No confidence...

[vincecarter4pres]

To summarize my long winded post, I was just making the point, that although I am pulling for a high lotto pick and 20 something wins if we don't make a huge trade, something like under twenty wins, although better for lotto odds, can destroy confidence in the players, some of which, like Brook and Favors will hopefully be with this team for a decade if they are that good.

Now on the other hand, if these guys only win around 18 games this year again, maybe it's time to start questioning if they are that good.

I laughed at some of those comments though, Brook voo doo doll, orchestra music in my head while typing, lol. I wasn't saying that you saying it makes it happen man, come on! Lol. I'm just saying, these guys are young and impressionable and even if my post may have been hyperbolic on the whole winning aspect, your views are on the same tip towards ignoring losing.
Losing for a few years, that isn't a big deal. Losing for 5 or 6 years straight? Time to start questioning the talent, but also given the specific circumstances of some of the first few seasons of the losing here in hindsight, you would have to question whether it played a serious role in how the players in question wound up developing.
I also wasn't saying that winning this season means these guys are going to transform into a contender with no help, it's pretty obvious I think they need a lot of help. I just think they need a winning culture. Again, not amount of wins, just the atmosphere and mindset.
My main point was that the losing can be bad for the long term if it's sustained losing of the sub twenty variety with no direction and development, something like the Wolves.

I am just saying, where as you are fine with rationalizing another 12 win season because it gives us more lotto balls, I think anything under low to mid twenties is going to do more harm then good and is also an obvious sign that some of these guys like Brook aren't what we're hoping they are.

That would actually be my optimal scenario. Something like 24 or so wins, around 4th or 5th worst record in the league overall, but with a very solid shot of jumping up to top 3, actually historically the best range to be in to make the jump. Getting good player development and being very competitive in a majority of the losses. All while pulling off a trade for maybe O.J. Mayo or Danny Granger at the deadline for maybe Devin and T Will(for Granger) or Devin and Lee(for Mayo), but late enough where it doesn't wind up sacrificing lotto position much at all. Then draft best point guard available, whether Irving, or Knight, or Cory Joseph, etc. and hopefully going out the last season in NJ with a bang, making the playoffs, making the 2nd round. This while having basically all the pieces to transform into a legit contender in the following 3 years that stays there for a long time.
Man that's an intricate day dream.

And before you go off on me for O.J. Mayo, it's not that I think he has superstar or even true star potential, I just think he's the perfect third option type of player, great intangibles, flexible skill set, perfect age for our core and maybe more attainable then it seems.

Also, let's hope you're right about Avery. I never wanted any part of this dude.

[Netaman]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...and I am sorry to say this...I dont think you do either. What NBA title and finals appearence did he decline? I dont understand what you are talking about. You mean a chance to join that Celtics team a year earlier? The one that had the second worst record in the NBA????

You basically just proved my point. Its all about the SUPERSTARS...NOT the low level deals at the trade deadline. Superstars...want to play with OTHER superstars. You think winning 35 instead of 12 makes Melo say.....OOOOOOH gotta leave my top 4 in the west Denver team????

Stars want to play with stars. Winning a few more games isnt going to mean anything. Players want:
Money, market and a the place they think is their best chance to win. They deem that their best chance is by teaming up with other stars. They prefer to have them come to THEIR team. But when they CHOSE to move...they do so to play with OTHER stars if the cash and market are equal. For the next two years...our market sucks. Our team is the youngest in the league. So going from 20 wins to 30 or to 40 because you added a Mike Bibby type veteran with a bad contract on the decline...isnt going to convince anyone that they should come here.

Our best chance of adding stars is clearly...TRADE for them....and that take the cap space you want to use plus prospects. Or you can DRAFT them. There is no history...NONE to support what you are preaching here. That making some low asset cost trade deadline deal helps us long term more than the lottery or waiting for the MAJOR trade of a superstar. NONE.

The argument is getting stretched at this point. The idea was never directly that a low asset trade would help us get a superstar. The argument was simply that winning will help improve this team more then losing. Winning implies the players on the team are playing better then they would if we are losing - and IMO the major goal of this organization this season should be to do as much as they can to make sure Brook Lopez improves his game and becomes a legitimate star. A major part of that is not squandering him through a frustrating season of triple teams. As you said (not sure where) PLAYERS NEED TO LEARN HOW TO WIN. If Lopez is the franchise the sooner he begins learning that the better, hence why playing for the exact opposite is a recipe for disaster. Again Im not advocating making any big move that wastes assets, Im just saying that there is a lot of talent on this team and cultivating/supporting that talent is a better strategy then hanging it out to dry. If anything this opinion is more of an endorsement of the FA signings. Outlaw, Morrow, and Farmar were signed to try to improve the team and none of them really hurt "the plan". We easily could have traded for someone on a 1 year deal and filled out the roster with a bunch of min guys to spend to the minimum and tank this year - but we didn't and I think that's the correct move.

