Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tim Leiweke and Wiggins

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

  • Craiger wrote: View Post
    is it? Can I see the #s to back that up?
    How about the numbers that support tanking leads to a championship? That would be 0, as in ZERO

    Comment


    • p00ka wrote: View Post
      How about the numbers that support tanking leads to a championship? That would be 0, as in ZERO
      The Celtics won 29 and 32 games in 77-78 and 78-79 before drafting Bird #6.

      The Pistons went about acquiring young players like Bill Laimbeer and Vinnie Johnson around '82. They drafted Isiah #2 in '81. They went 4 years in playoffs, 6 out, before starting a run of 9 seasons in with 3 finals appearances and 2 championships that was built upon Isiah.

      The Bulls had missed playoffs 7 of 9 years and 3 straight before MJ who was drafted #3.

      The Rockets went from NBA finals in '81 to first round exit in '82 to 14 wins in '83 and '29 wins in '84. What was the plan? Sampson in '83 and Hakeem in '84. They then went to the finals 2 seasons later, 13 of 14 playoff appearances and eventually 2 titles built around Hakeem.

      The Celtics in 2007 tanked like few have ever tanked before. It ended up backfiring on them. They went from #2 to #5 pick after lottery. They then turned all their prospects, cap space, and draft picks into a championship team.


      So did all those teams 'tank'? No. But The Rockets and Celtics in 2007 most certainly did. Were the results always instantaneous? No - but talent was acquired and championships were won with the proceeds of high lottery picks and some previously bad teams.

      From 1980 until 1999 all the championship teams except the 3 Celtics championship teams *EDIT* and the '83 76ers Toney at #8 but team was Dr. J and Moses Malone *EDIT* were built on the foundation of a top 3 pick (Magic, Jordan, Thomas, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan). Those 3 Celtics teams featured a #6 pick.

      Since '99, just 3 championships have been won based on a top 3 pick - all San Antonio.

      The rest were free agency (Shaq to Lakers for 3, Miami for 2) and smart management acquisitions/building (Pistons for 1, Lakers for 2, Dallas for 1, Boston for 1, Miami for 1).


      So what have we learned here?

      From 1980 until 1999 all the teams most important pieces were obtained through the draft high end of the draft (all but 3 championships featured a top 3 pick).

      Since 1999 championship teams have been built through a number of ways (could the explosion in player salaries and the CBA account for this?).
      Last edited by mcHAPPY; Sun Nov 10, 2013, 10:02 PM. Reason: forgot about 1983 76ers

      Comment


      • peanutwoozle wrote: View Post
        ...a true all-star to me is someone who makes it multiple years as well as made it in recent history (David West doesn't count anymore, neither does Granger).....
        I hate this kind of stuff, where somebody takes a word and changes the definition so they can be right in what they said.

        You know who a true all-star is? Somebody who was voted into the all-star game. Get over yourself.

        peanutwoozle wrote: View Post
        ...I don't see any moves here being used to clear cap space, all they did was trade JO, and it only cleared up 10Mil the following year.....
        How is clearing 10 million the following year not clearing cap space?

        I have a simple suggestion. Let's agree to all use the English language on this forum. The kind generally accepted in school, not some made up version you invented.

        Comment


        • Puffer wrote: View Post
          I hate this kind of stuff, where somebody takes a word and changes the definition so they can be right in what they said.

          You know who a true all-star is? Somebody who was voted into the all-star game. Get over yourself.

          How is clearing 10 million the following year not clearing cap space?

          I have a simple suggestion. Let's agree to all use the English language on this forum. The kind generally accepted in school, not some made up version you invented.
          if theres one thing i bring to this forum its my immaturity im sorry i cant help it but son, you got burned pretty bad
          What they got to say now? Nothing they can say now. Mobbin' on the low. Winnin' on the low
          The city embraced me, made me feel at home. The only difference [between Compton and Toronto] for me is the cold. -DeMar
          No Where Near the South Side #WeTheNorth

          Comment


          • Puffer wrote: View Post
            I hate this kind of stuff, where somebody takes a word and changes the definition so they can be right in what they said.

            You know who a true all-star is? Somebody who was voted into the all-star game. Get over yourself.
            so by that logic then Devin Harris should still be considered an All-Star, right? As he was voted in, so should Jameer Nelson. They are what I would call former all-stars

            Puffer wrote: View Post
            How is clearing 10 million the following year not clearing cap space?



            I have a simple suggestion. Let's agree to all use the English language on this forum. The kind generally accepted in school, not some made up version you invented.
            They were still over the cap (or were under it by a very miniscule amount). So it didn't clear any cap space for them.

            Comment


            • p00ka wrote: View Post
              How about the numbers that support tanking leads to a championship? That would be 0, as in ZERO
              its not, but thanks for asking your same flawed question with an inaccurate answer for the 100th time.

              Comment


              • Matt52 wrote: View Post
                The Celtics won 29 and 32 games in 77-78 and 78-79 before drafting Bird #6.

                The Pistons went about acquiring young players like Bill Laimbeer and Vinnie Johnson around '82. They drafted Isiah #2 in '81. They went 4 years in playoffs, 6 out, before starting a run of 9 seasons in with 3 finals appearances and 2 championships that was built upon Isiah.

                The Bulls had missed playoffs 7 of 9 years and 3 straight before MJ who was drafted #3.

                The Rockets went from NBA finals in '81 to first round exit in '82 to 14 wins in '83 and '29 wins in '84. What was the plan? Sampson in '83 and Hakeem in '84. They then went to the finals 2 seasons later, 13 of 14 playoff appearances and eventually 2 titles built around Hakeem.

                The Celtics in 2007 tanked like few have ever tanked before. It ended up backfiring on them. They went from #2 to #5 pick after lottery. They then turned all their prospects, cap space, and draft picks into a championship team.


                So did all those teams 'tank'? No. But The Rockets and Celtics in 2007 most certainly did. Were the results always instantaneous? No - but talent was acquired and championships were won with the proceeds of high lottery picks and some previously bad teams.

                From 1980 until 1999 all the championship teams except the 3 Celtics championship teams *EDIT* and the '83 76ers Toney at #8 but team was Dr. J and Moses Malone *EDIT* were built on the foundation of a top 3 pick (Magic, Jordan, Thomas, Hakeem, Robinson, Duncan). Those 3 Celtics teams featured a #6 pick.

                Since '99, just 3 championships have been won based on a top 3 pick - all San Antonio.

                The rest were free agency (Shaq to Lakers for 3, Miami for 2) and smart management acquisitions/building (Pistons for 1, Lakers for 2, Dallas for 1, Boston for 1, Miami for 1).


                So what have we learned here?

                From 1980 until 1999 all the teams most important pieces were obtained through the draft high end of the draft (all but 3 championships featured a top 3 pick).

                Since 1999 championship teams have been built through a number of ways (could the explosion in player salaries and the CBA account for this?).
                Wow,,, all that and you didn't once tell me 1 team that tanked and won a chip through it.

                1. 77-79 Celtics. Well, the 2nd season of that came after drafting Bird as a junior (though he stayed in college his senior year... worked a little different back then) but okay, so you've told me how few games the Celtics won those two years, but haven't explained how it was they tanked. What kind of moves did they make that the Raps could follow in their model? What assets did they purposely dump to get draft picks that paid off, and be bad for 2 years? Does simply losing a lot mean tanking? If that's the case, there's a shitload more evidence in NBA history that it doesn't work. In fact the more modern day Celtics twice tried going after it hard, 20 (Duncan) and 30 (Oden/KD) years later, both times beat by the lottery. The real interesting thing about those 2 seasons, is that while losing even fewer games in 78-79, while Bird was finishing his college career, they traded 3 1st round picks for the '79 draft (#s 3,9,21) for Bob McAdoo. A trade Auerbach almost left the Celtics over, and they unloaded him a few months later for ML Carr,,,, yeah, ML Carr who? 3 first rounders!

                2. Isiah Pistons. Here we go again. They were a bad team, they did well in the draft. Just how is it they tanked 33 years ago? What's their tanking "model". Once again, they were simply a bad team and drafted well, or is there something in the steps they took to get bad, that the current Raptors could follow the example of? Did they unload their best players to be bad? Since you brought them up, just wondering.

                3. Bulls. See above as in how did they tank? You know, something at all along lines of unloading their talent to get bad and draft high, like y'all are talking about.

                4. Rockets. See above as in how did they tank?

                5. 2007 Celtics. Really? You're actually trying to use the Celtics 2nd backfired tank in a decade (Duncan, KD/Oden) in response as a team that won through tanking? BTW, was Pierce's injury (out 35 games) part of the tanking model? Who should the Raptors injure for half the season to tank? That aside, tanking didn't deliver a championship to them through being bad and drafting high. They got to their chips through trades, unless you're suggesting the Raptors could tank and get a KG and Ray Allen in trades. What would be your example of how to do that?

                At the end of the day, you haven't added 1 to the list of 0 I spoke about. You speak of high draft picks often being the better players. Yup. You've spoken of most chips being won with high draft picks on the roster. Yup. But who has won a chip through purposely unloading talent to get bad and draft high? I can provide a long list of teams that haven't succeeded in this fashion, but still listening for one model of purposely being bad to draft high, and winning through drafting that great player.

                Comment


                • Craiger wrote: View Post
                  its not, but thanks for asking your same flawed question with an inaccurate answer for the 100th time.
                  Thanks for your input, but I think I'll stick to my opinion that your arguments that a team has won through tanking are flawed. You guys keep inventing new versions of some model that you call tanking. It's getting hilarious.

                  Comment


                  • p00ka wrote: View Post
                    Thanks for your input, but I think I'll stick to my opinion that your arguments that a team has won through tanking are flawed. You guys keep inventing new versions of some model that you call tanking. It's getting hilarious.
                    You are ofcourse welcome to stick to your opinion. Just as I am mine.

                    You guys
                    is not me or my opinion

                    Comment


                    • peanutwoozle wrote: View Post
                      so by that logic then Devin Harris should still be considered an All-Star, right? As he was voted in, so should Jameer Nelson. They are what I would call former all-stars...
                      See, you are doing it again. When you preface a statement with "they are what I would call" then you are acknowledging that you have a prefered way of using a term.

                      From the Free Online Dictionary (bookmark this linkn: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/) "a player selected for an all-star team."

                      Comment


                      • p00ka wrote: View Post
                        Wow,,, all that and you didn't once tell me 1 team that tanked and won a chip through it.

                        1. 77-79 Celtics. Well, the 2nd season of that came after drafting Bird as a junior (though he stayed in college his senior year... worked a little different back then) but okay, so you've told me how few games the Celtics won those two years, but haven't explained how it was they tanked. What kind of moves did they make that the Raps could follow in their model? What assets did they purposely dump to get draft picks that paid off, and be bad for 2 years? Does simply losing a lot mean tanking? If that's the case, there's a shitload more evidence in NBA history that it doesn't work. In fact the more modern day Celtics twice tried going after it hard, 20 (Duncan) and 30 (Oden/KD) years later, both times beat by the lottery. The real interesting thing about those 2 seasons, is that while losing even fewer games in 78-79, while Bird was finishing his college career, they traded 3 1st round picks for the '79 draft (#s 3,9,21) for Bob McAdoo. A trade Auerbach almost left the Celtics over, and they unloaded him a few months later for ML Carr,,,, yeah, ML Carr who? 3 first rounders!

                        2. Isiah Pistons. Here we go again. They were a bad team, they did well in the draft. Just how is it they tanked 33 years ago? What's their tanking "model". Once again, they were simply a bad team and drafted well, or is there something in the steps they took to get bad, that the current Raptors could follow the example of? Did they unload their best players to be bad? Since you brought them up, just wondering.

                        3. Bulls. See above as in how did they tank? You know, something at all along lines of unloading their talent to get bad and draft high, like y'all are talking about.

                        4. Rockets. See above as in how did they tank?

                        5. 2007 Celtics. Really? You're actually trying to use the Celtics 2nd backfired tank in a decade (Duncan, KD/Oden) in response as a team that won through tanking? BTW, was Pierce's injury (out 35 games) part of the tanking model? Who should the Raptors injure for half the season to tank? That aside, tanking didn't deliver a championship to them through being bad and drafting high. They got to their chips through trades, unless you're suggesting the Raptors could tank and get a KG and Ray Allen in trades. What would be your example of how to do that?

                        At the end of the day, you haven't added 1 to the list of 0 I spoke about. You speak of high draft picks often being the better players. Yup. You've spoken of most chips being won with high draft picks on the roster. Yup. But who has won a chip through purposely unloading talent to get bad and draft high? I can provide a long list of teams that haven't succeeded in this fashion, but still listening for one model of purposely being bad to draft high, and winning through drafting that great player.


                        Ahhhh, so now you want to change the parameters. It is not enough to intentionally be bad. You have to have traded away all your assets in the process AND you have to keep the draft pick. I see.

                        But a question: did you read my post?

                        Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        So did all those teams 'tank'? No. But The Rockets and Celtics in 2007 most certainly did. Were the results always instantaneous? No - but talent was acquired and championships were won with the proceeds of high lottery picks and some previously bad teams.
                        You wrote that whole reply when I already said the Pistons, Bulls, and late '70s Celtics teams did not tank. Clearly you missed the point though. Teams that were stuck in dreadful losing cycles turned it around with a high draft pick followed by good managerial decisions. There are always exceptions but, for the most part, you're going to find your superstars to lead championship teams in the lottery as history has shown. It might not have met your criteria of tanking but the fact remains: bad teams become good through acquiring elite talent in the draft and then management finding the pieces to fit around the elite talent.


                        However, on to the matter at hand regarding winning championships through tanking:

                        Evidence of the Rockets tank in 1983-84 (the team that ushered in the lottery as it so happens!):

                        1983-84 Houston Rockets
                        Why do we have a draft lottery? Because of what happened in 1984.

                        In his book “Tip-Off,” a thorough account of the pivotal 1984 NBA draft, Filip Bondy dedicates a chapter to tanking entitled “Embracing Defeat.”

                        The ’84 draft included Hakeem Olajuwon, Sam Bowie, Michael Jordan, Sam Perkins and Charles Barkley. Bondy recounts some of the odd behavior of the Houston Rockets, who appeared to be maneuvering for the right to draft Olajuwon, a star at the University of Houston, with Jordan as a nice Plan B. (The right to make the first choice in the draft was decided by coin flip.)

                        As the Rockets nosedived, everyone noticed.

                        "Weird things were happening. A lot of funny stuff going on, leaving a dark mark on the integrity of the game," said Pat Williams, then the general manager of the Philadelphia 76ers.

                        According to Dr. Jack Ramsay, then coach of the Portland Trail Blazers, "There was a lot of reason for concern, for suspicion."

                        As reported by Bondy, it was Frank Layden, the former Utah Jazz coach, who spilled the beans on the Rocket science: "They were losing on purpose. That was told to me by one of their executives, that it was a business decision. And that’s why we went to the lottery system. It’s still going on a little bit today, anyway."

                        Bondy writes: "The NBA’s image suffered a severe blow that spring from all the suspicious losing. … The league was so concerned about the perceived chicanery that its board of governors instituted a lottery system weeks after the 1984 draft to assure such nonsense would never happen again."

                        http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...tell-the-truth
                        What happened with the Rockets? Rudy T retired and Moses Malone, their best player, signed with Philly as a free agent. They didn't actually have to try too hard to become bad. Even their 1980-81 Finals run was done on the back of a 40-42 regular season.


                        Evidence of 2006-07 Celtics:

                        2006-07 Boston Celtics
                        In 2007, with Greg Oden and Kevin Durant as the big lottery prizes, several teams were openly questioned about apparent tanking, including the Boston Celtics, Milwaukee Bucks and Memphis Grizzlies, the three teams that ended up with the best chance of drafting Oden or Durant.

                        In one notorious game late in the season, the Celtics, playing at home, led the woeful Bobcats 69-51 late in the third quarter -- and managed to lose the game by eight points, enhancing their draft positioning. Of course, Celtics coach Doc Rivers denied tanking charges. As Steve Bulpett reported in the Boston Herald: “Rivers insisted there was nothing sinister about leaving Paul Pierce (game-high 23 points) on the bench for the fourth quarter and letting the quintet of Sebastian Telfair, Ryan Gomes, Gerald Green, Allan Ray and Leon Powe stay on the parquet as the lead -- still at 10 with nine minutes left in the game -- disappeared.”

                        In the final week of the season, the Celtics and Bucks, both maneuvering for the best possible draft position, played each other and gave DNPs to high scorers Paul Pierce, Al Jefferson, Wally Szczerbiak, Michael Redd and Mo Williams.

                        After the game, the Associated Press reported:

                        Ryan Gomes had 13 through three quarters, but watched from the bench in the fourth as Boston clinched the worst record in the Eastern Conference and second worst in the league.

                        "I probably (would have played), but since we were in the hunt for a high draft pick, of course things are different," Gomes said. "I understand that. Hopefully things get better. Now that we clinched at least having the second-most balls in the lottery, the last three games we'll see what happens. We'll see if we can go out and finish some games."

                        http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/pos...tell-the-truth
                        I 100% disagree on the C's. No way they acquire that #5 pick without tanking, no way Ray Allen is acquired without that #5 pick, and no way Garnett joins Pierce in Boston without Allen and Celtic prospects/picks. As an aside, you're also making a huge assumption here: who has said that the only outcome of a tank is to draft and develop talent? For the Raptors, it has always been about clearing bad contracts and getting prospects/picks. As for your question as to what my example would be to get KG and Allen-type players? NOTHING. The Raptors don't have the assets nor cap space to make such trades. That is the whole point.



                        If you want to debate the parameters of tanking, have at it! If you want to continue supporting a flawed roster with little room to get better due to the CBA, have at it! But in the end, here is what matters:
                        1) previously bad teams get a bit of luck combined with good management to acquire top talent that leads to championships for teams who acquired their top talent through the draft (Showtime Lakers *although not bad, just average and very lucky*, late '80s Pistons, Bulls, Rockets, Spurs).
                        2) teams use their assets to make trades to win championships (Boston '07, Pistons '04, Dallas '11, Miami '06, Showtime Lakers, Kobe/Gasol Lakers).
                        3) teams use free agency to obtain their superstar to win championship (Lakers with Shaq, Miami with Bosh/LBJ, 76ers with Malone).

                        So looking above, which option provides the best hope and opportunity for Toronto?
                        #3? Nope. No cap space with current core. Plus Toronto has a stench of losing.
                        #2? Nope. What assets can the Raptors trade to bring in a Shaq, Allen, Garnett talent or have teams give up unprotected draft picks? What established superstar does the team already have who would stay?
                        #1? Yup. This is the Raptors best hope and 33 of last 34 champions have had a cornerstone of their team acquired in the lottery.


                        To end, I am going to make an assumption here: you believe in karma. The reason I assume is because what really is the difference between being horribly bad intentionally or naturally? Naturally bad shows poor management and the team is going nowhere regardless in that situation. And, here is the kicker, the Raptors are already naturally bad - as evidenced by Colangelo's decisions the last few years and current roster.

                        It is time to close the Colangelo chapter on the Raptors.

                        #BlowItUpAlreadyMasai


                        *EDIT*

                        And this post from another thread is relevant as well:

                        Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        Did teams tank or were they just naturally bad and ended up getting Bird, Isiah, Jordan, Hakeem, and Duncan?

                        In the end, what is the difference? The only thing I can think of is karma. In all those teams, bad teams get top talent and win championships.

                        And here is the kicker, all of those teams won within 9 years of obtaining their franchise talent. Why is that important? Because 4 year rookie contract plus 5 year max extension. Bird won in 3 years; Isiah in 7; Jordan in 7; Hakeem in 9; and Duncan in 1.
                        Last edited by mcHAPPY; Mon Nov 11, 2013, 09:26 AM.

                        Comment


                        • Puffer wrote: View Post
                          See, you are doing it again. When you preface a statement with "they are what I would call" then you are acknowledging that you have a prefered way of using a term.

                          From the Free Online Dictionary (bookmark this linkn: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/) "a player selected for an all-star team."
                          like I said before, there's more to it than just making it once in your life, do you consider guys like Devin Harris, Mehmet Okur, Jameer Nelson, Josh Howard, etc... All Stars then?

                          By the way, I have heard experts refer to players who haven't made the ASG in a while as former all-stars as well.
                          Last edited by peanutwoozle; Mon Nov 11, 2013, 10:57 AM.

                          Comment


                          • p00ka wrote: View Post
                            Wow,,, all that and you didn't once tell me 1 team that tanked and won a chip through it.
                            I think you're getting too hung-up on the term "tanking".

                            Most pro-tankers simply want to rebuild/retool this team's core, because it's not very good, fits poorly together and is capped-out. The idea is to reshape this roster through trade, with a focus on the long-term, which probably results in the team taking a step back this season (ie: trading veteran players for prospects & draft picks). In that case, they may as well try to improve their draft positioning in the meantime.

                            By pointing out all those championship-caliber teams that were built primarily around a top-5 draft pick, pro-tankers are illustrating the similarity in their long-term approach. You are arguing that none of those teams necessarily tanked to acquire their top-5 draft pick, but the method/manner of winding up with a top-5 pick is irrelevant for this conversation. The facts speak for themselves about the [potential] impact of adding a top-5 draft pick (especially in such a loaded draft).

                            Pro-tankers would also point out that trying to turn the Raptors' own pick into a top-5 pick is not the only part of the "tanking" strategy. Asset acquisition (prospects and additional draft picks), clearing cap space (to pursue free agents) and building a better team (talent & fit) are also integral parts to the strategy that often get overlooked by anti-tankers.
                            Last edited by CalgaryRapsFan; Mon Nov 11, 2013, 12:49 PM.

                            Comment


                            • TFC and the Raps?

                              Not a Wiggins idea here, more to do with Lieweke (wasn't sure what thread to put this in). I'm not much of a soccer fan so I don't know what to make of TFC's moves. Lieweke spoke very frankly about his plans for TFC. Go out and get the players that the team deserves. He has said the same thing about the Raptors. Did he meet his goal for the TFC? Does that bode well for the raps? Is it unrelated? I'm looking at you, Arse.

                              Comment




                              • Hmmm
                                Twitter - @thekid_it

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X