An NBA Draft Lottery analysis: Is getting worse than we are really necessary?

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Absolute front page material, I agree with the rest. TP Nick.

And you're right, having the worst record doesn't really guarantee you the top pick.

And to blow up the team who has very solid pieces in set already just for the sake of sucking and in return, getting a slight better chance of having a top 1 pick, in which, according to Nick's math, is not even a guarantee, is much more of a risk moving forward. Especially when that said team already has a ton of assets to use to begin with.

And I also agree with rondoallaturca and I will even expand the analogy. You don't sell your car for a 25% chance to have a house 5 minutes away from your livelihood when the odds are 75%, you will lose and will have to walk to work for miles the next 10 years. Especially when your car has a full tank of gas and enough money to upgrade it into a faster car, piece by piece.

[nickagneta]

Restating what others have said because I like the sound of my own text:

Looking at every draft of the last 20 years, or since the weighted system became the norm, you're neglecting the context of the quality of each draft (and still not getting statistical significance) If you only look at similarly hyped drafts your sample size becomes so small, the trend is meaningless.

Darned if you do, darned if you don't. Neither one really gives you a picture of a outcome that is terribly impossible to judge anyways. The best we can do is look at what we know.

1) Alledgedly historically good draft on the top end

2) Being terribly bad is the best way according to the system to get a higher pick, giving you the best choice of players.

It becomes a cost-benefit of what we have to give up to be really bad (not much, unless it involves dealing Rondo) vs what we hope to gain in the lottery.

And yet, just because a draft is hyped as having all this transcendent talent guarantees nothing. 2007 was a hugely hyped draft with expectations of franchise to All-Star types all the way down to the 8th or 9th pick. Except Oden, Jianlian, Wright, Brewer, Conley and Green happened instead. That draft now looks rather average with maybe the second best player in that draft being taken at 48. #2 Durant, #48 Marc Gasol, # 3 Horford, #8 Noah.

So if looking at past drafts as a predictor for what might happen in future drafts is flawed or wrong, then attempting to pre-qualify a draft as a superior draft is just as flawed a thought.

So it really comes down to the thinking that its probably best to just play to win and do the best scouting you can and grab that transcendent talent wherever you pick.

[indeedproceed]

Restating what others have said because I like the sound of my own text:

Looking at every draft of the last 20 years, or since the weighted system became the norm, you're neglecting the context of the quality of each draft (and still not getting statistical significance) If you only look at similarly hyped drafts your sample size becomes so small, the trend is meaningless.

Darned if you do, darned if you don't. Neither one really gives you a picture of a outcome that is terribly impossible to judge anyways. The best we can do is look at what we know.

1) Alledgedly historically good draft on the top end

2) Being terribly bad is the best way according to the system to get a higher pick, giving you the best choice of players.

It becomes a cost-benefit of what we have to give up to be really bad (not much, unless it involves dealing Rondo) vs what we hope to gain in the lottery.

And yet, just because a draft is hyped as having all this transcendent talent guarantees nothing. 2007 was a hugely hyped draft with expectations of franchise to All-Star types all the way down to the 8th or 9th pick. Except Oden, Jianlian, Wright, Brewer, Conley and Green happened instead. That draft now looks rather average with maybe the second best player in that draft being taken at 48. #2 Durant, #48 Marc Gasol, # 3 Horford, #8 Noah.

So if looking at past drafts as a predictor for what might happen in future drafts is flawed or wrong, then attempting to pre-qualify a draft as a superior draft is just as flawed a thought.

So it really comes down to the thinking that its probably best to just play to win and do the best scouting you can and grab that transcendent talent wherever you pick.

I always thought that 'well Marc Gasol was picked 48 (you can do this with lots of other guys too; Pekovic, Ibaka, Tony Parker, Mirotic in a few years, etc..), you don't need to tank to get an all-star' argument was hooey.

Yeah, really good players sometimes get taken later than they should have been in retrospect. Often its the case even, at least 1 or 2 'sleepers' every year. Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Kenneth Faried..yeah we get it.

But the thing of it is, those picks are only no brainers in retrospect. It is much more probable that you will pickup an all-star, even a long-term starter at a top 5 pick than it is if you're picking 20th. Finding that 'transcendent talent wherever you are' is WAYYY easier if where you are is in the top-5.

[nickagneta]

Restating what others have said because I like the sound of my own text:

Looking at every draft of the last 20 years, or since the weighted system became the norm, you're neglecting the context of the quality of each draft (and still not getting statistical significance) If you only look at similarly hyped drafts your sample size becomes so small, the trend is meaningless.

Darned if you do, darned if you don't. Neither one really gives you a picture of a outcome that is terribly impossible to judge anyways. The best we can do is look at what we know.

1) Alledgedly historically good draft on the top end

2) Being terribly bad is the best way according to the system to get a higher pick, giving you the best choice of players.

It becomes a cost-benefit of what we have to give up to be really bad (not much, unless it involves dealing Rondo) vs what we hope to gain in the lottery.

And yet, just because a draft is hyped as having all this transcendent talent guarantees nothing. 2007 was a hugely hyped draft with expectations of franchise to All-Star types all the way down to the 8th or 9th pick. Except Oden, Jianlian, Wright, Brewer, Conley and Green happened instead. That draft now looks rather average with maybe the second best player in that draft being taken at 48. #2 Durant, #48 Marc Gasol, # 3 Horford, #8 Noah.

So if looking at past drafts as a predictor for what might happen in future drafts is flawed or wrong, then attempting to pre-qualify a draft as a superior draft is just as flawed a thought.

So it really comes down to the thinking that its probably best to just play to win and do the best scouting you can and grab that transcendent talent wherever you pick.

I always thought that 'well Marc Gasol was picked 48 (you can do this with lots of other guys too; Pekovic, Ibaka, Tony Parker, Mirotic in a few years, etc..), you don't need to tank to get an all-star' argument was hooey.

Yeah, really good players sometimes get taken later than they should have been in retrospect. Often its the case even, at least 1 or 2 'sleepers' every year. Jimmy Butler, Kawhi Leonard, Kenneth Faried..yeah we get it.

But the thing of it is, those picks are only no brainers in retrospect. It is much more probable that you will pickup an all-star, even a long-term starter at a top 5 pick than it is if you're picking 20th. Finding that 'transcendent talent wherever you are' is WAYYY easier if where you are is in the top-5.

You are moving the goal posts. The point is pre-qualifying the quality of a draft and the talent at the level at the top is as flawed as looking back to get an idea of the chances going forward.

That 2007 draft was as hyped as this coming 2014 draft but it turned out to be an average draft with some massive strikeouts in the top 5 picks. The 2009 draft was dubbed Blake Griffin and everyone else and was considered as poor a draft before it took place as this 2013 draft. Yet Griffin, Harden, Curry, Evans, Jennings, Holiday, Rubio, Lawson, and Henderson show that it wasn't a bad draft but rather average as well.

[PhoSita]

Unless you are a brutal team from head to toe, you are not getting the 1st pick. Or 1-5.

You can be a team with talent that gets hit hard by injuries.  Or you can get lucky in the lottery.

You can also be a team with a lot of mediocre to average role players that is not put together with any sort of plan for actually competing in mind.  In other words, a hodge podge without many top-shelf contributors.

I mean, if you look at some of the worst teams of the past few years, they're not all completely devoid of talent.  Some have a handful of decent veterans.  But they're not built to win.

I look at our roster right now and feel like it pretty much meets that description.  Our best player is probably a complementary star at best, and he's coming off a major knee injury.  Our second best player is primarily a scorer who's never been terribly efficient or productive; he doesn't impact the game in many ways other than his scoring.  We're 4-5 players deep at SG and PF and we have no NBA-caliber center or a proven point guard other than Rondo.

This team is a mess -- by design.

[indeedproceed]

And yet, just because a draft is hyped as having all this transcendent talent guarantees nothing. 2007 was a hugely hyped draft with expectations of franchise to All-Star types all the way down to the 8th or 9th pick. Except Oden, Jianlian, Wright, Brewer, Conley and Green happened instead. That draft now looks rather average with maybe the second best player in that draft being taken at 48. #2 Durant, #48 Marc Gasol, # 3 Horford, #8 Noah.

I think this point is both valid and invalid at the same time, obviously for different reasons.

Its valid because the 'experts' always get something wrong. That's not really a knock on them, since they're literally trying to predict how a human being will react to thousands of variables over the course of a 10-12 year career. That's a daunting task.

Its invalid because there isn't an alternative. We can't look at the draft in 2003 and in 2007 and decide how the draft in 2014 is going to go. All we can do is use the imperfect scouting from professionals (and, I guess, the statistical analysis of college performances) to make a plan going forward.

And when the professionals say this draft could have 6 or 7 franchise caliber players, that's a good indicator that we ought to pay attention.

[Q_FBE]

The lottery balls got rid of one thing: The infamous bent envolope of the 1985 draft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX1kMlG8c7Y

The moral of the story is don't rely on tanking. The NBA is a punitive unforgiving league as Seattle fans will attest to (Regards to my friend Ty of Tacoma).

[mmmmm]

To go along with this, the success of the players in the draft is also random and not always a lock. Even if the C's tank and miraculously land the #1 overall pick, there's no guarantee Wiggins, Parker, or whoever pan out. I know that's a negative way of looking at things, but we really don't know how their games will translate to college and the NBA. Flushing the roster for a chance just seems excessive.

I like this chart which shows the success of first round picks the past 30 years - http://i.imgur.com/Pg5szdQ.png

Great link.  Great comments.  Tommy Point.

One other interesting tidbit from that chart:  Along the bottom edge it notes the number of NBA champions from each slot.   

Not surprising, the 1st pick had it's share, at 6 (though FOUR of those guys (Sampson, Hakeem, Tim & The Admiral) won on just TWO teams (Houston & SA).    And the other 2 (Shaq, Lebron) did not win until moving to other teams.

But the 5th pick was dominant, with 9 NBA champions.

Runners up: the 3rd, 4th & 10th picks all produced 7 champions.

Skipping down the slots, it's interesting to note that the 20th pick has produced 6 players who played on NBA champion teams (despite having only 2 guys make All-Star)!

Obviously not all players on a title team are created equal.   But it's still interesting.

[mmmmm]

The OP makes some good points.

But I guess my reaction to this is . . . so?  Of course the lottery is not a sure thing.  It's not supposed to be a sure thing that getting a top pick will bring you a championship, or even that all-out tanking will win the lottery.

That doesn't change the fact that the players most likely to help a team to multiple 50+ win seasons and a chance at a title are taken in the top 5 of the draft, and by far the easiest way to get such players is to get a top 5 draft pick, and by far the most likely way to get a top 5 draft pick is to be one of the 5 worst teams for at least one season.

Bottom Line: It's a crappy system.  Unfortunely, we've got to work within it.

On what basis do you claim that that is the 'easiest' way to add a Top 5 talent?

Why is that easier than just trading for 'top 5' talent?

I don't have the numbers down to the 5th pick handy, but I do know that the vast majority of Top 3' talent in the last 20 years that have gone on to win a title have done so on teams that did NOT draft them.

As stated above, only 4 #1 overall picks -- and on just 2 teams, have won the title on the teams that drafted them.    No other teams other than Houston or San Antonio have had won a title since drafting #1 overall in the last 30 years.  And both of them only did it after adding a SECOND #1 overall.

Only 4 teams in the last 30 years that have picked #2 have won a title AT ALL since drawing that pick.   And not one of those actually contributed in any direct way towards that title.   Len Bias certainly did not contribute to ours.  Jason Kidd left and came back over decade later to help with Dallas' title.   Darko sat on the bench for Detroit's.  And finally Miami tanked only to get Beasely - whom they ended up trading for trash.  They only became a title team again after purchasing Lebron from free agency.

The numbers are similar with the #3 pick.

The point is, while certainly top 5 talent is needed to win titles.  The vast majority of the top 3 talent is only winning titles after _moving_ from the team that drafted it.  That suggests strongly that most title teams are NOT acquiring that talent via the draft.  Instead, they are acquiring it via trade or free agency.

Which begs the question if getting that talent is 'easiest' through the draft, then why aren't those teams doing so?

You will probably cite that most title teams did have a top pick on their roster that they indeed drafted.  Most of these top picks have been 5-10.  Often they were on those teams for YEARS before they finally won a title --- and then only by ADDING at least one more top talent via trade / free agency.

To bring this back to the Celtics - the Celtics already have several top talent pieces.  Green is a #5 pick.  Rondo is one of the most fantastic 'value' picks -- clearly he is lottery-level talent even though he was taken at #21.   Sully was a consensus top 7 pick all the way until right before the draft when his back issues tumbled him down to us.   And Olynyk is clearly a legit value at #13.    You can argue about how exactly to value the two youngsters -- there are definite question marks.  But so too would there be question marks of whomever we draft next year.  More so, in fact.

The point is, the roster right now HAS several pieces of 'lottery level' talent.

The next step based on the historically most consistently successful model, is to now try to trade to bring in a 'Top 3' level talent.

We have a variety of contracts that can be moved.  We have excess 1st round picks.  Danny has all the pieces to build almost any trade package.   All he needs now is a trading partner.  He just has to wait until the next Top 3 talent is available via trade.

[nickagneta]

The OP makes some good points.

But I guess my reaction to this is . . . so?  Of course the lottery is not a sure thing.  It's not supposed to be a sure thing that getting a top pick will bring you a championship, or even that all-out tanking will win the lottery.

That doesn't change the fact that the players most likely to help a team to multiple 50+ win seasons and a chance at a title are taken in the top 5 of the draft, and by far the easiest way to get such players is to get a top 5 draft pick, and by far the most likely way to get a top 5 draft pick is to be one of the 5 worst teams for at least one season.

Bottom Line: It's a crappy system.  Unfortunely, we've got to work within it.

On what basis do you claim that that is the 'easiest' way to add a Top 5 talent?

Why is that easier than just trading for 'top 5' talent?

I don't have the numbers down to the 5th pick handy, but I do know that the vast majority of Top 3' talent in the last 20 years that have gone on to win a title have done so on teams that did NOT draft them.

As stated above, only 4 #1 overall picks -- and on just 2 teams, have won the title on the teams that drafted them.    No other teams other than Houston or San Antonio have had won a title since drafting #1 overall in the last 30 years.  And both of them only did it after adding a SECOND #1 overall.

Only 4 teams in the last 30 years that have picked #2 have won a title AT ALL since drawing that pick.   And not one of those actually contributed in any direct way towards that title.   Len Bias certainly did not contribute to ours.  Jason Kidd left and came back over decade later to help with Dallas' title.   Darko sat on the bench for Detroit's.  And finally Miami tanked only to get Beasely - whom they ended up trading for trash.  They only became a title team again after purchasing Lebron from free agency.

The numbers are similar with the #3 pick.

The point is, while certainly top 5 talent is needed to win titles.  The vast majority of the top 3 talent is only winning titles after _moving_ from the team that drafted it.  That suggests strongly that most title teams are NOT acquiring that talent via the draft.  Instead, they are acquiring it via trade or free agency.

Which begs the question if getting that talent is 'easiest' through the draft, then why aren't those teams doing so?

You will probably cite that most title teams did have a top pick on their roster that they indeed drafted.  Most of these top picks have been 5-10.  Often they were on those teams for YEARS before they finally won a title --- and then only by ADDING at least one more top talent via trade / free agency.

To bring this back to the Celtics - the Celtics already have several top talent pieces.  Green is a #5 pick.  Rondo is one of the most fantastic 'value' picks -- clearly he is lottery-level talent even though he was taken at #21.   Sully was a consensus top 7 pick all the way until right before the draft when his back issues tumbled him down to us.   And Olynyk is clearly a legit value at #13.    You can argue about how exactly to value the two youngsters -- there are definite question marks.  But so too would there be question marks of whomever we draft next year.  More so, in fact.

The point is, the roster right now HAS several pieces of 'lottery level' talent.

The next step based on the historically most consistently successful model, is to now try to trade to bring in a 'Top 3' level talent.

We have a variety of contracts that can be moved.  We have excess 1st round picks.  Danny has all the pieces to build almost any trade package.   All he needs now is a trading partner.  He just has to wait until the next Top 3 talent is available via trade.

As always, just a spectacular post from mmmmm. TP.

[PhoSita]

The OP makes some good points.

But I guess my reaction to this is . . . so?  Of course the lottery is not a sure thing.  It's not supposed to be a sure thing that getting a top pick will bring you a championship, or even that all-out tanking will win the lottery.

That doesn't change the fact that the players most likely to help a team to multiple 50+ win seasons and a chance at a title are taken in the top 5 of the draft, and by far the easiest way to get such players is to get a top 5 draft pick, and by far the most likely way to get a top 5 draft pick is to be one of the 5 worst teams for at least one season.

Bottom Line: It's a crappy system.  Unfortunely, we've got to work within it.

On what basis do you claim that that is the 'easiest' way to add a Top 5 talent?

Why is that easier than just trading for 'top 5' talent?

I don't have the numbers down to the 5th pick handy, but I do know that the vast majority of Top 3' talent in the last 20 years that have gone on to win a title have done so on teams that did NOT draft them.

As stated above, only 4 #1 overall picks -- and on just 2 teams, have won the title on the teams that drafted them.    No other teams other than Houston or San Antonio have had won a title since drafting #1 overall in the last 30 years.  And both of them only did it after adding a SECOND #1 overall.

Only 4 teams in the last 30 years that have picked #2 have won a title AT ALL since drawing that pick.   And not one of those actually contributed in any direct way towards that title.   Len Bias certainly did not contribute to ours.  Jason Kidd left and came back over decade later to help with Dallas' title.   Darko sat on the bench for Detroit's.  And finally Miami tanked only to get Beasely - whom they ended up trading for trash.  They only became a title team again after purchasing Lebron from free agency.

The numbers are similar with the #3 pick.

The point is, while certainly top 5 talent is needed to win titles.  The vast majority of the top 3 talent is only winning titles after _moving_ from the team that drafted it.  That suggests strongly that most title teams are NOT acquiring that talent via the draft.  Instead, they are acquiring it via trade or free agency.

Which begs the question if getting that talent is 'easiest' through the draft, then why aren't those teams doing so?

You will probably cite that most title teams did have a top pick on their roster that they indeed drafted.  Most of these top picks have been 5-10.  Often they were on those teams for YEARS before they finally won a title --- and then only by ADDING at least one more top talent via trade / free agency.

To bring this back to the Celtics - the Celtics already have several top talent pieces.  Green is a #5 pick.  Rondo is one of the most fantastic 'value' picks -- clearly he is lottery-level talent even though he was taken at #21.   Sully was a consensus top 7 pick all the way until right before the draft when his back issues tumbled him down to us.   And Olynyk is clearly a legit value at #13.    You can argue about how exactly to value the two youngsters -- there are definite question marks.  But so too would there be question marks of whomever we draft next year.  More so, in fact.

The point is, the roster right now HAS several pieces of 'lottery level' talent.

The next step based on the historically most consistently successful model, is to now try to trade to bring in a 'Top 3' level talent.

We have a variety of contracts that can be moved.  We have excess 1st round picks.  Danny has all the pieces to build almost any trade package.   All he needs now is a trading partner.  He just has to wait until the next Top 3 talent is available via trade.

As always, just a spectacular post from mmmmm. TP.

It's a great post . . . that again, like LooseCannon did a couple pages earlier, completely misses the point.


If you want to acquire a player with top 5-10 talent, what's the easiest, lowest-cost way to acquire such a player?

By drafting them.  Period.


I'm not interested in the fact that many of the teams that draft such players are unsuccessful in holding onto them, or that many teams that get top draft picks don't win championships.  That's a matter of organizational competency -- the way that assets are managed.

I'm talking about asset acquisition.  I have faith in our management's ability to make the most of the talent once they get it.

[Boris Badenov]

The OP makes some good points.

But I guess my reaction to this is . . . so?  Of course the lottery is not a sure thing.  It's not supposed to be a sure thing that getting a top pick will bring you a championship, or even that all-out tanking will win the lottery.

That doesn't change the fact that the players most likely to help a team to multiple 50+ win seasons and a chance at a title are taken in the top 5 of the draft, and by far the easiest way to get such players is to get a top 5 draft pick, and by far the most likely way to get a top 5 draft pick is to be one of the 5 worst teams for at least one season.

Bottom Line: It's a crappy system.  Unfortunely, we've got to work within it.

On what basis do you claim that that is the 'easiest' way to add a Top 5 talent?

Why is that easier than just trading for 'top 5' talent?

I don't have the numbers down to the 5th pick handy, but I do know that the vast majority of Top 3' talent in the last 20 years that have gone on to win a title have done so on teams that did NOT draft them.

As stated above, only 4 #1 overall picks -- and on just 2 teams, have won the title on the teams that drafted them.    No other teams other than Houston or San Antonio have had won a title since drafting #1 overall in the last 30 years.  And both of them only did it after adding a SECOND #1 overall.

Only 4 teams in the last 30 years that have picked #2 have won a title AT ALL since drawing that pick.   And not one of those actually contributed in any direct way towards that title.   Len Bias certainly did not contribute to ours.  Jason Kidd left and came back over decade later to help with Dallas' title.   Darko sat on the bench for Detroit's.  And finally Miami tanked only to get Beasely - whom they ended up trading for trash.  They only became a title team again after purchasing Lebron from free agency.

The numbers are similar with the #3 pick.

The point is, while certainly top 5 talent is needed to win titles.  The vast majority of the top 3 talent is only winning titles after _moving_ from the team that drafted it.  That suggests strongly that most title teams are NOT acquiring that talent via the draft.  Instead, they are acquiring it via trade or free agency.

Which begs the question if getting that talent is 'easiest' through the draft, then why aren't those teams doing so?

You will probably cite that most title teams did have a top pick on their roster that they indeed drafted.  Most of these top picks have been 5-10.  Often they were on those teams for YEARS before they finally won a title --- and then only by ADDING at least one more top talent via trade / free agency.

To bring this back to the Celtics - the Celtics already have several top talent pieces.  Green is a #5 pick.  Rondo is one of the most fantastic 'value' picks -- clearly he is lottery-level talent even though he was taken at #21.   Sully was a consensus top 7 pick all the way until right before the draft when his back issues tumbled him down to us.   And Olynyk is clearly a legit value at #13.    You can argue about how exactly to value the two youngsters -- there are definite question marks.  But so too would there be question marks of whomever we draft next year.  More so, in fact.

The point is, the roster right now HAS several pieces of 'lottery level' talent.

The next step based on the historically most consistently successful model, is to now try to trade to bring in a 'Top 3' level talent.

We have a variety of contracts that can be moved.  We have excess 1st round picks.  Danny has all the pieces to build almost any trade package.   All he needs now is a trading partner.  He just has to wait until the next Top 3 talent is available via trade.

As always, just a spectacular post from mmmmm. TP.

I think Pho just meant that you need assets to trade for a top 5 talent, but you don't need assets to get a top 5 pick. So in that sense it's easier.

The standard disclaimer of course applies: "unless you're the Lakers."

This thread has been great btw. TPs all around. Nice to see a reasonable exchange of ideas on both sides.

[PhoSita]

I think Pho just meant that you need assets to trade for a top 5 talent, but you don't need assets to get a top 5 pick. So in that sense it's easier.

The standard disclaimer of course applies: "unless you're the Lakers."

As always, Boris Badenov wins at reading comprehension / understanding the basic argument.  TP.

[nickagneta]

I think Pho just meant that you need assets to trade for a top 5 talent, but you don't need assets to get a top 5 pick. So in that sense it's easier.

The standard disclaimer of course applies: "unless you're the Lakers."

As always, Boris Badenov wins at reading comprehension / understanding the basic argument.  TP.

Before doling out backhanded compliments on our abilities to read and comprehend perhaps you should read two posts:

The OP makes some good points.

But I guess my reaction to this is . . . so?  Of course the lottery is not a sure thing.  It's not supposed to be a sure thing that getting a top pick will bring you a championship, or even that all-out tanking will win the lottery.

That doesn't change the fact that the players most likely to help a team to multiple 50+ win seasons and a chance at a title are taken in the top 5 of the draft, and by far the easiest way to get such players is to get a top 5 draft pick, and by far the most likely way to get a top 5 draft pick is to be one of the 5 worst teams for at least one season.

Bottom Line: It's a crappy system.  Unfortunely, we've got to work within it.

It's a great post . . . that again, like LooseCannon did a couple pages earlier, completely misses the point.


If you want to acquire a player with top 5-10 talent, what's the easiest, lowest-cost way to acquire such a player?

By drafting them.  Period.


I'm not interested in the fact that many of the teams that draft such players are unsuccessful in holding onto them, or that many teams that get top draft picks don't win championships.  That's a matter of organizational competency -- the way that assets are managed.

I'm talking about asset acquisition.  I have faith in our management's ability to make the most of the talent once they get it.

See my reading comprehension says in the first post you are talking about ability to acquire elite talent. In the second you are talking most cost effective way to get elite talent.

Apples and oranges? I think so.

[KGs Knee]

All I need to know is that tanking (i.e intentionally losing games) is dishonorable.

It's a disgrace to the sport.  I can not endorse my favorite team participating in such behavior.