Mike1989

It's scary to think how good they could be when Simmons and Embiid reach their peak. They're currently still developing and learning. If they stay healthy, they'll be a top duo for many years. And that's ignoring what Fultz and Saric can be for them, their potential picks from this draft, and the first round pick they'll likely have coming their way from Sacramento next year which could be a top pick like the Nets gave Boston.

Agreed, but a trio of Mikal, Isaac and Gordon could be very good at the defensive end and has potential at the other end depending on how they develop. Gordon at times has looked like a go to guy, if he can develop that on a nightly basis we should be ok. There's also the question marks at PG and C. We could get an alpha at one of those positions. I'm not sure what the free agent class looks like this year, or which players will be available for trades, but maybe we can fill that void by finding the long term PG and C for this team? With that said, if we stay at five it depends which three of Ayton, Bamba, Jackson, Trae, Porter, Bagley, and Doncic are available. Of that group I'd take Mikal over Jackson, and the only reason I'd consider him over Porter/Bagley is if I felt that Gordon and Isaac are our long term SF and PF, thus adding another forward would be a "waste" unless I could flip that player for another I like and another asset to a team below us. I personally do like the idea of seeing Trae here in Orlando, but I get a feeling our front office will value one of the other lengthier and more athletic guys to build a defensive juggernaut. I could be wrong. They might add Trae, but I'm sure.

But that team would need to want to give up Trae for the player we select. It's going to be tough to get a significant return in a deal. Most of the teams below us are rebuilding and will want to retain their first round picks, and while Cleveland might be a contender next year their first rounder wouldn't be until 2021 and that's likely to be a heavily protected one unless LeBron signs a long term extension.

It depends when the trade is made. Sometimes a team trades up before the draft starts, other times they trade on the night (e.g. Payton-Saric trade). I'd have no issue with drafting Bamba and seeing if someone wants him and is willing to send Trae our way. Problem with that route is the team would need to rate Bamba as special. Of the teams below us would any of them give up Trae plus another player or pick? I can't see Chicago doing it. They look like they could tank again next year so I'm not sure we'd get a first rounder next year, it would have to be a future one like 2020 or later. Player wise the most appealing might be Lavine but we'd need to pay him. Sacramento have no pick next year to trade and they already have a logjam of bigs. If we picked Porter there's maybe a deal to be made because they might send us a big like Skal or Giles or Cauley-stein. Cleveland might be tempted but realistically Trae is as useful to them as Bamba could be. Plus what do they have to offer us? The next first round pick they could send us is 2021, and talent wise they've got Clarkson and Nance, but neither are massively appealing from our end. The Knicks could use Bamba next to Porzingis, but in what is likely to be a tanking year next season, I doubt they'll send us a first rounder. And talent wise we'd be looking at Mudiay and Dotson. I'm not convinced they'll give up Burke but maybe to get Bamba they would, but if we are getting Trae do we really need Burke? Not really. Realistically I'm not sure how likely a trade down is in this situation, and even if one was on the table the deals that are possible are not exactly stellar.

The danger of moving down is what happens if another team takes him? At this point we might think that Chicago won't take him because of Dunn, but he is classed as a combo guard by some. Sacramento shouldn't take him because of Fox, but this is the same team that drafted McLemore then the following year drafted Stauskas. Their owner has also spoken about Trae being the next Curry. Cleveland could take him because their existing guards are all over 30. He'd possibly be an upgrade over what they've already got and could be a piece to build around with or without LeBron. Knicks have a few point guards and shouldn't take him, but they could create their backcourt of the future with Trae and Ntilikina at 2-guard which he played at times last season. Burke can handle sixth man duty and Mudiay can probably handle 2-guard duty off the bench. So while I agree that trading down to get Trae and more assets is a nice idea, we could also lose him to another team. Let's say we move back with Cleveland, if Trae goes before the 8th pick we'll be left picking from Mikal Bridges, Miles Bridges, Colin Sexton (etc). Sure if we get a decent asset as part of the deal that might be ok, but if we don't get the player we want it is a negative. As for others having more upside, sure I can see why some prefer Jaren Jackson because of his upside, but there are two things to consider. First, he might never reach that upside because we've seen prospects like Chriss and Vonleh not make a splash (yet). Second, if he's going to take the same time to develop as Gordon before he makes an impact, and it looks like Isaac will be the same, then we are setting ourselves up for our own version of the process because we are going to be bad for a couple more seasons. For me, I see Trae having all star potential and a decent floor, whereas Jackson has a lower floor despite having a higher ceiling. I also see Trae as someone that will make a more immediate impact which is beneficial. So I don't see Trae as a bad pick because he's still got all star potential like the other prospects.

