What's new
By:
Filters

2021 NBA Draft Preview (new thread)

LoPo said:
NOLA makes out like bandits.

JV makes $14 this year and is expiring. Bledsoe and Adams combine to make $35 this year and $38 next year or $21 if Memphis waived Bledsoe.

All to move up seven spots to #10 and a protected 2022 pick?

Sent from my SM-A516U using JazzFanz mobile app
Click to expand...
Adams may pick things up this year... Bledsoe is a little under-rated at this point. Memphis needed to use their excess space... jumping from 17 to 10 is significant imo. Adding another first is good too.

They bought low on both guys... they sold high on JV. I don't love it from their perspective but I hate it from NOLA's perspective. What happens if they aren't the highest bidder on Lowry? They may not have to waive cap holds on Ball and Hart now but will have to waive the hold on one of them.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
Awful trade IMO for Memphis.
Click to expand...
You hate Bledsoe so I expect that you'd hate it.

Memphis now has three first next year and some serious cap flexibility going forward. They needed to land another blue chip talent... not a great chance of that... but better at 10 than 17. Adams for JV is a step back.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is a follow up move here.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
You hate Bledsoe so I expect that you'd hate it.

Memphis now has three first next year and some serious cap flexibility going forward. They needed to land another blue chip talent... not a great chance of that... but better at 10 than 17. Adams for JV is a step back.

It wouldn't surprise me if there is a follow up move here.
Click to expand...
Even if Bledsoe is decent, he's not worth his contract. $20 million a year for a guy who has never really played all that well in the postseason? I don't dislike Adams, but I do think JV is better than Adams. And his contract is so much better.

New Orleans can now build around Ingram and Zion. They have so much space. And they didn't even sacrifice good or many picks to make this deal.
They could go out and sign John Collins to a max contract.
They could trade their ton of picks with Ingram for Beal THEN sign Lowry.
They could go after Lillard without having to send a bad contract back.

All so Memphis can add an average C and an overpriced bench defense PG and move up 7 spots?

Bad trade for Memphis.
 
LoPo said:
Even if Bledsoe is decent, he's not worth his contract. $20 million a year for a guy who has never really played all that well in the postseason? I don't dislike Adams, but I do think JV is better than Adams. And his contract is so much better.

New Orleans can now build around Ingram and Zion. They have so much space. And they didn't even sacrifice good or many picks to make this deal.
They could go out and sign John Collins to a max contract.
They could trade their ton of picks with Ingram for Beal THEN sign Lowry.
They could go after Lillard without having to send a bad contract back.

All so Memphis can add an average C and an overpriced bench defense PG and move up 7 spots?

Bad trade for Memphis.
Click to expand...
7 spots is meaningful... puts you in that range to catch the high end player that seems to go at the end of the lotto each year. The pick next year is the Lakers pick and I believe it is unprotected. Its likely in the 20s but lets see if AD can stay healthy. They didn't want to extend JV's deal and they had space they weren't really going to use for long term stuff.

I will say the fit with Bledsoe is really tough because you won't want to play him and Morant at the same time. They have three guys they need to get run at the off guard spot. If you just look at it as them extending their cap space and getting some matching salary for a potential big move its pretty good imo. Say Pascal gets moved midseason... three firsts and expiring contracts plus Bane might be interesting.

It still makes zero sense for NOLA imo. JV isn't a good rim protector and isn't exactly a floor spacer... they just gonna bully ball people to death. If they wanted to they could keep the assets and waive and stretch Bledsoe to create the room they want.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
But you are also trading it on draft day... so not sure you are capturing any difference in value. I'd say projecting draft classes is basically impossible a couple years out and after the top 15. So any improvement in the asset would need to be captured by moving up at least 5-10 spots to capture the lost year or using it in a win now trade at the deadline. So you'd have to look at those types of trades to see if they panned out.

I agree there is some value loss by driving the car off the lot... there is a potential big gain though if the player shows they are decent in a limited window. think Kuzma his rookie year.

The reason I think its weak is the same reason I think DL was a coward for trading a ton of second rounders for cash and future second rounders because "there weren't players they liked at that point in the draft".... then your scouting isn't good enough. Every year there are guys after that pick that become good players. You defer the pick it is really about being indecisive and avoiding a black mark on your resume.
Click to expand...

I don’t agree with the last bit. There will be talent available whenever that future pick exists too. This kind of thinking assumes that the draft can be solved and if you aren’t able to find a talent you’re just not good enough. Good drafting takes skill, obviously, but the draft is still a crapshoot. Operating under the assumption that the draft is a perfect science that you can solve is not good because it simply isn’t science.

