NBA DRAFT 2020 DISCUSSION

[MichaelMcNamara]

I think there is one limit regarding the "you should always take the BPA" approach : it overlooks the fact that rookies need playing time to develop.

It will not be a problem if most coaches weren't reluctant to send their rookies in g-League and instead of letting their young players play only in the garbage time (Gentry is one of them). You can't blame them neither. When you're head coach, sending one of your player in g-league is losing one of your back-up plan in case of injury or bad night from one of your rotation player.
It's always hard for most people to forfeit present in order to preserve future.

So I think the possibilty of playing time should still be a factor (even if not the major one) for selecting a player in the draft.

Playing time could also hurt the value of a player. I have studied the last twenty drafts for several pieces I have done and a few things become very clear:

1. Whoever you draft will likely not be on the team for his 2nd contract
2. Good Role players are almost never on the team that drafted them (Marcus Smart and Draymond are outliers)

With that in mind, when drafting around 12 or 13, you have two options history says -- Draft for someone who you think can become a star/quasi star OR draft a guy who could have more trade value in year 2 or 3 of his contract then he has when you draft him, package him with other assets for a star/quasi starter

The fact is that fans love the idea of drafting some guy at 12 who can become a solid 4th or 5th starter/role player, but history says that doesn't happen. There are several reasons why I won't go into in this post, but just look at history and know this is true. So, you either find your Kawhi or Devin Booker, etc -- a guy who has the potential to vastly outperform their draft spot and become a #1 or 2 option for your team....or you draft a guy who is raw and you can show little glimpses of here and there for the next two years and get someone excited as part of a package for a legit star. Think -- what Portland was trying to do with all the mythos around Anfernee Simons

Drafting a guy at 12 or 13 who will be your future 4th, 5th or 6th best player -- history says that won't happen. That guy could become a good role player down the line. A good 4th/5th man for someone else. But it is almost never for the team that drafted him

[Eman5805]

You've mentioned Killian Hayes. Do you see him as more of option 1 or option 2? And is he even likely to be there at 12ish?

[MichaelMcNamara]

You've mentioned Killian Hayes. Do you see him as more of option 1 or option 2? And is he even likely to be there at 12ish?

He, along with Edwards, are my favorite guards in this draft. I think he could be a #2 option on a very good team long term if he got taken by the right team. We would have to move on from Jrue for him to do that here. Not necessarily right away, but getting a guy like Hayes and then re-signing Jrue, extending Lonzo - would be pointless.

Besides, I cant see Hayes being there with a late lotto pick. Maybe we move into the top 4 and get lucky that way. Maybe we take our pick and future pick(s) if we love a guy and grab him. Only guys I would do that for in this draft are Hayes and maybe Edwards. But again, I'd have to have a Jrue trade lined up to recap that capital and give that guy real minutes no later than 2022

[Pelicanidae]

You've mentioned Killian Hayes. Do you see him as more of option 1 or option 2? And is he even likely to be there at 12ish?

I agree mostly with MM on this. Very difficult to see him dropping out of the top 10 unless there are some teams really trying to outsmart themselves. He's a 6'5 guard who shows legitimate shooting upside, decent enough team defense, and is a high level PnR operator; in a draft this weak with regards to top tier talent, there's no doubt he's right up among the top 3.

[Eman5805]

Interesting info. Kind of what I was trying to gather were how good do people think Hayes might be and generally how good is this draft. If a well regarded player still only projects as a key role player, then it doesn't say much for the overall quality of said draft.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Interesting info. Kind of what I was trying to gather were how good do people think Hayes might be and generally how good is this draft. If a well regarded player still only projects as a key role player, then it doesn't say much for the overall quality of said draft.

To give you an idea.... I think Hayes is about same tier as Coby White if he was in last years draft. More athletic, not as skilled

[Pelicanidae]

Interesting info. Kind of what I was trying to gather were how good do people think Hayes might be and generally how good is this draft. If a well regarded player still only projects as a key role player, then it doesn't say much for the overall quality of said draft.

It's been said a million times and it's still true; this draft has no real top tier talent in it.

Consensus #1 is tough because there's some disagreement this year, but most people have Anthony Edwards there as of right this moment. The reality is that if we were to skip ahead to the 2021 NBA draft right this second and add Edwards to it, he wouldn't go top 5, even without seeing next year's guys play college ball yet.

This year's draft has its strength in roleplayed depth. There are a bunch of guys in this class who will probably be solid NBA players for a bunch of years. Which is cool, the NBA needs role players too, but it still sucks that there's no high end elite talent here.

[Blattman]

Playing time could also hurt the value of a player. I have studied the last twenty drafts for several pieces I have done and a few things become very clear:

1. Whoever you draft will likely not be on the team for his 2nd contract
2. Good Role players are almost never on the team that drafted them (Marcus Smart and Draymond are outliers)

With that in mind, when drafting around 12 or 13, you have two options history says -- Draft for someone who you think can become a star/quasi star OR draft a guy who could have more trade value in year 2 or 3 of his contract then he has when you draft him, package him with other assets for a star/quasi starter

The fact is that fans love the idea of drafting some guy at 12 who can become a solid 4th or 5th starter/role player, but history says that doesn't happen. There are several reasons why I won't go into in this post, but just look at history and know this is true. So, you either find your Kawhi or Devin Booker, etc -- a guy who has the potential to vastly outperform their draft spot and become a #1 or 2 option for your team....or you draft a guy who is raw and you can show little glimpses of here and there for the next two years and get someone excited as part of a package for a legit star. Think -- what Portland was trying to do with all the mythos around Anfernee Simons

Drafting a guy at 12 or 13 who will be your future 4th, 5th or 6th best player -- history says that won't happen. That guy could become a good role player down the line. A good 4th/5th man for someone else. But it is almost never for the team that drafted him

I think you may only hurt the trade value of a player by giving him more playing time, not his actual value as basketball player. I may have time to make some study next week to see if there is a correlation between playing time in first 2 or 3 years of career and overall carreer outlook (for example by focusing on PER and carreer length) but I expect to be a strong correlation.

Also regarding the fact that players drafted tends to not stay in long term with the team that drafted them, it doesn't necessarily go against my point. The more you let the player play, the more he's likely to be better so either to stay or to be traded for more value.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I think you may only hurt the trade value of a player by giving him more playing time, not his actual value as basketball player. I may have time to make some study next week to see if there is a correlation between playing time in first 2 or 3 years of career and overall carreer outlook (for example by focusing on PER and carreer length) but I expect to be a strong correlation.

Also regarding the fact that players drafted tends to not stay in long term with the team that drafted them, it doesn't necessarily go against my point. The more you let the player play, the more he's likely to be better so either to stay or to be traded for more value.

There are examples of both cases. But my theory is that there aren't going to be any Donovon Mitchell or Devin Booker or Kawhi or Giannis 'Diamonds in the Rough' in this draft. So, what we would have to do is manufacture one, the way Portland was trying to do with Anfernee Simons. Basically, play a guy only in situations he will succeed, showcase him in his second Summer League, leak out stories that he is tearing it up in practice and scrimmages, etc. Have him have ridiculous per 36 numbers, etc etc

Again, remember when Roddy Beubois was a hot commodity on the trade market before he ever really played? Or there was a time when Jordan Farmar had high trade value. But their teams never moved them at the peak time and then eventually they played real minutes and got exposed.

If you think this is a bad draft (which I do) and there are no gems, then this could be a philosophy to get behind.

[LouisianaJoseph]

Was Kawhi scouted as a potential MVP? Or Giannis?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

[MichaelMcNamara]

Was Kawhi scouted as a potential MVP? Or Giannis?

Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk

Kawhi was a top 6 pick in every mock draft leading up to that draft and fell inexplicably on draft day. Giannis had no coverage of his games and few GMs had anything to go off of when selecting

But no, not even the most optimistic thought those guys would be future MVPs, so I get your point. However, in retrospect there are shared characteristics of those who vastly outperform their draft slot. Usually exceptional size/measurements and/or athleticism. Sometimes its an ultra elite skill (think Jokic's vision/playmaking or Draymonds bball IQ)

And yes, it is possible that someone in this draft has something that many of us will miss on the surface. It's also possible this is another 2000 draft. Or worse.

