I suppose what got me angry with the starting post of this thread is this fixation that winning a title is predicated on the team having a player that they drafted themselves on the roster. Well as much as lottery picks do often pan out to be world class ballers there are so many other more bigger independent variables involved in winning a title and that teams that are perpetually in the lottery without even getting to be mediocre at any point it beggars belief that this one aspect is being made the be all and end all of winning an NBA title. Anyway just for fun, out of the Current 30 NBA franchises how many don't have a player drafted in the lottery on their current roster?
I don't believe the Pacers do.
However the idea that the draft is the best place to acquire superstar-level talent seems to be true for most franchises--Los Angeles, New York, and the income-tax free teams being exceptions.
Paul George is a lottery pick.
I agree that the draft is a good way to acquire superstar level talent (primarily because it's a cheap way). That's why everyone gets so excited about it. But, obviously, it's not the only way.
The advantage to acquiring superstars through trades or free agency is that at that point you are likely to get players who are seasoned enough that they are ready to help lead a team into contention. Adding top level talent to go along with a homegrown star has shown to be a fairly effective blueprint for building a winning team.
That's the path I see Danny taking for the future of this ball club.
Of course, it's always nice that we have a bunch of first round draft picks in the next three years. If we are lucky, a couple of them could be in the lottery, and we wouldn't even have to tank.