Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 97

Thread: Question for people against tanking

  1. #61
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7,764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Raptor_11 wrote: View Post
    But Paul wanted to go to LA, that's why the trade happened. I'm not saying the Raptors need to tank, but the Clippers suckage allowed them to draft Griffin, who was a major factor in Chris Paul's decision. It's by no means a perfect recipe, but it is a certain route which many teams are deciding to take with the 2014 draft as stacked as it is. As for the Raps, I'll trust Ujiri knows what's best for the team
    But it wasn't his first choice. And he really didn't have a choice. He didn't want to go to the Clippers. He wanted to go to the Lakers or Mavs. I'm sure if the best offer NOH had gotten was from Minnesota or some such team, he would've ended up there. Griffin is just the piece that LAC had that made them think they could keep Paul through free agency. Well the Raps have JV. I'm like, 95% confident JV will be a more impactful player than Blake "I don't need to add things to my game" Griffin.

    *Edit: So Griffin isn't waht attracted Paul to the Clips, it's basically the other way around, and it's what attracted the Clips to Paul, thinking they could keep him and it wouldn't be a complete waste of assets.

  2. #62
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7,764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    And even Griffin's impact on Paul's decision was clearly not the biggest factor, as there was still lots of uncertainty over whether he'd commit to the Clips. By all accounts, the hiring of Doc is actually what has now put it over the top for the Clips, not Griffin's continued presence.

  3. #63
    Raptors Republic All-Star Mediumcore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,189
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote dpww wrote: View Post
    Everyone knows the point of our franchise, or any franchise, is to win multiple championships. So why are you guys willing to take our team how it is currently built, add a Rondo, or add another borderline star, to forego the opportunity to draft a superstar next year (there's more than just Wiggins).

    Obviously it isn't guaranteed we get a top 5 pick, but at the moment, Toronto isn't built to contend for a championship. Nor are we just a couple pieces from getting into even the ECF. Toronto isn't a hot free agent destination either, not until we prove that we aren't a team stuck in limbo (check Atlanta Hawks), or not until we get a superstar (which is kind of ironic considering none will come). We also do not have the assets to trade for a superstar.

    Rudy Gay isn't the future of the franchise, he's the best player we had since Bosh, which isn't saying much. The truth is he's overpriced and takes far too many shots. I'd rather have a roster that will tank WHILE developing our rookies/younger players. Sure there are 10 other teams that are trying to tank for Wiggins, but even a top 5 pick is satisfactory enough, with Wiggins being the added bonus if we land with the #1 pick.

    To all those that say that a top 5 pick isn't guaranteed, well I can guarantee that if we miss the opportunity to even get a top 5 pick, and make the playoffs this year (or worse, end up 9th/10th), we won't be able to contend for a longtime with our roster and commitments.

    So why are some of you willing to just make it into the first/second round of the playoffs the next couple years, and be done after that?
    I agree. Whether you like it or not, tanking is the best method to acquire an elite player and elite players are most essential to not only contend for a championship, but also for sustained success. You can point to Charlotte all you want and say they are an example of nothing being guaranteed in the draft, but I can at least say that they are putting themselves in the best possible situation to succeed. Everyone else is just spinning their wheels.

  4. #64
    Raptors Republic All-Star wallz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    2,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    And even Griffin's impact on Paul's decision was clearly not the biggest factor, as there was still lots of uncertainty over whether he'd commit to the Clips. By all accounts, the hiring of Doc is actually what has now put it over the top for the Clips, not Griffin's continued presence.
    Clippers never get Paul without Griffin, IMO. thats all I'm saying

  5. #65
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7,764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Raptor_11 wrote: View Post
    Clippers never get Paul without Griffin, IMO. thats all I'm saying
    I don't see the connection at all. Paul didn't have a no-trade clause. He had no say in where he went. And since arriving, Griffin's growth has hardly been impressive, and his name has been thrown around (usually as an alternative option to Jordan in any deal) in trades.

    Clippers get Paul because NOH decides they can't keep him and no other team made a good offer.

  6. #66
    Raptors Republic All-Star Craiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,119
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    People are forgetting something very important when discussing 'superstar player' movement.

    Superstars rarely move. This is because they are so valuable - not only as players (they help you win) but as contracts (they have great production to cost returns). So what you have is an expensive but highly valuable player. They are, simply, the most valuable commodity in the NBA.

    So teams don't want to get rid of them, they want to keep them. But they can't always do that. Usually when a superstar moves its because they want to move, and very occasionally (but extremely rarely) because a team needs to move them (want to either start over or can't afford to keep them)

    So where do these superstars go? Almost always to a select group of markets - LA, NY, Miami, Houston/Dallas (Texas based). (there are a handful of other markets that are probably would fit in or just below that category aswell - Phoenix, Boston, Chicago, San Fransisco (Golden State)). Why do they want to go there - they have some combination of market size (therefore greater chance of attention, and non salaried $s (ie. endorsements)), tax breaks (and therefore $s), and accomodation (weather).

    When we look at all the superstar movement in the last decade or so, its almost always to those markets. Shaq - LA, Lebron - Miami, Chris Paul - LA, Dwight - LA (and now likely to either remain in LA, or Houston or Dallas), James Harden - Houston, Carmelo Anthony - NY, Deron Williams - NY, Steve Nash - LA. [We can even make a list players a tier below superstars and we'll see that they still have a tendency to end up in these markets. Not as high of a %, but a higher than average % none the less]

    Now alot of this movement was due to free agency or pending free agency. Very rarely is it early or in the middle of their contract that they get moved (If I'm not mistake Kevin Garnett is one of the exceptions to the above. James Harden aswell, as he was heading into RFA). When they do move, it is almost always on their terms - and there terms are almost always a superstar market.

    So why is it these markets, whether through free agency or (rarely) trade, or on a players terms or (rarely) not, get these types of players?

    1) Players find these markets desireable
    2) These markets can afford to pay additional dollars to get these players or multiples of these player or other top quality players aswell
    3) Teams moving these players want a return for them, and these teams are able to afford to keep alot of high cost assets, so they have more to offer in return
    4) Since these players come at such a high cost, the team 'buying' them wants insurance that they aren't renting them. These players will only give insurance to teams they find desireable.
    5) On the rare occasion there is little or no insurance (Dwight Howard) the team was the most valuable market (or top 2, it may be the Knicks at #1) and had a high likelyhood of retaining him + the ability to spend alot and maintain a good team if they couldn't (ie. they could afford to not have insurance)

    So when we talk about #1 draft picks not winning titles with their teams, or superstars not winning titles with the team that drafted them - its not because there is a free flow of elite talent in the NBA. They went to one of the elite markets. These markets completely skew how 'normal' teams in the NBA win titles or become highly competitive. There are a handful of teams that are nothing like the bottom 20 teams in the NBA.

    When we want to see how an 'normal' market has become a contender or title winner its been the same - it starts in the draft. It starts with picking a star in the draft, or a very highly talented player in the draft, and these guys usually (but not always) come high in the draft. Even on the occasions when the pick(s) weren't used themselves to create a contending team - the players drafted or the draft picks became the commodity that returned a high value peice or player (Grant Hill (#3 pick) was traded for Ben Wallace, Pau Gasol (#3) for Marc Gasol, numerous picks and former high draft picks for Garnett and Allen)

    So unless one believes that the Raptors can become an elite market, something it has historically shown not to be, has in fact shown to be an undesireable market (whether warranted or not) we should not expect an elite player to want to come here, atleast not at any point in the near future.

    And no. Being a 'winner' or 'building a culture' has not shown to attract elite talent. At best it only attracts elite talent to winners already in elite markets vs losers in elite markets.

  7. Like Fully, magoon, Mediumcore liked this post
  8. #67
    Raptors Republic All-Star wallz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    2,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    I don't see the connection at all. Paul didn't have a no-trade clause. He had no say in where he went. And since arriving, Griffin's growth has hardly been impressive, and his name has been thrown around (usually as an alternative option to Jordan in any deal) in trades.

