RealGM

I was watching some youtube videos of previous drafts and while watching the 1997 draft where Duncan was selected first, I couldn't help but think how lucky the Spurs were when they made that pick.
By getting Duncan the Spurs were able to build a dynasty and win 4 titles. While they do have a great organization, none of the would have happened if it wasn't for that pick in 1997.

So that got me thinking: How different would the Spurs or the NBA in general be in some other team had gotten lucky that year?

I had the same thought about Cleveland in 2003 and Orlando in 2004: Two teams that were really bad and all of a sudden turned to play-off teams. The same is true to some extent about Houston and their pick of Yao.

Lets assume that Philadelphia had the number 1 pick that year instead of San Antonio. Duncan would have joined Iverson, Stackhouse etc. on a team that had a lot of problems at the time. He would have brought some stability, but I'm not so sure he would have developed so much offensively seeing how Iverson dominated the offense. He also wouldn't have the guidance of David Robinson, but I'm sure he would have become one of the most dominant, if not the most dominant player in the league.
It would have probably taken him a little more time to get where he is now, but I'm sure the Sixers destiny would have been a lot different.
Same with any other team who could have gotten the first pick that year.

Now, to realize how a draft can make or break a team, imagine if the Spurs had the second pick that year. The best players after TD were Keith Van Horn and Chauncey Billups. KVH ended up being the second pick.
KVH was a good player early in his career but there's no way the Spurs would have won all those championships if they had Van Horn instead of Duncan.

There are only a few can't miss projects in the draft . In the last 18 years I would say there have been only 4 players the ones I mentioned earlier who were picked first in the draft, have remained with their team throughout their career (I'm not counting the most recent drafts because the verdict is still on these guys) and changed their team's destiny as well.

1991: Larry Johnson: Overshadowed by Alonzo was eventually traded to NY. (Not a "can't miss" project)
1992: Shaq: Great player but he left the team after 4 years
1993: Webber: Was traded on draft night.
1994: Robinson: Good scorer, borderline All-Star but did not change the Bucks' destiny.
1995: Joe Smith: Journeyman
1996: Iverson: Had a good career in Philly but was traded.
1997: Tim Duncan: First "can't miss project", Van Horn: Ok player, but not much of a difference maker.
1998: Olowokandi: Enough said
1999: Elton Brand: Traded two years after he was drafted.
2000: Kenyon Martin: The Nets let him leave when another team offered him more money.
2001: Kwame: LOL
2002: Yao: Has really been an important player for the Rockets. Definitely a "Can't miss project", Jay Williams: Out of the NBA
2003: LeBron: Made the Cavs relevant again., Darko: Has played for 3 different teams.
2004: Howard: He really has been a force for Orlando. They were very lucky to have him. The next 3 picks from that draft have still been with the teams that drafted them (Okafor, Gordon, Livingston) but none them appears to be a difference maker in the league so far. In 2005, the 6 first players are still on the teams that drafted them and while Paul and Deron appear to fit the criteria, the fact that 2 players were drafted ahead of them makes it impossible for me to call them "can't miss projects" or the teams that picked them lucky. In 2006 there's Bargnani (Aldridge was traded on draft night) and in 2007 the first 4 picks are still with the teams that drafted them (Durant and Oden obviously have the potential to become superstars but it's too early too tell).

So it's kind of amazing how 3 or 4 teams (San Antonio, Orlando, Cleveland, Houston) have been able to change their future just by being lucky in the draft.


The reason I'm not counting guys like let's say Garnett or Nowitzki or Bryant is because many teams passed on them, which means that they never were "can't miss projects".

toronto has been extremely lucky that we could draft bargnani over oden.

It's a little premature to call Oden the next big thing when he hasn't even played in the NBA yet, but the reason I didn't call Portland lucky for picking the two best players in that draft that really changed the team culture (Aldridge and Roy) is because several teams passed on them.

Picking Duncan or LeBron was a no-brainer whch is why the teams that picked them were lucky. Duncan would have been the first pick in '95 or '96 too if he had decided to declare early.

Can't really say Portland because of how surprisingly good they have been without Oden this year.

Teams like Cleveland and Orlando literally went from nothing to relevant because of ping pong balls.

Will be interesting to see if the same happens again this year

I'm sure David Robinson felt lucky while spending a season icing his knee.

I also don't see how Shaq, AI or even Webber or Brand isn't a can't-miss player. If teams can't retain their players, that's their own fault. Besides, Philly with AI went to the Finals.

I doubt it to be honest. While Beasley and Rose are good projects, I don't see them having the same impact as LeBron/Howard.

Rooster wrote:I'm sure David Robinson felt lucky while spending a season icing his knee.

I also don't see how Shaq, AI or even Webber or Brand isn't a can't-miss player. If teams can't retain their players, that's their own fault. Besides, Philly with AI went to the Finals.

Shaq left Orlando for a bigger market so he didn't have the impact expected on the franchise. AI had a great career in Philly but when he was traded the team was terrible. As good as a player he is, he's not in the same league as TD or LeBron. Webber was traded on draft night so obviously he wasn't considered the unanimous choice as the first pick back then. Brand was traded two years after he was drafted because the team was terrible.

I'm only including players here who were unanimous Number 1 picks who actually lived up to the hype.
No team in '97 or '03 would have even considered picking someone other than TD or LeBron if they had the first pick.

The lucky teams to me were Detroit who got Rasheed for peanuts, along with Boston and the Lakers. Teams that made huge moves without giving up equal assets and ended up being title contenders. Now that's luck.

Also to Rooster: Your comment about David Robinson is really stupid.

Are you saying that the Spurs don't feel lucky they had a chance to draft Tim Duncan? You really think they would have had the same level of success just be having good management?
You really think that Duncan wouldn't have changed the future of any team that would have drafted him even if that team had terrible management?

TheOUTLAW wrote:The lucky teams to me were Detroit who got Rasheed for peanuts, along with Boston and the Lakers. Teams that made huge moves without giving up equal assets and ended up being title contenders. Now that's luck.

You're right about the Lakers to some extent and Gasol, but not about Detroit and Boston.

Not many teams were willing to touch Rasheed at the time. Detroit took a risk and it worked out. That makes them smart, not lucky.

Also Boston made some really bold moves to build their current roster. They tried to get Garnett, but he wouldn't agree to the trade. So they trade for another aging superstar in Allen. An Allen-Pierce duo wasn't going to lead them to any titles, which is why many thought that was a bad move. But what that did was make the team attractive to Garnett. And they did give a good player such as Jefferson to get Garnett.
So that's good management IMO, not luck. Ainge played his cards the right way.

Webber being traded is proof that he was a consensus #1 pick, not proof against it. Had there not been a consensus, Orlando would've just drafted Penny instead of being able to squeeze three picks out of GS.

How is AI or Brand being on a bad team at some point telling of anything other than the obvious fact that teams need more than one player? Minnesota was awful last season even with Garnett. Shaq and Brand weren't on their original teams for that long but that doesn't make those teams any less lucky for actually getting them. That the teams didn't get full value was due to Shaq's later greed and incompetent Chicago management, nothing to do with Shaq or Brand on the court. Yes, AI and Brand were pretty much consensus #1 picks too.

When Robinson was injured, no one in San Antonio thought the team was lucky. The actual lottery part, yes, that's what a lottery is. There was a sacrifice to get there though. If Robinson doesn't return to form, who knows what happens there?

Also, I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth or saying that what I thought was a prfectly reasonable comment was stupid. Care to explain why you did so?

TheOUTLAW, those teams weren't lucky. They were opportunistic and smart. They smelled blood and got it. All needed expiring contracts to get the players they wanted, and all had specifically planned to have expiring contracts at that time. The other parts of those deals involved the accumulation of assets, which any smart GM does.

Bargnani is HoF

Rooster wrote:Webber being traded is proof that he was a consensus #1 pick, not proof against it. Had there not been a consensus, Orlando would've just drafted Penny instead of being able to squeeze three picks out of GS.

Are you kidding me? If that was the case then the team that drafted him would have never considered trading him.

How is AI or Brand being on a bad team at some point telling of anything other than the obvious fact that teams need more than one player? Minnesota was awful last season even with Garnett. Shaq and Brand weren't on their original teams for that long but that doesn't make those teams any less lucky for actually getting them. That the teams didn't get full value was due to Shaq's later greed and incompetent Chicago management, nothing to do with Shaq or Brand on the court. Yes, AI and Brand were pretty much consensus #1 picks too.

Well the fact that there was a point in their career where their ability to lead a team was doubted, puts them one level below Duncan/LeBron/Howard.
Also, AI was far from a consensus #1 pick. Before the lottery, Camby was the player most thought would go number 1 (he was the college player of the year after all) but Philadelphia at the time had Weatherspoon, Sharon Wright and Bradley all of whom were lottery picks (it sounds funny now, I know) and didn't need another big. They did however need a PG and the 2 players they were considering were Iverson and Marbury. Iverson was the more talented but Marbury had the reputation of being a real PG. They finally decided to go with Iverson.

When Robinson was injured, no one in San Antonio thought the team was lucky. The actual lottery part, yes, that's what a lottery is. There was a sacrifice to get there though. If Robinson doesn't return to form, who knows what happens there?

The reason they were lucky was because they were in a position to draft Duncan. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Also, I really don't appreciate you putting words in my mouth or saying that what I thought was a prfectly reasonable comment was stupid. Care to explain why you did so?

I also didn't appreciate the sarcastic tone of your first post which really didn't have anything to contribute to this thread. There are obviously better and more civilized ways to express your disagreement with a post.
So I find it kind of funny that in your comeback you accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

Michael Olowakandi demonstrates the cerebral prowess of some big market teams.

Lebron and Duncan are really good. I agree.

Duiz wrote:Michael Olowakandi demonstrates the cerebral prowess of some big market teams.

lol