Discussing Other Teams' Moves - Part 7

[Illuminaire]

Evan Mobley is going to be so good!

The guy does it all. He had 15 points, 10 boards, 4 assists, 3 blocks, 2 steals and only 1 turnover last night. He was making passes out of the high post, on the fast break, and as the ball handler in a pick-and-roll with Markkanen. He scored as a roll man, in the post, and from 3. He was stuffing shots at the rim and making steals in the passing lanes. And it all came with an economy of motion that reminds one of Tim Duncan.

Oh gosh yes. Mobley was my #1 pre-draft. He's like if Duncan and Chris Bosh had a baby. He will need 2-3 years to develop his body, but barring injuries, he's the perfect modern NBA center.

[payitforward]

Quick note on this...

...I'm not upset that we didn't draft Sengun because I honestly didn't see a spot for him given our depth at the position....

You won't be surprised that I think is irrelevant -- or worse, actually. I'm not talking about Sengun, or this particular case, but you must always, with no exceptions for any reason whatever, take the BPA no matter what position he plays.

A roster is like a bank account; you just keep adding the most value possible to it. Then you make deals to get the positional balance you need. The more value on your roster the better the deals you can make.

Again... this statement is not about Sengun. Who knows? Murphy may be a better player. But, no matter what, take the guy you think is going to be best!

[nate33]

Quick note on this...

...I'm not upset that we didn't draft Sengun because I honestly didn't see a spot for him given our depth at the position....

You won't be surprised that I think is irrelevant -- or worse, actually. I'm not talking about Sengun, or this particular case, but you must always, with no exceptions for any reason whatever, take the BPA no matter what position he plays.

A roster is like a bank account; you just keep adding the most value possible to it. Then you make deals to get the positional balance you need. The more value on your roster the better the deals you can make.

Again... this statement is not about Sengun. Who knows? Murphy may be a better player. But, no matter what, take the guy you think is going to be best!

BPA available, sure, but only to the degree one can differentiate between similar prospects. If Sengun was perceived to be a tier above all other prospects available, then you take him. But if you rank him in the same general tier as a few other guys, and those other guys play a position of need where they are more likely to be developed properly, then you take the better fit.

[doclinkin]

Quick note on this...

...I'm not upset that we didn't draft Sengun because I honestly didn't see a spot for him given our depth at the position....

You won't be surprised that I think is irrelevant -- or worse, actually. I'm not talking about Sengun, or this particular case, but you must always, with no exceptions for any reason whatever, take the BPA no matter what position he plays.

A roster is like a bank account; you just keep adding the most value possible to it. Then you make deals to get the positional balance you need. The more value on your roster the better the deals you can make.

Again... this statement is not about Sengun. Who knows? Murphy may be a better player. But, no matter what, take the guy you think is going to be best!

BPA available, sure, but only to the degree one can differentiate between similar prospects. If Sengun was perceived to be a tier above all other prospects available, then you take him. But if you rank him in the same general tier as a few other guys, and those other guys play a position of need where they are more likely to be developed properly, then you take the better fit.

BPA also with the understanding also that sometimes the guy you take will suppress the trade value of the guy he displaces. So if you are splitting fine hairs between prospects then that may tip the balance. I had Sengun as a level of talent above where we were likely to pick. I would have been fine with that pick.

I don't hate Sengun. He's got precocious footwork for an 18 year old. 80% from the FT line, and while his 3FG stroke isn't there yet, it looks like he could develop, not broken, just lacking reps. Active defender with solid steals and blocks, willing passer. As one of the youngest players in this draft his skillset is pretty advanced and looks like it will translate. Smart cuts. Makes NBA plays already. He's got a head start on most young Bigs. He knows what he is doing out there. If Wiseman had Sengun's game he would've been ROY. If Deni could finish like Sengun he wouldn't have passed up many of the shots he did. I don't think he lasts to 15 though. And he adds another young big to a front court that is already trying to develop and find minutes for the guys we have. If we pick him it's because he fell and we are listening to offers from teams lower down. Or we are dangling one of the guys we have as trade bait.

Funny that Mr Tradedown says take the best player available. The PIF formula is not BPA. It's: "Take BPA and trade down for 2 other picks and gamble that collectively they might be as good. Or one might be better. Trade down as many times as you can to get All the Best Players Left At That Spot. All of Them, Absolutely ALL."

[payitforward]

By your standards PIF, which is essentially pulling an inside straight every draft, very few GMs have had good drafts.

No way, Zards. I've said what I would do year by year, & how I would do it, & why I thought it would be possible to do it. It's fair to question whether a trade down that I suggested would have been available, but I haven't suggested anything outlandish at all.

1. Of the 2 moves I wanted to make in 2019, trading #9 for #20 & 22 is certainly not outlandish, though obviously I can't know it would have been possible.

In fact, I'd say going "all in" on Rui (quoting Tommy) & taking him about 15-20 picks higher than he merited resembles "pulling to an inside straight" a lot more than what I suggested!

2. in 2020, now... that was a draft where a whole lot of R1 trades happened, if you recall. The Knicks & Memphis look to have done extremely well along those lines. But, I was happy that Deni fell to us & didn't want to trade. Even if he'd been taken, I'd have grabbed Haliburton rather than trade down.

3. But, I did want to trade our #37 up to get Tillman that year. Since Memphis traded up to get him using the #40 pick, it's clear enough that we could have done what I suggested. Nothing outlandish there. But, given we traded that pick down instead of up, I suggested we should have taken Paul Reed not Cassius Winston (though I liked Winston & still like him). Again, nothing outlandish.

If I remember rightly, the 2 guys you wanted at #9 were Precious Achiuwa & Saddiq Bey -- is that accurate? They wound up being picked #19 & #20.

That year, however, I'd say Memphis took the pot, wouldn't you? They went into the draft with 1 pick, the #40, & went home with Desmond Bane and Xavier Tillman. They took Bane w/ the #30 which they got from Boston for 2 future R2 picks.

(Btw, that was likely the pick Boston offered us for Davis Bertans. Who would you rather have right now, Zards? Desmond Bane on a rookie contract? Or Davis Bertans at $16m locked in until 3 years from now?)

4. This year, my idea to trade #31 for #34 & #36 was clearly possible, since #32 was traded for the same return.

So, no, you don't have to rely on being super lucky to have a good draft. But you do have to be imaginative.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Evan Mobley is going to be so good!

The guy does it all. He had 15 points, 10 boards, 4 assists, 3 blocks, 2 steals and only 1 turnover last night. He was making passes out of the high post, on the fast break, and as the ball handler in a pick-and-roll with Markkanen. He scored as a roll man, in the post, and from 3. He was stuffing shots at the rim and making steals in the passing lanes. And it all came with an economy of motion that reminds one of Tim Duncan.

Watch on YouTube

Yeah but we won the play-in games, so all's well.

You cannot fix stupid. And it was stupid to make the playoffs

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Interesting that Cleveland started the huge front line of Jarrett Allen, Mobley, and Lauri Markkanen - all playing major minutes. And Kevin Love played 20 minutes off the bench.

With the current Wizards roster Kevin Love as a rebounder and a big man who can hit the three is intriguing to me.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

So two board favorites from the '19 draft are out of the league. Samanic getting cut surprised me but Pop won't stand for a questionable work ethic. Sekou simply didn't have the motor or skill to compensate for poor instincts. Teams are no longer showing a great deal a patience with draftees. I'd say the Wizards tend to show more patience than most other franchises.

I wish there were two players the Wizards could jettison and pick up both of those guys

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

So two board favorites from the '19 draft are out of the league. Samanic getting cut surprised me but Pop won't stand for a questionable work ethic. Sekou simply didn't have the motor or skill to compensate for poor instincts. Teams are no longer showing a great deal a patience with draftees. I'd say the Wizards tend to show more patience than most other franchises.

Yeah Samanic was my dark horse. I think I was the only one riding that filly. Mostly because I was tired of the Brandon Clarke talk

I was surprised as well, given the murmurs of his improvement over the past couple years. I was banking on a breakout year to redeem my scouting report. If you have a stretch big who puts up 14/8/2ast/1b/1s (per 36) you figure there is some talent there. But his numbers and progress were spotty. Flashes only. Hearing that he came into camp out of shape though it only makes sense that he was cut. You can't get better if you don't work on it. So goes Luka Samanic.

Watch on YouTube

100% chance if we had a roster spot Tommy would bring him in on a try-out.

Pretty much what I just was trying to say.

[Ruzious]

Quick note on this...

...I'm not upset that we didn't draft Sengun because I honestly didn't see a spot for him given our depth at the position....

You won't be surprised that I think is irrelevant -- or worse, actually. I'm not talking about Sengun, or this particular case, but you must always, with no exceptions for any reason whatever, take the BPA no matter what position he plays.

A roster is like a bank account; you just keep adding the most value possible to it. Then you make deals to get the positional balance you need. The more value on your roster the better the deals you can make.

Again... this statement is not about Sengun. Who knows? Murphy may be a better player. But, no matter what, take the guy you think is going to be best!

I would agree with your logic except for the very important fact that players aren't like shares of stock on the NYSE. They just aren't tradable like that. You can't assign a dollar value to your players, add them up, and compute that you have the best team. Maybe that works in the Jetsons universe where the players are robots - but not in this crazier universe.

[closg00]

So two board favorites from the '19 draft are out of the league. Samanic getting cut surprised me but Pop won't stand for a questionable work ethic. Sekou simply didn't have the motor or skill to compensate for poor instincts. Teams are no longer showing a great deal a patience with draftees. I'd say the Wizards tend to show more patience than most other franchises.

I wish there were two players the Wizards could jettison and pick up both of those guys

What does it say that a contending team in the Lakers grabbed Sekou for one of their two-way contracts? Interesting

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

So two board favorites from the '19 draft are out of the league. Samanic getting cut surprised me but Pop won't stand for a questionable work ethic. Sekou simply didn't have the motor or skill to compensate for poor instincts. Teams are no longer showing a great deal a patience with draftees. I'd say the Wizards tend to show more patience than most other franchises.

I wish there were two players the Wizards could jettison and pick up both of those guys

What does it say that a contending team in the Lakers grabbed Sekou for one of their two-way contracts? Interesting

It says they’re the Lakers and they win and our team does not because it is not.

[closg00]

I wish there were two players the Wizards could jettison and pick up both of those guys

What does it say that a contending team in the Lakers grabbed Sekou for one of their two-way contracts? Interesting

It says they’re the Lakers and they win and our team does not because it is not.

We have one two-way slot available, perhaps we have our eye on a number of other guys in other camps

[payitforward]

Quick note on this...

...I'm not upset that we didn't draft Sengun because I honestly didn't see a spot for him given our depth at the position....

You won't be surprised that I think is irrelevant -- or worse, actually. I'm not talking about Sengun, or this particular case, but you must always, with no exceptions for any reason whatever, take the BPA no matter what position he plays.

A roster is like a bank account; you just keep adding the most value possible to it. Then you make deals to get the positional balance you need. The more value on your roster the better the deals you can make.

Again... this statement is not about Sengun. Who knows? Murphy may be a better player. But, no matter what, take the guy you think is going to be best!

BPA available, sure, but only to the degree one can differentiate between similar prospects. If Sengun was perceived to be a tier above all other prospects available, then you take him. But if you rank him in the same general tier as a few other guys, and those other guys play a position of need where they are more likely to be developed properly, then you take the better fit.

Fair enough, in that it would be foolish to imagine one could always make a player-by-player list in descending order. It'd always be more sensible to have tiers. At that point, if you have two guys ranked as equal, there would be no reason not to take the guy at the position of greater need. Common sense.

The problems come when you use an idea of "need" to decide who goes on what tier. & that's hard not to do. I.e. to over-rate the player who has a skill you feel short of. See it all the time, don't you think?

[payitforward]

Quick note on this...

...I'm not upset that we didn't draft Sengun because I honestly didn't see a spot for him given our depth at the position....

You won't be surprised that I think is irrelevant -- or worse, actually. I'm not talking about Sengun, or this particular case, but you must always, with no exceptions for any reason whatever, take the BPA no matter what position he plays.

A roster is like a bank account; you just keep adding the most value possible to it. Then you make deals to get the positional balance you need. The more value on your roster the better the deals you can make.

Again... this statement is not about Sengun. Who knows? Murphy may be a better player. But, no matter what, take the guy you think is going to be best!

I would agree with your logic except for the very important fact that players aren't like shares of stock on the NYSE. They just aren't tradable like that. You can't assign a dollar value to your players, add them up, and compute that you have the best team. Maybe that works in the Jetsons universe where the players are robots - but not in this crazier universe.

What you certainly can't do is decide in advance who is going to put up the best numbers. You use history & any other tools you have to project accurately, but the players have to do it.

&, you do have to work with a model of one kind or another. No one should confuse a model with reality, but working without a model is guaranteed to fail.

Teams with the best players win the most games -- where "the best players" means "the players who, overall, put up the best numbers." If your players put up the best numbers on the season, your team is very likely to post the best record.

This is not some kind of big deal. How could it be otherwise? "The best players" can be defined as "the players who put up the best numbers." If, overall, your players put up the best numbers, then overall your team is putting up the best numbers, because team numbers are nothing but player numbers added up. & there is no question whatever at the team level: better numbers make you a better team. Period.

Put it another way: last year, in the West, the players on Utah, overall, put up better numbers than any other team in the West -- & the team won more games than any other in the West. Phoenix players put up numbers a bit behind Utah overall; they posted the 2d best record in the West.

Now, maybe those players put up better numbers because of their coach. But, unless they put up better numbers they don't win more games.

[Ruzious]

Quick note on this...

You won't be surprised that I think is irrelevant -- or worse, actually. I'm not talking about Sengun, or this particular case, but you must always, with no exceptions for any reason whatever, take the BPA no matter what position he plays.

A roster is like a bank account; you just keep adding the most value possible to it. Then you make deals to get the positional balance you need. The more value on your roster the better the deals you can make.

Again... this statement is not about Sengun. Who knows? Murphy may be a better player. But, no matter what, take the guy you think is going to be best!

I would agree with your logic except for the very important fact that players aren't like shares of stock on the NYSE. They just aren't tradable like that. You can't assign a dollar value to your players, add them up, and compute that you have the best team. Maybe that works in the Jetsons universe where the players are robots - but not in this crazier universe.

What you certainly can't do is decide in advance who is going to put up the best numbers. You use history & any other tools you have to project accurately, but the players have to do it.

&, you do have to work with a model of one kind or another. No one should confuse a model with reality, but working without a model is guaranteed to fail.

Teams with the best players win the most games -- where "the best players" means "the players who, overall, put up the best numbers." If your players put up the best numbers on the season, your team is very likely to post the best record.

This is not some kind of big deal. How could it be otherwise? "The best players" can be defined as "the players who put up the best numbers." If, overall, your players put up the best numbers, then overall your team is putting up the best numbers, because team numbers are nothing but player numbers added up. & there is no question whatever at the team level: better numbers make you a better team. Period.

Put it another way: last year, in the West, the players on Utah, overall, put up better numbers than any other team in the West -- & the team won more games than any other in the West. Phoenix players put up numbers a bit behind Utah overall; they posted the 2d best record in the West.

Now, maybe those players put up better numbers because of their coach. But, unless they put up better numbers they don't win more games.

And... Utah and Phoenix had the best numbers because of how well they were put together - as a team - not as the accumulation of individual stock prices for each player.

[payitforward]

I don't know what the "stock prices" metaphor means. "Well put together as a team" surely must start with the players, don't you think?

Rudy Gobert is a tremendous player. Suppose we give all his minutes to Udoka Azubuike next season? How much worse does Utah get? They get exactly as much worse as the difference between how good those two players are. (Not to pick on Azubuike)

What's the first thing you do to make your team better? You get better players.

That's not to deny basketball is a team sport. Or that you need good players at multiple positions. You can't sign the 15 best point guards in the league & expect to win. But, if you replace your current starting pg with a better pg, you become a better team.

& by "better pg," I don't mean more famous pg or higher paid pg. I mean one who puts up better numbers overall.

[bsilver]

Jared Butler looked fantastic for Utah tonight, but we got Todd and Holiday. Could have turned that 23rd pick into some good prospects.

[bsilver]

Have trouble understanding BPA concept when it comes to the draft, especially when not drafting top 1-5. How would it be done? Put college stats, competition level, eye test, athleticism, physical measurements, upside, character, etc., into a formula and voila?

And then there's the fact that picking around 15, even if your philosophy is BPA, the chances of picking the real BPA are very slim, more so if you're the Wizards.