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

[msgkings322]

I’m gonna lawyer up and just say, it depends.

I know it’s a different sport, but see the jets.

Indeed, it depends...on the sport. Draft position is very different in football. This advice does not apply to football.

 

[The Q]

Indeed, it depends...on the sport. Draft position is very different in football. This advice does not apply to football.

when there’s a Zion or Lebron or brow available, you lose as much as you can to give yourself a shot. I get it.

I get what you’re saying. But being in that bottom 3 or 4 is still your best shot to get better

 

[msgkings322]

when there’s a Zion or Lebron or brow available, you lose as much as you can to give yourself a shot. I get it.

I get what you’re saying. But being in that bottom 3 or 4 is still your best shot to get better

The difference between 4 and 6 or 3 and 5 is negligibly affected by your losses. Winning is still better than losing.

Now, squeaking into that 10th "playoff" spot? No. But the fact that say, the Cavs are actually winning a game or two instead of being Minnesota awful isn't a bad thing for them. It shows that what they have has potential.

 

[The Q]

The difference between 4 and 6 or 3 and 5 is negligibly affected by your losses. Winning is still better than losing.

Now, squeaking into that 10th "playoff" spot? No. But the fact that say, the Cavs are actually winning a game or two instead of being Minnesota awful isn't a bad thing for them. It shows that what they have has potential.

Minny and Houston have to lose to protect their pick this year.

their situation is a little different.

But I get what you’re saying.

 

[trojanfan12]

The difference between 4 and 6 or 3 and 5 is negligibly affected by your losses. Winning is still better than losing.

Now, squeaking into that 10th "playoff" spot? No. But the fact that say, the Cavs are actually winning a game or two instead of being Minnesota awful isn't a bad thing for them. It shows that what they have has potential.

A lot of it depends on where your team is in their development. In the early stages of a rebuild, its best to lose and lose a lot to try to draft a star or 2. When the young core starts to come together, then you want to see them start to win more (even though its mainly going to be competitive losses) and start looking to fill in with some veterans to help them learn how to win.

 

[jontaejones]

It would be beyond dumb to do it these days, but in the past it was viable.

Getting someone like Larry Johnson or Shaq could turn your franchise around that very year.

Of course, they were college juniors/seniors.

They may not have taken you to a title, but they made you a competitive team with 'hopes'.

Nowadays, you're getting with the #1 pick someone who is wet behind the ears and it will take years to see results.

Of course, the extreme in 2021 is trading away a decade worth of draft picks ... and shows just how much their value has been reduced.

 

[Mebert]

Will a top 3 pick stop D'angelo Russell from taking highly contested fade away long 2's and playing the worst defense in the history of basketball.

If not Warriors might as well take it. Wolves won't see any value from it.

 

[dtgold88]

Seriously, it's counter-productive. If your team is a lottery team, being 26th in the league is not much different than 24th. The odds no longer skew as much towards worse teams, and whatever skew you get isn't worth hoping your team is so bad that they don't win games.

Players don't tank. They are out there playing for their careers. You really want them to be so lacking in talent that they lose more than other teams? Even with your high draft pick those guys are still the rest of your team. You should root for your team to win and show that what they have is still some talent.

Just a quick rant. Fight me.

You are definitely right players on the court are trying to win, not tanking. Only way to tank is send lesser players on the court and that's often by injury as well as lack of talent (see OKC, Houston, etc.

I cannot watch my team and cheer against them. But also am not upset after a hard fought game where the core players play well but they lose.

 

[dtgold88]

I'm just saying, if your young players are developing and playing hard and have some talent, they might win a few more games than you like. And that's a good thing not a bad thing.

There can be positives, sure.

 

[dtgold88]

I’m gonna lawyer up and just say, it depends.

I know it’s a different sport, but see the jets.

a good point and, sure, different sport and draft rules (no lottery). But I cannot imagine a Jet FO person really thinks that win over the Browns was worth not having a chance to get the QB of their choice.

 

[dtgold88]

The difference between 4 and 6 or 3 and 5 is negligibly affected by your losses. Winning is still better than losing.

Now, squeaking into that 10th "playoff" spot? No. But the fact that say, the Cavs are actually winning a game or two instead of being Minnesota awful isn't a bad thing for them. It shows that what they have has potential.

On this I agree. I'd rather be the Cavs who seem to have some pieces to where one high pick could make things interesting here. and, sure, a decent chance to get the high pick even if not near the top of draft (Cavs have shown it works the other way enough, that's for sure)

 

[thunderc]

On this I agree. I'd rather be the Cavs who seem to have some pieces to where one high pick could make things interesting here. and, sure, a decent chance to get the high pick even if not near the top of draft (Cavs have shown it works the other way enough, that's for sure)

The Cavs damn sure should be in a good spot with the picks they have had. They just aren’t very good at drafting though.

 

[The Q]

On this I agree. I'd rather be the Cavs who seem to have some pieces to where one high pick could make things interesting here. and, sure, a decent chance to get the high pick even if not near the top of draft (Cavs have shown it works the other way enough, that's for sure)

not to mention they don’t need a guard. And guards are the top 2 prospects in the draft.

Green kuminga and Mobley all fit tho

 

[dtgold88]

The Cavs damn sure should be in a good spot with the picks they have had. They just aren’t very good at drafting though.

they aren't huh? If you were in those drafts picking 8, 5 and 5 without the value of hindsight, who would you have taken? And, sure, can make a strong case for SGA before Sexton, but sexton is a stud and far worse players were taken around that pick.

FYI, THIS regime did not pick Bennett, Waiters or others you may not have liked.

 

[dtgold88]

not to mention they don’t need a guard. And guards are the top 2 prospects in the draft.

Green kuminga and Mobley all fit tho

other than a short guard I think they will go BPA.....unless they think a short guard was elite which I doubt they do in this draft.

 

[thunderc]

they aren't huh? If you were in those drafts picking 8, 5 and 5 without the value of hindsight, who would you have taken? And, sure, can make a strong case for SGA before Sexton, but sexton is a stud and far worse players were taken around that pick.

FYI, THIS regime did not pick Bennett, Waiters or others you may not have liked.

Throw it all together and it’s a shit sandwuch.

 

[dtgold88]

Throw it all together and it’s a shit sandwuch.

strike 1......then feel free to answer who you think they should have taken over Garland and Okoro without the value of hindsight. and, please, try to list guys who actually would have been taken where those guys were picked (not that they should have taken a guy at 5 who went in the teens).

and calling Sexton a bad pick? Comical.

 

[thunderc]

strike 1......then feel free to answer who you think they should have taken over Garland and Okoro without the value of hindsight. and, please, try to list guys who actually would have been taken where those guys were picked (not that they should have taken a guy at 5 who went in the teens).

and calling Sexton a bad pick? Comical.

I’m just saying you look at all the picks they have had it’s bad. Yes it’s been better lately but my God how could it not be.

 

[dtgold88]

I’m just saying you look at all the picks they have had it’s bad. Yes it’s been better lately but my God how could it not be.

AI understand what you are saying..... I'm just saying you cannot blame the current regime when they were not the guys responsible for past bad picks.

If you have an issue with the picks taken by THIS regime, please feel free to share. That's all that is relevant.

 

[msgkings322]

AI understand what you are saying..... I'm just saying you cannot blame the current regime when they were not the guys responsible for past bad picks.

If you have an issue with the picks taken by THIS regime, please feel free to share. That's all that is relevant.

It's a message board, we can't talk shit about teams under new management? Does that mean you can't take credit for the 2016 title? That was the old regime too.