PC Board Post-Merger Draft - Discussion Thread

[Colbinii]

Yeah this is why I thought it would be fun to run a draft here. Different GMs, different ways of thinking, just a change up from seeing the same top 4 every draft.

I agree. We play so often over there that a kind of consensus naturally develops about certain players and strategies. I'm hoping everyone is active in the voting process.

It is because on the T&T board there is a meta that is heavily influenced by star power where fit and playstyle take a back seat. Generally voting is viewed as a Player vs Player and who has more talent, rather than going in depth into the actual matchups.

[Doctor MJ]

Was wondering which of 2 guys Doc was going to take. I love that it was Nasty. Definitely a fun guy to start a roster with and great value.

Thanks Chuck!

This is obviously a pick where it's already clear what opposing offenses are going to try to attack, and beyond that, it's hard to imagine a team led by Nash is going to get the votes needed to win the tourney. Hoping to have fun with it.

But to be clear to those who don't know me that well, I wouldn't have picked Nash if I didn't see an argument for him. People might remember that I've been reluctant to really embrace FGA limitations in the past because I just don't like them, but the ratio of Nash's offensive impact to his FGA cost is something obscene.

[Colbinii]

Was wondering which of 2 guys Doc was going to take. I love that it was Nasty. Definitely a fun guy to start a roster with and great value.

Thanks Chuck!

This is obviously a pick where it's already clear what opposing offenses are going to try to attack, and beyond that, it's hard to imagine a team led by Nash is going to get the votes needed to win the tourney. Hoping to have fun with it.

But to be clear to those who don't know me that well, I wouldn't have picked Nash if I didn't see an argument for him. People might remember that I've been reluctant to really embrace FGA limitations in the past because I just don't like them, but the ratio of Nash's offensive impact to his FGA cost is something obscene.

1) I was optimistic Nash was going to make it to me.

2) Building around players is my favorite part of this game. I already took the time to make a "tier list" of 50 or so players I want to utilize with LeBron. We will see how it works out.

[Doctor MJ]

Was wondering which of 2 guys Doc was going to take. I love that it was Nasty. Definitely a fun guy to start a roster with and great value.

Thanks Chuck!

This is obviously a pick where it's already clear what opposing offenses are going to try to attack, and beyond that, it's hard to imagine a team led by Nash is going to get the votes needed to win the tourney. Hoping to have fun with it.

But to be clear to those who don't know me that well, I wouldn't have picked Nash if I didn't see an argument for him. People might remember that I've been reluctant to really embrace FGA limitations in the past because I just don't like them, but the ratio of Nash's offensive impact to his FGA cost is something obscene.

1) I was optimistic Nash was going to make it to me.

2) Building around players is my favorite part of this game. I already took the time to make a "tier list" of 50 or so players I want to utilize with LeBron. We will see how it works out.

Agree about the building being the fun part, and it's also why I wouldn't want to build around the same guy again. Last time, several years ago, I picked LeBron #1 overall with no regrets, but I wouldn't have picked him again this time just because it's boring to do the same thing again.

[70sFan]

Thanks Chuck!

This is obviously a pick where it's already clear what opposing offenses are going to try to attack, and beyond that, it's hard to imagine a team led by Nash is going to get the votes needed to win the tourney. Hoping to have fun with it.

But to be clear to those who don't know me that well, I wouldn't have picked Nash if I didn't see an argument for him. People might remember that I've been reluctant to really embrace FGA limitations in the past because I just don't like them, but the ratio of Nash's offensive impact to his FGA cost is something obscene.

1) I was optimistic Nash was going to make it to me.

2) Building around players is my favorite part of this game. I already took the time to make a "tier list" of 50 or so players I want to utilize with LeBron. We will see how it works out.

Agree about the building being the fun part, and it's also why I wouldn't want to build around the same guy again. Last time, several years ago, I picked LeBron #1 overall with no regrets, but I wouldn't have picked him again this time just because it's boring to do the same thing again.

Same reason why I didn't pick Kareem, I just did that twice already in these drafts. I was also thinking about Magic, but I'm happy with Timmy anyway

[Odinn21]

As deep as C position, I picked Kareem because he had a bigger advantage.
(Spoiler will have names, so click on it or not at your will. A fair warning.)

