Duke13 wrote:I was kinda be sarcastic saying we screwed up with Rubio over Curry. I will full admitt I was very excited about drafting Rubio, and was a huge fan his rookie year, he was fantastic that year, then the injury. I don't know how that effected his NBA trajectory or not, we could speculate all day on that I suppose.
I had a huge problem with the Flynn pick at the time of the draft. The reason was it was obvious Ricky needed the ball in his hands like a traditional PG, and Kahn touted Flynn as this dynamic player able to play off the ball. That made zero sense to me, it was obvious Curry was that type of player.
I don't know if anyone remembers Dave Wahl, a Rambis assistant at the time of the draft. He later came out after being let go that Kahn was saying a Flynn/Rubio backcourt had the chance to be Clyde Frazier and Pearl Monroe. Pretty funny stuff in hindsight.
To be fair, Clyde and Pearl were in their 60s at the time.
I definitely wanted to draft Rubio at the time. But I was not happy with picking Flynn over Curry even though I liked Flynn at the time. Curry was the obvious choice to me at the time and I remember saying so on the old ESPN board at the time. Of course nearly everyone else on the board had the same opinion.
Curry was an exceptional exceptional shooter coming out of college, which I thought would make him the perfect complement to Rubio. But Curry was more than a great shooter in college. Bobby Knight called him the best passer in college basketball in a predraft interview and he showed film clips illustrating his point. And Curry was a big time player who carried his team on his back into the tournament.
Remember we also could have drafted DeRozen instead of either Flynn or Rubio. I remember posting after the draft that DeRozen would have been my second choice over Flynn after Curry.
There's no substitute for a quality front office. Flip showed good judgment but also had a few blind spots. Picking Tyus Jones was Flip's homer blind spot. Picking Bazz over the Greek Freak was Flip's failure to stay true to his principle of swinging for the home run in the draft. He told me to my face that he believed in swinging for the fences when drafting and not settling for singles or doubles. That's how he explained the LaVine pick to me. The Greek Freak would have been a home run swing. The Bazz pick seemed more like a single or double swing or just hitting the opposite way to advance the runner.
Right, and a lot of these players play the same position, i.e. Greek Freak and Bazz making it even worse in my opinion. They should of been evaluated side by side. Same with Rubio/Flynn and Curry.
And no matter how we all felt about the Rubio pick it has proven to be a bad pick
Lip, I'm not ready to say the Tyus trade was bad. I think it was a couple 2nd rounder. I really think Tyus has a chance to be productive. He's just caught in a tough spot. Dunn has higher upside and Rubio is the starter for the time being. I for one would be comfortable with Tyus as the backup when and if Dunn takes over for Rubio.
I feel like the Bazz over GF being such a no brainer is a bit revisionist history or maybe what certain people wanted. Bazz had a lot of aspects of his game that worked well in an Adelman offense. He was also a highly regarded prospect before a few negatives took him down (including some holes in his game). It's not like they were drafting some 4 year senior with little upside over GF. It looks bad now but there was a risk reward for picking Bazz too.There was quite a bit of upside at the time Bazz was selected.
monsterpile wrote:I feel like the Bazz over GF being such a no brainer is a bit revisionist history or maybe what certain people wanted. Bazz had a lot of aspects of his game that worked well in an Adelman offense. He was also a highly regarded prospect before a few negatives took him down (including some holes in his game). It's not like they were drafting some 4 year senior with little upside over GF. It looks bad now but there was a risk reward for picking Bazz too.There was quite a bit of upside at the time Bazz was selected.
I wasn't a Muhammad fan at the time... so I can't go with that angle... but I agree about the revisionist history stuff.
Nobody knew much about Giannis other than his size/athleticism in youtube videos where he dominated rec league players.
monsterpile wrote:I feel like the Bazz over GF being such a no brainer is a bit revisionist history or maybe what certain people wanted. Bazz had a lot of aspects of his game that worked well in an Adelman offense. He was also a highly regarded prospect before a few negatives took him down (including some holes in his game). It's not like they were drafting some 4 year senior with little upside over GF. It looks bad now but there was a risk reward for picking Bazz too.There was quite a bit of upside at the time Bazz was selected.
I wasn't a Muhammad fan at the time... so I can't go with that angle... but I agree about the revisionist history stuff.
Nobody knew much about Giannis other than his size/athleticism in youtube videos where he dominated rec league players.
Also I think its worth mentioning the team at the time right or wrong was looking to try and win sooner rather than later and Bazz certainly looked like he would be able to help sooner rather than later especially compared to GF who was clearly raw. All I cared about at the time is that the Wolves ended up with Dieng who I thought was going to be at worst a really solid player. I haven't been disappointed.
Easy answer: Wiggins. I don't think LaVine is that talented of a player but he tries. Teams tend to take on the personalities of their stars. The Spurs were perceived as boring but unbelievably effective because Duncan was that. The Warriors are exciting and deadly because Curry is that. This team is perceived to be this ultra exciting young team with a future because Towns, Wiggins and LaVine are perceived to be that. What I don't wanna see is this team become viewed as overrated underachievers because Wiggins will wind up one, and that's what they look like now.
WildWolf2813 wrote:Easy answer: Wiggins. I don't think LaVine is that talented of a player but he tries. Teams tend to take on the personalities of their stars. The Spurs were perceived as boring but unbelievably effective because Duncan was that. The Warriors are exciting and deadly because Curry is that. This team is perceived to be this ultra exciting young team with a future because Towns, Wiggins and LaVine are perceived to be that. What I don't wanna see is this team become viewed as overrated underachievers because Wiggins will wind up one, and that's what they look like now.
For three years now you have bagged on LaVine. I want to ask why you don't see him as a great talent? He has exceeded every expectation thus far. Is it simply a personal vendetta?
