Well as a GM, I might ask, which one was better as a freshman? GMs seem to look at early ability as a predictor of later ability. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. But they almost have to discount experience to some degree, and assume that any younger player will develop. So if Ennis improves as much as Bazz has in four years, is he better four years from now than Bazz is now? Clearly yes. That's why young guys keep landing in the lottery. The risk to the GM is that they finally develop right as their rookie contract expires.
Danny Ainge has done well picking older college stars, like Sullinger and Glen Davis. They clearly are better able to contribute as rookies. I think Bazz makes a great late 1st, early second pick for a contending team that needs immediate help. He's not a great pick in the lottery, as I don't think they think he has much improvement left.