What Rebuild - The plan was always to compete in 2025-2026

[Senbonzakura]

I think right now what we have is some players that would fit well as 2nd/3rd/4th options around a superstar talent. I think Ingram can be your #2 scorer, Scottie can be your #3 kinda do it all type of guy. What we need to get our hands on is a superstar.

If our pick ends up being top 5, there are definitely a lot of assets we can use to land one, since Quickley and RJ should still have pretty good value and our young guys have been performing well.

[Scase]

I question the deal for similar reasons, but there are still a lot of ways this can break good for the Raptors. Seriously this tWo stuff is just MAGA for the NBA and I would think you would be one of the posters to recognize that. There's a lot of handwringing over guys that haven't stepped onto an NBA court yet, and a lot of bluster over crappy odds at things working out one way or the other.

Also, again, the Bulls and Kings are results of years and years of doing the exact same kind of tanking you are advocating for. They are the negative results.

Even if everything goes right with Ingram the ceiling of this team is what second round? And eventually we’ll have to trade guys or let them walk because we can’t afford everybody.

Two has it right that the draft is the way to rebuild and get talent that overperforms their salary.

The Bulls and Kings never did a proper rebuild. They did half measures and traded picks for borderline allstars and role players similar to what we’ve done. Tbh

No, they picked poorly. Often. The end result is building with the good players they did have, which is where you picked up the scent of treadmill. They never did the rebuild 'proper' is just confirmation bias. The only proper rebuilds are the ones that work, where the concessions pan out and the picks pan out. All the mistakes and bad years are shrugged off. You aren't a fan of those teams, so you get to just admire the turn around and make the same mockery of those that can't figure it out. It's been like this since I've been here. It doesn't matter if it's you or any of them, they are rebuild over country. That's all it is.

As for what tWo has right, how often is that savings converted into a title? The title contending teams tend to be older and expensive. What tWo has right is that it's easier to delude yourself into a hopeful outcome with less data, which is what happens when we integrate young players into a team or the league. It's just a psychological trick. It's not reality-based. What they don't account for is the downswell as those players fail to meet their expectations, which leads them back to... we need to tank again, we didn't tank enough, and all those complaints.

The ceiling with Ingram is unknown. It seems silly to presume that a team with a very high pick is going to tap out at round 2 just because it isn't as high as you want it to be. Ultimately it's still going to come down to the lottery balls and the player actually panning out.

You realize the **** you are shovelling is pretty easy to refute right?

In the last 10 seasons the Bulls have had the following FRPs : 11, none, 18, none, 4, 7, 16, 14, 22, 16 and 19. So in a full decade of evidently tanking, they have 2 picks in the top 10, a bunch in the teens, and a couple years of no FRPs at all.

And the records for those years? 39-43, 40-42, 46-36, 31-41, 22-43, 22-60, 27-55, 41-41, 42-40, 50-32.

But yeah, totally years of doing the same thing people are asking for right? Everyone in the tanking thread is just screaming from the rooftops that we should aim for that 30-40 win area where you get a bad pick and have no improvement. Their 3 worst seasons in that time frame resulted in them finishing 6th, 4th, and 7th. 2 of 3 finishes in the exact spot that everyone is saying we DON'T want to be, but yeah, totally the same. Brilliant.

And the kings are more of the same, in the last 10 years they have finished. 6th, 10th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 11th, 8th, 7th, 14th, and one year of finishing 7th best in the NBA. So again, another decade of treadmill finishes in the exact places everyone is screaming we DON'T want to be.

Both the Bulls and Kings for more than a decade, have done nothing but sit on the fringes of play in/playoffs. The kings definitely had way more lotto luck than the bulls, but the story is largely the same. Neither team bottomed out, and between them in TWENTY SEASONS WORTH, only ONE of them ended with a bottom 5 record.

Like why lie about this stuff when it's so easily verifiable on a multitude of websites.

[sidsid]

The main issue some of y'all have is the order of process. If we tanked for Barnes, (which we did), tanked the following year and ended up with whoever we end up with this year, then added Gradey/jakobe thru draft in yr 3, and ONLY THEN trade for Quickly/RJ/BI/Jakob all while giving up a couple future 1st, y'all would call that a master class. Not to mention Shead Mogbo chomche and battle in the 2nd, but because we acquired some of those players and used some of those picks in different orders it doesn't follow the tank and rebuild playbook 101

You’re right. But all the frustration comes down to that Poeltl trade imo

Being 6th worse and making a push for the play in while giving up a future lightly protected 1st was stupid.

I understand why it was done, gave that core what they had been asking for (a C) and gave that group one last chance, I really get it. No one can ever say, “What if…”. They were bad and it was time to move on.

But the consequences of that trade meant losing out on any real chance of Wemby (Spurs went from 5th to 1st in lottery). While Gradey has performed over his draft selection, still would have been nice to have higher pick (Miller? Coulibaly? Thompson twin?).

Then enduring last year for San Antonio benefit. Would be nice to have Edey or Ware right now (full disclosure: I had Ware DND last year and that was a mistake!).

But it all comes down to the Poeltl trade imo. Tough to get past that.

In the meantime praying to the lottery gods, clicking tankathon dozens of times a day, and looking forward to next year.

There's also just not properly weighing the impacts of losing or depreciating the most valuable asset a franchise has in the NBA. 1st rounders, especially lotto, are the only means about 2/3rds of the league have of drastically improving their team.

The Bulls Vuc trade was so catastrophic that it basically sealed their ceiling for a half decade. Couldn't move other picks if they wanted to improve on a mediocre core. Lost lotto talent opportunities. While it's transformed the Magic on the opposite end. The Spurs could have gotten Fox with just the Jak Minny picks we handed to them.

The NBA has 2 rounds of drafting with the second one being semi-serious at best. This isn't like other sports with a million rounds and players that aren't even close to as impactful as NBA superstars. The league had to impose the Stepien rule just so teams couldn't cripple their franchise for a full decade like this anymore (although teams like the Suns are innovating on ways to do so).

The Jak trade is as catastrophic to us as the Vuc trade was to the Bulls. Most fans aren't grappling with the impacts and alternative possibilities, but watching the Spurs on a nightly basis can show you exactly what you gave up not just in one draft but the 2 that Jak impacted (and we'll see about this one). That's how devastating a seemingly smaller transaction can be in the NBA.

