nate33 wrote:People failed to understand how the flatter lottery odds change the tanking calculus. It’s easy to say that you want to maximize your odds, but the odds difference between the worst and the 4th worst team is almost completely negligible - definitely not significant enough to give away All-Star caliber players just to gain a few paltry percentage points.
Last year, the 9th worst team picked 1st and the 6th worst team picked 3rd.
The year before, the3rd, 4th, and 5th worst teams picked 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respectively.
The year before, the 2nd, 4th, and 7th worst teams picked 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respectively.
In six years of flattened odds, the worst team has never picked first.
Picking first is a nice dream. But that's only 14% of the big picture. The point is about committing fully to the draft and shaving absolutely every percentage in your favor. Giving yourself every chance to get lucky. With top 5 picks, two years in a row. You've seen the charts. You know the franchise players are in the top 5, historically. With a steeper drop off after that. We are aiming for that, while making absolutely sure we don't lose a key asset for nothing.
Luck is luck, it works both ways. We had to ensure a top 10 lotto pick this year, and a top 8 pick next year. While somehow still drafting well and adding real talent. We had to add key players that were not instantly making us a better team. Higher upside and potential than box score effect right away. That's a pretty skinny needle to thread.
This year the Blazers went from last in the West to 3 games out of the play-in spot. By adding Deni and a defensive rookie center, plus development from young players. They project to have added +15 wins this year, in the gunfight that is the Western conference. Let's say we kept Deni, and Deni did indeed get better. We ourselves added a defensive center in the draft. And a promising young rookie in Kyshawn. (Even if in that scenario we couldn't find a way to add Bub). We did trade Kuzma, added Middleton and Smart.
Folks in this thread have made the argument that our rookies might have learned quicker and improved by the example of a team oriented guy like Deni. Entirely possible.
So. How much better would we have been with Deni, Smart, Middleton, no Kuzma (who unpredictably had the worst year of his career) no wounded Brogdon. Plus the upgraded Poole who was likely to revert to the mean, at least, after a down year.
And consider the unknowns of the draft at the time of the trade. What if Sarr had the same effect as Clingan. What if whatever guy we drafted in the Gafford spot was an instant success. In a year when everyone else is tanking.
We relied on 4 rookies this year. And started 2nd yr forward Bilal in a spot that Deni would have played. Even if that was worth only a 15 game swing, 30 wins would put a couple games away from the play-in game. We'd have the 8th worst record, which already would put us in jeopardy of losing our pick to New York. This year. Top 10. But if not, say we draft well, you'd hope a top 4 pick would affect the record. And Deni now in his prime. And Bilal hitting his breakout season. In the weakened East. We'd damn sure lose our 2026 pick. And with it, the pick swap with PHX.
Portland this year has a 90% chance of drafting outside the top 10 in the lotto. Mostly by adding Deni and Clingan. Nobody on here argues that Deni is a bad player. What is in debate is whether the long term needs of the team are best served by retaining him, vs committing 100% to the draft process (or 200+% with pick swaps).
The front office took a risk. For a variety of reasons. It was a gamble. They bought into a team that might lose their picks this year and next, which has determined much of the necessary strategy. Deni is good. Maybe eventually all-star good. Over time, with steady incremental improvement. But. We are trying instead to pull off a radical change. A dynasty level change. By adding top 5 players in back to back years of two of the strongest drafts in decades. It's worth trying.
