That's true but I can't rely on a system that depended on another team drafting Johnny Flynn. The draft has just changed so much now, I used to be pro-tanking in the Scola days because you could basically guarantee a top 5 pick. I know before we won this game we had a 30% chance at a top 4 pick. That's crazy. It's now at an 8.1% because we're in those last 4 spots that will compete for a playoff spot in the play-in tourney and I'd be surprised if the NBA doesn't make that permanent. But 8.1 percent is still a chance at striking lucky. Before, it was virtually impossible. You are 14 and you will draft 14th, that's just how it went. Now though, maybe you won't get a top 3 pick, maybe you draft 11th despite being 14th or 10th? So my mentality towards it is I don't want to worry about it. The talent pool has expanded so much since then, the entire world plays or close to it, so it means a lot more stars can come from anywhere. We're seeing this a lot more now too. Sure Jokic and Giannis are rare exceptions but so are Harden's and Durant's and Lebron's. You can still find a Jimmy Butler, a Donovan Mitchel, a CJ, A Green... That's why I think it's more important now to have a system, a culture, and something where you know you can develop players. We'll get in on the lottery eventually because we'll always (hopefully) have players to trade. Hell, thanks to Miami's collapse we might have a 10-14th picks no matter what we do. Eventually, we hope we draft the right guy and when we do he'll have a team around him.
Rubio's hype went through the roof because of...either the FIBA games or Olympic. Basically he matched up with Team USA and had a really good showing and he was super young then. I just meant more than his talent that he would have been a superstar, a face of the league. I don't know if anyone thought he'd be the best PG of all time but I don't think any team was taking a PG over him. I'd say he has had the same level of hype as Doncic had or close to it. Yeah and Yi also had that hype and I'll never understand how Yi didn't make it, he looks like a prototypical ball player and had all the tools... There's always these guys though. Greg Oden was supposed to be the next Bill Russell, the hype that guy had was insane. Everyone in that draft did tank for him and I hate to call him a bust because it was more because of injuries rather than skill but he might be the biggest bust ever when it comes to hype. Crazy to believe he'd be 33 and he should still be tearing up the league and have a few rings to show for it with how much they hyped him up. I always feel bad for a player like Oden when compared to other busts like Rubio or Kwame Brown because those latter two had their shot and just weren't good enough. Also I bring up Oden because he was picked before Durant and people always say "What idiots Portland haha!" at least casuals do...but at the time Oden was clearly the #1 pick, I think every team would have picked him outside of whoever had top centers at the time and even still they'd just sell the 'Twin Towers' thing and move on.
No, Duncan was the original foundation and they tanked for Duncan. You are way too dogmatic about this..... In reality it takes a multilateral approach in creating a Spurs or GSW dynasty.....
Okay? Thats literally every NBA team. Nope. It was stupidity It was stupidity No, that was Boston being proactive and Philly being stupid. Nope, you are not. You are banking on something with way less odds of happening and springing in mediocrity. They were and it is. Morey didnt have high draft picks often. Im not but I think people can work with high draft picks.
I know that, but they do not have their championships without Manu or Parker who they did not tank for and people keep bringing it up the odds simply are not the same anymore. If the Spurs did that then, there was a coin flip shot at getting the #1 pick, and if they don't, they don't get Duncan.
But they put themslevs in postion, that is the point. None of their championships happen without Duncan. He's a top 10 player of all time, you are acting like Parker and Ginobli are of equal value to him when they weren't.
It being every NBA team is the point. Yep. It's not stupididty, all of these guys are top 10 picks for very good reasons, it's not some coincidence outside of the random time a team makes some desperate reach. The top 5 picks are consensus, that's why they are top 5. NO ONE has any idea how great any of those guys will be. For the Kings, Luka's concerns were very valid and they felt they had a franchise guard any ways. EVERY GM drafts more failed players than they do successful players because it is hard. You're downplaying this along with the pitfalls of tanking completely.
They were of extreme value to the Spurs. They put themselves in position in a time when it was all but guaranteed, now, it's a coin flip. It's a coin flip for most of the teams in the lottery, or close to it give or take. Most of the teams in the lottery now have a good chance at getting a top 5 pick. It wasn't always this way. Then it was that way and even still it was a spotty method. I'll ask you again because you never answer it. Why then are teams bad for more than 3 years if tanking is a surefire way to get a star? It isn't, there's just too many variables. One the lottery, the main variable. Two, other teams that might pick ahead of you. Three, does the guy actually have the mentality and drive to be great. You have to hit on all these things when nowadays you can finish as the 10th worth team and still get a top 5 pick you have to wonder if it's just better to try and build a team naturally and just hope you get lucky in the lottery.
You put yourself in a position to succeed that is the point. Scared money doesnt make money. No its not. You are literally ignoring everything we have talked about. It is stupidity. Yea and the top 5 are usually GREAT PLAYERS. That is the point. Those are the odds. Its not some bum crapshoot. You are making it out to be way worse than it is. Lol, no they werent. They werent valid at all. And they would have two instead of Bagely if they drafted Luka. I cannot believe you are saying this. That's why you take multiple opportunities to get it right. That's why you accumulate assets. But you especially need high first round picks in those assets. No, you are afraid of.... I dont know something very weird,despite multiple instances of it working out, like more than it failing.
Maybe. You don't know that. Butler isn't exactly the best teammate when things aren't going his way. Maybe the could stuff is just too disruptive for them? This is an odd season, I wouldn't bank on them getting better and I think we've seen the best Jimmy we'll ever see last season.
Sure, not as valuable as Duncan, end of story. Coin flip is good enough for our situation. Eh, Warriors tanked(or were bad whatever lol) last year and got a good pick. We just need to be bottom 4. Because they are incompetent, the end. Scared money. You go with the best shot on the road to the chip, you take it. The odds are considerably worse and we will be doing it all over again next year anyways when we have control of the pick.
No, Duncan is the key foundation and they tanked for it. Maybe the Spurs draft well in other places and win a chip without one of Manu and Parker but Duncan was always the foundation. Regardless of odds, talent is still concentrated at the top of the draft......
But that's wrong. The top 5 are not usually great players. Most of these guys fail. You keep acting like top 5 is a guarantee for a star player and it simply isn't. Two of those guys becoming all-stars is a 'great' draft. Usually ONE of those guys is an all-star player. Look back at the drafts and count the all-stars. One or two, the rest of the top 5 guys either become decent rotational guys/starters (Like maybe Ayton level) or soem are not even in the league for long. Okay, now increase the difficulty. Count the all-stars that can be first team NBA guys...the guys you need to win a championship...well, now, these guys are only coming into the NBA once every 3 years or so. You keep saying it works out but again, if it usually worked out, then no team would be bad for long. Eventually it would work out, they'd get their franchise player...but it doesn't happen? Why, because of the 3 variables I mentioned. You can suck, get the #1 pick, and it could be Oden and not Lebron or Duncan or it could be just a decent player like Karl Anthony Towns...you need everything to go wrong...or right depending on your POV. That's why again, teams can suck for more than 3 years, they can do it for 10 years and never quite get it right because it's hard. You're selling it as a get rich quick scheme and it isn't. There is a chance, a good chance at that, you draft a bust or a 'decent' guy like KAT and you're doing it over and over again until your franchise is a laughing stock to the point that even if you're in NYC or LA no one wants to play for you.
But the odds of getting a top pick are entirely relevant here. Why are people acting like there are no downsides to tanking? There is 0 risk to it?
I can gurantee you that the top 5 guys have way better odds of succeeding than guy's being drafted lower than them. That's what matters here. Im for multiple years of tanking tbh to get that guy. Teams are bad because they have bad FOs which make them bad at drafting. Scared money man. You take the chance because its the best way to do so. If you are a good FO you will be fine. No, again. Teams suck because they have bad front offices. Tanking doesnt make them bad. Its not a get rich quick scheme, its just the fastest way to making your franchise relevant.
And this is what people are missing is we have a good environment for young guys to raise their value and grow their game. Like, we saw how bad these guys can look when they just have each other, it looks pretty bad. As much as we hate Ego and Wall and Dipo holding the ball for too long we need one of these guys around to be able to run offense through or just be able to get a bucket here and there. Tate would look bad if he had to be forced to playmaker more than he had to and that would lower his value. Now that the team is all healthy he can focus on his strengths and it will only raise his value for the team. If he continues to grow...maybe we can flip Tate for a lottery pick that may benefit us without tanking. I think this is the strategy most teams are taking now with the new lottery odds, pick protections are a big deal now more than ever because of it.
I think you're way is the scared way. It's the easy way out and a 'get rich quick' scheme. The way the Heat have done it and a lot of other teams is the hard way but the right way. You're fine with becoming a bad team for 7-8+ years... But the lottery is a gamble, and just like most gambling, at some point you put yourself in such a hole that the only way out is to gamble. Teams are bad at drafting, to be sure, but again, you're acting like a 'good' drafting team hits a lot on their picks. You go look at the Heat, you look at Masai, any top GM/Exec you want to name, they miss more often than they hit. Making your team bad on purpose just for a better shot at winning the lottery is a bad strategy nowadays. Again, if you're trading vets for promising young players and draft picks, fine...but trading guys away JUST to be bad and create a toxic atmosphere is not going to help this franchise get to where it needs to be.
This is how you build. Best case scenario for the Houston Rockets over the next two or three years is finding a 20 year old phenom hopefully two of them.... I keep getting texts that the Rockets look good yesterday, I guess they look good as in trade value went up on a few players. We need to be losing....
