I guess we just have to wait and trust in Cho. I hope, and think, that Cho is the guy to bring this franchise to a contender.
Printable View
I guess we just have to wait and trust in Cho. I hope, and think, that Cho is the guy to bring this franchise to a contender.
Um no, but Portland knew about Bowie's leg issues and Jordan was known as the much better talent. They had also recently gone thru Walton's injury issues yet they still insisted on "need".Quote:
Originally Posted by DashGlobal
Darko over Carmelo because Detroit already had Prince.
Oden over Durant. Portland was warned by doctors about Oden's different leg length and that he could be plagued by injuries but they took him anyway because of their need and "you can't teach size!". Oh, and another factor? Oden had a great personality!
I ran across another article trying to defend the Oden pick...get this little gem:
Quote:
I don’t care what general managers say about picking the best player available instead of drafting for need; you don’t take players in consecutive years that are very similar. As we’ve seen with James and Dwyane Wade, the two can cannibalize each other’s production instead of complementing one another while also leaving a gaping hole in the front court.
The point I am making is if you feel like 2 players will be superstars.
And already have a superstar at the same position. You draft the other.
I don't think anyone has an issue with that statement. But you picked up spectre's comment about always drafting BPA and said:Quote:
Originally Posted by DashGlobal
If there is a talent gap you draft the better player. Better players make better assets, both as options on the roster and in terms of trade value.Quote:
Originally Posted by DashGlobal
That's absolutely right, but now you're changing the argument. You're now saying if there are two players of equal quality (therefore there is no BPA) you draft the one that suits your roster/ethos etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by DashGlobal
You can't argue against drafting BPA by citing a hypothetical situation where there is no BPA.
So put simply if player A is better than player B you draft player A. If player A & player B are equal prospects then you can draft for need (or, just to throw another thought into the mix, look to trade down one spot and collect further assets).
What Kitch said.
You draft BPA and you trade for need else you're just screwing yourself in regards to asset management...which we've become absolutely awesome at BTW.
I think that when we pick up these picks would depend on where we are at under the cap too. I think if we are better cap wise in the summer of 2014, I would like to wait cuz we could pick up some free agents to go with the picks and the under player currently on the team would have had time to develop. I think the draft of 2014 would be putting the final touches on what we are building and we would have time to evaluate the current roster. Then it would no hurt to give Chicago the pick we owe them.
A developed MGK, Biz, JT, Kemba and maybe Mullens and Hendo plus 2013 1st rounder, and maybe 2 2014 1st rounders plus a top free agent or 2 makes for a great core.
Teams mostly draft based on potential.. but if its clearly a choice for best player available when its time to select your pick..you would be foolish not to select him. Then you are in the drivers seat for serious negotiations for more value. When the Bobcats picked MKG, i bet the Cavs and Kings werent happy. I think that Lillard will come back to haunt everyone who passed up on him..
But if the Bobcats can get 2 lottery picks in 2014, that would be huge.
Kitch,
Your still not getting what I am saying.
The two prospects I mentioned. One would be slightly perceived as better. Both good with a lot of potential. One maybe had slightly better shooting stats (think 48% vs 45%). One maybe could jump an inch higher, one maybe was .5 inches taller.
So if you already have your franchise post player and you have 2 prospects that are both impact players with a lot of potential and one is a PF and the other a SF with a very marginal / slight perceived gap in talent and your team is hurting bad at SF. You pick SF.
Sorry to be a pedant, but you're slightly altering what you're saying from one post to the next.Quote:
Originally Posted by DashGlobal
For what it's worth I completely agreed with you when you previously said:
However you're now hypothesising a further contrivance to the situation where now there is a minuscule gap in perceived ability & potential.Quote:
Originally Posted by DashGlobal
I simply go back to my default position:Quote:
Originally Posted by DashGlobal
If there is a difference in draft grade between two players you pick the better of the two.
If there is no difference in draft grade you then, and only then, pick the player that fills the greater need.
If there is no place for that better player on your roster you trade the pick. To pick a lesser player, albeit a marginally lesser player, is to undervalue the asset value of your draft position. That's a huge no.