[Scase]

The main issue some of y'all have is the order of process. If we tanked for Barnes, (which we did), tanked the following year and ended up with whoever we end up with this year, then added Gradey/jakobe thru draft in yr 3, and ONLY THEN trade for Quickly/RJ/BI/Jakob all while giving up a couple future 1st, y'all would call that a master class. Not to mention Shead Mogbo chomche and battle in the 2nd, but because we acquired some of those players and used some of those picks in different orders it doesn't follow the tank and rebuild playbook 101

You’re right. But all the frustration comes down to that Poeltl trade imo

Being 6th worse and making a push for the play in while giving up a future lightly protected 1st was stupid.

I understand why it was done, gave that core what they had been asking for (a C) and gave that group one last chance, I really get it. No one can ever say, “What if…”. They were bad and it was time to move on.

But the consequences of that trade meant losing out on any real chance of Wemby (Spurs went from 5th to 1st in lottery). While Gradey has performed over his draft selection, still would have been nice to have higher pick (Miller? Coulibaly? Thompson twin?).

Then enduring last year for San Antonio benefit. Would be nice to have Edey or Ware right now (full disclosure: I had Ware DND last year and that was a mistake!).

But it all comes down to the Poeltl trade imo. Tough to get past that.

In the meantime praying to the lottery gods, clicking tankathon dozens of times a day, and looking forward to next year.

There's also just not properly weighing the impacts of losing or depreciating the most valuable asset a franchise has in the NBA. 1st rounders, especially lotto, are the only means about 2/3rds of the league have of drastically improving their team.

The Bulls Vuc trade was so catastrophic that it basically sealed their ceiling for a half decade. Couldn't move other picks if they wanted to improve on a mediocre core. Lost lotto talent opportunities. While it's transformed the Magic on the opposite end. The Spurs could have gotten Fox with just the Jak Minny picks we handed to them.

The NBA has 2 rounds of drafting with the second one being semi-serious at best. This isn't like other sports with a million rounds and players that aren't even close to as impactful as NBA superstars. The league had to impose the Stepien rule just so teams couldn't cripple their franchise for a full decade like this anymore (although teams like the Suns are innovating on ways to do so).

The Jak trade is as catastrophic to us as the Vuc trade was to the Bulls. Most fans aren't grappling with the impacts and alternative possibilities, but watching the Spurs on a nightly basis can show you exactly what you gave up not just in one draft but the 2 that Jak impacted (and we'll see about this one). That's how devastating a seemingly smaller transaction can be in the NBA.

Watching what the spurs give up for Fox , compared to what we effectively did for Jak is also kinda wild. Everyone hears about the number of picks sent out, but don't realize how absolutely crap those picks will end up being.

Charlotte's first-rounder will become two seconds. Chicago had the power to retain its own pick this year if it properly gamed the rest of the schedule. The Spurs lose some upside on the out years, but the pick had top-eight protection for 2026 and 2027. It was never going to be an ultra-premium selection. And San Antonio's 2027 pick is actually less valuable than its 2025 first-rounder.

What's more, the Spurs managed to get off Collins' net-negative contract, keep all of their Atlanta Hawks picks, retain swap rights on Sacramento's own 2031 first and avoid giving up any of their prospects. Minnesota's 2031 first-rounder is the glitziest asset headed out. And while it's somewhat intriguing, the Timberwolves shouldn't entirely suck so long as Anthony Edwards is in town.

Pretty good break down of how mediocre those returns will be. They got off a bad contract, and gave up picks similar to what we got back for Siakam, or worse.

Spurs are by far the best run franchise in NBA history.

[ATLTimekeeper]

Even if everything goes right with Ingram the ceiling of this team is what second round? And eventually we’ll have to trade guys or let them walk because we can’t afford everybody.

Two has it right that the draft is the way to rebuild and get talent that overperforms their salary.

The Bulls and Kings never did a proper rebuild. They did half measures and traded picks for borderline allstars and role players similar to what we’ve done. Tbh

No, they picked poorly. Often. The end result is building with the good players they did have, which is where you picked up the scent of treadmill. They never did the rebuild 'proper' is just confirmation bias. The only proper rebuilds are the ones that work, where the concessions pan out and the picks pan out. All the mistakes and bad years are shrugged off. You aren't a fan of those teams, so you get to just admire the turn around and make the same mockery of those that can't figure it out. It's been like this since I've been here. It doesn't matter if it's you or any of them, they are rebuild over country. That's all it is.

As for what tWo has right, how often is that savings converted into a title? The title contending teams tend to be older and expensive. What tWo has right is that it's easier to delude yourself into a hopeful outcome with less data, which is what happens when we integrate young players into a team or the league. It's just a psychological trick. It's not reality-based. What they don't account for is the downswell as those players fail to meet their expectations, which leads them back to... we need to tank again, we didn't tank enough, and all those complaints.

The ceiling with Ingram is unknown. It seems silly to presume that a team with a very high pick is going to tap out at round 2 just because it isn't as high as you want it to be. Ultimately it's still going to come down to the lottery balls and the player actually panning out.

You realize the **** you are shovelling is pretty easy to refute right?

In the last 10 seasons the Bulls have had the following FRPs : 11, none, 18, none, 4, 7, 16, 14, 22, 16 and 19. So in a full decade of evidently tanking, they have 2 picks in the top 10, a bunch in the teens, and a couple years of no FRPs at all.

And the records for those years? 39-43, 40-42, 46-36, 31-41, 22-43, 22-60, 27-55, 41-41, 42-40, 50-32.

But yeah, totally years of doing the same thing people are asking for right? Everyone in the tanking thread is just screaming from the rooftops that we should aim for that 30-40 win area where you get a bad pick and have no improvement. Their 3 worst seasons in that time frame resulted in them finishing 6th, 4th, and 7th. 2 of 3 finishes in the exact spot that everyone is saying we DON'T want to be, but yeah, totally the same. Brilliant.

And the kings are more of the same, in the last 10 years they have finished. 6th, 10th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 11th, 8th, 7th, 14th, and one year of finishing 7th best in the NBA. So again, another decade of treadmill finishes in the exact places everyone is screaming we DON'T want to be.

Both the Bulls and Kings for more than a decade, have done nothing but sit on the fringes of play in/playoffs. The kings definitely had way more lotto luck than the bulls, but the story is largely the same. Neither team bottomed out, and between them in TWENTY SEASONS WORTH, only ONE of them ended with a bottom 5 record.

Like why lie about this stuff when it's so easily verifiable on a multitude of websites.

I said years and years. You decided to create goalposts by putting it at 10 years. The Kings of course finished dead last, 3rd last, 5th last in successive years. The Bulls went through these bottom finishes as well. The Bulls actually did well through a stroke of luck only, which was the Derrick Rose lottery win.

Now, let's actually follow the premise of best possible tank, finishing last. Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible. These are the results of the team that finished dead last.

2004, Dwight Howard
2005, Marvin Williams
2006, Tyrus Thomas
2007, Mike Conley Jr
2008, Michael Beasley
2009, Tyreke Evans
2010, Derrick Favors
2011, Derrick Williams
2012, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
2013, Victor Oladipo
2014, Jabari Parker
2015, Karl Anthony-Towns
2016, Ben Simmons
2017, Markelle Fultz
2018, DeAndre Ayton
2019, RJ Barrett
2020, James Wiseman
2021, Jalen Green
2022, Jabari Smith Jr
2023, Auser Thompson
2024, Ron Holland

What a crock of absolute poop you have tried to argue is the best possible way to build a team. The failure rate at the top is significant, and it doesn't matter who is drafting. The guy who drafted Derrick Rose drafted Tyrus Thomas. The guy who drafted Dwayne Wade drafted Michael Beasley. The guy who drafted Fox and Haliburton drafted Marvin Bagley Jr. The guy who drafted Klay Thompson and Draymond Green drafted Wiseman. The guy who drafted Michael Conley Jr drafted OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet. There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting. You can boogeyman all you want, the future of the NBA is hard to predict.

[agkagk]

For their plan they've done a great job. We have a good SL and a deep bench. Adding a high 2025 pick is the cherry on top (hopefully we get lucky). Just have to stay healthy... that'll be the challenge.

I do wonder who the next disgruntled superstar that we could target with our salaries. I do see a certain Serbian center on a team that is sort of in trouble in terms of contracts.

Yes.

Let’s bring him to the most Serbian city in North America.

We can build him a horse ranch next to the Serbian monastery in Milton


Aaaaaah!

[agkagk]

No, they picked poorly. Often. The end result is building with the good players they did have, which is where you picked up the scent of treadmill. They never did the rebuild 'proper' is just confirmation bias. The only proper rebuilds are the ones that work, where the concessions pan out and the picks pan out. All the mistakes and bad years are shrugged off. You aren't a fan of those teams, so you get to just admire the turn around and make the same mockery of those that can't figure it out. It's been like this since I've been here. It doesn't matter if it's you or any of them, they are rebuild over country. That's all it is.

As for what tWo has right, how often is that savings converted into a title? The title contending teams tend to be older and expensive. What tWo has right is that it's easier to delude yourself into a hopeful outcome with less data, which is what happens when we integrate young players into a team or the league. It's just a psychological trick. It's not reality-based. What they don't account for is the downswell as those players fail to meet their expectations, which leads them back to... we need to tank again, we didn't tank enough, and all those complaints.

The ceiling with Ingram is unknown. It seems silly to presume that a team with a very high pick is going to tap out at round 2 just because it isn't as high as you want it to be. Ultimately it's still going to come down to the lottery balls and the player actually panning out.

You realize the **** you are shovelling is pretty easy to refute right?

In the last 10 seasons the Bulls have had the following FRPs : 11, none, 18, none, 4, 7, 16, 14, 22, 16 and 19. So in a full decade of evidently tanking, they have 2 picks in the top 10, a bunch in the teens, and a couple years of no FRPs at all.

And the records for those years? 39-43, 40-42, 46-36, 31-41, 22-43, 22-60, 27-55, 41-41, 42-40, 50-32.

But yeah, totally years of doing the same thing people are asking for right? Everyone in the tanking thread is just screaming from the rooftops that we should aim for that 30-40 win area where you get a bad pick and have no improvement. Their 3 worst seasons in that time frame resulted in them finishing 6th, 4th, and 7th. 2 of 3 finishes in the exact spot that everyone is saying we DON'T want to be, but yeah, totally the same. Brilliant.

And the kings are more of the same, in the last 10 years they have finished. 6th, 10th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 11th, 8th, 7th, 14th, and one year of finishing 7th best in the NBA. So again, another decade of treadmill finishes in the exact places everyone is screaming we DON'T want to be.

Both the Bulls and Kings for more than a decade, have done nothing but sit on the fringes of play in/playoffs. The kings definitely had way more lotto luck than the bulls, but the story is largely the same. Neither team bottomed out, and between them in TWENTY SEASONS WORTH, only ONE of them ended with a bottom 5 record.

Like why lie about this stuff when it's so easily verifiable on a multitude of websites.

I said years and years. You decided to create goalposts by putting it at 10 years. The Kings of course finished dead last, 3rd last, 5th last in successive years. The Bulls went through these bottom finishes as well. The Bulls actually did well through a stroke of luck only, which was the Derrick Rose lottery win.

Now, let's actually follow the premise of best possible tank, finishing last. Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible. These are the results of the team that finished dead last.

2004, Dwight Howard
2005, Marvin Williams
2006, Tyrus Thomas
2007, Mike Conley Jr
2008, Michael Beasley
2009, Tyreke Evans
2010, Derrick Favors
2011, Derrick Williams
2012, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
2013, Victor Oladipo
2014, Jabari Parker
2015, Karl Anthony-Towns
2016, Ben Simmons
2017, Markelle Fultz
2018, DeAndre Ayton
2019, RJ Barrett
2020, James Wiseman
2021, Jalen Green
2022, Jabari Smith Jr
2023, Auser Thompson
2024, Ron Holland

What a crock of absolute poop you have tried to argue is the best possible way to build a team. The failure rate at the top is significant, and it doesn't matter who is drafting. The guy who drafted Derrick Rose drafted Tyrus Thomas. The guy who drafted Dwayne Wade drafted Michael Beasley. The guy who drafted Fox and Haliburton drafted Marvin Bagley Jr. The guy who drafted Klay Thompson and Draymond Green drafted Wiseman. The guy who drafted Michael Conley Jr drafted OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet. There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting. You can boogeyman all you want, the future of the NBA is hard to predict.

The best part is it takes 5 - 7 years to find out the player sucks.

Let me use my Time Machine. Ok I’m back.

Turns out losing environments develop losing players.


Yup. Thank god I got a Time Machine.

[ATLTimekeeper]

You can keep going with this.

2nd worst draft position. 3rd worst position

2005, Chris Paul, Felton
2006, Aldridge, Morrison
2007, Jeff Green, Yi Jinlian
2008, Westbrook, Mayo
2009, Rubio, Griffin
2010, Wes Johnson, Cousins
2011, Tristan Thompson, JV
2012, Brad Beal, Dion Waiters
2013, Zeller, Bennett
2014, Embiid, Gordon
2015, Porzingis, Okafor
2016, Ingram, Brown
2017, Josh Jackson, Lonzo Ball
2018, JJJ, Trae Young
2019, Garland, Culver
2020, Okoro, Edwards
2021, Cuinningham, Suggs
2022, Banchero, Ivey
2023, Amen Thomson, Wemby
2024, Sarr, Salaun

[Scase]

No, they picked poorly. Often. The end result is building with the good players they did have, which is where you picked up the scent of treadmill. They never did the rebuild 'proper' is just confirmation bias. The only proper rebuilds are the ones that work, where the concessions pan out and the picks pan out. All the mistakes and bad years are shrugged off. You aren't a fan of those teams, so you get to just admire the turn around and make the same mockery of those that can't figure it out. It's been like this since I've been here. It doesn't matter if it's you or any of them, they are rebuild over country. That's all it is.

As for what tWo has right, how often is that savings converted into a title? The title contending teams tend to be older and expensive. What tWo has right is that it's easier to delude yourself into a hopeful outcome with less data, which is what happens when we integrate young players into a team or the league. It's just a psychological trick. It's not reality-based. What they don't account for is the downswell as those players fail to meet their expectations, which leads them back to... we need to tank again, we didn't tank enough, and all those complaints.

The ceiling with Ingram is unknown. It seems silly to presume that a team with a very high pick is going to tap out at round 2 just because it isn't as high as you want it to be. Ultimately it's still going to come down to the lottery balls and the player actually panning out.

You realize the **** you are shovelling is pretty easy to refute right?

In the last 10 seasons the Bulls have had the following FRPs : 11, none, 18, none, 4, 7, 16, 14, 22, 16 and 19. So in a full decade of evidently tanking, they have 2 picks in the top 10, a bunch in the teens, and a couple years of no FRPs at all.

And the records for those years? 39-43, 40-42, 46-36, 31-41, 22-43, 22-60, 27-55, 41-41, 42-40, 50-32.

But yeah, totally years of doing the same thing people are asking for right? Everyone in the tanking thread is just screaming from the rooftops that we should aim for that 30-40 win area where you get a bad pick and have no improvement. Their 3 worst seasons in that time frame resulted in them finishing 6th, 4th, and 7th. 2 of 3 finishes in the exact spot that everyone is saying we DON'T want to be, but yeah, totally the same. Brilliant.

And the kings are more of the same, in the last 10 years they have finished. 6th, 10th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 11th, 8th, 7th, 14th, and one year of finishing 7th best in the NBA. So again, another decade of treadmill finishes in the exact places everyone is screaming we DON'T want to be.

Both the Bulls and Kings for more than a decade, have done nothing but sit on the fringes of play in/playoffs. The kings definitely had way more lotto luck than the bulls, but the story is largely the same. Neither team bottomed out, and between them in TWENTY SEASONS WORTH, only ONE of them ended with a bottom 5 record.

Like why lie about this stuff when it's so easily verifiable on a multitude of websites.

I said years and years. You decided to create goalposts by putting it at 10 years. The Kings of course finished dead last, 3rd last, 5th last in successive years. The Bulls went through these bottom finishes as well. The Bulls actually did well through a stroke of luck only, which was the Derrick Rose lottery win.

Now, let's actually follow the premise of best possible tank, finishing last. Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible. These are the results of the team that finished dead last.

2004, Dwight Howard
2005, Marvin Williams
2006, Tyrus Thomas
2007, Mike Conley Jr
2008, Michael Beasley
2009, Tyreke Evans
2010, Derrick Favors
2011, Derrick Williams
2012, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
2013, Victor Oladipo
2014, Jabari Parker
2015, Karl Anthony-Towns
2016, Ben Simmons
2017, Markelle Fultz
2018, DeAndre Ayton
2019, RJ Barrett
2020, James Wiseman
2021, Jalen Green
2022, Jabari Smith Jr
2023, Auser Thompson
2024, Ron Holland

What a crock of absolute poop you have tried to argue is the best possible way to build a team. The failure rate at the top is significant, and it doesn't matter who is drafting. The guy who drafted Derrick Rose drafted Tyrus Thomas. The guy who drafted Dwayne Wade drafted Michael Beasley. The guy who drafted Fox and Haliburton drafted Marvin Bagley Jr. The guy who drafted Klay Thompson and Draymond Green drafted Wiseman. The guy who drafted Michael Conley Jr drafted OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet. There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting. You can boogeyman all you want, the future of the NBA is hard to predict.

So lets get this straight, you use some abstract argument of "years and years" with no end in sight, and could arguably go back to the inception of the franchise, I narrow that down to a still pretty damn wide, and most importantly, relevant time frame, and I'm the one with a "crock of absolute poop"? Just brilliant reasoning.

Why did you stop at 2004 huh? Why not 1997, why not 1986? But I guess I see why timelines don't matter to you, your assumption is that just because a FO drafts a couple good players, they also draft bad players, so who cares who is drafting right? Drafting is hard, so lets chalk everything up to luck and just shrug our shoulders when things go wrong. I guess Presti, Pop/Spurs, and Masai aren't good at drafting after all, cause it doesn't matter since "There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting.".

Why stop there? Ainge isn't a good GM because he's made some questionable trades while on the Jazz, and since even the "good" GMs make bad trades from time to time, there must be no salvation in trading either. Why ever do anything when something might go poorly in the future, why pay any GM or hell, even players any more or less than others, MJ missed some game winners in his career, but he also had made a bunch, so I guess theres no salvation in who is doing the shooting either.

This is such a ridiculous approach to something that inherently requires an insane amount of planning to go right, but sure, lets just throw up our hands and say who cares, because even the "Good" ones aren't perfect. And all of this is based off some flawed argument that no one has ever uttered, "Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible."

Wtf is this nonsense? Real easy to argue a stance just making things up I guess.

[Pointgod]

No, they picked poorly. Often. The end result is building with the good players they did have, which is where you picked up the scent of treadmill. They never did the rebuild 'proper' is just confirmation bias. The only proper rebuilds are the ones that work, where the concessions pan out and the picks pan out. All the mistakes and bad years are shrugged off. You aren't a fan of those teams, so you get to just admire the turn around and make the same mockery of those that can't figure it out. It's been like this since I've been here. It doesn't matter if it's you or any of them, they are rebuild over country. That's all it is.

As for what tWo has right, how often is that savings converted into a title? The title contending teams tend to be older and expensive. What tWo has right is that it's easier to delude yourself into a hopeful outcome with less data, which is what happens when we integrate young players into a team or the league. It's just a psychological trick. It's not reality-based. What they don't account for is the downswell as those players fail to meet their expectations, which leads them back to... we need to tank again, we didn't tank enough, and all those complaints.

The ceiling with Ingram is unknown. It seems silly to presume that a team with a very high pick is going to tap out at round 2 just because it isn't as high as you want it to be. Ultimately it's still going to come down to the lottery balls and the player actually panning out.

You realize the **** you are shovelling is pretty easy to refute right?

In the last 10 seasons the Bulls have had the following FRPs : 11, none, 18, none, 4, 7, 16, 14, 22, 16 and 19. So in a full decade of evidently tanking, they have 2 picks in the top 10, a bunch in the teens, and a couple years of no FRPs at all.

And the records for those years? 39-43, 40-42, 46-36, 31-41, 22-43, 22-60, 27-55, 41-41, 42-40, 50-32.

But yeah, totally years of doing the same thing people are asking for right? Everyone in the tanking thread is just screaming from the rooftops that we should aim for that 30-40 win area where you get a bad pick and have no improvement. Their 3 worst seasons in that time frame resulted in them finishing 6th, 4th, and 7th. 2 of 3 finishes in the exact spot that everyone is saying we DON'T want to be, but yeah, totally the same. Brilliant.

And the kings are more of the same, in the last 10 years they have finished. 6th, 10th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 11th, 8th, 7th, 14th, and one year of finishing 7th best in the NBA. So again, another decade of treadmill finishes in the exact places everyone is screaming we DON'T want to be.

Both the Bulls and Kings for more than a decade, have done nothing but sit on the fringes of play in/playoffs. The kings definitely had way more lotto luck than the bulls, but the story is largely the same. Neither team bottomed out, and between them in TWENTY SEASONS WORTH, only ONE of them ended with a bottom 5 record.

Like why lie about this stuff when it's so easily verifiable on a multitude of websites.

I said years and years. You decided to create goalposts by putting it at 10 years. The Kings of course finished dead last, 3rd last, 5th last in successive years. The Bulls went through these bottom finishes as well. The Bulls actually did well through a stroke of luck only, which was the Derrick Rose lottery win.

Now, let's actually follow the premise of best possible tank, finishing last. Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible. These are the results of the team that finished dead last.

2004, Dwight Howard
2005, Marvin Williams
2006, Tyrus Thomas
2007, Mike Conley Jr
2008, Michael Beasley
2009, Tyreke Evans
2010, Derrick Favors
2011, Derrick Williams
2012, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
2013, Victor Oladipo
2014, Jabari Parker
2015, Karl Anthony-Towns
2016, Ben Simmons
2017, Markelle Fultz
2018, DeAndre Ayton
2019, RJ Barrett
2020, James Wiseman
2021, Jalen Green
2022, Jabari Smith Jr
2023, Auser Thompson
2024, Ron Holland

What a crock of absolute poop you have tried to argue is the best possible way to build a team. The failure rate at the top is significant, and it doesn't matter who is drafting. The guy who drafted Derrick Rose drafted Tyrus Thomas. The guy who drafted Dwayne Wade drafted Michael Beasley. The guy who drafted Fox and Haliburton drafted Marvin Bagley Jr. The guy who drafted Klay Thompson and Draymond Green drafted Wiseman. The guy who drafted Michael Conley Jr drafted OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet. There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting. You can boogeyman all you want, the future of the NBA is hard to predict.

I don’t know where anyone in the two thread has said we HAVE to have the worst record. Most arguments is that finishing with a bottom 3 record provides the highest probability of getting the first overall pick. And barring that, you want a worse record because the downside of moving down in the draft is minimized the worse your record.

This link has all of the probabilities of picking in the lottery depending on the record you finish with.

https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

So based on this if you finish first the highest possible probability of landing in a single draft position is 48%. If you finish 5th which is where the Raptors currently are the highest probability of landing in a single draft position is moving down to 7th pick at 27%. So if you look at this objectively just going by highest probability of a single draft position post lottery, you’d much rather finish with the worst record than any other record.

And when it comes to the actual draft and expectations there’s you can find multiple analysis of the expected value of an individual draft pick based on position. And all of them show the same trends. The higher you pick in the draft, the better the higher expected outcome for an individual player.

https://quantimschmitz.com/2023/04/02/how-valuable-is-each-nba-draft-pick/
https://www.365scores.com/news/the-expected-value-of-an-nba-draft-pick

Again this does not mean that every draft will turn out the same but if you look at things objectively you’re just looking at data and probability to predict outcomes. And all the analysis have the same trends, top 5 in the lottery has the most allstars based on historical trends so that’s why the pro tankers want to focus on finishing as bad as we can to minimize the probability of moving out of the top 5 and grab an potential allstar while saving our assets to make other moves.

[ATLTimekeeper]

You realize the **** you are shovelling is pretty easy to refute right?

In the last 10 seasons the Bulls have had the following FRPs : 11, none, 18, none, 4, 7, 16, 14, 22, 16 and 19. So in a full decade of evidently tanking, they have 2 picks in the top 10, a bunch in the teens, and a couple years of no FRPs at all.

And the records for those years? 39-43, 40-42, 46-36, 31-41, 22-43, 22-60, 27-55, 41-41, 42-40, 50-32.

But yeah, totally years of doing the same thing people are asking for right? Everyone in the tanking thread is just screaming from the rooftops that we should aim for that 30-40 win area where you get a bad pick and have no improvement. Their 3 worst seasons in that time frame resulted in them finishing 6th, 4th, and 7th. 2 of 3 finishes in the exact spot that everyone is saying we DON'T want to be, but yeah, totally the same. Brilliant.

And the kings are more of the same, in the last 10 years they have finished. 6th, 10th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 11th, 8th, 7th, 14th, and one year of finishing 7th best in the NBA. So again, another decade of treadmill finishes in the exact places everyone is screaming we DON'T want to be.

Both the Bulls and Kings for more than a decade, have done nothing but sit on the fringes of play in/playoffs. The kings definitely had way more lotto luck than the bulls, but the story is largely the same. Neither team bottomed out, and between them in TWENTY SEASONS WORTH, only ONE of them ended with a bottom 5 record.

Like why lie about this stuff when it's so easily verifiable on a multitude of websites.

I said years and years. You decided to create goalposts by putting it at 10 years. The Kings of course finished dead last, 3rd last, 5th last in successive years. The Bulls went through these bottom finishes as well. The Bulls actually did well through a stroke of luck only, which was the Derrick Rose lottery win.

Now, let's actually follow the premise of best possible tank, finishing last. Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible. These are the results of the team that finished dead last.

2004, Dwight Howard
2005, Marvin Williams
2006, Tyrus Thomas
2007, Mike Conley Jr
2008, Michael Beasley
2009, Tyreke Evans
2010, Derrick Favors
2011, Derrick Williams
2012, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
2013, Victor Oladipo
2014, Jabari Parker
2015, Karl Anthony-Towns
2016, Ben Simmons
2017, Markelle Fultz
2018, DeAndre Ayton
2019, RJ Barrett
2020, James Wiseman
2021, Jalen Green
2022, Jabari Smith Jr
2023, Auser Thompson
2024, Ron Holland

What a crock of absolute poop you have tried to argue is the best possible way to build a team. The failure rate at the top is significant, and it doesn't matter who is drafting. The guy who drafted Derrick Rose drafted Tyrus Thomas. The guy who drafted Dwayne Wade drafted Michael Beasley. The guy who drafted Fox and Haliburton drafted Marvin Bagley Jr. The guy who drafted Klay Thompson and Draymond Green drafted Wiseman. The guy who drafted Michael Conley Jr drafted OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet. There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting. You can boogeyman all you want, the future of the NBA is hard to predict.

So lets get this straight, you use some abstract argument of "years and years" with no end in sight, and could arguably go back to the inception of the franchise, I narrow that down to a still pretty damn wide, and most importantly, relevant time frame, and I'm the one with a "crock of absolute poop"? Just brilliant reasoning.

Why did you stop at 2004 huh? Why not 1997, why not 1986? But I guess I see why timelines don't matter to you, your assumption is that just because a FO drafts a couple good players, they also draft bad players, so who cares who is drafting right? Drafting is hard, so lets chalk everything up to luck and just shrug our shoulders when things go wrong. I guess Presti, Pop/Spurs, and Masai aren't good at drafting after all, cause it doesn't matter since "There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting.".

Why stop there? Ainge isn't a good GM because he's made some questionable trades while on the Jazz, and since even the "good" GMs make bad trades from time to time, there must be no salvation in trading either. Why ever do anything when something might go poorly in the future, why pay any GM or hell, even players any more or less than others, MJ missed some game winners in his career, but he also had made a bunch, so I guess theres no salvation in who is doing the shooting either.

This is such a ridiculous approach to something that inherently requires an insane amount of planning to go right, but sure, lets just throw up our hands and say who cares, because even the "Good" ones aren't perfect. And all of this is based off some flawed argument that no one has ever uttered, "Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible."

Wtf is this nonsense? Real easy to argue a stance just making things up I guess.

I used 20 drafts. You can go back further, if it makes you happy. The results will largely be the same, only now the lotto odds are worse.

[ATLTimekeeper]

You realize the **** you are shovelling is pretty easy to refute right?

In the last 10 seasons the Bulls have had the following FRPs : 11, none, 18, none, 4, 7, 16, 14, 22, 16 and 19. So in a full decade of evidently tanking, they have 2 picks in the top 10, a bunch in the teens, and a couple years of no FRPs at all.

And the records for those years? 39-43, 40-42, 46-36, 31-41, 22-43, 22-60, 27-55, 41-41, 42-40, 50-32.

But yeah, totally years of doing the same thing people are asking for right? Everyone in the tanking thread is just screaming from the rooftops that we should aim for that 30-40 win area where you get a bad pick and have no improvement. Their 3 worst seasons in that time frame resulted in them finishing 6th, 4th, and 7th. 2 of 3 finishes in the exact spot that everyone is saying we DON'T want to be, but yeah, totally the same. Brilliant.

And the kings are more of the same, in the last 10 years they have finished. 6th, 10th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 11th, 8th, 7th, 14th, and one year of finishing 7th best in the NBA. So again, another decade of treadmill finishes in the exact places everyone is screaming we DON'T want to be.

Both the Bulls and Kings for more than a decade, have done nothing but sit on the fringes of play in/playoffs. The kings definitely had way more lotto luck than the bulls, but the story is largely the same. Neither team bottomed out, and between them in TWENTY SEASONS WORTH, only ONE of them ended with a bottom 5 record.

Like why lie about this stuff when it's so easily verifiable on a multitude of websites.

I said years and years. You decided to create goalposts by putting it at 10 years. The Kings of course finished dead last, 3rd last, 5th last in successive years. The Bulls went through these bottom finishes as well. The Bulls actually did well through a stroke of luck only, which was the Derrick Rose lottery win.

Now, let's actually follow the premise of best possible tank, finishing last. Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible. These are the results of the team that finished dead last.

