Discussion in 'Pistons and NBA' started by Stephen Swiss, May 23, 2013.
Stuckey and #8 for Burke would make my week.
That deal would look more like: Rodney Stuckey + #8 pick to Utah for the #14 pick.
If we can't get McCollum or Burke, I would look to trade down in the draft and select Shane Larkin. From what I've seen, he's a baller and would go much higher if it wasn't for his lack of size (5'11). I see him as a Will Bynum-type with less athleticism, but better shooting stroke. Hawks got the 17th and 18th pick. That would allow us to select Larkin and perhaps Mitchell or Hardaway aswell.
I really wouldn't be surprised if Larkin went in the lottery.
I would agree to this deal...........
Why not just waive Stuckey and keep your #8 pick?
Why not just eat peanut butter without chocolate? Some things cannot be explained.
I like Burke. I would be pretty stoked if we got him. (Caveat: I was stoked when we got Mateen. He ran a team of NBA caliber players and shocked the world.) I also like Knight. I watched him quite a bit in college, and thought he would need several years in the NBA to realize his potential. I stand by that.
Stuckey is fine off the bench.
Next year's draft??? Pistons LIKELY won't have a pick next year. It belongs to the Bobcats (top 8 protected) .. But at the last news we heard from Gores and all that, it seems Pistons will be fighting the 7th, 8th spot in the playoffs next year. So we shouldn't rely on the super loaded 2014's Draft McLemore, though, I haven't seen Caldwell Pope.
All the good 3 point shooters is who we should be chasing.
I agree with you on this one, Tas!
It should be obvious what when you make multiple mistakes (Stuckey, FA singings, and abnormally generous contract extensions), you start to loose wiggle room. Sometimes you need to ride luck. JD had the absence of any forthright decision making (out of the ordinary) and wound up with a nice big tandem (Drum/Monroe) and a smaller fellow that doesn't follow the proscribed line (and a freshman, at that): you can't teach big. This year there is an interesting assortment of bigs and as things cycle-through, may not have this variety again for some time. Cap space is a little wiggle room, but not much. But then, they all come with obvious baggage: the key to the dilemma is not less, but to perceptively go deeper. Is JD up do it?
Sounds good, but they won't amnesty CV and it seems like a PG would help.
It's true that you can't teach big, but it's also true that you have a small window to develop skill.I think the starting front court is solid, but they won't be cheap for much longer. I would rather go with a guard that can feed to post and nail an open shot than another big.
Chuck Norris can teach big.
As far as developmental abilities, there is a good deal of commonality between a big and your point guard: both struggle. One has the constant battles of the little foot zones and the other must survey and mix the flow of the land. Very young PGs have problems and you merely have to look over our current situation. Stuckey never combined the over-sight road expected from him and Knight does not look good in charge of things. Yes, I know, everyone shouts, "give them time". The hole for the Pistons has be dug too deep. Let other teams grow the maturity levels needed and then you can fine-tune leadership to match your personalities. This is the way of life for marginal market teams. It remains to be seen how management is going to construct, or shall we say, reconstruct, going forward this time. Let us remember, the young/talented front line, is but one injury away from bringing down the .500 level. We saw that happen when Drummond went down. I favor stabilizing what needs further development: a solid front 4-5 position. A major talent pool now presents itself in this latter area. There will always be types like Maxwell who try to mix into this area and the current lottery has a few (though highly athletic) who will be prodded into this zone. I favor, when in development, a broad modular approach and when things are stabilizing, shoring up the weaker points.
Nice to have big trees in the forest....but whose gonna feed the trees.
You need a big bucket to carry all the feed too.
Separate names with a comma.