Shwaguy wrote:Scase wrote:Shwaguy wrote:
But would that outlook moving forward not also be harmed, because if we are bad enough to pick that high, that means our young core is also much worse than we thought? Hard to envision an all NBA future for Scottie if he's not even good enough to lead a team out of the bottom 3 in year 4. Would also mean that RJ's breakout is fraudulent and even if he might not fit in here long term it would he could be a tremendous trade asset if his breakout IS legitimate.
I think the situation is more nuanced than we make it. It was different when we were winning/losing because of vets who weren't gonna be here long term anyways. A bottom 3 finish doesn't come without cost now. But maybe still worth. The **** lotto odds doesn't help.
Sitting or trading players resolves this issue with very little effort. The problem with this team is specifically that it isnt bad enough, nor is it good enough. It's purely in the purgatory/treadmill realm, having us not be bottom 3 isn't some indication that we are a good team, it just means we are middling, which is the worst place to ever be in the NBA.
RJ isn't as good as he was last year, and he's not as bad as he's been this year, and Scottie as an all NBA level player doesn't mean that he can lift the team to a decent record. The team has tons of flaws and holes, and being a play in team doesn't fix them. People aren't calling to tank because we are bad, they are calling to tank cause we are mediocre.
I agree with you, that when we have the opportunity to sit guys, we should (And we have imo) or trade guys outside the core for futures (I'm not even against trading Poeltl if someone comes along with a great loss), and try to manufacture these losses where we can, but for me, when we're healthy and have our young guys all playing,
I'd feel more confident about our longterm future if they were good enough to win us some games.If we can have one of those situations where we end up with a really great record when Barnes is playing (Or Barnes + Gradey + IQ etc, whichever) and then a very very poor record that tanks us when he's not. That'd be really ideal. I'd never advocate for them keeping guys like Brown, Boucher, Poeltl even, long term though. Maybe would like to say Brown play well when he's back just so we can trade him a bit better?
The problem is this, the team is already good enough to win some games, the bigger problem is that they arent good enough to win
enough games for the team to rely on just their talent. Everyone being healthy for an average amount, this team isn't bottom 5, but as I've mentioned it mires us in treadmill land.
But those handful of wins could be the difference between a 100% chance at a top 5 or 6 pick, and a ~35% chance at a top 4 pick. Those wins are just not worth the massive drop off in lotto odds. You can't have it both ways, unless our coach intentionally sabotages those games by basically subbing out all starters to run a g league lineup in like the 4th quarter etc. Which I think is a touch too blatant.
Outside of any of the top 5 players in the draft turning into absolute busts, there is zero scenario where the current roster results in a better long term level of success, than the current roster + a top 5 pick. Even if they traded a top 5 pick, that still would put this team in a better position to win in the future.
We have a rookie coach, a team filled with tons of unproven talent and SRPs, and guys that were not seen as valuable enough to keep on their previous teams. We aren't in the position for this team to "show us what they've got", at the expense of draft slots. It's obviously too early to tell, but Ace or Flagg on this team, would immediately be the best, or 2nd best potential players on the roster, that should say enough.
