It's amusing to hear folks talk about the 'safety' of the pick, when Kelly is as hit or miss game to game as any player on our roster.
The safety of a pick refers to how high their floor is (ie for Kelly, that would be a purely offensive stretch big), not how consistent they are as a player. That has literally nothing to do with it
Again, you're version of success is avoiding an embarrassing whiff. That's junk.
I don't see how that has anything to do with my post, but w/e...
My version of success isn't just "avoiding an embarrassing whiff". It's getting a player as good or better than your pick. The entire draft is a crap shoot, getting a player as good as expected is a good return. As I've said countless times, it's not a great or best case return, but it's still a good one.
Actually, looking back at the 2013 draft, what picks (other than Giannis, Gobert, and Schroder, which you've already mentioned) would you consider to be good picks?
Edit: since you once again edited your post as I was replying:
You have your own set of definitons -- good for you. But how consistently KO performs is obviously part of what makes him a good (or questionable) pick.
Obviously his consistency plays into how good of a pick he is (and even given his inconsistency, he's still a good pick). It doesn't have anything to do with how "safe" of a pick he was, though, which was what you said in your post