A Trade Asset Very Rarely Mentioned

by WarEaglePDX on Mar 29, 2008 4:25 PM PDT Comment 6 comments

There has been alot of talk about what the Blazers would include in a trade that would either move us up in the draft or fetch a starting PG or SF. One thing that has rarely been mentioned would be including our future 1st round picks in trade.

If we aren't looking to get any younger from here on out, wouldn't this make sense? Wouldn't including our 2009, 2010 and 2011 first rounders in trades be useful for rebuilding teams that might be looking to moving players out or drafting down?

It also seems advantageous to the Blazers situation because this will most likely be our last year in the lottery for some time. A few questions:

How risky/possibly detrimental would trading away our first round picks be?
How attractive would other GM's in the league see these pics?
Wouldln't one of the currrent Blazers reguarly discussed as a trade piece (take your pick) paired with this years first round pick and a future first round pick be enough to move up in the draft?

0 recs | Comment 6 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

i would like to keep as many picks as possible

because with KP there is always the chance we will get a great late 1st round steal. At the same time though if that what it take to get the right players for now i would definitely be something to be considered

My Webpage i work when i'm bored

by Zaron5551 on Mar 29, 2008 5:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

can't trade 1st rounders consecutive years.

You can trade the player after you draft them, but not the picks.

Blazers fan since '84, Currently exiled in Tennessee and North Carolina

by HurraKane212 on Mar 29, 2008 6:29 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, he did say 2009, 2010, and 2011.

So the pair of 2009 and 2011 is the only legal multi-pick option.

(Personally, I just realized that GETTING picks from that time span, for our spare parts and this year's picks, is what I'd like.
Still thinking out the argument for how to do that, and why. But believe you me, that argument is coming in a diary from me.)

Did you really put stuff on top of the eggs? Like, for real? He put . . . HE PUT THE LIGHT BULBS ON THE BOTTOM!

by QualityPie on Mar 29, 2008 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As long as they're protected

The biggest thing is to make sure the picks would be protected, like top 3 or 5. Last year Atlanta was 3rd got to keep their pick that would have gone to the Suns because it was top 3 protected. Considering that all of our big three are a little injury prone (and that's being generous) we should protect any pick we offer. The Spurs got Tim Duncan when David Robinson got injured for a year, so anything can happen.

The original poster makes a good point about us not needing more young players. Teams that are rebuilding and dumping players usually want expiring contracts, lots of picks and/or young players with potential.

And we all know our 2010 and 2011 pick will be the last pick of the first round. That's right.

by terryisntbald on Mar 29, 2008 9:54 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

We do not need to get younger

We can only develop so many young players at a time, what if we traded the pick to a team for their future pick? Maybe 2012 when our core will be muture and we could bring in a rookie to develop. If we traded with a team that is getting older, or on of the historically bad teams, this might end up being a pretty good pick and who knows, maybe it could happen on a good draft year. It is a role of the dice, but wouldn't KP look good if it worked out and we got a top 3 pick after winning our 2nd championship in a row.

by lonevoiceofreason on Mar 30, 2008 8:30 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs