Draft misses..the main difference between Winners and Losers

[GreenMachine]

Say that to the big city teams like Lakers, Celtics, houston who attract all-stars and franchise players like Shaq, Gasol, Pierce, KG, shuttlesworth etc.

Celtics drafted Pierce. And traded good young players who we drafted for KG and Ray. We didn't "attract" any of them.

[shangrila]

I think that people don't take into account fit and what role that plays in development.

I mean, take Klay Thompson. He was drafted by a team with arguably the best shooting PG in history. That's taken a ton of pressure off him from the start and allowed him to gain confidence by doing what he's good at, like shooting, and stay away from the things that aren't his strengths, like creating for others. Over time he's been able to improve in those weaker areas while keeping his confidence up. If you had instead put him on, say, Minnesota right from the start, is he still able to develop like this with all the added pressure and work load?

Don't get me wrong, this isn't the only factor. Bad teams are bad for numerous reasons and I doubt anyone, aside from Love miraculously, could have developed under a guy like Rambis. But I look at teams like Golden State, teams that were for a while in that mid to late lottery spot, and I can't help but feel that being able to draft a guy that fits rather than drafting a talented guy and trying to make it all fit later...it has to play some role, doesn't it?

Hell, take Jonny Flynn. A PnR PG drafted into an organization obsessed with using an offence that runs through bigs and forces PGs to be glorified shooters. In what universe was he supposed to succeed with that? I'm not saying he would have or should have been a star, but given how he played in college he should never have ended up out of the league entirely.

[Kings2013]

Kings continue to be bad. Why, because they passed on Liliard for pretty much a bust. They drafted Jimmer...who was a bust....
Warriors sucked for the lonnnnnnngest of time...drafting Dunleavy with the 3rd pick....Joe Smith with 1st pick....on and on....UNTIL...they drafted Curry, Klay, Draymond, Barnes, Ezeli...actually hitting on the right picks finally.

The point is that everyone makes it seem so complex to build a team when the truth is it's all about a GM that knows how to target talent and draft smart for three years is a row.

Look at Wolves....drafted THREE point guards one year in the draft with Curry and non of them were Curry lol.

So if you are a fan of a bad team right now, unless it's big time injuries, look no further than your GM. Odds are he sucks at drafting players.

The picks you mentioned Petrie struck out on we're consensus picks. I personally don't blame GMs for picks a lot of other GMs would have made, that is luck

[bondom34]

That's why I've always thought Sam Presti should be given more credit for drafting Harden and Westbrook. They were far from consensus picks. Westbrook was overshadowed by Collison and Love at UCLA and players like Love and Gordon were much more hyped up than he was with. Same with Harden. Tyreke Evans and Ricky Rubio were getting much more pub coming into the draft than Harden was. Of course Harden is gone now but that was a brilliant draft decision by Presti. If OKC had made different selections in those two drafts, they never would have made the finals in 2011 and had all the success that they've had.

what you are overlooking though is that both of those drafts had a ton of talent....

if OKC drafted love and Rubio instead of westbrook and harden does anything change? Durant is really what mattered and Love is a top 10 player.

Durant/Rubio/Love is probably going to get you to the WCF/Finals just as well or at the very least give you 2 superstars.

Now, lets say instead of the Westbrook draft, they had a pick in the anthony bennett draft. who do they take then and how does that look, even if they draft smart?

Just to point out, they had a lotto pick in the Bennett draft. He's not as good as Westbrook, but he's better than Bennett and probably top 5 in that draft. To add, he got Roberson via a draft trade, Jackson in the late first, and Ibaka late first the same year as Westbrook. Basically all those guys were anywhere from "not consensus picks" at the spot taken or considered confusing by some.

[theFRANCHISE]

you act like the warriors have won a title, #1 seed in december/1st day of january. watch out!

[whocurrz]

Kings continue to be bad. Why, because they passed on Liliard for pretty much a bust. They drafted Jimmer...who was a bust....
Warriors sucked for the lonnnnnnngest of time...drafting Dunleavy with the 3rd pick....Joe Smith with 1st pick....on and on....UNTIL...they drafted Curry, Klay, Draymond, Barnes, Ezeli...actually hitting on the right picks finally.

