Put Them Over the Top Draft- Discussion Thread

[Snakebites]

In a vacuum, I think the 2021 Mavs were definitely a top 10 core. Thing is, once the first round is complete, we aren't drafting in a vacuum anymore. Fit comes into play as well. Luka requires a very specific build. It feels very restrictive when building around him.

The Sixers supporting cast leaves a lot to be desired. That said, Embiid might have been OP in this pool due to the dearth of talent at the Center position. The only dominant Center is pre-prime Shaq. Chances are the vast majority of teams couldn't have handled Embiid.

Both of the things you mention are ideas I looked into.

The issue with the Mavs is that while Zingis has certainly recouped his value in a big way in Washington and Boston, and he and Luka are a solid fit in theory, they never really had much synergy in practice. The Mavs had more success WITHOUT him the following season. And if you want Zingis you don't get breakout Brunson.

I briefly toyed with the idea of an Embiid team, but KG got the nod for 2004 KG being a better player and him having a star co-pilot. With Embiid the only other starter I'd get out of that for my core would be...Tobias Harris? I don't view him as a guy who should start in this setting. Sixers Green and Thybulle are okay but not needle movers.

I was pretty stunned when Jimmy Butler was taken as a wildcard and not as a pair with Joel though.

Wasn't possible to select Butler as part of the Sixers core because of the ''2 consecutive years'' rule. Butler played for only half a season at Philly. Him and Embiid would have been an amazing duo, that's for sure!

Right. Forgot my own rule in that situation.

[Dr Positivity]

I wouldn't have been in love with 19 Embiid as top guy

I was hoping for Jimmy/Durant + 12 Harden, Ibaka and Thabo. In retrospect Adams is a more rare player in this that I thought at the time and the immense FGA savings of Harden/Ibaka/Thabo may be pointless, so maybe taking a Westbrook team and then drafting a shooter for WC would've been better than that.

[Laimbeer]

How about a twist on this one after the 2024 season?

You can use any 2024 team as your core, but can't include players who ever won a title with that franchise. Wild care restrictions may be relaxed.

You can use any 2024 team as your core with any players, but we would allow one MVP as an exception per team and that would include your core. So if you go Nuggets and Jokic, Jokic is your one MVP. Can't pick one as a wild card.

[Snakebites]

How about a twist on this one after the 2024 season?

You can use any 2024 team as your core, but can't include players who ever won a title with that franchise. Wild care restrictions may be relaxed.

You can use any 2024 team as your core with any players, but we would allow one MVP as an exception per team and that would include your core. So if you go Nuggets and Jokic, Jokic is your one MVP. Can't pick one as a wild card.

There would be some overpowered cores.

Like the Celtics after they lose again this year.

[flaco]

Same here. I'm not super high on Porzingis prior to the last couple of years, and he definitely had his own fit issues with Luka.

There are 3 all-stars in that core (albeit before their prime), plus 2 more serviceable role players to choose from. Talent-wise, it's an intriguing group of players. For instance:

PG: Brunson
SG: Klay or EJ
SF: Luka*
PF: DFS
C: Zinger

*Luka is a SF/PF on defense, but a PG on offense

Some bench options to choose from: Delon Wright, Danny Green, Battier, Tucker, Horry, you name it. All reaslitic targets. Some of these guys are still on the board.

Luka spams the PnP with Zinger. Loads of space in the paint for him to attack the basket. I'd like that team a lot, although I'd personally prefer yet another wing instead of Brunson.

Yeah but we saw that core together and it didn't work. Porzingis wasn't satisfied with just "spamming PnP", and wasn't as good at punishing mismatches either. Also, Brunson was nowhere near All-Star level at that stage.

Well, I don't think Brunson was a different player compared to his Knicks version. It's just that the Knicks allowed him to be on the ball. He couldn't do that next to Luka. I'd argue the same goes for OKC Harden. His numbers immediately exploded once he stopped playing next to Westbrook. Fwiw, the advanced stats suggest he was arleady playing at a high level. I also think he was a decent-ish defender while at the Thunder.

The exact opposite goes for Porzingis. He was a star during his early years. He's now playing 3rd fiddle in Boston. Was watching his JJ Redick interview. Zinger himself admitted he was unwilling to play within the system at the time. Talent-wise, he hasn't developed new basketball skills the last couple of seasons. Difference is, he settled in a lesser role. Not all players can do that. For instance, Westbrook, Carmelo or Dwight never really accepted a lesser role until they were way past their prime. Iverson never did and flamed out of the league earlier than expected.

Generally speaking, I think underutilized talented players can easily adjust to bigger roles. It's when they have to accept lesser roles that they might struggle, especially in the context of our super loaded teams.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you guys say on the Mavs. I just think they had a talented core with loads of untapped potential. It would have been fun trying to restructure their roster.

[Snakebites]

Well, I don't think Brunson was a different player compared to his Knicks version. It's just that the Knicks allowed him to be on the ball. He couldn't do that next to Luka. I'd argue the same goes for OKC Harden. His numbers immediately exploded once he stopped playing next to Westbrook. Fwiw, the advanced stats suggest he was arleady playing at a high level. I also think he was a decent-ish defender while at the Thunder.

Even if I agreed with you on Mavs Brunson being the same player as Knicks Brunson, I still think he took a major leap from 2021 to 2022. And 2022 Brunson can't be paired with Porzingis.

Everybody thought Luka/Porzingis was the next great NBA duo. In practice it never really materialized, not even when both were relatively healthy.

It's fairly telling IMO that the Mavs actually got BETTER the following year, both in regular and postseason success with Porzingis injured then replaced with Spencer Dinwiddie and Davis Bertans later in the season.

[Snakebites]

The irony of this game is that despite me being the one pushing for this idea and me being the one running the game, everybody else followed the "spirit" of this game a lot more than I did.

Most of the teams look like moderately revised versions of teams that actually existed. My team looks fundamentally different, albeit with the two key guys from a core as the main engine.

[Colbinii]

The irony of this game is that despite me being the one pushing for this idea and me being the one running the game, everybody else followed the "spirit" of this game a lot more than I did.

Most of the teams look like moderately revised versions of teams that actually existed. My team looks fundamentally different, albeit with the two key guys from a core as the main engine.

I thought of a rule of needing 3 starters from the core prior to the game starting. It made a lot more sense flavor wise.

[Snakebites]

The irony of this game is that despite me being the one pushing for this idea and me being the one running the game, everybody else followed the "spirit" of this game a lot more than I did.

Most of the teams look like moderately revised versions of teams that actually existed. My team looks fundamentally different, albeit with the two key guys from a core as the main engine.

I thought of a rule of needing 3 starters from the core prior to the game starting. It made a lot more sense flavor wise.

Yeah.

I sort of regret that my team ended up this way. I almost took Barkley/KJ/Majerle for flavor reasons, but I felt KG/Cassell (especially given I can just use a better version of OG to fill the Majerle role) was just objectively better. 1993 Kevin Johnson just wasn't all that impressive.

I regret taking OG over Miles Turner- I probably could have gotten both- Turner was simply a much rarer piece in this game. My "other" first option besides KG was actually the Sonics, who I thought would have POPPED with Reggie Miller, but I didn't think I could really sell that without a 3 point shooting center, plus roddy took them anyway.

I didn't really expect Roddy to take the Sonics- that really surprised me. I wasn't sure what he was planning though.

[Snakebites]

PG: Chris Paul (11.3) , Derek Fisher (9.5)
SG: Devin Booker (20.9)
SF: Mikal Bridges (10.5) , Tony Allen (6.8)
PF: Pau Gasol (12.9)
C: DeAndre Ayton (12.0) / Bo Outlaw (4.1)

FG : 88/88

PG: Chris Paul 33 / Derek Fisher 15
SG: Devin Booker 36 / Tony Allen 12
SF: Mikal Bridges 34 / Tony Allen 14
PF: Pau Gasol 37 / Bo Outlaw 11
C: DeAndre Ayton 30 / Bo Outlaw 18

Make sure you indicate seasons for your players. It's clear you have them selected- just make sure the years are on the roster page.

[Snakebites]

It's interesting how there are some pretty awesome teams for their time who I simply couldn't justify here for various reasons.

The Blazers of 2000-

Amazing 59 win team that took peak Shaq to 7 games in 2000. Even if Sabonis hadn't been taken early as a wild card I don't think they were a viable option. Just not talented enough at the top to be viable here- their strength was that they went 10 deep and you can't really capture that when you can only take Pippen, Sheed, Sabonis, and Steve Smith- which would have been a fairly pedestrian starting point IMO.

Blazers of the early 90s- Whopping 63 wins

Basically Drexler, Porter and some front court players that I can't see being successful in these games. Even still, I considered planning for 1991 Drexler, Porter, Ainge, and Buck Williams. But the options in the front court for wildcard players just didn't impress me enough.

2004 Indiana Pacers

Defensive juggernaught of the hand-checking era. Old man Reggie along with a very inefficient Ron Artest and Jermain O'Neale.

1998 Indiana Pacers or 2000 Pacers

They took the Jordan Bulls to seven games. And they did it by being really really good on both ends of the floor. But a Rik Smits/Dale Davis front court doesn't cut it under modern rules and you can get a lot of the value of the rest of it by just taking Reggie as a wildcard. Neither of the Pacer cores were ever going to be viable though, as Reggie was always going in the first two rounds as a wildcard.

1990s Knicks

The epitome of 90s basketball. Defense defense defense. Contenders year after year. Their offensive roster around Ewing was abysmal, and their defense wouldn't be possible in the modern era.

I definitely enjoyed this twist a lot and would love to see other games in this vein tried again in the future. Not sure where else to take this concept though.

[durantbird]

It's interesting how there are some pretty awesome teams for their time who I simply couldn't justify here for various reasons.

The Blazers of 2000-

Amazing 59 win team that took peak Shaq to 7 games in 2000. Even if Sabonis hadn't been taken early as a wild card I don't think they were a viable option. Just not talented enough at the top to be viable here- their strength was that they went 10 deep and you can't really capture that when you can only take Pippen, Sheed, Sabonis, and Steve Smith- which would have been a fairly pedestrian starting point IMO.

Blazers of the early 90s- Whopping 63 wins

Basically Drexler, Porter and some front court players that I can't see being successful in these games. Even still, I considered planning for 1991 Drexler, Porter, Ainge, and Buck Williams. But the options in the front court for wildcard players just didn't impress me enough.

2004 Indiana Pacers

Defensive juggernaught of the hand-checking era. Old man Reggie along with a very inefficient Ron Artest and Jermain O'Neale.

1998 Indiana Pacers or 2000 Pacers

They took the Jordan Bulls to seven games. And they did it by being really really good on both ends of the floor. But a Rik Smits/Dale Davis front court doesn't cut it under modern rules and you can get a lot of the value of the rest of it by just taking Reggie as a wildcard. Neither of the Pacer cores were ever going to be viable though, as Reggie was always going in the first two rounds as a wildcard.

1990s Knicks

The epitome of 90s basketball. Defense defense defense. Contenders year after year. Their offensive roster around Ewing was abysmal, and their defense wouldn't be possible in the modern era.

I definitely enjoyed this twist a lot and would love to see other games in this vein tried again in the future. Not sure where else to take this concept though.

You can add Barkley's Philly but there aren't enough interesting names besides Hersey Hawkins and they are just not as good as Barkley's Suns, which has a modern 3 and D guy like Majerle as third guy.

I thought the Mourning Hardaway Majerle and PJ Brown four was also interesting to build around.

[Snakebites]

It's interesting how there are some pretty awesome teams for their time who I simply couldn't justify here for various reasons.

The Blazers of 2000-

Amazing 59 win team that took peak Shaq to 7 games in 2000. Even if Sabonis hadn't been taken early as a wild card I don't think they were a viable option. Just not talented enough at the top to be viable here- their strength was that they went 10 deep and you can't really capture that when you can only take Pippen, Sheed, Sabonis, and Steve Smith- which would have been a fairly pedestrian starting point IMO.

Blazers of the early 90s- Whopping 63 wins

Basically Drexler, Porter and some front court players that I can't see being successful in these games. Even still, I considered planning for 1991 Drexler, Porter, Ainge, and Buck Williams. But the options in the front court for wildcard players just didn't impress me enough.

2004 Indiana Pacers

Defensive juggernaught of the hand-checking era. Old man Reggie along with a very inefficient Ron Artest and Jermain O'Neale.

1998 Indiana Pacers or 2000 Pacers

They took the Jordan Bulls to seven games. And they did it by being really really good on both ends of the floor. But a Rik Smits/Dale Davis front court doesn't cut it under modern rules and you can get a lot of the value of the rest of it by just taking Reggie as a wildcard. Neither of the Pacer cores were ever going to be viable though, as Reggie was always going in the first two rounds as a wildcard.

1990s Knicks

The epitome of 90s basketball. Defense defense defense. Contenders year after year. Their offensive roster around Ewing was abysmal, and their defense wouldn't be possible in the modern era.

I definitely enjoyed this twist a lot and would love to see other games in this vein tried again in the future. Not sure where else to take this concept though.

You can add Barkley's Philly but there aren't enough interesting names besides Hersey Hawkins and they are just not as good as Barkley's Suns, which has a modern 3 and D guy like Majerle as third guy.

I thought the Mourning Hardaway Majerle and PJ Brown four was also interesting to build around.

Zo won a ring with the Heat later on though.

So that one would be a no-go.

I'll try and think about another way to do this type of twist that is distinct from what was done here.

[Colbinii]

I thought the Mourning Hardaway Majerle and PJ Brown four was also interesting to build around.

Zo won with the Heat

[flaco]

I definitely enjoyed this twist a lot and would love to see other games in this vein tried again in the future. Not sure where else to take this concept though.

We could just ditch the ''no rings'' rule.

One all-NBA 1st teamer per core: No Magic-Kareem, Steph-KD, Jordan-Pippen, Shaq-Kobe, Timmy-DRob, Timmy-Kawhi, Kareem-Oscar, Moses-Dr J, Wilt-West, LeBron-Wade, etc.

I like Colb's idea ''of needing 3 starters from the core''. We'd probably have to set a minutes requirement though, otherwise we could bypass that rule by starting a bench-calibre player for limited minutes.

[Snakebites]

I definitely enjoyed this twist a lot and would love to see other games in this vein tried again in the future. Not sure where else to take this concept though.

We could just ditch the ''no rings'' rule.

One all-NBA 1st teamer per core: No Magic-Kareem, Steph-KD, Jordan-Pippen, Shaq-Kobe, Timmy-DRob-Kawhi, Kareem-Oscar, Moses-Dr J, Wilt-West, LeBron-Wade, etc.

I like Colb's idea ''of needing 3 starters from the core''. We'd probably have to set a minutes requirement though, otherwise we could bypass that rule by starting a bench-calibre player for limited minutes.

Steph/Klay/Dray would be a pretty overpowered core- and other teams wouldn’t even be able to pair up All-NBA first team guys to try and go against that.

[flaco]

I definitely enjoyed this twist a lot and would love to see other games in this vein tried again in the future. Not sure where else to take this concept though.

We could just ditch the ''no rings'' rule.

One all-NBA 1st teamer per core: No Magic-Kareem, Steph-KD, Jordan-Pippen, Shaq-Kobe, Timmy-DRob-Kawhi, Kareem-Oscar, Moses-Dr J, Wilt-West, LeBron-Wade, etc.

I like Colb's idea ''of needing 3 starters from the core''. We'd probably have to set a minutes requirement though, otherwise we could bypass that rule by starting a bench-calibre player for limited minutes.

Steph/Klay/Dray would be a pretty overpowered core- and other teams wouldn’t even be able to pair up All-NBA first team guys to try and go against that.

Fair enough, the Warriors are very strong indeed. KG-Pierce-Ray and Timmy-Manu-Parker would have been fairly good as well. Can't think of other trios at that level.

[Snakebites]

We could just ditch the ''no rings'' rule.

One all-NBA 1st teamer per core: No Magic-Kareem, Steph-KD, Jordan-Pippen, Shaq-Kobe, Timmy-DRob-Kawhi, Kareem-Oscar, Moses-Dr J, Wilt-West, LeBron-Wade, etc.

I like Colb's idea ''of needing 3 starters from the core''. We'd probably have to set a minutes requirement though, otherwise we could bypass that rule by starting a bench-calibre player for limited minutes.

Steph/Klay/Dray would be a pretty overpowered core- and other teams wouldn’t even be able to pair up All-NBA first team guys to try and go against that.

Fair enough, the Warriors are very strong indeed. KG-Pierce-Ray and Timmy-Manu-Parker would have been fairly good as well. Can't think of other trios at that level.

Here's a thought: limit the core to single championships. As in no players with multiple championships with that team. That eliminates the Jordan Bulls, the Steph Warriors, etc without eliminating cores like the 90s Jazz or others that AREN'T OP but have 2 All NBA First teamers.

And relax the wildcard limit a tad- you're only allowed 2 All-NBA First teamers PER TEAM, rather than per CORE. Still no MVP wildcards though.

And I like the 3-starter from core minimum. We should keep that, though I might want to go back to cores of 5 in that case.

The KG/Ray/Pierce core remains intact, but I'm not sure that would be THAT overpowered- Ray Allen isn't at superstar levels by 2008. The only real concern I'd have is Cavs Lebron. But that team would be forced to spend heavily on less-than-ideal supporting pieces thanks to the 3 starter rule.

[Laimbeer]

Minny - KAT, Gobert, ANT, Conley. Showing that core works this season boosts their case. They'd be very tough to match-up with in this pool.

Also a very large Asian center who'd be a nightmare match-up doesn't look like he's going either.

[Fadeaway_J]

Minny - KAT, Gobert, ANT, Conley. Showing that core works this season boosts their case. They'd be very tough to match-up with in this pool.

Also a very large Asian center who'd be a nightmare match-up doesn't look like he's going either.

Didn't KAT miss most of last season?