OKC Thunder Offseason 2015

[Bravenewworld]

So we get pick 31-55 in next year's draft? Feels about right. no question he would have been worth a late first with pt.

Im not quite sure if you get the massive value difference in a late first and a 2nd round pick.

[spearsy23]

In general early seconds are worth more than late firsts.

[Podirk]

So we get pick 31-55 in next year's draft? Feels about right. no question he would have been worth a late first with pt.

If only Lamb could have beaten out one of

Deandre Liggins
Caron Butler
Derek Fisher
Andre Roberson
Lance Thomas

he would have got more playing time.

You'll say "Brooks / the organization hindered Lambs growth" but that's purely an opinion and can't be proven (thus I don't disagree with you).
Lamb has obvious talents, he just wasn't able to put them together in a manner that 1. resulted in playing time 2. Was absolutely better than who he didn't play over.

That said I was hoping to see what Lamb may do under Donovan (as opposed to Brooks), but that chance is gone.

[Bravenewworld]

In general early seconds are worth more than late firsts.

Are you serious?
How about you provide some examples of this.

[Podirk]

In general early seconds are worth more than late firsts.

Are you serious?
How about you provide some examples of this.

It's a guaranteed (1st) vs a non guaranteed (2nd) contract

Since the 2nd rounder isn't guaranteed a second rounder can make more money (Abrines , if he ever comes over, will come over for ~ MLE opposed to around 1 mill if he had been picked in 1st round).

Spearsy can def elaborate better on this than me though.

[Kizz Fastfists]

In general early seconds are worth more than late firsts.

Are you serious?
How about you provide some examples of this.

In the current draft and stash economy of the NBA an early 2nd is worth more than a late first to GMs who are considering draft and stash options. With a late first you are limited in how much of the buyout you can pay on a stashed player. You are also stuck offering them late first round money and they could be making more than that in Europe. So an early 2nd can give you one of the best young stash options because everyone knew if they took them in the late first they would never pay their own buy out AND take less money to come play in the NBA.

The odds hitting on a pick between 25 and 35 are about the same. It is VERY rare to hit on a player picked below 20 as anything more than a fringe rotation player. The current CBA and basketball economics have made high 2nds more valuable than low 1st round picks IF you want to draft and stash the player. If you are looking for college talent then picking higher is always better. Only the first round drafts have locked in contracts. A player taken in the 2nd round can make anywhere from the minimum to the maximum.

[Bravenewworld]

In general early seconds are worth more than late firsts.

Are you serious?
How about you provide some examples of this.

It's a guaranteed (1st) vs a non guaranteed (2nd) contract

Since the 2nd rounder isn't guaranteed a second rounder can make more money (Abrines , if he ever comes over, will come over for ~ MLE opposed to around 1 mill if he had been picked in 1st round).

Spearsy can def elaborate better on this than me though.

He cant elaborate better on it.
There are situations where a 2nd might be more valuable to a team than a late first, that situation mostly being a complete roster and not wanting to add salary. But that is no where near "in general". Its a very specific scenario that we don't often see.

[bondom34]

Are you serious?
How about you provide some examples of this.

It's a guaranteed (1st) vs a non guaranteed (2nd) contract

Since the 2nd rounder isn't guaranteed a second rounder can make more money (Abrines , if he ever comes over, will come over for ~ MLE opposed to around 1 mill if he had been picked in 1st round).

Spearsy can def elaborate better on this than me though.

He cant elaborate better on it.
There are situations where a 2nd might be more valuable to a team than a late first, that situation mostly being a complete roster and not wanting to add salary. But that is no where near "in general". Its a very specific scenario that we don't often see.

This is right. In theory it sounds like it makes some sense, but in reality doesn't. Teams have never paid to move from a late first to early second, but have done the opposite.

[spearsy23]

So we get pick 31-55 in next year's draft? Feels about right. no question he would have been worth a late first with pt.

If only Lamb could have beaten out one of

Deandre Liggins
Caron Butler
Derek Fisher
Andre Roberson
Lance Thomas

he would have got more playing time.

You'll say "Brooks / the organization hindered Lambs growth" but that's purely an opinion and can't be proven (thus I don't disagree with you).
Lamb has obvious talents, he just wasn't able to put them together in a manner that 1. resulted in playing time 2. Was absolutely better than who he didn't play over.