The point is that everyone makes it seem so complex to build a team when the truth is it's all about a GM that knows how to target talent and draft smart for three years is a row.

Look at Wolves....drafted THREE point guards one year in the draft with Curry and non of them were Curry lol.

So if you are a fan of a bad team right now, unless it's big time injuries, look no further than your GM. Odds are he sucks at drafting players.

The picks you mentioned Petrie struck out on we're consensus picks. I personally don't blame GMs for picks a lot of other GMs would have made, that is luck

Jimmer was not a consensus pick at all. And although I actually really liked T Rob there were definitely red flags in his game . Cousins was a consensus pick and that's about it. The Kings and Wolves have both been pretty bad about drafting and that is FACT and why they've been bad for almost a decade

[ILOVEIT]

Kings continue to be bad. Why, because they passed on Liliard for pretty much a bust. They drafted Jimmer...who was a bust....
Warriors sucked for the lonnnnnnngest of time...drafting Dunleavy with the 3rd pick....Joe Smith with 1st pick....on and on....UNTIL...they drafted Curry, Klay, Draymond, Barnes, Ezeli...actually hitting on the right picks finally.

The point is that everyone makes it seem so complex to build a team when the truth is it's all about a GM that knows how to target talent and draft smart for three years is a row.

Look at Wolves....drafted THREE point guards one year in the draft with Curry and non of them were Curry lol.

So if you are a fan of a bad team right now, unless it's big time injuries, look no further than your GM. Odds are he sucks at drafting players.

bump this thread before or immediately after the 2015 draft. post your top 30 list of prospects, tell us who your team should have drafted, who will be a bust in the draft, etc.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on "makes it seem so complex to build a team". I don't mean it's simple What I mean it's not complex to see WHY teams suck year after year. Teams suck year after year because the GM's and talent evaluators on those teams suck. Period. It's not who is the next Phil Jackson....it's a GM either knows what the heck he's doing or he doesn't. I think GM's get free rides year after year on bad teams.

[ILOVEIT]

you act like the warriors have won a title, #1 seed in december/1st day of january. watch out!

Really? No...but they are a heck of a lot better than they were for the previous ten years when they sucked because their GM's sucked. If you care about responding to the point of the post...Talent evaluation is the point....

But thanks for raising the level of discourse

[Prokorov]

I absolutely agree. Drafting is and probably always will be the most important way to succeed in the NBA. Let's look at the starting lineups or so of the playoff teams in the NBA.



Warriors: Drafted Curry, Drafted Thompson, Drafted Draymond Green. All at very favorable draft positions, I might add.
Blazers: Drafted Aldridge, Drafted Lillard, Drafted Batum
Thunder: Drafted Durant, Drafted Westbrook, Drafted Ibaka, Drafted Adams
Rockets: OK it's not ALWAYS the most important way to succeed. they did draft jones and motiejunas!
Grizzlies: Drafted Conley, at least. Quasi-drafted Gasol, in their hearts.
Spurs: Drafted Duncan, Parker, Leonard, Ginobili
Clippers: Drafted Griffin, Drafted Jordan
Mavericks: Drafted Dirk.
Pelicans? Drafted Anthony Davis
Phoenix? OK they've done a good job outside the draft lately

In the East;

Bulls: Drafted Noah, Drafted Rose, Drafted Butler, Drafted Mirotic, Drafted Gibson
Cavs: Drafted Lebron (might not count), Drafted Irving, Drafted Waiters/Thompson
Raptors: Drafted Derozan & Valanciunas and Ross
Atlanta: Drafted Horford, Drafted Teague
Washington: Drafted Wall, Drafted Beal
Milwaukee (I KNOW?!?!?): Drafted Sanders, Drafted Giannis
Pacers (special mention): Drafted Paul George & Roy Hibbert


So on like 84% of these teams, they drafted their best or second best player.

Drafting is the most important way to succeed in the NBA.

This is SO biased

1) no mention of Chris Paul for the clippers?
2) no mention of Kyle Lowry for the Raptors?
3) no mention of Gortat, Nene, Pierce(ariza last year) for the wizards?
4) no mention of the nets at all who are a playoff team(dwill, johnson)
5) no mention of the miami heat, a playoff team(bosh, deng)

the real way to win the NBA is simple: get a top 12 player. doesnt matter how, it happens equally in all 3 aspects(draft/trade/FA)

sometimes you draft them: Curry, Duncan, Dirk, Rose, durant
soemtimes you dont: Lebron, Harden/Dwight, Paul, Gasol

You are failing to recognize that trading for/FA to acquire a top 12 player simply isn't a legitimate option for the vast majority of the league. No top 10 guy is just going to sign with a Milwaukee as a FA like how top FAs want to go to the lakers/heat/bulls/ny teams. It just isn't a realistic way to a build a team for a small market. Drafting in the top 5 is the most sure fire way to acquire a top tier player and it's blatantly obvious if you look at all nba teams and all star selections and where those guys were drafted. Like all the guys you mention as acquired through trade/FA were top 4 draft selections that spent significant time (aside from harden only playing 3 years with OKC I guess) on their original teams. Then look at the teams they ended up on after that: Miami, Houston, LAC, LAL. So yeah if you're a big market/desirable location then you can reliably sign and trade for star players, but that's not the reality for 75% of the nba.

The draft really isnt a viable option either... first, there has to be a superstar in that draft. which is like what, a 33% chance? 25% chance? 20% chance? how ofter is there a top 12 player in a draft? then you have to be bad enough to have a lottery pick, and lucky enough to have your lottery pick be in the top 1 or 2 picks, then you have to hope you pick the right guy from the top and evaluate these 19 year old and foreign players correctly.

[nickr91]

Player development is equally important as getting the pick right. Danny Green is a good example of this.

Agreed. I would even say player development is more important than picking the right guy. By a pretty large margin in fact

[Jazza2319]

Certain skills translate to the NBA from college. Rebounding translates big time, just look at guys like Paul Millsap and Carl Landry.

[gopherman23]

Through bad drafting and mis-managment, this could have been a realistic Timberwolves roster.

PG: Rubio
SG: Curry- Drafted Flynn instead.
SF: Parsons- Traded his rights away.
PF: Love
C: Cousins- Drafted Johnson one spot ahead of Cousins.

Bench:
Ty Lawson- Traded for a future first that eventually turned into Martell Webster.
Nikola Mirotic- Traded his rights basically for Malcolm Lee.
Pekovic
Muhammed
Dieng
Lavine

[Ignitowsky]

The thing is about drafting is that you are evaluating a player on a small sample size of work and trying to project the next 10 years. Then you have the fact that the conditions for the player pre draft and post draft and completely different. Money being a big one for example....some players just are happy to cash in a cheque others actually focus on improving their games.

It's not an easy gig but there are some teams better than others at drafting thats for certain.

The problem isn't sample size, it's that you have to compare apples to oranges, meaning, you have to figure out how a kid will play in the pros based on how they have played against vastly inferior competition.

[Zombiesonics]

Physical traits(ATH)/ IQ(overall hoops knowhow talent)/ Mental makeup. pro sports is similar to a lot of other careers, those who make it to the top are cutthroat with approach and ultimately dedicated to their passion. entering the curry draft i saw him as can't miss, he was dominant offensive player with enough IQ to transition to the 1.

also as noted certain skills definitely translate well, mainly rebounding.

[jowglenn]

I absolutely agree. Drafting is and probably always will be the most important way to succeed in the NBA. Let's look at the starting lineups or so of the playoff teams in the NBA.



Warriors: Drafted Curry, Drafted Thompson, Drafted Draymond Green. All at very favorable draft positions, I might add.
Blazers: Drafted Aldridge, Drafted Lillard, Drafted Batum
Thunder: Drafted Durant, Drafted Westbrook, Drafted Ibaka, Drafted Adams
Rockets: OK it's not ALWAYS the most important way to succeed. they did draft jones and motiejunas!
Grizzlies: Drafted Conley, at least. Quasi-drafted Gasol, in their hearts.
Spurs: Drafted Duncan, Parker, Leonard, Ginobili
Clippers: Drafted Griffin, Drafted Jordan
Mavericks: Drafted Dirk.
Pelicans? Drafted Anthony Davis
Phoenix? OK they've done a good job outside the draft lately

In the East;

Bulls: Drafted Noah, Drafted Rose, Drafted Butler, Drafted Mirotic, Drafted Gibson
Cavs: Drafted Lebron (might not count), Drafted Irving, Drafted Waiters/Thompson
Raptors: Drafted Derozan & Valanciunas and Ross
Atlanta: Drafted Horford, Drafted Teague
Washington: Drafted Wall, Drafted Beal
Milwaukee (I KNOW?!?!?): Drafted Sanders, Drafted Giannis
Pacers (special mention): Drafted Paul George & Roy Hibbert


So on like 84% of these teams, they drafted their best or second best player.

