GoGoGadget
All-Star
Your scenario included moving some of our vets for expiring contracts, which would imply a move towards financial flexibility.
Grizzlies @ Kings Game Thread
- Thread starter piksi
- Start date
- Status
Your scenario included moving some of our vets for expiring contracts, which would imply a move towards financial flexibility.
Alacron
Bench
True, if we got rid of Bibby, Artest, and Miller, we would have some flexibility this offseason.
But that's a bit of a sidebar... I mainly wanted to address the rooting for losses to improve draft position... in my scenario we won too much to do that, but the rest of the situation was positive enough that we're not worrying about it.
If our young guys alone get dominated and we get a top pick, we'll be happy we got the top pick but not have much confidence in the supporting cast. If our young guys alone overachieve and we add a middling pick, we'll be happy that our young guys are showing that we can rely on them in the future, but be disappointed with the pick.
So why hope for losses, especially when we already know there's no chance of us finishing among the dregs of the league?
~~
Also, I'd like to bifurcate financial flexibility from the idea of the elusive superstar FA, because those almost don't exist, especially if you're not a team that has won a championship in the past few years. Financial flexibility is a MUST, however, if you have good players on rookie contracts that you want to hang onto. Or for the occasional Beno re-signing.
When we can draft some great rookies, we will badly need financial flexibility. Until then, we need no more than it takes to sign the sort of FAs that actually exist, like most of our bench players. Several million a year is ample for those purposes. More than that is kind of pointless.
That doesn't seem to be what we're doing, however; we're either penniless, or, a few years down the road, may have more money than we'll ever be able to use. I'm probably not alone in feeling confused by this situation.
When we can draft some great rookies, we will badly need financial flexibility. Until then, we need no more than it takes to sign the sort of FAs that actually exist, like most of our bench players. Several million a year is ample for those purposes. More than that is kind of pointless.
That doesn't seem to be what we're doing, however; we're either penniless, or, a few years down the road, may have more money than we'll ever be able to use. I'm probably not alone in feeling confused by this situation.
eastcoastking
Prospect
the main problem i have with sabotaging the team so we can lose more, and thus, gain a greater chance at a high, oh lets say... a top 5 lottery pick, is this:
in the ENTIRE HISTORY of the lottery (22 years) only 4 teams have won a championship WITH a player THEY PICKED in the top 5 on the roster the year(s) they won the nba title. the spurs lead the way with having drafted david robinson first overall in '87, sean elliott 3rd in '89, and tim duncan 1st in '97 (sean elliott actually left for one season, '93-94, then was picked up again as a free agent in '95). all 3 guys where apart of that first championship in '99. the bulls, through trades, ended up with the 5th pick in '87, scottie pippen. the pistons had the grizzlies' pick in '03 (one of the the grizzlies' many many top 5 picks) darko milicic as the 2nd overall pick. they of course won the next year. and most recent, the heat drafted dwyane wade as the 5th pick in the '03 draft and won in '06.
furthermore, only 3 other teams won conference titles with a top 5 lottery pick on the roster: the magic with shaq, the nets with kenyon martin, and the cavs with lebron james, all 1st overall picks. A wopping two 1st overall draft picks, since the lottery, have won chaimponships with the teams that drafted them.... the spurs' david robinson and tim duncan.
my point in all this is simple. losing more games so you can have a higher pick is.... well its just plain stupid. getting a high pick doesn't necessarily mean the future is bright. in most cases it means your franchise SUCKS. sabotaging accomplishes nothing other than turning you into a clippers(historically speaking) type team. losing can become a habit, and its a hard one to kick.
Last edited:
But, since 1986, only 6 teams have won championships. 4/6 doesn't sound like very bad odds to me.
eastcoastking
Prospect
actually, it would be 2/6 if you use that logic. after reading what i posted some of it is a little misleading. pippen and darko's picks were acquired through trades, so only the heat and the spurs won with those coveted high picks produced by having bad records. any way you look at my point remains the same. losing for high picks just sets you up for a long tradition of losing and constant "rebuilding". ask the grizzlies, clippers, hawks, and numerous other teams that have picked up several top 5 picks only to watch them waste away and/or eventually leave for other, better teams (or washout).
GoGoGadget
All-Star
The main problem with that particular logic, however, is that no one is advocating for just losing games and calling that enough.
As for the dangers of "constant rebuilding"... that should really be seen more as a sign of how important it is to do it right, than someting to discourage a team from doing it at all. There is not a single elite team that hasn't been completely torn down and rebuilt at some point in its history. It's an essential part of every team's natural cycle.
This is false. The Hawks haven't been rebuilding for years and years. The fact that that it took them so long to be relevant again is precisely because they tried to do exactly what we've been trying to do, which is retool on the fly... And it didn't work.
Atlanta's rebuild didn't start until they waived Terrell Brandon.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
This is one of those cases where its not clear whether you are being intentionally deceptive or just accidentally so. You actually could not have picked a statistic worse suited to your contention -- historically nearly EVERY title winner has had its own Top 5 pick at the helm.
In the 22 years since the lottery was created, you know how many teams have won a title without at least one Top 5 pick that they drafted themselves on their roster? Two. A single team that won a single title (Detroit -- and even they had drafted darko, I just choose not to count him), and then the Lakers who had the singular advantage of being the Lakers and therefore being able to sign away somebody else's superstar #1 pick (Shaq). Nobody else has that chance. 18/22 champions in that era have drafted their own Top 5 superstar.
Your restriction to players drafted in the lottery fails because it does not take into account that for all the early years of the lottery the dominant guys/teams were guys who were drafted before it started. Guys drafted in the lottery itself did not start having real shots at titles until the mid-90s.
These are the NBA champions of the lottery era (1985/86-present):
'86 Celtics (McHale #3/'80 (Bird was #6/'78 only because he stayed in school 1 yr)
'87 Lakers (Magic #1/'79, Worthy #1/'82, Scott #4/'83 (draft day trade)
'88 Lakers (Magic #1/'79, Worthy #1/'82, Scott #4/'83 (draft day trade)
'89 Pistons (Isiah #2/'81)
'90 Pistons (Isiah #2/'81)
'91 Bulls (Jordan #3/'84, Pippen #5/'87 (draft day trade))
'92 Bulls (Jordan #3/'84, Pippen #5/'87 (draft day trade))
'93 Bulls (Jordan #3/'84, Pippen #5/'87 (draft day trade))
'94 Rockets (Olajuwon #1/'84)
'95 Rockets (Olajuwon #1/'84)
'96 Bulls (Jordan #3/'84, Pippen #5/'87 (draft day trade))
'97 Bulls (Jordan #3/'84, Pippen #5/'87 (draft day trade))
'98 Bulls (Jordan #3/'84, Pippen #5/'87 (draft day trade))
'99 Spurs (Duncan #1/'97, Robinson #1/'87, Elliot #3/'89)
'00 Lakers (none -- Shaq was #1/'92, but they bought him)
'01 Lakers (none -- Shaq was #1/'92, but they bought him)
'02 Lakers (none -- Shaq was #1/'92, but they bought him)
'03 Spurs (Duncan #1/'97, Robinson #1/'87)
'04 Pistons (none* -- actually had Milicic #2/'03, but not a contributor)
'05 Spurs (Duncan #1/'97)
'06 Heat (Wade #5/'03)
'07 Spurs (Duncan #1/'97)
Last edited:
Big Cuz 15
All-Star
bit misleading there w/ KG.. there is only so much KG can control. he couldn't help but be on a team that has a buffoon GM. losing 3 draft picks to sign JOE SMITH???? LOL i'd jump off the target center if i made that mistake.
Jerryaki
Starter
question though: if you are a team that is low on tradeable assets and cap space, and you don't think that drafting high is an automatic answer, wouldn't you at least want the higher draft pick as a trading asset? i mean, isn't it better to package say garcia and a #2 pick than it is garcia and a #15 pick???
- Status
Similar threads
