Official Draft Thread 2015-16

[GuyClinch]

A better way to put it - we don't have a single player who projects better than the 5th-8th guy in a contender's rotation. Crowder could absolutely be a solid glue guy in the starting lineup. I guess he could make it near 4th man, old Ron Harper, Bryon Russell territory. But we're trying to build around that and a bunch of Jud Buechlers and Howard Eisleys.

C's haven't started building anything yet. The party doesn't start till you get a star.. Next year when we get Simmons or Ingram - then you can say we are building..

Incremental growth is not a thing in the NBA.. It's a star based game..

[AgentGreen]

Dunn is not the defender that Smart is, but he's close, and he's got the first step on offense that Smart lacks. The good news is I think they could play together if Smart can turn into a reliable 3 point shooter, because Dunn is a legit point guard. Having a pair of 6-3+ guards with their defensive ability would be fantastic - just need to find the shooting around them to make it work.

Really starting to warm up to this idea. Both are 6'4, 220. Switching will be easy when necessary. Think both could play off each other's energy. Back them up with Rozier and Hunter who could play off either player. But we'd have to find takers for AB and IT.

That wont be that hard, both are having a good season and are on a very good contract. We can get a solid return.

[Writebloc]

A better way to put it - we don't have a single player who projects better than the 5th-8th guy in a contender's rotation. Crowder could absolutely be a solid glue guy in the starting lineup. I guess he could make it near 4th man, old Ron Harper, Bryon Russell territory. But we're trying to build around that and a bunch of Jud Buechlers and Howard Eisleys.

C's haven't started building anything yet. The party doesn't start till you get a star.. Next year when we get Simmons or Ingram - then you can say we are building..

Incremental growth is not a thing in the NBA.. It's a star based game..

I disagree with this in a sense, Golden State built through incremental stages. When Curry was drafted not many thought he was the next coming, I doubt even Golden State as evidenced by their deliberate tank when they drafted Harrison Barnes. As it turned out Curry developed into a star as did Draymond Green, but they definitely built in an incremental manner.

[bucknersrevenge]

A better way to put it - we don't have a single player who projects better than the 5th-8th guy in a contender's rotation. Crowder could absolutely be a solid glue guy in the starting lineup. I guess he could make it near 4th man, old Ron Harper, Bryon Russell territory. But we're trying to build around that and a bunch of Jud Buechlers and Howard Eisleys.

C's haven't started building anything yet. The party doesn't start till you get a star.. Next year when we get Simmons or Ingram - then you can say we are building..

Incremental growth is not a thing in the NBA.. It's a star based game..

I disagree with this in a sense, Golden State built through incremental stages. When Curry was drafted not many thought he was the next coming, I doubt even Golden State as evidenced by their deliberate tank when they drafted Harrison Barnes. As it turned out Curry developed into a star as did Draymond Green, but they definitely built in an incremental manner.

They built their team up with(and someone correct me if I'm wrong on the slots) 2 #7 picks(Curry, Barnes) an #11, and a couple of 2nd rounders in Lee and Draymond Green. Bogut was a #1 but he wasn't really a #1 scoring option. Had kinda floundered in Milwaukee after some injury issues. Never really got on track there. After you get picked, your draft status doesn't mean that much. It's simply about who maximizes the talent and opportunity that they have.

[Edug27]

A better way to put it - we don't have a single player who projects better than the 5th-8th guy in a contender's rotation. Crowder could absolutely be a solid glue guy in the starting lineup. I guess he could make it near 4th man, old Ron Harper, Bryon Russell territory. But we're trying to build around that and a bunch of Jud Buechlers and Howard Eisleys.

C's haven't started building anything yet. The party doesn't start till you get a star.. Next year when we get Simmons or Ingram - then you can say we are building..

Incremental growth is not a thing in the NBA.. It's a star based game..

I disagree with this in a sense, Golden State built through incremental stages. When Curry was drafted not many thought he was the next coming, I doubt even Golden State as evidenced by their deliberate tank when they drafted Harrison Barnes. As it turned out Curry developed into a star as did Draymond Green, but they definitely built in an incremental manner.

Couple things...