Ayton and Doncic will go in the top few, Bagley should be gone as well. After that Porter, Jackson, Bamba, and Trae will be left as the next players. I'd say Trae is a distinct possibility if we stay at five and they want to address our point guard position. A lot think we'll go for length and athleticism like Bamba or Jackson, but we've already got a project in Isaac and spent a few seasons waiting for Gordon to arrive, I'd like to think our pick this year is going to be someone who makes more of an immediate impact and Trae should fit the bill.

To be honest I'd have to disagree with the idea of hiring a short term option. What this team needs to do is highlight a coach that they want to build and develop this team with. This team needs patience because Vaughn lasted two and a bit seasons, Skiles one season, and Vogel two seasons. That type of turnover is not healthy for any team, even a rebuilding/tanking team needs some sense of stability to put in place the foundation on what they are going to build on when they get those good franchise changing players. Our next hire is really important because they need to be able to get the best out of players like Fournier, Simmons, Ross (etc), while helping players like Gordon and Isaac get to the next level, and also developing our young talent currently with us and soon to be with us into important members of this team as well. If we make the wrong hire this time it could set us back because in a few seasons from now that could mean another front office, with another head coach, starting another rebuild in whatever image they want to build this team in. Obviously we will have Isaac to extend at that point and our 2018-2020 draft classes to bank on, but if this front office gets it wrong with the head coach they pick and results don't turn around, change will happen again because our ownership has shown they will make changes if they think things aren't going the way they want them to whether their ambition is realistic or not. For me, we need to highlight our Brad Stevens or Brett Brown. Someone that can come in and develop players, a positive culture, and build a winning team. No more short term options. Let's show some ambition and patience by hiring a high quality coach to come in and rebuild this team, then kick us on.

If he agreed to sign an extension before the deal then that would make it an interesting proposition, but we'd also need to be confident that we could put a good supporting cast around him. Losing Gordon, Isaac and probably our first round pick leaves us with a lot of work to do to build a contender. Of the potential landing spots for him I think the Lakers or Clippers could be ideal for him since he's from SoCal. Both have the assets to make the move and still be able to put together a decent supporting cast.

My point about Doncic is that he needs to find his best position in order to be effective. If he runs the point and defends forwards, fair enough, I have no issue whatsoever with him doing that because players sometimes get assigned different players on defense to the position they play at the offensive end. However, the team that picks him needs to be patient with him and help him find his best position, otherwise it will hinder his development. Tyreke Evans is a prime example of a player that could play multiple positions (pg, sg, sf), but he was moved around the lineup by Sacramento and New Orleans and it hurt his development because he never truly mastered a position. So while I might expect Doncic to be a point guard, if the team that picks him plays him there one year, then moves him to shooting guard or small forward the next, then that might hurt Doncic's development. Like I said, I'd love to see him here, but he still has "weaknesses" that we can agonize over from him finding his best position to what kind of contribution we can expect on the defensive end. So that is my point in relation to your other post, that we can still agonize over Doncic if we really wanted to, just like we could over Ayton or any of the prospects because we aren't talking about the next LeBron James or Kevin Durant.

