Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Signs Of Tanking?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Nilanka wrote: View Post
    They just made poor selections (in obvious hindsight), but they definitely had the opportunity to turn their franchise around.

    2004: Picked Okafor 2nd - Could've picked Deng or Iguodala
    Okafor won ROTY and was considered either the best or second best plyaer in the draft at the time depending on whether you wanted potential or a guy who could contribute right away.
    2005: Picked Felton 5th & May 13th - Could've picked Bynum, Granger, or Lee
    Bynum wasn't projected to go top 5 and they already had Okafor. Granger was the 17th pick so again not projected that high, same goes for Lee who was picked 30th.
    2006: Picked Morrison 3rd - Could've picked Roy or Gay
    One of the worst picks of all time, I'll give you this.
    2007: Picked Wright 8th - Could've picked Noah
    Still had Okafor patrolling the paint putting up 14-11 and 2.6 blocks, wtf would you take another C for?
    2008: Picked Augustin 9th - Could've picked B.Lopez or Hibbert
    Again still had Okafor, why go for a center? Felton was struggling shooting 41% FG and 28% from 3 also.
    2009: Picked Henderson 12th - Could've picked Holiday or Lawson
    Already had 2 rookie-contract PGs on the roster so no.
    2011: Picked Walker 9th - Could've picked K.Thompson or K.Leonard
    Actually Walker was a good pick tbqh.
    2012: Picked MKG 2nd - Could've picked Beal, Lillard or Barnes
    Almost everyone had MKG rated as the 2nd best prospect in the draft, and the other name being tossed around was TRobb not so much those other 3.

    Getting top picks is only half the story. The other half is having a competent management/scouting department.
    Coulda, shoulda, woulda but they didn't. All of those selections were considered good at the time (except Ammo), sometimes the draft is just a crapshoot, and you don't get what you're expecting.

    magoon wrote: View Post
    2012: MKG
    2011: Kemba, Biyombo
    2010: picks traded away (it got Minnesota Luke Babbitt)
    2009: Gerald Henderson
    2008: DJ Augustin (mostly a bust)
    2007: Brandan Wright, Jared Dudley (Wright traded away for Jason Richardson; Dudley traded WITH Richardson and pick for Boris Diaw + crap)
    2006: Adam Morrison (enormous bust)
    2005: Raymond Felton (left because Charlotte was hopeless), Sean May (bust)
    2004: Emeka Okafor (trraded in 2009 for Tyson Chandler, who the Bobcats then traded away for nothing)

    Put this another way: say you had a team, right now, just composed of Bobcats picks since 2004.

    PG: Kemba, Felton, Augustin
    SG: Henderson, Dudley
    SF: MKG,
    PF: Okafor, Wright
    C: Biyombo, Zeller

    That's honestly pretty close to a playoff team right there. It's lean at small forward, obviously, and it probably tops out at 7-8 seed without the star player Charlotte's never really had. But Charlotte kept trading away valuable and promising assets for win-now. Look how well that worked out.
    Lol and you think it's acceptable to ALMOST create a playoff team with NINE top 10 picks? Thanks for proving my point man.

    Comment


    • Xixak wrote: View Post
      Coulda, shoulda, woulda but they didn't. All of those selections were considered good at the time (except Ammo), sometimes the draft is just a crapshoot, and you don't get what you're expecting.
      In this case, it's either a crapshoot, or an inability to project long-term career paths (or a bit of both).

      As I mentioned in a different thread, "projections" are just opinions of self-proclaimed internet experts. A good management team puts let's emphasis on DraftExpress, and more emphasis on their own hands-on research.

      Why TRob was ever considered a top-5 pick, I'll never know.

      Comment


      • Xixak wrote: View Post
        Might be different mentalities, but the end result is the same... High draft picks. Intentional or not Charlotte got 9 top 10 picks and 5 top 5 picks in a decade and nothing to show for it.
        well I think its alot more complex than just 'high draft picks'. But none the less I'll just quote myself:

        Bad management will make bad decisions, and at that point its really irrelevant what decisions/direction a team makes. Charlotte did a real good job of tanking (collecting assets while losing), but has done, what I'll generously call a questionable job with what to do with their proceeds. Which is what really matters in the end.
        .

        Comment


        • Craiger wrote: View Post
          well I think its alot more complex than just 'high draft picks'. But none the less I'll just quote myself:



          .
          Right but are they considered bad management in hindsight because they made bad picks, or do they make bad picks because of bad management?

          EDIT: Did Pat Riley who's considered one of the best GMs in the NBA not select Beasley right before two all-NBAers in Westbrook and Love?

          If LBJ stays in CLE and Wade walks to CHI as a result of not wanting to be surrounded by garbage any longer, are the Heat considered a team with bad management?

          Is Presti considered a good GM if Portland takes KD and he gets stuck with Oden?
          Last edited by Xixak; Wed Aug 14, 2013, 02:15 PM.

          Comment


          • Craiger wrote: View Post
            Bad management will make bad decisions, and at that point its really irrelevant what decisions/direction a team makes. Charlotte did a real good job of tanking (collecting assets while losing), but has done, what I'll generously call a questionable job with what to do with their proceeds. Which is what really matters in the end.
            I think that nicely sums up the risk/reward with a tanking strategy.

            When a team lands a stud like LBJ, Durant, Griffin, Irving, etc... with a top-3 pick, then tanking is genius. When a team lands a solid starter later in the lottery, the rebuild is a success and scouts/GM get kudos. Same goes for a team getting a rotation player with a 2nd round pick.

            The flip-side is that for every 'good' pick, there's at least an equal number of 'bad' picks. That's the real risk of tanking... but ohhh man, the potential reward is sometimes too good to resist.

            Comment


            • CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
              I think that nicely sums up the risk/reward with a tanking strategy.

              When a team lands a stud like LBJ, Durant, Griffin, Irving, etc... with a top-3 pick, then tanking is genius. When a team lands a solid starter later in the lottery, the rebuild is a success and scouts/GM get kudos. Same goes for a team getting a rotation player with a 2nd round pick.

              The flip-side is that for every 'good' pick, there's at least an equal number of 'bad' picks. That's the real risk of tanking... but ohhh man, the potential reward is sometimes too good to resist.
              This is false, there are way more bad picks than good picks. I can't remember where I posted it but there's something like an average of 2 stars in every draft. If you're in the top 5 and fail to get one while another team does, it's gonna be considered a bad pick.

              Comment


              • Xixak wrote: View Post
                Lol and you think it's acceptable to ALMOST create a playoff team with NINE top 10 picks? Thanks for proving my point man.
                As many have said before: Charlotte isn't very good at drafting (three busts in eleven top ten picks is really quite bad). Combine that with being not good at most other aspects of managing a basketball team and you've got a problem. Go back and look at past Bobcats trades: they overpay on trades all the time.

                But here is also my point: that proposed team in many ways mirrors the Raptors. At point guard they're better (Felton/Kemba probably better than Lowry/Buycks, and Augustin cancels himself out). At SG they're better (Henderson/Dudley is much better than DeRozan/Ross). At PF they're better (Okafor/Wright is better than Amir/Hansbrough). At centre Toronto is better (JV/Gray over Biyombo/Zeller). But all of these "betters" are not terribly dramatic either way unless JV really explodes this year (as we hope).

                The only position where one team is definitively better than the other is small forward and that's mostly because of Rudy, and like I said: add a good small forward to Team Hypothetical Bobcats and they'd be competing for the low end of the playoffs. That would probably be their ceiling. It's definitely ours.

                Now, take Team Hypothetical Bobcats but instead of having Michael Jordan's idiot-of-the-week drafting for them, maybe you have Masai and his draft team making decisions. In 2006 they draft, say, Rudy instead of Adam Morrison. In 2008 they draft just about anybody other than DJ Augustin - it could be Brook Lopez, could be Roy Hibbert, could be Serge Ibaka, could be George Hill, could be Nicolas Batum - hell, go into the second round of 2008 and there's Nikola Pekovic, DeAndre Jordan, Omer Asik, Mario Chalmers, Goran Dragic and Luc Mbah a Moute and all of them would be better than Augustin.

                So now you have a roster of

                PG: Kemba/Felton
                SG: Henderson/Dudley
                SF: Gay/MKG
                PF: Jordan/Okafor/Wright
                C: Zeller/Biyombo

                We've just gone from "maybe a playoff team" to "definitely a playoff team."

                tl;dr the Bobcats are historically just bad, and there's a difference between rebuilding smartly and being bad, and you keep refusing to recognize that.

                Comment


                • Xixak wrote: View Post
                  Right but are they considered bad management in hindsight because they made bad picks, or do they make bad picks because of bad management?

                  EDIT: Did Pat Riley who's considered one of the best GMs in the NBA not select Beasley right before two all-NBAers in Westbrook and Love?

                  If LBJ stays in CLE and Wade walks to CHI as a result of not wanting to be surrounded by garbage any longer, are the Heat considered a team with bad management?

                  Is Presti considered a good GM if Portland takes KD and he gets stuck with Oden?
                  Is the enemy of good perfect? Can someone who is 'good' at something not make mistakes or does that make them automatically bad?

                  Does being 'considered' one of the best automatically make one the best?

                  If LBJ stays and Wade walks, what does your machine that takes us to alternative realities tell you Pat Riley does instead? If Pritchard takes Durant, does Presti for sure take Oden? If he does, does he draft Westbrook and Harden or others instead? If he does he trade Harden or add other players?

                  I really don't know how asking impossible to answer questions gives us any sort of insight. But I think we can fairly look at a body of work and get a good idea of an answer.

                  Comment


                  • magoon wrote: View Post
                    tl;dr the Bobcats are historically just bad, and there's a difference between rebuilding smartly and being bad, and you keep refusing to recognize that.
                    Your hypothetical scenario doesn't really make much of a point because it's unlikely a team would have the same picks if they drafted different players, so let's just put that aside.

                    My point is that even when tanking for multiple years it is possible to get continuously screwed in the draft. As I already said, all of those picks except Ammo (and tbh some people were comparing him to Bird... Lord knows why) were considered good picks at the time. Basic probability dictates that it is much more likely to get unlucky in the draft than to get lucky. That's just the nature of the process. You can drop in the lottery, a team might take a star right before you do, you might have a need that you want to address that ends up costing you a good player. There's many more things that could go wrong as well.

                    And of the playoff teams that acquired a star with a high lottery pick (MIA, CHI, OKC, SAS, LAC, GSW) only OKC actually deliberately tanked.

                    Miami: Alonzo Mourning missed the entire 02-03 season due to kidney disease.

                    Chicago: Bulls missed the 07-08 playoffs by 4 games, finished with the 9th worst record and won the lottery with 1.7% odds.

                    Spurs: David Robinson 76 games in the 1996-97 season (spurs won 56 games the year before AND added Nique).

                    Clippers: Elton Brand walked in free agency, after saying he would re-sign. They also signed Baron Davis who averaged 22-8-5 the year before. The idea was to form a tandem with Brand.

                    Warriors: The aforementioned Baron Davis had just left the team in free agency. They also signed Maggette and Turiaf to try and compensate. The team was still decent but Ellis missed games due to injury and a suspension which allowed them to pick Curry 7th.

                    Comment


                    • Xixak wrote: View Post
                      Right but are they considered bad management in hindsight because they made bad picks, or do they make bad picks because of bad management?

                      EDIT: Did Pat Riley who's considered one of the best GMs in the NBA not select Beasley right before two all-NBAers in Westbrook and Love?

                      If LBJ stays in CLE and Wade walks to CHI as a result of not wanting to be surrounded by garbage any longer, are the Heat considered a team with bad management?

                      Is Presti considered a good GM if Portland takes KD and he gets stuck with Oden?
                      Dude, if you haven't noticed yet, you're on a never ending merry-go-round. A part of me has the urge to jump in and level the competition field just a bit, but you're already making most, if not all, of the same points I'd make. The thing is, none of it has an impact on tank nation, as they'll always come back to 20/20 hindsight "well that was simply bad management". Hey, I understand if you're filling a void in the dog days of summer, but be aware that you'll convince nobody, and you'll keep being circled around to the same recycled arguments, only slightly re-worded, over and over.

                      Comment


                      • p00ka wrote: View Post
                        Dude, if you haven't noticed yet, you're on a never ending merry-go-round. A part of me has the urge to jump in and level the competition field just a bit, but you're already making most, if not all, of the same points I'd make. The thing is, none of it has an impact on tank nation, as they'll always come back to 20/20 hindsight "well that was simply bad management". Hey, I understand if you're filling a void in the dog days of summer, but be aware that you'll convince nobody, and you'll keep being circled around to the same recycled arguments, only slightly re-worded, over and over.
                        I'm bored at work lol, this is more entertaining than staring at spreadsheets

                        Comment


                        • Xixak wrote: View Post
                          I'm bored at work lol, this is more entertaining than staring at spreadsheets
                          lol, understood.

                          Comment


                          • p00ka wrote: View Post
                            Dude, if you haven't noticed yet, you're on a never ending merry-go-round. A part of me has the urge to jump in and level the competition field just a bit, but you're already making most, if not all, of the same points I'd make. The thing is, none of it has an impact on tank nation, as they'll always come back to 20/20 hindsight "well that was simply bad management". Hey, I understand if you're filling a void in the dog days of summer, but be aware that you'll convince nobody, and you'll keep being circled around to the same recycled arguments, only slightly re-worded, over and over.
                            Seriously!

                            Sounds like the same thing I typed yesterday!

                            The circle continues!

                            *friendly sarcasm p00ka*

                            Comment


                            • Didn't some of you come to an agreement a week or two ago that if Ujiri can sell pieces at a good price, tanking is ok? Now you are all arguing the same things again, the same people.

                              In the end, this draft is near certain to be ridiculous at the top. If Ujiri can position the team for a short 1 year tank, then we are talking about an entirely different scenario than the Bobcats or Kings or some other oompa loompa management projects. But that requires getting good assets back and unclogging the cap space.

                              Comment


                              • BobLoblaw wrote: View Post
                                Didn't some of you come to an agreement a week or two ago that if Ujiri can sell pieces at a good price, tanking is ok? Now you are all arguing the same things again, the same people.

                                In the end, this draft is near certain to be ridiculous at the top. If Ujiri can position the team for a short 1 year tank, then we are talking about an entirely different scenario than the Bobcats or Kings or some other oompa loompa management projects. But that requires getting good assets back and unclogging the cap space.
                                Exactly.

                                No one is advocating selling Lowry or Gay or DeRozan for pennies on the dollar.

                                And no team I am aware of started a tank with JV-calibre 2nd year player already on the team. JV is the type of player teams are praying to get in the lottery. The Raptors already have him which significantly increases odds of getting another all-star talent.

                                If the last 10 years has had roughly 2 all star talents in top 5, you have a 40% chance to get one in any year. Hoping to get 2 takes you to 16% chance. Well, the Raptors already have 1. Probably a little simplistic but I would take 40% over a long run on the treadmill. If things don't work out then at the very least you can explore other options like trades with picks/prospects/cap space without having burdensome contracts.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X