Author Topic: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?  (Read 29904 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #90 on: August 29, 2016, 05:36:35 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17833
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
Because recently Boston hasn't had any lottery picks until Olynyk, Smart, and Brown.  Olynyk was an average pick (i.e. likely in the same general range, though he probably goes a bit later than 12 in a redraft) and it is too early to tell with Smart or Brown.  Thus, if you are comparing Boston's recent drafts with the league, you have to look at the later picks since that is where the vast majority of Boston's picks have ended up.

There is no question Thabeet was a terrible pick and given how he was taken it is much worse.  Thabeet was one of those reach picks that didn't work out, much like Melo for Boston though far worse because he was the 2nd pick.  I'm not suggesting otherwise, I'm suggesting that 4 complete failures in 7 drafts is a terrible record.  I really can't see how anyone can defend that, especially when the non-failures have been KO, Bradley, and Sullinger i.e. a role player, a solid starter, and a guy no longer on the team because he had weight/work ethic issues.  Look if Ainge was 4 of 7 on terrible picks but had 3 all stars from the other spots (you know like earlier in his drafting career) then it isn't that bad, but you can't be mediocre on 3 of 7 and absolutely terrible in the other 4.  That isn't a way to sustain long term success.  Now maybe Smart takes a leap this year and Brown ends up great, that would certainly help and maybe again you can overlook all the wasted assets and lost value Ainge blew since drafting Rondo in 2006.

Here's the rub. A player selected outside the lottery in the first round has less than 50% chance of becoming even a contributor - never mind a starter - in the NBA. So you absolutely CAN be "mediocre" drafting in the high teens and mid 20s. The league average in those spots isn't any better than Ainge.  I'd also argue that Bradley is far better than mediocre and Sullinger has started 171 games in his career which makes him more than just a bench player.

Once you get past about 16 or so, the chances of a player becoming a solid starter is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20-25%. A star is about 5%.  Role players account for another 30%. Deep bench runs about the same. About 15% are total busts. Those numbers decrease as you get to the late first round to the point that a starter or better in the late 20s is about 15% and a deep bench or bust runs about 60% or more.This kind study has been done repeatedly by many sources and it's always the same. If you're picking in the 20s, the chances of getting even something even as good as a bench role player is less than 50%. So if you're complaining about Ainge hitting 3 of 7 in those ranges then you must expect that Ainge has to impressively exceed the averages of the rest of the NBA or he's a failure in drafting. I don't find that a reasonable position.

Ultimately, Ainge isn't going to be judged on a handful of crappy low 1st round picks. He's going to be judged on Smart, Brown and (hopefully) a forthcoming high 1st this coming year. If he misses on those picks, he's going to be ultimately judged a failure. If he doesn't then he's going to be seen as a masterful GM (again, since he's already brought Boston one title).
Granth, this is the best post of the thread so far, and there have been some good ones. Tp for you.
I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #91 on: August 29, 2016, 05:53:08 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Let me get this straight, sample sizes of 5-7 late 1st round draft picks draft picks are being used as proof that Ainge is a bad drafter?  This thread just reeks of confirmation bias.  You can't just stop looking at data at a certain point because the previous data doesn't fit your narrative, especially when you are dealing with a ridiculously small sample.  Olynyk being drafted at 15 in a redraft is laughable, I would love to see someone justify that nonsense.  Ainge's draft record is well above average when everything is taken into consideration and looked at without using the junk science being used in this thread.
2013 draft

Players Clearly taken ahead of KO in a redraft (in no particular order) - 8
Noel
Oladipo
Caldwell-Pope
McCollum
Adams
Giannis
Schroder
Gobert


Players likely taken ahead of KO in a redraft (in no particular order) - 6
Dieng
Plumlee
Crabbe
Len
Zeller
Porter

That would put KO at 15, of course you also have these guys which a team might actually favor over KO as they might have a skill with a higher peak (like Roberson for wing defense). 
MCW
Roberson
Hill
McLemore
Muhammad
Burke
Snell

You mean Trey Burke who was recently traded for a 2022 second-rounder?

Or Tony Snell who recently had this article that tried its utmost to be optimistic about him by the Bulls blog? http://www.blogabull.com/2016/8/11/12438612/three-reasons-tony-snell-can-still-be-a-factor-next-season

Or Solomon Hill, who didn't even get his year 4 option picked up?

Or Michael Carter-Williams, who was on the trade block after about 4 months in Philly, and then again after a season in Mikwaukee?

Or Ben McLemore, whom the Kings also cannot seemingly trade, despite significant effort?

