Don't certain colleges (e.g. Kansas, Duke, Kentucky, Louisville, UNC, Michigan) already get the lion's share of the best players? Frankly I don't view top 25 college teams as "college basketball." It's semi-pro and everyone knows it. 98% of colleges would be unaffected (the Ivies, the mid majors, etc.). The already have to settle for 2nd tier prospects, because nobody goes to Harvard and then leaves for the pros after a year or two.Mloaf71 said:
Down with tanking, play to win!
- Thread starter dhellers
- Start date
Mloaf71 said:
But what does a shitty team have to trade if they're denied high draft picks? Boston turned a #5 pick in 2007 into Ray Allen, which in turn allowed them to land his then best friend at a reduced rate. But if the 2007 Celtics ended up with the #13 pick what happens then? Building quality teams involves more than handwaving. You need trade assets and forcing the worst teams into the late lottery more or less dooms them there. It's essentially the creation of a permanent B league.
You mean teams like the Bobcats, who have had top 5 pick after top 5 pick? Or Milwaukee? There is a permanent B league already, and the way teams get out of it is by having an owner who is willing to spend for quality veteran players, even if it means paying luxury tax.nighthob said:
If the Bobcats do manage to draft a player who is really, really good, he will leave as soon as he is able, just like LeBron left Cleveland.
In our theoretical universe you've changed the rules and now those teams that are crappy are suddenly having their best trade asset removed. Boston turned a top five pick into an all-star SG. The Clippers turned the potential of a top 5 pick and a SG with more injuries than the 101st Airborne into Chris Paul. You've now sentenced those teams to 10 year rebuilding projects because not only won't they get high picks in good drafts, they don't even get them in shitty ones, which is Charlotte's real problem, they get those top 5 picks in mostly poor drafts and rather than cashing them in for real NBA players they keep them.
Brickowski said:
You're citing examples of poorly managed teams. Teams with poor front offices will always struggle to turn-around their teams. I think fans accept this reality. However it's harder to accept a team with competent management getting the deck stacked against them.
I think the counter example is a guy like Durant. He and Sam Presti turned that franchise around. Durant will give them at least 9 great years.
Code:
Regular Season Playoffs
Season City W - L % Division Standing W - L % Performance
2013-14 Oklahoma City 5 - 1 .833 1st Northwest Division - -
2012-13 Oklahoma City 60 - 22 .732 1st Northwest Division 5 - 6 .455 Lost West Conf Semis
2011-12 Oklahoma City 47 - 19 .712 1st Northwest Division 13 - 7 .650 Lost NBA Finals
2010-11 Oklahoma City 55 - 27 .671 1st Northwest Division 9 - 8 .529 Lost West Conf Finals
2009-10 Oklahoma City 50 - 32 .610 4th Northwest Division 2 - 4 .333 Lost West Conf 1st Rd
2008-09 Oklahoma City 23 - 59 .280 5th Northwest Division - - DNQ
2007-08 Seattle 20 - 62 .244 5th Northwest Division - - DNQ
2006-07 Seattle 31 - 51 .378 5th Northwest Division - - DNQ
2005-06 Seattle 35 - 47 .427 3rd Northwest Division - - DNQ
2004-05 Seattle 52 - 30 .634 1st Northwest Division 6 - 5 .545 Lost West Conf Semis
nighthob said:
This is why I'm 100% OK with tanking. It's not like 1997 when it was Duncan or nothing.
The Social Chair said:
The Celtics drafted Chauncey Billups that year. They also passed on Tracy McGrady for Ron Mercer. Celtics fans look back at that draft as if not getting Duncan made tanking pointless, but that period of Celtic suck is an argument for employing a competent front office, not an argument against tanking. They could have built around a Billups, McGrady, Pierce core if they'd drafted well. They also made huge mistakes by trading the #8 pick in 1999 for Vitaly Potapenko, trading away Joe Johnson for Rodney Rogers and whoever the hell else, and using Denver's pick in 2001 when it was #11 overall, when waiting two years could have netted them Carmelo, Wade, or Bosh.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Youch. For anyone who's curious, Andre Miller went at #8 in '99. Shawn Marion and Jason Terry went 9 and 10. But that was a small price to pay to upgrade from Andrew DeClercq to Vitaly the Great.
