RealGM

Pharaoh wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:

tradez401 wrote:https://fadeawayworld.net/2019/07/16/nba-rumors-spurs-have-talked-to-pistons-magic-bulls-about-demar-derozan-trade/

would demar be worth getting?

Oh interesting. I think DeRozan is pretty underrated these days. He isn't a good 3pt threat and I think people write him off because of that but he scored 21ppg on 48% shooting last season in a Spurs offense playing as a 2nd option. He is also a year young than Griffin too.

Snell, Galloway, Kennard, FRP for DeRozan

Jackson/Rose/Frazier
DeRozan/Thomas
Doumbouya/Mykhailiuk/Brown
Griffin/Morris/Maker
Drummond/Wood

Could try to make another big trade at the deadline with Jackson's expiring, Doumbouya, and picks

Prefer to give them Reggie, Galloway, Thon and a lotto protected pick.

I wouldn't give up any young talent for what could be a 1 year rental.

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

That would definitely be ideal but idk what DeRozan's value is. Not sure just a first gets you him. I think DeRozan would also be more than happy to resign with a Casey led team but again, who knows. What I do know is that DeRozan has some damn good stats but is still probably at his lowest value due to not being an outside shooter and I think we should make a move for him if it doesn't break the bank.

But it's just another Conley/Westbrook/CP3 kinda move.

Trying to put a bandaid in a bullet wound.

DeRozan MIGHT get us to the 2nd round but we're certainly not gonna be contenders.

After the season dude could move to LA to be the 3rd option and we get nothing for him

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

Pharaoh wrote:But it's just another Conley/Westbrook/CP3 kinda move.

Trying to put a bandaid in a bullet wound.

DeRozan MIGHT get us to the 2nd round but we're certainly not gonna be contenders.

After the season dude could move to LA to be the 3rd option and we get nothing for him

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

True. There is some risk but teams need to take risks to be good. TOR took the biggest of risks and it paid off in the biggest of ways even though the risk also came true. If we traded for DeRozan we would still have Kennard or Sekou and multiple first round picks to bring in another big piece. DeRozan doesn't have to be the final piece even. Look at HOU. They have been in the luxury tax with some bad contracts and have still managed to be in the discussion for some big names. There is always a way to upgrade in the NBA.

DeRozan is not worth the risk if we're giving up Luke, Brown or Sekou. If you're the Spurs you're not dealing DeRozan to Detroit unless you get 1 of them back.

Now our off-season is done here's my ideal rotation:

RJ 24 - Rose 24
Luke 28 - Brown 20
Sekou 20 - Snell 18 - Svi 10
Blake 30 - Kieff 18
Dre 30 - Kieff 6 - Wood/Thon 12

12 dudes, developing Luke, Brown, Sekou, Svi, Wood & Thon while we've got vets to lean on.

All PG minutes go to the vets. 84 of a possible 96 minutes at PF & C go to vets as well. It's on those guys to communicate to the young guys, especially on D.

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

DetroitPistons wrote:

Pharaoh wrote:But it's just another Conley/Westbrook/CP3 kinda move.

Trying to put a bandaid in a bullet wound.

DeRozan MIGHT get us to the 2nd round but we're certainly not gonna be contenders.

After the season dude could move to LA to be the 3rd option and we get nothing for him

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

True. There is some risk but teams need to take risks to be good. TOR took the biggest of risks and it paid off in the biggest of ways even though the risk also came true. If we traded for DeRozan we would still have Kennard or Sekou and multiple first round picks to bring in another big piece. DeRozan doesn't have to be the final piece even. Look at HOU. They have been in the luxury tax with some bad contracts and have still managed to be in the discussion for some big names. There is always a way to upgrade in the NBA.

Sorry, but you’re comparing apples and dog s**t. Toronto was a 50-win playoff team BEFORE adding Kawhi freakin’ Leonard. What “biggest of risks” are you talking about?

Manocad wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:

Pharaoh wrote:But it's just another Conley/Westbrook/CP3 kinda move.

Trying to put a bandaid in a bullet wound.

DeRozan MIGHT get us to the 2nd round but we're certainly not gonna be contenders.

After the season dude could move to LA to be the 3rd option and we get nothing for him

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

True. There is some risk but teams need to take risks to be good. TOR took the biggest of risks and it paid off in the biggest of ways even though the risk also came true. If we traded for DeRozan we would still have Kennard or Sekou and multiple first round picks to bring in another big piece. DeRozan doesn't have to be the final piece even. Look at HOU. They have been in the luxury tax with some bad contracts and have still managed to be in the discussion for some big names. There is always a way to upgrade in the NBA.

Sorry, but you’re comparing apples and dog s**t. Toronto was a 50-win playoff team BEFORE adding Kawhi freakin’ Leonard. What “biggest of risks” are you talking about?

I'm not comparing DET and TOR as teams... I'm just using another example of how teams often have to make gambles to take the next step. Idk where you've been the past year but I'll fill you in. TOR taking the "biggest of risks" is a reference to them trading their best player in a package for a 1 year rental star in hopes to take a step forward. It paid off in that they won it all but the big risk also came true in that Leonard is now gone and TOR is looking at an old roster that will be making massive changes soon.

DetroitPistons wrote:

Pharaoh wrote:But it's just another Conley/Westbrook/CP3 kinda move.

Trying to put a bandaid in a bullet wound.

DeRozan MIGHT get us to the 2nd round but we're certainly not gonna be contenders.

After the season dude could move to LA to be the 3rd option and we get nothing for him

Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

True. There is some risk but teams need to take risks to be good. TOR took the biggest of risks and it paid off in the biggest of ways even though the risk also came true. If we traded for DeRozan we would still have Kennard or Sekou and multiple first round picks to bring in another big piece. DeRozan doesn't have to be the final piece even.Look at HOU. They have been in the luxury tax with some bad contracts and have still managed to be in the discussion for some big names. There is always a way to upgrade in the NBA.

Not trying to weaking you're arguement, but the Rockets have purposely avoided the tax for years. This year may be no different.

DetroitPistons wrote:

Manocad wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:
True. There is some risk but teams need to take risks to be good. TOR took the biggest of risks and it paid off in the biggest of ways even though the risk also came true. If we traded for DeRozan we would still have Kennard or Sekou and multiple first round picks to bring in another big piece. DeRozan doesn't have to be the final piece even. Look at HOU. They have been in the luxury tax with some bad contracts and have still managed to be in the discussion for some big names. There is always a way to upgrade in the NBA.

Sorry, but you’re comparing apples and dog s**t. Toronto was a 50-win playoff team BEFORE adding Kawhi freakin’ Leonard. What “biggest of risks” are you talking about?

I'm not comparing DET and TOR as teams... I'm just using another example of how teams often have to make gambles to take the next step. Idk where you've been the past year but I'll fill you in. TOR taking the "biggest of risks" is a reference to them trading their best player in a package for a 1 year rental star in hopes to take a step forward. It paid off in that they won it all but the big risk also came true in that Leonard is now gone and TOR is looking at an old roster that will be making massive changes soon.

I really don't see a huge risk in essentially trading for a proven superstar (not the Westbrooks/CP3s) for a multi all star considering how wide of a gap there is in between their ability to be a star. When the trade happened, no one said the Spurs won by any means, and the trade was going to only get better as Kawhi continued to get healthy. All they gave up was Poeltl, a lousy pick, and Demar? I think any GM would do that, especially Masai who hasn't exactly made it a secret that he wanted to rebuild after continued disappointing exits by Lebron. It was only when BOS and PHI balked at giving up their young players for Kawhi that the market dried up for the Spurs that it became a no brainer to go for it, considering a rebuild was already in the works by 2020. all 3 of Lowry, DDR (PO), and Ibaka were basically signed only for the 2019-2020 season, Masai already planned this rebuild from the beginning.

I guess the only "risk" I see is Kawhi getting injured again or he's nowhere near his prime and he bolts in FA. But if he bolts, they're setup to rebuild in 2020 (which again, Masai was eager for) and only lost Poetl and Demar, so I don't see a colossal downside.

Get DeRozen over here asap!!!

DetroitPistons wrote:

Manocad wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:
True. There is some risk but teams need to take risks to be good. TOR took the biggest of risks and it paid off in the biggest of ways even though the risk also came true. If we traded for DeRozan we would still have Kennard or Sekou and multiple first round picks to bring in another big piece. DeRozan doesn't have to be the final piece even. Look at HOU. They have been in the luxury tax with some bad contracts and have still managed to be in the discussion for some big names. There is always a way to upgrade in the NBA.

Sorry, but you’re comparing apples and dog s**t. Toronto was a 50-win playoff team BEFORE adding Kawhi freakin’ Leonard. What “biggest of risks” are you talking about?

I'm not comparing DET and TOR as teams... I'm just using another example of how teams often have to make gambles to take the next step. Idk where you've been the past year but I'll fill you in. TOR taking the "biggest of risks" is a reference to them trading their best player in a package for a 1 year rental star in hopes to take a step forward. It paid off in that they won it all but the big risk also came true in that Leonard is now gone and TOR is looking at an old roster that will be making massive changes soon.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

Manocad wrote:You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

I am NOT trying to say that DET is trying to emulate TOR. I've already stated that. You are attacking a straw man. We aren't good enough to become an instant contender by trading for DeRozan. However, it does jump us up the standings quite a bit imo and I've also stated earlier in the thread that it would leave us with enough assets to make another major move after that at the deadline to put us in position to be a top team in the East if we make the right moves.

My whole point is that usually teams have to make some kind of risk to take a big step, that's all. If MIA would've traded for Westbrook that would've been another example. It would've jumped them up the standings quite a bit at the expense of future assets and/or taking on a massive contract that scares the crap out of everyone.

DetroitPistons wrote:

Manocad wrote:You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

I am NOT trying to say that DET is trying to emulate TOR. I've already stated that. You are attacking a straw man. We aren't good enough to become an instant contender by trading for DeRozan. However, it does jump us up the standings quite a bit imo and I've also stated earlier in the thread that it would leave us with enough assets to make another major move after that at the deadline to put us in position to be a top team in the East if we make the right moves.

My whole point is that usually teams have to make some kind of risk to take a big step, that's all. If MIA would've traded for Westbrook that would've been another example. It would've jumped them up the standings quite a bit at the expense of future assets and/or taking on a massive contract that scares the crap out of everyone.

I am not attacking a straw man. I'm saying your logic doesn't hold water in my opinion because there are no moves available that will make the Pistons a contender anytime soon, thus taking a risk now makes no sense because the desired payoff isn't there.

Like spending money for new racing tires when you also need a new engine to win the race, except there are no engines for sale. Thus, what's the point in spending the money on the tires?

Manocad wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:

Manocad wrote:You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

I am NOT trying to say that DET is trying to emulate TOR. I've already stated that. You are attacking a straw man. We aren't good enough to become an instant contender by trading for DeRozan. However, it does jump us up the standings quite a bit imo and I've also stated earlier in the thread that it would leave us with enough assets to make another major move after that at the deadline to put us in position to be a top team in the East if we make the right moves.

My whole point is that usually teams have to make some kind of risk to take a big step, that's all. If MIA would've traded for Westbrook that would've been another example. It would've jumped them up the standings quite a bit at the expense of future assets and/or taking on a massive contract that scares the crap out of everyone.

I am not attacking a straw man. I'm saying your logic doesn't hold water in my opinion because there are no moves available that will make the Pistons a contender anytime soon, thus taking a risk now makes no sense because the desired payoff isn't there.

Like spending money for new racing tires when you also need a new engine to win the race, except there are no engines for sale. Thus, what's the point in spending the money on the tires?

Spoiler:

Analogy Man in full effect, brutha!

Good thing the laws of logic are not influenced by your opinions. Are you honestly telling me that you know what every team is or isn't looking to do for next years trade deadline? Move over Shams and Woj, apparently Manocad already can tell you exactly what future options we have 7 months from now. Come on man... There are ALWAYS options available.

DetroitPistons wrote:

Manocad wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:
I am NOT trying to say that DET is trying to emulate TOR. I've already stated that. You are attacking a straw man. We aren't good enough to become an instant contender by trading for DeRozan. However, it does jump us up the standings quite a bit imo and I've also stated earlier in the thread that it would leave us with enough assets to make another major move after that at the deadline to put us in position to be a top team in the East if we make the right moves.

My whole point is that usually teams have to make some kind of risk to take a big step, that's all. If MIA would've traded for Westbrook that would've been another example. It would've jumped them up the standings quite a bit at the expense of future assets and/or taking on a massive contract that scares the crap out of everyone.

I am not attacking a straw man. I'm saying your logic doesn't hold water in my opinion because there are no moves available that will make the Pistons a contender anytime soon, thus taking a risk now makes no sense because the desired payoff isn't there.

Like spending money for new racing tires when you also need a new engine to win the race, except there are no engines for sale. Thus, what's the point in spending the money on the tires?

Spoiler:

Analogy Man in full effect, brutha!

Good thing the laws of logic are not influenced by your opinions. Are you honestly telling me that you know what every team is or isn't looking to do for next years trade deadline? Move over Shams and Woj, apparently Manocad already can tell you exactly what future options we have 7 months from now. Come on man... There are ALWAYS options available.

Apparently your irony detection meter is broken. You're using the exact same logic I am, just on the other side of the fence. I'm saying don't take a chance because the finishing touches aren't available, and you're saying take a chance because, well, something's always available. So YOU'RE the one saying you know that there will be options available, not me. I'm saying DON'T take the chance because I DON'T KNOW what options will be available, only that right now there aren't any good ones relative to championship team-building.

And as has already been pointed out, if you're going after Demar Derozan as one of your building blocks to win a championship, you're just plain desperate. You're acting like Toronto trading him was like Cleveland trading Lebron. There are PLENTY of people who would argue that Toronto did themselves a favor by moving Demar even if they hadn't gotten Kawhi in return.

Manocad wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:

Manocad wrote:Sorry, but you’re comparing apples and dog s**t. Toronto was a 50-win playoff team BEFORE adding Kawhi freakin’ Leonard. What “biggest of risks” are you talking about?

I'm not comparing DET and TOR as teams... I'm just using another example of how teams often have to make gambles to take the next step. Idk where you've been the past year but I'll fill you in. TOR taking the "biggest of risks" is a reference to them trading their best player in a package for a 1 year rental star in hopes to take a step forward. It paid off in that they won it all but the big risk also came true in that Leonard is now gone and TOR is looking at an old roster that will be making massive changes soon.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Philly did, they can achieve what Philly achieved. By definition Detroit cannot achieve what Philly achieved by doing what Philly did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Philly did.

BadMofoPimp wrote:

Manocad wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:
I'm not comparing DET and TOR as teams... I'm just using another example of how teams often have to make gambles to take the next step. Idk where you've been the past year but I'll fill you in. TOR taking the "biggest of risks" is a reference to them trading their best player in a package for a 1 year rental star in hopes to take a step forward. It paid off in that they won it all but the big risk also came true in that Leonard is now gone and TOR is looking at an old roster that will be making massive changes soon.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Philly did, they can achieve what Philly achieved. By definition Detroit cannot achieve what Philly achieved by doing what Philly did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Philly did.

Never have I suggested that the Pistons rebuild in the manner Philly has attempted. I have explicitly stated that losing on purpose, i.e. not putting your best team on the floor every night--which is what tanking is, not rebuilding--is not the way to rebuild a team. There are fans who pay money to see the team try to win on a nightly basis, whether they're a championship-caliber team or a young, on the way up, probably won't make the playoffs team.

BadMofoPimp wrote:

Manocad wrote:

DetroitPistons wrote:
I'm not comparing DET and TOR as teams... I'm just using another example of how teams often have to make gambles to take the next step. Idk where you've been the past year but I'll fill you in. TOR taking the "biggest of risks" is a reference to them trading their best player in a package for a 1 year rental star in hopes to take a step forward. It paid off in that they won it all but the big risk also came true in that Leonard is now gone and TOR is looking at an old roster that will be making massive changes soon.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Philly did, they can achieve what Philly achieved. By definition Detroit cannot achieve what Philly achieved by doing what Philly did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Philly did.

Why can’t Detroit achieve what Philly did? They made numerous mistakes in their tanking and rebuilding phase and yet they are objectively a top 2 team in the east and you could easily make the argument as the top. I understand the draft lottery has changed that would make their strategy appear extreme but the logic and calculated risks of taking on young players with upside and as many picks as possible is a model I think we should be following.

I find it funny that discussions currently and for the past few years seem to end with team rebuild vs team win-now, and what we’ve done for the last 10+ year is try to win now and it’s gotten us to 8 seed playoff showing and nothing else.

A_dub06 wrote:

BadMofoPimp wrote:

Manocad wrote:You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Philly did, they can achieve what Philly achieved. By definition Detroit cannot achieve what Philly achieved by doing what Philly did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Philly did.

Why can’t Detroit achieve what Philly did? They made numerous mistakes in their tanking and rebuilding phase and yet they are objectively a top 2 team in the east and you could easily make the argument as the top. I understand the draft lottery has changed that would make their strategy appear extreme but the logic and calculated risks of taking on young players with upside and as many picks as possible is a model I think we should be following.

I find it funny that discussions currently and for the past few years seem to end with team rebuild vs team win-now, and what we’ve done for the last 10+ year is try to win now and it’s gotten us to 8 seed playoff showing and nothing else.

They were only good because they got lucky that the Bucks didn't take Embiid before them. If they didn't win Embiid, they would be worse than Detroit right now.

A_dub06 wrote:

BadMofoPimp wrote:

Manocad wrote:You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Toronto did, they can achieve what Toronto achieved. However since you've confirmed that Detroit does not compare to Toronto, then by definition Detroit cannot achieve what Toronto achieved by doing what Toronto did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Toronto did.

Let's say you can sell your $1 million mansion to buy a race car that's fast enough to win the big race, and you do. Awesome--you took the biggest of risks and it paid off. Now, I don't know where you've been the last year but I'll fill you in...the Pistons don't live in a $1 million mansion. Their house is more like a 2 bedroom, 1200 sq ft bungalow. Sure, they could take the biggest of risks and sell their house...and still be about $850K short.

Oh, and the race car has already been sold anyway.

You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Philly did, they can achieve what Philly achieved. By definition Detroit cannot achieve what Philly achieved by doing what Philly did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Philly did.

Why can’t Detroit achieve what Philly did? They made numerous mistakes in their tanking and rebuilding phase and yet they are objectively a top 2 team in the east and you could easily make the argument as the top. I understand the draft lottery has changed that would make their strategy appear extreme but the logic and calculated risks of taking on young players with upside and as many picks as possible is a model I think we should be following.

I find it funny that discussions currently and for the past few years seem to end with team rebuild vs team win-now, and what we’ve done for the last 10+ year is try to win now and it’s gotten us to 8 seed playoff showing and nothing else.

I disagree with the idea we've been trying to win now the last 10 years.

I'd argue we've tried to retool/rebuild on the fly while remaining competitive. All that's done is put us in no man's land.


Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

Pharaoh wrote:

A_dub06 wrote:

BadMofoPimp wrote:
You're suggesting that if the Pistons do what Philly did, they can achieve what Philly achieved. By definition Detroit cannot achieve what Philly achieved by doing what Philly did, especially since Detroit CAN'T do what Philly did.

Why can’t Detroit achieve what Philly did? They made numerous mistakes in their tanking and rebuilding phase and yet they are objectively a top 2 team in the east and you could easily make the argument as the top. I understand the draft lottery has changed that would make their strategy appear extreme but the logic and calculated risks of taking on young players with upside and as many picks as possible is a model I think we should be following.

I find it funny that discussions currently and for the past few years seem to end with team rebuild vs team win-now, and what we’ve done for the last 10+ year is try to win now and it’s gotten us to 8 seed playoff showing and nothing else.

I disagree with the idea we've been trying to win now the last 10 years.

I'd argue we've tried to retool/rebuild on the fly while remaining competitive. All that's done is put us in no man's land.


Sent from my SM-A520F using RealGM mobile app

It has worked for the best 2 teams in the East aka Bucks and Raptors. Tanking fails more often than succeeds.