Holiday isn't a bargain until he proves it with his production. Dragic and Lillard have proven that already but Holiday hasn't come close to matching the type of efficiency needed to match his contract.
Printable View
I'm watching the Pelicans play Portland and Holiday is definitely worth his contract... We really need to replace Aminu because it's crazy how much they sag off of him...
I want to see this debate play out. P78 has been tooting this horn on Holiday for a long time about his inefficiency. If I had to bet, MM is factoring Holiday's ability to play both sides of the ball & expected offensive progression into the value equation.
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk
That AND doing away with Gordon. Holiday was just so much better w/o him last year. The Holiday/Tyreke pairing was an unstoppable force. Jrue was more aggressive in the half court and Tyreke killed teams in transition. Notice, the Portland game just talked about - who was missing from that game. Oh yeah - Eric Gordon! Get him off this team and pair Holiday with Tyreke more often and his numbers will be fine.
Holiday does have to get to the line more. He does that, and his efficiency issues are gone, and yes, his defense is excellent.
I don't want Andre Miller anywhere near this team.
Why? Andre Miller would be a heck of an option. He is like Derrick Fisher without the rings. That guy is going to make a good coach one day.
He hasn't lasted in the league for over a decade because of his good looks. The guy can play better than any of our current backups...or maybe Brian Roberts is your cup of tea.
A cool thing about Andre Miller:
His off-seasons consist of not touching a basketball or working out, but lounging about eating cheeseburgers.
Yet he can still ball out like crazy. That's about what I so with my summer to. I don't want him either and I doubt Washington let's him go cause he was huge of their bench. He may not be athletic but he has high iq. Knows how to play the game.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
Actually, if I remember correctly, Holiday had reached up to 52% TS before the shin splits starting effecting him and he had the terrible 4 game stretch.
Confirmed:
http://i.imgur.com/WyFtooJ.png
the last three #10 picks... cj mccollum, austin rivers & jimmer freddette... not really any guys that people are crying about missing out on
While Vasquez very likely may still have been traded, I don't think we would have moved Lopez if we didn't sign Tyreke. Shoot, under this scenario, I think we could have signed Tyreke and kept Lopez since we wouldn't have had Jrue's contract.
And who knows, maybe Ryan Anderson doesn't get hurt if we didn't bring in Jrue and maybe Tyreke.
I bet we would go 82-0 if our arena was on the moon.
that last post pretty much indicates where this thread has gone.....
Not sure if this would help anyone's argument, but BBS used to do a series called "Value of a Draft Pick" which may help address some of this. The most recent one was the Anthony Davis draft. The important bits:
Quote:
To determine the value of a pick, I assigned an overall career ranking based on PER and a *******ized Wages of Wins Win Score and applied it to all the players who have been taken in the draft since 1984. Â I also cut off my evaluation of players after 2008 since since it is hard to judge a career trajectory in three seasons. Finally I jammed those numbers into a simple Grade ranking. Below is what each grade means, and I give an example player:
- N/A – the player never logged an NBA minute. (Tim Pickett, Andrew Betts)
- F – The player never developed and earned only minor garbage time minutes – or was really, really bad. (Hilton Armstrong, Cedric Simmons. Yay 2006 draft!)
- D – A substitute – possibly in the rotation, but a 8th or 9th man at best. (Aaron Gray, Julian Wright)
- C – A fringe starter, 6th-8th man sort. (JR Smith, Jason Smith)
- B – A solid starter (David West, Jamaal Magloire)
- A – A star (Pre-fat Baron Davis, Chris Paul)
The picks fell rather logically into groups based on their average rating so I’ve collated those groups in the below table and then determined the % chance of receiving each classification of player.
Code:Pick(s) “A” “B” “C” “D” “F” “N/A”
1 57% 13% 22% 4% 4% 0%
2-5 34% 23% 24% 13% 5% 1%
6-10 17% 17% 22% 28% 16% 0%
11-18 8% 13% 20% 28% 30% 1%
19-27 5% 8% 20% 31% 32% 3%
28-37 2% 5% 10% 28% 40% 15%
38-60 1% 2% 10% 19% 29% 40%
The only thing that we can all agree on is that we will never all agree. When it comes down to it, this is a matter of personal preference as there is no one way to build a champion.
I hate to do this to you...
...but based on your logic above, it's impossible for you to prove the point you're trying to articulate that building through the draft would have been the better way to build. It's impossible to know.
You argument is a fictionalized version of recent NBA History.
When have I ever said something can be proved? I've always said it a matter of opinions. IMO building via the draft is a higher percentage way of doing it because of the flexibility and large margin for error. The most we can do is elevate players that where available versus players that we got. Even that isn't definitive.
The raptors have been pitiful for most of their existence especially in the last 10 years or so, if anything they're an example of what one shouldn't do with draft picks (bargnani...psshh)
Where are the powerhouse non glamour teams built primarily through free agency. That list would be a lot shorter. Pointing to one or two teams that were incompetent with draft picks doesn't prove it's a lower percentage way to build compared to free agency and trade.
How many rings does OKC have? I don't think it's possible to do the draft better than them and it still didn't get them a ring.
I think the time of building exclusively through the draft is over. At best you need a combination of both. And we already got what we needed from the draft in AD.
This is your opinion which is fine. However don't use an illogical argument to try and "prove" me wrong. You can't provide more teams in our situation that's been successful doing it your way. Again this does not prove you wrong that this is the new way of doing things are we can't be successful. But if you are going to argue against my point make a better case.
Also OKC has had way more success than this entire franchise. I've always said it's not about winning rings, but being a true contender that matters most.
Lottery picks drafted by (and stayed with) current team
Washington: 2
Chicago: 2 (3 if you count Deng, but he was traded this season)
OKC: 5 (Collison and Adams were both 12th overall)
San Antonio: 1
Indiana: 1
Portland: 2
Toronto: 3
Outside of OKC and maybe Toronto/CHI, there doesn't seem to be a plethora of lottery picks on those teams that were originally drafted by them. The actual contenders this past season were just IND, SAS, and OKC. OKC had 5 of the 7 lottery picks between all three.
OKC is the rare model, yet people always point to it. Point at the exception rather than the rule. I don't get it, but I have stopped trying to convince others not to do it. Let them dream and have their fun
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Lottery Picks by non-playoff teams
Knicks: 0
Boston: 1
PHI: 2 (3 if you count Evan Turner, but he was traded this season)
Cavs: 4
Pistons: 3
Bucks: 1
Magic: 1
MIN: 3 (4 if you count Derrick Williams who was traded this season)
Nuggets: 0
Jazz: 4
Suns: 2
Kings: 3 (4 if you count Jimmer who was traded this season)
LAL: 1
Pels: 2
Mixture of differing number of drafted lottery picks for each of these non-playoff teams. Just looking at the rosters when creating these lists, the non-playoff teams are either really young, injured, or have a lot of playing time going to past-their-prime vets. The contenders for the title tend to have a mixture of best players still in their prime with vets and youngins as roleplayers. That's just eyeballing it, though.
This trade can best be judged 5 years from now. Let's see where NOLA and Philly are then, and then we'll know.
Most of the team's have only about 3-4 guys who were drafted by their teams. It's one way to do things, but Portland is a good case for and against the method (see Oden and Roy). It's a preferred method mostly for you and I can respect that, but it's not full proof at all nor is it recognized at 'the way' to build.
Teams just that you mentioned (Pacers Warriors Wizards and Blazers) never did anything worthwhile until they added key FAs. Again i'm coming into this a little late and you may never have said u don't need key FAs.
Spurs got there's in the 2nd round kinda doesn't fit the whole high lottery argument. I didn't realize David West was drafted by Ind and after looking at that team this year I think he might be the best player on it. Did the Blazers draft Batum or Rolo? Yes both GSW and the Wizards both have drafted back courts. . .and yet at least half their core or more is made up of Guys they didn't draft.
Like I've said, the best way to build is a combination. All the teams you mentioned just support that more. For the Pels we have our drafted player in AD. We also have drafted role players in Rivers and Withey to work with and possibly Pierre. Then you add our young vets like Jrue (1 month older than Lilliard), Reke, and Ryno and I don't see how any of the teams (outside of SA) you mentioned are head and shoulders better than the Pels. I think injuries are messing up a lot of people's opinions.
I never said lottery I said draft. And Batum was a draft day trade which basically was the Blazers drafting Batum.
Pacers core is Hibbert/West/Stevenson/George 75% drafted.
Blazers core Lillard/Aldridge/Batum(and I'll add Lopez) 75% drafted.
Spurs core Duncan/Parker/Ginobili/Leonard 100% drafted
Thunder core Ibaka/Durant/Westbrook 100% drafted
Over the last 30 years, those with rings include Miami Heat (3), Dallas Mavericks (1), LA Lakers (8), Boston Celtics (3), San Antonio Spurs (4), Detroit Pistons (3), Houston Rockets (2), Chicago Bulls (6). So, how many teams can claim they even have a ring? Looking at the teams, there is no one way to build a team. The clear advantage is being a large market team with an ability to lure big time free agents. Otherwise, a team has to be very lucky in the draft and acquire a superstar. The NBA is not like the NFL in that most teams can get to the point of having a chance. There are very few teams that really have a chance to win it all in the NBA.
I think what we are learning here is that there is no one way to build a team. A lot of it depends on luck, and being the prettiest girl when the lights go off.