Trading down works well in the NFL when the talent eval at the top is less certain and there are so many players per squad that late picks are likely to be pressed to contribute. In the NBA where the odds of anyone taken after the top of the lottery being a star is low and the odds of even mid to first round draft picks never making an impact is pretty high, trading down usually minimizes the already low chance of landing a contributor.

I suspect that so much of the “he’d be a good pick at X but not at Y position is fear-based, the need to make a pick that everyone agrees with in case the guy is a bust. “Well, everyone else saw him as a late lottery pick, so he would have fooled everyone.”

If Thompson is likely to be a contributor, what difference does it make if he’s taken at 14 or 19? The rookie salary scale means you pay #19 a fraction less. Most teams aren’t really interested in ‘trading up’ from 19 to 14 such that they’re going to give much value out of that small, nearly insignificant change in odds of a guy being worthwhile, so the trade down to take the guy you want plus get something isn’t likely to bring a big something.

As for the actual player taken, it doesn’t matter where he’s taken in terms of the player he’ll become. He’s still the same guy. If he’s not going to be a contributor, picking him at 14 or 19 doesn’t matter. The question to ask is if he’s taken at #14, does this mean that he’s being taken over a guy who has more potential or is more likely to realize the potential. If someone projects at 19 or beyond, reality is that he’s got a low chance of doing anything in the Association.