Hey, just wanted to say I appreciate every article you guys write. Dont always agree w/ you all, but love the site. Keep up the good work!
The Value of a Draft Pick – and the Hornets Picks
It’s time for my annual “Value of a Draft Pick” post, where I once again point out what a crapshoot the Draft is for anyone not picking at the top of the draft. Oh wait, we’re picking first! Pessimism Begone!
As always, I’ll start by explaining my methodology and ranking system, and then summarize the value of picks in the draft before getting to the Hornet’s picks specifically. If you only care about how the 10th and 46th pick historically perform, or the performance of pairs of picks the 10th could be traded for, then skip to the second half of this post.
Determining the Value of a Pick
To determine the value of a pick, I assigned an overall career ranking based on PER and a bastardized Wages of Wins Win Score and applied it to all the players who have been taken in the draft since 1984. Â I also cut off my evaluation of players after 2008 since since it is hard to judge a career trajectory in three seasons. Finally I jammed those numbers into a simple Grade ranking. Below is what each grade means, and I give an example player:
- N/A – the player never logged an NBA minute. (Tim Pickett, Andrew Betts)
- F – The player never developed and earned only minor garbage time minutes – or was really, really bad. (Hilton Armstrong, Cedric Simmons. Yay 2006 draft!)
- D – A substitute – possibly in the rotation, but a 8th or 9th man at best. (Aaron Gray, Julian Wright)
- C – A fringe starter, 6th-8th man sort. (JR Smith, Jason Smith)
- B – A solid starter (David West, Jamaal Magloire)
- A – A star (Pre-fat Baron Davis, Chris Paul)
The picks fell rather logically into groups based on their average rating so I’ve collated those groups in the below table and then determined the % chance of receiving each classification of player.
|Pick(s)||“A” Ranking||“B” Ranking||“C” Ranking||“D” Ranking||“F” Ranking||“N/A” Ranking|
So what does this tell us? The 1st pick is worth a lot more than any other pick, period. With the 1st pick of the draft, there is a 70% chance to land a major player.(We’ll pause here for you to feel smug . . . okay, let’s go) However, as soon as the pick drops to any of the spots between 2nd and 5th, only a little more than half the players are starter quality, and one out of five will be awful(D for Drummond, maybe?). I should also note there is no significant difference between picking 2nd and picking 5th. The players taken in those spots produce almost equally in the NBA.
The next group are Picks 6-10. As you can see, the odds of picking up a starting-caliber player or better has dropped to one in three. Still, with one of these picks, there is a great chance of landing a useful player(54%), and a reasonable 17% chance you’ll get a star.
Picks 11-18 are where the numbers start bottoming out. While still likely to land a rotation player, the chance of getting a star is small. You are also more likely to get a total bust(31%) than you are to get a starter.(22%)
19-27 continues the trend, with more players falling into grade D and lower(66%) though it is still possible to land a good player. The odds are that one of the nine players picked in this range will at least be a starter, and another two will land in a rotation. The rest? Yuck.
Picks 28 through 37 are essentially the last chance to get anyone worth drafting. Almost half the players taken here will only stick with a team for a couple years while a rare few will pan out and be good.(7%) The bad news is a team has the same chance that a draft pick will never play an NBA minute(15%) as it does finding a valuable contributer.(16%)
Players taken after 37 are pretty much throwaways. Almost half will never play in the NBA, and a bare 2% will ever be considered good. Two teams will probably dig up decent rotation players, but they’ve clearly beaten the odds.
10th Pick Specifics – and Trading Down
Here are the stats specifically for the 10th pick of the draft, which is currently held by the Hornets:
Now it depends on how you want to look at it. Glass half full – you have almost a 50% chance at a starter-quality player or better. Glass half empty – you have a 1 in 3 chance of getting garbage. Some players of note who were taken 10th: Horace Grant, Eddie Jones, Paul Pierce, and Jason Terry. Some you probably haven’t heard of: Luke Jackson, Sene Mouhamed, Adam Keefe.
Now, we can’t really leave it there, though. There are a lot of suggestions that the Hornets trade down in this draft, with the obvious targets being Houston, who owns the 14th and 16th picks, and Boston who owns the 21st and 22nd. I’ve said before on the podcast that trading with Houston is probably too much to ask for the 10th, and Boston is too little. Especially when you consider the Thunder gave us the 21st and 26th a few years ago for the 11th pick, but the Thunder had to take Morris Peterson’s corpse as well. Still – what are the numbers?
