Jason Quick "deal for Harris very real"

[blazerboy30]

Kobe, Duncan, Rondo, Wade, Jordan, Hakeem....

As mentioned, Kobe wasn't drafted by the Lakers.

San Antonio was a strange scenario when they got Duncan. They already had an established once-a-decade type player in Robinson, he just happened to be injured at the right time.

Rondo was definitely not largely responsible for the Celtics winning their title. He was the fourth best player on the team.

Wade was drafted by the Heat, true. They also had a once-in-a-lifetime dominate player named Shaq.

basically every title in the past two decades.

Except, not. Additionally, going back to Jordan and Hakeem is almost 3 decades. So your list consists of 3 examples out of 3 decades. Not a very compelling argument.

 

[PapaG]

I have to go with the best player on that team, not the guy who won the MVP award for one series.

Well, according to the voters, Pierce was the player most responsible for actually winning the NBA title. I thought the question pertained to winning NBA titles?

 

[B-Roy]

The difference is, it took a trade (and also a demand from the player). The value of such a situation to the general question of drafting for success seems limited. Are you saying that most teams can get a prized prospect to insist on being dealt there?

Draft trades happen all the time. Roy, Love, Mayo etc. As long as that player plays for said team from day one, I count it. Plus, it's not like the Lakers got Kobe for a cookie. Divac was actually a solid player at the time, and there's no guarantee a "prized prospect" turns into a good player.

 

[Minstrel]

Well, according to the voters, Pierce was the player most responsible for actually winning the NBA title. I thought the question pertained to winning NBA titles?

It does. Winning a title involves winning lots of games, regular season games, playoff games in every round. Garnett was the best player on the Celtics team that did all that. Therefore, he was the most important player to the Celtics' winning a title.

 

[MickZagger]

The difference is, it took a trade (and also a demand from the player). The value of such a situation to the general question of drafting for success seems limited. Are you saying that most teams can get a prized prospect to insist on being dealt there?

With that logic, the Blazers never drafted Aldridge or Roy. We should be giving KP credit for Tyrus Thomas and Randy Foye instead.

Jerry Krause can't take credit for Pippen either.

Trading a player before they ever step foot on a court is essentially drafting a player, especially in the context of this discussion.

 

[B-Roy]

San Antonio was a strange scenario when they got Duncan. They already had an established once-a-decade type player in Robinson, he just happened to be injured at the right time.

You're not exactly helping your argument. If we want to open this discussion up to "players that turn their team into contenders", then there's even more evidence for building through the draft. Guys like Robinson, Dwight Howard, LeBron James...etc. As mentioned before, the NBA is so dominated by a few teams, you end up overlooking once in a decade players just because they came close, but didn't actually win the title.

Rondo was definitely not largely responsible for the Celtics winning their title. He was the fourth best player on the team.

Fair enough, but he's kept their team in contender status with the big 3 aging.

Wade was drafted by the Heat, true. They also had a once-in-a-lifetime dominate player named Shaq.

Wade was the best player. Besides, the Heat only won one Championship in that time. The rest went to the Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, etc..

Except, not. Additionally, going back to Jordan and Hakeem is almost 3 decades. So your list consists of 3 examples out of 3 decades. Not a very compelling argument.

Except, yes. Jordon and Hakeem were drafted in the 80s, but won titles in the 90s. If you want to argue this point, you're just being stupid.

 

[Minstrel]

Draft trades happen all the time. Roy, Love, Mayo etc. As long as that player plays for said team from day one, I count it. Plus, it's not like the Lakers got Kobe for a cookie. Divac was actually a solid player at the time, and there's no guarantee a "prized prospect" turns into a good player.

But when you're trading an actual asset, you're making a trade. In other words, you had to engineer a deal, not just draft well. What's the difference between trading for a rookie and trading for a second year player?

In addition, Kobe demanding his way into LA pretty much makes that example impossible to use for the general case. I also don't give Denver credit for "drafting" John Elway, because they didn't. The Colts did and Elway demanded a trade. LA (and Denver) couldn't have drafted those players, without the demand, because they wouldn't have dropped and neither team wanted to trade the pick or player (unlike Boston wanting to trade the pick the Blazers used for Roy). So there's a pretty big difference.

