounder...

In this case (N.O. 27th pick) my view it's more beneficial to trade for an early 2nd than the 27th... b/c then you have no salary/guarantee restraints...

blanket
06-25-2008, 01:12 AM
This has to be setting up for a bigger draft day deal.

The Blazers already have a full roster of young players, plus Oden coming back, Fernandez (and maybe Koponen?) coming over, plus 3 second round picks, #13 -- and now #27?

From what I've read, the players they're interested in are Westbrook and Alexander, both of which will be gone by #13.

Given this deal for #27, I expect them to have a deal in the works to trade #13 (plus at least one of their 2nd rounders, either as part of that same trade or a separate one).

Since they have a need for a starting quality SF, and Bird has expressed interest in getting a second pick in the 12-20 range, perhaps we have a deal in the works for #13.

Maybe Dunleavy for Lafrentz's expiring contract plus picks 13 and 33? Maybe another young player like Jack or Frye, too?

Either way, the Blazers are obviously going to be very active on draft night -- just like they always are.

SoupIsGood
06-25-2008, 01:40 AM
it's very difficult watching portland buy pick after pick after pick and acquire all of this young talent, while the pacers just stand still and do nothing.


Yep.

PR07
06-25-2008, 01:51 AM
Portland's GM seems to do everything right. I mean I can't find a flaw committed by that team the last two seasons. Why the heck can't we buy a pick?

Shade
06-25-2008, 01:59 AM
:mad:

tadscout
06-25-2008, 02:13 AM
Oh I'd also like to point out that buying a draft pick isn't Larry's decision (or fault for not obtaining one in that method)... it's 100% Herb Simon's...

CableKC
06-25-2008, 02:55 AM
Geez louise.....how much does it cost to get one?

Is there a MAX amount that a team can pay for one?

Is it 3-4 mil?

If that doesn't count towards the cap and is simply "cash out of pocket" for the Simons....why can't the Simons pay for that?

If it looks like they are going to buy out the majority of Tinsley's $21 mil contract...what's a couple of million more to get an additional pick?

Lord Helmet
06-25-2008, 03:01 AM
Oh I'd also like to point out that buying a draft pick isn't Larry's decision (or fault for not obtaining one in that method)... it's 100% Herb Simon's...
But Larry will get the blame while it is the Simons not wanting to pay.

The Simons or it might have just been Herb, but I remember Larry being told that they want him to construct a team full of good, young talent, but stay under the tax (which is understandable) but apparently will be very difficult.

So this revamping process of the Pacers could not see the Pacers vastly improve until we've been in this new process for 3-4 years.

JHcutt18
06-25-2008, 03:35 AM
Maybe Dunleavy for Lafrentz's expiring contract plus picks 13 and 33? Maybe another young player like Jack or Frye, too?


Bird has said he won't trade Dunleavy.

Justin Tyme
06-25-2008, 05:54 AM
Geez louise.....how much does it cost to get one?

Is there a MAX amount that a team can pay for one?

Is it 3-4 mil?

If that doesn't count towards the cap and is simply "cash out of pocket" for the Simons....why can't the Simons pay for that?

If it looks like they are going to buy out the majority of Tinsley's $21 mil contract...what's a couple of million more to get an additional pick?


"Up to 3 mil" for a pick.

King Tuts Tomb
06-25-2008, 07:04 AM
To be fair, Portland is working with Paul Allen's fortune. The Simon's don't have near the available cash to make deals like the Blazers. It's actually a pretty clever way of getting a leg up on other teams even with the salary cap. It's how they pulled off the Foye for Roy deal a couple years ago.

count55
06-25-2008, 07:30 AM
I'll defer on my opinion about not buying a draft pick until I see what actually gets done Thursday night. Bird did note that he wanted the second pick in the Top 20, and the previous poster who mentioned the guaranteed contract factor makes a good point.

I suspect we'll have a second 1st round pick by the time it's all said and done (but I'm wrong on a regular basis.)

MyFavMartin
06-25-2008, 07:45 AM
Bird has said he won't trade Dunleavy.

and yesterday he and granger were down graded to "nearly untouchable"...

D-BONE
06-25-2008, 07:49 AM
Bird has said he won't trade Dunleavy.

I thought Bird expressed it more along the lines of Granger and Dunleavy are the players least likely to be traded, but not that he wouldn't trade them under any circumstances.

I'll have to go back and check the presser. Whatever the exact wording, Dun would not appear to be a likely trade candidate.

MyFavMartin
06-25-2008, 08:02 AM
the only untradable pacer is tinsley. :(

Plax80
06-25-2008, 08:07 AM
I think I've figured out Bird's logic on the draft and I tend to agree with it.

There are 9 players he likes and would be happy with at 11.

