Here I will avoid using Adam Morrison as an example in any way, shape or form. There still seems to be a misconception about this ideology of drafting "need vs. talent" floating around so i'll make a bold attempt to shoot it down once and for all.
Decades ago, dating back up until the late 1980's, the draft system proved inefficient, redundant and quite simply, pointless where it consisted of over 5+ rounds of stockpiled talent. Even then there weren't even as many NBA teams as there are now with expansion into Canada.
Late in the 1980's teams could invest and fill needs in no particular order excluding barring the talent pool in the first and second rounds. By round three and up, it didn't really matter who you scouted, analyzed and drafted because chances were that those players wouldn't last very long in the NBA.
Now, coming back to the picture in focus, there are only two rounds which places added pressure everywhere, on GMs, on head coaches, on the current rosters and of course on the talent pool itself. In turn, the NBA has even put a stop to high-schoolers directly entering the draft which means that the NBA is at least making an attempt to improve the draft quality instead of seeing a high turnover rate of players.
Despite the added pressure, this idea builds around a concrete system of selectivity similar to that of an Ivy League admissions office seeking only the best. Why would Harvard accept someone with "potential" and hope they "pan out" two to three years into their post-secondary education?
In the end, the business aspect of the game is about results. You win, you lose, you move on. Time is the only enemy that prevents potential from ever developing. Even in that same sense, each player is held accountable whether or not they have played the game of basketball for a matter of time. Regardless, you need to get the job done before entering the NBA which assumes you've proven yourself and proven to scouts that you can succeed at a high level while always working to get better.
Moving on we address the issue of talent vs. need.
The way I reason to draft talent over need is simple. It's a win-win situation. It's almost the same as stock-piling unneccessary draft picks which is what Paxson has done. Brilliant man, I must add.
Well, you need to take these things apart and see what Pax is really doing. When he first took over as GM for the Bulls, he drafted Hinrich at No. 7 and then Tommy Smith, Matt Bonner and Mario Austin. You ask why did Pax pick up all those second-round scrubs. It doesn't make sense. We just don't "need" them? Touche.
Pax new he could use those picks as leverage, a form of draft currency common in the NBA. Pax knew that even though his team didn't really need those second-rounders, OTHER teams might see value in them thereby making offers to "FILL" their own needs. Smart? I think so.
So, in that right, Pax actually profitted off keeping these guys and then actually using Matt Bonner in a trade to pick up Duhon at No. 38. You probably didn't even realize that, now did you?
It's not coincidence that the Lottery is called what its purpose serves. If you won the state-sponsored lottery, would you fill your "need" of buying a car and buy a Honda or would you take best in-class performance and splooge a little, taking the Benz?
If a car is just a car then a player is just a player, right? Remember, the NBA draft won't be any less selective in the future. I won't say who Pax takes but i'll just say that Pax again did his homework and knows who he'll take. Hopefully the rest of you dangling on the edge of your seats can come to grips and realize that there is a reason the draft centers around a talent pool. You can fill "needs" through free-agency or later as the season progresses. Even undrafted NBDL players are a good source to address needs.