Do You Make Those Moves?

by oderiferous emanations 74 on May 31, 2008 12:40 AM PDT

In the East we have had Miami making a huge trade to bring in Shaq. It took them from a young team with potential to game 7 of the ECF and then to the title the following year. We all know how quickly they fell apart after that.

Miami gets two great years and a title and gives up Lamar Odom, Caron Butler (turned in Pau Gasol) and Brian Grant (salary relief). All keys to the Lakers current success.

Boston mortgages their future for the present and goes to the finals the first year. Will they be like Miami and be dominant for two years and then quickly slide into obscurity? I would have to say "yes".

Will others follow this trend? Is it better to be just good and competitive for 5-6 years or be great and contending for titles for 2 years?

I have to disqualify Dallas and Phoenix as they were not quite the blockbuster deals as the Boston and Miami trades. Those were more" let's see if this works" trades where the Boston and Miami trades immediately turned those teams into contenders.

Will we see more of these rebuilding teams turn into an overnight success with similar moves in the near future?

Fortune favors the bold. Do you make those moves?

Tweet Comment 8 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Well...

If you’re Dallas or Phoenix and have been on the cusp of getting to (or winning) the Big Show, you are tempted to try something out of desperation to get you to the next level. Obviously, these things didn’t really pan out for either team. I don’t know, if it involves disintegrating your current team to get that one superstar for one shot at winning it all, probably not. But just like I stated before, some teams have been right at that borderline that makes them contenders, but doesn’t get them there. Something drastic might be the solution for short-term gains, but in the long-run it will be hard to recover.

It depends on the situation whether or not you make those moves. If you’re an up-and-coming team, probably not. But if you’re a team that needs that extra boost to push them over the top, it is justifiable.

Beaver believer!

by mannyfresh1 on May 31, 2008 12:50 AM PDT reply actions

Yankees, Dallas, and this year Boston

Yankees try to buy the best talent each year. Once they sign them to big salaries, the players seem to cut back from 110% to something less than needed.

Dallas Mavericks with their $105,272,371 payroll seem to have gone down the same path.

The Celtics this year have found 3 hungry players. Garnett, Pierce, and Allen want to make a statement. That is unique. Will they continue to maintain a high level of achievement after a couple of years? Once they don’t/can’t, the rebuilding process can only come through free-agency (draft to late to acquire talent) and be more difficult. More prolonged. Short term satisfaction may not pay off with the fan base.

by spencerbutte on May 31, 2008 3:30 AM PDT reply actions

You're right

The Celts are gonna win it all this year because their Big Three are really really hungry for a title. Can’t really blame them. Before this year those three had been toiling on mediocre teams for so long they might as well have been playing in Boise.

I don’t envy Celtic fans, though. The “just add water and stir” method of constructing a championship is not very satisfying. Sure, they play their home games at the Garden. But there’s no continuity, no sense of those boys being home boys, no roots in the community. In a way, the Celtics have stolen their success. They didn’t come by it honestly. And like any stolen success it will fade quickly and the Celtics will be left a rotten husk of a team, toiling in mediocrity for years and years.

Here is my prediction. The Celtics win it all this year. Next year, with Ray Allen on a steep decline and Pierce’s body starting to break down from all the extra weight he carries (the dude is a dough boy, let’s face it), the Celts will have to ride Garnett and Rondo and their supporting cast. They’ll make the playoffs again but they won’t get past round two. Year after that they’re out of the playoffs. Year four will be the start of a major rebuilding effort and Danny Ainge will be looking for a new job. Garnett will still be pretty good, but he’ll never win another title. This is the one and only title year for the Celts, folks. After that it’ll be another long run of Western Conference title winners, Blazers among them. Book it.

Nature bats last.

by fisheyes on May 31, 2008 8:46 AM PDT up reply actions

Boston...

... will have a couple more years of being really good. KG and Pierce still have some dominant years left and Allen isn’t at crucial to that team as a lot of people think. They won’t fall off nearly as quickly as Miami.

Boomshakalaka

by jksnake99 on May 31, 2008 8:40 AM PDT reply actions

From a long-term standpoint

It seems akin to going to the crossroads to sell your soul to the Devil (or KG as the case may be) so that you can become a great blues guitarist.

by DonkeyShins on May 31, 2008 3:21 PM PDT reply actions

Love that movie

I'm a little confused by your tactics

by oderiferous emanations 74 on May 31, 2008 4:22 PM PDT up reply actions

Lot o' good points here ...

about the question as it pertains to other teams. But, should the Blazers go for an aging (super)star to get to the top? No way, Calderon! We are sitting in the perfect position to dominate the league for a long time. We just need to have a little patience. (Nate, you listening?)

by CatMan2 on May 31, 2008 7:04 PM PDT reply actions

Results aren't the goal

Results follow from the pursuit of the goal. The goal is to achieve perfection. The results merely show how close you’ve come to it. Examine your naval. There, you will find enlightenment. Or lint.

If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball.
-- Phil Jackson

by MiledAnimal on Jun 1, 2008 11:20 AM PDT reply actions