KingRobb02 wrote:
Make Playoffs: 32.6%
WOOT!!!! Those are better odds than playing Craps. Hell Yeah, going to the ship!!!
Moderators: Knightro, Howard Mass, UCFJayBird, Def Swami, ChosenSavior, SOUL, UCF
KingRobb02 wrote:
Make Playoffs: 32.6%
Malik Starks wrote:KingRobb02 wrote:BadMofoPimp wrote:The odds are more in favor in bottom feeding teams staying at the bottom than becoming elite. We see Memphis and OKC, but also watched Charlotte, Wolves and Clippers blow for a decade before getting lucky. And, Memphis didn't just draft their players, but made effective trades and signings. So, the Draft isn't the sole reason teams become winners. Efficient roster management is. This Magic team has good youth plus a few extra draft picks then mad Free Agent money in two years.
Thus, the Magic could actually be a solid deep playoff team in 3-4 years without even being in the lottery.
The odds are also against middling teams getting to elite or even the elite teams stating elite. There are only 3 or 4 elite teams in any given season, so it would make sense that not many bad teams make it to elite. People just have short memories. The Clippers didn't blow for a decade. This decade alone, they have had the Lamar Odom/Darius Miles/Elton Brand mini-surge that got them close to the playoffs, they had the Sam Cassell/Elton Brand team that made the semis, and most recently they have the Griffin CP team. That is three times that one bottom feeder came up in the past 10 years. The Brand trade was huge in two of those rises, but that was able to happen because they had the #2 pick.
You talk about effective trades and signings, but these trades and signing happen because of draft picks. Do the clippers get Chris Paul if they don't draft Eric Gordon? Do the Knicks get the Carmelo trade without Gallo, Chandler, and Mozgov? Does Deron Williams get traded without Favors? Does Brooklyn get Dwight Howard without Broo... nevermind. The draft isn't about finding a franchise guy, it's about acquiring young guys on cheap deals that can help a team.
The Clippers didn't suck for a decade, they sucked for two (or more depending how far you wanna go back) during the 80's and the 90's the Clippers posted some of the worst records in the history of the league. They had a brief respite when Larry Brown was head coach in the early 90's but when back to sucking after that.
KingRobb02 wrote:
Not saying you have to like what he says, but don't misquote him just because you don't like what he says. He gave the Celtics a D+ and the Lakers an F. The Lakers have a better record than us, and have been missing their top 2 PGs for most of the year while the Celtics have a winning record. If nothing else, this guys seems to have had different expectations than everyone else and he has been disappointed by our play. An accurate quote would be "If there was one team I could chose not to watch again this season, it would be the Orlando Magic. They are among the league leaders in mid-range jumpers taken per game despite the fact that they make just 36.9 percent of them." You can't use quotes and then say "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." That doesn't even make sense
KingRobb02 wrote:The odds are also against middling teams getting to elite or even the elite teams stating elite. There are only 3 or 4 elite teams in any given season, so it would make sense that not many bad teams make it to elite. People just have short memories. The Clippers didn't blow for a decade. This decade alone, they have had the Lamar Odom/Darius Miles/Elton Brand mini-surge that got them close to the playoffs, they had the Sam Cassell/Elton Brand team that made the semis, and most recently they have the Griffin CP team. That is three times that one bottom feeder came up in the past 10 years. The Brand trade was huge in two of those rises, but that was able to happen because they had the #2 pick.
You talk about effective trades and signings, but these trades and signing happen because of draft picks. Do the clippers get Chris Paul if they don't draft Eric Gordon? Do the Knicks get the Carmelo trade without Gallo, Chandler, and Mozgov? Does Deron Williams get traded without Favors? Does Brooklyn get Dwight Howard without Broo... nevermind. The draft isn't about finding a franchise guy, it's about acquiring young guys on cheap deals that can help a team.
Malik Starks wrote:As to the Clippers poor draft picks, it is neither here nor there. It's very easy to cherry pick a teams draft choices a decade later. The consesus at the time were that they were solid picks or had a high ceiling. The point I think mofopimp (he can speak for himself) and I would agree with is that these draft picks devoid of any veteran leadership and a winning culture are not in a position to succeed and therefore winning as many games as REASONABLY possible is the better approach.
To your larger point regarding using draft picks as leverage, I think it's a fairly good point, and can be used in limited circumstances (which I believe the Magic are currently doing anyway). However the examples you site have a lot more to do with the those teams being in large markets than them having stockpiled young prospects.
Chris Paul wanted to go to a larger market and had a list of teams he was going to
go to (I don't recall the exact teams right now) but this was well established.
For Deron Williams, he didn't have a list of teams and hadn't specifically asked for trade, but it was understood that he had his eyes on a bigger market than Salt Lake. Brooklyn looked to acquire him because they knew their market was big enough to keep him.
Ditto for Dwight Howard..no need to rehash that.
And everyone knew that Carmello was going to New York one way or another, the only question was whether he would go in Free-Agency-and take a significant pay cut, or be traded and re-sign. Dolan got nervous and gave away the store to get him but the consensus was he would have signed with them anyway.
Sources told Broussard on Thursday that the Knicks and Magic are on Paul’s list of preferred destinations, but the Lakers are not. Sources told Broussard that the Portland Trail Blazers and Dallas Mavericks are also in the running if Paul were to be traded.
BadMofoPimp wrote:KingRobb02 wrote:The odds are also against middling teams getting to elite or even the elite teams stating elite. There are only 3 or 4 elite teams in any given season, so it would make sense that not many bad teams make it to elite. People just have short memories. The Clippers didn't blow for a decade. This decade alone, they have had the Lamar Odom/Darius Miles/Elton Brand mini-surge that got them close to the playoffs, they had the Sam Cassell/Elton Brand team that made the semis, and most recently they have the Griffin CP team. That is three times that one bottom feeder came up in the past 10 years. The Brand trade was huge in two of those rises, but that was able to happen because they had the #2 pick.
You talk about effective trades and signings, but these trades and signing happen because of draft picks. Do the clippers get Chris Paul if they don't draft Eric Gordon? Do the Knicks get the Carmelo trade without Gallo, Chandler, and Mozgov? Does Deron Williams get traded without Favors? Does Brooklyn get Dwight Howard without Broo... nevermind. The draft isn't about finding a franchise guy, it's about acquiring young guys on cheap deals that can help a team.
Eric Gordon drafted 8th position in draft.
Gallinari was 6th pick in draft.
I am just saying that there is a huge chance being stuck as the Bobcats or Wolves or Clippers for a decade if you let your team wallow in a losing mentality. Heck, Harkless or Nicholson could explode in a year or two and help the Magic trade for the next Melo or Dwight. You never know. But, all I am saying is a good GM doesn't need to tank to win in the end. A team doesn't need a top 5 pick to generate success or a championship team.
The Pistons had only Tayshaun Prince drafted with the 23rd pick in the draft while Billups, Rip, Sheed and Ben were all traded for. I would rather have a solidly built team than pray for winning the lottery year after year after year . . . and end up with a greater possibility of the next Darko or Kwame than any superstar you can name. There are no guarantee's with tanking. But, a good GM can guarantee a solidly built team. Most fans want to watch teams that fight to win, not teams that tank to lose.
KingRobb02 wrote:Only responding because I don't want you to think I disagree. Winning in the NBA isn't about high draft picks or having a huge market. There is a lot of money that is spent on bad players every year, and our job is to find good players. My hope is that we have a competitive advantage in the talent evaluation department. Instead of getting into bidding wars over the Derrick Rose's of the league we need to find ways to get the Jo Noah's for less than they are worth.
I just don't think it's fair to say that teams wallow at the bottom of the league, when the league has been fairly dynamic. Like I said, every team has made the playoff at least once in the past 10 years. The problem is convincing the idiots in charge to keep the team afloat.
Malik Starks wrote:The Clippers didn't suck for a decade, they sucked for two.
Malik Starks wrote:No one dispute that tanking works-eventually.
BadMofoPimp wrote:KingRobb02 wrote:
Make Playoffs: 32.6%
WOOT!!!! Those are better odds than playing Craps. Hell Yeah, going to the ship!!!
drsd wrote:Malik Starks wrote:No one dispute that tanking works-eventually.
I am disputing this. The Clippers are an exampke of a team that were high lottery year in and out, and nothing came until they contributed to the free agent market and resigned their players.
The Golden State Warriors are another team that was bad year after year. And the WIzards. And the Vancouver Grizzlies.
Being in the high lottery a couple years in a row has not been a path towards elitness. What has is one A+ pick, and then, solid managment around said player.
Look at Howard. Nelson was traded for. Then Lewis was way over-paid, but a critical asset. Turkoglu was pulled out of another team's trash pile and shinnied up to an nice luster. These sorts of trade and free-agent moves took the A+ pick to whee it needed to be. If any of the SG gambles had paid off, Orlando would have been awesome. But, oh well.
..
drsd wrote:Rccanes2311 wrote:.... winning is the worst thing for this franchise.
These comments make my stomach turn. Bad teams stay bad for more than a decade. The new CBA will cause an intrinsic change on how to build a roster; none of us fans understand that fully. We must have heart in GM Hennigan's vision.
..
Mad Guru wrote:It would be cool to see a graph based on the averages, or even one with a line for each publication.