sco wrote:Dresden wrote:sco wrote:I trust AKME's drafting acumen later in the draft. That said, I'm a firm believer that needs should be addressed via trades and FA. Taking a guy who isn't the highest on your board to fill a need at your picks rarely works out well. The draft is the only chance you have to hit a home run...sacrifice bunting makes little sense.
So you wouldn't reach down one spot to get a player who fills an urgent need?
Given that 90% of the guys taken at 18 end up being busts, it's "BPA or bust" - literally for me. I would think your chances are better signing some vet on a min deal than what you can realistically expect (vs. hope) to get from #18, in terms of filling need.
Here’s another thing with “BPA or bust!” How often does it actually work? How would we really even know which strategy works the best. For every Bowie-over-Jordan-cuz-Drexler there is probably a Fizer/Brand or Flynn/Rubio.
Or, perhaps most illustrative of the unpredictability, you have Embiid. He was taken as BPA when the Sixers had just drafted Noel, which was great. And then the very next year they took Okafor, which was harmful.
Plus, these are just high lottery examples (where I agree BPA should be the very, very heavily favored strategy). But imagine how many times teams took “need” over BPA later in the draft only to have the need player end up significantly better than the supposedly BPA guy they passed on? Or visa versa?
Much respect to you sco, but if the GM of my team came out and said “I always take BPA no matter what” or “I always draft need no matter what” I would immediately be thinking the team should find a new GM.
No approach should be that rigid. That is why the tiers matter so much, especially later in the draft where we will be picking. I definitely agree though that you don’t *ever* drop down a tier to address need.
Let’s use an example using the upcoming draft with some names some mocks have projected to be in our range. Let’s say the Bulls have Tari Eason (PF) and Kennedy Chandler (PG) in the same tier using a numerical ranking system. And Chandler is one spot above Eason within that tier by a couple of points. Should the Bulls “definitely” take Chandler since he’s technically their BPA?
Ignore the names. I think we all agree Eason is the better prospect. It’s just an illustration.