| . |
 |
Why does it matter? So it can official be the "Thunder model". Who cares if it's the "whatever model" teams are success at becoming title contenders building via the draft. Not sure why this has turned into such an insanely difficult task of winning it all or bust situation.Originally Posted by Kibner
This debate resurfaces like every three weeks. Havent we figured out by now that there is no clear cut way to build the contender? That there are multiple avenues? If the answer was clear and the solution was solvable, every franchise would take the same route.
@mcnamara247
If the argument is that it doesn't matter if it's high picks just "building through the draft" then I'd say we've done just that. The past two years we had two top 10 picks, and three 2nd round picks.
And if rumors are to be believed we are looking to acquire another 1st this year. So 3 1st and 3 2nd in 3 years. If that's not building through the draft I'm not sure what is.
The talks were top 5 picks. Which was how the Thunder did it minus Ibaka.
That certainly wasn't the case when you brought up the Spurs.
The Spurs scouted internationally much harder than most franchises were at the time. That's why they were able to find gems like Parker and Ginobili. Now every franchise does this so that advantage no longer exist. And still the Spurs aren't made up of 3 2nd round picks. They are made up of 2 lottery picks(1st and 15th), one late 1st(28th), and 1 2nd round(57th).
We can't be sure we'll have the resources to trade up into the first. So right now it's 2 1st and 3 2nd's in 4 years(excuse me for not counting rumors like they're done deals). This is not building through the draft. If you like Demps method of young vets that fine, but I really don't see how the actually situation even begins to support your narrative that we are somehow on the slick doing both. There's just little logic that supports it.
Last edited by da ThRONe; 06-21-2014 at 11:01 AM.
Contributor
As been said, the Spurs scouting department is just ridiculously good, to the point it isn't realistic to expect to replicate it.
I mean, even guys who they drafted then let go caught on to have decent to good careers elsewhere.
If you are going to count 4 years let's wait and see. Looking at us through 2 years we have the same amount of rookies. 2 top 10 picks, 3 2nd round picks. That's not to mention Brian Roberts who was technically a rookie when we brought him over.
I simply don't see the argument that we aren't building through the draft when we have more rookies than your example of the Spurs. Maybe we aren't as good at scouting (though I think Dell has shown he's actually very good at it), but that is irrelevant. If the argument is we should build through the draft and you mention the Spurs then we've shown we actually are doing just that with the amount of picks we've brought in. I've seen nothing to show me that the 76ers or Cleveland model is successful.
The Spurs are just one example and of all the other examples and by far the most difficult to duplicate and we are nothing like them at this stage. Even if Davis is our Duncan(which I don't think he's is) where's the Parker and Ginobili? I don't think Holiday and Evans will ever on that level and they certainly weren't drafted here. So how can you possibly began to tie what we are doing to the Spurs? I see no connection whatsoever.
You are missing the point. I don't care to match the Spurs model. You mention building through the draft and used the Spurs. I counter with we've had just as many draft picks as the Spurs. There is still 2 more years of drafts. We honestly have no idea who will plan out and who won't. I think AD is a pretty good bet but again. That's irrelevant. If the argument is he Spurs built through the draft and they had X number of picks, I don't see how you can say we aren't building through the draft if we have the same number of picks.
Odds are our drafting won't be as successful but that doesn't matter. If there is a threshold for being considered "building through the draft" and the Spurs are it, then we've crossed that threshold. Period. Just because you don't agree with HOW we are building through the draft doesn't mean we aren't. It means we are doing it differently than you would. I don't think you can discount the entire process however just because it isn't how you would do it.
I think it's convenient of you to use your own application of scouting of a player when it comes to Davis, then in another thread lean on the consensus scouting by all the other scouts to rate the talent of this year's draft. I don't have a problem with you saying Davis isn't great etc, but I find it tough to not feel some angst when you lean on consensus in one argument then lean against it in another in terms of scouting.
"I don't know if people know — I dislocated my pinkie finger. And [Tyreke] told me, 'You wanna go home or you wanna be here?' I want to be here. And he said, 'All right, then go tape it up and let's play. Let's go. We not stoppin' at no stores. Straight gas. That's what we do, just keep going.'"
http://thebasketbawlblog.com/
Quick question since every thread now seems to be about trades and trade rumors, Do you guys prefer to say "Potato Wedge", "Potato Log" or "Tater Log". Being from Alabama, I say "Tater Log". How about you guys?
Here's the difference I always specify what is consensus from what is my opinion.
In the case of this upcoming draft how teams view it are more in line with the consensus. I told MM he's opinion is fair to have and there's nothing wrong with bucking the trend. The problem comes in when people speak about their unique opinions as if it's the consensus which I don't think I've ever done.
When I'm on a "limb" I have no problems admitting that's the case.
Fair enough
So 60% of our picks are 2nd rounder and that doesn't matter?
The Spurs were just an example of a team doing that's built via the draft, but again they aren't the "poster child" given that landscape of the NBA has changed so much since they drafted their core(and the Spurs model had a hand in changing it) and the time span over which they collect those assets.
I've only ever heard potato wedge
never assume
And when I said to trade the 2014 pick last May, I was on a limb saying the class wont be that great. Dont think I am now. I dont think the consensus is that it is definitely better than 2010, 2011, or 2012. If it is, I have yet to hear it or see it recently and I listen to every NBA podcast and read tons of articles every day. Havent seen that in a while. Saw it all the time before these guys actually hit the court
Btw, I've felt, up until last night, that I was the only one that was out on a limb in not valuing draft picks as much at the rest of the board. Also, like political ideologies, I think it's valuable to talk about conflicting ideologies in how to build a contender, I think it makes us all a little more well rounded.
I found this interesting:
#6 Picks since 1990: Damian Lillard,Jan Vesely, Ekpe Udoh, Jonny Flynn, Danilo Gallinari, Yi Jianlian, Brandon Roy, Martell Webster, Josh Childress, Chris Kaman, Dajuan Wagner, Shane Battier, DerMarr Johnson, Wally Szczerbiak, Robert Traylor, Ron Mercer, Antoine Walker, Bryant Reeves, Sharone Wright, Calbert Cheaney, Tom Gugliotta. Doug Smith, Felton Spencer
#10 Picks since 1990: Austin Rivers, Jimmer Fredette, Paul George, Brandon Jennings, Brook Lopez, Spencer Hawes, Mouhamed Saer Sene, Andrew Bynum, Luke Jackson, Jarvis Hayes, Caron Butler, Joe Johnson, Keyon Dooling, Jason Terry, Paul Pierce, Danny Fortson, Erick Dampier, Kurt Thomas, Eddie Jones, Lindsey Hunter, Adam Keefe, Brian Williams, Rumeal Robinson
Not making a statement here, just thought they were interesting to see.
Also, I think if a 23 year old Jrue Holiday was in this draft he would go top 3, probably 1 or 2. If He was in last year's draft he goes #1, Hands down.
Contributor
Is anybody getting any smarter from this tired debate?
Contributor
Interesting information. Thanks for gathering and sharing.
In the previous 2 years we've had two top 10 picks and 3 2nd rounders. Not counting another European rookie. The 60% is irrelevant. I don't see how based off of these numbers you can say anything other than we are building through the draft.
Even if you say we don't get a draft pick this year, as of now next year we will have a 1st and 2nd. So in 4 years we will have had 2 top 10 picks and another later 1st and 4 2nd rounders. How is that not building through the draft? It is. It's just not building the way YOU want it to be and so you try to argue it's not.
There's a difference between building via the draft and having draft picks. 1st where you pick matters. It doesn't have to be top 5 in consecutive years like which was being discussed and was the point of my "why does it matter" comment. Also you need to draft those players with the idea that you plan on developing those players right away. For example in the same 3 year span we had only 2 1st round picks Houston had 4(It's 5:2 in 4 years if we are counting this up coming draft) However nobody would say they are building via the draft. By your definition every team that has drafted at least 5 players in 4 years are building through the draft.
first I don't see how 7 picks in 4 years = 5 picks in 4 years. but yes. any team who is not giving all of their picks away are building through the draft. New York is not building through the draft. Miami is not building through the draft. I think anytime you are using the majority of your picks that is exactly what building through the draft is.
it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. you CAN build through the draft and FA. I think that is what is lost here. the perception that you can only do one or the other.
Wow, can't believe jan veselý was picked 6th overall..meh
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote