Knightro wrote:MagicMatic wrote:Yes and No.
Nobody is claiming that busts don't exist. Thats not really the argument. The argument I'm making is that a flawed draft process will lead to flawed results.
Your Philly example is actually perfect. I actually don't disagree with HOW Philly kept cycling through their rookies until they found their guys. Any team should try to get value if they can. The issue? They did it in the most roundabout way imaginable by drafting bigs and "BPA" regardless of fit. Not only that, but their roster is TRASH because of it and makes no sense. Why? Because they decided to build around two players that cannot co-exist as your two stars. The value they mined from the draft is flawed because its incoherent on the court.
The Dallas example doesn't correlate to the argument. If Dallas was bad offensively in 2017-18 they obviously wouldn't tank and decide to draft Jaren Jackson Jr . Are you saying they should if they believed him to be BPA? They wanted a star that can lead an offense with a top 5 pick. Just because they ditch DSJr once they found that player doesn't excuse them from making a bust selection, but at least they tried instead of drafting say.. Zach Collins or Frank Ntilikina instead.
I disagree with the idea that you wouldn't have to get value back. At the end of the day they are tasked with building a functioning roster. You would ideally want some players capable contributing and not warm lukewarm bodies when/if they land this star player via draft. Orlando has to maximize value at all costs. Yes, landing the star player is the most important. The more difficult is building something capable and getting them to buy in past their rookie deal.
I agree with your last statement. What I'll also add is that it doesn't take a draft scout to know that skill sets and positional projections aren't going to dramatically change the minute the draft concludes. For example, you don't say " Orlando is missing a franchise altering player that we can build around for the foreseeable future with a top 5 pick", and then draft players that have a healthy amount of skepticism to fill that void. The top 4+1 in this draft could be that guy in some cases. In the end, you draft the highest ceiling player and hope it translates in Orlando’s position.
Couple things....
Philly's roster is most certainly not trash.
They were the No. 1 seed in the East and for sure would have beat Atlanta and possibly gone on to win the championship if Embiid doesn't tear his meniscus in round 1. He was clearly not himself in that Atlanta series on either end of the floor. Even with Simmons' mental block they were still really good.
And this idea Embiid and Simmons can't play together is total prisoner of the moment stuff not based in any sort of factual reality.
Embiid and Simmons as a 2 man pairing
+15.5 NET rating in the regular season
+18.8 NET in the playoffs
+10.1 NET v. Atlanta
Their fit certainly wasn't the problem. Their biggest issue was that Embiid was dragging his leg which made him less efficient and almost every minute their bench played was an absolute disaster.
But they lost the series to a lower seed, so clearly those guys don't fit together I guess?
"The more difficult is building something capable and getting them to buy in past their rookie deal." is also something I push back on.
There has basically never been a single star player in the history of the league under the current contract rules who left their original team after their first contract. The system is literally designed to get players to sign a second contract with the team that drafted them.
Considering no star player is ever going to run the risk and play on a year 5 qualifying offer when a max extension is being offered, pretty much the worst case scenario is that your superstar player signs a max extension with an opt out after year 3 which means if you draft a star player you have them locked down for 7 years at a minimum.
If you can't build a team around your star player in *seven years* regardless of how awful the rest of your roster is when the star player arrives, then you deserve to lose that guy as an unrestricted free agent anyway.
If Philly’s roster is the result of a multi year tank in the east, then I don’t view that as a successful rebuild. Is a conference semi-finals appearance your bar of excellence? Maybe trash is harsh. Their solution was to overpay players like Tobias Harris to pick up the slack. Now their window is closing and they’ll likely trade Simmons now that the experiment obviously failed. Simmons was a consensus pick and Embiid was BPA although drafted injured.
Selecting Okafor a year later is beyond me. Why? Because in the best case scenario they drafted a backup to Embiid. In the worst case they trade him away for less value (they did)… knowing they could have drafted Booker or Hezonja. Only one of those scenarios gets you a star, so it was a lose/lose choice taking Okafor. That’s the point of this thread and what I’m talking about.
Your argument is that they made the right decision despite having spent a top 3 pick on unproven Embiid because they assumed he was “BPA”. I think it was a stupid decision to use a #3 pick for the reasons illustrated. I also don’t think I’m wrong with the results of how that played out.
In regards to the rookie contract. You know what I meant. You get basically 8 years once a player is drafted to accommodate them. So yeah, technically when they become UFA’s. I don’t disagree on the timeframe. It’s also why you can’t blame Phoenix for acquiring Paul.
