C'mon, man. That's obvious. Also, when Ainge was able to bring in Allen and Garnett, he already had Paul Pierce. Where's this team's Paul Pierce?
Who did the Knicks have when they signed Amare a few years back (which subsequently led to them getting Camelo the following year)?
Who did the Rockets have when they acquired James Harden a few years back (which subsequently led to them getting Howard afterwards).
What stars do the Bucks have right now (Monroe just signed with them)?
Who did the Brooklyn Nets have then Deron Williams (a Superstar at the time) signed there?
Who did the Clippers (a team notorious for being bad forever) have when CP3 signed there?
The notion that a team "needs" a star in order to sign other stars is not accurate. Certainly it helps, but it's not a necessity. It's not uncommon for players to go to a specific team because that team could offer lots of money, or offered a chance to be the top dog, or for any number of other reasons.
Well, they sucked enough to earn their odds. Was there luck? Sure, but they only had the chance because of their lousy team. The real luck for San Antonio is that Duncan was available in the one draft that followed Robinson's lost season. That's not Ainge type luck. That's Indianapolis Colts type luck (for, appropriately enough, Andrew Luck).
Again, same thing. Danny Ainge has earned his odds by putting his team in a position to have financial flexibliity, a winning culture and a large number of flexible assets.
This means that that he now has to depend on the luck of having a team decide to want to trade, or a free agent choosing them as a location.
Given that any free agent usually only has as many as 5-6 suitors, the odds aren't that different to a bad team hoping the ping pong balls fall their way.
You just gave a host of examples of what you called 'luck' as a counter to the one Garnett/Allen example, and you don't see why the Garnett/Allen example required more luck?
Because it didn't.
You know what Cleveland's chances of securing the top pick in 2014 were? Look it up. They were very low - maybe 15% or something?
The only part of the KG deal that was luck for Boston was the Ray Allen deal. That's only ONE move that required a big of luck.
Once Ray Allen had been acquired, then KG made the conscious decision to approve the trade and make the move to Boston. Ainge would have known very well that if he got Ray Allen to Boston then he had KG too - all he had to do is make one of those domino's fall.
Teams pull off trades like the Ray Allen one relatively frequently, and it's really not any more 'lucky' then Clevleand getting the #1 pick in the draft last season or San Antonio getting it back in 1997.
It sucked for Boston. It sucked for them in 2007, too. There are no guarantees here. One can either play the odds or play against the odds. That's all you can do.
Precisely my point, and you play that same game whether you choose free agency, trades, or draft.
That's why you try to play all three, like Danny did this year - but came up unsuccessful.
Look at the 76ers - they are one of the most successful examples of tanking in recent years, and what do they have to show for it?
Embiid, Okafor and Noel are their only assets of any value. There is no certainty that either one of those guys is going to be a star looking at it from the current point in time.
Their only way of acquiring talent is to sacrifice one or more of those three guys (the very guys that the draft has provided them with) and by doing that you're basically admitting that your tank efforts didn't succeed, because you've given up on that player. Even if you do trade those guys, neither of them is (right now) likely to bring you back an established star. the Knicks aren't trading Melo for Okafor/Noel/Embiid anytime soon.
Nobody else bar those three on the roster are with anything because you had to sacrifice
every other player in order to be bad enough to tank so drastically to begin with.
So you tank for what...2 or 3 years minimum. You get 2 or 3 high draft picks. Lets say you get really lucky and two of those guys become stars (unlikely, but possible if you're REALLY lucky).
Now you still aren't done because everybody else on your roster is garbage...so you still need to spend the next several years trying desperately to pick up support pieces to put around those stars in order for you to be able to actually win something.
Then by the time that happens the first couple of guys are getting to the end of their rookie deals, and if they are that good SOMEBODY will offer a max contract...so you need to match. Eventially you end up with not enough space to sign all the guys, so you need to let someone go (e.g. Harden in OKC).
IF you are lucky - I mean REALLY lucky - you get a few years of solid competitive basketball (like OKC). Probably never win anything (like OKC) but you'll have a few good years. Then guys start leaving, signing with other teams, and you're back where you started.
This is why VERY FEW teams ever manage to successfully convert tanking for draft picks into championship rings.
Atlanta were early playoff exit fodder for probably 4 or 5 years while JJ / Josh Smith were there. You could argue that they are the grandest example of a team stuck in mediocrity. Now they just finished with the best record in the East - they didn't tank to get there.
You could argue that for all those years it took Atlanta to finish atop the East, they probably still got there quicker than the 76ers will from this recent tanking approach.
So again, where is the evidence that tanking is more successful?