Rumor - Pelicans listening to offers for #8

[Blattman]

I am acknowledging history. It’s how you choose to parse the info.

The simple way to do it is go “Here are the results of the 15th pick…4 all stars, 8 busts, 3 role players…therefore….”

And I say simple because that’s how simple minded people do it (not talking about you. This has been a beef of mine for decades)

But a smart person would go… “At pick X, there is an average of Y All Stars on the board ACCORDING TO DRAFT HISTORY “

So I am looking at history. Just in a way a smart person should do it. Not the way most simpletons do

Interesting to call professional writer such as K.Pelton as simpleton but I guess you must have proven to be so superior to people like him :
https://mobile.twitter.com/kpelton/s...881344?lang=fr
Your point is valid to me except how do you model the difference of having 1 and 2 picks in this case ? So it's not a perfect way to assess pick value either or do you argue that having the 8 is better than having 9 and 10 top?

[PELICANSFAN]

Interesting to call professional writer such as K.Pelton as simpleton but I guess you must have proven to be so superior to people like him :
https://mobile.twitter.com/kpelton/s...881344?lang=fr
Your point is valid to me except how do you model the difference of having 1 and 2 picks in this case ? So it's not a perfect way to assess pick value either or do you argue that having the 8 is better than having 9 and 10 top?

Often found that "trade chart" that he designed a bit odd as even he says that teams trading up almost always seem to "overpay" when trading up. If that is the case, shouldn't the chart be updated?

[MichaelMcNamara]

His chart, as many others have the same faulty premise. They start with the basis of where guys went as opposed to where they were available. So, yes, I would say he is clearly wrong in this example and would bet I could convince him of it if I still had the pod and brought him on again. According to this chart, 8 and 9 should get you pick #1 and no team would ever do that. Ever. You wanna give up #8 for 21 and 22???

[MichaelMcNamara]

To me, the best argument for trading down is exactly what I said above -- that the Pels have a far better roster than the average lotto team and therefore have a better chance of bringing along a guy slowly that can have impact, who otherwise would flame out if given too much to do.

But I would be wary having too many guys on the same rookie contract timeline. I wouldnt do 8 for 13 and 15 unless I could trade 15 for a future first. I would prefer 8 for 11 and the Mavs 2023 pick (or even better a further out Knicks pick). I wouldnt do 8 for 12 and 30. But rather, have the Thunder give me one of the further out Clippers or Rockets picks.

I dont think you can walk out of this draft with more than one first round rookie. A second rounder is a different contract, could even be a two way, so that is fine. But adding two more first round contracts doesnt make sense IMO.

[AusPel]

And require a trade to open a roster spot

[MichaelMcNamara]

Well, I think part of 8 for 13 and 15 would be Griffin making them take Temple too. But yeah

[new city champ]

Yet teams continue to make multiple first round picks and don’t show a strong aversion to doing so. Do you think the Spurs will opt out of any of their three first rounders in this draft? BTW, I believe I understand your second contract argument.

On pick valuations, there seems to be some flaw in your theory. Of course if you, say, trade down from 10 to 15 you are reducing the pool of talent you are selecting from by 5 prospects (or 12% in a 60-person draft), thus in theory reducing your opportunity to select a better player. However, if a sample size of 15 or 20 years of drafts shows that teams are routinely selecting the better player despite drawing from a slightly smaller set of possibilities, it strongly suggests that—in practice— the penalty for forfeiting a few selections is often relatively minor, at least in that part of the draft. I suspect that is because, outside of the top tier of choices, correctly differentiating the future value of prospects quickly becomes a much more random exercise, but you’ve probably looked into that more closely than I have.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Yet teams continue to make multiple first round picks and don’t show a strong aversion to doing so. Do you think the Spurs will opt out of any of their three first rounders in this draft? BTW, I believe I understand your second contract argument.

