Golden State Of Mind: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Sports blogs for fans, by fans.
Around SBN: Follow the @sbnation College Twitter List

Draft history Part I of ???: on trading picks

 

With the draft lottery still a little more than a week away, it is too early to really recommend a 'draft strategy', but it is not too early to look at what becomes of various picks. In this multi-part pre-draft assessment, we'll look at various aspects of the draft, including trading picks, drafting for need vs. talent vs. tossing a dart at a board with a bunch of names on it and hoping for the best.

 

 

 

Part 1: Trade up, trade down? A little history on the perils and potential windfalls of swapping picks.

Star-divide

 

In 1993, as most know, the Warriors traded up from #3 to take the #1 overall pick, Chris Webber. The lure of the franchise big man loomed large though and Golden State ponied up big to get him. In a 'deep draft', with a potential 'franchise players' still on the board after Webber, this move still cost the Warriors the rights to Anfernee Hardaway and three future first round picks. (Note: a similar deal will not happen this year, even if the Warriors did wind up with the cursed #3 pick. The Marcus Williams deal means that our 2011 through 2013 picks are off limits as the conditions on that conditional pick mean that one of those picks might be spoken for, complicating future trades.) While the short term rewards looked promising, the long term penalty for this trade stung. Webber lasted one year with the Warriors before bringing about the Apocalypse, or perhaps it was Armageddon.  I get my catastrophic metaphors confused from time to time.

 

Perhaps as a franchise, their institutional memory was short, as anecdotal history suggested that such a move and such a price could backfire. In 1980, the Warriors also held the third pick and wanted to move up to get the seldom available franchise center. Joe Barry Carroll, a nimble, Final-Four tested All American out of Purdue seemed to be that center, someone who could match up against Kareem and Lakers. The Warriors sent away Robert Parish, a serviceable seven footer perceived as having motivation problems who would eventually become a Hall of Famer and the pick that would eventually become Kevin McHale. Perhaps the 'motivation problems' were inherent to the position of Warriors' center and not Parish. Joe Barley Cares was not a terrible player, but his career never warranted the steep price and never made them regular playoff contenders (one appearance in his time with the team). Carroll, now apparently an investment advisor, would likely admit that this gamble did not work out as planned for the Oakland squad.

 

This is not to say that standing pat at #3 is a better option for the Warriors. When that happens, the Warriors have wound up with one of the many underwhelming “next Larry Birds” in Mike Dunleavy Jr. and the infamous Chris Washburn.   Dunleavy was a rather average player with no charisma who never lived up to expectations.  Washburn once sued CBS for portraying him as a drug addict at NCState in their made for TV movie about the career of Jimmy Valvano. Chris claims he was not addicted to crack until he made it to the NBA.

 

Such moves assume of course that the Warriors move up in the lottery. More likely though is that we will wind up picking 7th, 8th, or very remotely, 9th or 10th. In 1999 draft, GSW sent their #10 pick to ATL for Mookie Blaylock and the #21 pick. Mookie will be remembered for being a total bust of an acquisition in Oakland. It is a shame that he isn't better remembered for lending his name to the early incarnation of the band aka Pearl Jam. [If anyone remembers the early days of the “Rock and Jock” basketball competitions, you would also remember that Pearl Jam bassist Jeff Ament was a pretty good ball player. He was a star on his state tourney qualifying HS team with aspirations of playing at the college level. If his play on the mixed pro/celebrity squad was an indication, that dream wasn't the least bit unrealistic. If only he'd committed himself to it...I guess he'll have to console himself with the untold millions he's made as a rock star.] As bad as it was, the Warriors thought they were getting a legitimate above average starter for the pick swap. Indiana then swapped their pick at 26 (Vonteego Cummings) to move up 5 spots and take ours (Jeff Foster) paying the price of a future protected 1st rounder (to become Troy Murphy).

 

This history suggests that the price to move is usually reasonably high, though some moves seem less costly as an initial investment. To trade picks with Toronto in '98, GSW only had to part with cash and what little credibility they had as an NBA franchise when for several years Vince Carter looked like the real deal while Antawn Jamison looked like a tweener forward who could score, rebound and, try as he might, failed to defend anyone.

 

Ok, so that's what happens when the Warriors swap places in the draft. It is not the most encouraging history, but not all teams have been so cursed. None other than Don Nelson engineered a draft-day swindle, trading the rights to Robert “Tractor” Traylor to Milwaukee for Dirk Nowitzki, taken a few picks later. Something else went Dallas' way too, but it matters little. It was lopsided enough without anything else. Another great swindle: In 1987 Seattle traded the rights to Scottie Pippen to Chicago for Olden Polynice. Olden was a serviceable utility center for more than a decade and a half with an apparent desire to go into law enforcement.  Seviceable centers aren't abundant, but without crunching the numbers, my gut says that Chicago got the better of this one.

 

Comment starter: Can any good come of trading our pick regardless of where we do wind up drafting?  Are we doomed, cursed or has it just been a run of bad luck? Maybe we're due to be on the receiving end of a great swindle for a change.

Poll
Which option do readers prefer voting for? (Please be truthful. This is for science.)
This one
67 votes
Or this one
51 votes
None of the above
86 votes

204 votes | Poll has closed

2 recs  |  Comment 38 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

When we do well

The draft class is strong and we draft late

When we suck
The draft class is weak and we draft early

Very bad luck imo.

Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, or John Wall. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.

by ejdacanay on May 10, 2009 11:03 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

are we the 49ers?

Thing A

by sam23 on May 11, 2009 9:19 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

umm...

CRABTREE.

One exception already.

We still believe!!

by R Dizzle on May 11, 2009 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

don’t go putting a Peter Warrick jinx on him

Thing A

by sam23 on May 11, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

And here's what I think we should do

#1: Blake Griffin or Trade (Trade Down, Future Picks, Proven Commodities)
#2: Trade or Ricky Rubio
#3: Trade or Jordan Hill/Hasheem Thabeet

#7-9: Likely not to get a good trade. Pick BPA, hopefully a Clark, Jennings, Harden, or DeRozan.

Only pick I would be 100% comfortable with is the 1st pick and that’s a longshot. If we win picks 2 or 3 I definitely think we should trade it. Picks 7 and below we should stand pat and draft BPA, because what we get in return may not be much.

Brandon Jennings, Ty Lawson, or John Wall. A Warrior in 09.
With the 6th Pick in the 2009 MLB Draft, the SF Giants pick Donovan Tate.
Andre Smith in Silver & Black in 2009.

by ejdacanay on May 10, 2009 11:44 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Rec...

For your impressive and diverse musical knowledge that you’ve been showing off lately.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on May 11, 2009 12:03 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Talent vs. Dedication

So I’m not too sure if the NBA draft is all about drafting talent. Some draftees are simply lazy slackers that got to the NBA by talent alone; their size, athleticism, etc got then to where they were (ahem like POB). However, once they got into the NBA, they decided to slack off or were not willing to work as hard as the stars.

While talent is a huge factor, work ethic is another, perhaps a bigger factor. Just a thought . . . Gilbert Arenas comes to mind. Maybe we should just find a passionate and dedicated player. who knows

Ellis to the RIM!
Monta for the win?! YES!

by XIAOXIAO on May 11, 2009 12:09 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Dedication matters ...

… and I can’t help but wonder if a culture of dedication is why some teams seem to be able to plug in any random player and succeed, whereas others constantly suffer.

eg, if you’re on a team with Kevin Garnett, you’re going to bust your ass on defense, because, well, he’s a really frightening man when he gets mad at his teammates, which he does when they don’t hustle. On the other hand, if the “leaders” on your team are Stephen Jackson or Baron Davis, you probably don’t feel that much commitment to hustle when you don’t feel like it.

by Ronaldinho on May 11, 2009 9:51 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

BPA doesnt work to well if it winds up being a swingman there

we’re in need of a point or a big man. Chances are we draft at 7 so I’m hoping for Jennings or Curry

by po on May 11, 2009 4:59 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Best player available always works better than getting someone with a position but no ability to play the game. All too often I’ve seen drafting for position getting someone who doesn’t have enough game to actually play. I’d rather have the problem of someone not getting into the game because we’re too deep at the position than the problem of someone not getting into the game because he sucks. Deciding on the position before the player significantly increases your chances of winding up with Patrick O’bryant.

by jae on May 11, 2009 8:28 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

like the blazers did

picking oden over durant, could you imagine if the blazers would have drafted durant, they’d be scary.

I'm gametime_gsw, and I approve this message.

by gametime_gsw on May 11, 2009 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I’m sticking with “its too early to tell” on that one for a couple years.

Thing A

by sam23 on May 11, 2009 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

In a couple of years, that might be true. This season, I don’t think it would have improved the Blazers. Durant became a very lethal scorer this year and is on his way to being a very, very good player (after a rookie season where his play was just not very good, bogus awards aside). But his defense remains terrible. I don’t know if the marginal returns on adding another high volume scorer and taking the ball out of Roy’s hands some would offset what Durant surrenders on the defensive end enough to make them scary at this point.

Oden was a productive player. Per minute on the court, he helped the Blazers as much as Durant helped the Thunder this year, perhaps more. Despite sharing time at center with a guy who played real well in Przybilla, Portland was more efficient at both ends of the court with Oden in the game compared to when he sat. Durant’s OKC squad was massively outscored when he played, but managed to hold their own in point differential when he sat. The reason? Durant’s presence didn’t help out anyone else on offense and they were just as productive when he sat, but when he was in the game, their overall team defense was significantly worse. It was one of the biggest differentials in the league. His offense does not yet overcome his problems on defense.

Oden has a couple of serious problems: his inability to stay healthy and his inability to stay out of foul trouble. The latter is something correctable. The former could really hamper him. Even if Oden does get healthy though and the Blazers continue to be a winning franchise, people will likely regard Durant as a better pick though if he continues to score more points since that seems to trump almost everything in the popular opinion of who is better. This doesn’t indicate what could happen in the future, but for the present, Durant’s lofty scoring still makes him appear to be a much more valuable player than what he’s actually done in terms of improving the production for his team. I’d reserve judgement on saying that the Blazers made a mistake or took a ‘need’ pick until Durant’s team actually plays better when he’s in games than when he sits.

by jae on May 11, 2009 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

oden helped the Blazers as much as Durant helped the Thunder this year, perhaps more

thats makes no sence

durant played at an all-star level this year, while oden played at a border-line bust level.

I'm gametime_gsw, and I approve this message.

by gametime_gsw on May 11, 2009 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

There is much more to the game than points per game average

It makes sense if you aren’t blinded by the shiny shiny glitz of the ‘points per game is all that matters’ hype machine.

Durant scored at an all-star level this year. Let’s not fall into the all too often sprung trap of “high points per game automatically equals very good player” or “being invited to the all-star game automatically means better player than someone not invited.” The all-star game is a popularity contest and the best way to be popular in the NBA is to score a ton of points even if the rest of your game is sub-standard.

Durant also played porous defense. When he was on the court, the Thunder were outscored at a rate average of 8 points per game. When he sat on the bench, they were not outscored. They held even. If he was helping the club, why were they able to maintain a much closer margin to their opponents (staying even) when he rested? Shouldn’t better players make there teams better? Or were his replacements just awesome? (I find the latter preposterous given how bad the Thunder were).

This is a very simple statement that is entirely true: The Thunder played better basketball with Durant out of the game. Why this is true may be debatable, but it is an empirical fact that it happened, and all-star votes and popularity do not change that.

In contrast, when Oden was on the floor, the Blazers outscored their opponents by about 6 points per 48. When he sat, the also outscored their opponents, but not by quite as much (about 5 points per 48).

Oden did not play at ‘border-line bust level’ by measures important to winning basketball games. That’s a statement that indicates that pretty much the only thing counted was points per game. Oden was an elite rebounder based on his rebound rate, scored points rather efficiently, but didn’t log heavy minutes because a) he was in foul trouble often (although he could have played more — he only fouled out 4 times) b) he was plagued by injuries and c) the Blazers were getting very, very good production from their other center Przybilla, which meant that they didn’t have to overly rely on a guy fighting through injuries.

If a guy can be in the top 10 in rebound rates for players who played in over half their team’s games (Oden played in 61) and the top 20 in the league in FG%, I have a hard time as classifying that as ‘borderline bust’. Actually, Oden’s scoring wasn’t that bad either (~15 per 36) per minute on the court. That’s in the top 10 for centers as well. Unless you’re specifically referencing injuries, classifying Oden as a ‘border-line bust’ is simply wrong.

by jae on May 11, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions   2 recs

*gasp*

jae indirectly referencing plusminus stats?! What is the world coming to, I thought you hated that stat

But I agree. It’s a rare for a rookie (which Oden technically is) to have a positive impact to his team. Even guys like Anthony Randolph, Michael Beasley, and Kevin Love are still very far from having a “positive impact”, as for as their plusminus shows. Kevin Durant finished his sophomore year and he still hurts the Thunder when he’s on the floor.

"We Deserve"

by YaHeard on May 11, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I find plus minus interesting. I am willing to accept far, far more subjective explanations for a plus-minus result than other statistics. In narrow ranges (like with Oden) it could well be meaningless, and it’s subject to some issues with small sample size for some garbage time players. If a team is bad with and without a player (say, minus-4 with him minus-6 without) it may not mean anything. But it’s not entirely without utility and the huge split with Durant between heavily negative and neutral is probably significant. [Another case: Bargnani, who was the only player who, when removed, resulted in the Raptors being in the plus is just too pronounced to not be meaningful

I don’t hate it. It’s intriguing. In context with other statistical measure, it can suggest some things as to why results are as they are and show cause for looking more closely. Split down further to see what a particular player’s influence is on individual aspects of the game, like overall offensive efficiency or defensive efficiency or rebounding rates can show some things that wouldn’t show up in an individual’s box score (and rest assured, MOST of what people have rated Durant on is what shows up prominently in the box score: points).

Over a short time, and one year may even be too short to get a really good view, it can be misleading, but Durant’s splits were bad last year and they’re bad this year, largely because when he’s on the court, the Thunder haven’t stopped anyone from scoring. What he’s been lauded for is scoring, but that’s only half the game, and it appears his bad half, the half that doesn’t come across as clearly unless you really follow the team closely (it certainly doesn’t show up in those measures that influence all-star team selection) you miss that entire half where he’s still really, really lacking.

P/M definitely needs some context and some have tried to alter it to that end. I do not find the ‘adjusted’ plus minus that I’ve seen to be much of an improvement though as the error estimates are huge to the point that almost none of the results are statistically significant.

by jae on May 11, 2009 5:10 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Most people will say Oden is a bust

But it just depends how much you know about basketball and advanced stat. You sir, know what the deal it. Kudos.

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 11, 2009 8:36 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Thanks.

by jae on May 11, 2009 10:00 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I am glad you could understand that

It looks like my ‘s’ button was broken.

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 11, 2009 10:14 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Haha

You compliment another teams player (Oden) and they come running from other blogs to compliment you and your use of stats, but if you knock another teams player (Hawes) they start threads on their blog to talk about how much of an idiot you are. =P

Thing 2

by olympicmike on May 11, 2009 11:31 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

the hawes debacle was hilarious. i also think that we should start using the phrase “hawes debacle” to describe both jae’s run in with the kings fans and the playing days of spencer hawes in sacramento.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 12, 2009 12:11 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

I call ’em like I see ’em.

(Of course, their counter is that I didn’t really see him and I need to actually see him on a regular basis to understand why a center who doesn’t rebound well and shoots a crappy percentage from the floor, two things that have been shown to lead to losses isn’t relevant and, although this sort of play resulted in the losses exactly like you’d predict it would, somehow he’s still a good player (it’s not his fault!!!) and the results aren’t what’s important.)

by jae on May 12, 2009 11:32 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

so you’re excited about a monta/jack/buike backcourt? seems to me like that’s an area in need of improvement at at least one position and probably two. monta’s ability to play the point aside, our starters in the backcourt aren’t good enough to contend. a randolph/biedrins front court could very well be good enough to build a contender with. i wouldn’t advocate reaching for a guard (jae is absolutely correct in his remarks above), but to say that ending up with a talented swingman would be a problem is just silly. we are not set in the backcourt, no matter what we remember from the run tmc, we believe days, that is a weakness for this team.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 11, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

To be honest, yeah, a little bit

I’m kinda excited about that backcourt. I want to see what Monta/Jack look like at the 1 and 2. I don’t necessarily think it’ll be a complete success, but I’m interested nonetheless, and do have some hope that it’ll turn out well.

I’m also excited about that frontcourt tandem, starting and healthy.

It’s the small forward spot that I’m not excited about. I like Buike a lot, but is he a starting SF? Can he play the D that we need him to play? Does he have the requisite length? He can rebound, we know that, and he started showing some better court vision by the end of last season, which shows that he perhaps hasn’t topped out and will continue to improve in other areas. He’s also capable of scoring in bunches, at a very efficient level for his position.

You know what? I think I’ve just talked myself into being excited about Buike as our starting 3! Did somebody spike my coffee this morning?

by ffgolden on May 11, 2009 11:46 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

well, i was counting sf as part of the backcourt, and i think for now, buike can work there, but to be realistic, it’s a very upgradeable position. sg will be the same way sooner than we think, jack’s not getting any younger.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 11, 2009 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah I don't know—is SF front or back court?

