Knicks · Is Markelle Fultz worth both of Sacramento's 2017 1st round picks? (page 1)
On the other hand two top 10 picks gives you better odds at eventually hitting gold.
I would make the trade, provided both those are in the top 8 or so.
BRIGGS wrote:Keep the pick and take Ball
Even if Ball was the guy we wanted, Fultz seems to be the consensus no.1 overall pick. In this situation, you'd need to draft Fultz and then trade down to recieve Ball with an asset. Even if it is just a lowly second round pick, it's something you never had before that you can build with.
meloshouldgo wrote:On one hand you want to draft the sure thing.
On the other hand two top 10 picks gives you better odds at eventually hitting gold.I would make the trade, provided both those are in the top 8 or so.
That's my thinking as well. If this draft is every bit as deep as they say it is, I think trading the no.1 overall pick would be the way to go if we could get two lottery picks in the 6-9 range. We'd need to do our homework but it feels that every year someone that doesn't go no.1 overall, develops well enough to rival said player. Hopefully we could find that player and a third to couple with KP.
Zebo13 wrote:Good question. I wanna say yes. If Fultz is a sure thing, what are the odds that the two other picks will both pan out.
Talents are all throughout the draft. You just have to do the legwork in finding them. And the guys that will likely be available with those Kings' picks are intriguing in their own right. Imagine walking away with a Tatum or Isaac (who I'm not a fan of) with Frank Ntlinkina or Dennis Smith Jr! That's immediately a core that has been built through just one move.
yellowboy90 wrote:It depends on what picks those end up and they would probably need to add WCS and/or a swap of 2nd rd picks.
I'm guessing that the picks would be between 6-9 on the board. If you figure the top 3 will be Fultz, Ball and J.Jackson in that order, that potentially leaves some combination of Dennis Smith Jr., Jonathan Isaac, Jason Tatum, Malik Monk, De'Aron Fox and Frank Ntlinkina we could walk away with. None of the aforementioned may rival Markelle Fultz moving forward but with a Kristaps Porzingis talent already in tow, quantity might supersede quality in this scenario. That haul, in effect, would be good enough to complete our rebuild.
Also, I like WCS but another big man seems to be overkill. We might be better served leaving a talent like that, out of the deal and instead demand a 2018 1st round pick swap (instead of a 2nd round pick swap). Something like that could free us up to pursue a playoff run while preserving the ability to draft in the lottery.
ESOMKnicks wrote:It would be the equivalent of trading Patrick Ewing for any two of Joe Kleine, Chris Mullin, Charles Oakley or Detlef Shrempf back in 1985. Man, that draft was very deep too! But not sure the Knicks would have been clearly better off.
Or trading LeBron for Chris Bosh/Dwayne Wade and Chris Kaman/Kirk Hinrich in 2003, which was the last draft we had that was this hyped. In a vacuum, that'd be a terrible decision to move LeBron for anybody but I'm starting to talk myself into thinking that KP changes that dynamic a bit. If you already have a guy that can be your franchise player, should the priority then be to add two guys that can be all-stars or one guy that is likely to be a superstar?
NardDogNation wrote:Hypothetically, if we were to stumble onto the no.1 overall pick, would you trade it to acquire the SAC and NOP 1st round lottery picks the Kings both own?
The same reasons a team wants to trade down is the same reasons why another team will not want to trade up.
When you have a LBJ, a Tim Duncan, a Shaq, an Andrew Luck, a Daryl Strawberry/ARod, something of that nature, then sure, teams will want to trade up if they can. But when the top pick could be Joe Smith....
I don't see the Kings making that deal, that being said, both the Knicks and Kings have made some pretty bad moves and if there's a more screwy front office in the league, Vivek Ranadive and Vlade Divac might be amongst the worst out there.
Traditionally the top pick doesn't get traded much, if at all. Before the Wiggins/Bennett deal, you'd probably have to go all the way back to Chris Webber to see a 1st overall get moved or the player get moved before he laces up his first NBA game.
If the Knicks traded the first overall, the methodology would likely be best to split the asset across multiple years, i.e. the 1st for the 4th overall plus picks in Year X and Year Y.
Many deals like this, if they even work as a fit, end up contingency deals, i.e. when the Kings pick, if the player the Knicks want is there, then the deal might go through. If the Kings pick like 5 and 9, no guarantee both players or the range of players the Knicks would want would be on the board at both of those picks. Also the value of the 1st overall is likely worth more than two other fringe lottery picks ( it's still dependent on where they are placed) But being logically worth more and practically worth more are two different things. It's logically worth more because of it's value to the Knicks, but practically not worth as much to another team because of the quantity of assets in place needed to make a trade in the first place.
It's an interesting scenario, just not sure it's feasible under current market conditions.
TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Hypothetically, if we were to stumble onto the no.1 overall pick, would you trade it to acquire the SAC and NOP 1st round lottery picks the Kings both own?
The same reasons a team wants to trade down is the same reasons why another team will not want to trade up.When you have a LBJ, a Tim Duncan, a Shaq, an Andrew Luck, a Daryl Strawberry/ARod, something of that nature, then sure, teams will want to trade up if they can. But when the top pick could be Joe Smith....
I don't see the Kings making that deal, that being said, both the Knicks and Kings have made some pretty bad moves and if there's a more screwy front office in the league, Vivek Ranadive and Vlade Divac might be amongst the worst out there.
Traditionally the top pick doesn't get traded much, if at all. Before the Wiggins/Bennett deal, you'd probably have to go all the way back to Chris Webber to see a 1st overall get moved or the player get moved before he laces up his first NBA game.
If the Knicks traded the first overall, the methodology would likely be best to split the asset across multiple years, i.e. the 1st for the 4th overall plus picks in Year X and Year Y.
Many deals like this, if they even work as a fit, end up contingency deals, i.e. when the Kings pick, if the player the Knicks want is there, then the deal might go through. If the Kings pick like 5 and 9, no guarantee both players or the range of players the Knicks would want would be on the board at both of those picks. Also the value of the 1st overall is likely worth more than two other fringe lottery picks ( it's still dependent on where they are placed) But being logically worth more and practically worth more are two different things. It's logically worth more because of it's value to the Knicks, but practically not worth as much to another team because of the quantity of assets in place needed to make a trade in the first place.
It's an interesting scenario, just not sure it's feasible under current market conditions.
I definitely could see the kings doing that deal but it would be hard to make that deal because the pieces would have to fall in place just right. Fultz and Ball are probably graded higher than any guard coming out in a very long time and I think a team like the kings who are desperate for a star to uplift their fan base would potentially make a Ricky Williams type trade and give up their whole draft.
I think to make it really work the kings would need the 4th and 7th picks just to get into negotiations..
I doubt we'll get him. If we do, we should keep him, i dont see 2 other players id pick. If only maybe KYs backcourt of Monk+Fox. Kinda like the new Clyde+Earl or Mobley+Dickerson or Day+Mayberry or Thomas+Dumars.
TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Hypothetically, if we were to stumble onto the no.1 overall pick, would you trade it to acquire the SAC and NOP 1st round lottery picks the Kings both own?
The same reasons a team wants to trade down is the same reasons why another team will not want to trade up.When you have a LBJ, a Tim Duncan, a Shaq, an Andrew Luck, a Daryl Strawberry/ARod, something of that nature, then sure, teams will want to trade up if they can. But when the top pick could be Joe Smith....
I don't see the Kings making that deal, that being said, both the Knicks and Kings have made some pretty bad moves and if there's a more screwy front office in the league, Vivek Ranadive and Vlade Divac might be amongst the worst out there.
Traditionally the top pick doesn't get traded much, if at all. Before the Wiggins/Bennett deal, you'd probably have to go all the way back to Chris Webber to see a 1st overall get moved or the player get moved before he laces up his first NBA game.
If the Knicks traded the first overall, the methodology would likely be best to split the asset across multiple years, i.e. the 1st for the 4th overall plus picks in Year X and Year Y.
Many deals like this, if they even work as a fit, end up contingency deals, i.e. when the Kings pick, if the player the Knicks want is there, then the deal might go through. If the Kings pick like 5 and 9, no guarantee both players or the range of players the Knicks would want would be on the board at both of those picks. Also the value of the 1st overall is likely worth more than two other fringe lottery picks ( it's still dependent on where they are placed) But being logically worth more and practically worth more are two different things. It's logically worth more because of it's value to the Knicks, but practically not worth as much to another team because of the quantity of assets in place needed to make a trade in the first place.
It's an interesting scenario, just not sure it's feasible under current market conditions.
The premise of the questions was based on Fultz being that much of a sure thing. Though I agree that the Kings may not want to do it.
ESOMKnicks wrote:I have my doubts about Fultz, highlights are nice, but not awe-inspiring like it was with aomeone like Iverson. But this guy is 6 4 and an insane 6 10 wingspan. The guy is a decent enough shooter and driver, but i am only now realizing that with his wingspan he can still score in the post against many point guards in the NBA.I doubt we'll get him. If we do, we should keep him, i dont see 2 other players id pick. If only maybe KYs backcourt of Monk+Fox. Kinda like the new Clyde+Earl or Mobley+Dickerson or Day+Mayberry or Thomas+Dumars.
I have my doubts about Fultz as well, which is why I'd entertain moving the pick if this draft is every bit as talented as they say it is. Yes, Fultz is a supremely talented player but everytime I listen to him in interviews, I can't help but feel he has a D'Angelo Russell-caliber knucklehead factor to him. So while the talent is clearly there, I feel that he's someone that is likely to get himself involved moreso with the glitz and glamour of basketball rather than basketball itself. And in a city like New York that could have severely devasting consequences to his development and psyche as a player.
He just seemed so aloof and detached from what was going on at Washington that it makes me question his intentions moving forward and whether he'll realize his emmense potential.
meloshouldgo wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Hypothetically, if we were to stumble onto the no.1 overall pick, would you trade it to acquire the SAC and NOP 1st round lottery picks the Kings both own?
The same reasons a team wants to trade down is the same reasons why another team will not want to trade up.When you have a LBJ, a Tim Duncan, a Shaq, an Andrew Luck, a Daryl Strawberry/ARod, something of that nature, then sure, teams will want to trade up if they can. But when the top pick could be Joe Smith....
I don't see the Kings making that deal, that being said, both the Knicks and Kings have made some pretty bad moves and if there's a more screwy front office in the league, Vivek Ranadive and Vlade Divac might be amongst the worst out there.
Traditionally the top pick doesn't get traded much, if at all. Before the Wiggins/Bennett deal, you'd probably have to go all the way back to Chris Webber to see a 1st overall get moved or the player get moved before he laces up his first NBA game.
If the Knicks traded the first overall, the methodology would likely be best to split the asset across multiple years, i.e. the 1st for the 4th overall plus picks in Year X and Year Y.
Many deals like this, if they even work as a fit, end up contingency deals, i.e. when the Kings pick, if the player the Knicks want is there, then the deal might go through. If the Kings pick like 5 and 9, no guarantee both players or the range of players the Knicks would want would be on the board at both of those picks. Also the value of the 1st overall is likely worth more than two other fringe lottery picks ( it's still dependent on where they are placed) But being logically worth more and practically worth more are two different things. It's logically worth more because of it's value to the Knicks, but practically not worth as much to another team because of the quantity of assets in place needed to make a trade in the first place.
It's an interesting scenario, just not sure it's feasible under current market conditions.
The premise of the questions was based on Fultz being that much of a sure thing. Though I agree that the Kings may not want to do it.
The Kings desperately need an identity, which a franchise caliber player can provide. People are billing Markelle Fultz to be exactly that, so I think the Kings would prefer him as opposed to the alternative. With their pick situation, they won't have the opportunity to select this type of player moving forward so I could see them ponying up the assets to get the bird in hand.
yellowboy90 wrote:TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Hypothetically, if we were to stumble onto the no.1 overall pick, would you trade it to acquire the SAC and NOP 1st round lottery picks the Kings both own?
The same reasons a team wants to trade down is the same reasons why another team will not want to trade up.When you have a LBJ, a Tim Duncan, a Shaq, an Andrew Luck, a Daryl Strawberry/ARod, something of that nature, then sure, teams will want to trade up if they can. But when the top pick could be Joe Smith....
I don't see the Kings making that deal, that being said, both the Knicks and Kings have made some pretty bad moves and if there's a more screwy front office in the league, Vivek Ranadive and Vlade Divac might be amongst the worst out there.
Traditionally the top pick doesn't get traded much, if at all. Before the Wiggins/Bennett deal, you'd probably have to go all the way back to Chris Webber to see a 1st overall get moved or the player get moved before he laces up his first NBA game.
If the Knicks traded the first overall, the methodology would likely be best to split the asset across multiple years, i.e. the 1st for the 4th overall plus picks in Year X and Year Y.
Many deals like this, if they even work as a fit, end up contingency deals, i.e. when the Kings pick, if the player the Knicks want is there, then the deal might go through. If the Kings pick like 5 and 9, no guarantee both players or the range of players the Knicks would want would be on the board at both of those picks. Also the value of the 1st overall is likely worth more than two other fringe lottery picks ( it's still dependent on where they are placed) But being logically worth more and practically worth more are two different things. It's logically worth more because of it's value to the Knicks, but practically not worth as much to another team because of the quantity of assets in place needed to make a trade in the first place.
It's an interesting scenario, just not sure it's feasible under current market conditions.
I definitely could see the kings doing that deal but it would be hard to make that deal because the pieces would have to fall in place just right. Fultz and Ball are probably graded higher than any guard coming out in a very long time and I think a team like the kings who are desperate for a star to uplift their fan base would potentially make a Ricky Williams type trade and give up their whole draft.
I think to make it really work the kings would need the 4th and 7th picks just to get into negotiations..
What combinations of players would have to be available to you at 4 and 7 to make the deal?
TripleThreat wrote:NardDogNation wrote:Hypothetically, if we were to stumble onto the no.1 overall pick, would you trade it to acquire the SAC and NOP 1st round lottery picks the Kings both own?
The same reasons a team wants to trade down is the same reasons why another team will not want to trade up.When you have a LBJ, a Tim Duncan, a Shaq, an Andrew Luck, a Daryl Strawberry/ARod, something of that nature, then sure, teams will want to trade up if they can. But when the top pick could be Joe Smith....
I don't see the Kings making that deal, that being said, both the Knicks and Kings have made some pretty bad moves and if there's a more screwy front office in the league, Vivek Ranadive and Vlade Divac might be amongst the worst out there.
Traditionally the top pick doesn't get traded much, if at all. Before the Wiggins/Bennett deal, you'd probably have to go all the way back to Chris Webber to see a 1st overall get moved or the player get moved before he laces up his first NBA game.
If the Knicks traded the first overall, the methodology would likely be best to split the asset across multiple years, i.e. the 1st for the 4th overall plus picks in Year X and Year Y.
Many deals like this, if they even work as a fit, end up contingency deals, i.e. when the Kings pick, if the player the Knicks want is there, then the deal might go through. If the Kings pick like 5 and 9, no guarantee both players or the range of players the Knicks would want would be on the board at both of those picks. Also the value of the 1st overall is likely worth more than two other fringe lottery picks ( it's still dependent on where they are placed) But being logically worth more and practically worth more are two different things. It's logically worth more because of it's value to the Knicks, but practically not worth as much to another team because of the quantity of assets in place needed to make a trade in the first place.
It's an interesting scenario, just not sure it's feasible under current market conditions.
I'm not sure that is necessarily true. If you believe that you already hit a grand-slam with Kristaps Porzingis, do you really need to get another given how the league is trending? Teams are playing an increasingly team-oriented style, so if you could draft two guys that could be all-star caliber players next to KP, wouldn't that trump a guy that could potentially be a generational talent?
That was the same type of methodology that the Magic had when they traded Chris Webber and look how handsomely that move worked out for them. Penny, when healthy, was every bit the caliber of star that Webber was and he offered a far better fit next to Shaq as well....and they got 3 additional first rounders out of the deal. Those are the exact same circumstances I'd like to find our team in if we get the no.1 overall pick in this upcoming draft. And it just so happens that we have a team that was every bit as desperate as that Warriors team to make this type of deal a possibility.
As for parsing our return over a couple of years, I'm not so sure. The Kings definitely don't have that option, since their picks will be encumbered by dumb decisions they've made in the past. And the other teams in the lottery tend to be franchises that already have an impressive core that will inevitably lead perennial playoff teams (e.g. Philly, Milwaukee, etc.), which will hurt their projected first round picks. Though, I would support making that Kings deal and then seeking suitors for the worse of the two picks. I'd want another, later pick in this draft as well as some combination of future 1st round picks and pick swaps as compensation.
NardDogNation wrote:The Kings desperately need an identity, which a franchise caliber player can provide. People are billing Markelle Fultz to be exactly that, so I think the Kings would prefer him as opposed to the alternative. With their pick situation, they won't have the opportunity to select this type of player moving forward so I could see them ponying up the assets to get the bird in hand.
At some point, "quantity" matters in an NBA rebuild.
If the Kings got the 4 and 7, it would cost more than those picks to get the 1st overall.
When Derek Jeter resigned with the Yankees, he got something like 3 Years for 48ish million, something like that. His next best listed offer was from the SF Giants, something like 2 years for 18 million or 16 million total.
Was Jeter going to get his 3000th hit in a SF Giants uniform?
His defense was already a source on controversy at the end of his huge contract, and no one was going to make the "Captain" move off of the keystone.
But he was worth more to the Yankees than to any other team given their view of market conditions.
The 1st overall NBA pick is worth more to the team who holds it, even if the prospects available aren't slam dunks, than the practical return they could probably get. The Webber and Wiggins deals were very extreme situations ( Orlando had won the lottery the year before and gotten a historic level big man in Shaq and LBJ was in a push now mode and clearly wanted anyone who could generate more attention potentially off the roster)
At some point, a team will hesitate to move 4-5 assets for 1 player. They still need to build a whole team and it's not like they are brimming to the point where they can absorb that kind of asset loss. The Celtics have enough stockpiled where a team in that position could do it, but probably not the Kings. But again, the Kings have a horrible front office, so anything is possible when you are dealing with two dysfunctional franchises ( If the Knicks and Kings are involved, honestly nothing would surprise me if they found a deal that ended up hurting both teams at once)