[quote]gregron wrote:
If Howard’s back heals up and he is his normal self… Just imagine how good he is going to be playing with Nash? Nash had made a lot of players look really good who were no where NEAR the same leve of Howard.
Howard is going to be playing his be’s basketball this season after coming off the injury and it being the last year of his deal.
Oh man I can’t wait for the season to start. [/quote]
Nash-Howard Pick and Rolls would be awesome… but is Kobe going to be happy standing in the weakside corner? Ha.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
What a terrible trade and fuck the Lakers. I don’t know how their fans dealt with that horrible stretch where they didn’t make the third round of the playoffs for two whole years in a row before being title favorites again.
[/quote]
Maybe you’ll finally not be so optimistic about league competitiveness.
You can’t win in a small or mid-sized market without serious luck in the draft. If I were Orlando I would’ve just played out this season with Dwight and let him walk for nothing. Orlando will be absolutely terrible for many years to come. [/quote]
It’s not that i’m optimistic, I just think the “get a franchise-changing talent in the draft” sounds a lot better on paper than in practice, the odds of getting the first pick plus there being an MVP-caliber player are so incredibly small.
OKC got lucky as balls so everyone says “it works” but how long have the Bobcats been awful and they still have shit to show for it plus years of selling no tickets and losing fans? The untalked-about part of OKC’s success isn’t just being bad and getting Durant - they also had to draft two All Star players with late first round picks and that is virtually impossible to do.
What about the much more likely scenario, if they had Durant but he was flanked by, say, Darren Collison and Paul George? Not close to a title contender.
The bottom line is you can’t just bottom out and have an MVP-caliber player and the other 14 players on your team be the guys who got you a league’s worst record. You have to have other talent. The Spurs were great because they got Duncan when they already had David Robinson and a talented supporting cast (and kept that cast relevant with TP/Manu).
The Bulls got good with Rose only because they already had a near-playoff level team and had the luckiest draw ever, getting the first pick with a 1.4 % chance.
How many teams has the “bottom out, land a top pick and rebuild around him” worked for besides OKC? Has there even been one? The Wizards got Wall and are mired in mediocrity with no chance of being title contenders before he’s a Free Agent; The Bobcast were arguably the worst team in NBA history last year and their “rebuilding prize” was Micheal Kidd-Gilchrist; The Cavs bottomed out for Kyrie Irving and might be a 5-seed in the East in 3 years; The Clips bottomed out for Griffin who has all the potential but still has a lot of pieces to put together; the other first overall picks since 2005 were Bargnani, Oden and Bogut.
The better model is to bulid a competent team and hope you get lucky, either with a high ceiling player in the draft, or savvy cap management that allows you to trade for a potential star (the Bynum to Philly trade for example would interest me a lot if Philly had anyone who could shoot, he will be triple teamed).
[quote]gregron wrote:
If Howard’s back heals up and he is his normal self… Just imagine how good he is going to be playing with Nash? Nash had made a lot of players look really good who were no where NEAR the same leve of Howard.
Howard is going to be playing his be’s basketball this season after coming off the injury and it being the last year of his deal.
Oh man I can’t wait for the season to start. [/quote]
Nash-Howard Pick and Rolls would be awesome… but is Kobe going to be happy standing in the weakside corner? Ha.[/quote]
With Nash Howard and Gasol… Pick n roll or pick n pop with Gasol? Wheeeeeeeew!
I’m not saying it’s impossible to build a team by bottoming out - I’m just saying OKC’s incredible luck in drafting Westbrook/Harden has everyone hyping up that model, while empirical evidence says it’s a virtually impossible way to build a championship team.
[quote]gregron wrote:
If Howard’s back heals up and he is his normal self… Just imagine how good he is going to be playing with Nash? Nash had made a lot of players look really good who were no where NEAR the same leve of Howard.
Howard is going to be playing his be’s basketball this season after coming off the injury and it being the last year of his deal.
Oh man I can’t wait for the season to start. [/quote]
Nash-Howard Pick and Rolls would be awesome… but is Kobe going to be happy standing in the weakside corner? Ha.[/quote]
With Nash Howard and Gasol… Pick n roll or pick n pop with Gasol? Wheeeeeeeew![/quote]
I think the main thing you’ll be impressed with is how much better Dwight is defensively than Bynum. He’s so much quicker, better help defender and much better Pick and Roll defender.
The better model is to bulid a competent team and hope you get lucky, either with a high ceiling player in the draft, or savvy cap management that allows you to trade for a potential star (the Bynum to Philly trade for example would interest me a lot if Philly had anyone who could shoot, he will be triple teamed).[/quote]
I am not disagreeing it’s incredibly hard to building a star team through the draft. That’s why you rarely see small market teams contend. My argument is that it’s the best method available to small and mid-market teams.
Do you honestly believe Philly, Indiana and/or Atlanta will ever challenge the Heat barring catastrophic injury?