[enetric]

To summarize my long winded post, I was just making the point, that although I am pulling for a high lotto pick and 20 something wins if we don't make a huge trade, something like under twenty wins, although better for lotto odds, can destroy confidence in the players, some of which, like Brook and Favors will hopefully be with this team for a decade if they are that good.

And I say you are seriously reaching here. So winning 25 games will make them feel like a belly of warm chocolate chip cookies and 15 wins makes then need a sports shrink? They are basketball players not starting pitchers. If losing makes you lose confidence in your ability...then you aren't a basketball player. Injuries like a knee or ankle can make you lose confidence in your ability to push off hard on that leg. Missed shots can make you lose confidence in your ability to shoot. Calling a time out you don't have can make you think you are Chris Webber. But losing games should never affect your ability to develop as an NBA player. Not saying it doesn't suck,...that it isn't miserable. But no way you are going to tell me there is a moral victory in losing 60 games instead of losing 70.

Now on the other hand, if these guys only win around 18 games this year again, maybe it's time to start questioning if they are that good.

Again, a reach. Who are "these" guys as you use the word... "again"? Of the 14 men we will carry...4 of them went through that full 12 win season last year. I would bet 1 or 2 of the 4 will be gone next year or the year after regardless of us winning 70 or losing 70. The problem you have is you are interjecting how it felt for YOU to go through a 12 win season...as a Nets fan. So...in your head it seems logical...THE NETS to go through THIS again. 10 new guys, a new coaching staff, a new GM, a new owner, a new management group, a new building...dont you listen to Brett Yormack???? ITS ALL NEW BABY!!!! That means This group has an ALL new right to suck ALL OVER AGAIN!!!! YAHOOOOO!!!

I laughed at some of those comments though, Brook voo doo doll, orchestra music in my head while typing, lol. I wasn't saying that you saying it makes it happen man, come on! Lol. I'm just saying, these guys are young and impressionable and even if my post may have been hyperbolic on the whole winning aspect, your views are on the same tip toward ignoring losing.
Losing for a few years, that isn't a big deal. Losing for 5 or 6 years straight? Time to start questioning the talent, but also given the specific circumstances of some of the first few seasons of the losing here in hindsight, you would have to question whether it played a serious role in how the players in question wound up developing.

I know...but you needed to hear how over the top you were being and I was trying to make you laugh. Listen...I understand why you are saying what you are saying...but I am challenging you to see that you are applying FAN emotion to the team reality. And that is a normal thing to do...even if it has no truth whatsoever. The reality is...most NBA teams had a period of SUCKING hard before they got good. And if you look at the teams good and bad...they still turned their roster over constantly. Only the true best of the best players tend to get long periods of time with one roster. On occasion a quality role guy drafted to a GOOD team gets to stay also....but go through the majority of teams...there is constant change. The Celtics won the title 2 years ago. You know how many of those guys are still with the team? SIX. 6 of 14. I think they were feeling pretty confident don't you? But that's the NBA. Constant turnover for good and bad teams.

So don't worry about losing for 5 or 6 years. Lose for that long...and it was probably two or three different groups. You don't need to question the group...you need to question the coach. Afterall..that is why coaches are hired....so there is someone to blame later.

We have had three losing records in a row. 4 guys who were with us all season last year are back. 2 of them were on the opening day roster the year before that, and NONE of them started the season with us the first year of losing. The most tenured guy is Devin Harris...and all we do is talk about trading him. We are onto our third coach over that time frame already.....so where is the 5-6 year window that THIS group had or will ever have....and who exactly IS the group?

Don't you see? The losing isn't about THEM or their confidence...its about OURS as fans. We apply that feeling to their uniform and we don't stop and think about who exactly is wearing it.

I also wasn't saying that winning this season means these guys are going to transform into a contender with no help, it's pretty obvious I think they need a lot of help. I just think they need a winning culture. Again, not amount of wins, just the atmosphere and mindset.
My main point was that the losing can be bad for the long term if it's sustained losing of the sub twenty variety with no direction and development, something like the Wolves.

