Basketball Insiders: Redrafting the 2011 Draft

[draps]

I have a hard time putting kyrie at the top because up until this point it has been pretty much impossible to win with a point guard on a max contract, though he may change that because of Lebron.

[BobLoblaw]

I think Kyrie isn't terrible on defense anymore, like he used to be. He's still subpar, but he doesn't kill your team.

His position is stacked because modern basketball loves quick penetrators, especially when they can also shoot. Unless you have LeBron (and even if you do), you want one of those, especially an elite one.

As to winning, that to me is a weak argument, since I highly doubt that Kawhi or Butler or Klay Thompson could win anything as franchise players of pre-LeBron Cavs.

In my view, if Kyrie didn't have health questions, he'd be a nobrainer choice in this redraft.

With health issues, sure, you have to see medicals and hear opinion of your doctors. If they think his problems aren't career threatening, he's my pick.

[BobLoblaw]

I have a hard time putting kyrie at the top because up until this point it has been pretty much impossible to win with a point guard on a max contract, though he may change that because of Lebron.

Do you think the Warriors wouldn't have a championship if they paid Curry max, instead of wasting a bunch of money on David Lee? Is it pretty much impossible for healthy Thunder to win a championship?

"pretty much impossible" and "hasn't happened recently" are different things.

[golden]

Do you think the Warriors wouldn't have a championship if they paid Curry max, instead of wasting a bunch of money on David Lee? Is it pretty much impossible for healthy Thunder to win a championship?

"pretty much impossible" and "hasn't happened recently" are different things.

Curry is a one of a kind player, who actually converted from shooting guard. He's already in the conversation for top 5 best pure shooter in the NBA of all time, never mind the insane clutchness, Kyrie is in no conversation for all-time anything, except possibly overrated. Kyrie is like Chris Paul extra-lite, and CP3 has done squat in the post-season. The reality is that Lebron coming back to the Cavs saved Kyrie's reputation in the nick of time. Charmed, over-hyped life.

[BobLoblaw]

Curry is a one of a kind player, who actually converted from shooting guard. He's already in the conversation for top 5 best pure shooter in the NBA of all time, never mind the insane clutchness, Kyrie is in no conversation for all-time anything, except possibly overrated. Kyrie is like Chris Paul extra-lite, and CP3 has done squat in the post-season. The reality is that Lebron coming back to the Cavs saved Kyrie's reputation in the nick of time. Charmed, over-hyped life.

I couldn't stomach this "superstar point guards can't win" argument when I kept seeing it in Steve Nash's prime, and I still can't stomach it. But at least it looks like it's changing a little bit, first it was "superstar point guards can't win," now it's "superstar point guards can't win unless they are underpaid OR they are Steph Curry."

It's still utterly ridiculous in my eyes, but maybe in the next 20 years we'll add enough of these exceptions and people will stop using it altogether.

The reality is that there's one championship each year, and there are multiple great players and great teams fighting for it. Not everyone is going to win it. It's not easy to get past stacked Spurs or Heat or Lakers or Boston of recent years or Warriors now. Great teams with great talent, coaching, management and mostly pretty deep pockets. And there can only be one winner each year.

Also, I don't really know what it means "Chris Paul extra-lite." Does it mean that Kyrie is not good off the ball? He's clearly very very good off the ball -- an elite secondary driver, one of the very best in the league at penetrating off a pass. Also a very good catch and shoot guy.

Not that I agree that Chris Paul can't win. He just hasn't yet. Maybe he won't. He lost some years to knee issues and bad owners, but he had a good team lately and still has a few years to do something. Either way, I don't know how someone can decide "Chris Paul type players can't win." It's like looking at McGrady and thinking "it's not a good idea to build your team around a ball handling small forward, those dudes don't win."

I don't think that Kyrie is overrated. He was very good this year, and sure, part of it is due to LeBron. Kyrie is very good off the ball, and he's never played with a passer like LeBron, so that part of his game had been underused until this year. Another part of it is just finally being part of a mature, veteran team.

It's fashionable to dislike high stats players from bad, low chemistry teams and call them overrated. And I can live with that. But then when they do end up in a good, mature environment and look much better, people should give them the credit they deserve.

Kawhi or Jimmy Butler have been good in a great environment, Kyrie has been good in a great environment this year, yet Kyrie is called overrated because.. he wasn't so good in a bad environment, something that those other guys didn't experience in the first place. Makes no sense to me.

[draps]

Do you think the Warriors wouldn't have a championship if they paid Curry max, instead of wasting a bunch of money on David Lee? Is it pretty much impossible for healthy Thunder to win a championship?

"pretty much impossible" and "hasn't happened recently" are different things.

They likely wouldn't have won, because they wouldn't have the money to bring in some of the other guys that helped get them there, maybe iggy wouldn't be there for instance.

[BobLoblaw]

They likely wouldn't have won, because they wouldn't have the money to bring in some of the other guys that helped get them there, maybe iggy wouldn't be there for instance.

Does them wasting 15 mil on David Lee, borderline irrelevant last year, figure into this in any way?

What if they didn't have David Lee at all, and instead of paying David Lee 15 mil and Steph Curry 11 mil, they paid Steph Curry 17 mil or whatever max salary? Would they then be doomed? What if they cut and stretched Lee to pay Curry as much as possible and still had money left over? It's not like the Warriors had only great contracts.

I get it, Curry getting paid less was nice for the Warriors. But you took it to "it's pretty much impossible" to win a championship with Steph Curry unless he takes a paycut.

[SkywalkerAC]

Curry is the first superstar point guard to win the chip in a long time, isn't he? Like, since Isaiah? Or am I missing somebody?

Either way, pretty cool. And I wouldn't be surprised if it ushered in an barrage of great PGs winning.

I mean, Tony Parker is a great PG. It's just hard to be considered superstar with the Spurs unless you're Tim Duncan.

[SkywalkerAC]

Kyrie could bounce back and be that other superstar point guard winning championships, but Lebron will rightfully get an awful lot of the credit. I do look forward to seeing what he can do - great situation that he has.

[BobLoblaw]

Curry is the first superstar point guard to win the chip in a long time, isn't he? Like, since Isaiah? Or am I missing somebody?

Either way, pretty cool. And I wouldn't be surprised if it ushered in an barrage of great PGs winning.

I mean, Tony Parker is a great PG. It's just hard to be considered superstar with the Spurs unless you're Tim Duncan.

To be honest, I think it doesn't even matter if more point guards win or not in near future. There's no reason to obsess over position. John Stockton and Gary Payton, Magic Johnson, Kevin Johnson and Isiah kept losing in the NBA finals (or earlier in Isiah's case) in the 90s not because they were superstar point guards, but because Michael Jordan was a better player and the Bulls were a more loaded team. And getting to the NBA finals isn't a small thing either. It makes little sense to look at a player who got to the NBA finals and think "what a loser, this is clearly proof that all players similar to him can't win championships."

With no handchecks, this is a good time to have superstar point guards on your team. But obviously, that's no guarantee that you'll win a championship. Look at the Thunder, 3 MVP caliber prospects in Durant, Westbrook and Harden, plus Ibaka, and maybe they will never win a championship. It's not because Westbrook is a point guard, it's because of injuries, cheap ownership, bad management decisions and LeBron. Even a loaded team, especially in the West, has what, maybe 10 or 20% chance to win a championship each year? You have to get past that slaughterhouse in the West with a bunch of equally loaded teams, then you probably face LeBron in the finals and he also usually has a loaded team around him.

Leading a team to a championship isn't common, most superstars don't win it in their prime, as best players on their team. Regardless if they are centers, point guards or whatever.

[Axel]

I put Kwahi ahead of Irving for the simple reason that elite perimeter defenders who can score and rebound are harder to find than great scoring PGs.

Having an elite versatile perimeter defender is more of a competitive advantage as they are fewer and harder to get.

If you had Leonard, you could find a PG easier via trade (Ty Lawson as an example) or Free Agency.

The combo of Leonard and Lawson is more formidable than the combo of Irving and any wing defender who changed teams this year.

Obviously Lawson is just one example, but plenty of talented PGs seem available much more than Leonard type players.

[JimiCliff]

I'm low on kyrie. He's made of glass, and his lebron-less teams were laughably bad.

[BobLoblaw]

I put Kwahi ahead of Irving for the simple reason that elite perimeter defenders who can score and rebound are harder to find than great scoring PGs.

Having an elite versatile perimeter defender is more of a competitive advantage as they are fewer and harder to get.

If you had Leonard, you could find a PG easier via trade (Ty Lawson as an example) or Free Agency.

The combo of Leonard and Lawson is more formidable than the combo of Irving and any wing defender who changed teams this year.

Obviously Lawson is just one example, but plenty of talented PGs seem available much more than Leonard type players.

Ty Lawson is a time bomb, I would much rather sign a DeMarre Carrol and build with Kyrie / DeMarre than with Ty Lawson / Kawhi.

Either way, it's true that sometimes very good point guards can be found in free agency or trade at low price, like Dragic and Lowry recently. If I had someone like that, I'd go with Klay Thompson in this draft, or Kawhi if I had a shooting guard too.

If I'm starting from zero, I pick Kyrie because I think he's the best player and the biggest talent in this draft, plus current rules practically beg you to have someone dynamic who can break down defenses, shoot and pass and play both as the primary ball handler and off the ball. There might be 10-15ish all star caliber guys like that (counting not just point guards), so not every team can have an elite one. Getting one is a priority, in my view.

Scoring and rebounding from the SF spot is very nice, but it can be replaced. Ideally, I want 3D from my small forward, everything else is a luxury. I'm fine with an Ariza, Carroll, and such. Those guys can be found quite often. But a dynamic penetrator who can shoot, pass, I think that's something that every good offense needs, and I'd want an elite one, I wouldn't want to shop for those in the discount section, so to speak.

That said, obviously, there are health concerns, and I'd want Kyrie checked by doctors (same goes for Kawhi and Butler, they miss games too). I don't know if any of his injuries are a major concern, the recent small knee cap fracture doesn't seem too terrible, broken hand, injured finger, he had some injuries that don't seem like a major long term concern. But I don't know, whatever my team doctor would say.

[CalgaryRapsFan]

Good discussion going on.

It's a tough decision to make in a vacuum, without knowing who else is on the roster, what players are free agents, etc...

I was high on Leonard ahead of that draft, hoping the Raptors would acquire an additional late-mid 1st round pick to draft him.

I think a lot has to do with the situation a player gets drafted into, in terms of opportunity, expectations, playing time, the situation (ie: roster, coaching, management, fanbase), etc. I really don't think guys like Leonard or Rondo (the ultimate example) would have blossomed as they did, had they been drafted into a different situation, especially onto a bad team where they were expected to be the savior (would Leonard be the same player today if he joined the Bargnani/DeRozan Raptors?). They had the luxury of being drafted onto good, deep teams where they could be developed methodically, without being expected to do much more than play a narrowly defined role.

Guys like Leonard and Butler, or even Thompson, are fantastic secondary players, when they aren't expected to be #1 options. If I had to pick a single player to build around, starting a franchise from scratch, I'd have a hard time not picking Irving. I don't think Cleveland at the time he was drafted was the best environment for him to develop as a person either, from ownership down to the roster, so I'd definitely try to create an environment with better leadership/mentoring from the outset. His talent and potential is at an entirely different level from the rest of the guys in his draft class.

[Axel]

Ty Lawson is a time bomb, I would much rather sign a DeMarre Carrol and build with Kyrie / DeMarre than with Ty Lawson / Kawhi.

Either way, it's true that sometimes very good point guards can be found in free agency or trade at low price, like Dragic and Lowry recently. If I had someone like that, I'd go with Klay Thompson in this draft, or Kawhi if I had a shooting guard too.

If I'm starting from zero, I pick Kyrie because I think he's the best player and the biggest talent in this draft, plus current rules practically beg you to have someone dynamic who can break down defenses, shoot and pass and play both as the primary ball handler and off the ball. There might be 10-15ish all star caliber guys like that (counting not just point guards), so not every team can have an elite one. Getting one is a priority, in my view.

Scoring and rebounding from the SF spot is very nice, but it can be replaced. Ideally, I want 3D from my small forward, everything else is a luxury. I'm fine with an Ariza, Carroll, and such. Those guys can be found quite often. But a dynamic penetrator who can shoot, pass, I think that's something that every good offense needs, and I'd want an elite one, I wouldn't want to shop for those in the discount section, so to speak.

That said, obviously, there are health concerns, and I'd want Kyrie checked by doctors (same goes for Kawhi and Butler, they miss games too). I don't know if any of his injuries are a major concern, the recent small knee cap fracture doesn't seem too terrible, broken hand, injured finger, he had some injuries that don't seem like a major long term concern. But I don't know, whatever my team doctor would say.

I agree, current rules make those players important, I just disagree with your concept that there is only 10-15 guys who can play that role. Because I view that player as more attainable, I view the stopper of said player more important, cause there are maybe 5 guys who can defend at an elite level, while contributing to scoring/rebounding.

Another lower cost guy, Isaiah Thomas of the Celtics. As the feature guy in Boston, scored 19 PPG (57.9% TS%), 5.4 APG; getting 30.5% of his shots at the rim. I think the deeper you look, you'll find more of these guys than 10-15.