[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

That has to be followed by a "yes, but..." though

Golden State was mediocre/bad 10 years ago. They had a neat little resurgence when Don Nelson took over, but like most Don Nelson teams, they faltered when the shooting dried up and the defenses got tougher. They never really "tanked" though. They have some kind of insane-o John Dorsey-type front office guy finding NBA talent, because they got all those players without ever picking all that high in the draft.

Golden State is the exception. There simply aren't a whole lot of great teams like Golden State these days. The Spurs are the other exception. And we all know another huge component to the Spurs' success beyond their ability to find talent in the bottom parts of the draft...

If you're not going to tank, it's just really hard to assemble a complete team primarily through the draft. That's why basketball is so damn frustrating sometimes. Baseball teams can draft guys based on potential, and if the players come up short of that potential but still are decent players, that's considered a win. Same with football. And in both football and baseball, ANY team can find studs far more easily due to the enormous variance of positions and roster size.

Basketball just doesn't have that luxury. You either need the super stars or you need a HOF transcendent coach like Popovich to win.

No, free agency isn't the only solution. You still have to figure out how to draft good players. But it has to be a big part of the team-building strategy in the NBA.

I'm not sure Minnesota or Milwaukee "tanked" either. They were bad, but I don't think they were intentionally bad. They also hit on some picks (including a second rounder in Mil) and made good trades (Love to the Cavs).

Philly openly tanked and it has, now, paid off. However, for a while, their direction didn't make much sense at all. I mean, how many centers/pfs do you need on one team?