thekdog34 wrote:
Well for one thing, he is a PF/C so it isn't necessarily a big deal that he doesn't have great handles.
He has averaged 7+ assists and has shot ok from 3 (33% career). He averaged 14 ppg on decent efficiency last year. He's not Ben Wallace or Dennis Rodman.
Impactwise he has been a positive. Yes orpm is flawed, but his was higher than Millsap last year. Combine that with being the best defender in the league, which is half the game, then I think he has a good case.
I do agree with your statement partially. I don't think he needs any of those things on the stacked Warriors.
But you said he only lacked volume scoring. That is not true at all. His post game isn't great (ala the traditional big), doesn't have the skill-set of a hybrid big (ala KG) nor is he an elite shooter and spacer (ala Dirk Nowitzki). His skill-set has major holes but its weaknesses are hidden with the Warriors.
On another team as a #1, where he would be expected to anchor an offense, his skill set would not cut it as an elite franchise player IMO. I don't think the Bulls would have been nearly as good if Draymond was dealt for Jimmy Butler. Draymond would have to shift his energies more towards offense and creation for himself+ teammates, which would lead to in the long run, a deterioration in the impactful play he is able to produce on the Warriors because of Curry/Klay etc. He is not in the Kevin Garnett category whose impact was profound in every team situation, including as a #1. No longer would 3 Pfs a game in 32 MPG, reflective of a mentality of "not really a big deal if I get into foul trouble because I have Curry/Klay/Durant to hold the fort down" which facilitates his epic defense, cut it. Defenses would start to key in on him, and that's where his skill-set stuff would be exposed.
Now I know to some, Draymond's hypothetical success as a #1 doesn't matter. But it does to many, hence why Jimmy Butler is winning this poll out-right. And I think if you ask most GMs, they'd say the same thing too.