What came first? The chicken or the egg?

[Craiger]

The options are misleading because neither matter if you don't have good management.

You either need good management or to get lucky in some fashion.

Cross your fingers.....

[Matt52]

The options are misleading because neither matter if you don't have good management.

You either need good management or to get lucky in some fashion.

Cross your fingers.....

It is not either - both luck and good management are needed.

Good management creates their own luck.

Luck creates good management.

[Craiger]

It is not either - both luck and good management are needed.

Good management creates their own luck.

Luck creates good management.

I don't agree.

Luck by its very nature is random. So being 'good' or 'bad' has no effect on it.

Now I will say good management makes the most of its luck. Bad management is unable to.

Whats often confused is good management is able to make bold predictions others are unable to foresee, making their decisions to some look lucky. But really its was excellent decision making.

[Matt52]

I don't agree.

Luck by its very nature is random. So being 'good' or 'bad' has no effect on it.

Now I will say good management makes the most of its luck. Bad management is unable to.

Whats often confused is good management is able to make bold predictions others are unable to foresee, making their decisions to some look lucky. But really its was excellent decision making.

I disagree.

Your definition, by my interpretation, does not allow for mistakes. Good management can make mistakes. If they didn't they wouldn't be human. Is there a GM with more than 3 draft picks to his name that is batting 1.000? I don't know but I don't think so. Even the Spurs - the best drafting team of the last 15 years - have made more forgettable picks than good/great ones. Then there is circumstances. Why is it that some players take years and numerous teams to land in a situation where they can be successful. The lack of success could be attributed to poor relationship with coach, change in personal life, loss of drive and motivation with millions guaranteed, devastating injury, etc. What about a draft pick overdosing 2 nights after the draft (Bias) or a star player dropping dead in a scrimmage in the off season (Lewis)? Maybe this is not what you consider luck but I consider it all to be directly luck or an extension of it i.e. circumstances beyond reasonable foresight.

The NBA lottery by its very nature is luck (this is not directed at you Craiger but please no conspiracy theorists post about frozen envelopes or new ownership back room favours). What would have happened had OKC drafted 5th as they were suppose to in 2007? What if the high school rule wasn't changed and Durant was in the '06 draft? What happened if the voices in Portland arguing for Durant were successful in making their case? Again, you might not see it as luck but there are a lot of circumstances well beyond Presti's control that went in to Seattle/OKC landing Durant. The two picks by OKC that meet the criteria you set out in the bold are Westbrook and Ibaka. Ibaka was a relative unknown and Westbrook was not projected nearly that high. But then how do we explain Cole Aldrich being targeted by trading picks to move up to get and he has been such a flop? Same management and I somehow don't think they set out to pick a dud.

The other issue is how can good management thrive in one organization then quit/leave/fired/time away and go to another organization and be awful? Did they leave the skills that made them good in the box in the old organization? Presumably there is no intent to fail at the new job and presumably there wasn't a total shift in the decision-making processes?


Whether it is luck or whatever you want to call it there is an element of the unknown and uncontrollable that can make good management perceived to be as bad.... in my opinion.

[Craiger]

I disagree.

Your definition, by my interpretation, does not allow for mistakes. Good management can make mistakes. If they didn't they wouldn't be human. Is there a GM with more than 3 draft picks to his name that is batting 1.000? I don't know but I don't think so. Even the Spurs - the best drafting team of the last 15 years - have made more forgettable picks than good/great ones. Then there is circumstances. Why is it that some players take years and numerous teams to land in a situation where they can be successful. The lack of success could be attributed to poor relationship with coach, change in personal life, loss of drive and motivation with millions guaranteed, devastating injury, etc. What about a draft pick overdosing 2 nights after the draft (Bias) or a star player dropping dead in a scrimmage in the off season (Lewis)? Maybe this is not what you consider luck but I consider it all to be directly luck or an extension of it i.e. circumstances beyond reasonable foresight.

The NBA lottery by its very nature is luck (this is not directed at you Craiger but please no conspiracy theorists post about frozen envelopes or new ownership back room favours). What would have happened had OKC drafted 5th as they were suppose to in 2007? What if the high school rule wasn't changed and Durant was in the '06 draft? What happened if the voices in Portland arguing for Durant were successful in making their case? Again, you might not see it as luck but there are a lot of circumstances well beyond Presti's control that went in to Seattle/OKC landing Durant. The two picks by OKC that meet the criteria you set out in the bold are Westbrook and Ibaka. Ibaka was a relative unknown and Westbrook was not projected nearly that high. But then how do we explain Cole Aldrich being targeted by trading picks to move up to get and he has been such a flop? Same management and I somehow don't think they set out to pick a dud.

The other issue is how can good management thrive in one organization then quit/leave/fired/time away and go to another organization and be awful? Did they leave the skills that made them good in the box in the old organization? Presumably there is no intent to fail at the new job and presumably there wasn't a total shift in the decision-making processes?


Whether it is luck or whatever you want to call it there is an element of the unknown and uncontrollable that can make good management perceived to be as bad.... in my opinion.

My 'definition' by no means doesn't allow for mistakes. I didn't even come close to making that sort of statement or even hint at it.

But I don't think its even remotely difficult to imagine that mistakes by good management would be much less significant in occurence and magnitude than bad management. If they aren't I'd hardly call them good in the first place.

[Mediumcore]

I actually dont think its a problem, the advantages of it is, you have enough good players that a trade or sign and trade could be approved by the other team considering they'll be taking back good players, OR, you build a solid team enough that a franchise player may think he is the missing link and could sign for much cheaper than what his value is.

Apart from Howard, who, craves the spotlight, franchise players nowadays seem like they want to come into an environment where there are enough good players that he can play with, rather than be the MAN and be the only superstar on the team.

I partially agree with this but in reality even if we won 50 games this season, Chris Paul nor Dwight Howard would still look our way. They want to play with their friends. The chicken or egg question has to be applied to us specifically and not in general terms which would apply to all NBA teams. It's been well documented that the Toronto Raptors have a difficult time signing American players and tend to have to over pay and while some of that has to do with being a crappy team a lot also has to do with location. Think about it. The only two franchise players in this teams entire history were VC and Bosh (if you consider Bosh a franchise player) whom were bothdrafter. Why is that?

Especially in this current era where teams will give anyone a max contract players have a tonne of options and all the power.