These are great articles ("when I grow up I want to be able to analyze basketball like Apricot," said the 50 year-old man). Is there a way to include undrafted players (that later developed via free agency, G-League, etc.) in these analyses too? Thanks a bunch, I'll take my answer off the air.
My takeaway from this series so far is that Malcolm Brogdon and Ivica Zubac are about the best players GSW could have possibly drafted over about 4 years, not counting the guys they did draft. And, no disrespect to those guys (both great players!) but if you didn't miss a single bigger fish than that in 4 years, you did pretty damn well. And this is with the team paying extra money to get picks when they didn't have any! In the "who could you have taken but didn't" game, extra picks are just more opportunities to screw up!
Draft prospects are hard to predict. Clearly, in terms of making the most out of the picks we had, the team did pretty well. If anything, the bigger concern is player development: of the guys who seemed like they had promise or opportunity, only Looney has really continued to develop past his rookie level, and injuries have basically defined his career, so it's hard to even judge his true progress. It'll be really worth watching to see where a guy like Eric Paschall goes from here, but we have more reason than maybe any of us considered to be apprehensive.
Brooks would be good. Damyean Dotson would be good, and that's allegedly someone they're going to go after this offseason.
It's hard to be mad about it. The thinking behind Bell is very good. He was a really good college player, on a great team, who's skillset and role made sense for the NBA and the Warriors specifically. He was very good as a rookie, and then completely stalled out.
Me too. Then I thought the Warriors made a good move when they traded Bell (and McCaw). It seemed that both needed more one-on-one attention than they received, whatever the reason.
These are great articles ("when I grow up I want to be able to analyze basketball like Apricot," said the 50 year-old man). Is there a way to include undrafted players (that later developed via free agency, G-League, etc.) in these analyses too? Thanks a bunch, I'll take my answer off the air.
The guy the Warriors really missed on is Chris Boucher who has played pretty well for the Raptors in limited minutes but they couldn't keep everybody
My takeaway from this series so far is that Malcolm Brogdon and Ivica Zubac are about the best players GSW could have possibly drafted over about 4 years, not counting the guys they did draft. And, no disrespect to those guys (both great players!) but if you didn't miss a single bigger fish than that in 4 years, you did pretty damn well. And this is with the team paying extra money to get picks when they didn't have any! In the "who could you have taken but didn't" game, extra picks are just more opportunities to screw up!
Draft prospects are hard to predict. Clearly, in terms of making the most out of the picks we had, the team did pretty well. If anything, the bigger concern is player development: of the guys who seemed like they had promise or opportunity, only Looney has really continued to develop past his rookie level, and injuries have basically defined his career, so it's hard to even judge his true progress. It'll be really worth watching to see where a guy like Eric Paschall goes from here, but we have more reason than maybe any of us considered to be apprehensive.
Brooks would be good. Damyean Dotson would be good, and that's allegedly someone they're going to go after this offseason.
It's hard to be mad about it. The thinking behind Bell is very good. He was a really good college player, on a great team, who's skillset and role made sense for the NBA and the Warriors specifically. He was very good as a rookie, and then completely stalled out.
I think we got good value for him. So yes, Warriors did well for this draft.
Me too. Then I thought the Warriors made a good move when they traded Bell (and McCaw). It seemed that both needed more one-on-one attention than they received, whatever the reason.