Zach Edey Conundrum - Could Edey be the next great Atlanta Hawk or is he the next Cam Reddish

[AHF]

2 hours ago, thecampster said:

To be fair, the deals mentioned are part of an already heavily filtered list. If I shared everything I've heard and especially what I've filtered out as BS, the board's head would explode.

Examples of BS filtered to me,

Bufkin and Gueye and #1 out for a big player back.  The lunacy of this one gave me that old man shrunk up face.  There was a $35 millionish salary mismatch + the ridiculousness of it all.

There was a deal that involved all 3 of Clint, DJM and Hunter in a 4 team trade that was so ridiculous and violated so many rules I had to ask my dude (not a legitimate source) where in the hell he heard that.  TBH, he forgot to take it off the list he shared with me. He too had dismissed it but forgot to remove it.

Then there was a semi believable deal involving DJM until I realized they were adding our 2025 1st in with it (that we don't even own).  

The above you referenced was just me pulling off a list where I'd eliminated the impossible, found it plausible given the right circumstances and typed it up in extreme irritation.  Good chance there is something implausible in there.  I'm really tired of silly season and uninformed opinions.

Your post, polite, well thought out. Never even touched on anything I disagreed with what you said because of how it was presented and how well thought out it was.

Appreciate you filtering garbage out before sharing.  Tough given how few deals that are legit actually come to fruition and then you combine that already low % with the BS disinformation that teams seed or that people like to BS about.  

[thecampster]

2 minutes ago, AHF said:

Appreciate you filtering garbage out before sharing.  Tough given how few deals that are legit actually come to fruition and then you combine that already low % with the BS disinformation that teams seed or that people like to BS about.  

When people find out you have connections, they want to know and so they will make up they know things too to try to get close to you, get your insights. The BS is a lot to filter through.  Sharing things that are BS in a forum like this would also tank your credibility score.

I think from a credibility standpoint, I shared the tidbit about multiple teams being interested in Edey in the lottery and then to have the Quote from the ESPN analyst to back that up and the accuracy of the teams was nice. I try to keep the self back patting to a minimum but that can come out if I'm rubbed the wrong way. 

I think my track record thus far speaks for itself but I have pulled way back from sharing and there is good reason for that.  The teams (our team in particular) are really cracking down on "unauthorized" leaking.  They want to control the leaking so they can control narratives. The shadow game is really interesting when you focus on it.

[JeffS17]

2 hours ago, kg01 said:

Naw, you're doing it all wrong sir. You're supposed to scour the earth for any insignificant stat that paints your failed pick in a positive light.  Then hammer the board with it as a last gasp at saving face.

I have a name for that practice, but if I reveal it the mods will get showered with complaints and I'll get a well-deserved time out probably. 

Whats the name of that practice? Can you share it? No one here has thin enough skin to report you so dont worry abt that 

[AHF]

5 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Whats the name of that practice? Can you share it? No one here has thin enough skin to report you so dont worry abt that 

[kg01]

31 minutes ago, JeffS17 said:

Whats the name of that practice? Can you share it? No one here has thin enough skin to report you so dont worry abt that 

I recognize bait when I see it, my good sir....

[bleachkit]

9 hours ago, AHF said:

The single biggest issue with Trae and DJM playing together is neither is big enough to defend 2's.  Why would we repeat this with Shep especially when Bufkin has this same issue and is already primed to fill the combo guard minutes that are available?

You or your sources are way more optimistic than I am on a Hunter trade.  I do not anticipate anything that I would call a "haul" coming back which is why I'm inclined towards assuming he returns next year.  He is a valuable wing who is a borderline starter or first wing off the bench depending on which team would add him and he is overpaid for that type of role.  That doesn't generally scream "haul" in terms of trade value from my perspective especially when you add in his injury history.

I personally don't see a scenario where OO needs to go and think it is essential to keep him for scheme versatility if you draft Clingan or Edey.  I agree that if you draft Sarr he is only playing backup minutes at the center spot at best his rookie year.  

The first part of this is reasonable - i.e., that without one or multiple trades you would expect our draft pick to come off the bench to start the year.  But that doesn't equate to getting almost zero 1st year value.  It is a common thing to see several players in any draft coming from outside of the lottery who deliver 1st year value.  Why should it be so unlikely for this year's lottery picks?  Example:  Trayce Jackson-Davis put up 4.8 Win Shares last year as a rookie after being taken with the 58th pick.  That would have ranked #3 on last year's Hawks team.  (Plenty of other examples like Jaime Jaquez Jr., Toumani Camara, Brandon Podziemski, Cam Whitemore, Jordan Hawkins, etc. and last year wasn't a particularly great draft for this.)

I've long said that what happens without trades is more important than our draft pick for next year and so largely agree with this.

I agree it is definitely not your normal scenario for team drafting #1 and isn't your normal pool of talent at #1.  That said, I still think my general bias is that teams are better taking someone like Jalen Johnson who takes some time to blossom rather than someone like Brandon Clarke who will be much more productive right away but has a notably lower ceiling.  Jalens hitting move the needle for your roster towards contender status.  Getting nice role players like Clarke don't.  

I think it should be noted that what someone's ceiling is, is also an arbitrary judgement call like anything else. Most of it is grounded in conventional wisdom that can often be wrong. Typically younger players with great measureables are considered to have the higher ceilings. But is that always the case? There are so many exceptions to this rule, you have to wonder should it be a rule at all? Would you expect a 6'2" Junior guard from a small school end up one of the greatest players of all time? Curry is a unique example for sure. What about Jalen Brunson? A senior 6'0" guard, not widely considered a great athlete. How about Jokic? considered slow and not especially athletic when drafted. What is underrated is skill, and mental acuity for the game. Understanding leverage and angles, how to change speeds, and manipulate defenders with craft and subtlety. 

Edited June 19 by bleachkit

[thecampster]

54 minutes ago, sturt said:

@thecampster I'd love to read your thoughts on why you come to the conclusion you do. 

I am happy to do this but with some caveats.  I couldn't give 2 smurfs of the opinions of anyone that disagrees with me on this. I'm 100% confident I'll be proven right in the end. If someone wants to criticize the take/explanation, dissect it to find 1 little string they can tug at to discount it, I'll pretty much ignore them for the rest of next season. I'm also not really interested in trying to be talked out of my position. Anyone that knows me in real life knows a few things about me. 1) I'm highly risk averse. 2) I'm very stat driven (because I'm risk averse) and 3) although I don't have to always be right, I really hate being wrong. No one will beat up on me harder than I'll beat up on myself for being wrong. So pretty much everyone/anyone else who comes to this explanation trying to win an argument, go sit on a bumpy curvy squash with no lube. I have no use for you. I'm not here to argue this but I'm happy to explain my thoughts if asked.

Basketball as a whole

Basketball at its core is a game of efficiency. Points per attempt is probably the single most important stat in basketball, from an offensive and defensive perspective. Limit your opponent to less than 1.2 points per attempt while scoring more than 1.4 points per attempt and rebounding, shot blocking, fluidity, athleticism, feel for the game are all BS.  The game can be boiled down simply to which team is best at points per attempt vs limiting their opponents points per attempt. Last season, the average possessions per game was 99.1 and points per game was 115.6.  That works out to 1.166 points per possession.  So to be a better than average NBA scorer, you need to get better than 1.2 points per possession out of your shot attempts. That's better than average. Remember that. I will also ignore that he's worked on his 3 point game and face up game with good results thus far. He didn't do that in college, I won't count that here. That's in the category of potential/projection.

The impact a single player has on points per attempt can be focused into a few categories. Defensively: stopping their man, deterring some aspect of a team's offense and help.  Offensively, beating their man, exploiting some aspect of the other teams' defense and assistance/help.

So the question is why Zach Edey. I'm not focused on projections, potential, possibilities or hype. I'm only focused on what has the player shown he can do.

Offense:
Beating their man: Zach Edey is a monster the likes of which we haven't seen in college basketball in over 20 years at "efficiently" beating his man. Edey in the post is a matchup nightmare. Only a handful of centers in the league are 7 feet, 250.  Clingan is 7'3, 280 and Edey took him to school offensively in the national championship game scoring 37/10. Clingan is bigger than all but a small handful of centers in the NBA and Edey was physically too powerful for him to handle. A large number of centers (OO for instance) stand zero chance of stopping him. There will be no drop off in his efficiency in the post in the pros as compared to college. The floor is wider, the players better offensively. He'll have to endure less help defense, less dig downs and he'll be the recipient of more lobs. If anything, his efficiency will go up. But I'll focus on his college stats for this metric. Edey shot 62.3% from the field this season. That alone is 1.26 points per play. But he also shot 11.2 free throw attempts per game. I could not find stats on how many of those free throws were and-1 attempts so lets just assume 3 per game. That gives us 4 possessions where he drew a foul shooting 2 free throws and 3 possessions already tied to his attempts (13.8/game).  That math = 17.8 true shooting possessions per game at 25.2 ppg or 1.417 points per play. Just his ability to beat his man and score, he is more than 20% better than the average (5th/6th/7th man) on an NBA roster.  For a comparison, Capela on significantly lower volume scoring mostly put backs and lobs is 1.21.  Stats usually say that as volume goes up, efficiency goes down.  Edey has almost 2x as many offensive opportunities as Clint but is 20% more efficient right now and there is no reason to believe that would change in the NBA. It would probably go up due to spacing.
Exploiting the other team's defense:  7'4, 300lbs with a solid low post game and the ability to score with either hand. This will command movement on the defense with almost every other center in the league. You toss the ball into Clint, the defense is okay with their center trying to play Clint 1v1 and will live with the results. Doing that with Edey, would be nightmarish. Remember, this guy shot 62.1% from the floor with 2-3 people hanging on him half the time. Solo coverage even from good NBA big men is a bad investment. Its more dangerous than guard penetration. He will draw double teams and that will lead to kick outs and cuts. He will exploit the defensive scheme by forcing doubles and rotations, leading to more catch and shoots, easier ball movement. IE, less double teams on Trae. Switching the big out on Trae (other team's current strategy if not doubling), will now lead to automatic buckets. An offensive post center will free Trae up to be Trae. It will extend the height on potential lobs by a foot making defending that almost impossible. The man is a walking cheat code to breaking down a defense.
Assistance/Help: We do not struggle in the offensive rebounding category when Clint is healthy so I won't talk about that impact. What I will talk about is Edey's 2 assistance categories, screens and resets.  Edey is one of the best screen setters to come out of college basketball in years. He's big, wide and very fluid in the screen game. He creates a ton of room and is fluid enough to roll quicker than the opposing big can recover. We get too many moving screens, too many bad/loose screens and too many alternate opportunities out of screens. Edey setting picks will draw coverage away from the corners freeing up more catch and shoot 3's, more cuts and better lanes for Trae/DJM. He's just good at this, really good. The set reset is something we rarely use Clint for but is awful for a defensive cover.  The reset happens when you toss the ball into the post and they push it right back out. This gives the guard the opportunity to start their feet, with a fresh dribble on a man that is now not focused on him but split focused trying to determine if he needs to give help. Edey did a lot of this (as did Clingan) in college and its incredible useful to keep bad possessions alive. He is currently a better option at this than any big on our team except Jalen.

Defense:

Stopping their man:
In the post, Edey is very good. There is a negative stat out there for the FG% in the paint against Edey but the vast majority of that was due to Purdue's piss poor guards/wings. Those shot attempts weren't the opposing big men. No opposing center "went off" vs Edey last year. They just can't. Just because he was at center, doesn't mean that was his man. As a comparison, I'll draw on my favorite whipping boy, Kel'el Ware. He's a legit big man prospect this draft. Ware defensive rating the last 2 seasons, 97 and 102.2. Edey 93.5 and 98.  Aran Smith's draft profile for Ware includes this line, "Good defender and timing as a shot blocker." 

Ware is a defensive prospect, a shot blocker, yet Edey has a better defensive rating in both seasons by 4 points. But there is other evidence. Only 4 times all year did a team shoot over 50% vs Purdue, no team shot better than 57% and there's a reason for that. Teams shot a crazy number of 3's vs Purdue to try and beat them. They just didn't test the paint. Some examples: Alabama, 46 of 64 FG attempts were 3's (they made 19). Of their first 7 opponents last year, 6 shot at least 25 3 point attempts.  Those 6 teams, roughly 42% of their FG attempts were 3's. Teams just didn't try to drive the paint on Purdue. If you look at the shot chart I posted for Purdue a few weeks ago (I think I posted it), their taken vs defended shot chart (red for hot, blue for cold) was like a flag.  Theirs hot and in the paint, their opponents, blue and largely outside the paint. Edey defends a very large area all around the free throw area and not just because he's sitting in the paint, he challenged outside the paint on the regular. Pretty much anything in 2 point range was fair game for him to deter.

Deterring some aspect of a team's offense:
And that brings us to the deterrent part of his impact. Whichever side of the basket he is on, teams don't drive it. They'll cut the other side, they'll post the other side but if he's on the right side of the basket, that ends the driving, they don't even try it. This greatly changes the floor and angles for the other 4 players making defense easier. This is why teams hunt centers into switches. They're trying to pull them away from the basket. Some centers you can attack (say Alex Len) because they can't move their feet and adjust.  Not a good center and a center like Edey who can move his feet, does play angles and positions at his length greatly reduces the efficiency of driving to the basket. Just think how much Brook Lopez drives Trae nuts. Edey moves better than Lopez and is bigger/longer.  Edey's presence changes how other teams attack because he takes away a large portion of their offense (think how much Brunson drives) just by being imposing with good footwork/length. Edey will take away a large percentage or other team's drives. His presence will force teams to shoot more threes to try to win and free our guards/wings to play closer to their man without fear of being blown by.

Help: This is the only area with any question marks. He's shown the ability as a help defender around the basket. The question is on the perimeter. This is valid, but the only reason this is talked about is because most bigs are terrible at this. Our best big in this aspect is OO and he's pretty good at switching, but the failure rate, even for a good big is still pretty high. This is why teams do this. Its why they hunt bigs in switches. Its highly effective against dang near everyone.  I don't see this as terrible because big switches is a very small percentage of basketball plays. Most times, the big drops, allows the guard to recover. He only shows to stop the pick turning into a 3. Most bigs don't seriously challenge the guards to a foot race. That's more the area of PF/SF with great recovery/block percentages.  I'm more concerned with drafting a guy 80lbs lighter because he can guard some guards on the perimeter. Of course he can, he's 80 lbs lighter. But he can't rebound or play in the post at that weight. So give me the guy with the same problem most other bigs have and I'm okay with that.  Embiid doesn't guard on the perimeter. Jokic doesn't guard on the perimeter, Vuk doesn't. You can count on one hand how many NBA centers can guard a guard on the perimeter and pretty much none of them start, because they can't play the post.  But what he offers in deterrence I'll take over lateral quicks at the 3 point line every day.  Think of the impact Gobert makes while 4 inches shorter, 50 lbs lighter and 3 inch smaller wingspan. The impact is everything due to deterrence.  Has Gobert won a title yet, no but he's come close a few times and that's better than we've been doing with Clint. Gobert's impact isn't just blocks, its the fear factor that he's there. The deterrence to drive the paint and how that changes how the other defenders can defend their man.  Edey has that kind of deterrence. The shooting statistics of Purdue's opponents bear that out.

Conclusion:

No other player in the draft this year can have that kind of a positive impact, while continuing to have a solid defensive impact. Clingan offers much less offensively and if his free throw shooting doesn't improve, he'll invite hack a Clingan tactics. Sarr is too light to play the 5 right now and brings very little offensively at this level (currently - the jury is out on "potential").  Not Risacher or nearly any other prospect has that impact potential.  I gave you Kel'el Ware's good defensive rating earlier vs Edey so let me leave you with this.  Ware's Offrtg vs Edey's.  Ware 120, Edey 135.9. Yes he makes that big of a difference. Ware, a top 20 prospect, same position, same conference so the fairest comparison.  4 points worse in Defrtg, 16 points worse in Offrtg and arguably with a better supporting cast than Edey had. That's why Zach Edey. No one else in this year's class makes that type of a total impact.

[warcore]

3 hours ago, thecampster said:

They want to control the leaking

good they're taking Sarr. 

[warcore]

3 hours ago, JeffS17 said:

Whats the name of that practice? Can you share it? No one here has thin enough skin to report you so dont worry abt that 

OMG I think I just figured it out and it's hilarious. Somebody's gotta tell Jeffe!!!

