Poll

Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?

Yes
60 (63.8%)
No
34 (36.2%)

Total Members Voted: 94

Author Topic: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?  (Read 28903 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #60 on: December 01, 2016, 11:41:14 AM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it. It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Nice post, I particularly like the bolded points ^^^

You think the last two bolded sections are correct? I think that's one soft definition of success. It wasn't even close to the best possible outcome.

I'm just responding to the question "is it safe to say KO was a good pick by Ainge now"

It all hinges on definition of "good pick".

The OP didn't ask "is it safe to say Ainge knocked the pick out of park with KO?"

The Greek Freak is, what, arguably the best pick in that draft, right? If Ainge had picked the Greek Freak, it would have been arguably the best draft pick ever made by Ainge. He didn't. He picked KO. Was it a good pick? Yes.

Man, I wish people would stop hiding behind Giannis as this anomaly that no one could have predicted.....

What do Giannis, Denis, and Rudy have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly;
4) They all have higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe before being drafted.

The Celtics failed to scout these players properly. Oh, and Crabbe and Dieng could also be considered better players by many (though I'd rather have KO than GD).

So giving Ainge a pat on the back for the Olynyk pick is weak. He's a lottery pick. He's not a bust. You get a "B" for that.

What do Lucas Nogueira, Sergey Karasev, Livio Jean-Charles, Nemanja Nedovic, and Alex Abrines all have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly out of the NBA;
4) They all had higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe internationally before being drafted.

Just as with any draft picks, foreign players are unknown quantities.  Some work out (like Giannis, Schroeder, and Gobert), but a lot of them don't (like Nogueria, Karasev, Jean-Charles, Nedovic, and Abrines).  You keep acting like Giannis and the others were can;t miss prospects, but they weren't.  If they were obvious picks, they would have gone much, much sooner.  Just look back at their draft profiles from before the draft: Giannis was a 6'9" athletic specimen, but had little experience and played in the Greek 2nd division, which is extremely weak.  Gobert had great size, but there were tons of questions about whether he'd be able to fill out his frame enough to play down low in the NBA.  Similarly, Karasev was considered "among the most intriguing international prospects in this draft" and "years ahead of the learning curve of the average 19 year-old European prospect", but is now out of the NBA and playing back in Russia.  You'll find similar stuff if you look at any of the other foreign players' profiles.  All of the international picks were risks: acting like Giannis, Schroeder, and Gobert were sure things and obvious picks is just untrue.
I'm bitter.

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #61 on: December 01, 2016, 11:45:09 AM »

Offline GratefulCs

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3181
  • Tommy Points: 496
  • Salmon and Mashed Potatoes
On draft night there were people thinking "darn. We passed on Giannis. That could come back to bite us."  Had we drafted Giannis and he had become a total bust nobody would ever say "Oh man! We coulda had Olynyk!"  Because KO is an ok draft pick at best
maybe no one would say we should've picked only

But if Gianni's busted and we picked him, do you honestly think there wouldn't have been serious backlash toward ainge?

I know a few posters who would want his head on a pike
I trust Danny Ainge

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #62 on: December 01, 2016, 11:57:13 AM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it.  It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Great. But the timing of this thread was obviously triggered by a couple of solid games. Kelly has been an inconsistent, not to mention slightly fragile, player. Reliability is part of effectiveness.

Three foreign players -- who vary from better than Kelly, to MUCH better than Kelly -- were taken immediately after Olynyk. Considering Danny's pathetic record of drafting international players, it's not dumb luck that he missed on those players. Nor was it dumb luck that the teams that took those players, took them. Just because others may wan to believe that the Bucks, Hawks and Jazz 'took flyers' on those players doesn't mean that's how they actually looked at it.

So, i find it homer posturing when Cs fans rationalize Kelly's relative successes by comparison to draft fails of bad teams who picked before them.... over the fact that the Cs international scouting failed badly on GA, Schroder, and Gobert.

Calling Kelly a 'B' pick is fine. Trying to rationalize him as an 'A' pick is not objective. The Cs didn't really get close to the best player available when they picked. They got somewhere between the 4th and 6th best player, depending on how you look at it.

You still keep going after "Kelly wasn't the best pick available", but literally no one is saying that (in fact, I quite literally said "It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.").  The entire crux of your argument (other than the straw men you keep coming up with) is that if someone isn't the best possible pick, then it's a bad pick.  This is ridiculous. Late picks that swing for the fences sometimes work out.  That doesn't mean that other picks are bad picks, though. That's the kind of logic that says that Klay Thompson was a bad pick at #11 because Kawhi Leonard went #15.  Yes, Leonard would have been a better pick, but getting Klay at #11 is still a good pick (in a redraft, he goes 3rd or 4th) (obviously, Kelly and Giannis are not at Klay or Kawhi level, but this is about how someone better being available later doesn't make your pick bad, I'm not saying that Kelly is at Klay's level)

I'm not sure what you're saying about foreign players: there were 4 (not 3) foreign players taken in a 5 pick stretch within 10 picks of Olynyk: Giannis (15), Lucas Nogueria (16), Schroeder (17), and Sergey Karasey (19).  I'd hardly say that Nogueria or Karasey  "vary from better than Kelly, to MUCH better than Kelly", and I think most people who watch the NBA would agree with me.  I'd assume you're including Gobert (27) as one of those 3, but that was a whole 14 picks later, and he was in a group of 4 foreign players in 6 picks: Gobert (27), Liveo Jean-Charles (28),  Nemanja Nedovic (30), and Alex Abrines (32).  None of these foreign players were obvious picks - 8 foreign players were taken, with only 3 of them working out.  None of those were sure picks, and we only know that some of those picks were good through hindsight.  Giannis could just have easily have had Bruno Cabculo's career arc as his current one, and Sergey Karasey could have had an Evan Fournier career arc instead of his own.  If that was the case, would we instead be saying that Karasey was an obvious pick and our scouting department failed?

You can argue that Kelly wasn't the best pick all you want, but that doesn't mean that Kelly wasn't a good pick.  Any redraft would have Kelly at the same spot or earlier, which is what a good pick is -you get a player that is good or better than expected from their draft slot.  The fact that Giannis was a great pick doesn't change the fact that Kelly was a good one.

Wrong. You're creating a "definition" of a good pick, that's your opinion of what a good pick is -- not a universal truth by any stretch. I don't agree with your definition. 

I don't have the patience to argue about bad players the Cs didn't take being a justification for the fact that Ainge drafted well in getting a guy who is still in the league. Ainge had a variety of choice at the Olynyk pick, and he missed pretty darn badly on 3 guys he didn't scout well enough based on their location. That's a fail.

Put another way, I don't consider getting an NBA bench rotation player with a lottery pick "good". That's a passing grade, as far as I'm concerned. That's just showing up.

I'm not an Olynyk hater. Good player. I like watching him play. And I'm far from an Ainge hater. He's an excellent GM -- arguably the best transactional GM in the NBA (which I've said consistently over many years here).

But these threads of fans looking to justify this pick over and over again are HOMER THREADS started defensively on the basis that Ainge has been a good draft GM, which is far from the truth. He's been average at best, and this is simply another example of it.

« Last Edit: December 01, 2016, 12:11:03 PM by ssspence »
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #63 on: December 01, 2016, 12:02:53 PM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Maybe we should go around talking about how Semih Erden was a good pick. They are both first ballot initiates into the Hall of Low Expectations and Settling.

When did players who deliver about what you would expect, or hope for at a minimum, start becoming "good" picks? When we started to realize Ainge isn't the greatest drafter.

Erden played 69 NBA games (starting 17) despite being the 60th overall pick in his draft.  That's actually a solid-to-good pick.

What would your definition of a good pick be, then? Getting a player that far exceeds their draft position?  If you apply that criteria to every pick made by every GM in the NBA, you won't find any good ones. Ainge should be compared to actual human GMs, not a mythical perfect GM that can see the future and always make the right decision
I'm bitter.

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #64 on: December 01, 2016, 12:10:05 PM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it.  It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Great. But the timing of this thread was obviously triggered by a couple of solid games. Kelly has been an inconsistent, not to mention slightly fragile, player. Reliability is part of effectiveness.

Three foreign players -- who vary from better than Kelly, to MUCH better than Kelly -- were taken immediately after Olynyk. Considering Danny's pathetic record of drafting international players, it's not dumb luck that he missed on those players. Nor was it dumb luck that the teams that took those players, took them. Just because others may wan to believe that the Bucks, Hawks and Jazz 'took flyers' on those players doesn't mean that's how they actually looked at it.

So, i find it homer posturing when Cs fans rationalize Kelly's relative successes by comparison to draft fails of bad teams who picked before them.... over the fact that the Cs international scouting failed badly on GA, Schroder, and Gobert.

