What If My GM Disagreed? Challenging My Biggest 2026 NBA Draft Evaluations
If my job depended on defending these evaluations in front of a skeptical GM or owner, here's what I would say.
For the last 15 years, I have been preparing for a moment that never came.
When I accepted my first NBA scouting position, I knew the pre draft meetings would be my opportunity to prove I belonged. I viewed the weeks leading up to the draft the same way a player views Game 7 of the NBA Finals. I had spent so many years studying prospects, building databases, writing reports, traveling the world, and evaluating players with the hope that one day I would have a seat in an NBA draft room.
When that opportunity finally arrived, I wanted to be overprepared. I believed every report, every opinion, and every projection would eventually be challenged, and I wanted answers for every question, every concern, and every possible objection.
Unfortunately, a front office change led the organization in a different direction before the pre draft process officially began, and I never got the opportunity to participate in those meetings.
But the work wasn’t wasted.
The reports were written.
The evaluations had been formed.
The questions still needed answers.
Over the years, I had countless conversations with NBA scouts and executives who would call and ask my opinion on prospects. While most of those conversations felt informal, I viewed each one as a potential job interview. I never wanted to be caught without an answer.
One conversation, in particular, changed the way I evaluated players forever.
After discussing a prospect’s strengths, an NBA scout asked me a simple question:
“If he doesn’t succeed in the NBA, what will be the reason?”
That question really made me think.
Like many evaluators, I spent most of my time focusing on what a player could become. But that conversation forced me to evaluate differently. It taught me that scouting isn’t just about identifying strengths. It’s about understanding risk. Every prospect has highlights. Every prospect has a best case scenario. Every prospect has supporters. The difficult part is identifying the flaw, limitation, concern, or blind spot that could prevent him from reaching his ceiling.
More importantly, it taught me that every evaluation should be challenged.
That question stayed with me.
As the years passed, I developed a habit. Whenever I watched a prospect, I imagined sitting across from the most skeptical general manager or owner/governer in the league. A decision maker whose job wasn’t to agree with me, but to challenge me.
Why is he a lottery pick?
What if the shot never comes around?
Can he defend his position?
What role does he play on a championship team?
Are we evaluating the player, or are we falling in love with the talent?
And if my name were attached to the recommendation, could I defend it?
The truth is, in my opinion, whether a player succeeds or fails often has less to do with talent than people think. Some of the most talented players I’ve evaluated never reached their potential, while others exceeded expectations despite obvious flaws in their games.
More often than not, the difference comes down to information that isn’t always visible on film. How does a player respond to failure? Does he lose confidence after a rough stretch? Is he mature enough to handle being a professional at 19 or 20 years old? How does he manage the distractions, expectations, money, and lifestyle that come with being a high draft pick?
That’s why gathering intel is such a critical part of the evaluation process. Coaches, teammates, trainers, family members, support systems, habits, and daily routines often tell you as much about a prospect’s future as the film itself.
Unfortunately, those are questions I can’t fully answer from my laptop. Those answers require months of background work, relationship building, interviews, and access to information that isn’t available to the public.
This article is different.
This is purely about what I can see on the court.
The strengths.
The weaknesses.
The questions that show up on film.
The concerns that create doubt.
And ultimately, the projected role I believe each prospect can play on a championship caliber team.
This is what I call The Skeptical GM Challenge.
For every prospect, I assigned a projected championship role, then challenged my own evaluation by asking the same questions I expected a skeptical GM, owner, or decision maker to ask in a draft room.
Why might it not work?
What am I missing?
What would the most skeptical person in the room say?
And if I were sitting in that draft room, could I defend my evaluation?
I never got the opportunity to sit in those draft meetings.
But I prepared for them anyway.
These are the questions I prepared to answer.
And these are my verdicts.
The Championship Equity Scale
Before diving into the prospects, it’s important to understand how I’m assigning value.
For years, I’ve believed one of the biggest mistakes evaluators make is treating every successful NBA player the same. Making the NBA and helping a team win a championship are two completely different conversations. A player can have a long and productive career without ever becoming one of the driving forces behind a title contender.
For this exercise, I’m evaluating each prospect through the lens of championship basketball and assigning a projected role on a title team.
The higher the projected role, the tougher the questions become.
Cornerstone – Can be the best player on a championship team.
Core Piece – One of the 2-3 most important players on a championship team.
Starter+ – High level starter who impacts winning at a championship level.
Starter – Reliable starter on a playoff team.
Rotation Plus – Rotation player who consistently closes games.
Rotation – Regular contributor.
Depth – End of rotation or matchup specific player.
Developmental – Needs significant development to stick in the NBA.
The purpose of The Skeptical GM’s Conviction Test isn’t to determine whether a prospect can play in the NBA. It’s to determine how much conviction I have in the role I’ve projected for him.
The higher the projected role, the tougher the questions become.
