↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Andre Drummond to represent Pistons at NBA Draft lottery

The Pistons’ lottery cycle continues.

For the third straight year, the Pistons will send a player they drafted in the previous lottery to represent them in the next one. Greg Monroe was there in 2011 when they got the No. 8 pick that became Brandon Knight, and Knight was there in 2012 to see them get the No. 9 that became Andre Drummond.

Now, Drummond will trek to the New York area to see the Pistons likely land the No. 7 or No. 8 pick, according to Vince Ellis of the Detroit Free Press.

Hopefully, Nerlens Noel will represent the Pistons at the 2014 lottery. Better yet, hopefully he’ll the Pistons on television for a different reason that night.

84 Comments

  • May 20, 20133:23 pm
    by Thiago

    Reply

    I disagree.

    I hope the Pistons pick Burke (if 1,2 or 3), McLemore (if 3), Oladipo or Porter (if 7 or 8).

     

    • May 20, 20133:33 pm
      by Huddy

      Reply

      So you would take the projected #3 and 4 picks at 7 or 8 (where they are almost certainly unavailable) and the projected #5 pick at 1 without trading down or getting any additional value for the pick.  Solid choice.

      • May 20, 20134:58 pm
        by Thiago

        Reply

        What would you do?

        • May 20, 20135:06 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          If You have the first pick and you want a guy who is projected as about the 5th pick, you trade down. It’s really that simple.

          You get an extra asset and the player will be on a cheaper contract. 

          • May 21, 201311:39 am
            by NickB

            You can’t really be sure about who is taking who. Where a guy is projected has little to do with where they actually go. If you have your guy, you take him.

          • May 21, 201311:54 am
            by tarsier

            Where guys are projected may not be perfect guides, but you’re flat out wrong in saying it has little to do with it.

            Especially at the top end of the draft, there are usually very few surprises.

            And just because someone is “your guy” doesn’t actually mean he is better than someone who isn’t. It’s just better to play the odds and get extra assets. 

          • May 21, 201312:23 pm
            by Huddy

            If guys are projected within a couple of picks of each other it is a gamble, but the commenter above mentioned getting Porter or Oladipo with a 7-8 pick, we may not be able to projected their exact pick location but we pretty much can be sure they won’t go 7-8. 
             
            If based on workouts the guy the Piston’s decide is “our guy” is projected 5 or above Dumars would be a fool to just take his guy at 1.  To be safe maybe we don’t trade down to 5 since especially in this draft it is not certain who is where, but at least move 2-3 spots down with a team that needs a big like Noel.

          • May 21, 20131:00 pm
            by tarsier

            But what is wrong with a gamble? Just figure out your odds and determine whether the net expected value is better one way or the other. And then live with the results. That’s called being smart.

          • May 21, 20131:55 pm
            by Huddy

            @Tarsier I mean if you (for example) have the #4 pick and your guy is projected 5 it might not be worth it to try and make a move for 1 or 2 spots, but like I said with a difference of a few spots (which is what the conversation is based on) trading the spot is definitely the smart move.  All more hypothetical as well, in this draft I agree is more gamble worthy anyway so the number of space you bet on probably widens.
             

          • May 21, 20132:26 pm
            by tarsier

            Of course you don’t usually trade down one spot.

            But if you want Burke and you’re drafting first overall, since he is usually projected to go 4 or 5, you may as well trade down. After all, even if he’s not there anymore, there is so little consensus that you’ll probably get just as good a player. 

          • May 21, 20133:20 pm
            by Huddy

            exactly what I was saying
             

    • May 20, 20133:58 pm
      by pratt321

      Reply

      Burke ? NOT !!!! Big Piston fan ….Burke is not it . we need to fill that SF . get Sucky Stuckey out , Charlie V need to be gone . We need to start with a soild starting 5 and fill holes . I think its time for Joe to give his job to Phil , that would be nice !!!!!
       

      • May 21, 20138:40 am
        by Jeremy

        Reply

        You’ve lost your mind if you don’t think that Burke has the potential to be the real deal. He’s coming off a season where he put up 18.6 pt, 6.7 asst, 2.2 turnover, and 36.7% from the 3 per game.
         
        For comparison, Chris Paul (who also entered the draft after his sophomore season at Wake Forest) entered the draft coming off a season where he put up 15.3 pt, 6.6 asst, 2.4 turnover, and 47.4% from the 3 per game. Burke is also listed at 6′ 190lbs – 15lbs more than CP3 was listed at coming into the league and the same height.
         
        Deron Williams entered the draft after his junior season and one in which he put up the following numbers: 12.5pt, 6.8 asst, and 36.4% from the 3 (probasketball reference doesn’t have turnover numbers for him) per game.
         
        Jason Kidd entered the draft after his sophomore season and one in which he put up the following numbers: 16.7pt, 9.1 asst, 4.3 turnovers, and 36.2% from the 3 per game.
         
        Steve Nash entered the draft after his senior year and one in which he put up the following numbers: 17pt, 6 asst, 3.6 turnovers, and 34.4% from the 3 per game.
         
        John Wall played one season at Kentucky and put up the following numbers: 16.6 pts, 6.5 asst, 4 turnovers, and 32.5% from the 3 per game. 
         
        Derrick Rose played one season at Memphis and put up the following numbers: 14.9pts, 4.7 asst, 2.7 turnovers, and 33.7% from the 3 per game.
         
        Kyrie Irving played only 11 games at Duke and put up the following numbers: 17.5pts, 4.3 asst, 2.5 turnovers, and 46.2% from 3 per game.
         
        Each of these guys are either considered one of the best PG’s of the past 15 years or are the best prospects to be called that in 15 years from now. I am by no means saying that Burke is CP3 or Jason Kidd. I am just saying that he put up comparable, if not better, numbers to all the guys on the above list and he did it in what was the best conference in college basketball the past few years – you can’t discount that. I work with data all day, projecting populations and performances of programs, so all I have to go off is the data. I am by no means a U of M fan and watched very little of their games prior to March Madness. All I can say is that the data projects him to having a very good chance of being something special in the NBA.

        • May 21, 20139:05 am
          by Thiago

          Reply

          Forget about it, Jeremy.
          Tarsier is the smartest guy around. I’m sure he knows much more than us. 

          • May 21, 20139:35 am
            by tarsier

            He’s not arguing with me. He’s arguuing with pratt321. I agree with Jeremy on all counts here.

        • May 21, 20132:11 pm
          by frankie d

          Reply

          agree wholeheartedly about burke.
          it is funny because it happens year after year, draft after draft.
          little guys always get overlooked or their value is always diminished.
          big guys are always over-rated and their value inflated beyond worth.
          more mistakes are made gambling on big guys year after year after year.  
          detroit obviously has its own sad history with that syndrome.  darko, anyone?
          and in today’s nba, a good/great point guard is probably the most valuable player on the court.
          you can make do and muddle through with big guys off the scrap heap or later in just about any draft – look at memphis and indiana and SA (other than duncan) – but a good/great point guard is something teams often overlook and underestimate, in value…until they need one.  
          there was a great article about drafting burke number one over on espn a few weeks back, i think by david thorpe, and i agree with his point totally.
          teams almost never regret gambling on that early point guard draft pick, but they very often regret gambling on big guys.  seems like such an easy lesson for teams to learn. 

          • May 21, 20132:23 pm
            by tarsier

            I could point to just as many mistakes of taking a guard over a big man as vice versa.

            2012: Robinson over Lillard, Ross over Drummond
            2010: Johnson over Cousins
            2009: Thabeet over Harden
            2008: Augustin over Lopez
            2005: Marvin Williams over D-Will and CP3

            These mistakes go both ways. The solution is not to double down on PGs over bigs. It’s to individually assess each candidate.
             

          • May 21, 20132:55 pm
            by frankie d

            you make my point for me.  almost all of the examples you note actually support my thesis.
            thabeet over harden is exactly what i’m talking about.
            taking an iffy big guy extremely high and overlooking a guard with obviously greater talent.
            you don’t get a better example than thabeet over harden.
            everyone knew about stephen curry that year also, but he was considered a gamble because he’d gone to a small school.  while taking him in mid-lottery is not a huge gamble – and not the syndrome i was really thinking of – he was still a fairly controversial pick.  how smart does GS look now?
            williams over CP3 and deron williams is just as egregious as taking thabeet over those guys, though williams is not really the “big guy” i was thinking of.  i am usually thinking of 4′s and 5′s, though williams was a hybrid 4/3 who was attractive because he was a bigger player with perimeter skill.
            washington gambled on wall to a degree – his shooting problems are still an issue – but cousins has to be looked at as a special case, considering all of his red flags.  taking him at 5 was a huge gamble that is still up in the air.
            taking liliard at 6 was a huge gamble by portland.  no one had any idea he was even in the mix for the lottery until the combine and the workouts and he faced the same questions curry faced because of his small school background.   and most folks had him slated later in the lottery.  in fact, the rumor here in portland was that they would take drummond with the 6th pick and then take lilliard with the 10th pick.  but they gambled by taking liliard at 6, because they liked him so much.  that gamble worked out for them pretty well.
            robinson, on the other hand, had been projected as a solid top 5 choice all year and taking him was no gamble by sactown.  he was taken right where he’d been projected all along.
            the augustin/lopez choice could be seen as a gamble on augustin, i guess.  but not a huge or even big gamble at 9 and 10.  besides, earlier in the lottery, derrick rose, westbrook and eric gordon had already been taken.  oj mayo also.  all of those guys have turned out pretty well.  observers thought OKC was crazy for gambling on westbrook at 4 that year.  the was another gamble that turned out pretty well.
            michael beasley on the other hand, at 2 that year?  not so good.  huge gamble because he had huge red flags for years, but the allure of a 6’9 combo forward was too much to pass up.
            again, you actually make my point for me.
            thanks.
            it is something that nba personnel people actually acknowledge as a problem, fairly often.  i thought i was just stating something so obvious that it wouldn’t be controversial at all.  i am certainly not saying that it is guaranteed to pan out 100% of the time.  no, what i am saying is simply that teams often take really bad gambles and huge reaches on big guys simply because they are big guys and relatively rare.  teams rarely take that same type of huge gamble or reach for PGs and the smaller guys, to some degree, imho, because they think they can find them just about anywhere.
             

          • May 21, 20133:37 pm
            by tarsier

            Most of my examples support you?

            No they don’t about half of them do. Because it is really a mixed bag. I’m not saying you’re wrong and big is the way to go. I’m saying you are as likely to be wrong as right.

            The real moral of the story is that the draft is a crap shoot. 

          • May 21, 20134:19 pm
            by frankie d

            can you point to one instance where a point guard was taken – especially where the guy had questions swirling around him and taking him was essentially a gamble – in the top 3 or even top 5, over a big guy who turned out to be a better player than the point guard?
            i has happened repeatedly over the last decade where big guys were taken as that kind of gamble.
            i cannot recall when the little guy/point guard was taken in that type of gamble where it didn’t work out.
            and yes, it is relevant, because it clearly indicates that teams, for whatever stupid reason, often make mistakes reaching for big guys, despite legitimate questions about their viability.
            imho, taking a guy like burke is a heckuva lot less of a gamble than drafting a one dimensional 206 lb center coming off an ACL injury and hoping that he gains  lots of weight and heals from his surgery.  
            guys always lose a little bit of something when they get hurt like that and if a guy’s calling card is his exceptional athleticism, how much of that will be lost and will he retain that extra little bit of speed and quickness that gave him an advantage?  

          • May 21, 20135:13 pm
            by G

            If you didn’t arbitrarily settle on the pick needing to be top 5, Augustin over Lopez would qualify. What about Conley over Noah in ’07? Conley’s turning into a player, but Noah’s an All Star. Ray Felton over Andrew Bynum in ’05 might qualify, DaJuan Wagner over Amare in ’02, Bibby over Nowitzki in ’98, or going fairly old school, Kenny Smith over Horace Grant in ’88

          • May 21, 20135:30 pm
            by oats

            Part of why Evan Turner was the pick was that he could play all 3 perimeter positions. I know it’s more of a point forward, but Evan Turner over any of Favors, Cousins, and Monroe seems like an obvious mistake. At a minimum he meets the guard over big man that the initial statement was built around.
             
            By the way, tarsier mentioned Johnson over Cousins, and the response was Cousins was a hot head. Johnson also went ahead of Monroe, and that was a mistake.

          • May 21, 20136:44 pm
            by frankie d

            i was certainly thinking of point guards, not wings like johnson.
            as far as turner is concerned, imho, his biggest problem is that he’s never really been able to play his natural position, PG, because holliday is in philly.  so he’s always played either the 2 or 3, almost never the 1.  also, at 6’7″  he certainly doesn’t fit the little guy/big guy comparison i was looking at.  
            same thing with johnson, who is similarly a 2/3.
            i didn’t arbitrarily settle on the “5th” pick.  generally, for whatever reason, 5 has been pretty much the dividing line between the top tier of most drafts and the next level.   sometimes it is 6 or maybe 7 in an odd year, but usually there will be about 5 top tier choices in just about each draft.   my entire point is that teams generally reach at the top of the draft for big guys, and often that gamble does not turn out well.  
            and conversely, that teams generally do not gamble on PGs/small guys early in drafts and when they do draft those guys early, generally it turns out well.
            of the examples noted, imho, only conley over noah is even arguable, and with conley’s evolution the last couple of years, it is hard to describe him as anything but a very good pick at that point in the draft.
            i love noah, but magloire was an all star in 2004, and being an all star as an nba big is really not that big of a deal.  i think it is a wash as to whether noah or conley is the better/more valuable player at this juncture.  both are excellent players and were well worth their draft position.  and neither can be described as a gamble, imho.
            felton over bynum?  how was felton a gamble?  he was an all american guard who’d just led his college team to an ncaa title?  if anyone was a gamble it was bynum, a 17 year old high school student taken in the lottery.  i won’t get into their respective value, as i’m really talking about whether taking one was a gamble/reach, and in that situation, no way, no how can felton be seen as a gamble at that point in the draft.  that is about as safe a pick as one can imagine, while drafting a high school kid is about as big a gamble.  
            both kenny smith and bibby had solid nba careers after solid college careers.  funny, i can’t see how drafting either was a gamble/reach.  in fact, nowitzki was considered a huge gamble as he was one of the first euros to be drafted that high.  kenny smith over grant?  smith was one of the best guards in the country, first team all american, on one of the best teams?  gamble?  hardly.
            in fact, bibby was taken over the all time best example of reaching for a big guy in nba history. apologies to larue martin, of course.  but taking michael olawokandi has to rank as the biggest, dumbest big man reach in recent memory.  
            of all the examples noted, surely wagner is the one who could count as a gamble, and he was really a scoring combo guard who was taken at number 6.  definitely a gamble and one that flamed out horrifically.  but amare was no guarantee at that point, as he was a high schooler.  bad decision, yes, but both wagner and amare were both huge gambles at that point, their respective careers aside.
            imho, wagner is the exception – if he can be included in the set i’ve been describing – who proves the rule. 
            again, what i am talking about is a michael olawokandi reach for a little guy, and other than the wagner pick at 6, i just cannot find one, whereas there are lots of kandi-man like reaches over the years for big guys. 

          • May 22, 20138:59 am
            by G

            You did not just compare Noah to Magloire… Wait, you did. Noah is the 2nd best player on his team when Rose is healthy and the main reason why Chicago even made the playoffs. Conley is just starting to be good and he STILL isn’t the 2nd best player on his team.

            Look, all this stuff you’re saying about Kenny Smith, Felton, etc. can be said about Burke. He was college basketball’s player of the year, won the Wooden Award, and nearly won an NCAA title this year. How is taking Burke in the top five any more of a gamble than taking one of them?

            The fact is teams are more willing to take a gamble on taller projects because “you can’t coach height”. Add to that the fact that PG is the hardest position to project success on the NBA level, and it’s easy to understand why teams are more willing to roll the dice on a big guy. 

    • May 20, 20134:51 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      You see, people. We complain about Dumars, but it really could be worse. Thiago could be the one making decisions.

      • May 20, 20134:59 pm
        by Thiago

        Reply

        I assume you have a much, MUCH better idea…

        • May 20, 20135:03 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          I do.

        • May 20, 20135:05 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          Take Noel, Porter, or McLemore in the top three.

          Hope that at least one of Oladipo, Burke, or Bennett (or one of those first three, but that won’t happen) falls to 7 or 8 if that’s where the Pistons are. 

          • May 20, 20138:35 pm
            by domnick

            how about Cody Zeller? you don’t like him? i think he can help our lineup.. he can replace maxiel

          • May 20, 20139:49 pm
            by tarsier

            I would like him later in the draft, but not in the top 10.

          • May 21, 20138:44 am
            by Jeremy

            I think that Zeller is a nice door prize if the 6 guys that you named aren’t on the board when picking. He put some nice athletic numbers up at the combine yesterday and his season averages (16.5 pts, 8 boards per) aren’t all that bad either. He would be a nice complimentary piece next to both Monroe and Drummond as a stretch 4. That’s a fairly legit 3 man rotation for the 2 big positions.

          • May 21, 201312:34 pm
            by Huddy

            Zeller’s combine numbers were good, but based on how he got pushed around by bigs during the season I’m not sold he is a solid pick.  He might have strength and speed, but just not know how to use it yet, but I prefer to look at how he preformed against NBA size as opposed to taking good combine numbers and hoping that means he has made the leap.

          • May 21, 201312:34 pm
            by G

            So this was pretty predictable. Zeller had a really good combine, which everyone thought he would, and his draft stock rises a TON despite the fact that he was fairly mediocre the past 2 years.

          • May 21, 201312:37 pm
            by tarsier

            I don’t know that it rose a ton. It seems like he was talked about in the 11-17 range and now in the 8-14 range.

          • May 21, 20133:38 pm
            by frankie d

            while i am not a huge zeller fan, imho, he is a type of player who almost always ends up having a 10 year nba career.
            he’s big, he hustles, he can shoot and he’ll at least try to defend.  lots of guys like him in the league and he’ll probably always be able to find a spot in someone’s rotation for the next 10 years.
            i think he’ll probably end up being a pretty good shooter – his form is good and he will work on it – and a 7 footer like him who can shoot will always have value.
            don’t know if he is worth a lottery pick, but i wouldn’t mind having a guy like him on the team.  
            seems like a bigger jerebko, with better, more polished offensive skills.
             

    • May 21, 20131:54 am
      by Jeff

      Reply

      Where would Nerlens Noel play? He’d be good trade bait, but I dont see how he fits on the Pistons without a trade of Monroe. And I’d almost prefer Monroe because he’s so skilled over another raw athlete since we already have a defensive stopper (potentially) in Drummond. 

      I dont think Pistons can go wrong in this draft. I actually knid of like it, and I’m a lot higher on Shabazz than most, so if he’s our consolation prize, I’m excited. I think he’s a sure thing on O. More so than Oladipo or Porter. He fits in better with two bigs who can pack in the D because he can slash and hit the 3, two things that are more questionable with the other 2 eventhough they might be better all around players right now. 

  • May 20, 20133:27 pm
    by G

    Reply

    I hope the Pistons send no one to the lottery next year because they aren’t in it.

    • May 20, 20133:34 pm
      by I HATE FRANK

      Reply

      @G … Amen!

      Its gonna break my heart if we are not in the play-off next year and we land the right of range to land one of the potential star

    • May 20, 20134:49 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      I hope the Piston send someone to the lottery next year while also playing in the playoffs because of a clever trade (or does the team that the pick came from attend the lottery even though that team won’t keep it?).

      • May 21, 201312:41 pm
        by G

        Reply

        To be honest, I’m not entirely sure. Any hypothetical trade the Pistons pull off would most likely protect the pick to some extent. I recall the 2003 lottery Memphis sent Jerry West even though their pick was only #1 protected.

        • May 21, 20131:16 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          True.

          I still really want to see two GMs swap their unprotected picks before the season because they each believe they have assembled the better team. But if that happens, it won’t be the Pistons because Dumars doesn’t make moves that novel and because they can’t trade their pick unprotected. 

        • May 21, 20131:22 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          I think Nick Gilbert represented for the Cavs pick from the Clips that became Irving in 2011.

          • May 21, 20133:17 pm
            by G

            True, and that was an unprotected pick.

  • May 20, 20136:53 pm
    by Blocks by Dre (Burke for the win!!)

    Reply

    I hope we get a high pick so we can get McLemore, Oladipo, Porter  or Burke but if not maybe we should try and trade the pick, maybe to the Thunder for Perry Jones III and an additional draft pick. The Thunder doesn’t use him so why not he would fit a need at SF and we could get another pick (likely not a high one) as well. After the top 6 players are gone Perry Jones is better than anyone we could draft with our pick if it stays at 7

    • May 21, 20131:57 am
      by Jeff

      Reply

      You’re nuts. Shabazz Muhammad is good. He’s got that agility/strength combination thru contact and can release the ball from one handed odd angles and score… and he can shoot. He’s a gamer, better than he’s currently being assessed. 

      • May 21, 20133:13 pm
        by G

        Reply

        Average shot, doesn’t go right well, doesn’t pass hardly at all or play D, average athlete, on the short side for an NBA 3 (basically the same height as Tim Hardaway Jr), doesn’t create offense with his dribble… Want me to keep going?

        Perry Jones vs. Muhammad is an interesting conundrum, but I might still go with Muhammad unless Jones has developed 3PT range.

  • May 20, 201310:27 pm
    by tarsier

    Reply

    With Ford’s simulator, if the top three picks are Charlotte, Phoenix, New Orleans, then Detroit ends up getting McLemore at 7.

    • May 20, 201311:10 pm
      by Blocks by Dre (Burke for the win!!)

      Reply

      who did he have the other 6 teams taking over McLemore?

      • May 21, 201312:30 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        Charlotte took Noel
        Phoenix took Oladipo
        New Orleans took Porter
        Orlando took Burke
        Cleveland took Len
        Sacramento took MCW
        Detroit took McLemore
        Washington took Bennett

        Yeah, totally not gonna happen. But Ford has himself a funny algorithm. 

  • May 21, 201312:50 am
    by Charles

    Reply

    Why would we take Noel if we win. I hate seeing people having us taking centers. If we win its Burke or McLemore.

    • May 21, 20139:09 am
      by Jeremy

      Reply

      You would take Noel because he projects to be a great defensive big, it never hurts to have too many of those, and they are fairly hard to come by. Teams tend to hang on to them – there’s a reason why we are just now filling in that position with someone legit after Ben left for Chicago 7 seasons ago. They are also a trade asset. Teams like the Lakers (if they lose Howard), Dallas (if they can’t sign Howard), Houston (if they can’t sign Howard), Orlando, Miami (great team, weak inside), and Boston could either be looking for a center or need a center. They may be willing to take salary on (CV, Stuckey), trade away proven players, and add some draft picks to do so.
       
      I personally like the prospect of having a rotation of 3 potentially really good big men (Drummond, Monroe, Noel) and filling in needs in free agency and trades. Also, don’t discount the fact that while Stuckey may not have lottery pick trade value, he could be moved to a team for a pick in the later half of the first round. Could always trade back in for a guard/wing player. That’s why making these type of draft projects this early are difficult. Its hard to determine what a team will do without having a coach in place that will help make the decision on whether BK7 is the team’s starting PG, SG, or 6th man. That’s all based off of whether the team wants, or even is able to, bring back Calderon. That type of collaboration between the GM and Coach needs to take place prior to entering draft night. 

      • May 21, 20139:37 am
        by tarsier

        Reply

        I really doubt anyone would give up a first round pick for Stuckey.

        • May 21, 20139:49 am
          by MIKEYDE248

          Reply

          I really doubt that anyone would give up a nice cold soda pop for Stuckey.

          • May 21, 201311:38 am
            by sebastian

            As President of the Rodney Stuckey Fan Club: WE will regret the day that Rodney Stuckey is traded for a “nice cold soda pop.”

          • May 21, 201311:56 am
            by tarsier

            How much more improvement do you expect from a 27 year old who has been in the league for 6 years?

          • May 21, 201312:41 pm
            by Huddy

            As president of the Rodney Stuckey Fan Club you face a lot of disappointment year after year.  Even if Stuckey were to flourish on another team, what does that mean for the Pistons?  He didn’t fit here.  How many years could it possibly take?  He has started, been first man off the bench, played PG and SG and nothing works.  Rodney being successful elsewhere would mean it was a good trade for both teams, not that the Piston’s missed out on a potential star.  Not to mention that is assuming he plays well somewhere else.

          • May 21, 20133:02 pm
            by sebastian

            Yeah, as President of the Rodney Stuckey Fan Club, I must admit that Stuckey has fizzed-out as a Piston.
            It may be best to find a good swap for the once heir apparent to Chauncey.
            I wonder if Chicago would be interested in a Stuckey and Jerebko package for Luol Deng. It is a trade that works for both squads: Chicago gets help at back-up and in my opinion a great option as a sixth-man (Stuckey) and Jerebko, an active player, who can provide adequate minutes at the 3 and 4 positions, for a player (Deng) that would compliment Moose and Dre, exceptionally well.

          • May 21, 20133:40 pm
            by Huddy

            Thats an interesting trade idea, I don’t think it is enough for Chicago.  Money-wise I think it is good for them and that will help get the Pistons more value, but I think if they are dumping a contract they would want some kind of draft pick included and probably a first round one at that.
             

          • May 21, 20135:00 pm
            by oats

            If Chicago trades Deng it will be to clear cap space since they are already over the projected luxury tax line with only 9 players on the books. They’ll drop Hamilton and sit right around that tax line, but even minimum value contracts on 4 players to fill the roster will make them cross it. If they brought in Stuckey they would buy him out, and getting JJ for $4.5 mil and paying Stuckey $4 mil to leave is not nearly enough of a return on Deng. I think they’d be more likely to do it for Singler and Stuckey, with plans to buy Stuckey out, but I think they turn that down too. A couple second round picks might make that closer, but I don’t think they do it. They might actually do something like Knight and Singler for Deng. It saves them money, they get a couple shooters to come off the bench for really cheap, and they get out from under the luxury tax line.

  • May 21, 20139:51 am
    by MIKEYDE248

    Reply

    What would be the point of signing another big when we already have two and are missing everything else?  It’s like the Lion’s signing another quarterback with a first round pick, just because he is the best player at the pick.

    • May 21, 201310:04 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      Except that a football team really only needs (or can afford) one good QB. NBA teams need to play at least three big men for substantial minutes.

      • May 21, 201311:49 am
        by MIKEYDE248

        Reply

        How many teams have 3 starting big men?  Most of the NBA seems to be going small.

        • May 21, 201311:59 am
          by tarsier

          Reply

          I didn’t say you start three big men.  said you need substantial contributions from three big men.

          Starting or not means a whole lot less than playing time. 

          • May 21, 20133:59 pm
            by MIKEYDE248

            Why would they draft a bench player, when they need 3 more starters?

        • May 21, 201312:50 pm
          by Huddy

          Reply

          Most are going small? not really.  Miami does, but with a freak of nature that can guard any position at PF anyway.  The Knicks did and many believe that was a big reason why they couldn’t get by the Pacers (and it was out of necessity because of a depleted front court and chemistry issues with Stoudamire).  What other playoff team plays small?  Not Pacers, Grizzlies, Thunder, Lakers, Spurs, Hawks, Warriors, Bucks…Some have in situations because of injury or in small doses in game, but generally teams are starting guys in traditional roles.

          • May 21, 20131:23 pm
            by tarsier

            Warriors did a lot. but I think that’s it.

          • May 21, 20132:03 pm
            by Huddy

            In the playoffs the Warriors were dealing with an injury to Lee and in the regular season were without Bogut for a long stretch.
             
            Either way small ball is over represented the same way people have the perception that “a lot” of big men stretch the floor to the 3 pt line in the league today.  That stuff is more situaitonal and based on team’s style of play.  Going small means having a hard time with big teams like Indiana, going big means you might suffer against a hot 3 pt shooting team.  Its all a balance not a rule that all teams are moving toward.  I personally think it makes sense to build a team to win at the top aka Miami and their biggest weakness is teams with size. 
             

    • May 21, 20133:04 pm
      by sebastian

      Reply

      • May 21, 20135:13 pm
        by oats

        Reply

        I said it to the guy up there, but that makes no sense for Chicago. They are over the salary tax line on the year with 9 players on the books. They’ll drop Hamilton and be pretty much on it with 8 players. This trade would put them maybe a million or 2 under it with 9 players, but they’d risk hitting it if they kept their first round pick. Especially since Mirotic will likely come over and get a deal similar to Singlers deal. They just need to clear more cap space than that. As constructed they’d just buy Stuckey out, and $4 million to let Stuckey walk and $4.5 million for JJ is not a good value trade for Deng. They can and should do better than that.
         
        Singler should be a guy in that trade. JJ and Singler sounds vaguely plausible if you think that JJ is someone Chicago would actually want. Stuckey and Singler is also possible as that leaves them a little room to fill out the roster with minimum contracts to avoid the tax. I think they’d still likely just buy out Stuckey, so we’re back to that not happening. Here’s what might make sense for them, Knight and Singler. They save tons of money, they make certain they are well under the tax line, and they get some shooters for their bench. I don’t know if they are really willing to do that, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than Stuckey and JJ

  • May 21, 201311:47 am
    by joe

    Reply

    If the Pistons draft Shabazz, I can live with it but after this combine, he’s not a good choice. The reason I feel that way is, because I believe negative energy is alway a bad for a team. This guy haven’t played a game in the NBA and already hated by most folks. How do you think thats going to translate on the court, where most of NBA ref’s play favors? The Pistons going to need positive energy in order to become a playoff team again, not some guy getting ridiculed for everything he do. 

    • May 21, 201311:56 am
      by MIKEYDE248

      Reply

      Karma.  Most players that tend to bring negative energy are either out of the league in a few years or bounce around teams until they learn how to control it.

      I’m still not sold on Shabazz either.  At the beginning of the year, he’s all everyone was talking about, but the more I watched him or heard about him, the more I didn’t like him.  I have the feeling he’s going to be one of those players that drops in the draft.  He’s either going to be like Drummond and someone will get him as a steal or he’ll be a bust.

  • May 21, 201311:56 am
    by by key decisions know

    Reply

    what does this panel think of picking up CJ Leslie in second round and using him at the three because he is quick enough or any other sleepers you would prefer or a trade to get back in round 1 and for who and what  would we give up?

    • May 21, 201312:18 pm
      by joe

      Reply

      I think CJ Leslie is a steal in the second round. In my opinion, if the Piston don’t come out with two starters at the SG and SF position and a back up center that can block shots and rebound, this draft was a waste of time. If the Pistons some how drafted KCP at SG, Glen Rice Jr at SF and Gorgui Dieng at center,  with the right coach, the Pistons would automatic become favors to make the playoff next year.

      • May 21, 201312:35 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        They only have one first round pick. And you expect two starters and a back up big?

        Pope, Rice, and Dieng would be a decent haul for the picks Detroit has. But what trades are they supposed to make to allow that to happen? Also, I would way rather draft one star than three solid guys. And no, that would not be enough to make the Pistons favorites to get into the playoffs. A solid free agency might. But three mid-first round rookies aren’t. 

        • May 21, 20131:15 pm
          by joe

          Reply

          Those three solid guys average more production than one star. I’m just using the Pistons words right here, they supposed to be building around Knight, Monroe and Drummond, so if they don’t consider them as stars or future stars why are they building around them? If anybody believe that their is one star in this draft that going to make that much of a difference in the Pistons season coming up, the Pistons will definitely be back in the lottery next year.  

          • May 21, 20131:28 pm
            by tarsier

            3 mediocre players may combine for more production than one star, but they also take three positions on the floor. With one star, it’s not like you’re playing 3 on 5. And they come nowhere close to creating the production of one star and two different meh players who can easily be obtained/already are on the team.

            As for Dumars says the Pistons are building around those three: because he is not very good at his job. Monroe and Drumoond, sure. But Knight is not a player to build around.

            Besides, even if you have three stars, it is still more worthwhile to add a fourth star than to add some half decent pieces of whom you could get cheap equivalents in free agency. 

  • May 21, 201312:51 pm
    by joe

    Reply

    I know everybody like to do this, but just to give you an idea what i’m talking about.

    Knight/ Bynum/ Seth Curry(walk on)
    KCP/ English/
    Rice JR/ Middleton/ Singler (stretch 4)
    Monroe/ Jerebko
    Drummond/ Dieng/ Kravtsov

    If I was the Pistons, I would cut ties with Stuckey and Charlie V. in a heart beat, but just in case the Pistons don’t, you can put them where ever you want to.

     
     

    • May 21, 20131:31 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      If you want mediocre young guys, why not stick with Englsh and Singler and Kravstov? Why add 4 more? It’s not like they can all get significant minutes anyway. Much better to add one more fantastic young player.

      • May 21, 20131:45 pm
        by joe

        Reply

        Just out of curiosity, who is this star in the draft? because maybe i’m over looking this guy!

        • May 21, 20132:13 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          Any of Noel, McLemore, Porter, Burke, and Bennett could be a star. And maybe Oladipo. Odds are that about three of  them will be.

          • May 21, 20132:32 pm
            by joe

            I’ll give you 2 out of 5 of those guys, the only star potential I see is Burke and McLemore, and I agree with you on Oladipo. I don’t know, if you already did research on KCP, Glen Jr, and Dieng but these guys already accomplished some good things in their career personally or team wise. I feel these are the type of players the Pistons need, in order to become a play off team again. 

    • May 21, 20135:19 pm
      by oats

      Reply

      I’m going to stick with Tarsier’s point earlier on, how the heck do you propose we do that? All 3 guys will likely go in the first 25 picks. I’m just not seeing this working.

      • May 21, 20138:31 pm
        by joe

        Reply

        It all come down to what team the Pistons can get to dance with them, you have teams like Suns with the 4 & 30 picks, Timberwovles with the 9 & 26 picks, or Hawks with the 17 & 18 picks. Also don’t rule out trading Stuckey, because 1 man trash is another man treasure, you never know? 

        • May 22, 20139:07 am
          by G

          Reply

          Really the Pistons don’t have the pieces to pick up 2 extra 1st rounders this draft. They likely won’t have a 1st rounder next year, and their only really tradeable pieces are Knight and Singler. Stuckey’s contract & lack of production makes him basically a throw in, not a piece. Monroe or Drummond would be targeted by other teams, but I can’t see the wisdom in moving either of them for any 2 picks in this draft.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here