I think this would be an interesting topic.

[sufandu]

When should an NBA team draft a kid? We've had discussions ad nauseam about when a kid should leave? Should he leave when he's seems good enough to be an immediate impact player? Should he leave when he's good enough to get guaranteed money etc. That's not what I'm asking here. I'd like to know when people think a team should draft a player, especially in the lottery.

Going back to the 80's and into the early 90's players were usually high draft picks when they were seen as immediate impact players. Most of these players had proven themselves, not just as elite talents with immense potential, but as near polished players that would come into the league and transition smoothly into starting roles.

Beginning in the mid '90's teams started to drift toward a drafting-on-potential philosophy with the drafting of Kevin Garnett and Kobe Bryant straight out of high school and more early entrants like Stephan Marbury, Antoine Walker, Allen Iverson, etc. In the early 2000's it really built up a head of steam and is now the dominant philosophy we see in the NBA.

So, if it were you, would you rather wait to see how a kid develops in college, especially if the majority of elite prospects stay in college and play against one-another and the other teams you're drafting against use the same philosophy? Or would you rather draft players earlier based on potential, feeling confident that you can recognize potential in a player and develop him as a well rounded team oriented player better than your competition?

 

[Cusefan0307]

If I was a GM or Coach I would want to draft the guy who would least likely get me fired. The more they play before the NBA, the more you know. That's why the changed the draft age to begin with.

You don't win with 18-22 year olds in the NBA, so in this case the best option would be to pick someone after four years.

 

[pfister1]

The question you are asking is unanswerable in the abstract. The answer would be different for each team based on their particular needs at any given time and based on who else might be available for them to use their draft picks on.

The draft system is one big crap shoot. Teams do everything they can to improve their odds of winning when they roll their dice, but they are still just gambling. They will always roll the dice and simply put their money on the number(s) they think are most likely to pay a dividend even if they know that some years they are pissing money away.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

If I was a GM or Coach I would want to draft the guy who would least likely get me fired. The more they play before the NBA, the more you know. That's why the changed the draft age to begin with.

You don't win with 18-22 year olds in the NBA, so in this case the best option would be to pick someone after four years.

You would absolutely get fired for bypassing an elite talent that's younger.

 

[sufandu]

The question you are asking is unanswerable in the abstract. The answer would be different for each team based on their particular needs at any given time and based on who else might be available for them to use their draft picks on.

The draft system is one big crap shoot. Teams do everything they can to improve their odds of winning when they roll their dice, but they are still just gambling. They will always roll the dice and simply put their money on the number(s) they think are most likely to pay a dividend even if they know that some years they are pissing money away.

Which draft environment would you prefer to work in, the mid 80's or today's?

 

[Cusefan0307]

You would absolutely get fired for bypassing an elite talent that's younger.

In the current situation yes.

I'm saying what the ideal situation would be if you were a GM or Coach. You want to see the most on someone before you pick them. Therefore a coach or GM should want to see guys stay all four years then they would have better data on the prospect.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The draft system is one big crap shoot. Teams do everything they can to improve their odds of winning when they roll their dice, but they are still just gambling. They will always roll the dice and simply put their money on the number(s) they think are most likely to pay a dividend even if they know that some years they are pissing money away.

It always annoys me when you read those articles about why NBA teams are bad, and they point to their draft picks and say "They got this guy and this guy, but they could have had this other guy and then that guy, and then they'd be better." Well, sure, but how were they supposed to know that when they were drafting?

 

[lionf96]

I feel that teams should draft players that will immediately produce in the NBA.

However, a player should leave as early as possible, even if it's just on potential, but only if they have a great chance to be a first round pick. You're contract is not guaranteed if you are second rounder so you risk the chance of getting cut at any time.

 

[Full_Rebar]

Red Auerbach took Larry Bird as a Junior knowing he wouldn't get him to leave school until after his Sr. year. While he didn't have to win right away, he clearly saw a guy who was worth the wait. Jerry West traded an established Vlade Divac to get Kobe.

My point is that a smart executive will see the long-term value and find the right player for their vision of the organization. Even those guys will miss from time to time- as happens in every sport.

I think the NBA should expand the draft, let HS players in, and focus on a more robust developmental system in the D League. Players who go to college would then need to stay at least two years before entering the draft (I'd be fine with longer). It's really the best for the kids who don't want to be in college, the NBA teams who don't want their top picks buried on the bench, and colleges who get a bit more continuity.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

In the current situation yes.

I'm saying what the ideal situation would be if you were a GM or Coach. You want to see the most on someone before you pick them. Therefore a coach or GM should want to see guys stay all four years then they would have better data on the prospect.

I'm not sure you would want to see every guy for four years actually. I think at a certain point guys are a pretty safe bet, and you'd rather the minutes they play and the wear and tear they put on their knees be for you instead of a college.

 

[Cusefan0307]

It always annoys me when you read those articles about why NBA teams are bad, and they point to their draft picks and say "They got this guy and this guy, but they could have had this other guy and then that guy, and then they'd be better." Well, sure, but how were they supposed to know that when they were drafting?

I think a lot of GM's get in trouble by drafting people based off athleticism, and not skill. There's a tendency to fall in love with athleticism because a lot of the best players in NBA history were extremely athletic.

People see skilled players that aren't uber athletic and don't think they can improve. Remember when Steph Curry came out of Davidson. Everybody bashed his athleticism and size. Everyone completely overlooked the fact that he was the best shooter in the draft. Flynn and Rubio were picked ahead of him because GM's thought they would improve at a higher rate than Curry.

In football you can get away with being bigger/faster/stronger at some positions. In basketball, unless you are Shaq you need to have skills.

 

[sufandu]

You would absolutely get fired for bypassing an elite talent that's younger.

I'm not suggesting passing up Kobe for Todd Fuller. Would you prefer an environment where a Chris McCullough is drafted in the lottery based on his potential or a John Wallace is drafted in the bottom half of the first round having a good idea of what his developed game looks like? Keeping in mind that in the latter scenario a Kobe like talent is likely playing at least 3 years of college ball.

 

[pulaski74]

Hold on. Thought i just resd where some crszyass gm just traded perfectly good players for jr smith. Good gms, silly gms, if u know talent it doesnt matter what year it is.

 

[Brooky03]

For every high school or one-and-done superstar who actually makes a significant positive impact in the NBA, there are at least 10 who don't. So I guess it depends on how you perceive risk. Personally, I would trade my 1st round pick every season if it wasn't in/near the top 5. One-and-dones outside of the top 5 are too hit-or-miss, and upperclassmen at that level run the risk of having already hit their ceiling. I'd rather have an average player with some experience, so I knew what I was getting, over an unproven college player. If I had a top 5 pick though, I'd pick the best one-and-doner left. The risk is worth it in that range.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I think a lot of GM's get in trouble by drafting people based off athleticism, and not skill. There's a tendency to fall in love with athleticism because a lot of the best players in NBA history were extremely athletic.

People see skilled players that aren't uber athletic and don't think they can improve. Remember when Steph Curry came out of Davidson. Everybody bashed his athleticism and size. Everyone completely overlooked the fact that he was the best shooter in the draft. Flynn and Rubio were picked ahead of him because GM's thought they would improve at a higher rate than Curry.

In football you can get away with being bigger/faster/stronger at some positions. In basketball, unless you are Shaq you need to have skills.

That's definitely true, especially for big men.

 

[sufandu]

I'm not sure you would want to see every guy for four years actually. I think at a certain point guys are a pretty safe bet, and you'd rather the minutes they play and the wear and tear they put on their knees be for you instead of a college.

Some guys are a safe bet, but that's not how GM's are drafting now. I'm not sure the wear and tear thing really enters their minds. You have Tim Duncan still playing after 4 years of college wear and tear, and you have guys like Greg Oden that fall apart before the hit the NBA hardwood after only one year of college. I don't think GM's can bother to look that far ahead.

 

[BludOrange]

I don't understand why player's union is not against the one and done? Serviceable veterans lose their roster spot/paycheck and are out of the league a couple years earlier, so some kid with potential can ride pine or be sent down to the D-league.

 

[sufandu]

For every high school or one-and-done superstar who actually makes a significant positive impact in the NBA, there are at least 10 who don't. So I guess it depends on how you perceive risk. Personally, I would trade my 1st round pick every season if it wasn't in/near the top 5. One-and-dones outside of the top 5 are too hit-or-miss, and upperclassmen at that level run the risk of having already hit their ceiling. I'd rather have an average player with some experience, so I knew what I was getting, over an unproven college player. If I had a top 5 pick though, I'd pick the best one-and-doner left. The risk is worth it in that range.

Which environment would you prefer to draft him under? The one described in the 80's where you saw him play more before drafting him or the current environment where you're not as sure what you're getting? In the former you may have a better idea of what you're getting but trading off a couple of years of his production for your franchise. In the latter you get him in your system early, but he may be more likely to bust.

 

[pfister1]

I don't understand why player's union is not against the one and done? Serviceable veterans lose their roster spot/paycheck and are out of the league a couple years earlier, so some kid with potential can ride pine or be sent down to the D-league.

And I don't understand why the NCAA insists that players forfeit their eligibility in order to test the draft. They should allow kids to be drafted and if they don't like the result, return to school no harm done.

 

[Lawrinson14]

I like to think of pro sports drafts like the stock market. Sure, you could draft a more experienced player who could likely perform right away. These players may be less risky, but they also tend to have less of an upside as they have already neared their ceiling. (IBM, McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, etc)

Or you could get in early on a hot-shot newcomer who may not have even scratched the surface of their potential (GOOG, AAPL, TSLA, etc).

Unfortunately, some of these newcomers may not make it (Pets.com, Enron, many small biotech companies, etc).

----------------------------

Or to put it another way...Take a look at the stock market. Tell me which company shares to buy with my next paycheck. This is essentially the same as drafting in a professional sport.

 

[sufandu]

I don't understand why player's union is not against the one and done? Serviceable veterans lose their roster spot/paycheck and are out of the league a couple years earlier, so some kid with potential can ride pine or be sent down to the D-league.

Maybe because membership numbers within the union don't change. You have a fixed number of players. If one leaves, he's replaced by another. Ultimately, you would think it would be up to the membership. If all of the veteran players felt it was best for them to delay the entrance of new players they could push that as an issue and vote it in. My guess is the majority of players are too short sighted to see it that way. Athletes think they're invincible until they're not. By the time they're not, they're outnumbered by the players that think they are.

 

[sufandu]

I like to think of pro sports drafts like the stock market. Sure, you could draft a more experienced player who could likely perform right away. These players may be less risky, but they also tend to have less of an upside as they have already neared their ceiling. (IBM, McDonalds, Coke, Pepsi, etc)

Or you could get in early on a hot-shot newcomer who may not have even scratched the surface of their potential (GOOG, AAPL, TSLA, etc).

Unfortunately, some of these newcomers may not make it (Pets.com, Enron, many small biotech companies, etc).

----------------------------

Or to put it another way...Take a look at the stock market. Tell me which company shares to buy with my next paycheck. This is essentially the same as drafting in a professional sport.

Do you think the risk/reward was the same in the 80's as it is now? Was Jordan as much of a risk to get the reward in '84 as Kobe was in '96? Was Jordan as much of a risk as Lebron was in '03?

 

[Lawrinson14]

Do you think the risk/reward was the same in the 80's as it is now? Was Jordan as much of a risk to get the reward in '84 as Kobe was in '96? Was Jordan as much of a risk as Lebron was in '03?

Yes. Look at the player taken right before Michael Jordan. The risk was certainly still there.

However, the amount of risk was not as much as it is today. Today we place huge emphasis on freshman who are barely legal in age. To put it in stock terms again, the price to earnings (PE), on these players is astronomical. And wouldn't you know, the PE values in today's stock market are astronomical as well. Facebook ~130, Tesla ~1200!, etc).

Jordan and players in his day were upper classmen. They already had greater "earnings" than the freshman today. And coincidentally, if you take a look back at PE ratios of the stock market back in 83/84, PE ratios were way lower than they are today.

Thus, I think this trend of "betting" on younger players (stocks) is a result of a greater societal shift towards more risk/more reward.

 

[Brooky03]

Which environment would you prefer to draft him under? The one described in the 80's where you saw him play more before drafting him or the current environment where you're not as sure what you're getting? In the former you may have a better idea of what you're getting but trading off a couple of years of his production for your franchise. In the latter you get him in your system early, but he may be more likely to bust.

I'd contstantly be trading away my picks. Theoretically, I'd prefer to see the player play more in college because the chances of keeping the one-and-doner long enough to capitalize on the extra 2 or 3 years of his career are slim. My answer is kind of on the fence because I'd only keep top 5 picks (maybe 6 or 7, depending on the draft depth), which would mean I'm picking a one-and-doner most likely.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Yes. Look at the player taken right before Michael Jordan. The risk was certainly still there.

This is the thing people forget, and I know I say this all the time, but when guys played in college for all four years you still had busts and you still had guys wash out of the league.