You have to go with BPA hands down. I have a funny feeling this is going to be Morey's year where he finally moves up into the higher part of the lottery, especially if the Suns can barely squeak into the playoffs.
The chance of finding a gem in the draft is hard already, the chance of finding a good center without top 5 picks is probably less than the chance of Yao Ming coming back healthy haha.
They tanked and lucked into Duncan. With a strong roster they frequently take 'futures'. They 'smartly lucked' into Blair. Pop is large-in-charge and that means a lot. How did the Rox get where 'we' are? Super(star) damned bad luck with you-know-whos. I believe the better question is what trade and/or FA targets will be pursued? Last point - - what if the BPA were a 4? Scola and PP should be expected to be ahead of him - - for a long time. What if Irving were available to the Rox? What do you do with Lowry? Any BPA has to include trade considerations because of the balance of good players throughout. Maybe even a fortuitous 2 (or 3) for 1 (of theirs)?
A better question is: If you have a lottery pick, do you go for high-risk-high-potential (Sanders type) or low-risk-medium-potential (Patterson type)?
BPA guarantees you will have a valuable asset to trade. Drafting for need is usually what leads to draft busts. ALWAYS draft BPA.
If the team has an all-star or is ready to compete for the championship, you take low risk medium potential guys (unless you trade the pick for proven assets). Assuming the player is like Patterson (Fields), you have a guy who knows exactly what he needs to do and knows how to play, which is a lethal weapon off the bench. If you're the Rockets, you might as well for for a high risk high potential pick, since if that pick failed, there is always another season for another try. Guys like Patterson are very good players, but they aren't the first options on a good team. Luckily we have Morey, and his drafting magic has been pretty solid.
Here's a couple that your missing that were drafted out side the top 11: Kendrick Perkins (2003) Brandon Haywood (2001) Deandre Jordan (2008) Robin Lopez (2008) Roy Hibbert (2008)
Cool, thx for the help. Some comments about Lopez and Haywood. Perkins...yep missed him Haywood, purposefully left him out, because I don't like him. That is: I would not draft him Jordan, looked for him briefly and gave up. Missed him Lopez...left him out purposely based on Starter criteria. Yeah, he "starts" but gets <20mpg and less than 4rpg. I would not draft him. Hibbert...yeah, missed him
The entire list(yours and heypartners) basically sums up why if you're going for a star player, drafting big with mid/low pick gives almost impossible odds. Compare that with wing players, where you've had the likes of Kevin Martin, Granger, G. Wallace, Redd, Rashard Lewis, etc. who are at least allstar/near-allstar caliber. Generally, any big man with any sort of upside pretty much gets taken much higher than they should(two prime examples in Thabeet and Hill just on this team). Hence, it gets to be slim-pickings really quick. Whereas wing players and PF-only bigs are generally thought of as less valuable. So value can be obtained later in the draft.
Don't get me wrong. We definitely have a need and it must be addressed. "By hook or by crook" in Morey's own words. I just think that with the draft being the way it is, you can't limit your options further when it is such a crapshoot to begin with. And really, with such a glaring need, we can't depend on a mid teen pick to solve it alone. Trades and FA are better, and much safer bets. Speaking of trades, I think the real answer to your question is this: We target a big man in the draft, trade up, and take him as the BPA.
All but the top echelon big men take many years to develop. Unless you're looking at an Amare or a Dwight, you're probably better off getting a guy three years in who seems to be a bust, but may still have potential. As for everyone else, talent seems to show more quickly, so I would say take BPA.
Can anyone name a few occasions where a team has successfully drafted for need? (Keep in mind this means that they passed on an OBVIOUSLY better player.)
Good question, although no definitive way to determine. The argument will become, but if took BPA they could have traded someone for their need. We don't know how it would have played out. btw: we could ask the opposite question: list examples of BPA causing chemistry problems with the existing All-Star starter...and subsequent trade failed or FA left them with nothing. (Hedo when Peja was already there? Of course, that was a very low pick,,,why not?) that said, I'll play. So far, we could probably argue James Harden vs taking one of the slew of PGs who followed in the draft...Evans, Rubio, Flynn, Curry went next four in the draft. I can't remember if Harden was ranked higher than the PGs, but clearly OKC was not considering a PG.
I guess, but I wouldn't really call that a successful pick since he can't even start over Sefalosha. He's still young though, we'll see. And Hedo vs Peja doesn't really count since they never expected that pick to contribute anyway.
Not sure if Kidd was ranked higher than Grant Hill (probably not), Juwan Howard (maybe not based on value of PFs), and Donyell Marshall, but Dallas took Kidd #2 right before those 3 players. They already had Jim Jackson, Mashburn and Tarpley at 2, 3 and 4. That worked out over taking Grant Hill. btw: so far this shows that there aren't many examples. Maybe there are plenty in the low teen picks, but it's hard to remember who was BPA in those ranges in historical drafts. So, all I can really do is look at the top 10.
How? Hill was on pace to become one of the greatest of all time. Just because he got injured doesn't justify the pick. Actually that is a great example of why you pick BPA over need.
It's not who is better; we are talking better fit for need...that's the point. HOF PG (arguably a top 5 PG of all time) versus Hill. We are splitting hairs when you say Hill would have been better--which I won't argue. We are talking about better for the team. Dallas did screw up after that, but taking Kidd over Hill when your leading scorers the year before are two wing players. Note: Jim Jackson and Mashburn proceeded to score 26 and 24 ppg in Kidd's rookie year.
Morey views the draft essentially as the best player available. He actually views the draft as a pick that is an asset that can help him acquire a superstar player, either by trading the pick, or the picked player in a deal for a superstar player, or by drafting a superstar player. There is a value placed on every NBA player and every draft eligible NBA player. It's all about acquiring a superstar. If Morey values a guy in the draft as a superstar, he's going to try to acquire him. If there is a current superstar on the block in the NBA that fits our team, Morey is going to try to acquire him. It's all about getting a superstar. So, if we can't get a superstar, we will get the next best thing, the best, most talented player that projects to have more value to other teams in trade so that you can add that player to our stockpile of assets to hopefully acquire a superstar player in trade. If we actually make a pick, it will be for who Morey feels is the best available player on the board, unless we are trading the picked player in a predetermined deal to another team.
I think OKC had the best of both worlds in recent lotteries. They drafted players at positions they needed but those players were also the best available. So hopefully this will happen to us
