John Henson the best fit next to Cousins?

[beb0p]

Given the Bucks acumen regarding bigs I wouldn't get too excited -- they specilize in small, wekak, undersized guys guaranteed to get you a wonderful 35-47 record every year.

That said Henson still looks to me like the fallback position for us if we trade backward, but who knows.

Practice makes perfect? The Bucks do have a taste for malnourished bigs. The flip side is that they probably has it down pat now, and they do get it right sometimes, like that Ilyasova guy.

My fear is that Henson is not the fallback position.... he is the position.

 

[vikinginferno]

I. Don't. Know. Buddy! Man am I on your wavelength on this one. It's like my DNA prohibits me from trading down. Trading down works well in football but not in basketball where skill is prime and not volume. Let us say you have traded down and come up with Henson and made some useless trades to make that balance. It essentially breaks down to a trade of MKG to get Henson and probably someone worse. What's the point?

Haha, good to see we agree somewhere. At the moment, I am pretty sure MKG won't be there at pick 5 though, but you never know what developments could happen from now until the draft. Either way, you are trading a player that has a solid shot at being a star and a major cog of this team for someone much less likely to do that. Is it common that picks later in the draft are better than those earlier? Yes! It happens every draft, but you would be stupid to trade back unless you have a VERY good reason to. The chances of getting a good player drop off greatly the farther and farther you go in the draft.

 

[mac]

Haha, good to see we agree somewhere. At the moment, I am pretty sure MKG won't be there at pick 5 though, but you never know what developments could happen from now until the draft. Either way, you are trading a player that has a solid shot at being a star and a major cog of this team for someone much less likely to do that. Is it common that picks later in the draft are better than those earlier? Yes! It happens every draft, but you would be stupid to trade back unless you have a VERY good reason to. The chances of getting a good player drop off greatly the farther and farther you go in the draft.

I'm simply worried the FO will just make things worse by trading down, mainly due to last year's Salmons trade. I'd rather we keep things simple with the draft, unless you can guarantee bringing in a real good solid player and not another John Salmons. It's not the trading down itself that is a problem for me, it's my lack of confidence that the FO can get us get good value in the trade (it shouldn't even be fair value because we're the ones holding the higher pick! We have the leverage)