Reply With Quote
You didn't actually do that. Most of the guys you listed aren't franchise players (Maxey and Thybulle, really?), and the reason why most of those teams are good is because of the players they've acquired through trades and free agency. The question wasn't "Can drafting well really lead to being a good team?" or "Does it even make sense to use picks on players rather than trading them?" There are like 10 franchise players in the league, and only a small handful of them were acquired through drafting high -- and even fewer were acquired through tanking. Memphis, for example, didn't tank for Morant or JJJ. They still had their old core for JJJ and still had Conley when they picked Morant. They spent years pushing to be an eighth seed with zero cost to their long-term future. Dallas likely did tank for Doncic though they fell in the lottery and ended up lucking out by TRADING up for him.
Anyways, the reason why assuming the Spurs are going to draft their next player is antiquated is because franchise players are more mobile than they were before. I didn't say the Spurs can't draft such a player. But people like Base, Teeds and apparently you seem to think that's the way to go, and the logic underpinning that is antiquated. Players don't stay with their teams, windows don't stay open for a player's career, stars want to clump together, so getting one can bring others. What you guys propose, being a bad team that collects talent, is a way to become a farm team in the modern NBA. Memphis never had a loser's spirit, even when they drafted Ja and JJJ, they had still owed a future first they traded away trying to get better. The reason why they were able to turn it around is because they were never trying to be the loser team you guys want the Spurs to be. They weren't trying to gamble on upside or trade away anyone decent in order to get a good pick. They draft a number of older, limited prospects for their win-now capabilities. They were basically the anti-OKC, and it shows.
That's not "being generous", that's just not being silly. The Lakers didn't tank for Davis. Philly didn't tank for Harden -- Brooklyn damned sure didn't tank for him. Boston didn't tank at all for guys like Tatum and Brown. It would be like claiming the Spurs tanked for whomever they draft with the 2025 Bulls pick or 2028 Celtics pick. Saying that LAC tanked to get George, when the non-tanking Spurs have taken multiple players as high or higher than SGA was drafted doesn't make sense.n fact I was pretty generous, considering that I didn't even include franchise caliber players that were gotten thanks to draft acquired assets (Harden for Simmons, Paul George for Shai Gilgeous Alexander, Anthony Davis for Ingram, Lonzo & Hart, and so on and so forth), or mention that even FA signings of relevance usually come through S&T, which means you have to give up assets to get them.
See, this is the same sleight of hand you tried before. Even if we are talking about teams drafting "franchise players", you can't list a ton of guys drafted in the late-lottery and later, and then pretend like that's justification for why the Spurs should be trying to get as high of a pick as possible. Most of those players you listed were not acquired the way you think "mathematicians" would say the Spurs need to acquire them. The Spurs should not tank to get a high pick in order to be like the Nuggets or Bucks who got their MVPs outside of the lottery, or like the Suns who traded for their best player or the Heat who signed (and traded) for their franchise player. Successful teams did NOT do what you want the Spurs to do. At best, they drafted well and brought in good UDFAs. But the mentalities they had, the roadmaps they followed -- they have nothing to do with finding no benefit to winning games. Most of these very teams got to where they are now after a period of struggling to get a low seed. Memphis is obvious, but Phoenix missing the play-in the year before last is another example. Miami spending years hovering between 6th and 10th in the conference is another. Or like how Utah hung around .500 for years before trading for their top stars. Countering that actual history was the question, not whether the Grizzlies drafted Desmond Bane (who they actually traded for but whatever).So in essence, the draft is at the core of every process of setting up a successful team, with no exceptions, and it takes no mathematician to realize that it's usuarlly better not to let 10 teams pick ahead of you.
They got Gasol when he was 36. They struck the out on him when he was actually still good and chose Chicago instead two years before.
