You've always have to go with BPA, b/c if that player is an upgrade over the current player you have at that position, you can always move the player you currently have to make room for the incoming rookie. Kemba Walker would be a good example. He could be the BPA, at our draft position at 12th pick overall. But with two solid PG's already on the roster, he wouldn't be the ideal pick. In which case we can move Dragic, for a player we need in a different position, and make room for Kemba Walker. So no matter what, you alway want to go with BPA...
Ehh, I'm thinking/hoping we'll make a play at center via trade since the Chandler or Dalembert types will almost assuredly get overpaid. And from having a rough idea as to how Morey values players, I have a hard time imagining him offering anything to a restricted FA that their respective teams wouldn't match right away so there goes the Marc Gasol or DeAndre Jordan types. I suppose there's always potential 'value FA's' like Fesenko or Kwame Brown that likely won't command much yet have potential to be rotation players right away. I'm still hoping for a trade, though. The player I want is Gortat. I've coveted him since 2009. Now that he's blowing up with Phoenix, I realize there's little incentive for the Suns to move him. All the same, Nash is a FA-to-be next year and it seems like there could be a lot of uncertainty in Phoenix moving forward. Maybe, just maybe, we can get him if we agree to take on one of their nasty contracts. Barring anything unexpected, that would be a no-brainer in my book.
imo, in Basketball, you always pick BPA, or trade down. The higher the pick, the more important this strategy is. See Portland: Durant, Kevin.
If Oden never got hurt, he could have very well made a case for being a BPA pick. When he was actually healthy, he was pretty dang good for Portland. I think the obvious example of need over talent (BPA) is Minnesota taking Wes Johnson over DeMarcus Cousins.
The reason you always take BPA over need is two fold. 1. As already mentioned by many here, the low odds of any picks outside of the top 5 panning out. 2. The fickle nature of NBA rosters/NBA players. When we drafted Aaron Brooks he was the lowest in the pecking order of 5 PGs on the roster. Two years later he was the starter. One year after that he is the backup once again on another team getting beat out by an undrafted rookie. You CAN'T draft for need because you never know what you will need, next.
True, but we know what we need NOW. And as I said earlier, I messed up in how I framed it: it isn't need vs. BPA. It's BCA vs. BPA (best center/bigman available). Regardless, you make good points. I'm not arguing for one or the other, though I certainly agree with most of you guys. I just think we're in a time where we're desperate for anything that is over 6'11 and can walk without falling down (Thabeet is disqualified due to to the second requirement.)
the more interesting question is what constitutes the "best" player available Morey said on a recent podcast that "good" players are a dime a dozen and can be gotten through free agency or trade. The draft is where you can take risks on players that maybe have a 5% chance of being a superstar and a 70% chance of being a bust. Morey also mentioned that teams, especially in the later picks, dwell on the flaws of a particular player (Brooks' height, Landry and Blair's knees) and let that overshadow their strengths.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/GiPe1OiKQuk#t=0m7s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Always best player available. Especially since our most glaring need is center. Realistically, who are we going to draft at 12-14 that is going to be better than even Thabeet?
I think we should trade Lowry/Scola/Patterson/Hill and our 2011 first round pick to Minnesota for Rubio/Love/Randolph/Pekovic. Rubio/Dragic Martin/Lee Budinger/Williams Randolph/Pekovic/Yao Love/Hayes
The two sentences don't exactly compliment each other -- which is my point. Our biggest need is center.. so should we be looking to take the best big man available or should we stick with the BPA approach (which could yield us another PG instead of a big)?
This fits Morey's style, IMO. He'll attempt to package our picks, and perhaps a young player with upside, for a targeted BPA at a position of need. Whether that works or not just depends. If the deadline showed us anything, it showed us that Morey, as smart as he is, can't make a move without a dancing partner.
Teams don't always have a strong preference between two players-- draft evaluation involves a lot of guessing. I can imagine where if you got two guys on the board, you like one just slightly more than the other, but frankly you are not that certain which will turn out better, then position need might be a factor. After all, assuming a guy is ready to play, having him on the court more will tend to make him look more valuable as trade bait at least.
OK, let's go with this question. I'm going to disregard any player not taller or drastically more athletic than Scola and PPatt. I'm going to say we don't need a PF, but a Center. Since the 2000 draft, I did a quick look...(well, also disregarding last year for being too soon). Taking best center available from 11th pick down (6'11 or taller, or a 6'10 leaper who arguably could play C) is risky. They bust more than become starters. There are usually only 2 at most who make it from 11th pick down (much less at 14th pick and down) vs the scores of guards and wings who become starters/all-stars. Note, several years there are zero Centers 11th and below who make it. Quick look from 2000-2009 drafts, I found you these bigs who can or do start at Center: Ibaka JaVal Marc Gasol (technically counts but dropped because was in contract oversees) Jason Collins Dalembert Okur Biedrins Magloire So, yeah there is some quality there, but it looks like roughly one a year, and it's not like we are looking at all-stars here...versus all the busts trying to get those above players, and all the quality that you chose not to select as BPA.
Blindly drafting BPA can overload a team at certain positions. Look at how the Mavericks started their franchise. They ended up with a boat load of swing players and not enough PT for all of them.
Actually they compliment each other just fine. You can acknowledge our biggest weakness is center without advocating that we draft for position. We should always go with the best player available. Remember when the Sonics tried to draft for need at center and wasted three straight lottery picks on centers who are busts? Center is probably the most difficult position to fill in the draft. And you're damn sure not going to get a sure fire productive center at 12-14 where we'll be drafting. We draft the best player available and fill needs via signings and trades. The more talent on your roster, obviously, the easier it is going to be to fill that need via trade.
heyp: I think your list is missing a few; I can think of two off the top of my head without going through the draft list (Hibbert and R. Lopez). That said, I understand the point you're making. We are talking about one position vs. four others, so obviously there is going to be a lot smaller pool of success stories. In addition, it's not everyday you have 7 footers who can ball available to you. Truth is, it probably depends on the draft class. Last year there were a lot of big men in the draft, though only three-four of them who could play center. Another Patrick Patterson doesn't really help this current team that much unless he can play center (I don't think PPat can). In the upcoming draft, there are only three prospects who DX thinks could play the C spot -- and all of them are international players. I'd guess that our best shot at solidifying our C position is via trade, so again going with BPA might be the best strategy just to get a better asset to include in a deal.
