Every fan base can cite trite cliches like this . . . the difference is, virtually all of them can do so with better current talent, future talent or at least a blank canvas and better odds with which to acquire future talent.
Most of these picks have already been homeruns relative to slot, but that's ultimately meaningless if they collectively lack high end talent/fit.
Yeah, that's the problem. They're intentionally and perpetually stuck in the nebulous zone of bad but not quite bad enough to get high enough odds to change their lot in life.
It's not about how it's worked out for others, it's about odds (and confining it to last 5 years is foolish, considering in the "player empowerment" era, free agency now rules the league). They're asking for a decade of mediocrity by refusing to tank.
They got lucky that it happened so fast, but sometimes it works that way. They gave themselves the best odds though of something like that happening though.
Tell me then, outside of being in a glamour market, what's the best way to build a contender then?
Of course not because deep down they know I'm right and mostly aren't knowledgeable enough to engage me, so they just resort to ad homenim.
I didn't and even if I did, what does that have to do with this?
That's not at all what I'm saying, that's just your predetermined narrative because you, like all apologists, don't like me for speaking the truth.
Ridiculous comment. They all have things going for them the Spurs don't: better current talent, young talent, market, blank canvas, in position to select high for the foreseeable future, etc.
Battling for 10th is not an accomplishment for a team in their state; it's a death sentence. "Just kind of hope goes our way" is not a viable strategy. Increasing your odds to, is.
Small sample size and LaVine vacillated between banged up and out with COVID during that stretch. I wasn't crazy about the Vucevic trade, but I get it: Big market that's been down for a while, had a bunch of high picks and didn't see it bear much fruit. They probably figure this can help get them to decent in the years to come, entice LaVine to re-sign and become a player again for significant free agents.
It's you apologists who are stuck in your myopic bubble, still high on Spurs mystique because of a series of miracles ranging from 10-24 years ago, thinking they'll be fine because of PATFO and not realizing how bad of a situation they've put themselves in.
It says "might" in the le and it is a message board. I know how much you apologists hate it, but I was under the impression it was in existence for opinion and debate.
I detailed why and again, it's not something to be proud of.
that's sort of my point. a robinson and duncan don't come around that often. there isn't a duncan like player that will come from any of the past drafts. this draft is potentially talented but there is no clear cut franchise player in the lot. it's fine to get draft picks as you are developing but to tank intentionally as the chief means to getting your franchise back on top is reckless.
They didn't really. They were just bad when they drafted JJJ. It would've been like had DeRozan gotten hurt this year. They only tanked in 2019, and that really only involved trading Gasol. Most of the other pieces they "let go for nothing" (Conley was traded, but that was because they drafted his replacement, not so the team would lose a bunch of games). What they never did was have a 76ers-style rebuild. The bigger point though is that before they tanked, they didn't tank, and waiting wasn't an issue for them. The Spurs tanking now or in three years means nothing to their long-term prospects. I'd much rather watch them fight for the playoffs than not, so as a fan, I don't see tanking as a good option.
To your second line, the way to build a contender is three-fold. First is you draft a star. Then you sign a star. Finally you trade for a star. Note: Step one wasn't to draft a franchise player. Tanking and trying for the top pick year after year is unnecessary. Developing a top 25-40 player is fine. Then you sign a guy. That's almost certainly going to mean having a flexible cap situation and a decent roster of young/cheap players. This is obviously where you'd want to get the contender's best player, but that's hard for a lot of reasons. A max contract and good situation should still be enough to sway guys in the 10-20 range though, like the Spurs signing Aldridge. Finally, you parlay that young, cheap core into a final star. That trade is hopefully just for a finisher in the 15-30 range, but more and more it's looking like that's where the stars come from. Be prepared to throw away seven firsts and every decent young player in order to get that core together.
Does that seem hard? It might be, but it's simple and straight-forward. It's way easier to do that than to draft a young core in a short window and basically be a le contender before the contracts get too big. That's basically impossible. People mistake being an "up-and-coming" young club with talent with being an actual contender/winner. They're very different things. Few non-contenders are truly close to a le. Most good non-winners have a glass ceiling above them.
With Gramps back and if he brings Pet Wombat etc with him it's going to be a repeat year.
Thanks Timmy Duncs for 2014 and thanks Kwa for the path before Zaza in 2017.
It's over until Gramps leaves.
I know, but still. One bad year of tanking gave them a possible core to build a contender or far more likely a good team, around.
I realize that, but it's just delaying the inevitable, which is a waste of time. Just rip the band-aid off and be done with it.
You're making assumptions and jumping ahead. Boiled down: It's not easy to build a contender and any path is highly unlikely, but it is simple in terms of going about how to do so (at least in the state they're in).
Eh, I don't think you always tank to get better, but right now in this season, it made the most sense. No lottery pick is ever guaranteed, but there are three to give players that have a strong chance to be a franchise player. That's all you can ask for. The talent in this draft is projected higher than the last several drafts.
The BSPN headlline read:
Kane tells Spurs he wants to leave
I thought another player wanted out.
Harry Kane informs Tottenham he wants to leave this summer - sources (espn.com)
Finding news on Twitter about the Spurs is a real for this reasonThe BSPN headlline read:
Kane tells Spurs he wants to leave
I thought another player wanted out.
Harry Kane informs Tottenham he wants to leave this summer - sources (espn.com)
Silver lining: Some FAs don't want to go to tanking teams.
Oh ya in games the Spurs are winning handily (hey it happens like vs Phoenix sans Wombat and DeFrozen) the 2-3 in game highlight 30 second clips BSPN shows will be the other team making a play. "Booker takes it all the way." "CP0 hit's the shot".
I don't agree with you here Chinook. IMO, a real contender is pretty much defined by having a serious MVP candidate to "be the man" on the team. There been maybe 1 team in the last 50 years to violate that rule. (Detroit. Maybe 2 if you count the spurs in 2013-14, but Tim was still able to give us something special in the playoffs and Kawhi was pretty good statistically.) Players 25-40, 10-20 and 15-30 don't do it. You need a player who's 1-7 or so to be a real contender... The trick is, of course, getting that guy.
Kawhi was 15. Giannis was 15. Jokic was 41. You find greatness where you find it, and I’ll add that no one thought any of these guys would be All NBAers, and none of them were great out of the box. They needed development.
Neither of us (Chinook, myself) are talking about draft position here Exstatic. We're both talking about ranking of player in the NBA... That said, Kawhi, Giannis, Jokic; all of them are the legitimate MVP candidate guys. You need one of those to be a serious contender. What Chinook's proposing doesn't have that foundation.
Statistics say that the first 5 players in the draft are the most likely to be stars or solid players that are not complete busts. That doesn't mean that there aren't busts in the top 5, but it means that you have the best chance to get a star to a solid player. Of the 6-10 range, about 1/3 of the picks reach star status, but there are a lot of role players. In the 11-20 range, there are as many busts as there are stars. In the late round picks (21-30) only 6% become stars and less than half even become role players. It gets much worse in the 2nd round.
So yes, it is possible to get starts outside of the first 5 picks, but it's rare and chances are greater that you will fail. There are no guarantees in life, but it is always a good idea to give yourself a chance to get a star and unfortunately, picking at 11-13 just makes it really hard to get a star.
That's actually big news.The BSPN headlline read:
Kane tells Spurs he wants to leave
I thought another player wanted out.
Harry Kane informs Tottenham he wants to leave this summer - sources (espn.com)
I think you misread what I was saying. It's not that the 25th-, 15th- and 10th-best players in the league are a pure contending trio. It would be pretty good and could be excellent with the right role-players. But they'd have to get really lucky to win. It's that folks have to look at the reality of the league rather than stick to the old-school, build-through-the-draft model. The idea of drafting a franchise player and then drafting multiple stars you can keep together for years to develop into a contending core just won't happen. Stars move, even the top guys. You have to do your best to attract them and hold onto the ones you have, and a team like SA can only do that by presenting a good situation. If you actually tank, you won't be able to pull out of your tailspin for years, and by then you're maxing guys and have a losing culture like SAC and Minnesota. It's all one. You can tell the Spurs to abandon their culture when it comes to team-building but then somehow retain it for player-development.
Completely agree. The last No.1 pick that led the team that drafted him to a le was... Tim Duncan. And before him - Olajuwon, so 2 in 35-40 years or so. People could argue LeBron but he won with Cavs after signing there as a FA.
Technically it's true that you get a better chance to draft a star with a higher draft pick, however, building a team, and a championship one at that, is way more complicated (Philly). Teams continuously fall into the trap of overpaying their draftees and ending up average and capped out. One could argue that developing well, preserving assets and being as good as you can while transitioning (Miami, Denver) and waiting for the chance to draft or trade for the star you need, would offer no worse chances that you'd evolve to contender status. In any case, the two approaches are damn close, unlike what some would have you believe.
Last edited by BG_Spurs_Fan; 05-18-2021 at 03:19 AM.
i think this is the part that the pro-tank crowd can't seem to fathom. they seem to think that tanking is some magical panacea when the reality is that it would likely create a losing culture.
Tanking is like committing suicide and hoping there's a heaven.
If you take even a couple of seconds to think about the best rebuilding plan, the best path to choose is obvious.
1) Try to extend the winning culture that was created during the Robinson/Duncan Era. Sure, the playoff streak is over but if the franchise continues to value winning, continuity, character, togetherness, etc, that culture can continue even during lulls. The Heat and to a lesser extent the Jazz are good examples of this path. You keep trying to win while remaining flexible and keeping the culture intact.
2) You burn the franchise down to the ground and start over. While the franchise is smoldering for ~5 years, you hope that the high lottery picks that you ac ulate are good enough to rebuild your franchise.
Even if you prefer the second path for whatever reasons, that's a path you can take at any point between now and the end of time. It's never too late to strike a match and burn it all down. Conversely, the first path is only available for a limited amount of time. If given a choice, the first path is obviously the way to go. I mean, sure, it may not end up working and you may end up on the second path regardless, but it'd be unwise to not at least give it a shot.
in other words, while there's still the breath of the duncan led dynasty and some of the stalwarts of that dynasty (i.e., pop and buford) in place.
I avoided this thread for a couple of visits because I was not in the mood to read a bunch of in'. It is worse than I thought it would be. If the future is so hopeless, than the tanking will begin soon enough even if it is not intentional.
My issue is tangential to all this. Perhaps naively, I think we would have done better this year without Derozan. I really don’t see him as part of any winning culture.
I agree timvp but those two paths are looking at it only from a basketball (vs business) perspective.
Path #2 must be eliminated because job 1 is to keep the team in San Antonio. If you don't do that, all the other paths disappear and it's game, set, match.
How do you define 'trying to win' though. I mean sure that's the better option but are we really trying? What good is flexibility if you never use it?
You don't have to tank to be willing to package assets to acquire higher picks or other players.
I think a good bit of the frustration (I'm discounting trolls) is that it feels like our FO is complacent where we are. I don't think as many people would want to tank if they felt like there was a concerted effort to improve this team. I know I've read your comments on more than one occasion where you've been concerned about this as well... So how do you define 'trying to win'?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
