Pooh_Jeter wrote:bluerap23 wrote:Pooh_Jeter wrote:
LeBron went back to the Cavs because they had a #1 pick in Kyrie and had just gotten the #1 pick to trade for a 3rd star.
The Lakers didn't even make the playoffs the first LeBron year. When they traded all their lotto assets for a 2nd star they won and they are currently heavy favourites to repeat.
It's an asset play. Turns out having young, high end talent is extremely attractive to other players and is conducive to winning.
Would LeBron have resigned with the Cavs if he wasn't from Cleveland?
What are the odds of drafting the next LeBron James? How many years of tanking required?
Lakers are the per-eminant FA destination in the NBA. If the Lakers were in Minnesota does LeBron sign there? Does AD demand a trade there?
Getting a LeBron James is a bad faith argument. He is a once in a lifetime player. What you need is a top 10 level talent which you can get in the draft without tanking for 20 years.
If that is the barometer then 26 teams in the league should just fold.
Your last point is why a rebuild/tank is what needs to be done. There is no FA or star demanding forcing their way to Toronto. The Raptors have the follow the model the Bucks did with Giannis, the Thunder did with Westbrook, the Mavs did with Dirk and the Thunder did with Curry. You get your star in the draft and then you can build your organization around them for sustained success.
Yes, I know that the Bucks and Thunder didn't win a title. No one on team tank is saying only a season with a championship is acceptable. That is a strawman from those happy with mediocrity.
I didn't bring up LeBron James. I was responding to someone that said the Cavs and Lakers successfully tanked because they won championships with LeBron James. My point is that is an unrealistic comparison. I think your argument of Giannis, Dirk and Steph are better comparisons even though they are all flawed.
Giannis was not a lottery pick, therefor not acquired via tanking.
Dirk was acquired via trade, but more importantly to my point, Dallas wasn't tanking. If you go look at those seasons surrounding this draft year they were trying very hard to compete and were looking to surround Michael Finley with other pieces.
The warriors were also not a tanking team. They had picks 6-11 for a period of 4 years. Is that not a treadmill?
The year before they got Curry they spent a TON on Free agency. They very much tried to compete. It should also be noted that they offered Steph Curry up in trade for Andrew Bogut.
OKC is probably the best example of a successful tank as they were able to turn 3 consecutive top 5 picks into Durant, Harden and Westbrook. I think it is fair to point out that they only made it to the finals once and didn't win a chip. They were only slightly more successful in the playoffs than the Raptors before Kawhi. There is a strong argument that our path to success was a better avenue then the Thunders (as it actually lead to a chip). That said, if the raptors were able to draft Durant, Harden and Westbrook with our current management team we would likely have succeeded as they would not have traded Harden over a few million dollars.
But then we drafted TMac, Vince and Marcus Camby in 3 consecutive years. In today's NBA that would be a ridiculous core.
We screwed that up due to incompetent management. The greater argument is that poor management is usually what leads to tanking and thus turning tanking into winning doesn't happen.
BTW - I am ok with tanking this season (but I only believe in the 1 year tank).
and to win back the fans (it only took 5 tries)