Personally, I think its an all time historically bad draft, filled with role players that will become solid role players for their 2nd or 3rd teams or guys that will straight up bust. But history does agree that there will be someone drafted after #12 that will have a significant impact in the league. But 15-20 teams will take that gamble and talk themselves into their guy being the diamond, and almost all of them (if not all) will be wrong. Rather than gamble, I'd play the odds and take the asset I think can have the most false value in a year or two and move them as part of a package for a surer thing

[Pelicanidae]

But no, not even the most optimistic thought those guys would be future MVPs, so I get your point. However, in retrospect there are shared characteristics of those who vastly outperform their draft slot. Usually exceptional size/measurements and/or athleticism. Sometimes its an ultra elite skill (think Jokic's vision/playmaking or Draymonds bball IQ)

I think that one of the skills or attributes which has historically been the least appreciated as a draft metric is functional strength. More recently, it's gained some prominence and that's good to see, but even just a few years ago it was something people didn't discuss often in the mainstream of the draft; when it did come up, it was usually in reference to people's 'in-gym strength', like their bench press or something.

When you think about top tier NBA players, there aren't many who are notably weak for their position. Of course there are some, but guys like Lebron, Harden, Kawhi, Embiid, Giannis, Lillard, etc, are all notably strong in ways that can be directly leveraged in-game. Even a bunch of high tier roleplayers and secondary stars, like Jrue, Lowry, Iguodala, Draymond, Van Vleet, Tony Allen, and Marcus Smart show that strength as well. Someone like Giannis added it as they gained muscle, but many of the others had it already coming in. Even some players like Curry who aren't outliers in their strength saw significant improvement in their game as they moved from negative to average: in Curry's case, he saw his finishing at the rim and his FTr improve around 2013-14 to career high levels and has held that new baseline consistently since.

So that's another thing I would recommend looking for when trying to diagnose who might actually work out well in the league: who has a high degree of functional strength that can actually be leveraged in-game?

[MichaelMcNamara]

I think that one of the skills or attributes which has historically been the least appreciated as a draft metric is functional strength. More recently, it's gained some prominence and that's good to see, but even just a few years ago it was something people didn't discuss often in the mainstream of the draft; when it did come up, it was usually in reference to people's 'in-gym strength', like their bench press or something.

When you think about top tier NBA players, there aren't many who are notably weak for their position. Of course there are some, but guys like Lebron, Harden, Kawhi, Embiid, Giannis, Lillard, etc, are all notably strong in ways that can be directly leveraged in-game. Even a bunch of high tier roleplayers and secondary stars, like Jrue, Lowry, Iguodala, Draymond, Van Vleet, Tony Allen, and Marcus Smart show that strength as well. Someone like Giannis added it as they gained muscle, but many of the others had it already coming in. Even some players like Curry who aren't outliers in their strength saw significant improvement in their game as they moved from negative to average: in Curry's case, he saw his finishing at the rim and his FTr improve around 2013-14 to career high levels and has held that new baseline consistently since.

So that's another thing I would recommend looking for when trying to diagnose who might actually work out well in the league: who has a high degree of functional strength that can actually be leveraged in-game?

I think thats fair....the issue is you are drafting most of these guys at 19, maybe 20 years old nowadays and projecting that is hard. Which is why teams trip over themselves when a guy comes in the league with an NBA ready body.

Kevin Durant couldnt bench 185 a single time. Giannis had no strength, even AD got pushed around like a little kid by Patric Young in his lone year at Kentucky and that is why he got the comparisons to Marcus Camby coming out. Dwight Howard had broad shoulders bt a lot of people advocated for Emeka over him because he had an NBA body and nobody knew for sure if Dwight would get there.

