Chad Ford's Boston Draft Grade

[saltlover]

I will say however that I don't like the 31/35 swap. That's the only move I really don't understand.

You gave up two players you probably wouldn't have been able to sign for one likely better player in the future. What's so hard there?

Because two two draws even at lower probability often pay off more often than one at a higher probability. And those probabilities from 20-ish to high 30s aren't that different anyway. (The Clips pick is top-14 protected).

And you don't have to sign them if they don't seem worth it after summer league, or can sign one and cut the other. Overall the option value is much higher than with a low first round pick.

That's food for thought.  I get your point- one player in the 20-30 range is less valuable than two in the 30-35 range. If you see this purely in terms of % of hitting a good player, I'm with you.

Having said this, imo there is a cost that comes in developing a player: playing time, roster spots etc, so developing two mediocre prospects might be worse than developing one.

Also, honest question, how often are early first rounder cut in the summer after the draft? On top of my head, I would think this is rare, but I could well be mistaken.

You mean second rounders?

If so, its a good question. But keep in mind that even if the guy is good-not-great we could move him for a future second rounder, in all likelihood.

And you don't have the dead money you could face with the first rounder. Witness Fab Melo and James Young who consume(d) roster spots for far longer than their talent warranted simply because their first round contracts were guaranteed.

And let's face it, the most likely outcome with picks in any of these slots is that the guy barely displays NBA-level talent. But with a first-rounder he's taking up space (roster and cap) three years later. The second rounder can be out the door immediately, or a year or two later, but not longer.

You're incorrect on your dead money point.  I guarantee you Davis is going to get paid more than several of the late 1st round picks.  For example, last year we paid Mickey at 33 more than Hunter at 28.  With the huge cap, second rounders are able to demand contracts that contain significant money, or they can sign a one year deal and be a free agent the following year.  That's what KJ McDaniels did in 2014 when Philly wouldn't pay him.  He then got $10 million over 3 years in free agency in 2015.

I think Davis is going to either get paid or hold out and hit free agency after a year, and I think that calculus is one reason Ainge traded for a future first.  There was a time when the draft slotted deals made late 1st rounders less valuable than early seconds, but that time ended a couple of years ago.

[CFAN38]

I don't agree with the C grade at all since he's basing that on the deals we DIDN'T make. It takes two to tango so a team countering with a trade we didn't like has no barring on draft grade. Now, that should be part of the grade when assessing off-season on the whole, which also factors in free agency.

I agree totally bogus logic. The Celtics had 8 picks drafted 6 players and traded two 2nd for a future 1st. Of the 6 players drafted 3 are high upside teenagers and two where great value picks drafted much later then expect. The 6th guys is a D-League player who I do not hold much value in long term. 

[colincb]

The Cs drafted well enough. I'll buy off on a B+ without sweating if it should have been higher. Everyone's knocking the Cs for not getting a deal done, but I don't know what the Bulls deal might have been and the Bulls couldn't pull the trigger with the Wolves either. My sense of the Bulls before the draft was that were not going to trade Butler without overpaying. You'd have to blow them away and Butler's not worth it to do so. The Sixers deal was just a bad deal.

[mmmmm]

I will say however that I don't like the 31/35 swap. That's the only move I really don't understand.

You gave up two players you probably wouldn't have been able to sign for one likely better player in the future. What's so hard there?

Because two two draws even at lower probability often pay off more often than one at a higher probability. And those probabilities from 20-ish to high 30s aren't that different anyway. (The Clips pick is top-14 protected).

And you don't have to sign them if they don't seem worth it after summer league, or can sign one and cut the other. Overall the option value is much higher than with a low first round pick.

Looking at the percentages at:  http://www.82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm

That chart suggests that the probability of a pick in the 31-35 range has about a 5% chance of being a "solid starter" or "star" and about a 12% chance of being a "role player".   So, two pulls on that slot machine is about a 10% chance at a starter or better and a 24% chance at a role player (spot starter / bench player).

Otherwise, deep bench or bust.

Meanwhile, a pick in the

15-20 range would have about a 24% chance of being a solid starter or star and a 27% chance of being a role player.

21-25 range would have about a 28% chance of being a solid starter or star and a 26% chance of being a role player.

26-30 range would have about a 14% chance of being a solid starter or star and a 23% chance of at least role player.

Based on those odds, it make MUCH more sense to bet on the 2019 protected 1st round Clippers pick.

When you add in the short term benefit of alleviating roster pressure by not having to deal with two more rookies this year, this deal is a no-brainer.

[mmmmm]

The logic of draft pundits "grading" how well the GMs did at drafting is ludicrous.

What are they getting graded against?   The mock draft that the pundit happens to like?

The purpose of the mock draft is to try to predict the behavior of the GMs.   It seems to me that it is all the various public media "mock drafts" that deserver an "F" for completely missing on most of this entire draft and for totally messing up expectations in all the fans.

From pick #10 on in this draft, I am pretty certain that there is not a single mock draft anywhere that came remotely close to picking the final 51 of 60 picks.

That's not the fault of the GMs.   Their job isn't to line their picks up with DraftExpress or ESPN or HoopsHype.

That's the fault of lazy, crappy "journalism" where most of these guys do no real scouting and just repeat the rankings that other guys have published, with small variations.   

It's a real disservice to the fans, who end up with distorted sense of how the NBA might actually rank some player.   So when a bunch of GMs let that fan's favorite player slide way below where some uninformed mock draft says he should be ranked, the fan gets mad at his team's GM!!!

When 20 GMs took a pass on Deyonta Davis, letting him fall from pick 10-ish all the way to pick 31, that's not an "F" on the part of any one of those GMs and it isn't an "A" on the part of Memphis for, 'getting a lottery talent in the 2nd round'.

That's an "F" on the mock drafts for rating someone the NBA views as a 2nd rounder as if he were a lottery pick.

[Boris Badenov]

I will say however that I don't like the 31/35 swap. That's the only move I really don't understand.

You gave up two players you probably wouldn't have been able to sign for one likely better player in the future. What's so hard there?

Because two two draws even at lower probability often pay off more often than one at a higher probability. And those probabilities from 20-ish to high 30s aren't that different anyway. (The Clips pick is top-14 protected).

And you don't have to sign them if they don't seem worth it after summer league, or can sign one and cut the other. Overall the option value is much higher than with a low first round pick.

That's food for thought.  I get your point- one player in the 20-30 range is less valuable than two in the 30-35 range. If you see this purely in terms of % of hitting a good player, I'm with you.

Having said this, imo there is a cost that comes in developing a player: playing time, roster spots etc, so developing two mediocre prospects might be worse than developing one.

Also, honest question, how often are early first rounder cut in the summer after the draft? On top of my head, I would think this is rare, but I could well be mistaken.

You mean second rounders?

If so, its a good question. But keep in mind that even if the guy is good-not-great we could move him for a future second rounder, in all likelihood.

And you don't have the dead money you could face with the first rounder. Witness Fab Melo and James Young who consume(d) roster spots for far longer than their talent warranted simply because their first round contracts were guaranteed.

And let's face it, the most likely outcome with picks in any of these slots is that the guy barely displays NBA-level talent. But with a first-rounder he's taking up space (roster and cap) three years later. The second rounder can be out the door immediately, or a year or two later, but not longer.

You're incorrect on your dead money point.  I guarantee you Davis is going to get paid more than several of the late 1st round picks.  For example, last year we paid Mickey at 33 more than Hunter at 28.  With the huge cap, second rounders are able to demand contracts that contain significant money, or they can sign a one year deal and be a free agent the following year.  That's what KJ McDaniels did in 2014 when Philly wouldn't pay him.  He then got $10 million over 3 years in free agency in 2015.

I think Davis is going to either get paid or hold out and hit free agency after a year, and I think that calculus is one reason Ainge traded for a future first.  There was a time when the draft slotted deals made late 1st rounders less valuable than early seconds, but that time ended a couple of years ago.

It's fair point but I guess we disagree on whether those contracts will be the norm or the exception. Up to now they've been the exception.

I'm operating on the assumption that the good players will get decent contracts (though perhaps with only two years of good money or guarantee).

And the bad ones will get cut or sign minimum deals, like they've always done. For them to hold out is a really, really bad move.

And again, the majority of guys will fall into the latter category.

I guess we will learn about it over the next few years.

If you're right, then yeah I'd change my opinion about the deal.

[Roy H.]

It's easy to make things happen in Chad Ford's world, where if things don't work out you just retroactively change the results.

With trades, it doesn't work that way.  You can have all the motivation in the world to make a trade, but if your trading partner doesn't agree, there's literally nothing to be done.  We saw this last year, when Danny was ultra-aggressive in an attempt to land Winslow, and other teams weren't smart enough to bite.

These drafts should be based on talent and value.  Danny got a lot of both, I think.

[Fred Roberts]

as mentioned earlier, this logic by Ford is atrocious. judge the draft picks, not the what ifs ... .

and yes, Ford revised his mock drafts after the fact and was caught. later Chad!

[i believe in brad]

The perception of our draft haul is drastically skewed because of rumors, leaks, smokescreens, crazy trade ideas, and also the willingness of Danny + Wyc to sell the fans on fireworks.  Shame on them for playing into the hype.  They need to be more Belichickean - everyone would be enamored with our new guys if that was the case.

It's fun to get caught up in the above, but when it's all over you have to take a step back and look at what the celtics are actually able to control: their drafting.  I don't know as much as Chad Ford and neither do any of you so I'll take his A-/B+ DRAFT grade in a heartbeat.

[Snakehead]

The purpose of the mock draft is to try to predict the behavior of the GMs.   

I think the essential issue is this is not the case.  It is a small media/fan/internet niche so up it's own butt that it is not actually that.  These guys want their stuff read so they change who the picks are to say "NEW TOP THREE PICK IN THE NEW MOCK" so people will read it.  They were wrong about tons of picks in the draft this year.  They Have Skal and Davis in the lottery and look how far they actually fell.  It's just not something to look to for information.

When Chad Ford, the supposed expert, is changing his stuff after the fact and also grading teams based on trades he doesn't have any good info about and not the actual talent, I think we can see what we are dealing with here.