Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rebuild End Goal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • psrs1
    replied
    KHD wrote: View Post
    sustained excellence. It has to start with the front office putting together a staff (scouts, coaches, etc.) that enables top quality drafting and player development, and then you have to go out and get picks to draft good guys. I would rather see 1,2,3 years of tanking than another single season of shitty mediocre play from a team built around a fatally flawed "star".

    As for roster makeup, well, talent wins over most physical characteristics (within reason).
    When will it be fair to judge Sixer' s tank?

    Leave a comment:


  • IwishIwasZachLowe
    replied
    MixxAOR wrote: View Post
    OKC model? Drafting 3 MVP candidates? (1 already MVP) That will not happen again in 20-30 years.
    Could happen with Minnesota in the next two drafts. Who knows. Unlikely, but who knows.

    Leave a comment:


  • MixxAOR
    replied
    OKC model? Drafting 3 MVP candidates? (1 already MVP) That will not happen again in 20-30 years.

    Leave a comment:


  • IwishIwasZachLowe
    replied
    McRealistic wrote: View Post
    In order for your tank/rebuild to lead to championship, you need to get a high position in draft and draft flawlessly. Lets face, even OKC who drafted, KD, R.W, J.H and S.I was not able to win it all yet
    It's true. But what they did with Harden was dumb. For two, you need a sliver of luck to win it all. Look at the Cavs, they did everything right, and deserve to win it all one can say. Without Love and Kyrie, no chance. Injury bug bites at the wrong time like OKC. In saying that, they're a contender every year and have been for four years. You can't say that about the Raptors now or at anytime in our sad existence.

    Leave a comment:


  • OldSkoolCool
    replied
    McRealistic wrote: View Post
    In order for your tank/rebuild to lead to championship, you need to get a high position in draft and draft flawlessly. Lets face, even OKC who drafted, KD, R.W, J.H and S.I was not able to win it all yet
    Yes, because OKC is in such a bad place compared to TO. We should stick with trying to sign FA's because doing it through the draft like OKC wouldn't be good to watch or ever have any success right?

    /pink

    Leave a comment:


  • DanH
    replied
    JWash wrote: View Post
    Exactly. Pretty dumb concept in the OP imo. Like yeah sure that might be nice, but if you go through a full rebuild and the bpa is a 6'0 PG who can shoot like Steph Curry and pass like Steve Nash, you're gonna pass him up because you want a guy with a 9 foot wingspan? Come on man.
    Should we not just accept the obvious caveat that you take superstars however you can get them?

    Beyond that, having a plan for the types of players you generally want on your team seems reasonable.

    Leave a comment:


  • JWash
    replied
    Bonus Jonas wrote: View Post
    This is pretty pointless. Sure you choose what you're ideal guy at each spot is but if someone comes along but doesn't fit your mold do you just turn him down?

    Of course not.

    You bring him on and trust that your coach is able to use his strengths to benefit the team.
    Exactly. Pretty dumb concept in the OP imo. Like yeah sure that might be nice, but if you go through a full rebuild and the bpa is a 6'0 PG who can shoot like Steph Curry and pass like Steve Nash, you're gonna pass him up because you want a guy with a 9 foot wingspan? Come on man.

    Leave a comment:


  • McRealistic
    replied
    In order for your tank/rebuild to lead to championship, you need to get a high position in draft and draft flawlessly. Lets face, even OKC who drafted, KD, R.W, J.H and S.I was not able to win it all yet

    Leave a comment:


  • DogeLover1234
    replied
    Eh, I think that ideally a rebuild will net you a superstar player and another 1-2 nice pieces. Then you just try to find pieces that fit with that "core" group of 2-3 players. Look at the Rockets, Star players in Harden and Howard and then guys like Beverly to fit. I don't think you define what your star does or what position they are before the rebuild.

    Leave a comment:


  • nubreed000
    replied
    Bonus Jonas wrote: View Post
    This is pretty pointless. Sure you choose what you're ideal guy at each spot is but if someone comes along but doesn't fit your mold do you just turn him down?

    Of course not.

    You bring him on and trust that your coach is able to use his strengths to benefit the team.
    And that's where it all falls apart with the Raptors.

    Leave a comment:


  • IwishIwasZachLowe
    replied
    KHD wrote: View Post
    sustained excellence. It has to start with the front office putting together a staff (scouts, coaches, etc.) that enables top quality drafting and player development, and then you have to go out and get picks to draft good guys. I would rather see 1,2,3 years of tanking than another single season of shitty mediocre play from a team built around a fatally flawed "star".

    As for roster makeup, well, talent wins over most physical characteristics (within reason).
    I couldn't agree more. Physical characteristics, height, weight, wingspan are all slightly overblown. High IQ, Talent, teamwork and character are needed. Iggy's coming off the bench and he's not bitching like Lowry was when Calderon was outplaying him.

    You can look at Boston who just stock piled draft picks and are now in a position to get a max player every year to combo with their young talent. Trade our stars, get draftpicks, then next year we should have 2 great 1st round picks. 4 picks in two years should be a great start.

    Leave a comment:


  • aaron.in.toronto
    replied
    Ya i like what you are trying to do here but i think the issue is such a fundamental one that talking about these type of things are feeling pointless...

    one problem is that once people find themselves on one side of the fence or the other they feel the need to go directly to the most extreme end of their particular point of view and start debating the issue from opposite sides of the spectrum and cant agree on anything..

    I think it is important to take a big picture view and try to discuss how we move forward on the macro instead of arguing over which exact bench players we need to trade for or whatever other minute detail people feel is important...

    Right now I think certain people are still accepting that our team is like a crappy dump of an apartment and are content to figure out superficial, sort of cosmetic (...that sounded way more negative then it was meant...) ways to make it more acceptable as we are stuck here... A new TV, a nice sofa, some fresh paint, all theses things would make it more comfortable and literally a nicer place but...

    Other people are simply saying enough is enough and there is no point trying to re-arrange the furniture again and again, we need to move and have a completely new and better place that will actually have the potential to be the place we actually want...

    That being said, I think it is dangerous and sort of pointless to try and say what to do in the future before you even know what options there will be... it is similar to deciding to draft by need and then passing on an all-star talent because you have already decided to take a point guard no matter what...

    What we need is to be open and flexible, and to be ready and have the courage to take the opportunities that present them selves
    and to make the right choices as far as players based on that...

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    psrs1 wrote: View Post
    Do any posters remember when we drafted Joey Graham I believe 16 th overall in first round? I recall a lot of talk about getting the best player available. I think the question raised in this thread is a good one. Perhaps drafting the best available player that meets the team's needs is a better approach taking into account what you are aiming for ---yes of course championship but the style and type of team you want.
    I think this is a lot more situational than people give it credit for.

    As a general rule I think if you are drafting high, a team should always take the BPA. As you move down in the draft it can becomes more about a player fitting your team. (until the 2nd round, which is basically a stab in the dark)

    That said, what situation a team is in matters to. A team that expects to be contending and is drafting late will probably want a guy who fits and can contribute in short order. A not so good team drafting late is probably better off still taking the BPA.

    All that said, its really only the top picks (top 10 or lottery) that tend to make the biggest difference anyways. If you get a player you can simply use in the 2nd round, or starter worthy player in the 2nd half of the first round... thats gravy. If you get more than that... its desert to.

    Leave a comment:


  • GarbageTime
    replied
    I'm not sure this question is completely answerable, as all teams will be unique. What a rebuild best looks like, what a team wants or needs, will be dependent on the individual(s) a team is building around. That said I'll take a stab at what I think the combination of skills an 'average contending' starting/most commonly used line up looks like (although it is never universal... and having elite talent/skills in certain areas can compensate for missing them in other areas... so take it all as a loose representation).

    In no particular order of importance

    1) Primary and secondary ball handler. This is usually a PG who handles and moves the ball well, along with a wing who can pick up those duties when getting the PG the ball isn't feasible. There are plenty of teams who have had a wing as their primary ball handler though (Kobe and Fisher, every LBJ team etc). (honestly every team has a primary ball handler... whats less common is the secondary ball handler)

    2) 3 3pt threats on the floor at any one time. They don't need to all be Korver or Ray Allen, but should still be legitimate threats. Having at least one player on the roster who can hit at an elite rate however is a great asset (even if they are situational)

    3) At least one rim protecting big. Doesn't necessarily mean shot blocker, but a guy who can alter shots or takes charges or not afraid of giving some hits. Anything that prevents or makes the opposition think twice about playing near the basket. (although having one big who can block shots at a reasonable rate is preferable)

    4) At least one big who can stretch the floor. Doesn't mean a 3pt shooter, but has some range to draw a defender out.

    5) At least one big who moves the ball well. Doesn't mean they can pass like Divac or the Gasol brothers, but who is comfortable having the ball run through them.

    6) at least one defensive specialist, and who can do defend at multiple positions.

    7) two scorers on the floor

    If I was to break this down into what each position tended to be (and again this is very interchangable)

    PG - primary ball handler, 3pt shooter
    SG - secondary ball handler, scorer, 3pt shooter
    SF - 3&D, defends multiple positions
    PF - scorer, stretches floor, moves ball
    C - rim protection

    Now, of course the taller - longer - faster - stronger - athletic at any and all positions the better. But more important than that is guys who can play positionally and know their strengths/weaknesses. The pace a team plays at will be dependent on the former, but generally speaking a slow pace leads to better defense, and defense tends to be more consistent game to game.

    Leave a comment:


  • KHD
    replied
    sustained excellence. It has to start with the front office putting together a staff (scouts, coaches, etc.) that enables top quality drafting and player development, and then you have to go out and get picks to draft good guys. I would rather see 1,2,3 years of tanking than another single season of shitty mediocre play from a team built around a fatally flawed "star".

    As for roster makeup, well, talent wins over most physical characteristics (within reason).
    Last edited by KHD; Fri Jun 5, 2015, 11:33 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X