Texas Chuck wrote:TheNetsFan wrote:[
It does not cost that much to move up one spot in the mid-lottery, especially when many believe the players from 3-10 in this draft are all pretty comparable.
Not speaking to the offer(didn't even look at it), but strong disagree that actual NBA front offices have players 3-10 written on their draft board with a big circle around them with a note, basically all the same.
This is what draft pundits do because they aren't in the business of evaluating draft talent, they are in the business of looking right so they can tout it next year so you consume their content, then the aggregators regurgitate the work of just two or three people putting together boards and we get this trope every single year.
The reason the draft touts use a tier system is so when they have players projected at 6 who end up at 12 and players at 14 who end up at 8, instead of acknowledging how wrong they were, they use this as more evidence they were right, by claiming later, see I told you all these players were on the same tier...
Don't fall for it. Every single front office has these players listed in a clear order and I guarantee not one of them think as highly of their 10th rated guy as their 3rd or even close.
I will take it a step farther (further?)
We (media, consumers of media) look at players as some numerical draft value.
Flagg? 97
Harper/Bailey? 89
etc
To some extent, each team has their board with that sort of NBA 2K value, but the real people are looking at actual players, fit, etc.
A kid who is an athletic freak, some scoring ability, but a ft% in the 60's so you know he's a project there is probably not who you pick to play next to a Thompson brother.
I don't think the Hornets take Fears (assuming they are not trading Ball) even if he might be BPA because they would not be able to develop him to reach his potential.
The concept of range is fair, because your sources might have teams picking #5 and #9 both interested in player X (let's say Kon), but also that teams 6-8 all are largely disinterested in him. Therefore you now have a range. It's not lazy, hedging, or bad intel.
OTOH, the way that punditry works is a giant circle jerk. All the media ya-hoos say who their list is (picture comic book guy) and if a pick is made out of the order of the list it's a bad pick. Then after the draft, they grade actual GM's who have money/careers at risk, vs their 3rd party accounts. "oh they really reached for X"
Reached says who? For all you know there was another team ready to take him the very next pick, maybe a rival GM who they knew had interest, but didn't know was willing to trade up, right there hoping to get the guy.
But it's a show and a spectacle, and we are all going to ride the hype train in just a bit lol so there's that.
