PDA

View Full Version : Your team wins 20 games: Best talent or position of need?



WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 11:13 AM
Lets say your team wins only 20 games this year. Do you draft the most talented player or a player who fits a need?


IMO - a team which wins only 20 games doesn't have the luxury to draft based on need. If a team is drafting based on need, they sure as hell should have won more than 20 games!

Rentzias
03-16-2011, 11:16 AM
Lets say your team wins only 20 games this year. Do you draft the most talented player or a player who fits a need?


IMO - a team which wins only 20 games doesn't have the luxury to draft based on need. If a team is drafting based on need, they sure as hell should have won more than 20 games!

Right, you answered it, so talent. Unless your the T-Wolves, then you draft three point guards in the first round.

ChiDougie19
03-16-2011, 11:19 AM
take best talent build round them with current roster/trades....20 games u can start anew wont hurt lol

WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 11:26 AM
Right, you answered it, so talent. Unless your the T-Wolves, then you draft three point guards in the first round.

If Irving is the best available do you take him as the Wolves?

Looks like you've boxed yourself in a corner.

Rentzias
03-16-2011, 11:28 AM
If Irving is the best available do you take him as the Wolves?

Looks like you've boxed yourself in a corner.

Erm? All I said is that they took three PGs in the first round. Were those three, at the time of the pick, the best talent available? Debatable. If Irving is the best available, sure take him, then pawn off one of your other seven PGs.

I like this corner though, keeps my backside safe and I can stop clenching.

WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 11:28 AM
take best talent build round them with current roster/trades....20 games u can start anew wont hurt lol

A 20 win team shouldn't feel like they need to draft around anyone. Even if you win 20 games, your roster isn't deep enough to justify taking a less talented kid in the draft.

WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 11:29 AM
Erm? All I said is that they took three PGs in the first round. Were those three, at the time of the pick, the best talent available? Debatable. If Irving is the best available, sure take him, then pawn off one of your other seven PGs.

I like this corner though, keeps my backside safe and I can stop clenching.

I'd be worried about the same thing with Dodson as my avatar!

WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 11:30 AM
Erm? All I said is that they took three PGs in the first round. Were those three, at the time of the pick, the best talent available? Debatable. If Irving is the best available, sure take him, then pawn off one of your other seven PGs.

I like this corner though, keeps my backside safe and I can stop clenching.

How many PG's does your team have on their roster? The Wolves have 3. Ridnour, Flynn, and Telfair.

Storch
03-16-2011, 11:54 AM
This is a pretty obvious question since the greatest need of a 20 wins team is star talent.

Rentzias
03-16-2011, 11:55 AM
How many PG's does your team have on their roster? The Wolves have 3. Ridnour, Flynn, and Telfair.

I'm not sure, but I don't like to exaggerate or be sarcastic on interweb forums. Point being nowhere in my first post did I say NOT to draft based on talent, per my own philosophy. 2009 was an extremely PG-heavy draft (10 in the first round?), but by no means was it a consensus on best players after Griffin. Many pre-draft sites ranked Ty Lawson in the top 10, so the Flynn pick was surprising, for one. But to say Lawson and Flynn were heads and shoulders above the non-PGs available at the time is debatable. Mullens, Monroe, Derozan, Young, Daye were high on quite a few lists.

I'm critical of the picks because, from my own uneducated bystander opinion, they weren't necessarily the best available, particularly Flynn. It could be a headscratcher for some, or perfect sense for others, but at that point in time, wrongly perhaps, I was in the anti-Rubio contingent, so I thought a Curry to Jordan Hill pick set was the way to go, at the time. Guess I worded it badly for you.

WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 11:56 AM
It won't be obvious when the Wolves are on the clock with the #3 or #4 pick and Irving is sitting atop everyones boards...

Hell, the Wolves are turning into the Detroit lions of receivers.

Tarheels23
03-16-2011, 11:57 AM
NBA teams almost never draft based on need. There arent many rookies who can come into the NBA and have an immediate impact so drafting for need doesnt make sense.

All teams draft the best available talent available or the player with the best potential. Even the teams outside the lottery do this.

John Walls Era
03-16-2011, 12:09 PM
2 words: jimmer fredette

dhopisthename
03-16-2011, 12:15 PM
if a team only wins 20 games how many players do they really have that they would consider keepers? I always think you draft best player because you never know when that position you thought you didn't need ends up becoming a need because of an injurie

WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 12:29 PM
Pretty unanimous...

WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 12:54 PM
Would anyone rip the Wizzards for taking Irving?
How about the Clippers taking another PF?

Heediot
03-16-2011, 12:57 PM
**** it

Chacarron
03-16-2011, 12:59 PM
Always draft best talent in this situation.

Kemba Walker #1 overall!!!!!!

mttwlsn16
03-16-2011, 01:00 PM
Right, you answered it, so talent. Unless your the T-Wolves, then you draft three point guards in the first round.

hahahahah :clap:

mttwlsn16
03-16-2011, 01:01 PM
Would anyone rip the Wizzards for taking Irving?
How about the Clippers taking another PF?

^ clipps 1st rounder belongs to cleveland, part of the mo williams jamario moon/baron davis swap

Jetsguy
03-16-2011, 01:12 PM
Would anyone rip the Wizzards for taking Irving?How about the Clippers taking another PF?

I would:shrug:

I think you take the best player available unless that person plays the same position as your best player!

PrettyBoyJ
03-16-2011, 01:24 PM
Would anyone rip the Wizzards for taking Irving?
How about the Clippers taking another PF?

Depending what they do with the pick.. If Im the wizards and I have the 1st pick again I'll take Irving and trade him for a team need...

sep11ie
03-16-2011, 01:24 PM
BPA all the way.

PhillyFaninLA
03-16-2011, 01:24 PM
I would first look at why I only won 20 games. If the Heat lost Lebron, Wade, and Bosh for most of the season or the Lakers lost Kobe, Pau, Bynum, and Odom and only won 20 games thats one thing, if we where healthy and just have bad players thats another.

I'd also have to look at my roster, if I have a great PG with no other players around him I'm not drafting a highly regarded PG (I may just trade the pick), any other position you can just draft. The other question is how close in potential is the best available and my greatest need, if they are close then I still may go with position of need. I suppose you also need to look at free agents and your cap space, maybe you can sign a player with your biggest need.

I don't think this question can be answered without taking that into consideration.

Hawkeye15
03-16-2011, 01:38 PM
Erm? All I said is that they took three PGs in the first round. Were those three, at the time of the pick, the best talent available? Debatable. If Irving is the best available, sure take him, then pawn off one of your other seven PGs.

I like this corner though, keeps my backside safe and I can stop clenching.

they were the best available to the man picking, which is the point here dude. And Lawson was picked for Denver, the pick had been agreed upon as soon as #17 was announced.

The 3 PG thing will remain hilarious forever though to some of you, even though the first was known to potentially have major issues coming over (and he had to stay in Europe), the second was the pick for that year, and the third was for another team which got them a future pick.

But continue making fun of the picks without having knowledge of the results and why the picks were taken.


To answer the OP, if you win 20 games, unless you are San Antonio circa 1996, and your two best players from a contender just missed virtually all the season and you know you will be back (the rarest of occasions), you have tons of needs. Best available.

Put it simpler for the not so bright out there: If the Wolves have Sullinger, a supposed Love clone, rated the highest on the board when they pick, they take Sullinger.

pd1dish
03-16-2011, 01:43 PM
Lets say your team wins only 20 games this year. Do you draft the most talented player or a player who fits a need?


IMO - a team which wins only 20 games doesn't have the luxury to draft based on need. If a team is drafting based on need, they sure as hell should have won more than 20 games!

yeah, if a team only wins 20 games, then they probably have multiple positions of need anyways. so you go best talent.

douglas
03-16-2011, 01:46 PM
Of course you draft on best talent available!! Just because you have a cheeseburger, you don't draft french fries! You draft the big fat juicy steak!! So in the end, you have a cheeseburger and a steak, and that is one hearty meal!

pebloemer
03-16-2011, 02:06 PM
There is no rule here that makes voting possible for me.

Let's assume the case that Kyrie Irving is the most talented player in the draft.

If I claim that you always take the best player, and I'm Washington's GM, do I draft Kyrie Irving? Do I really see two ball dominant PG's working well on the same team? Of course trades are possible, but is the value that you will get back going to be greater than Jared Sullinger? Or Harrison Barnes?

With so much potential in the air it is too hard to know. And unless there is a home-run pick like LeBron James or Blake Griffin going into draft night, other players could be better than the player you think will be the BPA.

Too many things factor into context here:

a) What is the potential difference between the BPA and the alternative choices at more convenient positions?
b) What has my franchise invested in the player already pegged for that position?
c) Why did my team only win 20 games last year?
d) Do I have investment in a star point guard in Europe that could be even better than this player?
e) How do I see chemistry with teammates/organizations?

Ideally, you want the best talent in a position of need. When there is conflict, you have to ask the questions.

John Walls Era
03-16-2011, 02:21 PM
Most bad teams need more than 1 position. Usually a bad team has 2-3 positions that have less than avg. players. So from those 3 positions you need, pick the best player.

Albrecht Duerer
03-16-2011, 02:25 PM
It just depends. If the best player on the board is Michael Jordan, I'm not taking Sam Bowie. If the best player on the board is Harold Miner, I might take Sam Bowie.

WolvesJagsOs
03-16-2011, 02:41 PM
Erm? All I said is that they took three PGs in the first round. Were those three, at the time of the pick, the best talent available? Debatable. If Irving is the best available, sure take him, then pawn off one of your other seven PGs.

I like this corner though, keeps my backside safe and I can stop clenching.

dude, whats the point of saying all this? we drafted Lawson/Rubio/Flynn, Lawson we traded, and i have a feeling that we were planning on it, Rubio we knew wasnt prolly gonna come play right away, and we took Flynn, who we had some high hopes for. I dont see why that is so bad.

I hope and pray we get Irving in this years draft.

JordansBulls
03-16-2011, 02:46 PM
Best player unless the best player and 2nd best player are neck and neck and one fills a need more so.

Example:

If you have Lebron James in the draft and Dwight Howard and you know your biggest need is a big man, you may take Dwight in this case even if Lebron is the better player.

Or if you have Chris Paul in the draft and Kevin Durant and you know your biggest need is a SF you may take Durant here.

WSU Tony
03-16-2011, 09:01 PM
Well, don't blame the wolves if they take Irving with their pick. Considering they will probably be in the 3-5 range, he would definitely be the best available at the time. 31-0 what a poll!

NYYCowboys
03-16-2011, 09:05 PM
LOL 32-0...pretty obvious question