On pick valuations, there seems to be some flaw in your theory. Of course if you, say, trade down from 10 to 15 you are reducing the pool of talent you are selecting from by 5 prospects (or 12% in a 60-person draft), thus in theory reducing your opportunity to select a better player. However, if a sample size of 15 or 20 years of drafts shows that teams are routinely selecting the better player despite drawing from a slightly smaller set of possibilities, it strongly suggests that—in practice— the penalty for forfeiting a few selections is often relatively minor, at least in that part of the draft. I suspect that is because, outside of the top tier of choices, correctly differentiating the future value of prospects quickly becomes a much more random exercise, but you’ve probably looked into that more closely than I have.

I agree IF you believe teams will keep making those draft mistakes. Personally, I think they are getting smarter and most teams now know the places where opportunities could be found.

The way I would do it if I were a GM is I would never trade down prior to my selection. I would only have guys I think are my breakout guys and then select the highest one on my board at my pick. Then, when NY or OKC comes up and I know one of my other guys is there, then I would be willing to trade the player I selected if they were interested in them. No chance I would blindly agree to a trade of 8 down to 11, 12, or 13 unless I knew 100% that one of my other guys was there. Now, I know this could cost me some opportunites if I take Mathurin and OKC was interested in say Griffin, but so be it. I am willing to risk that to ensure I always get a guy on my breakout list.

[fullcourtpress]

I am acknowledging history. It?s how you choose to parse the info.

The simple way to do it is go ?Here are the results of the 15th pick?4 all stars, 8 busts, 3 role players?therefore?.?

And I say simple because that?s how simple minded people do it (not talking about you. This has been a beef of mine for decades)

But a smart person would go? ?At pick X, there is an average of Y All Stars on the board ACCORDING TO DRAFT HISTORY ?

So I am looking at history. Just in a way a smart person should do it. Not the way most simpletons do

Thats pretty smart. And correct. But considering our management has shown flaws in judgement (as they all do) I'd almost venture to say that the odds are so great that they miss the pick that they'd be better off having two of them. But then again Cedric Simmons and Hilton Armstrong still haunt me

[MichaelMcNamara]

Thats pretty smart. And correct. But considering our management has shown flaws in judgement (as they all do) I'd almost venture to say that the odds are so great that they miss the pick that they'd be better off having two of them. But then again Cedric Simmons and Hilton Armstrong still haunt me

But its not the same lotto ticket. So its not really having "two of them"

To me, pick 8 is like a 10 dollar scratch off with a 15% chance of a big prize, 50% of a decent prize

Pick 13 is a 5 dollar scratcher with 10% of a big prize, 40% of a decent prize

Pick 15 is 9% big prize, 40% decent prize.

(Just random numbers for sake of the argument)

On the surface, it looks like 13 and 15 is the play, and I agree it is if you want the best chance at getting at least one role play/fringe starter. But to me, that isn't the goal of the draft. The goal is to get the type of players you can't get elsewhere. The guy New Orleans will never sign via FA, the guy who costs 5x the equity of your pick when he comes up via trade. It's not to go get two solid role players who you either have to overpay or lose for their 2nd contract.

[neworleanshoo]

Ultimately I'm with Mac that I'd rather have one higher-percentage chance at the "big prize" than 2 lower-percentage chances at it. But I see the validity of both arguments. The higher the pick, the better your odds will always be at landing the big prize. But with 2 cracks at it at bit lower down, there's a better chance you'll defy the odds on at least one of them and wind up with a surprise gem.

I'm for staying put and drafting Daniels (or getting lucky with Sharpe dropping to us).

[Rheem654]

Givony just said that OKC is enamored with Sharpe...and Sharpe has OKC at the top of his preferred teams...

ESPN draft analyst @DraftExpress dropped 2 OKC nuggets:

OKC has studied Shaedon Sharpe more than any team.

OKC is at the top of Sharpe?s list of preferred teams.

I?d be shocked if Sharpe fell to 12, but if he starts dropping, gotta wonder if he?s in play for a trade up.

— Brandon Rahbar (@BrandonRahbar) June 11, 2022

[pelafanatic]

Is there a world where they pick him at 2

[Rheem654]

[PELICANSFAN]

Is there a world where they pick him at 2

Not a chance. I could see a move up to 7 with Portland as a possibility.

[AusPel]

That last sentence is confusing. Simultaneously says his camp isn't concerned where he goes but wants to steer him in a certain direction, namely OKC. Which one is it?

[MG3n2K9]

But its not the same lotto ticket. So its not really having "two of them"

To me, pick 8 is like a 10 dollar scratch off with a 15% chance of a big prize, 50% of a decent prize

Pick 13 is a 5 dollar scratcher with 10% of a big prize, 40% of a decent prize

Pick 15 is 9% big prize, 40% decent prize.

(Just random numbers for sake of the argument)

On the surface, it looks like 13 and 15 is the play, and I agree it is if you want the best chance at getting at least one role play/fringe starter. But to me, that isn't the goal of the draft. The goal is to get the type of players you can't get elsewhere. The guy New Orleans will never sign via FA, the guy who costs 5x the equity of your pick when he comes up via trade. It's not to go get two solid role players who you either have to overpay or lose for their 2nd contract.

I tend to translate NBA draft picks to NFL Round equivalent as far as what I expect from the players , roughly every 4 picks equal one NFL Round.

1-4 = Round 1
5-8 = Round 2
9-12 = Round 3
13-16 = Round 4
17-20 = Round 5
21-24 = Round 6
25-28 = Round 7
29-60 = Undrafted Free Agents

The big difference is that NBA has a smaller roster size & the impact that one player can have on a team.
For that reason I favor drafting guys who might be that impact player (if he is there) rather than trading down for multiple players that can fill some holes on he roster.

[tdcreator]

I tend to think of the draft as what we need now and in the future skill set wise. Talent and upside also go into it. Sharpe and Maturin should fit an immediate need of spot up shooting from the guard spot. Now if we are lucky the one we get would eventually replace CJ. Daniels maybe could be the same with a little more defense and ball handling. If we were to drop down, Dieng is all upside future pick which I’m ok with but doesn’t really help us now since he’d be behind BI, Trey, and Herb. Abaji is a guy that could come in but think he’d be a roll player at the guard in the Hart mold. Beyond that everything is maybe upside future pick so if we don’t get these guys, I’m in favor of trading down and even out of the draft if during visits we don’t see something we like. Get a couple more seconds, send me hem to Europe, G-league, or 2 way. A few guys I’d love to see us grab and develop are Besson, Koloko, Leonard Miller, and JD Davison. Let them play it out in summer league and keep 2 for 2-way and send 2 overseas or wherever.

[Freyfamilyreuni]

That last sentence is confusing. Simultaneously says his camp isn't concerned where he goes but wants to steer him in a certain direction, namely OKC. Which one is it?

They're not saying they're not overly concerned with where he goes. They're saying they're not overly concerned with where he's picked. So in other words, they're good if he gets drafted later by a preferred team.

[AusPel]

They're not saying they're not overly concerned with where he goes. They're saying they're not overly concerned with where he's picked. So in other words, they're good if he gets drafted later by a preferred team.

Now I read it again, the 'where' in this context meant pick position, rather than destination. That makes sense

[kinglio21093]

That last sentence is confusing. Simultaneously says his camp isn't concerned where he goes but wants to steer him in a certain direction, namely OKC. Which one is it?

The main reason why I'm iffy on Sharpe. After all the nonsense with Zion drama and his "camp" I don't want to deal with that again. It's just not worth it. It's kinda worth it because Zion is so proven and generational. We don't know what Sharpe is going to be. There are better options out there.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Haliburton and his camp dictated where he went. All guys have a camp. All camps steer things. You just hear about some and not others. Herbs camp steered him away from several teams. He too much drama for you?

[AusPel]

Why Sactown tho?

I realise not the only franchise, but still

[pelafanatic]

Haliburton and his camp dictated where he went. All guys have a camp. All camps steer things. You just hear about some and not others. Herbs camp steered him away from several teams. He too much drama for you?

The Pels had no idea why he was falling and were considering passing on him at 13 because they were afraid of the unknown reasoning behind the fall.

[AusPel]

The Pels had no idea why he was falling and were considering passing on him at 13 because they were afraid of the unknown reasoning behind the fall.

I'm fairly sure it was draft him then trade to Dallas