Everything 2024 Draft

[TrueTorontoFan]

For your first point I'd say absolutely. They are trying to predict the draft order for this year's draft, not for how guys will turn out 2 or 5 or 10 years from now.

For your second point about Massai trading for picks there is just too many variables around how or why those picks were accumulated. A lot of it was out of his hands and may have been the best he could get in return in those trades. Or like you are insinuating maybe he really likes this draft.

he doesn't.. he tried to trade out of it he called it a bad draft in the year before.. I dont think he magically changed his mind considering they follow these guys for years. I also read at least two reports that they were trying to lose their pick but we had injuries plus we are just straight up bad.. other wise they would be trying to not play quick and rj rather than them coming back (lakers game tonight they are coming back). masai says a lot of things so its easy to lose track of all of the stuff he says.

[TrueTorontoFan]

Losing Koloko really hurts. His numbers were elite defensively, even as a rookie. Offense was the big problem, but he just needed to learn how to use the pump-fake to stop him from getting stuffed at the rim. Add in his developing 3-pt shot, and he would be the perfect modern center.

he had solid form from the jumper just needed more consistency and minutes... I think they were originalyl hoping he would have played this year... it definitely did hurt because he was long term the correct center. Olynk would have been someone I chased either way but I dont see him as a center I see him as a 4/5 back up. emphasis on the 4.

[TrueTorontoFan]

Having two days for the two rounds can be very interesting for the Raptors who own potentially the first pick in that second round:

https://www.espn.com/nba/insider/sto...t-second-round



Let's see if we can create a bidding war for that pick. Or have a full day to consider who we want for that pick before selecting it after re-examining our white board.

also buys more time to make the bruce brown decision. and find a trade.

[Kagemusha]

Front office mis-information is definitely a thing. Except that the mocks and actual NBA draft positions tend be relatively close.

Just use the simple example of 2018: Mocks had Bagley over Luka. That had to be mis-direction, right? Because what NBA front office could actually do professional basketball talent evaluation and have Bagley even within 3-4 tiers of Luka? And Ayton to a lesser degree. Kings & Suns followed the mocks.

Here's the consensus mock from NBA.com, based on a wide range of sources:

https://www.nba.com/news/2018-consensus-mock-draft

Not just that, Hawks basically gave Luka to the the Mavs.
And now they might be looking to trade away Trae.

2018 draft was loaded, fair to say it's pretty easy to mock that one.

[Kagemusha]

he had solid form from the jumper just needed more consistency and minutes... I think they were originalyl hoping he would have played this year... it definitely did hurt because he was long term the correct center. Olynk would have been someone I chased either way but I dont see him as a center I see him as a 4/5 back up. emphasis on the 4.

Losing Koloko still hurts.
I hope the basketball gods gift us with a solid one for this messy season.
I agree on Olynyk, he is a 4. A poor man's Markannen.

[LJ2]

he doesn't.. he tried to trade out of it he called it a bad draft in the year before.. I dont think he magically changed his mind considering they follow these guys for years. I also read at least two reports that they were trying to lose their pick but we had injuries plus we are just straight up bad.. other wise they would be trying to not play quick and rj rather than them coming back (lakers game tonight they are coming back). masai says a lot of things so its easy to lose track of all of the stuff he says.

Well there's the whole conversation about misinformation being had. Massai isn't above saying he doesn't like this draft so he can play down some player(s) he likes.

[Primer]

No their expertise is fine.. they are doing the best they can with the information they have. But to insinuate its the worst draft of all time without seeing what happens 5 years later with the players that get drafted is what is dumb.

What use would it be to anyone for the top draft analysts to be telling us how good drafts were 5 years ago? None. Useless.

They look at all draft classes before the draft, and they have never seen one this bad before the draft. This is not hard to understand I feel like people are being purposefully obtuse.

So you use their expertise because that's the best and most logical thing you can do to try and ensure you pick the best players.

[Primer]

I'm not talking about nailing every single player projection. It's simple stuff, like consensus mocks universally ranking Marvin Bagley ahead of Luka Doncic. And the example I showed you for the 2014 "generational draft" starring Jabari Parker and 5 duds out of the top 10 picks. And then there's Jokic. These are just a few examples of egregrious group think by the experts, and seriously franchise altering evaluations.

But even your 2006 example of a crap draft had 5 all-stars, including: Rondo (#21), Millsap (#47!) and the GROAT/future HoFer, Kyle Lowry (#24). So yet again, the experts predicted another draft wrong.

It seems more like the outlier is the experts actually getting it right, so logic would dictate that you shouldn't listen to the experts.

So in your opinion how should teams approach the draft? Draw names out of hats?

Your argument is still they aren't perfect so we shouldn't use any of their analysis.

Since you're so firm on this stance I think you should outline how teams should go about deciding who to pick and where in a draft.

[Primer]

If they are only looking at the draft from the perspective of the here and now, and comparing that to previous draft classes, before they became NBA players, then that's fine. But I'm not sure they are doing that. And ultimately its a super hot take anyway.

Besides our own president and GM traded for multiple picks in this weakest draft of all time. So what does that say? Could our guys see something that those experts don't? As our guys are some of the best in the business when it comes to drafting players.

The bold is exactly what they're doing!

Like holy crap man, how do you not get this.

Our GM also immediately traded one of our 2024 picks for a lotto pick from 2 drafts prior. They know this draft is weak and made moves to have less picks in it.

[golden]

What use would it be to anyone for the top draft analysts to be telling us how good drafts were 5 years ago? None. Useless.

They look at all draft classes before the draft, and they have never seen one this bad before the draft. This is not hard to understand I feel like people are being purposefully obtuse.

So you use their expertise because that's the best and most logical thing you can do to try and ensure you pick the best players.

I think you're being obtuse here. Your assumption is that the experts are right, so you can't even parse the discussion from the correct opposite lens: that they are mostly wrong. If the experts (both NBA pros and media) are wrong, then yeah, the information is pretty useless. And the logical thing to do would be: use it for entertainment purposes only and take it with a huge pillar of salt.

So the reality is that draft success comes down to the talent/fit evaluation secret sauce of individual front offices vs. each other... and we don't have access to that info.

[A.I]

So in your opinion how should teams approach the draft? Draw names out of hats?

Your argument is still they aren't perfect so we shouldn't use any of their analysis.

Since you're so firm on this stance I think you should outline how teams should go about deciding who to pick and where in a draft.

Teams have their own scouts and make their own decisions. You can follow draft experts and also hold onto the notion that its their opinion and not always accurate.

[Primer]

Who even labelled those guys draft 'experts'? LOL
Teams don't draft based on those 'experts' opinions anyway.
They have their talent evaluators and scouts that monitor these players from high school to college,
and even then they also have to factor in individual workouts and interviews.

These 'experts' opinions are just for us, ie public consumption.

Except many of these experts mock drafts no longer exist because they got hired by NBA teams to be their personal scouts. Clearly some are very good at what they do to the point nba teams are paying them so only they have their advice.

[Primer]

Teams have their own scouts and make their own decisions. You can follow draft experts and also hold onto the notion that its their opinion and not always accurate.

I've been saying over and over and over again they are not 100% right. They provide analysis that helps you make the best pick possible with the information you have. Again this is not hard to understand at all.

We know that the good mock draft experts are pretty in line with team scouts because the mock drafts end up being pretty accurate of where players get selected.

[golden]

Except many of these experts mock drafts no longer exist because they got hired by NBA teams to be their personal scouts. Clearly some are very good at what they do to the point nba teams are paying them so only they have their advice.

Speaking of mock draft experts: the Blazers hired Mike Schmitz from DraftExpress.... the OG of draft blogs. And they promptly went out and drafted Scoot Henderson who you view as a potential all-time draft bust.

Hiring the draft bloggers seems more like a clear admission by the NBA front office draft professionals that: "welp, we don't know what the hell we're doing either, so might as well hire some guys off the internet!". And hiring those guys is yielding the same results.

Again, meteorologists were getting paid for predicting the weather inaccurately decades ago. Like PM said... they were doing the best they could with the information they had. Throwing more money at this problem doesn't seem to be guaranteeing more success.

[Joey]

I mean, the number of "hits" in any given draft, is far lower than the number of "misses". I think we can all agree on that. Scouts are usually wrong.

But I also agree that you don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. 1st round flounders can be mitigated with real due diligence. But like I said before, once you get to the 2nd round, you literally might as well throw a dart.