Definition of Competitive

[peanutwoozle]

ASSET ACCUMULATION.

Doesn't matter how, just do it.

Relying on others to make a stupid move is relying on luck.

[stooley]

Relying on others to make a stupid move is relying on luck.

For every single good move, there is an equal and opposite bad move. Physics, my friend!

[peanutwoozle]

For every single good move, there is an equal and opposite bad move. Physics, my friend!

sometimes yes, but I have seen some trades where both teams win.

[Nilanka]

Relying on others to make a stupid move is relying on luck.

So the draft is out.

Trading is out.

And free agent signings are highlighted by Turkish lards.

Might as well move this team to Idaho. Wouldn't you agree, peanutwoozle?

[stooley]

sometimes yes, but I have seen some trades where both teams win.

This is true, I was just being snarky.

But in all seriousness, every single good team is built around or by players they drafted, including Denver.

The Nuggets are mostly composed of the haul they received from Carmelo, whom they tanked to draft.

The other moves (Lawson) were done by our own Masai Ujiri, so if he decides to tank, you can hop right on board with full knowledge that he is aware of all the different strategies.

[Axel]

Relying on others to make a stupid move is relying on luck.

No it isn't. Negotiating is a very large part of a GMs job, and negotiating to get the best of every trade is the goal. But sometimes, teams have different priorities, so one team is willing to trade a future asset (like a draft pick) for a current one (like Kyle Lowry). Doesn't make it a stupid move if they are honestly trying to do what is best for their franchise. Hindsight isn't fair for any move. Also, negotiating isn't luck, it's understanding the market, your team needs, and other team needs.

[stooley]

No it isn't. Negotiating is a very large part of a GMs job, and negotiating to get the best of every trade is the goal. But sometimes, teams have different priorities, so one team is willing to trade a future asset (like a draft pick) for a current one (like Kyle Lowry). Doesn't make it a stupid move if they are honestly trying to do what is best for their franchise. Hindsight isn't fair for any move. Also, negotiating isn't luck, it's understanding the market, your team needs, and other team needs.

This is the truth.

[peanutwoozle]

This is true, I was just being snarky.

But in all seriousness, every single good team is built around or by players they drafted, including Denver.

The Nuggets are mostly composed of the haul they received from Carmelo, whom they tanked to draft.

The other moves (Lawson) were done by our own Masai Ujiri, so if he decides to tank, you can hop right on board with full knowledge that he is aware of all the different strategies.

Lawson was done by Warkentien, not Ujiri.

[stooley]

Lawson was done by Warkentien, not Ujiri.

duly noted

[golden]

Further, almost every team that is successful in the NBA this year was built around pieces they drafted themselves:

Miami Heat:
- Drafted 5th in 2003 to get Dwayne Wade. He helped them win a championship in 2006 and definitely helped them land Lebron and Bosh.

Indiana Pacers:
- Did not get any especially high draft picks, drafted in the lottery for four straight years from 2007 to 2010. Had to trade for more picks.

Portland:
- Drafted Lillard in 2012 by trading current assets for future ones. Moved up two spots in the draft to get Aldridge (good management) in 06 and selected Oden in 07 (bad luck).

San Antonio:
- Drafted Duncan, Parker, Ginobili.

OKC:
- Classic tank model, got lucky quickly.

Clippers:
- Drafted Blake Griffin first overall in 09, who, along with the LA market, convinced Chris Paul to join him.

Houston:
- Asset accumulation, got lucky

GSW:
- Lottery team from 08-12 (5 years).

Logically fallacy alert here. The opposite is equally as true, maybe even moreso...


Further, almost every team that is un-successful in the NBA this year was built around pieces they drafted themselves:

[stooley]

Logically fallacy alert here. The opposite is equally as true, maybe even moreso...


Further, almost every team that is un-successful in the NBA this year was built around pieces they drafted themselves:

Agreed, this was more an extension of a separate argument. An article was posted the other day proving that the vast majority of all stars are drafted with a top 10 pick.

Some people then argued that those all stars don't necessarily help the team that drafted them to win. They pointed to Lebron and Bosh leaving the Cavs and the Raps.

This was more to show that drafting good players does lead to success.

[ezz_bee]

Logically fallacy alert here. The opposite is equally as true, maybe even moreso...


Further, almost every team that is un-successful in the NBA this year was built around pieces they drafted themselves:

Exactly. Which highlights what a lot of us were saying... that the draft is just one PART of the strategy, because it still takes GOOD MANAGEMENT. But, as they say, "You can't hit a home run if you don't swing the bat" I just want as many swings as possible to hit that homerun!

Agreed, this was more an extension of a separate argument. An article was posted the other day proving that the vast majority of all stars are drafted with a top 10 pick.

Some people then argued that those all stars don't necessarily help the team that drafted them to win. They pointed to Lebron and Bosh leaving the Cavs and the Raps.

This was more to show that drafting good players does lead to success.

Again, it's about management. Just because some other teams had management that made poor draft pick choices or made poor decisions after the fact, doesn't mean that we will, and doesn't mean that the draft is "all luck".

For me it's a pretty simple scenario. Either you have a GM who can make good decisions, in which case you try to maximize your talent/value and try to find that top 5 player (spoiler alert, best chance at this is in the draft). OR you have a GM that doesn't make good decisions, in which case you are EFFED no matter how many lotto picks you have or if you draft the best player in the NBA.

Fortunately, I believe that Masai is a good talent evaluator and good at pricing contracts for current players, so I WANT him to have some top picks because I think he's got a better than 50-50 chance to hit a home run and actually build a team to compete.

Personnel decisions are made by GMs, and not all of them make equally good decisions. I believe we have one that gives us a competitive advantage vis-a-vis other GMs which is why I want Masai to have the best opportunities to get us the talent we need. Which just so happens to be in the draft.

[mcHAPPY]

ASSET ACCUMULATION.

Doesn't matter how, just do it.

Denial is the first stage, watch out for anger next.

They'll come around soon enough on their own.

If they don't get it now there is nothing else you can say or do to make them look any different.

At the very least you have to admire the persistence and devotion to staying average to below average at best.

[mcHAPPY]

No it isn't. Negotiating is a very large part of a GMs job, and negotiating to get the best of every trade is the goal. But sometimes, teams have different priorities, so one team is willing to trade a future asset (like a draft pick) for a current one (like Kyle Lowry). Doesn't make it a stupid move if they are honestly trying to do what is best for their franchise. Hindsight isn't fair for any move. Also, negotiating isn't luck, it's understanding the market, your team needs, and other team needs.

I'm not sure how anyone can say trades are an option for toronto. Look at what gay and Lowry are returning... Nothing that makes the team better now.

[Puffer]

...At the very least you have to admire the persistence and devotion to staying average to below average at best.

No need to get mean. Simply acknowledge the differing opinion, repeat it back to them in different words to confirm your understanding and then move on.