Has Danny Ainge Been Predominantly Lucky Or Good In Rebuilding Celtics?

We have 9 more wins than last year, and that's without Rondo and Green for most of it.

Jae Crowder has turned out to be a major, major keeper. Jerebko is doing yeoman work out there every night, getting at least fingers on every rebound and defending like crazy. Gigi has come in and shown he can be a legit NBA player, perhaps next year with solid rotation minutes. Thomas is a nitro cap.

Danny said that Crowder was "undervalued" at Dallas when he came here. He traded Jeff Green, in his prime for 34 year old Tayshaun Prince. He then could have bought out Prince or kept him (Brad liked Prince a lot and wanted to keep him), but instead traded him for Jonas and Gigi. Thomas is a sparkplug but Marcus Thornton can gun away too and shot at a higher fg% than Thomas (Thornton shot 42% from 3 while he was here). He traded an expiring contract in Thornton for a longterm contract with Thomas.

Was Danny just moving pieces to move pieces, and got lucky, or did he have his eyes on specific players to fill specific needs in the rebuild?



bob


.

Talk to me in another year then I will decide.

Artist still at work and the painting is not finished.

beat

and drafting KO was brilliant

how come theres no terrible in poll?

cowens/oldschool wrote:and drafting KO was brilliant

Sarcasm duly noted

cowens/oldschool wrote:and drafting KO was brilliant

Just checking - what's your opinion on drafting Fab Melo?

If Danny is so bad at drafting (forget about draft successes like #15 Al Jefferson, #21 Sullinger, #21 (by way of Phoenix) Rondo and #19 Bradley and only focus on #22 Melo) then why are people so hot to revolve the rebuild around drafting?


bob


.

The trial is still in its early stages. The jury won't be asked to render a verdict for perhaps another 2-3 years. I'm with beat on this one.

swish

Hi,
I voted GOOD because DA was good, so far. Even if in the next few years he completely screws up it will mostly due to luck (lack thereof), not his qualities as a GM.

AK

I voted "Good" because, of the two answers, that comes closer to being the case, although I'm not a fan of polls that offer only selected answers that don't cover the entire spectrum of possibilities.

There's a whole lot more involved than whether Danny was lucky or good.

• In the first place, the rebuilding is still in its incipient stages.  It's probable (actually more of a lock) that the entire rebuilding process will involve more stages.  Offering opinions now is like determining whether a first grade child is a good student.  Maybe (s)he can deal quite well with "Fun with Dick and Jane" but will bite it when trying to cope with calculus in the future.

• In the second place, what danny is doing involves a lot more than bringing in players by trade.  I happen to believe that parting with Rondo and Green involved far more than financial matters.  It could be argued that those decisions involved addition by subtraction.  I'm not casting aspersions of either of them as a player; but I don't believe they were the right players for the direction in which the Celtics are headed.  They were used to doing things a certain way, and each in his own way was inconsistent; and I believe those habits would have slowed the process.as the Celtics attempted a concerted effort to improve in a different direction.

• Danny is not simplistically accumulating players.  It's not serendipitous that he's acquiring players who are human spark plugs.  I believe he's setting a course for the Celtics' identity of the future.  Whether or not Crowder, Jerebko and Thomas last with the Celtics, I believe they exemplify the sort of catalysts with which he wants to infuse the team.  Players who are consistent energizers rather than displaying only spurts of energy.  Not all players on the roster need be these types, but there needs to be an energetic core.

Some people obviously don't "get" the fact that the draft is considered a crap shoot for a reason.  They cherry pick selected draft picks they feel make a point that a g.m. sucks and ignore the many draft picks that refute that point.

So, in yet another effort to disabuse any notion that every draft pick must be a winner, I'm going to repeat a post I made about a year ago in an earlier effort to penetrate the same hard substance.  I changed the wording in a few places for the sake of clarity, but I changed none of the data.  The words are all mine, and I'm not attributing any of them to a media source.

--------Here goes-------

Sam
 
Many consider Red Auerbach to be the best judge of basketball talent of all-time.  Even if there’s some disagreement with that sweeping statement, one has to admit that he was extremely good at it—not even in the same stratosphere with the word “average.”
 
So I went through every year from 1950 through 1997 (during which Red had either sole responsibility or joint responsibility) and listed:


• Red's initial draft pick (regardless of what position it was in);


• the draft position of that pick;


• the names of future all-stars he overlooked who were available when he made that initial pick.


I also placed an asterisk (*) beside each of Red's initial picks whom I consider to have made a reasonably solid contribution in his career.  If anything, I erred in the direction of giving guys the benefit of the doubt in terms of what a "reasonably solid contribution" consisted of.  I even included Len Bias in that category although he obviously never played a second for the Celtics.
 
• Red selected a reasonably solid contributor in 24 of the 48 drafts, or exactly 50%.  


• In 20 (or 83%) of the 24 drafts in which he did not pick a reasonably solid contributor, he passed on at least one future all-star.


• In those 20 years when he did not pick a reasonably solid contributor, Red bypassed a total of 54 future all-stars (or an average of 2.7 future all-stars per Red's draft "failure" ).
 
I’d be the last one to criticize Red, because he’s the personnel gold standard in my book.  But the fact is that he was arguably wrong 50% of the time and, in five of every six drafts when he was wrong, he failed to select a future all-star who was available when he picked.  I understand all about extenuating circumstances.  For example, he might have been drafting for need, not for the best player available.
 
But Danny Ainge has faced the same extenuating circumstances, and yet he gets blasted for virtually every pick that doesn’t work out.  And, throughout much of his career, Red was aided by a very high initial selection because there were only eight or nine teams in the league.  In fact, his average first pick over the 48 years was in the 12th slot.  (And that includes one year when his initial selection was #53.)  Danny has had nothing remotely approaching that kind of average positional advantage.
 
I hope these perspectives illustrate how extremely difficult it is to handicap a draft, even for the most experienced and generally successful basketball people.  For example, how about Red’s picking Mel Counts when Willis Reed and Paul Silas were still on the board?  Or skipping over Artis Gilmore in order to draft the immortal Clarence Glover?  Who the heck was Ollie Johnson, and why wasn’t one of the Van Arsdale twins selected instead?  Bennie (and the Jets) Swain hardly compensated for missing out on Hal Greer and Wide Wayne Embry.  Paul Westphal had some productive years for the Celts and also for the Suns—but more productive than Julius Irving?  I think not.
 
If anyone’s wondering what my source is, it’s my own calculations based on data provided by Basketball Reference.  Anyone’s welcome to check my computations.  It took me only six hours, so just pack a couple of picnic meals and wade right into the data.
 
Sam
 
Year/Celts #1 pick/slot/Future all-stars bypassed by Red
 
‘50 Charlie Share-1 (passed on Bob Cousy, George Yardley, Larry Foust, Bill Sharman)
’51 Ernie Barrett-7 (passed on Don Sunderlage)
’52 Bob Stauffer-6 (passed on Clyde Lovellette)
’53 * Frank Ramsey-5 (passed on Kenny Sears)
’54 * Togo Palazzi-5 (passed on Red Kerr, Richie Guerin, Dick Garmaker, Larry Costello)
’55 * Jim Loscutoff-3 (passed on Jack Twyman)
’56 * Tom Heinsohn (Terr.), Bill Russell (3-trade) K.C. Jones-9; passed on Elgin Baylor, Willie Naulls
’57 * Sam Jones-8 (passed on Woody Sauldsbury)
’58  Ben Swain-7 (passed on Hal Greer, Wayne Embry, Guy Rodgers, Don Ohl, Adrian Smith)
’59 John Richter-6 (passed on Rudy LaRusso)
’60 * Tom Sanders-8 (passed on no future all-stars)
’61 Gary Phillips-9 (passed on Bill Bridges, Don Kojis)
’62 * John Havlicek-7 (passed on Dave Debusshere, Terry Dischinger, Jerry Lucas, Chet Walker)
’63 Bill Green-8 (passed on Gus Johnson, Jim King)
’64 * Mel Counts-7 (passed on Willis Reed, Paul Silas, Jerry Sloan)
’65 Ollie Johnson-8 (passed on Jon McGlocklin, Flynn Robinson, Dick and Tom Van Arsdale)
’66 * Jim Barnett-8 (passed on Archie Clark, John Block)
’67 Mal Graham-11 (passed on Bob Rule)
’68 * Don Chaney-12 (passed on no future all-stars)
’69 * JoJo White-9 (passed on Butch Beard, Bob Dandridge, Norm Van Lier, Steve Mix
’70 * Dave Cowens-4 (passed on Tiny Archibald, Dan Issel, John Johnson, Sam Lacey, Calvin Murphy, Geoff Petrie, Rudy Tomjanovich, Randy Smith)
’71 Clarence Glover-10 (passed on Sidney Wicks and Curtis Rowe—thank god, Artis Gilmore, Spencer Haywood, Austin Carr, Randy Smith)
’72 * Paul Westphal-10 (passed on Julius Irving, Jim Price, Don Buse)
’73 Steve Downing-17 (passed on George McGinnis, Larry Kenon
’74 Glen McDonald-17 (passed on Truck Robinson, Billy Knight, Scott Wedman, Campy Russell, Phil Smith
’75 Tom Boswell-17 (passed on World B. Free, Dan Roundfield, Gus Williams
’76 Norm Cook-16 (passed on Alex English, Dennis Johnson, Lonnie Shelton
’77 • Cedric Maxwell-12 (passed on Ricky Green, Eddie Johnson, Norm Nixon
’78 * Larry Bird-6 (passed on Maurice Cheeks, Mike Mitchell, Reggie Theus
’79 Wayne Kreklow-53 (passed on Mark Eaton, James Donaldson, Bill Lame Beer
’80 * Kevin McHale-3 (passed on Jeff Ruland, Kiki Vandeweghe, Andrew Toney)
’81 Charles Bradley-23 (passed on no future all-stars)
’82 Darren Tillis-23 (passed on no future all-stars)
’83 Greg Kite-21 (passed on no future all-stars)
’84 Michael Young-24 (passed on no future all-stars)
’85 Sam Vincent-20 (passed on Michael Adams, A.C. Green, Terry Porter
’86 * Len Bias-2 (passed on Kevin Duckworth, Jeff Hornacek, Mark Price, Dennis Rodman
’87 * Reggie Lewis-22 (passed on no future all-stars)
’88 *  Brian Shaw-24 (passed on Anthony Mason)
’89 Michael Smith-13 (passed on Dana Barros, B.J. Armstrong, Shawn Kemp, Cliff Robinson
’90 * Dee Brown-19 (passed on Cedric Ceballos, Antonio Davis, Jayson Williams
’91 * Rick Fox-24 (passed on no future all-stars
’92 Jon Barry-21 (passed on Latrell Sprewell
’93 Acie Earl-19 (passed on Sam Cassell, Nick Van Excel
’94 Eric Montross-9 (passed on Eddie Jones)
’95 * Eric Williams-14 (passed on Michael Finley, Andrew McDyess, Theo Ratliff
’96 * Antoine Walker-6 (passed on Kobe Bryant, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Steve Nash, Jermaine O’Neal, Peja Stojakovic
’97 * Chauncey Billups-3 (passed on Tracy McGrady)

swish wrote:The trial is still in its early stages. The jury won't be asked to render a verdict for perhaps another 2-3 years. I'm with beat on this one.

swish

Sort of like going to a pie judging contest...

and the pies are still in the oven.

beat

Sam,
I don't know much about 70's and 80's let alone before, but to miss on Kobe - wow.
BTW, Ilgauskas' first name is Zydrunas, not Zabonis.

AK

I say good.

and yes I even like the Kelly draft pick!

I don't how anyone can not like a guy playing with one eye?

yeah Ainge missed on Gobert...but so did almost ALL the other teams in the first round.

Sam wrote:I voted "Good" because, of the two answers, that comes closer to being the case, although I'm not a fan of polls that offer only selected answers that don't cover the entire spectrum of possibilities.

Like when Stephen Colbert would ask his guests this: "George W. Bush -- great president, or greatest president?"

I voted "good," but I have many of the same qualifiers others have mentioned. We'll have a lot more to judge by after this summer.

kdp59 wrote:I say good.

and yes I even like the Kelly draft pick!

I don't how anyone can not like a guy playing with one eye?

yeah Ainge missed on Gobert...but so did almost ALL the other teams in the first round.

kdp,

You've put your finger on it.  He passed on DeAndre Jordan BUT SO DID EVERY OTHER TEAM PICKING IN THE FIRST ROUND!  He passed on Gobert BUT SO DID ALMOST EVER OTHER TEAM PICKING IN THE FIRST ROUND!  He took a chance on Sullinger, when 20 pickers before him passed on him.  He took a chance on one-and-done Avery Bradley, when 18 pickers before him passed on him.  The expectation that Danny should be infallible and should never pass on talent is unreasonable since everybody, everybody, does it too.  As Sam highlighted, RED AUERBACH took Paul Westphal, an admittedly great player, but passed on franchise player and Top 50 Player of All Time Julius Erving.  If Red could miss that one anybody can be short-sighted as well.

Ironically, one of Cowens' favorite players, Kendrick Perkins, was drafted #27 by the Memphis Grizzlies and traded to Boston on a draft day trade.  Danny Ainge was the GM for that trade.  The deal was #13 Marcus Banks and Kendrick Perkins to Boston for #16 Troy Bell and #20 Dahntay Jones to Memphis.  Who would you rather have of the above?  The higher picks like Banks and Bell, or the #27?  Apparently, the coach and GM of the Memphis Grizzlies didn't think so since they made the deal.  Well, what can you expect from a bunch of know-nothing losers, right?  For the record, the names of the coach and GM of the Memphis Grizzlies that made that trade were Hubie Brown and Jerry West, respectively.



bob

I am going to say that I think that Ainge has done a very good job so far in the re-build that officially started after trading Garnett and Pierce to Brooklyn.

He has brought in high quality guys, who all seem to have something to prove. All have been coachable, hard working guys who Stevens seems to like very much. The guys he has brought in (except for a short time of Prince and maybe Nelson) have all been young with more than reasonable salaries. He has plenty of drat picks and salary cap space as well. He looked hard at McGee, but has not brought in any knuckleheads which has helped Stevens rally his players together into a very pleasant group to watch and cheer for.

Yes. the team needs more talent to replace some of the guys who currently wear green, but that will come in time over the next two years. What gets done this summer will go a long way to determining how fast the re-build will take. Two solid younger guys via free agency or trade and one really nice rookie from the draft will allow the Cs to compete for the top of the East in 2016-17.

It would be nice if Ainge can hit a home run in this year's draft. His record on drafting is not 100%, but with Auerbach only hitting 50%, I guess that Ainge should not be expected to have a significantly better success ratio.

Great things this year and many more in the future!

I realize our sum is perhaps better than the parts that make it up.

That said and we some how are able to land "a star or 2" what could that mean to the chemistry when right now virtually on any given night we have so many contributors. I suppose getting the right one is more important than getting the "best" one.

And with the influx of that said star(s) will we find the team we have around him differing to him/them too much?

We are moving along quite well with the team we have, I just hope that the pieces to the rest of the puzzle continue to fit as well as they have so far.

beat

Thanks for the correction, Sinus.

Sam

I did the same kind of exercise for Danny Ainge that I did for Red Auerbach.  Danny's initial pick for each year.  I didn't look up the names of future all-stars on whom he passed because (1) I was too lazy and someone else may want to do the work and (2) it wasn't necessary to make my point about Danny's draft picks.  As in the case of Red's list, and asterisk (*) indicates player whom I feel have made solid contributions to their teams.  Of course, many are still playing and their ultimate contributions are not yet known.  For example, a few years ago, I might not have credited Gerald Green with making a solid contribution, but I'd have to put him in that category now.

2003 Troy Bell (16)
2004 * Al Jefferson (15)
2005 * Gerald Green (18)
2006 * Randy Foye (7)
2007 * Jeff Green (5)
2008 J.R. Giddens (30)
2009 Lester Hudson (58)
2010 * Avery Bradley (19)
2011 * MarShon Brooks (25)
2012 * Jared Sullinger (21)
2013 * Kelly Olynyk (13)
2014 * Marcus Smart (6)

So Danny has had 8 "reasonable contributors" in 11 years—a 73% "hit" rate compared with Red's 50% under more favorable selection circumstances (Red averaged the 13th pick, while Danny has averaged the 21th pick—or, if one wishes to exclude the initial pick of 2009 (which was 58th), then Danny has averaged the 21st pick in the other 10 years and has an 80% batting average in those 10 selections.

Does this prove Danny and his minions are better draft handicappers than Red?  No, but it does suggest that those who bleat about Danny's bad drafting by selecting some of the lower choices (which are REALLY crap shoots) need a good perspective transplant.

Sam

I think good is a fair assessment... the poll didn't say "great". Its obviously to early to say the rebuild has been great, but I think its fair to say its gone well (would have said "good", but grammar won't allow it). Experts seem to think gathering picks is extremely valuable, and Danny has done a good job with that. By using one of those picks to acquire Thomas, I thought Danny was finally beginning to cash in some of those chips for actual players. That might be true, but as Zach Lowe pointed out in his recent article on the Celtics, Danny might just feel that Thomas and his contract is even more tradable than a mid to low 1st rounder. Thomas does have an amazing contract for someone of his ability. Either way, Danny wins. Maybe it is luck, maybe its not, but Danny always seems to win...

sam wrote:I did the same kind of exercise for Danny Ainge that I did for Red Auerbach.  Danny's initial pick for each year.  I didn't look up the names of future all-stars on whom he passed because (1) I was too lazy and someone else may want to do the work and (2) it wasn't necessary to make my point about Danny's draft picks.  As in the case of Red's list, and asterisk (*) indicates player whom I feel have made solid contributions to their teams.  Of course, many are still playing and their ultimate contributions are not yet known.  For example, a few years ago, I might not have credited Gerald Green with making a solid contribution, but I'd have to put him in that category now.

