i'd rather be a bad team with a lottery pick to show for it than a bad team with nothing to show for it.
Isn't the comparison actually between being "a bad team with a lottery pick " and "a mediocre team with an early playoff exit"?
Further, if we go through this year and end up in either of those two states, what do you think the trade value of Olynyk, Sullinger, Smart, et al. is likely to be in each of the two scenarios?
My suspicion is that in the former, that the trade value of our young players would likely have either stagnated or even dropped.
And in order to reach the latter, my guess is that at least some of them would have had to perform well enough that their trade value should logically go up.
So, which has more net value? The difference in trade value of all our young players in the two scenarios? Or the difference in the draft pick in the two scenarios?
I think it's possible to actually be better but not have the record reflect it. we could just be losing to some better teams while playing well.
so if other gm's are going to value our players or asserts or what have ya based on our record then they're complete idiots. and for that matter trades would never happen in this league if they did that.
if we're aiming for mediocrity(which we are), i'd prefer we just be bad. mediocrity gets you no where in this league, esp. if you don't have a star.
Our record could end up separated from the performance of our young players if our young players have only marginal roles to play during this season. Last year, that was true. Some of our worst, most inefficient lineups were ones dominated (in minutes played) by players that had no future with this team, such as Bayless, Hump, Crawford, etc.
Last year, over 1400 minutes went to Wallace, almost the same went to Hump, almost 1200 went to Crawford, and over 1000 went to Bayless.
But this year, most of those guys are gone. The only remaining vets who are likely to get significant rotation minutes are Rondo, Green & Bass. Wallace will be coming off injury and will hopefully take a reduced role. And Bass is a prime trade candidate.
The likelihood is strong that, if they remain healthy, some of our young guys will see major increases in minutes. Last year, Olynyk played less than 1200 minutes. This year he could play over 2000.
If Olynyk, Sullinger, Zeller, etc., end up getting a much larger share of the minutes, then however they perform will reflect more strongly in the team's record.
Finally - I think the fear of mediocrity on the blog has gotten a little overboard. Turnarounds such as we had from 2006-07 to 2007-08 are not the norm. The vast majority of great teams had to go through 'mediocrity' on their way back up from the bottom. You don't want to be mediocre while stuck with a bunch of players with no future. But there is nothing negative about going _through_ a mediocre state as your young core grows and improves naturally.
As for the draft picks: Far, far better than to be a suck team with a top pick is to be a mediocre or better team that owns someone ELSE'S top pick.
It may not happen next year. But with so many of other team's picks accumulated over the next few years, it is a strong possibility that one of those other team's picks will turn into a great pick. When that happens, you want to have already built a strong roster to which that player is being added to.
Danny learned his lessons from Red well.