Rating Danny in the Draft

[BballTim]

Danny is a genius with diamond in the ruff 2nd rounders, but has also gotten a couple of nice role guys in the first.

in '04 he did pick Big Al, Delonte, and TA all in the same first round. Thats pretty [dang] good if you ask me. An All-Star, a starter, and a rotation guy whos come on very well despite injuries.

Then in '05 Gerald was a bust, but i'd say that was due to attitude (which is hard to tell with an 18 year old). Then in the second round he got Gomes, who may not be starting caliber, but is definitely a very good role guy.

in '06 he traded our top pick (Foye)for Telfair/Cap space. But also, through trades, ended up with and Championship Starter and All-Star Rajon Rondo.Plus a 2nd round gem Leon Powe.

in '07 Gabe Pruitt was a bust, but he convinced Seattle to throw in 2nd round draft pick Glen Davis, who who started the Celtics and was one game away from the ECF.

IMO it's still up in the air with Billy and JR.

Just a thought:  Does Danny get credit for taking Delonte and TA, good role players, or should he get zinged for not taking Kevin Martin with either of those picks, especially since he was looking at SG's and just picked two of them?

  It depends whether you're comparing him to other GMs or to perfection. Plenty of other teams passed on Martin. If you're going to say that good picks don't count if they could have been better, and if you don't consider it great drafting to take TD or Shaq at #1 then you'll give every team a failing grade. Nobody drafting outside the top 10 gets the best player every time or even regularly.

[Fan from VT]

I'll leave excellent for someone like RC Bufford or even Morey and vote the 2nd option, above average. It's still an impressive record. Rondo and Al Jefferson are historically good picks - true that in Jefferson's draft there were plenty of excellent players drafted after him but Rondo is one of the top-5 players in his draft and of those drafted after him only Millsap comes close.

Looking at Rondo's draft class, there was only one PG taken ahead of him, a bust, at 19.  I think position is a big part of why he fell.

Regardless of need, don't you think other teams would have taken Rondo if they had any inkling of how good Rondo was?  One thing that impresses me is that Danny was linked to Rondo from the very beginning, even when we were picking at #7. 

Well, yes.  Isn't that always the case with the draft, though?  Would 6 GM's still pass on Michael Jordan?  Just pointing out that they always say (since Jordan) they'll take the best player available, and they still don't.  They seem to take the best player that also fills a need, and the higher the pick, the greater the needs, so it's easier to just take the best player.  I think the lack of a jumper was a bigger factor than position for his falling so far, but I don't think many teams were looking for a PG that year, either.  That's what I remember.  But at my age, memory is what it is.

That turned out to be a decent draft, though.

I'm having a hard time following your logic here. You seem to be saying that Danny shouldn't get credit for drafting Rondo or Al because there were reasons they fell. Well, isn't the fact Danny liked something about those players, and was proven to be right, proof that he did a better job scouting and drafting?

Obviously Rondo was not a "consensus" top 5 pick. Otherwise, you know, he would have been picked in the top 5. Instead, he was a top 5 TALENT and was snagged at 21. That's very good drafting.


It seems like you think that to be a good drafter you have to draft a consensus top-5 player later in the draft, but guess what, consensus top guys don't fall, that's why they are consensus top guys. Danny's highest kept pick has been pick 11 (Banks). Other than that, he has to find players that end up as top TALENT, but aren't Consensus Top Picks. That's hard.



It seems like you would think that the guy running cleveland is the #1 drafter because he drafted Lebron. Well, so would anyone. Or that the guys in Chicago and Atlanta are the best drafters. Well, guess what, when your team is drafting inside the top 10 every year it's pretty easy to look like a good drafter.

[hehateme22]

i love danny's drafting in the from 03-07. the 2008 draft when he picked JR Giddens in the first round was arouses. first of all he was projected in that draft to go at the end of the 2nd round, and it would have been fine if we didnt already sign TA. JR as shown nothing in the nba. he has no feel for the game, no basketball iq, no shoot, no handles, nothing. i quess u cant expect a lot from a late first round pick but come on...lets see who was available at 30

1.Mario Chalmers
2.Deandre Jordan
3.Chris Douglas Roberts
4.L.R Mbah a Moute
5.Sonny Weems
6.Goran Dragic
7. Nathan Jawai

All would have been better options than the stink that is JR. The top 3 players on this list dropped so far in that draft i have no idea what danny was thinking not drafting chalmers, did he not see the national championship game!

[Fan from VT]

Wow.  Quite a few opinions and ideas about the draft.  Some vehement assertions...daring me to name players better than so-and-so in tones that are tough to gauge in a blog/forum format.  Interesting reading all around, though.

Some things I take from this:

I've been convinced now that Danny is above average, but still not quite excellent.  I hope future picks bump him up further (all agreed?  cool.).  I don't think Rondo and Al put him over the top, since there are obvious reasons that ON DRAFT DAY they were not the top-5 picks or whatever.  I remember watching the draft, and nobody was screaming "why is nobody picking Rajon Rondo!!!" all the way through it.  I think several teams thought about him after 10?  We bought the pick from PHX, who obviously had no need for a PG (Nash?).  Which is a point not menioned here:  sometimes, players drop because of position and fit/needs of certain teams, even though everyone says they'll take the best player available, etc.

The best argument that Danny had wild success, to me, after reading all of this, seems to be one of the least mentioned:  Gomes.  He is a decent starter, definitely a rotation player on any team, and went LATE in the 2nd round.  I underestimated the importance of this pick.  It is, by far, the best value pick he made.  He could have went 25 picks earlier, and it would still be a success.  30 picks earlier.  

BBD was a good pick, but not far out of the 1st round, so not as good value.  Maybe time will change that as/if he develops.  Powe was a good second round pick, obviously, but the knock was his injury history, which has turned out to be important.  Perhaps...perhaps we were lucky that Powe didn't get injured sooner.  I think luck may have been a factor there.  But Gomes is a standout here, an incredible value.

The other thing that I'm finding is the next best argument that Danny is better than average is the lack of busts late in the first round, though there are some other factors here.  TA/Delonte/Perk = no busts.  That's harder to do than I gave him credit for.  That they each were given both several years to develop (instead of 1-2 like current draftees get) is a factor in their success, and that they got playing time since we stunck so bad then.

this is what i mean in the previous post. Shouldn't this be why Ainge IS considered a good drafter? Because these WERE NOT publicly sure-thing players, but Danny saw something he liked and took them?

By your logic here, the Gerald Green pick is a smashing success, because everyone was saying top 5! top5! when he slipped and Ainge grabbed him at 18. But that was a terrible pick.

[Fan from VT]

Here's this, too, for what it's worth.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/draft2009/insider/news/story?id=4222406


I'd expect Davis to end up in the net positive as he improves, and i'm shocked that Perk is considered a negative, but it is a year old and I'm guessing favors offensive stats. i'd guess Rondo and Jefferson will continue to increase their positive differential as well, and TA might sneak up there too as this was compiled after his atrocious season last season.

[More Banners]

  The Knicks picked Balkman ahead of Rondo. Was that not a mistake because Balkman isn't a pg? The reason that Rondo fell was because the other GMs weren't as able to project how good he would be as Danny was. In other words, Danny's drafting ability was terrific.


[/quote]

My case is based on whether the pick was appropriate for position in the draft, and I have already said Rondo was better than his position, while also saying that he fell for a reason (2 reasons, actually).  I suppose that's a bit of a complicated position to take that looks like both sides of the fence?

[/quote]
  Also, you're saying that Rondo doesn't count as a great pick because the pundits didn't expect him to go high and nobody was saying he shouldn't have fallen so far. If that's the measuring stick you use then you'd have to consider Gerald Green to be one of Danny's best picks ever because people WERE saying "why is nobody picking Gerald Green?". He was projected in the top 5 and Danny got him at 18. Great draft pick, right? Much better than Rondo?

[/quote]

There is a reason he was available at 21 in the first place, and it's not that Danny is a genius.  That's all I meant.  We forget now that he was a bit of a gamble.

[/quote]

  And I was one of the people "daring me to name players better than so-and-so". But the point was that you had (have) no idea how good those picks were unless you go back and look at players that were drafted at similar positions and see how they stack up against other players drafted in similar spots. For instance, if you say Rondo should have gone outside the top 10 and someone challenges you to name a single draft ever with 10 players better than Rondo taken, I don't think that explaining why you think he fell really suffices as an argument. Did you even spend 2 minutes checking other drafts after the questions came?
[/quote]

This seems like an inconsistent argument.  Wait...okay, there are two?  Let me try to answer.

First:
No draft is without top-10 busts.  Teams gamble, and sometimes it works, sometimes not.  Every draft would be different if it was redone a few years later.  Still, let's look at the top 10 in 2006, and see how many clearly had no business being top 10.

