DieHardFan wrote:Quake Griffin wrote:He made two points but argued them as one: We don't need to tank (oddly enough, see his last post) and that not all champions were not built through the draft (oddly enough, saying this current Warriors team wasnt built through the draft and then arguing extreme outliers.).
Those aren't the same points.
That may looks like two different points, but there is a correlation between them. Kinda cause and effect relation.
Please let me make myself clear with describing my thoughts in other way, I'm not aganist getting a high lotto pick. I would like that toy to have obviously, but not at cost of losing 50+ games in a year. We would lose too much for a very small chance of getting a better return. And in general, i look at tanking as a last result when you don't have your franchise guy but IMHO luckily we have one
at 2012, Sixers didn't have anyone since Iverson.
at 2013, Lakers didn't have someone after Kobe.
at 2014, Minny didn't have someone after Love.
at 2010, Cavs didn't have someone after the Decision.
so, instead of tanking, I would try to get that young talents with the assets i don't need(DJ-Lou) while i would respect my franchise guy and try to put him in a position to succeed just like other champions did in the past. I have already present the examples before.
In the second part, the phrase of "champions were not built through the draft" isn't belongs to mine. I was arguing about "And champions are pretty much always built through the draft. That means sometimes, you need to tank." phrase. Opposing MTV's idea shouldn't reflect directly what you said. It's a wrong inference.
As I mentioned, there is no champions tanked purposely for young talent when they already drafted their golden boy in the last 20 years.(Kobe-Duncan-Dirk-Pierce-Wade-LBJ-Curry)
GSW has built their main core via draft but they didn't tanked for it when they got Curry. It was just misfortuned injuries to Curry that keep them in the lottery till 2013. With a luck, they got Klay #11 and Draymond #35. not exactly tanking picks right?
Quake Griffin wrote:QRich3 wrote:Yeah DieHardFan has a great point against the "Spurs tanked for Duncan" and "Mavs drafted Dirk" crew. If you wanna base the Spurs winning titles in 2014 because of tanking in 1997, or the Mavs winning in 2011 because of a 1998 draft pick, Lakers winning in 2010 because of their 1996 draft, etc. then surely the Clippers are alright cause they already tanked in 2009 right?
Point being, what you need is to have ATG players in their prime, and throughout NBA history, those have been acquired either through the draft, free agency or trade. Tanking is not a more viable or easy strategy than the other two avenues, it just seems easier but it really is not.
Anyway, depending on what comes back today on Blake's knee, I could see a viable tank for a top 10 pick this year. Which might indeed be the way to go if Blake goes down for a long time.
The Paul George thing is interesting, I think he might rather go to the Lakers cause it seems he's set into making use of their marketing machine, but if the Lakers look horrible again and we look competitive, he has to at least think about it right? and if Gallo doesn't look like he's done, the Thunder have to prefer getting him and other pieces in a S&T than just letting George go for nothing right? But for that, Gallo has to look good and the team has to be competitive. If we're just as bad as the Lakers, he's definitely gonna go get that sweet endorsement money they can get him better than us.
He made two points but argued them as one: We don't need to tank (oddly enough, see his last post
Those aren't the same points.
Dirk and Kobe both cut against the trade/FA theory. So do Pierce and Duncan. Dirk never was close to leaving and no matter how close Kobe, Pierce, or Duncan got, they never left their respective organizations. There's too many factors and it takes a lot to uproot an ATG player.
The argument (for me at least) is that punting the standard into the stratosphere and arguing from that isn't particularly fair or reasonable. If the standard is, "find Jordan or LeBron," then we certainly know that tanking isn't viable. ATG players skip drafts...multiple drafts. But if the question is simply, what is the best and most efficient way to infuse talent on your team year to year. I'd certainly say a lottery pick over paying for rain via trade/FA.
Is there truly a problem with getting a Jayson Tatum or Jaylen Brown (guys I'm presuming won't be Jordan or Bron) and adding them to your roster?
"that not all champions were not built through the draft"
I didn't misunderstand you at all. I basically summed up EXACTLY what you said. You left out the "not all" portion.
Blake is not as good as any of the guys you are talking about.
