RealGM

Fans have been rough on Mitch Kupchak since he inherited the GM throne from Jerry West in 2000. In light of what's happened in the first half of the season, Mitch deserves a second look. Not surprisingly, an appraisal of his performance now looks much better than it did at the beginning of the season. But how much of this is luck, skill, or timing? Let's start by looking at his draft record.

Year Pick Name (active in bold, rights in italics)
2002 20 Kareem Rush
2003 24 Brian Cook
2003 32 Luke Walton
2004 27 Sasha Vujacic
2004 56 Marcus Douthit
2005 10 Andrew Bynum
2005 37 Ronny Turiaf
2005 39 Von Wafer
2006 26 Jordan Farmar
2006 51 Cheick Samb
2006 58 J.R. Pinnock
2007 26 Javaris Crittenton
2007 40 Sun Yue
2007 48 Marc Gasol

In hindsight, this turned out to be a pretty good haul despite the typically low draft picks and the crapshoot nature of the second round. Mitch (assist from Jim Buss?) got a franchise center in Bynum, a cornerstone point guard in Farmar, a late blooming reliable shooter in Sasha, and a fantastic energy/hustle guy in Turiaf. Cook and Samb (via Mo Evans) turned into Trevor Ariza. Rush turned into Turiaf.

Compare this to R.C. Buford of the Spurs:

Year Pick Name (active in bold, rights in italics)
2001 28 Tony Parker
2002 26 John Salmons
2002 55 Luis Scola
2002 56 Randy Holcomb
2003 28 Leandro Barbosa
2004 28 Beno Udrih
2004 52 Romain Sato
2004 57 Sergei Karaulov
2005 28 Ian Mahinmi
2006 59 Damir Markota
2007 28 Tiago Splitter
2007 33 Marcus Williams
2007 58 Giorgos Printezis

Mitch actually comes away looking good from that comparison. Mitch has even developed a GM philosophy that's quite different from his mentor, Jerry West. Mitch really values second rounders and used them to great effect. West was more of a gambler, and was more likely to swing a blockbuster or creative trade, whether in midseason or offseason.

The Lakers will have two second round picks in the upcoming draft. If all goes according to form, at least one of them will become a longtime contributor to future Laker teams. The best part is that Mitch doesn't have to make a big splash. He can look to Europe to steal a player that would be best served playing a year or two there instead of riding the pine here. The current team is young, balanced, and most importantly, has the kind of continuity you need for success. Mitch deserves a lot of credit for that.

LOL @ Von Wafer

who's tough on mitch
he got us gasol for kwame!!!!
mitch

hermes wrote:who's tough on mitch
he got us gasol for kwame!!!!
mitch

+1!1

we could be a much better ball club just by trading Kwame away, but getting Gasol in return ....

Mitch

Mitch got busy in '05, Rony and Bynum are cornerstones of a possible dynasty.

Before this season, the draft was the only bright spot for management. The two other responsibilities, trades and signings, have been straight up awful.

That being said, having the 10th pick to get Bynum skews the comparison. The Spurs never had a pick close to that.

Also, the Spurs have been a championship team for a decade. That phase tends to focus on acquiring proven veterans rather than the development of rookies. Case in point, San Antonio traded Scola away, traded Barbosa for a future pick and just let Udrih go. Meanwhile, our entire team has relied on rookies and draft picks, so you'll see guys develop on our team.

Because in reality (10th pick Bynum aside), Tony Parker, John Salmons, Beno Udrih, Luis Scola are in reality, better than Farmar, Turiaf, Vujacic, and Walton.

milesfides wrote:Because in reality (10th pick Bynum aside), Tony Parker, John Salmons, Beno Udrih, Luis Scola are in reality, better than Farmar, Turiaf, Vujacic, and Walton.

However, they only kept Parker of that bunch. They got nothing for Udrih and little for Scola. They pale in comparison to the Suns though, who sell off draft picks to pinch pennies and run their 8 man rotation into the ground. Think Rajon Rondo and Deng would look good in the Suns' rotation?

^no, that's exactly my point. As a championship team and contender every year, the Spurs (or Suns) don't have the patience or interest to develop all of their picks every year.

But you can't deny that RC Buford did a great job regardless.

