blkexec wrote:Whats interesting is Perry was rumored to trading the pick and selecting Culver from texas. Living in Texas, I watch him play and thought he has real potential, that wasn't clear in college. Then looking at a site that compared RJ to Culver, the data says Culver is projected to be a better NBA player.

I'm wondering since Perry is better at finding gems, trading 1st round picks for multiple lower picks might be better for us. The summer league highlighted lots of players in the teens and 20's of the draft, that was killing. Then you have undrafted players like Taco Falls....2nd round players like Bol Bol.

I think this is the general trend - to get more picks as opposed to trying to get a star with a single high draft pick (for everyone lebron james there's a deandre ayton and andrew bennet). The draft is so hard that I think you're better off with multiple picks and actually seeing if they pan out in real games. It's a much less risky and surefire approach.

RJ Barrett looks promising but I really don't like high usage players not named Lebron James. If you look at how the top teams win games, they have balance in usage across all their players. RJ's game is a high usage game and to me, that's a dead end if you want to win in the post-season. Hopefully he can work on his court vision and shooting.

knickstorrents wrote:

blkexec wrote:Whats interesting is Perry was rumored to trading the pick and selecting Culver from texas. Living in Texas, I watch him play and thought he has real potential, that wasn't clear in college. Then looking at a site that compared RJ to Culver, the data says Culver is projected to be a better NBA player.

I'm wondering since Perry is better at finding gems, trading 1st round picks for multiple lower picks might be better for us. The summer league highlighted lots of players in the teens and 20's of the draft, that was killing. Then you have undrafted players like Taco Falls....2nd round players like Bol Bol.

I think this is the general trend - to get more picks as opposed to trying to get a star with a single high draft pick (for everyone lebron james there's a deandre ayton and andrew bennet). The draft is so hard that I think you're better off with multiple picks and actually seeing if they pan out in real games. It's a much less risky and surefire approach.

RJ Barrett looks promising but I really don't like high usage players not named Lebron James. If you look at how the top teams win games, they have balance in usage across all their players. RJ's game is a high usage game and to me, that's a dead end if you want to win in the post-season. Hopefully he can work on his court vision and shooting.

Adding picks in terms of having more picks ON TOP OF your "natural pick" is a good thing. I.E. the Knicks keep their natural first round pick and acquire a few more in trade on top of that, that's a solid move

Adding picks by "Splitting Your Pick", what blkexec is talking about is basically resource management suicide. That means the Knicks doing something insane like trading the 3rd overall for a bunch of lower picks or future lower picks.

When people talk about 2nd rounders or late firsts who broke out, they don't mention the raw odds against you. To get a Draymond Green, how many 2nd rounders flamed out in total otherwise?

In the NBA, a single player can impact play after play after play. It's not like MLB where Mike Trout can only bat so many times a game. Prime Roger Clemens could only kill your team every fifth day. So you want to roll the dice on players with the highest possible rate of return for you given their draft slot. The farther down you go in the draft, the worse your odds are in terms of hitting on a pick and a useful player.

You are better off with more picks in addition to your natural pick, you are not better off trying to split the pick, which is why you rarely see that kind of trade in the NBA.

You can also only assimilate so many rookies on your roster in any given year.

knickstorrents wrote:

blkexec wrote:Whats interesting is Perry was rumored to trading the pick and selecting Culver from texas. Living in Texas, I watch him play and thought he has real potential, that wasn't clear in college. Then looking at a site that compared RJ to Culver, the data says Culver is projected to be a better NBA player.

I'm wondering since Perry is better at finding gems, trading 1st round picks for multiple lower picks might be better for us. The summer league highlighted lots of players in the teens and 20's of the draft, that was killing. Then you have undrafted players like Taco Falls....2nd round players like Bol Bol.

I think this is the general trend - to get more picks as opposed to trying to get a star with a single high draft pick (for everyone lebron james there's a deandre ayton and andrew bennet). The draft is so hard that I think you're better off with multiple picks and actually seeing if they pan out in real games. It's a much less risky and surefire approach.

RJ Barrett looks promising but I really don't like high usage players not named Lebron James. If you look at how the top teams win games, they have balance in usage across all their players. RJ's game is a high usage game and to me, that's a dead end if you want to win in the post-season. Hopefully he can work on his court vision and shooting.

you are correct. the NE Patriots do this every draft. They trade back into future drafts if it gets them more pick. Mike Lombardi laid out the Pats' strategy, then other articles kinda expanded on it. I want the Knicks to rip this off:

1. "He's always about building a team. He's not trying to collect talent."
2. "Bill is all about not falling in love with a player. Bill is looking at value."
3. "The draft room will be very small."
4. Belichick only wants to coach players he likes.

NBA is a little different, you need star power. But when you can't get a star you should be trying to collect picks. Get deeper. Have talent on cheap contracts. This will make it easier to sign or trade for a star. And when you trade for one its not such a big deal because you have more picks coming up

SupremeCommander wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

blkexec wrote:Whats interesting is Perry was rumored to trading the pick and selecting Culver from texas. Living in Texas, I watch him play and thought he has real potential, that wasn't clear in college. Then looking at a site that compared RJ to Culver, the data says Culver is projected to be a better NBA player.

I'm wondering since Perry is better at finding gems, trading 1st round picks for multiple lower picks might be better for us. The summer league highlighted lots of players in the teens and 20's of the draft, that was killing. Then you have undrafted players like Taco Falls....2nd round players like Bol Bol.

I think this is the general trend - to get more picks as opposed to trying to get a star with a single high draft pick (for everyone lebron james there's a deandre ayton and andrew bennet). The draft is so hard that I think you're better off with multiple picks and actually seeing if they pan out in real games. It's a much less risky and surefire approach.

RJ Barrett looks promising but I really don't like high usage players not named Lebron James. If you look at how the top teams win games, they have balance in usage across all their players. RJ's game is a high usage game and to me, that's a dead end if you want to win in the post-season. Hopefully he can work on his court vision and shooting.

you are correct. the NE Patriots do this every draft. They trade back into future drafts if it gets them more pick. Mike Lombardi laid out the Pats' strategy, then other articles kinda expanded on it. I want the Knicks to rip this off:

1. "He's always about building a team. He's not trying to collect talent."
2. "Bill is all about not falling in love with a player. Bill is looking at value."
3. "The draft room will be very small."
4. Belichick only wants to coach players he likes.

NBA is a little different, you need star power. But when you can't get a star you should be trying to collect picks. Get deeper. Have talent on cheap contracts. This will make it easier to sign or trade for a star. And when you trade for one its not such a big deal because you have more picks coming up

Can this equate to the NBA?

One thing that does translate is the notion of value, and having some sense that what your "system" is buying is currently cheap on the market. Bill Belicheck is a bit of a contrarian (not a follower). When the rest of the league was investing big money and "star" DE or "star" Left tackles to stop the star DEs, he decided to build an offense relying on depth and quick releases (having Tom helps with that). As a result he saved tons of money that he could deploy on quality elsewhere. Similarly, since he didn't need to invest tons of money on pass protection, he could focus on building lines with better run blocking (which was relatively cheap compared to the star pass protection guys).

In the NBA we see many good teams follow a similar approach. Toronto has been and continues to invest in defense. They see a better return on their dollar, a better ability to draft in their slots etc. Houston in recent years seems crazy at first glance, but the Westbrook move might be genius -- allowing them to play their style of ball a full 48minutes (as good as Harden is he can't do what he does at a top level for 48, but he and Russell can switch roles when needed and when they're both on the floor it could be trouble). (I would agree Russell wasn't a classic "value" pick but it was very much contrarian) Houston also tried to surround Harden with defense-first guys, again something they saw value in (they didn't need to break the bank for those role guys)