Rui Hachimura

[payitforward]

...Draft picks are still always the place where you can land an all-star for pennies on the dollar if you are smart about it....

Imagine the following: the God of basketball comes to you & says, "I have a deal for you: instead of getting high draft picks because your team sucks, I'll give you the #20 pick in R1 every year, never better never worse. But, I'll also give you the gift of being able to tell who the very best player is that's still there at #20. How about it? Do you want my deal? Wait, let me sweeten it just a little. Every 2 years I'll also give you the #36 pick. What do you say?"

Tell me -- do you do that deal? Never a #1 pick again, never a high pick of any kind, never even a lottery pick -- & every year after the lottery you still have to wait to see who gets taken in the next 4 spots before you get any chance at all. That's it. Oh, & every 2 years you get to wait until yet another 24 guys are gone to get your once-every-2-years R2 guy.

Terrible idea, right?

After all, what could you expect to get?

Spoiler:

Let's look at 2011 & forward:
2011 -- Jimmy Butler
2012 -- Draymond Green, Khris Middleton
2013 -- Rudy Gobert
2014 -- Clint Capela, Nikola Jokic
2015 -- Larry Nance (or maybe Montrezl Harrell?)
2016 -- Pascal Siakam, Malcolm Brogdon
2017 -- Jarrett Allen
2018 -- Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson
2019 -- Brandon Clarke
2020 -- we'll have to see, won't we!

Of course, in fairness, you ought to be able to trade that #20 pick if you want. Let's say you could do that using the Pelton value chart, ok? Does that help?

Spoiler:

Sure, why not?!
2011: I trade the #20 for the #30, #31 #56 & #60 -- that way I still get Jimmy Butler, but I also get Bojan Bogdanovic, E'Twaun Moore & Isaiah Thomas.
In 2012 I get Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Will Barton & Kyle O'quinn.
2013: Gobert & James Ennis
2014: Capela & Jokic, sure, but also Spencer Dinwiddie & Jerami Grant
2015: Montrezl Harrell, Richaun Holmes, Josh Richardson & Pat Connaughton
2016: stand pat...
2017: Jarrett Allen & Monte Morris
2018: Brunson, Robinson, & Isaac Bonga
2019: Stand pat.

Just a thought experiment, obviously -- & what does it prove? It proves Docs point: it is better to draft well than to draft high.

In fact, it doesn't much matter where you pick. There are great players throughout the draft.

[prime1time]

...Draft picks are still always the place where you can land an all-star for pennies on the dollar if you are smart about it....

Imagine the following: the God of basketball comes to you & says, "I have a deal for you: instead of getting high draft picks because your team sucks, I'll give you the #20 pick in R1 every year, never better never worse. But, I'll also give you the gift of being able to tell who the very best player is that's still there at #20. How about it? Do you want my deal? Wait, let me sweeten it just a little. Every 2 years I'll also give you the #36 pick. What do you say?"

Tell me -- do you do that deal? Never a #1 pick again, never a high pick of any kind, never even a lottery pick -- & every year after the lottery you still have to wait to see who gets taken in the next 4 spots before you get any chance at all. That's it. Oh, & every 2 years you get to wait until yet another 24 guys are gone to get your once-every-2-years R2 guy.

Terrible idea, right?

After all, what could you expect to get?

Spoiler:

Let's look at 2011 & forward:
2011 -- Jimmy Butler
2012 -- Draymond Green, Khris Middleton
2013 -- Rudy Gobert
2014 -- Clint Capela, Nikola Jokic
2015 -- Larry Nance (or maybe Montrezl Harrell?)
2016 -- Pascal Siakam, Malcolm Brogdon
2017 -- Jarrett Allen
2018 -- Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson
2019 -- Brandon Clarke
2020 -- we'll have to see, won't we!

Of course, in fairness, you ought to be able to trade that #20 pick if you want. Let's say you could do that using the Pelton value chart, ok? Does that help?

Spoiler:

Sure, why not?!
2011: I trade the #20 for the #30, #31 #56 & #60 -- that way I still get Jimmy Butler, but I also get Bojan Bogdanovic, E'Twaun Moore & Isaiah Thomas.
In 2012 I get Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Will Barton & Kyle O'quinn.
2013: Gobert & James Ennis
2014: Capela & Jokic, sure, but also Spencer Dinwiddie & Jerami Grant
2015: Montrezl Harrell, Richaun Holmes, Josh Richardson & Pat Connaughton
2016: stand pat...
2017: Jarrett Allen & Monte Morris
2018: Brunson, Robinson, & Isaac Bonga
2019: Stand pat.

Just a thought experiment, obviously -- & what does it prove? It proves Docs point: it is better to draft well than to draft high.

In fact, it doesn't much matter where you pick. There are great players throughout the draft.

