“Roles aren’t clearly defined yet.”

But really, the “too much talent” problem is simply “more potential talent than can be fully developed and fully utilized.” It’s a real problem, because it can lead to discontent (Sergio), and/or wasted talent (think Channing Frye, perhaps). But it is about #63 on my list of 50 problems about which I’m most concerned, if I’m trying to build a champion.

It isn’t lessening, either. Freeland and Claver are on the horizon, Dante is on the bench, Pendy will get well, we haven’t traded away first round picks, etc. It’s a problem I hope we keep having. Better that than not enough talent.

We have another problem that fits right in with this “too much talent to develop” problem. Now that we’re going to be getting one of the late first round picks, the market for Paul Allen to buy more of them is smaller. This is a problem.

Dave nailed it. We don’t really have too much talent, we have too much B-level/second tier talent.

Championship teams are usually comprised of three legitimate As, a few Bs, and a few Cs (grade-wise). Bulls had three (an A doesn’t have to be an all around stud; Rodman was an A for best in class rebounding). Spurs did too. Celtics, check. Lakers, well, Odom isn’t quite an A but Kobe is such an A+ that you can have two—Pau being the other—and be OK. Point is, most title teams usually have three A players and then fill in the rest of the squad with important role players that are Bs and maybe one or two Cs cracks the 8/9 man rotation.

Right now we have one definite A—Roy—and likely another if LA makes the leap from a B+ to an A- this year. Greg was supposed to be the third A, but I think most reasonable ppl can agree that post-micro Greg has a ceiling of a B/B+ rebounding/defensive center. You could argue we have four or five very good B players (RF, NB, AM, TO, Pryz certainly are Bs) and one of them MIGHT develop into a top-tier player.

More likely, we end up having too much talent in the middle range but never quite having enough at the top to break through to a championship team. This is why I’ve been saying for a couple years, let’s flip a couple Bs for that third A. We wanted to get a third stud in FA, but we just ended up with another reasonably priced B. That’s why we need to package some young talent (I know, it hurts KP, but let some of your young pups go) and pick up that third A that will still be playing good ball for the next 5-7 years to ride along with Roy and LA in their prime as we compete for titles.

Apologize for the length, just had to say my piece.

If having too much talent is really a problem I have an easy fix: Sign me to the final roster spot. I’m 5’6 and I’ll have to bring an inhaler to practice. This should offset the wealth of ability and skill already present to balance the roster at the perfect talent level. I’m fine with the MLE, we’ll renegotiate after my rookie year anyway.

They have too many talent.

But certainly too much young talent — which feeds into the “fuzziness” issue.

This team is busting at the seams with guys who have not yet established themselves and have not guaranteed themselves their next contract, not getting consistent minutes in that situation is going to cause some otherwise good character guys to begin to get a little “itchy” under the collar.

KP has got to start not only consolidating some of this talent into possibly a single better player, but the mix of ages on this team seems all wrong to me. It needs more Imes and Howards and less Baylesses and Rudys (not that there’s anything wrong with Bayless or Rudy individually).

If the ‘92 Olympic team didn’t have have too much, then this team doesn’t have too much talent.

When he acknowledges that there are many players at different positions who are worthy of significant playing time, perhaps more than they are receiving. If not, you have players who aren’t good enough to command significant minutes. Right now, they have one great player and a bunch of good or soon-to-be good players.

One guy, while arguing for Miller to start, mentioned that the team didn’t win all 54 games with the same starting lineup. True. Why did they win the ones where they started second unit players? Because they had guys who were good enough to fill the starters’ shoes for stretches. Say LMA gets injured. Someone needs to step in. If the ‘herd has been thinned’, you have to put in a scrub. Also, with a key player injured, another key player, like BRoy, has to shoulder more of the burden by playing more minutes and/or picking up the slack in terms of scoring. You might get additional scoring from Travis Outlaw, but with him gone and Joe Schmoe journeyman in the lineup…you get the idea. This continues even after said injured player returns because he needs time to get back in top form after missing X amount of games. It doesn’t bode well for the playoffs because the guy who isn’t injured experiences more wear and tear throughout the season.

using “too much talent” as shorthand for “too many talented players”. Obviously you can never have too much talent, but it’s the distribution of it that matters. The NBA has always been largely a league about the best individual players, and if your top three to four guys are better than the other team’s top three to four guys, you’re probably going to win in the playoffs. The next three to four guys have a lesser impact, but the same principle.

Our top four guys are good, and potentially great, but nothing special compared to the other top teams. Same with the next three or four guys, although they’d probably be considered significantly better than their counterparts on most other top team’s. However, the disparity that possibly leads us to have significantly more talent is in the 9-12 range. Currently, that’d be Blake, Webster/Batum, Howard, and Bayless. Compare that to the Lakers, where the 9-12 spots comprised Farmar/Brown, Walton, Powell, and Mbenga. All of our guys would start on a mid to lower-tier NBA team right now, while you could only really say that about Walton on the Lakers (Brown couldn’t even scrape minutes in Charlotte, so I can’t include him).

So the one area that we have a major talent advantage is the area that doesn’t matter. I agree with the idea of fuzziness issue Dave touches upon, but at the same time, if it’s possible to upgrade at one of the more important 1-4 or 4-8 spots by sacrificing our talent advantage at 9-12, that will probably lead to more wins.

Baking requires blending distinct and diverse ingredients into a solution uniform in color and texture. That mix is then greased and baked at high temperature until it rises. It is then usually frosted with another creamy, sweet confection to accentuate and enhance the core. Depending on the type of cake and those eating it – the cake is nothing without the frosting.

Consolidation is simply a different recipe for another cake. Consolidation means the cake is a 6 or 8 ingredient recipe instead of a 12-ingredient recipe. The fewer ingredients might mean it is more consistent, is easier to prepare – or it might mean that double dutch chocolate with coconut and walnut accents was given up in favor of vanilla with hints of cinnamon.

Maybe the cinnamon coffee cake wins the blue ribbon, or maybe the rich chocolate would have been the winner. It’s all a matter of tast and expertise in baking – because many flavors of cake are outstanding and indispensable to my palate.

I personally come down on the side of letting the play on the court and the need of the individual game determine the playing time. I trust Nate and staff to do just what he says they are doing. It is not coincidental that Coach Bill Self (Kansas – my other BB team) says exactly the same thing in much the same situation. If it were really such a problem would Millsap sign here to be a backup? Would Hedo even consider coming knowing he adds to the congestion? Would Miller sign if he were not confident that he would earn the time? OK – Miller has expressed doubts this week but at signing he seemed and sounded absolutely certain.

The players and the coaches know who are the better players. If a particular player helps us win the championship they know he will be on the floor at the right time. The problem of too much talent really raises its head on teams who know they will not win the championship and then the players are looking for individual achievement and rewards. I don’t think it is as fuzzy to them. Each likely has some part of the game that he does better than his competition. Each has weakness that may be covered by his competition. Together they can win and individually they will just be players. I do trust that Nate and KP have instilled that from the beginning. Two individuals that have had a problem with this are Sergio and Andre. Sergio insisted on being signed after being drafted, although the team believed he would benefit from playing in Spain more. The team was correct. Andre has not been part of the team and had not yet been integrated into the team (maybe never will be). It is on Andre to “get it” and I think he will. So the playing time is on the practice floor and, when earned there, needs to be reproduced in the game. Anyone who fails there might claim they need more time in games but that seems like fuzzy thinking to me.