What's new
By:
Filters

Jackpotting Around Podcast: Episode 12 - Decoding Danny And If We Did It… Here’s How It Happened

Handlogten's Heros said:
Their statistical profiles are similar. Giddy is smarter more under control… THT is a better defender. If players are ineffective or less effective than their pedigree I don’t care too much how they get to the same place. They end up in the same place.
Click to expand...
I think Giddey's overall progression has been steady and solid. He has upped his efficiency each year and is improving as a shooter. When given more of an opportunity to have the offense run through him at the end of the year I thought he played great. Unfortunately for him he is on the wrong team to take that next step because SGA and Jalen are better players with the ball in their hands and that isn't a knock on Giddey. They are just great players. If Giddey were on the jazz next year I think 18pts, 9asts and 7rbs would be a reasonable expectation.
 
sip said:
I think Giddey's overall progression has been steady and solid. He has upped his efficiency each year and is improving as a shooter. When given more of an opportunity to have the offense run through him at the end of the year I thought he played great. Unfortunately for him he is on the wrong team to take that next step because SGA and Jalen are better players with the ball in their hands and that isn't a knock on Giddey. They are just great players. If Giddey were on the jazz next year I think 18pts, 9asts and 7rbs would be a reasonable expectation.
Click to expand...
I don't hate him but I just think its hard to build around him as a player with his flaws. It wouldn't be my first choice of building blocks. The decision on how much to pay him is also right around the corner. I'd have to look at the tracking but I also think he gets left wide open so his percentages should improve given the difficulty of the attempts.

There is no doubt he could do more and is very young. I think the off court stuff got in his head this year too. I just couldn't get the THT statistical comparison out of my head... I believe it was @KqWIN that invented it. A smart THT would be a good player but Giddey doesn't have the defense or defensive potential of THT imo. I've just not been blown away when watching the guy.
 
Elizah Huge said:
This gives me big @Handlogten's Heros energy:


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=8SGdp83u_ZM&pp=ygUcQ29sbGluIGNvd2hlcmQgaGF0IGJhY2t3c3Jkcw%3D%3D


Probably is secretly thinking this to himself everytime he sees me because I wear my hat backwards lol.
Click to expand...

Whoa, whoa, whoa.... I am not Uncle Collin. That guy is 60 lol. I remember him mocking Steph and Klay before they started winning.

Also, appreciate your damn elder millennials... we invented wearing a hat backwards.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I don't hate him but I just think its hard to build around him as a player with his flaws. It wouldn't be my first choice of building blocks. The decision on how much to pay him is also right around the corner. I'd have to look at the tracking but I also think he gets left wide open so his percentages should improve given the difficulty of the attempts.

There is no doubt he could do more and is very young. I think the off court stuff got in his head this year too. I just couldn't get the THT statistical comparison out of my head... I believe it was @KqWIN that invented it. A smart THT would be a good player but Giddey doesn't have the defense or defensive potential of THT imo. I've just not been blown away when watching the guy.
Click to expand...
I would view Giddey more as a great role player prospect than a building block. He may become that but you aren't paying building block value for him at this point which is nice. If I can get Giddey, Dieng and my choice of 3 firsts and a couple of their swap options then I would be pretty happy with that return. From the thunders perspective I think it would set them up to possibly have a warriors type of championship run.
 
I do think we are seeing the end of the "tardes all teh pickkkss" era. Partly cuz so many teams have already done it and partly because a few of these will be cautionary tales. I think unprotected pick value may have an uptick in value as teams get a little more cautious of the yolo approach.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I do think we are seeing the end of the "tardes all teh pickkkss" era. Partly cuz so many teams have already done it and partly because a few of these will be cautionary tales. I think unprotected pick value may have an uptick in value as teams get a little more cautious of the yolo approach.
Click to expand...
I’m not quite sure. I thought people would stop after the Boston/Brooklyn deal and then the LAC/OKC deal but no it just keeps happening.
 
Elizah Huge said:
I’m not quite sure. I thought people would stop after the Boston/Brooklyn deal and then the LAC/OKC deal but no it just keeps happening.
Click to expand...
You'd think right? Maybe teams will always be irrationally confident. I guess teams could point to Minny (if it works out long term) as a reason it could work. I think new owners can factor into a lot of these deals and I'd expect less team turnover than we have seen but that may not be the case either.

I think some of the returns coming in on these yolo deals will be what may change things. Next two years if some top 10 picks change hands it could look really rough.
 
Meh....teams will always want stars and trade everything they have for them. In a league where only one team can win, almost every plan is going to look like a failure. The thing about going all in is that you're actually part of the game now. It's easy to define success/failure and it's more concrete when things are going well poorly. The harsh reality is that you will are way more likely to lose than not....but at least you're part of the game. Most outcomes of any kind of plan/building will reach an ugly conclusion, it will not stop teams from trying.

When you're not doing that and either tanking/hovering you have this persistent plausible deniability that everything is all going to plan. You're not even in the game of winning, so you can just sit back without judgement until your time comes....if it ever comes. When teams are perennial bottom feeders, we don't look at them and say...."wow this is really going to discourage other teams from tanking". Nobody sees themselves as the team that does it wrong, they will always envision themselves as the team that did it right. This is true whether it's a team trying to tank, build from the middle, or go all the way in for a star trade.
 
KqWIN said:
Meh....teams will always want stars and trade everything they have for them. In a league where only one team can win, almost every plan is going to look like a failure. The thing about going all in is that you're actually part of the game now. It's easy to define success/failure and it's more concrete when things are going well poorly. The harsh reality is that you will are way more likely to lose than not....but at least you're part of the game. Most outcomes of any kind of plan/building will reach an ugly conclusion, it will not stop teams from trying.

When you're not doing that and either tanking/hovering you have this persistent plausible deniability that everything is all going to plan. You're not even in the game of winning, so you can just sit back without judgement until your time comes....if it ever comes. When teams are perennial bottom feeders, we don't look at them and say...."wow this is really going to discourage other teams from tanking". Nobody sees themselves as the team that does it wrong, they will always envision themselves as the team that did it right. This is true whether it's a team trying to tank, build from the middle, or go all the way in for a star trade.
Click to expand...
I suppose this is true. I think the recent history of teams going yolo though is kinda rare. Maybe its a parity thing but it seems more teams were willing to "be in the game" and I wonder if there will be some patience.

I do think at least some people I have heard do look at perennial bottom feeders and say "see tanking doesn't work". So I do think it goes both ways here. Lots of folks have danced on Philly's grave over the years.

I'm probably wrong in thinking the picks will be more valuable... I just remember after the Brooklyn KG deal that it seemed to really swing the other way and teams started overvaluing picks. It wasn't common to see many unprotected picks out there and right now there are 10+ teams with unprotected picks out there?
 
Maybe its just the "get stars no matter what the fit or other circumstances are... figure it out later" model that chills out.
 
Handlogten's Heros said:
I suppose this is true. I think the recent history of teams going yolo though is kinda rare. Maybe its a parity thing but it seems more teams were willing to "be in the game" and I wonder if there will be some patience.

I do think at least some people I have heard do look at perennial bottom feeders and say "see tanking doesn't work". So I do think it goes both ways here. Lots of folks have danced on Philly's grave over the years.

I'm probably wrong in thinking the picks will be more valuable... I just remember after the Brooklyn KG deal that it seemed to really swing the other way and teams started overvaluing picks. It wasn't common to see many unprotected picks out there and right now there are 10+ teams with unprotected picks out there?
Click to expand...

I think the tanking teams are just out of sight, out of mind. The NBA is very much a championship or bust league, but in any give year there's like 5-10 teams who need to win or they will be shamed for it. The odd thing about the NBA is that even though it's all about the one winner, it's really about the losers. Like I actually think with the way the league is covered ESPN is more likely to talk about the losers more than the winners. PHX losing is a bigger story than MIN winning for sure. I'm expecting another rant incoming from Michael Malone when all the talk is about the Lakers losing. The NBA media coverage is all about clowning on the losers. The bottom feeders attract some amount of that attention, but it's not comparable. And why would they? If a team isn't competitive, they are not relevant to that season. But as a result of that I don't think people look at tanking failures the same way as when you trade for one the biggest names in the league and get swept. There just isn't a spotlight on the bottom feeders. Behind the scenes, I don't think the actual decisions makers are phased. Teams that tank aren't going to be phased by tanking teams that still suck. Teams that go all in aren't going to be phased by another KD failure ect.

I think it's easy to forget this, but the other route to getting stars is also kind of insane...especially to an outsider. Like the idea of sucking on purpose for years just for a chance at one....and being persistent to suck long enough until you get "star" is crazy commitment on it's own. The idea of trading your future for one of these guys, even knowing that it will probably make you suck at some point, shouldn't seem crazy when the other popular strategy would be to suck on purpose for a chance at one. It's kind of a bird in hand vs two in the bush kind of thing. I don't want to get into the discussion as to which is better.....I'm just saying that even with all the failures of the bird in hand strategy, it will never go out of style. Let's say teams are more earie and there's like a 5-10% confidence reduction in that all-in, build super team strategy...I still think teams will be on their hands and knees begging for these guys and will jump at the opportunity to get them.

For example, I expect KD to demand a trade sooner or later, and even at 35+ any team that is able to will likely have some interest in doing it.
 
KqWIN said:
I think the tanking teams are just out of sight, out of mind. The NBA is very much a championship or bust league, but in any give year there's like 5-10 teams who need to win or they will be shamed for it. The odd thing about the NBA is that even though it's all about the one winner, it's really about the losers. Like I actually think with the way the league is covered ESPN is more likely to talk about the losers more than the winners. PHX losing is a bigger story than MIN winning for sure. I'm expecting another rant incoming from Michael Malone when all the talk is about the Lakers losing. The NBA media coverage is all about clowning on the losers. The bottom feeders attract some amount of that attention, but it's not comparable. And why would they? If a team isn't competitive, they are not relevant to that season. But as a result of that I don't think people look at tanking failures the same way as when you trade for one the biggest names in the league and get swept. There just isn't a spotlight on the bottom feeders. Behind the scenes, I don't think the actual decisions makers are phased. Teams that tank aren't going to be phased by tanking teams that still suck. Teams that go all in aren't going to be phased by another KD failure ect.

I think it's easy to forget this, but the other route to getting stars is also kind of insane...especially to an outsider. Like the idea of sucking on purpose for years just for a chance at one....and being persistent to suck long enough until you get "star" is crazy commitment on it's own. The idea of trading your future for one of these guys, even knowing that it will probably make you suck at some point, shouldn't seem crazy when the other popular strategy would be to suck on purpose for a chance at one. It's kind of a bird in hand vs two in the bush kind of thing. I don't want to get into the discussion as to which is better.....I'm just saying that even with all the failures of the bird in hand strategy, it will never go out of style. Let's say teams are more earie and there's like a 5-10% confidence reduction in that all-in, build super team strategy...I still think teams will be on their hands and knees begging for these guys and will jump at the opportunity to get them.

For example, I expect KD to demand a trade sooner or later, and even at 35+ any team that is able to will likely have some interest in doing it.
Click to expand...
Yeah... I think I was off. Brooklyn was the poster child for the "don't trade your picks dummy" and they still jumped at the chance to do it once they could. I guess I am just kind of throwing darts at what the current scenario could mean to the next couple/few years. Its just a little unique. But it may be as useful as looking at the double rainbow and asking what does it mean? Prolly nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top