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

[BitterJim]

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.

Scouting Gobert, or Giannis, or Schroeder more would not have changed the scouting reports much.  They all had massive red flags that made them risky picks.  They weren't any more or less superior as prospects than someone like Karasev, they just happened to have done what they needed to do in order to live up to their potential instead of busting out.  You can scout an international or college prospect as well and as thoroughly as you want, but it doesn't eliminate the risk, or tell you if they're gonna work out.  The Bucks, Hawks, and Jazz didn't do vastly superior scouting to lead them to picking Giannis, or Schroeder, or Gobert as sure things, they just decided to take flyers on them, and they worked.  Similarly, the Cavs and Toronto didn't have some inferior scouting to everyone else, that led them to thinking Karasev or Nogueria would be stars - they just weighed the risks, and took a chance on those guys.  The only real difference between them and the Bucks, Hawks, and Jazz are that their picks didn't work out (obviously, some teams have better or worse college and international scouting, but it isn't a massive difference that leads to picking or not picking - it's whether or not they decide to take the risk. The scouts are giving reports with strengths and weaknesses, plus personal opinions, but they don't actually know how good they'll be)

Edit: you added this

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.

Not taking a chance on a player doesn't necessarily mean you didn't scout him enough to be familiar - it means you didn't feel comfortable with that risk.  I doubt that the Bucks' GM "fully trust[ed]" the Giannis pick, but he took a risk on it.  I'm sure the Cav's GM "trusted" the Sergey Karasev pick just as much as the Bucks' GM trusted the Giannis pick.  Taking more time to scout the pick wouldn't have revealed any big secrets that told you their future, it's a risk either way.  Ainge took the player that he knew would be a rotation player over a guy that nobody, not even the GM that drafted him, knew would be a great player instead of a total bust.

[Moranis]

why do you keep bringing up Nogueira as some sort of bust?  He is playing 19 mpg on the second best team in the East.  He still would have gone behind Olynyk in a redraft, but he is far from a bust.

[LooseCannon]

Am I the only person who easily takes Olynyk over Schroder in a re-draft?

[BitterJim]

why do you keep bringing up Nogueira as some sort of bust?  He is playing 19 mpg on the second best team in the East.  He still would have gone behind Olynyk in a redraft, but he is far from a bust.

True, it might be too early to call him a bust, (although he wouldn't be getting those minutes if Sully were still healthy). 471 career minutes is not great for a guy drafted where he was. I'd still call him a bad pick at this point.

[Moranis]

Am I the only person who easily takes Olynyk over Schroder in a re-draft?

probably.  Schroder is having a heck of a season in his first as a starter and he projects to only get better. 

[Moranis]

why do you keep bringing up Nogueira as some sort of bust?  He is playing 19 mpg on the second best team in the East.  He still would have gone behind Olynyk in a redraft, but he is far from a bust.

True, it might be too early to call him a bust, (although he wouldn't be getting those minutes if Sully were still healthy). 471 career minutes is not great for a guy drafted where he was. I'd still call him a bad pick at this point.

well he didn't come over for a year, so he is only in year 3 instead of year 4 like many others but he didn't play much his first two seasons, which can be expected from a foreign big man that doesn't have 3 point range.  Should be interesting to see what happens in Toronto when Sullinger comes back.  They have a lot of true centers on that roster that probably can't play much together (Valanciunas, Nogueira, Poeltl).  Nogueira has definitely outplayed Poeltl though and is ahead of him on the depth chart.  Siakam's 19 minutes will clearly go to Sullinger, not so sure about how many of Nogueira's Sully will take. 

[CelticGuardian]

Funny,  this all happened to the C's before in 1989. We take the older white guy, in Michael Smith at #13 and lose out on the younger Shawn Kemp and Tim Hardaway.

[BitterJim]

why do you keep bringing up Nogueira as some sort of bust?  He is playing 19 mpg on the second best team in the East.  He still would have gone behind Olynyk in a redraft, but he is far from a bust.

True, it might be too early to call him a bust, (although he wouldn't be getting those minutes if Sully were still healthy). 471 career minutes is not great for a guy drafted where he was. I'd still call him a bad pick at this point.

well he didn't come over for a year, so he is only in year 3 instead of year 4 like many others but he didn't play much his first two seasons, which can be expected from a foreign big man that doesn't have 3 point range.  Should be interesting to see what happens in Toronto when Sullinger comes back.  They have a lot of true centers on that roster that probably can't play much together (Valanciunas, Nogueira, Poeltl).  Nogueira has definitely outplayed Poeltl though and is ahead of him on the depth chart.  Siakam's 19 minutes will clearly go to Sullinger, not so sure about how many of Nogueira's Sully will take.

I'd bet on Sully getting about 24mpg when fully healthy (assuming he can play with Valancunias), so he should take a few minutes from Nogueira.  I think the biggest thing is that Sully's minutes will have a lot of variability to them (based on matchups), so averaging 24mpg might mean Nogueria has some really big swings in mp (like 20 one game, 5 the next), which might make it difficult to get a rhythm going

[Celtics18]

Passing up on a young player with star potential for a nearly 4 years older complimentary role player is never a good pick.

presumably the logic behind Young over hood.

Young never had star potential.  If he had, he wouldn't have fallen to 17.  I'd put Young (and Sully) in the value pick category.

. . . but Giannis fell to seventeen.

Giannis was drafted 15th not 17th.  Giannis was projected as mid-1st which is where he went.

Hindsight is always 20/20.  It would obviously be great if Danny had gambled on Giannis back in 2013, but at the time it was a gamble that most folks wouldn't have felt comfortable making.

Kelly's no star, but I'm very happy with the way he's turned out.  He's a good pro who will have a long career.  Nice work, Danny.

It is not hindsight.  It is draft philosophy.  Unless there is a red flag, don't pass on a player with star potential for a complimentary roles player (especially one who is nearly 4 years older).  Don't see how taking Giannis at 13 is much of a gamble.  If we had taken Giannis and he had busted, we wouldn't be appreciably worse for having missed out on Olynyk. 

It is not hard to find Olynyk level talent.  I'd be fine with re-signing Olynyk to a reasonable contract but if some GM goes stupid and offers him a Turner level overpay Ainge should just let Olynyk walk.

Giannis was definitely a gamble.  There was doubt that Giannis would even develop into a serviceable  NBA player, much less the star he has become.  There aren't any throw aways  in the top half of the NBA draft.

I don't agree that guys with Olynyk's talent come either easy or cheap.  Having a seven footer who shoots over .370 for his career from three, is a smart passer and ball mover, and can play the center position adequately defensively is nothing to scoff at.

If we had taken Giannis and he'd been a bust, somebody would be starting threads about what an idiot Danny was for not taking the sure thing in Kelly Olynyk.

[Celtics18]

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

These people should produce their posts as evidence.

[ssspence]

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.

Scouting Gobert, or Giannis, or Schroeder more would not have changed the scouting reports much.  They all had massive red flags that made them risky picks.  They weren't any more or less superior as prospects than someone like Karasev, they just happened to have done what they needed to do in order to live up to their potential instead of busting out.  You can scout an international or college prospect as well and as thoroughly as you want, but it doesn't eliminate the risk, or tell you if they're gonna work out.  The Bucks, Hawks, and Jazz didn't do vastly superior scouting to lead them to picking Giannis, or Schroeder, or Gobert as sure things, they just decided to take flyers on them, and they worked.  Similarly, the Cavs and Toronto didn't have some inferior scouting to everyone else, that led them to thinking Karasev or Nogueria would be stars - they just weighed the risks, and took a chance on those guys.  The only real difference between them and the Bucks, Hawks, and Jazz are that their picks didn't work out (obviously, some teams have better or worse college and international scouting, but it isn't a massive difference that leads to picking or not picking - it's whether or not they decide to take the risk. The scouts are giving reports with strengths and weaknesses, plus personal opinions, but they don't actually know how good they'll be)

Edit: you added this

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.

Not taking a chance on a player doesn't necessarily mean you didn't scout him enough to be familiar - it means you didn't feel comfortable with that risk.  I doubt that the Bucks' GM "fully trust[ed]" the Giannis pick, but he took a risk on it.  I'm sure the Cav's GM "trusted" the Sergey Karasev pick just as much as the Bucks' GM trusted the Giannis pick.  Taking more time to scout the pick wouldn't have revealed any big secrets that told you their future, it's a risk either way.  Ainge took the player that he knew would be a rotation player over a guy that nobody, not even the GM that drafted him, knew would be a great player instead of a total bust.

a lot of assumptions here.

here's what's less speculative: Ainge had never drafted a European player (other than Semih Erden at #60) ever before this year, if i'm not mistaken.

also less speculative: he's missed on tons of European players.

another: he missed badly on the three players I noted.

[Celtics18]

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.

B equals "good."

[LooseCannon]

Am I the only person who easily takes Olynyk over Schroder in a re-draft?

probably.  Schroder is having a heck of a season in his first as a starter and he projects to only get better.

He's the 5th best starter on his team and his stats are in line with his per36 numbers in previous seasons, so his increased numbers are only due to more playing time.  The Hawks would probably have at least the same record if they plugged Terry Rozier into his role. 

I just don't see Schroder as anything special.  Giannis and Gobert are the only players from that draft that I see as clearly better than Olynyk.  There are other players who are better but not by much or who would be worse fits under Brad Stevens.

I also disagree with people who say Olynyk had a low ceiling.  His best-case scenario was a 20ppg stretch-4 point forward with adequate rebounding and defense.  It's likely that I said at the time he had more All-Star potential than Jared Sullinger.  He's not going to reach that ceiling, but it's not hard to imagine what he'd be like with a more aggressive attitude on offense while being just a bit better at rebounding and defense.

[Mattybriand]

Anyone else annoyed but Kelly's stupid pump fake ?!?


Random I know but I'm sick of watching that lol

[Celtics18]

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 agree with the overall premise, but Bebe Nogueira is actually having a fairly solid season for the Raptors.