The top 10 in Rondo's draft included some really good players with fewer risks than Rondo had on draft day, and also some gambles that didn't pay off.  There were only 3 busts (Morrison, Sheldon Williams, and Patrick O'Bryant).  In retrospect, Rondo should have gone ahead of these guys, but it also makes sense that he didn't.

I understand someone gambling on a center in O'Bryant instead of a PG in Rondo.  

MJ was a terrible drafter, but was looking for a shooter, and took Morrison; no way Rondo gets picked.  

Atlanta took Sheldon...I guess they had reasons?  I doubt they'd have taken a PG.  

Rondo is better than some of the other guys taken, but they've pretty much all worked out to be good players, too, so there is no way to say Rondo would/should have gone ahead of them ON DRAFT DAY.

The second argument seems to be to compare Rondo to other #21 picks.  I'd modify that to say against picks 17-25?  How about 18-end of draft?  He obviously fares well, no argument there.  But there are other picks that have done well in that range, though there are few "sure things", and ON DRAFT DAY, Rondo was most certainly not a sure thing.  JJ Hickson, Ryan Anderson, George Hill, and Courtney Lee were all picked in that range in 2008, and they're good rotation players, but are too young to really gauge.  Wilson Chandler and Rudy Fernandez when 22/23 in 2007, and they're pretty good players.  Nate Robinson went 21st, and Jarret Jack went 22nd.  They're both solid players.  Jameer Nelson, all star, went 20th, and Kevin Martin went 26th.  David West went 18th, and Travis Outlaw went 23rd, as did Tayshaun Prince.  Zach Randolph went 19th, Gerlas Wallace 25th, Dalembert 26th, Tinsley 27th, and Tony Parker 28th.

Getting really good talent in that range happens, and while it's great when it does, it's not the miracle that it seems to be just because sometimes guys like Joe Forte get taken 21 or sometimes higher picks are busts.

[Roy Hobbs]

The second argument seems to be to compare Rondo to other #21 picks.  I'd modify that to say against picks 17-25?  How about 18-end of draft?  He obviously fares well, no argument there.  But there are other picks that have done well in that range, though there are few "sure things", and ON DRAFT DAY, Rondo was most certainly not a sure thing.  JJ Hickson, Ryan Anderson, George Hill, and Courtney Lee were all picked in that range in 2008, and they're good rotation players, but are too young to really gauge.  Wilson Chandler and Rudy Fernandez when 22/23 in 2007, and they're pretty good players.  Nate Robinson went 21st, and Jarret Jack went 22nd.  They're both solid players.  Jameer Nelson, all star, went 20th, and Kevin Martin went 26th.  David West went 18th, and Travis Outlaw went 23rd, as did Tayshaun Prince.  Zach Randolph went 19th, Gerlas Wallace 25th, Dalembert 26th, Tinsley 27th, and Tony Parker 28th.

Arguably, Rondo is the best of all of those players, when comparing skills and attitude.  I'd rank him behind Tony Parker at this point, but ahead of everyone else, including Nelson, Martin, Randolph, West, and Wallace.

[dlpin]

Wow.  Quite a few opinions and ideas about the draft.  Some vehement assertions...daring me to name players better than so-and-so in tones that are tough to gauge in a blog/forum format.  Interesting reading all around, though.

Some things I take from this:

I've been convinced now that Danny is above average, but still not quite excellent.  I hope future picks bump him up further (all agreed?  cool.).  I don't think Rondo and Al put him over the top, since there are obvious reasons that ON DRAFT DAY they were not the top-5 picks or whatever.  I remember watching the draft, and nobody was screaming "why is nobody picking Rajon Rondo!!!" all the way through it.  I think several teams thought about him after 10?  We bought the pick from PHX, who obviously had no need for a PG (Nash?).  Which is a point not menioned here:  sometimes, players drop because of position and fit/needs of certain teams, even though everyone says they'll take the best player available, etc.

The best argument that Danny had wild success, to me, after reading all of this, seems to be one of the least mentioned:  Gomes.  He is a decent starter, definitely a rotation player on any team, and went LATE in the 2nd round.  I underestimated the importance of this pick.  It is, by far, the best value pick he made.  He could have went 25 picks earlier, and it would still be a success.  30 picks earlier.  

BBD was a good pick, but not far out of the 1st round, so not as good value.  Maybe time will change that as/if he develops.  Powe was a good second round pick, obviously, but the knock was his injury history, which has turned out to be important.  Perhaps...perhaps we were lucky that Powe didn't get injured sooner.  I think luck may have been a factor there.  But Gomes is a standout here, an incredible value.

The other thing that I'm finding is the next best argument that Danny is better than average is the lack of busts late in the first round, though there are some other factors here.  TA/Delonte/Perk = no busts.  That's harder to do than I gave him credit for.  That they each were given both several years to develop (instead of 1-2 like current draftees get) is a factor in their success, and that they got playing time since we stunck so bad then.

As others have said, it seems like you are comparing Ainge vs perfection.

You have to compare Ainge vs the other GMs during the same time period. I can name 2, perhaps 3 GMs who drafted better than him. But not more than that.

That leads me to believe that he is better than simply "above average." If he is not excellent, he is at least very good.

And the fact that there were reasons for a player to slide doesn't change the fact that he evaluated that player's strengths better than other GMs.

Who are the GMs who unquestionably drafted better than him?

[scoop]

this is what i mean in the previous post. Shouldn't this be why Ainge IS considered a good drafter?

Yes, I'm also puzzled by the argument that the Rondo pick wasn't that good because he wasn't expected to be in the lottery or something. 

[More Banners]

The second argument seems to be to compare Rondo to other #21 picks.  I'd modify that to say against picks 17-25?  How about 18-end of draft?  He obviously fares well, no argument there.  But there are other picks that have done well in that range, though there are few "sure things", and ON DRAFT DAY, Rondo was most certainly not a sure thing.  JJ Hickson, Ryan Anderson, George Hill, and Courtney Lee were all picked in that range in 2008, and they're good rotation players, but are too young to really gauge.  Wilson Chandler and Rudy Fernandez when 22/23 in 2007, and they're pretty good players.  Nate Robinson went 21st, and Jarret Jack went 22nd.  They're both solid players.  Jameer Nelson, all star, went 20th, and Kevin Martin went 26th.  David West went 18th, and Travis Outlaw went 23rd, as did Tayshaun Prince.  Zach Randolph went 19th, Gerlas Wallace 25th, Dalembert 26th, Tinsley 27th, and Tony Parker 28th.

Arguably, Rondo is the best of all of those players, when comparing skills and attitude.  I'd rank him behind Tony Parker at this point, but ahead of everyone else, including Nelson, Martin, Randolph, West, and Wallace.

Oooooh...I think I'd take Gerald Wallace, but it is a tough call.  Tough to compare players at different points in their careers, though.

Just trying to point out that solid starting players, stars, all-stars, and even championship starters happen at that level of the draft more regularly than some have suggested.

And to clarify (not responding to Roy here), I NEVER said that the Rondo pick wasn't that good, wasn't a good pick, or that he is anything less than a very very good player, only that it wasn't too far fetched to get him in particular at 21 for various reasons, and now in response to questions, listed names of other quality players taken at similar positions.  This is all to support the proposition that Danny is not the Draft Messiah, though he is still average to above average.

[Roy Hobbs]

The second argument seems to be to compare Rondo to other #21 picks.  I'd modify that to say against picks 17-25?  How about 18-end of draft?  He obviously fares well, no argument there.  But there are other picks that have done well in that range, though there are few "sure things", and ON DRAFT DAY, Rondo was most certainly not a sure thing.  JJ Hickson, Ryan Anderson, George Hill, and Courtney Lee were all picked in that range in 2008, and they're good rotation players, but are too young to really gauge.  Wilson Chandler and Rudy Fernandez when 22/23 in 2007, and they're pretty good players.  Nate Robinson went 21st, and Jarret Jack went 22nd.  They're both solid players.  Jameer Nelson, all star, went 20th, and Kevin Martin went 26th.  David West went 18th, and Travis Outlaw went 23rd, as did Tayshaun Prince.  Zach Randolph went 19th, Gerlas Wallace 25th, Dalembert 26th, Tinsley 27th, and Tony Parker 28th.

Arguably, Rondo is the best of all of those players, when comparing skills and attitude.  I'd rank him behind Tony Parker at this point, but ahead of everyone else, including Nelson, Martin, Randolph, West, and Wallace.

Oooooh...I think I'd take Gerald Wallace, but it is a tough call.  Tough to compare players at different points in their careers, though.

Just trying to point out that solid starting players, stars, all-stars, and even championship starters happen at that level of the draft more regularly than some have suggested.

And to clarify (not responding to Roy here), I NEVER said that the Rondo pick wasn't that good, wasn't a good pick, or that he is anything less than a very very good player, only that it wasn't too far fetched to get him in particular at 21 for various reasons, and now in response to questions, listed names of other quality players taken at similar positions.  This is all to support the proposition that Danny is not the Draft Messiah, though he is still average to above average.

Yeah, but couldn't you also argue that it's not that hard to get an all-star in the second round, citing names like Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd, Manu Ginobili, etc.?  Sure, it happens, but it's not something that any franchise can count on, and it's not a standard that a GM should be held to.

[More Banners]

Wow.  Quite a few opinions and ideas about the draft.  Some vehement assertions...daring me to name players better than so-and-so in tones that are tough to gauge in a blog/forum format.  Interesting reading all around, though.

Some things I take from this:

I've been convinced now that Danny is above average, but still not quite excellent.  I hope future picks bump him up further (all agreed?  cool.).  I don't think Rondo and Al put him over the top, since there are obvious reasons that ON DRAFT DAY they were not the top-5 picks or whatever.  I remember watching the draft, and nobody was screaming "why is nobody picking Rajon Rondo!!!" all the way through it.  I think several teams thought about him after 10?  We bought the pick from PHX, who obviously had no need for a PG (Nash?).  Which is a point not menioned here:  sometimes, players drop because of position and fit/needs of certain teams, even though everyone says they'll take the best player available, etc.

The best argument that Danny had wild success, to me, after reading all of this, seems to be one of the least mentioned:  Gomes.  He is a decent starter, definitely a rotation player on any team, and went LATE in the 2nd round.  I underestimated the importance of this pick.  It is, by far, the best value pick he made.  He could have went 25 picks earlier, and it would still be a success.  30 picks earlier.  

BBD was a good pick, but not far out of the 1st round, so not as good value.  Maybe time will change that as/if he develops.  Powe was a good second round pick, obviously, but the knock was his injury history, which has turned out to be important.  Perhaps...perhaps we were lucky that Powe didn't get injured sooner.  I think luck may have been a factor there.  But Gomes is a standout here, an incredible value.

The other thing that I'm finding is the next best argument that Danny is better than average is the lack of busts late in the first round, though there are some other factors here.  TA/Delonte/Perk = no busts.  That's harder to do than I gave him credit for.  That they each were given both several years to develop (instead of 1-2 like current draftees get) is a factor in their success, and that they got playing time since we stunck so bad then.

this is what i mean in the previous post. Shouldn't this be why Ainge IS considered a good drafter? Because these WERE NOT publicly sure-thing players, but Danny saw something he liked and took them?

By your logic here, the Gerald Green pick is a smashing success, because everyone was saying top 5! top5! when he slipped and Ainge grabbed him at 18. But that was a terrible pick.

A good drafter?  I agree, and never disagreed.  An excellent, outstanding, Red Auerbach drafter?  That's where disagreements are, I think.

He took gambles, and some paid off, some didn't  Rondo did, Green didn't.  My whole thing is that I don't get why some folks think, and so vehemntly defend him, as a draft wizard.  It's looking like a difference of opinion over evaluating a couple of the solid picks, and ignoring the bad ones.

[BballTim]

The second argument seems to be to compare Rondo to other #21 picks.  I'd modify that to say against picks 17-25?  How about 18-end of draft?  He obviously fares well, no argument there.  But there are other picks that have done well in that range, though there are few "sure things", and ON DRAFT DAY, Rondo was most certainly not a sure thing.  JJ Hickson, Ryan Anderson, George Hill, and Courtney Lee were all picked in that range in 2008, and they're good rotation players, but are too young to really gauge.  Wilson Chandler and Rudy Fernandez when 22/23 in 2007, and they're pretty good players.  Nate Robinson went 21st, and Jarret Jack went 22nd.  They're both solid players.  Jameer Nelson, all star, went 20th, and Kevin Martin went 26th.  David West went 18th, and Travis Outlaw went 23rd, as did Tayshaun Prince.  Zach Randolph went 19th, Gerlas Wallace 25th, Dalembert 26th, Tinsley 27th, and Tony Parker 28th.

Getting really good talent in that range happens, and while it's great when it does, it's not the miracle that it seems to be just because sometimes guys like Joe Forte get taken 21 or sometimes higher picks are busts.

  You're going back over at least 100 picks and you've found 3-4 players that are arguably as good or better than Rondo and none that are clearly better, yet you continue to act as if such a draft pick is fairly commonplace. That's objective.

  And that's far and away the better part of your argument. You're evaluating Danny's drafting under the theory that if he makes a great draft pick he doesn't get much credit for it because the teams that picked ahead of the Celts weren't able to project how good these players would be and therefore were justified in passing on them. The fact that Danny saw how good Perk and Al and Rondo could be and drafted them when other didn't isn't what's important, the fact that other teams thought it was ok to pass on them is what matters.

   The only way for Danny to make a truly great draft pick would be for all of the other teams to pass on a player that they thought would be a star when they had a need for such a player. So Al isn't a great pick because, in your mind, he should have been available at or around 15. A truly great pick in that draft would have been if he had somehow managed to pick Dwight Howard at 15 because he was projected to go at the top of the draft. And to further complicate things, if he does manage to draft a "consensus high draft pick", it's only seen as a good pick if that player lives up to those expectations (not Gerald Green). So if a player exceeds common expectations it doesn't count for Ainge but if they fall below expectations it counts against him.

  In other words, if the other teams knew that a player would be great, they'd never let that player slide to the teens or 20s so it's impossible for Ainge to have great drafts, despite the fact that he's drafting great players. That's one of the most convoluted arguments I've seen on celticsblog, and I've seen a lot of posts. I'm not sure if this was your original point or if you switched to it to defend your evaluation of the Rondo/Jefferson/Perkins picks, but it doesn't make sense.

  Also, it would have been a lot simpler if you'd articulated earlier on that your criteria for a great drafter is someone who picks players that, by the nature of the draft, won't be available when he chooses. I wouldn't have bothered to argue how great a player Rondo was for his position in the draft because how good the players Danny picked turned out to be has little to do with your evaluation of his drafting.

[More Banners]

The second argument seems to be to compare Rondo to other #21 picks.  I'd modify that to say against picks 17-25?  How about 18-end of draft?  He obviously fares well, no argument there.  But there are other picks that have done well in that range, though there are few "sure things", and ON DRAFT DAY, Rondo was most certainly not a sure thing.  JJ Hickson, Ryan Anderson, George Hill, and Courtney Lee were all picked in that range in 2008, and they're good rotation players, but are too young to really gauge.  Wilson Chandler and Rudy Fernandez when 22/23 in 2007, and they're pretty good players.  Nate Robinson went 21st, and Jarret Jack went 22nd.  They're both solid players.  Jameer Nelson, all star, went 20th, and Kevin Martin went 26th.  David West went 18th, and Travis Outlaw went 23rd, as did Tayshaun Prince.  Zach Randolph went 19th, Gerlas Wallace 25th, Dalembert 26th, Tinsley 27th, and Tony Parker 28th.

Arguably, Rondo is the best of all of those players, when comparing skills and attitude.  I'd rank him behind Tony Parker at this point, but ahead of everyone else, including Nelson, Martin, Randolph, West, and Wallace.

Oooooh...I think I'd take Gerald Wallace, but it is a tough call.  Tough to compare players at different points in their careers, though.

Just trying to point out that solid starting players, stars, all-stars, and even championship starters happen at that level of the draft more regularly than some have suggested.

And to clarify (not responding to Roy here), I NEVER said that the Rondo pick wasn't that good, wasn't a good pick, or that he is anything less than a very very good player, only that it wasn't too far fetched to get him in particular at 21 for various reasons, and now in response to questions, listed names of other quality players taken at similar positions.  This is all to support the proposition that Danny is not the Draft Messiah, though he is still average to above average.

Yeah, but couldn't you also argue that it's not that hard to get an all-star in the second round, citing names like Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd, Manu Ginobili, etc.?  Sure, it happens, but it's not something that any franchise can count on, and it's not a standard that a GM should be held to.

This is what's happening in the discussion that sometimes create disagreements where there are none:

I wrote that:
 "...solid starting players, stars, all-stars, and even championship starters happen at that level of the draft more regularly than some have suggested."

You responded that:
"couldn't you also argue that it's not that hard to get an all-star in the second round, citing names like Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd, Manu Ginobili, etc.?  Sure, it happens, but it's not something that any franchise can count on, and it's not a standard that a GM should be held to."

Notice the shift?  It went from my saying it happens more often than some think, and then it is reframed to suggest that I think 1) it's not hard and 2) that GM's should be expected to pull these off regularly, both of which are pretty far from what I wrote.

There have been several of these unfair shifts and recharacterizations here.

So no, I don't think what you suggested is the same as what I wrote.  But it would be accurate to apply my actual argument to the second round using those examples, saying something like "getting quality players in the second round happens more regularly than some have suggested", since some have suggested that it is beyond rare to get good players in the second round.

[BballTim]

Wow.  Quite a few opinions and ideas about the draft.  Some vehement assertions...daring me to name players better than so-and-so in tones that are tough to gauge in a blog/forum format.  Interesting reading all around, though.

Some things I take from this:

I've been convinced now that Danny is above average, but still not quite excellent.  I hope future picks bump him up further (all agreed?  cool.).  I don't think Rondo and Al put him over the top, since there are obvious reasons that ON DRAFT DAY they were not the top-5 picks or whatever.  I remember watching the draft, and nobody was screaming "why is nobody picking Rajon Rondo!!!" all the way through it.  I think several teams thought about him after 10?  We bought the pick from PHX, who obviously had no need for a PG (Nash?).  Which is a point not menioned here:  sometimes, players drop because of position and fit/needs of certain teams, even though everyone says they'll take the best player available, etc.

The best argument that Danny had wild success, to me, after reading all of this, seems to be one of the least mentioned:  Gomes.  He is a decent starter, definitely a rotation player on any team, and went LATE in the 2nd round.  I underestimated the importance of this pick.  It is, by far, the best value pick he made.  He could have went 25 picks earlier, and it would still be a success.  30 picks earlier.  

BBD was a good pick, but not far out of the 1st round, so not as good value.  Maybe time will change that as/if he develops.  Powe was a good second round pick, obviously, but the knock was his injury history, which has turned out to be important.  Perhaps...perhaps we were lucky that Powe didn't get injured sooner.  I think luck may have been a factor there.  But Gomes is a standout here, an incredible value.

The other thing that I'm finding is the next best argument that Danny is better than average is the lack of busts late in the first round, though there are some other factors here.  TA/Delonte/Perk = no busts.  That's harder to do than I gave him credit for.  That they each were given both several years to develop (instead of 1-2 like current draftees get) is a factor in their success, and that they got playing time since we stunck so bad then.

this is what i mean in the previous post. Shouldn't this be why Ainge IS considered a good drafter? Because these WERE NOT publicly sure-thing players, but Danny saw something he liked and took them?

By your logic here, the Gerald Green pick is a smashing success, because everyone was saying top 5! top5! when he slipped and Ainge grabbed him at 18. But that was a terrible pick.

A good drafter?  I agree, and never disagreed.  An excellent, outstanding, Red Auerbach drafter?  That's where disagreements are, I think.

He took gambles, and some paid off, some didn't  Rondo did, Green didn't.  My whole thing is that I don't get why some folks think, and so vehemntly defend him, as a draft wizard.  It's looking like a difference of opinion over evaluating a couple of the solid picks, and ignoring the bad ones.

  Why was Rondo such a gamble? Danny had him in for multiple workouts, including one a few days before the draft with three other guards that were expected to be among the top guards chosen and came away thinking that Rondo was better than the other players. He was proven correct. And it's not ignoring the bad picks, it's understanding how good the good picks were. Here's a point I made earlier:

  If you look at the first rounder Danny's had it's like an 11 (Banks), a 15 (Al), a 18(Green), a 21 (Rondo), a 23 (Allen), a 24 (West), a 27 (Perk) and a 29 (Giddens).

  If Danny was an average drafter, you'd consider trading those picks in this and future drafts for the players he's chosen. Say you take out Rondo and Al, and Delonte was in a better mental position. Then you'd have picks 11, 18, 23, 24 and 27 vs Perk, West and TA. Is that an even trade? Possibly. Perk's worth more than the 11th and 18th picks and West and Allen are probably worth at least a 23, 24 and a 27. But it could be argued.

  That's how you evaluate a bunch of picks without ignoring the bad ones. Two misses, two decent hits and one big score (Perk) evens out those two misses. So if you ignore the Al and Rondo picks Danny's probably close to average. So by that measurement, in 6 years he's two young players (one an all-star and the other reasonably close) above average. By any reasonable account he's gotten well over double the value you'd expect based on his picks.