What kind of grade would you give mcd for the other aspects of his job, hiring coaches, trades, dealing with players, signing free agents, putting together a roster that makes sense? To me his record is even worse in those aspects of his job.Kerrsed wrote:Im sorry, but to me, trying to grade a GM based on his draft record is a bit....... frivolous and flawed.
To me, its all about players going into the right situations, and development is a huge part of it as well. Thats why i cant get behind the "We drafted Chriss, but Dejounte Murray is a stud and we could have drafted him" type of talk. Look, i was one of Murray's biggest supporters and wanted the Chriss/Murray combo here in Phoenix, but Murray barely played and played like ass in the limited minutes he got for the first couple of seasons (While Chriss actually produced on the court). He sat on the bench of the Spurs for a good 3 seasons, and now is playing pretty good.....after spending 3 years under the leagues best coach developing as a player. Would he have been the same player here? Hell no, we didnt have a Coach Pop.
Reminds me of people being pissed that we didnt keep Rondo after we drafted him years ago. Im a big Rondo guy, and was upset we didnt keep him, but would he have been the same player for us that he was with the Celtics? F NO! He would have rotted away on our bench stuck behind Steve Nash and Barbosa, while he was able to develop at such a high pace because the Celtics were able to give him the start damn near right away and because of who Rondo is and the type of player he is, he benefited hugely from being thrust into the fire of playing major minutes in real games, accelerating his development. Some players develop better coming along slowly, learning the game and its nuances before being thrown to the wolves, others need to be thrown out there and learn from first hand experience.
Thats why you really cant say things like "I give our GM this grade because he drafted this player and these other players turned out so much better". Would those players have turned out that much better if they were here? Would they have turned out just as good being on a different team with different players running a different system with a different philosophy? You really cant say yes because its impossible to know. Thats why rookies and their agents have smartened up. Pre-draft all you hear is "I dont care how high i get drafted, its all about fit". Because they want to go to a team that fits them, one that makes them the turn into the player that people are banking on them to be.
Another example is the Sixers and Noel/Okafor. I dont think Noel or Okafor turn into the "Busts" that people label them if they didnt get picked by the Sixers. If Noel got drafted by the Spurs....man, i think he would have turned into a dominant Gobert type of player. Okafors biggest knock has always been his defense.....but isnt that also Towns knock as well? The difference between the two is coaching and the teams system and player development. Confidence also plays a huge role as well. KAT is confident in himself, while Okafor was stuck being labeled as the worst C on the roster behind Embiid (Who only played a handful of games at the time) and Noel. He played on the worst team in the League which set NBA records for losing. If that kid was on a better team in a better situation, who knows, he could have been the player that KAT is today.
So yeah, i just dont see the point in using a draft record as some sort of barometer for how smart/psychic a GM is, because once the GM selects the player, all the other factors are pretty much out of his hands on whether or not the player Booms or Busts.
Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using RealGM mobile app
