Previously one could argue that getting a similar quality player on a rookie deal was a much better value. That’s probably not true anymore. Now, teams are drafting teenagers.

There is no rule in place that says teams must draft teenagers, or draft “raw athletes,” or draft “projects.” There’s a lot of data to suggest that teams are selecting younger players more often, but that’s a systemic failure, not a value problem in the draft slots themselves. It stems from the “common sense” idea that you can mold a younger player as you wish, which, given the failure rate of draft picks in the NBA, seems patently untrue and therefore a tenuous long-term strategy.

If anything, late-round picks would become more valuable in the hands of someone who’s drafting for current production out of a 22-year-old instead of a 19-year-old’s future upside. If I can bank on 80% of teams selecting young “upside” players instead of NBA-ready older players, give me the #20-30 pick so I can snatch up the upperclassmen who will show me who they are by the time I’m ready to open the checkbook.

That said, I think the early 2nd-round picks are the most valuable because they provide greater flexibility for team options in years 3 and 4, in addition to an often lower starting salary. The risk there is that the team will go cheap with a 2-year deal, accidentally find a star (like Whiteside before he decided to stop trying) and have to pay him $25M a year when they could have had him for $1.5M AAV over four.

I suspect that Brandon Ingram is going to make $200M+ in his career, and he may never be better than sophomore-year Giannis. If that’s the case, we’re not going to sit here decrying the value of the #2 pick. We’re going to impugn the development and asset strategies they used to justify their decisions.

So I say, first round picks are over valued now.

I agree with this assessment.

The way I value them may not be very precise, but I look at the pick number and try to gauge what kind of player you typically get in that range “on average”.

Previously one could argue that getting a similar quality player on a rookie deal was a much better value. That’s probably not true anymore. Now, teams are drafting teenagers. You may have that kid on the cheap for a few years, but by the time he actually reaches the productivity level you are projecting, you have to pay him. You may even have to pay him before you know. So I don’t see those rookie deals as such big bargains anymore.

On the flip side, we all know there’s more volatility in making draft picks. You could get a great player at #9 and you could get a bust at #1. So if you are desperate team trying to hit a home run because no stars will come to your city, you are probably better off swinging for the fences in the draft hoping for luck.

I remember the Cousins situation differently. New Orleans did offer him an extension, but he wanted to test the market, so he didn’t take it. Then, when the market was dry, New Orleans no longer had the offer on the table, so he had to take the Warriors offer. So New Orleans could have kept him if they wanted to.

But anyway, that it kind of irrelevant to the core of my argument. New Orleans traded Hield, who was a recent first round pick, a first round pick and Evans and Galloway, neither of which were of much use to the Kings. Compare that to Mozgov, where two first round picks got a somewhat serviceable center. Here, two first round picks, one of whom was definitely not a star (Hield) got the Pelicans Cousins. There is no comparison in the value received for two picks between the two trades. So I say, first round picks are over valued now.

Part of the reason for the overvaluing of first rounders was the old CBA. In it, the cap went up something like 40% while the salaries for first round picks didn’t change at all. So they became incredibly cheap relative to their potential. Teams figured this out and kept their picks at almost all costs. But the new CBA fixes that. What is more, players are being drafted younger and the maximum length of the first contract is shorter than it used to be. So now you can draft a guy and sign him to a follow on contract and still not know how good he will be. The Knicks are sort in that position with Porzingis. He’s still young and it’s hard to say if he will keep improving, even without the injury. So if one can get some players that are still developing using late first round picks or get stars like Cousins, you could get very good value for your first round

I guess things could have been different if he was healthy and got a max offer from New Orleans, but then they would be paying almost two maxes to Cousins + Holiday, which… yikes.

Cousins not wanting to re-sign was a risk that was involved on the trade when it was made, and it’s New Orleans we’re talking about, they just don’t sign stars. I’m not willing to cut Demps some slack because at the moment of the trade people were already doubting Boogie would eventually re-sign there.

I just disagree with you that teams with superstars the caliber of Davis struggle often to put teams around them. We’re talking about a legitimate mega star, a top 5 talent, an unstoppable two way player who might end his career with multiple MVPs and was crazy good from his 2nd year on. Even Dallas, where Dirk was the solo superstar for such a long time, made the playoffs every year of his prime on very, very rough western conferences. I would agree with you if they missed the playoffs like twice when Davis had some injuries, but there’s no excuse for missing it so many times. Hell, even New Orleans themselves only missed the playoffs once in 4 seasons with Chris Paul once he made the leap, and that was when he played only 45 games.

But his trading of late first round picks is getting him reasonable value because such picks are overvalued in the market today.

I think there’s a recency bias going on, owing to their thorough dismantling of the Blazers just a few months ago. The Holiday trade was awful and only now he’s finally improving, to the tune of $28M a year through his early thirties. The Asik trade was awful. The Cousins trade wasn’t even good, and now he’s gone, and for essentially 2 1st round picks. The Paul trade was awful (2x 2nd rounders and scrubs/injured players). Mirotic is only under contract for another year, and despite his good play, who knows what that pick will end up being.

I just don’t see anything except signing below-average players to play around Anthony Davis, and giving up cheap young players for veterans making $10M+.

I don’t agree that because the Pelicans have Anthony Davis but didn’t make the playoffs every year, the GM necessarily did a bad job. Most teams with one superstar only and blah stuff around him have trouble making the playoffs, so the fact that Demps didn’t always make the playoffs is not proof he’s a horrible GM. I actually don’t think he’s a great GM at all. Clearly, the CP3 trade wasn’t a shining moment of his. But his trading of late first round picks is getting him reasonable value because such picks are overvalued in the market today. That’s the point I was making.

Bruno, you commented that the Cousins deal was a blunder, but part of that is hindsight because he had a severe injury and they let him go. If you trade for a good player and then he gets injured like that of course you can say the trade was a mistake, but that’s not really a fair grade for the trade. Anyone can get injured.

I don’t fault Demps so much on the CP3 trade as we’ll probably never know how much the league forced the situation, but just the fact that the Clippers probably got a better haul for him 6 years later (and him being 6 years older) tells us everything we need to know on the case to evaluate the trade for the Pelicans.

Specially on a small market that gets no chance at free agency, just whiffing on picks and trading them away is so bad. Since 2012, the Davis draft, the Pelicans have drafted exactly one starting caliber player (Buddy Hield), including trading Noel for Holiday just to overpay the hell out of him later.

The example of Demps was cited as a negative example, but he actually has developed a team that is probably regularly in the Western Conference playoffs. That’s not a horrible result, and many GMs would take that if they could get it.

Nah, I gotta break this one down.

1) Despite the half-assed tank in 2011-12, the Hornets managed to jump 3 slots, winning the draft lottery with a 13.7% chance to do so. They took Anthony Davis, who had the following accolades:

NCAA Champion
All-Tournament Team
Tourney MOP
All-Region
Consensus All-American
Wooden Award
Rupp Trophy
SEC POY
Naismith Award
#1 in NCAA in Win Shares
#1 in BPM
#1 in WS40
#1 in ORtg

He was the easiest #1 overall pick since LeBron. Hands down. There is no draft big board that had him falling past #1. If Demps doesn’t make this pick, there’s a good chance that he’s fired on the spot and submitted for a CAT scan for brain tumors or other neurological irregularities.

2) In the years since Davis was drafted, the Pelicans have never had an SRS above 1.48, despite having a player who has made 3 All-NBA teams, 3 All-Defensive teams, and has landed on the top-10 list for WS/BPM/VORP multiple times. And I should remind you that he began his career as a 19 year old. He just turned 25, so it’s very possible that the next two years are his best yet. Despite having a burgeoning MVP candidate, the Pels have made the playoffs just twice, with one playoff series win.

3) Demps inherited Chris Paul, whom he traded for Aminu, Eric Gordon and Chris Kaman. Read that one again, because it’s true.

4) It gets worse from there: Demps was the engineer behind the nixed Chris Paul LAL trade, which would have sent Pau Gasol, still a very good player, to HOU, while taking back Goran Dragic (good but not great), Luis Scola (lol), Kevin Martin (incredibly never a Knick) and Lamar Odom, best known as a living, breathing Kardashian accessory.