Maybe Shabazz Muhammed, he of the 31% career 3-point percentage, 1.1 assists, per 36 minutes, and defensive BPM of -4.2?

Roberson is the only useful player on that list, but I'd still take KO over him and not fret about it.  Not to mention Len (career BPM of -2.8 and VORP of -0.4) has been a net negative for his career.  I'd personally take KO over Zeller (even if I wouldn't have on draft night), Porter (even tho I advocated trading for Porter last year and may do so again), Plumlee, and Dieng, but I won't fight those battles in this post.

You are letting your biases really come through on this post with that third list, and that relatively aggressive second list.  You can search my posts from 2013 and see that I advocated selecting both Giannis and Schroder, and was not a fan of Olynyk.  While my appreciation of those two have proved well in hindsight (and my advocating of Trey Burke has not), Olynyk has proven to be the 10-14th best player in that draft, which is just fine for the 13th selection.  It was a fine selection, and one that I will not look back on and question, other than my own misevaluation of Olynyk on draft night.

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #92 on: August 29, 2016, 06:40:20 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33430
  • Tommy Points: 1532
Solomon Hill just signed a 4 year/48 million dollar contract with the Pelicans.  Let's wait to see what kind of contract KO signs this summer before we just go writing that one off as some sort of bias.  And to be clear I put him in the possible depending on team, not as likely or definitely. 

Snell has been a rotation player (around same minutes as KO) for a good team.  With Butler ahead of him though there just isn't much more opportunity.

Burke has outperformed KO.  Utah has a bunch of PG's though.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #93 on: August 29, 2016, 06:49:05 PM »

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8902
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Solomon Hill just signed a 4 year/48 million dollar contract with the Pelicans.  Let's wait to see what kind of contract KO signs this summer before we just go writing that one off as some sort of bias.  And to be clear I put him in the possible depending on team, not as likely or definitely. 

Snell has been a rotation player (around same minutes as KO) for a good team.  With Butler ahead of him though there just isn't much more opportunity.

Burke has outperformed KO.  Utah has a bunch of PG's though.

How do you figure that?  Minute-for-minute, KO has been better at everything except assists and FT% (I'm using per36 for this since their circumstances are very different, with Burke having yet to make the playoffs).  KO is clearly a better player than Trey Burke

Source: http://bkref.com/tiny/zm6nW
I'm bitter.

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #94 on: August 29, 2016, 06:49:41 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14446
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
I think Danny is even. Yes there has been some good ones select after KO and Young. JJJ and Melo were very bad. Rondo and Bradley were better than they were drafted. We did get a pick for Melo. Young may still net us a second round pick if he has a good preseason. Everyone knows Danny has more picks than spots they are waiting for the cherries to drop. He did well with getting 2 stashes this year IMO. He is a Top 5 GM. No. 1 in trades, 12 in drafts but 3 in coaches hired. He will lead us to a fruitful stretch. Powell and Moore are two very good second round picks.
Well, it is actually at least 3 stashes: Yabsele, Zizic and Nader.  Remember just before the draft, we were all wondering what Ainge would do with so many picks, and some us reached the conclusion that he had to make a trade.  He didn't.  Now Young may get cut or traded, but I certainly do not consider that 'wasted'.  C's FO has had a good long look at him already.  In Ainge's approach, nothing is wasted.  Most everything else posted on this thread has to do with his drafting ability.  There is no waste.

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #95 on: August 29, 2016, 07:30:53 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
I think those numbers are about right, but Ainge has busted on 4 of his last 7 (not counting the last two drafts since those are too early) which equates to 57%.  That is far greater than the league average.  That is the point I've been making. 

I do also agree that Smart and Brown will go a lot further in Ainge's legacy than the later 1st's, but you can't just disregard the later 1st's either.

57% is not greater than average as my post points out. More than 50% of the guys taken in that range don't amount to anything. That the Cs are good enough and deep enough to shed the dead wood earlier doesn't make those failed picks different than other failed picks. Since he got 2 starters - including an All-NBA Defensive 1st teamer - out of those 7 picks that averaged to be the 21st pick is a pretty decent hit percentage. This really isn't debatable.

7 picks is not a good basis to make any type of generalization. That's an exceptionally small sample size for picks with quite a low hit percentage. Even if it were below average (and it's not), it would still be well within any kind of 1st standard deviation. Your argument isn't statistically correct. It's based on small sample size that's not only cherry-picked but doesn't really support your assertions. I could slightly shift your selection range and show how 5 of 6 picks in that draft range were quite valuable - Jefferson, West, Allen, Gerald Green and Bradley with only Giddens as a bust. I could then say that Ainge is the greatest drafter EVER with that sample. I'm not doing so because it's not any more accurate than your claims.

Furthermore, since Ainge has drafted the starters that would be expected from that 21st draft position (actually, more), what you're complaining about is that the Cs haven't kept ONE MORE of these guys to ride the bench as the 14th or 15th player. That's the entire crux of your argument. When your complaint is that Ainge is a failure because Giddens (on a Championship team) or Young (on an exceptionally deep team) didn't make the end of the bench and that makes Ainge a below-average drafter, I don't think it's a good one at all. 

And this is all academic. If the Cs win a title in the next 5 years, not a gosh-darn will be given about a handful of late 1sts, some of whom panned out and some who did not. If they fail to win the title, then the blame is likely to be on the picks that had a far higher statistical probability of panning out.

Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #96 on: August 29, 2016, 07:56:09 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33430
  • Tommy Points: 1532
I think those numbers are about right, but Ainge has busted on 4 of his last 7 (not counting the last two drafts since those are too early) which equates to 57%.  That is far greater than the league average.  That is the point I've been making. 

I do also agree that Smart and Brown will go a lot further in Ainge's legacy than the later 1st's, but you can't just disregard the later 1st's either.

57% is not greater than average as my post points out. More than 50% of the guys taken in that range don't amount to anything. That the Cs are good enough and deep enough to shed the dead wood earlier doesn't make those failed picks different than other failed picks. Since he got 2 starters - including an All-NBA Defensive 1st teamer - out of those 7 picks that averaged to be the 21st pick is a pretty decent hit percentage. This really isn't debatable.

7 picks is not a good basis to make any type of generalization. That's an exceptionally small sample size for picks with quite a low hit percentage. Even if it were below average (and it's not), it would still be well within any kind of 1st standard deviation. Your argument isn't statistically correct. It's based on small sample size that's not only cherry-picked but doesn't really support your assertions. I could slightly shift your selection range and show how 5 of 6 picks in that draft range were quite valuable - Jefferson, West, Allen, Gerald Green and Bradley with only Giddens as a bust. I could then say that Ainge is the greatest drafter EVER with that sample. I'm not doing so because it's not any more accurate than your claims.

Furthermore, since Ainge has drafted the starters that would be expected from that 21st draft position (actually, more), what you're complaining about is that the Cs haven't kept ONE MORE of these guys to ride the bench as the 14th or 15th player. That's the entire crux of your argument. When your complaint is that Ainge is a failure because Giddens (on a Championship team) or Young (on an exceptionally deep team) didn't make the end of the bench and that makes Ainge a below-average drafter, I don't think it's a good one at all. 

And this is all academic. If the Cs win a title in the next 5 years, not a gosh-darn will be given about a handful of late 1sts, some of whom panned out and some who did not. If they fail to win the title, then the blame is likely to be on the picks that had a far higher statistical probability of panning out.
You said 15% are total busts, of the last 7 picks selected by Ainge (not counting the two most recent drafts), 4 were total busts.  The most recent drafts are the drafts that matter the most as they show the trend.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #97 on: August 29, 2016, 08:27:43 PM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
I think those numbers are about right, but Ainge has busted on 4 of his last 7 (not counting the last two drafts since those are too early) which equates to 57%.  That is far greater than the league average.  That is the point I've been making. 

I do also agree that Smart and Brown will go a lot further in Ainge's legacy than the later 1st's, but you can't just disregard the later 1st's either.

57% is not greater than average as my post points out. More than 50% of the guys taken in that range don't amount to anything. That the Cs are good enough and deep enough to shed the dead wood earlier doesn't make those failed picks different than other failed picks. Since he got 2 starters - including an All-NBA Defensive 1st teamer - out of those 7 picks that averaged to be the 21st pick is a pretty decent hit percentage. This really isn't debatable.

7 picks is not a good basis to make any type of generalization. That's an exceptionally small sample size for picks with quite a low hit percentage. Even if it were below average (and it's not), it would still be well within any kind of 1st standard deviation. Your argument isn't statistically correct. It's based on small sample size that's not only cherry-picked but doesn't really support your assertions. I could slightly shift your selection range and show how 5 of 6 picks in that draft range were quite valuable - Jefferson, West, Allen, Gerald Green and Bradley with only Giddens as a bust. I could then say that Ainge is the greatest drafter EVER with that sample. I'm not doing so because it's not any more accurate than your claims.

Furthermore, since Ainge has drafted the starters that would be expected from that 21st draft position (actually, more), what you're complaining about is that the Cs haven't kept ONE MORE of these guys to ride the bench as the 14th or 15th player. That's the entire crux of your argument. When your complaint is that Ainge is a failure because Giddens (on a Championship team) or Young (on an exceptionally deep team) didn't make the end of the bench and that makes Ainge a below-average drafter, I don't think it's a good one at all. 

And this is all academic. If the Cs win a title in the next 5 years, not a gosh-darn will be given about a handful of late 1sts, some of whom panned out and some who did not. If they fail to win the title, then the blame is likely to be on the picks that had a far higher statistical probability of panning out.
You said 15% are total busts, of the last 7 picks selected by Ainge (not counting the two most recent drafts), 4 were total busts.  The most recent drafts are the drafts that matter the most as they show the trend.

If you only acknowledge the evidence that supports your point and reject all contrary information, you can make any argument work.

Mike

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #98 on: August 29, 2016, 09:35:17 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
Let me get this straight, sample sizes of 5-7 late 1st round draft picks draft picks are being used as proof that Ainge is a bad drafter?  This thread just reeks of confirmation bias.  You can't just stop looking at data at a certain point because the previous data doesn't fit your narrative, especially when you are dealing with a ridiculously small sample.  Olynyk being drafted at 15 in a redraft is laughable, I would love to see someone justify that nonsense.  Ainge's draft record is well above average when everything is taken into consideration and looked at without using the junk science being used in this thread.
2013 draft

Players Clearly taken ahead of KO in a redraft (in no particular order) - 8
Noel
Oladipo
Caldwell-Pope
McCollum
Adams
Giannis
Schroder
Gobert


Players likely taken ahead of KO in a redraft (in no particular order) - 6
Dieng
Plumlee
Crabbe
Len
Zeller
Porter

That would put KO at 15, of course you also have these guys which a team might actually favor over KO as they might have a skill with a higher peak (like Roberson for wing defense). 
MCW
Roberson
Hill
McLemore
Muhammad
Burke
Snell

You mean Trey Burke who was recently traded for a 2022 second-rounder?

Or Tony Snell who recently had this article that tried its utmost to be optimistic about him by the Bulls blog? http://www.blogabull.com/2016/8/11/12438612/three-reasons-tony-snell-can-still-be-a-factor-next-season

Or Solomon Hill, who didn't even get his year 4 option picked up?

Or Michael Carter-Williams, who was on the trade block after about 4 months in Philly, and then again after a season in Mikwaukee?

Or Ben McLemore, whom the Kings also cannot seemingly trade, despite significant effort?

Maybe Shabazz Muhammed, he of the 31% career 3-point percentage, 1.1 assists, per 36 minutes, and defensive BPM of -4.2?

Roberson is the only useful player on that list, but I'd still take KO over him and not fret about it.  Not to mention Len (career BPM of -2.8 and VORP of -0.4) has been a net negative for his career.  I'd personally take KO over Zeller (even if I wouldn't have on draft night), Porter (even tho I advocated trading for Porter last year and may do so again), Plumlee, and Dieng, but I won't fight those battles in this post.

You are letting your biases really come through on this post with that third list, and that relatively aggressive second list.  You can search my posts from 2013 and see that I advocated selecting both Giannis and Schroder, and was not a fan of Olynyk.  While my appreciation of those two have proved well in hindsight (and my advocating of Trey Burke has not), Olynyk has proven to be the 10-14th best player in that draft, which is just fine for the 13th selection.  It was a fine selection, and one that I will not look back on and question, other than my own misevaluation of Olynyk on draft night.
have to agree that assessment is pretty biased to make a biased point. 

no one off that third list is better than KO. 

Off the second list, there's no way Zeller is taken ahead of KO.  he's not even getting minutes playing on the same team.  Plumlee, not taken before KO either.  Porter?  This kid is considered a bust for where he was picked.  if he wasn't taken so high in the draft, Washington would have traded him by now.  Even Dieng and Len are debatable. 

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #99 on: August 29, 2016, 09:56:08 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619

have to agree that assessment is pretty biased to make a biased point. 

no one off that third list is better than KO. 

Off the second list, there's no way Zeller is taken ahead of KO.  he's not even getting minutes playing on the same team.  Plumlee, not taken before KO either.  Porter?  This kid is considered a bust for where he was picked.  if he wasn't taken so high in the draft, Washington would have traded him by now.  Even Dieng and Len are debatable.

To clarify,  the Zeller is Cody Zeller of Charlotte, who, while better than Tyler, has not had the same success as KO (but it is closer.)

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #100 on: August 29, 2016, 10:41:42 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047

have to agree that assessment is pretty biased to make a biased point. 

no one off that third list is better than KO. 

Off the second list, there's no way Zeller is taken ahead of KO.  he's not even getting minutes playing on the same team.  Plumlee, not taken before KO either.  Porter?  This kid is considered a bust for where he was picked.  if he wasn't taken so high in the draft, Washington would have traded him by now.  Even Dieng and Len are debatable.

To clarify,  the Zeller is Cody Zeller of Charlotte, who, while better than Tyler, has not had the same success as KO (but it is closer.)
thanks for the clarification and I agree, he's not had the same success as KO.

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #101 on: August 30, 2016, 06:33:19 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33430
  • Tommy Points: 1532

have to agree that assessment is pretty biased to make a biased point. 

no one off that third list is better than KO. 

Off the second list, there's no way Zeller is taken ahead of KO.  he's not even getting minutes playing on the same team.  Plumlee, not taken before KO either.  Porter?  This kid is considered a bust for where he was picked.  if he wasn't taken so high in the draft, Washington would have traded him by now.  Even Dieng and Len are debatable.

To clarify,  the Zeller is Cody Zeller of Charlotte, who, while better than Tyler, has not had the same success as KO (but it is closer.)
thanks for the clarification and I agree, he's not had the same success as KO.
Zeller has more win shares playing on a worse team.  Bigger, better rebounder, much better defender, more points per shot, etc.  KO is a better all around offensive player and has the 3 point range Zeller does not, though as KO moves away from the basket his 2% has gotten worse as has his rebounding.  Zeller though is coming a very solid season starting for a 48 win team, which he followed up with an excellent playoff series against Miami.  KO on the otherhand is getting worse everywhere except the 3% (not that is a bad thing).  I'm very confident in a redraft that Zeller would go ahead of Olynyk, though they would be closer because Zeller wouldn't go nearly as high as he did originally.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #102 on: August 30, 2016, 08:33:00 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33430
  • Tommy Points: 1532
I actually forgot that Robert Covington and Matthew Dellavedova were undrafted but otherwise in the 2013 draft.  A fairly strong argument could be made that both would be ahead of Olynyk in a re-draft as well.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #103 on: August 30, 2016, 08:58:12 AM »

Offline MBunge

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4661
  • Tommy Points: 471
I actually forgot that Robert Covington and Matthew Dellavedova were undrafted but otherwise in the 2013 draft.  A fairly strong argument could be made that both would be ahead of Olynyk in a re-draft as well.

No it couldn't.  Delle is a backup pg who wouldn't start for any good team that didn't have LeBron Janes.  Covington was a marginal rotation player on one of the worst teams in league history.

Mike

Re: Anyone upset about the wasted assets?
« Reply #104 on: August 30, 2016, 09:19:24 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33430
  • Tommy Points: 1532
I actually forgot that Robert Covington and Matthew Dellavedova were undrafted but otherwise in the 2013 draft.  A fairly strong argument could be made that both would be ahead of Olynyk in a re-draft as well.

No it couldn't.  Delle is a backup pg who wouldn't start for any good team that didn't have LeBron Janes.  Covington was a marginal rotation player on one of the worst teams in league history.

Mike
Dellavedova just signed a large contract.  He has shot over 40% from three point range the last two years.  Last time I checked, Olynyk was a back-up as well, whose claim to fame is being a worse three point shooter than Dellavedova.

Covington is a SF that is a good defender (and far better than KO), currently a better rebounder, etc.  Covington shoots too many threes, but is a quality shooter from there (not as good as KO, but shoots a much higher volume playing on a worse team so doesn't have as many open/good looks as KO). 

You guys act like Olynyk is a future all star.  He isn't.  He is a back-up who barely averaged 20 minutes a game last year, and who got worse pretty much everywhere except 3 point shooter from his 2nd to 3rd year.  KO is a back-up for a reason.  That is his end game.  He will never be much more than he is now i.e. good shooting range, ok passer, but terrible rebounder and below average defender.  Maybe Delly will only ever be a back-up also, but he is a better three point shooter and a better defender.  Covington has actually shown the ability to be a respectable starter, playing starters minutes with solid production.  Yeah, the Sixers were terrible, but not all terrible teams are comprised of entirely terrible players.  Covington's skill set would transfer very well to pretty much any team.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip