barelyawake wrote:
1) You say we are too good to tank (without Arenas). Please list the teams worse than us, with basically just Wall and Blatche and no bench.
1) for instance:
nate33 wrote:Cleveland, Toronto, New Jersey and Detroit.
I suspect Golden State is in-play as well, relying on a zero-defense team that amounts to Stef Curry + David Lee. Teams win in the NBA with transcendent talent, or an ideal mesh of team chemistry plus solid coaching. We have that singular talent, plus a decent coach. The above teams lack much of either.
Yes we're sculpting a bare bones roster to preserve cap space into the new CBA, on the bench have more potential than production, if that. But the strategy we played last year will still carry over into this one: with a minimum roster we can scull the D-League for rising, developing, overlooked talent desperate to prove themselves with effort and energy. I suspect we'll be a traveling talent agency for these players, A&R reps, auditioning for the end of bench role with those last three spots all year to see who looks good next to Johnny Ballgame. Odds are good that he can make a few look like NBA ballplayers.
There was a good article in DX a few years back talking about how the NBA may be 'full'. [EDIT:
Here] That a few highly talented players can't crack in due to the way the league is structured. That talented picks don't have time to season or develop, they get a quick look then a hook. We've seen a few succeed in Europe, a few filter back in via the D-League. I like the idea of the entire DLeague as a feeder team for our squad, same way the old CBA (Continental Basketball Association, not Collectively Bargained Agreement) & International ball used to provide the Knicks with players like John Starks and Anthony Mason.
2) Wall will be hurt [by losing a couple seasons].
2) The concern is more that in trying to do too much John Wall could be hurt, period. Gilbert takes pressure off him and vice versa. Better still, the two should prove good for each other. Neither has to put the weight of the entire team on their shoulders, each can spur the other to better development. That's the argument: the two are good together. It shortens the learning curve and preserves the long term value and insulates each other against injury by providing a bench-on-the-floor and limiting the hero-time requirements. Becomes a more-than-the-sum-of-the-parts equation.
You don't think it helps John Wall to be forced to guard Gil in practice? You don't think it helps Gil to be guarded by a cat who conceivably can keep in front of him even when he's back to the speed-of-synapse? I don't buy the argument that Gilbert somehow hurts John Wall, for the reasons you mention (leadership, desire, etc). I do see how each can mutually benefit the other, and would hate to lose that on the underpants gnome model:
Step One: get rid of our 2nd best talent.
Step Two: something
Step Three: Championship!
3) Wall will be so good he'll up everyone's trade value to the point where some Gm will trade us a gamechanging big for them. I assume that's what you meant in the middle.
3) ? Nope. The argument is that John Wall just MAY be good enough to raise Gilbert's value, such that a desperate team may trade a prospect or a pick or whatnot something better than a Wince Harder dump. If a bottomed-out Gilbert can attract this offer, what else may be dangled if the team actually wins a bit?
Or the team may win. You've ruled out Gilbert as a player. Okay. Understood. I think he's still got untouched upside. That's the fundamental difference in the disagreement here. The actuarial tables leave us each at 50/50. Has he any real value, or will we be disappointed again by injury or offcourt issues. That is in essence the entire question of the thread. 'What will be Gilberts future value?' I admit I may simply be a sucker for a redemption song.
4) Without Gil we need two players versus one. And that's true. But, there is a path to get those players. There are multiple options available. We have yet to hear one path that makes any sense from the keep Gil people. How do you get the gamechanging big?
4) This is the real question we all should be answering. HOW. How to win a championship. How to land a two-way Big, say:
--Grow our own? (McGee next to Wall. Blatche's continual improvement? Seraphin impacts like a meteor fallen, or seasons in the Euros for a year then lands with better tools?)
--Draft smart late a la San Antonio?
--Trade smart for a devalued player like Detroit-> Sheed; LA-> Kung Pau?
There are about as many avenues to get there by retaining a player as there are by bottoming out and cratering in hopes of a lucky bounce. Actually there's one more: contender's discount. If the team wins, and makes it on TNT and makes it onto Sportscenter loops and gets positive press and looks like they're having fun, then Free Agents don't rule the team out. And our own developing talents don't look to jump ship when their time becomes due.
But look back and ask yourself, what championship team actually tanked their way to the top honors? People cite OKC as a model, but unless I Rip Van Winkled, we haven't seen a championship in the Big Dusty yet have we? The closest thing we've seen is the Danny Ainge plan to stockpile talent with a decade of suck, trying every year to land that Tim Duncan, then eventually packaging a bunch of high picks to recruit guys to play next to their singular star. But even that required implausible help of an idiot trade partner. And he held onto the star they already had (who suddenly became a plausible defender, as did Ray Allen).
I just don't think you benefit the organization most by simply dumping one of its top assets. Especially considering you have no idea what the new re-structuring will bring in coming years. The smart move is to wait, rehabilitate the value, not commit to any major salary right now, then make the smart moves from a position of relative strength not perceived desperation.
