Tank World Order

[Danny1616]

You literally have no point lol

You've been provided with multiple examples proving you wrong, all of which contained lottery picks that DWARF the odds of doing it without one. At the core of each championship team you've quoted, a LOTTERY pick(s) is at the HEART of it. If those teams don't have those lottery pick players they aren't winning anything (period), those surrounding pieces that you foolishly think prove "your point" but actually don't lol can be traded/interchanged ie/ Horace Grant for Rodman, but good luck swapping out MJ for some 20th pick in the draft and being a dynasty lmao truly laughable "logic".

Your response of just "smart trades, asset collection" being the way is just a meaningless quote with no substance provided. Until you show the VAST MAJORITY of championship teams NOT having a LOTTERY pick especially as THE best player(s) on the team, you'll remain being the only one who thinks you have a point.

You literally circumvented the point of my argument and again engaged in some weird circular mental gymnastic reasoning. We've literally discussed this for weeks and you revert simply to same point again despite an enormous amount of statistical evidence and probability analysis that directly contests your theory.

How did I allude to trading your best player for a 20th pick in the draft as a method? Wtf?

Lottery is also so loosely used here. So a 13th or 14th pick qualifies as a "lottery pick" but getting the 13th or 14th pick means you are just a medicore team.

Tanking probably isn't in the cards this year. Should the Raptors trade 3 picks/2 swaps for Bradley Beal? Probably the next player to be moved. They need to get another star level player.

That is definitely an option on the table management should consider.

[Danny1616]

You literally have no point lol

You've been provided with multiple examples proving you wrong, all of which contained lottery picks that DWARF the odds of doing it without one. At the core of each championship team you've quoted, a LOTTERY pick(s) is at the HEART of it. If those teams don't have those lottery pick players they aren't winning anything (period), those surrounding pieces that you foolishly think prove "your point" but actually don't lol can be traded/interchanged ie/ Horace Grant for Rodman, but good luck swapping out MJ for some 20th pick in the draft and being a dynasty lmao truly laughable "logic".

Your response of just "smart trades, asset collection" being the way is just a meaningless quote with no substance provided. Until you show the VAST MAJORITY of championship teams NOT having a LOTTERY pick especially as THE best player(s) on the team, you'll remain being the only one who thinks you have a point.

You literally circumvented the point of my argument and again engaged in some weird circular mental gymnastic reasoning. We've literally discussed this for weeks and you revert simply to same point again despite an enormous amount of statistical evidence and probability analysis that directly contests your theory.

How did I allude to trading your best player for a 20th pick in the draft as a method? Wtf?

Lottery is also so loosely used here. So a 13th or 14th pick qualifies as a "lottery pick" but getting the 13th or 14th pick means you are just a medicore team.

Tanking probably isn't in the cards this year. Should the Raptors trade 3 picks/2 swaps for Bradley Beal? Probably the next player to be moved. They need to get another star level player.

Definitely an option that management should consider.

We have all our picks and assets like OG, Norm, Boucher, TD etc. that could be used in a package for a star.

I say we be patient and see which teams are planning to fire sale if they miss the playoffs or lose early in the playoffs.

[720]

Maybe provide some context, lmao.

Pistons didn't win until they got Laimbeer, Dumars, Rodman, and Dantley. Rodman was drafted 27th overall, Laimbeer and Dantley were acquired via trade, and Dumars went 18th overall

Rockets took over a decade to win with Hakeem and it was in a year when Jordan retired. No way Hakeem stays for 10 years on a team in the modern NBA without winning. Just won't happen.

Kobe was drafted at 13 and they needed Shaq.

Heat only won when they traded for Shaq. Heat were a 1st round exit team between 2007-2010 when Shaq was hurt/left.

Warriors we just covered.

The Mavericks took 14 years to win a championship with Dirk and suffered multiple early playoff exits. In fact, the Mavericks are testament to not simply tanking and throwing everything away every time your team loses early in the playoffs. For years Dirk had a stigma of not being a true superstar and being a choker in the playoffs.

Lebron had to leave Cleveland because he couldn't win.

This all just proves my point even more.

You literally have no point lol

You've been provided with multiple examples proving you wrong, all of which contained lottery picks that DWARF the odds of doing it without one. At the core of each championship team you've quoted, a LOTTERY pick(s) is at the HEART of it. If those teams don't have those lottery pick players they aren't winning anything (period), those surrounding pieces that you foolishly think prove "your point" but actually don't lol can be traded/interchanged ie/ Horace Grant for Rodman, but good luck swapping out MJ for some 20th pick in the draft and being a dynasty lmao truly laughable "logic".

Your response of just "smart trades, asset collection" being the way is just a meaningless quote with no substance provided. Until you show the VAST MAJORITY of championship teams NOT having a LOTTERY pick especially as THE best player(s) on the team, you'll remain being the only one who thinks you have a point.

You literally circumvented the point of my argument and again engaged in some weird circular mental gymnastic reasoning. We've literally discussed this for weeks and you revert simply to same point again despite an enormous amount of statistical evidence and probability analysis that directly contests your theory.

How did I allude to trading your best player for a 20th pick in the draft as a method? Wtf?

Lottery is also so loosely used here. So a 13th or 14th pick qualifies as a "lottery pick" but getting the 13th or 14th pick means you are just a medicore team.

Set the parameters of what range you want in the draft? Is it a top 5 pick? Is it a top 10 pick? Is it a top 15 pick? What are you trying to say. Once you get into the 8-14 range in the draft, you are actually discussing teams that are TREADMILL TEAMS that usually win between 34-43 games. So does winning 40 games and finishing with the 13th pick qualify as tanking now?

This is how you guys shift the goal posts. You include the 10-14 range picks and discuss them like they are top 5 picks.

If you don't want to include lottery picks in the 10-14 range (another random rule you set) then take Kobe and Dirk out. Everyone else are in the top 10.

[Danny1616]

You literally have no point lol

You've been provided with multiple examples proving you wrong, all of which contained lottery picks that DWARF the odds of doing it without one. At the core of each championship team you've quoted, a LOTTERY pick(s) is at the HEART of it. If those teams don't have those lottery pick players they aren't winning anything (period), those surrounding pieces that you foolishly think prove "your point" but actually don't lol can be traded/interchanged ie/ Horace Grant for Rodman, but good luck swapping out MJ for some 20th pick in the draft and being a dynasty lmao truly laughable "logic".

Your response of just "smart trades, asset collection" being the way is just a meaningless quote with no substance provided. Until you show the VAST MAJORITY of championship teams NOT having a LOTTERY pick especially as THE best player(s) on the team, you'll remain being the only one who thinks you have a point.

You literally circumvented the point of my argument and again engaged in some weird circular mental gymnastic reasoning. We've literally discussed this for weeks and you revert simply to same point again despite an enormous amount of statistical evidence and probability analysis that directly contests your theory.

How did I allude to trading your best player for a 20th pick in the draft as a method? Wtf?

Lottery is also so loosely used here. So a 13th or 14th pick qualifies as a "lottery pick" but getting the 13th or 14th pick means you are just a medicore team.

Set the parameters of what range you want in the draft? Is it a top 5 pick? Is it a top 10 pick? Is it a top 15 pick? What are you trying to say. Once you get into the 8-14 range in the draft, you are actually discussing teams that are TREADMILL TEAMS that usually win between 34-43 games. So does winning 40 games and finishing with the 13th pick qualify as tanking now?

This is how you guys shift the goal posts. You include the 10-14 range picks and discuss them like they are top 5 picks.

If you don't want to include lottery picks in the 10-14 range (another random rule you set) then take Kobe and Dirk out. Everyone else are in the top 10.

And almost much everybody you listed were drafted between 1980-1985. In the last 30 years give me all the statistics/odds.

It's not a random rule to set.

You guys are you using "lottery" so loosely it's impossible to know what tanking is. If you win 38 games, finish 9th and get the 12th pick, are you tanking? That seems to qualify as a TREADMILL TEAM, which is what most of you DO NOT WANT? Is that wrong?

[720]

You literally circumvented the point of my argument and again engaged in some weird circular mental gymnastic reasoning. We've literally discussed this for weeks and you revert simply to same point again despite an enormous amount of statistical evidence and probability analysis that directly contests your theory.

How did I allude to trading your best player for a 20th pick in the draft as a method? Wtf?

Lottery is also so loosely used here. So a 13th or 14th pick qualifies as a "lottery pick" but getting the 13th or 14th pick means you are just a medicore team.

Set the parameters of what range you want in the draft? Is it a top 5 pick? Is it a top 10 pick? Is it a top 15 pick? What are you trying to say. Once you get into the 8-14 range in the draft, you are actually discussing teams that are TREADMILL TEAMS that usually win between 34-43 games. So does winning 40 games and finishing with the 13th pick qualify as tanking now?

This is how you guys shift the goal posts. You include the 10-14 range picks and discuss them like they are top 5 picks.

If you don't want to include lottery picks in the 10-14 range (another random rule you set) then take Kobe and Dirk out. Everyone else are in the top 10.

And almost much everybody you listed are only from 1980s. In the last 30 years give me all the statistics/odds.

It's not a random rule to set.

You guys are you using "lottery" so loosely it's impossible to know what tanking is. If you win 38 games, finish 9th and get the 12th pick, are you tanking? That seems to qualify as a TREADMILL TEAM, which is what most of you DO NOT WANT? Is that wrong?

So I'm not allowed to talk about lotto picks in the 10-14 range, can't talk about guys from the 80s, anything else?

Are the 90s within limits?

[Danny1616]

If you don't want to include lottery picks in the 10-14 range (another random rule you set) then take Kobe and Dirk out. Everyone else are in the top 10.

And almost much everybody you listed are only from 1980s. In the last 30 years give me all the statistics/odds.

It's not a random rule to set.

You guys are you using "lottery" so loosely it's impossible to know what tanking is. If you win 38 games, finish 9th and get the 12th pick, are you tanking? That seems to qualify as a TREADMILL TEAM, which is what most of you DO NOT WANT? Is that wrong?

So I'm not allowed to talk about lotto picks in the 10-14 range, can't talk about guys from the 80s, anything else?

Are the 90s within limits?

Ironically, it's you guys that are setting insane parameters, not me. I already illustrated that not one team won a championship with their own top 3 draft pick since 1990 with the exception of Duncan's Spurs and Lebron's Cavs.

If you expand this to the top 6 draft picks, you can add Wade to that list.

[720]

And almost much everybody you listed are only from 1980s. In the last 30 years give me all the statistics/odds.

It's not a random rule to set.

You guys are you using "lottery" so loosely it's impossible to know what tanking is. If you win 38 games, finish 9th and get the 12th pick, are you tanking? That seems to qualify as a TREADMILL TEAM, which is what most of you DO NOT WANT? Is that wrong?

So I'm not allowed to talk about lotto picks in the 10-14 range, can't talk about guys from the 80s, anything else?

Are the 90s within limits?

Ironically, it's you guys that are setting insane parameters, not me. I already illustrated that not one team won a championship with their own top 3 draft pick since 1990 with the exception of Duncan's Spurs and Lebron's Cavs.

Oh so I can only talk about top 3 picks in the years between 1990-2020. Got it thanks.

In such a scenario those two players won 6 rings combined with their respective teams. In your very specific scenario that's actually not that bad.



Now for the rest of us that actually know what lottery pick means. In the last 30 years 19 teams won with their own top 5 lottery pick on the team. If I expand it to top 8 (like any sane person) that jumps to 23 championships. Now if include top 14 it's even higher because of Dirk and Kobe.

[Danny1616]

So I'm not allowed to talk about lotto picks in the 10-14 range, can't talk about guys from the 80s, anything else?

Are the 90s within limits?

Ironically, it's you guys that are setting insane parameters, not me. I already illustrated that not one team won a championship with their own top 3 draft pick since 1990 with the exception of Duncan's Spurs and Lebron's Cavs.

Oh so I can only talk about top 3 picks in the years between 1990-2020. Got it thanks.

In such a scenario those two players won 6 rings combined with their respective teams. In your very specific scenario that's actually not that bad.



Now for the rest of us that actually know what lottery pick means. In the last 30 years 19 teams won with their own top 5 lottery pick on the team. If I expand it to top 8 (like any sane person) that jumps to 23 championships.

If you expand it to the top 6 it's only three players, Wade, Lebron and Duncan.

I like you have to again shift everything and count the # of championships rather than the number of players.

Three teams that had top 6 picks since 1990 won a chip won with their own top 6 pick.

[720]

Ironically, it's you guys that are setting insane parameters, not me. I already illustrated that not one team won a championship with their own top 3 draft pick since 1990 with the exception of Duncan's Spurs and Lebron's Cavs.

Oh so I can only talk about top 3 picks in the years between 1990-2020. Got it thanks.

In such a scenario those two players won 6 rings combined with their respective teams. In your very specific scenario that's actually not that bad.



Now for the rest of us that actually know what lottery pick means. In the last 30 years 19 teams won with their own top 5 lottery pick on the team. If I expand it to top 8 (like any sane person) that jumps to 23 championships.

If you expand it to the top 6 it's only three players, Wade, Lebron and Duncan.

Is this scenario still not including the 80s for some weird reason? Because then I could add Hakeem, MJ and Isiah.

edit: Oh I forgot, you set an arbitrary limitation that is the year 1990.

[Danny1616]

Oh so I can only talk about top 3 picks in the years between 1990-2020. Got it thanks.

In such a scenario those two players won 6 rings combined with their respective teams. In your very specific scenario that's actually not that bad.



Now for the rest of us that actually know what lottery pick means. In the last 30 years 19 teams won with their own top 5 lottery pick on the team. If I expand it to top 8 (like any sane person) that jumps to 23 championships.

If you expand it to the top 6 it's only three players, Wade, Lebron and Duncan.

Is this scenario still not including the 80s for some weird reason? Because then I could add Hakeem, MJ and Isiah.

Sure, your best argument is a 5 year span from 1980-1984. What happened in the 35 years since then? lol.

If we are speaking about probabilities, that's not in your favor.

I'll take the statistics of the last 35 years over a unique 4 year span in the early 1980s.

[720]

If you expand it to the top 6 it's only three players, Wade, Lebron and Duncan.

Is this scenario still not including the 80s for some weird reason? Because then I could add Hakeem, MJ and Isiah.

Sure, your best argument is a 5 year span from 1980-1984. What happened in the 35 years since then? lol.

If we are speaking about probabilities, that's not in your favor.

My best argument is that in the last 30 years 19 champions have a top 5 lotto pick that they drafted on their team.

Your best argument is using arbitrary cut off points on what years I can talk about and what lotto picks I can talk about.

[Danny1616]

Is this scenario still not including the 80s for some weird reason? Because then I could add Hakeem, MJ and Isiah.

Sure, your best argument is a 5 year span from 1980-1984. What happened in the 35 years since then? lol.

If we are speaking about probabilities, that's not in your favor.

My best argument is that in the last 30 years 19 champions have a top 5 lotto pick that they drafted on their team.

Your best argument is using arbitrary cut off points on what years I can talk about and what lotto picks I can talk about.

Nope.

Since 1990, only THREE TEAMS have won with their own top 6 pick. I'd like you to do the odds on that.

That's just facts.

And your best argument is taking 4 years from 1980-1984 and dismissing the statistics from the last 35 years.

In case you didn't know, a 35 year sample size > a 4 year sample size.

[720]

Sure, your best argument is a 5 year span from 1980-1984. What happened in the 35 years since then? lol.

If we are speaking about probabilities, that's not in your favor.

My best argument is that in the last 30 years 19 champions have a top 5 lotto pick that they drafted on their team.

Your best argument is using arbitrary cut off points on what years I can talk about and what lotto picks I can talk about.

Nope.

Since 1990, only THREE TEAMS have won with their own top 6 pick. I'd like you to do the odds on that.

That's just facts.

So the bulls didn't win 6 champion ships in the 90s? The rockets didn't win 2? The pistons didn't win 1?

Team mediocre creating alternate timelines.

[Danny1616]

My best argument is that in the last 30 years 19 champions have a top 5 lotto pick that they drafted on their team.

Your best argument is using arbitrary cut off points on what years I can talk about and what lotto picks I can talk about.

Nope.

Since 1990, only THREE TEAMS have won with their own top 6 pick. I'd like you to do the odds on that.

That's just facts.

So the bulls didn't win 6 champion ships in the 90s? The rockets didn't win 2? The pistons didn't win 1?

Team mediocre creating alternate timelines.

So you can't dispute that THREE TEAMS have won a championship with their own top 6 pick since 1990?

You can't dispute that a 35 year sample size is more accurate than a 5 year sample size?

This is getting really sad.

[720]

I also didn't no lottery pick meant only top 6. Silly me.

[Danny1616]

I also didn't no lottery pick meant only top 6. Silly me.

You said you don't like treadmill teams.

Usually teams that get the 8-14 pick are in fact treadmill teams. Didn't you and others say that teams that finish 7-11 in their conference are treadmill teams?

I really don't know why you are supporting teams that win 35+ games and get the 10th pick?

You contradict your own insane, twisted logic.

Team TWO baffles everyone once again.

[720]

Nope.

Since 1990, only THREE TEAMS have won with their own top 6 pick. I'd like you to do the odds on that.

That's just facts.

So the bulls didn't win 6 champion ships in the 90s? The rockets didn't win 2? The pistons didn't win 1?

Team mediocre creating alternate timelines.

So you can't dispute that THREE TEAMS have won a championship with their own top 6 pick since 1990?

You can't dispute that a 35 year sample size is more accurate than a 5 year sample size?

This is getting really sad.

Since 1990 (the year YOU arbitrarily picked to fit you narrative). 19 champions have top 5 picks that they drafted. If I expand it top 8, it's 23 champions.

So over half, basically 2/3s of all champions in the last 30 years won with lotto picks THEY picked.

[Danny1616]

So the bulls didn't win 6 champion ships in the 90s? The rockets didn't win 2? The pistons didn't win 1?

Team mediocre creating alternate timelines.

So you can't dispute that THREE TEAMS have won a championship with their own top 6 pick since 1990?

You can't dispute that a 35 year sample size is more accurate than a 5 year sample size?

This is getting really sad.

Since 1990 (the year YOU arbitrarily picked to fit you narrative). 19 champions have top 5 picks that they drafted. If I expand it top 8, it's 23 champions.

So over half, basically 2/3s of all champions in the last 30 years won with lotto picks THEY picked.

Again, it's THREE TEAMS since 1990.

You can put all the championships you want. In doesn't negate the fact that THREE TEAMS have been successful doing it over a 30 year span. Not very good odds. Do the math on THREE TEAMS over a 30 year span. Give me the probability, lol.

[720]

I also didn't no lottery pick meant only top 6. Silly me.

You said you don't like treadmill teams.

Usually teams that get the 8-14 pick are in fact treadmill teams. Didn't you and others say that teams that finish 7-11 in their conference are treadmill teams?

I really don't know why you are supporting teams that win 35+ games and get the 10th pick?

You contradict your own insane, twisted logic.

Team TWO baffles everyone once again.

Who told you that? Treadmills are like the Blazers and Demar era Raptors. Teams that know they're not going to win a chip but keep running it back every year just because.

[Inevitable]

What’s the point of the ignore/report function when someone spams 30 posts an hour making circular arguments, moving goal posts and baiting people into warnings. Clearly the agenda is to get this thread locked.