Justin Jaudon 221 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 LOOOOOOOOL They clearly had a better draft than us. Post All-Star, in the West, they went 8-17 to our 8-16 in the East. Their core is younger, meaning they are more likely to improve internally. They were already as good as us last year post All-Star, playing two rookies and a sophomore big minutes. We played all our vets and still were just as bad. Then they have a better draft than us. They have a pick upcoming from the Pelicans. They are in a better situation than we are. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mauro Pedrosa 1,032 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 They clearly had a better draft than us. Post All-Star, in the West, they went 8-17 to our 8-16 in the East. Their core is younger, meaning they are more likely to improve internally. They were already as good as us last year post All-Star, playing two rookies and a sophomore big minutes. We played all our vets and still were just as bad. Then they have a better draft than us. They have a pick upcoming from the Pelicans. They are in a better situation than we are. And they don't have albatross contracts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Miller4Prez66 545 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 They clearly had a better draft than us. Post All-Star, in the West, they went 8-17 to our 8-16 in the East. Their core is younger, meaning they are more likely to improve internally. They were already as good as us last year post All-Star, playing two rookies and a sophomore big minutes. We played all our vets and still were just as bad. Then they have a better draft than us. They have a pick upcoming from the Pelicans. They are in a better situation than we are. That's the state Rob Hennigan left this franchise in unfortunately. This will not be a quick fix. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJZFL 619 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 I think the unfortunate takeaway from tonight is what none of us want to hear after over half a decade of rebuilding, but we're in a full rebuild. We just haven't hit rock bottom yet. Moves like drafting Isaac and not keeping the 25th pick (or trading proactively) pretty much show it. No matter what you think on ceilings, Monk and DSJ certainly would help us next season more then Isaac. But I think the new FO took a look at the roster and figured next year was a wash anyhow. Tough for us hardcore fans to swallow, but that's the call they are making (and it might even by the right one looooong-term). Strap in. I hear what you're saying but I don't understand it. Typically, developing rookies is thought to be a "tank now, but get better over the long run" strategy. Look at Minnesota, with multiple promising young players but still a lousy record. It's not likely that DSJ and Monk will be great as rookies, but they might develop into something interesting over the next 2-3 years. I guess I'm just not understanding our current strategy at all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Okethree 76 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 Really wish we would have drafted swanagin with 25 and either Semi O. or juwan evans with 35 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justin Jaudon 221 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 No matter what you think on ceilings, Monk and DSJ certainly would help us next season more then Isaac. But I think the new FO took a look at the roster and figured next year was a wash anyhow. You think they intentionally picked a lesser player the same age to ensure that we sucked enough next year to tank better? We passed on rookies who could actually add legitimate wins to our team, something we haven't had in a while, because that would be bad? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pootie Tang 44 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 The only way tonight makes any sense at all is if we fully commit to a tank next year. I'm talking Michael Porter level tank Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Tough Break There 96 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 You think they intentionally picked a lesser player the same age to ensure that we sucked enough next year to tank better? We passed on rookies who could actually add legitimate wins to our team, something we haven't had in a while, because that would be bad? To some degree, yes. I'm not sure I'd quite put it like that. I think the FO clearly like Isaac, and I'm pretty sure no matter our situation they would have went with him over DSJ or Monk (or whoever). But I also think they aren't terribly worried about making the team as good as possible for 2017-2018. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justin Jaudon 221 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 The only way tonight makes any sense at all is if we fully commit to a tank next year. I'm talking Michael Porter level tank No. It still doesn't make sense. If you're committed to tanking, you actually use your picks; or, if you trade them, you don't trade them for what will likely be worse picks down the line. You get rid of your vets, not rookies. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pootie Tang 44 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 No. It still doesn't make sense. If you're committed to tanking, you actually use your picks; or, if you trade them, you don't trade them for what will likely be worse picks down the line. You get rid of your vets, not rookies. I'm talking purely about taking Isaac instead of someone with the potential to be a #1 option Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justin Jaudon 221 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 To some degree, yes. I'm not sure I'd quite put it like that. I think the FO clearly like Isaac, and I'm pretty sure no matter our situation they would have went with him over DSJ or Monk (or whoever). But I also think they aren't terribly worried about making the team as good as possible for 2017-2018. I'm not worried about 2017-2018 either. I'm worried that maybe we could have drafted Swanigan and Evans with 25 and 35, kept them, and in a few years maybe they'd develop into something. Swanigan and Evans (or whoever in that range) don't add wins in 2017-18, but they might in 2020. What never adds wins is trading a pick for a worse pick down the line. It makes literally no sense. We've had GM's that don't seem to value later picks, but this one seems to actively think they are harmful. That's crazy. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Justin Jaudon 221 Report post Posted June 23, 2017 I'm talking purely about taking Isaac instead of someone with the potential to be a #1 option Okay, but that's still terrible thinking. If my kid is committed to eating his vegetables in order to get dessert, it would be stupid of him to tell me 'no' if I say he can just go ahead and have dessert. You tank for potential #1 options. That's literally the end-game of the tanking strategy. The only way the Isaac pick makes sense is if they think Smith and Monk have very little chance of being #1 options, and Isaac has a higher chance. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
