2013 vs. 2014 Draft poll question

[JasonEvans]

If you were Cleveland, with the #1 pick in this year's draft, would you trade that pick for a 2014 first round pick from a team that seemed likely to be in the lottery next year. I am not talking about one of the teams likely to be at the top of the 2014 lottery like Charlotte, Nawlins, Sacto, Orlanod - that's a no-brainer - I am talking about a team that might be in the lottery, but might not. For example, if Toronto or Detroit or Portland wanted to trade their 2014 pick for this year's #1 pick, would you do it?

Vote in the poll and then explain.

-Jason "my vote and explanation in a moment" Evans

[JasonEvans]

So, I voted for "Any likely lottery pick in 2014" and here is my reasoning.

2014 is ridiculously better than 2013 in terms of draft. So much better, that I think the top 6 or 7 players in the 2014 draft may be better than anyone in the 2013 draft. The chance, perhaps even the good chance, to get one of those guys is more important and more of a "game changer" for your franchise than getting Nerlens Noel or Alex Len.

Additionally, by trading away your chance to get better this year with the #1 pick, your odds of being in that high lottery range next year will likely improve. I know Cleveland is itching to be a contender again and would hate the notion of putting that off a year, but I don't think Len or Noel (or McLemore or Porter or Oladipo) will make you that contender. I think Wiggins, Parker, and Randle are unquestionably better than everyone in this draft... by a lot. I suspect that the better Harrison twin (Andrew), Aaron Gordon, and perhaps even Marcus Smart could be better than anyone in this draft (tell me Smart would not be getting serious looks at #1 if he had come out).

-Jason "now, watch McLemore and Len turn into All-stars and prove me an idiot" Evans

[theAlaskanBear]

So, I voted for "Any likely lottery pick in 2014" and here is my reasoning.

2014 is ridiculously better than 2013 in terms of draft. So much better, that I think the top 6 or 7 players in the 2014 draft may be better than anyone in the 2013 draft. The chance, perhaps even the good chance, to get one of those guys is more important and more of a "game changer" for your franchise than getting Nerlens Noel or Alex Len.

Additionally, by trading away your chance to get better this year with the #1 pick, your odds of being in that high lottery range next year will likely improve. I know Cleveland is itching to be a contender again and would hate the notion of putting that off a year, but I don't think Len or Noel (or McLemore or Porter or Oladipo) will make you that contender. I think Wiggins, Parker, and Randle are unquestionably better than everyone in this draft... by a lot. I suspect that the better Harrison twin (Andrew), Aaron Gordon, and perhaps even Marcus Smart could be better than anyone in this draft (tell me Smart would not be getting serious looks at #1 if he had come out).

-Jason "now, watch McLemore and Len turn into All-stars and prove me an idiot" Evans

I voted that they should not trade the #1 pick in this draft. You quoted 5 guys that could be better than the best player in this draft...what is the chance they are a top 5 pick next year in this hypothetical trade? You already said, its a trade with a team that may or may not be a lottery pick. No way you should sacrifice your #1 for a pick of unknown quantity...just because an overall draft might have more elite talent, doesn't mean the Cavs are guaranteed to get that talent.

Additionally, the Cavs HAVE to start making progress and putting together winning teams to see what they have. Irving is not going to stick around for a crappy team in 2 years...the firing of Byron Scott really hurt Irving...he was very close with Byron, calling him his "basketball father". Is he going to be satisfied with Brown? If the Cavs don't make some movement, by the time they are ready to compete...Irving will be done.

By trading this pick for a 2014 pick, you are not JUST giving up on this year, you are giving up on 2014-15 season because now you will be full of rookies trying to adjust to the NBA...that means competition in 2015-16 IF the 2014 prospects pan out like you hope.

Take Porter or Len or Oladipo at #1, and call it day. I still think the Cavs will try to move up into the late lottery in this draft as well. They really want to move up for Karasev -- which indicates they will draft a big with the #1...hiring Vitaly Potapenko screams Len to me...

Gilbert is now two seasons behind his famous NBA championship guarantee...they haven't even sniffed the playoffs. Time to get the ball rolling, with tons of cap space and tons of picks.

[jipops]

Trade it to Charlotte for Gilchrist. With him, Irving, and Waiters that isn't a bad young perimeter. Then go for a front court guy like Randle or Gordon or whomever stock is highest in 2014. Or if you happen to land the 1st pick again you may want Wiggins and offer either Waiters and/or Gilchrist as trade bait for another post player.

