Notice Sixers model is not only one to benchmark for success

[Hoopguru]

unless you want to sell your soul and fans out, for a long haul.
They've been 500 or better 4 times in the last 14 years (counting this season).
All this hog wash about modeling and taking on their approach is utter hog wash! With no guarantees!
Then there is Minnie!

 

[Propagandist]

If you were offered a roster switch, would you partake?

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

unless you want to sell your soul and fans out, for a long haul.
They've been 500 or better 4 times in the last 14 years (counting this season).
All this hog wash about modeling and taking on their approach is utter hog wash! With no guarantees!
Then there is Minnie!

Shouldn’t we wait a few years and see if they win a championship? If they win a couple then teams will definitely try to figure out how they did and how to speed up the process.

 

[Hoopguru]

If you were offered a roster switch, would you partake?

not sure I understand? Would I trade Sixers now for the current Blazers? Ask me that at the end of next year! lol

 

[CupWizier]

Shouldn’t we wait a few years and see if they win a championship? If they win a couple then teams will definitely try to figure out how they did and how to speed up the process.

It would be near impossible to duplicate their method as 4 years they have drafted players that missed most if not all of the first season. Any of those players being healthy out of the gate would have made them better and thus not getting a high lottery pick over and over again.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

It would be near impossible to duplicate their method as 4 years they have drafted players that missed most if not all of the first season. Any of those players being healthy out of the gate would have made them better and thus not getting a high lottery pick over and over again.

It’s pretty much impossible to copy any body’s method, doesn’t stop teams from trying.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I get what you guys are saying but who should teams model after? The spurs? Where you have your best player get hurt get the number one pick and it happens to be the year one of the top 3 PF’s of all time comes out. The Bulls? Where you draft Jordan and we’ll he’s freaking Jordan (hey the Blazers could’ve done this one). Cleveland where one the NBA gives them the #1 pick in a year where the hometown kids already playing on ESPN (of course they wasted it, he left for Miami and then came back after they got a couple other #1 picks). How about GS where they drafted maybe the best shooting back court of all time?
I guess my point is you can try to emulate another team as much as you want , whether it’s philly or someone else but it will be almost impossible to do it.

 

[CupWizier]

Not sure how you can stash 4 separate high picks 4 years in a row though.They will also be coming up for new contracts soon so the task becomes even tougher.

 

[Propagandist]

not sure I understand? Would I trade Sixers now for the current Blazers? Ask me that at the end of next year! lol

I'd much prefer being bad with young promising talent and having the potential of better days, than being mediocre and completely mismanaged with a massive payroll of players that for the most part nobody wants, heading slowly for being bad with young promising talent......

 

[Hoopguru]

Shouldn’t we wait a few years and see if they win a championship? If they win a couple then teams will definitely try to figure out how they did and how to speed up the process.

What did they do to earn or deserve the team they have built?

I'd much prefer being bad with young promising talent and having the potential of better days, than being mediocre and completely mismanaged with a massive payroll of players that for the most part nobody wants, heading slowly for being bad with young promising talent......

So you would tank for how many years it took you to get a contender? If you were winning 20-30 games a year for 5 six years or however long, you would be even more sour if all you got in the end, was mediocrity. I'd much rather build with the idea to improve each year and compete to win each game with the cards your dealt. To purposely tank is a disgrace to competition and those teams that do so should be penalized, plus I think karma will have its why with teams like Philly. Would surprise me to see them implode in a couple years.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

What did they do to earn or deserve the team they have built?

So you would tank for how many years it took you to get a contender? If you were winning 20-30 games a year for 5 six years or however long, you would be even more sour if all you got in the end, was mediocrity. I'd much rather build with the idea to improve each year and compete to win each game with the cards your dealt. To purposely tank is a disgrace to competition and those teams that do so should be penalized, plus I think karma will have its why with teams like Philly. Would surprise me to see them implode in a couple years.

Well the fans had to sit through a decade of being the Joke.
Who knows if they implode or not, but I think there is real truth to you can be perpetually mediocre in the NBA, and you can choose to be really aggressive to try to get better (might fail), decide to blow things up (might make you just perpetually bad), or just keep plugging away and hope one of those downish years nets you a good lottery number or you just get Tony Parker in the draft. I don't really fault teams like ATL who had a really strong season and got steam-rolled, when they say hey our best chance is to just get young, and see what kind of players we can find in the draft, because what we have just isn't good enough. I see it as losing some battles (a few seasons) in hope you can win the war someday.

 

[Propagandist]

What did they do to earn or deserve the team they have built?

So you would tank for how many years it took you to get a contender? If you were winning 20-30 games a year for 5 six years or however long, you would be even more sour if all you got in the end, was mediocrity. I'd much rather build with the idea to improve each year and compete to win each game with the cards your dealt. To purposely tank is a disgrace to competition and those teams that do so should be penalized, plus I think karma will have its why with teams like Philly. Would surprise me to see them implode in a couple years.

"Tanking" should be the prerogative of the GM. I think Philly was anomalous because guys kept getting injured. But while tanking seems to be against the spirit of things, fielding a young team is not a bad thing. Fans can and should get behind a team of young players that aren't going to win but are going to learn together, and if all goes well, grow. Dallas did this this season, sitting Dirk in the second half of games and shutting a couple of guys down. Why on Earth would they do otherwise, risking injury and an opportunity for growth of the younger guys?

Anyhow, I think Philly will be fine. They have a lot of options and talent.

By not facing the music, the Blazers aren't getting lottery picks and as guys come up for contract, are now faced with a worst case scenario scenario in which you have a so-so squad that is going to be very very expensive, and virtually no developing talent. Philly might've cheated the system with good and bad luck, the Blazers avoiding taking advantage of it and now we are fucked.

 

[BonesJones]

unless you want to sell your soul and fans out, for a long haul.
They've been 500 or better 4 times in the last 14 years (counting this season).
All this hog wash about modeling and taking on their approach is utter hog wash! With no guarantees!
Then there is Minnie!

They've won just as many playoff series in the past 14 years as we have though.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

@Hoopguru
I hear what you’re saying, I also think it’s a bit unique right now. I think KD moving to GS made the gap so big there’s a good third of the league that just up and quit.
For the most in the history of NBA, usually you get lucky and draft a couple guys who are good and all of a sudden you can compete for championships, it literally feels like you need 3 stars to be in Golden State stratosphere, which I think has a lot of teams going well crap we can’t do that, and we can’t land guys in FA, so there’s a lot of teams that seem to just be taking the go “young” route because they want to be there when GS gets old.
Does it make the NBA kind of bad? Yes!
However I also get why teams are in the mode of just stock pile as many young guys as possible and see if you can get any of them to pop.

 

[Hoopguru]

They've won just as many playoff series in the past 14 years as we have though.

So you like their approach to success?
Thats cool, everyone has their own opinion on things NBA.
The NBA is as segmented as all markets with shitty, good, better, best.
Up to this year Philly has been shitty for many years, and Id say PDX has been somewhere between good & better.
And they do have some nice young talent, whats wrong with having two guys like Collins and Nurk to compliment CJ & Dame?

 

[UKRAINEFAN]

not sure I understand? Would I trade Sixers now for the current Blazers? Ask me that at the end of next year! lol

I don't think I would need to wait until the end of the year and it wouldn't be a difficult decision. Not saying it was worth what they did, but they are definitely lined up for future success better than us.

 

[Lanny]

They've won just as many playoff series in the past 14 years as we have though.

That's a pretty slim stat.

 

[Hoopguru]

I don't think I would need to wait until the end of the year and it wouldn't be a difficult decision. Not saying it was worth what they did, but they are definitely lined up for future success better than us.

yeah they look good going forward but

I don't think I would need to wait until the end of the year and it wouldn't be a difficult decision. Not saying it was worth what they did, but they are definitely lined up for future success better than us.

The reason I said wait to end of next year is if Collins and Nurkic ramp it up, we aint to shabby!
Their two youngsters look like long term stars but they both have weakness in their games too.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

yeah they look good going forward but

The reason I said wait to end of next year is if Collins and Nurkic ramp it up, we aint to shabby!
Their two youngsters look like long term stars but they both have weakness in their games too.

I am kind of cold on Collins, sure he has shown flashes but he’s still a huge project to me, Everytime I see things about the rookies of this last season I never see Zach even mentioned, I see the other Collins listed.

 

[Hoopguru]

I am kind of cold on Collins, sure he has shown flashes but he’s still a huge project to me, Everytime I see things about the rookies of this last season I never see Zach even mentioned, I see the other Collins listed.

I get ya.
I think the way he was playing towards the end of the season after getting consistent pt, was a sound barometer of his potential and skills. For big guys 1 and done it can take a couple years.
His determination, heart, intellect, & skills are what tells me he can make the leap to a starter down the road.

 

[TorturedBlazerFan]

I get ya.
I think the way he was playing towards the end of the season after getting consistent pt, was a sound barometer of his potential and skills. For big guys 1 and done it can take a couple years.
His determination, heart, intellect, & skills are what tells me he can make the leap to a starter down the road.

Yeah, I hope he works hard, cause like I said there are some flashes there and he seems to have that natural bbiq. Just kind of a wait and see approach for me.

 

[e_blazer]

Yeah, I hope he works hard, cause like I said there are some flashes there and he seems to have that natural bbiq. Just kind of a wait and see approach for me.

I’m pretty bullish on Zach’s future. This article gives a pretty good summary of his season and plans for the summer:

https://www.google.com/amp/www.spok...-zach-collins-makes-impact-a/?amp-content=amp

 

[Reep]

I am a believer in their system, although acknowledge that there is a bit of luck required in the lottery.

Here is how I would do it:

1) until you are able to draft a potential game changer, you draft project big men and very young, high risk high reward players;
2) you develop those players, and lose, until you finally get a shot at your game changer (Tatum, Simmons, etc.).
3) once you draft your game changer, then you are on a short window and maybe get one more decent draft pick;
4) along the way, make sure not to get locked into big contracts or any that carry you beyond your game changer's second season;
5) after game changers second or third season, when the team is winning, then you use your cap space to add in big talent ring chasers.

 

[e_blazer]

I am a believer in their system, although acknowledge that there is a bit of luck required in the lottery.

Here is how I would do it:

1) until you are able to draft a potential game changer, you draft project big men and very young, high risk high reward players;
2) you develop those players, and lose, until you finally get a shot at your game changer (Tatum, Simmons, etc.).
3) once you draft your game changer, then you are on a short window and maybe get one more decent draft pick;
4) along the way, make sure not to get locked into big contracts or any that carry you beyond your game changer's second season;
5) after game changers second or third season, when the team is winning, then you use your cap space to add in big talent ring chasers.

How does that differ from what The TWolves have done? So far their supposed game changers (Wiggins and KAT) haven’t changed much, and now KAT is making noise about wanting to be traded.

No matter the “system”, it still takes luck.

 

[Wizard Mentor]

I get what you guys are saying but who should teams model after? The spurs? Where you have your best player get hurt get the number one pick and it happens to be the year one of the top 3 PF’s of all time comes out. The Bulls? Where you draft Jordan and we’ll he’s freaking Jordan (hey the Blazers could’ve done this one). Cleveland where one the NBA gives them the #1 pick in a year where the hometown kids already playing on ESPN (of course they wasted it, he left for Miami and then came back after they got a couple other #1 picks). How about GS where they drafted maybe the best shooting back court of all time?
I guess my point is you can try to emulate another team as much as you want , whether it’s philly or someone else but it will be almost impossible to do it.

This.
If you want to succeed in this league, you need a LOT of luck. The Blazers were VERY lucky, getting the #1 overall pick in a draft with a once-in-a-generation center, drafting the best player in a draft with the 6th pick, getting the Bulls to take our previous pick in the 20s to move up to #2 to snag a multiple allstar. I wasn't dreaming of a championship, I was dreaming of a dynasty. Unfortunately, our luck ran out when Oden's knees disintegrated, Roy's injuries destroyed him, and that multiple allstar said he wanted to stay, then left.

More to the point, I think it is reasonable to model your organization like the Spurs or Warriors or whoever, but at the end of the day you need a lot of luck.

 

[Reep]

How does that differ from what The TWolves have done? So far their supposed game changers (Wiggins and KAT) haven’t changed much, and now KAT is making noise about wanting to be traded.

No matter the “system”, it still takes luck.

Wiggins was a poor draft pick. Let's assume KAT is their game changer. They probably should have waited another year or so after KAT was drafted before picking up someone like Butler and Teague. By my logic, they would have drafted Embiid, then next year drafted KAT, likely trade one for a high value player, but still suck, possibly could have had a better lottery shot at Simmons, if not then let KAT and/or Embiid develop, then one year before KAT's final rookie contract year try and fill in the holes. Signing Butler and Teague rushed the build so they are now locked in with that lineup.

 

[e_blazer]

Wiggins was a poor draft pick. Let's assume KAT is their game changer. They probably should have waited another year or so after KAT was drafted before picking up someone like Butler and Teague. By my logic, they would have drafted Embiid, then next year drafted KAT, likely trade one for a high value player, but still suck, possibly could have had a better lottery shot at Simmons, if not then let KAT and/or Embiid develop, then one year before KAT's final rookie contract year try and fill in the holes. Signing Butler and Teague rushed the build so they are now locked in with that lineup.

Wait, I don't buy that you get to play the "Wiggins was a poor draft pick" card and use that as a reason to re-write history to support your team-building theory. Going into the 2014 draft the prevailing discussion was that it was going to be a top draft class. Wiggins was the consensus number one pick, primarily because people thought he was going to be great and because Embiid was injured and going to miss his first season. Even as late as November of 2016, SI was writing that the top-3 picks were panning out as being worth the pre-draft hype: https://www.si.com/nba/2016/11/23/a...rker-joel-embiid-nba-draft-wolves-76ers-bucks. I'd say at this point that Wiggins looks to be good, but not a franchise-level talent. Maybe he gets there, but a 13.0 PER last season isn't really encouraging.

Playing draft roulette is always going to be risky. Your model is good as far as it goes, but you have to accept that there are going to guys like Wiggins and Oden who look like sure things but aren't.

 

[Reep]

Wait, I don't buy that you get to play the "Wiggins was a poor draft pick" card and use that as a reason to re-write history to support your team-building theory. Going into the 2014 draft the prevailing discussion was that it was going to be a top draft class. Wiggins was the consensus number one pick, primarily because people thought he was going to be great and because Embiid was injured and going to miss his first season. Even as late as November of 2016, SI was writing that the top-3 picks were panning out as being worth the pre-draft hype: https://www.si.com/nba/2016/11/23/a...rker-joel-embiid-nba-draft-wolves-76ers-bucks. I'd say at this point that Wiggins looks to be good, but not a franchise-level talent. Maybe he gets there, but a 13.0 PER last season isn't really encouraging.

Playing draft roulette is always going to be risky. Your model is good as far as it goes, but you have to accept that there are going to guys like Wiggins and Oden who look like sure things but aren't.

I'm not saying I would have done it perfect in hindsight. I am saying there was a path forward that would have put the tpups in a better place had they seen it. Yes, Wiggins not being what people thought, and Towns dominating sooner hurt their window. But, I would have suggested they wait another year before adding pieces like Butler and Teague. That is the main point. Adding the vets as early as they did ended their draft pick acquisition window too early and left them with no quite enough talent to compete.

Even if they took Wiggins, without adding vets and playing to develop rather than win, they might have had a shot at Simmons or Ingram. Certainly in 2017 they would have had one of Tatum, Fox, Collins or Mitchell. And, if they developed rather than win, they would likely have a good lottery pick this year.

 

[Propagandist]

Wait, I don't buy that you get to play the "Wiggins was a poor draft pick" card and use that as a reason to re-write history to support your team-building theory. Going into the 2014 draft the prevailing discussion was that it was going to be a top draft class. Wiggins was the consensus number one pick, primarily because people thought he was going to be great and because Embiid was injured and going to miss his first season. Even as late as November of 2016, SI was writing that the top-3 picks were panning out as being worth the pre-draft hype: https://www.si.com/nba/2016/11/23/a...rker-joel-embiid-nba-draft-wolves-76ers-bucks. I'd say at this point that Wiggins looks to be good, but not a franchise-level talent. Maybe he gets there, but a 13.0 PER last season isn't really encouraging.

Playing draft roulette is always going to be risky. Your model is good as far as it goes, but you have to accept that there are going to guys like Wiggins and Oden who look like sure things but aren't.

Once this line of discussion started, I knew Greg was going to come up...still. feel. pain.