Barkley has MJ's back

[Plowright]

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/shaun_powell/02/25/trade-winners-losers/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO WATCH THIS, about half way down the page there is a video, next to the title that says mad men. You have to watch this, very interesting discussion about GW and the trade and if MJ did the right thing. Its the video in the middle of the other two.

[Marvel]

Typical Barkley, "You don't try and compete for 6, 7th, 8th seed, what's the point in that".

That's why he has MJ's back.

[WrxErik]

Everyone disagreed with Chuck because like they said teams should know they are not going to be able to win a title. So in order to bring in money you want to make the playoffs no matter what. Maybe you get lucky and win a game or two. Also they talked about how many draft picks now a days that turn into busts. They all agree portland won the trade but chuck thinks its ok because we got two crap picks and Pryz. What a joke. Also what does Chuck know about wining titles because last time I checked he had 0. That is why he is a fat NBA analyst now rather than a coach or something to that extent.

[Chef]

Also what does Chuck know about wining titles because last time I checked he had 0.

and checkmate

[TheGayKid]

and checkmate

and MATCH...

[Dcarnys]

Nice

10char

[stun704]

Everyone disagreed with Chuck because like they said teams should know they are not going to be able to win a title. So in order to bring in money you want to make the playoffs no matter what. Maybe you get lucky and win a game or two. Also they talked about how many draft picks now a days that turn into busts. They all agree portland won the trade but chuck thinks its ok because we got two crap picks and Pryz. What a joke. Also what does Chuck know about wining titles because last time I checked he had 0. That is why he is a fat NBA analyst now rather than a coach or something to that extent.
and how many NBA titles have you won? how many final apperances have you made? seems like hypocritical criticism. So just because he hasn't won a championship he shouldn't voice his opinion on how to build a team?

[teej]

In fact, as someone who hasn't won a ring, Chuck knows best on how NOT to build a team...

[TheGayKid]

In fact, as someone who hasn't won a ring, Chuck knows best on how NOT to build a team...

That is true as well

[CarolinaBlue704]

Also what does Chuck know about wining titles because last time I checked he had 0.


and checkmate


and MATCH...


In fact, as someone who hasn't won a ring, Chuck knows best on how NOT to build a team...

I heard there were two guys named Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen who played for the Bulls. Apparently they were pretty good. They kept players like Barkley, Ewing, Karl Malone, and John Stockton from winning rings. But maybe it's just a myth.

[Chef]

was just trying to be funny. guess i should have gone with zing instead. of course barkley can have an opinion on how to build a championship team, so can we and it can be just as valid considering none in the argument have ever built a team.

[Plowright]

Just for the record i never sided with either argument. I was just saying its an interesting video to hear the debate/ pros and cons. Im still not sure how i feel, guess it depends on how we use the cap space and picks

[Pepperz]

Barkley is right. You dont go shooting for 7th or 8th. The team we had now reached its potential and it was just a matter of time before we starting falling again. Its best that we sell high rather then wait a few years and try to sell and get nothing for GW. This will allow us to get more assets at a quicker pace which then we can get right back into the race for the championship.

[frontpager]

I agree with Pepperz 100%

[BobcatsGuy74]

Can someone explain to me how two late 1st round picks are going to help the Bobcats rebuild? If you're not picking in the top 5 you're not getting great players. I understand MJ wanted to get something for Gerald instead of nothing but I don't see how this helps the Bobcats unless they plan on going after a superstar like Chris Paul this offseason.

[Plowright]

Well Bobcats guy, that is wrong. Manu Ginboli for example went in the second round, he is a great player. Hell, Jack never even got drafted and look at him. I am not saying we will draft a start but there is a chance with more picks. Also these picks give us flexibility to trade them to get a player or move higher in the draft. You have to look at the big picture. Also this trade gives us a lot of cap space for the summer so we can go after some free agents

[SWedd523]

I've already did an overview of the draft. There has only been like three great players taken out of the lottery in the past 10 years.

Is it possible that we get a franchise type player or even just a really good one with a pick around 20? Yes. But the chances are astronomical.

If you want to build a franchise with players who will be stars in this league, you do it with lottery picks. Sure its a crap shoot, but the chances are drastically higher.


In the long run, we'd have been much better off in the long run by trading Crash with Diop for a massive amount of expirings and a late first.

[TheLegend]

I maybe wrong but I doubt it....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YO0EmMrmRA

[WAM9]

I've already did an overview of the draft. There has only been like three great players taken out of the lottery in the past 10 years.

Is it possible that we get a franchise type player or even just a really good one with a pick around 20? Yes. But the chances are astronomical.

Sweed, I understand the point you are making but I disagree with what ends up being an exaggeration of the truth. Are the chances better to land a very good player in the lottery, of course they are but to say that the chances are astronomical after that is simply not true. I think of the lottery (the real one) as astronomical. Like you said, 3 players in the past 10 years is closer to astronomical...

After a quick glance for myself here are just a few examples:

2000 Michael Redd was a 2nd round pick.
2001 Gerald Wallace #25, Tony Parker #28 and Gilbert Arenas 2nd round
2002 T Prince #23 and Carlos Boozer 2nd round
2003 David West #18, Josh Howard #29, Kendrick Perkins #27 and Mo Williams 2nd round
2004 Al Jefferson #15, Josh Smith #17 and Jameer Nelson #20
2005 Danny Granger #17 and David Lee #30
2006 Rajon Rondo #21 and Paul Milsapp 2nd round
2007 Wilson Chandler #23 and Glen Davis, Marc Gasol and Ramon Sessions were all 2nd rounders
2008 Roy Hibbert #17 and Serge Ibaka #24
2009 Jrue Holliday #17, Ty Lawson #18, Darren Collison #21 and a trio of Blair, Budinger and Thornton in the 2nd
2010 Eric Bledsoe #18 and Landry Fields in the 2nd.

More guys will pop up as very good players from the past couple of drafts as time goes on. These may not be superstar, all world guys but they are very good players that can change your franchise. Especially guys like Tony Parker, Gilbert Arenas, Carlos Boozer, Danny Granger, Al Jefferson and Rajon Rondo. Lot's of all star appearances in the group for sure.

[SWedd523]

The only guys you named that would ever deserve the moniker "franchise player" or "major building block" are Arenas (before the issues), Parker, Boozer, Jefferson, Smith, Granger, Rondo, Gasol, Hibbert, and maybe Millsap. But are you forgetting about the vast majority of other players taken outside the top 14 that have been terrible or not even played in the league?


In other words, since the year 2000, there have been 10 really good players, but 355 bad ones. That means you have a 2.7% chance of taking a really good player outside the lottery. Where I come from, that is astronomical.

[WrxErik]

The only guys you named that would ever deserve the moniker "franchise player" or "major building block" are Arenas (before the issues), Parker, Boozer, Jefferson, Smith, Granger, Rondo, Gasol, Hibbert, and maybe Millsap. But are you forgetting about the vast majority of other players taken outside the top 14 that have been terrible or not even played in the league?


In other words, since the year 2000, there have been 10 really good players, but 355 bad ones. That means you have a 2.7% chance of taking a really good player outside the lottery. Where I come from, that is astronomical.

Haha I didn't think you would ever have to get that technical to get this point across to people. Maybe the 2.7% will give some a reality check / slap in the face.

[WAM9]

I'd call guys that have made the all star team like Redd, Prince and West pretty decent players that can certainly be part of a core of your franchise. Also, Gerald Wallace, and his value overall, is what this conversation is really about. Don't you have to include him in those type of guys since everyone seems to be so upset that we traded him for lesser value?

Also, guys drafted in the past couple of years haven't had time to show what type of player they are going to be in this league. Landry Fields, Dejaun Blair, Darren Collison and Jrue Holliday may end up being studs as well as some other guys we don't even have listed yet. There are also multiple others that may develop like Nicolas Batum for example. He really isn't in the conversation yet but he may end up being in 5 years.

Add those types of guys in and you could easily get to the 30 range. That is close to 10%. I don't call that astronomical at all. Winning the lottery (again the real one) or getting struck by lightning are better examples of that...you know 0.00000000000001% type of things.

Also, typically, Russian roulette is a 1 in 6 chance of shooting yourself in the head. That is only about 15% but it is definitely enough for me not to play. Come to think of it, 2.7% would be enough as well.

[WAM9]

Haha I didn't think you would ever have to get that technical to get this point across to people. Maybe the 2.7% will give some a reality check / slap in the face.


The statement was that ONLY 3 guys have been very good players drafted outside of the lottery in the past 10 years...That couldn't be farther from the truth. That is what my post is about. Even after just 1 post from me SWeed has already increased that number to 10 (and that is still low).

3 vs 10 is already a 350% increase...how is that for an understatement?

[WrxErik]

This is not so much about Wallace as it is about MJ and Higgins saying that 7th, 8th seed is not good enough and they want to be a contender and win it all.

The picks we got are going to net us guys who will put us in the same spot we are in now just 5 years down the road instead of right now.

If we want to compete we have to land a big time free agent and some how get lucky enough to get a sleeper draft pick that turns into a Kobe / Lebron / Dwight. Chances of getting that pick outside of the top 5 are slim to none.

[TheGayKid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-diB65scQU

[WAM9]

This is not so much about Wallace as it is about MJ and Higgins saying that 7th, 8th seed is not good enough and they want to be a contender and win it all.

The picks we got are going to net us guys who will put us in the same spot we are in now just 5 years down the road instead of right now.

If we want to compete we have to land a big time free agent and some how get lucky enough to get a sleeper draft pick that turns into a Kobe / Lebron / Dwight. Chances of getting that pick outside of the top 5 are slim to none.

No, this post is about saying that only 3 guys out of the lottery have been very good players in the past decade. There is another thread or a hundred talking about how these draft picks won't help us and how we should have never traded Wallace.

It seems that a lot of folks are completely caught up in the "if we don't get a top 5 draft pick out of a deal, we're screwed". I disagree completely but even by that rationale, maybe we can now package one of these picks with another asset to move up in the draft? Maybe Portland drops to the lottery and we get a top 5 pick from them in 2013. There are lots of possibilities out there. Obtaining these picks simply gives us more options. Maybe they work out, maybe they don't but to say that we automatically made the wrong decision because "both these picks are out of the lottery and therefore suck" is the wrong approach in my humble opinion.

[Dcarnys]

This is not so much about Wallace as it is about MJ and Higgins saying that 7th, 8th seed is not good enough and they want to be a contender and win it all.

The picks we got are going to net us guys who will put us in the same spot we are in now just 5 years down the road instead of right now.

If we want to compete we have to land a big time free agent and some how get lucky enough to get a sleeper draft pick that turns into a Kobe / Lebron / Dwight. Chances of getting that pick outside of the top 5 are slim to none.

The more picks we have, who knows. We could very well trade up into the top five. And on lottery day, who knows how the balls will drop.............. giggity.

[WrxErik]

I am stuck in the middle with this trade because our Front office has a terrible track record. So like I have said they need to prove everyone one wrong since they have been spouting stuff off like championship contender.

[DY_nasty]

I am stuck in the middle with this trade because our Front office has a terrible track record. So like I have said they need to prove everyone one wrong since they have been spouting stuff off like championship contender.
The drafting hasn't been terrible outside of Ajinca and Morrison, but they've been absolutely horrendous at developing talent.

[stun704]

The drafting hasn't been terrible outside of Ajinca and Morrison, but they've been absolutely horrendous at developing talent.
but I think the DJ and and the emergence of hendo make up for that, especially when DJ has been out playing brook lopez this year

[DY_nasty]

but I think the DJ and and the emergence of hendo make up for that, especially when DJ has been out playing brook lopez this year
I've always liked Silas Jr. When Monta and Stephen Curry both make it a point to credit him with a good part of their development, then it just makes me happier knowing that he's on our sideline instead of Larry "stfu and get healthy or stfu" Brown.

[SWedd523]

No, this post is about saying that only 3 guys out of the lottery have been very good players in the past decade. There is another thread or a hundred talking about how these draft picks won't help us and how we should have never traded Wallace.

It seems that a lot of folks are completely caught up in the "if we don't get a top 5 draft pick out of a deal, we're screwed". I disagree completely but even by that rationale, maybe we can now package one of these picks with another asset to move up in the draft? Maybe Portland drops to the lottery and we get a top 5 pick from them in 2013. There are lots of possibilities out there. Obtaining these picks simply gives us more options. Maybe they work out, maybe they don't but to say that we automatically made the wrong decision because "both these picks are out of the lottery and therefore suck" is the wrong approach in my humble opinion.

I got the 3 people and 3% mixed up. Sue me.


You keep thinking that picks outside the lottery (an average one 1 over the last 10 years) will help us build a franchise and I'll keep thinking that you need a lottery pick (which give you a MUCH higher chance of landing a star) to start a rebuild.


You don't build a franchise with Michael Redd or Gerald Wallace LOL, or even Gasol, Hibbert, Parker, and Millsap. The thought that you can will get you nowhere but where we are right now. 7th/8th seed.

[teej]

You don't build a franchise with Michael Redd or Gerald Wallace LOL, or even Gasol, Hibbert, Parker, and Millsap. The thought that you can will get you nowhere but where we are right now. 7th/8th seed.

Which is the point you've been arguing against. Wallace is an aging semi-star who, when not healthy, is a bad contract especially with a shrinking cap next year and beyond. So, since he's your best player, why not try to get some value while you still can? If either of the picks turns out to be a Wallace, Redd, Gasol, Hibbert, Millsap, etc. then by virtue of the rookie cap, you've won the trade. Gerald Wallace over the next 3 years isn't going to be as good as a "young Wallace" if that's who gets picked.

While we could use your 3% odds for picking a "franchise player," and still have higher odds than winning with Crash, I'll go one further. If we use the listed players from wam9 (http://www.bobcatsplanet.com/vb/showthread.php?12275-Barkley-has-MJ-s-back&p=191658#post191658) as "successful" or "comparable to Crash" non-lottery picks with a few adjustments:

1 - removal of Landry Fields, Chase Budinger, Marcus Thornton, Ramon Sessions and Glen Davis

2 - addition of Zach Randolph (2001), Kevin Martin (2004), Monta Ellis (2nd round '05), Tiago Splitter ('07, yes it's potential but he's Duncan's replacement), and George Hill (2008 )

3 - not numerically including but mentioning Hedo Turkoglu (2000) Memo Okur (2nd round '01) John Salmons (2002), Anderson Varejao (2nd round '04), Aaron Brooks (2007), Marrese Speights (2008 ) and Javale McGee (2008 ) as either key cogs on playoff teams or players viewed as high potential.

Let's review the numbers now, shall we. Using the 2.7% from your 10 players number, because I can't be arsed to do the exact math at 2:47 AM, if we use the updated list of Wam9's and mine, there's 30-ish players that are comparable either in current value or prior achievement to Gerald Wallace. Multiply 2.7% by 3 (30/10), and you get 8.1%. That means that, with a non-lottery pick, you have an 8.1% chance of selecting a player with a high impact to your franchise. If you include my "honorable mentions" the list goes up to 37, and adding in a few of Wam's players that didn't make my list, we can get up to 40 players that are valuable to their teams by any definition. So, multiply 2.7% by four, we get 10.8% odds of selecting a good player. Perhaps not an all-star, but a key piece nonetheless. Now, since the Bobcats will have three picks likely in the non-lottery range in the next few years (NoLa's and our own this year, PDX in 2013), let's multiply 10.8% by 3. That jumps us up to a whopping 32.4% chance of selecting a high-quality, impact player. Now, since you're going to say our own pick is currently in the lottery (and that we won't make the playoffs by trading Crash) then you make more of my argument, since we likely would be there with him, and thus by missing the playoffs we can improve the 32.4% odds! Now, maybe it's just me, but I'd put our chances WITH CRASH as astronomical for ever being a contender. 32.4% (or even a lowly 5.4% if you refuse to change your 10 impact players number and don't count our own pick, either way) is far higher than any number one could come up with for Crash.

Also, it's worth mentioning that New Orleans is hardly guaranteed a playoff spot at this point, although one would expect them to make it. It is possible, though, that pick could drop to the high teens, which in looking back is where the highest percent of non-lottery impact players are found. And even more worth mentioning, is that Portland is quickly heading into NBA purgatory, and they could very likely send us a lottery pick in 2013. Now, I'm not using any of this speculation in my numbers, just the 3 picks X chance of an impact player.

Be a pessimist all you want, that's your right. But don't misrepresent the facts. The ABSOLUTE lowest odds of us getting an impact player from this trade, using YOUR numbers, is 5.4%. Using a little more logic and open-mindedness, that number can balloon up like Eddy Curry's waistline. What are the odds Crash is an impact player for Portland or any other team (read: 1st, 2nd or 3rd option) in a playoff series outside the first round, OR a first or second option for any non-bottom 5 team by design (as in, injuries won't count) the rest of his career? MAYBE 10%? I'd much rather risk two picks than that.

You're dating an Asian, bro, I expect you to have better numbers than this.

[stun704]

[Jay-Z]That was just vulgar[/Jayz]

[Pepperz]

Why does every pick have to be a FRANCHISE PLAYER? Im not looking at every pick we make as somebody that is going to change this franchise around. I just want somebody that can contribute to the team. We dont always have to swing for the fences but a nice single or double can work too.

Im just tired of "if he's not a franchise player, it's no good."

[Chef]

Why does every pick have to be a FRANCHISE PLAYER? Im not looking at every pick we make as somebody that is going to change this franchise around. I just want somebody that can contribute to the team. We dont always have to swing for the fences but a nice single or double can work too.

Im just tired of "if he's not a franchise player, it's no good."

the current argument in the league is "can you get away with just two franchise guys or do you need three". we have none. we need to forget about quality guys because until we find a way through the draft or free agency to get our first franchise guy, it doesn't matter much.

[SWedd523]

When did I ever say keep building with Crash? LOL. I've been on the blow it up bandwagon since LB was fired. Gerald Wallace and the rest of those players you listed are fine, yeah, yippe, wahoo, but not a single one of them are players you build. a. franchise. with. Absolutely ZERO. I'm not going to sit here and argue math with a person who thinks any of those players you listed are capable franchise starters.

using Wallace as a piece will get you to the 8th seed (Look at us)
Redd--won't get you a championship
Gasol--won't get you a championship
Hibbert--won't get you a championship
Millsap--won't get you a championship

All of those players are complementary pieces to a Kobe, a Wade, a LeBron, a Pierce, a KG, a Duncan, etc.


And then you have the audacity to say Zach Randolph, Kevin Martin, Monta Ellis, Tiago Splitter (LAWL), George Hill (LAWL x2), Hedo, Okur, Salmons, Varejao, Brooks, Speights, McGee as having ANY chance of being that first option or first piece of a rebuild effort and expect me to sit here and be serious about it? C'mon son.


I was being nice when I gave the 10 players (over the last ten years for fuck's sake) just so there'd be a point to argue. Those players are GREAT, just like I said, but absolutely none of them are franchise. players. And that includes Rondo.


Let's run down the list of top teams in the league, shall we? Let's see where their franchise player was drafted (in order of best record to worst):


1. San Antonio = Duncan (1st, lottery)
2. Boston = Pierce/KG/Ray (10th, 5th, 5th, all lottery)
3. Miami = LeBron/Wade/Bosh (1st, 5th, 4th, all lottery)
4. Dallas = Dirk (9th, lottery)
5. Chicago = Rose (1st, lottery)
6. Lakers = Kobe (13th, lottery)
7. Oklahoma City = Durant/Westbrook (2nd, 4th, lottery)
8. Orlando = Dwight (1st, lottery)
9. Atlanta = Johnson (10th, lottery)
10. New Orleans = CP3 (4th, lottery)
11. Portland = LMa (2nd, lottery)
12. Denver = Melo (3rd, lottery)
13. Memphis = Gay (8th, lottery)
14. Utah = Deron (3rd, lottery)
15. New York = Amare (9th, lottery)
16. Phoenix = Nash (15th, non-lottery)
17. Philadelphia = Iggy (9th, lottery)
18. Houston = Martin (26th, non-lottery)
19. Indiana = Granger (17th, non-lottery)
20. Golden State = Ellis/Curry (40th, 7th, split)
21. Charlotte = Crash/Jack (25th, n/a, non-lottery)
22. Milwaukee = Bogut (1st, lottery)
23. Detroit = Stuckey? (15th, non-lottery)
24. Clippers = Blake (1st, lottery)
25. New Jersey = Lopez (10th, lottery)
26. Toronto = Bargnani (1st, lottery)
27. Washington = Wall (1st, lottery)
28. Sacramento = Evans (4th, lottery)
29. Minnesota = Love (5th, lottery)
30. Cleveland = Jamison (4th, lottery)



Of the top ten teams, every single franchise player was taken in the lottery (with the latest being Kobe at 13). Furthermore, 11/15 have franchise players taken in the top 5 (or 73%, how's that for a number?). The only players taken out of the top five were Pierce, Dirk, Kobe, and Johnson. Pretty good company.


Of the top twenty teams, only four "franchise" players have been taken outside of the lottery: Nash, Martin, Granger, and Ellis. It's no surprise that three of those teams occupy the 18th, 19th, and 20th spot in the standings. It should come as no surprise that as you move down the standings, you see more and more best players as non-lottery. Pretty sweet correlation right?!


Looking at all 30 teams, only six (that's right, six) out of 30 teams are using a non-lottery player as #1. The ones I already mentioned, with Charlotte (21st) and Detroit (23rd) added in. There's also MORE franchise players taken #1 overall (.8.) than TOTAL franchise players taken outside of the lottery (7). How's that for some numbers? I'll even take you a step further and give you a visual aid!


First, we have all franchise players according to their draft position:

http://i56.tinypic.com/de4ep3.jpg

Keep in mind that last bar accounts for 17+ values, while every other counts as 1.




Let's make it simpler though, shall we? Lottery vs. Non-lottery:

http://i55.tinypic.com/5xkdxu.jpg

Again, the first bar represents 14 possibilities while the second represents 17+)




So I don't know about you, but it sure as hell looks like you want a lottery (or more importantly a top 5) pick vs one outside the lottery.

[SWedd523]

Why does every pick have to be a FRANCHISE PLAYER? Im not looking at every pick we make as somebody that is going to change this franchise around. I just want somebody that can contribute to the team. We dont always have to swing for the fences but a nice single or double can work too.

Im just tired of "if he's not a franchise player, it's no good."

Isn't hitting singles and doubles what got us in the current mess we're in? Even the Charlotte fans are stuck in mediocrity!

[Chef]

When did I ever say keep building with Crash? LOL. I've been on the blow it up bandwagon since LB was fired. Gerald Wallace and the rest of those players you listed are fine, yeah, yippe, wahoo, but not a single one of them are players you build. a. franchise. with. Absolutely ZERO. I'm not going to sit here and argue math with a person who thinks any of those players you listed are capable franchise starters.

using Wallace as a piece will get you to the 8th seed (Look at us)
Redd--won't get you a championship
Gasol--won't get you a championship
Hibbert--won't get you a championship
Millsap--won't get you a championship

All of those players are complementary pieces to a Kobe, a Wade, a LeBron, a Pierce, a KG, a Duncan, etc.


And then you have the audacity to say Zach Randolph, Kevin Martin, Monta Ellis, Tiago Splitter (LAWL), George Hill (LAWL x2), Hedo, Okur, Salmons, Varejao, Brooks, Speights, McGee as having ANY chance of being that first option or first piece of a rebuild effort and expect me to sit here and be serious about it? C'mon son.


I was being nice when I gave the 10 players (over the last ten years for fuck's sake) just so there'd be a point to argue. Those players are GREAT, just like I said, but absolutely none of them are franchise. players. And that includes Rondo.


Let's run down the list of top teams in the league, shall we? Let's see where their franchise player was drafted (in order of best record to worst):


1. San Antonio = Duncan (1st, lottery)
2. Boston = Pierce/KG/Ray (10th, 5th, 5th, all lottery)
3. Miami = LeBron/Wade/Bosh (1st, 5th, 4th, all lottery)
4. Dallas = Dirk (9th, lottery)
5. Chicago = Rose (1st, lottery)
6. Lakers = Kobe (13th, lottery)
7. Oklahoma City = Durant/Westbrook (2nd, 4th, lottery)
8. Orlando = Dwight (1st, lottery)
9. Atlanta = Johnson (10th, lottery)
10. New Orleans = CP3 (4th, lottery)
11. Portland = LMa (2nd, lottery)
12. Denver = Melo (3rd, lottery)
13. Memphis = Gay (8th, lottery)
14. Utah = Deron (3rd, lottery)
15. New York = Amare (9th, lottery)
16. Phoenix = Nash (15th, non-lottery)
17. Philadelphia = Iggy (9th, lottery)
18. Houston = Martin (26th, non-lottery)
19. Indiana = Granger (17th, non-lottery)
20. Golden State = Ellis/Curry (40th, 7th, split)
21. Charlotte = Crash/Jack (25th, n/a, non-lottery)
22. Milwaukee = Bogut (1st, lottery)
23. Detroit = Stuckey? (15th, non-lottery)
24. Clippers = Blake (1st, lottery)
25. New Jersey = Lopez (10th, lottery)
26. Toronto = Bargnani (1st, lottery)
27. Washington = Wall (1st, lottery)
28. Sacramento = Evans (4th, lottery)
29. Minnesota = Love (5th, lottery)
30. Cleveland = Jamison (4th, lottery)



Of the top ten teams, every single franchise player was taken in the lottery (with the latest being Kobe at 13). Furthermore, 11/15 have franchise players taken in the top 5 (or 73%, how's that for a number?). The only players taken out of the top five were Pierce, Dirk, Kobe, and Johnson. Pretty good company.


Of the top twenty teams, only four "franchise" players have been taken outside of the lottery: Nash, Martin, Granger, and Ellis. It's no surprise that three of those teams occupy the 18th, 19th, and 20th spot in the standings. It should come as no surprise that as you move down the standings, you see more and more best players as non-lottery. Pretty sweet correlation right?!


Looking at all 30 teams, only six (that's right, six) out of 30 teams are using a non-lottery player as #1. The ones I already mentioned, with Charlotte (21st) and Detroit (23rd) added in. There's also MORE franchise players taken #1 overall (.8.) than TOTAL franchise players taken outside of the lottery (7). How's that for some numbers? I'll even take you a step further and give you a visual aid!


First, we have all franchise players according to their draft position:

http://i56.tinypic.com/de4ep3.jpg

Keep in mind that last bar accounts for 17+ values, while every other counts as 1.




Let's make it simpler though, shall we? Lottery vs. Non-lottery:

http://i55.tinypic.com/5xkdxu.jpg

Again, the first bar represents 14 possibilities while the second represents 17+)




So I don't know about you, but it sure as hell looks like you want a lottery (or more importantly a top 5) pick vs one outside the lottery.

very nice post. i would also like you to include a section on how guys like gay, iggy, johnson etc (crash) are not actually franchise guys and how much they kill their teams contract wise at the end of their contracts.

i am not sure i understand the bar graphs, i prefer pie charts.

[Pepperz]

When did I ever say keep building with Crash? LOL. I've been on the blow it up bandwagon since LB was fired. Gerald Wallace and the rest of those players you listed are fine, yeah, yippe, wahoo, but not a single one of them are players you build. a. franchise. with. Absolutely ZERO. I'm not going to sit here and argue math with a person who thinks any of those players you listed are capable franchise starters.

using Wallace as a piece will get you to the 8th seed (Look at us)
Redd--won't get you a championship
Gasol--won't get you a championship
Hibbert--won't get you a championship
Millsap--won't get you a championship

All of those players are complementary pieces to a Kobe, a Wade, a LeBron, a Pierce, a KG, a Duncan, etc.


And then you have the audacity to say Zach Randolph, Kevin Martin, Monta Ellis, Tiago Splitter (LAWL), George Hill (LAWL x2), Hedo, Okur, Salmons, Varejao, Brooks, Speights, McGee as having ANY chance of being that first option or first piece of a rebuild effort and expect me to sit here and be serious about it? C'mon son.


I was being nice when I gave the 10 players (over the last ten years for fuck's sake) just so there'd be a point to argue. Those players are GREAT, just like I said, but absolutely none of them are franchise. players. And that includes Rondo.


Let's run down the list of top teams in the league, shall we? Let's see where their franchise player was drafted (in order of best record to worst):


1. San Antonio = Duncan (1st, lottery)
2. Boston = Pierce/KG/Ray (10th, 5th, 5th, all lottery)
3. Miami = LeBron/Wade/Bosh (1st, 5th, 4th, all lottery)
4. Dallas = Dirk (9th, lottery)
5. Chicago = Rose (1st, lottery)
6. Lakers = Kobe (13th, lottery)
7. Oklahoma City = Durant/Westbrook (2nd, 4th, lottery)
8. Orlando = Dwight (1st, lottery)
9. Atlanta = Johnson (10th, lottery)
10. New Orleans = CP3 (4th, lottery)
11. Portland = LMa (2nd, lottery)
12. Denver = Melo (3rd, lottery)
13. Memphis = Gay (8th, lottery)
14. Utah = Deron (3rd, lottery)
15. New York = Amare (9th, lottery)
16. Phoenix = Nash (15th, non-lottery)
17. Philadelphia = Iggy (9th, lottery)
18. Houston = Martin (26th, non-lottery)
19. Indiana = Granger (17th, non-lottery)
20. Golden State = Ellis/Curry (40th, 7th, split)
21. Charlotte = Crash/Jack (25th, n/a, non-lottery)
22. Milwaukee = Bogut (1st, lottery)
23. Detroit = Stuckey? (15th, non-lottery)
24. Clippers = Blake (1st, lottery)
25. New Jersey = Lopez (10th, lottery)
26. Toronto = Bargnani (1st, lottery)
27. Washington = Wall (1st, lottery)
28. Sacramento = Evans (4th, lottery)
29. Minnesota = Love (5th, lottery)
30. Cleveland = Jamison (4th, lottery)



Of the top ten teams, every single franchise player was taken in the lottery (with the latest being Kobe at 13). Furthermore, 11/15 have franchise players taken in the top 5 (or 73%, how's that for a number?). The only players taken out of the top five were Pierce, Dirk, Kobe, and Johnson. Pretty good company.


Of the top twenty teams, only four "franchise" players have been taken outside of the lottery: Nash, Martin, Granger, and Ellis. It's no surprise that three of those teams occupy the 18th, 19th, and 20th spot in the standings. It should come as no surprise that as you move down the standings, you see more and more best players as non-lottery. Pretty sweet correlation right?!


Looking at all 30 teams, only six (that's right, six) out of 30 teams are using a non-lottery player as #1. The ones I already mentioned, with Charlotte (21st) and Detroit (23rd) added in. There's also MORE franchise players taken #1 overall (.8.) than TOTAL franchise players taken outside of the lottery (7). How's that for some numbers? I'll even take you a step further and give you a visual aid!


First, we have all franchise players according to their draft position:

http://i56.tinypic.com/de4ep3.jpg

Keep in mind that last bar accounts for 17+ values, while every other counts as 1.




Let's make it simpler though, shall we? Lottery vs. Non-lottery:

http://i55.tinypic.com/5xkdxu.jpg

Again, the first bar represents 14 possibilities while the second represents 17+)




So I don't know about you, but it sure as hell looks like you want a lottery (or more importantly a top 5) pick vs one outside the lottery.

How many of those guys were drafted by those same teams? It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that you have a better chance at getting that "franchise" player when you draft 1st compared to drafting 30th. Everybody understands that. You have to underatnd that there are 3 ways to acquire those players: draft, free agency, trades. So don't get caught up in that if we dont draft top 5, we are screwed. If we gather alot of assets from those draft picks and we sign good quality players with the newly available cap space, we can still trade for that "franchise" player. We can even build a good quality team w/o that "franchise" player. When the time comes for maybe signing that franchise player, they can go "look at how good the bobcats were w/o somebody of my caliber, imagine what they can be with me." And dont give me that "No franchise player will sign here" cuz we never had a quality team with a low enough payroll to sign that kind of player.

[SWedd523]

How many of those guys were drafted by those same teams?
Of the top 5? Four of them. Of the top 10? Eight. So I'm not really getting your point.....


It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out that you have a better chance at getting that "franchise" player when you draft 1st compared to drafting 30th. Everybody understands that.
Then why is everybody all excited about two picks who, if history has any say, won't help us start a franchise? Two picks that teams routinely buy on draft night?


You have to underatnd that there are 3 ways to acquire those players: draft, free agency, trades. So don't get caught up in that if we dont draft top 5, we are screwed. If we gather alot of assets from those draft picks and we sign good quality players with the newly available cap space, we can still trade for that "franchise" player. We can even build a good quality team w/o that "franchise" player. When the time comes for maybe signing that franchise player, they can go "look at how good the bobcats were w/o somebody of my caliber, imagine what they can be with me." And dont give me that "No franchise player will sign here" cuz we never had a quality team with a low enough payroll to sign that kind of player.
I always loved the "Don't give me..." preemptive rebuttal to an argument. If you have to say that, then it means your argument isn't very sound to begin with.

How many teams traded for their (or one of) franchise player? 4. Boston (Garnett/Allen), Houston (Martin), Charlotte (Jack), and Cleveland (Jamison).



How many teams signed their (or one of) franchise player? 4. Miami (LeBron, Bosh), Atlanta (Johnson), New York (Amare), and Phoenix (Nash...the second time).



How many teams drafted their (or one of franchise player)? 26. Yep. 26.


San Antonio
Boston
Miami
Dallas
Chicago
Lakers
Oklahoma City
Orlando
New Orleans
Portland
Denver
Memphis
Utah
Phoenix (Nash...the first time)
Philadelphia
Indiana
Golden State
Charlotte
Milwaukee
Detroit
Clippers
New Jersey
Toronto
Washington
Sacramento
Minnesota



So you're right. It's possible to sign or trade a franchise player. Since it's happened to 8 teams. Let's just forget that 26/30 teams drafted their franchise player

[Marvel]

First of all we're the Charlotte Bobcats. Our drafting history..... look at it. All the "steals" of the 2nd round (listed)didn't come from our genius eye for talent did it. So that list has no value in any argument in our ability to draft a star player in the 2nd round.

Franchise player > Key Cog players.

[CatNation]

Lakers havent drafted a franchise player in decades..

[Dcarnys]

Drafting you're so called "franchise player" in my opinion is pure luck. In our case what if Okafor or Morrison had lived up to their expectations?? It's almost impossible to tell how these things will go before the fact.

[SWedd523]

Drafting you're so called "franchise player" in my opinion is pure luck. In our case what if Okafor or Morrison had lived up to their expectations?? It's almost impossible to tell how these things will go before the fact.
Of course it is. But, if you look above, you'll see how much more common it is to land a franchise player in the draft. So while it may be a crapshoot, it's still WAY more likely to do it that way as opposed to waiting for a trade or signing opportunity. Just because you fail doesn't mean you stop trying. Though with Ammo and May it had a lot to do with bad motives/scouting as well as luck for them to be busts. May had been injured for awhile in college and had conditioning problems but we went with him anyway, and we went with Ammo for the marketing as much as not wanting to take Roy (attitude) and Gay (rawness).


You only have to hit one home run in the lottery and you're set for years. (New Orleans, Utah, Cleveland, etc.) If you hit twice (OKC) and you have a sensational future.

[Pepperz]

Of the top 5? Four of them. Of the top 10? Eight. So I'm not really getting your point.....


Then why is everybody all excited about two picks who, if history has any say, won't help us start a franchise? Two picks that teams routinely buy on draft night?


I always loved the "Don't give me..." preemptive rebuttal to an argument. If you have to say that, then it means your argument isn't very sound to begin with.

How many teams traded for their (or one of) franchise player? 4. Boston (Garnett/Allen), Houston (Martin), Charlotte (Jack), and Cleveland (Jamison).



How many teams signed their (or one of) franchise player? 4. Miami (LeBron, Bosh), Atlanta (Johnson), New York (Amare), and Phoenix (Nash...the second time).



How many teams drafted their (or one of franchise player)? 26. Yep. 26.


San Antonio
Boston
Miami
Dallas
Chicago
Lakers
Oklahoma City
Orlando
New Orleans
Portland
Denver
Memphis
Utah
Phoenix (Nash...the first time)
Philadelphia
Indiana
Golden State
Charlotte
Milwaukee
Detroit
Clippers
New Jersey
Toronto
Washington
Sacramento
Minnesota



So you're right. It's possible to sign or trade a franchise player. Since it's happened to 8 teams. Let's just forget that 26/30 teams drafted their franchise player

You want to recheck your history on NBA draftees. 3 of the top 5 got their on those teams either with trades or free agency. (Hint: 2, 3, 4) and 5 of the top 10 got their franchise players either with trades or free agency. (Hint:6, 8 ). I know if you look at the bottom 10 teams you will see that they acquired their "Franchise" players in draft more so then the top 10 teams. Does that mean that drafting is the ONLY way to go when it comes to getting your player? No. Does it help? Yes. You have to stop looking at the draft as the be all end all of Basketball greatest with teams. There are different ways of getting that player but we first need to start getting quality assets rather it be drafting, free agency, or trading.

Nobody is running wild like we just won the lottery because we got 2 extra draft picks. But its better then having no extra draft picks and waiting till someone like GW loses value and trade him off for a bag of peanuts cuz one day his body will catch up to him. Its a asset in which we have an extra shot at drafting maybe not the "Franchise" player you are so begging to have but a good quality guy that can contribute to this team and maybe one day help us get that "Franchise" player.

The reason why I said "Dont give me..." cuz all you are going to say is "It never happen in the history of Charlotte basketball so it never will." which I find the most retarded statement. Just because it has not happen yet doesn't meant it never will. Of course it will be easier for New York and LA but that doesn't mean we should never give a shot at one of these "Franchise" players.

[SWedd523]

LOL


(2) Boston drafted Paul Pierce #10 overall in 1998--------------they added KG and Ray later (which I stated it my post, so you should read)
(3) Miami drafted Dwayne Wade #5 overall in 2003-------------they added LeBron and Bosh later (which I stated in my post, so you should read)

and

(4) Milwaukee drafted Dirk FOR Dallas in a prearranged draft deal that sent Robert Traylor to Milwaukee

Looks like my history is pretty spot on, bro!




p.s. didn't read the rest of your post since your first two sentences are so terribly wrong.

[Marvel]

You want to recheck your history on NBA draftees. 3 of the top 5 got their on those teams either with trades or free agency. (Hint: 2, 3, 4) and 5 of the top 10 got their franchise players either with trades or free agency. (Hint:6, 8 ). I know if you look at the bottom 10 teams you will see that they acquired their "Franchise" players in draft more so then the top 10 teams. Does that mean that drafting is the ONLY way to go when it comes to getting your player? No. Does it help? Yes. You have to stop looking at the draft as the be all end all of Basketball greatest with teams. There are different ways of getting that player but we first need to start getting quality assets rather it be drafting, free agency, or trading.

Nobody is running wild like we just won the lottery because we got 2 extra draft picks. But its better then having no extra draft picks and waiting till someone like GW loses value and trade him off for a bag of peanuts cuz one day his body will catch up to him. Its a asset in which we have an extra shot at drafting maybe not the "Franchise" player you are so begging to have but a good quality guy that can contribute to this team and maybe one day help us get that "Franchise" player.

The reason why I said "Dont give me..." cuz all you are going to say is "It never happen in the history of Charlotte basketball so it never will." which I find the most retarded statement. Just because it has not happen yet doesn't meant it never will. Of course it will be easier for New York and LA but that doesn't mean we should never give a shot at one of these "Franchise" players.

And when we have the pieces to make a blockbuster trade that lands us a superstar like KG, Melo, Ray get back to me.

[Pepperz]

LOL


(2) Boston drafted Paul Pierce #10 overall in 1998--------------they added KG and Ray later (which I stated it my post, so you should read)
(3) Miami drafted Dwayne Wade #5 overall in 2003-------------they added LeBron and Bosh later (which I stated in my post, so you should read)

and

(4) Milwaukee drafted Dirk FOR Dallas in a prearranged draft deal that sent Robert Traylor to Milwaukee

Looks like my history is pretty spot on, bro!




p.s. didn't read the rest of your post since your first two sentences are so terribly wrong.

Pierce won the title and carried the team the whole time by himself. You must have forgotten that they sucked for years, acquiring assets so they can make the trade for KG and Ray.

Wade was right on the verge of winning that title by himself too. Right? They cleared cap space so they can signed those players.

OMG, Dallas had an asset that Milwaukee wanted and they traded it away. That cant be. Or did Milwaukee said "Hey Dallas, we dont want this draft pick and I know you are in so much in need of Dirk. Take him with our pick."

You are stuck in this we MUST SUCK in order to get that franchise player and I find that BS. You are just a negative Nancy that cries and cries about every damn thing. There are other ways of getting that championship caliber team then just sucking on purpose and hoping we land that 1st pick in a talented draft and wishing no major injure comes to this player. Its not just about the draft, which helps alot, but its also about free agency and trading. They are just as important and that is not what you are getting. You expect ever team must live and die by the draft.

Marvel, Would next week be best for you? or are you going to allow the team time to acquire those assets first?

[SWedd523]

LOL I'm not even going to address your post if the best you can do is, "Blah, blah! you're wrong because I said so! Blah, cuss blah!"



Come back when you have some substance

[teej]

When did I ever say keep building with Crash? LOL. I've been on the blow it up bandwagon since LB was fired. Gerald Wallace and the rest of those players you listed are fine, yeah, yippe, wahoo, but not a single one of them are players you build. a. franchise. with. Absolutely ZERO. I'm not going to sit here and argue math with a person who thinks any of those players you listed are capable franchise starters.

So I don't know about you, but it sure as hell looks like you want a lottery (or more importantly a top 5) pick vs one outside the lottery.

No shit, Sherlock. I know none of them are franchise players, and I know for damn sure the #1 pick is better than #5, #5 is better than #10, and so forth. You're missing my point.

"Oh My God, MJ just traded Gerald Wallace for two late round picks! What was he thinking?"

Except for "Oh, shit, there's a higher likelihood we get better with THESE EXACT PICKS than anything like trading Gana with Crash." By the time any of these picks develops, Gana will be off the books. And what does it really matter that he's still here anyways? We're not signing a Max FA anyways, considering there aren't any until 2012. The new CBA will make it much harder to be under the cap, which means teams like LAL, Boston, SAS, Orlando, etc. will be forced to give away assets to get under the new hard cap. If you have a late first, Rod is absolutely right, you can land someone very good with the new CBA. But if you draft instead, you're just as likely to get a better return than trading away Gana's 21 million. We got a backup center for the short term, took a shot on a prospect that may or may not work out, and got two future picks in addition to saving 9.5 million each of the next two years. I'd rather have two picks and a prospect than getting rid of Gana. After the draft this year, depending on the CBA, we could have 5 or 6 guys that have high potential (DJ, Hendo, TT, Dante, DJ2, and two draft picks OR some other asset). The return on this trade was better than it should be, considering if any GM saw Gerald play in person more than 4 times this year, they wouldn't have thought about trading for him.

[SWedd523]

Cap space is more valuable than the #20 pick. I'd figure you'd know that, especially with you talking non-stop about the CBA.

[teej]

Cap space is more valuable than the #20 pick. I'd figure you'd know that, especially with you talking non-stop about the CBA.

Except for, even if Gana's gone, that's a negligible impact on cap. The problem here is none of the bad contracts are on their own stupendously large, it's the combination of Gana's, Carroll's, Diaw's, and to an extent Jack's. Moving one doesn't help.

[SWedd523]

Moving one of them most certainly helps. Getting rid of just one helps the rebuild effort. Getting rid of both him and Hammer moves our rebuild effort up a year.

[teej]

Moving one of them most certainly helps. Getting rid of just one helps the rebuild effort. Getting rid of both him and Hammer moves our rebuild effort up a year.

Or maybe having two overpaid guys on the roster, thus making the team worse, helps get a better pick?

Would it be nice to get rid of them? Sure. But in the current environment, it's not worth it.

[SWedd523]

So one argument for trading Crash is that he's going to have a bad contract when the new CBA rolls around, but that same argument doesn't apply to two non-productive bums who get no PT? Cool. I also don't think they have much (if at all) effect on the game so trading them or not won't affect our record

[teej]

So one argument for trading Crash is that he's going to have a bad contract when the new CBA rolls around, but that same argument doesn't apply to two non-productive bums who get no PT? Cool. I also don't think they have much (if at all) effect on the game so trading them or not won't affect our record

Excuse me, I think I just listed they were bad contracts. The difference between Wallace and the bench bums is he had value around the league. He is going to have a bad contract next year, especially if he plays anywhere near how he's playing tonight. Gana is going to be a terrible contract, as will Carroll. But it'd take ADDING assets to the team that takes one of them, rather than removing assets like we did for Gerald.

[Marvel]

Pierce won the title and carried the team the whole time by himself. You must have forgotten that they sucked for years, acquiring assets so they can make the trade for KG and Ray.

Wade was right on the verge of winning that title by himself too. Right? They cleared cap space so they can signed those players.

OMG, Dallas had an asset that Milwaukee wanted and they traded it away. That cant be. Or did Milwaukee said "Hey Dallas, we dont want this draft pick and I know you are in so much in need of Dirk. Take him with our pick."

You are stuck in this we MUST SUCK in order to get that franchise player and I find that BS. You are just a negative Nancy that cries and cries about every damn thing. There are other ways of getting that championship caliber team then just sucking on purpose and hoping we land that 1st pick in a talented draft and wishing no major injure comes to this player. Its not just about the draft, which helps alot, but its also about free agency and trading. They are just as important and that is not what you are getting. You expect ever team must live and die by the draft.

Marvel, Would next week be best for you? or are you going to allow the team time to acquire those assets first?

Assets.....assets, we've given away our assets for a future that hinders on maybes and hope, bad contracts and mediocre role players....oh and cap space, of which i'm not against, but the assets we have had, MJ bent over and gave his trading partners free admission to his ass- ets.

[BRNC]

We doubled the money coming off the books with these trades...that's a start...we picked yp two first round picks we can bundle with our own first rounders...that's a start...now we have to find out if we can actually draft...that's kinda frightening...

[Absinthe]

If you look at the emerging NBA teams they got that way by acquiring picks and/or freeing up cap space. Miami, for example, cleaned house and was able to sign three big free agents. Seattle was a terrible team for years, moved to Oklahoma and drafted players like Ibaka, Durant, Westbrook, Harden, etc. Portland went from the Jailblazers to drafting Aldridge, Roy, Fernandez, etc. Boston was terrible for years, freed up cap space and traded for Allen and Garnett. San Antonio is where they are today because of drafting Duncan, Parker, George Hill, Ginobili, etc.

In that case, Barkley is 100% right. I don't agree with the philosophy of fighting for a bottom seed in the playoffs, only to lose in the first round, keep yourself from getting a high draft pick, and paying for talent that will never advance your team past the first round. This team already has a nice, young core. Augustine, Henderson, and Tyrus Thomas is a good start. So now you have to go out and get a legitimate super star either through trading or signing one in free agency.

[BobCatsFanInTx]

http://www.nba.com/2011/news/features/shaun_powell/02/25/trade-winners-losers/index.html?ls=iref:nbahpt1

EVERYBODY NEEDS TO WATCH THIS, about half way down the page there is a video, next to the title that says mad men. You have to watch this, very interesting discussion about GW and the trade and if MJ did the right thing. Its the video in the middle of the other two.Three words...Oklahoma City Thunder!!