Scoots1994 wrote: FNQ wrote:
Where a player is picked does matter because it's a reasonable basis to start talking about their perceived talent level at one point. Obviously distance from the year they were drafted reduces the usefulness of the metric. Giving up on Wiseman so quick is crazy.
No, its not a reasonable basis to put a players' value at where someone selected them, because that value only applies to that team. If teams werent interested in Wiseman that high, he's not valued at #2. And then after a bad season, he certainly isnt. Trying to make it linear for the sake of simplicity doesnt make it accurate.
The idea that he shouldnt be given up is just a simple take. Because usually, a team drafting 2 doesnt have a closing contention window. So yes, a rebuilding team giving up on a #2 in one year is a bit unusual. Apply that standard to our team entirely misses the mark.
The Memphis Grizzlies traded a big man, the #4 overall pick, halfway through his 1st season for Mike Miller. It was the right move, too.
Yeah, Mike Miller put them over the top for that title.
I think high picks should be given more time to fail. The investment implies there is more potential.
In this case compare Wiseman to other teenage bigs in the NBA and he looks okay. Add in that he had almost no college time and no offseason and he should get the time.
The "closing window" argument was thrown away when they drafted him. They drafted a player they KNEW was going to take time to develop. The worst front offices are the ones that constantly change mid plan and give up on young players too quickly. Wiseman showed enough that he's worth getting more time.
lol wow what a horrible argument. Miller made them better, he was better than Gooden. It was the correct call. They didnt go down with the bad draft pick, they acted, and acted correctly. But they didnt win a title so bad move? holy ****..
You are acting as if where the player is picked is linear to how much potential they have. That's video game level analysis. And then again make a generalized (and extremely incorrect) idea that FOs that change course and give up on players quickly are the worst. Again, its based on situation. It requires actual competent critical thinking. You aren't providing that, just generalized nonsense
The closing window argument was thrown away? Nah. They literally have said - and most teams dont when talking about young prospects - that they were more raw than they expected. We expected more from Wiseman. Wiseman, among the worst metric'd players in the league, was NOT functional. He did not show he's worth getting more time, because if he was drafted in the 2nd round, he'd be fighting for a rotation spot next year.
Somehow your take here is *worse* than the idea that teams can win now and later and that's damned impressive