Tank for Wembanyama (2 Viewers)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
He scares me. But a talent like that is worth the obvious gamble.
 
Shaedon needs to play alongside Dame to work on their chemistry as the future backcourt going forward. Last night was just a taste. Sharpe/Dame combo ends the smallish backcourt nonsense. Look forward, not back. I don't look at the remaining schedule as some sort juggarnaut. I'd even like to see a lineup of Nurk, Watford, Grant, Sharpe, and Dame. Let's experiment with the potential lineup these last 10 games. I don't need to see more of the end of bench guys. The second shift can be Ant as 6th man, Matisse, Eubanks and Nas.
 
tykendo said:
Shaedon needs to play alongside Dame to work on their chemistry as the future backcourt going forward. Last night was just a taste. Sharpe/Dame combo ends the smallish backcourt nonsense. Look forward, not back. I don't look at the remaining schedule as some sort juggarnaut. I'd even like to see a lineup of Nurk, Watford, Grant, Sharpe, and Dame. Let's experiment with the potential lineup these last 10 games. I don't need to see more of the end of bench guys. The second shift can be Ant as 6th man, Matisse, Eubanks and Nas.
Click to expand...

I want to see Sharpe start.... but not if he's gonna start winning us games!
 
If the Blazers are meant to get Wemby, it'll happen no matter where their Draft position, in the Lottery, is.
 
tykendo said:
What did math do for us last season?
Click to expand...

What is this even supposed to mean? More nonsensical disregard for odds that aren't complicated.

If you finish 6th worst you have 9% odds of the top pick. Finish 8th and the odds are literally cut in half at 4.5%. The difference is significant and is not debatable. What happened before has no impact whatsoever.
 
C_note said:
Dude, we're playing Trendon Watford and Eubanks 20+ minutes per night.
Watford is 6'8 and all he can do is layups and 15ft floaters...
31-40 is about right.
Click to expand...
Watford also hits threes and makes plays for his teammates.
 
Orlando one again today so they would be tied with the Trail Blazers in the win column if the Trail Blazers had lost last night.
 
BassPlaya said:
Rooting to lose....what an incredibly odd thing.
Click to expand...

You're looking at it wrong. It's not about rooting to lose, it's rooting more for the opponent to win than the Blazers to lose.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
That silly win against ORL is keeping the Blazers from being #5 in the Lottery rankings.
 
illmatic99 said:
How do you figure? They have three more losses than us
Click to expand...

Yes, winning percentage, Portland would still trail. But Orlando would be ahead in wins and only trail by 2 losses..... and wins are becoming fewer and farther between for teams not chasing a Play-In spot. It's much easier at this point to lose games with these groups of bottom feeders.
 
BassPlaya said:
Rooting to lose....what an incredibly odd thing.
Click to expand...
Perverse incentives. I honestly don't know how you'd fix it.

Here's a suggestion: either another lottery for just the very worst teams, or have it be part of the same lottery, and one (or two) teams that "win" THAT lottery lose their draft pick for that year. (You could set up things to soften the blow - maybe it transfers so they get two picks the next season, or maybe there are qualifiers so you get left out of the bad lottery if you've lost over a certain threshhold of player-games to (GENUINE) injuries.)
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Perverse incentives. I honestly don't know how you'd fix it.

Here's a suggestion: either another lottery for just the very worst teams, or have it be part of the same lottery, and one (or two) teams that "win" THAT lottery lose their draft pick for that year. (You could set up things to soften the blow - maybe it transfers so they get two picks the next season, or maybe there are qualifiers so you get left out of the bad lottery if you've lost over a certain threshhold of player-games to (GENUINE) injuries.)
Click to expand...
Only way to fix it is to give playoff teams the chance to win the lottery too with all 30 teams having the same odds. There would never be tanking again.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
Perverse incentives. I honestly don't know how you'd fix it.

Here's a suggestion: either another lottery for just the very worst teams, or have it be part of the same lottery, and one (or two) teams that "win" THAT lottery lose their draft pick for that year. (You could set up things to soften the blow - maybe it transfers so they get two picks the next season, or maybe there are qualifiers so you get left out of the bad lottery if you've lost over a certain threshhold of player-games to (GENUINE) injuries.)
Click to expand...

They should make the worst 6 teams battle it out for draft positioning. Then the rest of the lottery can do the same or use a lottery system for 7-14.

1-2 get a bye

5-6 - winner advances and plays 2 seed (loser 6th pick)
3-4 - winner advances and plays 1 seed (loser 5th pick)

Here’s where it gets interesting:

Players that didn’t actively play in the last 10games are ineligible.

So if a team is tanking to get into the bottom 6, they’d be at a disadvantage because they need to “win” in the tournament.

Obviously can’t do it for the entire lottery because the teams that barely miss the playoffs are gonna crush the obviously actually terrible teams.
 
KingSpeed said:
Only way to fix it is to give playoff teams the chance to win the lottery too with all 30 teams having the same odds. There would never be tanking again.
Click to expand...
Doesn't have to be a lottery, could be "the wheel" idea where teams rotate through all the spots over 30 years.
 
Predator said:
They should make the worst 6 teams battle it out for draft positioning. Then the rest of the lottery can do the same or use a lottery system for 7-14.

1-2 get a bye

5-6 - winner advances and plays 2 seed (loser 6th pick)
3-4 - winner advances and plays 1 seed (loser 5th pick)

Here’s where it gets interesting:

Players that didn’t actively play in the last 10games are ineligible.

So if a team is tanking to get into the bottom 6, they’d be at a disadvantage because they need to “win” in the tournament.

Obviously can’t do it for the entire lottery because the teams that barely miss the playoffs are gonna crush the obviously actually terrible teams.
Click to expand...
Players don’t care about lottery position so they wouldn’t care about such a tournament. They don’t want young players to come in and take their jobs.
 
If I was in charge of draft picks I'd change a few things.

First not allow teams to trade picks more than 4 years out, but get rid of all the Stephen restrictions of needing a pick every other year. Teams could trade away up to four picks all at once. But teams couldnt decimate picks 7 years out when all the GM, management, and players have likely moved on with only the fans bearing a cost.

Get rid of losses helping draft picks. Instead losing franchises get additional salary cap space on a sliding scale so last year's champ gets none, teams that won playoff series get a little, teams outside playoffs get a little more. If you won a title in the last 10 years you don't get much extra. It's enough to help losing franchises improve a little but not enough to lose intentionally.

Teams bid salary cap or some type of draft dollars for draft position. Want to draft Wemba, maybe it's 40 million this year while it was only 10 million for the #1 pick last year. Not impressed on this year's draft? Save space for next year. Have a huge luxury tax payroll? Then you don't get high picks. Want to win now with veterans? You can trade your draft capital away. Think other teams are undervaluing pick 10? Bid a little more to get that at good value.

It's stupid we have a system encouraging us
to root for losses but honestly I am right now. Wish instead I was rooting for Dame and Shae to build for next year. Also wish the draft wasnt ping pong balls selected for a bunch of losers. There should be a system that successfully can be planned to build a winner.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
It's stupid we have a system encouraging us
to root for losses but honestly I am right now.
Click to expand...

Each fan can root however they want...me included. That said, rooting for my team to lose is a choice. In my world, it is a personal, ethical choice. Blaming the system to me is just using an excuse for behavior.

I can only be who I am. For my experience.....the day I consider "wanting" my team to lose, is the day I walk away from any sport....for good.
 
Predator said:
They should make the worst 6 teams battle it out for draft positioning. Then the rest of the lottery can do the same or use a lottery system for 7-14.

1-2 get a bye

5-6 - winner advances and plays 2 seed (loser 6th pick)
3-4 - winner advances and plays 1 seed (loser 5th pick)

Here’s where it gets interesting:

Players that didn’t actively play in the last 10games are ineligible.

So if a team is tanking to get into the bottom 6, they’d be at a disadvantage because they need to “win” in the tournament.

Obviously can’t do it for the entire lottery because the teams that barely miss the playoffs are gonna crush the obviously actually terrible teams.
Click to expand...
Downside to this is that it kind of REWARDS tanking. If you're the BEST team of the worst, you have the best chance at winning the tournament. Meanwhile teams that are genuinely abject (for whatever reasons) will lose in the tournament and the cycle of crappitude continues. I mean, the basic idea of giving the highest pick to the worst team is still a good one, because it means you don't have the same teams staying shit forever.
 
KingSpeed said:
Players don’t care about lottery position so they wouldn’t care about such a tournament. They don’t want young players to come in and take their jobs.
Click to expand...
But they're also arrogant enough to think that no young player COULD take their jobs.
 
WesleyMatthews said:
If I was in charge of draft picks I'd change a few things.

First not allow teams to trade picks more than 4 years out, but get rid of all the Stephen restrictions of needing a pick every other year. Teams could trade away up to four picks all at once. But teams couldnt decimate picks 7 years out when all the GM, management, and players have likely moved on with only the fans bearing a cost.

Get rid of losses helping draft picks. Instead losing franchises get additional salary cap space on a sliding scale so last year's champ gets none, teams that won playoff series get a little, teams outside playoffs get a little more. If you won a title in the last 10 years you don't get much extra. It's enough to help losing franchises improve a little but not enough to lose intentionally.

Teams bid salary cap or some type of draft dollars for draft position. Want to draft Wemba, maybe it's 40 million this year while it was only 10 million for the #1 pick last year. Not impressed on this year's draft? Save space for next year. Have a huge luxury tax payroll? Then you don't get high picks. Want to win now with veterans? You can trade your draft capital away. Think other teams are undervaluing pick 10? Bid a little more to get that at good value.

It's stupid we have a system encouraging us
to root for losses but honestly I am right now. Wish instead I was rooting for Dame and Shae to build for next year. Also wish the draft wasnt ping pong balls selected for a bunch of losers. There should be a system that successfully can be planned to build a winner.
Click to expand...
The salary space idea is actually kind of intriguing. Trouble is, it would've constantly rewarded Donald Sterling in the old days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

Featured content

Back
Top