2004, Dwight Howard
2005, Marvin Williams
2006, Tyrus Thomas
2007, Mike Conley Jr
2008, Michael Beasley
2009, Tyreke Evans
2010, Derrick Favors
2011, Derrick Williams
2012, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
2013, Victor Oladipo
2014, Jabari Parker
2015, Karl Anthony-Towns
2016, Ben Simmons
2017, Markelle Fultz
2018, DeAndre Ayton
2019, RJ Barrett
2020, James Wiseman
2021, Jalen Green
2022, Jabari Smith Jr
2023, Auser Thompson
2024, Ron Holland

What a crock of absolute poop you have tried to argue is the best possible way to build a team. The failure rate at the top is significant, and it doesn't matter who is drafting. The guy who drafted Derrick Rose drafted Tyrus Thomas. The guy who drafted Dwayne Wade drafted Michael Beasley. The guy who drafted Fox and Haliburton drafted Marvin Bagley Jr. The guy who drafted Klay Thompson and Draymond Green drafted Wiseman. The guy who drafted Michael Conley Jr drafted OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet. There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting. You can boogeyman all you want, the future of the NBA is hard to predict.

I don’t know where anyone in the two thread has said we HAVE to have the worst record. Most arguments is that finishing with a bottom 3 record provides the highest probability of getting the first overall pick. And barring that, you want a worse record because the downside of moving down in the draft is minimized the worse your record.

This link has all of the probabilities of picking in the lottery depending on the record you finish with.

https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

So based on this if you finish first the highest possible probability of landing in a single draft position is 48%. If you finish 5th which is where the Raptors currently are the highest probability of landing in a single draft position is moving down to 7th pick at 27%. So if you look at this objectively just going by highest probability of a single draft position post lottery, you’d much rather finish with the worst record than any other record.

And when it comes to the actual draft and expectations there’s you can find multiple analysis of the expected value of an individual draft pick based on position. And all of them show the same trends. The higher you pick in the draft, the better the higher expected outcome for an individual player.

https://quantimschmitz.com/2023/04/02/how-valuable-is-each-nba-draft-pick/
https://www.365scores.com/news/the-expected-value-of-an-nba-draft-pick

Again this does not mean that every draft will turn out the same but if you look at things objectively you’re just looking at data and probability to predict outcomes. And all the analysis have the same trends, top 5 in the lottery has the most allstars based on historical trends so that’s why the pro tankers want to focus on finishing as bad as we can to minimize the probability of moving out of the top 5 and grab an potential allstar while saving our assets to make other moves.

Hey, I know all this stuff!

The probabilities still suck. In the last 20 drafts, the teams in the bottom 5 draft slots came out with the best player in the draft 8 times at best (giving a nod to Castle, but too early to tell). There's other, more fun ways to build that don't rely on deceiving fans that today's suffering will be worth it for tomorrow's yield.

[ConSarnit]

No, they picked poorly. Often. The end result is building with the good players they did have, which is where you picked up the scent of treadmill. They never did the rebuild 'proper' is just confirmation bias. The only proper rebuilds are the ones that work, where the concessions pan out and the picks pan out. All the mistakes and bad years are shrugged off. You aren't a fan of those teams, so you get to just admire the turn around and make the same mockery of those that can't figure it out. It's been like this since I've been here. It doesn't matter if it's you or any of them, they are rebuild over country. That's all it is.

As for what tWo has right, how often is that savings converted into a title? The title contending teams tend to be older and expensive. What tWo has right is that it's easier to delude yourself into a hopeful outcome with less data, which is what happens when we integrate young players into a team or the league. It's just a psychological trick. It's not reality-based. What they don't account for is the downswell as those players fail to meet their expectations, which leads them back to... we need to tank again, we didn't tank enough, and all those complaints.

The ceiling with Ingram is unknown. It seems silly to presume that a team with a very high pick is going to tap out at round 2 just because it isn't as high as you want it to be. Ultimately it's still going to come down to the lottery balls and the player actually panning out.

You realize the **** you are shovelling is pretty easy to refute right?

In the last 10 seasons the Bulls have had the following FRPs : 11, none, 18, none, 4, 7, 16, 14, 22, 16 and 19. So in a full decade of evidently tanking, they have 2 picks in the top 10, a bunch in the teens, and a couple years of no FRPs at all.

And the records for those years? 39-43, 40-42, 46-36, 31-41, 22-43, 22-60, 27-55, 41-41, 42-40, 50-32.

But yeah, totally years of doing the same thing people are asking for right? Everyone in the tanking thread is just screaming from the rooftops that we should aim for that 30-40 win area where you get a bad pick and have no improvement. Their 3 worst seasons in that time frame resulted in them finishing 6th, 4th, and 7th. 2 of 3 finishes in the exact spot that everyone is saying we DON'T want to be, but yeah, totally the same. Brilliant.

And the kings are more of the same, in the last 10 years they have finished. 6th, 10th, 7th, 8th, 14th, 11th, 8th, 7th, 14th, and one year of finishing 7th best in the NBA. So again, another decade of treadmill finishes in the exact places everyone is screaming we DON'T want to be.

Both the Bulls and Kings for more than a decade, have done nothing but sit on the fringes of play in/playoffs. The kings definitely had way more lotto luck than the bulls, but the story is largely the same. Neither team bottomed out, and between them in TWENTY SEASONS WORTH, only ONE of them ended with a bottom 5 record.

Like why lie about this stuff when it's so easily verifiable on a multitude of websites.

I said years and years. You decided to create goalposts by putting it at 10 years. The Kings of course finished dead last, 3rd last, 5th last in successive years. The Bulls went through these bottom finishes as well. The Bulls actually did well through a stroke of luck only, which was the Derrick Rose lottery win.

Now, let's actually follow the premise of best possible tank, finishing last. Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible. These are the results of the team that finished dead last.

2004, Dwight Howard
2005, Marvin Williams
2006, Tyrus Thomas
2007, Mike Conley Jr
2008, Michael Beasley
2009, Tyreke Evans
2010, Derrick Favors
2011, Derrick Williams
2012, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
2013, Victor Oladipo
2014, Jabari Parker
2015, Karl Anthony-Towns
2016, Ben Simmons
2017, Markelle Fultz
2018, DeAndre Ayton
2019, RJ Barrett
2020, James Wiseman
2021, Jalen Green
2022, Jabari Smith Jr
2023, Auser Thompson
2024, Ron Holland

What a crock of absolute poop you have tried to argue is the best possible way to build a team. The failure rate at the top is significant, and it doesn't matter who is drafting. The guy who drafted Derrick Rose drafted Tyrus Thomas. The guy who drafted Dwayne Wade drafted Michael Beasley. The guy who drafted Fox and Haliburton drafted Marvin Bagley Jr. The guy who drafted Klay Thompson and Draymond Green drafted Wiseman. The guy who drafted Michael Conley Jr drafted OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet. There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting. You can boogeyman all you want, the future of the NBA is hard to predict.

This is a terrible argument. If you truly believe that there is no salvation in which GM is drafting then you believe there is no difference between Rob Babcock’s and Masai’s drafting ability. According to your logic we should just let a monkey make our draft picks because who’s in charge doesn’t matter.

[Scase]

I said years and years. You decided to create goalposts by putting it at 10 years. The Kings of course finished dead last, 3rd last, 5th last in successive years. The Bulls went through these bottom finishes as well. The Bulls actually did well through a stroke of luck only, which was the Derrick Rose lottery win.

Now, let's actually follow the premise of best possible tank, finishing last. Enough of this 'bottom 5' weasel work. tWo won't shut their yaps unless we finish dead last to give us the highest pick possible. These are the results of the team that finished dead last.

2004, Dwight Howard
2005, Marvin Williams
2006, Tyrus Thomas
2007, Mike Conley Jr
2008, Michael Beasley
2009, Tyreke Evans
2010, Derrick Favors
2011, Derrick Williams
2012, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist
2013, Victor Oladipo
2014, Jabari Parker
2015, Karl Anthony-Towns
2016, Ben Simmons
2017, Markelle Fultz
2018, DeAndre Ayton
2019, RJ Barrett
2020, James Wiseman
2021, Jalen Green
2022, Jabari Smith Jr
2023, Auser Thompson
2024, Ron Holland

What a crock of absolute poop you have tried to argue is the best possible way to build a team. The failure rate at the top is significant, and it doesn't matter who is drafting. The guy who drafted Derrick Rose drafted Tyrus Thomas. The guy who drafted Dwayne Wade drafted Michael Beasley. The guy who drafted Fox and Haliburton drafted Marvin Bagley Jr. The guy who drafted Klay Thompson and Draymond Green drafted Wiseman. The guy who drafted Michael Conley Jr drafted OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet. There's no salvation is who is doing the drafting. You can boogeyman all you want, the future of the NBA is hard to predict.

I don’t know where anyone in the two thread has said we HAVE to have the worst record. Most arguments is that finishing with a bottom 3 record provides the highest probability of getting the first overall pick. And barring that, you want a worse record because the downside of moving down in the draft is minimized the worse your record.

This link has all of the probabilities of picking in the lottery depending on the record you finish with.

https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

So based on this if you finish first the highest possible probability of landing in a single draft position is 48%. If you finish 5th which is where the Raptors currently are the highest probability of landing in a single draft position is moving down to 7th pick at 27%. So if you look at this objectively just going by highest probability of a single draft position post lottery, you’d much rather finish with the worst record than any other record.

And when it comes to the actual draft and expectations there’s you can find multiple analysis of the expected value of an individual draft pick based on position. And all of them show the same trends. The higher you pick in the draft, the better the higher expected outcome for an individual player.

https://quantimschmitz.com/2023/04/02/how-valuable-is-each-nba-draft-pick/
https://www.365scores.com/news/the-expected-value-of-an-nba-draft-pick

Again this does not mean that every draft will turn out the same but if you look at things objectively you’re just looking at data and probability to predict outcomes. And all the analysis have the same trends, top 5 in the lottery has the most allstars based on historical trends so that’s why the pro tankers want to focus on finishing as bad as we can to minimize the probability of moving out of the top 5 and grab an potential allstar while saving our assets to make other moves.

Hey, I know all this stuff!

The probabilities still suck. In the last 20 drafts, the teams in the bottom 5 draft slots came out with the best player in the draft 8 times at best (giving a nod to Castle, but too early to tell). There's other, more fun ways to build that don't rely on deceiving fans that today's suffering will be worth it for tomorrow's yield.

Again, you're making up arguments no one else is stating. No one is saying we need to be the worst in the league so we can pick the best player, people are saying we need to be in the bottom 5, to have a good chance at getting a top 5 pick. That's it.

Not to get the best player, not to get the 1st OA pick, not anything other than the best realistic odds to get a top 5 pick. Conversations become much easier to have when you don't manufacture things and just go by what people are actually saying.

[youngRAPZ]

I don’t know where anyone in the two thread has said we HAVE to have the worst record. Most arguments is that finishing with a bottom 3 record provides the highest probability of getting the first overall pick. And barring that, you want a worse record because the downside of moving down in the draft is minimized the worse your record.

This link has all of the probabilities of picking in the lottery depending on the record you finish with.

https://www.tankathon.com/pick_odds

So based on this if you finish first the highest possible probability of landing in a single draft position is 48%. If you finish 5th which is where the Raptors currently are the highest probability of landing in a single draft position is moving down to 7th pick at 27%. So if you look at this objectively just going by highest probability of a single draft position post lottery, you’d much rather finish with the worst record than any other record.

And when it comes to the actual draft and expectations there’s you can find multiple analysis of the expected value of an individual draft pick based on position. And all of them show the same trends. The higher you pick in the draft, the better the higher expected outcome for an individual player.

https://quantimschmitz.com/2023/04/02/how-valuable-is-each-nba-draft-pick/
https://www.365scores.com/news/the-expected-value-of-an-nba-draft-pick

Again this does not mean that every draft will turn out the same but if you look at things objectively you’re just looking at data and probability to predict outcomes. And all the analysis have the same trends, top 5 in the lottery has the most allstars based on historical trends so that’s why the pro tankers want to focus on finishing as bad as we can to minimize the probability of moving out of the top 5 and grab an potential allstar while saving our assets to make other moves.

Hey, I know all this stuff!

The probabilities still suck. In the last 20 drafts, the teams in the bottom 5 draft slots came out with the best player in the draft 8 times at best (giving a nod to Castle, but too early to tell). There's other, more fun ways to build that don't rely on deceiving fans that today's suffering will be worth it for tomorrow's yield.

Again, you're making up arguments no one else is stating. No one is saying we need to be the worst in the league so we can pick the best player, people are saying we need to be in the bottom 5, to have a good chance at getting a top 5 pick. That's it.

Not to get the best player, not to get the 1st OA pick, not anything other than the best realistic odds to get a top 5 pick. Conversations become much easier to have when you don't manufacture things and just go by what people are actually saying.

Are we not currently bottom 5?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk