Reply With Quote
so lucky to be born into being a Spurs fan tbh
He should be pissed that Simmons is moving up the ladder before him.. he needs to stop being passive now and lay it on the line, or else he won't be around in two years, IMO.
I'm not sure you fully understand the concept of a redraft.
He should be pissed that Simmons is moving up the ladder before him.. he needs to stop being passive now and lay it on the line, or else he won't be around in two years, IMO.
Anderson will shine more when he is able to run a unit. Simmons is better at getting to the rim, but Anderson is pretty much unstoppable one-on-one when he sets his mind to it. And he's court vision and anticipation is better. I haven't seen Simmons run the team well yet, so I wouldn't put him above Anderson yet in terms of replacing Manu.
He should be pissed that Simmons is moving up the ladder before him.. he needs to stop being passive now and lay it on the line, or else he won't be around in two years, IMO.
So what's the difference between a redraft or a list of best players from said draft?
I think I get it, but it's not a redraft. It's a list of good players. My point stands.
The point is, if that draft were held today, 100% of GMs would pick Kawhi Leonard first.
Spurstalk on him regularly for years until right before someone paid him a lot of money to go to their team.
I think that's true, but I kind of understand K's point. Sometimes what makes a player flourish is the situation he ends up in. If it were possible to mix and match teams with draft picks randomly and see the outcomes, I think we'd be surprised at how much environment plays a part. Some guys become great players because they dropped in the draft, and they use that as motivation. Some guys feel en led. Some guys don't match up well with coaches, etc.
I'm not positive that Leonard would be the player he is today in any other situation.
I also understand his point, but the whole point of a redraft is to eliminate all the "what ifs" that were present during the actual draft. It's a 20/20 hindsight kind of exercise.
The odds of success are actually stacked against most top draft picks because they are by definition drafted by crappy, dysfunctional, toxic teams. That's why so many of them only start being good after getting traded at the end of their rookie contract. The smart ones bolt as soon as they can.
GMs in 2016 would still draft Kawhi #1 because they'd know he's not going to be a difference maker out of the gate and that they'll need to invest some time and effort to develop him. They know that because that's exactly what SA did and they can see the result.
Doing a redraft any other way is just opening the door to endless "but what if that bust pick had been drafted by the Spurs, he'd be a HoFer by now!" arguments.
Correct. The purpose of having this discussion is ranking the players as they are today.
Really strange thinking of Manu going from the very end to the very beginning of the '99 draft.
Actually I don't think that it's quite as clear cut as for Kawhi: Manu would have a strong case for being picked #1, but depending on each team's situation I could see some going for Shawn Marion or Metta World Peace instead, or even AK47.
Not every team could afford waiting 3 years for their #1 pick to arrive and then play him below 30mpg.
Ok so redraft is the same as best players(from a coaches/fo) standpoint.
I could go on..But the main distinction, it's called a redraft b/c of fantasy sports where people do draft established players. In the real world draft only occurs with new players (outside of weird exspansion draft cases).
So if you say redraft your stipulating a return to 2011 with more information about player development. That is unless your redraft is fantasy redraft, in which case your asking about best players.
The sight difference with saying "kawhi is the best player from 2011 class) is that in your redraft you acknowledge teams needs..So like Cleveland wouldn't take kawhi because LeBron. You'd have to stipulate that the redraft is best player available not best fit for team. Or you invent some trade fiction and say Cavs take kawhi and trade out.
Anyway, this thread clearly should be led best player 2011 draft class and not redraft redo. Lol.
Yup.
That's a valid point but nobody does that as it's way too complicated, especially taking into account that we don't even know what is going on in most of the GMs' head when they draft (or rather, what is NOT going on in their head, like that knucklehead drafting Rubio and Flynn with 2 lottery picks).The sight difference with saying "kawhi is the best player from 2011 class) is that in your redraft you acknowledge teams needs..So like Cleveland wouldn't take kawhi because LeBron. You'd have to stipulate that the redraft is best player available not best fit for team. Or you invent some trade fiction and say Cavs take kawhi and trade out.
So essentially a redraft is just listing the players from that draft from best to worst according to how things panned out for them in the meanwhile. It's just another way to say "that team was so right/wrong" or "that player so over/underperformed compared to the rank where he was drafted".
debatable. He is still a hard player to use if you're trying to win games.
The idea isn't to pick those players now. It's to pick those players then, knowing what you know now about how to players turned out. The Cavs would have every incentive to pick up Kawhi, because they didn't have James (and it's not like they can't play together). The only reason I could see deciding against it is that the Cavs could pick Irving at one and still get one of Leonard/Butler/Thompson at four. That would be a better foundation than just picking two wings.
If you invested $10K in Microsoft at it's IPO, it would be worth something like $17M today. Everyone would have stayed out of the World Trade Center on 9/11, and the anic would have sailed to the Caribbean.
Strangely, Portland might still select Greg Oden with their #1 pick from 2007, if they could do it over.
Why am I not surprised that that specific got is the one who doesnt get the point...
yet again
The point that Kawhi was a lot better than the #15 position, where he got drafted? Yes, that point totally escaped me. Glad someone wrote an article about it.
Why am I not surprised that you don't get that it's a stupid, unnecessary fluff-piece written by a guy who normally writes articles like, "What to do with an English degree" and "The 25 Best Women's Colleges"?
https://author-profiles.graphiq.com/l/8/Nick-Selbe
I knew, without looking, that the person who wrote that article is some dumb who recently graduated college, and knows jack about basketball. I wonder why you didn't?
The league is full of ex-Spur players who couldn't crack the rotation here. We face them all the time. Anderson could easily be one of those.
Parker and ginobili would be near the top of their drafts in retrospect as well.
Dude, Manu is a hall of famer with his NBA credentials alone too. If only for being part of the winningest trio in the history of the league.
If he would have been the number 1 pick he wouldn't have waited 3 years to get to the league and would have played above 30 minutes per game. And no, nobody would pick Ron Artest nor shawn ing Marion over Manu knowing what they know now.
His european and international resume will help, though. Many people won't have seen him play and will only look at the stats sheet and personal accolades, will forget he's been snubbed for several ASG and that he could easily have had a FMVP. Based on current NBA resume I'm afraid he'd be borderline, some people would put forward his rings and being part of the Big 3, others would target his low mpg and rather mundane stats. Intangibles don't translate well into stats.
Anyway Manu is a HoFer, and deservedly so, and I forgot that Shawn Marion has a decent chance to get in as well, in the same draft. Everybody else is 2nd tier.
I think there's a good 60% who would pick Irving still
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions