Buzzard wrote:_s_t_u_r_t_ wrote:Buzzard wrote:You want a strategy, all Schlenk has ever talked about is draft well, be competitive, be flexible, and do not over pay. I don't see a lot to read into that.
I don't either.
But he's also said some other things that, when one applies cold hard logic to it, allows us to deduce a little more than that.
I go back to this... I thought you agreed with all of it (?) since you didn't offer any counterpoint to any...
1) When you check off your list the highest priority asset you're trying to obtain... in this case, the very scarcely-available elite talent... that allows you then to pursue the other priorities on the list.
No? If no, give me a counterargument.
2) And if you haven't yet checked off your list that highest priority asset... then that logically prescribes you have to continue to pursue that.
No? If no, give me a counterargument.
3) And when you review history and observe that middle-sized and smaller franchises (like your own) are almost exclusively able to obtain those highest priority assets through the draft rather than free agency, that puts added emphasis on what you do in the draft.
No? If no, give me a counterargument.
4) And when you have optimal opportunity to obtain that highest priority asset in a given draft... ie, given that you know conventionally speaking that you'll never again have that same optimal opportunity in this particular era of the timeline... it puts added emphasis on what you do in that particular draft.
No? If no, give me a counterargument.
If one accepts all of that, then that leads down a logical path to this...
the goal is always to obtain the best talent you can obtain, but sometimes you take risks on high ceiling players, and sometimes you don't. If you don't already have a player you consider to be that cornerstone elite player, then logically, it behooves you to be more open to risk. If you don't already have one you consider to be that cornerstone elite player, then logically, it behooves you to consider the best avenues to obtain that, potentially even considering trades out of one draft and into another.
No? If no, give me a counterargument.
I replied in my way about a 1/2 dozen times. I would never stop trying to get elite talent. That is mostly done via the draft. Why you think it is a different risk one way or the other is beyond me. Why you think it has to be high ceiling vs low ceiling is beyond me. The draft is always a risk, I want BPA based on what my GM thinks.
"Why you think X is beyond me" sounds like you're offended. Don't be offended. No reason to be. I've just tried to simplify the pivot points, and see if you agreed or not with each so that it would be more easily figured out where there might be some specific disagreement.
To what you said... I'd be surprised to learn that you don't agree with the general conventional wisdom that when a given player is assessed by scouts, they're looking at best-case (ceiling) and worst-case (floor) outcome for that player.
If you don't perceive that they do that, then I'd have to hear you explain why you don't. Which is it, then?
Continuing the thought, then when players have lower floors, that translates into those being more risky by definition than the ones with higher floors. (Honestly, forgive me if this seems childish to rehearse because I think you almost have to know this.)
So, going into a given draft, for some GMs, swinging for the fences is more important than others. It's an oversimplification to pretend that just because the draft itself is filled with risks, that every risk on the draft board constitutes an equivalent risk. Surely you don't believe that. So, BPA may be desirable for the few teams like us who are in total talent accumulation mode, but lifting the hood and examining what is fueling that BPA number is a calculation that somehow takes into consideration that range of possibility that the player may achieve, and probably, some way to pin down an sensible number that is more than merely an average of the two extremes, but instead some formula that is more complex.
All that to say, if you've
got that elite talent on your roster already, and you have a guy who could conceivably be an MVP some day, but who also could be a miserable disappointment at the end of someone's bench... versus... a guy who conceivably could be an ASG participant some day but who at minimum figures to be a part-time starter... and those two calculate to essentially the same score and are tied on your draft board... it makes sense to not gamble needlessly.
If you don't have that elite talent, there
is need to gamble, if indeed, you're a GM authentically pursuing a championship.
Buzzard wrote:Sometimes, the best player available per a scouts judgement has the lowest ceiling. Sometimes the best player available has the highest ceiling. I am not a talent evaluator, so I take BPA based on what my scout team says. If both players are splitting hairs equal in evaluation, I then go with need. I have also stated that you don't trade away assets, in most cases, until you are on the brink of at least a conference final. That is also fluid based on the player, money, and picks involved.
So, wading my way through your thinking, glad to see you wrote this, but scratching my head how this is congruent with what you wrote in the previous paragraph.
Why else would the BPA be one who has the lowest ceiling except because his floor is so high, allowing the team's calculus to push him to the top in spite of that lowest best-case forecast?
There really are THREE numbers to be taken into account... (a) a number representing the player's best-case, (b) a number representing his worst-case, and (c) a number that equals the team's calculation of what is the most likely achievement level within that range... with "c" then being the number used to rank the player on the team's big board.
And then, you say essentially if both players grade out essentially the same, "I then go with need."
Of course you do. That's what's reasonable. And so, if your roster's greatest need is to acquire that elite talent, you go with the guy with the greater likelihood to become that... ie, the higher ceiling player.
Here's where we seem to differ, though... "seem"... I'm actually still not sure because you've resisted just answering those questions straight up.
If you don't have that elite guy on your roster yet.. that's what you need.
And if you have to draft #8, long after the one or two high ceiling/high floor players in the 2019 draft have been taken...
Then, you have to just set aside "b" and "c", because "a" is all that matters unless you have two (or more) players that your scouts have assessed as having the same ceiling.
Do we agree or disagree on that last statement then?
Finally, you said something about the futility of trying to boil down Schlenk's decision to black and white.
You're not wrong about that. It is futile.
We can't know his draft board. We can't know any of the numbers that are going into how his draft board is set up.
We can't know whether he believes he already has a future Steve Nash or just a future Mike Bibby on this roster.
But this is an entertainment/recreational pursuit. Part of the fun of being a fan is to try to put oneself in the head of the actual GM and decide, based on the whole of the picture, what the GM is most likely to do... and trying to put oneself into the head of the actual GM is best informed by both his previous words and his previous actions.
I'm not wrong to be interested in the puzzle, and to narrow down to some blacker grays and whiter grays what is more likely. It's entertainment. It's fun. Won't apologize for that.
At the end of the day, then, because I am one of those on the fence who isn't confident whether we have a Nash on our hands or a Bibby on our hands, I'm cheering for Schlenk to draft at #8 and #10 the guys who have the best best-case, nevermind their worst worst-cases....
Reddish, Bol, Bouya and Bruno are the four who I consider to have those best best-cases.
Where this whole tangent of the original discussion began is, I'm led to think with this newest quote cited in this thread that maybe Schlenk thinks he has a Nash after all. That most definitely would be comforting if it is the case, since that would effectively reduce the risk... he really can just draft BPA straight-up.