Not a chance the Sacramento pick isn't in play. It's the first of a few assets heading out if DA trades that far up.
If we could get Carter with Rozier, our 1st, and the Kings pick, I would do it.
I think the most likely outcome for the Sacto pick is 7-12 next year.
Why not get a comparable pick this year at a position of need? His floor seems pretty high - already has an NBA-ready body and some perimeter game, high BBIQ, willing defender. He might plug in for 10-15 minutes right away and be ready to replace Al in 2 years when (if we are lucky) Jaylen will have earned a fat contract.
Whoa, Iím a huge Wendell Carter fan, but the Kings pick is a bridge too far. I think the Memphis pick is also too much. The highest Iíd go is Rozier, #27, and next yearís 1st with top-4 protection.
Shouldnít be with Rozier and this yearís pick already included, at least not for anything outside the top 5, which is where Carter projects to.
Are we allowed to add some more protections to the Kings Pick, like we give them that pick and make it protected 2-5 for US? Otherwise, I don't see a team like Orlando doing it unless the Kings Pick is included to be honest, or at least one of the Kings/Grizzlies Picks.
Nope, as already answered earlier today in the Luka Doncic thread.
Ah okay, thanks. And I never checked that thread today so didn't know
I think people are overvaluing the Sacramento pick. If they hadnít won the lottery this year, they wouldíve picked what, 7th? While they might win the lottery again or decline, I donít know we would expect that. Theyíre adding the second pick, and they have no incentive to tank. If they win even a few more games they could be 10th or 12th.
To me, Getting the seventh pick this year as a sure thing, and getting a guy we need, is pretty good value compared to the uncertainty of the Sacramento pic. The other thing that will make this pic hard to use, which I donít think people are fully taking into account is the downside risk of Sacramento actually wins the lottery. A general manager who turns this yearís seven pick into next years 25th or 26th is going to have some explaining to do. I am not sure what kind of protection we can offer Ė probably it would need to be an additional pick.
I really think youíre overrating Sacramento, and/or not fully considering the lottery changes going into next year. They were 7th (well, tied for 6tb with Chicago), but they were 8 games out of 10th, which would have been 30% more wins. Theyíre very unlikely to get to the mid-30s in win totals even with no incentive to lose. They simply donít have the talent. Furthermore, they had the 2nd-worst expected winning percentage based on point differential, and won 4 games more than expected by this measurement. Sure, they could do that again, but more likely than not theyíll finish closer to their actual expected record. This means that actual on-court improvement might not show up in the win column.
Secondly, with flattened lottery odds, teams will have a little less incentive to tank (they will still do so, but maybe not quite as blatantly, except perhaps with an 8th/9th place conference finish tradeoff in the East).
Given that, I think itís borderline impossible the Kings will have any worse than the 9th lottery odds, and thereís considerable upside from that point. At the 9th odds, the pick has a 16% chance to be 2-4, a 51% chance to be 9, a 26% chance to be 10, and a small chance to be worse (with most of those odds coming from Philly winning #1 overall). That 2-4 odds is better than the odds we had if the Lakers had finished 6th this year.
So conservatively we have a 1/6 chance of getting a top 4 pick, with the most likely outcome in the second-third of the lottery. But itís not that aggressive an assumption to say the Kings improve a little on the court, but their luck reverts to the mean, and they finish with the 6th-worst record. This brings a 28% chance at a 2-4 pick and a 59% chance at a 6-8 pick.
And then thereís always the chance the bottom drops out. The Kings, again, had the 2nd-worst expected record last year, luckily won four extra games, AND were pretty healthy. A number of their top players (Bogdan, WCS, Hield, Fox, Koufos) played at least 70 games. Randolph played only 59, but at 36 that seems like a reasonable amount anyway. Garrett Temple only played 65, but heís also on the other side of 30. So they could get more unlucky with injuries and see reduced performance, or unlucky with wins and see a reduced total. Or both. Honestly, I think the Kings are far more likely to be a bottom 5 team than they are 9th. Thatís not my green glasses, or my hatred of the Kings talking. They just profile more like the 2015-2016 Nets more than they do the 2017-2018 Lakers.
That pick has too much upside, and itís most likely floor is 10. Adding that to Rozier and this yearís pick to move up to the 6-9 range is just too much.
I agree with you on where the Sacramento pick could likely land in 2019. What I see differently is the value of that pick. If NBA GMs could draft Zion Williamson or RJ Barrett in this draft, where would they go? I'd say somewhere in the 6-12 range (I'd probably take Porter over either of them). The #3 guy (Reddish? Bol Bol? whoever) easily slides outside of the top 10.
The point is that the 2019 draft is expected to be significantly weaker than the 2018 draft. Trading up into the 6-9 range in this draft could be equivalent in value to trading into the top 3 in the the 2019 draft. Obviously its a risk as you don't know how Sac will turn out, but if you only look at draft picks, it's basically trading the best case scenario for the Sac pick into that valued guaranteed this season. The Sac pick has numeric
upside, but I don't think it has a lot of value upside.
Picks alone, I swap Sac pick for 2018 6-9 in a heartbeat. Adding Rozier makes it a lot more difficult to stomach. But if Danny *loves* a specific guy at #6-9, then it wouldn't surprise me. Not crazy to imagine that #6-9 guy Danny loves + free agent backup PG > Sac pic + 1 season of Rozier where we get the #6-9 guy Danny loves on a 4 year rookie contract.