Front Office Football Central  

Go Back   Front Office Football Central > Main Forums > Off Topic
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read Statistics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-17-2017, 01:47 PM   #1
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
2017 NBA Offseason Thread

The draft is is less than a week away, and it's shaping up to be an exciting one with some very good players in it and a lot of picks (including the #1 overall) potentially moving around. Seems like Boston and Philadelphia could have something in place, but the exact details aren't set in stone yet.




Last edited by nol : 06-21-2017 at 09:25 PM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 09:22 PM   #2
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
That didn't take long:




It will be interesting to get the details since it does seem within the realm of possibility for Colangelo to have done something dumb like trade #3, the Lakers' and Kings' unprotected picks, and throw in some Philadelphia-Boston pick swaps just for #1, when #3 and either one of the two future picks would be pretty close to fair value for both teams.

Last edited by nol : 06-17-2017 at 09:23 PM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 09:52 PM   #3
Eaglesfan27
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Jersey
Hoping the 76ers didn't give up too much in this trade. I like Fultz but I also liked Jackson at the third pick.
__________________
Retired GM of the eNFL 2007 Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles (19-0 record.)
GM of the WOOF 2006 Doggie Bowl Champion Atlantic City Gamblers.
GM of the IHOF 2019 and 2022 IHOF Bowl Champion Asheville Axemen.
Eaglesfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2017, 10:10 PM   #4
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27 View Post
Hoping the 76ers didn't give up too much in this trade. I like Fultz but I also liked Jackson at the third pick.

Yeah, I'm not as huge a fan of Jackson (if he were Fultz's age and putting up the numbers he did at Kansas, I'd consider him the best wing prospect since Durant by a significant margin, but alas) but he's still good enough that I'm not sure I'd trade him and a couple shots at another potential superstar (Luka Doncic, DeAndre Ayton, Michael Porter Jr., Marvin Bagley III, Zion Williamson, Bol Bol, to name a few) in future drafts just for Fultz when it's not like the Sixers are expected to be championship contenders in the next couple of years in the first place. Now that I think of it more, it does seem like the Celtics must have gotten a huge haul because otherwise the Lakers then taking Jackson #2 could possibly throw the C's for a huge loop (although I myself would consider Ball good enough that if he were to slip to #3 I'd just take him and not worry too much about LaVar or roster fit or whatever).

edit: The Lakers' and Kings' picks are going to Boston, but they'll have some protection on them. Honestly think that's a win-win for both of these teams, which have pretty much been destined to make a big trade with one another at some point over the past 3 years, if the picks are something like top-3 or top-5 protected. I personally would have rather traded Ben Simmons to the Celtics and held on to both future picks, but the beauty of what Hinkie did is that you don't even need to be 100 percent optimal to build a potential powerhouse if you're drafting high and not totally butchering the picks.

edit 2: In addition to #3 the Celtics get the Lakers' pick next year if it's between 2-5 and if not, they get the Kings' 2019 unprotected. Easily the best move of Colangelo's tenure considering he at best drafted a no-brainer #1 selection last year (which I'd certainly argue was not a no-brainer considering Philadelphia was still going to be a lotto team this season and that Simmons doesn't fit particularly well with Fultz or any of the top stud point guards who were going to be available at the top of the draft this year), signed a couple veterans who as of now are bad contracts and worse players than undrafted free agents Hinkie acquired like TJ McConnell and Robert Covington, and then screwed up the Okafor-Noel situation to the point that they traded the one who was objectively better and got basically nothing in return for him.

Last edited by nol : 06-21-2017 at 09:27 PM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 12:51 AM   #5
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP View Post
And one of the top 3 most obvious future all-NBA PG prospects of the past 10, maybe even 20 years (along with John Wall & Derrick Rose) falls into our lap & we trade him for another very good all around wing who does not have a ceiling as a 1A creator + a couple more picks that might even be top 3 protected? Yeah I'd prefer if the next Anthony Davis or KAT was available, but Fultz has a decent potential at being that type of transformative star who carries a franchise.

Yeah, and I'd consider Fultz to be even better since his biggest weaknesses are just the standard-order things any young player needs to get better at (play harder on defense, get more consistent at shooting with better shot selection), whereas the shooting ability of Rose/Wall was a weakness to the point that even though both players substantially improved at it after college, it's still what makes someone like Wall one of the 10-15 best players rather than one of the top 2-3. That takes it back to Chris Paul, and while I remember it being very strange at the time that he was only picked 4th, I was young enough that I hadn't watched enough of him in college to make a good comparison between him and Fultz. If I were to rank players based on how they looked coming into the league, Fultz would be 2nd or 3rd out of everyone currently under the age of 25 (4th if Embiid hadn't been injured at the time he was drafted).

Quote:
I also don't understand the timeline. If we really do want Jackson, why not make this trade Thursday since the Lakers can still pick Jackson? (And *shockingly* rumors have them considering him and saying the Lakers aren't 100% sold on Lonzo, though I would still bet they take Ball). If this is in preparation for a splash trade for Butler or PG13 & then going after Blake Griffin or Hayward I think that's too many chips to push in to give us only a couple year window while IT/Horford are still good and the Warriors are still that menacing. If the plan is to go the other way & build a future core, you draft the #1A guy on the board with a good chance at being a franchise cornerstone over 3 picks that will probably be top 10 but almost certainly not #1 (even if they are completely unprotected, what are the odds one turns into a #1 pick, 12%?)

TL;dr he's not perfect, but you accumulate all these assets to have a shot at a guy like Fultz.

(PS I won't even be shocked if Danny Ainge isn't even that in love with Jackson & picked Fox or Dennis Smith or Jayson Tatum at this point. The man is a complete wild card.)

Well, you accumulate them all to have a shot at a guy like Fultz but then blow it because you already have guys like Thomas and Horford who aren't going to help you beat the Warriors/Cavs in the short term and will hinder your ability to build a good team around Fultz in the long run, which makes you go all in for the present. I don't know how anyone but the most diehard homer Celtics fan would think that the team would be a huge favorite to make it to the conference finals again if they stood pat, considering Washington's awful bench lost them the conference semifinals and Cleveland's injuries prevented them from wrapping up the 1st seed much earlier during the season, which would have put the Celtics in a tougher 2nd-round matchup versus the Raptors. If the Lakers do pick Jackson, that should only make the 3rd pick more valuable.

Last edited by nol : 06-18-2017 at 09:30 AM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 05:18 AM   #6
stevew
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
I guess Boston gets the Lakers pick next year if it's 3-5 or the Kings pick the following year. I mean the Lakers basically need to trade out of #2 now just to screw the Celtics, right?
stevew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 05:42 AM   #7
RedKingGold
College Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew View Post
I guess Boston gets the Lakers pick next year if it's 3-5 or the Kings pick the following year. I mean the Lakers basically need to trade out of #2 now just to screw the Celtics, right?

That, or the Lakers will just be better this year. They probably would have won at least 30 games last year but they tanked the last two months to keep their pick this year.

Love this trade for the Sixers. They now have their core stars in Fultz and Simmons to build with. If Embiid can stay healthy, that's a superteam. Even if not, with a few breaks and hitting on a late lottery pick or two over the next two seasons, this is a contender in the East by 2020.

EDIT: Not to mention this team will just be flat out fun to watch. Brown loves to run, and Simmons and Fultz will be unstoppable in transition.

Last edited by RedKingGold : 06-18-2017 at 05:44 AM.
RedKingGold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 07:01 AM   #8
wustin
College Prospect
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Does this mean Boston is looking to trade some assets to get Jimmy Butler then sign Hayward?
wustin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 07:15 AM   #9
Eaglesfan27
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Jersey
Assuming it is really only one of the future picks, I'm much happier about this trade. Fultz has a shot at being a superstar and I think you take that chance for only 1 additional future high pick.
__________________
Retired GM of the eNFL 2007 Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles (19-0 record.)
GM of the WOOF 2006 Doggie Bowl Champion Atlantic City Gamblers.
GM of the IHOF 2019 and 2022 IHOF Bowl Champion Asheville Axemen.
Eaglesfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 07:30 AM   #10
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by wustin View Post
Does this mean Boston is looking to trade some assets to get Jimmy Butler then sign Hayward?

Almost 100 percent. I'd be very surprised if Boston keeps the 3rd pick considering Josh Jackson hasn't even been in for a workout and it's not like I'd even consider him the surefire 3rd-best player in this draft. The Celtics most likely concluded that the #1 pick was too much to give up for someone like Paul George or Jimmy Butler and they could instead break it down into something slightly smaller while getting a future pick they could hold onto.

Last edited by nol : 06-18-2017 at 08:57 AM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 05:57 PM   #11
Chief Rum
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
I'm really excited to see how things play out. As a Clips fan, I don't really have much reason to be cheery in this draft, as they have no picks and are unlikely to do anything in free agency but give their current guys a ton of cash.

But as a basketball fan who avidly plays daily fantasy and as a result knows a ton about each team, their lineup and strengths and weaknesses, I am jazzed to see how the talent in this draft affects things.

Some thoughts on the prospects:

Fultz-- He's a tremendous offensive talent. He could really be an instant star. I feel a little less about his prospects as a Sixer than a Celtic though. I feel like Stephens has a system in place and a team which buys into it. In Boston, Fultz's self-focused approach (ball dominating shot hog, teams don't win, how much does he want to play D, is he a leader?) is mitigated as part of the team. In Philly, while I like Brown, I don't know if he has the cache and system in place to properly control and focus Fultz's talent. All said, can't wait to see Fultz, Simmons and the Process on the court together.

Ball-- Everyone hates on Lavar and that dude often deserves it with the way he approaches things, and Lonzo definitely has some other things that can hold him back (weird shot, good but not great athlete), but I can tell you as a UCLA fan--no team is losing putting the ball in this kid's hands. He has a vision of the court I haven't seen in too many players in years. He will improve the players around him. He will be focused and team-oriented even if his dad is going crazy in the media. Lonzo is just like that. He can be a difference maker for the Lakers if he goes there. He's the opposite of me-first Russell, whom the Lakers should divest themselves of if they can.

Forwards-- Jackson and Tatum and Isaac all look like athletic dynamos who will massively affect the teams they end up on. Jackson has the ability to be a superstar who wins championships. All world athleticism, great defender but still developing as an offensive weapon and a mature adult. Ge might not be the best player next season but he might be six years from now. Tatum is that classic Duke guy, well coached and fundamental, good athleticism and very skilled. Isaac is an absolutely amazing athlete and the key will be his development into a fully-skilled player who can put that athleticism to good use. And then there is Markannen whom I saw now down at #12 in Bleacher Report's latest mock. That is an absolute steal. Yes, he isn't uber athletic but he is underrated there, he is long, he is a tremendous shooter and has offensive skills up the wazoo. He is what Ryan Anderson wished he could have been.

Guards-- I love me some DeAaron Fox. Just an electrifying ballhandler and finisher. Feels like Iverson to me, or IT4 if you want a more recent comp (but much bigger). Dennis Smith and Malik Monk look like impact players too. And I would love to see whomario's take on Nkitilina (sp?), whom the Knicks are apparently focusing on. I don't know much about him except that he's French and I haven't yet seen him drop out of the lottery in a mock draft.

Athletic wunderkids-- Athleticism really seems to be at a premium in this draft. There are so many guys who seem impossibly long or athletic for their positions. Many of them are super raw, but if they develop skills, they could be studs. Collins from the Zags, Audoby (sp?), Anigbogu are prime examples. Giles if he gets healthy. Bam Bam from KY, another one.

Draft depth-- This really stands out to me. I look at the 18-30 draft range and I still see a ton of guys who can play. Maybe not star, but make a difference on their teams, as soon as next year. I watched Leaf all year--his offensive skills will impact whatever team he ends up on. I saw Swanigan in the BR mock go to the Lakers at 28; man, that is an Effective big man, to get at that spot. Rabb, Mitchell, Ferguson... there are a ton of others, and well into the second round.

I wish it were Thursday already.
__________________
.
.

I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.
Chief Rum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 08:21 PM   #12
Groundhog
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Kinda feels to me like the Celtics are reluctant to commit one way or the other, still gathering assets while also trying to lean on FA to get championship pieces immediately.
__________________
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
--Ambrose Bierce
Groundhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 09:10 PM   #13
Chief Rum
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog View Post
Kinda feels to me like the Celtics are reluctant to commit one way or the other, still gathering assets while also trying to lean on FA to get championship pieces immediately.

I have felt that way for some time, which is why I am hoping they finally get off the pot this summer and go all in to get some combo of Butler, Hayward, Blake, whatever to get up to true title contender. Bishop disagreed with me when I said this before, but I still think Ainge is a massive hoarder whom has, to this point, been too chickenshit to take a chance and move forward. Bishop thinks the Cs are aiming to dominate after the Cavs-Ws dynasty years (not an unfair conclusion).
__________________
.
.

I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.
Chief Rum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 10:17 PM   #14
Groundhog
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum View Post
I have felt that way for some time, which is why I am hoping they finally get off the pot this summer and go all in to get some combo of Butler, Hayward, Blake, whatever to get up to true title contender. Bishop disagreed with me when I said this before, but I still think Ainge is a massive hoarder whom has, to this point, been too chickenshit to take a chance and move forward. Bishop thinks the Cs are aiming to dominate after the Cavs-Ws dynasty years (not an unfair conclusion).