    Clippers get Paul because NOH decides they can't keep him and no other team made a good offer.
    He did have say in where he went. We've seen this with star players and trades so much over the last decade

  9. #68
    Raptors Republic All-Star Soft Euro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Utrecht, The Netherlands (Yes, that's Europe!)
    Posts
    1,920
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    I don't see the connection at all. Paul didn't have a no-trade clause. He had no say in where he went. And since arriving, Griffin's growth has hardly been impressive, and his name has been thrown around (usually as an alternative option to Jordan in any deal) in trades.

    Clippers get Paul because NOH decides they can't keep him and no other team made a good offer.
    The trade went through because Paul gave a verbal promise to excercise his player option the year after and stay at least one more year with the Clippers. If he hadn't done that, the trade would probably not have gone through.

  10. #69
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    1,110
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Ion66 wrote: View Post
    The amount of talent we'd have to shed, to get bad enough to have a top 5 pick (hopefully) seems greater than the value of a top 5, or 10 pick to me. I would think that young players to develop, would come at a high price if they had any real upside, or teams wouldn't be willing to part with them. Loading a team with young, but average players, and 2-3 of our core guys gets us, say, the #3 pick. Now we have 2-3 of our existing players, a rookie of unknown upside and a pile of pointless fillers, whose only purpose is/was to fill out a tanking roster. This is better than what we have now...how?
    Because what we have now simply isn't very good, and anti-tankers need to realize that. We do not have a top 5 player at any position. In many positions we don't even have a top 10 player. This is a star-driven league and we don't have any fucking stars.

    A lot of people are arguing that we should go for playoffs this year because it increases the value of our pieces for 2014. But we already know the landscape of this year's playoffs:

    1. Miami, Indiana, New York, Brooklyn and Chicago will all compete strongly and will all get playoff spots.
    2. One playoff team from last year, Boston, is tanking and will not make playoffs.
    3. One non-playoff team, Philly, is tanking and will not make playoffs.
    4. Cleveland, Washington and Detroit will all do their best to complete and make playoffs (they're already making the moves to contend).
    5. Charlotte will be terrible. Orlando probably will as well, although they'll likely be this year's equivalent of Washington and get better down the stretch.
    6. Atlanta, Milwaukee and us are left, and it is uncertain whether these three teams compete or tank. Milwaukee seems more likely to compete right now given the noise they're making about looking for an SG and re-signing Brandon Jennings.

    What that tells me is that the playoffs are far from guaranteed for the Raptors. They aren't a fait accompli, like many anti-tankers want to believe. We came in tenth last year. We only beat Detroit and Washington's records by five games, and those five games can be accounted for in the April mirage when bad teams are trying to lose and good teams were trying to rest their players. Detroit, Cleveland and Washington - all teams we basically went even with - have all gotten better already while we've been doing nothing except releasing JL3, and they all have cap space to improve even further, which we do not. There is a very strong possibility that we start the season the worst of us, Cleveland, Detroit and Washington, and if that happens then we are not going to make playoffs.

    And if we don't make playoffs, then things get actively worse. Right now, we still have okay trade chips and everybody around the league is still interested in our guys, for the right price. Another year of no playoffs, and Rudy Gay isn't a borderline All-Star any more (and there are still people who think that) - he's the albatross who costs $20 million and KEEPS you from the playoffs. DeMar isn't a hot young player, he's the guy who didn't pan out. Terrence Ross becomes trade-balancing money rather than the young 3-and-D prospect who won the Dunk Contest. And so forth.

    Trying to compete and failing is the worst possible outcome for the Raptors, and right now, competing is the riskiest possible goal for the Raptors. A one-season tank is safer, and the anti-tankers need to realize that they are endorsing a strategy that could down this franchise for another decade.

    And we get to watch a full year of getting our asses whupped....a full year.....Competing for last place like it's for the championship, with a bunch of other teams who have exactly the same plan in mind? Why would I watch that?
    The tank this season only has a few serious contestants - Charlotte, Phoenix, Boston and Philly - and most of those teams have nothing left in their tanking gun. (Boston can trade Rondo, and that's about it.) Toronto is actually fairly uniquely posed for a good tank because we have players who are wanted around the league but who aren't functioning well here. We can still get some value for them, turn 2013-14 into a development season where we give young players plenty of burn and use overpaid veterans to coach them along. That sounds better to me than another season where we all check out in late February because we know it's over.

