Henny has been fired!

[Magicman28 295]

You know what invalidates his viewpoint?

 

Every single time i can think of whenever a top player forces a trade that team asks for young players and draft picks in return, not solid vets.

 

"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."

 

 

Do you see what's wrong with this paragraph?

 

 

Also he keeps saying we were passive. Rob did exactly what he keeps saying he didn't do.

He tried to bring in Millsap to ADD to our young talent two summers ago.

[The Boss 129]

I guess he's happy enough just trying to become a 7-8 seed that has zero chance ever becoming a contender, because that's what would have happened if we kept Oladipo and paid him the max or near max (which he would have got if he stayed, being the franchises big building block). Keeping all those guys we had and paying them market value would secure our mediocre future for years to come, no superstar FA would even consider coming (not that we'd have the cap space to sign them anyway), then we'd be just sitting and hoping that one day our 15-18 pick will nail a guy in the draft that everyone slept on who could finally propel us to contender status.

 

Also, waiting for a reply to;

 

give me a list of franchises that have built a championship winner on your model that haven't been fortunate enough to draft a hall of famer or future hall of famer outside the top 5 in the draft.

And that's being generous with outside the top 5, you're proposing we pick around the 15-20 spot.

 

 

We are suggesting that a franchise like the Magic's best way to get back to contender status is to follow a plan of; acquiring as much young talent as possible, acquiring as many high picks as possible and maintaining cap flexibility for when you start to make a push. You can't make a push with the guys we got unfortunately (don't get lost in the numbers of positions they were picked and say we had 3 top 5 picks, base it on the 3 players that they are, and they are certainly not the building blocks for a winning franchise). There was pressure from above and from some fans to make that push and look where we are. It's when the plan started to shift more to your philosophy that the wheels started to fall off. Henny was no where near perfect and did make mistakes along the way but I think his original plan for a franchise like Orlando was the right one, we just didn't stick to it for various reasons (impatient owner and fans basically).

 

You make it sound so easy to just build around anyone you draft as long as you are smart with your FA acquisitions, except all your examples of winning franchises were built around hall of famers.

[Ibn Battuta 127]

You know what invalidates his viewpoint?

 

Every single time i can think of whenever a top player forces a trade that team asks for young players and draft picks in return, not solid vets.

 

Not always. Shaq got traded for Odom and Butler I think. Chris Paul was initially traded for LO and Gasol. It depends. Not every team is like that.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

Not always. Shaq got traded for Odom and Butler I think. Chris Paul was initially traded for LO and Gasol. It depends. Not every team is like that.

 

Butler was 24, odom was 25 and they got a first round pick.

 

The vetoed trade would have sent gasol to Houston. Dragic, Martin, odom, and the Knicks pick to new Orleans. I'll give you that one though as dragic wasn't the selling point. But there's a reason the entire league freaked out and the trade was vetoed.

[Franchise408 116]

I guess he's happy enough just trying to become a 7-8 seed that has zero chance ever becoming a contender, because that's what would have happened if we kept Oladipo and paid him the max or near max (which he would have got if he stayed, being the franchises big building block). Keeping all those guys we had and paying them market value would secure our mediocre future for years to come, no superstar FA would even consider coming (not that we'd have the cap space to sign them anyway), then we'd be just sitting and hoping that one day our 15-18 pick will nail a guy in the draft that everyone slept on who could finally propel us to contender status.

 

Also, waiting for a reply to;

 

 

And that's being generous with outside the top 5, you're proposing we pick around the 15-20 spot.

 

 

We are suggesting that a franchise like the Magic's best way to get back to contender status is to follow a plan of; acquiring as much young talent as possible, acquiring as many high picks as possible and maintaining cap flexibility for when you start to make a push. You can't make a push with the guys we got unfortunately (don't get lost in the numbers of positions they were picked and say we had 3 top 5 picks, base it on the 3 players that they are, and they are certainly not the building blocks for a winning franchise). There was pressure from above and from some fans to make that push and look where we are. It's when the plan started to shift more to your philosophy that the wheels started to fall off. Henny was no where near perfect and did make mistakes along the way but I think his original plan for a franchise like Orlando was the right one, we just didn't stick to it for various reasons (impatient owner and fans basically).

 

You make it sound so easy to just build around anyone you draft as long as you are smart with your FA acquisitions, except all your examples of winning franchises were built around hall of famers.

 

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"?

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

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"?

 

It's not the majority of nba champions over the last 20 years lol. And even if it was it doesn't change the fact that the last two cbas have created a scenario where its near impossible to obtain a star player outside of the draft unless you already have one

 

How long is eventually? Until you get the guy you need.

[The Boss 129]

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.

A meaningless game that could be the difference between getting a Hezonja instead of a Porzingis.

 

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.

I asked you to give me an example of a championship team that built around a draft pick that wasn't a hall of fame player, maybe my wording wasn't the best but that's what I wanted to know. I don't think there are any in recent history. So to have a real shot at winning a championship (which should be the goal of any franchise, not just to be 'good') we need to draft a future superstar to build around, you can't just build around anything.

 

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.

So is your plan to hope we get a Curry like player at 7, or a Dirk like player at 9, or a Kobe at 13, Kawhi at 15? And then supplement them with FA signings? Or was your plan to supplement Oladipo, Gordon and Hezonja with the best FA's we can get than hope we get one of those magical players with a fluke mid round pick, or are you suggesting we won't need one of those players, we'll be good enough with the core we started building around? Because once again, you can't just build around anything, that's going to get you to mediocrity with no cap flexibility and picking 15-20 in the draft. That's not a good spot to be in with the new CBA's like what P4TW pointed out, you won't be prying away any star players, so you'll be stuck praying for a miracle in the draft with a mid-round pick.

 

So that "eventually" will be a lot longer with your proposal, yeah we might sneak into the playoffs, play some exciting basketball, sell some more season tickets, but our franchise will be treading water waiting for a star player to push us over the hump. You wont be getting one to Orlando through FA with the new CBA's so it will have to be in the draft. Statistically, its going to take a lot longer finding one with a pick between 15-20 than it is picking in the top 5.

 

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.

Isn't that what we tried to do this season by going after Ibaka and signing the best FA's available to us? It didn't work because the pieces we had weren't ready to be built around.

 

Now answer the question I've asked 3 times already. How long is "eventually"?

Exactly what P4TW said, however long it takes to get the right piece(s) to build around. We currently don't have those pieces.

 

We should have just stuck by our original plan set by Henny. If ownership were never prepared to sit through some extra years of rebuilding if we didn't strike gold with our first batch of picks then they should never have hired him in the first place. Like you say the draft is a lottery and there was no certainty we'd nail it straight away, we didn't. Expecting a GM to still build a contender with what we got out of those bad few seasons is ludicrous.

 

 

Can you give me a realistic alternative to the original plan that would get us to contender status after we drafted Oladipo, Gordon, Payton and Hezonja. From what I read you wanted something like;

Bledsoe (we could never get him, but let's say we could)

Oladipo

Barnes (Probably wouldn't have chosen us over the Mavs anyway, if he did I guess we have to let Fournier leave)

Gordon

Vucevic

Bench:

Payton

Iguodala

Hezonja

Dedmon

 

I'm not sure the money would even work there but let's say it could, where does that get us? 8 seed? Completely capped out money wise, praying that either Gordon or Hezonja turns into a HOFer, OR we get that guy from pick 16-20 in the next few drafts. But hey, it will make fans like you happy because we would be developing a winning culture and we'd have the illusion of greatness being just around the corner, when in fact we'd be a lot further from it than a team like Philly. (Even more so with the new CBA's)

[Franchise408 116]

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.

[The Boss 129]

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.

 

They knew he thought like that, so why did they bother hiring him in the first place? They should have just gone with a win now GM and made that Brook Lopez trade for Dwight, we'd have about 4 titles by now and everything would have worked out perfectly.

[Franchise408 116]

They knew he thought like that, so why did they bother hiring him in the first place? They should have just gone with a win now GM and made that Brook Lopez trade for Dwight, we'd have about 4 titles by now and everything would have worked out perfectly.

 

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?

[Magicman28 295]

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.

 

 

It's going to be the same plan the next GM will have. He'll just have the luxury of possibly having a top 5 pick in one of the deepest drafts in years. Think on that. No draft in Henny's tenure was this deep.

 

This is the model the NBA has invented. Majority of the teams regardless of how, are champions because of the draft.

 

Question, keeps getting overlooked, would you of liked Millsap here WITH Dipo and co two summers ago?

[The Boss 129]

It wouldn't take anywhere near as long as you keep saying, most other teams that were terrible around the time we started our rebuild have gotten their pieces. Yeah theoretically it could take 20 years to get anyone worthwhile building around, but theoretically you could lose 50 coin tosses in a row.

 

What's the alternative? Overpay FAs and restricted FAs to supplement Oladipo, Gordon and Hezonja?

 

I took the time to respond to multiple points over my last few posts but if you are just going to harp on one point and keep responding with one liners about it then I'd rather not discuss this with you anymore.