CelticsStrong
Celtics Basketball => Celtics Talk => Topic started by: gpap on November 13, 2013, 11:45:10 AM
-
I think the title says it all
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/13/mannix-on-toucher-rich-if-tanking-worked-the-bobcats-would-be-best-team-in-basketball/
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
-
Derrick Rose's Bulls, if he doesn't suffer a knee injury they may have a title. the NBA is a super star driven league more than any other sport. The only team I can remember that wasn't built with high lottery picks were the 2000's pistons. Every title can be tied to a high pick. The C's don't get Ray Allen without the 5 pick to trade and KG doesn't come to Boston if they don't have Ray Allen. Lebron / Bosh don't go to Miami if Wade isn't there. The Spurs / Rockets don't win titles without Duncan and The Dream, Kobe was a lottery pick. Yes, the Pistons won one title doing it without tanking and maybe the Pacers will prove us wrong? The evidence over the last few decades shows that securing lottery picks / with a competent GM is the path back to a title. Not sure why people don't get this?
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
I just think the premise of holding up the Bobcats as an example that tanking doesn't work is a bit of an incorrect syllogism.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
I just think the premise of holding up the Bobcats as an example that tanking doesn't work is a bit of an incorrect syllogism.
I agree. You can't draw direct comparisons like that but I also think it's often ignored when teams continually tank and continually suck.
-
Agreed, you need more of a long-term plan than "get bad and be bailed out by the lottery."
-
It pretty much worked for the '06-'07 Celtics, too.
I think multiple seasons of tanking and poor management is the losing strategy. One season in the tank with a solid plan, that's another thing entirely.
-
Pacers are the model I would like to follow. They put the best team they could on the court every night. They didn't always win, or even make the playoffs, but they never needed the ping pong balls to help. They made good draft picks and signed free agents they could afford, and now they have a talented core and are legit title contenders. Hiring Frank Vogel was a great decision too. If we finish 10th and miss out on the best picks, all is not lost.
-
Agreed, you need more of a long-term plan than "get bad and be bailed out by the lottery."
What is this!? A reasonable opinion on "tanking"?
Get outta town with that crap
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
They either drafted poorly, were run poorly, or got unlucky with how talented the drafts were in the years they tanked.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
The lottery in its current form makes tanking less mathematically sound than it was in 1984. The Spurs, Warriors, and then-Sonics benefited from injuries to multiple key players, something that can't be planned.
The Cavs were going to be a bad team even if completely healthy. That sort of void of talent is the kind of scenario where I would approve of starting off the season with the tanking.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
They either drafted poorly, were run poorly, or got unlucky with how talented the drafts were in the years they tanked.
So in other words tanking words except when it doesn't. Well, that was insightful.
-
Derrick Rose's Bulls, if he doesn't suffer a knee injury they may have a title. the NBA is a super star driven league more than any other sport. The only team I can remember that wasn't built with high lottery picks were the 2000's pistons. Every title can be tied to a high pick. The C's don't get Ray Allen without the 5 pick to trade and KG doesn't come to Boston if they don't have Ray Allen. Lebron / Bosh don't go to Miami if Wade isn't there. The Spurs / Rockets don't win titles without Duncan and The Dream, Kobe was a lottery pick. Yes, the Pistons won one title doing it without tanking and maybe the Pacers will prove us wrong? The evidence over the last few decades shows that securing lottery picks / with a competent GM is the path back to a title. Not sure why people don't get this?
The lakers did it without tanking when they traded divac for Kobe and signed Shaq as a free agent. They then also traded Marc Gasol for pau Gasol , without tanking. Tanking has get low probability of workin out long term. The spurs team never tanked to get Duncan, they lost their star center for the season and got lucky when the odds were in the celtics favor to land Duncan
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
They either drafted poorly, were run poorly, or got unlucky with how talented the drafts were in the years they tanked.
So in other words tanking words except when it doesn't. Well, that was insightful.
Tanking doesn't succeed often enough for it to be a good strategy, so long as you have other options. The Celtics have other options. People who think that getting a high draft pick is the only chance for success are wrong.
-
Agreed, you need more of a long-term plan than "get bad and be bailed out by the lottery."
What is this!? A reasonable opinion on "tanking"?
Get outta town with that crap
My bad, lemme try again.
"WIGGINS OR BUST!!!"
or
"CELTIC PRIDE WE DON'T TANK, HAVE NEVER TANKED, AND WILL NEVER TANK!!!!"
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
They either drafted poorly, were run poorly, or got unlucky with how talented the drafts were in the years they tanked.
So in other words tanking words except when it doesn't. Well, that was insightful.
Tanking doesn't succeed often enough for it to be a good strategy, so long as you have other options. The Celtics have other options. People who think that getting a high draft pick is the only chance for success are wrong.
Collecting assets is just the smarter move. And that's what we are doing.
-
Derrick Rose's Bulls, if he doesn't suffer a knee injury they may have a title. the NBA is a super star driven league more than any other sport. The only team I can remember that wasn't built with high lottery picks were the 2000's pistons. Every title can be tied to a high pick. The C's don't get Ray Allen without the 5 pick to trade and KG doesn't come to Boston if they don't have Ray Allen. Lebron / Bosh don't go to Miami if Wade isn't there. The Spurs / Rockets don't win titles without Duncan and The Dream, Kobe was a lottery pick. Yes, the Pistons won one title doing it without tanking and maybe the Pacers will prove us wrong? The evidence over the last few decades shows that securing lottery picks / with a competent GM is the path back to a title. Not sure why people don't get this?
The lakers did it without tanking when they traded divac for Kobe and signed Shaq as a free agent. They then also traded Marc Gasol for pau Gasol , without tanking. Tanking has get low probability of workin out long term. The spurs team never tanked to get Duncan, they lost their star center for the season and got lucky when the odds were in the celtics favor to land Duncan
They sat David Robinson, Sean Elliot, and Chuck Person for the season after their injuries, and I would posit that the only reason they sat those guys for as long as they did--as opposed to bringing them back as quickly as possible--was because of Tim Duncan.
They went from a 59 win team to a 20 win team. (That remains the second largest single-season decline in the NBA, by the way--only the LeBron-less 2011 Cavs did worse.) They fired their coach and their general manager took over. If that isn't circumstantial evidence of a tank job, I'm not sure what else could be.
-
The reason that tanking doesn't work every time is that there are multiple elements of chance involved with drafting. First and foremost there is the whole Ping-Pong ball thing but drafting itself is a very unpredictable, especially now that all the stars are so young.
There have been countless can't miss players that have missed. Bad/unlucky drafting is only one of the many problems for the Bobcats. Tanking and drafting can work, especially in a year where are studs coming out in the draft but there is no guarantee. Drafting is riskier but potentially with higher reward than say trading for or signing established veterans.
We are in a position where we should get some good draft picks, we have assets to pull off decent trades, and eventually we will have cap space and have some shots at some of the better free agents. We are in good shape to rebuild using all available paths.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
They either drafted poorly, were run poorly, or got unlucky with how talented the drafts were in the years they tanked.
So in other words tanking words except when it doesn't. Well, that was insightful.
Could you describe a strategy that doesn't fit that description? Everything works except when it doesn't, or else everyone/no one does it and no advantage is gained.
Where the "insight" comes in is trying to sort out which strategies have a better or worse chance of working, and why.
-
If management running the Bobcats weren’t idiots and went with Damian Lillard or Andre Drummond they would be in a much better situation.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.
-
It pretty much worked for the '06-'07 Celtics, too.
I think multiple seasons of tanking and poor management is the losing strategy. One season in the tank with a solid plan, that's another thing entirely.
Yeah, any kind of tank or rebuild or whatever the term is now requires contingency plans. One lottery draw led Danny to likely switch from "trade Pierce and build around Al, Rondo, and Oden/Durant" to "cash in assets to snap up stars from teams that are looking to bottom out themselves."
Did the "tank" fail? It would've if we had no Plan B beyond "Top-2 or bust", but instead, we switched tacks and it led directly to 5-6 seasons of elite contention.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.
I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.
-
tanking isn't the only way
but giving the certain situation tanking is indeed the best way
for the celtics future
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.
I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.
I'd put more stock in OKC than GS though.
-
Could you describe a strategy that doesn't fit that description?
A strategy in which you hedge your bets. Play for a draft pick, develop the talent that you have, position yourself to execute trades. That's precisely what we did in 2006.
"Rebuilding" a team by losing 60 games and hoping that one player can win games by himself is not exactly a very high percentage strategy.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.
I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.
I'd put more stock in OKC than GS though.
Worth pointing out that it didn't work out for OKC... meaning, not getting the #1 pick saved them, as they got Durant instead of Oden.
The gist there would back up Mannix's point: the draft is a much of a crap shoot as the lottery, so there's not much upside in literally attempting to lose games (not to mention the bad karma)... just as we saw with ML's Cs.
Nothing wrong with eschewing (trading?) veterans to develop young talent. You can still play hard game in / game out, and still lose enough games to get some ping pong balls.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
what countless teams are those? Sure you have the Bobcats and in years past the Clippers, but those are easily explained by their terrible management, but what are these other countless teams you speak of that have toiled in the lottery for years.
-
Derrick Rose's Bulls, if he doesn't suffer a knee injury they may have a title. the NBA is a super star driven league more than any other sport. The only team I can remember that wasn't built with high lottery picks were the 2000's pistons. Every title can be tied to a high pick. The C's don't get Ray Allen without the 5 pick to trade and KG doesn't come to Boston if they don't have Ray Allen. Lebron / Bosh don't go to Miami if Wade isn't there. The Spurs / Rockets don't win titles without Duncan and The Dream, Kobe was a lottery pick. Yes, the Pistons won one title doing it without tanking and maybe the Pacers will prove us wrong? The evidence over the last few decades shows that securing lottery picks / with a competent GM is the path back to a title. Not sure why people don't get this?
The Lakers didn't use high draft picks. Neither did the Pistons, neither did the Mavs. The Celts had the 5th pick but it was out of the top tier of players in that draft. Those teams (even without the Celts) have won a fair amount of the titles in this century.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
what countless teams are those? Sure you have the Bobcats and in years past the Clippers, but those are easily explained by their terrible management, but what are these other countless teams you speak of that have toiled in the lottery for years.
Start listing teams that spent multiple years in the lottery without building a contender or left the lottery for a few years (without contending) and went back into the lottery and you'll end up with a rather long list.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.
I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.
I'd put more stock in OKC than GS though.
Agreed--although I'd much rather see the Warriors win it all than the Thunder--better fans, better franchise, better ownership.
-
Larry Bird came into the league and took a 20 win team to 60. Magic did pretty much the same with the Lakers. I can't ink of a lot of other players who had that kind of impact turning a team around so quickly. Point being it takes more than getting lucky once.
Unfortunately it's nearly impossible to win a title without a top 5 player on the roster...so the temptation to tank will always be there for the bottom teams.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.
I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.
I'd put more stock in OKC than GS though.
Agreed--although I'd much rather see the Warriors win it all than the Thunder--better fans, better franchise, better ownership.
As someone who's followed the league for quite some time, hearing words like that about the Warriors is almost as surprising as hearing (some of) them about the Clips.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Two of the five teams it worked for (out of all the teams that tanked over a 30 year period) won a title. I can see why so many people (not necessarily you) see it as an easy solution to our problems.
I believe the verdict's still out on the Seattlahoma City SuperDer and the Warriors.
I'd put more stock in OKC than GS though.
Agreed--although I'd much rather see the Warriors win it all than the Thunder--better fans, better franchise, better ownership.
As someone who's followed the league for quite some time, hearing words like that about the Warriors is almost as surprising as hearing (some of) them about the Clips.
Personal bias--I really liked the TMC & We Believe Dubs teams, and I really don't like the way the Sonics got snatched from Seattle.
-
Personal bias--I really liked the TMC & We Believe Dubs teams, and I really don't like the way the Sonics got snatched from Seattle.
I thought that it was a reference to the OKC ownership being too cheap to pay Harden.
-
Personal bias--I really liked the TMC & We Believe Dubs teams, and I really don't like the way the Sonics got snatched from Seattle.
I thought that it was a reference to the OKC ownership being too cheap to pay Harden.
It can't be both?
Clay Bennett's a scumbag for a whole host of reasons.
-
I think the title says it all
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/11/13/mannix-on-toucher-rich-if-tanking-worked-the-bobcats-would-be-best-team-in-basketball/
You need competent management to get the job done. I remember some pretty awful signings/trades for them. Tyrus Thomas for instance.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
what countless teams are those? Sure you have the Bobcats and in years past the Clippers, but those are easily explained by their terrible management, but what are these other countless teams you speak of that have toiled in the lottery for years.
The Nets, Wizards, Bucks and Raptors have all had #1 picks in the 2000s. You wouldn't know it by their results.
-
The term "tanking" is misunderstood. "Bottoming out" is more appropriate. The Celtics alone have multiple instances of proof dating back to the 1960s that "bottoming out" works. Gains you a shot at franchise players or major assets.
Also the premise is crap, because the Bobcats haven't bottomed out in a transcendent draft.
2004 - They take Okafor 2nd. Dwight went first. That wasn't an exceptional draft. Devin Harris, Shaun Livingston and Ben Gordon rounded out the top 5.
2005 - They take Ray Felton 5th. Bummer... Chris Paul and Deron Williams were taken right before that. There wasn't 5 stars projected in that draft... the next pick was Martell Webster.
2006 - They take Adam Morrison 3rd. One pick after LaMarcus Aldridge and one pick before Ty Thomas. That draft was crap. Ainge had the #7 pick and traded it for Sebastian Telfair. Garbage draft was garbage.
2007 - They weren't in the top 5. They picked 8th and took Brandon Wright. Top 5 was Oden, Durant, Al Horford, Mike Conley and Jeff Green. It was thought to be a 2 player draft. Picking 8th in a 2 player draft isn't ideal.
2008 - They picked 9th. Doesn't qualify. Superstars usually fit in the top 5. THis year Derrick Rose, Russell WEstbrook, Kevin Love, OJ Mayo and Michael Beasley made up the Top 5. 3 of those guys are superstars. Pretty good draft... Brook Lopez was taken one pick later at 10th.
2009 - They pick 12th. Once again doesn't qualify. That's "perpetual mediocrity" territory. Blake Griffin, James Harden, Tyreke Evans, Ricky Rubio and Hasheem Thabeet made the top 5. Steph Curry went 7th (many felt he should have went higher). Pretty good draft.
2010 - No pick? John Wall, Evan Turner, Derrick Favors, Wesley Johnson and DeMarcus Cousins made up the top 5. Not bad. Greg Monroe and Paul George made up the top 10. Bobcats picked a bad year to have no draft pick.
2011 - They picked 9th in a meh draft. Once again doesn't qualify. Kind of a crap draft. Kyrie Irving went 1st. Whole bunch of "bleh" after Kyrie.
2012 - Tough to judge this draft yet. They picked 2nd. MKG is only 20 years old. For a 20 year old, he's playing pretty [dang] well so far. That one might pan out.
2013 - Widely known this was a garbage draft. They picked 4th. Best player supposedly was Nerlens Noel and they passed on him.
...
"Bottoming out" every year isn't a wise move. There are certain seasons where "bottoming out" makes sense though. The Bobcats didn't exist back in 2003 when LeBron, Melo, Bosh and Wade all were in the top 5. This year, there's at least 3 guys who should end up superstar franchise players (Wiggins, Parker, Randle) as well as 4-5 other guys who (barring injury) are expected to make all-star teams down the line. Scouts and experts say if you have a Top 7 pick in this draft... you're likely going to draft a franchise cornerstone. Listen to Chad Ford talk about it: http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post/_/id/63972/chad-ford-this-draft-worth-tanking-for
Ironically, the Bobcats don't plan on bottoming out the one year that bottoming out seems to make the most sense. You don't bottom out for the 2013 draft... you bottom out for the 2014 draft. Ainge, to his credit, obviously understands that... otherwise he wouldn't have waited until this offseason to ship out KG and Pierce for future considerations.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
What do you say about the countless teams who have swam in lottery water for years without ever getting significantly better?
what countless teams are those? Sure you have the Bobcats and in years past the Clippers, but those are easily explained by their terrible management, but what are these other countless teams you speak of that have toiled in the lottery for years.
The Nets, Wizards, Bucks and Raptors have all had #1 picks in the 2000s. You wouldn't know it by their results.
it's because they didn't meet the onces in a decade draft like this year
-
The Nets, Wizards, Bucks and Raptors have all had #1 picks in the 2000s. You wouldn't know it by their results.
it's because they didn't meet the onces in a decade draft like this year
I'm sure that's precisely why the Wizards picked Kwame Brown over Pau Gasol and Tyson Chandler, why the Bucks picked Bogut over Deron Williams and Chris Paul, and why the Raptors went with Bargnani instead of Aldridge, Roy or Gay.
The draft is a crap shoot. There are better ways to rebuild a franchise, mostly because there are always other managers willing to shoot the craps.
-
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs" (http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs).
-
It pretty much worked for the '06-'07 Celtics, too.
I think multiple seasons of tanking and poor management is the losing strategy. One season in the tank with a solid plan, that's another thing entirely.
Yeah, any kind of tank or rebuild or whatever the term is now requires contingency plans. One lottery draw led Danny to likely switch from "trade Pierce and build around Al, Rondo, and Oden/Durant" to "cash in assets to snap up stars from teams that are looking to bottom out themselves."
Did the "tank" fail? It would've if we had no Plan B beyond "Top-2 or bust", but instead, we switched tacks and it led directly to 5-6 seasons of elite contention.
And to make that work Danny made sure he had the assets on hand.
I really do think "a dip into the lottery" this year is plan A. Not bottom of the bucket, but competing for a playoff spot until late in the season when the "rookies hit the wall" and the team fades to somewhere around a 10th pick.
If, otoh, the team doesn't fade and makes the playoffs, I think Danny would see that as a good thing...bitter sweet, but good. The rookies developed better/faster than he expected, assets gained value, so move to plan B. Start looking to package assets, TE, expirings for "the next impact player."
If, on the third hand, the team falls off early and even Rondo coming back doesn't help, then maybe by February he moves to plan C and the ship heads for the bottom...and a shot at a top 5 pick.
It's like The Gambler said, "You got to know when to hold'em, when to fold'em, when to walk away and when to run."
-
it's because they didn't meet the onces in a decade draft like this year
The last "once in a decade draft" was 2003. There were three supposed franchise-changers in that draft. The three franchises that got those players were Cleveland, Detroit (via Memphis), and Denver. Among those teams, only 1 championship has been won since then and it had absolute nothing to do with Darko.
The only other instance of a draft with franchise-changing players like that available and worth tanking for was 2007 with Oden and Durant. No championships yet from either of those franchises. OKC is certainly in good shape, but they've had a lot of good drafting, development, and management aside from simply landing Durant.
