Merged: The Draft Thread For Stuff About The Draft Including Thoughts About The Draft

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
I feel like this draft will be historic. GM's/S2 members will be wondering how they missed someone so badly. We could see more second round guy's becoming steals than any other year. It just seems like even the experts are scrambling to sort this year out.

As long as we pick up Z Collins I don't care what happens.
 
rotary111 said:
I feel like this draft will be historic. GM's/S2 members will be wondering how they missed someone so badly. We could see more second round guy's becoming steals than any other year. It just seems like even the experts are scrambling to sort this year out.

As long as we pick up Z Collins I don't care what happens.
Click to expand...
agree 12-30 is IMO a huge crapshoot with guys in the 20's easily being as good as guys at 15 or so, perhaps as big an uneven/unsure range in the 1st rd as I've ever seen
 
Really curios if all you guys actually watched CBB or if you've just been watching highlights on youtube. I didnt watch almost any CBB this year so i cant get excited about any player....
 
Schilly said:
This whole concept of trading down makes absolutely zero sense to me at all. Why in the hell would we trade out of the 1st round for the purpose of targetting a 2nd rounder when 2nd round picks are pretty easy to buy or trade a future 2nd for? It's like giving up a better asset because for some reason we over value a lesser asset.
Click to expand...

The only time I have seen it make sense is when you have a late first rounder and you want to take someone who will be available in the second round, and you don't want to pay the guaranteed contract.

But, I would rather take BPA. Look at all the great players that have been picked up in the 20s. Batum was 25, Porter was 24.
 
Schilly said:
This whole concept of trading down makes absolutely zero sense to me at all. Why in the hell would we trade out of the 1st round for the purpose of targetting a 2nd rounder when 2nd round picks are pretty easy to buy or trade a future 2nd for? It's like giving up a better asset because for some reason we over value a lesser asset.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the "second rounder" that you think will be available 10 picks later, probably won't be.
 
Blazinaway said:
actually drafting a 5 I think is something we may do as well as we have no depth at the position after Nurk, Davis is a UFA after next yr and Meyers is worthless and Vonleh is a PF. Bolden is a PF but might be able to play sone SF and small ball C, but I'd still like to add another C or PF/C and this draft where we pick is loaded with these kind of guys
Click to expand...
Let me better explain my thinking:

At 15, you don't draft someone that can only play C, because he can't play next to Nurkic. You either draft a PF/C like Patton or Zach Collins, or you wait till 20 or 26 to draft a true C.
 
BonesJones said:
Let me better explain my thinking:

At 15, you don't draft someone that can only play C, because he can't play next to Nurkic. You either draft a PF/C like Patton or Zach Collins, or you wait till 20 or 26 to draft a true C.
Click to expand...
no I think you draft best player available. a better asset is a better asset. you want the best player available cause they have the greatest value going forward or you trade the pick for better value at another position.
 
The guy I've been high on is John Collins - definitely in the minority here on S2.

His stock has stalled and most pundits are putting him from the 12ish range down into the 20s -- he could go back to school IMO. Jarrett Allen is also slipping a bit.

However, upside/fit - Jordan Bell >>>>>
 
lawai'a said:
no I think you draft best player available. a better asset is a better asset. you want the best player available cause they have the greatest value going forward or you trade the pick for better value at another position.
Click to expand...
In this draft, the concept of BPA is at least somewhat nebulous. I expect tiered drafting to rule the draft day.
 
lawai'a said:
no I think you draft best player available. a better asset is a better asset. you want the best player available cause they have the greatest value going forward or you trade the pick for better value at another position.
Click to expand...
Does a marginally "better player" remain a "better asset" if he gets no time to play/develop because of the situation into which he's drafted?
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Does a marginally "better player" remain a "better asset" if he gets no time to play/develop because of the situation into which he's drafted?
Click to expand...
I would say yes if that perceived value is that of other teams interest/value in said asset
 
PtldPlatypus said:
Does a marginally "better player" remain a "better asset" if he gets no time to play/develop because of the situation into which he's drafted?
Click to expand...

