Danny Ainge just took the whole NBA execs to school

[God Squad]

Yeeoooo! The internet is f'n wild lol.

[Luv those Knicks]

Show me one team that has won a championship by hoarding picks and turning the franchise into a disgrace for years on end.

It’s the most lauded team-building strategy that has never produced even a finalist.

The Spurs are the obvious example. The year DR got hurt they didn't even try to put a good team on the court, won 17 games and landed Duncan. Won a bunch of titles.

The Cavs after they lost LeBron turned into the worst team in the league, added some picks, got Kyrie, got LeBron back and won a title.

Maybe those teams didn't acquire a ton of picks, but the rebuild and try to win the lottery approach has worked.

The Spurs didn't bottom out and sold their players for picks? How can you even suggest that?

They ABSOLUTELY DID.

They went from a 57 win team to a 20 win team. They didn't try to replace David Robinson, went with a bad team and won the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.

I'm sorry, but there's no way. NO WAY, you can say that a team can't collect picks, land a stud and become a winner. Not every lottery pick turns into Tim Duncan, but when one does, that's a road to victory.

I'll turn the question around. How many teams have traded a bunch of picks for a superstar and won a title? Maybe the Raptors and Leonard, but that's rare too.

Lakers with Davis
Bucks with Holiday
Raptors with Leonard

Three of the last four champions used that strategy to win a title... And in the Bucks case it's not even a superstar. So the Cavs and Wolves look to have picked a pretty succesful strategy...[/quote]

One of your examples was my example, but fine, I'll give you the other two, though I'm not sure the Bucks win their title if Kyrie doesn't get hurt, but it's still a championship in the books.

You overlooked my primary point though. The sample size is too small to assume what you assumed to be consistent. That's nearly always going to be true when statistically analyzing what wins a title because the game changes too fast and championship teams vary fairly significantly and there's only one a year. A good sample size needs a lot more data.

[ORLMagicGirl15]

I figured he did that when he got a draft pick for trading a coach. Now, that was Advanced Executive Negotiation 101.

[Effigy]

Yep. The point being there was no real growth or significant improvement during James tenure, just as seems to be happening now. James signing gave the team success, not his decisions/demands.

They won a championship and went to the Finals 5 times with Lebron. They haven’t even made the playoffs without him.

Saying they have ‘done better once they removed Lebron’s demands’ is factually wrong. He was a pain for them but they had the most success in franchise history with him.

Oh ffs. They've done better at building the team? You get what we mean here. Don't pretend otherwise.

They’ve built a team that hasn’t made the playoffs. That isn’t better than what they did in the Lebron Era. They’re in wonderful shape, and I’m excited to watch them on league pass, but there’s no reason to pretend they somehow are way better than they were in the Lebron era. It can’t be better without at least one title, (and really probably at least 2). It’s just different. No reason to tear down the past to build up the future.

[Johnny Bball]

They won a championship and went to the Finals 5 times with Lebron. They haven’t even made the playoffs without him.

Saying they have ‘done better once they removed Lebron’s demands’ is factually wrong. He was a pain for them but they had the most success in franchise history with him.

Oh ffs. They've done better at building the team? You get what we mean here. Don't pretend otherwise.

They’ve built a team that hasn’t made the playoffs. That isn’t better than what they did in the Lebron Era. They’re in wonderful shape, and I’m excited to watch them on league pass, but there’s no reason to pretend they somehow are way better than they were in the Lebron era. It can’t be better without at least one title, (and really probably at least 2). It’s just different. No reason to tear down the past to build up the future.

You seriously refuse to comprehend what I've written? I won't see your posts anymore.

[Tukkerwolf]

The Spurs didn't bottom out and sold their players for picks? How can you even suggest that?

They ABSOLUTELY DID.

They went from a 57 win team to a 20 win team. They didn't try to replace David Robinson, went with a bad team and won the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.

I'm sorry, but there's no way. NO WAY, you can say that a team can't collect picks, land a stud and become a winner. Not every lottery pick turns into Tim Duncan, but when one does, that's a road to victory.

But that wasn't what OP was talking about. It was about what the Jazz are doing. And what Seattle and Philadelphia were doing. Losing for one year by sitting a player wasn't the discussion, it was about trading away players for picks.

[Luv those Knicks]

The Spurs didn't bottom out and sold their players for picks? How can you even suggest that?

They ABSOLUTELY DID.

They went from a 57 win team to a 20 win team. They didn't try to replace David Robinson, went with a bad team and won the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.

I'm sorry, but there's no way. NO WAY, you can say that a team can't collect picks, land a stud and become a winner. Not every lottery pick turns into Tim Duncan, but when one does, that's a road to victory.

But that wasn't what OP was talking about. It was about what the Jazz are doing. And what Seattle and Philadelphia were doing. Losing for one year by sitting a player wasn't the discussion, it was about trading away players for picks.

I know. He was talking specifically about adding a bunch of picks, but I addressed that too. The sample size is too small to draw that conclusion. Obviously landing the right pick can change the destiny of a franchise, AND, having more picks increases the odds of landing the right pick.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I think Ainge wants Utah to stay competitive while getting high picks. That's what he did in Boston. Utah has some very interesting pieces in Sexton, Agbaji, Markkanen, Kessler & more. That team could surprise.

Very excited to see the Cavs. Garland, Mitchell, Mobley & Allen are an extremely impressive big 4.

Surprise team. The only surprise will be if they are not a bottom 5 team

Utah will need for their picks over the next 3 years to be top 5 for this rebuild to have any chance

Almost 0 chance that MINN or CLEV give them any lottery picks for many years

zero is a very low number to call.
Are you ok to take bet 1 to 100? I give you 10$ if nonlottery pick come and you give me 1000$ if there's at least 1?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

People who believe tanking over a period of years is the only way to build a contender will love these deals. Everyone else will see the pitfalls.

wondering what the "everyone else" group would have done instead, in the real world, with the actual resources Utah had.
Keep it as it was?
Trade only Gobert? (for what?)
Invest further draft capital to improve the team?

This is like trading in the stock market, you must know when to exit and cash in and a minute too early is better than a minute too late.
Another season like the last one and you're getting a fraction of what they got (and will get, trading what they have left).

[Ryoga Hibiki]

on the flip side. tough to find many bad moves since Altman took over.

Pretty impressive what he’s done in the 4 years since LeBron left.

What about the Love extension?
You don't get much worse than that.

levert trade?
acquiring drummond?



ok, so one bad move. And it didn’t really cost them
anything in the interim (except salary) and look at that- he’s a positive value right now. A 6th man of the year candidate on an expiring contract

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I am no proponent of tanking, I think it is a last option that too many teams and too many fans use as a 1st option, however it was obvious that Mitchell and Gobert did not like each other and were never going to work together. People from Utah may not like it, but the fact is they were never going to be able to attract a 2nd star to pair with either guy if they traded one of them, and with an aging roster they had limited options going forward, so I get why they did it.

That being said a bunch of picks 5-7 years down the road don't impress me. Most general managers will have lost their jobs by the time those type of picks convey so they are not exactly hard to get. The thing is that Ainge and the Jazz better invest a lot of money into scouting and developing young talent, which is not exactly something Ainge did well in Boston, but Utah has no other choice. Even in Utah their fan base is going to turn on them in 3 or so years if they do not see a lot of promise and potential on that roster.

Utah doesn't need to tank forever and, to be fair, Boston didn't.
They can probably start becoming respectable in a couple of years and still have the out of the Cavs or the TWolves falling apart.
I am expecting them to be bad only in 23 and 24.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

The Spurs didn't bottom out and sold their players for picks? How can you even suggest that?

They ABSOLUTELY DID.

They went from a 57 win team to a 20 win team. They didn't try to replace David Robinson, went with a bad team and won the Tim Duncan sweepstakes.

I'm sorry, but there's no way. NO WAY, you can say that a team can't collect picks, land a stud and become a winner. Not every lottery pick turns into Tim Duncan, but when one does, that's a road to victory.

But that wasn't what OP was talking about. It was about what the Jazz are doing. And what Seattle and Philadelphia were doing. Losing for one year by sitting a player wasn't the discussion, it was about trading away players for picks.

you need a lot of luck and good breaks to win a title.
but seattle and philly showed that such strategy allowed them to cumulate A LOT of assets and talent in a very short time.
if anything, they are amazing success stories, especially if you are a non destination market unable to attract talent and very challenged in retaining it.

[yellowknifer]

The Cleveland picks will not amount to much as long as they have Mobley and he's healthy. Generational.

[Mr Loggins]

What about the Love extension?
You don't get much worse than that.

levert trade?
acquiring drummond?



ok, so one bad move. And it didn’t really cost them
anything in the interim (except salary) and look at that- he’s a positive value right now. A 6th man of the year candidate on an expiring contract

yes, trading a 2nd for drummond was a horrible
move. Should have fired Altman on the spot.

Remind me again, what so far had the levert trade
cost ClevelandIt’s a lottery protected 2023 first and a second round pick right? Tough to call that a bad trade

Point still stands that Altman really hasn’t many many bad moves; and when you have to say “hold on there- what about the Drummond trade” you’re proving the point if that’s what you’re hanging your hat on

[flow]

Altman 2, Ainge 0

Cleveland came into this off-season needing a forward. Now, post-trade, they need two forwards. And are down 3 firsts to boot.

That's not a win.

[CallMeKahn]

Edit: I read good.

[Mr Loggins]

Altman 2, Ainge 0

Cleveland came into this off-season needing a forward. Now, post-trade, they need two forwards. And are down 3 firsts to boot.

That's not a win.

That’s a myopic view.

When Cleveland early on was mentioned as a Donavan Mitchell suitor, the laugh line was “yeah, not without Garland or Mobley”.

Well, here we are; they got a top 18-25 player in the nba for two flawed players, a 22yo rookie, and picks.

The three firsts in the future are scary, but if they a
end up in the bottom of the first round - like they should- there’s not a single elite piece in there.

A lot can happen between now and 2029 obviously, it seems like there is more risk with Utah than Cleveland.

[flow]

Altman 2, Ainge 0

Cleveland came into this off-season needing a forward. Now, post-trade, they need two forwards. And are down 3 firsts to boot.

That's not a win.

That’s a myopic view.

When Cleveland early on was mentioned as a Donavan Mitchell suitor, the laugh line was “yeah, not without Garland or Mobley”.

Well, here we are; they got a top 18-25 player in the nba for two flawed players, a 22yo rookie, and picks.

The three firsts in the future are scary, but if they a
end up in the bottom of the first round - like they should- there’s not a single elite piece in there.

A lot can happen between now and 2029 obviously, it seems like there is more risk with Utah than Cleveland.

To the contrary, knee-jerk chest-thumping because you got the star player is what's myopic.

.

[SK21209]

Trading your stars for picks is the easiest thing in the the world for a GM to do, so no Ainge hasn’t “taken anyone to school”. I’ll be impressed if\when they actually find and develop good players with those picks.

[Celts17Pride]

Trading your stars for picks is the easiest thing in the the world for a GM to do, so no Ainge hasn’t “taken anyone to school”. I’ll be impressed if\when they actually find and develop good players with those picks.

Like Tatum, Brown, Smart, R Williams, G Williams, Pritchard ……