  11. Like Fully liked this post
  12. #70
    Raptors Republic All-Star Soft Euro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Utrecht, The Netherlands (Yes, that's Europe!)
    Posts
    1,920
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote dpww wrote: View Post
    Everyone knows the point of our franchise, or any franchise, is to win multiple championships.
    Everyone knows that but me. I don't agree at all, that this is the point of any franchise.

  13. #71
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7,764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Raptor_11 wrote: View Post
    He did have say in where he went. We've seen this with star players and trades so much over the last decade
    If he had say in where he went, he never would have landed with the Clippers. IT WAS NOT HIS FIRST CHOICE. Don't confuse other teams being scared to make offers with Paul choosing his destination. If any quality players says their priority is to play for a team willing to spend on a winner, that will scare away any small market team that isn't already a contender (ie. OKC, SAS). The same way that if a young player said something like "I want to play somewhere where I get X minutes or get to start", it will scare away any team looking to add them without such a guaranteed opportunity.

    Paul had been quite public about his desire to play for a team willing to spend on a winner. He also said that could be in NOH...But it clearly could never happen there because they could never afford it, especially at that time. There was much speculation that despite Griffin's presence, Paul would be wary to stay and play for the most notoriously cheap and uninterested in success owner in Sterling. That's why I said the Doc deal put it over the top. Not only did it show Sterling would spend, but that he would spend in ways required to build a winner, not just to pay a star (and sell some tickets). Despite being in LA, Sterling had always run the worst team in the league...on purpose. So changing Paul's opinion on that has been the most critical thing. Otherwise he'd be gone this summer to Dallas or wherever Howard is going (just guessing), Griffin be damned.

  14. #72
    Raptors Republic All-Star wallz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New Brunswick
    Posts
    2,244
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    If he had say in where he went, he never would have landed with the Clippers. IT WAS NOT HIS FIRST CHOICE. Don't confuse other teams being scared to make offers with Paul choosing his destination. If any quality players says their priority is to play for a team willing to spend on a winner, that will scare away any small market team that isn't already a contender (ie. OKC, SAS). The same way that if a young player said something like "I want to play somewhere where I get X minutes or get to start", it will scare away any team looking to add them without such a guaranteed opportunity.

    Paul had been quite public about his desire to play for a team willing to spend on a winner. He also said that could be in NOH...But it clearly could never happen there because they could never afford it, especially at that time. There was much speculation that despite Griffin's presence, Paul would be wary to stay and play for the most notoriously cheap and uninterested in success owner in Sterling. That's why I said the Doc deal put it over the top. Not only did it show Sterling would spend, but that he would spend in ways required to build a winner, not just to pay a star (and sell some tickets). Despite being in LA, Sterling had always run the worst team in the league...on purpose. So changing Paul's opinion on that has been the most critical thing. Otherwise he'd be gone this summer to Dallas or wherever Howard is going (just guessing), Griffin be damned.
    Again, all I'm saying is that Paul wouldn't have been traded to the Clippers had they not had a solid young core revolving around Griffin. Do you think he would agree to exercise his player option the year after if the Clippers didn't even have another allstar on the team? The clippers wouldn't have made the deal if Paul didn't make that agreement. I don't care if there weren't many options for him, that doesn't matter. He is a smart guy, he understood that the Clippers was the best available team to join (and their willingness to spend played a part as well)

  15. #73
    Raptors Republic Veteran white men can't jump's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7,764
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I don't even know why I'm still arguing this when originally I also made the point that the Clippers assets at the time of the Paul deal were not spectacular. The Raps can beat a trade offer of Gordon, Kaman, Aminu and a 1st rd pick for a star player. And JV is a more attractive piece to build around than Griffin, though this is my opinion and I'm sure many will argue Griffin's value. If your rationale for tanking is to accumulate assets that include, or can fetch a franchise-calibre player, I'd argue we have such assets.

    JV is a franchise cornerstone: a 2-way C with an incredibly efficient offensive package and the intangibles of a true great (leadership, charisma, motor, consistency). Griffin is a dunking athletic player who has not expanded his offense, still has not committed to playing D, and has fairly bad intangibles....No leadership, an inconsistent motor, seems to care more about the spectacular play than the right play.

