DCZards wrote:The Consiglieri wrote:AFM wrote:You can't even say "there's no generational talent in this draft", we really don't know. There could be a Jokic in the 2nd round. What is totally fair to say is that there's no OBVIOUS generational talent, like a Wemby or a Lebron.
That's what's meant. When scouts and analytics people look at this, they don't see transformative players. It doesn't mean there aren't any. We can't know the future. It does heavily suggest both the high end talent is either non-existent, or very shallow, and that the ability to identify said talent is gonna be as much about luck as anything, and that's if its even there. I'm sure there are gonna be special players in this draft, but #1 options with superstar ability, first ballot HOF, multi champion studs? I don't see it, and I think its basically going to come in two ways:
1. Blind randomness.
2. Somebody doing what Dat has referenced in talking about it, and what's happened with ANT, some player with a reasonably high ceiling, hitting a grand slam on that ceiling through work rate and will (say Butler on Miami).
It's possible, but most likely, what I see happening is a ceiling result for a complimentary player. A guy becomes a very, very good 2nd or 3rd option...but how do we find them? Luck.
Truth be told...a lot of drafts don't have a first ballot HOF or multi champion studs. So that's not unusual.
When scouts and GM judge players in this draft (and most drafts) they are largely looking at 18, 19 and 20 year olds. I can't imagine there being a lot of reliable "analytics" for players that young. So, regardless of what you've heard about this draft, there is really no way of telling for sure whether the 2024 draft will be a good, bad or average draft. It would take a crystal ball to know that.
Right now, the "bad draft" narrative is out there but we'll obviously have to wait and see. I'm willing to bet that there will be 2 or 3 players in this draft who will perform beyond people's wildest expectations. Who knows--maybe even a Giannis or a Joker. Clearly they weren't expected to be generational talents--but they are.
Some times I think this is about definitions and just how people interpret what things mean. Is this guaranteed to be a bad draft? No. Is this almost certainly one of the worst drafts we've seen in a long time? Yes. Are the consequences of that harsh for teams that happen to be bad right now, absolutely. I don't have a crystal ball that this is gonna be bad, but if there is an absolute consensus from both scouts and analytics people that there's nothing that's really jumping off the page here, that should be alarming as ----. I find it bizarre how much people quibble with this. In 2000 they said the draft was crap, it was. In 2001 it was pretty disappointing, it was, in 2013 it was supposed to be crap, it was, in 2020 it was viewed as a dip, it was. Do they get ones wrong? Sort of, but I've been watching NBA drafts since the late eighties and can't recally any drafts called bad, that actually ended up great or good, none. I can recall ones where they really liked the elite prospects and they were more middling than elite, that definitely happens, but the bad ones? They were almost always exactly what was expected and usually worse. I can't really recall distinct exceptions to any of that.
I get the sense that people just don't want it to be true that we got the 2nd pick in a crappy class, and want to pretend its fine. It isn't. It sucks. Could we get another Deni, or even a miracle like Giannis? Sure. Is it likely or even a minor but decent possibility (lets say 5-15%), NO. There's so much denialism about this, or maybe it's just a difference of interpretation. I'm not denying that's its possible that we could get a diamond in the rough here, its always possible, but is it likely, or even a remotely reasonable expectation. It is not. Not close.
But honestly I think this is a quibble. I think some of you guys don't like the certainty sound that comes with this take, and I will completely concede that their could be a couple of all stars and probably are, and that it wont all be duds or even mostly duds at the top, there probably will be some reasonable floor options, maybe a hit or two but what makes it worse is that typically at the top of the draft you will see some clear difference making prospects who have a reasonable chance, 35-65% of turning into a good or great player, this draft doesn't have anyone like that, not one. There's no Holmgren, Banchero, no Ant, no Ja Morant, nobody remotely like that. That's the problem. This draft may have a guy that hits those heights, but in most drafts, its fairly reasonable to get a coin toss chance view of smoking one out in the 1, 2 or 3 slot etc, this one? No chance. That's the problem. And what do you do with that reality is the other problem? Swing for the fences? Which I want? The Bleave in Wizards podcast guys are the opposite, just wanting someone useful, a startable option or high end bench player, someone with a genuine floor but I see no point in that. We aren't transforming into a winner in 3-4 years if we draft like we did circa 2018-2022 under Shepard, we have to aim higher, we miss, it helps the tank, we hit, it does wonders. The one caveat, and I admit its a caveat, is the value of hitting on poor mans halliburton's who are nice trade assets. You don't get a home run prospect, but you do get a guy a lot of playoff teams and contenders would like as a piece for a playoff run? Well, that would justify aiming a bit more for a floor/ceiling blend.
Its interesting. I'm guessing we're not far off, but I do think people are quibbling either because they don't like the reality of how crap this draft is perceived, and don't appreciate that I speak with a seeming certainty about something that's inherently unknown, I kinda get both sides of that argument, but I also can point to the history of the last 36 or 37 drafts I've seen, and how consistently the drafts they didn't like, were indeed, quite disappointing, especially at the top.
