2025 Draft Thread - Part 2

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Noah Penda definitely checks the Will Dawkins boxes... Length, defense, passing. I could see him as a candidate for 18.

THE RINGER:
NOAH PENDA
Instinctive, big-bodied defender with all the glue-guy skills to stay on the floor as he hones his offensive repertoire.

Off-Ball Defense
Positional Versatility
Feel for the Game

SCOUTING REPORT BY Danny Chau
In a French league populated with former NBA talents and grizzled basketball lifers, it’s the 20-year-old Penda who leads the league in combined steals and blocks per game—his “stock” rates edging out even those of Andre Roberson, the former NBA ace defender. But Penda hasn’t reached those heights just by having young legs; more often than not, he wins on defense with advanced pattern recognition and hand-eye coordination. That’s not to say he isn’t athletic—his functional strength and movement skills serve as the chassis for his processor. He is comfortable diagnosing plays on the spot, communicating assignments, and seamlessly rotating and recovering to fill gaps on defense. There is immense value in simply knowing where to be and how to get there as urgently as possible.

Penda’s spatial awareness is one of his greatest gifts on offense, too. He makes quick decisions both with the ball in his hands as a driver and on the catch as a cutter, passing into open windows for easy buckets. He’ll never be confused for a full-time point forward, but Penda has the vision and instincts to keep the wheels greased on offense as a connective arm.

The defining question in his evaluation: How will he score at the next level? Penda has yet to prove that he can consistently shoot from 3 at respectable levels (although, to his credit, he’s improved his accuracy this season and isn’t shy with his attempts). He has a confident handle and the power to work his way into the lane, but there’s a degree of inflexibility in his forays, a lack of the decelerative capacity that usually serves as the basis for most power-based drivers. Having some reliable form of offense will be essential if he’s to have a place in a lineup. Penda has all the ancillary skills; as is so often the case, how he develops his jumper will determine just how much of an impact he can make.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

If we do get Flagg, the thought of teaming him with Penda in the frontcourt is enticing to me, the size, length, defense, passing and physicality could mesh really well. Add in Sarr's length, speed and athleticism in the middle, Bilal on the perimeter, and mixing in Kyshawn off the bench....

[doclinkin]

True! Okay what would you do with all 4 Brooklyn picks?

Ok...

Yaxel Lendeborg & Johni Broome look like two of the most underrated NBA prospects I've seen in many years. If the Nets would trade 26 & 27 for our 18 & 40, I'd go for it & pick those two guys.

If we got 3, & the Nets would exchange their 6 & 19 for it, I'd also go for that. Then I'd try to trade down from 6 in a way that got me Maluach -- not sure what would work.... Otherwise, I might simply take him at 6 (but I think there might be a trade that would work -- any suggestions?).

At 19... I don't know. Maybe Nique? But maybe not.... Not sure. I do like Danny Wolf....

Ediit: of course, guys rising in predraft chatter might make some of those picks impossible.

Also of note, this is the smallest draft class in many years with the NIL having an effect and the COVID seniors having passed their extra year of eligibility. Now schools are able to offer as much $ renumeration to players who stick in school as the NBA is able to pay in the later picks on the rookie scale. (In fact I think there may be some weirdness at the top of the 2nd round in coming years where players hope to slip out of the first round so their agents can negotiate a better deal).

Ultimately the NBA will benefit over the next few years with players staying in school. The one and done pool may be smaller, though the true hypertalents will still jump to the league. I think however teams will start getting more instant production from late 1st rounders. Better seasoned guys with more practice on fundamentals and opportunities to work on their game. More players developing their mindset under the crucible of win-or-go-home play in March. Late first round picks may prove a bargain in box-score vs cost.

Still, it also means after the workouts and combine we will see even more players return to school since they have extended time to make their decision. If they don't like where they are projected they may see what added $ the NIL market can offer. Those late picks this year may be worth less and less. It may take a couple years of volatility or a new CBA before theDraft vs NIL sorts itself out and the talent pool returns to what it was.

That said I'm not sold that teams are hard and fast on what they will and will not give up for a high pick. If you are dangling your pick for auction you let teams bid against each other. Teams fall in love with players. It only takes one. If I'm not overwhelmed by the offers, I stick and pick the guy my scouts like.

I'm super curious to see how Brooklyn drafts though. They could instantly become monstrous up front.

6. Maluach. Huge and mobile. Low post offense. Or DQ who would absolutely star in Brooklyn.
19. Rasheer. Long armed PF with outside shooting.
26. Carter Bryant. Defensive 3/4 athlete with efficient play, lob threat.
27. Yaxel. High energy switchable Point forward.
36. Tahad Pettiford. Undersized guard with brooklyn level moxie.

That's a whole front court platoon, with an infusion of attitude in Tahad. The added size makes the diminutive guard less of a liability.

[payitforward]

I really hope Will is dickering w/ Brooklyn w/ the goal of turning our 18 & 40 into their 26 & 27.

[9 and 20]

If we get Cooper Flagg, I'm seeing shades of Tatum and Brown in DC, with Flagg and Bilal. We need this to happen, Silver. Terd - bribe whoever you need to bribe to grease the skids on lottery night. I might even be willing to throw my support behind a move to Alexandria in exchange!!!!

[DCZards]

I really hope Will is dickering w/ Brooklyn w/ the goal of turning our 18 & 40 into their 26 & 27.

I don’t see this happening. Chances are that Dawkins and Co. have their eyes on 1-2 players at 18 who they know aren’t likely to be there at 26.

[nate33]

I really hope Will is dickering w/ Brooklyn w/ the goal of turning our 18 & 40 into their 26 & 27.

I don’t see this happening. Chances are that Dawkins and Co. have their eyes on 1-2 players at 18 who they know aren’t likely to be there at 26.

Agreed. If anything, Will is eyeing trading #40 plus a TPE for a late FRP and a dead weight contract. Either that or he is looking at trading #40 to move up from #18 to #15 or so.

[payitforward]

I really hope Will is dickering w/ Brooklyn w/ the goal of turning our 18 & 40 into their 26 & 27.

I don’t see this happening. Chances are that Dawkins and Co. have their eyes on 1-2 players at 18 who they know aren’t likely to be there at 26.

Unfortunately, however, having both 26 & 27 works out substantially better over time than having 18 alone.
Not sure I'm right? Here are 10 consecutive drafts:

2012: Terence Jones at 18
vs. Miles Plumlee at 26 (not to mention Draymond, Sato, Middleton, etc in R2!)

2013: Shane Larkin at 18
vs. Andre Roberson & Rudy Gobert at 26 & 27

2014: Tyler Ennis at 18
vs. PJ Hairston & Bogdan Bogdanovic at 26-7 (not to mention Clint Capela at 25 & Kyle Anderson at 30)

2015: Sam Dekker at 18
vs. Nikola Milutinov(?) & Larry Nance Jr.
(not to mention Kevon Looney, Cedi Osman, Montrezl Harrell, & Richaun Holmes all going from 28-37)

2016: Henry Ellenson
vs. Furkan Korkmaz & Pascal Siakam
(not to mention Dejounte Murray, Ivica Zubac, & Malcolm Brogdon all in the next 10)

2017: DJ Wilson
vs. Swanigan & Kuzma...yikes! --
Yet.. the higher pick wasn't really better. Plus, we see Derrick White & Josh Hart at 29 & 30 – plus Isaiah Hartenstein & Dillon Brooks in the mid-40s & Monte Morris at 51.

2018: Lonnie Walker
vs. Mo Wagner & Robert Williams
not to mention Jalen Brunson & Mitchell Robinson, Gary Grent Jr., Jarre Vanderbilt, Bruce Brown, & a half dozen other guys in R2 who actually were NBA players.

2019: Gogo Bitadze (finally – a good player!)
vs. here’s who went in the 20s that year: Matisse Thybulle, Brandon Clarke, Ty Jerome, Jordan Poole, Keldon Johnson.
Plus Nic Claxton at 31, Cody Martin at 36, Daniel Gafford at 38, Bol Bol at 44, TH-T at 46, & Jalen McDaniels at 52. Oh, & Caleb Martin undrafted.

2020: Josh Green (a good player again!)
vs. Jaden McDaniels, Desmond Bane – not to mention Immanuel Quickley, Payton Pritchard & Jaden McDaniels all taken in 2d half of the 20’s & several outstanding players taken in R2.

2021: Tre Mann
vs. here is who was there at 26 & 27 -- Cam Thomas, Santi Aldama, Jeremiah Robinson-Earl, Herb Jones, Miles McBride, Ayo Dosunmu, Jared Butler, Aaron Wiggins & Jericho Sims (& 5 other guys still in the league).

Are there exceptions? Well I mentioned Bitadze & Green, right?

& of course I could go further back -- in 2011, admittedly, Chris Singleton was a mistake at 18, but at least Tobias Harris was there at 19, right?
Then again, you’d have been a lot better off with the #30 pick that year, don’t you agree?

Conclusion: having one of the top 3 picks gives you an advantage in the draft, no doubt about it.

Having 18 instead of 26 gives you ZERO advantage. & having both 26 & 27 turns out to be FAR better than 18 alone.

You just don't get a better player at 18 than at 26 or 27.

Try another 10-year stretch? It won't be any different, sorry....

Edit: of course you do get a better player at 18 sometimes! In '23 Jaime Jaquez went at 18 & has been better than the 2 who went at 26 and 27.

[nate33]

This is data I posted a while ago with the odds of obtaining an All-NBA player with each pick in the draft (with moving 3-day and 5-day averages)

Code: Select all

Pick   Odds   M-Avg 3   M-Avg 5
#1   38.67%      
#2   20.00%   28.45%   
#3   26.67%   20.38%   24.44%
#4   14.47%   21.17%   18.00%
#5   22.37%   14.44%   15.97%
#6    6.49%   12.91%   13.07%
#7    9.86%    9.50%   12.58%
#8   12.16%   11.34%   10.57%
#9   12.00%   12.16%   11.06%
#10  12.33%   11.10%   10.23%
#11   8.96%    9.00%    9.19%
#12   5.71%    7.20%    7.93%
#13   6.94%    6.12%    6.64%
#14   5.71%    6.18%    5.71%
#15   5.88%    5.29%    5.74%
#16   4.29%    5.35%    4.65%
#17   5.88%    3.88%    4.40%
#18   1.47%    3.94%    3.54%
#19   4.48%    2.50%    3.00%
#20   1.56%    2.55%    2.81%
#21   1.61%    2.70%    3.19%
#22   4.92%    3.31%    2.90%
#23   3.39%    3.78%    2.91%
#24   3.03%    2.68%    2.59%
#25   1.61%    1.55%    2.92%
#26   0.00%    2.72%    2.92%
#27   6.56%    3.32%    3.03%
#28   3.39%    4.51%    4.08%
#29   3.57%    5.79%   
#30   6.90%

Picks 27-30 have a really odd history of significantly outperforming picks 18-26. I'm not sure if that's just a fluke, or if it's that the really good teams who pick late pick better, or maybe young players who join good teams get developed better. All that said, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

[gesa2]

PIF you can’t keep comparing who was actually drafted at one spot with who was available at a later spot, as if you would somehow have a better eye for those players if you picked later. After all the players you show as available at 26/27 in your comp were also available at 18!

[doclinkin]

PIF you can’t keep comparing who was actually drafted at one spot with who was available at a later spot, as if you would somehow have a better eye for those players if you picked later. After all the players you show as available at 26/27 in your comp were also available at 18!

That’s my strongest peeve with the fallacy of this position. You can’t cherry pick the few successes from the entire field of available players after your early selection. You might as well make the same argument and select the worst possible names as if that proved somehow that your chances of picking a bad player are higher. There are surely more bad players than good ones after 26.

No. You want to look at all players at that pick. And see the historical hit rate. Count the misses as well. The charts generally bear out. Higher is better. Except the late first round blip. Which there’s reasons for.

I’d agree with nates assessment that the late round picks are better since they are being picked by teams that are actually good. Talent assessment is better so they pick the better guy. Coaching is better. They learn to win from a winning organization. They have a longer apprenticeship behind proven players. Better mentors.

There are any number of reasons that go into why good teams consistently stay good. But still, if you list the hit rate or track the Win Scores etc of players higher up the draft you find over time the better players are generally picked earlier.

So far Dawkins trades up. And so far it looks like the right move. I personally think it’s fair to trade down a slot or two if you have a handful of guys on the same tier and are as happy with one as the other. The mocks often undervalue the guy o like best and I’m right often enough that I trust my pick. But that’s usually only off by 4-6 picks max. Still I’d rather get future picks for that trade back since teams generally undervalue their future, and since there’s a chance that pick is actually a trade UP if they slip.

If I dangle a pick for auction I’m willing to be swayed by a haul if two teams are fighting for the same selection. In general though I’m keeping the pick. I personally have less confidence in a trade up scenario, so I admire the brass it takes to make the choice and get it right.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Here's a couple new draft videos worth a watch...

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[DCZards]

Maybe it's just me...but I feel very good about this new FO's ability to evaluate talent. And, given that, I like the idea of giving Dawkins and Co. 8 more players to choose from at 18 than they would have available to them if they traded back to 26.

Doesn't really matter to me what has or has not happened in past drafts as far as picking 18 vs 26 is concerned.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

Maybe it's just me...but I feel very good about this new FO's ability to evaluate talent. And, given that, I like the idea of giving Dawkins and Co. 8 more players to choose from at 18 than they would have available to them if they traded back to 26.

Doesn't really matter to me what has or has not happened in past drafts as far as picking 18 vs 26 is concerned.

The evaluation of these players beyond Flagg is so unpredictable, and so much depends on individual preferences and team concepts and priorities. Its possible someone you want at 18 could still be there at 26, but I wouldn't count on it. Someone you want at 26 could go 19.

Tankathon has Carter Bryant at 26, while the Athletic has him at 9. There are players some mocks have in the 2nd round and other mocks have them mid 1st.

My preference would be to just acquire another late 1st and keep 18 where it is.

[payitforward]

PIF you can’t keep comparing who was actually drafted at one spot with who was available at a later spot, as if you would somehow have a better eye for those players if you picked later. After all the players you show as available at 26/27 in your comp were also available at 18!

No. You want to look at all players at that pick. And see the historical hit rate. Count the misses as well....

Which is exactly what I did!

The charts generally bear out. Higher is better....

No, actually, they don't. That is, they *do* for picks 1-3. After that, sorry, no.

...the late first round blip. Which there’s reasons for....

There are "reasons" for everything. Nor would I be foolish enough to suggest that a single later pick is better than a single earlier pick. We don't live in a world of magical formulae.

We were discussing, specifically, the ability of GMs to project how good a player will be. My point was simple & is incontrovertible: there's enough uncertainty in all this that having 26 & 27 makes it more likely you get quality than having 18 & 40. The data for the last quarter century seemed to me sufficient to demonstrate the point -- which it clearly does.

....I’d agree with nates assessment that the late round picks are better since they are being picked by teams that are actually good. Talent assessment is better so they pick the better guy. Coaching is better. They learn to win from a winning organization. They have a longer apprenticeship behind proven players. Better mentors....

This is classic. It's a complex set of abstract factors invented to explain a simple real-world situation.

For it to be true, you'd essentially have to argue that if Pascal Siakam had been picked at 18 & Henry Ellenson had been picked at 26, there was some likelihood that Ellenson would have been the better player. No.

... if you track the Win Scores etc of players higher up the draft you find over time the better players are generally picked earlier....

After the 3d pick this is, precisely NOT true. Period. It's false. & if you factor in that a higher pick is tradable for multiple lower picks the point is even more obvious.

This is not metaphysics. It's not b/c one number is better than another. Nor am I making the idiotic claim that guys taken lower are usually better than guys taken higher.

It's because there's enough uncertainty in the process that the fact of two bites being better than one is more significant than any pattern of decline in quality.

Period. It's just a fact. Not even a surprising one. Concocting complex explanations to negate its significance is pointless.

So far Dawkins trades up....

He traded up one spot to get Bilal -- because he had reason to think someone else would grab him at that previous spot, & he liked him well enough that he was willing to give up a bit of draft capital to get him. Rinse & repeat for the 2 spot trade up to get Kyshawn.

These two events don't constitute a pattern. & in any case they have literally *nothing* to do with the point I'm making.
Castle won RoY -- does that make it better to have the #4 pick than the #1 pick?

In any case, you don't even really believe your own argument. You've wanted to trade down in more than one recent draft! & I don't mean...

...a slot or two... 4-6 picks max... (&) get future picks for that trade...

Do I have to remind you of your preferred plan in '21.
Or that Tari Eason went at 16 in '22 & you'd have been delighted to trade back for him plus whatever....

In short -- past pick 3 there is little to no pattern of a higher R1 pick being better than a lower R1 pick. Period. & if you want to prove me wrong by pointing out that Paul George was taken at #10 in 2010 & was better than every single player taken after him that year, my response is that he was also better than every single player taken before him! QED.

[nate33]

In short -- past pick 3 there is little to no pattern of a higher R1 pick being better than a lower R1 pick. Period. & if you want to prove me wrong by pointing out that Paul George was taken at #10 in 2010 & was better than every single player taken after him that year, my response is that he was also better than every single player taken before him! QED.

I think you overstate this point. There is definitely some truth to the notion that there hasn't been that much of a difference between FRP's outside of the lottery, but I don't think that applies to the top of the draft. It's not just the top 3 picks. Picks 4-11 DEFINITELY outperform picks later in the draft - by a lot - at least with respect to landing star-caliber talent.

Once you get down the 13-15 range, I'd say your quantity over quality philosophy has merit because the talent disparity levels out a lot in the back half of the first round. Having, say, the #19 and #28 pick has historically turned out a little better than having the #14 pick.

[gesa2]

In short -- past pick 3 there is little to no pattern of a higher R1 pick being better than a lower R1 pick. Period. & if you want to prove me wrong by pointing out that Paul George was taken at #10 in 2010 & was better than every single player taken after him that year, my response is that he was also better than every single player taken before him! QED.

I think you overstate this point. There is definitely some truth the notion that there hasn't been that much of a difference between FRP's outside of the lottery, but I don't think that applies to the top of the draft. It's not just the top 3 picks. Picks 4-11 DEFINITELY outperform picks later in the draft - by a lot - at least with respect to landing star-caliber talent.

Once you get down the 13-15 range, I'd say your quantity over quality philosophy has merit because the talent disparity levels out a lot in the back half of the first round. Having, say, the #19 and #28 pick has historically turned out a little better than having the #14 pick.

I agree. Mostly we are talking past each other a bit here. The value of picks definitely flattens out to where the odds of finding a starter with 2 picks in the 20s is better than it is with one pick at 18. But there is SOME difference between the picks still, they are not equivalent. There are roster spot and playing time issues when you have more players in the system, although OKC has shown this argument can be overstated.
When making the argument for trading down it’s made stronger if you stick to the value of a given pick than the value of the best player chosen after a certain point. The latter approach makes it too easy for pedants like me to pick at the logic even if we mostly agree with your overall point.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

In short -- past pick 3 there is little to no pattern of a higher R1 pick being better than a lower R1 pick. Period. & if you want to prove me wrong by pointing out that Paul George was taken at #10 in 2010 & was better than every single player taken after him that year, my response is that he was also better than every single player taken before him! QED.

I think you overstate this point. There is definitely some truth the notion that there hasn't been that much of a difference between FRP's outside of the lottery, but I don't think that applies to the top of the draft. It's not just the top 3 picks. Picks 4-11 DEFINITELY outperform picks later in the draft - by a lot - at least with respect to landing star-caliber talent.

Once you get down the 13-15 range, I'd say your quantity over quality philosophy has merit because the talent disparity levels out a lot in the back half of the first round. Having, say, the #19 and #28 pick has historically turned out a little better than having the #14 pick.

I agree. Mostly we are talking past each other a bit here. The value of picks definitely flattens out to where the odds of finding a starter with 2 picks in the 20s is better than it is with one pick at 18. But there is SOME difference between the picks still, they are not equivalent. There are roster spot and playing time issues when you have more players in the system, although OKC has shown this argument can be overstated.
When making the argument for trading down it’s made stronger if you stick to the value of a given pick than the value of the best player chosen after a certain point. The latter approach makes it too easy for pedants like me to pick at the logic even if we mostly agree with your overall point.

I generally agree with trading back and taking more swings. I think a lot of us take pride in finding later value picks and hidden gems.

But Dawkins seems more determined to trade up to secure the player he wants. Did he have to trade up for Bilal, or for Kyshawn? Once he identified them as his targets, he made sure he got them rather than take a chance or hope they made it to their pick. I'd expect that mode of operation to continue.

[SUPERBALLMAN]

I'M SO EXCITED!!!!!!


(Thanks to BearlyBallin!)
https://www.nba.com/news/2025-nba-draft-combine-list-of-invites

NEW YORK — The NBA announced today that 75 players have been invited to the 2025 NBA Draft Combine, which will take place from May 11-18 at Wintrust Arena and the Marriott Marquis in Chicago.

Additionally, a select number of standout players from the 2025 NBA G League Elite Camp, which will take place May 9-11 at Wintrust Arena, will be invited to participate in the 2025 NBA Draft Combine following that event.

As set forth in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, all invited players are required to attend and participate in the NBA Draft Combine. The NBA may excuse an invited player’s attendance or participation at the Draft Combine and require the player to complete Draft Combine activities at a later date.


Player College / Club
Izan Almansa Perth (Australia)
Neoklis Avdalas Peristeri (Greece)
Ace Bailey Rutgers
Joan Beringer Cedevita Olimpija (Slovenia)
Koby Brea Kentucky
Johni Broome Auburn
Carter Bryant Arizona
Miles Byrd San Diego State
Walter Clayton Jr. Florida
Nique Clifford Colorado State
Alex Condon Florida
Cedric Coward Washington State
Egor Demin BYU
Eric Dixon Villanova
VJ Edgecombe Jr. Baylor
Noa Essengue Ulm (Germany)
Isaiah Evans Duke
Jeremiah Fears Oklahoma
Cooper Flagg Duke
Boogie Fland Arkansas
Rasheer Fleming St. Joseph’s
Vladislav Goldin Michigan
Hugo Gonzalez Real Madrid (Spain)
PJ Haggerty Memphis
Dylan Harper Rutgers
Ben Henshall Perth (Australia)
Kasparas Jakucionis Illinois
Sion James Duke
Tre Johnson Texas
Kam Jones Marquette
Ryan Kalkbrenner Creighton
Karter Knox Arkansas
Kon Knueppel Duke
Chaz Lanier Tennessee
Yaxel Lendeborg UAB
RJ Luis Jr. St. John’s
Khaman Maluach Duke
Bogoljub Markovic Mega Beograd (Serbia)
Alijah Martin Florida
Liam McNeeley Connecticut
Jalon Moore Oklahoma
Collin Murray-Boyles South Carolina
Grant Nelson Alabama
Asa Newell Georgia
Otega Oweh Kentucky
Dink Pate Mexico City (G League)
Micah Peavy Georgetown
Noah Penda Le Mans (France)
Tahaad Pettiford Auburn
Labaron Philon Alabama
Drake Powell North Carolina
Tyrese Proctor Duke
Derik Queen Maryland
Maxime Raynaud Stanford
Jase Richardson Michigan State
Will Riley Illinois
Michael Ruzic Joventut (Spain)
Hunter Sallis Wake Forest
Kobe Sanders Nevada
Ben Saraf Ulm (Germany)
Mark Sears Alabama
Max Shulga VCU
Javon Small West Virginia
Thomas Sorber Georgetown
Adou Thiero Arkansas
John Tonje Wisconsin
Alex Toohey Sydney (Australia)
Nolan Traore Saint Quentin (France)
Milos Uzan Houston
Jamir Watkins Florida State
Brice Williams Nebraska
Darrion Williams Texas Tech
Danny Wolf Michigan
Hansen Yang Qingdao (China)
Rocco Zikarsky Brisbane (Australia)

[payitforward]

PIF you can’t keep comparing who was actually drafted at one spot with who was available at a later spot, as if you would somehow have a better eye for those players if you picked later. After all the players you show as available at 26/27 in your comp were also available at 18!

You're both right & wrong. & I didn't do that.

I.e. I did list guys available later -- but for illustrative purposes -- to make it obvious how generally inaccurate GM picks were.

Here's a simple, empirical claim, one you can check for yourself:

Over the decade of 2011-2020, ten drafts, the guys taken at 26, overall, turned out to be better players than the guys taken 18.

That's a simple claim. Check it yourself -- you can start here & page through the years: https://www.basketball-reference.com/draft/NBA_2011.html

It's true of 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, & 2020 -- that's 9 out of 10 years.

[dckingsfan]

I think you overstate this point. There is definitely some truth to the notion that there hasn't been that much of a difference between FRP's outside of the lottery, but I don't think that applies to the top of the draft. It's not just the top 3 picks. Picks 4-11 DEFINITELY outperform picks later in the draft - by a lot - at least with respect to landing star-caliber talent.

Once you get down the 13-15 range, I'd say your quantity over quality philosophy has merit because the talent disparity levels out a lot in the back half of the first round. Having, say, the #19 and #28 pick has historically turned out a little better than having the #14 pick.

And this depends on the particular draft as well. Some drafts like this one aren't as top heavy and seem to be deeper.

I guess my point - generalizations are just that. But yes, the top 10 are generally a good deal better (agreeing with the overall point) and this draft seems to rhyme.

And in this draft, I think there is some pretty clear separation between the top 4 or 5 and maybe not as much between 10 - 25.

Point - you don't trade our top pick. But if you had 11 and identified multiple players you liked in the draft, I would trade it for 19 & 26.

Another point. It is the person choosing the player that matters. It matters not if you can show that a particular pick would be better than a higher pick if you always pick the wrong player. Why is this material? Because if the person choosing has their top candidate and the player is available at both spots - the exercise is immaterial.

And if you want to get away from the hypothetical to the actual - analyze the actual trades where a team traded down.