Exclusive Playoffs or Lottery?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Pinwheel1 said:
Better than winning 67 games AND drafting a good player?

Bottom line for me is that when the draft is dominated by freshmen, (and international) the separation between pick 15 and pick 5 gets smaller. And as for the top of the draft....is Fultz another D'Angelo Russell? I am not sure I want to turn my team over to him.
Click to expand...
When we start winning 67 games a year and contending for a title, I'll be right there with you. Until then, let's get those high lottery picks like Duncan to get us to those levels.
 
Mediocre Man said:
When we start winning 67 games a year and contending for a title, I'll be right there with you. Until then, let's get those high lottery picks like Duncan to get us to those levels.
Click to expand...

Too bad a a Tim Duncan does not come around every year. Or maybe we are lucky they don't, otherwise the Laker's tanking strategy might have worked.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Too bad a a Tim Duncan does not come around every year. Or maybe we are lucky they don't, otherwise the Laker's tanking strategy might have worked.
Click to expand...
It did work. Ingram looks good. Russell was a dumb puck, but that's not the strategies fault. Randle was a good pick. Our best players were both lottery picks. Our best before them were lottery picks
 
Mediocre Man said:
It did work. Ingram looks good. Russell was a dumb puck, but that's not the strategies fault. Randle was a good pick. Our best players were both lottery picks. Our best before them were lottery picks
Click to expand...

Until they are legitimate contenders......it hasn't worked. Isn't that what we all judge our team on? The players the Lakers got are fine, but it just shows you how long the process is. And they are the Los Angeles Lakers. One of the most storied franchises in sports. They have an extra advantage in the fact that big name free agents will sign there and eventually bail them out. We do not have that luxury. But to say the process has worked for them is very premature IMO. Only Ingram is a needle mover. The others could have been acquired through different means.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Until they are legitimate contenders......it hasn't worked. Isn't that what we all judge our team on? The players the Lakers got are fine, but it just shows you how long the process is. And they are the Los Angeles Lakers. One of the most storied franchises in sports. They have an extra advantage in the fact that big name free agents will sign there and eventually bail them out. We do not have that luxury. But to say the process has worked for them is very premature IMO. Only Ingram is a needle mover. The others could have been acquired through different means.
Click to expand...
Isn't our strategy taking just as long? Last time we won was the 70's with number 1 overall pick Walton.

As for FA's, with Dr Buss gone, they aren't drawing whoever they want.

Dame and CJ made us competitive again. Before that it was Aldridge and the former Timberwolf. What do they all have in common? Lottery picks. The strategy worked. Oden healthy or honking twice probably earns us trips to the finals. Olshey is basically implementing the Whitsitt plan, only he has to deal with a salary cap, so his players aren't going to be as good.....for the most part.
 
Mediocre Man said:
Isn't our strategy taking just as long? Last time we won was the 70's with number 1 overall pick Walton.

As for FA's, with Dr Buss gone, they aren't drawing whoever they want.

Dame and CJ made us competitive again. Before that it was Aldridge and the former Timberwolf. What do they all have in common? Lottery picks. The strategy worked. Oden healthy or honking twice probably earns us trips to the finals. Olshey is basically implementing the Whitsitt plan, only he has to deal with a salary cap, so his players aren't going to be as good.....for the most part.
Click to expand...

True the strategy the Blazers are taking is not quicker, but for most of us.... it is more fun to watch. But I think we are getting off track. My comments in this thread were about which spot do we want to end up in the draft. (Barely making the playoffs or drop lower in the lottery) And I am not sure it makes a difference. I have always agreed that we need to build through the draft, but the draft is changing and I think one can argue that with all the young freshmen who are projected to enter, the finished project is becoming harder and harder to project. Walton, Dame, Cj, and Broy all played 4 years of college. All good picks because you knew they were solid players. But now when you look at the D' Angelo Russell's of the world who many on this board said would be a super star....it's not as clear cut. Hell ET was the 2nd pick in the draft. I do believe Alonzo Ball is one player who could be a special player, but we are not even sure he will enter the draft. He might want to wait so he can play with his brother next year at UCLA. Who else is out there?
 
Pinwheel1 said:
My comments in this thread were about which spot do we want to end up in the draft. (Barely making the playoffs or drop lower in the lottery) And I am not sure it makes a difference.
Click to expand...
The difference is the value that the pick has. You can use the pick in two different ways - (1) draft a player, or (2) trade the pick. In the scenario where you trade the pick you're going to get a better return on a #5 pick than a #15 pick. And in the scenario where you draft a player, if you have good talent evaluation you should end up with a better player - we know this doesn't always work, but it's the one area that Olshey is fairly competent.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
the draft is changing and I think one can argue that with all the young freshmen who are projected to enter, the finished project is becoming harder and harder to project. Walton, Dame, Cj, and Broy all played 4 years of college. All good picks because you knew they were solid players.
Click to expand...

That's slightly revisionist. Dame and Brandon were thought by many, if not most, to have limited room for further improvement and picked too high.

I doubt draft misses were any less common back before the one-and-dones and straight-from-high-schools.

It's a gamble at every slot, but the averages pretty strongly suggest you want to be in the top-8 for a good shot at an impact player. The higher up you are, the better the odds of getting it right. If there were a good way to measure the outcome of a pick, I'd bet you see a pretty strong correlation between draft number and success rate.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
True the strategy the Blazers are taking is not quicker, but for most of us.... it is more fun to watch. But I think we are getting off track. My comments in this thread were about which spot do we want to end up in the draft. (Barely making the playoffs or drop lower in the lottery) And I am not sure it makes a difference. I have always agreed that we need to build through the draft, but the draft is changing and I think one can argue that with all the young freshmen who are projected to enter, the finished project is becoming harder and harder to project. Walton, Dame, Cj, and Broy all played 4 years of college. All good picks because you knew they were solid players. But now when you look at the D' Angelo Russell's of the world who many on this board said would be a super star....it's not as clear cut. Hell ET was the 2nd pick in the draft. I do believe Alonzo Ball is one player who could be a special player, but we are not even sure he will enter the draft. He might want to wait so he can play with his brother next year at UCLA. Who else is out there?
Click to expand...
First off. Watching a team, knowing full well they have no chance of winning with their strategy, is awful to me.

Secondly, it's always better to have a higher pick. It gives you the opportunity to draft more people.
 
Mediocre Man said:
First off. Watching a team, knowing full well they have no chance of winning with their strategy, is awful to me.
Click to expand...

This. I would much rather see the team develop guy who could potentially help get to the ring and be in the lottery, then to watch a team wallow around .500 and get first round exits year after year. It is really hard for me to get excited about this teams very good offense when you know they are just going to give it back on the other end.
 
Mediocre Man said:
First off. Watching a team, knowing full well they have no chance of winning with their strategy, is awful to me.

Secondly, it's always better to have a higher pick. It gives you the opportunity to draft more people.
Click to expand...

That is why I specifically made sure I wrote "for most of us". I know you and a few others claim you would rather watch a total rebuild. And that is fine. But for most fans, being one of the worst teams in the league gets old after one year. But to each his own.

Secondly, sure in theory a higher pick could bring more opportunities for trades, but unless you get a top pick then I doubt a few spots will bring you much. Plus if we do land a top pick.....isn't your argument to keep that pick in order for the Blazers to get better. Isn't keeping the "higher pick" the better scenario for us...in order to land the next Bill Walton?

When the season is over I admit I will be praying for winning any tiebreakers in order to move ahead of other teams in the draft. Yes the higher the pick the better. But for right now I am not going to worry about if we are 16th or 6th, because the potential for these players is about the same. And that is what the draft is about......guessing on a 19 year old's possible ceiling, and hoping like hell they are dedicated to wroking their ass off to achieve it.
 
BlazerWookee said:
Nice alternative facts there, CNN, lol. When I predict, I always predict to win. I just haven't predicted often enough lately to meet the minimum participation standards.
Click to expand...

Wait, so people can't want the team to lose yet you can't be bothered with saying they will win.

Nice try, WookeeAnne.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
True the strategy the Blazers are taking is not quicker, but for most of us.... it is more fun to watch. But I think we are getting off track. My comments in this thread were about which spot do we want to end up in the draft. (Barely making the playoffs or drop lower in the lottery) And I am not sure it makes a difference. I have always agreed that we need to build through the draft, but the draft is changing and I think one can argue that with all the young freshmen who are projected to enter, the finished project is becoming harder and harder to project. Walton, Dame, Cj, and Broy all played 4 years of college. All good picks because you knew they were solid players. But now when you look at the D' Angelo Russell's of the world who many on this board said would be a super star....it's not as clear cut. Hell ET was the 2nd pick in the draft. I do believe Alonzo Ball is one player who could be a special player, but we are not even sure he will enter the draft. He might want to wait so he can play with his brother next year at UCLA. Who else is out there?
Click to expand...
I think this is the bright line separating most people on this forum into two very distinct camps (and in fandom at large). On the one hand you have a group that wants to cling to this notion of "respectability;" those content with 8th and 7th seeds and middling .500ish records, because they either fear rooting for a team that the media and public at large consider a laughingstock, or they just can't bear to witness the losses. On the other side, you have people that see a championship as the only goal worthy of pursuit; any amount of pain or shit is worth enduring as long as the team seems to be selling some kind of hope -- hope of championship contention, or the hope of landing a star that might some day help them contend.

I don't want to give the impression that it wasn't exciting to watch this team buck the odds in the second half of last year, but I never could shake the feeling that it was just a cheap thrill -- like riding a roller coaster. Carrying the analogy one step further, roller coasters are fine, but I'd rather summit Mt. Everest (or die trying).
 
Nikolokolus said:
I think this is the bright line separating most people on this forum into two very distinct camps (and in fandom at large). On the one hand you have a group that wants to cling to this notion of "respectability;" those content with 8th and 7th seeds and middling .500ish records, because they either fear rooting for a team that the media and public at large consider a laughingstock, or they just can't bear to witness the losses. On the other side, you have people that see a championship as the only goal worthy of pursuit; any amount of pain or shit is worth enduring as long as the team seems to be selling some kind of hope -- hope of championship contention, or the hope of landing a star that might some day help them contend.

I don't want to give the impression that it wasn't exciting to watch this team buck the odds in the second half of last year, but I never could shake the feeling that it was just a cheap thrill -- like riding a roller coaster. Carrying the analogy one step further, roller coasters are fine, but I'd rather summit Mt. Everest (or die trying).
Click to expand...

Or there is the camp that realizes it doesn't matter what we want. The Blazers will do what they do, we just buy the tickets if we halfway approve.
 
The question ends up, how much "shit" do you want in your entertainment for the possibility of even greater entertainment? I fully understand the people who don't want to endure years of unwatchable play just for a chance (and still not even a good one) of a championship. After all, is it really worth getting no entertainment value from the Blazers--when sports is supposed to be one of our entertainment outlets--for an unspecified number of years just to maybe have a title contender for a few years? What ratio would be acceptable? Would 10 years of crap be acceptable for every 3 years of awesome?

I'm not suggesting that there's a good answer, but I definitely don't think people who don't want to tank are doing it wrong. Some people just want to be able to consistently relax and watch a Blazers game and have at least a competitive game. Those people might even have the best sense of perspective about sports. (And I say that as someone who really wants to see the Blazers maximize their title hopes.)
 
Minstrel said:
The question ends up, how much "shit" do you want in your entertainment for the possibility of even greater entertainment? I fully understand the people who don't want to endure years of unwatchable play just for a chance (and still not even a good one) of a championship. After all, is it really worth getting no entertainment value from the Blazers--when sports is supposed to be one of our entertainment outlets--for an unspecified number of years just to maybe have a title contender for a few years? What ratio would be acceptable? Would 10 years of crap be acceptable for every 3 years of awesome?

I'm not suggesting that there's a good answer, but I definitely don't think people who don't want to tank are doing it wrong. Some people just want to be able to consistently relax and watch a Blazers game and have at least a competitive game. Those people might even have the best sense of perspective about sports. (And I say that as someone who really wants to see the Blazers maximize their title hopes.)
Click to expand...

Then for the most part the blazers havent lived up to their end this year.

Last year? Yes. This year, no.
 
Strenuus said:
Then for the most part the blazers havent lived up to their end this year.

Last year? Yes. This year, no.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not saying that the Blazers are currently entertaining. Every team (other than the Spurs) will have times when they just plain suck. But do we want the Blazers to intentionally suck for X amount of years to hopefully bring on a golden period (that may or may not emerge, because lottery picks are fickle and will sometimes die of dysentery or just not pan out)? That's all I was rhetorically asking.
 
Minstrel said:
Yes, I'm not saying that the Blazers are currently entertaining. Every team (other than the Spurs) will have times when they just plain suck. But do we want the Blazers to intentionally suck for X amount of years to hopefully bring on a golden period (that may or may not emerge, because lottery picks are fickle and will sometimes die of dysentery or just not pan out)? That's all I was rhetorically asking.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, I was being snarky. lol.

I'd like to at least watch a competitive team - I've barely seen that this year.
 
Minstrel said:
The question ends up, how much "shit" do you want in your entertainment for the possibility of even greater entertainment? I fully understand the people who don't want to endure years of unwatchable play just for a chance (and still not even a good one) of a championship. After all, is it really worth getting no entertainment value from the Blazers--when sports is supposed to be one of our entertainment outlets--for an unspecified number of years just to maybe have a title contender for a few years? What ratio would be acceptable? Would 10 years of crap be acceptable for every 3 years of awesome?

I'm not suggesting that there's a good answer, but I definitely don't think people who don't want to tank are doing it wrong. Some people just want to be able to consistently relax and watch a Blazers game and have at least a competitive game. Those people might even have the best sense of perspective about sports. (And I say that as someone who really wants to see the Blazers maximize their title hopes.)
Click to expand...

Great post. You bring up some great questions. For me I don't mind sucking for a year or even two, but no longer than that and I am a die hard Blazer fan, as are almost all of us are who hang out on a Blazer message board. But I am pretty certain that the majority of Blazer "fans" in Portland would walk away from a team that took years to rebuild. The Lakers can afford it because they exist in a 20 million person market. But can the Blazers? If hitting rock bottom for several years in order to achieve greatness had a good success rate, then most of us would be all in. But there is no strategy that is better than the other. They both take a long time and neither guarantees anything.
 
Pinwheel1 said:
Great post. You bring up some great questions. For me I don't mind sucking for a year or even two, but no longer than that and I am a die hard Blazer fan, as are almost all of us are who hang out on a Blazer message board. But I am pretty certain that the majority of Blazer "fans" in Portland would walk away from a team that took years to rebuild. The Lakers can afford it because they exist in a 20 million person market. But can the Blazers? If hitting rock bottom for several years in order to achieve greatness had a good success rate, then most of us would be all in. But there is no strategy that is better than the other. They both take a long time and neither guarantees anything.
Click to expand...


I, too, dont mind waiting a year or two... As long as i see hope from it.. I saw hope last year... But this year im not seeing it as much - and thats why its frustrating.
 
I don't mind sucky rosters, but I hate sucky leadership (GM, coach). I can root for a bad team - I actually kinda liked the Z-Bo years. I knew we weren't gonna get many wins, but it was really fun whenever we did pull an upset.

But once it becomes obvious that Mo, Nate, and now Terry (or Nash, Patterson, Pritchard...Olshey?) just aren't doing anything to make the roster better than the sum of its parts then it becomes a lot less fun watching the team spin its wheels until it works up the will to make a needed change.

I'll always be a fan of the pinwheel, but not necessarily of the people who don it.
 
One nice thing.....because of the Cavs recent slide, the pick owed to the Blazers had gone from #28 to #27. :breakdance:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top