Weltman Talks to Robbins on Future of the Roster ($)

[Skin]

This is what I expected the team to do and I agree. There is no way they are going to trade away everyone and try to become the worst team in the league for 3 straight seasons praying to god they get lucky to win a superstar with very very low odds of that happening just to end up in the same position they are in now which has very very high odds of happening.

If you are even modestly competent, you aren't trading everyone away to chase a high draft pick. That's just a potential corollary benefit of trading away some short-term value to acquire future assets. The goal should be to leverage assets such that they align to provide the greatest value to you in the long term. E.g. Anthony Davis is a great player, but he wasn't worth nearly as much to New Orleans last year as he would've been to a contender. The assets that the Lakers traded to New Orleans were worth far more to New Orleans than they were to the Lakers. Any particular asset doesn't have the same value to every team at any given time. This is why you can have trades where everyone wins (Anthony Davis trade) or where everyone loses (Dwight Howard trade). Trades aren't zero sum.

We aren't competing now regardless of what we do, so the worst course of action we could take would be to trade future assets in an effort to win more games now. I wouldn't really say this is what this front office has done, though that is based almost exclusively on the Fultz trade. Our use of roster spots has clearly been oriented towards the immediate future. There is a clear contrast between how we have constructed our roster and how Denver or Toronto have constructed theirs. You can argue that Ennis, Aminu, Carter-Williams, or Birch have been useful additions to some extent or another, but how will those allocations of roster spots and minutes work out for us in three years' time?

#1: No team is trading a top 5 pick for anybody on this team.
#2: It would take probably 3-4 seasons of being the worst team in the entire NBA to maybe get lucky and win a superstar in the draft. Then, it would still take years to develop a winning team.
#3: The vast majority of the top teams in the NBA did not get there through the draft but by GM's making risky moves.
#4: Our GM's don't make risky moves. Need new GM.

#1: Agreed
#2: Even if we got rid of all of Henny's guys, we wouldn't be the worst team in the league. We'd get true development and evaluation though.
#3: All lies. GS, DEN, TOR, BOS, MIL all heavily reliant on players they drafted.
#4: True, but you are the very one that hates any talk of us making risky moves. Should we fire your thoughts? lol

[Bensational]

Um no, JJ is very good spot up shooter that moves off screens, but super predictable and only useful on team filled with actual traets.
When he was on Bucks, with Jennings and Monta, he was usless , because there was nobody to drag defenders away from him.
But since that, he played with : Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Embiid, Simmons, Ingram, Zion and JImmy Butler.

Since he leaved Orlando he was never anything more 3rd to 4th , in some cases 5th option.

How teams adjust to him is best viewed in playoffs, he is career over 13 ppg player who shoots 41,6% for 3, HOWEVER, he is only 10,9 ppg, 37% three point shooter in playoffs.

This doesn't even take in account no ballhandling skills, poor passing, horrific defense... Pretty much he is bit better version of Kyle Korver. That's why they last so long, they are spot up shooters who avoid most of the contact and play basketball like it's pick up game, No defense, limited effort, avoiding contact , just curling off screens for their own shots, and add no value if they don't shoot other than being treats if they get outside shot.
And pretty much force you into 4 on 5 on defense because they bring nothing to that side. During 76ers run JJ was always biggest target of every offense, and they tried to switch everything but simply could not with him, as he could not contain any player in front of him. Some were too fast ( pretty much any guards) some too strong ( vast majority of SFs, PFs and Cs).
Korver is, according to RPM, one of worst defenders for years.

JJ took 6% of his total shots inside 3 feet. Six. Even when he goes to FT line it's based on jumpshot foul, not him driving.
Also 93% of his 3s are assisted.


82% of Evan threes are assisted.

No, JJ was converted into a pure shooter, but his skills go beyond that. Doc did the same thing to Ray Allen with Boston. That's not a comp between the two, just an example of how coaches use players when they have certain combos of players.

As a 3rd, 4th or 5th option off the ball he is always the #1 decoy. And when the ball does get to him the play is for him to shoot every time like Ross. That doesn't mean he's incapable of making good, smart passes anymore, it's just not what his game has been shaped to be.

How you describe JJ is how Fournier *should* be used. Even if we lack other ballhandlers, he should still be made to play off the ball, and should be a 3rd or 4th option behind players much better than Vuc and Gordon. JJ's playoff decline is nothing compared to Fournier. 26% 3pt shooting in the playoffs for his career. His TS% for the playoffs is 46% damn. Even Gordon shot 40% from 3 in last season's playoffs.

[TheGlyde]

#1: exactly why we should be trading our guys. If they don't have that value, then they're not good enough to carry a good team. Butler got LaVine and a #7 pick.

#2: you can't predict something like that, but Memphis and New Orleans would serve as strong examples of bucking that trend. The Magic have done so before. Even the Jazz and Bucks managed to draft franchise talent and turn their franchises around almost overnight.

#3: you are completely wrong on this point. Completely.

#4: you are completely correct on this point. Completely.

#3: Miami, Clips and Lakers didn't get there by tanking. Boston did. 3 of 4 sounds right to me.

#3 you said "they didn't get there through the draft", but now you're saying tanking. Let's stick to the original thought:

Miami - drafted Bam + Herro, they traded Richardson and Winslow, former players they'd drafted, to help them get Butler and Igoudala. Miami doesn't have their current team without the draft.

Clippers - drafted SGA who allowed them to trade for PG, which secured the signing of Kawhi. Without the draft they can't build that team.

Lakers - drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, Hart, etc. Traded D'Lo to clear space to attract Bron. Traded the rest of their drafted players for Davis. Again, they don't have that team without the draft.

Boston - Tatum, Brown, Smart are all draft picks who are playing lead roles for them.

Nuggets - Jokic, Murray, MPJr, Harris, Morris, etc all drafted.

The draft is essential to building a good team. Maximising value from any draft spot to have high value talent on cost effective contracts are the critical pieces to making leaps forward.

You know I love you Ben but I think some of this is a bit of a stretch (ie a bit too literal)...

I mean, every team gets 2 draft picks every year, almost every transaction is going to have some link to the draft at some point... So you could probably join the dots to say that every team in history was 'built through the draft' the way that you did it...

I mean... In 2005 Miami drafted Wayne Simien. In 2007 they traded him and a 1st rounder to the T-Wolves for a package containing Mark Blount. They flipped Blount for Q-Rich's big expiring contract, which gave Miami enough cap space to trade 6 picks for Lebron and Bosh.

Is this building through the draft?

[zaymon]

#3: Miami, Clips and Lakers didn't get there by tanking. Boston did. 3 of 4 sounds right to me.

#3 you said "they didn't get there through the draft", but now you're saying tanking. Let's stick to the original thought:

Miami - drafted Bam + Herro, they traded Richardson and Winslow, former players they'd drafted, to help them get Butler and Igoudala. Miami doesn't have their current team without the draft.

Clippers - drafted SGA who allowed them to trade for PG, which secured the signing of Kawhi. Without the draft they can't build that team.

Lakers - drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, Hart, etc. Traded D'Lo to clear space to attract Bron. Traded the rest of their drafted players for Davis. Again, they don't have that team without the draft.

Boston - Tatum, Brown, Smart are all draft picks who are playing lead roles for them.

Nuggets - Jokic, Murray, MPJr, Harris, Morris, etc all drafted.

The draft is essential to building a good team. Maximising value from any draft spot to have high value talent on cost effective contracts are the critical pieces to making leaps forward.

You know I love you Ben but I think some of this is a bit of a stretch (ie a bit too literal)...

I mean, every team gets 2 draft picks every year, almost every transaction is going to have some link to the draft at some point... So you could probably join the dots to say that every team in history was 'built through the draft' the way that you did it...

I mean... In 2005 Miami drafted Wayne Simien. In 2007 they traded him and a 1st rounder to the T-Wolves for a package containing Mark Blount. They flipped Blount for Q-Rich's big expiring contract, which gave Miami enough cap space to trade 6 picks for Lebron and Bosh.

Is this building through the draft?

The level of word twisting in this discussion is amazing. Glyde on watch to defend the common sense.
What are you guys tryimg to do ? Build a family tree of the nba or compare team building strategies ?. Its obvious you want to be successful in the draft no matter where you pick, and as Gkyde wrote you get 2 draft picks every year for free. It would be different if only lottery teams got draft picks.

[MagicMatic]

#3 you said "they didn't get there through the draft", but now you're saying tanking. Let's stick to the original thought:

Miami - drafted Bam + Herro, they traded Richardson and Winslow, former players they'd drafted, to help them get Butler and Igoudala. Miami doesn't have their current team without the draft.

Clippers - drafted SGA who allowed them to trade for PG, which secured the signing of Kawhi. Without the draft they can't build that team.

Lakers - drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, Hart, etc. Traded D'Lo to clear space to attract Bron. Traded the rest of their drafted players for Davis. Again, they don't have that team without the draft.

Boston - Tatum, Brown, Smart are all draft picks who are playing lead roles for them.

Nuggets - Jokic, Murray, MPJr, Harris, Morris, etc all drafted.

The draft is essential to building a good team. Maximising value from any draft spot to have high value talent on cost effective contracts are the critical pieces to making leaps forward.

You know I love you Ben but I think some of this is a bit of a stretch (ie a bit too literal)...

I mean, every team gets 2 draft picks every year, almost every transaction is going to have some link to the draft at some point... So you could probably join the dots to say that every team in history was 'built through the draft' the way that you did it...

I mean... In 2005 Miami drafted Wayne Simien. In 2007 they traded him and a 1st rounder to the T-Wolves for a package containing Mark Blount. They flipped Blount for Q-Rich's big expiring contract, which gave Miami enough cap space to trade 6 picks for Lebron and Bosh.

Is this building through the draft?

The level of word twisting in this discussion is amazing. Glyde on watch to defend the common sense.
What are you guys tryimg to do ? Build a family tree of the nba or compare team building strategies ?. Its obvious you want to be successful in the draft no matter where you pick, and as Gkyde wrote you get 2 draft picks every year for free. It would be different if only lottery teams got draft picks.

I think it’s pretty apparent what his point is without looking too far into it. Maybe because it’s not convenient for people’s argument?

These organizations drafted the core of their teams that directly turned into positive valuable assets, mostly on the court or via trade of said cultivated assets. Either way, they utilized their drafting ability to build their team directly.

Orlando hasn’t done that apart from Isaac...So what is confusing about it? Lol.

Also, what are you even arguing? Do you seriously think some successful organizations haven’t built teams using the draft? You can’t actually believe that.

[pepe1991]

Um no, JJ is very good spot up shooter that moves off screens, but super predictable and only useful on team filled with actual traets.
When he was on Bucks, with Jennings and Monta, he was usless , because there was nobody to drag defenders away from him.
But since that, he played with : Chris Paul, Blake Griffin, Embiid, Simmons, Ingram, Zion and JImmy Butler.

Since he leaved Orlando he was never anything more 3rd to 4th , in some cases 5th option.

How teams adjust to him is best viewed in playoffs, he is career over 13 ppg player who shoots 41,6% for 3, HOWEVER, he is only 10,9 ppg, 37% three point shooter in playoffs.

This doesn't even take in account no ballhandling skills, poor passing, horrific defense... Pretty much he is bit better version of Kyle Korver. That's why they last so long, they are spot up shooters who avoid most of the contact and play basketball like it's pick up game, No defense, limited effort, avoiding contact , just curling off screens for their own shots, and add no value if they don't shoot other than being treats if they get outside shot.
And pretty much force you into 4 on 5 on defense because they bring nothing to that side. During 76ers run JJ was always biggest target of every offense, and they tried to switch everything but simply could not with him, as he could not contain any player in front of him. Some were too fast ( pretty much any guards) some too strong ( vast majority of SFs, PFs and Cs).
Korver is, according to RPM, one of worst defenders for years.

JJ took 6% of his total shots inside 3 feet. Six. Even when he goes to FT line it's based on jumpshot foul, not him driving.
Also 93% of his 3s are assisted.


82% of Evan threes are assisted.

No, JJ was converted into a pure shooter, but his skills go beyond that. Doc did the same thing to Ray Allen with Boston. That's not a comp between the two, just an example of how coaches use players when they have certain combos of players.

As a 3rd, 4th or 5th option off the ball he is always the #1 decoy. And when the ball does get to him the play is for him to shoot every time like Ross. That doesn't mean he's incapable of making good, smart passes anymore, it's just not what his game has been shaped to be.

How you describe JJ is how Fournier *should* be used. Even if we lack other ballhandlers, he should still be made to play off the ball, and should be a 3rd or 4th option behind players much better than Vuc and Gordon. JJ's playoff decline is nothing compared to Fournier. 26% 3pt shooting in the playoffs for his career. His TS% for the playoffs is 46% damn. Even Gordon shot 40% from 3 in last season's playoffs.

Biggest difference is level of talent around Evan and JJ that puts them into different roles.

JJ was lucky enough to spend most of his career along at least 1 allstar. Prior Pelicans, he spent 6 years in a row on teams with 2 allstars. With Philadelphia at one point he played with 3 allstars at once. With Clippers he played with one of best PG in NBA and one of best passers in hisory in Chris Paul. ( 7th in all time assists list, objective chance he finishes 3rd best ever ).
Now he is on PElicans and they have Zion, Lonzo, Ingram, Holiday... once again he gets as good looks as it's possible.

This is not me trying to disscredit his role, he is amazing shooter in jumpshooting league, but Evan never was in situation where he could be just shooter. JJ Reick is just a shooter. Elite at that. But second best player Evan ever played with, on Orlando is Oladipo. Oladipo would not make top 10 list of JJ Redick's teammates in his career ( Howard, Embiid, Simmons, Butler, Paul, Griffin, Vince, Rashard, Zion, Holiday...)

Evan on Orlando can't be used in that fashion for simple reason: nobody is there to make plays for him to put him into spot up shooting role more.
Joe Harris is best example of spot up shooter who's career went from being cut by Orlando as filler asset, given opportunity on 20-62 Nets to flat out elite shooter by pretty much only changing team around him. Guy didn't play serious NBA min before he turned 25.

[Bensational]

#3: Miami, Clips and Lakers didn't get there by tanking. Boston did. 3 of 4 sounds right to me.

#3 you said "they didn't get there through the draft", but now you're saying tanking. Let's stick to the original thought:

Miami - drafted Bam + Herro, they traded Richardson and Winslow, former players they'd drafted, to help them get Butler and Igoudala. Miami doesn't have their current team without the draft.

Clippers - drafted SGA who allowed them to trade for PG, which secured the signing of Kawhi. Without the draft they can't build that team.

Lakers - drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, Hart, etc. Traded D'Lo to clear space to attract Bron. Traded the rest of their drafted players for Davis. Again, they don't have that team without the draft.

Boston - Tatum, Brown, Smart are all draft picks who are playing lead roles for them.

Nuggets - Jokic, Murray, MPJr, Harris, Morris, etc all drafted.

The draft is essential to building a good team. Maximising value from any draft spot to have high value talent on cost effective contracts are the critical pieces to making leaps forward.

You know I love you Ben but I think some of this is a bit of a stretch (ie a bit too literal)...

I mean, every team gets 2 draft picks every year, almost every transaction is going to have some link to the draft at some point... So you could probably join the dots to say that every team in history was 'built through the draft' the way that you did it...

I mean... In 2005 Miami drafted Wayne Simien. In 2007 they traded him and a 1st rounder to the T-Wolves for a package containing Mark Blount. They flipped Blount for Q-Rich's big expiring contract, which gave Miami enough cap space to trade 6 picks for Lebron and Bosh.

Is this building through the draft?

I don't think anything I said was much of a twist. Maximising your picks at any position is key, and that's how the good teams do it. Just because we haven't doesn't make the route less feasible.

What's "building through the draft" mean then? Are we now saying it's only reserved for teams that exclusively draft and retain a core contending team like GSW or OKC? I take it to mean using the draft as the means to acquire your best value pieces, whether they're kept or moved for a better fitting piece.

[pepe1991]

If you are even modestly competent, you aren't trading everyone away to chase a high draft pick. That's just a potential corollary benefit of trading away some short-term value to acquire future assets. The goal should be to leverage assets such that they align to provide the greatest value to you in the long term. E.g. Anthony Davis is a great player, but he wasn't worth nearly as much to New Orleans last year as he would've been to a contender. The assets that the Lakers traded to New Orleans were worth far more to New Orleans than they were to the Lakers. Any particular asset doesn't have the same value to every team at any given time. This is why you can have trades where everyone wins (Anthony Davis trade) or where everyone loses (Dwight Howard trade). Trades aren't zero sum.

We aren't competing now regardless of what we do, so the worst course of action we could take would be to trade future assets in an effort to win more games now. I wouldn't really say this is what this front office has done, though that is based almost exclusively on the Fultz trade. Our use of roster spots has clearly been oriented towards the immediate future. There is a clear contrast between how we have constructed our roster and how Denver or Toronto have constructed theirs. You can argue that Ennis, Aminu, Carter-Williams, or Birch have been useful additions to some extent or another, but how will those allocations of roster spots and minutes work out for us in three years' time?

#1: No team is trading a top 5 pick for anybody on this team.
#2: It would take probably 3-4 seasons of being the worst team in the entire NBA to maybe get lucky and win a superstar in the draft. Then, it would still take years to develop a winning team.
#3: The vast majority of the top teams in the NBA did not get there through the draft but by GM's making risky moves.
#4: Our GM's don't make risky moves. Need new GM.

#1: Agreed
#2: Even if we got rid of all of Henny's guys, we wouldn't be the worst team in the league. We'd get true development and evaluation though.
#3: All lies. GS, DEN, TOR, BOS, MIL all heavily reliant on players they drafted.
#4: True, but you are the very one that hates any talk of us making risky moves. Should we fire your thoughts? lol

3 isn't lie.

Most of this teams you mentioned never really tanked.

Raptors
For 7 years straight in playoffs. Siakam was 27th pick. Lowry wasn't even drafted by them, Terrence Ross is their last high draft pick.

Boston
Tatum and Brown are NOT THEIR PICKS, they are NETS picks that they wasted on KG and Paul Pierce trade disaster.

Bucks
Bucks did tank, however, not a single player from tanking era plays for them now. Middleton and Giannis are NOT lottery picks.

Nuggets Murray IS lottery pick BUT IT WASN'T THEIR PICK. Nuggets had right to swap picks with Knicks because of Carmelo Anthony trade that happend 5 years prior to 2016 draft. ALSO Jokić ISN'T LOTTERY PICK. Not even first round pick.

Warriors Another team that never actively tanked. They drafted Curry after bad year, but their added Klay after 36-46 season, that would make them 9th team on East. Given schedule difference, if they were on East, they would probably make playoffs. Not to mention they botched their 4th pick so badly in between Steph and Klay.

So now we know nobody tanked. And people should finally understand one thing:
between 40 to 60 new players every year enter NBA. Vast majority of them are drafted. So you can't just say for every player and every team that they are built through draft just because somebody drafted them. Because that's literally only way into NBA. ( there are like 2-5 undrafted ,yet signed new players every year, it's irrelevant number to even discuss ).

Drafting doesn't mean tanking. Magic, much like any other team, draft players, some teams find Gobert and Jokić, other teams find Iwundu and Frazier.

For God's sake i just can't understand why some people can't understand difference between drafting player and tanking for player. Tanking is openly sucking to get high draft pick and maximise odds of securing projected high upside talent that should be franchise altering guy.

Difference between great and average teams is asset menagment. Nobody had more lottery draft picks than Suns, T wovles and Kings last 10 years.

[zaymon]

You know I love you Ben but I think some of this is a bit of a stretch (ie a bit too literal)...

I mean, every team gets 2 draft picks every year, almost every transaction is going to have some link to the draft at some point... So you could probably join the dots to say that every team in history was 'built through the draft' the way that you did it...

I mean... In 2005 Miami drafted Wayne Simien. In 2007 they traded him and a 1st rounder to the T-Wolves for a package containing Mark Blount. They flipped Blount for Q-Rich's big expiring contract, which gave Miami enough cap space to trade 6 picks for Lebron and Bosh.

Is this building through the draft?

The level of word twisting in this discussion is amazing. Glyde on watch to defend the common sense.
What are you guys tryimg to do ? Build a family tree of the nba or compare team building strategies ?. Its obvious you want to be successful in the draft no matter where you pick, and as Gkyde wrote you get 2 draft picks every year for free. It would be different if only lottery teams got draft picks.

I think it’s pretty apparent what his point is without looking too far into it. Maybe because it’s not convenient for people’s argument?

These organizations drafted the core of their teams that directly turned into positive valuable assets, mostly on the court or via trade of said cultivated assets. Either way, they utilized their drafting ability to build their team directly.

Orlando hasn’t done that apart from Isaac...So what is confusing about it? Lol.

Also, what are you even arguing? Do you seriously think some successful organizations haven’t built teams using the draft? You can’t actually believe that.

Who drafted their core directly ? Lakers, Clippers, Boston with their picks, Miami who are winning becouse of Butler, Dragic and late lottery which are the least fight over picks in the draft ?
You dont even know what you are arguing about. Every team is using draft one way or the other becouse you get 2 free picks every year. Stating the obvious brings nothing to the discussion. We can also discuss if shooting the ball increases the chance of scoring a basket.
We used the draft when we tanked under Hennigan, we are using it right now when we are trying to win. What matters is quality of the player you selected but that is another discussion. Losing on purpose is different than selecting bpa regardless of draft position

[Skybox]

Alternative to building through the draft would be constructing a player like the guys in “Weird Science” ?

[MagicMatic]

The level of word twisting in this discussion is amazing. Glyde on watch to defend the common sense.
What are you guys tryimg to do ? Build a family tree of the nba or compare team building strategies ?. Its obvious you want to be successful in the draft no matter where you pick, and as Gkyde wrote you get 2 draft picks every year for free. It would be different if only lottery teams got draft picks.

I think it’s pretty apparent what his point is without looking too far into it. Maybe because it’s not convenient for people’s argument?

These organizations drafted the core of their teams that directly turned into positive valuable assets, mostly on the court or via trade of said cultivated assets. Either way, they utilized their drafting ability to build their team directly.

Orlando hasn’t done that apart from Isaac...So what is confusing about it? Lol.

Also, what are you even arguing? Do you seriously think some successful organizations haven’t built teams using the draft? You can’t actually believe that.

Who drafted their core directly ? Lakers, Clippers, Boston with their picks, Miami who are winning becouse of Butler, Dragic and late lottery which are the least fight over picks in the draft ?
You dont even know what you are arguing about. Every team is using draft one way or the other becouse you get 2 free picks every year. Stating the obvious brings nothing to the discussion. We can also discuss if shooting the ball increases the chance of scoring a basket.
We used the draft when we tanked under Hennigan, we are using it right now when we are trying to win. What matters is quality of the player you selected but that is another discussion. Losing on purpose is different than selecting bpa regardless of draft position

No ****. Teams get picks every season. Are you saying Miami didn’t draft Bam, Herro, and Josh Richardson? The last traded for Butler. Positive assets they developed via the draft. See how that works?

Clippers maybe not as much, but they still had to trade all of their picks/SGA to land PG and subsequently Kawhi. The rest of the teams used their drafted players in trades as trade chips. How is that not “getting there through the draft”? Lol.

If you don’t understand the difference between taking advantage of developing drafted players and tanking, then that’s on you. That was the original comment. Again, you’re being dense because it doesn’t conveniently fit your argument.

What does his comment have anything to do with losing on purpose? Christ you guys are parroting the same **** whenever if pertains to the draft regardless of it has anything to do with tanking. You are terrified.

[fendilim]

evan and redick are totally different players.

Redick is definitely a better shooter, but Evan is a more complete offensive player. I doubt Redick can even handle the role of Evan as efficient as Redick is as an off the screen shooter, especially on this team where offensive threats are limited thus opponents simply zero in on guys like Evan, Ross, Vuc and Dj and dare others to beat them. These were evident during the playoffs.

Redick would simply be treated as another TRoss coming off screens, opposing players would simply delay him from curling off the screen so his man can chase him.


Also, evan walking simply dont make sense for us. In fact his expiring contract might come in handy for team owners who might look into lowering the salaries they are paying due to financial constraints caused by the pandemic.

Exactly, Redick wouldnt even get his shot off. Ross is three times as athletic as JJ and couldnt create much threes against bucks. Redick is not a ball handler, Fournier is secondary ball handler while we need a primary ball handler.

You guys don't know JJ. His team's have come to keep him as a forever moving off-ball threat, but he can still handle enough on the perimeter to make entry passes, and his IQ is a million times higher than Fournier. He would be an amazing presence for developing youth (he's currently taking NAW under his belt), and he would probably be even more of a crowd puller than Fournier with his history with the team.

Yeah we need a secondary ballhandler, but that just needs to be another wing. JJ at SG with Fultz and a playmaking 3 would be just fine.

True, redick is a high basketball player and brings a lot of intangibles off the court.

But the comparison Xaticus posted was Redick vs Fournier on the court.

[Skin]

#1: No team is trading a top 5 pick for anybody on this team.
#2: It would take probably 3-4 seasons of being the worst team in the entire NBA to maybe get lucky and win a superstar in the draft. Then, it would still take years to develop a winning team.
#3: The vast majority of the top teams in the NBA did not get there through the draft but by GM's making risky moves.
#4: Our GM's don't make risky moves. Need new GM.

#1: Agreed
#2: Even if we got rid of all of Henny's guys, we wouldn't be the worst team in the league. We'd get true development and evaluation though.
#3: All lies. GS, DEN, TOR, BOS, MIL all heavily reliant on players they drafted.
#4: True, but you are the very one that hates any talk of us making risky moves. Should we fire your thoughts? lol

3 isn't lie.

Most of this teams you mentioned never really tanked.

Raptors
For 7 years straight in playoffs. Siakam was 27th pick. Lowry wasn't even drafted by them, Terrence Ross is their last high draft pick.

Boston
Tatum and Brown are NOT THEIR PICKS, they are NETS picks that they wasted on KG and Paul Pierce trade disaster.

Bucks
Bucks did tank, however, not a single player from tanking era plays for them now. Middleton and Giannis are NOT lottery picks.

Nuggets Murray IS lottery pick BUT IT WASN'T THEIR PICK. Nuggets had right to swap picks with Knicks because of Carmelo Anthony trade that happend 5 years prior to 2016 draft. ALSO Jokić ISN'T LOTTERY PICK. Not even first round pick.

Warriors Another team that never actively tanked. They drafted Curry after bad year, but their added Klay after 36-46 season, that would make them 9th team on East. Given schedule difference, if they were on East, they would probably make playoffs. Not to mention they botched their 4th pick so badly in between Steph and Klay.

So now we know nobody tanked. And people should finally understand one thing:
between 40 to 60 new players every year enter NBA. Vast majority of them are drafted. So you can't just say for every player and every team that they are built through draft just because somebody drafted them. Because that's literally only way into NBA. ( there are like 2-5 undrafted ,yet signed new players every year, it's irrelevant number to even discuss ).

Drafting doesn't mean tanking. Magic, much like any other team, draft players, some teams find Gobert and Jokić, other teams find Iwundu and Frazier.

For God's sake i just can't understand why some people can't understand difference between drafting player and tanking for player. Tanking is openly sucking to get high draft pick and maximise odds of securing projected high upside talent that should be franchise altering guy.

Difference between great and average teams is asset menagment. Nobody had more lottery draft picks than Suns, T wovles and Kings last 10 years.

Neither BMP or I were talking about tanking. The word tank was not even brought up. He said no contender built through the draft and I countered saying many of their players were players they drafted.

So you can get off your soapbox.

Everyone knows that having a high draft pick is not enough. You still have to draft the right player. The reason why the Suns, Kings, and Wolves continue to struggle is because they don't make good decisions. Hitting once is not enough. Any idiot can hit once. You have to stack them together. That's why a GM gets paid millions. If you have a bad GM, too bad for you. WeHam has the job here because of Giannis and Siakam. If those teams you mentioned hit on each pick every year, then you'd say tanking works.

The teams that aren't picking in the lottery are success stories of teams making right decisions that prevent them from being there year after year. The way you view "tanking" is all wrong because you're only looking at the teams that suck at drafting. The teams that get out of the lottery hole are not mentioned in your criticism, because they didn't suck at drafting, but that doesn't mean they didn't use the draft to get better.

[zaymon]

I think it’s pretty apparent what his point is without looking too far into it. Maybe because it’s not convenient for people’s argument?

These organizations drafted the core of their teams that directly turned into positive valuable assets, mostly on the court or via trade of said cultivated assets. Either way, they utilized their drafting ability to build their team directly.

Orlando hasn’t done that apart from Isaac...So what is confusing about it? Lol.

Also, what are you even arguing? Do you seriously think some successful organizations haven’t built teams using the draft? You can’t actually believe that.

Who drafted their core directly ? Lakers, Clippers, Boston with their picks, Miami who are winning becouse of Butler, Dragic and late lottery which are the least fight over picks in the draft ?
You dont even know what you are arguing about. Every team is using draft one way or the other becouse you get 2 free picks every year. Stating the obvious brings nothing to the discussion. We can also discuss if shooting the ball increases the chance of scoring a basket.
We used the draft when we tanked under Hennigan, we are using it right now when we are trying to win. What matters is quality of the player you selected but that is another discussion. Losing on purpose is different than selecting bpa regardless of draft position

No ****. Teams get picks every season. Are you saying Miami didn’t draft Bam, Herro, and Josh Richardson? The last traded for Butler. Positive assets they developed via the draft. See how that works?

Clippers maybe not as much, but they still had to trade all of their picks/SGA to land PG and subsequently Kawhi. The rest of the teams used their drafted players in trades as trade chips. How is that not “getting there through the draft”? Lol.

If you don’t understand the difference between taking advantage of developing drafted players and tanking, then that’s on you. That was the original comment. Again, you’re being dense because it doesn’t conveniently fit your argument.

What does his comment have anything to do with losing on purpose? Christ you guys are parroting the same **** whenever if pertains to the draft regardless of it has anything to do with tanking. You are terrified.

Its not even my argument i just pointed out that they discussed totally different things.
1. Every team uses draft to get better, contenders used their resources better.
2. Miami, Boston, Denver and Clippers never actively tried to improve their draft position as a team building strategy.
3. Lakers actively improved their draft position for many years but that strategy failed. Main reason they are contenders is that Lebron signed with them despite Lakers being laughing stock of the nba.
Are we on the same page ?

[TheGlyde]

#3 you said "they didn't get there through the draft", but now you're saying tanking. Let's stick to the original thought:

Miami - drafted Bam + Herro, they traded Richardson and Winslow, former players they'd drafted, to help them get Butler and Igoudala. Miami doesn't have their current team without the draft.

Clippers - drafted SGA who allowed them to trade for PG, which secured the signing of Kawhi. Without the draft they can't build that team.

Lakers - drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, Hart, etc. Traded D'Lo to clear space to attract Bron. Traded the rest of their drafted players for Davis. Again, they don't have that team without the draft.

Boston - Tatum, Brown, Smart are all draft picks who are playing lead roles for them.

Nuggets - Jokic, Murray, MPJr, Harris, Morris, etc all drafted.

The draft is essential to building a good team. Maximising value from any draft spot to have high value talent on cost effective contracts are the critical pieces to making leaps forward.

You know I love you Ben but I think some of this is a bit of a stretch (ie a bit too literal)...

I mean, every team gets 2 draft picks every year, almost every transaction is going to have some link to the draft at some point... So you could probably join the dots to say that every team in history was 'built through the draft' the way that you did it...

I mean... In 2005 Miami drafted Wayne Simien. In 2007 they traded him and a 1st rounder to the T-Wolves for a package containing Mark Blount. They flipped Blount for Q-Rich's big expiring contract, which gave Miami enough cap space to trade 6 picks for Lebron and Bosh.

Is this building through the draft?

I don't think anything I said was much of a twist. Maximising your picks at any position is key, and that's how the good teams do it. Just because we haven't doesn't make the route less feasible.

What's "building through the draft" mean then? Are we now saying it's only reserved for teams that exclusively draft and retain a core contending team like GSW or OKC? I take it to mean using the draft as the means to acquire your best value pieces, whether they're kept or moved for a better fitting piece.

I think we have actually struck upon something here which explains not only this whole back and forth, but much of the recent back and forth on this Magic board.

It is all because of two vastly differing opinions on what "Building through the draft" actually means.

It's taken me off guard somewhat, because I never considered things the way you, MagicMatic and some others look at "building through the draft" as logical.

To me (I don't want to speak for pepe, zaymon, others etc) I base it on the transaction through which a player was acquired...

Not the transaction prior (or transaction(s) prior?) I'm not sure how far the rabbit hole is allowed to go... All the way back to the draft I guess?

There's 3 basic transactions right?
- If you drafted your core, you built through the draft
- If you traded for your core players, you built through trades
- If you signed core players in free agency, you built through free agency

If you don't see things that way, I can see why you could basically say that every team built through the draft, but I think this is a very flawed way of looking at things, as the reverse can just as easily be argued (where did you get those picks Boston, hmmm?) and thats exactly why we end up in these back and forth, circular arguments.

It's all over the definition/semantics of "building through the draft"

If you look at things the way you spelled out, where do you draw the line? I mean is there a certain degree of separation? Is there a time limit? If a drafted asset is on your team for 10 years and then you trade them, is this building through the draft? or trade?

Eg:
Were we built through the draft because we drafted Dwight and then traded him for Vuc?

Or more pointedly,
Were the 2019 NBA Champions Toronto built through the draft because they drafted DeMar Derozan and traded him for Kawhi?
Were the 2008 NBA Champions Boston built through the draft because they drafted Jeff Green, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes, Al Jefferson and Gerald Green and traded them for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett?

These are probably two of the most well known trades in NBA history that led directly to titles... Or was it all just building through the draft?

Again, wouldn't this make every team built through the draft through this logic, in some way, if you stretch it far enough?

And can't you use the same logic to stretch it the other way?

Lets look at the Paul George trade. You said it was a 'build through draft' move because the Clippers used SGA in the trade (who they drafted).

What is Gallinari? Chopped liver? He scored 19.8ppg for the Clippers last season... and 18.7 for OKC this season. Does OKC trade George just for SGA and picks? I don't think so... So how is this transaction 'building through the draft' when the Clippers only drafted one half of the assets? Can't you just as easily say this was a build through trades because;
1. They traded to get Gallo and
2. They traded to get........... Paul George

Here's a tough one;
How were the 2006 NBA Champion Miami Heat built? They drafted Wade, but the Shaq trade is what put them over the top to win an actual title.

But they traded Lamar Odom, Brian Grant and Caron Butler to get Shaq.
Now Miami;
- Drafted Butler
- Traded for Grant and
- Signed Odom in Free Agency...

So which logic are we using for this to determine how Miami built their team (draft? trade? or FA?)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just use... The actual transaction (ie the trade)?

Conclusion:
The Celtics drafted Tatum, Brown and Smart. They built through the draft. Otherwise you could argue the reverse "Well no, they traded for those picks, they weren't their own picks"... No. Stop. The Celtics built through the draft.

The Lakers built through Free Agency and Trades. They drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma and those players took the team exactly nowhere. Nowhere. They flipped them for assets and built through FA and Trade to get to the team they are now.

The Clippers, same. built through Free Agency (Kawhi) and Trades (George).

[BadMofoPimp]

#1: exactly why we should be trading our guys. If they don't have that value, then they're not good enough to carry a good team. Butler got LaVine and a #7 pick.

#2: you can't predict something like that, but Memphis and New Orleans would serve as strong examples of bucking that trend. The Magic have done so before. Even the Jazz and Bucks managed to draft franchise talent and turn their franchises around almost overnight.

#3: you are completely wrong on this point. Completely.

#4: you are completely correct on this point. Completely.

#3: Miami, Clips and Lakers didn't get there by tanking. Boston did. 3 of 4 sounds right to me.

#3 you said "they didn't get there through the draft", but now you're saying tanking. Let's stick to the original thought:

Miami - drafted Bam + Herro, they traded Richardson and Winslow, former players they'd drafted, to help them get Butler and Igoudala. Miami doesn't have their current team without the draft.

Clippers - drafted SGA who allowed them to trade for PG, which secured the signing of Kawhi. Without the draft they can't build that team.

Lakers - drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma, Hart, etc. Traded D'Lo to clear space to attract Bron. Traded the rest of their drafted players for Davis. Again, they don't have that team without the draft.

Boston - Tatum, Brown, Smart are all draft picks who are playing lead roles for them.

Nuggets - Jokic, Murray, MPJr, Harris, Morris, etc all drafted.

The draft is essential to building a good team. Maximising value from any draft spot to have high value talent on cost effective contracts are the critical pieces to making leaps forward.

You are grossly confusing what I am saying because late round picks like Kawhi, Bam, Kuzma, Jokic, Richardson were NOT top 5 picks. My argument revolved around tanking for a top pick for years on end praying for a superstar to land in your lap. As for the Lakers, they did not draft Davis as he was going to LA anyways on free agency, thus New Orleans tried to get something for him instead of nothing.

Thus, the rest of your argument is irrelevant in this debate because I am all for smart drafting picks outside the top 5 at this juncture.

[Bensational]

I don't think anything I said was much of a twist. Maximising your picks at any position is key, and that's how the good teams do it. Just because we haven't doesn't make the route less feasible.

What's "building through the draft" mean then? Are we now saying it's only reserved for teams that exclusively draft and retain a core contending team like GSW or OKC? I take it to mean using the draft as the means to acquire your best value pieces, whether they're kept or moved for a better fitting piece.

I think we have actually struck upon something here which explains not only this whole back and forth, but much of the recent back and forth on this Magic board.

It is all because of two vastly differing opinions on what "Building through the draft" actually means.

It's taken me off guard somewhat, because I never considered things the way you, MagicMatic and some others look at "building through the draft" as logical.

To me (I don't want to speak for pepe, zaymon, others etc) I base it on the transaction through which a player was acquired...

Not the transaction prior (or transaction(s) prior?) I'm not sure how far the rabbit hole is allowed to go... All the way back to the draft I guess?

There's 3 basic transactions right?
- If you drafted your core, you built through the draft
- If you traded for your core players, you built through trades
- If you signed core players in free agency, you built through free agency

If you don't see things that way, I can see why you could basically say that every team built through the draft, but I think this is a very flawed way of looking at things, as the reverse can just as easily be argued (where did you get those picks Boston, hmmm?) and thats exactly why we end up in these back and forth, circular arguments.

It's all over the definition/semantics of "building through the draft"

If you look at things the way you spelled out, where do you draw the line? I mean is there a certain degree of separation? Is there a time limit? If a drafted asset is on your team for 10 years and then you trade them, is this building through the draft? or trade?

Eg:
Were we built through the draft because we drafted Dwight and then traded him for Vuc?

Or more pointedly,
Were the 2019 NBA Champions Toronto built through the draft because they drafted DeMar Derozan and traded him for Kawhi?
Were the 2008 NBA Champions Boston built through the draft because they drafted Jeff Green, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes, Al Jefferson and Gerald Green and traded them for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett?

These are probably two of the most well known trades in NBA history that led directly to titles... Or was it all just building through the draft?

Again, wouldn't this make every team built through the draft through this logic, in some way, if you stretch it far enough?

And can't you use the same logic to stretch it the other way?

Lets look at the Paul George trade. You said it was a 'build through draft' move because the Clippers used SGA in the trade (who they drafted).

What is Gallinari? Chopped liver? He scored 19.8ppg for the Clippers last season... and 18.7 for OKC this season. Does OKC trade George just for SGA and picks? I don't think so... So how is this transaction 'building through the draft' when the Clippers only drafted one half of the assets? Can't you just as easily say this was a build through trades because;
1. They traded to get Gallo and
2. They traded to get........... Paul George

Here's a tough one;
How were the 2006 NBA Champion Miami Heat built? They drafted Wade, but the Shaq trade is what put them over the top to win an actual title.

But they traded Lamar Odom, Brian Grant and Caron Butler to get Shaq.
Now Miami;
- Drafted Butler
- Traded for Grant and
- Signed Odom in Free Agency...

So which logic are we using for this to determine how Miami built their team (draft? trade? or FA?)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just use... The actual transaction (ie the trade)?

Conclusion:
The Celtics drafted Tatum, Brown and Smart. They built through the draft. Otherwise you could argue the reverse "Well no, they traded for those picks, they weren't their own picks"... No. Stop. The Celtics built through the draft.

The Lakers built through Free Agency and Trades. They drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma and those players took the team exactly nowhere. Nowhere. They flipped them for assets and built through FA and Trade to get to the team they are now.

The Clippers, same. built through Free Agency (Kawhi) and Trades (George).

Yeah, that's not the topic I was originally discussing. The problem here is that the goal posts keep getting shifted as the discussion continues.

The original comment I was replying to from BMP was:

#3: The vast majority of the top teams in the NBA did not get there through the draft but by GM's making risky moves.

And to that I demonstrated that the (recent) drafts were essential to each and every team in acquiring their talent. Then the posts got shifted to 'tanking', because apparently the only way to use the draft is via tanking.

You were the one who introduced the terms of "building through [insert]", and you've now formed new posts around that. I think that's a pretty pointless exercise since all teams are built via a combination of all of those transactions. But, are they actually 'built' though? Are they not 'developed', or 'grown', or 'retooled'? See how far we can take these kinds of semantics?

But if we go back to my original point vs BMP's statement - those teams ALL got to the point of contention through the draft. If LA don't have a stockpile of youth to offer up, they don't have AD. If Miami doesn't have Richardson to trade, they don't have Butler. If LAC don't have SGA, they don't have PG13 (and yes, Gallo was chopped liver in the scheme of OKC's longterm value). Even though other assets and players were included, the young prospects on RSC's are the prize for the team giving up the superior talent.

I'm not sure why the value of the draft is trying to be downplayed or discredited.

[cedric76]

#1: No team is trading a top 5 pick for anybody on this team.
#2: It would take probably 3-4 seasons of being the worst team in the entire NBA to maybe get lucky and win a superstar in the draft. Then, it would still take years to develop a winning team.
#3: The vast majority of the top teams in the NBA did not get there through the draft but by GM's making risky moves.
#4: Our GM's don't make risky moves. Need new GM.

#1: Agreed
#2: Even if we got rid of all of Henny's guys, we wouldn't be the worst team in the league. We'd get true development and evaluation though.
#3: All lies. GS, DEN, TOR, BOS, MIL all heavily reliant on players they drafted.
#4: True, but you are the very one that hates any talk of us making risky moves. Should we fire your thoughts? lol

3 isn't lie.

Most of this teams you mentioned never really tanked.

Raptors
For 7 years straight in playoffs. Siakam was 27th pick. Lowry wasn't even drafted by them, Terrence Ross is their last high draft pick.

Boston
Tatum and Brown are NOT THEIR PICKS, they are NETS picks that they wasted on KG and Paul Pierce trade disaster.

Bucks
Bucks did tank, however, not a single player from tanking era plays for them now. Middleton and Giannis are NOT lottery picks.

Nuggets Murray IS lottery pick BUT IT WASN'T THEIR PICK. Nuggets had right to swap picks with Knicks because of Carmelo Anthony trade that happend 5 years prior to 2016 draft. ALSO Jokić ISN'T LOTTERY PICK. Not even first round pick.

Warriors Another team that never actively tanked. They drafted Curry after bad year, but their added Klay after 36-46 season, that would make them 9th team on East. Given schedule difference, if they were on East, they would probably make playoffs. Not to mention they botched their 4th pick so badly in between Steph and Klay.

So now we know nobody tanked. And people should finally understand one thing:
between 40 to 60 new players every year enter NBA. Vast majority of them are drafted. So you can't just say for every player and every team that they are built through draft just because somebody drafted them. Because that's literally only way into NBA. ( there are like 2-5 undrafted ,yet signed new players every year, it's irrelevant number to even discuss ).

Drafting doesn't mean tanking. Magic, much like any other team, draft players, some teams find Gobert and Jokić, other teams find Iwundu and Frazier.

For God's sake i just can't understand why some people can't understand difference between drafting player and tanking for player. Tanking is openly sucking to get high draft pick and maximise odds of securing projected high upside talent that should be franchise altering guy.

Difference between great and average teams is asset menagment. Nobody had more lottery draft picks than Suns, T wovles and Kings last 10 years.

Finally someone getting it, tanking is for losers

[Xatticus]

You know I love you Ben but I think some of this is a bit of a stretch (ie a bit too literal)...

I mean, every team gets 2 draft picks every year, almost every transaction is going to have some link to the draft at some point... So you could probably join the dots to say that every team in history was 'built through the draft' the way that you did it...

I mean... In 2005 Miami drafted Wayne Simien. In 2007 they traded him and a 1st rounder to the T-Wolves for a package containing Mark Blount. They flipped Blount for Q-Rich's big expiring contract, which gave Miami enough cap space to trade 6 picks for Lebron and Bosh.

Is this building through the draft?

I don't think anything I said was much of a twist. Maximising your picks at any position is key, and that's how the good teams do it. Just because we haven't doesn't make the route less feasible.

What's "building through the draft" mean then? Are we now saying it's only reserved for teams that exclusively draft and retain a core contending team like GSW or OKC? I take it to mean using the draft as the means to acquire your best value pieces, whether they're kept or moved for a better fitting piece.

I think we have actually struck upon something here which explains not only this whole back and forth, but much of the recent back and forth on this Magic board.

It is all because of two vastly differing opinions on what "Building through the draft" actually means.

It's taken me off guard somewhat, because I never considered things the way you, MagicMatic and some others look at "building through the draft" as logical.

To me (I don't want to speak for pepe, zaymon, others etc) I base it on the transaction through which a player was acquired...

Not the transaction prior (or transaction(s) prior?) I'm not sure how far the rabbit hole is allowed to go... All the way back to the draft I guess?

There's 3 basic transactions right?
- If you drafted your core, you built through the draft
- If you traded for your core players, you built through trades
- If you signed core players in free agency, you built through free agency

If you don't see things that way, I can see why you could basically say that every team built through the draft, but I think this is a very flawed way of looking at things, as the reverse can just as easily be argued (where did you get those picks Boston, hmmm?) and thats exactly why we end up in these back and forth, circular arguments.

It's all over the definition/semantics of "building through the draft"

If you look at things the way you spelled out, where do you draw the line? I mean is there a certain degree of separation? Is there a time limit? If a drafted asset is on your team for 10 years and then you trade them, is this building through the draft? or trade?

Eg:
Were we built through the draft because we drafted Dwight and then traded him for Vuc?

Or more pointedly,
Were the 2019 NBA Champions Toronto built through the draft because they drafted DeMar Derozan and traded him for Kawhi?
Were the 2008 NBA Champions Boston built through the draft because they drafted Jeff Green, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes, Al Jefferson and Gerald Green and traded them for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett?

These are probably two of the most well known trades in NBA history that led directly to titles... Or was it all just building through the draft?

Again, wouldn't this make every team built through the draft through this logic, in some way, if you stretch it far enough?

And can't you use the same logic to stretch it the other way?

Lets look at the Paul George trade. You said it was a 'build through draft' move because the Clippers used SGA in the trade (who they drafted).

What is Gallinari? Chopped liver? He scored 19.8ppg for the Clippers last season... and 18.7 for OKC this season. Does OKC trade George just for SGA and picks? I don't think so... So how is this transaction 'building through the draft' when the Clippers only drafted one half of the assets? Can't you just as easily say this was a build through trades because;
1. They traded to get Gallo and
2. They traded to get........... Paul George

Here's a tough one;
How were the 2006 NBA Champion Miami Heat built? They drafted Wade, but the Shaq trade is what put them over the top to win an actual title.

But they traded Lamar Odom, Brian Grant and Caron Butler to get Shaq.
Now Miami;
- Drafted Butler
- Traded for Grant and
- Signed Odom in Free Agency...

So which logic are we using for this to determine how Miami built their team (draft? trade? or FA?)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just use... The actual transaction (ie the trade)?

Conclusion:
The Celtics drafted Tatum, Brown and Smart. They built through the draft. Otherwise you could argue the reverse "Well no, they traded for those picks, they weren't their own picks"... No. Stop. The Celtics built through the draft.

The Lakers built through Free Agency and Trades. They drafted D'Lo, Ingram, Ball, Kuzma and those players took the team exactly nowhere. Nowhere. They flipped them for assets and built through FA and Trade to get to the team they are now.

The Clippers, same. built through Free Agency (Kawhi) and Trades (George).

...forest for the trees.

It's about accumulating assets. You can talk all you want about the semantics of this, but you can't trade to build your roster when you have no assets that anyone covets. How much do you suppose we can get in return for a guy that Clifford would rather bench in favor of Khem Birch? We've had opportunities to trade some of our vets, but Weltman stated that he will never see trading a player away as an opportunity. What do you suppose the collective trade value is for Clark, Ennis, Birch, and MCW? Nobody is going to give value for some journeyman that you plucked from the scrapheap.

And frankly, we can't really even discuss the merits of various paths that we have failed to pursue. We don't trade, we don't tank, we don't move up or down in the draft, and we haven't signed anyone of note. Our signature move in the three years that Weltman has been in charge was trading for someone else's bust and "wrapping our arms around him". I don't know why this **** always devolves into discussions about tanking as if it's a bad thing. At least it's something. "I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos". There are any number of paths one could pursue. We simply choose to pursue none of them. We re-sign anyone up for free agency, draft in slot, and scour the waiver wire. Weltman is Bartleby the scrivener.

[j-ragg]

It comes down to believing your front office will nail the pick every year no matter where you’re at. I don’t believe ours will. So while I think the treadmill is the worst place to be, I don’t know we should put all of our apples into the draft necessarily unless it’s for future assets years away.