@justanotherfan A few things: first, that’s a pretty inexcusable and colossal mistake on the part of “a very smart” Thunder front office. A franchise-changing mistake. A balance of power in the western conference changing mistake. Given this, do they really get to keep the title “very smart”?
Secondly, I do think market size matters. It may not be the be all and end all, but it’s important. Maybe not solely for financial reasons, but just for the players’ desire to play in certain places. NBA players don’t want to play in Milwaukee or Minnesota or Toronto. Carmelo famously opined to play in New York. Shaq wanted the glamorous Hollywood lifestyle of LA. Lebron took his talents to South Beach.
And lastly, when you talk about teams and the picks they have, realize that the NBA draft is not all that likely to change the fortunes of the downtrodden franchises. The reason for this is two-fold: first, there are so few franchise changing players. I would argue that a majority of the drafts don’t have a franchise changer. Certainly there are exceptions (2003 had multiple franchise changers), but those only serve to highlight the multiple years in which there aren’t any. You mention Cleveland having 3 number one picks in 4 years. They did pretty good with the Kyrie Irving pick; probably as good as you could hope. They appear to have whiffed on Anthony Bennett. But in those drafts, was there someone they missed on that had they chosen him their franchise would have been able to pull themselves out of lottery-status? Maybe too early to tell on last year’s Bennett draft, but really no one stands out there. This year Embiid has that potential to be a franchise changer. But think about that - if Embiid is that type of player, Cleveland had three #1 overall picks in four years and didn’t stumble upon a player of his caliber until the last of those three opportunities.
The second reason the draft isn’t likely to change the fortunes of the NBA’s worst teams is the NBA draft lottery. Even in the years that there is a franchise changer in the draft, just because you are the worst team doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to get him. Sometimes it happens; Cleveland I think was the worst team in the Lebron draft. But then you have years like this year, Cleveland was the 9th worst team in the league. Not the worst. 9th worst. And they had a 1.7% chance of landing that pick. Same in league rank and percentage chance in 2008 with the Bulls. In 2008 the Bulls landed Derrick Rose. I’d argue he was a franchise changer. Injuries have derailed his career quite a bit, but he was rookie of the year his first year, NBA all-star his second year, and league MVP his third year. Pretty good career trajectory huh? Second pick in that draft - Michael Beasley. He had some solid years, but not franchise changing by any stretch. This year I think the Bucks (who had the worst record) are fairly lucky that guys like Parker & Wiggins will be there at #2, although time will tell how everyone’s career plays out I suppose.
Anyway, I think what all this illustrates is that having a smart NBA front office still won’t guarantee you success. Because, as was kind of the point of my posts to ralster, if you are fortunate enough to get one franchise changer in the draft, you really have to be able to now go out and find a second one to be able to compete at the higher levels. And then you need a third, maybe not franchise changer, but all-star caliber player if you want to have a realistic shot at winning titles. You mention Portland. I think they’re close. Aldridge is very underrated, and Lillard might be at the level of being that third all-star level player. But they need that second elite level talent to pair with Aldridge. Can they lure someone there via free agency? Luck out in the draft? Probably not. So look for them to continue to be a good, but not great franchise. And Denver, despite their bevy of draft picks, is no where close. Ty Lawson is the face of the franchise right now. They’re a ways off.
Such is the luck of the draw in the NBA today.
