Is Charlotte bad at the draft? Or unlucky? And is this their problem?

[yosemiteben]

At the time of the draft, I was skeptical that a 206 pound rim protector that had already torn his ACL once is a sure thing to have a better career than Zeller. I can't say that I feel really confident that Noel's body is going to hold up well to the grind of being an interior defender, so I'm not exactly lamenting our choice of Zeller over Noel.

Cody was only 20 when drafted, it's not like he was a win-now pick with no upside.

[Prokorov]

here are the guys taken directly after the hornets picks:

Elfrid Peyton
Alex Len
Bradley Beal
Jimmer Fredette
Xavier Henry
Tyler Hansborough
Brook lopez

Outside of brook lopez, im not sure who exactly the passed up that was some great injustice or horrible drafting. even then you can argue need/fit.

you can always find a guy picked later then you drafted who was better. you can do that for every team as there are always guys who go later who become all-stars

There are a lot more guys to choose from than just the guys you pick and the guys picked directly after you.

If you have 10 lottery picks and don't pick a single one of those future good players still on the board, that is horrible drafting. No other team has whiffed so much with so many high picks.

Brandon Roy, Rudy Gay, Joakim Noah, Brook Lopez, Ty Lawson, Jeff Teague, Jrue Holiday, Brandon Knight, Klay Thompson, Kawhi Leonard, Nikola Vucevic, Tobias Harris, Nikola Mirotic, Kenneth Faried, Jimmy Butler, Damien Lillard, Andre Drummond, Alex Len, Nerlens Noel, Shabazz Muhammad, Elfrid Payton, Zach LaVine, Jusuf Nurkic, etc. etc. etc.

How does somebody who's job is to scout draft picks miss on literally every single one of those guys? How come the majority of NBA teams have gotten at least one of those guys and they haven't?

It's because they are bad at scouting. They are bad at planning. They are just plain bad at their jobs.

actually, no, they havent whiffed more then anyone with so many high picks. look at the wolves and cavs. they missed just as much, only with higher picks.

that list you give is absurd. jimmy butler? the guy who went in the late 20's? yeah they are morons for not taking him with a top 10 pick right? lillard? at #2 overall when they have a PG already? stop it with this nonsense.

again, who would you have realistically drafted in those years without the use of hindsight? i assume its not much better. because if you are being unbiased, the truth is all the picks they had came in years without much talent, or the pick they had came after the elite talent was gone.

[tsherkin]

I had forgotten that Jordan was actually in charge of personnel even before he took over the franchise. That makes it even worse. They haven't blown one pick. They've blown 10 lottery picks, as a whole. If you have had 10 lottery picks and have basically only gotten one okay starter and one bad starter, and the okay one required a #2 pick, you flat out suck at drafting.

This is nice in concept, but when you review the drafts as they actually happened, who was on the board, who was on the radar so to speak... it's really different than looking back at DraftExpress or b-ref and going "Oh man, they missed THIS guy?" And even if you do that, the breadth of high-impact players they've missed is... not really that many people. It literally boils down to they could have had a couple of guys who really aren't there yet, blew the 06 draft and that's about it.

It's not nearly as bad as people are trying to suggest as long as you reality-check your hindsight and inherent bias.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Or because of math. You listed like 25 guys in 10 years worth of the draft, so hitting one of those 25 out of 300 picks is a 1/12 chance. Having 10 picks and not hitting is well within statistical probability for that.

The Hornets have also been playing the draft straight, not doing anything unusual. Pre-draft prospects get ranked according to a) upside and b) likelihood of reaching that upside; the Hornets have gone for some super-upside guys (Vonleh, MKG, Ajinca) and some safer college stars (Felton, Okafor, Kaminsky), and every guy they've taken would have been taken within a few picks after them. If they're bad at the draft then so is the rest of the NBA. (That said, I'd be willing to say that they're worse than average b/c/o passing on Noel and Lopez and Winslow for players with worse upside/proven packages. But that doesn't mean the picks were 'awful' or fated to fail, it' just means they passed on a 60% chance to take a 50% one).

Again, this isn't quite the same as math. Guys are being paid to limit the impacts of luck and turning the draft into just a balance of probabilities. Yeah, prospects can bust, but Charlotte is practically batting 0 - it's a bit more nuanced than that since they've had some decent players, but they haven't drafted a single above-average starter (top 10 at their position - 15th best at a position is really an average starter in a league with 30 starters) with loads of lottery picks. MKG might be that, but he still has some significant improvement to make if he wants to be an above average starter.

What this comes down to is that Charlotte is not putting themselves in a situation to make the best picks in the best drafts, and when they do draft, they aren't getting particularly good players with what are still reasonably good picks. No team is going to hit 100% on draft picks, and really 50% is likely out of reach except for maybe the Spurs, but it's reasonable to ask that guys who are paid decent money to evaluate the draft start hitting on at least one star here or there, and getting some functional role players with picks outside of the lottery. Like I pointed out in my post that Prokorov misinterpreted and turned into a straw man, this isn't about the Hornets needing to get every single good player - every team passes on good players in most years. It's about getting 2 or 3 of them right in a 10 year span. That's all. And that list I had didn't include any of the good players that went much later in those drafts who really weren't in the discussion to be picked around where the Bobcats were picking.

Prokorov, I would have absolutely picked Kawhi in that draft for the Bobcats or any other team drafting at 6 or later - no hindsight needed. As a Raptors fan at the time, I wanted Val, but the Raptors were rumoured at the time to be considering taking Kawhi if Val went to Cleveland at 4 and he was right there with other guys in rumors for earlier picks. The Spurs were circling at that time for Kawhi looking to trade into the draft, and eventually wound up getting their guy despite not having a pick in that range.

Again, this isn't about the Bobcats only having problems in the draft, but to build a winning team, you absolutely have to start in the draft, even if you only get 1 or 2 key players. After years of lottery picks, all the Bobcats have to show for it is the hope that MKG turns into such a player after hopefully learning how to shoot. And it isn't just the Bobcats. Teams like the Kings, and even for years the Raptors, Pistons, etc. also flubbed many picks and paid the price for it with many losing seasons while not finishing high enough to get a top 3 pick with elite top end talent. The Bobcats have been failing at the draft and failing at strategy. Yeah, it's bad luck that not ever team can draft Lebron or Anthony Davis and make the playoffs despite bungling every other aspect of their team (tantamount to bad luck for not winning the lottery), but other teams have built contenders without that kind of luck through shrewd planning and drafting. The Rockets, Warriors, Mavs, Pacers, etc. have all managed to build extremely good teams without strokes of draft luck that the Bobcats didn't have. If the draft was all luck, NBA teams should just save themselves the money and fire all their scouts and use draftexpress as a ranking tool, or something like that.

[I_Like_Dirt]

This is nice in concept, but when you review the drafts as they actually happened, who was on the board, who was on the radar so to speak... it's really different than looking back at DraftExpress or b-ref and going "Oh man, they missed THIS guy?" And even if you do that, the breadth of high-impact players they've missed is... not really that many people. It literally boils down to they could have had a couple of guys who really aren't there yet, blew the 06 draft and that's about it.

It's not nearly as bad as people are trying to suggest as long as you reality-check your hindsight and inherent bias.

Bull! Charlotte just really isn't using the draft effectively. They get to the draft and then try to pick who they feel is going to be the best NBA player at that point. No, it isn't so simple as saying they missed on those guys, but they're missing on basically every guy, and that's completely different. Show me teams that have had a worse draft record than the Bobcats over the past 10 years, with a certain degree of relevance given to the total number of high picks a team has had? If you come up with a team or two, tell me if those teams are just unlucky or whether they might also be categorized as bad at the draft and not teams you want to be lumped in with. The reality is that Jordan has been one of the worst managers of the draft for quite some time now. And I would also suggest that the reason that later lottery picks tend to not be so much better for finding stars than non-lottery 1st rounders is because the teams that are actually good at drafting have better teams, so the poor drafting teams whiff, and leave the better players for the good drafting teams. A lot of this luck is just a self-fulfilling prophecy that losing teams want to write-off as bad luck when winning teams may be humble about it, but are clearly very skillful in what they are doing.

Yeah, teams do get draft luck, but some teams get more luck than others because of the skill they incorporate into managing the draft. Again, the Spurs have managed a comparable draft record to Charlotte for the past several years despite having most of their picks at 26 or later, and have also gotten the best player of either team in the draft from that period, picking at 15, having traded for the pick, in a draft where the Bobcats had 2 picks before 15. The Bobcats aren't bad at the draft because they haven't gotten 8 or 9 good picks out of 10; they're bad because they haven't managed to get 2 or 3 good picks out of 10.

[tsherkin]

Bull! Charlotte just really isn't using the draft effectively. They get to the draft and then try to pick who they feel is going to be the best NBA player at that point. No, it isn't so simple as saying they missed on those guys, but they're missing on basically every guy, and that's completely different. Show me teams that have had a worse draft record than the Bobcats over the past 10 years, with a certain degree of relevance given to the total number of high picks a team has had? If you come up with a team or two, tell me if those teams are just unlucky or whether they might also be categorized as bad at the draft and not teams you want to be lumped in with. The reality is that Jordan has been one of the worst managers of the draft for quite some time now. And I would also suggest that the reason that later lottery picks tend to not be so much better for finding stars than non-lottery 1st rounders is because the teams that are actually good at drafting have better teams, so the poor drafting teams whiff, and leave the better players for the good drafting teams. A lot of this luck is just a self-fulfilling prophecy that losing teams want to write-off as bad luck when winning teams may be humble about it, but are clearly very skillful in what they are doing.

Yeah, this basically ignores the key stuff. They missed the impact players in the draft on the basis of draft position, and were thus never in position to hit on the top talent of the draft. We're talking all the way back to the 04 draft, and you're at most going to be able to indict them on 2 or 3 drafts. Otherwise, you're talking about using picks for players who are acceptable/competent bench players, for the most part, or who are otherwise no more proven than the guys the Cats/Hornets did actually select.

There is truth to the idea that they made a mistake or two, for sure, but to use that to say that they are straight up bad at the draft is kind of weird and hyperbolic. The Bulls had a nice long run of drafting high and they didn't exactly come out of it with much more than Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler. Yeah, that was the HS drafting craze and everything as well, and Chandler eventually went on to become something... But seriously.

The Warriors have hit more frequently in the draft than Charlotte, but they drafted a lot of total crap very high in the draft as well... and the talent they did hit on was available. We haven't seen a lot of Arenas/Boozer in the second round for these guys to take, know what I mean? There was no real opportunity to hit on Carter/Jamison, and they certainly haven't whiffed on a Steph Curry-level player.

Their draft mistakes literally boil down to Morrison and BroPez. And Brook didn't actually elevate the Nets to a meaningful extent. His health has been a part of that, but that's part and parcel as well, and he opened his career with three straight 82-game seasons. THey didn't have their first season with > 34 wins (his rookie season aside) until 12-13... a half-decade after they drafted him, by which point they had Joe Johnson, Deron Williams and Gerald Wallace. Yeah, it was also an AS season from Lopez, but now he's not even a starter anymore. Food for thought, man; the Cats didn't miss out on that much. Yeah, they went for Augustin, but he was the most decorated PG in the draft class of the year and was thought of highly as a fast-paced playmaker. He was a touch risky because of his size, but it wasn't an awful pick at the time and most evaluation on that end comes from going "Hurr, 20 ppg AS big" without much of a nod to BroLo's defense, health or piss-poor rebounding... nor to his career arc to date. Not saying you're doing that, but platforming a touch.

Again, bad luck has played the lion's share of the role here. Kawhi slipped far; it's not THAT surprising that Charlotte didn't swing for him in the top-10. And yes, it's not ideal that they took Kemba instead of Klay or Kawhi, but both of them slipped out of the top 10 and Charlotte was indeed looking for interior defense and point play... and lo and behold, there were some interesting prospects available at their slot who weren't reach picks.

