The Top of the Draft: 2003-2004, Discussion

[42PhD]

1. LeBron James. Drafted by Heat. Longshot for playoffs, virtually impossible to win title.

2. Dwyane Wade. Drafted by Nuggets. Virtually eliminated from the playoffs.

3. Carmelo Anthony. Drafted by Knicks. Virtually eliminated from the playoffs.

4. Chris Bosh. Drafted by Timberwolves. Longshot for playoffs, virtually impossible to win title.

5. Chris Kaman. Drafted by Nets. Virtually eliminated from the playoffs.

None of these players have been given the chance to win a title yet, but likely this won't happen this season, and that's not a knock on anyway. It should be clear, though, that top draft picks don't turn a franchise around.

Looking at these drafts, it's very clear to me that you certainly can strike gold in the draft, but you always have to build around those picks while sticking with them while they develop. The hype (justified?) around this draft class may be part of the reason that these players have not been traded in their first season.

Teams have won many a title without drafting a major piece, but every single one of those major title pieces was drafted, either in the creation draft (which seems to be finally losing it's last vestiges of significant influence). Yet, those players are freely given to others. The justification is that you are trading success in the future for success now, etc., but the data simply does not bear that out. Rather, more often, future picks are traded for current value and that depressed the value of the picks. Trading a pretty developed and very good player for a raw one who has more training camps to dodge does not seems to work out as a general strategy.

I sat down to try to find out why picks are so valuable, and I have 2 reasons.

First, you certainly can strike gold, and someone will whenever there is gold.

Second, they are valuable because people believe they are. The problem is the belief seems to be empty.

Draft picks can make a difference, but only in terms of a larger plan. No plan, no chance. That's the way it seems to me. I'm guessing there are many GM's that really don't have a plan and stick with it. Look around the League and the perennial contenders, and it bears out.

Thoughts?

[WigNosy]

I sat down to try to find out why picks are so valuable, and I have 2 reasons.

First, you certainly can strike gold, and someone will whenever there is gold.

Second, they are valuable because people believe they are. The problem is the belief seems to be empty.

Third, roster flexibility - draft picks don't come with a large contract attached; established players do. When at least some of your core players are still on rookie-scale contracts (instead of max deals) you have more flexibility in shaping your roster (not always through FA; you can also afford to take on a "bad" contract).

Astute observers will note all of the favorites (at least by record) this season made significant moves to assemble their rosters while key players had not yet signed a mega-contract thanks to being on rookie-scale deals.

The Lakers took advantage of Andrei Kirilenko and Larry Hughes being on rookie deals (and Don Reid being on a super cheap deal) to fit Jerry Stackhouse's contract (which they later flipped for Keith Van Horn) on the roster prior to the 2002 season.

The Raptors grabbed Ratliff (whom they flipped for Steve Smith) prior to the 2001 season and Jamal Mashburn in 2000 (whom they flipped for Gugliotta) while Chauncey Billups and Elton Brand were still on their rookie deals.

The Hawks' "superteam" was assembled in an off-season (2000) when the only large contracts on the books was Antonio McDyess and Marshall; they took on the contract of Grant Hill, flipped Marshall's contract for Penny's, then used RFA to re-sign Ben Wallace and Bird Rights to re-sign Sprewell.

[42PhD]

What you are describing is a larger plan. That is the text in the OP just after you stopped quoting. The flexibility is good, but only if you use it and use it well.

I'm pretty sure you are a good supporting case for my claims here, and your post reinforces that, so, thanks.