Drafting is the most important way to succeed in the NBA.

This is SO biased

1) no mention of Chris Paul for the clippers?
2) no mention of Kyle Lowry for the Raptors?
3) no mention of Gortat, Nene, Pierce(ariza last year) for the wizards?
4) no mention of the nets at all who are a playoff team(dwill, johnson)
5) no mention of the miami heat, a playoff team(bosh, deng)

the real way to win the NBA is simple: get a top 12 player. doesnt matter how, it happens equally in all 3 aspects(draft/trade/FA)

sometimes you draft them: Curry, Duncan, Dirk, Rose, durant
soemtimes you dont: Lebron, Harden/Dwight, Paul, Gasol

The draft really isnt a viable option either... first, there has to be a superstar in that draft. which is like what, a 33% chance? 25% chance? 20% chance? how ofter is there a top 12 player in a draft? then you have to be bad enough to have a lottery pick, and lucky enough to have your lottery pick be in the top 1 or 2 picks, then you have to hope you pick the right guy from the top and evaluate these 19 year old and foreign players correctly.

As to your first point, about the names I left out - I left them about because I was only, on purpose, listing the key guys who were drafted by their teams. I forgot Wade, which is sort of funny. Notice that I looked at the playoff teams and listed dozens of guys drafted by their teams, basically being the leader of their team; the counter-examples are far fewer.

Of course you can't draft every player you have - trades and free agent signings surely matter. No GM can live on draft alone. Many have died trying. Every championship team requires some key free agent or some key trade somewhere along the line.

But.

It remains clear that the best way to win in the NBA:

Draft The Right Guy

I looked at it (I really, really looked at it), and it seems like 95% of the teams that won a championship drafted their best player or at the very least they drafted their second best player. A very small portion of lead options on championship teams were brought in via FA or trade. Look at it the entire history of the NBA, counting backwards roughly in time or not, and you will say that to win a championship, the 1st and foremost thing you must do is: Draft The Right Guy. These are the guys (pretty much all Hall of Famers) who have won championships in the last 35 years:

Dirk Nowitzki (9th pick)
Dwyane Wade (5th pick)
Kobe Bryant (13th pick)
Tim Duncan (1st pick) (Robinson (1st), Parker (20something), Ginoblili (2342?), Leonard (15th) all drafted by the Spurs - GOAT drafting team)
Paul Pierce (10th pick) (and Rondo! 21st!)

(The Pistons' best own draftee on the 2004 title team was Tayshaun Prince (drafted 23rd), and they did draft Darko 2nd but he was hardly their best player; they are an anomaly both in the general talent distribution of that squad and the fact that they were mostly assembled from guys they did not draft. The main exception that proves the point)

Michael Jordan (3rd pick) Scottie Pippen (6th pick)
Hakeem Olajuwon (1st pick)
Isiah Thomas (2nd pick) (also drafted Dumars and Rodman at 18th & 27th)
Larry Bird (6th pick) Kevin McHale (3rd pick)
Magic Johnson (1st pick) James Worthy (1st pick)

Not to mention of course the many role-players and even all-stars that I have omitted from this list.


The point is, if you want to win an NBA championship, the main thing you have to do is draft the guy who's going to lead you to it.

In almost every case here, these 15 guys or so won it playing for the team that drafted them. Think about that. Virtually every championship in 35 years was won by a team that drafted their best player. The only exceptions are:

a) The Detroit team that was assembled mainly from players not drafted by the team,

b) the Lakers w/ Shaq and

c) Heat w/ Lebron and

d) Celtics w/ Garnett and Allen

In all those cases, though, the second best player (Kobe, Wade, Pierce) was drafted by the team.




IN CONCLUCIONS

If you want to win a championship, it starts at the draft.

[Cliff Levingston]

When you think about it, all value in the NBA revolves around the draft and starts with it.

