This might put me on some ignore lists as a melter, and I've tried to stay positive, but just going to type some shit out and then let it go:
Davis, MKG, Beal, Waiters, Robinson. One of those names is not like the others.
Irving, Williams, Kanter, Thompson, Valanciunas. One of those names is not like the others, too (in terms of projections at the time).
I get it. GMs like Grant know more than I do. It fucking goes without saying. Nevertheless...
I'm finding it almost impossible to convince myself that Robinson will not be a better player in the league than Waiters, period. I think Robinson was the clear-cut BPA at #4. And, to me, there's no two ways about it; you take the BPA, period.
Well... Maybe the Cavs had them in the same tier and the tie-breaker was need? Bullshit. You gots to have an opinion. At the top of the draft, on a rebuilding team with almost no long term pieces, save one sure thing at PG, you draft THE BPA. And Robinson was that.
Well... Maybe the Cavs just rated Waiters higher than Robinson? Then they're idiots. That's going way too far, I know, but I'm just fired up right now and it's finally bubbling over. Davis is a cut above, then, to me, there were 3 players after him a lesser cut above everybody else: MKG, Beal, and Robinson. They all have better mixes of upside and safety than everybody else. Again, to me. But I don't think I was alone there.
I just think Grant loves to get cute. Cute works sometimes. But not all the damn time. In fact, cuteness is my perpetual downfall in every single fantasy sports draft I ever take part in, as I try to outsmart everyone else and show off my balls. Did I just compare Grant's drafting and my own in fantasy sports? Yes. So what?
Robinson and Kyrie seem like the preeminent pick 'n roll partners in the league for the next decade. Stockton and Malone reincarnated but without Jordan constantly in their way.
Robinson then a move up for a wing? Add in the rest of the picks to offer to GS along with Andy and add Barnes (unlikely) or to Houston for Lamb (unlikely) or just stay where we were at and grab a wing at the end of the round (likely)? I'd prefer any of those, given that it would still mean we got the best available player at 4.
Would we have taken Robinson at 4 if we didn't have Tristan? I'll never know the answer to that, but if it's yes, it's a huge mistake. If Tristan is good, he'll help us win regardless. If it's a logjam, there's always a market for young athletic and effective bigs; trade him and the rebuild is still on. If he's a bench player in a couple years, we're happy we took Robinson.
Outsmarting the field in taking an under the radar sixth man that teams were reportedly hoping would slide was cute. Outsmarting the field in taking a high energy big last year that teams were hoping would slide was cute. Outsmarting the field in selecting a guy from the Congo that had only recently heard of the sport of basketball in the first round was cute (Grant's involvement, whether it was for a Toronto trade, and the impact of the move given the draft slot is arguable, but it fits my argument so I'm listing it). Outsmarting the field in taking the young high upside super sub tweener instead of the safe PG, when his team (the Hawks) needed a PG was cute. I hope the fucking cuteness pays off this time.