# Drafting the best player vs drafting based on need



## eddymac (Jun 23, 2005)

Hypothetically speaking if the Nets get the 1 pick and has to pick between Wall or Favors, do the Nets draft Favors who may not be the "best" player in the draft, but he fills a need at the PF position. Or do the Nets take the best player available in Wall?

What would you do?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

should always be decided on a case by case basis.


----------



## gi0rdun (May 31, 2007)

It always depends on the situation but say in the 2003 draft you had Kobe and Tracy Mac and Garnett on your team with Erick Dampier and Kevin Ollie I would still go ahead and draft LeBron cause there is just some talent that you don't pass up period.


----------



## TucsonClip (Sep 2, 2002)

Considering there are only 5 players on the floor at a time I believe you always draft on BPA. If you draft for need you end up passing on Chris Paul and Deron Williams for Marvin Wiliams or Andrew Bogut.

Now, if the BPA is a debate, then thats a different story. However, if I am the Nets, there is no way I pass on John Wall because I have Devin Harris.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

Best player available. Then you trade some of your pieces to get the pieces you need.


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

TucsonClip said:


> Considering there are only 5 players on the floor at a time I believe you always draft on BPA. If you draft for need you end up passing on Chris Paul and Deron Williams for Marvin Wiliams or Andrew Bogut.
> 
> Now, if the BPA is a debate, then thats a different story. However, if I am the Nets, there is no way I pass on John Wall because I have Devin Harris.


Agreed. Teams that have the #1 pick are usually bad because of a lack of talent and getting a potential superstar is the best way to turn it around. If the draft prospect happens to play the same position as your best player, explore the market and see what you can get for Devin Harris in this case.


----------



## Interrobang (May 23, 2009)

Thorn's a BPA GM. He'll take Wall if he can.


----------



## jericho (Jul 12, 2002)

ScottVdub said:


> Best player available. Then you trade some of your pieces to get the pieces you need.


Agreed. Talent is fungible in the NBA. 

Also, Devin Harris - while a decent player - is a long way from being so good a PG that New Jersey shouldn't be looking for ways to upgrade. He has his strengths but he's largely a volume scorer with mediocre efficiency at best, and isn't a top drawer playmaker. Drafting Wall would be a no-brainer.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

You *always* take the best player available. Drafting based on need is how you end up with Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan, Andrew Bogut over Chris Paul and Deron Williams, etc, etc. 

And even if drafting based on need was a good idea, you don't pass up a potential superstar because you have a slightly above average starting point guard like Devin Harris. That is just beyond ludicrous.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

but it also depends on the franchise, the talent in place, and the players available. even the definition of bpa can be circumstance specific. if there's a big talent disparity, it makes it easy, but that's not always the case. but you probably don't draft jordan over shaq if you've already got kobe (for example), even if you think jordan is the bpa (you do draft him over bowie if you've already got drexler though!).


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

That is very true. Of course the talent differential between the best and the next best does play a significant role.


----------



## GrandKenyon6 (Jul 19, 2005)

And anyway, the Nets have Devin Harris, not Jason Kidd, Magic Johnson, or Oscar Robertson. You don't even think twice about taking Wall.


----------



## thatsnotgross (Dec 4, 2006)

This isn't the NFL where you have 7 rounds to hit or miss. In the NBA, there are probably a dozen starters out of each draft and with the pick you get, YOU MUST get best player available.

John Wall should be the first pick overall.


----------



## seifer0406 (Jun 8, 2003)

It also depend on how good the "best player" is. If you have a potential superstar available I think you take him but if they are allstar at best you might consider picking a position that your team is weak in.


----------



## Dre (Jun 20, 2003)

GMs get locked in the moment, believe they have their guy of the future at a certain position and draft on need, then halfway into the next season both players are disappointing you. Fortunes turn so fast you can't rely on anything but BPA, unless the player you want only has a slightly worse outlook (not enough to where they'll be on a different tier).

There's always exceptions, but if you're in a position where you're drafting in the lottery you don't have one of those handful of players not to be encroached upon PT wise. All the spots should be fair game. Harris should easily be able to fetch supplemental pieces.


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

The thing is Wall has all the media coverage right now, so its easy to conclude he's the one for the Nets. Personally I don't mind if they pick him, but the Nets haven't had a good PF since Kmart. Derrick Favors has all star if not superstar talent also. Not only could he be the best player at that point, he'd also be the best fit. Brook and Favors is a really good tandem. I dont think you can go wrong with either guy. P.s. the Nets might not even get that number 1 pick.


----------



## Jakain (Sep 8, 2006)

Another factor is how injury-prone a player is perceived to be like DeJuan Blair's case. He has no ACLs and a lot of teams that could've used a double-double PF in their lineups passed him up due to their medical staff's warnings. Blair's talent and the fact that he's a big makes him a better player than a lot of guys picked before him.


