"Go for the Playoffs? Playoffs?!" or "Patience is a Virtue"

[QC Thundercats]

This post is actually in response to that long “Don’t throw in the towel” thread. It just got so heavy winded in there with unsubstantiated claims, circular logic, and misapplied comprehension, that I wanted to make a fresh start and hopefully create a more sophisticated (too much to ask for?), level headed debate on the subject.

First, a point I made that got completely lost in the inanity:


I think some people are looking at this question the wrong way. It isn't whether we should tank or not, or whether we hope for the team to be successful next year and shoot for the playoffs.

As a basketball fan, the ultimate goal is to win a championship. Short of that, you at least want to be in the discussion, to have a legitimate chance at a championship. And as fans of this team, of course this is what all of us want.

But to get there, the process is more a game of chess, not checkers. If you're too eager to try to win as quick as possible, you may experience early success in taking more pieces and having a lead in the game. But the true chess masters know that precise planning and positioning is whats going to win in the end. So what if they sacrifice a rook or bishop along the way. At the end, the player who was in win-now mode and couldn't exhibit the requisite patience will be stuck and won't have any more good moves to take. But the master, who prepared for the moment and was able to set up the board precisely how he planned, will swoop in and capitalize on all his prior calculations for the checkmate.

Overeager teams like the Knicks continuously blew their load trying to win too quick. The Magic had their star, then lost patience in building a contender by going after all the high priced free agents, and never made the finals again. The Hawks are the definition of mediocrity because they decided their best move was with Joe Johnson, and didn't take advantage of other situations that were given to them (Chris Paul). This is also why I feel the Nets are destined to lose.

The Thunder and Spurs are always cited as the chessmasters, but the Bulls also built the right way. Once they got their star, they smartly put in pieces around him so that, until Rose's injury, they were in the discussion as a championship contender and had the best record in the league.

So of course we want to watch a competitive team next year, but we should also understand its not time to go for the checkmate yet. Plus, most professional coaches and players are too competitive to tank, so we shouldn't have to worry about that when we watch the games. That strategy comes from the front office in who they sign for competitive balance, and how they manage cap space for when its time to make a move.

If the chess analogy somehow wasn't clear, here are some others to maybe help get the picture.

1) You finally have the nerve to ask out the girl of your dreams. You’re so over eager to see her nekkid body that you go out and spend a ton of money on a new suit, reserve a seat at an expensive 5 star restaurant, and rent a Ferrari, all so that you can impress her and score on the first date. I mean, why not go for it, right?

First, you’ve set yourself up for failure by setting an unrealistic image that you can’t keep up. But maybe the evening still goes well. At the end, you’re both drunk, and when you get her to your room, you get right to it. You’re feeling so good, experiencing the ultimate pleasure with your dream girl, that you get lost in the moment, and before you know it, you’ve busted in under a minute.

So yeah, you scored. But she ends up so disappointed in your performance that she leaves right away, and doesn’t want to have anything to do with you again.

The smart way would’ve been to be patient and plan your moves for the big picture. Instead of trying to be fancy and impress her with money, you actually got to know her and learned she likes simple picnics instead of fancy dinners, she loves walking on the beach instead of riding in cars, and hates feeling stuffy in expensive clothes.

You have a good first date, and although of course you’d like to get intimate, you don’t need to rush it. You build that trust and compassion over a few dates, and you’re able to set the mood perfectly on the big night. Then when you get into it, you don’t need to jackrabbit and get one off quick, you make sure she gets hers before you get yours.

The result of the long term view? The girl of your dreams is now in love with you, and you won’t have just that one victory to hold onto, but a lifetime of wins any time you want.

2) Lets go back to the turn of the century. You have a bunch of cash you want to invest in the market. The dot.com era is booming, and you can’t wait to get in on the big money, so you invest everything you’ve got into these companies. Things start looking great, you’re getting incredible returns, then one day, BOOM! The bubble bursts. Thousands and thousands of people lost a ton of money because of their overzealousness, without truly looking at what they were getting into, and now you’re completely broke right along with them.

On the other hand, the smart investor took a look at what Apple was doing. They didn’t have much market share, but their computers were very solid. They continued to churn out well made products that revolutionized the music industry and the phone industry, and these peripherals were flying off the shelves. The smart investor jumped in on Apple even though the computer numbers weren’t great yet. The smart investor who had a long term vision and took the time to examine the business models of these companies was able to capitalize with his planning and research, and instead of fizzling out with the dot.com busts, he’s a multi millionaire with tons of stock options, and can throw some change to Mr. Impatient on the street corner who's stuck there because he didn't have time to wait.

3) Simpler example – you’re running in a race for $100,000. You start off on fire, sprinting out in front of everyone by 50 feet or so. As you’re approaching the finish line, you can see the money, almost feel it in your hands, imagining how you’ll spend it when you win. Except you spent all your energy at the start of the race. Yeah, you looked good to all the girls who watched the beginning of the race, but when it came down to it, you had no energy left to hold everyone off. In fact, you were so spent that a second and third person passed you, so you didn’t even collect consolation winnings.

