2016 NBA Draft

[mkwest]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/KellyHinesTW/status/732750526585044992[/tweet]
Draft Express
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l64eICtWa3A[/youtube]

[Ranma]

Coincidentally, the pick used for Carter was one of the 1st rounds picks traded by the Warriors to Orlando for Chris Webber.

Nice catch. I didn't even realize that, but yep, it was the 1998 first-rounder initially traded to Orlando that was subsequently returned via Washington in the 2nd Webber trade.

[Quake Griffin]

I get how NFL teams move up in drafts.

Is there any way for NBA teams to move up in drafts?

Theoretically, Boston having 3 picks in the first round including 3rd overall along with 5 second-round picks including 2 of the first 5 picks of that round would have the firepower to trade up to 1st overall. While there is a clear-cut separation after the top 2 picks, it's not like either Ingram or Simmons is a generational talent.

A generationally talented 1st overall pick like LeBron James, Tim Duncan, or Shaquille O' Neal are practically untouchable given the likelihood of them being superstars under team control on a rookie-scale contract. At the same time, you can't typically get a true superstar like, say Blake Griffin or Kevin Durant, in trade for a 1st overall pick like Kyrie Irving, Karl-Anthony Towns, Anthony Bennett, or Andrew Wiggins during their respective draft years.

It depends on the talent available and the projected value assessment. The Spurs traded George Hill for a package that included 2011 15th overall pick Kawhi Leonard, a second-rounder, and a former second-round player. The trade was obviously a coup for San Antonio but the consensus opinion at the time was that Indiana made out as the winners of that transaction. Even Spurs GM R.C. Buford was "scared s-less" that they over-reached. However, San Antonio's pre-draft intelligence pegged Leonard as an ideal fit for its system while he was generally considered to be a role player by the draft community, NBA talent evaluators included.

With there being only 2 rounds in the draft and teams typically not armed with multiple first-rounders in their coffers, it would normally be harder to trade up in the draft unless you include an established NBA player.

Personally, I think Brandon Ingram is the only prospect worthy of the 1st overall pick in this draft class but he's hardly a generational talent, comparisons to Kevin Durant notwithstanding. If I were the Lakers or even Sixers, I would consider trading down with Boston for multiple picks.

Soooooo......


could the Clippers move up? That 33 has to be worth something.
How far?

Or we're not allowed to deal our 1st even within this draft to obtain a higher first?

[TucsonClip]

We arent moving up far with that package, nor should we even try. There isnt a lot of difference between 16 and 25.

[Ranma]

Soooooo......


could the Clippers move up? That 33 has to be worth something.
How far?

Or we're not allowed to deal our 1st even within this draft to obtain a higher first?

I would normally think so, however, given that recent drafts have proven difficult for teams to move up, I don't think we can position ourselves to get your boy Luwawu. I don't know enough to be excited about him. Personally, I'm currently leaning in favor of Bembry being our top target at 25th overall even over Taurean Prince, which is odd since he has less length and has similar build to both Bullock and Wilcox as an undersized SF. To be fair, Wilcox is more of an SG, but DeAndre Bembry's all-around game seems to make him a solid prospect as a complementary role player who could maybe excel as a 3-and-D type player. His shot needs work, but it sounds like a solvable shortcoming through practice and tutelage; I've read that he has decent form and it's a matter of confidence with him. I'm even growing more intrigued with Blossomgame with the 33rd overall pick despite discounting that idea earlier.

Going back to whether we can trade up the draft board, I think teams are more reluctant to give up their higher draft position at the risk of losing out on a player they like and are targeting after doing the workouts and scouting legwork, especially when the field seems to be wide open in the 15-40 range. There are certainly teams trying to get into the draft and teams like the Celtics and Sixers post-Hinkie could use more quality over quantity at this point.

Oh, to answer your 3rd question: yes, we're allowed to deal our first-round pick in this draft as long as we get another first-rounder back be it higher or lower on the draft board.

As I mentioned earlier, recent drafts have proven difficult to move up or even get into the draft. Doc tried to buy a draft pick last year and it became apparent early on that he wouldn't be able to buy a first-rounder, which would explain his downplaying the idea of buying a first-round pick citing the cap hold. As it turned out, he was barely able to buy a second-round selection by getting the 56th overall pick in a 60-pick draft in order to select Dawson.

During that same draft, a team--I think the Boston Celtics--was trying like crazy to make a deal with Milwaukee for the 9th overall pick to jump ahead of Miami in order to select Justise Winslow. The Bucks apparently didn't want to fall too far to 16th overall and miss out on Frank Kaminsky, which is why the deal didn't get done.

While I posited a theoretical that it should be easier to move up the draft board with multiple picks and established NBA players, recent draft attempts have indicated otherwise. Basically, teams are reluctant to give up picks without knowing who will be available and, even then, the drop off would probably be too far for them to risk missing out on a player they are targeting. I would think the 25th and 33rd overall would get us maybe 18th overall if we're using an NFL-like value chart, but the NBA Draft works differently. We don't have any assets that would compel teams to readily give up a draft pick for other than J.J. Redick and that's a non-starter, obviously.

Outside of Doc Rivers, teams realize how important draft picks are so giving up prime position for a chance at a difference-maker who fits their system is not something many GM's feel comfortable with doing, especially given that there are only 12 active spots on the roster. Quality over quantity seems to be the priority with regards to the NBA Draft.

[QRich3]

We arent moving up far with that package, nor should we even try. There isnt a lot of difference between 16 and 25.

I do not agree with that. We're not moving up too far with those picks, that's true (20/21 at most is my guess), but I just don't like seeing the draft as this abstract thing where you just can get someone with X amount of talent and he'll be as good for you as that fixed amount.

If we can get a guy that fits well and can realistically develop into a useful piece (you know I'm thinking of Taurean Prince), we have to do whatever we can to get him. Instead of getting this unidentified talented guy with no regard for fit, that in the end will not realistically get into the rotation and be out of the league after his rookie deal. The history is too extensive for guys really talented that never found their fit in the league. And the opposite can be said for the many talent limited guys that found their niche in the league and made a living out of one or two skills.

Example: Kawhi was not a greatly talented guy, the Spurs just got him cause they had a really defined role for him, and were able to develop him to the fullest into what he is today. On the other side of the spectrum, a guy like Ben McLemore for instance, has a lot of talent but was never given a defined role, and he's about to probably get his rookie option declined.

TL;DR- it doesn't matter how much difference in talent there is between 16 and 25, if we identify a guy that works well for us, we need to target him regardless.

[TucsonClip]

We arent moving up far with that package, nor should we even try. There isnt a lot of difference between 16 and 25.

I do not agree with that. We're not moving up too far with those picks, that's true (20/21 at most is my guess), but I just don't like seeing the draft as this abstract thing where you just can get someone with X amount of talent and he'll be as good for you as that fixed amount.

If we can get a guy that fits well and can realistically develop into a useful piece (you know I'm thinking of Taurean Prince), we have to do whatever we can to get him. Instead of getting this unidentified talented guy with no regard for fit, that in the end will not realistically get into the rotation and be out of the league after his rookie deal. The history is too extensive for guys really talented that never found their fit in the league. And the opposite can be said for the many talent limited guys that found their niche in the league and made a living out of one or two skills.

Example: Kawhi was not a greatly talented guy, the Spurs just got him cause they had a really defined role for him, and were able to develop him to the fullest into what he is today. On the other side of the spectrum, a guy like Ben McLemore for instance, has a lot of talent but was never given a defined role, and he's about to probably get his rookie option declined.

TL;DR- it doesn't matter how much difference in talent there is between 16 and 25, if we identify a guy that works well for us, we need to target him regardless.

Thats not even where I am coming from. I dont see anyone from 20 on down who fits well enough and has enough potential to warrant giving up one of our limited assets this summer. Maybe we do trade up for Prince and maybe he works out. However, teams typically dont trade up at the end of the first round to the early 20's to pick up a player they are targeting unless its a guy in a free fall.

The way I am looking at it, I dont see Wilcox, Dawson, #25 and #33 all being on the roster next season. Wilcox will likely be buried on the bench again unless Austin leaves in FA. Dawson doesnt have much of a role and one of our picks this year could legitimately fill a hole in the rotation depending on who falls.

I see a trade on the horizon, I just dont know who or what it is yet.

[Ranma]

I actually favor the strategy of going after a prospect identified as a great fit for the team as it is proactive and indicates elevated faith in such a target. The question is can we rely on the braintrust to make the right call. I'm not exactly a believer. It's one thing to go hard after a "sure thing", but it's another to waste a valuable asset in a deep draft class.

Having said that, sitting back and waiting for the right player to fall to you is rather risky as I explained in my previous post. From what I'm hearing, it's hard to get a handle on what the consensus draft board is as NBA teams are perpetuating false information in order to not be sniped by other teams or have it held against them by player agents. Besides, teams will generally have disparate draft boards that will differ from each other, but given the unpredictability, there is a good likelihood that a few other teams may covet the same prospect(s) that we may be targeting.

Given our draft position, it is risky to stay in place and wait for the right player to come to us. We may still get a good prospect given the depth, but the premium of getting the right player could be worth it given the limited availability of playing time and roster spots on a contending team.

[nickhx2]

moving up to get the guy you want is fine.

moving up to get the guy you want when you on the precipice of zero flexibility and/or assets is not fine.

[TucsonClip]

I actually favor the strategy of going after a prospect identified as a great fit for the team as it is proactive and indicates elevated faith in such a target. The question is can we rely on the braintrust to make the right call. I'm not exactly a believer. It's one thing to go hard after a "sure thing", but it's another to waste a valuable asset in a deep draft class.

Having said that, sitting back and waiting for the right player to fall to you is rather risky as I explained in my previous post. From what I'm hearing, it's hard to get a handle on what the consensus draft board is as NBA teams are perpetuating false information in order to not be sniped by other teams or have it held against them by player agents. Besides, teams will generally have disparate draft boards that will differ from each other, but given the unpredictability, there is a good likelihood that a few other teams may covet the same prospect(s) that we may be targeting.

Given our draft position, it is risky to stay in place and wait for the right player to come to us. We may still get a good prospect given the depth, but the premium of getting the right player could be worth it given the limited availability of playing time and roster spots on a contending team.

Looking at how the board could fall and all the needs we have, I think we can stand pat at 25 and pick the BPA or even the best long-term prospect available. We need a backup PG and I could see Baldwin, Jackson and Ullis all being a solid fit. We could move up to get whichever one falls (if one does). We could also stand pat and take someone like Bembry, Diallo, Murray, Zimmerman, RIchardson.

Im not sold on the front office identifying a player that Doc will use. This makes the draft quite interesting this season, because we've seen how guys we drafted to fill a role (Bullock, Wilcox) have turned out and how little they've played under Doc. Some of that has to do with roster construction.

However, I am looking at this draft and seeing the possibility to land a guy Doc can use in the rotation, either at PG, SF or C in addition to drafting a high upside prospect with the other pick.

Im not saying trading up is wrong or staying pat is right, but I think unless we identify someone who Doc WILL put in the rotation and the front office agrees is the BPA, im not sure moving one of our limited assets makes the most sense.

[mkwest]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/DanWoikeSports/status/733031117012406272[/tweet]

Clippers host pre-draft workouts

None of the six players who had a pre-draft workout for the Clippers on Wednesday have any idea if they’ll be drafted in the first round, second round or at all.

Most likely they are being considered as second-round picks by the Clippers and other teams, but they still wanted to show their talents during the workout in Playa Vista.

Damion Lee said he got a call at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday about working out for the Clippers on Wednesday. He couldn’t refuse.

Besides, he was training in Oakland, knowing it was a short flight to Los Angeles.

“Got on a flight, got here,” said Lee, a 6-6 forward from Louisville. “And here we are.”

Broderick Turner, LA Times

[tweet]https://twitter.com/LawMurrayTheNU/status/732988327503126528[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LawMurrayTheNU/status/732990202289889280[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LawMurrayTheNU/status/733000665807478784[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LawMurrayTheNU/status/733002116726292480[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733002175815815170[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733002235597193216[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733002766398980096[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LawMurrayTheNU/status/733003515354710016[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733003353127563264[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733003878522834944[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733004991212998656[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733005342905401344[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LawMurrayTheNU/status/733005022913421312[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LawMurrayTheNU/status/733006688630898688[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733006493918842881[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733006814493675520[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733007898155077634[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733008563707203585[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/mgmontem/status/733008732280475648[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LawMurrayTheNU/status/733007973585281024[/tweet]
Damion Lee - Draft Express
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wvj2hcnuPBs[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1ppv61UFuo[/youtube]

[mkwest]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MEXT11HA2U[/youtube]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/LAClippers/status/733112610011238400[/tweet]

Longer interviews are on Clippers.com.

[QRich3]

Looking at how the board could fall and all the needs we have, I think we can stand pat at 25 and pick the BPA or even the best long-term prospect available. We need a backup PG and I could see Baldwin, Jackson and Ullis all being a solid fit. We could move up to get whichever one falls (if one does). We could also stand pat and take someone like Bembry, Diallo, Murray, Zimmerman, RIchardson.

Im not sold on the front office identifying a player that Doc will use. This makes the draft quite interesting this season, because we've seen how guys we drafted to fill a role (Bullock, Wilcox) have turned out and how little they've played under Doc. Some of that has to do with roster construction.

However, I am looking at this draft and seeing the possibility to land a guy Doc can use in the rotation, either at PG, SF or C in addition to drafting a high upside prospect with the other pick.

Im not saying trading up is wrong or staying pat is right, but I think unless we identify someone who Doc WILL put in the rotation and the front office agrees is the BPA, im not sure moving one of our limited assets makes the most sense.

Whatever increases the odds of one of the two picks panning out into a rotation player should make the most sense. Whether that is combining both picks to trade for a higher one, or using both picks and giving playtime to both guys, could be arguable. Not only because we know how Doc operates, but also because it's the usual strategy for high end teams with no room in the rotation for inexperienced rookies with limited talent, I'd say trading up for a more reliable guy makes more sense.

I'd rather get a guy like Prince, Baldwin or Valentine who have a higher floor and a defined NBA skillset, than taking a chance at a more uncertain guy in Bembry or Diallo, and have an extra pick to take a long-shot-chance at a guy like Murray or Richardson, who I don't see getting into a rotation as anything else than low efficiency 6th men if everything goes exactly right for them.

I'd also like to say (and this is not directed at you Tucson, but more of a loud reflexion) that BPA is a very abstract concept that I'm not sure means anything of value. Every team has a different idea of who's BPA depending on their own situation, and the consensus is often way off. Bullock was supposed to be BPA when they took him. So was Evan Turner over Paul George, Derrick Williams over Kawhi, or Oladipo over Giannis, Mayo and Beasley over Westbrook, etc. to name a few of the supposedly clear cases. Kawhi wouldn't be Kawhi if the Pacers kept him. Westbrook wouldn't be Westbrook if the Grizzlies got him as a back up to Conley. Like I said in my previous post, BPA is heavily influenced by what kind of role and development you can offer to the kid.

[TucsonClip]

The way I look at BPA is you always draft the player with the most transferable skills and the most talent. Obviously, it is up to the development staff and the head coach to put that player in a position to succeed. It remains to be seen if our organization under Doc is capable of doing either of those.

You could point to Austin's development, but I think Austin developed by actually playing large lumps of minutes. You cant develop from sitting on the bench for 2-3 years. At some point you need real, live, game action. This is why I have been harping over creating a D-League franchise. While the talent level in the league is low, at least if you have your own development staff in place you can isolate things for a young player to work on.

How often did that happen with Bullock, Wilcox or Dawson?

[Ranma]

I'd also like to say (and this is not directed at you Tucson, but more of a loud reflexion) that BPA is a very abstract concept that I'm not sure means anything of value. Every team has a different idea of who's BPA depending on their own situation, and the consensus is often way off. Bullock was supposed to be BPA when they took him. So was Evan Turner over Paul George, Derrick Williams over Kawhi, or Oladipo over Giannis, Mayo and Beasley over Westbrook, etc. to name a few of the supposedly clear cases. Kawhi wouldn't be Kawhi if the Pacers kept him. Westbrook wouldn't be Westbrook if the Grizzlies got him as a back up to Conley. Like I said in my previous post, BPA is heavily influenced by what kind of role and development you can offer to the kid.

Best Player Available, to me, typically means the general consensus opinion on a player with a higher ceiling and the likelihood of reaching that ceiling with more of an emphasis on potential. Obviously, certain teams will rank prospects differently on their own draft board, but from a general standpoint, BPA refers to the widely recognized rankings of the draft board. BPA and a team's BPA are a different matter, but teams have bypassed "BPA" at times in favor of a safer proposition as a better fit for the system (see Lorenzen Wright over Kobe Bryant courtesy of Bill Fitch).

I certainly agree with you about development and available opportunity being a factor in a prospect's eventual success, but Doc has been guilty of dismissing this more than anyone...but I digress. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I wanted to take issue with Reggie Bullock being considered BPA at the time he was drafted during the 2013 draft. I certainly didn't see him as such.

In hindsight, Rudy Gobert proved to be the best player available as he was taken 2 picks after Bullock, but he was not given that distinction back then with the consensus opinion given questions about him utilizing his tools and adjusting to the NBA at the time. If I recall correctly, Bullock was in the mix with other names like Allen Crabbe, Jamaal Franklin, and Glen Rice, Jr. While there may not have been a clear-cut BPA among the analysts, Bullock had less support for BPA consideration than Crabbe at the time.

I guess you can make the case for Doc saying he was BPA, but it wouldn't be convincing to me. It was seen as a pick to fill a need on the wing with a shooter who could potentially play defense coming from a respectable UNC program and being an older prospect. There were concerns about Bullock's size and quickness for the SF position while his lack of ball-handling and shot-creation didn't make him appealing at SG either. Bullock was taken with the idea of sacrificing upside for the sake of system fit in a limited role and being likelier to contribute immediately. The fact that Doc was unable to fit him into his own system or even devote the proper resources to developing him (and Wilcox) is obviously what I've taken issues with as it seems like he employed the plug-and-play approach to drafting prospects.

[QRich3]

DraftExpress still has their latest version of their 2013 mock draft up: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft.php/2013/

They had Bullock picked at 19, while Crabbe, Gobert and Franklin were in the mid-20's. I distinctly remember Bullock being considered the safest 3&D option outside of the lottery, not according to Doc, but according to most of the mock drafts and scouts online. I remember a few guys here wanting Bullock or Hardaway (who was gone before our pick), and some wanting Crabbe, but Crabbe refused to work out for us, so there's that.

We've been through this a million times, but Bullock's had the same lack of opportunities under Hornacek and Stan Van Gundy than he did under Doc (so did Crabbe until this year's teardown in Portland btw). Sometimes you pick the most likely guy to succeed and he doesn't. There's enough reasons to complain about Doc into context without needing to nitpick one small point in my post to turn yet another discussion into a hate thread that feeds your little obsession.

Anyway, I hope everyone puts their money where they mouth is, and say clearly who they want to be picked, instead of just using hindsight to keep on babbling about how terrible Doc is.

[Quake Griffin]

Wanted Crabbe and Kyle Anderson.

Said so ahead of both drafts.

my money has been where my mouth is.
Said I want Luwawu too. I've seen him mocked low as 27 and as high as 13, so I'm not giving up there until I see him consistently mocked in the lottery.

[TucsonClip]

I was fine with Bullock. He made sense and looked like he could be a plug-and-play rotational SG for us. Sometimes guys just dont pan out. Not saying Bullock needed more of a chance to prove himself. However, any young player bouncing around D-League franchises with no ties or connections in regards to development with the parent club is essentially worthless, IMO.

[Don Tommy]

Instead of bouncing up, why not bounce down and trade with Boston, our first for their two seconds as well as a pick for next year? I could be wrong, but if it is done after the pick has been made, doesn't the first round draft pick trading rules go away? If there isn't much difference between 16 - 45, why not grab three guys? Make use of the D League, plus we won't have to worry about the cap hit for a 1st rounder that Doc won't play anyways.
Isn't it fun to be able to talk draft again?

[og15]

DraftExpress still has their latest version of their 2013 mock draft up: http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft.php/2013/

They had Bullock picked at 19, while Crabbe, Gobert and Franklin were in the mid-20's. I distinctly remember Bullock being considered the safest 3&D option outside of the lottery, not according to Doc, but according to most of the mock drafts and scouts online. I remember a few guys here wanting Bullock or Hardaway (who was gone before our pick), and some wanting Crabbe, but Crabbe refused to work out for us, so there's that.

We've been through this a million times, but Bullock's had the same lack of opportunities under Hornacek and Stan Van Gundy than he did under Doc (so did Crabbe until this year's teardown in Portland btw). Sometimes you pick the most likely guy to succeed and he doesn't. There's enough reasons to complain about Doc into context without needing to nitpick one small point in my post to turn yet another discussion into a hate thread that feeds your little obsession.

Anyway, I hope everyone puts their money where they mouth is, and say clearly who they want to be picked, instead of just using hindsight to keep on babbling about how terrible Doc is.

Bullock actually carved out a role under Stan to end last season. Don't know how that will progress with the guys they have on their team (Tobias, Morris, Johnson), but he averaged 17.9 mpg for 19 games after the All-Star break, so maybe he's figuring out how to be an NBA rotation player...that would be good for him.

I do disagree about players and developing into the guys they are based on the team they go to. Sure, there's some impact, but the player is the most important impact. The Spurs could have given Kawhi all the right things and if he didn't have the drive he'd be nothing but a nice defensive guy with good physical tools, good player, sure, but not the same. The most telling thing is Kawhi searching out the Spurs shooting coach before the lockout and before teams could no longer contact players, getting tips on his shooting, then coming to training camp with a drastically improved shot after working on it himself. That's a player that's going to be good anywhere they go, he sought improvement. There's a drive, willingness to develop and perseverance that gets players to the level they need to be at. The team they go to can affect the timeline or the path to them showing their full potential, certainly, but in the majority of cases, it is not and should not be the determining factor. We can argue that the Spurs gave him a smoother transition than most teams would be able to, or even got him to where he is now, maybe a season early than some other team could, but he's the kind of player that would be good no matter what.

We can look at a recent and close to home example of Eric Bledsoe. He's now on Phoenix and is a player who is a borderline All-Star if he can stay healthy. We know he started from being a backup to a lot of better guards. If Bledsoe had began his career on a team that gave him all the minutes and the "chance to develop", people would after the fact say "if Bledsoe was stuck on a team like the Clippers behind a PG like Chris Paul, he wouldn't have been able to develop into the player he is today". Michael Redd behind Ray Allen, people would say a similar thing.

Paul George got drafted to a team with Danny Granger as the starting SF, but he showed the skills and continued to develop to forced them to play him however they could. I actually think a guy like Westbrook could have benefitted earlier from being behind a PG like a Conley. He's gotten better now in terms of being a little more controlled, and he might have learned earlier playing with a guy like that in practice and watching him for multiple seasons. Most likely Westbrook would have pushed himself ahead of Conley by year 3 though, they were only one year off draft wise. Hollins before that might have ended up starting them together or making Westbrook the 6th man off the bench, and by the time Conley's or his rookie contract expires, one would either have been traded or they'll have to make the decision on what to do with two players like that.

The general difference is not whether guys become as good, it's usually the timeline of opportunity to show how good they are. Look at Reggie Jackson, again, who knows what people would have said if instead he was on a team that he could play more in his younger years. "It's good he didn't get stuck on a team like OKC behind a guy like Westbrook because he wouldn't have been able to develop like this". Actually for a lot of young guys, being stuck behind those really good players helps them to get even better. If due to that career start they respond with being content as a backup and with no drive to become a starter, then mentally that's not the type of player that would become a star or superstar in any other situation anyways.

The issue of course is that it is not any sort of exact science when it comes to figuring out which players are like that, especially when you have the added factor or money and all the distractions it brings along with it. A guy who might have been an extremely hard worker before coming into the NBA can become fairly complacent after the lifestyle becomes a factor. A player who might not have necessarily been known for their great hard work, just regular worker might be a guy who had extreme drive and also had the talent, then takes full advantage of every means of development available at the NBA level and becomes really good. This is among other factors of course.