So: are we going to be TOO good?

[Orion Bailey]

What were the spurs? Duncan - Parker - Kawhi and a bunch of role players - look at TP and Duncan's stats last year - they haven't been absolute studs, aside from possibly Kawhi. I concede we don't have these players or coaches, but having a BUNCH of COMPETENT role players have been the Spurs calling card since Duncan and Ginobli started their decline; and you could throw TP in there after his eye injury, as well. It's not like Duncan or Parker (even during their championship) were the greatest players on the planet. They were both a shell of there former selves who were surrounded by elite rotation players.

I said that we can package some of our talent for better talent; AND thru WINNING we will be able to land a 'second' or 'third' fiddle quite easily, and maintain our superb depth. Assuming that someone such as Vonleh, Meyers, McCollum, etc doesn't turn into a second or third fiddle.

Obviously you didn't quote my post, so I don't know if you're referencing me or not, but there is a response for you.

And the last thing you wrote, I'd say is one of the most illogical statements I've ever read regarding basketball.if we have young players, we shouldn't be patient with them? Because time won't make them better? Nor will patience? With time and patience comes coaching, which should make a bunch of players who have not yet reached their primes, better. Or else that is a coaching issue. (Just to clarify, the final statement is what I'm attacking, NOT you.)

Sheesh, good thing that memo didn't get to Meyers Leonard or any other player in the NBA who ever improved between seasons.

The patient man prevails, homie.

1o likes

 

[ThugginPaulyGAllen]

If the odds are a 40% chance of drafting an All-Star in the top five of the draft and all this team has to do is endure a season or two of real bonch-kissing suckiness vs. the almost nil chance of luring a big time free agent, and the only slightly less shitty odds of making a lopsided trade for an all-star caliber player, then I'm not sure how it's even debatable what the organizational goal should be.

Sure, there's still a chance maybe Vonleh or one of the other guys turns into a total stud in a couple of years, but there's a reason they were available for cheap this off-season. The bloom is off the rose with most of these guys (Davis, Aminu, etc.); their ceilings have been somewhat defined as they've accrued seasons of play and they are more likely to be on that red line in the chart above and not the guys on the yellow line.

Even at a 40% chance, you assume you're drafting an 18 year old kid. I'd also say that the chart posted on the last page, not very accurate to today's NBA. The draft has changed MONUMENTALLY over the last 5 years I'd say. It is PURELY drafting based on youth and ceiling, something that oldmangrouch says is horrific. We don't get to watch these guys play in college for more than a year and then we draft them. That is WAY more risky than even 10 years ago when people were staying 2, 3, 4, years in college and developing and then you get to see their more polished product. These guys used to be coming in the league at age 20, 21. Now a majority are coming in at 19 (in the lotto). So NBA teams are now the development of these kids. So I'd say 40% is pretty high and then you have to remove pretty much any PG/small SG from our draft ability if we want to keep said player, and then I'd also say, you still aren't paying attention to the timeline of our PG, because assuming we suck next year, we get the #1 pick. Cool. 1 year of Damian gone. The average top pick takes about 3-4 years to develop, on a team that doesn't care about winning and purely making that player better ala Andrew Wiggins, Anthony Davis, etc. Add another 3-4 years, and thats 4-5 years total into this rebuild before you think we are a contender with a polished #1 pick now, also assuming that pick works out. So that means Damian is 29/30 by the time we have a 'second' solidified top player and may be wanting to exit his contract at that point because he just went through a 5 year rebuild. What if Dame leaves? We get to do what we just did the previous 5 years trying to get another star on the side of the #1 pick we developed for 5 years.

So, I'd say, yeah, I'll take my chances this season trying to make the playoffs (and failing and being in that dreaded 9 or 10 spot) and hoping that we can convince a free agent, within the next two years, to join us. The Bucks did it, why can't we? It's not like we need to convince LeBron, Durant, Ant Davis. We have OUR guy. We don't need to tank and rebuild. How is that working for Sixers, Kings, Bobcats, Magic, etc? Not so well, huh? There are many young teams tanking, not many young teams winning. That's why it sticks out to free agents. I can't harp on this enough, but if we are the 9 or 10 spot, yeah its bad, but it means we are successful. It means our youth is athletic, capable, and good ball players and will continue to get better based on age (of lottery picks on the team, specifically.) That bodes well for the following year, since we will have a year playing together (chemistry) and a year of development. People will see our avg age, look at us (just like they did when Damian was killing it, when Roy was killing it -you had LBJ, Kobe, etc saying how good these kids looked) and say, hey, man I wanna play with them. Maybe they won't be a top free agent, but maybe they won't need to be. Maybe we will upgrade talent in our lower tier roster spots (not our top 3 guys), but maybe we get a great sixth man or something. Then you incorporate them, make another run at the playoffs, and hey maybe we end up as a 6 or 7 seed, and the 2017 free agent class is REALLY starting to take notice. Neil has AT least gotten meetings with these players.

That's how you build a culture of winning and increase your chances to land free agents.

I'd like to do that before I commit to a 5 year project in the lotto.

 

[oldmangrouch]

What were the spurs? Duncan - Parker - Kawhi and a bunch of role players - look at TP and Duncan's stats last year - they haven't been absolute studs, aside from possibly Kawhi. I concede we don't have these players or coaches, but having a BUNCH of COMPETENT role players have been the Spurs calling card since Duncan and Ginobli started their decline; and you could throw TP in there after his eye injury, as well. It's not like Duncan or Parker (even during their championship) were the greatest players on the planet. They were both a shell of there former selves who were surrounded by elite rotation players.

I said that we can package some of our talent for better talent; AND thru WINNING we will be able to land a 'second' or 'third' fiddle quite easily, and maintain our superb depth. Assuming that someone such as Vonleh, Meyers, McCollum, etc doesn't turn into a second or third fiddle.

Obviously you didn't quote my post, so I don't know if you're referencing me or not, but there is a response for you.

And the last thing you wrote, I'd say is one of the most illogical statements I've ever read regarding basketball.if we have young players, we shouldn't be patient with them? Because time won't make them better? Nor will patience? With time and patience comes coaching, which should make a bunch of players who have not yet reached their primes, better. Or else that is a coaching issue. (Just to clarify, the final statement is what I'm attacking, NOT you.)

Sheesh, good thing that memo didn't get to Meyers Leonard or any other player in the NBA who ever improved between seasons.

The patient man prevails, homie.

You cannot possibly be comparing our current roster to the Spurs???

As for the rest - don't be disingenious. Some young players improve, some don't. Anybody who follows sports knows that is the truth. What is "illogical" is people insisting that our team future is bright JUST BECAUSE the roster is young. There are a whole list of other factors involved - starting with talent.

 

[oldmangrouch]

BTW, did no one here learn from the Felton and AA deals?

When you bring in all these new guys who have been in the league awhile, you'd better hold your breath. Most of the new guys may be OK...but there is a fair chance that at least one of them is going to decide he hates Portland/ playing for Stotts and goes septic.

 

[Orion Bailey]

You cannot possibly be comparing our current roster to the Spurs???

As for the rest - don't be disingenious. Some young players improve, some don't. Anybody who follows sports knows that is the truth. What is "illogical" is people insisting that our team future is bright JUST BECAUSE the roster is young. There are a whole list of other factors involved - starting with talent.

Your putting words in peoples mouths. No one said this team will improve JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE YOUNG, that I know of

Most are saying they will improve because where they were at before coming here didn't provide many opportunities, or injuries played a factor or how about this? We have 8 lotto picks on the team already... You view point sure seems pretty narrow minded.

What makes you think a lotto this year will be a player that will change things compared to the 8 we already have? Rather foolish and ignorant thinking

 

[PtldPlatypus]

You cannot possibly be comparing our current roster to the Spurs???

As for the rest - don't be disingenious. Some young players improve, some don't. Anybody who follows sports knows that is the truth. What is "illogical" is people insisting that our team future is bright JUST BECAUSE the roster is young. There are a whole list of other factors involved - starting with talent.

Thing is, they're not JUST young; they're talented too. You act like the team is full of D-Leaguers. Don't act like you haven't seen the lists breaking down the roster in terms of initial draft position. There are several young lottery picks who have shown flashes of excellence in limited opportunity, and are in a situation tailor-made for them to be able to flourish.

To claim that there isn't great potential for internal growth--that's what is disingenuous.

 

[Orion Bailey]

BTW, did no one here learn from the Felton and AA deals?

When you bring in all these new guys who have been in the league awhile, you'd better hold your breath. Most of the new guys may be OK...but there is a fair chance that at least one of them is going to decide he hates Portland/ playing for Stotts and goes septic.

LMAO, these guys as examples? They were brought in as role players from the get go, not to be part of the all star core. They were both also older and had hit their ceiling already.

Geez....

 

[ThugginPaulyGAllen]

^ I'll just add, it isn't pure youth that people think they can be decent players. A majority of the additions have VERY favorable advanced stats as well.

Felton and Aaron Afflalo?

Ok..Do you remember Andre Miller and Wesley Matthews?

 

[ThugginPaulyGAllen]

You cannot possibly be comparing our current roster to the Spurs???

As for the rest - don't be disingenious. Some young players improve, some don't. Anybody who follows sports knows that is the truth. What is "illogical" is people insisting that our team future is bright JUST BECAUSE the roster is young. There are a whole list of other factors involved - starting with talent.

I didn't compare them. You were the one who said it wasn't possible to win, I gave you an example of a team that had one legitimate star, maybe, in Kawhi and a bunch of GREAT role players (that' what Duncan is at this point in his career, Parker was injured/eye problems.) and then they had Danny Green, Manu, Splitter, Diaw, Mills, Belinelli, etc. If they beat the Miami team, there were SERIOUS thoughts about giving DANNY GREEN FINALS MVP. Danny Green was the best player on a team that ALMOST beat a team with 4 future hall of famers. If that doesn't shatter your myth, idk what will.

I'm not being disinegenious, I literally was responding to your comment, word for word. You were the one that said time, patience, and hope doesn't give young players a higher ceiling...

But it does... That's why they are drafted earlier...

And no one think its just because of youth. ^ As mentioned by numerous people above. It's not like we have a bunch of Tim Fraziers and Boobie Gibsons out there.

 

[PCmor7]

No.

 

[riverman]

No.

No.1?
Neil Olshey?
New Orleans?
or simply nada?