----------



## Diable (Apr 26, 2005)

For the most part it goes like this. If you're drafting in the top five you want the guy who's most likely to become a superstar. If you're drafting after that you want someone who can actually help you. That could be either for position or the BPA. The BPA may end up sitting on the bench behind an established player who's just a lot better. If you're drafting late you want someone who can play in the NBA. In all likelihood a substantial number of the guys drafted aren't even going to meet that last criteria, so you just don't want to totally whiff unless you've good enough that you've got the luxury of trying to swing for the fences with someone like Bynum who just has potential.


----------



## ScottVdub (Jul 9, 2002)

Diable said:


> The BPA may end up sitting on the bench behind an established player who's just a lot better.


You still draft BPA and trade him for something you need. Never draft somebody who isn't as good as the top talent available. BPA has more trade value then the guy who fits a positional need, so you trade him for somebody better than what's available at your position of need in the draft.


----------



## Seanzie (Jun 9, 2003)

This is straying somewhat off-topic, but I see John Wall as a Dwyane Wade type on the pro level. I just think he's too good of a scorer to put at PG. I think he'll definitely get a trial there (as Wade did) but I think he long term projects to playing off-guard, or at least a combo guard. For that same reason, I think the Nets would draft him if they had the #1 pick. 

People shouldn't short change Devin Harris. He's a very good player who would fill a Tony Parker mold on a better team. 

But, back to the basic premise of this thread; I think that you have to look at a variety of factors when it comes to drafting BPA or by need.

If you have a team full of talent that happens to be weak at a position, I think you should draft for need as long as there isn't a huge talent disparity between the BPA and your guy. 

If you're a team stockpiled with talent all over the place, you go BPA. Same with a team that's void of talent at several positions.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

ScottVdub said:


> You still draft BPA and trade him for something you need. Never draft somebody who isn't as good as the top talent available. BPA has more trade value then the guy who fits a positional need, so you trade him for somebody better than what's available at your position of need in the draft.


trades aren't that simple. i mean how is it working out so far with the twolves and rubio?


----------



## HB (May 1, 2004)

And the Twolves are going to be in a bigger dilemma if they get the number 1. The top two guys play positions that they are somewhat good in.


----------



## Jamel Irief (May 19, 2002)

If Favors over Wall ends up being a Olajuwon over Jordan I have no problems drafting on need. It depends on how big the need is. If you are stacked at guard then yeah, but just having Harris is not a good reason to pass someone over. Harris and Wall are good enough to sort things out. I would rather have a Chris Paul and Deron Williams backcourt than say a Deron Williams and a CJ Miles backcourt.

People kept talking about Duncan being a center coming out of Wake. Poppovich was questioned on whether he would draft him on lottery night itself, he didn't hesitate for one second. Duncan and Robinson figured it out I would say. 

Basically the Nets aren't in a postion to be picky.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> trades aren't that simple. i mean how is it working out so far with the twolves and rubio?


Minn wasted a pick on Rubio who nobody cares about. 

Memphis passed up Jennings and Tyreke for Thabeet because they already had Conley ...Hows that working out ? 


1)In the lotto, BPA. 

2)After lotto you pick for need. 

3)No one there you want to give guaranteed money to, sell the pick like the Lakers did. 

btw, I don't think the Rockets would have minded having Jordan with Sampson for a year or two.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

LA68 said:


> Minn wasted a pick on Rubio who nobody cares about.
> 
> Memphis passed up Jennings and Tyreke for Thabeet because they already had Conley ...Hows that working out ?
> 
> ...


using hindsight to pick out the best player available is stupid. and no, the rockets wouldn't pick jordan if they could go back in time and do the draft over.

and no, saying to take the best player available regardless of circumstance in the lottery is not smart strategy. the specific circumstances always matter. the difference in talent between bpa and the next best guy is of huge importance. same with the bpa being able to effectively fit in with the established players a team already has(that are definitely staying there longterm).


----------



## SheriffKilla (Jan 1, 2004)

Wolves should start Rubio, Flynn and Wall and play fast break/up tempo with dribble drive motion... lol


----------



## croco (Feb 14, 2005)

rocketeer said:


> trades aren't that simple. i mean how is it working out so far with the twolves and rubio?


The difference is that Rubio isn't a known quantity in the NBA and many don't exactly regard him as a surefire star.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

croco said:


> The difference is that Rubio isn't a known quantity in the NBA and many don't exactly regard him as a surefire star.


he is saying that even if you have a star at the position of the BPA, you should draft the BPA and trade him for someone you need that is more valuable than you could draft. in that case, you'll always be trying to trade an unknown NBA quantity and teams will know you have to make a trade so no one is going to want to give full value.


----------

