Poll

How would you rate Danny's drafting of players in the draft?

Excellent, way above average,
14 (34.1%)
Above Average
23 (56.1%)
Average
4 (9.8%)
Below average
0 (0%)
Kind of stinks
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 41

Author Topic: Rating Danny in the Draft  (Read 23232 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #15 on: February 06, 2010, 12:41:33 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123

Al Jefferson, 15, good pick.  Not a franchise guy/all star yet, but a good player, and potential future all star.  Seems appropriate for draft position.


Rajon Rondo, 21, good value here, even if he's still working on that 15 foot wide open jumper (sarcasm there-but there is some truth to it, and it's why he fell to 21.  He probably looks better/developed better because of such good shooters elsewhere on the floor)

Perkins, 27, good role player.  Keep in mind that the Perk we see today is much different than the fat 6'10" kid that Danny drafted. It took him years to develop into a competent role player, and more to start on a contender.


  I think your agenda's showing through. A 20/10 guy is "appropriate" for the 15th pick? Rondo looks better because of the other players on the floor? Perk's drafted at the appropriate spot, and Rondo maybe slightly above his draft position? Last season, before Rondo was a double-double machine, I saw a list that had him rated the best #21 pick ever.

  Try something a little more objective. Look over the last 20 nba drafts. Figure out how many 15 picks are better than Al, how many 21s are better than Rondo and how many 27s are better than Perk. Go back 25 years if you have to. If you can't come up with a decent sized list of #15 picks better than Al and #27 picks better than Perk and at least 3-4 #21 picks better than Rondo in that time frame then you need to rethink your position.

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2010, 12:59:56 AM »

Offline More Banners

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3845
  • Tommy Points: 257

Al Jefferson, 15, good pick.  Not a franchise guy/all star yet, but a good player, and potential future all star.  Seems appropriate for draft position.


Rajon Rondo, 21, good value here, even if he's still working on that 15 foot wide open jumper (sarcasm there-but there is some truth to it, and it's why he fell to 21.  He probably looks better/developed better because of such good shooters elsewhere on the floor)

Perkins, 27, good role player.  Keep in mind that the Perk we see today is much different than the fat 6'10" kid that Danny drafted. It took him years to develop into a competent role player, and more to start on a contender.


  I think your agenda's showing through. A 20/10 guy is "appropriate" for the 15th pick? Rondo looks better because of the other players on the floor? Perk's drafted at the appropriate spot, and Rondo maybe slightly above his draft position? Last season, before Rondo was a double-double machine, I saw a list that had him rated the best #21 pick ever.

  Try something a little more objective. Look over the last 20 nba drafts. Figure out how many 15 picks are better than Al, how many 21s are better than Rondo and how many 27s are better than Perk. Go back 25 years if you have to. If you can't come up with a decent sized list of #15 picks better than Al and #27 picks better than Perk and at least 3-4 #21 picks better than Rondo in that time frame then you need to rethink your position.

"Agenda"???  I'm making an argument that Doc is average at the draft, if that's what you mean.  I hope it is.

Let's be objective.

Objectively, I think it's important to consider all-around play.  Flawed players are not franchise players, but are often very very good players, starters.  And combinations on the floor matter, since they diminish the impact of the flaws, while emphasizing the strengths.

Examples:  Rondo is a great passer, but a terrible shooter.  He's on the floor with 3 good (KG) to great (RA,PP) shooters, and one good finisher in Perk.  His strenghs show, his flaw is minimized.  He wouldn't be an allstar playing in Minnesota, I'm pretty sure.

Big Al surely is 20/10 (but always on a losing team), a poor defender, poor post passer, and cannot assure a bucket in the clutch.

Look, I still like MOST of the guys Danny drafted.  I would be happy to start a "bring back Brandon Hunter" thread, even, if not for the risks of starting any "bring back" thread. 

Those that fell, even the good ones, fell for a reason.  Danny didn't work any draft miracles anywhere; as the OP said, Rondo is the only one clearly better than his draft position, yet we can't put him in the top 10 without a jumper.

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2010, 01:22:29 AM »

Offline dlpin

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 842
  • Tommy Points: 183

Al Jefferson, 15, good pick.  Not a franchise guy/all star yet, but a good player, and potential future all star.  Seems appropriate for draft position.


Rajon Rondo, 21, good value here, even if he's still working on that 15 foot wide open jumper (sarcasm there-but there is some truth to it, and it's why he fell to 21.  He probably looks better/developed better because of such good shooters elsewhere on the floor)

Perkins, 27, good role player.  Keep in mind that the Perk we see today is much different than the fat 6'10" kid that Danny drafted. It took him years to develop into a competent role player, and more to start on a contender.


  I think your agenda's showing through. A 20/10 guy is "appropriate" for the 15th pick? Rondo looks better because of the other players on the floor? Perk's drafted at the appropriate spot, and Rondo maybe slightly above his draft position? Last season, before Rondo was a double-double machine, I saw a list that had him rated the best #21 pick ever.

  Try something a little more objective. Look over the last 20 nba drafts. Figure out how many 15 picks are better than Al, how many 21s are better than Rondo and how many 27s are better than Perk. Go back 25 years if you have to. If you can't come up with a decent sized list of #15 picks better than Al and #27 picks better than Perk and at least 3-4 #21 picks better than Rondo in that time frame then you need to rethink your position.

"Agenda"???  I'm making an argument that Doc is average at the draft, if that's what you mean.  I hope it is.

Let's be objective.

Objectively, I think it's important to consider all-around play.  Flawed players are not franchise players, but are often very very good players, starters.  And combinations on the floor matter, since they diminish the impact of the flaws, while emphasizing the strengths.

Examples:  Rondo is a great passer, but a terrible shooter.  He's on the floor with 3 good (KG) to great (RA,PP) shooters, and one good finisher in Perk.  His strenghs show, his flaw is minimized.  He wouldn't be an allstar playing in Minnesota, I'm pretty sure.

Big Al surely is 20/10 (but always on a losing team), a poor defender, poor post passer, and cannot assure a bucket in the clutch.

Look, I still like MOST of the guys Danny drafted.  I would be happy to start a "bring back Brandon Hunter" thread, even, if not for the risks of starting any "bring back" thread. 

Those that fell, even the good ones, fell for a reason.  Danny didn't work any draft miracles anywhere; as the OP said, Rondo is the only one clearly better than his draft position, yet we can't put him in the top 10 without a jumper.

So who, from Rondo's draft class, would you put in the top 10?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NBA_Draft

Who are the ten players from Rondo's draft that you think are better than him?


As others have pointed out, you have completely unrealistic expectations regarding the draft. One of the deepest drafts in history, the 03 draft, had 7 all stars. 1999 had 9 all stars. Rondo would be a top 10 pick in any draft in history (again, name a draft year with 10 players clearly better than him).

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2010, 01:25:09 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123

Al Jefferson, 15, good pick.  Not a franchise guy/all star yet, but a good player, and potential future all star.  Seems appropriate for draft position.


Rajon Rondo, 21, good value here, even if he's still working on that 15 foot wide open jumper (sarcasm there-but there is some truth to it, and it's why he fell to 21.  He probably looks better/developed better because of such good shooters elsewhere on the floor)

Perkins, 27, good role player.  Keep in mind that the Perk we see today is much different than the fat 6'10" kid that Danny drafted. It took him years to develop into a competent role player, and more to start on a contender.


  I think your agenda's showing through. A 20/10 guy is "appropriate" for the 15th pick? Rondo looks better because of the other players on the floor? Perk's drafted at the appropriate spot, and Rondo maybe slightly above his draft position? Last season, before Rondo was a double-double machine, I saw a list that had him rated the best #21 pick ever.

  Try something a little more objective. Look over the last 20 nba drafts. Figure out how many 15 picks are better than Al, how many 21s are better than Rondo and how many 27s are better than Perk. Go back 25 years if you have to. If you can't come up with a decent sized list of #15 picks better than Al and #27 picks better than Perk and at least 3-4 #21 picks better than Rondo in that time frame then you need to rethink your position.

"Agenda"???  I'm making an argument that Doc is average at the draft, if that's what you mean.  I hope it is.

Let's be objective.

Objectively, I think it's important to consider all-around play.  Flawed players are not franchise players, but are often very very good players, starters.  And combinations on the floor matter, since they diminish the impact of the flaws, while emphasizing the strengths.

Examples:  Rondo is a great passer, but a terrible shooter.  He's on the floor with 3 good (KG) to great (RA,PP) shooters, and one good finisher in Perk.  His strenghs show, his flaw is minimized.  He wouldn't be an allstar playing in Minnesota, I'm pretty sure.

Big Al surely is 20/10 (but always on a losing team), a poor defender, poor post passer, and cannot assure a bucket in the clutch.

Look, I still like MOST of the guys Danny drafted.  I would be happy to start a "bring back Brandon Hunter" thread, even, if not for the risks of starting any "bring back" thread. 

Those that fell, even the good ones, fell for a reason.  Danny didn't work any draft miracles anywhere; as the OP said, Rondo is the only one clearly better than his draft position, yet we can't put him in the top 10 without a jumper.

  You're kidding yourself if you think Rondo wouldn't be an all-star on another team. Have you noticed at all how his stats have improved when those other players are out of the lineup and/or playing hurt?

  Again, if you think that your post was objective, show it. If Al isn't better than his draft position than you should be able to list 3-4 #15 picks that have been better in the last 10 years or at least 6-7 in the last 15 years. Same for Perk at 27. Don't just claim that they were average picks, show it by showing that most of the other picks in that range are as good as they are.

  Same with Rondo. You should be able to show at least a few people picked at his spot that are better. If you claim that Rondo should be an 11-20 pick, look through the last 5 drafts and get a list of 15-20 players taken in that range that are better than him. Claiming that they are average picks if you can't back it up by showing that a good percentage of players that were picked in the same part of the draft is nonsense.

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2010, 01:27:06 AM »

Offline dlpin

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 842
  • Tommy Points: 183
By the way, here's how picks, by position, have fared over the past 20 years:

http://82games.com/nbadraftpicks.htm


Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #20 on: February 06, 2010, 01:53:15 AM »

Offline BballTim

  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23724
  • Tommy Points: 1123

I don't think drafting Perk at 27 is some wild draft success.  Developing that fat kid they picked into the player he is now is different than drafting.  Most seem to confound the two when talking about Perk, IMHO.


  Not true. Danny used to talk about how his strategy was to pick HS kids that would be good in a few years because that was the only way he'd be able to get a decent center or pf in the draft with the picks he had. He drafted Perk with the expectation that he'd develop over a number of years.

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #21 on: February 06, 2010, 01:59:08 AM »

Offline Kane3387

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8269
  • Tommy Points: 944
  • Intensity!!!
Well he should have drafted DeAndre Jordan, Mario Chalmers, or Chris Douglas Roberts instead of JR Giddens. That was pretty obvious to me. I was pretty disappoinyed when he passed up on Jordan.


KG: "Dude.... What is up with yo shorts?!"

CBD_2016 Cavs Remaining Picks - 14.14

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #22 on: February 06, 2010, 07:01:19 AM »

Online bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
I don't think drafting Perk at 27 is some wild draft success.  Developing that fat kid they picked into the player he is now is different than drafting.  Most seem to confound the two when talking about Perk, IMHO.

How is this different than drafting?  Isn't that the whole point of the draft, to pick players that you think you can develop into good players? Especially since the draft evolved mostly into taking high school kids and college Freshman, you're not cherry ready-to-go All-Stars.

Especially when lots of  high school players never developed or were out of the league pretty quick.  Would you rather have Perk, or Kwame Brown, Eddy Curry, Leon Smith, Robert Swift, Amir Johnson, Ndudi Ebi, James Lang, etc.?

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #23 on: February 06, 2010, 07:09:28 AM »

Online bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
And the question is, who are you comparing Danny to?

You said 4 out of 7 second rounders is average, but compared to who?

You said he has as many hits as misses, how do other GM's stack up?  How can you rate Danny without comparing him to his peers?

Really I think you're looking at the draft all wrong (for several reasons, some already pointed out).  I think you're looking at the draft like free throw %, 90% is great, anything above 80% is good, etc.  That's not how the draft works.  You need to look at it more like baseball batting average, .350 is great, anything above .300 is very good, etc.  It's like Danny is batting .400 and you're saying he's not doing great because he still misses 6 out of 10 times, even though the rest of the league is batting .250.  You got to take it all in context.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #24 on: February 06, 2010, 08:27:54 AM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Well he should have drafted DeAndre Jordan, Mario Chalmers, or Chris Douglas Roberts instead of JR Giddens. That was pretty obvious to me. I was pretty disappoinyed when he passed up on Jordan.

I didn't want Jordan, who I consider to be the Gerald Green of big men.  However, I did want CDR a lot, and I also was interested in Chalmers.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #25 on: February 06, 2010, 11:42:34 AM »

Offline Fan from VT

  • NCE
  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4205
  • Tommy Points: 777
Ok, let's see. players from 1998 are still going very strong. even some from '97, '96, and '95, but let's cutoff at 1998.

that's 12 drafts.

if you can expect top ten picks to be stars, that's 120 stars. If you expect mid-ten picks to be starters, that's 120 more starters. so that's 240 starters to be reasonably expected.
then the last 3rd should be rotation players. 120 more rotation players. 30 x 9 man rotation = 270 players; we're up to "reasonably expecting" 360 rotations already. Then we get to the second round, where players should at least stick on a roster. so another 360 should be on rosters or it's a bust. Pretty sure there's not 720 players in the NBA. I think it's closer to 450, and the distribution is certainly not 120 stars.

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #26 on: February 06, 2010, 11:53:13 AM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30933
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
To me, Danny's in the B+/B range.  I think he's had more successes than failures in regards to the draft.

Banks & Green are his two most notable disappointments in my book.  However, finding Perkins, Rondo, Jefferson, Gomes, West, Powe, Davis have to all be considered successes.  All those guys have turned out to be either competent starters or bonafide role players in this league.  That's a pretty solid list.

I'm not gonna be blind and say that luck hasn't played a factor in some of this.  Danny was keen to a couple of guys that he wasn't able to get due to the inability to trade up to grab him or them just getting drafted before the Celtics turn. I think he's dodged some bullets but, for the most part, I think you have to be pretty pleased with how Danny has done in the draft. 

I'd certainly put his track record up against other GMs from 2003 and onwards and feel pretty good.


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #27 on: February 06, 2010, 12:04:02 PM »

Offline jdpapa3

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3884
  • Tommy Points: 85
Well he should have drafted DeAndre Jordan, Mario Chalmers, or Chris Douglas Roberts instead of JR Giddens. That was pretty obvious to me. I was pretty disappoinyed when he passed up on Jordan.

It's pretty clear that those guys aren't burning a fire through this league. They are all struggling to hold rotation spots on bad teams. Pick 30 is a crapshoot.

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #28 on: February 06, 2010, 12:06:11 PM »

Offline Roy Hobbs

  • In The Rafters
  • The Natural
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33333
  • Tommy Points: 6430
  • Doc could learn a thing or two from Norman Dale
Well he should have drafted DeAndre Jordan, Mario Chalmers, or Chris Douglas Roberts instead of JR Giddens. That was pretty obvious to me. I was pretty disappoinyed when he passed up on Jordan.

It's pretty clear that those guys aren't burning a fire through this league. They are all struggling to hold rotation spots on bad teams. Pick 30 is a crapshoot.

Yeah, I don't think there's any chance that Jordan would be seeing regular minutes, and it's debatable whether Chalmers or CDR would be.  I do, however, think that either would have been a better pick than Giddens, who Danny drafted because he was closest to being able to make an NBA contribution.

All the negativity in this town sucks. It sucks, and it stinks, and it sucks. - Rick Pitino

Portland CrotoNats:  2009 CB Draft Champions

Re: Rating Danny in the Draft
« Reply #29 on: February 06, 2010, 12:42:08 PM »

Offline jdpapa3

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3884
  • Tommy Points: 85
Well he should have drafted DeAndre Jordan, Mario Chalmers, or Chris Douglas Roberts instead of JR Giddens. That was pretty obvious to me. I was pretty disappoinyed when he passed up on Jordan.

It's pretty clear that those guys aren't burning a fire through this league. They are all struggling to hold rotation spots on bad teams. Pick 30 is a crapshoot.

Yeah, I don't think there's any chance that Jordan would be seeing regular minutes, and it's debatable whether Chalmers or CDR would be.  I do, however, think that either would have been a better pick than Giddens, who Danny drafted because he was closest to being able to make an NBA contribution.

Yes. I can definitely agree with this. I'm just glad that Chalmers and CDR don't even seem to be solid starters in situations where starting positions were handed to them. And regarding CDR: it is weird how his production was so high and Kiki still soured on him so much. I saw an article recently that the Nets didn't consider him to be part of their young core and that he was very movable.