From a top-5 pick to perennial all-star

[Phrazbit]

Celtics

Not one of the Celtics big 3 (+ Rondo) was acquired as a free agent. They made trades and had to give up draft value and previous successful draft picks in order to put that team together.

 

[Phrazbit]

I've now looked at 40 years of drafts (1970 through 2009) and there were 73 players who were repeat all-stars among 200 players drafted in the top 5 (36.5%). It's important to point out that among those 73 players were quite a few two-time-and-done all-stars, especially in the 90's, who would not be considered superstars by any stretch of the definition, but they are included here nonetheless for lack of a better metric.

Now, to be clear, I am not arguing that you shouldn't draft and develop young players. Trading away high picks is dumb unless you can get an established and relatively young star or someone on the cusp of stardom in return. But, given those odds, any team that tanks on purpose to secure high draft picks will probably not be rewarded much for their efforts.

Now entertain this scenario. The Suns end up with say #4 overall and use it to draft someone. That player will likely be better than a Wes Johnson (#4 pick two years ago) but probably won't become a repeat all-star. This will undoubtedly be seen as failure to meet expectations and the Suns organization and scouting department will be heavily criticized by many, especially if a player drafted a few spots later by another team ends up becoming a superstar. But, in fact, this scenario is very much to be expected, given the history of hit and miss, mostly miss, when it comes to the NBA draft. In fact to expect that player to become a perennial all-star would be ignorant of the fact that the vast majority of players, even those drafted in top-5, never become one. And getting it right, especially in the lottery, has a lot more to do with luck than scouting ability, imo.

Its not luck. Some teams get lucky, but there are organizations who constantly use the draft wisely and makes smart picks because they scout well and recognize when there is trade value. The Spurs stand out in that list. The Suns under Colangelo were one of those teams.

And as much as you can discount success rates in the draft and call them luck, building through free agency it has been proven that you eliminate luck... because there is a 100% failure rate if you go that route.

Call it luck, call it whatever you want. But the Suns need to have success in the draft if they are going to become a winning team again.

 

[elindholm]

And as much as you can discount success rates in the draft and call them luck, building through free agency it has been proven that you eliminate luck... because there is a 100% failure rate if you go that route.

Do you really regard the Heat as built more by the draft than by free agency? Or the 2011 Mavericks?

 

[slinslin]

The 2011 Mavericks are still all about Nowitzki so yes.

And the Heat would never get Lebron and Bosh without Wade and Chalmers was a main contributor too.

 

[Griffin]

Its not luck. Some teams get lucky, but there are organizations who constantly use the draft wisely and makes smart picks because they scout well and recognize when there is trade value. The Spurs stand out in that list. The Suns under Colangelo were one of those teams

Yes, later in the draft is where scouts make their money. Spurs scouts have been excellent at picking up talent with late picks. But the lottery, especially the top-5, is different. This is why I focus on that. Generally you can almost predict the order of the first five players, not every year, but you can get really close most years. Why is that? Those top prospects are all very heavily scouted. There is nothing that one team knows about one that the other teams don't. I would bet most teams' draft boards look very similar through the first five picks, perhaps varying somewhat based on team needs. You don't even need scouts to make that pick. And since on average about three or four of the players taken in top 5 won't amount to much, who ends up with the superstar and who ends up with a lesser player in top 5 is primarily determined by draft order, which, in turn, is determined by luck and order of finish.

Here's an excerpt from an article just prior to the 1984 draft, predicting Bulls selection:

"The Bulls' decision to select Jordan, a 6-foot-6-inch All-America guard with unlimited potential was dictated by their No. 3 position in the draft order. Lack of a dominating center is the major reason they have lost 111 games in the last two seasons, but there are only two can't miss pivotmen this time - and both will be gone by the time the Bulls make their choice."

The writer predicted the top 3 picks accurately. Now imagine if the Bulls held the #2 pick instead of #3. Or what if Greg Oden decided to stay in school one more year. Where would OKC be today? Everybody had Oden ahead of Durant on their draft board, big men usually are rated ahead of wing players. Are the Blazers not very good at drafting, or just not very lucky?

 

[Superbone]

I think the jury is still out on that tactic. Assuming we win it all this year and rack up a half dozen more titles over the next several years, I'm quite sure the rest of the league will follow our blueprint.

Steve

Ha! Welcome back. Fantastic return post.

 

[Phrazbit]

Do you really regard the Heat as built more by the draft than by free agency? Or the 2011 Mavericks?

