To Tank or Not To Tank, That is the Question

[LarBrd33]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

[Vox_Populi]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

Just a question. How many teams that have drafted top 5 consecutively had a decade of regular contention?

[Casperian]

Just a question. How many teams that have drafted top 5 consecutively had a decade of regular contention?

More importantly, how many of them had good front offices?

[Celtics18]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

Are our top players going to come exclusively from those three lottery picks, or are we making other moves to get top players in your fictional story?

[LilRip]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

Are our top players going to come exclusively from those three lottery picks, or are we making other moves to get top players in your fictional story?

i'm guessing he meant either way. if we trade Jeff Green+Wallace+2015 top5 pick on a draft night trade for a player like Aldridge or Love, and we already have Rondo and a guy like Wiggins (who blossoms into an allstar by his 2nd or 3rd year), then i'd say we have a good chance.

a lot of things have to go right in building contender in the same way that a lot of things have to go wrong to be a perpetually mediocre team as well.

[Celtics18]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

Are our top players going to come exclusively from those three lottery picks, or are we making other moves to get top players in your fictional story?

i'm guessing he meant either way. if we trade Jeff Green+Wallace+2015 top5 pick on a draft night trade for a player like Aldridge or Love, and we already have Rondo and a guy like Wiggins (who blossoms into an allstar by his 2nd or 3rd year), then i'd say we have a good chance.

a lot of things have to go right in building contender in the same way that a lot of things have to go wrong to be a perpetually mediocre team as well.

A guy like Wiggins?  I wonder who those guys are.  Parker, Randle, Exum, Andrew Harrison . . . ?   There seems to be a fantasy floating around that there are 5 or 6 players like that in the up-coming draft.  Of course, it's not impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this where the case. 

I think it still remains to be seen if Andrew Wiggins will, in fact, turn out to be "a guy like Wiggins," never mind the rest of them. 

[D.o.s.]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

Are our top players going to come exclusively from those three lottery picks, or are we making other moves to get top players in your fictional story?

i'm guessing he meant either way. if we trade Jeff Green+Wallace+2015 top5 pick on a draft night trade for a player like Aldridge or Love, and we already have Rondo and a guy like Wiggins (who blossoms into an allstar by his 2nd or 3rd year), then i'd say we have a good chance.

a lot of things have to go right in building contender in the same way that a lot of things have to go wrong to be a perpetually mediocre team as well.

A guy like Wiggins?  I wonder who those guys are.  Parker, Randle, Exum, Andrew Harrison . . . ?   There seems to be a fantasy floating around that there are 5 or 6 players like that in the up-coming draft.  Of course, it's not impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this where the case. 

I think it still remains to be seen if Andrew Wiggins will, in fact, turn out to be "a guy like Wiggins," never mind the rest of them.

NBA Scouting has gotten a whole lot better in the last several years.

If you look at the top 5 players from 2003-2010 each draft (and, of course, each draft has varying potency) has shown progressively fewer terrible decisions and evaluations by management when drafting, with a couple of exceptions (I'm cutting it off at 2010 to give us a few NBA seasons for each player to evaluate).

2003--the gold standard for draft class top 5's.

5. Dwyane Wade (won a championship three years later, top 3 SG of the last ten years)
4. Chris Bosh (20-10 as a first option, excellent stretch 5 3rd option on a championship team)
3. Carmelo Anthony (one of the best scorers in the game, has single handedly brought every one of his teams into the playoffs every year he's been in the league)
2. Darko Milicic (great on paper, awful in real life. Reasons behind the draft choice has been covered by everyone and their mother).
1. LeBron James (disappeared, no one ever hears anything about this guy ever.)


2004:
5.Devin Harris--played all right for a while. One-time All Star, before a series of injuries derailed his career.
4.Shaun Livingston--Who? Well, it was a Clipper's pick.
3.Ben Gordon--Never an all-star, but the only NBA player to win Sixth Man of The Year as a rookie, when he averaged 15/2/1 in 22 minutes a game.
2. Emeka Okafor--Decent defensive Center, NBA GM's love size.
1. Dwight Howard--known for his loyalty and serious nature.


5.Raymond Felton--plays well on the Knicks, and basically nowhere else.
4.Chris Paul--Often cited as the best PG in the league.
3.Deron Williams--was option 1A to best PG in the league before he got Jerry Sloan fired and Sloan stole all of D-Will's motivation, Leprechaun style.
2. Marvin Williams--Servicable Wing, terrible GM decision.
1. Andrew Bogut--freak injury history, great defensive center. Hilarious accent when exhausted.

2006:
5. Shelden Williams--the Hawks management was batting the opposite of 1,000 here.
4.Tyrus Thomas--The trailblazers drafted him 4th, but ended up trading him and another forward for Aldridge.
3. Adam Morrison--Mustaches are bad for basketball.
2. LaMarcus Aldrige--20-10 guy, perennial should-be All-Star.
1. Andrea Bargiani--HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

2006 players that would later go on to succeed:

Brandon Roy (#6)
Rudy Gay (#8)
J.J. Reddick (#11)
Rajon Rondo (#21)
Kyle Lowry (#24)
Leon Powe (#49)

2007
5. Jeff Green--traded to Seattle for Ray Allen.
4.Mike Conley Jr.--solid starting PG, great hands on defense.
3.Al Horford--another perennial should-be All Star.
2.Kevin Durant--who?
1.Greg Oden--biggest issue on draft night was the possibility of reinjuring his broken hand. Destroys both knees in response.

2008
5. Kevin Love
4. Russell Westbrook
3. O.J. Mayo
2. Michael Beasley
1. Derrick Rose

2009
5. Ricky Rubio
4. Tyreke Evans
3. James Harden
2. Hasheem Thabeet (GM's love size.)
1. Blake Griffin

2010
5. DeMarcus Cousins
4. Wesley Johnson
3. Derrick Favors
2. Evan Turner
1. John Wall

[LilRip]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

Are our top players going to come exclusively from those three lottery picks, or are we making other moves to get top players in your fictional story?

i'm guessing he meant either way. if we trade Jeff Green+Wallace+2015 top5 pick on a draft night trade for a player like Aldridge or Love, and we already have Rondo and a guy like Wiggins (who blossoms into an allstar by his 2nd or 3rd year), then i'd say we have a good chance.

a lot of things have to go right in building contender in the same way that a lot of things have to go wrong to be a perpetually mediocre team as well.

A guy like Wiggins?  I wonder who those guys are.  Parker, Randle, Exum, Andrew Harrison . . . ?   There seems to be a fantasy floating around that there are 5 or 6 players like that in the up-coming draft.  Of course, it's not impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this where the case. 

I think it still remains to be seen if Andrew Wiggins will, in fact, turn out to be "a guy like Wiggins," never mind the rest of them.

Well, "a guy like Wiggins" could indeed be Andrew wiggins if we're able to draft him.

What is your point exactly? Are you saying that it's more than likely that none of these youngsters who are projected to go high in the 2014 draft will develop into an all-star? Or that there's simply a chance that the 2014 draft class might be a bust? Coz imo, there's always that risk, especially in dealing with players that have more potential than credentials. Even on our own roster. For all our supposed young studs, for all we know, KO might just be a summer league wonder, or Sully might be turn out to be just an intriguing prospect whose career is derailed by injuries. There's always that chance.

Like I said, a lot of things have to go right to build a contender (e.g Rondo's health, landing a top pick who will develop quite nicely, landing a trade for an all-star, etc) and a lot of things have to go wrong to perpetually remain mediocre (e.g the opposite of above).

[mmmmm]

My take on it is, that the vast majority of championship teams have been built by _adding_ through trade or free agency, a top 'superstar' talent to an _already_ solid roster (that usually includes some top players, not necessarily a superstar).   I.E., they pretty much ALL started as a competitive roster to which was added a superstar so as to become a title contender rapidly.

No team has gone from a truly bad team to become a title winner by adding just one superstar.   That has simply not happened.

Before you suggest that the 2008 Celtics were that team - they weren't.  They had a bad record in 2007, but that was injury.   Once healthy, and after the addition of Allen, the roster to which KG was being added was already a solid, competitive roster.

Of the many teams that followed this pattern, only two title teams have added that second 'superstar' to their already-strong roster so that they a contender via draft: San Antonio and Houston.   In Houston's case, they added Olajuwan to a team with Sampson - but still did not win for almost a decade.    In San Antonio's case, they added Duncan to a team that had Robinson and Sean Elliot.  They were already a strong roster, having won 55+ games each of the three seasons prior to the 'tank' season and adding Duncan made them immediately a title contender.

In every other case, whereas most every title team had a star player or two already on roster that maybe they themselves drafted, the 'over the hump' super star that actually transformed them to a title team was added via trade or free agency.

This has been the most reliable model to follow to get to a championship and I believe that this is what Danny will follow as well.

He will have the team play as strong as they can, with a young roster that will build value as trade assets.   You don't build trade value by losing.    He will then package multiple of those assets and draft picks to bring in a star player who was drafted by someone else.   He will be looking for Rondo to reestablish his level as a 'star' player and hope one or two others (Green, maybe one of the youngsters) also establishes themselves so that the roster looks attractive, not only as a collection of trade pieces, but as something a star player will want to join.

This is the model that Houston just followed.   This is the model I believe Danny was trying to follow in 2007.   Yes, the 5th pick was important in getting KG because trading it for Ray Allen proved that we had a viable, competitive roster that KG was coming to, not a lottery team.    But the fact is, every thing Danny traded for KG (two solid starters, two high draft picks and filler) was already in his possession even before then.   If Pierce and Tony Allen had not gotten injured, chances are good that the team would have finished right around the 7th-8th spot.   Tony Allen had 'emerged' as a top young talent before that injury.   If the team had looked competitive, with a emerging young PG, C & defensive SG to go with Pierce, chances are that KG would have come anyway.   You can argue about that (whether KG would have come), of course, but I believe that that was Danny's plan before the injuries happened.

And I believe that is his plan now.

Even with Rondo on the sidelines, this roster on paper is simply not crappy enough to be a sure bet for a high lottery pick.   It's not a world-beater lineup.  But unless someone else key were to get injured, it simply isn't that awful.  It has a lot of veterans (young vets, but vets nevertheless) who have legit playoff experience.   And it has a lot of defensive-oriented role players that seem tailored to fit Stevens' coaching strategy.

The team will compete as best it can, despite a tough early schedule and possibly not having Rondo for part of it.   They may end up in the middle, no-where land of the draft.   But they will build value as trade assets.   And that will be good.

Personally, for all the talk of the 2014 draft, I would not at all be surprised if Danny doesn't trade completely out of it.  'Not predicting that.  'Just wouldn't be surprised by it.

[Yogi]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

This is a perfect example of the worst kind of argument. 

1.  Creating two biased hypothetical scenarios that has no basis in reality in order to deceive the audience into making a decision.   

2.  In the first situation where the team makes the playoffs, why would the team get worse over the next five years? 
- The young guys will not improve?  (Historically refuted)
- Danny is going to draft 9 first round busts over that span?  (Historically refuted)
- NO top free agents are going to want to join a young, up-and-coming playoff team with an all star? (West - Indiana, Howard - Houston, Lebron, Bosh - Miami, Williams - Brooklyn, Boozer - Chicago, Paul - Clippers have all recently refuted this)

The second scenario is laughable.  Two top 5 picks and one top 10 pick is going to make your lottery team a 52 win team and second round exit?  Charlotte, Cleveland, Wizards, Toronto, Detroit have had how many lottery picks over the last three seasons?  How many of them are projected to be a 52 win team?  (Historically refuted as utter nonsense)

[Celtics18]

My take on it is, that the vast majority of championship teams have been built by _adding_ through trade or free agency, a top 'superstar' talent to an _already_ solid roster (that usually includes some top players, not necessarily a superstar).   I.E., they pretty much ALL started as a competitive roster to which was added a superstar so as to become a title contender rapidly.

No team has gone from a truly bad team to become a title winner by adding just one superstar.   That has simply not happened.

Before you suggest that the 2008 Celtics were that team - they weren't.  They had a bad record in 2007, but that was injury.   Once healthy, and after the addition of Allen, the roster to which KG was being added was already a solid, competitive roster.

Of the many teams that followed this pattern, only two title teams have added that second 'superstar' to their already-strong roster so that they a contender via draft: San Antonio and Houston.   In Houston's case, they added Olajuwan to a team with Sampson - but still did not win for almost a decade.    In San Antonio's case, they added Duncan to a team that had Robinson and Sean Elliot.  They were already a strong roster, having won 55+ games each of the three seasons prior to the 'tank' season and adding Duncan made them immediately a title contender.

In every other case, whereas most every title team had a star player or two already on roster that maybe they themselves drafted, the 'over the hump' super star that actually transformed them to a title team was added via trade or free agency.

This has been the most reliable model to follow to get to a championship and I believe that this is what Danny will follow as well.

He will have the team play as strong as they can, with a young roster that will build value as trade assets.   You don't build trade value by losing.    He will then package multiple of those assets and draft picks to bring in a star player who was drafted by someone else.   He will be looking for Rondo to reestablish his level as a 'star' player and hope one or two others (Green, maybe one of the youngsters) also establishes themselves so that the roster looks attractive, not only as a collection of trade pieces, but as something a star player will want to join.

This is the model that Houston just followed.   This is the model I believe Danny was trying to follow in 2007.   Yes, the 5th pick was important in getting KG because trading it for Ray Allen proved that we had a viable, competitive roster that KG was coming to, not a lottery team.    But the fact is, every thing Danny traded for KG (two solid starters, two high draft picks and filler) was already in his possession even before then.   If Pierce and Tony Allen had not gotten injured, chances are good that the team would have finished right around the 7th-8th spot.   Tony Allen had 'emerged' as a top young talent before that injury.   If the team had looked competitive, with a emerging young PG, C & defensive SG to go with Pierce, chances are that KG would have come anyway.   You can argue about that (whether KG would have come), of course, but I believe that that was Danny's plan before the injuries happened.

And I believe that is his plan now.

Even with Rondo on the sidelines, this roster on paper is simply not crappy enough to be a sure bet for a high lottery pick.   It's not a world-beater lineup.  But unless someone else key were to get injured, it simply isn't that awful.  It has a lot of veterans (young vets, but vets nevertheless) who have legit playoff experience.   And it has a lot of defensive-oriented role players that seem tailored to fit Stevens' coaching strategy.

The team will compete as best it can, despite a tough early schedule and possibly not having Rondo for part of it.   They may end up in the middle, no-where land of the draft.   But they will build value as trade assets.   And that will be good.

Personally, for all the talk of the 2014 draft, I would not at all be surprised if Danny doesn't trade completely out of it.  'Not predicting that.  'Just wouldn't be surprised by it.

Great post.  TP.  I'd like to add that you have to go back 34 years to the 1979 Sonics led by the young duo of Dennis Johnson and Gus Williams to find an NBA champion that didn't have at least one its two top players aged 27 or older.

This adds even more credence to the theory that tearing down a solid core to attempt to start fresh with young studs is not the optimal way to go.  Generally speaking, 19 year old rookies--no matter how great they are--won't be able to lead their teams to title contention for at least 8 or 9 years.  Of course, there's the distinct possibility that if you are trying to be bad to get good again, that those players won't stick around for that very lengthy rebuilding process.

By the way, I've also thought about the idea that Danny might try to trade out of the 2014 draft.  I think that if he were to do so, doing it sooner rather than later while the rest of the world still thinks the Celtics are tanking (and still foaming at the mouth over these youngsters), might be a good idea. 
   

[D.o.s.]

I'd be shocked if Ainge traded out.

[Celtics18]

I'd be shocked if Ainge traded out.

I kind of doubt it will happen, too, but I think it would be a cool, bold twist if he could do so and get good value in return. 

[D.o.s.]

I just don't see any value hanging around in Free Agency--at least not before draft night, which is when I suspect players like Aldridge and Love will be moved, if they get moved, which will probably depend on how well those teams do during this upcoming season.

[BballTim]

Landing a top 5 pick might not work out.  The idea behind it though is that you give yourself a shot at a superstar and a shot at contending.

If my choices were:

Option 1:
2014:  41 wins - first round exit
2015:  42 wins - first round exit
2016:  37 wins - late lotto
2017:  42 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  35 wins - late lotto
... followed by a decade of perpetual mediocrity

vs...

Option 2:
2014:  12 wins - top 5 pick
2015:  25 wins - top 5 pick
2016:  28 wins - top 10 pick
2017:  52 wins - 2nd round exit
2018:  63 wins - ECF
... followed by a decade of contending

I happily go for option 2. I don't mind suffering through a few miserable seasons if it gives us a shot of being a long-term contender. 

Good news is, this team is going to be complete crap this year.  We're well on our way to having a Top 5 pick.

Are our top players going to come exclusively from those three lottery picks, or are we making other moves to get top players in your fictional story?

i'm guessing he meant either way. if we trade Jeff Green+Wallace+2015 top5 pick on a draft night trade for a player like Aldridge or Love, and we already have Rondo and a guy like Wiggins (who blossoms into an allstar by his 2nd or 3rd year), then i'd say we have a good chance.

a lot of things have to go right in building contender in the same way that a lot of things have to go wrong to be a perpetually mediocre team as well.

A guy like Wiggins?  I wonder who those guys are.  Parker, Randle, Exum, Andrew Harrison . . . ?   There seems to be a fantasy floating around that there are 5 or 6 players like that in the up-coming draft.  Of course, it's not impossible, but I'd be very surprised if this where the case. 

I think it still remains to be seen if Andrew Wiggins will, in fact, turn out to be "a guy like Wiggins," never mind the rest of them.

NBA Scouting has gotten a whole lot better in the last several years.

If you look at the top 5 players from 2003-2010 each draft (and, of course, each draft has varying potency) has shown progressively fewer terrible decisions and evaluations by management when drafting, with a couple of exceptions (I'm cutting it off at 2010 to give us a few NBA seasons for each player to evaluate).

2003--the gold standard for draft class top 5's.

5. Dwyane Wade (won a championship three years later, top 3 SG of the last ten years)
4. Chris Bosh (20-10 as a first option, excellent stretch 5 3rd option on a championship team)
3. Carmelo Anthony (one of the best scorers in the game, has single handedly brought every one of his teams into the playoffs every year he's been in the league)
2. Darko Milicic (great on paper, awful in real life. Reasons behind the draft choice has been covered by everyone and their mother).
1. LeBron James (disappeared, no one ever hears anything about this guy ever.)


2004:
5.Devin Harris--played all right for a while. One-time All Star, before a series of injuries derailed his career.
4.Shaun Livingston--Who? Well, it was a Clipper's pick.
3.Ben Gordon--Never an all-star, but the only NBA player to win Sixth Man of The Year as a rookie, when he averaged 15/2/1 in 22 minutes a game.
2. Emeka Okafor--Decent defensive Center, NBA GM's love size.
1. Dwight Howard--known for his loyalty and serious nature.


5.Raymond Felton--plays well on the Knicks, and basically nowhere else.
4.Chris Paul--Often cited as the best PG in the league.
3.Deron Williams--was option 1A to best PG in the league before he got Jerry Sloan fired and Sloan stole all of D-Will's motivation, Leprechaun style.
2. Marvin Williams--Servicable Wing, terrible GM decision.
1. Andrew Bogut--freak injury history, great defensive center. Hilarious accent when exhausted.

2006:
5. Shelden Williams--the Hawks management was batting the opposite of 1,000 here.
4.Tyrus Thomas--The trailblazers drafted him 4th, but ended up trading him and another forward for Aldridge.
3. Adam Morrison--Mustaches are bad for basketball.
2. LaMarcus Aldrige--20-10 guy, perennial should-be All-Star.
1. Andrea Bargiani--HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

2006 players that would later go on to succeed:

Brandon Roy (#6)
Rudy Gay (#8)
J.J. Reddick (#11)
Rajon Rondo (#21)
Kyle Lowry (#24)
Leon Powe (#49)

2007
5. Jeff Green--traded to Seattle for Ray Allen.
4.Mike Conley Jr.--solid starting PG, great hands on defense.
3.Al Horford--another perennial should-be All Star.
2.Kevin Durant--who?
1.Greg Oden--biggest issue on draft night was the possibility of reinjuring his broken hand. Destroys both knees in response.

2008
5. Kevin Love
4. Russell Westbrook
3. O.J. Mayo
2. Michael Beasley
1. Derrick Rose

2009
5. Ricky Rubio
4. Tyreke Evans
3. James Harden
2. Hasheem Thabeet (GM's love size.)
1. Blake Griffin

2010
5. DeMarcus Cousins
4. Wesley Johnson
3. Derrick Favors
2. Evan Turner
1. John Wall

  I don't know that the improvement you're looking for is significant enough to call anything other than noise.