Steelo Green wrote:canz55 wrote:Steelo Green wrote:Yes, it really hurt Durant, Westbrook and Harden’s growth when they came to a team that won 20 wins every year.
Good players along with good development develop.
It’s bad management and those same managements picking mediocre players causing the cycle of mediocrity.
I'd love for you to guarantee generationa level talent in next years draft.
Please go on record and tell us that Suggs, Kuminga and Mobley are the next Durant's and Westbrooks of the world (without watching them in the NCAA I might add).
Not the point I was making.
The point I was making is players coming into losing cultures has some effect on their growth.
Good players usually are good players regardless, bad teams usually just draft really poorly in tandem with really bad development teams.
Go throughout history, plenty of great players have come onto very mediocre teams with little wins and end up becoming all-stars or superstars.
Sacramento being bad in all facets didn’t stop Demarcus from being great or Fox. They were just good players that they actually hit on in the draft.
Winning culture is overrated.
What did it do for the Hawks and ten years straight of the playoffs? Nothing.
They only got into the draft and drafted Trae and have a better outlook than they did the entire long playoff run.
The Philadelphia 76ers are in year 9 of their project (if we're counting from the date Sam Hinkie took over) - in the early period of that rebuild they were, year after year, one of the worst basketball clubs in NBA history. During that 5 year period, the losing was so bad that ownership lost sight of the project and mistakenly (in hindsight) terminated Sam Hinkie prematurely which lead to a misinformed evalution of Fultz by Colangelo among other misteps. You could argue that they prolonged the building campaign (assuming the end goal is a championship) by acting out of emotion, or a misperception of the project maybe; ultimately they're a relevant club in the NBA now to some extent but in the same breath they paid a heavy price.
What I'm trying to point out here is: you and I are just everyday fans talking on a message board; meaning, our attachment to the Raptors (and likely any professional sports entertainment organization for that matter) begins and ends on a weekday evening when the first whistle blows and when it ends. We are not responsible for anything that relates to the health of the organization whether it be a responsiblity to parent companies that answer to shareholders, employees, or advertisers etc. So while we can have intellectual excercises about the benefits of tanking or whatever, we're not the ones who have to deal with any form of pressure on any level. I'm sure that 76er ownership and executive management were feeling a degree of pressure that very few of us can relate to at that level of business, especially in year 2016-17 when the club finished at near bottom of the league for the 4th year in a row.
I've followed this thread carefully for that last several weeks and while I agree with the logical arguments being presented by the TwO; they offer zero sophistication or complexity in their arguments with regards to the downside of tanking and how risky it can be if not done correctly.
Yes; no one wants to miss out on talent but lets not pretend there isn't a price to pay.