I just watched Heat-Spurs 2013 Finals and Kawhi was nothing like what he become by 2019 back then. Watched the Davidson Tournament game the other day too and my wife was dying laughing at how tiny Curry looked. And while some of the guys do develop that functional strength, there are far more who dont and I just dont know how you predict that. In addition, if a guy already has the functional strength -- that is where a lot of busts occur. Because those guys had an advantage against kids that they wont have against men.

If I had to bet a guy on developing it in this draft, it would probably be Cole Anthony. The guy is just a dog and has a mentality similar to Donovon Mitchell. If he gets to the right team, he will be the guy taken in the lotto or mid teens that exceeds his draft slot

[Pelicanidae]

I think thats fair....the issue is you are drafting most of these guys at 19, maybe 20 years old nowadays and projecting that is hard. Which is why teams trip over themselves when a guy comes in the league with an NBA ready body.

Kevin Durant couldnt bench 185 a single time. Giannis had no strength, even AD got pushed around like a little kid by Patric Young in his lone year at Kentucky and that is why he got the comparisons to Marcus Camby coming out. Dwight Howard had broad shoulders bt a lot of people advocated for Emeka over him because he had an NBA body and nobody knew for sure if Dwight would get there.

I just watched Heat-Spurs 2013 Finals and Kawhi was nothing like what he become by 2019 back then. Watched the Davidson Tournament game the other day too and my wife was dying laughing at how tiny Curry looked. And while some of the guys do develop that functional strength, there are far more who dont and I just dont know how you predict that. In addition, if a guy already has the functional strength -- that is where a lot of busts occur. Because those guys had an advantage against kids that they wont have against men.

If I had to bet a guy on developing it in this draft, it would probably be Cole Anthony. The guy is just a dog and has a mentality similar to Donovon Mitchell. If he gets to the right team, he will be the guy taken in the lotto or mid teens that exceeds his draft slot

It's definitely true that a lot of guys are in early stages of their physical development, and that's why you have to evaluate if they have the frame that seems like it could build strength. Giannis, KD, AD, all good examples of guys who built their functional strength through the first several years of their careers. But it does mean that, all other things being equal, having good and obvious positive strength at that young age is a good thing and is a good thing to look for; lacking it doesn't disqualify you, but having it certainly does bump you up a bit.

I agree that Cole Anthony is a fairly good bet in this regard, but a large part of why that is is that he's already got a pretty good physical base; his core strength has issues, but his base is really good and its part of why he's actually had a better defensive season than many people expected from him at the same time as he's disappointed offensively somewhat.

As for what you say regarding busts, I think that's true to some extent but when I say outlier strength for their position, I mean that at the NBA level as well; take someone like Zion (who I am choosing because he is the most obvious possible recent example) who had ridiculous outlier strength in college, and it was clear that it was so much above the competition that it would translate positively to the NBA. Guys who are on quite that level are rare, but there are plenty of guys who are so much stronger than their college competition that it would be surprising if they weren't at least strong positives at the NBA level as well, barring anything strange happening. A good example of that this year would be Okoro, who has plenty of concerns, but his physical development isn't one of them. He's very strong, is a clear 3 position defender, and I'm confident that his strength will continue to be good enough to rank positively even when he takes the step up to the league.

[MichaelMcNamara]

It's definitely true that a lot of guys are in early stages of their physical development, and that's why you have to evaluate if they have the frame that seems like it could build strength. Giannis, KD, AD, all good examples of guys who built their functional strength through the first several years of their careers. But it does mean that, all other things being equal, having good and obvious positive strength at that young age is a good thing and is a good thing to look for; lacking it doesn't disqualify you, but having it certainly does bump you up a bit.

I agree that Cole Anthony is a fairly good bet in this regard, but a large part of why that is is that he's already got a pretty good physical base; his core strength has issues, but his base is really good and its part of why he's actually had a better defensive season than many people expected from him at the same time as he's disappointed offensively somewhat.

