Author Topic: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick  (Read 29107 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #105 on: July 15, 2017, 12:54:34 PM »

Offline green_bballers13

  • NCE
  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2948
  • Tommy Points: 320
I'm not going to be living/dying with every Laker win this year. Both 18 and 19 are supposed to be good drafts at the top. I don't see any reason why SAC will be make the playoffs in two years, and don't see the Lakers making the playoffs next year. I think Danny made a decent gamble on this trade, considering he was going to pick Tatum over Fultz. Even if we end up with Phillys 18 pick, this trade is still a win. We got something for nothing in my eyes. I believe Danny when he said that he didn't have a better offer.

I remember when people were more upset when Danny traded Pierce and KG for a bunch of draft picks. That trade ended up ok, right?

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #106 on: July 15, 2017, 01:07:33 PM »

Offline Mean Gerald Green

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1249
  • Tommy Points: 212
  • Cool Runnings
Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #107 on: July 15, 2017, 01:12:10 PM »

Offline Darío SpanishFan

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 981
  • Tommy Points: 141
Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

No. It wouldn't matter. Bagley would be the first pick, which is protected.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #108 on: July 15, 2017, 01:16:35 PM »

Offline saltlover

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12490
  • Tommy Points: 2619
Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

No. It wouldn't matter. Bagley would be the first pick, which is protected.

Yep.  If you want Bagley, #NetsPick is where you should focus your energy.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #109 on: July 15, 2017, 01:17:15 PM »

Offline Mean Gerald Green

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1249
  • Tommy Points: 212
  • Cool Runnings
Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

No. It wouldn't matter. Bagley would be the first pick, which is protected.

We have the Nets pick.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #110 on: July 15, 2017, 01:18:10 PM »

Offline greece66

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7395
  • Tommy Points: 1342
  • Head Paperboy at Greenville
@Alleyoopster

Far far too early to reach that conclusion.

The competition in the Western conference will be fierce.

Reaching conclusions based on the summer league is far from safe.

And also, even if LAL finishes 6th 7th or below we still have a % their pick will be in the 2-5 range.

Not saying we will get the pick, but it is not certain we will not get it either.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #111 on: July 15, 2017, 01:18:41 PM »

Offline Mean Gerald Green

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1249
  • Tommy Points: 212
  • Cool Runnings
Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

No. It wouldn't matter. Bagley would be the first pick, which is protected.

Yep.  If you want Bagley, #NetsPick is where you should focus your energy.

I was talking more about the depth of the draft. Having 2 top 5 picks. Not necessarily that the Lakers pick to be Bagley, who will obviously go first.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #112 on: July 15, 2017, 02:12:03 PM »

Offline Darío SpanishFan

  • Jayson Tatum
  • Posts: 981
  • Tommy Points: 141
Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

No. It wouldn't matter. Bagley would be the first pick, which is protected.

We have the Nets pick.

Of course. But the Lakers' pick deals nothing with Bagley, as you have suggested.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #113 on: July 15, 2017, 02:19:02 PM »

Offline Smokeeye123

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2374
  • Tommy Points: 156
You do realize even if they are like the 8th worst team they still have a 10% chance at top 3.

Itll be worth watching for sure

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #114 on: July 15, 2017, 02:53:18 PM »

Offline Boris Badenov

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5227
  • Tommy Points: 1065
You do realize even if they are like the 8th worst team they still have a 10% chance at top 3.

Itll be worth watching for sure

Yes, though for our purposes the number to care about is less than that, 7.2% to be precise, since we don't get the pick if it's #1.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #115 on: July 15, 2017, 03:06:20 PM »

Offline Mean Gerald Green

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1249
  • Tommy Points: 212
  • Cool Runnings
Well if Bagley is going to be eligible for next year's draft now we better hope the Lakers suck something awful.

No. It wouldn't matter. Bagley would be the first pick, which is protected.

We have the Nets pick.

Of course. But the Lakers' pick deals nothing with Bagley, as you have suggested.

Again, I was referring to the depth of the draft. That Bagley entering knocks Porter Bamba Ayton and Doncic down a pick, meaning the Lakers pick will net us one of them, hopefully in addition to Bagley with the Nets pick.

Obviously I know the Lakers pick is protected, as I assume everyone else on this board does.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #116 on: July 15, 2017, 03:34:18 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
Huh??

Of course I have no evidence. How could I possibly have any evidence to begin with? No one has. All we know is there are plenty of teams that have zero incentive to win their games. Regarding the Lakers, they decided to trade Lou Williams for a first rounder + salary filler (Brewer). The way I see it, that's clear indication they couldn't care less about the remainder of the season.

Besides that, players will never lose games on purpose. That's not how tanking works. The GMs are the ones who make the strategic decisions (in some cases I guess head coaches may embrase the tank as well). Players are playing for their next contract. They have no incentive whatsoever to participate in all this. The fact that the Lakers players won 5 games in a row, doesn't necessarily mean that the Lakers front office wanted the team to win in those games. Not to mention, 4 out of the 5 teams that they beat were lottery teams as well.

So let's just recap your post here:

1. You have no evidence of tanking being prevalent.
2. Any transaction that does not immediately help a team is somehow evidence of "tanking". I guess the Cs are tanking because we didn't trade the #3 pick for Paul George.
3. Tanking doesn't work well anyway because the players won't go along with it.

Alrighty then.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Tanking has been the Boogyman of the Nets picks. I guess that will now apply to the LAL/PHI/SAC pick as well.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #117 on: July 15, 2017, 04:05:30 PM »

Offline Jvalin

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3737
  • Tommy Points: 737
Huh??

Of course I have no evidence. How could I possibly have any evidence to begin with? No one has. All we know is there are plenty of teams that have zero incentive to win their games. Regarding the Lakers, they decided to trade Lou Williams for a first rounder + salary filler (Brewer). The way I see it, that's clear indication they couldn't care less about the remainder of the season.

Besides that, players will never lose games on purpose. That's not how tanking works. The GMs are the ones who make the strategic decisions (in some cases I guess head coaches may embrase the tank as well). Players are playing for their next contract. They have no incentive whatsoever to participate in all this. The fact that the Lakers players won 5 games in a row, doesn't necessarily mean that the Lakers front office wanted the team to win in those games. Not to mention, 4 out of the 5 teams that they beat were lottery teams as well.

So let's just recap your post here:

1. You have no evidence of tanking being prevalent.
2. Any transaction that does not immediately help a team is somehow evidence of "tanking". I guess the Cs are tanking because we didn't trade the #3 pick for Paul George.
3. Tanking doesn't work well anyway because the players won't go along with it.

Alrighty then.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Tanking has been the Boogyman of the Nets picks. I guess that will now apply to the LAL/PHI/SAC pick as well.
Yeah that's exactly what I wrote. There is absolutely no way to prove that a team is tanking games, unless a member of the team admits to it.

A couple of months ago, Mark Cuban admitted that the Mavs had done anything possible to lose games last season.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/news/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-news-tank-dan-patrick-show/94tzr8zysewk1nzfbw0q57nst

Ryan Gomes has admitted that the C's were tanking in 2007.

"I probably (would have played), but since we were in the hunt for a high draft pick, of course things are different. I understand that. Hopefully things get better. Now that we clinched at least having the second-most balls in the lottery, the last three games we'll see what happens. We'll see if we can go out and finish some games."

Are those examples good enough for you?

Going by your logic, tanking is rare cause no one can prove that it's not rare. Yeah, sure. Feel free to believe whatever you want mate.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2017, 04:26:21 PM by Jvalin »

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #118 on: July 15, 2017, 05:00:12 PM »

Offline Future Celtics Owner

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 191
  • Celtic's only raise championship Banners
Brooke Lopez is injury prone and if he goes down or only plays part of the season then watch out!

Re: I think we can safely say we won't get the Laker pick
« Reply #119 on: July 15, 2017, 05:06:44 PM »

Offline Granath

  • NCE
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2154
  • Tommy Points: 567
Huh??

Of course I have no evidence. How could I possibly have any evidence to begin with? No one has. All we know is there are plenty of teams that have zero incentive to win their games. Regarding the Lakers, they decided to trade Lou Williams for a first rounder + salary filler (Brewer). The way I see it, that's clear indication they couldn't care less about the remainder of the season.

Besides that, players will never lose games on purpose. That's not how tanking works. The GMs are the ones who make the strategic decisions (in some cases I guess head coaches may embrase the tank as well). Players are playing for their next contract. They have no incentive whatsoever to participate in all this. The fact that the Lakers players won 5 games in a row, doesn't necessarily mean that the Lakers front office wanted the team to win in those games. Not to mention, 4 out of the 5 teams that they beat were lottery teams as well.

So let's just recap your post here:

1. You have no evidence of tanking being prevalent.
2. Any transaction that does not immediately help a team is somehow evidence of "tanking". I guess the Cs are tanking because we didn't trade the #3 pick for Paul George.
3. Tanking doesn't work well anyway because the players won't go along with it.

Alrighty then.  :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Tanking has been the Boogyman of the Nets picks. I guess that will now apply to the LAL/PHI/SAC pick as well.
Yeah that's exactly what I wrote. There is absolutely no way to prove that a team is tanking games, unless a member of the team admits to it.

A couple of months ago, Mark Cuban admitted that the Mavs had done anything possible to lose games last season.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nba/news/mark-cuban-dallas-mavericks-news-tank-dan-patrick-show/94tzr8zysewk1nzfbw0q57nst

Ryan Gomes has admitted that the C's were tanking in 2007.

"I probably (would have played), but since we were in the hunt for a high draft pick, of course things are different. I understand that. Hopefully things get better. Now that we clinched at least having the second-most balls in the lottery, the last three games we'll see what happens. We'll see if we can go out and finish some games."

Are those examples good enough for you?

Going by your logic, tanking is rare cause no one can prove that it's not rare. Yeah, sure. Feel free to believe whatever you want mate.

It is an accurate summary of your post. And no, those examples aren't good enough. They're 10 years apart. That's neither common nor widespread.

Your insinuation is that roughly 1/3rd of the league will have great incentive to lose games somewhere around the All-Star break. Then that will cause the LAL pick to become considerably devalued. That is an accurate assessment of your point and it's refuted quite simply (and now repeatedly).

The first is unfounded speculation with more realism in a video game than it has in the real world. Players and coaches aren't paid to lose. They lose money when they do. People get fired. The locker room ramifications of accepting losing can be severe. Loss of ticket sales, goodwill with the community and business disputes with those who are buying the luxury boxes are all major consequences of tanking. It's not a simple decision and that's why it's so very uncommon. That's what made the 76er "process" so remarkably stunning - teams just don't do that kind of damage to their brand.

Then, as I've brought up repeatedly *and you've entirely failed to address) there's the limited usefulness to it. Let's use your glorious smoking gun Dallas example. Their winning percentage actually improved throughout most of the year.

End of December: .294
End of January: .375
End of February: .406
End of Season: .402

So if they "tanked" they certainly didn't do a good job, did they?   :laugh:

Even in cases where tanking would be far more overt and the losses piling up (and again, these cases are hard to find), mid-to-late year tanking would likely only result in somewhere around 3 more losses than normally would be expected. This isn't enough to generally cause massive changes in draft positions.
Jaylen Brown will be an All Star in the next 5 years.