GatewayRedbirds.com

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

bob thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote: The only team to have their own#1 pick contributing was Spurs (Duncan).

First you're wrong. LeBron & Shaq we're both number 1 picks. Not with the teams they eventually won titles with

Or, to put it another way, I'm not wrong.

My bad, you're right.

bob thrill wrote: First you're wrong. LeBron & Shaq we're both number 1 picks. Not with the teams they eventually won titles with, but it enforces my point about acquiring elite talent high in the draft. Second, I didn't say anything about the #1 pick specifically, just the necessity of drafting early to have a chance to get a special player.

Since you keep admitting that you know nothing about the NBA and then keep arguing with me about the NBA, this is the last thing I'll be addressing to you about the NBA. No hard feelings, it's just pointless.

It goes without saying that you need talent to win championships. ANd, no, I don't know everything about the NBA, I wasn't even talking about it until you started asking questions, but it doesn't take a junkie to know there are ways of acquiring talent other than by throwing entire seasons away to get a better pick.

AS I said previously, if the NBA is setup in such a way that GMs are encouraged to and rewarded for throwing entire seasons away to get a better draft pick, it's just another reason the NBA is a horrible league and not worth paying attention to.

bob thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

bob thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote: The only team to have their own#1 pick contributing was Spurs (Duncan).

First you're wrong. LeBron & Shaq we're both number 1 picks. Not with the teams they eventually won titles with

Or, to put it another way, I'm not wrong.

My bad, you're right.

Time for hugs and kisses.

xoxo,
Beerstrike

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

bob thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote:

bob thrill wrote:

AWvsCBsteeeerike3 wrote: The only team to have their own#1 pick contributing was Spurs (Duncan).

First you're wrong. LeBron & Shaq we're both number 1 picks. Not with the teams they eventually won titles with

Or, to put it another way, I'm not wrong.

My bad, you're right.

Time for hugs and kisses.

xoxo,
Beerstrike

Are you kidding? Anytime I can have a debate about the NBA that lasts for multiple posts, we may as well be making out because that's my jam.

I think you play the game to win. I think there is joy in sports in following a team whose goal is compete every night, but has little chance of winning a title. I also don't see tanking as a viable strategy to building a championship team, NBA or any other sport. So given those two, why isn't it a good strategy to compete as hard as you can with what you have and enjoy that ride, knowing it likely won't lead to a championship? I've heard sports radio and fans alike talk about the singular goal of any sports team is winning a championship, and anything that does not add to that is wasteful. I just don't agree with that at all. I don't want to see any team tank real chances in the future - for example the Bulls this year. But if they can do something to help the team now, why not? Because of a draft pick? Pffft. No way. That's not fun.

jim wrote:I think you play the game to win. I think there is joy in sports in following a team whose goal is compete every night, but has little chance of winning a title. I also don't see tanking as a viable strategy to building a championship team, NBA or any other sport. So given those two, why isn't it a good strategy to compete as hard as you can with what you have and enjoy that ride, knowing it likely won't lead to a championship? I've heard sports radio and fans alike talk about the singular goal of any sports team is winning a championship, and anything that does not add to that is wasteful. I just don't agree with that at all. I don't want to see any team tank real chances in the future - for example the Bulls this year. But if they can do something to help the team now, why not? Because of a draft pick? Pffft. No way. That's not fun.

I kinda get what you're saying here, Jim. It's an interesting discussion. So does that apply to trading a guy like Adam Wainwright for prospects? Wainwright obviously helps you win more games this year, but prospects makes the future look brighter. In essence, by trading a proven player for future players, you are "tanking" games right now.

(Wainwright was a bad example, but you get my point).

broncos - there is constant tension. I kind of outlined my feelings above, players have very short term focus and GM's longer. Coaches somewhere in the middle, but much closer alligned to the players than the GM. Fans .. they run the gambit I guess. But the trade you talk about kind of demonstrates what I mean. LOUSY trade from the players perspective and probably the manager, maybe a solid trade as far as the GM goes. He's looking possibly several years down the road, the players want to win today, and the coaching staff wants to win this year (although they might be ok losing today if it accomplished the bigger goal). They don't have the same priorities, so naturally there will be conflict.

But as a fan I can't ever say i want to root for draft picks. Not going to happen with me. Especially in the NBA where the lottery system means you can't guarantee much of anything.

Teams like the Blazers have two options to get superstars; trades (how often do superstars go in trade? anyway, nowadays when they do go they dictate where--though this was how the 2000 Blazers got so close) and the draft. Free agency is not an option unless, maybe, you're building a Pistons-like team.

Another oversimplification that's not quite true, but the Blazers either need to be in the lottery or be a middling team.

I agree that in general coaches and players should be playing to win. Anything else just seems unhealthy. However, in the case of the Blazers there's no reason for Jared Jeffries and Sasha Pavlovic to be playing ahead of Will Barton and Victor Claver.

You don't have to tank to get high picks. Trading for them is an option. IIRC, Lakers had top picks in consecutive years, both acquired through trades, & used them on Magic & Worthy.

I suppose there are so many nuances to this question that it's not really possible to answer, which makes good discussion. But one example to illustrate a point I'm trying to make popped up in my head ... the Bulls right now are 6-7 with no date of return for Rose. The general consensus is that when Rose returns, he won't be as effective as he was last year, therefore there is some call to hold Rose back this year. I disagree with this in principal because I understand that the injury will be healed, and really by February he is going to be less likely to tear the ACL that was recovered than the ACL that is intact. He could re-tear it, and oh the outrage if that happened, but he could also re-tear it next year, in three years, or whatever. Science and data say in general patients are safe from permanent injury at the 6-9 month mark, and in some cases even earlier.

This is wear the argument muddies ... we have to take out this variable about the risk to Rose. I say if we are 30-30 and there is no added risk of Rose reinjuring himself, he should play. Maybe they go 43-39 with Rose and make the playoffs, or 40-42 miss it. I would say go for the 43 wins, because that gets you into the playoffs and then you never know. The Sixers last year were *this* close to beating a team in the second round that was *this* close to beating the Heat who won it all. The Sixers. You can't tell me that the Bulls with Rose aren't better than the Sixers last year. Why not take a crack? The cost is a lottery pick - and really a very low pick most likely (what are the odds we draw the Rose ball again?).

But of course this argument breaks down because everyone makes assumptions that aren't true. Rose must be more injury prone with the surgery, more time means less chance of re-injury or whatever. Of course i too am making assumptions - I'm assuming his rehab and recovery are going to book. That he really is in the bell curve of patients who at this point have a structurally sound knee. So it's impossible for us to really argue apples and apples - in the back of everyones mind is an assumption about that. BUT ... if you could factor that out and assume he is healthy, I just can't fathom the idea of not having him play. If nothing else it springboards into next year, gives him confidence in his knee, gets him back out on the court.

Or here is another much simpler example. Tonight is the Mavs who are struggling and came off of a tough loss last night in Philly. Teague is potentially a very small piece to a championship puzzle - theoretically he could develop into an 8-12 minute a game backup to Rose at some point. How about start him tonight? That's more consistent with this championship or nothing approach. Give him minutes, let him learn on the court. I say no, absolutely not. You play the guys that give you the best chance to win tonight.

Those are my thoughts.