Well, I did put the Miami caveat in there in a previous post. But I dont think that is a followable blue print. And even then, Miami's 2nd best player was a top 5 pick who had already been a finals MVP.

And yes, I would put the Mavs as primarily built through trades and draft.

 

[Phrazbit]

Yes, later in the draft is where scouts make their money. Spurs scouts have been excellent at picking up talent with late picks. But the lottery, especially the top-5, is different. This is why I focus on that. Generally you can almost predict the order of the first five players, not every year, but you can get really close most years. Why is that? Those top prospects are all very heavily scouted. There is nothing that one team knows about one that the other teams don't. I would bet most teams' draft boards look very similar through the first five picks, perhaps varying somewhat based on team needs. You don't even need scouts to make that pick. And since on average about three or four of the players taken in top 5 won't amount to much, who ends up with the superstar and who ends up with a lesser player in top 5 is primarily determined by draft order, which, in turn, is determined by luck and order of finish.

Here's an excerpt from an article just prior to the 1984 draft, predicting Bulls selection:

"The Bulls' decision to select Jordan, a 6-foot-6-inch All-America guard with unlimited potential was dictated by their No. 3 position in the draft order. Lack of a dominating center is the major reason they have lost 111 games in the last two seasons, but there are only two can't miss pivotmen this time - and both will be gone by the time the Bulls make their choice."

The writer predicted the top 3 picks accurately. Now imagine if the Bulls held the #2 pick instead of #3. Or what if Greg Oden decided to stay in school one more year. Where would OKC be today? Everybody had Oden ahead of Durant on their draft board, big men usually are rated ahead of wing players. Are the Blazers not very good at drafting, or just not very lucky?

But thats not the point. What team has had sustain success without having a home grown lotto level pick as one or (if not several of) their best players? It might seem like random luck, but its an absolute requirement for success.

If the Suns blue print is to build through late lotto picks and free agency signings then there are 99% odds they will not see another successful season until they accidentally stumble into a top pick.

Luckily for them it might happen this year. I honestly think they are trying to put together a borderline playoff team but on paper this roster is a disaster.

 

[elindholm]

And yes, I would put the Mavs as primarily built through trades and draft.

"Trades and" doesn't count. Look, it's not complicated. We all agree on the basic point, which is that you need to acquire more talent than the other teams in the league. Sure, there are other considerations too, but that's the main one. You acquire talent through the draft, free agency, and trades. Teams that are particularly good at drafting, attracting free agents for a good price, or engineering favorable trades are going to have a leg up on the competition. Be expert in two of those categories, and now you're talking about a perennially strong franchise; be expert in all three, and you have a contender.

Griffin's point -- and frankly I really can't understand why anyone is arguing against it -- is that relying exclusively, or even primarily, on the draft is a limiting strategy. You can't look at the Bulls with Jordan or the Sonics/Thunder with Durant and say that it was through superior skill that they didn't get saddled with Bowie or Oden instead; they were just lucky enough to have the right pick in the right draft at the right time.

The draft is important, trades are important, and free agency is important. You need to have them all. Getting a couple of top-five picks, and nothing else, gets you nowhere. You need to be strong along every possible dimension of talent acquisition, and then you also need to get lucky -- and nowhere does luck play a bigger factor than in the draft.

 

[AzStevenCal]

"Trades and" doesn't count. Look, it's not complicated. We all agree on the basic point, which is that you need to acquire more talent than the other teams in the league. Sure, there are other considerations too, but that's the main one. You acquire talent through the draft, free agency, and trades. Teams that are particularly good at drafting, attracting free agents for a good price, or engineering favorable trades are going to have a leg up on the competition. Be expert in two of those categories, and now you're talking about a perennially strong franchise; be expert in all three, and you have a contender.

Griffin's point -- and frankly I really can't understand why anyone is arguing against it -- is that relying exclusively, or even primarily, on the draft is a limiting strategy. You can't look at the Bulls with Jordan or the Sonics/Thunder with Durant and say that it was through superior skill that they didn't get saddled with Bowie or Oden instead; they were just lucky enough to have the right pick in the right draft at the right time.

The draft is important, trades are important, and free agency is important. You need to have them all. Getting a couple of top-five picks, and nothing else, gets you nowhere. You need to be strong along every possible dimension of talent acquisition, and then you also need to get lucky -- and nowhere does luck play a bigger factor than in the draft.

Agree with all of this especially the bolded part.