[CLW]

Well I'd probably want to know what Kyrie felt about another season at/near the bottom of the standings. He only has 2 years left (I believe) on his contract making him a free agent for the 15-16 season.

If you trade away a #1 pick and end up with two high lottery picks in 14 that only gives you 1 season to prove to Kyrie that you are moving in the right direction.

[TexHawk]

perhaps even Marcus Smart could be better than anyone in this draft (tell me Smart would not be getting serious looks at #1 if he had come out).


Smart would not have been considered for #1 if Cleveland kept the pick. He does a lot of what Kyrie does, but he shoots a whole lot worse. Orlando was said to be devastated when he didn't declare.

You absolutely would have seen a larger trade market for #1 if he was in the draft.

[JasonEvans]

Well I'd probably want to know what Kyrie felt about another season at/near the bottom of the standings. He only has 2 years left (I believe) on his contract making him a free agent for the 15-16 season.

If you trade away a #1 pick and end up with two high lottery picks in 14 that only gives you 1 season to prove to Kyrie that you are moving in the right direction.

The Cavs have Kyrie under contract for 2013-14 and he is scheduled to make $5.6 mil this coming season. They will also pick up the 2014-15 option on Kyrie, paying him a little more than $7 mil that season. It will be his 4th season with the Cavs.

After that, Kyrie becomes a RESTRICTED free-agent. That means that he can sign with anyone he wants but the Cavs can match any offer. Seeing as most anyone would see Kyrie as a max contract player (after 2 years, he is widely considered one of the top 3-5 PGs in the NBA), the Cavs would match any offer made for him. If Kyrie really, really wanted out of Cleveland, he could sign a deal that gave him an option to terminate after 2 or 3 more years and then really be a free agent. This is what Lebron did. He spent 7 years in Cleveland before fleeing to Miami.

So, while there might seem to be some rush to show Kyrie that Cleveland can win, it is not like they must demonstrate it next year or event he year after. That said, Cleveland certainly showed Lebron that they could be a winner (they made the finals with him and had the best record in the NBA the year he left) and yet he chose to go elsewhere because he did not want to carry the load all by himself any longer.

-Jason "the Cleveland question -- will Len or Noel or whoever give Kyrie enough help to keep him happy? Or do they take a flier on getting one of next year's studs" Evans

[CLW]

The Cavs have Kyrie under contract for 2013-14 and he is scheduled to make $5.6 mil this coming season. They will also pick up the 2014-15 option on Kyrie, paying him a little more than $7 mil that season. It will be his 4th season with the Cavs.

After that, Kyrie becomes a RESTRICTED free-agent. That means that he can sign with anyone he wants but the Cavs can match any offer. Seeing as most anyone would see Kyrie as a max contract player (after 2 years, he is widely considered one of the top 3-5 PGs in the NBA), the Cavs would match any offer made for him. If Kyrie really, really wanted out of Cleveland, he could sign a deal that gave him an option to terminate after 2 or 3 more years and then really be a free agent. This is what Lebron did. He spent 7 years in Cleveland before fleeing to Miami.

So, while there might seem to be some rush to show Kyrie that Cleveland can win, it is not like they must demonstrate it next year or event he year after. That said, Cleveland certainly showed Lebron that they could be a winner (they made the finals with him and had the best record in the NBA the year he left) and yet he chose to go elsewhere because he did not want to carry the load all by himself any longer.

-Jason "the Cleveland question -- will Len or Noel or whoever give Kyrie enough help to keep him happy? Or do they take a flier on getting one of next year's studs" Evans

Ah didn't realize your first contract allowed a RESTRICTED Free Agency. Yeah Cleveland would undoubtedly match any offer for one of if not the best PF in the league by the time he hits Free Agency. With that now being known I'd trade the pick for a likely lottery next year.

[ice-9]

So, I voted for "Any likely lottery pick in 2014" and here is my reasoning.

2014 is ridiculously better than 2013 in terms of draft. So much better, that I think the top 6 or 7 players in the 2014 draft may be better than anyone in the 2013 draft. The chance, perhaps even the good chance, to get one of those guys is more important and more of a "game changer" for your franchise than getting Nerlens Noel or Alex Len.

Additionally, by trading away your chance to get better this year with the #1 pick, your odds of being in that high lottery range next year will likely improve. I know Cleveland is itching to be a contender again and would hate the notion of putting that off a year, but I don't think Len or Noel (or McLemore or Porter or Oladipo) will make you that contender. I think Wiggins, Parker, and Randle are unquestionably better than everyone in this draft... by a lot. I suspect that the better Harrison twin (Andrew), Aaron Gordon, and perhaps even Marcus Smart could be better than anyone in this draft (tell me Smart would not be getting serious looks at #1 if he had come out).

-Jason "now, watch McLemore and Len turn into All-stars and prove me an idiot" Evans


I'm not sure about trade possibilities, but if I was Cleveland, I'd much rather keep the #1 pick vs. a lottery pick next season with the assumption that the talent pool is greater. One year is a long, long time, and you never know what kind of a player you're going to get.

The 2007 draft offers a potential parallel. That draft was considered by most to be pretty weak...there was Kevin Durant, Al Horford, Joakim Noah and a bunch of NBA journeymen (Marc Gasol was taken in the second round, but nobody knew he was going to be this good). The 2008 draft the next year, in contrast, was a deep and strong draft comprised of players like Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, Brook Lopez and Roy Hibbert. Now if you're the Portland Trailblazers that year, do you keep your #1 draft pick for 2007 or do you prefer a lottery pick in 2008?

It's unfortunate for Portland that they took Greg Oden, who couldn't fulfill his potential due to injuries. But Kevin Durant turned out to be the best player in BOTH drafts, and if they had taken Al Horford they still would've had a starter from the #1 pick. Sure, 2008 is overall a strong draft, but it also had a lot of disappointing lottery picks: Beasely, Gallinari, Alexander, Augustin, Thompson, Rush, Randolph, Speights...

The point is that you never know. Maybe Porter or Len or Noel is this draft's Durant. Maybe Clevelend will get a Beasely if they trade the pick for next year. I realize probabilities play into it...but Cleveland has the #1 pick! Chances are they're going to end up with a decent pro. If they trade for next year with a lottery pick, chances of finding a good pro are going to be similar (if not lower depending on high the pick), except it's one year later.

Also, perceptions of a player changes. Coming out of high school, Shabazz was considered an elite talent and a candidate for the top pick. One year later, the hype has worn off. Who's to say that won't happen to the putative strength of the 2014 draft?

It doesn't make sense to me UNLESS Cleveland gets a solid veteran player in exchange for the one year opportunity cost.

[johnb]

Jason makes good points. I'd take the higher of Orlando's two first-round picks in 2014, for example, which would reduce the risk that I'd be getting an 18th pick in place of a 1. Another option is to give up the #1 for a 1 in 2014 + something in 2013 (either a serviceable player or a late first rounder).

Anyone have data on injury rates among players on lower echelon teams vs higher echelon teams? At least in college football, where the disparity can be great and the action violent, I assume the lower echelon teams get injured more often. In the NBA, the reverse might be true in that players on the lower echelon teams seem less likely to be driving themselves especially hard throughout the season. I'd also be interested in injury rates of the different positions, though I can't imagine the various leagues would be especially interested in sharing such information. I ask because if Kyrie were the star quarterback of a crummy NFL team, I'd be interested in lining up some offensive lineman to protect him and some skill players to whom he could direct the ball, not just for points but to protect his knees/head. In Kyrie's case, I'd imagine the bigger risk is his disenchantment with playing for a small-market team.

[theAlaskanBear]

The Cavs have Kyrie under contract for 2013-14 and he is scheduled to make $5.6 mil this coming season. They will also pick up the 2014-15 option on Kyrie, paying him a little more than $7 mil that season. It will be his 4th season with the Cavs.

After that, Kyrie becomes a RESTRICTED free-agent. That means that he can sign with anyone he wants but the Cavs can match any offer. Seeing as most anyone would see Kyrie as a max contract player (after 2 years, he is widely considered one of the top 3-5 PGs in the NBA), the Cavs would match any offer made for him. If Kyrie really, really wanted out of Cleveland, he could sign a deal that gave him an option to terminate after 2 or 3 more years and then really be a free agent. This is what Lebron did. He spent 7 years in Cleveland before fleeing to Miami.