Oh, and you can't overlook Ginobili either. 57th pick. Greatest pick of all time? He was Buford's pick, who was the Team's Head Scout and assistant GM at the time. He was most responsible for discovering and drafting Ginobili as well as Tony Parker, at a time when few teams were really considering European guards.

milesfides wrote:Before this season, the draft was the only bright spot for management. The two other responsibilities, trades and signings, have been straight up awful.

Largely true, and I'll go into that in another post.

That being said, having the 10th pick to get Bynum skews the comparison. The Spurs never had a pick close to that.

Having the #10 helps, but you have to look at the whole draft class for better context. So far, the 2005 draft has been something of a bust class, with only a few players standing out, meaning max money come extension time.

Also, the Spurs have been a championship team for a decade. That phase tends to focus on acquiring proven veterans rather than the development of rookies. Case in point, San Antonio traded Scola away, traded Barbosa for a future pick and just let Udrih go. Meanwhile, our entire team has relied on rookies and draft picks, so you'll see guys develop on our team.

Udrih was given plenty of chances to be a major rotation piece but disappointed. Barbosa likely would've ended up the same way because he turned out to have few real PG skills and wasn't the defender he was touted to be coming in. If Scola were 23 instead of 27, he wouldn't have been traded because he might've been a keeper on a post-Duncan team.

Because in reality (10th pick Bynum aside), Tony Parker, John Salmons, Beno Udrih, Luis Scola are in reality, better than Farmar, Turiaf, Vujacic, and Walton.

If you're going to include players who aren't on the Spurs anymore (or never were), you should include Critt and Marc Gasol on the Lakers list. Then things even out quite a bit.

mlayer wrote:Having the #10 helps, but you have to look at the whole draft class for better context. So far, the 2005 draft has been something of a bust class, with only a few players standing out, meaning max money come extension time.

Hm, I'm not quite sure I see the relevancy to your comparison between Mitch and Buford.

Udrih was given plenty of chances to be a major rotation piece but disappointed. Barbosa likely would've ended up the same way because he turned out to have few real PG skills and wasn't the defender he was touted to be coming in. If Scola were 23 instead of 27, he wouldn't have been traded because he might've been a keeper on a post-Duncan team.

Ok, but what are we doing here, analyzing the quality of draft picks or player development? Two different things, because many times, a GM doesn't have as much control after the draft. For example, Beno Udrih is a solid point guard. He just didn't get enough playing time under Popovich. He didn't suddenly become a solid point guard in Sacramento. If I recall correctly, I think Popovich in fact told Theus, you're getting a heck of a point guard, I just couldn't give him the opportunity. So Udrih as a draft disappointment isn't really accurate, at least in my opinion. And again, the Spurs won't mark high in player development because that's not a high priority for them. But in terms of drafting the best possible players? Very consistent.

If you're going to include players who aren't on the Spurs anymore (or never were), you should include Critt and Marc Gasol on the Lakers list. Then things even out quite a bit.

First of all, Java and Marc haven't accomplished anything yet, except for getting Pau Gasol. I'm not sure how that evens out anything. Again, Tony Parker (28th pick, last pick of the first round) and Manu Ginobili (57th pick, second to last pick in the second round) were some of the greatest steals in the history of the draft.

A big part of that is due to Buford's efforts to scout internationally, as well as his ability to gauge basketball abilities without having a bias against European guards, two things that make him a special GM.

And let's not get carried away. Farmar, Turiaf and Sasha Vujacic aren't all-stars. They probably won't be. Bynum is the only one of our players that really measures up to either Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili. Then again, Mitch had the 10th pick to get him, and as I've said before, Buford never had that luxury.

Furthermore, when you consider Jim Buss's claim that Bynum was his pick, what can anybody really say about Mitch's drafting abilities?

Let's just say he drafted reasonably well, our team chose to spent several years developing those players, and overall, we have a nice talented group of young players with a lot of potential.

Because when you start comparing Mitch Kupchak to Jerry West and R.C. Buford, any serious discussion will show that Mitch doesn't really deserve to be in that discussion.

Buford didnt have the 10th pick, thats correct, but his team is built around the first pick overall, a luxury we didnt have ( if you exclude Kwame of course ).

milesfides wrote:Hm, I'm not quite sure I see the relevancy to your comparison between Mitch and Buford.

That point wasn't to make a Mitch-Buford comparison, it was to show that even with a lottery pick there are no guarantees, not even with a GM as good as Buford.

Ok, but what are we doing here, analyzing the quality of draft picks or player development? Two different things, because many times, a GM doesn't have as much control after the draft. For example, Beno Udrih is a solid point guard. He just didn't get enough playing time under Popovich. He didn't suddenly become a solid point guard in Sacramento. If I recall correctly, I think Popovich in fact told Theus, you're getting a heck of a point guard, I just couldn't give him the opportunity.

They go hand in hand, don't they? That's how a player realizes his potential. If Udrih was really that good, shouldn't he have gotten more than the minimum from the Kings? Shouldn't he have beaten out Jacque Vaughn? Perhaps what we're seeing is a late bloomer in the right role, as the Lakers are seeing from Sasha (maybe it's a Slovenian thing). But I doubt many were saying that last summer when Udrih was on the market. This summer, is Udrih going to fetch anything close to a long-term MLE deal? Is Geoff Petrie really willing to entrust him with the team?

A big part of that is due to Buford's efforts to scout internationally, as well as his ability to gauge basketball abilities without having a bias against European guards, two things that make him a special GM.

I think Buford had a vast advantage over other teams the early part of the decade, one that he exploited well. That advantage is shrinking each season as more teams adopt similar approaches.

Let's just say (Mitch) drafted reasonably well, our team chose to spent several years developing those players, and overall, we have a nice talented group of young players with a lot of potential.

Because when you start comparing Mitch Kupchak to Jerry West and R.C. Buford, any serious discussion will show that Mitch doesn't really deserve to be in that discussion.

I never said that Mitch was as good as either Buford or West. He's made draft mistakes. Marcus Douthit didn't pan out. Von Wafer was picked right before Monta Ellis. However, when looking at the limited portfolio that Mitch has garnered following West's departure, his record's not bad. It's plenty respectable. I like Mitch's tendencies to value low-round picks, to not be trigger-happy when it comes to trades, and to believe in player development. That philosophy should serve the team well into the future now that they have the KGB core set.

mlayer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
I never said that Mitch was as good as either Buford or West.

Didn't you say:

mlayer wrote:Mitch actually comes away looking good from that comparison.

Actually, you implied that Mitch's draft history was better!

He's made draft mistakes. Marcus Douthit didn't pan out. Von Wafer was picked right before Monta Ellis. However, when looking at the limited portfolio that Mitch has garnered following West's departure, his record's not bad. It's plenty respectable.

It is respectable, it's just not comparable to what Buford did, which is what you're claiming.

I like Mitch's tendencies to value low-round picks, to not be trigger-happy when it comes to trades, and to believe in player development.

As opposed to what, not doing his job? A team usually gets only two picks. Is Mitch paid only for the first? And of course Mitch should believe in player development, it's in his interest that the players he picks do well.

That philosophy should serve the team well into the future now that they have the KGB core set.

Well that philosophy of "let's see the rookies grow! (and try to blame everything on injuries)" almost cost us Kobe Bryant. And that philosophy is going to change with a quickness, hampered by the penalties of the luxury tax and a stacked roster.

At the heart of this discussion is my opinion that you're mistaking Mitch's moves as some sort of testament to character and intelligence. I think that's a little too generous. He was patient, because he had no other choice. It was management's very own ill-conceived '07 plan that was a bust, which forced the team to rely on draft picks and internal development. What else was he going to do? Sign free agents? Each was a miserable failure. Make trades? They couldn't make any, except trading Butler for Kwame, which was an utter disaster until the basketball gods turned water into wine by and dropped Pau Gasol like manna from the sky.

Yes, thank goodness, the Lakers' secret-but-not-so-secret-truth-is-in-the-pudding rebuilding phase is over. Mitch survived it.

He's just not comparable to the Spurs' Buford at all. How many all-stars did Mitch draft in the second round to put around Kobe? How many great defensive players did Mitch sign? How many quality free agents (who wouldn't keel over and die) did Mitch sign?

Because thanks to Buford, the Spurs apparently didn't have a rebuilding period. Tim Duncan and David Robinson were holding the championship trophy, surrounded by Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, and Steve Kerr.

Blink, and the Spurs are holding three more trophies, except Tim Duncan is surrounded by all-stars Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, perennial defensive POY candidate Bruce Bowen, and key veterans such as Finley, Barry and Horry.

The Spurs won at least 53 games every year since winning that first championship in 1999. But not with the same team, nope. But the changes Buford made were masterly, not mundane. No superstar to piss off with years of inferior talent, no fans to piss off with a quixotic capspace plan. Buford quickly and quietly transformed the aging team around Duncan and created a dynasty and won three rings with nothing higher than the 26th pick.

Sure, Mitch has done reasonably well in the draft. After years of studying Jerry West's art of war, he's gone from a white belt to a green belt. But Buford doesn't do belts, he's killing it without anybody noticing. He's a ninja.

There's just no comparison.

Anyways, I'm not trying to sell Mitch short. I've always been relatively satisfied with our drafts. I never understood the Von Wafer over Monta Ellis thing - a lot of teams passed on Monta Ellis. I've liked Sasha, Farmar, and Turiaf from the beginning, and defended them throughout. Bynum was a surprise, few people knew about him, but after the draft I understood the logic. Not many 7-footers with soft hands.

Yet there's no Gilbert Arenas or Manu Ginobili's on Mitch's resume. That's not a knock on Mitch, but let's not make him out to be a draft genius. But on a more important note, he did 1/3 of his job. No great free agent signings, and aside from the Kwame-Gasol miracle, trades were few and far between, and the major one was terrible, so terrible it went through a black hole, met God, and became transformed into something beautiful out of divine grace.

Anyways, that's just my take. Welcome to realgm!

Great post miles. Great logic and observation there.

Thanks man, I hope I didn't freak him out or anything. I won't post in this thread anymore, serious.

milesfides wrote:Actually, you implied that Mitch's draft history was better!

No, that's you misinterpreting what I've written. If I wanted to say Mitch was as good or better than Buford, I would've posted that. I simply said he comes away looking good, that is to say, not poor. That's all.

Well that philosophy of "let's see the rookies grow! (and try to blame everything on injuries)" almost cost us Kobe Bryant. And that philosophy is going to change with a quickness, hampered by the penalties of the luxury tax and a stacked roster.

He'll have a few tests in what to do with LO, when to draft a successor to Kobe, and what other types of complementary pieces should be brought in.

At the heart of this discussion is my opinion that you're mistaking Mitch's moves as some sort of testament to character and intelligence. I think that's a little too generous. He was patient, because he had no other choice. It was management's very own ill-conceived '07 plan that was a bust, which forced the team to rely on draft picks and internal development. What else was he going to do? Sign free agents? Each was a miserable failure. Make trades? They couldn't make any, except trading Butler for Kwame, which was an utter disaster until the basketball gods turned water into wine by and dropped Pau Gasol like manna from the sky.

So basically Mitch isn't good, he's lucky?

He's just not comparable to the Spurs' Buford at all. How many all-stars did Mitch draft in the second round to put around Kobe? How many great defensive players did Mitch sign? How many quality free agents (who wouldn't keel over and die) did Mitch sign?

How many all-stars typically sign for the MLE?

Because thanks to Buford, the Spurs apparently didn't have a rebuilding period. Tim Duncan and David Robinson were holding the championship trophy, surrounded by Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Mario Elie, and Steve Kerr.

Amazing that Robinson was conveniently injured to just get the Spurs in the lottery so that they could steal Duncan, a once-in-a-generation big man, to what was it you said - drop like manna from the sky? A pick that made it far easier to build a team. What would've happened if they ended up with Chauncey Billups and Ron Mercer? I'd like to see how good Buford is as Duncan's career sunsets.

Thanks man, I hope I didn't freak him out or anything. I won't post in this thread anymore, serious.

No need to apologize. I enjoy a good debate.

Except for the Kwame Brown trade i think Mitch has always made a good job, just didnt have enough luck.
Now counting the Gasol for Kwame trade he is just THE MAN, executive of the year over Danny Ainge!

can someone please just congratulate me for backing up Mitch on this board when everyone was against him? kthx

he man don't single yourself out
i always supported the lost causes too
mitch, sasha, kwame and look how they all turned out