The person who won? He hung out in the middle of the pack, surveyed the competition, and knew exactly how far back from the front he could stay and how much energy he needed to expend to keep up with the leaders. By being steady, he had a huge energy reserve, and when he hit the home stretch, he was able to hit a higher gear than anyone left and cruised to the victory.


There are tons more analogies I can make that show how being patient and not peaking too early will actually get you to where you want to go more effectively and efficiently. Don’t try to get rich quick, there are thousands of more failures than that one success who’s selling you his "Get Rich Quick" book.

And before any counter arguments, yes I know this isn’t the only way. This model does not work for the Lakers, the Celtics, or the Heat. The more efficient model for them is to make a big free agent signing, as the allure of the city and/or environment will convince a star to pick them over a team in frozen Milwaukee, or gray and depressed Cleveland. They can quickly reload through trades and signings. The Lakers can get Dwight Howard and Steve Nash for another championship run. I’m sure the Raptors would have loved to get in on that, or the Rockets or Jazz, but they both are refusing to sign or are unwilling to be traded to these places.

So yes, you can technically get better both ways, but to sustain success, you need to think long term, and make moves to make a solid foundation, instead of trying to make a big splash and fizzling out early.

[cltblkhscoach]

You get thanks for just ending that mess over there and restarting a hopefully logical discussion about this, lol. But I agree 100% like I'm sure most of us do here about the slow and steady approach.

[dnbman]

And before any counter arguments, yes I know this isn’t the only way. This model does not work for the Lakers, the Celtics, or the Heat. The more efficient model for them is to make a big free agent signing, as the allure of the city and/or environment will convince a star to pick them over a team in frozen Milwaukee, or gray and depressed Cleveland. They can quickly reload through trades and signings. The Lakers can get Dwight Howard and Steve Nash for another championship run. I’m sure the Raptors would have loved to get in on that, or the Rockets or Jazz, but they both are refusing to sign or are unwilling to be traded to these places.

I just want to add what I posted in the other thread: even the high destination teams of the last 30 years had a significant first round pick on their team to win a championship. (Bird, Magic, Jordan, Olajuwon, Robinson, Duncan, Bryant, Wade) Rarely do teams just sign a bunch of guys unless there's already something going there. It seems like the Knicks and the Lakers are the only teams that can really sign a bunch of superstar free agents now with nothing but legacy and promise now, and the Knicks haven't been able to do it successfully in the last 30 years.

Drafting stars is critical, no matter the model. The only team to win a championship in the last 30 years that didn't do that was Larry Brown's Pistons, which were a special case of several disgruntled guys who got together and played as an amazing team.

I'll also add that I'd be happy with the Dallas model: you're almost always competitive for a championship, but you only win one or none. That's a lot better to me than using all of your resources too soon and being stuck in the middle.

Championships aren't easy, but there are much more effective ways to get there than others.


So yes, you can technically get better both ways, but to sustain success, you need to think long term, and make moves to make a solid foundation, instead of trying to make a big splash and fizzling out early.

Yeah, that. (And I don't think any of the HTML tags do anything except bold, italics, underline, and quote.)

[DashGlobal]

Tank or position yourself for a top 5 pick until you get a superstar.

Simple as that.

[BlockParty]

Ideal season...not tanking, but losing 50+ games by 5 points are less, finishing in lower 5 of the league, but building unity-I think there is a thread on that :) (and memories of what it feels like to lose...as a team, to be used in the future as added motivation).

Selected Michael Jordan Quotes


I've missed more than 9000 shots in my career. I've lost almost 300 games. 26 times, I've been trusted to take the game winning shot and missed. I've failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed.


Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it.



If you're trying to achieve, there will be roadblocks. I've had them; everybody has had them. But obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it.



Some people want it to happen, some wish it would happen, others make it happen.



I can accept failure, everyone fails at something. But I can't accept not trying.

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/michaeljor167379.html#GgFKbkwmApTzX3Sp.99

[Charlotteisthebest]

1 winning season in franchise history, a franchise that is losing millions of dollars, and has a tiny fan base, if there ever was a time to start winning its now, winning is contagious, but apparently losing is as well that is why so many of you are so eager to go ahead and chalk up the L's already, go for the gold baby!

Give it to the all star break, if we suck then go ahead and tank and just hope we don't wind up with Greg Oden 2.0! ;)

Go Bobcats!!!!

[dnbman]

1 winning season in franchise history, a franchise that is losing millions of dollars, and has a tiny fan base, if there ever was a time to start winning its now, winning is contagious, but apparently losing is as well that is why so many of you are so eager to go ahead and chalk up the L's already, go for the gold baby!

Give it to the all star break, if we suck then go ahead and tank and just hope we don't wind up with Greg Oden 2.0! ;)

Go Bobcats!!!!

I'm not really sure I see your vision on this. What do think the real difference will be in how we play with in trying for the playoffs versus how we will play just trying to develop talent?

The only real difference in play is that you might let the youngsters play more than the more experienced, and presumably effective, vets play. However, our entire team is young, especially our most talented players. Surely, you don't think Sessions, Gordon, and Haywood are going to deliver us a playoff run, do you?

The biggest confusion of this whole discussion is the concept of "tank." We will not be doing the type of tanking where you had an underwhelming season, so you sit your starters for the last few weeks to try and move up the draft board. The way we "tanked" last year was getting rid of as many bad contracts and veterans as we could to acquire youth and draft picks for the future. Those are two totally different versions of "tank." I have no doubt that our youngsters will go out there and try and win every game, and the coaches, the FO, and all people here will congratulate them. However, we're not making moves to sacrifice our long term future to make a better run at the playoffs now. So, given our roster and our youth, we are more than likely looking at a losing season, which will benefit us in the long run.

To put it another way, I doubt you ever see Dunlap pulling guys or making poor play decisions in the final minutes of games so that we intentionally lose. Won't happen. (Maybe in the last week or so if it matters, but I still doubt it.)

[Adam42R]

I'm not really sure I see your vision on this. What do think the real difference will be in how we play with in trying for the playoffs versus how we will play just trying to develop talent?

The only real difference in play is that you might let the youngsters play more than the more experienced, and presumably effective, vets play. However, our entire team is young, especially our most talented players. Surely, you don't think Sessions, Gordon, and Haywood are going to deliver us a playoff run, do you?

The biggest confusion of this whole discussion is the concept of "tank." We will not be doing the type of tanking where you had an underwhelming season, so you sit your starters for the last few weeks to try and move up the draft board. The way we "tanked" last year was getting rid of as many bad contracts and veterans as we could to acquire youth and draft picks for the future. Those are two totally different versions of "tank." I have no doubt that our youngsters will go out there and try and win every game, and the coaches, the FO, and all people here will congratulate them. However, we're not making moves to sacrifice our long term future to make a better run at the playoffs now. So, given our roster and our youth, we are more than likely looking at a losing season, which will benefit us in the long run.

To put it another way, I doubt you ever see Dunlap pulling guys or making poor play decisions in the final minutes of games so that we intentionally lose. Won't happen. (Maybe in the last week or so if it matters, but I still doubt it.)

This is my belief as well. And this stands in mark contrast to the few folks that I have seen repeatedly posting thoughts along the lines of ".... so if we aren't going to win a championship, we [need to, might as well, aught to, should] tank."

There is too fragile of a fan base here to not appear to be going all out. Losing because of inexperience won't hurt us here (support-wise), losing because of lack of effort will however IMO.

[MadBOBCATfanUK]

This season is one of those seasons where a lot of teams have improved and only a few have really regressed, well only Houston tbh. For me this season is going to be tighter top to bottom and I think theres a good chance of turning in a decent win total aswell as ending up with a high lottery pick.

[QC Thundercats]

...if there ever was a time to start winning its now, winning is contagious, but apparently losing is as well that is why so many of you are so eager to go ahead and chalk up the L's already, go for the gold baby!



This is my belief as well. And this stands in mark contrast to the few folks that I have seen repeatedly posting thoughts along the lines of ".... so if we aren't going to win a championship, we [need to, might as well, aught to, should] tank."

See, these quotes show that there is still a misunderstanding or miscomprehension of what is actually being debated.

Nobody is saying "just lose, baby," or "put in Diop, he's good for the lolz!!!" What we're trying to say is, we want to win really bad too, but there are certain steps to take that can maximize the winning culture. Trying to take shortcuts may work a small percentage of the time, but more often than not can cause a bigger setback than if you had stayed the course.

And the word "tank" is like the super catchphrase being thrown around to try to ignore or discredit someone's point. To clarify/simplify/explain the position of being patient:


Wanting to see our young guys develop through playing time does not = tanking
Wanting to preserve cap space for a future impact signing when we're ready does not = tanking
Not wanting to sign decent mid-tier free agents who would take away said playing time and/or cap space does not = tanking
Hoping to have a decade long run in the top 4 of the Eastern Conference, even if it takes 2-3 years of patient building to get there, does not = tanking
Not wanting to get caught in the mediocrity cycle of being just in/just out of the playoffs every year does not = tanking

As to this last point, Milwaukee, Houston, Philadelphia, Toronto, Utah are some teams that have been caught in this mediocre hamster wheel. Yes, its exciting to make a playoff run, but continuously getting knocked out of the playoffs in the first round or just barely missing it altogether starts to get old, and these teams don't appear to have the resources or positioning to break out of it. Then the next step is to blow the team up and start over from scratch.

Thats why Houston is acting desperately now, losing their top 2 point guards and bench depth to acquire extra draft picks, hoping to trade up to a top 5 pick. After failing in that endeavor, they were looking to trade just about their entire roster to get Dwight Howard for just 1 season. Jettisoning a few of their high priced players might have been a wiser move a couple seasons ago in order to have cap space and or higher draft picks to have an impact. Then maybe with exciting young talent, the Rockets would have been seen as a destination for an impact player.

[Whiz Kid]

See, these quotes show that there is still a misunderstanding or miscomprehension of what is actually being debated.

Nobody is saying "just lose, baby," or "put in Diop, he's good for the lolz!!!" What we're trying to say is, we want to win really bad too, but there are certain steps to take that can maximize the winning culture. Trying to take shortcuts may work a small percentage of the time, but more often than not can cause a bigger setback than if you had stayed the course.

And the word "tank" is like the super catchphrase being thrown around to try to ignore or discredit someone's point. To clarify/simplify/explain the position of being patient:


Wanting to see our young guys develop through playing time does not = tanking
Wanting to preserve cap space for a future impact signing when we're ready does not = tanking
Not wanting to sign decent mid-tier free agents who would take away said playing time and/or cap space does not = tanking
Hoping to have a decade long run in the top 4 of the Eastern Conference, even if it takes 2-3 years of patient building to get there, does not = tanking
Not wanting to get caught in the mediocrity cycle of being just in/just out of the playoffs every year does not = tanking

As to this last point, Milwaukee, Houston, Philadelphia, Toronto, Utah are some teams that have been caught in this mediocre hamster wheel. Yes, its exciting to make a playoff run, but continuously getting knocked out of the playoffs in the first round or just barely missing it altogether starts to get old, and these teams don't appear to have the resources or positioning to break out of it. Then the next step is to blow the team up and start over from scratch.

Thats why Houston is acting desperately now, losing their top 2 point guards and bench depth to acquire extra draft picks, hoping to trade up to a top 5 pick. After failing in that endeavor, they were looking to trade just about their entire roster to get Dwight Howard for just 1 season. Jettisoning a few of their high priced players might have been a wiser move a couple seasons ago in order to have cap space and or higher draft picks to have an impact. Then maybe with exciting young talent, the Rockets would have been seen as a destination for an impact player.

This is probably the clearest it has been said. The people like me, who are saying that we shouldn't be worrying about the playoffs, are hoping for maximum rebuild. We are hoping to of course see improvement but we still want to be top 5 to gain another high draft pick in this process. You can't expect to contend overnight.

[gm in training]

k im a true sports fan and im very realistic . the idea of tanking multiple seasons isn't logical and not beneficial . there so many variables that can make tanking an horrible mistake.there is a huge difference from rebuilding and tanking. its like an old building that needs to be knocked down to rebuild a new one and everyone understands the process and why, tanking is the idea of letting the building become dilapidated with the inhabits unaware of the situation and are heavily effected. nothing good comes from losing except the consolation of a lottery pick because in retrospect managment got fired, you lost fan support,players are traded or cut,respect ,and most important millions of dollars.the only time teams actually tank is at the half-way mark when they notice their not making the playoffs ,and trade their best assets, but not from the jump.

now if we make the playoffs at 7-8,there is so much good that comes from that. as for the past 2 decades teams of late,evaluate and mold their team after playoff losses. especially in our case we have young players and they well only get better ,so if we made the playoffs with a majority young core,why isn't that positive news to feed off for next year. mutiple lotteries doesn't result in success or superstars for teams in this new era , also if a player leaves the team and become successful thats still is considered a bust for the originally team who drafted them but here's my case in point;

parentheses are draft bust or ok lottery picks not(all/superstars)

the clippers(d-miles,kandi-man,livingston,chris wilcox)got lucky with griffin and started to surround him with all-star talent(butler/paul via fa).

bulls(tyrus,t-chandlers,fizer,e-curry,jay-will)got lucky with rose ,drafted two good players in deng and noah ,and later signed boozer in the failed attempt to create a super team(wade/lebron)

cavs(diop,d-wagner,luke jackson,c-mihm)got lucky with lebron(he alone gave them 50 wins) but still are attempting to salvage franchise with kyrie.

grizzlies(mayo,xavier henry,drew gooden,a-daniels,stromile,b-reeves,thabeet,battier) traded for gasol and randolph to create a playoff team.gay is a good player but has been in recent trade rumors due to not fitting well with team.

kings(spencer hawes,j-thompson,tyreke game has degress in the last 3 years) still in a ditch

knicks(sweetney,frye,jordan hill,) they tried making super teams in past and present but failed

blazers(roy because his injury mad him a non-factor,odgen,martell webster)but they still have aldridge to build around

celtics (best draft picks where all there mid-round drafts picks,not to mention they went the big 3 route after countless years)created big 3 around pierce via sign and trade for a championship

thunder created big 3 and ibaka through great drafts and formed a championship contender

washington (kwame brown, jered jeffries,jarvis hayes) attempted their own big 3 with arenas,butler and jamison for short-lived success but at this moment are irrelavant

spurs created their big 3 through great drafting and making minors acquisitions throughout the years for their championships.

dallas(etan thomas,traded for devin harris) super lucked out with dirk for traylor trade. spent last 13 years building around dirk via trades and free agency ,and was a championship contender before winning title.

pacers(paul george only lottery in last decade) the pacers built their core team through the draft with mid selections and its funny because they stuck with their core unit for about 3 years and never tanked or started the rebuilding stage. they stuck with their draft picks till they made the playoffs,even though they made some additions like west and collison(both weren't as effective though)and became an eastern contender.

rockets(no lottery picks but they did trade gay for battier) drafted a few useless mid rounders and try to build around kevin martin but lets face it yao ming set them back like 10 years.

basically i dont have the patience to break every team down but the point is to tank or to think multiple lottery's equal success isn't really true only a few teams actually built contenders or championships through the lottery(thunder,spurs,and maybe pacers). there are maybe 10 superstars in the lg and some teams have more than one,and the nba has 30 teams so, in the past decade there has been maybe 10 superstars and ya want to tank the season going out on a limb?the teams who have made a few lottery picks in a row never capitalized of their picks . shabazz and noel isn't even guaranteed stars. xavier henry ,lance stephenson, mullens,auston rivers, jeremy tyler,josh shelby and etc lead each of their h.s. classes and wasn't even lottery or some didn't even make the 1st round so lets be realistic.

go for playoffs. and if your going to challenge my theories please give me some examples ,if you comment and don't then your point isn't proven or logical.

damn im good

[Whiz Kid]

k im a true sports fan and im very realistic . the idea of tanking multiple seasons isn't logical and not beneficial . there so many variables that can make tanking an horrible mistake.there is a huge difference from rebuilding and tanking. its like an old building that needs to be knocked down to rebuild a new one and everyone understands the process and why, tanking is the idea of letting the building become dilapidated with the inhabits unaware of the situation and are heavily effected. nothing good comes from losing except the consolation of a lottery pick because in retrospect managment got fired, you lost fan support,players are traded or cut,respect ,and most important millions of dollars.the only time teams actually tank is at the half-way mark when they notice their not making the playoffs ,and trade their best assets, but not from the jump.

now if we make the playoffs at 7-8,there is so much good that comes from that. as for the past 2 decades teams of late,evaluate and mold their team after playoff losses. especially in our case we have young players and they well only get better ,so if we made the playoffs with a majority young core,why isn't that positive news to feed off for next year. mutiple lotteries doesn't result in success or superstars for teams in this new era , also if a player leaves the team and become successful thats still is considered a bust for the originally team who drafted them but here's my case in point;

parentheses are draft bust or ok lottery picks not(all/superstars)

the clippers(d-miles,kandi-man,livingston,chris wilcox)got lucky with griffin and started to surround him with all-star talent(butler/paul via fa).

bulls(tyrus,t-chandlers,fizer,e-curry,jay-will)got lucky with rose ,drafted two good players in deng and noah ,and later signed boozer in the failed attempt to create a super team(wade/lebron)

cavs(diop,d-wagner,luke jackson,c-mihm)got lucky with lebron(he alone gave them 50 wins) but still are attempting to salvage franchise with kyrie.

grizzlies(mayo,xavier henry,drew gooden,a-daniels,stromile,b-reeves,thabeet,battier) traded for gasol and randolph to create a playoff team.gay is a good player but has been in recent trade rumors due to not fitting well with team.

kings(spencer hawes,j-thompson,tyreke game has degress in the last 3 years) still in a ditch

knicks(sweetney,frye,jordan hill,) they tried making super teams in past and present but failed

blazers(roy because his injury mad him a non-factor,odgen,martell webster)but they still have aldridge to build around

celtics (best draft picks where all there mid-round drafts picks,not to mention they went the big 3 route after countless years)created big 3 around pierce via sign and trade for a championship

thunder created big 3 and ibaka through great drafts and formed a championship contender

washington (kwame brown, jered jeffries,jarvis hayes) attempted their own big 3 with arenas,butler and jamison for short-lived success but at this moment are irrelavant

spurs created their big 3 through great drafting and making minors acquisitions throughout the years for their championships.

dallas(etan thomas,traded for devin harris) super lucked out with dirk for traylor trade. spent last 13 years building around dirk via trades and free agency ,and was a championship contender before winning title.

pacers(paul george only lottery in last decade) the pacers built their core team through the draft with mid selections and its funny because they stuck with their core unit for about 3 years and never tanked or started the rebuilding stage. they stuck with their draft picks till they made the playoffs,even though they made some additions like west and collison(both weren't as effective though)and became an eastern contender.

rockets(no lottery picks but they did trade gay for battier) drafted a few useless mid rounders and try to build around kevin martin but lets face it yao ming set them back like 10 years.

basically i dont have the patience to break every team down but the point is to tank or to think multiple lottery's equal success isn't really true only a few teams actually built contenders or championships through the lottery(thunder,spurs,and maybe pacers). the teams who have made a few lottery picks in a row never capitalized of their picks . shabazz and noel isn't even guaranteed stars. xavier henry ,lance stephenson, mullens,auston rivers, jeremy tyler,josh shelby and etc lead each of their h.s. classes and wasn't even lottery or some didn't even make the 1st round so lets be realistic.

go for playoffs. and if your going to challenge my theories please give me some examples ,if you comment and don't then your point isn't proven or logical.

damn im good

Realistically, we are still a bottom 5-8ish team in the NBA. That's why some here are already looking towards next years draft and next years free agency. We are a improved team from last year, that doesn't mean we are a playoff teams. We are a 20 win team, give or take a few either way.

[gm in training]

Realistically, we are still a bottom 5-8ish team in the NBA. That's why some here are already looking towards next years draft and next years free agency. We are a improved team from last year, that doesn't mean we are a playoff teams. We are a 20 win team, give or take a few either way.

thats not what people are posting. ppl are posting even if we make the playoffs its bad because we lose out on a potential great draft, which in sports isn't realistic

[Whiz Kid]

thats not what people are posting. ppl are posting even if we make the playoffs its bad because we lose out on a potential great draft, which in sports isn't realistic

Because at this point we need to be focusing on bringing in and developing talent. Not jumping the gun and already talking about the playoffs directly after we are technically the worse team in NBA History. Acquire, develop, and mold talent, then we can talk about contending.

[gm in training]

Because at this point we need to be focusing on bringing in and developing talent. Not jumping the gun and already talking about the playoffs directly after we are technically the worse team in NBA History. Acquire, develop, and mold talent, then we can talk about contending.

we have 4 lottery players in the past 4 years why does drafting more lottery picks make since when we haven't developed the one's we already have or shown any patience with .that was a HUGE contradiction on your part.

[Whiz Kid]

we have 4 lottery players in the past 3 years why does drafting more lottery picks make since when we haven't developed the one's we already have or shown any patience with .that was a HUGE contradiction on your part.

That's why i said "Acquire, DEVELOP, and mold talent."

Is there a problem with the first stage? Acquiring more young talent? Is that against the rules?

We just need to focus on those 3 things at this point: acquiring, developing, and molding talent. Once we get more and more pieces, we start going further and further from there,

[gm in training]

That's why i said "Acquire, DEVELOP, and mold talent."

Is there a problem with the first stage? Acquiring more young talent? Is that against the rules?

We just need to focus on those 3 things at this point: acquiring, developing, and molding talent. Once we get more and more pieces, we start going further and further from there,

lol you need to admit i made more sense because right now ur trying to prove a pointless point. what team successfully drafted 5 lottery picks out of 5 years ,this is to funny.trick question

[Whiz Kid]

lol you need to admit i mad more sense because right now ur trying to prove a pointless point. what team successfully drafted lottery picks 5 years in a row ,this is to funny.trick question

Your point is just stupid, honestly. Why would you be thinking about aiming for the playoffs after being the WORST team in NBA history. That's absurd. That's my point if you haven't noticed. If you see that "pointless point" then I there's nothing more I can say.

[Toocool]

lol you need to admit i mad more sense because right now ur trying to prove a pointless point. what team successfully drafted lottery picks 5 out of 5 years ,this is to funny.trick question

Probably no team has successfully drafted 5/5. But some teams have done a damn good job (Thunder comes to mind). However, we've seen from this draft that MKG and Taylor seem to be great picks. It'll take us another 2-3 years until we can really see how much impact they'll have, but from a visual standpoint both of them will at minimum be great defenders in the NBA.

A young team should always be aquiring assets and developing players. If you draft a better SG than the SG you drafted the year before, awesome. Trade out the last year's SG and play the better SG. It's all about continuing to get better.

Plus, the way Cho is going, I have the feeling if anyone could get 5/5 for drafting, it would be The Cho.

[gm in training]

Probably no team has successfully drafted 5/5. But some teams have done a damn good job (Thunder comes to mind). However, we've seen from this draft that MKG and Taylor seem to be great picks. It'll take us another 2-3 years until we can really see how much impact they'll have, but from a visual standpoint both of them will at minimum be great defenders in the NBA.

A young team should always be aquiring assets and developing players. If you draft a better SG than the SG you drafted the year before, awesome. Trade out the last year's SG and play the better SG. It's all about continuing to get better.

Plus, the way Cho is going, I have the feeling if anyone could get 5/5 for drafting, it would be The Cho.
exactly! my point is that the thunders and spurs may be 6% percent of the lg. so we're suppose to base our system on a 6% percent success rate

[kitch0202]

lol you need to admit i mad more sense because right now ur trying to prove a pointless point. what team successfully drafted lottery picks 5 out of 5 years ,this is to funny.trick question

Sometimes when people get locked into differing sides of an argument they start to read what they want to in the other sides' statements. Nobody on here, of those who advocate not spending big money on free agents at present, is saying that we should be as bad as we can possibly be for a couple/few years as that will guarantee success through drafting high alone. What people like Whiz Kid are saying is that building through the draft is the best way to target sustainable success. If you go the free agency route (or short term, quick fix route) then because of who we are as a team and where we are in terms of market size, the best free agents will not want to come here. So if you're set on doing things the free agent route you either overspend on the best free agents (thus damaging your cap space and limiting your ability to complete your roster outside of one or two players, and that's assume you can get them here in the first place) or you overpay the lesser free agents (which has the effect of the previous example, but with worse players).

What most people on here are advocating is effectively hitting the reset button (which we did when we moved Crash etc.). Let's sign multiple 1st round draft picks (agree that there's no guarantee that any one of them will become a franchise player) and develop them. Let's not commit big money, in the long term, to average free agents so as to preserve our cap space. This way we should develop a young, well balanced squad with depth who are able to compete together, win games together and play together as a team. Once we have achieved this we then target a top tier free agent or two. Now that these top tier guys can see our team is in a good financial state, has a core of good players who have played together, won together and built an identity together we become a far more attractive option.

There is no guarantee that this reset/draft/develop then target a quality free agent or two approach will put us in contention for a championship. But it is the best option for us and other teams who aren't located in big markets to do so. And it is arguably our only option to gain a franchise player, as outside of the teams that draft them, these franchise types tend to look to bigger market teams to build their 'brand'.

One thing I agree with you about is that I hate the term tanking. It has connotations of giving up and not even trying to win. This team will try to win every game next season, but due to the lack of experience we probably won't win more than 25 games. Though in doing so we will have given our young players valuable playing time, have developed a style of play that is second nature to those guys and be ready to add anther one or two high draft picks to continue this process. This is our best, and arguably only, shot at having a truly successful team to support.

To steal Whiz Kids phrase, we need to Acquire/Develop/Mould talent. To continue with the housing analogy you used above, we are building a solid foundation before adding the hot tub and home cinema that will finish the place off. Or if you're more of an interior guy, we're making sure the plastering is smooth before chucking on the fancy wallpaper.

[QC Thundercats]

gmit,

I started this thread so that we'd all have a place to discuss and debate various points on what we think is the best philosophy to build going forward. I respect that you have an opinion on the matter, and I know other people have varying perspectives based on what each of us have observed to be successful in sports and other various areas of life. I will address your points but I did want to address a few things stylistically so that this thread doesn't go back down the same path to nonsense as the other one.

First, I see that you are very self-assured and confident in your opinions. This can be fine, however, you state them so authoritatively, and are so intransigent in your opinion that you can't even fathom the possibility that someone else has a point different than yours that could also be correct. Our thoughts and ideas aren't always mutually exclusive, as both sides can be correct on some points, and there are some truths to what everyone says. Its not a black or white thing, where everything is either all right or all wrong, but rather a ton of gray area where most things actually lie. It's okay to say someone else with a different point of view is right, and it's okay to say you were wrong about some other points. Nobody is 100% right on anything.

Second, I'm not picking on you, but are you typing on a phone? It's hard trying to decipher what you are saying a lot of times because your posts are full of half sentences, run-on sentences, misplaced, extraneous or unnecessary punctuation, bad grammar, and incomplete phrases. I'm sure there is a kernel of a good point hidden somewhere in the giant word salads you put together, but it can be hard to take seriously if your posts lack clarity. Just slow down, take your time to gather your thoughts, and the debates will be much better.

Last, please fully read and comprehend what someone has written before declaring yourself the champion of the world. Reread post #1 and #10 in this thread, as I have in fact explained logically and with examples some things that you seem to have missed or misunderstood. I don't see where you've addressed a single one, or acknowledged that, yes, this kind of ideology is in fact valid and actually works in the real world and in sports.

Now, in trying to address your post:


k im a true sports fan and im very realistic . the idea of tanking multiple seasons isn't logical and not beneficial .
I agree, tanking multiple seasons is a bad idea, and thats not what anyone wants. Nobody wants to go 8-74 next year, or deal with the sports media world crapping on Charlotte again.


there so many variables that can make tanking an horrible mistake.there is a huge difference from rebuilding and tanking.
Again, you're arguing against a straw man. You're trying to argue against something no one is debating, and it deflects from the real point thats being made. Everyone agrees tanking sucks, and if you again read post #10 above, I state why the things that I'm in favor of does not equal tanking. But you do identify a great word - rebuilding. This is what we're doing, and there are various ways to rebuild, some having a better chance of success long term, others being more of a gamble.


its like an old building that needs to be knocked down to rebuild a new one and everyone understands the process and why, tanking is the idea of letting the building become dilapidated with the inhabits unaware of the situation and are heavily effected.
Now I have no idea what you're talking about. It's irrelevant and does not apply, as nobody's hoping for a "dilapidated" team. To "rebuild" you don't let it sit and rot, you may need to demolish the building and start over from the ground up so that it doesn't have the same design flaws as the previous model.


nothing good comes from losing except the consolation of a lottery pick because in retrospect managment got fired, you lost fan support,players are traded or cut,respect ,and most important millions of dollars.the only time teams actually tank is at the half-way mark when they notice their not making the playoffs ,and trade their best assets, but not from the jump.
This is quite a leap in logic here. One cause doesn't always create the same effect. If you have a controlled "demolition," where everyone understands you're creating a solid foundation, then your management doesn't get fired, your fans support the moves, players are traded or cut only for the benefit of the team, and millions won't be lost, one because of the new CBA, and two because a team that continues showing gradual improvement will build on that excitement to a crescendo, which in turn will keep people intrigued by the progression and will continue paying to enjoy the ride.


now if we make the playoffs at 7-8,there is so much good that comes from that. as for the past 2 decades teams of late,evaluate and mold their team after playoff losses.
Yes, it can be good, but at the same time, it can also have some tougher consequences down the road. Like I said before, its not mutually exclusive. The options to improve are now different and could be limited based on positioning and cap space. And its not just the past 2 decades for teams to change after a season - every single team in existence, either in or out of the playoffs, evaluate their team after the season to address their weaknesses. The teams that don't are just horribly managed, and I don't want my team to act like that.


especially in our case we have young players and they well only get better ,so if we made the playoffs with a majority young core,why isn't that positive news to feed off for next year. mutiple lotteries doesn't result in success or superstars for teams in this new era , also if a player leaves the team and become successful thats still is considered a bust for the originally team who drafted them but here's my case in point;
I agree that our young guys will get better, and if they somehow made an incredible playoff run, with MKG actually being a superstar, Kemba scorching people for 20 and 10 a night, and Mully becoming a young Dirk, I'm pulling for them to go all the way to destroy the Heat and Thunder in the playoffs.

Regarding the lottery, it isn't an exact science, everyone knows that. High picks don't always pan out, or blend with each other - sometimes teams just make a bad pick. But because this sometimes happens, doesn't mean that its incredibly dumb to try to get talent in the lottery, which is what all your posts make it out to seem.

Whats the most effective, efficient way to build a roster with talent without taking up a lot of salary cap space? Higher lottery picks are more likely to be stars or at least long term starters, so logically, the more of these you have, the better. As these young players are still on their rookie contracts, they only take a very small percentage of the salary cap, leaving plenty of room to make signings or trades. If you can drive a Lexus for only $10,000, you would take it, right? You wouldn't insist on going out and buying a $100,000 Benz, when you can get 2 or 3 luxury cars at a bargain, right? Then you can use that extra money you save to buy a nicer house, better clothes, better food. Same principle applies here.

Again, its not foolproof, but betting on signing free agents or trading for the player you want is just as much, if not more of a gamble than acquiring talent through the draft. And if its less expensive to stockpile talent, while allowing you enough money to still sign a free agent or trade for the player you want, aren't you actually getting the best of both worlds, and not stuck with one option.



parentheses are draft bust or ok lottery picks not(all/superstars)....

basically i dont have the patience to break every team down but the point is to tank or to think multiple lottery's equal success isn't really true only a few teams actually built contenders or championships through the lottery(thunder,spurs,and maybe pacers). there are maybe 10 superstars in the lg and some teams have more than one,and the nba has 30 teams so, in the past decade there has been maybe 10 superstars and ya want to tank the season going out on a limb?the teams who have made a few lottery picks in a row never capitalized of their picks . shabazz and noel isn't even guaranteed stars. xavier henry ,lance stephenson, mullens,auston rivers, jeremy tyler,josh shelby and etc lead each of their h.s. classes and wasn't even lottery or some didn't even make the 1st round so lets be realistic.
I hope after reading what I've said above, that you see it addresses all these points and corrects the fallacy that anyone is advocating tanking. Multiple lottery picks don't guarantee success, but they sure increase the odds of building a team, either by giving you a deeper young core, or allowing you to trade them for better fits for your team, while at the same time preserving cap space and flexibility. If two or three different ways to build a team are all gambles, you take the one with the least amount of risk, most potential for reward, and most ability to alter your plans as necessary. Taking everything into account, the patient building approach has the higher chance of this than prematurely going for it all before everyone is ready.


damn im goodPlease don't make this quote a trend. If the points you make are that incredible, then you don't need to say it, the words should speak for themselves. Jordan didn't need to tell everyone damn he's good. He just kicked their asses, and they knew he was good without him saying it.

[notdeadyet]

First, an organization needs to prioritize their goals and stick to their plan. These may vary from team to team in the sports world.
Do we go for having an exciting, dynamic hi-scoring run-and-gun team, a la Di Antoni's teams in Phoenix and New York? This SELLS, at least short term... Or
Do we maintain consistant competitiveness, like the Utah Jazz making the playoffs for 20 consecutive years (from 1983-2002)? A remarkable record to be proud of, but ZERO NBA trophies... But, some fans can be quite satisfied with this... Or
Do we "plan" to be in the top of next year's draft year after year, while avoiding bringing in expensive, experienced and talented FAs to get us into the playoffs this year? Risky, as management CANNOT miss on ANY of these high draft choices, all who are unproven in the NBA, AND could suffer a major injury (Greg Oden?). If they do miss, fans are gonna leave in droves! Or
Some combination?
Being as MJ is a very competitive guy, I tend to think he wants that trophy, and is willing to risk everything to get it. Hiring Dunlap was step 1, as he wants to see REAL effort on the court, and Dunlap already looks like the guy who can get it. What set Jordan the player apart was not just his talent, but from day 1 in the NBA he always gave MAX effort. We HAVE gone after FA talent this year, but because of last year's record getting FA's to "buy in" is a tough sell. And most here understand spending long-term big money on FA's now to get a few more W's for a year or 2 is a bad idea when your PRIMARY goal is a championship, which needs younger players who'll be around down the road once the team has build it's core...