Calling Kelly a 'B' pick is fine. Trying to rationalize him as an 'A' pick is not objective. The Cs didn't really get close to the best player available when they picked. They got somewhere between the 4th and 6th best player, depending on how you look at it.

You still keep going after "Kelly wasn't the best pick available", but literally no one is saying that (in fact, I quite literally said "It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.").  The entire crux of your argument (other than the straw men you keep coming up with) is that if someone isn't the best possible pick, then it's a bad pick.  This is ridiculous. Late picks that swing for the fences sometimes work out.  That doesn't mean that other picks are bad picks, though. That's the kind of logic that says that Klay Thompson was a bad pick at #11 because Kawhi Leonard went #15.  Yes, Leonard would have been a better pick, but getting Klay at #11 is still a good pick (in a redraft, he goes 3rd or 4th) (obviously, Kelly and Giannis are not at Klay or Kawhi level, but this is about how someone better being available later doesn't make your pick bad, I'm not saying that Kelly is at Klay's level)

I'm not sure what you're saying about foreign players: there were 4 (not 3) foreign players taken in a 5 pick stretch within 10 picks of Olynyk: Giannis (15), Lucas Nogueria (16), Schroeder (17), and Sergey Karasey (19).  I'd hardly say that Nogueria or Karasey  "vary from better than Kelly, to MUCH better than Kelly", and I think most people who watch the NBA would agree with me.  I'd assume you're including Gobert (27) as one of those 3, but that was a whole 14 picks later, and he was in a group of 4 foreign players in 6 picks: Gobert (27), Liveo Jean-Charles (28),  Nemanja Nedovic (30), and Alex Abrines (32).  None of these foreign players were obvious picks - 8 foreign players were taken, with only 3 of them working out.  None of those were sure picks, and we only know that some of those picks were good through hindsight.  Giannis could just have easily have had Bruno Cabculo's career arc as his current one, and Sergey Karasey could have had an Evan Fournier career arc instead of his own.  If that was the case, would we instead be saying that Karasey was an obvious pick and our scouting department failed?

You can argue that Kelly wasn't the best pick all you want, but that doesn't mean that Kelly wasn't a good pick.  Any redraft would have Kelly at the same spot or earlier, which is what a good pick is -you get a player that is good or better than expected from their draft slot.  The fact that Giannis was a great pick doesn't change the fact that Kelly was a good one.

Wrong. You're creating a "definition" of a good pick, that's your opinion of what a good pick is -- not a universal truth by any stretch. I don't agree with your definition. But since you clearly aren't willing to engage in the realities of what i AM saying, let's just move on.

And what would your definition of a good pick be? Not every pick is going to be a star, or way outperform their draft position.  I can't "engage in the realities" of what you're saying without you explaining them.

A pretty simple definition for how picks fit would be: A great pick is someone that far outperforms their draft position (like Giannis). A good pick is someone that lives up to it (like Kelly). A bad one is someone that does worse than expected from their draft position (like Anthony Bennett).  What's disagreeable about that definition? I think most here would agree with it.

Edit: Since you edited your post:

Wrong. You're creating a "definition" of a good pick, that's your opinion of what a good pick is -- not a universal truth by any stretch. I don't agree with your definition. 

I don't have the patience to argue about bad players the Cs didn't take being a justification for the fact that Ainge drafted well in getting a guy who is still in the league. Ainge had a variety of choice at the Olynyk pick, and he missed pretty darn badly on 3 guys he didn't scout well enough based on their location. That's a fail.

Put another way, I don't consider getting an NBA bench rotation player with a lottery pick "good". That's a passing grade, as far as I'm concerned. That's just showing up.

I'm not an Olynyk hater. Good player. I like watching him play. But these threads of fans looking to justify this pick over and over again are HOMER THREADS.

I'm not saying that Danny not taking those bad foreign players makes Kelly a good pick - I'm saying that it shows that you're cherry picking the foreign players in your argument.  Tons of teams scouted Giannis, and Schroeder, and Gobert.  Tons of teams passed on them.  Some of the teams that passed on them even took international players.  Saying that not getting Giannis is a failure of our foreign scouting ignores the reality that he was not a sure pick.  He could just have easily have been a bust, like 5 of the 8 foreign players take in this draft were.  Giannis was a risky pick that worked out.

Getting an NBA rotation player with the 2nd to last lottery pick in that draft is actually a a good pick given how bad the draft was.  3 of the guys taken ahead of him in the lottery (Bennett, Trey Burke, MCW) aren't rotation level players, and a 4th (Ben Mclemore) is trending toward that. A few of the players in the lottery have done very well for themselves (Oladipo, McCollum, Steven Adams, arguably Len and Noel), and the others (including Kelly) have proved to be rotation players.  This draft wasn't 2003 - you shouldn't expect a great player at the very back end of the lottery.  A rotation player is about what you should expect.

I certainly don't mean to imply that you hate Olynyk (and hope I haven't).  I just think you have a bit of an unrealistic definition of what makes a good pick, and are looking back at some of the foreign prospects and ignoring that they were viewed very similarly to the ones that busted out
« Last Edit: December 01, 2016, 12:28:53 PM by BitterJim »
I'm bitter.

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #65 on: December 01, 2016, 12:13:38 PM »

Offline Cman

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13068
  • Tommy Points: 120
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it. It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Nice post, I particularly like the bolded points ^^^

You think the last two bolded sections are correct? I think that's one soft definition of success. It wasn't even close to the best possible outcome.

I'm just responding to the question "is it safe to say KO was a good pick by Ainge now"

It all hinges on definition of "good pick".

The OP didn't ask "is it safe to say Ainge knocked the pick out of park with KO?"

The Greek Freak is, what, arguably the best pick in that draft, right? If Ainge had picked the Greek Freak, it would have been arguably the best draft pick ever made by Ainge. He didn't. He picked KO. Was it a good pick? Yes.

Man, I wish people would stop hiding behind Giannis as this anomaly that no one could have predicted.....

What do Giannis, Denis, and Rudy have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly;
4) They all have higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe before being drafted.

The Celtics failed to scout these players properly. Oh, and Crabbe and Dieng could also be considered better players by many (though I'd rather have KO than GD).

So giving Ainge a pat on the back for the Olynyk pick is weak. He's a lottery pick. He's not a bust. You get a "B" for that.

So you're saying in a redraft, KO would be picked between 4-6? Sounds like a good pick to me, given he was picked at #13.

Anyway, sounds like we are just going around and around on this.

Celtics fan for life.

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #66 on: December 01, 2016, 12:16:22 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it.  It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Great. But the timing of this thread was obviously triggered by a couple of solid games. Kelly has been an inconsistent, not to mention slightly fragile, player. Reliability is part of effectiveness.

Three foreign players -- who vary from better than Kelly, to MUCH better than Kelly -- were taken immediately after Olynyk. Considering Danny's pathetic record of drafting international players, it's not dumb luck that he missed on those players. Nor was it dumb luck that the teams that took those players, took them. Just because others may wan to believe that the Bucks, Hawks and Jazz 'took flyers' on those players doesn't mean that's how they actually looked at it.

So, i find it homer posturing when Cs fans rationalize Kelly's relative successes by comparison to draft fails of bad teams who picked before them.... over the fact that the Cs international scouting failed badly on GA, Schroder, and Gobert.

Calling Kelly a 'B' pick is fine. Trying to rationalize him as an 'A' pick is not objective. The Cs didn't really get close to the best player available when they picked. They got somewhere between the 4th and 6th best player, depending on how you look at it.

You still keep going after "Kelly wasn't the best pick available", but literally no one is saying that (in fact, I quite literally said "It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.").  The entire crux of your argument (other than the straw men you keep coming up with) is that if someone isn't the best possible pick, then it's a bad pick.  This is ridiculous. Late picks that swing for the fences sometimes work out.  That doesn't mean that other picks are bad picks, though. That's the kind of logic that says that Klay Thompson was a bad pick at #11 because Kawhi Leonard went #15.  Yes, Leonard would have been a better pick, but getting Klay at #11 is still a good pick (in a redraft, he goes 3rd or 4th) (obviously, Kelly and Giannis are not at Klay or Kawhi level, but this is about how someone better being available later doesn't make your pick bad, I'm not saying that Kelly is at Klay's level)

I'm not sure what you're saying about foreign players: there were 4 (not 3) foreign players taken in a 5 pick stretch within 10 picks of Olynyk: Giannis (15), Lucas Nogueria (16), Schroeder (17), and Sergey Karasey (19).  I'd hardly say that Nogueria or Karasey  "vary from better than Kelly, to MUCH better than Kelly", and I think most people who watch the NBA would agree with me.  I'd assume you're including Gobert (27) as one of those 3, but that was a whole 14 picks later, and he was in a group of 4 foreign players in 6 picks: Gobert (27), Liveo Jean-Charles (28),  Nemanja Nedovic (30), and Alex Abrines (32).  None of these foreign players were obvious picks - 8 foreign players were taken, with only 3 of them working out.  None of those were sure picks, and we only know that some of those picks were good through hindsight.  Giannis could just have easily have had Bruno Cabculo's career arc as his current one, and Sergey Karasey could have had an Evan Fournier career arc instead of his own.  If that was the case, would we instead be saying that Karasey was an obvious pick and our scouting department failed?

