3rd pick for Alridge straight up!!!

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

1) I'm not sure Pritchard wants Conley.

---

I stopped right here, W.

Of course, that's because, if KP doesn't want Conley, then this whole discussion is moot.

If one wants to obtain Aldridge for #3 + five starters... Pritchard has to want Conley, or it's futile.

(Okay, I overstate the point to hyperbole, but surely the point is understood. The discussion in this thread is practically completely moot if KP isn't fishing for Conley.)

---

I'm certain Pritchard wouldn't mind meeting Oden desire and he might even think Conley a decent Pg, but he's doesn't have to be turned on to him. He can like him a little bit, enough to make the move if it were Randolph/Jack or Aldridge for #3 straight up, but not enough to give more.

It's not "moot" if Pritchard "wants" Conley, but wants him a good bit less than and primarily because Oden does. Pritchard can "try" to get him and might even bite if the deal is decent, but he isn't going to sell the farm for him. He's too smart.

Smack back. That was silly of you.

W

[sturt]

Quote:

---

I have to seriously question how much you know about basketball after that post.

---

Ouch. That coming from such a superior basketball intellect, I am disappointed in and ashamed of myself. Please find it in your heart to forgive.

Perhaps those who sit in judgment should read a little more closely, however... (or, if read and absorbed, should not ignore and fail to address a statement that already replied to your retort...)

Quote:

---

But seriously... there's no reason to get very serious with us at #3 if they're not targeting someone at #3... I'll grant you that it doesn't have to be Conley, but it does have to be someone that they, for some reason, aren't confident will be there at a lower pick... that's just...

common

sense.

---

If Pritchard wants to draft just any SF, he's not talking to BK anyhow, and... again... this whole discussion about Aldridge is DOA, practically regardless of whatever package you want to imagine to throw at him.

Look, I get it that you think BK would be willing to talk about MWill or JSmith in trade for Aldridge. You're free to conjecture about that, of course.

But, at the terrible risk of shaming myself to you again , let me tell you why I think you're standing on a proverbial flimsy sheet of plywood with that one:

BK is a GM who--to a fault by some fans' account--doesn't bend from the roster management principles that have become obvious over time.

He obviously likes his core roster and, my opinion, has absolutely no inclination to entertain a trade involving those players.

In fact, right now, he feels he is at the cusp of validating his guiding philosophies... and he is making plans to manipulate these draft picks to end up with the final pieces.

No misinformation put forward by either camp is going to change what has already been clearly established by Billy Knight's history as a GM.

If PTL isn't interested in the #3, then as the Oregonian article surmises, this discussion is one and done.

If they do (or have) come back to it, though, I think the popularity of these PTL/ATL trade threads demonstrate that few of us would be surprised (... and neither would we be surprised that Pritchard or Knight helped feed the misinformation machine that served to keep it all under-wraps).

If, on the other hand, you're right that Pritchard desperately wants a SF with NBA experience, his time is better spent trolling among the other GMs who have one they could spare. Billy likes his roster.

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Smack back. That was silly of you.

W

---

(Yeah... don't take me too seriously, W... I just love what chilzatl has done with these emoticons... )

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

If Pritchard wants to draft just any SF, he's not talking to BK anyhow, and...

again

... this whole discussion about Aldridge is DOA, practically regardless of whatever package you want to imagine to throw at him.

---

Pritchard can "want" Conley on a Spectrum of want that only extends to Randolph/Jack or Aldridge. It's not like if Pritchard "wants" Conley he has to ONLY want Conley or if he "wants" a Sf he has to ONLY want a Sf.

Point being, A good GM doesn't talk a good deal for his team, he makes one. A good deal for us would still be Aldridge for #3. The notion of Aldridge/Jack/and a 1st rder for #3, while wonderful for us in theory, would turn the relative "want" for Conley off in any GM.

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

He obviously likes his core roster

---

Yeah i am sure he likes having no post players and aging veteran pgs. But then he has shown that he is clueless.

Quote:

---

has absolutely no inclination to entertain a trade involving those players.

---

Maybe Santa will leave a quality center or pg under BK's tree.

Quote:

---

If Pritchard wants to draft just any SF,

---

And where did i say he did? he wants one of the top sf's or get one of ours.

Quote:

---

But, at the terrible risk of shaming myself to you again

---

At least you admit it. Good for you.

Quote:

---

his time is better spent trolling among the other GMs who have one they could spare.

---

You mean like a team who has 2 forwards picked in the top 6 coming off them bench?

[sturt]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He obviously likes his core roster

---

Yeah i am sure he likes having no post players and aging veteran pgs. But then he has shown that he is clueless.

Quote:

---

has absolutely no inclination to entertain a trade involving those players.

---

Maybe Santa will leave a quality center or pg under BK's tree.

Quote:

---

If Pritchard wants to draft just any SF,

---

And where did i say he did? he wants one of the top sf's or get one of ours.

Quote:

---

But, at the terrible risk of shaming myself to you again

---

At least you admit it. Good for you.

Quote:

---

his time is better spent trolling among the other GMs who have one they could spare.

---

You mean like a team who has 2 forwards picked in the top 6 coming off them bench?

---

It appears that it's enough for you to come up with cheesy-morning-radio-DJ comebacks...

But if you get the time, kindly help out a lesser basketball intellect than yours, Ex, and actually respond to the point of my post.

As to W... thanks for actually responding... and... I don't think we disagree, actually.

Indeed, it is a dimmer, not a light switch. And all that is public for now is that both ends of the spectrum have been put on the table. We should all be disappointed in BK if he allowed negotiations for a middle ground to be illuminated.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

We should all be disappointed in BK if he allowed negotiations for a middle ground to be illuminated.

---

Given BK previous mistakes illuminating middle ground wouldn't even register with me.

Drafting a project forward at 3 would. As it stands it is looking more and more likely that the pick will be traded whether to Portland or someone else.

My guess is that he trades down to the 5-9 area.