PDA

View Full Version : If you have the #1 pick, do you 1) draft by biggest need or 2) best player?



JordansBulls
01-19-2011, 02:08 PM
When your team has the #1 pick in the NBA Draft, what is the best thing to do? Is it to draft by the biggest need or to draft the best player?

NOTE: In this case let's say the biggest need player is the 2nd best player in the draft but a big man, while the best player is of course the best player and could be a PG, SG or SF.


How do you decide on who to choose and who do you choose?

effen5
01-19-2011, 02:11 PM
What a dumb question, you obviously draft the best player...I can't believe you even voted for the best need because in our draft, we needed a player like Beasley but instead we chose the best player in Rose and you saw what happened.

J-Relo
01-19-2011, 02:13 PM
best = second best + picks/players

$KnicksAndKobe$
01-19-2011, 02:14 PM
Best player easily. You draft the best player, period, and build around him.

Gators123
01-19-2011, 02:17 PM
Best player.

nygiants242
01-19-2011, 02:20 PM
In the NBA? Best player hands down. Year after year it seems like there is always a unanimous #1 pick that turns out to be a superstar. Others have (very generally speaking) never been as elite.

Example pertinent to my favorite team, the Sixers. Had we gotten the #1 overall instead of #2, we certainly would not have passed on John Wall for Evan Turner, just because we had Jrue Holiday already on our roster.

_Supreme_
01-19-2011, 02:23 PM
It depends on the difference in talent between the best player and the best player available at the position of need.

ThunderZubb
01-19-2011, 02:27 PM
best player hands down

Rivera
01-19-2011, 02:28 PM
talent always

Ebbs
01-19-2011, 02:34 PM
Best player without a doubt.

See Durant, Oden (even if healthy he will never contribute close to KD)

Darko Millicic, Carmelo (imagine Detoit in the good days had they had Melo's scoring.)

thekmp211
01-19-2011, 02:36 PM
always always ALWAYS best talent...for reasons noted above. good players will find a way on the court, rafael araujo will never find a way on the court.

Khalifa21
01-19-2011, 02:37 PM
Best player... More often than not, you can then flip that player for an established player in the position you desire if you really wanna fill a need.

Klivlend
01-19-2011, 02:43 PM
Best player without a doubt.

See Durant, Oden (even if healthy he will never contribute close to KD)
Darko Millicic, Carmelo (imagine Detoit in the good days had they had Melo's scoring.)

You have no way of knowing this.

Say he developed into a 22ppg, 12rpg, 2.5bpg player. Then he would probably contribute on a similiar level.

arosen36
01-19-2011, 02:44 PM
it always depends, like say the wizards get the first pick again, they wouldnt pick kyrie irving even if hes the best player, because the second best isnt a far step down

Ebbs
01-19-2011, 03:05 PM
You have no way of knowing this.

Say he developed into a 22ppg, 12rpg, 2.5bpg player. Then he would probably contribute on a similiar level.

Trust he was never going to be anywhere on a Dwight level.

Bravo95
01-19-2011, 03:05 PM
Best player... but if he's a PG and I already have a top-tier floor general, I'm fielding offers.

nuggetsyankees
01-19-2011, 03:10 PM
best player and then you build your team around them...imagine if portland drafted KD

Sinattle
01-19-2011, 05:22 PM
Probably depends on where in the draft you are picking from. If you have a top pick yeah you definitely pick the best player, but if you have a second round pick I'd be picking for need at that point.

ATX
01-19-2011, 05:38 PM
I think it depends on who landed the #1 seed. If you were a near .500 team who just mised the playoffs and lucked out in the Lottery, you may want to go with need. That team is close to the playoffs, and may just feel they are a "Center" away from being competitive. However if a team is just putrid, you have to take best player available and try and build around him. Generally speaking though, I would go with best available.

Double_R
01-19-2011, 05:41 PM
The Blazers pick of Oden doesn't necessarily relate to this since he was considered the best player by many. A true bad a_ss center is hard to come by in the NBA, so I don't blame them for trying. The Magic took Dwight Howard over Emeka Okafor, both were same position, but one was a "could be" and the other was a "should be"; I'm sure the Magic are happy they went with he could be a superstar instead of he should be an allstar.

I think you always draft on who you think the best player is or will be.

Steelers23_06
01-19-2011, 05:49 PM
you definitely draft on talent look at portland. greg oden and bowie were both horrible choices but they thought they "NEEDED" a big.

crewfan13
01-19-2011, 05:56 PM
Depends on the talent pool in the draft too. If the best player in the draft has superstar potential, then you take him. But I will use the 2006 draft as an example. That draft really didn't have any true superstar type talent. In that case, I would strongly consider taking the second best guy if he fit a need.

Niro
01-19-2011, 06:00 PM
well i u already have cp3 and you can draft drose..you try to trade down

if you have a superstar then do that but if you only have a good, lets say top 40 then you pick the best player hands down

PhillyFaninLA
01-19-2011, 06:09 PM
It depends.

How good is the best player, is it the next Lebron James. Do you have a player worth the first pick that matches my biggest need.

If my biggest and the best player are similar in potential I go with my biggest need or trade down.

Bishnoff
01-19-2011, 06:26 PM
It depends. If you were one of the bottom teams and have lots of gaps to fill then you obviously take the best player available. If you have been rebuilding for a number of seasons or are a decent team who had a bad season due to injuries to key players then you may have cause to pick for the biggest need.

LTBaByyy
01-19-2011, 06:39 PM
Def talent!!!

You have Zach Randolph, Kaman, Marcus Camby, and Deandre Jordan and guess what?

They drafted Blake Griffin lol

Gram
01-19-2011, 06:49 PM
Need. Wait no player.

madiaz3
01-19-2011, 07:00 PM
Talent 98% of the time, but I'm thinking...

If my team has a 26 year old prime Kobe (both in athleticism and maturity), and I have to choose between drafting Jordan and Hakeem, I chose Hakeem.

Hope I'm not crucified for this post!

thekmp211
01-19-2011, 07:10 PM
Talent 98% of the time, but I'm thinking...

If my team has a 26 year old prime Kobe (both in athleticism and maturity), and I have to choose between drafting Jordan and Hakeem, I chose Hakeem.

Hope I'm not crucified for this post!

haha unfortunately 99% of the time the choices aren't both that good.

mgeise
01-19-2011, 07:10 PM
Best player in almost every case, unless the two players are fairly comparable in talent and the team has a significantly greater need at the second best player's position.

Lloyd Christmas
01-19-2011, 07:28 PM
Talent 98% of the time, but I'm thinking...

If my team has a 26 year old prime Kobe (both in athleticism and maturity), and I have to choose between drafting Jordan and Hakeem, I chose Hakeem.

Hope I'm not crucified for this post!

Agreed. If there is a C that is slightly less talented then a SG, but both project to be superstars, then I take the C. If I was Portland a few years ago I would have taken Oden over Durant 10 times out of 10. SG is a much easier position to fill then C or PF.

arosen36
01-19-2011, 07:28 PM
Talent 98% of the time, but I'm thinking...

If my team has a 26 year old prime Kobe (both in athleticism and maturity), and I have to choose between drafting Jordan and Hakeem, I chose Hakeem.

Hope I'm not crucified for this post!

what about sam bowie?

kylem4711
01-19-2011, 07:49 PM
always best player in the early rounds.

Achillez
01-19-2011, 07:51 PM
Portland has shown us time after time, you draft the best player.

madiaz3
01-19-2011, 07:56 PM
I think it really comes down to whether or not you can get more value from the player already on the team or the one you drafted.

If you're drafting a great 2 guard prospect but already have a prime Ray Allen and just need a big man, it's a matter of this:

What gets me more?
Value of Ray Allen towards need + draft pick
or
Value of draft pick traded towards need + Ray Allen

When it came to my example, I think at a certain point you have to take the need if you know you would never get the true full trade value for the franchise player you already have (The Kobes and the brons etc) even if the #1 happened to be somewhat better

rds1488
01-19-2011, 08:15 PM
best always

rds1488
01-19-2011, 08:15 PM
the question should be position of need or potential thats can be difficult to choose

John Walls Era
01-19-2011, 08:20 PM
Tough question. Depends on how good your team is. If you're a young team with some promising players, then I think you should draft position. Old team (contender) then you draft Best player available and develop him.

It totally depends, sometimes both ways work, sometimes both ways screws up.

LayZbone
01-19-2011, 08:27 PM
What a dumb question, you obviously draft the best player...I can't believe you even voted for the best need because in our draft, we needed a player like Beasley but instead we chose the best player in Rose and you saw what happened.

Exactly. I remember the hopeful optimism form Heat fans (including me) too, "The Bulls don't need Rose! they have Hinrich!" lol. Always go for the best player.

I remember in '03, the Heat wanted a big man. They really liked Bosh, who was off the board, and were seriously close to picking Kaman :speechless:. Instead, we went with Wade. And the espn announcers were like "the question is, where's this kid gonna find minutes to play with Eddie Jones on the team?". Well....we've all seen how it's worked out thus far. That stud out of Marquette turned out to be the greatest thing to ever happen to this franchise. Best Player > Position Need.

Sixerlover
01-19-2011, 09:06 PM
Never ever ever ever ever taking need over talent with the #1 pick. Even if I have Tayshaun Prince, I'm taking Melo. Even if I have Mo Williams I'm taking Chris Paul / Deron Williams. Even if I have Clyde Drexler I'm taking Jordan etc etc etc

Talent will outweigh need 10 / 10 times. The problem is inaccurately judging the "talent". Teams like Atlanta could have honestly believed that Marvin Williams would pan out to be the best out of him / Paul / Williams. Portland genuinely thought Oden was better than Durant. Things like that aren't as bad because they went for the talent, just missed.

koreancabbage
01-19-2011, 09:10 PM
this is beating a dead cow now i'm pretty sure PSD has gone through this one-sided argument already. take the best player available, accumulate the best assets available.

MiamiWadeCounty
01-19-2011, 09:26 PM
It really depends on the situation. If you have Chris Paul as your point guard you aren't going to take John Wall with the number one pick. If you have an above average point guard or aging one than you go with the best player even if it is the same position. However, if the player has the potential to be the best player at his position within say 3 years like Lebron James and Dwight Howard did and Blake Griffin will soon become, then you go with the best player even if you already have another great guy at the same position.

JordansBulls
01-19-2011, 09:31 PM
what about sam bowie?
He was drafted #2, not #1.

el_primo_nano
01-19-2011, 09:42 PM
Remember when the Pistons had the number 2 pick overall in the Lebron draft? And they went for Darko, because they needed a big man... Bet you they wish they could have that pick back and gotten Wade, Melo or Bosh

JordansBulls
01-20-2011, 08:58 PM
Never ever ever ever ever taking need over talent with the #1 pick. Even if I have Tayshaun Prince, I'm taking Melo. Even if I have Mo Williams I'm taking Chris Paul / Deron Williams. Even if I have Clyde Drexler I'm taking Jordan etc etc etc

Talent will outweigh need 10 / 10 times. The problem is inaccurately judging the "talent". Teams like Atlanta could have honestly believed that Marvin Williams would pan out to be the best out of him / Paul / Williams. Portland genuinely thought Oden was better than Durant. Things like that aren't as bad because they went for the talent, just missed.

Then do you trade the original guy that you have or play both to see who is better? Kinda like the Kobe/Eddie Jones in LA?

blastmasta26
01-20-2011, 09:12 PM
you definitely draft on talent look at portland. greg oden and bowie were both horrible choices but they thought they "NEEDED" a big.
Oden was not a horrible choice in any way. Most considered him the best player and I don't think anyone anticipated his injury troubles. And Bowie was a #2 pick.

Hawkeye15
01-20-2011, 09:14 PM
always always ALWAYS best talent...for reasons noted above

this, and furthermore, in 99% of cases, whomever has the 1st pick has a TON of needs, so starting by taking the best talent is the right step.

Its why I can't STAND IT when some posters criticize high pick lottery teams of taking player A, when they already have 2 players at that position. Um, if those 2 are so damn good, why does that team have the #4 pick?

DwayneMVPwade
01-20-2011, 09:18 PM
Best player.

MTar786
01-20-2011, 09:20 PM
lol you made this very easy because you gave positions AND absolutes as to who is the best and second best. knowing the second best is a Center and a need and the best is just the best and is a pg.
If my team is complete garbage and i dont have a star the i gotta draft the best player. but then that would mean i have a need at every position. drafting the C as a need would mean i dont have a great center but i probably have a great all star guard or else i would need one too and that would make the best player my need as well.

so here it is.
trade my first pick to the team with the 2nd pick and his best PG

now i have the 2nd best player in the draft, the other teams best pg and my superstar SG (the same guard who made the 1st pick in the draft a non-need player for me)

that should give me a great team right off the bat.. now i just build off those 3 guys
btw this gives me a great player at the MOST IMPORTANT position which is a C
I have an amazing pg from the other team which is the second most impotand position. (really good pg's arent scarce btw.. so they arent hard to get. Almost every team has one.. so my chances are high that the team im trading with has a really good pg) and i have MY Elite player as well

lets say the reality was this.
my best sg player was the same level as manu ginobli
the PG i traded for was the same level as raymond felton
and the center i drafted was an andrew bynum

and the rest of my team had average players.

Can you say Instant playoffs? Not to forget SICK potential

-lawyered

MTar786
01-20-2011, 09:32 PM
oh and it all matters too. i guess you need to know how much better the best is from the second best. because if i had the 1st pick in the 03 draft an my starting sf at the time was tracy mcgrady then i would have traded my first pick to the cavs for carlos boozer and the 2nd pick and draft wade at number 2.

see how the season plays out.. seeing wade proving he was a number one option id trade tmac for a superstar big man or a great role paying 3 and a all star caliber pg

TheGiantYankee
01-20-2011, 09:33 PM
For BASKETBALL you have to draft the best player on the board.

Sixerlover
01-20-2011, 11:04 PM
Then do you trade the original guy that you have or play both to see who is better? Kinda like the Kobe/Eddie Jones in LA?

Play both, evaluate the talent. You have 2 great talents if one is the best player in college and the other is an all star (the question why you have the #1 pick with a star is another topic).

But you never know what you might miss.

aussie
01-20-2011, 11:04 PM
ok say Hornets got the #1 pick last year

We have the best PG in the game and didn't need Wall.. We would have taken Evan Turner, Wesley Johnson, Greg Monroe, Al-Farouq Aminu, DeMarcus Cousins. At that stage Hornets needed a SG/SF or backup PF/C

40oz
01-20-2011, 11:19 PM
Best player without a doubt.

See Durant, Oden (even if healthy he will never contribute close to KD)

Darko Millicic, Carmelo (imagine Detoit in the good days had they had Melo's scoring.)

Same thing I thought of.

Chronz
01-20-2011, 11:31 PM
You draft the best player and then trade the guy hes replacing to fill that need

Tony_Starks
01-20-2011, 11:35 PM
I'd like to hear the rationale of the people that actually said biggest need......

BlueCollar
01-20-2011, 11:52 PM
If you have the first overall pick then your biggest need is to win games. So by drafting the best player you kind of meet both criteria lol.

pujolsdabomb5
01-21-2011, 12:02 AM
Talent 98% of the time, but I'm thinking...

If my team has a 26 year old prime Kobe (both in athleticism and maturity), and I have to choose between drafting Jordan and Hakeem, I chose Hakeem.

Hope I'm not crucified for this post!

hahah i understand where you are coming from
but, you just passed up the back court of kobe and mj with both of them being able to play PG and the other one at the 2

pujolsdabomb5
01-21-2011, 12:03 AM
ok say Hornets got the #1 pick last year

We have the best PG in the game and didn't need Wall.. We would have taken Evan Turner, Wesley Johnson, Greg Monroe, Al-Farouq Aminu, DeMarcus Cousins. At that stage Hornets needed a SG/SF or backup PF/C


Derrick Favors

aussie
01-21-2011, 12:27 AM
You draft the best player and then trade the guy hes replacing to fill that need

So say thunder or heat, get the #1 pick u would trade lebron or durant for harrison barnes

or last year if hornets, jazz, bulls, thunder got #1 pick u'd trade CP3, dwill, russell and DRose?

MrfadeawayJB
01-21-2011, 12:52 AM
When Memphis drafted Thabeet based on NEED and potential over Tyreke Evans and Steph Curry, Brandon Jennings, etc....see how that turned out. If we had drafted a young guard, and we still have conley/mayo, then you have more assets to trade, perfect example is the thunder.

29$JerZ
01-21-2011, 01:48 AM
Best Player

I've noticed this shines true when coming to big guys getting taken 1st

Milwaukee may love Bogut/Jennings but I'm sure Williams/Paul would be the 1st pick if they could redo it.

Portland may want to redo the Oden pick not only because of his injuries but because of what happened to Roy now as well.

Detroit not taking anyone of Melo/Wade/Bosh for a young Darko.

When you get the 1st pick its normally because your team is in dire need of a new start and star.

Imo you only go for need after the first 6-7 picks because anyone drafted after that is normally a crapshoot

abe_froman
01-21-2011, 01:53 AM
who would pick for need?

Confusious
01-21-2011, 02:33 AM
Best player...

Dr. RPG
01-21-2011, 02:37 AM
people are quick for best player.

For me it depends what my roster is, if say the best player in the draft is a PG and my PG is Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, Russel Westbrook, Rajon Rondo, then i pick my need. If anything less then that kind of talent, then the best player always, but of course, it depends on the roster.

abe_froman
01-21-2011, 02:40 AM
people are quick for best player.

For me it depends what my roster is, if say the best player in the draft is a PG and my PG is Chris Paul, Deron Williams, Derrick Rose, Russel Westbrook, Rajon Rondo, then i pick my need. If anything less then that kind of talent, then the best player always, but of course, it depends on the roster.

no you should still do it even than because ,because your going to get teams lining up to be raped in trade for wither your established star pg or the prospect....so you can still get your need and than some by going the route of bpa

Dr. RPG
01-21-2011, 02:48 AM
no you should still do it even than because ,because your going to get teams lining up to be raped in trade for wither your established star pg or the prospect....so you can still get your need and than some by going the route of bpa

if i wanted to trade i would just trade my 1st pick to somebody else instead of drafting the best player.

IHeartNY
01-21-2011, 07:47 AM
I'd draft the best player. Always. If he's that good, he will be a starter on my team (little exceptions, if you have James or Bryant or something like that in you squad). If you oick the biggest need ... you prolly get a worse player. You could better draft the best player and trade him right away for you biggest needs ... but f.e. even if I would've needed a Center I would have drafted Wall and the traded him on draft night when everybody was high on him and noone knew about his sore knees ...

Raidaz4Life
01-21-2011, 07:56 AM
Best player easily. Because chances are if you have the number 1 pick, drafting your biggest need isn't going to help you a whole lot because of how crappy your team is overall.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
01-21-2011, 08:12 AM
easily the best player

WizFan3
01-21-2011, 08:19 AM
Wow most of u r stupid u draft what u need let's say the wiz get pick again and let's also say brandon knight becomes rily good for some reason and is supposed to go number one u dnt pick him cuz of jwall. Wiz needs a big so that draft terrence jonesor sullinger it makes sense

IHeartNY
01-21-2011, 09:57 AM
Wow most of u r stupid u draft what u need let's say the wiz get pick again and let's also say brandon knight becomes rily good for some reason and is supposed to go number one u dnt pick him cuz of jwall. Wiz needs a big so that draft terrence jonesor sullinger it makes sense


:bla:

Chronz
01-21-2011, 12:59 PM
So say thunder or heat, get the #1 pick u would trade lebron or durant for harrison barnes

or last year if hornets, jazz, bulls, thunder got #1 pick u'd trade CP3, dwill, russell and DRose?
How would they get the #1 pick if they have those players? And why would you replace them with a lesser player? Do Bron and Durant want out of a ****** situation?

JordansBulls
01-21-2011, 03:16 PM
this, and furthermore, in 99% of cases, whomever has the 1st pick has a TON of needs, so starting by taking the best talent is the right step.



See Lakers 1979 and 1982 when they had the #1 pick.

PurpleJesus
01-21-2011, 03:30 PM
if the wolves receive the first round pick this year and take kyrie irving, I'm bumping this thread up for sure after everyone bashes the wolves for taking another PG

Flash3
01-21-2011, 03:36 PM
marvin wlliams.....

D-Will4Prez
01-21-2011, 03:42 PM
If you already have a franchise player at the same position as the BPA, it would make sense trade down to #2 if your biggest need is the 2nd best player available. Get some good assets that way. But that's the only circumstance that I wouldn't draft the BPA.

Cool007
01-21-2011, 03:46 PM
It depends on the difference in talent between the best player and the best player available at the position of need.

That's not right either IMO.

Bulls were the best example. The year before the decline, Bulls won 49 games and they were really set at PG (Hinrich), SG (Gordon), SF (Deng), and C (Wallace).

While in the draft there were 2 very closely talented player - 1 best player of need (PF) in Beasley while the other had the highest ceiling of the 2, so Bulls ignored the need and drafted Rose - even though Hinrich was pretty good til that point.


Now, look at Blazers back in 1984, Jordan was available but they already had Drexler - so they went with what they needed - a Center - and picked Sam Bowie.

See how that turned out???

Thus, you pick the best player (or the player that has the highest ceiling) period.

rocketman101
01-21-2011, 04:02 PM
Ima have to disagree with all who say go with the best... Takes to much time for rebuilding. And not always does it work
Out. Come on yeah you pick the best player but how often do they make it to finals or win a championship. Hardly.
Lebron james hasn't got a ring, niether has rose... I say pick what u need. You've already built your team you know
What's missing, fill the gap, fill the void, let your team stay comfortable with playing with each other. Rather than
Adjust to a new team. Look at san antonio. Same players for years. Contenders every season, because they pick what
They need.

clehmun
01-21-2011, 04:37 PM
this thread is impossible to answer because in the draft, you're never sure who the best player is.

pretty sure at the time, oden was considered the best player available by many.
you just don't know how players will translate.

last year, clippers got griffin. they drafted best available, but its also their biggest need. and it worked out.
this year, 76ers also drafted "best player" available, and disregarded needs since they already have iggy. and it's not working out so far.

who's the best player in the 2011 draft? no one knows. there could be 5 names out there.

superkegger
01-21-2011, 04:42 PM
You almost always draft the best player.

Only time you don't is if there's really no consensus on who the #1 pick should be. Maybe like in 2006, when really, there wasn't one guy who you just like, "Holy ****, this guy is a can't miss franchise talent, we gotta get him." In that case, when there's not one guy who stands out from the pack as a future transcendent talent, drafting for need is allowable.

The other case would be, if you've traded into the pick. Now, I don't think this scenario has happened to often with the #1 pick. But if a past trade has landed you a gold mine, and you're a piece or two away and theres two guys it comes down to for you, and one is a perfect fit for your team, while the other is a better player, I think you have to then determine two things.

-First, how much better is the more talented player than the guy who fits better? Is the good fit guy never going to be an all-star, when the better player is going to be a multiple time all-star? Or are both going to be just good role players, and the better player just a slightly higher carreer arc?

-Second, how close are you to a championship, and will this one piece put you in a window to compete for a championship? If the better fit guy isn't going to help you win a championship in the next 3 years or so, why wouldn't you take the better player?

It's a risky business, and sometimes talent just doesn't pan out. But, that's partially why you go with the more talented guy, because while it's obvious, the more talent you have the better chance you have to succeed.

There are more reason why you don't take the more talented guy.

The first is that he's got health questions. Think Greg Oden.

The second is if he's a headcase. Think Demarcus Cousins and Michael Beasley. Both have oodles of talent, both had questions of character and coachability. If your coaching staff can handle those guys, great, take the talent. If you can't they won't pan out, and you'd be better served to take a less talented player that will pan out.

sep11ie
01-21-2011, 04:47 PM
I think it depends on who the player is that is best available really.

clehmun
01-21-2011, 05:19 PM
You almost always draft the best player.

Only time you don't is if there's really no consensus on who the #1 pick should be. Maybe like in 2006, when really, there wasn't one guy who you just like, "Holy ****, this guy is a can't miss franchise talent, we gotta get him." In that case, when there's not one guy who stands out from the pack as a future transcendent talent, drafting for need is allowable.

The other case would be, if you've traded into the pick. Now, I don't think this scenario has happened to often with the #1 pick. But if a past trade has landed you a gold mine, and you're a piece or two away and theres two guys it comes down to for you, and one is a perfect fit for your team, while the other is a better player, I think you have to then determine two things.

-First, how much better is the more talented player than the guy who fits better? Is the good fit guy never going to be an all-star, when the better player is going to be a multiple time all-star? Or are both going to be just good role players, and the better player just a slightly higher carreer arc?

-Second, how close are you to a championship, and will this one piece put you in a window to compete for a championship? If the better fit guy isn't going to help you win a championship in the next 3 years or so, why wouldn't you take the better player?

It's a risky business, and sometimes talent just doesn't pan out. But, that's partially why you go with the more talented guy, because while it's obvious, the more talent you have the better chance you have to succeed.

There are more reason why you don't take the more talented guy.

The first is that he's got health questions. Think Greg Oden.

The second is if he's a headcase. Think Demarcus Cousins and Michael Beasley. Both have oodles of talent, both had questions of character and coachability. If your coaching staff can handle those guys, great, take the talent. If you can't they won't pan out, and you'd be better served to take a less talented player that will pan out.

thats easy to say.
but until they actually play you have no way to telling who's the best.
you'll have an idea... but won't be sure.

i think other than 2006 in the past decade, there has always been a consensus first pick. i've never been surprised by any of the first picks out there.
2 months before the draft, i knew bogut, dhow, oden, james, rose, wall, yao was going to go first.

most of those did well. oden didn't work out, bogut could have been better but still good pick. yao had an injury filled career.

but don't tell me you knew before the draft that cp3/deron would turn out to be top 5-10 players in the league.

footballer2369
01-21-2011, 05:20 PM
That's not right either IMO.

Bulls were the best example. The year before the decline, Bulls won 49 games and they were really set at PG (Hinrich), SG (Gordon), SF (Deng), and C (Wallace).

While in the draft there were 2 very closely talented player - 1 best player of need (PF) in Beasley while the other had the highest ceiling of the 2, so Bulls ignored the need and drafted Rose - even though Hinrich was pretty good til that point.


Now, look at Blazers back in 1984, Jordan was available but they already had Drexler - so they went with what they needed - a Center - and picked Sam Bowie.

See how that turned out???

Thus, you pick the best player (or the player that has the highest ceiling) period.

While it may have turned out well, it's impossible to say whether or not it would have turned out as well with Beasley in stead of Rose.

abe_froman
01-21-2011, 05:26 PM
this thread is impossible to answer because in the draft, you're never sure who the best player is.

pretty sure at the time, oden was considered the best player available by many.
you just don't know how players will translate.

last year, clippers got griffin. they drafted best available, but its also their biggest need. and it worked out.
this year, 76ers also drafted "best player" available, and disregarded needs since they already have iggy. and it's not working out so far.

who's the best player in the 2011 draft? no one knows. there could be 5 names out there.
you have a pretty good idea who will be,yes there may be surprises(which is why they so highlighted).going into the draft the best prospects usually turn out to become best pro's.
look at top picks over the course of history,80-90% of them turn out to be the best player from that draft

Sixerlover
01-22-2011, 01:05 AM
Ima have to disagree with all who say go with the best... Takes to much time for rebuilding. And not always does it work
Out. Come on yeah you pick the best player but how often do they make it to finals or win a championship. Hardly.
Lebron james hasn't got a ring, niether has rose... I say pick what u need. You've already built your team you know
What's missing, fill the gap, fill the void, let your team stay comfortable with playing with each other. Rather than
Adjust to a new team. Look at san antonio. Same players for years. Contenders every season, because they pick what
They need.

If you get the #1 pick, you aren't doing a very good job of building that team. The top talent gives you a restart button (a la Rose with the Bulls like someone else pointed out) and you can now try to build a squad around the new player if he shows that superstar potential in his first season.

Sixerlover
01-22-2011, 01:07 AM
if the wolves receive the first round pick this year and take kyrie irving, I'm bumping this thread up for sure after everyone bashes the wolves for taking another PG

That's an entirely different argument. I don't think Irving is the best talent in this draft. I think Perry Jones is. Now if the T-Wolves say "well we have Rubio so no Irving, and we have Beas / Love so no Jones, so lets get Kanter" THEN you can bump the thread.

superkegger
01-22-2011, 02:24 AM
thats easy to say.
but until they actually play you have no way to telling who's the best.
you'll have an idea... but won't be sure.

i think other than 2006 in the past decade, there has always been a consensus first pick. i've never been surprised by any of the first picks out there.2 months before the draft, i knew bogut, dhow, oden, james, rose, wall, yao was going to go first.

most of those did well. oden didn't work out, bogut could have been better but still good pick. yao had an injury filled career.

but don't tell me you knew before the draft that cp3/deron would turn out to be top 5-10 players in the league.

thats my point, usually, theres a consensus #1 pick. 05 and 06 were anomalies of sorts. Bogut wasn't a bad pick, probably the safest pick. 06 there simply wasn't a "holy **** this guy is the #1 pick" guy. Otherwise, there has been in the other drafts.

And I think that probably holds true. This is just a pure guess, but I bet in each decade there's probably 5 drafts where you know that one guy has to be the #1 pick. In two other years theres probably a debate between 2 or maybe 3 guys. In another 2 years theres no standout, but maybe 4 or 5 guys who could be #1. And usually theres a draft where you're just like, damnit, this draft sucks, why'd we have to get the #1 pick this year.

ditkadrivinabus
01-22-2011, 02:39 AM
Take the best player...You can always trade the best player and probably get better value (if you're not desperate to trade him, and lose leverage), than you would for drafting your position need.

JordansBulls
01-22-2011, 04:08 PM
While it may have turned out well, it's impossible to say whether or not it would have turned out as well with Beasley in stead of Rose.

I think so, based on Basketball IQ.