Curious about posters' fixation with picks

[Throughthedoor1]

I've been reading these posts (especially those regarding the Celts plunging into the trading waters), and I am a little perplexed.  Quite a few posters seem really anxious when it comes to dealing first round picks, but given Doc's tendency to bring along new, drafted players very slowly and jettisoning most of them (look at our current roster as proof) quite freely, I should think that using them as a bargaining chip far more valuable than taking the odds that a draft pick will have an impact on the team in both the long and short run.  Just wondering how other, thoughtful Celtic fans might thin about this.

[PosImpos]

We're about to enter rebuilding.  The lifeblood of any rebuilding effort is young talent.  The easiest way to get young talent is to draft in the first round.  The more opportunities you have to draft in the first round (whether early, middle, or late), the more likely you are to compile valuable young assets.

The hope is that once we're in full rebuilding Doc will recognize that and play the young guys more instead of sticking so much with veterans he trusts.

[Fan from VT]

Couple points:

1. As many others have gone over before:
-When has Doc really held back a guy who was genuinely ready to contribute?
-When has he stunted a player's development only to see them improve elsewhere under a different system?
-And when it seems like he has unreasonably held someone back, How are we sure that Doc's method didn't strengthen the development, rather than just playing for the sake of playing? (Rondo, Gomes, Al Jefferson, Perkins were all developed by Doc).

2. Draft is, by definition, hit or miss. There are many impact players taken outside of the lottery, but no single GM has a great batting average at a single given pick outside really the top few. Giving yourself multiple chances in a single draft gives you a better shot at landing that impact player who many teams passed on, and as such is truly a diamond in the rough.

3. Last time we had legitimately intriguing talent (20/10 potential big guy, but not yet realized much of his potential) and good picks (Minnesota 1st, #5 overall pick), we parlayed that into the last 4 years or so of 2 all-stars/fading HOFers to win a title. Not bad. If we get something for the big 3 this year (say 2 future 1sts in 2013/2014), then suck next year after whiffing in Free Agency, we could go into 2013-2014 season with Rondo disgruntled but solidly in his prime, Pierce in the last year of his contract, Bradley, JJJ, 2 2012 firsts who hopefully would be flashing talent, our own pick in 2013, and those future firsts to try to trade to teams looking to rebuild themselves to grab a big and a wing to pair with Pierce and Rondo as a new "Fading Big Three" like the one we just had.  You know, maybe the teams of Aldridge, Iguodala, Deng, Bynum, Dwight, Lebron, Bosh, Bogut will have crested and faded and look to dump and start over.

[ManUp]

We're about to enter rebuilding.  The lifeblood of any rebuilding effort is young talent.  The easiest way to get young talent is to draft in the first round.  The more opportunities you have to draft in the first round (whether early, middle, or late), the more likely you are to compile valuable young assets.

The hope is that once we're in full rebuilding Doc will recognize that and play the young guys more instead of sticking so much with veterans he trusts.

This combined with the 2012 draft looking absolutely loaded.

There's going to be a few sliders and plenty of sleepers.

I'm dying to see Danny get a third pick in this draft.

[LooseCannon]

There's a lot of uncertainty right now.  I don't see a need to do a deal right now and I don't see any good deals sitting out there. 

I would be more inclined to wait until the actual draft order is established, the deadline for underclassman declaring passes, and there's a clearer indication of where Dwight Howard might end up.

I would also check out Oklahoma City's haul in 2010 for an idea of what a bunch of mid-to-late first round picks can get you.

[Roy H.]

Presumably, we'll be rebuilding through young talent and cap space.  Draft picks can be a huge asset in terms of both, as you're getting prospects who can develop, and you're getting them on modest contracts.

I agree that first rounders can be overrated, especially late firsts.  However, all things being equal, I'd rather have a first rounder than a low-ceiling rotation player.

[Throughthedoor1]

I really appreciate all the very rational response, but still feel the need to stir the pot a bit more.  Everyone thusfar who has responded has either tended to or squarely camped in the use of the draft at the core of rebuilding.  And I was just reflecting on Oklahoma (and Chicago as well) of examples of a system that is flourishing using that mode of operating.  But my mind also can't shake what Danny did in trading Al to get what would be the linchpin of our 17th, or even how Miami embraced the philosophy of using proven veterans (true there was a collusion element there that helped them get where they are currently) instead of taken the (as one of you mentioned), more questionable, though traditional route of the draft which, despite a seemingly richer, deeper class, still has a greater potential for bust.  THe fact that two out of three of our recent draftees that have made good on their potential have been shipped off-one to our collective rejoicing when we raised 17, the other overwhelmingly lamented as as ill-timed, ill-fated attempt to secure #18 last year.  Again, as I said, I'm not anti-drafting (I just loo at The Truth and I'm reminded of the dividends of a shrewd draft pick); I just wonder if the other avenue might prove more rewarding for this go around.  Thanks again for your considerate replies.

[Celtics4ever]

Picks are potential.  Therefore they hold value.

[Roy H.]

I really appreciate all the very rational response, but still feel the need to stir the pot a bit more.  Everyone thusfar who has responded has either tended to or squarely camped in the use of the draft at the core of rebuilding.  And I was just reflecting on Oklahoma (and Chicago as well) of examples of a system that is flourishing using that mode of operating.  But my mind also can't shake what Danny did in trading Al to get what would be the linchpin of our 17th, or even how Miami embraced the philosophy of using proven veterans (true there was a collusion element there that helped them get where they are currently) instead of taken the (as one of you mentioned), more questionable, though traditional route of the draft which, despite a seemingly richer, deeper class, still has a greater potential for bust.  THe fact that two out of three of our recent draftees that have made good on their potential have been shipped off-one to our collective rejoicing when we raised 17, the other overwhelmingly lamented as as ill-timed, ill-fated attempt to secure #18 last year.  Again, as I said, I'm not anti-drafting (I just loo at The Truth and I'm reminded of the dividends of a shrewd draft pick); I just wonder if the other avenue might prove more rewarding for this go around.  Thanks again for your considerate replies.

Big Al is a great example of why picks are good to have.  If we'd traded the #15 pick for a vet, what quality of player would we have gotten?  A rotation player, maybe a starter, but probably not a star.

However, by keeping the pick, and then developing Big Al, we ended up with a superstar.

[LooseCannon]

Don't get tied down to one method.  Right now, I doubt there are any trades the Celtics can make to bring in the sort of core player the Celtics can build around, so the draft is the best option.  Maybe in the summer, a player who isn't available now becomes available in a trade.  Maybe you don't draft your next superstar, but you draft enough young players with upside who can become part of a package in a trade for another superstar.

You don't have to build through the draft and you don't have to build through free agency.  You do have to be patient.  You do have to check any desire for instant gratification at the door.  And you do have to be willing to take risks instead of looking for the sure thing.

[tyrone biggums]

Picks are potential.  Therefore they hold value.

But you do need to have a balance, you can't base a team solely on potential, otherwise you become a team in lottery hell for the next decade. For example, if you can get a mid round pick for someone like Ray without taking on a terrible contract then do it. The problem is that there really isn't much of a difference between picking 25th and 35th in the draft, except that anyone drafted in the first round has a guaranteed contract.

Now that being said, if someone like Josh Smith falls into the Celtics lap, you do what you can to get him. If you go into rebuilding, a full blown blow up as most of the posters here really want then you have to trade Rondo despite knowing that you're getting 50 cents on the dollar for an all star point guard on a very good contract...

And this is why you will not see a full blown blow up. Danny is a smart GM, I think he feels that between Pierce Rondo and another star or two the Celtics could contend for the playoffs next year. Now is this the smartest thing in the world? Probably not, due to the simple fact that if you're in the middle of the pack its almost as bad as being the Wizards or a team on that level, its pretty much draft hell.

The more I think about it, if the Celtics keep Rondo then the full scale blow up makes less sense. I would like to think about it as a retooling.   

[TripleOT]

Picks 21-30 are crapshoots.  In the last 10 drafts, only two guys picks in slots 21-30 have become all stars.  (TP to anyone who can name the one besides Rondo). 

You'd be lucky to find a rotation guy with picks 21-30.  There's been less than a dozen good players picked in those slots the past decade (like Ibaka, Prince, Perk, Diaw, Wilson Chandler).

Danny has been the best GM at finding rotation players in the bottom third of the draft (Rondo, Perk, TA, Delonte, Marshon Brooks l ) but he's had two big whiffs too, which if you remember his baseball career, shouldn't be too surprising (Giddens and JJJ).   

[PosImpos]

Picks 21-30 are crapshoots.  In the last 10 drafts, only two guys picks in slots 21-30 have become all stars.  (TP to anyone who can name the one besides Rondo). 

You'd be lucky to find a rotation guy with picks 21-30.  There's been less than a dozen good players picked in those slots the past decade (like Ibaka, Prince, Perk, Diaw, Wilson Chandler).

Danny has been the best GM at finding rotation players in the bottom third of the draft (Rondo, Perk, TA, Delonte, Marshon Brooks l ) but he's had two big whiffs too, which if you remember his baseball career, shouldn't be too surprising (Giddens and JJJ).   

when you're picking late in the 1st round, or in the second, the criteria for success is not whether you an All-Star.  if you get a decent rotation player there, you're doing well, and it's certainly possible to find players like that late in the 1st in pretty much every draft.

[TripleOT]

Picks 21-30 are crapshoots.  In the last 10 drafts, only two guys picks in slots 21-30 have become all stars.  (TP to anyone who can name the one besides Rondo). 

You'd be lucky to find a rotation guy with picks 21-30.  There's been less than a dozen good players picked in those slots the past decade (like Ibaka, Prince, Perk, Diaw, Wilson Chandler).

Danny has been the best GM at finding rotation players in the bottom third of the draft (Rondo, Perk, TA, Delonte, Marshon Brooks l ) but he's had two big whiffs too, which if you remember his baseball career, shouldn't be too surprising (Giddens and JJJ).   

when you're picking late in the 1st round, or in the second, the criteria for success is not whether you an All-Star.  if you get a decent rotation player there, you're doing well, and it's certainly possible to find players like that late in the 1st in pretty much every draft.

There were almost 100 guys picked from 21-30 the past 10 drafts.  Only around 15 have become better than average rotation players. It's easier to find a solid rotation guy on the veteran scrap heap than through the draft.   

[PosImpos]

Picks 21-30 are crapshoots.  In the last 10 drafts, only two guys picks in slots 21-30 have become all stars.  (TP to anyone who can name the one besides Rondo).  

You'd be lucky to find a rotation guy with picks 21-30.  There's been less than a dozen good players picked in those slots the past decade (like Ibaka, Prince, Perk, Diaw, Wilson Chandler).

Danny has been the best GM at finding rotation players in the bottom third of the draft (Rondo, Perk, TA, Delonte, Marshon Brooks l ) but he's had two big whiffs too, which if you remember his baseball career, shouldn't be too surprising (Giddens and JJJ).    

when you're picking late in the 1st round, or in the second, the criteria for success is not whether you an All-Star.  if you get a decent rotation player there, you're doing well, and it's certainly possible to find players like that late in the 1st in pretty much every draft.

There were almost 100 guys picked from 21-30 the past 10 drafts.  Only around 15 have become better than average rotation players. It's easier to find a solid rotation guy on the veteran scrap heap than through the draft.  

. . . except when you draft a player, you get to pay them a fixed salary, and you get the rights to them for a number of years.  you don't have to overpay them -- as you often do with veteran players, especially if you're a bad team -- or worry about them testing free agency every off-season.

if you want to get consistent, long-term contributors with youth and athleticism, you've got to draft them, or else way overpay for them on the free agent market.

building a supporting cast out of veterans only makes sense if you already have a championship core in place.