Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 77
  1. #51
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    I'd say that just as there is no single way to win basketball games, there is no single way to assemble good basketball teams. Smart GMs are open to everything: draft work (moving up, moving down), trades, free agency, in house development, analytics, short tanks, etc...
    100%

  2. #52
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    12,916
    The Heat play in a glamor market which primarily led to Butler's (don't buy this "culture" propaganda) signing the same way it did James and Bosh and by the time the former signed, he was a 1st overall pick caliber player.

    The same goes for the Raptors and S bag.
    I agree with you that the Heat are basically Lakers' East due to their destination which makes it very easy to rebuild through FA and even trades since players can force trades to go over there much like they do with the Lakers.

  3. #53
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    Those organizations do many things right also. Butler went to a decent team as the best player and leader. Didn’t want to play with perennial losers in Minny and Philly who couldn’t match his energy. I don’t see the problem?
    You're missing the point. I'm saying, places like the ones I mentioned can do as many things "right" as anyone and still not have a chance to sign a player of his caliber due to location. Meanwhile, the Heat can have a bleak looking situation and still have a chance.

    When James signs with the Lakers it's primarily for off court reasons, but when Butler signs with the Heat it's because of "culture"? Don't believe the hype.


    Yes, but also no. They were missing a star, but most of their best players are home-grown talent, including Richardson, whom they were able to use as the main trade piece. It's not very easy to imagine the Spurs as a destination a star would force his way to, but Butler had been traded multiple times before that, and the Spurs could have been one of those teams. If they prepare like Miami did and then strike like Minnesota did, they could have had the same success. As far as we've heard, Butler would have stayed in both Minny and Philly had they been willing to offer a max. He didn't seem obviously worth it at the time, but in retrospect, he was.

    Miami definitely has a lot of advantages, but the Spurs can adopt or emphasize a lot of the Heat's philosophies. They don't need to tank to get their stars, but they can't afford to not be ready in a situation where one becomes available. I don't know who the next Butler would be, but the Spurs can't afford to be in a bad position to make an offer and capitalize on the talent when he does show up.
    Prepare? The infallible geniuses that the media makes them out to be had overpaid for mediocrity (Whiteside, Winslow, Waiters, Johnson), Dragic was aging and Adebayo and Herro (overrated) were random decent prospects with uncertain futures.

    I don't buy that Butler would have stayed in Minnesota and Philadelphia is a big market with a future Hall of Fame player and at the time another thought to have that potential.

    So all they have to do is unearth a good core out of late lottery picks who fit a narrow minded criteria, simultaneously build up a treasure trove to acquire the next available star and have a team leftover that'll appeal to him enough to forgo preferring a big and/or glamour market? Good luck threading that needle.

  4. #54
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Prepare? The infallible geniuses that the media makes them out to be had overpaid for mediocrity (Whiteside, Winslow, Waiters, Johnson), Dragic was aging and Adebayo and Herro (overrated) were random decent prospects with uncertain futures.
    When you create mediocrity from UDFAs and castoffs, that's impressive. The key after that is knowing how to leverage that created value into trade pieces. As I said, the benefit of someone like Richardson isn't what he actually did for Miami on the court, but that he could be a centerpiece in a trade for Butler. The Heat also developed many players but fell in love with basically none of them outside of Winslow. That's a lesson the Spurs would be wise to implement going forward. The Spurs have a decent amount of created value now, but if they sign them to big money and pretend like they're a franchise core, they are going to waste their opportunities. The White trade makes me think they'll be willing to make the moves they need to, but they'll have to be apply that to some of the other players too.

    I don't buy that Butler would have stayed in Minnesota and Philadelphia is a big market with a future Hall of Fame player and at the time another thought to have that potential.
    You can believe that if you want, but if a player is willing to sign an extension and THEN force a trade, that's way better than them just walking. Butler wanted and extension from Minny. That much we were told. Had he gotten it, maybe he still holds out, maybe he presses the Wolves to dump Towns or whatever. Maybe he's still there. All of those maybes are better than the reality of not ever having him for a team like the Spurs.

    So all they have to do is unearth a good core out of late lottery picks who fit a narrow minded criteria, simultaneously build up a treasure trove to acquire the next available star and have a team leftover that'll appeal to him enough to forgo preferring a big and/or glamour market? Good luck threading that needle.
    We don't know what trades are out there now, but I strongly doubt the Spurs can't get multiple top-10 picks in this draft if they wanted to. They don't actually have to continue to try to draft and develop a core in such a linear fashion. Intermediate trades and signings are part of that, as is taking the risk of trading for a player who isn't directly trying to force his way to SA and then selling the team to them. Not every star wants to go to a big market. I'd contend that fewer want to go than end up there. Big markets tend to have the capital to afford big tax bills and stars that do care about that sort of thing. What guys want is to be paid and to look good. Any franchise can do that if they can field the team. When you have a bad front office like the Wizards, guys like Beal will get wandering eyes. But a bunch of smaller-market teams in the league right now have stars who at best only get mentioned for leaving because the media loves pushing the narratives.

  5. #55
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Post Count
    13,829
    When you create mediocrity from UDFAs and castoffs, that's impressive. The key after that is knowing how to leverage that created value into trade pieces. As I said, the benefit of someone like Richardson isn't what he actually did for Miami on the court, but that he could be a centerpiece in a trade for Butler.



    You can believe that if you want, but if a player is willing to sign an extension and THEN force a trade, that's way better than them just walking. Butler wanted and extension from Minny. That much we were told.

    Not every star wants to go to a big market. I'd contend that fewer want to go than end up there. Big markets tend to have the capital to afford big tax bills and stars that do care about that sort of thing. What guys want is to be paid and to look good. Any franchise can do that if they can field the team.
    What you call "create", I call stumbling into. Mediocrity isn't difficult to achieve; the Spurs just approached/achieved it with one of the least talented rosters in the league mostly by having a cadre of competent two-way young veterans.

    Richardson was a centerpiece for Butler only because the latter's antics tanked his value and teams almost always trade players of or above that caliber out of conference and to non re-building teams, which narrows the field considerably.

    Fine, but no matter what Butler thought of Towns, he was and is a significantly better asset than any the Spurs have had since S bag.

    Nah, just virtually every American one. That may be true elsewhere, but here you barely register on the national scale even if you're a superstar.

  6. #56
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    12,916
    Except the fact that 6 out of 15 all NBA slots from last year shows its not a needle in a haystack, is it. Its the exact opposite. You don't need a top 10 player to get a star in this league.

    God damn I show you X and you still think that it has to be Y even when you yourself are giving examples of how its not. 1/4 is not needle in a haystack. How about the Bucks? Nothing higher than a 15th pick in their big 3. is so much a needle in a haystack I can name another team right off the bat that has done it. Damn., rare AF!
    Do you lack reading comprehension skills? I mentioned "In the last 30 years only, the Raptors won a le along with the Bucks with having a star player who wasn't a top 10 pick." It is rare AF. The Bucks and Raptors are the only 2 teams in the last 41 years to win les with their stars not being a top 10 pick. When you do the math 2/41 is 4.8 percent. That's a very small percentage of having a chance to win a le without a top 10 pick. You wouldn't be confident if your doctor told you had only a 4.8 percent chance of surviving a deadly illness. I like to be optimistic about things but I don't like to be blindly optimistic.
    Last edited by daslicer; 05-22-2022 at 08:12 PM.

  7. #57
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Wow, on a spurs forum and you don't count a spurs team in your list. Duncan wasn't the star on that team. Furthermore, there's a reason that the teams that have done this have happened recently yet you're still going back 30 years. Who gives a what happens 15-30 years ago. It's not the same era.

  8. #58
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Not to mention that not every team that won with a top 10 pick drafted that player.

  9. #59
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Oh, and if you want to talk about percentages, what percentage of top 10 picks win NBA les? Its ing low. Insert stupid doctor analogy here too. The chances of any NBA team winning a le in any given year, whether they have top 10 picks or not, are ing low so I don't know why you think pulling one bull low percentage chance over others somehow makes a point. Especially when you're skewing the percentages in a dishonest and irrelevant way just to make your point "stronger".

  10. #60
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Look the point isn't that you don't see a positive relationship with the quality of players and the earlier draft picks. Obviously that is the case. A #1 pick is more likely to be a franchise player than later draft position. This isn't debatable. My initial post you replied to was showing that tanking for a top pick isn't the only way to get a star. Plenty of all NBA players are drafted at later positions. This too isn't debatable. The Spurs don't need to go on an all out tank in order to get a - by your definition the important threshold - a top 10 pick. They have a top 10 pick this year without a tank. But thinking that you have to draft a top 10 player in order to win in TODAY'S NBA is demonstrably false as there are plenty of recent examples of teams that this doesn't apply to and its sure as not 5%.

  11. #61
    Make a trade steal
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Post Count
    10,713
    Wow, on a spurs forum and you don't count a spurs team in your list. Duncan wasn't the star on that team. Furthermore, there's a reason that the teams that have done this have happened recently yet you're still going back 30 years. Who gives a what happens 15-30 years ago. It's not the same era.
    Because if you go back you get more data points to support the argument. He buried you in this argument.

  12. #62
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    12,916
    Wow, on a spurs forum and you don't count a spurs team in your list. Duncan wasn't the star on that team. Furthermore, there's a reason that the teams that have done this have happened recently yet you're still going back 30 years. Who gives a what happens 15-30 years ago. It's not the same era.
    Statically during the playoffs Duncan was the best player on the '14 Spurs le team. He was still an all-star caliber player back then. Yes who gives a about what happened the last 40 years lol. Lets go by the last 11 years. Only the Bucks and Raptors won a le in the last 11 years with a star player that wasn't a top 10 pick. 2/11 is 18 percent which is still not a good percentage. You and I both want the Spurs to get better but you are delusional.

    The Spurs may get lucky in this draft and get a hidden gem but it's highly unlikely. I just like to play the odds and the odds are not with the Spurs getting a superstar out of this draft

  13. #63
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Post Count
    12,916
    Look the point isn't that you don't see a positive relationship with the quality of players and the earlier draft picks. Obviously that is the case. A #1 pick is more likely to be a franchise player than later draft position. This isn't debatable. My initial post you replied to was showing that tanking for a top pick isn't the only way to get a star. Plenty of all NBA players are drafted at later positions. This too isn't debatable. The Spurs don't need to go on an all out tank in order to get a - by your definition the important threshold - a top 10 pick. They have a top 10 pick this year without a tank. But thinking that you have to draft a top 10 player in order to win in TODAY'S NBA is demonstrably false as there are plenty of recent examples of teams that this doesn't apply to and its sure as not 5%.
    Usually, you actually do have to have a top 10 draft pick to have a chance at being elite in the NBA. Denver with Jokic and the Bucks with Giannis are the only exceptions and that's still less than 5 percent.

  14. #64
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Usually, you actually do have to have a top 10 draft pick to have a chance at being elite in the NBA. Denver with Jokic and the Bucks with Giannis are the only exceptions and that's still less than 5 percent.
    You know how many top 10 picks in the past 10 drafts have won a le? 2. Anthony Davis and Harrison Barnes. 2%. That is less than any of the percentages you have given. You can go back 20 years and it improves slightly, but the percentage is still under 10% and that is with guys like Dwight Howard, Shaun Livingston, and Bogut picking up rings where they were role players at best.

    There's a reason why I mentioned all NBA players, as NBA les are extremely rare to begin with as only 1/30 teams wins it each year. If either the Celtics or Warriors win the le this year, this will go up, but only as role players for the Warriors and either way its not going up more than 2-3% at best. This is why your percentage bull is nonsense. You're taking extremely rare events, saying that WOW THIS IS RARE AND CAN ONLY BE DONE BY X when X itself is ALSO incredibly unsuccessful in general. Its a completely stupid way to look at the situation and only works if you take it out of context.

  15. #65
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,448
    Because if you go back you get more data points to support the argument. He buried you in this argument.
    Adding data points doesn't do for an argument when the data points aren't representative of the current system. Drafting in the NBA 30 years ago isn't the same as Drafting the NBA the past decade. The G Leauge, international players, and NCAA Basketball are all substantially different not to mention what type of players are necessary for today's NBA. Tim Duncan was drafted after 4 years of college. That was far more common in the 90s than it is now. Scouting now has to happen not just in the NCAA but also overseas in every professional league. Not that drafting was a sure thing back then, but drafting 21 and 22 years olds after years of NCAA scouting is extremely different than drafting 18-19 year olds. There's a reason why - although still low - the success rate for 2nd round draft picks and undrafted players is much higher today than it was 30 years ago.

  16. #66
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Usually, you actually do have to have a top 10 draft pick to have a chance at being elite in the NBA. Denver with Jokic and the Bucks with Giannis are the only exceptions and that's still less than 5 percent.
    In case you're wondering, 2/30 is actually more than five percent.

    Anyway, I think you can argue that 7/16 teams in the playoffs this year didn't do so thanks to drafting in the top-10. I think it's dishonest to talk about a team like Brooklyn which hasn't drafted in the top-10 since like Derrick Favors as evidence just because they signed stars who years and multiple franchises ago were drafted at the top of the first. I also wouldn't count teams that have top-10 draftees on their team that didn't contribute much like NOP and Chicago. Then you have team Phoenix whose top-10 pick is at best their third-best player but is arguably their fifth-best. Finally, you have Utah, who has also been an elite regular-season team despite not having a top-10 pick besides I guess Conley?

    Arguing that the most talented players tend to be drafted highly doesn't do anything. I'd argue that it's willfully ignoring the actual debate. Drafting guys does not mean keeping them, and having RoFR doesn't mean a player is going to see the ends of their contracts. The Spurs should absolutely look for way to get a top pick in this year's draft. But their greater responsibility is to be a team with the infrastructure to take advantage of whatever talent they can acquire. It's my firm belief that a Spurs team that fully tanked to draft Tim back in 1997 would have seen him walk in 2000. That they had a roster who'd basically made it to the WCF a couple of years before is a huge part of why Duncan saw the early success with the Spurs that they were able to use to convince him to stay.

  17. #67
    Savvy Veteran spurraider21's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Post Count
    96,026
    Kobe Bryant making the All Defensive First team 9 times vs. Tim Duncan making it 8 tells you all you need to know. Tim Duncan had 20 rebounds and 10 blocks in Finals closeout game for fk sake. Again, just making a point about the bias. Probably big reason why Kwahi weaseled his way outta here.
    And Duncan was MVP, finals MVP, all nba first team and all defensive first team that year

  18. #68
    Veteran RC_Drunkford's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    11,572
    I don’t get the discussion since the Spurs have 9th pick, which is a top 10 pick. That means they can win a le right?

  19. #69
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    I don’t get the discussion since the Spurs have 9th pick, which is a top 10 pick. That means they can win a le right?
    Not to mention they have Collins who was a top-10 pick.

  20. #70
    Work in Progress Fireball's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Post Count
    8,937
    Being the steals leader should have been enough for 2nd team tbh ... I mean how often was the DPoY determined on blocks per game alone? Yes, the Spurs were not good defensively overall but its weird that the media might have used that to not vote for him. One is really screwed in SA when you don't win championships ...

  21. #71
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Post Count
    1,323
    Not to mention they have Collins who was a top-10 pick.
    Jakob was 9

  22. #72
    Machacarredes Chinook's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Post Count
    30,994
    Sure, but 10>9, so Collins gets the shoutout.

  23. #73
    Veteran R. DeMurre's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    3,581
    To look on the bright side a bit, Dejounte finished 12th in the league in voting for defensive abilities. That's still an accomplishment in a league with 150 starters (30x5) and 30 6th men. From that pool of 180 or so players, being 12th is still pretty nice.

  24. #74
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Post Count
    8,351
    Portland ABSOLUTELY went into the ter, kept Dame inactive, Kept Nurk inactive when he was ready, played 50% gleague teams nearly every night, fell all the way to the six spot, and will pick seventh.
    Oklahoma did pretty good for tanking another season

  25. #75
    Veteran RC_Drunkford's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Post Count
    11,572
    damn we gonna have 3 top 10 picks on the team to start the next season. We should be the favorites to win the chip

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
  •