Yes, they need a winning culture...and they need a lot of help. But here is the thing...a winning culture will come when you have ALL that help you need. So trading or hoping to overachieve isn't success that you can simply build on...and under the NBA system it can actually impact your ability to add all that help you need. So? Get help FIRST...worry about the winning culture later. With the youngest team in th NBA hot off a 12 win season with not one major proven addition in the off season...NOW IS OUR TIME TO LOSE. Squeaking into the playoffs THIS year would NOT be advantageous with this group. Should we land a superstar or two by trade? Great...new plan. But this group of children...losing is the best thing for the long term of the franchise factoring in the sheer value of top of the draft picks.

In the mean time...for the players....if you lose...try to learn from it. Have quality loses....develop and work hard. That's a plan for growth. Wins and losses now wont help them be contenders later if they simply don't have the horses. As for the sustained 20 win seasons...that doesn't happen with the same group for any length of time in the league. You know that. Only the Clips can make an art form out of top 5 picks every year and its typically due to bad drafting, bad trades or bad luck.

I am just saying, where as you are fine with rationalizing another 12 win season because it gives us more lotto balls, I think anything under low to mid twenties is going to do more harm then good and is also an obvious sign that some of these guys like Brook aren't what we're hoping they are.

I have already spoken to this as nonsense with the cookie comment. You are trying to place a game count on suckiness. YEAH FOR BROOK! He mist be feeling oh so happy he only lost 60 games this season instead of 70!!!! Stop it. There isn't MORE harm to be done.

That would actually be my optimal scenario. Something like 24 or so wins, around 4th or 5th worst record in the league overall, but with a very solid shot of jumping up to top 3, actually historically the best range to be in to make the jump. Getting good player development and being very competitive in a majority of the losses. All while pulling off a trade for maybe O.J. Mayo or Danny Granger at the deadline for maybe Devin and T Will(for Granger) or Devin and Lee(for Mayo), but late enough where it doesn't wind up sacrificing lotto position much at all. Then draft best point guard available, whether Irving, or Knight, or Cory Joseph, etc. and hopefully going out the last season in NJ with a bang, making the playoffs, making the 2nd round. This while having basically all the pieces to transform into a legit contender in the following 3 years that stays there for a long time.
Man that's an intricate day dream.

Historically the best range? That shows the lotto system is messed up...it doesn't prove you should root for WORSE odds. The KNicks won 29 last year....do you feel Gallo and Chandler had better development than Brook? Please stop applying your emotions about the security blanket need to validate your team's growth. TO SUCK IS TO SUCK....TO LOSE IS TO LOSE. You can learn and have quality loses just the same way.

As for your OJ Mayo obsession...time to talk to that too. Loved him coming out...so far overall disappointed. But I cant see the trade you just came up with from either end. He is still under a rook contract. From our end...while I am no Devin Fan...I don't think the package you gave up improved the team at all.
As for your goal of trying to draft by position...SHAME ON YOU. BAD PLAN. As a draft fan...you KNOW its a bad plan.

And before you go off on me for O.J. Mayo, it's not that I think he has superstar or even true star potential, I just think he's the perfect third option type of player, great intangibles, flexible skill set, perfect age for our core and maybe more attainable then it seems.

Lol. I am replying a paragraph at a time. I guess I have spoken to your Mayo obsession before. But I think I let you off light on that one. My bigger thing is that you dismiss a lot deals that are more realistic than this yet you don't apply the same logic when you just covet a player. You cant say the Thunder wouldn't deal Westbrook to get Chris Paul....and then tell me why an oft injured 9 mil per year PG gets a player like Mayo still on his rook contract.

Also, let's hope you're right about Avery. I never wanted any part of this dude.

I have no way of knowing for sure...but there is only one Jerry Sloan in the NBA. Everyone else is on borrowed time. And bad teams trying to build from the ground up? How many of those coaches get to stay from the bad years into the good?

[enetric]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...and I am sorry to say this...I dont think you do either. What NBA title and finals appearence did he decline? I dont understand what you are talking about. You mean a chance to join that Celtics team a year earlier? The one that had the second worst record in the NBA????

You basically just proved my point. Its all about the SUPERSTARS...NOT the low level deals at the trade deadline. Superstars...want to play with OTHER superstars. You think winning 35 instead of 12 makes Melo say.....OOOOOOH gotta leave my top 4 in the west Denver team????

Stars want to play with stars. Winning a few more games isnt going to mean anything. Players want:
Money, market and a the place they think is their best chance to win. They deem that their best chance is by teaming up with other stars. They prefer to have them come to THEIR team. But when they CHOSE to move...they do so to play with OTHER stars if the cash and market are equal. For the next two years...our market sucks. Our team is the youngest in the league. So going from 20 wins to 30 or to 40 because you added a Mike Bibby type veteran with a bad contract on the decline...isnt going to convince anyone that they should come here.

Our best chance of adding stars is clearly...TRADE for them....and that take the cap space you want to use plus prospects. Or you can DRAFT them. There is no history...NONE to support what you are preaching here. That making some low asset cost trade deadline deal helps us long term more than the lottery or waiting for the MAJOR trade of a superstar. NONE.

The argument is getting stretched at this point. The idea was never directly that a low asset trade would help us get a superstar.

I never said it was...nor did I say YOU said it was. I did however dismiss one of your secondary points that a 35-40 win team attacts outside talent anymore than a 20 win team does. That those wins and losses arent the primary issue. Its Market, money and WHO CAN I PLAY WITH? If our guys are superstars it all sorts itself out. Superstars win and win big. There ont be a need to haggle over these meaningless in the middle games.

The argument was simply that winning will help improve this team more then losing.

Yes...that was the main issue...and I broke down for you how that theory was absolutely wrong. Winning 40 games will NOT help this team more than winning 20 and landing another blue chip prospect. That is what you have bacwards in your understading of the NBA process. And either you are over rating the talent we have..or underrating the value of having superstars and WHERE they are found by the largest majority. Its at the top of the draft.

Winning implies the players on the team are playing better then they would if we are losing - and IMO the major goal of this organization this season should be to do as much as they can to make sure Brook Lopez improves his game and becomes a legitimate star. A major part of that is not squandering him through a frustrating season of triple teams. As you said (not sure where) PLAYERS NEED TO LEARN HOW TO WIN. If Lopez is the franchise the sooner he begins learning that the better, hence why playing for the exact opposite is a recipe for disaster.

Its NOT to the benefit of the team to go out there at the trade deadline as you said to build the short term confidence of one of its players by making a trade that the BEST case scenario is most likely an extra week of games resulting in one round and out playoff series. The job of this team is to build the BEST long term product for years to come. And TALENT beats the joy of that one week. TALENT is found by the largest percentage the higher you are in the draft. THis is a 12 win team that just replaced 10 players and everything else it had from last year.

I think part of the problem is...you are either over rating Brook's upside...or you are over emphasizing the value of being a middle of the pack team...thinking that those few extra wins magically catapults your talent to champs. I will give you two examples of players who are the upside of Brook...that had careers to prove you wrong. Chris Bosh and Pau Gasol.

They are about the MAX in terms of how good I think you should be thinking Brook can be in this league. Which is to say...perennial all stars...but NOT guys who can do it on their own. The absolute biggest help Bosh ever had was his team getting Bargnani....and that by far eclipsed any of his close to .500 seasons. That team got to the middle...and tried like crazy to make one medicore deal after the next. It never had STARS to support him. That is what you need in this legue. Take the Raps the last few years and give them a coule of top 5 picks. Take away some of their wins...and give pick a couple of young up and coming stars and map that team out. Tell me what they would have looked like in the years to follow. Bosh would have been frustrated....but was he really so much happier with his close to .500 teams? I mean he got better right? He became a star. But could he take his wins and turn them into great success? His team did what you said. They went out and got him pieces every year. JO, Marion, Hedo, Calderon...constantly trying to get mediocire peices. Good plan? Gasol you can follow the same logic with Memphis.

Again Im not advocating making any big move that wastes assets, Im just saying that there is a lot of talent on this team and cultivating/supporting that talent is a better strategy then hanging it out to dry. If anything this opinion is more of an endorsement of the FA signings. Outlaw, Morrow, and Farmar were signed to try to improve the team and none of them really hurt "the plan". We easily could have traded for someone on a 1 year deal and filled out the roster with a bunch of min guys to spend to the minimum and tank this year - but we didn't and I think that's the correct move.

None of those guys hurt the plan. I just dont think you honestly realize what that plan was. THat was the fall back plan if we didnt land TRUE stars. ANd that fall back plan was to draft build. To stockpile youth and low cost talent. Those are fancy words for SUCKING HARD to get MORE talent and then improve SLOWLY. So...that takes us back to what this was really all about. You saying..that we would be better off trading for medicore pieces at the trade deadline to push us into the playoffs. That plan...is absolutely...NOT in the best interest of this group, or the long term improvement of the franchise. And I outlined that for you with several examples now. We are still SUPERSTARS away. Please try to get that. WE ARE SUPERSTARS AWAY.

Brook could be an all star. That is NOT a superstar. Favors COULD be a superstar...or he could be a FLOP. That is what being a long term project tends to mean. But the long term should also tell you about the timing...and why we are better served adding MORE pieces rather than false hope from an overachieving season. The order of preference in this league is:

1- Contender (at the top)
2- Rebuilder (at the very bottom)

3- Pretender A (middle, but is close to being a contender if they can make one good move)
4- Prenteder B (hopelessly drivine to the middle, with no chance at top of the draft picks or cap space).



Try to enjoy #2 as long as possible and find the silver lining in it rather than drive us to #4 for impatience. Have patience...and you have a good chance to bypass #4...go right to #3. #3 happens MOST of the time because you drafted that NEXT big thing. Cavs went from the worst team in the NBA to legit contenders because they landed Lebron. Miami, Wade. LA, Kobe. SA, Duncan. In the last 25 years...you will find that every team other than the Pistons had the ELITE superstars...elite HOF players on their team...and that most of those guys were drafted by that team.

Its a superstars league. That's what we need...and most likely, we dont have one yet. Have patience. FInding superstars is HARD. Signing them being the hardest. Trading for them...still very hard. Drafting them...is the most likely way to get them. And the way to gain access to the best of the best picks? Is unfortunately to LOSE.

Hard to root for it...but that is the reality. I got the exact season I wanted last year. This year I hope we find a superstar. Either trade for him, or draft him. Perhaps we can even develop him. But I know that this core isnt beating anyone in the playoffs for the coming year. So honestly...if this is the core that finishes the season...I would NEVER want to see us spend even low level assets or a drop of cap room to hurt our chances of moving up in the draft or to be able to make BIGGER trades later. And that is what kicked this whole thing off because its what you said you would do.

I just tried to outline with examples reasons why you dont really want that. It contradicts the true game plan of the current roster.

[vincecarter4pres]

Hey man, I read your post, you made some good points. I don't have much to say about most of it, I still think you and me are mainly on the same page, just sometimes thoughts get mixed up through bad wording and we don't necessarily see eye to eye on the losing issue, but we're not that far apart.


The one thing I would like to touch on is this comment...

As for your goal of trying to draft by position...SHAME ON YOU. BAD PLAN. As a draft fan...you KNOW its a bad plan.

I agree with you, drafting for position is a bad plan, but...
I was speaking on it as if we had made the jump to a top 3 pick, namely the 2nd or 3rd overall and although is completely and totally too early to project who the best prospects will be and what their draft position will be, chances are with the high level crop of point guards making their way to college and ultimately the best of those making their way to the draft this year, it is almost a guarantee this season that two of those guys will be top 5 picks based on nothing but talent and potential alone, with one of them being the 2nd or 3rd overall pick.

So it wasn't just drafting for need, it was drafting BPA, while conveniently filling a need.

Like I said, intricate day dreaming.

[Netaman]

E - I understand your position but at this point aren't we both saying the same thing? You seem to be ok with the FA signings despite the fact that they're moves that will likely take away ping pong balls. To truly play for the bottom we could have easily gotten to the cap floor without giving out any multi-year deals by taking on a scrub with an inflated expiring and guaranteed ourselves another top 3 pick. The difference is we now have a potential 30 win team instead of a 20 win team. IMO that's a worthwhile investment for the reasons VC has highlighted, but mostly since we were able to retain all of our meaningful assets and cap room for a max.

[enetric]

Hey man, I read your post, you made some good points. I don't have much to say about most of it, I still think you and me are mainly on the same page, just sometimes thoughts get mixed up through bad wording and we don't necessarily see eye to eye on the losing issue, but we're not that far apart.


The one thing I would like to touch on is this comment...

As for your goal of trying to draft by position...SHAME ON YOU. BAD PLAN. As a draft fan...you KNOW its a bad plan.

I agree with you, drafting for position is a bad plan, but...
I was speaking on it as if we had made the jump to a top 3 pick, namely the 2nd or 3rd overall and although is completely and totally too early to project who the best prospects will be and what their draft position will be, chances are with the high level crop of point guards making their way to college and ultimately the best of those making their way to the draft this year, it is almost a guarantee this season that two of those guys will be top 5 picks based on nothing but talent and potential alone, with one of them being the 2nd or 3rd overall pick.

So it wasn't just drafting for need, it was drafting BPA, while conveniently filling a need.

Like I said, intricate day dreaming.

OH OK. I get the day dreaming aspect. Sure...I do that too. As for the losing issue...lets be clear. Its not that I dont think losing sucks. Or that it isnt hard for players to go through I am sure it is. But I am talking PRACTICAL CHOICE.

As in...if I had to chose....another awful season and you told me HEY I WILL GIVE YOU ANOTHER TOP FIVE NBA pick for it. Or, we can win 40 games this year and get into the playoffs? I will say right now....GIVE ME THE PICK.

Because I can fairly see the landscape of the NBA and say....this team isnt going to contend as its buit. Not now, not ever. It absolutely NEEDS more. I know its a superstars league. I know that there are only three ways to get that superstar.

We struck out hard on the first, FREE AGENCY...and I have no logical reason to believe that we will do any better next summer, as that we HAVE NEVER landed a big free agent in team history.

The second, TRADE...required giving up a big chunk of what is promising about our current roster.

And the third, DRAFT...historically the majroity of superstars have been taken in the top 5 picks....which you get by winning a top 3 selection in the lottery and while a flawed system, your odds improve with the more losses you have.

So put that all together....

WE NEED AND WANT SUPERSTARS. While there is no guaranteed way to get them...what is highest probable way for it to happen? DRAFT!!!!

It just adds up. And I am absolutely certain....that 20 more wins for Brook THIS year will not make him go further into the playoffs in future seasons over 20 less wins and us actually drafting a superstar and having him under a rook contract for the next few years. And anyone who thinks otherwise...either doesnt know their NBA history...or is dreaming. ELITE TALENT beats heart and hustle most of the time in the NBA. You cant just out work a much more talented team like you can in say Baseball. There is no...pitching is on that day, and we got timely hitting so we beat the Yankees despite losing 100 games this year.

That just doesnt happen in the NBA. So...I am just keeping it real. Not really ROOTING for losses...I am rooting for PING PONG BALLS. And I ACCEPT that losing now...gets me SO MUCH more later.

[vincecarter4pres]

I agree, I don't want to win 40 games. I don't want to add mediocre talent even if expiring to make a run at being the sacrificial 1st round lamb for a power house.
I don't even want to overachieve and win 32 games.
But also, as you said, we can't control the amount of wins by our desires.

The only thing I will say, where we disagree, is yes, I do think there is a MAJOR difference to the players between winning 14 games and say winning 24 games.

These are random #'s I'm throwing out, but barring the rash of injuries we had last year, if we are mainly healthy, if we don't win at least say 20 games, it's obvious these guys have regressed, or at least made no progress and that something is awry mentally with our top prospects.
I also think these guys stop seeing the light at the end of the tunnel if we lose that much.
If this team is winning 17 games this year, healthy, it means guys are not learning how to win, we are not competitive and guys like Brook are likely turning into the next Al Jefferson, SARS or Zach Randolph instead of the next Pau Gasol...
Of course a decent portion of the blame would have to fall on the coaching staff in these circumstances and rightfully so, but still, the players play the games.

To me it's that simple.


Last thing I would like to say, is I believe our fears and at the same time high hopes could realistically come true. Big time overachieving. Playoffs without any moves.

If you look at this team and compare it to Pau's team during their 1st 3 seasons, a lot of similarities.

Our fears would be realized through the team making the playoffs, meaning the only way to improve becomes through blockbuster trade and/or Favors and T Will becoming All NBA level studs.

Our high hopes would be realized through Brook becoming a true big time player with big time positive impact.

We'll see, but all we can do is speculate at this point...

[enetric]

E - I understand your position but at this point aren't we both saying the same thing? You seem to be ok with the FA signings despite the fact that they're moves that will likely take away ping pong balls. To truly play for the bottom we could have easily gotten to the cap floor without giving out any multi-year deals by taking on a scrub with an inflated expiring and guaranteed ourselves another top 3 pick. The difference is we now have a potential 30 win team instead of a 20 win team. IMO that's a worthwhile investment for the reasons VC has highlighted, but mostly since we were able to retain all of our meaningful assets and cap room for a max.

I think you are confused about a couple of things.

First, I do not think these young player signings will do much to take away ping pong balls. We added cheap prospect caliber talent. And we DID get to the cap floor. We are EXACTLY at LEAGUE MINIUM. Would I prefer one year scrub signings? No. Because I always prefer to add tradeable assets. We did that. We added young tradeable assets. What I covet NOW is the best way to get SUPERSTARS....because THAT is what will make us a special team in the future NOT the win total for this season. There are three ways to get there and none of them are about uplifting the spirits of the current roster or its fans...which is short term gratification. They are....

As I said...we struck out in free agency...and I do not expect to do much more in that area next summer.

We can trade...which will use up a good chuck of the assets we have put together these last couple of seasons...plus it will requre the cap space that you suggest be traded at the trade deadline just to squeak into the playoffs...and that is a big issue for me. THAT IS WHY I HAD so much to say to you in the first place. THAT is the issue that kicked off this conversation but you arent speaking to it as much in the last few posts. I dont want that cap space to be used for say a Caron Butler or Andris Biedrins, or even an Iguodala. I want it for a Paul or Melo or someone like that if we are going to make a deal...and please realize...this is still unlikely to happen.

And last, draft. That same trade you suggested you would do that takes cap space and some low level assets...also drives us further down the draft. Read my last reply to VCP above. Its not that i want to lose. Its that...I get how LOSING NOW...gets us so much more later. Our BEST odds for improving massively later come with landing as many top of the draft picks we can get out hands on.

It is MUCH harder to trade or to sign superstars than it is to draft them...and the majority of the superstars in this league are found in the top 5 picks. While there are no guarantees...the odds of drafting superstars IS MUCH higher and comes at a much lower cost than trades or free agency.

ANd the idea that a hadful of extra wins this coming season will magically transform THIS batch of talent into more than they really are desitined to become...is simply fantasy. MANY All time great players have had to endure some seasons without the playoffs...with awful win loss records. And in reality...under the current draft system...those that lose longer, or landed the right second great player in a specfic year of losing...came back to contend later.

I want to contend....not just compete. And I am willing to lose more now to contend later. And all my comments come at careful analyisis that being afraid of losing...has forced more teams into bad short term fixes that BLOCKED their path to contending later.

So until we land a couple of additional great pieces...and I mean GREAT not good.....I will personally be against ANY move that drives us to the middle. ANd should this young team overachieve in wins and losses? Yeah...I will be dissapointed. I really care more about progress and growth than win totals. Now if you can fix it that we can win 39 games AND grab a lucky ping pong ball for a top 3 pick??? AWESOME!

[vincecarter4pres]

Hopefully I can sneak this in before your reply, because I forgot to clarify.

When I say the player would rather win 24 games to 14 I mean it like this...

If you asked the players that question before the season, they would probably respond with GTFO, because they don't want either situation, they want to win period.

But after the season is done, which position would you think they would be in a more comfortable mental state with?
The media saying, "Look at these non-competitive 14 win goons, they will be losers for life, Favors is a bust, Lopez is the new empty stat Zacho, T Will is a malcontent stat stuffer and Devin is an injury prone loser?"

Or... "Look at this team that doubled it's win total. they didn't win a lot, but they are very competitive, they have a ton of legitimate young talent, they have another top pick to add to the mix, they have depth and they have cap space and Brooklyn on the horizon. If it wasn't for some injuries and bad luck, they could have made a run at it this season. Sky's the limit for these guys, my early pick as a threat next season. They're on the rise."

That kind of stuff can have a very real impact on a person's psyche and confidence and their self evalutation of a situation.

This isn't BS fan speak of what I feel watching the games, this is the difference between long term expectations and internal strife of the main future core of this team, not the role guys that you correctly point out to being turned over every 3 or so years historically in the NBA.

[enetric]

You keep talking about these guys like they were THOSE guys. Again...only FOUR of them are THOSE guys.

Brook was a second year player with 12 wins and called a future star. How is Favors a bust if we have another 20 or less win season???? Durant started his career with a pair of 20 win seasons. Is he a bust?

I am not saying they wont fee bad....but if you think these guys will be given latitude or the season will be called a success if we go from 12 wins to 22 you are nuts. We would stil have one of the 4 worst records in the NBA....and be thought of as awful.

And honestly? Any player who looks at 20 or 25 wins and says hey...BIG IMPROVEMENT over last season...awesome..I feel so much better about myself...and now can fit into my bikini for the summer? Well, that is probably a player who actually WEARS a bikini for the summer!

Its four guys returning. And if typical NBA history tells us anything....win 10 games or 50 this year...within two years at least 2 of the 4 will be playing elsewhere.

Knicks won 27 games last season...was it oh so much better for Gallo, Chandler, and Toney Douglas?

Do you actually believe hey the Knicks were TWICE as good as us last year? And that goes a long way to cementing Dantoni's job, the value of those players.....and giving them more confidence to develop into more than Brook or Twill can be?

