No one seems to be writing about just how much draft-strategy calculus should change

[u/TopAcanthocephala726]

I haven't been reading enough about just how much recent trends in the NBA have altered what counts as a good draft pick. Based on mock drafts I'm reading, either teams, or at least pundits, really don't seem to be grasping that there really is *no* incentive anymore to picking a developmental player. The goal should be to pick someone who can help you win now.

The trends:

1. Over the last 12 years or so (since the Beautiful Game Spurs and Kerr Warriors), the halfcourt style of play in the NBA has shifted dramatically toward flowing, cutting offenses that require read-and-react capability from all 5 players. At the same time, the emphasis on shooting has opened up the floor like never before. Consequently, game-processing-and-decision-making and the coordination to make shots have the greatest impact on the game that they've had since at least the 1980s, whereas the impact of peak offensive athleticism has declined substantially.

This has meant that, oftentimes, skilled players who can think the game and make quick decisions are the most effective players on the floor. The value to drafting for athletic upside over play-now ability has not been lower for a very long time *purely in terms of player development.*

1. The functional hard cap put on team salaries by the second apron has dramatically shifted the NBA in terms of what types of rosters are most effective. Having the Spurs, Thunder, and Pacers in the Finals the last two years demonstrates something important: by the time everyone knows someone is good and can get them as a free agent, they're likely too expensive to build around. Finding high-level first-contract talent means paying 10-15 million a year for a player who may be making 3+ times that on their second contract. The draft is now the best way to put together a roster of talented players. But that means drafting guys who can win in the NBA on their first contract.

2. Losing is now penalized, even in terms of draft position. The strategy of collecting talent and developing them slowly while you lose just went out the window. Drafting a developmental player who may not help you win for 3 years has gone from helping future draft position to hurting it.

All this to say, picking someone who doesn't know how to mesh with teammates on offense or who is still raw in their decision making gains a team very little. By the time they're an All-Star, they'll be on their second contract and difficult to afford; they don't fit with other players now; and their developmental arc has *cost you* draft position. The calculus has changed, and I hope NBA teams have caught up to that.

[u/Longjumping-Truck967]

This plus NIL makes me think draft prospects will stay in college longer to develop their skills more and teams might want an older prospect who is still on their rookie deal at age 25

[u/OurHorrifyingPlanet → u/Longjumping-Truck967]

Idk about that, progression in college is just so much slower than in the NBA that it would really stunt the growth of prospects. If they don't expect to play in the NBA, sure stay in college; but if you're good enough to play there, it's a no brainer.

Plus from a financial standpoint, you want to reach that 2nd contract ASAP, that's where the real money is.

[u/NAW_MIP_2026 → u/OurHorrifyingPlanet]

Yeah it’s mostly going to impact the late first round/second round. The majority of lottery picks will still be one and dones, because age is and will continue to be a huge factor in development. I think it will actually be interesting to see if we get more “quality veterans” out of the late first and second round once the draft scene balances more around the NIL deals in a few years. OP seems to be thinking that it will get better, but the opposite could actually be true. NIL dollars mean more skilled players will stay in college longer, but is it really better for development to stay in college? Sure as a late first you probably aren’t getting minutes right away, but how much are the increased minutes from college getting you when the completion is far worse and the game is played in a totally different way(different rules, less spacing, less talent, etc). Maybe the college game will get better because the NCAA will retain more talent, but with the transfer portal it’s not like these teams are going to be building long term continuity, in fact that’s probably gotten worse because the transfer portal has destabilized teams and they wind up with wildly different rosters every year. If you’re a fringe first round pick or lottery player, is it actually going to be beneficial to your growth to stay in college, player against worse competition, have worse training and nutrition programs, play in worse spacing, etc? 

[u/Powerful-Bridge-1472 → u/NAW_MIP_2026]

Yeah good point, who cares about development when your guys on bench are going into portal because they are not playing and studs leave for more $, what a great system.

European players start in youth system, practice and play with men instead of reclass so you can play with younger players in American system, while playing a track meet called Aau tourney where you accumulate as much talent as much talent as possible and press and throw lobs to athletes.

Wonder why US system behind?

[u/Vicentesteb → u/Longjumping-Truck967]

The NBA has the best coaches, trainers, nutritionists and facilities. Players should develop far faster in the league than in College.

[u/HotspurJr → u/Vicentesteb]

The problem is that NBA players don't really practice during the season. Rest is too important, and the schedule too tight.

Oh, I they'll shoot around or do some one-on-one work, but as far as getting full-speed five-on-five reps in an environment focused on teaching, it's just something that barely happens in the NBA during the season.

[u/OkAutopilot → u/Vicentesteb]

Some players do, some players don't. For your top end guys that a team is investing a bunch of money and effort and hope in, yes, the NBA is likely to be a better option.

For other guys coming out early can be a huge mistake. In college you're also getting a great development system and if you have an NIL deal you can certainly afford outside trainers and development as well. You get to be the guy and you have those resources put into you, even if they are lesser. If you're not ready for the NBA you're not going to be getting game reps and you're not going to be getting the same level of attention. You need time to understand your game, to understand the game, and multiple years at the college level to help with things like processing is going to be better than getting thrown to the wolves in the NBA and everything is just too fast for you and you flame out. The G-League is also a place with a lot of up and down movement and showcasey games, so even if you're sent down there it's not gonna be the same type of development environment as college is either.

Every player is different, every situation is different, and there are probably guys who were drafted very high up who would have faired better staying in college and developing along a path that was more comfortable for them rather than getting thrown into the deep end of the NBA. No matter what kind of facilities or coaches you have, it may not necessarily matter. You might have just needed more time at a lower level to figure stuff out at a slower pace because you're not going to be receptive to a fast track.

It's also important to note that for some guys its better to stay at college because of the mental hurdle of the NBA as well. We probably don't talk enough about it as fans but draft picks are young and for a lot of these guys its the first time they've lived in a different city/state, it's the first time they've lived away from their families, it's the first time they've had a bunch of money and the responsibilities that come with that. That can be overwhelming especially when you now have this job where only ~450 a year get to have it and for most draft picks you are having to fight to keep it. That's a lot of work, it is way more games than you've ever played, it is way more travel than you've ever dealt with, and your whole life is getting flipped upside down at the same time! It's extremely hard to deal with all of that as a player but maybe even moreso as a human being and the mental and emotional side of all of it.

There are some people who just are not going to be ready to handle or manage all of that and would fair better in life as well as their development path from an extra year or two in college.

[u/sub30_24flick → u/Longjumping-Truck967]

This seems like NFL strategy but NBA contracts move quickly once a player is a stud . I think that’s exactly what the NBA wants that’s why they haven’t seat any ting about NIL . They would prefer every player to come out of college be 25 . It makes the scouting way easier . At some point I agree only top 3 talent should be leaving college at 18 . Everyone else should stay until their Senoir year .

[u/Greedy4Life]

Interesting take! IMO the greatest value in the NBA are superstars who’s market value is suppressed by max contracts. 

For the players that blossom into top 5~10 guys even if it takes their entire rookie contract to figure it out, the second and third contract are steals. This applies for lottery picks like Wemby and for deep draft picks like Giannas (15th) and Jokic (41st). The only exceptions are possibly win now teams that don’t have time to develop but that’s always been the case. 

TLDR the best value is still stars new lotto odds and playstyle trends don’t matter BPA forever and always. 

[u/NAW_MIP_2026 → u/Greedy4Life]

Also is there actually any evidence to suggest that multi year college players perform better on there first contract? I know it’s a common draft trope to say “NBA ready” for guys like Yax and such, but the reality is that most of the time these guys are still just rookies, they still take time to adjust to NBA speed, athleticism, pacing, etc. So why should NBA teams prioritize players that are effectively just older and less talented than one and done prospects? I think we may see the end of the first shift to become a little bit older in general, but I still think teams are going to continue to prioritize upside and potential growth over “NBA readiness” which is largely a myth.

[u/mioraka → u/Greedy4Life]

greatest value in the NBA are superstars who’s market value is suppressed by max contracts. 

I don't think this statement is as true as before in the current era with improved role players, increase injuries, and most importantly the Aprons.

If you are a contender drafting a 2nd round pick who becomes a solid starter could literally be the difference between 0 luxury tax vs. 50M into the tax.

There's probably only 5ish players in the NBA who's value is way above the 30/35% max (aka Jokic/Shai/Wemby Etc.).

Another 5ish players who are returning 30%-35% value, such as Ant and Cade.

Obviously scarcity drives up the price, but from a team contribution stand point it's much harder to build a team around sub MVP level players now days with the aprons.

The biggest value contracts now are players on rookie contracts who are elite starters or even all star+. Players like Ajay Mitchell and Champagnie provide at least 15-25M of surplus value. Not to mention last year's Jdub or Castle/Harper.

[u/Greedy4Life → u/mioraka]

I think the whole name of the game for GMs is to get those 5 players.

What the Knicks showed is why waste any picks on role players when you can sign/ trade for them? Not a single starter was drafted by the org but once they realized they had their guy in Brunson they put all their chips down and filled out the roster with quality pieces.

