Dannys mistakes are so plentiful...
He missed on Gerald but how was he supposed to know that the young kid was to stupid to ever mature.
But you can’t judge a GM by his misses when they are all either late in the first or not in the first at all. These are all flawed players. It’s not like he’s been missing with top 5 picks. And your discounting the guys that he acquired through the draft
And your wrong on Lester Hudson that kid can play, he’s not a hall of famer, or and all-star, but he’s definitely high value for the 3rd to last pick taken.
Your just using way too much hindsight.
I strongly disagree with alot of what you’ve said. But i’ll TP you for a nice little read. 
Okay, first of all - thanks for the TP and rebuttal.
In regards to "how was Ainge supposed to know if Gerald would ever mature/pan out?," isn't that the point of paying the guy who can look into a person's eyes and see what path their career will take?
Additionally, in no way am I disregarding the players that he acquired through the draft. Rather, I pointed out that trading Raef and Dickau led to Ratliff's contract and that he also traded for Perk and Marcus Banks on draft day three years prior. Plus, if you can't judge a GM by the players that he chooses in the late first round and/or the second round - how are you supposed to judge him? So he has been spot on with top five picks - big deal. For the most part, I would think that any passionate college basketball fan could draw the same conclusions about the top players in any draft; and to say that the players taken both late in the first round and the second round are flawed is ridiculous. Many players taken in the lottery have been far less polished coming out of school than those who stayed for the full four years. I think one could successfully argue that in fact it is the players taken later on in the draft that are more intelligent, well-rounded, and have a more complete game - although their ceiling may or may not be as high as that of a lottery pick. Four-year college players have a higher intellectual knowledge of the game than those who are of the one and done variety.
On Lester Hudson - I never said the kid can't play, but come on, he was already 25 on draft day, was apparently one of those "workout wonders," and has yet to make any kind of name for himself in the NBA - despite going to a much younger squad after Boston cut him. Sure, he scored at a 27.5 points per game clip at college at a smaller school, but he only averaged 5.25 free throw attempts a game. His high for free throws attempted in a game during his senior year was 13, which is good, but this was not achieved consistently over the course over his final campaign. In looking at the numerous players that have had great success in the NBA despite coming from small schools, alot of them register high free throw attempt numbers in college - especially as they mature as players. For example, Kevin Martin, Danny Granger, and Rodney Stuckey have all come from smaller schools but had high scoring averages in college and got to the free throw line 9.33, 6.8, and 8.8 times a game, respectively. I regard free throw attempts as an important stat, especially concerning players coming from smaller schools (although I will acknowledge that not every successful NBA player that has come from a smaller school has led their respective league in free throw attempts, but it is still, for the most part, a common thread among a large number of such successful players). Now, back to Lester. How many players have been selected at that age (25) and have gone on to have great careers? The only one that comes to mind is Dennis Rodman, and he was a special case (in more ways than one). Oh, and Wesley Matthews is unquestionably more valuable (despite the fact that he went undrafted) than the player (Hudson) who was taken with the third from last pick in the 2009 NBA Draft.
Lastly, what alternative do I have but to use hindsight in an argument such as this?
