Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

B. C. biggest draft mistakes. Not Barg.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Letter N wrote: View Post
    I agree he was amazing at drafts in Phoenix. In Toronto.............not so much (in my opinion......obviously, who else would I be talking for?)

    He hasn't been T-Wolves/Cavs bad, but he hasn't been Thunder/Blazers good either. For where he's drafted he's basically got a passing grade in Toronto.
    I wouldn't really call the Thunder & Blazers 'good' with their drafting at all. Portland has always been a terrible drafting team! I would call the Thunder 'lucky' and 'no brainers'.

    Blazers
    - 2006 - drafted Tyrus Thomas @ #4 (bad pick) --> they didn't draft Aldridge (picked #2 by Chicago) or Roy (picked #6 by Minnesota), both of those players were acquired via trade
    - 2007 - drafted Greg Oden @ #1 (bad pick) --> instead of Kevin Durant
    - 2012 - drafted Damian Lillard @ #6 --> it came down to Lillard, Barnes and Drummond. They already had Batum at SF and were planning to sign Hibbert in free agency (which they did, but it was matched by Indi), so it was a no brainer to fill their void at PG

    Thunder
    - 2007 - drafted Kevin Durant @ #2 --> thanks to Portland passing on him
    - 2008 - drafted Russell Westbrook @ #4 --> was really a no-brainer pick
    - 2009 - drafted James Harden @ #3 --> thanks to Memphis drafting Thabeet @ #2, was really a no brainer


    If anything, this history points out the difference in talent typically available in the top-5 and the remainder of even the lottery. The 2012 draft was another example of that, which was the very reason so many were in favor or 'tanking' last year, to avoid ending up with 2nd-tier talent like Ross.
    Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Thu Nov 15, 2012, 01:11 PM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Draft day trade is drafting. No one has ever traded players traded in the same draft and pretended it wasn't their draft pick.

      Why are Thunder getting no credit for making the correct pick at a high pick? BC had a high pick too once, how'd that work out for him.
      Also let's not forget they drafted one of the top defensive big men in the league at 21 I believe in Ibaka.

      Comment


      • #33
        Letter N wrote: View Post
        Draft day trade is drafting. No one has ever traded players traded in the same draft and pretended it wasn't their draft pick.

        Why are Thunder getting no credit for making the correct pick at a high pick? BC had a high pick too once, how'd that work out for him.
        Also let's not forget they drafted one of the top defensive big men in the league at 21 I believe in Ibaka.
        I'm not saying the Thunder don't deserve credit. The point I was making was that you can't compare the Thunder's consecutive lottery picks (#2, #4, #3) with the Raptors recent consecutive lottery picks (#9, #13, #5, #8) because, after the top-5, the talent thins out significantly and every player comes with much less consensus and much more risk.

        Even with 3 consecutive top-4 picks, the Thunder wouldn't be the team they are without lots of luck (not even counting luck with the lottery itself). Had Portland drafted Durant, the Thunder would likely be a bottom-feeder after drafting Oden. Had Beasley's issues been better known, there's a greater chance that Westbrook gets drafted top-3 (along with Rose & Mayo) instead of Beasley. Had Memphis taken Harden instead of Thabeet (everybody saw that bust coming), once again, the Thunder wouldn't have been the success story they became. Luck in the lottery, luck with picks ahead of their own... it makes drafting easy and makes drafters look like geniuses!

        Comment


        • #34
          Here is a better understanding of Bryan's thought process during the draft:
          http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...right-athletes

          Here is his reasoning for choosing Ross over Drummond:

          Q: When evaluating a player, what really are you looking for? Does talent trump everything?

          Colangelo: There’s a checklist: talent, physical tools, basketball IQ, how they perform, how we anticipate they’ll perform. Character. Emotional make-up. Marketability. Each component is part of the process. The toughest is what’s inside a player. You can’t see the heart, the emotional aspect of things.

          Picking eighth, I passed on somebody I consider a top-five talent in the draft because we felt like he didn’t have the right mental makeup. I passed on someone we thought was a top-three physical specimen because we felt he wasn’t the right fit for our team and didn’t have the right mental makeup.

          Comment


          • #35
            planetmars wrote: View Post
            Here is a better understanding of Bryan's thought process during the draft:
            http://www.thestar.com/sports/hockey...right-athletes

            Here is his reasoning for choosing Ross over Drummond:
            Well lets not forget what Colangelo thought of Bargnani's mental make up with the now infamous caliper test when he drafted him...

