PDA

View Full Version : Proof that building through youth works



90'sNBARocked
01-19-2010, 03:51 PM
http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/shaun_powell/01/19/thunder.hawks/

I thought this was a very relevant article considering what the Pacers are going through currently, and the constant debate of how the best way to build a sucessful franchise goes


There is no fool-proof blueprint for success. Not with veterans. Not even with youth. Just ask the Bulls, who stuck with Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler until it became clear it wasn't working. Back in 1990, the Kings drafted four players in the first round: Lionel Simmons, Travis Mays, Duane Causwell and Anthony Bonner. They missed the playoffs the next five straight years and none of those first-rounders became stars. There have been other variations of youth movements to varying degrees of success. Right now, the Hawks stand as the best example of an experiment gone right, and even the Hawks had to pay their dues. Woodson won 13 games his first season and last season was the Hawks' first winning one in the process.

"I knew what I was walking into when I took this job," Woodson said. "I knew I wasn't going to win with young guys right away. A lot of it wasn't fun because I took some shots. It wasn't easy. But guys got better."

When the Thunder drafted Durant, the franchise was still in Seattle and in total transition. They gave up Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis and basically started from scratch. The Allen trade to Boston returned Jeff Green. The drafts landed Westbrook and rookie James Harden. And last month they received rookie point guard Eric Maynor in a salary dump from Utah. If they competed in a 22-and-under league, the Thunder would be the 1985-86 Celtics.


Could it be possible their is more than one way to build a sucessful franchise :eek:

Since86
01-19-2010, 04:01 PM
Obviously there is more than one way to do things. But at the same time, look at how long the Hawks were at the bottom of the league. The only place they had was to go up. They could have been better before now, drafting Paul or Deron Williams instead of Marvin Williams, not drafting Sheldon Williams so high etc.

And the Thunder aren't a good example either. It took that franchise moving cities to see changes in progress.

Two bad examples, IMHO.

Unclebuck
01-19-2010, 04:16 PM
Of course I would argue the hawks had to acquire a very seasoned vet - Mike Bibby before they were any good at all and for that matter Joe Joohnson - so no, the Hawks are not a good example of the point.

Maybe the Thunder and Grizzlies might be a better example -

My point is in general that sure you can build a team through youth - it will take awhile and youuth might get you to a 40 win team, but in order to go from a 40 win team that is an 8th seed to a 55 win team you need seasoned vets

docpaul
01-19-2010, 04:19 PM
And the Thunder aren't a good example either. It took that franchise moving cities to see changes in progress.


Hmm. What about the move helped the Thunder? Their youth movement was in place long before they moved from Seattle.

The citizens of OKC seemed to just benefit from what had already began a couple of years before they arrived.

Kstat
01-19-2010, 04:24 PM
The OKC Thunder were one unlucky ping pong bounce away from landing the #1 pick in 2007 and being stuck with Greg Oden. Exactly how far along would they be right now if they hadnt lucked into Kevin Durant?

People need to remember that there is a lot of luck involved in the draft. It's not guarentee things will turn out like the Thunder or Hawks. You could just as easily wind up like the Nets, Warriors, Clippers, Knicks, TWolves, wtc.

Los Angeles
01-19-2010, 04:28 PM
Best example of turn-around using youth is Portland. Oden or no Oden, they went from the Jailblazers back to home town heros with great success regardless of their record.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 04:34 PM
Of course I would argue the hawks had to acquire a very seasoned vet - Mike Bibby before they were any good at all and for that matter Joe Joohnson - so no, the Hawks are not a good example of the point.

Exactly. Their starting back court was acquired in trades, and in the meantime they managed to whiff on drafting Chris Paul or Deron Williams. Bravo, Atlanta.

As for OKC, even after getting Durant (make no mistake, just because you have the #2 pick doesn't mean you're going to wind up with a guy like him, by the way) and Green that franchise still stunk enough to be able to draft yet another top pick in Westbrook, and then stunk yet again to be able to draft Harden, and finally just now they're getting above .500. Whoopie!

Don't misunderstand me, their top talents are nice pieces, but it's not nearly as simple as "Hey, I'm going to play the tank card, and that means in 4 years I'll have the same deck of cards as the Thunder!" No. It doesn't work that way.

Then you have Memphis, and I would argue they wouldn't be looking this good without TRADING for Randolph and SIGNING Tinsley.

To say nothing of them having their best player gift-wrapped away two years ago (Pau Gasol).

Kstat
01-19-2010, 04:36 PM
Best example of turn-around using youth is Portland. Oden or no Oden, they went from the Jailblazers back to home town heros with great success regardless of their record.



Again, is that really a great example?

They bought up every mid-level prospect they could find, and are now stuck in purgatory where they are too good to get another high level draft pick, but not good enough to contend in the west, and they are going to give the farm to Aldrige and Roy who although very good are not going to be a 1-2 punch on a championship team.

Again, how far along would they be right now had they gotten the #2 pick instead of #1, and wound up with Durant?

Since86
01-19-2010, 04:36 PM
OKC were on the youth movement because the owner wanted to get out from under some salary and was dumping players. They traded Rashard Lewis for a 2nd round pick and 9.5mil in a trade exception.

That trade exception brought them Kurt Thomas and some draft picks from PHO. Those draft picks? Serge Ibaka and PHO's pick in this years draft.

They pretty much gave away Ray Allen for the rights to Jeff Green and Trent Plaisted. (I can only imagine what the other offers were if thats what they get in return....)

The movement was salary dump first and foremost.

Los Angeles
01-19-2010, 05:13 PM
Again, is that really a great example?

They bought up every mid-level prospect they could find, and are now stuck in purgatory where they are too good to get another high level draft pick, but not good enough to contend in the west, and they are going to give the farm to Aldrige and Roy who although very good are not going to be a 1-2 punch on a championship team.

Again, how far along would they be right now had they gotten the #2 pick instead of #1, and wound up with Durant?

They went from an empty arena to a full one.

Done.

90'sNBARocked
01-19-2010, 05:13 PM
OKC were on the youth movement because the owner wanted to get out from under some salary and was dumping players. They traded Rashard Lewis for a 2nd round pick and 9.5mil in a trade exception.

That trade exception brought them Kurt Thomas and some draft picks from PHO. Those draft picks? Serge Ibaka and PHO's pick in this years draft.

They pretty much gave away Ray Allen for the rights to Jeff Green and Trent Plaisted. (I can only imagine what the other offers were if thats what they get in return....)

The movement was salary dump first and foremost.

Excellent Point!

They got nothing for Rashard Lewis

d_c
01-19-2010, 05:31 PM
Excellent Point!

They got nothing for Rashard Lewis

No, they got the trade exception.

That's as opposed to just letting Lewis walk to Orlando. If they did that, they wouldn't have gotten a trade exception and wouldn't have been able to get Kurt Thomas and those drafts picks from Phx.

Instead, they did a sign and trade to Orlando which gave them a trade exception. Why Orlando did that so they could pay Lewis more than they had to is beyond me, but that's what they did.

So they took on salary Phx needed to dump and took the draft picks as compensation. So basically, they then "bought" those drafts picks from Phx for about $10M (Thomas' salary in his final year of his contract).

FWIW, the Pacers pulled a similar deal for Al Harrington. They were over the cap but instead of letting Peja walk to the Hornets for nothing, they sign and traded him and that gave them a trade exception, allowing them to get Harrington without sending any salary to Atlanta (Hawks didn't want salary).

tadscout
01-19-2010, 05:37 PM
The OKC Thunder were one unlucky ping pong bounce away from landing the #1 pick in 2007 and being stuck with Greg Oden. Exactly how far along would they be right now if they hadnt lucked into Kevin Durant?

People need to remember that there is a lot of luck involved in the draft. It's not guarentee things will turn out like the Thunder or Hawks. You could just as easily wind up like the Nets, Warriors, Clippers, Knicks, TWolves, wtc.

You can also end up drafting Darko :-p:laugh:

judicata
01-19-2010, 05:39 PM
One team that finally broke through into contention and one that finally scratched its way above .500 after years of awfulness is not proof of anything. Consider how many teams get top 5 draft picks every year. If the best you can do is provide two teams that made it work over the last 5 years, you're not very convincing.