Calling GMs cowards is also a fan thing I hate. You could just as easily say a GM is a coward for not being aggressive and moving picks for win now players. Every fan thinks their GM is a coward and not aggressive enough. Whenever I see that argument, it just comes through my head as fanspeak because fans want action all day everyday. I would go as far as to say that trading the pick for a future pick is more “bold” because fans will 100% whine about it. Fans want GMs to make the pick, moving it for a future pick will almost always come across poorly and it will “prove” to be a poor pick because hindsight 20/20.

Moving the pick back also doesn’t mean indecisiveness. It could reflect good planning. Developing a player takes time and a good situation, especially later in the draft. Maybe you don’t have a good situation to develop the player. Maybe you want to stockpile draft assets for a trade down the line. Maybe you don’t even have a roster spot for another pick.
 
Guys drafted from 10-14 last few years include Donovan, Bam, SGA, Mikal Bridges, Halliburton... look at the guys drafted in the 15-20 range and its a lot shorter list with a lot less talent. Its no guarantee but its a meaningful jump.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
7 spots is meaningful... puts you in that range to catch the high end player that seems to go at the end of the lotto each year. The pick next year is the Lakers pick and I believe it is unprotected. Its likely in the 20s but lets see if AD can stay healthy. They didn't want to extend JV's deal and they had space they weren't really going to use for long term stuff.

I will say the fit with Bledsoe is really tough because you won't want to play him and Morant at the same time. They have three guys they need to get run at the off guard spot. If you just look at it as them extending their cap space and getting some matching salary for a potential big move its pretty good imo. Say Pascal gets moved midseason... three firsts and expiring contracts plus Bane might be interesting.

It still makes zero sense for NOLA imo. JV isn't a good rim protector and isn't exactly a floor spacer... they just gonna bully ball people to death. If they wanted to they could keep the assets and waive and stretch Bledsoe to create the room they want.
Click to expand...
Let's just break it down for New Orleans -

- They save $24 million with this deal including the price difference in picks
- Which means that open up a ton of cap room to build around two budding stars
- Bledsoe was on the outs. The FO wanted to play young unproven guys over him.
- JV isn't a floor spreading center, but he is more than Adams. And he's only making $14 and he's expiring.
- they can build a big 3 or even a big 4 since Zion is still on a rookie deal.

Memphis -

- JV fit the culture. People rallied around him.
- I like Adams, but he's overpaid and he can't spread the floor.
- Bledsoe has been bad for a while now. He could be a good bench perimeter defender, but at $21 million, he's really overpaid. Memphis will probably end up paying $4 million next summer just to watch him walk away unless there is a trade out there where the team wants to shed Bledsoe.
- #10 is better than #17, but is it even guaranteed to be a starter when Memphis ready to win now?
- The Laker pick is fodder at best. Probably won't be better than 25 or 20 at best.


If Memphis had kept JV and not taken Adams, I get the trade a bit more. The Adams for JV just doesn't add up for me.
 
KqWIN said:
I don’t agree with the last bit. There will be talent available whenever that future pick exists too. This kind of thinking assumes that the draft can be solved and if you aren’t able to find a talent you’re just not good enough. Good drafting takes skill, obviously, but the draft is still a crapshoot. Operating under the assumption that the draft is a perfect science that you can solve is not good because it simply isn’t science.

Calling GMs cowards is also a fan thing I hate. You could just as easily say a GM is a coward for not being aggressive and moving picks for win now players. Every fan thinks their GM is a coward and not aggressive enough. Whenever I see that argument, it just comes through my head as fanspeak because fans want action all day everyday. I would go as far as to say that trading the pick for a future pick is more “bold” because fans will 100% whine about it. Fans want GMs to make the pick, moving it for a future pick will almost always come across poorly and it will “prove” to be a poor pick because hindsight 20/20.

Moving the pick back also doesn’t mean indecisiveness. It could reflect good planning. Developing a player takes time and a good situation, especially later in the draft. Maybe you don’t have a good situation to develop the player. Maybe you want to stockpile draft assets for a trade down the line. Maybe you don’t even have a roster spot for another pick.
Click to expand...
Lots of assumptions there... I am not saying the draft can be solved but as you said...its a crap shoot. There are players good enough to take a chance on in the range that we traded picks in the 30s because we didn't like anyone else... there was literally an MVP of the league selected after our pick in one of those drafts. Its a crap shoot... I get it but your scouting has to extend past only guys you love to guys that are worth a shot... and if you don't feel those others are worth a shot... then you aren't doing a good enough job.

