That's not necessarily true. You can buy the conventional wisdom and still like what seems to be a lower-variance LAL/SAC pick over the BKN pick -- perhaps the latter is more likely to land in the top 3, but it's also more likely to land at #9.
But I agree that Danny probably likes the "under" on the Lakers' win total.
I think the Lakers pick (other than the top 1) is better, next year at this early stage appears to have 5/6 top players (it could be more or less in the end, I suspect more but like this year no slam dunk 1)
You don't want a Lakers pick at say 8, you'd rather have a shot at the kings (though again the top 1 protection is a bugger)
I think everyone seems to ignore the downside risk. The Lakers doesn't come (if it's at 1 just terrible) and the kings are awful again, there is a very meaningful risk they could get the one as well.
If the Lakers pick is late, clearly the kings pick is more value. But the protection where you can end up with a mid round 1st only does matter Vs the nets you just get it regardless.
Super complicated calculation on value because have to project kings two years out (and them relative to others), and sixers (if they suck still downside changes) and the Lakers.
You are modeling a hugely uncertain outcome in 2019.
The nets has an ability to be first overall and almost zero chance to be non lottery.
The other pick is more likely to be higher but has no 1 overall upside AND has a meaningful risk of being a blah pick.
Depending on your projections I could argue it either way. Which imo suggests it's close