Trade Thread

[sco]

FWIW, here are the draft positions of the 15 all NBA players this year:
1st: 3
2nd: 1
3rd: 1
4th: 1
7th: 1
9th: 1
15th: 2
27th: 1
30th: 1
35th: 2
60th: 1

So tell me why a top 5 pick means much?

80 top 5 picks have entered the league and played at least 1 season since Lebron (the oldest of these players). Of the 80, just 6 are all NBA. Then there are 9/15 all nba guys that were taken 7th or later, and 7/15 were taken 15 or later. 4/10 additional all stars were taken 10th or later including round 2.

I can buy that a #1 pick is special. It somewhat often results in an all star player eventually. Picks 2 and 3 I guess also have some elevated value. But I just don't think there is much to support the notion that in the modern NBA, a #5 pick is really a lot better than say a #15 pick.

Because you're only looking at one year. Do that over the last decade and you'll find more and more players on such a list that were drafted higher than ones drafted lower. In any and every NBA, modern or old, the #5 pick is definitely better and more valuable and most of the time will lead to a better player, than the 15th pick.

Part of my point is that this is decreasingly so due to 19 year olds being most of the draft class. I don't believe this is an anomaly but rather unless and until the rules are changed, the draft will continue to be more of a crap shoot than we remember from past decades.

Let's compare #5 and #15 picks:

At the #5 spot, in the past 15 years, there have been 3 players that anyone would ever have been excited to get:

Wade
Love
Cousins

At the #15 spot, there have been Kawhi and Giannis. I also personally think there have been better supporting players at #15 such as Lopez, Al Jefferson, Larry Sanders.

The separation just is not that much IMO. The #1 pick sure. Not the #5 IMO.

Part of the problem is thinking about the draft as 30 or 60 guys, it's the top 30 guys out of maybe a thousand possible guys.

[League Circles]

Because you're only looking at one year. Do that over the last decade and you'll find more and more players on such a list that were drafted higher than ones drafted lower. In any and every NBA, modern or old, the #5 pick is definitely better and more valuable and most of the time will lead to a better player, than the 15th pick.

Part of my point is that this is decreasingly so due to 19 year olds being most of the draft class. I don't believe this is an anomaly but rather unless and until the rules are changed, the draft will continue to be more of a crap shoot than we remember from past decades.

Let's compare #5 and #15 picks:

At the #5 spot, in the past 15 years, there have been 3 players that anyone would ever have been excited to get:

Wade
Love
Cousins

At the #15 spot, there have been Kawhi and Giannis. I also personally think there have been better supporting players at #15 such as Lopez, Al Jefferson, Larry Sanders.

The separation just is not that much IMO. The #1 pick sure. Not the #5 IMO.

Part of the problem is thinking about the draft as 30 or 60 guys, it's the top 30 guys out of maybe a thousand possible guys.

I don't follow. What do you mean, part of the problem?

[sco]

Part of my point is that this is decreasingly so due to 19 year olds being most of the draft class. I don't believe this is an anomaly but rather unless and until the rules are changed, the draft will continue to be more of a crap shoot than we remember from past decades.

Let's compare #5 and #15 picks:

At the #5 spot, in the past 15 years, there have been 3 players that anyone would ever have been excited to get:

Wade
Love
Cousins

At the #15 spot, there have been Kawhi and Giannis. I also personally think there have been better supporting players at #15 such as Lopez, Al Jefferson, Larry Sanders.

The separation just is not that much IMO. The #1 pick sure. Not the #5 IMO.

Part of the problem is thinking about the draft as 30 or 60 guys, it's the top 30 guys out of maybe a thousand possible guys.

I don't follow. What do you mean, part of the problem?

If you think of the success rate of a pool of 30 guys and that the 5th guy picked should be better than the 15th guy picked, it would seem more obvious that stats would back that. If you are looking at after-the-fact success rate of 5th vs. 15th out of 1000, you are much more likely see statistical variance - especially given that ascribed value is often on placed on unproven supposition of future performance based on physical attributes and demonstrated performance against lesser competition.

[League Circles]

Part of the problem is thinking about the draft as 30 or 60 guys, it's the top 30 guys out of maybe a thousand possible guys.

I don't follow. What do you mean, part of the problem?

If you think of the success rate of a pool of 30 guys and that the 5th guy picked should be better than the 15th guy picked, it would seem more obvious that stats would back that. If you are looking at after-the-fact success rate of 5th vs. 15th out of 1000, you are much more likely see statistical variance - especially given that ascribed value is often on placed on unproven supposition of future performance based on physical attributes and demonstrated performance against lesser competition.

I'm sorry I still don't understand. Whether you look at it as a pool of 60 or 1000, we're comparing the same 15 guys vs the same 15 guys and seeing that, while neither a #5 pick nor a #15 pick is likely to be good, either can be, and the likelihood that a #5 is a good player is probably just slightly higher than the odds a #15 pick is good. Am I wrong?

[NADROJ]

FWIW, here are the draft positions of the 15 all NBA players this year:
1st: 3
2nd: 1
3rd: 1
4th: 1
7th: 1
9th: 1
15th: 2
27th: 1
30th: 1
35th: 2
60th: 1

So tell me why a top 5 pick means much?

80 top 5 picks have entered the league and played at least 1 season since Lebron (the oldest of these players). Of the 80, just 6 are all NBA. Then there are 9/15 all nba guys that were taken 7th or later, and 7/15 were taken 15 or later. 4/10 additional all stars were taken 10th or later including round 2.

I can buy that a #1 pick is special. It somewhat often results in an all star player eventually. Picks 2 and 3 I guess also have some elevated value. But I just don't think there is much to support the notion that in the modern NBA, a #5 pick is really a lot better than say a #15 pick.

Part of my point is that this is decreasingly so due to 19 year olds being most of the draft class. I don't believe this is an anomaly but rather unless and until the rules are changed, the draft will continue to be more of a crap shoot than we remember from past decades.

Let's compare #5 and #15 picks:

At the #5 spot, in the past 15 years, there have been 3 players that anyone would ever have been excited to get:

Wade
Love
Cousins

At the #15 spot, there have been Kawhi and Giannis. I also personally think there have been better supporting players at #15 such as Lopez, Al Jefferson, Larry Sanders.

The separation just is not that much IMO. The #1 pick sure. Not the #5 IMO.

The fact that Kawhi and Giannis went 15th has nothing to do with the 15th pick; it has everything to due with the 14 teams picking before SA and MIL blowing it. They all had the opportunity to pick those two franchise changing talents, they just blew it on the scouting and projection end.

If you've got Giannis #1 on your big board, you want the highest pick you can get. Even if he's 15th on everyone elses board, you don't want to sit there and hope he falls in your lap.

If you trust your scouting department, you want them to get their guy every single time. And, the likelihood of that drops every single pick after #1; 100% fact.

Now, if you don't trust the Bulls scouting and think they, specifically, are as likely to trip over something at 15 as they are at 5, that's an entirely different argument.

[sco]

I don't follow. What do you mean, part of the problem?

If you think of the success rate of a pool of 30 guys and that the 5th guy picked should be better than the 15th guy picked, it would seem more obvious that stats would back that. If you are looking at after-the-fact success rate of 5th vs. 15th out of 1000, you are much more likely see statistical variance - especially given that ascribed value is often on placed on unproven supposition of future performance based on physical attributes and demonstrated performance against lesser competition.

I'm sorry I still don't understand. Whether you look at it as a pool of 60 or 1000, we're comparing the same 15 guys vs the same 15 guys and seeing that, while neither a #5 pick nor a #15 pick is likely to be good, either can be, and the likelihood that a #5 is a good player is probably just slightly higher than the odds a #15 pick is good. Am I wrong?

Caffeine wearing off - feeling less passionate about the debate.

[League Circles]

The fact that Kawhi and Giannis went 15th has nothing to do with the 15th pick; it has everything to due with the 14 teams picking before SA and MIL blowing it. They all had the opportunity to pick those two franchise changing talents, they just blew it on the scouting and projection end.

If you've got Giannis #1 on your big board, you want the highest pick you can get. Even if he's 15th on everyone elses board, you don't want to sit there and hope he falls in your lap.

If you trust your scouting department, you want them to get their guy every single time. And, the likelihood of that drops every single pick after #1; 100% fact.

Now, if you don't trust the Bulls scouting and think they, specifically, are as likely to trip over something at 15 as they are at 5, that's an entirely different argument.

I don't see how this contradicts anything I said.

Of course you want the highest picks you can, all other things being equal, which of course they are no tin this discussion (trading Jimmy vs having him).

Trust isn't a binary thing.

My main point is that a #5 pick isn't very special at all IMO. A #5 pick isn't likely to ever be as good as Jimmy will probably be for the next 5 years.

[NADROJ]

The fact that Kawhi and Giannis went 15th has nothing to do with the 15th pick; it has everything to due with the 14 teams picking before SA and MIL blowing it. They all had the opportunity to pick those two franchise changing talents, they just blew it on the scouting and projection end.

If you've got Giannis #1 on your big board, you want the highest pick you can get. Even if he's 15th on everyone elses board, you don't want to sit there and hope he falls in your lap.

If you trust your scouting department, you want them to get their guy every single time. And, the likelihood of that drops every single pick after #1; 100% fact.

Now, if you don't trust the Bulls scouting and think they, specifically, are as likely to trip over something at 15 as they are at 5, that's an entirely different argument.

I don't see how this contradicts anything I said.

Of course you want the highest picks you can, all other things being equal, which of course they are no tin this discussion (trading Jimmy vs having him).

Trust isn't a binary thing.

My main point is that a #5 pick isn't very special at all IMO. A #5 pick isn't likely to ever be as good as Jimmy will probably be for the next 5 years.

You've gone from evaluating the historical value of the 5th pick vs. the 15th to evaluating this specific 2017 5th pick relative to a Jimmy trade. Those are two separate things entirely. I'll maintain that historically, you're still wrong.

But, when this 5th pick comes, you'll know exactly who's there and can decide if trading Jimmy is worth it. Same goes, for 1-3 and 6-whatever should those be offered.

Really, all you're saying is that you think this draft class sucks and no one could be at 5 that's worth it. Obviously, other's disagree.

[HoopsterJones]

If Pacers not trading Paul George, does that up the asking price for Jimmy Buckets? Not that I want to trade him, but if The Godfather deal is on the table...

[League Circles]

You've gone from evaluating the historical value of the 5th pick vs. the 15th to evaluating this specific 2017 5th pick relative to a Jimmy trade. Those are two separate things entirely. I'll maintain that historically, you're still wrong.

Sure they're separate things, but I don't see this draft as special, so IMO, it is a fair comparison. Historically, in the modern era, I'm right. The best players should be drafted in order at the top, but that happens less and less now days because these guys are still children when drafted. It's simply too difficult to evaluate them. Most have played very little against good competition. Maybe 2 or 3 games often, period.

But, when this 5th pick comes, you'll know exactly who's there and can decide if trading Jimmy is worth it.

Really, all you're saying is that you think this draft class sucks and no one could be at 5 that's worth it. Obviously, other's disagree.

I don't think this class sucks. I think it's typical. And, typically, in the modern era, teams are perhaps only marginally more likely to get a good player at 5 than they are at 15, despite the teams picking at 15 having 10 fewer players from which to choose.

There is almost always a good player available to all 30 teams (meaning the last "good player" is usually taken 30th or later, thus in most years, 30 teams have the opportunity to get a good player, but only a handful do).

Of course, the odds are better if you have more guys to pick from (as higher picking teams do), but I argue they aren't better to the extent they used to be, and without doubt the expected return on a typical #5 pick is NOT a good player.

[rowseyna]

What would a trade for Melo look like? What would we have to give up to where both teams would agree?

[sco]

What would a trade for Melo look like? What would we have to give up to where both teams would agree?

How about Wade, straight-up?

[AirP.]

You've gone from evaluating the historical value of the 5th pick vs. the 15th to evaluating this specific 2017 5th pick relative to a Jimmy trade. Those are two separate things entirely. I'll maintain that historically, you're still wrong.

Sure they're separate things, but I don't see this draft as special, so IMO, it is a fair comparison. Historically, in the modern era, I'm right. The best players should be drafted in order at the top, but that happens less and less now days because these guys are still children when drafted. It's simply too difficult to evaluate them. Most have played very little against good competition. Maybe 2 or 3 games often, period.

Well, people who's job is to evaluate these talents seem to think differently. A quick lookup just to get a quote brought me this from 6 months ago but this draft has been touted as possibly the best in decade for over a year.

The 2017 NBA Draft will be the "strongest in a decade", according to multiple NBA scouts and general managers. Chad Ford projects 10-15 potential All-Stars in the class, headlined by Markelle Fultz.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/244356/GMs-Calling-2017-NBA-Draft-Strongest-In-A-Decade

[League Circles]

You've gone from evaluating the historical value of the 5th pick vs. the 15th to evaluating this specific 2017 5th pick relative to a Jimmy trade. Those are two separate things entirely. I'll maintain that historically, you're still wrong.

Sure they're separate things, but I don't see this draft as special, so IMO, it is a fair comparison. Historically, in the modern era, I'm right. The best players should be drafted in order at the top, but that happens less and less now days because these guys are still children when drafted. It's simply too difficult to evaluate them. Most have played very little against good competition. Maybe 2 or 3 games often, period.

Well, people who's job is to evaluate these talents seem to think differently. A quick lookup just to get a quote brought me this from 6 months ago but this draft has been touted as possibly the best in decade for over a year.

The 2017 NBA Draft will be the "strongest in a decade", according to multiple NBA scouts and general managers. Chad Ford projects 10-15 potential All-Stars in the class, headlined by Markelle Fultz.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/244356/GMs-Calling-2017-NBA-Draft-Strongest-In-A-Decade

haha what a crock. 10-15 potential all stars? There are 10-15 potential all stars in EVERY draft. 1/3 of the league are "potential all stars". But, alas, only really about 2 guys in each draft, give or take.

Maybe it is. I'd be dishonest if I said I knew these players well. I'm just shocked at the opinion of the top 5ish players (other than Fultz who actually does look like he has a solid chance to be an all star). Like, if Ball is arguably #2 and I see little chance he becomes an above average starter, then I have a hard time getting excited about the rest.

[AirP.]

Sure they're separate things, but I don't see this draft as special, so IMO, it is a fair comparison. Historically, in the modern era, I'm right. The best players should be drafted in order at the top, but that happens less and less now days because these guys are still children when drafted. It's simply too difficult to evaluate them. Most have played very little against good competition. Maybe 2 or 3 games often, period.

Well, people who's job is to evaluate these talents seem to think differently. A quick lookup just to get a quote brought me this from 6 months ago but this draft has been touted as possibly the best in decade for over a year.

The 2017 NBA Draft will be the "strongest in a decade", according to multiple NBA scouts and general managers. Chad Ford projects 10-15 potential All-Stars in the class, headlined by Markelle Fultz.

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/244356/GMs-Calling-2017-NBA-Draft-Strongest-In-A-Decade

haha what a crock. 10-15 potential all stars? There are 10-15 potential all stars in EVERY draft. 1/3 of the league are "potential all stars". But, alas, only really about 2 guys in each draft, give or take.

Maybe it is. I'd be dishonest if I said I knew these players well. I'm just shocked at the opinion of the top 5ish players (other than Fultz who actually does look like he has a solid chance to be an all star). Like, if Ball is arguably #2 and I see little chance he becomes an above average starter, then I have a hard time getting excited about the rest.

Ah, so with that way of thinking you must want the Bulls to always trade down to get as many draft picks as possible in every draft if they don't have the top pick. Not a bad idea if your organization is good at scouting but the Bulls haven't seemed to scouted well in the last half decade or have a bad decision maker in the FO. Even their trades for younger talent looks bad, they've added Grant and Payne in the last year and neither look like they could end up being a solid starter for the Bulls.

Take a look at this, it's a nice little post on assessing the value of draft positions...
http://www.82games.com/barzilai1.htm

[Repeat 3-peat]

What if Jimmy was traded for 2 high end draft picks, and 3-6 years down the road we are not any better than we are now(or worse?)...stuck in the middle, and no player drafted becomes better than Butler.

Yeah I know, mind blown.

[AirP.]

What if Jimmy was traded for 2 high end draft picks, and 3-6 years down the road we are not any better than we are now(or worse?)...stuck in the middle, and no player drafted becomes better than Butler.

Yeah I know, mind blown.

Isn't that a problem with the FO? The problem with Butler is that he wasn't expected to be a great player and kinda came out of nowhere. The problem with this is that the FO hadn't started molding the team around him and in fact at age 27 they still hadn't started building around him, supposedly they'll start building around him in 2018, he'll be 29 then.

Young players have to be evaluated and developed by an organization. Them being younger means the FO has more time to build a roster around their talents instead of just grabbing whatever good players they could(ball dominate PG who isn't known to shoot well or an aging star who duplicates Butler's skillset). The window needs to be reset for building a great team IF that's the FO's goal is.

[DroseReturnChi]

What if Jimmy was traded for 2 high end draft picks, and 3-6 years down the road we are not any better than we are now(or worse?)...stuck in the middle, and no player drafted becomes better than Butler.

Yeah I know, mind blown.

Why would you make that hypothetical assumption on why the Bulls would be worse when you know Jimmy will give you 0% winning a championship? Being stuck in the middle is the worst place to be my friend. OR are you actually wanting to be a treadmill team for the next 5 years?

[sco]

I wonder if there's a deal with Milwaukee to get Middleton. I know he's coming off injury, but I'm a huge fan of the guy.

RoLo, Portis and 16?

[Dan Z]

I wonder if there's a deal with Milwaukee to get Middleton. I know he's coming off injury, but I'm a huge fan of the guy.

RoLo, Portis and 16?

He improved as the season went on. I'd do that trade for Middleton, but I'm not sure the Bucks would.

The problem is we'd have to find a center.