Would you even consider team need going into a draft or just take the best player?

[Kblaze8855]

In the most famous example the Blazers pass on Jordan because they were loaded on the wing.

They had one 26 year old 2 guard who was their captian. John Paxsons much better older brother who was something like the Rip Hamilon of his time.


https://thumbs.gfycat.com/NarrowIncompatibleEnglishsetter-size_restricted.gif




https://thumbs.gfycat.com/MemorablePlushAustraliankestrel-size_restricted.gif




Hes really most of the reason they didnt take Jordan. He was in his prime...and all NBA second team that year. And they traded for Kiki a week before the draft. Kiki was also in his prime(25) and coming off a 29ppg season. And of course...they had rookie Drexler coming off the bench behind Paxson. So we can maybe take it easy on them not taking Jordan. A 26 year old all NBA guy at the 2.....a 29ppg 25 year old at the 3....a future star off the bench behind them. Ive lond said they didnt need a center either with Klay Thompsons dad doing like 18/9 that next year but whatever....they for SURE didnt need a 2 guard.


But hindsight makes it easy to say....always take the most talented guy. But they were all in on completing the front court. Which is why Jordan wasnt their backup pick either. If they didnt take Bowie they were gonna take Barkley...according to a number of people working there.

They believed they were set at the 2 and the 3....because they were. But still....

On one hand you dont wanna be the Timberwolves who draft Flynn and Rubio(even ignoring that Curry was an option). But you dont wanna be the one who tries to fill out his roster at the cost of not drafting a phenom either.

So I ask you...

Whoever it is you have as your #1 prospect in this draft....Zion...RJ..whoever it is....

Would you even consider who is already on the team?

You kinda...have to....but you could end up looking like a moron.

People get put in tough spots. Like the new coach of the Cardinals. He said he would draft his college QB Kyler #1 in the draft if he could...well now hes the coach of the team with #1 pick in the draft.....and his heisman winning QB is coming out this year.

But...his team just drafted a QB last year.

Bet he didnt see that coming....

[eliteballer]

You take the best talent and figure it out later...like trading them for a Kings ransom like the Magic did with Webber.

[Ben Simmons 25]

The answer isn’t either or.

If you are loaded at the center position and in desperate need of a point guard and you view two players coming out, one a center and one a point, as a coin flip as to who ends up better but maybe you think the center is 5% better or something very close then you go with the point.

If you have the choice between a center you think will be significantly better and a point, you take the center.

There isn’t a cookie cutter answer and anyone who thinks such a thing exists is probably brain dead.

[Loco 50]

Depends on the talent disparity among the top picks and how confident you are that the potential redundant talent and your current star can get along.

Spurs did it and got away with it with Duncan and DRob. I can remember some talking heads trying to convince folks that Van Horn was an option for the Spurs since they already had an established post. Fortunately it worked out personality wise, but I don't think most franchises would be so lucky.

If I know my top star has a fragile ego, I either go with the next in line talent- wise at a needed position to avoid friction, or if the draftee is practically a guaranteed star then I line up a trade for one or the other before draft night. Gotta try to get your work done early before teams smell what's going on and try to low ball you.

[Kblaze8855]

No doubt there is no one way. Im just wondering which way individuals lean.

You could go for need and miss out on Jordan or go for talent and ruin your franchise like the Hawks.

Remember 05?

They had drafted Diaw, Childress, and Josh Smith with their previous 3 first rounders. Al Harrington is their first option at the time. Tyronn Lue and the last 45 minutes of Kenny Anderson are their point guards.


Chris Paul and Deron Williams are on the board after Bogut goes #1.

They draft Marvin Williams. They draft a tweener forward #2 when they have Smith, Diaw, Childress, and Harrington....instead of two point guards we all thought would be stars.

Maybe they didnt wanna get mocked in retrospect like Portland....but gotdamn.

You needed a 5th tweener over a point guard with Tyronn Lue running your team?

[Xiao Yao You]

Jazz need a 4. I'd be looking to trade up or trade down if that's not an option where they are drafting

[coin24]

You take the best player regardless.

[Smoke117]

Depends on the talent disparity among the top picks and how confident you are that the potential redundant talent and your current star can get along.

Spurs did it and got away with it with Duncan and DRob. I can remember some talking heads trying to convince folks that Van Horn was an option for the Spurs since they already had an established post. Fortunately it worked out personality wise, but I don't think most franchises would be so lucky.

If I know my top star has a fragile ego, I either go with the next in line talent- wise at a needed position to avoid friction, or if the draftee is practically a guaranteed star then I line up a trade for one or the other before draft night. Gotta try to get your work done early before teams smell what's going on and try to low ball you.

That wasn't really an issue when Robinson was 32 coming into the 98 season and clearly on the downside of his prime and on his way out in a few years. If he was still 28 or something you might still have a point, but alas, no.

As far as OP's question goes, to me you always take the best player available.

[Loco 50]

That wasn't really an issue when Robinson was 32 coming into the 98 season and clearly on the downside of his prime and on his way out in a few years. If he was still 28 or something you might still have a point, but alas, no.

As far as OP's question goes, to me you always take the best player available.
Hindsight gives clarity that wasn't there at the time. It was unknown how well Robinson would recover from his injuries and he ended up playing 5 more years. That's an eternity to ask any young guy to come in and wait patiently for the headlining role. It worked out that

A.)Duncan didn't care about headlining
B.)Robinson was indeed on the decline as you said.

Further complicating things was that DRob essentially saved the franchise from moving to New Orleans, OkC, or Vegas. No way could the franchise risk alienating him because the city would have turned on the Spurs quickly. Quickly. Loyalty to the players is really strong here and this was a guy that could have left for the Lakers numerous times. That's why the burn that you see after the Kawhi fallout is still going on with some fans.

[Smoke117]

Hindsight gives clarity that wasn't there at the time. It was unknown how well Robinson would recover from his injuries and he ended up playing 5 more years. That's an eternity to ask any young guy to come in and wait patiently for the headlining role. It worked out that

A.)Duncan didn't care about headlining
B.)Robinson was indeed on the decline as you said.

Further complicating things was that DRob essentially saved the franchise from moving to New Orleans, OkC, or Vegas. No way could the franchise risk alienating him because the city would have turned on the Spurs quickly. Quickly. Loyalty to the players is really strong here and this was a guy that could have left for the Lakers numerous times. That's why the burn that you see after the Kawhi fallout is still going on with some fans.

The Spurs basically lucked out when Big Dave got injured. It worked out great for them as they would have kept winning under Robinson as he was a dominant as any player EVER in the regular season. His absence really showed that when they went from 59 wins to 20. If he had been perfectly healthy they would of for sure won 50+ again in 97. The championship window was closed, though, so they would have just been tread-milling it until Robinson really started falling off around 2000. The spurs are run great, but a big part of their success over the last 20 years was lucking out with Robinson's injury.

[Loco 50]

The Spurs basically lucked out when Big Dave got injured. It worked out great for them as they would have kept winning under Robinson as he was a dominant as any player EVER in the regular season. His absence really showed that when they went from 59 wins to 20. If he had been perfectly healthy they would of for sure won 50+ again in 97. The championship window was closed, though, so they would have just been tread-milling it until Robinson really started falling off around 2000. The spurs are run great, but a big part of their success over the last 20 years was lucking out with Robinson's injury.
No disagreement. You know your Spurs history. The "worst" event in franchise history ended up being the best. Lot of crazy luck involved.

[baudkarma]

Obviously if the Blazers had known that Jordan was going to become Jordan, they would have drafted him. If he had clearly been the most talented player left after the Rockets took Akeem, they probably would have taken him. But many people thought Jordan dominated through his competitiveness rather than raw talent, and there were questions about Jordans personality and some whispers about off-the-court issues. When the '84 season was winding down it became apparent that the pick the Mavs had obtained in a trade with Cleveland was going to be either the third or fourth pick. There were a lot of "experts" here in Dallas who felt that the pick should be used on Sam Perkins regardless. Perkins was viewed as a more complete player, and a good citizen who had stayed in college for four years instead of coming out early... just the kind of guy the Mavs liked to have on their roster back then.

[Kblaze8855]

Looking at mock drafts and who have the worst records now this is gonna be an issue again. 2 of the top 3 prospects are guards with the Warriors and Cavs having the best odds. Steph/Klay and Sexton/Garland....you drafting a combo guard on either of those teams?

[iamgine]

Nobody thought Jordan was gonna be GOAT caliber. Look at it this way. Portland chose all star Jim Paxson and Drexler over Jordan. If Jordan didn't become that good, Drexler would've been the GOAT SG at the time (Jerry West was a PG). So I can't say Portland did anything wrong by not picking Jordan. They had the GOAT SG. I'd made that gamble every single time.

[brooks_thompson]

Looking at mock drafts and who have the worst records now this is gonna be an issue again. 2 of the top 3 prospects are guards with the Warriors and Cavs having the best odds. Steph/Klay and Sexton/Garland....you drafting a combo guard on either of those teams?

If I'm the Cavs, would totally draft another guard and ship Sexton out. Or Garland. If I'm the Warriors, there's room for a 3 guard rotation with everybody getting 32 minutes. So, yes.

[Miles and Miles]

I think draft position should have something to do with it. If you are drafting in the top 10 and it's a good draft then you take the best player, some drafts that's the top 5. But if for example you are drafting in late first round or second round you should probably be thinking about what your needs are and fit.