how long are you willing to put up with being bad?

[Mike1989 68]

Yeah worked out horribly for Spurs when they did it to get Duncan and as recently as Golden State to get Barnes :rolleyes:/>/>

 

I'm not a fan of tanking either but I'm at least willing to admit it has its pros.

 

Problem is you're not guaranteed the top pick. Take this year as a prime example. We had the worst record overall and we got the second pick, whereas the Cavs finished third overall and got the top pick. The previous year the Bobcats had the worst record and ended up with the second pick, while New Orleans had the fourth worst record and ended up with the first pick.

 

So while I do not dispute that tanking can get you a top pick, and in turn, a top player,there is no guarantee that tanking lands you the top pick. Though next year's draft when you have Wiggins, Parker, Randle, and co, the depth is up there with the likes of the 2003 class. So I guess next year as long as we get a pick in the top five or preferably three, we'll land a damn good player.

[Live or Die Magic 383]

Yeah worked out horribly for Spurs when they did it to get Duncan and as recently as Golden State to get Barnes :rolleyes:/>/>

 

I'm not a fan of tanking either but I'm at least willing to admit it has its pros.

 

How did the Spurs tank exactly? Are you saying the Admiral wasn't really hurt?

[30Assists 342]

How did the Spurs tank exactly? Are you saying the Admiral wasn't really hurt?

Agreed with this. I mean, they weren't good with the Admiral in a suit that year, but I thought they lucked into that pick, right? I think they were third or fourth from the bottom that year.

[Franchise408 116]

Yeah worked out horribly for Spurs when they did it to get Duncan and as recently as Golden State to get Barnes :rolleyes:/>/>/>/>/>

 

I'm not a fan of tanking either but I'm at least willing to admit it has its pros.

 

How long have the Warriors been bad??? The Warriors have been racking up lottery picks for years. 2 playoff appearances in 6 years, and none for a long time before that, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

Spurs were a completely different situation. A good team that had a bad season because of injuries was able to pair a Hall of Famer with a young player who'd end up having a Hall of Fame career himself.

 

How'd the top pick work out for Portland. Or the #2 pick?

 

Since 2003, how has having a #1 overall pick turned around a franchise?

 

1. LeBron

2. Dwight Howard

3. Derrick Rose

4. Blake Griffin

 

The rest?

 

Bogut, Bargnani, Oden, John Wall, Kyrie Irving, Anthony Davis, 3 of which aren't even with their team anymore, and none of these teams having playoff appearances since their draft.

 

Before LeBron?

 

You had Yao, the season before. But beyond that, you have to go back to Tim Duncan in 1997 and Allen Iverson in 1996 to see a player that had an impact on his team. The #1 overall picks between Duncan and Yao?

 

Michael Olowokandi, Elton Brand, Kenyon Martin, Kwame Brown.

 

No to tanking.

[YaBoyR 62]

personally I want us to fight for the 8th seed next season more than tank for Wiggins/Parker but if we're not a.500 team by all star break I can take another season of tanking

[OrlandoFeds 34]

So while I do not dispute that tanking can get you a top pick, and in turn, a top player,there is no guarantee that tanking lands you the top pick. Though next year's draft when you have Wiggins, Parker, Randle, and co, the depth is up there with the likes of the 2003 class. So I guess next year as long as we get a pick in the top five or preferably three, we'll land a damn good player.

 

Hypothetically though by next season if we were better than a bottom five team but not contenders would you still want us winning games or tanking to get a lower pick?

 

How did the Spurs tank exactly? Are you saying the Admiral wasn't really hurt?

 

Admiral was hurt that year but I'm under the impression they could have won a lot more games then they did, it is arguable since they were built around Robinson but they also did win 59 games the season before and they finished below the Denver team that season. Denver were truly horrible that year.

 

Agreed with this. I mean, they weren't good with the Admiral in a suit that year, but I thought they lucked into that pick, right? I think they were third or fourth from the bottom that year.

 

I'm not stating that they tanked with the intention only to get Duncan, I'm saying they tanked in order to get another good player. Tanking doesn't always mean you have to get the number one pick.

 

How long have the Warriors been bad??? The Warriors have been racking up lottery picks for years. 2 playoff appearances in 6 years, and none for a long time before that, isn't exactly a ringing endorsement.

 

True but they tanked last season in order to keep their pick and its worked out well for them especially since Barnes seems to be better than expected and now they have a very young playoff team who could be contenders in a few years.

 

I think my point is being a little misconstrued, I'm not saying we should tank, I'm not saying tanking always works out, I was simply just pointing out situations where a couple of franchises have benefited from tanking.

[Franchise408 116]

I think my point is being a little misconstrued, I'm not saying we should tank, I'm not saying tanking always works out, I was simply just pointing out situations where a couple of franchises have benefited from tanking.

 

Yea but the years and years and years of teams like the Warriors, Clippers, Timberwolves, etc. flat out sucking proves that tanking -doesn't- work. These teams have racked up lottery pick after lottery pick, and what do they have to show for it?

 

Warriors have 2 playoff appearances in 6 years. Prior to 2007, they hadn't seen the playoffs since the '93-'94 season.

 

Not all teams turn into the Cavs, Heat, or Thunder through a couple lottery picks. Even with our own team, Dwight Howard didn't turn the Magic into a contender until he was teamed with guys like Hedo, and Rashard Lewis was brought in.

 

But we can't attract top free agents like that if we're constantly losing.

[OrlandoFeds 34]

Yea but the years and years and years of teams like the Warriors, Clippers, Timberwolves, etc. flat out sucking proves that tanking -doesn't- work. These teams have racked up lottery pick after lottery pick, and what do they have to show for it?

 

Is there a difference between sucking and tanking?

 

If not you're right it didn't work for them but on the other hand not tanking have left teams like Denver, Milwaukee and Utah average for years.

[Franchise408 116]

Denver and Utah were some legit competitors until their respective stars Carmelo and Deron Williams wanted out to go to a bigger market.

 

Milwaukee is pretty much a historically irrelevant team to begin with.

[OrlandoFeds 34]

Denver and Utah were some legit competitors until their respective stars Carmelo and Deron Williams wanted out to go to a bigger market.

 

Milwaukee is pretty much a historically irrelevant team to begin with.

 

I'm obviously not going to convince you that tanking provides any kind of benefit so I'll leave it as we agree to disagree.

[Captain Hi-Top 791]

Yea but the years and years and years of teams like the Warriors, Clippers, Timberwolves, etc. flat out sucking proves that tanking -doesn't- work. These teams have racked up lottery pick after lottery pick, and what do they have to show for it?

 

Warriors have 2 playoff appearances in 6 years. Prior to 2007, they hadn't seen the playoffs since the '93-'94 season.

 

Not all teams turn into the Cavs, Heat, or Thunder through a couple lottery picks. Even with our own team, Dwight Howard didn't turn the Magic into a contender until he was teamed with guys like Hedo, and Rashard Lewis was brought in.

 

But we can't attract top free agents like that if we're constantly losing.

 

If you can't attract top free agents when you're constantly losing, and tanking "doesn't work" to bring in talent, how do we get better?

 

Rebuilding through the draft takes a solid front office, and some luck. The Warriors, Clippers and T-Wolves were lacking in the front office department, so were we. That's why we were all so excited about our new GM and front office changes. It takes some time for new pieces to improve, to build the team back up from scratch. The Magic seem to be acquiring decent pieces in the meantime, and hopefully making room in the pocketbook for some free agent acquisitions along the way.

 

The Cavs got lucky and got LeBron, but still largely utilized FA to fill out their roster around LeBron. The Heat were very similar in their pick of Wade, not winning it all until they added some major FA pieces along the way, not to mention their current team which, again, was built largely on FA acquisitions around a single great draft piece in Wade.

 

You could argue that Orlando, built around Dwight, was more successful than Cleveland as they built around LeBron (we did win more NBA finals games after all was said and done).

 

The point is, it takes a solid game plan. You can't just tank and expect things to fall into place, but being bad for a couple of years and picking up some great draft picks can help get that solid core to build the team around.

[Mike1989 68]

Hypothetically though by next season if we were better than a bottom five team but not contenders would you still want us winning games or tanking to get a lower pick?

 

I would not discourage the team from winning games, because what this team needs to do is develop a winning culture. They need to learn how to close out games (eg. the Spurs in game 5 against the Heat), and equally how to comeback from a deficit (eg. the Wizards overturning a 21 point deficit against the Lakers to win; or at least hit back like the Heat did in game 5 and keep the contest competitive). The best way to develop a winning culture is to win games. Last season we had the odd game here and there when everything went well, but there were games when we lost the lead, and other games when we fell behind and struggled to keep in touch. Now part of that comes down to not possessing enough quality, but it also comes down to our young players not having enough experience. The only way the players develop this experience is to get them out on the court and competing for wins, and ideally winning as many as possible.

 

Now taking that stride forwards might mean we miss out on a top five pick because we win 30 or more games. Obviously I would like to see us draft Wiggins, Parker, or Randle, because any of them could make a significant contribution to this team. But at the same time I want to see our young core of Harkless, Harris and Vučević, take a big stride forward and establish themselves as the core of this team. If those three can improve on their performances last season, and any further additions contribute to the team, then I would be more than happy to see this team play itself out of contention for a top pick. I am not one of those that says tank for the sake of it, because tanking does not mean we will get a player that will change the face of this franchise. It gives you a good chance, but for every Kevin Durant and LeBron James, there are the likes of Greg Oden and Hasheem Thabeet.

 

Personally I am of the belief that you do not necessarily need to have a top pick in the draft to build a competitive team. The Pacers are the prime example of a team that has developed a legitimate contenders without having had a top pick since selecting Rik Smits second overall in 1988. In their current team they drafted Paul George at #10, Danny Granger at #17, Lance Stephenson at #40; and although he was traded for George Hill, the Pacers drafted Kawhi Leonard at #15. All four of those players have become good to very good starting players in the NBA, three of whom play a part in the Pacers recent success. They also traded for Roy Hibbert who had been taken at #17 by the Raptors, traded for George Hill, and got David West in free agency. So the Pacers have proven that it is possible to build a contender without ever having a top pick in the draft. They have generally scouted well, made positive moves to acquire talent, and had some luck as well.

 

To bring this back to us. Yes, a top pick next year could help us, and we may end up with one. But there is no reason why we cannot build a legitimate contender even if we play ourselves out of contention for a top pick in next year's draft. We can get our future SG this year in McLemore, and all we would need to do is acquire our PG, which this team could do by seeing if a team would be willing to select Schroeder and trade him for AA or Davis. If we do that then our young core would be Schroeder, McLemore, Harkless, Harris and Vučević. That could be very positive going forwards, and that is without fleshing out the team with experienced free agents, acquisitions in the trade market, and further draft picks. A top pick would be nice, but if given an either or choice between a top pick or serious progression from our young players, I would probably take serious progression more often than not because it would show that those players are starting to prove that they can lead this team back to contention.