Ainge acts how I do in NBA 2K, where I just hoard picks and try build the next big powerhouse franchise 3-5 years down the line with fictional rookies. Fun way to play a video game, but a bit frustrating if you're a fan in real life.
__________________
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
--Ambrose Bierce
Groundhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 11:49 PM   #15
BishopMVP
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Concord, MA/UMass
Quote:
Originally Posted by stevew View Post
I guess Boston gets the Lakers pick next year if it's 3-5 or the Kings pick the following year. I mean the Lakers basically need to trade out of #2 now just to screw the Celtics, right?
Lakers if it's 2-5. But either way no shot at Michael Porter. And I feel if the Lakers want to screw Boston, just picking Josh Jackson #2 would do it. I'm less high on Lonzo than most, but even for his fans, if any part of this trade was about positional fit, Lonzo is clearly a PG prospect like Fultz & clearly a worse one.

But after contemplating it, since we don't even get both picks & Lakers 2018 is protected #1 this isn't Ainge turning an asset into more or potentially more lucrative assets, it's him negging Fultz and saying not only do I think the difference between Fultz & Jackson isn't nearly as great as every independent draft observer believes, but that every NBA team who could trade a star also believes the difference between Fultz & #3 is overrated. Because I don't see how offering #3 + the Lakers pick if it's 2-5 next year or the Kings pick in 2019 if it doesn't convey is sexier to the Bulls (etc) than offering the rights to Fultz.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wustin View Post
Does this mean Boston is looking to trade some assets to get Jimmy Butler then sign Hayward?
No. They've been hoping to do something along those lines regardless of this trade. This isn't drafting Kris Dunn over Jaylen Brown - what part of this entices the Bulls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog View Post
Kinda feels to me like the Celtics are reluctant to commit one way or the other, still gathering assets while also trying to lean on FA to get championship pieces immediately.
Fultz was the perfect delaying tactic... Gave them 1 year to see his development, IT's return from hip injury, (and if anything happens next 12 months with LeBron getting old/going to LA or the Warriors Core) before deciding if a near or long term.push made sense. Could still pursue Hayward/Griffin this summer (would just need to.make a trade of a guy like AB or Jae if Hayward agreed & wanted the extra $2-3m/y our current cap holds prevent us from.offering, but I would salary dump either for nothing if it guaranteed us Hayward.) Would still have multiple extra good 1st round picks (Nets 2018, Memphis 2019).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum View Post
I have felt that way for some time, which is why I am hoping they finally get off the pot this summer and go all in to get some combo of Butler, Hayward, Blake, whatever to get up to true title contender. Bishop disagreed with me when I said this before, but I still think Ainge is a massive hoarder whom has, to this point, been too chickenshit to take a chance and move forward. Bishop thinks the Cs are aiming to dominate after the Cavs-Ws dynasty years (not an unfair conclusion).
Nah, I was *hoping* the C's understood the IT/Horford "core" was probably not going to dethrone LeBron & certainly not dethrone him & the Warriors, and thus were aiming for a window 2020 on. Once KD declined our offer & signed with the Dubs last July I don't believe there was any pushing in of future assets we could've done to have a real chance at the title this June. And I'm very glad we didn't go the Raptors route of pushing in multiple assets for marginal upgrades only to still get murdered when it really counted. Unlike the past trade deadline I do think there is a path to immediate championship contention here (even with the Dubs), I would just prefer a potential 10 year run in the uncertain future landscape than one with a very short shelf life going up against a dynasty in its prime.

Butler, Heyward, (& Blake if you aren't terrified of his health), are young enough they could be win now pieces and part of a potential future championship team built around Fultz/Jaylen/current 19-20 year olds. They made sense to go after regardless of what timeline you think the Celtics should pursue. (Though I suspect GarPax never had the desire/ability to go full rebuild & thus never a reasonable price point they were willing to trade Butler for.) But pushing in all those Celtics assets for pending UFA's at the trade deadline or last year's draft instead of just waiting until this summer didn't make sense. You're a Clippers fan - even if GM Doc wasn't in charge what could we have offered for Blake Griffin that front office might've actually traded him for? Would the massive overpay necessary for them to officially break up the CP3/Blake/DJ trio have made any sense for us to give up when Griffin might just sign with us this summer at a cost of zero draft picks?

And while I strongly disagree with this move and think hoarder might be a fair term right now, I don't believe chickenshit is a word you can use to describe Ainge - he's staking a huge part of his reputation against Fultz turning into a star.
BishopMVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 01:56 AM   #16
Groundhog
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP View Post
And while I strongly disagree with this move and think hoarder might be a fair term right now, I don't believe chickenshit is a word you can use to describe Ainge - he's staking a huge part of his reputation against Fultz turning into a star.

I wonder about the reasons why that is, though. I don't think Fultz is a slam dunk superstar in the making, but I wonder if Ainge is passing on him because of actual concerns about his potential/ability, or for concerns about the impact of bringing in another guy that plays the same position as IT.
__________________
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
--Ambrose Bierce
Groundhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 03:32 AM   #17
Chief Rum
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP View Post
Nah, I was *hoping* the C's understood the IT/Horford "core" was probably not going to dethrone LeBron & certainly not dethrone him & the Warriors, and thus were aiming for a window 2020 on. Once KD declined our offer & signed with the Dubs last July I don't believe there was any pushing in of future assets we could've done to have a real chance at the title this June. And I'm very glad we didn't go the Raptors route of pushing in multiple assets for marginal upgrades only to still get murdered when it really counted. Unlike the past trade deadline I do think there is a path to immediate championship contention here (even with the Dubs), I would just prefer a potential 10 year run in the uncertain future landscape than one with a very short shelf life going up against a dynasty in its prime.

Butler, Heyward, (& Blake if you aren't terrified of his health), are young enough they could be win now pieces and part of a potential future championship team built around Fultz/Jaylen/current 19-20 year olds. They made sense to go after regardless of what timeline you think the Celtics should pursue. (Though I suspect GarPax never had the desire/ability to go full rebuild & thus never a reasonable price point they were willing to trade Butler for.) But pushing in all those Celtics assets for pending UFA's at the trade deadline or last year's draft instead of just waiting until this summer didn't make sense. You're a Clippers fan - even if GM Doc wasn't in charge what could we have offered for Blake Griffin that front office might've actually traded him for? Would the massive overpay necessary for them to officially break up the CP3/Blake/DJ trio have made any sense for us to give up when Griffin might just sign with us this summer at a cost of zero draft picks?

And while I strongly disagree with this move and think hoarder might be a fair term right now, I don't believe chickenshit is a word you can use to describe Ainge - he's staking a huge part of his reputation against Fultz turning into a star.

Well, chickenshit might be too strong a charge, I admit, although I do believe Ainge is a good way down the line on the chickenshit scale. Let's say he is unduly cautious. I feel like he keeps trading the future a year or two down the line, putting off pushing his chips on. IMO, he does a disservice to the fans by continuing to do this and not making a play. I believe with a key addition or two and a healthy IT, the C's could have beaten this year's Cavs team. And I believe this year's Cavs is only getting worse as LeBron gets older. I also suspect LBJ will not be in Cleveland on Opening Night 2018. Just a hunch. The EC is there for the taking.

As for Blake, I'm actually not certain that trio gets out of this summer still on the same team. It might not be as hard to get Blake as you think (i.e. market value, not well above it).

It's clear to the Clips they need to do something drastic, as their window is closing with CP3's age. It would not shock me to see them make a big move somehow. Also, Ballmer paying up to lure West back to LA tells me Doc won't have entirely total control this summer.
__________________
.
.

I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

Last edited by Chief Rum : 06-19-2017 at 03:34 AM.
Chief Rum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 12:47 PM   #18
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Okay, somebody help me out a little bit here. From ESPN about the BOS/PHL pick swap

Quote:
The future first-rounder sent to Boston will either be the Los Angeles Lakers' selection next year -- if it falls between Nos. 2 and 5 -- or a first-rounder in 2019, belonging either to Sacramento or Philadelphia. The teams announced the deal Monday.

So it's a darned high pick in 2018 -- unless it's #1 overall or anything worse than 5. OR it's a crap shoot for what might not even be a lottery pick (theoretically) in 2019?
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:32 PM   #19
BishopMVP
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Concord, MA/UMass
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum View Post
Well, chickenshit might be too strong a charge, I admit, although I do believe Ainge is a good way down the line on the chickenshit scale. Let's say he is unduly cautious. I feel like he keeps trading the future a year or two down the line, putting off pushing his chips on. IMO, he does a disservice to the fans by continuing to do this and not making a play. I believe with a key addition or two and a healthy IT, the C's could have beaten this year's Cavs team. And I believe this year's Cavs is only getting worse as LeBron gets older. I also suspect LBJ will not be in Cleveland on Opening Night 2018. Just a hunch. The EC is there for the taking.

As for Blake, I'm actually not certain that trio gets out of this summer still on the same team. It might not be as hard to get Blake as you think (i.e. market value, not well above it).

It's clear to the Clips they need to do something drastic, as their window is closing with CP3's age. It would not shock me to see them make a big move somehow. Also, Ballmer paying up to lure West back to LA tells me Doc won't have entirely total control this summer.
I think there's a good chance Blake leaves as a UFA too. I don't think the LAC as an organization had the stomach to do that for anything less than a MASSIVE overpay. Maybe at last year's draft, but definitely not at any in season trade deadline.

Ainge has had no problem pushing chips in for guys he likes (infamously being bailed out when Charlotte & Miami passed up huge offers when he targeted Justise Winslow). And having Markelle Fultz vs Josh Jackson doesn't really impact out EC 2018 hopes - trading this pick for a proven star would, as would signing a big name UFA. Taking Fultz or Jackson (or trading the pick(s) for a current star) will significantly impact the 2020-2025 title chances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
Okay, somebody help me out a little bit here. From ESPN about the BOS/PHL pick swap



So it's a darned high pick in 2018 -- unless it's #1 overall or anything worse than 5. OR it's a crap shoot for what might not even be a lottery pick (theoretically) in 2019?
That Sacramento pick (which was initially traded for basically nothing!!!) ending up in the lottery is a near-certainty, and it's probably something like a 90% chance it's at least top 7.

Btw seeing final terms I also really hate that we allowed Philly to #1 protect the pick both years. I know it was a 10% chance at best either of the 3 picks would even be that, but we didn't have enough leverage to get them to drop that? And we did this all now instead of waiting until draft night to make sure the Lakers didn't pick Ball? It's just bizarre & seems like Philly had the leverage here, when we had the best asset.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundhog View Post
I wonder about the reasons why that is, though. I don't think Fultz is a slam dunk superstar in the making, but I wonder if Ainge is passing on him because of actual concerns about his potential/ability, or for concerns about the impact of bringing in another guy that plays the same position as IT.
He can say whatever he wants to say. You play multiple guards, and IT is a full 10 years older. Fultz will be turning 22 & entering his prime as IT is 32 and leaving it. And Jackson has an overlapping skillset with Crowder, Jaylen Brown & Marcus Smart.

I disagree with it, and strongly think that he sold low on an asset, but I take him at his word that he thinks Jackson is the better prospect. Defense first wings are a player type he loves.
BishopMVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 02:36 PM   #20
JonInMiddleGA
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP View Post

That Sacramento pick (which was initially traded for basically nothing!!!) ending up in the lottery is a near-certainty, and it's probably something like a 90% chance it's at least top 7.

I guess where the rationale of the terms (as described by ESPN anyway) broke down for me was:

You either get a guaranteed top tier pick (just not the #1) OR you get a crap shoot.

It seemed like limiting conveyance in 2018 to just 2 thru 5 or "whatever you get but still not the #1" in 2019 was ... strange. Strange for Boston to agree to I mean.
__________________
"I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis

Last edited by JonInMiddleGA : 06-19-2017 at 02:39 PM.
JonInMiddleGA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 04:03 PM   #21
BishopMVP
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Concord, MA/UMass
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
I guess where the rationale of the terms (as described by ESPN anyway) broke down for me was:

You either get a guaranteed top tier pick (just not the #1) OR you get a crap shoot.

It seemed like limiting conveyance in 2018 to just 2 thru 5 or "whatever you get but still not the #1" in 2019 was ... strange. Strange for Boston to agree to I mean.
Letting them #1 protect them is very odd to have agreed to, but the main 2019 pick in play not actually being Philly's & Philly's future outlook kinda forced the weird structure. If we were trading with the Kings here likely Ainge would've pushed for carrying over the 2019 pick if it wasn't top 5 too, but obviously Philly can't do that. And if Philly is already out of the lottery by 2019 (and even if Embiid goes full Greg Oden, between Simmons/Fultz & Saric you have to imagine that's at least a 35 win team by then), there's basically no way they'd be in it in 2020/21/22.

Speculating ahead (and barring another trade) this will lead to an insanely convoluted draft lottery watching next year... I assume the Nets pick we own will be in the mix, the Lakers will probably be a lottery team (though I'd guess in the 8-14 range), so we should be going into it with a small chance at #1 + #2 a.k.a. Porter & a Doncic/Ayton/Bamba unless somebody else really pops... Or we could see Philly add Porter to an Embiid/Fultz/Simmons core while we end up projected to get guys like Robert Williams and Collin Sexton if the Lakers pick is #5 and the Nets like #6.
BishopMVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 04:32 PM   #22
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA View Post
Okay, somebody help me out a little bit here. From ESPN about the BOS/PHL pick swap



So it's a darned high pick in 2018 -- unless it's #1 overall or anything worse than 5. OR it's a crap shoot for what might not even be a lottery pick (theoretically) in 2019?

It's the Kings, which makes it almost a guaranteed lottery pick, especially when you consider that even if they suck and get a high pick next year, they have to swap again with Philadelphia (that trade has already paid enormous dividends considering that I seriously doubt Boston would have dealt #1 for #5 and a future pick).

Quote:
Originally Posted by BishopMVP View Post
Ainge has had no problem pushing chips in for guys he likes (infamously being bailed out when Charlotte & Miami passed up huge offers when he targeted Justise Winslow).

Another instance of Ainge being bailed out is that if Hinkie hadn't been on his way to being fired at the time, he'd have traded Okafor to the Celtics for Brooklyn's 2018 pick at the trade deadline of Okafor's rookie season. Obviously that would've gotten a lot of crap from the "durrr it's a Ponzi scheme!" crowd, but at this point I don't know if you can even give Okafor away.

Last edited by nol : 06-19-2017 at 05:21 PM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 06:06 PM   #23
jbergey22
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
48-199 were the 76ers with Hinkie as GM. That level of pathetic deserves the Twitter praise he is receiving today! Only in the NBA#RTArmageddon

Last edited by jbergey22 : 06-19-2017 at 06:08 PM.
jbergey22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 06:38 PM   #24
Atocep
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Puyallup, WA
Not just the NBA. The Astros had a 3 year period of tanking where they went 162-324 and they've been getting plenty of praise the past couple of years.
Atocep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 06:52 PM   #25
jbergey22
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep View Post
Not just the NBA. The Astros had a 3 year period of tanking where they went 162-324 and they've been getting plenty of praise the past couple of years.

They are getting the praise because they are actually winning. In 3 years if Hinkie's moves have actually turned out and the 76ers win something of importance that would be a good time to praise Hinkie.
jbergey22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 07:51 PM   #26
Groundhog
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
The Sixers, if they stay healthy, could be the Timberwolves of the East. Doesn't make them contenders any time soon, and as a fan of basketball as opposed to an armchair GM I also don't think it excuses the long period of deliberate tanking, especially if I were a Sixers fan. I'd rather watch an #8 seed get bounced in 4 games than the drek the Sixers have been for years.
__________________
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
--Ambrose Bierce
Groundhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 07:57 PM   #27
Eaglesfan27
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: New Jersey
They have been unwatchable the last few years, but I'm much more excited by this upcoming season than any #8 seed team would have been the last few years.
__________________
Retired GM of the eNFL 2007 Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles (19-0 record.)
GM of the WOOF 2006 Doggie Bowl Champion Atlantic City Gamblers.
GM of the IHOF 2019 and 2022 IHOF Bowl Champion Asheville Axemen.
Eaglesfan27 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 07:57 PM   #28
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
It just makes the NBA boring because a 10-year old could build a terrible team and then just draft the highest rated prospect in the draft every year. And you can actually build a great team that way. It doesn't feel like real competition, it's more this weird moral test where teams just have to decide whether they're actually going to try to win games or not. A top pick is so valuable. It's the way to build a champion, it frames the structure and identityof the league for years going going forward, and the way to get this great asset is just to lose. Those picks are so important that in a sizable % of NBA games, the team that loses is better off.

Last edited by molson : 06-19-2017 at 08:31 PM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 08:24 PM   #29
jbergey22
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
It just makes the NBA boring because a 10-year old could build a terrible team and then just draft the highest rated prospect in the draft every year. And you can actually build a great team that way. It doesn't feel like real competition, it's more this weird moral test where teams just have to decide whether they're actually going to try to win games or not. A top pick is so valuable. It's the way to build a champion, it frames the structure and identify if the league for years going going forward, and the way to get this great asset is just to lose. Those picks are so important that in a sizable % of NBA games, the team that loses is better off.

+1

If this does actually work it will give the other non-contenders even more excuses to tank. Losing teams can fill their local fans with propaganda about how it worked for the 76ers and we are following that same lead.
jbergey22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 08:31 PM   #30
Atocep
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Puyallup, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbergey22 View Post
They are getting the praise because they are actually winning. In 3 years if Hinkie's moves have actually turned out and the 76ers win something of importance that would be a good time to praise Hinkie.

The point is the Astros, as well as the Cubs, tanked to get where they are now and neither team received much, if any flak, while doing so.

For some reason people really have a problem with tanking in the NBA.
Atocep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 08:53 PM   #31
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Some thoughts on the players who have seemed to be in the consensus top 10-11 for a while -

Fultz: Have said about enough on his game, but in terms of the knee-jerk Ben Simmons comparisons that seem to come up when people ask if Fultz is a "winner," Simmons' LSU teammates were absolute world-beaters compared to what Fultz had at UW. This covers things well enough in terms of the situation Fultz was stuck in, whereas LSU the year before Simmons (and two other top-100 recruits, one of whom was a fellow McDonald's All-American) came made it to the round of 32 and returned a higher percentage of its scoring than Washington's NIT team from the season before Fultz. He had a higher assist percentage and lower turnover percentage (the percentage of a team's possessions that end in an assist/turnover) than Lonzo Ball did, so any conception of Fultz being selfish or a bad passer is vastly overblown: he flat-out didn't have teammates who could do much once he passed to them.

As an added bonus, Fultz is very young for his class: he's less than a month older than presumptive 2018 top draft prospects Michael Porter Jr. and Mo Bamba and was more considerably more impressive than either of the two when they represented the United States in U18 competition last summer. Below is a game I watched, which team USA very well would have lost to Canada without Fultz; at 1:49 in the video it's a 2 point game with 4 minutes left, and Fultz makes some crucial baskets down the stretch:



Ball: I'd consider him in his own tier as the 2nd-best player. Depending on how you want to parse credit among him and his UCLA teammates, he could seem even better than Fultz or not even a top-5 player in this draft. I think Ball's passing is even underrated by raw stats because he's the anti-Rondo in that he'll immediately give it up whenever there's an opportunity to be gained, even if it won't result in an assist for him.

If he didn't have such weird shooting form I'd consider him over Fultz, but in the NBA guys will be able to close the distance on him much more quickly and limit his ability to shoot off the dribble. With that said, Ball is a smart enough player that he can figure out ways to patch that up with floaters and off-ball cuts even though he won't be a team's leading scorer. Drafting Jackson #2 wouldn't be a great way to screw the Celtics over as it would make the 3rd pick an even more valuable trade chip with Ball still on the board.

Isaac: I think he's being miscast as a wing and will end up being a stretch 4 (and probably even a 5 at times) with all-defense potential once he puts on more weight. Don't look to him to be a 20-point scorer but I probably would consider him the #3 best player. He'd be a perfect fit in Minnesota if he's still on the board at 7 but most likely won't be.

Fox: With his quickness, finishing, defense, and passing, he brings enough to the table that he'll still be alright without a jump shot, and his free throw percentage, shooting form, and willingness to at least attempt a few three-pointers suggest he's far from a lost cause as a shooter. Now, if I were Sacramento would I trade #5 and #10 to move up to #3 and pick him? No, but the Kings' track record of making decisions like that would be why Boston was okay with putting #1 protection on the Lakers' pick in order to get a chance at Sacramento's 2019 pick.

Jackson: He should be very good but I'm having a hard time seeing him becoming excellent at any one thing. I wouldn't be too optimistic about his shooting considering his free-throw percentages and the fact he was in the same kind of situation as Justise Winslow at Duke where he could be a smallball 4 and be matched up against much slower college players who had to back off of him for fear of the drive. Also when we're talking about red flags for intangibles or whatever, I seem to be in the minority for considering a misdemeanor to be a much bigger deal than failing to magically make a bunch of bad basketball players good.

Monk: Of the players in the 3-10 range he appeared to be the best "fit" for the Sixers, so I'm glad that they did what it took to move up to #1 instead as he'd have been a slight reach at #3. Not sure if he can create much off the dribble for himself in a half-court setting, but he's really fun to watch and he seems better than Jamal Murray, who just had a nice rookie season.

Smith: As far as simple NBA comparisons go, Smith and Steve Francis is one that sticks. Steve Francis with the better shot selection of the modern NBA would be a very good offensive player, but at the same time I feel like Smith is the type of guy a team or two would have consider the 2nd-best prospect, and if Fultz, Ball, and Fox are off the board I'd rather trade the pick and then maybe buy low on some point guard who's already in the league. Definitely a great athlete, and maybe even a better one than what he showed in college as he was coming off an ACL tear the previous year; of course that's somewhat of a double-edged sword as it could also mean he's more likely to suffer a future injury.

Ntilikina: The upside there is in a George Hill type of role rather than strictly as a lead guard. He doesn't look very athletic, but he's even younger than Fultz and that could very well change as he puts on muscle. By all accounts is very intelligent and hard-working.

Tatum: Very solid player who doesn't really have any holes in his game, but it's hard to see him becoming an All-Star unless he becomes a sniper from 3. If he mostly sticks to mid-range stuff I'm not terribly excited about him.

Markkanen: Bigger version of Ryan Anderson. Hard to see him being a bust (the stretch 4s who do end up being busts are smaller and not as good of shooters) but he's not going to turn things around singlehandedly for a bad team.

Collins: I hardly watch any college basketball, but a couple times a season I dig through the stats to see who looks like they could be an under-the-radar NBA prospect. Collins' stats jumped out enough to me in early December that he seemed destined to be the 2nd-best Gonzaga player in the NBA after Stockton, and through the rest of the season his stock seems to have climbed to the point that I'd consider him more or less properly rated.

Favorite players projected outside the lottery:

OG Anunoby - think he could've possibly played his way into the top 5 this year if not for his ACL injury. Definitely has 1st team all-defense potential if he can play enough offense to stay on the court, and even if he can't shoot he looks to have the size, athleticism, and finishing ability to be a threat on cuts and the offensive glass.

Harry Giles - I've been thinking of Fultz as the potential #1 overall pick since these players were high school juniors, in large part because Giles was #1 at the time and his huge knee brace and injury history scared me off (and then I wanted to look beyond Jackson, who was much older than his classmates). I don't consider this draft particularly deep because a lot of the players are bigs, and based on the playoffs there just aren't going to be a ton of minutes available for those guys. Once you get to 13-15 or so, I wouldn't fault anyone for rolling the dice on Giles' health.

Jonah Bolden - I don't know what happened with him at UCLA, but based on this past season in Europe (he was named the top prospect in a league where the past three winners were Dario Saric, Nikola Jokic, and Ante Zizic) I'd take a shot at him relatively early, even over someone like Justin Jackson (or at least I'd trade down from the mid-teens where Jackson figures to be picked and grab Bolden later). 6'10' combo forward whose outside shot looks legitimate enough for the amount of athleticism and defensive versaitility he has.

Jordan Bell - can easily see him playing a Tristan Thompson type of role, which is great for a player projected to be available in the late 1st/early 2nd. He looks to be able to guard everyone except the most extremely strong centers and extremely quick point guards.

Josh Hart - I would bet on him being a good role player who sticks around in the NBA for a while, and since there certainly aren't 20+ players in a draft who actually end up doing so, he seems quite undervalued to me.

Derrick White - similar mold as Hart, with both players being 2 guards who can space the floor well enough while having the potential to guard multiple positions on defense and make plays for others off the dribble.

honorable mention: Jonathan Jeanne, who I thought had an outside chance of developing into someone who in 5 years would be considered one of the top 2-3 players from this class but was diagnosed with Marfan Syndrome (same thing that prevented Isaiah Austin from being drafted a few years ago) at the NBA combine.

Last edited by nol : 06-20-2017 at 12:25 AM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 09:04 PM   #32
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep View Post
The point is the Astros, as well as the Cubs, tanked to get where they are now and neither team received much, if any flak, while doing so.

For some reason people really have a problem with tanking in the NBA.

The back-to-back Stanley Cup champions' two best players are top 2 picks acquired in back-to-back seasons when the team finished dead last in the league both years. Obviously there's something about basketball, as opposed to hockey or baseball, that makes the average American sports fan feel more entitled to a better effort when they see a team lose.

As always, I feel sorry for anyone in a sad enough situation where having the NBA team they cheer for finish 20 games rather than 10 games out of the playoffs adversely affects their quality of life. I would suggest going outdoors every once in a while or finding different hobbies.

Last edited by nol : 06-19-2017 at 09:23 PM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 10:14 PM   #33
Groundhog
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
I'm interested to see what happens with Jonah Bolden and Terrence Ferguson, with their Aussie connections. Bolden IMO should be ranked higher with his athleticism and shooting touch. Considered an early 2nd rounder it seems, after being unranked/low 2nd round most of the season.

I saw a lot of Ferguson in our national competition last year. Freak "straight-line" athlete, but showed little in the way of handles or shot-creating ability, and didn't contribute a lot outside of knocking down the odd open jumper and getting a deflection here and there on the other end. I think if anything he hurt his draft stock playing against men, but for a guy his age and with his status, he also didn't force the issue on the court which shows some maturity. Was usually rated in the teens throughout the season, but has slipped to a late 1st rounder which is probably fair.
__________________
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
--Ambrose Bierce
Groundhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 10:28 PM   #34
Groundhog
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atocep View Post
Not just the NBA. The Astros had a 3 year period of tanking where they went 162-324 and they've been getting plenty of praise the past couple of years.

I know nothing about baseball, but that equates to an average of a 27 win NBA season, while the Sixers are at 18.75 for the last 4 seasons, boosted by last year's "dynamic" 28 win team. We are talking about magnitudes of woefulness though, sure, but that's a significant dip.

Still a huge question mark over whether Embiid will ever make it through a season, or if Simmons is a legit prospect - I'll give him an injury pass at this stage and hope (for my national team's sake) it was just bad luck. Saric and what should be at least a solid #1-worthy player in this draft are the closest things they have to a "sure thing" right now, which TBH isn't a great deal when you look at the last 4 years, unless Fultz, Simmons, or Embiid ends up being an absolute superstar - ideally 2 of them.
__________________
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
--Ambrose Bierce
Groundhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 10:41 PM   #35
Brian Swartz
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2006
Right, but baseball is a sport where teams don't win(or lose) at the same rate they do in basketball. An elite baseball team isn't going to win 144 games, which they would have to if they want to match Golden State's 73-9 mark.

