ImageImageImageImage

Power Ranking

Moderators: UCF, Knightro, Howard Mass, UCFJayBird, Def Swami, ChosenSavior, SOUL

User avatar
KingRobb02
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,464
And1: 917
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
         

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#41 » by KingRobb02 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:32 pm

Hollinger was down for a few while they shored up the 2012-13 NBA Playoff Odds.

ESPN.com wrote:Hollinger's NBA Playoff Odds are based on the Hollinger Power Rankings, designed by ESPN.com's John Hollinger.

The Hollinger Power Rankings are a measure of each team's performance in the season so far.

Based on those rankings, each day the computer plays out the remainder of the season 5,000 times to see the potential range of projected outcomes. The results reveal the most likely win-loss record for each team -- and what the odds are for each team to make the NBA playoffs, win the NBA title, win the lottery, and so on.

For more on how the system works and what it means, see Hollinger's explanation.

Hollinger's NBA Playoff Odds are updated automatically each night.


We are 21st in the Hollinger daily rankings after dismantling the mighty Suns.
Rating: 96.875 (We would lose to an average team on a neutral court by 3.1.5 points)
Record: 8-12
Margin: -3.40
SOS: .469

Rec (L10): 5-5
Mar (L10): -.80
SOS (L10): .472

Prev Rk: 20

Playoff Odds
Average Record: 36-46
Best Record: 54-28
Worst Record: 19-63

Make Playoffs: 32.6%
Win Division: 0.8%
Top Seed: 0.0%
Make NBA Finals: 0.5%
NBA Champion: 0.0%
Win Lottery: 2.1%
User avatar
KingRobb02
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,464
And1: 917
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
         

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#42 » by KingRobb02 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:39 pm

OrlDave wrote:As promised, a horrible Bleacher Report Report Card. In his grading, any team playing above expectation gets a B or better, yet we, somehow get a D+. He also goes on to say (paraphrase) "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." Apparently our "one saving grace" is that we went 3-2 on a West Coast swing. How quickly we forget this team was predicted to win 20 or less games this season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1439 ... on/page/23

You're being a bit harsh on the bleacherreport review. Basically he is saying that our offense is not enjoyable because A. We shoot tons of long jumpers and miss most of them and B. Big Baby is leading our team in usage which leads directly to A. There is no denying that we have a bottom 3 offense. You can't blame a guy for not wanting to watch.
User avatar
OrlDave
General Manager
Posts: 8,131
And1: 3,017
Joined: May 05, 2003
     

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#43 » by OrlDave » Tue Dec 11, 2012 7:47 pm

KingRobb02 wrote:
OrlDave wrote:As promised, a horrible Bleacher Report Report Card. In his grading, any team playing above expectation gets a B or better, yet we, somehow get a D+. He also goes on to say (paraphrase) "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." Apparently our "one saving grace" is that we went 3-2 on a West Coast swing. How quickly we forget this team was predicted to win 20 or less games this season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1439 ... on/page/23

You're being a bit harsh on the bleacherreport review. Basically he is saying that our offense is not enjoyable because A. We shoot tons of long jumpers and miss most of them and B. Big Baby is leading our team in usage which leads directly to A. There is no denying that we have a bottom 3 offense. You can't blame a guy for not wanting to watch.


I don't think I was harsh at all. He combines his "I don't like watching" with a D+. That to me says "they are horrible". Maybe that's my own inference, but it's out there and if he didn't mean it then he needs to be clearer.
User avatar
KingRobb02
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,464
And1: 917
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
         

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#44 » by KingRobb02 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:05 pm

OrlDave wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:
OrlDave wrote:As promised, a horrible Bleacher Report Report Card. In his grading, any team playing above expectation gets a B or better, yet we, somehow get a D+. He also goes on to say (paraphrase) "we are horrible and he never wants to watch us again." Apparently our "one saving grace" is that we went 3-2 on a West Coast swing. How quickly we forget this team was predicted to win 20 or less games this season.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1439 ... on/page/23

You're being a bit harsh on the bleacherreport review. Basically he is saying that our offense is not enjoyable because A. We shoot tons of long jumpers and miss most of them and B. Big Baby is leading our team in usage which leads directly to A. There is no denying that we have a bottom 3 offense. You can't blame a guy for not wanting to watch.


I don't think I was harsh at all. He combines his "I don't like watching" with a D+. That to me says "they are horrible". Maybe that's my own inference, but it's out there and if he didn't mean it then he needs to be clearer.

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
Malik Starks
Junior
Posts: 394
And1: 48
Joined: Apr 23, 2012
Location: Orlando FL
   

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#45 » by Malik Starks » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:10 pm

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.
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 47,347
And1: 11,574
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#46 » by BadMofoPimp » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:13 pm

KingRobb02 wrote:
Make Playoffs: 32.6%


WOOT!!!! Those are better odds than playing Craps. Hell Yeah, going to the ship!!!
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
User avatar
KingRobb02
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,464
And1: 917
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
         

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#47 » by KingRobb02 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:24 pm

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.

Since the lottery began, the longest the Clippers have gone without a playoff berth is 8 seasons. In that span there were another couple times when they won in the high 30s and were in playoff contention at the end. Yes they have had some horrible teams, but wouldn't that have to do with drafting Michael Olowakandi over Carter, Pierce, and Dirk? Or maybe it was taking Lamond Murray over Jalen Rose and Eddie Jones. How about Lorenzen Wright over Kobe, Nash, and Jermaine O'Neal? Teams rise and fall, but no team stays down for too long. Their owner being cheap (and allegedly racist) and letting talent walk away also has a lot to do with it.
Malik Starks
Junior
Posts: 394
And1: 48
Joined: Apr 23, 2012
Location: Orlando FL
   

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#48 » by Malik Starks » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:10 pm

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.
User avatar
OrlDave
General Manager
Posts: 8,131
And1: 3,017
Joined: May 05, 2003
     

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#49 » by OrlDave » Tue Dec 11, 2012 9:36 pm

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


Of course he gave the Lakers an F. They deserve an F. They are a title contending team. So are the Celtics. I didn't misquote him, I said it was a paraphrase, not a quote (go back and look).The fact that he's given us a D+ when we are clearly outperforming expectations, yet when he gave teams like Detroit (B) and Charlotte (A-).. teams with worse records and similar expectations vastly better grades tells you something about what he thinks of our team.
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 47,347
And1: 11,574
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#50 » by BadMofoPimp » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:00 pm

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.
Neither were even top 5 picks.

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.
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
User avatar
KingRobb02
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,464
And1: 917
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
         

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#51 » by KingRobb02 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:02 pm

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.

"Veteran leadership" is greatly over-appreciated at times. The reason the Thunder are good isn't because of any veterans, it's because they have better players. Just to be clear, I'm not in favor of bottoming out. I just don't understand why everyone thinks you have to be in favor of tanking or strongly anti-draft.

I wasn't trying to cherry pick the Clippers picks, but let's be honest. They aren't bad because the system makes it hard for them. They have had every chance to get better, but Sterling and Elgin Baylor kept them down. I don't remember many people singing the praises of Olowakandi, but I know what you mean. This is why I think we will have an advantage. The Spurs haven't picked in the top 20 in over a decade, but they always find guys because they scout better. Hopefully we can use scouting along with some top 10 picks to build a nice cheap core.

I agree that no team should intentionally lose. I'm happy when we win even if it takes us down to the 10-13 range in the draft. But I have disagreed with BadMofoPimp in his stating that if we are close we should make a trade and go for it. Even if we are .500 at the trade deadline, I don't see how making short-term moves for a 2013 playoff run help us build a sustainable model for a contender. I would rather we play hard and barely miss the playoffs while sticking to whatever plan we came into the year with.

As for the trade situations, Chris Paul flirted with New York, but there was no way they could have afforded him. I'm sure every player wants to play in a larger market, it's just that some of them are crazy enough to say it out loud. This is from an article just before the Paul trade.

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.


He did not want to be a Laker, the Clippers aren't on his list and I don't call Orlando a large market. The way things went down, the Clippers had a guy like Eric Gordon and Kaman's expiring to dangle and the Hornets/CP had to listen.

Deron got rush traded in the Jerry Sloan aftermath, but I promise you he would not have been traded for anything other than a guy with potential on a rookie deal. He still had two years on his contract. It's not like he was going to walk.

Melo screwed himself by limiting his list to one team and refusing to just wait until the summer when he could have went there via free agency. The Nuggets had the Knicks over a barrel and used the Nets for fake leverage. If young, cheap guys aren't on the table the Nuggets probably just let Carmelo walk.

Dwight is an idiot.

The thing is that having these young guys on good contracts opens up a lot of room for trade conversations. Right now, I think a healthy Anthony Davis is the biggest trade chip in the NBA. He's not better than Kevin Love, but he is 1/3 the price and that gets teams to listen.

To win in the NBA you need a franchise guy. I don't think we can get one to demand a trade here, or to even come here via free agency. Seriously, what's the last major free agent we got without overpaying? That means our top guy will have to come via panic trade or through the draft.
User avatar
KingRobb02
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,464
And1: 917
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
         

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#52 » by KingRobb02 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:21 pm

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.

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.
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 47,347
And1: 11,574
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#53 » by BadMofoPimp » Tue Dec 11, 2012 10:36 pm

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.


Solid retort.

Now, the difference is that some people think they have to tank to have a better chance of winning a championship. I think the Memphis model is just as solid as the OKC model, just not as flashy. Remember when the Clips had all those flashy high 1st round picks and still got no-where. No guarantees either way, so I will always root to win now no matter what and hope my teams management makes the right trades and draft decisions. Nicholson has been superb for a late round pick. Definitely, outplaying Thomas Robinson who was supposedly an NBA ready player.
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
User avatar
drsd
RealGM
Posts: 36,373
And1: 7,818
Joined: Mar 16, 2003
     

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#54 » by drsd » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:06 am

Malik Starks wrote:The Clippers didn't suck for a decade, they sucked for two.


This thread is rapidly getting off point; but perhaps to a more relevant point.

To your point, I go back to my previous post: the CBA has so radically changed that the new path to elite is WAY beyond our fan understanding. All I can do as a Magic fan is trust GM Hennigan in this process.

..
Malik Starks
Junior
Posts: 394
And1: 48
Joined: Apr 23, 2012
Location: Orlando FL
   

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#55 » by Malik Starks » Wed Dec 12, 2012 1:15 am

@KingRobb02

Then I misunderstood your point, we don't exactly disagree. No one dispute that tanking works-eventually-the only question is how long it will take. I do think there is great value in veteran leadership and creating of winning (or at least trying to). Plus I've seen my share of weak drafts and this one looks like a weak one from what I understand.
User avatar
drsd
RealGM
Posts: 36,373
And1: 7,818
Joined: Mar 16, 2003
     

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#56 » by drsd » Wed Dec 12, 2012 9:30 am

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.

..
User avatar
IGotDaMagicInMe
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,965
And1: 203
Joined: Jun 24, 2011
     

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#57 » by IGotDaMagicInMe » Wed Dec 12, 2012 12:30 pm

BadMofoPimp wrote:
KingRobb02 wrote:
Make Playoffs: 32.6%


WOOT!!!! Those are better odds than playing Craps. Hell Yeah, going to the ship!!!


NBA title odds: 0.0% :(

Magic gonna prove y'all wrong!!! :lol:
Image
User avatar
KingRobb02
Lead Assistant
Posts: 5,464
And1: 917
Joined: Aug 07, 2007
         

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#58 » by KingRobb02 » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:10 pm

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.

..

Blake Griffin? Eric Gordon + Aminu for Chris Paul? They still haven't got any major free agents (aside from the failed Baron Davis thing, but that led to them low balling Elton Brand) or paid big money to re-sign anyone? What are you talking about?

The Warriors were just in the second round a few years ago. Do you not remember the We Believe team? That was just five years ago. 4 of that teams top 5 in minutes played were all drafted by the Warriors.

The Wizards are a weird case. They've only been in the lottery for 4 years now. They had a 45 win team that had a core they were happy with, but then Gil got hurt (Year 1), then Gil brought a gun to work (Year 2), then they had to blow it up (Magic trade Year 3, rebuilding year last year). Losing happens when you don't have your best player.

The Grizzlies are also a bad example because they were a 50 win team by Pau Gasol's 3rd season. I guess you could argue that rookie Gasol didn't solve everything, but that would be a weird argument to stand on.

I don't know why people keep arguing about the path to "eliteness". There is not path. The Thunder are where they are because of a lot of luck. No one should emulate that. The Heat are where they are because they have Lebron. There is only one of him so we can't emulate that. The Celtics got good by using McHale to trade a bunch of lottery picks for an all-time great. We don't have anyone who is that loyal to us. The Bulls are good because they kept drafting in the top 7 for years and then got lucky and picked #1 in the Derrick Rose year. The Spurs are good because they won the lottery, picked an all-time great and then could afford to be patient with late round guys and second round internationals. The Mavs are good because they drafted an all-time great and have an owner who just doesn't mind throwing money around. There is no set path. The only thing that is definite is that we need a great player first, and there aren't many ways for us to acquire one outside of the draft.
User avatar
BadMofoPimp
RealGM
Posts: 47,347
And1: 11,574
Joined: Oct 12, 2003
Location: In the Paint

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#59 » by BadMofoPimp » Wed Dec 12, 2012 3:34 pm

Well said King Rob. May I add:

Dirk Nowitzki was a draft day trade where Dallas traded for Milwaukee's draft pick to draft Dirk.

Hence, Dirk had nothing to do with draft position.
Image

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
Rccanes2311
Rookie
Posts: 1,071
And1: 0
Joined: May 14, 2008

Re: Power Ranking 

Post#60 » by Rccanes2311 » Fri Dec 14, 2012 12:27 pm

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.

..

No thanks, I'm not trusting any franchise's front office that continues to show how piss poor and incompetent they are year in and year out. Poorly run organizations don't get that kind of benfit if doubt I don't give a damn who's supposedly calling the shots. He lost that benefit of doubt when he did (Apparently you can't say Retart3d on this board which is disgusting, George Carlin would be ashamed. What a bunch of PC BS) trade with LA. Now he needs to prove himself and the best way to do that is bottom this team out and make some damn good draft picks in the top 5. Mediocre teams don't improve in the NBA unless it's a big market team that's handed great players on a silver platter (LA, Boston, Miami) that kind of stuff doesn't happen for a franchise like the Magic so building through the draft is a must.

Return to Orlando Magic