Our Round 2 Pick...?

[payitforward]

This is quite a deep draft! There'll be someone taken in the 40s of R2 who has a terrific, long NBA career. How about we get that guy?

Only... who is it?

ESPN has Johni Broome at 37 on their big board -- ok, that means it's conceivable he'd drop to 40.

There's a solid chance that JT Toppin will be on the board at 40. His college numbers are outstanding, & obviously his brothers can play!

How about Adou Thiero, Alex Karaban, Maxime Raynaud, Izan Almansa, Kam Jones, Drake Powell, Labaran Phileron, Michael Ruzic...? There's a list -- any players on it? Someone we want.

[pcbothwel]

Miles Byrd. My #1 guy at 40 (I assume Carter are gone Thiero)

[AFM]

JT Toppin is not related to Obi Toppin

There's a lot of toppin going on (pause) but they aint bruthas

[SUPERBALLMAN]

FYI JT Toppin is staying in school.


The player I like the most that seems consistently mocked in that range is Raynaud . He's a French 7-1 center from Stanford who can step right in and compete with Vukcevic for minutes.

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/basketball/stanford-s-maxime-raynaud-named-acc-basketball-scholar-athlete-of-the-year-01jnm3fmhba4

https://www.si.com/college/stanford/basketball/stanford-s-maxime-raynaud-lands-on-two-more-award-watchlists-01jp8b762jsw


I could also see taking Tyrese Proctor or Sion James there if we land Flagg, and I wouldn't mind it.


Otherwise, I'd be in favor of using the pick on a draft and stash Euro... Neoklis Avdalas, Hansen Yang, Ruzic, Grunloh, Markovic are a few possible examples.

[J-Ves]

Bogoljub Markovic. I assume he will be taken as a late first/early second but he has enough knocks against him to conceivably fall to 40. Those Serbians sure know how to play offensive basketball

[closg00]

A stasher or two-way probably

[doclinkin]

I suspect we won’t use it except to trade up from 18 in the first round

[payitforward]

Possible of course, especially if an attractive opportunity surfaces, but... what makes you suspect it?

[dobrojim]

I've no idea who they might take or how they might use it. At a certain point though, you have
to ask yourself how they would find playing time or is this possible 2nd rnd more likely to be a G-league stash?

Already on the development treadmill are last years rookies:

Sarr
Bub
Kyshaun
AJJ

2nd years guys:
Bilal
Vuk

others-
Colby Jones

our 2 FRPs make 9

That's not counting Poole, Marcus, Khris, Kispert or PiF's fav guy Champagnie (makes 13)

That's assuming no culling the herd or any of our existing players including Holmes or Martin.

Of course we have to cast the widest possible net but that also must be balanced against the need to evaluate in
real games and develop what we have. I think Doc was thinking correctly. We could try to move the pick
to move up a little. I like the idea of Sorber or Fleming, Carter Bryant and now that I'm playing closer
attention, I like the sound of Noa Essengue too. Or Danny Wolf. So many possibilities and so few roster spots
and minutes of playing time to be had.

[doclinkin]

Possible of course, especially if an attractive opportunity surfaces, but... what makes you suspect it?

It's their signature move. They traded up for Bilal. Traded up for Kyshawn. They evaluate players they like then freely spend the capital they collect to move up the ladder to get them. They have 16 second round picks over the next handful of years. They're not going to draft all those players. They use those picks liberally to grease the skids on transactions.

There's gotta be 2-3 players they like in the range between 6 and 18. Dawkins says they are always willing to be 'aggressive' in the draft. Meaning they are not going to be passive to sit around and hope their guy falls to them. They will trade up to hunt them.

Trade assets: We have few players who are valuable in swaps: Smart and KMidd were injured to end the year, teams will want to see them play well before they give anything up. Kispert slipped in efficiency but may be a target for teams hunting for deals, he could be part of a package but it not a centerpiece in value to move up. He's a throw in to a team trying to dump a big contract. Our best player assets are back-ups: JChamp is a valuable player but still an unknown, having padded his stats on a tanking team. Rich Holmes is a good player on a nice contract.

But what we have in spades is 2nd round picks. It took 2 second round picks to move up two spots to get Kyshawn. How many does it take to move from 18 to the lottery? Four? Six? GMs who trade back like to get an extra pick in the year they are trading, it looks like a better deal to the owner and fanbase, you get a 2-for-1, not a future player -- possibly for another GM to make the pick if they get fired. Our FO has no problem adding more weight to the scale to see what tips the deal. Either to move up, or for an extra 1st rounder late if a guy they like has fallen.

Yeah If they are unable to use the 2nd to move up they will select a draft and stash candidate like Vukcevic. But the majority of the decent projected 2nd round picks this year are upperclassmen. They are not at the point of adding productive bench players that instantly endanger their tank, without long term upside.

Caveat. IF they had to pick: Tahad Pettiford. Or Myles Byrd would be my guys.

[payitforward]

Possible of course, especially if an attractive opportunity surfaces, but... what makes you suspect it?

It's their signature move. They traded up for Bilal. Traded up for Kyshawn. They evaluate players they like then freely spend the capital they collect to move up the ladder to get them. They have 16 second round picks over the next handful of years. They're not going to draft all those players....

Actually, this makes good sense -- we have collected more draft picks than we can possibly add as players. Now... that doesn't mean they won't make the #40 pick, obviously, but overall you are still correct.

...There's gotta be 2-3 players they like in the range between 6 and 18. ...they are not going to be passive to sit around and hope their guy falls to them. They will trade up to hunt them....

Sure -- but they still may wind up picking 3 guys. For that matter, if they are confident about their player assessments, then they may also move down a bit.

...JChamp is a valuable player but still an unknown, having padded his stats on a tanking team.

There's no such thing as padding your stats on a tanking team. If you can shoot rebound, etc at a high NBA level, then go ahead and do it. If anything, it should be harder on a bad team than a good one.

...But what we have in spades is 2nd round picks. It took 2 second round picks to move up two spots to get Kyshawn. How many does it take to move from 18 to the lottery? Four? Six?...

Nope. It took only 1 pick to move from 26 to 24 to nab Kyshaun. We gave the #51 pick in the same year.

...Our FO has no problem adding more weight to the scale to see what tips the deal. Either to move up, or for an extra 1st rounder late if a guy they like has fallen.

Yeah If they are unable to use the 2nd to move up they will select a draft and stash candidate like Vukcevic. But the majority of the decent projected 2nd round picks this year are upperclassmen. They are not at the point of adding productive bench players that instantly endanger their tank, without long term upside....

Forgive me if I don't think you can speak for them -- there's not enough data. & every decision is an individual decision.

[doclinkin]

You asked why I suspect it. Not if I work in the front office or am telepathic. I presented evidence. If you’re not convinced that’s fine. Show me counter evidence if you disagree. So far they have spent many more 2nd rounders in trade than they have used in drafting guys.

[AFM]

Does milellie still post here? Where’s our eyes and ears in the front office????

[doclinkin]

But okay lets joust.

Actually, this makes good sense -- we have collected more draft picks than we can possibly add as players. Now... that doesn't mean they won't make the #40 pick, obviously, but overall you are still correct.

Sure -- but they still may wind up picking 3 guys. For that matter, if they are confident about their player assessments, then they may also move down a bit.

...Our FO has no problem adding more weight to the scale to see what tips the deal. Either to move up, or for an extra 1st rounder late if a guy they like has fallen.

Yeah If they are unable to use the 2nd to move up they will select a draft and stash candidate like Vukcevic. But the majority of the decent projected 2nd round picks this year are upperclassmen. They are not at the point of adding productive bench players that instantly endanger their tank, without long term upside....

Forgive me if I don't think you can speak for them -- there's not enough data. & every decision is an individual decision.

We are comfortable making draft assessments off of one year, I think it is fair to make assessments of the front office based on 2 years and their public statements. So far they have collected a mess of 2nd round picks.

They have used them:
In trade-up in the draft to acquire Bilal.
In trade-up in the draft to acquire Kyshawn.
In sign and trade for Jonas.
To add a 1st round pick from Philly (four 2nd round picks).
To snatch AJJ and a first rounder from the Bucks.
This year's 1st round pick from the Griz.

Dawkins says they plan to "continue to be aggressive' in the draft. Yes maybe that means he will be confident and wait for a guy to fall, or will trade back. So far that has meant they trade up. And spent 2nds freely to get 1st round picks.

Nope. It took only 1 pick to move from 26 to 24 to nab Kyshaun. We gave the #51 pick in the same year.

You're right. I recalled New York got a mess of picks since we were jostling for draft position with OKC and figured we both had intel on the same player. Thought we sent 2. We did send two picks, but it was the 1st and the 2nd. Duh. Recall New York had back to back picks just in front of us, so we were bidding against OKC to guarantee we got the guy we wanted. Or to bribe the Knicks not to snatch our guy.

However, the rest of the transaction underscores the philosophy. OKC sent 5! first round picks for Dillon Jones at the pick that was originally ours. No need to remind you of course where Dawkins formed his draft philosophy. I'd love to see an instance where OKC has traded down. I know they trade 2nds for firsts but don't recall a trade back.

I know the default PIF setting is reflective skepticism, but I think we do have a profile on Dawkins style at this point. Trading up in the first round and trading into the first round is a thing he seeks to do.

[payitforward]

No argument, doc --not at all -- your thinking makes good sense, & it may turn out that way. Or a bit different. Or....

I'm only considering all this with the perspective in mind of what I think is best, & like all of us here I have some confidence in my analyses -- while at the same time not overdoing it, if you know what I mean.... No one in his right mind would work off of my perspective in place of Will's!!

As to using 40 to move up a few spots from 18 to, say, 14 (or higher if there's a willing partner) -- I can imagine being for that -- of course. But, to me, that's as likely about "tiers" as an individual. At least in principle, though in an individual case they may amount to the same thing.

Because such deals often depend on who goes in the handful of picks preceding the one a GM might be targeting, I'm guessing that Will (& other GMs as well, obviously) would have a number of balls in the air for what trade(s) to go for when the time comes.

I could be wrong, but I am reading your perspective as very much centered on a desire to get Sorber in particular. I.e. that you are skeptical about his availability at 18, & you like him enough that you'd be willing to give 40 in order to be sure to get him. Is that right?

Of course, if a guy you like even better than Sorber happened to drop to the spot you'd secured, you'd go for him instead -- that's just common sense. & even if a person doesn't have a particular target in mind, it's still better to have a higher pick than a lower one. It's just hard to quantify the benefit (& decide what to give up) without a specific goal -- tier or individual.

All of which amounts to saying that, of course, Will Dawkins is going to be driven by opportunity. Moreso than by any past pattern we can count on.

[The Consiglieri]

I tend to think it would only happen (a trade up involving seconds) if something highly unusual happened on draft night because there are simply too many similar players that fit things they like, so why spend the 2nds? It would have to be if they really, really, particularly liked a player, and for now anyway, while I agree, that's why they have those 2nds: trade up ammo (I just don't see PIF's dream of a perpetual every year haul of 3-4 guys between slots 15-40 being drafted happening, we don't have the roster space, and already have a billion 22 and younger players on the roster). The problem with this class, at least to me, is that unless a specific guy is available who falls way lower than expected, yes maybe a Derik Queen (though I'd be intrigued if they'd hold his age against him lol, I certainly would), but I definitely feel like:

If:
Queen
Maluach
Fears
maybe Kasparov or Jase, fall
Do they move up 2-3 spots to secure them? 3-4 spots? Maybe, for at least some of them, I imagine Queen, Maluach, and Fears would draw their attention.

But in that 14-21 zone:
You have the French Dudes (Traore, Essengue, Beringer, Penda)
You have the board favorites (Murray Boyles, Sorber, Fleming, Lendeborg-he's too old or is he?)
You have a couple of guys that would definitely draw a "Jets drafting another in line blocking TE in the top 10 reaction" from me and a lot of the board:
Demin, Saraf, a falling Kasparov, Clifford (who I hate but others love).

There's just TOO MANY guys to me to see them spinning 3 2nd's into like a 3-4 slot movement.

Essengue, Beringer, Murray Boyles, Sorber, Fleming, hell even Lendeborg, would all be guys I'd either love, or really like. Most of us could probably make a list 4-6 deep of guys typically slotted between 15-25 who we'd be more than happy taking at 18.

That's what I imagine is true of them as well. The draft, around slot 8-28 or so seems really similar in terms of value, especially if Queen, Fears, and Maluach are gone. Why would you move up when you have high ceiling/low floor guys like Essengue/Beringer, rock solid, with some ceiling guys like Murray Boyles, Sorber, Fleming, Lendeborg, and even wild card guys who could end up way better than expected in the sort most of us totally hate (Demin, Saraf, Kasparov).

All this being said: would I trade up with 2 or 3 seconds to get some guys? Yes.
Queen, Sorber, Essengue, Beringer, Fears, Maluach, if post combine, guys like that are suddenly locked in at 6-14, and we would have to move up, to acquire them, yeah, I'd probably do it, but as is, right now, how the aggregate mocks look, I'd sit tight.

The reality is that with Memphis imploding and improving our draft capital by a good 8 slots, they moved us into an area where we can probably peel off a guy that would appear to most or nearly all of the board at slot w/o a trade up, for now, pre-combine.

I can't wait to see how things look over the next 6-8 weeks, with the lottery and combine in the books etc. The reshuffling that comes will tell us if a trade up is potentially likely, very curious. Not too many guys would make me Jets fan, on draft night, but there are a few.

[payitforward]

...I know the default PIF setting is reflective skepticism, but I think we do have a profile on Dawkins style at this point. Trading up in the first round and trading into the first round is a thing he seeks to do.

Overall, I think we can be sure that every GM in his right mind would like to trade up in R1. Why not? It's always & only about what it costs to do so.

At the same time, since such trades do occur, we can be equally sure that every GM in his right mind is more than willing to entertain the idea of trading down in R1.

As in every other trade situation, it's all about what's on offer.

&, if you are identified as having "a style," you can count on being taken advantage of in business deals of any/every kind.

[payitforward]

...Most of us could probably make a list 4-6 deep of guys typically slotted between 15-25 who we'd be more than happy taking at 18....

In other words, this year feels like quite a deep R1. I agree entirely.

[payitforward]

One way to reframe Doc's POV, & this makes sense to me, is that we simply have more NEED than a fairly sizable number of teams. Therefore, we are more motivated either to move up in R1 or else to add another R1 pick. Or both.

Given that need, if we see a target we really like, but we lack the draft capital to acquire him, we will be more likely than some other teams to trade future draft capital to acquire him.

Especially since we have a lot of future draft capital.

[doclinkin]

I could be wrong, but I am reading your perspective as very much centered on a desire to get Sorber in particular. I.e. that you are skeptical about his availability at 18, & you like him enough that you'd be willing to give 40 in order to be sure to get him. Is that right?

If it were up to me I'd tend to build a team more in line with the way the Grizzlies build theirs. Like you, I enjoy the process of draft research and like picking guys with a track record of success more so than betting heavy on potential. I wouldn't skew younger in all of my picks. I'd pick box score standouts with high numbers in the particular stats that indicate BBIQ to me. I'd focus on players who show upward trends in their stats, increasing efficiency while their usage increases. Players who improve in FT% and 3FG% indicate guys who love to work in the gym. Players whose assist numbers grow while TOs fall are learning team basketball. Players whose Defensive rebounds are high for their position are guys who are willing to do the dirty work, no glamor. Which means I wouldn't be looking for 1-and-done phenoms necessarily. I wouldn't be shy about taking players who stayed in school. I'd look for Big men who post good steal and assist numbers, they'd be more valuable to me than those who post high blocks and offensive rebound totals. (Not that those aren't valuable too, they just indicate something different to me. Hinting at superior athleticism vs feel for the game. Given a choice I'd lean towards smarts).

In the past I would have been happy to bet on myself to trade back and get extra swings at the pinata.

And I'm coming to think I might have been wrong. Looks to me like over time Dawkins is doing absolutely everything to climb to the top of the draft ladder. As high up the probability staircase as he can get. Only going up the Pelton chart, not back down it. Using every tool in his kit to do so: Tanking. Pick swaps. Trading all kinds of 2nd round picks to get first rounders.

Looks to me like his philosophy is to think that the best guys go early. That they trust their draft department. And if your scouts really like a guy you go up to get him. With that in mind, they shipped Gafford -- a well liked and productive player-- because they thought the draft was deep and they wanted to get extra picks in the first round. They made the Deni trade the day before the draft -- a move that was damned aggressive. Possibly too aggressive, not getting back enough in the deal, say many fans, but they apparently liked a guy, maybe Bub, and moved whatever they had to to get him. And twice we've seen draft day trades with the teams who pick right in front of us. It looks like they are deliberately eliminating impediments to getting the guy they want by offering incentive to teams not to keep him.

From things Will has said he trusts his scouting department. If they really really like a guy then he will do all the GM work he can to get them that guy. Kyshawn for instance. He was unimpressed when he saw him, and when he saw him again, but his scouting department made him keep watching, until he was convinced. So he outbid OKC to get him.

Me I tend to trust my Best Player Available ranking. I don't mind trading back. I'd happily give up my #2 slot to get Castle + Edey. If I traded up in 2023 it would have been for Brandon Miller or Ausar Thompson. Otherwise let me trade back and get Derek Lively + Brandin Podziemski.

This year I'd auction off any pick after Cooper Flagg. To see what haul I could get from a team that wanted to move up 2-3 slots.

But I like the upside and potential of Dawkin's picks. I wouldn't have taken Sarr. Didn't like Bub as much as Kel'El Ware or Jared McCain. Would have taken Dillon Jones in the Kyshawn Spot. If forced to pick instead of trade down I would have gone for Taylor Hendricks or Jarace Walker over Bilal. And frankly long term I think I would have been wrong. I like what Will is doing.