I would trade everyone that you listed for a chance to draft LeBron or MJ or Shaq or Magic Johnson or Hakeem. The NBA is a star-driven league. It is must better to draft high at the right time than to draft well. Ideally, you'd do both, but if I had to choose I'm not taking that deal.

[nate33]

I'd definitely take that deal. Your team would always be good and cheap, and they would always have tradeable assets. Sooner or later, you'd acquire a top tier star via trade or free agency and then you would always be able to maintain a good, cheap supporting cast around them.

You could field a team of Brodgon, Middleton, Butler, Siakam and Gobert. That's already a Toronto Raptors caliber team, if not better. You round out your bench with cheap talent like Brunson, Anunoby, Clarke and Robinson, all on their rookie deals.

Now, imagine that you traded Jokic last year for Anthony Davis.

Finally, factor that you have the confidence that you will ALWAYS have new talent replenishing the ranks. This gives you the flexibility to trade your aging guys like Jimmy Butler before they decline; or to let guys walk via free agency if their contract demands are too high (like Montrez Harrell).

[doclinkin]

I would trade everyone that you listed for a chance to draft LeBron or MJ or Shaq or Magic Johnson or Hakeem. The NBA is a star-driven league. It is must better to draft high at the right time than to draft well. Ideally, you'd do both, but if I had to choose I'm not taking that deal.

Consider that LeBJ and Shaq didn't win on the teams that drafted them. Jordan took 6 years in an era where stars did not switch teams. Hakeem took 10 years, since he had to outwait Jordan. In this era stars don't stay with their teams. They move to an environment that pleases them.

Unibrow has been the player that every team in the league would pick number one overall if they had to pick teams -- a two way player who has no flaws in his game-- and if he wins a chip this year it will be solely because he switched squads.

With the above structure you would have a cheap winning squad with assets available for trade that any team would covet. Just add a superstar and they would elevate a squad of 'star role players' to contention.

[prime1time]

I would trade everyone that you listed for a chance to draft LeBron or MJ or Shaq or Magic Johnson or Hakeem. The NBA is a star-driven league. It is must better to draft high at the right time than to draft well. Ideally, you'd do both, but if I had to choose I'm not taking that deal.

Consider that LeBJ and Shaq didn't win on the teams that drafted them. Jordan took 6 years in an era where stars did not switch teams. Hakeem took 10 years, since he had to outwait Jordan. In this era stars don't stay with their teams. They move to an environment that pleases them.

Unibrow has been the player that every team in the league would pick number one overall if they had to pick teams -- a two way player who has no flaws in his game-- and if he wins a chip this year it will be solely because he switched squads.

With the above structure you would have a cheap winning squad with assets available for trade that any team would covet. Just add a superstar and they would elevate a squad of 'star role players' to contention.

Where would that superstar come from? Have we eve been in the running to even sign a star? We haven't come close to winning a championship during my lifetime. And we argue on here about signing this role player or drafting that role player. How many superstars just walk-a-way into free agency? Also, what are the chances we draft good players year in and year out lol. I know he made it a premise to know who the best player is but that's a silly premise. Our best chance to win a championship is to draft the next superstar. You can say LBJ and Shaq didn't win with their original teams but dear lord they were legit contenders. Something that the Wiz have never been in my lifetime.

[Shoe]

...Draft picks are still always the place where you can land an all-star for pennies on the dollar if you are smart about it....

Imagine the following: the God of basketball comes to you & says, "I have a deal for you: instead of getting high draft picks because your team sucks, I'll give you the #20 pick in R1 every year, never better never worse. But, I'll also give you the gift of being able to tell who the very best player is that's still there at #20. How about it? Do you want my deal? Wait, let me sweeten it just a little. Every 2 years I'll also give you the #36 pick. What do you say?"

Tell me -- do you do that deal? Never a #1 pick again, never a high pick of any kind, never even a lottery pick -- & every year after the lottery you still have to wait to see who gets taken in the next 4 spots before you get any chance at all. That's it. Oh, & every 2 years you get to wait until yet another 24 guys are gone to get your once-every-2-years R2 guy.

Terrible idea, right?

After all, what could you expect to get?

Spoiler:

Let's look at 2011 & forward:
2011 -- Jimmy Butler
2012 -- Draymond Green, Khris Middleton
2013 -- Rudy Gobert
2014 -- Clint Capela, Nikola Jokic
2015 -- Larry Nance (or maybe Montrezl Harrell?)
2016 -- Pascal Siakam, Malcolm Brogdon
2017 -- Jarrett Allen
2018 -- Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson
2019 -- Brandon Clarke
2020 -- we'll have to see, won't we!

Of course, in fairness, you ought to be able to trade that #20 pick if you want. Let's say you could do that using the Pelton value chart, ok? Does that help?

Spoiler:

Sure, why not?!
2011: I trade the #20 for the #30, #31 #56 & #60 -- that way I still get Jimmy Butler, but I also get Bojan Bogdanovic, E'Twaun Moore & Isaiah Thomas.
In 2012 I get Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Will Barton & Kyle O'quinn.
2013: Gobert & James Ennis
2014: Capela & Jokic, sure, but also Spencer Dinwiddie & Jerami Grant
2015: Montrezl Harrell, Richaun Holmes, Josh Richardson & Pat Connaughton
2016: stand pat...
2017: Jarrett Allen & Monte Morris
2018: Brunson, Robinson, & Isaac Bonga
2019: Stand pat.

Just a thought experiment, obviously -- & what does it prove? It proves Docs point: it is better to draft well than to draft high.

In fact, it doesn't much matter where you pick. There are great players throughout the draft.

Now say I'll give you the #10 pick every year no better no worse, but I'll tell you who the best player is left in the LOTTERY - so out of 5 players instead of the 40 in your example.

10 - Paul George
11 - Klay Thompson
12 - Jeremy Lamb
13 - CJ McCollum
14 - Zach Lavine
15 - Devin Booker
16 - Domantis Sabonis
17 - Donovan Mitchell / Bam Adebayo
18 - SGA

Boom. A bunch of all star caliber talent from a smaller pool of players. Also note the perimeter talent compared to the less valuable big men in your example.

[doclinkin]

With the above structure you would have a cheap winning squad with assets available for trade that any team would covet. Just add a superstar and they would elevate a squad of 'star role players' to contention.

Where would that superstar come from? Have we eve been in the running to even sign a star? We haven't come close to winning a championship during my lifetime. And we argue on here about signing this role player or drafting that role player. How many superstars just walk-a-way into free agency? Also, what are the chances we draft good players year in and year out lol. I know he made it a premise to know who the best player is but that's a silly premise. Our best chance to win a championship is to draft the next superstar. You can say LBJ and Shaq didn't win with their original teams but dear lord they were legit contenders. Something that the Wiz have never been in my lifetime.

The best wizards player in my lifetime as a DC bball fan came to us as a free agent. Agent Hibachi. And before that we landed the best star we had after he forced a trade to play next to his college teammate: Chris Webber who hated Nellie in Sacramento and wanted to play with Juwan.

But consider the number of lottery picks we have had in that time, how many times we slipped in the lotto, and how many high picks we had that flamed out. How many bad picks we have made with any pick we had? Seems to be the Wizards plan of 'suck to get lucky' has never actually worked all the way. We had picks #1, 2, 3 in Wall Beal Otto and still were mediocre. Seems to me the fact that we have been mediocre is the primary thing that kept us from landing those free agents. If we were consistently even good then maybe we would seem more attractive to players who want to win.

[wall_glizzy]

But consider the number of lottery picks we have had in that time, how many times we slipped in the lotto, and how many high picks we had that flamed out. How many bad picks we have made with any pick we had? Seems to be the Wizards plan of 'suck to get lucky' has never actually worked all the way. We had picks #1, 2, 3 in Wall Beal Otto and still were mediocre. Seems to me the fact that we have been mediocre is the primary thing that kept us from landing those free agents. If we were consistently even good then maybe we would seem more attractive to players who want to win.

Obviously being omniscient drafters would be cool (although I'm not sure why we're discussing it), but I'd challenge the idea that consistently good teams are automatically competitive for free agents. Indiana, San Antonio, Dallas, Memphis, the lesser LA team, Toronto all had sustained success throughout the 00s and/or 10s without ever converting that (and, in several cases, their sterling organizational reputations) into significant free agency success. Even if we were to string together several 50-win series (or, please, just one), there's no guarantee that DC would become any kind of destination for the league's wandering superstar class. In all likelihood, smart drafting and trading is really our only shot - despite increased league consciousness of the large-market advantage, it's still probably vastly underrstated.

[doclinkin]

Obviously being omniscient drafters would be cool (although I'm not sure why we're discussing it),

It goes towards the theory of "always trade down" (mostly). Inasmuch as lottery picks have an inflated value in the minds of fans and teams relative to their actual production, in a competitive environment with limited resources any market efficiency ought to be exploited.

If you can get equivalent production by trading down as you would from higher in the selection process, and pick up something of value as well, then you might as well do so. This can be by trading for a productive player while trading down, or trading for multiple picks, OR trading for a pick this year and future picks. (Teams tend to undervalue future picks even as they overvalue current year lottery picks. Another market inefficiency).

With multiple picks you get extra darts to lob at the target. More chances to hit on a winner. Yes you are betting on your analytics department and scouting, but even if you are betting on Luck, this gives you more chances to get lucky, albeit in a smaller pool of candidates. Sometimes however that smaller pool of candidates is a benefit as it makes the choices more clear. The athletic supertalents with questionable work ethic or character may have been selected to become someone else's developmental headache. You are left selecting from workhorse players or upperclassmen with proven statistics if less eye popping anthropometrics, or overseas talents who are less well known by their NCAA and AAU highlights, but who have better fundamentals since they have been in basketball academies and playing with pros since they were kids.

You can look at the research done by Kevin Pelton or Jacob Goldstein to see the relative value of draft picks compared with their production and weigh the value of taking any two picks compared to the higher pick, to see if you can fleece your trade partner in an unbalanced swap if they have their sights set on a guy at your spot.

http://nbasense.com/draft-pick-trade-value/compare-charts

It may not be omniscience, but if you hit on the next Giannis or Kawhi with an extra pick, then getting lucky may be indistinguishable from omniscience in retrospect.

Though in the short term it is risky, inasmuch as owners are fans as well, and are swayed by popular opinion. If you trade off of a guy who looks flashy you may risk a few BOOOOO's on draft night. Or maybe lesser ticket sales. Still there is less pressure to play the guy who has the later draft number. If he can earn a spot on his own merit then he's golden. You get more of a gladiator school mindset and less of the golden boy mentality.

The primary issue drawback of course is having limited roster spots. There's not room on any team for 4 rookies every year. However, if you are trading for future draft picks, those draft picks are useful trade sweeteners for proven players, even that disgruntled superstar who wants a change of venue. See: Anthony Davis and the pick haul netted in his swap.

It's a thought experiment to imagine an infallible scouting department, but it serves a useful point to de-fetishize the value of those high picks in the minds of those who care about the team and look for opportunities to get better that go against conventional wisdom.

[payitforward]

...Draft picks are still always the place where you can land an all-star for pennies on the dollar if you are smart about it....

Imagine the following: the God of basketball comes to you & says, "I have a deal for you: instead of getting high draft picks because your team sucks, I'll give you the #20 pick in R1 every year, never better never worse. But, I'll also give you the gift of being able to tell who the very best player is that's still there at #20. How about it? Do you want my deal? Wait, let me sweeten it just a little. Every 2 years I'll also give you the #36 pick. What do you say?"

Tell me -- do you do that deal? Never a #1 pick again, never a high pick of any kind, never even a lottery pick -- & every year after the lottery you still have to wait to see who gets taken in the next 4 spots before you get any chance at all. That's it. Oh, & every 2 years you get to wait until yet another 24 guys are gone to get your once-every-2-years R2 guy.

Terrible idea, right?

After all, what could you expect to get?

Spoiler:

Let's look at 2011 & forward:
2011 -- Jimmy Butler
2012 -- Draymond Green, Khris Middleton
2013 -- Rudy Gobert
2014 -- Clint Capela, Nikola Jokic
2015 -- Larry Nance (or maybe Montrezl Harrell?)
2016 -- Pascal Siakam, Malcolm Brogdon
2017 -- Jarrett Allen
2018 -- Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson
2019 -- Brandon Clarke
2020 -- we'll have to see, won't we!

Of course, in fairness, you ought to be able to trade that #20 pick if you want. Let's say you could do that using the Pelton value chart, ok? Does that help?

Spoiler:

Sure, why not?!
2011: I trade the #20 for the #30, #31 #56 & #60 -- that way I still get Jimmy Butler, but I also get Bojan Bogdanovic, E'Twaun Moore & Isaiah Thomas.
In 2012 I get Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Will Barton & Kyle O'quinn.
2013: Gobert & James Ennis
2014: Capela & Jokic, sure, but also Spencer Dinwiddie & Jerami Grant
2015: Montrezl Harrell, Richaun Holmes, Josh Richardson & Pat Connaughton
2016: stand pat...
2017: Jarrett Allen & Monte Morris
2018: Brunson, Robinson, & Isaac Bonga
2019: Stand pat.

Just a thought experiment, obviously -- & what does it prove? It proves Docs point: it is better to draft well than to draft high.

In fact, it doesn't much matter where you pick. There are great players throughout the draft.

I would trade everyone that you listed for a chance to draft LeBron or MJ or Shaq or Magic Johnson or Hakeem. ...

Well, of course! Only, so sorry, you don't have that chance.

You just named 5 guys drafted in the last 41 drafts! 4 of them #1 picks, & the other a #3 pick.

...The NBA is a star-driven league. It is much better to draft high at the right time than to draft well. Ideally, you'd do both, but if I had to choose I'm not taking that deal.

Read your own words. You assume that stars are picked high, when I just showed you that they can be picked anywhere in the draft.

Why don't you take an actual look at the actual 123 guys picked 1-3 in those 41 drafts?

For example, the 3 guys taken after Magic were David Greenwood, Bill Cartwright, & Greg Kelser. Those the kind of "stars" who drive the league? Cartwright was a pretty good player, but I'd rather have had Bill Laimbeer -- he went 63 picks later in the draft. Duh.

The next year Joe Barry Carroll was the #1 pick -- would you have given up a lot for a chance to draft Joe Barry Carroll? You a big Steve Stipanovich fan? He went right after #1 pick Ralph Sampson. Don't you think you might have preferred Clyde Drexler who went a dozen picks later. Maybe you'd even prefer Sedale Threatt. He played 14 years in the league. Or would you have been happy to pick "high" -- say, #6 where you'd have a shot at Russell Cross?

I noticed you didn't suggest you'd trade all those guys, Jimmy Butler included, for a chance at the #2 pick in 2011, so you could grab that sure thing star, Derrick Williams? Maybe you'd have been too smart to do that, huh? You'd have been smart as all the GMs who went for potential "stars" -- like Kanter, Vesely, Biyombo, Knight, Jimmer Fredette, Alec Burks or both of the Morris twins -- instead of reaching for a guy like Butler. Not to mention Kawhi Leonard, who sat while Jimmer's name was heard.

Right?

[payitforward]

...Draft picks are still always the place where you can land an all-star for pennies on the dollar if you are smart about it....

Imagine the following: the God of basketball comes to you & says, "I have a deal for you: instead of getting high draft picks because your team sucks, I'll give you the #20 pick in R1 every year, never better never worse. But, I'll also give you the gift of being able to tell who the very best player is that's still there at #20. How about it? Do you want my deal? Wait, let me sweeten it just a little. Every 2 years I'll also give you the #36 pick. What do you say?"

Tell me -- do you do that deal? Never a #1 pick again, never a high pick of any kind, never even a lottery pick -- & every year after the lottery you still have to wait to see who gets taken in the next 4 spots before you get any chance at all. That's it. Oh, & every 2 years you get to wait until yet another 24 guys are gone to get your once-every-2-years R2 guy.

Terrible idea, right?

After all, what could you expect to get?

Spoiler:

Let's look at 2011 & forward:
2011 -- Jimmy Butler
2012 -- Draymond Green, Khris Middleton
2013 -- Rudy Gobert
2014 -- Clint Capela, Nikola Jokic
2015 -- Larry Nance (or maybe Montrezl Harrell?)
2016 -- Pascal Siakam, Malcolm Brogdon
2017 -- Jarrett Allen
2018 -- Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson
2019 -- Brandon Clarke
2020 -- we'll have to see, won't we!

Of course, in fairness, you ought to be able to trade that #20 pick if you want. Let's say you could do that using the Pelton value chart, ok? Does that help?

Spoiler:

Sure, why not?!
2011: I trade the #20 for the #30, #31 #56 & #60 -- that way I still get Jimmy Butler, but I also get Bojan Bogdanovic, E'Twaun Moore & Isaiah Thomas.
In 2012 I get Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Will Barton & Kyle O'quinn.
2013: Gobert & James Ennis
2014: Capela & Jokic, sure, but also Spencer Dinwiddie & Jerami Grant
2015: Montrezl Harrell, Richaun Holmes, Josh Richardson & Pat Connaughton
2016: stand pat...
2017: Jarrett Allen & Monte Morris
2018: Brunson, Robinson, & Isaac Bonga
2019: Stand pat.

Just a thought experiment, obviously -- & what does it prove? It proves Docs point: it is better to draft well than to draft high.

In fact, it doesn't much matter where you pick. There are great players throughout the draft.

Now say I'll give you the #10 pick every year no better no worse, but I'll tell you who the best player is left in the LOTTERY - so out of 5 players instead of the 40 in your example.

10 - Paul George
11 - Klay Thompson
12 - Jeremy Lamb
13 - CJ McCollum
14 - Zach Lavine
15 - Devin Booker
16 - Domantis Sabonis
17 - Donovan Mitchell / Bam Adebayo
18 - SGA

Boom. A bunch of all star caliber talent from a smaller pool of players. Also note the perimeter talent compared to the less valuable big men in your example.

Dude... WELL OF COURSE, if you always know the best players who are left, then the higher you pick the better you do! DUH. Sheesh...!

The reason you can do so well at #20 is precisely & exclusively because GMs are not able to know that!

In 2011 Jimmer Fredette went #10, not Klay Thompson.

In 2012 Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Dion Waiters & Thomas Robinson all went in the top 5 -- that's 30 picks or more higher than Draymond; yet he is better than all of them put together! Duh.

[payitforward]

With the above structure you would have a cheap winning squad with assets available for trade that any team would covet. Just add a superstar and they would elevate a squad of 'star role players' to contention.

Where would that superstar come from? Have we eve been in the running to even sign a star? We haven't come close to winning a championship during my lifetime. And we argue on here about signing this role player or drafting that role player. How many superstars just walk-a-way into free agency? Also, what are the chances we draft good players year in and year out lol. I know he made it a premise to know who the best player is but that's a silly premise. Our best chance to win a championship is to draft the next superstar. You can say LBJ and Shaq didn't win with their original teams but dear lord they were legit contenders. Something that the Wiz have never been in my lifetime.

The best wizards player in my lifetime as a DC bball fan came to us as a free agent. Agent Hibachi. ....

Who was, btw, a R2 pick!

[DCZards]

Back to Rui...really digging the way that he appears to be growing more and more confident of his ability to take opponents off the dribble and get to the rim. The rook also showed some improved handles on at least one very nice end-to-end basket in that last game.

[payitforward]

Obviously being omniscient drafters would be cool (although I'm not sure why we're discussing it),

It goes towards the theory of "always trade down" (mostly). Inasmuch as lottery picks have an inflated value in the minds of fans and teams relative to their actual production, in a competitive environment with limited resources any market efficiency ought to be exploited.

If you can get equivalent production by trading down as you would from higher in the selection process, and pick up something of value as well, then you might as well do so. This can be by trading for a productive player while trading down, or trading for multiple picks, OR trading for a pick this year and future picks. (Teams tend to undervalue future picks even as they overvalue current year lottery picks. Another market inefficiency).

With multiple picks you get extra darts to lob at the target. More chances to hit on a winner. Yes you are betting on your analytics department and scouting, but even if you are betting on Luck, this gives you more chances to get lucky, albeit in a smaller pool of candidates. Sometimes however that smaller pool of candidates is a benefit as it makes the choices more clear. The athletic supertalents with questionable work ethic or character may have been selected to become someone else's developmental headache. You are left selecting from workhorse players or upperclassmen with proven statistics if less eye popping anthropometrics, or overseas talents who are less well known by their NCAA and AAU highlights, but who have better fundamentals since they have been in basketball academies and playing with pros since they were kids.

You can look at the research done by Kevin Pelton or Jacob Goldstein to see the relative value of draft picks compared with their production and weigh the value of taking any two picks compared to the higher pick, to see if you can fleece your trade partner in an unbalanced swap if they have their sights set on a guy at your spot.

http://nbasense.com/draft-pick-trade-value/compare-charts

It may not be omniscience, but if you hit on the next Giannis or Kawhi with an extra pick, then getting lucky may be indistinguishable from omniscience in retrospect.

Though in the short term it is risky, inasmuch as owners are fans as well, and are swayed by popular opinion. If you trade off of a guy who looks flashy you may risk a few BOOOOO's on draft night. Or maybe lesser ticket sales. Still there is less pressure to play the guy who has the later draft number. If he can earn a spot on his own merit then he's golden. You get more of a gladiator school mindset and less of the golden boy mentality.

The primary issue drawback of course is having limited roster spots. There's not room on any team for 4 rookies every year. However, if you are trading for future draft picks, those draft picks are useful trade sweeteners for proven players, even that disgruntled superstar who wants a change of venue. See: Anthony Davis and the pick haul netted in his swap.

It's a thought experiment to imagine an infallible scouting department, but it serves a useful point to de-fetishize the value of those high picks in the minds of those who care about the team and look for opportunities to get better that go against conventional wisdom.

Yep, this is on the money throughout.

In fact, Pelton's research (I don't know the work of the other guy you mention) is based not on relative production but on the value of 2d contracts -- i.e. using that as a measure of "productivity." Yet, there's residual over-valuing of high picks even in those 2d contracts. Especially, guys taken in R2, no matter how good they are, get lower $$ in their second contracts.

For sure, you are right to point out that roster limits place a limit on one's ability to take advantage of those market inefficiencies by trading a single high pick for multiple lower ones (or a lower pick & another player). But, that too works to the advantage of a team that *is* in a position to make such a trade -- it limits competition.

But, to me, the key issue is that people seem to assume that the phrase "a better pick" (i.e. higher) means the same thing as "a better player." If that were true, then trading one higher pick for multiple lower picks would trading a single better player for two players who aren't as good -- which is almost never a good idea.

However, the two phrases don't mean the same thing at all. In fact, it's only for picks 1-3 that there's any meaningful correlation between "high pick" & "good player." & even that isn't a strong correlation.

After pick 3, there's no significant correlation at all. There are tremendous players taken high, & there busts taken high. Ditto lower down in the draft -- not to mention that having multiple picks lower down gives you more than one shot. You are more likely to flip "heads" one time if you have two chances than if you have only one chance.

[DCZards]

We get it. It doesn’t matter where you draft outside of the top 3 picks and you can build a better team by trading down and getting 2-3 picks later in the first or in the second round. We’ve heard that argument ad infinitum.

Now, can we please take that debate to the draft thread and leave this thread for those who want to opine about Rui.

[Shoe]

Imagine the following: the God of basketball comes to you & says, "I have a deal for you: instead of getting high draft picks because your team sucks, I'll give you the #20 pick in R1 every year, never better never worse. But, I'll also give you the gift of being able to tell who the very best player is that's still there at #20. How about it? Do you want my deal? Wait, let me sweeten it just a little. Every 2 years I'll also give you the #36 pick. What do you say?"

Tell me -- do you do that deal? Never a #1 pick again, never a high pick of any kind, never even a lottery pick -- & every year after the lottery you still have to wait to see who gets taken in the next 4 spots before you get any chance at all. That's it. Oh, & every 2 years you get to wait until yet another 24 guys are gone to get your once-every-2-years R2 guy.

Terrible idea, right?

After all, what could you expect to get?

Spoiler:

Let's look at 2011 & forward:
2011 -- Jimmy Butler
2012 -- Draymond Green, Khris Middleton
2013 -- Rudy Gobert
2014 -- Clint Capela, Nikola Jokic
2015 -- Larry Nance (or maybe Montrezl Harrell?)
2016 -- Pascal Siakam, Malcolm Brogdon
2017 -- Jarrett Allen
2018 -- Jalen Brunson, Mitchell Robinson
2019 -- Brandon Clarke
2020 -- we'll have to see, won't we!

Of course, in fairness, you ought to be able to trade that #20 pick if you want. Let's say you could do that using the Pelton value chart, ok? Does that help?

Spoiler:

Sure, why not?!
2011: I trade the #20 for the #30, #31 #56 & #60 -- that way I still get Jimmy Butler, but I also get Bojan Bogdanovic, E'Twaun Moore & Isaiah Thomas.
In 2012 I get Draymond Green, Khris Middleton, Will Barton & Kyle O'quinn.
2013: Gobert & James Ennis
2014: Capela & Jokic, sure, but also Spencer Dinwiddie & Jerami Grant
2015: Montrezl Harrell, Richaun Holmes, Josh Richardson & Pat Connaughton
2016: stand pat...
2017: Jarrett Allen & Monte Morris
2018: Brunson, Robinson, & Isaac Bonga
2019: Stand pat.

Just a thought experiment, obviously -- & what does it prove? It proves Docs point: it is better to draft well than to draft high.

In fact, it doesn't much matter where you pick. There are great players throughout the draft.

Now say I'll give you the #10 pick every year no better no worse, but I'll tell you who the best player is left in the LOTTERY - so out of 5 players instead of the 40 in your example.

10 - Paul George
11 - Klay Thompson
12 - Jeremy Lamb
13 - CJ McCollum
14 - Zach Lavine
15 - Devin Booker
16 - Domantis Sabonis
17 - Donovan Mitchell / Bam Adebayo
18 - SGA

Boom. A bunch of all star caliber talent from a smaller pool of players. Also note the perimeter talent compared to the less valuable big men in your example.

Dude... WELL OF COURSE, if you always know the best players who are left, then the higher you pick the better you do! DUH. Sheesh...!

The reason you can do so well at #20 is precisely & exclusively because GMs are not able to know that!

In 2011 Jimmer Fredette went #10, not Klay Thompson.

In 2012 Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Dion Waiters & Thomas Robinson all went in the top 5 -- that's 30 picks or more higher than Draymond; yet he is better than all of them put together! Duh.

Except I didn't pick the best players left in the draft. I picked the best players left in the lottery.

So in your example out of a pool of 40 players you came away with a mish mash of bigs. In my example out of a pool of 5 players I came away with allstar perimeter talent. Other players you could've gotten if you weren't allowed the best among that pool: Markieff Morris, Steven Adams, Dario Saric, TJ Warren, Justise Winslow, Myles Turner, Taurean Prince, Zach Collins, Luke Kennard, Mikal Bridges, Michael Porter. All are talents or have/had trade value for their teams.

[doclinkin]

We get it. It doesn’t matter where you draft outside of the top 3 picks and you can build a better team by trading down and getting 2-3 picks later in the first or in the second round. We’ve heard that argument ad infinitum.

Now, can we please take that debate to the draft thread and leave this thread for those who want to opine about Rui.

Hah! Okay. If we were to build around Rui, what kind of player should we be looking for in the draft?

Given his defensive deficiencies and step-slow instincts on rebounding, and given Rui's tunnel vision on offense, it seems to me we ought to look for a defensive center who passes well. The next generation of Joakim Noah or Marc Gasol. Or you know, Bill Russell. We want someone who is a defensive captain who can move Rui into position like a chess piece or call out his assignments and switches to speed up his learning curve on that end. A rim-running option on offense would be alright, and a screen setting would be nice, but since Rui is something of a lone wolf on offense as well, then these skills are less critical for optimizing his game, except that having that as an option on the opposite side may drag some defense away from Rui, and leave him open for the pass.

This is a key reason I am high on Okongwu. He's undersized for a center, but he instinctively does all the things that Rui does not do. Positional defense, deflections, rebounding outside his area. He effectively acts as a bigger version of the sainted Brandon Clarke. !!!


It would be useful to have an uptempo high energy good effort mistake-eraser underneath. He has the lateral quickness to guard on the perimeter and still recover to the lane when the big man rolls. It would help Rui to improve his game if he were matched against the Wu in practice, it would force him to develop the range on that jumper to get buckets from outside and allow the two of them to play on court at the same time without clogging the lanes.

Rui has nice touch on his jumper, he is developing some inside moves, I liked his baby hook in the low post. As of right now he is an odd fit for any team, hasn't yet shown his role in.a team scheme. But the team is a collection of odd fits right now. Defense is the area where we need improvement, and Rui as a rookie was bound to struggle on this end since that has never been his role or metier. Still he defended with energy in FIBA play, so it may simply be scheme and communication and team play. And personnel. If we are invested in Rui as a lynchpin of the team, we will need to supplement his game with players who make him a better teammate, not just player.

There. I can hijack the Rui thread, by talking draft, and working in a Brandon Clarke reference, but still keep it on topic. All boxes checked.

[FAH1223]

Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter

[TGW]

I'm still not seeing the Kawhi similarities. Maybe it's the build and the low arching trajectory on the jumpshot, but other than that, they aren't similar.

Maybe if Rui had Duncan and Pop to help with development, but right now he's just a mediocre basketball player overall.***

***note: I like Rui and think he's a good kid. I think he can be good.

[DCZards]

We get it. It doesn’t matter where you draft outside of the top 3 picks and you can build a better team by trading down and getting 2-3 picks later in the first or in the second round. We’ve heard that argument ad infinitum.

Now, can we please take that debate to the draft thread and leave this thread for those who want to opine about Rui.

Hah! Okay. If we were to build around Rui, what kind of player should we be looking for in the draft?

Given his defensive deficiencies and step-slow instincts on rebounding, and given Rui's tunnel vision on offense, it seems to me we ought to look for a defensive center who passes well. The next generation of Joakim Noah or Marc Gasol. Or you know, Bill Russell. We want someone who is a defensive captain who can move Rui into position like a chess piece or call out his assignments and switches to speed up his learning curve on that end. A rim-running option on offense would be alright, and a screen setting would be nice, but since Rui is something of a lone wolf on offense as well, then these skills are less critical for optimizing his game, except that having that as an option on the opposite side may drag some defense away from Rui, and leave him open for the pass.

This is a key reason I am high on Okongwu. He's undersized for a center, but he instinctively does all the things that Rui does not do. Positional defense, deflections, rebounding outside his area. He effectively acts as a bigger version of the sainted Brandon Clarke. !!!


It would be useful to have an uptempo high energy good effort mistake-eraser underneath. He has the lateral quickness to guard on the perimeter and still recover to the lane when the big man rolls. It would help Rui to improve his game if he were matched against the Wu in practice, it would force him to develop the range on that jumper to get buckets from outside and allow the two of them to play on court at the same time without clogging the lanes.

Rui has nice touch on his jumper, he is developing some inside moves, I liked his baby hook in the low post. As of right now he is an odd fit for any team, hasn't yet shown his role in.a team scheme. But the team is a collection of odd fits right now. Defense is the area where we need improvement, and Rui as a rookie was bound to struggle on this end since that has never been his role or metier. Still he defended with energy in FIBA play, so it may simply be scheme and communication and team play. And personnel. If we are invested in Rui as a lynchpin of the team, we will need to supplement his game with players who make him a better teammate, not just player.

There. I can hijack the Rui thread, by talking draft, and working in a Brandon Clarke reference, but still keep it on topic. All boxes checked.

I totally agree that the Zards need better rebounding and interior D. So we’re on the same page there. We’re also on the same page when it comes to Okongwu. He's the guy you want if you’re the Zards.

Unfortunately, it looks O will be gone before the Zards pick. Most mocks I’ve seen have him going in the 4-6 range. Although, NBADraft has him going at 8…one pick before where the Zards are slated to draft at this point.

I’m a fan of Precious Achiuwa from Memphis. He’s raw as hell offensively but he has the potential to be a beast as a rebounder, shotblocker and defender. Drafting Achiuwa at #9 is probably a reach. Most mocks have him in the 12-18 range. He’s also a PF and not a C. But I could see him, Rui and Bryant being the frontcourt of the future for the Zards.

At the end of the day though, the Zards may need to just take the BPA, which could be a G/F like Haliburton, Hayes, Okoro or Vassell.

Here’s what NBADraft says about Precious Achiuwa:

Achiuwa isn’t a 7 footer, but he has adequate size at around 6’9” 225, with a massive 7’2.25 wingspan and 9’0 standing reach, and the frame to add some bulk … Athletically he is pretty explosive, capable of beating 4s off the bounce in the high post, and the thing that stands out about him is the fact he plays with live wire energy … Pretty quick and twitchy at the 4 spot, with a good 2nd jump that helps him tremendously as a shot blocker and offensive rebounder; the areas where, no surprise, he makes his biggest impact …