Draft Strategy: BPA vs Team Needs

[coffee425]

Starting the debate of Best Player Available vs Drafting Based on Team Needs

Let's take this argument specifically for the 2016 Draft, specifically with that Brooklyn pick. At what draft position or situation do you shift from BPA to Team Needs? Or should you start with Team Needs and then eventually shift to BPA as picks fall off?
For the sake of the discussion
BPA = Subjective Best Talent + Potential Available
Team Needs = Players that fit the team's current cap, roster/lineup, organization situation (includes stash players)

My personal preference for this year's draft is pretty simple:
Picks 1-2: BPA
Picks 3-20: Team Need
Picks 20+: Team Need (Int'l Stash)

[Moranis]

I'm of the belief you should always take the best player available.  Now if two guys are real close, you might consider roster makeup if you already have a star at one position (i.e. if you have Lebron James, you might avoid a SF in a close matchup). 

[coffee425]

I'm of the belief you should always take the best player available.  Now if two guys are real close, you might consider roster makeup if you already have a star at one position (i.e. if you have Lebron James, you might avoid a SF in a close matchup).

Still would've kept Wiggins over Love.

[Donoghus]

BPA pretty much all the time.

If you want to draft for team need in the 2nd round or something, I wouldn't necessarily have an issue with it but still think you should rather go for BPA.

[Evantime34]

BPA, but when talent is relatively equal pick at a position that the team doesn't have young talent.

The distinction between picking at a position that the team doesn't have young talent and team needs is: team needs are what the team currently needs, doesn't have young talent is what the team will need in the future.

[Csfan1984]

Trade down and pick up another asset as well as get your need.

Say you need a SG but best player is a SF. If he isn't a unexpected sliding player, take him but offer his rights to someone who can trade you a SG or give you say a 2nd and the two picks down where a SG can be taken in draft. Thus you get your guy and and asset.

[jambr380]

BPA generally seems to be the best idea, but there are a couple of exceptions:

First, if you already have a star PG and the BPA is a non-shooting, smaller PG. In this case, you are just screwing yourself before you even put your team on the floor by drafting a player who absolutely can't play with your current, very good PG.

Another is what happened with the Sixers. They picked three top of the draft centers three years in a row who can't shoot outside of five feet. In general, I am okay with picking top notch big guys, but at least one of them needs to be able to spread the floor.

As the draft moves well past the lottery, I am also okay with teams picking for need. There usually isn't a great of a distinction and perennial playoff teams generally need to find players to fill roles rather than finding the next big star...but good players do slide and teams should be willing to take a chance.

[Denis998]

in this draft the BPA is the team need.

[coffee425]

in this draft the BPA is the team need.

True... TP for your David Lee signature.

[slamtheking]

I'm of the belief you should always take the best player available.  Now if two guys are real close, you might consider roster makeup if you already have a star at one position (i.e. if you have Lebron James, you might avoid a SF in a close matchup). 

this.

the 3 other circumstances to consider, as others have mentioned, are:
1) to use the draft-and-stash option when faced with a multitude of picks that you don't have the roster room for.  C's have 8 picks this year.  if they can't consolidate them to move up to better picks, use some of the second rounders to draft and stash some euro prospects or players like Thornton who agree to go overseas to develop their games.
2) if the BPA plays a position you're already set at and is a lesser version of what you have, trade back to a spot where the BPA will not replicate what you have that's better and pick up another asset at the same time. 
3) trade the pick(s) outright for an established player that fills a need where you're not taking a lesser player than the player being drafted.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I agree with BPA, but BPA also has to be weighed with risk. Sometimes, a guy is the best basketball player available, but his risk lowers his potential to actually succeed in the NBA.

Team need does not play a part unless the players are the same level.

[max215]

1-60: BPA

[ssspence]

in this draft the BPA is the team need.

exactly -- TP

[furball]

My draft strategy is always, in all sports, when it's your turn to pick, take the guy you want.  If he's the BPA, great.  If he's not, who cares.  Take the guy you want.  Who gets to say who the BPA is anyways?  was Steph Curry even the BPA when he was drafted?  Would he not have been the BPA a lot sooner if we redid the draft?   

Don't worry about if he's the BPA or how he fits your team or when he's supposed to get picked.  If there is a guy you like, take him and go from there.