Are we treadmilling?

[JawsGT]

Anthony Davis is only 22 yet, and is the second or third best player in the world.

The franchise is an injury plagued mess. They got some of the talent part right...now they need to figure out the rest of it.

Either way Davis is going to be producing wins for them for the next 6 years. A much better position to be in than the Raps currently IMO

All they got is Davis. They got their work cut our for them if they want to be contenders while he's still there. My bet is he leaves after his extension because they couldn't get it right. I'm sure moves can be made to improve the roster, they got some time and with the cap rising they may be able to lure some good free agents, but Jrue, Asik, Tyreke, these players ain't gonna cut it. And the West is so tough, if they are unable to make the WCF in the near future, I don't doubt at all that it will be another case of a superstar leaving the team that drafted him for greener pastures.

[raptors999]

All they got is Davis. They got their work cut our for them if they want to be contenders while he's still there. My bet is he leaves after his extension because they couldn't get it right. I'm sure moves can be made to improve the roster, they got some time and with the cap rising they may be able to lure some good free agents, but Jrue, Asik, Tyreke, these players ain't gonna cut it. And the West is so tough, if they are unable to make the WCF in the near future, I don't doubt at all that it will be another case of a superstar leaving the team that drafted him for greener pastures.

Monty Williams wasn't a good choice it they want to keep AD in the future. a great coach and system keeps AD.

[DanH]

Don't attack strategies by quoting examples where the execution has been terrible. Just because the Pelicans put possibly the worst possible team around AD doesn't mean that getting him isn't the biggest and most important step to a dynasty. It just means that even when you do one thing right, you have to do other things right as well. No one has ever presented tanking as an option that would override terrible basketball operations in general. In fact, it is a strategy that is perhaps more reliant on impeccable GM'ing than any other one - with a higher ceiling than other models as well.

[stooley]

Huge fan actually.

All they need to do is land the next Durant and then you are a perennial contender

its just not worth it for me. as a fan, i wouldn't want to go through what they've been doing. it could last a few more years too. or okafor could make them just good enough that they never get another shot at the top pick

[Lark Benson]

Some seriously impatient people on these forums!

Ujiri seemingly has one goal right now: stock the team full of enough quality B and C tier players, tradeable assets and cheap reclamation projects that he can take advantage of a team looking to move a franchise guy and retain a quality roster around them when he does. It's either that or tear it all down and start from scratch, and anyone who actually thought that was going to happen after 2 years of building fan equity with TL, We The North, and all of the spending on new facilities, was simply deluding themselves (whether it's the right move or not).

Be patient, let the GM do his job and enjoy the ride. This franchise could really do with a solid run of continued success, whether that leads to a championship or not.

[JWash]

Multiple ways to build a championship team. Tanking, trades, FA, etc.

There's one common denominator... All-NBA, superstar talent. You've got to get that somehow or you just aren't winning the big one in the NBA.

That's not to say the Raptors need to tank. Maybe we package assets together for a star who demands out? Maybe that NYK/DEN pick nets us a superstar? Maybe one of the young guys on the roster develops into one. Or maybe it just never happens and we blow it up and tank.

There's no point trying to say one way is better than another, because championship teams have been built in a billion different ways and those same strategies have also failed countless times.

[raptors999]

Multiple ways to build a championship team. Tanking, trades, FA, etc.

There's one common denominator... All-NBA, superstar talent. You've got to get that somehow or you just aren't winning the big one in the NBA.

That's not to say the Raptors need to tank. Maybe we package assets together for a star who demands out? Maybe that NYK/DEN pick nets us a superstar? Maybe one of the young guys on the roster develops into one. Or maybe it just never happens and we blow it up and tank.

There's no point trying to say one way is better than another, because championship teams have been built in a billion different ways and those same strategies have also failed countless times.

problem is players do not leave the Raptors better then when we aquire them.

[Scraptor]

If anyone is curious, now that the dust has mostly settled:

Odds to win 2015-16 NBA Championship:

Cleveland Cavaliers 11/4
Golden State Warriors 9/2
San Antonio Spurs 9/2
Oklahoma City Thunder 15/2
Chicago Bulls 16/1
Dallas Mavericks 20/1
Houston Rockets 20/1
Los Angeles Clippers 20/1
Memphis Grizzlies 28/1
Atlanta Hawks 33/1
New Orleans Pelicans 33/1
Indiana Pacers 40/1
Miami Heat 40/1
Toronto Raptors 40/1
Washington Wizards 40/1
Los Angeles Lakers 50/1
Milwaukee Bucks 50/1
Boston Celtics 66/1
Portland Trailblazers 75/1
Detroit Pistons 100/1
Phoenix Suns 100/1
Utah Jazz 100/1
Brooklyn Nets 150/1
Denver Nuggets 150/1
Minnesota Timberwolves 150/1
New York Knicks 150/1
Sacramento Kings 150/1
Charlotte Hornets 250/1
Orlando Magic 250/1
Philadelphia 76ers 250/1

Some obvious distortions here due to the action--Lakers are way too high, for instance--but we start out in slightly better shape than last year. The Bulls, Pelicans, and Pacers all seem a tier too high imo.

This list I found from July 11/2014 had us at 50-1. At that time, 11 teams had better odds and 4 teams had the same odds. This year 11 teams have better odds and 3 teams have the same.

Odds to win 2014-15 NBA Finals
Cleveland Cavaliers +350
San Antonio Spurs +500
Oklahoma City Thunder +650
Chicago Bulls +1000
Los Angeles Clippers +1000
Houston Rockets +1500
Indiana Pacers +1900
Miami Heat +2000
Golden State Warriors +2000
Washington Wizards +4000
Portland Blazers +4000
Brooklyn Nets +5000
Memphis Grizzlies +5000
Dallas Mavericks +5000
New York Knicks +5000
Toronto Raptors +5000
Los Angeles Lakers +5300
New Orleans Pelicans +7500
Denver Nuggets +7500
Phoenix Suns +7500
Charlotte Hornets +8500
Atlanta Hawks +9000
Boston Celtics +11000
Detroit Pistons +12500
Sacramento Kings +12500
Minnesota Timberwolves +13000
Orlando Magic +20000
Utah Jazz +20000
Philadelphia 76ers +25000
Milwaukee Bucks +37500

If you're curious, coming off their 2012-13 record of 47-35, the Warriors were 25-1 to win the 2014 championship.

[psrs1]

Some seriously impatient people on these forums!

Ujiri seemingly has one goal right now: stock the team full of enough quality B and C tier players, tradeable assets and cheap reclamation projects that he can take advantage of a team looking to move a franchise guy and retain a quality roster around them when he does. It's either that or tear it all down and start from scratch, and anyone who actually thought that was going to happen after 2 years of building fan equity with TL, We The North, and all of the spending on new facilities, was simply deluding themselves (whether it's the right move or not).

Be patient, let the GM do his job and enjoy the ride. This franchise could really do with a solid run of continued success, whether that leads to a championship or not.

I recall hearing the same argument last year. At some point you are what you are and MU is a GM who has made some good moves but at the end of the day we are still a second tier team at best. Yes it is hard to make the transition to serious conteneder.

[Bear]

if the raptors have a legit chance of beating the Cavs and Bulls they are not treadmilling. beating the Western Champion is another matter. last season Raptors would have had difficulty beating any playoff team

the raps do not have a legit chance at beating those two teams, not a snowballs chance in hell.

[golden]

Treadmill = trying to win without high level talent (ie all-nba first or second team)

The problem with that definition is that the All-NBA teams are voted on, and hence highly subjective. Players on winning teams tend to get over-represented after they start winning, so it becomes self-reinforcing.

But even going along with that definition, the All-NBA 1st team tends to be the same once-in-a-decade superstars repeating over again (e.g. Lebron, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Durant, etc...)

The All-NBA 2nd team is littered with guys who are second banana types that were unsuccessful as franchise centerpieces on their own. (e.g. Cassell, J O'Neal, Webber, Amare, Elton Brand, Ben Wallace, D-Will, Arenas, Vince, Mutombo, ....)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-NBA_Team

[OldSkoolCool]

The problem with that definition is that the All-NBA teams are voted on, and hence highly subjective. Players on winning teams tend to get over-represented after they start winning, so it becomes self-reinforcing.

But even going along with that definition, the All-NBA 1st team tends to be the same once-in-a-decade superstars repeating over again (e.g. Lebron, Kobe, Duncan, Shaq, Dirk, Durant, etc...)

The All-NBA 2nd team is littered with guys who are second banana types that were unsuccessful as franchise centerpieces on their own. (e.g. Cassell, J O'Neal, Webber, Amare, Elton Brand, Ben Wallace, D-Will, Arenas, Vince, Mutombo, ....)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All-NBA_Team

I was just trying to define the level of talent needed.

I understand there are exceptions to the mini rule I made.

JWash said it. Common denominator for championships = superstar talent

[slaw]

Don't attack strategies by quoting examples where the execution has been terrible. Just because the Pelicans put possibly the worst possible team around AD doesn't mean that getting him isn't the biggest and most important step to a dynasty. It just means that even when you do one thing right, you have to do other things right as well. No one has ever presented tanking as an option that would override terrible basketball operations in general. In fact, it is a strategy that is perhaps more reliant on impeccable GM'ing than any other one - with a higher ceiling than other models as well.

I am tired of the tanking debate but this is absurd. One way that we analyze strategies in any industry is to look at case studies where a strategy has been implemented to determine whether it has succeeded or failed. If we see a similar strategic plan fail (or succeed) over and over again then we can draw certain conclusions from those failures and successes about the strategy itself. If tanking is a successful strategy that teams should pursue, then we should see numerous instances where it has worked in practice. Now, tactical considerations aren't irrelevant but, if the overall strategy is as sound as many on here believe, tactical missteps should be easier to correct and, in the aggregate, there should be far more successes than failures. Is that true?

As for your contentions that (i) tanking requires more impeccable GM'ing and (ii) carries a higher ceiling than other models, I have never seen any evidence that either of those positions is true. In fact, I would argue the opposite is the case. Tanking is akin to the curse of the "Superstar CEO" - the search for the white knight, great whale, etc. - who is going to come and save everyone the organization. The psychology of it is easy to understand and it makes life so simple and easy for everyone: all we have to do is wait around for our savior and our problems are solved! It's far more difficult to look at all the reasons your organization has failed and take the often slow, painful steps to correct them.

It's why I have so much time for what Leiweke and Ujiri have done with the Raps. They've taken steps (the practice facility, DLeague team) that won't pay immediate dividends but address long standing organizational issues. They've aggressively pursued Tier 1 free agents, positioning themselves as future players to consider for free agents. They've accumulated future assets while positioning themselves to have success on the court in search of long term, consistent results. All that stuff doesn't appease the fans because it's messy and the light at the end of the tunnel isn't always easy to see, but it adds far more to an organization than some guy like Sam Hinkie sitting in an office praying to get lucky cause he has no idea what else to do.

[golden]

I was just trying to define the level of talent needed.

I understand there are exceptions to the mini rule I made.

JWash said it. Common denominator for championships = superstar talent

Yep, I hear you OS and agree, but the problem is that people just throw out the term "treadmill" and everybody's got their own definition for what it means. And it's always a negative thing, when in fact it's been shown that teams move from the treadmill (whatever that actually means) to elite status (whatever that actually means) all the time.

I realize there's a general frustration and emotional scars on Raptors fans built up over 20 years of mostly futility and what seemed like a step backwards last season, but to be overly pessimistic on the franchise (for reasons other than the coach, lol) as to start pigeon-holing them as "treadmill team" is a glass more than half-empty perspective, IMO.

We endured 7 years of BC and only 2 years under Masai has created cap flexibility, future picks & trade assets assets, while building a "winning team". So, I'd say we need to give the man more time to acquire that superstar and enjoy the ride (Casey, notwithstanding) before we start tossing out the "treadmill" label (assuming that's a bad thing & whatever that really means).

[DanH]

OK. SAS got lucky with Duncan (and yes, they had all the right stuff). CLE got lucky with LeBron (and tanked a bunch to get the assets to bring him back as well) and they had none of the right stuff. OKC got lucky with Durant and has been a perennial contender short of a season where they were hurt a lot.

There are plenty of examples of teams building through the draft or draft assets after being terrible for at least a year.

I think using examples from teams like I did above though is largely useless. There are so many variables in every approach that no two teams are the same, and even those that are very similar can have dramatically different results. Not to mention the muddiness around time frames - Hinkie seems to have yielded no results, but maybe in 5 years they win three chips in a row. And 5 years from now they probably don't and people decide it was a failure, but maybe they then have assets needed to move on a superstar or several good pieces and can build from there and find success that way. It's very, very hard to judge any strategy when results have so much fluctuation. Heck, look at the Clippers - mismanaged for a decade and then suddenly they have two superstars and win a bunch, and now they may fall back a bit.