The Official Should We Have Signed Thad Thread

[Hello Brooklyn]

Completely done with this argument. I think everyone has said what they needed to say. I just don't think its possible for the Nets to win a championship without drafting a superstar and I think the facts back me up on this.

But you guys can feel free to advocate whatever strategy you think will work instead. I just don't think it will ever work.

[Hello Brooklyn]

That's the thing. Hawks were in a position to win. Say if the injury happened to LeBron instead of Kevin Love, the Hawks could have made the Finals. Hawks also went 1-1 against the Warriors this year so who knows what could have happened. The same thing happened to the Warriors on their journey there. Not to discredit their championship, but you can't deny a little luck went into getting that ring.

The only teams that have a zero percent chance of winning a championship are the ones who don't make the playoffs.

I guess we just have different perspectives on the Hawks then. I don't care how they did in the regular season. We beat the Heat 3-0 in 2014 before getting man handled in the playoffs.

All I know is based on the NBA I watch, you need a superstar player to win in 99% of cases I have watched. Hawks were not in a position to win. Not even close.

In my eyes there are 6 western conference teams better than the Hawks, that would beat them in a playoff series. I also think the Cavs AND Bulls would probably beat the Hawks in a playoff series. So to me they're not even a top 8 team in the NBA. I think they merely got lucky because they play in the eastern conference and avoided the Bulls and Cavs. Personally, I don't even think the Hawks will make it past the 2nd round next year.

And no if the Cavs had Kevin Love and Kyrie, I think they could have beaten the Hawks easily. Or the Bulls would have beaten them and the Hawks.

And the chances of us getting a superstar are probably around 00.7% so both ways look great. Plus, you are severely underrating LeBron James if you think the Cavs would have done anything without him.

(Please Use More Appropriate Word) argument. No the chance of getting a superstar is not .07%. There are several teams in the NBA with superstar players. In fact theres usually a couple in every draft. Its not a feat which is impossible to do by any means.

[Paradise]

Completely done with this argument. I think everyone has said what they needed to say. I just don't think its possible for the Nets to win a championship without drafting a superstar and I think the facts back me up on this.

But you guys can feel free to advocate whatever strategy you think will work instead. I just don't think it will ever work.

Nobody ever said that isn't true. The plan itself is the main issue.

[MrDollarBills]

Superstar players are Lebron, Durant, Curry, Westbrook, Harden, Davis...franchise changing players. There are NOT a couple of those in every draft. The drafts where you get a few superstars in it are few far in between, you act like the 2003 draft is every year

[Hello Brooklyn]

You can find a superstar player in almost every draft. Some have multiple like in 03, obviously. So no its not some impossible feat to do.

[Paradise]

You can find a superstar player in almost every draft. Some have multiple like in 03, obviously. So no its not some impossible feat to do.

The 2013 draft has produced zero stars. You can make the argument that Plumlee is the third best notable name to come out that draft.

[Hello Brooklyn]

You can find a superstar player in almost every draft. Some have multiple like in 03, obviously. So no its not some impossible feat to do.

The 2013 draft has produced zero stars. You can make the argument that Plumlee is the third best notable name to come out that draft.

Notice how I said almost. And its still too early to say that. I could see Olidapio getting better.

[MrDollarBills]

You can find a superstar player in almost every draft. Some have multiple like in 03, obviously. So no its not some impossible feat to do.

You are back tracking:

In fact theres usually a couple in every draft. Its not a feat which is impossible to do by any means.

No there are not. There is a reason why the 1984, 1996, and 2003 drafts are regarded as the best in the league's history, because they produced multiple franchise players. If the draft was like those particular years then yes you'd be right, but that isn't the case, and you can't predict when those kind of drafts will happen again.

Oladipo is going to be a 20, 5, 5 player but is he a franchise superstar? Nope. And the rest of his class are on a course to be busts or decent roleplayers.

Anthony Davis is a superstar. A two way, franchise changing player. You don't find a couple of those guys in every draft jesus christ bro if there were multiple superstars in every draft the Kings and the Magic would have built goddamn powerhouses right now. Ridiculous.

[Universe]

I guess we just have different perspectives on the Hawks then. I don't care how they did in the regular season. We beat the Heat 3-0 in 2014 before getting man handled in the playoffs.

All I know is based on the NBA I watch, you need a superstar player to win in 99% of cases I have watched. Hawks were not in a position to win. Not even close.

In my eyes there are 6 western conference teams better than the Hawks, that would beat them in a playoff series. I also think the Cavs AND Bulls would probably beat the Hawks in a playoff series. So to me they're not even a top 8 team in the NBA. I think they merely got lucky because they play in the eastern conference and avoided the Bulls and Cavs. Personally, I don't even think the Hawks will make it past the 2nd round next year.

And no if the Cavs had Kevin Love and Kyrie, I think they could have beaten the Hawks easily. Or the Bulls would have beaten them and the Hawks.

And the chances of us getting a superstar are probably around 00.7% so both ways look great. Plus, you are severely underrating LeBron James if you think the Cavs would have done anything without him.

(Please Use More Appropriate Word) argument. No the chance of getting a superstar is not .07%. There are several teams in the NBA with superstar players. In fact theres usually a couple in every draft. Its not a feat which is impossible to do by any means.

Wait, what? Doesn't that disprove your "you need a superstar to win a championship" if there are a couple superstars in every draft, yet so few teams have won a championship in the last 30 years?

[Hello Brooklyn]

You can find a superstar player in almost every draft. Some have multiple like in 03, obviously. So no its not some impossible feat to do.

You are back tracking:

In fact theres usually a couple in every draft. Its not a feat which is impossible to do by any means.

No there are not. There is a reason why the 1984, 1996, and 2003 drafts are regarded as the best in the league's history, because they produced multiple franchise players. If the draft was like those particular years then yes you'd be right, but that isn't the case, and you can't predict when those kind of drafts will happen again.

Oladipo is going to be a 20, 5, 5 player but is he a franchise superstar? Nope. And the rest of his class are on a course to be busts or decent roleplayers.

Anthony Davis is a superstar. A two way, franchise changing player. You don't find a couple of those guys in every draft jesus christ bro if there were multiple superstars in every draft the Kings and the Magic would have built goddamn powerhouses right now. Ridiculous.

Ok fine, maybe I exaggerated a little. Big deal.

Youre straying from the point. Getting a superstar isn't impossible to do. Maybe 2013 won't be hat great. But that was also one of the worst drafts in NBA history.

[Hello Brooklyn]

And the chances of us getting a superstar are probably around 00.7% so both ways look great. Plus, you are severely underrating LeBron James if you think the Cavs would have done anything without him.

(Please Use More Appropriate Word) argument. No the chance of getting a superstar is not .07%. There are several teams in the NBA with superstar players. In fact theres usually a couple in every draft. Its not a feat which is impossible to do by any means.

Wait, what? Doesn't that disprove your "you need a superstar to win a championship" if there are a couple superstars in every draft, yet so few teams have won a championship in the last 30 years?

I think there is more than one in a lot drafts. But getting a superstar doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything. So no it doesn't contradict anything.

Its also about having competent management and the right team around them. There are plenty of superstars who could have won multiple championships if only they were on the right team.

[Universe]

(Please Use More Appropriate Word) argument. No the chance of getting a superstar is not .07%. There are several teams in the NBA with superstar players. In fact theres usually a couple in every draft. Its not a feat which is impossible to do by any means.

Wait, what? Doesn't that disprove your "you need a superstar to win a championship" if there are a couple superstars in every draft, yet so few teams have won a championship in the last 30 years?

I think there is more than one in a lot drafts. But getting a superstar doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything. So no it doesn't contradict anything.

Its also about having competent management and the right team around them. There are plenty of superstars who could have won multiple championships if only they were on the right team.

"You need a superstar to win a championship"

"Getting a superstar doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything"

I get the point you are making, but you are contradicting yourself now.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Wait, what? Doesn't that disprove your "you need a superstar to win a championship" if there are a couple superstars in every draft, yet so few teams have won a championship in the last 30 years?

I think there is more than one in a lot drafts. But getting a superstar doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything. So no it doesn't contradict anything.

Its also about having competent management and the right team around them. There are plenty of superstars who could have won multiple championships if only they were on the right team.

"You need a superstar to win a championship"

"Getting a superstar doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything"

I get the point you are making, but you are contradicting yourself now.

Do you understand basic logic?

You're confusing sufficient and necessary.

Its is necessary to have a superstar to win a championship but it is not always sufficient for one. There's a clear difference.

[Universe]

I think there is more than one in a lot drafts. But getting a superstar doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything. So no it doesn't contradict anything.

Its also about having competent management and the right team around them. There are plenty of superstars who could have won multiple championships if only they were on the right team.

"You need a superstar to win a championship"

"Getting a superstar doesn't necessarily guarantee you anything"

I get the point you are making, but you are contradicting yourself now.

Do you understand basic logic?

You're confusing sufficient and necessary.

Its is necessary to have a superstar to win a championship but it is not always sufficient for one. There's a clear difference.

I don't in this instance but I'll try.

The only way we'll win a championship is if we get a high lottery pick, which equals losing. But even if we lose and get the first overall pick, our chances of winning a championship are still not high.

That gameplan sucks.

[MrDollarBills]

This is also assuming that the player drafted doesn't become a bust.

[Hello Brooklyn]

Why do you guys keep arguing that our chances of drafting a superstar type player not being high as a reason no to try? Yes its not high. And even if we do its not high.

But if we don't the chances are 0. So I'd rather go with a small chance rather than no chance. Were just going around in circles now. Its a waste of time.

You know what type of game plan sucks. Building a team around Brook Lopez and Thaddeus Young. Cause instead of making it unlikely that we don't win a championship it guarantees it.

[Paradise]

You know what type of game plan sucks. Building a team around Brook Lopez and Thaddeus Young. Cause instead of making it unlikely that we don't win a championship it guarantees it.

It's a plan, regardless. I'll take that over what's been done before and I wouldn't even consider it building around Lopez/Young. It's simply building a proper team.

[Zachbretton]

I think this is another futile argument that's going on. Yes, the easiest and most common way to win a chip is through a drafted star... I think most of us can get on board with that.

What I can't get on board with is how easy you present it to be, oh just lose like 2 season draft a star or two and then we have a chance to win. Yes that's quite possible, OR, both of those draft picks become busts, and then we repeat the same cycle that got us here.

We've been the losing team before, for many many years in this franchise.

We just don't have the option to blow it up yet. So this option you keep bringing up and arguing is years down the line after we run our current plan through its course

I know I must be in the minority but id rather spend this time until 2019 enjoying my team, watching some level of competitive basketball and trying to make the playoffs. I'd rather be the Hawks of the recent years than the Kings.

Because if the day comes that we do go into your, lose for a star plan, I'll be a sad guy. That plan is not the easiest to get out of, and is always a larger window than hoped. We draft a future star, and then it's probably 4-5 years before they're championship material. Which also requires building a team around them and convincing good players to come and join then, which is the next massive task.

Look at the Kings and Boogie, they've been stuck in a cycle of losing, keeping the hope out that they can attract other stars to join Boogie. If LMA went there that team would begin to be a legit threat. What about the Suns and Bledsoe, if they snagged up more real players in FA instead of a older Tyson Chandler they'd be real players in all this.

I hate anyone who makes either option sound like a **** cake walk. Being a big city and building a contender is hard either through the draft or through trades or through FA, but either way we should just be doing what's working for the moment.

We have until the end of the 2019 to ride out this wave. Even then I see the moves of this offseason being closer to what they did in Memphis and accumulating talent and the developing it as needed. Sure RHJ ain't some star, but he has a future in this league, Bogie can shoot and has the possibility of being a starting level shooter. Lopez is playing his best ball yet and Thad seems to aid in that. We have a plan finally, a clean and organized one. So to me, I say we keep going with it, until it stops making sense... Because I'd rather my team try and win when I can than throw it all away for a shot at a star... We can do that when this plan has run its course.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Zachbretton]

This is no knock on anyone I just feel like the option to lose for a draft pick / star is so many years away it just isn't the right time to be arguing about all this. We're totally not about to sell everyone on the team for picks because we're getting nothing back and not able to control the placement of said picks.

The argument should be about what is to be done in the near future... And losing is just not an option at the moment, we gain nothing from losing


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Prokorov]

you tank for a draft pick in 1 instance and 1 instance only in my mind. when your top 2 players go down for the year and you no longer have anything to play for. then you play the young guys, rest your old guys, give injured guys extended tiem to heal and take the higher pick.

other then that, i never can endorse tanking for a pick