The Chicago Bulls select forward Patrick Williams #4 overall.

[PaKii94]

I’ll skip over your hypo and focus on the two levels of decision making to grade AK on.

Level 1 is placing Patrick Williams 4th. I think most people are fine giving AK that benefit of the doubt here (I’m not personally). Now you are taking him, but by luck other teams want him desperately and are willing to offer multiple picks in exchange. This is the Level 2 decision.

AK likes him best of the bunch but should see a good opportunity for 7/16 where he can get a similarly rated player plus another decent pick. Apparently, AK rated Williams significantly higher than the other guys such that he didn’t want two cracks at it instead of one.

So people don’t like that second decision of over valuing the one guy over the trade down.

I understand the reasoning for trading down... I was advocating for it. I'm just saying there wasn't a good opportunity. You keep bringing up detroit's picks but the only reason to move up for them was to get ahead of us to take PWILL. As soon as they get the indication you aren't selecting PWILL then there is no reason to trade up.

Maybe there were other opportunities but would you then trade down into the teens? Idk. AK didn't seem like it was worth while and we didn't get rumors for other trade downs. Only the detroit trade up rumor to get above us

Eh, I'm not sure that logic follows. Detroit could trade up to take P-Will known that the Bulls will take him if they don't do the trade - but that the Bulls value 7+16 more than P-Will. Basically, they'd make the decision that cjbulls is criticizing AK for making.

Even if they valued 7+16 more than PWill, that wasn't an option if they weren't selecting PWill. Because the only reason 7+16 was on the table is to trade up to select PWill BEFORE the bulls. If the bulls aren't selecting PWill why would detroit trade up for nothing?

[PaKii94]

I understand the reasoning for trading down... I was advocating for it. I'm just saying there wasn't a good opportunity. You keep bringing up detroit's picks but the only reason to move up for them was to get ahead of us to take PWILL. As soon as they get the indication you aren't selecting PWILL then there is no reason to trade up.

Well we were taking Williams. If we were willing to trade down it doesn't mean we won't take Williams, it means we are willing to take someone else for enough compensation. So the question is do we feel Williams is worth more than the other two guys we could have had. AK says no. Most other people say yes. Most other people say Williams was not even the right guy to take at #4.

I suspect no matter which player was selected at 4, "most people" would have preferred to trade down and "most people" would have preferred they take someone else.

Of course, that doesn't make the answers right or wrong, just something that I think is interesting to consider.

I was #1 in the trade down camp! I'm just saying there is no guarantees there WAS any good trade down options. Obviously AK didn't think so. The detroit trade down WASN'T an option for us.

[PhilLeotardo]

^^Luckily Williams still has a solid two whole years of physical grow left, and actually plays defense

[jump]

I understand the reasoning for trading down... I was advocating for it. I'm just saying there wasn't a good opportunity. You keep bringing up detroit's picks but the only reason to move up for them was to get ahead of us to take PWILL. As soon as they get the indication you aren't selecting PWILL then there is no reason to trade up.

Well we were taking Williams. If we were willing to trade down it doesn't mean we won't take Williams, it means we are willing to take someone else for enough compensation. So the question is do we feel Williams is worth more than the other two guys we could have had. AK says no. Most other people say yes. Most other people say Williams was not even the right guy to take at #4.

I suspect no matter which player was selected at 4, "most people" would have preferred to trade down and "most people" would have preferred they take someone else.

Of course, that doesn't make the answers right or wrong, just something that I think is interesting to consider.

Furthermore, as Doug pointed out earlier in this thread, AK has had a much closer look at PW in recent weeks than most people. He’s certainly not making his decision solely on videos from seven months ago, as most people are.

[Indomitable]

Then again, most of us have kind of forgotten, but the reason we went all-in on Dougie was because he kicked butt on the USA select team and everybody present (including Thibs) thought him some combo of Korver with a post game.

He was already drafted then. And literally nobody here knows how he looked in that setting.

This guy is the complete opposite of Doug. Barely any college resume to speak of but apparently wowing people in workouts. Doug was nothing but gaudy college numbers.

I hated the Doug pick.

