RealGM

Toronto jumped up to four.

That could have been the Wizards at four.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:Toronto jumped up to four.

That could have been the Wizards at four.

This is why we are always chasing our tails every year.

Sent from my SM-N960U using RealGM mobile app

Super2477, Welcome Aboard!

I haven’t seen you post before and I just want to say a new voice is always good.

Or we could have been the Magic, Kings, Warriors or Pelicans, and come away nothing more than a late lotto pick.

It will be interesting to see what the Raptors do going forward. If I had to guess, they'll probably try to press forward and win some games initially, but then eventually commit to the rebuild. The prime of the player they draft will be at earliest 5 years from now. Imo, it makes much more sense to build for that than to try to win now.

prime1time wrote:It will be interesting to see what the Raptors do going forward. If I had to guess, they'll probably try to press forward and win some games initially, but then eventually commit to the rebuild. The prime of the player they draft will be at earliest 5 years from now. Imo, it makes much more sense to build for that than to try to win now.

They've got four good youngish players just entering their prime (Siakam, Anunoby, Van Fleet, Trent Jr.) and only Lowry who is over the hill. It doesn't make much sense at all for them to rebuild around a draft pick. If anything they'll trade the draft pick for another good veteran.

nate33 wrote:

prime1time wrote:It will be interesting to see what the Raptors do going forward. If I had to guess, they'll probably try to press forward and win some games initially, but then eventually commit to the rebuild. The prime of the player they draft will be at earliest 5 years from now. Imo, it makes much more sense to build for that than to try to win now.

They've got four good youngish players just entering their prime (Siakam, Anunoby, Van Fleet, Trent Jr.) and only Lowry who is over the hill. It doesn't make much sense at all for them to rebuild around a draft pick. If anything they'll trade the draft pick for another good veteran.

This is the prevailing thought process but I'm saying that it's misguided. Siakam's 27, Vanvleet is 27. By the time Suggs/Green is entering their prime they'll be 32. Too many organizations prioritize the present over the future. If I'm them I pivot away from Siakam but that's just me. There's already reports of high lottery teams like the Cavs looking for all-stars. If I'm Toronto I trade Siakam for #3 and whatever. I keep Vanvleet, but basically, I go all-in on the prime of my star player.

Then I run with Anunoby, VanVleet, Trent Jr and then my two top picks.

Not saying they have to go that route, but too many organizations try to do this win now and win later thing. The next thing you know it's the heat of a playoff race and they making a shortsighted move. Just look at Philadelphia now. This is the first year that EMbiid has actually looked like a truly dominant player. At 27, he's in the middle of his prime. But they've been making win-now moves for 4 years and have basically - barring a miracle - maneuvered themselves into purgatory. Unless you have a Luka Doncic esque progidy, you shouldn't be trying to win in the year or two after you draft a potential elite player. Let him learn, let him grow and then when he's closer to his prime make a move. I know it's not popular but it's the truth.

What is a good example of my approach? The Suns. They took their time, stockpiled assets. Let Booker develop and now D-Books 6th year in the league they are making a push. It wasn't popular, but if you step back it actually makes sense. The Celtics tried to win immediately after drafting Tatum. Now that Tatum is ready, they are giving away first-round draft picks to trade away players. Where would the Celtics be if they went all-in on Tatum's prime?

nate33 wrote:Or we could have been the Magic, Kings, Warriors or Pelicans, and come away with a late lotto pick.

Sure. But if you're in the lottery, you have the chance at a top pick.

If you're getting your butt handed to you in the first round with no hope of advancing, you have no chance of anything at all.

I've been arguing this since the early 1980s with no success.

This team has always seemed to feel that it maximizes its ticket sales by being in the hunt for the last playoff spot every year thus creating some excitement during the last quarter of the season.

Illuminaire wrote:

nate33 wrote:Or we could have been the Magic, Kings, Warriors or Pelicans, and come away with a late lotto pick.

Sure. But if you're in the lottery, you have the chance at a top pick.

If you're getting your butt handed to you in the first round with no hope of advancing, you have no chance of anything at all.

I'm not saying there isn't some logic to tanking. I'm just saying that you can't just assume we would have been the Toronto of this group. We could have just as easily been one of the losers of the lottery.

We were too good to finish in the bottom 5. Westbrook was going to keep us in the 7-12 range even if we tried to tank, leaving us with just a 10% or so shot at a top 4 pick. CCJ presented a false comparison. It wasn't playoffs plus #15 pick versus tanking plus the #4 pick; it was playoffs plus the #15 pick versus tanking plus a 10% shot at the #4 pick.

I really do think the argument for tanking has been greatly diminished with the revised lottery odds.

The Warriors will also look to trade one if not both of their picks in the lottery

Truth be told, I don't hate not tanking. Coaches and players should be trying to win, that's how you learn good habits.

GM's however, should be taking the long view and setting up a roster for either development or competing. The constant GMing for a middling roster is what is so bad about Wizard's history.

Other than Jeff Malone for Pervis Ellison, I don't remember a single major move in 60 years of Wizard history that actually brought in significant draft capital for veterans or that could be characterized as prioritizing the long term over the short term.

penbeast0 wrote:Truth be told, I don't hate not tanking. Coaches and players should be trying to win, that's how you learn good habits.

GM's however, should be taking the long view and setting up a roster for either development or competing. The constant GMing for a middling roster is what is so bad about Wizard's history.

Other than Jeff Malone for Pervis Ellison, I don't remember a single major move in 60 years of Wizard history that actually brought in significant draft capital for veterans or that could be characterized as prioritizing the long term over the short term.

There have been a couple, but not many:

Jamison was traded to Cleveland for a late pick and cap relief.
Hinrich for the pick that landed Seraphin
Sato for two 2nd rounders.

Your point is well taken, though. Future assets are always cheaper than current assets. A team that consistently trades now for the future is going to win a lot of trades, and a team that trades the future for now is going to lose a lot of trades. We almost always trade the future for now.

nate33 wrote:

prime1time wrote:It will be interesting to see what the Raptors do going forward. If I had to guess, they'll probably try to press forward and win some games initially, but then eventually commit to the rebuild. The prime of the player they draft will be at earliest 5 years from now. Imo, it makes much more sense to build for that than to try to win now.

They've got four good youngish players just entering their prime (Siakam, Anunoby, Van Fleet, Trent Jr.) and only Lowry who is over the hill. It doesn't make much sense at all for them to rebuild around a draft pick. If anything they'll trade the draft pick for another good veteran.

They’ll draft and play Jalen Suggs in place of Lowry.

nate33 wrote:

penbeast0 wrote:Truth be told, I don't hate not tanking. Coaches and players should be trying to win, that's how you learn good habits.

GM's however, should be taking the long view and setting up a roster for either development or competing. The constant GMing for a middling roster is what is so bad about Wizard's history.

Other than Jeff Malone for Pervis Ellison, I don't remember a single major move in 60 years of Wizard history that actually brought in significant draft capital for veterans or that could be characterized as prioritizing the long term over the short term.

There have been a couple, but not many:

Jamison was traded to Cleveland for a late pick and cap relief.
Hinrich for the pick that landed Seraphin
Sato for two 2nd rounders.

Your point is well taken, though. Future assets are always cheaper than current assets. A team that consistently trades now for the future is going to win a lot of trades, and a team that trades the future for now is going to lose a lot of trades. We almost always trade the future for now.

Hinrich for Seraphin was the one I forgot, I knew there was one. Second rounders and the Jamison deal don't really fall into my category of "major moves."

This may be the only franchise I remember that ever traded a 1st rounder the following year for a 2nd rounder this year also (before pick protection was used even!). All to draft the amazing Roger Phegley if I remember right.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:Toronto jumped up to four.

That could have been the Wizards at four.

So are we're going to play the, "that could have been us" game?

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:

nate33 wrote:

prime1time wrote:It will be interesting to see what the Raptors do going forward. If I had to guess, they'll probably try to press forward and win some games initially, but then eventually commit to the rebuild. The prime of the player they draft will be at earliest 5 years from now. Imo, it makes much more sense to build for that than to try to win now.

They've got four good youngish players just entering their prime (Siakam, Anunoby, Van Fleet, Trent Jr.) and only Lowry who is over the hill. It doesn't make much sense at all for them to rebuild around a draft pick. If anything they'll trade the draft pick for another good veteran.

They’ll draft and play Jalen Suggs in place of Lowry.

Possibly, but Toronto might want to win now. And I think it'll take Suggs a while to adjust to the NBA. It's hard for rookie PG's not named Morant adjusting to the NBA when they're not real good 3 point shooters. At Zag, he was phenominal, but it helped that he was on the most skilled team in the country. His best quality might be his D, and NBA refs don't give rookies any benefits on D.

penbeast0 wrote:I've been arguing this since the early 1980s with no success.

This team has always seemed to feel that it maximizes its ticket sales by being in the hunt for the last playoff spot every year thus creating some excitement during the last quarter of the season.

Did we not tank the years after we drafted Wall? We had 3 high picks in a row. Wall, Beal and Porter.

Chocolate City Jordanaire wrote:

nate33 wrote:

prime1time wrote:It will be interesting to see what the Raptors do going forward. If I had to guess, they'll probably try to press forward and win some games initially, but then eventually commit to the rebuild. The prime of the player they draft will be at earliest 5 years from now. Imo, it makes much more sense to build for that than to try to win now.

They've got four good youngish players just entering their prime (Siakam, Anunoby, Van Fleet, Trent Jr.) and only Lowry who is over the hill. It doesn't make much sense at all for them to rebuild around a draft pick. If anything they'll trade the draft pick for another good veteran.

They’ll draft and play Jalen Suggs in place of Lowry.

Is Suggs going to be good enough for that to be a viable strategy? He’s never played a game in the NBA. Imo, he’s closer to Jrue Holiday than Damian Lillard. They still need a 1. Why would they be any better than they were last year?