Assuming Alexander and Gallinari are picked in top 10............which seems likely........than at least one of the 9 will still be there. The group of Bayless, Westbrook, Augustin, and Gordon should produce the Pacers pick at 11.

His second target is likely Hibbert who has began rising back up draft boards. If Toronto grabs him at 17 that could signal the Pacers-Raptors deal is on again.

he has said he wants an interior player and players that are ready to contribute........no one else fits both criteria.

Hibbert isn't worth Dunleavy or Granger........thats what he was referring to.

He would probably be reluctant to trade JO for Ford and Hibbert if he has already secured a PG at 11.

We have no other assets that would likely garner a chance at Hibbert and we aren't going to swallow any other bad contracts to acquire him either.

So my best guess is that we get a Pg at 11 and another project in round 2 to send overseas.

I would think its still possible to construct a deal with Cleveland for Varejo, a player we like at 19 (Varejo would make Hibbert seem unnecessary), and another #1 next year.

For all the piling on about how bad a deal Memphis made with teh Lakers.......when you look at it closer and realize that Marc Gasol probbaly would go 3rd or 4th in this draft..........Crittenden and 2 other #1's isn't terrible except that the ones are both nearly 2nd rd picks.

DGPR
06-25-2008, 08:09 AM
the only untradable pacer is tinsley. :(

In all seriousness, what would you all require the minimum be that we get back in a trade for Tinsley?

MyFavMartin
06-25-2008, 08:13 AM
Larry said he was looking in the late lottery - 20th pick range to get another first rounder...

In this case (N.O. 27th pick) my view it's more beneficial to trade for an early 2nd than the 27th... b/c then you have no salary/guarantee restraints...

If Pacers acquire this pick, might it be as a move back from 11 to 13, allowing Augustin to go to Sacramento and we get a player we like at 13 and hill, whose been targeted as a early 2nd rounder by the lakers, at 27?

Guess Lee and CDR might be there at 27 as well...

MyFavMartin
06-25-2008, 08:15 AM
In all seriousness, what would you all require the minimum be that we get back in a trade for Tinsley?

a contract of equal length or shorter and a late 1st rounder/ early 2nd rounder?

he's got talent and in the right system (coach that can keep him in line) would help a team. Miami and Riley?

OakMoses
06-25-2008, 08:18 AM
In all seriousness, what would you all require the minimum be that we get back in a trade for Tinsley?

Anything but a player with a longer contract.

OakMoses
06-25-2008, 08:19 AM
Portland just bought the Hornets' (#27) for "cash considerations". :mad:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/draft2008/news/story?id=3459658

So much for the promise that New Orleans had given Chalmers.

Trader Joe
06-25-2008, 08:31 AM
In all seriousness, what would you all require the minimum be that we get back in a trade for Tinsley?

Seven million dollars worth of cook to eat pizzas that expire from the cap figure upon being consumed?

DGPR
06-25-2008, 08:33 AM
Seven million dollars worth of cook to eat pizzas that expire from the cap figure upon being consumed?


I would eat my fair share in a timely manner if this were the case.

count55
06-25-2008, 08:40 AM
Anything but a player with a longer contract.

We're in luck...there really aren't any. I posted a "make me an offer" for JT on RealGM Trade Board, telling them I wouldn't package Granger, Dunleavy, or any picks and got the following offers:


Jared Jeffries for Tinsley, straight up. Same contracts, same level of craptacularity.

This is one I've mentioned before...and the sad part is, I think this could've/would've been done under Isiah or someone else, but probably not under Walsh.


Jamal Tinsley for a Grande Meal from Taco Bell and Trenton Hassell...but the Nets get to choose what you get in the Grande Meal.

This'd be great, but it doesn't work...They'd need to add about $1mm, so a guy like Ager would have to be included, and I have no idea what they think of him. That kind of deal would actually save us around $10mm, but it doesn't make a great deal of sense from the NJ side.


Dan Gadzuric

Same contract/length

If you trade JO you might need another big to eat some minutes anyways.

Same kind of deal as the JJ deal - your crap for my crap...I'd be fine with it...Gadzuric as the end of the bench big and Tinsley gone.


Cleveland Trade: Ben Wallace

Indiana Trades: Jamal Tinsley and Marquis Daniels

Cleveland does this because it gives them a true point guard to create offense and solid defense at the point guard position. Daniels is in there to make the salary work.

Indiana does this to obviously rid themselves of Tinsley. Plus when they Trade JO for TJ Ford they will have a defensive mineded board hogger in the middle. Ben Wallace may not be what he was, but he is still a very servicable big that could bring some veteran leadership to a young Indiana team.

This one could hurt a little financially, but might not be too bad on the court. It depends on exactly how washed up Wallace is. It basically takes the $7mm owed to Tinsley in 2010-2011 and accelerates it up into 2009-2010. While it doesn't have a dollar benefit, per se, it helps a little with the timing.