I outlined scenarios where I'd trade the pick for a win now piece. That's fine.

I think GMs have a vested interest in deferring and kicking the can down the road to create job security. It's why these guys love getting 100 future first when they trade a star... can't judge the deal until the picks happen.

There is a time value of picks equation here too... the #30 is worth what pick next year? What if it conveys in 2 years? 3 years? No one is giving an unprotected 1st for #30. We are in a situation where we need young talent in the pipeline now... so the timing aspect really doesn't work in your favor. There are some situations where getting a future first for a current first make sense... like OKC or Houston that have maybe too many firsts this year to get value out of all of them. That is not our situation at all.
 
I just realized we won't have our #1 next year either to finally finish off the Conley trade.

Man, the cupboard is sparse.
 
LoPo said:
Let's just break it down for New Orleans -

- They save $24 million with this deal including the price difference in picks
- Which means that open up a ton of cap room to build around two budding stars
- Bledsoe was on the outs. The FO wanted to play young unproven guys over him.
- JV isn't a floor spreading center, but he is more than Adams. And he's only making $14 and he's expiring.
- they can build a big 3 or even a big 4 since Zion is still on a rookie deal.

Memphis -

- JV fit the culture. People rallied around him.
- I like Adams, but he's overpaid and he can't spread the floor.
- Bledsoe has been bad for a while now. He could be a good bench perimeter defender, but at $21 million, he's really overpaid. Memphis will probably end up paying $4 million next summer just to watch him walk away unless there is a trade out there where the team wants to shed Bledsoe.
- #10 is better than #17, but is it even guaranteed to be a starter when Memphis ready to win now?
- The Laker pick is fodder at best. Probably won't be better than 25 or 20 at best.


If Memphis had kept JV and not taken Adams, I get the trade a bit more. The Adams for JV just doesn't add up for me.
Click to expand...
When NO uses their cap space to overpay Lowry (which is definitely plan A right now) does that change your opinion. When Memphis lands their 2nd or 3rd blue chip guy (depending on JJJ and his health) will that change your opinion? That is what both teams are trying to do. Bledsoe can be mothballed and I still like it for Memphis because it makes sense. JV wanted to get paid and is slightly off of Ja's timeline.

Cap space means nothing until it turns into players. Lets see what they do. To me it looks like they are leveraging future assets to go all in for the 8 seed because Griffin about to get canned.

I also find some inconsistency when you talk about the value of firsts in the 20s here than when you talk about the value of firsts in the 20s when looking at the Conley deal.
 
Tony had a mailbag in The Athletic. Nothing new really. He mentioned these guys specifically for pick 30, and said he’s probably forgetting some guys: Grimes, McBride, Dosunmu, Bones, Jared Butler, Isaiah Todd, BJ Boston, Isaiah Livers, and Primo. Also said the Jazz could trade up, down, or out of the draft lol…
 
zyzz said:
Givony said that they slotted Giddey in at #10 in their most recent mock because they knew this trade was going to happen and that Memphis is targeting him.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I'd think Wagner or Moody are a better fit but don't know much about Giddey.
 
I remember when Phoenix gave up an extra first round pick just to move up 7 spots and get Mikal Bridges... weird move.

I also remember when the Jazz gave up former lotto pick Trey Lyles to move up just 11 spots... IDK is it worth it?

I get it... doesn't always work that way... but let's not ignore the fact that 7 spots higher gives you maybe 2x-3x times of a chance at finding something good.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
Lots of assumptions there... I am not saying the draft can be solved but as you said...its a crap shoot. There are players good enough to take a chance on in the range that we traded picks in the 30s because we didn't like anyone else... there was literally an MVP of the league selected after our pick in one of those drafts. Its a crap shoot... I get it but your scouting has to extend past only guys you love to guys that are worth a shot... and if you don't feel those others are worth a shot... then you aren't doing a good enough job.

I outlined scenarios where I'd trade the pick for a win now piece. That's fine.

I think GMs have a vested interest in deferring and kicking the can down the road to create job security. It's why these guys love getting 100 future first when they trade a star... can't judge the deal until the picks happen.

