2020 Draft

[Ruzious]

Same here. & I'm with pcb that none of those guys is a sure thing to be better than TBJ.

As to trading down -- it almost has to be the case that Boston (with 4 picks in this draft) would look to trade at least 2 of them.
14, 26 & 47 would be a haul
14, 30 & 47 would be more than enough to do the deal
14 & 26 would also be enough.
14, 30 & Boston's R2 pick next year would be the least I'd expect to get.

The only player I'd trade whom I can imagine they might see as marginally interesting is Jerome Robinson -- a product of Boston College.

Why trade with boston when they have had a history of grabbing the best players? Why would you not want a player that Boston is targeting?
I understand trading with a team who has history of making bad decisions? But if Boston wants to trade with you--they have a great track record of selecting the best players, clearly the player they pick is probably someone you would have wanted on your team more than the pick that they are selling you.

If Boston is willing to trade their picks, that should be a sign that what they are looking for is likely to be gone. History of draft tells us that most first rounders are out of the league in five years. How many times has a team with multiple first rounders picked two stars in a draft? Just to get an above average starter is very rare, and if you are betting that a team is going to let a starter slide all the way down to pick 14 is foolish. Only the bottom dwellers in the nba would bet that they can pick 2 starting caliber players after pick 11. Trading at pick 9 so that you can get bench players makes absolutely zero sense. This is a very weak draft, not alot of athletic players at all. Now if you were trading down to get some unprotected first rounders in the future with a bad team, then trading down makes sense. This entire draft outside of maybe the the top 3 or 4 players are bench players. Outside the top 5 you have some low caliber starters on non playoff teams and 6th man players at best. At that is it. Don't get fooled into trying to make a piece of coal into a diamond. No matter how hard you imagined Anthony Bennet to be Zion Williamson..before Zion Williamson, it's not going to happen. IN this draft, the same thing happens where you tried to make a player far better than what their physical dimensions state that they should be. I see alot of players with poor standing reach for their position and yet mocks are pushing them like they are starters on playoffs teams in three years. So trading down to get deep bench players is a poor strategy.

Considering all the assets Boston had last draft, what do you think of the 4 picks they made? https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2019/06/20/boston-celtics-nba-draft-picks-2019/1490317001/

[payitforward]

1. Boston doesn't have a history of grabbing the best players.
2. After pick #2, there is no statistically significant relationship between where a guy is picked & how good he is.
3. There can be multiple reasons a team trades a pick. In this case, Boston has more picks than it's likely they can use.
4. "Most first rounders are out of the league in five years" -- what does this have to do with #9 vs. #14 & #26? If anything, it's a reason to make the trade -- 2 guys give you 10 years instead of 5.
5. There are more starting players drafted after #11 than are drafted between #4 & #10.
6. You have literally no idea -- none whatever -- how many starters will come out of this draft
7. YOU are the one who liked Anthony Bennett. pcb didn't like him. I didn't like him. YOU liked him.
8. The idea that a player's physical dimensions "state" how good "they should be" is plain ridiculous.

Look. Better physical dimensions help a player be better. Of course they do.

If you could take a player who is good & add a couple of inches to his standing reach (without changing anything else) you would expect him to be a little better. If he's bad, maybe those couple of inches will make him a little less bad.

That is NOT the same as saying player A will be better than player B because he has a couple inches longer standing reach.

Those 2 statements are not even related. You do understand that, right?

[doclinkin]

If we want a statistical rating for who is good at drafting. Or being a GM in general. Here you go:

HR: Former, current or potential perennial NBA All-Stars

3B: Go-to options

2B: Front-end rotation players

1B: Other noteworthy contributors

SAC BUNT: Players packaged in trades that benefited the team

BB: Picks still developing either overseas or in the D League

K: Everyone else

Those simple classifications failed to properly weigh where a player was drafted and how much of his value the team selecting him ultimately extracted. We have to account for all the other options available at a player’s draft position and how his team employed him once his career progressed.

Which would put Danny Ainge 8th on the list.

There now you have something statistical to fight about. Courtesy of SABRmetrics

[payitforward]

Why trade with boston when they have had a history of grabbing the best players? Why would you not want a player that Boston is targeting?
I understand trading with a team who has history of making bad decisions? But if Boston wants to trade with you--they have a great track record of selecting the best players...

