The Top of the Draft: 1995-1996

[42PhD]

1. Kevin Garnett. Drafted by Cavaliers (not me), traded to Lakers after 2.5 seasons (not me). 1 title with Lakers.

2. Rasheed Wallace. Drafted by Spurs, signed by (?) Hornets after 4 seasons. No titles.

3. Antonio McDyess. Drafted by Jazz, traded immediately to Hawks. 2 titles with Hawks.

4. Michael Finley. Drafted by Bucks, traded to Raptors after 1 season. 1 title with Raptors.

5. Damon Stoudamire. Drafted by Suns, traded to Hornets after 2 seasons. No titles.

4 titles in this class, 0 with the drafting team. One player walked in FA, I think . . . the transaction is not listed, so I'm just guessing here.

[NOLa.]

Brings back memories of the biggest trape of the league: KG for Jones.

Sent via Morse code

[42PhD]

Brings back memories of the biggest trape of the league: KG for Jones.

Sent via Morse code

I was out of town when that happened. Jones has been passed around since I dealt him like a chocolate hooker. Not much respect for him these days. Not sure about back in the day, but KG seems to be a good thing.

Though, giving Hardaway away for... What?... Is worth two titles and counting?

[WigNosy]

Brings back memories of the biggest trape of the league: KG for Jones.

Sent via Morse code

I was out of town when that happened. Jones has been passed around since I dealt him like a chocolate hooker. Not much respect for him these days. Not sure about back in the day, but KG seems to be a good thing.

Though, giving Hardaway away for... What?... Is worth two titles and counting?

Hardaway was traded for Andre Miller, Donyell Marshall, and the Hawks' 2003 first-round pick.

Donyell Marshall played for a season in Dallas before being dealt to the Sonics - during that season he averaged 19.5 ppg and 8.6 rpg. This season (now with the Clippers after being traded again) he was an all-star and won the All-Star Game MVP.

However, to continue to trace the effects of the Penny trade on the Mavericks (these kinds of exercises are actually kind of fun)... Donyell Marshall was in turn traded to the Sonics for Marcus Camby and the Kings' 2003 first-round pick. The Kings' 2003 first (along with the Hawks' 2003 pick acquired by trading Penny and another late pick) was part of a package trade that netted the #15 and #26 pick in 2003; the #15 was in turn packaged with Mike Dunleavy to get the #10 pick. The Mavericks held on to the #10 and #26 picks, selecting David West and Jarvis Hayes, respectively.

The net effect on the Mavericks' roster today (4 seasons later) is that Penny was turned into Andre Miller, Marcus Camby, David West, and Jarvis Hayes (2 starters and 2 significant bench players based on minutes played).

[42PhD]

All good info. The effects of moves really do need to be traced to their logical end, not after step 1.

However, the point being made is not whether each trade was made for good or bad reasons, but rather to show what a team got from a draft pick itself compared to how that player did in his career (up to now). Those are different things.

Again, there is a certain set of maxims that come with draft picks. Not all of them are true. This series is just one of many looks at the data that could be made. Overall, people do not benefit from draft picks in a way that is commensurate with how they are treated. That is my claim, this data bears it out.

The issues are likely the lack of a plan and the inherently risky nature of the draft lottery and training camps.

Edited to add: And not titles for the Mavericks (yet) after this trade. A laundry list of nice things is in fact nice, and there are many ways to measure this, but getting curbstomped in the Finals against the team you chose to help build is not exactly a stellar review of that laundry list.

[TheSyndicate]

I actually completely disagree with your premise. 1 team out of 29 wins the title each year. Does that mean 28 teams had unsuccessful seasons?

By your logic, it does. How many playoff appearances did these guys lead their team to? How many winning seasons? What was their WAR or EWA? These are much more important metrics to determine the value of the top of a given draft than how many titles they won. How many titles they won depends on: A) Making the playoffs, B) the teams they had to play (out of a given team's control) I think we can all agree there are times where either the WCF or ECF is really the championship and the actual finals are a formality, B) Health (completely out of a team/draft pick's control.

Conroy only won so many titles with Zo, but you can't tell me that he didn't have a decade of success because of him. I understand the goal of your endeavor, and I agree with that. But your argument to get there makes no sense, unless you feel a title is the only way to define a successful season, in which case I say: good luck doing that without hitting on a lotto pick.

[42PhD]

I never said that. First, it is simply too big a question to look at every thing that does go into a success season or could go into one. Second, the injury and TC issues torch many contenders. This complicates matters.

It is fine say a premise is faulty, but that doesn't make it my premise. This series is about looking at data and discussing it. It went in open-minded.

Back to the data, winning a title is a measure of success, and it is unambiguous. Maybe you weren't the best possible that season, but you won. So, looking there is a starting place.

Also, talking about success... I consider my Cavs a success for me. I'm having a good time, learning, and it's fun playing the characters. Does anyone give a rat's ass? No. I'm talking about winning titles because it is unambiguous and something everyone values to some extent.

Nothing here should end up diminishing people's sense of enjoyment or satisfaction to a point.

Just quit telling me how important draft picks are and quit listening to others saying it. They are one of many possible pieces to run, but they can be used in many ways and are certainly not essential.