Three Ways to Build a Contender in the NBA
by sabonis11 on Jan 31, 2012 3:44 PM PST
Email
PrintIn the NBA, terms like, "rebuilding" and "building through the draft" are thrown around a lot. In reality, there are only three, proven methods to building a championship team. Not each method is a surefire path to the trophy, and not every team has an equal opportunity to utilize each method.
Without further ado, here are the methods:
1. The Hollywood Method
This method involves superstar players flocking to a team because said team is popular. Those superstars are then followed by stud role players, who are excited by the chance to play with such great superstars on a popular team. This method is often successful but can fail when the egos of superstars clash or the team runs out of cap space to fill talent in around its stars.
Notable examples: The Los Angeles Lakers of the '00s and '10s, the current Heat.
2. The Dynasty Method
The dynasty method is all about the draft. Really bad teams get high draft picks in consecutive years, use their mid-first round picks wisely after their stars have been drafted, and make solid free-agent acquisitions. Usually, blockbuster trades are not involved. This method is extremely high-risk, high-reward. If done correctly and a team gets lucky, that team can dominate the NBA for a decade. Otherwise, that team will be stuck for a decade in perpetual mediocrity, or worse, be stuck in the bottom of the league, desperately clinging to what it once thought was a blueprint for success. Most teams in the NBA try to use this method, usually with no success. Currently, the Thunder, Bulls, Hawks, 76ers, Warriors, Kings, Bobcats, Orlando, and Bucks are trying to use this method--the Bulls and Thunder being the only teams with any success.
Notable examples: The '90s Bulls, the '80s Lakers, the '80s Celtics, '00s Spurs
3. The Veteran Depth Method
The Veteran method is when teams use trades and free agency to acquire as many solid veterans to put around one or maybe two stars. This method is most successful when these veterans are former all-stars, all-NBA-ers, and all-defensive team players. This method can make a team an almost instant contender, but any success is often short term, and the post-contender period can be a nuclear winter of sorts, as this method takes a long time to rebuild from. Still, many teams find success this way, and it is less risky than the Dynasty Method.
Notable Examples: '11 Mavs, '08 Celtics, '04 Pistons, '01 76ers, '94-95 Rockets
The Blazers really have no opportunity to use the Hollywood method. Despite what Darkstar wrote is his well thought-out article (read it here: http://www.blazersedge.com/2012/1/31/2762011/just-what-can-the-blazers-do-this-offseason-dwight-and-deron), They do not have the exposure to attract big-name superstars like Howard and Williams from bigger markets.
The Blazers had been using the Dynasty Method, and using it quite well. However, their luck did not pan out. With the end of Brandon Roy's career, and the very plausible end of Greg Oden's career, the dynasty method did not pan out for the Blazers. Their best bet now is to add a bunch of veterans around Lamarcus Aldridge, with a few talented youngsters. The Blazers are on the right track with the Veteran Depth method. Picking up pieces like Wallace and Camby are great. The Blazers should continue to add former all-stars to this team, including Steve Nash.
The window of opportunity has not closed for this team, but it will not be a dynasty. That is OK. Most teams never are. However, through veteran depth this team can still contend for a title in the very new future.
165 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
For the Blazers to try for the Dynasty Method, they'll have to blow the team up
This includes trading LMA
"Brandon Roy has done this before."
Which is why keeping LMA through the remainder of his contract postpones the inevitable by kicking ...
the can all the way to 2015. With LMA as a #1 option, this team will get no further than Utah in 2007, Denver in 2009, or Phoenix in 2010.
It’s better to start the rebuilding process now than pushing it back 4 years down the line. Just wasting time.
"I Am Mine"
I enjoy wasting my time.
Trade for Nash and I would spend more money to watch mediocrity.
by Oden Mad, Oden Smash! on Jan 31, 2012 8:53 PM PST up reply actions
And that's a fair point.
Nash won’t win a title for Portland, but he’d sell tickets.
If enough of y’all are satisfied with being no better than above average — so long as it’s entertaining or whatever — then I won’t blame Paul Allen for putting that product out on the court to make money off of you guys.
"I Am Mine"
Nash-Wallace-Aldridge is well, well above average
Maybe not title worthy. But maybe it is.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
If you add Roy Hibbert to those 3
I think that team could compete for a title.
"We gotta get this $#!^ together guys!" - Phil
Nope. Wallace and LA are better than Hill and Stoudemire, and you know that.
At worst, it’d be a defensively superior version of the 2009-10 Suns. Of course, part of that team’s advantage was its depth, so the Blazers would have to fill out the roster wisely, but no one on that Suns team besides Nash and Stoudemire would be particularly difficult to replace.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
"Nope. Wallace and LA are better than Hill and Stoudemire, and you know that."
2009-2010 Amar’e = 2011-2012 LMA: http://bkref.com/tiny/7q7P9
"I Am Mine"
To elaborate, I'd take LMA this year over that season's Amar'e.
It’s close, though, and an argument can be made in favor of either one.
Present-day Amar’e, however, is far down the list. He’s falling apart now.
"I Am Mine"
Offensively, they are fairly equal statistically,
although Aldridge has a better perimeter game and Amare is a bit better around the basket.
The big difference is defense where Amare sucks and Aldridge is quite good IMO.
I agree about the huge defensive edge, but it's still not enough. LMA and ...
Steve Nash would be good, but not great. It’s very tough to break through from good to great.
"I Am Mine"
You're probably right on this one
But we’d still be significantly better than that Suns team that made the WCF. In this year’s West (where every team has major flaws), I think the Finals would be possible of we didn’t have to face Denver, only to be swept by a far superior East team.
I feel obliged here to point out that none of us ever addressed Gerald Wallace vs. Grant Hill (who is an excellent and underrated player), but I don’t know what to add right now.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
I think Wallace over Hill would be evened out by J-Rich over Wesley.
