The big difference between us and other rebuilding teams.

[bstein14]

Saying they "didn't want to pay the tax" sort of ignores the fact that the CBA is still a thing that everybody has to deal with. Nobody get's to build a team in a vacuum. You have to pay those 1st round picks. You have to pay for the FA. You have to pay to keep talent.

Again, you can't just look at one piece of the puzzle and think you've solved it. It's not that simple. Everything is interconnected.

Another great reason to have more first round picks... locked into cheap contracts for four seasons. Someone like Prince being able to be a rotation player on a rookie deal really helps you have more $$$ to pay other guys without going into the tax.

Lots of good teams will have 3 guys on big $$$ deals and fill out their bench with vet min type guys and 1st round picks on cheap rookie deals. A luxury tax next year of $145 million puts teams able to have about $130 milion locked into their top 5 or 6 guys and then they can finish off the roster with the cheap deals.

For Detroit, the first real test will be in the 24-25 season where if we spend on FAs this year and next, we then have Bey, Stewart, and maybe Hayes up for 5th year large jumps in their contracts.

Again, I AGREE that having more picks would be better for us. I haven't disputed that. Not once. But we don't have them. And that is OK too. What point are you actually trying to make here? Simply saying "I wish we had more picks" serves no purpose. THAT is my argument. I wish I had a million dollars. But I don't. *shrug*

Just pointing out that all of the other 5 or 6 bottom teams in the league have added picks... we are the only team who is asset negative and has been a bottom 5 team for the last 3 seasons. We've clearly has some chances to add picks but have gone different routes with our cap space and trades.

[DocRI]

Another great reason to have more first round picks... locked into cheap contracts for four seasons. Someone like Prince being able to be a rotation player on a rookie deal really helps you have more $$$ to pay other guys without going into the tax.

Lots of good teams will have 3 guys on big $$$ deals and fill out their bench with vet min type guys and 1st round picks on cheap rookie deals. A luxury tax next year of $145 million puts teams able to have about $130 milion locked into their top 5 or 6 guys and then they can finish off the roster with the cheap deals.

For Detroit, the first real test will be in the 24-25 season where if we spend on FAs this year and next, we then have Bey, Stewart, and maybe Hayes up for 5th year large jumps in their contracts.

Again, I AGREE that having more picks would be better for us. I haven't disputed that. Not once. But we don't have them. And that is OK too. What point are you actually trying to make here? Simply saying "I wish we had more picks" serves no purpose. THAT is my argument. I wish I had a million dollars. But I don't. *shrug*

Just pointing out that all of the other 5 or 6 bottom teams in the league have added picks... we are the only team who is asset negative and has been a bottom 5 team for the last 3 seasons. We've clearly has some chances to add picks but have gone different routes with our cap space and trades.

On my iPad and can’t figure out how to put a quote in bold, so I’ll repeat your last sentence —

“We've clearly has some chances to add picks but have gone different routes with our cap space and trades.”

Chances to add picks … like trading a heavier-protected future pick for an immediate one on draft night? You seem really upset that we’re “asset negative” because we traded a future pick, but you’re ignoring the pick we received.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM mobile app

[whitehops]

we started our rebuild from an absolutely terrible position. we didn't just have no positive assets, we had multiple negative ones.

we're pretty much back to square 1 on the draft pick front, have cap space/flexibility going forward and we have cade, who is potentially a franchise player (the most valuable asset).

we could definitely be in a worse position.

[Cowology]

we started our rebuild from an absolutely terrible position. we didn't just have no positive assets, we had multiple negative ones.

we're pretty much back to square 1 on the draft pick front, have cap space/flexibility going forward and we have cade, who is potentially a franchise player (the most valuable asset).

we could definitely be in a worse position.

100%

It's amazing how quickly people forget how bad our situation actually was. Not only was the team atrocious, but it didn't look like we had any path to recovery. The future was bleak.

Most people were astonished that Weaver managed to tear it down as quickly as he did. Yeah, we can quibble over some of the details but any GM under scrutiny is going to have their share of misses. That's just the reality of the position; it's not an easy chair to sit in and nobody wins 100% of the time. It's even worse when you are starting with negative assets.

Instead of scrutinizing individual moves, I try to look at the bigger picture. Did the cumulative moves improve or worsen our situation? Maybe those moves people don't like were simply the cost of clearing salary and landing a player like Cade as quickly as we did. Sure, he could have haggled. He could have made move A instead of move B. But he acted aggressively to get us to this point as quickly as possible and yeah, that probably comes with some conditions that people don't like. So be it.

The guys not perfect. Our team isn't guaranteed anything. But I'm not measuring us against anybody but ourselves. Like I said before, I look at where we are now vs. where we were yesterday. The team is headed the right direction. Right now that is enough.

[ComboGuardCity]

Those late first round picks are overrated. Boston had a ton and all they really got were MLE level role players.

[bstein14]

For sure, if a team can miss on draft picks year after year. We did it for several years right before we won our championship in 04. The best use of draft picks for us were really Okur (early 2nd rounder), Prince (late first), and the two first rounders we traded away to get Sheed. All four of those picks were important to our championship.

Overall there are a lot of different ways to build a contender. There isn't just once blueprint. When Weaver took over the job he probably accepted a GM position with the absolute least amount of assets of any team in the league.... in the worst spot with Rose who could only get a 2nd rounder and Blake who we had to pay and keep on the books just to go away. We're 100% in a much better spot today than 18 months ago... we're just taking a bit of a different approach than most teams that seem to tear it down and rebuild.

[Pharaoh]

For sure, if a team can miss on draft picks year after year. We did it for several years right before we won our championship in 04. The best use of draft picks for us were really Okur (early 2nd rounder), Prince (late first), and the two first rounders we traded away to get Sheed. All four of those picks were important to our championship.

Overall there are a lot of different ways to build a contender. There isn't just once blueprint. When Weaver took over the job he probably accepted a GM position with the absolute least amount of assets of any team in the league.... in the worst spot with Rose who could only get a 2nd rounder and Blake who we had to pay and keep on the books just to go away. We're 100% in a much better spot today than 18 months ago... we're just taking a bit of a different approach than most teams that seem to tear it down and rebuild.

Perhaps we're in this different space deliberately?

Given our cap situation it's likely we've had requests to take contracts and picks to help alleviate tax bills from other teams (Brooklyn - Jordan)

Difference is that we didn't keep whatever guy, bought him out so he can go elsewhere and be happy.

We all need to remember that 2nds aren't all that important, despite what you read here!

We also need to realise that 10 dudes on the roster are under 24 years old ffs!

No Kids Allowed!

Winning teams generally have veteran leaders, old pros that help keep these entitled kids in line, educate them to the ways of the league on and off the floor!

We can all believe McGruder and CoJo have limited value on the floor - that evidence is not disputed!

But:

None of us are in the locker room, on the bus, on the plane, in practice or film sessions.

Considering the **** I've copped for defending Weaver I'm happy the narrative is changing around here.

Cade, Grant, Bey + 2022 pick? That's a great starting point for any rebuilding team!

Once again it seems that some imaginary pick in some other draft is a better idea than what we have already.


Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[440BB]

Instead of accumulating future firsts Weaver front loaded it with these four picks over two seasons, aggressively working to build a young foundation. I like the assets he assembled so far, including the young additions picked up in other ways. I think it is a good way to get in contention in a reasonable time frame with a solid core. Although I value the flexibility future first round picks provide, I like seeing tangible progress of actual developing players within the team.

Considering the bare cupboard Weaver began with, a strategy involving accumulating picks could have tested our patience to the breaking point. With another top pick on the roster the team should be respectable next season and a playoff team in '23-24. If we accomplish that and continue to contend for a few years I'd say Weaver's retool was a success.

[Snakebites]

I still don't and will never like the policy of acquiring contracts so they can be stretched.

The rest of it is defensible, and yes, I do think people have short memories. This team had what I'd easily consider to be the worst collection of assets in the league when Weaver took over. This isn't like the Thunder where they were in a non-contending situation but clearly had plus value players (stars, even) they could use to accrue assets. They had Russell Westbrook, Paul George, and an unexpectedly resurgent Chris Paul to use to acquire assets, and they've done a great job with the materials they had to work with. Materials we as a team never had.

Both SVG and Dumars before him essentially sabatogued any attempt to rebuild by dealing away picks, taking on veterans with large contracts, and signing bench players (guys we didn't even intend to have starting) to inexplicably large contracts. They did that while also accruing one of the worst drafting track records we've ever seen.

Stefanski at least gets credit for not making our salary situation even worse, but he still didn't put us in a good position. In his shoes the OKC management probably would have moved Blake at the trade deadline.

I'm not sure any GM has inherited a situation worse than Weaver did. I guess you could make a case for Sean Marks in Brooklyn, but at least they were in New York. All he had to do was gather a few assets and some cap space and he was able to build a contender in a couple of years. We won't have such an opportunity.

[Pharaoh]

And here's the kicker on having a war chest of draft capital:

It's irrelevant!

Having multiple first might seem like a great idea when they're imaginary pieces to be selected in some random year somewhere in the future but I reality teams are now smart enough to understand their real value.

Contenders trade them all away for players that can help NOW, bottom barrel teams stockpile them in the hope that somewhere down the line they can package them for a star at some point to push in to the play in zone.

Weaver didn't do that as he likely is following the Presti Sonics/Thunder blueprint.

Get your young core via your own picks, add quality vets around them via trade and free agency, then see what you have.

Fact he's acquired guys like Diallo and Bagley via trade is a very good thing - but they don't count as extra first round picks?

Bey and Stewart too

Josh Jackson.

There's 5 "extra" first round picks the front office acquired and oh no we gave up a heavily protected first and a bunch of not much else to do so

Might be a wild comment to make but:

Maybe Weaver might actually know what he's doing!

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Cowology]

That's the thing with picks; they are attractive because they are abstract potential. It's the same allure that actual lottery tickets have - you too could be a winner!!

[Pharaoh]

That's the thing with picks; they are attractive because they are abstract potential. It's the same allure that actual lottery tickets have - you too could be a winner!!

There seems to be this thought - posted by multiple vets on here - that some other random young player or pick is a valuable commodity.

Compared to what?

If you look at Bagley, Diallo, Bey & Stewart what are they actually worth? Lotto pick? Mid first? Late first?

Who knows!

What we do know is we as a organisation managed to acquire all 4 of them for very little in the grand scheme of things.

Yet somehow not having future firsts in our back pocket is a issue?

People do have short memories.

Weaver has 4 years before I reach my conclusion on him as a GM - so far so good and while I disagreement with some things it's safe to assume he knows a little bit more than me about running a NBA franchise considering umm that's his **** job and he's paid millions to do it

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[FloridaMan78]

And here's the kicker on having a war chest of draft capital:

It's irrelevant!

Having multiple first might seem like a great idea when they're imaginary pieces to be selected in some random year somewhere in the future but I reality teams are now smart enough to understand their real value.

Contenders trade them all away for players that can help NOW, bottom barrel teams stockpile them in the hope that somewhere down the line they can package them for a star at some point to push in to the play in zone.

Weaver didn't do that as he likely is following the Presti Sonics/Thunder blueprint.

Get your young core via your own picks, add quality vets around them via trade and free agency, then see what you have.

Fact he's acquired guys like Diallo and Bagley via trade is a very good thing - but they don't count as extra first round picks?

Bey and Stewart too

Josh Jackson.

There's 5 "extra" first round picks the front office acquired and oh no we gave up a heavily protected first and a bunch of not much else to do so

Might be a wild comment to make but:

Maybe Weaver might actually know what he's doing!

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

It’s funny though because OKC is the poster child for taking on bad contracts in exchange for extra first round picks. The Horford trade times two, Kemba Walker, Derrick Favors.

Yet Weaver chooses not to do that. And we can only speculate as to why he doesn’t. IMO he’s a players GM and doesn’t look at his players as commodities like other GMs.

[Pharaoh]

And here's the kicker on having a war chest of draft capital:

It's irrelevant!

Having multiple first might seem like a great idea when they're imaginary pieces to be selected in some random year somewhere in the future but I reality teams are now smart enough to understand their real value.

Contenders trade them all away for players that can help NOW, bottom barrel teams stockpile them in the hope that somewhere down the line they can package them for a star at some point to push in to the play in zone.

Weaver didn't do that as he likely is following the Presti Sonics/Thunder blueprint.

Get your young core via your own picks, add quality vets around them via trade and free agency, then see what you have.

Fact he's acquired guys like Diallo and Bagley via trade is a very good thing - but they don't count as extra first round picks?

Bey and Stewart too

Josh Jackson.

There's 5 "extra" first round picks the front office acquired and oh no we gave up a heavily protected first and a bunch of not much else to do so

Might be a wild comment to make but:

Maybe Weaver might actually know what he's doing!

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

It’s funny though because OKC is the poster child for taking on bad contracts in exchange for extra first round picks. The Horford trade times two, Kemba Walker, Derrick Favors.

Yet Weaver chooses not to do that. And we can only speculate as to why he doesn’t. IMO he’s a players GM and doesn’t look at his players as commodities like other GMs.

Until Presti turns all those extra picks into anything actually tangible it's false hope for the future though.

At some point in a rebuild you have to put bodies on the floor and have a unit that wins games.

Having a million future firsts in some other year doesn't impact the games being played right now.

They're assets to utilise - until they are actually used it's a mirage

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Cowology]

And here's the kicker on having a war chest of draft capital:

It's irrelevant!

Having multiple first might seem like a great idea when they're imaginary pieces to be selected in some random year somewhere in the future but I reality teams are now smart enough to understand their real value.

Contenders trade them all away for players that can help NOW, bottom barrel teams stockpile them in the hope that somewhere down the line they can package them for a star at some point to push in to the play in zone.

Weaver didn't do that as he likely is following the Presti Sonics/Thunder blueprint.

Get your young core via your own picks, add quality vets around them via trade and free agency, then see what you have.

Fact he's acquired guys like Diallo and Bagley via trade is a very good thing - but they don't count as extra first round picks?

Bey and Stewart too

Josh Jackson.

There's 5 "extra" first round picks the front office acquired and oh no we gave up a heavily protected first and a bunch of not much else to do so

Might be a wild comment to make but:

Maybe Weaver might actually know what he's doing!

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

It’s funny though because OKC is the poster child for taking on bad contracts in exchange for extra first round picks. The Horford trade times two, Kemba Walker, Derrick Favors.

Yet Weaver chooses not to do that. And we can only speculate as to why he doesn’t. IMO he’s a players GM and doesn’t look at his players as commodities like other GMs.

Until Presti turns all those extra picks into anything actually tangible it's false hope for the future though.

At some point in a rebuild you have to put bodies on the floor and have a unit that wins games.

Having a million future firsts in some other year doesn't impact the games being played right now.

They're assets to utilise - until they are actually used it's a mirage

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

This.

Future picks are great "assets" but each pick is also delayed actuality. It's kicking that tire further down the road. At some point you need to start worrying about today and stop living on the promise of tomorrow.

You sometimes see posters on this board talk about perpetual rebuilding and how we shouldn't just trade away assets for picks again and again. For the most part people recognize that's not where we want to be. Where I think some people tend to get a little lost is in identifying why we're not stuck in that pattern. That goes directly to understanding the acquisition of players like Cade, Bey, Stewart, Diallo & Bagley. We fail to identify them as draft capital manifested. All we see is what they are not; draft potential.

[Pharaoh]

It’s funny though because OKC is the poster child for taking on bad contracts in exchange for extra first round picks. The Horford trade times two, Kemba Walker, Derrick Favors.

Yet Weaver chooses not to do that. And we can only speculate as to why he doesn’t. IMO he’s a players GM and doesn’t look at his players as commodities like other GMs.

Until Presti turns all those extra picks into anything actually tangible it's false hope for the future though.

At some point in a rebuild you have to put bodies on the floor and have a unit that wins games.

Having a million future firsts in some other year doesn't impact the games being played right now.

They're assets to utilise - until they are actually used it's a mirage

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

This.

Future picks are great "assets" but each pick is also delayed actuality. It's kicking that tire further down the road. At some point you need to start worrying about today and stop living on the promise of tomorrow.

You sometimes see posters on this board talk about perpetual rebuilding and how we shouldn't just trade away assets for picks again and again. For the most part people recognize that's not where we want to be. Where I think some people tend to get a little lost is in identifying why we're not stuck in that pattern. That goes directly to understanding the acquisition of players like Cade, Bey, Stewart, Diallo & Bagley. We fail to identify them as draft capital manifested. All we see is what they are not; draft potential.

There's this belief that we should trade dudes like Grant and KO for draft capital cause we're rebuilding.

Ok so let's take that thought ALL the way to the end:

You're trading Grant or KO for a future first round pick in the HOPE you can draft a player that eventually ends up as good as they already are!

That's some seriously insane thinking! You have them on board now, both came here by choice, both provide things on and off the floor that some imaginary draft pick may or may not provide.

It's the belief that the grass is greener over that fence!

The grass is **** green where you water it! So water this! It won't grow overnight and the rush to return to mediocrity boggles my mind!

Let this marinate for a bit ffs!


Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

[Cowology]

If we use our pick to draft a big I'd be OK trading Grant for a backcourt upgrade. A comparable player that can be paired with Cade. I just have no clue who that would be. It's not a trade him just to trade him sort of deal; I want something very specific back and that may not be a realistic option. I can't handle another year of CoJo/McGruder/Hayes nonsense.

[bstein14]

Until Presti turns all those extra picks into anything actually tangible it's false hope for the future though.

At some point in a rebuild you have to put bodies on the floor and have a unit that wins games.

Having a million future firsts in some other year doesn't impact the games being played right now.

They're assets to utilise - until they are actually used it's a mirage

Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

This.

Future picks are great "assets" but each pick is also delayed actuality. It's kicking that tire further down the road. At some point you need to start worrying about today and stop living on the promise of tomorrow.

You sometimes see posters on this board talk about perpetual rebuilding and how we shouldn't just trade away assets for picks again and again. For the most part people recognize that's not where we want to be. Where I think some people tend to get a little lost is in identifying why we're not stuck in that pattern. That goes directly to understanding the acquisition of players like Cade, Bey, Stewart, Diallo & Bagley. We fail to identify them as draft capital manifested. All we see is what they are not; draft potential.

There's this belief that we should trade dudes like Grant and KO for draft capital cause we're rebuilding.

Ok so let's take that thought ALL the way to the end:

You're trading Grant or KO for a future first round pick in the HOPE you can draft a player that eventually ends up as good as they already are!

That's some seriously insane thinking! You have them on board now, both came here by choice, both provide things on and off the floor that some imaginary draft pick may or may not provide.

It's the belief that the grass is greener over that fence!

The grass is **** green where you water it! So water this! It won't grow overnight and the rush to return to mediocrity boggles my mind!

Let this marinate for a bit ffs!


Sent from my SM-G781B using RealGM Forums mobile app

Obviously a few of the biggest issues are keeping Grant vs trading Grant. Are we ok with our top 3 or 4 pick coming off the bench to to be Grant's backup to start out until a time comes where that pick earns the starting spot? Zero chance Grant comes off the bench on a lottery team in his contract year. Grant has made is very clear that he wants/expects an extension this summer. So that's going to happen and then where does his trade value go. If we don't extend him does he feel the need to move on for nothing the following summer? Did we miss our chance to get max value out of him asset wise, as we know that Boston had a large trade exception and offered multiple first round picks for Grant in the 2021 trade deadline.

Kelly O was a bit of a surprising vet choice considering his age and the fact he also plays the same position as Grant. If you're also going to bring in a guy like Bagley and end up with a top 4 draft pick with several "bigs" available at the top you just don't have room for both Grant and Kelly in the rotation unless you're moving on from Stewart, which I think is very unlikely. Olynyk is for sure a guy that, partly due to his injury and perhaps just overall decline due to his age, is a signing that looks like it won't pay off as well as if we just simply signed another vet player for the min and instead used that cap space for acquiring draft assets or a different younger player that better fits our timeline. I would say that right now, if we want to move on from Kelly to clear space for a different player, it is likely harder than moving on from Plumlee last year, who we had to give up a second rounder to move on from.

Weaver being attached to his players and not looking at them like assets can be great, but also has some downsides as well. He might keep some of these guys too long past the point where it makes sense to keep them based on other players coming in. Will wanting to keep the guys he already has connections to prevent him from making the moves to make this team better? Of our 15 guys from this season how many of them are going to be back next year? 11? 12? At some point when you're at the bottom you need to make enough changes to make sure you give yourself a chance to rise up a bit.

[440BB]

I think Weaver continues to view the players as assets, whether they're "his guy" or not. His trade of McGruder showed that to me this season. Not trading Grant in his first season to Boston doesn't imply he holds on too long, more that the timing was way too early and Grant's value wasn't expected to change. I also think trading Grant early after he chose the Pistons over Denver would have been counterproductive in terms of trust and culture going forward. It would be a red flag for future free agents when the time comes to add that final piece or two. Keeping Grant this season and watching him adapt to his new role, it might just be the best move in any case.

Partway through his second year as GM, it's premature to assume he will hold on to players too long out of a sense of loyalty. I think Weaver's experimenting with some of these vets while expectations are low, while not locking up long term money too soon. When playoff possibilities get serious in '23-24, we'll see whether he hung on to any dead weight and how his draft stockpile looks.