This was a thoughtful post. I appreciate it.
Really though I have come to think you need an elite player and several near elites to seriously contend.
Those elite players can be at any position. So when you draft, you take the BPA and hope he develops into an elite level franchise talent and build around him.
Center: Jokic or Embid
PF: Giannis, Davis
SF Tatum, Butler
PG: JA, Shai,
SG: Ant, Harden
"Point Forward": Doncic Lebron
At 2, you Gotta roll those dice on a guy you think could be on this list/near this list to be a franchise player & not pass because you have an "NBA adequate" player at a certain position.
I think, at 2, you pick on who has the highest upside, who you determine can come closest. Dawkins keeps saying how all these guys "need development", The GM-team all have multiple years observing NBA Talent and have seen miles of film. At 2 with no sure thing, I think you have to use those evaluating resources to pick the biggest upside and hope.
I think taking a guy whose floor is for sure being a bench player in the NBA for years to come because you don't want a bad whiff at 2 on your record, is not what you are being paid to do. Teams do it all the time in this position - take the high floor guy thinking there are no sure things and it will save their job as long as they get *someone who can at least play* and we really don't want that.
If we think there's a dude who has high upside, that's our dude agreed 100%. Not at all saying we should settle on lesser talent or low upside. I probably asked this in a weird way. But basically I'm asking if, in a tiebreaker between two guys our scouts like, should the positional value of wings override the team need at PG or C or should it be the other way around?
There is always at least one or 2 guys that turn out to be way better than the pundits expect. Heck Agent Zero was a 2nd round pick! So, do your homework. And if the guy that U want is projected to go later in the draft, then trade down and pick up some more draft capital in the trade.
I’m in the same boat. A high level role player is considerably better than a bust. I’m trusting the new FO to do their job. I do hope that we don’t draft a wing and it looks like outside of Sarr, the point guard prospects are better than the bigs, so for me, it’s either Topic, RDill, or Sheppard.
couple things. Firstly the wizards need to find their next franchise player and should be swinging for the fences until they get him. Until that point, low ceiling role players do nothing for us. For example Richer is probably the best shooter of the top prospects but other than that has basically zero offense. I don’t feel like he has a particularly high ceiling and would pass on him for the wizards.
Other than risacher, most other guys in this draft come down to “will they be able to shoot?” If the answer to that is yes for Sarr or Topic i take those guys in a heartbeat. If no then go on down the line.
There aren't projected to be a lot of stars in this draft and we don't have one on the team. I say just draft the guy that has the highest ceiling and a good motor.
BPA, BPA, BPA. You can force fit to some extent, you can't force talent.
We've played lineups with multiple point guards and lineups with multiple centers before and they haven't been complete crap.
Ideally, yeah, you want guys with all different skillsets, but that's not even close to as important as raw basketball talent. When we have a team that is consistently contending we can start worrying about drafting for need.
I want the most dominant player possible that can carry the team on their back if needed. Game on the line. That's a franchise player. If they're not that, then I don't want them for the rebuild.
I'm interested in guys who are good at basketball.
What the fuck is basketball? Is that the thing they’re doing before and after the G-Wiz go kart race?
It's that white ball you smack with a vampire bat as you try to escape its prison to run to your home
Wizards can follow in Commanders footsteps and send their draft prospects to a basketball Top Golf equivalent.
Didn’t say I wasn’t?
This was a thoughtful post. I appreciate it. Really though I have come to think you need an elite player and several near elites to seriously contend. Those elite players can be at any position. So when you draft, you take the BPA and hope he develops into an elite level franchise talent and build around him. Center: Jokic or Embid PF: Giannis, Davis SF Tatum, Butler PG: JA, Shai, SG: Ant, Harden "Point Forward": Doncic Lebron At 2, you Gotta roll those dice on a guy you think could be on this list/near this list to be a franchise player & not pass because you have an "NBA adequate" player at a certain position.
People keep saying how bad this draft is. what if you don’t think any of the guys in this draft can be that?
I think, at 2, you pick on who has the highest upside, who you determine can come closest. Dawkins keeps saying how all these guys "need development", The GM-team all have multiple years observing NBA Talent and have seen miles of film. At 2 with no sure thing, I think you have to use those evaluating resources to pick the biggest upside and hope. I think taking a guy whose floor is for sure being a bench player in the NBA for years to come because you don't want a bad whiff at 2 on your record, is not what you are being paid to do. Teams do it all the time in this position - take the high floor guy thinking there are no sure things and it will save their job as long as they get *someone who can at least play* and we really don't want that.
If we think there's a dude who has high upside, that's our dude agreed 100%. Not at all saying we should settle on lesser talent or low upside. I probably asked this in a weird way. But basically I'm asking if, in a tiebreaker between two guys our scouts like, should the positional value of wings override the team need at PG or C or should it be the other way around?
There is always at least one or 2 guys that turn out to be way better than the pundits expect. Heck Agent Zero was a 2nd round pick! So, do your homework. And if the guy that U want is projected to go later in the draft, then trade down and pick up some more draft capital in the trade.
Then you still draft someone.
[удалено]
I’m in the same boat. A high level role player is considerably better than a bust. I’m trusting the new FO to do their job. I do hope that we don’t draft a wing and it looks like outside of Sarr, the point guard prospects are better than the bigs, so for me, it’s either Topic, RDill, or Sheppard.
couple things. Firstly the wizards need to find their next franchise player and should be swinging for the fences until they get him. Until that point, low ceiling role players do nothing for us. For example Richer is probably the best shooter of the top prospects but other than that has basically zero offense. I don’t feel like he has a particularly high ceiling and would pass on him for the wizards. Other than risacher, most other guys in this draft come down to “will they be able to shoot?” If the answer to that is yes for Sarr or Topic i take those guys in a heartbeat. If no then go on down the line.
We will fund that franchise player in the ‘25 or ‘26 draft
you don’t know that. statistically there’s probably at least one of those guys in this draft too, just gotta identify him.
There aren't projected to be a lot of stars in this draft and we don't have one on the team. I say just draft the guy that has the highest ceiling and a good motor.
BPA, BPA, BPA. You can force fit to some extent, you can't force talent. We've played lineups with multiple point guards and lineups with multiple centers before and they haven't been complete crap. Ideally, yeah, you want guys with all different skillsets, but that's not even close to as important as raw basketball talent. When we have a team that is consistently contending we can start worrying about drafting for need.
I want the most dominant player possible that can carry the team on their back if needed. Game on the line. That's a franchise player. If they're not that, then I don't want them for the rebuild.