Trading Down in the Draft

[mellow]

So Milwaukee is desperately and unsuccessfully trying to get Dekker and Frank in for workouts. Milwaukee picks 17, and both those guys have lottery hopes.

Milwaukee might make a good trade partner.

How about the rights to Frank the Tank for the 17th pick and the rights to that injured sf they drafted last year?

 

[Nate505]

What about the No. 12 for say the 17th and 21st pick?

Maybe a couple years ago, but I just don't think the Jazz are that devoid of talent to squeeze in two more draft picks. I could be grossly overestimating their talent level though.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

So Milwaukee is desperately and unsuccessfully trying to get Dekker and Frank in for workouts. Milwaukee picks 17, and both those guys have lottery hopes.

Milwaukee might make a good trade partner.

How about the rights to Frank the Tank for the 17th pick and the rights to that injured sf they drafted last year?

He's intriguing but I'd go for their unprotected pick. I think they are not as good as they think they are and could very well end up in the lottery. They weren't great with MCW and Dudley could leave in FA. Parker was one of their worst +- guys and both Miami and Indiana will be better this year if healthy. The Hornets are a year removed from being a playoff team as well.

 

[Stifle Tower]

So Milwaukee is desperately and unsuccessfully trying to get Dekker and Frank in for workouts. Milwaukee picks 17, and both those guys have lottery hopes.

Milwaukee might make a good trade partner.

How about the rights to Frank the Tank for the 17th pick and the rights to that injured sf they drafted last year?

I can see why Milwaukee would want to move up. They have a pretty good projected lineup of MCW/Middelton/Giannis and Jabari, but need to upgrade at center. Pachulia is old and Plumlee/Henson aren't the answer.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

SI latest mock proposed an interesting possibility.

https://www.si.com/nba/2015/06/01/n...okafor-karl-anthony-towns-wolves-lakers-76ers



Any trade involving Burke, while getting a seasoned backup PG and a future pick, works for me.

Not interesting at all, since that trade sucks.
.
As others have pointed out, this is likely the last year we will be drafting this high for a while. Utah should be looking to trade up if at all possible, and grab a 2nd tier player in hopes of striking gold.

 

[Stocker]

Boston isn't the only possibility out there to trade down, as has been mentioned, just the most obvious since they have two first rounders. If the Jazz can trade back a few spots and acquire an additional asset or first round pick (this year or a future first) than that is something to explore. If Johnson, WCS, Porzinga, or Hezonja don't fall to #12 I think the Jazz would be better off acquiring additional assets that they can hopefully cash in for a better player later on.

 

[Cappy_Smurf]

What if someone selects that player in front of you? Seems like a big gamble w/ out much reward in most cases. Only way I see a trade down possible is if Turner falls to us and teams actually start offering a lot for the #12 pick.

Anytime you trade down, you have to be prepared to keep the guy you pick. You can't pick for someone else and then get screwed when your guy doesn't fall far enough. If Utah has 2 guys rated equally, and they pick one and the other falls to someone who wants to trade for our guy and is willing to pay, then it's definitely something to consider. I just don't believe it's something you go into the draft hoping for. If Utah ends up trading down, it will be because we weren't able to pull off what we really wanted to do, which is trade up for a better prospect.

 

[Coach Ellis]

Boston isn't the only possibility out there to trade down, as has been mentioned, just the most obvious since they have two first rounders. If the Jazz can trade back a few spots and acquire an additional asset or first round pick (this year or a future first) than that is something to explore. If Johnson, WCS, Porzinga, or Hezonja don't fall to #12 I think the Jazz would be better off acquiring additional assets that they can hopefully cash in for a better player later on.

On one hand, I agree with you. . . I can see trying to gain an additional 1st as better value than just taking a 3rd tier role player.

On the other hand, the Jazz have 17 picks over the next four years. 3 this year, 4 next year, 6 in 2017 and possibly 4 (depending on the OKC pick) in 2018.

I'd much rather burn a couple of assets to go up for a higher tier player that I love, and then find other ways of adding additional assets if I want them. Jazz can always rent out cap space ($10 million this upcoming season and +$20 million the year after) instead of adding free agents, continue flipping assets to add new or better picks or just buy a pick as needed. DL has proven that he's willing to do all three.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

Anytime you trade down, you have to be prepared to keep the guy you pick. You can't pick for someone else and then get screwed when your guy doesn't fall far enough. If Utah has 2 guys rated equally, and they pick one and the other falls to someone who wants to trade for our guy and is willing to pay, then it's definitely something to consider. I just don't believe it's something you go into the draft hoping for. If Utah ends up trading down, it will be because we weren't able to pull off what we really wanted to do, which is trade up for a better prospect.

This... if you can't move up and you are sitting at 12 and no one falls that you love I'd look at moving back if you had 5 or 6 guys that you like. I don't think we'd trade back if there was only one guy we liked and there seems to be a cluster of guys from 10-17 that are similarly rated. I would ask for a lot if we moved back and if we got Turner we could probably get a lot in return.

Moving back has been a bad move in general for the team moving back, but it seems to have worked out well for Minny in 2013 and Denver last year.

 

[Handlogten's Heros]

So Miami is in trouble... They are in luxury tax hell this year if Wade and Deng opt in as they are repeaters. They also have an interesting conundrum next year if they have to extend Wade. they will want max space, but for CBA reasons will need to conserve some cap space to resign Whiteside.

If they were able to dump McBob for unguaranteed contracts they could save around $20 M dollars this year (per nate duncan on his podcast yesterday) they'd also open up $6 M or so in space next year. McBob is a useful player and brings a lot of what our front court lacks.

I think we could add our 3rd big and move up two spots which increases our chances of catching the player who falls out of that top 9 (if one does)... i think they'd have to do it with the amount of money they can save and the options it opens up for them next year. Both teams would probably want to wait to see how the draft falls into place, but I think that is our most logical way to move up... I'd only do it if one of the consensus top 9 guys was available. It would likely be SJ imo.

 

[Stocker]

Anytime you trade down, you have to be prepared to keep the guy you pick. You can't pick for someone else and then get screwed when your guy doesn't fall far enough. If Utah has 2 guys rated equally, and they pick one and the other falls to someone who wants to trade for our guy and is willing to pay, then it's definitely something to consider. I just don't believe it's something you go into the draft hoping for. If Utah ends up trading down, it will be because we weren't able to pull off what we really wanted to do, which is trade up for a better prospect.

I definitely agree with this. If the Jazz have one guy they really like and he is there at #12 then absolutely make the pick and celebrate. However, if they like a few of these remaining guys equally then they should be looking at that option to acquire another asset. Of course, this doesn't mean I am wanting the Jazz to trade #12 for #16 and #28 today, but if they are on the clock and the guy they wanted is off the board (and they can't pull off a reasonable deal to get him) and they view the next 3 or 4 players as equal, then that could be a great option.

The more I look at mock drafts and see the players projected in that 10-18 range the more I think trading down could be a great option. I don't have one or two I am hoping for like I have in previous years and they all seem about equal to me. With there not being much separation between them picking a guy you like AND an additional pick could be a great backup plan. Would you rather have:

Kaminsky at #12 or Lyles and Wright?
Turner at #12 or Hollis Jefferson and McCullough?
Booker at #12 or Portis and Hunter?
Oubre at #12 or Dekker and Upshaw?

 

[kabenac]

If Johnson & Turner are gone at #12 and DL isn't sold on Frank then I wouldn't mind trading down if the offer was solid. If DL likes a player who's projected in the late-teens then it would make perfect sense to trade down to one of the teams previously mentioned.