BK had most 4 year draft capitol of any GM...EVER?

[Diesel]

Draft Capital:

by definition Capital = any source of profit, advantage, power, etc.; asset...

Therefore Draft Capital = Assets from Draft... Roughly defined...

Therefore, the only thing that matters in my mind is draft pick positions.. and if you want to be more specific, draft pick positions in certain years.

What you, ex, and Walter are debating really seems irrelevant.

To Walter's original point, Draft capital in History (over a 5 year period), I believe I and somebody else stated that the Clippers, Magic, and Trailblazers all have succeeded Atlanta.

Now, Walt may have a winning point if he looks over the specific years of 2003 - 2007.

For in that time, we've choosen: 21, 6, 17, 2, 5, and 3.

Portland over the same time has choosen: 23, 23, 13, 6, 6, 2, and 1.

Now, we would be fools to say that we like our positions better than Portland's positions, but that doesn't mean that we have had less Capital?

In the same time, Milwaukee has been: 8, 1, 6.

In the same time, Toronto has been: 4, 8, 16, 7, and 1.

Now, Walter introduces 2008, but honestly, 2008 haven't happened yet so there's no need to bring it in right now. That changes the conversation.

Also, if we run out and draft the rights to Acie Earl, that doesn't change what we could have drafted at the position. I mean, is the point draft assets or draft asset evaluation?

I took it as the asset themselves (meaning the picks) and not the evaluation of the picks because even the pick I hate the most (Marvin) can't really be evaluated fully.

So the discussion is kinda meaningless until you defined the terms of the discussion.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Now, Walter introduces 2008, but honestly, 2008 haven't happened yet so there's no need to bring it in right now.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

To Walter's original point, Draft capital in History (over a 5 year period)

---

Actually he said 4 years. Whatever.

Quote:

---

Now, we would be fools to say that we like our positions better than Portland's positions, but that doesn't mean that we have had less Capital?

---

I don't understand that at all.

[Diesel]

Just a brief examination of the thread leads to this hypothetical:

Quote:

---

Phoenix traded their 2008 and 2010 first rounders for cash. If you were comparing draft capital between the Hawks and the Suns through 2010 would you include those picks for Phoenix or exclude them since they were used?

---

This is an example of a weak hypothetical syllogism. It doesn't really fit the first argument in spirit, but you try to use it to "hijack" the conversation. You do this sort of thing often. Often you are successful...but it makes the conversation meaningless because now, the thread has followed your tangent rather than stuck to the spirit of the original argument.

[Diesel]

Quote:

---

Quote:

Now, we would be fools to say that we like our positions better than Portland's positions, but that doesn't mean that we have had less Capital?

I don't understand that at all.

---

Simply stated... I would love to be in position to get the first pick this year, the 2nd and 6th pick last year, the 6th pick a few years ago, etc vs. what we got.

However, just because I Like the positions that PTL got better than ours (based on the draft themselves) that doesn't mean that PTL had a better draft capital than us. Let's face the truth, we've had many low picks since 2003. Much lower picks than PTL has had. In terms of counting draft capital, that's all that really matters. Now if we're into evaluating the draft capital, Walt is right (At this moment). But I didn't take it that that was the original Spirit of his argument. Also, if we're evaluating draft capital, that is something that is subject to change.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

Also, if we're evaluating draft capital, that is something that is subject to change.

---

I think the only way you can make a legit comparison between the picks is by considering the players that were available in that draft.

obviously the 1st pick of this years draft was much more valuable than the 1st of the 2005 draft.

Portland has had the chance to draft quality bigs with their picks. We really haven't had that chance unless we reached for someone like Jefferson or Biedrins at 6.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Just a brief examination of the thread leads to this hypothetical:

Quote:

---

Phoenix traded their 2008 and 2010 first rounders for cash. If you were comparing draft capital between the Hawks and the Suns through 2010 would you include those picks for Phoenix or exclude them since they were used?

---

This is an example of a weak hypothetical syllogism. It doesn't really fit the first argument in spirit, but you try to use it to "hijack" the conversation. You do this sort of thing often. Often you are successful...but it makes the conversation meaningless because now, the thread has followed your tangent rather than stuck to the spirit of the original argument.

---

This hypothetical is directly on point because Walter brought in a key future pick that had already been used by the Hawks but didn't include Portland's present interest in its own future pick in the conversation. For that reason, the Phoenix hypo is directly relevant because it is an application of the same principle. Moreover, Walter even said he would include both of those picks if he was analyzing the Suns draft capital for 2007.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

Now, we would be fools to say that we like our positions better than Portland's positions, but that doesn't mean that we have had less Capital?

I don't understand that at all.

---

Simply stated... I would love to be in position to get the first pick this year, the 2nd and 6th pick last year, the 6th pick a few years ago, etc vs. what we got.

However, just because I Like the positions that PTL got better than ours (based on the draft themselves) that doesn't mean that PTL had a better draft capital than us. Let's face the truth, we've had many low picks since 2003. Much lower picks than PTL has had. In terms of counting draft capital, that's all that really matters. Now if we're into evaluating the draft capital, Walt is right (At this moment). But I didn't take it that that was the original Spirit of his argument. Also, if we're evaluating draft capital, that is something that is subject to change.

---

Here is my thought on the draft capital issue from earlier in the thread where I opined that the players Portland could have taken with its picks were much better than the guys that we could have taken:

Greg Oden/Lamarcus Aldridge

Al Jefferson/Paul Millsap

Josh Howard/

Kevin Martin/Rudy Fernadez

Deron Williams/Monta Ellis

Who was available is absoluly critical, IMO.

Which set of picks would you rather have?

#1 overall (2000 - Kenyon Martin available)

#3 overall (2006 - Thomas, Roy, Shelden available)

#6 overall (2001 draft - Shane Battier, Eddie Griffin followed - JJ best available)

#8 overall (2000 - Crawford, Pryzbilla, Magloire, etc.)

or

#5 overall (2003 draft - Wade available)

#5 overall (1995 draft - KG available)

#9 overall (2002 draft - Amare Stoudamire available)

#10 overall (2001 draft - Joe Johnson available)

Context matters in drafts.

[Diesel]

I took the Spirit of the original conversation to be "IN history" Not "IN future".

Walter may have changed it, but there again, in his very first attempt to start the discussion, he didn't mention Future therefore future is irrelevant..... Moreover, without knowing where the pick will end up or even how strong the draft will be, that makes the whole process of talking about future pointless as well.

[Diesel]

I agree with what you said, but again, I say that it's all subject to change if you are evaluating draft capital and not just observing draft capital.

For instance...

in 7-8 years, if Greg Oden and Durant turns out to be a busts and Horford turns out to be a stud, then BK will be looked at as a genuis for what he did in this draft AND for what he did to get to this position. It's like how People credit Chicago for picking MJ and slight PTL for not taking him. However, Houston passed MJ up also and you never hear a peep about that blunder?

I think that is the failing of evaluating the capital.

At this point, all we can do is compare the picks... and that must be done year by year if you want to compare the capital correctly.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

The two concepts are completely different. Of course, a used pick is not unused capital. However, when examining the total assets available to a team you can't differentiate between future and present assets.

---

I didn't allude or indicate "total assets AVAILABLE". "Total assets AVAILABLE" could conceivably include our next 50, 100, or 1000 picks. It's just a ridiculous concept.

I indicated ONLY used or utilized draft capital. We used the 2008 pick already. It is used. Used. U-s-e-d. It's use resulted in JJ. As such BK's performance should be judged with that in mind and the capital this rebuild is working with THIS YEAR must include the 2008 pick arleady USED.

It's just silly to assume that USED "draft capital" in the context of any team as it stands right now might include merely "available", future draft capital. That "available", future draft capital could involve an infinite number and time expanse of picks every other year. It's just silly.

W

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

Draft Capital:

by definition Capital = any source of profit, advantage, power, etc.; asset...

Therefore Draft Capital = Assets from Draft... Roughly defined...

Therefore, the only thing that matters in my mind is draft pick positions.. and if you want to be more specific, draft pick positions in certain years.

What you, ex, and Walter are debating really seems irrelevant.

To Walter's original point, Draft capital in History (over a 5 year period), I believe I and somebody else stated that the Clippers, Magic, and Trailblazers all have succeeded Atlanta.

Now, Walt may have a winning point if he looks over the specific years of 2003 - 2007.

For in that time, we've choosen: 21, 6, 17, 2, 5, and 3.

Portland over the same time has choosen: 23, 23, 13, 6, 6, 2, and 1.

