Kenneth Faried - draftable?

[evildallas]

Let's be honest, if you define positions we are a team with 2 top flight PFs and 2 top flight SGs and are so-so everywhere else. So it seems absurd to suggest drafting a PF except that I'm not a fan of rigid position descriptions and I'm more concerned with skill sets rather than defining a position. Bench rebounding is something that we've been weak at for some time. I wouldn't mind having a guy that is likely to get the rebounds whenever he's on the court. Read the article/interview and ponder if he's a guy who could help us in that area.

[theatlfan]

Honestly, I don't think we've got the luxury to simply define b-ball need and go from there. The problem is that, as you state, the position we're in is that we've got 2 position where we're +, but 3 where we're significantly -. Hence, if we get more people in the positions we're set in, then we've got to either a) move our best guys off their primary position or b) let the new guy rot at the end of the bench. Now, the name of any player transaction is to make the team better and in our case we've got the luxury of only worrying about the current team (and not dumping salaries, picking up picks/prospects, etc). Hence, if Faried is good enough that playing him while moving Smoove off PF full time or keeping Horford @ C full time makes the team better than simply picking up a PG, SF, or C that is also on the board, then yes, I'd agree that he'd be the best pick.

Unfortunately, I do find that hard to be the case though. If we can just get very good D and "don't embarass us" O out of any of the other 3 positions, then the overall team upgrade would be greater than moving Smoove and Horford around so that we can get a few extra rebounds (if, in fact, we would get that being that Smith would have to move to SF more). Guys like Tyshawn Taylor and Kris Joseph are almost sure to be around when we pick; there's a decent chance of a faller as well. It too early to say anything for definite, but yeah, I don't think I'd bite on saying that a decent rebounding PF would be the biggest upgrade to the team with the #1 pick.

[azuresou1]

I would like to trade our pick this year for a pick in 2012 or 2013 - this draft is pretty terrible and we won't get any decent production. Ship it to a team that thinks it's rebounding, like the Kings.

[evildallas]

Ideally we would have filled the need for rebounding off the bench in the 2nd round of any of the last 5 drafts, but sadly the franchise hasn't valued 2nd round picks and what you can do with them (unlike teams like the Spurs, Rockets, Jazz, etc.). That's a missed opportunity that is sad to begin with. Picking late in the first round I think it is hard to project a pick as immediate upgrade to a starting position and equally as hard to draft for biggest need. My thought is to select the best available that fits a need. Much like last year the highest need wasn't a bench scorer, but looking ahead to contract situations that was a need and a player who could fill that role was available.

At this point we have no idea who'll declare and who won't, but if early projections are remotely accurate then I see the likelihood of being able to replace either Marvin, Teague, or Evans in the rotation with that pick. That's right my opinion of Marvin is so low that I think his contribution could be replaced by a late first rookie (see Pondexter in New Orleans for an example from last draft), which would also only cost a fraction of the price. But I'm not going to focus in on a SF like Singler or Singleton or Joseph or a PG like Fredette, Selby or McCamey and hope they're there. If Faried or Justin Williams is the best player available when we pick and we can use them regardless of what our greatest need is then I have no problem drafting them.

Even in a weak draft you can find help (not necessarily a star or even a starter, but help) if you know what you're doing, so yes given our track record it is probably better to ship away the pick.

[Skyhawk1]

Look at the Spurs, Lakers. Draft is an illusion.
Look at the T-Wolves, Clippers, Blazers. Draft is an illusion.

Draft only works for rebuilding teams......... and the ones in the middle of the pack.

[azuresou1]

Look at the Spurs, Lakers. Draft is an illusion.
Look at the T-Wolves, Clippers, Blazers. Draft is an illusion.

Draft only works for rebuilding teams......... and the ones in the middle of the pack.

Um... what?

SA draftees: Tim Duncan, Manu Ginobili, Tony Parker, Luis Scola, John Salmons, Leandro Barbosa, Beno Udrih, George Hill, Goran Dragic, Dejuan Blair
Lakers draftees: Kobe Bryant, Andrew Bynum, Marc Gasol, Ronny Turiaf, Jordan Farmar, Derek Fisher

T-Wolves drafted KG and Ray Allen, only to trade Ray Allen for Starbury. That's not a draft issue, that's a management/trade issue.
Clippers have drafted surprisingly decently, only to have guys get injured or ruined by the Clippers curse. Right now, they look pretty damn good.
Blazers built a really good team based on the hope that their injury prone guys wouldn't get injured, which is kind of dumb given they have the worst medical staff ever, which again is a management issue.

Drafting is how bad teams get good, good teams get great, and great teams stay great.

[Skyhawk1]

Kobe wasn't drafted by the Lakers, he was traded there.... Ginobli and Parker were 2nd rounders.. just like most of Spurs players. The T-Wolves had one conf. Final in all those years KG was there. My point is, every NBA team thinks they can turn it around with high picks when the truth is, thats's not the case. TRADING is what makes it happen.

[azuresou1]

Kobe was drafted by the Lakers because they had a pre-draft trade lined up and they told Charlotte to draft him. That counts as LA drafting him.
All the Spurs being 2nd rounders should be a testament to why good drafting matters.
T-Wolves drafted KG AND Ray Allen, it was their stupid trade for Starbury that ruined it, along with the Joe Smith fiasco.

You are also ignoring the fact that every contender outside of that Detroit Pistons drafted their superstar, even the Celtics with Pierce and now Rondo, and it's been that way going back to the early 80s.

[evildallas]

I agree that Kobe should be considered a Laker pick. The language of the Stapien rule is often worked around by a team making a selection and then trading the player instead of trading the pick itself even though the trade was negotiated prior to the selection being made. This makes the historical draft records somewhat confusing and inaccurate. Last year we didn't draft Damion James and then decide a few minutes later that we'd trade him for Jordan Crawford and a pick (sold for cash, sad). I'm pretty sure the way it works is NJ told us if we draft Damion James for them then they would draft whomever we want at 27 and give us the 31st pick as well. They coveted James and didn't expect him to be on the board at #27. The trade happened after the picks were made so that they wouldn't count as a traded 1st which would limit the clubs flexibility with respect to in season trades and the 2011 pick.