Exclusive Playoffs or Lottery?

Bollocks. Refuse to root to lose.

 

Of course play to win. I might just be playing to win more long term than immediate short term. Just to different philosophies.

 

How is that working out?

 

Last night was a night full of upsets that moved the Blazers are at #11 in the Lottery but are are now only 1/2 a game out of the #8 spot. OKC beat Utah, Miami stunned Golden State, the Pelicans shocked the Cavs and SAC beat Detroit.

The 6 teams trailing the Blazers in the West are all now within 4 games of Portland while they are still 7.5 games behind the #6 seed if they want to avoid the Spurs and the Warriors. That needs to be the goal. Otherwise, a really shot at a high Lottery pick is just a couple more losses away.

 

I'm not thinking about tanking to get a better draft pick. I just think they need to give more minutes and responsibility to guys like Vonleh, Leonard, Harkless and Crabbe. The idea is to either establish that they can be better than average contributors to the team or to increase their trade value.
For this to happen, I think that for the rest of the season, minutes and responsibility should be cut for guys like Lillard, McCollum, Plumlee and Davis. We already know what we have in these guys. (Although I would probably give the green light to Plumlee to keep shooting midrange shots, just to see if he can attain this skill or not). I would probably keep Tuner's minutes and responsibility about the same, he needs to keep working on how he can fit in and help the team.
So I guess I am not for the playoffs, but not for the lottery either; just looking at it a little differently. Looking at it for the longer term; which I understand is difficult since we have been doing it for so long; but it seems to be the best choice right now.

 

I just can't bring myself to worrying about where we end up. How many times do we need to say that the draft is a crap shoot when you have so many young players who are drafted on potential and not performance.

According to Draft Express' Mock draft.....17 out of the first 20 are either freshman or international. And quite frankly from what I have seen from the 2oth pick (TJ Leaf) I would much rather have him over the 14th pick Ivan Rabb.

There is no doubt that we need to build through the draft....we need to keep our picks. But when SA can continue to grab guys like Dejounte Murray at 29.....why should I be concerned with where we pick? I am more concerned with WHO we pick.

 

Boy howdy, I just learned that! TWO first-round draft picks of mine died tragically before training camp.

Typical.

 

Had they been in the lottery they still could have picked him though. Better to have a lottery pick than a pick in the 20s

 

I watch NC ST and Duke play last night I got to see Giles and Tatum and Smith play each one look good at times and than you see them freshman mistake with inexperience at that level. All 3 going be pretty good NBA players.

 

Better than winning 67 games AND drafting a good player?

Bottom line for me is that when the draft is dominated by freshmen, (and international) the separation between pick 15 and pick 5 gets smaller. And as for the top of the draft....is Fultz another D'Angelo Russell? I am not sure I want to turn my team over to him.

 

When we start winning 67 games a year and contending for a title, I'll be right there with you. Until then, let's get those high lottery picks like Duncan to get us to those levels.

 

Too bad a a Tim Duncan does not come around every year. Or maybe we are lucky they don't, otherwise the Laker's tanking strategy might have worked.

 

It did work. Ingram looks good. Russell was a dumb puck, but that's not the strategies fault. Randle was a good pick. Our best players were both lottery picks. Our best before them were lottery picks

 

Until they are legitimate contenders......it hasn't worked. Isn't that what we all judge our team on? The players the Lakers got are fine, but it just shows you how long the process is. And they are the Los Angeles Lakers. One of the most storied franchises in sports. They have an extra advantage in the fact that big name free agents will sign there and eventually bail them out. We do not have that luxury. But to say the process has worked for them is very premature IMO. Only Ingram is a needle mover. The others could have been acquired through different means.

 

Isn't our strategy taking just as long? Last time we won was the 70's with number 1 overall pick Walton.

As for FA's, with Dr Buss gone, they aren't drawing whoever they want.

Dame and CJ made us competitive again. Before that it was Aldridge and the former Timberwolf. What do they all have in common? Lottery picks. The strategy worked. Oden healthy or honking twice probably earns us trips to the finals. Olshey is basically implementing the Whitsitt plan, only he has to deal with a salary cap, so his players aren't going to be as good.....for the most part.

 

True the strategy the Blazers are taking is not quicker, but for most of us.... it is more fun to watch. But I think we are getting off track. My comments in this thread were about which spot do we want to end up in the draft. (Barely making the playoffs or drop lower in the lottery) And I am not sure it makes a difference. I have always agreed that we need to build through the draft, but the draft is changing and I think one can argue that with all the young freshmen who are projected to enter, the finished project is becoming harder and harder to project. Walton, Dame, Cj, and Broy all played 4 years of college. All good picks because you knew they were solid players. But now when you look at the D' Angelo Russell's of the world who many on this board said would be a super star....it's not as clear cut. Hell ET was the 2nd pick in the draft. I do believe Alonzo Ball is one player who could be a special player, but we are not even sure he will enter the draft. He might want to wait so he can play with his brother next year at UCLA. Who else is out there?

 

The difference is the value that the pick has. You can use the pick in two different ways - (1) draft a player, or (2) trade the pick. In the scenario where you trade the pick you're going to get a better return on a #5 pick than a #15 pick. And in the scenario where you draft a player, if you have good talent evaluation you should end up with a better player - we know this doesn't always work, but it's the one area that Olshey is fairly competent.

 

That's slightly revisionist. Dame and Brandon were thought by many, if not most, to have limited room for further improvement and picked too high.

I doubt draft misses were any less common back before the one-and-dones and straight-from-high-schools.

It's a gamble at every slot, but the averages pretty strongly suggest you want to be in the top-8 for a good shot at an impact player. The higher up you are, the better the odds of getting it right. If there were a good way to measure the outcome of a pick, I'd bet you see a pretty strong correlation between draft number and success rate.

 

First off. Watching a team, knowing full well they have no chance of winning with their strategy, is awful to me.

Secondly, it's always better to have a higher pick. It gives you the opportunity to draft more people.