Thought he was going to be a discount 'Al Jefferson', which he sort of was. On the topic of the process, though, I think a lot of people underestimated just how miserable the situation was going to be in Hinkie's Philadelphia as they rushed off to play armchair GM while embracing non-competition in sport. And it was pretty damaging to a lot of players.
The NBA is a unique industry in a lot of ways, but one way it is not is in the way that a lot of your personal success as an employee (in this case a player) relies in large part on where you land and the environment you find yourself in when you get there.
Obviously there's a ceiling that separates the very best from the extremely good, and so on, but I'd hazard a guess that you're going to have a much better opportunity to stick around the league if you're drafted by a team that's perpetually competitive compared to, say, the Kings.
I generally find this to be untrue. It seems especially untrue in the NBA, where only the top 400 or so of the world's best get to play, from a field of literally millions of guys. You cannot get there unless you are able to demand opportunities in a wide variety of circumstances. Okafor had 3 roughly 2 year stints with different NBA teams and had some moments but never stuck. A third pick in particular, must actually define a team's identity, not be a victim of it.
The NBA is about mental toughness. It is what separates that last group from the thousands of guys who have the raw talent to make it.
It's possible that you're right - but you are talking about two different things to my conjecture here.
One, you're comparing NBA players to guys who never make the league, which is silly and irrelevant
and two, you're applying the survivor bias of 'mental toughness' to get into the NBA vs guys who never made it in... which is, again, not really relevant to what I'm proposing. Yes the absolute cream rises to the top, but we're talking about a Jahlil Okafor, not a Joel Embiid.
For anyone who has more time than I do:
What I'm wondering - I don't have the answer owing to a lack of time and no one has really measured this - is whether there's a tangible difference in an NBA player's career over the last let's say 20 years if they wind up on the Spurs or on the Wizards.
As in, the average NBA career is X years long. What I'd want to test is whether a player drafted by San Antonio between 1999-2019 your average career winds up being X + Y, whereas if you are drafted by Sacramento your average career winds up being X - Z.
[edit; finishing this sentence, sorry]
Since there's common knowledge that there's a difference in 'winning culture' within organisations, it'd be interesting to see if this has any 'real world' effects.