Now, we would be fools to say that we like our positions better than Portland's positions, but that doesn't mean that we have had less Capital?

In the same time, Milwaukee has been: 8, 1, 6.

In the same time, Toronto has been: 4, 8, 16, 7, and 1.

Now, Walter introduces 2008, but honestly, 2008 haven't happened yet so there's no need to bring it in right now. That changes the conversation.

Also, if we run out and draft the rights to Acie Earl, that doesn't change what we could have drafted at the position. I mean, is the point draft assets or draft asset evaluation?

I took it as the asset themselves (meaning the picks) and not the evaluation of the picks because even the pick I hate the most (Marvin) can't really be evaluated fully.

So the discussion is kinda meaningless until you defined the terms of the discussion.

---

Draft capital has to include the value of the players available with the pick.

As someone stated earlier, we have not had the oppurtunity to draft a big until this year. Howard, Okafor, Bosh, and Oden must be looked on as having a higher value than any player we had a chance at.

Furthermore, Wade and LeBron must be looked at as franchise changing guards in the same sense as Magic and Jordan. We did not have a shot at them either.

We really have not gotten a decent break in the lottery until this year and every Hawk fan must be able to understand this. To say BK has had more capital to work with when he did not have a shot at any of the above bigs or guards is just plain dumb. We are talking about franchise changing big men and guards vs above average pg's and sf's. Give me a break.

I would trade our last three lottery picks (capital as far as this discussion is concerned) for one LeBron, Howard, Bosh, or Oden ...

[Diesel]

I think you can talk about draft capital without a detailed talk about the evaluation of the players...

Mainly by directly comparing the position of picks in the same year.

For instance, if we were talking about 2007 draft, we know that it was stronger than 2006 draft... However, it's impossible to know if Horford was a better pick than Green or Conley. That requires an understanding of need first followed by an at the moment understanding of their value to that team... That's too many variables.

However, it's much easier to say that in 2007 in the strong draft, the Hawks picked 3rd while the Bucks picked 5th.. therefore the Hawks had more capital.

[Buzzard]

Quote:

---

However, it's much easier to say that in 2007 in the strong draft, the Hawks picked 3rd while the Bucks picked 5th.. therefore the Hawks had more capital.

---

Yes I would say we had much more capital in this draft than the Bucks, considering we had the 3rd and 11th. But at the same time, I think the Trailblazers with their one pick (Oden) was equal to the capital we had over the last two and possibly three drafts combined.

That is where this whole disscussion gets skewed because everyone on this board values these picks differently. Some would give up our last two or three lottery picks and JJ for Oden, Bosh, or Howard; while others would not...

[Diesel]

If Oden turns out to be Micheal Olowakhandi pt 2 and Horford turns out to be Karl Malone pt 2, then what is said about the draft Now is meaningless.

Any talk of evaluation of capital is subject to change.

[AHF]

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

The two concepts are completely different. Of course, a used pick is not unused capital. However, when examining the total assets available to a team you can't differentiate between future and present assets.

---

I didn't allude or indicate "total assets AVAILABLE". "Total assets AVAILABLE" could conceivably include our next 50, 100, or 1000 picks. It's just a ridiculous concept.

I indicated ONLY used or utilized draft capital. We used the 2008 pick already. It is used. Used. U-s-e-d. It's use resulted in JJ. As such BK's performance should be judged with that in mind and the capital this rebuild is working with THIS YEAR must include the 2008 pick arleady USED.

It's just silly to assume that USED "draft capital" in the context of any team as it stands right now might include merely "available", future draft capital. That "available", future draft capital could involve an infinite number and time expanse of picks every other year. It's just silly.

W

---

Can you have a conversation without the eyerolling, ALL CAPS, and other ways of communicating disdain for other posters? I promise you that it inhibits real dialogue by building up animosity and driving a wedge between you and other posters.

* * *

On the actual substance here, your post never uses the word "USED." The idea was one of capital. You included the present rights to a future pick for one team and not another. That is anti-thetical to the idea of measuring raw capital. Again, once a pick is used you can measure how well that capital was spent. But the use of capital is different from the original capital itself. The rights to future picks are capital whether they are traded or not, whether the pick has been used or not. If you include the rights to future picks for one team, you need to include it for another if you are measuring capital over a period of time.

If you want to talk about used draft capital, then you should express that concept in the subject of your thread, IMO.

If that is the case, you should include things like the Knicks draft capital:

2002

#7

2003

#9

2004

#7

2005

#8

#2

#9

Either way, I get what you are asking and the team with the best capital over that time period is Portland due to the number of big men available and the best ever is Orlando with two #1 overall picks in drafts with clear #1 big men.

[exodus]

Quote:

---

But the use of capital is different from the original capital itself.

---

I don't think he will ever get this.

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

Which set of picks would you rather have?

#1 overall (2000 - Kenyon Martin available)

#3 overall (2006 - Thomas, Roy, Shelden available)

#6 overall (2001 draft - Shane Battier, Eddie Griffin followed - JJ best available)

#8 overall (2000 - Crawford, Pryzbilla, Magloire, etc.)

or

#5 overall (2003 draft - Wade available)

#5 overall (1995 draft - KG available)

#9 overall (2002 draft - Amare Stoudamire available)

#10 overall (2001 draft - Joe Johnson available)

Context matters in drafts.

---

...or "context" matters. What is CONCEIVABLE matters. For example, if Al Thorton turns out to be the BPA we shouldn't hem and haw about not drafting him. Not just because of his position but because it wasn't even conceivable to draft him at 3. You could argue that Al Jefferson was on the fringe of "conceivable" at 6 but he seemed just outside it IMO which is why I don't harp on our not drafting him that year. I did want us to trade up from 17 for him, but I can't really complain about JS now can I.

However, not only were Deng/Iggy and Roy merely "available" and not only were they reasonably "conceivable", they were thought the better player(s)/prospect(s) than Childress and SW respectively.

In MW case I believe the presence of THREE franchise Pgs hurt each one of their cases. Had it been just Paul or just Deron for example, neither would have stolen "votes" from the other. I can imagine a front office like ours divided on which Pg to take and instead defering to a "consensus" (I'm sorry, but it's still laughable to me after watching MW all season at UNC) Sf. In otherwords, Deron and Paul were certainly "conceivable" and IMO either one would have been the "consensus" for us had the other not potentially divided the franchise Pg loyalties.

To answer your question I would ALWAYS rather have the higher pick. ALWAYS. Higher picks generally have greater trade value (see JJ) and higher picks generally produce better prospects/players. Certainly that is impacted by the strength of the draft at the general position you draft itself, but that doesn't change the value of the draft capital AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFT. There is no other time to consider. Hindsight tells us 60 teams should have drafted Ben Wallace, but that doesn't change the value of the picks they did have at the time.

Anyhow, It is indeed those who have followed BK that tend to get more out of their draft picks. Portland is in fact a primary benefactor of the "Follow BK in the draft" rule. Brandon Roy had no business falling to Minny. Indeed, when you look at the value had later in these drafts, in many cases you can thank BK for increasing the value of later draft picks by [censored] up.

...

All that being said, the 2008 pick we have USED is part of our spent draft capital. Portland hasn't used their 2008 pick. Hasn't spent it. It isn't part of what draft capital HAS BEEN UTILIZED and is reflected on this team.

W

[Guest Walter]

Quote:

---

The rights to future picks are capital whether they are traded or not, whether the pick has been used or not.

---

AHF, should you contractually agree to send me your next pay check for a Joe Johnson rookie card, wouldn't you agree that it, the paycheck itself, is no longer YOUR capital?

Yes the rights to already traded, future picks are capital, however, they are capital for the other team (i.e. Pheonix). This is just comically lame AHF. You know better.

W

[exodus]

Quote:

---

All that being said, the 2008 pick we have USED is part of our spent draft capital. Portland hasn't used their 2008 pick.

---

This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments i have seen on here.

Just because we chose to use our 2008 pick in a trade and Portland has chosen to keep theirs is irrelevant.

If you set a time frame up until 2008 and are comparing draft capital up to that point all of the available picks have to be included. You don't even seem to realize that your comparison was about the draft picks not the actual teams. And there is no such thing as a "used" draft pick. After a pick is used it is a player.

This "used draft capital" nonsense is just a figment of your imagination. The picks only exited BEFORE they were used which is why your thread title is in the past, and not present, tense. You are talking about the picks BK had BEFORE he used them.

[thesheedera]

I'm begging.