Tank World Order V (Rise of the Phoenix)

[Shwaguy]

2 wins in a row, and team compete ready to get that play in spot. The potential juicy playoff revenues are irresistible. Think of the merch and concession numbers! Next year's alternate jerseys are already in early design stages.

"Play in for what?" - Masai Ujiri

I simply want Scottie and Gradey to play and show superstar/all star potential when they're healthy. I think it's hard to imagine a world where that happens while simultaneously being bad enough to be a bottom 5 team.

Both can happen simultaneously. This isn't an issue in other sports, just NBA for some reason.

Well, Basketball is a sport where individual have a significantly higher impact on the team, because 1) There's less players on a team and 2) The best players play the vast majority of the game, as opposed to Hockey where the best players only play 20 minutes, so a bad team surrounding good stars will sink them more, even in football a player only plays 50% of the game.

So both happening simultaneously I think is a lot more rare to occur in the NBA, just due to nature of the sport.

[ItsDanger]

I simply want Scottie and Gradey to play and show superstar/all star potential when they're healthy. I think it's hard to imagine a world where that happens while simultaneously being bad enough to be a bottom 5 team.

Both can happen simultaneously. This isn't an issue in other sports, just NBA for some reason.

Well, Basketball is a sport where individual have a significantly higher impact on the team, because 1) There's less players on a team and 2) The best players play the vast majority of the game, as opposed to Hockey where the best players only play 20 minutes, so a bad team surrounding good stars will sink them more, even in football a player only plays 50% of the game.

So both happening simultaneously I think is a lot more rare to occur in the NBA, just due to nature of the sport.

True, but I can hold these players for injury management, hold other key players out, trade them away, explain to them the bigger picture, etc. There are plenty of options. This isn't an issue, just excuses to not tank and embrace mediocrity. Tell them to put their big boy pants on and suck it up.

[Scase]

I agree with you, that when we have the opportunity to sit guys, we should (And we have imo) or trade guys outside the core for futures (I'm not even against trading Poeltl if someone comes along with a great loss), and try to manufacture these losses where we can, but for me, when we're healthy and have our young guys all playing, I'd feel more confident about our longterm future if they were good enough to win us some games.

If we can have one of those situations where we end up with a really great record when Barnes is playing (Or Barnes + Gradey + IQ etc, whichever) and then a very very poor record that tanks us when he's not. That'd be really ideal. I'd never advocate for them keeping guys like Brown, Boucher, Poeltl even, long term though. Maybe would like to say Brown play well when he's back just so we can trade him a bit better?

The problem is this, the team is already good enough to win some games, the bigger problem is that they arent good enough to win enough games for the team to rely on just their talent. Everyone being healthy for an average amount, this team isn't bottom 5, but as I've mentioned it mires us in treadmill land.

But those handful of wins could be the difference between a 100% chance at a top 5 or 6 pick, and a ~35% chance at a top 4 pick. Those wins are just not worth the massive drop off in lotto odds. You can't have it both ways, unless our coach intentionally sabotages those games by basically subbing out all starters to run a g league lineup in like the 4th quarter etc. Which I think is a touch too blatant.

Outside of any of the top 5 players in the draft turning into absolute busts, there is zero scenario where the current roster results in a better long term level of success, than the current roster + a top 5 pick. Even if they traded a top 5 pick, that still would put this team in a better position to win in the future.

We have a rookie coach, a team filled with tons of unproven talent and SRPs, and guys that were not seen as valuable enough to keep on their previous teams. We aren't in the position for this team to "show us what they've got", at the expense of draft slots. It's obviously too early to tell, but Ace or Flagg on this team, would immediately be the best, or 2nd best potential players on the roster, that should say enough.

I guess our fundamental point of disagreement is that I think there is a massive fundamental difference in outlook between the value of being in "treadmill" levels of goodness in an individual season when your core is comprised of 21-24 year olds like we are now, vs 28-30 years old like when we treadmilled with Pascal, Fred, and OG.

I do not think being a fringe playoff contender, or a playoff team not good enough to win the championship is the worst place to be when your team is young. I do think it is the worst place to be when your team is in their primes/past their primes. There are paths to take a young playoff team to a contender. I would not really say that is the case for a team of guys in their late 20s/early 30s though.

And I would argue, that, if we are bad enough to get Flagg or Ace, yes, they would be the best or 2nd best potential players on this team. For me the question is, if they were good enough to earn the 6-9 seeds, would I believe that still to be the case? I'm not sure, certainly not the "Best" but maybe still the "2nd best". Though personally I am very high on Gradey and believe his future in the NBA will involve scoring an efficient 25 ppg and being the type of cog that can give a team a humongous head up on being a top 5-10 offence.

Adding Flagg to that would be insane, for sure though. Like if there's a way for Scottie and Gradey to play really great this season (IQ too), with us still getting Flagg, Demin, Bailey, or even a guy like Maluach, I would take it! I just personally value Scottie and Gradey playing well over I value losses for better lottery odds.

The thing is, not all 6th-9th places are created equal. Being a play in, or fringe playoff team when the entire conference is dog ****, doesn't make you a good team. It makes you the best of the worst.

There is no parade to be thrown saying you are the 5th or 6th place team in the conference, when you barely have a .500 record. Your place at the end of the year isn't always indicative of team talent or success, this isn't the first time it has happened in the east and it won't be the last.

As for Scottie and GD playing well, this isn't something that can't be done while losing as well. Players can improve without impacting the W/L column a hefty amount so long as the correct levers are being pulled. Hence my comment about trading or sitting guys.

I'm not against seeing what the guys can do together, I'm against it resulting in needless wins. If a guy comes out and puts up 50 points every game and clearly shows what he's capable of, sitting him on the bench doesn't change his skill level, it just prevents the outcome. These guys aren't going to go from All NBA players, to bench scrubs from not grabbing a couple meaningless wins. Long term is what we should be aiming for, and the current roster has too many holes for this to result in long term gain without players taking unrealistic leaps, or us infusing the team with sorely needed high end talent.

It's not like we have some crazy high potential roster that needs time to gel and grow, we have an alright roster that needs time to gel. If this is, as our FO puts it, "Year one of the rebuild" then why tf would you aim for wins over potential high end talent to add. We aren't 3-5 years into the rebuild (apparently), so we shouldn't be treating it that way.

[Shwaguy]

The problem is this, the team is already good enough to win some games, the bigger problem is that they arent good enough to win enough games for the team to rely on just their talent. Everyone being healthy for an average amount, this team isn't bottom 5, but as I've mentioned it mires us in treadmill land.

But those handful of wins could be the difference between a 100% chance at a top 5 or 6 pick, and a ~35% chance at a top 4 pick. Those wins are just not worth the massive drop off in lotto odds. You can't have it both ways, unless our coach intentionally sabotages those games by basically subbing out all starters to run a g league lineup in like the 4th quarter etc. Which I think is a touch too blatant.

Outside of any of the top 5 players in the draft turning into absolute busts, there is zero scenario where the current roster results in a better long term level of success, than the current roster + a top 5 pick. Even if they traded a top 5 pick, that still would put this team in a better position to win in the future.

We have a rookie coach, a team filled with tons of unproven talent and SRPs, and guys that were not seen as valuable enough to keep on their previous teams. We aren't in the position for this team to "show us what they've got", at the expense of draft slots. It's obviously too early to tell, but Ace or Flagg on this team, would immediately be the best, or 2nd best potential players on the roster, that should say enough.

I guess our fundamental point of disagreement is that I think there is a massive fundamental difference in outlook between the value of being in "treadmill" levels of goodness in an individual season when your core is comprised of 21-24 year olds like we are now, vs 28-30 years old like when we treadmilled with Pascal, Fred, and OG.

I do not think being a fringe playoff contender, or a playoff team not good enough to win the championship is the worst place to be when your team is young. I do think it is the worst place to be when your team is in their primes/past their primes. There are paths to take a young playoff team to a contender. I would not really say that is the case for a team of guys in their late 20s/early 30s though.

And I would argue, that, if we are bad enough to get Flagg or Ace, yes, they would be the best or 2nd best potential players on this team. For me the question is, if they were good enough to earn the 6-9 seeds, would I believe that still to be the case? I'm not sure, certainly not the "Best" but maybe still the "2nd best". Though personally I am very high on Gradey and believe his future in the NBA will involve scoring an efficient 25 ppg and being the type of cog that can give a team a humongous head up on being a top 5-10 offence.

Adding Flagg to that would be insane, for sure though. Like if there's a way for Scottie and Gradey to play really great this season (IQ too), with us still getting Flagg, Demin, Bailey, or even a guy like Maluach, I would take it! I just personally value Scottie and Gradey playing well over I value losses for better lottery odds.

The thing is, not all 6th-9th places are created equal. Being a play in, or fringe playoff team when the entire conference is dog ****, doesn't make you a good team. It makes you the best of the worst.

There is no parade to be thrown saying you are the 5th or 6th place team in the conference, when you barely have a .500 record. Your place at the end of the year isn't always indicative of team talent or success, this isn't the first time it has happened in the east and it won't be the last.

As for Scottie and GD playing well, this isn't something that can't be done while losing as well. Players can improve without impacting the W/L column a hefty amount so long as the correct levers are being pulled. Hence my comment about trading or sitting guys.

I'm not against seeing what the guys can do together, I'm against it resulting in needless wins. If a guy comes out and puts up 50 points every game and clearly shows what he's capable of, sitting him on the bench doesn't change his skill level, it just prevents the outcome. These guys aren't going to go from All NBA players, to bench scrubs from not grabbing a couple meaningless wins. Long term is what we should be aiming for, and the current roster has too many holes for this to result in long term gain without players taking unrealistic leaps, or us infusing the team with sorely needed high end talent.

It's not like we have some crazy high potential roster that needs time to gel and grow, we have an alright roster that needs time to gel. If this is, as our FO puts it, "Year one of the rebuild" then why tf would you aim for wins over potential high end talent to add. We aren't 3-5 years into the rebuild (apparently), so we shouldn't be treating it that way.

I mean if the Raptors are .500 at the end of the year, that means they'd have been 10 games over .500 since going 2-12. That's a 50 win pace which would pretty clearly imply that something is going very right. I don't see that happening though just in theory, if we did that with a core of 21-24 year olds, and still got to add a pick in the 10-16 range, we should be very excited for this teams long term future and potential to become a contender, moreso than if we won only 20 games and won the lotto for a pick in the 1-4 range.

Also the East being so poor could be an advantage draft wise too. They could theoretically make the playin, lose game 1, and still have the 9th best odds this year. Because many of the bottom West teams missing the playin will have better records than the East playin team.

The most likely outcome for finishing last is 5th pick, so a difference of 4 draft spots in exchange for a season of actual progress. It would not be the worst thing in the world.

[Shwaguy]

Both can happen simultaneously. This isn't an issue in other sports, just NBA for some reason.

Well, Basketball is a sport where individual have a significantly higher impact on the team, because 1) There's less players on a team and 2) The best players play the vast majority of the game, as opposed to Hockey where the best players only play 20 minutes, so a bad team surrounding good stars will sink them more, even in football a player only plays 50% of the game.

So both happening simultaneously I think is a lot more rare to occur in the NBA, just due to nature of the sport.

True, but I can hold these players for injury management, hold other key players out, trade them away, explain to them the bigger picture, etc. There are plenty of options. This isn't an issue, just excuses to not tank and embrace mediocrity. Tell them to put their big boy pants on and suck it up.

I'm not sure if you'd noticed but all along I said I'm game for holding guys out with injury management, selling players outside the core in trades, etc. But when our most important players are actually playing, we want them to play well.

But you know if Scottie has an ankle "tweak", sure, keep him out for 3 weeks instead of 1, if someone offers you a good futures package for Poeltl, take it! Keep IQ out as long as is reasonable. These things I'm all game for. But when these guys are healthy and playing, they're gonna try to win, and if our core is trying to win, I'd like them to win. It's on management to help position the team to draft higher, not the players.

I do strongly disagree with the notion that not tanking is embracing mediocrity. Most good teams didn't tank much more than you could say we have tanked because we got Scottie and Gradey on our roster. Rebuild and Tank are not synonyms. What the Raptors need to do to get back to greatness is more nuanced than just try to lose every game possible. Especially now, with the draft lottery being so horrendous (Which not enough people talk about) The difference between drafting 1st and 11th is absolutely massive. The difference between drafting 5th (most likely outcome from finishing last) and 11th is still big but not massive.

Here's hoping we can get a top 5 pick without sacrifcing the long term upside of our current core players.

[ItsDanger]

This notion that temporary losing hurts a player's current development or future career is absolutely unfounded. Like I stated earlier, this isn't an issue in other sports. Stop treating these players like teenagers.

[Scase]

I guess our fundamental point of disagreement is that I think there is a massive fundamental difference in outlook between the value of being in "treadmill" levels of goodness in an individual season when your core is comprised of 21-24 year olds like we are now, vs 28-30 years old like when we treadmilled with Pascal, Fred, and OG.

I do not think being a fringe playoff contender, or a playoff team not good enough to win the championship is the worst place to be when your team is young. I do think it is the worst place to be when your team is in their primes/past their primes. There are paths to take a young playoff team to a contender. I would not really say that is the case for a team of guys in their late 20s/early 30s though.

And I would argue, that, if we are bad enough to get Flagg or Ace, yes, they would be the best or 2nd best potential players on this team. For me the question is, if they were good enough to earn the 6-9 seeds, would I believe that still to be the case? I'm not sure, certainly not the "Best" but maybe still the "2nd best". Though personally I am very high on Gradey and believe his future in the NBA will involve scoring an efficient 25 ppg and being the type of cog that can give a team a humongous head up on being a top 5-10 offence.

Adding Flagg to that would be insane, for sure though. Like if there's a way for Scottie and Gradey to play really great this season (IQ too), with us still getting Flagg, Demin, Bailey, or even a guy like Maluach, I would take it! I just personally value Scottie and Gradey playing well over I value losses for better lottery odds.

The thing is, not all 6th-9th places are created equal. Being a play in, or fringe playoff team when the entire conference is dog ****, doesn't make you a good team. It makes you the best of the worst.

There is no parade to be thrown saying you are the 5th or 6th place team in the conference, when you barely have a .500 record. Your place at the end of the year isn't always indicative of team talent or success, this isn't the first time it has happened in the east and it won't be the last.

As for Scottie and GD playing well, this isn't something that can't be done while losing as well. Players can improve without impacting the W/L column a hefty amount so long as the correct levers are being pulled. Hence my comment about trading or sitting guys.

I'm not against seeing what the guys can do together, I'm against it resulting in needless wins. If a guy comes out and puts up 50 points every game and clearly shows what he's capable of, sitting him on the bench doesn't change his skill level, it just prevents the outcome. These guys aren't going to go from All NBA players, to bench scrubs from not grabbing a couple meaningless wins. Long term is what we should be aiming for, and the current roster has too many holes for this to result in long term gain without players taking unrealistic leaps, or us infusing the team with sorely needed high end talent.

It's not like we have some crazy high potential roster that needs time to gel and grow, we have an alright roster that needs time to gel. If this is, as our FO puts it, "Year one of the rebuild" then why tf would you aim for wins over potential high end talent to add. We aren't 3-5 years into the rebuild (apparently), so we shouldn't be treating it that way.

I mean if the Raptors are .500 at the end of the year, that means they'd have been 10 games over .500 since going 2-12. That's a 50 win pace which would pretty clearly imply that something is going very right. I don't see that happening though just in theory, if we did that with a core of 21-24 year olds, and still got to add a pick in the 10-16 range, we should be very excited for this teams long term future and potential to become a contender, moreso than if we won only 20 games and won the lotto for a pick in the 1-4 range.

Also the East being so poor could be an advantage draft wise too. They could theoretically make the playin, lose game 1, and still have the 9th best odds this year. Because many of the bottom West teams missing the playin will have better records than the East playin team.

The most likely outcome for finishing last is 5th pick, so a difference of 4 draft spots in exchange for a season of actual progress. It would not be the worst thing in the world.

We had a winning record at the end of the year when we traded for Jak, that wasn't a sign that anything went right, it was a sign of a weak schedule against tanking teams, and a team that has lacked a decent centre for years. It's that exact line of thinking that got us into this predicament in the first place.

And just so we're clear, last place does not make the 5th pick the most likely outcome, it makes 1-4 the most likely outcome as that is a combined 52% vs 48%. 5th is the most likely single pick, but that's not how it works. the east being weak just ensures that you can make the play in and result in a mid tier lotto pick that usually results in nothing more than a roleplayer or low end starter. Neither of which are what will propel this team out of a treadmill future.

The problem this team has is not a lack of mid tier talent, it's a glaring lack of high end talent outside of Scottie. The goal isn't to be a 1st round exit team.

[Shwaguy]

I mixed up the 52 and 48 % my bad, I still hate those odds.

[Shwaguy]

I think if Scottie is playing, and they are still bad enough to be bottom 3. That inherently implies that Scottie is not a high end talent.

I would love for it to be true that he's a high end talent and we somehow are bad enough to get Flagg. To me those two things are mutually exclusive.

If Scottie, Gradey aren't playing, tank away. But if together they aren't good enough for this team to be better than the Wizards there's a big problem with who they are as players and their talent level. Would rather that not be true.

If we are going to tank then I want us to be losing games because our best guys aren't playing. That's the best outcome. Makes no sense for me to actively be cheering for Scottie to be having ****, inefficient 15 point games where he's being sour all game just so we can lose. Because that's the type of Scottie it would take for this team to be bad enough to be bottom 3.

[YogurtProducer]

Lol at some people thinking we are magically going to be a playoff team based off winning 2 in a row both home games against struggling teams in the NBA right now....We are 4-12....Put things in perspective...We will not go on some magical run and be a 40 win team....We will also not lose every game we play ....There will be wins and a few streaks but that does not mean we will not be in the conversation for one of these top picks....

Also gotta look at Boucher who had 22 points shot 7-13 and 3-8 from 3....That production is not likely to keep up and whenever Boucher has these kind of games we tend to win more time than not...Can look at the Kings game we won Boucher also had this kind of a game....Also Barrett vs the T-Wolves went pretty much perfect and had 31 points...That will not happen every game as well...

Wel we’re also not gonna be missing 4 rotational players all year either.

Fact: we are 2-3 when Scottie plays, and would be 3-2 if he didn’t miss that end of the DEN game. And that’s with games against PHI / CLE / MIN / DEN / MIN.

Anyone who thinks we’re gonna NOT be a .500+ team when healthy just hasn’t been watching games clearly.

So what? You only going to count their record when totally healthy? How many games will that be this season? Maybe 40? What about all the other team's injuries? Ridiculous. A team's depth on the roster actually matters.

The tank is the most realistic option currently.

Nope, they all count.

But if you’re going to try and project going forward it’s pretty important to note our record when Barnes is playing, and also keep in mind at least 3 key rotation pieces have been missing in every single games he’s played, and he’s played 4/5 games against really good teams.

So it should be expected a healthy Barnes, and then later a healthy IQ/Ko/BB is gonna lead to wins.

Not hard to understand.

[ItsDanger]

Wel we’re also not gonna be missing 4 rotational players all year either.

Fact: we are 2-3 when Scottie plays, and would be 3-2 if he didn’t miss that end of the DEN game. And that’s with games against PHI / CLE / MIN / DEN / MIN.

Anyone who thinks we’re gonna NOT be a .500+ team when healthy just hasn’t been watching games clearly.

So what? You only going to count their record when totally healthy? How many games will that be this season? Maybe 40? What about all the other team's injuries? Ridiculous. A team's depth on the roster actually matters.

The tank is the most realistic option currently.

Nope, they all count.

But if you’re going to try and project going forward it’s pretty important to note our record when Barnes is playing, and also keep in mind at least 3 key rotation pieces have been missing in every single games he’s played, and he’s played 4/5 games against really good teams.

So it should be expected a healthy Barnes, and then later a healthy IQ/Ko/BB is gonna lead to wins.

Not hard to understand.

Again, so what? I could point to every team being better at 100%. The objective remains the same, building a legitimate threat in the playoffs. I have zero interest in being a 7-11 team.

[Scase]

I think if Scottie is playing, and they are still bad enough to be bottom 3. That inherently implies that Scottie is not a high end talent.

I would love for it to be true that he's a high end talent and we somehow are bad enough to get Flagg. To me those two things are mutually exclusive.

If Scottie, Gradey aren't playing, tank away. But if together they aren't good enough for this team to be better than the Wizards there's a big problem with who they are as players and their talent level. Would rather that not be true.

If we are going to tank then I want us to be losing games because our best guys aren't playing. That's the best outcome. Makes no sense for me to actively be cheering for Scottie to be having ****, inefficient 15 point games where he's being sour all game just so we can lose. Because that's the type of Scottie it would take for this team to be bad enough to be bottom 3.

This is way too binary of a way to look at it. Certain players and their skill sets will impact winning by themselves, other require a team around them to fully unlock their impact.

An ok scorer and great playmaker surrounded by bad talent is going to win less than a top tier scorer with ok play making surrounded by the same talent. Offence reigns supreme in the modern NBA, just because you won't see an immediate impact from a player, doesn't mean they are completely written off.

Lebron is arguably 2nd in the GOAT convo, and even his cavs teams took a couple years before they stopped being mediocre. Expecting a player of Scotties calibre to have some massive impact on winning is just being out of touch with reality. Team composition matters, unless you have a generational level player, and even then, it only matters slightly less.

[Jadoogar]

Read on Twitter

this is for all the people who think RJ or IQ are going to suddenly become allstar caliber

[Shwaguy]

Read on Twitter

this is for all the people who think RJ or IQ are going to suddenly become allstar caliber

11% vs you get a top 5 pick what % of the time when you try to tank?

Not much more than 11% to be honest..

You can argue that tanking gives you the best odds of finding a star. But the odds of finding a star through tanking are still horrendously low.

(I don't think IQ or RJ will become stars, I do think Scottie is one and Gradey will be one)

[Shwaguy]

I think if Scottie is playing, and they are still bad enough to be bottom 3. That inherently implies that Scottie is not a high end talent.

I would love for it to be true that he's a high end talent and we somehow are bad enough to get Flagg. To me those two things are mutually exclusive.

If Scottie, Gradey aren't playing, tank away. But if together they aren't good enough for this team to be better than the Wizards there's a big problem with who they are as players and their talent level. Would rather that not be true.

If we are going to tank then I want us to be losing games because our best guys aren't playing. That's the best outcome. Makes no sense for me to actively be cheering for Scottie to be having ****, inefficient 15 point games where he's being sour all game just so we can lose. Because that's the type of Scottie it would take for this team to be bad enough to be bottom 3.

This is way too binary of a way to look at it. Certain players and their skill sets will impact winning by themselves, other require a team around them to fully unlock their impact.

An ok scorer and great playmaker surrounded by bad talent is going to win less than a top tier scorer with ok play making surrounded by the same talent. Offence reigns supreme in the modern NBA, just because you won't see an immediate impact from a player, doesn't mean they are completely written off.

Lebron is arguably 2nd in the GOAT convo, and even his cavs teams took a couple years before they stopped being mediocre. Expecting a player of Scotties calibre to have some massive impact on winning is just being out of touch with reality. Team composition matters, unless you have a generational level player, and even then, it only matters slightly less.

It's a little binary but lets not act like Scottie is some fresh face in the league still. He's in year 4, he's on a max contract starting next season. He's not some 2nd year guy in a sophomore slump who needs time to sort it out. Odds are if he can't be a game changer by year 4, he won't be a true needle mover, it's possible sure, but every year that passes where he's in the league and doesn't means it's less and less likely. I would like him to show us that he will be a true needle mover. I think he has that in him and will do so.

[GoRapstheoriginal]

CMon you F*cking Wizards! Beat the Pacers!!!

[Ell Curry]

We're actually +1.3 so far this year when Shead is off the court, and a staggering -20.7 when he isn't. Our defence drops off a cliff when Shead comes in for Mitchell.

Mitchell has played well enough that it makes sense to re-sign him and hope he starts hitting his 3s at a league average rate (he showed signs of that last year), especially considering our lack of defensive talent on the perimeter. But the easiest road to a tank might just be moving Mitchell for a couple of 2nd rounders to the Nuggets, Lakers or some other team that could use a guard, and feeding Shead minutes.

If you look at a trade like that as:

Out: Mitchell + 10th draft slot
In: Minimum expiring useless player + 7th draft slot + 2 2nd rounders

it suddenly looks like a no brainer.

[Clutch0z24]

I get we want a high pick. I do too

I don't *think* this is going to happen tonight. But you're actually telling me, that cheering for this team to win tonight against an insanely good Cavs team, being led by a huge Scottie/Gradey game, where Scottie has a huge impact and outplays all the guys on the Cavs, Gradey pops off, RJ has a great game against a huge frontcourt etc....to win their 3rd game in a row WOULDN'T have you more excited for this team's longterm future than a loss would? These young guys currently on the roster ARE the future of the team.

I want Meaningless losses and Meaningful wins, I want Masai and Bobby to make moves that maximize the future even at the expense of the present. But as far as cheering for what's best for this team's future goes? Our young guys on this roster breaking out to be star impact level players would be even better for our future than a top 3 pick would be. (We'd still get a 10-15 pick anyways, or maybe later on there's some injury troubles again and we can reeeeally tank hard at that point)

Its about maximizing your ceiling as a team in 2-3 years time and getting the best out of everyone involved in the long run....Yeah its fun to cheer for guys and hope they play well....But the draft pick means more right now than wins do in a season where we are prolly not winning much of anything meaningfull....

A 8-12 Pick usually has a ceiling of what kind of player you can find....Yeah you can find some ok talent there but its not probable you draft a franchise changer.....History shows that true number 1s and franchise players are found within the top 5 of the draft....If you look at the history of the NBA you will see it for yourself.....If we happen to stumble into a true franchise player in this draft which would be way more important to this franchise than anything....Your looking at a legit potential dynasty of a team instead of a 1st or 2nd round loser every year with a capped out ceiling...

I think we have some good pieces on our team but we are far away from having a true franchise changing player on the team...I like the guys we have but for us to be a legit title contender type of team we need a player that could potentially be found in the top of the 2025 draft...Or we are just building a team that has a capped ceiling due to not having a true franchise player....