But yeah, Miami or Chicago would destroy Portland in the NBA Finals.
"I Am Mine"
Ah, I forget how good J-Rich used to be
Still, it’d be close if Wesley gets back to where he was last year. I don’t know what his deal is right now.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
I agree here
I voted dynasty…if you see the examples of Veteran Depth, they are lesser dynasties with stacked rosters….if you look at the successful dynasties, you are talking about KD and D. Rose….
If you traded LMA, Camby’s EC, Wallace, you would be tanking the season in a great draft year and who knows how the ping pong balls fly….of course you would also have secured numerous 1st round and 2nd round picks….
I am in favor of intentional Crop Rotation rather than suffering from slowly depleting soil….
But again, the need for a strong GM before this happens!
agreed
I’d def buy a Nash Blazers jersey.
and sell my soul for a championship.
"If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind."
by thankyouforblaze on Jan 31, 2012 8:59 PM PST up reply actions
I too am ready to cash in... and sign Nash
NEWSFLASH!!!! Upper Echelon Free Agents do not join a rebuilding Blazer team.
There is a point when you gotta pull the trigger. There is NO way to ensure a title. Look at the Heat. They probably gave themselves a 50/50 chance to win it all last year with that team and they didn’t. You can’t ask for much better than a 50/50 in the NBA. If we have a 1% chance to win the title this year(really generous) then i’d trade Felton and a rookie(s) and a pick(s) for Nash to push us to a 6 or 7% chance.
Yes, we want to be responsible with our assets for the future’s sake(have to be with the new CBA), but I’m not willing to mortgage right now for some solid draft picks and 4 more years of toiletball.
Amen to this!
“but I’m not willing to mortgage right now for some solid draft picks and 4 more years of toiletball.”
All of those teams you mentioned were one player away from a championship ;)
I’ll take it
"We gotta get this $#!^ together guys!" - Phil
nice post, rec'd
you’re right that we won’t get Howard AND D. Will, though it’s possible but highly improbably that Deron heads this way this summer. Howard- no way. Its laughable.
The problem is what you have said above, that we have failed at the Vet. method and now we need to restock vets. The problem being is that cheap vets are usually up in age, or past their prime, and are oftentimes injury-plaqued or whatnot.
With young guys, it’s all about the luck of the draw. Sure, Batum has potential, but we certainly didn’t draft an Aldridge or Roy when we drafted the Frenchman.
I was just thinking about creating a post about how the NBA is certainly the luck of the draw. With so many teams who look decent on paper, it’s all about what guys go off, what guys get injuries, and what teams work well together.
"If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind."
by thankyouforblaze on Jan 31, 2012 4:26 PM PST reply actions
I feel like we can realistically add Nash
We might be able to get some other guys like Kenyon Martin, Ray Allen, and Jason Thompson.
"Brandon Roy has done this before."
ray allen..
is a great possibility, what do we lack most every night? shooting. If we could get Ray for relatively cheap Portland would go crazy for it.
by bringbacksheed on Feb 1, 2012 1:20 AM PST up reply actions
oh and john wall,
john wall, john wall.
by bringbacksheed on Feb 1, 2012 1:24 AM PST up reply actions
Pardon my language, but Kenyon Martin is a doo doo face.
Can’t stand that guy. Leave him in China or wherever he is these days.
by Jumbaco! on Jan 31, 2012 4:54 PM PST reply actions 2 recs
The 2010-2011 Mavericks and '93-'94/'94-'95 Rockets each had a superstar-level player carry those teams.
The only championship ballclub in the last 30+ years fitting that unique, one-of-a-kind veteran team setup is the 2003-2004 Detroit Pistons, which was an all-time elite defensive unit with a masterful starting five — especially from a fit standpoint — and, moreover, legendary coaching from Larry Brown.
“Otherwise, that team will be stuck for a decade in perpetual mediocrity”
Like a lot of other people here, you’ve got it backwards. A true rebuild is a boom-or-bust process, which means either rising to the top a few years after bottoming out and stockpiling assets — with OKC being a present-day example of that — or cycling through the rebuilding process until getting it right, which Portland did in 2006 after having screwed up in 2004 and 2005. In a true rebuild, there’s absolutely no “perpetual mediocrity” whatsoever.
Understood? Good …
"I Am Mine"
There is absolutely perpetual mediocrity
“Rebuilding,” as you are defining it, slmost never works. Never. The only teams it has worked for in the past 20 years are the Thunder and Bulls of today, and the Cavs of the late ’00s, and none have won a title. Sorry, but you are way off.
"Brandon Roy has done this before."
2011 Dallas Mavericks, it was just a really long time after the rebuild to a title.
Miami rebuilt quickly, grabbed Wade and won a title in 2005.
Technically the 90’s Bulls rebuilt around Jordan and Pippen in the mid-80’s, and won 6 titles. Pretty impressive rebuild.
Don’t forget the Spurs. They rebuilt around David Robinson, then won 2 titles with him, along with a second “rebuild season” in the mid 90’s.
How about the Detroit Pistons? They rebuilt around Isiah Thomas and won two titles.
Lots of teams rebuild and win titles. It’s rare of course, but it definitely happens.
Oh I forgot about the Spurs
I said in the last 20 years, which would leave out the ’80s rebuilds of Chicago and Detroit.
Dallas rebuilt by acquiring lots of veterans, NOT blowing the team up.
Blow-ups almost NEVER work. Ask Washington, Minnesota, (current) Detroit, Sacramento, Charlotte, New Orleans, and Milwaukee.
"Brandon Roy has done this before."
Houston wouldn't count with the 20 year rule either, in that case.
Part of the problem on the 20 year rule is that there are 5 Laker titles in the last 10 years, which really hurts any other rebuilding team (Like the Pacers and Philly, who rebuilt but got stopped in the Finals)
Miami, Dallas and the Spurs all still apply under the 20 year rule. Those take up 6 of the last 13 (?) titles, the Lakers another 5, and Boston snuck in with an unorthodox rebuild (not under AK’s definition so it doesn’t apply here).
Rebuild can work fine, it just requires a lot of luck. It’s not a concept that is never successful. The question is whether it actually requires less luck than the alternatives. No answer from me there. Financially, many teams are much better off being mediocre.
"Financially, many teams are much better off being mediocre."
From a business model, I can’t argue that. You’re absolutely correct.
It’s far easier for a franchise like Portland to sell tickets, push merchandise, and turn a profit than a franchise like New Orleans, even though both club’s fan bases will be sitting at home watching other teams participate in the NBA Finals this year.
"I Am Mine"
Because Boston kept Paul Pierce when trading for K.G. and Ray Allen, I call that retooling.
Yet, regardless of how one defines it, they’re indeed an outlier among post-1980 champions.
"I Am Mine"
Oddly, I'd call the early-2000s Indiana Pacers a retooling team.
That team retooled around Reggie Miller a few times as his career progressed, even almost making a run in 2004 while in his late-30s. Yet, the Philadelphia 76ers of that time and place were a definite rebuild, since it had a former #1 pick, Allen Iverson, as its star driving force. I’d call the New Jersey Nets a hybrid, for it had a few rebuilding pieces (i.e., Kenyon Martin, Keith Van Horn, Richard Jefferson, et al.) paired with a retooling piece (i.e., Jason Kidd) as its core.
"I Am Mine"
I must add, however, that none of those teams won a title, as well as came out of a ...
weakened Eastern Conference during that time period. Nowadays, those Pacers, Sixers, or Nets of a decade ago wouldn’t stand a chance against the Heat or the Bulls of today.
"I Am Mine"
detroit and milwaukee haven't really blown up
they have a lot of veteran contracts that they keep on grabbing as they try to compete, but the veterans they grab end up being overpaid and pretty useless. Current Orlando is another example attempts at building veteran depth gone horribly wrong due to bad contracts.
"Wide, girthy. Just like a Rhino. Sometimes my horns are visible."
I think the Spurs are a unique case due to David Robinsons 2 yr. naval commitment.
They got 2 extra yrs. in the lottery waiting for him, then later when he sat out most of a season due to injury they lucked into Duncan. This is not a model that can be reproduced.
Loud pipes save lives!
Bad knees break hearts!
Time for an exorcism.
The "not a reproducible model" argument has just gotten played out
Of course the Spurs don’t have a reproducible model, who does? Every single dynasty throughout NBA history has involved at least one, usually two enormous strokes of luck. The early 2000’s Lakers were incredibly lucky not only that one of the most dominant big men in league history was so obsessed with making movies that he felt he needed to live in LA, but also that they managed to draft one of the 10 best players in NBA history with the 13th pick of the draft. Even factoring in that they’re the Lakers and are more easily able to attract FAs, how is that model reproducible? Instead of turning out as Shaq/Kobe, they could have just as easily turned out as T-Mac/Webber.
What about the Celtics? How is it reproducible that two teams with elite players decided to fire sale said players in the same offseason for mediocre returns so they could tank? Any “rebuilding strategy” is going to require an huge amount of serendipity at some point in the process, so it’s a little absurd to single one strategy out and say, “it’s a unique case, too much luck is involved” and rule it out.
OK Its reproducible.
The next time the Naval academy produces a #1 pick.
Loud pipes save lives!
Bad knees break hearts!
Time for an exorcism.
I'm not sure why that was such an advantage
In the ensuing years the only decent player the Spurs received as a result of their lack of Robinson was Sean Elliott. A solid player, no doubt, and the cause of a very painful memory as a Blazer fan, but was he really the difference between winning a title and not winning a title?
And besides, the Thunder just managed to snag three top 5 picks in a row with Durant/Westbrook/Harden. It’s not like it’s impossible to hit on a lot of top picks in quick succession.
For every OKC
there is a Sacramento that got screwed by the ping pong balls every time they should have had a top 3 pick.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Well, yeah
Hence the luck aspect. Just like us, only getting the top pick when we were 5th worst and having to settle for 4th in 2006 when we were the worst team.
Yeah, I'm just saying that those counterexamples make it look a lot less reproducible
Hence, the need for luck. I guess the question, then, is: what’s the most reproducible model when probability is substituted for luck? But that’s a much more convoluted answer, if there even is one. And maybe luck is so central that it’s not even worth asking.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Most reproducible is easy:
Keep tanking year after year until you get a top pick for a can’t-miss player (or sign a can’t miss player with the cap space), then use the following ramp-up years to fill out the roster with high draft picks and lots of cap space. That sets up your window, if all goes well.
Oh, and of course hope that can’t-miss player doesn’t get injured.
But beyond that, in terms of likelihood, I suspect rebuild is more likely to be successful than any other method, but that’s while keeping in mind that all of them have low likelihoods of reaching the Finals.
Also known as the Clipper model
Only took them 20 years to get Blake Griffin.
To be fair, that's basically what we did as well
Sucked enough years in a row and finally got some competent management who pulled off some shrewd trades (and some lottery luck) to draft Roy, LA, and Oden, only things obviously didn’t pan out there.
Yeah, I'm not sure it's clearly the best
although it seems that way at first glance, and definitely works if you just want to be a decent team that can put butts in the seats.
Milwaukee’s been following that model since they traded Ray Allen (minus the shrewd management), and look where it’s gotten them.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
They got their shot
They got a #1 pick, but it was in the Bogut draft, where he was basically consensus #1. And he’s a really freaking great player now, but that pick didn’t work out as well as they hoped, I’m sure.
Yeah, it's depressing
Not only do you need to get lucky enough to win the lottery (usually), you have to be lucky enough to do it in a year with a transcendent player.
As an amusing footnote there, it’s interesting to look at Boston’s records for the decade and a half prior to the big three. Aside from a couple playoff runs, essentially sustained lower lotto mediocrity, except the years leading up to the Duncan/Oden drafts, when they blatantly tanked both years, naturally ending up with the 3rd and 5th picks in those drafts, respectively.
I'm not just talking about Milwaukee here
They just happen to be the most glaring and most recent example. Long rebuilds, like Milwaukee’s, the Clipper’s, Boston’s, Chicago’s, Portland’s, and the one Sacramento’s in now are much more likely than the quick one’s like OKC/Seattle’s.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Most of those were prolonged by front office
incompetence. If you’re bad enough to get top 5 draft picks in a few straight drafts and then manage to acquire a top 3 player in any 3 consecutive drafts, you could probably build a contender, regardless of how weak those drafts were.
That’s basically what OKC managed to do, and what we were in the process of doing once we got KP in and before the injuries hit (although we snagged two guys in one draft). Of course not easy, but I think the primary reason behind long rebuilds has to be considered incompetence.
Given the dearth of excellent GMs in the league, this will continue to be the case for a while, but the most important thing any team can do prior to rebuilding is to obtain one of these competent GMs.
Yeah, sometimes I think the skill portion is glossed over.
A good rebuild requires luck AND skill. One or the other isn’t enough to be a serious contender, unless your luck is just insane (hi there, Cleveland).
Ok, but how the FO personnel with that skill generally don't leave their teams.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
How can you remember that AK you were not even a gleam in your daddies eye!
Loud pipes save lives!
Bad knees break hearts!
Time for an exorcism.
They quite famously botched their previous top pick
For all the complaints people have here about our drafting, the Clips passed on Vince Carter, Antawn Jamison, and NBA Finals MVP’s Paul Pierce and Dirk Nowitzki to pick the legendary Michael Olowokandi.
I can’t imagine BE if we’d done that.
It would depend
Would Nate have wanted him in this scenario?
The general reproduction concept is weird, as you note, so many are unique.
But for fun, I listed out rebuild/retool concepts based around the likelihood of reproduction…
Reproducible as long as you get a good draft pick:
- Orlando: Stunk twice won a top pick during a year with a dominant center (but you can’t reproduce the insane luck that led to another #1 pick the season after Shaq arrived)
- San Antonio: Ignore Robinson. They got one good draft pick (Duncan), then used shrewd drafting and trades around him. That’s reproducible.
Reproducible without a top pick:
- Utah (twice), Dallas (2000’s), Philadelphia (2000): Drafted the right player(s), then built around it, often with veterans.
- Phoenix: Shrewd drafting (Amare) and smart transactions (like signing Nash) transformed a franchise in short order. Coaching could be discussed here too, but that gets into separate territory.
Reproducible, but only in a big market:
- Lakers: Historically, major players demand to move there.
- Miami: A major market with a lot of cap space can make this happen, and that’s it.
- Boston: Allow my indulgence that the Garnett and Allen trades don’t magically happen if they weren’t going to a big market. Yep, I’m going all conspiracy-crazy here.
Not reproducible under most circumstances:
- Seattle/OKC: As noted elsewhere, they rebuilt by intentionally tanking for multiple years in order to actually drive away their loyal fans. You could argue any team could do this, and be right, but if the strategy fails, they have no core fanbase. That’s a huge risk/reward ratio.
- Chicago: Just missed the playoffs, and got lucky in the lottery to grab a player who quickly won MVP.
Am I missing anyone big? So basically, ignoring the big city stuff (they’re always a separate animal), there are definite ways to reproduce success. They all of course involve a little luck and a lot of skill (a good GM with a plan).
San Antonio is not reproducible
They used shrewd drafting, yes, but they were light years ahead of everyone else in international scouting. No one is going to take advantage of that very easily anymore.
I mean, the Spurs aren’t even able to do it anymore. Yeah, they constantly come up with solid guys like Splitter, Gary Neal, and Danny Green (albeit not an international player, to my knowledge), but there’s no way to find the next Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili as late in the draft as SAS did.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
That assumes there are NO other holes in scouting that misses players
We could see another process to find good players, using statistical techniques for example. Even if the Euro hole is closed, there could be other ways to find good players. One team would find that technique, grab players, then every other team will follow suit. Just like last time.
Before SAS started finding Euro’s late in the draft, nobody thought there was a way to find good players that late. It’s just a matter of finding a way. Scouting is not perfectly efficient.
Exactly
And people forget about previous holes, like a reluctance to draft high school players, or a bias against young PGs. It looks ridiculous in hindsight, but many teams didn’t even consider drafting Kobe Bryant because he was a perimter player out of HS. Derrick Rose was the first PG ever taken with the top pick in the draft.
There are always going to be inefficiencies. Maybe some team catches onto an Asian or African league boom before others do. Maybe they figure out a better way to value vets in other leagues so they can fill in gaps with more guys like Scola and Oberto. There’s always going to be something out there, we just don’t know what it is.
I don't disagree
But diminishing marginal returns has to be taken into consideration. Ginobili has been an MVP caliber player the past 3 seasons, and Tony Parker is a former Finals MVP. There are still going to be holes, definitely, just not enough MVP sized ones.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
I agree that it's better now
but I think the fact that you don’t see almost any MVP sized holes is that there are almost no MVP caliber players. I think the overarching point about those two is less where they were drafted and more that every team had a shot to draft them. It really would have been no different if the Spurs had taken Manu in the 1st round in 1999 instead of Leon Smith.
Also, who knows, maybe Marc Gasol will add to that list shortly. I think it’s a little premature to assume that now things are suddenly different when we’ve thought that before and been proven wrong.
Yep.
Let’s say there is one truly good player every two years in the draft, that is picked way below his actual value. Millsap. Blair. Gasol. Mathews. The list goes on. Now let’s say a team figures out a way to find those players, and sneaks up only 3 or 4 draft spots with a little cash and a pick or player.
That’s really the key here. Figuring out a player’s true value in the draft, and capitalizing on it. Every team is working on it, and you never know what might come out of it.
Yup, and even if you don't grab Manu-caliber player
There’s always the opportunity to do something like Ainge did and consolidate them into a real star, given that there’s usually one or two available for the right price at any given time.
Yeah, but my point doesn't apply to guys like Matthews, Millsap, Blair, and Gasol
I’m talking about guys who could be one of the 3 best players on a multi-championship team.
There are diminishing marginal returns on scouting methods. Combine those diminished returns with the scarcity of guys with that kind of talent, the average career lengths and arcs of NBA players, and the limited amount of resources that teams can dedicate to scouting are eventually going to greatly impinge upon the kind of talent you can get with a draft pick that a good team is going to hold.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
I don't think that's accurate
It doesn’t assume that there are NO holes; it assumes that scouting has become so efficient that it is exponentially more difficult to find star-caliber (not merely good) players late in the draft, to the extent that a team would be unable to acquire enough talent within a given window (i.e. before the early-stage talent grows too old).
And I think that’s fair enough. Yeah, we’ll still get Taj Gibson’s and Serge Ibaka’s, even the occasional guy who slips for valid reasons (injury, BBIQ, or character), and high upside projects like Rondo, Kyle Lowry, and hopefully Elliot Williams. But recent experience seems to indicate that scouting is at a point that potential MVP’s (which Manu and TP have been at different points in their careers) don’t slip very far anymore.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Plus if Robinson would have come directly in the year after his draft their next two draft picks would have been mid 1st round.
Loud pipes save lives!
Bad knees break hearts!
Time for an exorcism.
Instead they got Willie Anderson & Sean Elliott.
Remember the Spurs don’t beat the blazers without that three the last lockout year!
Loud pipes save lives!
Bad knees break hearts!
Time for an exorcism.
Given that we later had a chance to tie/win that same game
and got swept that series, I think it’s a stretch to say we would have beaten them if that fluky shot hadn’t gone in.
Plus, Willie Anderson was pretty mediocre his entire career and long gone to the Raptors in the expansion draft by the time the Spurs were winning titles.
Wow your right I have to claim oldtimers desease , I must have been confusing it with a diff. series.
I was thinking that was game 7, wow was I off. Still Elliott was huge for the Spurs.
Loud pipes save lives!
Bad knees break hearts!
Time for an exorcism.
I think Chicago belongs a little more in the Orlando "reproducible" category
Although it was a somewhat fluky season prior to obtaining Rose given that they’d just won 49 games the previous season and were adding a guy who would turn into one of the league’s best center. The awkward Skiles feuding and eventual coaching change combined with the ongoing Kobe trade drama and Deng/Gordon contract disputes had kind of a mini-“Robinson injury” kind of effect on that team, causing a good team on paper to perform pretty badly, resulting with them lucking into the Rose pick.
Certainly takes a ton of luck and a little flukiness, but no more so than Orlando had.
I agree with luck being involved.
If it hadn’t been for the ABA dispersal draft Portland might still be without a title!
Loud pipes save lives!
Bad knees break hearts!
Time for an exorcism.
Yep, I think while everyone disagrees on something...
…they can all agree that any rebuild requires a certain about of luck. The amount just depends on the situation.
As an aside about Boston
I do think the role of management in that gets downplayed way too much. Sure, they got KG/Allen for cheap, but it wasn’t nothing (Jefferson was a solid prospect, and Delonte/Green were considered not terrible at the time), and they still had enough players after the trades to form a solid supporting cast (Rondo, Perkins, Powe, Big Baby, Tony Allen were all Boston draftees, after all). You take away the previous 3-4 years of solid drafting by Ainge and that team doesn’t win a title, even with KG/Allen.
Compare that to the current Knicks who had enough assets to get Anthony, but nowhere near enough to trade for CP3, and then have an absolutely bare cupboard behind those guys.
I actually meant to note Rondo as part of the Boston thing above. Totally my bad.
They deserve some drafting credit there.
No matther what happens going forward, Danny Ainge had a good ...
run there drafting in the late first and second rounds for a few years.
"I Am Mine"
I agree with you there
But I have to admit, there’s a real chance he never capitalizes on his potential and becomes Roy Hibbert with better rebounding.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
I believe he's got Andrew Bynum 2.0 written all over him.
He’ll need to put it together, though, which is no guarantee.
"I Am Mine"
San Antonio is one of the least reproducible scenarios
in the history of the NBA. i can only imagine you don’t recall the amazing circumstances that surrounded how that team won its first title.
david robinson and sean elliot were both already all stars and the team had won 59 games when they both missed nearly the entire 1996 season with injuries. the team tanked going 20 and 62 and won the lottery. 1996 happened to be the senior season of one tim duncan, essentially the only big man of his generation who chose to play 4 years of college because of a promise made to his mother before she died of cancer.
not only was duncan the best big man of that time, he had 4 years of high-profile ACC experience to hone his skills. he was an instant all star, paired with two returning all stars on a team that was one year removed from winning almost 60 games. everyone knows the rest of the story from there so i won’t rehash it.
we can talk all about shrewd drafting post 1996 but the spurs are nothing without the amazing circumstances that led up to the 1997-1998 season.
Perhaps you missed the part where I discussed ignoring Robinson?
Since they won two titles after his retirement?
you can't ignore robinson
so whether i missed that or not is irrelevant. without the situation leading up to tim duncan’s selection and instant stardom, which very much involves robinson, the spurs are never a dynasty.
they never win the 2nd two titles without the first two. players wanted to play in san antonio because of their success.
they certainly drafted well but holding up the spurs as a model is crazy, they were luckier than okc has been recently.
That's ridiculous
Without Robinson and Elliott, the Spurs don’t win in 1999, sure, but those guys had essentially zero impact on the 2003, 2005 and 2007 titles. There’s really no difference than if San Antonio had been a generic bad team for a couple seasons leading into the Duncan draft and then won the lottery.
That's pretty much my intent with the Spurs portion
I’d even be willing to give on the 2003 title and just count the last two. The Spurs built a contender irrespective of Robinson’s status, and that part falls on the reproducible list (if you get a top draft pick in the right year). It’s not like Robinson was even traded for anyone that helped the later teams.
But from here, I’ll probably bow out of this portion of the thread.
i think you're underestimating
the impact that winning those titles had on the many free agent signing the spurs had in the 2000’s.
they did not get those guys because of good weather. people wanted to play in san antonio for greg popovich who’d won two nba titles.
arguing against this is to imply that phil jackson didn’t make the lakers a more attractive destination. of course he did, he was associated with winning. he didn’t bring jordan or pippen to LA but people associated him with success.
in the 2000’s san antonio and greg popovich were a destination. none of that happens without david robinson.
Who can forget that constant stream
of high profile free agents to San Antonio in the early 2000’s? Like the incredibly in demand 2001 Bruce Bowen, who had been waived the previous year. Or the 40 year old Kevin Willis. Or 21 year old twice-waived Stephen Jackson.
There were exactly two guys who could be considered as free agents that the Spurs got before their 2005 title who were considered at all in demand where their title rep may have been the tipping point: Robert Horry and Brent Barry. Given that both guys were well into their 30’s at the time of signing, and neither were exactly superstars like Malone/Payton with the Lakers, I think it’s reasonable to assume the Spurs could have signed these guys regardless.
by Royster on Feb 2, 2012 7:34 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
actually it's totally different
see below if you care for my explanation.
would be interesting to break all those down
People seem to be talking about a complete, sell Aldridge to the highest bidder, rebuild. It seems like it would take young talent 5 to 10 years to be anywhere near ready to think about contending. Unless we have OKC level luck.
It really is the roll of the dice. If you roll wrong we end up coming full circle again.
Teams that blow it up rely on tanking, draft mojo and some very good luck. It is interesting to me. I would follow the team loosely through a few years of terrible but I wouldn’t watch many games.
Also interesting is that most of the titles go to teams of old veterans that have the brain cells to play the game at a very high level.
Teams that blow it up rely on tanking, draft mojo and some very good luck. It is interesting to me. I would follow the team loosely through a few years of terrible but I wouldn’t watch many games.
When you blow it up, you definitely hurt your short term financials, hoping for some long-term gain. There is absolutely no doubt.
For most teams, if they have a choice between a blow-up/rebuild and “perpetual mediocrity”, for financial purposes, I’d bet you’re better off doing the latter.
It doesn’t mean a rebuild can’t be successful, even title worthy, but you gotta get very lucky. A few teams have been exactly that, lucky to find the right player(s) and build around that.
The vet team thing can be iffy, and kind of skewed by the Laker success (which really happened due to the arrival of an in-prime young Pau Gasol). Beyond that, we’re talking Boston and Dallas, one was a unique situation, the other was a HECK of a run, full credit where it’s due. But don’t forget about teams like Orlando, who reached the Finals twice after rebuilds in the last 20 years.
Great point in the last paragraph
It does seem like people focus too much on the teams that actually win the title, as opposed to being legit contenders or coming close. Sure, the late ’90’s Jazz or early 2000’s Kings never won a title, but that’s only because they happened to be good in years where there were absolute juggernauts in the league. Drop either of those teams into a year like 2006, 2007 or 1988/1989, and they could absolutely have won titles, just like the Bulls or Thunder now, even if neither of them end up actually winning a title.
All you can do is build a contender and hope for a couple breaks. If everything breaks right for Miami, it won’t matter what the Thunder and Bulls do, but that’s hardly a failure on the part of their franchise.
If done correctly, a rebuild should only take 2 to 3 seasons to get back in the swing of things.
When Seattle finally got around to dismantling in 2007, it only took 2 down seasons for things to get back on track by 2009.
"I Am Mine"
Unfortunately, things got back on track in another zip code.
Couldn’t do anything about that, though. Such is life sometimes.
"I Am Mine"
I always think the advantage behind that is incredibly understated
It’s easy to talk about the advantages of tanking in a long term competitive sense, but few GMs are actually given that opportunity because it interferes with the financial incentives of ownership to capitalize on exciting young talent. In Durant’s first year, though, Presti was essentially mandated to tank to facilitate breaking the lease, which allowed him to do all kinds of things that no other GM would be allowed to do, like let his 2nd best player walk for nothing, or trade his best player for a mediocre draft pick.
And of course, after stripping the team to the bone around Durant, he was able to acquire top 4 picks in the next two drafts which were then converted into the Thunder’s core. It’s a nice luxury to have, especially when other upcoming teams generally rely on luck to get that next piece, like us moving up to no. 1 in 2007, despite having the ROY and 2 another all-rookie team member, or Chicago lucking into Rose from 8th.
And a lot of people said that the Mavericks were stuck in mediocrity too
All those 1st round exits, star couldn’t produce in the 4th, etc. etc. Doesn’t sound familiar at all. LMA certainly isn’t Dirk, but few thought Dirk could carry a team to the title either.
Mind you, I like watching rebuilding teams oddly enough. I like watching young, high potential players develop. I’ve even been watching the bobcats horror story recently, though watching Diop and Diaw play over Biyombo is stress-inducing in itself. Anyway, I just don’t see why we need to drop the doomsday device simply because it hasn’t been all rainbows and unicorns like the Thunder.
by Batumshakalaka on Feb 1, 2012 10:09 AM PST up reply actions
The Mavs went to an NBA Finals while riding their transcendent superstar, and underperformed a few years prior
So while last year’s run was a total shocker, it was based around the fact that over 10 years ago, they rebuilt around the right player.