As for what you say regarding busts, I think that's true to some extent but when I say outlier strength for their position, I mean that at the NBA level as well; take someone like Zion (who I am choosing because he is the most obvious possible recent example) who had ridiculous outlier strength in college, and it was clear that it was so much above the competition that it would translate positively to the NBA. Guys who are on quite that level are rare, but there are plenty of guys who are so much stronger than their college competition that it would be surprising if they weren't at least strong positives at the NBA level as well, barring anything strange happening. A good example of that this year would be Okoro, who has plenty of concerns, but his physical development isn't one of them. He's very strong, is a clear 3 position defender, and I'm confident that his strength will continue to be good enough to rank positively even when he takes the step up to the league.

I have never got the Okoro hype. You are correct with his body but he has shown me nothing offensively to make me think he can be anything on that end

Paul George, Kawhi, Jaylen Brown, etc were all fairly raw on that end in college but you saw the skills. They just needed to be refined. Okoro looks like Andre Roberson out there. I would even put his offense behind Thybulle. And he was an all time defensive prospect but still fell to the 20s because of the offense. And I genuinely believe Okoro is worse. He is the perfect example of people trying to elevate a guy in this draft just because they wanna believe there has to be some legit wing prospect

[Pelicanidae]

I have never got the Okoro hype. You are correct with his body but he has shown me nothing offensively to make me think he can be anything on that end

Paul George, Kawhi, Jaylen Brown, etc were all fairly raw on that end in college but you saw the skills. They just needed to be refined. Okoro looks like Andre Roberson out there. I would even put his offense behind Thybulle. And he was an all time defensive prospect but still fell to the 20s because of the offense. And I genuinely believe Okoro is worse. He is the perfect example of people trying to elevate a guy in this draft just because they wanna believe there has to be some legit wing prospect

I don't know how much Okoro you've watched, so I don't want to suggest that it's a sample size issue, but from what you're saying it does sound to me like maybe you watched more early season Okoro than late.

It's clear that he is not a shooter, whatsoever, but he's made very impressive strides as a ballhandler, passer, and finisher throughout the season. He ranks in the 97th percentile in isolation efficiency, is in the 84th percentile (iirc) in half-court finishing at the rim, and might be the best wing passer in the class when it comes to functionally reading real defenses and making real plays in the half-court. Of course that does depend on what you consider a 'wing', since Okoro and Ball are the same height and obviously Ball is a superior passer.

There are obvious question marks about his game, that's indisputable. The fact is, he can't shoot and that's a big issue for a wing. He's also not a nuclear athlete (although I do think he's a clearly good athlete). If he gets drafted into the NBA by some team determined to try and use him as a 3&D guy, he will not succeed and he will look bad. But he's a good wing passer, a solid team defender, a very good 1v1 defender, and a legitimately talented finisher.

I don't think it's a case of anyone trying to elevate anyone. If people were speculating that Okoro was some kind of generational prospect, or some guaranteed top 50 player or something then you'd be right because he isn't those things, but this is a weak draft and it seems clear that he's done enough and shown enough to be worthy of a top 15 pick. If he was in the 2021 draft, things would be different because more competition would push him down, but he doesn't have that issue this year.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I don't know how much Okoro you've watched, so I don't want to suggest that it's a sample size issue, but from what you're saying it does sound to me like maybe you watched more early season Okoro than late.

It's clear that he is not a shooter, whatsoever, but he's made very impressive strides as a ballhandler, passer, and finisher throughout the season. He ranks in the 97th percentile in isolation efficiency, is in the 84th percentile (iirc) in half-court finishing at the rim, and might be the best wing passer in the class when it comes to functionally reading real defenses and making real plays in the half-court. Of course that does depend on what you consider a 'wing', since Okoro and Ball are the same height and obviously Ball is a superior passer.

There are obvious question marks about his game, that's indisputable. The fact is, he can't shoot and that's a big issue for a wing. He's also not a nuclear athlete (although I do think he's a clearly good athlete). If he gets drafted into the NBA by some team determined to try and use him as a 3&D guy, he will not succeed and he will look bad. But he's a good wing passer, a solid team defender, a very good 1v1 defender, and a legitimately talented finisher.

I don't think it's a case of anyone trying to elevate anyone. If people were speculating that Okoro was some kind of generational prospect, or some guaranteed top 50 player or something then you'd be right because he isn't those things, but this is a weak draft and it seems clear that he's done enough and shown enough to be worthy of a top 15 pick. If he was in the 2021 draft, things would be different because more competition would push him down, but he doesn't have that issue this year.

I was in love with Okeke last year, watched plenty of Auburn both years and Okoro isnt in the same league. Not even close.

And stats--- I did away with those when my eyes got good enough to not have to rely on them. You can throw isolation this and efficiency that out there but I bet I can find bad NBA players who have outlier numbers as well, especially when they are lower usage

You give the ball to Okoro and ask him to create for himself or others against a real defender and he will look goofy as F

You go ahead and bet on him, I wouldn't. And I have been wrong in the past. We all have. But I have learned to not reach when my eyes tell me the truth. I used to love numbers back in the day and all the second half of the season numbers were telling me Kendall Marshall had turned the corner and he was gonna be a good starting PG. When you start with wanting to believe something, you can create whatever narrative you want with numbers. I bet if i offered you 10K to show me why Okoro will bust with numbers, you could do that easily.

Numbers are a short cut the first few years of studying the game. By your use of them, I would guess you are in year 5, maybe 6 or 7 of being a hard core NBA fan. And this is not an insult, not a diss. We all go through the same trajectory. But as you get older you realize the eyes tell the truth and people use the numbers to create the narrative they want to be true. Just my two cents. I expect a defensive reaction, but in 5-10 years, just do your part and tell this to the next up and coming guy who is smart, but relies on the numbers just a little too much

[Pelicanidae]

Just my two cents. I expect a defensive reaction, but in 5-10 years, just do your part and tell this to the next up and coming guy who is smart, but relies on the numbers just a little too much

No defensive reaction. I disagree with you, that's all. I think you're relying too much on your eye test, you think I'm relying too much on the numbers. We both probably accept that there are flaws to using raw advanced stats and flaws to using the eye test. Everyone's just trying to find their balance.

The fact is, the eye test is only ever as good as the eyes doing the test and the brain that's doing the evaluation. It's very easy to miss stuff, to misinterpret stuff, or to just not have very good judgement. Similarly, the numbers on their own also miss certain things, they tend to overstate other things, and it's perfectly possible to have great numbers in certain categories that aren't actually that impactful. It's not really useful to throw out one or the other, in my opinion.

I do find the kind of condescending tone you tend to take with stuff like this to be a little pointless and, well, condescending, but hey. That's Michael McNamara. It's part of the brand; if you went a full day without it you'd probably combust.

[KevinDavis1022]

There are examples of both cases. But my theory is that there aren't going to be any Donovon Mitchell or Devin Booker or Kawhi or Giannis 'Diamonds in the Rough' in this draft. So, what we would have to do is manufacture one, the way Portland was trying to do with Anfernee Simons. Basically, play a guy only in situations he will succeed, showcase him in his second Summer League, leak out stories that he is tearing it up in practice and scrimmages, etc. Have him have ridiculous per 36 numbers, etc etc

Again, remember when Roddy Beubois was a hot commodity on the trade market before he ever really played? Or there was a time when Jordan Farmar had high trade value. But their teams never moved them at the peak time and then eventually they played real minutes and got exposed.

If you think this is a bad draft (which I do) and there are no gems, then this could be a philosophy to get behind.

Jesus H Christ, I forgot all about Beubois. I still remember that timeframe when teams just salivated over him. Then.....

[Blattman]

Actually Beaubois was a hot commodity after his rookie year in which he averaged 7ppg with 59%eFG in 12mpg for 56 games (16 start). It's because he got opportunity to play in his first year that his value was at an all time high.

For Kawhi he was never expected to be this good. Scouts projected him as a 3&D potential player not MVP caliber, there was also plenty of doubt regarding his ability to be good since he never faced high competitive environment that's why he slipped in a weak draft.

[MichaelMcNamara]

Actually Beaubois was a hot commodity after his rookie year in which he averaged 7ppg with 59%eFG in 12mpg for 56 games (16 start). It's because he got opportunity to play in his first year that his value was at an all time high.

For Kawhi he was never expected to be this good. Scouts projected him as a 3&D potential player not MVP caliber, there was also plenty of doubt regarding his ability to be good since he never faced high competitive environment that's why he slipped in a weak draft.

That's the exact kind of fake opportunity I an talking about. Very very limited minutes in perfect situations for them to shine. Makes it look like if they got more minutes and opportunities, they would be a beast. That was Portlands plan with Simmons this year but injuries forced them to use him a little more than they wanted to and now the mystique has worn off a bit

[Blattman]

That's the exact kind of fake opportunity I an talking about. Very very limited minutes in perfect situations for them to shine. Makes it look like if they got more minutes and opportunities, they would be a beast. That was Portlands plan with Simmons this year but injuries forced them to use him a little more than they wanted to and now the mystique has worn off a bit

My bad, I took too literraly your "before he ever really played".

So, you do agree that even if you go BPA you have to create minutes for your rookie if you want him to have any trade value.

[MichaelMcNamara]

My bad, I took too literraly your "before he ever really played".

So, you do agree that even if you go BPA you have to create minutes for your rookie if you want him to have any trade value.

I think, in the first two years - yes. Not necessarily his rookie year. Beaubois was probably a little better (or NBA ready) than an avg guy his age because he played with men overseas

But yes, I would take a guy that I could see getting minutes to in the first two years. A guy who can finish in the paint when attention his elsewhere and hit a catch and shoot 3. Thats where you can fudge the numbers. If a guy is a 4th or 5th option on a unit, and attacks when the lane is open and/or is the beneficiary of open 3's, the eFG will be inflated and the per 36 numbers could look insane.

To have immense value, the guy should also probably be a multi positional defender. This is why I would hesitate to take a guy like Maxey. Even if he starts knocking down the 3 ball in his limited minutes, I don't know if teams would see him as a possible future quasi All Star because of his size (yes, I know he hasn't decent length but he cant guard most 2's). Conversely, I think if you take a guy like RJ Hampton and he shows flashes, teams can talk themselves into this former high recruit, who took an odd path to the NBA and is now showing promise, could be a star.

[ml wave]

Are there examples of teams actually trading one of these "productive in limited minutes" guys? It seems much easier for a team to convince themselves of the thing they're trying to convince other teams of and wind up never trading him (Beaubois).

[MichaelMcNamara]

Are there examples of teams actually trading one of these "productive in limited minutes" guys? It seems much easier for a team to convince themselves of the thing they're trying to convince other teams of and wind up never trading him (Beaubois).

So, the all time example is Jermaine O'Neal. Now, we all know the Pacers won the trade, but when it happened the NBA world couldn't believe the Blazers got playoff vet Dale Davis for some kid who barely got playing time over his first 4 years

Davis was a walking double double, had just made his first All Star team and just helped lead the Pacers to the Finals the previous year. Meanwhile, O'Neal had only played a grand total of 2400 minutes in 4 seasons in Portland. This was the first example of this kind of deal I can remember.

Usually, teams don't pull the trigger because they too get excited about the upside of the young guy they have. Almost all NBA GM's are optimists. And/or they are risk adverse. They don't want to be the dummy who sent out the 21 year old kid who becomes a star. But history has shown that teams could have gotten decent hauls for guys if they traded them at the right time instead of holding out for the potential.

For example, I know for a fact we had two very good offers on the table for Julian Wright after his rookie year. He hit more 3's that year than the rest of his career combined. He showed playmaking skills in small bursts, and was long and active. Magic offered Redick, Courtney Lee, and a future pick at one point for Wright and Mo Pete

But, we believed in his potential and upside and settled for Belinelli, who was fine for us but had one foot out the league at that point - to give you an idea of Wrights value when we finally moved him.

TLDR; No it doesn't happen a ton, but that's because teams get attached and optimistic too. My theory is to go into the pick knowing you will trade him in 12-18 months and build a plan around that. Don't get attached and find a way to inflate his productivity. Then, trade at peak value