Markelle Fultz, Year Three: He's back! Big....?

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
9,579
NOVA
That’s not what Bowman was saying. A lot of us did like the deal because we liked Tatum more than Fultz (including myself), but no one was questioning the fit of Fultz with Simmons.

NCAA Fultz was a good jumpshooter which you absolutely need with a non-shooter. And in the new pace & space era you need multiple shot creators, which Fultz provides. Absolutely no one expected Markelle to Fultz up his jumpshot.
Fair. My bad.
 

riboflav

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 20, 2006
9,579
NOVA
My point was really that nobody to my knowledge consider Fultz to be an odd pick at the time. I was about as aggressively wrong as possible on Tatum, Fultz, and the trade generally (and happily so), but at the time, there was very little in the way of people saying Philly should take anyone but Fultz.

The consensus when the Sixers landed the third pick was that it was a bad draw for them, because it meant they would not be able to land the two players who were good fits for the team: Fultz or Ball.
Gotcha. My bad.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
That’s not what Bowman was saying. A lot of us did like the deal because we liked Tatum more than Fultz (including myself), but no one was questioning the fit of Fultz with Simmons.

NCAA Fultz was a good jumpshooter which you absolutely need with a non-shooter. And in the new pace & space era you need multiple shot creators, which Fultz provides. Absolutely no one expected Markelle to Fultz up his jumpshot.
There were plenty of people who thought Tatum would have been the better fit and wondered why the 76ers bothered moving up in the first place. I guess it depends on how you view the word "odd."

And I don't remember anyone at all suggesting Lonzo Ball was a good fit for the 76ers or he was ever an option for there.

edit: Actually, there may have been one.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
Was it ever articulated by 76er management how Fultz and Simmons would play together?

I've asked on at least two occassions here (76ers don't return my calls) was a 2-PG offense planned? And if so who really was going to run the offense.
the idea of pairing them was premised on the belief that Fultz could shoot.
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,880
Twin Bridges, Mt.
the idea of pairing them was premised on the belief that Fultz could shoot.
Exactly. And if he could shoot the Sixers would be a very dangerous team because he can also penetrate. Simmons can penetrate but they don't need to cover him outside of 12 feet so there are very few drive and kick to a 3 point shooter plays, especially versus a long, smart and quick defense like the Celts have.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
I wonder if Fultz gets dusted off for game 4, just to give the Celtics a different look. ALthough what do you then do with TJ who has played very well.

I still think Fultz can get his act together and be a plus player.

As far as an offensive game goes, he's got everything but the shot.
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,275
UK
There were plenty of people who thought Tatum would have been the better fit and wondered why the 76ers bothered moving up in the first place. I guess it depends on how you view the word "odd."

And I don't remember anyone at all suggesting Lonzo Ball was a good fit for the 76ers or he was ever an option for there.

edit: Actually, there may have been one.
It was just always assumed he was going to the Lakers. He wasn't going to be there at three, and very few if any people had him over Fultz with the concerns about his shot (lol) and getting abused by athletic PGs (mostly Fox) plus pretty much everyone knew they were targeting Fultz hence zero Ball speculation.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
There were plenty of people who thought Tatum would have been the better fit and wondered why the 76ers bothered moving up in the first place. I guess it depends on how you view the word "odd."
I do not remember it this way, but I suppose it doesn't matter.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,491
I do not remember it this way, but I suppose it doesn't matter.
I don't remember it this way and it would be odd since the biggest knock against Tatum was his outside shooting. In fact if PHI picked at 3, there were articles wanted Jackson since he was considered the better defender. In fact the shooting issue was so big that the one other suggestion I remember was for PHI to trade down to get Monk.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,997
I don't remember it this way and it would be odd since the biggest knock against Tatum was his outside shooting. In fact if PHI picked at 3, there were articles wanted Jackson since he was considered the better defender. In fact the shooting issue was so big that the one other suggestion I remember was for PHI to trade down to get Monk.
This was the case, and it's really bizarre. Everyone will go on and on about FT% being the best shooting predictor, and then when finally there's an elite FT shooting taller guy, they freak out about his 3-point%.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,055
Hingham, MA
I don't remember it this way and it would be odd since the biggest knock against Tatum was his outside shooting. In fact if PHI picked at 3, there were articles wanted Jackson since he was considered the better defender. In fact the shooting issue was so big that the one other suggestion I remember was for PHI to trade down to get Monk.
Wait is this true? He only shot 34.2% from 3 last year but he was also at 84.9% from the line.

Edit: beaten by a moment. But I thought the biggest knock on Tatum was that while he was a good athlete, he wasn't an elite athlete. But to my eyes he has bounce.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,491
Wait is this true? He only shot 34.2% from 3 last year but he was also at 84.9% from the line.

Edit: beaten by a moment. But I thought the biggest knock on Tatum was that while he was a good athlete, he wasn't an elite athlete. But to my eyes he has bounce.
Probably should have said Three Point shooting instead of outside; my bad (haven't had my coffee yet). That and athleticism.

For example, multiple draft profiles mentioned that he took 40% of his shots from 2 and his 3P percentage was middling as you note. For example: http://www.masslive.com/celtics/index.ssf/2017/06/2017_nba_draft_scouting_report.html. Consensus was he was a great ISO 2P scorer but people weren't sure how he was going to impact the game if he didn't have the ball in his hands. So much for internet scouts, huh?

I remember posting some video that he changed his form midway through the Duke season and that seemed to help. That plus getting healthy from his injury.l
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
It was just always assumed he was going to the Lakers. He wasn't going to be there at three, and very few if any people had him over Fultz with the concerns about his shot (lol) and getting abused by athletic PGs (mostly Fox) plus pretty much everyone knew they were targeting Fultz hence zero Ball speculation.
90% of this board assumed Lonzo Ball was going to suck.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
I don't remember it this way and it would be odd since the biggest knock against Tatum was his outside shooting. In fact if PHI picked at 3, there were articles wanted Jackson since he was considered the better defender. In fact the shooting issue was so big that the one other suggestion I remember was for PHI to trade down to get Monk.
This was my big fear at three I thought Jackson was not in any way a clearly good defender.

The knocks on Tatum were twofold
1) his iso/ bad shot tendency - which was a Duke thing and I think was overstated. Esp if he went to Philly or Celtics.
On a bad suns team or something? Maybe
2) his flexibility/ lateral quickness. He looks like a different level of althete in the NBA than at Duke.
Many noted he seemed to have stiff hips and limited foot speed. It was there on tape but erm not any more.
I was dubious he could stick with a fast three and not sure he could bang with a big four and that was well wrong.

I think most everyone thought he would shoot, obviously not this well this fast because that's nuts.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
My point was really that nobody to my knowledge consider Fultz to be an odd pick at the time. I was about as aggressively wrong as possible on Tatum, Fultz, and the trade generally (and happily so), but at the time, there was very little in the way of people saying Philly should take anyone but Fultz.

The consensus when the Sixers landed the third pick was that it was a bad draw for them, because it meant they would not be able to land the two players who were good fits for the team: Fultz or Ball.
Ball? Wouldn't he be the odder choice for PHI? I can actually see Fultz playing off the ball a bit because of his seemingly great shooting and slashing ability but both Simmons and Ball need the ball in their hands to be most effective.
 

Bosox1528

New Member
Dec 22, 2017
178
Ball? Wouldn't he be the odder choice for PHI? I can actually see Fultz playing off the ball a bit because of his seemingly great shooting and slashing ability but both Simmons and Ball need the ball in their hands to be most effective.
I mean Ball had better FT% and more 3PA/G than Fultz in college with almost exactly the same 3P%.

I don't see any reason why anyone would expect Fultz to have "great shooting" and Ball to "need the ball in his hands to be effective" given that Ball is and was probably a better shooter than Fultz. I don't think Fultz has ever been a better shooter than Ball
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
Ball? Wouldn't he be the odder choice for PHI? I can actually see Fultz playing off the ball a bit because of his seemingly great shooting and slashing ability but both Simmons and Ball need the ball in their hands to be most effective.
I think Ball would have been a fit in Philly (provided he could shoot the 3) because, as a PG, he's the anti-Rondo. He's not a ball pounder... he often gets rid of the ball as soon as he gets it.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I mean Ball had better FT% and more 3PA/G than Fultz in college with almost exactly the same 3P%.

I don't see any reason why anyone would expect Fultz to have "great shooting" and Ball to "need the ball in his hands to be effective" given that Ball is and was probably a better shooter than Fultz. I don't think Fultz has ever been a better shooter than Ball
Have you seen their form? No one predicted Fultz would be terrible from outside but everyone knew Ball would struggle from deep.
 

DannyDarwinism

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 7, 2007
4,883
I think Ball would have been a fit in Philly (provided he could shoot the 3) because, as a PG, he's the anti-Rondo. He's not a ball pounder... he often gets rid of the ball as soon as he gets it.
Yeah, out of all the potential PG prospects last year, Ball was the guy who least needs the ball in his hands. His usage rate in college was 18.1% which is crazy low for a PG. For reference, Fultz was at 31.4%, DSJ was 27.2%, and Fox was 27.6%. Trae Young finished at 37.1%. Moving without the ball is absolutely one of Ball's strengths, and he's great at cutting to the rim. An absurd amount of his makes at the rim were assisted, which is partly because he sucks at getting to the rim with the ball, but the sheer volume of them shows how skilled he is off-ball.
 

ifmanis5

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2007
63,740
Rotten Apple
Ball would be a disaster for Philly, provides no spacing. Fultz would be a terrific fit of he was the guy they thought they were getting who could shoot, provide space, create his own shot at the end of a shot clock if necessary or drive and kick. He just has to fix his shot.

EDIT: The top 3 guys all ended up where they have the best chance to succeed, it's just we now know that Tatum was the furthest along of the three. And also Micthell's summer league success was real and would be top 4 in a re-draft.
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
I mean Ball had better FT% and more 3PA/G than Fultz in college with almost exactly the same 3P%.

I don't see any reason why anyone would expect Fultz to have "great shooting" and Ball to "need the ball in his hands to be effective" given that Ball is and was probably a better shooter than Fultz. I don't think Fultz has ever been a better shooter than Ball
I understand how they shot it college. What I mean is that Ball alwawys seemed like much more of a pure point guard as compared to Fultz. Ball’s best attribute is ball distribution, just like Simmons. If you put those two together, you’re negating the biggest strengths of at least one.

Futz always seemed to me like a scorer who could easily be converted.
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
Actually ball was very effective in college off ball and often played in two point guard sets.
He was very effective off ball, he's a fantastic cutter and extra pass guy, and (the pre draft thinking) could shoot weird motion and all, and was much better off the catch than off the dribble.

Obviously the shot now is a question mark after his struggles, which would change everything and he'd have been (with hindsight) a protential real problem.
However his defense has been so so much better than expected.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
I'll post again the Sports Illustrated draft wrap-up (Sixers grade A):

Consider the alternate timeline in which the Sixers never make the trade with the Celtics, stay at No. 3, and walk away from Thursday's draft trying to talk themselves into the future pairing of Jayson Tatum and Ben Simmons. It would've been an awkward fit with an underwhelming ceiling, and it'd mean waiting at least one more year before we saw a Sixers team that made any sense.

Imagining what this draft almost became for the Sixers is the best way to appreciate what they got instead. Fultz is perfect next to Simmons. He's a smooth combo guard who's got the highest floor in the draft, and arguably the highest ceiling. His game is somewhere between Brandon Roy and James Harden. The passing of Simmons should make Fultz even harder to contain off the ball, and with Fultz around to spread the floor, Simmons's weakness are mitigated and his strengths should be even more dangerous. Fultz is the No. 1 pick who makes last year's No. 1 pick even more valuable.
https://www.si.com/nba/2017/06/23/nba-draft-grades-teams-wolves-bulls-sixers-lakers-knicks

Here's my recollection:

Most people thought Fultz was the best scorer in the draft and therefore the best fit for Philly, or maybe the best fit for anyone. Time will tell. Colin Cowherd and his guests and a few others were on the Lonzo Ball train as the best player(and a STAR! which for some reason made him the perfect fit for LAL) and Mike Greenberg and his guests and a few others were on the Jayson Tatum train (because he looked so polished while he dominated the ACC tourney). (A lot of people in Boston, me included, were nervous that Tatum was a mostly just a great mid-range shooter, but that wouldn't be so useful in the NBA, and we remained nervous about that until a third of the way through summer league.) There was a contingent who felt that Jackson (or Isaac) would be the best Boston fit because of jumping and such.

By the way, this gets funnier and funnier:

Jackson wouldn’t work out for the Celtics when they owned the No. 1 pick, and his camp has made it clear this draft season that they’re worried he won’t get as much playing time on a team like Boston.
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2017/06/20/josh-jackson-wont-work-out-for-celtics-nba-draft/
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
I doubt Josh Jackson regrets that decision. He did grow as a basketball player as the season went along and I doubt he would have been replacing Hayward's minutes. I'm not very high on him though, he seems like a guy who will be contend putting up stats on a crap team.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
Kinda cringe when I read this in that draft recap:

Fultz is perfect next to Simmons. He's a smooth combo guard who's got the highest floor in the draft
 

lexrageorge

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2007
18,096
The biggest LOL with regards to Tatum were those analytic "experts" that pooh-pooh'ed his summer league performance because, you know, he actually made his outside shots.
 

slamminsammya

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2006
9,152
San Francisco
The biggest LOL with regards to Tatum were those analytic "experts" that pooh-pooh'ed his summer league performance because, you know, he actually made his outside shots.
Who said that? I thought most people ignore summer league as any type of prediction unless its really really bad in which case you're probably a bad player.
 

lovegtm

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2013
11,997
90% of this board assumed Lonzo Ball was going to suck.
I don't know that he did a ton to assuage those doubts. His passing clearly translated, and he's a decent defender. However, his shot seems pretty broken (and he needs a ton of space to get it off), and he has zero explosion or finishing ability.

"Marcus Smart with elite passing and worse defense" seems like shitty upside for the #2 pick.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
53,840
A Philly take on Fultz: http://www.phillyvoice.com/jayson-tatums-playoff-performance-bringing-stakes-markelle-fultz-trade-focus/

He makes the point that Fultz was thought to work there because, even though they thought he would fit running 2-guard with Simmons handling the ball, they still weren't 100% sure how Simmons as PG would work once he actually started playing, so Fultz was also a bit of cover for that.

And:
But as I have reported repeatedly since the fall, there was never an extended period of time in which Fultz stopped shooting jumpers. He was shooting while out indefinitely, he was shooting in the winter months, and he is most likely still shooting behind closed doors today.

If someone has been working on the issue that whole time without any material results to show for it and we're where we are today, confidence should dip in the ability to expect a return to form by the time next season starts.
 

moondog80

heart is two sizes two small
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
8,093
If Fultz could somehow enter the draft again this year, but we still retain all of the information from the past year, where does he get picked?
 

LondonSox

Robert the Deuce
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
8,956
North Bay California
If Fultz could somehow enter the draft again this year, but we still retain all of the information from the past year, where does he get picked?
Some draft guys I follow were asked that and they said 3rd but I'm not sure if that is was with info now or as per last draft.
He'd be second behind Doncic based on what we thought he was, lower with his issues
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
If Fultz could somehow enter the draft again this year, but we still retain all of the information from the past year, where does he get picked?
Depends how he looked in workouts.

Tatum and Mitchell would clearly be the first two players taken, probably in that order. After that, it’s anyone’s guess — other than Tatum, the top six picks all had disappointing seasons, even by the standards of what’s reasonable to expect from an NBA rookie.

I’m pretty sure Ball, DSJ, and Markannen would all go before Fultz, but if he’s shooting the ball well in private workouts, I think he’d go somewhere in the 6-10 range, even with everything that’s happened. If he’s still shooting the ball like it’s a shotput, then all bets are off — he might fall out of the first round altogether.

Any word yet on whether Fultz will play summer league? I have to imagine they’ll keep him out of the spotlight, but who knows?
 

djbayko

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
25,894
Los Angeles, CA
Some draft guys I follow were asked that and they said 3rd but I'm not sure if that is was with info now or as per last draft.
He'd be second behind Doncic based on what we thought he was, lower with his issues
If it’s based on info now, then you should probably stop following them because that would be absurd.
 
Last edited:

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Depends how he looked in workouts.

Tatum and Mitchell would clearly be the first two players taken, probably in that order. After that, it’s anyone’s guess — other than Tatum, the top six picks all had disappointing seasons, even by the standards of what’s reasonable to expect from an NBA rookie.

I’m pretty sure Ball, DSJ, and Markannen would all go before Fultz, but if he’s shooting the ball well in private workouts, I think he’d go somewhere in the 6-10 range, even with everything that’s happened. If he’s still shooting the ball like it’s a shotput, then all bets are off — he might fall out of the first round altogether.

Any word yet on whether Fultz will play summer league? I have to imagine they’ll keep him out of the spotlight, but who knows?

I thought it was Fultz in the 2018 draft, not a redraft of 2017. He'd do better in a redraft of 2017 than he would in the 2018 draft.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I thought it was Fultz in the 2018 draft, not a redraft of 2017. He'd do better in a redraft of 2017 than he would in the 2018 draft.
Upon rereading, you are correct. And absolutely, he goes later in a hypothetical 2018 draft that includes him than a hypothetical 2017 redraft — but that’s true of almost anyone who doesn’t exceed expectations during his rookie year. Especially for lottery picks, a disproportionate share of a player’s draft value is based on the 90th-99th percentile of possible outcomes, and the perceived likelihood of such a top 10% outcome will be greatly diminished or nonexistent for most players after they’ve been in the league for a year.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Upon rereading, you are correct. And absolutely, he goes later in a hypothetical 2018 draft that includes him than a hypothetical 2017 redraft — but that’s true of almost anyone who doesn’t exceed expectations during his rookie year. Especially for lottery picks, a disproportionate share of a player’s draft value is based on the 90th-99th percentile of possible outcomes, and the perceived likelihood of such a top 10% outcome will be greatly diminished or nonexistent for most players after they’ve been in the league for a year.
I think "anyone who doesn't exceed expectations" is being very generous toward Fultz' performance in his rookie year. He was stapled to the bench after being pulled from back-to-back playoff games while appearing completely out of place on the floor to the point where he couldn't even compete. In such a strong draft as this do you think that he's a Top-15 pick? He's a complete wildcard flier right as to whether he can make it in this league much less be an impact player imo.
 

Big John

New Member
Dec 9, 2016
2,086
It will be interesting to see if the new Philly GM (whoever that is) allows Fultz to play in Summer league. My guess is that Fultz will not play, because the Sixers will want to preserve the mistique that he might be a good player as long as possible in hopes of trading him. They will invent some bogus reason for holding him out.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,667
I think "anyone who doesn't exceed expectations" is being very generous toward Fultz' performance in his rookie year. He was stapled to the bench after being pulled from back-to-back playoff games while appearing completely out of place on the floor to the point where he couldn't even compete. In such a strong draft as this do you think that he's a Top-15 pick? He's a complete wildcard flier right as to whether he can make it in this league much less be an impact player imo.
I'm pretty sure he would go tenth
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
It will be interesting to see if the new Philly GM (whoever that is) allows Fultz to play in Summer league. My guess is that Fultz will not play, because the Sixers will want to preserve the mistique that he might be a good player as long as possible in hopes of trading him. They will invent some bogus reason for holding him out.
We should receive some news within a few days as news trickles out as to who is coaching the teams (a couple were announced today by the teams such as Larranaga coaching the C's) and full summer league rosters are released.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Moderator
SoSH Member
I think "anyone who doesn't exceed expectations" is being very generous toward Fultz' performance in his rookie year. He was stapled to the bench after being pulled from back-to-back playoff games while appearing completely out of place on the floor to the point where he couldn't even compete. In such a strong draft as this do you think that he's a Top-15 pick? He's a complete wildcard flier right as to whether he can make it in this league much less be an impact player imo.
I guess I didn’t make my point well.

Without question, Fultz’s first year was a train wreck. But I’d argue that comparing a guy with a year under his belt (Fultz, or anyone else) to this year's draft prospects is meaningless — because a lot of the value of those prospects is based on a 90th percentile or better outcome which, by definition, most of them won’t achieve. Among last year’s first 10 picks, I’d say 7 or 8 are worth less now than when they were drafted (the exceptions being Tatum, Markkanen, and maybe DSJ), and I think that’s fairly typical. Fultz wouldn’t be a top-10 pick in this year’s draft, but neither would (for example) DeAaron Fox, and his 1st year was just meh, not terrible.

The right way of illustrating how much Fultz’s stock has fallen is to compare him to his peers who also have a year of experience in the league under their belts. Even a couple guys who had disappointing rookie years have leapfrogged Fultz, and that’s assuming he’d look fine in the private workouts he’d have to do if he were in this year’s draft.
 

PedroKsBambino

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 17, 2003
31,189
I guess I didn’t make my point well.

Without question, Fultz’s first year was a train wreck. But I’d argue that comparing a guy with a year under his belt (Fultz, or anyone else) to this year's draft prospects is meaningless — because a lot of the value of those prospects is based on a 90th percentile or better outcome which, by definition, most of them won’t achieve. Among last year’s first 10 picks, I’d say 7 or 8 are worth less now than when they were drafted (the exceptions being Tatum, Markkanen, and maybe DSJ), and I think that’s fairly typical. Fultz wouldn’t be a top-10 pick in this year’s draft, but neither would (for example) DeAaron Fox, and his 1st year was just meh, not terrible.

The right way of illustrating how much Fultz’s stock has fallen is to compare him to his peers who also have a year of experience in the league under their belts. Even a couple guys who had disappointing rookie years have leapfrogged Fultz, and that’s assuming he’d look fine in the private workouts he’d have to do if he were in this year’s draft.
I'm not sure the purpose of the mental exercise you're doing, though---the teams aren't re-drafting last year's draft. Isn't the only relevant question 'what is the value of the assets today?' and if that's what actual teams are asking, then which year they were drafted is an input just like number of years left and salary on a free-agent deal are inputs.

I don't see the purpose of line-drawing among draft assets from last year and this year like you are trying to do---it's not that I disagree that they depreciate rapidly if they don't hit, it's that (sitting here right now) what you're doing isn't what any team would be doing.
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
I'm not sure the purpose of the mental exercise you're doing, though---the teams aren't re-drafting last year's draft. Isn't the only relevant question 'what is the value of the assets today?' and if that's what actual teams are asking, then which year they were drafted is an input just like number of years left and salary on a free-agent deal are inputs.

I don't see the purpose of line-drawing among draft assets from last year and this year like you are trying to do---it's not that I disagree that they depreciate rapidly if they don't hit, it's that (sitting here right now) what you're doing isn't what any team would be doing.
I agree with this. The only logical purpose of the exercise is to determine what Fultz' trade value is right now. I'd compare him to a pick around 20-23 where teams begin taking fliers on guys.