The Buck Stops Here #1: NBA Draft Day Roundtable

Assuming the Bucks keep the #10 pick, are you more concerned with taking the best player available or their potential fit?

AM: The painfully optimistic, soon to be disappointed voice inside of me wants to answer this by saying a combination of both would be great. Unfortunately, we don’t live in such an idyllic world.

I know drafting by fit is a widely unpopular philosophy, but just as there’s a time and place for a BPA strategy, there’s a point in time when you have to consider fit too.

The Bucks are in this great place where we’re lucky enough to say that they have these core pieces already in place. They have their best guys, and at 10 there’s a low likelihood of them finding someone better. When you’re searching for players who are going to fill a complementary role, you’ve got to consider what you’ve already got in place.

If the Bucks draft a power forward who turns out to be really good and shares minutes with Jabari, that’s great. The problem is that we’d still be looking for a point guard, a center and some shooters. With the cap rising, there has never been a wiser time than the present to use rookie scale contracts to fill your biggest roster needs.

JH: I think the Bucks should take the best player available at 10, whoever they think that is. I don’t care if it’s a player who is ready to play in the NBA tomorrow or a player who needs a few years to develop up to his potential. Fit is important but the Bucks don’t have much set in stone years down the road beyond the “big three”. I think because of this they can take a player at any position without too much concern for ruining what they already have.

This is an advantageous position for the BPA strategy. Even if the player at 10 duplicates a position they already have that player can become a solid 6th man option off of the bench. Two of the Bucks core pieces of Middleton and Antetokounmpo can play multiple positions on offense and defense and I think that allows the team to not have to pigeon-hole themselves into taking a certain position.

In short, I think when you have a team that is on the verge of/is a contender you go for fit. When you have a team that is still a while away from contending you go for the best player available. You cannot always accurately predict what the team is going to look like when the team is be ready to contend.

JT: I definitely side with Adam on this and I think you could argue that the Bucks could do both with whoever they select at 10.

The state of the Bucks roster, outside of the core three, is still in flux. The trade rumors regarding Greg Monroe have quickly reappeared and I’m sure the same will go for Michael Carter-Williams once free agency begins (or even sooner). Plus, the bench is in need of bolstering and who knows who the Bucks will bring back from the group of players who will enter free agency (outside of Steve Novak probably).

So, to me, I don’t see how the Bucks couldn’t kill two birds with one stone. Of course, I can see them doing something totally unexpected and frustrating, but that’s what years of being a Bucks fan will do to you I guess.

TW: I think how a player fits with a team is becoming an increasingly important consideration for front offices around the league and has certainly become a more prevalent point of discussion in light of the success teams like Golden State and San Antonio have had in the past couple of years.

However, as John said, drafting for fit largely depends on where the team sits and is certainly a more applicable strategy for contenders rather than rebuilding lottery teams. In this sense, especially in the first round of the draft, I don’t believe the Bucks should be reaching too far down the draft board for a better fit as opposed to selecting the best player available, especially as Jordan said, when the majority of the roster is consistently in flux.

Although the Bucks core is locked in, with the team’s push towards versatility and position-less basketball, I think Milwaukee has the luxury of being able to select the best player available. That being said, a player’s potential fit with the team cannot be totally ignored and needs to factor into the decision.

As Adam alluded to, I probably wouldn’t be in favor of drafting a player who plays the same position as one of the core three, especially when the major needs are at point guard, center and to find shooters. Luckily with the 10th pick, I think it’s likely that the Bucks will be presented a couple of options like Jakob Poeltl, Denzel Valentine and Wade Baldwin who largely fulfill both criteria.

AM: In terms of the fluid nature of the roster and the potential for change, does a lot of that not come down to not having the right role players though? The core three guys aren’t going anywhere any time soon (or so we’ve been told), and hitting the jackpot and adding the role players that the team needs around them would quickly negate any sense of the roster being in flux.

With either strategy, there’s always a chance that you pick a bust, so that can’t be safeguarded against, but at the point the Bucks are at I feel that taking the gamble on filling one or more of their needs on draft night is worthwhile. It could save a lot of dollars for free agency.

JH: I think Jordan put it nicely in describing the ever-changing nature of the roster. That statement isn’t disputed by those of us in the fit side or the BPA side of this argument. Yet, our conclusions about what this statement by Jordan means to draft strategy are totally different.

As a proponent for best player available, I would say look at players in the NBA like Andre Iguodala, Jamal Crawford, Dennis Schröder, Shaun Livingston, Enes Kanter, and Bismack Biyombo. All of these guys played on good or very good teams this year and they all, primarily, came off of the bench.

Good teams in the NBA need good bench players. Even at positions where the team is stacked (i.e. the Warriors where Steph Curry backed up by Livingston or the Clippers where Chris Paul is backed up by Crawford).

I’d say the worst position to draft for regarding the Bucks is small or power forward because each of our core players can play that position. The Bucks do not need a forward for the starting lineup, certainly. But drafting a guy who would exclusively be an NBA 3 or 4 wouldn’t hurt this Bucks team, if that player is the best available.

Players like that who are possible Bucks targets are Henry Ellenson, Jaylen Brown (though he is likely to be gone by the time the 10th pick arrives), and Marquese Chriss (though he is also likely to be gone by the time the 10th pick arrives). All of those could be great sixth man options for the Bucks if shown they need to exclusively play the 3 or the 4. I think having good bench players that can grow with the team can help the Bucks.

We have the core of our starting lineup in place. Imagine a bench that follows that lineup which includes Henry Ellenson and Rashad Vaughn. That could be the makings of a strong offensive bench (if the players develop as we expect). I think that could help the team just as much as another good starter who fits nicely into the lineup.

Next: Favorite Prospects