No....no....no.
At this point, quality > quantity.
This.
Absolutely not.
The days of hoarding assets need to end. Cash them in.
My original point was that there may be players later in the draft that are the same "quality" or close enough. We can't assume that just because Ball, Tatum, and Jackson are ranked 2-4 right now that they definitely are a tier above the guys going after them in mocks currently.
So really my question was about how do you rank the players in the lottery? If there is a player you think is underrated and better than those aforementioned players, would trading down be a prudent option?
The mocks are meaningless. Teams have done plenty of scouting on most of the top prospects and they still have the workouts to go through. If a GM thinks an "underrated" player is 3rd best in the draft, chances are other GMs do also. You don't trade down several spots assuming the guy you want will still be there. The mocks generally had Brown going around 8th in last year's draft and yet Ainge took him 3rd.
Once teams have done their workouts, I think there will be clear tiers after Fultz. I definitely wouldn't draft Collins in the top 10 as I don't see him having star potential. In contrast, I have concerns about Markkanen but I do see some star potential so he's a top 10 pick for me. As for Fox he's my favorite player in this draft. Don't think his shooting will be that bad but there are plenty of successful poor shooting PGs in the NBA.
I never said trading down only a few spots. If that is the case, yes the risk is too much and you might as well take the guy. However, to argue that all the GMs know exactly how good these guys are flies in the face of history, where players taken outside of 2-4 end up being as good as the ones taken there very often.
2010: Gordon Hayward (9) and Paul Goerge (10) end up being much more valuable than 2-4: Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson.
2011: Kemba Walker (9), Klay Thompson (11), Kawhi Leonard (15) are better than 2-4: Derrick Williams, Enes Kanter, Tristan Thompson.
2012: Beal (3) and Lillard (6) are probably the best players from 2 on. But Drummond went 9th. I can see a team that already had a PG and SG being OK with Drummond over those guys.
2013: McCollum (10) and Giianis (15) much better than 2-4, Oladipo, Porter, and Zeller.
2014: The jury isn't totally out on this draft, but it looks like Parker (2) and Embiid (3) were pretty much taken where they should have been, though injuries have hurt them. Nurkic, Warren, Hood, Capela, all those guys are good but haven't shown they will be as good as those two.
2015: Myles Turner (11), Devin Booker (13), probably not as valuable as Porzingis (4), but they have shown as much so far as Russell (2) and Okafor (3).
2016: Way too early to know, but so far 2-4 Ingram, Brown, and Bender haven't shown they're much better than some guys taken way later.
Anyway, based on this recent history the 2-4 slots aren't close to being a guarantee that they are in a different "tier" than players taken in the 9-15 range.
You're entitled to your opinion regarding the talent levels of all the draftees but to say that there are "clear tiers" after the 1st pick and that the GMs all know this doesn't jive with history.