We're a big fan of the 2024 NBA Draft. While many pundits are down on this draft, we see there is plenty of potential that, should things break in their direction, these prospects could be stars. There are a lot of skilled players in this draft and we have a feeling that they'll transfer their talents to the NBA level.
Still, while we do acknowledge that there are a lot of guys with potential, there are no guys who warrant more than the established capital for. Meaning, not one player in this draft, on paper, demands you trade any amount of compensation for, other than that which is required to select them in the draft.
Not everyone agrees, with SI.com suggesting the Jazz trade up for Stephen Castle. We like Castle, in fact, he's on our short-list of three guys to draft, right behind Reed Sheppard and Dalton Knecht. That said, as with Sheppard and Knecht, Castle isn't worth more right now than the pick required to choose him in the draft.
If someone takes him before the Jazz can, oh well, draft someone else. It's not a draft with high-ceiling guys across the Top 4, but the apparent talent difference between who would be the first-overall-pick to who would be the 10th-overall pick, is so meniscal (right now) that it makes no difference if you take Zachharie Rescahhaire or Castle at first or tenth.
Either player could be there, so why would it matter if you trade up? It's going to be a crapshoot regardless of who goes first or tenth overall, so why waste even more capital to get a player who may be no better than how you can get to the 10th spot?
In other years, there might be an argument but Castle is a terrible shooter, a skill the Utah Jazz need more of in 2024, not less. So if you have to give up another draft pick or two so you can get Castle, what's the point?
You just wasted a lot of potential talent to get a guy, who if he reaches his highest of heights, is a better Tony Allen. That's not worth two or three first-round picks (or even any amount of second-round picks).