Steve

 

[Chaplin]

"Trades and" doesn't count. Look, it's not complicated. We all agree on the basic point, which is that you need to acquire more talent than the other teams in the league. Sure, there are other considerations too, but that's the main one. You acquire talent through the draft, free agency, and trades. Teams that are particularly good at drafting, attracting free agents for a good price, or engineering favorable trades are going to have a leg up on the competition. Be expert in two of those categories, and now you're talking about a perennially strong franchise; be expert in all three, and you have a contender.

Griffin's point -- and frankly I really can't understand why anyone is arguing against it -- is that relying exclusively, or even primarily, on the draft is a limiting strategy. You can't look at the Bulls with Jordan or the Sonics/Thunder with Durant and say that it was through superior skill that they didn't get saddled with Bowie or Oden instead; they were just lucky enough to have the right pick in the right draft at the right time.

The draft is important, trades are important, and free agency is important. You need to have them all. Getting a couple of top-five picks, and nothing else, gets you nowhere. You need to be strong along every possible dimension of talent acquisition, and then you also need to get lucky -- and nowhere does luck play a bigger factor than in the draft.

This pretty much sums up one side of this argument that has been raging for months. Slinslin and Phrazbit are definitely draft, draft, draft guys, but you need to have more than that.

 

[Phrazbit]

"Trades and" doesn't count. Look, it's not complicated. We all agree on the basic point, which is that you need to acquire more talent than the other teams in the league. Sure, there are other considerations too, but that's the main one. You acquire talent through the draft, free agency, and trades. Teams that are particularly good at drafting, attracting free agents for a good price, or engineering favorable trades are going to have a leg up on the competition. Be expert in two of those categories, and now you're talking about a perennially strong franchise; be expert in all three, and you have a contender.

Griffin's point -- and frankly I really can't understand why anyone is arguing against it -- is that relying exclusively, or even primarily, on the draft is a limiting strategy. You can't look at the Bulls with Jordan or the Sonics/Thunder with Durant and say that it was through superior skill that they didn't get saddled with Bowie or Oden instead; they were just lucky enough to have the right pick in the right draft at the right time.

The draft is important, trades are important, and free agency is important. You need to have them all. Getting a couple of top-five picks, and nothing else, gets you nowhere. You need to be strong along every possible dimension of talent acquisition, and then you also need to get lucky -- and nowhere does luck play a bigger factor than in the draft.

Its hard to pull off decent trades if you dont draft well. You load up on free agents and its typically unappetizing contracts that are difficult to move.

Boston's big 3... built through trades and the draft. The trades they made involved guys Boston drafted and a Boston top 5 pick. Even the Lakers getting Dwight, they dont pull that off if they dont draft Bynum first.

The vast majority if NBA success starts in the draft. If you draft well you gain roster flexibility, with roster flexibility you can make good trades. You draft poorly you load up on free agents, free agents typically come with unappetizing contracts, as a trade partner you then end up getting more of the same.

It is not equal parts 1. draft-2. trades-3. free agency. If you dont handle the first part well, then the 2nd part becomes hard... and the 3rd part destroys your ability to compete on any meaningful level.

 

[elindholm]

Boston's big 3... built through trades and the draft.

Paul Pierce was drafted #10 and Al Jefferson, the main bait to get Garnett, was drafted #15.

Even the Lakers getting Dwight, they dont pull that off if they dont draft Bynum first.

Bynum was drafted #10. So none of the key players you mentioned was drafted by a team that had bottomed out in order to have very high draft picks.

The vast majority if NBA success starts in the draft. If you draft well you gain roster flexibility, with roster flexibility you can make good trades.

I don't know why you would privilege drafting over the other ways of adding talent. Yes, the Celtics needed to draft Pierce and Jefferson (and Rondo), but they also had to make a good trade for Garnett and two good trades for Allen, the first of which yielded the #5 pick (that originally belonged to someone else, if I remember correctly) that they then flipped. The Lakers drafted Bryant, but they don't win anything without landing O'Neal, getting Gasol gifted to them, and having the free-agent cachet necessary for acquiring Howard to make any sense.

It is not equal parts 1. draft-2. trades-3. free agency. If you dont handle the first part well, then the 2nd part becomes hard... and the 3rd part destroys your ability to compete on any meaningful level.

But doing only the first part well isn't adequate either. Look at the post-Jordan Bulls, who have had approximately 100 top draft picks and zero Finals appearances to show for them. The Thunder have been built primarily through the draft, but we'll see if they can win a title without another major trade or free-agent signing.

 

[Phrazbit]

Paul Pierce was drafted #10 and Al Jefferson, the main bait to get Garnett, was drafted #15.

Your point being? Those are trades and draft picks... just like I said...

