Lefty wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Rebuild or Re-tool? (thread merge in post #358)
Collapse
X
-
Lefty wrote: View PostThe goal is to win championships, you can't do that with Rudy as your star.If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
Matt52 wrote: View PostNot with a salary cap and Rudy getting paid nearly 1/3 of it.If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
Craiger wrote: View PostHow do you possibly come to that conclusion?
- managment changes over time. Cleveland has gone through 3 (maybe 4?) GMs since Lebron was drafted.
- ownership changes, and as such expectations on managers change over time. Golden State sold in 2010, since then how the team has operated changed greatly (may have been a management change aswell although I'm not sure on that)
- good managers taking good risks can still lose. Even Warren Buffet has plenty of losers in his portfolio.
- and what the heck was the criteria here? Winning a lottery/drafting a stud and then winning a championship or building a contender is the only thing that defines 'good management'? Reading Matt52's posts doesn't seem to indicate to me that was his criteria - seems that he has a much broader view of 'good management'.
Poor management may not disprove the stated 'fact'. There may be other reasons to. But I'd point out the 'fact' is not a 'fact' at all. Its at best a very weak correlation that avoids all causation.
LBF's argument was, even if he didn't mean it as such, making a great pick = losing that player. Which simply avoids the 1000s of different events that take place between those two points. Matt52 (and others) were pointing out a very obvious cause of the result.
Drafting a stud (in this case Wiggins) doesn't mean he'll leave because Lebron did. Drafting a stud and then doing a crappy job building around/with him will likely greatly increase the chance he'll leave though. But even that argument is universal to all players and all forms of team building. There is no shortage players (studs or not) who will leave their team if their team is doing a crappy job, or even if their team isn't doing a crappy job. No matter if they are drafted, traded for or signed as a free agent.
What if you draft a stud and building around him doesn't work out? What if you trade for a stud and building around him doesn't work out? What if you sign a stud and building around him doesn't work out? What if you try and build a Detroit like well rounded roster without a stud and it doesn't work?
I really don't know - what do you do if something doesn't work out? Keep trying or fold up into the fetal position and give up I guess......
I have no idea why tanking threads need to be become such a bastion of logical fallacies.
1. I never posted my opinion, I was merely pointing out that blaming management was not a legit point to dissuade his argument.
Not my opinion, but if we're bringing up people like Warren Buffet-- look at how many times Buffet "wins" his investments (For instance grabbing GE on the cheap, reorganizing them and coming out smelling like roses). Buffet "wins" these kinds of investments regularly. Does Buffets wins make it impossible for other less skilled talents to have investment success?
Now look how few NBA managers win titles. There are 4 maybe 5 active GM/Presidents who've won titles. Then throw out outlying characters like Dumars who have no right being called good. I guess you could throw in GMs like Bird who are consistently close as well.
The criteria is titles, or the ability to create championship caliber teams. Winning a draft means nothing. There is zero talent in winning a lottery. The skill is in developing talent, surrounding talent, identifying who to keep and who to let go, knowing when to sell high and when to hold on to a falling talent, scouting for hidden gems... Just like the financial world, there are more bad GMs/Presidents than talented ones, however, there are outliers like Dumars, the Mavs staff, Ainge, etc. Even mediocre managers can learn to be patient, spot opportunities, and have moments of brilliance.
As far as if talent stays, again, I didn't say anything so I have no clue where you THINK I was coming from. Has nothing to do with what I was saying-- if the draft pick wants money they stay for a portion of the 2nd contract; if they want to win they don't. I've talked about the difficulty in diving before in other threads...it takes years of preparation to dive and recover properly. Most managers are incapable of doing this, however, who's not to say that a bad GM learns from their mistakes.
What do you do? Again I've made my suggestions in multiple threads. With the current team's construction the Raptors would be better to take the long route, try to make the playoffs multiple years, create value for their current assets and build a reputation as a team that values playing in the playoffs. Use that reputation to cherry pick talented free agents from bad teams who don't make playoffs, and slowly trade certain players when their value is at its height. Yes, this strategy is slow, not glamorous, and takes years to see the rewards beyond 1st round playoff wins...
Why no to diving? Personal opinion. Both are legit strategies but one shows patience outwardly while another creates a temporary splash that appeases the public but depends on your draft pick being as patient as the GM. How many years did Dirk have to wait for a team to be built around him? To me that seems more likely than Shaq running to Wade. In the modern NBA are any "stars" that patient?
Just because people disagree with diving doesn't mean they are huddled in a corner, and have quit on sports. What a hilarious illogical reach.
Pretty sure you're incorrectly using the word fallacy. I am confident that both rationale are extremely sound. The point of debate is that there are multiple legitimate stances. Just because people disagree with you does not make their opinion less thought out. Since the only language in use on this thread is colloquial English I implore you to use the words you choose correctly.
Comment
-
Matt52 wrote: View PostIf he picks up his player option, it will be 2 seasons.... and the Raptors won't win the championship in 2014-15 either.
We haven't had a winning season in a while. How about we just work on that?If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
blackjitsu wrote: View PostCool story bro, didn't know that your name was Matt, Craiger.
1. I never posted my opinion, I was merely pointing out that blaming management was not a legit point to dissuade his argument.
Not my opinion, but if we're bringing up people like Warren Buffet-- look at how many times Buffet "wins" his investments (For instance grabbing GE on the cheap, reorganizing them and coming out smelling like roses). Buffet "wins" these kinds of investments regularly. Does Buffets wins make it impossible for other less skilled talents to have investment success?
Now look how few NBA managers win titles. There are 4 maybe 5 active GM/Presidents who've won titles. Then throw out outlying characters like Dumars who have no right being called good. I guess you could throw in GMs like Bird who are consistently close as well.
The criteria is titles, or the ability to create championship caliber teams. Winning a draft means nothing. There is zero talent in winning a lottery. The skill is in developing talent, surrounding talent, identifying who to keep and who to let go, knowing when to sell high and when to hold on to a falling talent, scouting for hidden gems... Just like the financial world, there are more bad GMs/Presidents than talented ones, however, there are outliers like Dumars, the Mavs staff, Ainge, etc. Even mediocre managers can learn to be patient, spot opportunities, and have moments of brilliance.
As far as if talent stays, again, I didn't say anything so I have no clue where you THINK I was coming from. Has nothing to do with what I was saying-- if the draft pick wants money they stay for a portion of the 2nd contract; if they want to win they don't. I've talked about the difficulty in diving before in other threads...it takes years of preparation to dive and recover properly. Most managers are incapable of doing this, however, who's not to say that a bad GM learns from their mistakes.
What do you do? Again I've made my suggestions in multiple threads. With the current team's construction the Raptors would be better to take the long route, try to make the playoffs multiple years, create value for their current assets and build a reputation as a team that values playing in the playoffs. Use that reputation to cherry pick talented free agents from bad teams who don't make playoffs, and slowly trade certain players when their value is at its height. Yes, this strategy is slow, not glamorous, and takes years to see the rewards beyond 1st round playoff wins...
Why no to diving? Personal opinion. Both are legit strategies but one shows patience outwardly while another creates a temporary splash that appeases the public but depends on your draft pick being as patient as the GM. How many years did Dirk have to wait for a team to be built around him? To me that seems more likely than Shaq running to Wade. In the modern NBA are any "stars" that patient?
Just because people disagree with diving doesn't mean they are huddled in a corner, and have quit on sports. What a hilarious illogical reach.
Pretty sure you're incorrectly using the word fallacy. I am confident that both rationale are extremely sound. The point of debate is that there are multiple legitimate stances. Just because people disagree with you does not make their opinion less thought out. Since the only language in use on this thread is colloquial English I implore you to use the words you choose correctly.
You bring a shit argument to a discussion and it gets rejected and you can't take it?
Here are two choices:
1) Grow a set, or
2) Put some thought in to your posts first rather than after.
Nice post, btw.
Comment
-
Slightly off topic....Warren Buffet/Berkshire typically doesnt do "small" buys. He often gets a premium price on valuations simply because most of his investments are in the billion$ category (companies sell their holdings directly to him). So, right off the bat he is at first or second base in terms of a positive payout when he sells ...better than the rest of us schlubs. Also he times the market quite well alongwith competitive advantages. In basketball terms eg. this would be the proper use of analytics to choose and exchange your assets in a manner superior to your competitors. The Celtics and the Spurs are two who are v. good at this and hence why so many of their assts./protoges are hired around the league.
Comment
-
Matt52 wrote: View PostLooking at Rudy Gay, I'd call up these three teams and offer:
Detroit - Monroe, Knight, 1st available pick, Stuckey, Charlie V
Cleveland - Thompson, CJ Miles, rights to Karasev, 2014 pick
Charlotte - rights to Zeller, Gordon, 2014 Pistons pick (top 8 protected), Portland pick (top 12 protected), right to swap own Raptor pick with theirs
Of the 3 I like Cleveland best, then Charlotte, then Detroit.
Charlotte: MKG & Gordon for Gay? Everybody happy?
Comment
-
LBF wrote: View PostYou bring in more good players. You don't ship out the one good one you have. Unless you need to rebuild from scratch and the raptors don't.
Anybody: Kleiza for Barnes; Fields for Durant?
Unfortunately there are only so many David Kahns & Ted Stepiens in NBA.
Comment
-
LBF wrote: View PostYou guys are skipping so many steps. Why are you looking at everything like "that's not going to win us championships."?
We haven't had a winning season in a while. How about we just work on that?
Comment
-
Mapko wrote: View PostExcellent point. Instead of trading our "good players" for cap space or prospects, why don't we send our "shitty player" for good players?
Anybody: Kleiza for Barnes; Fields for Durant?
Unfortunately there are only so many David Kahns & Ted Stepiens in NBA.
NOBODY IS FUCKING COMING HERE! Don't you see??
You think if Rudy fucking Gay was a free agent that he would sign here? I highly fucking doubt it.If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
-
Mapko wrote: View PostExactly. Lets learn to walk before we can run. Besides, there is nothing like a bit of playoff success for development of young guys (Demars, Ross, Val...).If Your Uncle Jack Helped You Off An Elephant, Would You Help Your Uncle Jack Off An Elephant?
Sometimes, I like to buy a book on CD and listen to it, while reading music.
Comment
Comment