Would you trade #1 (Nets) for #2(PHI) & #4(LAL-PHI)?

[slamtheking]

Don't think Philly would do that type of deal. Their lower of the two picks, Embid, and Noel for #2 would be more their type of deal. I don't think it's good to trade top 3 overall picks unless you get a current NBA all star player.

worked for us before swapping the #1 and #10 (?) for #3 (Mchale) and Parrish.  Chief wasn't an all-star at the time of the trade.

as for the primary question, it would depend on whether there is a consensus #1 who's head and shoulders above the consensus #2.   If it's like this year's draft where we have the option of KAT vs Okafor & Mudiay/Russell/Porzingis, I think I'd make that swap.

[wiley]

I agree with Donoghus.  Take the consensus #1 guy.   Really seems like that'll be Simmons.  Have we seen an open-floor attacker and passer like him since LeBron?  I'm excited to see more of him.

Example: Would you rather have Wiggins, or Jabari and Exum?   I'd take Wiggins every time.

At the same time, Draft Express has Skal Labissiere as the #1 pick.

Good point.

I think the answer really depends on whether there is a consensus #1.  If you're sitting on the #1 pick and you know that the person offering #2 and #4 wants to take the guy who's second on your board (e.g. Oden versus Durant in 07), then the trade makes a lot of sense.

I tried to say that above, maybe not so clearly.

If Philly is desperate for Simmons and Danny likes Skal (with plenty of outside opinions flying all around) then adding Skal and say Jamal Murray (especially if he's got enough pure PG in him) would make sense (Simmons lovers freaking out all around).

I like IT but this brings me back to what I see as our backcourt destiny (not to be dramatic)

A.
Rozier
Smart, Bradley/Hunter
 
or less likely
B.
Jamal Murray
Smart, Bradley/Hunter

[max215]

If there is a consensus #1, then you take him. If there isn't, you do the trade.

[bdm860]

I think if you look at the somewhat recent history, you'd come up on top more often than not taking #1, instead of #2 and #4.

Who would you rather take:

2012:  Anthony Davis or MKG and Waiters

2011:  Kyrie Irving or Derrick Williams and Tristan Thompson

2010:  John Wall or Evan Turner and Wesley Johnson

2009:  Blake Griffin or Thabeet and Tyreke Evans

2008:  Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley and Russell Westbrook

2007:  Greg Oden or Kevin Durant and Mike Conley

2006:  Andrea Bargnani or LaMarcus Aldridge and Tyrus Thomas

2005:  Andrew Bogut or Marvin Williams and Chris Paul

2004:  Dwight Howard or Emeka Okafor and Shaun Livingston

2003:  LeBron James or Darko Milicic and Chris Bosh

2002:  Yao Ming or Jay Williams and Drew Gooden

*And for fun, to laugh at the pain: '97: Duncan or Billups and Mercer?

The majority of the time, I think we'd all rather have #1.  Unless you're counting on 100% accuracy from Danny to be able to land the next 2 best players in the draft at 2 and 4 (the conversation does get more interesting if you say would you rather have Anthony Davis #1 or Lillard and Drummond?  Blake Griffin or Harden and Curry?), but I would heavily bet against that 100% accuracy ever happening, plus you're also counting on the GM drafting ahead of you to blow it, and/or some career ending injuries to the guys you didn't get to draft while your guys have perfect health.

Without the actual stats/analysis, I'd disagree with the people saying more chances to land a stud at #2 and #4.  Just throwing out some numbers, but I imagine the numbers go something like this:

Chance of landing a perennial All-NBA player:
#1: 50%
#2-5: 20%
#6-10: 10%

So even if you had #2 and #4, that's a 40% chance of landing 1 stud or a 4% chance of landing 2 studs.  I'd rather go with the 50% odds of landing 1 stud.  Of course if you go in with different assumptions, then it might cause me to change my answer, but this is how I see it currently.

[chilidawg]

If there is a consensus #1, then you take him. If there isn't, you do the trade.

I'd agree, but if there isn't a consensus #1, then Philly doesn't do it.

[Vermont Green]

I think if you look at the somewhat recent history, you'd come up on top more often than not taking #1, instead of #2 and #4.

Who would you rather take:

2012:  Anthony Davis or MKG and Waiters

2011:  Kyrie Irving or Derrick Williams and Tristan Thompson

2010:  John Wall or Evan Turner and Wesley Johnson

2009:  Blake Griffin or Thabeet and Tyreke Evans

2008:  Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley and Russell Westbrook

2007:  Greg Oden or Kevin Durant and Mike Conley

2006:  Andrea Bargnani or LaMarcus Aldridge and Tyrus Thomas

2005:  Andrew Bogut or Marvin Williams and Chris Paul

2004:  Dwight Howard or Emeka Okafor and Shaun Livingston

2003:  LeBron James or Darko Milicic and Chris Bosh

2002:  Yao Ming or Jay Williams and Drew Gooden

*And for fun, to laugh at the pain: '97: Duncan or Billups and Mercer?

The majority of the time, I think we'd all rather have #1.  Unless you're counting on 100% accuracy from Danny to be able to land the next 2 best players in the draft at 2 and 4 (the conversation does get more interesting if you say would you rather have Anthony Davis #1 or Lillard and Drummond?  Blake Griffin or Harden and Curry?), but I would heavily bet against that 100% accuracy ever happening, plus you're also counting on the GM drafting ahead of you to blow it, and/or some career ending injuries to the guys you didn't get to draft while your guys have perfect health.