 

[PapaG]

It does. Winning a title involves winning lots of games, regular season games, playoff games in every round. Garnett was the best player on the Celtics team that did all that. Therefore, he was the most important player to the Celtics' winning a title.

Garnett was the most important player in getting the Celtics to the Finals. Pierce was the most important player in the actual winning of the title. No title, none of this matters in the context of this thread.

 

[Minstrel]

With that logic, the Blazers never drafted Aldridge or Roy. We should be giving KP credit for Tyrus Thomas and Randy Foye instead.

Jerry Krause can't take credit for Pippen either.

Of course KP can take credit for Roy and Aldridge, and Krause can take credit for Pippen.

Because Pritchard and Krause traded for them. They get credit for amazing trades.

 

[Minstrel]

Pierce was the most important player in the actual winning of the title.

Even if we pretend award voting dictates reality, which is a pretty silly claim, that still doesn't wash. Garnett still played the Finals and was a big reason why they won that Finals series. So when you combine Garnett's importance in "getting them there" and his importance in winning that series, he still comes out as the most important player on that title team.

 

[B-Roy]

But when you're trading an actual asset, you're making a trade. In other words, you had to engineer a deal, not just draft well. What's the difference between trading for a rookie and trading for a second year player?

It's both. Trading for a rookie is targeting a player that hasn't shown anything yet, but you believe will turn out to be a good player. It's the same logic used when "drafting" a player.

 

[Minstrel]

It's both. Trading for a rookie is targeting a player that hasn't shown anything yet, but you believe will turn out to be a good player. It's the same logic used when "drafting" a player.

As far as I'm concerned, once you have to put assets together to make a deal with another GM, you've moved out of the realm of simply drafting. I'm fine with it being "both," but "both" is different from simply drafting a star.

 

[STOMP]

Boston gutted everything except Pierce to get Allen and KG. Depending on what's out there, the Blazers can do the same thing and keep Aldridge.

they can? What team is going to take Roy with the 73M over 4 he's due after this season? Is this an example of the sort of well thought out personnel moves you were alluding to? How cute...

STOMP

 

[blazerboy30]

You're not exactly helping your argument. If we want to open this discussion up to "players that turn their team into contenders", then there's even more evidence for building through the draft. Guys like Robinson, Dwight Howard, LeBron James...etc. As mentioned before, the NBA is so dominated by a few teams, you end up overlooking once in a decade players just because they came close, but didn't actually win the title.

I didn't change the discussion to "being a contender". Not sure why you're bringing up Lebron, Dwight, etc. Stay on-topic please.

My point was they were lucky enough to add Duncan to a once-in-a-decade center named Robinson. We don't have one of those, so the Duncan example is irrelevant.

Fair enough, but he's kept their team in contender status with the big 3 aging.

Stay on topic please, or start a new thread if you like.

Wade was the best player. Besides, the Heat only won one Championship in that time. The rest went to the Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, etc..

We don't have a once-in-a-lifetime dominating player named Shaq. Put Wade on this Blazers squad and we still don't win a title.

Except, yes. Jordon and Hakeem were drafted in the 80s, but won titles in the 90s.

Yes, 80's, 90's and 2000's. That is three decades of drafts... just like I said. And you came up with three valid examples over 30 years. Nice work.

If you want to argue this point, you're just being stupid.

And you're being a neener-head. Name-calling is so fun.

 

[PapaG]

But when you're trading an actual asset, you're making a trade. In other words, you had to engineer a deal, not just draft well. What's the difference between trading for a rookie and trading for a second year player?

In addition, Kobe demanding his way into LA pretty much makes that example impossible to use for the general case. I also don't give Denver credit for "drafting" John Elway, because they didn't. The Colts did and Elway demanded a trade. LA (and Denver) couldn't have drafted those players, without the demand, because they wouldn't have dropped and neither team wanted to trade the pick or player (unlike Boston wanting to trade the pick the Blazers used for Roy). So there's a pretty big difference.

Comparing the John Elway trade to the Kobe Bryant trade is laughable. Baltimore did not draft Elway with a trade in mind. The Hornets drafted Bryant for the Lakers. The Divac trade was already agree to at the time.

"The deal was actually done a day ahead of time, and it was Vlade for a player to be named," said Bill Branch, the Hornets' head scout at the time who still operates out of Charlotte as a scout for the Seattle-now-Oklahoma City Sonics. "If I remember right, they didn't even tell us who they wanted us to pick until about five minutes before the pick was made. So it was never a matter of us actually drafting Kobe."

The trade was more about the Lakers' pursuit of Shaquille O'Neal in free agency and the Hornets' need to acquire a center than it was about Bryant.

I suggest you read the entire article, because you seem confused on Bryant's "demands" and how the led him to the Lakers.

http://www2.journalnow.com/sports/2...e-for-bryant-has-been-misconstrued-ar-113126/

 

[PapaG]

Even if we pretend award voting dictates reality, which is a pretty silly claim, that still doesn't wash. Garnett still played the Finals and was a big reason why they won that Finals series. So when you combine Garnett's importance in "getting them there" and his importance in winning that series, he still comes out as the most important player on that title team.

So was Pierce. The biggest reason, if you will. Rondo also played very well in the Finals.

Anyhow, this is a silly debate that really has no wrong or right answers. Boston won, and a player they drafted was Finals MVP. Seems like a good draft pick to me.

 

[B-Roy]

I didn't change the discussion to "being a contender". Not sure why you're bringing up Lebron, Dwight, etc. Stay on-topic please.

My point was they were lucky enough to add Duncan to a once-in-a-decade center named Robinson. We don't have one of those, so the Duncan example is irrelevant.

Except Robinson wasn't even that good by then. And the Spurs were still relevant (and won titles) after Robinson retired. What happens then?

Stay on topic please, or start a new thread if you like.
We don't have a once-in-a-lifetime dominating player named Shaq. Put Wade on this Blazers squad and we still don't win a title.
Yes, 80's, 90's and 2000's. That is three decades of drafts... just like I said. And you came up with three valid examples over 30 years. Nice work.
And you're being a neener-head. Name-calling is so fun.

What's your point, no team can win with one player? I thought you actually had an argument, but now I see that you're just arguing semantics. Have fun.

 

[B-Roy]

they can? What team is going to take Roy with the 73M over 4 he's due after this season? Is this an example of the sort of well thought out personnel moves you were alluding to? How cute...

STOMP

Gee, I wonder what team was willing to pay Darko 20 million over 4 years? What team was willing to trade for Hedo's 50/5....twice?

Just because you think something looks impossible, doesn't mean it is. You're not part of any teams front office, so it's probably better you don't answer for them.

 

[blazerboy30]

Except Robinson wasn't even that good by then. And the Spurs were still relevant (and won titles) after Robinson retired. What happens then?

HAHA! Wow.

25 / 12 / 3.3
28 / 11 / 3.2
30 / 11 / 3.3

Those were Robinson's season averages for pts / rbs / blks the three seasons before Duncan was drafted.

Learn the game, then post.

 

[Minstrel]

Comparing the John Elway trade to the Kobe Bryant trade is laughable. Baltimore did not draft Elway with a trade in mind. The Hornets drafted Bryant for the Lakers. The Divac trade was already agree to at the time.



I suggest you read the entire article, because you seem confused on Bryant's "demands" and how the led him to the Lakers.

http://www2.journalnow.com/sports/2...e-for-bryant-has-been-misconstrued-ar-113126/

You're right. I didn't know that the Hornets had made the trade the day before the draft. I remembered Kobe's agent Arn Tellum, after the Hornets drafted him, saying "Kobe playing in Charlotte is an impossibility."

Thanks for the information.

I retract the "Kobe trade demand" issue, but I still don't think it counts as LA simply drafting Kobe. Once a trade is involved, as I said to B-Roy, it is no longer simply making a draft pick.

 

[STOMP]

Draft trades happen all the time. Roy, Love, Mayo etc. As long as that player plays for said team from day one, I count it. Plus, it's not like the Lakers got Kobe for a cookie. Divac was actually a solid player at the time, and there's no guarantee a "prized prospect" turns into a good player.

the Lakers got Kobe because he power played his way onto their team. Through his agent he threatened that if any team besides the Lakers held his rights after draft day he would enroll at UNC where he'd been admitted. I heard an interview with NBA scouting director Marty Blake say this prior to that draft in an interview. After the draft multiple GM's relayed the same story including Calipari of the Nets and Twardzic of the Warriors + legendary coach Dean Smith of the Tarheels.

the NBA changed the rules regarding players declaring for the draft to prevent this from happening again

STOMP

 

[RR7]

How is Duncan irrelevant? He won titles for SA with two other players they drafted. Parker and Manu. So he's entirely relevant. Plus, your question was who was drafted by a team and was "largely responsible" for a title. Yeah, Shaq helped. Wade was "largely responsible" for his team winning that title. To say otherwise is stupid at best. Jordan was largely responsible. Duncan largely responsible. Olajuwon. Pierce. And then I guess you're going to say Kobe wasn't drafted by the Lakers. Whatever. So really, it only looks like Detroit recently didn't draft one of the most important pieces to their title team.

 

[Minstrel]

So was Pierce. The biggest reason, if you will.

If we accept award voting as the ultimate arbitor of reality. Which I don't. But as I said, even if we do, Garnett's "best"-ness for all the games prior to the Finals plus his major role in the Finals still makes him more important to their overall title team than Pierce who was merely the "best" in the Finals. In my opinion, anyway.

Anyhow, this is a silly debate that really has no wrong or right answers. Boston won, and a player they drafted was Finals MVP. Seems like a good draft pick to me.

Great draft pick. Especially where they got him in the draft.

 

[THE HCP]

It blows me away that 12 teams passed on Kobe. I wonder why nobody brings the Vlade/Bryant trade up for worst draft day choices!

 

[THE HCP]

Or the Dirk/That big fat black brother from Michigan draft day trade!

 

[PapaG]

HAHA! Wow.

25 / 12 / 3.3
28 / 11 / 3.2
30 / 11 / 3.3

Those were Robinson's season averages for pts / rbs / blks the three seasons before Duncan was drafted.

Learn the game, then post.

Not true. Robinson was a 17/8 player in the 6 games he played in the season prior to Duncan being drafted. You completely left that season out of your stats.

Robinson had one more 21/10 season with Duncan as a rookie before dropping off the map as an elite player.

In the Spurs first championship season, Robinson was a 16/10 player. Duncan was a 20/10 player.

Duncan was the franchise player, and Robinson became a very good role player. He then was a non-factor on the Spurs' 2nd title team.

Learn the game, then post.

 

[STOMP]

Gee, I wonder what team was willing to pay Darko 20 million over 4 years? What team was willing to trade for Hedo's 50/5....twice?

those guys are an absolute bargain compared to Roy... arguing otherwise is just plain stupid. Dude is probably the hardest to move player in the league right about now. Besides that, Darko at 5M per is halfway attractive

Just because you think something looks impossible, doesn't mean it is. You're not part of any teams front office, so it's probably better you don't answer for them.

good grief... it's probably better if you don't say anything else as you're being ridiculous

STOMP

 

[ironcrotch]

It blows me away that 12 teams passed on Kobe. I wonder why nobody brings the Vlade/Bryant trade up for worst draft day choices!

I remember watching that draft and Kobe forced the trade to LA. Said he wouldn't play for Charlotte IIRC.

 

[STOMP]

It blows me away that 12 teams passed on Kobe. I wonder why nobody brings the Vlade/Bryant trade up for worst draft day choices!

see my post 3 before yours

STOMP

 

[PapaG]

the Lakers got Kobe because he power played his way onto their team. Through his agent he threatened that if any team besides the Lakers held his rights after draft day he would enroll at UNC where he'd been admitted. I heard an interview with NBA scouting director Marty Blake say this prior to that draft in an interview. After the draft multiple GM's relayed the same story including Calipari of the Nets and Twardzic of the Warriors + legendary coach Dean Smith of the Tarheels.

the NBA changed the rules regarding players declaring for the draft to prevent this from happening again

STOMP

Completely false. Like 100% false. I'll also point out that Kobe was going to play at Duke, not UNC, and that he never applied for admission into the school.

Often times Duke fans wonder if Kobe Bryant had not gone directly to the NBA out of high school if he “maybe” would have attended Duke and been a part of that team.

“There’s no maybe about it,” Bryant says. “Every time I turn on the TV and see Cameron Indoor Stadium, see everybody in Krzyzewskiville and see the Crazies jumping up in down with the intensity and the building almost shaking, I wonder what it would have been like to play there with Corey [Maggette] and Elton [Brand] and all those guys."

http://www.goduke.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=4200&ATCLID=1153901