Salmons and Miller as valuable draft day commodities? (split from #1 draft pick)

gunks

Hall of Famer
#1
I love Curry.

Reports say that after Rubio and Griffin are gone, high lottery teams are going to try and trade down big time .. we have number 21 and our second rounder to trade back up into the top 10 .. Not sure that would get it done but it would get it close... That being said ..

If we draft Griffin, I trade up to also grab Curry or Jennings.
If we draft Rubio, I trade up back into the lottery to grab Thabeet.
If we get screwed into the 3rd pick, I draft Thabeet and trade up for Curry or jennings.
Go for quantity in a draft lacking in quality. I like it.

Its too bad Petrie traded Salmons and (expiring) Miller...I think those guys woulda been valuable draft day commodities. But hey, at least we got Noc.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#2
Its too bad Petrie traded Salmons and (expiring) Miller...I think those guys woulda been valuable draft day commodities. But hey, at least we got Noc.
I split this into its own thread for the simple reason I could not see a statement like that buried at post #2112 when I suspect at least a few people around here would like to comment on it.

:)
 

gunks

Hall of Famer
#3
I was planning on making it a topic after the lotto when we end up with pick number 4 haha.


Scenario: we do end up with pick 3 or 4.....I cant help but think a package of that pick and Salmons (or Miller) would have been able to get us up to 2 for Rubio. As of now our best trade assets are JT, Hawes, and Martin. I dont think pick 4 and Greene is really going to win over GMs (Cisco maybe, he is a bit overpayed though). I'd only be down with moving JT if we get Griffin. I think Hawes should be our untouchable, and Martin for a player who might bust (as neither Griffin or Rubio are sure things)?

Hopefully the arguement becomes moot on lotto day. But we'll see.
 
Last edited:
#4
If we didnt trade miller hawes and thompson wouldnt have had that chemistry in the starting line up.
and i dont think we could have traded miller for anything if we kept him for one year... the time was right to trading miller

the trade for salmons i wish we could have gotten a conditional non lottery pick from the bulls though

they would be strong next year with Deng Back
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#5
Its too bad Petrie traded Salmons and (expiring) Miller...I think those guys woulda been valuable draft day commodities. But hey, at least we got Noc.

Oh no, none of that kind of Monday morning quarterbacking. Those guys are gone, and well gone, and we were lucky to get them gone. Well Brad at least. Salmons might have been able to nab us a pick by himself, but we did what needed to be done. The result is that we're in pretty good shape and have a lot of flexibility this offseason. And draft day deals BTW still have to work under the cap, so you don't see many guys with major deals getting peddled ont he day itself.
 
#6
Also, we would not be in last place if we still had Salmons. We would more likely get a pick in the 6 or 7 range and I definitely would not prefer that.
 
A

AriesMar27

Guest
#7
we werent in last place when we traded him? what teams were worse than the kings when we traded them? 2nd to last team actually sounds better than last place since teams with the worst record never gets the number 1 pick. except for the cavs, they got lebron.
 

gunks

Hall of Famer
#8
Bumpin it now that we got 4th....



Salmons plus 4 to Memphis for the 2nd pick and a junk contract.
Or
(expiring Miller) plus pick 4 to Memphis for the 2nd pick and a junk contract.

They have Mayo and Conley already, and there are question marks surrounding Rubio. I think it all depends on whether or not they'd play Mayo at PG (so Salmons can be SG) and whether or not they think Mayo/Salmons is better then Rubio/Mayo (doubtful).

Iffy, but food for thought.
 
#9
KT is actually more of a valuable draft day commodity than even those guys would have been because he's FINALLY an expiring contract.