Grunfeld a Great GM. Proves Doubters Wrong

[hands11]

Thats why you give Ted credit and you give Ted/EG credit. From 29 win to 2nd round 2 wins and the Wall and Beal we have today, all in 4 years. A total franchise transformation. From crap to legit future established winning franchise.

That earns them an A

Not him.

A total franchise transformation or after having sooooooooo many assets from being soooooooo bad the last five years, the Wizards finally managed to win more than half their games, mainly off the backs of two FREE AGENT veterans bought in because of the failures to manage and develop many of those assets.

What's lost in your argument is that beyond Wall & Beal, there's nothing to show but expensive injury plagued vets who most of us would like to trade (Nene & Webster), free agents that decisions have to be made on (Gortat, Ariza, Gooden, Booker, Harrington, Temple) and 4 recent draft picks that rotted on the bench last season (Porter, Rice, Seraphin & Singleton). I guess you can also throw 37 yr old Andre Miller in their for kicks as well.

This doesn't look like a total franchise transformation, this looks like rehash from an old Ernie Grunfeld blueprint on how to construct a basketball team. Maybe this version will get a little farther as long as John Wall doesn't ruin his knee like Gilbert did. But the expensive capped out roster lead by a mediocre coach... while going all in for 45 wins, we've been here before...

Clearly you can point to similarities, you just did.

But I believe there are also big differences.

Wall and Gil are like night and day personalities and the Wizards were smart to get Gil off the team ASAP as to not contaminate Wall. I was worried there for a while as Gil keep in touch with Wall after he left but I don't hear anything like that anymore. I'll take Wall as my franchise leader any day over Gil who was a great scorer, but not a leader nor a defensive player.

Beal is also a very mature solid talented piece. He did great in the playoff in his 2nd year. He is just 21. I expect to see a nice leap from Beal next year. He got his feet wet handling the ball more. I expect to see that pay dividends next year with he and Wall playing off each other so Wall can play more aggressive as well as get some breaks.

The support pieces to help them develop I see as highly necessary to their development. Nene. Okafor. Miller. Webster and Trevor A. They have all helped them develop both mentally and by giving them options on the floor.

Until we see what they do this off season, I can't speak to the next stage except for I see the team as that young core of Wall, Beal and Otto.

Booker, Singleton and Seraphin. I think they missed this new development cycle just like Ves did.

Wall, Beal, Otto. They are all on the new program and I expect them to add another player in about 15 days.

Glen ? If that was the right pick, I will be surprised. Should have just kept Wolters or gone with any numbers of names that were there like Ray McCallum, Jeff Withey, Jamaal Franklin, Marko Todorovic, Erick Green, Ryan Kelly, Colton Iverson. I'm not counting Glen in the mix moving forward. But he could still be used as stored value like Thomas will get used. Something to trade for something. A player or a higher pick.

They should have moved Singleton last year. Just doesn't seem to fit on this team so they should rotate him out and see if someone else can catch the wave. I missed them having a open spot to do that last year. Thats what SAS does. They try on a lot of shoes to find the right fit. And Kevin needed to grow up from being such a baby hooey. Great potential but never made the leap. I can only assume he doesn't listen well. Coaches tell him what they want, he does what he wants. Sounds like McGee but less of a knucklehead.

I'm no longer really worried about what happens next with them. I see the commitment to Wall, Beal and most likely Otto so that is mostly what they are focusing on. Lots of moves can happen over the next year or two as they get ready to make a run. Keep a solid vet core around Wall and Beal I feel is important for at least one more year. After that, they might be sound enough to take the training wheels off. But a team doesn't need to be all young anyway. SAS isn't all young. They are a mix.

And if the last two years have proven anything, things will not play out how many have projected. They did make the 2nd round and win two. Okafor did contribute. TA wasn't a bust. Wall can get better at shooting, learning to manage a game, change speeds and defend. Beal wasn't a bust either. He can shoot and he is improving at ball handling. And Randy actually does know when to call a time out surprisingly.

[montestewart]

Over the last three years, Nene has barely averaged 54 games played per 82 games. More than that would be nice, but not really a very bankable outcome.

[hands11]

I don't agree with the notion that you can only get elite players with high draft picks. Paul George is elite, and wasn't taken with a high pick. Kevin Love is available in trade, and he's an elite player. Our best player in the last 10 years wasn't drafted by this team.

There are other ways to obtain great players...it's just that Grunfeld hasn't been successful at doing it on any level.

Lets talk about some elite players that won titles and multiple titles.

MJ #3 and Pippin #5
Magic #1 and James Worthy #1
Bird 6th and McHale #3
Duncan #1 and David Robinson #1
The Dream #1
Isiah Thomas #2
Paul Pierce 10th
Kobe 13th
Dirk #9

What do they all have in common ? They were drafted by the team they won the title with. Only LeBron didn't and one Detroit team in 2004

Every other title winner dating back to 1984 had one of those names above on it that they drafted high. All except PP and Kobe who went to amazing winning franchises. Dirk is the interesting one. Draft #9 in 1998 one pick before PP to a .380 win team and turned them around.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/DAL/

1998 what a fascinating draft.
http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draft-h ... syear=1998

Another important note. Only two of those names were PGs

Guess I shouldn't leave out

Wes Unseld #2 with Elvin Hayes #1 Greg Ballard #4, Tom Henderson #7

[hands11]

Thats why you give Ted credit and you give Ted/EG credit. From 29 win to 2nd round 2 wins and the Wall and Beal we have today, all in 4 years. A total franchise transformation. From crap to legit future established winning franchise.

That earns them an A

Not him.

A total franchise transformation or after having sooooooooo many assets from being soooooooo bad the last five years, the Wizards finally managed to win more than half their games, mainly off the backs of two FREE AGENT veterans bought in because of the failures to manage and develop many of those assets.

What's lost in your argument is that beyond Wall & Beal, there's nothing to show but expensive injury plagued vets who most of us would like to trade (Nene & Webster), free agents that decisions have to be made on (Gortat, Ariza, Gooden, Booker, Harrington, Temple) and 4 recent draft picks that rotted on the bench last season (Porter, Rice, Seraphin & Singleton). I guess you can also throw 37 yr old Andre Miller in their for kicks as well.

This doesn't look like a total franchise transformation, this looks like rehash from an old Ernie Grunfeld blueprint on how to construct a basketball team. Maybe this version will get a little farther as long as John Wall doesn't ruin his knee like Gilbert did. But the expensive capped out roster lead by a mediocre coach... while going all in for 45 wins, we've been here before...

There is no point in countering Hands with rationality or analysis. Those are not activities he practices. He just sets his sail to whatever the most recent prevailing wind has been and then says "that's what I've been saying all along."

This from the person that claims I'm the one that name calls and I should stop. Ahh Yeah.

Keep the propaganda machine rolling my personal little stalker. My rationality and analysis runs circles around yours because you have none. And if you haven't noticed. You are obsessed with me. While some might find that flattering, thats not my thing.

Because you are PIFF and I made every correct draft pick since 1980. And if you have forgotten, I will remind you again in my next post.

Rationality and Analysis

All in good fun my friend.

[hands11]

Let's assume next years salary cap goes up to $63 million. 63/4 = 15.75. There is no chance in hell that all 4 of those guys play for only $15.75 million next year. The big 3 are scheduled to make over $20 million each if they opt in.

Not to mention the fact that the Heat have Cole under contract next season for $2 million and Anderson/Haslem have player options for a combined $7 million. Whoever came up with this big 4 nonsense was clueless.

Its going to be interesting for sure.

They are at $69,446,678 and a 77M Lux Tax level with 6 players.

How are they going to bring in new players ?

I guess Pat needs to pull out the Mafia man talk to D Wade. Hey D. Come er. I want to talk to you.

Yeah, it would take all of them optioning out and going for something like that 15M. And I don't see why they wouldn't if they really wanted to make a run at another ring. I guess they could all do one year with one year options and revisit is again next year.

Wade better be clear whats going on because its not use SAS that could come back again next year, the LAC are going to be right there when they add an upgrade at SF. And OKC will be there. And I expect DAL to be even better after making some adjustments.

If MIA doesn't do something, they aren't likely getting any more rings.

[Baller2014]

I don't see the comparison between the Spurs and Wizards at all, and I say that as a Spurs fan who has been very please to see them outsource their model to different teams (some of whom I expect to be very good, very soon). You don't have a D-League team, you don't seem to have comparable scouting, you don't seem to be creating the same culture. You got Beal, which is a very Spurs/Thunder pick (heck, the Thunder wanted to move Harden for him), but otherwise I'm not seeing it so much. Wall still needs a lot of development, and frankly speaks way too much and too freely to the media (very un-Spur like), and Porter looked horrible on draft night and looks horrible today. Other recent picks haven't exactly shone either. Getting Gortat was a good move if you can keep him, but overall I think a lot needs to be done before you start invoking comparisons to the Spurs.

[montestewart]

I don't see the comparison between the Spurs and Wizards at all, and I say that as a Spurs fan who has been very please to see them outsource their model to different teams (some of whom I expect to be very good, very soon). You don't have a D-League team, you don't seem to have comparable scouting, you don't seem to be creating the same culture. You got Beal, which is a very Spurs/Thunder pick (heck, the Thunder wanted to move Harden for him), but otherwise I'm not seeing it so much. Wall still needs a lot of development, and frankly speaks way too much and too freely to the media (very un-Spur like), and Porter looked horrible on draft night and looks horrible today. Other recent picks haven't exactly shone either. Getting Gortat was a good move if you can keep him, but overall I think a lot needs to be done before you start invoking comparisons to the Spurs.

Other than perhaps a few delusional types, I think Wizards fans are well aware of the differences between the two franchises.

[dckingsfan]

I don't see the comparison between the Spurs and Wizards at all, and I say that as a Spurs fan who has been very please to see them outsource their model to different teams (some of whom I expect to be very good, very soon). You don't have a D-League team, you don't seem to have comparable scouting, you don't seem to be creating the same culture. You got Beal, which is a very Spurs/Thunder pick (heck, the Thunder wanted to move Harden for him), but otherwise I'm not seeing it so much. Wall still needs a lot of development, and frankly speaks way too much and too freely to the media (very un-Spur like), and Porter looked horrible on draft night and looks horrible today. Other recent picks haven't exactly shone either. Getting Gortat was a good move if you can keep him, but overall I think a lot needs to be done before you start invoking comparisons to the Spurs.

Other than perhaps a few delusional types, I think Wizards fans are well aware of the differences between the two franchises.

Or, "other than that Ms. Lincoln, how was the play..."

[hands11]

I don't see the comparison between the Spurs and Wizards at all, and I say that as a Spurs fan who has been very please to see them outsource their model to different teams (some of whom I expect to be very good, very soon). You don't have a D-League team, you don't seem to have comparable scouting, you don't seem to be creating the same culture. You got Beal, which is a very Spurs/Thunder pick (heck, the Thunder wanted to move Harden for him), but otherwise I'm not seeing it so much. Wall still needs a lot of development, and frankly speaks way too much and too freely to the media (very un-Spur like), and Porter looked horrible on draft night and looks horrible today. Other recent picks haven't exactly shone either. Getting Gortat was a good move if you can keep him, but overall I think a lot needs to be done before you start invoking comparisons to the Spurs.

If you are referring to my post on the previous page, I think you are extrapolating it to much. I pointed to a few very specific things and I specifically said they are not the Spurs.

What I said was they play for each other. They are unselfish and they play solid team defense. I also pointed out they have a SAS coach as an assistant. And I made reference to how they are grooming Wall and Beal with solid vets around them much like SAS did with TD, Parker and now Lenard. And adding players like Gooden and Miller is very SAS like. Man I would like to get some Boris Diaw, Danny Green, Patrick Mills pieces. Gooden and A Miller are close to that type.

But no, they are not SAS. SAS is the best of the best. I love the way they do things, the players they add and how they play ball. That to me is what basketball is supposed to be.

And you are right. Beal would probably fit well in SA and so would Gortat. I also expect Otto might be a SA type. Both teams also have a few players in common over the years like Roger Mason, Othyus Jeffers, Alonzo Gee, Garrett Temple, Larry Owens. All fringe talent but I expect WAS figured if SAS was looking at them maybe there was something there. I always liked when the WIZ added fringe or DL talent that has played in SAS.

But SAS in my view is one of if not the best franchise in league history. They have done it since the ABA in 1967-68 consistently. I expected/hoped they would win it all this year before the season started. I was just pointing out a few things they are doing that are similar that are good things and I hope they emulate more.

The Wizards franchise is making progress and if you know the franchise and where is was five years ago, being able to point out these SAS like characteristics, even if just a few, is great progress. And you are right. They next step they need to make structurally is to purchase their own DL team and that's something I expect them to do in the next two years.

We will all be keeping an eye on Ted to see what kind of owner he is. I'm a firm believer that it all starts at the top. SAS to me is the model franchise. Any owner would be smart to keep tabs on what they do and try to replicate it.

Feast your eyes on what the San Antonio Spurs' 15 years of dominance have wrought upon the NBA

http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2013/6/5/43 ... l-managers

[Baller2014]

Gooden has one of the lowest BBall IQ's to talent ratio I have ever seen. I can't even imagine Gooden on a Spurs team.

Otto is the exact opposite of a "Spurs" player. The Spurs role players (and let's face it, that's what Otto optimistically looks to project into) excel so much because they're specialists, not generalists. They're given a specific role and they stick to it. It's different with the stars of course, but something the Spurs pioneered, and that a lot of teams didn't clue onto until much later, is that sometimes being a specialist makes you much more valuable than having a broad range of solid skills. Porter is specialist at nothing, he's (ostensibly) above average in a bunch of areas. Danny Green is a specialist. He hits 3's and plays D. Bowen was even more of a specialist. He played D, and hit a wide, wide open corner 3 (and nothing else). Bonner is a specialist. Otto Porter is not a specialist. Generalists on the Spurs, aside from the stars, are rare. Diaw kinda counts as one, in the sense that he has all around skill, but he succeeds because his skill set is extremely specialised for his position. Diaw does things at the 4 and 5 that big men can't do, like having point guard skills and hitting jumpers way above average for his size. Porter isn't like that at all. Similarly, Jan Vess suffers from the problem of having generalist skills and nothing he really excels at (and a bunch of weaknesses on top of that).

The names of "fringe talent" you associate with the Spurs only indicates the Wizards are terrible at identifying talent. There's a reason those guys bounced out of San Antonio quickly.

I'll just leave it there. Suffice to say, there's not much in common in the 2 teams approaches.

[hands11]

Gooden has one of the lowest BBall IQ's to talent ratio I have ever seen. I can't even imagine Gooden on a Spurs team.

Otto is the exact opposite of a "Spurs" player. The Spurs role players (and let's face it, that's what Otto optimistically looks to project into) excel so much because they're specialists, not generalists. They're given a specific role and they stick to it. It's different with the stars of course, but something the Spurs pioneered, and that a lot of teams didn't clue onto until much later, is that sometimes being a specialist makes you much more valuable than having a broad range of solid skills. Porter is specialist at nothing, he's (ostensibly) above average in a bunch of areas. Danny Green is a specialist. He hits 3's and plays D. Bowen was even more of a specialist. He played D, and hit a wide, wide open corner 3 (and nothing else). Bonner is a specialist. Otto Porter is not a specialist. Generalists on the Spurs, aside from the stars, are rare. Diaw kinda counts as one, in the sense that he has all around skill, but he succeeds because his skill set is extremely specialised for his position. Diaw does things at the 4 and 5 that big men can't do, like having point guard skills and hitting jumpers way above average for his size. Porter isn't like that at all. Similarly, Jan Vess suffers from the problem of having generalist skills and nothing he really excels at (and a bunch of weaknesses on top of that).

The names of "fringe talent" you associate with the Spurs only indicates the Wizards are terrible at identifying talent. There's a reason those guys bounced out of San Antonio quickly.

I'll just leave it there. Suffice to say, there's not much in common in the 2 teams approaches.

You have a lot to say about Otto Porter but it doesn't sound like you know much about him. Corner 3, D and rebounds is exactly how he will start off next year. But no sense in arguing it. Otto's NBA career so far was a very small sample. He had a nice college career and showed good process in his two years. He got to play some late in the year and I saw enough to not be to worried about him. He played with confidence. I think he will be fine next year. He will contribute off the bench as a baby Trevor A with better handles and rebounding. But we won't know for sure until he does it. All anyone can do is speculate about next year.

He played in a system where they shared the ball. You have to pass. For people to earn playing time (in Georgetown's system), they have to defend. Porter doesn't need to have the ball to be effective. He's a good defender, rebounder and passer. He's a strong mid-range shooter, whose range extends to the 3-point line.

And while that may have been true of Gooden in the past, it was not at all how he played for the Wizards last year. He played with a lot of BBIQ and showed some nice skills. He expanded his shooting range. He took charges. Rounded. Hit open shots and played a nice team game. He was a great pick up for almost nothing $411,619 and he will be a nice value vet on min contract next year because he is still getting paid $6,680,000 by MIL.

As for the fringe players. Your not making any sense. They bounced out here also. Except Mason. He stayed with both franchises a little longer. And WAS has keep Temple around as a 3rd guard defensive specialist on the min. As for bouncing. SAS does a ton of that. Like I said. They try on a lot a shoes looking for role players.

[Baller2014]

Otto Porter came into the NBA pegged as not being an especially good shooter (and having an awkward mechanic to his shot), and this season he shot 190. from the 3 point line. How can he be a specialist 3 point shooter then, except based on incredible optimism? Likewise, I'm not sure there was ever an expectation that he would be a specialist defender in the NBA. It's not impossible, but he hasn't shown anything like it at this juncture.

[hands11]

Otto Porter came into the NBA pegged as not being an especially good shooter (and having an awkward mechanic to his shot), and this season he shot 190. from the 3 point line. How can he be a specialist 3 point shooter then, except based on incredible optimism? Likewise, I'm not sure there was ever an expectation that he would be a specialist defender in the NBA. It's not impossible, but he hasn't shown anything like it at this juncture.

Maybe we should pick this up in the Otto thread.

Again, it doesn't sound like you know much about him.


viewtopic.php?f=35&t=1258701&start=1380

[nate33]

Gooden has one of the lowest BBall IQ's to talent ratio I have ever seen. I can't even imagine Gooden on a Spurs team.

Otto is the exact opposite of a "Spurs" player. The Spurs role players (and let's face it, that's what Otto optimistically looks to project into) excel so much because they're specialists, not generalists. They're given a specific role and they stick to it. It's different with the stars of course, but something the Spurs pioneered, and that a lot of teams didn't clue onto until much later, is that sometimes being a specialist makes you much more valuable than having a broad range of solid skills. Porter is specialist at nothing, he's (ostensibly) above average in a bunch of areas. Danny Green is a specialist. He hits 3's and plays D. Bowen was even more of a specialist. He played D, and hit a wide, wide open corner 3 (and nothing else). Bonner is a specialist. Otto Porter is not a specialist. Generalists on the Spurs, aside from the stars, are rare. Diaw kinda counts as one, in the sense that he has all around skill, but he succeeds because his skill set is extremely specialised for his position. Diaw does things at the 4 and 5 that big men can't do, like having point guard skills and hitting jumpers way above average for his size. Porter isn't like that at all. Similarly, Jan Vess suffers from the problem of having generalist skills and nothing he really excels at (and a bunch of weaknesses on top of that).

The names of "fringe talent" you associate with the Spurs only indicates the Wizards are terrible at identifying talent. There's a reason those guys bounced out of San Antonio quickly.

I'll just leave it there. Suffice to say, there's not much in common in the 2 teams approaches.

I think you are partially correct in your analysis. The Spurs do indeed seem to have a distinction between Generalists and Specialists. The Generalists are allowed to create, and the Specialists play their role and no more. However, I don't necessarily think that's how they draft players. Their foremost objective when they draft players is to find guys who are smart, and who can shoot. Then they figure out how best to utilize them. If they prove to have the skills to do more than just be a 3&D Specialist, then they'll use them. Diaw is a perfect example. Leonard is also starting to break out of his Specialist mode. Pop let's Diaw and Leonard play like a Generalist and create their own shot only when he has a matchup advantage at that position. Otherwise, they stick to their Specialist mode and it's Parker and Ginobili's job to be the Generalist.

I think Porter would be a welcome addition to the Spurs because he is smart and he can shoot. They would probably start him off as a Specialist but, over time, I could see him expanding his role.

[Baller2014]

1) Kawhi was not drafted to be a specialist. He was drafted because they thought he was a ridiculously good player who should have gone much higher than 15 (and they tried to trade for a higher pick, because they thought he was sure to be gone by 15).
2) Diaw is an all-around guy, but he's still got a specialised skill set for his position. He's not getting minutes because of his all around game, if he had the exact same skill set and was 6-4 I doubt he'd leave the bench (De Colo had those skills and never did). He is getting minutes because he has unique skills for his position (the big man spot). Otto Porter is not a good comparison, because his skills for his position are not unique, or even above average per se. Specialisation is about a niche skill you excel at in the market. Diaw excels at passing and shooting for a PF. He isn't actually good at those things per se, he's probably average at best across the NBA as a shooter and passer.
3) Otto Porter isn't a specialist. He isn't especially good at D for his position, or shooting, or anything really. I'm not even sure he's above average at any of those things. He was drafted, supposedly, because he had good all around skills in a whole bunch of areas... and that's basically the opposite of what the Spurs look for. I mean, you say he can shoot... he just shot 19% from the 3. By what measure can he shoot? He had one (distorted) year of solid 3 point shooting (off a small sample) in his final year of college, where the 3 point line is closer, and on a lot of shooting metrics scouts observed he was not promising. They also criticised his mechanics as broken looking. His first year seems to have backed up those concerns.

[nate33]

Leonard was indeed drafted to be a specialist. All he did in his first 2 years was be a 3&D SF. And he couldn't even shoot that well when he was drafted either. But they knew Leonard was smart and a hard worker. So first they focused on his shot to make him useful right away as a specialists. And now, they are finally giving him a little bit of leeway to be more creative in the half-court set.

Porter shot 42% from 3-point range and 77% from the line as a 19-year-old in college. I'd say, from those measures, it was a reasonable bet that he could shoot. Certainly it was understood by all that Porter as a college player was a better shooter than Leonard was as a college player.

[montestewart]

Hey 2014, were you up all night?

[Baller2014]

I know he shot 42% from the (shorter) 3pt line in college. But scouts who saw that also noted:
- Limited sample size, concerning given his horrible shooting the previous year
- Pick and Popped just 3 times all season in college
- Awkward mechanics
- Lacks elevation and high release point, problematic for the transition to the NBA, playing against bigger and more athletic players
- Bad off the dribble shooting (26%)

Picking Porter, a generalist, and picking him at #3(!) seems a very un-Spurs like move tbh.

I don't agree that they drafted Kawhi as a specialist. They used him as one early on, but they always intended for him to be more.

[hands11]

Leonard was indeed drafted to be a specialist. All he did in his first 2 years was be a 3&D SF. And he couldn't even shoot that well when he was drafted either. But they knew Leonard was smart and a hard worker. So first they focused on his shot to make him useful right away as a specialists. And now, they are finally giving him a little bit of leeway to be more creative in the half-court set.

Porter shot 42% from 3-point range and 77% from the line as a 19-year-old in college. I'd say, from those measures, it was a reasonable bet that he could shoot. Certainly it was understood by all that Porter as a college player was a better shooter than Leonard was as a college player.

Yeah. Not sure why Baller is going so off the tracks on Otto.

Seems to be looking at things very myopically and maybe being over protective of the SAS brand. But its not a zero sum game and he isn't the only SAS fans here that knows the team and their process.

Otto has a ton of SA DNA in him. And as you pointed out. Lenard couldn't shot early on.

But as I mentioned, there is no answer to this debate until after next year. Its just speculation. Baller is calling Otto a bust based on last year. To me I think that is pretty short sighted to work on that same a sample size.

Otto is smart, works hard, can shoot the mid range and 3, is long for his position, a team player and a level headed high character smart young man. He tracks the ball well and he rebounds well and he is a selfless passer. He is known for his D which is the opposite of what Baller is saying. And by Baller small sample size on his 3 ball, I guess Beal will never be a good 3 ball shooter either because he started his career not being able to his the broad side of a barn. I mean come on. He played a total of 319 minute and shots 21 total 3 balls. If that is the data set you are going to us over his college career and your eyeballs then I guess that's what he wants to do. But he is very likely going to be wrong.

Otto learned a lot in his red shirt year. He worked a lot on his shot to extend his range and speed up his release. He got himself healthy and he is gaining weight working out with Gortat who is a great mentor. He is also focusing on his corner 3 as per his interview. He knows what to work on and he understand what his role will be next year. Like we have both said, he is a generalist that will start his journey as a specialist as he/they grow his skills and integrate him with NBA experience. I expect he starts off as a Trevor A/Danny Green type. After two years, he will start to create more.

Long run, he should be a nice replacement for Trevor A because he can do what TA does but he is younger and has ball handling skills. Which is a nice fit with Wall being the primary ball handler and Beal expanding his handles. So in a couple years, they will have three players that can handle the ball to drive and dish and get the offense started. After that, their passing skills and unselfish smarts will kick in. And they are all getting tutors to play defense first. All are smart focused team first young men.

What the Wizard most lack now is a big man version of that. But wouldn't every team like to have a Tim Duncan. But last I checked, that hasn't happened since...well. Tim Duncan. Its been 16 years and you need the #1 pick to get him. Well there is Dirk. Different, but still top notch. Now drafting him at 9th. Now thats drafting. Specially when you get him like this..

Bucks Traded along with the rights to Pat Garrity (#19) to Dallas for the rights to Robert Traylor (#6).

[hands11]

I know he shot 42% from the (shorter) 3pt line in college. But scouts who saw that also noted:
- Limited sample size, concerning given his horrible shooting the previous year
- Pick and Popped just 3 times all season in college
- Awkward mechanics
- Lacks elevation and high release point, problematic for the transition to the NBA, playing against bigger and more athletic players
- Bad off the dribble shooting (26%)

Picking Porter, a generalist, and picking him at #3(!) seems a very un-Spurs like move tbh.

I don't agree that they drafted Kawhi as a specialist. They used him as one early on, but they always intended for him to be more.

How often do the Spurs have a top 3 pick ? Almost never. And you don't get to chose if there are franchise all time great top 10 HOF players there when you get those picks. You get lucky enough that it happens.

They got two #1s over a 10 year period and where lucky enough that Duncan and Robinson were there those years. I would love to see what would have happen if they got the #3 in 1997

http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-draft-h ... syear=1997

Would they have drafted Chauncey Billups, or Antonio Daniels or Tony Battie.

Because as you see, lucky has a ton to do with it. Because non of those players is Tim Duncan. And with no Tim Duncan, they would not be the Spurs we know. Even D Robinson though his prime couldn't win them a title. Oh, I suspect they would have still been good. They have been a good team throughout their existent. But would they be one of the best. A multi title franchise, or just the Utah Jazz of the 90s ?

Other then that, they traded GH for get Leonard at 15. That was their high pick. And that's the beauty that is the Spurs. They pick like 28th almost every year but they still keep that train rolling. But lets be clear. They drafted Duncan and they have Pops coaching and that is the core of that franchise. Thats what build the institutional success that allowed them to develop a Parker, Emmanuel Ginobili, and now a Leonard.

And even the Spur blow it sometimes. They drafted Goran Dragic and sent him to the Suns.. Acquired for Malik Hairston, cash, and a future 2nd round pick. No one get it right all the time.