But right now, what would mean more for our future, Scottie playing like he's all nba caliber, Gradey solidifying themselves as a future all star, and picking like 10-15, or Scottie playing like his ceiling is instead a borderline all star, Gradey more likely to be a roleplayer, and drafting top 5?

If we could have Scottie and Gradey playing like stars or future stars (Add guys like IQ, RJ, Ochai being better long term to this as well), and still be bad enough to draft top 5, that's definitely what I want, I'm down for playing the injury/roster management/trade game to make that happen. But when they're actually playing to me it makes sense to prioritize wanting them to be stars than it does to want them to play bad so we can lose.

I don't think Barnes and Dick are going to be leading this team to a championship in the future....I think they are great players and have bright futures but they are not leading a team to a title....Like i said the ceiling of a Barnes/Dick lead team is prolly 1st or 2nd round at best....Its like back in the BC days when we were a bad team we would never be bad enough to get real game changers in the draft and we always picked like 8-12 and ended up with just good players but not real true top guys....DeRozan 9th (Great player but we can all admit not good come playoff time), Ed Davis 13th,T-Ross 8th, And the one year he actually tried to bottom out for Kyrie we ended up being screwed in a lotto and got JV at 5....Which may happen to us again but this draft is deep and might really have a franchise changing talent at 5 unlike most drafts...

You can find some ok talent in them spots in the draft and build an ok team with them picks that may be even good in the reg season...But the team has a cap of how far it can go....The years we treadmill tanked during them years we missed out on potentially putting a title team together because of winning games we didn't really need to win in the reg season which messed up our draft lotto odds....

What we need is a true number 1 franchise player....If you think Barnes is that guy all power to you....I just don't think he is....Still young ofc but i don't think he will ever have that offesnsive game to become a real number 1 for you long term...Thats why i think this draft is so important because i think if we get a high pick in this draft that all changes and we become a legit title contending team in the future...

[Scase]

I think if Scottie is playing, and they are still bad enough to be bottom 3. That inherently implies that Scottie is not a high end talent.

I would love for it to be true that he's a high end talent and we somehow are bad enough to get Flagg. To me those two things are mutually exclusive.

If Scottie, Gradey aren't playing, tank away. But if together they aren't good enough for this team to be better than the Wizards there's a big problem with who they are as players and their talent level. Would rather that not be true.

If we are going to tank then I want us to be losing games because our best guys aren't playing. That's the best outcome. Makes no sense for me to actively be cheering for Scottie to be having ****, inefficient 15 point games where he's being sour all game just so we can lose. Because that's the type of Scottie it would take for this team to be bad enough to be bottom 3.

This is way too binary of a way to look at it. Certain players and their skill sets will impact winning by themselves, other require a team around them to fully unlock their impact.

An ok scorer and great playmaker surrounded by bad talent is going to win less than a top tier scorer with ok play making surrounded by the same talent. Offence reigns supreme in the modern NBA, just because you won't see an immediate impact from a player, doesn't mean they are completely written off.

Lebron is arguably 2nd in the GOAT convo, and even his cavs teams took a couple years before they stopped being mediocre. Expecting a player of Scotties calibre to have some massive impact on winning is just being out of touch with reality. Team composition matters, unless you have a generational level player, and even then, it only matters slightly less.

It's a little binary but lets not act like Scottie is some fresh face in the league still. He's in year 4, he's on a max contract starting next season. He's not some 2nd year guy in a sophomore slump who needs time to sort it out. Odds are if he can't be a game changer by year 4, he won't be a true needle mover, it's possible sure, but every year that passes where he's in the league and doesn't means it's less and less likely. I would like him to show us that he will be a true needle mover. I think he has that in him and will do so.

I guess I'll need you to define what a "needle mover" is.

[GoRapstheoriginal]

God Damn it! Cmon Wizards! Cmon 76ers! Get your Sh*t together! Lets go!!!! RAAAHHHH!