Is Ainge too concerned with a high floor when drafting

[footey]

Ainge has hit on very few draft picks in recent years.  And by hit I mean someone that was drafted in a spot that would have gone appreciably higher in a redraft.  Tatum is the only player drafted that I'd call a hit since Bradley in 2010 (obviously the last couple of drafts are up in the air still).  That doesn't mean everyone else are busts i.e. players that were drafted too high, but his drafting record isn't what it once was when he had a much higher percentage of hits (Rondo and Jefferson being the biggest but even Perkins, Allen, Gomes, etc. were big time hits). 

Ainge has seemingly fallen in love with the same type of player and he just hasn't been very good at drafting that type of player recently.

Your definition of "hit" does not make sense when applied to Tatum; he went 3rd.  You can't go "appreciably higher" than 3rd in the draft.

As properly applied, I would estimate that each draft, on average, has only 2-3 "hits" per draft.   I would posture that in recent drafts, most "hits" occur in the 2nd round. Any 2nd rounder that gets decent minutes is a "hit".  Any first rounder that gets decent minutes doesn't really qualify as a hit. Now a mid to late first rounder that becomes all star worthy (e.g. Siakam in 2016) is a good example of a "hit."

Jokic and Giannis are the best examples of what you would refer to as a "hit." They are super hits, really.   Brogdon is a solid example of a "hit."

For that matter, any team that selects very high in the draft is almost precluded from having hits, since high picks can't go appreciably higher.

I think Tatum would go 1 in a redraft.  He was selected 3rd that is a hit.  You don't have to move up as many spots when your number is smaller to be appreciably higher, while a 2nd round pick that would move up 10 points might not be a hit either.  It isn't a straight scale.  Value of the selection matters a great deal when determining how good a selection is i.e. the same general range changes based on the draft position.  So Tatum is a hit because you got the best player with the 3rd pick, while someone like Rozier perhaps moving up a couple of spots isn't a hit as that is the same general range (i.e. late lottery or just outside of it).  The inverse is true as well. If you are the 1st pick, but go 3rd in a redraft, that is a bad pick, even if that player still has a very good career (see Blake Griffin going 1, but clearly behind Curry and Harden in a redraft).

3rd is not "appreciably higer" than 1st.

And by the way, Donovan Mitchell and De'Aaron Fox would probably go before Tatum if a draft were held today. Most of the new power rankings have them both slotted ahead of Tatum.   So even by your ever changing standards/definitions, you fall short here, my friend.

[Vermont Green]

Yeah, second guessing drafts.  Always good fodder for a basketball forum of course.  Danny's worst pick by far was Fab Melo.  How could he not see how bad this guy was.  He just didn't have the motor skills.  Other than that, Ainge has done about the norm, maybe better.

You can always look at the teams that catch lightning in a bottle with a pick here and there.  But if you filter out those outliers, everyone ends up doing about the same.  It is just the nature of the draft.

As to the question about high floor, I feel Ainge has demonstrated decent balance in his picks.

Don't forget, he dodged a major bullet with the whole Fultz-Tatum thing.  How many GMs do you think would have just taken Fultz?  Maybe he picked Tatum because he felt he had a "higher floor", I don't know, but I am OK with whatever logic he used.

[jambr380]

3rd is not "appreciably higer" than 1st.

And by the way, Donovan Mitchell and De'Aaron Fox would probably go before Tatum if a draft were held today. Most of the new power rankings have them both slotted ahead of Tatum.   So even by your ever changing standards/definitions, you fall short here, my friend.

I think a number of GMs would still take Tatum 1st. He is a 6'9" do everything scoring machine who still has lots of room to grow. Even if they aren't at the level of Mitchell/Fox, scoring guards are much easier to come by. These guys would have to become true superstars to be rated higher than Tatum.

Also, the difference between the 1st and 3rd picks is MUCH different than the difference between say the 16th and 18th picks. It's like an exponential difference. While #3 picks often hit, having the 1st pick in the NBA draft is about the most valuable asset in sports.

[Celtics4ever]

such as:
perkins
jefferson
erden
sullinger
zizic
williams
melo
olynyk?

I said decent size.  Out of these guys how many were decent players?

[bdm860]

One could argue that point, saying he prefers to get his bigs in free agency when they're more seasoned, and lets that color his drafting, but I think he goes for his view of BPA pretty consistently.

So Al Horford and Kanter fit this mold, but Theis and Pourier ?  I think it is a reach, dude likes small ball.

Baynes.  I think we should trade to get Baynes back asap...

i hadn't thought of this, but wonder if this is something that could happen? are we allowed to trade back for him or do we have to wait a year.

Wait a year.

There's a possible scenario where the C's could re-acquire Baynes this season.

What can't happen is the following:

The C's can't trade for Baynes this season.
The C's can't sign Baynes if the Suns release/waive/buy him out.

But what can happen is that the Suns trade Baynes to another team, and that new team releases/waives/buys him out.  Then Baynes would be free to sign with the C's again this season.


From CBA FAQ (#64, footnote 5):

Interestingly, a player can be traded to a third team, waived by the third team, and be eligible to re-sign with his original team before the waiting period expires. While this has not happened in practice, the league clarified its interpretation of this rule in 2017, in regard to a possible instance with Andrew Bogut.

Very possible the Suns use Baynes as salary filler in a trade before the deadline.

[Moranis]

3rd is not "appreciably higer" than 1st.

And by the way, Donovan Mitchell and De'Aaron Fox would probably go before Tatum if a draft were held today. Most of the new power rankings have them both slotted ahead of Tatum.   So even by your ever changing standards/definitions, you fall short here, my friend.

I think a number of GMs would still take Tatum 1st. He is a 6'9" do everything scoring machine who still has lots of room to grow. Even if they aren't at the level of Mitchell/Fox, scoring guards are much easier to come by. These guys would have to become true superstars to be rated higher than Tatum.

Also, the difference between the 1st and 3rd picks is MUCH different than the difference between say the 16th and 18th picks. It's like an exponential difference. While #3 picks often hit, having the 1st pick in the NBA draft is about the most valuable asset in sports.

Yes.  That is my point exactly.  Going from 3rd to 1st is getting significantly better value based on the value of the selection.  Missing by a couple of picks at the end of the 1st round is basically the same thing, that is not the case in the top 5. 

And while I think Mitchell has been and is currently better than Tatum, I'm drafting Tatum ahead of him every single time (at least based on what I know right now).  I think Mitchell is basically what he will be.  he will improve of course, but I think he at best has a Ray Allen type career (i.e. very good, even HOF good, but not special room good).  Tatum has the potential to be one of the special few players in the world.  The odds of him getting there are of course small, but he certainly has Kevin Durant type player potential, something Donovan Mitchell does not.  I think Fox is actually 4th in a redraft as I'd take Markkanen ahead of him (I might take Markkanen over Mitchell as well).  Fox, though, took a big enough leap from year 1 to year 2, that he could end up as the best player in the draft if he continues doing that and his peers do not.  Markkanen is the guy that I think has the best shot at unseating Tatum though given his size, shooting touch, etc.  That draft could end up being a very deep draft, but Tatum really is the only guy that has a real shot at being a build around franchise type player (maybe Markkanen, but he needs some real work on his efficiency and defense to be that sort of player and he needs to stay healthy). 

[footey]

3rd is not "appreciably higer" than 1st.

And by the way, Donovan Mitchell and De'Aaron Fox would probably go before Tatum if a draft were held today. Most of the new power rankings have them both slotted ahead of Tatum.   So even by your ever changing standards/definitions, you fall short here, my friend.

I think a number of GMs would still take Tatum 1st. He is a 6'9" do everything scoring machine who still has lots of room to grow. Even if they aren't at the level of Mitchell/Fox, scoring guards are much easier to come by. These guys would have to become true superstars to be rated higher than Tatum.

Also, the difference between the 1st and 3rd picks is MUCH different than the difference between say the 16th and 18th picks. It's like an exponential difference. While #3 picks often hit, having the 1st pick in the NBA draft is about the most valuable asset in sports.

Yes.  That is my point exactly.  Going from 3rd to 1st is getting significantly better value based on the value of the selection.  Missing by a couple of picks at the end of the 1st round is basically the same thing, that is not the case in the top 5. 

