- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
A little math and history for you guys
Posted on 5/16/19 at 3:43 pm
Posted on 5/16/19 at 3:43 pm
I see the argument, quite a bit that we need to trade AD for young guys, picks, etc because "I'd rather have 9 years of X guy than 1 or two years of AD"
Well, here is a little history and math for you. When you look back at the drafts this decade, the odds say that it is very unlikely you get this guy for 9 years. In fact, you usually don't get him for 4 or 5. Let me show you. This is how many guys from the lottery (top 14 picks) are still on their current team from each draft
2010 - One
2011 - Two
2012 - Five
2013 - Two
2014 - Four
2015 - Just 6 out of 14, and just 1 out of the top 5 picks. And that was less than 4 years ago!
Yes, a few were traded for some value from there original team. Oladipo got Orlando Ibaka, for instance. But history says you are not trading AD for some building piece that will be with you for the next 9 years with Zion.
Just a little reality being brought to the discussion. Because I know that fantasy and hope often override reality when it comes to the draft, prospects, etc
Well, here is a little history and math for you. When you look back at the drafts this decade, the odds say that it is very unlikely you get this guy for 9 years. In fact, you usually don't get him for 4 or 5. Let me show you. This is how many guys from the lottery (top 14 picks) are still on their current team from each draft
2010 - One
2011 - Two
2012 - Five
2013 - Two
2014 - Four
2015 - Just 6 out of 14, and just 1 out of the top 5 picks. And that was less than 4 years ago!
Yes, a few were traded for some value from there original team. Oladipo got Orlando Ibaka, for instance. But history says you are not trading AD for some building piece that will be with you for the next 9 years with Zion.
Just a little reality being brought to the discussion. Because I know that fantasy and hope often override reality when it comes to the draft, prospects, etc
6
Posted on 5/16/19 at 3:48 pm to Crewz
Just for clarification, is this who originally drafted the player, or is this taking into account who the pick was actually for.
Example, Luka/Trae
Example, Luka/Trae
Posted on 5/16/19 at 3:51 pm to SLafourche07
No.
No trickery here. Straight up, you guys can look for yourself.
Guys don't get drafted and have these great 9 year careers with the teams that take them.
On draft night, fans will get all excited and envision the player they get as some building block long term piece. History says he will be gone in 3-5 years, and obviously those 3-5 years will produce very little from that player.
No trickery here. Straight up, you guys can look for yourself.
Guys don't get drafted and have these great 9 year careers with the teams that take them.
On draft night, fans will get all excited and envision the player they get as some building block long term piece. History says he will be gone in 3-5 years, and obviously those 3-5 years will produce very little from that player.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 3:57 pm to Crewz
I'm looking at every thing as assets right now, not necessarily players.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 3:58 pm to Crewz
Russ
Steph
Conley
I think that's the only ones in the last ~decade, as far as top flight guys?
Steph
Conley
I think that's the only ones in the last ~decade, as far as top flight guys?
This post was edited on 5/16/19 at 3:59 pm
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:00 pm to Crewz
quote:
When you look back at the drafts this decade, the odds say that it is very unlikely you get this guy for 9 years.
primarily because they arent good enough to warrant contract #2
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:01 pm to CoeJ
Klay
Davis
Lilliard
Booker
Depends on what you consider top flight
Davis
Lilliard
Booker
Depends on what you consider top flight
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:02 pm to Fun Bunch
Thats fine. But the second you take the car off the lot, it loses value.
If you are looking at it this way, then you should want the package that has the most future picks. The Clippers package should probably intrigue you the most then. Or maybe the Knicks package if they throw in their own firsts too
If you are looking at it this way, then you should want the package that has the most future picks. The Clippers package should probably intrigue you the most then. Or maybe the Knicks package if they throw in their own firsts too
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:05 pm to Crewz
quote:
If you are looking at it this way, then you should want the package that has the most future picks.
That was kind of my point. I'm looking at the best combination of actual assets (current and future picks), and players.