I think it goes beyond just tanking. NBA officiating complaints, conspiracy theories, accusations about 'thug culure', etc. can be directed with at least as much validity against other major sports, but they aren't.
Brian Swartz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 10:52 PM   #36
jbergey22
Grizzled Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Minnesota
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz View Post
Right, but baseball is a sport where teams don't win(or lose) at the same rate they do in basketball. An elite baseball team isn't going to win 144 games, which they would have to if they want to match Golden State's 73-9 mark.

I think it goes beyond just tanking. NBA officiating complaints, conspiracy theories, accusations about 'thug culure', etc. can be directed with at least as much validity against other major sports, but they aren't.

The high level amount of tanking certainly doesnt hurt Golden State get to that level either however.

Sure baseball teams tank(basically trading their decent players for prospects around the trade deadline). I doubt any of them are going into the season trying to finish dead last so they can get the 1st overall pick in the MLB draft.

The reason teams tank in the NBA makes good sense as far as rebuilding but its just a crappy way to do it for season ticket holders and competition within the league. The NBA #1 pick is so valuable at some point the NBA should just get rid of the draft so teams dont feel inclined to put out a crappy team for their home fans in hopes of landing the next big superstar in the draft.

Last edited by jbergey22 : 06-19-2017 at 10:54 PM.
jbergey22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 10:54 PM   #37
Groundhog
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sydney, Australia
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Swartz View Post
I think it goes beyond just tanking. NBA officiating complaints, conspiracy theories, accusations about 'thug culure', etc. can be directed with at least as much validity against other major sports, but they aren't.

Yeah, but that part is pretty easy to understand - with both the small number of guys on the court and the impact one player can have, they are some of the most recognizable athletes in the world. Only NFL QBs generally come close, and they are usually almost as notable with that stuff too.
__________________
Politics, n. Strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles.
--Ambrose Bierce
Groundhog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 10:54 PM   #38
Chief Rum
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
Bolden is interesting. As a UCLA fan, I can tell you that, if he has developed a consistent outside shot, he did it last year in Europe. He didn't have that at UCLA.

He left UCLA, frankly, because the academics proved too tough. His people determined it would help him more to pull out of school and go to Europe where he could focus on just basketball. He had already done a redshirt season at UCLA where he tried to get his academics in order, and contrary to some other strong academics blue blood schools (UNC, I am looking in your general direction), UCLA does very little to help its athletes stay on top of their academics.

In the 2015-16 season, Bolden was a raw offensive player who made a strong impact defensively with his length and seemed to be developing as the season went by. When he chose last summer to leave school, it was considered a big blow, as it was thought he and Leaf would be neck and neck for the starting PF job and that Bolden's length and athleticism might allow him to play some at the 3 (which Leaf couldn't do). UCLA ended up okay, of course, since Leaf ended up being very good offensively as a freshman, but it would have been nice to have seen Bolden there too.
__________________
.
.

I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.
Chief Rum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 11:21 PM   #39
Atocep
Coordinator
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Puyallup, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbergey22 View Post
The high level amount of tanking certainly doesnt hurt Golden State get to that level either however.

Sure baseball teams tank(basically trading their decent players for prospects around the trade deadline). I doubt any of them are going into the season trying to finish dead last so they can get the 1st overall pick in the MLB draft.

The reason teams tank in the NBA makes good sense as far as rebuilding but its just a crappy way to do it for season ticket holders and competition within the league. The NBA #1 pick is so valuable at some point the NBA should just get rid of the draft so teams dont feel inclined to put out a crappy team for their home fans in hopes of landing the next big superstar in the draft.

The Astros have increased their payroll by $73 million in the past 3 years. The Cubs by $81 million over the same time frame. They weren't trying to finish last, but they weren't avoiding it either.

You can't fault the team for trying to turn around a franchise in the most efficient manner possible.
Atocep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 11:25 PM   #40
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chief Rum View Post
Bolden is interesting. As a UCLA fan, I can tell you that, if he has developed a consistent outside shot, he did it last year in Europe. He didn't have that at UCLA.

He left UCLA, frankly, because the academics proved too tough. His people determined it would help him more to pull out of school and go to Europe where he could focus on just basketball. He had already done a redshirt season at UCLA where he tried to get his academics in order, and contrary to some other strong academics blue blood schools (UNC, I am looking in your general direction), UCLA does very little to help its athletes stay on top of their academics.

Well shoot, if it was just that instead of getting into fights with teammates/coaches or partying all the time, that's even better. He certainly looks and plays like someone who considers himself more of a perimeter player, so it was a good move to go prove himself in Europe rather than fight to split playing time at the 4 with a top recruit. He hit 40% on 4.2 attempts a game this year and looks pretty skilled as a ball-handler and passer for his size.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 11:49 PM   #41
Chief Rum
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
Yea as far as I can recall, he was well liked as a teammate and fit into the team well. I am glad to see he developed more of his offensive skills. He seemed like a good kid. As a fan, I was disappointed to lose him from the team.
__________________
.
.

I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.
Chief Rum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 02:18 AM   #42
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
It just makes the NBA boring because a 10-year old could build a terrible team and then just draft the highest rated prospect in the draft every year. And you can actually build a great team that way. It doesn't feel like real competition, it's more this weird moral test where teams just have to decide whether they're actually going to try to win games or not. A top pick is so valuable. It's the way to build a champion, it frames the structure and identityof the league for years going going forward, and the way to get this great asset is just to lose. Those picks are so important that in a sizable % of NBA games, the team that loses is better off.

The Lakers (who deluded their fans into thinking they'd be more competitive this year thanks to signing players like Timofey Mozgov and Luol Deng, who are now so awful that they'd have to give another team one of their best young players for free just convince them to take on one of those contracts) won fewer games and got a higher draft pick than the Sixers this past year, yet they didn't have enough to trade the Celtics for the number one pick even though they were trying to do so. So either the Sixers made moves considerably beyond the scope of a 10-year-old or most of the other teams in the NBA are run by a 5-year-old, in which case it wouldn't make much sense to fire the 10-year-old when when all the other 5-year-olds were still gainfully employed.

Considering how dumb the average person is, it's a lot more honorable to let people know ahead of time that your team will likely be bad than it is to try to sell season tickets based on the fact you signed Luol Deng or traded for Derrick Rose in 2017.

Last edited by nol : 06-20-2017 at 02:36 AM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 02:34 AM   #43
Chief Rum
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Where Hip Hop lives
While I don't necessarily disagree with you, using the front office of the Lakers as your example, with assets or lack thereof assembled by the can't be forgotten quickly enough Jim Buss era, is hardly the best example of a conventional front office.

If the Lakers had been run by even a 5 year old the past few years, it would have still been a massive upgrade.
__________________
.
.

I would rather be wrong...Than live in the shadows of your song...My mind is open wide...And now I'm ready to start...You're not sure...You open the door...And step out into the dark...Now I'm ready.

Last edited by Chief Rum : 06-20-2017 at 02:34 AM.
Chief Rum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 07:28 AM   #44
Logan
Head Coach
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NYC
Quote:
Originally Posted by nol View Post
The back-to-back Stanley Cup champions' two best players are top 2 picks acquired in back-to-back seasons when the team finished dead last in the league both years. Obviously there's something about basketball, as opposed to hockey or baseball, that makes the average American sports fan feel more entitled to a better effort when they see a team lose.

That's because the average American sports fan doesn't actually care about hockey. Average (not die-hard) NHL fans know all about that Pittsburgh tank effort.

And for added reference, the year before Malkin they took Fleury #1 overall, and the year after Crosby they took Jordan Staal #2 overall. Two #1s and two #2s in four years.

Last edited by Logan : 06-20-2017 at 07:31 AM.
Logan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 07:46 AM   #45
Warhammer
Pro Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logan View Post
That's because the average American sports fan doesn't actually care about hockey. Average (not die-hard) NHL fans know all about that Pittsburgh tank effort.

And for added reference, the year before Malkin they took Fleury #1 overall, and the year after Crosby they took Jordan Staal #2 overall. Two #1s and two #2s in four years.

I do not specifically remember them tanking during the era though. They were bad, but I do not recall them TRYING to be bad.
Warhammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 08:13 AM   #46
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warhammer View Post
I do not specifically remember them tanking during the era though. They were bad, but I do not recall them TRYING to be bad.

If you have a sport that's so luck-based that a team can be one of the two worst teams in the league for four straight years without a typical fan noticing, that's basically one step removed from cheering for the roulette wheel to land on red.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 08:46 AM   #47
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
Quote:
Originally Posted by nol View Post
The Lakers (who deluded their fans into thinking they'd be more competitive this year thanks to signing players like Timofey Mozgov and Luol Deng, who are now so awful that they'd have to give another team one of their best young players for free just convince them to take on one of those contracts) won fewer games and got a higher draft pick than the Sixers this past year, yet they didn't have enough to trade the Celtics for the number one pick even though they were trying to do so. So either the Sixers made moves considerably beyond the scope of a 10-year-old or most of the other teams in the NBA are run by a 5-year-old, in which case it wouldn't make much sense to fire the 10-year-old when when all the other 5-year-olds were still gainfully employed.


If the Lakers are the worst team in the league the next 5 years, they'll be loaded with talent. That's all they have to do to turn it around, lose most of their games.

There's still a bit of a aversion to that in the league, the 76ers are the only team that did it so boldly. But if it works out for them, I'd assume others will follow suit. If a championship is the main goal, the bottom 15-20 teams (maybe more) should all be trying to lose all of their games. That's part of what makes the regular season so insufferable for me - even if a bad team is trying to win, you kind of know that they'd be better off losing, which takes away the drama of a game. Of course, if we got to that threshold, ALL of those 15-20 teams can't get a top 3 pick, so there'd be real heated competition to lose games.

I think the inverse-record order of drafting in all sports is relic of a time when the draft was mostly a crapshoot - a bunch of old drunk guys drafting players they've never even seen play. Today, we know more about these players, and I find it really problematic that these assets are distributed based on how much teams lose. I'd either make it totally random for non-playoff teams (though even then, it's probably be better to lose all your games than finish with a 3-8 seed, since those teams so rarely win championships), or, have rotating spots every year so you know for years in the future where you'll be drafting in any given draft. It wouldn't be the end of the world if a young exciting middle of the pack team got to build on their success with a top pick rather than blow everything up because they realize can't get any more top assets unless they do. And it wouldn't be the end of the world if a bad team with bad players who can't win 20 games isn't automatically rewarded with the greatest assets available in the sport, strictly because they were worse in this competition than everyone else. It's backwards. I think the league would be a lot more fun if you had those stories like the team that was expected to win 20 games goes on a great run and wins 37 instead. And we all could get excited about how that team was ahead of schedule, and how they might attract better free agents. But in reality, that would be an absolute disaster for them. I remember M.L. Carr saying how he was literally pulling hot players out of games if they made too many shots when the Celtics were tanking. So if you're a fan of a bad team, you actually have to get a little nervous if your team wins a few games, and hope they revert back to sucking.

Edit: I think other sports potentially have the same problem, but it seems like the NBA draft is more important than the other drafts, because of how consistently the top picks deliver, and because of the smaller rosters where a few players make a huge difference. And hockey seems to have more year-to-year unpredictability regarding which teams are good. In the NBA, there's not many surprises - the best teams with the best players win very consistently.

Last edited by molson : 06-20-2017 at 09:11 AM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 09:09 AM   #48
nol
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
There's still a bit of a aversion to that in the league, the 76ers are the only team that did it so boldly. But if it works out for them, I'd assume others will follow suit. If a championship is the main goal, the bottom 15-20 teams (maybe more) should all be trying to lose all of their games. Of course, if we got to that threshold, ALL of those 15-20 teams can't get a top 3 pick, so there'd be real heated competition to lose games.

Except anyone with the most rudimentary understanding of game theory would realize that if 15-20 teams are trying to lose, the expected reward of intentionally losing is really low and there'd be much more to gain by cheaply acquiring the good players from those tanking teams. If the 76ers did it so boldly yet only finished last place in the league 1 of the last 4 years, you'd think there'd have been more scrutiny towards the teams that deluded their gullible fans into thinking they'd be competitive before yet somehow finishing worse than allegedly the only team that was trying to lose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by molson View Post
I think the league would be a lot more fun if you had those stories like the team that was expected to win 20 games goes on a great run and wins 37 instead. And we all could get excited about how that team was ahead of schedule, and how they might attract better free agents. But in reality, that would be an absolute disaster for them.

This turns out to be a disaster because in a sport as skill-dependent as basketball, the teams that go on these sort of runs actually suck (you don't get projected to win 20 games by accident, and a team that wins 37 games could feasibly be the 22nd-best out of 25 teams that were actually trying to win in a given season) and only achieved that meager amount of success because they got lucky regarding injuries and because better teams weren't trying particularly hard against them. Such a team with intelligent fans and ownership would understand that they would be due for some regression to the mean and should be aggressive in looking to continue to improve, but in reality these teams all delude themselves into thinking the players that they have are awesome and look to hold onto them at any cost.

If you want to talk about incompetence, look no further than teams like Detroit, Orlando, and Portland that have payrolls equal to or higher than Golden State's. Even teams like Philadelphia and Brooklyn go into the offseason looking to sign free agents at a reasonable price, and every year these mediocre teams hoard their bench players in the exact manner I described.

Last edited by nol : 06-20-2017 at 09:55 AM.
nol is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 09:31 AM   #49
stevew
Hall Of Famer
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: the yo'
The warriors tanked the one season to keep the pick that turned into Harrison Barnes, lest we firget
stevew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 09:48 AM   #50
molson
General Manager
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Mountains
What are the arguments for keeping the current system and rewarding tanking?

I think the original idea was that they wanted to give help to the bad teams, but when the teams are intentionally bad and intentionally losing, that logic doesn't seem to hold up.

Last edited by molson : 06-20-2017 at 09:48 AM.
molson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:21 AM.



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.