So, while there might seem to be some rush to show Kyrie that Cleveland can win, it is not like they must demonstrate it next year or event he year after. That said, Cleveland certainly showed Lebron that they could be a winner (they made the finals with him and had the best record in the NBA the year he left) and yet he chose to go elsewhere because he did not want to carry the load all by himself any longer.

-Jason "the Cleveland question -- will Len or Noel or whoever give Kyrie enough help to keep him happy? Or do they take a flier on getting one of next year's studs" Evans

Yeah he's a restricted free agent, the Cavs can match, they WILL match any offer, BUT that doesn't mean Kyrie has to stay in Cleveland much longer...he is only bound for an extra year or two...probably they would match and then have to work a sign and trade deal to get something in return for him. Besides, do you want a disgruntled max player who wants out?

Do you really think that a "lose to win" mentality the next two seasons would keep ANY Cavs free agents in Cleveland without them having to overpay to keep their players away from better teams? There are too many variables and risks, not to mention a disgruntled fan base and what will likely be another coaching change in 3 years. If you set Mike Brown up to coach a bad team, no one will have confidence in him when its time to win... If the Cavs are serious about their future, they have to start to build a winning program now. They have talent, just a few more pieces, some vets & free agents.

Start making the playoffs, build a good team culture, and see how good Kyrie and Waiters are going to be...then maybe you will just be a trade or two away from contending for the title. Other than the Oklahoma City Thunder, what is the last team built primarily through the draft to play in the NBA finals? The San Antonio Spurs is the answer, but they did so by getting beyond lucky (Tim Duncan draft due to David Robinson injury) and by exploiting assymetrical information on foreign players with great international scouts...everyone is now in on the international players....the Spurs success is unlikely to be duplicated. Plus, they win every year. They don't lose to win draft picks.

Point to me this great well-spring of knowledge that says the path to success in the NBA to lose repeatedly for high draft picks...I just don't get it. Maybe its the future reality of the new NBA CBA....I just want to see proof of success before this becomes ingrained as conventional wisdom.

[JNort]

I said do not trade. Right now it's looking like Noel will be the selection come draft time and for decent enough reason. The cavs lack defense, Noel is a good defender and shot blocker, he can dunk very well and with Kyrie opening up the floor he should get plenty of chances to do so. However Noel is rehabbing from an injury and is most likely gonna miss games, Kyrie has the tag of an injury prone player so figure him to miss time as well and it looks like your two number one picks are gonna miss time. They will almost definitely be bottom 4 next year with a shot at wiggins or Parker. Seems like a good starting point to me. Kyrie, Noel and a chance at Wiggins or Parker!

[Lauderdevil]

Point to me this great well-spring of knowledge that says the path to success in the NBA to lose repeatedly for high draft picks...I just don't get it. Maybe its the future reality of the new NBA CBA....I just want to see proof of success before this becomes ingrained as conventional wisdom.

In MLB, see the Washington Nats.

[COYS]

I'm not sure about trade possibilities, but if I was Cleveland, I'd much rather keep the #1 pick vs. a lottery pick next season with the assumption that the talent pool is greater. One year is a long, long time, and you never know what kind of a player you're going to get.

The 2007 draft offers a potential parallel. That draft was considered by most to be pretty weak...there was Kevin Durant, Al Horford, Joakim Noah and a bunch of NBA journeymen (Marc Gasol was taken in the second round, but nobody knew he was going to be this good). The 2008 draft the next year, in contrast, was a deep and strong draft comprised of players like Derrick Rose, Russell Westbrook, Kevin Love, Brook Lopez and Roy Hibbert. Now if you're the Portland Trailblazers that year, do you keep your #1 draft pick for 2007 or do you prefer a lottery pick in 2008?

It's unfortunate for Portland that they took Greg Oden, who couldn't fulfill his potential due to injuries. But Kevin Durant turned out to be the best player in BOTH drafts, and if they had taken Al Horford they still would've had a starter from the #1 pick. Sure, 2008 is overall a strong draft, but it also had a lot of disappointing lottery picks: Beasely, Gallinari, Alexander, Augustin, Thompson, Rush, Randolph, Speights...

The point is that you never know. Maybe Porter or Len or Noel is this draft's Durant. Maybe Clevelend will get a Beasely if they trade the pick for next year. I realize probabilities play into it...but Cleveland has the #1 pick! Chances are they're going to end up with a decent pro. If they trade for next year with a lottery pick, chances of finding a good pro are going to be similar (if not lower depending on high the pick), except it's one year later.

