Chicken Littles: Sky done fell! Draft Thread 2011

[barelyawake]

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere, I just didn't catch it. In the unlikely event of a lost season, how do they decide the next year's draft order? Thanks in advance.

[nate33]

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere, I just didn't catch it. In the unlikely event of a lost season, how do they decide the next year's draft order? Thanks in advance.

We don't know yet. That'll have to be something they figure out when the time comes.

If it were me, I'd institute a 30-team lottery with losing teams having better odds, but with the weighting being less pronounced than it is in the existing 14-team lottery drawing.

[fishercob]

I'm sure this has been covered somewhere, I just didn't catch it. In the unlikely event of a lost season, how do they decide the next year's draft order? Thanks in advance.

I asked CBA guru Larry Coon, and he said no one knows yet. It would have to be determined before things start back up.

[Hoopalotta]

Multiple Draft Picks Available
Although we are over four months away from the 2011 NBA Draft there is a growing concern around the league about the overall strength and depth of the class. Even in the best case scenario, with the majority of the top underclassmen like Perry Jones III of Baylor and Duke's Kyrie Irving declaring, there's still few expecting the 2011 draft to provide a major impact.

According to sources, those projections have several teams ready to move their picks in trades rather than using them to bring in first-year talent. The Toronto Raptors, Portland Trail Blazers, Phoenix Suns, Minnesota Timberwolves and New Jersey Nets all have multiple first round picks that they could move. The Raptors, Timberwolves and Nets in particular wouldn't mind letting go of one of their selections due to already having a surplus of young players.

http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?sto ... z1E3H8QtSt

Toronto will probably have a top-10 pick, will they really give it up? I hope Ernie gets after it.

What I think Yannis was trying to say there was that those clubs might be willing to move the lesser of their picks which they acquired elsewhere. Toronto, for example, has Miami's 1st this year and they well might be willing to deal it. All those teams basically have some sort of a pick around the late teens or on into the twenties from what I recall (though I no longer see the future picks section here on RealGM).

But it almost seems like Yannis was being purposely vague to make it sound more exciting with "The Raptors, Timberwolves and Nets in particular.....".

I could see the Nets trading their lottery pick for an impact player, but that probably doesn't help us much.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

In the Fire Flip thread, an opinion was expressed that Charlotte, by changing coaches and winning more games would be worse off in the long run.

To say any team is better off losing presumes a draft pick that might come down to (for example) the difference between the eighth and the eighteenth pick will make a huge difference. In this upcoming draft I cannot tell if a Harrison Barnes is any better than a Tristan Thompson. How much better from the 2010 draft are Epke Udoh (#6) or Al Farouq Aminu (#8) than Eric Bledsoe (#18) or Trevor Booker (#23)? Would you rather have Evan Turner (#2), Wesley Johnson (#4) or Landry Fields (#39)? I look at the draft and see similar players in both rounds, and that half of the lottery picks are no better than many late first to mid-second rounders. In short, it's a crapshoot.

Stats for entire 2010 draft, at a glance: http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2010.html

From 2009, Sam Young, DeJuan Blair, Jodie Meeks, Jonas Jerebko, Marcus Thornton, and Chase Budinger were all second round picks between #36 and #44! Those are all NBA starter-quality players who are better than some lottery selections from the same draft.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2009.html

Some of the better round 1 players weren't lottery players. Jrue Holiday #17, Darren Collison #21 vs lottery players Thabeet #2, Flynn #6.

I think the lottery is way overblown. I am as excited about Faried, Jenkins, Cole, Markief Morris, Reggie Jackson, Marshon Brooks and other underrated players as some lottery prospects like Harrison Barnes or CJ Leslie.

[closg00]

In the Fire Flip thread, an opinion was expressed that Charlotte, by changing coaches and winning more games would be worse off in the long run.

To say any team is better off losing presumes a draft pick that might come down to (for example) the difference between the eighth and the eighteenth pick will make a huge difference. In this upcoming draft I cannot tell if a Harrison Barnes is any better than a Tristan Thomas. How much better from the 2010 draft are Epke Udoh (#6) or Al Farouq Aminu (#8) than Eric Bledsoe (#18) or Trevor Booker (#23)? Would you rather have Evan Turner (#2), Wesley Johnson (#4) or Landry Fields (#39)? I look at the draft and see similar players in both rounds, and that half of the lottery picks are no better than many late first to mid-second rounders. In short, it's a crapshoot.

Stats for entire 2010 draft, at a glance: http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2010.html

From 2009, Sam Young, DeJuan Blair, Jodie Meeks, Jonas Jerebko, Marcus Thornton, and Chase Budinger were all second round picks between #36 and #44! Those are all NBA starter-quality players who are better than some lottery selections from the same draft.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2009.html

Some of the better round 1 players weren't lottery players. Jrue Holiday #17, Darren Collison #21 vs lottery players Thabeet #2, Flynn #6.

I think the lottery is way overblown. I am as excited about Faried, Jenkins, Cole, Markief Morris, Reggie Jackson, Marshon Brooks and other underrated players as some lottery prospects like Harrison Barnes or CJ Leslie.

Damn CCJ, you've got me running to DX to check these guys-out, never heard of them You are correct though, great value is often found later in the draft...it's just perhaps more difficult to identify those value picks and the expectations are lower for those guys.

[nate33]

CCJ, I think you gotta look two or three years down the road before you grade drafts. Most top picks are extremely high on talent but low on strength and experience. They don't play so well in the first year or two, but they pan out to be better players in the long run.

If you had made this point in 2008 about the 2007 draft, you'd have told me that Carl Landry and Thad Young are better than Kevin Durant.

The bottom line is that there is a clear and obvious trend that high draft picks pan out to be better than low draft picks. Of course there are exceptions, but that doesn't change the rule.

[Ruzious]

If people are talking about strategizing this draft like they would any other draft, I think they're in for a surprise. My guess is that there will only be 6 to 8 players in this draft that would be lottery picks in an average draft. There could be a few guys going in the last half of the lotto that people just assumed were going to be late 1sts. And... worries about the lack o CBA might convince a lot of underclassmen to not come out - same with Euro's. So by the time the 2nd round comes, there might not be any legit prospects left.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

CCJ, I think you gotta look two or three years down the road before you grade drafts. Most top picks are extremely high on talent but low on strength and experience. They don't play so well in the first year or two, but they pan out to be better players in the long run.

If you had made this point in 2008 about the 2007 draft, you'd have told me that Carl Landry and Thad Young are better than Kevin Durant.

The bottom line is that there is a clear and obvious trend that high draft picks pan out to be better than low draft picks. Of course there are exceptions, but that doesn't change the rule.

Who compared Durant or any other top pick but you? Way to misrepresent what I posted, nate.

nate, your response was rather dismissive--I doubt you read or understood my post. If I look back at past drafts? ...I remember telling you Carlos Boozer would be better than Kwame and you dismissed that, too.

From the 2008 draft. After #17 McGee: Hibbert, Batum, Ryan Anderson,George Hill, Darrell Arthur, Chalmers, DeAndre Jordan, Luc Mbah Moute, Sonny Weems, Goran Dragic. All have started or are starter-quality players.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2008.html

If you want to look at the 2007 draft, all these picks came after #22: Jared Dudley, Wilson Chandler, Rudy Fernandez, Aaron Brooks, Arron Afflalo, Tiago Splitter, Carl Landry, Glen Davis, Josh McRoberts, Marc Gasol.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2007.html

nate, after half of the lottery the rest of the first rounders and I would say half the second round picks are similar quality. Specifically, I believe picks #8-45 are pretty much a crapshoot. About three top 10 picks end up busts. Alternatively, the the latter round one picks and the top round two picks generally are solid players.

Tanking does not guarantee a top-5 pick. It therefore, as far as I'm concerned doesn't get you better players. The Knicks got Wison Chandler and Landry Fields 23rd and 39th. Look at Houston's players and Portland's. They didn't tank and they drafted quite well.

That was all I intended to state--my opinion that the draft is pretty much a crapshoot and that tanking probably doesn't help unless you luck out and get a top pick. Even then you could draft a Turner or a Thabeet.

[willbcocks]

I was under the impression that Portland did tank. At the very least they got a #1, #2, #6 and #7(?) pick all in a short period of time. Oden, Aldridge, Webster, and Roy.

Here's an article I remember from 82games so we can avoid cherrypicking:

http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Looks like it can be arranged into tiers:

#1
#2-5
#5-10
#11-24
#27-47
#48 down

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

I was under the impression that Portland did tank. At the very least they got a #1, #2, #6 and #7(?) pick all in a short period of time. Oden, Aldridge, Webster, and Roy.

Here's an article I remember from 82games so we can avoid cherrypicking:

http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Fernandez, Batum, Mills, Cunningham are the picks I'm really impressed with, WB. The Blazers achieved playoff seasons before those guys were selected.

[nate33]

I was under the impression that Portland did tank. At the very least they got a #1, #2, #6 and #7(?) pick all in a short period of time. Oden, Aldridge, Webster, and Roy.

Here's an article I remember from 82games so we can avoid cherrypicking:

http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

Looks like it can be arranged into tiers:

#1
#2-5
#5-10
#11-24
#27-47
#48 down

Thanks, Willbcocks. That article summarizes it perfectly.

CCJ, indeed I am "dismissive" or your constant assertion that draft position doesn't matter and that it's just as easy to find a stud late in the draft as it is early. You cherry-pick the exceptions but ignore all the dreck that normally gets draft late in the draft. As the 82games.com article proves without any shred of doubt, draft position matters. It's better to pick high than pick low. The idea that draft position doesn't matter is flat out absurd and worthy of being dismissed.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Noone said draft position doesn't matter but you. No one said stud but you. There are studs later most drafts. When I told you Millsap was better than Shelden Williams you dismissed that, too.

I know the #18 can be better than #8. The #28 can be better than either of them. That much IS a crapshoot. Depends on who's doing the drafting.

Most of the draft comes down to guaranteed contracts and injury opportunities. Sam Young has been good but it took Mayo's injury for him to take the starting spot. Young and his teammate Blair each could have been lottery selections, but they didn't go top-30. I recall saying Blair was easily a top-10 pick. I liked him as much or better than Steph Curry.

I think tanking doesn't accomplish jack, nate. San Antonio drafts better than most.

In this draft there are very good players who won't go lottery but who are better than some who will.

[nate33]

CCJ, when you say "I look at the draft and see similar players in both rounds", and "half of the lottery picks are no better than many late first to mid-second rounders" and that the draft is "in short, a crapshoot", you are implying that draft position doesn't matter. It's the very premise of your post.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

So, by 82games, it's much better to draft 21st or 24th than in lottery 11th or 12th. Pick 37 has been about as good as pick 12.

The trend of role players and deep bench is biased by guaranteed contracts and players getting minutes by default. Success by being selected higher doesn't always mean that player is better. Also, some of the better second rounders go to Europe for better contracts.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

CCJ, when you say "I look at the draft and see similar players in both rounds", and "half of the lottery picks are no better than many late first to mid-second rounders" and that the draft is "in short, a crapshoot", you are implying that draft position doesn't matter. It's the very premise of your post.

I was quite specific and feel even moreso after reading 82games. Stars come from the first half of the lottery, primarily, as I said in my first post. After that there are solid players through the mid-second round.

Tanking to go from 18th to 8th doesn't guarantee you get that much better player.

You can mention Durant and otherwise reach your own conclusions, nate. I will continue to prefer Charles Jenkins over Jimmer Fredette. I know the Wizards like Booker a lot. I do, too. He went 24th. Right now, in supposedly a weak draft, Kenneth Faried is a round two pick, like Jenkins. I think Faried's way better than Booker.

All I have done is show from the past three drafts solid starters who were drafted well after the lottery. Twenty years and labels like star or deep bench haven't disproved anything I've said.

[Illuminaire]

Tanking certainly accomplishes certain things as well. Almost every draft has one, or possibly a few, clearly transcendent talents. You cannot get these boys in the late lottery. You cannot get them in the second round. You most definitely cannot trade for them.

If you want a league-dominating superstar, you'd better have a top-3 pick.

San Antonio definitely does a great job of drafting, but they basically look for super-role players. Because they have a star core, they don't need fantastic two-way talent... they just need the next Robert Horry. DaJuan Blair is a great player, but a limited one. He doesn't shoot well; he doesn't even shoot his FTs well. He turns the ball over a lot. His FG% is remarkably low for someone who lives down by the rim.

Basically, he's a rebounding beast who tries really hard. And for 22 minutes a night, that's all San Antonio needs out of him. Blair is good for them, he does his job, but he is not a star... which is what you expect when you draft late in the first round/early in the second, even if you draft really really well.

[Chocolate City Jordanaire]

Illumnaire, I'm glad you brought up SA's draft strategy. I agree. They for super role players.

That's what I like! The Wizards need a low-post phenom like SullInger. They can use efficient scorer and top-flight defenders. The players I like are often specialists who are really good role players or one-trick ponies.

Klay Thompson might be really good with Wall. Deep-range shooter to kick it back to.

I have to go now, but that's what I'm saying about the draft--later isn't necessarily a bad thing if you're drafting to meet a need or to find very good role players.

[Illuminaire]

I agree CCJ.

I think where we differ (and probably Nate), is that I believe that bad teams like the Wiz need top-rate talent much more than we need the super role-players. And the reason for that is your very own logic; those roleplayers will be available wherever we're drafting every single year.

The top end of the talent will very, very rarely fall far from the top 10 picks of the draft, though. So, if you can tank and guarantee yourself a top 10 spot, I see that as a valuable and helpful thing for a bad team to do. (Having the 7th worst record guarantees a top 10 pick, and anything worse than that is bonus =p)

[Ruzious]

CCJ, when you say "I look at the draft and see similar players in both rounds", and "half of the lottery picks are no better than many late first to mid-second rounders" and that the draft is "in short, a crapshoot", you are implying that draft position doesn't matter. It's the very premise of your post.

I was quite specific and feel even moreso after reading 82games. Stars come from the first half of the lottery, primarily, as I said in my first post. After that there are solid players through the mid-second round.

Tanking to go from 18th to 8th doesn't guarantee you get that much better player.

You can mention Durant and otherwise reach your own conclusions, nate. I will continue to prefer Charles Jenkins over Jimmer Fredette. I know the Wizards like Booker a lot. I do, too. He went 24th. Right now, in supposedly a weak draft, Kenneth Faried is a round two pick, like Jenkins. I think Faried's way better than Booker.

All I have done is show from the past three drafts solid starters who were drafted well after the lottery. Twenty years and labels like star or deep bench haven't disproved anything I've said.

Just wondering - Has anyone ever tanked for the purpose of going something like 18th to 8th? I'm not recomembering ever seeing a playoff quality team purposely miss the playoffs.