MAGIC VS BULLS BOOM!

[Franchise408 116]

Not really but ok

 

Yes, really.

 

Wiggins was supposed to be this huge, game changing franchise player when he came out, and we were supposed to tank to get him because he would single handedly turn a franchise around.

 

Now you're saying that isn't the case.

 

It's almost like the draft isn't a guarantee of anything.

[Magicman28 295]

Yes, really.

 

Wiggins was supposed to be this huge, game changing franchise player when he came out, and we were supposed to tank to get him because he would single handedly turn a franchise around.

 

Now you're saying that isn't the case.

 

It's almost like the draft isn't a guarantee of anything.

 

 

Nothing is guaranteed.

 

Having tons of money for FA's, draft, trade talks, none of it's guaranteed.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Yes, really.

 

Wiggins was supposed to be this huge, game changing franchise player when he came out, and we were supposed to tank to get him because he would single handedly turn a franchise around.

 

Now you're saying that isn't the case.

 

It's almost like the draft isn't a guarantee of anything.

 

no, I didn't say that. I said "some smart people say".

 

I'm a big fan of wiggins. He's done really really well without Lavine. 24.6ppg on 43/36/78 shooting post all star. Minnesota is just a couple small pieces away from being a great team.

[Optimist Prime 197]

no, I didn't say that. I said "some smart people say".

 

I'm a big fan of wiggins. He's done really really well without Lavine. 24.6ppg on 43/36/78 shooting post all star. Minnesota is just a couple small pieces away from being a great team.

 

And isn't it all mostly about having a guy to build around? Very few players historically had the talent to change a franchise on their own. Nut having a guy like Wiggins would make a huge difference in building the team and attracting free agents. All of it goes hand in hand, and that's why tanking is a strategy. It's the easiest and best odds to start the process of putting all of those pieces into place.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

And isn't it all mostly about having a guy to build around? Very few players historically had the talent to change a franchise on their own. Nut having a guy like Wiggins would make a huge difference in building the team and attracting free agents. All of it goes hand in hand, and that's why tanking is a strategy. It's the easiest and best odds to start the process of putting all of those pieces into place.

 

yeah. it provides you with direction.

 

That's been a big problem for us. we've been in a situation where we haven't been building around a player. we've been collecting possible talent. Then using free agency to fill holes in macro level deficiency areas, not player style fit. We haven't built around Payton (putting Gordon at 3, running the offense through Fournier way too much). We haven't built around Gordon (playing him out of position, playing him in poor shooting lineups).

 

so, going forward, it'd help if we just built around whoever we draft this time (along with Gordon as he pretty much fits anywhere as long as you have a couple shooters in the lineup).

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

but back to my point. Here are the young players I'd trade Gordon for:

 

towns

wiggins

porzingis

Giannis

 

I'd have to think about Jokic mostly because I haven't really done a deep dive on his season yet.

[The Neighborhood Bully 266]

but back to my point. Here are the young players I'd trade Gordon for:

 

towns

wiggins

porzingis

Giannis

 

I'd have to think about Jokic mostly because I haven't really done a deep dive on his season yet.

Not Gobert?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Not Gobert?

 

Gobert is almost 25. I don't consider him young.

 

fwiw I limited it to 22 and under (probably should have said that).

[Odin 137]

but back to my point. Here are the young players I'd trade Gordon for:

 

towns

wiggins

porzingis

Giannis

 

I'd have to think about Jokic mostly because I haven't really done a deep dive on his season yet.

 

I would trade Gordon for Jokic, and I am a big Gordon fan. Jokic isn't that good defensively (though Denver is not a good defensive team either, so...), but 63.7% TS%, 11.7% ORB%, +12.8 points per 48 minutes on/off with Denver a good team with him on the court and a bad team with him off, Denver having a 5% higher EFG% with him on the floor than off, with 9% more field goals assisted makes him a very interesting player.

 

My one fear would be that he is basically an improved, passing version of Vucevic with a better 3 pt %, which would bring some of the same issues as Vuch has, with needing good defenders around him.

 

However, he is much more efficient than Vuch (Vuch's best TS% was 54.8%, 9% lower than Jokic's this year), and you can definitely build an offense around his multitude of skills.

[Optimist Prime 197]

I would trade Gordon for Jokic, and I am a big Gordon fan. Jokic isn't that good defensively (though Denver is not a good defensive team either, so...), but 63.7% TS%, 11.7% ORB%, +12.8 points per 48 minutes on/off with Denver a good team with him on the court and a bad team with him off, Denver having a 5% higher EFG% with him on the floor than off, with 9% more field goals assisted makes him a very interesting player.

 

My one fear would be that he is basically an improved, passing version of Vucevic with a better 3 pt %, which would bring some of the same issues as Vuch has, with needing good defenders around him.

 

However, he is much more efficient than Vuch (Vuch's best TS% was 54.8%, 9% lower than Jokic's this year), and you can definitely build an offense around his multitude of skills.

 

The question is can you build around a center in today's NBA? Can you rely on a center who spends less time in the paint and more time on the perimeter than average. I don't know Jokic's game, so these aren't comments on him specifically, just in general. What that position has become is definitive in determining whether a player at that position is a cornerstone. Towns and Embiid show signs that you can, but they're also very special talents (and the results remain to be seen). What other centers are positive examples of this?

[Murphy13 185]

The talk that the role of traditional centers are dying in 'today's NBA' is a fallacy. It's just so rare to have a game-changing center that teams don't have to game plan for it usually. If a generational-type talent traditional center came along he would dominate the league and the talk would cease.

[Odin 137]

The question is can you build around a center in today's NBA? Can you rely on a center who spends less time in the paint and more time on the perimeter than average. I don't know Jokic's game, so these aren't comments on him specifically, just in general. What that position has become is definitive in determining whether a player at that position is a cornerstone. Towns and Embiid show signs that you can, but they're also very special talents (and the results remain to be seen). What other centers are positive examples of this?

 

I think the goal should always be to get the best player possible, whatever position they play. The issue is that between Dwight and the current batch of centers, (and between Shaq, Tim Duncan (who basically played center the second half of his career), and Dwight) there weren't any center talents that you could build around. That doesn't mean the center as a force is dead, just that the talent wasn't there.

 

The role of the center will continue to change, just as all positions have changed over time. But that doesn't mean you cannot build around the position- coaches and GMs just need to change their approach.