ImageImageImageImageImage

2020 Draft

Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart

pcbothwel
Assistant Coach
Posts: 4,076
And1: 1,482
Joined: Jun 12, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#961 » by pcbothwel » Thu May 28, 2020 4:56 pm

Ruzious wrote:Inspired by Dat, here's my top 10 players for the 2020 draft:

1. Wiseman - He'll make his share of defensive mistakes, but there's too much there there to like for a player his size, and I'm convinced he will dominate.

2. Okongwu - The best defender in this draft and has a reasonable chance to be an above average offensive player. Will make his team better.

3. Killian Hayes - looks and plays like a man among boys - while being younger than everyone else.

4. Anthony Edwards - yeah, he's still a bit overrated, but there's no doubt he's an explosive scorer who can score in many ways and is capable of being an all-around player.

5. Tyrese Haliburton - Maybe the smartest player in the draft. Basically the same size as SGA, and the fact that SGA has excelled is an indication that Haliburton's thin frame won't hurt him too much.

6. Obi Toppin - Outstanding offensive potential and could develop into an adequate defender.

7. Aaron Nesmith - pick inspired by Dat, but I've been consistent - I've been pumping up Nesmith for quite a while. I think he's a better prospect than Hield was.

8. Josh Green - he's been overshadowed by teammate Niko Mannion, but he's a better NBA prospect. Really good all-around 2 with some combo-guard ability.

9. Saddiq Bey. Dat had the other Bey here, but I think Saddiq is such a good fit as a 3 in today's NBA game.

10. Deni Avdija - I'm not completely sold on him (3 point shot mainly), but in this draft - it's hard to pass up an all-around talent like him. Giving him the slight edge over Tyler Bey, Daniel Oturu, Vernon Carey, and Jalen Smith.



i dont get it with Bey or Nesmith... Vassell is CLEARLY a better prospect and younger than both.
Look, i like Nesmith, but he is a below average defender that cannot create. His freshman year was mediocre at best, and I know his shooting is tremendous.... but it was a 14 game sample size before he got hurt and was comprised of lighting up SE Missouri St., Richmond, Tulsa, UNC Wilmington, and SMU.
Vassell was not as efficient scoring, but he averages more rebounds, more assist, more blocks, more steals, fewer turnovers, and fewer fouls... against tougher competition.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,732
And1: 4,255
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#962 » by payitforward » Thu May 28, 2020 5:25 pm

The Consiglieri wrote:
payitforward wrote:
Jamaaliver wrote:
Read on Twitter

Actually, what this tells me is that "it's probably not a very good... crop" of guys doing the projecting! :)

Literally everyone everywhere? Doubtful.

Well... at least partly I was being humorous. Then again, if a player missed shots at the rate these guys miss on who's gonna be picked where... you get my point.
The Consiglieri wrote:In my experience, drafts tagged this bad, have always been bad historically. That isn't to say there were hidden gems, with '13 being the most recent glaring example of a bad draft draft featuring hidden gems, but overall, and over time, the bad draft tags various drafts featured have fit.

I don't know how important the subject is, really, but I disagree pretty thoroughly. There are some outliers, of course (2014 was terrible), but mostly I haven't seen huge differences in draft quality from year. E.g., I remember that 2011 was called a terrible draft. Didn't turn out that way.

What is certainly true is that it's impossible to predict with much precision who's going to turn out to be how good or not good a few years after the draft. I don't know how many times I'd have to present the data for people to get the picture. After pick #3 the best players are not at the top of the draft. Period.

We have no idea whether this is a good draft or a bad one.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
Ruzious
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
Posts: 40,292
And1: 6,540
Joined: Jul 17, 2001
       

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#963 » by Ruzious » Thu May 28, 2020 5:36 pm

pcbothwel wrote:
Ruzious wrote:Inspired by Dat, here's my top 10 players for the 2020 draft:

1. Wiseman - He'll make his share of defensive mistakes, but there's too much there there to like for a player his size, and I'm convinced he will dominate.

2. Okongwu - The best defender in this draft and has a reasonable chance to be an above average offensive player. Will make his team better.

3. Killian Hayes - looks and plays like a man among boys - while being younger than everyone else.

4. Anthony Edwards - yeah, he's still a bit overrated, but there's no doubt he's an explosive scorer who can score in many ways and is capable of being an all-around player.

5. Tyrese Haliburton - Maybe the smartest player in the draft. Basically the same size as SGA, and the fact that SGA has excelled is an indication that Haliburton's thin frame won't hurt him too much.

6. Obi Toppin - Outstanding offensive potential and could develop into an adequate defender.

7. Aaron Nesmith - pick inspired by Dat, but I've been consistent - I've been pumping up Nesmith for quite a while. I think he's a better prospect than Hield was.

8. Josh Green - he's been overshadowed by teammate Niko Mannion, but he's a better NBA prospect. Really good all-around 2 with some combo-guard ability.

9. Saddiq Bey. Dat had the other Bey here, but I think Saddiq is such a good fit as a 3 in today's NBA game.

10. Deni Avdija - I'm not completely sold on him (3 point shot mainly), but in this draft - it's hard to pass up an all-around talent like him. Giving him the slight edge over Tyler Bey, Daniel Oturu, Vernon Carey, and Jalen Smith.



i dont get it with Bey or Nesmith... Vassell is CLEARLY a better prospect and younger than both.
Look, i like Nesmith, but he is a below average defender that cannot create. His freshman year was mediocre at best, and I know his shooting is tremendous.... but it was a 14 game sample size before he got hurt and was comprised of lighting up SE Missouri St., Richmond, Tulsa, UNC Wilmington, and SMU.
Vassell was not as efficient scoring, but he averages more rebounds, more assist, more blocks, more steals, fewer turnovers, and fewer fouls... against tougher competition.

You can certainly make that case - and I think most agree with you. I've said several times - Vassell's basically Danny Green - which is good - especially if you don't need anything but 3's and defense from one of your wings. He really does nothing on offense other than shoot open 3's (on much lower volume than both Nesmith and Bey). It depends on what you're looking for. If you want a Danny Green - go for Vassell, knowing he's going to have games where he completely disappears on offense. If you want a Buddy Hield type, go for Nesmith. Bey didn't get blocks and steals, but he is regarded as a good defender. Btw, he did get more assists and fewer fouls than Vassell.
"Look, you never know when you may need to borrow a cup of sugar, maybe some milk or a handgun" - Dan C. from Texas
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,732
And1: 4,255
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#964 » by payitforward » Thu May 28, 2020 9:02 pm

I'm not sure I understand what there is to argue about between Vassell & Nesmith. Is there a mock somewhere that has Nesmith going higher than Vassell? I haven't seen one. What I've seen has Vassell at least 1/2 dozen picks higher.

So it's unlikely we'd be deciding directly between these two guys -- do I have that right?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 18,473
And1: 5,560
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#965 » by dckingsfan » Thu May 28, 2020 9:52 pm

payitforward wrote:I'm not sure I understand what there is to argue about between Vassell & Nesmith. Is there a mock somewhere that has Nesmith going higher than Vassell? I haven't seen one. What I've seen has Vassell at least 1/2 dozen picks higher.

So it's unlikely we'd be deciding directly between these two guys -- do I have that right?

Having said that, you now know they will both be available when we pick.
The Consiglieri
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,661
And1: 232
Joined: May 09, 2007

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#966 » by The Consiglieri » Thu May 28, 2020 10:14 pm

doclinkin wrote:
The Consiglieri wrote:
gambitx777 wrote:Yeah there are guys that are good that go there but 5 second round picks don't get you a top ten you know why? Because pick4-10 is better than pick 40-50. It has nothing to do what so ever about how good the players may or may not be. 9 is a better pick than 51 other picks in the draft because there is one more player on the board to choose from. We all know you got lucky and Brandon clarke ended up being as good or better than you thought he was, but that's not a good point. I bright up those picks because those are what we are talking about right now. Two of those guys I mentioned suck, the other one isn't even in the league. The point I am making is when you say they have just as good of a chance to be good they have just as good of a chance to be ****. There are variables here piff. The person making the pick, injuries, work ethics, persona lives and ****. What would rui be if he hadn't got kicked in the nuts? We will never know.

I believe in good scouting I believe in stocking up on assets. I agree that trading back would be a decent move. What I disagree with is the valuation. No pick in the draft is ever the same value as the same pick of another year. Drafts are deeper or thinner than others. Some have more talent than others. The fact still remains. There is a lot of luck involved. 26 and 30 don't get you top ten they just don't. Do 17-26 or 17-30 maybe. Depends on a lot of stuff. But I think it's not as cut and dry as saying look at last year we could have traded back and got Clark and thybulle. We could have easily traded back and taken two guys worse than rui.

Maybe Boston has better offers maybe gma don't like the back half of this draft and they don't. idk. But I do know if there is a certain point where you walk away and keep what you have and I would think long and had about trading back for from 9 to 17 and 30 alone. just my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G965U1 using RealGM mobile app

Me blabbering



Hah. I think I tabbed him first and he was the player I liked best except that PIF is fun to disagree with. Since he was so loud on Clarke it was more fun to be contrarian. His main point I generally agree with: every year there are a few guys that many teams miss on. If you trade back and pick up extra spots then you have multiple chances of selecting at least one of those guys. Or if you trust that your scouting is better than others', you may pick up more than one.

To my way of thinking the least valued picks are future years. In a questionable year I personally would rather drop back to take a flyer on one of a handful of guys that might pan out, but collect a future pick or a 2nd rounder and the option to swap first round pics in a future year. Future picks and rd 2 players are still a market inefficiency to exploit.

The only issue with selecting picks in bulk is that every team has limited roster spots and limited time to develop young players. Adding 2 way players gives a little breathing room, but not much. You can hide a guy in the G League for a time, but if he is good other teams can poach him. You can draft and stash a promising Euro player, since those guys are less well scouted. But still, teams tend to win not with a swarm of talented rookies but generally with a talented consensus best in their draft superstar at the peak of their game. Those guys used to be only available drafting #1 overall. Now in the era of short contracts and player movement and "taking my talents to South Beach" you can assemble a team out of disgruntled superstars. Or superstars who would like to be better gruntled anyway. But those guys generally only want to join a squad with a decent chance of winning. They want to play with known commodities who have learned how to thrive in the league. Even the most talented players take 3 years or so to figure it out and don't hit their prime until 5-6 years into their career.

In fact a team with too many players to develop is ripe to exploit when they are forced to give up on one or more of their guys early. There is a market inefficiency right there. That is how we land a Thomas Bryant for free (and Bonga and Wagner if you like them). And how LA's top picks end up in New Orleans and everywhere else. Young cats heading into their 2nd contract have hidden potential if their value has been suppressed by playing on a young team that hasn't learned how to win. That's an inefficiency to exploit. Their first team becomes a farm team for the rest of the league. But we don't ourselves want to be that farm team.

Though since we have financial imbalance on our roster we may not have a choice. Seems to me we have two ways to build a winner. I suppose the value of all of our talent could be suppressed and we could build a team that is full of young guys who enjoy the atmosphere despite battling for minutes and we re ink all of them to extended contracts at lower value and develop them to all peak at once.

OR

We get good enough to attract attention and become a destination for another team's star who adds us to a list of teams they are willing to be traded to and we bundle a mess of that developing talent in a win-now pitch that is top heavy with superstars and a handful of bargain vets who see this as a realistic place to make a push for a ring. And if Ted is willing to pay a premium for a short term run at a supernova.

Here, IF Wall returns healthy and we play well and start winning, while Beal is peaking and coveted by every team in the league, then hey, maybe we can play that strategy in the short window before both their contracts expire. Players voted Beal to start in the allstar game even if fans and coaches kept him out. Players respect Wall. We nearly landed Horford who wanted to play with those two before looking at the dysfunction in our front office.

Actually in a year like this where teams all seem to think there is no great player in the draft, I feel like if you trust your scouting department you may get value in trading UP for the one guy you need. Personally I'd like Okongwu. If I could get him by trading up a couple spots, I'd think about it. I see synergy in his game and what our squad needs. Here is an example of a player who would swiftly help maximize the value-for-pick and sinter well with our established stars. Highlights are good but I like here his ability to examine his weaknesses and analyze what he would do wrong and process criticism. That is a player who will improve every year:




If not him then okay trade down, and net me Xavier Tillman and whomever else. Tyler Bey. And future picks. Because those future picks are the ones that may net us the replacement superstar we will need when this era is past and we need a refresh button.


I actually kinda agree w/you, and to some extent PIF w/regards to this. I think one of the last inefficiencies in team building is in regards to the value of future picks. If you have a patient owner, or just one averse to turnover in the F.O. (and we absolutely do based upon GMGM with the Caps and EG's horrific management of the wiz repeatedly countenanced by Ted) you can take advantage of that patience by your GM having the job security to make long term planning the priority rather than win now moves, basically the opposite of what was allowed late with EG and GMGM which finally helped contribute to their firings (one story that needs to be written in the athletic or something is about the grand Mal incompetence of Owners putting GM's under win or else threats while still giving them full authority to make trades, both the Caps and the Wizards down the stretch were sabotaged by such insanity, heck the Redskins just got curb stomped in the Trent Williams trade because Snyder was too stupid to fire Allen years earlier, and still allowed him to totally sabotage the potential value of a Williams trade). If I was the GM, I would 1000% be in favor of trading down for future assets post-lottery. That would be the gimme of all gimme's. End up with a middling pick in the lottery (as we nearly always do), trade down a bit and grab a future 1st as a part of the deal, it makes TONS of sense.

I also agree w/you about the draft itself. While PIF's idea does strike me as one that follows the Richard Thaler botched Redskins model (redskins hired him, then ignored his findings about the value of trading down in the draft) of just adding bullets to improve your chance at success rather than rolling the long odds of one pick, one shot which we normally do. I can see some value in that, but I think like you, the fatal flaw, to me, is that historically, you're going to miss on the players that win teams titles. You see handfuls of teams over the decades that won based on a collection of good assets, rather than an immense Big 3 with nice complimentary players, the Pistons 15+ years ago, the Mavericks almost a decade ago (though they did have one superstar), there are handful's, but they tend to follow a clear trend line as in, the sneak in-between dynasties. The vast bulk of teams that have won follow that trend, the Warriors superteam, the Heat Superteam, the 20 year dynasty of the Spurs, the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, Jordan Bulls, Thomas' Pistons, Showtime Lakers and Celtics, basically the past forty years has gone to the super dynasties about 75-80% of the time, w/little blip teams sneaking in when the dynasty's fell and before new ones could be born. Your right, things have changed a bit now, and players are forming super teams but it is relevant to know where and why they are doing it. Miami because it was south beach and No state taxes. New Jersey because NY is owned by someone with a personality disorder, the Warriors because they're the most successful franchise of the past 30 years not lead by Jordan or Pop, and the Lakers because it's showtime LA, and the Clippers because Kawahi is quirky.

To me, there is no selling point for DC whatsoever other than cosmopolitan nature of the city. You don't have the tax breaks and sound F.O.'s in Texas, or the tax breaks and sexiness of Miami, Florida, you don't have the glitz of near NY, or LA, you don't have the success of Golden State, and there's zero institutional memory of success. None whatsoever ever. Even though NJ is a dump, they have made an NBA Final's in the four decades since Carter was president and they're within spitting distance of NYC. Without us winning a loaded lottery sometime in the next three years I see no method for us to become relevant. Nobody is coming here until there's a reason to come and Wall isn't that, and Beal isn't either as much as I like him. I 1000% agree that the team should use assets to trade down in drafts like this to double the bullets we have to work with in future drafts, especially the possible high school classes of '22 and beyond (I think that's when its back in play). We could have a superteazm, it's possible, but we need to win the lottery in a draft year like '19, '18, '17, '12, '07 etc, that sorta thing, and we need to make the right pick, that's the route. I don't think there's another one because I don't think a post injury Wall and Beal team is attracting anyone. It's also why I thought we should've traded Beal last summer and last fall and beyond. I admire his silliness to do the extension (autocorrection I'm keeping back there lol), but it doesn't matter long term, it just postpones the inevitable if we do it right, which is trade him so we have more rolls of the dice in future drafts to turn this around.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,732
And1: 4,255
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#967 » by payitforward » Fri May 29, 2020 2:10 am

dckingsfan wrote:
payitforward wrote:I'm not sure I understand what there is to argue about between Vassell & Nesmith. Is there a mock somewhere that has Nesmith going higher than Vassell? I haven't seen one. What I've seen has Vassell at least 1/2 dozen picks higher.

So it's unlikely we'd be deciding directly between these two guys -- do I have that right?

Having said that, you now know they will both be available when we pick.

Not sure what you mean; OTOH, I'm not sure I communicated what I mean!

Essentially, I don't think Ruz (or anyone) is suggesting or would suggest that we pick Nesmith at the #9 spot. If we had decided that Nesmith was the guy we wanted, we'd be likely to trade down in order to get him & another asset.

Right? Wrong?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,732
And1: 4,255
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#968 » by payitforward » Fri May 29, 2020 2:51 am

The Consiglieri wrote:...the fatal flaw, to me, is that historically, you're going to miss on the players that win teams titles. You see handfuls of teams over the decades that won based on a collection of good assets, rather than an immense Big 3 with nice complimentary players, ...

This just repeats the error of thinking that players taken near the top are better than players taken further down. I've only demonstrated the utter untruth of this something like a zillion times, but it seems there is nothing that can convince people of its untruth.

Steph Curry was taken 3 picks after Tyreke Evans. He was taken 1 pick after a guy you can't name w/o looking him up. That same year, was Tyler Hansborough better than Taj Gibson? Was Brandon Jennings better than Ty Lawson? Do you think Terrence Williams was better or Patrick Beverly?

If you don't know who the stiffs were whom I mention above, then you are working with bad data when you make claims about how to get "big 3" type players.

Who is better, Draymond Green or Thomas Robinson? Do you like O.J. Mayo a lot -- or might you not prefer Serge Ibaka? Do you think Michael Beasley is better than Nic Batum? Robin Lopez better than DeAndre Jordan?

Here's a list of guys: Derrick Williams, Bismack Biyombo, Brandon Knight, Jimmer Fredette (& I could add some more but why bother). How many of them are better than Kawhi Leonard?

For that matter, is Kyrie Irving, the number 1 pick in 2011 as good as Kawhi Leonard, the #15 pick? In fact, is he as good as Jimmy Butler, the #30 pick? Kyrie is very very good. But, the answer is still "no."

Is Alec Burks as good as Bojan Bogdanovic? Enes Kanter as good as Nikola Vucevic? Who was better, Marshon Brooks or E'Twaun Moore?

Would you prefer a different draft? Was Doug McDermott as good as Nikola Jokic? Hell, was he as good as Jerami Grant? Jordan Clarkson? Are Andrew Wiggins, Jabari Parker, Aaron Gordon, Dante Exxum, Nick Stauskas, Noah Vonleh, Elfrid Payton, or anyone taken in the top 24 that year, with the exception of Joel Embiid, in a class with Jokic? How many of them are better than Jordan Clarkon for that matter?

Here's one: among the 14 guys taken at the top of the 2013 draft, how many are as good as the guy taken #15? Anthony Bennett, Victor Oladipo, Otto Porter, Cody Zeller, Alex Len, Nerlens Noel, K C-P, Ben McLemore, Trey Burke, CJ McCollum, Michael Carter-Williams, Steven Adams, Kelly Olynyk, Shabazz Muhammed -- that's the top 14. Any of them as good as the Greek Freak? He went #15.

What does it take to get this across, I wonder? With very rare exceptions, & those usually caused by chance rather than FO skill, you are always better off -- way better off -- to have 2 later picks than 1 earlier pick. You can make an argument that a team should not trade down from picks 1-3. After that, you can't make any rational argument at all.
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 18,473
And1: 5,560
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#969 » by dckingsfan » Fri May 29, 2020 2:59 am

payitforward wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
payitforward wrote:I'm not sure I understand what there is to argue about between Vassell & Nesmith. Is there a mock somewhere that has Nesmith going higher than Vassell? I haven't seen one. What I've seen has Vassell at least 1/2 dozen picks higher.

So it's unlikely we'd be deciding directly between these two guys -- do I have that right?

Having said that, you now know they will both be available when we pick.

Not sure what you mean; OTOH, I'm not sure I communicated what I mean!

Essentially, I don't think Ruz (or anyone) is suggesting or would suggest that we pick Nesmith at the #9 spot. If we had decided that Nesmith was the guy we wanted, we'd be likely to trade down in order to get him & another asset.

Right? Wrong? Joke?

It was a joke (green font), correct :D

Why don't we draft dinosaurs to play basketball?











Because they are extinct.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,732
And1: 4,255
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#970 » by payitforward » Fri May 29, 2020 1:52 pm

dckingsfan wrote:
payitforward wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:Having said that, you now know they will both be available when we pick.

Not sure what you mean; OTOH, I'm not sure I communicated what I mean!

Essentially, I don't think Ruz (or anyone) is suggesting or would suggest that we pick Nesmith at the #9 spot. If we had decided that Nesmith was the guy we wanted, we'd be likely to trade down in order to get him & another asset.

Right? Wrong? Joke?

It was a joke (green font), correct :D

Why don't we draft dinosaurs to play basketball?
...
Because they are extinct.

Actually, they are not extinct; they've turned into birds.

OTOH, Larry Bird is extinct. The Bird Man has retired, & Jabari Bird (undrafted Celtics signee a few years ago...) didn't make it.

Sorry, everyone, I know this is something of a birden....
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 18,473
And1: 5,560
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#971 » by dckingsfan » Fri May 29, 2020 1:57 pm

payitforward wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
payitforward wrote:Not sure what you mean; OTOH, I'm not sure I communicated what I mean!

Essentially, I don't think Ruz (or anyone) is suggesting or would suggest that we pick Nesmith at the #9 spot. If we had decided that Nesmith was the guy we wanted, we'd be likely to trade down in order to get him & another asset.

Right? Wrong? Joke?

It was a joke (green font), correct :D

Why don't we draft dinosaurs to play basketball?
...
Because they are extinct.

Actually, they are not extinct; they've turned into birds.

OTOH, Larry Bird is extinct. The Bird Man has retired, & Jabari Bird (undrafted Celtics signee a few years ago...) didn't make it.

Sorry, everyone, I know this is something of a birden....

:rofl:
WallToWall
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,378
And1: 272
Joined: May 20, 2010
         

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#972 » by WallToWall » Fri May 29, 2020 5:17 pm

payitforward wrote:
dckingsfan wrote:
payitforward wrote:Not sure what you mean; OTOH, I'm not sure I communicated what I mean!

Essentially, I don't think Ruz (or anyone) is suggesting or would suggest that we pick Nesmith at the #9 spot. If we had decided that Nesmith was the guy we wanted, we'd be likely to trade down in order to get him & another asset.

Right? Wrong? Joke?

It was a joke (green font), correct :D

Why don't we draft dinosaurs to play basketball?
...
Because they are extinct.

Actually, they are not extinct; they've turned into birds.

OTOH, Larry Bird is extinct. The Bird Man has retired, & Jabari Bird (undrafted Celtics signee a few years ago...) didn't make it.

Sorry, everyone, I know this is something of a birden....


booooo ;-) :-) <throwing virtual tomatoes>
WallToWall
Bench Warmer
Posts: 1,378
And1: 272
Joined: May 20, 2010
         

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#973 » by WallToWall » Fri May 29, 2020 6:34 pm

Folks, whats your take on Aleksej Pokusevski? I see him going early 2nd round and given our multitude of 2nd rnd picks, I wouldnt mind taking a flier on him. High risk, high reward. He seem to have a good touch with his shooting, a legit 7 footer, long arms. But he doesnt seem to like to mix it up under the basket, and at 18 yo from Serbia, he doesnt have the knowledge base or experience you'd find in a comparative NCAA player. So, its hard to judge him. The little bit of youtube video of him that I've seen makes me want to take him as a flier.
dckingsfan
RealGM
Posts: 18,473
And1: 5,560
Joined: May 28, 2010

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#974 » by dckingsfan » Fri May 29, 2020 8:45 pm

WallToWall wrote:Folks, whats your take on Aleksej Pokusevski? I see him going early 2nd round and given our multitude of 2nd rnd picks, I wouldnt mind taking a flier on him. High risk, high reward. He seem to have a good touch with his shooting, a legit 7 footer, long arms. But he doesnt seem to like to mix it up under the basket, and at 18 yo from Serbia, he doesnt have the knowledge base or experience you'd find in a comparative NCAA player. So, its hard to judge him. The little bit of youtube video of him that I've seen makes me want to take him as a flier.

He doesn't get to actually play in the Euroleague games, so it is tough to tell. And that he isn't playing in those games tells you a lot - they aren't that good a team to start.

Against the other youngsters and those that are trying to make it to the senor club, he does fine, rebounds well, defends the rim. He shoots pretty well from the outside, I see that getting better. If by, "doesn't mix it up inside", you are right he doesn't have a post-up game.

Still if he isn't playing for Olympiacos is the Euroleague games, you know he is a couple of years away. If you are thinking draft and stash... maybe.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,617
And1: 1,799
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#975 » by doclinkin » Sun May 31, 2020 1:38 am

The Consiglieri wrote:
doclinkin wrote:Me blabbering as well


I actually kinda agree w/you, and to some extent PIF w/regards to this. I think one of the last inefficiencies in team building is in regards to the value of future picks. If you have a patient owner, or just one averse to turnover in the F.O. (and we absolutely do based upon GMGM with the Caps and EG's horrific management of the wiz repeatedly countenanced by Ted) you can take advantage of that patience by your GM having the job security to make long term planning the priority rather than win now moves, basically the opposite of what was allowed late with EG and GMGM which finally helped contribute to their firings (one story that needs to be written in the athletic or something is about the grand Mal incompetence of Owners putting GM's under win or else threats while still giving them full authority to make trades, both the Caps and the Wizards down the stretch were sabotaged by such insanity, heck the Redskins just got curb stomped in the Trent Williams trade because Snyder was too stupid to fire Allen years earlier, and still allowed him to totally sabotage the potential value of a Williams trade). If I was the GM, I would 1000% be in favor of trading down for future assets post-lottery. That would be the gimme of all gimme's. End up with a middling pick in the lottery (as we nearly always do), trade down a bit and grab a future 1st as a part of the deal, it makes TONS of sense.

I also agree w/you about the draft itself. While PIF's idea does strike me as one that follows the Richard Thaler botched Redskins model (redskins hired him, then ignored his findings about the value of trading down in the draft) of just adding bullets to improve your chance at success rather than rolling the long odds of one pick, one shot which we normally do. I can see some value in that, but I think like you, the fatal flaw, to me, is that historically, you're going to miss on the players that win teams titles. You see handfuls of teams over the decades that won based on a collection of good assets, rather than an immense Big 3 with nice complimentary players, the Pistons 15+ years ago, the Mavericks almost a decade ago (though they did have one superstar), there are handful's, but they tend to follow a clear trend line as in, the sneak in-between dynasties. The vast bulk of teams that have won follow that trend, the Warriors superteam, the Heat Superteam, the 20 year dynasty of the Spurs, the Kobe/Shaq Lakers, Jordan Bulls, Thomas' Pistons, Showtime Lakers and Celtics, basically the past forty years has gone to the super dynasties about 75-80% of the time, w/little blip teams sneaking in when the dynasty's fell and before new ones could be born. Your right, things have changed a bit now, and players are forming super teams but it is relevant to know where and why they are doing it. Miami because it was south beach and No state taxes. New Jersey because NY is owned by someone with a personality disorder, the Warriors because they're the most successful franchise of the past 30 years not lead by Jordan or Pop, and the Lakers because it's showtime LA, and the Clippers because Kawahi is quirky.

To me, there is no selling point for DC whatsoever other than cosmopolitan nature of the city. You don't have the tax breaks and sound F.O.'s in Texas, or the tax breaks and sexiness of Miami, Florida, you don't have the glitz of near NY, or LA, you don't have the success of Golden State, and there's zero institutional memory of success. None whatsoever ever. Even though NJ is a dump, they have made an NBA Final's in the four decades since Carter was president and they're within spitting distance of NYC. Without us winning a loaded lottery sometime in the next three years I see no method for us to become relevant. Nobody is coming here until there's a reason to come and Wall isn't that, and Beal isn't either as much as I like him. I 1000% agree that the team should use assets to trade down in drafts like this to double the bullets we have to work with in future drafts, especially the possible high school classes of '22 and beyond (I think that's when its back in play). We could have a superteazm, it's possible, but we need to win the lottery in a draft year like '19, '18, '17, '12, '07 etc, that sorta thing, and we need to make the right pick, that's the route. I don't think there's another one because I don't think a post injury Wall and Beal team is attracting anyone. It's also why I thought we should've traded Beal last summer and last fall and beyond. I admire his silliness to do the extension (autocorrection I'm keeping back there lol), but it doesn't matter long term, it just postpones the inevitable if we do it right, which is trade him so we have more rolls of the dice in future drafts to turn this around.


I wouldn't count the Nets. Nobody recalls them as a Finals contender or thinks of their history in New Jersey as any reason to join them today. They are relevant now only because Brooklyn is cool, the've got the NYC Media market money, and because as you say the Knix put the dis in dysfunction. And possibly because Jay Z briefly owned a stake in the team. But even with KD and Kyrie I don't see them as any real contender.

That said there is exactly one advantage DC has that other markets don't. Cash money baby: we are the only non contender that has paid the Lux tax in recent history. Ted has said he is willing to pay the lux tax whenever we are a possible contender. We have already paid to stay loyal to Wall and Beal. The team has demonstrated clearly they will reward loyalty. Ted and Tommy can pull the nice guy DCFamily schtick on the one hand, and point to the paycheck on the other. We have on our ownership group the richest woman in the world. And we are investing heavy on development and coaching and analytics and medicine and training staff and infrastructure and family assistance and all aspects that don't touch the salary cap.

There are other intanglibles. Ted's selling point to Beal was we can help you build a career in the game long after you retire. Working that 'family' angle with a concierge service of education and financial advice etc for immediate family members. If players start to hear about that, and their wives talk with other wives, then they may actually listen to the money as well. Players do respect Beal and Wall. Their game and their personality.

Unlike you I think a Wall/Beal team could threaten for a title with a third player to help carry the load. But that third player would have to be an Anthony Davis for instance. A Giannis. A Kawhi. A peak Paul George. A two-way front court player with a complete game and range. You know: that simple....

Still, in the case of Giannis, Kawhi, George: these players were available after the lottery. That just requires smarter scouting and analysis than everyone else, and hey just a little bit of luck. Not impossible.

Now, I can animate the vision of how a Beal+Wall team can win in DC in this era -- but that may better fit a different thread. (PIF's 'How can we be better next year' thread, I guess). But if we do land the right kind of players, and if we start winning, and our youth develops nicely, then I believe we may look better to free agents and 're-gruntling' prospects. If we can put together a plausible trade, if our current talent develops in tantalizing ways, if we stockpile picks, and grow our own. If we win a little.

I do think we are only 1 (more) all-star + 1 one legit starter away from putting a scare into EC Finalists. I get that people aren't sold on Wall, I'd submit his best is coming. Me personally, I have a strong feeling he gets a rare 2nd-peak to his career. And that peak will last longer. His shortcomings in the past were three-fold: ignoring injuries, relying on athleticism over skill, and bad habits. ALL of those shortcomings are overcome with wisdom and focus. I have a certitude that feels like righteousness that we get a rage of joy and vindication watching him burn like a phoenix in his return. That, plus Beal playing at this level, plus two players is enough.

So. Getting that 1 all-star plus 1 legit starter is key. We need defensive stalwarts in the front court. One two way player, and one dirty-work junkyard dog type. I don't put it past guys on our current roster to develop into those roles. It's a long shot, but we are so young. There's room to shock the pundits and fans.

And to my way of thinking we really need a coach with vision. Not 'a' vision, meaning only one idea and only one way of executing it (Thibodeaux for instance). We need a coach who has flexibility to maximize the roster we have, tweaking schemes and getting players to commit. Brooks is fine as a developmental coach for locker room chemistry and keeping a team upbeat and positive even while struggling. But I'd love to see players learn to play the chess game and maximize their talent level at both ends of the floor.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,732
And1: 4,255
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#976 » by payitforward » Sun May 31, 2020 1:03 pm

doclinkin wrote:...I think a Wall/Beal team could threaten for a title with a third player to help carry the load. But that third player would have to be an Anthony Davis for instance. A Giannis. A Kawhi. A peak Paul George. A two-way front court player with a complete game and range. You know: that simple....

Still, in the case of Giannis, Kawhi, George: these players were available after the lottery. That just requires smarter scouting and analysis than everyone else, and hey just a little bit of luck. Not impossible.

PG went in the lottery, but of course you're still right -- great players are available everywhere in the draft.

Where I wish you were right but really can't see it is the value of "smarter... than everyone else." Smarter anything. There's just way too much unknown, way too much random, way too much unpredictable development to make it possible for one team to be significantly smarter than a bunch of other teams (tho of course it is certainly possible to be significantly dumber than other teams! That's easy).

E.g. if GS got Draymond because of "smarter scouting and analysis..." -- how come they picked a much lesser player @#7 -- not to mention that they picked a stiff @#30 the same year! :)

For sure, you have to have competent scouting & analysis, but when it comes to luck, you need more than "a little bit." For example, what if that idiot David Kahn had picked Steph #6 in '09 -- instead of Jonny Flynn? What if our idiot hadn't traded Kahn the pick in the first place & had taken Curry? You need tons of luck long before you even get to the place where you can be lucky with the guy you picked!

The only thing that changes odds -- i.e. counts as "luck" -- is an extra shot. Every single flip of the coin has the same chance to turn up heads, but you are still twice as likely to flip heads if you have 2 chances. You have 2 times the chance to be "lucky."

& that is why you trade down. Now of course someone will write something like "...but the better players are at the top" -- no, they are not.

doclinkin wrote:...Getting that 1 all-star... is key. ...

To the degree that what you mean is a FA.... Every player would like a ring -- would answer "yes" if asked. But, no matter where you go the odds are long.

Which means that if you are a sensible professional, you are thinking of your overall future, your overall finances, what your career can possibly earn you overall, & how to come away from your relatively few years of peak earning with the maximum haul for yourself & your family. Because, once you retire, there are no umpteen-to-umpty-five million $ a year contracts waiting for you. Ever again.

I hope that, like me, you want guys to be thinking that way. They aren't gladiators.

Of course, if the $$ is the same, then you make your choice on other criteria -- lifestyle, chance at a ring, future opportunities. Whatever.

The odds are longest on the ring. Nor would I place a bet on anything at all about the advantages of one market over another. For a few years, Paul George was about to go the Lakers. But he didn't stand in the way of being traded to Oklahoma City! In the end, yes, he's in LA -- but first he signed a 4-year deal with OKC!

Anything can happen. But John Wall is a 10-year veteran, & all we have to do to win the East is climb over 10 teams. May it happen! But....

What we certainly can do is draft as well as possible. Really squeeze the most value out of each draft. We have never done that, though of course we've gotten lucky with a few picks over the years.

We certainly didn't do it under Ernie. & -- giving Tommy credit for both the '18 & '19 drafts -- Sheppard hasn't done it yet. Troy Brown is a terrific young player, but he's not an example of extracting the most value from a draft. Rui neither. Nor Admiral.

Maybe this year. A good start would be to trade down w/ Boston (if they are interested! I can't know that they are). Unless a prime target falls (Okongwu...?).
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
User avatar
doclinkin
General Manager
Posts: 9,617
And1: 1,799
Joined: Jul 26, 2004
Location: .wizuds.

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#977 » by doclinkin » Sun May 31, 2020 3:25 pm

payitforward wrote:
doclinkin wrote:...I think a Wall/Beal team could threaten for a title with a third player to help carry the load. But that third player would have to be an Anthony Davis for instance. A Giannis. A Kawhi. A peak Paul George. A two-way front court player with a complete game and range. You know: that simple....

Still, in the case of Giannis, Kawhi, George: these players were available after the lottery. That just requires smarter scouting and analysis than everyone else, and hey just a little bit of luck. Not impossible.

PG went in the lottery, but of course you're still right -- great players are available everywhere in the draft.

Where I wish you were right but really can't see it is the value of "smarter... than everyone else." Smarter anything. There's just way too much unknown, way too much random, way too much unpredictable development to make it possible for one team to be significantly smarter than a bunch of other teams (tho of course it is certainly possible to be significantly dumber than other teams! That's easy).

...

The only thing that changes odds -- i.e. counts as "luck" -- is an extra shot. Every single flip of the coin has the same chance to turn up heads, but you are still twice as likely to flip heads if you have 2 chances. You have 2 times the chance to be "lucky."

---

doclinkin wrote:...Getting that 1 all-star... is key. ...

To the degree that what you mean is a FA.... Every player would like a ring -- would answer "yes" if asked. But, no matter where you go the odds are long.

Which means that if you are a sensible professional, you are thinking of your overall future, your overall finances, what your career can possibly earn you overall, & how to come away from your relatively few years of peak earning with the maximum haul for yourself & your family. Because, once you retire, there are no umpteen-to-umpty-five million $ a year contracts waiting for you. Ever again.

I hope that, like me, you want guys to be thinking that way. They aren't gladiators.

Of course, if the $$ is the same, then you make your choice on other criteria -- lifestyle, chance at a ring, future opportunities. Whatever.

The odds are longest on the ring. Nor would I place a bet on anything at all about the advantages of one market over another.

...

Anything can happen. But John Wall is a 10-year veteran, & all we have to do to win the East is climb over 10 teams. May it happen! But....

What we certainly can do is draft as well as possible. Really squeeze the most value out of each draft. We have never done that, though of course we've gotten lucky with a few picks over the years.

...

Maybe this year. A good start would be to trade down w/ Boston (if they are interested! I can't know that they are). Unless a prime target falls (Okongwu...?).


Ok PG went 10. We are projected to go 9 or 10 this year. And even in our best years we weren't picking too long after 10. Point being there are players available.

Yes collecting extra draft picks counts as being smarter than everyone else. Analyzing value for pick and trading down and analyzing other team's patterns etc counts as being smarter than anyone else. Using our analytics department to tab players like Bryant who are undervalued by the teams that select them. Making smart plays to ink undrafted players in the scramble after the 2nd round. ID-ing draft and stash prospects and scouting Euro teams.

If no one can be smarter than anyone else, why are you in particular posting here? We absolutely have posters here who have proven smarter than most front offices. In fact if we simply did an index draft where this board voted on which players we wanted 1-30 I suspect our collective intelligence would outperform most front offices. History suggests this board has been loud right on most drafts.

Also you are incorrect in thinking that drafting higher has no value. Because it provides *more opportunity* to trade down. We can talk all we want about how it is smarter to trade down. But absent a willing partner in that transaction that is all it is: talk. A higher draft pick has a higher chance for a team lower down to fall in love with a player available on the board and trade up, based on 'need' or their own analytics and believing they are smart than anyone else. A Doncic/Trey situation for instance.

There is not always a partner in a trade down from 10 to 18 or the like.

As for the rest.

I think where we can build an advantage in landing players, either as free agents, or --as has proven more fruitful in recent years, in terms of better value-- as a trade target is in: a) money due to willingness to pay the lux tax, and b) 'other criteria'.

So long as we are not a losing team I suspect Beal and Wall are a net positive in attracting players. Their voices are respected. Players talk. The fact that Beal has been coveted by so many players as an addition to their team, the fact that players willingly take vacations to hang with Wall. He's popular and respected and commonly in the handshake after games big time players seek him out for conversation. He's not noted as hard to get along with, and the big time players gravitate towards him. Beal too, while he may not be The Man as far as players seeking him out to spend vacation days with, he was voted by players to start the All Star game, and players have openly risked tampering fines talking about recruiting him to their teams.

This is a draft where I think we could build depth and defense and role players. The only player I see with that potentially dominating next level talent is Wiseman. But I don't trust his ability to realize that potential and we don't have the staff to foster it in time to really profit from it if we are looking at a Beal/Wall window. Though Wall will make him look good. And Brad/Davis would give him space to work. We would need a low ego vet big man who could mentor him, and or a Bigs coach who can teach him to leverage the talents he does have. Though I'd feel more confident if we got Wiseman and Xavier Tillman. XT has a natural coaching mindset. Izzo says he is the closest thing to Draymond that he knows, and Izzo knows him some Draymond. He will move his teammates like chess pieces to make the defense better.

I like Okongwu as a player most likely to squeeze every ounce of use out of the talent he has. He is a hard working high energy big who has defensive instincts and good analysis of his own weaknesses. The attitude is what makes him a good fit. A winning mindset. Where Wiseman is lost out there and dominating on talent alone, Okongwu thinks the game quickly and is headed where he needs to be before the ball gets there. That is a good chemistry fit. He's a quicker positive with us. He will get some early goaltends and pumpfake fouls and blocking calls, as every rookie Big does, but I see him adjusting quicker than most. I don't see him as an all-star. Except if David Adkins helps him develops a passion for shooting and he takes to that as easily as he takes coaching in every other area. But either way I see him as a long time starter on a winning team, yes. He would certainly fill that role of Dirty Work player in my book.
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,732
And1: 4,255
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#978 » by payitforward » Sun May 31, 2020 4:15 pm

doclinkin wrote:
payitforward wrote:
doclinkin wrote:...I think a Wall/Beal team could threaten for a title with a third player to help carry the load. But that third player would have to be an Anthony Davis for instance. A Giannis. A Kawhi. A peak Paul George. A two-way front court player with a complete game and range. You know: that simple....

Still, in the case of Giannis, Kawhi, George: these players were available after the lottery. That just requires smarter scouting and analysis than everyone else, and hey just a little bit of luck. Not impossible.

PG went in the lottery, but of course you're still right -- great players are available everywhere in the draft.

Where I wish you were right but really can't see it is the value of "smarter... than everyone else." Smarter anything. There's just way too much unknown, way too much random, way too much unpredictable development to make it possible for one team to be significantly smarter than a bunch of other teams (tho of course it is certainly possible to be significantly dumber than other teams! That's easy).

...

The only thing that changes odds -- i.e. counts as "luck" -- is an extra shot. Every single flip of the coin has the same chance to turn up heads, but you are still twice as likely to flip heads if you have 2 chances. You have 2 times the chance to be "lucky."

---

doclinkin wrote:...Getting that 1 all-star... is key. ...

To the degree that what you mean is a FA.... Every player would like a ring -- would answer "yes" if asked. But, no matter where you go the odds are long.

Which means that if you are a sensible professional, you are thinking of your overall future, your overall finances, what your career can possibly earn you overall, & how to come away from your relatively few years of peak earning with the maximum haul for yourself & your family. Because, once you retire, there are no umpteen-to-umpty-five million $ a year contracts waiting for you. Ever again.

I hope that, like me, you want guys to be thinking that way. They aren't gladiators.

Of course, if the $$ is the same, then you make your choice on other criteria -- lifestyle, chance at a ring, future opportunities. Whatever.

The odds are longest on the ring. Nor would I place a bet on anything at all about the advantages of one market over another.

...

Anything can happen. But John Wall is a 10-year veteran, & all we have to do to win the East is climb over 10 teams. May it happen! But....

What we certainly can do is draft as well as possible. Really squeeze the most value out of each draft. We have never done that, though of course we've gotten lucky with a few picks over the years.

...

Maybe this year. A good start would be to trade down w/ Boston (if they are interested! I can't know that they are). Unless a prime target falls (Okongwu...?).


Ok PG went 10. We are projected to go 9 or 10 this year. And even in our best years we weren't picking too long after 10. Point being there are players available.

Yes collecting extra draft picks counts as being smarter than everyone else. Analyzing value for pick and trading down and analyzing other team's patterns etc counts as being smarter than anyone else. Using our analytics department to tab players like Bryant who are undervalued by the teams that select them. Making smart plays to ink undrafted players in the scramble after the 2nd round. ID-ing draft and stash prospects and scouting Euro teams.

If no one can be smarter than anyone else, why are you in particular posting here? We absolutely have posters here who have proven smarter than most front offices. In fact if we simply did an index draft where this board voted on which players we wanted 1-30 I suspect our collective intelligence would outperform most front offices. History suggests this board has been loud right on most drafts.

Also you are incorrect in thinking that drafting higher has no value. Because it provides *more opportunity* to trade down. We can talk all we want about how it is smarter to trade down. But absent a willing partner in that transaction that is all it is: talk. A higher draft pick has a higher chance for a team lower down to fall in love with a player available on the board and trade up, based on 'need' or their own analytics and believing they are smart than anyone else. A Doncic/Trey situation for instance.

There is not always a partner in a trade down from 10 to 18 or the like.

As for the rest.

I think where we can build an advantage in landing players, either as free agents, or --as has proven more fruitful in recent years, in terms of better value-- as a trade target is in: a) money due to willingness to pay the lux tax, and b) 'other criteria'.

So long as we are not a losing team I suspect Beal and Wall are a net positive in attracting players. Their voices are respected. Players talk. The fact that Beal has been coveted by so many players as an addition to their team, the fact that players willingly take vacations to hang with Wall. He's popular and respected and commonly in the handshake after games big time players seek him out for conversation. He's not noted as hard to get along with, and the big time players gravitate towards him. Beal too, while he may not be The Man as far as players seeking him out to spend vacation days with, he was voted by players to start the All Star game, and players have openly risked tampering fines talking about recruiting him to their teams.

This is a draft where I think we could build depth and defense and role players. The only player I see with that potentially dominating next level talent is Wiseman. But I don't trust his ability to realize that potential and we don't have the staff to foster it in time to really profit from it if we are looking at a Beal/Wall window. Though Wall will make him look good. And Brad/Davis would give him space to work. We would need a low ego vet big man who could mentor him, and or a Bigs coach who can teach him to leverage the talents he does have. Though I'd feel more confident if we got Wiseman and Xavier Tillman. XT has a natural coaching mindset. Izzo says he is the closest thing to Draymond that he knows, and Izzo knows him some Draymond. He will move his teammates like chess pieces to make the defense better.

I like Okongwu as a player most likely to squeeze every ounce of use out of the talent he has. He is a hard working high energy big who has defensive instincts and good analysis of his own weaknesses. The attitude is what makes him a good fit. A winning mindset. Where Wiseman is lost out there and dominating on talent alone, Okongwu thinks the game quickly and is headed where he needs to be before the ball gets there. That is a good chemistry fit. He's a quicker positive with us. He will get some early goaltends and pumpfake fouls and blocking calls, as every rookie Big does, but I see him adjusting quicker than most. I don't see him as an all-star. Except if David Adkins helps him develops a passion for shooting and he takes to that as easily as he takes coaching in every other area. But either way I see him as a long time starter on a winning team, yes. He would certainly fill that role of Dirty Work player in my book.

Sigh...

Yes, of course, one person or group can be smarter than another. How could anyone think otherwise, & where did I say otherwise?

Yes, of course, owning a higher draft pick rather than a lower one has exactly the benefit you cite (increases the ability to trade down, though of course it doesn't guarantee that it's possible).
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.
DCZards
General Manager
Posts: 7,774
And1: 2,187
Joined: Jul 16, 2005
Location: The Streets of DC

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#979 » by DCZards » Sun May 31, 2020 5:12 pm

payitforward wrote:& that is why you trade down. Now of course someone will write something like "...but the better players are at the top" -- no, they are not.


Ok...I'll take the bait because I think it's pretty evident that the better players are indeed at (or near) the top of the draft. Of course, there have always been--and will always be--exceptions.

Let’s take last year’s all-star team where 18 of the 24 all-stars were top 15 picks. (If you go back one year to the 2019 all-star team, the list would include top 5 picks Durant, KAT, Beal, Irving, Blake Griffin, Aldridge and Oladipo, as well as top 10 picks Curry, George and Nowitzki.)

Now I know the all-star team is somewhat subjective and certainly not the perfect measurement of the top players in the NBA. But I think we’d agree that most of the players on the 2020 all-star team are among the top 20 players in the NBA.

Here’s the breakdown:

11 of these players were top 5 draft picks
5 others were lottery picks
2 were picked at 15
4 others were picked 20-30
2 of these players are second round picks

Giannis A.
Lebron James
Anthony Davis
Joel Embid
Kawhi Leonard
Pascal Siakiam
Luka Doncic
Kemba Walker
James Harden
Trae Young
Khris Middleton
Damian Lillard
Bam Adebayo
Ben Simmons
Rudy Gobert
Nikola Jokic
Jimmy Butler
Jason Tatum
Kyle Lowry
Chris Paul
Brandon Ingram
Russell Westbook
Donovan Mitchell
Domantas Sabonis
payitforward
RealGM
Posts: 13,732
And1: 4,255
Joined: May 02, 2012
Location: On the Atlantic

Re: 2020 Draft 

Post#980 » by payitforward » Sun May 31, 2020 10:11 pm

DCZards wrote:
payitforward wrote:& that is why you trade down. Now of course someone will write something like "...but the better players are at the top" -- no, they are not.

Ok...I'll take the bait because I think it's pretty evident that the better players are indeed at (or near) the top of the draft. ...

Let’s take last year’s all-star team where 18 of the 24 all-stars were top 15 picks. ...

This is the usual logic, & on its own terms it makes perfect sense. So, why would I be saying something different?

First of all, recall that I have repeatedly said, "after picks 1-3" -- tho, it's true that I didn't say it in this particular case, I've said it consistently enough that I don't think it's unfair to use it in the following analysis.

Here are the players as you list them -- without those who were taken in the top 3. I've put the rest in order of their pick positions.

Chris Paul -- 4
Russell Westbrook -- 4
Trae Young - 5
Damian Lillard -- 6
Kemba Walker -- 9
Domantas Sabonis -- 11
Donovan Mitchell -- 13
Bam Adebayo --14
Giannis A. -- 15
Kawhi Leonard -- 15
Kyle Lowry -- 24
Rudy Gobert -- 27
Pascal Siakiam --27
Jimmy Butler -- 30
Khris Middleton --39
Nikola Jokic -- 41

Looks a little different, huh? :)

But that's only the beginning. Keep in mind that a team uses an asset to pick a player. The league gives you that asset -- a free pick. But picks don't all have the same value. A higher pick can be traded for lower picks -- multiple lower picks.

Using Pelton's chart as a rough guide, I'll make what should be kind of a dramatic point: the pick used to take Kemba walker, a #9 pick, can be traded for all the picks used to take Nikola Jokic, Khris Middleton, Jimmy Butler & Rudy Gobert.

Not bad, huh? Oh... & one other guy who's not on this list: Draymond Green, taken at #35.

Now, obviously, you don't always get Jimmy Butler with the #30 pick! :)

Then again, you don't always get Kemba Walker with the #9 pick, do you?

Sometimes, with the #9, you get Andre Iguodala, Ike Diogu, Patrick O'Bryant, Joakim Noah, D.J. Augustin, DeMar DeRozan, Gordon Hayward, Andre Drummond, Trey Burke, Noah Vonleh, Frank Kaminsky, Jakob Poeltl, Dennis Smith, or Kevin Knox. In fact, along with Kemba, that's everybody taken at #9 from 2004 through 2018.

There are some very good players on that list! Would you agree that the 7 best are Iguodala, Noah, Augustin, DeRozan, Walker, Hayward & Drummond.

Would you rather have taken those 7 guys (plus all the stiffs chosen at #9 from '04-18 -- you get those too), or would you rather have taken the 4 low-picked guys on the all-star squad (Jokic, Middleton, Butler &, Gobert) along with Draymond Green & up to 30 other guys (it having been a 5 picks to equal the value of 1 #9) I could come up with from '04 to '18 who were taken at one of those picks* (starting, obviously, with Pascal Siakam)?

Note that before I go any further, it's the #9s (Iguodala, Noah, Augustin, DeRozan, Walker, Hayward & Drummond) vs. the trade downs (Jokic, Middleton, Butler, Gobert, Draymond & Siakam) plus:

I get to go further: 2017 -- Kyle Kuzma, Josh Hart. 2018 -- Omari Spellman, Mitchell Robinson (trading #39 & #41 for #36 -- or just taking him instead of Spellman, which I know you'd have done, Zards). 2015 -- Larry Nance, Malcolm Brogdon, Pat Connaughton. 2014 -- Jerami Grant & Kyle Anderson (in addition to Jokic, obviously). 2011 -- Davis Bertans. 2010 -- Lance Stephenson. 2009 -- DeMarre Carroll, Jonas Jerebko, Patrick Beverly. 2008 -- trade 41 & 39 to get DeAndre Jordan @35. 2007 -- Aaron Afflalo. 2006 -- Sergio Rodriguez. 2004 -- Sasha Vujejic, Anderson Varajao.

All of those guys. Every one. Is it starting to come clear?
Remember -- if you don't like the post above: blame Doc not me.

Return to Washington Wizards