2003 Troy Bell (16)
2004 * Al Jefferson (15)
2005 * Gerald Green (18)
2006 * Randy Foye (7)
2007 * Jeff Green (5)
2008 J.R. Giddens (30)
2009 Lester Hudson (58)
2010 * Avery Bradley (19)
2011 * MarShon Brooks (25)
2012 * Jared Sullinger (21)
2013 * Kelly Olynyk (13)
2014 * Marcus Smart (6)

So Danny has had 9 "reasonable contributors" in 12 years—a 75% "hit" rate compared with Red's 50% under more favorable selection circumstances (Red averaged the 13th pick, while Danny has averaged the 21th pick—or, if one wishes to exclude the initial pick of 2009 (which was 58th), then Danny has averaged the 21st pick in the other 10 years and has an 80% batting average in those 10 selections.

Does this prove Danny and his minions are better draft handicappers than Red?  No, but it does suggest that those who bleat about Danny's bad drafting by selecting some of the lower choices (which are REALLY crap shoots) need a good perspective transplant.

Sam

sam,

Boston drafted Jeff Green and shipped him to Seattle/OKC as part of the Ray Allen deal so, while I don't think it's fair to credit Danny with that pick (he picked who they wanted to make the deal work for them) it is fair to say that Danny got the better end of the deal.  This deal begat Ray Allen, who begat Kevin Garnett, who begat #17.

I think Jeff Green is a good case-in-point about the draft being a crap shoot.  He was the #5 pick.  He's a good player, uber-athletic as we all know, but isn't a franchise player.  He's never even been an all-star.  Well, if the #5 pick in a draft isn't a lock for an all-star game then it's hard to get all excited about it.

Anything under #3 becomes problematic.


bob


.

bobheckler wrote:

sam wrote:I did the same kind of exercise for Danny Ainge that I did for Red Auerbach.  Danny's initial pick for each year.  I didn't look up the names of future all-stars on whom he passed because (1) I was too lazy and someone else may want to do the work and (2) it wasn't necessary to make my point about Danny's draft picks.  As in the case of Red's list, and asterisk (*) indicates player whom I feel have made solid contributions to their teams.  Of course, many are still playing and their ultimate contributions are not yet known.  For example, a few years ago, I might not have credited Gerald Green with making a solid contribution, but I'd have to put him in that category now.

2003 Troy Bell (16)
2004 * Al Jefferson (15)
2005 * Gerald Green (18)
2006 * Randy Foye (7)
2007 * Jeff Green (5)
2008 J.R. Giddens (30)
2009 Lester Hudson (58)
2010 * Avery Bradley (19)
2011 * MarShon Brooks (25)
2012 * Jared Sullinger (21)
2013 * Kelly Olynyk (13)
2014 * Marcus Smart (6)

So Danny has had 8 "reasonable contributors" in 11 years—a 73% "hit" rate compared with Red's 50% under more favorable selection circumstances (Red averaged the 13th pick, while Danny has averaged the 21th pick—or, if one wishes to exclude the initial pick of 2009 (which was 58th), then Danny has averaged the 21st pick in the other 10 years and has an 80% batting average in those 10 selections.

Does this prove Danny and his minions are better draft handicappers than Red?  No, but it does suggest that those who bleat about Danny's bad drafting by selecting some of the lower choices (which are REALLY crap shoots) need a good perspective transplant.

Sam

sam,

Boston drafted Jeff Green and shipped him to Seattle/OKC as part of the Ray Allen deal so, while I don't think it's fair to credit Danny with that pick (he picked who they wanted to make the deal work for them) it is fair to say that Danny got the better end of the deal.  This deal begat Ray Allen, who begat Kevin Garnett, who begat #17.

I think Jeff Green is a good case-in-point about the draft being a crap shoot.  He was the #5 pick.  He's a good player, uber-athletic as we all know, but isn't a franchise player.  He's never even been an all-star.  Well, if the #5 pick in a draft isn't a lock for an all-star game then it's hard to get all excited about it.

Anything under #3 becomes problematic.


bob


.

Bob,

You mean any pick HIGHER than 3 becomes problematic?   If so, I would disagree with you in regards to this year's draft where there should be VERY good players through at least 5 or 6.  The rest is a crap shoot.  Like most drafts.

Of course it's fair to credit Danny with drafting Jeff Green.

1. Did Danny draft Jeff Green?  Yes.

2. Has Jeff Green made a "reasonably solid contribution in his career?"  Yes.  (I never specified that it all had to be with the Celtics.)

3. IF you don't want to count Jeff, then it's only fair to count the guy he was traded for.  Has Ray Allen made a "reasonably solid contribution in his career?"  Yes.  Otherwise, you're assuming Danny made no draft pick that season, and he definitely did.

4. IF one were to ignore that year (which I repeat would be wrong in my estimation), then Danny would "drop" to "only" a 73% success rate vs. Red's 50% success rate.  No harm, no foul.  Of course it's fair.

Perhaps I shouldn't have include Len Bias as an Auerbach success either.  Judgment call in both cases, and I believe the judgment was fair in both cases.

Sam

steve3344 wrote:

bobheckler wrote:

sam wrote:I did the same kind of exercise for Danny Ainge that I did for Red Auerbach.  Danny's initial pick for each year.  I didn't look up the names of future all-stars on whom he passed because (1) I was too lazy and someone else may want to do the work and (2) it wasn't necessary to make my point about Danny's draft picks.  As in the case of Red's list, and asterisk (*) indicates player whom I feel have made solid contributions to their teams.  Of course, many are still playing and their ultimate contributions are not yet known.  For example, a few years ago, I might not have credited Gerald Green with making a solid contribution, but I'd have to put him in that category now.

2003 Troy Bell (16)
2004 * Al Jefferson (15)
2005 * Gerald Green (18)
2006 * Randy Foye (7)
2007 * Jeff Green (5)
2008 J.R. Giddens (30)
2009 Lester Hudson (58)
2010 * Avery Bradley (19)
2011 * MarShon Brooks (25)
2012 * Jared Sullinger (21)
2013 * Kelly Olynyk (13)
2014 * Marcus Smart (6)

So Danny has had 8 "reasonable contributors" in 11 years—a 73% "hit" rate compared with Red's 50% under more favorable selection circumstances (Red averaged the 13th pick, while Danny has averaged the 21th pick—or, if one wishes to exclude the initial pick of 2009 (which was 58th), then Danny has averaged the 21st pick in the other 10 years and has an 80% batting average in those 10 selections.

Does this prove Danny and his minions are better draft handicappers than Red?  No, but it does suggest that those who bleat about Danny's bad drafting by selecting some of the lower choices (which are REALLY crap shoots) need a good perspective transplant.

Sam

sam,

Boston drafted Jeff Green and shipped him to Seattle/OKC as part of the Ray Allen deal so, while I don't think it's fair to credit Danny with that pick (he picked who they wanted to make the deal work for them) it is fair to say that Danny got the better end of the deal.  This deal begat Ray Allen, who begat Kevin Garnett, who begat #17.

I think Jeff Green is a good case-in-point about the draft being a crap shoot.  He was the #5 pick.  He's a good player, uber-athletic as we all know, but isn't a franchise player.  He's never even been an all-star.  Well, if the #5 pick in a draft isn't a lock for an all-star game then it's hard to get all excited about it.

Anything under #3 becomes problematic.


bob


.

Bob,

You mean any pick HIGHER than 3 becomes problematic?   If so, I would disagree with you in regards to this year's draft where there should be VERY good players through at least 5 or 6.  The rest is a crap shoot.  Like most drafts.

I actually think this years draft is deeper and better than last years which I think was overhyped.

Sam you are a grinder, can't believe how much info and time you took to research and write those great posts, you are the man.

steve3344 wrote:

cowens/oldschool wrote:and drafting KO was brilliant

Just checking - what's your opinion on drafting Fab Melo?

I was okay with that pick as I wanted Melo too, thought he was gonna be a shot blocking force, as Sam pointed out nobody gets them all right, but to be wrong twice at the same position...?? as he was by being trigger shy on Gobert, well we know what Gobert is and is going to be and we know what this team lacks or needs.....as I said before with Gobert in the middle right now on this team and all those juicy first round picks, oh damn what might have been!!! That would have greatly made up for the Perk-Green fiasco.