yosemiteben wrote:That doesn't support the argument that we gave up on building through the draft. It supports the argument that we thoroughly vetted players and thought they weren't long term fits.
I'll agree in regards to trading Vonleh. I'm sure that was also our thinking when we let Biz go, but I strongly disagree that it was a correct evaluation. I'll cede that we haven't given up on the draft, but I don't see how you can deny that we have been less focused on drafting and developing young talent the last few years.
yosemiteben wrote:(A) CLee was not nothing.
True. However, Lee was one of the few cases of our 2nd round picks netting any value whatsoever and he was still a one year rental. Acquiring Lamb was another example of getting value out of a 2nd round pick. Although, The issue with our 2nds has been present throughout the Cho era, not just the last few years. I might be forgetting some examples, but it seems like the vast majority of our 2nds outside of the Lee/Lamb deals have been traded for essentially nothing or used on players that aren't in the league anymore.
yosemiteben wrote:(B) Last summer we brought 2 UDFAs to camp, gave one guaranteed money, and gave a third player that was cut by PHI guaranteed money. The year before when we plugged an UDFA on our summer league team, liked what we saw and gave him guaranteed money. We also just acquired a damn DLeague team. I'd say the evidence supports the claim that we are actually increasing, not decreasing, our focus on development lately.
yosemiteben wrote:This is talking out of both sides of your mouth though. You can't say "we only try to add talent by picking up vets" and then also say "yeah we add youth but they aren't experienced enough to contribute yet, and we don't know if they'll work out." So we get dinged for moving on from Vonleh and Biz because that shows we are de-emphasizing development, but we also get dinged for adding other young pieces because they might require too much development?
I don't think I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth. I'm trying to add nuance. You are claiming that we are still focused on developing young players because of Wood/Graham/Tobey. I'm saying that you are correct that we are at least utilizing our last few roster spots to develop young UDFA's or young guys that have been cut elsewhere, but this is literally the first year of the Cho era where we have done that (normally the end up our bench is unplayable vets) and all three of those guys are very low end prospects. I'm only willing to give partial credit here. Although it is clearly a positive step in one sense, I don't think it makes up for our last three 1st round picks netting us a 29 year and old declining 3rd/4th option type player, a 30 year old bench shooting specialist, and a 24 year old limited upside prospect.
yosemiteben wrote:McRoberts. Marv. Batum. JLin. Marco. You are acting like we don't have a history of success with this. Finding value in vets that need a change of scenery is something FOs should be commended for.
Yes, we have had some success with this strategy and I'm not saying we should not use it at all. I agree that all four of your examples are good. Although, I would add that I'm still uneasy about Batums contract and I still don't think you can justify trading our pick for Marco, so I won't say that I'm 100% satisfied with how those situations have turned out. I would also note that we have struck out on plenty of those types of guys as well.
My point is that I think we are trying to hard to win-now by expending resources on low upside veterans and not putting enough emphasis on fully utilizing the draft to build for the future. It kind of ties into the discussion of whether or not we should tank this year. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think we are good enough to neglect the draft and try to win now by adding mediocre veterans. I don't mind a balanced approach, but I think we have gone too far in one direction and should be more focused on drafting or trading for good young players with upside.
