If the Cavs get a top 5 pick...

[mup]

So Waiters was a miss?

That depends. Is there any single player taken in the draft after Waiters for whom you would trade him straight up right now? If the answer is yes (and for me, it is), that means it's a miss.

It doesn't mean he's a bad player. It just means we didn't maximize the pick and that's not good for a gm.

So Denver missed in 2003 because they would have traded Melo for Wade? Missing is taking Thabeet.

From a talent standpoint, I don't think the Nuggets would have traded Anthony straight up for Wade. Just like I don't think the Rockets ever would have traded Olajuwon straight up for Jordan. But if I accept your hypothetical, then yes, I imagine the Nuggets' owner would have been quite upset with his GM if he thought he had left value on the table by not taking the guy he considered to be the better player.

That's the definition of a "miss"--- there is something wrong with the team's evaluation process that it is not identifying the best prospect for the team. If such a flaw exists, you don't just accept it and say "well, it could have been worse," you fix it, no? You either fix it internally or externally, but you don't just leave it alone.

Your Anthony/Wade hypo, if I accept it, represents at best a narrow miss, one that might not cost a guy his job if the owner believes it was close enough and the team can nonetheless have success with the lesser player. But if the owner really believed that the team would have been a better team had they drafted Wade instead, then yes, there would have been hell to pay.

The Thabeet pick represents a more egregious miss; the kind that should cause some severe retooling in your scouting department. But both are misses--- you simply cannot consistently leave value on the table.

[mcfly1204]

So Waiters was a miss?

That depends. Is there any single player taken in the draft after Waiters for whom you would trade him straight up right now? If the answer is yes (and for me, it is), that means it's a miss.

It doesn't mean he's a bad player. It just means we didn't maximize the pick and that's not good for a gm.

The only player I would trade straight up for Waiters right now is Drummond. Does that make Waiters a miss? Not in my book.

[tidho]

So Waiters was a miss?

That depends. Is there any single player taken in the draft after Waiters for whom you would trade him straight up right now? If the answer is yes (and for me, it is), that means it's a miss.

It doesn't mean he's a bad player. It just means we didn't maximize the pick and that's not good for a gm.

This is too high a standard for anyone. No one knew Paul George was going to be Paul George, for instance.

A fair evaluation has to be how well did you do out of the players that would have reasonably been selected at that pick. Its easy to compare Waiters to a guy like Barnes, for instance, although much more difficult reaching a conclusion at this point.

[gordito]

So Waiters was a miss?

That depends. Is there any single player taken in the draft after Waiters for whom you would trade him straight up right now? If the answer is yes (and for me, it is), that means it's a miss.

It doesn't mean he's a bad player. It just means we didn't maximize the pick and that's not good for a gm.

This is too high a standard for anyone. No one knew Paul George was going to be Paul George, for instance.

A fair evaluation has to be how well did you do out of the players that would have reasonably been selected at that pick. Its easy to compare Waiters to a guy like Barnes, for instance, although much more difficult reaching a conclusion at this point.

I agree.

However, I will say that I think the Cavs organization would trade Waiters straight up for not only Drummond, but also Barnes. Given that those were the top two players that most people had the Cavs taking (not sure why Thomas Robinson was used as the example), I think it's fair to say that it looks like the Cavs may have missed on this one (if using mcfly's criteria).

With that said, had they taken Barnes, they still would have missed on Drummond, so there would still be regret there. However, given where Drummond's arrow was pointing at the time, I think it's hard to completely fault a team in Phase 2 of rebuilding mode (Phase 1 was drafting their franchise player the year before) for passing on a risky pick for a safe pick with upside of his own. In reality, they ended up passing on that risky pick for another risky pick, albeit one who put up good advanced metrics as a 6th man. This is why I think Grant will take a lot of heat for Drummond.

[Niko23]

An intersting question. Does Drummond have the type of game that suggests he is/can be a legit 2nd option?

[KuruptedCav]

An intersting question. Does Drummond have the type of game that suggests he is/can be a legit 2nd option?

Nope. A good #3. Once he starts playing games that matter, Hack a Drum will make him a liability. A better version of DeAndre Jordan

[mup]

So Waiters was a miss?

That depends. Is there any single player taken in the draft after Waiters for whom you would trade him straight up right now? If the answer is yes (and for me, it is), that means it's a miss.

It doesn't mean he's a bad player. It just means we didn't maximize the pick and that's not good for a gm.

This is too high a standard for anyone. No one knew Paul George was going to be Paul George, for instance.

A fair evaluation has to be how well did you do out of the players that would have reasonably been selected at that pick. Its easy to compare Waiters to a guy like Barnes, for instance, although much more difficult reaching a conclusion at this point.

The point in your second paragraph is fair, and I did say that I would generally give a pass to a gm who takes the guy he's expected to take. It's the "reach and miss" that kills careers.

I'm not sure i agree with your first point though. It seems Indiana knew he'd be a pretty decent player. Nobody mocked George higher than 12th to Memphis (and some had him as low as 24), yet the Pacers knew to take him. They also got Lance Stephenson with the 40th pick that year too. We need to be better than Indiana.

[fart]

That depends. Is there any single player taken in the draft after Waiters for whom you would trade him straight up right now? If the answer is yes (and for me, it is), that means it's a miss.

It doesn't mean he's a bad player. It just means we didn't maximize the pick and that's not good for a gm.

This is too high a standard for anyone. No one knew Paul George was going to be Paul George, for instance.

A fair evaluation has to be how well did you do out of the players that would have reasonably been selected at that pick. Its easy to compare Waiters to a guy like Barnes, for instance, although much more difficult reaching a conclusion at this point.

The point in your second paragraph is fair, and I did say that I would generally give a pass to a gm who takes the guy he's expected to take. It's the "reach and miss" that kills careers.

I'm not sure i agree with your first point though. It seems Indiana knew he'd be a pretty decent player. Nobody mocked George higher than 12th to Memphis (and some had him as low as 24), yet the Pacers knew to take him. They also got Lance Stephenson with the 40th pick that year too. We need to be better than Indiana.

I like your posts mup, you share a majority of my thoughts and can better explain them in posts than me it seems. I agree with it being fine to take a player you are projected to take and have it turn out he wasn't the best player on the board, but if you reach, you better hit.

[mup]

This is too high a standard for anyone. No one knew Paul George was going to be Paul George, for instance.

A fair evaluation has to be how well did you do out of the players that would have reasonably been selected at that pick. Its easy to compare Waiters to a guy like Barnes, for instance, although much more difficult reaching a conclusion at this point.

The point in your second paragraph is fair, and I did say that I would generally give a pass to a gm who takes the guy he's expected to take. It's the "reach and miss" that kills careers.

I'm not sure i agree with your first point though. It seems Indiana knew he'd be a pretty decent player. Nobody mocked George higher than 12th to Memphis (and some had him as low as 24), yet the Pacers knew to take him. They also got Lance Stephenson with the 40th pick that year too. We need to be better than Indiana.

I like your posts mup, you share a majority of my thoughts and can better explain them in posts than me it seems. I agree with it being fine to take a player you are projected to take and have it turn out he wasn't the best player on the board, but if you reach, you better hit.

Thanks, bro. I noticed that we have similar thoughts on some issues, which scares me because these other guys seem to like giving you a hard time... LOL. I guess you're bad cop, I'm good cop.

I don't agree with you on everything though. I like the Deng trade. Saw you panning it in the other thread. I think Grant's got more up his sleeve. Don't take everything at face value--- the Deng trade in isolation looks like it might be putting us on a treadmill (it's not) but I think there's more going on and that we'll end up getting more out of that trade than we put into it without losing any of our flexibility. I'll explain my thoughts in the Deng thread when I get some time.

[Okada]

For the Thompson, Waiters, and Bennett picks, it's still too soon to rule any of them out. But all three picks were highly questionable and there hasn't been hardly any vindication for them at this point. At least, not enough to feel comfortable. Grant has done some good things and like I said, we don't know about those three guys just yet. I'm indifferent to whether Grant keeps his job or not, at this point.