Atlanta Hawks win #1 Pick in 2024 Draft Lottery

[tbhawksfan1]

You absolutely want to get the best player. #1 pick has the best odds at doing that

[Jamaaliver]

That's an argument for minimizing risk, which doesn't really match how talent tends to be distributed among NBA players (i.e., top-heavy).

Spoiler:

As you can see, there's a steep drop-off right away. Trading down from the top of the draft for multiple picks is strategically akin to giving up the chance to win a quarter for the chance to win two dimes.

I don't know what this means, bro.

And that chart doesn't change the fact that the top draftees are largely similar in projected impact long term.



TL;DR: With no clear cut stars, getting two potential starters is better than getting one potential starter at a higher salary.


Donovan Clingan + Matas Buzelis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Alex Sarr

[Jamaaliver]

You absolutely want to get the best player. #1 pick has the best odds at doing that

Actually...it doesn't. It's the exact opposite. Having more chances increases your odds of getting the best player.

The best player in a draft class is only taken at number 1 like 30% of the time.

Spoiler:

(Wemby, Ant Man, Anthony Davis, maybe KAT)

[tbhawksfan1]

That's an argument for minimizing risk, which doesn't really match how talent tends to be distributed among NBA players (i.e., top-heavy).

I don't know what this means, bro.

And that chart doesn't change the fact that the top draftees are largely similar in projected impact long term.



TL;DR: With no clear cut stars, getting two potential starters is better than getting one potential starter at a higher salary.


Donovan Clingan + Matas Buzelis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Alex Sarr

Just depends how good the three players are. If Sarr is only slightly better than yes you're right

If he is much better than you take him

[Whole Truth]

You absolutely want to get the best player. #1 pick has the best odds at doing that

Actually...it doesn't. It's the exact opposite. Having more chances increases your odds of getting the best player.

The best player in a draft class is only taken at number 1 like 30% of the time.

Spoiler:

(Wemby, Ant Man, Anthony Davis, maybe KAT)

You should try to get a 25 pick included if possible.

Talking on the Spurs board they're willing to trade 4 & 8 for 2 starters PG & SF. They're good with trading (Keldon, Collins, 4, 8, FRP) for (Garland & Herb), Cavs are receptive to (BI +) for (Garland)

NO's have 2 picks in 25 with some lotto projection. NO's trade BI & Zion gets injured they're projected lotto ... Lakers were healthy last yr & barely made the PI, one key injury they're projected lotto or maybe the FRP from the Spurs is control of your 25 or 27 pick back.

[Jamaaliver]

Me, every time I hear the name 'Herb Jones' in the Draft Thread.

Spoiler:

[tbhawksfan1]

You absolutely want to get the best player. #1 pick has the best odds at doing that

Actually...it doesn't. It's the exact opposite. Having more chances increases your odds of getting the best player.

The best player in a draft class is only taken at number 1 like 30% of the time.

Spoiler:

(Wemby, Ant Man, Anthony Davis, maybe KAT)

Now show me the odds for the #2 being the best player and the #3 and so on.

You can't pick the best player if he's already taken. Give any GM the choice between #1 and #2 and they all take #1

Now is #4 and #8 better value in this draft than #1. Absolutely no way to know

[Whole Truth]

That's an argument for minimizing risk, which doesn't really match how talent tends to be distributed among NBA players (i.e., top-heavy).

I don't know what this means, bro.

And that chart doesn't change the fact that the top draftees are largely similar in projected impact long term.



TL;DR: With no clear cut stars, getting two potential starters is better than getting one potential starter at a higher salary.


Donovan Clingan + Matas Buzelis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Alex Sarr

Just depends how good the three players are. If Sarr is only slightly better than yes you're right

If he is much better than you take him

The reason this draft is considered weak is the fact there's no clear potential at the top. Most teams will be risking potential based on need.

My interest in trading up for Sarr. Our coach Green likes to switch defend, not play drop coverage, one of Sarr's strengths. Zion needs a big that can draw his man out, Sarr's potential. It's risky to trade proven for potential but if it fails for NO's. Zion is 24, Murphy is 24, Hawkins is 23, Daniels is 21 & Sarr would be 20 with NO's owning 2 projected lotto picks in 25.

Hawks swing & miss, Spurs own your draft rights for the next 3yrs. you lose the potential tag on the #1 pick while having to pay the 12m salary sitting at or in the luxury tax with no contender, no picks.

Trading down from an uncertain #1, you maximize value & reduce risk. Potentially get a future pick back in a draft you don't have one, for trade leverage or cheap depth.

[Jamaaliver]

TL;DR: With no clear cut stars, getting two potential starters is better than getting one potential starter at a higher salary.


Donovan Clingan + Matas Buzelis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Alex Sarr

Just depends how good the three players are. If Sarr is only slightly better than yes you're right

If he is much better than you take him

On this, we are in agreement.

[tbhawksfan1]

I would think hard about Murray to the Spurs for their picks. Their picks to Nets and your man Bridges to ATL

I still think that Murray isbetter than Bridges, but the fit would be perfect. I would fight hard for the Hawks to get more from the trade though cause Mikal had a terrible season

[tbhawksfan1]

I don't know what this means, bro.

And that chart doesn't change the fact that the top draftees are largely similar in projected impact long term.



TL;DR: With no clear cut stars, getting two potential starters is better than getting one potential starter at a higher salary.


Donovan Clingan + Matas Buzelis >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Just Alex Sarr

Just depends how good the three players are. If Sarr is only slightly better than yes you're right

If he is much better than you take him

The reason this draft is considered weak is the fact there's no clear potential at the top. Most teams will be risking potential based on need.

My interest in trading up for Sarr. Our coach Green likes to switch defend, not play drop coverage, one of Sarr's strengths. Zion needs a big that can draw his man out, Sarr's potential. It's risky to trade proven for potential but if it fails for NO's. Zion is 24, Murphy is 24, Hawkins is 23, Daniels is 21 & Sarr would be 20 with NO's owning 2 projected lotto picks in 25.

Hawks swing & miss, Spurs own your draft rights for the next 3yrs. you lose the potential tag on the #1 pick while having to pay the 12m salary sitting at or in the luxury tax with no contender, no picks.

Trading down from an uncertain #1, you maximize value & reduce risk. Potentially get a future pick back in a draft you don't have one, for trade leverage or cheap depth.

NO doesn't have a trade we want for #1

[tbhawksfan1]

Maybe Wemby really wants a fellow Frenchman on his team. With two at the top of this draft, they can deffinately make it happen if they want

[Jamaaliver]

Give any GM the choice between #1 and #2 and they all take #1.

This is inaccurate.

Read on Twitter

[Whole Truth]

Me, every time I hear the name 'Herb Jones' in the Draft Thread.

Spoiler:

my bad

[tbhawksfan1]

Give any GM the choice between #1 and #2 and they all take #1.

This is inaccurate.

Read on Twitter

What else was involved in the trade? I haven't looked it up but no way it was straight #1 for #3

Did the lady in the picture have something to do with it

[Whole Truth]

Just depends how good the three players are. If Sarr is only slightly better than yes you're right

If he is much better than you take him

The reason this draft is considered weak is the fact there's no clear potential at the top. Most teams will be risking potential based on need.

My interest in trading up for Sarr. Our coach Green likes to switch defend, not play drop coverage, one of Sarr's strengths. Zion needs a big that can draw his man out, Sarr's potential. It's risky to trade proven for potential but if it fails for NO's. Zion is 24, Murphy is 24, Hawkins is 23, Daniels is 21 & Sarr would be 20 with NO's owning 2 projected lotto picks in 25.

Hawks swing & miss, Spurs own your draft rights for the next 3yrs. you lose the potential tag on the #1 pick while having to pay the 12m salary sitting at or in the luxury tax with no contender, no picks.

Trading down from an uncertain #1, you maximize value & reduce risk. Potentially get a future pick back in a draft you don't have one, for trade leverage or cheap depth.

NO doesn't have a trade we want for #1

NO's has what Spurs want cheap 3D wing he who shall not be named lol, BI+ to swap for Garland

Spurs will be trading 4, 8 & a FRP for (Garland, SF) rerouting the #1.

[tbhawksfan1]

The reason this draft is considered weak is the fact there's no clear potential at the top. Most teams will be risking potential based on need.

My interest in trading up for Sarr. Our coach Green likes to switch defend, not play drop coverage, one of Sarr's strengths. Zion needs a big that can draw his man out, Sarr's potential. It's risky to trade proven for potential but if it fails for NO's. Zion is 24, Murphy is 24, Hawkins is 23, Daniels is 21 & Sarr would be 20 with NO's owning 2 projected lotto picks in 25.

Hawks swing & miss, Spurs own your draft rights for the next 3yrs. you lose the potential tag on the #1 pick while having to pay the 12m salary sitting at or in the luxury tax with no contender, no picks.

Trading down from an uncertain #1, you maximize value & reduce risk. Potentially get a future pick back in a draft you don't have one, for trade leverage or cheap depth.

NO doesn't have a trade we want for #1

NO's has what Spurs want cheap 3D wing he who shall not be named lol, BI+ to swap for Garland

Spurs will be trading 4, 8 & a FRP for (Garland, SF) rerouting the #1.

So you think that SA is going to trade #4, #8 and another FRP for BI and then pay him over $50M a year? Good luck with that. I think that they would rather get Murray at half the price. OK I just saw that Garland is in there.... Still don't think that BI is going to be a good trade piece this offseason

[Whole Truth]

NO doesn't have a trade we want for #1

NO's has what Spurs want cheap 3D wing he who shall not be named lol, BI+ to swap for Garland

Spurs will be trading 4, 8 & a FRP for (Garland, SF) rerouting the #1.

So you think that SA is going to trade #4, #8 and another FRP for BI and then pay him over $50M a year? Good luck with that. I think that they would rather get Murray at half the price

You're not understanding what I wrote properly. I've been discussing this trade on the Spurs board.

(BI, Spurs FRP, maybe one from NO's) for (Garland)

Spurs trade -(Keldon, Collins, 4, 8, FRP) for (Garland, Herb)

They suggested that value not me. They want 2 starters out of this draft, PG, SF. They like Garland & want cheap 3D guard/wing & they won't find better than Herb, they're in agreement.

If Hawks are willing to trade down from 1 for 4 & 8. #1 reroutes from Spurs to NO's

NO's trade (BI, Herb, FRP) for (Keldon, Collins, #1)

[tbhawksfan1]

NO's has what Spurs want cheap 3D wing he who shall not be named lol, BI+ to swap for Garland

Spurs will be trading 4, 8 & a FRP for (Garland, SF) rerouting the #1.

So you think that SA is going to trade #4, #8 and another FRP for BI and then pay him over $50M a year? Good luck with that. I think that they would rather get Murray at half the price

You're not understanding what I wrote properly. I've been discussing this trade on the Spurs board.

(BI, Spurs FRP, maybe one from NO's) for (Garland)

Spurs trade -(Keldon, Collins, 4, 8, FRP) for (Garland, Herb)

They suggested that value not me. They want 2 starters out of this draft, PG, SF. They like Garland & want cheap 3D guard/wing & they won't find better than Herb, they're in agreement.

If Hawks are willing to trade down from 1 for 4 & 8. #1 reroutes from Spurs to NO's

NO's trade (BI, Herb, FRP) for (Keldon, Collins, #1)

Looks to me that Garland and Herb are being well over valued in this deal. If the Hawks aren't reall high on the French guys, why not

[Whole Truth]

Let me clean it up a bit

Cavs trade - (Garland) for (BI, Spurs FRP, NO's FRP)

Spurs trade - (Keldon, Collins, 4, 8, FRP) for (Garland, Herb)

Hawks trade - (#1) for (#4, #8)

NO's trade - (BI, Herb, FRP) for (Keldon, Collins, #1)