NEVER Where is the trade down option in your poll? Say rockets get a pick selection that demands you to pick a center as BPA. Well, trade down. The answer that Morey would give is NEVER draft for need, trade down if necessary. What?
If you're trading down, then I'm assuming you're still getting the "need" player later and just picking up a pick or something. Technically, that means you skipped the BPA option, as it was first available to you, and went for need.
You can package that pick in trade to get the player of need. Morey has proven he's willing to do what it takes to obtain another star or top-tier player, short of making their mind up for them.
don't explain it to me...just include it in your poll. Otherwise, I think you and your poll are redefining the definition of a draft pick. You poll implies make the pick...BPA or need. You are not clear about the trade down option, that most similar threads offer. Go check the Texans forum. That's why your Poll is skewed. You forgot to include the trade down option.
TL;DR: After winning the championship in 2007, the Spurs approached the draft almost always drafting for need. Only when they felt like a player would be a game changer did they move up and get the BPA (even though it cost them). Look at what the Spurs did. After winning the 2014 championship, they drafted (potentially) the next Boris Diaw. Probably too early to tell if that was addressing a need Looking back, after the 2007 championship, they drafted Splitter, George Hill (2008), DeJuan Blair (2009), James Anderson (2010), traded Hill to move up for Kawhi (2011) and Cory Joseph (2011) http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/2007_depth.html That 2007 championship team had a big man rotation of Duncan, Oberto, Elson and Horry. They obviously needed to address the 4/5 spot but chose to draft a LONG term project in Splitter (came over after 3 years and took another two years to develop). You can argue that this was drafting the BPA, but it was also drafting for need. (07-08) The George Hill pick was obviously to address the bench guard issue as the Spurs had to roll with Jacque Vaughn, Damon Stoudamire and Michael Finley. Although he was a (relative) unknown, Hill was fantastic early on. That was definitely drafting for need. (08-09) Dejuan Blair was NBA-ready and addressed the needs of the odd 4 spot (Bonner, Kurt Thomas, Gooden, etc.) He ended up doing a great job with Mcdyess (and Bonner). Drafting for need. (09-10) James Anderson was considered very NBA-ready and addressed the needs of getting out of the Roger Mason Jr. and Kieth Bogans era. RJ was also extended, so the SF spot was (supposedly) considered stable. This also the year they brought over Gary Neal from the Euroleague; he ended up doing a great job at the backup 2 spot. Anderson was tried at SF, but struggled. Also notable was that the reeducation of Danny Green began this year. (10-11) After one and half years of RJ, the Spurs were convinced that he was not worth the trouble, they dumped his salary for a Stephen Jackson stopgap and went into the summer looking to upgrade the SF spot. I can't say what was more paramount, the RJ problem or the potential of Kawhi, but the Spurs gave up a very good PG in Hill and traded up for the future Finals MVP. I don't know if Kawhi was the best player on the board, but I do know that the Spurs paid a hefty price for him and obviously felt like he was. I'd chalk this up to BPA. You can't forget that after the Spurs traded away Hill, they had a hole at backup PG. They tried to fill that in by drafting Cory Joseph at the end of the 1st round. I'd hardly say he was the BPA as Jimmy Butler, Bojan Bogdanovic, and Chandler went after him. He was definitely drafted for need, but unfortunately didn't meet expectations. Of course, Gary Neal and Patty Mills helped the Spurs forget about the blunder. ---------------------- Morey's philosophy is different. He doesn't have the world-beating development system that the Spurs do, so most of his guys are developed as assets to be flipped as opposed to cogs to be honed for the machine. I think it will be highly dependent on the coach, but I'm inclined to think that Morey will always try to accumulate the BPA, unless a need is truly dire.
You trade down to pick for need and you're picking for need. How is that not clear enough? You sure aren't picking BPA in that situation, so clearly, it's not the first poll choice. Take your pick from the other three. If I have to include a trade down option, then I might as well add a top 10 , late lottery, and mid to late first round options. Oh, can't forget the second round options too. There no point in getting that technical. The discussion is more important, IMO.
If you think drafting Splitter is drafting for need, then I'm sure you can define any pick as drafting for need.
the draft is meant to add value to your roster. if you don't take the most valuable player you can, then you are hurting yourself.
If your roster is at a point where a rookie can fill a need, then you're not good enough to draft for need. So the answer is clearly never.
It depends on a few factors. If you are in position to draft a rare talent, you do so. Their value alone is a bonus to the team. If a rare talent is not available, then need makes sense - especially if the player looks like a great fit for the team.
False. You trade down when see that the BPA would be available later in the draft. You have in intel that the team picking below you wants that player that's available. You get the BPA plus other considerations.
Morey THINKS that he is drafting the best player available. Sometimes he actually drafts Marcus Morris and Donatas Motiejunas instead of Kawhi Leonard and Kenneth Fareed.
Yep... and sometimes he drafts Patrick Patterson over studs like Bledsoe/Stephenson/Sanders... Seriously...
Beldsoe is a stud. The other two are big question marks still. Talented but also volatile. Just ask the Pacers and Bucks. But yes, the point remains that drafting is an inexact science. The player projected to be BPA often is not. And a player you think fits a need may not.
Is the missing piece to the puzzle less valuable to the team than a talented player who won't get minutes? Then that falls under never. There are a lot of variations here. The poll was meant to be general and not include every single draft scenario out there.
which player impacts your team the most? Is one only marginally better than the other is there a clear difference in talent level? Generally speaking I think you always take the best player available with few exceptions.
Very few players can "fill your need" as a rookie. And you don't know your needs a year from now. So you always pick the player who you think has the highest probability to succeed. The only time this question is raised is when there are two players both projected to be immediate impact players who will be superstars. But most of the times when a team is in the position to draft such a player is when it has multiple needs anyway. So the question becomes moot again. The "trade down" option is a form of drafting for need but not exactly. You still pick the BPA when it comes your turn to pick even after you trade down. But then, if you trade down because the BPA is not what you need, how is it different from trading the BPA AFTER you pick him?
