[ClutchFans] Interview with future Rocket GM Daryl Morey

That's definitely not what I'm arguing either. My point is that given the weakness of the draft this year (no standout prospects), we will have a hard time determining who was the best player available, especially down at #8. If we can't even figure that out with any degree of confidence, then what is the point of following the "best player available" rule and picking some random player who (a) might not fit our team and (b) would likely not be significantly better than 10 other prospects? Let's draft for need, I say.

Of course we'll scout everybody. Then we'll draft for need.

 

Actually, trading down would not be a bad idea, as long as we ended up with at least two serviceable players for our #8 pick, from the trade itself or from the subsequent draft.

The problem is that we would need to find a <strike>sucker</strike> trade partner willing to do a reverse Eddie Griffin with us. I don't see any teams who would be so desperate for a #8 pick, especially this year.

Even scrubs can be useful in certain situations, especially if they fit the team.

 

Your skepticism is unfounded. Unless every team has the exact same draft board with identical valuations - I like my odds of being able to move down from 8 to 9-18 and pick up something of value and would do exactly that.

....which is why you pick them up off the scrap heap, like Dallas did with Saggy D, rather than the mid-lottery, like Cleveland did with Saggy D.

 

I'm going completely devil's advocate here but:

1. Who thinks we need a rookie that can contribute?

2. Who thinks JVG wouldn't have a very subtle and effective backlash against management if they want that rookie playing?

3. Who do you see out there in the draft that wouldn't legitimately drive JVG crazy?

I think one of two things happens: Either we trade the pick or JVG "retires" less than a year from now. I hope we don't trade the pick.

 

I've always thought Ainge was a brilliant scout, would be interesting to know whether Morey was involved at all with the recent drafts in Boston. Like the Spurs rule the foreign prospects, the Celtics have ruled the college prospects.

 

I wouldn't mind. I've never been against trading down. My only preference this year is that when (or if) we draft in the first round, we should draft for need.

Or both. Any draft is a crapshoot.

 

1st rounders drafted under JVG's tenure as Knicks head coach.

1999 15th Frederick Weis
1997 25th John Thomas
1996 18th John Wallace, 19th Walter McCarty

Van Gundy has never coached a rookie from the lottery. The closest was Weis but he never signed with them (He did a Fran Vasquez before Fran Vasquez did a Fran Vasquez).

 

After watching the Suns /Mavericks Game One of the Western Conference Championship I feel compelled to make a statement.
Based on my observations I think that Les, if he is really sincere about winnning another chanpionship he must insist on a major change in the philosophy about player selection and Roster rebuilding.
The game has become so fast and teams that win are not composed as they used to be. A winning team to-day must have at least FIVE all round players who if they are open they can and will put the ball in the basket. No longer can we be talking about how effective Bowen and Padgett are for the Rockets, because their skills are not at the roster level required on a Team Contending for a Championship. JVG's idea of older experienced players on the starting line up has its limitations in this new basketball era, and will cause a necessary change in coaching philosophy or a change in the Coach, if we are to turn the Franchise around.

 

In baseball, I'm convinced that the moneyball approach will prove to be the only viable option for teams other than the Yankees, Red Sox (who use it anyway), Mets, and Cubs.

Basketball? Less convinced, but it will be interesting to watch the situation develop.

 

we 'need' every single position. Regardless, taking the inferior player based on need is...dicey, which is why very few successful teams do it.

Both? I'm pretty sure having to do it all over again, Cleveland would have drafted Richard Jefferson, Joe Johnson, Brandon Haywood, Tony Parker, etc etc etc over DeSagana Diop no matter their "need"

 

You're exaggerating. We are actually not all that far away from becoming a holy terror in the NBA. (Especially if we find a new coach.)

Early in a strong draft, "best player available" is a good strategy. But when the difference in talent between #8 and #18 is minimal, which is the case this year, we might as well draft for need.

 

Agreed. Is this why Morey is here?

 

Bwahahahahahaha.

We hav the worst PG situation in the west, the worst SG situtation in the west, the worst PF situation in the west, as well as an ancient backup C who now sucks, and the worst backup SF (and possibly the worst player in the league) In Rybo.

We have needs at every position. No matter how much you hate JVG - our personnel is a joke.

You're presuming that your draft board = immutable law. Somehow I doubt you've done that much research or that 32 (or 1) NBA team will agree.

 

....and we can reload in one summer, if we play our cards right. We don't have to be any deeper than the Shaq/Kobe Lakers were in their championship years, and for the same reasons. That is what I mean when I say that the Rockets are not too far from becoming a scary team.

What I see of this year's prospects happens to agree with conventional wisdom. To wit, that there no standouts this year, and that scrubland starts at about #6 or #7 but goes pretty deep. In this situation, when #8 to #18 are about as good, we may as well draft for need.

 

Let's see, terse or Bernie Bickerstaff

 

Honestly, he sounds like a geek to me, a guy who is just talking blablabla about the weights.

 

According to Bickerstaff, scrubland could start at six, seven, or eight? So he's giving himself a 37% margin of error, is he? I can just see the confidence oozing out of good old Bernie.

Seriously though, allow me to suggest an experiment. You want to pick the best player available (BPA)? Fine, let's ask the good people of this BBS who they would pick at #8. If there is a large talent gap between one player and everyone left after numbers 1 to 7 are taken off the table, then the BBS consensus should be pretty overwhelming, right? In that case, the BPA would be obvious, and we should draft him.

My prediction is that there won't be anything close to a consensus BPA. (Remember that the top 7 prospects are off the table.) If I'm right, a handful of players will all get about the same number of votes, and this would indicate pretty strongly that the talent gap between them is pretty minimal. In this situation, we can forget about taking the BPA -- because no one knows who the BPA is -- and therefore we may as well draft for need.

 

I would do the above experiment myself if I knew how to start a poll.

 

You just don't get it.

The Rockets have an entire staff of trained scouts - it's their livelihood to determine who the BPA is. There may be minimal differences, but I can guarantee you there won't be even 2 players whose NBA performance is identical. It's just a statistical improbability for two players' performances to be identical.

You want to create a poll of non-trained BBS posters, where most of the voters probably haven't seen the players and just read the nbadraft.net/draftexpress profiles. Gee, that's swell. Even the NBA guys don't always agree on rankings. From Billy King:

Anyhow, who are the top 7 prospects? My guess is you'd have 4 or 5 consistent names in the top 7 . But even CNNSI has Morrison dropping to us. Stranger things have happened.

I see two top levels in this draft - the 1-5, and around 6-12. Look at all the names being bandied about for #1 - Bargnani, Morrison, Aldridge, and Thomas. Then there's everybody else. And here's a scout who agrees with me.

The Link for both quotes.

So yes, it may be possible to trade down 3 slots or so and still get the player we really like (because other teams have different valuations), but the idea that we could go down to 20 and get a player the same caliber as 8 is asinine.

 

Again, this assumption is the problem.

Just because YOU don't know doesn't mean that other people don't have very strong opinions in the matter.