jmmagicfan

Wow, that analysis was such a pipedream I couldn't believe they actually published it. Maybe someone should tell them Otis is not in charge here anymore, so the days of overvaluing former GSW players are done!

I think we might be able to get more than # 5 and #23 for the # 4 from Utah in that deal. We might squeeze them to throw in Alec Burks(22 year old, 6'6: backup combo guard), but I don't think they would go for Favors or Kanter. That might actually make me more interested in grabbing Vonleh, and then the best available at #12. You might even be able to address the SG/SF position at #12, and wait to pick a PG at #23. There is actually quite a good crop of potential PG, and someone is going to drop. Tyler Ennis Zach LaVine Elfrid Payton Shabazz Napier Bogdan Bogdanovic Vasilije Micic Spencer Dinwiddie

Except I don't really like Favors, and I don't think Utah would go for that much. On the other hand, # 5 and #23 for our # 4 might be a possibility. # 5 Vonleh #12 LaVine/Ennis/Payton/Napier #23 Anderson/Robinson/McDaniels Now our line-up is LaVine/Nelson/Price Oladipo/Afflalo/Moore Harris/Harkless/Anderson Vonleh/O'Quinn/Nicholson Vucevic/Dedmon Or, if you prefer # 5 Smart #12 Young/Stauskas/Hood #23 Payne/Capela that would give us Smart/Nelson/Price Oladipo/Young/Afflalo Harris/Harkless O'Quinn/Payne/Nicholson Vucevic/Dedmon

Except Thaddeus Young plays a lot of his time at PF for Philly. He is kind of a tweener. Last year they started Hollis Thompson at the SF position, and their depth chart shows Jason Richardson backing him up. I don't see them passing on Parker.

As I said, it becomes an exercise in some pretty crazy mathematics.

Here's the simplest answer - 15.6% chance we win the first pick, that can not change. Calculating the odds beyond that, without knowing the results of the first pick is an exercise in some crazy mathematics, and reasonably pointless. Everyone's odds go up, because you still have the same number of potential winning combinations, but the "pool" is smaller.

It is wrong because it a meaningless number, based on an impossible supposition. There is absolutely no chance that the 2nd pick will occur without the first pick happening, the balls moving, and the odds changing. Furthermore, it lists our odds of winning the 3rd pick as 15.6%; the worst case scenario for our odds is if Phoenix and Minnesota go #1 and #2, as our odds then become 156/989 or 15.774%. So according to the original graphic, our "odds" of winning the third pick is actually less than the worst case scenario?!? Really, does that actually make sense to anyone?

I really hate these kinds of graphics, because they are so simplistic and completely wrong it isn't even funny. No one knows what their odds are to win pick #2 until pick #1 is done, and no one knows the odds of winning #3 until after #2 is done. The odds change depending on who won the preceding pick(s). Here is how it works. There are 14 ping pong balls in the hopper, and they pick 4. That means there are 1001 possible combinations. 1000 of them are assigned to the 14 lottery teams. (if combo 1001 comes up they do a re-pick). 1. Milwaukee Bucks: 25.0 percent (250 number combinations) 2. Philadelphia 76ers: 19.9 percent (199 number combinations) 3. Orlando Magic: 15.6 percent (156 number combinations) 4. Utah Jazz: 10.4 percent (104 combos) 5. Boston Celtics: 10.3 percent (103 combos) 6. Los Angeles Lakers: 6.3 percent (63 combos) 7. Sacramento Kings: 4.3 percent (43 combos) 8. Detroit Pistons: 2.8 percent (28 combos) 9. Cleveland Cavaliers: 1.7 percent (17 combos) 10. New Orleans Pelicans: 1.1 percent (11 combos) 11. Denver Nuggets: 0.8 percent (8 combos) 12. New York Knicks: 0.7 percent (7 combos) 13. Minnesota Timberwolves: 0.6 percent (6 combos) 14. Phoenix Suns: 0.5 percent (5 combos) After the top pick is won, they re-fill the hopper with all 14 balls and pick 4 for the next combination. If the combo for pick #2 belongs to the team that already won the top pick, they do over. The same goes for pick #3. The combinations of the winners of pick #1's and pick #2's are no longer valid, and would cause a redraw. The odds of getting the second and third pick varies directly based on who won the preceding pick(s). For example: Say Milwaukee won the first pick, there are now 750 valid combos for #2 (1001 combos - 1 unassigned - 250 assigned to Milw) Orlando's odds of winning pick number two is now 20.8% (156 combos out of possible 750) But let's say Phoenix won the first pick, now there are now 995 valid combos (1001- 1 unassigned- 5 assigned to Phoenix) Orlando's odd of winning pick number two is now 15.7% (156 out of 995) If Milwaukee and Philly get #1 and #2, Orlando's odds of winning #3 are 28.3% (156 out of 551)(1001 - 1 - 250 - 199) If Phoenix and Minnesota went #1 and #2, our odds of winning #3 are 15.8% (156 out of 989)(1001 - 1 - 5 - 6)