- He doesn't have to be the 'next coming'. DRuss isn't going to be the next coming, but he's a player you build around.
- Steph averaged 17 and 18 in his first 2 seasons. Then 23 pts and 7 ast a game by age 24............ He was pretty much what IT is now by his 4th season with better height. I think the whole "Steph came out of nowhere" idea is overblown. The injuries is what worried everyone.
- Speaking of injuries.... The year the Warriors 'tanked' to get Barnes is the year Steph got hurt and missed 3/4's of the season.

[bucknersrevenge]

C's haven't started building anything yet. The party doesn't start till you get a star.. Next year when we get Simmons or Ingram - then you can say we are building..

Incremental growth is not a thing in the NBA.. It's a star based game..

I disagree with this in a sense, Golden State built through incremental stages. When Curry was drafted not many thought he was the next coming, I doubt even Golden State as evidenced by their deliberate tank when they drafted Harrison Barnes. As it turned out Curry developed into a star as did Draymond Green, but they definitely built in an incremental manner.

Couple things...

- He doesn't have to be the 'next coming'. DRuss isn't going to be the next coming, but he's a player you build around.
- Steph averaged 17 and 18 in his first 2 seasons. Then 23 pts and 7 ast a game by age 24............ He was pretty much what IT is now by his 4th season with better height. I think the whole "Steph came out of nowhere" idea is overblown. The injuries is what worried everyone.
- Speaking of injuries.... The year the Warriors 'tanked' to get Barnes is the year Steph got hurt and missed 3/4's of the season.

I think what Writebloc is saying is that Curry acclimated to the NBA game a lot faster than people were projecting. People weren't expecting 17 and 18ppg in his first 2 seasons. The book on Curry was that he was weak, bad defensively, not really even a PG, people would hang on his shot and he wouldn't finish in traffic. At one point or another I heard all of that about him which is why he was passed by 6 times before being selected.

[Edug27]

I disagree with this in a sense, Golden State built through incremental stages. When Curry was drafted not many thought he was the next coming, I doubt even Golden State as evidenced by their deliberate tank when they drafted Harrison Barnes. As it turned out Curry developed into a star as did Draymond Green, but they definitely built in an incremental manner.

Couple things...

- He doesn't have to be the 'next coming'. DRuss isn't going to be the next coming, but he's a player you build around.
- Steph averaged 17 and 18 in his first 2 seasons. Then 23 pts and 7 ast a game by age 24............ He was pretty much what IT is now by his 4th season with better height. I think the whole "Steph came out of nowhere" idea is overblown. The injuries is what worried everyone.
- Speaking of injuries.... The year the Warriors 'tanked' to get Barnes is the year Steph got hurt and missed 3/4's of the season.

I think what Writebloc is saying is that Curry acclimated to the NBA game a lot faster than people were projecting. People weren't expecting 17 and 18ppg in his first 2 seasons. The book on Curry was that he was weak, bad defensively, not really even a PG, people would hang on his shot and he wouldn't finish in traffic. At one point or another I heard all of that about him which is why he was passed by 6 times before being selected.

Right. Agree. And him coming from a small school had some to do with that. Pierce had the knocks coming out as well. But I guess I mean when you draft a player that high in the lotto, you know fairly quickly if their ready, or a project, or a role player. Even if we were to draft Ingram, you'd have to see him play before determining hes the guy to build around. Case in point is Marcus Smart. If hes putting up multiple 30+pt games by All Star break of their rookie year, then it changes the game. Lebrons and Timmys are rare. Those are players you build around before they sign their rookie contract.

[Writebloc]

Couple things...

- He doesn't have to be the 'next coming'. DRuss isn't going to be the next coming, but he's a player you build around.
- Steph averaged 17 and 18 in his first 2 seasons. Then 23 pts and 7 ast a game by age 24............ He was pretty much what IT is now by his 4th season with better height. I think the whole "Steph came out of nowhere" idea is overblown. The injuries is what worried everyone.
- Speaking of injuries.... The year the Warriors 'tanked' to get Barnes is the year Steph got hurt and missed 3/4's of the season.

I think what Writebloc is saying is that Curry acclimated to the NBA game a lot faster than people were projecting. People weren't expecting 17 and 18ppg in his first 2 seasons. The book on Curry was that he was weak, bad defensively, not really even a PG, people would hang on his shot and he wouldn't finish in traffic. At one point or another I heard all of that about him which is why he was passed by 6 times before being selected.

Right. Agree. And him coming from a small school had some to do with that. Pierce had the knocks coming out as well. But I guess I mean when you draft a player that high in the lotto, you know fairly quickly if their ready, or a project, or a role player. Even if we were to draft Ingram, you'd have to see him play before determining hes the guy to build around. Case in point is Marcus Smart. If hes putting up multiple 30+pt games by All Star break of their rookie year, then it changes the game. Lebrons and Timmys are rare. Those are players you build around before they sign their rookie contract.

This is all correct, but what I'm also saying is that Curry wasn't Lebron, KD, Duncan, or KAT for that matter, he was was a risk, he could, and obviously has developed into a super nova, but after Golden State drafted him it wasn't as if the organization pat their hands together and said "poof we're set." But even when you draft that transcendental talent like Lebron or a KD it doesn't guarantee your organization the title. Freaking Cleveland has been lucky enough to draft two, Lebron and Kyrie and they still haven't gotten the ring. KD and the Thunder have Westbrook, and they had Harden and they are still chasing.

The Celtics were damn good the year they traded for both KG and Ray, but they were fortunate as well that everything came together so quickly for them. While KG and Ray were definitely the most important pieces Posey, House, and PJ Brown put them over the top; not to mention Tony Allen, Kendrick Perkins, and Rajon Rondo who were pieces that Ainge had already built. Generally, it takes team time to build a championship pedigree, even though the Heat assembled a god squad they didn't win the title in their first season. Riley had to acquire the right complementary pieces before Miami could get over the top.

- Point of reference, Steph did get hurt, but he got hurt in the same sense that Pierce got hurt during the Celtics' KD tank season. Steph was probably healthy enough to play, but Golden State was intent on accruing losses.

[Edug27]

I think what Writebloc is saying is that Curry acclimated to the NBA game a lot faster than people were projecting. People weren't expecting 17 and 18ppg in his first 2 seasons. The book on Curry was that he was weak, bad defensively, not really even a PG, people would hang on his shot and he wouldn't finish in traffic. At one point or another I heard all of that about him which is why he was passed by 6 times before being selected.

Right. Agree. And him coming from a small school had some to do with that. Pierce had the knocks coming out as well. But I guess I mean when you draft a player that high in the lotto, you know fairly quickly if their ready, or a project, or a role player. Even if we were to draft Ingram, you'd have to see him play before determining hes the guy to build around. Case in point is Marcus Smart. If hes putting up multiple 30+pt games by All Star break of their rookie year, then it changes the game. Lebrons and Timmys are rare. Those are players you build around before they sign their rookie contract.

This is all correct, but what I'm also saying is that Curry wasn't Lebron, KD, Duncan, or KAT for that matter, he was was a risk, he could, and obviously has developed into a super nova, but after Golden State drafted him it wasn't as if the organization pat their hands together and said "poof we're set." But even when you draft that transcendental talent like Lebron or a KD it doesn't guarantee your organization the title. Freaking Cleveland has been lucky enough to draft two, Lebron and Kyrie and they still haven't gotten the ring. KD and the Thunder have Westbrook, and they had Harden and they are still chasing.

- Point of reference, Steph did get hurt, but he got hurt in the same sense that Pierce got hurt during the Celtics' KD tank season. Steph was probably healthy enough to play, but Golden State was intent on accruing losses.

Having transcendental talent doesn't guarantee you a ring, but if you want a ring, you must have transcendental type talent. At least, that's what history shows.

[Writebloc]

Right. Agree. And him coming from a small school had some to do with that. Pierce had the knocks coming out as well. But I guess I mean when you draft a player that high in the lotto, you know fairly quickly if their ready, or a project, or a role player. Even if we were to draft Ingram, you'd have to see him play before determining hes the guy to build around. Case in point is Marcus Smart. If hes putting up multiple 30+pt games by All Star break of their rookie year, then it changes the game. Lebrons and Timmys are rare. Those are players you build around before they sign their rookie contract.

This is all correct, but what I'm also saying is that Curry wasn't Lebron, KD, Duncan, or KAT for that matter, he was was a risk, he could, and obviously has developed into a super nova, but after Golden State drafted him it wasn't as if the organization pat their hands together and said "poof we're set." But even when you draft that transcendental talent like Lebron or a KD it doesn't guarantee your organization the title. Freaking Cleveland has been lucky enough to draft two, Lebron and Kyrie and they still haven't gotten the ring. KD and the Thunder have Westbrook, and they had Harden and they are still chasing.

- Point of reference, Steph did get hurt, but he got hurt in the same sense that Pierce got hurt during the Celtics' KD tank season. Steph was probably healthy enough to play, but Golden State was intent on accruing losses.

Having transcendental talent doesn't guarantee you a ring, but if you want a ring, you must have transcendental type talent. At least, that's what history shows.

The 2004 Detroit Pistons are staring history in the face.

Roster Glossary · SHARE · Embed · CSV · Export · PRE · LINK · ?
No. Player Pos Ht Wt Birth Date Exp College
7 Chucky Atkins PG 5-11 160 August 14, 1974 4 University of South Florida
1 Chauncey Billups PG 6-3 202 September 25, 1976 6 University of Colorado
41 Elden Campbell C 6-11 215 July 23, 1968 13 Clemson University
44 Hubert Davis SG 6-5 183 May 17, 1970 11 University of North Carolina
24 Tremaine Fowlkes SF 6-8 220 April 11, 1976 2 California State University, Fresno
8 Darvin Ham SF 6-7 220 July 23, 1973 6 Texas Tech University
32 Richard Hamilton SG 6-6 185 February 14, 1978 4 University of Connecticut
10 Lindsey Hunter SG 6-2 170 December 3, 1970 10 Jackson State University
7 Mike James PG 6-2 188 June 23, 1975 2 Duquesne University
31 Darko Milicic C 7-0 250 June 20, 1985 R
13 Mehmet Okur PF 6-11 249 May 26, 1979 1
22 Tayshaun Prince SF 6-9 212 February 28, 1980 1 University of Kentucky
39 Zeljko Rebraca C 7-0 257 April 9, 1972 2
5 Bob Sura SG 6-5 200 March 25, 1973 8 Florida State University
3 Ben Wallace C 6-9 240 September 10, 1974 7 Virginia Union University
30 Rasheed Wallace PF 6-10 225 September 17, 1974 8 University of North Carolina
34 Corliss Williamson PF 6-7 245 December 4, 1973 8 University of Arkansas

Not a transcendental talent on that roster...

[Edug27]

This is all correct, but what I'm also saying is that Curry wasn't Lebron, KD, Duncan, or KAT for that matter, he was was a risk, he could, and obviously has developed into a super nova, but after Golden State drafted him it wasn't as if the organization pat their hands together and said "poof we're set." But even when you draft that transcendental talent like Lebron or a KD it doesn't guarantee your organization the title. Freaking Cleveland has been lucky enough to draft two, Lebron and Kyrie and they still haven't gotten the ring. KD and the Thunder have Westbrook, and they had Harden and they are still chasing.

- Point of reference, Steph did get hurt, but he got hurt in the same sense that Pierce got hurt during the Celtics' KD tank season. Steph was probably healthy enough to play, but Golden State was intent on accruing losses.

Having transcendental talent doesn't guarantee you a ring, but if you want a ring, you must have transcendental type talent. At least, that's what history shows.

The 2004 Detroit Pistons are staring history in the face.