What about Denver, Utah, Memphis, Golden State? Do you think they will ever overtake OKC?
My question to you is, how effective has it been to build a 5-8 seed team through savvy cap management and then trade for a star? If you were to look at successful small/mid-market teams, what method did they use to get success?
You’ve asserted it’s the better model, please demonstrate through empirical data that in fact is.
How many teams has the “bottom out, land a top pick and rebuild around him” worked for besides OKC? Has there even been one? [/quote]
Top pick needs to be defined. Say top 10 pick?
Contender also need to be defined. Reached 3rd round or later?
Orlando before Dwight?
OKC before Durant?
Bulls before Jordan?
Rockets before Hakeem?
Miami Heat before Wade?
Denver Nuggets before Carmelo?
Cavs before Lebron?
[quote]scj119 wrote:
The Wizards got Wall and are mired in mediocrity with no chance of being title contenders before he’s a Free Agent; The Bobcast were arguably the worst team in NBA history last year and their “rebuilding prize” was Micheal Kidd-Gilchrist; The Cavs bottomed out for Kyrie Irving and might be a 5-seed in the East in 3 years; The Clips bottomed out for Griffin who has all the potential but still has a lot of pieces to put together; the other first overall picks since 2005 were Bargnani, Oden and Bogut.
The better model is to bulid a competent team and hope you get lucky, either with a high ceiling player in the draft, or savvy cap management that allows you to trade for a potential star (the Bynum to Philly trade for example would interest me a lot if Philly had anyone who could shoot, he will be triple teamed).[/quote]
Now tell me, what pick in the draft historically has yielded the most stars?
[quote]gregron wrote:
If Howard’s back heals up and he is his normal self… Just imagine how good he is going to be playing with Nash? Nash had made a lot of players look really good who were no where NEAR the same leve of Howard.
Howard is going to be playing his be’s basketball this season after coming off the injury and it being the last year of his deal.
Oh man I can’t wait for the season to start. [/quote]
Nash-Howard Pick and Rolls would be awesome… but is Kobe going to be happy standing in the weakside corner? Ha.[/quote]
With Nash Howard and Gasol… Pick n roll or pick n pop with Gasol? Wheeeeeeeew![/quote]
I think the main thing you’ll be impressed with is how much better Dwight is defensively than Bynum. He’s so much quicker, better help defender and much better Pick and Roll defender.[/quote]
Yeh I’m really excited about his defensive presence, especially with the addition of Nash. We’re gonna need all the help D we can get lol.
How many teams has the “bottom out, land a top pick and rebuild around him” worked for besides OKC? Has there even been one? [/quote]
Top pick needs to be defined. Say top 10 pick?
Contender also need to be defined. Reached 3rd round or later?
Orlando before Dwight?
OKC before Durant?
Bulls before Jordan?
Rockets before Hakeem?
Miami Heat before Wade?
Denver Nuggets before Carmelo?
Cavs before Lebron?
[/quote]
Well I meant in the structure of current/recent CBA’s…
[quote][quote]scj119 wrote:
The Wizards got Wall and are mired in mediocrity with no chance of being title contenders before he’s a Free Agent; The Bobcast were arguably the worst team in NBA history last year and their “rebuilding prize” was Micheal Kidd-Gilchrist; The Cavs bottomed out for Kyrie Irving and might be a 5-seed in the East in 3 years; The Clips bottomed out for Griffin who has all the potential but still has a lot of pieces to put together; the other first overall picks since 2005 were Bargnani, Oden and Bogut.
The better model is to bulid a competent team and hope you get lucky, either with a high ceiling player in the draft, or savvy cap management that allows you to trade for a potential star (the Bynum to Philly trade for example would interest me a lot if Philly had anyone who could shoot, he will be triple teamed).[/quote]
Now tell me, what pick in the draft historically has yielded the most stars?[/quote]
OK but even if you are successful in being the worst team in the league, you only have a 25 % chance of the number 1 pick, maybe a 50 percent change of that pick being a game changer, and now you have a roster that was the worst team in the league plus one single star even if you hit your 5 percent odds of accomplishing all that.
Zach Lowe (one of my favorite NBA writers) summed it up more succinctly, from Orlando’s point (arguing they should have just taken Bynum instead of what they got)
“Good luck with that Thunder model, by the way. It involves winning the lottery or finishing second in a year with a franchise centerpiece, getting lucky enough to have that player fall to you and somehow still being bad enough over the next two seasons to snag two more top-four picks in the draft. That is nearly unprecedented. Toss in the selection of a borderline future All-Star at No. 24 (Serge Ibaka), and, bam, you?ve got the Thunder model! As easy as cooking a nice pasta dinner.”
my point is something working one single solitary time does NOT make it a model.
I would build a good competent team with some real talent and cap flexibility that is a 7th-8th seed without a star, and try to keep my team flexible enough to land a big talent in a trade with extra cap space (or be ready to excel if you get lucky with a late lottery pick). You have to be ready to compete the instant you get a guy.
Some current/recent models I like:
Chicago: built a solid team, got lucky in the draft, instant contender 2 years later (no one is a contender with VDN coaching).
Philly: Had a competent team and just inserted itself into a trade to get a possible franchise ceneterpiece, already have a decent enough supporting cast. Where they killed themselves though was a shitload of bad signings before that - I would have not signed Nick Young or Kwame Brown who they didn’t need… and they’d be a lot more flexible to make moves centered around Bynum now. If they hadn’t signed those guys they might be able to swing deals to make them into a Chicago-esque team with one star and a bunch of good solid players.
Memphis: traded for Z-Bo and became a series threat to reach the finals two years ago (injuries hurt them last year)
Hawks: I like what the new GM has done, keeping the talented, underpaid Horford and jettisoning Williams/Johnson who were good but not worth their money and totally killed their cap flexibility. They are positioned to offer big money if anyone becomes available in FA, they still have a trade chip in Josh Smith whose talented enough to keep if they find someone good in free agency, but desirable enough of a commodity to throw in a trade and get something of value back.
The other thing is: most teams who land the first overall pick and get a stud, get immediately propelled to mediocrity and OUT of the high lottery (like the Cavs with Kyrie). You have to somehow be lucky enough to get a franchise talent AND still suck enough to get more high draft picks the following years. That’s what makes it hard to do.
Oh yeah, I also like what Houston’s doing… you can’t blame Morey for the fact that the Orlando GM accepted an inferior offer for Howard. They could’ve taken more bad contracts plus given a first round pick with actual value (Toronto’s)
[quote]scj119 wrote:
I would build a good competent team with some real talent and cap flexibility that is a 7th-8th seed without a star, and try to keep my team flexible enough to land a big talent in a trade with extra cap space (or be ready to excel if you get lucky with a late lottery pick). You have to be ready to compete the instant you get a guy.
Some current/recent models I like:
Chicago: built a solid team, got lucky in the draft, instant contender 2 years later (no one is a contender with VDN coaching).
Philly: Had a competent team and just inserted itself into a trade to get a possible franchise ceneterpiece, already have a decent enough supporting cast. Where they killed themselves though was a shitload of bad signings before that - I would have not signed Nick Young or Kwame Brown who they didn’t need… and they’d be a lot more flexible to make moves centered around Bynum now. If they hadn’t signed those guys they might be able to swing deals to make them into a Chicago-esque team with one star and a bunch of good solid players.
Memphis: traded for Z-Bo and became a series threat to reach the finals two years ago (injuries hurt them last year)
Hawks: I like what the new GM has done, keeping the talented, underpaid Horford and jettisoning Williams/Johnson who were good but not worth their money and totally killed their cap flexibility. They are positioned to offer big money if anyone becomes available in FA, they still have a trade chip in Josh Smith whose talented enough to keep if they find someone good in free agency, but desirable enough of a commodity to throw in a trade and get something of value back.
[/quote]
Chicago is the only team you’ve mentioned that’s really been successful by building a low seeded playoff team and then acquired a star later on. Is there another?
The Grizzlies didn’t even make it to the 3rd round.
You’ve criticized the “bottoming out” model quite a bit.
Here’s what I don’t get it: WHY do you think building a 5-8th seed is a superior method. Build a case demonstrating it’s superior for teams in less than desirable FA destinations.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
You’ve criticized the “bottoming out” model quite a bit.
Here’s what I don’t get it: WHY do you think building a 5-8th seed is a superior method. Build a case demonstrating it’s superior for teams in less than desirable FA destinations.[/quote]
Well I just spent about 1,000 words explaining so read it word-for-word instead of deciding it’s too long and skimming.
I didn’t say anything about needing free agency (except briefly mentioning it in the Hawks case)… more like having a team that is good enough to compete if/when a superstar falls in your lap, maintain cap flexibility and moveable assets so that when a star becomes available via trade (which is happening virtually every year at this point) you can pull the trigger and have 3/4 of your work done already.
By the way - there is nothing funnier than Dwight’s bio on his own website, about himself:
First paragraph:
“Orlando Magic center Dwight David Howard Jr. is not just a basketball player. He is one of the most charismatic and thus popular basketball player on earth. His muscular physique resembles a 6?11 bronze statue of Apollo. His resume belies his 24 years of age while reading like the first chapter of a sports monopoly. The home grown Atlanta, Georgian has pillared his brand on ferocious dunks and electric smiles.”
I did read what you wrote, most of it is a criticism of “bottoming out”
You then went on to write about what current/recent models you liked with Chicago and Memphis being legitimate examples. I don’t particularly think the case you’ve tried to make is strong, especially when you compare the amount of teams that have been successful “bottoming out” vs acquiring a star later on.
I just think as bad as the track record of teams choosing to “bottom out” is, it’s still better than the method you mentioned. Neither example you had even made it to the NBA Finals.