[PhilLeotardo]

Also, McDermott had his development destroyed on those Thibs teams, which weren’t very good developmental systems, and were in the process of crashing & burning. He could’ve had a better first few years of Nba play had he been drafted to a team that took their time to develop guys

We’ve actually seen him become a solid player in Ind. He had it in him to be better & is more athletic than he’s given credit for, but that team he was drafted to was coming apart at the seams/becoming toxic very rapidly

[cjbulls]

Also, McDermott had his development destroyed on those Thibs teams, which weren’t very good developmental systems, and were in the process of crashing & burning. He could’ve had a better first few years of Nba play had he been drafted to a team that took their time to develop guys

We’ve actually seen him become a solid player in Ind. He had it in him to be better & is more athletic than he’s given credit for, but that team he was drafted to was coming apart at the seams/becoming toxic very rapidly

Both Thibs and Skiles had that crash and burn system. It really worked well with some guys and really failed with others. I still don’t know if it was right or wrong.

[chefo]

Then again, most of us have kind of forgotten, but the reason we went all-in on Dougie was because he kicked butt on the USA select team and everybody present (including Thibs) thought him some combo of Korver with a post game.

He was already drafted then. And literally nobody here knows how he looked in that setting.

This guy is the complete opposite of Doug. Barely any college resume to speak of but apparently wowing people in workouts. Doug was nothing but gaudy college numbers.

I must be misremembering something. A bit hazy, but there was some kind of team USA event in Vegas where Thibs was coaching when Dougie was about to go into his last year in college and I think Dre Drummond and somebody else, I think Harrison Barnes, sang him praises for holding his own, being one of the better shooters in the camp, and having great offensive moves. Most of guys in that camp were NBA all-stars. Maybe I'm mixing up the events, but I thought that's when everybody started associating Dougie with the Bulls because word was Thibs was impressed. I thought that was pre-draft. Possible I'm wrong.

[MGB8]

I understand the reasoning for trading down... I was advocating for it. I'm just saying there wasn't a good opportunity. You keep bringing up detroit's picks but the only reason to move up for them was to get ahead of us to take PWILL. As soon as they get the indication you aren't selecting PWILL then there is no reason to trade up.

Maybe there were other opportunities but would you then trade down into the teens? Idk. AK didn't seem like it was worth while and we didn't get rumors for other trade downs. Only the detroit trade up rumor to get above us

Eh, I'm not sure that logic follows. Detroit could trade up to take P-Will known that the Bulls will take him if they don't do the trade - but that the Bulls value 7+16 more than P-Will. Basically, they'd make the decision that cjbulls is criticizing AK for making.

Even if they valued 7+16 more than PWill, that wasn't an option if they weren't selecting PWill. Because the only reason 7+16 was on the table is to trade up to select PWill BEFORE the bulls. If the bulls aren't selecting PWill why would detroit trade up for nothing?

Because if the Pistons fail to trade up, the Bulls would in fact take PWill. But if they trade up, they can have him at the cost of the extra pick (assuming the Bulls valued that more).

So the bottom line would be that if Detroit wanted P-Will, they'd have to either trade up ahead of the Bulls or induce the Bulls to pass on taking him by offering enough value that the Bulls would prefer that value over drafting PWill.

[PaKii94]

Eh, I'm not sure that logic follows. Detroit could trade up to take P-Will known that the Bulls will take him if they don't do the trade - but that the Bulls value 7+16 more than P-Will. Basically, they'd make the decision that cjbulls is criticizing AK for making.

Even if they valued 7+16 more than PWill, that wasn't an option if they weren't selecting PWill. Because the only reason 7+16 was on the table is to trade up to select PWill BEFORE the bulls. If the bulls aren't selecting PWill why would detroit trade up for nothing?

Because if the Pistons fail to trade up, the Bulls would in fact take PWill. But if they trade up, they can have him at the cost of the extra pick (assuming the Bulls valued that more).

So the bottom line would be that if Detroit wanted P-Will, they'd have to either trade up ahead of the Bulls or induce the Bulls to pass on taking him by offering enough value that the Bulls would prefer that value over drafting PWill.

I agree. It seems like AK didn't get an offer he liked over PWill so I'll respect that decision. Now is PWill the right player to go in on? We'll see. Time will tell.

[Mindcrime]

Two weeks ago nobody was talking about Patrick and then all of a sudden nbadraft had us taking him at 4, i was like what, who the hell is this guy. Then the promise rumor. On draft day it appeared that the Spurs liked him a lot and suddenly, the Pistons were "trying desperately" to get into the top 3 to get him. Now we see the film of the predraft pick-up games and this kid looks legit.

[dougthonus]

I suspect no matter which player was selected at 4, "most people" would have preferred to trade down and "most people" would have preferred they take someone else.

Of course, that doesn't make the answers right or wrong, just something that I think is interesting to consider.

I agree, which is sort of the point.

Most people would have been much happier with a draft where we traded down and used #7 and #16 almost regardless of who we took. Now maybe most people will end up wrong in this case, but that's really the point.

[Ugly Duckling]

Other than the relief I found in not drafting Deni, I was pretty happy that we didn't trade up for Ball. I'd have been ok trading up for Edwards or Wiseman, but IMO, neither is high confidence pick to become an allstar.

True and P. Will could become better than both of them

[Leslie Forman]

Also, McDermott had his development destroyed on those Thibs teams, which weren’t very good developmental systems, and were in the process of crashing & burning. He could’ve had a better first few years of Nba play had he been drafted to a team that took their time to develop guys

We’ve actually seen him become a solid player in Ind. He had it in him to be better & is more athletic than he’s given credit for, but that team he was drafted to was coming apart at the seams/becoming toxic very rapidly

Jimmy Butler and Derrick Rose sure had no problems developing in that system.

Doug was just a trash prospect. Even now in Indiana he is trash. Still doing absolutely jack crap except shooting 3s.

[dougthonus]

Exactly. So if we were set on PWill then there was no opportunity to trade down. 5-6 weren't interested. PWill was gone at 7.

I agree with everything you said. My stance is that if they HAD to select PWill, they had to select him at 4.

Yes, but we didn't have to select him. I agree we couldn't trade down and get our guy. We could, however, felt that our #2 guy was really the same quality as our #1 guy and came with another guy who was probably not that far off in quality from both those guys.

We could have felt that two were more valuable than one in this case, and given that there was absolutely no consensus around #4, that is how almost everyone felt.

So yes, for sure, if we just thought Patrick Williams was head and shoulders better than the next guy then you stay where you are. I'm challenging that belief and why someone would have it. The guy I wanted at #4 was available at #7, but if he wasn't available at #7 and instead went at #4, I'd have been content with whomever was available at #7 and having the extra pick because there was not a big separation here.

You're putting a huge premium on getting the guy you wanted, and historically, I'd put less premium on that (unless literally everyone has consensus around that guy) and more premium around getting more attempts.

Three years from now, there's a very good chance you can't even trade Patrick Williams for the 16th pick in whatever draft is coming up and very few picks at #4 are worth #7 and #16. That said, you can also have a Doncic situation where you swung and hit big and no one will ever question what you gave up and you will laugh so hard its a no brainer.

[dougthonus]

I was #1 in the trade down camp! I'm just saying there is no guarantees there WAS any good trade down options. Obviously AK didn't think so. The detroit trade down WASN'T an option for us.

Let's say you favored player X at #4. You had to have someone at the top of your board. If you knew that player X would go at #4 and you couldn't get him after trading down, then would you still trade down? If the answer is no, then you weren't really in the trade down camp. If the answer is yes, then the Bulls very likely had an opportunity to trade down and declined.

Most of the time you trade down you don't get the same player. You trade down not because you will get the same guy later, but because you think you get more total value.

[Leslie Forman]

So yes, for sure, if we just thought Patrick Williams was head and shoulders better than the next guy then you stay where you are. I'm challenging that belief and why someone would have it. The guy I wanted at #4 was available at #7, but if he wasn't available at #7 and instead went at #4, I'd have been content with whomever was available at #7 and having the extra pick because there was not a big separation here.

I'm not sure what you're actually arguing for Doug, because it seems that this is exactly the case. It looks like Karnisovas valued Williams quite a bit more than the guys behind him. Your valuations of the prospects are clearly nowhere near in line with what the front office's were. None of ours were.

In fact it seems like the teams that wanted Williams were really trying to keep it on the DL and his stock only started rising so late because they were playing their cards tight. Had the news leaked a few weeks before, nobody here would probably be questioning the pick because they'd have gotten used to the idea. If he'd picked someone like Haliburton or Avdija, nobody would be questioning it, just because of the online draft nerd hype that has infested everyone's minds here the last several months.

Instead, it's looking like Williams was clearly the more highly regarded prospect within actual NBA front offices and the draft nerds had no idea.

[mtron32]

Exactly. So if we were set on PWill then there was no opportunity to trade down. 5-6 weren't interested. PWill was gone at 7.

I agree with everything you said. My stance is that if they HAD to select PWill, they had to select him at 4.

Yes, but we didn't have to select him. I agree we couldn't trade down and get our guy. We could, however, felt that our #2 guy was really the same quality as our #1 guy and came with another guy who was probably not that far off in quality from both those guys.

We could have felt that two were more valuable than one in this case, and given that there was absolutely no consensus around #4, that is how almost everyone felt.

So yes, for sure, if we just thought Patrick Williams was head and shoulders better than the next guy then you stay where you are. I'm challenging that belief and why someone would have it. The guy I wanted at #4 was available at #7, but if he wasn't available at #7 and instead went at #4, I'd have been content with whomever was available at #7 and having the extra pick because there was not a big separation here.

You're putting a huge premium on getting the guy you wanted, and historically, I'd put less premium on that (unless literally everyone has consensus around that guy) and more premium around getting more attempts.

Three years from now, there's a very good chance you can't even trade Patrick Williams for the 16th pick in whatever draft is coming up and very few picks at #4 are worth #7 and #16. That said, you can also have a Doncic situation where you swung and hit big and no one will ever question what you gave up and you will laugh so hard its a no brainer.

If everyone has consensus around the guy you want at 4, then he'd probably be top three. Maybe not a lot of clubs knew about him, seems like the Bulls had a peak around June, while the rest of the teams started to catch glimpses recently. If they traded down to 7, maybe they take Hayes which was an alright pick, but maybe they take Deni whos hype I'm still not buying.

[PaKii94]

I was #1 in the trade down camp! I'm just saying there is no guarantees there WAS any good trade down options. Obviously AK didn't think so. The detroit trade down WASN'T an option for us.

Let's say you favored player X at #4. You had to have someone at the top of your board. If you knew that player X would go at #4 and you couldn't get him after trading down, then would you still trade down? If the answer is no, then you weren't really in the trade down camp. If the answer is yes, then the Bulls very likely had an opportunity to trade down and declined.

Most of the time you trade down you don't get the same player. You trade down not because you will get the same guy later, but because you think you get more total value.

I agree with both of your posts and as you know my guy was vassell so I'd definitely trade down if it was available. You say it was a likely chance, I say it was unlikely. Why? Cause the only rumor we heard of a team willing to trade up is detroit @3 to get PWILL before us. If we weren't interested at PWill at 4, there is no incentive for detroit to trade up. Why would detroit trade up for nothing? The only way it would work between the two is if we made it clear PWill is a hostage situation. You (detroit) have to trade up to our pick to get him otherwise we are taking him. In that case the end goal is to get the more assets.

But as Mrs. Forman said, AK obviously had a different value breakdown than us the couch analysts. If that is the case and then like you said, you stay at #4 and select your guy. Which is what they did.


To add to that, it wasn't just AK who had inflated value of PWill. The rumor is multiple teams were trying to trade up for him. If so, then I trust NBA FOs more than draft twitter.

[PaKii94]

I was #1 in the trade down camp! I'm just saying there is no guarantees there WAS any good trade down options. Obviously AK didn't think so. The detroit trade down WASN'T an option for us.

Let's say you favored player X at #4. You had to have someone at the top of your board. If you knew that player X would go at #4 and you couldn't get him after trading down, then would you still trade down? If the answer is no, then you weren't really in the trade down camp. If the answer is yes, then the Bulls very likely had an opportunity to trade down and declined.

Most of the time you trade down you don't get the same player. You trade down not because you will get the same guy later, but because you think you get more total value.

Actually I think the bolded is incorrect, especially for top picks. See trae young, tatum trades.