Roster Glossary · SHARE · Embed · CSV · Export · PRE · LINK · ?
No. Player Pos Ht Wt Birth Date Exp College
7 Chucky Atkins PG 5-11 160 August 14, 1974 4 University of South Florida
1 Chauncey Billups PG 6-3 202 September 25, 1976 6 University of Colorado
41 Elden Campbell C 6-11 215 July 23, 1968 13 Clemson University
44 Hubert Davis SG 6-5 183 May 17, 1970 11 University of North Carolina
24 Tremaine Fowlkes SF 6-8 220 April 11, 1976 2 California State University, Fresno
8 Darvin Ham SF 6-7 220 July 23, 1973 6 Texas Tech University
32 Richard Hamilton SG 6-6 185 February 14, 1978 4 University of Connecticut
10 Lindsey Hunter SG 6-2 170 December 3, 1970 10 Jackson State University
7 Mike James PG 6-2 188 June 23, 1975 2 Duquesne University
31 Darko Milicic C 7-0 250 June 20, 1985 R
13 Mehmet Okur PF 6-11 249 May 26, 1979 1
22 Tayshaun Prince SF 6-9 212 February 28, 1980 1 University of Kentucky
39 Zeljko Rebraca C 7-0 257 April 9, 1972 2
5 Bob Sura SG 6-5 200 March 25, 1973 8 Florida State University
3 Ben Wallace C 6-9 240 September 10, 1974 7 Virginia Union University
30 Rasheed Wallace PF 6-10 225 September 17, 1974 8 University of North Carolina
34 Corliss Williamson PF 6-7 245 December 4, 1973 8 University of Arkansas

Not a transcendental talent on that roster...

You're giving me one example in the past 20+ years? *sighs*

[Captain_Caveman]

Let's not overstate this. Not only do 99% of truly contending teams in NBA history have a transcendent HOF-caliber talent, or two or three, this argument being posited here doesn't even really apply to the 1% of "exceptions" that people like to put out there.

People like to paint the Warriors and 2004 Pistons as these everyman type teams, but they are/were absolutely stocked with guys drafted in the top 6-7. No one projected Curry to get *this* good, but he's a guy who was projected to go top 5, and who could have and should have gone top 5 if not for David Kahn being a historically inept GM. He was already tracking as the best shooter in league history 3-4 years ago, as I pointed out here at the time. The Pistons of that era also had like 6 guys drafted top 7, all of whom save Darko were key contributors, and all of the most valuable current Ws save Draymond went in the top 11.

So even if you can still do it without a transcendent talent, which is an extraordinarily dumb point to make about the current Ws and their impending back-to-back MVP Steph Curry, you really do still need elite talent at multiple positions. The Pistons had FOUR All-Stars and a 4-time DPOY in 2006, for crissakes. That's not a team of "gritty role players".

[Homerclease]

Let's not overstate this. Not only do 99% of truly contending teams in NBA history have a transcendent HOF-caliber talent, or two or three, this argument being posited here doesn't even really apply to the 1% of "exceptions" that people like to put out there.

People like to paint the Warriors and 2004 Pistons as these everyman type teams, but they are/were absolutely stocked with guys drafted in the top 6-7. No one projected Curry to get *this* good, but he's a guy who was projected to go top 5, and who could have and should have gone top 5 if not for David Kahn being a historically inept GM. He was already tracking as the best shooter in league history 3-4 years ago, as I pointed out here at the time. The Pistons of that era also had like 6 guys drafted top 7, all of whom save Darko were key contributors, and all of the most valuable current Ws save Draymond went in the top 11.

So even if you can still do it without a transcendent talent, which is an extraordinarily dumb point to make about the current Ws and their impending back-to-back MVP Steph Curry, you really do still need elite talent at multiple positions. The Pistons had FOUR All-Stars and a 4-time DPOY in 2006, for crissakes. That's not a team of "gritty role players".

Celtics, Lakers and Mavs too.

[Writebloc]

Let's not overstate this. Not only do 99% of truly contending teams in NBA history have a transcendent HOF-caliber talent, or two or three, this argument being posited here doesn't even really apply to the 1% of "exceptions" that people like to put out there.

People like to paint the Warriors and 2004 Pistons as these everyman type teams, but they are/were absolutely stocked with guys drafted in the top 6-7. No one projected Curry to get *this* good, but he's a guy who was projected to go top 5, and who could have and should have gone top 5 if not for David Kahn being a historically inept GM. He was already tracking as the best shooter in league history 3-4 years ago, as I pointed out here at the time. The Pistons of that era also had like 6 guys drafted top 7, all of whom save Darko were key contributors, and all of the most valuable current Ws save Draymond went in the top 11.

So even if you can still do it without a transcendent talent, which is an extraordinarily dumb point to make about the current Ws and their impending back-to-back MVP Steph Curry, you really do still need elite talent at multiple positions. The Pistons had FOUR All-Stars and a 4-time DPOY in 2006, for crissakes. That's not a team of "gritty role players".

You must be extraordinarily dumb to read the thread and to think anyone is trying to make the point that Steph Curry is not a transcendental player. You are obviously not reading thoroughly. The argument was that the Warriors built their team incrementally, which they did. No way are the Warriors a "gritty role player" team, they have perhaps three players that fit that bill in Bogut, Igoudala, and Green but both Iggy and Bogut at one time were stars, Green has developed into something quite different.

The Detroit team was something quite different all together. Some very good players, it is one instance, that a collection of talent succeeded in winning a championship. Truly the sum of their parts added up to beat the competition, none of those players were considered the best player in the NBA.

[Captain_Caveman]

Let's not overstate this. Not only do 99% of truly contending teams in NBA history have a transcendent HOF-caliber talent, or two or three, this argument being posited here doesn't even really apply to the 1% of "exceptions" that people like to put out there.

People like to paint the Warriors and 2004 Pistons as these everyman type teams, but they are/were absolutely stocked with guys drafted in the top 6-7. No one projected Curry to get *this* good, but he's a guy who was projected to go top 5, and who could have and should have gone top 5 if not for David Kahn being a historically inept GM. He was already tracking as the best shooter in league history 3-4 years ago, as I pointed out here at the time. The Pistons of that era also had like 6 guys drafted top 7, all of whom save Darko were key contributors, and all of the most valuable current Ws save Draymond went in the top 11.

So even if you can still do it without a transcendent talent, which is an extraordinarily dumb point to make about the current Ws and their impending back-to-back MVP Steph Curry, you really do still need elite talent at multiple positions. The Pistons had FOUR All-Stars and a 4-time DPOY in 2006, for crissakes. That's not a team of "gritty role players".

Celtics, Lakers and Mavs too.

What? Let's see... Milan, Cousy, Russell, West, Havlicek, Kareem, Magic, Bird, McHale, Worthy, KG, Ray, Pierce, Gasol, Dirk.

Yup... just a bunch of gritty lunchpail guys drafted in the mid-to-late 1st round.

Only guy this argument even possibly applies to is Kobe, who would be a #1 overall in the context of today's drafting.

[Edug27]

Let's not overstate this. Not only do 99% of truly contending teams in NBA history have a transcendent HOF-caliber talent, or two or three, this argument being posited here doesn't even really apply to the 1% of "exceptions" that people like to put out there.

People like to paint the Warriors and 2004 Pistons as these everyman type teams, but they are/were absolutely stocked with guys drafted in the top 6-7. No one projected Curry to get *this* good, but he's a guy who was projected to go top 5, and who could have and should have gone top 5 if not for David Kahn being a historically inept GM. He was already tracking as the best shooter in league history 3-4 years ago, as I pointed out here at the time. The Pistons of that era also had like 6 guys drafted top 7, all of whom save Darko were key contributors, and all of the most valuable current Ws save Draymond went in the top 11.

So even if you can still do it without a transcendent talent, which is an extraordinarily dumb point to make about the current Ws and their impending back-to-back MVP Steph Curry, you really do still need elite talent at multiple positions. The Pistons had FOUR All-Stars and a 4-time DPOY in 2006, for crissakes. That's not a team of "gritty role players".

Celtics, Lakers and Mavs too.

What about them?

[Captain_Caveman]

You must be extraordinarily dumb to read the thread and to think anyone is trying to make the point that Steph Curry is not a transcendental player. You are obviously not reading thoroughly. The argument was that the Warriors built their team incrementally, which they did. No way are the Warriors a "gritty role player" team, they have perhaps three players that fit that bill in Bogut, Igoudala, and Green but both Iggy and Bogut at one time were stars, Green has developed into something quite different.

The Detroit team was something quite different all together. Some very good players, it is one instance, that a collection of talent succeeded in winning a championship. Truly the sum of their parts added up to beat the competition, none of those players were considered the best player in the NBA.

They built their team incrementally after starting with Steph Curry. I'm all for copying that, but it's easier when you draft in the top 6-7 and not outside of the lottery with slobs like Rozier.

[Homerclease]

Let's not overstate this. Not only do 99% of truly contending teams in NBA history have a transcendent HOF-caliber talent, or two or three, this argument being posited here doesn't even really apply to the 1% of "exceptions" that people like to put out there.

People like to paint the Warriors and 2004 Pistons as these everyman type teams, but they are/were absolutely stocked with guys drafted in the top 6-7. No one projected Curry to get *this* good, but he's a guy who was projected to go top 5, and who could have and should have gone top 5 if not for David Kahn being a historically inept GM. He was already tracking as the best shooter in league history 3-4 years ago, as I pointed out here at the time. The Pistons of that era also had like 6 guys drafted top 7, all of whom save Darko were key contributors, and all of the most valuable current Ws save Draymond went in the top 11.

So even if you can still do it without a transcendent talent, which is an extraordinarily dumb point to make about the current Ws and their impending back-to-back MVP Steph Curry, you really do still need elite talent at multiple positions. The Pistons had FOUR All-Stars and a 4-time DPOY in 2006, for crissakes. That's not a team of "gritty role players".

Celtics, Lakers and Mavs too.

What? Let's see... Milan, Cousy, Russell, West, Havlicek, Kareem, Magic, Bird, McHale, Worthy, KG, Ray, Pierce, Gasol, Dirk.

Yup... just a bunch of gritty lunchpail guys drafted in the mid-to-late 1st round.

Only guy this argument even possibly applies to is Kobe, who would be a #1 overall in the context of today's drafting.

Not sure I understand the last paragraph

[Edug27]

You must be extraordinarily dumb to read the thread and to think anyone is trying to make the point that Steph Curry is not a transcendental player. You are obviously not reading thoroughly. The argument was that the Warriors built their team incrementally, which they did. No way are the Warriors a "gritty role player" team, they have perhaps three players that fit that bill in Bogut, Igoudala, and Green but both Iggy and Bogut at one time were stars, Green has developed into something quite different.

The Detroit team was something quite different all together. Some very good players, it is one instance, that a collection of talent succeeded in winning a championship. Truly the sum of their parts added up to beat the competition, none of those players were considered the best player in the NBA.

They built their team incrementally after starting with Steph Curry. I'm all for copying that, but it's easier when you draft in the top 6-7 and not outside of the lottery with slobs like Rozier.

Or draft in the top 6-7 and end up with slobs like Smart.

[Captain_Caveman]

You must be extraordinarily dumb to read the thread and to think anyone is trying to make the point that Steph Curry is not a transcendental player. You are obviously not reading thoroughly. The argument was that the Warriors built their team incrementally, which they did. No way are the Warriors a "gritty role player" team, they have perhaps three players that fit that bill in Bogut, Igoudala, and Green but both Iggy and Bogut at one time were stars, Green has developed into something quite different.

The Detroit team was something quite different all together. Some very good players, it is one instance, that a collection of talent succeeded in winning a championship. Truly the sum of their parts added up to beat the competition, none of those players were considered the best player in the NBA.

They built their team incrementally after starting with Steph Curry. I'm all for copying that, but it's easier when you draft in the top 6-7 and not outside of the lottery with slobs like Rozier.

Or draft in the top 6-7 and end up with slobs like Smart.

Well, I would take Smart over two or three Roziers without question, but let's look at this a different way. If you finish 5th-7th worst, not only do you start off with a 20-30% chance to move up into the top 3, you still have a 7-8% chance at getting a HOF-caliber guy in the 5-8 range, or a roughly 40-50% chance at getting an all-star caliber guy. The chances of getting a guy who isn't at least a productive role player are maybe 15% or so.

Drafting 16th, you get 0% chance to move up, a maybe 1% chance of getting a HOF-caliber guy, a 5-10% chance at an all-star caliber guy, and a 40-50% chance of busting out completely.

Working with non lottery picks, we don't really have a base for this incremental building process. And without Smart or the next couple of Nets picks, we wouldn't even have a realistic chance to get one going forward.