Who should be the "core" of the team

[JDR720]

The topic name says it all, who should the teams core be? who should we try to build around? should we even build around anyone on this team?

Obviously, as for current players we have Kemba. I think thats about it, everyone else is either old/injury prone or not very good. Hopefully Monk can turn it around. We really need to hit on a draft pick. Personally the only players i would keep of our current bunch are Kemba,Monk,Frank,Cody,Lamb and Graham. I think everyone else are easily expendable for different reasons.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

There isn't anyone on this team that I wouldn't mind being traded in the right scenario. That said here are the guys I would like to keep:

1. Kemba
2. Lamb - played really well this year. Deserved more minutes. Has good chemistry with Kemba.
3. Cody - really good at what he does, when healthy.

All of those guys have modern NBA skills and can play on both ends.

[HoopsMalone]

We really don't have anyone going forward who should be the core of the team IMO. Kemba is too old to start building around now with such a decrepit roster. Lamb is a good player but you really need to try to put a real squad together before you start looking for complementary pieces or you get stuck like we are right now.

Trouble is we are locked into pretty much everyone so its not really worth worrying about. This latest Batum injury news will make him even harder to unload down the line.

We need a Hinkie like GM to get out of this mess. It's like they said on Dunc'd On podcast at this point we really need someone who can think outside the box.

[316Hornets]

Batum - no choice here
Lamb - fills a role, could shine with the right coach
Zeller - no real trade value, just have to play him limited minutes
Monk - let him throw up some shots while we rebuild


Just trade Kemba, he's a luxury for this team right now.
Dwight trade him or buy him out

Tank the 2018-19 season and see where we are at then.

[HoopsMalone]

We really out to trade Dwight for like Mozgov, Evan Turner, Joakim Noah, etc... there are a lot of teams who would love his expiring contract and since are screwed for the next few years anyway we can afford to take on a bad deal if they attach picks/prospects

[HornetJail]

We have a core of Kem/Ba/Walk/Er.

But realistically if you asked me the five players on this roster I'd want to move forward with and we'd dump everyone else, it would be Kemba (obvious), MKG (as our starting 4), Monk (20-year-old scoring guard), Zeller (modern guy big), and our upcoming 1st rounder. Wouldn't shed any tears if everyone else left. Love Marvin but he's too old to wait for a 2-3 year rebuild. Lamb is good but moderately replaceable, and Frank/Graham are career 6th-10th men, most likely.

[HornetJail]

We really out to trade Dwight for like Mozgov, Evan Turner, Joakim Noah, etc... there are a lot of teams who would love his expiring contract and since are screwed for the next few years anyway we can afford to take on a bad deal if they attach picks/prospects

Knicks and Nets aren't attaching 1sts just to get a year of salary off their books. They need years of rebuilding, just like us. Portland might since they're in cap hell, but they're also not able to offer up a decent pick, since their own is currently sitting at #26.

[Eoghan]

Rookie contract or GTFO.

[GoBobs]

We just need to relax and not do anything to drastic. Get a new coach and see what he can get out of this team.

The main thing we need to do is move a lot of guys up a position and start playing small more.

Kemba / ??????
Lamb / Monk
MKG / ?????
Batum / Marvin
Dwight / Cody / Frank

Draft BPA ( hopefully a pg )

The best chance this team takes a step is we draft a difference maker and put him with the vets we already have. Look at the Jazz they didn't have a top pick last year and they got Donovan Mitchel.

Of course if he was on our team he would just be on the bench anyway. Give me a new coach who is not afraid to play the young guys some through some growing pains because he realizes we are going to need them to develop for the team to go anywhere.

If we got some contribution from a rookie and a little more from monk this team could be decent.

[Radu_Hornets]

We just need to relax and not do anything to drastic. Get a new coach and see what he can get out of this team.



The best chance this team takes a step is we draft a difference maker and put him with the vets we already have. Look at the Jazz they didn't have a top pick last year and they got Donovan Mitchel.

Thank you...
Tanking is not as scientific formula to success...
Please look at the spurs...

It's just about drafting the good prospect, not getting the highest pick.

And as I always say, the basketball gods don't like tanking.

[BeesWax]

We just need to relax and not do anything to drastic. Get a new coach and see what he can get out of this team.



The best chance this team takes a step is we draft a difference maker and put him with the vets we already have. Look at the Jazz they didn't have a top pick last year and they got Donovan Mitchel.

Thank you...
Tanking is not as scientific formula to success...
Please look at the spurs...

It's just about drafting the good prospect, not getting the highest pick.

And as I always say, the basketball gods don't like tanking.

Lets see what the Spurs do now. They bombed for a year when Robinson went down and that is how they got Duncan and they drafted Parker and Ginobli before teams were doing as much international scouting as they are now. They lead in certain aspects and that played into their top notch performance. If they can maintain that in the next decade without those guys then it could be interesting.

Tanking seems to have worked out ok for Philly now. They have a couple star caliber young guys on their roster and enough cap room to go after a big FA. We just aren't deep enough into the tanking era to know if it is going to work or not.

[Vanderbilt_Grad]

Draft picks are always risky. Some work out and some don't. Even teams that draft well overall have misses. What tanking aims to do is stack the odds in your favor by getting higher draft picks, and, ideally, more of them. The downside is usually a culture hit. If the team values draft picks over winning, that's something that's super clear to the players.

Just MHO, but I'm more in favor of acquiring assets - extra picks, pick swaps, and such - over outright trying to lose and move up in the draft. I really like what Boston has done, and I admire teams like Houston that manage to get valuable players late in the draft.

[Radu_Hornets]

We just need to relax and not do anything to drastic. Get a new coach and see what he can get out of this team.



The best chance this team takes a step is we draft a difference maker and put him with the vets we already have. Look at the Jazz they didn't have a top pick last year and they got Donovan Mitchel.

Thank you...
Tanking is not as scientific formula to success...
Please look at the spurs...

It's just about drafting the good prospect, not getting the highest pick.

And as I always say, the basketball gods don't like tanking.

Lets see what the Spurs do now. They bombed for a year when Robinson went down and that is how they got Duncan and they drafted Parker and Ginobli before teams were doing as much international scouting as they are now. They lead in certain aspects and that played into their top notch performance. If they can maintain that in the next decade without those guys then it could be interesting.

Tanking seems to have worked out ok for Philly now. They have a couple star caliber young guys on their roster and enough cap room to go after a big FA. We just aren't deep enough into the tanking era to know if it is going to work or not.

It would be interesting to make some stats over the past 20 years about how many top 3 picks helped their team to make big noise in the playoffs. And, How many other picks (4 - 60th) had the same impact or better.

Moreover, let's count how many top 3 picks were actual bust... And thus ruined completely a year of tanking ...

Tanking is not a solution. Winning is.

[BeesWax]

Thank you...
Tanking is not as scientific formula to success...
Please look at the spurs...

It's just about drafting the good prospect, not getting the highest pick.

And as I always say, the basketball gods don't like tanking.

Lets see what the Spurs do now. They bombed for a year when Robinson went down and that is how they got Duncan and they drafted Parker and Ginobli before teams were doing as much international scouting as they are now. They lead in certain aspects and that played into their top notch performance. If they can maintain that in the next decade without those guys then it could be interesting.

Tanking seems to have worked out ok for Philly now. They have a couple star caliber young guys on their roster and enough cap room to go after a big FA. We just aren't deep enough into the tanking era to know if it is going to work or not.

It would be interesting to make some stats over the past 20 years about how many top 3 picks helped their team to make big noise in the playoffs. And, How many other picks (4 - 60th) had the same impact or better.

Moreover, let's count how many top 3 picks were actual bust... And thus ruined completely a year of tanking ...

Tanking is not a solution. Winning is.

That is easy to say if you have a team that can win.

Everyone agrees winning is great and everyone wants to do it but how you get there is the question. Doing what we have been doing is worse than tanking because you are less likely to really improve and yet still not good enough to really accomplish anything win wise. Nobody can prove tanking doesn't work because it hasn't been around long enough to see the results. I am not saying to tank but this tread mill garbage isn't the correct answer either. Also there is a difference in starting a rebuild by getting young players and playing them and tanking.

[ammofan]

Lets see what the Spurs do now. They bombed for a year when Robinson went down and that is how they got Duncan and they drafted Parker and Ginobli before teams were doing as much international scouting as they are now. They lead in certain aspects and that played into their top notch performance. If they can maintain that in the next decade without those guys then it could be interesting.

Tanking seems to have worked out ok for Philly now. They have a couple star caliber young guys on their roster and enough cap room to go after a big FA. We just aren't deep enough into the tanking era to know if it is going to work or not.

It would be interesting to make some stats over the past 20 years about how many top 3 picks helped their team to make big noise in the playoffs. And, How many other picks (4 - 60th) had the same impact or better.

Moreover, let's count how many top 3 picks were actual bust... And thus ruined completely a year of tanking ...

Tanking is not a solution. Winning is.

That is easy to say if you have a team that can win.

Everyone agrees winning is great and everyone wants to do it but how you get there is the question. Doing what we have been doing is worse than tanking because you are less likely to really improve and yet still not good enough to really accomplish anything win wise. Nobody can prove tanking doesn't work because it hasn't been around long enough to see the results. I am not saying to tank but this tread mill garbage isn't the correct answer either. Also there is a difference in starting a rebuild by getting young players and playing them and tanking.

It's always better to win no matter what. 8th seed's aren't always a great scenario because we could get bounced in 4 games, but the season is way more enjoyable and sellable from a business standpoint. If we tank, no one cares and we continue to be labeled as a "loser". We can't afford to wait around and hope for Embiid + Simmons or Westbrook and KD. I believe it's better to push for as many wins as possible and really focus on drafting well.

I'd rather aim for 8th or above and possibly draft a Giannis/Kawhi/Kuzma/etc at pick 15-60, than lose every year and pray for an Anthony Davis.

How many top picks truly make a difference?

What if we get #1 and pick a star like Blake Griffin who doesn't move the needle? He's good, but would he really be worth throwing seasons away for?

Simmons/AD/Kyrie/Dwight/LeBron are the only 5 guys since 2000 that I'd say are truly worth tanking for #1. Wall is really good but isn't a transcendent talent, Yao is a HOF-er but had a short career and never pushed the Rockets to a true next level, Rose was an MVP and unfortunately it's hard to judge how he'd turn out if injuries didn't ruin his career, Wiggins is solid but certainly not worth it, and KAT is great but I think he's a liability on defense and not the type of player AD is.

[316Hornets]

It would be interesting to make some stats over the past 20 years about how many top 3 picks helped their team to make big noise in the playoffs. And, How many other picks (4 - 60th) had the same impact or better.

Moreover, let's count how many top 3 picks were actual bust... And thus ruined completely a year of tanking ...

Tanking is not a solution. Winning is.

That is easy to say if you have a team that can win.

Everyone agrees winning is great and everyone wants to do it but how you get there is the question. Doing what we have been doing is worse than tanking because you are less likely to really improve and yet still not good enough to really accomplish anything win wise. Nobody can prove tanking doesn't work because it hasn't been around long enough to see the results. I am not saying to tank but this tread mill garbage isn't the correct answer either. Also there is a difference in starting a rebuild by getting young players and playing them and tanking.

It's always better to win no matter what. 8th seed's aren't always a great scenario because we could get bounced in 4 games, but the season is way more enjoyable and sellable from a business standpoint. If we tank, no one cares and we continue to be labeled as a "loser". We can't afford to wait around and hope for Embiid + Simmons or Westbrook and KD. I believe it's better to push for as many wins as possible and really focus on drafting well.

I'd rather aim for 8th or above and possibly draft a Giannis/Kawhi/Kuzma/etc at pick 15-60, than lose every year and pray for an Anthony Davis.

How many top picks truly make a difference?

What if we get #1 and pick a star like Blake Griffin who doesn't move the needle? He's good, but would he really be worth throwing seasons away for?

Simmons/AD/Kyrie/Dwight/LeBron are the only 5 guys since 2000 that I'd say are truly worth tanking for #1. Wall is really good but isn't a transcendent talent, Yao is a HOF-er but had a short career and never pushed the Rockets to a true next level, Rose was an MVP and unfortunately it's hard to judge how he'd turn out if injuries didn't ruin his career, Wiggins is solid but certainly not worth it, and KAT is great but I think he's a liability on defense and not the type of player AD is.

Lol dude pray for AD but think we are gonna draft the next Giannis? Come on... The superstars in the late part of the draft are extreme outliers. I'm done with hoping for luck. Call this team what it is, mediocre, and rebuild.

[BeesWax]

It would be interesting to make some stats over the past 20 years about how many top 3 picks helped their team to make big noise in the playoffs. And, How many other picks (4 - 60th) had the same impact or better.

Moreover, let's count how many top 3 picks were actual bust... And thus ruined completely a year of tanking ...

Tanking is not a solution. Winning is.

That is easy to say if you have a team that can win.

Everyone agrees winning is great and everyone wants to do it but how you get there is the question. Doing what we have been doing is worse than tanking because you are less likely to really improve and yet still not good enough to really accomplish anything win wise. Nobody can prove tanking doesn't work because it hasn't been around long enough to see the results. I am not saying to tank but this tread mill garbage isn't the correct answer either. Also there is a difference in starting a rebuild by getting young players and playing them and tanking.

It's always better to win no matter what. 8th seed's aren't always a great scenario because we could get bounced in 4 games, but the season is way more enjoyable and sellable from a business standpoint. If we tank, no one cares and we continue to be labeled as a "loser". We can't afford to wait around and hope for Embiid + Simmons or Westbrook and KD. I believe it's better to push for as many wins as possible and really focus on drafting well.

I'd rather aim for 8th or above and possibly draft a Giannis/Kawhi/Kuzma/etc at pick 15-60, than lose every year and pray for an Anthony Davis.

How many top picks truly make a difference?

What if we get #1 and pick a star like Blake Griffin who doesn't move the needle? He's good, but would he really be worth throwing seasons away for?

Simmons/AD/Kyrie/Dwight/LeBron are the only 5 guys since 2000 that I'd say are truly worth tanking for #1. Wall is really good but isn't a transcendent talent, Yao is a HOF-er but had a short career and never pushed the Rockets to a true next level, Rose was an MVP and unfortunately it's hard to judge how he'd turn out if injuries didn't ruin his career, Wiggins is solid but certainly not worth it, and KAT is great but I think he's a liability on defense and not the type of player AD is.

How? How did you have fun watching this season and realizing that we are stuck with this team again next year because of our situation cap wise? I would much rather see young guys learning and growing than watching a bunch of overpaid vets stink it up with a lost coach nightly.

That is the problem with the "anti-tank" people. They keep saying you are actively trying to be bad but that is not really the case for a number of teams labeled tanking teams. They are just developing their young guys and eating bad contracts for assets. They aren't actively trying to build a winner right now but are developing the pieces to win in the future.

The worst thing you can do is what you said above. Struggling yearly for the 8th seed in the playoffs is absolutely the worst outcome because we have all had to sit here and watch it turn out team into this. I would rather watch almost any other team right now because they are either good or have a future where we have nothing.

[predators]

I would probably only blink if we traded Kemba. Everyone else is replaceable. I'm ok with treadmilling, I just want the team to play fun basketball. Watching a defensive slog is fine when you win, but it sucks if you are mediocre. Give me the regular season Hawks team from a couple years ago, Houston prior to Harden, the Nelly coached Dallas teams, etc.

(I think Monk is too small to play the 2 in the nba and doesn't have the ball handling to play the 1, so if we got something good for him I'd be alright to trade him as well.)

[_tijo_]

Who should be the "core"? It should be Kemba, Monk. But it's an either/or situation. Kemba after next year will be a max player, so the next GM has to decide if it's Kemba as a max and build around him, or trade him this summer and give Monk the reigns. I know what I do. Monk's exciting with a coach that believes in him, and Kemba can bring back much more value than Monk. And whoever we trade him to has to give him that max, not us.

Also, the next GM brings in his own coach, and during the interview process, asks him/her what the plan is for Monk.

[Braggins]

Dwight and Batum are the only guys I would go out of my way to trade. Batum is probably unmovable and he could be good in a backup role, so I would focus on trading Dwight's huge expiring for a bad contract packaged with small asset.

Dwight for Noah + OQuinn + some kind of pick might make some sense. New York could actually use Howard next season if they aren't trying to tank and we would shed a bit of short term salary to keep us under the tax and get an asset at the expense of two years of Noahs contract. OQuinn is solid backup and helps to even out salary.