ThunderBolt wrote:Sekou, PJ Washington and Herro are a few of guys that could end up out performing their draft position.
Odds say you're more likely to get a good player at 1 than 2, 2 than 3, 3 than 4, etc. But that's based on year over year results. The reality is that almost every year there's a top 3 guy that's not selected until pick 10-15. I just don't see a point in going all in on a tank unless there's a Duncan/Lebron/Shaq type assured generational talent coming out. Have your players compete and develop, and if you're competently bad then identify the kawhi,giannis, Booker, mitchell, sga, lavine, klay, PG. It's obviously not that easy identifying them, otherwise they wouldn't be there. but it avoids the trap of selling off all your good players and then gambling the next ten years because nobody wants to play for you. For every okc success story there's 10-15 years of Sacramento/Phoenix failure. On top of that, presti stumbled into the greatest rebuild of all time and still failed to win a championship. Being bad doesn't guarantee you become great, sometimes it just guarantees you're bad.
“If you're getting stops and you're making threes and the other team's not scoring, that's when you're going to see a huge point difference there,” coach Billy Donovan said.
Galloisdaman wrote:Take 2019. How many elite guys do you think will have come out of that draft?
Technically, it is too early to tell. The point that you need to be bad in the right years, like 2018, and not be an idiot and pass on Luka like Sacramento did is valid. I see two from 2019 in Zion, he had a nice debut, and Morant that are potentially elite. There are some others that might, but those are the two most likely at this point based on what we have seen. It also depends on the standard we are using for elite. Luka is probably going to be the best player of his generation and I still don't know how anyone other then Phoenix even considered passing on him. I only give Phoenix a pass because of Ayton's potential and the rarity of a big man that can do everything. I was clear before that draft I would have taken Luka #1.
This year there doesn't appear to be a Zion, Morant, Ayton, Luka, Trae or SGA. However, keep in mind that SGA is outperforming his draft position. So just because we don't have someone that is considered that good there is potential for Wiseman, Edwards, Hampton, Anthony, etc to become star players. I'm talking about 1-3 out of the draft class not everyone who ends up in the top 5 and identifying them is the tough part. I am pretty sure every draft produces at least one star player. Now finding them and being able to make the moves to get Kawhi Leonard, which was a very good move by the Spurs to identify him and then trade up for him when he wasn't a top 10 pick, or Giannis or getting lucky and the #1 team taking a complete bum over Oladipo or other things does require some luck. However, your best chance to get lucky will always be significantly better picking 4th and not 20th.
Well my question was about elite players. I know everyone defines elite differently. I view elite as even above allstar level. Maybe top 10 level but even all star level I would say that only a handful at best reach all star level on average each draft.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point.
ThunderBolt wrote:Sekou, PJ Washington and Herro are a few of guys that could end up out performing their draft position.
Odds say you're more likely to get a good player at 1 than 2, 2 than 3, 3 than 4, etc. But that's based on year over year results. The reality is that almost every year there's a top 3 guy that's not selected until pick 10-15. I just don't see a point in going all in on a tank unless there's a Duncan/Lebron/Shaq type assured generational talent coming out. Have your players compete and develop, and if you're competently bad then identify the kawhi,giannis, Booker, mitchell, sga, lavine, klay, PG. It's obviously not that easy identifying them, otherwise they wouldn't be there. but it avoids the trap of selling off all your good players and then gambling the next ten years because nobody wants to play for you. For every okc success story there's 10-15 years of Sacramento/Phoenix failure. On top of that, presti stumbled into the greatest rebuild of all time and still failed to win a championship. Being bad doesn't guarantee you become great, sometimes it just guarantees you're bad.
How many years have the Hawks, Suns, Nets, Knicks, Pelicans, Timberwolves, Wizards, Magic, Kings, etc been in the lottery in the last 15 years? Even the Cavs if you go out 16 years. The Cavs had 4 #1 overall picks including a generational pick in Lebron (Irving, Wiggins, Bennett). They only won a single ring.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point.
ThunderBolt wrote:Sekou, PJ Washington and Herro are a few of guys that could end up out performing their draft position.
Odds say you're more likely to get a good player at 1 than 2, 2 than 3, 3 than 4, etc. But that's based on year over year results. The reality is that almost every year there's a top 3 guy that's not selected until pick 10-15. I just don't see a point in going all in on a tank unless there's a Duncan/Lebron/Shaq type assured generational talent coming out. Have your players compete and develop, and if you're competently bad then identify the kawhi,giannis, Booker, mitchell, sga, lavine, klay, PG. It's obviously not that easy identifying them, otherwise they wouldn't be there. but it avoids the trap of selling off all your good players and then gambling the next ten years because nobody wants to play for you. For every okc success story there's 10-15 years of Sacramento/Phoenix failure. On top of that, presti stumbled into the greatest rebuild of all time and still failed to win a championship. Being bad doesn't guarantee you become great, sometimes it just guarantees you're bad.
How many years have the Hawks, Suns, Nets, Knicks, Pelicans, Timberwolves, Wizards, Magic, Kings, etc been in the lottery in the last 15 years? Even the Cavs if you go out 16 years. The Cavs had 4 #1 overall picks including a generational pick in Lebron (Irving, Wiggins, Bennett). They only won a single ring.
Some will say those organizations continually suck because they continually tank. I believe they continually tank because the organizations continually suck.
Starver, Dolan, Grunfeld, Hennigan, Valde...those are some of the worst owners and GM's in the league.
bisme37 wrote:If there were magnets in basketballs so strong they changed the path of the ball as it flew through the air, wouldn't the ball then stick magnetically to the rim when it got there?
spearsy23 wrote:Odds say you're more likely to get a good player at 1 than 2, 2 than 3, 3 than 4, etc. But that's based on year over year results. The reality is that almost every year there's a top 3 guy that's not selected until pick 10-15. I just don't see a point in going all in on a tank unless there's a Duncan/Lebron/Shaq type assured generational talent coming out. Have your players compete and develop, and if you're competently bad then identify the kawhi,giannis, Booker, mitchell, sga, lavine, klay, PG. It's obviously not that easy identifying them, otherwise they wouldn't be there. but it avoids the trap of selling off all your good players and then gambling the next ten years because nobody wants to play for you. For every okc success story there's 10-15 years of Sacramento/Phoenix failure. On top of that, presti stumbled into the greatest rebuild of all time and still failed to win a championship. Being bad doesn't guarantee you become great, sometimes it just guarantees you're bad.
How many years have the Hawks, Suns, Nets, Knicks, Pelicans, Timberwolves, Wizards, Magic, Kings, etc been in the lottery in the last 15 years? Even the Cavs if you go out 16 years. The Cavs had 4 #1 overall picks including a generational pick in Lebron (Irving, Wiggins, Bennett). They only won a single ring.
Some will say those organizations continually suck because they continually tank. I believe they continually tank because the organizations continually suck.
Starver, Dolan, Grunfeld, Hennigan, Valde...those are some of the worst owners and GM's in the league.
That is possible. I can not say for sure. I will say that Dolan has never hampered the NY Rangers. He gives the team everything they need and the players love the organization. He is a bit more in to the Knicks though. I think often those teams picked guys that were rated high in drafts. I do not know why today the draft is such a crapshoot. With all the film, scouts, stats and technology you would think teams would have a better success rate. Some people will point to KL and Giannis and say see you can pick an elite player at #15 but what that tells me is that 14 teams scouts did not view them as elite players come draft time so how much of a crapshoot were those drafts. Even the Spurs said they had no idea KL would become this kind of offensive player. They wanted him for his defense. I think there are other factors as well. There just are not that many elite players in each years draft. It is rare for a team to draft 2 elite players close together. Injuries can play a role. FA can also play a role. Even trade demands can play a role. Almost every team tries to build through the draft but if it was easy more would succeed.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point.
spearsy23 wrote:Odds say you're more likely to get a good player at 1 than 2, 2 than 3, 3 than 4, etc. But that's based on year over year results. The reality is that almost every year there's a top 3 guy that's not selected until pick 10-15. I just don't see a point in going all in on a tank unless there's a Duncan/Lebron/Shaq type assured generational talent coming out. Have your players compete and develop, and if you're competently bad then identify the kawhi,giannis, Booker, mitchell, sga, lavine, klay, PG. It's obviously not that easy identifying them, otherwise they wouldn't be there. but it avoids the trap of selling off all your good players and then gambling the next ten years because nobody wants to play for you. For every okc success story there's 10-15 years of Sacramento/Phoenix failure. On top of that, presti stumbled into the greatest rebuild of all time and still failed to win a championship. Being bad doesn't guarantee you become great, sometimes it just guarantees you're bad.
How many years have the Hawks, Suns, Nets, Knicks, Pelicans, Timberwolves, Wizards, Magic, Kings, etc been in the lottery in the last 15 years? Even the Cavs if you go out 16 years. The Cavs had 4 #1 overall picks including a generational pick in Lebron (Irving, Wiggins, Bennett). They only won a single ring.
Some will say those organizations continually suck because they continually tank. I believe they continually tank because the organizations continually suck.
Starver, Dolan, Grunfeld, Hennigan, Valde...those are some of the worst owners and GM's in the league.
Hennigan was very highly respected before his magic tenure, the kings sucked well before vlade, sarver has had a great team before even while cheaping out. Realize you're talking about 1/3 of the league here, just saying 'those teams suck' is reductive.
The reality is that tanking is gambling. You can maximize your odds by playing your hand the right way, but if the cards fall wrong there's nothing you can do.
Maybe you draft the best player in the draft one year but it takes him 5 years to break out. maybe you draft the consensus BPA and he busts. maybe you get that transcendent player but he's too good for you to get that 2nd star and too oft injured to make a real push. Maybe you trade for a 2nd star and his body breaks down in a contract year.
There's just so many variables and all it takes is one wrong break and you're back where you started. Especially now that guys aren't even making it through their 2nd contract with your team. It's a risk, and one I don't believe recent history shows will pay off. I've gone through this list before, but recent champions didn't win due to tanking. They all repeatedly slammed their head against the '2nd round exit' wall until they broke through it (with the exception of Cleveland, who only got their opportunity because lebron was from Ohio, which I don't believe is generally a viable strategy).
Imo if you wanna be good don't try to be bad to achieve that. It gets you stuck in a negative feedback loop unless you get really lucky. Eventually, through talent, injury, or luck, you're going to be bad anyway, so why build a culture that expects it?
“If you're getting stops and you're making threes and the other team's not scoring, that's when you're going to see a huge point difference there,” coach Billy Donovan said.
Galloisdaman wrote:How many years have the Hawks, Suns, Nets, Knicks, Pelicans, Timberwolves, Wizards, Magic, Kings, etc been in the lottery in the last 15 years? Even the Cavs if you go out 16 years. The Cavs had 4 #1 overall picks including a generational pick in Lebron (Irving, Wiggins, Bennett). They only won a single ring.
The Cavs traded Wiggins for an injury prone veteran that never played defense and Bennett might be the worst pick at #1 ever. Phoenix, Sacramento and Atlanta all passed on Luka and only Phoenix has any excuse for it. Minny traded away picks and developing youth for Butler who they then gave away to Philly because they are terribly managed. NOLA was in the 2nd round not long ago and then Davis decided he wanted to go party with celebrities. Wizards were pretty much exactly what OKC is until Wall got hurt as a regular first round exit with a rare late lottery pick. When was the last time the Nets got to use one of their own top 5 picks? The Nets traded them all away. The Knicks traded everything for Melo then continued to keep trying to build around a one dimensional role player instead of actually building a team.
You can always pick the worst managed teams and ask why they suck. I can do it in the NFL, also. When was the last time the Dolphins made the playoffs?
"The secret to success is to offend the greatest number of people." -George Bernard Shaw
Its really a combination of factors that make those organizations perennial losers but it boils down to that they have poor leadership. Hennigan might have been well respected but he wasn't a good GM. Similar to the good defensive coordinator that isn't a good head coach. Also, their owner started putting pressure on him to make the playoffs because he got impatient. The kings have a meddling owner that wants to imitate his daughters junior varsity full court press. Sarver has been bad longer than he's been good. I don't think I need to elaborate on the knicks. You don't hear of Clay Bennett dictating how things should be done or having former players escorted out of the arena for harassing him for being a lousy owner. Nor do we hear about Sam Presti leaving up white boards with possible trades of his current players.
I do think the nets are a good example of turning a culture around with a good gm and head coach. We'll see what their new owner turns out to become. The clippers turned their culture around too. However those two teams are in the two biggest markets in the country. We don't realistically have the same path to success as the clippers and nets. If we try to stay competitive like last years Nets or Clippers team, whats the next step? Do we sign Durant and Kyrie or Leonard and then force a small market team to trade their all nba player?
We build through the draft. I just don't see it any other way. I think the thunder culture is our biggest strength and that will prevent us from bottoming out for an extended period of time. The thunder organization has their faults but when I read what goes on with other teams, we are so much better off. It doesn't mean some things don't drive me crazy about Sam, Billy and company but I don't think this organization will get stuck in the basement barring horrible luck with injuries.
As I've stated before, I'm not an advocate for tanking, especially long term. I don't remember if it was the Hawks or Memphis that kept signing guys to 10 day contacts to tank. They wouldn't even play their best players at the end of some of the games. I'm not advocating for that. My issue is that if we don't trust Presti to be successful with picks 1-10, I don't see the point in trusting him to find the hidden gem with picks 11-20. We've got Shai and that's a great start. If we get one more player that is at least as good as him, that changes things a lot, imo.
bisme37 wrote:If there were magnets in basketballs so strong they changed the path of the ball as it flew through the air, wouldn't the ball then stick magnetically to the rim when it got there?
Its really a combination of factors that make those organizations perennial losers but it boils down to that they have poor leadership. Hennigan might have been well respected but he wasn't a good GM. Similar to the good defensive coordinator that isn't a good head coach. Also, their owner started putting pressure on him to make the playoffs because he got impatient. The kings have a meddling owner that wants to imitate his daughters junior varsity full court press. Sarver has been bad longer than he's been good. I don't think I need to elaborate on the knicks. You don't hear of Clay Bennett dictating how things should be done or having former players escorted out of the arena for harassing him for being a lousy owner. Nor do we hear about Sam Presti leaving up white boards with possible trades of his current players.
I do think the nets are a good example of turning a culture around with a good gm and head coach. We'll see what their new owner turns out to become. The clippers turned their culture around too. However those two teams are in the two biggest markets in the country. We don't realistically have the same path to success as the clippers and nets. If we try to stay competitive like last years Nets or Clippers team, whats the next step? Do we sign Durant and Kyrie or Leonard and then force a small market team to trade their all nba player?
We build through the draft. I just don't see it any other way. I think the thunder culture is our biggest strength and that will prevent us from bottoming out for an extended period of time. The thunder organization has their faults but when I read what goes on with other teams, we are so much better off. It doesn't mean some things don't drive me crazy about Sam, Billy and company but I don't think this organization will get stuck in the basement barring horrible luck with injuries.
As I've stated before, I'm not an advocate for tanking, especially long term. I don't remember if it was the Hawks or Memphis that kept signing guys to 10 day contacts to tank. They wouldn't even play their best players at the end of some of the games. I'm not advocating for that. My issue is that if we don't trust Presti to be successful with picks 1-10, I don't see the point in trusting him to find the hidden gem with picks 11-20. We've got Shai and that's a great start. If we get one more player that is at least as good as him, that changes things a lot, imo.
I understand your points. I like your posts because you think in a logical way. SGA has been really good this season. I know you are thinking future but right now they do have 2-3 other guys playing pretty darn well also.
My eyes glaze over when reading alternative stat (not advanced stat) narratives that go many paragraphs long. If you can not make your point in 2 paragraphs it may not be a great point.