We don’t currently have a Dirk equivalent, of course. Guys like him are so rare.
But there’s definitely a difference between a loop of mediocrity because you don’t have a player good enough to ride them to a Finals, vs one where the right group of guys aren’t around your star player. The 2011 Mavs are much closer to the late-80s Blazers, who had to find the right mix around Clyde Drexler, but suffered early exits prior.
I actually see the 2011 Mavs
as closer to the 2000 Blazers, only Sheed was no Dirk and there was no team as dominant as the 2000 Lakers to beat them. Both teams involved owners throwing huge cash around at veterans for years to assemble a sufficient supporting cast for their star with constant tinkering of the roster in the preceding years, only to end up needing a big leap from their supposed “star” to make the final leap. Dirk could do it, Sheed couldn’t.
I don’t think people are completely off-base when throwing the Mavs out as a model to follow, except it ignores the reality that the new CBA has imposed a lot of new penalties on teams that are constantly in the luxury tax so it would require a huge financial investment from PA. Additionally, you’re still relying on LA to make that extra huge leap to Dirk status, which, IMO, is just as unlikely as landing a Lebron/Rose in the draft anyways.
Interesting parallel to the 2000 team, I'll mull that one over
Otherwise, no disagreement, just noting that’s an interesting thought. Like you note, the lack of a true Dirk equivalent is the biggest limitation.
Of all teams who have succeeded in rebuilding on the fly without missing the playoffs, the Blazers have done it twice. Very impressive in a historical sense.
They're both reasonable comparisons
Drexler is certainly a better analogue for Dirk, but I think the rest of the roster construction fits the 2000 team better. That early ’90’s core had been largely unchanged for a few years with a core of Porter, Drexler, Kersey, and Duck on the team for the multiple years prior to the finals against the Pistons with Buck and Cliffy the only significant acquisitions that year, and all six were still around for the 1992 finals.
Compare that to the 2011 Mavs where only Dirk, Terry and Barea were on the team to start the 2007/2008 season.
But none of those are rebuilds a la trading LaMarcus Aldridge
sabonis11 is right in that “rebuilding,” as AK defines it, almost never works. The Spurs “second” rebuild comes closest, and that was powered by what was, at the time, unparalleled international scouting that cannot be recreated nowadays.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Fine, disregard my stance on this topic.
I don’t really care, y’know. Besides, I backed the Mavericks during last year’s playoffs and will be rooting for the Spurs this postseason. I like the Blazers and wish them well, but it doesn’t matter to me if the franchise decides to shoot itself in the foot by wasting the next 4 years with LMA as a #1 option.
Might as well skip ahead to 2015 now, because the next four years are sure to end in misery for y’all if the Blazers stay the course.
"I Am Mine"
while I respect your opinion, that's all it is; opinion.
Ultimately, what you say could be true, it could also turn out to be an absolute disaster. the flip side of the coin is that ultimately, those who disagree and will never sway your entrenched position, could be right as well. It’s possible a contender could be built around LA, it’s highly unlikely in my own thinkin but it is possible; if the team fell ass-backwards into a great trade or some unreal late draft pick that blows up the league. In the end, I would still be in your camp, but it’s still opinion and conjecture, not fact. no matter how much passion you have in your statements. but again, I think I side with you, let’s go another direction, WHILE WE CAN! neutral is gettin old….. FAST!!
kObe iS thE aNtiChRiSt
by Brendan Holladay on Feb 3, 2012 12:11 AM PST up reply actions
Current Clippers are a pretty successful rebuild I would say...
took em a while to get it right tho. I would say Minny is on the starting to get on the right track.
by FPS NorthWest on Jan 31, 2012 7:49 PM PST up reply actions
I'm impressed with both of them
But I’m talking about becoming contenders. Neither of those teams has even made it to the playoffs.
"Brandon Roy has done this before."
Of all of those, yes 0 titles at the moment.
But 3 of the 4 current rebuilded teams(OKC,CHI, LAC) have legit shots to make the Finals and/or win.
by FPS NorthWest on Jan 31, 2012 7:59 PM PST up reply actions
The Bulls dont really count as it was all luck .The pick they got Rose with was from the Knicks for Eddy Curry. They had no idea it would be a #1 when they made a trade that they didnt want to make initially
Theyve basically struck out with all of their own picks.
by Willie Beamon on Jan 31, 2012 10:35 PM PST up reply actions
No, Chicago didn't get the Derrick Rose pick from the Eddy Curry trade.
The Curry traded netted the Bulls LaMarcus Aldridge — who was dealt in a draft-day trade for Tyrus Thomas — and Joakim Noah.
"I Am Mine"
Excuse the poor grammar there, sorry.
Anyway, the Bulls got Derrick Rose by winning the draft lottery in 2008. That was after missing the playoffs when things went down the crapper with Scott Skiles, who was dismissed mid-season in December of 2007.
"I Am Mine"
Ugh
The biggest reason we can’t build around LMA is because we have no closer right? Who is Minny going to use as a closer, Rubio? Love? Williams? Same goes for the Clippers, CP3 can certainly finish a game, but how long does he have left? Same goes for Butler. Griffin’s only play outside of the post and mid-range is throwing himself at the rim. I don’t think that’ll take em far in the playoffs by itself.
And this is after a “successful rebuild”, we’ve all seen unsuccessful ones.
by Batumshakalaka on Feb 1, 2012 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
dude. Chris Paul is 26 years old. Where do you think he's going away to?
by howlingfantods on Feb 1, 2012 10:56 AM PST up reply actions
the doctor's office after another breakdown in his knees.
"Wide, girthy. Just like a Rhino. Sometimes my horns are visible."
Folks over here think CP's knees are like BRoy's.
Not really that similar, severity of CP’s knee issues is far below that of Roy’s. CP3’s had one knee operation and has had one meniscus removed. Roy had 6 surgeries and all four of his meniscus removed.
Moreover, every time over the last couple of years BRoy came back from another surgery, you could see deterioration in his game. After CP3 came back his first year you could tell he was favoring that leg a little bit, but he looked completely recovered most of last season and definitely this season, where he’s playing like an MVP candidate again. I know which leg it is, but if I didn’t, I don’t think I could pick out which knee he had surgery on from the way he moves and cuts.
by howlingfantods on Feb 1, 2012 1:11 PM PST up reply actions
Ok, bit of an overreaction
I actually thought he had trouble with both knees though. You wouldn’t be able to tell as easily if that were the case.
by Batumshakalaka on Feb 1, 2012 2:39 PM PST up reply actions
didn't know that.
he still has some risk of course, but the way you say it, looks like he should be fine, except the occasional few weeks out that’s he’s always had each year.
"Wide, girthy. Just like a Rhino. Sometimes my horns are visible."
the way he talked about the veteran depth method
he mentioned picking up a lot of older veterans and playing them around one or maybe two superstars. So Mavs, Rockets, Boston, Detroit all apply.
"Wide, girthy. Just like a Rhino. Sometimes my horns are visible."
by YoniRap on Jan 31, 2012 7:30 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Eh. This is semantics about what rebuild entails now.
If the definition is fungible, then everyone is technically right.
My definition of rebuilding is blowing the team up
I thought my post made that clear.
"Brandon Roy has done this before."
I don't think anyone disagrees on that.
The question is whether a team winning 20 or 30 games a season with a high draft pick can rebuild into a contender using that approach. And the answer is yes, but only if you’re lucky and use some skill.
Yes, you're right. You can.
It’s just very rare. Sorry, I’m beating a dead horse.
"Brandon Roy has done this before."
no
this is beating a dead horse
"If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind."
by thankyouforblaze on Jan 31, 2012 8:24 PM PST up reply actions
I have to admit, I keep raising him from the dead.
(zombie horse)
"If you can do a half-assed job of anything, you're a one-eyed man in a kingdom of the blind."
by thankyouforblaze on Jan 31, 2012 11:04 PM PST up reply actions
Tyrion's a boss
I thought the Stark words were a little more appropriate for a zombie horse, though.
Phase 1: Collect underpants
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!
Yes, it's very rare
But it’s the only possible way, isn’t it? I mean, adding MLE guys to this team over the next few years is not going to build a contender.
Rare > Never
Does that matter? Who cares how many tries it takes? A title is a title is a title
"Brandon Roy has done this before."
No it didn't. They started with Dirk.
We don’t have a Dirk. He’s a #1. Or at least was until this year.
Minus the Hollywood option,
all of these require a very good GM, something we don’t really have right now. so before we talk about changing the team, we should find GM that can build a team correctly.
"Wide, girthy. Just like a Rhino. Sometimes my horns are visible."
by YoniRap on Jan 31, 2012 7:59 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I've stated my feelings on management and the coaching staff, for whom I support a complete overhaul.
"I Am Mine"
by AK1984 on Jan 31, 2012 8:56 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I've stated my feelings on management and the coaching staff, for whom I support a complete overhaul.
I would prefer blindfolds and a last cigarette, but let’s try the overhaul first and work from there….
kObe iS thE aNtiChRiSt
by Brendan Holladay on Feb 3, 2012 12:15 AM PST up reply actions
not anymore
signed kevin love to a three year opt-out? It looks like they just shot themselves in the foot.
"Wide, girthy. Just like a Rhino. Sometimes my horns are visible."
That just has to do with Glen Taylor, his family, and David Kahn being dolts.
The idiocy of them undervaluing Kevin Love as an asset is astonishing to me.
"I Am Mine"
Money Can' t Buy You Love.
Three years from now the Wolves will need to have a very competitive team in order to keep Love, or:
1º.- Love will ask for a trade, under contract or not.
2º.- He should be a trade piece if they are not going to be competitive and their philosophy is the Dinasty Method.
In three yers they´ll be negotiating with Rubio and Love at the same time. Both are made to develope a Stockton-Malone relationship, where both get benefit of each other and can fight for a title. At that moment Sota will have all options in its hands: ask them to be kind of three-amigos-contract-negotiators guys, ot they will take decisions according with only team and personal interest, where Sota can decide who takes a long big contract with them, one nobody in the league can offer, not even close.
yeah. Teams are probably already planning out cap space for K Love 2014 to 2015.
The Wolves forced KL to take the extension that burned Cleveland and Toronto. Just phenomenal idiots.
by howlingfantods on Feb 1, 2012 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
We were building such a good cake
buhuhuhu
by llamaiguana on Feb 2, 2012 12:48 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
If I had to guess . . . .
The minute we blow this team up is the minute Greg Oden gets healthy. It just seems to be our luck. A healthy Oden/Aldridge tandem with Crawford/Batum/Wallace/Felton/Matthews/Camby as support could very possibly win a championship.
As long as Greg is on the roster, management must still believe that is a possibility. At the same time, if they are watching the same basketball we are, they can’t possibly think this team could win a title without Oden.
Ifso facto, I imagine that if Greg leaves or is traded this summer, rebuilding must begin. And for the love of god, if Greg isn’t going to get healthy, can we just rip the band-aid off and move on? It is time.
And finally, sure I’d love to watch Nash on this team. I love Steve Nash! But its not gonna make any real difference as far as wins and losses. The only player on the team that can get us closer to a title is Oden. All other avenues point towards rebuilding.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
- ‘Deep Thoughts’ and Cheap Thoughts: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