I said it before. Its sounds reasonable....but when you break it down? Its one of those things that you are over thinking. You are applying progress to the unform...not to the players. To your feeling about progress as a fan....not to playing or to actual team develpment.

And last...to the orignal point? Talent around you helps you win more than a handful of extra wins. See Durant again.

[enetric]

Celtics won 33 and 24 games before they won 66 and the title. Was it the wins or the #5 overall pick plus the value of their blue chip prospect in Al Jeff that got that team where it is?

After winning their second set of NBA finals...the Bulls won 13-17-15-21-30-23 games in the years to follow. Was it the 30 win season in the middle of that that got them back to playoff level? Or was is the value of lottery picks? Had they not boffed the Ty Thomas pick...where would they be?

Cavs won 35 and then 17 games the year they get Lebron. And went back to 35 and 42 wins the next two seasons...and of course never got the enough talent after that to help him out. The lost Boozer which was dumb luck but he was drafted before Lebron, and then they did whatever they could by trade. So did Lebron become Lebron because of those two losing seasons where he didnt LOSE TOO MUCH??? OH THE CONFIDENCE builder!!! Right? He wouldnt be the best in the game had he not had those two "not as bad" losing seasons? He would have been a failure if he had won 20??? 15? What would have helped him and the team more? That 35 win season? Or losing 20 more games...and the Cavs grabbing Dwight Howard in the next draft? OK....how about...Okafor, Gordon, Devin, Deng or Iggy who all went higher than Luke Jackson their pick that year. Bad pick...and they could have gotten a decent pick there had they not screwed it up....but you tell me? What matters more? The talent? Or the handful of wins early in your career?

They had previouswly dealt their 2005 pick which ended up at 13 (Sean May), but what if they had it and lost big time? Chris Paul? Derron Williams? Bogut? Bynum?



The turnaround of a team begins with franchise superstars. Do you think we have one of those yet? Potentially? Favors right? POTENTIALLY. And once oyu have a superstar...if you have one...what moves you from having a superstar...to being a true contender? Most of the time...its the great search for WHAT????? MORE STARS!!!!!

Thus...if most stars are found in the top 5 picks...what matters more? Those extra wins early? Or the extra talent you drafted? My hope is Favors being a project helps us stay under the wire...and then he breaks out later. If we dont trade our way into stars....that would be ideal. Want another reason we can lose without it meaning we arent progressing? INJURY.

I would never cheer for injury...but when you have Devin Harris on your team...anything is possible. Best thing that ever happened to the Spurs a contending team? Robinson missing an entire year....and the Spurs getting TD.

NOTHING BEATS ADDING ELITE TALENT. NOTHING.

[enetric]

The draft after the worst records in history:


1973 Philadelphia 76ers 9-73 drafted- Doug Collins #1
1993 Dallas Mavericks 11-71 drafted- Jamal Mashburn #4 #1 pick that year- Chris Webber
1998 Denver Nuggets 11-71 drafted- Raef LaFrentz #3 (VC, Jamison, Dirk and Pierce on the board) #1 pick that year- Olowokandi (barf)
1987 Los Angeles Clippers 12-70 drafted- Reggie Williams #4 (Pippen, KJ and Reggie Miller on the board) #1 pick that year- David Robinson
2010 New Jersey Nets 12-70 drafted- Derrick Favors #3 #1 pick John Wall
1994 Dallas Mavericks 13-69 drafted- Jason Kidd #2 #1 pick that year- Glenn Robinson
2005 Atlanta Hawks 13-69 drafted- Marvin Williams #2 (Deron, Paul on the board) #1 pick that year- Bogut
1999 Vancouver Grizzlies 8-42 drafted- Steve Francis#2 (B.Davis, Odom on the board) #1 pick that year- Brand
1983 Houston Rockets 14-68 drafted- Ralph Sampson #1 (note, next year 29 wins...took Hakeem #1)
1997 Vancouver Grizzlies 14-68 drafted- Antonio Daniels #4 (Tmac on the board) #1 pick that year- Tim Duncan (Billups #3)


Conclusion....

Your best chance of adding ELITE franchise changing talent is in the top five picks. You are guaranteed a top 5 pick if you have one of the worst two records in the league...so screw you VC4P!!!!

If Brook, Twill, Lee or Devin who plays half a season anyway...will be ruined forever with 10 less wins? then SCREW THEM TOO.

LOSE BABY! AND LOSE GLORIOUSLY!