Quixotic wrote:
I like that Cho pointed it out, but honestly, it's not like we didn't have a real live example to learn from the four seasons before this past one. 47, 41, 33, 40. That's how many wins we had before this 22-win doozy. We didn't have a draft pick the first year, but it would have been low, followed by a #15, #9 and #13. The #15 we traded away for O'Neal, and while our #9/#13 didn't turn into a Kobe Bryant type, we were still pretty lucky to get DeRozan and Davis out of those drafts.
I find it amusing that those arguing, "it's better to try and fail than to wait perpetually in the draft," don't seem to remember the past few years. Kapono, O'Neal, Marion, Turkoglu, Jack -- we retooled year after year and it didn't matter as long as we didn't build a better core through the draft (I liked Bosh, but even Wade/Bryant need the right supporting cast, let alone Bosh). And if people think, "well they should have picked players more wisely," yes, but also we didn't have the cap space to attract anyone. Each year, we could only add via the MLE or via trades, and you don't usually get something for nothing. Anyone who wants us to retool once again is in no position to criticize BC.
The best part is how people constantly point to teams that are winning, wondering why we suck so much, but also not understanding how those teams got there. Cleveland lucked out with LBJ (though not so lucky now). Orlando lucked out with Dwight. Chicago lucked out with Rose, but also added Noah and Gibson in subsequent drafts. Portland (before the Oden and Roy train wreck) built their entire team through the draft before adding Wallace, and with a lot of high lottery picks as well! Even Miami built their team carefully. It may not have been through the draft, but they went through several lean years to ensure they had the cap room to make a big splash, instead of adding mediocre talent each year. It's like we see these teams and want their results, but don't want any part of how they got there!