Playoffs or high draft picks?

[VF21]

But my question would be, for your next task (should you choose to accept it. ) would be to take all those top players, and list which ones got their team a championship vs. those that had great careers but never got a ring.

And that's the crap shoot part of the whole thing...

This is a TEAM game, as you've said. A GM who puts his team's future on the line in the hopes of snagging a top draft pick takes a BIG risk. It worked for the Spurs, but it wasn't the reason Boston is in better shape. Had Kevin Garnett not wanted a trade, the Celtics wouldn't look too hot right now and Danny Ainge's acumen would still in question.

This is one of those arguments, however, that will never be resolved one way or the other. Most teams will NOT put everything on the line when they still have bills to pay and fans to bring in for the games. Something that looks good in theory may just not end up being practical, regardless of how strongly someone posits the position. IMHO this is one of those times.

 

[Bricklayer]

If you want to go into who carried their team to a title -- as in not along for the ride, not the #2 guy who could have been replaced, but who was the engine, that's more elitist still.

You list over the last 25 years would be Duncan (#1), Wade (#5), Ben Wallace (undrafted) (unless you wanted to tag Chauncey (#3 pick) or Sheed (#4 as the engine there), Shaq (#1), Jordan (#3), Hakeem (#1), Zeke (#2), Magic (#1), Bird (#6) etc.

Our own close call was powered by Webb (#1).

 

[Cal-Kings]

If you want to go into who carried their team to a title -- as in not along for the ride, not the #2 guy who could have been replaced, but who was the engine, that's more elitist still.

You list over the last 25 years would be Duncan (#1), Wade (#5), Ben Wallace (undrafted) (unless you wanted to tag Chauncey (#3 pick) or Sheed (#4 as the engine there), Shaq (#1), Jordan (#3), Hakeem (#1), Zeke (#2), Magic (#1), Bird (#6) etc.

Our own close call was powered by Webb (#1).

Thanks, or the reverse question. How many teams won a championship without an elite player? I'm not sure I'd put Ben Wallace in that elite status, just IMHO, or even Chauncey or Sheed. Certainly they are all-star calibre but I wonder how much of the Pistons really is a mix of the personnel and not any one player.

I'm sick thinking that we'll end up 10 or 11 again, then have horrid luck in the lottery and be at the bottom. We seem to have the worst luck.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And that's the crap shoot part of the whole thing...

This is a TEAM game, as you've said. A GM who puts his team's future on the line in the hopes of snagging a top draft pick takes a BIG risk.

This may be true, but what it comes down to for me is do you agree or disagree that it's easier to build a championship contending team around a Chris Webber than it is to build one around a Kevin Martin?

 

[Cal-Kings]

This may be true, but what it comes down to for me is do you agree or disagree that it's easier to build a championship contending team around a Chris Webber than it is to build one around a Kevin Martin?

Except a GM never really has the choice. It's luck and if you're unlucky, you have to work with what you have.

 

[C Diddy]

That's an excellent grid Brick. Thanks for the hard work. Looking at the players and the stats, it looks like #1, #3, and #5 are the way to go with a big dropoff until #9, where quite a few star caliber players have popped out in the last few years (Amare, Dirk, Marion, T-Mac). Overall though, anything after #1 gets you a significantly reduced chance for a potential superstar and anything past 10 is a shot in the dark, or at the very least, a shot in the twilight. Its far better to shoot for a top 5 pick then it is to just miss the playoffs, year after year.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Except a GM never really has the choice. It's luck and if you're unlucky, you have to work with what you have.

I tend to be of the opinion that you make your own luck. I feel that a good GM, which people seem to believe Petrie is, should be able to project down the road. GM's should be able to make an educated guess about when they are going to eventually have to rebuild (and I don't think that Petrie did a good job of that), and they should have the people they pay to scout prospects notify them of when said prospects will become available, and then make plans in advance to put themselves in the best position to acquire said prospects. Luck has little, if anything, to do with it.

 

[Cal-Kings]

I tend to be of the opinion that you make your own luck. I feel that a good GM, which people seem to believe Petrie is, should be able to project down the road. GM's should be able to make an educated guess about when they are going to eventually have to rebuild (and I don't think that Petrie did a good job of that), and they should have the people they pay to scout prospects notify them of when said prospects will become available, and then make plans in advance to put themselves in the best position to acquire said prospects. Luck has little, if anything, to do with it.

I think only a portion of a GMs job is planning. Maybe 1/3rd is luck. And that bit of luck can make all the difference. Someone mentioned Ainge above. I think that's an example of things falling into his lap or the stars aligning. I don't think that came from extensive planning.

Draft picks are mostly luck starting with a lottery. Look at the advantage Portland and Seattle got. There was no stragety in that. That was pure luck.

A GM has to be able to put together a team and know the limitations of only what is in his control. Certainly this involves planning and looking ahead at all the salary situations. When you're unlucky, the GM's work is harder.

What players are available is not in the control of GM. Only the ability to make a trade is in his control, and even then, he has to have the value to give away first.

I think our problem stems more from trying to rebuild too soon starting with trading Christie through the worst trade, Webber. If the Webber trade was supposed to signal a rebuild, then Petrie made a horrible trade gaining nothing but untradeable players in the bunch.

I think that one deal screwed up the team more than any other putting us in a weak position for deals now.

Not much left to work with but luck.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And I'm going to say again, luck has little to nothing to do with it. Boston is not a good proof for your position, because Garnett decided that he would accept a trade only after the Celtics acquired Ray Allen. And how the Celtics acquire Ray Allen? They were able to parlay the Number Five pick in the draft for him, that's how.

The only way in which your draft position is in any way influenced by "luck" is if you have a GM that is so limited in his thinking that he looks at whatever position he has in the draft/lottery and resigns himself to "well, I guess that's it, then." In the first place, the lottery is determined by probability. That's not "luck," it's cold hard math. And one way to get a good lottery position is to put yourself into position to have the best mathematical probability to get as high a pick as possible. Another way to get a good lottery position is to barter for it. Identify what you need, then go to whomever has it, and find out what they want in exchange for it. Make a deal. Again, not luck; that's what a GM's supposed to do.

 

[Kingster]

Thanks, or the reverse question. How many teams won a championship without an elite player? I'm not sure I'd put Ben Wallace in that elite status, just IMHO, or even Chauncey or Sheed. Certainly they are all-star calibre but I wonder how much of the Pistons really is a mix of the personnel and not any one player.

I'm sick thinking that we'll end up 10 or 11 again, then have horrid luck in the lottery and be at the bottom. We seem to have the worst luck.

I think it's been said before that the Pistons are the exception to the rule. The Detroit before that had Isiah, and then there was Alcindor and Robertson with the Bucks and Dr. J with Philly. If you're going by history, you don't want to build around the exception, you definitely want to build around the rule.

Based on the past, we'll have a lousy record until February, Petrie doesn't make a trade for youth/athelticism at the Feb trade deadline, Martin and Bibby comes back and play well, Hawes, JW, and Douby sit on the bench, with Garcia getting minimum minutes. We then miss the playoffs and get the 11-14 slot, guaranteeing another wing player in the draft.

 

[yanon]

It seems to me that drafting at number 9 or 13 is as good as drafting among top 2 to 5. Unfortunately for the Kings, they got a number ten pick this year. Anyway, Brick's chart definitely proves that getting a top-five picks significantly increases the odd of acquiring an all-star level player. Good job Brick.
This Kings team needs a high draft pick more than barely making the playoff as an eigth seed since it doesn't have a cornerstone franchise player yet.

 

[VF21]

And I'm going to say again, luck has little to nothing to do with it. Boston is not a good proof for your position, because Garnett decided that he would accept a trade only after the Celtics acquired Ray Allen. And how the Celtics acquire Ray Allen? They were able to parlay the Number Five pick in the draft for him, that's how.

And do you think that was all a master plan of Ainge's? I sure don't. I think he fell into the perfect scenario in spite of his bumbling. But people will look at the Celtics and praise Danny Ainge...

 

[Vlade4GM]

And do you think that was all a master plan of Ainge's? I sure don't. I think he fell into the perfect scenario in spite of his bumbling. But people will look at the Celtics and praise Danny Ainge...

Whether it was his initial plan or not is irrelevant. That's still the way it went down and it wouldn't have happened without that lottery pick.

 

[VF21]

Whether it was his initial plan or not is irrelevant. That's still the way it went down and it wouldn't have happened without that lottery pick.

Not the point at all, Vlade4GM. I was exchanging a specific comment with Slim...

 

[BMiller52]

And do you think that was all a master plan of Ainge's? I sure don't. I think he fell into the perfect scenario in spite of his bumbling. But people will look at the Celtics and praise Danny Ainge...

You could say the same thing about Petrie in 98 though.

 

[Glenn]

You could say the same thing about Petrie in 98 though.

Absolutely you can say that. In fact, it is probably the truth yet Petrie got a reputation of being somewhat of a basketball genius.

Putting together a championship team (one this franchise hasn't seen since 1951) has a lot of luck involved and as much as most of us think there is a specific pathway to attaining that type of team, there has to be a "perfect storm" of controllable and uncontrollable factors to take place.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Not the point at all, Vlade4GM. I was exchanging a specific comment with Slim...

Oh I see, nvm.

 

[VF21]

Putting together a championship team (one this franchise hasn't seen since 1951) has a lot of luck involved and as much as most of us think there is a specific pathway to attaining that type of team, there has to be a "perfect storm" of controllable and uncontrollable factors to take place.

Exactamundo...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

And do you think that was all a master plan of Ainge's? I sure don't. I think he fell into the perfect scenario in spite of his bumbling. But people will look at the Celtics and praise Danny Ainge...

It was fairly obvious that Ainge was angling for the Number One pick in the draft, but surely you don't think he was completely unaware that he could fall as far as low as #5, do you? He had to know that the fifth pick was a worst-case scenario. So no, I don't think that the Number Five pick was his "master plan," but unless you think that Petrie's the only GM capable of forming a backup plan, I don't see how you can hold that against him, seeing as how he actually did take what he was given and turn it into something very good.

 

[VF21]

Ainge was crucified for non-action, etc. for a couple of years before, all of a sudden, a bunch of factors combined and he was able to do something right. Remember, however, his very good friend Kevin McHale played an integral part to the whole Garnett to Boston scenario.

I'm simply pointing out that until the miracle happened, Ainge - who may or may not have had some kind of three-year plan - was pretty much out of favor and soundly criticized.

 

[piksi]

Ainge was crucified for non-action, etc. for a couple of years before, all of a sudden, a bunch of factors combined and he was able to do something right. Remember, however, his very good friend Kevin McHale played an integral part to the whole Garnett to Boston scenario.

I'm simply pointing out that until the miracle happened, Ainge - who may or may not have had some kind of three-year plan - was pretty much out of favor and soundly criticized.

I am wondering whether here were some blackmail of some sorts involved here.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Ainge was crucified for non-action, etc. for a couple of years before, all of a sudden, a bunch of factors combined and he was able to do something right. Remember, however, his very good friend Kevin McHale played an integral part to the whole Garnett to Boston scenario.

True as that all may be, Kevin Garnett was not going to accept a trade to Boston until after they traded to acquire Ray Allen, which McHale had nothing to do with.

Ainge acquiring Allen facilitated the wheel greasing by his good friend McHale to acquire Garnett. But, without Allen, not even their friendship was going to make that happen, because Garnett didn't want to go; he said so himself.

 

[Bricklayer]

I am wondering whether here were some blackmail of some sorts involved here.

Minnesota got a good deal, given how long they waited. Aren't going to beat big young stud, other young players, picks package. Just what the doctor ordered.

As far as Ainge...Ainge CREATED the entire summer by tanking. You cannot argue that. He created the entire situation in pursuit of one of the most valauyble assets in basektball -- a Top 5 pick in the draft. It did not work out the way he wanted it too -- he wanted #1, which would have been a brilliant coup on its own. But by making his move to get a Top 5 pick, everything else became possible. If he is picking #10 it is not. If he is pushing to make the playoffs as a #8 seed, it is not. And Boston sucks again this year. But he made his move for the high pick, and then he parlayed the high picks value into Ray Allen, which dominoed into Kevin Garnett (who has said the Allen trade is what made him reconsider going to Boston), and now look at the fun in Beantown. And it all turned on doing what it took to get that great asset. No Top 5 pick, no nothing in Boston this year. So if Ainge sucks that bad and can blunder into that, it does make you wonder what can be said for a GM who can't even comprehend the same.

 

[fnordius]

Minnesota got a good deal, given how long they waited. Aren't going to beat big young stud, other young players, picks package. Just what the doctor ordered.

Having Ratliff's $11.7M come off the books this summer is going to be pretty sweet, too. With several smaller contracts, they're going to have a total of almost $22M expiring, then around $23M more expiring the following summer. The FA market may not be very exciting, but young talent needs raises, and they have a *good* rookie contract to extend every year through 2012. After this year's draft, make that 2013. So the cap space is great.

 

[kupman]

Tanking in any form and at any level is dishonest and constitutes a form of cheating IMHO. Any time a team is not putting forth their best effort and/or product for any type of secondary gain is, by my definition, tanking. Just a few of my thoughts:

1) If I suspected that the Kings were “tanking” in any way I would really lose respect for the organization. It would be one the very few reasons that I would, perhaps, cease being a fan.

2) The spirit of the game to me is trying your best no matter what the situation. This spirit should be a model for kids. I am not sure how I would tell my kids that “well, the Kings really are not put their best effort on the court any more because they are hoping that by losing they will get better.” Blank stare by kid……..followed by “so the Kings have given-up this year?” Me: “um….., well…..yeah, kind of like that – I guess.”

3) This whole issue is a very serious problem for the league. It is discussed throughout the league – not just here. I guess that if winning a championship is what is all important (not my belief) then about 2/3 of the teams in league should begin tanking around x-mas each year. Only the top 1/3 of the league has a “real” chance of obtaining the title so the other 2/3 should start a race for the bottom and the earlier you get started the better.

How is a league supposed to operate when 2/3 of the league is actually hoping to lose games? This cuts right to the heart of the integrity of the game. It is a much bigger issue than the gambling scandal IMHO. The lottery system needs to be changed to keep tanking from being any kind of temptation.

4) I applaud the Kings FO for not tanking. Tanking is not imaginative, smart or courageous. Anyone can tank and it lacks integrity.

 

[Jerryaki]

are minnesota and portland tanking right now, or do they just suck?

 

[LPKingsFan]

Ugh. We're still talking about tanking? This wasn't resolved last year?

I'll say it before, and I'll say it again. I would much rather watch a team of young players with a bright future ahead of them try to win but lose because they are still developing. The lotto picks that add more pieces to the puzzle are just the icing on the cake, there. Who wants to watch a bunch of ill-fitting vets with no chance of winning it all?

Don't get me wrong, I still love it when the Kings win. I hate to see them lose. The team should never try to lose (which differentiates tanking from rebuilding). The idea is for Kevin, Douby, Cisco and Hawes to learn how to win and be able to. If they can do that sooner rather than later, great. If not, let them grow and develop, adding some more youth in the draft, until they can.

 

[Glenn]

And the youngsters that will lead us to the promised land are who? Douby is getting minutes and doesn't seem to fit in any better than the ill-fitting vets. Watkins and Williams I suspect are getting the minutes they are earning in practice. The only rookie that needs more minutes as far as I'm concerned is Hawes. One guy who is recovering from a minor knee procedure.

Is this argument over one guy in the first month of his career? It seems like there is far more at stake given the long and erudite posts that use big words, lengthy recounting of the past, numbers that are espoused to prove something, and complex paragraphs to hide the fact that they are opinions just like every body else's.

Some opinions are strung together more intelligently than others but they are still opinions.

And if a majority have the same opinion, it doesn't mean the opinion becomes fact.

 

[dude12]

And the youngsters that will lead us to the promised land are who? Douby is getting minutes and doesn't seem to fit in any better than the ill-fitting vets. Watkins and Williams I suspect are getting the minutes they are earning in practice. The only rookie that needs more minutes as far as I'm concerned is Hawes. One guy who is recovering from a minor knee procedure.

Is this argument over one guy in the first month of his career? It seems like there is far more at stake given the long and erudite posts that use big words, lengthy recounting of the past, numbers that are espoused to prove something, and complex paragraphs to hide the fact that they are opinions just like every body else's.

Some opinions are strung together more intelligently than others but they are still opinions.

And if a majority have the same opinion, it doesn't mean the opinion becomes fact.

Damn....that was well said. I especially agree with the 2nd paragraph.

 

[Jerryaki]

Is this argument over one guy in the first month of his career? It seems like there is far more at stake given the long and erudite posts that use big words, lengthy recounting of the past, numbers that are espoused to prove something, and complex paragraphs to hide the fact that they are opinions just like every body else's.

Some opinions are strung together more intelligently than others but they are still opinions.

And if a majority have the same opinion, it doesn't mean the opinion becomes fact.

so you are suggesting...we just come to this board to post facts?