Without the actual stats/analysis, I'd disagree with the people saying more chances to land a stud at #2 and #4.  Just throwing out some numbers, but I imagine the numbers go something like this:

Chance of landing a perennial All-NBA player:
#1: 50%
#2-5: 20%
#6-10: 10%

So even if you had #2 and #4, that's a 40% chance of landing 1 stud or a 4% chancing of landing 2 studs.  I'd rather go with the 50% odds of landing 1 stud.  Of course if you go in with different assumptions, then it might cause me to change my answer, but this is how I see it currently.

I think this shows that the best player in the draft could be taken anywhere 1-5.  Probably more likely at 1 than 5 but no assurance.  I still prefer 2 shots over 1.  And remember, it probably would not be 1 for 2 and 4.  Probably more like 1 and another pick for 2 and 4.

I don't think even Philly would use the #4 pick (for example) just to move up from 2 to 1.  Just too much risk that the #1 could be a bust.

[wiley]

My favorite question of the day:
Simmons?
or Skal Lab and Jamal Murray?

Right now I'm going with Skal and Murray.  Show me I'm wrong Simmons!!

[Moranis]

I agree with Donoghus.  Take the consensus #1 guy.   Really seems like that'll be Simmons.  Have we seen an open-floor attacker and passer like him since LeBron?  I'm excited to see more of him.

Example: Would you rather have Wiggins, or Jabari and Exum?   I'd take Wiggins every time.

Would you rather have James or Melo and Bosh/Wade (and yes I know Darko went 2, but in this scenario you don't mess that crap up)?  I mean Cleveland totally wasted James first time there, having two potential stars instead of one has to be intriguing on some level.  Would you rather have Oden or Durant and Conley (say you eliminate Oden would you rather have Durant or Horford and Conley)?  Say Rose stays healthy would rather have him instead of Westbrook and Love?

Now imagine you have a team in place that is a mid-level i.e. around .500 team like Boston is.  You don't necessarily need to hit the homerun and get the premier A+ player when the alternative is two A or A- players.  I think you could make a strong argument that adding two all star level players to this team will have a greater impact than adding one super star level player.

And here is the thing, I made post on here about consensus #1 picks, they often don't become Lebron James.  They can be Kenyon Martin just as easily.  If you trade a 2 for 1 like that you get to hedge your bets some on a rookie actually living up to the potential. 

[Quetzalcoatl]

I think if you look at the somewhat recent history, you'd come up on top more often than not taking #1, instead of #2 and #4.

Who would you rather take:

I think in a two man draft like this one, it's fine to do it.  2007 and 2014 (Wiggins or Parker and Gordon - although Danny would have picked Smart over Gordon anyway) are the last two 2 man drafts and this draft would qualify.  The hype is all over Simmons, but Skal is a LEGIT player and I have no idea which one will actually be better.  Both Skal and Simmons are going to ultimately end up as PFs and picks 3 and 4 will most likely be SFs (Ingram and Brown).  This would most likely give us our future forwards and Sully could take a walk at the same time.

So I would say in the view that this is a clear 2 man draft, then you should do it because it's too hard to accurately decide between the top 2 prospects.  I don't think it's fair to use say 2012 or 2013 as comparison points, because they're nothing alike talent wise.

[DavorCroatiaFan]

To Sixers: #1 (Nets), #13 (Mavs), Olynyk, Young
To Celtics: #2 (Sixers), #4 (Sixers via Lakers), Noel, draft right to Dario Šarić

[slamtheking]

To Sixers: #1 (Nets), #13 (Mavs), Olynyk, Young
To Celtics: #2 (Sixers), #4 (Sixers via Lakers), Noel, draft right to Dario Šarić

Philly hangs up the phone on that.  That's an awful lot for them to give up to move up 1 slot.  If anything, we might get them to part with 2 and 4 for 1 and the lesser of the first round picks between the C's, Mavs and Wolves (if either or both of them convey to us this year).  I'd throw some protection on that C's pick as well in case that ends up in the lottery (which I suspect it will).

[PhoSita]

(and yes I know Darko went 2, but in this scenario you don't mess that crap up)?

You can't just assume that, though.  If there is one guy who is a clear cut number one, and after that a handful of lesser, but still exciting, prospects, history says you should DEFINITELY take the clear cut #1.

[Quetzalcoatl]

(and yes I know Darko went 2, but in this scenario you don't mess that crap up)?

You can't just assume that, though.  If there is one guy who is a clear cut number one, and after that a handful of lesser, but still exciting, prospects, history says you should DEFINITELY take the clear cut #1.

DraftExpress - which is the most accurate draft forecasting site these last few years - has Skal as the #1

http://www.draftexpress.com/

[DavorCroatiaFan]

Forget Darko...LeBron or Wade&Melo?

[slamtheking]

I think if you look at the somewhat recent history, you'd come up on top more often than not taking #1, instead of #2 and #4.
Who would you rather take:
2012:  Anthony Davis or MKG and Waiters
2011:  Kyrie Irving or Derrick Williams and Tristan Thompson
2010:  John Wall or Evan Turner and Wesley Johnson
2009:  Blake Griffin or Thabeet and Tyreke Evans
2008:  Derrick Rose or Michael Beasley and Russell Westbrook
2007:  Greg Oden or Kevin Durant and Mike Conley
2006:  Andrea Bargnani or LaMarcus Aldridge and Tyrus Thomas
2005:  Andrew Bogut or Marvin Williams and Chris Paul
2004:  Dwight Howard or Emeka Okafor and Shaun Livingston
2003:  LeBron James or Darko Milicic and Chris Bosh
2002:  Yao Ming or Jay Williams and Drew Gooden

That's a tad misleading.  the players that were taken at 2 and 4 in those drafts wouldn't necessarily have been the 2 Danny would have taken.  Darko being a prime example.

In those drafts, Wall, Rose, Bargnani, Bogut and Howard were not clear number 1 picks.  There was definitely a debate over who to take.