Bynum is already suspended, and the cap space gain seems minimal. Meanwhile, they are giving up rights in the supposedly best lottery, ever (to hear the hype, any way).
Tank move: Andrew Bynum
- Thread starter infection
- Start date
Bynum is already suspended, and the cap space gain seems minimal. Meanwhile, they are giving up rights in the supposedly best lottery, ever (to hear the hype, any way).
Couldn't quite make it to two weeks, eh?
The #1 pick is bad. Solid logic.
I think the point is that trying to focus on draft picks is a high-risk strategy.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
But...but...but....the OKC. The OKC, people! That's exactly how they(and no other team in recent memory) built a contender. Surely anything that works once out of dozens of times is a brilliant idea.
Well yeah, if your franchise is so terrible that it's the highlight of the year and you're spending a decade in the lottery. But for teams that aren't perennial cellar-dwellers (San Antonio, Lakers, US, etc.), it makes a reasonable amount of sense to strategize the year you're actually there.
As mentioned before, a little context changes the whole perspective. Save the "tanking won't land you a championship" talk for when we become the Knicks, Bobcats or Warriors.
As someone who's never invoked the name of OKC, I'll have to again emphasize context. There are lots of "championship formulas" that everyone will espouse as if it's some time of magic or karma. "Championship teams aren't built around a PG," and "you need three superstars," and etc. Sure, we can look at the past and learn good and bad ways to structure teams, but just because some team hasn't, in recent memory, won it all with one particular strategy, then we don't need to run out on this correlation and call it causation.
Not that it's even relevant (as mentioned above), but let's look at all the other title winners and ask ourselves how exactly we're going to emulate that model. The tools we have to build a contender are much different than other teams. We're going to have to win by using our tools in reasonable ways. The guy in Cool Runnings tried to make the team better by doing stupid, irrelevant stuff the same way the Swiss did. All that did was piss off his team. We don't need to look at some other team and assume that their irrelevant strategies are applicable to what's happening in our franchise.
Grandpa Jazz
Active Member
No! What i am saying is gaining the number 1 pick has not shown to be a way to win a championship. If you draft #1 who goes 2,3,4,5 is immaterial unless you have those picks also. Your argument is specious.
Grandpa Jazz
Active Member
lmfao!!!!
Hasn't pretty much every player been selected at #1 and below?
That's my point.
Which ways have been shown to win a championship and how do you propose we go about that? A top 3 pick is actually well within reach and very reasonable for us this year. Do any of your above mentioned plans have as high of real-world likelihood as us landing a top 3 pick?
JimLes
Well-Known Member
No, your point is this, specifically: "looking at who's been selected at #1 is not as relevant as looking at who's been selected at #1 and below."
Which is a massive logical fallacy. You're arguing that one must not look at who was chosen as a first pick but who could've been chosen. In hindsight, of course. And with the exception of the Kenyon draft and maybe one other, you can find a very good to a great player in every draft. The problem with this logic is that it not only looks at things in hindsight, but that it ignores that if other teams do not draft optimally, there's no reason to believe that the Jazz will.
In other words, the probability of the Jazz would pick a Hall of Famer with a number one pick cannot be exactly calculated do to many variables, but surely, the relevant numbers to crunch would be how many #1 picks lead their teams to a title. Not how many number one picks could've led their teams to a title, had they only picked the right player.
Correct. And #1 gives you the chance at any player in the draft. Whether a team wants to draft Anthony Bennett or not. Also:
-Not all #1 picks are equal.
-We're not talking exclusively about #1 picks.
-the NBA doesn't share the parity of other leagues, and no other team sport relies so heavily on individual talent. Most players that lead NBA champions have multiple rings.
-most of those championship teams in those 15 years were led by players drafted before those 15 years (Shaq and Duncan account for 10 of those 15).
-While everyone understands that the championship is the ultimate goal, being in championship contention gets you on the doorstep where some good or bad luck swings that championship. Anyone here would kill to have Stockton and Malone even though they never got it done.
The idea that high-lottery picks are overwhelmingly the key to winning a championship is one that only morons and contrarians disagree with, notwithstanding the teams that can never get out of the lottery. Championships aren't supposed to be easy to win.
Of course we could screw the pooch on the first pick. The point I'm arguing is that with the first choice then you can choose whoever you want without someone else selecting them first. Paul Pierce went 10th. That doesn't mean having the 10th pick is more likely to bring you a Paul Pierce than the 7th pick. In fact, the number 1 pick is more likely to land you a Paul Pierce than the #10 pick.
People keep seeming to think that draft position is the independent variable with all these guys that were either busts or didn't lead their team to a championship.
Essentially, what we're saying is that past coin flips will influence the outcome of our next coin flip.
Could you go with an analogy that isn't flatly wrong?
I agree that higher draft picks are more valuable, all other things being equal. I'm unconvinced that, for example, trading Williams for nothing leaves all other things equal.
That's the idea. To make the team lose more games. Outside of that, what other things would NOT be equal moving forward? The Jazz could re-sign Williams whether he's here at the end of the year or not.
JimLes
Well-Known Member
So, since every free throw is an independent variable and prior free throws do not influence the outcome, you wouldn't pick Dirk over DeAndre Jordan to shoot a FT to win you money at half time?
The analogy is flatly wrong. That's exactly my point. But Williams is being traded for the right to swap picks. Not for nothing. Oh, he's also being traded to lose more games, as a bonus byproduct.