The response below is for pcbothwei -- no one else needs to summon the patience to read it.
pcbothwel wrote:As we've discussed before, I see no place to add 3 additional rookies to this team. I think I would prefer to just stay at 9 or trade back and get a pick next year. Also, If we trade back I have ZERO interest in dropping out of teens.
I see some interesting players in the top 6/7 that could drop to 9 (Hayes, Haliburton, and Okongwu)....
The 3 you mention are the ones I'm most interested in, esp. the last 2 (just b/c I don't know as much about Hayes). I'd be absolutely delighted if we got 1 of those 2 (& maybe equally if Hayes). It just doesn't look right now as if any of them will be there.
pcbothwel wrote:I also see some interesting players in the 10-20 range like Vassell, Maxey, Green, Okoro, Tyler Bey, Cole Anthony, Reed, and Pokusevski.
After that, there will certainly be good players (There always are), but the overall talent pool drops. Im sure Oturo, Jalen Smith, Tillie, Carey, Stewert, etc. will play a number of years in the NBA... But Im just not seeing them as major contributors....
Without commenting on any of these guys individually, I'll just say my assessments (such as they are) overlap a lot with yours.
What's hard -- impossible -- is to know who is going to be "a major contributor." No one -- & I do mean no one -- would have said with any confidence that Paul George or Eric Bledsoe would have been a major contributor (please look at who went before them) or that Xavier Henry would not be (please look at who was passed over for him).
The following year, change those names to Kawhi, Jimmy, etc. 59 guys went before IT that year. 8 of 14 lottery picks weren't as good as the guy who went #55. Or the guys who went #16, 19, 24 or 29. Or the guy who went #42 -- I'm assuming you know off the top of your head who all those guys were without having to look them up; don't fib! Please believe me when I tell you that I do. Without having to look them up. I'm not vaunting myself; there's lots of stuff I know nothing about! But, if I talk about something... it's because I do know about it.
In 2012, no one would have predicted Thomas Robinson as a bust or Draymond as a major contributor. or Middleton. That year, fully 27 of the 30 R1 picks (!) weren't as good as either of them. Most of those 27 weren't as good as Kyle O'Quinn who went #49.
Do I have to continue? B/c I can -- in either direction. Hell, in '09 when we traded away the chance to take Steph Curry, did Minny take him with the pick they got from us? No, they took Jonny Flynn. Did you know his name (& its spelling) before I just typed it in from memory (maybe -- but don't fib!
).
pcbothwel wrote:Remember, we cannot value players in a linear fashion the way say, the NFL does, because of the soft cap.
What I mean is, you have to group players based on their market value in salary and have to drop their value considerably based on that. If a player is a 8-10M dollar player, he is worth substantially less than a 14-15M dollar player because of the Market. Most teams can use a MLE or salary to sign a <10M player... But not more than that.
You can apply that principle down to the Tax payer MLE, and then the Vet Min.
Players like Richaun Holmes, Looney, Justin Holiday, Bullock, TJ McConnell, RHJ, WCS, Noel, etc. Are all valuable players. But they are available every year for a cheap price.
I have no interest in having a bunch of solid role players that project to have those types of careers. Or should I say, I have no interest in giving up the chance for 1 legit starter for 2 of those rotational guys....
Look... no one wants 2 role players for 1 outstanding starter. What would make you think that's something I would want?
It's not the logic that's wrong, man. It's the data set you're working with. It's imaginary.
Let me drive the point home from a single draft: on your logic, why ever would you trade down for 2 lower picks & risk winding up with two guys like Ryan Anderson, Serge Ibaka, Nicolas Batum, George Hill, DeAndre Jordan or Omer Asik, when your higher pick meant you had a shot at one of O.J. Mayo, Joe Alexander, Michael Beasley, Jerryd Bayless, Jason Thompson, Brandon Rush, Anthony Randolph, Robin Lopez, Marreese Speights, Javale McGee, J.J. Hickson and Alexis Ajinca.
Who would be fool enough to take Goran Dragic when he had a shot at D.J. Augustin.
Here is the main & most obvious point: if we (or anyone) knew that at #9 (or any spot) we (or anyone) could with significant regularity pick the very best player (the one with the best chance to become "a legit starter" or better), why then no one with half a brain would ever trade down. Be nuts to!
But, the plain & simple fact is that we can't. It is not possible. Not for us, not for anyone, not for the best GMs in history! There is NO chance of doing that with any regularity (see the long, year by year lists above). Thus the ability to do that cannot be used as a premise for any action whatever.
This is an incontestable fact. & it's not only because no one has enough skill (though in fact, no one does). There are about a zillion other factors making it impossible -- not just in basketball either. Not just in sports. People get divorced, right? Kids graduate college with straight A's & still accomplish nothing in life. Guys get picked #1 in the draft & suck. Also #2. Also #3 -- & on down the line.
Thus, to use your example, WCS was taken #5 by a team that like you had "no interest in solid role players" when they sent their pick up to the podium! Ditto about Noel, who went #6 if memory serves. Bullock 17, RHJ in that range as well. The FOs who picked them were hoping for the best in every case.
Then too, there are kids who do badly in college but then change the world with their brains: Einstein to take a single example. & so, in your list of role-player level picks (i.e. taken low), tell me this: why didn't you include Montrezl Harrell? Is he available cheap every year? Who would trade down from a shot at Jahlil Okafor to nab Montrezl Harrell. Who would throw away a chance at Thomas Robinson by trading down? Get stuck with Draymond Green & Khris Middleton? Bums like Will Barton & Tomas Satoransky -- give me a shot at Austin Rivers every time!
As to the financial angles you mention, they're factual but I don't see how they support your main contentions. For one thing, however much you're paying someone you want the best guy you can get in that slot.
On that subject, here is the 2d main & incontestable point: your 2 draft picks each year are the only thing the league gives you for free. Plus, the worse your team is the more valuable the 2 picks you get. If you can't maximize the value of those free assets you get nowhere in the league -- see the recently-concluded Ernie Grunfeld era.
pcbothwel wrote:...Maybe we have been spoiled by solid, cheap depth with the Wagner/Bonga trade, but my thoughts are these guys can always be had with a Keen eye.
This is incorrect in all the obvious ways:
1. What makes you think Bonga is "cheap depth?" He turned 20 in November. Look at that long list above of R2 stars.
2. What makes you think a team doesn't need "solid, cheap depth?" This is a competitive world; you are always at bat against a good pitcher. If the only thing you think about is hitting a home run every time you're at bat, you'll never be a good hitter.
3. What makes you think your eye is any keener than anyone else's eye? An extended, demonstrable record of success in player acquisition? Example please.
4. Above all, if guys are actually good, then they cannot "always be had." They can be had sometimes. Especially if you are lucky -- that's how we got Bonga, Bryant, Wagner & Bertans. But, you also have to be able to spot the talent & be opportunistic -- some of the guys you get that way become "legit starters." Some become stars.