The other franchise-changing players available (very hard to justify tanking when only one stud is to be taken) in the last 13 years that I can recall, were Yao and Rose. No championships yet from either of those franchises.
-
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs" (http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs).
People who weren't following the nba at the time might actually buy that story.
If the myth is the Spurs tanked the season from beginning to end then I'd agree it's not really true. If the myth is the Spurs went into full tank mode after DRob had a setback then the myth is correct. It's much like the C's in 06-07. They went into the season trying to compete. After losing PP (and TA) for a significant period of time and losing enough games to kill their season they didn't really put in much of an effort to finish the season strong. It was the same for the Spurs after DRob went out, they went into tank mode.
-
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs" (http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs).
Not an attack at you LC, but I really disliked that article. Felt like the author was explaining things to children, and never really gets at the actual point of the whole tanking vs no tanking debate.
The real gist of it is, "The easiest path to acquiring top-end talent is to be poor enough and/or lucky enough to acquire a high draft pick, and lucky/savvy enough to do the right thing with it."
That's the whole discussion. Are the Celtics 'tanking'? Are the Sixers? The Bobcats?
Who cares? Every single one of those teams has assembled squads that are bad enough that they shouldn't win that many games, and should (in theory) be bad enough to get the Celtics/Sixers/Bobcats a top 5 or so pick, and a shot at the 1st overall.
Is it still 'tanking' if they're cautious with Rondo's injury? Is it still 'tanking' if they took what the league sees as a godfather deal from the Nets for 2 of their top-3 players?
Is so asinine. Its all tanking. The Spurs tanked. They learned Robinson was out for the duration, they did nothing to significantly improve their roster, and fired their coach.
A bad team that stays bad or actively gets worse with the understanding that its better for them in the long-run to do so is tanking as much as a team that sits its starters with bullcrap injuries in February.
The real point is that merely gaining the good lottery odds isn't enough to guarantee success, anymore than being born 7ft tall and athletic guarantees you'll be a NBA player. It just makes gaining that success easier.
-
Although I am absolutely for building assets over just tanking, the one thing I will say to sort of defend tanking, is the Bobcats are terrible at drafting. So is say Cleveland. If you have competent management you can do better than both those teams did. Look at the Thunder. Yes they got lucky to get certain picks but even still there was good decision making.
I certainly trust Ainge to do way better than some of these awful GMs.
-
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs" (http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs).
Not an attack at you LC, but I really disliked that article. Felt like the author was explaining things to children, and never really gets at the actual point of the whole tanking vs no tanking debate.
The point is that people who point to the Spurs as an example to follow are fools who don't understand that you can't go into a season planning what happened to the Spurs. If it sounds like the author is talking down to his audience as if they are children, that's because the site tends to take the stance that only fools believe in tanking. If the article seems incomplete, it's because it is part of an on-going, long-term discussion of tanking, some of which you can see in the site's 2013-2014 team previews.
Here is another article (http://wagesofwins.com/2013/10/31/are-we-really-still-talking-about-tanking/) about tanking, which notes:
What data do we have that stripping down a team a losing a lot of games is not the best way to win a title? Consider the following numbers:
- 54. Since 1985, only two teams (the Miami Heat in 2006 and the Houston Rockets in 1995) have managed to win a title without winning at least 66 percent of their games (which works out to 54 wins in an 82-game season). So it seems likely that a team needs to win at least 54 games to be considered a contender.
- 10%. Teams that win 25 games or less have only about a 10% chance to join the list of contenders five years after their terrible season. Which means that 90% of teams that win 25 games or less won’t make it to 54 wins after five years.
- 20%. Teams that win 34-49 games — so called “mediocre teams” that find themselves in the dreaded middle — have about a 20% chance of hitting 54 wins after five years. This means that a middle-of-the-pack team is twice as likely to become a contender than a team that bottoms out.
-
Although I am absolutely for building assets over just tanking, the one thing I will say to sort of defend tanking, is the Bobcats are terrible at drafting. So is say Cleveland. If you have competent management you can do better than both those teams did. Look at the Thunder. Yes they got lucky to get certain picks but even still there was good decision making.
If Cleveland and Charlotte were non-terrible at drafting, they probably wouldn't be drafting so high so often.
When I look at the Thunder, I sometimes think the franchise was tanking primarily to facilitate moving the team out of Seattle and getting good draft picks was a secondary benefit.
-
Although I am absolutely for building assets over just tanking, the one thing I will say to sort of defend tanking, is the Bobcats are terrible at drafting. So is say Cleveland. If you have competent management you can do better than both those teams did. Look at the Thunder. Yes they got lucky to get certain picks but even still there was good decision making.
If Cleveland and Charlotte were non-terrible at drafting, they probably wouldn't be drafting so high so often.
When I look at the Thunder, I sometimes think the franchise was tanking primarily to facilitate moving the team out of Seattle and getting good draft picks was a secondary benefit.
A bit higher maybe... if they draft Drummond or Barnes they don't.
Rookies, even the great ones, don't come in and make that big of an impact. Anthony Davis wasn't incredible last year or anything. Barnes and Drummond were both good but for rookies. The thing is their promise.
If they draft Valincunas he stays over seas for the whole next season anyways, perfect for a tanking strategy. That one was an absolute no brainer for the Cavs and they passed.
If you were good at drafting you could do it right for a few years. You do have to get lucky to get the picks and you do have to get lucky with some players, but a lot of the bad teams like the Bobcats and Cavs are bad at drafting so using them as a barometer for good GMs doesn't totally fly for me.
Again, I prefer how Ainge acquires assets but you can certainly do better than these jokers.
-
A bad team that stays bad or actively gets worse with the understanding that its better for them in the long-run to do so is tanking as much as a team that sits its starters with bullcrap injuries in February.
I disagree with you here.
Playing Olynyk/Fav instead of Humphries isn't tanking for example, but you are claiming it is here. Making it out to be equivalent to sitting players with fake injuries and sending your garbage post man out there to shoot 3s.
-
People should read "The Myth of the Tanking Spurs" (http://www.boxscoregeeks.com/articles/the-myth-of-the-tanking-spurs).
People who weren't following the nba at the time might actually buy that story.
If the myth is the Spurs tanked the season from beginning to end then I'd agree it's not really true. If the myth is the Spurs went into full tank mode after DRob had a setback then the myth is correct. It's much like the C's in 06-07. They went into the season trying to compete. After losing PP (and TA) for a significant period of time and losing enough games to kill their season they didn't really put in much of an effort to finish the season strong. It was the same for the Spurs after DRob went out, they went into tank mode.
Agreed.
-
A bad team that stays bad or actively gets worse with the understanding that its better for them in the long-run to do so is tanking as much as a team that sits its starters with bullcrap injuries in February.
I disagree with you here.
Playing Olynyk/Fav instead of Humphries isn't tanking for example, but you are claiming it is here. Making it out to be equivalent to sitting players with fake injuries and sending your garbage post man out there to shoot 3s.
I guess I really don't see them differently, with the assumption that Ainge/Brad Stevens thought playing Humpries would give the C's a better chance to win.
-
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..
We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle
Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and that's a really good young team.
The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst
-
A bad team that stays bad or actively gets worse with the understanding that its better for them in the long-run to do so is tanking as much as a team that sits its starters with bullcrap injuries in February.
I disagree with you here.
Playing Olynyk/Fav instead of Humphries isn't tanking for example, but you are claiming it is here. Making it out to be equivalent to sitting players with fake injuries and sending your garbage post man out there to shoot 3s.
I guess I really don't see them differently, with the assumption that Ainge/Brad Stevens thought playing Humpries would give the C's a better chance to win.
So not playing Andre Drummond 35 MPG last year was tanking? Any sort of player development plan or rotation that doesn't run your horses into the ground is tanking?
Longer term thinking than the current game doesn't equal tanking in every case.
-
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..
We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle
Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and that's a really good young team.
The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst
This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
-
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..
We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle
Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and that's a really good young team.
The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst
This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
I agree and it isn't true. You don't want to be in perpetual mediocrity like say the Hawks the last 5 years, but if you are on the way up there is nothing wrong with spending a season or two as mediocre.
-
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..
We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle
Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and that's a really good young team.
The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst
This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
I agree and it isn't true. You don't want to be in perpetual mediocrity like say the Hawks the last 5 years, but if you are on the way up there is nothing wrong with spending a season or two as mediocre.
Being mediocre and locked into it is the problem.
Mediocre with elite prospects. (Cavs/Wizards goal this year I guess) is fine. Or mediocre with upcoming cap space and a plan, Houston/Dallas last year, is also fine. You just don't want to make your home there.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Uh?
The '97 Spurs only worked because they still had Robinson ... from tanking waaaaay back in 1987.
The '84 Rockets only worked .... because they got _consecutive_ #1 picks (Ralph Sampson '83, Hakeem ;84) ... and STILL DIDN'T WIN FOR A FREAKING DECADE.
Is your definition of 'tanking works' == WAIT TEN YEARS FOR RESULTS?????
The '03 Cavs are still waiting for their title. It's 2013 now -- and it's late!
The Seattle SuperSonics got theirs back in '79. Great team. Oh ..wait ... OKC is still waiting.
Portland, of course, is due to win based on winning the Oden sweeps ... somewhere around 2018?
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?
I have a better idea. How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?
-
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..
We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle
Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and that's a really good young team.
The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst
This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
I agree and it isn't true. You don't want to be in perpetual mediocrity like say the Hawks the last 5 years, but if you are on the way up there is nothing wrong with spending a season or two as mediocre.
Being mediocre and locked into it is the problem.
Mediocre with elite prospects. (Cavs/Wizards goal this year I guess) is fine. Or mediocre with upcoming cap space and a plan, Houston/Dallas last year, is also fine. You just don't want to make your home there.
exactly, but at this team is currently constituted I dont think we have any "elite prospects"
i'm fine being "mediocre" next year if we can land an elite prospect in this years draft and grow with Rondo, sullinger, olynyk, bradley etc.
-
Honestly I think the c's are in a unique position to tank vs. Other teams. Most teams are tankig to find that first building block all star player and build around him..
We already have an all starpg in rondo..and some solid pieces...say yout can get a top 3 pick and grab parker or Wiggins or randle
Add them to a team with rondo, green, sullinger and olynyk and that's a really good young team.
The worst thing you can do as a team is be mediocre... You either need to be one of the best teams in the league or one of the worst
This is quickly becoming the most irritatingly parroted claim of the season.
I agree and it isn't true. You don't want to be in perpetual mediocrity like say the Hawks the last 5 years, but if you are on the way up there is nothing wrong with spending a season or two as mediocre.
Being mediocre and locked into it is the problem.
Mediocre with elite prospects. (Cavs/Wizards goal this year I guess) is fine. Or mediocre with upcoming cap space and a plan, Houston/Dallas last year, is also fine. You just don't want to make your home there.
exactly, but at this team is currently constituted I dont think we have any "elite prospects"
i'm fine being "mediocre" next year if we can land an elite prospect in this years draft and grow with Rondo, sullinger, olynyk, bradley etc.
mediocre with upcoming cap space and a plan, Houston/Dallas last year
We fall under this category.
G-Wallace, Bogans and Humphries becoming expirings.
Not to mention plenty of assets, like Houston right before Harden.
-
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar. Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker. Tank with style
-
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar. Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker. Tank with style
"Daffed" is a nice word.
-
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar. Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker. Tank with style
Were you not here in 07-08?
That collection of players is not, overall, better than what we have now. Al Jefferson was a very promising centerpiece, but right now we have a better collection of young players for sure.
Plus we have multiple picks we can include in a trade.
-
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar. Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker. Tank with style
Were you not here in 07-08?
That collection of players is not, overall, better than what we have now. Al Jefferson was a very promising centerpiece, but right now we have a better collection of young players for sure.
Plus we have multiple picks we can include in a trade.
Agreed. Our collection of assets now is much better than it was in 2007. Ainge put us in an excellent position with the Doc, KG, and Pierce trades.
2007 assets: Al Jefferson, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Gerald Green, #5 pick in the draft
result: KG and Ray Allen
kept best player in Pierce, and promising rookie in Rondo
2013 assets: Jared Sullinger, Kelly Olynyk, Avery Bradley, Jordan Crawford, Jeff Green, Humphries expiring contract, 10 million dollar trade exception, 2 1st round picks in this draft, and many 1st round picks in the upcoming drafts.
we should be able to at least match the result from 2007 if not surpass it
keep best player in Rondo, and promising young player in one of Sullinger or Olynyk
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Uh?
The '97 Spurs only worked because they still had Robinson ... from tanking waaaaay back in 1987.
The '84 Rockets only worked .... because they got _consecutive_ #1 picks (Ralph Sampson '83, Hakeem ;84) ... and STILL DIDN'T WIN FOR A FREAKING DECADE.
Is your definition of 'tanking works' == WAIT TEN YEARS FOR RESULTS?????
The '03 Cavs are still waiting for their title. It's 2013 now -- and it's late!
The Seattle SuperSonics got theirs back in '79. Great team. Oh ..wait ... OKC is still waiting.
Portland, of course, is due to win based on winning the Oden sweeps ... somewhere around 2018?
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?
I have a better idea. How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?
Feel free to read the rest of the conversation (or at least my posts) on the first and second pages.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
Uh?
The '97 Spurs only worked because they still had Robinson ... from tanking waaaaay back in 1987.
The '84 Rockets only worked .... because they got _consecutive_ #1 picks (Ralph Sampson '83, Hakeem ;84) ... and STILL DIDN'T WIN FOR A FREAKING DECADE.
Is your definition of 'tanking works' == WAIT TEN YEARS FOR RESULTS?????
The '03 Cavs are still waiting for their title. It's 2013 now -- and it's late!
The Seattle SuperSonics got theirs back in '79. Great team. Oh ..wait ... OKC is still waiting.
Portland, of course, is due to win based on winning the Oden sweeps ... somewhere around 2018?
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?
I have a better idea. How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?
Feel free to read the rest of the conversation (or at least my posts) on the first and second pages.
Yeah I don't think 'did they win a title' is an accurate representation of success, at least taken in and of its self.
Tanking absolutely worked for the 03 Cavs, they got a guy who took the worst Finals team this side of AI's and got them there. That is success. Mismanagement kept them from a title, but consistent top 3 finishes in regular season records is a pretty good marker.
-
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?
I have a better idea. How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?
I think this perception has two flaws. Within the current debate.
1) We don't know that the trades are out there. Which 'studs' are on the block, or are likely to be in that position in the offseason? Really the guys who come to mind are Hayward, Bledsoe, and Monroe, and that's only if the Jazz, Pistons, or Suns balk at paying them. Potentially too Aldridge, Millsap, and Smith, but that's complete speculation with nothing to back it up..not that Hayward etc aren't the same thing. Surely, this can and likely will change, but who knows what it will look like at the break, or in the offseason?
2) Building off of #1, wouldn't we as a team be in a much better bargaining position if we did in fact tank the season and acquire a high level draft pick with which to trade? Acknowledging the riskiness of the lottery and wanting to trade picks for high level established players is not at all a reason not to tank/rebuild/strategically develop your younger players. Ask the 2008 Celtics.
-
I think one key to tanking is choosing the proper time to do it. And in my humble opinion, this is the perfect time to do it. This draft is full of high end talent, and the 2015 draft is shaping up to be very good as well. If we give Danny Ainge two lotto picks in the next two years and a ton of cap space, we should be on the rise by the 15-16 season. All we need is a little patience (no Axl).
-
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?
I have a better idea. How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?
I think this perception has two flaws. Within the current debate.
1) We don't know that the trades are out there. Which 'studs' are on the block, or are likely to be in that position in the offseason? Really the guys who come to mind are Hayward, Bledsoe, and Monroe, and that's only if the Jazz, Pistons, or Suns balk at paying them. Potentially too Aldridge, Millsap, and Smith, but that's complete speculation with nothing to back it up..not that Hayward etc aren't the same thing. Surely, this can and likely will change, but who knows what it will look like at the break, or in the offseason?
2) Building off of #1, wouldn't we as a team be in a much better bargaining position if we did in fact tank the season and acquire a high level draft pick with which to trade? Acknowledging the riskiness of the lottery and wanting to trade picks for high level established players is not at all a reason not to tank/rebuild/strategically develop your younger players. Ask the 2008 Celtics.
You assert that my strategy is flawed because of (1) "uncertainty" (in what may or may not be available in the trade market) and yet want to gamble on (2) the uncertainties of the draft lottery?
First off, on (1) ultimately, that is the job of GMs to both obfuscate about their own players and to know about such information on other team's players. Don't confuse what little we layman know about who is available with what Danny may know. Further, if there is no opportunity right now, there will be at some point within the next year or two (long before it normally takes to build to title contention through the draft) because turnover and transition is part of the NBA. Finally, upon the availability of a deal, the decision to act on it is far more deterministic than relying on the lottery. The players involved will have been vetted and not potential draft busts.
On (2) the only way to guarantee a 'high level' draft pick is to have one of the absolute worst records. What is your criteria for a 'high level' draft pick?
Top 10? Then you MUST have at least the 7th worst record because otherwise you may end up outside the top 10.
Top 5? Similarly, the only way to guarantee you get a top 5 pick is to have one of the TWO worst records.
Let me ask you: Given what you have seen of this team, sitting here with it's 4-5 record after 9 games, do you think this could end up with one of the TWO worst records?
Do you think it will end up with one of the 7th worst?
Suppose you answer "yes" to the latter. Let's say we tank and end up with the 7th worst record.
With the 7th worst record, you still have a chance of picking as low as 10th.
Last year, we ended up with the 13 pick (by way of trade).
And we didn't tank. We made the playoffs. We didn't last long. But the team got to realize the big bump in revenues associated with playing playoff games. And still ended up with a pretty good pick.
How much is the difference between a 10th and 13th pick worth? Is it worth giving up a shot at the playoffs (and the revenues)?
And I didn't even touch the 'uncertainty' involved with whether a player, once picked, will be a success or not.
A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it. What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.
This tells us that the way most title teams have been built is by _acquiring_ that 'top 3' talent later (via trade or FA), well after he was drafted by some other team. By then, you know who he is. He is not a ping pong ball. He has proven whether he can play in the NBA.
-
I think you misunderstood me. Here's my argument for staying the course (which is a form of tanking, and yes I do think we're bad enough for a worst 5 record, potentially worst 3. Potentially worst overall):
My assumptions:
1) Currently there is no mid-season trade that will elevate us into contention.
2) A high pick in the draft next year potentially has immense value, whether kept or dealt (more on this later)
3) The current roster, even with some strategic small moves, has a relatively low ceiling to the presumed top 16 teams in the league. At best I have trouble seeing us make the playoffs. At worst, very , very bad.
So the argument:
Staying the course (making small moves, or none, playing younger players over vets, being cautious with Rondo's return) has multiple benefits. If there is a homerun swing to be made via trade, we should have a top-10 pick to bargain with. In this draft, when nobody is dealing a top-10 pick, it will be a highly coveted asset. Logically it could only happen post-season.
However, if we end up with a top 5 pick , we have a opportunity to gain a long-term cornerstone, a piece we currently do not have outside of Rondo, who has looked , especially in the regular season , like a piece best player as a supporting player, not a headliner. The team lacks top end talent and top end prospects. We need both or either.
Gaining either is most easily attained by having the trade chip or asset of a top pick.
So whether Danny wants to rapid rebuild around Rondo, or long-term rebuild over multiple seasons, he's still best served by not being very good this year.
-
Last year, we ended up with the 13 pick (by way of trade).
And we didn't tank. We made the playoffs. We didn't last long. But the team got to realize the big bump in revenues associated with playing playoff games. And still ended up with a pretty good pick.
Also, this point makes implications that I really don't think are valid here. We got the 13th pick in what has been called one of the weakest drafts in a decade. And we traded up from what, 15th? 16th?
Trading from 7th to 4th is much more costly, 5th to 2nd or 3rd a kings ransom in a draft like this compared to what we paid for Olynyk. Last year, CLE couldn't acquire Aldridge for the 1st overall pick. That's how weak the draft was seen to be.
-
So, let's see. If we tank this year and pick, say Wiggins or Parker ... we can look forward to a title somewhere around ... 2024?
I have a better idea. How about we trade our picks and filler for a couple of studs and become relevant immediately?
I think this perception has two flaws. Within the current debate.
1) We don't know that the trades are out there. Which 'studs' are on the block, or are likely to be in that position in the offseason? Really the guys who come to mind are Hayward, Bledsoe, and Monroe, and that's only if the Jazz, Pistons, or Suns balk at paying them. Potentially too Aldridge, Millsap, and Smith, but that's complete speculation with nothing to back it up..not that Hayward etc aren't the same thing. Surely, this can and likely will change, but who knows what it will look like at the break, or in the offseason?
2) Building off of #1, wouldn't we as a team be in a much better bargaining position if we did in fact tank the season and acquire a high level draft pick with which to trade? Acknowledging the riskiness of the lottery and wanting to trade picks for high level established players is not at all a reason not to tank/rebuild/strategically develop your younger players. Ask the 2008 Celtics.
A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it. What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.
This tells us that the way most title teams have been built is by _acquiring_ that 'top 3' talent later (via trade or FA), well after he was drafted by some other team. By then, you know who he is. He is not a ping pong ball. He has proven whether he can play in the NBA.
Where are you getting this?
Since the start of the Bird/Magic era, something like 70% (24 of 34) of championships have been won by top 3 players on the teams that drafted them. Bird, Magic, Jordan, Hakeem and Duncan account for 20 of them by my count.
This doesn't even count the Lakers as having drafted Kobe. (Though, the Lakers certainly didn't acquire him "well after he was drafted by some other team.")
If you count Kobe as home-grown, 6 of the last 9 rings have been won by teams that drafted their best player.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
-
Some of you are a little daffed in the head if you think Our current crop of players is gonna yield a superstar. Moreover who the heck wouldnt want wiggins or parker. Tank with style
Were you not here in 07-08?
That collection of players is not, overall, better than what we have now. Al Jefferson was a very promising centerpiece, but right now we have a better collection of young players for sure.
Plus we have multiple picks we can include in a trade.
Agreed. Our collection of assets now is much better than it was in 2007. Ainge put us in an excellent position with the Doc, KG, and Pierce trades.
2007 assets: Al Jefferson, Delonte West, Ryan Gomes, Sebastian Telfair, Gerald Green, #5 pick in the draft
result: KG and Ray Allen
kept best player in Pierce, and promising rookie in Rondo
2013 assets: Jared Sullinger, Kelly Olynyk, Avery Bradley, Jordan Crawford, Jeff Green, Humphries expiring contract, 10 million dollar trade exception, 2 1st round picks in this draft, and many 1st round picks in the upcoming drafts.
we should be able to at least match the result from 2007 if not surpass it
keep best player in Rondo, and promising young player in one of Sullinger or Olynyk
This team is not setting up to build for win now. They are setting up to build for a sustainable good team year in and year out. What superstar players are we trying to get with a package of Sully, Bradley, crawford and two first round drafts picks? An aging Carmelo Anthony? Josh Smith? Kevin Love? There's no way any of our combinations is attractive enough for a team to get rid of their star player, especially if that team is bordering contenders. And so what if we do get a superstar, then we gotta add pieces around them. 5 years later we're right back in the same hole. And let's take a look around at the TOP players in the league..they're not getting any younger. The future of the NBA is in this years draft. This team has a young coach and some young players to build a core with moving forward, with the chance to add young good talent that will make us competitive year in and year out.
We won one title with the Big 3 era, and I'd say injuries cost us winning maybe 2 more. I highly doubt the stars are gonna align like that for us again, so I'd rather take my chances on getting younger and better. If it doesnt work, at least then you have good young talent developed that if you wanna go ahead and pull the trigger on another blockbuster trade, then, sure do it. But this years draft is too deep and we;ve got alot of untapped talent yet to develop to pull the trigger this early.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Celtics drafted pierce, heat drafted wade...whether they ended up being the best player on their team is debateable but you need to start somewhere
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Shaqs Orlando team made the finals. The Lakers drafted Kobe who was a franchise player. The Heat winning with Wade and Shaq drafted Wade. Paul Pierce in 2008 was arguably co MVP for our 2008 championship team. 19.5, 4.5 and 5 vs KG's 18.8,9.2 and 3.4 when you consider he had to guard Lebron and Kobe and won finals MVP.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
Getting the picture?
You can delude the argument all you want because you don't like tanking, but unfortunately you need lottery picks to win NBA championships. I'm not saying all these teams tanked to get their picks. I'm just saying that without these players they drafted and built around- they probably don't win titles.
KG doesn't come to Boston without Pierce.
Lebron and Shaq don't come to Miami without Wade.
Shaq doesn't go to LA without Kobe.
They add the free agents after they establish they have a legitimate top 5 to 10 player- a franchise level scorer they can rely on when the time comes.
-
I think the Pistons are an exception- kind of a fluke in how they won their last title. One thing to be considered is that a lot of title teams signed or were able to acquire great players because they are big market teams or desireable locations for players. The Celics don't have that luxury.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Shaqs Orlando team made the finals. The Lakers drafted Kobe who was a franchise player. The Heat winning with Wade and Shaq drafted Wade. Paul Pierce in 2008 was arguably co MVP for our 2008 championship team. 19.5, 4.5 and 5 vs KG's 18.8,9.2 and 3.4 when you consider he had to guard Lebron and Kobe and won finals MVP.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
Getting the picture?
You can delude the argument all you want because you don't like tanking, but unfortunately you need lottery picks to win NBA championships. I'm not saying all these teams tanked to get their picks. I'm just saying that without these players they drafted and built around- they probably don't win titles.
KG doesn't come to Boston without Pierce.
Lebron and Shaq don't come to Miami without Wade.
Shaq doesn't go to LA without Kobe.
They add the free agents after they establish they have a legitimate top 5 to 10 player- a franchise level scorer they can rely on when the time comes.
And the Celtics currently have Rondo, who's shown he can be one of the top performers in the playoffs and lead teams to deep playoff runs, and we've heard many of the top players in the league saying they'd like to play with him. Problem solved.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
You just happened to define your cutoff as the year right after 16 rings in a row were won by teams that drafted their best players...
-
I think the Pistons are an exception- kind of a fluke in how they won their last title. One thing to be considered is that a lot of title teams signed or were able to acquire great players because they are big market teams or desireable locations for players. The Celics don't have that luxury.
Yeah, the big exceptions to the general pattern that championship teams win with players they drafted are the Lakers with Shaq and Miami with Lebron.
In terms of guiding the Celtics' approach to building a championship team, those examples are pretty useless. Our odds of attracting LA- and Miami-level free agents are not good, if history is any guide.
-
Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?
13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)
Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.
And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.
What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.
-
Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?
13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)
Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.
And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.
What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.
We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.
-
Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?
13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)
Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.
And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.
What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.
We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.
Haha, no sir. The point is a valid one no matter who/what Rondo is.
However to kick at your shifting field goals, Rondo may or may not be perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team (it would really depend on who the 1st and 3rd best players are), but with so much hinging on him making a full recovery, evolving as a leader, altering his game/shoring up his consistency...there is still so very little to gain by doing anything other than acquiring another high-value asset in a top-10 pick in this years' draft.
-
We're unlikely to break out of the top 10 this year even if we tried. Your point?
-
Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?
13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)
Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.
And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.
What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.
We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.
Actually Kobe Bryant was drafted by the Charlotte Hornets and acquired by the lakers for Vlade Divac, and Rondo was drafted by the Phoenix Suns.
-
Actually Kobe Bryant was drafted by the Charlotte Hornets and acquired by the lakers for Vlade Divac, and Rondo was drafted by the Phoenix Suns.
Both of those trades were agreed to before the pick was actually made and Charlotte/Phoenix were picking for the other team.
-
Actually Kobe Bryant was drafted by the Charlotte Hornets and acquired by the lakers for Vlade Divac, and Rondo was drafted by the Phoenix Suns.
Both of those trades were agreed to before the pick was actually made and Charlotte/Phoenix were picking for the other team.
It doesn't matter, all draft day trades are agreed on before the picks are made. The point is neither of those teams tanked to draft Kobe or Rondo, they acquired them on the cheap by smart trades. There are many ways to get legitimate star player building blocks. Kobe was drafted 13 th and the hornets were not interested in keeping him, and Rondo was a late first round pick who he suns had no interest in. Neither of them were top 5 picks whom teams tanked all year for.
-
Kobe only fell to 13 because he and his agent threatened higher teams away from drafting him. He would have been a higher lottery pick if not for that manipulation.
-
Kobe only fell to 13 because he and his agent threatened higher teams away from drafting him. He would have been a higher lottery pick if not for that manipulation.
That stuff happens every year and half of those are smokescreens to raise the value of players or hide deficiencies. Smart GMs find ways to get these type of players without tanking.
-
Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?
13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)
Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.
And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.
What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.
We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.
Haha, no sir. The point is a valid one no matter who/what Rondo is.
However to kick at your shifting field goals, Rondo may or may not be perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team (it would really depend on who the 1st and 3rd best players are), but with so much hinging on him making a full recovery, evolving as a leader, altering his game/shoring up his consistency...there is still so very little to gain by doing anything other than acquiring another high-value asset in a top-10 pick in this years' draft.
Rondo's been the best player on a team that got to game 7 of the finals. Claiming that he needs to show he's healthy again after his knee injury is fine, claiming he needs to evolve as a leader and shore up parts of his game to be able to accomplish what he did when he was a lesser player is silly.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
It's not at all a 'weak technicality', it's a fact.
Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.
For #1 pick:
Houston got two such picks in consecutive years ... and took 10 years to win.
San Antonio drafted Robinson ... and took 10 years and the addition of Duncan to win.
That's it. No other teams besides those two with the #1 overall pick has won a title AT ALL since making that pick. And both of those required the addition of a second "#1".
For #2 picks it's not much better. Only FOUR teams with the #2 pick have won a title AT ALL since making that pick. And not one of those picks actually contributed to the title: Len Bias certainly did not contribute to ours ... two decades years later. Jason Kidd left Dallas and came back over a decade later to help with Dallas' title. Darko sat on the bench watching Detroit win their title and finally Miami tanked only to get Beasely - whom they traded for trash. They then only became a title team after buying Lebron in free agency.
The numbers are similar for #3 picks.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.
Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!
Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.
It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.
You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.
Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!
Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.
It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.
You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.
Nope. THIS is what I said:
A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it. What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.
Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft. But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA. Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol). Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron. Pierce needed KG (& Ray). Same pattern, rinse repeat.
Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'. An all-star. But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.
Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan. They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.
Another statement that the data suggests is true is that:
3. After getting a top 3 pick, even if you do ever win a title, it may take decades.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
You just happened to define your cutoff as the year right after 16 rings in a row were won by teams that drafted their best players...
That's true, but the fact that more than half of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category is IMO better than having this conversation after your 16 year streak. More options seem to be available now.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.
Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!
Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.
It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.
You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.
Nope. THIS is what I said:
A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it. What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.
Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft. But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA. Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol). Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron. Pierce needed KG (& Ray). Same pattern, rinse repeat.
Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'. An all-star. But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.
Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan. They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.
As far as I can tell your story - an 8-15 pick as the #2-3 guy, with a later "much bigger" star coming through trade or free agency - fits 4 out of the last 30 championship winners. How is that the "most common" pattern? What examples am I missing?
The Celtics drafted Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic. The Bulls drafted Jordan. The Rockets drafted Hakeem. The Spurs drafted Duncan - who was the best player on every one of those championship teams. Right there you have "most" championships, and in every case those guys were the clear #1 star on the team.
I'm not even going to get into the other cases (Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe's later rings, etc.) where there's some room for debate about whether the player was technically drafted by that team (it should fit under your definition if the player never played for another team), or whether the player was the #1 or #2 guy (e.g. Wade could easily be viewed as #1 on that 2006 team). Those cases would push things even more in the same direction.
Anyway I'm going to bow out at this point.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.
Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!
Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.
It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.
You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.
Bolded for emphasis.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.
Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!
Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.
It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.
You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.
Nope. THIS is what I said:
A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it. What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.
Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft. But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA. Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol). Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron. Pierce needed KG (& Ray). Same pattern, rinse repeat.
Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'. An all-star. But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.
Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan. They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.
As far as I can tell your story - an 8-15 pick as the #2-3 guy, with a later "much bigger" star coming through trade or free agency - fits 4 out of the last 30 championship winners. How is that the "most common" pattern? What examples am I missing?
The Celtics drafted Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic. The Bulls drafted Jordan. The Rockets drafted Hakeem. The Spurs drafted Duncan - who was the best player on every one of those championship teams. Right there you have "most" championships, and in every case those guys were the clear #1 star on the team.
I'm not even going to get into the other cases (Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe's later rings, etc.) where there's some room for debate about whether the player was technically drafted by that team (it should fit under your definition if the player never played for another team), or whether the player was the #1 or #2 guy (e.g. Wade could easily be viewed as #1 on that 2006 team). Those cases would push things even more in the same direction.
Anyway I'm going to bow out at this point.
First off, the Bird/Magic teams were assembled before the 30-year span I talked about so that's half your samples. Things have changes a lot since then, notably the nature of the CBA and the draft lottery. Even Jordan was drafted barely within that window (and notably even HE did NOT win a title until his 7th season).
I specifically mentioned the cases of Houston: back-to-back #1s (Sampson & Olajuwan) yet still took a _decade_ before they won a title. Did they win it because they 'tanked'? Or because it simply took ten years to rebuild a title team from crap, no matter if you get a kick start with two elite bigs like that?
I also specifically mentioned San Antonio. Again, Houston and SA are the only teams to win a title at all, after drafting a #1 in the last 30 years. Each has done it with two #1s so those four players are the _only_ four #1 picks to win a title on the team that drafted them in the last three decades.
Now, look at the title teams of recent years (going back to since the Jordan Bulls) and noting the 'notable added star' in parenthesis.
2013 Miami (Lebron)*
2012 Miami (Lebron, acquired via FA, 2011)*
2011 Mavericks (Chandler via trade, 2010)*
2010 Lakers (Gasol)*
2009 Lakers (Gasol, via trade, 2008)*
2008 Celtics (Garnett via trade, 2007)*
2007 Spurs (Manu)*
2006 Miami (Shaq, via trade, 2004)
2005 Spurs (Manu, drafted#57, 2002 at age 25)
2004 Pistons (Billups, via FA, 2002)*
2003 Spurs (Duncan)*
2002 Lakers (Shaq)*
2001 Lakers (Shaq)*
2000 Lakers (Shaq, via trade, 1996)*
1999 Spurs (Duncan, drafted #1, 1997)*
Now, in this I've put an asterisk every time that the indicated 'added guy' lead his team in WS/48 that season. In most cases he also lead in WS. That happened all but twice: 2005, when Duncan barely edged Manu and 2006 when Wade had his big year.
So that shows clearly, that in most cases, the 'added star' was as good or better than the guy already there. In a lot of these cases, it was 'way better'.
This list also shows that, other than the notable exception of the Spurs, who did it with the draft (Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Manu), every other title team got their big addition through the trade or free agent market.
The Spurs 'model' for doing it is simply too much of an outlier. It's roots go way back to the Robinson pick in '87 (he had to fulfill his Navy commitment before playing his rookie season in 1989) and involves some odd 'luck' of his injury in 1996 and then the ping pong balls getting them Duncan, which has formed a solid foundation around which they've made shrewd draft picks and trades. I don't think it is a model you can hope to replicate any time soon.
I expect Danny to instead follow the model used to win the other 11 of the last 15 titles.
-
Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?
13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)
Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.
And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.
What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.
We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.
Haha, no sir. The point is a valid one no matter who/what Rondo is.
However to kick at your shifting field goals, Rondo may or may not be perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team (it would really depend on who the 1st and 3rd best players are), but with so much hinging on him making a full recovery, evolving as a leader, altering his game/shoring up his consistency...there is still so very little to gain by doing anything other than acquiring another high-value asset in a top-10 pick in this years' draft.
Rondo's been the best player on a team that got to game 7 of the finals. Claiming that he needs to show he's healthy again after his knee injury is fine, claiming he needs to evolve as a leader and shore up parts of his game to be able to accomplish what he did when he was a lesser player is silly.
Pretending he's proven himself to be an established leader , or consistently the best player on a contending team night in night out is silly.
-
Question: How many Finals teams of the last 25 years have had their best or second best player be either drafted (and retained) by said team?
13: Heat (Wade), Spurs (Duncan)
12: Heat (Wade), Thunder (Durant)
11: Mavs (Dirk), Heat (Wade)
10: Lakers (Bryant), Celtics (Pierce)
09: Lakers (Bryant), Magic (Howard)
08: Celtics (Pierce), Lakers (Bryant)
07: Spurs (Duncan), Cavs (James)
06: Heat (Wade), Mavs (Dirk)
05: Spurs (Duncan), Pistons (DNQ)
Okay, I'm bored. You need to go back to 2005 in order to find a team that made the Finals that didn't have a homegrown star at either the top or near the top of their talent hierarchy.
And of the guys listed, Kobe Bryant was the only player taken outside the top 10 picks.
What does it all mean? Having a top-10 pick and being a bit lucky with your selection is a really good way to assemble at least some of the top-end talent you need to be a legitimate NBA contender.
We have Rondo. We drafted him. He's perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team. So there goes that point.
Haha, no sir. The point is a valid one no matter who/what Rondo is.
However to kick at your shifting field goals, Rondo may or may not be perfectly capable of being the second-best player on a championship team (it would really depend on who the 1st and 3rd best players are), but with so much hinging on him making a full recovery, evolving as a leader, altering his game/shoring up his consistency...there is still so very little to gain by doing anything other than acquiring another high-value asset in a top-10 pick in this years' draft.
Rondo's been the best player on a team that got to game 7 of the finals. Claiming that he needs to show he's healthy again after his knee injury is fine, claiming he needs to evolve as a leader and shore up parts of his game to be able to accomplish what he did when he was a lesser player is silly.
Pretending he's proven himself to be an established leader , or consistently the best player on a contending team night in night out is silly.
That probably depends on whether you form your opinion based on what you see on the court/hear from the rest of the team or on what people say on the internet. He's been the best player on a contending team before. Rondo doesn't play great every night, that's true. But claims that others "bring it all the time" are nonsense. And everyone associated with the team, from management to coaches to the other players that have commented on Rondo's leadership capabilities over the last few years (with the possible exception of traitor Ray) is "pretending" that Rondo's proven himself to be an established leader.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.
Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!
Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.
It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.
You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.
Nope. THIS is what I said:
A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it. What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.
Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft. But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA. Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol). Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron. Pierce needed KG (& Ray). Same pattern, rinse repeat.
Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'. An all-star. But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.
Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan. They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.
As far as I can tell your story - an 8-15 pick as the #2-3 guy, with a later "much bigger" star coming through trade or free agency - fits 4 out of the last 30 championship winners. How is that the "most common" pattern? What examples am I missing?
The Celtics drafted Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic. The Bulls drafted Jordan. The Rockets drafted Hakeem. The Spurs drafted Duncan - who was the best player on every one of those championship teams. Right there you have "most" championships, and in every case those guys were the clear #1 star on the team.
I'm not even going to get into the other cases (Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe's later rings, etc.) where there's some room for debate about whether the player was technically drafted by that team (it should fit under your definition if the player never played for another team), or whether the player was the #1 or #2 guy (e.g. Wade could easily be viewed as #1 on that 2006 team). Those cases would push things even more in the same direction.
Anyway I'm going to bow out at this point.
First off, the Bird/Magic teams were assembled before the 30-year span I talked about so that's half your samples. Things have changes a lot since then, notably the nature of the CBA and the draft lottery. Even Jordan was drafted barely within that window (and notably even HE did NOT win a title until his 7th season).
I specifically mentioned the cases of Houston: back-to-back #1s (Sampson & Olajuwan) yet still took a _decade_ before they won a title. Did they win it because they 'tanked'? Or because it simply took ten years to rebuild a title team from crap, no matter if you get a kick start with two elite bigs like that?
I also specifically mentioned San Antonio. Again, Houston and SA are the only teams to win a title at all, after drafting a #1 in the last 30 years. Each has done it with two #1s so those four players are the _only_ four #1 picks to win a title on the team that drafted them in the last three decades.
Now, look at the title teams of recent years (going back to since the Jordan Bulls) and noting the 'notable added star' in parenthesis.
2013 Miami (Lebron)*
2012 Miami (Lebron, acquired via FA, 2011)*
2011 Mavericks (Chandler via trade, 2010)*
2010 Lakers (Gasol)*
2009 Lakers (Gasol, via trade, 2008)*
2008 Celtics (Garnett via trade, 2007)*
2007 Spurs (Manu)*
2006 Miami (Shaq, via trade, 2004)
2005 Spurs (Manu, drafted#57, 2002 at age 25)
2004 Pistons (Billups, via FA, 2002)*
2003 Spurs (Duncan)*
2002 Lakers (Shaq)*
2001 Lakers (Shaq)*
2000 Lakers (Shaq, via trade, 1996)*
1999 Spurs (Duncan, drafted #1, 1997)*
Now, in this I've put an asterisk every time that the indicated 'added guy' lead his team in WS/48 that season. In most cases he also lead in WS. That happened all but twice: 2005, when Duncan barely edged Manu and 2006 when Wade had his big year.
So that shows clearly, that in most cases, the 'added star' was as good or better than the guy already there. In a lot of these cases, it was 'way better'.
This list also shows that, other than the notable exception of the Spurs, who did it with the draft (Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Manu), every other title team got their big addition through the trade or free agent market.
The Spurs 'model' for doing it is simply too much of an outlier. It's roots go way back to the Robinson pick in '87 (he had to fulfill his Navy commitment before playing his rookie season in 1989) and involves some odd 'luck' of his injury in 1996 and then the ping pong balls getting them Duncan, which has formed a solid foundation around which they've made shrewd draft picks and trades. I don't think it is a model you can hope to replicate any time soon.
I expect Danny to instead follow the model used to win the other 11 of the last 15 titles.
OK. So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you can claim to be not so horribly wrong if you:
a. Cherry-pick the time period to start right *after* the period during which 15 straight titles were won by teams who drafted their best player, and;
b. Believe that Gasol, Chandler and Manu were better than Duncan, Nowitzki and Kobe on their respective championship teams.
Got it. I'll let others form their own opinions about the merits of your argument. As I said, I'm done.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
Go look back at all the 'top 3' picks in the last 30 years and look at how many teams that drafted in the top 3 subsequently won a title and how long it took them to do so afterwards.
Well, yeah. But that is a totally different point!
Both of these statements are true:
1. Most championships in the last 35 years have been won by teams that drafted their best player;
2. Drafting in the top 3 is no guarantee at all of winning a championship.
It has to be this way based on the math. There are many fewer championship winners (particularly because of repeat winners) than there are top 3 or top 5 draft picks.
You claimed earlier in the thread that "all but a couple" winners acquired their best player through some other way than drafting. That's about statement (1) and that's what I was responding to.
Nope. THIS is what I said:
A lot of 'pro-tanking' folks like to note that almost every title team had at least one "top 3" drafted superstar on it. What they fail to then notice is that in all but a couple of cases that player was NOT drafted by the team that they won the title on.
Yes, most teams had one or more important players that they did indeed draft. But even then, in all those cases, they didn't become a title contender until _adding_ the above sort of 'top 3' or similarly 'elite' player via trade/FA. Kobe needed Shaq (and then Gasol). Wade needed Shaq & then Lebron. Pierce needed KG (& Ray). Same pattern, rinse repeat.
Basically, the most common pattern has been that a team will have a 'star' who was drafted by them somewhere in the range of 8-15 who is '[dang] good'. An all-star. But can't carry it to the promised land until they add another (usually much bigger) star who was drafted by some other team.
Even the Spurs match that pattern because they had Robinson, and added Duncan. They were just the rare case where the additional star that put the 'over the hump' was also drafted.
As far as I can tell your story - an 8-15 pick as the #2-3 guy, with a later "much bigger" star coming through trade or free agency - fits 4 out of the last 30 championship winners. How is that the "most common" pattern? What examples am I missing?
The Celtics drafted Bird. The Lakers drafted Magic. The Bulls drafted Jordan. The Rockets drafted Hakeem. The Spurs drafted Duncan - who was the best player on every one of those championship teams. Right there you have "most" championships, and in every case those guys were the clear #1 star on the team.
I'm not even going to get into the other cases (Wade, Nowitzki, Kobe's later rings, etc.) where there's some room for debate about whether the player was technically drafted by that team (it should fit under your definition if the player never played for another team), or whether the player was the #1 or #2 guy (e.g. Wade could easily be viewed as #1 on that 2006 team). Those cases would push things even more in the same direction.
Anyway I'm going to bow out at this point.
First off, the Bird/Magic teams were assembled before the 30-year span I talked about so that's half your samples. Things have changes a lot since then, notably the nature of the CBA and the draft lottery. Even Jordan was drafted barely within that window (and notably even HE did NOT win a title until his 7th season).
I specifically mentioned the cases of Houston: back-to-back #1s (Sampson & Olajuwan) yet still took a _decade_ before they won a title. Did they win it because they 'tanked'? Or because it simply took ten years to rebuild a title team from crap, no matter if you get a kick start with two elite bigs like that?
I also specifically mentioned San Antonio. Again, Houston and SA are the only teams to win a title at all, after drafting a #1 in the last 30 years. Each has done it with two #1s so those four players are the _only_ four #1 picks to win a title on the team that drafted them in the last three decades.
Now, look at the title teams of recent years (going back to since the Jordan Bulls) and noting the 'notable added star' in parenthesis.
2013 Miami (Lebron)*
2012 Miami (Lebron, acquired via FA, 2011)*
2011 Mavericks (Chandler via trade, 2010)*
2010 Lakers (Gasol)*
2009 Lakers (Gasol, via trade, 2008)*
2008 Celtics (Garnett via trade, 2007)*
2007 Spurs (Manu)*
2006 Miami (Shaq, via trade, 2004)
2005 Spurs (Manu, drafted#57, 2002 at age 25)
2004 Pistons (Billups, via FA, 2002)*
2003 Spurs (Duncan)*
2002 Lakers (Shaq)*
2001 Lakers (Shaq)*
2000 Lakers (Shaq, via trade, 1996)*
1999 Spurs (Duncan, drafted #1, 1997)*
Now, in this I've put an asterisk every time that the indicated 'added guy' lead his team in WS/48 that season. In most cases he also lead in WS. That happened all but twice: 2005, when Duncan barely edged Manu and 2006 when Wade had his big year.
So that shows clearly, that in most cases, the 'added star' was as good or better than the guy already there. In a lot of these cases, it was 'way better'.
This list also shows that, other than the notable exception of the Spurs, who did it with the draft (Robinson, Duncan, Parker, Manu), every other title team got their big addition through the trade or free agent market.
The Spurs 'model' for doing it is simply too much of an outlier. It's roots go way back to the Robinson pick in '87 (he had to fulfill his Navy commitment before playing his rookie season in 1989) and involves some odd 'luck' of his injury in 1996 and then the ping pong balls getting them Duncan, which has formed a solid foundation around which they've made shrewd draft picks and trades. I don't think it is a model you can hope to replicate any time soon.
I expect Danny to instead follow the model used to win the other 11 of the last 15 titles.
OK. So what you're saying, in a nutshell, is that you can claim to be not so horribly wrong if you:
a. Cherry-pick the time period to start right *after* the period during which 15 straight titles were won by teams who drafted their best player, and;
b. Believe that Gasol, Chandler and Manu were better than Duncan, Nowitzki and Kobe on their respective championship teams.
Got it. I'll let others form their own opinions about the merits of your argument. As I said, I'm done.
There is no cherry picking. I went linearly back in time. I don't have infinite free time and it is an obvious stoping point because the Jordan Bulls dominated 6 of the next 8 seasons before that.
The current weighted lottery system started in 1990, during Jordan's run, so the 'modern era' of NBA rules that affect how you build a roster kind of picks up logically right after that.
As to your point (b) - that's silly. I never asserted they were all better. But statistically, the players I noted clearly performed on a par - and in some cases better - than those guys. The point - as I've plainly stated - is not necessarily that every one of these guys was clearly better. The point is that overwhelmingly, they were at least on a par. And in a majority of the cases, yeah, they were 'better' - at least statistically.
Seriously, you have offered nothing but broad opinions based on ... what? Your overwhelming desire not to be wrong?
You think you somehow have offered some compelling rebuttal and now, for the second time, you are "done"?
Whatever.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Shaqs Orlando team made the finals. The Lakers drafted Kobe who was a franchise player. The Heat winning with Wade and Shaq drafted Wade. Paul Pierce in 2008 was arguably co MVP for our 2008 championship team. 19.5, 4.5 and 5 vs KG's 18.8,9.2 and 3.4 when you consider he had to guard Lebron and Kobe and won finals MVP.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
Getting the picture?
You can delude the argument all you want because you don't like tanking, but unfortunately you need lottery picks to win NBA championships. I'm not saying all these teams tanked to get their picks. I'm just saying that without these players they drafted and built around- they probably don't win titles.
KG doesn't come to Boston without Pierce.
Lebron and Shaq don't come to Miami without Wade.
Shaq doesn't go to LA without Kobe.
They add the free agents after they establish they have a legitimate top 5 to 10 player- a franchise level scorer they can rely on when the time comes.
And the Celtics currently have Rondo, who's shown he can be one of the top performers in the playoffs and lead teams to deep playoff runs, and we've heard many of the top players in the league saying they'd like to play with him. Problem solved.
Rondo is not a top 10 NBA player. Of the top 15 ranked NBA players, could you name one NBA team that would trade their top 15 player for Rondo? It would be very difficult to find a trade partner.
He's possibly the second wheel on a championship team like Wade is currently to Lebron, but he doesn't fall into the same category of guys on that list other than Kenyon Martin or Allan Houston- bench all stars.
Plain and simple fact is that he's not a scorer. Championship teams need those ya know.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Shaqs Orlando team made the finals. The Lakers drafted Kobe who was a franchise player. The Heat winning with Wade and Shaq drafted Wade. Paul Pierce in 2008 was arguably co MVP for our 2008 championship team. 19.5, 4.5 and 5 vs KG's 18.8,9.2 and 3.4 when you consider he had to guard Lebron and Kobe and won finals MVP.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
Getting the picture?
You can delude the argument all you want because you don't like tanking, but unfortunately you need lottery picks to win NBA championships. I'm not saying all these teams tanked to get their picks. I'm just saying that without these players they drafted and built around- they probably don't win titles.
KG doesn't come to Boston without Pierce.
Lebron and Shaq don't come to Miami without Wade.
Shaq doesn't go to LA without Kobe.
They add the free agents after they establish they have a legitimate top 5 to 10 player- a franchise level scorer they can rely on when the time comes.
And the Celtics currently have Rondo, who's shown he can be one of the top performers in the playoffs and lead teams to deep playoff runs, and we've heard many of the top players in the league saying they'd like to play with him. Problem solved.
Rondo is not a top 10 NBA player. Of the top 15 ranked NBA players, could you name one NBA team that would trade their top 15 player for Rondo? It would be very difficult to find a trade partner.
He's possibly the second wheel on a championship team like Wade is currently to Lebron, but he doesn't fall into the same category of guys on that list other than Kenyon Martin or Allan Houston- bench all stars.
Plain and simple fact is that he's not a scorer. Championship teams need those ya know.
Referring to Rondo as a "bench all-star" seems to be quite a slight in your mind (I suppose because you feel that players like PP are a level or two below people who get voted onto the teams) in spite of the fact that Rondo was, as someone else pointed out, a starter in his last all-star game. But despite that "shortcoming", nothing you said really refuted my point. Did you happen to catch the playoffs in 2010 (game 7 of the finals)? If so, which of Rondo's teammates do you think played like LeBron?
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Shaqs Orlando team made the finals. The Lakers drafted Kobe who was a franchise player. The Heat winning with Wade and Shaq drafted Wade. Paul Pierce in 2008 was arguably co MVP for our 2008 championship team. 19.5, 4.5 and 5 vs KG's 18.8,9.2 and 3.4 when you consider he had to guard Lebron and Kobe and won finals MVP.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
Getting the picture?
You can delude the argument all you want because you don't like tanking, but unfortunately you need lottery picks to win NBA championships. I'm not saying all these teams tanked to get their picks. I'm just saying that without these players they drafted and built around- they probably don't win titles.
KG doesn't come to Boston without Pierce.
Lebron and Shaq don't come to Miami without Wade.
Shaq doesn't go to LA without Kobe.
They add the free agents after they establish they have a legitimate top 5 to 10 player- a franchise level scorer they can rely on when the time comes.
And the Celtics currently have Rondo, who's shown he can be one of the top performers in the playoffs and lead teams to deep playoff runs, and we've heard many of the top players in the league saying they'd like to play with him. Problem solved.
Rondo is not a top 10 NBA player. Of the top 15 ranked NBA players, could you name one NBA team that would trade their top 15 player for Rondo? It would be very difficult to find a trade partner.
He's possibly the second wheel on a championship team like Wade is currently to Lebron, but he doesn't fall into the same category of guys on that list other than Kenyon Martin or Allan Houston- bench all stars.
Plain and simple fact is that he's not a scorer. Championship teams need those ya know.
Referring to Rondo as a "bench all-star" seems to be quite a slight in your mind (I suppose because you feel that players like PP are a level or two below people who get voted onto the teams) in spite of the fact that Rondo was, as someone else pointed out, a starter in his last all-star game. But despite that "shortcoming", nothing you said really refuted my point. Did you happen to catch the playoffs in 2010 (game 7 of the finals)? If so, which of Rondo's teammates do you think played like LeBron?
Rondo started because Rose was injured- that doesn't make him starting All Star Material. All Stars are picked by fans and it's fair to say that Rondo is definitely the most entertaining player on the court in almost every game he plays.
Pierce plays the position that conveys the best basketball players and generally the most popular ones and to make the bench that many times is pretty unreal. I’d ask yourself how many All Star appearances Rondo makes without KG, Pierce and Ray around him- I think it's also fair to say there's a good chance that he won't get selected for a good few years until he's on a contender again.
That's the difference between Rondo and Chris Paul or a prime Steve Nash. They don't need guys around them to dominate- they can shoot, assist and control the game like Rondo without the leaks in their games.(Although I will mention Nash's defensive problems, even if they were generally overblown). Would Rondo make the All Star game if he were in Chris Paul's place in New Orleans? Or Nash's MVP and All Star place in Phoenix?
We’ll leave All Star appearances out of it then, because they’re really not important when looking at Rondo overall.
Talent wise, or results wise- he's averaged 12 points and 11 assists per game. He's shot less than 24% from 3 point land and 60% from the line over the last 3 seasons.
Yeah he's been great in some playoff series but he's also had Pierce and KG and Ray to pass to and finish.
Chris Paul has arguably never had anyone better than Blake Griffin to play with and has averaged 18.4 points and 9.6 assists in the last three seasons. In the playoffs he's averaged 20 points and 9.5 assists. His PER for the last three seasons is 26.86 and his playoff PER is over 27. His win shares per 48 minutes over the last three seasons are 28. Rondos are 11.8 wins per 48.
If you look at Steve Nash in his prime, his regular season numbers were actually very similar to Rondo's. The obvious difference that separates them as MVP material (like Chris Paul) is Nash's shooting. His superior shooting and free throws mean that his win shares in his MVP seasons were 20.3(2005) and 21.2(2006) with win shares of 23 and 22.
Nash's playoff stats are where you drop your jaw. His playoff AVERAGES were 24 points and 11 assists in 2005 with a PER of 23.4 in 2005 and 20 ppg and 11 with a PER of 21.3 in 2006.
Chris Paul has had some incredible numbers as well, the guys playoff PER over the last 3 seasons was 28 with his win shares at 20.7.
Why did Danny want Chris Paul so badly? As Danny Ainge stated when reflecting on the efforts to trade Rondo for CP3. ‘Chris Paul…well he's got the complete game.’
Rondo is VERY close, if not better at many aspects- but the shooting and lack of scoring on Rondo's behalf are the clear leaks that are preventing him from reaching Chris Paul's level. If he gets hot in a playoff series then yeah, he's on the Steve Nash/Chris Paul level- but he's not going to put up those numbers as much as CP3 is.
You've talked about Rondo's 2010 playoffs and his 2012 ECF run.
In 2010 he had that amazing 4th quarter in game 2 (among other highlights), and yeah he was great- but his averages for the series were 13.6 points,6.3 rebounds and 7.6 assists- nice numbers buts he's still got KG, Ray and Pierce all averaging at least 14 ppg around him.
Two memorable performances ?
1) Let’s look at CP3's series against the Lakers in 2011 in his last run as a New Orleans Hornet.
22 pgg, 11.5 assists, 6.7 rebounds, 1.8 steals on a PER of 29 and true shooting percentage of 67% with an efficiency rating of 60 %!!! His Turnover percentage was 18%.
2) Rondo's 2012 ECF games were brilliant, 20.9 ppg, 11.3 assists and 6.3 rebounds with 1.9 steals per game with true shooting at 53 % and efficiency at 50%. Rondo's turnover rate was 25%.
Of course PER and Win shares don't mean everything but they tell a story of how much a particular player contributes to the overall success of their team- It's why Danny picked all our rookies this season- they were all at the top of win shares for their position in the NCAA.
In the last three seasons during the playoffs Rondo's averaged 15 points and 10 assists. I mean they're great numbers but they're not franchise worthy. My point is that Rondo is not as good as Chris Paul or Steve Nash.
Which leads me to my most important point. The fact is that neither Nash nor Chris Paul are good enough to lead a team to the NBA finals- but they are/were both better players than Rondo. (at least up to this point in Rondo’s career)
Put Rondo on the Hornets and CP3 on the Celtics? Does he get that many assists without the elite players around him? Does Chris Paul get more points and more assists? The numbers say he definitely does because his usage is far more efficient- whether it be his shooting usage or his overall usage when on the floor.
In today’s modern NBA game, point guards are not the players to lead you to a championship. The last one that did it was Isiah
(I think?). Iverson tried hard- but he was a scoring guard. Rose might get close- but again he’s a scorer, not a ‘point’/facilitator guard.
What you’re also leaving out is Rondo’s regular season numbers which are hurting his team’s playoff position and home court advantage/seeding.
2012 NBA regular season? (his last full season)
Rajon Rondo 2011-12 regular season: 12 points, 11 assists and 4.8 rebounds, 1.8 steals and 3.6 turnovers per game.
PER of 17.5 and a win share of 12.1 games.
Compared to Chris Paul in the same year?
Chris Paul 2011-12 regular season: 19.8 ppg, 9.1 assists, 3.6 Rebounds, 2.4 steals, 2.1 turnovers.
PER of 27 with a win share of 27.8 games.
The triple doubles and 20 assist games are great- but the NBA and championships are built by consistency.
Consistency in effort, consistency in shooting, consistency in effectiveness and efficiency are just not there for Rondo.
CP3 might be good enough as the second fiddle on a championship team- we’re not sure yet. Plenty of basketball experts would say that Russell Westbrook is a better point guard/player than Rondo, and we know that they aren't winning anything in OKC unless Durant gets more help than Westbrook.
Anyway, Rondo is a fair way behind CP3 and I doubt he’ll ever reach CP3’s greatness.
With one season after this one remaining on his contract- perhaps it’s easy to see why some of us would prefer to trade him for a draft pick before he is potentially exposed- exposed in the sense that he doesn't have All Star team mates now. Sure he could blossom, but his pathetic shooting from range and pathetic free throw shooting aren't showing enough consistent improvement to make me see the light in such a prediction.
He's coming back from a serious injury. He's got one more year on his contract after this season. He's lost his All Star team mates and now more than ever is the chance he'll be exposed as a one dimensional player that NEEDS shooters around him.
Trade him for a nice pick or asset or watch him walk away in frustration to free agency for the bright lights of New York or any other contending team with the elite team mates he’s used to playing with his whole career.
Kid's freakin awesome, but unfortunately we are stuck between a rock and a hard place with his contract and the unknown dimension of any decent players around him.
He is not a top 10 player. He's not a top 15 player. He's an amazingly good point guard who's probably top 5 in the league at his position. Problem is he can't shoot and probably won't ever be able to shoot.
I guess the good outcome could be that without good players around him, his value plummets and no one else is willing to pay him the big $$$ as a free agent, leaving us to scoop him up for another bargain contract. I feel there are just too many teams in the NBA that would over pay him for his jersey sales/marketing appeal alone.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Shaqs Orlando team made the finals. The Lakers drafted Kobe who was a franchise player. The Heat winning with Wade and Shaq drafted Wade. Paul Pierce in 2008 was arguably co MVP for our 2008 championship team. 19.5, 4.5 and 5 vs KG's 18.8,9.2 and 3.4 when you consider he had to guard Lebron and Kobe and won finals MVP.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
Getting the picture?
You can delude the argument all you want because you don't like tanking, but unfortunately you need lottery picks to win NBA championships. I'm not saying all these teams tanked to get their picks. I'm just saying that without these players they drafted and built around- they probably don't win titles.
KG doesn't come to Boston without Pierce.
Lebron and Shaq don't come to Miami without Wade.
Shaq doesn't go to LA without Kobe.
They add the free agents after they establish they have a legitimate top 5 to 10 player- a franchise level scorer they can rely on when the time comes.
And the Celtics currently have Rondo, who's shown he can be one of the top performers in the playoffs and lead teams to deep playoff runs, and we've heard many of the top players in the league saying they'd like to play with him. Problem solved.
Rondo is not a top 10 NBA player. Of the top 15 ranked NBA players, could you name one NBA team that would trade their top 15 player for Rondo? It would be very difficult to find a trade partner.
He's possibly the second wheel on a championship team like Wade is currently to Lebron, but he doesn't fall into the same category of guys on that list other than Kenyon Martin or Allan Houston- bench all stars.
Plain and simple fact is that he's not a scorer. Championship teams need those ya know.
Referring to Rondo as a "bench all-star" seems to be quite a slight in your mind (I suppose because you feel that players like PP are a level or two below people who get voted onto the teams) in spite of the fact that Rondo was, as someone else pointed out, a starter in his last all-star game. But despite that "shortcoming", nothing you said really refuted my point. Did you happen to catch the playoffs in 2010 (game 7 of the finals)? If so, which of Rondo's teammates do you think played like LeBron?
Rondo started because Rose was injured- that doesn't make him starting All Star Material. All Stars are picked by fans and it's fair to say that Rondo is definitely the most entertaining player on the court in almost every game he plays.
Pierce plays the position that conveys the best basketball players and generally the most popular ones and to make the bench that many times is pretty unreal. I’d ask yourself how many All Star appearances Rondo makes without KG, Pierce and Ray around him- I think it's also fair to say there's a good chance that he won't get selected for a good few years until he's on a contender again.
That's the difference between Rondo and Chris Paul or a prime Steve Nash. They don't need guys around them to dominate- they can shoot, assist and control the game like Rondo without the leaks in their games.(Although I will mention Nash's defensive problems, even if they were generally overblown). Would Rondo make the All Star game if he were in Chris Paul's place in New Orleans? Or Nash's MVP and All Star place in Phoenix?
We’ll leave All Star appearances out of it then, because they’re really not important when looking at Rondo overall.
Talent wise, or results wise- he's averaged 12 points and 11 assists per game. He's shot less than 24% from 3 point land and 60% from the line over the last 3 seasons.
Yeah he's been great in some playoff series but he's also had Pierce and KG and Ray to pass to and finish.
Chris Paul has arguably never had anyone better than Blake Griffin to play with and has averaged 18.4 points and 9.6 assists in the last three seasons. In the playoffs he's averaged 20 points and 9.5 assists. His PER for the last three seasons is 26.86 and his playoff PER is over 27. His win shares per 48 minutes over the last three seasons are 28. Rondos are 11.8 wins per 48.
If you look at Steve Nash in his prime, his regular season numbers were actually very similar to Rondo's. The obvious difference that separates them as MVP material (like Chris Paul) is Nash's shooting. His superior shooting and free throws mean that his win shares in his MVP seasons were 20.3(2005) and 21.2(2006) with win shares of 23 and 22.
Nash's playoff stats are where you drop your jaw. His playoff AVERAGES were 24 points and 11 assists in 2005 with a PER of 23.4 in 2005 and 20 ppg and 11 with a PER of 21.3 in 2006.
Chris Paul has had some incredible numbers as well, the guys playoff PER over the last 3 seasons was 28 with his win shares at 20.7.
Why did Danny want Chris Paul so badly? As Danny Ainge stated when reflecting on the efforts to trade Rondo for CP3. ‘Chris Paul…well he's got the complete game.’
Rondo is VERY close, if not better at many aspects- but the shooting and lack of scoring on Rondo's behalf are the clear leaks that are preventing him from reaching Chris Paul's level. If he gets hot in a playoff series then yeah, he's on the Steve Nash/Chris Paul level- but he's not going to put up those numbers as much as CP3 is.
You've talked about Rondo's 2010 playoffs and his 2012 ECF run.
In 2010 he had that amazing 4th quarter in game 2 (among other highlights), and yeah he was great- but his averages for the series were 13.6 points,6.3 rebounds and 7.6 assists- nice numbers buts he's still got KG, Ray and Pierce all averaging at least 14 ppg around him.
Two memorable performances ?
1) Let’s look at CP3's series against the Lakers in 2011 in his last run as a New Orleans Hornet.
22 pgg, 11.5 assists, 6.7 rebounds, 1.8 steals on a PER of 29 and true shooting percentage of 67% with an efficiency rating of 60 %!!! His Turnover percentage was 18%.
2) Rondo's 2012 ECF games were brilliant, 20.9 ppg, 11.3 assists and 6.3 rebounds with 1.9 steals per game with true shooting at 53 % and efficiency at 50%. Rondo's turnover rate was 25%.
Of course PER and Win shares don't mean everything but they tell a story of how much a particular player contributes to the overall success of their team- It's why Danny picked all our rookies this season- they were all at the top of win shares for their position in the NCAA.
In the last three seasons during the playoffs Rondo's averaged 15 points and 10 assists. I mean they're great numbers but they're not franchise worthy. My point is that Rondo is not as good as Chris Paul or Steve Nash.
Which leads me to my most important point. The fact is that neither Nash nor Chris Paul are good enough to lead a team to the NBA finals- but they are/were both better players than Rondo. (at least up to this point in Rondo’s career)
Put Rondo on the Hornets and CP3 on the Celtics? Does he get that many assists without the elite players around him? Does Chris Paul get more points and more assists? The numbers say he definitely does because his usage is far more efficient- whether it be his shooting usage or his overall usage when on the floor.
In today’s modern NBA game, point guards are not the players to lead you to a championship. The last one that did it was Isiah
(I think?). Iverson tried hard- but he was a scoring guard. Rose might get close- but again he’s a scorer, not a ‘point’/facilitator guard.
What you’re also leaving out is Rondo’s regular season numbers which are hurting his team’s playoff position and home court advantage/seeding.
2012 NBA regular season? (his last full season)
Rajon Rondo 2011-12 regular season: 12 points, 11 assists and 4.8 rebounds, 1.8 steals and 3.6 turnovers per game.
PER of 17.5 and a win share of 12.1 games.
Compared to Chris Paul in the same year?
Chris Paul 2011-12 regular season: 19.8 ppg, 9.1 assists, 3.6 Rebounds, 2.4 steals, 2.1 turnovers.
PER of 27 with a win share of 27.8 games.
The triple doubles and 20 assist games are great- but the NBA and championships are built by consistency.
Consistency in effort, consistency in shooting, consistency in effectiveness and efficiency are just not there for Rondo.
CP3 might be good enough as the second fiddle on a championship team- we’re not sure yet. Plenty of basketball experts would say that Russell Westbrook is a better point guard/player than Rondo, and we know that they aren't winning anything in OKC unless Durant gets more help than Westbrook.
Anyway, Rondo is a fair way behind CP3 and I doubt he’ll ever reach CP3’s greatness.
With one season after this one remaining on his contract- perhaps it’s easy to see why some of us would prefer to trade him for a draft pick before he is potentially exposed- exposed in the sense that he doesn't have All Star team mates now. Sure he could blossom, but his pathetic shooting from range and pathetic free throw shooting aren't showing enough consistent improvement to make me see the light in such a prediction.
He's coming back from a serious injury. He's got one more year on his contract after this season. He's lost his All Star team mates and now more than ever is the chance he'll be exposed as a one dimensional player that NEEDS shooters around him.
Trade him for a nice pick or asset or watch him walk away in frustration to free agency for the bright lights of New York or any other contending team with the elite team mates he’s used to playing with his whole career.
Kid's freakin awesome, but unfortunately we are stuck between a rock and a hard place with his contract and the unknown dimension of any decent players around him.
He is not a top 10 player. He's not a top 15 player. He's an amazingly good point guard who's probably top 5 in the league at his position. Problem is he can't shoot and probably won't ever be able to shoot.
I guess the good outcome could be that without good players around him, his value plummets and no one else is willing to pay him the big $$$ as a free agent, leaving us to scoop him up for another bargain contract. I feel there are just too many teams in the NBA that would over pay him for his jersey sales/marketing appeal alone.
That's quite a long post. A few points though:
You talk about how Rondo's numbers would have gone down if he'd been on the Hornets and how Paul's would have gone up if he'd been on the Celts. You hear this a lot, but it's pretty unlikely. It's hard to find cases of top players who's numbers are worse when they're teamed with worse players and better when they're put on teams with stars. Case in point, Chris Paul. If you ignore his first two years in the league, he had more ppg and more apg on the Hornets than he does on the Clips. It's not that complicated that having better teammates means you carry less of the load.
Secondly, I'd like to point out your discussion about their "memorable performances". It's worth pointing out that Paul's signature playoff series came in the first round against a Lakers team that was promptly swept in the next round while Rondo's came in the ECF against a team that won the title. That's fairly emblematic of the situation, since Rondo generally shines against the best competition while Paul's advantage over Rondo is much more pronounced during the regular season than it is when the going gets tougher.
You seem to think that Paul has a huge statistical advantage over Rondo in the playoffs, I don't agree. Since the 2009 playoffs began, including nba.com's efficiency rating(which doesn't favor scoring as much as PER):
Paul: 19.5/5.1/8.8, 24.8 ER
Rondo: 16.2/6.8/10.2, 22.7 ER
So, slight advantage to Paul, but if you figure in the fact that playoff teams in the East are generally better defensively than the more offensive West and that playing on better teams tends to lower your stats the difference is very thin.
Also, you mentioned Steve Nash. One of your comments was about how much better than Rondo Nash was at this point in Rondo's career. Just for fun, let's look at Nash's playoff numbers at the same point in *his* career:
Rondo: 16.2/6.8/10.2, 22.7 ER
Nash: 9.1/2.4/4.0, 8.9 ER
You also mention Nash at his absolute prime. Since Rondo played 4 years in the playoffs in the time I looked at, let's compare that to the best 4 year statistical stretch of Nash's career:
Rondo: 16.2/6.8/10.2, 22.7 ER
Nash: 20.7/3.8/11.0, 24.2 ER
So, bottom line, since 2009, while Paul's been significantly better in the regular season than Rondo he's had a slight statistical advantage in the playoffs over that time in spite of having generally worse opponents and being more the focus of his team's offense. Nash, who's won multiple MVPs and was widely seen as the best pg in the league for a decent period of time, has exactly 1 4 year stretch of playoff performance better than Rondo's last 4 playoffs (excluding defense, of course). And Nash obviously wasn't close to Rondo at the same point in their careers.
Rondo's not a top 10 player in the regular season, although you could easily argue he's top 20. But when he's healthy in the playoffs he's top 5 or so. I'd say that how you perform in the playoffs has quite a bit to do with your postseason success. Case in point Rondo, who's led teams on deep playoff runs.
-
regardless of whether he is a starter all star or not, the fact is that Rondo is an allstar calibar player...heck he carried us through the playoffs in 2010 and 2012
Heck, even Kobe Bryant said that if "boston fans dont want him" he'll take him easily
to be honest, all this "trade rondo for garbage" is rediculous...every rebuilding team needs to start somewhere..and then build from there..its much easier when you have 1 all-star to rebuild than "hoping" to find one.
say you grab a wiggins, parker or randle...they would look alot nicer next to Rondo, sullinger, olynyk than just next to sullinger and olynyk
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
i contend that the 03 Cavs are a poor example of tanking working unless the goal was to get a superstar and lose him in free agency. The team it worked for that year was the Heat. It didn't work for the Raptors, nor the Nuggets. The Nuggets got Melo. They aren't any closer or further away now than they were a decade ago
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
i contend that the 03 Cavs are a poor example of tanking working unless the goal was to get a superstar and lose him in free agency. The team it worked for that year was the Heat. It didn't work for the Raptors, nor the Nuggets. The Nuggets got Melo. They aren't any closer or further away now than they were a decade ago
I'm still curious about how it worked for the Warriors, who I don't think got a franchise player in 2012 and who I don't currently see as a threat to win the title. I'm somewhat reminded of a list of teams expected to win 54+ games this year that included the Cavs.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Shaqs Orlando team made the finals. The Lakers drafted Kobe who was a franchise player. The Heat winning with Wade and Shaq drafted Wade. Paul Pierce in 2008 was arguably co MVP for our 2008 championship team. 19.5, 4.5 and 5 vs KG's 18.8,9.2 and 3.4 when you consider he had to guard Lebron and Kobe and won finals MVP.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
Getting the picture?
You can delude the argument all you want because you don't like tanking, but unfortunately you need lottery picks to win NBA championships. I'm not saying all these teams tanked to get their picks. I'm just saying that without these players they drafted and built around- they probably don't win titles.
KG doesn't come to Boston without Pierce.
Lebron and Shaq don't come to Miami without Wade.
Shaq doesn't go to LA without Kobe.
They add the free agents after they establish they have a legitimate top 5 to 10 player- a franchise level scorer they can rely on when the time comes.
This represents a small percentage of the lottery picks made over that time. If you're going to list these guys you gotta list the others that were taken
Where's Eddy Curry, and Tyson Chandler, and Darko, and Kwame Brown, and Bogut and Marvin Williams?
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
i contend that the 03 Cavs are a poor example of tanking working unless the goal was to get a superstar and lose him in free agency. The team it worked for that year was the Heat. It didn't work for the Raptors, nor the Nuggets. The Nuggets got Melo. They aren't any closer or further away now than they were a decade ago
I'm still curious about how it worked for the Warriors, who I don't think got a franchise player in 2012 and who I don't currently see as a threat to win the title. I'm somewhat reminded of a list of teams expected to win 54+ games this year that included the Cavs.
Again, the idea that the only way tanking "works" is if you win a championship in the following years isn't one that I subscribe to.
The Warriors tanked to protect their draft pick, which was top 7 protected but headed to Utah if they finished any better. They traded Ellis for Bogut, who was already out for the season. Then they shut down Steph Curry. David Lee was shut down in the first week of April. They were giving big minutes to guys like Mikki Moore, who they signed expressly to play 20+ minutes in losses. They started Charles Jenkins ahead of Nate Robinson.
Because of that, they were able to draft Harrison Barnes, who has gone on to be a fairly important contributor to their team, especially in last year's playoffs. Tanking absolutely worked for the Dubs, and frankly it was embarrassing to watch and a shame that it worked--and I dig Golden State.
As for the Cav's, I think you need to reread some of my other posts in the thread, or even the bottom of that post--just tanking isn't going to get the job done. The Cav's absolutely tanked for LeBron, and they ended up getting him. The fact that the management and front-office weren't able to surround him with many, if any, quality teammates is a different matter entirely.
But, to reiterate my original point, to say that tanking doesn't work because otherwise the Bobcats would be the best team in the league is shortsighted and silly. Because there are examples of teams that lost on purpose in order to bolster their rosters with high draft picks. That's tanking, and it's worked.
-
even if you subscribe to the fact that you dont agree with tanking because that player may not end up being a star..
keep in mind that even acquiring a star player in a trade, those lottery picks are valuable..
it was a lottery pick that netted us Ray allen...which in turn allowed KG to agree to come here.
-
It worked for the '97 Spurs.
It worked for the '84 Rockets.
It worked for the '03 Cavs.
It worked for the '12 Warriors.
It worked for the Seattle SuperThunder.
He is right that "just tanking doesn't get the job done," though.
i contend that the 03 Cavs are a poor example of tanking working unless the goal was to get a superstar and lose him in free agency. The team it worked for that year was the Heat. It didn't work for the Raptors, nor the Nuggets. The Nuggets got Melo. They aren't any closer or further away now than they were a decade ago
I'm still curious about how it worked for the Warriors, who I don't think got a franchise player in 2012 and who I don't currently see as a threat to win the title. I'm somewhat reminded of a list of teams expected to win 54+ games this year that included the Cavs.
Again, the idea that the only way tanking "works" is if you win a championship in the following years isn't one that I subscribe to.
The Warriors tanked to protect their draft pick, which was top 7 protected but headed to Utah if they finished any better. They traded Ellis for Bogut, who was already out for the season. Then they shut down Steph Curry. David Lee was shut down in the first week of April. They were giving big minutes to guys like Mikki Moore, who they signed expressly to play 20+ minutes in losses. They started Charles Jenkins ahead of Nate Robinson.
Because of that, they were able to draft Harrison Barnes, who has gone on to be a fairly important contributor to their team, especially in last year's playoffs. Tanking absolutely worked for the Dubs, and frankly it was embarrassing to watch and a shame that it worked--and I dig Golden State.
As for the Cav's, I think you need to reread some of my other posts in the thread, or even the bottom of that post--just tanking isn't going to get the job done. The Cav's absolutely tanked for LeBron, and they ended up getting him. The fact that the management and front-office weren't able to surround him with many, if any, quality teammates is a different matter entirely.
But, to reiterate my original point, to say that tanking doesn't work because otherwise the Bobcats would be the best team in the league is shortsighted and silly. Because there are examples of teams that lost on purpose in order to bolster their rosters with high draft picks. That's tanking, and it's worked.
The Cavs comment was about another thread and not about your post. Sorry about that. As for GS, tanking always works in terms of getting better draft picks but, even if you don't win a title, it should at least have to give you a franchise cornerstone to have worked IMO.
-
Yeah, that bit was in response to eja's post, not yours.
I guess it remains to be seen whether Barnes will become an essential piece of the Warriors' puzzle--he looked great last year, but his foot's kept him off the floor for most of this season.
-
I assume "top three" means drafted with one of the top three picks... which would eliminate Bird and Kobe on a fairly weak technicality.
...but not Darko!
Extremely weak in Bird's case.
Even then, that's still nothing close to "all but a couple cases."
Most modern title winners have drafted their best player, regardless of the games one wants to play with labeling and technicalities. It's that simple.
None of Shaq's teams drafted their top player, neither did the Pistons, the Heat or the Celts. Technically the last 2 Lakers teams didn't either. When you say "most modern title teams", consider that 8-10 of the last 14 title teams didn't fall into that category.
Shaqs Orlando team made the finals. The Lakers drafted Kobe who was a franchise player. The Heat winning with Wade and Shaq drafted Wade. Paul Pierce in 2008 was arguably co MVP for our 2008 championship team. 19.5, 4.5 and 5 vs KG's 18.8,9.2 and 3.4 when you consider he had to guard Lebron and Kobe and won finals MVP.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
Getting the picture?
You can delude the argument all you want because you don't like tanking, but unfortunately you need lottery picks to win NBA championships. I'm not saying all these teams tanked to get their picks. I'm just saying that without these players they drafted and built around- they probably don't win titles.
KG doesn't come to Boston without Pierce.
Lebron and Shaq don't come to Miami without Wade.
Shaq doesn't go to LA without Kobe.
They add the free agents after they establish they have a legitimate top 5 to 10 player- a franchise level scorer they can rely on when the time comes.
And the Celtics currently have Rondo, who's shown he can be one of the top performers in the playoffs and lead teams to deep playoff runs, and we've heard many of the top players in the league saying they'd like to play with him. Problem solved.
Rondo is not a top 10 NBA player. Of the top 15 ranked NBA players, could you name one NBA team that would trade their top 15 player for Rondo? It would be very difficult to find a trade partner.
He's possibly the second wheel on a championship team like Wade is currently to Lebron, but he doesn't fall into the same category of guys on that list other than Kenyon Martin or Allan Houston- bench all stars.
Plain and simple fact is that he's not a scorer. Championship teams need those ya know.
Referring to Rondo as a "bench all-star" seems to be quite a slight in your mind (I suppose because you feel that players like PP are a level or two below people who get voted onto the teams) in spite of the fact that Rondo was, as someone else pointed out, a starter in his last all-star game. But despite that "shortcoming", nothing you said really refuted my point. Did you happen to catch the playoffs in 2010 (game 7 of the finals)? If so, which of Rondo's teammates do you think played like LeBron?
Rondo started because Rose was injured- that doesn't make him starting All Star Material. All Stars are picked by fans and it's fair to say that Rondo is definitely the most entertaining player on the court in almost every game he plays.
Pierce plays the position that conveys the best basketball players and generally the most popular ones and to make the bench that many times is pretty unreal. I’d ask yourself how many All Star appearances Rondo makes without KG, Pierce and Ray around him- I think it's also fair to say there's a good chance that he won't get selected for a good few years until he's on a contender again.
That's the difference between Rondo and Chris Paul or a prime Steve Nash. They don't need guys around them to dominate- they can shoot, assist and control the game like Rondo without the leaks in their games.(Although I will mention Nash's defensive problems, even if they were generally overblown). Would Rondo make the All Star game if he were in Chris Paul's place in New Orleans? Or Nash's MVP and All Star place in Phoenix?
We’ll leave All Star appearances out of it then, because they’re really not important when looking at Rondo overall.
Talent wise, or results wise- he's averaged 12 points and 11 assists per game. He's shot less than 24% from 3 point land and 60% from the line over the last 3 seasons.
Yeah he's been great in some playoff series but he's also had Pierce and KG and Ray to pass to and finish.
Chris Paul has arguably never had anyone better than Blake Griffin to play with and has averaged 18.4 points and 9.6 assists in the last three seasons. In the playoffs he's averaged 20 points and 9.5 assists. His PER for the last three seasons is 26.86 and his playoff PER is over 27. His win shares per 48 minutes over the last three seasons are 28. Rondos are 11.8 wins per 48.
If you look at Steve Nash in his prime, his regular season numbers were actually very similar to Rondo's. The obvious difference that separates them as MVP material (like Chris Paul) is Nash's shooting. His superior shooting and free throws mean that his win shares in his MVP seasons were 20.3(2005) and 21.2(2006) with win shares of 23 and 22.
Nash's playoff stats are where you drop your jaw. His playoff AVERAGES were 24 points and 11 assists in 2005 with a PER of 23.4 in 2005 and 20 ppg and 11 with a PER of 21.3 in 2006.
Chris Paul has had some incredible numbers as well, the guys playoff PER over the last 3 seasons was 28 with his win shares at 20.7.
Why did Danny want Chris Paul so badly? As Danny Ainge stated when reflecting on the efforts to trade Rondo for CP3. ‘Chris Paul…well he's got the complete game.’
Rondo is VERY close, if not better at many aspects- but the shooting and lack of scoring on Rondo's behalf are the clear leaks that are preventing him from reaching Chris Paul's level. If he gets hot in a playoff series then yeah, he's on the Steve Nash/Chris Paul level- but he's not going to put up those numbers as much as CP3 is.
You've talked about Rondo's 2010 playoffs and his 2012 ECF run.
In 2010 he had that amazing 4th quarter in game 2 (among other highlights), and yeah he was great- but his averages for the series were 13.6 points,6.3 rebounds and 7.6 assists- nice numbers buts he's still got KG, Ray and Pierce all averaging at least 14 ppg around him.
Two memorable performances ?
1) Let’s look at CP3's series against the Lakers in 2011 in his last run as a New Orleans Hornet.
22 pgg, 11.5 assists, 6.7 rebounds, 1.8 steals on a PER of 29 and true shooting percentage of 67% with an efficiency rating of 60 %!!! His Turnover percentage was 18%.
2) Rondo's 2012 ECF games were brilliant, 20.9 ppg, 11.3 assists and 6.3 rebounds with 1.9 steals per game with true shooting at 53 % and efficiency at 50%. Rondo's turnover rate was 25%.
Of course PER and Win shares don't mean everything but they tell a story of how much a particular player contributes to the overall success of their team- It's why Danny picked all our rookies this season- they were all at the top of win shares for their position in the NCAA.
In the last three seasons during the playoffs Rondo's averaged 15 points and 10 assists. I mean they're great numbers but they're not franchise worthy. My point is that Rondo is not as good as Chris Paul or Steve Nash.
Which leads me to my most important point. The fact is that neither Nash nor Chris Paul are good enough to lead a team to the NBA finals- but they are/were both better players than Rondo. (at least up to this point in Rondo’s career)
Put Rondo on the Hornets and CP3 on the Celtics? Does he get that many assists without the elite players around him? Does Chris Paul get more points and more assists? The numbers say he definitely does because his usage is far more efficient- whether it be his shooting usage or his overall usage when on the floor.
In today’s modern NBA game, point guards are not the players to lead you to a championship. The last one that did it was Isiah
(I think?). Iverson tried hard- but he was a scoring guard. Rose might get close- but again he’s a scorer, not a ‘point’/facilitator guard.
What you’re also leaving out is Rondo’s regular season numbers which are hurting his team’s playoff position and home court advantage/seeding.
2012 NBA regular season? (his last full season)
Rajon Rondo 2011-12 regular season: 12 points, 11 assists and 4.8 rebounds, 1.8 steals and 3.6 turnovers per game.
PER of 17.5 and a win share of 12.1 games.
Compared to Chris Paul in the same year?
Chris Paul 2011-12 regular season: 19.8 ppg, 9.1 assists, 3.6 Rebounds, 2.4 steals, 2.1 turnovers.
PER of 27 with a win share of 27.8 games.
The triple doubles and 20 assist games are great- but the NBA and championships are built by consistency.
Consistency in effort, consistency in shooting, consistency in effectiveness and efficiency are just not there for Rondo.
CP3 might be good enough as the second fiddle on a championship team- we’re not sure yet. Plenty of basketball experts would say that Russell Westbrook is a better point guard/player than Rondo, and we know that they aren't winning anything in OKC unless Durant gets more help than Westbrook.
Anyway, Rondo is a fair way behind CP3 and I doubt he’ll ever reach CP3’s greatness.
With one season after this one remaining on his contract- perhaps it’s easy to see why some of us would prefer to trade him for a draft pick before he is potentially exposed- exposed in the sense that he doesn't have All Star team mates now. Sure he could blossom, but his pathetic shooting from range and pathetic free throw shooting aren't showing enough consistent improvement to make me see the light in such a prediction.
He's coming back from a serious injury. He's got one more year on his contract after this season. He's lost his All Star team mates and now more than ever is the chance he'll be exposed as a one dimensional player that NEEDS shooters around him.
Trade him for a nice pick or asset or watch him walk away in frustration to free agency for the bright lights of New York or any other contending team with the elite team mates he’s used to playing with his whole career.
Kid's freakin awesome, but unfortunately we are stuck between a rock and a hard place with his contract and the unknown dimension of any decent players around him.
He is not a top 10 player. He's not a top 15 player. He's an amazingly good point guard who's probably top 5 in the league at his position. Problem is he can't shoot and probably won't ever be able to shoot.
I guess the good outcome could be that without good players around him, his value plummets and no one else is willing to pay him the big $$$ as a free agent, leaving us to scoop him up for another bargain contract. I feel there are just too many teams in the NBA that would over pay him for his jersey sales/marketing appeal alone.
That's quite a long post. A few points though:
You talk about how Rondo's numbers would have gone down if he'd been on the Hornets and how Paul's would have gone up if he'd been on the Celts. You hear this a lot, but it's pretty unlikely. It's hard to find cases of top players who's numbers are worse when they're teamed with worse players and better when they're put on teams with stars. Case in point, Chris Paul. If you ignore his first two years in the league, he had more ppg and more apg on the Hornets than he does on the Clips. It's not that complicated that having better teammates means you carry less of the load.
Secondly, I'd like to point out your discussion about their "memorable performances". It's worth pointing out that Paul's signature playoff series came in the first round against a Lakers team that was promptly swept in the next round while Rondo's came in the ECF against a team that won the title. That's fairly emblematic of the situation, since Rondo generally shines against the best competition while Paul's advantage over Rondo is much more pronounced during the regular season than it is when the going gets tougher.
You seem to think that Paul has a huge statistical advantage over Rondo in the playoffs, I don't agree. Since the 2009 playoffs began, including nba.com's efficiency rating(which doesn't favor scoring as much as PER):
Paul: 19.5/5.1/8.8, 24.8 ER
Rondo: 16.2/6.8/10.2, 22.7 ER
So, slight advantage to Paul, but if you figure in the fact that playoff teams in the East are generally better defensively than the more offensive West and that playing on better teams tends to lower your stats the difference is very thin.
Also, you mentioned Steve Nash. One of your comments was about how much better than Rondo Nash was at this point in Rondo's career. Just for fun, let's look at Nash's playoff numbers at the same point in *his* career:
Rondo: 16.2/6.8/10.2, 22.7 ER
Nash: 9.1/2.4/4.0, 8.9 ER
You also mention Nash at his absolute prime. Since Rondo played 4 years in the playoffs in the time I looked at, let's compare that to the best 4 year statistical stretch of Nash's career:
Rondo: 16.2/6.8/10.2, 22.7 ER
Nash: 20.7/3.8/11.0, 24.2 ER
So, bottom line, since 2009, while Paul's been significantly better in the regular season than Rondo he's had a slight statistical advantage in the playoffs over that time in spite of having generally worse opponents and being more the focus of his team's offense. Nash, who's won multiple MVPs and was widely seen as the best pg in the league for a decent period of time, has exactly 1 4 year stretch of playoff performance better than Rondo's last 4 playoffs (excluding defense, of course). And Nash obviously wasn't close to Rondo at the same point in their careers.
Rondo's not a top 10 player in the regular season, although you could easily argue he's top 20. But when he's healthy in the playoffs he's top 5 or so. I'd say that how you perform in the playoffs has quite a bit to do with your postseason success. Case in point Rondo, who's led teams on deep playoff runs.
Tim, you're highlighting the exact argument I'm trying to get across here. When has Chris Paul ever had anyone like Pierce, KG and Ray Allen on his team for the playoffs?
Player are interchanging parts that make each other better.
You're basically saying that Rondo and CP3 are on an even playing field because Rondo's been able to go deeper in the playoffs with his far superior team mates.
The fact that Rondo has NEVER posted a regular season better than Paul is not enough for you. The fact that CP3 has NEVER had team mates anywhere near the caliber of players as a collective sum of parts as Rondo's Celtics were for at least 4 of his best seasons.
The guy is a 25% 3 point shooter, and shoots 60% from the line on a good day- and you're claiming he's a top 10 player in the NBA. We just don't agree on this.
There's nothing that anyone can argue that will make you even consider that Rondo's simply not the number one or two guy on a contender- but that's fine, it's your opinion.
To me, CP3's win shares and true shooting percentages simply destroy Rondo whether it's playoffs or regular season. I guess the only way to see how Rondo goes in a situation like CP3 was in New Orleans is to wait until this season is over- even then he'll still be recovering from his injury. Lets see if he can keep or improve his numbers from before the injury. I sincerely doubt he can- and if he does, can he contribute similar win shares and true shooting percentages?
We'll just have to agree to disagree- although I do respect your opinion and appreciate that you do the same for me.
We'll let the numbers play themselves out because it could go either way- I just beleive the odds are stacked against him about 75-25 and you seem to be at about 50/50 or a slight edge to Rondo, if I'm correct?
PS.
Do you remember this?
http://nesn.com/2013/09/danny-ainge-tried-trading-rajon-rondo-for-chris-paul-to-get-over-the-hump-offensively/
-
Tim, you're highlighting the exact argument I'm trying to get across here. When has Chris Paul ever had anyone like Pierce, KG and Ray Allen on his team for the playoffs?
Griffin's been 2nd team all-nba for the last 2 seasons and is widely regarded as a superstar. When's the last time you'd have said similar things about one of Rondo's teammates?
Player are interchanging parts that make each other better.
You're basically saying that Rondo and CP3 are on an even playing field because Rondo's been able to go deeper in the playoffs with his far superior team mates.
Rondo used to have far superior teammates. Then they got older. It happens. It's been fairly noticeable.
The fact that Rondo has NEVER posted a regular season better than Paul is not enough for you. The fact that CP3 has NEVER had team mates anywhere near the caliber of players as a collective sum of parts as Rondo's Celtics were for at least 4 of his best seasons.
I've said repeatedly that Rondo, while being one of the better players in the league during the season, is much more of an elite player in the postseason. So, no, the fact that CP3 outplays Rondo in the regular season isn't enough for me. And you're definitely giving too much credit to Rondo's aging teammates.
The guy is a 25% 3 point shooter, and shoots 60% from the line on a good day- and you're claiming he's a top 10 player in the NBA. We just don't agree on this.
There's nothing that anyone can argue that will make you even consider that Rondo's simply not the number one or two guy on a contender- but that's fine, it's your opinion.
Trying to claim that Rondo wasn't even the second best player on any of our contending teams is fairly ridiculous. Claiming he's "simply not the number one or two guy on a contender" when he has been in the past is worse. I've seen him dominate many playoff games and some playoff series, you seem to feel that fg% and ft% are deciding factors.
To me, CP3's win shares and true shooting percentages simply destroy Rondo whether it's playoffs or regular season.
If Rondo had Paul's TS% he'd probably average 2-3 more ppg in the playoffs. I think "destroy" is quite an overstatement.
PS.
Do you remember this?
http://nesn.com/2013/09/danny-ainge-tried-trading-rajon-rondo-for-chris-paul-to-get-over-the-hump-offensively/
Sure. Everybody does. A few things from the article you quoted though:
"Over the last few years, our biggest weakness was scoring in the last six minutes of games,” Ainge said. “Even with Ray and Paul and KG, we couldn’t get over the hump". - Sounds like Danny was able to figure out by 2010 that PP/KG/RA had already declined quite a bit. You seem to have overlooked that.
"We thought his offense at the time was better than Rondo’s" - It's clear that Danny felt Paul was a better offensive player in 2010, it's not clear he still feels that way.
"We’re excited to still have Rondo. Sometimes the best trades are the ones you don’t make.” - Sounds like he's glad he didn't trade Rondo, he also states that they're not interested in trading Rondo anymore.
And just for kicks, the article that links back to has Danny talking about Rondo being a top 10 player in the league.
-
The Cleveland Cavs are a great example tonight of how tanking works. Or actually doesn't. You could not possibly tank better than this team did over a 3 draft period. They didn't just pick high once. They picked high 3 times. A total mess. They also got respectable free agents like Jarrett Jack and had a decent player in Varajao already. Even their later first rounder Zeller was all-rookie 2nd team.
Tanking. Ask the Cavs how it works.
-
The Cleveland Cavs are a great example tonight of how tanking works. Or actually doesn't. You could not possibly tank better than this team did over a 3 draft period. They didn't just pick high once. They picked high 3 times. A total mess. They also got respectable free agents like Jarrett Jack and had a decent player in Varajao already. Even their later first rounder Zeller was all-rookie 2nd team.
Tanking. Ask the Cavs how it works.
They did such a bad job drafting that they are a horrible example really.
They were primed to be a tanking success. Right now if they drafted well (taking pretty much no brainer picks at their position) they'd have Irving, Valincunas, Drummond/Barnes (choose), and now Oladipo.
That would be a ton of talent. Instead they made their decisions and the team just lacks talent.
-
The Cleveland Cavs are a great example tonight of how tanking works. Or actually doesn't. You could not possibly tank better than this team did over a 3 draft period. They didn't just pick high once. They picked high 3 times. A total mess. They also got respectable free agents like Jarrett Jack and had a decent player in Varajao already. Even their later first rounder Zeller was all-rookie 2nd team.
Tanking. Ask the Cavs how it works.
They did such a bad job drafting that they are a horrible example really.
They were primed to be a tanking success. Right now if they drafted well (taking pretty much no brainer picks at their position) they'd have Irving, Valincunas, Drummond/Barnes (choose), and now Oladipo.
That would be a ton of talent. Instead they made their decisions and the team just lacks talent.
8 other teams also passed on Drum. They also got Tristan Thompson. Waiters had a fine rookie year and made first team all rookie.
I suppose if the Cavs could have drafted with the benefit of hindsight then they could have drafted perfectly like no team has ever done. In the real world this is what tanking is.
-
The Cleveland Cavs are a great example tonight of how tanking works. Or actually doesn't. You could not possibly tank better than this team did over a 3 draft period. They didn't just pick high once. They picked high 3 times. A total mess. They also got respectable free agents like Jarrett Jack and had a decent player in Varajao already. Even their later first rounder Zeller was all-rookie 2nd team.
Tanking. Ask the Cavs how it works.
They did such a bad job drafting that they are a horrible example really.
They were primed to be a tanking success. Right now if they drafted well (taking pretty much no brainer picks at their position) they'd have Irving, Valincunas, Drummond/Barnes (choose), and now Oladipo.
That would be a ton of talent. Instead they made their decisions and the team just lacks talent.
8 other teams also passed on Drum. They also got Tristan Thompson. Waiters had a fine rookie year and made first team all rookie.
I suppose if the Cavs could have drafted with the benefit of hindsight then they could have drafted perfectly like no team has ever done. In the real world this is what tanking is.
That's why I said Barnes, who was not a player to pass over for any reason. I didn't think there was any reason to pass up Drummond either.
Any capable GM would have come out of their position with almost those exact players. Those aren't hindsight picking and choosing choices I am making, those were the no brainers where the Cavs drafted, on draft night and before. I'm not going further back to pick out gems no one saw coming.
Ainge would have done so much better than the Cavs management drafting that it is a silly thing to say, that because the Cavs didn't do it no one can.
The Cavs are a terrible basketball organization, it's that simple. If they had a decent GM they would have been set up OKC style, stacked with super talented young players.
-
The Cleveland Cavs are a great example tonight of how tanking works. Or actually doesn't. You could not possibly tank better than this team did over a 3 draft period. They didn't just pick high once. They picked high 3 times. A total mess. They also got respectable free agents like Jarrett Jack and had a decent player in Varajao already. Even their later first rounder Zeller was all-rookie 2nd team.
Tanking. Ask the Cavs how it works.
They did such a bad job drafting that they are a horrible example really.
They were primed to be a tanking success. Right now if they drafted well (taking pretty much no brainer picks at their position) they'd have Irving, Valincunas, Drummond/Barnes (choose), and now Oladipo.
That would be a ton of talent. Instead they made their decisions and the team just lacks talent.
8 other teams also passed on Drum. They also got Tristan Thompson. Waiters had a fine rookie year and made first team all rookie.
I suppose if the Cavs could have drafted with the benefit of hindsight then they could have drafted perfectly like no team has ever done. In the real world this is what tanking is.
That's why I said Barnes, who was not a player to pass over for any reason. I didn't think there was any reason to pass up Drummond either.
Any capable GM would have come out of their position with almost those exact players. Those aren't hindsight picking and choosing choices I am making, those were the no brainers where the Cavs drafted, on draft night and before. I'm not going further back to pick out gems no one saw coming.
Ainge would have done so much better than the Cavs management drafting that it is a silly thing to say, that because the Cavs didn't do it no one can.
The Cavs are a terrible basketball organization, it's that simple. If they had a decent GM they would have been set up to OKC style and stack up super talented young players.
Ah yes. It is impossible that the GM who drafted Fab Melo, JuJuan Johnson (over Jimmy Butler, Chandler Parsons, Isaiah Thomas, and Kyle Singler), and JR Giddens (over Pekovic and DeAndre Jordan) could have ever gotten these picks wrong.
-
The Cleveland Cavs are a great example tonight of how tanking works. Or actually doesn't. You could not possibly tank better than this team did over a 3 draft period. They didn't just pick high once. They picked high 3 times. A total mess. They also got respectable free agents like Jarrett Jack and had a decent player in Varajao already. Even their later first rounder Zeller was all-rookie 2nd team.
Tanking. Ask the Cavs how it works.
They did such a bad job drafting that they are a horrible example really.
They were primed to be a tanking success. Right now if they drafted well (taking pretty much no brainer picks at their position) they'd have Irving, Valincunas, Drummond/Barnes (choose), and now Oladipo.
That would be a ton of talent. Instead they made their decisions and the team just lacks talent.
8 other teams also passed on Drum. They also got Tristan Thompson. Waiters had a fine rookie year and made first team all rookie.
I suppose if the Cavs could have drafted with the benefit of hindsight then they could have drafted perfectly like no team has ever done. In the real world this is what tanking is.
That's why I said Barnes, who was not a player to pass over for any reason. I didn't think there was any reason to pass up Drummond either.
Any capable GM would have come out of their position with almost those exact players. Those aren't hindsight picking and choosing choices I am making, those were the no brainers where the Cavs drafted, on draft night and before. I'm not going further back to pick out gems no one saw coming.
Ainge would have done so much better than the Cavs management drafting that it is a silly thing to say, that because the Cavs didn't do it no one can.
The Cavs are a terrible basketball organization, it's that simple. If they had a decent GM they would have been set up to OKC style and stack up super talented young players.
Ah yes. It is impossible that the GM who drafted Fab Melo, JuJuan Johnson (over Jimmy Butler, Chandler Parsons, Isaiah Thomas, and Kyle Singler), and JR Giddens (over Pekovic and DeAndre Jordan) could have ever gotten these picks wrong.
haha talk about cherry picking picks. Yes Ainge slipped up on some of those, but who doesn't at the end of the draft? He's also taken guys like Rondo, Sullinger, Avery Bradley (though lets skip those right?)
End of the draft is a crap shoot in a lot of ways. Where the Cavs drafted was not a crap shoot. There were very obvious players to take.
This is a team that drafted Anthony Bennet first! How are you defending this...
-
The Cleveland Cavs are a great example tonight of how tanking works. Or actually doesn't. You could not possibly tank better than this team did over a 3 draft period. They didn't just pick high once. They picked high 3 times. A total mess. They also got respectable free agents like Jarrett Jack and had a decent player in Varajao already. Even their later first rounder Zeller was all-rookie 2nd team.
Tanking. Ask the Cavs how it works.
They did such a bad job drafting that they are a horrible example really.
They were primed to be a tanking success. Right now if they drafted well (taking pretty much no brainer picks at their position) they'd have Irving, Valincunas, Drummond/Barnes (choose), and now Oladipo.
That would be a ton of talent. Instead they made their decisions and the team just lacks talent.
8 other teams also passed on Drum. They also got Tristan Thompson. Waiters had a fine rookie year and made first team all rookie.
I suppose if the Cavs could have drafted with the benefit of hindsight then they could have drafted perfectly like no team has ever done. In the real world this is what tanking is.
That's why I said Barnes, who was not a player to pass over for any reason. I didn't think there was any reason to pass up Drummond either.
Any capable GM would have come out of their position with almost those exact players. Those aren't hindsight picking and choosing choices I am making, those were the no brainers where the Cavs drafted, on draft night and before. I'm not going further back to pick out gems no one saw coming.
Ainge would have done so much better than the Cavs management drafting that it is a silly thing to say, that because the Cavs didn't do it no one can.
The Cavs are a terrible basketball organization, it's that simple. If they had a decent GM they would have been set up to OKC style and stack up super talented young players.
Ah yes. It is impossible that the GM who drafted Fab Melo, JuJuan Johnson (over Jimmy Butler, Chandler Parsons, Isaiah Thomas, and Kyle Singler), and JR Giddens (over Pekovic and DeAndre Jordan) could have ever gotten these picks wrong.
haha talk about cherry picking picks. Yes Ainge slipped up on some of those, but who doesn't at the end of the draft? He's also taken guys like Rondo, Sullinger, Avery Bradley (though lets skip those right?)
End of the draft is a crap shoot in a lot of ways. Where the Cavs drafted was not a crap shoot. There were very obvious players to take.
This is a team that drafted Anthony Bennet first! How are you defending this...
Portland made the no brainer picks. They got Oden and Brandon Roy....how did that work?
Name me the teams that tanked their way to a championship?
Golden State did very well with Stephen Curry, Harrison Barnes, and Klay Thompson.
The Bulls did very well picking D Rose, Noah, Gibson, Butler, and Deng.
Where is the team?
Not the Thunder. Not the Cavs (twice). Not the Bobcats. Not the Kings. Not the Clippers. Not the Celts. Not the Lakers. Not the Magic (twice).
There's the Bulls I guess. That was about 30 years ago. There's the Spurs that got VERY lucky. That was about 20 years ago. There was the Heat getting D Wade who won a popularity contest, but those guys are not guys they picked. There is no way I say the Mavs tanked to a ring, nor the Pistons, nor the Rockets.
And that's about it.
So it worked for 3 teams in a 30 year period and it didn't work for anyone else.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
How do the Celtic's win their next title then? Trading a bunch of mid round picks for a star? Signing a superstar free agent? Neither of those are likely and we don't have anywhere near the talent on this team currently to win a title.
-
I trust the Celtics organization to do a lot better in the same position as a lot of these teams, which are consistently bad for a reason, whether it's owners or management.
If you think Ainge wouldn't do a lot better than most all of those GMs I guess I'd disagree.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
False.
Have you never heard of Tim Duncan? The Spurs tank-fest led to many rings.
-
5 consecutive years of two first round picks per year. That's ten chances for Danny to get hits over that stretch.
We know Danny is one of the best at finding talent mid to late in the first round. He's got so many chances here. At least a couple of these picks (hopefully, not our own) are likely to fall somewhere in the lottery.
We've already got some promising young talent in Sullinger, Olynyk, Bradley, and Favs. We've got some good "young" veterans in Rondo, Green, Bass, and Crawford.
The future looks bright as far as I can tell.
Tanking not necessary.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
Horrible management is horrible management- no matter whether it's a rebuild via the draft or a rebuild via the free agency/trade path, you've gotta have the right guy in the chair to play poker. You MUST add the right talent around your draft pick or they'll leave via free agency.
Championship teams are generally built off the back of top 10 pick who turns out to be top 10 player. For us it's about getting that first key guy- that top 10 player in the league.
We need a franchise guy.
When do true franchise guys get drafted by the 7th or 8th seed in the East and stay with their team, going on to make the finals?
I don't mean Hibbert or Paul George, or Rajon Rondo. I mean championship caliber scorers and history changing players like Durant, Lebron, Jordan, Kobe, Shaq, Duncan,Pierce, Garnett, Nowitzki...
Off the top of my head there's Karl Malone who rode the train from the 13th pick as the main guy to get beaten by two top 5 picks (Jordan , Pippen) and a GOAT.
How many of the last 25 years of championships have not been won by teams with their own top 5 or 10 pick in place already?
No one here is dreading our young guys becoming top 5 players. The problem is none of them will be. Our best player is a top 25 guy who can't shoot- he's an All Star but he's coming off ACL surgery and has 1.5 seasons left on his deal before he can walk off into the sunset.
Who exactly is expecting or hoping that Bradley and Olynyk do or don't become more than solid starters in the NBA? Sully an All Star? potentially- Olynyk doesn't look anywhere near as good as Sully did this time last year.
I know it's early but I don't think I'm going out on a whim to say Avery Bradley ain't no All Star, neither is Jeff Green. The odds are stacked against Sully and KO too- but they have SOME hope I guess.
Pro tankers or 'drafters' believe we are missing the franchise piece. If we can keep Rondo as the fiddle to the violin and get him to play with Wiggins or Parker that would be great- but it's not a realistic expectation to expect to get a guy like that when you're too good to miss the lottery but never good enough to make the 8th seed or get out of the first round.
Looking at the last 20 seasons of NBA champions and NBA finalists, you'll notice that every team that won or made the finals had their own drafted top 10 pick, The exceptions are the Pistons and Kobe on the Lakers- again another example where he went 14th but if he had to play in college was a top 5 prospect quite easily. They acquired the pick trading Divac.
Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:
Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x 1 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Drafted by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 1x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 1x finals appearance
Lets go back a bit further
Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)
It doesn't matter which route you take, the odds are stacked against every team in the NBA to win a championship. The luck involved is incredible. I also wanna know... what exactly has Paul George done? Do people think he's a bigger reason for the Pacers success than Hibbert?
Since when is George a franchise player?
Paul George ain't leading anyone to a championship at this stage.
He's basically a rich man's Jeff Green.
So much pressure is taken off George because of Hibbert's ability to draw double teams on offense...and then his even bigger impact on the defensive end.
The luck involved in
a)drafting those two guys with mid-early first round picks
b)having them become all star caliber players.
c)then having them re-sign with the club that drafted them
.... is a combination of luck that is just as hard, if not harder to pull off than binking a number one pick.
Anyway, the key of the planned rebuild, which is geared towards developing younger/newer players and subsequently losing most games is a polite form of tanking.
By losing those games and developing those players, we are actually increasing our odds of trading for a 'franchise' superstar player because of the asset that is that lottery pick- as well as the assets that are those 'developing' players.
It gives us another legitimate shot or option at gaining a star player to get closer to that championship.
I don't understand why people see 'tank' and think that it means 'rebuild via the draft is the only option!'....
It actually means- increase your opportunity to gain a franchise player- but it doesn't have to be via the draft.
Let me ask you Eja, if we don't get Durant or Lebron via free agency and can't trade our current guys for a franchise level player or multiple All Stars- do we just keep getting more assets until eventually some star gets fed up like Dwight Howard?
How'd that work out for the Mavs, the Lakers and the Hawks this off season?
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Or is it a smart 'rebuilding' strategy to have the most valuable trade assets (lottery picks) up your sleeve as a 2nd option towards title-town?
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
How many of the last 25 years of championships have not been won by teams with their own top 5 or 10 pick in place already?
Eight. Five by the Lakers, one by the Celtics, one by the Pistons (if you discount Darko), and one by the Mavs.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
How many of the last 25 years of championships have not been won by teams with their own top 5 or 10 pick in place already?
Eight. Five by the Lakers, one by the Celtics, one by the Pistons (if you discount Darko), and one by the Mavs.
well Pierce and Bynum went 10th and Dirk went 9th, so if you go top ten you eliminate 4 more titles.
-
I guess the major difference between those who want to rebuild through the draft and those who want to rebuild on the fly is that one believes we have the talent to win a title currently and one doesn't.
I believe we have a great set of complementary pieces to surround a franchise guy but we don't have a franchise guy which is so crucial to winning in the nba.
I don't believe we can make the 8th seed and then trade all our mid round picks for any kind of real star. Also I think we know just how good all our players are, sully is a fringe all star, Olynk is our biggest unknown but I don't believe he's a huge upside guy.
I'm not sure what non tankers view as a bigger gamble, waiting, making a run for a first round exit And hoping a trade partner pops up. Or trusting in Ainge to be able to pick talent at the top of the draft, or trade that more valuable asset for star who is leaving his team if a situation like that even happens.
Either way we have a bunch of players I enjoy watching and will be intersted in seeing this team rebuild and move in the direction of number 18.
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
trades like that aren't all that rare. Great players are traded all the time, you just have to have the assets available to be in contention. The problem Boston has right now is that it doesn't have the pieces to be in the running for one of those players so it would miss out. That may not be a bad thing, but it isn't a realistic option right now. After the season, Boston will add 2 more first rounders, which increases the odds of being a player in that sort of trade market, but right now boston is not.
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
trades like that aren't all that rare. Great players are traded all the time, you just have to have the assets available to be in contention. The problem Boston has right now is that it doesn't have the pieces to be in the running for one of those players so it would miss out. That may not be a bad thing, but it isn't a realistic option right now. After the season, Boston will add 2 more first rounders, which increases the odds of being a player in that sort of trade market, but right now boston is not.
I agree with pretty much everything you say but we still need that top lottery pick to bring in a star or draft which is why I'm so in favor of tanking, because we aren't winning a title with our current roster.
-
I guess the major difference between those who want to rebuild through the draft and those who want to rebuild on the fly is that one believes we have the talent to win a title currently and one doesn't.
I don't think you'll find many (if any) people who think we currently have enough talent to win a title.
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
We only 'tanked' that year because Pierce and Tony Allen both got hurt. I don't believe 'tanking' was the plan going into that year at all. We had a slow start, but were right on the edge of the playoffs when Pierce went down. The team struggled without him, but did start to win again as Tony emerged as a scoring threat (folks probably forget how extremely athletic he was before the injury). But then Tony got hurt and we _then_ lost 18 in a row.
At that point, it was moot. You can't recover from something like that. There was no decision to be made.
We ended up getting screwed by the lottery balls, getting the 5th pick, which Danny turned into lemonade (Ray Allen).
Suppose, hypothetically, that Pierce and Allen had not gotten hurt? We likely would have made the playoffs. We would not have been a title contender, but the team would have looked at least competitive.
And Danny already had accumulated every piece to trade for KG. Folk's like to think that without the Ray Allen trade that KG doesn't come here, but I'm not so sure. If Tony had gotten through that season healthy, he was an emerging young talent. And the starting 5 that KG would have been looking at would have been Perk + KG + Pierce + Tony + Rondo.
It's completely hypothetical, of course, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that KG would still have come and that 'tanking' was never really a 'necessity' or 'the plan'. It was just the reality after the injuries.
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
trades like that aren't all that rare. Great players are traded all the time, you just have to have the assets available to be in contention. The problem Boston has right now is that it doesn't have the pieces to be in the running for one of those players so it would miss out. That may not be a bad thing, but it isn't a realistic option right now. After the season, Boston will add 2 more first rounders, which increases the odds of being a player in that sort of trade market, but right now boston is not.
At this point in the 2006-2007 season, Big Al had not really yet established his value. His value went up as his share of the offense became more important after Pierce and Allen went down.
Al had not really done more his rookie year than Sullinger. He played more games, obviously, because Sullinger's season was cut short. But he played only a handful more total minutes because he was a bench player. Sully, conversely, out-right earned a starting spot as a rookie on a playoff-bound team. That's a pretty big deal.
At this point in time, Sullinger has accomplished more and probably would be considered to have more value than Al did at the same point/age -- except for concerns about Sully's back, of course.
Oddly, that (perceptions about his back issues) may make Sullinger more valuable to keep than to trade.
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
We only 'tanked' that year because Pierce and Tony Allen both got hurt. I don't believe 'tanking' was the plan going into that year at all. We had a slow start, but were right on the edge of the playoffs when Pierce went down. The team struggled without him, but did start to win again as Tony emerged as a scoring threat (folks probably forget how extremely athletic he was before the injury). But then Tony got hurt and we _then_ lost 18 in a row.
At that point, it was moot. You can't recover from something like that. There was no decision to be made.
We ended up getting screwed by the lottery balls, getting the 5th pick, which Danny turned into lemonade (Ray Allen).
Suppose, hypothetically, that Pierce and Allen had not gotten hurt? We likely would have made the playoffs. We would not have been a title contender, but the team would have looked at least competitive.
And Danny already had accumulated every piece to trade for KG. Folk's like to think that without the Ray Allen trade that KG doesn't come here, but I'm not so sure. If Tony had gotten through that season healthy, he was an emerging young talent. And the starting 5 that KG would have been looking at would have been Perk + KG + Pierce + Tony + Rondo.
It's completely hypothetical, of course, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that KG would still have come and that 'tanking' was never really a 'necessity' or 'the plan'. It was just the reality after the injuries.
We tried to trade for KG but he declined, I believe he had a no trade or outright said he wouldn't re sign here. Then we got ray allen and only after that he agreed to come. I don't think KG was going to leave Minnesota for Boston if hes only joining piece.
At this time don't forget perk and rondo were both huge unknowns and unproven.
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
We only 'tanked' that year because Pierce and Tony Allen both got hurt. I don't believe 'tanking' was the plan going into that year at all. We had a slow start, but were right on the edge of the playoffs when Pierce went down. The team struggled without him, but did start to win again as Tony emerged as a scoring threat (folks probably forget how extremely athletic he was before the injury). But then Tony got hurt and we _then_ lost 18 in a row.
At that point, it was moot. You can't recover from something like that. There was no decision to be made.
We ended up getting screwed by the lottery balls, getting the 5th pick, which Danny turned into lemonade (Ray Allen).
Suppose, hypothetically, that Pierce and Allen had not gotten hurt? We likely would have made the playoffs. We would not have been a title contender, but the team would have looked at least competitive.
And Danny already had accumulated every piece to trade for KG. Folk's like to think that without the Ray Allen trade that KG doesn't come here, but I'm not so sure. If Tony had gotten through that season healthy, he was an emerging young talent. And the starting 5 that KG would have been looking at would have been Perk + KG + Pierce + Tony + Rondo.
It's completely hypothetical, of course, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that KG would still have come and that 'tanking' was never really a 'necessity' or 'the plan'. It was just the reality after the injuries.
We tried to trade for KG but he declined, I believe he had a no trade or outright said he wouldn't re sign here. Then we got ray allen and only after that he agreed to come. I don't think KG was going to leave Minnesota for Boston if hes only joining piece.
At this time don't forget perk and rondo were both huge unknowns and unproven.
He declined because we were a crappy lottery team and why would he want to leave one crappy team (Minnesota) for another? Acquiring Ray was Danny's way of saying, "We are serious about contending."
But - to the hypothetical I proposed - if Pierce and Tony had NOT gotten hurt, the team would NOT have been 'crappy'. It very likely would have been in the playoffs. KG would have been joining a competitive base.
Perkins and Rondo are a wash in this. The only difference between that scenario and what KG ended up joining is Ray Allen (coming off ankle surgery) compared to a hypothetical Tony Allen NOT having been injured.
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
We only 'tanked' that year because Pierce and Tony Allen both got hurt. I don't believe 'tanking' was the plan going into that year at all. We had a slow start, but were right on the edge of the playoffs when Pierce went down. The team struggled without him, but did start to win again as Tony emerged as a scoring threat (folks probably forget how extremely athletic he was before the injury). But then Tony got hurt and we _then_ lost 18 in a row.
At that point, it was moot. You can't recover from something like that. There was no decision to be made.
We ended up getting screwed by the lottery balls, getting the 5th pick, which Danny turned into lemonade (Ray Allen).
Suppose, hypothetically, that Pierce and Allen had not gotten hurt? We likely would have made the playoffs. We would not have been a title contender, but the team would have looked at least competitive.
And Danny already had accumulated every piece to trade for KG. Folk's like to think that without the Ray Allen trade that KG doesn't come here, but I'm not so sure. If Tony had gotten through that season healthy, he was an emerging young talent. And the starting 5 that KG would have been looking at would have been Perk + KG + Pierce + Tony + Rondo.
It's completely hypothetical, of course, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that KG would still have come and that 'tanking' was never really a 'necessity' or 'the plan'. It was just the reality after the injuries.
We tried to trade for KG but he declined, I believe he had a no trade or outright said he wouldn't re sign here. Then we got ray allen and only after that he agreed to come. I don't think KG was going to leave Minnesota for Boston if hes only joining piece.
At this time don't forget perk and rondo were both huge unknowns and unproven.
He declined because we were a crappy lottery team and why would he want to leave one crappy team (Minnesota) for another? Acquiring Ray was Danny's way of saying, "We are serious about contending."
But - to the hypothetical I proposed - if Pierce and Tony had NOT gotten hurt, the team would NOT have been 'crappy'. It very likely would have been in the playoffs. KG would have been joining a competitive base.
Perkins and Rondo are a wash in this. The only difference between that scenario and what KG ended up joining is Ray Allen (coming off ankle surgery) compared to a hypothetical Tony Allen NOT having been injured.
"We had a slow start, but were right on the edge of the playoffs when Pierce went down."
Really? http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2007_games.html
Our best record was 10-13 after a 5 game winning streak. We were bad all season. We were 12-22 when TA went down. No, we were not on the edge of the playoffs.
People are mentioning many things that are not true or of questionable relevance. The perception at the time was that later in the season, we did not play Pierce when he was ready to return from injury. If I remember correctly, it was an elbow injury.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
How many of the last 25 years of championships have not been won by teams with their own top 5 or 10 pick in place already?
Eight. Five by the Lakers, one by the Celtics, one by the Pistons (if you discount Darko), and one by the Mavs.
well Pierce and Bynum went 10th and Dirk went 9th, so if you go top ten you eliminate 4 more titles.
lol.
Kobe came out of high school and was picked 13th. He also refused to play for any other team than the Lakers, and was picked for the Lakers by the Hornets in a pre-arranged trade.
If he goes to college he's gone top 5 easily. Take Kobe out of the equation and the number is ?
One?
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
How many of the last 25 years of championships have not been won by teams with their own top 5 or 10 pick in place already?
Eight. Five by the Lakers, one by the Celtics, one by the Pistons (if you discount Darko), and one by the Mavs.
well Pierce and Bynum went 10th and Dirk went 9th, so if you go top ten you eliminate 4 more titles.
lol.
Kobe came out of high school and was picked 13th. He also refused to play for any other team than the Lakers, and was picked for the Lakers by the Hornets in a pre-arranged trade.
If he goes to college he's gone top 5 easily. Take Kobe out of the equation and the number is ?
One?
He didn't refuse to play for any team other than the Lakers. That can't happen. And he actually worked out for the Celtics. Why would he do that if he refused to play for them?
-
'Tanking' has a lot of negative connotations- but if you know by putting young guys out there that you'll develop them- yet risk losing more games- is that considered tanking?
Let's not kid around. Everyone knows what "tanking" is. It's making a deliberate effort to be as bad as you can. That's what Philly did when they traded away an All-Star for a draft pick who probably won't even play this season. That's what San Antonio did when they sat Robinson when he was healthy. Sometime you can get lucky and that can work but few teams have ever really succeeded by following that strategy, just like few teams have ever really been able to "buy" a championship in the NBA.
To me, the best plan is the one Ainge followed both to bring KG and Ray to town and what he seems to be doing now. You accumulate assets and wait for the right opportunity. Right now, Ainge has all the draft picks you could reasonably want. He's also got several NBA caliber players in Green, Bradley, Bass, Sully and Hump, an injured All-Star in Rondo and a rookie prospect in KO. He's also got a big contract (Wallace) that will be a valuable trade chip in a few years when it's an expiring deal. The argument that we should just give away any of those assets now to minutely increase our chances of getting a top 3 pick in 2014 doesn't make a lot of sense. It also wouldn't make a lot of sense to make any moves designed to win more games right now.
This team is in a holding pattern and probably will be unless someone is willing to part with some real value at the trade deadline for somebody like Green, Hump or Bradley or until the draft next year. Given that, I'd rather Ainge just let this team play and win as many games as they can.
Mike
We tanked the year prior and had the 5th overall pick, we also had al Jefferson who had huge upside and teams wanted. Currently we don't have a similar pick or player to make those deals.
That was also a rare block buster opportunity with some help from an old Celtic too.
We only 'tanked' that year because Pierce and Tony Allen both got hurt. I don't believe 'tanking' was the plan going into that year at all. We had a slow start, but were right on the edge of the playoffs when Pierce went down. The team struggled without him, but did start to win again as Tony emerged as a scoring threat (folks probably forget how extremely athletic he was before the injury). But then Tony got hurt and we _then_ lost 18 in a row.
At that point, it was moot. You can't recover from something like that. There was no decision to be made.
We ended up getting screwed by the lottery balls, getting the 5th pick, which Danny turned into lemonade (Ray Allen).
Suppose, hypothetically, that Pierce and Allen had not gotten hurt? We likely would have made the playoffs. We would not have been a title contender, but the team would have looked at least competitive.
And Danny already had accumulated every piece to trade for KG. Folk's like to think that without the Ray Allen trade that KG doesn't come here, but I'm not so sure. If Tony had gotten through that season healthy, he was an emerging young talent. And the starting 5 that KG would have been looking at would have been Perk + KG + Pierce + Tony + Rondo.
It's completely hypothetical, of course, but there is a reasonable argument to be made that KG would still have come and that 'tanking' was never really a 'necessity' or 'the plan'. It was just the reality after the injuries.
We tried to trade for KG but he declined, I believe he had a no trade or outright said he wouldn't re sign here. Then we got ray allen and only after that he agreed to come. I don't think KG was going to leave Minnesota for Boston if hes only joining piece.
At this time don't forget perk and rondo were both huge unknowns and unproven.
He declined because we were a crappy lottery team and why would he want to leave one crappy team (Minnesota) for another? Acquiring Ray was Danny's way of saying, "We are serious about contending."
But - to the hypothetical I proposed - if Pierce and Tony had NOT gotten hurt, the team would NOT have been 'crappy'. It very likely would have been in the playoffs. KG would have been joining a competitive base.
Perkins and Rondo are a wash in this. The only difference between that scenario and what KG ended up joining is Ray Allen (coming off ankle surgery) compared to a hypothetical Tony Allen NOT having been injured.
"We had a slow start, but were right on the edge of the playoffs when Pierce went down."
Really? http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2007_games.html
Our best record was 10-13 after a 5 game winning streak. We were bad all season. We were 12-22 when TA went down. No, we were not on the edge of the playoffs.
People are mentioning many things that are not true or of questionable relevance. The perception at the time was that later in the season, we did not play Pierce when he was ready to return from injury. If I remember correctly, it was an elbow injury.
The last 3 playoff teams in the east were 40-41 win teams. We probably were right on the edge of the playoffs at 10-13. I think Al started the season coming back from injury but after he got going Doc put him and TA in the starting lineup and the team started to click. I'd say there was a good chance they'd have made the playoffs. I'd also say they seemed to have no intention of tanking before the PP injury.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
How many of the last 25 years of championships have not been won by teams with their own top 5 or 10 pick in place already?
Eight. Five by the Lakers, one by the Celtics, one by the Pistons (if you discount Darko), and one by the Mavs.
well Pierce and Bynum went 10th and Dirk went 9th, so if you go top ten you eliminate 4 more titles.
lol.
Kobe came out of high school and was picked 13th. He also refused to play for any other team than the Lakers, and was picked for the Lakers by the Hornets in a pre-arranged trade.
If he goes to college he's gone top 5 easily. Take Kobe out of the equation and the number is ?
One?
He didn't refuse to play for any team other than the Lakers. That can't happen. And he actually worked out for the Celtics. Why would he do that if he refused to play for them?
He worked out for a few teams, including us. But he and Jerry West fell in love. (seriously) So the Lakers + Kobe's agent went around to the lottery teams informing them that Kobe would refuse to play with them.
Kobe had already met with Jerry West, and was set to force his way to LA. The Hornets worked out a deal to get Vlade and drafted Kobe as a trade asset.
The common myth at the time was that he refused to play for the Hornets- it was actually that he wouldn't play for anyone but the Lakers.
-
No one's saying that you can tank your way to a ring.
But saying it doesn't work because the Bobcats are still awful is a lazy equivocation.
It's not so much that it doesn't work for the Bobcats. It doesn't work for anyone.
How many of the last 25 years of championships have not been won by teams with their own top 5 or 10 pick in place already?
Eight. Five by the Lakers, one by the Celtics, one by the Pistons (if you discount Darko), and one by the Mavs.
well Pierce and Bynum went 10th and Dirk went 9th, so if you go top ten you eliminate 4 more titles.
lol.
Kobe came out of high school and was picked 13th. He also refused to play for any other team than the Lakers, and was picked for the Lakers by the Hornets in a pre-arranged trade.
If he goes to college he's gone top 5 easily. Take Kobe out of the equation and the number is ?
One?
He didn't refuse to play for any team other than the Lakers. That can't happen. And he actually worked out for the Celtics. Why would he do that if he refused to play for them?
He worked out for a few teams, including us. But he and Jerry West fell in love. (seriously) So the Lakers + Kobe's agent went around to the lottery teams informing them that Kobe would refuse to play with them.
Kobe had already met with Jerry West, and was set to force his way to LA. The Hornets worked out a deal to get Vlade and drafted Kobe as a trade asset.
The common myth at the time was that he refused to play for the Hornets- it was actually that he wouldn't play for anyone but the Lakers.
I've always felt those stories were somewhat contrived. I'm pretty sure I read that the Lakers tried to unload Divac to Toronto before they ended up sending him to Charlotte.
-
Bobcat's is kind of a bad example. For the last 10 years they never had the top pick, have been in some terrible drafts, always seem to draft just outside some top picks, and of course made some terrible draft pick regardless of where they picked. The last 10 years look something like this:
13'Zeller 4th (undecided) looks like a bad draft
12'Gilchrist - (2nd), other than Davis looks like a bad draft
11'Walker (9th), decent pick for 9th
10' no pick
09' G Henderson (12th), bad draft, decent pick
08' DJ Augustin (9th), bad draft, bad pick
07' B Wright (8th), bad draft, bad pick
06' Adam Morison (3rd), bad draft,bad pick
05' R Felton (5th), bad draft,bad pick
04' Okafer (2nd), bad draft
If the bobcat get a little bit luckier, and land a spot or two higher, they most likely couldn't have screwed up the draft this bad. 04 they get Howard and last year they get Davis. My point is that, if your going to suck, suck real bad, and at least your odds will be better getting the top pick.
-
He worked out for a few teams, including us. But he and Jerry West fell in love. (seriously) So the Lakers + Kobe's agent went around to the lottery teams informing them that Kobe would refuse to play with them.
Kobe had already met with Jerry West, and was set to force his way to LA. The Hornets worked out a deal to get Vlade and drafted Kobe as a trade asset.
The common myth at the time was that he refused to play for the Hornets- it was actually that he wouldn't play for anyone but the Lakers.
This. I'm surprised by how many people deny this. If you were following basketball around the time of the draft, it was pretty much common knowledge. Once LA became interested, no other team had a chance. Google "Nets Kobe" and you will find articles that both Kobe and his agent contacted the Nets once they found out Calipari was interested in him. They basically told him not to bother drafting him because he wouldn't sign.