    DeMar, Ross, Lowry, Gay, Amir and whatever picks are thrown around....and yes, even Bargs depending on the suitors...are all pretty solid trade assets. Better than that with which the Clips accomplished a deal. Again....Kaman is a pretty shitty player. He's maybe worse defensively than Bargs in every way. And he was coming off a horrible season before the trade (also similar to Bargs). Gordon. I can't decide if he's a better player than DeMar. More talented, sure...but he also has a horrible attitude, a fragile, tweener body, and doesn't utilize his talents as he could. There's certainly an argument to be made that DeMar is a better asset and player in many situations. You know he'll get as far as he can take his talent, he'll play every game he can, be a good teammate and only care about winning. I can't say any of those are true for Gordon. Aminu is really the best player-asset they got in the deal, as he has good intangibles and a certain niche in the NBA that fits any team, be it a bottomfeeder or contender. I see Ross as a good comparison because of his niche being a 3 and D guy, that makes him someone any team would want on a rookie deal. The Raps can trade 2-3 players and still have a couple of solid guys around JV and any new guy(s) as well.

    Seriously, why are we tanking? Yes, you can land a legit franchise player, or you can end up accumulating assets that are eerily similar to the ones we already have. And oh yeah, we may have a legit franchise player in JV. Not every one explodes in their rookie year (see Kobe, Dirk, Nash, Parker, Harden, and many others for examples). And you know, some are assumed to be in a strong rookie year, like Griffin, and then seem to stall/regress afterwards (Tyreke Evans is another example of this IMO). You can even "blow it up" without tanking and trade 2-3 good assets like the Clips did for a franchise-calibre player to put beside JV for the next 4-5 years. And again, our assets are at least as good as what htey got a deal done with.

  16. #74
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Dino4life wrote: View Post
    Lebron was not traded, he walked out in free agency, the sign & trade is CBA provision so teams dont get shafted when their players walk out, like Shaq Did to orlando. If the Cavs had a choice you think for 1 second they would have traded him ?

    Kobe was not traded, the pick was traded, and because in the NBA you cant trade before the new season, they had to pick him for the lakers, but the lakers chose him. Dirk was a draft trade that was targeted before the draft by the mavs.
    Chauncey was a free agent that's what i wrote.
    So no, Trade is not an option it hasn't happened since those 80's players you discredit.

    The only alternative is Free Agency and we all know how that works out in Toronto
    Wow. Now you're deciding what is a trade and what is not a trade? That's ridiculous.
    LeBron was traded. 1 team had no choice if they wanted assets, but it's still a trade-- both teams received something in a transaction: That's the definition of a trade.

    Worse, to say that draft day trades are not trades when they ARE the type of trade that crushes your theory is incredibly convenient. Draft day trades are the perfect trade to bring up because in most cases the better team, a team that did not dive/become a bottom feeder gets a highly sought asset. The Lakers were on the cusps of being a consistent playoff team again when they traded their starting Center for a teenager just coming out of high school. Dallas, another team that did not dive to get a high draft pick selected Tractor Traylor...I'll say that again...Mr. I had eating issues when I was at Michigan and some fool just stocked my fridge for the rest of my life Traylor for a little known German kid that Charles Barkley recommended that they look at.

    Isn't the argument that you think diving is the only way to get a franchise player? Draft day trades disprove that theory. Even this past year, Sixers didn't dive, they fought like heck trying to make the playoffs. And on draft night they moved up to get the guy they think will change their future by trading away their all-star. You're saying that if it works out, they didn't give up Jrue to get better? Those trades don't count? Tell that to Vlade who was happy in LA, to Jrue whose life is about to dramatically change, Bryan Colangelo who can tie all his failures to that Jermaine O'Neal trade that didn't workout...Please.

  17. Like iblastoff liked this post
  18. #75
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote white men can't jump wrote: View Post
    If he had say in where he went, he never would have landed with the Clippers. IT WAS NOT HIS FIRST CHOICE. Don't confuse other teams being scared to make offers with Paul choosing his destination. If any quality players says their priority is to play for a team willing to spend on a winner, that will scare away any small market team that isn't already a contender (ie. OKC, SAS). The same way that if a young player said something like "I want to play somewhere where I get X minutes or get to start", it will scare away any team looking to add them without such a guaranteed opportunity.

    Paul had been quite public about his desire to play for a team willing to spend on a winner. He also said that could be in NOH...But it clearly could never happen there because they could never afford it, especially at that time. There was much speculation that despite Griffin's presence, Paul would be wary to stay and play for the most notoriously cheap and uninterested in success owner in Sterling. That's why I said the Doc deal put it over the top. Not only did it show Sterling would spend, but that he would spend in ways required to build a winner, not just to pay a star (and sell some tickets). Despite being in LA, Sterling had always run the worst team in the league...on purpose. So changing Paul's opinion on that has been the most critical thing. Otherwise he'd be gone this summer to Dallas or wherever Howard is going (just guessing), Griffin be damned.
    Dude, you're wrong about this. Paul had the second year of his contract that he could opt out of, and he used that as leverage to dictate which team he ended up with. He was only ever going to end up in a handful of cities, and LA was one of them.

  19. #76
    Raptors Republic Rookie Lefty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    36
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote magoon wrote: View Post
    The Pistons clearly don't intend to tank - they're making a serious play for Andre Iguodala, which is the opposite of a tank move. The Bucks are openly shopping for a quality SG to replace Monta Ellis and have all but declared they're going to offer Brandon Jennings a max deal; it doesn't look like they're tanking either, because if they were they'd just start Giannis Alphabethands at SG and give him burn. And Atlanta is too soon to call; they have a ton of cap space and the opportunity to buy free agents, So we're down to seven, and the Magic probably aren't going to tank purposefully - they're in the later stages of a rebuild and it doesn't make sense for them.
    Pistons- Roster is comparable to ours, if not worse (Iggy is not happening)
    Bucks- Jennings doesn't wanna play for them, even with Jennings Bucks are worse than us
    Hawks- can go either way
    Magic- will suck next year. Ain't it makes sense for them considering next year's draft
    SO you've got 6 teams who will almost definitely suck, along with 4 more maybe's. Not the best of odds.


    Quote magoon wrote: View Post
    You're forgetting the other option, which is "remove other teams' problems." See Dallas openly offering their #13 last week to anybody who was willing to take Shawn Marion's contract off their hands. There's going to be more of that, as contending teams do their best to strip out the parts they don't need or can't use.

    We are not in a position to take on more salary. We're right up there with the luxury tax.

  20. #77
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    I've already said my piece on the topic but I want to throw a few random thoughts out there...

    First off, the whole "2 championships in 28 years for #1 picks with the team that drafted them" was a quirky stat thrown around on the draft broadcast that some of you are running way too far with, mostly out of context. Do not get it confused - the best players in the NBA have always been drafted in the top end of the lottery. That's the way it has always been, that's the way it is currently and that's the way it will be in the future.

    Secondly, Unless you're one of the handful of lucky franchises (LA, NY, Miami, et al) in the league who can afford to build their rosters in unconventional ways, the best way for the other 23-24 teams in the league to become a contender is through the lottery, and more specifically, the top end of the lottery.

    Beyond all that, this shouldn't be a hypothetical debate about what the best way to build a contender is. This isn't a hypothetical team that we are dealing with after all - we know what the current Raptors roster looks like and we know how much all of those said players currently make. We know how those players have performed during their careers leading up to now, and we have an educated view on what type of trade assets they have available to improve their team. Even the more optimistic supporters of this team seem to admit that they're a 7-10 seed next season... that shouldn't the type of team that you have reservations about breaking up.

    Anyone who says we're a "Spencer Hawes away" from being a contender in the East is crazy.

    Anyone who thinks that grabbing the 7-8 seed two years in a row and losing 4-1 in the first round to an actual contender is building a "winning culture" that will attract a franchise level player (which almost everyone seems to agree that we need to become a real threat) is also crazy. Furthermore, how do we sign that max level player if the existing core is still here?

