Originally Posted by disco
I mostly agree but....
1. I would pick best talent available in case I have that position crowded ONLY if I am absolutely sure I'll have a trade. Nothing sinks player's value more than sitting on the bench behind a more experienced similar player.
2. a) yes
b) I agree only if you are picking in late lottery or after. On average point guards develop to heady pointguards slower than sg's and sf's reach their potential. With short rookie contracts I prefer picking 2's or 3's and get the pg's from free agency or via trades.
1) Look at the Atlanta Hawks, had they followed this formula, Chris Paul would have made there team a borderline playoff entry.
2) Your are right when we talk about smart point guards. But looking at the following pg's that have been drafted high over the last 8 years:
-Jay Williams (was better than average before the accident)
Except for Dajuan Wagner, Jay Williams and maybe Jamal Crawford and maybe Baron Davis, who wouldn't want these guys on your team. Take any other positional player and see if you can't find more busts than successes., you won't.
My point here is that point guards are usually the safe pick, because the majority of them are more than likely not to fall out of the rotation. They handle the ball on every play, and are the floor coach, directing offense.
New Jersey got a gift with M.Williams, just like Orlando got one with Jameer Nelson last year. Jersey's draft pick has extended Kidd's career at least another 2 years.
I have to admit though, there have been late pick PGs who are devastating (Nash and Parker) come to mind, but how often do you find a diamond in the rough.
As for the Bargnani pick, unless he exceeds expectations, he is the second coming of Detlef. 12-18 ppg, 4-7 rpg, 0.5-1.5 bpg. Toronto drafted pretty safely, but proven winners such as Morrison, Roy, and Foye (my ROY pick) were available, and I thought Toronto could have done better than TJ Ford for Villanuava, I would have tried to get Shaun Livingston. The Clippers knew they were gonna lose Radmanovic, and Villanuava comparable, if not better, than Tim Thomas (who they overpaid).
As for Seattle, who knows how bad Sene will be, Yinka Dare comes to mind, and drafting size is always good, especially for the rebounding loss of Evans, and the declining play of Fortson, but Swift and Sene are thin and will get beat on rebounding efforts until they improve and get bigger. Poor Ray Allen, he needs to be on a winning team. Summer leagues mean nothing, I know the haters will arise and tell us about what a great summer league Sene had, but wait until this guy tries to match up against Ben Wallace, Rasheed Wallace, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, or <insert post player here>. It is lights out.
And as for drafting proven winners, drafting guys who have played in big time games and have been successful is always a recipe for sucess. I see Roy, Morrision and Redick (sans bad back) as bright spots for there teams, especially Redick, who at worst is the next Steve Kerr, and at best is the next Michael Redd. I'd take Kerr (Chicago version) or Redd on my team any day.
I also like what NOOCH (New Orleans/Oklahoma City Hornets) did this offseason. They drafted size, got Peja and BJax via free agency, and got Tyson Chandler (who is a year or 2 from being an all-star). There linup is young and just filthy like a Roger Clemons cut fast ball (how the hell does that pitch get guys everytime, even at 44??):
Bench: Bobby Jackson, Hilton Armstrong, Cedric Simmons
They have all the pieces to be surprise contenders (but it is not a surprise when you have two outstanding PGs to lead the charge).