What does that tell us? Historically, trading the 10th for the 21st and 22nd wouldn’t have turned out well. The chance of getting a star plummets, and though the chance of getting a decent player increases slightly, there is also a great chance of ending up with two dead weight players getting paid guaranteed money and sucking up minutes to “develop”.
The 14th and 16th pick trade, however, isn’t as good for the Hornets as I thought it would be. In fact it’s almost a wash. It would slightly increase the chance at a star, but also hugely increase the risk at having dead weight guaranteed contracts on your books.
So would I make either of these trades? I’d do the one with Houston, since this is reportedly a deep draft. For the same reason, however, I think Houston would turn down the offer.
Last, the 46th pick of the draft
So, what did Ariza and Okafor land us other than some money to spend on free agents? This:
So, as far as 2nd round picks go, the 46th pick performs about as well as you’d think. Someone got lucky once, (1986 – Jeff Hornacek) a few people got some nice subs, and 60% of the time, nothing came of it.(Erazem Lorbek anyone? Becirovic Sani? How about DeeAndre Hulett or J.R. Koch? No?)
though i'd agree w/ your sentiments in a typical year, i think this might be the rare exception. there really is no one who will be available at 10 (barring surprises) who is that much better than the players we can get at 21 and 22. the players who chad ford lists in the first 5 tiers all look pretty good, and there is enough disagreement about how to rank them to justify believing that they aren't that far apart. moreover, we are in the rare position where we can take risks on guys who don't look like sure things. royce white and tony wroten, for example, would fit our team well. and even though there is a good chance one will bust, i'd rather spread my odds across 2 players than depend on the sort of player we're likely to get at 10 (e.g., rivers, zeller, or jones).
Really nice article. I would really like to see how a team's record the previous year affects drafted players' categories (A-F, as you used in this article). Would be fun to see how strong of a role environment plays in a players' future success. Or maybe use a weighted average of the past five years' wins, idk.
These picks are somewhat misleading when concerning a draft like this one. There are about 10-12 players after the "big 6" that are probably of 8-12 value in traditional drafts. I think if we can pull a 10/46 for 14 n 16 I jump at that so fast.
question, what is a "traditional draft"? is it a few tier 1s, a bunch of tier 2s, and just a hodge podge of tier 3s? or is it one consensus 1, a ton of tier 2s, a bunch of tier 3s, and other? or is it no tier 1, a ton of tier 2, etc etc
Lately, it's 1 or 2 1's, a few tier 2's and a ton of complimentary pieces. There is a reason the majority of stars in this league are old farts (in relative terms), because the drafts have been terrible. In 2010, just to compare drafts quickly, the Hornets at 13 grabbed Cole Aldrich and traded down. This year you could reasonably grab a Cody Zeller or Meyers Leonard at 13. That's a massive difference.
Whoa!!! I haven't seen this much heat on this site since Devin Brown was running one man fast breaks or Marcus Thornton was rotting on the bench under Byron Scott. It was a general article about the past drafts and the statistical percentages that come with them. It's just showing probability and if you don't think that has a place tell the people who try to count cards or track every jumper or every pick and roll result. Do you know if Lebron is gonna miss every shot, no but from his past statistical history you know he is less successful when he pulls up moving from right to left so as a coach you play the percentages. So no this wasnt the greatest article in the world but it was a well crafted and painted a picture of the value of the 10th pick. I find that more interesting than looking at mock drafts from "experts" that change daily that literally don't have a clue what GMs are truly thinking.
Had the same post over on ATH but it focused primarily on the lottery. People will keep hoping that the 10th pick will amount to anything. Fact of the matter is if the 10th pick amounts to a role player, we've actually gotten a great return for that pick. Plain and simple
I remember that post, good work. What I would like to see is a different range. Specifically, how does 8-12 look Ryan and/or Nikko? 6-10 doesn't tell me as much about the range because 10 is at the back of that and the early end of that range could skew the numbers. #10 is in the middle of that 8-12 range. So, how many guys taken 8-12 are A players, B players, etc.?
