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

[Mr Green]

yes. he was a good pick. was he a great pick? no. but he was a solid pick

Exactly. Was he the best possible pick? No. But that doesn't mean it wasn't a good pick

If Ainge had taken the Greek freak and the Greek freak ended up busting (which is the way more likey outcome for a total wildcard playing in a weak division overseas), people would be mad that Danny didn't go with a safer pick like Olynyk

I don't think Danny was in any position to take a gamble on the Greek Freak in 2013 after rolling the dice with Fab Melo in 2012. Imagine if Danny had burned two first round picks in two consecutive for two 7 footers who both ended up being trash. Looking at the big picture, busting with Fab Melo meant Danny had to play it safe with KO.

[Greyman]

It will be safe to say he was a good pick if he can consistently be a dead eye shooter off the bench when the team is complete. KO could play a role in a contending team by hitting buckets off the bench to keep momentum going when starters are resting.

I don't see him growing every year the way AB has but with consistency he could be a lethal go to bench player who can rack up points quickly.

DA could have done much worse than KO and his career shouldn't be defined by picks that didn't happen.

[ssspence]

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. 

[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 fifteen.

[tazzmaniac]

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. 

[Cman]

Absolutely


He'd likely go higher than 13 in a redraft

So definitely

Agreed. This is what it comes down to. Do we wish we had the Greek freak? absolutely, and so does most of the league. But that's not the comparison. The comparison is, if we re-draft, would the player go higher. The answer is pretty clearly "yes".

[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.

[LooseCannon]

If Giannis didn't exist, would Olynyk be viewed as a pretty good pick?  If so, then he should still be viewed as a decent choice, given that Giannis is real.

[greece66]

Good, safe pick.

Even if leaves this summer, he has already helped the team enough for a pick outside the top-10.

[CelticGuardian]

Kelly is a quality role player, not the ideal haul you want from a lottery pick, but no one in 2013 knew that it would be Giannis that turned out to be the prize of the draft (draft's a roll of the dice). That being said, as C's continue to look for a star we need to make moves internally that will make us much more capable on hitting on these picks. We still haven't done anything with the Nets picks, I just don't want it to be 2019 and Boston still doesn't have at least a promising young stud.

Verdict is still out on Olynyk btw, I wanted him to crack the Starting lineup this year, he's been up and down so far.

[DefenseWinsChamps]

Olynyk is a completely unique player, which makes it hard to peg his impact, and has made it for him to develop. Few 7 footers grace the NBA with his short arms, excellent shooting, good court vision, and teamwork game. His creativity at finishing makes him unique also.

[moiso]

If Giannis didn't exist, would Olynyk be viewed as a pretty good pick?  If so, then he should still be viewed as a decent choice, given that Giannis is real.

Awesome post that is pretty much the best and most straightforward on this subject that has repeatedly come up.  TP.

[tazzmaniac]

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. 

[BitterJim]

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

[Cman]

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 ^^^