Author Topic: Rather have first or second pick  (Read 2965 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Rather have first or second pick
« on: May 06, 2016, 04:03:51 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
While I fully understand we could end up with the sixth pick, I am curious whether people think it is better to have the first or second pick this year.  I mean, sure, the first pick gives you the pick of the litter.  But it seems that there is a real debate now as to who that first player should be.  The choice could look like a mistake down the road.

Of course, it you are convinced that Simmons is "it", then first all the way.

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2016, 04:05:43 PM »

Offline alldaboston

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4170
  • Tommy Points: 324
I think I get what you're saying. 

I would probably rather have 2nd in that case. I wouldn't wanna look wrong like an idiot years down the line.
I could very well see the Hawks... starting Taurean Prince at the 3, who is already better than Crowder, imo.

you vs. the guy she tells you not to worry about

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2016, 04:09:45 PM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2016, 04:10:23 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58559
  • Tommy Points: -25635
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
1st.  I want my decision maker confident that he's making the right call, instead of preferring to cover his [butt] by letting somebody else taking the risk (and potential reward).

This question seems like a good one for personality assessment, in a Myers-Briggs way.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2016, 04:14:44 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
I agree it may be silly.  But who do you think the Bulls would have picked in 1984 if they had the second pick?

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2016, 04:18:33 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8497
  • Tommy Points: 975
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
I agree it may be silly.  But who do you think the Bulls would have picked in 1984 if they had the second pick?

Jordan. The Blazers only passed on Jordan because they had Drexler at the 2.

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2016, 04:19:04 PM »

Offline LooseCannon

  • NCE
  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11833
  • Tommy Points: 950
First, because I don't approve of a bureaucratic CYA mindset.

I want a GM who is so unafraid to look bad in hindsight that he would be willing to trade down from the #1 pick if he thought that was the best value.
"The worst thing that ever happened in sports was sports radio, and the internet is sports radio on steroids with lower IQs.” -- Brian Burke, former Toronto Maple Leafs senior adviser, at the 2013 MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #7 on: May 06, 2016, 04:21:00 PM »

Offline straightouttabahstun

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 504
  • Tommy Points: 39
  • That's turrible
First pick. If there's any GM in the game with the balls to make certain decisions, it's Danny Ainge. He is one confident/sometimes cocky SOB. Go get em Danny

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #8 on: May 06, 2016, 04:25:59 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
I agree it may be silly.  But who do you think the Bulls would have picked in 1984 if they had the second pick?

Jordan. The Blazers only passed on Jordan because they had Drexler at the 2.
How about the first pick?

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #9 on: May 06, 2016, 04:30:37 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30940
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
I agree it may be silly.  But who do you think the Bulls would have picked in 1984 if they had the second pick?

Jordan. The Blazers only passed on Jordan because they had Drexler at the 2.
How about the first pick?

Either way, they would've ended up with a HOFer.   My guess, considering the nature of the game in mid 80s (size, size, size), Chicago would've gone with Hakeem and not really thought twice about it.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #10 on: May 06, 2016, 04:41:47 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58559
  • Tommy Points: -25635
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
I agree it may be silly.  But who do you think the Bulls would have picked in 1984 if they had the second pick?

Jordan. The Blazers only passed on Jordan because they had Drexler at the 2.
How about the first pick?

Either way, they would've ended up with a HOFer.   My guess, considering the nature of the game in mid 80s (size, size, size), Chicago would've gone with Hakeem and not really thought twice about it.

Yeah, everyone was taking Hakeem.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #11 on: May 06, 2016, 04:48:52 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30940
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
I agree it may be silly.  But who do you think the Bulls would have picked in 1984 if they had the second pick?



Solid book in case anyone is looking for a good read.

Jordan. The Blazers only passed on Jordan because they had Drexler at the 2.
How about the first pick?

Either way, they would've ended up with a HOFer.   My guess, considering the nature of the game in mid 80s (size, size, size), Chicago would've gone with Hakeem and not really thought twice about it.

Yeah, everyone was taking Hakeem.

Filip Bondy wrote a book about the '84 Draft that I read years ago.  I'm sure he touched on it.  I just can't remember the specifics of it.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #12 on: May 06, 2016, 04:51:56 PM »

Offline droopdog7

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6970
  • Tommy Points: 466
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
I agree it may be silly.  But who do you think the Bulls would have picked in 1984 if they had the second pick?

Jordan. The Blazers only passed on Jordan because they had Drexler at the 2.
How about the first pick?

Either way, they would've ended up with a HOFer.   My guess, considering the nature of the game in mid 80s (size, size, size), Chicago would've gone with Hakeem and not really thought twice about it.
I get it.  Take your HOF'er and don't look back.  But one of the a HOF'er and the other is the GOAT.

I guess part of my point is that there may be an expectation to grab simmons.  Maybe even pressure to grab simmons.  But I am not sold.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2016, 04:58:54 PM by droopdog7 »

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #13 on: May 06, 2016, 04:59:04 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30940
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
1st no question.  frankly I think the premise is silly.
I agree it may be silly.  But who do you think the Bulls would have picked in 1984 if they had the second pick?

Jordan. The Blazers only passed on Jordan because they had Drexler at the 2.
How about the first pick?

Either way, they would've ended up with a HOFer.   My guess, considering the nature of the game in mid 80s (size, size, size), Chicago would've gone with Hakeem and not really thought twice about it.
I get it.  Take your HOF'er and don't look back.  But one of the a HOF'er and the other is the GOAT.

But that wasn't known at the time & in 1984 you were looking at a league which was dominated by bigs.  Strong frontcourts were the way to go.  Look at the mid 80s Celtics, Lakers, Sixers.  Those were the teams that were flourishing. 

Jordan was spectacular in college but the idea of building around a wing rather over a big wasn't really on the radar yet.

Hakeem was the way to go.  Especially given the traditional sense of building teams back then.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Rather have first or second pick
« Reply #14 on: May 06, 2016, 05:22:37 PM »

Offline passesofftodj

  • Kristaps Porzingis
  • Posts: 195
  • Tommy Points: 20
Simmons is the real deal.  To me he is clearly the highest upside as well as was the best pure player last year.  He can basically play the 1,3, or 4 a la LeBron and his versatility gives him serious star potential with the way the NBA plays now.  His size and his age help.  If he gets the right coach he will contribute right away.  His floor is a giant version of bad Rondo and his ceiling is a slight tick below LeBron.  That is an easy #1 in the current draft climate.

1984 saw polished players coming in.  Akeem was one of the greatest college players ever, clear number 1.  Guys now are going to be more raw and in need of development, especially given the atrocity of AAU ball and the travesty called "college".