Mr Burns wrote:PhilBlackson wrote:Mr Burns wrote:
2010- Avery Bradley instead of Ed Davis
2011- Leonard, Klay, Butler instead of Jonas
2012- Draymond Green instead of Ross
2013- no pick (landed at 12) could have had Giannis or Gobert
2014- Jokic instead of Bruno
Damn bro we could have had a line up of
Bradley
DeRozan
Leonard
Giannis
Jokic
6th man Draymond GreenSpoiler:
You only think you sound smart lol until you realize throwing out players that we're considered flukes and mentioning a player when we didn't even a pick have one versus players who were actually in consideration somehow makes your pointSpoiler:
Maybe you should learn the difference between we're and were before questioning someones intelligence. You completely missed the point of my post, in hindsight anyone can look back and say "oh we could have had so and so" it does not work like that. No one knows how good or bad these players would be. You could literally do that for every single franchise in the NBA.
Or maybe I can go in circles taking turns being grammar police and point out the difference between SOMEONE'S and SOMEONES "before questioning someone's intelligence"
But when you come down from the high horse that isn't the point and it's not just hindsight. How it does work is you look at players who were ACTUALLY/LIKELY in consideration for that pick and your management's draft style, we're using our own because of course it's a hypothetical of what if we tanked versus what we are doing. What you don't do is used FLUKE (which by the nature of the word implies UNLIKELY) picks to try and validate something which you were doing. Your "point" is about as meaningless as if we were debating where not to swim when considering sharks and I say stay out of waters that are colder and have many seals in them where there are endless reports of sharks eating and you say well that's no different then staying out of a warm patch of water where there was one shark reported attack in the past century. One is a fluke occurrence where as one is a LIKELY occurrence, the ODDS are far greater in one versus the other.
There was nothing outlandish or unlikely in thinking better management (in this discussion we're talking about Masai) would have chosen out of those names mentioned and ORL would be in a MUCH better situation but they squandered it. McGregFan's point was soft at best because he thought pointing out ORL somehow "proves" tanking doesn't work when in reality it's not that tanking doesn't work but creating a winning team with bad management and poor decision makers doesn't work. Tanking greatly increases your odds of landing a true star player that's a simple fact as it is that the vast majority of championship teams have acquired at least one of their main stars in the top portion of the draft. On the flip side there are very few (if any) examples of teams that were in a similar predicament to ours that making the assumption that our management is able to bring back Lowry and Ibaka which they have repeatedly stated their intention to are capped out and also therefore making late 1st rd picks that suddenly become contenders (but maybe YOU can help him out with that since he seems to be struggling mightly). So THAT is the case for tanking versus what WE'RE (lol) doing.
WembGod - Face of the NBA Universe