Considering all the assets Boston had last draft, what do you think of the 4 picks they made? https://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/2019/06/20/boston-celtics-nba-draft-picks-2019/1490317001/

Actually this suffices to make WD's point obviously wrong:

1. Boston took Romeo Langford @#14. He played 340 minutes & was absolutely horrible.
2. Boston traded the guy they took at #20 -- Matisse Thybulle -- to the Sixers for Ty Jerome & Carsen Edwards.
* Ty Jerome played a total of 300 minutes (for Phoenix) & was absolutely horrible.
* Carsen Edwards played a total of 350 minutes & was absolutely terrible.
* Meanwhile, Thybullle was absolutely tremendous. He's already one of the best defensive wings in the league.
3. Boston took Grant Williams @#22. He wasn't as horrible as Langford, Jerome or Edwards, but... he was pretty bad!

It looks like Boston took the 3 picks they had coming into the 2019 draft & completely p#ssed them away.

In 2016 they had 8 picks (!) -- 1 guy made it in the league, Jaylen Brown who went #3 in the draft. That's usually one of the easiest places to make a pick. They took Rade Zagorac & left Malcolm Brogdon on the board -- another example of their "history of grabbing the best players?"

In 2015, they took B.J. Hunter late in R1. He was horrible. 3 of the next 4 players picked were Kevon Looney, Cedi Osman & Montrezl Harrell.

Then they took Jordan Mickey. A couple spots down was Richaun Holmes. Then came Josh Richardson, Pat Connaughton & Norman Powell. Another example of their outstanding ability to "grab the best," huh?

2014 -- hey they got Marcus Smart. Then they took James Young. When they did that, here's who they left on the board: Clint Capela, Bogdan Bogdanovic, Kyle Anderson, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jerami Grant, Glenn Robinson, Nikola Jokic, Dwight Powell & Jordan Clarkson.

They had 16 picks in those drafts. They got 2 good players: Brown & Smart. Quite a performance!

Boston does no better in the draft than most other teams.

[Shoe]

2. After pick #2, there is no statistically significant relationship between where a guy is picked & how good he is.

This is bogus.

1. There is a significant relationship between how high a pick is and the value a team gets from that pick (from on court performance or future trade).
PJ Tucker, Patty Mills, Hassan Whiteside, Khris Middleton, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jae Crowder, Joe Harris were good players drafted in the 2nd round. Yet they provided no value to the Raptors, Blazers, Kings, Pistons, Cavs.

2. You always cite late 1st big men as to why later picks are just as good as lottery picks. But these big men do not have the value you attribute to them - especially not in this era. Jarrett Allen is a nice player but he doesn't hold a candle to the value of Jamal Murray or Donovan Mitchell.
You would 100% have traded Donovan Mitchell (13) for Jarrett Allen (22), Josh Hart (30), and Thomas Bryant (41). Even hitting on ALL of your picks you made a bad trade. I could be generous and even give you John Collins (19) and you still made a bad trade.

Or in 2013 you would 100% have traded CJ McCollum (10) for picks 31-60. Even if your 30 player draft class had enough minutes and years to develop, you still traded an all-star for trash.

[payitforward]

Yeah i would move up to the 6th spot for obi toppin for sure! HIgh shoulders make him bigger than his height. Outstanding first step, decent offensive hip bend, great standing reach.[/quote]
Sounds like you rate Toppin higher than Achiuwa -- is that right?

Like achiuwa, Toppin is old for his class. He's coming out after his Sophomore year, but he is only 3 weeks younger than Rui.

We could contend for years with OBI like no one else in this draft....

Do you mean that drafting Obi Toppin (i.e. if we traded up or, even better, if he fell to us at #9) would turn us into contenders?

Beal, wall, and Obi Nasty Defense.

I thought the main, maybe the only rap on Toppin was that he doesn't play defense? Are you saying that, no, he's actually a good defender?

[payitforward]

2. After pick #2, there is no statistically significant relationship between where a guy is picked & how good he is.

This is bogus....

I'll try to keep this compact:

Spoiler:

Did I write "pick #2"...? I meant to write #3. When you say "bogus," do you have some research to cite? Some tables of data? Or do you simply call it "bogus," because... you know... um... well... it's bogus b/c it's bogus? If you have research to cite, please... feel free. I'll be excited to see it.

...1. There is a significant relationship between how high a pick is and the value a team gets from that pick (from on court performance or future trade)....

I don't know what you mean by "the value a team gets from... (a) pick." What I'm talking about is simple -- statistical correlation between where a player is picked in the draft (i.e. pick number) & his productivity as a player. Like you know...

Spoiler:

...PJ Tucker, Patty Mills, Hassan Whiteside, Khris Middleton, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jae Crowder, Joe Harris were good players drafted in the 2nd round. Yet they provided no value to the Raptors, Blazers, Kings, Pistons, Cavs....

Thanks! Oh, &... who cares about that other thing...?

...2. You always cite late 1st big men as to why later picks are just as good as lottery picks....

I do? I didn't know that.

Spoiler:

You must mean bigs like Patty Mills? or Spencer Dinwiddie? or most of the guys on your list above? Or do you mean like Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler, & Isaiah Thomas?

Those are the late R1 bigs I use to prove -- falsely! -- my evil & undermining doubt of the natural order of things, in which the number 5 pick is, as he must be, the 5th best player in the draft, while the #11 pick is -- obviously! -- the 11th best player that year.

But I'm hopping from draft to draft, which may be hard to follow. Let's look at a single draft, ok? Are these the kind of late R1 bigs you mean? who do not have the value I so falsely attribute to them:

Spoiler:

Nicolas Batum
Ryan Anderson,
Courtney Lee
George Hill
Serge Ibaka
Mario Chalmers
Omer Asik
DeAndre Jordan
Goran Dragic
Kosta Koufos
Luc Mbah A Moute

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say that those are all good NBA players, some are or were very good NBA players, a few really tremendous NBA players -- & all taken in 1 single draft from #21-37 -- except Dragic, who went #46.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying any of those guys are as good as, say,

Spoiler:

Joe Alexander -- you remember him, don't you? He went #8. & certainly not as good as O.J. Mayo -- you familiar with Mayo, Shoe? You are, aren't you? He went #3 that year.

Do you know who went #2 that year? Actually... do you know what year it was? Oh... you don't? Go ahead & look it up, ok?

You would 100% have traded Donovan Mitchell (13) for Jarrett Allen (22), Josh Hart (30), and Thomas Bryant (41). Even hitting on ALL of your picks you made a bad trade. I could be generous and even give you John Collins (19) and you still made a bad trade.

I like you Shoe -- I hope you don't think otherwise. Above all, I hope you don't take offense at my spanking you the way I have so far -- & the way I'm about to. Its all in good fun, I hope. So, I'll try to be gentle.

But, really, what I don't understand is why you keep trying to make my points for me! I can do it myself. For example...

Spoiler:

That's the 2017 draft you're talking about, right? Great! Here's a list of players: Markelle Fultz, Josh Jackson, Lauri Markkanen, Frank Ntilikena, Dennis Smith, Malik Monk, Luke Kennard. That's 7 of the top 12 guys that year.

How many of them are better than Bam Adebayo? Is the #1 pick in the draft that year as good as Bam? How about the #2 pick -- Lonzo Ball? I didn't even put him on the list. So make that 8 of the top 12. But, wait... Fox, Isaac, Collins -- are any of them better than Adebayo. That's 11 of the top 12. Only one left is Jaysen Tatum.

Would you trade Adebayo for Tatum? I wouldn't. But... maybe you would. It'd be worth discussing to be sure.

Oh... I've left out the #13 player that year, your favorite I think -- Donovan Mitchell.

Would you trade Adebayo straight up for Tatum? I wouldn't. But... maybe you would.

...Or in 2013 you would 100% have traded CJ McCollum (10) for picks 31-60. Even if your 30 player draft class had enough minutes and years to develop, you still traded an all-star for trash.

Shoe! I don't believe it! You did it again!

Spoiler:

I can't use the whole of R2 -- how about I just trade #10 for 2 non-lottery pics? Would that be ok?

Spoiler:

I'll take #15 & #27

Do we have a deal?

[Ed Wood]

To be extremely myopic as I drive-by this little duel I'd just like to say that, knowing nothing else about the roster I'm working with, I think I'd trade Donovan Mitchell for the three of John Collins, Josh Hart, and Thomas Bryant. I get the general point about transcendent talents just warping the landscape of a league that any number of savvy, incremental steps can't replicate, but you don't know that you're getting that without the benefit of retrospect, generally, and when the stars don't align the incremental value tends to prevail in my mind.

To illustrate the point is Mitchell really a more valuable asset than John Collins? I don't particularly feel that he is.

[payitforward]

To be extremely myopic as I drive-by this little duel I'd just like to say that, knowing nothing else about the roster I'm working with, I think I'd trade Donovan Mitchell for the three of John Collins, Josh Hart, and Thomas Bryant. I get the general point about transcendent talents just warping the landscape of a league that any number of savvy, incremental steps can't replicate, but you don't know that you're getting that without the benefit of retrospect, generally, and when the stars don't align the incremental value tends to prevail in my mind.

To illustrate the point is Mitchell really a more valuable asset than John Collins? I don't particularly feel that he is.

This is what I meant by writing that I would "be gentle."

Donovan Mitchell is the classic overrated player. Pretty much everything he does is below average -- except score: he scores a lot of points. But... he scores those points inefficiently -- he's got a below average TS% for his career.

He's also already 24 -- Brad's breakthrough year came when he was 23. Now, in fact Mitchell did improve some this year (nothing spectacular, but still...), & 24 isn't old -- I think he'll get better. Moreover, he is a good defensive player.

Plus... he scores a lot of points; guys like him put butts in the seats, which isn't a bad thing.

Truth is -- tho I didn't say this, because it was irrelevant to my response -- I would give Mitchell all day to acquire Collins/Hart/Bryant. I'd try not to snicker as I left the room. I'd have gotten an incredible steal.

Edit -- But wait... he wants to give me Jarrett Allen too! WOW!!

[WizarDynasty]

Delete

[WizarDynasty]

I am going on record for players i don't want to see in Wiz uniform-- unless it's with a second pick, a Lamelo, Hayes, Avdija, P Williams, D. Vassell, Okoro, Haliburton, Aaron Nesmith jalen smith. I only would want Saddiq Bey as 6th man type player after trading down into the 20's. I think that covers all possible screw ups based on the mock drafts and nbadraft.net

[Shoe]

2. After pick #2, there is no statistically significant relationship between where a guy is picked & how good he is.

This is bogus....

I'll try to keep this compact:

Spoiler:

Did I write "pick #2"...? I meant to write #3. When you say "bogus," do you have some research to cite? Some tables of data? Or do you simply call it "bogus," because... you know... um... well... it's bogus b/c it's bogus? If you have research to cite, please... feel free. I'll be excited to see it.

...1. There is a significant relationship between how high a pick is and the value a team gets from that pick (from on court performance or future trade)....

I don't know what you mean by "the value a team gets from... (a) pick." What I'm talking about is simple -- statistical correlation between where a player is picked in the draft (i.e. pick number) & his productivity as a player. Like you know...

Spoiler:

...PJ Tucker, Patty Mills, Hassan Whiteside, Khris Middleton, Spencer Dinwiddie, Jae Crowder, Joe Harris were good players drafted in the 2nd round. Yet they provided no value to the Raptors, Blazers, Kings, Pistons, Cavs....

Thanks! Oh, &... who cares about that other thing...?

...2. You always cite late 1st big men as to why later picks are just as good as lottery picks....

I do? I didn't know that.

Spoiler:

You must mean bigs like Patty Mills? or Spencer Dinwiddie? or most of the guys on your list above? Or do you mean like Kawhi Leonard, Jimmy Butler, & Isaiah Thomas?

Those are the late R1 bigs I use to prove -- falsely! -- my evil & undermining doubt of the natural order of things, in which the number 5 pick is, as he must be, the 5th best player in the draft, while the #11 pick is -- obviously! -- the 11th best player that year.

But I'm hopping from draft to draft, which may be hard to follow. Let's look at a single draft, ok? Are these the kind of late R1 bigs you mean? who do not have the value I so falsely attribute to them:

Spoiler:

Nicolas Batum
Ryan Anderson,
Courtney Lee
George Hill
Serge Ibaka
Mario Chalmers
Omer Asik
DeAndre Jordan
Goran Dragic
Kosta Koufos
Luc Mbah A Moute

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say that those are all good NBA players, some are or were very good NBA players, a few really tremendous NBA players -- & all taken in 1 single draft from #21-37 -- except Dragic, who went #46.

Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying any of those guys are as good as, say,

Spoiler:

Joe Alexander -- you remember him, don't you? He went #8. & certainly not as good as O.J. Mayo -- you familiar with Mayo, Shoe? You are, aren't you? He went #3 that year.

Do you know who went #2 that year? Actually... do you know what year it was? Oh... you don't? Go ahead & look it up, ok?

You would 100% have traded Donovan Mitchell (13) for Jarrett Allen (22), Josh Hart (30), and Thomas Bryant (41). Even hitting on ALL of your picks you made a bad trade. I could be generous and even give you John Collins (19) and you still made a bad trade.

I like you Shoe -- I hope you don't think otherwise. Above all, I hope you don't take offense at my spanking you the way I have so far -- & the way I'm about to. Its all in good fun, I hope. So, I'll try to be gentle.

But, really, what I don't understand is why you keep trying to make my points for me! I can do it myself. For example...

Spoiler:

That's the 2017 draft you're talking about, right? Great! Here's a list of players: Markelle Fultz, Josh Jackson, Lauri Markkanen, Frank Ntilikena, Dennis Smith, Malik Monk, Luke Kennard. That's 7 of the top 12 guys that year.

How many of them are better than Bam Adebayo? Is the #1 pick in the draft that year as good as Bam? How about the #2 pick -- Lonzo Ball? I didn't even put him on the list. So make that 8 of the top 12. But, wait... Fox, Isaac, Collins -- are any of them better than Adebayo. That's 11 of the top 12. Only one left is Jaysen Tatum.

Would you trade Adebayo for Tatum? I wouldn't. But... maybe you would. It'd be worth discussing to be sure.

Oh... I've left out the #13 player that year, your favorite I think -- Donovan Mitchell.

Would you trade Adebayo straight up for Tatum? I wouldn't. But... maybe you would.

...Or in 2013 you would 100% have traded CJ McCollum (10) for picks 31-60. Even if your 30 player draft class had enough minutes and years to develop, you still traded an all-star for trash.

Shoe! I don't believe it! You did it again!

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Do we have a deal?

So again you miss the point. How good a 2nd round player becomes is meaningless if they don't do it with the team that drafted them. So you can stop bringing up Middleton and Dinwiddie and Mills as they did nothing for their drafted teams. And Dragic was a 53 TS%, 7 ppg player his first few seasons then was packaged with a 1st rounder for Aaron Brooks. Or Omer Asik who gave the Bulls two seasons of 53 TS% 3 ppg.

Let's review the last decade of #9 selections:

09 - DeRozan (all-star)
10 - Hayward (all-star)
11 - Walker (all-star)
12 - Drummond (all-star)
13 - Burke ( traded for a 2nd rounder)
14 - Vonleh ( traded for Batum)
15 - Kaminsky
16 - Poeltl ( traded for Leonard)
17 - Smith Jr. ( traded for Porzingis)
18 - Knox
19 - Hachimura

Burke a massive bust for three years still got the Jazz a future second (more resale value than most drafted players will get you). Vonleh got Batum. Poeltl got Kawhi. Smith Jr got Porzingis. Kaminsky and Knox could've been traded after their bad rookie seasons for a late first rounder if their teams were smart enough to do so.
So 7/10 years you either got an all-star or the main young player used in a trade for an all-star.

According to you, Booker, Murray, Mitchell aren't actually good players. There's really not much to discuss then. Those 3 guys can attract other stars, or they can be traded at any time for a bounty. Those 3 guys can dominate in the playoffs, your $20 million a year Allen and $25 million a year Collins will get played off the court in the playoffs.

And no, you wouldn't have taken 15 and 27 over picks 31-60. You know this.

[Ed Wood]

Man Kevin Knox sure is on that list. I guess he's not quite uniquely embarrassing as a pick... well no actually he's kind of uniquely embarrassing.

For my part I would not say that any of Booker, Murray, or Mitchell aren't good players - all three are (Murray is slightly overrated because of how much his recent playoff performance overstates the case made by the rest of his career, Booker at this point seems genuinely pretty excellent to me). I'm mostly confused why we're slagging on John Collins so much - hasn't he just been kind of obviously excellent every year of his career to date?

[Dat2U]

To be extremely myopic as I drive-by this little duel I'd just like to say that, knowing nothing else about the roster I'm working with, I think I'd trade Donovan Mitchell for the three of John Collins, Josh Hart, and Thomas Bryant. I get the general point about transcendent talents just warping the landscape of a league that any number of savvy, incremental steps can't replicate, but you don't know that you're getting that without the benefit of retrospect, generally, and when the stars don't align the incremental value tends to prevail in my mind.

To illustrate the point is Mitchell really a more valuable asset than John Collins? I don't particularly feel that he is.

Who would you rather have in the playoffs? Collins could become an all-star if he defended better so regular season difference is likely modest. But in the postseason, I want the high level shot creator and guy who wouldn't get played off the floor defensively.

[Ed Wood]

I don't really differentiate that way - the players I'd want in general are those I'd want in the playoffs. Collins is a pretty poor defender, and that's a pretty significant impediment to his really becoming as good a player as he otherwise ought to be (he's like a great player offensively already, pretty indisputably an all star level talent). He's really markedly better for his team's offense than is Mitchell - who has been able to use a lot of possessions in pretty unremarkable fashion to date.

I'm essentially picking my poison in terms of what flaw I'm more inclined to embrace in a young player - Collins' poor defense or Mitchell's... sort of forgettable bouquet of qualities. I really don't think Mitchell is that outstanding a player - he's scored a lot of points for teams that have been pretty good and that recommends him more than he merits so far. He's definitely talented and players do learn to translate the ability to use a lot of positions into the ability to use them well, so time may be kind to him.

Anyway, Collins is at least really extremely good at what he's good at, so I think he's the higher variance pick, but I think I'd go with him.

[payitforward]

So again you miss the point. How good a 2nd round player becomes is meaningless if they don't do it with the team that drafted them. So you can stop bringing up Middleton and Dinwiddie and Mills as they did nothing for their drafted teams. And Dragic was a 53 TS%, 7 ppg player his first few seasons then was packaged with a 1st rounder for Aaron Brooks. Or Omer Asik who gave the Bulls two seasons of 53 TS% 3 ppg.

Let's review the last decade of #9 selections:

09 - DeRozan (all-star)
10 - Hayward (all-star)
11 - Walker (all-star)
12 - Drummond (all-star)
13 - Burke ( traded for a 2nd rounder)
14 - Vonleh ( traded for Batum)
15 - Kaminsky
16 - Poeltl ( traded for Leonard)
17 - Smith Jr. ( traded for Porzingis)
18 - Knox
19 - Hachimura

Burke a massive bust for three years still got the Jazz a future second (more resale value than most drafted players will get you). Vonleh got Batum. Poeltl got Kawhi. Smith Jr got Porzingis. Kaminsky and Knox could've been traded after their bad rookie seasons for a late first rounder if their teams were smart enough to do so.
So 7/10 years you either got an all-star or the main young player used in a trade for an all-star.

According to you, Booker, Murray, Mitchell aren't actually good players. There's really not much to discuss then. Those 3 guys can attract other stars, or they can be traded at any time for a bounty. Those 3 guys can dominate in the playoffs, your $20 million a year Allen and $25 million a year Collins will get played off the court in the playoffs.

And no, you wouldn't have taken 15 and 27 over picks 31-60. You know this.

Actually... your response isn't worth my continuing this, but I'll try once more:

1. We weren't, & I am not, talking about "R2 picks."
2. We weren't, & I am not, talking about the fact (unquestioned if unwarranted) that a guy picked in the lottery tends to retain trade value for some years no matter how bad he is (tho not always: e.g. Jerome Robinson).
3. We weren't discussing whether it is better to have a high pick than a low pick -- who in heaven's name could doubt that?
4. Your "decade" (actually 11 years) includes 4 known good players taken @#9. If we make it a real decade by taking out '09, it's 3 known good players out of 10 choices (we don't know yet whether Rui will be good). If, instead, we make it 12 years by adding '08, it's 4 out of 12. The previous 5 had been Mike Sweetney, Andre Iguodala, Ike Diogu, Patrick O'Bryant & Joakim Noah. 2 more good ones. For neatness' sake let's go all the way back to 2000, which adds Joel Przybilla, Amare Stoudamire, & Rodney White. 7 known good players out of 20. If Rui develops as we hope it'll be 8 out of 20.
5. "Booker, Murray, Mitchell..."? -- where did I mention Booker or Murray? As to Mitchell, I didn't bring him up -- you did. The question was whether you'd trade Adebayo for him. You didn't answer. Just as it was you who brought up McCollum (see below).
6. Most important: if you ever want to dialogue with me again, don't tell me what I would do.

What I said -- & it's true -- is simple: let's see if you can work with it -- If you take all the players in the NBA except those picked from #1-3, there is no statistically meaningful correlation between where they were picked & how good they are.

Reread those words often enough that any further post by you addresses that claim rather than one you just invented for me, ok?

McCollum, taken #10 -- YOU brought him up, not me. So tell me, how much better is he than Rudy Gobert, taken #27 in the same draft?

Put up or shut up.

[Shoe]

So again you miss the point. How good a 2nd round player becomes is meaningless if they don't do it with the team that drafted them. So you can stop bringing up Middleton and Dinwiddie and Mills as they did nothing for their drafted teams. And Dragic was a 53 TS%, 7 ppg player his first few seasons then was packaged with a 1st rounder for Aaron Brooks. Or Omer Asik who gave the Bulls two seasons of 53 TS% 3 ppg.

Let's review the last decade of #9 selections:

09 - DeRozan (all-star)
10 - Hayward (all-star)
11 - Walker (all-star)
12 - Drummond (all-star)
13 - Burke ( traded for a 2nd rounder)
14 - Vonleh ( traded for Batum)
15 - Kaminsky
16 - Poeltl ( traded for Leonard)
17 - Smith Jr. ( traded for Porzingis)
18 - Knox
19 - Hachimura

Burke a massive bust for three years still got the Jazz a future second (more resale value than most drafted players will get you). Vonleh got Batum. Poeltl got Kawhi. Smith Jr got Porzingis. Kaminsky and Knox could've been traded after their bad rookie seasons for a late first rounder if their teams were smart enough to do so.
So 7/10 years you either got an all-star or the main young player used in a trade for an all-star.

According to you, Booker, Murray, Mitchell aren't actually good players. There's really not much to discuss then. Those 3 guys can attract other stars, or they can be traded at any time for a bounty. Those 3 guys can dominate in the playoffs, your $20 million a year Allen and $25 million a year Collins will get played off the court in the playoffs.

And no, you wouldn't have taken 15 and 27 over picks 31-60. You know this.

1. We weren't, & I am not, talking about "R2 picks."
2. We weren't, & I am not, talking about the fact (unquestioned if unwarranted) that a guy picked in the lottery tends to retain trade value for some years no matter how bad he is (tho not always: e.g. Jerome Robinson).
3. We weren't discussing whether it is better to have a high pick than a low pick -- who in heaven's name could doubt that?
4. Your "decade" (actually 11 years) includes 4 known good players taken @#9. If we make it a real decade by taking out '09, it's 3 known good players out of 10 choices (we don't know yet whether Rui will be good). If, instead, we make it 12 years by adding '08, it's 4 out of 12. The previous 5 had been Mike Sweetney, Andre Iguodala, Ike Diogu, Patrick O'Bryant & Joakim Noah. 2 more good ones. For neatness' sake let's go all the way back to 2000, which adds Joel Przybilla, Amare Stoudamire, & Rodney White. 7 known good players out of 20. If Rui develops as we hope it'll be 8 out of 20.
5. "Booker, Murray, Mitchell..."? -- where did I mention Booker or Murray? As to Mitchell, I didn't bring him up -- you did. The question was whether you'd trade Adebayo for him. You didn't answer. Just as it was you who brought up McCollum (see below).

Okay you weren't talking about all of those things you always talk about. My bad. And why are you ignoring the part where Vonleh got Batum, Poeltl got Kawhi, DSJ got Porzingis. That's why how good a player ends up is mostly meaningless when discussing the draft. Bad lottery players can be flipped for assets, bad late rounders can't.

6. Most important: if you ever want to dialogue with me again, don't tell me what I would do.

Relax man. You dish out passive aggressive insults all the time, but apparently there are rules to engaging you in dialogue. And obviously you would take those 2nds, or a better way to put it would be "15 + 27 or the five best players in the second round". You know you would have taken the latter.

What I said -- & it's true -- is simple: let's see if you can work with it -- If you take all the players in the NBA except those picked from #1-3, there is no statistically meaningful correlation between where they were picked & how good they are.

Reread those words often enough that any further post by you addresses that claim rather than one you just invented for me, ok?

You only bring it up every time someone disagrees with trading down. What invention and I'm making? You obviously think it's a strong reason to trade down.

McCollum, taken #10 -- YOU brought him up, not me. So tell me, how much better is he than Rudy Gobert, taken #27 in the same draft?

Put up or shut up.

Easy

#11- MCW - traded for a future 1st that became Mikal Bridges
#12 - Steven Adams
#13 - Kelly Olynyk

Or

#28 - Livio Jean Charles
#29 - Archie Goodwin
#30 - Nemanja Nedovic

Still some value if you missed on McCollum. Nothing of value if you missed on Gobert. Oh and the elite scouting Nuggets traded Gobert for cash anyways.

[payitforward]

To be extremely myopic as I drive-by this little duel I'd just like to say that, knowing nothing else about the roster I'm working with, I think I'd trade Donovan Mitchell for the three of John Collins, Josh Hart, and Thomas Bryant. I get the general point about transcendent talents just warping the landscape of a league that any number of savvy, incremental steps can't replicate, but you don't know that you're getting that without the benefit of retrospect, generally, and when the stars don't align the incremental value tends to prevail in my mind.

To illustrate the point is Mitchell really a more valuable asset than John Collins? I don't particularly feel that he is.

Who would you rather have in the playoffs? Collins could become an all-star if he defended better so regular season difference is likely modest. But in the postseason, I want the high level shot creator and guy who wouldn't get played off the floor defensively.

Of course you'd want someone who wasn't played off the court! Why would you want someone who was?

But unless the 2 players in question are alternatives one for the other, i.e. they play the same position, I don't see how one can use this in constructing a trade. Esp. since you wouldn't be trading a player at one position for a play at another position unless you had a plan to replace that guy....

Has Mitchell been good in the post-season, btw?? -- just wondering...

[payitforward]

McCollum, taken #10 -- YOU brought him up, not me. So tell me, how much better is he than Rudy Gobert, taken #27 in the same draft? ...

blah blah... #11- - traded for blah blah blah... ...blah blah blah and the elite scouting Nuggets blah blah blah for cash....

Answer the question, Shoe -- who is a better NBA basketball player, C.J. McCollum or Rudy Gobert?

Gobert's a lot better player than C.J. McCollum -- you & I both know that.

So does everyone else. 10 out of 10 people in the world of the NBA would answer my question by saying, "Rudy Gobert." So, if you don't want to say "Rudy Gobert," if you won't answer the question, I guess it's because you prefer to discuss a different question.

No problem -- people should talk about what interests them. Bring up a different subject if you like. But whatever subject you bring up, no matter how interesting (& you often bring up interesting subjects) Rudy Gobert, taken #27 in 2013, will still be a better NBA basketball player than C.J. McCollum, taken #10 in the same draft.

As you know perfectly well.

In fact, Gobert is better than every single one of the 26 players taken before him in the 2013 draft with the exception of one guy. & that guy is better than every single one of the 14 players taken before him.

Which illustrates my only point: how good a player is in this league doesn't correlate meaningfully with where that player was picked in the draft.

[Dat2U]

Watching Patrick Williams, I get the Charlotte version of Marvin Williams. A small ball 4. Solid frame, good not great athlete. Won't be a great rebounder or individual defender but a very good team and positional defender. Will be able to hit open shots and attack closeouts in a straight line. Forcing him to be wing presents some problems. Can get away with in spurts but I really don't see him as a multi-positional defender.

Moving him to late-lottery/mid 1st value.