The counter point to that is what will Doncic's best position be? Some seem to think he'll be better at point guard, others prefer him as a shooting guard, and some even see a small forward in him. On the one hand having positional flexibility is great, but on the other if he doesn't find his best position it can hurt his development. If we look at NBAdraft.net's current mock draft, they have Michael Porter going to us at #5, Trae Young #6, Wendell Carter #7, Mohamed Bamba #8 and Mikal Bridges at #9. Sure we can debate over the strengths and weaknesses of these players, but Porter does have the potential to be a number one option on a team, Young is a really good shooter and passer, Mohamed Bamba has a huge frame and a ton of potential to be a really dominant center, and the other two are well rounded complimentary pieces. Do Porter's, Young's, and Bamba's weaknesses outweigh the question mark over what position Doncic will play and be best suited to? Possibly, but I don't think it is enough to cause anyone to agonize over the pick. Don't get me wrong I would love to see Doncic be our pick, but pretty much every prospect at the top of this draft has weaknesses that you can agonize over. So the only benefit of drafting first is you get to take the first guy off the board, whereas at 5 or 6 it's picking from what's left, but if that is Porter, Young and Bamba we should be pretty excited to add one of them. Though I would question Porter's fit if we plan to retain Gordon and Isaac.

Kawhi Leonard has two seasons left on his current contract, the second of which is a player option that he will likely opt out of to become an unrestricted free agent in 2019. So to answer the question, how does trading Gordon and Isaac set this franchise back if we did that in order to acquire Kawhi? Simple, if Kawhi walks in a years time this team will be starting from the ground up. We'll have sent Gordon and Isaac away, plus what would likely be this year's first round pick and possibly another one as well. I don't believe it is worth the risk in trading away young players and draft picks in the hope that Kawhi decides to stay here long term. Plus, we also have to factor in his injury history. He's yet to play a full season and before this season he has missed 18, 24, 16, 18, 10, and 8 games in his first six seasons. I rate the guy highly, but he doesn't seem to be the most durable of players. Then there is the question mark over why he has sat for most of this season, which has led to some questioning his toughness. For me, I would stay away from trying to acquire him because he is a flight risk and if he's ready to shun the Spurs, one of the most successful teams in league history, then I really doubt we'll hold onto him long based off how our team has been run.

It would be nice if we could get him for less than a max, or on a deal that is favorable to us long term, but I suspect some team is going to make it expensive for us to bring him back. He's exactly the type of player teams are going to want to take a gamble on, hardworking and lots of upside.

It wouldn't surprise me if we did try our best to not max out AG, but in order to retain his services I think we are going to be hard pressed not to max him out. There will be teams out there that will covet his services like Sacramento. They have no first round pick next year. They already have their PG in Fox and SG in Bogdanovic, and some decent big prospects in Cauley-Stein, Giles, Skal (etc) to utilize. Their main weakness is at both forward slots and depending on how the draft falls they could fill one of them with Porter, Bagley or Bridges, and think their best option is to max out AG. If that occurs it leaves us in an awkward position. Do we max out a player we don't really want to max? Or do we work out a deal that sends him to Sacramento while we get something in return? It's a tough scenario but I could see us deciding to try and get a sign and trade deal if we really want Porter or Bagley to pair with Isaac because we think AG has reached his ceiling. I personally would rather see us max out AG and continue to build with him because we all saw what happened to Oladipo when we let him go. He became that star elsewhere. If that happened with AG it would be tough to stomach. To be honest I don't see us being major players in free agency in 2019 or even in 2020. We have talked about free agency on the boards in years gone past, like wanting a top tier guy like Kevin Durant, or looking at more "realistic" alternatives like Paul Millsap and Al Hordford. Any time we have tired to go big in free agency we have failed to tempt any franchise changing talent to come to us, instead we end up with players like Channing Frye and Bismack Biyombo. For me, I would rather see us take a gamble and max out AG hoping he can break out and be a star, or at least become a good second option. I just don't feel confident in gambling on free agency because we aren't a big time draw. It is going to be tough to draw players here over other teams even if Isaac breaks out and we land our Donovan Mitchell. So I'd like to see us invest in AG and our young talent and bet on them making the jump together.