Or drafting Joe Forte in 2001 instead of Tony Parker. Ah well...Grin&MartyBarret said:
But IMHO there is a flip side. If in 2007 the C's had gotten the top pick and taken Durant, would they have been willing to trade the rights to that pick to Seattle for Ray Allen? If the answer is no, it is quite likely that we would still be waiting for banner #17. The #5 pick was just high enough for Presti to say yes, and low enough so that Ainge was willing to part with it.
Grin&MartyBarret said:
Unfortunately they wouldn't have built around Billups as he was one his 5th team in his sixth season after two reconstructive knee surgeries before he put it all together. The overwhelming odds are that after the second major surgery Boston would have done what Denver did and just not pick up the option. Now McGrady they missed on, but teams weren't aggressive at scouting HS players back then so GMs good at projecting those players had an edge. Unfortunately the CBA closed that door.
Brickowski said:
Sure, but in that case you're building around Kevin Durant, Al Jefferson, and whoever Ainge drafts in subsequent years. Banner #17 or not, the franchise is still in great shape.
Actually, standing pat would of meant that in early 2014 the team would have a rebuilt Sullenger, a fully recovered Bradley and Green, and mostly recovered Rondo. That is worth watching, despite the wearing down of the ancients.Koufax said:
But, that is water that is so far past the bridge, it is now mixing in the Gulf Stream. Go G Wallace! Go K Humphries!
Disagree. Danny did the right thing, even though taking on Wallace's contract is a bitter pill. Tanking is the way to go. Viva La Tank!dhellers said:
radsoxfan said:
The worst part about the deal is that the Suns actually didn't ask for Joe Johnson because they figured there was no way that Boston would give him up so they asked for the other draftees instead. Only Wallace insisted they take Johnson instead.
dhellers said:
Danny is a title chaser, he doesnt particularly care if a team is fun to watch. And he came to this realization:
Which is probably right, but if we are all about maximizing title equity we should be outright tanking to maximize lottery chances and turning current assets into potential lottery chances down the road. Becoming a good team without a top three draft pick is very doable, and obviously getting a top three pick guarantees nothing, but odds are stacked heavily against winning a title without getting one.
Stitch01 said:
I've thought about this a lot, and there are 2 scenarios. One is trying to maximize lottery ping-pong balls and ignoring developing trade assets on the roster, the other option is the opposite. This year there isnt a Lebron coming out, so maybe you have a 25% chance of getting a player that has an 80% chance to be an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. Would you rather do that or have a 5% chance at the top pick, plus you spent the year developing assets and now have 3 players now have some significant value that could be used for trades? Its a little more complex of a decision than it seems
As for the later, this is very true. Going back to the first Spurs title, the main stars are Duncan (#1 overall), Shaq (1) Heat & Lakers, Kobe (13), KG (5), Dirk (9), Lebron (1), Wade (5) The only title that didnt need a top flight talent was the Pistons but they had Sheed who was the #4 pick. Most importantly, odds are you need a top notch superstar so you either need a top 5 pick in the right year, or you need to acquire a star like the Heat trading for Shaq, or the Heat signing Lebron
The Celtics had 7 players in double figures tonight. The oldest of these players were Bass at age 28, and Green and Lee at 27.
The fact that you need a superstar is as much a product of the current max contract setup than the NBA or basketball in general. When Lebron is making the same money as Rudy Gay it really screws up the system.
I am interested to see if NBA owners are smart enough to try and ditch the max contract in the next CBA. But I doubt it. They still seem to think being able to offer an extra year on the contract to stay with a player's current team is a good thing for the small market teams. (IMO it isn't since the best players are bolting for super teams and many small markets are going to end up giving that extra year to someone like Demarcus Cousins.) The fact that guys usually re-up at the end of their first contract is a product of restricted free agency, not that extra year.
I am interested to see if NBA owners are smart enough to try and ditch the max contract in the next CBA. But I doubt it. They still seem to think being able to offer an extra year on the contract to stay with a player's current team is a good thing for the small market teams. (IMO it isn't since the best players are bolting for super teams and many small markets are going to end up giving that extra year to someone like Demarcus Cousins.) The fact that guys usually re-up at the end of their first contract is a product of restricted free agency, not that extra year.
wutang112878 said:
Of course, the Celts thought they had locked up Duncan by tanking and we all saw how that worked out. That's my main concern about tanking -- even with the changes to the lottery, there's still a risk you (a) don't get the top pick and/or (b) wind up with Sam Bowie or Greg Oden.
Well, Bowie was pure mismanagement and drafting for need over the best player available. Basketball is a superstar oriented game because with only five guys in a team sport one great one makes a giant impact (especially in a game denominated in possessions rather than position as with hockey or football). Even if Portland felt that Thompson and Drexler were good enough for the 4 and 2 spots, they should have actively traded #2 for someone to occupy the middle rather than using the pick on a center with brittle legs when Jordan and Barkley were still on the board.
Winning doesn't help this team long term. The Celtics have a golden opportunity to pull a Colts and have just one really bad year. Boston is not an NBA free agent destination. Picking in the middle of the pack year after year is a good way to relive the 1990s Celtics. While a top 10 pick doesn't guarantee success, Danny is pretty damn good.
nattysez said:
On the positive side, there is also a chance a solid talent slips down the board a bit. Paul George slipped to 10, Harden went at 3, Kevin Love #5, Chris Paul #4, Wade #5, etc. Not all of these are true #1 guys that can lead your team to a title, but they would be a huge help and possibly a trade chip to get you that elite guy. The real downside besides slipping in the lottery is a down draft, like an Andrew Bogut type draft, you dont want to spend a year tanking on a draft like that.
Marbleheader said:
How do we turn it around that quickly? Even if we got Wiggins, next year he is a rookie and its beyond rare that rookies lead your team to significant improvement. Furthermore, the rest of the roster still isnt that talented and isnt a group of complimentary parts. I can see us getting close to NBA purgatory with Wiggins next year, but then it seems we are stuck there for a bit until we found a few diamonds in the rough. Rebuilding is a tough road, and unless you can really add a great established star to your roster, it really takes a couple of years
Marbleheader said:
Agreed. Especially after last night, I'm pretty worried Brad is a good enough coach, and the team is athletic enough, that we could be looking at a 40-42 season and an outside chance at a playoff spot.
That doesn't do the team any good at all. Maybe they'll play it hard for the first half of the season to keep the fans interested, and then shut it down in the second half?
Well, we can always root for a season-ending injury to Joe Johnson or Deron Williams. We have almost as much riding on the Nets sucking as on the Celtics sucking, and it feels a whole lot better hoping that another team loses. I'd feel bad about KG and PP, but they have their enormous paychecks to salve their wounded prides.
IMHO we really need to define "talent." The draftniks think "talent" means a player who jumps high, scores a lot and looks good doing it.
But court vision and willingness to pass the ball are talents. BBIQ is a talent, and so are the ability and desire to do dirty work on the glass and pick up floor burns.
NBA rosters are littered with players who can jump high and score a lot, but aren't worth a damn when it comes to winning. Many of them were very high draft picks. Think Rudy Gay or Carmello Anthony.
IMHO 40-42 and a #8 seed would be great, because by adding a couple of decent picks in the teens or 20s to a group of players who have learned to play the right way, they'll have a reasonable shot at 45-50 wins the year after that, and 50-55 the year after that. If instead they tank and fail to develop players like Sullinger and Olynick-- and even if they get a Wiggins or a Randle-- that plus a roster full of players who haven't won as a team will be lucky to win 30 games.
This is not a team of jaded veterans winning 40-45 games and staying in NBA limbo. That was last year's team. These guys are young and hungry, and so is their coach.
But court vision and willingness to pass the ball are talents. BBIQ is a talent, and so are the ability and desire to do dirty work on the glass and pick up floor burns.
NBA rosters are littered with players who can jump high and score a lot, but aren't worth a damn when it comes to winning. Many of them were very high draft picks. Think Rudy Gay or Carmello Anthony.
IMHO 40-42 and a #8 seed would be great, because by adding a couple of decent picks in the teens or 20s to a group of players who have learned to play the right way, they'll have a reasonable shot at 45-50 wins the year after that, and 50-55 the year after that. If instead they tank and fail to develop players like Sullinger and Olynick-- and even if they get a Wiggins or a Randle-- that plus a roster full of players who haven't won as a team will be lucky to win 30 games.
This is not a team of jaded veterans winning 40-45 games and staying in NBA limbo. That was last year's team. These guys are young and hungry, and so is their coach.
Brickowski said:
This is the backbone of everything you've been arguing about the Celtics and the draft for months now. It would really help if you defined what this meant. You keep throwing out terms like "winning is contagious" and "play the right way", and I'm not really sure what they mean, or who is arguing that the Celtics current players should play the wrong way.
I suppose I could give you a long laundry list of what it means to "play the right way" and I've mentioned some of the elements. As a form of shorthand, to me it means to play as a team the way San Antonio usually plays.
But think about the contract status of the players on this roster.
Rondo, Green, Bass and Lee are 27-28 year-old veterans playing for their last big contract. Bradley, Crawford, Humphries, Brooks, Bogans and Pressey are playing for their next contract. Sullinger, Olynick and Faverani are rookies trying to make their mark in the league. The only veteran with any kind of financial security is Wallace.
As for the quantifiable benefits of not tanking, I will refer you to Dave Berri's articles to which I've posted links above.
But think about the contract status of the players on this roster.
Rondo, Green, Bass and Lee are 27-28 year-old veterans playing for their last big contract. Bradley, Crawford, Humphries, Brooks, Bogans and Pressey are playing for their next contract. Sullinger, Olynick and Faverani are rookies trying to make their mark in the league. The only veteran with any kind of financial security is Wallace.
As for the quantifiable benefits of not tanking, I will refer you to Dave Berri's articles to which I've posted links above.
MyDaughterLovesTomGordon said:
Or maybe winning increases the trade value of the guys Danny is looking to move, so perhaps there are some good deals to be made midway through the season?
But - and I'm just throwing this out there - what if this team actually has the potential to be pretty good?
Brickowski said:
Green and Lee have the same security (in terms of years) that Wallace does, and I dont see that helping Lee's game at all. Also the flip side of expiring guys is that you generally get their best effort as they try to play for their next deal, so the lack of security isnt necessarily bad. Also some guys with a lot of security dont put in max effort once they have it, thats actually pretty common. Most importantly Danny would be out of his mind to extend guys just to give them security, thats counterproductive.
Getting the players to play together is the job of the coach, and its a very difficult one but I dont see any problems thus far for the Celts. Here is a team with every reason in the world to play without effort and by themselves and thus far they are doing the exact opposite.
ivanvamp said:
Can you define pretty good? Do you see them even having a competitive series with Indiana, Chicago or Miami? If the answer is no, and you dont think there are enough young players on the roster to develop into a great team, then you really want to miss the playoffs to have at least some chance at a top pick.
That was my initial point. They're hungry. Just about every player on that roster has something to prove, for financial or other reasons. The lack of security is good. For starters, it gives Stevens a huge amount of leverage. If they don't do it his way, they sit, and have no opportunity to prove anything.
As for your other question, I can see them giving Chicago a good series, but they would be completely overmatched against Indiana or Miami. But that is this year. If they continue to improve and add some productive pieces, the story could be different in 2014-15.
Brickowski said:
Actually "draftniks" are more focused on athleticism and tangible skills. In other words, ability to dribble, make crisp passes, foot work, shooting mechanics, awareness in space on both ends of the floor, the willingness of the player to rebound and maintain proper defensive position etc.. We, actually, don't care whether a player "looks good doing it". That's usually the "plays the right way!" crowd.
No, adding Alex Poythress to the current squad won't magically transform them into a 50 win team. Any way we can get the Nets to hire you as GM in 2015? I'd feel awfully good about Boston's chances of getting top 10 picks in the 2016-2018 time frame that way.
Weirdly enough you just chose to cite, as an example, a guy that slid to 8th in what was widely perceived as a two player draft over concerns that he couldn't shoot and wasn't motivated to do anything but score. And pretty much lived down to his reputation. In fact, teams in the top 5 passed him over to draft Adam Morrison, Shelden Williams and Ty Thomas, knowing that there was a minuscule chance that any of them would develop into really good NBA players (I'm leaving Bargnani out of it because he was thought to be a fairly safe #1 pick as a seven footer with range out to the 3 line). Put another way, Rudy Gay is the embodiment of the types of players that you're advocating that Boston should build its future around (guys that fall down draft boards because they have lots of warts).
Koufax said:
Just a note, the Hawks have draft rights to Brooklyn's 2014 & 2015 picks (via swap), so unless both teams miss the playoffs (highly unlikely) a Brooklyn implosion doesn't help Boston much.
How do you get over the hump with a bunch of mid to late round picks though? It's a superstar league and the Celtics don't have one. Considering Boston has NEVER been a free agent destination, how will they get one if not through a high draft pick? Your plan seems to be for the Celtics to just continue to be mediocre and hope some guy they draft at 22 turns into a great player. Good luck with that.
No, I'm advocating that they build around players like Sullinger, Rondo and Bradley, all of whom were picked outside of the lottery. Winning players slip too, not just the useless ones like Gay.
Exhibit A: Rajon Rondo
Exhibit B: Serge Ibaka
both picked in the 20's. How many examples do you want? I could easily construct a roster of current players who were second round picks that would be a serious contender in 2013-14.
Rajon Rondo won a title caddying for 3 hall of famers. I have little confidence he can be the alpha on a championship level team. Serge Ibaka plays 3rd banana in Oklahoma City who has Durant AND Westbrook and they still couldn't win a championship.
I am not arguing you can't get talented players later in the draft, but you certainly aren't going to get one who can go out and compete with Lebron and win you a title.
You take your team led by a PG who can't shoot, an undersized PF with back issues, and a combo guard who plays great D who also has shoulder issues. Me? I'll hope we get into the lottery and then build a team around a possible superstar and most of these same guys.
I am not arguing you can't get talented players later in the draft, but you certainly aren't going to get one who can go out and compete with Lebron and win you a title.
You take your team led by a PG who can't shoot, an undersized PF with back issues, and a combo guard who plays great D who also has shoulder issues. Me? I'll hope we get into the lottery and then build a team around a possible superstar and most of these same guys.
Brickowski said:
"Winning" players win because they're on teams with stars. Put another way, had Boston used #5 in 2007 and traded out Pierce Rondo would be the exact same player, only a "loser" for playing on teams of roleplayers. So I don't put a lot of stock in magic. A team of roleplayers is likely to remain a team of roleplayers for a long time unless they can find someone to give them a superstar for the pupu platter of crap.
Also, I'll point out that Berri's statement on what it takes to win a title is gerrymandered. He picks the magical 54 win datapoint, but, oddly enough there have been title winners in the last three decades that didn't hit that magic number. But then only nine teams have won titles in the last 30 years, and two of those were one-and-doners led by MVP level players (heck, Moses Malone was arguably the biggest impact player in the NBA in 1983 and the actual MVP). So why 54 wins rather than "the Lakers, Celtics, Bulls, Pistons, Rockets, Spurs, and Heat"? because that datapoint is every bit as accurate as his.
Brickowski said:
Gotcha, I thought you were suggesting that the lack of security was going to cause everyone to just play for themselves and the team would be a mess, misread that my bad.
I cant see them hanging with the same Chicago that gave the Heat a competitive series without Rose. I think Stevens can match wits with Tibs, but I just dont think we have the talent to compete.
NickEsasky said:
Trades is really our only route. Last time Danny got his major chips with some guys in the 20s (Rondo, Perk, Delonte), Pierce @10, Big Al @15 and one #5 pick used in the Ray Allen trade. Overall thats an unbelievable job to do that with just one sub-10 pick but maybe this time he only needs 2 picks in the 10s? Basically, its possible to do without a ton of lottery picks if (and a big if) you are smart and make some great trades
Marc Gasol (#48)
Carlos Boozer (#35)
Anderson Varejao (#31)
Monta Ellis (#40)
Irsan Ilyasova (#36)
Paul Millsap (#47)
Nikola Pekovic (#31)
Danny Green (#48)
Chandler Parsons (#38)
These are all core players, not just "complementary" players. Gasol may be the best center in the NBA right now. It is just foolish to suggest that you can't get stars with later picks. San Antonio has been doing it for years.
Carlos Boozer (#35)
Anderson Varejao (#31)
Monta Ellis (#40)
Irsan Ilyasova (#36)
Paul Millsap (#47)
Nikola Pekovic (#31)
Danny Green (#48)
Chandler Parsons (#38)
These are all core players, not just "complementary" players. Gasol may be the best center in the NBA right now. It is just foolish to suggest that you can't get stars with later picks. San Antonio has been doing it for years.
Brickowski said:
How many other players are picked in the 20s over that period of time, let alone second round picks? There is a huge amount of luck in the draft and there's no real indication that Ainge has some significant advantage over other GMs in drafting later round picks. Give him 20 picks in the late 1st and 2nd rounds over the next 10 years and there is a good chance he doesn't land one player as good as Rondo or Ibaka.
Brickowski said:
Nobody is suggesting that. You have the reading comprehension of a nine year old. All that's being suggested is that it's way, way, way harder to identify stars in the 2nd round, and getting harder now that scouting in Europe has improved league wide.
Its all about probability. Listing a few names is completely worthless in this discussion. What are the chances of Danny Ainge landing a great player with picks in that range? That's the question to be asking.Brickowski said:
I could make a reasonable NFL roster out of 6th and 7th rounders and UDFAs if I just cherrypicked guys. That doesn't mean that the Patriots should trade all their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks in order to stock up in the late rounds of the draft.
Brickowski said:
Nikola Pekovic went #31 due to contract issues. If he hadn't signed a long term contract he would have been a top 10 pick. So, no, he wasn't some "hidden winner". As for cornerstone players, I guess you could call Ellis one, albeit a Rudy Gay level cornerstone player (i.e. a shitty one). Aside from Marc Gasol (and Pekovic) those are all complementary players. Some of those guys aren't even particularly good complementary players.
Yes, of course. You could do the same for every league in the world.Brickowski said:
The Patriots picked Tom Brady in the 6th Round. So should every NFL team stop drafting QBs early because it's so easy to draft Hall of Famers in the 6th Round?
The problem with your argument is that the odds of finding a great player drop with every pick. Sure, the Celtics can hope to strike gold and find the next Manu Ginobili or Tony Parker. Odds are that they won't.
EDIT: If this still isn't getting through to you -- it appears it's not -- here's a simple chart that someone made to describe the chances in the last 20 MLB drafts:
wutang112878 said:
Here's my hope: That their young core actually has the potential to be very good - top 3 in the East kind of good, eventually - and that their veterans have good trade value so that Danny can move them by the trade deadline. And I hope they finish with a bad enough record that they get a top 3 lottery pick and add a big-time stud to go with the young core, so that 3 years from now we're talking about the next great Celtics team.
I could also give you a list of top 5 picks over the last 10 years who were busts. It's not a short list.
The question is whether or not you are better off taking a decent 40-45 win team and adding some lucky picks in the 15-30 range (or second rounders)or taking a 20 win team and adding a player you think might have the potential to be a top 10 player. You might luck out, but if you're wrong (or the ping pong balls are unkind) you're screwed.
IMHO the first course is the safest course and the one most likely to produce a championship. The second is attractive to many folks because hope springs eternal from every human breast.
The question is whether or not you are better off taking a decent 40-45 win team and adding some lucky picks in the 15-30 range (or second rounders)or taking a 20 win team and adding a player you think might have the potential to be a top 10 player. You might luck out, but if you're wrong (or the ping pong balls are unkind) you're screwed.
IMHO the first course is the safest course and the one most likely to produce a championship. The second is attractive to many folks because hope springs eternal from every human breast.