    And finally, for the last time... Rebuilding is more than just giving away your attractive players and gunning for the #1 pick. You want to give yourself the best chance to draft high, that's true, but you also are harvesting cap flexibility and future prospects in the process.
    Last edited by Fully; Sun Jun 30th, 2013 at 02:07 PM.

  21. #78
    Raptors Republic All-Star Fully's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Actually one more: Dallas landed Nowitzki has a direct result of their "tank". They drafted Traylor high in the lottery, thanks to being terrible the previous season, and then moved him on draft night for Nowitzki. No tank means no Traylor, which means no Nowitzki. Just because it was technically a "trade" doesn't mean it wasn't a result of their tank the season before... These types of options open up when you are drafting high.

    Also, anyone arguing that the Divac-for-Bryant trade is an example why tanking doesn't work is also misguided. The Lakers did exactly what a lot of the rebuild fans are advocating - they moved a known commodity in the now (Divac) for a chance of something much greater in the future (Bryant). This is actually an endorsement for rebuilding and raising our future ceiling, not vice versa.

  22. Like Mediumcore liked this post
  23. #79
    Raptors Republic Starter
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    448
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Just one question for the people who are against tanking and rebuilding: if building through free agency and trading is as effective or as preferential as you think, then why do the bulk of GMs in mid and small market cities prefer tobuild their teams through the draft?

    Could it be that you armchair GMs have no idea how difficult it is to build a team that way and completely ignore the fact that just as much luck is required as through the draft?

    Naw, you guys probably know better than the people being paid to run nba franchises.

  24. Like Mediumcore, JStockton, wallz liked this post
  25. #80
    Raptors Republic All-Star
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,319
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Fully wrote: View Post
    Actually one more: Dallas landed Nowitzki has a direct result of their "tank". They drafted Traylor high in the lottery, thanks to being terrible the previous season, and then moved him on draft night for Nowitzki. No tank means no Traylor, which means no Nowitzki. Just because it was technically a "trade" doesn't mean it wasn't a result of their tank the season before... These types of options open up when you are drafting high.

    Also, anyone arguing that the Divac-for-Bryant trade is an example why tanking doesn't work is also misguided. The Lakers did exactly what a lot of the rebuild fans are advocating - they moved a known commodity in the now (Divac) for a chance of something much greater in the future (Bryant). This is actually an endorsement for rebuilding and raising our future ceiling, not vice versa.
    What!? Do you read what you type down? IF a team trades back in the draft, how, if they were successful could they have not just picked up that asset? People were not clamoring for some random German kid. My point with that one was that Dallas didn't dive to get the kid, they played their buts off, but sucked. Trading Divac, just like trading Jrue, just like trading Jermaine O'Neal are trading assets that have been built up through a level of success. THE OPPOSITE OF DIVING. IT'S WHAT I'M ADVOCATING!....In other words use the players the Raps have now, try to win, and surprisingly all the players the Raps have will increase in value making it possible to trade into the lottery.

    When teams dive it has to be a multi year plan. By the time your core of young guys develop you need to be able to surround them with the right kind of veteran players, otherwise, they leave OR your team sucks. This is why the Kings suck, but a team that started rebuilding around the same time like the Cavs is on the up. Cavs have Andy a vet who is pure effort, they drafted for Triston who's another effort player, etc., they planned everything down to even the personality type they were looking for. Meanwhile the Kings are a DC blowup away from being what the Clippers used to be: all high draft picks, no results.

    Furthermore, you have to plan a dive well in advance: What type of team do you want? What are the best future drafts for those kinds of players? How many years will it take for my team's centerpiece to develop? When and how do I surround that player with the right vets at the right time?

    You need vets like Sam Mitchell who are player/coaches first, then you need vets who know how to win when the pieces you got are ready to win. I'm not saying diving is impossible, I'm saying it's not some simple process, and there are much easier ways to succeed. The easiest is to create assets internally and sell high. That works in Soccer, and baseball (minor league talent) as well -- there's a reason for that.

    So why trade into the draft? Because all those vets are already on the team. You're team is literally years ahead of a team that dives. What's best is you don't even have to make it to the playoffs, Sixers didn't. Make a run, highlight your best young players and see what their value is before the draft. That takes a lot less effort than the years it takes to properly build a team through tanking.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •