Drafting Small, Thinking Small

User avatar
RealGM Articles
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,025
And1: 48
Joined: Mar 20, 2013

Drafting Small, Thinking Small 

Post#1 » by RealGM Articles » Mon Jul 1, 2013 6:14 am

The Washington Wizards and Cleveland Cavaliers have traditionally been hard-luck franchises, but fortune, in the form of ping-pong balls, has smiled on them in recent years. Cleveland won the lottery in 2011 and 2013, to go along with Top-5 picks they “earned” in 2011 and 2012. Washington won the lottery in 2010 and moved into the Top-3 in 2012 and 2013. A similar run of luck from 2007-2009 allowed the Oklahoma City Thunder to build the core of one of the NBA’s best teams.


While there may not have been a Kevin Durant-like talent in any of the last four drafts, there was no shortage of talented prospects to sift through. It’s too early to say whether either the Cavs or the Wizards made the right picks, but they built remarkably similar cores. Both took a point guard at No. 1, something done only four times since the lottery began. In looking at what both teams have done in the draft, one obvious question comes to mind. Where are the big men?


Three years after taking John Wall with the No. 1 overall pick in 2010, Washington doesn’t have a player who predates him. In 2010 and 2011, they went with size, taking Kevin Seraphin, Trevor Booker, Jan Vesely and Chris Singleton. None of the four has done much in the NBA, perhaps causing a shift in the Wizards philosophy. In 2012, they took Bradley Beal (6’5 210) at No. 3 overall. This year, they went with Otto Porter (6’8 210) at the same spot.


Cleveland went with the industry consensus when they took Kyrie Irving first in 2011, but they’ve been marching to the beat of their own drum since. Three picks later, they took Tristan Thompson, an undersized power forward most had pegged as a late lottery pick. In 2012, they surprised many when they took Dion Waiters, a shooting guard who didn’t start for his college team, at No. 4. This year, even Anthony Bennett was stunned when took him No. 1 overall.


Both franchises have built from the outside-in. Five years from now, a huge portion of Washington’s salary cap will be tied up in the perimeter trio of Wall, Beal and Porter. All three are long, skilled and athletic, capable of switching assignments on the perimeter and guarding multiple positions. However, when they are in their prime, Nene and Emeka Okafor will be past their expiration date. Will the Wizards have the assets to replace the two big men?


For Cleveland, the problem is even more basic. Their Top-4 picks may not be able to play together. In the backcourt, Irving and Waiters need the ball in their hands and neither has the size to match-up with bigger shooting guards. In the frontcourt, Thompson and Bennett are natural power forwards. At 6’9 230, Thompson doesn’t have the size to be a center. Bennett’s game, meanwhile, is based around beating slower players off the dribble as a 4, not posting up smaller players as a 3.


Down the road, neither team has an answer in the middle. Washington used their top-3 picks on a PG, a SG and a SF while Cleveland went with two guards and two combo forwards. In the modern NBA, unless you have an owner like Mikhail Prokhorov, you cannot have highly-paid players at all five positions on the floor. The Wizards and the Cavs both made their picks under the assumption that you don’t need a high-level C to win.


Of course, as Donald Rumsfeld might say, you go into a draft with the players on the board, not the ones you wish were there. As the Memphis Grizzlies found out when they took Hasheem Thabeet at No. 2 in 2009, reaching for size is no answer either. In that respect, Cleveland and Washington’s picks might have been dictated by the changing nature of the amateur game. If the best players are all on the perimeter, what’s the point in drafting more limited big men?


Centers do take longer to develop than guards, but it’s not like there weren’t plenty of highly-rated ones available in the last four years. In 2010, the Wizards passed on Greg Monroe, Derrick Favors and DeMarcus Cousins. In 2011, the Cavs passed on Jonas Valanciunas and Enes Kanter. In 2012, neither pulled the trigger on Andre Drummond. This year, both teams passed on Alex Len and Nerlens Noel, two 7’0 seen as the front-runners for the No. 1 pick, and took a 6’8+ combo forward.


For Cleveland, Valanciunas is the one that got away. In 2011, the Toronto Raptors took the 7’0 from Lithuania one pick after Thompson. While both have shown a lot of promise in the NBA, it’s much harder to find a center than a power forward. As a result, the opportunity cost of selecting Thompson was higher. If the Cavs had Valanciunas, they could have taken Bennett without disrupting the mix upfront. Instead, they have two redundant pieces in their frontcourt.


Washington’s pieces fit better, but redundancy is an issue there too. Beal and Porter project as excellent perimeter defenders and secondary ball-handlers, but are those roles important enough to merit two Top-3 picks on the same team? After all, you can find 3-and-D wings in the second round or in Europe. In contrast, the only place to find players like Drummond, Noel and Len is the top of the first round. If a center is available in free agency, there’s probably a reason -- see Andrew Bynum.


That’s the gamble that will make or break the Cavs and the Wizards. The Detroit Pistons haven’t picked higher than No. 7 in any of the last four years, but they’ve been building from the inside-out as opposed to the outside-in. In five years, if Andre Drummond and Greg Monroe can play together, it won’t matter if Brandon Knight and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope were good picks. It’s a lot easier to find perimeter players you can put around a big man than the reverse.

vic
Veteran
Posts: 2,619
And1: 1,101
Joined: Dec 27, 2012

Re: Drafting Small, Thinking Small 

Post#2 » by vic » Mon Jul 1, 2013 2:45 pm

Kentavious is a good pick... could be a star.

But the only thing less common than a dominant center is a point guard that can pass with an assist/to ratio better than 3/1, and space the floor, get to the hole, and control the pace of the game. Trey Burke would have been a better pick from the opportunity cost perspective.

Like you said 3&D wings can be found anywhere. A pass-first player that can control the game is rare. Congrats to Utah your bigs are going to be well fed for a long time.
You need 2-way wings, 2-way shooting bigs, and you can't allow low iq players on the court. Assist/turnover ratio is crucial. Shooting point guards are icing on the cake IF they are plus defenders.
Weaver & Casey, govern yourselves accordingly!
10acious
Junior
Posts: 311
And1: 13
Joined: Apr 19, 2013

Re: Drafting Small, Thinking Small 

Post#3 » by 10acious » Wed Jul 3, 2013 12:46 pm

It's easy to make choices in hindsight. But what about Milwaukee, Toronto, and Portland, which all took your advice and drafted big in 2005, 2006 and 2007? How did those choices work out versus the alternatives?
10acious
Junior
Posts: 311
And1: 13
Joined: Apr 19, 2013

Re: Drafting Small, Thinking Small 

Post#4 » by 10acious » Wed Jul 3, 2013 12:57 pm

To add to my previous comment, I'm concerned with the top bigs in the 2013 draft, Noel and Len. If they are already having foot and knee problems at their high school/college playing weight, what happens when they put on 30-50 pounds or more to compete in the center at the NBA level? How is that additional weight going to affect the feet and knees? Maybe drafting a center that high in 2013 wasn't such a good idea.
Russell
Ballboy
Posts: 1
And1: 0
Joined: Jul 03, 2013

Re: Drafting Small, Thinking Small 

Post#5 » by Russell » Thu Jul 4, 2013 7:46 am

While I do think that the Pistons are an up and coming team and I do think Pope was a pretty good pick (He is probably one of the most under-rated players in the draft), I think there are a number of problems with this article.

1. The Pistons have been re-building for a lot longer than the Cavs and they are only slightly a head of the CAVS in terms of their development and they do not have a single All-Star caliber player. Drummond is the only player currently on the roster with the talent/potential to get there but he is still raw and is going to take more time.

2. The Cavs have actually been quite balanced in their drafts. They have had 6 #1 picks in the last 3 years and they have drafted 3 front court players (Thompson, Zeller and Bennett) and three back court players (Irving, Waiters and Karasev), so I think it is hard to impossible to argue that the CAVS are working from the outside in.

3. How can you say that Noel was the best player in the draft? Worse, you don't give any evidence. Obviously, 5 actual professional GMs thought differently and a sixth was willing to trade him even before he took the court. By what, do you argue he is the best player in the draft, his 10 ppg and injury record? His slight, thin frame? It is just your personal, subjective, unsubstantiated opinion. The writer sounds more like an egotistical cry-baby, complaining that actual, professional GMs disagreed with his mock draft.

4. Personally, I hate the term "reach." All it means is that real GMs disagree with some journalist's mock. It means nothing.

5. Drummond may or may not prove to be the super-star his talent is capable of making him. There were at least 7 GMs wthat thought that he did not have the maturity to make the best use of that talent. If I were that writer, I would not write with such assurance that he is going to be all that just yet.

6. Let's wait. I It is too early to make any conclusions yet. THe CAVS, Pistons and Wizzards may all be the teams of the future as they have all done well with the draft picks they have been given.

Return to Articles Discussion