[AHF]

57 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

I think it should be noted that what someone's ceiling is, is also an arbitrary judgement call like anything else. Most of it is grounded in conventional wisdom that can often be wrong. Typically younger players with great measureables are considered to have the higher ceilings. But is that always the case? There are so many exceptions to this rule, you have to wonder should it be a rule at all? Would you expect a 6'2" Junior guard from a small school end up one of the greatest players of all time? Curry is a unique example for sure. What about Jalen Brunson? A senior 6'0" guard, not widely considered a great athlete. How about Jokic? considered slow and not especially athletic when drafted. What is underrated is skill, and mental acuity for the game. Understanding leverage and angles, how to change speeds, and manipulate defenders with craft and subtlety. 

I'm not projecting Sheppard's ceiling.  I am saying there are no minutes for him unless we get rid of both Trae and DJM or we think that he will be able to guard 2's with his 6'1'' height and 6'3'' wingspan and moderate athleticism (great leaping ability but not blazing speed or quickness).  He is super smart and had a historically great shooting season so there is upside there.

But even if he reaches a historically great ceiling like Curry, Curry still had to play next to a SG in Klay to be successful.  Brunson still has to play next to a SG like OG to be successful.  Etc.  They aren't playing next to each other.  It has been said that a basketball player is the position they defend, and Sheppard is a point guard from that perspective.

So I'm more willing to buy the idea that you should get rid of both DJM and Trae and build around Sheppard than I am the idea that Trae and Sheppard will be successful defensively on the floor together.

[bleachkit]

15 minutes ago, AHF said:

I'm not projecting Sheppard's ceiling.  I am saying there are no minutes for him unless we get rid of both Trae and DJM or we think that he will be able to guard 2's with his 6'1'' height and 6'3'' wingspan and moderate athleticism (great leaping ability but not blazing speed or quickness).  He is super smart and had a historically great shooting season so there is upside there.

But even if he reaches a historically great ceiling like Curry, Curry still had to play next to a SG in Klay to be successful.  Brunson still has to play next to a SG like OG to be successful.  Etc.  They aren't playing next to each other.  It has been said that a basketball player is the position they defend, and Sheppard is a point guard from that perspective.

So I'm more willing to buy the idea that you should get rid of both DJM and Trae and build around Sheppard than I am the idea that Trae and Sheppard will be successful defensively on the floor together.

Let's say Sheppard is #1 on our board. Hawks scouts see him as a borderline generational shooter. We should still  pass on him purely as a matter of fit? 

[warcore]

5 hours ago, thecampster said:

Miami is at 15

Utah at 10

Portland at 7/14

Sacramento 13.

So possible landing sports for Edey as of right now are 7/10/13/14/15/17.

So the promise is from Portland with their #14 pick. So that article technically is correct, in that he's received a promise from a team in the top 10. They're just not using a top 10 pick on him. 

Edey at #14


~Outsiders
(swish)

[AHF]

7 minutes ago, bleachkit said:

Let's say Sheppard is #1 on our board. Hawks scouts see him as a borderline generational shooter. We should still  pass on him purely as a matter of fit? 

If he is Steph Curry 2.0, you must get rid of two of the three of Trae, DJM and Sheppard or move one of them to a limited bench role.  There might still be a case there to draft him if you think trade returns outstrip the alternative draft options.

For example, if you are confident that Sheppard will be better than Trae maybe you take Sheppard now and trade Trae thinking the return from dealing Trae is better than Clingan and Sarr and Risacher, etc.

[theheroatl]

23 minutes ago, AHF said:

If he is Steph Curry 2.0, you must get rid of two of the three of Trae, DJM and Sheppard or move one of them to a limited bench role.  There might still be a case there to draft him if you think trade returns outstrip the alternative draft options.

For example, if you are confident that Sheppard will be better than Trae maybe you take Sheppard now and trade Trae thinking the return from dealing Trae is better than Clingan and Sarr and Risacher, etc.

 

Don’t make draft decisions based on your current roster.

 

The draft is where you are slotted to take the best talented players no matter their position. If you don’t, you’re Billy Knight.

 

Thats why I have to ignore most fan posts that reference the current roster makeup combined with the incoming talent.

Edited June 20 by theheroatl

[AHF]

26 minutes ago, theheroatl said:

 

Don’t make draft decisions based on your current roster.

 

The draft is where you are slotted to take the best talented players no matter your position. If you don’t, you’re Billy Knight.

If there is a big gap in talent then that makes sense. But you still need to move players to clear the pile up at a position like center or PG where the player is incapable of defending other positions.  So let me differentiate between Al Horford and Big Z.  If you draft Shaq with Al on the roster, then you can move Al to PF and make it work and Al can play a mix of PF and C when Shaq is on the bench.  If you have Big Z, then you need to get rid of Big Z or relegate him to a bench role after you've drafted Shaq because neither Shaq nor Big Z can play PF.  If you already have Big Z and Mutombo then you need to get rid of both of them after you draft Shaq. If your next best guy on the board is Laettner, you should still take Shaq because he is 1000x better than Christian Laettner, 500x better than Big Z, and 20x better than Deke and just drafting Shaq and immediately trading Big Z and Deke will get you more value than drafting Laettner and keeping one or both of them.  

But you better be talking about a massive talent gap if you are going to triple down on a position like PG because your trade leverage is going to suuuuck if you have Trae and DJM on the roster with Sheppard as the #1 overall pick.  You can only play one of them at a time (unless you are willing to be a terrible team on the floor like we were with DJM and Trae) and teams know you are desperate to unload one or two of them.

You also better be right about Sheppard >>> Sarr, Clingan, Risacher, Holland, Topic, Buzelis, etc.

Are you convinced Sheppard is dramatically that more talented than everyone else?  I'm not and I'm a huge Sheppard fan.  He was my favorite UK player last season and the son of a former Wildcat and Atlanta Hawk.  I've been a fan of his for a while.  But I'm not going to bet that he is the best player from this draft class just because he is a small guard with a mixed bag of positive and negatives for athletic ability along with underdeveloped playmaking skills (for someone who needs to defend PGs).  He was a fantastic shooter in college.  I hope that is sustainable but I'm not 100% sold he can be quite that good in the NBA.  I don't think he is ready to run an offense, in terms of scoring he wasn't a high volume guy in college and so shouldn't project that way right away in the NBA, he came off the bench to great success in college but never grabbed a starting role (although I blame Calipari on this more than Sheppard because it was obvious to me that Dillingham and Sheppard should have started but coming off the bench sometimes helps your numbers ala Bey), and defensively he strikes me as a guy who will get a good number of steals and play pretty smart but won't be a defensive impact player due to size and quickness.

[theheroatl]

19 minutes ago, AHF said:

If there is a big gap in talent then that makes sense. But you still need to move players to clear the pile up at a position like center or PG where the player is incapable of defending other positions.  So let me differentiate between Al Horford and Big Z.  If you draft Shaq with Al on the roster, then you can move Al to PF and make it work and Al can play a mix of PF and C when Shaq is on the bench.  If you have Big Z, then you need to get rid of Big Z or relegate him to a bench role after you've drafted Shaq because neither Shaq nor Big Z can play PF.  If you already have Big Z and Mutombo then you need to get rid of both of them after you draft Shaq. If your next best guy on the board is Laettner, you should still take Shaq because he is 1000x better than Christian Laettner, 500x better than Big Z, and 20x better than Deke and just drafting Shaq and immediately trading Big Z and Deke will get you more value than drafting Laettner and keeping one or both of them.  

But you better be talking about a massive talent gap if you are going to triple down on a position like PG because your trade leverage is going to suuuuck if you have Trae and DJM on the roster with Sheppard as the #1 overall pick.  You can only play one of them at a time (unless you are willing to be a terrible team on the floor like we were with DJM and Trae) and teams know you are desperate to unload one or two of them.

You also better be right about Sheppard >>> Sarr, Clingan, Risacher, Holland, Topic, Buzelis, etc.

Are you convinced Sheppard is dramatically that more talented than everyone else?  I'm not and I'm a huge Sheppard fan.  He was my favorite UK player last season and the son of a former Wildcat and Atlanta Hawk.  I've been a fan of his for a while.  But I'm not going to bet that he is the best player from this draft class just because he is a small guard with a mixed bag of positive and negatives for athletic ability along with underdeveloped playmaking skills (for someone who needs to defend PGs).  He was a fantastic shooter in college.  I hope that is sustainable but I'm not 100% sold he can be quite that good in the NBA.  I don't think he is ready to run an offense, in terms of scoring he wasn't a high volume guy in college and so shouldn't project that way right away in the NBA, he came off the bench to great success in college but never grabbed a starting role (although I blame Calipari on this more than Sheppard because it was obvious to me that Dillingham and Sheppard should have started but coming off the bench sometimes helps your numbers ala Bey), and defensively he strikes me as a guy who will get a good number of steals and play pretty smart but won't be a defensive impact player due to size and quickness.

You spent way too much time overthinking it.

Like most of this board.

99% of the worries that brew around here are unnecessary and unrealistic. That’s not how real NBA front offices work. Also, that’s not how trades work.

Leverage has nothing to do with the players and everything to do with the negotiators.

 

When fans start to realize things more clearly they can get a perspective more aligned with how successful front offices operate.

 

Put me in a front office position, let me evaluate the talent based on information that is important, not speculation. And the roster building will take place over time… top end talent matters and any time you collect an asset that is good.

 

how you present that asset in negotiations is the difference between a Charlotte Hornets franchise and a Boston Celtics.

Edited June 20 by theheroatl

[theheroatl]

Also look at Boston.. it’s not a perfect roster but a collection of talented defenders

 

If franchises took a more holistic approach to team building, there would be more competitive balance

Edited June 20 by theheroatl

[AHF]

Pretending like having 3 players who play the same position won’t affect your negotiating leverage is a very interesting idea that seems wildly impractical.  We’ve seen what happens when you play two guys who can only guard PGs on the court - disasterously bad play.  It already hurts our leverage because we don’t have a viable walk away option that isn’t punting a full season.  DJM and Trae cost too much to simply play together at massive negative performance again.
 

Add a third guy who can only guard PGs to the mix and that doesn’t improve.  But if you are ok with Shep and Bufkin fighting over say 25 mpg and can convince another team that you are fine with this then I guess that could preserve your leverage for your second trade after you’ve already traded one guy away at a massive negotiating disadvantage.  
 

But in reality teams don’t generally triple up on the same position.  They typically do things to make sure they spread the talent around more (thinking drafting Penny Hardaway instead of Chris Webber) or at least make sure they can play guys together even if not ideal (think Mitchell and Garland).  The latter was the hope with Trae and DJM but we’ve seen enough to know that they can’t work together.  Heck, our GM publicly admitted it so there is no trying deny it now.  That known need to get rid of a player absolutely affects trade returns.  

[theheroatl]

34 minutes ago, AHF said:

Pretending like having 3 players who play the same position won’t affect your negotiating leverage is a very interesting idea that seems wildly impractical.  We’ve seen what happens when you play two guys who can only guard PGs on the court - disasterously bad play.  It already hurts our leverage because we don’t have a viable walk away option that isn’t punting a full season.  DJM and Trae cost too much to simply play together at massive negative performance again.
 

Add a third guy who can only guard PGs to the mix and that doesn’t improve.  But if you are ok with Shep and Bufkin fighting over say 25 mpg and can convince another team that you are fine with this then I guess that could preserve your leverage for your second trade after you’ve already traded one guy away at a massive negotiating disadvantage.  
 

But in reality teams don’t generally triple up on the same position.  They typically do things to make sure they spread the talent around more (thinking drafting Penny Hardaway instead of Chris Webber) or at least make sure they can play guys together even if not ideal (think Mitchell and Garland).  The latter was the hope with Trae and DJM but we’ve seen enough to know that they can’t work together.  Heck, our GM publicly admitted it so there is no trying deny it now.  That known need to get rid of a player absolutely affects trade returns.  

Believe it or not your teams roster makeup doesn’t affect your leverage if you don’t make it. It’s all in your negotiation skills and talent evaluation vs the marketplace.

 

Don’t spend too much time at RealGM where every poster views other teams rosters as dog trash and their own as a gold mine.

 

You could have a team full of all star point guards and still get above average return for each more so than your average nba team.

Edited June 20 by theheroatl

[AHF]

I don’t believe it.  Your leverage is always better if teams believe you can walk away from the whole trading exercise and even iif I acknowledge this can be overcome our front office has demonstrated an inability to create and optimize leverage.