Give them a chance, at least.

[LooseCannon]

The whole "getting bad to get good thing" only works if you luck into a franchise altering talent  Sometimes there's no such talent in a draft and there's usually not more than 2 or 3 at most.  The best course over the long haul is exactly what Danny did to enable him to bring in KG and Ray.  Draft well, accumulate assets and structure cap space so that you can make a big deal when one presents itself.

Mainly you should avoid getting locked into big long-term contracts with non-stars who can't be traded unless you include a little something something for the team taking on the contract.  It's not that you want to avoid being mediocre, just that a lot of mediocre teams have those sorts of contracts.  Acquiring assets that will be worth more in the future means that they are likely to not be strong contributors immediately.  And sometimes you get teams to give you those assets by taking crappy players with bad contracts off their hands.  However, for some poorly constructed teams, losing and getting high draft picks is the quickest way to acquire trade assets.

Tanking and getting bad is a common (but not always necessary) symptom of acquiring assets, not an end in itself.  You don't actively try to suck, but you shouldn't avoid being bad.

[PosImpos]

I didn't say it was a series of flukes, tanking and getting high picks wasn't that simple. Robison/Duncan was a fluke I stand by that, or at least really good luck.

But the examples aren't accurate in the argument. Ok City haven't won any thing yet.Kareem(traded). Magic draft to a good team. Bird drafted before he came out, then came to a good team. Shaq didn't win in Orlando, sign to La to win the title. The only teams thye would work would be Detroit. And Chicago. And with Chi they had Jordan, that was going to happen no matter what. And I do beleive the other picks never was really that high after him.

My real point was that in todays NBA its drafting a team isn't the best solution. Most players will leave in 5 years. Lebron Left, Bosh left. Wade stayed becuase Lebron and Bosh come to Miami. Wade doesn't win unless Shaq comes to town.

Now if you can build draft picks up so you get 4 good high picks in two or three years, you could do it, get players that like to play with each other and build as a team. But Id rather trade potential drafts for proven talent like in 07 #5 pick for Allen.

whether you use the top pick to draft a superstar or trade it for an established player like a Ray Allen or KG, you have to be really bad in order to get top guys.  you need top guys to win championships. 

im not sure where the disagreement is here.  

many of the circumstances were different for each of the different title winners over the course of NBA history, but one overwhelmingly consistent trend is that each team has a superstar talent they drafted in the top 10 (usually top 5).

the only exception to this is LA (as i noted and as you reiterated with respect to Shaq and Kareem -- though Kareem won a title with the Bucks before he left).  but no team in the league can operate like the Lakers but the Lakers.  a top 5 player is not going to leave his franchise to come play in boston.

[PosImpos]

The whole "getting bad to get good thing" only works if you luck into a franchise altering talent  Sometimes there's no such talent in a draft and there's usually not more than 2 or 3 at most.  The best course over the long haul is exactly what Danny did to enable him to bring in KG and Ray.  Draft well, accumulate assets and structure cap space so that you can make a big deal when one presents itself.

Mike

this is what Daryl Morey has been doing with the Houston Rockets since '07.  i really like daryl morey, but his ability as a talent evaluator actually works against him when he always gets a solid contributor picking in the late lottery / middle of the first round.  he accumulates a lot of decent NBA players, but he never picks high enough to snag a real star, or even a really good trade piece.  he's been trying like mad to turn that into a star for the past few seasons and he's come up short every time.

going with that strategy is honestly at least as bad a crapshoot as trying to reload by picking high in the draft.  probably worse, because you get locked into more long term contracts which other teams aren't as likely to want to take on in a trade (a big reason that the LAL / NOLA / HOU trade fell through).

the whole CP3 situation was actually a great example.  houston, the team that has been diligently getting the most out of its players and draft position for the past few years got beat out by the team that has been appallingly awful for years.  why?  cause the awful team had more young assets they got via the draft.

also, as far as danny's pre-Big 3 building plan, he wasn't able to turn that "accumulate assets" plan into a title contending core until the team tanked in '07 and got the #5 pick.

[BballTim]

The whole "getting bad to get good thing" only works if you luck into a franchise altering talent  Sometimes there's no such talent in a draft and there's usually not more than 2 or 3 at most.  The best course over the long haul is exactly what Danny did to enable him to bring in KG and Ray.  Draft well, accumulate assets and structure cap space so that you can make a big deal when one presents itself.

Mike

this is what Daryl Morey has been doing with the Houston Rockets since '07.  i really like daryl morey, but his ability as a talent evaluator actually works against him when he always gets a solid contributor picking in the late lottery / middle of the first round.  he accumulates a lot of decent NBA players, but he never picks high enough to snag a real star, or even a really good trade piece.  he's been trying like mad to turn that into a star for the past few seasons and he's come up short every time.

going with that strategy is honestly at least as bad a crapshoot as trying to reload by picking high in the draft.  probably worse, because you get locked into more long term contracts which other teams aren't as likely to want to take on in a trade (a big reason that the LAL / NOLA / HOU trade fell through).

the whole CP3 situation was actually a great example.  houston, the team that has been diligently getting the most out of its players and draft position for the past few years got beat out by the team that has been appallingly awful for years.  why?  cause the awful team had more young assets they got via the draft.

also, as far as danny's pre-Big 3 building plan, he wasn't able to turn that "accumulate assets" plan into a title contending core until the team tanked in '07 and got the #5 pick.

  You talk about "since '07" like it's a long time. How long were the  Clippers a sad sack team? Blake Griffin's a nice player, but he's the 10th top 5 pick they've had in the last 25 years, including 6 top 2 picks. I don't think any of the picks were seen as bad at the time. It's not like they passed over MJ to get Bowie, most of the players drafted a spot or two after their picks weren't much better.

[Smokeeye123]

We need to unload Green...Seriously he had like 8 points and 2 rebounds a game with the Celtics. How can we ever replace those stats! 

[PosImpos]

The whole "getting bad to get good thing" only works if you luck into a franchise altering talent  Sometimes there's no such talent in a draft and there's usually not more than 2 or 3 at most.  The best course over the long haul is exactly what Danny did to enable him to bring in KG and Ray.  Draft well, accumulate assets and structure cap space so that you can make a big deal when one presents itself.

Mike

this is what Daryl Morey has been doing with the Houston Rockets since '07.  i really like daryl morey, but his ability as a talent evaluator actually works against him when he always gets a solid contributor picking in the late lottery / middle of the first round.  he accumulates a lot of decent NBA players, but he never picks high enough to snag a real star, or even a really good trade piece.  he's been trying like mad to turn that into a star for the past few seasons and he's come up short every time.

going with that strategy is honestly at least as bad a crapshoot as trying to reload by picking high in the draft.  probably worse, because you get locked into more long term contracts which other teams aren't as likely to want to take on in a trade (a big reason that the LAL / NOLA / HOU trade fell through).

the whole CP3 situation was actually a great example.  houston, the team that has been diligently getting the most out of its players and draft position for the past few years got beat out by the team that has been appallingly awful for years.  why?  cause the awful team had more young assets they got via the draft.

also, as far as danny's pre-Big 3 building plan, he wasn't able to turn that "accumulate assets" plan into a title contending core until the team tanked in '07 and got the #5 pick.

  You talk about "since '07" like it's a long time. How long were the  Clippers a sad sack team? Blake Griffin's a nice player, but he's the 10th top 5 pick they've had in the last 25 years, including 6 top 2 picks. I don't think any of the picks were seen as bad at the time. It's not like they passed over MJ to get Bowie, most of the players drafted a spot or two after their picks weren't much better.

again Tim, you won't get any argument from me that it's a crapshoot.  it's just the best of a selection of really unpalatable options.  it's entirely possible that rebuilding the team back to contention could take 10 years.  but we're gonna need to do it at some point before we're seriously contending again; so why not get it over with?

i do think that once your team is bad and you are getting those top picks, the relative competence or incompetence of your management has a big effect on how quickly your team can return to relevance.  

teams like the t-wolves and clippers are poorly managed, so they spend years and years in the high lottery with little to show for it.  teams like the Thunder and Blazers are well managed (or were, in the case of the Blazers), and they both rose back to relevance quite quickly.  if not for some bad luck, the Blazers would be right there with the Thunder for the foreseeable future.

i have faith in Danny Ainge to make the most of those high draft picks once we're bad enough to get them.  i believe that he will get us back to relevance sooner rather than later, with a little luck.  but we need to get really bad first to give him something to work with.

[KCattheStripe]

also, as far as danny's pre-Big 3 building plan, he wasn't able to turn that "accumulate assets" plan into a title contending core until the team tanked in '07 and got the #5 pick.

In Danny's defense, it was hard to get Paul to stop doing that "trying" thing in games.

[BballTim]

The whole "getting bad to get good thing" only works if you luck into a franchise altering talent  Sometimes there's no such talent in a draft and there's usually not more than 2 or 3 at most.  The best course over the long haul is exactly what Danny did to enable him to bring in KG and Ray.  Draft well, accumulate assets and structure cap space so that you can make a big deal when one presents itself.

Mike

this is what Daryl Morey has been doing with the Houston Rockets since '07.  i really like daryl morey, but his ability as a talent evaluator actually works against him when he always gets a solid contributor picking in the late lottery / middle of the first round.  he accumulates a lot of decent NBA players, but he never picks high enough to snag a real star, or even a really good trade piece.  he's been trying like mad to turn that into a star for the past few seasons and he's come up short every time.

going with that strategy is honestly at least as bad a crapshoot as trying to reload by picking high in the draft.  probably worse, because you get locked into more long term contracts which other teams aren't as likely to want to take on in a trade (a big reason that the LAL / NOLA / HOU trade fell through).

the whole CP3 situation was actually a great example.  houston, the team that has been diligently getting the most out of its players and draft position for the past few years got beat out by the team that has been appallingly awful for years.  why?  cause the awful team had more young assets they got via the draft.

also, as far as danny's pre-Big 3 building plan, he wasn't able to turn that "accumulate assets" plan into a title contending core until the team tanked in '07 and got the #5 pick.

  You talk about "since '07" like it's a long time. How long were the  Clippers a sad sack team? Blake Griffin's a nice player, but he's the 10th top 5 pick they've had in the last 25 years, including 6 top 2 picks. I don't think any of the picks were seen as bad at the time. It's not like they passed over MJ to get Bowie, most of the players drafted a spot or two after their picks weren't much better.

again Tim, you won't get any argument from me that it's a crapshoot.  it's just the best of a selection of really unpalatable options.  it's entirely possible that rebuilding the team back to contention could take 10 years.  but we're gonna need to do it at some point before we're seriously contending again; so why not get it over with?

i do think that once your team is bad and you are getting those top picks, the relative competence or incompetence of your management has a big effect on how quickly your team can return to relevance.  

teams like the t-wolves and clippers are poorly managed, so they spend years and years in the high lottery with little to show for it.  teams like the Thunder and Blazers are well managed (or were, in the case of the Blazers), and they both rose back to relevance quite quickly.  if not for some bad luck, the Blazers would be right there with the Thunder for the foreseeable future.

i have faith in Danny Ainge to make the most of those high draft picks once we're bad enough to get them.  i believe that he will get us back to relevance sooner rather than later, with a little luck.  but we need to get really bad first to give him something to work with.

 If the Thunder didn't get a top 2 pick in the Oden/Durant draft they'd still be nowhere. Portland took a chance on a player who had knee issues before he got to the pros and it didn't pay off. Even with skill, you need the luck, and you need it in certain years. I'm not saying we won't eventually go that route, but I see no point in rushing into it.

[PosImpos]

 If the Thunder didn't get a top 2 pick in the Oden/Durant draft they'd still be nowhere. Portland took a chance on a player who had knee issues before he got to the pros and it didn't pay off. Even with skill, you need the luck, and you need it in certain years. I'm not saying we won't eventually go that route, but I see no point in rushing into it.

that's where we differ.  it's a fundamental difference in philosophy.  i can understand how you feel the way you do, but i feel differently.

[KP43]

We need to unload Green...Seriously he had like 8 points and 2 rebounds a game with the Celtics. How can we ever replace those stats! 

We should get rid of Rondo, aswell. use the amnesty on him.. he had like 10 pts per game last year.
...

[PosImpos]

We need to unload Green...Seriously he had like 8 points and 2 rebounds a game with the Celtics. How can we ever replace those stats! 

We should get rid of Rondo, aswell. use the amnesty on him.. he had like 10 pts per game last year.
...

[bfrombleacher]

We need to unload Green...Seriously he had like 8 points and 2 rebounds a game with the Celtics. How can we ever replace those stats! 

His stock is so, so low now. Let him prove his worth. If he's worth keeping, he's worth keeping and there's still hope in that. If he improves but is doomed to mediocrity then by all means. He'd still be athletic as nuts and tall with some versatility.