WaltLongmire wrote:BRIGGS wrote:You need to take the bpa regardless of position and regardless of age. The player the Knicks scouting staff believes is the best long term player. OR if they find a multi faceted asset trade down that made tremendous sense-- either or. You can't say we won't take a 19 year old pg what if it's determined that this player is bpa. This pick is worth more than a 3 year timeframe melo might have. This is for the next wave
The differences between/among some of the players in this draft are minimal, IMO- and who is to say how any particular team ranks players on their draft board.
As some have pointed out, at one time it was easier to evaluate a player because they had a track record during their 4 years of college. Now you are trying to predict how kids who are one year out of HS will perform in the NBA.
Who is to say that Kaminsky might not be a more productive player than Towns or OK4? Does anyone really know whether Mudiay is better than Russell, or vice versa? How long will it take the two Euros to develop (and what will they develop into), and do you take that into consideration when you are drafting them? Can either Winslow or Russell eventually be the best player to come out of this draft, as some have said- and if one is, how much better will he really be than Towns or OK4?
This player evaluation process ain't science, folks. 30 teams (including the Knicks) passed on the 22 year old/4 year player at a good BB program, Langston Galloway, who is now poised to be a second team All-NBA rookie.
Its not a crapshoot- more like a pseudo-science.
Thabeet and Beasley were the 2nd picks in their respective drafts. Wesley Johnson, Epke Udoh and Flynn were picked in the top 6, Derrick Williams was a #2 pick, and OJ Mayo was a #3. Jan Vesely and Bismack Biyombo were chosen ahead of Klay Thompson.
Yup, it sure is easy to pick the BPA when its your time on the clock.
Yes, I think the analysis of draft picks is slightly skewed -- with a bias toward projects and stashes.
A draft pick earns a team a 2 year contract, an option for a 3rd, an option for a 4th and then a right of first refusal on the next contract in the fifth year based upon a qualifying offer.
Any draft pick that is a max player by the end of the fourth year creates additional value in the right of first refusal/extension -- or at least the 5th year by acceptance of the QO which makes it a winning draft pick.
Any draft pick that is not a max player is only worth valuating during the first 4 years because the 5th year will be set at the fair market value of the player (i.e. no net benefit based on the rookie contract) and anyone can overpay for your player.
Basically, to draft a project over an established player, you must believe that they will be a max player by the end of year 4. Otherwise, you risk losing them to another team willing to overpay based on future upside. At the end of year 4, as an RFA, a team should match the offer if it appears to have long term value or reject the offer if it overpays -- and make a decision if it is cost neutral by virtue of the balance of the team. So, unless your draft pick projects as a max player by the end of year 4, you should instead take the best player now to maximize the value of the rookie scale contract in the first 4 years. By this analysis, the Thabeet, Biyambo and most other height not talent based picks are flawed, unless they can be stashed overseas.
Guys like Ok4, Stein and Kaminsky will have tremendous value in their rookie contracts. Of these three, I would only project OK4 to be a max contract by the end of year 4 - but they all have potential. Towns, is not as ready as the above 3 today, but I think will have much higher upside in year 4 than any of the above. Some might argue by defense and FT shooting that Towns is better than OK4 now though -- either way, he is not 4 years off. I think he just projects higher later. I do not expect Stein to ever be a max player. Russell, Mudiay, Winslow, Herzonga, Porzingis all have potential to be max players by year 4, I am less convinced they each will be than OK4 or Towns. Not all of them will be.
I'm not saying we should not draft the player with the highest potential -- all I am saying is that once you get past the player that project as sure thing max players at year 4, teams should filter into two categories -- best player now vs projects/stashes - but more accurately based on need.
Here's the thing. In 2016 the salary cap will jump. Meaning the valuation on the rookie max contract (calculated at 25% of the then cap) will shoot up as well. What this means to me is that there will be a lot more room for contract pricing between good players and max players (a player worth $15MM today may not be a 'max' player after 2016, where the rookie max contract projects to be over 20mm.
That puts a lot of players into the category of the 'not max' players, meaning that the comparison between them should be based on only the first 4 years of action - with some discounted valuation for their probability of becoming a max player. I think this means the value of more ready players should increase in this draft and many 'projects' should be passed over because teams will likely NOT be able to reap the benefit of their development UNLESS, they are stashed overseas.
I don't think this means ANYTHING for the Knicks in this draft. I think this analysis really only kicks in after the to 7 or 8. Stein should go higher this year than he would have in prior years, but unlike Briggs, I don't think he goes as high as the Knicks will draft (Top 5)
4/17/2015 1:31 AM
