Tyrese Haliburton’s “What If”: The Workout That Made Him Think Golden State Would Draft Him at No. 2

Table of Contents

1. Key Highlights:
2. Introduction
3. The workout that convinced Haliburton he’d be a Warrior
4. Why Golden State picked a center: the context behind the Wiseman selection
5. How Haliburton’s skill set would have meshed with Golden State’s offense
6. Draft night dynamics: why mock drafts miss fit and why teams stay the course
7. The Wiseman outcome and the front-office cost of error
8. Haliburton’s development in Indiana: why landing spot matters
9. The intangible calculus: leadership, decision-making and “who he is as a person”
10. Tactical fit versus developmental runway: what franchises should weigh
11. What Haliburton’s path says about player agency and expectations
12. The role of hindsight and narrative in evaluating drafts
13. Comparing development philosophies: Golden State’s model versus Indiana’s model
14. How teams can reduce draft risk and improve fit assessment
15. Would Haliburton and Curry have worked together?
16. Leadership and culture: intangible returns of draft decisions
17. From workout confidence to professional humility: lessons for prospects
18. The broader draft takeaway for fans and analysts
19. FAQ

Key Highlights:

• Tyrese Haliburton says his workout for the Golden State Warriors was the best of his life and left him convinced the Warriors would select him second overall in the 2020 NBA Draft.
• Golden State instead drafted James Wiseman at No. 2; Haliburton was taken 12th by Sacramento and later became the offensive engine for Indiana’s 2025 Finals run, accumulating the highest win shares (37.6) among 2020 draftees.
• The episode spotlights how team needs, roster construction and risk tolerance shape draft decisions—and how a different landing spot can alter a young player’s developmental trajectory.

Introduction

Tyrese Haliburton remembers walking out of a Golden State Warriors workout convinced his NBA draft fate had been sealed. He describes the session as the best of his life, a performance so complete he expected the Warriors to select him with the No. 2 pick in the 2020 draft—ten spots higher than where he ultimately went. The Warriors instead chose James Wiseman; Haliburton fell to No. 12, was taken by Sacramento and eventually found a home where he could run an offense. That divergence between expectation and outcome reveals a great deal about how NBA franchises evaluate prospects, balance present roster needs against potential, and how a player’s landing spot influences development and career arc.

Haliburton’s story is both personal and instructive. It shows the limits of workouts as predictors, the competing priorities that shape draft-night strategy, and the unexpected benefits of “missing” a superstar pairing. More broadly, the episode invites a reassessment of how teams measure fit and leadership versus positional need—and how those calculations ripple for franchises and players alike.

The workout that convinced Haliburton he’d be a Warrior

Haliburton’s recollection of the Golden State workout is emphatic. On the Numbers on the Board podcast he described it as “the best workout of my life,” adding that he felt perfect in the scheme and imagined himself thriving alongside Stephen Curry. That confidence stemmed from a combination of on-court performance—making full-court conditioning shooting and demonstrating the shot creation and playmaking the Warriors prize—and a sense that his instincts fit Golden State’s spacing-and-movement offense.

The details matter. Haliburton emphasized that his ability to initiate offense while also serving as a secondary play finisher meshed with Curry’s desire to “play off-ball.” He pictured running half-court sets with Curry moving off screens, creating scoring chances for both players. When Warriors head coach Steve Kerr stepped into the workout and insisted on conditioning shooting to see Haliburton’s full-court stamina, Haliburton delivered again. After that, Haliburton expected the franchise to draft him at No. 2.

Workouts can do more than display technique; they reveal confidence, communication style and decision-making under scrutiny. Haliburton’s narrative shows how a prospect’s conviction about fit can become a personal reality—even if the franchise’s public priorities point elsewhere.

Why Golden State picked a center: the context behind the Wiseman selection

Front offices do not draft the best player on the workout floor; they draft to address perceived roster needs and long-term plans. In 2020 the Warriors faced a specific set of constraints: Kevin Durant had departed, Klay Thompson was working back from catastrophic knee and Achilles injuries, and Stephen Curry had missed almost the entirety of the previous season after breaking his hand. The team’s immediate concern was rebalancing its roster to protect and complement Curry.

Several decision-makers in Golden State publicly and privately signaled that the team wanted a big man. That logic is straightforward: adding a rim protector and interior presence to pair with Curry’s spacing would alleviate defensive vulnerabilities and give the roster size to withstand transitions back to health. James Wiseman fit that profile—a 7-footer with mobility, shot-blocking potential and the athleticism that the Warriors hoped to convert into consistent two-way impact.

Draft decisions hinge on how a front office balances upside, immediate need and the risk of missing on a prospect. For Golden State, the perceived cost of drafting Haliburton—adding a guard to a roster with an established superstar who governs shot creation—appeared higher than the cost of drafting a potential defensive anchor. That calculus, not a slight against Haliburton, explains why the Warriors stuck to their plan.

How Haliburton’s skill set would have meshed with Golden State’s offense

Haliburton’s offensive profile matches several components of the Warriors’ identity: elite passing, pick-and-roll IQ and accurate shooting off movement. He demonstrates a rare blend of floor vision and catch-and-shoot efficacy, which maps onto a system that prizes ball movement and reads off screens. Curry’s penchant for coming off ball screens—captured in his statement that “the play starts when I’m getting off the ball”—makes a guard who can operate both on and off the ball extremely useful.

Two points bear emphasis. First, Haliburton’s ability to run the offense and create for others could have given Golden State another high-level initiator to complement Curry rather than replace him. Second, his off-ball shooting would have benefited from the gravity Curry draws; defenders collapsing to contest Curry would have left Haliburton with cleaner looks.

Yet system fit is not only about Xs and Os. It includes role definition, usage rate and how touches are divided across a roster with established stars. Haliburton projected as a high-usage guard at Indiana; in Golden State, his role would likely have been more constrained. The trade-off: immediate championship contention and mentorship under a championship culture versus primary offensive experience and long-term usage growth.

Draft night dynamics: why mock drafts miss fit and why teams stay the course

Mock drafts tend to rank players by perceived talent and upside, producing a consensus expectation. Yet franchises rarely pick strictly by consensus. The Warriors’ decision reflects three forces that often drive divergence between mock drafts and actual selections.

1. Organizational need: Teams evaluate their roster construction and select players to fill gaps rather than chase the highest-ranked player. Golden State prioritized size and interior defense in 2020.
2. Coaching philosophy: Coaches influence the selection of players who fit their systems, not just the best athlete available. A coach who emphasizes positionless defense or rim protection may prefer a big over a guard, even if the latter rates higher in some rankings.
3. Risk tolerance and timeline: Front offices contend with windows for contention. A franchise in a win-now posture might prioritize players who can contribute immediately, even at the cost of future upside.

These influences measured together explain why Haliburton—whose draft stock at the time did not project him as a top-three pick in consensus mock drafts—was a risky deviation for the Warriors. Bob Myers, Golden State’s general manager at the time, later said he should have known better given Haliburton’s leadership. That retrospective admission underscores how front offices sometimes learn about talent evaluation through the lens of what might have been.

The Wiseman outcome and the front-office cost of error

History judges draft picks by results. James Wiseman arrived with premium pedigree and physical tools, but development did not match expectations. By the 2023 trade deadline the Warriors moved off Wiseman, and the franchise no longer treated him as a long-term piece. The pick, evaluated in hindsight, looks costly because Wiseman failed to become the defensive-anchoring center the team hoped for.

Drafting is probabilistic; even highly touted prospects sometimes falter for reasons that include injuries, role misfit, or developmental bottlenecks. The costs for Golden State were both immediate and strategic: a missed opportunity to add a guard who later led his team to the NBA Finals, and a center selection that did not provide the intended return on investment.

For Haliburton, the opposite trajectory unfolded. He compiled the most win shares among 2020 draftees—37.6—and led Indiana’s offense through a Finals run in 2025. That outcome reframes the pick in two ways: it highlights how different development paths can validate a player’s unseen value, and it raises questions about whether teams should privilege intangible attributes—leadership, basketball IQ—more heavily in evaluations.

Haliburton’s development in Indiana: why landing spot matters

Landing spot determines opportunity. In Indianapolis, Haliburton became an offensive fulcrum. Regular touches, the latitude to make reads, and a coaching staff invested in turning him into a primary playmaker accelerated his growth. The developmental arc that Haliburton experienced underscores two truths.

First, playing time and role responsibility matter more than the reputation of teammates. A young guard who runs an offense against NBA defenses every night will refine reads, timing and confidence far faster than a guard who must adapt to a reduced role next to a superstar.

Second, mentorship can take many forms. Golden State offered proximity to Curry’s example—an elite shooter and movement player—yet hands-on opportunity to run and shape an offense belonged to Indiana. That trade-off shaped Haliburton’s skill set into a unique hybrid of precision passing, controlled pace and shot-making.

Real-world parallels clarify the point. Consider players who thrived after being drafted away from immediate superstar company: Damian Lillard rose in Portland as a primary creator and became an MVP-level player; Nikola Jokić developed into a generational playmaking center with extended offensive control in Denver. Conversely, some prospects who land next to established stars find their touches limited, delaying development into primary roles.

Those examples illustrate why teams weighing fit must consider not just scheme compatibility but the individual player’s developmental needs. The best landing spot for a prospect depends on whether short-term wins or long-term player growth align with organizational goals.

The intangible calculus: leadership, decision-making and “who he is as a person”

Bob Myers’ later reflection that he “should have known then because of who he is as a person and as a leader” spotlights intangibles that rarely appear on stat sheets. Leadership, maturity, and decision-making under pressure alter a player’s value. Teams seek players who improve locker-room culture, stabilize lineups in late-game situations and set examples for teammates.

Workouts reveal more than skills: they reveal communication, competitive temperament and how a player handles coaching. Haliburton’s insistence that he felt perfect for Golden State was not merely about making shots; it reflected his conviction that he could fulfill the role both technically and comportmentally. For teams, quantifying those traits is challenging but increasingly important.

Front offices employ interviews, background checks and psychological assessments to supplement on-court evaluations. Yet the subjective nature of those inputs produces variance in decision-making. That variance contributed to the Warriors’ choice—and, ultimately, to Haliburton’s narrative of what might have been.

Tactical fit versus developmental runway: what franchises should weigh

The Haliburton—Wiseman episode highlights a broader tension in draft strategy: do you select for immediate tactical fit or for longer-term developmental upside? The right answer is conditional.

• If a franchise believes it is within a narrow championship window, filling an immediate schematic gap is defensible. Golden State’s late-2019 and 2020 circumstances made a center an attractive option to stabilize defense around Curry.
• If a franchise is rebuilding or has time to develop talent, prioritizing a high-IQ playmaker or a future star might offer higher long-term returns.

The modern game also complicates the choice. Positional fluidity and pace-and-space philosophies value playmaking and shooting across positions, while defensive demands still reward rim protection. Front offices must forecast how an individual’s skills will translate within evolving styles of play. Haliburton’s success reinforces that high-IQ playmakers retain immense value even in systems emphasizing superstar creation.

Teams that integrate both immediate needs and long-term upside—selecting players who can grow into multiple roles—limit the downside. In practice, however, the draft remains an imperfect market where front-office convictions can produce both celebrated steals and regretted misses.

What Haliburton’s path says about player agency and expectations

Haliburton’s expectation that the Warriors would draft him reflects how prospects form narratives about their fit. Those narratives influence draft-night psychology—players imagine a landing spot that accelerates their career or offers a particular mentorship environment. When reality diverges, players confront both disappointment and opportunity.

The player’s response matters. Haliburton’s transit to Indiana allowed him to claim a lead role and validate his game. His trajectory shows that agency extends beyond draft placement: how a player approaches development, adapts to role changes, and leverages opportunities will determine long-term outcomes as much as where he lands.

For prospects, the practical lesson is to evaluate realistic pathways to growth. For organizations, the lesson is to recognize that a prospect’s confidence about fit and his off-court character may signal value beyond measurables.

The role of hindsight and narrative in evaluating drafts

Draft narratives are shaped by hindsight. When a pick fails, commentary often looks back to alternative choices as obvious mistakes. When a fringe selection flourishes, the organization that passed is criticized for myopia. Haliburton’s career reframes the 2020 draft: what looked like a late first-round guard became a central architect of a Finals run.

Hindsight, however, risks over-weighting outcomes without accounting for information constraints at the time of the pick. Scouts, coaches and GMs must project growth across variables they cannot observe directly. Injuries, coaching changes and unpredictable psychological development distort even the most rigorous evaluations.

Understanding this dynamic requires humility from franchises and observers alike. The draft is not a deterministic exercise; it is probabilistic. Celebrated picks validate a team’s model, but misses teach more about the limits of projection than about the intrinsic wrongness of an original plan.

Comparing development philosophies: Golden State’s model versus Indiana’s model

Two clear models of player development appear in this story.

Golden State’s model emphasizes coaching continuity, veteran leadership and role clarity within a championship template. The Warriors optimize combinations of elite shooters, facilitators and defenders to execute an established system. They prioritize players who fit their pattern and can contribute to contending timelines.

Indiana’s model, in contrast, provided a developmental runway in which a young guard could assume primary responsibility and shape the offense around his strengths. That approach values granting decision latitude and building the roster to support a leading creator.

Neither model is intrinsically superior. The former produces consistent contention when its personnel align and stay healthy. The latter builds stars who can carry franchises forward. What matters is alignment: teams must match their draft strategy to their competitive timeline and organizational philosophy.

Real-world evidence supports both pathways. The Warriors’ sustained success across the last decade demonstrates the power of a stable, well-defined system. Indiana’s success with Haliburton illustrates how affording a prospect responsibility can accelerate maturation into a top-tier player.

How teams can reduce draft risk and improve fit assessment

Several practices can reduce draft variance and improve fit assessment:

• Integrate multidisciplinary evaluations: blending medical, psychological, and play-style assessments with traditional scouting reduces blind spots.
• Conduct extended team workouts and competitive scrimmages: sustained interactions reveal temperament, conditioning and how a player adapts to game-speed adjustments.
• Map player development trajectories: compare a prospect’s profile with historical players who developed on similar timelines or fit similar roles.
• Prioritize communication about role expectations: clarity with prospects about projected roles reduces mismatched expectations and improves buy-in.
• Emphasize adaptability: value players who demonstrate capacity for multiple roles in evolving schemes rather than single-style specialists.

These methods cannot eliminate risk, but they improve decision-making quality. The Haliburton case underscores that leadership and basketball IQ are as critical as measurables—and harder to quantify without comprehensive evaluation.

Would Haliburton and Curry have worked together?

The hypothetical pairing of Haliburton with Curry invites tactical speculation. Their skill sets present intriguing complementarities: Curry’s off-ball gravity would free space for Haliburton’s playmaking, while Haliburton’s vision could generate open looks for Curry on handoffs and pin-downs. Curry’s tendency to start plays after coming off movement aligns with a guard who understands spacing and reads.

Challenges would have existed. Curry’s centrality on offensive plays demands certain allocations of touches. Haliburton, as a natural initiator at Indiana, would likely have accepted fewer possessions. The adjustment would depend on coaching generosity, role clarity and both players’ willingness to evolve their games. The Warriors’ system rewards selfless play and has supported multiple ball-handling creators in the past; whether that would have fully satisfied Haliburton’s developmental needs remains speculative.

Ultimately, while the pairing could have produced a seasonally efficient offense, whether it would have accelerated Haliburton into an All-Star-level lead creator is uncertain. The trade-off between running the show and playing a complementary role is central to the “what if” scenario.

Leadership and culture: intangible returns of draft decisions

Draft choices shape more than on-court lineups; they influence locker-room culture. Haliburton’s leadership attributes contributed directly to his value in Indiana. Teams that draft players who contribute both statistically and culturally gain compounding returns: improved team cohesion, enhanced young-player mentorship and stable leadership during close games.

Front offices must weigh these intangible returns. A prospect who elevates teammates through communication and decision-making can create performance gains beyond raw statistics. The Warriors knew Haliburton’s on-court fit; acknowledging his off-court profile after the fact suggests an organizational blind spot that hindsight makes plain.

Organizations that systematically value both skill and character reduce the chance of regret. The Haliburton episode thus stands as a reminder that draft-day velocity is not merely about measurable upside; it is about building teams that win on and off the court.

From workout confidence to professional humility: lessons for prospects

Haliburton’s confidence post-workout offers a model and a caution for prospects. Confidence accelerates performance, but expectations must remain tethered to the draft market’s realities. Prospects should prepare for any landing spot by developing transferable skills, cultivating a professional mindset and staying adaptable.

