It's far more important that we get the player we want with our pick, vs. trying to fill multiple roster holes in year one of a 4-5 year re-build.
I'll use a hypothetical to frame it. Let's assume Zion and Ja go 1/2.....and the Cavs have the #4 pick. The team with #3 is open to trading it for #4 and #21. I'd rather start with Barrett in a trade up than Reddish and PJ Washington in a stay put scenario.
People can talk all they want about impact players being drafted in the 20's or later.....it literally happens 1 out of 50 times (probably even generous). Most are middling role players or out of the NBA in a few years. Holding on to a pick for a 2% chance at a meaningful player is not a good use of draft capital, IF that 2% chance can be traded in for a player you think is more likely to become an All-Star or franchise talent.
Once you get 1A and 1B in a rebuild, that is when you become far, far more strict with the use of your draft capital...because you want to retain your flexibility if a super star hits the trade block. Until then, you need to make decisions based on acquiring a best and second best player on a title team. Have a bunch of extra role players, at the expense of a prospect you think is more talented, is just not a winning strategy in basketball.
I'm not saying trade it just to trade it....but if we are in a tier cut-off scenario (the drop from Barrett to Reddish for example) and we opt to take Reddish, in order to aquire a PJ Washington of the world, that is just not a sound strategy IMO. If we are at #3 and the worst you can do is what is left of Ja, Zion, Barrett......then sure, maybe you hang on to the pick because you are comfortable with all the 1 and 2 tier options.
Yes I feel like people don't understand that the NBA draft isn't the NFL draft.