Armchair GM: Best player, or fill a need.

[T-Spot]

Lets say you have a mid-rounder and one of the higher prospects (who plays in a position that your team has well covered) in the draft took a dip onto your pick. Would you pick the "best" player available or would you pick someone that would fill an immediate need.

Example: You are GM of the Illinois Swashbuckling Aristocrats and your team if filled with talented wing players and your sorely need a big man. Would you pick a higher prospect that has fallen to your pick (even though he is another talented wing player) or would you pick a big man to fill your need?

Or you have a team full of bruising big man, and you sorely need a wing player, Would you pick a higher prospect that has fallen to your pick (even though he is another bruising big man) or would you pick a wing player to fill your need?

[DanTown8587]

Best example I can give
Atlanta took Marvin Williams because he was the highest rated prospect on their board, even though they needed a PG. The next two PG taken were Chris Paul and Deron Williams. The guy has to be legitimate can't miss (LeBron, Durant, Oden, etc) for me to not take a guy I truly need over someone I truly want.

[T-Spot]

Best example I can give
Atlanta took Marvin Williams because he was the highest rated prospect on their board, even though they needed a PG. The next two PG taken were Chris Paul and Deron Williams. The guy has to be legitimate can't miss (LeBron, Durant, Oden, etc) for me to not take a guy I truly need over someone I truly want.

Would the inverse of that be Detroit taking Darko Malfoy over Carmelo because they needed a big rather than taking the "better" player?

[Herculi]

You take the best player available but I also think that doesn't mean you take the "best project" available.

[giberish]

If you take the best available player, you will likely need to make a trade to rebalance your roster. When making a trade out of need, you'll likely loose a little value in the deal. You have to judge whether the difference in value between the best available player and the best fit player is greater than or less than the value loss your team is likely to have from a rebalancing trade.

[DanTown8587]

-= original quote snipped =-



Would the inverse of that be Detroit taking Darko Malfoy over Carmelo because they needed a big rather than taking the "better" player?

Darko was just as highly rated as Carmelo, if not higher. Only in hindsight does that pick look as awful as it seems. I have said its Joe-D fault for scouting Darko so poorly, but many teams with Detroit's talent would have done that pick.

[hermes]

midrounder
go with the best availiable

[A.J.]

mid to late rounder i say you should draft bya.

[Liqourish]

-= original quote snipped =-
Darko was just as highly rated as Carmelo, if not higher. Only in hindsight does that pick look as awful as it seems. I have said its Joe-D fault for scouting Darko so poorly, but many teams with Detroit's talent would have done that pick.

QFT, Lebron was the census #1 and Darko was #2a in many scouts eyes. He not only filled a need at that time, but he was also the BPA. Only now do we know what we know about Bosh, Wade and a slew of other players who were drafted in that 1st round.

Of course than Detroit got Rasheed for nothing and won a championship and the rest is history.

Dumars traded Darko to Orlando for the #15 pick in the 2007 draft and drafted Rodney Stuckey, Orlando watched Darko walk to Memphis and all they have left is Carlos Arroyo..... why don't we wait to see how this ends.

As for your scenario, it depends on the team. Obviously, if it's a veteran team with lots of talent but a hole or two, you take the need. If it's a young team that's rebuilding or a veteran team with no holes, you take the BPA and go from there.

[gswhoops]

It's impossible to set any hard and fast rules because you can get burned either way, but unless you have a player to build around I think you should go for the BPA and wait to fill needs until later.

[Jemini80]

If i was the GM i would go BPA, because i know damn sure i wouldn't have picked either Williams over Chris Paul.

[Worm Guts]

Best example I can give
Atlanta took Marvin Williams because he was the highest rated prospect on their board, even though they needed a PG. The next two PG taken were Chris Paul and Deron Williams. The guy has to be legitimate can't miss (LeBron, Durant, Oden, etc) for me to not take a guy I truly need over someone I truly want.

BPA only works when you accurately peg the best player. Chris Paul is obviously a better player than Marvin Williams.

[Nolan]

You take the best player available.

[sox839]

It all depends if your one of those tams that has a shot at the championship like say phoenix, LA, san antonio, utah, detroit, boston, dallas, cleveland and the pick is late first rounder say 25 thru 30 thenyou could draft on need. 2nd round is best player available. Other first round picks are best available.