Obviously the idea is to draft a guy and have him be great for you. Otherwise, in order to make a trade, you have to have something with value, that being actual picks or young players with potential. Older mid-level guys with expiring deals are usually just the filler. So if you don't draft well, you won't have those young guys with potential and thus your trade package will look worse. Obviously high picks are high picks but they don't get dealt all too often.

Free agency is a little more disconnected but probably still connected. No good free agent is going to pick your team to sign with over one that's drafted well and has good young players signed cheap for the next couple years or so. You can overpay for the then overpaid not-quite star level guys and get them to come to a worse team but that's about it. Then you're capped out too quickly. But Cliff Levingston digresses.

Even if you draft well you can still screw it up by making stupid trades or bad free agent signings but you'll still be in a much better position to build a team that can win with some regularity.

[slicedbread2]

Through bad drafting and mis-managment, this could have been a realistic Timberwolves roster.

PG: Rubio
SG: Curry- Drafted Flynn instead.
SF: Parsons- Traded his rights away.
PF: Love
C: Cousins- Drafted Johnson one spot ahead of Cousins.

Bench:
Ty Lawson- Traded for a future first that eventually turned into Martell Webster.
Nikola Mirotic- Traded his rights basically for Malcolm Lee.
Pekovic
Muhammed
Dieng
Lavine

As far as that particular draft went in 2009, there were a few things to be factored in:

1) Stephen Curry had pretty much let them know that he would not come and play in Minnesota and Kahn probably didn't want a Steve Francis part 2 happen. Drafting Flynn though was a complete joke and I thought that drafting Demar Derozan would have been smarter since he's a pretty solid 2 guard. Pretty dumb draft on his part.

2) Hindsight is 20/20 especially when it comes to second rounders and the draft in general. Anything can happen from draft night. The team drafting has to be able to have a solid player development staff that can help the players grow although sometimes it can be the fault of the player not coming through.

I will admit this: How the hell did Kahn get hired in the first place? That's pretty bad I will admit plus sometimes that's a problem with perennial losers in the draft: They end up making poor decisions and are generally incompetent. In the end, even with that supposed lineup, the Timberwolves would have found a way to screw it up.

[hands11]

I think that people don't take into account fit and what role that plays in development.

I mean, take Klay Thompson. He was drafted by a team with arguably the best shooting PG in history. That's taken a ton of pressure off him from the start and allowed him to gain confidence by doing what he's good at, like shooting, and stay away from the things that aren't his strengths, like creating for others. Over time he's been able to improve in those weaker areas while keeping his confidence up. If you had instead put him on, say, Minnesota right from the start, is he still able to develop like this with all the added pressure and work load?

Don't get me wrong, this isn't the only factor. Bad teams are bad for numerous reasons and I doubt anyone, aside from Love miraculously, could have developed under a guy like Rambis. But I look at teams like Golden State, teams that were for a while in that mid to late lottery spot, and I can't help but feel that being able to draft a guy that fits rather than drafting a talented guy and trying to make it all fit later...it has to play some role, doesn't it?

Hell, take Jonny Flynn. A PnR PG drafted into an organization obsessed with using an offence that runs through bigs and forces PGs to be glorified shooters. In what universe was he supposed to succeed with that? I'm not saying he would have or should have been a star, but given how he played in college he should never have ended up out of the league entirely.

This make a huge difference. Even for stars like Magic, MJ, etc and they are the best of the best that you build around.

People that say.. man, we missed on K Lenard don't realize that you wouldn't be getting the K Lenard that the SAS developed. You would have drafted raw K Lenard. So if your organization isn't a top flight one like SAS, I doubt you get the K Lenard they developed with Pops, Duncan, Parker, Manu, etc around him.

Its not just drafting the right talent, it where they land and how they are developed. All busts don't happen just because the player didn't have talent. Sometimes it the organization that fails the talent. Then they don't develop properly. They bounce around. They don't get the minutes in the right role. They sit. They watch of a lot of losing. They lose confidence. Then they are behind the development curve.

We mostly see the success stories and say... man we missed on that one. Or the failure and say, they blow that pick.

Its much more complicated then that.

[hands11]

Kings continue to be bad. Why, because they passed on Liliard for pretty much a bust. They drafted Jimmer...who was a bust....
Warriors sucked for the lonnnnnnngest of time...drafting Dunleavy with the 3rd pick....Joe Smith with 1st pick....on and on....UNTIL...they drafted Curry, Klay, Draymond, Barnes, Ezeli...actually hitting on the right picks finally.

The point is that everyone makes it seem so complex to build a team when the truth is it's all about a GM that knows how to target talent and draft smart for three years is a row.

Look at Wolves....drafted THREE point guards one year in the draft with Curry and non of them were Curry lol.

So if you are a fan of a bad team right now, unless it's big time injuries, look no further than your GM. Odds are he sucks at drafting players.

bump this thread before or immediately after the 2015 draft. post your top 30 list of prospects, tell us who your team should have drafted, who will be a bust in the draft, etc.

Perhaps I wasn't clear on "makes it seem so complex to build a team". I don't mean it's simple What I mean it's not complex to see WHY teams suck year after year. Teams suck year after year because the GM's and talent evaluators on those teams suck. Period. It's not who is the next Phil Jackson....it's a GM either knows what the heck he's doing or he doesn't. I think GM's get free rides year after year on bad teams.

Depends on the team drafting and what they need.

First thing a team needs is winner/leader. If you don't have that, you are drafting a personality as much as a talent.

That's why Parker was a great pick for MIL. He was what they team needed.
Wall was the right pick for the Wizards, not Cousins because Wall was what the Wizards needed after the Gil gungate thing. The Wizards needed a reliable driven person that could build the franchise around. Now Wall was young so it was still a roll of the dice. It wasn't always clear he would get there, but they put the right pieces around him to help him get there. They brought in vets to help mentor him. He has Sam I am as his coach. They brought in Nene and got ride of Swaggy P and McGee. Then they added a solid mature beyond his years 19 year old Bradly Beal. Now the team have A Miller to help mold Wall. They have Paul Peirce to help mold all of them. Even Otto Porter.

Even the great talents need molded. Its not just about talent. Its about building a winning team. Ultimately, basketball is a game of the mind as much as it is a physical game. The difference in the winners isn't all about skills. Its about the collective minds and heart of the players on the team.

A basketball team is more like a small special forces unit. It needs a leader(s) and defined skills and a plan. And when the plan ultimately doesn't go as planned, they need to know how to improvise as a unit.

[hands11]

Physical traits(ATH)/ IQ(overall hoops knowhow talent)/ Mental makeup. pro sports is similar to a lot of other careers, those who make it to the top are cutthroat with approach and ultimately dedicated to their passion. entering the curry draft i saw him as can't miss, he was dominant offensive player with enough IQ to transition to the 1.

also as noted certain skills definitely translate well, mainly rebounding.

Oh yeah.

Curry was the player I wanted from that draft and locked in on him before he went up the charts. He was just a pure talent regarding his shooting and he was a gamer.

That was the Wizards pick and I wanted them to use it. Problem was, ownership was in a win now mode(Abe). They needed more 3 point shooting and Gil needed a back up i.e. a hybrid SG/PG. Enter one of the best 3 point shooters in the league.. M Miller and 4 quarter Foye. Well.. Miller got injured. So was Foye. So was most the team. Then..

November 24, 2009 Abe Pollin passed.
New Year rolls round and Gilbert is suspended for bringing guns in the locker room.
Shortly after there is a fire sale. AJ, Haywood, Caron Butler are all traded away.
July Ted Leonsis buys the team.
Wizards win the lottery and draft John Wall
Dec that year, Gil is shipped off for R Lewis

Had they used the pick and drafted Curry, they could have Wall and Curry right now or maybe Curry and Cousins. And if it was Cousins, I bet Vesely would have looked better. So if the draft positions stayed the same..they likely wouldn't..

Curry/A Miler
Beal/Webster/Temple
Paul Peirce/Otto/Rasual
Nene/Humphries/Vesely
Cousins/Kev Seraphin

Plus they would have kept last years pick because they would never have traded for Gortat. Not sure where it would be or what player could have been good to add.

Interesting. Curry, Beal, Otto and Cousins would be the core moving forward. And they still might get there one day with
Wall, Beal, Otto and Cousins or Wall, Beal, Otto and KD.

Crazy how things work out.