You can argue that Kelly wasn't the best pick all you want, but that doesn't mean that Kelly wasn't a good pick.  Any redraft would have Kelly at the same spot or earlier, which is what a good pick is -you get a player that is good or better than expected from their draft slot.  The fact that Giannis was a great pick doesn't change the fact that Kelly was a good one.

Wrong. You're creating a "definition" of a good pick, that's your opinion of what a good pick is -- not a universal truth by any stretch. I don't agree with your definition.

I don't have the patience to argue about bad players the Cs didn't take being a justification for the fact that Ainge drafted well in getting a guy who is still in the league. Ainge had a variety of choice at the Olynyk pick, and he missed pretty darn badly on 3 guys he didn't scout well enough based on their location. That's a fail.

Put another way, I don't consider getting an NBA bench rotation player with a lottery pick "good". That's a passing grade, as far as I'm concerned. That's just showing up.

I'm not an Olynyk hater. Good player. I like watching him play. And I'm far from an Ainge hater. He's an excellent GM -- arguably the best transactional GM in the NBA (which I've said consistently over many years here).

But these threads of fans looking to justify this pick over and over again are HOMER THREADS started defensively on the basis that Ainge has been a good draft GM, which is far from the truth. He's been average at best, and this is simply another example of it.


And what would your definition of a good pick be? Not every pick is going to be a star, or way outperform their draft position.  I can't "engage in the realities" of what you're saying without you explaining them.

A pretty simple definition for how picks fit would be: A great pick is someone that far outperforms their draft position (like Giannis). A good pick is someone that lives up to it (like Kelly). A bad one is someone that does worse than expected from their draft position (like Anthony Bennett).  What's disagreeable about that definition? I think most here would agree with it.

I updated my post in your quote. I think you need to add some more levels in your system, by the way. Giannis and Bennett were obviously unusually polar in their respective directions.

I think our difference is that you have low expectations for the draft. Mine are higher. I don't consider not blowing a pick.... success. Obviously better than then alternative, but Ainge has done that plenty, too.
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #67 on: December 01, 2016, 12:19:52 PM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17835
  • Tommy Points: 2661
  • bammokja
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it. It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Nice post, I particularly like the bolded points ^^^

You think the last two bolded sections are correct? I think that's one soft definition of success. It wasn't even close to the best possible outcome.

I'm just responding to the question "is it safe to say KO was a good pick by Ainge now"

It all hinges on definition of "good pick".

The OP didn't ask "is it safe to say Ainge knocked the pick out of park with KO?"

The Greek Freak is, what, arguably the best pick in that draft, right? If Ainge had picked the Greek Freak, it would have been arguably the best draft pick ever made by Ainge. He didn't. He picked KO. Was it a good pick? Yes.

Man, I wish people would stop hiding behind Giannis as this anomaly that no one could have predicted.....

What do Giannis, Denis, and Rudy have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly;
4) They all have higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe before being drafted.

The Celtics failed to scout these players properly. Oh, and Crabbe and Dieng could also be considered better players by many (though I'd rather have KO than GD).

So giving Ainge a pat on the back for the Olynyk pick is weak. He's a lottery pick. He's not a bust. You get a "B" for that.

What do Lucas Nogueira, Sergey Karasev, Livio Jean-Charles, Nemanja Nedovic, and Alex Abrines all have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly out of the NBA;
4) They all had higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe internationally before being drafted.

Just as with any draft picks, foreign players are unknown quantities.  Some work out (like Giannis, Schroeder, and Gobert), but a lot of them don't (like Nogueria, Karasev, Jean-Charles, Nedovic, and Abrines).  You keep acting like Giannis and the others were can;t miss prospects, but they weren't.  If they were obvious picks, they would have gone much, much sooner.  Just look back at their draft profiles from before the draft: Giannis was a 6'9" athletic specimen, but had little experience and played in the Greek 2nd division, which is extremely weak.  Gobert had great size, but there were tons of questions about whether he'd be able to fill out his frame enough to play down low in the NBA.  Similarly, Karasev was considered "among the most intriguing international prospects in this draft" and "years ahead of the learning curve of the average 19 year-old European prospect", but is now out of the NBA and playing back in Russia.  You'll find similar stuff if you look at any of the other foreign players' profiles.  All of the international picks were risks: acting like Giannis, Schroeder, and Gobert were sure things and obvious picks is just untrue.
good post. all too often the critiques of celtics' drafts rely upon 20/20 hindsight as if it was crystal clear and obvious at the time of the draft. they need to refer back to the scouting reports that existed then.

i wanted antetokounmpo that draft, but i fully understood that he had never played in a strong league. it was almost impossible to judge his ability against solid competition. very high risk.

ainge played it safe. i disagree, but i understand and ainge made a reasonable choice.
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: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #68 on: December 01, 2016, 12:22:49 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it. It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Nice post, I particularly like the bolded points ^^^

You think the last two bolded sections are correct? I think that's one soft definition of success. It wasn't even close to the best possible outcome.

I'm just responding to the question "is it safe to say KO was a good pick by Ainge now"

It all hinges on definition of "good pick".

The OP didn't ask "is it safe to say Ainge knocked the pick out of park with KO?"

The Greek Freak is, what, arguably the best pick in that draft, right? If Ainge had picked the Greek Freak, it would have been arguably the best draft pick ever made by Ainge. He didn't. He picked KO. Was it a good pick? Yes.

Man, I wish people would stop hiding behind Giannis as this anomaly that no one could have predicted.....

What do Giannis, Denis, and Rudy have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly;
4) They all have higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe before being drafted.

The Celtics failed to scout these players properly. Oh, and Crabbe and Dieng could also be considered better players by many (though I'd rather have KO than GD).

So giving Ainge a pat on the back for the Olynyk pick is weak. He's a lottery pick. He's not a bust. You get a "B" for that.

So you're saying in a redraft, KO would be picked between 4-6? Sounds like a good pick to me, given he was picked at #13.

Anyway, sounds like we are just going around and around on this.

no no... i'm saying KO was the 4th to 6th best player taken at HIS draft position.

GA ~~ laughing out loud
Gobert ~~ laughing out loud
Schroder ~~ much, much better
Crabbe ~~ debatable (tho he's probably got the edge, despite having a rough start this year in a wild POR rotation)
Dieng ~~ debatable (tho Kelly probably has the edge)
Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #69 on: December 01, 2016, 12:23:11 PM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it. It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Nice post, I particularly like the bolded points ^^^

You think the last two bolded sections are correct? I think that's one soft definition of success. It wasn't even close to the best possible outcome.

I'm just responding to the question "is it safe to say KO was a good pick by Ainge now"

It all hinges on definition of "good pick".

The OP didn't ask "is it safe to say Ainge knocked the pick out of park with KO?"

The Greek Freak is, what, arguably the best pick in that draft, right? If Ainge had picked the Greek Freak, it would have been arguably the best draft pick ever made by Ainge. He didn't. He picked KO. Was it a good pick? Yes.

Man, I wish people would stop hiding behind Giannis as this anomaly that no one could have predicted.....

What do Giannis, Denis, and Rudy have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly;
4) They all have higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe before being drafted.

The Celtics failed to scout these players properly. Oh, and Crabbe and Dieng could also be considered better players by many (though I'd rather have KO than GD).

So giving Ainge a pat on the back for the Olynyk pick is weak. He's a lottery pick. He's not a bust. You get a "B" for that.

What do Lucas Nogueira, Sergey Karasev, Livio Jean-Charles, Nemanja Nedovic, and Alex Abrines all have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly out of the NBA;
4) They all had higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe internationally before being drafted.

Just as with any draft picks, foreign players are unknown quantities.  Some work out (like Giannis, Schroeder, and Gobert), but a lot of them don't (like Nogueria, Karasev, Jean-Charles, Nedovic, and Abrines).  You keep acting like Giannis and the others were can;t miss prospects, but they weren't.  If they were obvious picks, they would have gone much, much sooner.  Just look back at their draft profiles from before the draft: Giannis was a 6'9" athletic specimen, but had little experience and played in the Greek 2nd division, which is extremely weak.  Gobert had great size, but there were tons of questions about whether he'd be able to fill out his frame enough to play down low in the NBA.  Similarly, Karasev was considered "among the most intriguing international prospects in this draft" and "years ahead of the learning curve of the average 19 year-old European prospect", but is now out of the NBA and playing back in Russia.  You'll find similar stuff if you look at any of the other foreign players' profiles.  All of the international picks were risks: acting like Giannis, Schroeder, and Gobert were sure things and obvious picks is just untrue.
Nogueira is playing 19 mpg for the Raptors.  Abrines is a rookie this year playing 13 mpg for the Thunder.  Jean-Charles has yet to come over so he isn't out of the NBA either.  You also can't say those guys all had higher ceilings than Olynyk unless you think Olynyk's ceiling was very low (which in and of itself would make KO a bad pick). 

His larger point is that there were 3 players taken after KO that are clearly better and 2 more than might be better.  And frankly he didn't mention Plumlee who has had a nice little career as well and is averaging 10/7/5 as a starter for Portland this year.  Maybe a team would prefer a defensive stopper like Roberson who has started for years in OKC. 

KO was an average pick.  Probably goes in the same general range as his draft position in a redraft.  That doesn't make him a good pick.  Good by its very definition implies better than average.  KO was an average selection.
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: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #70 on: December 01, 2016, 12:26:32 PM »

Offline Ed Hollison

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 619
  • Tommy Points: 195
It is too easy to complain about Olynyk. He's a valuable asset in terms of how the NBA is played now.

Remember what Boris Diaw did a couple years ago against the Heat in the Finals (Lebron's last year)? The Heat had no answer for him. At the PF spot he could shoot from deep, handle the ball, pass, rebound, defend bigs, and switch on defense. He was one of the most important pieces to the Spurs' championship team.

Kelly can do all of those things, but he's not a good rebounder or low-post defender. He's also a superb 3-point shooter, better than Diaw.

Like it or not, players like Olynyk are in high demand in today's NBA.
"A thought of hatred must be destroyed by a more powerful thought of love."

http://fruittreeblog.com

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #71 on: December 01, 2016, 12:29:30 PM »

Offline ssspence

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6375
  • Tommy Points: 403
they need to refer back to the scouting reports that existed then. ainge played it safe.

this is the part that bothers me. if the Cs were reading the same scouting reports as you and me, they completely failed to do their job. they failed to properly scout Gobert. they failed to properly scout Schroder. and yes, they failed to properly scout Giannis. keep in mind that Ryan McD (who did much of their foreign scouting) was named GM of the Suns a couple months before this draft.

so in turn, calling KO a good pick is an oxymoron. playing it safe is a cop out... it basically means Ainge was deeply familiar with Kelly and didn't wanna whiff on someone he hadn't spent enough time on to fully trust.





Mike

(My name is not Mike)

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #72 on: December 01, 2016, 12:32:03 PM »

Online BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8912
  • Tommy Points: 1212
Guy scores 19 points once, and he's a good pick over guys who are legit stars in the league? There's a term for this: rationalization.

That's not an argument that anyone here is making. No one is saying that taking him was better than taking the Greek Freak.  Nor are people saying that just this one game is what makes him a good pick.

Pretty much every non-top 10 draft pick (and many in the top 10) has a better player selected after them.  This shouldn't be a surprise: most later picks are either going for a safe bet (like Olynyk) or swinging for the fences (like the Greek Freak or Bruno Caboclo).  With 47 picks after Olynyk for potential "swing for the fences" picks, some are going to be hits.  That's just basic statistics.  There's no guarantee on picks like Giannis.  Sometimes they work out, but most of the time you end up with a bust.  You can't compare a safe pick vs a risky one without considering the chance of them being a bust.  Danny chose to play it safe instead of taking a risk, and got a good player out of it. It wasn't the best possible outcome, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a good outcome.

And nobody is saying that Kelly is good based on this one game.  Last year, he shot 40.5% on 3.0 3PA/game, good for 14th in the NBA, and best among big men (unless you could Omri Casspi or Doug McDermott as big men, but they mostly play SF).  Like him or not, his 3 point shot is a definite weapon, and when you combine it with his decent perimeter defense (which is rare for a stretch big, although his lack of interior defense is pretty typical), you have a player that, while not a star, is a reliable rotation piece that any team would love to bring off the bench, and that quite a few teams picking ahead of us (Cleveland, Sacramento, Utah, Philly if they hadn't traded MCW) would likely have preferred to their own picks.  In a redraft, Kelly would have gone at the same spot or higher, which is the definition of a good pick

Nice post, I particularly like the bolded points ^^^

You think the last two bolded sections are correct? I think that's one soft definition of success. It wasn't even close to the best possible outcome.

I'm just responding to the question "is it safe to say KO was a good pick by Ainge now"

It all hinges on definition of "good pick".

The OP didn't ask "is it safe to say Ainge knocked the pick out of park with KO?"

The Greek Freak is, what, arguably the best pick in that draft, right? If Ainge had picked the Greek Freak, it would have been arguably the best draft pick ever made by Ainge. He didn't. He picked KO. Was it a good pick? Yes.

Man, I wish people would stop hiding behind Giannis as this anomaly that no one could have predicted.....

What do Giannis, Denis, and Rudy have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly;
4) They all have higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe before being drafted.

The Celtics failed to scout these players properly. Oh, and Crabbe and Dieng could also be considered better players by many (though I'd rather have KO than GD).

So giving Ainge a pat on the back for the Olynyk pick is weak. He's a lottery pick. He's not a bust. You get a "B" for that.

What do Lucas Nogueira, Sergey Karasev, Livio Jean-Charles, Nemanja Nedovic, and Alex Abrines all have in common?

1) They were all taken after Kelly;
2) They're all younger than Kelly;
3) They're all better than Kelly out of the NBA;
4) They all had higher ceilings than Kelly;
5) They all played in Europe internationally before being drafted.

Just as with any draft picks, foreign players are unknown quantities.  Some work out (like Giannis, Schroeder, and Gobert), but a lot of them don't (like Nogueria, Karasev, Jean-Charles, Nedovic, and Abrines).  You keep acting like Giannis and the others were can;t miss prospects, but they weren't.  If they were obvious picks, they would have gone much, much sooner.  Just look back at their draft profiles from before the draft: Giannis was a 6'9" athletic specimen, but had little experience and played in the Greek 2nd division, which is extremely weak.  Gobert had great size, but there were tons of questions about whether he'd be able to fill out his frame enough to play down low in the NBA.  Similarly, Karasev was considered "among the most intriguing international prospects in this draft" and "years ahead of the learning curve of the average 19 year-old European prospect", but is now out of the NBA and playing back in Russia.  You'll find similar stuff if you look at any of the other foreign players' profiles.  All of the international picks were risks: acting like Giannis, Schroeder, and Gobert were sure things and obvious picks is just untrue.
good post. all too often the critiques of celtics' drafts rely upon 20/20 hindsight as if it was crystal clear and obvious at the time of the draft. they need to refer back to the scouting reports that existed then.

i wanted antetokounmpo that draft, but i fully understood that he had never played in a strong league. it was almost impossible to judge his ability against solid competition. very high risk.

ainge played it safe. i disagree, but i understand and ainge made a reasonable choice.

Definitely.  For the record, I wanted Gobert, but I recognized that Ainge wasn't sure that Gobert would add enough strength/weight (heck, I wasn't sure myself, it was just a risk I wanted us to take).  I can see why Ainge did it, and even though I disagree with the choice, I recognize that it's still a good pick.  Unspectacular, but good
I'm bitter.

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #73 on: December 01, 2016, 12:36:04 PM »

Online Donoghus

  • Global Moderator
  • Bill Russell
  • ******************************
  • Posts: 30933
  • Tommy Points: 1607
  • What a Pub Should Be
Well, Kelly is still in the league, he is going to get a 2nd contract, and he's an important role player for a borderline 50 win team. 

For the 13th pick in the draft, I'll take it. 


2010 CB Historical Draft - Best Overall Team

Re: Is it safe to say that Kelly Olynyk was a good pick by Ainge now?
« Reply #74 on: December 01, 2016, 12:36:23 PM »

Offline Eja117

  • NCE
  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19274
  • Tommy Points: 1254
On draft night there were people thinking "darn. We passed on Giannis. That could come back to bite us."  Had we drafted Giannis and he had become a total bust nobody would ever say "Oh man! We coulda had Olynyk!"  Because KO is an ok draft pick at best
maybe no one would say we should've picked only

But if Gianni's busted and we picked him, do you honestly think there wouldn't have been serious backlash toward ainge?

I know a few posters who would want his head on a pike
We had that guy. It was Gerald Green