Bol Bol Discussion Thread: Long-Term Starter or Reserve?

[Knightro]

I don’t think anyone blamed Vuc for Bamba sucking. People just didn’t understand why the front office used a top lotto pick on a Center after multiple seasons of Vuc leading the team in minutes and usage. The pick made no sense whatsoever for the position of the team.

Even if their bright idea was to trade Vuc initially, then you don’t make that deal unless you know for sure you are getting a starting caliber Center in return. Surprise! Thats exactly what they ended up doing anyway with WCJr in the Chicago deal.

People blamed Clifford because he never gave Bamba minutes AT ALL. Now we know why. This just further highlights how bad the FO is at gauging talent and making impactful draft selections. Bamba was never seeing the floor because Clifford’s job is to win games.

Bol is someone that has the measurements and the drive during games to be impactful. He’s everywhere on the floor. He’s not even a Center and I don’t believe Bamba is anything but one. Therefore, I don’t see a correlation at all between the two players other than both being freakishly long and tall.

C'mon now. We've been over this many times.

At the time the Bamba pick was made, Vucevic was coming off a season where averaged 16 PTS 9 REB with a .533 TS% on a 25-win team. On top of that, he was going into the last year of his contract. He had never been an all-star or even been close to being one.

The plan at the time the Bamba pick was made was for Vucevic to play out the final year of his contract and either be allowed to walk in free agency, or get traded away for scraps at the deadline.

Two things happened...

1. Bamba was WAY more raw than the front office expected him to be (100% their fault for mis-evaluating him) to the point of not even being a viable NBA player really
2. Vucevic had a career year and the Magic improved their win total by 17 games

Should the Magic have then committed 4/100 to Vucevic after the 18-19 season? With the benefit of hindsight, probably not!

But when you are coming off a 6-year run of 20-23-25-35-29-25 wins, going from 25 to 42 wins - it just wasn't realistic to not give that group another chance to run it back and see if they could build on the 42 wins and get into the mid or upper 40s.

They obviously did not improve upon the 42 wins and the case could be made that Magic should have punted a year earlier than they did, but I at least understand the rationale.

[jonbob17]

I think for me it's because Bamba never plays like a center - he camps at the 3 and doesn't like banging down low with the bigs. The role Bamba tries to play Bol is better at, which is why Bol should get Bamba's minutes.

If Bamba played like a traditional big then their roles wouldn't overlap.

The difference is Bamba actually guards the opposing center. Bol is defending forwards, and often the small forwards. Bol is probably getting destroyed in the post by any center with any sort of post moves. Bamba still looks lanky but he has A LOT of mass on Bol. Again this isn't saying Bamba is a good defender. Just that Bol is not a center. He is a perimeter player, that get his blocks as a help defender, or and this unusual, against perimeter shooters taking threes or long twos.

[Optimus_Steel]

LOL at people still bringing up Clifford for Bamba being bad. Maybe he is just not good? Maybe he simply doesn't have the drive to become a viable player?

[VFX]

I don’t think anyone blamed Vuc for Bamba sucking. People just didn’t understand why the front office used a top lotto pick on a Center after multiple seasons of Vuc leading the team in minutes and usage. The pick made no sense whatsoever for the position of the team.

Even if their bright idea was to trade Vuc initially, then you don’t make that deal unless you know for sure you are getting a starting caliber Center in return. Surprise! Thats exactly what they ended up doing anyway with WCJr in the Chicago deal.

People blamed Clifford because he never gave Bamba minutes AT ALL. Now we know why. This just further highlights how bad the FO is at gauging talent and making impactful draft selections. Bamba was never seeing the floor because Clifford’s job is to win games.

Bol is someone that has the measurements and the drive during games to be impactful. He’s everywhere on the floor. He’s not even a Center and I don’t believe Bamba is anything but one. Therefore, I don’t see a correlation at all between the two players other than both being freakishly long and tall.

C'mon now. We've been over this many times.

At the time the Bamba pick was made, Vucevic was coming off a season where averaged 16 PTS 9 REB with a .533 TS% on a 25-win team. On top of that, he was going into the last year of his contract. He had never been an all-star or even been close to being one.

The plan at the time the Bamba pick was made was for Vucevic to play out the final year of his contract and either be allowed to walk in free agency, or get traded away for scraps at the deadline.

Two things happened...

1. Bamba was WAY more raw than the front office expected him to be (100% their fault for mis-evaluating him)
2. Vucevic had a career year and the Magic improved their win total by 17 games.

Should the Magic have then committed 4/100 to Vucevic after the 18-19 season? With the benefit of hindsight, probably not!

But when you are coming off a 6-year run of 20-23-25-35-29-25 wins, going from 25 to 42 wins - it just wasn't realistic to not give that group another chance to run it back and see if they could build on the 42 wins and get into the mid or upper 40s.