Spoiler:

Kareem is one of the top 5 Cs ever. But Wilt and Bill isn't eligible in this draft. Shaq's best 2 seasons and Hakeem's best 2 seasons are definitely a worse value than Kareem's top 2 sesons since the merger.
So, if anyone gets Shaq or Hakeem to match Kareem's quality and impact, I'll have a bigger cap to build around. Or if they go someone like Moses, Robinson or Ewing, I'll have a direct and considerable advantage.
This looked more significant than LeBron's value superiority over Bird, Erving and Durant.
In terms of capability, quite possibly LeBron is the easiest player to build around. But also went for intangibles with Kareem since he was one of the best leaders in the game. I also don't believe I gave up on quality to get a better superiority and intangibles. Kareem's top seasons are up there with LeBron's best seasons, they are on the same tier.
The only big that could compare to Kareem was Timmy but he was already picked.
This was my train of thought.

As for Nash pick, that was something I would not do TBH. But in terms of value, that was one of the best picks out there and I can see someone building on his quality and value.

Lastly, I think we really should get coaches for our teams.
I don't know how we should organize the draft order for it. I think a draft like this without coaches would be missing some things. Coach is the biggest or the 2nd biggest factor to give a team their identity.

[Doctor MJ]

Lastly, I think we really should get coaches for our teams.
I don't know how we should organize the draft order for it. I think a draft like this without coaches would be missing some things. Coach is the biggest or the 2nd biggest factor to give a team their identity.

I'll roll with whatever, but tend to find coaching-based arguments problematic because we are the ones who define strategy for our team. In real life you hire Pop and he comes up with stuff better than you can, but that's different from saying "I know my strategy isn't as good as my opponents, but I have Pop, so just assume that Pop would have found a way to win and vote for my team."

On the other hand, I think it's appropriate to namecheck coaches when talking about the strategies you're using so people understand what you're after.

(Specific aside, I don't like the idea of saying "I can use the Triangle because I have Phil Jackson". I saw the way Ron Artest never really understood what he was supposed to do out their playing the Triangle, and I saw the way Pau Gasol understood what to do immediately. Jackson's a great coach, but to me the limiting factor there is the intelligence of your players more so than it is the actual coach.)

[Colbinii]

Lastly, I think we really should get coaches for our teams.
I don't know how we should organize the draft order for it. I think a draft like this without coaches would be missing some things. Coach is the biggest or the 2nd biggest factor to give a team their identity.

I'll roll with whatever, but tend to find coaching-based arguments problematic because we are the ones who define strategy for our team. In real life you hire Pop and he comes up with stuff better than you can, but that's different from saying "I know my strategy isn't as good as my opponents, but I have Pop, so just assume that Pop would have found a way to win and vote for my team."

On the other hand, I think it's appropriate to namecheck coaches when talking about the strategies you're using so people understand what you're after.

(Specific aside, I don't like the idea of saying "I can use the Triangle because I have Phil Jackson". I saw the way Ron Artest never really understood what he was supposed to do out their playing the Triangle, and I saw the way Pau Gasol understood what to do immediately. Jackson's a great coach, but to me the limiting factor there is the intelligence of your players more so than it is the actual coach.)

I'm in the camp that we are the coaches and define the playstyle of the team we build.

[Doctor MJ]

Was wondering which of 2 guys Doc was going to take. I love that it was Nasty. Definitely a fun guy to start a roster with and great value.

I seriously considered Garnett.

Hey, did you here the Thinking Basketball podcast when ElGee has drza on to talk about KG & TD? It's like it's stripped straight out of these boards.

https://player.fm/series/thinking-basketball/ep-41-duncan-vs-garnett-andre-snellings-great-debates

EDIT: Hakeem just went to O_6, he's the other guy I was seriously thinking about picking.

[Fadeaway_J]

Lastly, I think we really should get coaches for our teams.
I don't know how we should organize the draft order for it. I think a draft like this without coaches would be missing some things. Coach is the biggest or the 2nd biggest factor to give a team their identity.

I'll roll with whatever, but tend to find coaching-based arguments problematic because we are the ones who define strategy for our team. In real life you hire Pop and he comes up with stuff better than you can, but that's different from saying "I know my strategy isn't as good as my opponents, but I have Pop, so just assume that Pop would have found a way to win and vote for my team."

On the other hand, I think it's appropriate to namecheck coaches when talking about the strategies you're using so people understand what you're after.

(Specific aside, I don't like the idea of saying "I can use the Triangle because I have Phil Jackson". I saw the way Ron Artest never really understood what he was supposed to do out their playing the Triangle, and I saw the way Pau Gasol understood what to do immediately. Jackson's a great coach, but to me the limiting factor there is the intelligence of your players more so than it is the actual coach.)

I'm in the camp that we are the coaches and define the playstyle of the team we build.

Same here.

[Odinn21]

Lastly, I think we really should get coaches for our teams.
I don't know how we should organize the draft order for it. I think a draft like this without coaches would be missing some things. Coach is the biggest or the 2nd biggest factor to give a team their identity.

I'll roll with whatever, but tend to find coaching-based arguments problematic because we are the ones who define strategy for our team. In real life you hire Pop and he comes up with stuff better than you can, but that's different from saying "I know my strategy isn't as good as my opponents, but I have Pop, so just assume that Pop would have found a way to win and vote for my team."

On the other hand, I think it's appropriate to namecheck coaches when talking about the strategies you're using so people understand what you're after.

(Specific aside, I don't like the idea of saying "I can use the Triangle because I have Phil Jackson". I saw the way Ron Artest never really understood what he was supposed to do out their playing the Triangle, and I saw the way Pau Gasol understood what to do immediately. Jackson's a great coach, but to me the limiting factor there is the intelligence of your players more so than it is the actual coach.)

Well, I can't disagree what you're saying.

What I had in mind was from execution stand point.
Say a team has 8.5 out of 10 as potential on defense. A coach with proper background to support your strategy would help them achieve that potential.

A thing like that. Considering the people we have in this draft, I think this is way more likely than "I got Artest and I got Jackson, so Artest is pulling off the triangle".

[Texas Chuck]

Was wondering which of 2 guys Doc was going to take. I love that it was Nasty. Definitely a fun guy to start a roster with and great value.

I seriously considered Garnett.

Hey, did you here the Thinking Basketball podcast when ElGee has drza on to talk about KG & TD? It's like it's stripped straight out of these boards.

https://player.fm/series/thinking-basketball/ep-41-duncan-vs-garnett-andre-snellings-great-debates

I enjoyed it a ton. Obviously I'm a Duncan guy and drza is a huge KG guy, but I knew that going in. I could listen to those two guys discuss any topic they wanted though.

[Dr Positivity]

The clock doesn't start until tomorrow morning

[Dutchball97]

I was sceptical about the FGA restrictions at first but when guys like Nash and KG get taken that high there really is no telling who'll be available in the 2nd or 3rd rounds. This draft could go a lot of ways, which is nice.

[Colbinii]

I'm assuming since the draft started, and it's been 3 hours since the last pick, it'd be my turn to draft. I choose the MDE

Nope. The draft starts at 9 AM. Once the draft starts, the player whose turn it is gets 2 hours from the start time to pick.

[Colbinii]

I was sceptical about the FGA restrictions at first but when guys like Nash and KG get taken that high there really is no telling who'll be available in the 2nd or 3rd rounds. This draft could go a lot of ways, which is nice.

Why?

Nash is arguably the best offensive player of alltime and extremely fun to build around with an uptempo offense.

Kevin Garnett has arguably the highest Power Forward Peak [and a clear top 10 peak] and his skill-set scales with other all-time talent as well as anyone.

[Dutchball97]

I was sceptical about the FGA restrictions at first but when guys like Nash and KG get taken that high there really is no telling who'll be available in the 2nd or 3rd rounds. This draft could go a lot of ways, which is nice.

Why?

Nash is arguably the best offensive player of alltime and extremely fun to build around with an uptempo offense.

Kevin Garnett has arguably the highest Power Forward Peak [and a clear top 10 peak] and his skill-set scales with other all-time talent as well as anyone.

I'm new to draft games so I don't really look at it with a certain meta in mind. With KG usually being around 15th on All-Time lists and Nash often even falling into the late 20s or 30s I didn't immediately think them of early-mid first round picks.

[MisterHibachi]

Some very innovative early picks, excited to see how those teams pan out. Jordan falling to 8 is pretty insane though, especially in a single year competition. I never seem to get a shot at LeBron in these games. I want to get a shot at building a team around him. Shaq is a nice consolation prize though, with a top 3 peak.

[ardee]

Stan will need to repick.

[ardee]

You need to repick. You have an hour and a half.