No team will really ever run out of minutes for good players. At worst, he starts off with backup minutes behind Nurkic and maybe finds his way into other lineups. Beyond that, considering Nurkic himself is injury-prone, there's a decent chance you'll need the "BPA C" to play bigger minutes. Needs are fluid, and chasing one need with a lesser player only makes you vulnerable when needs change but your talent level is now lower.

I mean, if the difference is so marginal that its virtually nonexistent then yes, you should use need to break ties. But if the difference is significant enough to notice, then I think you either draft that player or trade up or down to get your need player at a spot where he is BPA (or basically tied).
 
I agree with the concept of tiered drafting when trying to value a pick before the draft for potential trade value though
 
I'd agree with lawai'a that most GMs will be operating from a BPA perspective rather than a tiered one. I think tiers are more for fans. I see this a lot, especially in NFL draft discussions, something along the lines of, "Well, there are four receivers of similar grade...one of them will be available at pick X." Sure, one of them might be, but will that be the successful one? All similarly graded players won't have equal careers--some will be better (or much better) than others. The job of sports executives, with their armies of scouts, is to pick the winners (in the stock trading sense, not "ringzzz" sense). There may be a "tier" from 15-22 as far as fans are concerned, but the GM should be trying to determine which of those players will be the best, not considering them all equal and fungible assets.
 
lawai'a said:
I expect teams' scouting and draft boards of bpa to rule the day sorry to disagree. its moneyball
Click to expand...

Let me make up a brief hypothetical...

You're in charge of the draft for the Blazers, and your staff has come to a consensus based on qualitative and quantitative measures. Here are the results
for 3 players in range for pick #15...

Player 1 (PG): Overall Rating 83.6% +/- 7.1%
or
Player 2 (SF): Overall Rating 82.2 % +/- 6.1%
or
Player 3 (PF): Overall Rating 77.4 % +/- 15.2%

Which one do you pick? The difference in the ratings between the first two is well below the margin of error. It would be a mistake to take Player 1 without
considering position of need. In this case, you do. So, if you need an SF more than you need a PG (which we do!), then draft Justin Jackson, er, ahem, I
mean Player 2.

If you have decided that you really want a PF, you STILL don't draft Player 3, regardless of his "upside." That would be "drafting for need".

p.s. I think @Reep is right, you're probably not disagreeing with me, I just wanted to clarify things a bit.
 
Wizard Mentor said:
Let me make up a brief hypothetical...

You're in charge of the draft for the Blazers, and your staff has come to a consensus based on qualitative and quantitative measures. Here are the results
for 3 players in range for pick #15...

Player 1 (PG): Overall Rating 83.6% +/- 7.1%
or
Player 2 (SF): Overall Rating 82.2 % +/- 6.1%
or
Player 3 (PF): Overall Rating 77.4 % +/- 15.2%

Which one do you pick? The difference in the ratings between the first two is well below the margin of error. It would be a mistake to take Player 1 without
considering position of need. In this case, you do. So, if you need an SF more than you need a PG (which we do!), then draft Justin Jackson, er, ahem, I
mean Player 2.

If you have decided that you really want a PF, you STILL don't draft Player 3, regardless of his "upside." That would be "drafting for need".

p.s. I think @Reep is right, you're probably not disagreeing with me, I just wanted to clarify things a bit.
Click to expand...
Or, perhaps you do draft player 3, because you want to swing for the fences on a higher upside player...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Fez Hammersticks
NBA Draft Thread Vol. 2 (Merged)
17 18 19
Replies
566
Views
37K
illmatic99
illmatic99
Stevenson
  • Poll Poll
Did we draft the wrong Collins?
Replies
29
Views
2K
tykendo
tykendo
Rastapopoulos
Acquirable draft picks?
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
riverman
riverman
mook
The Draft Game
Replies
6
Views
807
Wizard Mentor
Wizard Mentor
Boise Blazer
Olshey: Blazers will find a way into the draft
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
PDXFonz
PDXFonz

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top