Ruzious wrote:payitforward wrote:I think you are right too -- Portis *is* better than an 4 we have now. But... all on its own that ain't saying a lot!
I loved Portis and I still do. Look at the draft thread and you'll see that I wanted him but assumed he wouldn't be available. That said, I was also high on Oubre as a prospect. He was ranked higher than Portis as well by every mock draft I saw.
Portis has been playing very well as a rookie, and lately he's been playing more too, which says something. I'd love to have him. It might turn out that he's a better NBA player than Oubre. It might turn out the other way as well. Or they might be equally good, more or less.
But your *argument* is what I disagree with. For one thing, you don't pick a player to "have a better balanced roster." You pick the BPA. Period. That guy will be the most valuable asset going forward, either with you or in a trade. If you are willing to take a less good prospect, then you trade -- down not up! -- to make sure you haven't wasted the potential your pick gave you.
As to Portis being "only 10 months older" than Oubre, the big point is that he had 2 years of high level NCAA ball under his belt. Oubre was a freshman. Big difference there.
I'd have been happy if we'd picked Portis. I'd have been even happier had we not traded up and, lucky us, found him available at 19 -- and then taken him! You never know what the resident genius is likely to do. But I was happy w/ the pick of Oubre as well, and right now there's no way to tell whether we'll regret not having picked Portis or be happy we didn't.
I think you're searching too hard to find disagreements where we're actually agreeing. But you are being too simplistic when you say BPA. BPA means different things to different people. BPA now? BPA 3 years from now? 5 years from now? A GM's job is to build a team; not a collection of assets with assumed trade values. When you go by strictly building a collection of assets, you end up with Philadelphia - which is a certified disaster, but I suspect you think they did things the right way.
Back when I used to be involved in a lot of entrepreneurial conversations, we distinguished between 1) doing the right thing and 2) doing "right" whatever it was you were doing. The point was that if you weren't doing #1, then nothing important could be measured by #2.
Having a "balanced roster", imo, is a prime example of #2, i.e. a pointless goal. If your players aren't good enough up and down the roster, then who cares if your roster is balanced?
If you want to know what I think about Philadelphia you might ask me rather than "suspect (I) think they did things the right way." Just for starters, Philadelphia doesn't have "a collection of assets." They have exactly 3 significant assets: Okafor, Noel and Embiid. That's a rookie, an injured player yet to step on the court, and one functional high pick -- perhaps you would have picked someone else at #6 in 2013? Would you? Beyond that point, there's the fact that you pick them because they make your point.
Why don't we look at Boston instead? Or Orlando? 2-3 years ago I predicted to Hands (of blessed memory) that pretty soon he'd be watching Orlando zoom past us. And, this season, that's exactly what we're seeing.
BPA isn't nearly as complex as you'd like it to be either. After all, really what you're arguing is that Portis is a better player than Oubre. He was the BPA. At least that's what I think you're arguing. Am I wrong? Are you saying Oubre was the better prospective NBA player, but we should have picked Portis anyway?
And, you may be right -- Portis really may be the better prospect. Maybe he was the BPA in other words, and therefore he was the guy we should have picked. My only point about that is that it's a too early to tell. Portis has had a whole lot more coaching and a whole lot more time playing high level organized competitive basketball than Oubre has. Beyond that, I don't have an opinion on the subject; I can't see how anyone could have one.
Finally, you mock the phrase "a collection of assets", saying that a GM's job is to "build a team". Assets are players (or picks -- the right to acquire players; or cap room -- the ability to acquire players). That's all. Their "value" (e.g. in a trade) is no more than how good they are. Period.
A basketball team is exactly as good as the sum of how good its players are. Period. The reason we are 15-19 is that our players aren't good enough to be any better than that playing against the competition they've faced. Full stop. And if you think we'd be better with Portis's 260 minutes than with Oubre's 550 minutes (the delta being made up, obviously, by other guys on our current squad), then just say that. All it means is that you think Portis is a more valuable asset. About that, as I say, you may be right. Time will tell.