Also, perceptions of a player changes. Coming out of high school, Shabazz was considered an elite talent and a candidate for the top pick. One year later, the hype has worn off. Who's to say that won't happen to the putative strength of the 2014 draft?

It doesn't make sense to me UNLESS Cleveland gets a solid veteran player in exchange for the one year opportunity cost.

I mistakenly checked the wrong box when I answered the poll question . . . whoops, but I agree with this, wholeheartedly. If they can trade the number 1 pick for a player of known value, that's one thing. However, taking a flier on next year's lottery seems really, really risky. At this particularly moment, it appears that Wiggins, Randle, Gordon, the Harrison twins, and others are sure-fire safe bets to be good pro's. But you really don't know how things are going to shake out. Also, while the Cavs will be improved next year, they stand a pretty good chance of picking high in the draft next year, anyway. Swapping the number 1 this year for a player like MKG might be useful if they value MKG more than anyone in this year's draft. However, I feel like a trade such as this is incredibly unlikely. However, trading the number one for two chances next year, although neither are likely to be the first pick, is not really a sure thing, either. Here's the way I see it. They have a chance to get what they think will be the very best player in this year's draft. They are unlikely to have that option next year. Take the sure thing, this year, even if the player never becomes a star. Cleveland will still be picking pretty high next year, at which point they can take advantage of a deeper draft. The very best player (as projected right now) in Wiggins is unlikely to be theirs, regardless of what they do. Beyond Wiggins, who else is a surefire star? It seems to me you take the sure thing this year and then make your choice next season with more information. Wiggins is the ONLY player I would definitely give up this year's number one pick for, and he is almost certainly not going to be a Cav unless the Cavs get insanely, ridiculously lucky. However, trading the number one pick this year for two next year will only moderately improve the odds of this actually happening.

[brevity]

I think Wiggins, Parker, and Randle are unquestionably better than everyone in this draft... by a lot. I suspect that the better Harrison twin (Andrew), Aaron Gordon, and perhaps even Marcus Smart could be better than anyone in this draft (tell me Smart would not be getting serious looks at #1 if he had come out).

I mostly agree with your guesswork, and it leads me to the opposite conclusion. If I were Cleveland, and I couldn't obtain a gamechanger in the form of a healthy veteran, I would stay put tonight.

NBADraft.net (http://nbadraft.net/2014mock_draft) has a different Top 6, but let's just say you (and DraftExpress (http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2014/)) are correct. The teams that are expected to (intentionally or unintentionally) tank the 2013-2014 season know that they have a good chance to place in the top 3 in the 2014 lottery, or at worst be in position for Harrison, Smart, or Gordon. They have the benefit of low expectations from fans and media. The 2014 NBA Draft will be in full hype mode all season. It's basically a year of goodwill, and teams are unlikely to want to trade that for the #1 pick this year. So even if Cleveland were interested, it would have no takers among these teams expected to place in the high lottery. We don't even need to compare the players of 2013 vs. 2014.

As for mid-lottery teams, you would have to consider your pool of players available tonight and compare them to the collegians available next year. (I would leave out the internationals -- too unpredictable to consider a year in advance.) If Cleveland wants a center, does it take Nerlens Noel or Alex Len now, or wait a year for Willie Cauley-Stein, Joel Embiid, or Mitch McGary? Anthony Bennett or Montrezl Harrell? Otto Porter or Glenn Robinson III? And to drive my point home, Ben McLemore or PJ Hairston? I'm not seeing the benefit of waiting a year when these are your likely targets. And I don't think teams like Toronto, Detroit, or Portland are going to offer that much more than the mid-lottery pick to sweeten the deal.

Finally, Cleveland has a collection of young stars and more pressure to win now. But others have already discussed that in greater depth. Of course, I'm not Cleveland, and chances are they will keep the pick for all the wrong reasons, like "let's get a center now and set ourselves up for LeBron James to return." Not happening.

[theAlaskanBear]

In MLB, see the Washington Nats.

Baseball is completely different, I don't see how you can compare the two. Also, get back to me when the Nats win a postseason series. Teams have their own farm system to develop players. There is only a "soft cap" meaning there are no restrictions on free agent signings nor trades, and teams control player rights 6 years after every draft. None of these conditions exist in the NBA.