They obviously did not improve upon the 42 wins and the case could be made that Magic should have punted a year earlier than they did, but I at least understand the rationale.

Yes this might be the 4th time you and I have been over this topic. My position on this will not change.

Go take a look at the 2017-18 roster.

The Center rotation was NOT the weak link in that roster.

Now, if you are going to tell me that the FO was by all measures still competing (hiring Clifford, retaining everyone, signing vets) why then would they select a project Center with a very veteran big rotation?

Why wouldn’t they select someone to fill more minutes for Simmons, Hezonja, Mack, or Payton? Seems counter productive if their agenda is to push for the playoffs the next 2-3 seasons despite overwhelming evidence that the talent was absolutely not there for it.

I’m not going to list the number of players that came after Bamba that would still be under contract for this team contributing more quality minutes. I’m choosing not to do this so that this post doesn’t become a list.

Do you honestly believe they didn’t factor in that Vuc was going to be playing harder, and better, under a contract year and with a veteran head coach that would do anything to grind out wins? If yes, then they are bad at managing assets, which is their entire job. If no, then they are bad at judging circumstances and outcomes within their control. Kind of like trading Fournier for scraps a 1-2 years too late.

Now if you want to view this all as a “let’s just move on it’s over” kinda thing, we can. Orlando ended up getting a good trade package for Vuc. Probably better than what they would have gotten for him in 2018, which is when they should have traded everyone. That’s great! It just took another 2-3 years. Orlando is still stuck with Mo Bamba and has one of the worst bench rotations in the league.

How can I tie this back into the topic at hand? Weltman and Hammond suck at drafting. Bol Bol is a guy that flew under the radar as a late pick. Another story of why using second rounders is important instead of selling them every season. There I did it.

[pepe1991]

LOL at people still bringing up Clifford for Bamba being bad. Maybe he is just not good? Maybe he simply doesn't have the drive to become a viable player?

There was joke that Bamba is cured from Cliforexia after he had 1 good game under Mosley

[Knightro]

Yes this might be the 4th time you and I have been over this topic. My position on this will not change.

Go take a look at the 2017-18 roster.

The Center rotation was NOT the weak link in that roster.

They went 25-57 man. The whole roster was a weak link

Now, if you are going to tell me that the FO was by all measures still competing (hiring Clifford, retaining everyone, signing vets) why then would they select a project Center with a very veteran big rotation?

Why wouldn’t they select someone to fill more minutes for Simmons, Hezonja, Mack, or Payton? Seems counter productive if their agenda is to push for the playoffs the next 2-3 seasons despite overwhelming evidence that the talent was absolutely not there for it.

They whiffed on the Bamba pick. It's just not more sinister than that. They felt he was the best player on the board and they felt there was a clear path to him becoming the starting center for multiple seasons. They were, unfortunately, very wrong in their evaluation and drafted a bust. That happens sometimes.

I strongly push back on this idea that a 25-win team with zero all-stars and seemingly no upside should be considering their existing roster construction at all when making a draft pick.

When you make a high lotto pick, you're tied to that player for at least 5 years minimum and realistically more like 7 or 8 if you want them around. There's no one on any NBA roster tied to an organization longer than the player they just drafted in the first round.

Now I will wholeheartedly agree that the Magic's front office has not done a good enough job of being proactive about getting rid of ill-fitting pieces, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't still swing for upside and BPA regardless of position.

The Sixers drafted three centers in a row at one point. Was there any scenario where it made sense for them to draft Embiid after drafting Noel and Okafor back-to-back? Of course not! But did it any of that matter when they hit on Embiid? Nope.

The Kings drafted Haliburton even though they already had Fox on the roster. 18 months later they flipped Haliburton (now it's debatable if they should have flipped Fox instead) for a 2x all-star big man in Sabonis.

The Cavs signed Jarrett Allen to a 5/100 contract and then drafted Evan Mobley who most people on paper thought wouldn't be able to share the floor. Lucky for them, those two can share the floor without much issue. But even if they weren't able to share the floor, Mobley was the BPA and they would have been able to flip Allen later on.

Just because the Magic haven't made the necessary trades to better balance the roster doesn't mean the concept of drafting for talent over fit and need is a bad one.

[VFX]

Yes this might be the 4th time you and I have been over this topic. My position on this will not change.

Go take a look at the 2017-18 roster.

The Center rotation was NOT the weak link in that roster.

They went 25-57 man. The whole roster was a weak link

Now, if you are going to tell me that the FO was by all measures still competing (hiring Clifford, retaining everyone, signing vets) why then would they select a project Center with a very veteran big rotation?

Why wouldn’t they select someone to fill more minutes for Simmons, Hezonja, Mack, or Payton? Seems counter productive if their agenda is to push for the playoffs the next 2-3 seasons despite overwhelming evidence that the talent was absolutely not there for it.

They whiffed on the Bamba pick. It's just not more sinister than that. They felt he was the best player on the board and they felt there was a clear path to him becoming the starting center for multiple seasons. They were, unfortunately, very wrong in their evaluation and drafted a bust. That happens sometimes.

I strongly push back on this idea that a 25-win team with zero all-stars and seemingly no upside should be considering their existing roster construction at all when making a draft pick.

When you make a high lotto pick, you're tied to that player for at least 5 years minimum and realistically more like 7 or 8 if you want them around. There's no one on any NBA roster tied to an organization longer than the player they just drafted in the first round.

Now I will wholeheartedly agree that the Magic's front office has not done a good enough job of being proactive about getting rid of ill-fitting pieces, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't still swing for upside and BPA regardless of position.

The Sixers drafted three centers in a row at one point. Was there any scenario where it made sense for them to draft Embiid after drafting Noel and Okafor back-to-back? Of course not! But did it any of that matter when they hit on Embiid? Nope.

The Kings drafted Haliburton even though they already had Fox on the roster. 18 months later they flipped Haliburton (now it's debatable if they should have flipped Fox instead) for a 2x all-star big man in Sabonis.

The Cavs signed Jarrett Allen to a 5/100 contract and then drafted Evan Mobley who most people on paper thought wouldn't be able to share the floor. Lucky for them, those two can share the floor without much issue. But even if they weren't able to share the floor, Mobley was the BPA and they would have been able to flip Allen later on.

Just because the Magic haven't made the necessary trades to better balance the roster doesn't mean the concept of drafting for talent over fit and need is a bad one.

Of course it wasn’t sinister. It was ineptitude. Just like the majority of their draft history sans 2021.

It’s funny you end your post with that statement.The Bamba example is the clearest as to why drafting “BPA” is flawed. The minutes weren’t there, the talent wasn’t there, and they didn’t have any plan whatsoever had Vuc played better during a contract year. The intersection of talent and fit didn’t cross with Bamba at all. It was entirely speculative.

Right. You believe a team comprised of veterans, with zero allstars, decided to remain competitive after firing their coach. They drafted a project at a stacked Center position and then hired Steve dinosaur Clifford. All decisions that are contradictory when indicating they were ready to move on from Vuc. The takeaway is that it was a negligence of limited assets. Don’t like it characterized that way? Fine. It’s still the case.

I don’t think your examples are proving your side of the conversation that you think they are.

So the sixers drafted 3 Centers (already a dumb decision in itself) to trade them for far lesser value than the draft picks were worth. They got Embiid so I guess those other two were still good selections? We aren’t talking about late lotto picks. We are talking about TOP picks. Nowhere in the realm of good decision making.

Kings trade a go-to guy they could have under contract for multiple years. They go BPA over fit and end up trading him for a guy they now have to pay handsomely, compared to that of a rookie scale deal, despite not competing for anything. Very cool use of assets and money.

Cavs chose a guy that was projected top 2(?) as opposed to adding to their stacked back court? Who were they supposed to take instead? Suggs or Barnes? Color me shocked they took Mobley. If anything was strange about their off-season it was signing Allen. It ended up working so I guess that’s an example of choosing BPA over fit? I don’t think so.

[j-ragg]

SGA was just sitting there ripe for the taking.

Never understood the Bamba hype for such a high pick. If everything works out, I thought he’s an athletic 3+D center. Valuable, but maybe a mid-first archetype imo. We found out the hard way.

[Knightro]

Of course it wasn’t sinister. It was ineptitude. Just like the majority of their draft history sans 2021.

It’s funny you end your post with that statement.The Bamba example is the clearest as to why drafting “BPA” is flawed. The minutes weren’t there, the talent wasn’t there, and they didn’t have any plan whatsoever had Vuc played better during a contract year. The intersection of need and fit didn’t cross with Bamba at all. It was entirely speculative.

The minutes were there. Bamba just was a bust and ended up not being able to fill them. And to be 100% clear Weltman and Hammond deserve all the blame for drafting a complete bust.

But to suggest they didn't have a plan in case Vucevic played better during a contract year when they pretty clearly actually made a smart adjustment and opted to resign Vucevic to both remain competitive and retain that asset for future trades is just silly to me. I get you don't like these guys, but hindsight is always 20/20. And you're using hindsight to justify opinions that weren't weren't black and white the moment they were made.

Would it not have been even worse had they stuck to their original plan and just let Vucevic walk after the 18-19 season (or traded him for scraps during the season) and handed the starting center spot to Bamba? Of course it would have been worse.

I don’t think your examples are proving your side of the conversation that you think they are.

So the sixers drafted 3 Centers (already a dumb decision in itself) to trade them for far lesser value than the draft picks were worth. They got Embiid so I guess those other two were still good selections? We aren’t talking about late lotto picks. We are talking about TOP picks. Nowhere in the realm of good decision making.

But again... my point is... should they have passed on Embiid for a "better fit" with Noel? Because Noel came first. Yes, they ended up dumping Noel for nothing, but the alternative was passing on Embiid, so which scenario would have been worse for them?

Kings trade a go-to guy they could have under contract for multiple years. They go BPA over fit and end up trading him for a guy they now have to pay handsomely, compared to that of a rookie scale deal, despite not competing for anything. Very cool use of assets and money.

You're playing both sides now. Because you have been adamant for years that blindly drafting BPA is flawed, but then you turn around and criticize what these teams have done in terms of trades AFTER making the decision to draft BPA.

The Kings turned the 12th overall pick into a 25 year old 2x all-star 18 months later. But under your logic, they shouldn't have even picked Haliburton in the first place because they already had Fox.

So was the decision to draft Haliburton bad or not? Because by your own logic, they should have opted for a better fit with Fox like Aaron Nesmith or Isaiah Stewart, right?

Maybe the choice to trade Haliburton over Fox was a poor one, but aren't the Kings decidedly better off at least having Sabonis than they would be with Nesmith or Stewart or Pokusevski who all A. stink and B. wouldn't have brought back the same return in a trade?

Cavs chose a guy that was projected top 2(?) as opposed to adding to their stacked back court? Who were they supposed to take instead? Suggs or Barnes? Color me shocked they took Mobley. If anything was strange about their off-season it was signing Allen. It ended up working so I guess that’s an example of choosing BPA over fit? I don’t think so.

Wouldn't Barnes, a more natural 3/4, have been a better fit with Allen than Mobley who is much more of a 4/5? There were many reputable prognosticators including Sam Vecenie suggesting the fit between Mobley/Allen was not a good one.

Read on Twitter

But even if that pairing had not worked out as well as it has already, it was still the right move because Mobley was better than anyone else they could have picked at that spot and because Allen still holds plenty of value in a future trade if it ever came to that.

The person making a given decision might not be capable of executing it at a high level, but that doesn't mean the thought process that goes into a decision is a flawed one. That's all I've ever been saying. You're suggesting that it's both and it's just not.

[The-Stallion70]

He's better than Bamba, we got to get rid of Bamba

[VFX]

Of course it wasn’t sinister. It was ineptitude. Just like the majority of their draft history sans 2021.

It’s funny you end your post with that statement.The Bamba example is the clearest as to why drafting “BPA” is flawed. The minutes weren’t there, the talent wasn’t there, and they didn’t have any plan whatsoever had Vuc played better during a contract year. The intersection of need and fit didn’t cross with Bamba at all. It was entirely speculative.

The minutes were there. Bamba just was a bust and ended up not being able to fill them. And to be 100% clear Weltman and Hammond deserve all the blame for drafting a complete bust.

But to suggest they didn't have a plan in case Vucevic played better during a contract year when they pretty clearly actually made a smart adjustment and opted to resign Vucevic to both remain competitive and retain that asset for future trades is just silly to me. I get you don't like these guys, but hindsight is always 20/20. And you're using hindsight to justify opinions that weren't weren't black and white the moment they were made.

Would it not have been even worse had they stuck to their original plan and just let Vucevic walk after the 18-19 season (or traded him for scraps during the season) and handed the starting center spot to Bamba? Of course it would have been worse.

I don’t think your examples are proving your side of the conversation that you think they are.

So the sixers drafted 3 Centers (already a dumb decision in itself) to trade them for far lesser value than the draft picks were worth. They got Embiid so I guess those other two were still good selections? We aren’t talking about late lotto picks. We are talking about TOP picks. Nowhere in the realm of good decision making.

But again... my point is... should they have passed on Embiid for a "better fit" with Noel? Because Noel came first. Yes, they ended up dumping Noel for nothing, but the alternative was passing on Embiid, so which scenario would have been worse for them?

Kings trade a go-to guy they could have under contract for multiple years. They go BPA over fit and end up trading him for a guy they now have to pay handsomely, compared to that of a rookie scale deal, despite not competing for anything. Very cool use of assets and money.

You're playing both sides now. Because you have been adamant for years that blindly drafting BPA is flawed, but then you turn around and criticize what these teams have done in terms of trades AFTER making the decision to draft BPA.

The Kings turned the 12th overall pick into a 25 year old 2x all-star 18 months later. But under your logic, they shouldn't have even picked Haliburton in the first place because they already had Fox.

So was the decision to draft Haliburton bad or not? Because by your own logic, they should have opted for a better fit with Fox like Aaron Nesmith or Isaiah Stewart, right?

Maybe the choice to trade Haliburton over Fox was a poor one, but aren't the Kings decidedly better off at least having Sabonis than they would be with Nesmith or Stewart or Pokusevski who all A. stink and B. wouldn't have brought back the same return in a trade?

Cavs chose a guy that was projected top 2(?) as opposed to adding to their stacked back court? Who were they supposed to take instead? Suggs or Barnes? Color me shocked they took Mobley. If anything was strange about their off-season it was signing Allen. It ended up working so I guess that’s an example of choosing BPA over fit? I don’t think so.

Wouldn't Barnes, a more natural 3/4, have been a better fit with Allen than Mobley who is much more of a 4/5? There were many reputable prognosticators including Sam Vecenie suggesting the fit between Mobley/Allen was not a good one.

Read on Twitter

But even if that pairing had not worked out as well as it has already, it was still the right move because Mobley was better than anyone else they could have picked at that spot and because Allen still holds plenty of value in a future trade if it ever came to that.

The person making a given decision might not be capable of executing it at a high level, but that doesn't mean the thought process that goes into a decision is a flawed one. That's all I've ever been saying. You're suggesting that it's both and it's just not.

Ok so we agree that the FO sucks at drafting aside from the last two years. Great. It’s not their piss poor management of assets, but the fact they can’t accurately assess prospects. Good choice. We can now move on.

Would this FO have spent their second round pick on Bol? No. They would have sold it to the lakers for cash and spent a top 10 pick on a guy more often in street clothes.

It doesn’t take 3 picks to land 1 guy for the sixers example. Noel and Okafor were obviously not go-to franchise guys. But hey, they landed Embiid eventually, so I guess drafting for BPA works(?)

I’m not “playing both sides” on the Kings argument. In that situation I would have drafted Haliburton and traded Fox if that was really their concern. They aren’t a competitive team, so why minimize their cap timeline and their talent ceiling? Now they have to pay Fox and Sabonis to still be at the bottom in the West. Makes no sense.

Again, Cavs were taking Mobley at 3 regardless. It didn’t matter who they signed and who was available. They weren’t drafting another guard or a guy that needed the ball 100% of the time to be effective.

[Knightro]

Ok so we agree that the FO sucks at drafting. Great. It’s not their piss poor management of assets, but the fact they can’t accurately assess prospects. Good choice. We can now move on.

They've made 5 lotto picks and I'd say Bamba's the only one who straight up can't play and was a total bust. Other guys have struggled with injuries once they got into the pros, but that's just bad luck more than a bad evaluation.

It doesn’t take 3 picks to land 1 guy for the sixers example. Noel and Okafor were obviously not go-to franchise guys. But hey, they landed Embiid eventually, so I guess drafting for BPA works(?)

But I'm using your logic. You have ferociously criticized teams (well... at least one team) who draft strictly for BPA and ignore need and fit.

Using that logic, Embiid was not the right pick because there was no realistic scenario where Noel and Embiid could share the floor and they already had Noel. Why on earth would they pick Embiid then?

Why on earth would the Mavericks not only pick Luka Doncic, but give up future assets to trade up for him to be their primary facilitator when they just drafted Dennis Smith Jr in the lotto the year before? Shouldn't they have picked someone who better fit their new franchise PG?

I’m not “playing both sides” on the Kings argument. In that situation I would have drafted Haliburton and traded Fox if that was really their concern. They aren’t a competitive team, so why minimize their cap timeline and their talent ceiling? Now they have to pay Fox and Sabonis to still be at the bottom in the West. Makes no sense.

Sure you are. The Kings not only had Fox on their roster, but they had already given him a max extension. There was no logical scenario where drafted Haliburton made sense from a need and fit standpoint, right? He's an on-the-ball point guard and the Kings already had one of those who was not only young, but on a max extension! So why on earth didn't they pick someone like Nesmith to play off Fox?

You see how silly this all is?

Sometimes players become available that are clearly better (or at least a team believes will be clearly better) than someone solid they already have on the roster. Sometimes you're just better off picking the best possible player on the board because it will maximize your chances of making a trade within the next 12-18 months.

The odds of being able to draft 5 players at 5 different positions 5 years in a row and completely fill out a perfect lineup is just not realistic.

Again, Cavs were taking Mobley at 3 regardless. It didn’t matter who they signed and who was available. They weren’t drafting another guard or a guy that needed the ball 100% of the time to be effective.

And why did they pick Mobley? Because he was the best player on the board!

And you keep saying "they weren't drafting another guard or a guy that needed the ball" and ignoring they could have simply taken Barnes. The guy who everyone on this board minus a select few absolutely hated who went on to ::checks notes:: beat out Mobley for Rookie of the Year.

[VFX]

Ok so we agree that the FO sucks at drafting. Great. It’s not their piss poor management of assets, but the fact they can’t accurately assess prospects. Good choice. We can now move on.

They've made 5 lotto picks and I'd say Bamba's the only one who straight up can't play and was a total bust. Other guys have struggled with injuries once they got into the pros, but that's just bad luck more than a bad evaluation.

It doesn’t take 3 picks to land 1 guy for the sixers example. Noel and Okafor were obviously not go-to franchise guys. But hey, they landed Embiid eventually, so I guess drafting for BPA works(?)

But I'm using your logic. You have ferociously criticized teams (well... at least one team) who draft strictly for BPA and ignore need and fit.

Using that logic, Embiid was not the right pick because there was no realistic scenario where Noel and Embiid could share the floor and they already had Noel. Why on earth would they pick Embiid then?

Why on earth would the Mavericks not only pick Luka Doncic, but give up future assets to trade up for him to be their primary facilitator when they just drafted Dennis Smith Jr in the lotto the year before? Shouldn't they have picked someone who better fit their new franchise PG?

I’m not “playing both sides” on the Kings argument. In that situation I would have drafted Haliburton and traded Fox if that was really their concern. They aren’t a competitive team, so why minimize their cap timeline and their talent ceiling? Now they have to pay Fox and Sabonis to still be at the bottom in the West. Makes no sense.

Sure you are. The Kings not only had Fox on their roster, but they had already given him a max extension. There was no logical scenario where drafted Haliburton made sense from a need and fit standpoint, right? He's an on-the-ball point guard and the Kings already had one of those who was not only young, but on a max extension! So why on earth didn't they pick someone like Nesmith to play off Fox?

You see how silly this all is?

Sometimes players become available that are clearly better (or at least teams thinks will be clearly better) than someone solid they already have on the roster. Sometimes you're just better off picking the best possible player on the board because it will maximize your chances of making a trade within the next 12-18 months.

The odds of being able to draft 5 players at 5 different positions 5 years in a row and completely fill out a perfect lineup is just not realistic.

Again, Cavs were taking Mobley at 3 regardless. It didn’t matter who they signed and who was available. They weren’t drafting another guard or a guy that needed the ball 100% of the time to be effective.

And why did they pick Mobley? Because he was the best player on the board!

And you keep saying "they weren't drafting another guard or a guy that needed the ball" and ignoring they could have simply taken Barnes. The guy who everyone on this board minus a select few absolutely hated who went on to ::checks notes:: beat out Mobley for Rookie of the Year.

Listen, I respect you Knightro as a mod and a poster. Therefore, I'm not going to reply to you the same way I would someone making an argument in bad faith. You arent ezzzzzzzzzzzzzp.

The whole point of this conversation being rehashed for the millionth time is the fact that they didn't draft anyone competent in the first three years of being with the Magic. They are either perpetually injured or fringe rotation guys. Now people are wondering why the bench is so bad other than Bol.

You aren't using context or logic to my argument. Drafting 3 guys back to back to back, that all play the same position without versatility, means something vastly different than using a top lotto pick on a guy that logs the same minutes as your best player offensively. Knowing this with many more glaring weaknesses on the roster and feeling compelled to be in the playoffs for some reason. You see the difference right? You can see how those are vastly different situations. Right?

"The odds of being able to draft 5 players at 5 different positions 5 years in a row and completely fill out a perfect lineup is just not realistic." Were the Magic rebuilding when they drafted Bamba? I forget... Did they hire a win-now coach and decide to retain all their players? I forget.

You could actually make an argument for Haliburton. Mitchell made less sense if we are being honest here. Are you unaware that you can have multiple switchable guards on the floor at once, but probably not 3 Centers? I never had a problem with Haliburton as a pick as much as I did with Mitchell. But again, they instead opted to spend more money in the short term for a team that wont accomplish anything.

Mobley was the best player on the board and filled a need. Whats your point again?

Oh yeah? Did you have Scottie winning ROY? ::::checks notes:::: Oh yeah, nobody did.

[Knightro]

Listen, I respect you Knightro as a mod and a poster. Therefore, I'm not going to reply to you the same way I would someone making an argument in bad faith. You arent ezzzzzzzzzzzzzp.

The whole point of this conversation being rehashed for the millionth time is the fact that they didn't draft anyone competent in the first three years of being with the Magic. They are either perpetually injured or fringe rotation guys. Now people are wondering why the bench is so bad other than Bol.

You aren't using context or logic to my argument. Drafting 3 guys back to back to back, that all play the same position without versatility, means something vastly different than using a top lotto pick on a guy that logs the same minutes as your best player offensively. Knowing this with many more glaring weaknesses on the roster and feeling compelled to be in the playoffs for some reason. You see the difference right? You can see how those are vastly different situations. Right?

"The odds of being able to draft 5 players at 5 different positions 5 years in a row and completely fill out a perfect lineup is just not realistic." Were the Magic rebuilding when they drafted Bamba? I forget... Did they hire a win-now coach and decide to retain all their players? I forget.

The impetus of this entire conversation stems from the fact that you have, for years, proclaimed Bamba was a bad pick because the Magic ignored fit and need when they drafted him and that is just not an accurate statement.

Vucevic at the time of the Bamba pick was not a good player. He just wasn't. I don't know what to tell you. You keep suggesting he was the Magic's "best player offensively" and that is just not even close to true. He was the third leading scorer and 10th on the team in TS%. He stunk *and* he was going into the last year of his contract. If you polled 100 Magic fans after the 2017-2018 season on whether or not Vucevic should get a new contract, it may have been 100 out of 100 to vote NO.

Not to mention the fact that even if Vucevic actually was better (he wasn't), the Magic still only won 25 friggin games and were 25th in total offense with Vucevic as their alleged centerpiece offensively.

Yes they hired Steve Clifford who is a "win now" coach, but no one in their right mind expected them to even sniff the playoffs, much less jump by 17 wins. Vegas believed they'd jump all of 6 wins to 31 and most people felt that was too optimistic.

The front office felt Bamba was going to be a better player than Vucevic and replace him as their long-term starter at center. They were wrong.

Bamba was a bad pick because he sucks. But there's no other reason than that really.

Sometimes results don't come even if you use the correct process.

[VFX]

Listen, I respect you Knightro as a mod and a poster. Therefore, I'm not going to reply to you the same way I would someone making an argument in bad faith. You arent ezzzzzzzzzzzzzp.

The whole point of this conversation being rehashed for the millionth time is the fact that they didn't draft anyone competent in the first three years of being with the Magic. They are either perpetually injured or fringe rotation guys. Now people are wondering why the bench is so bad other than Bol.

You aren't using context or logic to my argument. Drafting 3 guys back to back to back, that all play the same position without versatility, means something vastly different than using a top lotto pick on a guy that logs the same minutes as your best player offensively. Knowing this with many more glaring weaknesses on the roster and feeling compelled to be in the playoffs for some reason. You see the difference right? You can see how those are vastly different situations. Right?

"The odds of being able to draft 5 players at 5 different positions 5 years in a row and completely fill out a perfect lineup is just not realistic." Were the Magic rebuilding when they drafted Bamba? I forget... Did they hire a win-now coach and decide to retain all their players? I forget.

The impetus of this entire conversation stems from the fact that you have, for years, proclaimed Bamba was a bad pick because the Magic ignored fit and need when they drafted him and that is just not an accurate statement.

Vucevic at the time of the Bamba pick was not a good player. He just wasn't. I don't know what to tell you. You keep suggesting he was the Magic's "best player offensively" and that is just not even close to true. He was the third leading scorer and 10th on the team in TS%. He stunk *and* he was going into the last year of his contract. If you polled 100 Magic fans after the 2017-2018 season on whether or not Vucevic should get a new contract, it may have been 100 out of 100 to vote NO.

Not to mention the fact that even if Vucevic actually was better (he wasn't), the Magic still only won 25 friggin games and were 25th in total offense with Vucevic as their alleged centerpiece offensively.

Yes they hired Steve Clifford who is a "win now" coach, but no one in their right mind expected them to even sniff the playoffs, much less jump by 17 wins. Vegas believed they'd jump all of 6 wins to 31 and most people felt that was too optimistic.

The front office felt Bamba was going to be a better player than Vucevic and replace him as their long-term starter at center. They were wrong.

Bamba was a bad pick because he sucks. But there's no other reason than that really.

Sometimes results don't come even if you use the correct process.

In your opinion.

GM's have to take into consideration all the factors involved and all possible outcomes in regards to roster construction. I don't believe they did that when they selected Bamba. You were OK with them making that pick with zero ramifications toward what their goal was and their timeframe because he was BPA. I wasn't ok with it or the philosophy. I called it a wasted pick at the time and I couldn't have been more correct.

I honestly don't care if a certain prospect pans out or not. Thats not really my gripe. Some prospects wont pan out and some will. Did I b!itch when Hezonja didn't pan out? No. Elfrid? No. Obviously there is more evidence of a pick not becoming a complete bust. Otherwise the job of a scout wouldn't exist. It's not 100% guesswork.

What I have an issue with is the FO making poor draft choices that most people wouldn't make not because of talent evaluation, but because of minute distribution and from a team building perspective. That statement obviously matters less if the team making the selection IS contending or NOT. *I have to add that last caveat so people don't go cherry picking for outliers like the 76ers tank years like they do with every **** -ing argument about the draft for some reason*

Supposedly you can have 3 years of poor draft choices, to a small market without free agency pull, and still have a very comfortable job. When Orlandos bench goes in and does absolutely nothing outside of Bol. I will just come back to this thread and smile.

[Black and Blue]

I respect both sides of your arguments. I'll add one other thing in there that takes it out of the realm of the draft spot Bamba was chosen and the team fit and puts it squarely into the mentality of the two men drafting:

One undeniable fact is that Weltman and Hammond LOOOOOOVE projects. They salivate over the idea of taking a raw prospect with physical gifts that everyone possibly undervalued and grooming them to be a gem. Where this idea gets funky is when the player themselves lack the oomph within themselves to attain that potential. Giannis had that drive (obviously), but not all players have that mentality to want to be the best. To some people just making it into the NBA itself is a gigantic achievement. I think Weltman and Hammond fell in love with the potential of Bamba at too high a pick without asking themselves, "what happens if this player only want to get a little bit better? What if we bring this horse to water but can't make it drink?" Whether drafting at 5 or 25 these project players with Weltman and Banchero are like a alluring drug, and Bamba was a case in which they had blinders on while daydreaming about what he could be one day.

It's not all bad though and hear me out here - I think the botched Bamba pick may have weirdly led to us taking Banchero. We've watched Bamba enough to know he has motor issues. He seems to need his teammates to lift him up from time to time. Like Bamba, the two others the Magic were considering at #1 in Jabari and Chet had undeniable physical gifts and upside...but Banchero had that killer mentality to be the best that was head and shoulders above the other two. Forgoing the 2 players with length and potential to go with more of a sure thing with Kobe-like passion for the game is a 180 from that Bamba pick. It points to a certain level of learning from past mistakes. If it took the Bamba selection for Weltman and Hammond to pivot and it resulted in the Magic making the SMART call with drafting Banchero, it becomes a lot easier to stomach.

...And they can still have their Bol Bol reclamation projects to scratch that itch

[VFX]

I respect both sides of your arguments. I'll add one other thing in there that takes it out of the realm of the draft spot Bamba was chosen and the team fit and puts it squarely into the mentality of the two men drafting:

One undeniable fact is that Weltman and Hammond LOOOOOOVE projects. They salivate over the idea of taking a raw prospect with physical gifts that everyone possibly undervalued and grooming them to be a gem. Where this idea gets funky is when the player themselves lack the oomph within themselves to attain that potential. Giannis had that drive (obviously), but not all players have that mentality to want to be the best. To some people just making it into the NBA itself is a gigantic achievement. I think Weltman and Hammond fell in love with the potential of Bamba at too high a pick without asking themselves, "what happens if this player only want to get a little bit better? What if we bring this horse to water but can't make it drink?" Whether drafting at 5 or 25 these project players with Weltman and Banchero are like a alluring drug, and Bamba was a case in which they had blinders on while daydreaming about what he could be one day.

It's not all bad though and hear me out here - I think the botched Bamba pick may have weirdly led to us taking Banchero. We've watched Bamba enough to know he has motor issues. He seems to need his teammates to lift him up from time to time. Like Bamba, the two others the Magic were considering at #1 in Jabari and Chet had undeniable physical gifts and upside...but Banchero had that killer mentality to be the best that was head and shoulders above the other two. Forgoing the 2 players with length and potential to go with more of a sure thing with Kobe-like passion for the game is a 180 from that Bamba pick. It points to a certain level of learning from past mistakes. If it took the Bamba selection for Weltman and Hammond to pivot and it resulted in the Magic making the SMART call with drafting Banchero, it becomes a lot easier to stomach.

...And they can still have their Bol Bol reclamation projects to scratch that itch

Bol is definitely itching that scratch for them now.

I undoubtedly wish they selected any of the 12-15 other guys in the 2018 draft that could actually be logging meaningful minutes right now. Selling second round picks and taking massive projects at the top of the draft doesn't seem like a great draft strategy. Then again, if you were the guy that made his claim to fame on taking a risk on Giannis you probably believe you're some kind of draft god despite whiffing 70% of the time.

Banchero made sense in almost every context. Franz is the one they get points for taking.

[tooler]

I feel like I’ve skipped all the stages of grief and went straight to accepting that Bamba is not a good player, and that’s okay.

Also I hope this is enough of a jinx that he drops 30 points tonight. Boost that trade value!

[SOUL]

Bamba has turned out to be a bad pick because his defense is spotty and he never developed a power game to punish any sort of mismatch with smaller players. He'd show glimpses of big games, but usually it's because he's hitting perimeter shots. When he's on, it looks great. But the motor is still spotty, he's stil a bit uncoordinated, and his rebounding is weak for the positioning he gets.

But I very much remember the state of the board back then. Vucevic went from 18 ppg to 14 ppg to 16 ppg and the team sucked. He didn't shoot many threes either so he was very ineffective as a first option. Most of the board were ready to move on from Vucevic and were perfectly fine with picking a big to replace him. Nobody really expected that all-star jump, so position-wise it was totally fair pick, imo.

Is there some debate with the pick if we also had Isaac and Gordon? Sure, but I don't think we ever intended on those guys playing center at any point besides spot minutes.

The bigger question is why we kept drafting bigs when we saw the league was becoming very perimeter oriented.. but in the case of moving on from Vuc, the writing was on the wall.

[orthoman]

Let's move Bol Bol to the point..let him be the field general.