Brian Cardinal for Jamaal Tinsley straight up...and remember, you said you wouldn't say no :p

I'd be fine with this...it would shave off that last year of $7.3mm, but Memphis isn't going to take a worse contract back if they're supposedly pimping the #5 to anyone who'll take Cardinal.


Diaw for Tinsley + Diogu

OK...here's the exception...I was wrong...Diogu's contract is longer. He's owed $9mm per for the next four years. I want Tinsley gone, and I don't think much of Diogu, but I really don't like Diaw, and wouldn't at half the price. I'm convinced he's going to turn into a pumpkin the second he's no longer playing with Steve Nash. This is actually the one I'd say "No" to.


The 3 way option

- Tinsley to NY so they get a true PG
- Curry to CHA so they get a scoring C who can complement Emeka and move him to PF
- Mohammad to Indy a decent big and Harrington from CHA to NY as filler

I like this deal, too. It gives us a decent, if unexciting big, and shaves about $2 mm off of what we owe Tinsley. Same contract length, but just a little lighter.

Clearly, these were just fans and wasn't vaguely scientific, but I do believe that, as long as we are willing to stay neutral on finances, that we can move Tinsley. Yes, we'll still have the bad contract, but one of the biggest lightning rods (and supposedly, problems) will be gone. Also, if we buy him out, we basically kill that salary slot, preventing us from using it later as filler/expiring, even though it will still count against both the cap and the luxury tax threshold.

I don't think I'm way off base in saying TPTB are approaching this year as if Tinsley were already gone in every way except for salary. I do think they'll be rid of him by summer's end, but I don't think that they'll look at any other deal and say "If we move Tinsley..." or "If Tinsley's here". I think it's pretty much all over but the shouting.

Kegboy
06-25-2008, 08:46 AM
:yes:

If anybody wants DJ White, better get a pick before 27.

D-BONE
06-25-2008, 08:48 AM
I actually think Gadzuric could function here in a limited minutes, backup role. His athleticism and defense could be used in short stints (since he's obviously not good enough to risk playing big minutes). Would be worth it to rid ourselves of Tins.

Tom White
06-25-2008, 09:33 AM
In all seriousness, what would you all require the minimum be that we get back in a trade for Tinsley?

I think they would take a player with a similar contract, but without the baggage (at least without the LOCAL baggage) that JT has piled up.

Even if the new player did not get off the bench much, just being able to tell the fans "I told you I wasn't going to put up with it." would be Bird's selling point to explain the trade. I think most fans would overlook a lack of contribution, by the new guy, with that explanation.

Edit:

Count55 - I'd take most any of those trades that fans of other teams were proposing, the problem is, I think their GM's would disagree.

count55
06-25-2008, 09:51 AM
Edit:

Count55 - I'd take most any of those trades that fans of other teams were proposing, the problem is, I think their GM's would disagree.

Yeah, that's certainly possible, if not probable...here's how I explained how I'd view JT if I were an opposing GM in that thread:


Here's my theory on Tinsley...He's dead in Indy because (a) he's injury prone and (b) he's got a lot of off-court baggage in a city that has a stunning string of bad luck and bad experiences, starting with the brawl. When (and if) he plays, he's a productive player. Before he fizzled this year, he was averaging 14 & 8 with 2 steals, but he's worn out his welcome.

However, he won't have the baggage in other cities. If I'm an opposing GM, and I've "already spent" the money on another guy that I'm getting nothing from (Jeffries, Gadzuric), then why not take a flyer on a guy who could put up some numbers? If he doesn't pan out, am I really any worse off than I was before? I'd be hesitant to put myself in any worse financial shape than I am now, but if it's salary neutral (or a slight improvement), Tinsley is probably worth the risk to me.

While it's true that that same GM could say "I'll just wait the Pacers out and sign Tins to the min", he'd still be paying that other player, so he'd be a little more out of pocket. It's all a guess...I've never been privvy to the inner workings of any FO, but it doesn't seem to be a horribly unreasonable POV.

Unclebuck
06-25-2008, 10:17 AM
Generally speaking teams don't want to get stuck with picks in the 25-30 range, teams would rather have pick 31 an early second rounder. Because as everyone knows all first rounders get three years guaranteed. So I don't think buying the pick is that good of a deal - I could see doing it while the draft is taking place and you know a player that you want is still there, but to acquire it now, doesn't seem like a good deal

JayRedd
06-25-2008, 10:21 AM
as everyone knows all first rounders get three years guaranteed. So I don't think buying the pick is that good of a deal

...unless of course your owner has $16 billion and the $3 million spent probably costs less than his car.

count55
06-25-2008, 10:55 AM
Generally speaking teams don't want to get stuck with picks in the 25-30 range, teams would rather have pick 31 an early second rounder. Because as everyone knows all first rounders get three years guaranteed. So I don't think buying the pick is that good of a deal - I could see doing it while the draft is taking place and you know a player that you want is still there, but to acquire it now, doesn't seem like a good deal


Actually, it's now only two years guaranteed, with two team options since the last CBA, but I agree with your sentiment (with the noted exception of if there's a guy we really, really want, but who's that gonna be?)