Hmm from what I've researched, anything outside top 5, meaning, even if we extend the range to 6-14, it won't matter - hoping for more than a role player anywhere in that range is too much to ask. What I'd like to study is which organizations did the best when they picked anywhere between 6-14 (because as I said, usually top 5 picks produce no matter where they are). example (this isn't true data, just some made up data)... since 1994 6th pick - WAS 2 times, NOH 4 times, SAC 3 times, etc etc and then what are the odds they "pan out" i.e. how many of those selections actually became role players :) this way, we can see which organizations have the best system in place and maybe learn something from it :)
I have two say one quick thing before I actually respond to the post, and I am sure it won't go over so well with some of you. I'm a pretty young guy, but my father has always told me about growing up in Little Rock and trying to read about his favorite football team (the saints) in the local papers. A perfect day meant that there would be about a 5-sentence blurb about the saints. Now things are very different. There is a wealth of information about every sport out there. I mean for god sakes the other day I spent an hour reading about national handball teams... Handball. It's huge in Germany. My point is we are lucky to have a site like this, where talent people give us their knowledge for free. In fact, they hardly ever ask us to donate anything! So if you’re going to be overly critical about a post, then pay up or go somewhere else. My second point is also going to tick some people off. If you are one of the people that think this type of thinking or analysis doesn't go around in front offices then you are dead wrong. I know some people get tired of all the nerdery around here, but when asking questions like "How valuable is the 46th pick in the NBA draft?" I would say scaling players based on production for the last 30 years is about as full an answer as we could hope to have. Frankly, it is an unanswerable question, and Ryan isn’t trying to make the point, “We will draft a guy that will be about as effective as a 10 day contract.” The point he is trying to make is here are the chances, based on history, of what we can expect to get out of this pick. Of course, every draft is different and there are outliers to be found. But that is exactly why Ryan didn't look at just one draft! These are averages! Percentages! and responding with well you can get a real baller in the second round, just look at whoever, isn't a real response. That isn’t evidence. That is an example. Examples are what people used to prove a point, when they can’t find a solid trend, statistical or otherwise, to prove their argument for them. EX: I say Rondo can’t shoot from distance. You say game 2 of NBA conference finals this year. That isn’t enough data to prove your point, obviously. Sorry for the flame post guys, but I really enjoy all the stuff here at hornets247, even the stuff that I disagree with. I guess I have just grown tired of hearing people bash with out reason and reading comments that argue that some sort of eyeball test, a talent all of us have according to some, is the way to handle all front office matters.
"nerdery" LOL Even though I'm pretty new here I want to personally thank you nerds for all the nerdy things you do. This site is by far 2nd to none in Hornets analysis. Not to thread jack, but I assume this is not a full time gig for most of you. I assume you have other jobs like the rest of us, yet you use your personal time to come and enlighten us all. Thanks NERDS!!!!!
Can't tell you: A) how much I agree with what you said here B) How much I appreciate it A- I was just talking to a friend and we were both fans of teams that played out of state. If we got a two sentence blurb about them, we would analyze those two sentences for days, reading them over and over again. B- It is impossible to please everybody, and there is no way everyone will agree with what we write; nor would we want them too! We love a difference of opinion, good debate, etc. I love Austin Rivers, but I respect the fact that others don't. Tell me why you don't love him, give facts, alternatives, etc. , but don't just say "Your stupid." -spelled incorrectly mind you :) I realize that, literally, thousands of people read this site everyday and that it is much easier to make a negative comment bashing a writer than it is to do what you just did. But it really does mean a lot because, combined, all of the writers on this site spend 200-300 hours a week into this site and take it very seriously. And the only time we ask for donations is to make the site better for the readers; we never take a dime. Thank you again, and please don't think we want everybody to tell us how much they love us or agree with us all the time. Just, if you disagree, let's be adults about how we do it. Thanks again buddy
If I may add: This site has improved greatly since the donation drive last year, and I think anyone that was here before and through today can see the difference. Part of how we direct our efforts, then and now, is driven by effective criticism, whether it be telling us how to improve something we've done, something we should do that we don't, something we actually do that should be replaced, or telling us we nailed it. I've met many people who love the site and say nice things around town when I see them, but taking the time to make a permanent comment on a site takes effort and passion. I try to look at all comments as a reflection of passion and courage at best. I look at the community and it keeps me going, frankly. The community and the `threat' that has since abated. There are good days, bad days, agreements, disagreements, etc., but in the end we're on the same team. I do my absolute best to see negative comments as a desire for something else, and I do this for the above reasons. I do not always succeed. Things are getting better all around in every aspect of being a Hornets fan, and we are getting stronger as a team, as a site, and as a community. If people don't realize how great this communnity is, writer and readers and more, this is partially due us not advertising that enough. Look for more changes to come, and if you want them to be changes you like, leave some effective criticism.
