"It probably will, though, because the 12th pick has much higher trade value, and is more likely to get us a more valuable young asset than the 18th pick."
It's not really true that a 12th pick is all that likely to get us a more valuable young asset than the 18th pick. If you look through the draft history, you'll find that the 12th pick of the draft has not consistently yielded a better player than the 18th pick.
The reason that they say the draft is a crap shoot is because it's true. Once you get out of that top 5 "can't miss" range, things always get a little murky in the draft. (Even in the top 5, it's generally not that cut and dried.) So, not only do you have to get lucky in the sense that the ping pong balls fall right, but you also have to get lucky (and a little bit good) with the player that you select.
Danny's going to have two players somewhere in that 15 to 25 range this year. And, although it is a crap shoot, good players consistently come out of that group. With two shots at it, I like Danny's chances of making good on at least one of them in what they say is a deep draft.
Having the 12th pick versus the 18th pick, though, would give us a significantly more valuable trade asset. We'd have a much better chance of being able to move up into the top 10 by packaging that pick with the Clips pick.
In any case, this is kind of a pointless discussion because it's unlikely that there will be any decent moves out there to "blow up" the team and tank for the lottery. Probably not worth it to tank the season just to get a late lottery pick. In that sense, you're right.
My original point was mainly that there's a big difference between picking in the late lottery / mid 1st for a few years and tanking to pick in the top 5-10 for a few years.
If you hang out on the edge of the playoffs, you need to get fantastically lucky in the draft or have a great free agent destination to land a star.
I'm not sure I agree with your overall reasoning on this. You want to begin rebuilding as soon as it's clear we're not title contenders, that I can see. But the only way to get to be a title contender (at least at the level that you want) is to get a franchise player. In terms of reaching that goal, the 12th or 18th pick isn't going to make a huge difference, and arguably gettign a 6-8 pick won't either. Grab some decent young players in the draft without getting a superstar and your team will improve to the point that you're less likely to get a superstar in the draft.
What you're saying just suggests to me that a rebuilding effort has to be all-in. You can't be half-committed to a rebuild. That's why it requires support from ownership, because truly rebuilding will result in a team that's really bad and lacking in stars for at least a couple years, if not more.
After this season, we need to be all-in. Minimum salary requirements mean it won't be possible to totally tank, but we can commit as little long term money as possible and only pick up role players + young players who need to be developed.
What I'm saying is that your version of rebuilding seems to involve hanging around at the bottom of the league until we nab a franchise player, no matter how long it takes. That's not necessarily my view of what we need to do going forward.
For me, the only thing that matters right now is whether we rebuild in that manner or try to reload a little faster, I don't see much benefit from thinking about it before this summer.
I will gladly talk about rebuilding at the end of June. Until then, lets enjoy quality basketball while we still can.
Topic: C's are clearly not contenders (Read 29252 times)