Best player available vs offense- or defense-oriented

[LooseCannon]

When we talk about drafting BPA vs drafting to fill a need, usually we talk about a positional need.

Sometimes, however, a team needs offense (or defense) and has multiple positions to fill.  If a team has a strong defense but problems on offense, should it take the player who is most likely to upgrade the offense, or should it take the best player available, even if that player projects to be more valuable on defense and needs to work on his offense?

[PhoSita]

Entering a rebuild I'd say prioritize defensive prospects over offensive ones.

Unless you're getting a true star, the defensive prospect is going to be much more valuable, and much cheaper long term.

E.g. I'd rather have a guy like Kawhi Leonard than Eric Gordon.

The playoffs show us year after year that putting together a team capable of playing great defense will take you far even if your offense kind of sucks.  Defensive players tend to make less money, and it's easier to get players in the draft who can play really tenacious defense (see: Bradley, Avery).


I mean, just look at what Indiana has done.  They've prioritized drafting defensive guys over offensive ones (by and large), and though their team is pretty hapless offensively, they made it to Game 7 of the Conference Finals against the defending champions because they were so good defensively (and on the boards).