Anthony Davis would have gone first over all last year as well as the year before. He's as sure to be a star as one can say without knowing the future wheras JV projects to be a good player, not a great one. You can only make educated guesses on how players will turn out, but to pass up on what all the scouts are calling one of the best players to come out of college in years for JV (if it came to chosing between them) makes little sense.
For the most part, Needs are less subjective then Best Player Available. Aside from Anthony Davis & Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, things start to get less certain at the top (of this Draft).
Some mock drafts have Barnes high, others have Beal going #2 ... even Jeremy Lamb gets his name up there. The point is, after the consensus top pick (Davis), it could go any number of ways. Which to me is what I'd describe as subjective.
What I find so f*@ked up, is how many of these Mock Draft Boards have Raptors picking another Big .... wtf. Are we Minnesota deja vu - with Bigs - instead of Point Guards. How's that working out for the Timber Wolves? Try 57 wins in almost 3 seasons (when they started the PG slop-fest). I guess the real question is, with the Raptors already loaded with tall guys, why would we go after 2 more of them (which includes JV - a probable #2 or #3 if he was in this draft). Yes - Davis would be an easy sure-fire answer. But after him, the question has to be ...... WHY?
Raptors have needs from the 1 & 3 spots, with some even going so far as to include our SG spot. Never-the-less, Toronto has some serious needs in the Back Court - especially Starter quality. Shouldn't we start addressing that, or do we expect some Free Agent to make his way here because he's okay with the smell up here.
Some will counter that we'll have these extra Bigs to trade, forgetting that this draft is loaded with them. Economics 101 will tell you that when your supply is larger than the demand, price goes down. Hence, Raptors need to go after their Needs - when the BPA is not readily dominant.
I don't think the conversation has been about when one player is not noticeably better than another - at least that is the way I've interpreted it. If there is no difference in evaluated talent and potential, then yes, go with needs.
Outside of the 5 spot (and that is still an uncertainty) we need talent upgrades at every position. They are currently trying to develop young players that don't have "it" factor. There are a few decent pieces but I'm hoping this draft pick will turn out to be an undisputable 'core' piece of the team.
P.S. Beal in the top 3? I pride myself on keeping up with the college game and although he is a nice prospect, I can't say from what I saw of him this year that he would be taken that high. I think both Beal and MKG are sexy picks that might not give you the return expected from a top 3 selection. I might end up eating those words but just mho.
You're basing your opinion solely on what these sports writers think. Colangelo will be basing his opinion on years of research, what his scouting team is reporting and workouts where he is on the floor with the players. Don't just assume Colangelo agrees with these sport analysts. History will tell you that the GM's rarely follow these mock drafts. What we do know is Colangelo develops a draft board, ranking the players in the class. What I am saying is he should pick the guy at the top of his board when his turn comes to pick. Of course the "BPA" is subjective but it's an irrelevant point because honestly, we don't matter in this process. The only thing that matters is what Colanglo thinks.
By the way, GMs will always take the guy that they think is the BPA at the top of the draft. Imagine a GM admitting that "well, we thought that other guy was going to be a better player, but the guy we chose filled our positional needs better". But GMs probably do get influenced somewhat by glaring holes in their roster, especially if a few guys are relatively close in their assessment.
That said, the player they want could be further down but so much change in the board right now. Their will be some real gems in the second round also.
Nobody championing the virtues of the tiered drafting approach? It's the perfect hybrid. Lump guy's into tiers, then draft by need from those tiers. Even with this approach, we may end up with another PF... but it is what it is. Most mock drafts have 4 bigs going in the first 6 or 7 picks. They'll be hard to avoid drafting in that range.
We may still see somebody pull a Westbrook, and get selected 40 picks sooner then expected after melting brains during the work-outs.
Something else to consider is other teams needs.
Personally, I think Charlotte, Washington, New Orleans, Sacramento, Detroit, and Portland (via NJ) have a need for bigs.
Cleveland and Toronto have a need for wings.
GSW Milwaukee are perfect examples of take the best player available as they have decent - but not great - talent all around.
Utah (GSW) needs a PG.
I think there is a strong possibility Toronto could get the pick they feel is the best player and fits a need outside of the top 3 - fingers crossed.
who knows they could always move bargnani back to sf. lol
Is it likely the raps could trade for Gerald Wallace? is NJ lookin to dish?
If he does opt out and we get Beal in the draft that could be a beauty of a fit with Bargs, Wallace, Val, Beal
Whoever told you skies the limit is looking dumb because I'm 22 and i'm moonwalking on the sun.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)