What's your worst case for us in the off-season?

[Phenomenonsense]

The contradiction is saying you don't claim to know better than an NBA GM then go on to say that if the rumors of Weaver's preferences are true, it doesn't give you confidence in the front office. Now, I'm not going to mince words with you but that clearly implies that a lack confidence in Weaver's plan is a result of having more confidence in your own plan, thus you believe you know more than Weaver about how to build a team.

To call that a contradiction is a **** take. There is a clear distinction between "I know better than them" and "I think the decision to pick that player is a mistake and it lowers my confidence in their ability to make good choices." You don't have to be a better GM than someone to think someone is a bad pick, and them doing something that you clearly understand as bad ought to lower your expectations of that decision making core.

Premise one: You have a lack of confidence in weaver's plan.
Conclusion: You believe you know better than Weaver.

You're missing at least one more premise saying "Anyone that lacks confidence in a FO must know better than that FO." Which is your premise, not his.

Premise one: It's a mistake to not draft the player I think the team should draft
Conclusion: I know better

Pretty simple.

It's only "I know better" if you believe the front office is infallible. If it is possible for people who know better than me to still make mistakes then saying they're making a mistake doesn't equate with the idea that I know better.

[Manocad]

To call that a contradiction is a **** take. There is a clear distinction between "I know better than them" and "I think the decision to pick that player is a mistake and it lowers my confidence in their ability to make good choices." You don't have to be a better GM than someone to think someone is a bad pick, and them doing something that you clearly understand as bad ought to lower your expectations of that decision making core.

Premise one: You have a lack of confidence in weaver's plan.
Conclusion: You believe you know better than Weaver.

You're missing at least one more premise saying "Anyone that lacks confidence in a FO must know better than that FO." Which is your premise, not his.

Premise one: It's a mistake to not draft the player I think the team should draft
Conclusion: I know better

Pretty simple.

It's only "I know better" if you believe the front office is infallible. If it is possible for people who know better than me to still make mistakes then saying they're making a mistake doesn't equate with the idea that I know better.

Your first sentence makes no sense. If you believe the front office is infallible, i.e. perfect, then you wouldn't assume you know better. Pointing out a mistake after it's been made is not the context here; it's determining that a potential move is a mistake before it's even made and thus can't be properly judged. If you or others want to give yourselves that kind of cachet have at it; you're just not going to get it from me.

[Kalamazoo317]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....

if draft picks were up to majority vote from this forum, we would’ve had for more hits in the past decade than what the Pistons front office had.

Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

[chrbal]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....

if draft picks were up to majority vote from this forum, we would’ve had for more hits in the past decade than what the Pistons front office had.

Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

We were pretty high on Devin Booker and Donavin Mitchell, that I can think of off the top of my head.

[A_dub06]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....

if draft picks were up to majority vote from this forum, we would’ve had for more hits in the past decade than what the Pistons front office had.

Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

As Chrbl already said, I remember both Booker and Mitchell being high on the list among a couple others. Drummond, Johnson and even Hayes were all supported by this board though so it’s not like we get it right either.

[Invictus88]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....

if draft picks were up to majority vote from this forum, we would’ve had for more hits in the past decade than what the Pistons front office had.

Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

As Chrbl already said, I remember both Booker and Mitchell being high on the list among a couple others. Drummond, Johnson and even Hayes were all supported by this board though so it’s not like we get it right either.

I hate on Andre Drummond in terms of his own personal development / choices on the court as much as anyone. But from a draft standpoint I don't think anyone saw him falling to Detroit at pick 9. I think he was universally seen as being much more athletically gifted than we should have been able to get at that slot. I also think that Dumars received entirely too much credit for drafting him when the choice was completely obvious.

Implying that the board got it wrong on Drummond implies that there was a fairly reasonable 'correct' choice/hit that we overlooked. If that wasn't Drummond at 9 then who was it that we should have taken instead?

[Kalamazoo317]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....

if draft picks were up to majority vote from this forum, we would’ve had for more hits in the past decade than what the Pistons front office had.

Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

We were pretty high on Devin Booker and Donavin Mitchell, that I can think of off the top of my head.

Eh, "high on the list" of several posters isn't quite the same as "the board voted to pick this person." I bet if you'd polled the Pistons scouts either of those years you could've found several scouts who had either player high on their list.

[mattao313]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....

if draft picks were up to majority vote from this forum, we would’ve had for more hits in the past decade than what the Pistons front office had.

Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

As Chrbl already said, I remember both Booker and Mitchell being high on the list among a couple others. Drummond, Johnson and even Hayes were all supported by this board though so it’s not like we get it right either.

I feel like the majority wanted Stanley that draft but I will say the majority wanted Donovan Mitchell in that one.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

[ducler]

IMO worst case should be to go all-in this summer and be back to the middle of the pack: 6-to-10 seed in the east collecting play-in and first round eliminations. I'd prefer to let the team grow another year and then start to make winning moves in summer 2023.

[The Moose]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....



Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

We were pretty high on Devin Booker and Donavin Mitchell, that I can think of off the top of my head.

Eh, "high on the list" of several posters isn't quite the same as "the board voted to pick this person." I bet if you'd polled the Pistons scouts either of those years you could've found several scouts who had either player high on their list.

the board did vote for Mitchell - viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1570190

the board did vote for Stanley Johnson too, but Booker had plenty of fans- viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1390043

2013- viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1256614

2011- viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1121688

always fun to look back at these threads

[The Moose]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....



Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

We were pretty high on Devin Booker and Donavin Mitchell, that I can think of off the top of my head.

Eh, "high on the list" of several posters isn't quite the same as "the board voted to pick this person." I bet if you'd polled the Pistons scouts either of those years you could've found several scouts who had either player high on their list.

the board did vote for Mitchell - viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1570190

the board did vote for Stanley Johnson too, but there was plenty of Booker fans. I remember personally really wanting Winslow- viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1390043

2013- viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1256614

2011- viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1121688

always fun to look back at these threads

[BDM22]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....



Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

As Chrbl already said, I remember both Booker and Mitchell being high on the list among a couple others. Drummond, Johnson and even Hayes were all supported by this board though so it’s not like we get it right either.

I hate on Andre Drummond in terms of his own personal development / choices on the court as much as anyone. But from a draft standpoint I don't think anyone saw him falling to Detroit at pick 9. I think he was universally seen as being much more athletically gifted than we should have been able to get at that slot. I also think that Dumars received entirely too much credit for drafting him when the choice was completely obvious.

Implying that the board got it wrong on Drummond implies that there was a fairly reasonable 'correct' choice/hit that we overlooked. If that wasn't Drummond at 9 then who was it that we should have taken instead?

Yeah, calling Drummond a bad pick is some strange revisionist history. If you get a guy who makes 2 all star games at 9 you’re pretty happy. Hard to see 9 obviously better players in that draft.

Now, to prop him up as the franchise player and hand him a giant contract? That’s a different story.

[JerseyJungle]

The board I was partial to at the time hated the Hayes pick.
And I for 1 hate it even more now than then.

Snags
Nov '20
Why do I feel like any Detroit draft is gonna be a bomb and suck?
Jersey Jungle
Quinnitis. Try to be the smartest guy in the room. I think we’ll regret not taking Haliburton. Hope Im wrong
Snags
No, I think you might be right.

[Manocad]

Fishing through the back and forth ranting here, there's an interesting topic for general digestion ....

if draft picks were up to majority vote from this forum, we would’ve had for more hits in the past decade than what the Pistons front office had.

Is this true? Is there a history of threads with votes for who we should've taken? Would be a pretty cool thought exercise to look at who the board voted we should take versus who was taken over the years.

The ones that stick out to me in recent years were Halliburton over Hayes (plenty of people were on board for Halliburton), Booker or Winslow over Stanley Johnson (Johnson was not a popular pick by any means as I recall), Donovan Mitchell over Luke Kennard, and a whole host of names over Rodney Stuckey, including Marco Bellinelli and Tiago Splitter (another pick I don't recall many people supporting). But obviously only Hayes falls under Weaver's watch and regardless that's still just a handful of picks going back 15 years. Certainly there are people who will play the hindsight game and say "I wanted [insert name of player who went on to be better than the Pistons' pick here]" but that's to be expected.

I personally had no clue who Hayes was and hadn't watched a lot of Halliburton so I wasn't emotional about that one. But I definitely had strong feelings about Kennard, Stuckey (another "who the hell is this guy?" pick) and KCP (I wanted Michael Carter-Williams).

[A_dub06]

As Chrbl already said, I remember both Booker and Mitchell being high on the list among a couple others. Drummond, Johnson and even Hayes were all supported by this board though so it’s not like we get it right either.

I hate on Andre Drummond in terms of his own personal development / choices on the court as much as anyone. But from a draft standpoint I don't think anyone saw him falling to Detroit at pick 9. I think he was universally seen as being much more athletically gifted than we should have been able to get at that slot. I also think that Dumars received entirely too much credit for drafting him when the choice was completely obvious.

Implying that the board got it wrong on Drummond implies that there was a fairly reasonable 'correct' choice/hit that we overlooked. If that wasn't Drummond at 9 then who was it that we should have taken instead?

Yeah, calling Drummond a bad pick is some strange revisionist history. If you get a guy who makes 2 all star games at 9 you’re pretty happy. Hard to see 9 obviously better players in that draft.

Now, to prop him up as the franchise player and hand him a giant contract? That’s a different story.

I almost cried when we drafted Drummond I was so happy, everyone was calling that pick a massive steal. I wanted him on our team badly.

I didn’t say another pick would’ve been reasonable given the circumstances, was just highlighting that the Drummond pick didn’t work out. Any person drafting for the pistons with that pick takes Drummond 10/10 times.

[JerseyJungle]

the board did vote for Stanley Johnson too, but there was plenty of Booker fans. I remember personally really wanting Winslow- viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1390043


Wow - did Stanley Johnson really have 43 votes to Devin Booker's 5????? Those five people are really vocal now, aren't they?

[Manocad]

always fun to look back at these threads

Or as I like to say, "This is why you don't speak about the future in absolutes."

"Johnson is definitely the right pick."
"We need shooters. Kennard is the pick here."

[Kalamazoo317]

I wasn't on this forum at the time, but was on another one, and I remember Winslow being popular during the Stanley Johnson draft, but not Booker.

I also remember Brandon Knight being touted as a steal and a great pick for us.

[Manocad]

I wasn't on this forum at the time, but was on another one, and I remember Winslow being popular during the Stanley Johnson draft, but not Booker.

I also remember Brandon Knight being touted as a steal and a great pick for us.

Yeah, the OP in that thread even posted that he didn't include Winslow in the choices because he expected him to be gone before the Pistons picked. I wanted Booker so maybe that's why I remembered him as being more popular than the poll indicated.

[flow]

These guys have chimed in on worst-case (and best-case) draft scenarios-

https://www.detroitbadboys.com/2022/6/20/23175176/dbb-on-3-best-and-worst-nba-draft-scenarios-for-the-pistons-detroit

.