Definitely backcourt for a Nellie system. And you’re right, it’s certainly upgradeable. I like Morrow coming in for Jack at the 2, and starting at the 2 when Jack inevitably goes down with an injury or suspension this season, but adding a Harden (if he drops that far, which seems more and more plausible in looking at recent mocks) or Derozen couldn’t hurt. We need more talent, period.

by ffgolden on May 11, 2009 2:32 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

i think front/back court is sort of a weird way of looking at it. most teams use their sf on the perimeter and have him play a similar role to a sg. to me, that’s backcourt, but usually people call the guard positions backcourt and forwards and center the frontcourt. i guess it’s just a matter of preference and i should have clarified before assuming that everyone considered both swingman spots were backcourt.

heart of a champion, will of the warrior.

by cap'n hack on May 11, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Basketball terminology...

It’s funny but so many people throw out these terms but I’m not sure that we all have the same definitions. This is how I use them

Backcourt= PG, SG
Wing= SG, SF
Frontcourt= SF, PF, C but I think PF, C might be more appropriate
Bigman= PF, C

The positional distinctions are much less defined than we like to think they are though. To me, PG is probably the most clear cut. Beyond that I’d have a hard time distinguishing between a lot of SG’s and SF’s and a lot of times a teams PF’s and C’s are also interchangeable. I think that PG, Wing, Bigman are probably the terms that make the most sense to me.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on May 11, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

jae

is the blazers dave of gsom

by singha on May 11, 2009 11:53 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

I do not know this “Dave” of whom you speak. He must be quite bright.

(Probably humble as well.)

by jae on May 11, 2009 3:12 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Dave is indeed both

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 11, 2009 8:37 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Wow. You weren’t kidding. I just dropped by and scanned some of his stuff. Dave’s good. Real good. I’m radically impressed. Believe what he tells you. He knows his stuff and does his homework.

by jae on May 11, 2009 10:13 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Well yeah

He is the main blog mod.

"The brownies,'' Fernandez said after the game. "The brownies are good for me to make three-points.''

by Sabonis4Ever on May 11, 2009 10:15 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Yeah...

There is a reason that BE is as popular as it is. Dave puts out some very high quality stuff.

Thing 2

by olympicmike on May 11, 2009 11:58 PM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

All we need is one sucker

If we’re picking between 7 and 9, the ideal scenario I think involves us packaging the pick along with Crawford (or, to a lesser degree of importance, Maggette) for a serviceable player. That’ll require a sucker GM, who perceives Crawford + #7 at a higher value than most of us commoner fans do.

The problem is that the Warriors are usually the sucker when it comes to draft day dealings, as jae so thoroughly documented. Can we find a front office that makes even worse decisions that does ours? I’d usually be looking in Chris Wallace’s direction at this point, but they’ve already got a better version of Crawford in OJ Mayo. Damn, he can’t be THAT big of a sucker, can he? I’ll hold out some hope.

by ffgolden on May 11, 2009 11:57 AM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Monta & Jamal

for Darko, Mr. Lima, and OJ.

"No no Nene!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5DxNl4EB0
AB1=TK

by Dubs fan in Boston on May 12, 2009 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions   0 recs

Nice post!!

by Degenerate on May 11, 2009 4:51 PM PDT reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)

Start posting about the Warriors »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Five Good Things So Far
484214594_82b6b3554a_small
The Warriors as Simpsons
Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
Live-Tweeting from Row 8!!! (GSoM's Charity Auction seats)

Recent FanPosts

Small
They're bad
Clipsnation_small
Attention SoCal Dubs Fans
Small
Why Wright's injury could help the team
Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
Need extras in a basketball-related Doritos commercial
Small
Time to get someone to listen (ala Cleveland Browns)
We_re_back__small
Terms of Service and Moderation on GSoM...
Drmlg_logo-gmail_small
New Warriors logo
Chuck_norris_small
Should we try to get Brand?
Small
Maggette or: How I learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Ballhog
Small
Yet Another Trade Proposal...

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

GSoM Motto

"UNSTOPPABLE BABY!"

Golden State Warriors rookie Marc Jackson to the Mavericks' bench, after hitting a lay-up during a 29-point loss (2000)

Ads

SPONSORS

2009-2010 Around the Association

2009-2010 Golden State Warriors Preview

Golden State Warriors 2k9-2k10 Super Preview Blowout Special!


GSoM Crew -------------------------

Atma-160_small Atma Brother ONE

Gw090_small Fantasy Junkie

--------------------------------------------------------

Small Hash

Small dj fuzzylogic

--------------------------------------------------------

We_still_believe_small R Dizzle

Small Adam Lauridsen

Chef_randolph_gs_small Tony.psd

Japan_by_miaumi_small YaoButtaMing

Small jae