The only thing this proves is that there is no panacea. You cannot replace careful judgment, developing players, good coaching, lots of luck, and time. The draft guarantees none of these things, is only mildly probative on the luck part, and can be easily negated by doing poorly at the other things.

Kstat
01-19-2010, 05:42 PM
They went from an empty arena to a full one.

Done.

That's totally overblown. The Rose Garden is never empty. They could get their players straight from Sing-Sing.

Though if we're only talking about tickets sold and not winning, that's different. Was the point of this thread to get the Pacers to sell more tickets?

Lance George
01-19-2010, 06:05 PM
The OKC Thunder were one unlucky ping pong bounce away from landing the #1 pick in 2007 and being stuck with Greg Oden. Exactly how far along would they be right now if they hadnt lucked into Kevin Durant?

People need to remember that there is a lot of luck involved in the draft. It's not guarentee things will turn out like the Thunder or Hawks. You could just as easily wind up like the Nets, Warriors, Clippers, Knicks, TWolves, wtc.

There's a lot of luck in pretty much every aspect of basketball (or life, really) especially when it comes to health. This is a part of the equation regardless of how you attempt to rebuild a franchise (draft, trades, free agency), therefor it's a null factor in the debate. Just ask the Rockets, who've had both a #1 draft pick (Yao) and a major trade acquisition (T-Mac) spoiled by injuries.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 06:15 PM
But saying "well there's always luck involved" doesn't suddenly make tanking "the way to go."

90'sNBARocked
01-19-2010, 06:18 PM
But saying "well there's always luck involved" doesn't suddenly make tanking "the way to go."

How does one define "tanking"?

If we were to go with a youth movement and a starting line up of

Price
Rush
Granger
Tyler
Roy

Are we "taking" or trying to figure out which of our young players are keepers?

Hicks
01-19-2010, 06:25 PM
I define tanking as putting forth the minimum amount of effort to win, and any time you have to make a decision regarding who to play (be it due to age, experience, or injury), you choose whichever one gives you less of a chance to win. That would include keeping a guy out for "health reasons" when their "injury" amounts to something like a bruised forearm.

IndySDExport
01-19-2010, 06:27 PM
How many of these youth movement teams have won an NBA championship?

Hicks
01-19-2010, 06:33 PM
How many of these youth movement teams have won an NBA championship?

I'd like to know how many have even made the Finals, or for that matter the conference finals.

Los Angeles
01-19-2010, 06:46 PM
The pacers were once a youth movement team. But by the time they made it to the ECF or the Finals, they were old men.

Only other team I can think of was the Jordan-era Bulls.

d_c
01-19-2010, 07:06 PM
I'd like to know how many have even made the Finals, or for that matter the conference finals.

There's nothing wrong with youth movements.

Just realize that not all of the young guys are going to make it when you become relevant. It's rare that you'll draft a bunch of guys in a 3-4 year span, then several years later, all those draft picks are on your roster and playing important roles in a big playoff run.

They don't all make it to the top of the mountain. It's far more likely that you're going to keep a cuple of those young guys and wind up trading or letting go the others.

Boston had a HUGE youth movement several years ago, then they wound up trading almost all of those guys. Tony Allen is basically the last remaining one of the bunch.

Hicks
01-19-2010, 07:12 PM
The pacers were once a youth movement team. But by the time they made it to the ECF or the Finals, they were old men.

Only other team I can think of was the Jordan-era Bulls.

The seemingly popular suggestion around here is to "tank" for a top 5 (or so) pick.

I was asking about a team that made it that far in the playoffs when they began "construction" on their team that way (tanking for a top pick).

It's happened (Spurs), but it's so rare that I find the call for us to try it ridiculous.

duke dynamite
01-19-2010, 07:16 PM
And the Thunder aren't a good example either. It took that franchise moving cities to see changes in progress.

Scenery has nothing to do with it. It's the same franchise that was in Seattle. You could argue that most of their major moves came in this offseason.

maragin
01-19-2010, 07:35 PM
Pardon the nitpick, but instead of:


Proof that building through youth works

I'd prefer:


Proof that building through youth can work

The first one implies that it works every time, which simply isn't the case. You did mention in your post there was more than one way to succeed, which I agree with.

Los Angeles
01-19-2010, 08:55 PM
The seemingly popular suggestion around here is to "tank" for a top 5 (or so) pick.

I was asking about a team that made it that far in the playoffs when they began "construction" on their team that way (tanking for a top pick).

It's happened (Spurs), but it's so rare that I find the call for us to try it ridiculous.

I'm SO glad you brought up the Spurs. Why? Because it was the Celtics that tanked to get Tim Duncan, and the Spurs won the lottery to leap-frog over the Celtics and grabbed him up. Celtics even had TWO top picks that year and STILL lost! You could hear Pitino cry from 3,000 miles away.

The Pitino Celtics are the #1 cautionary tale on why a team should never EVER "tank". Nobody's odds at getting the #1 has ever been greater.

Pacersfan46
01-19-2010, 11:40 PM
It's happened (Spurs), but it's so rare that I find the call for us to try it ridiculous.

The Spurs did not tank. Not even close.

-- Steve --

Hicks
01-19-2010, 11:46 PM
The Spurs did not tank. Not even close.

-- Steve --

Explain.

Pacersfan46
01-19-2010, 11:58 PM
Explain.

Haha, I saw the original post. You could have left it, I planned on explaining.

David Robinson played 6 games. Sean Elliott missed more than half the season. Charles Smith missed all but 19 games. Chuck Person missed the entire season. This was easily the most injury riddled roster I've ever seen in my life. For a part of the year, every single projected starter in the preseason was out. I've never seen anything like it. It's like what the Nets roster looked like the first time they played us this year, except it stayed that way all year for the Spurs.

Their leading scorer was Dominique Wilkins at the age of 37 years old.

They had 12 different guys start a game. Had 9 different guys who started at least 25 games because of injuries. It was just a mess.

-- Steve --

Will Galen
01-20-2010, 12:31 AM
You can also end up drafting Darko :-p:laugh:

I think the Darko's of the draft is why Bird likes to draft upperclassmen. Basketball people probably make more mistakes on potential than anything else. How many big men have GM's gambled on and lost? A lot.

So the more information you have on a player the less likely you are to make a mistake.

CableKC
01-20-2010, 12:57 AM
Again, is that really a great example?

They bought up every mid-level prospect they could find, and are now stuck in purgatory where they are too good to get another high level draft pick, but not good enough to contend in the west, and they are going to give the farm to Aldrige and Roy who although very good are not going to be a 1-2 punch on a championship team.

Again, how far along would they be right now had they gotten the #2 pick instead of #1, and wound up with Durant?
Your description better fits the Warriors as opposed to the Blazers.

You're right...it's unfortunate that Juwan Howard has seen more Playing time in a Blazers uniform then Oden has in the last 2 seasons....but their youth doesn't start and end with Oden. Although they would have likely been further then they are now with Oden doing his best imitation of a very old man ( which isn't very hard for him since he looks 10 years older then he actually age ).....but you have to look at where they were and how far they have gotten with their youth.

Last season...the Blazers finally made it to the Playoff berth in a very long time with the roster that they had in a VERY TOUGH Western Conference. This season, they are hobbled by injuries to many key Players at various times throughout the season and is still doing good enough to make it to the Playoffs with Juwan Howard as their Center. Their youth is carrying the Team. They may not ( for now ) have a Championship....but just like any other young Team...it takes time to win one. But to be fair....the Blazers aren't where they are now solely because of youth....they are where they are because of very deep pockets and a very shrewd GM. Much like Dumars.....Kevin Pritchard made some very smart and bold moves to acquire the type of talent ( minus DreMiller, of course ) to get them to where they are now.

To me....the model for the Pacers to follow are the Blazers and OKC....a combination of patience, smart salarycap/financial management and a willingness to build around a young core of players. Of course, as you suggest, it does help when your Team was spared the Senior Citizen that Oden is for the youth that Kevin Durant turned out to be.

d_c
01-20-2010, 01:03 AM
I think the Darko's of the draft is why Bird likes to draft upperclassmen. Basketball people probably make more mistakes on potential than anything else. How many big men have GM's gambled on and lost? A lot.

So the more information you have on a player the less likely you are to make a mistake.

There's been plenty of proven 3 and 4 year college players who have busted as well.

Todd Fuller averaged 21 and 10 his senior year at NC State. He did it in the ACC while Tim Duncan was still playing in that conference. The Warriors took him because he was the safe, proven guy. Turns out the only gamble in that draft was not taking one.

The league has seen tons and tons of Todd Fullers.

90'sNBARocked
01-20-2010, 10:51 AM
[QUOTE=Pacersfan46;947847]Haha, I saw the original post. You could have left it, I planned on explaining.

David Robinson played 6 games. Sean Elliott missed more than half the season. Charles Smith missed all but 19 games. Chuck Person missed the entire season. This was easily the most injury riddled roster I've ever seen in my life. For a part of the year, every single projected starter in the preseason was out. I've never seen anything like it. It's like what the Nets roster looked like the first time they played us this year, except it stayed that way all year for the Spurs.

Their leading scorer was Dominique Wilkins at the age of 37 years old.

They had 12 different guys start a game. Had 9 different guys who started at least 25 games because of injuries. It was just a mess.


I could be incorrect here but if i recall correctly there was a big assumption that David Robinson could have returned much earlier that year, but San Antonio chose to keep him out the entire year to improve their draft odds.

If I recall , Barkley was very critical of San Antonio that year

Since86
01-20-2010, 01:40 PM
Scenery has nothing to do with it. It's the same franchise that was in Seattle. You could argue that most of their major moves came in this offseason.

I didn't say scenery had anything to do with it. The motives of the owners have everything to do with it.

The owner in Seattle wanted to get out from under as much salary as possible. When the new owners bought the team they were more willing to invest in it.

ChicagoJ
01-20-2010, 02:28 PM
I could be incorrect here but if i recall correctly there was a big assumption that David Robinson could have returned much earlier that year, but San Antonio chose to keep him out the entire year to improve their draft odds.

If I recall , Barkley was very critical of San Antonio that year

We just did this conversation for the 1,000th time around here a week or so ago.

David Robinson did return. In mid-December. And re-injured himself.

Perhaps he could have returned in late March or early April for the last two weeks of the season. But they were already mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. No need for David to re-re-re-re-re-reinjure himself by returning too soon.

90'sNBARocked
01-20-2010, 02:51 PM
We just did this conversation for the 1,000th time around here a week or so ago.
David Robinson did return. In mid-December. And re-injured himself.

Perhaps he could have returned in late March or early April for the last two weeks of the season. But they were already mathematically eliminated from the playoffs. No need for David to re-re-re-re-re-reinjure himself by returning too soon.

Sorry didnt realize you worked in the Spurs front office at the time

OrganizedConfusion
01-20-2010, 02:51 PM
I think the Darko's of the draft is why Bird likes to draft upperclassmen. Basketball people probably make more mistakes on potential than anything else. How many big men have GM's gambled on and lost? A lot.

So the more information you have on a player the less likely you are to make a mistake.

Bird really scares me. Even if he gets a top 10 pick, I'm afraid he will make the mistake of overreaching for a seasoned player instead of drafting a player with a higher ceiling. Three years of college ball didn't make David Harrison a better NBA player.

Lance George
01-20-2010, 03:08 PM
But saying "well there's always luck involved" doesn't suddenly make tanking "the way to go."
I never said it did. My point was that injuries can happen to anyone, at anytime, so to use Greg Oden's injury as evidence against rebuilding through the draft is unreasonable.

Naptown_Seth
01-20-2010, 03:20 PM
http://www.nba.com/2010/news/features/shaun_powell/01/19/thunder.hawks/

I thought this was a very relevant article considering what the Pacers are going through currently, and the constant debate of how the best way to build a sucessful franchise goes




Could it be possible their is more than one way to build a sucessful franchise :eek:
Hawks aren't title contenders, and they TRADED FOR JOE JOHNSON. And BIBBY. But other than those 2 minor tweeks it's all draft, right?

OKC - if there is a 22 and under league they are the 85-86 Celtics. Well, there isn't one, so whoop dee do

All OKC has to do to get the epic fail is have Portland take Durant. OKC would have 100% taken Oden and then what? Even without injury.

Lance George
01-20-2010, 03:23 PM
Current Top-10 Records in the NBA

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/734/23040166.png

Seven of the top 10, four of the top five. That's pretty hard to argue against.

For the record, I consider trading for a player's draft rights to be equal to drafting him. The key is that you're attaining him on draft night, before they prove themselves on the court and thus become unattainable.

Pick up your major player(s) through the draft, and then build a strong supporting cast around them through trades and free agency, and maybe another pick or two.

diamonddave00
01-20-2010, 03:27 PM
Okay lets follow the Sonic/ Thunder pattern . You trade your best player in this case Granger (theirs it was Ray Allen ) for the #5 pick and some how luck into the number 4 pick with the ping pong balls. You draft your forwards of the future like they did. Lets say you draft Ed Davis and Wesley Johnson for example.

With Murphy, Dunleavy, Ford, Foster and Tinsley's contracts expiring after next season , you now have massive salary cap room and most likely another lottery pick in the 2011 draft.

The Pacer roster entering the 2011-12 season would be :

Hibbert, Rush, Hansbrough, Price, D.Jones (maybe) , E.Davis, W.Johnson , your 2011 #1 and around 30 mil in cap room. It would definitely be a young nucleus.

Trading Granger would be a huge move but if you follow the Thunder blue print to totally rebuild and hit rock bottom one that be needed to acquire a 2nd lottery pick this season. If you hit rock bottom you are at least 3 years away from competing for the playoffs making Granger 30 at the time you compete.

Knowing Pacer luck with high picks in the past Clark Kellogg and Steve Stipanovic both having injuries shorten their careers to 3 and 5 years and George McCloud being picked at 6 , do you really want to risk draft luck ?

Murphy and Foster may get you draft picks but neither will net you a lottery pick , its actually questionable in my mind if Granger would get you a top 5 pick. The " young talent" here is not good enough without at least 3 or 4 good lottery picks to compete for a championship within the near future.

If thats the case in my opinion NO Currently Pacer is untouchable in a trade.

I'm not saying do this , just saying if you follow the Sonic/Thunder plan its the moves you make.

Naptown_Seth
01-20-2010, 03:29 PM
The seemingly popular suggestion around here is to "tank" for a top 5 (or so) pick.

I was asking about a team that made it that far in the playoffs when they began "construction" on their team that way (tanking for a top pick).

It's happened (Spurs), but it's so rare that I find the call for us to try it ridiculous.
As pointed out, the Spurs didn't tank and they were already an elite team. They just had tons of injuries. That roster, when healthy, was a title contender without Duncan.

And the Spurs with Duncan but without Parker (30th) and Manu (way deep in round 2) aren't title contenders.



By the time the Bulls got the Finals Jordan was hardly a kid anymore, same with Pippen. We are now in the era of limited rookie deals, so the Pacers draft Jordan and 3 years later he's signed by the Clippers for the max and the lure of LA next to Gordon and Griffin, or the Knicks to be Robin for Lebron.

Then what?

The Hawks lost one of their youths to freaking Europe.


I'm not against young talent and rookie deals. Those are team savers across the league. High picks are nice too. But the drastically simplified logic of "me fail, win with big pick" is a disaster waiting to happen, proven out by a slew of previous and continuing examples.

As Hicks said, when has it worked? Not even in Cleveland yet. By the time it does the team will have been tweaked with mid FAs and trades.


I mean honestly, let's just be consistent here. What the Cavs SHOULD do is just flop and tank to 10 wins. James is then more than happy to resign with them and there is in no way a need to get something done before a window closes. Then they draft Wall after winning the lottery because 25% has to come through, and then with both Wall and James, 2 #1 picks they go on to only lose to the Lakers in 6.

Hooray :dance:
It's almost too easy.

Lance George
01-20-2010, 03:31 PM
You trade your best player in this case Granger (theirs it was Ray Allen ) for the #5 pick
Keep in mind that Ray Allen was less than a month away from turning 32 when the Sonics/Thunder traded him. He was too old to be apart of any long-term plans. Granger's just 26, so there's no need to move him.

diamonddave00
01-20-2010, 03:37 PM
Danny is nearly 27 similar to Lewis' age at the time he was moved. An if its 3 years till you challange for the playoffs he's now 30 and heading down hill making more money than Murphy currently is.

How else do you acquire another lottery pick if you want to build thru the draft? The poor shooting Granger we have seen this season appears to have already peaked as a player . Where is his upside at 30 and beyond?

90'sNBARocked
01-20-2010, 03:37 PM
[QUOTE=Naptown_Seth;948072]As pointed out, the Spurs didn't tank and they were already an elite team. They just had tons of injuries. That roster, when healthy, was a title contender without Duncan.


How do you know the injury was legit? Were you part of the Spurs medical staff?

There was legitimate reasons to believe that the "injuries" susatained to the San Antonio players were less severe than advertised.

Also Robinson admitted later that he probably could have returned much sooner but didnt want to further the risk of greater injury

I will try and google , but I specifically remember Barkley had a strong opinion on it.

Bottom line none of us on PD know FOR SURE if he could have played sooner and if that came into the situation

we are all only guessing, its not like the Spurs would come out and say "Yes we tanked to get a better draft pick, sorry"

Lance George
01-20-2010, 03:44 PM
Danny is nearly 27 similar to Lewis' age at the time he was moved. An if its 3 years till you challange he's now 30 and heading down hill .

How else do you acquire another lottery pick if you want to build thru the draft? The poor shooting Granger we have seen this season appears to have already peaked as a player . Where is his upside at 30 and beyond?

We likely need two really good to great players, surrounded by a strong supporting cast, in order to turn things around. We already have one of those players in Granger, so one high lottery pick used correctly should be enough.

If we landed, say, Evan Turner, I have no doubts that he and Danny could be a 1/2 punch on a 50+ win team. Throw in a very promising young center in Roy, a decent trio of youngsters in Hansbrough, Price, Rush, and enough capspace to build a great supporting cast, and I'd say we're in good shape for the future.

90'sNBARocked
01-20-2010, 03:51 PM
Hawks aren't title contenders, and they TRADED FOR JOE JOHNSON. And BIBBY. But other than those 2 minor tweeks it's all draft, right?

OKC - if there is a 22 and under league they are the 85-86 Celtics. Well, there isn't one, so whoop dee do

All OKC has to do to get the epic fail is have Portland take Durant. OKC would have 100% taken Oden and then what? Even without injury.

Seth ,

man you make good points but you get soooo riled up at proving your point and disproving the other poster

lighten up francis :)

by the way jk I love passion, but ease off the cofee bro :)

OrganizedConfusion
01-20-2010, 03:55 PM
I think it's worth noting that the Hawks acquired Joe Johnson when he was 24. Although they didn't get him through the draft, he still fit in with their "youth" building strategy.

Naptown_Seth
01-20-2010, 03:57 PM
Current Top-10 Records in the NBA


Seven of the top 10, four of the top five. That's pretty hard to argue against.

For the record, I consider trading for a player's draft rights to be equal to drafting him.
Kobe NOT ACQUIRED BY DRAFT. Traded from the Hornets to LA for Vlade after being drafted. Pick used to take Kobe? #13 - no tank needed. Lakers also were a strong team that season, as I've already pointed out. They acquired both Kobe and Shaq in the same offseason and won THREE more games. 3. Holy crap, what an improvement.

KG traded for a player drafted at? 15th It took the 15th pick to get KG, not a tank.

Dirk drafted at? #9
And TRADED to Dallas. Dallas used the 6th pick to take Traylor. They then traded him for freaking Dirk AND NASH. All Millwaukee had to do was keep Dirk at 9th, hardly the big tank to get that pick. All PHX had to do was like Nash more than Pat Flippin Garrity.

Don't have to tank, just have to wait for the scouts to F up for another team (see Danny Granger)

Denver wasn't better till they TRADED FOR Billups. That team is not the team that drafted Melo, they've adjusted quite a bit. And are still not in the Finals.

Nash was drafted at? 15th

Roy was drafted 6th, a pretty solid pick. He went after Bargnani, Adam Morrison and the whole reason for this thread - Sheldon Williams to the Hawks (FTL)

But wait, there's more. The Blazers got that pick not by tanking at all, but by TRADING Telfair, Ratliff and a 2nd round pick. The had to take on LaFrentz's deal, that was the true price being paid to Boston. They traded that 7th pick for the 6th pick after Roy and Foye were taken, big mistake by Minny.


So to recap, these players required their team to lose in the top 5 losses range, a full-on tank:
Cleveland
Denver
Orlando
San Antonio (but that was injury created)

The other 6 used later picks or traded players for those picks, and it typically didn't even take a high pick or star player.

Imagine trading Troy Murphy for a top 8 pick and a guy with a longer contract that a team wants to remove. You draft Patterson. This is what the Blazers basically did to get Roy. Doesn't even require missing the playoffs.

Naptown_Seth
01-20-2010, 03:58 PM
Seth ,

man you make good points but you get soooo riled up at proving your point and disproving the other poster

lighten up francis :)

by the way jk I love passion, but ease off the cofee bro :)
My tolerance for faulty logic is low, especially when its the same freaking drum beat over and over.

It's like watching people continue to stick a fork in a socket because it's how you win the lottery.

90'sNBARocked
01-20-2010, 04:00 PM
Kobe NOT ACQUIRED BY DRAFT. Traded from the Hornets to LA for Vlade after being drafted. Pick used to take Kobe? #13 - no tank needed. Lakers also were a strong team that season, as I've already pointed out. They acquired both Kobe and Shaq in the same offseason and won THREE more games. 3. Holy crap, what an improvement.

KG traded for a player drafted at? 15th It took the 15th pick to get KG, not a tank.

Dirk drafted at? #9
And TRADED to Dallas. Dallas used the 6th pick to take Traylor. They then traded him for freaking Dirk AND NASH. All Millwaukee had to do was keep Dirk at 9th, hardly the big tank to get that pick. All PHX had to do was like Nash more than Pat Flippin Garrity.

Don't have to tank, just have to wait for the scouts to F up for another team (see Danny Granger)

Denver wasn't better till they TRADED FOR Billups. That team is not the team that drafted Melo, they've adjusted quite a bit. And are still not in the Finals.

Nash was drafted at? 15th

Roy was drafted 6th, a pretty solid pick. He went after Bargnani, Adam Morrison and the whole reason for this thread - Sheldon Williams to the Hawks (FTL)

But wait, there's more. The Blazers got that pick not by tanking at all, but by TRADING Telfair, Ratliff and a 2nd round pick. The had to take on LaFrentz's deal, that was the true price being paid to Boston. They traded that 7th pick for the 6th pick after Roy and Foye were taken, big mistake by Minny.


So to recap, these players required their team to lose in the top 5 losses range, a full-on tank:
Cleveland
Denver
Orlando
San Antonio (but that was injury created)

The other 6 used later picks or traded players for those picks, and it typically didn't even take a high pick or star player.

Imagine trading Troy Murphy for a top 8 pick and a guy with a longer contract that a team wants to remove. You draft Patterson. This is what the Blazers basically did to get Roy. Doesn't even require missing the playoffs.

Didnt Portland trade Sebastian Telfair and the rights to Randy foye for the rights of Brandon Roy?

Naptown_Seth
01-20-2010, 04:06 PM
Let's see a list of the bottom 10 teams and who the highest draft pick is on their teams...

Then let's do the middle 10...see a trend there.

The top teams have the same "high picks" that the bottom teams do, so that's not the difference here. It's got NOTHING to do with getting a top 5 guy. If it did Minny and the Clips would be crushing teams, as would Memphis.

The Bucks, Cats, Chicago - title contenders right now.

I mean these teams have the same highly talented young players.


Actually here is the key - the top guys on the good teams are VETS more than youth. So what you get is flopping teams that end up being farm teams for the elite teams, either to sign the FA or sucker them into terrible trades.


Plus KG keeps getting brought up without any mention of how totally awesome he and the TWolves were, going for something like 6 straight titles and destroying every team in their path.

He was young in Minny, he was MVP caliber in Minny. So basically, problem solved. They even had Szczerbiak, the 6th pick and an all-star, with him. Obviously they were unstoppable at that point and more proof that tanking to get 2 different top 6 picks couldn't fail.

d_c
01-20-2010, 04:17 PM
Didnt Portland trade Sebastian Telfair and the rights to Randy foye for the rights of Brandon Roy?

Yes and no.

It was Boston with the #6 pick who traded the rights to Foye. They did it in some 3 way deal with Boston, Minnesota, but people often forget the biggest reason Portland was able to do that. Sebatian Telfair was really just kind of a throw in.

The big thing they took on was the additional $13M of the final year of Raef Lafrentz's contract. And as everyone new, LaFrentz wasn't exactly playing. He was $13M in deadweight.

They essentially "bought" Brandon Roy for $13M. Helps to have an owner willing to pay. Now of course $13M now looks like a steal to get that kind of player, but what if you did that to get Adam Morrison or Shelden Williams? The owner probably wouldn't have been happy with that.

Lance George
01-20-2010, 04:20 PM
Kobe NOT ACQUIRED BY DRAFT. Traded from the Hornets to LA for Vlade after being drafted. Pick used to take Kobe? #13 - no tank needed. Lakers also were a strong team that season, as I've already pointed out. They acquired both Kobe and Shaq in the same offseason and won THREE more games. 3. Holy crap, what an improvement.

KG traded for a player drafted at? 15th It took the 15th pick to get KG, not a tank.

Dirk drafted at? #9
And TRADED to Dallas. Dallas used the 6th pick to take Traylor. They then traded him for freaking Dirk AND NASH. All Millwaukee had to do was keep Dirk at 9th, hardly the big tank to get that pick. All PHX had to do was like Nash more than Pat Flippin Garrity.

Don't have to tank, just have to wait for the scouts to F up for another team (see Danny Granger)

Denver wasn't better till they TRADED FOR Billups. That team is not the team that drafted Melo, they've adjusted quite a bit. And are still not in the Finals.

Nash was drafted at? 15th

Roy was drafted 6th, a pretty solid pick. He went after Bargnani, Adam Morrison and the whole reason for this thread - Sheldon Williams to the Hawks (FTL)

But wait, there's more. The Blazers got that pick not by tanking at all, but by TRADING Telfair, Ratliff and a 2nd round pick. The had to take on LaFrentz's deal, that was the true price being paid to Boston. They traded that 7th pick for the 6th pick after Roy and Foye were taken, big mistake by Minny.


So to recap, these players required their team to lose in the top 5 losses range, a full-on tank:
Cleveland
Denver
Orlando
San Antonio (but that was injury created)

The other 6 used later picks or traded players for those picks, and it typically didn't even take a high pick or star player.

Imagine trading Troy Murphy for a top 8 pick and a guy with a longer contract that a team wants to remove. You draft Patterson. This is what the Blazers basically did to get Roy. Doesn't even require missing the playoffs.

Your emotional outburst over Dirk technically not being drafted by the Mavs, Kobe technically not being drafted by the Lakers, etc. is such an incredibly cheap argument that it can't be taken serious.

The whole point is that players like Kobe and Dirk were acquired on draft night, while they were still attainable. No one's trading Kobe or Dirk once they see how special they are, nor are they letting them walk in free agency. This is why the draft is almost always the best way to acquire elite talent, the talent that turns franchises around, and it's why it's irrelevant whether it was your own pick, a pick you traded for, or whether you acquired the player's draft rights. All that matters is that come draft night, you walk away with the best talent.

If we could pull off a deal that landed us a top pick while keeping Danny and Roy, then great, but that's simply not realistic. Maybe next year, if we're willing to take on bad contracts, but that would not only screw up our capspace, it's also likely no such deal will even be available.

The simple solution is what I said in my previous post - keep Danny, find him a great sidekick in the upcoming draft (which the chances are much, much higher of accomplishing in the top-five), and then use our influx of capspace and roster spots to build around them in the summer of 2011.

...or we can continue to win 35 games, continue to pick in a spot where it's extremely hard to find elite talent, and then blow our capspace on overpaid, middle-of-the-pack guys to take the place of our current overpaid, middle-of-the-pack guys. Rinse and repeat for the next decade, or until the team moves, whichever comes first.

Hicks
01-20-2010, 04:22 PM
90's,

Why are you wrapping your quotes with {/B} instead of {/quote}? That just messes it up. Are you wanting to bold the text but forgetting to end with {/quote}?

Of course with [ ] not { }

Since86
01-20-2010, 04:32 PM
Your emotional outburst over Dirk technically not being drafted by the Mavs, Kobe technically not being drafted by the Lakers, etc. is such an incredibly cheap argument that it can't be taken serious.

The whole point is that players like Kobe and Dirk were acquired on draft night, while they were still attainable. No one's trading Kobe or Dirk once they see how special they are, nor are they letting them walk in free agency. This is why the draft is almost always the best way to acquire elite talent, the talent that turns franchises around, and it's why it's irrelevant whether it was your own pick, a pick you traded for, or whether you acquired the player's draft rights. All that matters is that come draft night, you walk away with the best talent.


The draft is the best way to get CHEAP talent. If it was the best way to get talent, then ATL would have been better long before now. That's the point.

The draft isn't a sure fire thing. Darko was picked 3rd before players like Melo. Opps. Tractor Trailor was picked before Dirk. Opps.

Getting a high draft pick doesn't always equal an upgrade in talent. Marvin Williams is still a bad pick for Atlanta. They could of had Paul or Deron Williams, and then wouldn't have needed to trade assests for Bibby.

Drafting good players is just one part of the solution, not THE solution.

SkipperZ
01-20-2010, 05:00 PM
the faulty logic here is threefold

1. it is WRONG to say that the draft if the only way to become an elite team

2. it is also WRONG to say that the draft is never a way to become an elite team or the draft should not be relied on as a potential way to turn a franchise around.

3. it is wrong do say "look at how close OKC was to having bad luck and drafting ODen, there is a lot of luck involved in the draft. Thus, the draft should not be relied on as a way to get better."


1. There have been teams that have done a majority of their retooling through trades/FA to become elite. The Lakers signed Shaq. The Celtics traded for KG and Ray (although I would argue that draftin Al Jefferson and trading the 5th pick got them in a position to get KG and Ray). The Pistons traded for/signed Rasheed/Chauncey/Rip/Big Ben.

2. It has also been shown over and over that high draft picks have completely changed the nature of franchises around. Lebron, Wade, Melo, CP3, Dwight Howard, Jordan, Olajuwon, etc. etc. The list goes on. There is no secret that high draft picks is the best way to get superstar, franchise player talent.

I also feel that Unclebucks argument that high draft picks aren't enough and that you need seasoned veterans to become an elite team is not really valid. Young superstar draft picks become seasoned veterans. No one is saying draft John wall and win a Championship 2011. Its draft John wall, and other young talent accumulated by high draft picks, and when that talent matures, you'll have a core that you can build on by signing other seasoned veterans (who would not be going to your team if you hadn't rebuilt in the first place.

3. No method is foolproof. There is luck involved in the draft. A LOT of luck. That does not change the fact that being bad enough to warrant high draft picks year after year is a valid way to try to improve. For many franchises, it is the ONLY way. You need assets to make trades and you need both capspace and attractiveness as a FA destination to get star FA's. The bad teams especially do not have either.

And one way to gain assets is to have high draft picks. Draft picks produce valuable assets.

No one is saying high draft picks guarantee success. You could draft John wall and he could break his knees the next day. That doesnt change the fact that for MOST bad teams, high draft picks gives the HIGHEST POSSIBLE CHANCE at returning back to title contention. a high chance? Surely not. i mean imbedded in every draft is only a 25% chance of winning the draft itself for the worst team in the league. in fact, its a very LOW chance. but for this pacer team, that LOW chance is way higher than us becoming championship contenders while middling around contending for the 8th seed every year.

Of course theres luck involved. The whole point is to increase your probability of getting there. Tanking gives this team the best probability.

And we can take it even further if we consider the absolute #1 goal to be winning a championship. Theres no question that in this league, you more or less need a superstar to win a championship (please don't bring up the Pistons... they are a single aberration in a whole line of history).

For the most part (again there are aberrations) you need to draft superstars. Teams don't readily give up their franchise players, franchise players don't readily leave the place they start out in. This fact becomes even truer when you consider the fact that this team as presently constructed has no assets to trade for superstars (a la KG) or the draw necessary to grab a defecting superstar (a la Shaq to LA). Our SOLE chance to grab a franchise level superstar player is through the draft, and having HIGH draft picks MAXIMIZES the probability of this occurring. (You can even say we need high draft picks to gather assets to increase our chance of TRADING for a superstar)

You can list of all the 10-30 picks you want that have become superstars. Of course teams can get lucky. But the real franchise changers for the most part, especially now that high school players are so highly touted, and scouted, are drafted up high.

So for this small market team with no real tradeable assets, if we realistically want any shot at becoming a championship contender, need to make plays at guys like John WAll, not for a sure chance at gettign to that level, but for the BEST POSSIBLE chance of getting there.

SkipperZ
01-20-2010, 05:00 PM
wow i didnt realize that was so long. sorry i just kind of went on a rant there

90'sNBARocked
01-20-2010, 05:07 PM
My tolerance for faulty logic is low, especially when its the same freaking drum beat over and over.

It's like watching people continue to stick a fork in a socket because it's how you win the lottery.

Dam,

How does the air feel up there on the pedstal you live on?

90'sNBARocked
01-20-2010, 05:09 PM
90's,

Why are you wrapping your quotes with {/B} instead of {/quote}? That just messes it up. Are you wanting to bold the text but forgetting to end with {/quote}?

Of course with [ ] not { }

old and technology challenged :)

Los Angeles
01-20-2010, 05:10 PM
Alright, take it easy, 90's. We all like to rib Seth from time to time, but let's let this one go.

Lance George
01-20-2010, 05:26 PM
The draft is the best way to get CHEAP talent. If it was the best way to get talent, then ATL would have been better long before now. That's the point.
A big reason why the Hawks sucked so long is because they traded away three consecutive lottery picks, from 2001-2003:

The draft rights to Pau Gasol in 2001 (for Abdur-Rahim, ouch)
The pick which ended up #8 in 2002 (for Lorenzen Wright, ouch)
The pick which ended up #8 in 2003 (for broken down Glenn Robinson, ouch)

Also, keep in mind that the Hawks are one of the rare successful teams who didn't acquire their best player on draft night. They're much more the exception than the rule.



The draft isn't a sure fire thing. Darko was picked 3rd before players like Melo. Opps. Tractor Trailor was picked before Dirk. Opps.

Getting a high draft pick doesn't always equal an upgrade in talent. Marvin Williams is still a bad pick for Atlanta. They could of had Paul or Deron Williams, and then wouldn't have needed to trade assests for Bibby.

Nothing's a sure-fire thing, not the draft, not trading, not free agency. But keep in mind, all of these teams had superstars just sitting there ripe for the picking. In no other scenario will you find that. Had they played their cards right, they all would've walked away with franchise players. Their loss is some other team's gain. Let's make some other team's loss our gain.

I'd recommend reading count55's draft pick analysis, especially his conclusions for each range (1-4, 5-7, 8-11, 12-17, 18-30, 31-60).

So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 1) (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43009)
So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 2) (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?t=43186)
So, What does a draft pick get ya? (Part 3) (http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/showthread.php?p=824059)


Conclusion on Top 4

While this may not come as a surprise to many, it did surprise me how high the success rate was. I was well aware that the majority of the "star" level players were drafted this high, but I had always had the sneaking suspicion that there was a realy high miss rate.

Yes, it is true that the odds are that you won't be drafting a future Hall of Famer or Superstar (only about 28% in Group 1 or Group 2), the difference between drafting in this group and just one group below is far starker than I'd expected. The Top 4 accounted for 8 of the 15 Group 1 players and 21 of the 47 Group 2 players. You're three times as likely to get at Group 1 player from the Top 4 than from the "5 to 7" group, and a stunning 7.5 times more likely than getting a Group one pick from the rest of the Top 30.

Given the Rookie awards, you should also expect contributions almost from the get-go.

I did a far less articulate analysis and walked away with similar thoughts.


Drafting good players is just one part of the solution, not THE solution.

True, even the greatest of players can't do it by themselves. We saw that early in Jordan's career and with Kobe just a few years ago. With that said, I'd argue that finding very good-to-great player(s) is both the first and biggest step towards the solution. The second step is to surround these players with a strong supporting cast. The third, and final step, is to then develop chemistry through experience.

quinnthology
01-20-2010, 05:27 PM
I didn't say scenery had anything to do with it. The motives of the owners have everything to do with it.

The owner in Seattle wanted to get out from under as much salary as possible. When the new owners bought the team they were more willing to invest in it.

I completely disagree with this assessment. Crediting the scumbag owners who stole the Sonics from Seattle for financial gain with the rise of the Thunder is absurd. The credit belongs to Sam Presti for drafting incredible, compatible players that are the core of the franchise. Investing in these players monetarily is irrelevant because they are all 3rd year and under players on basic contracts. The team would be just as good in Seattle, and maybe better considering their turn out and fan support would be crazy with a good team again. I saw this first hand with the Nuggets, who went from an empty stadium to an insane stadium. Plus, we have seen how crazy Seattle fans got during their Finals season. Tough arena to play in.

90'sNBARocked
01-20-2010, 06:27 PM
Alright, take it easy, 90's. We all like to rib Seth from time to time, but let's let this one go.

Its gone :)

Lance George
01-20-2010, 07:00 PM
Here's a cheap looking chart made from data taken from here (http://www.rpiratings.com/NBA.html) and from current standings:

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/7820/youtho.png

The two least experienced teams in the league both have winning records, as do three of the top four and four of the top six.

You can win with youth, the youth just has to be adequately talented.

judicata
01-20-2010, 08:52 PM
That doesnt change the fact that for MOST bad teams, high draft picks gives the HIGHEST POSSIBLE CHANCE at returning back to title contention.

What is the basis of your assertion. Show me the number of bad teams in the last ten years (say worst 10 records) that got a top 5 draft pick that propelled them into title contention.

Compare this number to the number of bad teams that did it some other way.

If there are more teams that drafted and got better then I will concede this argument.

SkipperZ
01-21-2010, 02:48 AM
What is the basis of your assertion. Show me the number of bad teams in the last ten years (say worst 10 records) that got a top 5 draft pick that propelled them into title contention.

Compare this number to the number of bad teams that did it some other way.

If there are more teams that drafted and got better then I will concede this argument.

Do you really need to ask this?

Lebron, Melo, Wade, Dwight Howard, CP3, have all made the Cavs, Nuggets, Magic and Hornets considered championship contenders at some point after being drafted.

I'll admit I'm not gonna bother looking up their records before these guys were drafting, I'm just going to assume they were bad considering the high draft position.

Also, is there any doubt whatsoever that because of Rose, Roy (I know not top 5, but 6 is close enough), Oden and Durant, the Bulls, Blazers, and Thunder in MUCH better position than the Pacers to become championship contenders in teh near future, and that they have just been drafted too recently to have done so already? (No one said franchise draft picks turn teams into contenders overnight)

I could make the argument that Deron Williams is close to that level, and that Utah has a chance of becoming a contender with him as a cornerstone, but I don't quite see deron as championship level, and I know that Utah wasnt that bad when they got Deron (getting his draft rights from Portland)

So that leaves... the Celtics, Lakers, Mavs and Spurs with a franchise changing caliber player who did not get him in the manner you described.

But the MAvs still got Dirk with a high draft pick (the fact that they swapped draft picks for him really doesnt matter for purposes of this argument) and the Spurs got Duncan with the number 1 pick (it just happened more than 10 years ago)

I never said it doesnt happen, I just said that the chance of it happening is greater using high draft picks than other means.

SkipperZ
01-21-2010, 02:57 AM
Lemme propose to you this. Lets say for argument's sake, John Wall had a 50% chance of becoming a franchise changing player (a very low estimate in my opinion, and the opinion of most experts from what I can tell). Lets say the Pacers were so bad that they had a 15% chance at winning the lottery.

That gives them a 7.5% chance of getting a franchise changing player.

But it gets better when you consider that bad teams generally stay bad until they strike it rich, and thus get a fresh shot every year

So, now lets say that if they don't win the lottery, they stay the same level of bad, and that in the next 5 years, one more john wall level player enters the league. This gives the Pacers 2 shots at drafting John Wall or his equivalent in the next 5 years which comes out to a 15% chance of gettin a John Wall type player in the next 5 years.

This doesn't even consider the chance of not winning the lottery and still getting a franchise changing player, a la Wade/Melo.

Now does anyoneo actually think that this 15% chance of getting John Wall or equivalent is LESS than the chance we would have if we were consistently in contention for the 8th seed of the draft, hovering around 40 wins every year for the next 5 years? Who is this superstar franchise changing player that were going to get in a trade by giving up Expiring contracts and Brandon Rush? Or are we gonna bank on one falling into our laps with the 12th pick? or does anyone really think that when we finally have capspace, if that ever happens, a player of that caliber is going to want to come to Indiana?

judicata
01-21-2010, 03:04 AM
The Hornets have not been to a conference championship. The Heat became contenders with a trade, not with the draft. That leaves the Nuggets, Magic, and Cavs.

In the last 10 years, 40 teams have made the conference finals (contenders). Your argument is that of these 40 teams, more often the not high draft picks from that franchise got them there. Again:


That doesnt change the fact that for MOST bad teams, high draft picks gives the HIGHEST POSSIBLE CHANCE at returning back to title contention.

I don't think the history works well for you, but I have not done the legwork. Counting Duncan is questionable since the Spurs didn't tank (which is the point of this whole thread).

You have also failed to mention the Kidd led Nets, the Pacers, and a number of other teams. I don't know the history well enough, but again, I'm skeptical. It's your assertion, prove it.

SkipperZ
01-21-2010, 03:40 AM
The basis of my argument was that to get to title contention you need a franchise player. History clearly supports this.

The hornets of 2 years ago didnt get to the conference championship but were considered of the level of championship contenders. Even so, if you take them off the list, they easily go on the second list (which included the Bulls, Thunder and Blazers) as in FAR better position to become championship contenders than the Pacers

To say that the Heat's reason for title contention was not Dwyane Wade is absolutely ludicrous. I never said that you don't have to make moves AFTER getting that franchise player. But the franchise player is the hardest part and is a part that necessarily comes before any moves to surround said player with the requisite help.

My argument is CERTAINLY not that of the 40 Conference Finals teams, more often than not high draft picks got htem there. I never said anything about Conference Finals appearances. Thats just putting words in my mouth, and worse yet illogical words I would never use in an argument.
I will argue that makign the Conference Finals does NOT make you a championship contender. (surely I don't have to list all the bad teams to not mamke the Conference Finals to make this point) Also, not making the Conference Finals does NOT preclude your team from being considered a championship contender.

For a quick point on this, for about 8 years in the last decade the East was HORRID allowing awful teams to make the conference finals. During these years, there were MARKEDLY better teams in the West (such as the Mavs) who were considered by some to be at least slight contenders who would continually get bounced in the second round. Again, I really hope you don't expect me to do the legwork to get specifics in order to make this point.

As a side note, I'll throw Steve Nash and the SUns as another example of a team that did not get their superstar through the draft.

And I did not count duncan in my argument. However, I also never said that you need to TANK to get the high draft pick. The fact that the Spurs didn't tank doesnt change the fact that they were bad (even if due to injury), thus got the 1st pick, and with that 1st pick drafted the cornerstone player of their multiple champsionships. I am NOT saying the pacers should tank. I am just saying for the good of the future it is better for them to be awful now than be a middling average team for the next 10 years.

If youre still skeptical I don't know how else I can help you. To me, this is somethign that is SO obvious that it shoudl not need me to prove my assertion. Its very clear.

SUPERSTARS = CHAMPIONSHIPS
HIGH DRAFT PICKS = GREATER PROBABILITY of getting a SUPERSTAR
DRAFT = HIGHER chance than FA + Trade of getting said SUPERSTAR when your team has NO capspace and NO valuable assets

these things are the crux of my ENTIRE argument. I don't really see hwo you can dispute this.

SkipperZ
01-21-2010, 03:54 AM
For your information and for clarification on my point, these are the following players that I consider players good enough to build a championship team around.

Lebron James, Dwyane Wade, Kobe Bryant, Dwight Howard, Derrick Rose, Carmelo Anthony, Kevin Durant, Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Dirk Nowitzki, a healthy Yao Ming, Chris Paul

If you put a gun to my head I'd put Steve Nash, Brandon Roy, Deron Williams and Paul Pierce on this list (but I don't think theyre quite good enough).

Of these players, correct me if im wrong but I believe steve nash was the lowest draft pick at 15. I also believe the majority are top 5 picks just glancing at that list (11/16, or 10/12 if you discount the last 4). Not counting players where draft picks were swapped (Roy and Dirk), the only players not drafted by the team they are on now are Kobe (draft day trade), Nash (FA), KG (trade).

Thats 13/16 franchise players in the league today being drafted by their original team (if you count Roy and Dirk in that category, which I do).

Teams don't give up their franchise players easily. Also, the vast majority of franchise players are so good pre-NBA career that they get drafted in the top 5.

Logically this adds up to - in order to win a championship, you need a franchise player. You have a HIGHER chance of getting a franchise player if you draft in the top 5. You have a HIGHER chance of getting a franchise player through the draft thatn through FA/Trade. Being bad enough to consistently draft in the top 5 every year until you get such a player obviously increases your chances of getting such a player.

Pointing out exceptions to this rule is NOT invalidating my argument, the whole point is an increased PROBABILITY, not a certainty. This logic takes premises broad enough to be hard to refute, yet specific enough to have real meaning. And most of all, this is nothing novel. These facts, and this pattern of logic, is clear enough to be common knowledge.

judicata
01-21-2010, 04:12 AM
You are liberalizing the word "contender" to the point of meaninglessness. I used conference finalists as a metric because it is logical: contenders are actually in contention.

Stop trying to reframe the argument. No one is arguing that top picks are more likely to yield top players. That is obvious. The argument is that drafting high is not highly probative of championship contention.

The easiest way to see this is the look at all the teams that drafted in the top 5 over the last decade and see how many are in contention.

Now, you made another argument: drafting high is the easiest way to get into contention for teams, rather than trading/FA. I offered you a reasonable and logical method of testing your theory.

Instead of applying that method or arguing its merits, you respond by setting up straw men, emphasizes words in all caps, and declaring the obviousness of your position.

Reasonable minds here disagree, therefore your position cannot be the only logical one unless we are idiots. Given the tone and style of your post, I can only assume you think it is the latter.

SkipperZ
01-21-2010, 09:18 AM
I'd contend that using conference finalists as a definition for contenders is actually a way of liberalizing the word contender to the point of meaninglessness, and you are in fact attacking my argument by trying to broaden that word rather than attacking the meat of my posts.

you say "no one is arguing that top picks are more likely to yield top players." and that your argument is "that drafting high is not highly probative of championship contention."

if this is the case then you are not arguing against me. I have conceded that the probability of building a championship contender through high picks in the draft is a low one. A very low one. There is a lot of luck involved. The Clippers, Wolves, and others consistently draft in the top 5 and are nowhere near contention.

and the very obvious fact that top picks are more likely to yield top players, is really the entire backbone of what I was saying. So according to you, you are in agreement with me.

now, you could see my contention that top players win championships as a straw man. I do not. I think history has shown that to win a championship you need one of the top players in the league, making that a very relevant point in this discussion, and really, the basis of everything i am saying. You are ignoring this very important point of mine in tryin to attack my assertions.

i try to declare the obviousness of my position because I feel all premises I've offered up ARE obvious, and the conclusion I offer logically stems from these premises.

Again I offer to you.

You need a top player to win a championship. You need to get a top player before you build a team around him in order to win a championship. Drafting in the top 5 year after year gives you a better chance to get a top player than getting one through FA/Trades/drafting in the 8-12 range every year, for obvious reasons.

Thus, drafting in the top 5 gives you the best chance of getting a top player that is necessary to truly contend for a championship.

you don't seem to disagree with these points is all im saying, and you seem to ignore the examples I give of this.

i don't think you (or I) are idiots, I just think that you seem to be purposely circumventing 90% of my posts to make your point.

BillS
01-21-2010, 09:49 AM
SkipperZ, the problem is like the final game of the World Series, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, bases loaded, down by 2.

A Home Run wins the game outright. An out ends the game. Any hit scores 2 runs to tie and bring another batter to the plate.

Going for the home run (taking the chance to get the #1 draft pick) solves all your problems. Missing that chance badly and you don't just get another chance, you are out of the game completely.

Continually shooting for the top draft pick and missing could be more than just disappointing for the Pacers, it could be devastating.

You don't just look at the probability of getting what you want, you look at the consequences of NOT getting what you want.

SkipperZ
01-21-2010, 11:47 AM
SkipperZ, the problem is like the final game of the World Series, bottom of the 9th, 2 outs, bases loaded, down by 2.

A Home Run wins the game outright. An out ends the game. Any hit scores 2 runs to tie and bring another batter to the plate.

Going for the home run (taking the chance to get the #1 draft pick) solves all your problems. Missing that chance badly and you don't just get another chance, you are out of the game completely.

Continually shooting for the top draft pick and missing could be more than just disappointing for the Pacers, it could be devastating.

You don't just look at the probability of getting what you want, you look at the consequences of NOT getting what you want.''

this i agree with. Considering the state of the franchise's attendance, I believe you are right.

And I think this has a HUGE effect on the way TPTB are runnign this team. They are trying to draft players that can help immediately (foregoing high talent/high risk guys), signing guys like Dahntay Jones who help keep us mildly competitive (rather than just throwing the young guys out there), make trades just for the sake of getting rid of bad character guys and keeping a coach who though he may not be the best at developing young talent or give us the best chance of winning, employs an entertaining offense.

I don't really blame them for this. In many ways I do believe TPTB were backed into a corner in these regards.

however i still believe that if we want a chance at winning a championship sometime in the next 15 years, losing and losing badly is a risk we have to be willing to take.

I'm not even saying this necessarily should be the goal.

90'sNBARocked
01-21-2010, 11:52 AM
''

this i agree with. Considering the state of the franchise's attendance, I believe you are right.

And I think this has a HUGE effect on the way TPTB are runnign this team. They are trying to draft players that can help immediately (foregoing high talent/high risk guys), signing guys like Dahntay Jones who help keep us mildly competitive (rather than just throwing the young guys out there), make trades just for the sake of getting rid of bad character guys and keeping a coach who though he may not be the best at developing young talent or give us the best chance of winning, employs an entertaining offense.

I don't really blame them for this. In many ways I do believe TPTB were backed into a corner in these regards.
however i still believe that if we want a chance at winning a championship sometime in the next 15 years, losing and losing badly is a risk we have to be willing to take.

I'm not even saying this necessarily should be the goal.

Its the "good ol'e conservative folk" they are trying to please. The one's that grew up playing basketball with a dirt driveway and a hoop on the barn. So they bring in Players like McBob, Tyler, Diener, Murphy, Dunleavy, Watson etc. Very nice safe community guys , who unfortunatley lack extreem talent and a fire spirit.

if Jackson or players like him were the problem , then why are they doing well on other teams :-o:-o

SkipperZ
01-21-2010, 12:01 PM
Its the "good ol'e conservative folk" they are trying to please. The one's that grew up playing basketball with a dirt driveway and a hoop on the barn. So they bring in Players like McBob, Tyler, Diener, Murphy, Dunleavy, Watson etc. Very nice safe community guys , who unfortunatley lack extreem talent and a fire spirit.

if Jackson or players like him were the problem , then why are they doing well on other teams :-o:-o

i agree with you, and I don't like it, but its hard not to forget that the bottom line for TPTB is that the NBA is a business, and part of that business is to try to put out a team that draws the most money.

If TPTB have determined that the "conservative folk" are the core market they need to draw in order to make hte most money, thats what they are going to do.

90'sNBARocked
01-21-2010, 12:32 PM
i agree with you, and I don't like it, but its hard not to forget that the bottom line for TPTB is that the NBA is a business, and part of that business is to try to put out a team that draws the most money.

If TPTB have determined that the "conservative folk" are the core market they need to draw in order to make hte most money, thats what they are going to do.

You are a 100% correct my friend

I wonder if this is becoming too much for poor Mr Simon, with his brother being deceased and them being such great great people in the Indy community, maybe this is just killing him inside

we could end up with the Cinncinatti/Louisville Pacers

Since86
01-21-2010, 01:11 PM
I completely disagree with this assessment. Crediting the scumbag owners who stole the Sonics from Seattle for financial gain with the rise of the Thunder is absurd. The credit belongs to Sam Presti for drafting incredible, compatible players that are the core of the franchise. Investing in these players monetarily is irrelevant because they are all 3rd year and under players on basic contracts. The team would be just as good in Seattle, and maybe better considering their turn out and fan support would be crazy with a good team again. I saw this first hand with the Nuggets, who went from an empty stadium to an insane stadium. Plus, we have seen how crazy Seattle fans got during their Finals season. Tough arena to play in.


What? I didn't give any credit to the previous owners of the team.

I'm saying Presti HAD to draft because the previous owner moved everything else for money and draft picks. Presti was forced into the decision to build through drafting because of the previous owners tactics.

You can't say they would be just as good if they were in Seattle. The current owners bought them with the intention of moving the team. If they were in Seattle that means the team was never sold, or the buyer was a new one. When you change ownership you change decision making. Maybe they pass on Westbrook, or make other decisions differently. They aren't linked.

First hand with the Nuggets huh? You mean like when they TRADED for KMart, and Billups. Or when they traded for Iverson? Or when they traded for Nene and JR Smith. Hell, they didn't even draft Chris Andersen or Anthony Carter. They drafted few of their players.

Or the only reason they landed Melo in the draft is because Joe Dumars screwed his draft pick? Melo wouldn't be in Denver if Dumars didn't take Darko. Right there is the luck factor everyone else is talking about.

BillS
01-21-2010, 02:26 PM
if Jackson or players like him were the problem , then why are they doing well on other teams :-o:-o

Seems to me that it took more than just one move to another team for them to do well, and in some cases they've not done well at all.

Jackson doing well is not the same as every traded character player doing well.

90'sNBARocked
01-21-2010, 02:28 PM
Seems to me that it took more than just one move to another team for them to do well, and in some cases they've not done well at all.

Jackson doing well is not the same as every traded character player doing well.

True

I think my point is Indiana as a whole is viewed as a very conservative state by outsiders so while the Pacers would not want a single blemish, a team in a larger market would overlook minor off court issues for proven talent

I guess that won't fly in Indiana

ChicagoJ
01-21-2010, 02:54 PM
I think we would overlook "minor" offcourt issues. We had major oncourt and major offcourt issues with the mid-2000s era Pacers. Not minor. Major.

Hicks
01-21-2010, 03:00 PM
I think we would overlook "minor" offcourt issues. We had major oncourt and major offcourt issues with the mid-2000s era Pacers. Not minor. Major.

And from multiple players. It was just too much, too strong, too close together.

90'sNBARocked
01-21-2010, 04:32 PM
And from multiple players. It was just too much, too strong, too close together.

I understand but I think Jackson, and Jackson only got a little of a bad rap.

The one thing he did, although not great, was for what he saw as his own saftey

I dont own a gun personally, and have seen the violence, but if I had a gun on me (God knows I wouldnt though) and someone tried to run me over with a car not only would I shot , but I would shot at them

Jackson could have easily been a victum of vehicular homicide

but we have beat that to death, point being Indy is a little less tollerant of a persons behavior (which I think can be a good thing) then a city like LA where wining is really the only thing