SUPERBALLMAN wrote:Do we want to be adding players 2 or 3 years from now, when hopefully we’re reaching a point of trying to win games, that need need 2 or 3 years to develop or is it better to add those players now so at that point they’re ready to contribute? I do concede, if we draft a guy like Ware, having someone like Kuz here to mentor him could be beneficial. And adding 5 rookies all at once could be too many to handle ... I guess my feeling is now is the time for building and developing, and I’m hoping 3-4 years from now will be the time for winning. I’d like to see the front office braintrust aggressive in their approach to add as much young talent as possible.
Well reasoned. I get what you're saying. But consider that just because you invest picks and time and training in 5 rookies, does not make them good. Or better than the guy next year. Does not make that player instantly one of the 500 best basketball talents on the planet. Or better than the next 60 players drafted next year.
Or the next or the next. To the end of his rookie deal. He is filling a spot that could be used by a player that may be better. A guy that may not be in this draft.
And you can't shuffle them out as easily as you can pick them. A contract is a contract. You signed them, you have to pay them and keep them. Even if you can't play them. They are filling that locker. They count against the cap. That's your guy.
The argument that every draft has a player lower down that is better than some picked ahead of him is faulty reasoning. It's not even about the argument that 'Not every draft has a Giannis. Jokic.' Even if there was an exception in every draft. Like, okay, but you don't get to pick ALLL the players after the lottery then shake it til you find the one outlier. You have 17 spots to fill. Not 20/20 hindsight's best pick of every guy after your spot.
If you look at the history of the 1st pick, 2nd pick, 3rd, etc. Asking "how many all-star games?" "how many wins in their career?" "how long did they play?" or whatever metric of success you use, the fact is you TEND to get better production out of those high picks. The exceptions do not negate that fact.
What team do you want: Every player picked at #5 or every player ever picked at #25?
Me I'm taking 5th picks: Vince Carter, Dwayne Wade, Kevin Garnett, Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Kevin Love, Steve SMith, Mitch Richmond, Trae Young, Moses Malone, Walt Frazier... and many other HOFers
Over the 25th: Quickley, Mo Wagner, Clint Capela, Nico Batum, Tony Allen, Mark Price, and Al Harrington...
(Or even the fluke 15th pick which is better than some picks ahead of it: Giannis, Kawaii, Steve Nash, um... Dell Curry, Al Jefferson, Steven Hunter? But I'm scratching for others.)
Studies show that statistically there is a drop off in overall production the further down the draft you go. Even when they correct for the bias that teams will be more likely to invest in their lottery pick and not quit on them after the 1st contract. The guys at the top tend to produce at a higher level. TEND to. You have to shave the %'s in your favor.
So instead of loading up now because it hurts less and the expectations are low, it seems to me EVERY year you want to keep a chair open for the guy who is better than the guy you already got. Shoot you might get lucky in the lottery instead of being locked in to those lower picks.
Imagine if that guy shows up at a time when you are already winning, and he can learn good habits from a team that knows how to win. He can be added to a core of young vets in a culture that outgrew losing. Learn to expect excellence. Wouldn't it be cool to have a winning team that is constantly adding the next rising star ready to take over when the guy in front of him slips?
OR, to be good enough that you can afford to package a few of those young cats in a trade for the guy who is a perfect fit next to the guys you already have and fit the time table better. And you know you can afford to let your young talent go because you have extra picks next year and the year after, etc.
I like the idea of an extra pick or two every year, but too many extra picks just complicate your improvement plan. The average NBA career is 4.5 years. Pretty much a rookie contract's worth, with options picked up. If you are constantly shuffling the back end of your roster with extra picks, you might hit on a few that fight their way up the depth chart and claim a spot. Or you might trade for a pick that turns into a lotto pick from a team that slips. But if a third of your team is locked in from a random draft year, you are losing the chance to find that mutant Giannis or Jokic because you're already wedded to guys from a year where maybe you guessed wrong. Or the talent was worse and those freak statistical improbabilities were not in that draft. Shuffle out 2-3 chairs every year, not 4-6 chairs every 4 years.