RealGM

Paul Millsap, Utah Jazz

Millsap is riding the upper arc of his developmental curve and is enjoying a career season. Is he overachieving? Sure, but not by a lot. Even if he was hitting our preseason forecast on the nose, he'd still be producing near an All-Star level. Millsap is due to earn $8.1 million this season, which actually undervalues his production by $3-4 million.

With just one more year left on his deal beyond this season, Millsap will never have more value than he does right now. This is the perfect chance for Utah GM Kevin O'Conner to deal from a position of strength. He already has Derrick Favors, Enes Kanter and Jeremy Evans well-positioned to fill Millsap's spot. All of those young forwards are raw, and moving Millsap now likely would torpedo Utah's already-flagging playoff prospects. That's fine -- Millsap can bring real value in terms of players and/or picks that will be of more use the next time the Jazz are actually ready to contend.

Can somebody please forward this to KOC?

I'd much rather deal Al than Paul, but, given that Paul has more value due to his more reasonable contract and probably doesn't fit into our long terms (I'd love to have a frontcourt featuring Favors and Kanter as starters with Paul coming off the bench, but somehow I doubt Paul loves that idea nearly as much as I do), I probably agree with this.

I can't see KOC dealing Millsap until the Jazz draft positions are known.

If the Jazz can pick up a top PF in this draft, I can see them trading Millsap, or hopefully Al.

If they don't get a good draft position, then I can see them still trading Al and keeping Millsap. Sap plays pretty well with Favors.

retiredcoach wrote:I can't see KOC dealing Millsap until the Jazz draft positions are known.

If the Jazz can pick up a top PF in this draft, I can see them trading Millsap, or hopefully Al.

If they don't get a good draft position, then I can see them still trading Al and keeping Millsap. Sap plays pretty well with Favors.

I doubt the Jazz look at the draft as a means of addressing needs on the current roster; it's all about getting the best asset. Trades and free-agency are where you address team needs.

by HappyProle on Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:39 pm

I doubt the Jazz look at the draft as a means of addressing needs on the current roster; it's all about getting the best asset. Trades and free-agency are where you address team needs.

Drafting the best player without regard to position is a one of the pro sports myths that keeps hanging around. It's like defense wins championships. That's been debunked a dozen times, but it's such a cliche it keeps going around.

Teams have to draft to help themselves get better if at all possible. First of all only top 10 picks have more than a fifty fifty chance of making a positive impact on a team and becoming a starter or a significant bench player. If a team is drafting in the top 10, then they will take the player that they have on their board rated for that draft position. If they have 3 players they feel are of equal value or close to it, they're going to take the one that best fits their needs. A team with Dwight Howard isn't going to draft D Cousins. A team that has D-Will isn't going to draft Kyrie Irving. That's of course if those two guys are on a long term contract.

On the other hand, if a team is drafting below the top 10, as the draft order drops then it becomes more about drafting the best player possible because the position players that can make an impact just aren't there anymore. In this draft there are more good position players than usual because of the 2011 lockout. This year teams may be able to make reasonable choices down to 15 or 16.

The Jazz are going to look at their draft position, their possible trade options and the players that come up on the board at the draft position(s) they have. It ain't just picking the best player regardless of position.

Millsap's value should be just as high in the off-season then, no?

If the Jazz unluck themselves out of a draft pick, or need to move up to get a player they want then Millsap could be a good chip to use. I think its probably smarter to hold onto Al and Sap until then.

CJ they can just trade, gonna let him go anyway.

retiredcoach wrote:

by HappyProle on Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:39 pm

I doubt the Jazz look at the draft as a means of addressing needs on the current roster; it's all about getting the best asset. Trades and free-agency are where you address team needs.

Drafting the best player without regard to position is a one of the pro sports myths that keeps hanging around. It's like defense wins championships. That's been debunked a dozen times, but it's such a cliche it keeps going around.

Teams have to draft to help themselves get better if at all possible. First of all only top 10 picks have more than a fifty fifty chance of making a positive impact on a team and becoming a starter or a significant bench player. If a team is drafting in the top 10, then they will take the player that they have on their board rated for that draft position. If they have 3 players they feel are of equal value or close to it, they're going to take the one that best fits their needs. A team with Dwight Howard isn't going to draft D Cousins. A team that has D-Will isn't going to draft Kyrie Irving. That's of course if those two guys are on a long term contract.

And a team with Clyde Drexler would be foolish to draft Michael Jordan...

And there's no way a team with David Robinson would draft another center only to be forced to play him at power forward.

HappyProle wrote:And a team with Clyde Drexler would be foolish to draft Michael Jordan...

And there's no way a team with David Robinson would draft another center only to be forced to play him at power forward.

but not every situation is the same, when you have top 5 pick and you have some studs on list you should pick bpa, but with lower picks its not like that, it's more about gambling than picking best guy. Plus its dumb to think that there are always same perfect solutions for specific occasions.

Can anyone give me an example of a team that has fared poorly picking best player available?

wheres our game thread??? cmon mods, philly has one up before us;)

oops i should of made a new topic sorry

HappyProle wrote:Can anyone give me an example of a team that has fared poorly picking best player available?

Utah Jazz

23. Utah Kosta Koufos 7-0 252 C Ohio St. Fr.
24. Seattle Serge Ibaka 6-10 228 PF Congo 1989

by HappyProle on Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:33 pm

And a team with Clyde Drexler would be foolish to draft Michael Jordan...

And there's no way a team with David Robinson would draft another center only to be forced to play him at power forward.

Hap, you're using hindsight to try and make a weak argument. No one had a clue how good Jordan would be and Chicago didn't have Drexler. Portland did and they took Sam Bowe instead of Jordan.

