ConSarnit wrote:OakleyDokely wrote:YogurtProducer wrote:Preferring a late 1st over a productive GTJ is an all-time bad take.
And the funny thing is, you just know Masai would be roasted if he were to trade GTJ tomorrow for the 28th pick.
and when that 28th pick turns into someone not as good as Powell or GTJ, Masai can't draft either.
There are moves Masai can be seriously questioned on, but trading a FA role player for a younger role player is really low on that list.
The "late 1st" crowd doesn't understand expected value.
"We could have had a cost controlled player." That's great in theory except for one small issue: the normal outcome for a late 1st is right around Malachi Flynn. The expected value of a late 1st is a deep bench player or a bust. How is that any more valuable than 2.5 years of what GTJ provided? That doesn't even account for the fact that GTJ was 22 when we acquired him, was a proven shooter with flashes of upside in other areas. Trent didn't get there but a 22 year old proven NBA player who still has upside is worth far more @ $18m/year than the 27th pick making $1.5m when you consider the normal outcome.
2.5 years of GTJ > average outcome of a late 1st
The mystery box posters always treat the box as best possible outcome. They did it with Koloko too. "We would have drafted Kessler" while ignoring that 11 other players were drafted in that range as well, many of whom will bust.
The average outcome of the #1 pick is John Wall. Probably not even worth a S&T of FVV for it, I'd rather have the known quantity than Victor.
If you're going to take this approach, why hold any value in draft picks at all? Or is this just an attempt to justify a bad move yet again?
























 
 