Bynum was drafted #10. So none of the key players you mentioned was drafted by a team that had bottomed out in order to have very high draft picks.

I was referring to draft vs free agency as a way to build talent. Not referring to tanking. Earlier it was already discussed the reliance on top 5 talent. I was further pointing out to even be able to do quality trades you need to have success in the draft.

I don't know why you would privilege drafting over the other ways of adding talent. Yes, the Celtics needed to draft Pierce and Jefferson (and Rondo), but they also had to make a good trade for Garnett and two good trades for Allen, the first of which yielded the #5 pick (that originally belonged to someone else, if I remember correctly) that they then flipped. The Lakers drafted Bryant, but they don't win anything without landing O'Neal, getting Gasol gifted to them, and having the free-agent cachet necessary for acquiring Howard to make any sense.

Because none of those other trades fall into place without the quality draft slot (which was their own pick by the way) and the previous draft success of a player like Jefferson. If the Celts had a bunch pricey mid-level free agents on their roster they never would have been in a position to consummate those trades.

But doing only the first part well isn't adequate either. Look at the post-Jordan Bulls, who have had approximately 100 top draft picks and zero Finals appearances to show for them. The Thunder have been built primarily through the draft, but we'll see if they can win a title without another major trade or free-agent signing.

Getting high picks is not a guarantee of success. I never claimed it was. However, building through free agency is a guaranteed failure, unless you're lucky enough to have LeBron force his way onto your team. And it should be noted that LeBron does not force his way there if not for the Heat having Wade... a home grown high draft pick.

I dont see how its even debatable that the draft is best means to acquire talent and the best way to sustain success. If you draft well you're a good trade partner and you have movable parts. If you dont you end up like the Suns. Very few assets, covered in castoffs and with some bad free agent contracts to spice things up.

 

[elindholm]

I was referring to draft vs free agency as a way to build talent. Not referring to tanking. Earlier it was already discussed the reliance on top 5 talent. I was further pointing out to even be able to do quality trades you need to have success in the draft.

Okay, I lost track of what the argument was. I thought you were in the tanking camp.

We agree that the Suns aren't building a damn thing with their current roster. Most of the contracts are pretty short-term, so I'm not that worried about them. But yes, if we're talking about the best way to start building a team from the ground up, starting with virtually no assets, then I agree that the draft is a better choice than free agency.

 

[Griffin]

Getting high picks is not a guarantee of success. I never claimed it was. However, building through free agency is a guaranteed failure, unless you're lucky enough to have LeBron force his way onto your team. And it should be noted that LeBron does not force his way there if not for the Heat having Wade... a home grown high draft pick.

No one here argued that you should build through free agency, so I am not sure why you keep making that comparison. Very few teams could pull off what Miami did, so obviously it is not a reliable approach. First off, you need to be a highly desirable location. But it also should be noted that LeBron does not come to Miami if Miami is unable to engineer trades to create enough cap room to sign all three players. In fact, in such a scenario, all three would likely sign elsewhere, leaving Miami without LeBron and without their homegrown draft pick. Furthermore, as part of clearing all that cap room they traded away their own recent #2 selection (Beasley) virtually for nothing. Was drafting Beasley that high and then giving him away also part of a sound drafting strategy?

And very few teams could also pull off what OKC did. That required mostly luck in Durant, Westbrook and Harden all falling to them. Alter the top 5 draft order on those years and they might have ended up with none of them. But they also did well drafting Ibaka late in the first round and traded their lone underachieving top-5 draftee (Green) for a player that much better suited their needs (Perkins). But it is rather remarkable that with four top-5 picks in three years, they managed to only miss on one. On average, most teams would miss on about three of them.

Most teams, if they want to contend, will have to rely less on luck and more on their ability to find talent later in draft or on other teams' rosters. That means engineering trades and yes, signing free agents whenever an opportunity presents itself to pick up an asset that way. This is where good GM's and scouts leave their mark.

If you draft well you're a good trade partner and you have movable parts. If you dont you end up like the Suns. Very few assets, covered in castoffs and with some bad free agent contracts to spice things up.

Suns are not a good example to use here. It is not that they didn't draft well, it is that for a number of years they chose not to draft at all, opting to sell or trade away their draft picks for far less valuable assets if any. You can't point to Lopez and Clark and say they didn't draft well, because most teams wouldn't get much out of those two mid-first-round picks. However, had they used all the picks they had during the Nash era then their odds of drafting a valuable asset or two would have greatly improved. This was a case of mismanagement, not poor drafting.

 

[Griffin]

Griffin's point -- and frankly I really can't understand why anyone is arguing against it -- is that relying exclusively, or even primarily, on the draft is a limiting strategy. You can't look at the Bulls with Jordan or the Sonics/Thunder with Durant and say that it was through superior skill that they didn't get saddled with Bowie or Oden instead; they were just lucky enough to have the right pick in the right draft at the right time.

The draft is important, trades are important, and free agency is important. You need to have them all. Getting a couple of top-five picks, and nothing else, gets you nowhere. You need to be strong along every possible dimension of talent acquisition, and then you also need to get lucky -- and nowhere does luck play a bigger factor than in the draft.

Yes, that sums it up really well.

 

[Phrazbit]

No one here argued that you should build through free agency, so I am not sure why you keep making that comparison. Very few teams could pull off what Miami did, so obviously it is not a reliable approach. First off, you need to be a highly desirable location. But it also should be noted that LeBron does not come to Miami if Miami is unable to engineer trades to create enough cap room to sign all three players. In fact, in such a scenario, all three would likely sign elsewhere, leaving Miami without LeBron and without their homegrown draft pick. Furthermore, as part of clearing all that cap room they traded away their own recent #2 selection (Beasley) virtually for nothing. Was drafting Beasley that high and then giving him away also part of a sound drafting strategy?

And very few teams could also pull off what OKC did. That required mostly luck in Durant, Westbrook and Harden all falling to them. Alter the top 5 draft order on those years and they might have ended up with none of them. But they also did well drafting Ibaka late in the first round and traded their lone underachieving top-5 draftee (Green) for a player that much better suited their needs (Perkins). But it is rather remarkable that with four top-5 picks in three years, they managed to only miss on one. On average, most teams would miss on about three of them.

Most teams, if they want to contend, will have to rely less on luck and more on their ability to find talent later in draft or on other teams' rosters. That means engineering trades and yes, signing free agents whenever an opportunity presents itself to pick up an asset that way. This is where good GM's and scouts leave their mark.

My point is if you want to contend it starts in the draft. Miami's Beasley trade was a whiffed pick, but as for the rest of their roster, they smartly avoided mid level free agents which allowed them to have tradable parts so they could dump everything. If you blow money on middling players (Frye, Beasley, Childress) you end up with contracts that you cant readily dump, are not assets.

My point is that free agency should be a distant 3rd when constructing a roster behind the draft and trades. And when you do dip into free agency loading up on these 6-7-8 million dollar deals for bench quality players is insane. They dont push the needle, all they do is add up and kill your flexibility. The ideal way to use free agency is to sign guys at the top or the bottom of the pool. Big contracts on stars, otherwise target bargains at the bottom on tiny contracts. You go after dudes in the middle and you end up overpaying for castoffs, which is what the Suns have been doing for several years.

Suns are not a good example to use here. It is not that they didn't draft well, it is that for a number of years they chose not to draft at all, opting to sell or trade away their draft picks for far less valuable assets if any. You can't point to Lopez and Clark and say they didn't draft well, because most teams wouldn't get much out of those two mid-first-round picks. However, had they used all the picks they had during the Nash era then their odds of drafting a valuable asset or two would have greatly improved. This was a case of mismanagement, not poor drafting.

Sold picks or bad picks. Either way the Suns used the draft poorly and instead chose to focus on free agents. "Rajon Rondo? Naaah, lets trade the pick and use the savings to give Marcus Banks 20 million!"

Success starts in the draft, and you need to have some hits in the early portions of the draft if you're going to contend. Period.

 

[Budden]

All of these analyses are out-dated and more complex than they need to be. If you want to improve as a team, there is a simple formula to follow:

1. Acquire good players;
2. Accomplish a good/great record, leading to a draft pick in the high 20's;
3. Trade draft pick in the high 20's to Phoenix Suns for the Suns' best player;
4*. If the pick you traded away actually turns out to be good, wait until his rookie contract with the Suns expires.
5*. Sign player.
6*. Figure out what to wear to "GM of the Year" award ceremony.

Notes:
Steps 4, 5, and 6 are optional; crappy draft pick can be substituted for small cash considerations.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

My point is that free agency should be a distant 3rd when constructing a roster behind the draft and trades. And when you do dip into free agency loading up on these 6-7-8 million dollar deals for bench quality players is insane. They dont push the needle, all they do is add up and kill your flexibility. The ideal way to use free agency is to sign guys at the top or the bottom of the pool. Big contracts on stars, otherwise target bargains at the bottom on tiny contracts. You go after dudes in the middle and you end up overpaying for castoffs, which is what the Suns have been doing for several years.

Agree with this.