Milwaukee wins the #1 pick Denver wins #2 Orlando wins #3, but with NYK pick Philly now picks #4 Orlando picks #5 (own pick) Orlando trades Arron Afflalo to Cleveland for CJ Miles and pick #11 Joel Embiid falls out of the top 5 due to concerns about his back. Orlando takes: # 3 Dante Exum # 5 Noah Vonleh #11 Doug McDermott Exum/Nelson/Price Oladipo/Miles Harris/McDermott/Harkless Vonleh/O'Quinn/Nicholson Vucevic/Dedmon/Maxiel

I actually get that - the dropoff talent wise from 24 to 31 might not be much, but #24 gets a guaranteed salary and #31 doesn't.

I don't think they can trade their 2016 first round pick - I think you can only trade 1st round picks every other year, that is why we have a 2017 to begin with. Also, they are already over both the salary cap and the luxury tax line - they can't fit Afflalo's salary without trading comparable salary.

The absolute worst we could do is 6th and 14th, but the odds on that are almost as small as us getting the absolute best we could do, which would be 1st and 3rd. I don't think there has been a draft where the teams with the three worst records fell to 4, 5, and 6; at least not since they adjusted the odds after we won two years in a row.

Does Jacque Vaughn ever emote? :D

At least he's consistent? :svgsad:

Except that his contract is through the end of this season with a player option for next, so even if we thought he was going to opt out we would still have through the trading deadline to shop him. Also, what are the odds that he will opt out of a guaranteed $7.5M for that season? He might, but he would have to be pretty sure that he can get more elsewhere. With the new league agreement we saw a much wider disparity between star and role player contracts last summer. With the new, stiffer penalties for teams that exceed the tax line there are a lot fewer owners willing to go there for a borderline all-star. It's the old bird in the hand vs. two in the bush. Is a 1yr/$7.5M guarantee for 2015-16 better, or is the chance at a longer/bigger payday. That's a pretty big gamble to take. Depending on where/who the Magic draft, I would not be surprised if Rob H traded AA, but I also wouldn't be surprised if he started talks to extend his contract. I think if we get Wiggins then he will trade AA; but if we get a combo guard/point with our first pick, I think AA stays, at least through the All Star game.

I didn't say they were all complete busts, I said plenty of top 3 picks went on to have careers that were just average down to complete busts - I included Michael Beasley, Ben Gordon, and a couple of others that have had decent careers, just not spectacular. Greg Oden had some flashes before his injuries. Bennett still has time to have a very good career, but he certainly did not have a "superstar" start to his career. Where did he finish in the ROY voting? Was he even in the top 5? Shouldn't we expect him to be? I seriously doubt that he was #1 on most teams' boards prior to the draft, and his performance didn't necessarily change anyone's mind. My point was and is, picking in the top 3 doesn't guarantee that you will pick a star, and picking later doesn't mean you can't find one.

I think that since he is currently showing as restricted, I think it will take too much to keep Houston from matching. I think Morey will let any offer for Parsons sit on the table for the full week(?), thereby tying up the cap space of whoever makes the offer, and then match at the last minute. That gives him a week to pursue other free agents/options with one less competitor. I am also a little surprised that you have Lamb, Nicholson, and Maxiel on your list, but not Afflalo? Do you really think Lamb and Nicholson have done enough to warrant keeping them?

But Vic was playing split time between PG and SG, and spent a good amount of time against backups. Also, AA played a lot of his time for us at SF last year. Without AA, this leaves our wing situation a little iffy. Granted, Wiggins may be able to play both SG/SF, and if we get him, I am more likely to consider trading AA, but I still think he is worth more than just draft pick #8. My biggest concern is that we don't trade better talent for lesser talent. Trading a guy like AA, who is 28, entering what is normally peak age of a career, who has shown an amazing work ethic and dedication to improving every year, and a borderline all-star, for an unproven commodity; ie draft pick #8, seems risky at best.

Penny's best years were 15-20 years ago - you and I have been around that long, but not everyone has. Thank you, major smarta-- :P

That is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure about filling one whole by creating another. Besides, do you think Gordon or Vonleh is going to be a better player than Aaron Afflalo in the next year or two? I am not sure that our young players can take another "rebuilding" season like the last two. At some point, you have to start winning, not just "developing" young players.

I would absolutely take Penny Hardaway 2.0 any day of the week. Remember Hardaway was all-NBA several years running.

I don't get all the sudden love for Nik Stauskas, everything I've seen and read reminds me of JJ Redick when he came out. Great shooter, good off pick and rolls, good off screens, but lacks foot speed/lateral quickness to be a good defender. Stauskas is about an inch taller than JJ, and will need to put in the same kind of effort to be even an average defender. I am a big fan of Redick, but it took JJ several years to stop being a defensive liability, and to adjust to the speed of the NBA on the offensive end, what makes you think this kid can do it any faster?

Really, who?!? Exum will be gone before #8 - count on it Smart is too short to be an NBA starting SG - he will play PG, maybe some backup 2 Gary Harris might be the closest - but I would expect 1-2 years before he is AA's equal, if ever Nik Stauskas - JJ Redick 2.0

You really think there is a player in this draft that will be available at #8 to give us this: 18 points, 3.6 rebounds, 3.4 assists in 35 minutes per game, shooting 45.9% total, 42.7% 3P, 81.5% FT and one of the better defenders in the league at the SG position. Even if you say it was his best year ever (it was) and he won't get any better (wanna bet?), remember that he has gotten better. His scoring average has improved every year in the league. He has gone from being a 13 mpg bench player to being strongly considered for the All Star team. His shooting percentages were down 2012-13, as he wasn't used to other teams being so focused on him. He works on improving something about his game each summer, and this year, to quote his ESPN player card, " Afflalo posted the best statistical season of his career this season, improving upon the marks set in his 2012-13 campaign. Despite playing one minute per game fewer, the seventh year veteran improved in his scoring, passing, shooting efficiency, and turnover rates." By the way, yes his 3P shooting was among the best of his career; but his overall % and his FT% are both exactly the same as his career average. A lot of that time last year was spent playing the SF, not his primary position, because our current crop of SF wasn't ready to step up. If I am giving up AA, I want a whole lot more than #8. The best SG available in that range is going to be Gary Harris or Nik Stauskas. I don't think either of them has the potential to be better than AA. We've spent a year in some cases and two in others developing our young guys; if they want to play more than AA, let them prove they deserve to! The truth is, other than Andre Drummond, I am not sure that Detroit has anyone I am interested in. Maybe Greg Monroe, but he is a restricted FA, so it would have to be a sign and trade. I don't see SVG letting either of them go. Old NBA adage - you don't trade big for little, unless the little is a multiple all-star. SVG is a real NBA purist who knows stats, and history.

Oh wait, we kind of do! :-)