[rtbtParticipant]

Since this is primarily a DRAFT forum, I thought I would create a new topic that focuses upon your strategy. Recent discussions talked about selecting Tyreke Evans or James Harden, while another one talked about Kevin Durant or Greg Oden. Part of the debate centered upon the choice of selecting the best overall player or going for a specific position. I would like to put the focus back on that issue with this question:

Do you draft the “Best Player Available” or should you draft by “Position”, to fill a specific need on your team?

Here’s my overall philosophy. There are some exceptions, but in general, I believe in taking the “Best Player Available”. This is my reasoning:

1. NBA rosters change so fast that you may have a very different team in 2-3 years.

2. You can always find a way to mold your team around a super star. But if you draft by position and settle for just a good player, you can’t turn an above average player into a great one.

3. After you draft a super star, then you can draft and/or trade players to build a team around him. However, if you select by position, two years from now, that position may not be a pressing need on your team and you lost a rare opportunity to get an elite player.

[llperez]

If I was a gm I would always try and draft by talent unless I was picking top 10 and already had a star player at that position and there was somebody else who could be just as good and be able to fill a need. But for the vast majority of the time, i go with the most talented.

[PlatypusParticipant]

what if the hornets jazz or bulls get the first pick, what would they do

[PlatypusParticipant]

what if the hornets jazz or bulls get the first pick, what would they do

[nateoak10Participant]

trade high

[Anton123Participant]

what if the hornets jazz or bulls get the first pick, what would they do

trade Wall for someone, I guess teams can offer you quite a lot for him
P.S. Always draft talent, you can trade the player for the player you need + add some pieces

[BasketBalAllanParticipant]

There has to be a good mix between drafting by talent and by position. I believe that most teams should draft by talent when making high picks; what if the Kings and the Hornets made a trade, and either one of them ended up with Tyreke and Chris Paul, that team then gets the first pick in the draft through the lottery or a trade. They try out everyone and decide Wall is the best player by at least a noticeable margin, what do they do? They need to draft Wall, even if they have great players at both playable positions, they could always trade one of the three, move one to a different position (like Tyreke to SF), or they could trade the pick and a larger contract to get someone else great. When you have to start mixing the two is when there is not a clear-cut greatest player available. No matter what people think or say I can almost guarantee you that the order players are drafted in will not be the exact order of how good the players will be when all is said and done. You still have to focus on the best player available, but make sure he will get the much needed playing time to become what you think he can, instead of sitting on the bench most of the game instead of being in the game and learning how to evolve, aka Thabeet.

[japhonzaParticipant]

i would draft for talent. Great talent doesnt fall out the tree but then again i think it depend on the draft pick. if my team was in the lottery pick. I would draft talent all day without a doubt, but i was down at the bottom you go for what the team needs and hope to god you get a tp/manu or even a blair

[RickyRubio9Participant]

You draft by Talent…then make it work.
Let’s say the Jazz got 1st Pick, Draft Wall & keep him…
Look to trade, if no one takes him then HECk that’s one great problem to have. D-Will & John Wall.
If you draft by Position it’s Good, but if you go by Talent, you can trade that player for more…
If it makes sense 🙂

[tli232]

Outside, the Lottery, you’d have to go with position because these teams were already in the playoffs and want to push themselves to the next step. This means that they won’t go out of their way to make time for a rookie at the expense of winning games or disgruntling the savvy veterans who got them into the playoffs in the first place. You’d HAVE TO draft based on positional needs, otherwise, you’ll end up with a rookie who’ll become unhappy. Furthermore, with little playing time on these teams, the trade value of these rookies will take a hit, making any move more difficult.

Take the Spurs for example, if they get in the 18-25 range in this draft (shaping up to be pretty deep) should they draft a Pure Point Guard (they already have Parker and Hill gobbling up the minutes)? I don’t think so. How are the Spurs going to find time for him? I’d rather take a perhaps less talented player who can play right away and get better. In the case of the spurs, I’d draft someone like Pittman or Michael Washington as opposed to a PG like Armon Johnson or Eric Bledsoe.

Thoughts?

[JNixonParticipant]

I would draft for need in the lotto, and take the best players available later on. You can never have too many talented players…

[WhyParticipant]

Interesting how some say draft by talent in the lotto and by position later while some say vice-versa.

I think year after year you’d make more mistakes (and bigger mistakes) if you drafted based on position in the lottery and talent outside of it. You’d be passing on so many talented players.

While if you drafted the other way you’d probably make much less mistakes as an owner. If you drafted in the lottery based on pure talent and on position outside of the lottery.

[tli232]

Everyone on this thread has been saying that we should take the best available player …. When they’re assuming they can get fair trade value for them Obviously that’s not going to be the case. If Jazz Draft John Wall with first pick and realize that he cannot co-exist with D-Will. People in the NBA WILL KNOW THAT. They’re not going to say, hey, I’m going to help you out by trading fair value for your guy.
This is due to

1)GMs aren’t dumb, they know how to leverage when you’re in a jam
2) At least one of D-will or Wall will fail to be spectacular, hence making their stock lower than fair market value
3) The reason why huge trades involving John-Wall-type players don’t happen very often is that it’ll oftentimes take away from team chemistry, and that’s what separates the Champions from the contenders.

All I’m saying is that it’s much more difficult to execute a trade involving a high draft pick than in NBA 2K10.

[quinceyhodges]

draft by a mixture of telent and position i dont think its clear cut as one or the other. its more of a mixture

[WhyParticipant]

Agreed Quincey I’m just meaning on a more basic level. If one GM drafted purely based on talent 1,000 times and one GM based on position 1,000 times I would put my money on the GM drafting basing on talent rather than position for better drafts the majority of the time. There are obviously too many unknown variables to really break this down between talent and position but I just meant on a basic level.

And tili you have a point but chemistry is over-rated. At least with veteran sqauds. To prove both your points wrong with one example…The Celtics. Major trade that shook everything up and chemistry had nothing to do with it.

And yes GM’s are smart, I’m not disagreeing with you. And I’m not saying it would be easy as pie to trade Wall. But you’re crazy if you think you’re not getting top value for him. This isn’t the NFL where Randy Moss goes for a 4th round pick. At the very least, one team would be crazy enough to mortgage their future and more on a John Wall/ Deron Williams type trade. I mean, the Warriors and Timberwolves do exist after all.

[WhyParticipant]

And if you think The Jazz couldn’t easily pull off a move for like the 2nd or 3rd pick + more is crazy. If the Jazz got the 1st pick they are essentially landing Evan Turner + in my eyes.

It’s easier than you think to pull off a trade, in my opinion. Especially when its purely about talent and not finances.

[rtbtParticipant]

I think the critical aspect in deciding upon the best talent available or for a specific position is how quickly NBA rosters change. If you draft someone for next year’s team, two years from now they may have 2 or 3 new starters and that will change the chemistry of the entire team. And since you don’t know what your team will look like in the future, drafting the better and/or elite talent is almost always the safe option.

The only time where I think it’s appropriate to draft by position is a veteran team that believes it’s only one player away from a championship team. Let’s say they’re loaded with talent everywhere but they need a PG to run the team, then it would be appropriate to draft by position.

In the T. Evans vs J. Harden case, I would’ve gone with the future super star every day of the week versus the guy who fits in better with this year’s Oklahoma lineup.

In the Durant vs Oden debate, even before the draft I said Portland should have gone with Durant because he was clearly the better all around player. However, I think this choice was really a difficult one because if Oden ever lives up to his potential, he could eventually be the difference maker in terms of building a championship team.

[M-DYMESParticipant]

Best player available. You need to go after talent. There are only so many allstar caliber players in the nba and their worth is far beyond that of a solid role player or even a solid starter. I think unless you are on the verge of a championship and missing one piece at a particular position, BPA is the only legit option.

[Author]

Posts