Someone explain NBA GMs thought process

[Toga]

I can understand why, for various reasons, a college player would jump after one or two seasons, even if they are projected say late first round. But what is the thinking of GMs who draft on potential? I look at NBA players and their bodies are so much more developed than their college counterparts. Weights? PEDs? As I understand it, there aren't all that many practices in the NBA. So where is the development process occurring? Wherever it is coming from, seems like a good chance it may not be the drafting team which ultimately benefits.

How long is a draftee's first contract? Three years? For the non-elite (outside top 6-7 players), won't the development process, assuming it is successful, just about take that player to the end of his contract? You know, right when they can take that development and market themselves on the open market.

Would love to see the track record of non-lottery first round picks who came out after their first or second year, and where they ended up, but more specifically, did where they end up benefit the team that drafted them. Short of knowing the answers to these questions - if I was a GM I'd be trading my mid-late first round picks for a real solid 4th or 5th year player who shows his good and improving skill.

 

[Full_Rebar]

It's simple. If your team is losing, yet you have drafted "potential" that needs time to develop, you might buy yourself another year. If you pick 23yo guys who are expected to step in and play right away and you lose, so long.

 

[NineOneSeven]

There a few known commodities going into the next level. The Carmelo's, Griffin's, Durant's, Anthony Davis's, etc, are examples. These are NBA all stars. The best of the best. Everything is else is mostly potential.

Guys who put up big college numbers who haven't "lived up to expectation" in the NBA based on what they did in school- Adam Morrison, Jimmer Fredette.
Guys who didn't put up huge numbers in college but were drafted because of their potential and overall athleticism- a ton.

So what's the answer? There is no correct answer. Tons of gray area.

The draft is not easy at all. The NBA consists of the best players in the world, all who surround the ABSOLUTE best players in the world (the melo's, durant's, etc).

 

[Timonen]

How long is a draftee's first contract? Three years? For the non-elite (outside top 6-7 players), won't the development process, assuming it is successful, just about take that player to the end of his contract? You know, right when they can take that development and market themselves on the open market.

this point really befuddles me. you spend the time developing guys, only to have their contract come up and you lose your value position. as a gm, it's not what i'd do...but i won't be getting a gm gig anytime soon.

 

[Brooky03]

Outside of the top 10 picks, you're probably not getting anyboy who can contribute significantly right off the bat, so you might as well pick a raw player with a lot of athleticism and hope for the best. If he developes into something special, congrats. If not, you're probably no worse off than you were before; your team probably sucks worse than they did when you picked him and you now have a better pick.

Upperclassment coming out of college aren't attractive for a few reasons: 1) It usally means there was something lacking from a size, athleticim, skill perspective that kept them in school so long. 2) Their stats are inflated because they're smarter than the young guys and they have a boosted confidence level. In the NBA, both advantages will be gone. 3) Young stars who can throw down nasty dunks are probably more marketable than the Aaron Craft's of the world. More marketable = more revenue generated = better return on investment.

 

[Knicks411]

this point really befuddles me. you spend the time developing guys, only to have their contract come up and you lose your value position. as a gm, it's not what i'd do...but i won't be getting a gm gig anytime soon.

First contract the team has the chance to control the player for four years, plus the player is usually a restricted FA after that period, so the team can match any contract offer he gets in FA. It's very rare that a team really loses a drafted player after the first 4 years if they want to keep him. Basically the player can sign a one year deal after the 4 years are up, and become an unrestricted FA after that year, so after 5 years. But that doesn't happen a lot, because if we're talking about a coveted player thats a guy that can sign a 4 year offer sheet from someone else for 40 plus million, and let his team match it, or sign for one year at like 7 or 8 million.(Also, the team might have a chance to offer their player the 5 year contract, which other teams can't do. Everyone except Minnesota tries to do this) Hard to turn down all that cash.

As for what GM's are thinking; drafting is tough when the kids aren't in college for very long. You don't get a great evaluation period. But you have to pick someone

And there are lots of players who really improve a lot after they get in the NBA.

 

[Toga]

First contract the team has the chance to control the player for four years, plus the player is usually a restricted FA after that period, so the team can match any contract offer he gets in FA. It's very rare that a team really loses a drafted player after the first 4 years if they want to keep him. Basically the player can sign a one year deal after the 4 years are up, and become an unrestricted FA after that year, so after 5 years. But that doesn't happen a lot, because if we're talking about a coveted player thats a guy that can sign a 4 year offer sheet from someone else for 40 plus million, and let his team match it, or sign for one year at like 7 or 8 million.(Also, the team might have a chance to offer their player the 5 year contract, which other teams can't do. Everyone except Minnesota tries to do this) Hard to turn down all that cash.

As for what GM's are thinking; drafting is tough when the kids aren't in college for very long. You don't get a great evaluation period. But you have to pick someone

And there are lots of players who really improve a lot after they get in the NBA.

Informative response - thanks.

 

[moqui]

once more: the essential fact is that a GM cannot pass on their pick. They have to take someone. Rarely are there more than a couple of true "can't miss" prospects, and the deeper in the draft you go, the more flaws you find in the candidates. But you still have to take someone. For every hole this board wants to gleefully shoot in Grant's game, he is still going to look better than almost every other draft candidate out there by the time the middle of the first round rolls around.

 

[Timonen]

First contract the team has the chance to control the player for four years, plus the player is usually a restricted FA after that period, so the team can match any contract offer he gets in FA. It's very rare that a team really loses a drafted player after the first 4 years if they want to keep him. Basically the player can sign a one year deal after the 4 years are up, and become an unrestricted FA after that year, so after 5 years. But that doesn't happen a lot, because if we're talking about a coveted player thats a guy that can sign a 4 year offer sheet from someone else for 40 plus million, and let his team match it, or sign for one year at like 7 or 8 million.(Also, the team might have a chance to offer their player the 5 year contract, which other teams can't do. Everyone except Minnesota tries to do this) Hard to turn down all that cash.

As for what GM's are thinking; drafting is tough when the kids aren't in college for very long. You don't get a great evaluation period. But you have to pick someone

And there are lots of players who really improve a lot after they get in the NBA.

great post.

i think where it gets tricky is when a guy might sit on the bench for most of a couple years and have a breakout year after. you've invested 3 years to get 1...and are immediately at the decision point on locking up long term and the salary cap implications. i'm dating it a bit now, but i think of guys like tracy mcgrady and jermaine o'neil whose original teams got nowhere near their upside even though they developed them.

on the other side, if you can magically turn yourself into the spurs and get value from your picks immediately, it changes the whole equation.

 

[Full_Rebar]

once more: the essential fact is that a GM cannot pass on their pick. They have to take someone. Rarely are there more than a couple of true "can't miss" prospects, and the deeper in the draft you go, the more flaws you find in the candidates. But you still have to take someone. For every hole this board wants to gleefully shoot in Grant's game, he is still going to look better than almost every other draft candidate out there by the time the middle of the first round rolls around.

Great point. I mean this so-called "loaded" draft doesn't feature a guy that everyone agrees is a can't-miss NBA all-star. It's going to be very interesting to see who emerges in 3-4 years.

 

[two3zone]

Great point. I mean this so-called "loaded" draft doesn't feature a guy that everyone agrees is a can't-miss NBA all-star. It's going to be very interesting to see who emerges in 3-4 years.

Wiggins, Randle, and Parker. At least two of them maybe all three will be all stars within their first few years IMO.

 

[Lawrinson14]

The NBA draft is an absolute crap shoot. Go back and look at drafts for prior years. half to three quarters of 1st round picks are absolute nobodies. Seriously look back at recent drafts, look at the names, then look at their respective year in college.

 

[skurey]

Also the undeveloped young players who "show potential" can be used in trades for known players.

 

[Knicks411]

great post.

i think where it gets tricky is when a guy might sit on the bench for most of a couple years and have a breakout year after. you've invested 3 years to get 1...and are immediately at the decision point on locking up long term and the salary cap implications. i'm dating it a bit now, but i think of guys like tracy mcgrady and jermaine o'neil whose original teams got nowhere near their upside even though they developed them.

on the other side, if you can magically turn yourself into the spurs and get value from your picks immediately, it changes the whole equation.

I believe the situation was different back with O'Neal and T-Mac. (O'Neal was for sure a guy I was thinking of). Not sure I can find all the details; but McGrady was an unrestricted free agent after just 3 years, that wouldn't happen now. If that happened today, T-Mac would have had another year with Toronto, at which point the Raptors would have gladly matched any contract offer he got in restricted free agency. (Would have been interesting to see if they offered him the 5 year extension or "saved" it for vince)

For O'Neal, the Blazers extended him after a few years, but he ended up dealing him because he wanted more playing time (Portland had a stacked front court rotation back then)

 

[sufandu]

GM's thought process: "If I pass on the next Garnett, Kobe, Jordan, etc just because he's young, I'll be on the hot seat. I better draft this athletic kid with no developed skills to save my job."

 

[Timonen]

GM's thought process: "If I pass on the next Garnett, Kobe, Jordan, etc just because he's young, I'll be on the hot seat. I better draft this athletic kid with no developed skills to save my job."

the other side is, many of the gms in THAT position have to prove themselves in the next year or be out. drafting someone who won't pay off for 3 years is sorta like cutting your own head off. really tricky/interesting, both psychologically AND from a basketball perspective.

 

[Knicks411]

the other side is, many of the gms in THAT position have to prove themselves in the next year or be out. drafting someone who won't pay off for 3 years is sorta like cutting your own head off. really tricky/interesting, both psychologically AND from a basketball perspective.

I forget who made the point, maybe Simmons or Zach Lowe, but they have basically been saying if you are the GM of a struggling team, it's prudent to go for the blow it up model (like the Sixers or Celtics, for instance) because that basically forces the owner to give you 3 or 4 years to try and put something together because of the nature of what you're doing