That said I was hoping to see what Lamb may do under Donovan (as opposed to Brooks), but that chance is gone.

I'm talking about purely Lamb's value and THIS season. It may not have helped the team (certainly wouldn't have hurt it though), but there's no question that sitting hurt his value comparative to what was happening while playing. Early in the season he was putting up 10 points on semi-solid percentages. Brooks obviously had a problem with Lamb's work ethic or attitude, because Lamb played better than Waiters when they played, that's just undeniable. I would guess it was a combination of work ethic and the Jackson/Lamb/PJ locker-room thing. If we'd made the playoffs I wouldn't care about Lamb not playing, but in the end what happened is that we tanked his value and didn't actually help the team. The trade for Dion probably made no direct effect on the overall record of the team, so all it did was cost money, assets, and value.

[spearsy23]

This is right. In theory it sounds like it makes some sense, but in reality doesn't. Teams have never paid to move from a late first to early second, but have done the opposite.

As Kizz said, picks 25-35 all yield approximately the same results, while 31-35 have the advantage of unguaranteed salaries, no rookie scale and buyouts. Teams pay to move into the early 2nd more often than they pay to move into the late first. Maybe 'more valuable' is the wrong way to put it, but they yield the same results with added benefits.

[bondom34]

This is right. In theory it sounds like it makes some sense, but in reality doesn't. Teams have never paid to move from a late first to early second, but have done the opposite.

As Kizz said, picks 25-35 all yield approximately the same results, while 31-35 have the advantage of unguaranteed salaries, no rookie scale and buyouts. Teams pay to move into the early 2nd more often than they pay to move into the late first. Maybe 'more valuable' is the wrong way to put it, but they yield the same results with added benefits.

But they don't. There aren't any recent examples I can think of where a team has paid to move from say 28 to 32.

[spearsy23]

This is right. In theory it sounds like it makes some sense, but in reality doesn't. Teams have never paid to move from a late first to early second, but have done the opposite.

As Kizz said, picks 25-35 all yield approximately the same results, while 31-35 have the advantage of unguaranteed salaries, no rookie scale and buyouts. Teams pay to move into the early 2nd more often than they pay to move into the late first. Maybe 'more valuable' is the wrong way to put it, but they yield the same results with added benefits.

But they don't. There aren't any recent examples I can think of where a team has paid to move from say 28 to 32.

There are no examples of the opposite in the last three drafts either.

Edit: Went back to 2010 and the closest is 30+35 for 23+56.
Late firsts change hands much more frequently than early 2nd's for what it's worth. Rather that means they're more valuable or less depends on how you look at it. Maybe the best that can be said is that they're roughly equivalent in value.

[Kizz Fastfists]

But they don't. There aren't any recent examples I can think of where a team has paid to move from say 28 to 32.

The Magic last year traded Afflalo for an early 2nd round pick instead of a late first round pick. Assuming the rumors of them being offered a late first were accurate. It really depends on what you want the pick for. Presti would consider an early 2nd more valuable because of his ability to use it on a draft and stash that he couldn't take at the end of the first round because they'd never come over. That isn't to say that #34 is more valuable than #19, but if your roster is pretty much set then #34 is more valuable than #25. I think if Presti would have been able to trade down instead of drafting Huestis last year he would have. He was in the worst draft spot under the current CBA. A spot where you can't take an elite European player in need of developing because if they develop they'll never come over for the late first round money and you can't get a college player that can help you, unless you get very lucky, that deep in the draft either.

[bondom34]

But they don't. There aren't any recent examples I can think of where a team has paid to move from say 28 to 32.

The Magic last year traded Afflalo for an early 2nd round pick instead of a late first round pick. Assuming the rumors of them being offered a late first were accurate. It really depends on what you want the pick for. Presti would consider an early 2nd more valuable because of his ability to use it on a draft and stash that he couldn't take at the end of the first round because they'd never come over. That isn't to say that #34 is more valuable than #19, but if your roster is pretty much set then #34 is more valuable than #25. I think if Presti would have been able to trade down instead of drafting Huestis last year he would have. He was in the worst draft spot under the current CBA. A spot where you can't take an elite European player in need of developing because if they develop they'll never come over for the late first round money and you can't get a college player that can help you, unless you get very lucky, that deep in the draft either.