Impressive return to the play offs for the 76ers. It is scary to think how good this team is going to be as they get more experienced. As long as Simmons, Embiid and co stay healthy there is no reason why they can't be right up there with the Warriors as one of the best teams in the league. Saric also made a good impression on his play off debut. Lot's to be positive about for that team going forwards.

I guess it depends on how highly they rate Gordon, Isaac and our potential first round pick this year. That trio including Trae Young, Bamba, Doncic (etc) might be pretty sellable to the right coach. Do they see a roster on the brink of breaking out if they can stay healthy? If so, that might appeal to coaches because they don't have to endure a lengthy rebuild. It could be a similar time span to the Celtics, losing record, .500, then winning record and play offs. Or do they think we need to tear it down and start over? If so, that might not appeal as much if they think we are heading into a lengthy rebuild if they don't rate our core young talent.

David Fizdale could be a good appointment. He's a good coach and well respected. Could we pry Jay Wright from Villanova? Or Sean Miller from Arizona? Probably not, but couldn't hurt to try and bring in one of the best college coaches. It's worked for the Celtics. Nick Nurse from Toronto might be worth a look with the work he's done with them offensively.

If we fire Vogel we need to make sure we hire the right replacement. Someone we can rebuild with, then kick on with. Like Brett Brown and the 76ers, or Brad Stevens and the Celtics. Find the right coach to develop the young talent and build a positive culture with. This whole swapping and changing lark does nothing. It just creates more instability with the organisation and that's something the teams that are bad and stay bad suffer with, whereas those that get better tend to have more stability.

So if Dallas beat Phoenix and improve to 25 wins, while us and Atlanta lose out and finish with 24 wins, do we own the tiebreaker?

They should beat Phoenix, but will they put a full strength team out on the court? Remember they sat Barnes (rested), Smith (sore knee), Powell (knee bursitis), and Nowitzki (ankle). Granted Nowitzki has since had season ending surgery, but the others have all been in action since. So it wouldn't surprise me if Dallas did the same against Phoenix by sitting their best players to ensure they have a better chance of losing that final game.

I can actually see us drafting Bamba over Doncic. The kid is 7 foot tall, 7-9 wing span, and a 9-5 standing reach. If he adds some more bulk to his frame he could be a really dominant center in this league. I think a realistic floor for him could be DeAndre Jordan, and if he develops on the offensive end and adds a consistent three point shot then he can be special. So in a sense he's not the "sexy" draft pick because he's more likely to be the next DeAndre Jordan than Karl Anthony-Towns, but he does have that special upside if he develops. Granted I think Doncic is the guy we should pick if he's available, but I can see why we would decide to draft a big like Bamba or even Jackson over him. They could slot into the center position and give us an upgrade in rebounding and rim protection. The sheer defensive potential of Isaac, Gordon and Bamba/Jackson is really appealing. Obviously the issue would be scoring points because they don't strike me as being 20+ a night regulars outside of Gordon, but this team's front office does value length and athleticism and Bamba and Jackson possess both of those things. Who would I pick in those mocks? In Jordan Schultz's April 6th mock, I would take Bamba or Jackson over Porter. I can see the appeal of Porter because he does have a lot of upside, but we do have Gordon and Isaac to man the two forward positions. So unless we are willing to sign and trade Gordon, or honestly think that Gordon or Isaac can play the 5, or believe Porter is special whereas Gordon and Isaac are not, then I don't see adding another forward to be the right move. In the land of 10 mock, well, I would probably take Doncic. However, like I said above I can see the appeal of drafting Bamba or Jackson because they do fill the void at center. We might think we can get by with a back court of Augustin and Fournier until we can make further moves to fill those positions long term, whether that be through other draft picks, trades, or even free agency when our cap situation improves.

First, the Heat are a good team to copy their model from. As this team's rival I can understand your dislike of them, but there is no denying that they've done a heck of a good job since coming into the league. They have no prolonged stretch of losing other than their first eight years in the league, after that Arison bought that team and brought Riley on board. Since then they've been competitive. Their longest spell out of the play offs since 1995-1996? Two seasons. They also have two single losing seasons in which they missed the play offs and one season at .500 in which they missed. Compared to sixteen winning and play off seasons. So they are getting right up there with the San Antonio Spurs for being consistently competitive and that's something we should learn from and try to replicate. Second, I am not conforming to any norm by stating there is nothing wrong with LeBron joining the 76ers. Would he make them a better team? Yes. Would his addition make it his team and not their young players team? Possibly, but that would depend on Embiid and Simmons allowing it. But do they need him? Not necessarily if their players continue to improve. They've already moved up to the 3rd seed. So they are trending in the right direction and there's a chance they can be successful without LeBron. But all honesty I'd rather them win without LeBron, just like I'd rather have seen Durant win a title without having to resort joining the Warriors, however the flipside to that is there is no doubt in my mind that LeBron joining the 76ers would make them the best team in the east. If I was a 76ers fan I'd have no problem with my team adding a player of that caliber, and as a magic fan you should know as well as anyone that had this team added Tim Duncan we might very well have had championship banners hung from the rafters. Instead we missed on such players and supported our stars with decent help and we know how that played out. The most successful teams in this league build strong supporting casts and the 76ers add LeBron so be it, but if they don't, good luck to them. I think they'll be successful either way.

I'd argue Miami are a team to watch and one that teams won't really want to play. They are a tough team built around the culture that the Heat have spent many years building. Even last year when they went 11-30 in the first half, they turned it around and went 30-11 in the second half due to their desire to win. They've managed it without a true star. Average players have become good players, and good have become very good. Their system and culture is one we should try to replicate. As for LeBron going to Philly, where's the harm in that? If he can help them win a titles that's a positive because he'll move on and they'll hopefully still be there beyond his stay. It's like LeBron going to Miami and learning how to become a champion (Wade and Riley already had rings), it helped him become better. Granted he was already great before going to Miami but going there made him even better. Perhaps Lebrons experience and desire can make a positive impact on Simmons and Embiid and make them better for it? Also it does help them combat the western super teams.

I do agree that the teams in the bottom ten are “bad”, but they are varying degrees of bad. Are the Mavericks as bad as their win loss record this season? I’d argue if they made an effort to compete rather than tank they’d be in a similar win loss category to the Hornets. Maybe it makes sense for them to tank in order to get a franchise changing talent to help them post-Dirk, but they aren’t playing as hard as they could because if they did they would have won more games. We aren’t really as bad as our record suggests, if we had stayed healthy all year and Vogel knew his best lineup and rotation, we could be right there with the Hornets (like the Mavericks should be). Instead we are where we are as a team because of injuries, general ineptitude, and inconsistency. The Mavericks are where they are because they are tanking rather than trying. I honestly do not think the lottery should reward teams like them. If you are trying your best and failing, fine; but if you aren’t trying your best and failing, you don’t deserve better odds. That’s why giving everyone the same odds could create a more competitive atmosphere because teams would need to be smarter and not rely on top picks. They’d have to take a page out of Denver and Utah’s book. If they can manage to rebuild without tanking and being terrible, then so can everyone else if they are a well run team.

