|
Knickoftime
Posts: 24159
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 1/13/2011
Member: #3370
|
Knixkik wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Knickoftime wrote:ttBonn1997 wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:knicks1248 wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:Welpee wrote:Bonn1997 wrote:knicks1248 wrote:BRIGGS wrote:Good teamWarriors
Draft players. Also have spent millions for extra 2 nd rounders
Do not trade draft picks for players
Use free agency to acquire other players Just one example. Could throw the Spurs in there-- could throw Boston in there Is San Antonio giving up 2 lottery picks Znd 2 additional draft picks for anyone? No they never do
Draft opportunistic trade and straight free agency GSW and the spurs have not won the last 12 NBA TITLES, NEWS flash, 20 others teams did not follow the spurs and GSW model and won titles trading away picks.
BUUUUUT IF you want to copy the spurs, start with the ownership, then front office, then coach. IF you want to be like GSW, get a system tailor made for your roster, they have had 3 (kerr, luke, ,mike)coaches and didn't miss a beat
1 team out of 30 wins the championship. Of course any approach has a low probability. Building with draft picks and smart trades/signings is the least bad approach. draft picks, trades, signings...is there any other way to acquire players? You're asking if there's an alternative to keeping draft picks? Yeah, giving up draft picks to starphuck. So your suggesting that we shouldn't give up picks for a current stars like, Irving, PG13, cj, cp3. kd, klay, love, ect. There's like a 2% chance of a franchise drafting a super star, 5% chance of drafting a star, those odds are pretty damn low to make a case that that is the route to go.
I'd have to comment on each one of those stars individually. And I have to know the specifics of the trade. There isn't a generally rule.
What team built a championship core by trading away lottery picks though? The Celtics. Cavs traded the number one pick for Love.
What championship did the Celtics win? Is this a serious question? 2008. Up 3-2 in 2009 when Perkins blew out a knee.
Ah I forgot they traded lottery picks there. Fair enough - good example. I thought you were talking about this year's Celtics. I'm not against trading lottery picks if you're getting an HOF level player. Kyrie to me is more like a top 40 player, though. The examples being given here already had 1 to 2 hall-of-famers before any decision to trade away lottery picks was made though. We don't even have anyone who's ever been in an all-star game recently. We don't have a definitive, good enough core already in place and aren't getting a good enough player to be giving up lottery picks. Allen and Garnett were 31 & 31 at the time, and in 2007 Pierce was a very good player. He wasn't considered a Hall of Famer.
He was a 5 time all-star and HOF level player. Of course when a guy is still in his 20s, he most likely hasn't done enough to be considered an HOFer yet. None of our core players have ever even been in an all-star game, and even if we had a much better, more definitive core, Kyrie isn't good enough for this kind of deal anyway. Again, I've never mentioned Irving. All I'm arguing is that there is no full proof blueprint to build an NBA team. It has been done different ways and the common element is usually being able to draft a generational (most recently Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Lebron, Curry) talent and/or luck. The poster child team for building to the draft, Oklahoma City, fell short and then broke up. Minnesota and Charlotte, for two examples, could've also been that dream draft Oklahoma City team, if not for the fact how volatile draft picks are. Philadelphia has already traded away Noel, Okafor is a bust, and Emiid and Simmons have played 42 of a combined 328 games. Imagine what the Cavs could have been if they didn't miss on Bennett and Waiters? And some people are now arguing they also missed on Irving.
Oh OK. Then we don't disagree. However, because draft picks are cost controlled and supermax contracts are so high now, I'd say the default position has to be to keep your picks. It would take a lot of compelling evidence to trade a lottery pick - much more evidence than I'd need to be convinced to simply keep my lottery pick. That's fine. Generally speaking, people need to stop talking about "picks", and even lottery picks, as some sort of guarantee of a "core" player. And landing a true generational star, the kind that the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates you need to win a championship, is statistically very unlikely to occur. That's just life in the NBA.
I'm in the camp of keeping picks, but you're right, a lottery pick is more likely to land a bust than a star, and less than 50% chance of landing a high caliber rotation player. It's a game of chance. I think keeping picks, most of all, allows for continuous flexibility and means of improvement. It also makes draft night and the time leading up to the draft more interesting as fans. But it does not guarantee success in the league. I am really hoping KP develops into a star that is needed, and one of our other prospects develops into an all-star. Frank's development really dictates a lot of the success of this team going forward. And hopefully we are able to get a draft pick in a Melo deal. At the very least, that provides us a surplus in the draft dept and allows more flexibility in case we do want to deal a pick in a trade. I see versions of this argument a lot and how it reads to me is - 'don't include any picks in a trade because later you might want include those picks in a trade.' |
