That would be a terrible defeatist mentality for your scouting department to take. If everyone took that approach, no one would hit on the superstars.Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara
 |
| . |
|
That would be a terrible defeatist mentality for your scouting department to take. If everyone took that approach, no one would hit on the superstars.
That doesnt mean to never draft. It just means to be realistic and know your odds in all directions. I know we wasted him but you trade Nerlens Noel and Elfrid Payton for Jrue every time. Nothing always works. Or never works. Be open to all paths and know the true odds, not the wishful thinking ones. All fans love the idea of an 8th pick and hate the idea of trading it for a solid starter. But the history does not support that the pick will work out more often than the solid starter. Even when you factor in salary
@mcnamara247
Basically my take here.
Is it true that most players picked in the draft don't become superstars? Of course, there aren't 400 superstars in the NBA.
But if you have, say, the 7th pick and you look at the talent available and you see someone who you really believe in as a borderline all-star or legit all-star, or hell, even a potential all-NBA guy, and you really believe that and you've scouted hard and watched the film and you have the stats, trading that away for a guy you absolutely know will never be an all-NBA guy (like, say, Larry Nance Jr, for example) is just pure pessimism at best and cutting off your own nose to spite your face at worse.
Sure if you get to the 7th pick and you don't really see anyone you believe in that much and you have an offer there for someone you know will be good, you take that trade, it's all about the value, but as long as there's someone you truly believe in on the board you should take them.
Basketball.
I dont fully agree. Especially with most of the prospects npw being 19 yr olds who often have fine NBA careers but dont really get winning basketball until their mid to late 20s- and on thier 3rd or 4th team.
Very very few GMs and coaches have the job security to invest 5 or 6 years into a Cam Payne and wait for him to become what he has become this year. And there is an argument as to if he would ever become that for his first team.
My belief is that a vast majority of these guys need to be himmbled to eventually accept their role. That wont happen with their first team. Guys who are taken top 10, 15, 20 were likely the best HS players in their state. They were THE MAN on their college team. They arent going to accept their fate as good role player at the next level until they have no other choice. So, 20 or so guys in each draft will be good or better but very very few will be that for the team who drafted them. And that is the part of the equation everyone misses
The REAL debate here is:
Will a prospect become who he will become? Or, is there a large variance for most of these guys and their outcome is largely dependent on several factors, most of which includes where they go?
I believe in the latter. And I also believe that many guys simply can't/wont succeed on their first team for the reasons I listed above. I know many believe otherwise, but I think THATS the real debate here
I can see it that way. I guess the issue is that for instance, the 7th pick may turn out to be nothing more than a role player or could be a superstar. Whereas the value of the type of veteran a team could get for the 7th pick is typically not much more than a solid bench player or part time starter. Some would prefer to roll the dice on the potential rather than the known.
I would say most/all fans would rather roll the dice. Because they dont see the real odds and will always believe in their evaluation of who they like and "NO WAY IS THAT GUY GONNA BE WORSE THAN JERAMI GRANT"
But again, objective history says they will be wrong more times than right, as will scouts, as will even the best GMs
Last edited by MichaelMcNamara; 05-10-2021 at 04:23 PM.
I get that.
I know you have indicated that you think they will trade this year's pick if it is not right near the top (top 2-3 I guess). Given some of the names that have been floated as guesses on the board, I guess this could be the offseason where he attempts to utilize the "war chest" to get the 3rd star next to BI and Zion. If not, you seem to think he may go for more of the Nance/Grant type of supporting player. Is that accurate?
They will try to trade it for a big piece first. I think they will fail. Then, I think they will focus on moving the pick plus Bledsoe for a quality player. But that is not where they stop. They will do that because the calculus will be that they already have enough picks and young guys to trade for the big piece when it does come available. So, you get Jerami Grant or Nance or whoever now and then when you get Beal, your team is really ready to go. Or they think Grant will have more trade value in February than Bledsoe and whoever we drafted at 10 in that next move.
I think where people get confused is that they think I am saying Griff will move Bledsoe and a pick for a good starter and then he is done. He will say "this is our team, lets go!" -- No, it would only happen after he strikes out on Beal, and KAT, and Sabonis, etc and then go...okay, lets go get the B player now, be better, have a less volatile asset and then when one of those guys is available in February, we pounce and are already 28-19, as opposed to 19-28, and then we REALLY make a run.
Personally, I am in agreement with most of you for the record. I would draft a guy this year, make smaller moves around the edges, do a sign and trade with Lonzo where we get a meh pick or two and a big exception, and go into the season with that. History says you are going to get much better value being a buyer in season than you would buying in the summer. I dont think any really good players will be moved this summer, and if they are the price will be enormous. But those same level of players will be available in February for 80 percent the price. Thats when I would make my big move. It means going into the season with Bledsoe, but I could stomach 40-45 games of that to get a better player at a better price
MM I know you're a big value guy, so let me put it this way. Not saying anything you don't already know, just trying to frame the argument.
draft picks are highly valued even in NBA circles not just because of the potential, but because it's really the only reliable source of cost controlled talent as well as cost controlled assets. You can't just compare pick 10 to Jerami Grant, you've got to compare pick 10 plus future cap space/flexibility to Jerami Grant. Unless you're getting a surefire ALL NBA guy or are just one piece away from turning the corner trading away equivalent value in potential is a difficult trigger to pull. And that player loses value the closer they get to the end of their contract nearly just as quickly as the draft pick does. The Bulls got Vuc for a reasonable price and I still think that was the wrong move for them. They were too worried about accelerating their timetable with Zach Lavine needing a new deal that they went too far imo.
