Franchise408

According to some people around here, lottery picks are the objective of team building.

If last year was "all in for the 8th seed", then we did an absolute **** job of actually trying for that. The problem last year wasn't that we supposedly tried for the 8th seed. It's that Hennigan was allergic to bringing in actual *talent* to this team. Now we're stuck with double digit contracts for scrubs like Biyombo and Fournier. Signing some talent *would be* fixing the problem. It's something we haven't done since we traded Dwight.

I've heard this before.

That's a pretty damned good best case

For everyone freaking out about his New York interview, the interviewer was the one who brought up New York first, framing her question around him being born in New York. To which he then said yea going to New York would be cool, but Florida is home too, I've lived here for 9 years, and it's huge to be drafted by a Florida team. Talk about freaking out over nothing. Jfc

Winner winner, chicken dinner?

It hasn't always been like THIS. Not to this level. And no, I don't think it's good for the NBA. You have people who represent the NBA coming out and saying the post season is boring and other sports right now are more exciting. When the NBA's own people are saying these things, you know it's bad.

So my question is this... I'm totally fine with it if the decision is that Elfrid Payton is NOT the PG of the future. However, that being said, I do believe that Elfrid is good enough so as that PG is NOT the top need on our team. So, do we want to spend a top pick on a position where we are already adequate, foregoing greater needs? Or is Smith that good that it's worth picking at a position where we are already solid, while still leaving our other holes unaddressed? For me, even if Smith is the player that I'd prefer, I'm not sure that it's at the position we need to go. But the counter to that is... just pick the damned best player available. At some point, you just need players. Go get the best player and figure out the rest later. And who knows, if we can get Smith, perhaps we can flip Payton for other assets. There's arguments to be made on both sides.

You're right, because the tank for 20 years philosophy works so great. We shoulda just kept Hennigan on. Cuz by your philosophy, we might have our next playoff berth by 2037. And in your eyes, that would be 100% acceptable, because "eventually" we'll find that player, amirite?

So if it takes us 20 years to get that franchise player to build with, you are okay with tanking for 20 years until that happens? Thank god you're not running an NBA franchise, and thank god the last guy running our team who thought like that was just fired.

No, I am not proposing we pick 15-20. I am proposing that getting pissed off that this franchise failed because we won a game at the end of the season and dropped from likely being 4th to 5th is an absurd thing to get mad about. I am proposing that draft positioning, and drafting period, is such an imperfect science that -purposefully- tanking for the sake of higher draft positioning is a bad strategy because it pushes your franchise deeper and deeper into the hole when the odds don't go in your favor, which they likely won't. Your argument continues to contradict itself as you continue to move the goal posts various times within your own argument. You ask me to cite how many teams were able to build championship contenders WITHOUT a top 5 pick to build around, but then in the same post go on and say that OUR top 5 picks aren't good enough. You don't get to change the standards as it suits your argument. You would be correct in saying that not every top 5 pick is equal. Your saying that also further proves my point - that point being that much of having success in the draft depends upon unreliable circumstances that are outside of anybody's control, so tanking your franchise in a hole in hopes of having all of those circumstances work out in your favor is a very, very naive at best way to build your franchise. Just as not every top 5 pick is equal, neither is every top 7 or top 10. You don't get to say that Steph Curry is a fluke at 7, when teams missing on picks and players falling in drafts and unseen sleepers unexpectedly having success is a common theme among drafts in virtually every professional sport. Yes, having the #1 pick gives you the "best odds" of drafting that player. But only if that player is coming out. When we drafted Oladipo #2, the guy who wasn't a franchise player to build around, guess who went ahead of him? Michael Bennett. So it's not like we exactly got screwed in draft positioning to miss our superstar there. There simply wasn't a foreseen franchise player coming out of that draft at the time. Granted, that wasn't a "purposeful" tank - we were naturally that bad. But again, it proves the point that the draft relies on unreliable circumstances. Having the #1 pick isn't like in a video game where you get more attribute points to create your very own prospect. You pick what's available. And what's available isn't always a franchise changing player. So guess what? You've just tanked your entire franchise for....... nothing. Being bad as a natural swing of the pendulum that all franchises in all sports go through? Absolutely acceptable. Being bad as a -strategy- to try to somehow manipulate the unreliable draft odds in your favor, artificially prolonging the poor state of your franchise and digging it into a deeper and deeper hole? Absolutely unacceptable. Trading away veteran assets during a rebuild to acquire better future potential, and not overspending in free agency with contracts that will compromise your future positioning while you assemble all your pieces together? Absolutely acceptable. Refusing to supplement the talent and assets you do have with quality support, leaving a bunch of young players to flounder on their own until they hopefully figure it out all by themselves, wasting vital years of that talent's career and probably driving them away at the end of their contract? Absolutely unacceptable. I've already answered the question about franchises that have been successful WITHOUT following your philosophy. Hint: It is the vast majority of NBA champions over the past 20 years. Now answer the question I've asked 3 times already. How long is "eventually"?

We tried it your way. It was a complete and colossal failure. We had not one, not two, but THREE top 5 picks over the course of this rebuild, PLUS another top 10 that we added in as well. THAT IS ENOUGH ASSETS TO BEGIN BUILDING AROUND. We did NOT. And now, because of a passive, do nothing and tank for draft positioning philosophy, all while saving cap space to spend on nobody, we are right where we were 5 years ago when this whole process began. And if your argument is that "Oladipo, Hezonja, Payton, and Gordon aren't quality enough players to begin building around", then you FURTHER my point about the futility of "tanking for draft position". For the millionth time: IT. REQUIRES. UNRELIABLE. AND. INCONSISTENT. FACTORS. THAT. ARE. OUT. OF. ANYBODY'S. CONTROL. 1. We are not talking about infinitesimal numbers. We are talking about unreliable and inconsistent numbers that are nothing more than an odds against you gamble, one that sets your franchise back even further if you don't win that gamble. And the more and more you lose that gamble, the more and more your franchise falls deeper into the hole. Kinda like real gambling when you put your life savings on the line in an attempt to win back what you've already lost. 2. There was PLENTY of defense of the move for Oladipo. The fact that you even talked yourself into it flies in the face of the very argument you are trying to make. Ibaka is a mid line veteran. Oladipo was a young, developing asset. The kind we TANK SEASONS to get. And yet we traded him away for the same type of mid line talent that you are blasting me for wanting to bring in to SUPPLEMENT our young talent with. Ibaka would have been fine to bring in to SUPPLEMENT our talent with. Not in PLACE of our talent. 3. Which means the result of the Reddick trade was trading away an expiring contract of a valuable player for nothing. 4. So it's okay when we over pay for underwhelming talent when it's Fournier? But not when it's someone like a Bledsoe, Barnes, Iguodala, or Batum? Because seriously... what exactly is Fournier contributing to this franchise for the money he is receiving? How is he more beneficial to this team than any of those guys? Because he's definitely not a building block sort of talent, and he's definitely not cheap... 5. We could if we didn't overpay Fournier and Biyombo. And if the Suns matched, then so be it. At least we were trying. Because right now, we're not. 6. You say that, but I also say that Iguodala is also a valuable veteran who could have helped to teach and guide much of our young talent while they developed. 7. With Payton, Gordon, Dipo, Hezonjia, Fournier, and Vuc, the goal SHOULD HAVE been playoffs. That's 3 top 5 picks, a top 10 pick, a guy getting paid almost all star money, and a center not all THAT far removed from the top of the pack, in year 5 of the rebuilding plan. But it wasn't, because the front office took a passive, do nothing approach to team building, and it was a complete failure. The fact that we've had so many top picks over the last few years with nothing but a couple dunk contests to show for it is exactly the point about the crap shoot that is the NBA draft, and exactly proves the point that you shouldn't "tank" for draft positioning.

It is absolutely insinuated when the entire philosophy being pushed for is "purposefully suck as bad as possible for as long as possible so a superstar can magically fall into your lap" At some point you need to actually start building something, and with THREE top 5 picks over the last few years, we are well past time to start building something. But of course, we didn't do that, instead we had a GM that traded away the best of those top 5 picks for a middling vet (ironically, a move that was PRAISED in this forum by all the same people who are anti-getting vets at the expense of young talent), who didn't fit with this team so we traded HIM away for a lower quality talent than we already had, AND a lower draft pick in a later draft to boot. We have a GM that trades away established vets like Reddick for unestablished talent in Harris, and then when that unestablished talent becomes an asset, trades him away for literally zero return. We have a GM who gives huge ass contracts to middle of the pack at best talent in Fournier and Biyombo. But yea, giving that same money to someone like Barnes, Iguodala, or Bledsoe is bad... And now we don't have that GM anymore. Thank god. But unfortunately, due to his utter incompetence and failed philosophy of "be passive, don't do anything, and if you suck long enough maybe something will magically happen", we have to start all over from scratch AGAIN, wasting 5 years of our time.

So then I ask the question that I asked earlier, that was NEVER answered. The response given to me was "eventually" a franchise player will fall to you if you continue to tank. Soooo... how long is "eventually"? Do you tank for 2 years? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? Tell me exactly how long you must tank for before your plan finally magically works itself out. And you implement this strategy of "eventually this player will magically appear" knowing that you are throwing away years and years of your franchise by sucking all so you can chase that magical player. How many years is an acceptable amount of years to waste away chasing this player? And then if you pass that threshold, then what is the Plan B? Just start over again and continue the same process all over again? Because, again, I can show you through the past 20 years of NBA history, the championship winning franchises did NOT follow this model that you are proposing.

The defending NBA champion Cleveland Cavaliers, signing free agent LeBron James. Miami Heat, signing free agents LeBron James and Chris Bosh. No, my point is not based on an "alternate reality", the only "alternate reality" is the one that says that tanking for the #1 pick is the most effective way to a championship. The closest example we have of that is, ironically enough, also the Cleveland Cavaliers and having Kyrie Irving, but that same championship is just as much due to a free agent signing in LeBron James as it was in drafting Kyrie. There is also the Spurs anomaly, in which the Spurs didn't actually -tank-, they lose their all-time great center to injury, got a high draft pick as a result of their inevitable bad season, and then paired 2 all time great big men together the next year. The Spurs didn't win simply because they had a top pick, they also had an all time great to pair him with right off the bat. Again, a fluke of luck and circumstance. I highly doubt their team building design was "Have David Robinson get injured, and then draft Tim Duncan!! WHOOO!!" The REALITY is that no, you do not need to tank to land your superstar. Golden State got theirs at #7, with their all star supplements at 11, 2nd round, and free agency. Miami got theirs at #5, with all time great / all star supplements in free agency (Shaq, LeBron, Bosh) Dallas got theirs at #9 Lakers got theirs at #13, in a trade for Vlade Divac. Boston used a #5 in a trade to land one of their franchise players. In our rebuild, we have had 3 top 5 picks, landed another top 10 pick, and had another #11 pick. 5 picks higher than the lowest on this list (Kobe @ 13). That is 5 high draft picks that we have failed to capitalize on. Now, you might say "not all drafts are equal", and you would be 100% correct, further validating my point that tanking for high draft picks again relies on unreliable circumstances outside of anybody's control. It's not like the winners of the top picks get to choose the prospects coming out. They have to pick and make due with what they have. You might also say "but we want the best odds possible to land the best possible player", and that is one way to look at it, but it is not the entire picture. The other side of that picture is, when you put your franchise in a bad position like that, such as setting your franchise up to lose in hopes of landing a player via the draft, if you -don't- land that superstar in the draft, you are further setting your franchise back even farther and for even longer. That is the failure of the "tank" philosophy, and given the nature of the draft, is a far more likely outcome than immediately landing your franchise changing superstar. THIS franchise has had luck in the past in that regard. However, that is NOT the history of the NBA. My posts are not based on an "alternate reality", my posts are based on the NBA reality that winning franchises are built via ALL phases of team building. Not one single recent championship team has relied exclusively on one form of team building. The winning franchises successfully utilize ALL forms of team building, which is my entire point. You don't build EXCLUSIVELY through trading / free agency, nor do you build via "tanking" and hoping that losing somehow turns you into a winner. OUR franchise utilized ALL forms of team building for both of our NBA Finals runs. Our first run was far more draft heavy, with Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott, Shaq, and Penny all being home grown talent, with supplemental talent like Horace Grant via free agency. Our more recent run was far more balanced, with Dwight, Jameer, and Reddick all coming via draft (Nelson coming through draft via trade), and Turkoglu, Lewis, Pietrus, and Alston coming via free agency and trade. Cleveland utilized draft (Kyrie), trades (Wiggins for Love), and free agency (LeBron) Golden State utilized mostly the draft - lower portions of the draft. #7, #11, 2nd round, and now free agency in Durant. Bogut and Iguodala were both free agent signings. Miami utilized free agency heavily, with first Shaq, and then later LeBron and Bosh, with ONE draft pick anchoring that team in Wade. Lakers utilized trades and free agency heavily, trading for Kobe Bryant, and signing first Shaq, and then later trading for Gasol and acquiring Odom. Spurs lucked into 1 top draft pick, and then filled out the rest of that team with mid to low picks in the 1st and 2nd rounds. Boston traded to acquire superstars to join their drafted star in Paul Pierce. And don't even get me started on the Pistons. These franchises all have one thing in common: they were all -proactive- Not a single one of these franchises was complacent, not a single one of these franchises waited around for blind luck to finally favor them, they all went out and made their own path. They were proactive, utilizing ALL tools at their disposal, to create winning franchises. They didn't rely upon unreliable circumstances outside of anyone's control, they TOOK control of their own futures. And not one of them needed to constantly tank for draft picks to do it. The response is always "well what was the alternative, what free agents were available that WOULD HAVE come here?" Well... that's EXACTLY the job of the general manager to MAKE them come here. And that's why Hennigan was awful at his job. He could not attract free agents, and he remained passive. He freed up cap space for nearly half a decade to finally make a big splash that was Bismack Biyombo. He supplemented our NUMEROUS top 5 picks with talent like Jodie Meeks, DJ Augustine, Channing Frye, Jeff Green, and Willie Green. He traded away young assets like Tobias Harris away for zero return. He traded away young, developing players like Oladipo for middling vets like Serge Ibaka (along with a lottery pick), only to turn around and trade HIM for more middle of the pack talent in Terrence Ross and an even lower draft pick. Everyone wants to make fun of me for suggesting Iguodala, but had we been more proactive in free agency, I feel that we could have been in a LOT better position than we are now, had we supplemented our young talent like Oladipo, Payton, and Gordon, with some of the many free agents in recent years like Iguodala, Eric Bledsoe, Nick Batum, or even Harrison Barnes. Or I guess we can just give Fournier $17m per, and Biyombo damn near $20m per, cuz ya know, keep tanking, amirite? And except for Iguodala, ALL of those guys listed were available *AFTER* drafting all 3 of those guys (or in the case of Bledsoe, available the same off season we drafted Gordon, meaning our draft position to get Gordon wouldn't have been compromised) So, theoretically, we could have a roster that looks like: PG - Bledsoe SG - Oladipo SF - Barnes / Batum PF - Gordon C - Vucevic with a bench of: PG - Payton SG - Fournier SF - Hezonja C - Biyombo That's all theoretical, of course, as cap space, restricted status (in the case of Bledsoe) and interest would likely hamper acquiring all of that together. BUT, make yourself a bigger player for the names like Bledsoe and Barnes, and don't so drastically overspend on Fournier and Biyombo, all of a sudden you might start finding yourself capable of actually building a team with *gasp* ASSETS TO MOVE if necessary as well in guys like Payton, Fournier, or Hezonja. And guess what, not one single area of team building was neglected. We didn't compromise drafts, and we didn't neglect free agency. I don't know about you, but I like the look of that roster a LOT better than what we have. And I don't think that Bledsoe and / or Barnes over the past couple off seasons are entirely unrealistic.