Greetings all! Long time reader, first time poster. I have been back and forth with a few of my friends over who we should draft with the 6th pick. The conversation basically boils down to Monroe vs. Aminu (assuming Wall, Turner, Favors, Johnson, and Cousins are the first five picks). I know this has been rehashed a million times on this forum, so I'm not looking to stoke the fire. I'm hoping to add a new dimension to the discussion and just wanted to introduce why I am a die hard proponent of not selecting Monroe. (I'm not completely crazy about Aminu either, but I wouldn't touch Monroe with a 10' pole).
Anyways, my reasonings are two fold, and I am listing them below. I've combined both of my reasons/corollaries into one theory that I've honed over 20 years of futile Warriors fandom where the annual draft has become my playoffs. This is nothing too original, but I will swear by it 100%. I'm looking for your help to disprove my theorem so that I can stomach taking Monroe if that, indeed, is the way we end up going.The Currytree Theorem:
Corollary 1: The NBA is not the NFL, NHL, or MLB. In those sports, you need a good team top to bottom to win. In the NBA, you really only need one superstar and surround him with appropriate pieces. This does not guarantee that you will win. However, conversely, I believe you flatout cannot win without one. Every team that made it to the Finals in the last two decades has been built around a superstar. The only exception I can think of is the early 2000 Detroit Pistons who were extremely well coached. There are only two ways to land a superstar. One is to suck horribly for a year for the right year and draft him. (See Duncan to Spurs, James to Cavs, and Iverson to 76ers). The other is to acquire a disgruntled one through trade/FA (See MacGrady to Rockets, Kidd to Nets).
The Warriors under current management have shown their inability to acquire an already established player. The only plausible option is through the draft.
Corollary 2: I place athleticism above all else in the draft. The NBA is inherently built off of athleticism more so than the NFL, NHL, and MLB. I believe this is more true than ever. Yes I know, there are players with less than optimal athleticism who make up for it with high IQ. (See Nash and Curry). Yes, I know that there are countless more players who have freakish athleticism with no IQ and tank (See Darius Miles, Stromile Swift, Gerald Green). However, in my opinion, high basketball IQ ensures a higher floor. High athleticism equates to a higher ceiling. Your typical less athletic/smarter player may not bust as hard as your typical freakishly athletic/dumber player, but he won't boom as hard either.
Putting the two correlations together, I'd much rather swing for the fences every year on your highly athletic/less fundamentally skilled player and miss. The converse is, if you are hitting singles all day, you end up with a team of Murphleavies. Also, if you swing and miss, at least you will suck for another year, get a high pick, and can repeat the process.
Anyways, I hope that I've added a new dimension to the argument about Monroe. I'm hoping if you are a Monroe proponent, you can disprove The Currytree Theorem because all roads through The Currytree Theorem are leading me towards Aminu (who, again, I'm not that thrilled about). Cheers!