Is it troublesome that they went for another smaller point? Sure. But he also evidenced a lot of year-to-year improvement at UConn, finishing as a fine scorer with troublesome range, good quickness and a good head on his shoulders for game management. There wasn't really anyone who jumped out as "star potential" pre-draft. Biyombo was considered by some the 2nd best big in the class. Might it be a shade of Tyrus Thomas syndrome? Sure, but he's also shown through at least a little of his potential as a defender, he mostly just blows on offense. Kemba WAS actually projected anywhere from 3rd to 12th in that draft as early as January 2010. March to early June 2011, he was getting projected 3rd to 6th.

That was about what was expected, and it wasn't a brutal stumper of a pick like Morrison.

At the time, Kawhi was physical tools and defense on the wing, and he showed nothing like the range he's developed with the Spurs. And of course the management/coaching sitch in San Antonio is very different from the majority of the rest of the NBA, let alone Charlotte, where's it been a rotating cast on the bench.

Then you turn around and try to compare San Antonio's draft record to Charlotte, but that's kind of nonsensical given that they've been regarded as a major outlier for over a decade and a half in that respect....

C'mon, ILD. Ripping on Charlotte is easy because they've had mostly a pretty bad run, but they haven't had the opportunity to get real game-changing talent in the draft, and they haven't made any more mistakes than have others done with similar picks. This isn't a case of dramatic incompetence. They certainly aren't a top-third team as far as drafting ability, but let's not exaggerate their ibnability to find roleplayers late into some kind of miraculous deficiency in drafting ability when the real talent has typically gone before their pick even popped in the order.

[HotelVitale]

Yeah, teams do get draft luck, but some teams get more luck than others because of the skill they incorporate into managing the draft. Again, the Spurs have managed a comparable draft record to Charlotte for the past several years despite having most of their picks at 26 or later, and have also gotten the best player of either team in the draft from that period, picking at 15, having traded for the pick, in a draft where the Bobcats had 2 picks before 15. The Bobcats aren't bad at the draft because they haven't gotten 8 or 9 good picks out of 10; they're bad because they haven't managed to get 2 or 3 good picks out of 10.

To repeat that last point: going 0/10 in a game that you have 1/12 chance of winning isn't weird, it's a perfectly normal outcome. Statistically speaking, it's much stranger for a team like the Spurs to go 6/10 in that game than for any team to go 0/10. Much stranger.

Put differently,it's a strange conclusion that, in a game with super high stakes and a basically universal method of preparation, anyone working for the Hornets-Bobcats and wearing their logo automatically develops a blindness and always takes the guy in their draft range that's destined to fail. Seems like more of a stretch that's the case than that they're just following the fairly normal statistical outcomes. (Also, many teams have had zero big hits in the last decade: off hand, DAL and MIA haven't hit despite some decent draft spots, and TOR has been as bad as CHA since they got Bosh twelve years ago.)

[Leslie Forman]

The Bulls had a nice long run of drafting high and they didn't exactly come out of it with much more than Marcus Fizer, Jamal Crawford, Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler. Yeah, that was the HS drafting craze and everything as well, and Chandler eventually went on to become something... But seriously.

You realize the GM who made all those moves was fired and only had the job as long as he did because he won six titles, right?

This is nice in concept, but when you review the drafts as they actually happened, who was on the board, who was on the radar so to speak... it's really different than looking back at DraftExpress or b-ref and going "Oh man, they missed THIS guy?" And even if you do that, the breadth of high-impact players they've missed is... not really that many people. It literally boils down to they could have had a couple of guys who really aren't there yet, blew the 06 draft and that's about it.

It's not nearly as bad as people are trying to suggest as long as you reality-check your hindsight and inherent bias.

10 lottery picks. 10. How many picks resulting in nothing more than bench players and the occasional mediocre starter does it take for it to become ineptitude, rather than just bad luck? 15? 20? 100?

If you've been owner of the Charlotte Horcats during this time, do you tell Jordan "Hey, those picks all made total sense, keep doing what you're doing." Would you seriously do that?

[tsherkin]

You realize the GM who made all those moves was fired and only had the job as long as he did because he won six titles, right?

That's not really a salient point, though. GMs get fired for all kinds of reasons, and often without due regard for actual accomplishment or the reality of the NBA.

10 lottery picks. 10. How many picks resulting in nothing more than bench players and the occasional mediocre starter does it take for it to become ineptitude, rather than just bad luck? 15? 20? 100?

You can repeat the number of picks as often as you like, but the fact remains that in the majority of this picks, the kind of player that people want to see drafted to count as a success wasn't there, and GMs don't make a habit of actively going out to use top 10 picks to chase their 7th or 8th guy. You can get that level of player in free agency, but you want to go for a higher-potential risk with a lottery pick, because that's usually your best chance of getting someone with any kind of real upside.

If you've been owner of the Charlotte Horcats during this time, do you tell Jordan "Hey, those picks all made total sense, keep doing what you're doing." Would you seriously do that?

No, but that's a pointless question, because it's a strawman argument given that I've already noted 2 or 3 picks which weren't great and one which was a clear mistake. I don't see what you intend to gain with your feckless hyperbole.

[HotelVitale]

You realize the GM who made all those moves was fired and only had the job as long as he did because he won six titles, right?

Bobcats/Hornets have had 3-4 different GMs during that time. Changed owners too, had 4-5 different coaches. You're arguing for a franchise 'curse' here, not for a single incompetent GM that keeps making bad picks.

10 lottery picks. 10. How many picks resulting in nothing more than bench players and the occasional mediocre starter does it take for it to become ineptitude, rather than just bad luck? 15? 20? 100?

Again, this might matter if it was one weird guy making all those picks. But it's just been a series of relatively smart, informed, and experienced guys doing it. Combining that with the fact that a) each pick made sense at the time and b) the odds aren't good you'll hit on any pick, it seems more logical to conclude that luck plays the biggest factor.

[eagereyez]

At the time of the draft, I was skeptical that a 206 pound rim protector that had already torn his ACL once is a sure thing to have a better career than Zeller. I can't say that I feel really confident that Noel's body is going to hold up well to the grind of being an interior defender, so I'm not exactly lamenting our choice of Zeller over Noel.

Cody was only 20 when drafted, it's not like he was a win-now pick with no upside.

Well, Noel was coming off one of the most defensively dominant collegiate seasons ever. I was honestly a little surprised that a freak ACL tear knocked Noel that far down in the draft. It's not like he had some chronic health issue that had a chance of becoming a long-term problem ala Oden. It might have been a blessing in disguise, as having that extra year off allowed Noel time to add some muscle to his frame in preparation for the NBA grind.

[fatlever]

Based on all the puzzle pieces I've put together over the years, this is the breakdown of which front office person wanted each draft pick and got their way.

Morrison was Bickerstaff's pick (MJ wanted Rudy Gay)
Wright was picked for Golden State in a prearranged trade
Augustin and Ajinca were Brown's picks (MJ wanted Lopez)
Biyombo and Zeller where Cho's picks (MJ was rumored to be against Zeller, which almost caused Cho to get fired)
Kemba, Vonleh and Kaminsky were MJs picks (Cho was most likely in love with McDermott last year and Cho seemingly was on board with trading the Kaminsky pick for the Celtics offer)
I think all agreed on MKG
Not sure who was highest on Henderson and Dudley

[sonictecture]

I disagree with most of what was said above.

Do we even know who the decision maker is of draft decisions in Charlotte? Rich Cho is the gm, but evidence seems to suggest that Jordan himself is active in the process and with his ego history it seems that Rich Cho is little more than data base organizer. Does Jordan get bored sometimes and let Cho select? Who knows.

In my view the teams that are the best at drafting have a plan. They identify a type of player that they want, they put a large emphasis on character and work ethic. They project and develop players that will compliment each other. They don't just wait for players to fall to them, they don't just draft the highest player based on general consensus. They don't duplicate players without solid reasoning and they devote resources to development.

The problems with Charlotte are more than just missing out on a higher prospect draft tier due to bad luck. They seem to lack clear standards for the type of player they want and end up drafting a menagerie of players that don't compliment each other very well. The highest rated players often don't work out because teams can't develop them properly alongside existing players.

[tsherkin]

10 lottery picks. 10. How many picks resulting in nothing more than bench players and the occasional mediocre starter does it take for it to become ineptitude, rather than just bad luck? 15? 20? 100?

Again, this might matter if it was one weird guy making all those picks. But it's just been a series of relatively smart, informed, and experienced guys doing it. Combining that with the fact that a) each pick made sense at the time and b) the odds aren't good you'll hit on any pick, it seems more logical to conclude that luck plays the biggest factor.

I realize that this was a quoting error, but for the record, that was tong, not I, who said that

[LofJ]

From 2004 to 2011 we were probably the worst drafting team in the NBA. I'm generally pleased with what we've done in the draft from 2012 on, but we're still recovering from the horrible job we did before that. I like Kemba a lot, but in hindsight the 2011 draft really stings. The rest is ancient history, the front office we have now is completely different from the one we had in the early 2000's. And recently we've done a lot to retool and improve our scouting department and we are about to start our own D-League team. We're not part of the NBA's upper crust, but we're not the complete organizational failure that the media is making us out to be.

[Leslie Forman]

No, but that's a pointless question, because it's a strawman argument given that I've already noted 2 or 3 picks which weren't great and one which was a clear mistake. I don't see what you intend to gain with your feckless hyperbole.

"Feckless hyperbole" is real rich when you said this:

Their draft mistakes literally boil down to Morrison and BroPez.

The mental gymnastics required to believe that those are literally the only poorly thought out picks they've made is gold medal worthy.

Bobcats/Hornets have had 3-4 different GMs during that time. Changed owners too, had 4-5 different coaches. You're arguing for a franchise 'curse' here, not for a single incompetent GM that keeps making bad picks.

There has been one continuous link the last decade at the head of Charlotte's decision making table. Guess who that is.

Again, this might matter if it was one weird guy making all those picks. But it's just been a series of relatively smart, informed, and experienced guys doing it. Combining that with the fact that a) each pick made sense at the time and b) the odds aren't good you'll hit on any pick, it seems more logical to conclude that luck plays the biggest factor.

This is the problem. Many of those picks did not make much sense at all, even at the time. The gist of the defense of these picks has basically been "well hey the draft's a crapshoot whaddya gonna do."

If Charlotte is not bad at drafting, then nobody is bad at drafting, ever. Apparently nobody should be held accountable for numerous failed picks because drafting is just a game of dice.

[Q C]

Its more concerning that a team like Charlotte can go 11 years without winning a playoff game and still have such a mediocre list of players that they missed on even in hindsight. You could give them a time machine right now and they couldn't have a championship contending team with the players people are throwing out in this thread.

[fatlever]

I disagree with most of what was said above.

Do we even know who the decision maker is of draft decisions in Charlotte? Rich Cho is the gm, but evidence seems to suggest that Jordan himself is active in the process and with his ego history it seems that Rich Cho is little more than data base organizer. Does Jordan get bored sometimes and let Cho select? Who knows.

In my view the teams that are the best at drafting have a plan. They identify a type of player that they want, they put a large emphasis on character and work ethic. They project and develop players that will compliment each other. They don't just wait for players to fall to them, they don't just draft the highest player based on general consensus. They don't duplicate players without solid reasoning and they devote resources to development.

The problems with Charlotte are more than just missing out on a higher prospect draft tier due to bad luck. They seem to lack clear standards for the type of player they want and end up drafting a menagerie of players that don't compliment each other very well. The highest rated players often don't work out because teams can't develop them properly alongside existing players.

This is clearly true and has been the single biggest problem with the Charlotte front office since MJs arrival. Bickerstaff, Higgins, MJ, Cho and Larry Brown have all taken turns over the years dictating who to draft. The direction of the front office seems to change every other year based on the latest trends in the league and MJs whims. The lack of player development is also a big concern, especially when Charlotte was changing coaches every year or two.

[HotelVitale]

In my view the teams that are the best at drafting have a plan. They identify a type of player that they want, they put a large emphasis on character and work ethic. They project and develop players that will compliment each other. They don't just wait for players to fall to them, they don't just draft the highest player based on general consensus. They don't duplicate players without solid reasoning and they devote resources to development.

I don't think that can actually happens often, and when it does it's only because of specific, non-replicable conditions. The Bulls are probably one of the models you have in mind but if you look close they don't fit those criteria well. After getting their current Rose-Noah core, they drafted quite a few busts that aren't high character guys: James Johnson, M Teague, T Snell. And Butler was BPA who fell to the Bulls, while Mirotic isn't a particularly high character player, and he sort of forced his way to the Bulls. McDermott is exactly what you're talking about--high ethic/character who plays a position of need and fills a role--and drafting him looks like one of the biggest blunders of the 2014 draft at the moment. Plus most of those guys replicate one another in some way: Teague was barely going to play with Rose at PG, Snell and McD can only play SF and were drafted in consecutive years. Portis is a stretch 4 who can't guard 5s--exactly like Mirotic (not to mention Taj, though he's older).

Also LOTS of busts have been high character, ball-is-life guys, and lots of questionable characters guys have been great picks, and many have developed in less-than-ideal conditions. Half the all-star caliber big men in the league dropped for character concerns: Cousins, Drummond, DeAndre, Nurkic, Arenas, Whiteside, etc. Guys with big upside and good work ethics have busted too: Evan Turner, J Flynn, Ammo, etc were all college vets and proven leaders.

There is no secret code to mastering the draft. If guys have character issues, they will slide a few picks, sometimes more. But they'll sometimes still dominate in the pros, and vice versa. If you pass on some guys because they duplicate guys you have, you'll pay sometimes and not others. (Test case: LAL not taking Okafor because they already have Randle, who might nor might not be a legit NBA starter).

[JDR720]

drafts since 2011 (when Cho became GM)

2011-Bismack(7th) and Kemba(9th)

other notable picks that were close to the selections

10th-Fredette, end of the bench
11th-Klay, better than Biz and Kemba but we had just drafted Gerald and thought he was the future SG
12th-Burks, solid player but isn't that great, also the same point about just drafting Gerald
13th-Markeiff- solid, but may also be a nutcase
14th-Marcus- decent bench player
15th- Kawhi- obviously the big loss, but i guarantee he wouldn't have developed like he did with SA with us
19th-Harris who we drafted, now it looks bad but no one expects the 19th pick to be much more than a role player
the other notables weren't even in contention for a top 10 pick.

overall solid but unspectacular. got at least a solid 6th man and really good rim protector.

2012-MKG(2nd)
3rd- Beal, solid but just as injury prone (if not more) and isn't as impactful IMO.
4th-Waiters, nutcase
5th-T-Rob, pretty bad (but also has lacked opportunities)
6th-Lillard, we just drafted Kemba
7th-Barnes- solid player, but i think MKG is more impactful
8-Ross- not very good
9th-Drummond, pretty good player but we just picked Biz and wasn't he supposed to have work ethic problems? (or something like that)
10th-Rivers, pretty bad

good draft, MKG and Beal is close enough and Drummond slid all the way to 9th. Lillard didn't make sense

2013-Cody(4th)
5th-Len had injury problems and we still have Biz and Albus
6th-Noel, stick figure with a torn ACL
7th-McLemore, solid i suppose but nothing special
8th-KCP- ^same as above
9th-Burke, didn't make sense (Kemba) and he sucks
10th-CJ, seems to be solid but injury prone
11th-MCW not very good and Kemba

other notables (Giannis and Rudy) weren't in contention for a top 5 pick. overall a solid draft IMO.

2014-Vonleh(9th via Detroit pick) (too early to judge), not our pick so we swing for the fences for the widely projected top 5 pick that slid.
and PJ was a very late first, those rarely work.

2015-Frank
Winslow- probably a better prospect but also redundant with MKG
Celtics trade offer- no idea. wont know about this for a few more seasons probably