2018 Official Offseason Thread

[random]

12 minutes ago, Franchise408 said:

There was literally -no- risk for us to take a chance on him.

We have no starting caliber PG. He would have been an instant upgrade. If his injuries were too much and he wouldn't be able to play, or his performance was bad, it would have been a 1 year contract at the minimum, we'd be in the same position we are now, with no long term cap ramifications.

But if he was able to return to form and have success, we'd be better off with him.

There was literally no negative and only positives to signing Isaiah Thomas. And considering we aren't going to use this year's cap space on anything anyways, it's not like we had to pass on Thomas so that we could sign someone else.

Sorry, there's no convincing me that not signing him was a good move. Even if he was injured and didn't play a single game, or sucked when he did play, we would literally be no worse off than we are right now.

This was a bad move on the part of the front office. And I don't care about "length". There's more important things that go into a good basketball player than "length". Sounds like Al Davis and the Raiders with his "speed". *sigh*

We have no idea what our front office is thinking or considering.

This is only a hypothetical bad move, which might not even be a bad move in first place. Just because you wanted it, doesnt mean it goes with our plans.

[Franchise408]

7 hours ago, Originalticketholder said:

My contrarian friend,

I have been in the ER and hospital the last couple of days with my 92+ year old father in law so I am just catching up on these lively "tanking" discussions that I missed.  I also do not agree with tanking, as do most on this site, not because of success or failure because you can make it a success, but  I oppose it due to the nature of trying to lose.....just goes against basic competitive instinct.   While you note lots of examples and stats of how it will not ensure a  championship title, tanking does work (that is where you are wrong) to make a team better and more competitive faster and quicker if done correctly.  I give you the 76'er's, the masters of tanking.  But that competitive success could be applied to the tanking Lakers, the tanking Maverick's, the tanking Suns (premature success but you see it coming with Ayton (#1) and Jackson (#4) in the mix) and numerous others.  Even If I won only one title I still would have like LeBron on my team rather than hot have him.  Tanking is not just about the #1 pick but about continued picks in the top 3 or 4 (where would the Bulls be without a certain # 3 pick named Jordan or Warriors without #2 pick Durant).  While Philly did not hit on every one of those and no team does, each year the odds increased they would and they did!  Philly perfected tanking model when , at the same time, we failed if we tried.   Their model produced copycats forcing Silver and the league to address it because it succeeded.  

And I do find your posts insightful (not always correct)  and do not find you "intellectually dishonest" and hope you did not take that too personally and I like this site, which is not for the "faint of heart" or thin skinned posters, because of it's honesty and bluntness.  After all B.I.G.4TheWin, our moderator,  is an equal opportunity "tells like he sees it" poster of everyone. lol.

Just keep hoping MagicFan1234 resurfaces and your posts will receive far less attention.  lol

First of all, I am sorry to hear about your father in law. I hope that everything is on an upswing?

The 76ers are basically an outlier. You mention that you'd take only 1 championship if that's what a LeBron brought to your organization, and that's valid, but the history shows that you are not likely to get that championship with said player. And then you mention the Warriors and Durant - while he was a #2 pick, he was not -their- #2 pick. He was picked by another team, and then came over as a free agent. They did not tank to get him. And before he got there, they were doing pretty good already with 2 Finals appearances, 1 win, and the single seasons wins record. They tanked for 20+ years before luck finally favored them with Curry at #7, and then Klay and Draymond in the mid lottery and 2nd round. Those weren't picks that they purposefully had to tank for. Again, Philly is really the only team that's showing any sort of success from the tanking model, and it is yet to be determined just how much success they will actually have. As of now, it's been a single post season appearance to the 2nd round. Also, how long have they had to be employing this tanking philosophy in order to reach the 2nd round??

Adam Silver is addressing the issue, not because it's working (it's not), but because probably about 60-70% of the league that is not Golden State, Cleveland (or this coming year, Los Angeles), San Antonio, Houston, Boston, Toronto, or Philly have been tanking and it's making the game absolutely unwatchable. Even I only watched a handful of Magic games this year because honestly, it's demoralizing to watch your team when you know the powers that be are purposefully trying to lose. You have a small handful of teams that are championship contenders, and everyone else is trying to tank out. It kills any entertainment value of watching the game. That is what Adam Silver is looking to address. Not the fact that one outlier franchise actually had it work for them.

And again, there's also a difference between naturally tanking because of circumstance (every team is going to have highs and lows), which actually isn't tanking. It's the natural ebb and flow of sports. And a difference between that and purposefully tanking, purposefully signing lesser players to purposefully lose more games to have a goal of a higher draft pick. The Lakers aren't purposefully tanking. A top 5 all time player retired, and they are trying to move on from that. The Mavericks aren't having success via tanking. The Suns have had no success yet, and you can't say that getting Ayton will put them over.

I just look through history, and I do -not- see tanking as being a successful model to turn a team around. Instead, it far more often than not buries a team to years (or sometimes even decades) of mediocrity. You can talk about getting that 1 championship all you want, but even if it does come, odds and numbers are that it's going to take you a decade + of tanking before that player comes along.