But you can draft and stash a late first ad well, and other than that we just have vague rumors. I bet if Afflalo could have fetched a better pick he would, but Fournier was enough compensation. It just doesn't happen ever that way even if the theory sounds good.

[spearsy23]

But they don't. There aren't any recent examples I can think of where a team has paid to move from say 28 to 32.

The Magic last year traded Afflalo for an early 2nd round pick instead of a late first round pick. Assuming the rumors of them being offered a late first were accurate. It really depends on what you want the pick for. Presti would consider an early 2nd more valuable because of his ability to use it on a draft and stash that he couldn't take at the end of the first round because they'd never come over. That isn't to say that #34 is more valuable than #19, but if your roster is pretty much set then #34 is more valuable than #25. I think if Presti would have been able to trade down instead of drafting Huestis last year he would have. He was in the worst draft spot under the current CBA. A spot where you can't take an elite European player in need of developing because if they develop they'll never come over for the late first round money and you can't get a college player that can help you, unless you get very lucky, that deep in the draft either.

But you can draft and stash a late first ad well, and other than that we just have vague rumors. I bet if Afflalo could have fetched a better pick he would, but Fournier was enough compensation. It just doesn't happen ever that way even if the theory sounds good.

At the least I think we can all agree that there is not a 'massive gap' between late firsts and early seconds.

[Bravenewworld]

As Kizz said, picks 25-35 all yield approximately the same results, while 31-35 have the advantage of unguaranteed salaries, no rookie scale and buyouts. Teams pay to move into the early 2nd more often than they pay to move into the late first. Maybe 'more valuable' is the wrong way to put it, but they yield the same results with added benefits.

But they don't. There aren't any recent examples I can think of where a team has paid to move from say 28 to 32.

There are no examples of the opposite in the last three drafts either.

Edit: Went back to 2010 and the closest is 30+35 for 23+56.
Late firsts change hands much more frequently than early 2nd's for what it's worth. Rather that means they're more valuable or less depends on how you look at it. Maybe the best that can be said is that they're roughly equivalent in value.

But that cant be said because its simply not true. Again, we can probably find some exceptions to the rule to at least say what youre saying can happen in certain scenarios. But its not at all close to "in general" or some "rough equivalent in value" that you want to claim but cant really show.
The late firsts get traded more for numerous reasons. But mainly, because they are the last chance of any kind of real value.

[bondom34]

The Magic last year traded Afflalo for an early 2nd round pick instead of a late first round pick. Assuming the rumors of them being offered a late first were accurate. It really depends on what you want the pick for. Presti would consider an early 2nd more valuable because of his ability to use it on a draft and stash that he couldn't take at the end of the first round because they'd never come over. That isn't to say that #34 is more valuable than #19, but if your roster is pretty much set then #34 is more valuable than #25. I think if Presti would have been able to trade down instead of drafting Huestis last year he would have. He was in the worst draft spot under the current CBA. A spot where you can't take an elite European player in need of developing because if they develop they'll never come over for the late first round money and you can't get a college player that can help you, unless you get very lucky, that deep in the draft either.

But you can draft and stash a late first ad well, and other than that we just have vague rumors. I bet if Afflalo could have fetched a better pick he would, but Fournier was enough compensation. It just doesn't happen ever that way even if the theory sounds good.

At the least I think we can all agree that there is not a 'massive gap' between late firsts and early seconds.

Well, there's as much a gap from 20-30 as 25-35, give or take. But there's a difference. Ultimately it was a salary dump either way and opened a roster spot.

[Bravenewworld]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/upshot/why-late-first-round-nba-draft-picks-are-a-bargain.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

http://www.crabdribbles.com/nba-draft-over-the-last-15-years-a-statistical-overview/

The value of 2nd rounders, no matter where they are, are no where near even late firsts.

[bondom34]

You know something, I'll say this b/c the Reggie saga turned sour. Lamb is/was all class:

[instagram]https://instagram.com/p/4XcDQPSOVR/[/instagram]

Best to him, I'll root for the kid.

[spearsy23]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/upshot/why-late-first-round-nba-draft-picks-are-a-bargain.html?_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

http://www.crabdribbles.com/nba-draft-over-the-last-15-years-a-statistical-overview/

The value of 2nd rounders, no matter where they are, are no where near even late firsts.

Neither of those address 25-35. Obviously 15 is more valuable than 45.