Do you not find it inherently wrong to reward teams that tank over teams that are genuinely bad and teams that actually try to get better and compete? I personally find it wrong that teams will openly tank to get better odds in the lottery. It taints the system that you describe because the draft is meant to be a way that allows bad teams to acquire talent to help them improve, instead there are teams like Philadelphia that abuse the system by trading away their best players and putting a make shift group of players on the court with no real intention to win games and get better. This season Mark Cuban openly admitted that the Dallas Mavericks are tanking. What was their punishment? A $600,000 fine. The guy is worth $3.8 billion dollars so that punitive fine does nothing to prevent teams from tanking. It is like one of us getting a parking ticket. Most of us wouldn't bat an eyelid at the typical parking ticket fine, we'd just pay it and get on with our lives, and some might even park in the same way again. Throughout his time as an owner Mark Cuban has been fined on a regular basis. I actually like his outspoken and candid manner because it is refreshing when compared to the typical sports team owner, but that fine has not deterred them from tanking and they have stayed the course. Perhaps a better punishment would have been taking away their draft pick because tanking is essentially cheating because you are losing on purpose to improve your lottery odds. Granted that approach might have seen Dallas take legal action and attempt to prove other teams are tanking as well, but a hard line stance might have sent a message to teams to not tank. Even the new lottery odds are not going to make a difference. Teams will still tank and that hurts the teams that are genuinely bad, as well as the teams that are actually making an effort to get better and compete. Why is it plain wrong that the Celtics have stockpiled draft picks? They decided to end their big three era and trade away Kevin Garnett and Paul Pierce to the Brooklyn Nets. At the time the Nets made that trade because they thought their additions would make them a title contender and win them a championship, instead their additions did little for them and has now put them into the situation they are in today. So it is not the Celtics fault that the Nets draft picks have ultimately proven to be as valuable as they have been. The blame lies entirely with the inept organisation that made the trade in the first place and gave them picks away. Likewise, it is not the Celtics fault that the Kings made a stupid trade with the 76ers. The Kings traded away Nik Stauskas, Carl Landry, and Jason Thompson in a salary dump, in which they gave the 76ers the rights to swap first round picks in 2016 and 2017, and gave them a future first round pick (top ten protected in 2018, unprotected in 2019) which is likely on its way to Boston. You can't blame the Celtics for other team's stupidity. All Boston are guilty of is rebuilding their team successfully. The Celtics had one bad year in 2013-14 and even then they ranked 12th in the eastern conference ahead of us, Philadelphia and Milwaukee. After that season they progressed to 40-42 and made the play offs as the 7th seed, followed that by improving to 48-34 and made the play offs as the 5th seed, and last season they went 53-29 and made the play offs as the top seed. So the Celtics aren't a tanking team, instead they are either really smart or really lucky or a combination of both. Do I like the idea of young talent becoming free agents after one year? Not really because they could decide to sign for the best teams. I'm sure we would all like to believe that DeAndre Ayton would sign for a rebuilding team because he could go there and become "the man", but why would he sign for a rebuilding team over someone like the Warriors? The Warriors have a proven track record of developing all stars (Curry, Thompson, Green), have competed for and won titles, and offer him the opportunity to play with some of the best players to step on to an NBA court. We would have to be pretty naive to think that the Suns with Devin Booker and Josh Jackson could compete with the Warriors players. Same goes for teams like the Rockets, Cavaliers, and Celtics. They can all offer these young players a potential starting position and the chance to develop on a good team rather than have to develop on a bad team. Plus, these young players could decide to take less money and make up their earnings off court by signing for a big market team or a title contending team. They might even decide to take less money because they want to play on a good team rather than a bad team. Or they could just decide to take an initial hit and build up those earnings on subsequent contracts, especially if those teams end up with the rights to sign them to big money extensions without needing the cap space to do so. So what could happen if the league adopted this method is the young talents could turn their nose up at the opportunity to join bad teams and small market teams. If the league wants to create a huge divide they should adopt this model.

No lottery team is going to take two second round picks and Vucevic over Jackson. He has significantly more upside than Vucevic. The only teams in the top ten that aren't tanking and rebuilding are the Cleveland Cavaliers and Philadelphia 76ers. I don't see either team being attracted to the prospect of adding Vucevic. Everyone else is tanking and Vucevic isn't the type of player to move the needle for those teams, but Jackson in time might. For me if we were to get another high pick it would require us giving up at least one future first and possibly Isaac or Gordon. I suppose teams could be tempted by Fournier and Vucevic but we'd have to sweeten the deal.