What is the point in comparing a GM's drafting against a theoretical, optimal outcome, known years later? Compared to the optimal outcome, everyone loses. It's like the stock market; compared to the optimal outcome, all traders are way behind.
Or were there actually armchair GMs who advocated that Draymond Green should have been a top 3 pick in 2012?
The comparison should of course be made against other GMs, not against the theoretical optimum.
I don't know enough to have an opinion on the outcome.
But obviously the Warriors have been doing a decent job the last few years, getting Curry at 7, Barnes at 7, Thompson at 11, Ezeli at 30 and Green at 35. But don't tell me it was all skill - I bet not even they expected those players to mesh so well.