that would be a hard one to wrap you head around. Factor the production we have recieved from them, add wallace, Nics developement and subtract Rudy, well, we are in better shape now. But it is a far cry from the dynasty some predicted.
Honestly? You tank. By trading away guys like Wallace et al. for picks. You keep some of your cheap guys like Nic, Wesley, etc. for the future, but in the short term you pretty much guarantee a crappy year and a top ten pick. You then go into the draft armed with multiple picks which can either be used to move up or just take the best player available and with loads of cap room you can start to make trades into your capspace to reshape the roster with LMA still on your roster as a really good, but not quite great player to compliment the high lottery pick(s) you think is going to be a stud. Does that guarantee anything? Nope, not at all, it just gives you a chance. I know some of you are going to get your knickers in a twist and claim that I hate the team and and that I'm not a fan. That's simply not true. I just believe that there's a limited number of ways for small market teams to compete for the ultimate prize and this is the way that holds the most promise (and the most peril) given the realities of the new CBA.
Cool, I think a core of Nic, Wes and LMA is still not getting you into the high lottery, where you're looking at that superstar. Maybe the very end of the lottery, or 8th seedish in playoffs. So you waste a season or two on that, and are no better off for it. I don't think that gets you a top 10 pick is all. Easiest way to guarantee yourself a top 10 or 5 pick, to look for that actual superstar, is to get rid of LMA.
so probably the 10th best team in the nba, give or take, should tank this season away for a chance at a top 10 pick.....
Context. the premise of the post was that you have to suck, draft a superstar, and then build around him. Not the case with Detroit. They kinda sucked (never picked higher than ninth from '95-'02), drafted crappy players (Rodney White, Mateen Cleaves, etc), traded for good players, and then built a good team. Yes, they were an exception, but it happened.
You said all of those guys were selected in the mid-teens which is wrong. And maybe I'm not being clear about the hit rate in the high lottery: There are no guarnatees, it's going to take a stroke of luck. But I'd risk sucking and failing for the chance that they could get a real stud vs. toiling in the muddy middle for the next 5 or 6 years. It's just a personal preference that I realize most people around here don't share.
No he didn't, he was saying it sarcastically, as if to say where we will be is in the teens, and those guys weren't picked there, so looking to the draft is a dodgy plan.
sorry i forgot the green font my point was that, we would be picking mid teens without say...wallace and crawford. not too many game changing superstars around there
I agree. "Tanking" this team without trading LaMarcus WILL NOT get us a high percentage Lotto pick. Like you said, LA, Nik, Wes and a bunch of rookies/min sal guys is going to win too many games.
Also, there were many people the last two years saying Dallas should probably move Dirk, blow it up, he wasn't good enough to do it himself, and they kept on failing at getting a 2nd star, instead of role players around him. Lost in the 1st round, first round, 2nd round, first round again. Might be done. Blow itup.
Plugging in good players to try to fill holes certainly isn't a guaranteed path to elite status either; it's going to take a stroke of luck. I'd rather be good and need a stroke of luck, than be terrible and need the same thing.
You can take your theories and preferences - wad em up in a ball - and toss them in the wastebasket. After what the current Blazer ownership went through during the last rebuild/broken model/stadium bankruptcy/half-emty Rose Garden, there is no way the Blazers tear it down gunning after Lotto picks until Paul Allen no longer owns the team.
Do you think that had more to do with the Jail Blazers. The poor record came with the good guys and the crowds came back with them
Hell, there were many people (myself included) who thought Dallas was the best possible match-up for any team in the first round. Dallas' title shows what sticking with a core of players can do if they get on a roll in the playoffs.
The crowds came back because the team started winning games again. Having Brandon Roy as the face of the franchise we important as well, but winning attracts more fans than Boy Scouts who win 21 games.
I never said the team would go about it the way I would and I agree there are financial implications to "sucking" that go beyond draft position and future championship aspirations. I'm just talking about historically what it takes for teams to become championship contenders ... especially small market teams.
when, exactly, did trading a SF who'll be 29 this season (and with a lot of miles) for a bunch of draft picks -- opening up time for potentially our 2nd-best player to start-- become "tanking?"
