AK quote on NOP trade - edit was misreported

[dougthonus]

I could imagine him not even listening to the offer because he was so happy Noa was available.

This probably isn’t all that far off the mark. The presser Eversley gave was pretty transparent. The Cliff’s Notes version is they had numerous trade offers on the table to move up and down, but at the 9th pick “realized the guy we liked was going to be there” at 11 so they rejected all the proposals.

Not exactly “not listening” but it makes it pretty clear they wanted Noa specifically and didn’t think anything on the table was worth passing on him.

I think this is true. I don't like the philosophy, and I would have taken the trade, but I get it. The trade package could easily have ended up being awful too. It was a high risk/high reward play, and I think I would do that from the Bulls position, but there are no guarantees on it. It also depends on your individual ratings on Essengue. I like the pick and probably would have made the same pick, but he's a normal looking 12th pick to me, not an exceptional one.

If I did take the package, I'd have grabbed Asa Newell in the draft. So my own personal tracker will be Newell plus whatever I'd get next year vs Essengue.

[DuckIII]

I get it. Just different philosophies. But I won’t really “track” the results. I say this all the time, but if I personally understand a move in real time and think it’s rationally supportable - even if it’s not exactly what I would have done - I basically don’t think about it anymore. I don’t use hindsight in those situations.

But if I think a move was transparently terrible in real time, I’ll bring it back up for eternity.

[dougthonus]

I get it. Just different philosophies. But I won’t really “track” the results. I say this all the time, but if I personally understand a move in real time and think it’s rationally supportable - even if it’s not exactly what I would have done - I basically don’t think about it anymore. I don’t use hindsight in those situations.

But if I think a move was transparently terrible in real time, I’ll bring it back up for eternity.

I am in the second of these camps. I think this was transparently terrible in real time

I generally also only follow up on move where I am like WTF, why did you do that? I get why they did it, I just strongly disagree. Fundamentally, they think we're much closer to where they want to be than I do, or they're just significantly more risk averse (probably both).

[kodo]

The decision being fine because it's two different philosophies assumes both philosophies have an equal probability of generating a star player, it's been proven without a doubt higher picks generate more stars.

I guess it would be OK if Noa is not your typical mid 1st rounder and he's more like Matas, but Noa wasn't a top 5 pick who dropped. He actually moved up to his rank which historically has been the movement that disappoints more often (eg Patrick). If the context was that VJ dropped to 12, keeping the 12 makes sense.

I guess the other factor would be if you think NOP will be very good this year, but I don't see any rational reason to think that, especially w/ the Jordan Poole trade.

[DuckIII]

I get it. Just different philosophies. But I won’t really “track” the results. I say this all the time, but if I personally understand a move in real time and think it’s rationally supportable - even if it’s not exactly what I would have done - I basically don’t think about it anymore. I don’t use hindsight in those situations.

But if I think a move was transparently terrible in real time, I’ll bring it back up for eternity.

I am in the second of these camps. I think this was transparently terrible in real time

I generally also only follow up on move where I am like WTF, why did you do that? I get why they did it, I just strongly disagree. Fundamentally, they think we're much closer to where they want to be than I do, or they're just significantly more risk averse (probably both).

They are waaaaaaaaaay more risk averse than you and I think they should be. Then again I have the luxury of not giving two poops about the business side. They may feel after so many frustrating years they simply can't sell a classic rebuild to the fanbase, so they came up with this "we're getting really young but not really rebuilding" thing. And there are certainly plenty of posters - the diehards - who would strongly disapprove of a lose-to-win, take big gambles, accumulate assets approach that we tend to prefer. I just have a trump card on that general preference - if you love a guy, get the guy. But you've heard me say that over and over and over.

[dougthonus]

They are waaaaaaaaaay more risk averse than you and I think they should be. Then again I have the luxury of not giving two poops about the business side. They may feel after so many frustrating years they simply can't sell a classic rebuild to the fanbase, so they came up with this "we're getting really young but not really rebuilding" thing. And there are certainly plenty of posters - the diehards - who would strongly disapprove of a lose-to-win, take big gambles, accumulate assets approach that we tend to prefer. I just have a trump card on that general preference - if you love a guy, get the guy. But you've heard me say that over and over and over.

FWIW, I wouldn't do a full rebuild after trading for Giddey and landing Matas either. I don't view moving this pick for that package as a full rebuild and a tanking move. Noa wasn't primed to help us much this year anyway. I just figured next year's pick will more likely than not yield a better prospect + the guy you'd get with this pick.