And while I think Mitchell has been and is currently better than Tatum, I'm drafting Tatum ahead of him every single time (at least based on what I know right now).  I think Mitchell is basically what he will be.  he will improve of course, but I think he at best has a Ray Allen type career (i.e. very good, even HOF good, but not special room good).  Tatum has the potential to be one of the special few players in the world.  The odds of him getting there are of course small, but he certainly has Kevin Durant type player potential, something Donovan Mitchell does not.  I think Fox is actually 4th in a redraft as I'd take Markkanen ahead of him (I might take Markkanen over Mitchell as well).  Fox, though, took a big enough leap from year 1 to year 2, that he could end up as the best player in the draft if he continues doing that and his peers do not.  Markkanen is the guy that I think has the best shot at unseating Tatum though given his size, shooting touch, etc.  That draft could end up being a very deep draft, but Tatum really is the only guy that has a real shot at being a build around franchise type player (maybe Markkanen, but he needs some real work on his efficiency and defense to be that sort of player and he needs to stay healthy).

You both lack objectivity here.  ESPN power rankings has Tatum at 35, Fox at 25 and Mitchell at 20.  I postulate that most GMs would agree with this. Personal rankings can be used to twist any argument in your favor. 

Sam Vicencie recently podcasted his top 40 players 23 and under. I don't recall the exact ranking (he didn't publish it the recording as far as I know) but he ranked both Fox and Mitchell well ahead of Tatum.  Tatum's "stock" took a beating this past season. Just a fact.

Look, Tatum may well turn our to be a better player.  But general consensus today is that GMs would pick Fox and Mitchell ahead of Tatum. That story could change after this season.  Tatum could move up or down.  Just not today.

[Moranis]

3rd is not "appreciably higer" than 1st.

And by the way, Donovan Mitchell and De'Aaron Fox would probably go before Tatum if a draft were held today. Most of the new power rankings have them both slotted ahead of Tatum.   So even by your ever changing standards/definitions, you fall short here, my friend.

I think a number of GMs would still take Tatum 1st. He is a 6'9" do everything scoring machine who still has lots of room to grow. Even if they aren't at the level of Mitchell/Fox, scoring guards are much easier to come by. These guys would have to become true superstars to be rated higher than Tatum.

Also, the difference between the 1st and 3rd picks is MUCH different than the difference between say the 16th and 18th picks. It's like an exponential difference. While #3 picks often hit, having the 1st pick in the NBA draft is about the most valuable asset in sports.

Yes.  That is my point exactly.  Going from 3rd to 1st is getting significantly better value based on the value of the selection.  Missing by a couple of picks at the end of the 1st round is basically the same thing, that is not the case in the top 5. 

And while I think Mitchell has been and is currently better than Tatum, I'm drafting Tatum ahead of him every single time (at least based on what I know right now).  I think Mitchell is basically what he will be.  he will improve of course, but I think he at best has a Ray Allen type career (i.e. very good, even HOF good, but not special room good).  Tatum has the potential to be one of the special few players in the world.  The odds of him getting there are of course small, but he certainly has Kevin Durant type player potential, something Donovan Mitchell does not.  I think Fox is actually 4th in a redraft as I'd take Markkanen ahead of him (I might take Markkanen over Mitchell as well).  Fox, though, took a big enough leap from year 1 to year 2, that he could end up as the best player in the draft if he continues doing that and his peers do not.  Markkanen is the guy that I think has the best shot at unseating Tatum though given his size, shooting touch, etc.  That draft could end up being a very deep draft, but Tatum really is the only guy that has a real shot at being a build around franchise type player (maybe Markkanen, but he needs some real work on his efficiency and defense to be that sort of player and he needs to stay healthy).

You both lack objectivity here.  ESPN power rankings has Tatum at 35, Fox at 25 and Mitchell at 20.  I postulate that most GMs would agree with this. Personal rankings can be used to twist any argument in your favor. 

Sam Vicencie recently podcasted his top 40 players 23 and under. I don't recall the exact ranking (he didn't publish it the recording as far as I know) but he ranked both Fox and Mitchell well ahead of Tatum.  Tatum's "stock" took a beating this past season. Just a fact.

Look, Tatum may well turn our to be a better player.  But general consensus today is that GMs would pick Fox and Mitchell ahead of Tatum. That story could change after this season.  Tatum could move up or down.  Just not today.

That isn't a redraft.  That is based on what they think they will be in the current season.  As I said, Mitchell, right now, is better than Tatum.  That doesn't mean he will be 3 or 4 years down the line and that is what matters in a redraft. 

It is hard to find redrafts of 2017 done in 2019, but I found this one.  https://www.lineups.com/articles/what-if-nba-gms-could-re-do-the-2017-draft/.  Again I have no idea who is putting that together, but it shows what many people think, Tatum has the most top end potential of anyone in that draft.  I found another site that wasn't dated that had Fox 1 and Tatum 2.

[keevsnick]

3rd is not "appreciably higer" than 1st.

And by the way, Donovan Mitchell and De'Aaron Fox would probably go before Tatum if a draft were held today. Most of the new power rankings have them both slotted ahead of Tatum.   So even by your ever changing standards/definitions, you fall short here, my friend.

I think a number of GMs would still take Tatum 1st. He is a 6'9" do everything scoring machine who still has lots of room to grow. Even if they aren't at the level of Mitchell/Fox, scoring guards are much easier to come by. These guys would have to become true superstars to be rated higher than Tatum.

Also, the difference between the 1st and 3rd picks is MUCH different than the difference between say the 16th and 18th picks. It's like an exponential difference. While #3 picks often hit, having the 1st pick in the NBA draft is about the most valuable asset in sports.

Yes.  That is my point exactly.  Going from 3rd to 1st is getting significantly better value based on the value of the selection.  Missing by a couple of picks at the end of the 1st round is basically the same thing, that is not the case in the top 5. 

And while I think Mitchell has been and is currently better than Tatum, I'm drafting Tatum ahead of him every single time (at least based on what I know right now).  I think Mitchell is basically what he will be.  he will improve of course, but I think he at best has a Ray Allen type career (i.e. very good, even HOF good, but not special room good).  Tatum has the potential to be one of the special few players in the world.  The odds of him getting there are of course small, but he certainly has Kevin Durant type player potential, something Donovan Mitchell does not.  I think Fox is actually 4th in a redraft as I'd take Markkanen ahead of him (I might take Markkanen over Mitchell as well).  Fox, though, took a big enough leap from year 1 to year 2, that he could end up as the best player in the draft if he continues doing that and his peers do not.  Markkanen is the guy that I think has the best shot at unseating Tatum though given his size, shooting touch, etc.  That draft could end up being a very deep draft, but Tatum really is the only guy that has a real shot at being a build around franchise type player (maybe Markkanen, but he needs some real work on his efficiency and defense to be that sort of player and he needs to stay healthy).

You both lack objectivity here.  ESPN power rankings has Tatum at 35, Fox at 25 and Mitchell at 20.  I postulate that most GMs would agree with this. Personal rankings can be used to twist any argument in your favor. 

Sam Vicencie recently podcasted his top 40 players 23 and under. I don't recall the exact ranking (he didn't publish it the recording as far as I know) but he ranked both Fox and Mitchell well ahead of Tatum.  Tatum's "stock" took a beating this past season. Just a fact.

Look, Tatum may well turn our to be a better player.  But general consensus today is that GMs would pick Fox and Mitchell ahead of Tatum. That story could change after this season.  Tatum could move up or down.  Just not today.

That isn't a redraft.  That is based on what they think they will be in the current season.  As I said, Mitchell, right now, is better than Tatum.  That doesn't mean he will be 3 or 4 years down the line and that is what matters in a redraft. 

It is hard to find redrafts of 2017 done in 2019, but I found this one.  https://www.lineups.com/articles/what-if-nba-gms-could-re-do-the-2017-draft/.  Again I have no idea who is putting that together, but it shows what many people think, Tatum has the most top end potential of anyone in that draft.  I found another site that wasn't dated that had Fox 1 and Tatum 2.

I think the point is that its at least very debatable where Tatum would go in a redraft. I think a lot of people would take come combo of Mitchell/Fox over Tatum at this point. Taking a guy who is somewhere between the 1st and 3rd bets player in his draft seems like fine value to me, but not like a massive hidden gem like pick but a good one. Personally I think Tatum will be the best of the three, and at the very least he's the prototype big wing the league covets. So good pick.

[Vermont Green]

I don't understand the nit picking of Ainge to question why he took Tatum instead of Fox or Mitchell.  The point is that he didn't take Fultz.  Dodged a major bullet.  How many GMs do you think make that call?  I think very few.  I am very happy with how the 2017 draft turned out.  I can't think of any possible reason to question what Ainge did, no matter what Fox and Mitchell do in the future.

[bdm860]

One thing interesting about re-drafts is how they'd change over time.

Sure some guys like LeBron would be taken #1 every year for their entire career, but with others it flip flops.

2009 redraft by year probably goes something like this (assuming you're considering their entire careers to that point while estimating what's left going forward):
2010: Griffin, Evans, Curry, Jennings
2011: Griffin, Curry, DeRozan, Holiday
2012: Griffin, Curry, Harden, DeRozan
2013: Griffin, Harden, Curry, DeRozan
2014: Griffin, Harden, Curry, DeRozan
2015: Curry, Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2016: Curry, Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2017: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2018: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2019: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan

2010 draft (even if we're not considering injury impacts), we probably see Wall have go #1 in the first 2 redrafts, before he's overtaken by George, with a guy like Monroe probably going top 5 in the first couple of redrafts, before moving much further down the list.

2011 is probably all over the place.  Kyrie probably goes #1 in the first 3 redrafts, before he's overtaken by Kawhi.  But #2-#10 would change drastically over the years.  Maybe Rubio, Faried, Knight are top 5 the first redraft.  Butler, Parsons, Thomas, Jackson all vault into the top 10, pushing top 5, and all but Butler eventually fall out of it.  Kemba, Klay take a couple of year to secure their spots in the top tier.  Slowly but surely Harris and Vučević rise up the ranks.

2012 is probably pretty consistent with Davis #1, Lillard #2.  Normal, minor re-shuffling after that (guys like Drummond and Sullinger going high early, while Draymond takes a few years to get redrafted near the top).

2013-2014 have probably both vastly changed over the years, etc.

[Hoopvortex]

 I feel like he may be to cautious when drafting. Not many swing for the fences picks I can remember. Avery Bradley fits that mold and a little bit of Romeo Langford although I don't think he was the highest upside pick available.

You’re saying that Avery Bradley was a high-upside pick??

Smart#6 overall. Who doesn't love Smart. His shooting is finally coming around, although he's still not a complete offensive weapon.

 It was a sure thing he was going to be able to help right away with NBA Defense. And that was true.  9ppg 4apg 3rpg is underwhelming if we are being honest for the #6 overall.

 For me Julius Randle was the easy pick.
 Highest ceiling but you were gonna have to tolerate bad defense early on.

And, apparently, later on as well.

Now it's hard to argue that Smart is a better player.

I’d argue it all day long. If ‘better’ means ‘helps your team win basketball games’, then Smart is better.  I like what Brad Stevens said, with his gift for getting to the essential: Marcus does the hard things.

I’m not diminishing Randle, either; I’d question his choice of the Knicks as a destination, though. He got paid, it’s true, but - apart from the likelihood that NY is not going to make the playoffs this year, or for that matter next year - he’s competing for minutes with Marcus Morris, Bobby Portis, Kevin Knox, Taj Gibson, and Mitchell Robinson, all of whom are going to get minutes. I predict discontent.

The other high upside pick lots of people were talking about that I would not sign off on was Zach Lavine.

  That's a tough call but look Lavine is reaching that high upside now. Probably has higher trade value than Smart.

It’s not a tough call for the Celtics - not that we will EVER have to evaluate who won a LaVine/Smart swap.

Basketball, thank God, is still a team game.

 

Let's go to the #16 pick in 2016. Not gonna pretend I knew about Pascal Siakam that year.

 High upside guys that year for me were

 #1 Caris Levert. Absolutely loved him but he was a huge injury risk.
 #2 Skal Labissiere former too prospect. He sucked.
#3 Dejounte Murray

 Who did we take? Yabu. Enough said.

You’ve turned your argument on its head.

Yabusele is a great example of a high-risk/high-reward pick. A guy with his handles and touch, at his size, would be a matchup nightmare; and 16 was significantly higher than the conventional wisdom.

Danny likes solid over sky high upside IMHO.

Brown and Tatum have sky-high upside.

But that just points to the real problem here - it’s never a choice between ‘solid’ and ‘sky-high upside’, because those aren’t opposites at all.

I think that your real argument is that Ainge is risk-averse, but your examples don’t persuade me of that.

To the contrary, the consensus pick in 2017 was Fultz, and #2 was Lonzo. But Danny made it crystal clear that they would have taken Tatum #1. Now, Tatum was inarguably a “solid“ pick, but clearly his upside is All-NBA.

Likewise, Jaylen, Rozier, and even Robert Williams were picked higher than the consensus.

And though they got Carsen in the second round, they had him rated as first-round talent. I don’t know about you, but I am confident that he will outperform his draft status, probably by a long ways.

[mmmmm]

One thing interesting about re-drafts is how they'd change over time.

Sure some guys like LeBron would be taken #1 every year for their entire career, but with others it flip flops.

2009 redraft by year probably goes something like this (assuming you're considering their entire careers to that point while estimating what's left going forward):
2010: Griffin, Evans, Curry, Jennings
2011: Griffin, Curry, DeRozan, Holiday
2012: Griffin, Curry, Harden, DeRozan
2013: Griffin, Harden, Curry, DeRozan
2014: Griffin, Harden, Curry, DeRozan
2015: Curry, Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2016: Curry, Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2017: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2018: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2019: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan

2010 draft (even if we're not considering injury impacts), we probably see Wall have go #1 in the first 2 redrafts, before he's overtaken by George, with a guy like Monroe probably going top 5 in the first couple of redrafts, before moving much further down the list.

2011 is probably all over the place.  Kyrie probably goes #1 in the first 3 redrafts, before he's overtaken by Kawhi.  But #2-#10 would change drastically over the years.  Maybe Rubio, Faried, Knight are top 5 the first redraft.  Butler, Parsons, Thomas, Jackson all vault into the top 10, pushing top 5, and all but Butler eventually fall out of it.  Kemba, Klay take a couple of year to secure their spots in the top tier.  Slowly but surely Harris and Vučević rise up the ranks.

2012 is probably pretty consistent with Davis #1, Lillard #2.  Normal, minor re-shuffling after that (guys like Drummond and Sullinger going high early, while Draymond takes a few years to get redrafted near the top).

2013-2014 have probably both vastly changed over the years, etc.

Good post.  It illustrates the transitive, illusiveness of trying to apply hindsight here.

I.E., hindsight on the draft is NOT '20/20' if what you see changes each time you look back, year after year.

[Hoopvortex]

One thing interesting about re-drafts is how they'd change over time.

Sure some guys like LeBron would be taken #1 every year for their entire career, but with others it flip flops.

2009 redraft by year probably goes something like this (assuming you're considering their entire careers to that point while estimating what's left going forward):
2010: Griffin, Evans, Curry, Jennings
2011: Griffin, Curry, DeRozan, Holiday
2012: Griffin, Curry, Harden, DeRozan
2013: Griffin, Harden, Curry, DeRozan
2014: Griffin, Harden, Curry, DeRozan
2015: Curry, Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2016: Curry, Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2017: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2018: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan
2019: Curry/Harden, Griffin, DeRozan

2010 draft (even if we're not considering injury impacts), we probably see Wall have go #1 in the first 2 redrafts, before he's overtaken by George, with a guy like Monroe probably going top 5 in the first couple of redrafts, before moving much further down the list.

2011 is probably all over the place.  Kyrie probably goes #1 in the first 3 redrafts, before he's overtaken by Kawhi.  But #2-#10 would change drastically over the years.  Maybe Rubio, Faried, Knight are top 5 the first redraft.  Butler, Parsons, Thomas, Jackson all vault into the top 10, pushing top 5, and all but Butler eventually fall out of it.  Kemba, Klay take a couple of year to secure their spots in the top tier.  Slowly but surely Harris and Vučević rise up the ranks.

2012 is probably pretty consistent with Davis #1, Lillard #2.  Normal, minor re-shuffling after that (guys like Drummond and Sullinger going high early, while Draymond takes a few years to get redrafted near the top).

2013-2014 have probably both vastly changed over the years, etc.

Good post.  It illustrates the transitive, illusiveness of trying to apply hindsight here.

I.E., hindsight on the draft is NOT '20/20' if what you see changes each time you look back, year after year.

Exactly.

I would only add that even if we could freeze a moment in these players’ careers, we’d still be challenged to compare how ‘good’ they are, since, in addition to all the different kinds of things that a player can contribute, a group like this is getting wildly different kinds of minutes, and differently experiencing the negative effects of injuries.

[KG Living Legend]

 I feel like he may be to cautious when drafting. Not many swing for the fences picks I can remember. Avery Bradley fits that mold and a little bit of Romeo Langford although I don't think he was the highest upside pick available.

You’re saying that Avery Bradley was a high-upside pick??

Smart#6 overall. Who doesn't love Smart. His shooting is finally coming around, although he's still not a complete offensive weapon.

 It was a sure thing he was going to be able to help right away with NBA Defense. And that was true.  9ppg 4apg 3rpg is underwhelming if we are being honest for the #6 overall.

 For me Julius Randle was the easy pick.
 Highest ceiling but you were gonna have to tolerate bad defense early on.

And, apparently, later on as well.

Now it's hard to argue that Smart is a better player.

I’d argue it all day long. If ‘better’ means ‘helps your team win basketball games’, then Smart is better.  I like what Brad Stevens said, with his gift for getting to the essential: Marcus does the hard things.

I’m not diminishing Randle, either; I’d question his choice of the Knicks as a destination, though. He got paid, it’s true, but - apart from the likelihood that NY is not going to make the playoffs this year, or for that matter next year - he’s competing for minutes with Marcus Morris, Bobby Portis, Kevin Knox, Taj Gibson, and Mitchell Robinson, all of whom are going to get minutes. I predict discontent.

The other high upside pick lots of people were talking about that I would not sign off on was Zach Lavine.

  That's a tough call but look Lavine is reaching that high upside now. Probably has higher trade value than Smart.

It’s not a tough call for the Celtics - not that we will EVER have to evaluate who won a LaVine/Smart swap.

Basketball, thank God, is still a team game.

 

Let's go to the #16 pick in 2016. Not gonna pretend I knew about Pascal Siakam that year.

 High upside guys that year for me were

 #1 Caris Levert. Absolutely loved him but he was a huge injury risk.
 #2 Skal Labissiere former too prospect. He sucked.
#3 Dejounte Murray

 Who did we take? Yabu. Enough said.

You’ve turned your argument on its head.

Yabusele is a great example of a high-risk/high-reward pick. A guy with his handles and touch, at his size, would be a matchup nightmare; and 16 was significantly higher than the conventional wisdom.

Danny likes solid over sky high upside IMHO.

Brown and Tatum have sky-high upside.

But that just points to the real problem here - it’s never a choice between ‘solid’ and ‘sky-high upside’, because those aren’t opposites at all.

I think that your real argument is that Ainge is risk-averse, but your examples don’t persuade me of that.

To the contrary, the consensus pick in 2017 was Fultz, and #2 was Lonzo. But Danny made it crystal clear that they would have taken Tatum #1. Now, Tatum was inarguably a “solid“ pick, but clearly his upside is All-NBA.

Likewise, Jaylen, Rozier, and even Robert Williams were picked higher than the consensus.

And though they got Carsen in the second round, they had him rated as first-round talent. I don’t know about you, but I am confident that he will outperform his draft status, probably by a long ways.

 In no way was Yabu ever a higher upside pick than Levert. Yabu was sold to Boston fans as a high upside pick.

 Drafting him at 16 was asinine. Guy was a second round prospect. The biggest reach I can recall Danny making in the first round.

 Where is Yabu now and where is Levert now. There is your answer as to who had the highest potential.