Really? So, how would we not cap ourselves out and sign even 3 out of: Afflalo, Asik, Jeff Green, Hibbert/Jefferson, and Danny Green? Those guys aren't signing for $2 million/year.
Can't say I know without running over the numbers myself yet, but I'd be willing to look into it if you were able to prove it wouldn't just be a further waste of my time. All you need to do is show me where /u/angelino11 says he favors signing three or more of those guys and I will give you your answer. That shouldn't be too hard if indeed you aren't just spinning men out of straw, right?
You're assuming that if we sign Jeff Green or Aaron Afflalo that we'll somehow be able to package them for a star, and the chances of that happening are even lower than drafting a star player from the 1-5 slots.
(...)
If we don't have young players to trade that teams actually want, then all of these veteran "assets" don't mean a thing. And the way we get those young players is by drafting them.
Of course, but trying to package Green, Afflalo, et. al for a star directly isn't the only possibility you have, now is it? You can trade them for picks or other young players, who can also be traded, and so on and so forth. Do this enough times and it's only logical that at some point you will have the right assets for a star. Do it as quickly as the Rockets did and you may even capitalize on an opportunity before the market has a chance to re-adjust.
The point is, rebuilding through the middle needn't sacrifice your long-term flexibility or success for short-term gains as you roundly assert it must. Every asset you trade is subject to a multiplier effect not unlike in economics.
The only permanent cap on this multiplier and what it can bring you is your own incompetence. An overdependence on trades will naturally result in your team becoming the Knicks, Nets or 2011 Magic, just as an overconfidence in drafting will trap your team in a downward spiral like the Bobcats of old or the Cavs, pre-LeBron. Avoid that, however, and your odds of a successful turnaround are much, much higher than a 32% chance of drafting a star if everything else goes right.1
First of all and FWIW, I didn't actually say you would never agree to trade the pick either.
Oh, really? That pretty much doesn't jibe with your statement below.
At least most of the pro-tank crowd that I've spoken to has left the door open to trading the pick for a proven player, but you seemingly allow no scenario for that either.
I merely said your logic doesn't permit that to be a possibility,
If you think we can trade for a star player with our lottery pick and what we have on the roster, then go with God, but you're living in a fantasy land.
Psst. Have you ever noticed how often you start a sentence off with some variation of “if you think this...” or “if you assume that...”? Well, here's a secret: whatever “this” or “that” may be according to you is quite likely to be wrong. And in fact, the more frequently you choose to preface your arguments this way, the worse it tends to reflect on you.
Rest assured (because at least one of us always will be), I know what I've written. And I stand not only by what I said before but also what you did. You refuse to entertain trading the pick at all on the grounds that 1) the deal must have a star in it 2) you don't think anyone will do one of those for what we have on our roster.
In this, we see two gaping leaps of logic. First, as before, that unless we are getting a star, a trade is not worth making. Second, that there is no chance, none, that some deal for the type of player you want can be had.
Is that necessarily the case with either though? If we were to, say, trade down for multiple other picks, that would in theory give us a better chance of finding the next young star player you claim can only obtained from the lottery, right?
Or if some player that normally couldn't be had through free agency so early becomes available due to factors we can't foresee, would you still not so much as even try to trade the pick, even though the attempt itself would cost nothing?
You may not be guaranteed better odds than stumbling on a star in the draft, but the only scenarios with a 100% guarantee of anything are the ones you choose not to participate in at all.
How is the reward "smaller"? If we successfully tank next year, we'll have a pick in the 1-3 range. That seems to me to be a greater reward than picking in the 4 or 5 range.
If you're actually reading my posts word for word, you should have little trouble answering that question yourself. Must I really go back and show you why not all drafts are considered equal or why nearly all the current projections of 2016 are calling it the weakest draft since 2001? I think not.
How you or any other tankard has any confidence in the FO drafting the right player when, by your own admission, you haven't thought highly of the moves they have made the last few years, still eludes me.
1 Odds of a top 3 pick with the worst record (~65%) over. 5 chance of player panning out.