Maybe Grant still wins, maybe he doesn't, but you've got to listen to your scouting department to determine just how highly they value pick 10 before you do anything. It just depends on how confident you are in the current core, or a future big trade to materialize to roll the dice. I'm sold on either, so I'd like to try and roll two 6s, however slim odds that may be, and just hope to fill the gaps with good between the margins moves that could also net positive value.
Personally I'm not sure how environment impacts a players development. It's impossible to ever really know. There are plenty of examples that you could use to make your argument both ways, maybe so-and-so player was impacted by playing for a bad coach on a young team with other development priorities, or maybe it would have taken him a long time to learn how not to suck wherever he went.
You have to also factor in your pillars on your roster. I think the 10th pick is far more valuable to the Pistons right now than it is to the Pelicans. Because they arent looking for a pillar any more, nor might they have the ability to develop him in the same way that a franchise with no pressure and a ton of shots and usage to give him can.
Look, if you start with the conclusion you want, you can make the argument on either side with valid examples - as you said. There is no absolute right way. If there were, every team would do it. I am just relaying what the vast majority around and inside the franchise every day think we will do. I said what I would do, so dont get the two confused. You dont have to sway me on the path of keeping the pick and shooting for the stars
Two economists were walking down the street and one said, "Look, there's a $100 bill on the sidewalk!" The other said, "That's absurd. If a $100 bill was on the sidewalk, then someone would have picked it up." And yet, sometimes there is a $100 bill on the sidewalk and sometimes there is a Mano Ginobili available in the second round. "Use the pick" CAN be better than "Trade the pick". OTOH the team could get the next Anthony Bennett, Greg Oden or Len Bias. What's better? Nobody knows.
You should be good since you announced going on the record....
"we might make dollars, but we don't necessarily make sense"
"always be sincere....whether you mean it or not"
Any way we can trade up to the top 2-3 and draft Suggs?
What?s more likely to happen...
1. We luck out in the lottery and get a top 4 pick and keep it
2. We get the 10th pick and keep it
3. We get the 10th pick and trade it along with future firsts for Player A
4. We get the 10th pick and trade it along with future picks to move into the top 6
Obviously option 2 is the most likely but for some reason I have a gut feeling this won?t be the case.
Contributor
I wish the NBA draft were more like the NFL one. But it seems like the only time trades like that get made is when the draft overall isn't very sound. I just want us to be at least 8th in the running. Can that still happen? I feel like 8th to the top 4 is feasible.
We’re currently 10th, while being a half game behind the kings and 1.5 games behind Chicago
Let's say Minnesota get top 3 pick. Would you trade BI for Beasley, Culver, McDaniels and top 3 pick to draft Suggs? I would.
From a value standpoint we would get better value from that trade, but we would also be giving away one of our better players for more developing prospects which would set the time line back even more. I would only want to trade Ingram if it were for a top 2 pick, which wouldn’t happen, or trade him along with another pick for an even better player. Like trading Ingram and picks for Tatum, which I would do.
It would certainly be a record of sorts.....
All Star Anthony Davis traded away before the 19-20 season.
All Star Jrue Holiday traded away before the 20-21 season.
All Star Brandon Ingram traded away before the 21-22 season?
That would be three All Stars in three years who were shipped out.
Yep, our farm system status is alive, well, and thriving
Lol I get what you're saying. I just see Suggs as a franchise PG. He reminds me so much of CP and Lowry but bigger and more athletic. He's a winner. More of a winner than BI. I think NAW/Zion/Hayes would enjoy going to battle with him every night. I believe he would transform the mentality of this team the second he walks through the door.
This would be one of the few trades I would consider moving BI for.....
http://www.espn.com/nba/tradeMachine?tradeId=yatuwezf
Trading a 23 year old, All Star, who can, and does, score at all three levels, for an untested rookie is way to rich for my tastes.
Bled, Kira
Beal, NAW
Kispert (through draft), Naji
Zion, Markkanen (sign and trade)
JAX, Olynyk (in free agency)
Move both Hart and Adams
Last edited by As I See It; 05-11-2021 at 02:00 PM.
True. I would be willing to set the timeline back for Suggs. I actually believe he would move the timeline up. I think he's a bigger impact player than BI.
The thing is once that rookie is a proven commodity that trade is no longer available. Like we probably could've traded Jrue to move up and take Lamelo, no longer an option. Seattle traded Ray Allen for Durant. Lakers traded Divac for Kobe. Once those players prove themselves that trade is no longer available. Kind of gotta trust your scouts and instincts to make the move. I would roll the dice on Suggs. I think he's better than BI when it comes to winning. Especially if we can get Beasley, Culver and McDaniels with him.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote