.
Pelicans Report
 
Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 241

Thread: last year's trade for Jrue Holiday was one-sided

  1. #126
    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:

    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%

  2. #127
    Exhibit C Nola3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,201
    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.

  3. #128
    Pistol Pete Would Be Proud!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    public housing
    Posts
    3,515
    Quote Originally Posted by da ThRONe View Post
    Not really. But again going down the "what if rabbit hole" is a never ending journey. My point is you can't look at the past #10 picks as we have no idea we'd be selecting there in this alternate universe.
    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.

  4. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by NMThreeMVP View Post
    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.

  5. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by da ThRONe View Post
    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.
    Yeah. Look at how well all those draft picks have built up Cleveland. Powerhouse!

    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

  6. #131
    Exhibit C Nola3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,201
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythrol View Post
    Yeah. Look at how well all those draft picks have built up Cleveland. Powerhouse!

    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
    Washington, Chicago, OKC, San Antonio, Indiana, Portland, and Toronto are all examples of utilizing lottery picks to become solid playoff teams and/or title contenders. It's not foolproof but it has been proven to work consistently.

  7. #132
    Banned Kurgan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Italia/Žilina/Praha
    Posts
    3,529
    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)

  8. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythrol View Post
    Yeah. Look at how well all those draft picks have built up Cleveland. Powerhouse!

    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
    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.

  9. #134

    last year's trade for Jrue Holiday was one-sided

    Quote Originally Posted by da ThRONe View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Mythrol; 05-28-2014 at 07:19 AM.

  10. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythrol View Post
    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.
    Last edited by da ThRONe; 05-28-2014 at 07:48 AM.

  11. #136
    Quote Originally Posted by da ThRONe View Post
    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.
    I'm going to stop you there. I wasn't trying to use an illogical argument to prove you wrong. I made an exaggerating statement because I found it humorous. Don't get butt hurt over nothing.

    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

  12. #137
    Quote Originally Posted by Nola3 View Post
    Washington, Chicago, OKC, San Antonio, Indiana, Portland, and Toronto are all examples of utilizing lottery picks to become solid playoff teams and/or title contenders. It's not foolproof but it has been proven to work consistently.
    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.

  13. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by Kibner View Post
    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.

  14. #139
    Quote Originally Posted by Mythrol View Post
    I'm going to stop you there. I wasn't trying to use an illogical argument to prove you wrong. I made an exaggerating statement because I found it humorous. Don't get butt hurt over nothing.

    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
    Butthurt? Not sure what part of my post gave that impression. You addressed me I responded pointing out what I believe were fallacies in your approach. Seems like normal internet chatter to me.

  15. #140
    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
    @mcnamara247

  16. #141
    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.

  17. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelMcNamara View Post
    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
    Spurs, Pacers, and Blazers core are made up of drafted players. Both the Wizards and Warriors drafted their backcourts.

  18. #143
    Jedi Knight eballa1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Posts
    626
    This trade can best be judged 5 years from now. Let's see where NOLA and Philly are then, and then we'll know.

  19. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by da ThRONe View Post
    Spurs, Pacers, and Blazers core are made up of drafted players. Both the Wizards and Warriors drafted their backcourts.
    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.

    "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/

  20. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by da ThRONe View Post
    Spurs, Pacers, and Blazers core are made up of drafted players. Both the Wizards and Warriors drafted their backcourts.
    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.

  21. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by BallSoHard View Post
    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.
    I did address FA's. When you have rookie contracts you can afford to offer more money to FA's.

    Also it's been said a bunch of times on both side that no way is right or wrong and certainly guaranteed.

  22. #147

    Playoffs

    Quote Originally Posted by Mythrol View Post
    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

  23. #148
    Quote Originally Posted by da ThRONe View Post
    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
    So outside of OKC who has no rings and the Spurs who got extremely lucky in 2nd round picks (we have two of those ourselves) every other team needs a combination of drafts and FAs.

    Great. Thanks for making my point.



    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk

  24. #149
    Charter Member PELICANSFAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Kenner, LA
    Posts
    23,328
    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.

  25. #150
    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.
    If you Jimmer it, they will come.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •