cal forward ryan anderson

[sox839]

He isgoingto be in the draft according to draft express. If he is available Ainge should take him. Compares to austin croshere with one big plus he will go inside and rebound the basketball in addition to hitting jumpers. A great pick at 30, opinions?

[Pogue Mahone]

I know Ryan Anderson is skilled and all but I just get a weird vibe from him. I think part of it is that I find his defense and inactivity horrendous and I project that as more indifference than lack of skill. To be honest, it's the same vibe I get from watching Ryan Gomes when he isn't forced to earn his minutes.

That being said, with KG and Pierce here, motivation shouldn't be much of an issue.

Can he function at the pro-level at spot minutes on the wing? I say no, he will not be able to cover Yi Jianlian's chair on the perimeter and he couldn't even cover Brian Scalabrine in the post. Potentially? Maybe but I am not feeling it on both counts. Anything's possible.

Some people are obviously higher on his prospects than me and I can understand that. I think he has a very interesting offensive package, no doubt, but I don't see him doing a majority of the things he does now at the NBA level. In fact, I think his defensive issues are to the point that they outweigh what he will be able to provide offensively in the NBA.

Furthermore, I don't see his upside as anything more than potentially useful and it will take a bit for him to reach that level. I see more value in a bunch of other players at the end of the 1st RD, honestly.

[DynastyInTheMaking]

With Powe and Baby why do we need another young PF?

[Maple Green]

I think we need C and drop Scal and Pollard

[elrod enchilada]

One key point to add to this discussion is this: Danny should draft the best player available in his view regardless of position. It is so difficult to land a stud at pick 30 (or anywhere else for that matter) that a team has to take the best player and hope they get lucky.

You do not draft for need, especially at the end of the first round.

You trade (including up and down in the draft) and sign free agents for need.

It is an iron law.

I will write more about this as the draft approaches, after the playoffs.

As for Anderson, his numbers are striking. Tremendous offensive ability, solid rebounder, and not much otherwise. The numbers suggest limits to his athletic upside. This is no Steve Novak pretty boy who hits wide open jumpers against McNeese State but cannot create. This guy is a bigtime scorer. I think his shooting alone is enough to give him a career as a rotation player. I would be very surprised to see him available at 30. If he is, it is a deep draft.

But when it comes to the draft, I trust in Danny. Completely.

[billfromBoston]

One key point to add to this discussion is this: Danny should draft the best player available in his view regardless of position. It is so difficult to land a stud at pick 30 (or anywhere else for that matter) that a team has to take the best player and hope they get lucky.

You do not draft for need, especially at the end of the first round.

You trade (including up and down in the draft) and sign free agents for need.

It is an iron law.

I will write more about this as the draft approaches, after the playoffs.

As for Anderson, his numbers are striking. Tremendous offensive ability, solid rebounder, and not much otherwise. The numbers suggest limits to his athletic upside. This is no Steve Novak pretty boy who hits wide open jumpers against McNeese State but cannot create. This guy is a bigtime scorer. I think his shooting alone is enough to give him a career as a rotation player. I would be very surprised to see him available at 30. If he is, it is a deep draft.

But when it comes to the draft, I trust in Danny. Completely.

Elrod, before you right that piece on the "Iron Clad" law of drafting, you might want to do a bit more digging...despite the lip service paid to "best player available" the talent level late in the first and into the 2nd is usually very homogenized and you'll see that most teams take the "best player available" that fills a position of need...

The Celtics last season took Glen Davis because he was the "best player available" in their opinion, but if there had been a center that projected out as a backup by Ainge and company they would have taken him even if Davis was rated as a better overall player...

...more than just the player's individual talent factors into this as well...the team analyzes its current roster and rates its existing player's potential and looks at the differential before making a choice..for example: If the team had only one 2nd round pick and had to choose between Gabe Pruitt and Glen Davis they would have factored in the presence of Jefferson, Powe, Scalabrine vs. Rondo, Telfair, Tony Allen...even if Davis projected as a better pro (not sure how they graded them) the team would almost assuredly take Pruitt because the talent base at the guard was much less established than at forward, thus Pruitt would win out at 31 based off positional need...

...its extremely rare for their to be a standout player available late, so the "best player" label is highly subjective and draft history will show that teams often end up with a player that fits a position of need on their roster when all is said and done...

[elrod enchilada]

Thanks, BfB. I always appreciate your input. If you give me your email address I may ship you a draft of the piece before I post it.

My argument is not that teams do always draft the best player available; it is that they should always draft the best player available. Unless a team ranks two players as virtually equal as prospects, drafting for need is a recipe for mediocrity, or worse.

Now you are correct that their judgment may be wrong. Chris Wallace famously (or infamously) drafted what he thought was the best player available with Kedrick Brown in 2001. We certainly were not crying for need at that position. It was the right philosophy, just lousy execution. Had Kedrick Brown become, say, Richard Jefferson, and had we kept Joe Johnson, we would have had an abundamce of riches at the wing with which to trade our surplus to fill needs at the point or the 5. As it was, since Brown bombed and we traded JJ, we had nothing to show for those lottery picks except egg on our faces.

As for the notion that players drafted, say, from 20 or 25 to 40 or 45 are all pretty much clumped together, so teams logically go for need, that makes sense. I suspect it is more true some drafts than others. My only caveat would be that the smarter talent sleuths do not clump them together. They are able to rank order them, or at least separate the Big Babies and Leon Powes from the Nich Fazekases and Josh McRoberts.

But there is always risk in the draft, no matter who is drafting, and the fiurther once moves down the draft the greater the risk and the lesser the likelihood of success. That is why teams need to make draftboards based on propsective success and stick to it.

There are some qualifications. One would be if a team plays a particular style that is especially well suited to a certain type of player. I think this is a relatively rare qualification, but it does exist. Phoenix might be less concerned about defense if a player can handle and pass and run and score, for example, than say the Cs or the Spurs.

At some point I may actually do hard research and interview some GMs on this topic. I would love to know how they organize their rankings for the draft ahead of time. It is fascinating. And I cannot imagine anyone who would be better to interview on the subject than Danny.

Again, send me your email (I am bob@freepress.net) and I will show you what I come up with.