Appreciate the response. Definitely gonna disagree tho lol.

3 hours ago, TreyMachine said:

Last time we decided to abort the long-term approach, we traded Victor Oladipo and a first round pick for Serge Ibaka because we wanted to go "win now" mode.

How did that work out for us? 

The problem wasn't that we went into a "win now" philosophy. The problem was that we went into a "win now" philosophy with a horrible roster that was nowhere close to competing, and traded away our best player for a 4th option who isn't a player who has the capability of being "the guy" on his own. Ibaka was a mid tier player that we over valued because he was on the stacked OKC roster, and we traded away our best player and a 1st rounder to get him, when our roster was nowhere near competing.

2 hours ago, ?4thewin said:

I'm not saying add a draft pick to the core. You can only have so many developmental guys. 

But trading a pick for a guy you can get in free agency is not having a pick to trade for someone else. 

Who says we're gonna get him in free agency?

A tanking franchise with no cap space and no legitimate stars to play alongside doesn't really have much appeal for star players in free agency.

[Franchise408]

24 minutes ago, ?4thewin said:

Nothing is ever no risk

It's literally as "no risk" as you can possibly get in professional sports.

1 year rental that is an improvement over what we already have, and if he's not, we're no worse roster wise than we were before signing him, with no long term cap implications, and no use of the short term cap space that we're saving by not signing him.

If we needed the cap space to sign someone else this year and so we had to pass on Isaiah to do it, then you'd have a point. But they've already said they aren't signing anyone else this off-season so passing on Isaiah doesn't even allow us to use the money on something else.

[Fultz4thewin]

38 minutes ago, Franchise408 said:

It's literally as "no risk" as you can possibly get in professional sports.

1 year rental that is an improvement over what we already have, and if he's not, we're no worse roster wise than we were before signing him, with no long term cap implications, and no use of the short term cap space that we're saving by not signing him.

If we needed the cap space to sign someone else this year and so we had to pass on Isaiah to do it, then you'd have a point. But they've already said they aren't signing anyone else this off-season so passing on Isaiah doesn't even allow us to use the money on something else.

Because

Isaiah

Doesn't

Fit

And

Likely

Makes

Us

Worse

[CTMagicUK]

The idea that we should trade for someone because they wouldn't come here in free agency is a weird one to me when the player in question only has 1 year left on his deal. If they wouldnt come here why would they stay here?

[fan for too long 2]

14 minutes ago, ?4thewin said:

Because

Isaiah

Doesn't

Fit

And

Likely

Makes

Us

Worse

Yes because we’d rather have dj chucking up shots and ignoring teammates. 

And whose to say he won’t come here. Players go where they get paid

[TreyMachine]

2 minutes ago, CTMagicUK said:

The idea that we should trade for someone because they wouldn't come here in free agency is a weird one to me when the player in question only has 1 year left on his deal. If they wouldnt come here why would they stay here?

It does give us the rights to sign for a longer term deal with more money, plus gives us an opportunity to share our basketball culture and for him to form relationships. 

With that being said, we aren't getting anyone of significance without giving up Gordon, Isaac, or Bamba, all I would not trade for anyone available over the age of 28 (that are obviously available). 

[TreyMachine]

7 minutes ago, fan for too long 2 said:

Yes because we’d rather have dj chucking up shots and ignoring players. 

DJ understands his place. He is a veteran leader whom has had some years to gel with the other players and I would argue will know to "get out of the way" to let the young guys start to develop and find their own identity. 

I.T. has a chip on his shoulder and will care about one thing while here: I.T. and whether he can generate enough buzz to get a big deal at the end of the year. 

I'm not opposed, but I'm going to pass b/c we probably are another year from taking the "competitive" jump and I care more about the development. I'm tired of losing, but I'm committed to the long-term success of this franchise rather than mere short-term. 

[Fultz4thewin]

3 minutes ago, TreyMachine said:

It does give us the rights to sign for a longer term deal with more money, plus gives us an opportunity to share our basketball culture and for him to form relationships. 

With that being said, we aren't getting anyone of significance without giving up Gordon, Isaac, or Bamba, all I would not trade for anyone available over the age of 28 (that are obviously available). 

I mean do we want to give kemba a fifth year and maximum raises?

[TreyMachine]

3 minutes ago, ?4thewin said:

I mean do we want to give kemba a fifth year and maximum raises?

This would be a classic Los Angeles / Albert Pujols deal.

A 30 year old PG whom relies on quickness wanting a maximum 5 year deal?

Pass. 

[Fultz4thewin]

6 minutes ago, fan for too long 2 said:

Yes because we’d rather have dj chucking up shots and ignoring teammates. 

And whose to say he won’t come here. Players go where they get paid

Dj took 8.22 shots per game as a starter. 

Here are the point guards that were more efficient shooters than dj last year:

Calderon

Curry

Collison

Kyrie

[Fultz4thewin]

Look. I'm not naive. I don't think dj is a good starting point guard. I don't think he's a long term option. I don't think he should prevent us from continuously looking for a better, long term option. 

But I think having a non-negative starter with excellent shooting is significantly more preferable than the expected outcomes of what IT gives you in the short term.