The future potential of 2020's projected playoff teams from worst to best:

[Sparhawk]

*snip useless gibberish*

24. Philadelphia 76ers: (Future potential: Poor)
The "Butler deal" has caused a lot of outcome, for no results and the consequences are here.

Every deal causes an outcome.
Brilliant!

 

[buckalis]

Every deal causes an outcome.
Brilliant!

I guess Philly lost the "income" although payed the outcome though...

 

[Sparhawk]

I guess Philly lost the "income" although payed the outcome though...

You might wanna read that one back to yourself again...

 

[Sparhawk]

The Sixers arguably have more draft value in 2020 than the Bucks.

 

[buckalis]

The Sixers arguably have more draft value in 2020 than the Bucks.

How is this?

 

[Sparhawk]

How is this?

Use your brain.

 

[buckalis]

Use your brain.

Do you care to enlighten me?
Will they trade Simmons or Embiid for picks? Is that what you mean?

 

[Sparhawk]

Do you care to enlighten me?
Will they trade Simmons or Embiid for picks? Is that what you mean?

No trades.
It's a simple exercise.

For somebody supposedly so well versed in the game of basketball, this shouldn't be difficult.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

 

[buckalis]

No trades.
It's a simple exercise.

For somebody supposedly so well versed in the game of basketball, this shouldn't be difficult.

Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia

Look... the purpose behind this thread is to show the future potential of teams for the decade which follows.

The current ranking, takes under consideration the current position and status for each team and then the financials, the assets and all other (up to now) known info which suggests how the team's future is developing in the long term.

Your team is ranked among the lower future potential teams, because (like some other teams, the Lakers for example is another) they may have a competitive roster currently, but they also have a poor stock in assets and extremely low potential to invest given their financial status projections.

Every change that happens, is taken into consideration and each team's position is revised accordingly.

Specifically for your team, the position takes into account that any possible failure on success, will cause consequent actions to be taken and this, can't include additions given the financial status and the stock in resources, leaving as only alternative action to be taken, the alteration of the current roster.

 

[trojanfan12]

Look... the purpose behind this thread is to show the future potential of teams for the decade which follows.

The current ranking, takes under consideration the current position and status for each team and then the financials, the assets and all other (up to now) known info which suggests how the team's future is developing in the long term.

Your team is ranked among the lower future potential teams, because (like some other teams, the Lakers for example is another) they may have a competitive roster currently, but they also have a poor stock in assets and extremely low potential to invest given their financial status projections.

So you're looking at a teams current financials and projecting those financials out over 10 years, even though the longest contracts that any team currently has a player on would only be 5 years and most players are on 1-3 year deals?

And you're doing this without taking into account how attractive a teams city is to free agents and how willing a team is to spend?

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Sparhawk]

Look... the purpose behind this thread is to show the future potential of teams for the decade which follows.

The current ranking, takes under consideration the current position and status for each team and then the financials, the assets and all other (up to now) known info which suggests how the team's future is developing in the long term.

Your team is ranked among the lower future potential teams, because (like some other teams, the Lakers for example is another) they may have a competitive roster currently, but they also have a poor stock in assets and extremely low potential to invest given their financial status projections.

Every change that happens, is taken into consideration and each team's position is revised accordingly.

Specifically for your team, the position takes into account that any possible failure on success, will cause consequent actions to be taken and this, can't include additions given the financial status and the stock in resources, leaving as only alternative action to be taken, the alteration of the current roster.

That's a long winded way of not addressing the initial statement that I made and stand by.

The Sixers have more draft value in 2020 than the Bucks.

If you disagree, what are you bringing to the table to argue against it?
If you agree, then just admit it instead of hurting yourself moving those goalposts.

Address the issue instead of circumventing it.

 

[buckalis]

So you're looking at a teams current financials and projecting those financials out over 10 years, even though the longest contracts that any team currently has a player on would only be 5 years and most players are on 1-3 year deals?

Many more things than just the financials as explained earlier.

And you're doing this without taking into account how attractive a teams city is to free agents and how willing a team is to spend?

What could possibly go wrong?

How you know how attractive a city is for some players, or how unattractive it is for others as to take it into account?

All teams are willing to spend if the investment is highly projected to have an impactful result.

 

[Black Adam]

Use your brain.

you're asking a helluva lot...

 

[logic]

Look... the purpose behind this thread is to show the future potential of teams for the decade which follows.

The current ranking, takes under consideration the current position and status for each team and then the financials, the assets and all other (up to now) known info which suggests how the team's future is developing in the long term.

Your team is ranked among the lower future potential teams, because (like some other teams, the Lakers for example is another) they may have a competitive roster currently, but they also have a poor stock in assets and extremely low potential to invest given their financial status projections.

Every change that happens, is taken into consideration and each team's position is revised accordingly.

Specifically for your team, the position takes into account that any possible failure on success, will cause consequent actions to be taken and this, can't include additions given the financial status and the stock in resources, leaving as only alternative action to be taken, the alteration of the current roster.

Why bother to project ten years if you are going to revise after every move? That seems like shooting yourself in the foot. The fartherst you should project is about 3 years, and even then teams will need revision. A ten year projection is simply stupid.

 

[Sparhawk]

you're asking a helluva lot...

I'm really not.
It's a simple exercise because draft picks have historical values which can be projected.

But, when encountered with a truth they do not like, cognitive bias rears its ugly head and sends them running for the hills.

 

[buckalis]

Why bother to project ten years if you are going to revise after every move? That seems like shooting yourself in the foot. The fartherst you should project is about 3 years, and even then teams will need revision. A ten year projection is simply stupid.

I don't revise after every move, I revise every time there is an impactful change and then only if it the change has proved itself (like with Zion for instance).

...and an advice for you... Don't you ever dare again to say "simply stupid" to me...

A ten year projection, is simply because we've just entered a new decade.

 

[logic]

I don't revise after every move, I revise every time there is an impactful change and then only if it the change has proved itself (like with Zion for instance).

...and an advice for you... Don't you ever dare again to say "simply stupid" to me...

A ten year projection, is simply because we've just entered a new decade.

Daring someone in an online chat is simply stupid!


And there is much debate whether we have entered a new decade. Was the first year considered year 0 or was it year 1. A case can be made that we don't enter a new decade until next year.

 

[Sparhawk]

Daring someone in an online chat is simply stupid!

Another important lesson : One can only make 10 year predictions in years ending in 0.

 

[logic]

Another important lesson : One can only make 10 year predictions in years ending in 0.

see above edited post.

 

[Sparhawk]

see above edited post.