RealGM

I started following the NBA and basketball in 2001. So during that year, who was the expected number 1 pick in that year? Was choosing Olowakandi a mistake from the get go or was he projected to be a really good player?

From what I've heard either Kandi or Mike Bibby was to be the top pick in that year and we all know how that turned out.

Paul Pierce was projected to go in the top 3 but fell to the Celts at 10. Thanks Milwaukee!


Here's a Mock draft from CNN/SI.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/featur ... 622/b.html

Well Olowakandi was the bets player there THEN. I persaonlly thought it was a bad pick then since the guy was coming from a small school know as Pacific, where there wasnt in a great divison that didnt have great talent for him to go up against in the first place. If eh came from a school liek Duke or UCLA where he is in a division with tough competition, eh would have been a great big man.

IamaCeltsfan wrote:Paul Pierce was projected to go in the top 3 but fell to the Celts at 10. Thanks Milwaukee!


Here's a Mock draft from CNN/SI.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/featur ... 622/b.html

Lol, Dirk's not even in that mock

PG3 wrote:I started following the NBA and basketball in 2001. So during that year, who was the expected number 1 pick in that year? Was choosing Olowakandi a mistake from the get go or was he projected to be a really good player?

There's a lot of revisionist history going on about this draft, but Kandi clearly had a ton of upside especially compared today to a stiff like Thabeet. It's understandable and hard to judge heart based on workouts and college game tapes, but would the Clippers really have been better off taking a guy like Bibby or Lafrentz? It wasn't like Bibby was the second coming of Magic or even John Stockton and he would have been saddled with the expectation of carrying the franchise with no guarantee he would have flourished like he did in Sactown. He was the safer pick and known commodity coming from a quality program. Lafrentz had arguably a worse career than Kandi. I know the Clips also liked Pierce, the hometown boy, at the time but there were questions about his athleticism, poor health and attitude.

The flip side is are team straight out sucked but at least we had some "talent" in the front court (Lamond, Rodney and Mo-Taylor) but were struggling with two loser Bruins at the point. That alone probably justified taking Bibby but we clearly swung for the fences and missed badly.

SuperNova854 wrote:Well Olowakandi was the bets player there THEN. I persaonlly thought it was a bad pick then since the guy was coming from a small school know as Pacific, where there wasnt in a great divison that didnt have great talent for him to go up against in the first place. If eh came from a school liek Duke or UCLA where he is in a division with tough competition, eh would have been a great big man.

It was a weak draft. But I don't think it's nearly accurate to say that Kandi was the best player then. As you say he came from a small school. He was a big man with some 'upside' and did well in his settings, but he wasn't the best player in the country by a long shot.

It was more bad luck by the Clippers to get the number one pick in a bad draft with no consensus #1, than it was a horrible draft pick. OTOH it was also a pretty bad draft pick as well (although there are others who would've made the same mistake as well.)

Looking at what the mock draft said I don't understand why we took Olowokandi, but it's not like Biby would have really took us any where. He probably would have left the first chance he got.

Dude was dunking medicine balls....here's a nice article about Kandi as well

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/ ... /index.htm

Thanks for the link. That big man coach Pete Newell thought he was gonna be a star...if so then he knows a lot more than me.

And yeah, it's not like Bibby was a big star either. A good PG to be sure, but if he was the consensus #2 then it was just a really thin draft...

madmaxmedia wrote:Thanks for the link. That big man coach Pete Newell thought he was gonna be a star...if so then he knows a lot more than me.

And yeah, it's not like Bibby was a big star either. A good PG to be sure, but if he was the consensus #2 then it was just a really thin draft...

I agree that there was no consensus #1 at the time but it's far from a thin draft. Two potential HOFs in Dirk and Paul Pierce. A few All-stars in Rashard Lewis, Bibby, Antawn Jamison and Vince Carter not to mention guys that had decent careers like Larry Hughes, Nazr Mohammed, Matt Harpring, Jason Williams, Al Harrington and half a Clipper team - Cat Mobley, Brian Skinner and Ricky Davis. Damn, as I finish typing that's a heck of draft! If you want bad drafts, look at 2000 and 2001.

I thought he was BAD pick from day 1, while that years draft was WEAK, from what I recall Kandi didn't even play all 4 yrs of HS ball and was basically "learning" on the job, which I didn't think was a good trait for POTENTIAL star. However he had a pretty good year during contract year and got greedy and pass up that $10mill/yr offer hahahaha . I wonder where he is now? You guys think he'll try to come back into the league?

There was not much argument about the Clips taking Olakandi. Everyone kind of knew the story on him in that he was from a small school and had great potential. He was supposed be a very good athlete for his size. He did have an NBA body and was the only true center.

The more amazing thing about that draft is how all the other players vastly exceeded expectations.

I really wanted The Clippers to take Bibby. My first favorite Clipper was Mark Jackson so I kind of hoped Bibby could filI that void. I was so pissed when the picked that bum. I never liked him. I was almost as upset when they picked Korolev over David Lee. That particular draft the Team had a poll and I was the only fan who wanted The Clippers to pick Lee.

I also didn't want us to pick Korolev, I still have no idea why we did it.

Tucker74 wrote:There's a lot of revisionist history going on about this draft, but Kandi clearly had a ton of upside especially compared today to a stiff like Thabeet. It's understandable and hard to judge heart based on workouts and college game tapes, but would the Clippers really have been better off taking a guy like Bibby or Lafrentz? It wasn't like Bibby was the second coming of Magic or even John Stockton and he would have been saddled with the expectation of carrying the franchise with no guarantee he would have flourished like he did in Sactown. He was the safer pick and known commodity coming from a quality program. Lafrentz had arguably a worse career than Kandi. I know the Clips also liked Pierce, the hometown boy, at the time but there were questions about his athleticism, poor health and attitude.

Yeah, you really have to search for old articles to refresh your memory of how things actually were before that draft. I mean the Clippers still get an F for the pick in hindsight, but when you read about Candi from back then he really did seem to be a good calculated risk at #1. There were a lot of other good players, but if Bibby was the consensus #2 then guys like Jamison, Pierce, and Carter obviously grew in the NBA to become the players they are now. I think with Bibby you knew you were getting a very good PG, but not a franchise changer.

The other thing I wonder about, is whether the Clippers and Kandi could have turned out a lot better with better coaching and handling by the Clippers. For all his upside, he'd only played 3 years of basketball and came from a small school. With a guy like that, you really have to make sure you closely guide their development or else any number of bad things could happen.

The one thing I do remember from back then, was having a bad feeling about the pick. I really didn't know much about Candi so it was a blind hunch more than anything else. I think it was just the combination of small school center + Clipper franchise = less than assured future, vs. drafting a player with big college experience.

thanumba2clippersfan wrote:I also didn't want us to pick Korolev, I still have no idea why we did it.

Picking Korolev was like picking Tskitskavili. The pick made no sense and was a waste of time. Should've went with Danny Granger.

SD2042 wrote:

thanumba2clippersfan wrote:I also didn't want us to pick Korolev, I still have no idea why we did it.

Picking Korolev was like picking Tskitskavili. The pick made no sense and was a waste of time. Should've went with Danny Granger.

Seems like a lot of revisionist's history guys. Back in 1998, I think everyone was trying to find the next Dirk. Sadly, none of the Euros have really panned out.