HofstraBBall wrote:Btw. Jazz showing some signs of a rebuild.
They drafted the right player we didn't, if we took Mitchell we would of been .500 at the very least
Jmpasq wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Btw. Jazz showing some signs of a rebuild.
They drafted the right player we didn't, if we took Mitchell we would of been .500 at the very least
Which means we drafted the right player. Who wants to be around .500 in NBA. Only perennial losers.
arkrud wrote:Jmpasq wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Btw. Jazz showing some signs of a rebuild.
They drafted the right player we didn't, if we took Mitchell we would of been .500 at the very least
Which means we drafted the right player. Who wants to be around .500 in NBA. Only perennial losers.
I'm confused so your strategy is to pick the least talented players in the draft? The purpose of losing is to build a roster of great young players, not shit young players. Obviously if we pick the right guys in the draft we will probably have years around .500 first like the 76ers. I very much doubt this roster will go from 30 to 60 wins in 1 year
I don't get why ping pong balls are given out based on position in the standings, shouldn't be based on wins? Look at this year there are 9 teams within 2 wins of each other why should a team with 1 or 2 wins more get such better odds at the top pick. Shouldn't they work out some mathematical formula that incorporates winning percentage differences. For instance Chicago has 20 wins and has a 2% chance at the top pick and the Suns with 18 have a 20% chance, has does that follow.
Every year there are players drafted that should have went earlier, or are bettter rookies.
55 games does not make a career. Not for teenagers.
Jmpasq wrote:arkrud wrote:Jmpasq wrote:HofstraBBall wrote:Btw. Jazz showing some signs of a rebuild.
They drafted the right player we didn't, if we took Mitchell we would of been .500 at the very least
Which means we drafted the right player. Who wants to be around .500 in NBA. Only perennial losers.
I'm confused so your strategy is to pick the least talented players in the draft? The purpose of losing is to build a roster of great young players, not shit young players. Obviously if we pick the right guys in the draft we will probably have years around .500 first like the 76ers. I very much doubt this roster will go from 30 to 60 wins in 1 year
Of course it will not.
In 5 years may be.
Team building is long process.
Especially if you starting from demolishing and ground 0.
My point is this was correct pick at this point of rebuild.
Considering time window, upside, and skill set.
Scoring point guards are always available in bunches.
Defensive specialists not so much.
We traded the TeamCancer for vets! Quality vets! Overachieving vets! Hooray!
Oh shit, they actually don't play D here, EITHER! McFuckets can't shoot! What the hell?
KOQ is the way! Rim protection! Other GM's are salivating! We're going to get assets for KOQ!
Oh wow, KOQ is back to being... inconsistent, hey, when did that ever happen before?
We signed Timmy! Take that Phil, you barefooted selfie taking Dolanrich bastid! He's going to overperform for that PG-type contract! Look, what a great investment he is!
Timmy's hurt! Timmy suhhhhucks! Timmy's not Robin to KP's Batman, because KP's not Batman! He's more like the Green Hornet! And now KP's going to possibly pull a BK on us!
I just want to know, where are all these "assets" that are going to play once we just buy out all these vets, or give them away while stockpiling second rounders?
Frankie?
Burke?
Dotson?
Kornet?
Probably be more fun to watch old DLee and Gallinari and KryptoNate highlights... 
