A different perspective: Odds of lotto pick becoming Howard caliber vs Howard staying

The big difference is that we have morey and they had otis smith as the gm. Morey can diamond great role players from out of nowhere. Now he can build around a superstar instead of the just collecting assests.

 

I understand...it just loses any sort of punch that it may had when you put all sorts of exceptions clauses on it.

NO MAN HAS EVER LEAD THE LEAGUE IN HOME RUNS AND RBI IN THE SAME SEASON!! unless he was left-handed or unless he was not born in the United states or unless he was drafted later than round 2, but before round 12, or unless he served time in the military at some point in his career, or unless he played for the Yankees or Red Sox...

By the time you put all the exceptions in there, you have watered down any meaning the original premise may have had.

 

Meh,
How can you say there's no differnce between aquiring a star via trade vs. drafting one, other than salary? That is simply an inaccurate statement.

First off, there's salary, which you mention; it hurts cap flexibility. Then there are the assets you give up to get the star, which hurts a team's ability to put talent or build around that star. Then there's the crappy contracts you take back, which hurts the team's cap flexiblity, and therefore, hurts a team's ability to sign good talent and build around a star. There's a hell of a difference!

a weaker point, but one i will also make, is that when you draft a player, that player forms an identity with the organization and the city. That player may be more inclined to stay with the franchise (as long as it is a competitent franchise); verses a fly-by-night signing, in which the player feels no real attachment, and could bolt in free agency.

 

yeah it would bump up our picks. but Orlando would own them. We would be the worst team in the league and no lotto pick to get better. great logic.

 

Not true. We owe a first round pick that is lottery protected to Atlanta. If we make the playoffs this coming season that would convey to ATL. The next earliest pick we could trade to ORL would be two years after and we could only give them one.

So if we get horrible after Dwight bolts and we win the lottery that season we will own our own pick.

 

and my point is that it's never been done before. with the exception of Detroit, which had no real stars, no team has won an NBA title without drafting a star first. I understand that you don't want to move forward with the youth movement and not have a winning season. I get it. But all i'm saying is that the teams that have won championships got a cornerstone player in the draft first. It's an observation, which was made by asking a question.

regardless, i do appreciate the analysis that went into this thread

 

Even if you had the first overall pick, it's still a crap shoot.

Overthe 20 year span from 1988-2007
Manning, Ellison, Coleman, Larry Johnson, Oneal, Webber, Glenn Robinson, Joe Smith, Iverson, Duncan, Olowokandi, Brand, Kenyon Martin, Kwame Brown, Yao, Lebron, Dwight Howard, Bogut, Bargnani, Oden....

Onle 5 or 6 of those 20 ended up being guys that you would really want to build a championship contender around. Shaq, Webber, Iverson, Duncan, Lebron and Howard.

So we have to have THE WORST record in the league...then we still only have a 25% chance of getting the #1 pick. Then if we do somehow do all of that, we only have a 25% chance of getting what we need.
We could have the worst record two or three years in a row, end up with Bogut and Joe Smith.

Everyone talks about OKC and how they built it.
Name me a championship team out there since 1980 that got their top three players through the draft. There are none.

 

It's a straw man argument. The biggest concern isn't Howard's caliber. It's whether he's going to stay after one season (and some concern with his back injury too). In short, those who have reservation about giving all promising young players for Howard isn't because they believe any of those youngsters will likely become what Howard is but because of the LENGTH of service we may get from Howard.

And we all know that by giving up the whole barn, we aren't going to contend even with Howard on the team. You need some time to build up the supporting cast. And if Howard walks after one year, there isn't much of a point to build around him.

It is true that the chances of draft picks turning into something at Howard level aren't very good. But if any one of these guys does become a superstar, he is going to be here for the length of the rookies contract and almost certainly will stay for at least the length of one more max contract.

 

The 1980s. Lakers and Celtics came pretty close.

Lakers had James Worthy and Magic Johnson who were VERY high picks (and the Lakers were never that bad). The got their big guy (Kareem) in a TRADE.

Celtics had Bird and McHale who were VERY high picks. They got their big guy (Parish) in a TRADE.

So let's say we do get Dwight by TRADE and either Royce White or Motiejunas turns out to be a little special, we might not be that far away....

 

We have zero to lose. Why not pull the trigger? DO IT!

 

The point is to suck at the right time. Most of those players were already being seen as franchise changing players while in school. We don't tank for shabazz muhammed or a Nerlens Noel. We wait to tank for an Andrew Wiggins. You just hope you get the number 1 pick when he comes out. Maybe with the way everything is rigged he ends up in Houston bc of his dad, but most likely the Raptors since hes from there. Sterned.

 

Yeah they were close in the 80's. That was a completely different era as well, when lottery protected picks did not exist, so the Lakers were extremely fortunate to get both Magic and Worthy. Same with the Celtics getting that #1 pick that they parlayed into Parish and McHale.

Once you get that first good player, it is hard to be bad enough to get a second good player in the draft. OKC pulled it off twice actually.

It was also much easier back then to project potential picks. They had played 3 or 4 years of college by the time you picked them.

In my head, the trade for Howard and try to sign him and build around him has a 30% chance of working....while the tank and get high picks and hope for the best has about a 5% chance of working if that.

 

It boggles my mind why no one can comprehend this. I have been saying this for the past year yet people just don't want to believe it.

 

Lakers. Bynum was drafted but everyone else was traded for.

 

Come on old man your losing it . The Heat just did it last year... Lebron, Bosh, and Battier won that championship. Dwayne Wade was a non factor. The last two Lakers championship teams were also won through trades/free agency. I'm not saying Kobe was a non factor but I am saying without Shaq, Kobe is Dominique at best.

If you want to get really technical the Morey blueprint is not really his but that of the showtime Lakers. They never tanked but built their team through trades. They traded for Kareem and Magic.

 

The Lakers haven't drafted a single star on their team since Magic Johnson. Kobe was drafted by Charlotte, and then traded to the Lakers. Shaq signed as a free agent. We obviously know Pau was traded by Memphis. This is a new era of basketball, and saying you have to DRAFT your superstars is antiquated. You get the star by whatever means necessary, and then you build around him. Dwyane Wade was drafted by Miami, but until they got Shaq, they didn't even sniff a championship. Same with this new iteration of the Heat.

 

Magic Johnson was the #1 overall pick of the Lakers in 1979.