San Antonio had the 1st pick and David Robinson was getting older. He was 24 when he played his first NBA game.

Hindsight drafting doesn't count.

Fit picks in the top 5:

Blazers 2005: Webster over Deron and CP3 (already had Telfair)
Grizzlies 2009: Thabeet over James Harden (already had OJ Mayo)
Timberwolves 2010: Johnson over Cousins (already had Al Jefferson and Kevin Love)

Generally not an amazing strategy.

Also, if the Sonics had gone with fit in 2007, they would have gone with Al Horford over Kevin Durant.

retiredcoach wrote:

by HappyProle on Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:33 pm

And a team with Clyde Drexler would be foolish to draft Michael Jordan...

And there's no way a team with David Robinson would draft another center only to be forced to play him at power forward.

Hap, you're using hindsight to try and make a weak argument. No one had a clue how good Jordan would be and Chicago didn't have Drexler. Portland did and they took Sam Bowe instead of Jordan.

San Antonio had the 1st pick and David Robinson was getting older. He was 24 when he played his first NBA game.

Hindsight drafting doesn't count.

I was using two examples where teams had the opportunity to draft best-player available despite duplicating skills they already had: one where the team made the right choice and the other where they didn't. The Spurs' choice was pretty easy as Duncan was the clear consensus.

In Jordan's case I guess what you're arguing is that no one thought he would be the greatest player of all time. Well, you're probably right; but certainly someone thought he was good enough to be No. 3 overall. He was, after all, twice named the collegiate player of the year. Many have since speculated that the main reason the Blazers passed on him was that they were set with their wing players (Jim Paxson, Clyde Drexler) and wanted the dominant big man that everyone covets.

Back to the Jazz: If they put as much stock in team needs as you seem to suggest, why would they have picked Kanter with Millsap, Jefferson and Favors already on the roster?

You guys are still using hindsight drafting.

In general among the top 10 picks in almost all drafts determining who is the best prospect, best player, best athlete is extremely difficult. NBA scouts, GM's and coaches aren't dumb asses they look at reams of film, work guys out, put them through combines and talk to former coaches. With all of that they still get it wrong.

If you have a top 5 pick and the team needs a center and there's a top 5 center available and a top 5 PG, (like a D Howard and an a D-Will). Do you take the center> Of course you do because really good bigs are hard to come by and you need one. On the other hand let's say the team has a healthy Bogut already, then the team should take the PG. If a team had a D-Will, they aren't going to draft D. Rose. If there's no one in the top 5 that they want or need, they'll trade the pick.

Who's the better athlete D-Will or D Howard. We're talking before the draft and before anyone knows how they will play.

Look all the draft evaluations that are done on players prior to the draft. They all have the players ranked differently with the perhaps the exception of the top 1 to 3 picks. It's not just the NBA draft that's hard to figure. Look at the NFL combine. How many times do players that look like strong athlete's turn out to be pro busts. If a team has a healthy Peyton Manning signed to a long term deal, they aren't going to take an Andrew Luck.

Again I said I'm talking about top 10 picks. Below the top 10, the drafting game changes. Look how many picks the Jazz have used trying to find a center who can start. I guess they broke their rule about drafting the best athlete regardless of position.

The best player to take in the draft is the one who will help the team win. Now if it were only easy to figure out who that one was.

retiredcoach wrote:If you have a top 5 pick and the team needs a center and there's a top 5 center available and a top 5 PG, (like a D Howard and an a D-Will). Do you take the center> Of course you do because really good bigs are hard to come by and you need one. On the other hand let's say the team has a healthy Bogut already, then the team should take the PG. If a team had a D-Will, they aren't going to draft D. Rose. If there's no one in the top 5 that they want or need, they'll trade the pick.

Who's the better athlete D-Will or D Howard. We're talking before the draft and before anyone knows how they will play.

Look all the draft evaluations that are done on players prior to the draft. They all have the players ranked differently with the perhaps the exception of the top 1 to 3 picks. It's not just the NBA draft that's hard to figure.

Are some teams better than others at evaluating talent? Undoubtedly. Are some guys busts that no one saw coming. Definitely. Do some guys fly under the radar? Sure.

Good GMs rank potential draftees independent of some immediate perceived team need. Chances are by the time the player is in his prime your roster will have changed any way.

You don't have to believe me, take Kevin O'Conner's word for it.

KOC Interview in May 2011 wrote:On the question of best available versus need:
“Absolutely. Just always go back to the Michael Jordan rule. (Host: Doesn’t matter the position?) Yup.”

retiredcoach wrote:You guys are still using hindsight drafting.

None of the examples I used were of hindsight drafting. CP3, Harden, and Cousins were considered much better prospects than the guys those teams went with.

San Antonio and Oklahoma City seem to have the draft figured out!

by finnegan on Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:25 am
San Antonio and Oklahoma City seem to have the draft figured out!

It depends on what time frame you're talking about, and which draft classes picks came from.

Drafting is like gambling. Gamblers can have runs where they seem to be winning a lot. The Jazz have had really good runs and not so good runs. Over time, gamblers regress to the mean and have losing streaks.

Part of how good a team does in the draft is based on how good the draft class is and how high their picks are. Some draft classes are just way better than others.

I like to evaluate how good a staff is by how well they do finding players outside of the top 15 that wind up being solid rotation players in the NBA. If there's consistency there, then are good. They are beating the odds.

I'm not saying that all GM's and coaching staff are equally as good. I've seen some that appear to be total incompetents, but overall teams aren't that far apart in evaluating talent. It would be different if only a GM or only a coach ranked the candidates and then made the pick. In the pros it's a group process. Group decisions can go very wrong also. Compromise isn't always good for business but things even out over time.