What's new
By:
Filters

Should we go full rebuild?

Should we go full rebuild?

  • Total voters
    66
  • Poll closed .
HermanG said:
Between 2003 and 2018 Nuggets and Bucks combined for 4 bottom 3 finishes in their conferences and 17 playoff appearances with only 1 of those 17 going beyond first round. That is the definition of being "mid".
They got into the tournament with over 50% success rate and fell in the first round almost 95% of the time. Bucks had 4 bottom 3 finishes while Denver had ZERO. Always at the bubble, or always exiting in the first round. I'm not gonna go check their closing records from the seasons when they were outside, but I bet they did late tanks as much as the rest. So 5-6 years ago you would have labeled them both in that "bad franchises" category, yet now they are recent champions coming from small markets.
Now your turn to provide evidence of a deep grinding tank leading to a championship. Minimum requirement could be say.... 3 consecutive years of picking in top 7?
PS:
During that same timeframe (2003-2018) Sacramento had 3 playoff appearances and 7 bottom 3 finishes in conference. So your logic holds absolutely no water. Both Nuggets and Bucks were 100x more mid than Sacramento.
Click to expand...

Do you know what's the commonality between the Bucks and the Nuggets? They both drafted their MVPs in the draft... and both drafted them way outside of the top 10. They didn't become great from the middle because of trading for Jonh Collins or Kelly Olynyk types... they became great because they picked MVPs in the draft... and then built around them. The hard part is the MVP part. A while ago I went back about 30 years in the past and looked at all the NBA champions in that timespan. I think only one or two didn't have an NBA MVP on their roster. If you have faith that we can get an MVP level player drafting in the middle.. then... sure... lets do it. I would always go for as high of a pick as possible... especially in drafts with clear generational talents.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
These aren't the model so much as examples of how it can work building in the middle. Lots of ways to get there... tanking, middle build, build a super team, etc. but they all fail way more often than they work. You have to make good moves and you also have to get really luck. Whether that luck involves a 6% chance at #1 hitting or nailing a pick in the late lotto like an SGA, Haliburton, or Giannis or whether that involves nailing a second round pick like Green and Jokic... It all requires lots of luck so do whatever you can to increase the odds of that luck through smart management. In reality you need to hit on 2-3 things that are like top 5% outcomes of a given transaction to end up being a title team. I think Boston is the team that has done the most with the least amount of "luck".

Its all so hard and the margin for error is so low if you want to win a title. Anyone that says "this is the only way" is wrong. Some ways may be more predictable or reliable than others but they are all unpredictable and unreliable so chose your gamble however you want imo.
Click to expand...

I feel as though winning a championship is so rare/requires so much luck, it's often going to be a situation where people don't think it can be done until it is done. And people aren't wrong for saying it probably won't work, because it probably won't, but I think it's a fools errand to try to copy one situation and look at it as an example. The only thing you can really take from the successful situations is that you're going to have to make a sequence of several great moves in a row and be very lucky.

I do feel like we put too much emphasis on where we're drafting...but the half/half thing does make me somewhat skeptical of the FO's judgement and their ability to make good moves going forward. They also have some weird evaluation with making Key the chosen one, Clarkson being the actual chosen one, Sexton getting benched at every opportunity, Kessler just being some guy etc. "Not inspiring confidence" is the best way I can describe the last two years tbh. Maybe you can make Hardy the boogeyman in all of this, idk.
 
stitches said:
Do you know what's the commonality between the Bucks and the Nuggets? They both drafted their MVPs in the draft... and both drafted them way outside of the top 10. They didn't become great from the middle because of trading for Jonh Collins or Kelly Olynyk types... they became great because they picked MVPs in the draft... and then built around them. The hard part is the MVP part. A while ago I went back about 30 years in the past and looked at all the NBA champions in that timespan. I think only one or two didn't have an NBA MVP on their roster. If you have faith that we can get an MVP level player drafting in the middle.. then... sure... lets do it. I would always go for as high of a pick as possible... especially in drafts with clear generational talents.
Click to expand...
So teams should just put every other aspect on hold until they get a guy they think can develop into a MVP?
 
KqWIN said:
I feel as though winning a championship is so rare/requires so much luck, it's often going to be a situation where people don't think it can be done until it is done. And people aren't wrong for saying it probably won't work, because it probably won't, but I think it's a fools errand to try to copy one situation and look at it as an example. The only thing you can really take from the successful situations is that you're going to have to make a sequence of several great moves in a row and be very lucky.

I do feel like we put too much emphasis on where we're drafting...but the half/half thing does make me somewhat skeptical of the FO's judgement and their ability to make good moves going forward. They also have some weird evaluation with making Key the chosen one, Clarkson being the actual chosen one, Sexton getting benched at every opportunity, Kessler just being some guy etc. "Not inspiring confidence" is the best way I can describe the last two years tbh. Maybe you can make Hardy the boogeyman in all of this, idk.
Click to expand...
You forgot Ochai is a starter next year lol. They have had some odd messaging but I am not sure what to make of all that.

I think the best way to give yourself a chance at a title is to set yourself up with a portfolio of picks and to tank for a few years. Even then if the picks don't jump into the top 4 in the right year or you get "the guy" and then he forgets how to shoot or can't stay healthy and you are in trouble. I do feel in that situation you likely would have a hard time not building a decent playoff team if you are competent as an org, but enduring the tank years is likely not worth building a solid playoff team. In the next 9 months I'd say we should get more targeted, but I will leave it up to them to decide what they want to target.
 
Saint Cy of JFC said:
So teams should just put every other aspect on hold until they get a guy they think can develop into a MVP?
Click to expand...
Did I say that? You still build your team with players that will be valuable when you are ready to contend. You still need to make the right decisions in the meantime. Drafting a generational player does not absolve you from the responsibility of taking all other roster-building steps. Otherwise you end up like the Cavs did with LeBron leaving for Miami without winning anything. BUT... lets be clear here. The NBA is incredibly top-heavy league. Meaning the best of the best players drive winning like in no other league. So one of your biggest priorities, if you want to contend for titles(rather than just being a good playoff team), still needs to be finding THE GUY... or even couple of guys that are among the top of the league.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
You forgot Ochai is a starter next year lol. They have had some odd messaging but I am not sure what to make of all that.

I think the best way to give yourself a chance at a title is to set yourself up with a portfolio of picks and to tank for a few years. Even then if the picks don't jump into the top 4 in the right year or you get "the guy" and then he forgets how to shoot or can't stay healthy and you are in trouble. I do feel in that situation you likely would have a hard time not building a decent playoff team if you are competent as an org, but enduring the tank years is likely not worth building a solid playoff team. In the next 9 months I'd say we should get more targeted, but I will leave it up to them to decide what they want to target.
Click to expand...

I don't think it necessarily has to be a portfolio of picks. I think having Lauri is better than having whatever picks he's worth, for example.
 
KqWIN said:
I don't think it necessarily has to be a portfolio of picks. I think having Lauri is better than having whatever picks he's worth, for example.
Click to expand...
Lauri or top 3 pick in 2025?(if we somehow could guarantee it)
 
KqWIN said:
I don't think it necessarily has to be a portfolio of picks. I think having Lauri is better than having whatever picks he's worth, for example.
Click to expand...
It doesn't... it could be Lauri/SGA and a portfolio of picks or other flexible assets... but you need to be able to still have a good chance at a top4 pick imo. OKC threaded the needle for a couple years and paid it off when they got Chet. I think we could very well be in the bottom 5-6 teams next year without moving Lauri. If you moved Sexton and really leaned into Lisan al Gaib I think the losses would pile up. I think it might piss off Lauri to have another garbage year and its a shame these great years are pretty much wasted for him.
 
There is still a chance to turn this ship around. There could be some serious movement this year. I am still sitting on the fence.

That is the problem we either need to get better or slow it up this half assing it just doesn't work. I think all 3 of the rookie have potential. There is potential of adding more more young talent with this draft.

Looking at teams around the league and some of the players that "could" beco.e available it is interesting. Picking up 1 or 2 good vets or a superstar player and this changes.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
It doesn't... it could be Lauri/SGA and a portfolio of picks or other flexible assets... but you need to be able to still have a good chance at a top4 pick imo. OKC threaded the needle for a couple years and paid it off when they got Chet. I think we could very well be in the bottom 5-6 teams next year without moving Lauri. If you moved Sexton and really leaned into Lisan al Gaib I think the losses would pile up. I think it might piss off Lauri to have another garbage year and its a shame these great years are pretty much wasted for him.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "need"....but it's better to have a top 4 pick than it is to have the 8/9 pick and half a season where you were chasing a play in.
 
KqWIN said:
I don't know about "need"....but it's better to have a top 4 pick than it is to have the 8/9 pick and half a season where you were chasing a play in.
Click to expand...
I think you need it for that approach to maximize your luck. I think I'm just going to call the preferred model the "Luck and Competency" model. The less lucky you are the more competent you need to be and vice versa. Our model is to get lucky and make good decisions... we will see where that takes us.
 
HermanG said:
Your problem is you are trying to define who is a fan based on which strategy people support. No one here says they dont want to see the team contend or win a championship. Some people just see various different paths that could lead to that goal.

Its not their fault that you only see one path.
Click to expand...
The only real way to do it is get lucky two years in a row in the draft drafting where ever. Problem is it doesn’t ever happen. It’s like dropping a needle into a thimble from off the Empire State Building. Sadly the jazz are a small market team and no one wants to go to Utah. So the only way to do it for the jazz is to suck hard have assets and build a talented team through the draft and trade
 
hgb said:
It does not necessarily make it harder, building a team is not an exact science. Building a contender is fine, but life is short and sports is all about having fun. Tanking and semi-tanking seasons are very ****ing far from fun. Obviously I don't want to sign a bunch of mediocre veterans with a long-term plan of puttering along making the playoffs or playins most years, I want to see a plan, but I want to execute that plan while being relatively competitive and hoping for wins.

The Jazz are in a pretty good spot now with lots of assets, and the draft has no guarantees, ever. Wemby looks great, but he still needs to stay healthy, and he's the only "can't miss" rookie in, what, since Lebron?

Also you have zero clue what being "a fan" means. The word might come from "fanatic" (I'm not really sure, to be honest, but you're probably right), but that's _not_ what it means. Check any dictionary.
Click to expand...
I am right.
 
Thee Idiotic Minivan K said:
Sadly the jazz are a small market team and no one wants to go to Utah. So the only way to do it for the jazz is to suck hard have assets and build a talented team through the draft and trade
Click to expand...
Surely if it’s the only way to do it you’d have a single example of it working out that way?
 
stitches said:
Do you know what's the commonality between the Bucks and the Nuggets? They both drafted their MVPs in the draft... and both drafted them way outside of the top 10. They didn't become great from the middle because of trading for Jonh Collins or Kelly Olynyk types... they became great because they picked MVPs in the draft... and then built around them. The hard part is the MVP part. A while ago I went back about 30 years in the past and looked at all the NBA champions in that timespan. I think only one or two didn't have an NBA MVP on their roster. If you have faith that we can get an MVP level player drafting in the middle.. then... sure... lets do it. I would always go for as high of a pick as possible... especially in drafts with clear generational talents.
Click to expand...
Sure you need a top 5 player. Landing that guy comes down to luck either way. Either mid to late draft luck by picking the right guy, or lottery ball luck.

But you need a good team around him as well. Thats where more fails happen each year, as usually there arent 2 top 5 guys in the same team (KD-Steph Warriors excluded). So usually at least 4 of the top 5 fail to win every year.

Again, when you did all that research and formed your opinion I'm sure you also found at least 1 deep tank championship team.... right?
 
Bawse Dawg said:
Surely if it’s the only way to do it you’d have a single example of it working out that way?
Click to expand...
It isn't the only way to do it. Spurs def tanked for Duncan back in the day. It was a 1 year situational tank but it was def a tank job. Robinson was hurt but they made no effort to get him back on the court and didn't really try to win.

Lots of other teams have yielded benefits from tanking to various degrees. It is one route of many though and just like all the other routes... it will almost surely fail every time.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
It isn't the only way to do it. Spurs def tanked for Duncan back in the day. It was a 1 year situational tank but it was def a tank job. Robinson was hurt but they made no effort to get him back on the court and didn't really try to win.

Lots of other teams have yielded benefits from tanking to various degrees. It is one route of many though and just like all the other routes... it will almost surely fail every time.
Click to expand...
Spurs are the example, but even that was not some egregious Presti level tank. They made a smart pivot after an injury and got incredibly lucky.

And then they sucked during a year with a generational prospect available and got really ****ing lucky again.

Neither of those are a full Presti though, which is what Thee seems to be in favor of.
 
Bawse Dawg said:
Spurs are the example, but even that was not some egregious Presti level tank. They made a smart pivot after an injury and got incredibly lucky.

And then they sucked during a year with a generational prospect available and got really ****ing lucky again.

Neither of those are a full Presti though, which is what Thee seems to be in favor of.
Click to expand...
One of my biggest what ifs that I'd like to see is what happens if Hinkie doesn't get replaced by the NBA or at very least what if they replaced him with someone good and not Colangelo?

Sixers had opportunities that went sideways so hard. Fultz (what if they take Tatum), Simmons, they drafted Mikal Bridges and traded him, blew assets on Tobias Harris and Jimmy and then opted to keep Tobias instead of Jimmy. Used cap space on Horford... then used assets to offload him. Still a fringe contender if Embiid ever had a healthy playoff run. If Kawhi doesn't hit that game winner what happens?

The Process Sixers had like 3-4 huge turning points that could have swung their way and went the other way hard. They also blew top picks on top of things but the point is to get the opportunities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top