Stop rooting for your team to lose to get better draft odds

[trojanfan12]

Yeah I hear ya but players themselves run the NBA and not the actual owners imo

Yes and no. NBA players definitely enjoy more "freedom of movement" than other professional athletes and the nature of the sport makes the NBA more star driven than other leagues. Because of that, the league and the owners tend to work more closely with their star players.

While NBA players do enjoy more of a say in their careers, where they play and who they play with, it's not like they're just picking up and leaving at a moments notice. Most stay at least through their rookie and RFA contracts which gives their teams plenty of time to put contending pieces around them.

If the team doesn't make the most of that opportunity, I can't really blame a player for leaving.

 

[dtgold88]

Exactly right. I've had this argument with certain fans of a team on a lake. You need to hit on at least one player in a big way if you are ever going to get out of the collecting assets stage. But once you do, you have to change gears and start winning. Otherwise your star will become accustomed to losing and either leave because he hates losing or expect to lose and be ruined. See one Towns, Karl-Anthony.

which fan by a lake (Erie?) disagreed?

 

[dtgold88]

Let me start off by saying that, I think that, for the most part, teams are more lucky than good when it comes to lottery picks. Everyone is reading from the same hymnal and you rarely see teams take huge reaches in the draft. And when they do, they almost always regret it.

Which is why you are far better off drafting 2-5 than 6-9. Still a pretty good chance to fail but there is a lot more consensus on those picks.

Having said that Sexton is NOT a stud. SGA IS a stud. He's a difference maker and Presti apparently got so fed up with him winning games for the Thunder than he just put him on ice. Sexton is a pretty good player whose ceiling projects out to being a borderline all-star. It's just too hard to be an elite player when you are a small guard.

I would also criticize the Cavs for drafting Garland the next season. Not so much because he was a bad player but because you could NEVER play those 2 in the backcourt at the same time and be a winning team. And if you aren't able to give both of them starter minutes, then you can't develop them.

totally agree with your first paragraph. while not true in the NFL, you could look at a consensus mock draft for the NBA draft and the real GMs mostly stick close to the mocks.

OKC wasn't winning much with SGA either, FYI. I'd say Sexton's floor is borderline all star. Not his ceiling. He was borderline this year at age 22. His best seasons are probably 5 or so years from now and kid has a tremendous work ethic. He puts up very similar numbers to Mitchell who I believe is 2 years older.

Who are you taking instead of Garland? Culver, white, Hayes, Hachimura and Reddish were next 5. I guess you could say Hachimura but he isn't a guy to get worked up over passing and not taking who you think is BPA.

could never be a winning team with those 2? an elite SF added to their team could not make them a winning team? Is a winning team elite, solid playoff team, playoff contender or +.500?

FYI, they are both getting starter minutes and are developing. do you really think if they can get lucky like Philly did 2X and get a #1 pick and Cade is as advertised this team cannot be a winning team?

 

[dtgold88]

The challenge is you have to have an ownership that will tolerate tanking for several years as a plan. Usually the owners get cold feet after a year or 2 and fire the GM.

also helps you tank longer if the high pick you take cannot play.

 

[dtgold88]

Which is kind of the point. If a team truly commits to putting a contending roster around a star player, they increase the chances that the star will stay beyond his RFA contract.

Cleveland is a great example of this. Lebron stayed through his rookie deal and his RFA deals. The Cavs didn't really commit to putting a contending roster around him, so he left.

They were able to get him to come back (which pretty much never happens), this time, they committed to putting a contending roster around him and got 4 straight finals appearances and the franchises only championship.

a little off base. Went way over the cap to try and win the first time. Harder to put players around him when it's Cleveland and players don't know if Lebron will stay (likely they knew he was leaving) but wouldn't commit?

 

[flyerhawk]

totally agree with your first paragraph. while not true in the NFL, you could look at a consensus mock draft for the NBA draft and the real GMs mostly stick close to the mocks.

[/QUOTE]
Yeah football is WILDLY different than the NBA. If you spend a fair amount of research you can get a remarkably high number of picks right for an NBA draft. In the NFL, things go out the window usually by pick 10.

OKC wasn't winning much with SGA either, FYI. I'd say Sexton's floor is borderline all star. Not his ceiling. He was borderline this year at age 22. His best seasons are probably 5 or so years from now and kid has a tremendous work ethic. He puts up very similar numbers to Mitchell who I believe is 2 years older.

They are 4-13 without him and 14-17 with him. Sexton being good stats/bad team all-star doesn't make him a real all-star. No matter what, Sexton will always be defensively limited. Maybe he could become a consistent All-Star but it's hard to see him ever being more than that. I'm not saying this because I have dislike him or the Cavs. I honestly don't care about either that much. I don't see him ever being a top 2 player on a championship caliber team. But I could be wrong.

Who are you taking instead of Garland? Culver, white, Hayes, Hachimura and Reddish were next 5. I guess you could say Hachimura but he isn't a guy to get worked up over passing and not taking who you think is BPA.

You are doing what you are saying other people shouldn't do. You are using hindsight to judge the pick. The problem with Garland isn't that he wasn't the BPA available. Maybe he was. But the Cavs drafted a short point guard the year before. Where was Garland going to get his minutes? You going to put one of these guys at the 2 and and have 2 6'1" guards in the backcourt?

could never be a winning team with those 2? an elite SF added to their team could not make them a winning team? Is a winning team elite, solid playoff team, playoff contender or +.500?

FYI, they are both getting starter minutes and are developing. do you really think if they can get lucky like Philly did 2X and get a #1 pick and Cade is as advertised this team cannot be a winning team?

FFS why do you keep arguing that the Sixers got lucky? They were one of the 3 worst teams in basketball for 5 straight years. They drafted ahead of slot one time when they were the 2nd worst team in basketball and got the No. 1 pick(Simmons).

As it stands the Cavs have a 10% chance of getting the No. 1 pick. THAT would be very lucky. Especially since the Cavs have already got No. 1 3 times in the last 10 years.

No, I don't think the Cavs will EVER be a good team with Garland and Sexton in the backcourt? Maybe they could sneak an 8 seed or something like that. But that team will never be able to stop anybody.

 

[flyerhawk]

also helps you tank longer if the high pick you take cannot play.

Sure. If the player turns out to be good.

 

[dtgold88]

Yeah football is WILDLY different than the NBA. If you spend a fair amount of research you can get a remarkably high number of picks right for an NBA draft. In the NFL, things go out the window usually by pick 10.



They are 4-13 without him and 14-17 with him. Sexton being good stats/bad team all-star doesn't make him a real all-star. No matter what, Sexton will always be defensively limited. Maybe he could become a consistent All-Star but it's hard to see him ever being more than that. I'm not saying this because I have dislike him or the Cavs. I honestly don't care about either that much. I don't see him ever being a top 2 player on a championship caliber team. But I could be wrong.




You are doing what you are saying other people shouldn't do. You are using hindsight to judge the pick. The problem with Garland isn't that he wasn't the BPA available. Maybe he was. But the Cavs drafted a short point guard the year before. Where was Garland going to get his minutes? You going to put one of these guys at the 2 and and have 2 6'1" guards in the backcourt?



FFS why do you keep arguing that the Sixers got lucky? They were one of the 3 worst teams in basketball for 5 straight years. They drafted ahead of slot one time when they were the 2nd worst team in basketball and got the No. 1 pick(Simmons).

As it stands the Cavs have a 10% chance of getting the No. 1 pick. THAT would be very lucky. Especially since the Cavs have already got No. 1 3 times in the last 10 years.

No, I don't think the Cavs will EVER be a good team with Garland and Sexton in the backcourt? Maybe they could sneak an 8 seed or something like that. But that team will never be able to stop anybody.
[/QUOTE]
You'd be onto something if Sexton was putting up these good stats in an inefficient manner. Like going 9-25 and 2-7 from 3 to score 24 points. But he's not. His shooting % overall and from 3 are respectable (and he's 22). Most young guards are not very good at defense, but he's gotten better and he has a tremendous work ethic. doubt it ever becomes a strong point of his game, though. But there are elite guards you could say the same of (no, not saying he'll be elite). Top 2 on a title caliber team? #1 would have to be exceptional (and #3 not far behind him), but I don't see it either. There are plenty of guards on bad teams who do not go for around 24 ppg while shooting 48% overall and 36% from 3 (I do think he needs to get that back closer to 40), while dishing out 4+ apg as a SG.

Guessing they knew Garland and Sexton could both get minutes playing both together and with 1 on the bench and the other playing. No one thought they'd be a title team anytime soon. Is there a Utah guard you think needs to come off the bench as they are the same size? They even start O'Neale at SF or PF at 6-4.

True the 76ers were beyond bad and "earned" those #1 picks. But the Cavs had a bottom 2 record and picked 5th 2 years in a row. Makes a difference.

