Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Magicman28

Henny has been fired!

Recommended Posts

You can definitely count on history to repeat itself eventually. With the current system in place, the best way to acquire a superstar is in the lottery. And you need a superstar to attract better players and win a championship. What other option do we have? Would you perhaps have been happier trading Dwight for Brook Lopez? I'm not seeing what the alternative is and why it would be any more viable.

 

Best bet is to try to get lucky in the draft. Eventually it will happen. Happens for every struggling franchise. After that it's up to management to bring in more talent and a decent coach.

 

Your entire argument is "eventually it will happen"

 

How long is "eventually"? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? 20 years? 40 years? I bet your answer is "I don't know", because that is the ONLY correct answer to "when will it happen?" Nobody knows, nor can anybody know. There is no science to something that is blind luck of the draw.

 

That is a horrible strategy because, again, it relies on unreliable and unforeseen circumstances that are out of anybody's control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your entire argument is "eventually it will happen"

 

How long is "eventually"? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? 20 years? 40 years? I bet your answer is "I don't know", because that is the ONLY correct answer to "when will it happen?" Nobody knows, nor can anybody know. There is no science to something that is blind luck of the draw.

 

That is a horrible strategy because, again, it relies on unreliable and unforeseen circumstances that are out of anybody's control.

 

Which teams went from terrible to contenders in last 5 years with help of Free Agency? Can we see examples of what we should have done?

 

If one team improved, thats 3% chance if split evenly among 30-ish teams for us to land that superstar in free agency. There is no highly effective alternative to draft picks. Your posts are based on alternate reality where trades that improve teams from terrible to contenders were plentiful, which just wasnt the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which teams went from terrible to contenders in last 5 years with help of Free Agency? Can we see examples of what we should have done?

 

If one team improved, thats 3% chance if split evenly among 30-ish teams for us to land that superstar in free agency. There is no highly effective alternative to draft picks. Your posts are based on alternate reality where trades that improve teams from terrible to contenders were plentiful, which just wasnt the case.

 

Which teams went from terrible to contenders in the past five years by tanking and landing a superstar in the draft?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your entire argument is "eventually it will happen"

 

How long is "eventually"? 2 years? 3 years? 5 years? 10 years? 15 years? 20 years? 40 years? I bet your answer is "I don't know", because that is the ONLY correct answer to "when will it happen?" Nobody knows, nor can anybody know. There is no science to something that is blind luck of the draw.

 

That is a horrible strategy because, again, it relies on unreliable and unforeseen circumstances that are out of anybody's control.

 

It's not blind luck. It's just an inevitability. And it's only the first step of the process. The Pacers got Paul George but they haven't done much beyond that. The Clippers got Blake Griffin and they've done decent enough. The Warriors got Curry and they've done unbelievably well.

 

What's the alternative? Where else do you start from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which teams went from terrible to contenders in the past five years by tanking and landing a superstar in the draft?

 

 

There's always a process

 

Timing, opportunities, all play a role in drafting, free agency, and trades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Which teams went from terrible to contenders in the past five years by tanking and landing a superstar in the draft?"

 

 

 

 

Loaded question until we define tanking and agree on the semantics of that terminology, but Milwaukee is looking pretty nice. Of course you'll argue that #34 was not a top 3 pick and I'll reply with, yes but you still want the best opportunity to draft that type of talent. Then you'll reply we had that opportunity and blew it, and I'll agree with you and remind you that our GM was just fired

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but you're making assumptions that we've had opportunities that may or may not have even presented themselves. The only deal we are aware of that "might" have been on the table was Vuc and a number of other assets for Demarcus Cousins and if I were a betting man I'd put my money on an ownership veto seeing as how Vlade seemed to indicate a deal was in place, again presumably with us, and then fell through. You and Franchise408 are very good at pointing out the failures of the plan to build through the draft in hindsight but are equally very bad at laying out an alternative plan that involves players that were actually available to us in FA, would choose us over other teams, and that make sense in terms of being foundational pieces to build around. The closest thing I've heard from either of you (not you, 408) that makes any sense is that we should have signed Harrison Barnes instead of Biyombo and that is something that I wouldn't argue, although I don't think we'd be a whole hell of a lot better record wise if we had. Over the span of time that we've sucked many other teams have continued to suck or gotten worse (Phoenix, LA, Philly, Mavs, etc.) so its not like we're seeing a ton of bottom dwellers from 5 years ago rise to prominence or anything during our rebuilding. The exception that comes to mind is Mil who, big surprise, struck gold in the draft.

 

I think the presumptive scenario was Cousins' agent pushing a nuclear option and our ownership presumably having qualms about doing business with that guy again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which teams went from terrible to contenders in last 5 years with help of Free Agency? Can we see examples of what we should have done?

 

If one team improved, thats 3% chance if split evenly among 30-ish teams for us to land that superstar in free agency. There is no highly effective alternative to draft picks. Your posts are based on alternate reality where trades that improve teams from terrible to contenders were plentiful, which just wasnt the case.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like we both agree that we need at least somehwat high draft picks, in range of 5-10 spot which is what most of these teams have in common (In addition to free agents).

 

If we could gradually improve (but not to a point where we drop out of top10 picks) then im all for gradual improvement.

 

Which I think is actually what Rob and Alex wanted. We were always saying we were improving, but results just arent here/there.

 

Noone is arguing that this tank was actually successful. Ironically, we will very likely get our best player in draft this year when we were actually trying to win.

 

In next few years we will get to see alternative approach with less draft picks and more trades. I dont think we are going back to top draft picks with new GM and Alex on hotseat. If this GM fails, Alex is next no matter how he spins it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

There's a couple things you neglected to plan for

 

1. Bledsoe was a restricted free agent.

2. I don't think its fair to say we should have gotten batum or conley or whoever resigned with their own team. If they never hit the market I'm not sure what we're supposed to do.

3. We could have maxed out batum or barnes and I don't think that would have had a drastic long term positive impact. I think we'd be a 35ish win team with them and little future hope for salary cap relief. it's much easier to deal with a biyombo contract than a batum contract that starts at almost 27 million.

 

 

Also, it's kinda pointless to highlight every good draft pick at 7 or 11 while ignoring all of the times that pick became a role player.

 

Nobody says it's impossible to find a great player at any pick in the draft. Everyone arguing with you is stating on average you're more likely to find a great player the closer you go to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

How were we going to get Batum? He got a max deal from a better team.

 

When were we getting Bledsoe? He was never available, except possibly through trade.

 

How much would Barnes and Bledsoe improve our team? The teams they were on were awful as well. Bledsoe adds maybe 1-2 more wins to our team, and has major injury concerns. Barnes- also probably 1-2 more wins. So if we got the two of them, we win what 35 games?

 

And who in your mind is clamoring to play with Bledsoe and Barnes, or clamoring to trade to have them on their team? They don't give you assets because no one will give away anything good for them. It is basically a similar problem to the Biyombo, Augustin, Fournier, Vuch problem that we already have.

 

So yay, your proposal would put us in a position of picking at the end of the lottery every year with much lower chances to get an actual foundational player. You want to turn us into the Charlotte Bobcats, or Milwaukee pre- Giannis, or the Clippers pre- Griffin and Chris Paul, or the Washington Wizards Pre-Wall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×