Eminence's 'Dream Team'
- Thread starter Eminence
- Start date
I actually see Hood and Burks as different players. Burks is elite at driving and getting to the FT line. I feel that he will improve his finishing at the rim with his shoulder no longer hurting him. Hood will be more of a shooter from midrange and 3. I see them complementing each other nicely and they both have just enough to compensate when the other steps out of their strength. Such as a Hood drive or Burks 3. Good combo imo.
As for the draft picks: The Jazz currently have the 12th, 42nd and 54th picks. You call for the 15th, 22nd, 28th, 35th and 50th. The 54th adn 50th are a wash so no movement there. 12th to 15th is a drop wo I am assuming that in your scenario the Jazz trade the 12th away. That means a team moves up and the Jazz likely land a player or additional first round picks. Also the 42nd to 35th is a smallish trade. That leaves Jazz trading for the 22nd and 28th picks. That is al aweful lot of draft day trades. I can see the Jazz being active but that is highly unrealistic imo.
I think the Jazz are far more likely to combine in some experince with a new rookie or two instead of 5-6 new rookies. That many rookies would actually be a step back next year as it hits the team on chemistry, experince, knowledge of the teams D and O sets...
Thanks for the share but it is to much change for me.
As for the draft picks: The Jazz currently have the 12th, 42nd and 54th picks. You call for the 15th, 22nd, 28th, 35th and 50th. The 54th adn 50th are a wash so no movement there. 12th to 15th is a drop wo I am assuming that in your scenario the Jazz trade the 12th away. That means a team moves up and the Jazz likely land a player or additional first round picks. Also the 42nd to 35th is a smallish trade. That leaves Jazz trading for the 22nd and 28th picks. That is al aweful lot of draft day trades. I can see the Jazz being active but that is highly unrealistic imo.
I think the Jazz are far more likely to combine in some experince with a new rookie or two instead of 5-6 new rookies. That many rookies would actually be a step back next year as it hits the team on chemistry, experince, knowledge of the teams D and O sets...
Thanks for the share but it is to much change for me.
This is not 5 first round picks. He estimates 3 1st rounders and 2 2nd rounders for his list of guys. Still to much imo.
Not that I'm aware of. The T-Wolves had 4 back in 2009. Of course, one of them was Rubio who didn't come over right away, and another (Ty Lawson) they traded to the Nuggets.
Not that I know of and I can't think of any easy way to check it(Phoenix had 3 last year). But comprehension my friend, when I stated that it was obviously a stretch(in my very first reply) I was implying that it was in fact without an easy to think of precedent. Plenty of teams have certainly had value equal to or greater than the five 'first round' picks we're talking about (Cleveland 2013 for instance-though they blew that horrendously).
To Stoked: I hope it works out that way for Burks/Hood as well
Who do you see as starting next to Hayward? I think I would go Hood, but not sure.-If every player with "late first" potential went in the first round there would be 50 first rounders.
-Yep, that's what you get with draft picks.
-Worrying about second contracts for rookies and bench guys(1 of these rookies isn't on the bench) isn't the best idea, all of them will never be re-signed by anyone.
-So if it were modified to say:
Milos/Exum
Hood/Burks
Hayward/RHJ
Favors/Looney(my preferred of the mid 1st PFs for #12)
Gobert/Jaiteh
would that be so ridiculously crazy? In that scenario we trade into the early 20's for RHJ (Burke/Booker/future picks, whatever), use our normal picks, and sign Milos. So basically two changes- No trading Burks so we don't pick D.Booker at 12 and instead go with Looney and don't need to grab Holmes later. And also no using other future assets to grab De Paula at the end of the first. Simple changes to make but comparable scenario(also highly feasible-whereas mine was indeed rather outlandish), instead of your "this is crazy" hyperbole.
Gotcha, I used a later post that had 3 firsts and 2 seconds as the basis for my reply.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
RandyForRubio
Well-Known Member
I've never seen one person be so condescending. Actually pretty impressive.
I would like to apologize for that. Day is already a little crappy and I let people get under my skin a bit. Still wish people would look past the "5 picks" reaction and give their opinions on the basketball.