Official 2013 Draft thread

[Pinwheel1]

"if your team doesn't have a draft pick in this year's draft, I wouldn't be too broken up about it"

http://sulia.com/channel/basketball/f/418c0e66-16f9-4919-9013-62d13af8ff75/?source=twitter

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

"if your team doesn't have a draft pick in this year's draft, I wouldn't be too broken up about it"

http://sulia.com/channel/basketball/f/418c0e66-16f9-4919-9013-62d13af8ff75/?source=twitter

Exactly.

It's also why I'd rather just slide into the playoffs and give up our pick to Charlotte. Sure, there could some diamonds that slide later in the draft, but that's a complete crap shoot. We could still find something later in the draft (and with two decent second-round selections, some team at the end of the first round may be willing to make a swap).

I'd rather just get in to the playoffs, build the team's confidence and not be committed to a rook that likely won't contribute much and will be detrimental to our free agent spending (and the better we are, the more attactive we are to potential FA targets). I think this scenario is more valuable than finishing 9th or 10th in the West and keeping a weak lotto pick in one of the weaker drafts we've seen in some time.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I really don't understand the desire for some of you to give up a free asset.

 

[magnifier661]

I really don't understand the desire for some of you to give up a free asset.

It's actually not free MM. It's going to be a guaranteed contract for a player that could quite possibly be a long term player development. Wouldn't you rather use it for the opened cap space for a vet free agent, we know can actually produce now?

 

[Mediocre Man]

It's actually not free MM. It's going to be a guaranteed contract for a player that could quite possibly be a long term player development. Wouldn't you rather use it for the opened cap space for a vet free agent, we know can actually produce now?

Trade it in a draft day trade then. It's a free asset.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

It's actually not free MM. It's going to be a guaranteed contract for a player that could quite possibly be a long term player development. Wouldn't you rather use it for the opened cap space for a vet free agent, we know can actually produce now?

It is peanuts though. Small market teams have to hit it big in the draft (even with late round picks you can do it. Ibaka and Reggie Jackson from OKC are two examples) to have a realistic chance of building a winner that doesn't go over the cap. In fact, with the new cap restrictions you are going to see many teams build through the draft that used to spend more in free agency.

 

[Mediocre Man]

So many point to this being a bad draft class, (I don't see it, but whatever) I think most people view the 2000, 2006, 2001 classes as being pretty crappy, but looking at them, there are players in those drafts that have been productive NBA players. Looking in the 8 or so and lower picks, in 2000 you had Crawchuck, Przybilla, Turkoglu, Q Richardson, Maglore, Lance Stevenson. In 2001 you had Joe Johnson, Radmanovic, Rich Jefferson, T Murphy, Z-bo, Brendon Heywood. In 2006 you had Gay, Reddick, Sephalosha, Brewer, Rondo


It's not sure fire by any means, but to say a draft class is poor doesn't mean there are very good players in them, or minimal players who can help

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I really don't understand the desire for some of you to give up a free asset.

That's where you're thinking is wrong. We've already traded the pick, it's just a matter of time before we have to give it up. Since we have to give up a pick eventually, I'd rather give up a weak lotto pick in a weak draft, as opposed to an unknown. Giving up the pick now also makes it easier to include a future first-rounder in other potential deals. So it simply makes life easier.

Besides, I don't understand why people want to lose for the sake of a weak lotto pick (especially in a weak draft). You hear players, management, etc talk about how winning breeds winning, losing breeds losing. A losing atmosphere is very tough to break. So, yeah..... I think some of us need an attitude shift. Get rid of the losing mentality. Sure, the odds of winning it all are not in a team's favor when they're the 7th/8th seed. But odds are 100% against you when you aren't even in the playoffs.

 

[magnifier661]

Trade it in a draft day trade then. It's a free asset.

You can't trade a first rounder 2 years in a row.

 

[Mediocre Man]

You can't trade a first rounder 2 years in a row.

You aren't you are trading the rights to the player you drafted

 

[Mediocre Man]

That's where you're thinking is wrong. We've already traded the pick, it's just a matter of time before we have to give it up. Since we have to give up a pick eventually, I'd rather give up a weak lotto pick in a weak draft, as opposed to an unknown. Giving up the pick now also makes it easier to include a future first-rounder in other potential deals. So it simply makes life easier.

Besides, I don't understand why people want to lose for the sake of a weak lotto pick (especially in a weak draft). You hear players, management, etc talk about how winning breeds winning, losing breeds losing. A losing atmosphere is very tough to break. So, yeah..... I think some of us need an attitude shift. Get rid of the losing mentality. Sure, the odds of winning it all are not in a team's favor when they're the 7th/8th seed. But odds are 100% against you when you aren't even in the playoffs.

I am always in favor of the higher pick. Much rather have the opportunity to draft the guy we want at 12, rather than hope he is there at 22

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

So many point to this being a bad draft class, (I don't see it, but whatever) I think most people view the 2000, 2006, 2001 classes as being pretty crappy, but looking at them, there are players in those drafts that have been productive NBA players. Looking in the 8 or so and lower picks, in 2000 you had Crawchuck, Przybilla, Turkoglu, Q Richardson, Maglore, Lance Stevenson. In 2001 you had Joe Johnson, Radmanovic, Rich Jefferson, T Murphy, Z-bo, Brendon Heywood. In 2006 you had Gay, Reddick, Sephalosha, Brewer, Rondo


It's not sure fire by any means, but to say a draft class is poor doesn't mean there are very good players in them, or minimal players who can help

Yes, but in weak drafts, there are often guys taken later in the draft who were just as successful as some of the lotto picks. You have to rely on management to draft. Don't have faith in our management to find gems later in the draft? Understandable. But by the same token, why would anyone have any more faith in management to find a difference-maker with a weak lotto selection? The success rate of the 12th pick in the draft (if we ended up there) over the last 2+ decades isn't particularly exciting.

 

[KeepOnRollin]

This should be the last time we are in the lottery so why would we want to give up this pick when we can give it up next year. Even with the draft being a crapshoot I would rather have #12 in a weak draft vs #18 in a stronger draft. Give #18 next year to CHA. And success rate of #12 may not be good but it is better than success rate of #18.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

I am always in favor of the higher pick. Much rather have the opportunity to draft the guy we want at 12, rather than hope he is there at 22

Look at the history of #12 picks over the last several years. Outside of maybe the top 5-8 picks every year, there's almost as much success late in the first-round as there is at picks after 5-8. It's a crap shoot. You have to rely on management.

And again, going against what you said, the pick isn't a "free" asset. We have a liability to pay. The exchange rate is more likely in the Blazers' favor with this draft than in other years, so it could very well be the time to give up the pick (especially when considering salary cap flexibility).

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

This should be the last time we are in the lottery so why would we want to give up this pick when we can give it up next year. Even with the draft being a crapshoot I would rather have #12 in a weak draft vs #18 in a stronger draft. Give #18 next year to CHA. And success rate of #12 may not be good but it is better than success rate of #18.

Review the last 15 years of the #12 v. #18 picks. I'd rather build a roster from the actual #18 picks than #12.

It truly proves how big of a crap shoot the drafts can be.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Look at the history of #12 picks over the last several years. Outside of maybe the top 5-8 picks every year, there's almost as much success late in the first-round as there is at picks after 5-8. It's a crap shoot. You have to rely on management.

And again, going against what you said, the pick isn't a "free" asset. We have a liability to pay. The exchange rate is more likely in the Blazers' favor with this draft than in other years, so it could very well be the time to give up the pick (especially when considering salary cap flexibility).

Again, I'd rather have the opportunity to select the guy I want at 12 rather than hope he is there at 22. Not saying having the 12th pick guarantees you a better player, but it guarantees you the opportunity to draft a better player than if you are drafting at 22

 

[Mediocre Man]

Review the last 15 years of the #12 v. #18 picks. I'd rather build a roster from the actual #18 picks than #12.

It truly proves how big of a crap shoot the drafts can be.

So does that mean we should never draft 1st or 2nd because overall us picking there has been bad? Your logic is flawed IMO. Just because the picks at 12 have been poor in the past, doesn't mean you should want to pick lower.

Kobe was the 13th pick. That means picking 18th you would never had had a chance to draft him. Karl Malone, Clyde Drexler, Al Jefferson, many others

 

[KeepOnRollin]

Review the last 15 years of the #12 v. #18 picks. I'd rather build a roster from the actual #18 picks than #12.

It truly proves how big of a crap shoot the drafts can be.

No one is denying the draft is a crap shoot. Past results don't dictate the future in the draft however. It is always better to have the 12th pick vs the 18th. Trust your guy to pick who you think should be picked at 18 instead at 12 if you feel that player will be better.

 

[magnifier661]

So does that mean we should never draft 1st or 2nd because overall us picking there has been bad? Your logic is flawed IMO. Just because the picks at 12 have been poor in the past, doesn't mean you should want to pick lower.

Kobe was the 13th pick. That means picking 18th you would never had had a chance to draft him. Karl Malone, Clyde Drexler, Al Jefferson, many others

Those draft classes were pretty stacked though at the time. This draft class isn't so much

 

[Mediocre Man]

Those draft classes were pretty stacked though at the time. This draft class isn't so much

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of the draft class, I'd always rather have the opportunity to draft the best player, rather than hoping he is available later in the draft. I honestly can't understand how anyone could feel differently?

