RealGM

Let's say a team has the first pick, & the guy they draft turns out to be one of the top 3 players taken that year.

What grade do you give the FO of that team for their work in deciding who to take?
(but, keep in mind: it's not what grade you give the player -- we've already described that. It's what grade do you give the FO.)

I give that FO a C. Why would I give them any more than that?

OTOH, if, like Paul George for example, the guy taken #10 turns out to be one of the best 3 players in that draft, for sure that team's FO gets an A+ for their work. Seems obvious. (Note that I say "top 3" rather than "the best," because there can be more than one way to judge players, & therefore people can disagree: "top 3" should handle that problem.)

Of course, along those lines a FO could do other things to earn that "A." Say a team has the #15 pick, & they trade it for the #22 & #30 & somehow manage to pick 2 guys who wind up being the 12th & 16th best players to come out of that draft class, obviously that earns the team's FO a very high grade! Tho, I guess, if the guy who is taken 15 is way better than that, maybe that throws some shade on their work... ymmv.

OTOH, if they happen to have other picks in addition, & they screw those up in whatever way, then the overall quality of their work drops somewhat. Obviously.

So, if Johnny Davis turns out to be the 10th, 11th or 12th best player to come out of the 2022 draft, the Wizards' FO will get a C for picking him.

OTOH, if he's better than that, the grade for their work goes up. If he's one of the top 3 guys in this year's draft, well, obviously they have done "A" work in selecting him. A++ really -- 10's a lot below 1 !!

Will Johnny Davis be the 10th best player in this draft -- no one knows. He might be better than that. It's pretty much for sure there will be guys taken before him who don't turn out as well as he does. Of course, it's equally likely that some players taken after Johnny will turn out to be better.

We'll have to see how it shakes out. But, in the end, once we've seen how players taken last night do in the league, we will know what grade to give Tommy & his team for picking Davis.

Of course, to the degree that trading down (or up) would have been possible, that will affect the FO's grade as well. In fairness, it can be hard to know with any precision what was really possible. Yet, there were some trades, & from them we can get a pretty solid idea of what might or might not have been possible. That has to affect any FO's grade in any draft.

As to their overall grade in the draft, not just in picking Johnny Davis, obviously that must also incorporate how well players picked in R2 wind up doing.

I feel like rankings are so arbitrary with so many variables that it's a bit of an unnecessary straight jacket when trying to assess the draft. It's not just about who is drafted but how a team works either them after they're drafted, how a team succeeds around them and opportunities that come up for the player along the way.

I think there's far more value at looking at the player in question and seeing the kind of player they become. If you've got a rotation player or better out of the deal then you've probably done pretty well - though you want more than just a rotation player with a top 5 pick I suppose. You'll get some variance and shouldn't be looking specifically for only rotation players but after looking on the individual scale, it pays to zoom out and get a bit of context. Keep that up and eventually they'll have an even better player fall into their laps like a Brogdon or an Anunoby or someone like that. Heck that might even have happened with Davis and we just have to watch it play out. And there are times every team misses but you mitigate those misses with a solid developmental program, ensuring the guys you draft get a legit opportunity or two, and you don't let a single pick that doesn't work out change what you're doing.

If you got Rui Hachimura and the rest of the draft was terrible, you've probably done quite a bit better than if you got Singleton and Vesely and the rest of the draft got varying degrees of good players. I don't see a lot of value in trying to argue a good player was a mistake because a player on a different team turned out better. Maybe if the entire draft is superstars and you got a role player there should be questions but I don't see the shame in taking McCollum even though Giannis was on the board for example.

If a team is never drafting stars, they may want to ask themselves why. But that's a tough game outside of the top 5 and if they're consistently drafting good players then there isn't really an issue.

With the Wizards, I think they've managed the draft pretty well under Tommy. They haven't drafted stars but they've gotten top 8 or 9 rotation level players with each pick and that's pretty good honestly.

Their bigger issue is I feel they'd be well served to swing themselves out of the late lottery range and get a better pick in the process but that's not a draft issue but a larger strategic one. I'm not so sure hanging on to Beal for so long has done the team any real favors in that sense.

I don't care about the second-round pick, because it's impossible to judge. I give it the first-round pick of Davis C because it was predictable and if Beal re-assigns, Davis is going to have to learn a new position. I like Davis as a solid two-way player. If he was an incredible shooter and athlete, he wouldn't be there at 10. But the IQ, character, defensive ability and ability to get to the basket will allow him to become a solid player. If they fell in love with him, fine. But maybe they fell in love with Jalen Duren, but already had two centers who can start.

annually...