Love the Luke Jackson reference! I'll keep it rollin: http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=240772483
Good piece. Too bad not everybody can just take numbers for what they are. I think this year is more like a draft and a half. So if you just break down this draft 4 years from now it will result in much more success than what's the norm.
I usually enjoy your work, but this is garbage. You are basically saying the lower you pick the lesser the chance of getting a star. Well, no Sh*t. You have to look at every year, every draft, every player individually. I trust DD's evaluation. I don't think the Hornets should consider dealing #10 just because of the track record of the past #10's. That's assinine.
I think it's clear that you can get a star and any spot, and the chances decrease as picks are made since you are pulling from a smaller group. This is just a piece to try to, I think, ground people who think the 10th pick is a throw away, it's awesome, it's way awesomer than 12, or whatever. We had a 14.8% shot at getting #1, and that happened, clearly, so the odds can be beaten. And it is all about evaluation. Consider this: don't look at this as a measurement of the players . . . look at this as a measure of evaluators over time. It's not where is the talent, it's how good people are at maximizing value. That's easier at 1 than 2, etc., but this is a measurement of that. It says that at 10 it's hard. Whatcha think about that? I love the passion and I know you have strong reactions (I do too), but easy . . . easy . . . Am I going to have to buy you a beer Thursday? Don't make me buy you a beer Thursday. Reminds me . . . pre-gaming at Walk-On's, by the way. Readers there when I arrive get a beer on me.
Just my opinion here... The hornets are now in a position where they need bodies... So I believe they will make a selection they intend to have play this season at 46... But I wouldn't mind stashing a big overseas... Izzet Turkyilmaz Ognjen Kuzmic Ideally I'd like them to take AD, Zeller and then a PG like Machado In the 2nd
i'm impressed by your overseas knowledge Jo D. Where do you get those names? But, I do not think izzet turkyilmaz made himself available this year. I heard in the podcast that Ryan said we might stash Papanikolau from Greece but he is not eligible too. Ryan had also mentioned Furkan Aldemir from Turkey. Furkan may be considered a very good rebounder. He broke records at the Euro Youth Champ last summer. He got 23 rebounds followed by 25 rebounds and finished the tournament as top rebounder, averaged 15 pt 16 reb and selected to the best-five of the tournament. But, he is a little undersized for a Center. (6'9'' 230 lb) Furkan is still 19, he will turn 20 this August. Furkan Aldemir and Enes Kanter of Jazz are from the same class and they were major competitors at different youth teams. I kinda feel like #46 will be used in a trade but it is still worth discussing. :)
There something I don't understand about overseas drafts that maybe you or someone else could explain to me (pardon the noobness of the question please). If we can draft a player who is under contract with another team for a year or two then why can't we draft someone like Rudy Gobert right now? He is expected to be a lotto pick in next years draft. Does he have to allow himself to be eligible?
I think we should draft all kentucky products. Might have to trade down to boston get 21&22& a second if they have one. AD, (Darius Miller, Doron Lamb, Marquis teague, and Terrence jones if he slips down. At least our team would have chemistry.
This year's draft may be considered deep. Even if we trade-down to #14 or #16, players like Sullinger, PJIII, Leonard, Terrence Jones will be available there. Remember those names? All those we considered for #10! So, if a trade happens with Houston on draft night, I will not be surprised and I am sure we will still land a very decent player. The likelihood of landing a Grade A or B player there? 17 to 26%. I think there are many players who have Grade A/B potential and who will be out of the lottery picks! Fingers crossed! Getting excited about next Thursday!!!
Well done. For stats geeks, 82games.com performed a similar analysis which covered the period from 1989 to 2008. I haven't taken the time to analyze the similarities and differences in outcome of 82games vs. your study. For those who are interested, here's the link: http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm 82games went on to evaluate draft performance by team comparing actual results to expected. The four franchises with the best draft performance during that time frame were Milwaukee, Phoenix, the Lakers and San Antonio. The worst were the Knicks, Atlanta, the Clips and Denver. The Hornets were slightly worse than average.
I like our chances at 10. Besides, we're more likely to get a good player at 10 where could trade down and get 2 decent players. I think we have enough decent role players and need more star players. While getting two in one draft isn't likely, I would rather we try that. Or how about trading up with henry and jack and#10? But other than lillard I don't see anyone we desperately need besides AD.
Completely agree! Great article Ryan. Also, I expect any trade/no trade decision involving 10 for 14 & 16, if it is possible at all, will be made after the 9th pick. It will be much clearer who is available at 10, and who might available at 14 and 16. For example, I am happy with Marshall and Zeller at 14 and 16 (assuming we can get them), but only if Lillard isn't available at 10.
Good article. However I would say, I would make the trade to Houston for the 14th and 16th picks. To me I do not care about getting a solid starter with the 10th pick. In the draft you need to swing for the fences. If you include Davis/10th pick with the Hornets roster and Eric Gordon, you are probably looking at a borderline playoff team and after a few seasons maybe look at 4-6th seed. I would much rather try to up the "A" player to around 20% than get with the extra pick especially in this draft. If you take a look at most mock drafts, Perry Jones, Terrence Jones, Rivers, Sullinger, Henson will most likely be available with the 14th and 16th pick. I would rather take two of those guys than 1 and hope he turns into a star player instead. Being a low seeded playoff team is getting kind of old for me :(
The only problem I have with this is sort of the implication that where a guy is drafted determines how successful he'll be. Let's say we want Kendall Marshall at 10. Then we trade down for 14 and 16, then get him at 14. We still got the same guy, he still has the exact same chance of being good or bad as he would have if he was drafted at 10. Where someone actually gets drafted is completely random, so saying that someone drafted at 9 has a better chance of being a star than someone drafted at 12 doesn't really make sense... Also, there should be some differentiation between "star" and "superstar." There's a huge gap between pre-fat Baron Davis and Chris Paul. A superstar can be the best player on a title team, whereas a star, like a Melo or a Stoudemire or a Bosh, can't but they are still very, very good players.
it actually makes perfect sense. The post assumes that most teams will draft the best available player. Granted there are teams that "strecth" and go for need or potential first, but most will take best available.
For ease, I did cut things off at a certain point. On my scale, a player with a 4.0 rating or better is considered an A player. But yes, Chris Paul is an 11.7 and Nene squeaks in at a 4.012 and they get the same rating. Because, really, would you be upset if you picked a player and they turned out to be Nene? Even if they were the first pick? Not excited, sure, but not upset either. I didn't really want to get into gradation at that high a level, it would make my charts too big - and I'd spend too much time defending who got which ratings. I doubt it will take long before someone reads the above comment about CP3 and Nene and acts like the world has exploded. As for the rest, people are not drafted at random. Team decision-makers form a personal opinion informed (quite heavily at times) by general consensus and rank players accordingly. What numbers like these tell you are that Players chosen 9th in the draft have historically performed xyz in the NBA. Players chosen 12th perfrom zyx. Then you can modulate your expectations and also make decisions on what you think that draft pick is worth - if we are, say, trading for a veteran or moving up or down in a draft.
The article isn't saying where a guy gets drafted will dictate his success, it's predicting - based on past results - the likelihood that a team will draft a player of X,Y or Z talent level at a certain draft range. The point that you're making is completely taken into account and represented in the numbers. No offense to you, but it seems a lot of people have made a similar comment. If this article doesn't make sense to you guys, you may want to study up on your statistics, man. It seriously could not be more clear.
I was making an argument in response to some things Michael said in his rivers post about not retaining Gordon and swinging for the fences with 10th pick, but this post does auch more adequate job of describing how slim the chances of finding a player like ej in the draft
You guys write about some of the most silliest of things and try to back them up by posting numbers. But numbers only tell the half truths and it never goes into details. Look, not every draft is loaded with talent and not every draft have good players in the Top 10. It's about the "Strenght" of each draft class each year! Each draft class have a Label and/or Story to tell of its talent level that's being brought to the NBA for the next season. Why don't you go back and give us the percentage of each draft class Top 10 hype level, go back and see the BS from each class(now that the players have played in the NBA), and tell us the percentage of Great Talent that comes to the NBA each year from the past 10yrs? Besides the LeBron James draft class, there haven't been much. Don't compared this draft class to the LBJ class bcuz there's only 1 Elite talent in this class, compared to the 4 from that one! Joe Dumas bombed of Drafting Darko(foreign) and Portland 2x on using the Krazy analogy of going Big over the talents of Jordan and Durant(and yes I saw their talents in college bcuz I watched them balled and I saw their greatness). The NBA Draft talent level of fundamentally sound & mentally tough players dropped bcuz of the big run on High School players & the Foreign players back in the day, players weren't mentally ready for the NBA. GM's/scouts are much more prepared in today's NBA by wanting better developed players to attend college and foreign players being allow time to stay over seas! Look, all I'm saying is your charts aren't showing the entire truth bcuz not all draft class have talent, even at the 1st overall pick. See Olowokandi, Kwame Brown, and others the Clippers missed on! * the draft class of Hilton Armstrong was weak, as the JuJu draft class.
I don't think anyone every implied or assumed that percentages tell the whole truth. Anyone who thinks they do is selling something or had it sold to them. Let me off an alternative: why don't you give an example of a measurement of this hype? Or of this way of predicting who will be a superstar from the last draft or two that wasn't highly thought of on draft night? Give a nice whole truth example. You should have no problems since you know what you mean, and you should have no fear of comments like you gave to Ryan since your example will be the whole truth. I'm pumped. Or . . . appreciate the work people do to bring some order to the chaos.
See, I don't get the point of a comment like this. Either tell us what you would prefer to us to write about or don't read the site. If you can find better Hornets info, analysis, insight, etc. anywhere else on the web, in print, on TV, etc. please let us all know where this magical place is. People take a lot of time to put pieces like this together. We'll gladly spend the time working on other in-depth pieces, but we have to know what your excellency wants first.
There is no magical place sir! BUT, the eye in the sky don't lie and you can actually see who balls and which one's are all hype! You can see which player is clutch and you can see which player isn't, but a scout will fall back on his atletic ceiling. Which means to me, that player has issues and serious flaws in his game. (Ex. >#PJ3-He's not a SF! Stop making a position for him bcuz his game is weak @ PF; Desire is questioned) #RedFlag -If a puppy doesn't bite as a puppy, he ain't gon bite as a dog! *ALL players need good veteran leadership and/or a good coaching staff. #Hornets ^something the clippers/bobcats/bucks/Wizards/warriors and others seem to never strive for with their coaches carousel.
Actually, these numbers state exactly what you say they don't. Kwame Brown and Olowokandi are accounted for by the fact the first pick of the draft only produces a starter-quality player or better 70% of the time. The point of this post every year is to curb the rampant optimism most people have every year during the draft - when they fall in love with prospects that are going in the teens. History - back to 1984 in this case - indicates you aren't likely to get what you are hoping for. As for ranking the quality of past drafts individually, that's not the purpose of this. It would be easy enough, though. It just wouldn't be interesting or in any way enable us to set expectations for this draft.
I hear what you're saying but my point is, anyone that knows basketball and watches college basketball can see who's good are not. But when you have GM's & Coaches like Bickerstaff/Dunlevy/Elgin Baylor/MICHEAL JEFFERY JORDAN/Kraus/Keith Smart making silly picks and putting players in a unstable organization, it'll kill a career. Those numbers don't tell me who was the GM that past over a better player, who was the undisipline coach that had no foundation/structure in his coaches philosophy, and what owner was cheap as hell! All of these things can ruin a career of a player. Most people/fans go by which player Dick Vital & the media are screaming about in college and look at the ESPN highlights and start talking about a players potential/ceiling being this and that. Simply put stay away from guys who's drive/heart is question(drummond & PJ3) and look at the players that haven't blinked all year long (AD23/Robinson/Rivers/Beal). Its plain and simple....
Sort of depends on if Monty and Dell have someone they really like available earlier. Maybe we package the 10th pick and a player and/or the 46th pick and move UP. If they don't have a strong favorite player when we pick at 10, then trade it for a young low-salary NBA surplus player or a lower pick this year plus a couple decent pick or two in the future....
Excellent post, my gut at first said keep 10 and dont consider trade down to swing for a star aka k Marshall. After the trade i wavered thinking we have more holes to fill than cap. space. This renews my resolve to keep 10 but not sure if Dell agrees. Still think he's the one considering trading down for dalembert and his one year contract. Seems like the first round crop is stronger than most years so let's hope those %s get a slight bump
I tend to agree with you here. I'd like to see NOLA trade #10 for #14 or #16 and Dalembert. He fills a hole at C for one year or is a very valuable trade chip with his expiring, just like Lewis is and allows us to not over reach with our pick. #16 is a great spot to land Marshall and our lineup looks not bad with that trade. If we keep Lewis and Dalembert until the deadline we look like this: Marshall - Gordon - Lewis - Davis - Dalembert. I think thats a reasonable team to hit the ground running with and allows us our cap space in a years time as well as still provides 2 great trade chips in Lews and Dalambert up until the deadline.