This year especially it doesn't matter if we tank. Our best bet with this draft is to hope the Knicks fall apart and get in the top 10. From there we might be able to package up in the top five. But getting our own 13th or 14th pick is not worth missing the playoffs. We're going to have to pay up to NJ sometime so we might as well do it when we are already guaranteed one pick from NY. The sooner we pay up on that, the sooner we can begin trading our own draft picks again too. Even if we have 3 picks this year, our odds of getting into the top 5 don't go up IMO because our pick and the Mavs pick are certainly going to be low, and it's looking like the Knicks will be #15.
That would definitely get a lottery pick. But since there's still such strong support for tanking, now that some of those guys are gone, what assets would you trade for picks or young guys, who do we go after in this year's draft? Is there anyone on the team we would keep for the rebuild. Look, i'm not a fan of tanking, but I'd much rather pick the brains of pro-tankers and see what ideas they have moving forward. It beats the constant back and forth attacking that really isn't constructive.
Most teams can't win in this league but that doesn't change the fact that the teams that do win almost always have a top 5 lottery pick on their team. We haven't even been getting top 10 picks and unless the Knicks miss the playoffs we likely won't have one this year unless we trade up. Repeated 12-14 picks just aren't going to get it done. I'm not really sure who these teams are that got to the WCF finals without tanking/being bad. The last 10 WCF losers were the Thunder, Suns (3x), Nuggets, Spurs (twice), Jazz, Twolves, Mavs and Kings. The Thunder, Spurs, Nuggets and Jazz all had top 3 picks as their best players and the Wolves had a top 5 pick. The Suns had 3 top ten picks in Joe Johnson, Shawn Marion and Amare. The Mavs won 20 games the year before they got Dirk and he is also a top 10 pick. The Kings had Webber who was a number one pick and Bibby who was a two and acquired them by trading other high lottery picks such as Richmond and Williams.
I think most tankers, at least my plan, would have been from the beginning of the season: Trade: Scola and Martin (for young players or picks - not 31 yo PFs) Don't sign: Dalembert Keep unless something really good comes along: Lowry and Lee Keep and play (significant minutes every other game on the "non-starters") to see what you've really got: Goran*, Morris, Patterson, Bud, Parsons*, Flynn, TWill, Hill, Thabeet *turned out to be a keeper - move up with Lowry and Lee Make deadline trades to flip any Thabeet, Flynn or TWill types for something of value for future trades or even just to build on - even if it's a 2nd rounder. The bottom line is that protankers don't believe this team as constructed is anywhere near a true contender. Sure we can fight for a playoff spot with this team but that shouldn't be our goal. And we don't believe we can get a good, young superstar we need to be a true contender or attract good FAs through trades or through free agency. That only leaves the draft. And no it's not a guarantee nor will be easy and painless. But I think this management has more tools and smarts than those perennial loses that have just now seemed to find that nut (excluding the Raptors and Bobcats - keep sniffing squirrels) The emphasis would be learning and growing. If winning came with it, then great. But don't play Lowry 45 minutes so we can squeak out an away win against the Warriors. And since you will only have Hill and Thabeet to hold down the C spot (unless Martin or Scola netted you a nice young C), those moves would most likely give us a lotto pick - nice lotto pick. Also - once you conclude that you are destined for the lottery, don't go all out to win meaningless games in the final games of the season - are you listening JVG?
But allow me my point. If Morey creates a team who everyone here admits is a legit title contender (by, say winning the division and making the Finals or WCF), then we have to admit that his method rebuilt us into a contender and best rockets team since Dream. It's unfair to say all methods are failures unless you win it all. Right? That's fair to say. ? We had a #1, #2 (by trade) and #6, plus Tracy McGrady in the decade of the OPs context. Those players prevented recent top 10s, so it all went for nothing, in hindsight. The key is not did they suck, but how did they rebuild ...via high lotto draft picks, trade or Free Agency...The key is: Was their best player via a high lotto in the draft, unreachable unless you tank? Portland never missed a playoff between Drexler and 2000 when they were a legendary 4th Q collapse from winning the title. NJ Nets made the Finals based on a trade for Kidd as best player Suns best player was via free agency. Nash Again, Dallas was a contender for many years with a #9 pick in Nowitzki, which is completely doable via trade -- as many lotto picks are by playoff teams via previous trades The Kings did not rebuild via high draft picks. Webber was a trade plus mediocre draft picks. Petrie was considered a genius for his Draft Picks and Trades (remember?) just like Morey Detroit won the Title based on trades. They did not rebuild via losing. Their five below .500 teams in the 10 yrs prior to the Win resulted in picks who all sucked -- except Hill who left via free agency, so they go nothing for him, and Theo Ratliff--but he was actually an 18th pick, who they upgraded via Stackhouse trades that netted Rip Hamilton--Morey-type moves on an 18th pick. Prince was the only guy they drafted played on the Title team and he was a low Morey pick, too. Celtics did suck, but their best player was a 10th pick, Rondo a 21st and the rest were trades/FAgency The Knicks two best players were #24 Sprewell and #11 Houston. Their two #1s and #2 were no longer, or never were (Camby), all-stars. Of course, the Lakers did it via Free Agency in Shaq and a draft day trade for a 13th pick. So, sure Nowitzki and Pierce where lotto picks, but a #9 and 10. Those picks are not out of reach based on Morey method. tmoney411: This is a fun exercise. And I'd be fine if you say Mavs and Celtics shouldn't count. But there are still 7 other teams (totaling 6 rings) on my list who did it via trades, FAs and middle to low picks. I don't think you can argue with those, no? Do you want to look at the '90s next.
it's gonna be awesome when the rockets get the 4 seed and the pro-tankers try to splain why it ain't a good thing.
If he can get us to the WCF or a division title or anything like that I agree its a success. I hope he is able to pull it off somehow but history shows that it is very hard to win without having top picks.[/QUOTE] That wasn't Morey's doing. I'm only discussing his GM'ing over the past few years. If you are pointing to our number 1 that to me is just more evidence that high picks are needed to be successful because we were always a borderline contenders when we had healthy players. 1. I don't feel like looking at the Blazers roster because I'm lazy and don't remember how they got their players. 2. The Nets were able to get Kidd by trading Marbury who was another top 5 pick. Acquiring Kidd was the result of having a high draft all star player which is something we don't have. 3. Doesn't take away from the fact that they had 3 top ten picks on the team to go along with him. 4. The Mavs were able to get Dirk and Nash because they were awful had the 6th pick and swung and a deal that got them both Dirk and Nash. 5. The Kings got Webber by trading Mitch Richmond who was a top 5 pick and one of the best scorers in the league at the time and got Bibby by trading Williams who was pick number 7. 6. Detroit I won't really argue it being high pick related even though i could with Stackhouse but it's kinda weak. 7. KG was defensive player of the year when they won. KG/Allen/Pierce were all equal contributors on that team. The Celtics were not very good when they just had Pierce. 8. The Knicks got lucky in a shortened season but I'm not sure if there was high pick trading to get their players. 9. We aren't the Lakers, they have a different set of rules based on location. The main thing to see is that a high majority of the time it always comes back to having high picks. Teams trade picks for top players like the Celtics did or they switch around high picks for other high picks like the Kings did. It is really hard to get a team to give you an all star caliber player if you don't have high pick players with potential to give up. The Nets got DWill by giving up high lotto picks and players. The Knicks trade was based on Gallinari who was a number 6 pick. See how many teams you can list that won a ring without 1.)Having a top ten pick of their own that heavily contributed or 2.)Having traded a top 10 pick or player that they drafted with a top ten pick to get another all star/superstar player. Over the past few years that is the strategy Morey has used.
I think a lot of people are missing the point of my argument here. I'm not saying that you can draft a Franchise player without tanking, being in the lottery with a bad record gives you that lottery ticket with a chance for something special. However, most of the time that ticket just end up being a dud or at best a upgrade but nothing great. I'm saying most of the time the best outcome you can hope for after tanking is to get to where the Rockets are right now, a playoff caliber team. The chances that you become one of the perennial powerhouses through tanking are so slim. I was actually still kind of generous with my list of "franchise players" where in reality there's only 5 players on that list that can potentially carry a team to a contender status just by being on it (Wade, LBJ, DH12, KD, and Rose). 5 out of 50 teams who "tanked" their seasons in the last 10 years. Majority of the time you don't get that player when tanking, you get an Andrea Bagani or Evan Turner. After that, if you're actually lucky enough to collect other decent pieces along the way, get's you back to where the Rockets are right now, a "mediocre" playoff caliber team. So if you have an organization that can put together a playoff caliber team year in and year out without taking, why don't you just enjoy that ride instead of trying to throw away seasons after seasons hoping to hit it big (with a good chance of that player bouncing after 6 seasons later?)
Isn't the Tanks for the Memories deal dead yet? Stick a fork in it! Go Rockets! Smash the Ponie Girls.
1. I don't feel like looking at the Blazers roster because I'm lazy and don't remember how they got their players. - So you agree 2. The Nets were able to get Kidd by trading Marbury who was another top 5 pick. Acquiring Kidd was the result of having a high draft all star player which is something we don't have. - Did they actually draft Marbury? Did Minnesota's tanking to get Marbury actually help them? 3. Doesn't take away from the fact that they had 3 top ten picks on the team to go along with him. - All were mediocre without Nash, we don't need to tank to get those players which was my point. 4. The Mavs were able to get Dirk and Nash because they were awful had the 6th pick and swung and a deal that got them both Dirk and Nash. - Nash wasn't special at that point, Nowitzki was one of a few "Franchise players", Mavs roll the Dice and got lucky. 5. The Kings got Webber by trading Mitch Richmond who was a top 5 pick and one of the best scorers in the league at the time and got Bibby by trading Williams who was pick number 7. - Once again, you don't need to tank to get a player of Bibby's caliber (Lowry), and Mitch Richmond was 32 at the time of the trade. You can get a player of Mitch Richmond's age and scoring ability at the time of trade without tanking (see.. Kevin Martin who averaged more than Richmond's last year with the Kings) 6. Detroit I won't really argue it being high pick related even though i could with Stackhouse but it's kinda weak. - Once again, the point is tanking doesn't get you championship, good team building and luck does. 7. KG was defensive player of the year when they won. KG/Allen/Pierce were all equal contributors on that team. The Celtics were not very good when they just had Pierce. - The Celtics had assets and cap room to get both Ray Allen and KG there. Having high picks did help them get those assets, but like Kevin Martin, Rockets have gotten that level of assets without tanking. The Celtics' talent level right before the trades after years of tanking are basically where we are right now, they had the luck we didn't to get KG (and we could've done just as well if Stern didn't block the Gasol trade). 8. The Knicks got lucky in a shortened season but I'm not sure if there was high pick trading to get their players. They got lucky with Sprewell's choking instance and Allan Houston was a FA, no taking needed 9. We aren't the Lakers, they have a different set of rules based on location. Agreed The main thing to see is that a high majority of the time it always comes back to having high picks. Teams trade picks for top players like the Celtics did or they switch around high picks for other high picks like the Kings did. It is really hard to get a team to give you an all star caliber player if you don't have high pick players with potential to give up. The Nets got DWill by giving up high lotto picks and players. The Knicks trade was based on Gallinari who was a number 6 pick. The main thing is that tanking doesn't make you contender majority of the time. It get's you that lotto ticket, which usually don't win [/QUOTE]
1. No just too lazy because I remember nothing about those trades 2. The Nets got Marbury by trading players plus the number six pick in the draft. They then traded Marbury for Kidd. They got the all star caliber player from having a high pick 3. Joe Johnson and Amare are not mediocre. Marion I won't really argue but he was 30 and in his 10th year when he left. He spent his best years in Phoenix. 4. My argument for them is that they got their talent from having a high pick whether or not you think Nash was that special. 5. I will agree to disagree on your points with this one. 6. It is tanking though. The Pistons are the exception and a great story. A huge majority of the championships in this league are the result of sucking and getting high picks. 7. We don't have those types of assets. They had a top 5 pick, a 22 year old Al Jefferson and an all star in Paul Pierce. 8. The luck part was the short season and a good run. That team wasn't much after that year. It doesn't make you a contender because most teams can't be. If you just want to be a winning team then Morey's strategy is great. However, if you want to actually compete for titles you are going to have to find a way to get top picks which isn't something Morey has been able to do. Instead, he has only gotten young highly drafted players that teams had given up on.
That's like saying keep buying the lottery because that's the only way if you're going to be rich. If you are happy to retire comfortably then put your money in 401Ks, but I'm buying the lotto!!!
That's not the same at all. In life one person can't win with everybody else losing. There is nothing wrong with the middle class in real life while being a middle of the pack team in the NBA is often considered to be the worst place to be in.
I don't think we should tank. But you can't say tanking doesn't get you franchise players. It doesn't if you FO sucks and you have a crappy coach. But, if you put pieces around them and coach 'em up, tanking is the easiest way to get a franchise guy.(Morey has said this before.) Hakeem, Yao. John Wall would be if his team and coach weren't horrid.
there is no need for research. Portland never missed a playoff. Had they not collapsed in the 4th Q (blowing a 16pt lead), then they would have won a title and Morey's statement, "No team has successfully rebuilt while remaining competitive" would be false. Sometimes, just one game, one play can prevent a victory. Kings as well. Don't say always unless you are talking about winning the title. I'm trying to show how teams become title contenders without high lotto picks (as their actual pick) -- which I'd say are top 5 or 6. If you limit it only to teams who win, then actually, history shows you need a #1 pick. which proves what, exactly, regarding the easiest way to win? It's actually interested to look at. I've posted this several years before. The ONLY exceptions from 1980 to Detroit to winning without a #1 pick are when the draft had two guys that won the title (so that's more like a 1a and 1b pick), or Moses and Dr J who weren't #1 because they went to the ABA instead of NBA. It's extraordinary: Magic and Bird come out the same year...only one could be #1...Bird actually got drafted the year prior to committing to the draft...no longer legal. And Jabbar was a #1 pick, too. Moses and Dr J would have been #1s had they not signed with the ABA Mark Aguirre and Isiah were #1 and #2 in the same draft Hakeem and MJ were same draft...only one could be a #1 Duncan was a #1 Shaq was a #1 Wade and Lebron were same draft...only one could be a #1. I'm assuming Lebron will eventually win a ring That is 28 titles, and I'm only giving Shaq 3 rings. History shows you need a #1 pick to win or top 3 pick in the same draft as a #1 who won. And really, MJ and Wade should have been #2s So, you see...to say the formula for winning is to tank...history actually shows you need the #1 pick in the right draft. So much luck nowadays. Your criteria is not historically accurate (too broad) and tries to make a point that any high lotto can net you a title. Not true...28 titles since 1980 say otherwise. bottomline: becoming a title contender would satisfy most to say Morey succeeded. Winning a title history shows you need the #1 pick, so what does that prove...it proves superstars HOFers win multiple times and hog all the titles.
No, it doesn't guarantee a Franchise player because there's only one of those every 2 - 3 years and 4 or five other teams tanking right along with you.
I don't believe in tanking, but people have different definitions of the word/idea. I'm not against giving our younger and less-experienced players more playing time than we would if we were in seriouis contention. That can be considered "tanking", but not quite the same as purposely allowing your team to lose in order to move up in the draft. I agree with the previous poster who stated that it would be awhile before he watched again if we purposely allowed our team to lose. That's chickenshizzle in my opinion, and ruins the game. If we decide that we just don't have enough talent to make a serious run, then I wouldn't complain if Morris, Patterson, Parsons, the former Rocket known as Tha Beet, etc got increased playing time to help them learn NBA basketball.
1.You can't count Magic and Bird as both being number one picks. Maybe if Bird was drafted number one the year before but he was 6th. You are just trying to fit those two into your argument. 2. I'll give you that one 3.What does Acquire have to do with anything? That was Isiah and Joe's team with him being 3rd fiddle at best and probably not even that with Bill there. 4. Jordan wasn't number 2. Your argument is no good if the best players weren't picked back to back. 5. Correct 6. Correct 7. Once again Wade was not number two he was the fifth pick. Even if Lebron wasn't in that draft Wade would not have been number 1. So no that's not 28 titles at all. You can't just assume all these players would be number one when not a single one of them was the number two pick except Isiah and he just happened to be on the same team with the first pick from his year who wasn't even one of the top two players on the team. And why should MJ and Wade have been number 2? Just because they ended up with the better careers than the people picked ahead of them? You can say that Dirk should have been number one in his draft but he wasn't. History shows that you most of the time tiy need a top 5 pick not a number 1 pick to win a title. You just tried to make up some fancy bad argument about how it's all about the number one pick with the assumption that players that weren't picked one or two would have or should have been. My criteria is not too broad. History shows that you need a top 10 picks to do well whether it is through drafting players or trading the picks. I don't see how top 10 is too broad of a pick area. Your 28 titles is based on a bad argument with a lot of assumptions about where a player would have been picked. Once again winning a title does not show that you need a number one pick. You can't claim people like Jordan, Wade, Bird, Isiah are pseudo number ones picks. If all those guys went number two behind a number one pick that led his team to a ring you might have a point but that is not the case for a single one of them.
