Building Around Cooper: A Backward-Looking Thought Experiment

[KillerLeft]

Well, I would say this is kind of a truism, isn’t it? Of course a rule of thumb is the right way to go - until it isn’t. So I’m not even sure you would disagree with what I’m about to say (but then again, what exactly is your point?).

Picking the best player available in the draft is the most logical course of action in almost all circumstances because the volatility in selecting and projecting young players is extremely high. If you always pick the best player, he might not immediately fill the role you need in order to be successful right away. However, until a rookie is ready to contribute in a meaningful way, years could pass. By then, the specific skill set you originally needed might no longer be relevant. And if you misjudge their development, they might end up having no value whatsoever.

If you always pick “the best player,” your chance of getting some value at some point is significantly higher. It’s essentially an expected value (EV) argument.
Of course, you can point to specific examples where this doesn’t apply. But on the other hand, there are hundreds of examples where it turned out the other way.

I also don’t think anybody would disagree with that - and neither would you. But your argument was based on the premise that we’ve already seen more than half a season of Knueppel, Harper, and their respective teams. Sure, now things are different. But without that knowledge, you still make the same decision ten times out of ten and end up being right maybe seven out of ten times. So it’s still the right move.

I think there are some instances that play out like that, sure. But I disagree with this idea for the most part. The problem with this kind of thinking is that the circumstances a player are drafted into play an extremely large role in determining whether or not that player will be successful, especially early on. So, the “best” player, drafted into the wrong circumstances, might look worse a few months in than several lesser players. Then, they get labeled a disappointment or a bust, then they lose confidence…etc.

Back to the Harper conversation: I would agree with your premise as a drafting franchise only if I were willing to move the players ahead of him. If I am going to bet on a high draft pick, I am going to bet on him playing a large role right away. I might not have felt this way 10 years ago, but the runway for these guys is so much shorter now. It’s really tough to keep teams together and it’s just silly with the way the game’s economics work now to have a top-five pick on a top five-pick salary, even on a rookie contract, not playing a meaty and crucial role. 

I kind of think t would’ve been wise on SA’s part to either trade Fox OR to trade down for a different, better fitting player, picking up an extra asset along the way. That’s how I see it, anyway.