<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>How in the hell do you come to the conclusion that Kenyon and the Nuggets center should put up better stats than Kaman and Camby?</div> Lol. That is your side of the argument, not mine. That's your side, unless you stop saying that it was good that Camby was traded for a bag of chips. You can not at the same time say that Camby was so bad that it was good that he was given away, and that it is unfair to do the comparison. Because if you are right, and Camby is worth only a bag of chips, what do you have to worry about? Hunter or ??? and KMart will easily be better than Kaman/Camby, if Camby is only worth a bag of chips. So if you know you are right, calm down, and just wait for the proof to come in that the Nuggets combo will be better than Kaman/Camby. My side of the argument is that I am predicting that Kaman and Camby will be better than Hunter ???/ KMart, because I am the one saying that Camby was worth much more than a bag of chips.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 23 2008, 11:24 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>cpf, You hate Camby's style and you are willing to have the Nuggets suffer whatever fate they get by giving him away, that's the bottom line.</div> It isn't a newsflash that I'm not a fan of stat whores. I also don't see the Nuggets suffering at all. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Look, just as the TE is an accounting rule for the salary cap, and hardly means that the Nuggets get a free player to make up for the Camby giveaway, which those excusing the Camby giveaway are implying, with all their hopeful statements regarding the TE and how it can be used and how it can be traded, and this, and that, and the other thing. All the trade exception (TE) is is a relatively complicated rule for going above the salary cap. You have to want to go above the cap to use it, which right now seems to be the last thing the Nuggets want to do.</div> I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you attempting to explain the cap rules to me. A TE is not complicated and the entire point of it is to allow for non-simultaneous trades. More importantly, it allows the Nuggets to make trades that don't require salaries to be balanced. The Nuggets have no choice but to be above the cap this season or next. Even with AI's and Camby's contracts off the books next summer, the Nuggets will only have 10 to 12 million in cap space with only 5 players under contract (6 if they get JR signed to a long term deal and therefore less cap space). If the Nuggets end up with less than 10 million in space, then that is when the TE is going to be very useful. Even if the Nuggets don't use the TE in another trade or two, I have no problem getting rid of Camby for nothing. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>More broadly, cap space is like me waking up on a cloudy morning in a drought and hoping it's going to rain. It might rain, it might not. Just as with cap space, it might produce a good team, it might not. You don't automatically have a good team coming to you just because you have a big chunk of cap space coming up. Especially since there are 29 other teams competing for the same key players you are trying to get.</div> Obviously. What cap space or a TE allows is for the Nuggets to quickly restructure themselves after AI is gone. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>To go along with ocassional trades and off season acquisitions, you absolutely must consistently get what you need in the draft, and you must also have very good or outstanding coaching for your existing roster players, or you will never be a true contender.</div> Go back through the last 10 NBA finals and look at the rosters of both teams and calculate how many significant players on those teams were drafted by those teams. Heck even Kobe wasn't technically drafted by the Lakers. Asset building is far more important than drafting. Now of course the Nuggets are held back because of poor coaching.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 23 2008, 11:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>How in the hell do you come to the conclusion that Kenyon and the Nuggets center should put up better stats than Kaman and Camby?</div> Lol. That is your side of the argument, not mine. </div> <span style="color:#FF0000"><span style="font-size:24pt;line-height:100%">No it is not. It is your twisted interpretation of what I am saying and not based in any reality.</span></span> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>That's your side, unless you stop saying that it was good that Camby was traded for a bag of chips. You can not at the same time say that Camby was so bad that it was good that he was given away, and that it is unfair to do the comparison.</div> Yes I can say that because stats are not part of what I am saying. You are changing the discussion. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Because if you are right, and Camby is worth only a bag of chips, what do you have to worry about?</div> Nowhere in anything I have said does stats have anything to do with Camby's worth. In fact, I have been very clear that stats have no part of my analysis of Camby. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Hunter or ??? and KMart will easily be better than Kaman/Camby, if Camby is only worth a bag of chips. So if you know you are right, calm down, and just wait for the proof to come in that the Nuggets combo will be better than Kaman/Camby.</div> Another logical disconnect. Nowhere I have ever opined on anything remotely close to this statement. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>My side of the argument is that I am predicting that Kaman and Camby will be better than Hunter ???/ KMart, because I am the one saying that Camby was worth much more than a bag of chips.</div> That has nothing to do with my argument and I have no interest in opining on what the stats will look like between Nene & Kenyon in comparison to Kaman and Camby. Those players will have different roles on each team.
Well for once your position is totally clear: you think Camby is a "stat whore," which is the ultimate bad style to have, so you are happy he is gone, regardless of the resulting effect on the Nuggets, which you predict will be very, very small. Fair enough, at least that is a clear and logical position. Totally wrong, in my view, though. Be careful about the "stat whore" thing though because, for one thing, keep in mind that the score is nothing more than a stat measuring how many points each team scored. So you could call the Boston Celtics "stat whores" for winning the NBA Championship, lol. And it was no accident that you overlooked the +/- stat (which is a team scoring instead of an individual production stat) showing that it was much better for the Nuggets to have Camby without KMart on the court than it was to have KMart without Camby on the court. If Camby actually was a stat whore (which I don't agree that he is) but if he was one, as long as it included the Nuggets getting more points than the other teams, I would be happy that he was one.
You know, there are sports where style is more important than substance: figure skating, diving, gymnastics. But I have never once seen those judges with the signs with the numbers on them on the sidelines in a bball game, raising their signs showing their rating of various scores and various stops. lol. This is what needs to go in my signature I guess, a reminder that many of those who disagree with me are secretly wanting the style scores to come into the NBA!
To remain fans of this mess of a franchise, the Nuggets fans at this point have to assume that the Nuggets will hit it out of the park with their roster moves in the 12-13 months after the Camby giveaway. The Camby haters and Kroenke excusers are thinking, and practically assuming, that the Nuggets will automatically replace Camby, Iverson, and whoever else with players who are just as good or better. I would snap out of your dream if I were you. You don’t simply replace players such as Camby and Iverson with hopes, assumptions and flexibility. And then you still have that little problem with the coaching. Those who are glad that Camby is gone miss the point of why the owner of the Nuggets paid the luxury tax in the first place: to get a team that you can not get in the normal everyday wheeling and dealing, when you are limited to being at or very close to the salary cap. SUMMARY Fantasyland: The Nuggets will use their “flexibility” to end up with a team in 2009-10 or the year later at the latest just as good or better than they had before giving away Camby. Reality: The Nuggets are not going to have a team as good as they had in 2007-08 for many, many years, probably for at least 15 years in fact. I am afraid that for Nuggets fans, the time in the sun came and went.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Go back through the last 10 NBA finals and look at the rosters of both teams and calculate how many significant players on those teams were drafted by those teams. Heck even Kobe wasn't technically drafted by the Lakers. Asset building is far more important than drafting.</div> Boston Celtics Drafted in 1998: Paul Pierce: one of the most important players, obviously Los Angelas Lakers: One of the best draft using teams Drafted in 1996: Derek Fisher Drafted in 2003: Luke Walton Drafted in 2004: Sasha Vujacic Drafted in 2005: Andrew Bynum: might have won it if he had played Drafted in 2005: Ronny Turiaf Drafted in 2006: Jordan Farmar Ha ha cpawfan, despite the fact that drafted players are so commonly traded to other teams, you are wrong yet again. Without these drafted players who were never traded, these teams would not have been in the NBA Championship. At first glance, it appears that the Lakers are one of the NBA's best users of the draft and of keeping drafted players on their team. As for the Celtics, they made not one but two trades heavily in their favor before the season, but nevertheless, without their drafted player Paul Pierce, they could not have won the Championship. Another secret in the quest for the ring is revealed: do not trade away all or most of your drafted players, develop as many as you can in your system. Unless you strike it rich with two huge trades in your favor, something which happens just once in a blue moon, but which happened for the Celtics before the 2007-08 season, you will not be able to overcome having only zero or one drafted player on your team. The Lakers needed only one trade heavily in their favor to guarantee themselves a spot in the Championship, to go along with their large cast of drafted players. When I start writing more, which I will be by September, I will take a look at all NBA teams and report which teams have drafted players still on their teams and which chump teams do not.
The Raptors have two huge players who they drafted still on their team: Bosh and Bargnani, so they meet the minimum requirement. The Nuggets have just one: Carmelo Anthony. All of their other drafted players, including Leon Powe, were traded (or given!) away. To say the least, the Nuggets could use Leon Powe right about now. Silly Nuggets, basketball franchises are for coaches and owners who know what they are doing.
Fisher was reacquired as a free agent. So while yes, he was drafted by the Lakers years ago, for the purpose of this analysis, he doesn't count. So you are claiming victory after looking at 1 NBA Championship were the winning team was an exception to your supposed rule and the loosing team had 4 bench players (Bynum didn't play) that they drafted and never played for another team. Of those 4, only 1 (Sasha) played over 20 MPG in the playoffs. Lets review : 1 NBA final analyzed and only 1 significant player drafted by the team he played on and never played on another NBA team. Strike 1
Among drafted players kept on the team, scoring starters as 2 and reserves as 1, the minimum "drafted players still on the team score" to be a possible contender, assuming you are not the beneficiary of almost impossible to get lopsided trades, is probably a score of 3; the Raptors score 4, so they meet the requirement with a safety margin of 1. The Nuggets fail the test with a score of 2. Had the drafted Carlos Boozer not bolted the Cavaliers for the Jazz, I have a strong suspicion the Cavaliers would have won the Championship instead of just being in it. Even without Boozer, the Cavaliers had a drafted players still on the team score of 5 when they appeared in the NBA Championship: LeBron James, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, and Daniel Gibson. A five is a very strong score. As for the Nuggets, I repeat the important fact that they have given or traded away every drafted player except for Carmelo Anthony. And they were exploring trading Carmelo Anthony himself just a few weeks ago! It seems that the Nuggets, like cpawfan, believe that keeping drafted players on your team is meaningless. They are going to learn the hard way what a mistake that is.
You are so funny cpawfan, as you try to wiggle out of every hard truth revealed and assume you have done so when you really are still trapped. But partly thanks to you, I have an outstanding new topic for my writing this coming season. Each team gets 1 point for each non-starting drafted player still on it's team, and 2 points for each starting drafted player still on it's team. The minimum score is 3 points. If a team has less than 3 points, the only way that team can contend is if it gets at least 1 lopsided trade in it's favor, with probably two lopsided trades in it's favor needed. That's my preliminary assessment, but of course I might refine it a little when I do the full thing. In any event, it is obvious that the Nuggets, for at least the last 5 years, do not know the importance of keeping and working with drafted players on their roster, and that is one of the things that is going to lay this franchise low in the years coming right up.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (tremaine @ Jul 24 2008, 01:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You are so funny cpawfan, as you try to wiggle out of every hard truth revealed and assume you have done so when you really are still trapped.</div> When you actually have a truth, I'll be the first to admit it. So far in the months of us going back and forth, you haven't uncovered any truths (except in your head). You have never successfully answered any of my critiques or correct any of the obvious holes in your logic. <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Each team gets 1 point for each non-starting drafted player still on it's team, and 2 points for each starting drafted player still on it's team. The minimum score is 3 points. If a team has less than 3 points, the only way that team can contend is if it gets at least 1 lopsided trade in it's favor, with probably two lopsided trades in it's favor needed.</div> So you pulled a formula out of your ass and now you are going to run with it? That is too freaking hilarious.
Glad you enjoy it, but keep in mind, this is just ground breaking day on this. There is going to be a lot more on this in the year ahead. On the other hand, it is already very clear that I will be able to prove the point that teams must have a minimum representation of players they drafted on their rosters to be true contenders. A quick glance at the teams of the Western Conference that the Nuggets could not overcome shows that every one of them have more drafted players on their rosters than do the Nuggets, as do the Pistons, the Cavaliers, and the Celtics from the East. The very early indication is that the Lakers, the Spurs, and the Jazz are especially loaded with drafted players which they knew how to work into their systems and their rosters. There are also early indications that there are not going to be many teams who are as lacking in drafted players still on their team as are the Nuggets. This would be smoking gun kind of evidence that there has been poor coaching, and/or poor front office work on the part of the Nuggets. If you try to rely only on trades and free agent acquisitions, that is roughly like relying on gambling in Las Vegas to make your fortune, not such a wise thing to do, unless you know how to beat the house. The Nuggets would have had to start AI at PG almost from the time he got to Denver in order to beat the house, lol. And apologies, but I shortchanged myself on the Celtics. A second look shows that those stat whores, the Celtics, had Tony Allen along with Paul Pierce on their team. Allen was drafted by the Celtics in 2004. So the Celtics were actually a 3-score on the index of drafted players still on the team, not just a 2. With a respectable Real Player Rating of .609, and 1378 minutes played in 2007-08, his highest total ever, Allen was a significant contributor to the Celtics Championship. So with the Celtics, you had the minimum drafted player requirement met, and then on top of that you had the two huge trades, setting up their path to victory. (So since I left him out before, you get another chance to say why Allen or Pierce don't count, or why this doesn't matter, lol, cpf.)
You still haven't established a baseline and are pulling an analysis out of your ass. Until you look at the last 10 NBA finals and those 20 teams, you have no basis for the importance of drafted players. Next, your equation is severely limited and doesn't pass the sniff test. You are giving all starters the same weight (which with championship teams is clearly not the case) and all non-starters the same weight when players clearly have different roles. Championship teams are not built according to some consistent model. The Spurs have their 3 top players acquired through the draft, but fill out the rest of the team with players acquired in other ways. The 2006 NBA Finals between the Heat and the Mavs featured teams with very little in self-drafted players.
Ya, i dont think theres a direct correlation between a teams success and how many players they have on their team that they drafted. Some teams are just good at drafting, or get good picks, and others just make trades or sign FA's. i think it all just depends, and all its all circumstantial.