            Comment


            • #36
              Craiger wrote: View Post
              Well lets not forget what Colangelo thought of Bargnani's mental make up with the now infamous caliper test when he drafted him...
              There was a lot of "nothing fazes this guy" talk about Bargnani's personality in 2006, implying that he's got the mental toughness of a Bobby Fischer.

              Who would've thought that any type of motivational technique, roster changes, positional changes, and coaching changes also don't faze him :|

              Comment


              • #37
                CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                I'm not saying the Thunder don't deserve credit. The point I was making was that you can't compare the Thunder's consecutive lottery picks (#2, #4, #3) with the Raptors recent consecutive lottery picks (#9, #13, #5, #8) because, after the top-5, the talent thins out significantly and every player comes with much less consensus and much more risk.

                Even with 3 consecutive top-4 picks, the Thunder wouldn't be the team they are without lots of luck (not even counting luck with the lottery itself). Had Portland drafted Durant, the Thunder would likely be a bottom-feeder after drafting Oden. Had Beasley's issues been better known, there's a greater chance that Westbrook gets drafted top-3 (along with Rose & Mayo) instead of Beasley. Had Memphis taken Harden instead of Thabeet (everybody saw that bust coming), once again, the Thunder wouldn't have been the success story they became. Luck in the lottery, luck with picks ahead of their own... it makes drafting easy and makes drafters look like geniuses!
                you said they were lucky - ie. that chance outside their control determined their choices. That is by all definitions not giving someone credit.

                And Russell Westbrook was a no brainer and would have come in at 3?

                http://www.nba.com/draft2008/board/mock.html

                says something much different


                (Plus ofcourse there is Ibaka.)

                He drafted in the top of the lottery 3 times, because he built his team with the intentions to collect top draft picks (ie. he tanked) - and then killed the draft time and time again. How can one define doing what you set out to do as lucky?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Craiger wrote: View Post
                  you said they were lucky - ie. that chance outside their control determined their choices. That is by all definitions not giving someone credit.

                  And Russell Westbrook was a no brainer and would have come in at 3?

                  http://www.nba.com/draft2008/board/mock.html

                  says something much different


                  (Plus ofcourse there is Ibaka.)

                  He drafted in the top of the lottery 3 times, because he built his team with the intentions to collect top draft picks (ie. he tanked) - and then killed the draft time and time again. How can one define doing what you set out to do as lucky?
                  I disagree. They made the right pick when they were on the clock (credit deserved), but they were quite often only in the position they were in due to luck in the lottery and luck with the picks made ahead of theirs (ie: Portland drafting Oden, Miami drafting Beasley and Memphis drafting Thabeet).

                  I do agree that they have done well with later picks. Just don't point at consecutive #2, #3 and #4 picks as purely good drafting. And don't point to the Raptors draft picks at #9, #13, #5 and #8 as comparison and justification for arguing that BC is a poor drafter; that's just not fair.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    So then the Valanciunas pick was lucky by BC. Let's take that one off his resume because Cleveland should've drafted him.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Letter N wrote: View Post
                      So then the Valanciunas pick was lucky by BC. Let's take that one off his resume because Cleveland should've drafted him.
                      and Ed was luck because he was supposed to go in the top 10.

                      http://www.nba.com/2010/news/05/18/c...ock/index.html

                      And Demar was only available because Thabeet was drafted at #2 and therefore would have otherwise gone higher

                      CalgaryRapsFans is just destroying Colangelo's draft choices here.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                        I disagree. They made the right pick when they were on the clock (credit deserved), but they were quite often only in the position they were in due to luck in the lottery and luck with the picks made ahead of theirs (ie: Portland drafting Oden, Miami drafting Beasley and Memphis drafting Thabeet).

                        I do agree that they have done well with later picks. Just don't point at consecutive #2, #3 and #4 picks as purely good drafting. And don't point to the Raptors draft picks at #9, #13, #5 and #8 as comparison and justification for arguing that BC is a poor drafter; that's just not fair.
                        i agree with u on those points made.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Letter N wrote: View Post
                          So then the Valanciunas pick was lucky by BC. Let's take that one off his resume because Cleveland should've drafted him.
                          BC used his european connection to learn that jv could be bought out of his contract. no other gm wanted to take the chance and wait a la Rubio.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Letter N wrote: View Post
                            So then the Valanciunas pick was lucky by BC. Let's take that one off his resume because Cleveland should've drafted him.
                            To a point I would agree. I expected Cleveland to take Valanciunas at #4 and was pleasantly surprised when they passed. There were some additional circumstances surrounding that pick though, mainly him not being eligable to join the NBA for at least one season. I also would argue that in general, the further you get in the draft, the less certainty/consensus there is and the more it comes down to subjective analysis.

                            Another example is Davis. Had he become a stud PF, then BC would have been praised for taking a guy who dropped far lower than expected. BC has since said that Davis wasn't even on their internal big board, because they had zero expectations of him being available to them at #13.

                            With every pick there's always going to be a certain amount of credit and luck involved. I just don't think it's a fair comparison to say that Valanciunas dropping one spot to #5 is the same level of 'luck' as Durant being falling into OKC's lap at #2 that year. There may have been some disagreement over whether Oden/Durant should have been #1, but there was 100% consensus that there was a hugely substantial drop off between those 2 players and #3 that year, so picking whichever of those 2 players that's left after the top pick doesn't really take a whole lot of strategic thinking.

                            The draft lottery itself is all about luck, when it comes to assigning draft positions. It's a lot easier to be 'right' the higher you're picking. The teams that can consistently draft productive rotation players in the late 1st round and 2nd round are far more impressive to me than teams that get top-5 picks right. I think the whole discussion just illustrates how awful it is being stuck in the middle-classs wasteland of the NBA, where you're consistently drafting in the #10-20 range... not good enough to truly compete and not bad/lucky enough to get a top-5 talent on draft night.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                              To a point I would agree. I expected Cleveland to take Valanciunas at #4 and was pleasantly surprised when they passed. There were some additional circumstances surrounding that pick though, mainly him not being eligable to join the NBA for at least one season. I also would argue that in general, the further you get in the draft, the less certainty/consensus there is and the more it comes down to subjective analysis.

                              Another example is Davis. Had he become a stud PF, then BC would have been praised for taking a guy who dropped far lower than expected. BC has since said that Davis wasn't even on their internal big board, because they had zero expectations of him being available to them at #13.

                              With every pick there's always going to be a certain amount of credit and luck involved. I just don't think it's a fair comparison to say that Valanciunas dropping one spot to #5 is the same level of 'luck' as Durant being falling into OKC's lap at #2 that year. There may have been some disagreement over whether Oden/Durant should have been #1, but there was 100% consensus that there was a hugely substantial drop off between those 2 players and #3 that year, so picking whichever of those 2 players that's left after the top pick doesn't really take a whole lot of strategic thinking.

                              The draft lottery itself is all about luck, when it comes to assigning draft positions. It's a lot easier to be 'right' the higher you're picking. The teams that can consistently draft productive rotation players in the late 1st round and 2nd round are far more impressive to me than teams that get top-5 picks right. I think the whole discussion just illustrates how awful it is being stuck in the middle-classs wasteland of the NBA, where you're consistently drafting in the #10-20 range... not good enough to truly compete and not bad/lucky enough to get a top-5 talent on draft night.
                              well when you phrase player A dropping 1 spot and player B dropping into someones lap - ofcourse they aren't going to seem equivalent. However they both dropped 1 spot (Val was a consensus #4) from where they were expected to go... so I'm really failing to understand why Durant fell into OKC's 'lap' but Val just happened to drop?

                              that second bold part - its also much easier to make mistake as there are dozens of possible players to miss on. And that in turn makes it more difficult to have a good draft record.

                              third bolded part sounds distinctly opposite of what you were saying this offseason. Should Presti therefore not get credit for tanking and thereby not leaving himself in the NBA wasteland? Something you referred to as 'luck'?
                              Last edited by Craiger; Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:42 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                                T
                                With every pick there's always going to be a certain amount of credit and luck involved. I just don't think it's a fair comparison to say that Valanciunas dropping one spot to #5 is the same level of 'luck' as Durant being falling into OKC's lap at #2 that year. There may have been some disagreement over whether Oden/Durant should have been #1, but there was 100% consensus that there was a hugely substantial drop off between those 2 players and #3 that year, so picking whichever of those 2 players that's left after the top pick doesn't really take a whole lot of strategic thinking.
                                So do you not agree that that the uncertainty of JV not being able to play in the NBA the first year of the draft and actually no one truly know when he would allowed to to join his Drafted team had nothing to do with Cleveland not picking him? I was surprised they went with the pick they did as I am sure all of Cleveland fan base were! However, that buyout had everything to do with him not getting drafted by Cleveland!

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X