The Official SPOILERS 2022 NBA Draft Thread
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
Hoopshype reporting that Reddish was part of the Knicks offer to Detroit for Ivey: https://hoopshype.com/lists/nba-rum...yton-jalen-brunson-tyus-jones-vasilije-micic/
If their best offer was just Reddish and 11, I’m glad Monte passed. With Daniels and Sochan going 8 and 9, trading down to 10 with Wizards or 11 with Knicks would have been brutal. That’s why you don’t get cute and just take your guy.
If their best offer was just Reddish and 11, I’m glad Monte passed. With Daniels and Sochan going 8 and 9, trading down to 10 with Wizards or 11 with Knicks would have been brutal. That’s why you don’t get cute and just take your guy.
If their best offer was just Reddish and 11, I’m glad Monte passed. With Daniels and Sochan going 8 and 9, trading down to 10 with Wizards or 11 with Knicks would have been brutal. That’s why you don’t get cute and just take your guy.[/QUOTE]
I'm dubious about Murray being a wing. He's not a 2 or a 3. He looks like a stretch 4 who doesn't have the athletic ability to stay in front of most starting 3s in the NBA.
I'm dubious about Murray being a wing. He's not a 2 or a 3. He looks like a stretch 4 who doesn't have the athletic ability to stay in front of most starting 3s in the NBA.
Looney was drafted in 2015 at #30 overall. Poole was drafted in 2019 at #28 overall. I didn't mean to imply that all their picks have been busts, but to have as many high picks as they've had the last three years and not come away with even a single core piece would be crushing for most teams. They get a pass because they already have a championship level roster and got those picks because of injuries.
Sure. So it's a good thing they drafted a bunch of players who should develop quickly... oh wait. No they actually took every long shot on the board and they probably won't be legit NBA starters until it's time to pay them all. It's the Vlade plan all over again. Half of those guys are going to get cut or traded for nothing.
Well that's just silliness. Most GM work is boring diligence, analytical study, and salary cap examination.
There is certainly an element of playing your cards close to your chest involved in NBA GM'ing. Monte and his front office have that part down to a science. There's tangible evidence of "poker" skill that you choose to ignore. And there is certainly an element of misdirection involved in the transactional parts of the job. But if you knew which GM's were particularly gifted deceivers, they wouldn't be very good at it, would they? The goal should be to misdirect and leave behind no trace, hence a variety of draft day leaks that can be difficult to parse. Why would opposing teams and player agents deal with you if they already know you're not operating from a place of good faith?
In other words, you're mostly just talking out of your a**, aren't you? You have no idea if Monte is a good "poker player" after a measly two years on the job. You just prefer to shape a particular narrative that confirms your existing biases. We know that more than just Detroit expressed an interest in moving up to pick Murray. What possible reason would the Spurs or Pacers have to "bluff" in this regard? Given that reported interest, perhaps it's just as likely that several front offices were higher on a player like Murray than they were on a player like Ivey. But then that wouldn't fit your preferred narrative about McNair, would it?
There is certainly an element of playing your cards close to your chest involved in NBA GM'ing. Monte and his front office have that part down to a science. There's tangible evidence of "poker" skill that you choose to ignore. And there is certainly an element of misdirection involved in the transactional parts of the job. But if you knew which GM's were particularly gifted deceivers, they wouldn't be very good at it, would they? The goal should be to misdirect and leave behind no trace, hence a variety of draft day leaks that can be difficult to parse. Why would opposing teams and player agents deal with you if they already know you're not operating from a place of good faith?
In other words, you're mostly just talking out of your a**, aren't you? You have no idea if Monte is a good "poker player" after a measly two years on the job. You just prefer to shape a particular narrative that confirms your existing biases. We know that more than just Detroit expressed an interest in moving up to pick Murray. What possible reason would the Spurs or Pacers have to "bluff" in this regard? Given that reported interest, perhaps it's just as likely that several front offices were higher on a player like Murray than they were on a player like Ivey. But then that wouldn't fit your preferred narrative about McNair, would it?