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

So does that mean we should never draft 1st or 2nd because overall us picking there has been bad? Your logic is flawed IMO. Just because the picks at 12 have been poor in the past, doesn't mean you should want to pick lower.

Kobe was the 13th pick. That means picking 18th you would never had had a chance to draft him. Karl Malone, Clyde Drexler, Al Jefferson, many others

I wasn't putting out "logic" that it's better to draft at #12 than #18. Don't twist my words. I was simply showing that the draft if a crap shoot, and there's talent to be had throughout. You just have to have faith in the management. But since we do have to pay up, I would much rather pay up with the #12 pick in a weak draft than #18 in a strong draft.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

No one is denying the draft is a crap shoot. Past results don't dictate the future in the draft however. It is always better to have the 12th pick vs the 18th. Trust your guy to pick who you think should be picked at 18 instead at 12 if you feel that player will be better.

I'm not denying that. But if you have to pay the Bobcats with a draft pick..... You give up a weak lotto in a weak draft.

I'd hedge on this draft. That's my opinion. I'd rather get into the playoffs, create a winning atmosphere, and have more cap space than keep this weak pick. Losing and the lotto is for losers.

 

[Mediocre Man]

I wasn't putting out "logic" that it's better to draft at #12 than #18. Don't twist my words. I was simply showing that the draft if a crap shoot, and there's talent to be had throughout. You just have to have faith in the management. But since we do have to pay up, I would much rather pay up with the #12 pick in a weak draft than #18 in a strong draft.

This is not what you mean, I don't think anyway? I believe you mean the opposite. I would still rather have every opportunity to draft the better player in a weak draft than hope a player is there in a stronger one. Even strong drafts have busts, as we know all too well. I misread this. sorry. It's exactly what you mean

 

[Mediocre Man]

I'm not denying that. But if you have to pay the Bobcats with a draft pick..... You give up a weak lotto in a weak draft.

I'd hedge on this draft. That's my opinion. I'd rather get into the playoffs, create a winning atmosphere, and have more cap space than keep this weak pick. Losing and the lotto is for losers.

Like OKC and Miami were losers in the lotto

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

The point I am trying to make is that regardless of the draft class, I'd always rather have the opportunity to draft the best player, rather than hoping he is available later in the draft. I honestly can't understand how anyone could feel differently?

Yeah, but you're beating on something that wasn't even the initial point. My point was since we absolutely have to give the Bobcats a pick (READ: we OWE them, it's not a "FREE" asset as you declared it), I'd rather give them a weak lotto pick in a weak draft.

 

[magnifier661]

Like OKC and Miami were losers in the lotto

For every OKC and Miami; I raise old Clippers, Bucks, Detroit, Bobcats, Sacramento and Minny.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

This is not what you mean, I don't think anyway? I believe you mean the opposite. I would still rather have every opportunity to draft the better player in a weak draft than hope a player is there in a stronger one. Even strong drafts have busts, as we know all too well. I misread this. sorry. It's exactly what you mean

Yes, busts throughout. Successes throughout. With no true stars in this draft, no real difference-makers in this draft, I gladly give up this pick in a weak draft. The odds are against Portland finding a difference-maker in this draft if they are sitting at #12 or #18. If we're going to have cap space to make some acquisitions through free agency, I figured people would want to maximize that and improve more quickly, rather than tie up funds in what is likely going to be a scrub tying up dollars. Seems like common sense to me?

 

[Mediocre Man]

For every OKC and Miami; I raise old Clippers, Bucks, Detroit, Bobcats, Sacramento and Minny.

Clippers one of the best teams in the league, Detroit has been in the lottery exactly 3 years now, Minny made it to the conference finals with their lottery gem, and if Olshey is as bad as Kahn or McHale at GM, then my argument is over LOL

 

[Mediocre Man]

Yeah, but you're beating on something that wasn't even the initial point. My point was since we absolutely have to give the Bobcats a pick (READ: we OWE them, it's not a "FREE" asset as you declared it), I'd rather give them a weak lotto pick in a weak draft.

I will never understand this thinking, so let's agree to disagree.

 

[BLAZINGGIANTS]

Like OKC and Miami were losers in the lotto

Yes, and those teams hit rock bottom to re-build. We tried that and failed (albeit due to injuries). I think if we want to take that approach, then we need to completely take that type of approach, completely blow it up, and re-build (and hope you get lucky in some form or another, i.e. Durant, plus your GM has to make shrewd moves). But it's obvious management isn't going to take that approach.