Sixers Can't Get Top-Five Pick for Jahlil Okafor

[perks-a-beast]

If i'm the Suns i trade the #4 pick for Okafor all day everyday.

[hwangjini_1]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

Classic LB...dismiss reports that don't support his narrative (see above), but fully endorse those that do (Nurkic for the #3).

Saying I "endorsed" ESPN's trade idea is typical of you.  You always assume every idea I share represents my personal opinion.  I relayed what was said in Ford's article and asked if anyone would actually move #3 for Nurkic.  I personally wouldn't.  But it's interesting that they said the #3 was equal value for Nurkic.

But really, who cares at this point.  We're less than a week away from the draft.  Traditionally, there's a ton of nonsense noise from the media heading into the draft.   Ainge is one of Ford's biggest sources.  So take it for what it's worth. 

But yes, it was in a Ford insider article that they suggested Nurkic for #3.  He also suggested that the Pelicans trade #6 + additional assets for Okafor.  He's now claiming that Nerlens NOel has more trade value than Okafor, so he's essentially saying Noel is worth a top 5 pick. 

Pick your poison, Ed.  From seeing your posts in the past, it seems you might actually hate Noel more than you hate Okafor.  You gonna celebrate Ford saying Okafor is only worth #6?  Or are you going pout because Ford is saying NOel is worth a top 5 picK?

Or are you going to make the wise move here... and just hold off on any pre-mature bragging until draft day.  Who knows what ends up happening, but if Boston does indeed end up moving #3 for Okafor, as many have predicted, you'll look a little silly for having dismissed such any idea only a few days earlier.

Furthermore, does it really make a lick of difference when there is no consensus players in the 3-8 range?  Brad Stevens himself said Boston had narrowed their options down to 8 guys.   So who cares if Okafor is only worth #6 and Noel is only worth #3.    All the names in that range seem interchangeable at this point.  If Bender goes 3 or 8, would you be surprised?  If Hield goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Brown goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Murray goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  How about Dunn?  How about Chriss? 

If there was a consensus option at #3, this kind of thing would be more interesting, but Okafor is widely seen as better than every player available in the 3-8 range.  So if they only get #3 for NOel and only get #6 for Okafor, doesn't it more just matter who they end up with?  The entire idea that one pick has dramatically more trade value than another seems asinine at this point.

Whatever.  I'm pumped for the draft.

lb, you completely missed/avoided the point of his post.

[LarBrd33]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

Classic LB...dismiss reports that don't support his narrative (see above), but fully endorse those that do (Nurkic for the #3).

Saying I "endorsed" ESPN's trade idea is typical of you.  You always assume every idea I share represents my personal opinion.  I relayed what was said in Ford's article and asked if anyone would actually move #3 for Nurkic.  I personally wouldn't.  But it's interesting that they said the #3 was equal value for Nurkic.

But really, who cares at this point.  We're less than a week away from the draft.  Traditionally, there's a ton of nonsense noise from the media heading into the draft.   Ainge is one of Ford's biggest sources.  So take it for what it's worth. 

But yes, it was in a Ford insider article that they suggested Nurkic for #3.  He also suggested that the Pelicans trade #6 + additional assets for Okafor.  He's now claiming that Nerlens NOel has more trade value than Okafor, so he's essentially saying Noel is worth a top 5 pick. 

Pick your poison, Ed.  From seeing your posts in the past, it seems you might actually hate Noel more than you hate Okafor.  You gonna celebrate Ford saying Okafor is only worth #6?  Or are you going pout because Ford is saying NOel is worth a top 5 picK?

Or are you going to make the wise move here... and just hold off on any pre-mature bragging until draft day.  Who knows what ends up happening, but if Boston does indeed end up moving #3 for Okafor, as many have predicted, you'll look a little silly for having dismissed such any idea only a few days earlier.

Furthermore, does it really make a lick of difference when there is no consensus players in the 3-8 range?  Brad Stevens himself said Boston had narrowed their options down to 8 guys.   So who cares if Okafor is only worth #6 and Noel is only worth #3.    All the names in that range seem interchangeable at this point.  If Bender goes 3 or 8, would you be surprised?  If Hield goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Brown goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Murray goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  How about Dunn?  How about Chriss? 

If there was a consensus option at #3, this kind of thing would be more interesting, but Okafor is widely seen as better than every player available in the 3-8 range.  So if they only get #3 for NOel and only get #6 for Okafor, doesn't it more just matter who they end up with?  The entire idea that one pick has dramatically more trade value than another seems asinine at this point.

Whatever.  I'm pumped for the draft.

lb, you completely missed/avoided the point of his post.

Alls I'm saying is, the math doesn't make any sense.  You have the same source saying all of the following together.

#1 - Okafor is significantly better than anyone available at #3
#2 - Sixers could only get a #6 pick for Okafor
#3 - The players from 3-8 are interchangeable.
#4 - Noel is worth more than Okafor
#5 - Jusuf Nurkic is equal value for the #3 pick
#6 - Jimmy Butler would cost #3 + Thomas
#7 - The 3rd pick could get you both D'Angelo Russell and Julius Randle

These thoughts completely contradict each other in a number of ways and yet they are coming from the same source.  The logic doesn't work out.  So it's fine to relay them.  It's fine to discuss them.  But at this point, who cares.  We're less than a week away from sifting through the nonsense to see what actually happens.

[Ilikesports17]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

Classic LB...dismiss reports that don't support his narrative (see above), but fully endorse those that do (Nurkic for the #3).

Saying I "endorsed" ESPN's trade idea is typical of you.  You always assume every idea I share represents my personal opinion.  I relayed what was said in Ford's article and asked if anyone would actually move #3 for Nurkic.  I personally wouldn't.  But it's interesting that they said the #3 was equal value for Nurkic.

But really, who cares at this point.  We're less than a week away from the draft.  Traditionally, there's a ton of nonsense noise from the media heading into the draft.   Ainge is one of Ford's biggest sources.  So take it for what it's worth. 

But yes, it was in a Ford insider article that they suggested Nurkic for #3.  He also suggested that the Pelicans trade #6 + additional assets for Okafor.  He's now claiming that Nerlens NOel has more trade value than Okafor, so he's essentially saying Noel is worth a top 5 pick. 

Pick your poison, Ed.  From seeing your posts in the past, it seems you might actually hate Noel more than you hate Okafor.  You gonna celebrate Ford saying Okafor is only worth #6?  Or are you going pout because Ford is saying NOel is worth a top 5 picK?

Or are you going to make the wise move here... and just hold off on any pre-mature bragging until draft day.  Who knows what ends up happening, but if Boston does indeed end up moving #3 for Okafor, as many have predicted, you'll look a little silly for having dismissed such any idea only a few days earlier.

Furthermore, does it really make a lick of difference when there is no consensus players in the 3-8 range?  Brad Stevens himself said Boston had narrowed their options down to 8 guys.   So who cares if Okafor is only worth #6 and Noel is only worth #3.    All the names in that range seem interchangeable at this point.  If Bender goes 3 or 8, would you be surprised?  If Hield goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Brown goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Murray goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  How about Dunn?  How about Chriss? 

If there was a consensus option at #3, this kind of thing would be more interesting, but Okafor is widely seen as better than every player available in the 3-8 range.  So if they only get #3 for NOel and only get #6 for Okafor, doesn't it more just matter who they end up with?  The entire idea that one pick has dramatically more trade value than another seems asinine at this point.

Whatever.  I'm pumped for the draft.

lb, you completely missed/avoided the point of his post.

Alls I'm saying is, the math doesn't make any sense.  You have people saying all of the following together.

#1 - Okafor is significantly better than anyone available at #3
#2 - Sixers could only get a #6 pick for Okafor
#3 - The players from 3-8 are interchangeable.
#4 - Noel is worth more than Okafor
#5 - Jusuf Nurkic is equal value for the #3 pick
#6 - Jimmy Butler would cost #3 + Thomas
#7 - The 3rd pick could get you both D'Angelo Russell and Julius Randle

These thoughts completely contradict each other in a number of ways and yet they are coming from the same source.  The logic doesn't work out.  So it's fine to relay them.  It's fine to discuss them.  But at this point, who cares.  We're less than a week away from sifting through the nonsense to see what actually happens.

I think the best conclusion to draw is that we haven't got a [dang] clue what's happening Thursday.

[MBunge]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

That seems to be the narrative everyone's going with.  I don't yet buy the idea that big men are dead.  I just think it's a lack of quality big men.  There aren't a lot of dominant low post guys worth building a system around.  I think that has more to do with it than anything.

I actually think there's a chance here at some point there's going to be a conventional big man who will show up and just eat the league alive.  I'm not saying that will be Okafor.  But at some point some 7'2 300+ pound monster with skill is going to show up and they are going to try sticking a 6'8 230 pound "center" like Draymond Green on him.  Good luck to em.

Isn't the "New NBA" that everyone envisions just a throwback to the NBA in the 1950s before the human giants showed up and started stomping on jump-shooting white guys?

It's also just kind of funny, because no team has had more consistent success over the past 20 years than the San Antonio Spurs and they are successful, in large part, because Tim Duncan is a conventional 7 foot 250 pound big man who even in his twilight was able to make a difference for that team.   Granted, Duncan was an exceptional defender which isn't how anyone would describe OKafor, but i'm more commenting on the idea that conventional bigs are seen as obsolete.

To be fair Duncan really has been more of an elite role player the last 3-4 years than a superstar. Who was the last team to win a title where their center was clearly their best player?

The Lakers clearly won their last two titles far more because of Pau/Bynum/Odom than Kobe.

I'm not the biggest Okafor fan but it's getting pretty ridiculous when the best low post scorer to come into the league in possibly a decade or more is regarded as almost useless.  You've got to walk before you can run and you've got to be good before you can be great.

Mike

[LarBrd33]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

Classic LB...dismiss reports that don't support his narrative (see above), but fully endorse those that do (Nurkic for the #3).

Saying I "endorsed" ESPN's trade idea is typical of you.  You always assume every idea I share represents my personal opinion.  I relayed what was said in Ford's article and asked if anyone would actually move #3 for Nurkic.  I personally wouldn't.  But it's interesting that they said the #3 was equal value for Nurkic.

But really, who cares at this point.  We're less than a week away from the draft.  Traditionally, there's a ton of nonsense noise from the media heading into the draft.   Ainge is one of Ford's biggest sources.  So take it for what it's worth. 

But yes, it was in a Ford insider article that they suggested Nurkic for #3.  He also suggested that the Pelicans trade #6 + additional assets for Okafor.  He's now claiming that Nerlens NOel has more trade value than Okafor, so he's essentially saying Noel is worth a top 5 pick. 

Pick your poison, Ed.  From seeing your posts in the past, it seems you might actually hate Noel more than you hate Okafor.  You gonna celebrate Ford saying Okafor is only worth #6?  Or are you going pout because Ford is saying NOel is worth a top 5 picK?

Or are you going to make the wise move here... and just hold off on any pre-mature bragging until draft day.  Who knows what ends up happening, but if Boston does indeed end up moving #3 for Okafor, as many have predicted, you'll look a little silly for having dismissed such any idea only a few days earlier.

Furthermore, does it really make a lick of difference when there is no consensus players in the 3-8 range?  Brad Stevens himself said Boston had narrowed their options down to 8 guys.   So who cares if Okafor is only worth #6 and Noel is only worth #3.    All the names in that range seem interchangeable at this point.  If Bender goes 3 or 8, would you be surprised?  If Hield goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Brown goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Murray goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  How about Dunn?  How about Chriss? 

If there was a consensus option at #3, this kind of thing would be more interesting, but Okafor is widely seen as better than every player available in the 3-8 range.  So if they only get #3 for NOel and only get #6 for Okafor, doesn't it more just matter who they end up with?  The entire idea that one pick has dramatically more trade value than another seems asinine at this point.

Whatever.  I'm pumped for the draft.

lb, you completely missed/avoided the point of his post.

Alls I'm saying is, the math doesn't make any sense.  You have people saying all of the following together.

#1 - Okafor is significantly better than anyone available at #3
#2 - Sixers could only get a #6 pick for Okafor
#3 - The players from 3-8 are interchangeable.
#4 - Noel is worth more than Okafor
#5 - Jusuf Nurkic is equal value for the #3 pick
#6 - Jimmy Butler would cost #3 + Thomas
#7 - The 3rd pick could get you both D'Angelo Russell and Julius Randle

These thoughts completely contradict each other in a number of ways and yet they are coming from the same source.  The logic doesn't work out.  So it's fine to relay them.  It's fine to discuss them.  But at this point, who cares.  We're less than a week away from sifting through the nonsense to see what actually happens.

I think the best conclusion to draw is that we haven't got a [dang] clue what's happening Thursday.

Agreed.  I've always agreed with that, though.  I doubt Ainge even knows what he's going to do yet.  My guess is it's entirely up in the air at this point and we have a lot of things that may or may not end up happening.  Maybe we take one of the 8 interchangeable role players available at #3.   Maybe we traded a major package for a Jimmy Butler or DeMarcus Cousins.  Or maybe we take advantage of Philly's situation and grab a guy like Okafor or Noel for the #3 pick.  We'll see what happens. 

None of us has any clue.  ANyone who claims they know what will happen is lying.  There's still a chance Ingram slips or something.    But I will say this... at gunpoint, if I was forced to guess what will happen on draft night, my safe guess is that we'll use the pick to draft someone.  My second best guess is that we trade the pick for Okafor. 

[greenrunsdeep41]

Chad Ford has been pretty funny this week. 

I like his ridiculous idea that we'd get Julius Randle + D'Angelo Russell for the #3 pick.  I suspect Danny Ainge might have hacked his account.

Classic LB...dismiss reports that don't support his narrative (see above), but fully endorse those that do (Nurkic for the #3).

Saying I "endorsed" ESPN's trade idea is typical of you.  You always assume every idea I share represents my personal opinion.  I relayed what was said in Ford's article and asked if anyone would actually move #3 for Nurkic.  I personally wouldn't.  But it's interesting that they said the #3 was equal value for Nurkic.

But really, who cares at this point.  We're less than a week away from the draft.  Traditionally, there's a ton of nonsense noise from the media heading into the draft.   Ainge is one of Ford's biggest sources.  So take it for what it's worth. 

But yes, it was in a Ford insider article that they suggested Nurkic for #3.  He also suggested that the Pelicans trade #6 + additional assets for Okafor.  He's now claiming that Nerlens NOel has more trade value than Okafor, so he's essentially saying Noel is worth a top 5 pick. 

Pick your poison, Ed.  From seeing your posts in the past, it seems you might actually hate Noel more than you hate Okafor.  You gonna celebrate Ford saying Okafor is only worth #6?  Or are you going pout because Ford is saying NOel is worth a top 5 picK?

Or are you going to make the wise move here... and just hold off on any pre-mature bragging until draft day.  Who knows what ends up happening, but if Boston does indeed end up moving #3 for Okafor, as many have predicted, you'll look a little silly for having dismissed such any idea only a few days earlier.

Furthermore, does it really make a lick of difference when there is no consensus players in the 3-8 range?  Brad Stevens himself said Boston had narrowed their options down to 8 guys.   So who cares if Okafor is only worth #6 and Noel is only worth #3.    All the names in that range seem interchangeable at this point.  If Bender goes 3 or 8, would you be surprised?  If Hield goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Brown goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  If Murray goes 3 or 8 would you be surprised?  How about Dunn?  How about Chriss? 

If there was a consensus option at #3, this kind of thing would be more interesting, but Okafor is widely seen as better than every player available in the 3-8 range.  So if they only get #3 for NOel and only get #6 for Okafor, doesn't it more just matter who they end up with?  The entire idea that one pick has dramatically more trade value than another seems asinine at this point.

Whatever.  I'm pumped for the draft.

lb, you completely missed/avoided the point of his post.

Alls I'm saying is, the math doesn't make any sense.  You have people saying all of the following together.

.

#1 - Okafor is significantly better than anyone available at #3
#2 - Sixers could only get a #6 pick for Okafor
#3 - The players from 3-8 are interchangeable.
#4 - Noel is worth more than Okafor
#5 - Jusuf Nurkic is equal value for the #3 pick
#6 - Jimmy Butler would cost #3 + Thomas
#7 - The 3rd pick could get you both D'Angelo Russell and Julius Randle

These thoughts completely contradict each other in a number of ways and yet they are coming from the same source.  The logic doesn't work out.  So it's fine to relay them.  It's fine to discuss them.  But at this point, who cares.  We're less than a week away from sifting through the nonsense to see what actually happens.

I think the best conclusion to draw is that we haven't got a [dang] clue what's happening Thursday.

Agreed.  I've always agreed with that, though.  I doubt Ainge even knows what he's going to do yet.  My guess is it's entirely up in the air at this point and we have a lot of things that may or may not end up happening.  Maybe we take one of the 8 interchangeable role players available at #3.   Maybe we traded a major package for a Jimmy Butler or DeMarcus Cousins.  Or maybe we take advantage of Philly's situation and grab a guy like Okafor or Noel for the #3 pick.  We'll see what happens. 

None of us has any clue.  ANyone who claims they know what will happen is lying.  There's still a chance Ingram slips or something.    But I will say this... at gunpoint, if I was forced to guess what will happen on draft night, my safe guess is that we'll use the pick to draft someone.  My second best guess is that we trade the pick for Okafor.

All I'm saying is mr 00 was a key part of the bird dynasty years. I feel a little bit of nerlens in him. For those who don't know, I'm talking about mr Robert perrish. I feel that they are really similar players

I'll go deeper when I'm not sitting in a bar.

Sidenote, anyone know any good Celtics bars in the Brooklyn area?

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

That seems to be the narrative everyone's going with.  I don't yet buy the idea that big men are dead.  I just think it's a lack of quality big men.  There aren't a lot of dominant low post guys worth building a system around.  I think that has more to do with it than anything.

I actually think there's a chance here at some point there's going to be a conventional big man who will show up and just eat the league alive.  I'm not saying that will be Okafor.  But at some point some 7'2 300+ pound monster with skill is going to show up and they are going to try sticking a 6'8 230 pound "center" like Draymond Green on him.  Good luck to em.

Isn't the "New NBA" that everyone envisions just a throwback to the NBA in the 1950s before the human giants showed up and started stomping on jump-shooting white guys?

It's also just kind of funny, because no team has had more consistent success over the past 20 years than the San Antonio Spurs and they are successful, in large part, because Tim Duncan is a conventional 7 foot 250 pound big man who even in his twilight was able to make a difference for that team.   Granted, Duncan was an exceptional defender which isn't how anyone would describe OKafor, but i'm more commenting on the idea that conventional bigs are seen as obsolete.

I agree with you. In fact, I think the Spurs are trying to be the unconventional team already by shooting more mid-range 2s and going in the post while playing two bigs. They are zagging when everyone else is zigging.

You can play good basketball and play big. But you have to have the players to play big basketball. You can't throw the ball to Dwight Howard 15-20 times a game in the post and expect your offense to be good. But until Cousins, Howard was the premier low post player in the NBA. 20 years ago, Howard would have been comparable to Mourning. We don't have any Hakeems, Robinsons, or Shaqs in the modern NBA and there doesn't seem to be any on the horizon.

I don't think Okafor can be that kind of player because he isn't a complete basketball player. Give me a player like Okafor who can also defend the rim and rebound, and I would fully support punishing opponents on the inside. But you can't build a team against convention around an incomplete basketball player, or else your team will struggle against the new conventional basketball style, and you, as a GM will be crucified.

He's young. Maybe he will develop. If he could play both ways, he'd be worth a top 6 pick. But GMs aren't stupid. The value of that kind of incomplete player with a non-conventional style is low right now.

[LarBrd33]

I get your point that okafor isn't a complete basketball player.  He's a 20 year old rookie who spent a single season in college.  Why would he be a complete basketball player ?

[guava_wrench]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

That seems to be the narrative everyone's going with.  I don't yet buy the idea that big men are dead.  I just think it's a lack of quality big men.  There aren't a lot of dominant low post guys worth building a system around.  I think that has more to do with it than anything.

I actually think there's a chance here at some point there's going to be a conventional big man who will show up and just eat the league alive.  I'm not saying that will be Okafor.  But at some point some 7'2 300+ pound monster with skill is going to show up and they are going to try sticking a 6'8 230 pound "center" like Draymond Green on him.  Good luck to em.

Isn't the "New NBA" that everyone envisions just a throwback to the NBA in the 1950s before the human giants showed up and started stomping on jump-shooting white guys?

It's also just kind of funny, because no team has had more consistent success over the past 20 years than the San Antonio Spurs and they are successful, in large part, because Tim Duncan is a conventional 7 foot 250 pound big man who even in his twilight was able to make a difference for that team.   Granted, Duncan was an exceptional defender which isn't how anyone would describe OKafor, but i'm more commenting on the idea that conventional bigs are seen as obsolete.

The lane is too packed.

Look at Greg Monroe. That looks like Okafor's future.

Okafor is no Duncan. Perhaps Okafor didn't need to be a Duncan 20 years ago to be worth a top 2 pick, but times have changed. Mentioning Duncan is completely irrelevant anyway to a thread about Okafor's value in light of what the league values. Okafor is not a transcendent player. He is a big with good offense, like Monroe or Jefferson, neither of which come with as many headaches off the court. Teams don't consider that the key to success, and for good reason.

[merkins]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

That seems to be the narrative everyone's going with.  I don't yet buy the idea that big men are dead.  I just think it's a lack of quality big men.  There aren't a lot of dominant low post guys worth building a system around.  I think that has more to do with it than anything.

I actually think there's a chance here at some point there's going to be a conventional big man who will show up and just eat the league alive.  I'm not saying that will be Okafor.  But at some point some 7'2 300+ pound monster with skill is going to show up and they are going to try sticking a 6'8 230 pound "center" like Draymond Green on him.  Good luck to em.

Isn't the "New NBA" that everyone envisions just a throwback to the NBA in the 1950s before the human giants showed up and started stomping on jump-shooting white guys?

It's also just kind of funny, because no team has had more consistent success over the past 20 years than the San Antonio Spurs and they are successful, in large part, because Tim Duncan is a conventional 7 foot 250 pound big man who even in his twilight was able to make a difference for that team.   Granted, Duncan was an exceptional defender which isn't how anyone would describe OKafor, but i'm more commenting on the idea that conventional bigs are seen as obsolete.

The lane is too packed.

Look at Greg Monroe. That looks like Okafor's future.

Okafor is no Duncan. Perhaps Okafor didn't need to be a Duncan 20 years ago to be worth a top 2 pick, but times have changed. Mentioning Duncan is completely irrelevant anyway to a thread about Okafor's value in light of what the league values. Okafor is not a transcendent player. He is a big with good offense, like Monroe or Jefferson, neither of which come with as many headaches off the court. Teams don't consider that the key to success, and for good reason.

Agreed.  For as good of players as they are/were, this team does not need an Elton Brand/Al Jeff 2.0

[footey]

I don't really find this that surprising. If Okafor had the rookie season he just had twenty years ago I think he would be in play for a top 2 pick in that era. However, with the advancements that have been made in advanced stats and the direction the NBA has moved in (look at the finals big men rotation) the flaws in his game are much more high profile than they once would have been.

That seems to be the narrative everyone's going with.  I don't yet buy the idea that big men are dead.  I just think it's a lack of quality big men.  There aren't a lot of dominant low post guys worth building a system around.  I think that has more to do with it than anything.

I actually think there's a chance here at some point there's going to be a conventional big man who will show up and just eat the league alive.  I'm not saying that will be Okafor.  But at some point some 7'2 300+ pound monster with skill is going to show up and they are going to try sticking a 6'8 230 pound "center" like Draymond Green on him.  Good luck to em.

Isn't the "New NBA" that everyone envisions just a throwback to the NBA in the 1950s before the human giants showed up and started stomping on jump-shooting white guys?

It's also just kind of funny, because no team has had more consistent success over the past 20 years than the San Antonio Spurs and they are successful, in large part, because Tim Duncan is a conventional 7 foot 250 pound big man who even in his twilight was able to make a difference for that team.   Granted, Duncan was an exceptional defender which isn't how anyone would describe OKafor, but i'm more commenting on the idea that conventional bigs are seen as obsolete.

To be fair Duncan really has been more of an elite role player the last 3-4 years than a superstar. Who was the last team to win a title where their center was clearly their best player?

The Lakers clearly won their last two titles far more because of Pau/Bynum/Odom than Kobe.

I'm not the biggest Okafor fan but it's getting pretty ridiculous when the best low post scorer to come into the league in possibly a decade or more is regarded as almost useless.  You've got to walk before you can run and you've got to be good before you can be great.

Mike

We just need to beat him down for a few more days so that we can get him for James Young and the 16th pick!!

[biggs]

Give us both! We'll figure it out 

[DefenseWinsChamps]

I get your point that okafor isn't a complete basketball player.  He's a 20 year old rookie who spent a single season in college.  Why would he be a complete basketball player ?

Great point. I think I said, "He's young. Maybe he will develop." The struggle is that it is more of a risk to build a team contrary to common philosophies around a guy who may not ever be worth building around. It's safer not to.

That's why is value is low. I'm not saying he won't ever be that "complete player," but that the risk is higher stakes when taking a guy who isn't complete and building a system around him that is contrary to conventional systems today.

[mmmmm]

I get your point that okafor isn't a complete basketball player.  He's a 20 year old rookie who spent a single season in college.  Why would he be a complete basketball player ?

One doesn't expect polish in a 20 year old.  But one hopes for aptitude.