There is a time value of picks equation here too... the #30 is worth what pick next year? What if it conveys in 2 years? 3 years? No one is giving an unprotected 1st for #30. We are in a situation where we need young talent in the pipeline now... so the timing aspect really doesn't work in your favor. There are some situations where getting a future first for a current first make sense... like OKC or Houston that have maybe too many firsts this year to get value out of all of them. That is not our situation at all.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree that it is a sign of bad scouting or that it can be solved by better scouting. Great scouting could just as easily inform that there isn’t someone worth it and that trading it provides more value. Those great scouts could very easily say that this draft is trash and you have better chances another year.

The existence of draft surprises and not being able to identify them does not mean scouting is bad. If you think the move is bad because someone was drafted that panned out I think you have an incredibly u realistic view of the draft.

I don’t understand the point about scouting extending to only the guys you love. The only way to find guys you love is to extend your scouting. By having guys you love, you have by definition scouted beyond those guys. Makes no sense that having guys you prefer shows poor range of scouting.

By the way, if you’re trading a pick for a future pick, you still have a pick. Any stock you put in that draft pick will literally be repeated whenever that pick conveys. I understand that there’s value to have something sooner rather than later, but if you don’t like what you see I really don’t see the problem with keeping your options open.

It depends on the situation, but I would agree that some GMs have a vested interested on continuously pointing towards the future. The Jazz are in the exact opposite situation. Trading the pick for a future pick would be very unpopular with fans and puts pressure on the FO to make that asset useful soon. Another reason to move the pick is if you have the intention to trade it, but the trade isn’t there at the time.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
When NO uses their cap space to overpay Lowry (which is definitely plan A right now) does that change your opinion. When Memphis lands their 2nd or 3rd blue chip guy (depending on JJJ and his health) will that change your opinion? That is what both teams are trying to do. Bledsoe can be mothballed and I still like it for Memphis because it makes sense. JV wanted to get paid and is slightly off of Ja's timeline.

Cap space means nothing until it turns into players. Lets see what they do. To me it looks like they are leveraging future assets to go all in for the 8 seed because Griffin about to get canned.

I also find some inconsistency when you talk about the value of firsts in the 20s here than when you talk about the value of firsts in the 20s when looking at the Conley deal.
Click to expand...
Well if Memphis drafts the next Donovan at #10, then sure it looks great. But if #10 is like most #10 in a draft, it's a bad deal.

JV is better than Adams
Bledsoe is overpaid and doesn't really fit on Memphis

The Memphis side of this deal would have made sense on a roster like ours if we got two useful role players for a team on the brink of a title. But Memphis isn't that. Instead, they are going to forfeit $38 million of cap space the last couple years before Morant starts a massive extension.

NOLA, on the other hand, is going to 100% maximize what they can with Zion and Ingram. So according to what you're saying - if they overpay Lowry, they still have a better team with Lowry and JV than they would have ever had with Adams and Bledsoe.

So unless Memphis destroys the pick, NOLA wins this trade easily. And it's also possible that NOLA gets a better player at #17 than Memphis gets at #10.
 
KqWIN said:
I strongly disagree that it is a sign of bad scouting or that it can be solved by better scouting. Great scouting could just as easily inform that there isn’t someone worth it and that trading it provides more value. Those great scouts could very easily say that this draft is trash and you have better chances another year.

The existence of draft surprises and not being able to identify them does not mean scouting is bad. If you think the move is bad because someone was drafted that panned out I think you have an incredibly u realistic view of the draft.

I don’t understand the point about scouting extending to only the guys you love. The only way to find guys you love is to extend your scouting. By having guys you love, you have by definition scouted beyond those guys. Makes no sense that having guys you prefer shows poor range of scouting.
Click to expand...
If you are only willing to make a pick if there are guys you love... that is a problem. Its a common GM thing to say that sounds good but leads to mistakes... remember Brooklyn trading the pick that became Damian Lillard because they only protected the pick 1-3 because there were only three guys they liked.

You said it yourself... the draft is a crap shoot... deferring picks because you are sure this draft is probably valuing your analysis too highly. The guys you pick from at #30 are likely not meaningfully different from the guys you'd pick from at #25ish next year.

You may see it as bold or smart to keep your options open... but i've been fed a lot of BS over the years as a Jazz fans about "flexibility, powder being dry, etc." that were really just wishy washy leadership.

In our current situation trading #30 just for a first next year (it would be protected) would be a mistake. Do we need trade assets? yes! We need a good young player in the pipeline even more though. We can burn a couple firsts for a guy like RoCo like Portland did last year and have it turn out to be a bad deal too... there are lots of ways to fail. NBA is hard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top