The Best Grader Ever

In 2009 we lauded Chad Ford as the most generous grader ever. Well, move over. Sam Amick's 2011 Draft Report Card would make a Harvard English professor blush. His grades:

A+: 4
A: 6
A-: 4
B+: 6
B: 4
B-: 2
C+: 2
C: 1
C-: 0
D: 0
F: 0
Inc.: 1

Not only has Amick topped Ford by giving out 20 grades of B+ or better, a whopping 1/3 of the drafting teams received an A or an A+, meaning they aced the draft. We'll go on record as saying that it's highly unlikely that 10 NBA teams did perfectly on Thursday.

I Want Chad Ford to Be My Professor

The usual NBA draft post-mortem is up on tWWL, and Chad Ford has graded all the teams on their performance yesterday, which as we all know is something of a folly because it's impossible to judge a draft until 3+ years after it occurred. Still, Ford tried anyway because, well, that's his job.

Clearly Mr. Ford is from the Lake Wobegon school of grading, because there aren't a lot of negative marks handed out. Here's a breakdown of the grades he doles out.

A+: 1
A: 5
A-: 4
B+: 9
B: 1
B-: 6
C+: 1
D: 1
Inc.: 1 (Golden State, who presumably is dealing Stephen Curry)
N/A: 1 (Orlando had no picks)

Excusing Golden State and Orlando from the mix, twenty-eight teams received grades, of which a whopping 19 received a B+ or better. The draft curve is pretty clear: 10 above a B+, 9 at a B+, and 9 below. And of that, only one team (the poor, sad Lakers, who are only the defending champs) received below a C+.

Given that a C grade is supposed to be average, it's clear that Chad Ford thinks that 90% of the teams in the NBA did an above-average job yesterday evening. Methinks this is unlikely, especially in a draft so bereft of frontline talent. But I do think that I would have done a helluva lot better in law school if Ford had graded my Property final.

Should Blake Griffin Be the #1 Pick?

On Thursday evening, David Stern will get up to the microphone in the nee-Felt Forum above Madison Square Garden, wear a tie that will be the subject of 2 or more Bill Simmons jokes, and announce that the Los Angeles Clippers are taking with the first pick overall Oklahoma power forward Blake Griffin. Tens of thousands of articles, blogs, pieces and commentators will say over the next few days that this is the right pick, but that Griffin is cursed because he's a member of the Clippers. We're not here to focus on that. Instead, let's ask a question that everyone is ignoring: should Blake Griffin really go #1?

For the record, we have nothing against Blake Griffin. He's a fine basketball player, seems like a nice guy, and does not appear to be a stiff. But at the same time, he does not appear to be a superstar either. His college performance, while impressive, is reminiscent of guys like Elton Brand and Emeka Okafor. The best analogue in the NBA for him appears to be Antawn Jamison. In other words, he should be a fine pro, a good contributor, and an occasional All-Star. But a star or someone to build your franchise around? Highly unlikely. And when you have the #1 pick, you shouldn't be looking for a solid contributor. You should be looking for a stud.

What's more interesting is that he's not even a good fit for the Clippers roster. Let's examine his impact in three different time horizons.

Short Term (next 1-2 years): He's a power forward, which is the absolute last thing this squad needs. Currently on the Clippers roster is a good veteran center (Marcus Camby), a decent front-court player (Chris Kaman) and a petulant power forward (batshit crazy Zach Randolph). Hell, they also have DeAndre Jordan, a mildly intriguing prospect for the front court. Do they really need another big guy to compete in the next year or two? Didn't think so.

Medium Term (next 3-4 years): Okay fine, Camby's gone in a couple of years, and maybe they buy out the last year of Randolph's contract. Is Griffin really the answer for this roster then? Probably not. The Clippers are still staring at Stiff Kaman in the middle, Aging Baron Davis in the backcourt, and Eric Gordon hoisting up 3's in a contract push. Not only is Griffin unlikely to mesh well with this madness, he's also not going to be thrilled that this team still stinks, and will likely be renting in LA with an eye to being a free agent soon.

Long Term (5+ years): Okay, let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he re-ups after his rookie contract expires (probably at an exorbitant rate), which moves the debate to an analysis of Griffin's long-term upside. And again, he looks like he'll be a solid pro, but spectacular? Unlikely. Do you want him clogging up your cap as a second banana?

Given all of this, is it really the Clippers' best move to take Griffin? I say no. There's two ideas that make a lot more sense and are probably better basketball plays for them:

1. Trade the pick. I noted last year that this is a lot easier said than done, but let's note that the Clippers are picking first overall and that despite my reservations about Griffin, a lot of teams do really like him, and he's the closest thing to a "sure thing" out there. What could they get in return for the first pick? Not to play Simmons Jr., but here's 4 ideas that aren't absurd.

1. Memphis. The Grizzlies pick right below the Clippers, and appear to be thinking about taking Yinka Dare, er, Hasheem Thabeet. The problem is it's unclear what the Grizzlies could give up besides the #2 pick to compensate the Clippers for their troubles...maybe Mike Conley?
2. Oklahoma City. At some level the Thunder have the same issue as the Clippers as they don't really need a power forward. However, Griffin would actually be a great fit here, as he could play second fiddle to Kevin Durant for 10 years. Would the #3 pick and some combination of future picks (of which this team has a ton) be enough?
3. New York. Wait, they fired Isiah? Shit. Next idea.
4. Sacramento. Assuming you didn't mind what was available at #4, wouldn't that pick plus Jason Thompson make a lot more sense?

2. Take someone else. Is Blake Griffin the player with the most upside in the entire draft class? I don't think so. While some may argue that Thabeet is a potential stud, I disagree. However, Ricky Rubio is a potential stud point guard, and in the end, may be a perfect fit for this team. He wouldn't have to start immediately, which is good because he's 17 years old. He'd have 2 years of apprenticeship with Davis, et.al (assuming Davis doesn't get dealt--a fair assumption), and could take over the reins just when the Gordon-Al Thornton-Jordan-next lottery pick core was ready to mature. And based on his international play, he won't be a stiff, and may be a stud point guard in 2-4 years. Why not take him?

Taking someone safe with the first pick is a mistake. Taking someone who's a little bit more of a dice roll but could become the face of a franchise is a better idea because elite talent is hard to get in the NBA. So Clippers, take a fricking chance. Pass on Griffin, let him toil in Memphis for the next 4 years, and make your next point guard of the future Ricky Rubio.

Drafting a Player "Too Early"

With the NBA Draft coming up this week, it's time to address a pet peeve of your humble author: commentators, pundits and talking heads that kill teams for picking a player "too early" in a draft. Without fail, you hear this every year in the NBA or NFL draft, that a certain player is a "reach" at a certain pick. Let's ignore the fact that you can't properly judge who should have been drafted when in a draft until years afterwards. The theory on reaches is still a load of crap.

A prototypical example of a guy who's being dubbed as a potential "too early" pick is Kevin Love of UCLA. The newest group of rumors has him going to Minnesota at the #3 pick, when in a lot of earlier mock drafts and projections had him somewhere around the 10-slot. Naturally, this has lead multiple people to speculate that Minnesota is crazy for drafting a guy this early, that taking him at #3 is a reach, and that they should do something else. What's the rationale for this?

1. The player they want to take isn't that good. Latent in all those who are against taking Love at the 3 slot (or whenever you say a guy is being picked too early) is the idea that there are better players available in the draft, such as O.J. Mayo, Eric Gordon, heck, even stiff white guy du jour, Brook Lopez . You know what? Those who say this may be right. They may also be dead wrong. While I'm not going to presume that Kevin McHale is a genius, given that he traded away Kevin Garnett for Al Jefferson and two boxes of donuts, there's a damn good chance that he's looked at all the players available and said "You know what? I don't want someone like Mayo on my team; Russell Westbrook's a project, Brook Lopez is a stiff, Eric Gordon is the next Jamal Crawford and I'm not taking an international player. Love reminds me of Carlos Boozer. I want him." And that would not be a ridiculous opinion, frankly. I'm not endorsing taking a guy who would have trouble making an NBA roster at #3. I am saying that if you rationally think a player may be the third best player in the draft, there's nothing wrong with taking him at the third spot, projections be damned.
2. They could trade down and take him later. Easier said than done. Here's what you have to do: (a) find a trading partner; (b) make sure you don't trade down too far only to have a team in front of you take the player you want; (c) make it all work under the salary cap; (d) make it all work within your overall mission for your team. For example, people would be all over the idea of Minnesota swapping picks with the Clippers, taking Love at #7, and getting something else for their troubles, while the Clippers get Mayo. Win-win, right? Maybe. Also a lot harder to do in real life than it is on Bill Simmons' laptop.

3. It's a waste of money to take a guy early. This has a scintilla of truth in the NFL, where rookie contracts have become obstacles to building a franchise. But NBA rookie contracts are all scaled and are under $5 million a year. The mid-level exception takes up as much room as a top draft pick. You're telling me the T-Wolves should try to save about a million bucks to trade down 3 spots? I don't buy that at all.

The bottom line is that if you think a guy is the best player in the draft and/or the best fit for your team, take him when it's your turn to pick, unless someone's pounding down the door with a great offer. Within reason, of course. For example, if the T-Wolves honestly think that Roy Hibbert is the 3rd best player in the draft, they shouldn't take him #3; they should move a future pick to a team picking in the middle or late first round in exchange for his rights. But saying that a team "can't" take a guy at #3 because Chad Ford thinks he belongs at #8 is ridiculous. Do your scouting, do your evaluation, and fit your team's needs as you see fit.