Would you rather . . .

[Moranis]

Rebuilding doesn't mean tanking season after the season until one day you are a contender.  But it does generally require dipping into the doldrums for a season or two in order to get the assets you need to build back up.

Most teams that rebuild via lottery blow up don't ever seem to climb back out.

You yourself documented all the misses the Bobcats have made, that's far more typical of lottery teams compared to what OKC pulled off with its picks.

I think teams often have trouble climbing out because they have bad ownership or bad management -- that's how they got there, and that's what makes it doubly hard to get out.  On top of that, many of these teams are in small markets, so it's exceedingly hard for them to stay on the necessary course, with the necessary discipline, to really do it right.

I don't think that outright tanking is necessary in order to rebuild.  The Rockets are a great example of that.  But you need to be smart, and you need to forgo win-now, or even win-two-years-from-now sort of moves in order to win 4 or 5 years in the future.

exactly.  Teams with good management structures in place can get into the lottery and supplement and climb out.  Look at the Lakers and Jazz in recent seasons.  Into the lottery for a season, draft correctly, and climb back out with other smart moves.  The Thunder correctly utilized their draft picks and climbed into a contender by being bad and making wise decisions.  They sold Allen at the right time, got lucky in the Durant draft (and then picked up Ibaka later that draft), but continued to draft well with Westbrook and Harden neither of which was a no brainer.  They took some gambles that didn't work out, like trading Eric Bledsoe's rights for a future pick (which actually was the Fab Melo selection), but overall hit far more than they missed. 

Winning in the NBA is mostly about management.  Sure if get lucky and land a Lebron James, Shaquille O'neal, Tim Duncan, etc. it helps, but if the team mismanages its roster even landing a stud won't lead to titles (i.e. Orlando trading Webber for Penny and a bunch of picks they blew OR the whole Boozer debacle in Cleveland), but if you are a team like the Spurs that properly manages your team, you will win multiple titles in that case.

[Fafnir]

Rebuilding doesn't mean tanking season after the season until one day you are a contender.  But it does generally require dipping into the doldrums for a season or two in order to get the assets you need to build back up.

Most teams that rebuild via lottery blow up don't ever seem to climb back out.

You yourself documented all the misses the Bobcats have made, that's far more typical of lottery teams compared to what OKC pulled off with its picks.

I think teams often have trouble climbing out because they have bad ownership or bad management -- that's how they got there, and that's what makes it doubly hard to get out.  On top of that, many of these teams are in small markets, so it's exceedingly hard for them to stay on the necessary course, with the necessary discipline, to really do it right.

I don't think that outright tanking is necessary in order to rebuild.  The Rockets are a great example of that.  But you need to be smart, and you need to forgo win-now, or even win-two-years-from-now sort of moves in order to win 4 or 5 years in the future.

exactly.  Teams with good management structures in place can get into the lottery and supplement and climb out.  Look at the Lakers and Jazz in recent seasons.  Into the lottery for a season, draft correctly, and climb back out with other smart moves.  The Thunder correctly utilized their draft picks and climbed into a contender by being bad and making wise decisions.  They sold Allen at the right time, got lucky in the Durant draft (and then picked up Ibaka later that draft), but continued to draft well with Westbrook and Harden neither of which was a no brainer.  They took some gambles that didn't work out, like trading Eric Bledsoe's rights for a future pick (which actually was the Fab Melo selection), but overall hit far more than they missed. 

Winning in the NBA is mostly about management.  Sure if get lucky and land a Lebron James, Shaquille O'neal, Tim Duncan, etc. it helps, but if the team mismanages its roster even landing a stud won't lead to titles (i.e. Orlando trading Webber for Penny and a bunch of picks they blew OR the whole Boozer debacle in Cleveland), but if you are a team like the Spurs that properly manages your team, you will win multiple titles in that case.

Right which is exactly why you don't have to "blow it up" and be terrible for multiple years.

[Moranis]

Rebuilding doesn't mean tanking season after the season until one day you are a contender.  But it does generally require dipping into the doldrums for a season or two in order to get the assets you need to build back up.

Most teams that rebuild via lottery blow up don't ever seem to climb back out.

You yourself documented all the misses the Bobcats have made, that's far more typical of lottery teams compared to what OKC pulled off with its picks.

I think teams often have trouble climbing out because they have bad ownership or bad management -- that's how they got there, and that's what makes it doubly hard to get out.  On top of that, many of these teams are in small markets, so it's exceedingly hard for them to stay on the necessary course, with the necessary discipline, to really do it right.

I don't think that outright tanking is necessary in order to rebuild.  The Rockets are a great example of that.  But you need to be smart, and you need to forgo win-now, or even win-two-years-from-now sort of moves in order to win 4 or 5 years in the future.

exactly.  Teams with good management structures in place can get into the lottery and supplement and climb out.  Look at the Lakers and Jazz in recent seasons.  Into the lottery for a season, draft correctly, and climb back out with other smart moves.  The Thunder correctly utilized their draft picks and climbed into a contender by being bad and making wise decisions.  They sold Allen at the right time, got lucky in the Durant draft (and then picked up Ibaka later that draft), but continued to draft well with Westbrook and Harden neither of which was a no brainer.  They took some gambles that didn't work out, like trading Eric Bledsoe's rights for a future pick (which actually was the Fab Melo selection), but overall hit far more than they missed. 

Winning in the NBA is mostly about management.  Sure if get lucky and land a Lebron James, Shaquille O'neal, Tim Duncan, etc. it helps, but if the team mismanages its roster even landing a stud won't lead to titles (i.e. Orlando trading Webber for Penny and a bunch of picks they blew OR the whole Boozer debacle in Cleveland), but if you are a team like the Spurs that properly manages your team, you will win multiple titles in that case.

Right which is exactly why you don't have to "blow it up" and be terrible for multiple years.

But the vast majority of title teams are founded on at least one lottery pick, drafted by the team.  The Celtics had Pierce and supplemented him by trading a lottery pick for Allen, and a couple of lottery picks (or near lottery picks) for KG.  The Heat had Wade.  The Lakers had Kobe and Bynum.  The Spurs have Duncan.  Sure they added some nice free agents and/or later draft picks to supplement the teams, but title winning teams win by having at least one all timer that they drafted in the lottery.

[chambers]

Lottery. If we decide to keep rondo then perhaps try & get a premium scorer  or big man to pair with him. If we move Rondo, get some lottery talent back in return. Ie...to.do for Demarcus Cousins plus the kings lottery pick.
All depends on who we can either pair with rondo or get for rondo.
Id rather go for a championship and suffer like the bobcats for 7 years with a shot at a title than be a perennial 2nd round exit like the hawks or blazers. I have enough trust in ainge that he'd be good at building from scratch that we most likely don't end up suffering as long as Charlotte has.