A pragmatic approach includes targeting role flexibility, improving defensive versatility, and refining decision-making speed—attributes that make a player useful in many systems. Using Haliburton’s path as an example, prospects should also recognize the value of embracing the role they are given and extracting the maximum development from whatever situation they enter.

The broader draft takeaway for fans and analysts

For fans and analysts, Haliburton’s story helps recalibrate how draft outcomes are judged. The initial excitement around workouts and mock projections often eclipses the messy, rational calculus teams use to make decisions. Observers should account for organizational timelines, coaching philosophies and roster configurations when assessing draft picks.

Additionally, the episode provides a reminder: player development is neither linear nor predictable. A player passed over on draft night can become a franchise cornerstone; a top pick can fail to materialize. The evaluation of success thus requires patience and context.

FAQ

Q: Did Golden State actually tell Haliburton they would draft him at No. 2?
A: Haliburton reported that Golden State officials told him he was “perfect” for them but also that they “could draft” him at No. 2. He personally left the workout convinced he would be selected that high; the front office ultimately followed a different plan.

Q: Who did the Warriors draft at No. 2 in 2020, and what happened to that player?
A: The Warriors selected James Wiseman with the No. 2 pick. According to the timeline discussed here, Wiseman did not meet the long-term expectations the Warriors had and was moved off the roster around the 2023 trade deadline.

Q: Was Haliburton drafted by the Warriors?
A: No. Haliburton was selected 12th overall by the Sacramento Kings in the 2020 draft. He later established himself as a leading playmaker for Indiana, where he accumulated the most win shares among 2020 draftees.

Q: Would Haliburton have been wasted playing with Steph Curry?
A: Not necessarily wasted, but his role likely would have differed significantly. Curry’s presence would have reduced Haliburton’s primary-usage opportunities while offering lessons from a generational shooter. The net developmental effect is unknowable; in Indiana, Haliburton received the usage and responsibility to grow into a lead creator.

Q: What does Haliburton’s story teach teams about draft strategy?
A: It highlights the need to balance immediate roster needs with long-term developmental upside and to weigh intangible attributes—leadership, poise—alongside measurable skills. Extended evaluation and clearer role communication with prospects can reduce mismatch-related regret.

Q: How common is it for players to expect one draft outcome and receive another?
A: Very common. Workouts, interviews and mock drafts create expectations, but teams rely on internal priorities, medical evaluations and strategic timetables that often diverge from public projections.

Q: Did Haliburton’s Achilles injury affect his trajectory?
A: Haliburton has dealt with an Achilles tear, which is a serious injury. Despite that, he still emerged as a central figure in Indiana’s offensive success and amassed the highest win shares among his draft class as of the timeline discussed here. His recovery and subsequent performance suggest resilience and effective medical and developmental support.

Q: Is winning win shares the best metric to evaluate draft success?
A: Win shares are one useful metric that estimate a player’s contribution to team wins. They are informative but incomplete. Evaluating draft success uses a suite of statistics—advanced metrics, efficiency measures—and contextual factors such as team fit, leadership and playoff performance.

Q: Could the Warriors have made a different personnel move to add both Haliburton and a center?
A: The 2020 draft decision hinged on available picks and roster constraints. While trades and creative roster moves sometimes allow teams to address multiple needs, those transactions carry their own risks and resource costs. The Warriors chose a direct solution for their perceived need at the time.

Q: What should prospects learn from Haliburton’s expectations and eventual outcome?
A: Prospects should prepare for variability in draft outcomes, prioritize adaptability, and value any opportunity to grow. Confidence is valuable, but sustained development depends on embracing the roles one is given and maximizing available minutes and responsibilities.

Tyrese Haliburton’s “what if” is both a personal anecdote and a case study in talent evaluation. It underscores the tension between perceived fit and organizational plans, the pivotal role of developmental context, and the unpredictability of projecting young players. Whether Golden State or Indiana ended up with the better long-term outcome depends on the metrics and the narratives one values. What cannot be disputed is that a single workout, even a brilliant one, rarely dictates a franchise’s strategic choice; the draft is a complex negotiation between need, projection and the certainty of risk. Haliburton’s rise after being passed over offers a clear counterpoint: missing a superstar pairing early can sometimes be the best opportunity for a young player to become the leader his team needs.