FINALLY. Bud says what some have been waiting to hear since June

[KB21]

16 minutes ago, AHF said:

That fits GS during its build to its current team.

That fits Clev during its build to its current team after LeBron left.

That fits OKC during its build to its current team.

That fits Minny during its build to its current team.

That fits Philly during its build to its current team.

That fits almost every team that decides to tear down the old players and start building with youth.  The team will almost always be structured so it cannot win enough games to get into the playoffs.

It is a very broad label that fits almost every flavor of rebuilding.

 

16 minutes ago, AHF said:

That fits GS during its build to its current team.

That fits Clev during its build to its current team after LeBron left.

That fits OKC during its build to its current team.

That fits Minny during its build to its current team.

That fits Philly during its build to its current team.

That fits almost every team that decides to tear down the old players and start building with youth.  The team will almost always be structured so it cannot win enough games to get into the playoffs.

It is a very broad label that fits almost every flavor of rebuilding.

So, tell me.  What did Golden State do between 1994 and 2009?  They had exactly 1 year of making the playoffs in that entire span of time.  They bottomed out in 1994, then again in 1997 where they had a five year span of time where they won 19, 21, 19, 17, and 21 games in consecutive seasons.  Then, they bottomed out again in 2008-2009.

So, this really goes to prove my point that the only thing tanking assures you is that you will tank again at some point before you get good again.

Edited November 3, 2017 by KB21

[AHF]

17 minutes ago, KB21 said:

 

So, tell me.  What did Golden State do between 1994 and 2009?  They had exactly 1 year of making the playoffs in that entire span of time.  They bottomed out in 1994, then again in 1997 where they had a five year span of time where they won 19, 21, 19, 17, and 21 games in consecutive seasons.  Then, they bottomed out again in 2008-2009.

So, this really goes to prove my point that the only thing tanking assures you is that you will tank again at some point before you get good again.

Your logic is not sound.  There is absolutely the possibility that a team will go through several rounds of rebuilding or an extended period trying to get their star but as usual of late you overreach when you claim this is "assured." 

You can end up building anything coming out of a rebuild like GS did (we've seen rebuilding teams fall short of the playoffs like Minnesota has done for a while, become regular playoff teams like the Hawks did, become multiple time champions like the Warriors did, etc.).  We know the Warriors have multiple rings from their latest rebuild.  We know they failed in earlier rebuilding efforts and peaked at what can generally be called sub-playoff level.  So knowing that luck and execution differentiates between those outcomes, how do you end up assured that any team will tank multiple times before getting good again?  

Of course no one is assured of that.  Some teams go through several rounds of rebuilding before they get good again.  Some teams get good again on the first try.  

Very few things are "assured."  Not sure why we are pretending they are.

[DBac]

Keep citing outlier cases  No guarantees but the trend is pretty damn clear as far as where the best players are coming from.

 

I'd even be down for the Boston / Houston (Kyrie / Harden) model of hoarding assets in order to make an offer for a young proven stud. The problems with this:

1. A team has to be willing to trade a young stud. Who knows how long that would take.

2. We would have to have the assets. And we do have some assets collected (tons of draft picks) but don't really have a Jae Crowder, Kevin Martin to throw in a deal. Unless you count Dennis.

Also, Boston's asset collection was aided by trading away their best players.

 

 

Edited November 3, 2017 by DBac

[KB21]

9 minutes ago, AHF said:

Your logic is not sound.  There is absolutely the possibility that a team will go through several rounds of rebuilding or an extended period trying to get their star but as usual of late you overreach when you claim this is "assured." 

You can end up building anything coming out of a rebuild like GS did (we've seen rebuilding teams fall short of the playoffs like Minnesota has done for a while, become regular playoff teams like the Hawks did, become multiple time champions like the Warriors did, etc.).  We know the Warriors have multiple rings from their latest rebuild.  We know they failed in earlier rebuilding efforts and peaked at what can generally be called sub-playoff level.  So knowing that luck and execution differentiates between those outcomes, how do you end up assured that any team will tank multiple times before getting good again?  

Of course no one is assured of that.  Some teams go through several rounds of rebuilding before they get good again.  Some teams get good again on the first try.  

Very few things are "assured."  Not sure why we are pretending they are.

You should tell that to all the fans who support the atrocious idea of tanking who think that getting a top draft pick will ASSURE that the team gets that superstar caliber player.

What is Travis Schlenk doing with the scouting staff and the analytics staff to ensure that this rebuild will be more along the lines of Oklahoma City, who is really the ONLY team to bottom out and rebuild into a championship contender quickly without multiple "rebuilds/tanks" before they got good?

http://www.espn.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/39546/the-oklahoma-city-unicorns

Quote

Getting lucky for three straight years in the draft is only a part of the Thunder story. The reality is teams that draft in the lottery for six straight years are more likely to resemble the Kings than become the Thunder. To a perpetually bad franchise pursuing "the Thunder model," my advice is the same as it would be for someone hunting a unicorn: good luck, and don't be upset if all you find are horses.

 

[AHF]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

You should tell that to all the fans who support the atrocious idea of tanking who think that getting a top draft pick will ASSURE that the team gets that superstar caliber player.

I've said that repeatedly on here.  Getting a top pick improves your odds of getting a superstar but by no means guarantees anything.  The guy has to be there on the board to pick and you have to execute on your choice.  You are looking at probabilities - not certainties - with the draft.

[KB21]

31 minutes ago, DBac said:

Keep citing outlier cases  No guarantees but the trend is pretty damn clear as far as where the best players are coming from.

 

I'd even be down for the Boston / Houston (Kyrie / Harden) model of hoarding assets in order to make an offer for a young proven stud. The problems with this:

1. A team has to be willing to trade a young stud. Who knows how long that would take.

2. We would have to have the assets. And we do have some assets collected (tons of draft picks) but don't really have a Jae Crowder, Kevin Martin to throw in a deal. Unless you count Dennis.

Also, Boston's asset collection was aided by trading away their best players.

 

 

So, take a look at the past 6 drafts and tell me who the game changing, All NBA/MVP caliber players that have been picked are who were taken in the top 3 picks of the draft.  And what objective measure are you using to determine that the player is All NBA/MVP caliber?

[DBac]

1 minute ago, KB21 said:

So, take a look at the past 6 drafts and tell me who the game changing, All NBA/MVP caliber players that have been picked are who were taken in the top 3 picks of the draft.  And what objective measure are you using to determine that the player is All NBA/MVP caliber?

Simmons, Embiid, Towns, Davis are all NBA caliber. Expect all of them to get good looks for those honors at the end of the year.

Simmons averaging 18.5, 8, 9. Here is the entire list of players to do at least that: Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Russell Westbrook, Magic Johnson. True, he's a rookie, but his college numbers were historic and he's been hyped as one of the best prospects for long enough to believe that he's the real deal.

Anthony Davis actually has all-NBA accolades.

Towns got first team all-NBA votes last year but narrowly missed all-NBA honors.

Embiid's impact is well documented.

[KB21]

9 minutes ago, DBac said:

Simmons, Embiid, Towns, Davis are all NBA caliber. Expect all of them to get good looks for those honors at the end of the year.

Simmons averaging 18.5, 8, 9. Here is the entire list of players to do at least that: Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlain, Russell Westbrook, Magic Johnson. True, he's a rookie, but his college numbers were historic and he's been hyped as one of the best prospects for long enough to believe that he's the real deal.

Anthony Davis actually has all-NBA accolades.

Towns got first team all-NBA votes last year but narrowly missed all-NBA honors.

Embiid's impact is well documented.

So, out of 6 years and a total of 18 picks, you can come up with exactly 4 players who are All-NBA caliber, though I would argue that Simmons is clearly not there because he doesn't effect the game defensively at all.

[DBac]

24 minutes ago, KB21 said:

So, out of 6 years and a total of 18 picks, you can come up with exactly 4 players who are All-NBA caliber, though I would argue that Simmons is clearly not there because he doesn't effect the game defensively at all.

Yes, and I think Draymond, Giannis, Gobert, Jokic are all-NBA level players from the 10-50 range (because IIRC, Isaiah Thomas is the only arguable one past that) in that same span. Unclear if you wanted 2011 in there, so then I'd add Kawhi, Butler, and Klay. That's 7 out of 287 players, which shows how much better your chances of getting a top talent are at the top. 

 

[AHF]

For the last decade here are your First Team All-NBA selections:

10 Year Overall Summary

4% Second Round Picks

4% Non-Lottery First Round Picks

92% Lottery Picks

(Note:  Probably should have listed top 5 picks and #1 overall as a lot of years were 40-60% #1 overall picks but eh)

The First Team 2016-17 All-NBA roster was:

Lottery: 80% 

#15-20: 20% 

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 0%

2015-16 First Team All-NBA:

Lottery: 60%

#15-20: 20%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 20% (1 time first team)

2014-15 First Team All-NBA:

Lottery: 80%

#15-20: 0%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 20% (1 time first team)

2013-14 First Team All-NBA

Lottery: 100%

#15-20: 0%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 0%

2012-13 First Team All-NBA:

Lottery: 100%

#15-20: 0%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 0% 

2011-12 First Team All-NBA

Lottery: 100%

#15-20: 0%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 0% 

2010-11 First Team All-NBA

Lottery: 100%

#15-20: 0%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 0% 

2009-10 First Team All-NBA

Lottery: 100%

#15-20: 0%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 0% 

2008-09 First Team All-NBA

Lottery: 100%

#15-20: 0%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 0% 

2007-08 First Team All-NBA

Lottery: 100%

#15-20: 0%

Remaining First Round: 0%

2nd Round: 0% 

[noble]

Here is the thing. We are not guaranteed a superstar or all-NBA player at the top of the draft. But the odds do say you have a better chance than hanging around the middle or later in the draft. As I've said what is the big deal not making the playoffs vs getting bounced early? A few extra games? A few extra dollars? In the long term if you want to be a relevant team you have to have relevant players. And it has been a long time since we were that. 

Sure there is no guarantee we will be a playoff team in the next few years. By the same token there is no guarantee we won't be. The only guarantee is that we havent been a relevant team for a long long time and without a superstar we won't be.

Edited November 3, 2017 by noble

[KB21]

1 hour ago, noble said:

Here is the thing. We are not guaranteed a superstar or all-NBA player at the top of the draft. But the odds do say you have a better chance than hanging around the middle or later in the draft. As I've said what is the big deal not making the playoffs vs getting bounced early? A few extra games? A few extra dollars? In the long term if you want to be a relevant team you have to have relevant players. And it has been a long time since we were that. 

Sure there is no guarantee we will be a playoff team in the next few years. By the same token there is no guarantee we won't be. The only guarantee is that we havent been a relevant team for a long long time and without a superstar we won't be.

Anytime you are a playoff team, you are relevant.  When you aren't in the playoffs, you are irrelevant.  You have to actually make the playoffs to win a championship.  

[noble]

2 minutes ago, KB21 said:

Anytime you are a playoff team, you are relevant.  When you aren't in the playoffs, you are irrelevant.  You have to actually make the playoffs to win a championship.  

I think this is where we differ. We haven't really been a relevant team since Nique was here. As hard as it is to admit as a fan, but even making the playoffs we had zero chance of a championship. Even IF we had kept the core we had, but never added a Superstar we had pretty much zero chance at a title. So making the playoffs was meaningless to me. Cool, I got to watch a few extra games, but not once did I actually think we had the talent to beat one of the top flight teams. Can't WIN a championship if you don't have the talent regardless if you make the playoffs. We were relevant for about a month and a half when we went on that month long run....then we were not really talked about. Why? No Superstar to draw eyes.

[NBASupes]

26 minutes ago, noble said:

I think this is where we differ. We haven't really been a relevant team since Nique was here. As hard as it is to admit as a fan, but even making the playoffs we had zero chance of a championship. Even IF we had kept the core we had, but never added a Superstar we had pretty much zero chance at a title. So making the playoffs was meaningless to me. Cool, I got to watch a few extra games, but not once did I actually think we had the talent to beat one of the top flight teams. Can't WIN a championship if you don't have the talent regardless if you make the playoffs. We were relevant for about a month and a half when we went on that month long run....then we were not really talked about. Why? No Superstar to draw eyes.

I would say we have never been relevant. 

[noble]

2 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

I would say we have never been relevant. 

I dunno. I think when Nique was playing we were at least talked about on a national level. His highlights were a reason for discussion and eyes. But I get when you are saying.

[NBASupes]

2 minutes ago, noble said:

I dunno. I think when Nique was playing we were at least talked about on a national level. His highlights were a reason for discussion and eyes. But I get when you are saying.

We were exciting, yes, but no one really thought we could win a title. We were basically what the Clippers are right now in terms of profile. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by NBASupes

[noble]

17 minutes ago, NBASupes said:

We were exciting, yes, but no one really thought we could win a title. We were basically what the Clippers are right now in terms of profile. 

Valid. I would almost be okay with that level of excitement again. It's been a long time

[KB21]

52 minutes ago, noble said:

I think this is where we differ. We haven't really been a relevant team since Nique was here. As hard as it is to admit as a fan, but even making the playoffs we had zero chance of a championship. Even IF we had kept the core we had, but never added a Superstar we had pretty much zero chance at a title. So making the playoffs was meaningless to me. Cool, I got to watch a few extra games, but not once did I actually think we had the talent to beat one of the top flight teams. Can't WIN a championship if you don't have the talent regardless if you make the playoffs. We were relevant for about a month and a half when we went on that month long run....then we were not really talked about. Why? No Superstar to draw eyes.

This team played in the Eastern Conference finals and would have won with a healthy DeMarre Carroll and if Dellavadova hadn't intentionally taken out Kyle Korver.  I could care less if the media talked about the team.  I don't listen to the media.  The media thinks tanking is a good strategy.  

[noble]

Yeah i am not so sure we would have won. Maybe. But beating the Warriors, not a chance. The media is a double edged sword. You need them for national interest, which brings eyes. Which brings money. Which brings Superstars. While most if us here follow the Hawks regardless, we aren't really what drives money to this team. It is the casual fan, national eyes, TV, etc. 

[AHF]

Hard to complain too much about DMC and Kyle when the other team was missing Love and Irving and just absolutely curb stomped us.  We didn't even make it out of the first round comfortably.