Quote:
Originally Posted by j0Shi
True, forgot about OKC 2007-2009 because the team is no longer intact. Warriors are not a good example however since all their stars got picked outside the top 5 (#7, #11, Green was a 2nd rounder even). You don't tank to draft in that range.
|
Disagree. That is precisely why they are a great example. You don't have to tank to succeed in the draft.
[/quote]And Celtics? They had three lottery picks since 2014: Marcus Smart, Jaylen Brown and Jayson Tatum. Nice players, but certainly no superstars (yet). Here's how they got their current ones: Horford and Hayward because they're Boston and Irving because they completely lucked out with Isaiah Thomas, a player drafted 60th overall. Boston did not builds its current roster through the draft at all.[/QUOTE]
Horford and Hayward not because they are Boston, but because they had a good young team, which you get by building through the draft. Thomas another example of how you don't need to tank to succeed in the draft. So, I disagree, they ARE an example of building through the draft. Like Houston, it is a combination of drafting, FA's, and trades. All of those depend on drafting well. Something Cuban never understood. Yes, the Mavs did do a good job of picking up good experienced talent cheap...but that's not how you build a team, its how you fill in holes. It was doomed to failure, IMHO, as they intentionally neglected the most important part. Why didn't DeAndre Jordan, and others, not come here? Because they didn't have a good nucleus to join. Why didn't Mavs have that? Because then intentionally neglected the draft. It was doomed to fail, and it did. FO needs to completely rethink its approach to drafting. Every pick matters, and acquiring more picks is a good thing, not a bad thing. Most of the Rocket's trade assets, that eventually landed them Harden, were second round picks..or just the picks themselves.