Author Topic: Why is the draft a "crapshoot" but signing a max FA and making it work isn't?  (Read 1030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheFlex

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2791
  • Tommy Points: 367
Just curious what posters think about this.

Often a point of contention between the pro-tanking and anti-tanking crowd revolves around the feasibility of building a team through the draft. The anti-tanking crowd almost always refers to the draft as a crap shoot and stresses that success through youth is far from a guaranteed formula.

So I ask that crowd, has the alternative to winning a championship -- signing and trading for big names, sometimes at the expense of future prospects and financial flexibility -- been proven to be a less risky method to building a championship team? Don't just consider the odds of landing one of these players, take into account the odds of implementing that player into the team and maximizing the team's talent (just as you would take into account the odds of the draftee reaching his ceiling, not just the odds of landing him as a prospect).


Draft: 8 first rounders in next 5 years.

Cap space: $24 mil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague/

Offline Celtics18

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11688
  • Tommy Points: 1469
  Many seem convinced--at least they were last year, a little less so this year--that the "tanking" method is the only way to go.  Some people, like myself disagree, with that strategy.  It doesn't mean that I think making this team a contender again will be easy if we don't tank. 
DKC Seventy-Sixers:

PG: G. Hill/D. Schroder
SG: C. Lee/B. Hield/T. Luwawu
SF:  Giannis/J. Lamb/M. Kuzminskas
PF:  E. Ilyasova/J. Jerebko/R. Christmas
C:    N. Vucevic/K. Olynyk/E. Davis/C. Jefferson

Offline Nerf DPOY

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2509
  • Tommy Points: 377
I'm not sure if you're looking for an opinion based off of notions from a lifetime of anecdotal evidence, or for everyone to do a comprehensive study and get back to you. There are countless examples of both approaches working and failing, that posters on both sides of the argument cherry pick and throw in each other's face when suited. I'm gonna cop out and say whether to draft or trade should be decided individually on a case by case basis.

Offline Chris22

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5081
  • Tommy Points: 460
Tanking does not guarantee a good draft position.

It all boils down to the ping pong balls.

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
It's all a crapshoot.

I don't think there's an argument between drafting and signing free agents.

The argument is between tanking and doing what Philly is doing.

Mike

Offline Snakehead

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6846
  • Tommy Points: 448
I'm gonna cop out and say whether to draft or trade should be decided individually on a case by case basis.

Being rational isn't a cop out.

This is what you do.  It's what I hope we're doing when we keep Rondo around because he is a proven player who can win and we build around him with draft picks and other assets. 
"I really don't want people to understand me." - Jordan Crawford

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
Just curious what posters think about this.

Often a point of contention between the pro-tanking and anti-tanking crowd revolves around the feasibility of building a team through the draft. The anti-tanking crowd almost always refers to the draft as a crap shoot and stresses that success through youth is far from a guaranteed formula.

So I ask that crowd, has the alternative to winning a championship -- signing and trading for big names, sometimes at the expense of future prospects and financial flexibility -- been proven to be a less risky method to building a championship team? Don't just consider the odds of landing one of these players, take into account the odds of implementing that player into the team and maximizing the team's talent (just as you would take into account the odds of the draftee reaching his ceiling, not just the odds of landing him as a prospect).

I think it's a good and sometimes overlooked point.

As is injury. People mention Greg Oden as evidence that top picks are risky, but so too are big time free agent signings and trades. Just ask the Knicks and Lakers.

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
The last time a question like this was asked it turned into a multi-page argument that boiled down to "different people interpret 'crapshoot' differently". 

If you're looking for success rates, well, logic suggests that more teams participate in the draft than sign/trade for max free agents each year, and that the teams that win championships tend to be from the group that sign/trade for max free agents, but there's a ton of chicken-and-egg issues, issues with eras with different freedom of player movement, and the fact that a lot of the "max FA" teams also drafted much of their key talent.  So breaking it down is something of a crapshoot  ;)

Offline GreenWarrior

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3275
  • Tommy Points: 228
the draft is a crapshoot. as much as some might believe that they can tell which guys are a sure thing and which guys aren't, no one can predict anything and no one knows how these kids will play in the pros - crapshoot!

 "they" were totally right about Gerald Green....8 yrs. later.

I chose to use Gerald Green as an example because while building through the draft has it's benefits and i'm willing to bet every team would prefer to have that luxury of doing so. at some point you have to be competitive, and waiting to see how young guys are going to pan out is not doing that any time soon. if we had waited on Gerald to find his game(8 yrs. later) no one would be happy.