Ranma wrote:JGOJustin wrote:Well for starters, I read your entire thing. Every bit. And your criticism of Doc especially the callous nature by which he (And the FO. He doesn't come to these decisions alone) comes to our draft picks have been downright infuriating. Nothing you said was wrong. Nothing. Reggie Bullock ended up being traded for a player who was basically out of the league in Austin. That's how badly valued Reggie was and that reflects on Doc. CJ Wilcox isn't even in the NBA and I was never a fan of his for the next level. Dawsen reeked of of lazy talent evaluation just like Reggie Bullock. Buy into the 2nd round just Pick the old guy who played in the prestigious program like Reggie did.
These are flat out bad picks, and suggest that we need(ed) an overhaul with our player evaluation and player development. Which is currently happening.
But it isn't the first time i've heard this criticism of Doc. And I personally believe these criticisms again are ancillary. What rookie drafted that late was going to make a difference? What Rookie drafted that late was actually going to be in the rotation? What team right now who is playing for championships (Other than SAS, they are an anomaly) has their 2nd round picks getting rotation minutes? The odds of finding a decent, not even all star level player in the 2nd round hovers around 7%
https://the-cauldron.com/the-2nd-round-and-misuse-of-probability-402639df1038
Any 2nd round pick you see that's thriving in the league right now should be looked at as a rarity IMO, and we as fans shouldn't expect much out of a 2nd round pick trying to contribute on a vet heavy team. Allen Crabbe is a friend of mine so I was campaigning for LAC to take him instead of Bullock, but at the time, to sit there and say that Allen was going to be the wing we so desperately needed is hindsight bias. Bullock didn't work out, but most of those picks don't. I am NOT being totally dismissive of 2nd round picks, but as a fan i'm not that obnoxious of an internet scout with limited resources to burn doc at the stake for not getting Jordan Clarkson or Patrick McCaw. You don't know how Reggie Bullock playing on team CP3 impacted draft decision making. It shouldn't but relationships matter, relationships that you can't gauge being an armchair gm.
It wouldn't have mattered who we took in those positions in the draft because they probably wouldn't have played and that's par for the course of perennial winners chasing a championship. GSW doesn't play young guys, Cle doesn't play young guys, Houston did to a degree with Capella and Montrez, Utah didn't, and that's the point. Young guys don't play. It's the bullet you bite when you're trying to win big which is why building around the Cap is tough when you have 3 max guy. One of which is your star player who you're trying to (at the time) resign with you when his deal is up, so playing projects rotation minutes is out of the question, and seeking out vets to sign and trade for is more appropriate.
So when I look at the pitfalls of Doc, it's having way too much faith in Jamal Crawford, not staggering Doc and Chris nearly enough, not featuring Blake enough instead opting for more PnR's with CP, etc. but I'm not faulting him for not hitting on 2nd round picks who wouldn't have played anyway. For me, any criticism of Doc as a gm is exacerbated because Blake and Chris aren't performing at the elite levels that we needed them to be. If they were, missing on these draft picks doesn't hurt as much. His coaching errors don't hurt as much. It's a players league.
I've been away from the forum and am now catching up. In fact, I'm still behind with this thread, but I wanted to respond to your post before finishing going through all the posts on here. I appreciate your reply and for providing that chart on second-round picks and the accompanying article. I'm not going to have time to read the article right now but I get the gist based on the chart and your argument. I even agree with it.
However, my contention with Doc's draft failures primarily focuses on his mishandling of first-round draft picks. While second-round draft picks are considered even more so to be crapshoots and throwaway picks, there are years of exception and there's a recent trend of early second-round selections being more sought after than late first-round selections given the comparative talent available at those slots and the non-guaranteed salary commitments of second-round picks.
Still, the 2017 draft afforded Doc opportunities to select first-round talent in either Patrick McCaw or Malcolm Brogdon instead of trading down for Diamond Stone and David Michineau, which illustrates such an example of the exception to the rule.
I'm going to try to address your points generally since I've addressed most of them previously and I suspect, based on the length of this thread, the topic has been covered more thoroughly by other posters.
You asked what players available late in the first round in both the 2013 and 2014 drafts could have helped the Clippers, so I cited Crabbe, Jokic, Robinson III, Daniels, Jokic, Grant, and Clarkson and I didn't even mention Andre Roberson or Rudy Gobert in 2013. I already acknowledged how unreasonable it was to expect Doc to hit on every pick, but there were certainly plenty of opportunities for him to draft players who have since proven to be contributing NBA players. I cited Crabbe, specifically, because he was considered the consensus BPA available when his turn to pick came up, which meant that he went out of his way to select a player generally considered to be less valuable.
You touched upon Doc not playing young players and claiming good teams don't play young players. Well, Golden State played former second-rounder Draymond Green on its way to building a championship dynasty and still found time for McCaw, whom the Clippers passed on. Likewise, the Thunder found regular playing time for Roberson. You already mentioned the Rockets and the Spurs are also known for doing this.
This only further points to Doc's failure as a coach, which clouded his GM perspective and, in turn, undermined his abilities as a coach. Doc made a point not to play young players outside of his son. The expectation that Doc wouldn't play or devote much effort into developing young players shows how wasteful and limited he was in his approach, especially when other winning clubs found ways to incorporate young players into winning situations.
There have been discussions about how organizations have to employ all avenues at their disposal in order to build winning teams whether it's through the draft, free agency, scouting the G-Leagues, etc. The same applies to coaching. One of the reasons I've found Doc and Phil Jackson to be overrated is because they don't develop talent and seem only able to coach elite players to success. Vinny Del Negro is not an elite coach and yet he got just about the same result with essentially the same roster as Doc and that was without playing DJ regularly. This is why I respect someone like Larry Brown and Gregg Popovich. Both have not only proven capable of coaching good players but also made a point to continue to develop and teach pro players. Brown, of course,
was also not the best judge of talent but he at least one-upped Doc in fitting in such misfits into his schemes.
Part of the Spurs' success over the years has been the dynamic of Popovich knowing well enough to defer to R.C. Buford for most matters with regards to personnel evaluation and acquisition even though Pop retained final say in decision-making. It chaps my hide that Buford--like Neil Olshey, Jeff Weltman, and John Hammond--was with the Clippers before finding success elsewhere as talent evaluators.
Doc didn't start deferring to more dedicated and reliable staff or even devoting resources into scouting and development until Lawrence Frank's ascension after he proved thoroughly incapable in the role of GM. A big part of the reason why the Clippers are still playing catch up in our organizational infrastructure is because Doc was so lax in his commitment to team building outside of going after the flashy names (over substance) and relying on his own limited views on players as a guide to evaluating talent. His track record of wasteful spending of draft picks, signings, and trades are self evident.
There's an expectation that even if Doc had drafted players like McCaw, Crabbe or Roberson, they likely would not have developed, anway. That is exactly the problem. His shortcomings as coach in playing inefficient players like Jamal Crawford or having his star players hurt doesn't excuse his failures in not utilizing every resource at his disposal whether it is developing young players, signing vet free agents, or putting his star players in the best position to succeed. These are more than ancillary concerns as they limit our opportunities for success.
p.s. By the way, finding good chemistry and scheme fits and evaluating players' character and mentality along with talent were among the reasons why I previously advocated for the Clippers to pursue Travis Schlenk before he got the GM job in Atlanta. This is in reference to your point about relationships mattering with regards to drafting.
You know what?
I'll agree with you. I'll give. Because at the end of the day, when you have 3 guys like Blake CP and DJ that put you up against the Cap, finding talent on the margins should be of most premium concern and no matter the odds of those players being good in the late 1st and 2nd round, grabbing CJ wilcox and Branden Dawson shows a gross, cavalier approach to building on the margins and that isn't ancillary. If you're trying to find talent on the margins, every avenue matters, and if you're drafting guys like Dawson, Wilcox, Stone, and Brice all of whom didn't or probably won't ever play for your team, then that does indeed show callousness towards an extremely vital part to team building, the draft. Certainly, if your president is taking this approach to the draft, (Which may be the most important way to find cost efficient talent on the margins) then he probably shouldn't be president.
Now do I think McCaw, Roberson, or Crabbe are needle movers? Not in the least bit. I don't think any of those guys stops us from being where we are today. I still contend that this isn't even a conversation if Blake and CP both are playing 75+ games a season and playing at all NBA levels. But, nevertheless, failing that badly at finding on the margin talent, when finding cost efficient talent on the margins is so vital, doesn't help matters at all and as I said, you just can't have that cavalier of an approach to the draft when every avenue for exploration including the draft matters so much to teams like LAC who are against the Cap.
Credit to Ballmer and LAC though, it was a misstep and in 3.5 years they've made steps to try and correct it by fielding a real minor league team, bringing in a new GM (and this is for sure going to happen. Sooner than people know) and continuing to take steps to becoming an elite level franchise on and off the floor.
at the end of the day though, doc could have hit on every first and second round pick, done everything right, but none of it would have mattered at all if Blake and CP weren't on the floor together for 75 to 82 games a year and that's why I initially said it was ancillary and to a degree I still feel that way because this is a star driven league, you win and lose w/ your best players. And this is partly why It's kind of moot for me to jump down Doc's throat because whoever the GM was, whoever the coach was, wasn't taking this team farther when their best players continue to miss 20 games a year but I get it. When your best players are hurt, (Something you can't control) your missteps as a GM are exacerbated (Things you can control) and are rightfully condemned.
