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

[MichaelMcNamara]

Here's the thing- How many guys on rookie contracts are contributing for contenders - about 1 per team, right?

We talk about young guys but they really don't make a huge impact until they get to their second contract. So, even if we kept the picks, we would have to pay them by the time they were really helping us win. Meanwhile, you waste ADs rookie contract.

Instead, maximize AD's rookie deal and just wait and see- Evans and Jrue's deals will be crazy bargins in years 2 and 3 as the cap keeps going up. By year 3, they might not be amongst the top 80-90 paid players. Just think about that.

Yes, rookies are a value now but best case scenario is they do well and you gotta give them crazy money. Worst case scenario they bust. And what about the middle? Soon, Golden State will have to decide whether they want to match a max deal to Klay Thompson. Those decisions are terrible. We just avoided that with Jrue and Tyreke for three more years.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bradael]

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

Wes Mathews is as important to the Blazers as almost anyone else not named Aldridge this year. And George Hill is a huge part of the Pacers' core. You're just purposely excluding them from your list so that you can have a higher % drafted listed.

And if we're including draft day trades, why not Jrue. We traded draft picks for him on draft day.

OKC's case is unique. They hit on almost every pick. Most draft picks don't pan out, which is why the Cavs have not done anything yet with all the top picks they've received. Same for the Kings and Bobcats. When it comes down to it, you need to hit on 1 superstar and get two other very good players around him. I think we've done that with Davis, Jrue, Tyreke, and Anderson. I don't care how it happened. The way the salary cap is set up now, you can have one supermax player and afford two other high salary players around him. So long as the Benson family is willing to spend, this team will be a contender if they stay healthy and Davis continues to improve.

[Kibner]

Draft-day trade means trading for a player on the day he was drafted. Like Kobe and Dirk.

[da ThRONe]

Here's the thing- How many guys on rookie contracts are contributing for contenders - about 1 per team, right?

We talk about young guys but they really don't make a huge impact until they get to their second contract. So, even if we kept the picks, we would have to pay them by the time they were really helping us win. Meanwhile, you waste ADs rookie contract.

Instead, maximize AD's rookie deal and just wait and see- Evans and Jrue's deals will be crazy bargins in years 2 and 3 as the cap keeps going up. By year 3, they might not be amongst the top 80-90 paid players. Just think about that.

Yes, rookies are a value now but best case scenario is they do well and you gotta give them crazy money. Worst case scenario they bust. And what about the middle? Soon, Golden State will have to decide whether they want to match a max deal to Klay Thompson. Those decisions are terrible. We just avoided that with Jrue and Tyreke for three more years.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This just isn't a fair talking point. Jrue was an all-star and sign what you considered a fair deal. Tyreke was rookie of the year and signed what you considered a fair deal. Ryan signed what you considered a great deal. How is it we just assume the rookie we would hypothetically draft will command inflated contracts?

[NMThreeMVP]

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

Why not include all Playoff teams in this selective analysis to support your opinion that this trade was bad which can't be proven? The only thing that matters is winning a Championship (HEAT and Mavs) and making the playoffs. Those are the only 2 measures of success. Did you make playoffs? Did you win Championship?

Why not include Warriors, Rockets, Nets, Raptors, Grizzlies, Wizards, Bobcats, Hawks, Clippers, and Mavs in your analysis? All teams that have a higher percentage of key players that were acquired and not drafted?

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.

You've already admitted nothing you say can be proven, yet you continue to argue down your circular rabbit hole.

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.

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.

...and saying something "IMO is a higher percentage", is the equivalent of saying "IMO 2+2=5". Either it is a higher percentage or it isn't, and unless you're willing to do the math to quantify it, you should just stop at not having any facts but an opinion you acknowledge can't be proven!

I respect your opinion, but when you try to prove it's fact, and do so using selective data... that deserves a rant!

[Kibner]

I think Throne would mainly just care about the contenders. Which, to me, would be Spurs, Thunder, Clippers, Heat, and Pacers.

[Kibner]

Spurs: One lottery pick complimented by a smattering of other picks with free agents filling in the remaining holes
Thunder: Lots of lottery picks with few free agent signings for depth and "veteran presence"
Clippers: One lottery pick, a second rounder, heavy on trades and free agents
Heat: One lottery pick, trades and heavy free agency
Pacers: One lottery pick, with good mix of other picks and free agents (somewhat similar to Spurs, imo)

[MichaelMcNamara]

And those later picks tend to hit more often on teams with a winning culture and/or established talent. Paul George got to come in slowly and learn from Granger with few responsibilities. Manu and Parker were not good early on, but got to grow slowly and had Duncan to make up for all those mistakes. I have said this for years - If Parker goes to the Kings, he is half the player we know today, if that.

Build the culture, then continue to add guys with picks 15-30 and because you are winners and because you dont need the guys to do much, they can blossom into a specific role. That is why the Spurs are so successful. They arent terrific drafters, they are terrific developers. Most teams ask a player to do too much early on, and when he cant they bury him on the bench. The Spurs say, "Hey Kawhi we got all these guys who can do this and that. These first two years, you just work on this corner three and play defense. Master that and then we will work on your off the dribble game."

The Pels will try to get to that point, which I maintain they will once healthy, and then can get guys in the draft who look like steals years later.

[da ThRONe]

Why not include all Playoff teams in this selective analysis to support your opinion that this trade was bad which can't be proven? The only thing that matters is winning a Championship (HEAT and Mavs) and making the playoffs. Those are the only 2 measures of success. Did you make playoffs? Did you win Championship?

Why not include Warriors, Rockets, Nets, Raptors, Grizzlies, Wizards, Bobcats, Hawks, Clippers, and Mavs in your analysis? All teams that have a higher percentage of key players that were acquired and not drafted?



You've already admitted nothing you say can be proven, yet you continue to argue down your circular rabbit hole.





...and saying something "IMO is a higher percentage", is the equivalent of saying "IMO 2+2=5". Either it is a higher percentage or it isn't, and unless you're willing to do the math to quantify it, you should just stop at not having any facts but an opinion you acknowledge can't be proven!

I respect your opinion, but when you try to prove it's fact, and do so using selective data... that deserves a rant!

I really don't get the disconnect with you guys sometimes. I state clear as day in pretty much all those post you quoted that it's all opinion based. What out of that made you think I was thus trying to pass my opinion off as facts? Saying one form of team building is higher percentage is like saying player X has a higher ceiling than player Y. You can list a bunch of reason why you may feel it's the case but it simply one persons opinion. My point was don't dismiss my point when your counter point has even less legs.

[da ThRONe]

And those later picks tend to hit more often on teams with a winning culture and/or established talent. Paul George got to come in slowly and learn from Granger with few responsibilities. Manu and Parker were not good early on, but got to grow slowly and had Duncan to make up for all those mistakes. I have said this for years - If Parker goes to the Kings, he is half the player we know today, if that.

Build the culture, then continue to add guys with picks 15-30 and because you are winners and because you dont need the guys to do much, they can blossom into a specific role. That is why the Spurs are so successful. They arent terrific drafters, they are terrific developers. Most teams ask a player to do too much early on, and when he cant they bury him on the bench. The Spurs say, "Hey Kawhi we got all these guys who can do this and that. These first two years, you just work on this corner three and play defense. Master that and then we will work on your off the dribble game."

The Pels will try to get to that point, which I maintain they will once healthy, and then can get guys in the draft who look like steals years later.

Of course this is your opinion. We will never know if Parker is going to be all-star Parker with or without the Spurs. I'm certain Pop helps as you would expect great coaching would. However you can always bring in high character vets that understand they are on the team to groom young players as much as they are to play the game itself. Besides who's setting up the culture for this team? Gordon, Evans, Holiday or is it Davis? Those are all guys that you point out aren't that old themselves.

I can understand the winning culture but to me you can achieve that with drafting winning players and a quality coaching staff that don't mind teaching a young group.

[Mythrol]

Of course this is your opinion. We will never know if Parker is going to be all-star Parker with or without the Spurs. I'm certain Pop helps as you would expect great coaching would. However you can always bring in high character vets that understand they are on the team to groom young players as much as they are to play the game itself. Besides who's setting up the culture for this team? Gordon, Evans, Holiday or is it Davis? Those are all guys that you point out aren't that old themselves.

I can understand the winning culture but to me you can achieve that with drafting winning players and a quality coaching staff that don't mind teaching a young group.

This is where I whole heartily disagree. You don't establish a winning culture by building through the draft.

[BallSoHard]

This is where I whole heartily disagree. You don't establish a winning culture by building through the draft.

It's chicken and egg. You have to clean house to establish a culture most of the time.

[NMThreeMVP]

I really don't get the disconnect with you guys sometimes. I state clear as day in pretty much all those post you quoted that it's all opinion based. What out of that made you think I was thus trying to pass my opinion off as facts? Saying one form of team building is higher percentage is like saying player X has a higher ceiling than player Y. You can list a bunch of reason why you may feel it's the case but it simply one persons opinion. My point was don't dismiss my point when your counter point has even less legs.

..only that's not true. It's actually provable.

I'm at work (don't get fired) and don't have time to do it, but all you do is set your criteria: Winning Championships, Playoff Appearances, or "Contending" (you'd have to clearly define what contending means), and then set your criteria for being a key contributor to that team (I'd suggest minutes). You can look at the last 10 years (arbitrary) or determine the modern NBA (the advent of Free Agency) or do forever.

It's definitely a quantifiable thing. The only thing that should be up for debate is your criteria.

But, you attempt to make it subjective, say it's your opinion, and simultaneously say it's a "higher percentage".

Don't you see how that is inconsistent and flawed? Seriously. I'm not even sure you're wrong about your premise, I just know you're debate/argument/expression tactic is kind of wack. IMHO. Or put another way, the way you're going about this discussion has a high percentage chance of being unsuccessful

[NMThreeMVP]

Is it building through the draft if you turn around and trade that player for a veteran you think can help your team before your players' rookie deal is up?

If we would have drafted Noel, and turned around traded him and 2 years later for a (top 9 protected) 1st rounder for Jrue Holiday? Is that still considered building through the draft?

[AD23forMVP]

From game 9 to game 30 last season Jrue averaged 16.3 ppg and 8.7 apg on 49.3% shooting, with 2.8 turnovers per game. Felt like that should have been noted in the season review BSS did.

[NOEngineer]

Since OKC made it two rounds further than Houston in the playoffs this year, did they "win" the Harden trade?
Seriously, any trade that has such dissimilar elements on the two sides will be almost impossible to evaluate. Throw in the fact that the elements are rights to the labor of one human being versus the promise of those rights in the future for a different human being or two, and the chance for an accurate evaluation now is nil.
I completely buy the argument that a #6 last year (Noel or whoever we would have picked) and a #10 this year would add up to less production than Holliday achieved last year (even with his injury), this year (assuming relatively good health from all parties), and probably the next year as well. The case for Nerlens is so much weaker than the case for AD coming out of Kentucky that I can't believe he will rival AD at all.

[UNO Gracias]

How could a person up and call a person wack?
How could the devil turn the blue sky black?
How many babies born will never reach their dreams?
And how could a person call another person wack?

I think we are reading here that building a title contender, like building a GM, GE, or KPMG comes from many avenues, and all avenues include luck along the way. You guys are proving that both the FA and Draft method are sound ways to build (if you find yourself given the opportunity via high draft picks, or tons of cash), but all roads lead to a bit of luck in the form of surprisingly amazing 2nd round picks, or under the radar free agents that come in and majorly outperform their contracts.

You can't sell a person on one way being the right way while the other is wrong because each teams method of getting a title will be different due to where they stand at the beginning of their road to a title.

[NMThreeMVP]

I think we are reading here that building a title contender, like building a GM, GE, or KPMG comes from many avenues, and all avenues include luck along the way. You guys are proving that both the FA and Draft method are sound ways to build (if you find yourself given the opportunity via high draft picks, or tons of cash), but all roads lead to a bit of luck in the form of surprisingly amazing 2nd round picks, or under the radar free agents that come in and majorly outperform their contracts.

You can't sell a person on one way being the right way while the other is wrong because each teams method of getting a title will be different due to where they stand at the beginning of their road to a title.

Unless someone is willing to do the work (I'm not), I think your statement is as good a pragmatic approach as any to this issue. But, it's absolutely true that if we look at all the teams that have won championships, we can see how many teams had majority of contributors drafted by the team, and how many teams had majority of contributors acquired in some other way. There is a correct answer to the question of which way wins more championships. Likewise, if we define "contending" we can determine a correct answer for that as well.

The problem is that we're too lazy, myself included, and would rather just selectively chose information to support our opinions. The latter I'm not going to do, cause I think that's wack.

But you're absolutely correct and diplomatic in saying there are multiple scenarios to building a winner.

[UNO Gracias]

I would just like to point out your use of the word wack. Far too often people (myself included) do not use this word enough when it should be used. They try to church things up, and make things sound prettier than they are, and that’s just wack.

[MichaelMcNamara]

One thing that is not debatable is that almost every title team has one thing in common- a too 3-5 player

And it seems like 99.9 percent of us think we will have that guy in two years or so. We can argue over the smaller details, but the hardest thing to get, we got.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MichaelMcNamara]

From game 9 to game 30 last season Jrue averaged 16.3 ppg and 8.7 apg on 49.3% shooting, with 2.8 turnovers per game. Felt like that should have been noted in the season review BSS did.

Did you read it? I did and he specifically pointed out the difference from game 9 on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UNO Gracias]

Another thing that is not debatable is that every championship winner has won the majority of the games in their playoff series.

(Just another little known fact)

I agree with MM. We have the hardest part to get. We have the Tim Duncan. We have the LBJ. We have the Kevin Garnett. We have the Kobe. We have the...Chauncy Billups.

Actually given more time together we might have the Duncan, Parker, and Manu, the LBJ, Wade, and Bosh, the Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, and the Kobe, Gasol, and Fisher. I can't speak to the Pistons team, as we have but one or two things that they had. That was a damn good team right there.

[AD23forMVP]

Did you read it? I did and he specifically pointed out the difference from game 9 on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I did as well. Pellissier discussed his final 26 games. From game 9 to game 34. I'm talking about game 9 to 30. From game 31 on is when he fell off a cliff before being sat for the season.

[MichaelMcNamara]

I did as well. Pellissier discussed his final 26 games. From game 9 to game 34. I'm talking about game 9 to 30. From game 31 on is when he fell off a cliff before being sat for the season.

Okay, well then you write the 2000+ word piece.

Guy did great work, and you are gonna get that nit picky? I guess the T-P Season in Review pieces do a lot better.

[AD23forMVP]

Lol I'm not being nit picky at all. Sounds like someone pissed in your cheerios, or you are just taking what I am saying the wrong way. Lighten up. Never said he didn't do great work. I obviously took the time to read it, if my expectations for pieces from BSS wasn't high I wouldn't have read it. He made it a point to differentiate from the first 8 games, I just think he should have done the same for the last 4.