Taking Risk: It's Time

I have a feeling this post is going to go a little bit everywhere, so bear with me. The central theme that I want to discuss is the concept of risk and how different teams in different situations should treat it differently.

For contending teams, risk should be a dirty word. The chance of winning a championship, a true chance, is so preciously ephemeral that you have to take the most advantage of it while that window is still open. There is no time to be taking risks and potentially wasting your golden opportunity when you are already so close.

As much as people hated it, that is the reason why we traded the 8th pick for Shane Battier. Those people might feel redeem nowadays where we would certainly be better off with guys we could have drafted like Rudy Gay. They would also be missing the point. In 2007 with a healthy Yao and Tmac this was a contending team. Without a sure thing in the draft by the time we were picking, it was a risk. A risk that this team could not afford to take given our fleeting window of opportunity. Instead, Shane Battier was low risk and low reward, the safer bet. Whether that specific trade was right or wrong, given that we did not end up winning a championship, is all hindsight. The idea behind it, a contending team avoiding risk, was correct. Since then we have done similar trades in the same situation, like the trades that brought us Artest. Those are as safe a bet as you can make.

However, for rebuilding teams, risk should be their top priority. This is because the system that the NBA operates under rewards reckless(yes reckless) risk-taking for non-contending teams like no other. And by reckless risk-taking I mean high risk high reward. This is because your bet either pans out brilliantly, or you crash and burn and the system rewards you with a high draft pick. As long as your management team is competent in identifying talent in the draft, it is a win/win situation.

I see a lot of good posters who want to hang on to our veterans instead of trading them for high picks in a weak draft because either that is too risky, or we are not getting enough value in return. I think this is the point that they are missing. You cannot view risk in a vacuum. A contending team would be crazy to trade a bonafide contributor like Kevin Martin for inknown commodities in the draft. Not smart! However, for a rebuilding team not only is it worth the risk, it might be worth it even if we are not getting full value in return. Because the value of a better pick the following year might be worth more.

We hear talks now about the team trying to trade up in the draft. What makes this year different than the last 2 years where we have failed? The difference is Yao. Like it or not, the team was still betting on Yao until 5 games into last season. That might seem crazy to some people, but to me it was the only bet they could make. With a healthy Yao they were a contending team. Yes that might sound like a paradox to some people who view a healthy Yao like some mythical unicorn, but there was a chance. It might have been the slimmest of chances, but even a 1% chance meant a shot at contending. Meanwhile not betting on Yao meant a 0% chance at contending. 1% > 0%, it is as simple as that. And as precious of a chance at contending is, any chance is worth it. Besides, what exactly has betting on Yao cost us? A one year delay in rebuilding? Big whoop.

With that said, they were not going to put all their eggs in the Yao basket even if they were still betting on him. Everyone knew the chances were slim, which is where "rebuilding on the fly" came from. We had contingencies and going young and attempting to trade up in the draft were part of them. However, since we were still trying to contend with Yao, we were not willing to take the risks of a fully rebuilding team. I believe that is what kept us from trading up on those few occasions. The difference this year is Yao is now out of the picture, and so is contending.

We have come full circle from the days of the Battier trade. We are now in full rebuild mode and risk should no longer hold us back. In fact, for this team in this situation, risk is what we should embrace.

 

Indeed I said "reckless", and I described what I meant by it: high risk high reward. That doesn't mean you cannot measure your risks against others. If there is something else that is even riskier with even higher reward then by all means. The point of being "reckless" is looking only at the upside, and ignoring the potential downside. Surely you understood this, since:

is exactly what I mean. BTW taking the biggest risk possible doesn't have to be "haphazardly". It can still be calculated.

This is not what I am describing at all. A poker player who plays recklessly is not rewarded with anything. If he gets called down then it is at BEST a coin flip where he is risking his entire bankroll. Most likely it is much worse than a coin flip since only decent hands are calling you. And when you lose, you lose. How is that win/win? Meanwhile, if you crap out on your risk-taking as a rebuilding team, you are rewarded with a high lotto pick. A high lotto pick is NOTHING like a coin flip in a poker game. A high lotto pick in of itself is one of the most valuable assets you can acquire, and that is completely ignoring who you eventually end up picking. A high lotto pick is worth more than Kevin Martin. A high lotto pick is worth more than Luis Scola. This risk-less proposition is the whole premise behind why we should be taking as much risk as possible.

Surely you understand this, heypartner. In fact you understood it so well that you were the one scoffing at the mere suggestion of trading Martin for a top 5 pick when I brought it up weeks ago. To you, a top 5 pick was that valuable compared to Martin, and it would be laughable for us to even try. So why in the world are you now comparing it to a crapshoot all in bet by some luckbox donk at the poker table?

 

The reason the odds are low going from a horrible team to one contending for a championship is the difficulty in building a team. Acquiring a franchise player is only the first step and guarantees you nothing. Guys like Kevin Garnett and Tracy Mcgrady went nowhere without a team around them. That is the difficult part and why it is unlikely.

However, Morey has proven that that is his strong suit. When it comes to building a team he can practically turn water into wine. Vspan into Scola. Rafer into Lowry. Landry into Martin. Those are miracles for most other GMs. And when you put them together sheer wizardry. The problem is we are missing the first step, the franchise player to put those guys around. No amount of wizardry will get you there unless you are a no-talent horrible team to begin with. Once you give that first step to Morey, he has proven that he can handle the rest of the process better than what makes it "unlikely" for your typical scenario with your typical GM.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting we throw away talent. I am suggesting we take risk. High risk high reward, not high risk no reward. And with high risk comes the possibility of not getting fair value in return, not certainty. However, this possibility is alleviated by the high pick you should receive if it does not pan out. Again, the premise of the thread.

I believe our past attempts at trading for superstars was with contention in mind. To pair him with Yao. Therefore getting fair value back in return is at a high priority, since if we give up too much, we end up like the NY Knicks, still going nowhere with Yao's window closing. I think that is less of a priority now for a rebuilding team. Our goal should be to get a franchise player, at what ever the cost. If we give up the boat to trade up this year, we could gamble on someone who might turn into a franchise player. And if he does not pan out, that lost value from the guys we traded would be made up from the high pick we would receive next year, with another shot at a franchise player. Again, that is the premise of the thread, whatever risk we seemingly take is in reality risk-less taking the NBA's lotto system into account.

 

Value is value. For Martin and Scola their value isn't going up, maybe it goes down if they get injured. If it takes Martin + picks to get a top 4 pick in this draft, that same value will get you a similar return in 2012 or 2013, nothing more. That means the 10th pick in 2012 or whatever it comes out to. All that accomplishes is delaying rebuilding by a year.

 

An example of what I am talking about is trading Ray Allen in his prime for the 5th pick and drafting Jeff Green. That is a high risk high reward move that would have been foolish for a contender to make. But for a rebuilding team it made sense. Was it fair value? Is Jeff Green ever going to be better than Ray Allen in his prime? Hell, is Jeff Green better than Ray Allen today? Jeff Green could have been a franchise player and "fair value", but with high risk comes the possibility of being wrong. The morale of the story is, for a rebuilding team who is willing to take risks, when you are wrong you get rewarded with Russell Westbrook.

 

I think where we disagree is here. If anything, Morey has shown he can willy and nilly and re-acquire those pieces with ease. Think about how we got those "untouchable" pieces you are talking about in the first place.