Under no circumstances could a team be good with them? If you plopped them onto a healthy Lakers' team and started them the Lakers would struggle? Please answer and don't deflect.

 

[dtgold88]

Sure. If the player turns out to be good.

and easier to do at 1, 1 and 3 than 8, 5 and 5.

Still took 6 years to make the playoffs, though. Cavs in middle of year 3.

 

[redseat]

Yes and no. NBA players definitely enjoy more "freedom of movement" than other professional athletes and the nature of the sport makes the NBA more star driven than other leagues. Because of that, the league and the owners tend to work more closely with their star players.

While NBA players do enjoy more of a say in their careers, where they play and who they play with, it's not like they're just picking up and leaving at a moments notice. Most stay at least through their rookie and RFA contracts which gives their teams plenty of time to put contending pieces around them.

If the team doesn't make the most of that opportunity, I can't really blame a player for leaving.

Yeah but the players have (imo) the most say in how things go for the team. "No, you will not hire that coach or pick up that player"

"ok" - owner

 

[msgkings322]

They're hoping to do what the Cavs, Warriors and Thunder did and get a transcendent player or 2 that can make the franchise a contender during the first 7 or so years when they're contracts are still mostly under team control.

And then they can attract those players deciding where to go. But still, full tanking should not be something every non playoff team does. At some point you have to see what kind of talent you have and losing an extra two games doesn't help your draft odds enough to be mad when you win

 

[flyerhawk]

You'd be onto something if Sexton was putting up these good stats in an inefficient manner. Like going 9-25 and 2-7 from 3 to score 24 points. But he's not. His shooting % overall and from 3 are respectable (and he's 22). Most young guards are not very good at defense, but he's gotten better and he has a tremendous work ethic. doubt it ever becomes a strong point of his game, though. But there are elite guards you could say the same of (no, not saying he'll be elite). Top 2 on a title caliber team? #1 would have to be exceptional (and #3 not far behind him), but I don't see it either. There are plenty of guards on bad teams who do not go for around 24 ppg while shooting 48% overall and 36% from 3 (I do think he needs to get that back closer to 40), while dishing out 4+ apg as a SG.

Who are the elite 6'1" guards in the NBA? I'm not arguing that Sexton is a scrub so I'm not sure why you think it is relevant that there are plenty of guards who couldn't put up his numbers. But to suggest his floor is fringe all-star player is to completely ignore his flaws. He could be D'Angelo Russell in a few years. FTR, I hold pretty much the same opinion of Trae Young who gets way more hype than Sexton and who I think the same thing applies.

Guessing they knew Garland and Sexton could both get minutes playing both together and with 1 on the bench and the other playing. No one thought they'd be a title team anytime soon. Is there a Utah guard you think needs to come off the bench as they are the same size? They even start O'Neale at SF or PF at 6-4.

Utah is a fair point. I'm not really a fan of Mitchell either, to be honest.

True the 76ers were beyond bad and "earned" those #1 picks. But the Cavs had a bottom 2 record and picked 5th 2 years in a row. Makes a difference.

Regression to mean for the Cavs.

Under no circumstances could a team be good with them? If you plopped them onto a healthy Lakers' team and started them the Lakers would struggle? Please answer and don't deflect.

Sure. If a team has 2 top 5 players, that team would good with them starting.

 

[dtgold88]

Who are the elite 6'1" guards in the NBA? I'm not arguing that Sexton is a scrub so I'm not sure why you think it is relevant that there are plenty of guards who couldn't put up his numbers. But to suggest his floor is fringe all-star player is to completely ignore his flaws. He could be D'Angelo Russell in a few years. FTR, I hold pretty much the same opinion of Trae Young who gets way more hype than Sexton and who I think the same thing applies.



Utah is a fair point. I'm not really a fan of Mitchell either, to be honest.



Regression to mean for the Cavs.



Sure. If a team has 2 top 5 players, that team would good with them starting.

Feel free to list any young guard on a bad team (no matter the size) putting up the numbers he is. I mean, he was fringe all star this year on an awful team at age 22. You don't think he's going to improve? I get you don't hear much about the kid where you are but he seems a tad more grounded than Russell and his work ethic is off the charts.

while you might not be a fan of Mitchell, I'm sure you are aware many are (I like him a lot).

I don't think you need 2 top 5 players. Add Lebron to the Cavs next year and they'd be a strong contender in the East. They definitely need 1 elite player to be a strong playoff team. Hasn't been easy to find with their lottery luck, though. It's not like they passed on any.

 

[flyerhawk]

Feel free to list any young guard on a bad team (no matter the size) putting up the numbers he is. I mean, he was fringe all star this year on an awful team at age 22. You don't think he's going to improve? I get you don't hear much about the kid where you are but he seems a tad more grounded than Russell and his work ethic is off the charts.

I think he could improve. He could also fade. He has a very high usage rate as it stands.

while you might not be a fan of Mitchell, I'm sure you are aware many are (I like him a lot).

I don't think you need 2 top 5 players. Add Lebron to the Cavs next year and they'd be a strong contender in the East. They definitely need 1 elite player to be a strong playoff team. Hasn't been easy to find with their lottery luck, though. It's not like they passed on any.

Add Lebron to the East next year and they are maybe an 7 or 8 seed. They are the Lakers pre-AD.

 

[dtgold88]

I think he could improve. He could also fade. He has a very high usage rate as it stands.



Add Lebron to the East next year and they are maybe an 7 or 8 seed. They are the Lakers pre-AD.

Very high usage at 26th in league? Not sure why that matters much either way though.

Disagree on 2nd part but guess we cannot prove it. Though I will say Cavs have a far better supporting cast now than the team Lebron dragged to the Finals in 2007. I'd even say might be on par with the 2018-19 team. Highly doubt they miss the playoffs with Lebron.

 

[flyerhawk]

Very high usage at 26th in league? Not sure why that matters much either way though.

Yes. Look at the guys above. Right above him is James Harden at 25. Paul George. Joker. He is 50th in the league tied with notable playmakers Joe Ingles and Thad Young.

Disagree on 2nd part but guess we cannot prove it. Though I will say Cavs have a far better supporting cast now than the team Lebron dragged to the Finals in 2007. I'd even say might be on par with the 2018-19 team. Highly doubt they miss the playoffs with Lebron.

Well Lebron wasn't 35 in 2007. Furthermore, the East was quite different in 2007. There really were no good teams that year. The husk of the Detroit Pistons championship team was the only other team to win 50 that year. But I did say they would be a 7 or 8 seed. They would not be a finals contender.

 

[trojanfan12]

Add Lebron to the East next year and they are maybe an 7 or 8 seed.

I don't know. In his first year with the Lakers, he had the Lakers kids in the top half of the Western Conference before he was injured. I think we all pretty much agreed that they likely would have fallen to around 6th...but that's in the West.

I don't necessarily think just adding Lebron would make the Cavs true contenders, but maybe a "fringe contender" that might be able to pull off an upset or maybe even get out of the East if they got a few breaks along the way.

 

[flyerhawk]

I don't know. In his first year with the Lakers, he had the Lakers kids in the top half of the Western Conference before he was injured. I think we all pretty much agreed that they likely would have fallen to around 6th...but that's in the West.

I don't necessarily think just adding Lebron would make the Cavs true contenders, but maybe a "fringe contender" that might be able to pull off an upset or maybe even get out of the East if they got a few breaks along the way.

I'm fine if you want to say they would be a 5 seed. But injuries are now part of his career. 2 of his past 3 seasons have seen significant down time due to injury.

 

[dtgold88]

Yes. Look at the guys above. Right above him is James Harden at 25. Paul George. Joker. He is 50th in the league tied with notable playmakers Joe Ingles and Thad Young.





Well Lebron wasn't 35 in 2007. Furthermore, the East was quite different in 2007. There really were no good teams that year. The husk of the Detroit Pistons championship team was the only other team to win 50 that year. But I did say they would be a 7 or 8 seed. They would not be a finals contender.

If 26 is very high what are top 10 guys? top 5? Double secret super high? very, very, very high? Really not eve sure why it matters in the discussion as i'm sure there are many that are higher (even a lot higher) you like and think are very good players.

I'd argue Lebron a better player now than in 2007 (maybe not 2018). Pistons were a title favorite. I think they'd fight for home court this year with Lebron. Just my opinion....of course would depend on health of rest of team.

 

[dtgold88]

I don't know. In his first year with the Lakers, he had the Lakers kids in the top half of the Western Conference before he was injured. I think we all pretty much agreed that they likely would have fallen to around 6th...but that's in the West.

I don't necessarily think just adding Lebron would make the Cavs true contenders, but maybe a "fringe contender" that might be able to pull off an upset or maybe even get out of the East if they got a few breaks along the way.

contender would come down to health, I think. Lebron's of course, along with the rest.