2010 NBA Draft Recap

Sharing an interesting draft thought I heard from Daryl Morey: When asked about drafting for talent vs. need he said you have to take talent. Thats not groundbreaking. However, he said that he views things in terms of 3-4 year windows. Need is not irrelevant, but since rosters turn over so much the question should not be can he help us in year 1, but with what might happen to our roster can he be an important part of our team by year 3 or 4. His example was Aaron Books.

Here is Chad Ford's (ESPN's draft guy) draft night analysis of the Aaron Brooks pick: "Brooks is the first real surprise of the draft. How does he fit in Houston? With Mike James, Rafer Alston and Luther Head on the roster, Brooks will be stuck at the end of the bench."

If you look at it, yeah the Rockets had a glut of PGs, but were any of them what I call "build around" guys? No. Alston was 31, James was 32, and Head was nothing more than a decent bench shooter. So even though Brooks was unlikely to get minutes in year 1 thats not what was important. Morey's idea makes a ton of sense. Should you really be drafting 19-22 yr old kids to be difference makers in year 1? For 95% of teams the answer should be no.

On that note I think it is ridiculous when commentators said things like: "The T-Wolves really liked Wesley Johnson because they felt like he was NBA ready and could contribute right away."

That should not be a concern for Minnesota. Thats fine--he is NBA ready--now you will only lose 57 games next year instead of 62 with a higher upside player.

Another random note: I could be totally wrong on this, but I think some franchises particularly in unattractive cities and/or very bad track records need to swing for the fences with their draft picks much more so than their counterparts in major cities or teams with great track records. I just think those teams have more trouble luring star players in free agency. They can get that mid-level guy because he just needs to get paid. The stars though--they aren't coming to Milwaukee or Salt Lake City. Even though those players may end up leaving you almost always get the full 6 years out of them.

Another reason why I dont like Chad Ford. Every time he talks about the Pacers he says the same thing: "You have to give them credit for taking a safe smart approach to the draft. That is they dont try for homeruns, they take safe, sure things, college upperclassmen from major programs. They go for singles and doubles and usually hit. Lets look at their last 3 1st round picks before this year: Tyler Hansbrough, Brandon Rush, Roy Hibbert. Are you building a contender like that? You got two bench players and (I actually like Hibbert) a serviceable starting C. Combined career all-star teams for that group 10 years from now--probably 0.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally on to the commentary of the actual draft.

What I liked & What I didn't like:

Again this is purely my opinion about how I feel a team approached the draft. You can't really give out grades when historically 1/3 of 1st round picks are out of the league by the time their rookie contract expires.

Liked:


What Milwaukee did - I like Sanders and I like Hobson (particularly where they got him). Based on upside I like Sanders every bit as much as Ed Davis. Also, the Bucks have nothing like him on their roster. Tiny Gallon is a good gamble in round 2. (On the topic of swinging for the fences -- thats what round 2 is all about in my opinion -- non-guaranteed contracts -- players w/ baggage might have a chip on their shoulder and be motivated -- if not -- cut them).

The Lakers 2nd rd. picks - Not going to spend much time on 2nd rd. picks, but I like both of the guys they got. Particularly Ebanks - he reminds me of Trevor Ariza - can really defend, which is a skill that I feel translates well even if his offense never develops.

Quick Likes:

Raptors - Needed size upfront and got it

Kings - Got drafts 2nd best player (with all of his red flags) at #5. Double-dipped with another very talented baggage carrying big in round 2. Simmons joked its ok to have 1 head case on a team, but you cant have 2 because they might start hanging out together.

Thunder - Needed size and got size (as low upside as it may be). Also, got a future #1 from the Clippers -- thats usually a good thing.

Didn't Like:

How it was a weird year at the top.

I have already disclaimed how you do not draft for need and if I was the Wizards I take John Wall (only, only way I would pass is if I got a really premium piece and could still end up with DeMarcus Cousins (maybe something like Ricky Rubio, the #4 and #23 picks for #1)).

The point is I am very skeptical and worried about the John Wall/Gilbert Arenas experiment. Arenas could really hurt John Wall's development both as a player and as a winner and nobody is trading for Arenas. You still have to take Wall, but its just not an ideal situation.

Same sort of deal in Philly. Their best player is Andre Iguodala who plays the same position as Turner. A.I. is their "build-around" guy (that is probably also part of why they are not very good because while he is a very good player he is not high up on the "build around" guy totem poll). He is certainly much more tradeable than Arenas, but it is hard to get equal value. In any event that team will continue to be bogged down by the Brand contract for the next 2 years at least. Again, a good pick, but not an ideal situation.

More I did not like:

The Warriors taking Epke Udoh. Every year almost GS spends a lottery pick on a long athletic (though slender) PF that Don Nelson gives little to sporadic to no playing time. So Udoh gets to join two other lottery picks on the bench of a 25 win team. There are a lot of dysfunctional franchises out there and Im not sure GS gets enough credit in this category.

Utah taking Gordon Hayward - Maybe I am just a racist, but I dont see it. What is the ceiling here? I am not sure who he will guard and he is not even an above average outside shooter. Winner? Sure. Character? Sure. High basketball IQ? Sure. Im sorry, but thats not enough for me at the #9 pick. Especially if you are a good team like Utah who wont be picking this high often at all. Swing for the fences a little -- Paul George or Ed Davis -- even Xavier Henry a guy I really like who has an NBA body and an NBA skill (3PT shooting).

What the T-Wolves did - Either me or Bill Simmons should be the GM there. David Kahn is a retard. I vote for me because while I really like Simmons, sometimes he is just off (and of course I never am). The year after "the point guard draft" Kahn decided to have "the small forward draft" bringing in 3 "3s".

I have to give Bill Simmons credit for this next one - the Heat traded the #18 pick to anyone who would take Daequan Cook's contract (which is only 3 mil for 1 year). The Thunder stepped up and did the deal. So who didnt I like here? The Clippers and Wizards. To get the #17 pick the Wizards took on 2 years and $17 mil of Kirk Heinrich when they could have just gotten in on the Heat deal. The Clippers traded a future 1st rounder to OKC for...the #18 pick they could have had simply by taking Cook's contract. Does not make a whole lot of sense.