(Sorry, for some reason, I'm counting nosehairs this morning.)

Unclebuck
06-25-2008, 10:55 AM
Not sure if this is the correct thread to make this point.

But I just looked back through every draft since 2000 and it is rather shocking how few really good players are in each draft. On average there might be 2 star players and another 3 or 4 really good players.

I don't pay any attention to the draft until the few days before, and once again I come to the realization that if a team can succeed 50% of the time that is a great %.

Amazing how many outright busts are taken every year 6, 7, and 8. For some reason picks 9 and 10 are really good, but 6,7, and 8 are terrible.

Will Galen
06-25-2008, 11:02 AM
a contract of equal length or shorter and a late 1st rounder/ early 2nd rounder?

he's got talent and in the right system (coach that can keep him in line) would help a team. Miami and Riley?

Riley is no longer the coach at Miami.

rexnom
06-25-2008, 11:02 AM
Kevin Pritchard is making every other GM look bad. This move doesn't make sense to every owner (including the Simons) but being active like this is great. I think this let's them move up in the draft too.

Personally, I think the NBA has a huge problem with these cash consideration deals. Maybe this is sour grapes, but I think it's unfair to a lot of the teams in the league without obscenely rich owners. I doubt Portland even ends up using this 27 pick on a player that will play next year. They'll either package it in a deal or get someone they can stash overseas, rendering the contract issue even more moot. Basically, because their owner is rich, they bought themselves an additional asset.

count55
06-25-2008, 11:06 AM
Not sure if this is the correct thread to make this point.

But I just looked back through every draft since 2000 and it is rather shocking how few really good players are in each draft. On average there might be 2 star players and another 3 or 4 really good players.

I don't pay any attention to the draft until the few days before, and once again I come to the realization that if a team can succeed 50% of the time that is a great %.

Amazing how many outright busts are taken every year 6, 7, and 8. For some reason picks 9 and 10 are really good, but 6,7, and 8 are terrible.

Yeah, the NBA draft has a pretty low hit rate.

Consider this: There's a significant amount of discussion about using Jeff Foster to get back into the first round. For example, sending him to Utah for #23 and filler. So if you draft someone at #23, you probably don't expect to get a star. You might think you see somebody that's going to fill a role, maybe be a starter or a key rotational player...they could maybe have a glimmer of possible stardom, but you certainly aren't going to count on it.

In fact, if you held the #23 pick (without trading for it), wouldn't you be generally satisfied, if not very happy to get a guy who has a career like, say...Jeff Foster? Sure, there have been players drafted there or after who have been huge (thus averting the "Gilbert Arenas" exception), but I'm guessing Jeff's career as an early-20's pick is in at least the top quartile of all players picked there, if not in the top 15-20%.

So, are you really getting anywhere by dealing Foster for that pick? That's also why I had no real problem with dealing the 1st round pick last year for Harrington (though what we did with Harrington afterwards kinda screwed it up.) I think a proven, solid NBA player, in his prime, is generally worth more than most mid-to-late 1st round draft picks.

This is why I argued on RealGM that the #17 pick wouldn't be a dealbreaker to Colangelo, and probably not Bird. They might have a guy they like, but they know there's at least a 50/50 chance (maybe better) that he'll never amount to anything. Look at our experience with 17: Danny (boom) and Shawne (maybe bust). Look at Diogu at 9.

There is no commodity on the face of the earth that gets more over-valued than a 1st Round draft pick the week of the NBA Draft. Please recall that Washington once turned down Detlef Schrempf and the pick that became Dale Davis so that they could keep the #5 pick and draft Calbert Cheaney.

MyFavMartin
06-25-2008, 11:31 AM
Riley is no longer the coach at Miami.

not yet... :laugh:

Justin Tyme
06-25-2008, 01:28 PM
Kevin Pritchard is making every other GM look bad. This move doesn't make sense to every owner (including the Simons) but being active like this is great. I think this let's them move up in the draft too.

Personally, I think the NBA has a huge problem with these cash consideration deals. Maybe this is sour grapes, but I think it's unfair to a lot of the teams in the league without obscenely rich owners. I doubt Portland even ends up using this 27 pick on a player that will play next year. They'll either package it in a deal or get someone they can stash overseas, rendering the contract issue even more moot. Basically, because their owner is rich, they bought themselves an additional asset.

Right now, Pritchard is the epitome of GM's working the system. I am truly surprised no one has mentioned the offer he made in today's Hoopshype while discussing Pritchard. Interesting read if one chooses to read it.