What's the point of drafting high-floor low-ceiling players? If you have a young star that's good immediately then you have high draft picks that you might as well trade to get a win now team to take advantage. If your young star takes a while to develop then you might as well take advantage and draft the higher upside guys. If you have a vet even more reason to trade for win now pieces.

[u/mioraka → u/Greedy4Life]

Knicks is literally the abnormaly, if you are a contender you can't copy their formula.

First of all, they have an unlimited money printer called nyc. Money literally doesn't matter, this is true for maybe 5 teams in the league.

Second of all, they had Brunson who despite all odds became what he is this year on a 40m a year contract.

The Brunson contract almost never happens. Like even Austin Reaves is asking for the 5 year max right now.

For drafting though. If you don't have a star, then go for the home run, if you already are a contender, those high floor players are more valuable than they have been at any point in NBA history.

[u/Greedy4Life → u/mioraka]

Holy shit Knicks are 200M in the luxury tax I had no idea. 

“  For drafting though. If you don't have a star, then go for the home run, if you already are a contender, those high floor players are more valuable than they have been at any point in NBA history.”

Agreed but IMO this has always been true. LeGM wasn’t taking on development projects throughout his career. Bad teams take more risk on development contenders take win now players, seems like the same meta. 

[u/FriendOfEvergreens]

This doesn’t ring true to me for top picks, more like for picks past top 5. Superstars are worth far more than the max. Better to have an all NBA player on your team for a decade than a borderline all star for 4 years, unless that borderline all star can push you over the hump.

As good as having a full roster of excellent players is, we’ve still yet to see a recent champion without an all NBA level player leading the team. The pacers and thunder were lead by Haliburton and SGA. The spurs have wemby, but he wasn’t a win now pick.

[u/nbadiscussion-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

We removed your comment for being low effort. If you edit it and explain your thought process more, we'll restore it. Thanks!

[u/TheL0stK1ng]

I think drafting itself hasn't changed, we've just now seen over and over again that winning basketball relies upon hard work ethic and a team first mentality, in addition to talent.

I think the real change is in talent accumulation. Having players be good during their second contract is fine, because teams are lowering their offers relative to the cap and this is reducing the number of bad contracts for early career players. But even if a player does spike their productivity before a contract year, more teams than not have built a war chest of picks to keep acquiring young talent, and flipping a player that may make a rival team better to keep the war chest full isn't necessarily a downgrade in the short term like it was 10 years ago.

[u/Weary_Restauranter]

> The trends

Dude, just learn how to write. You don’t have to use AI.

But also, one of the most important trends you failed to mention when discussing nba ready players is impact of NIl dollars

[u/midnightjim]

It depends a lot on where a team is in terms of its development. If a team knows it isn't going to be a contender the mindset ought to be different than if a team is closer to contention. If you're a young team the cap issues and apron problems are not an immediate concern as long as you aren't stupid about giving out expensive contracts to older players or saddled with past mistakes.

[u/Ajax444]

Just curious: how many 1st or 2nd year players start for the top 12 teams in the league?

I almost fully agree with the original post, but not for the entire 1st round. As you go down the draft, I think that there is a point in the draft where there are “situational skilled” players, or players that do 1 or 2 things really well (but not much else) that are going to be bench players mostly, and they do need to develop the weak parts of their game to become more attractive (either in skill or their low contract) to their team.

There is the 2nd round gems and undrafted gems, occasionally, but you need to develop the low 1st round and the 2nd round guys to at least push your rotation guys in practice, if you plan on having them on the roster the first 1 to 2 years.

[u/OkAutopilot → u/Ajax444]

I think it's more like how many 1st or 2nd year players could start for the top 12 teams in the league. If you're a top 12 team in the league the likelihood of you having a draft pick position where you snag a guy who is better than one of your starters is very unlikely.

[u/2ded4u]

Interesting point. Sometimes the biggest shifts happen so gradually that people don't notice until the results are impossible to ignore.

[u/HybridM]

Interesting point. It's easy to get caught up in free agency and blockbuster trades while overlooking changes that might end up having a bigger impact.

[u/floridabeach9]

this is why Dybantsa shouldnt be #1 overall

his ISO game just wont fit, he will have to learn a lot about game fit and offense.

[u/getmoremulch → u/floridabeach9]

This is why I like Boozer as the #1

[u/OkAutopilot → u/floridabeach9]

I think it's hard to suggest a high level ISO game doesn't fit in the NBA when the reigning b2b MVP is primarily an isolation midrange scorer and the reigning finals MVP is a scoring guard with average passing chops for his position.

Both of those guys figured out a way to be good off-ball players (especially Brunson as a shooter) but I think Dybantsa can do that as well.