A season where wins are losses

cowens/oldschool wrote:

112288 wrote:This goes out to all who think:

The draft is bull shxt and that the odds are so great against landing a great player, so why not win for the sake of the Gipper and hey Look Good and feel great about our team (20 something and 50 something...ya right!) by finishing up with a winning streak that will cause us to greatly decrease our odds in the ping pong ball game of landing one of the top 3 picks and potential major talent........................sooooooo

Don't get on THE GAME ON THREAD OR WHATEVER TREAD IS CREATED FOR DRAFT NIGHT and be TWO FACED by puffing out your chests and proclaiming Danny a genus, and the player selected the next coming of Larry legend or Bill Russell. 'Cause odds are you would never have selected that player had it not been for the extended losing streak we are currently going through that caused us to increase our chances (odds) in the ping pong game of landing a major talent!


Cannot have your cake and eat it too my friends!

112288

is this what your looking for Sam? I agree with 112288 that I have already wrote off this season and want the best probability situation to get the best pick possible.

I promise I will not proclaim Danny to be a genius because of who he picks.  Considering how many times I've already called him that I think we'd be in serious overkill territory.  In fact, I can't remember the last time I declared any GM to be a genius based upon his selection of a player who has never laced up a sneaker in the NBA, but perhaps my memory is at fault.  I might proclaim him to be a genius if he pulls off a genius trade that includes this draft pick.  Why is that different?  Because there are many different ways for that reality to come true that are not tightly linked to your previous season's W-L record.

For example, if we had the #7 pick in 2007 instead of the #5 would that have killed the Ray Allen deal?  Maybe not.  We could have sweetened the deal with another draft pick or cash or more players or all of the above.  Also, if Jeff Green was still on the board when #7 came around and that's the specific player Seattle wanted, then it would not have hurt the deal at all nor required any tweaking.  And, oh by the way, we finished with the 2nd worst record in the league, the pingpong balls bounced against us, giving us the #5 pick and not #2.  Not many people remember that, that we had the second worst record in the league and ended up with the #5 pick and Look! it all worked out anyway.  Sure, if we had gotten the #2 pick we could have had Durant (assuming Danny took him) but we didn't, despite having 24-58 record.  

Also, the difference in odds between #4 and #6 aren't that great as to make the difference, especially if this draft is as deep as is claimed.  The chances of having the fourth best record and getting the #1 pick bet is 11.9%.  The chances of getting the #1 pick and having the sixth worst record is 6.3%.  Is that really that big of a difference that you'd root against your team?  It's not enough for me, but that's just my opinion.

Lastly, the point about how "you can't call Danny a genius if you like his draft pick because he wouldn't have been available if we hadn't lost so many games this year" makes some assumptions.

1.  That the player would have been taken by someone else before our turn came.  False.  How many teams passed over Rondo, Garnett and Pierce?  Rondo was picked #21, Garnett was #5 (Joe Smith, Antonio McDyess, Jerry Stackhouse and Rasheed were taken before him.  Do you think Kevin McHale said "Damn!  If only we had lost a few more games we could have had Joe Smith!) and Pierce, at #10, was picked after Olawakandi, Raef LaFrentz and Robert "Tractor" Traylor.  The drafting of those other players pushed KG etal down and that's why he was available at #5.  

2.  That your W-L record has a significant impact on where you draft.  Minny ended up tied with Washington for the 3rd worst record that year (Clips at 17-65, Minny and Washington tied at 21-61).  So, they should have been no worse than 3rd but ended up with the #5 pick (KG).  We had the 2nd worst record in the league in 1997 and had the 3rd and 5 picks (Billups and Mercer).  In 1998 we were tied with Milwaukee for 9th/10th worst record, picked 10th and got Paul Pierce.  Damn!  If only we had lost a few more games we could have had Jason Williams instead.  

3.  Your draft slot means that's who you get.  The Bucks, in the 1998 draft, picked ahead of us (they won the coin flip and picked ninth and we picked tenth).  (Voice of Commissioner David Stern):  With the #6 pick in the 1998 draft, the Dallas Mavericks select (pause) Robert Traylor, of the University of Michigan.  The Dallas Mavericks trade Robert Traylor to the Milwaukee Bucks for the #9 pick in the 1998 draft and for Milwaukee's #19 pick in the 1998 draft.  (Later that draft night):  With the #19 pick in the 1998 draft, the Dallas Mavericks select Pat Garrity, of the University of Notre Dame.  The Dallas Mavericks trade Pat Garrity, Bubba Wells, Martin Muursepp and the #9 pick in the 1998 draft, to the Phoenix Suns for Steve Nash.  The #9 pick in the 1998 draft turned out to be Shawn Marion, and Phoenix ended up getting Nash back.  So, instead of picking Nowitzki with the #6 pick, they ended up picking him up with the #9 pick.  Think there would be a big difference if they had the #7 pick?  I don't, not unless you're convinced that Traylor was going to be gone at #7 and, once he was unavailable, the Bucks would have lost interest or pursued whichever team did draft him at 7.


NBA GM's minds are riddles, wrapped in a mystery, inside of an enigma.  Draft picks are toys to them.  The Lakers are desperate for a PG.  If Marcus Smart and Dante Exum are off the board by the time they pick you don't think they'd want to talk trade?  If we pick either of those players, don't you think Mitch Kupchak and Danny Ainge wouldn't talk about sending him west while we get the Lakers' pick later that round and someone else Danny likes?  Or don't you think that Exum or Smart will be available by #5 or 6?  This is far, far, far from linear.


bob


.