Knicks and Clippers interest me to a high degree.
Boston has by far the best players in this imo, and they do have good pick assets as well.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:14 pm to Soggymoss
I was looking at the longer window of going to 9 years, the third contract.
I think he's saying it's rare they see their RFA for their original team, let alone their third contract.
I think Lillard fits now since he's staying put. Klay we'll see. Book is too young to make that call and Davis is case in point.
I think he's saying it's rare they see their RFA for their original team, let alone their third contract.
I think Lillard fits now since he's staying put. Klay we'll see. Book is too young to make that call and Davis is case in point.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:14 pm to Crewz
Why use 9 years and not say, 7?
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:16 pm to Fun Bunch
Shamet is very interesting to me.. Lights out shooter that we will need
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:16 pm to Crewz
I like the clippers because their pieces fit our roster like a glove.
SGA and Gallinari are perfect. I love Harrell.
I think that trade gets us the most Ws in the next two years.
SGA and Gallinari are perfect. I love Harrell.
I think that trade gets us the most Ws in the next two years.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:18 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Why use 9 years and not say, 7?
quote:
In fact, you usually don't get him for 4 or 5. Let me show you. This is how many guys from the lottery (top 14 picks) are still on their current team from each draft
2010 - One
2011 - Two
2012 - Five
2013 - Two
2014 - Four
2015 - Just 6 out of 14, and just 1 out of the top 5 picks. And that was less than 4 years ago!
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:18 pm to Lester Earl
AD qualifies at 7, possibly 8. Will not get to 9.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:18 pm to Lester Earl
Fine, 7. Thats not the point. I showed you that from 4, 5, 6 years ago - over 70% of the guys are gone
Even with lottery picks. Heck, top 5 picks outside of #1, the odds of that guy being a pillar on your team is not very good.
Even with lottery picks. Heck, top 5 picks outside of #1, the odds of that guy being a pillar on your team is not very good.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:22 pm to Crewz
Most of these guys turn out to be bums.
The second the draft pick is used it has less value.
The second the draft pick is used it has less value.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:28 pm to Crewz
You're drafting in hopes they will be good enough to warrant staying or being good. Most are not, therefore they need to be traded. That stat is kind of skewed because of that.
You're drafting in hopes you get that small percentage that is worth keeping around or resigns with you, obviously, like you say.
That being said, I would prefer a young/semi young proven talent that was drafted 12th over the #4 pick most of the time. Jrue is a good example. I wouldnt trade him for the #4 pick. A guaranteed borderline all-star is much better to me than a crap shoot, which is what most lottery picks are.
You gave the math and history to back it. The simple answer is that this thinking is pretty dumb and unrealistic.
You're drafting in hopes you get that small percentage that is worth keeping around or resigns with you, obviously, like you say.
That being said, I would prefer a young/semi young proven talent that was drafted 12th over the #4 pick most of the time. Jrue is a good example. I wouldnt trade him for the #4 pick. A guaranteed borderline all-star is much better to me than a crap shoot, which is what most lottery picks are.
quote:
I see the argument, quite a bit that we need to trade AD for young guys, picks, etc because "I'd rather have 9 years of X guy than 1 or two years of AD"
You gave the math and history to back it. The simple answer is that this thinking is pretty dumb and unrealistic.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:31 pm to Crewz
I click on 3 all star players in one draft, and 3 for 3 all played 7 years with their team. Not quite 9 but 2 contracts at least.
Posted on 5/16/19 at 4:34 pm to iwyLSUiwy
People tend to be unrealistic when it comes to the future. Some of my favorite studies are the ones that show that when people project the future, their projections are wildly more optimistic than what is likely according to history.
People do the same with young guys in sports. We talk about ceilings far more than floors or basements, even if history teaches us that their outcomes will be far below those ceilings
People do the same with young guys in sports. We talk about ceilings far more than floors or basements, even if history teaches us that their outcomes will be far below those ceilings
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News