Re: what the heck?

["Berry, Mark S" <berrym@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

To echo what Shawn said, the tanking debate was relevant two or three
weeks ago when it looked like the difference in draft order would be
drafting seventh or drafting 14th. That's significant. Even if right now
you say there isn't that much of a difference, history shows there can
be a HUGE difference. Look at last year. A lot of people didn't see any
difference between Kirk Hinrich and Marcus Banks. Or T.J. Ford and
Marcus Banks. (I was one who had serious doubts about Hinrich - shows
what I know.) Well, I think we've seen that there is a difference.



That's why, as you said, having the extra picks and spare parts (I'm
going to throw Welsch, Davis and Mihm in here, although I'm sure others
will disagree) to trade up is so valuable. Sometimes moving up just a
few spots is all the difference. It's the difference between drafting a
Banks, Ridnour or Reece Gaines and drafting a Hinrich or Ford.



But to say you're just as likely to get a good player later in the draft
just isn't true. And already classifying this draft class as role
players is pretty narrow-minded. We don't know much about them because
it's heavy on foreigners and high school kids, but that doesn't mean
they're destined to be role players. Common sense tells you it's better
to have more options when you pick. The best players go off the board
early, with some exceptions of course.



The tanking argument is losing steam now, because everyone at the bottom
of the East has won enough so that the team that misses the playoffs
probably still will draft in that 10-12 range. That's not quite as
significant a difference, so the benefits of making the playoffs
arguably outweigh the advantages gained in draft position.



Mark





--- --- ---



Kim wrote:



You know, everyone who wants to effectively tank keeps making that
point. I don't get it. WHAT draft consequences, when you look at it
realistically. This isn't a draft with a number of transcendent
potential franchise players at the top, followed by a precipitous drop
off, so that you draft in the lottery or die.  And even if it were, we
wouldn't end up bad enough to get a top pick. Instead, it's a deep
draft. But deep in role players of varying potential -but still
essentially complementary parts- with lots of question marks about them
and a need for development time vs making us immediately better. No one
worth throwing in the towel over, because if you know what you're doing,
you're as likely to get equivalent quality in the first few picks after
the lottery as the last few picks of the lottery. While if you don't
know what you're doing, you can screw up equally in either spot. Not a
lot of no brainers on offer.

I don't like tanking in any case, but especially not when it seems
fairly pointless. We've also spare picks we can package to move up if we
want to, and likely to greater benefit than actually using them all. Do
we really want 3 underdeveloped rookie question mark role players on
guaranteed contracts? While the positives of making the playoffs for a
very young, inexperienced team that wants to avoid the loser tag so they
can sign a decent FA do need to be considered when balancing it all out.