Suns vs Hawks: more impressive turnaround recently?

[PhoSita]

The cost was that they (1) weren't quite good enough to take out the best of the best (2) did not have the trade assets required to make that one final move that would make them good enough to beat the best of the best (3) would have to rebuild in the middle of Melo's prime to replace aging players.

I think you're underselling that Nuggets team a bit.


They split the first 4 games against the Lakers.  They were tied heading into the fourth quarter of Game 5.

They lost that fourth quarter and then got blown out in Game 6.


That to me says they were pretty close but lost a pivotal fourth quarter and then fell apart in Game 6.  Run that series over again 10 times and I think the Nuggets could have won a few of them. 

Anytime you're getting that close to a title I think it's worth it.  What was the alternative?  To get Billups they gave up on Iverson, who was also past his prime and was a worse fit.

The previous season with Iverson, they got swept by the Lakers.


Not for nothing, the Nuggets also enjoyed two more 50+ win seasons after that 2009 run, although they were nowhere near as close to a title.

[Who]

Atlanta is a train wreck.

They sold out their future in order to be a 45-48 win team.

They had a talented young core of Trae Young, DeAndre Hunter and John Collins to build around. They had other young players on small contracts (Huerter, Reddish, last year's high draft pick). They had boatloads of cap space.

They had the capacity to turn an up and coming young team into a future title contender. Instead, they focused entirely on the present tense and ignored the future. They failed to build a team good enough to win a title, spent all their cap flexibility and failed to keep enough future flexibility to grow sustainably from a 45-50 win team into a legit Championship caliber team.

Not only did they do that stupid short-sighted thing but they also did a terrible job of pairing their highly paid veteran talent alongside their young star talent.

(1) John Collins is an interior four. He needs the paint open to attack the rim. That is what he does best. He gives you perimeter offense as well but that is secondary to his interior offense. You need to pair him with a stretch five to allow Collins to best utilize his talent offensively and to protect Collins on defense. Atlanta failed to do this. They brought in Capela (expensive garbage man) who helps Collins on one side of the court and hurts him on the other side.

(2) Trae Young is one of the most ball-dominant players in the league. He is capable of single-handedly carrying a team's offense in a way that few others in the NBA are due to elite levels of both individual shot-creation and playmaking.

This means he can sometimes struggle to share the ball properly with other offensive talents without sacrificing too much of his own game creating diminished returns offensively whichever way you handle that (less Trae, more others or more Trae, less others).

While also downplaying his ability to improve lesser offensive talents by carrying huge offensive burdens and creating easy spot up 3s and rim runner big man opportunities for less talented teammates. Like LeBron does so well. He doesn't need super talented offensive role players to get good results on offense. He just needs basic spot up shooters.

Then you look at the other side of the floor. Trae Young is one of the worst defenders in the league. His team needs to help him on that side of the floor. So pairing him with good defensive teammates is key. Instead, Atlanta paired him with two below average defenders in Bogdanovic and Gallinari.

So pairing Trae with offensive orientated defensively deficient role players like Bogdanovic and Gallinari does not play well to his strengths and weaknesses either.

Overall

The Hawks failed to:

(1) Properly handle their excellent flexibility in order to either build a title contender now or provide a path forward to sustainably grow the team from good to great and be a future title contender. Instead settling for good now rather than a great future.

(2) Get elite help for their young stars instead settling for above average role players

(3) Pair their young stars with above average role players who make the best of their abilities instead pairing them with role players who either offer diminished returns or get in the way of their young player's games.

[Who]

The cost was that they (1) weren't quite good enough to take out the best of the best (2) did not have the trade assets required to make that one final move that would make them good enough to beat the best of the best (3) would have to rebuild in the middle of Melo's prime to replace aging players.

What was the alternative?  To get Billups they gave up on Iverson, who was also past his prime and was a worse fit.

The alternative was to start rebuilding there and then. Melo was still young enough and under a long term contract that they had some wiggle room.

It is actually very similar to our Celtics team today. Tatum and Jaylen are both under long term contract and are young enough to withstand some rebuilding right now. But within a few years, that window will be closing. They will older and less willing to rebuild + their contracts will be running down so they will be actively analyzing their options.

That is what happened with Melo and he decided he did not want to rebuild. So what we are seeing with Boston now could be the example of what I thought Denver should have done in 2009 versus what they actually did which was go all-in on a bad hand.

[Who]

The cost was that they (1) weren't quite good enough to take out the best of the best (2) did not have the trade assets required to make that one final move that would make them good enough to beat the best of the best (3) would have to rebuild in the middle of Melo's prime to replace aging players.

I think you're underselling that Nuggets team a bit.


They split the first 4 games against the Lakers.  They were tied heading into the fourth quarter of Game 5.

They lost that fourth quarter and then got blown out in Game 6.


That to me says they were pretty close but lost a pivotal fourth quarter and then fell apart in Game 6.  Run that series over again 10 times and I think the Nuggets could have won a few of them. 

Anytime you're getting that close to a title I think it's worth it. 

The previous season with Iverson, they got swept by the Lakers.


Not for nothing, the Nuggets also enjoyed two more 50+ win seasons after that 2009 run, although they were nowhere near as close to a title.

I disagree.

The Lakers had an extra gear that Denver could not match. They were toying with them. They win that series 10 times out of 10. Only injuries would derail them.

The West was strange in that period. You had one elite team in LA and then 3-5 very good teams. All of those teams were one piece away from rivaling LA but none were good enough to take them out in their present state at the time.

What ended up happening was these 3-5 very good teams took turns making the Conference Finals and believing they were on the verge of greatness. All deluded themselves in this dream. And all failed to ever make that next step.

Best current example of this was Portland making the WCF two years ago. Then thought they had arrived. Cruel reality came back to slap them across the face.

What did Denver do after that 2009 WCF playoff run? 1st round and out in 2010. 1st round and out in 2011. Melo gone by 2012. Followed by a couple more 1st round losses followed by a major rebuilding phase that saw them miss the playoffs for the next five years.

That was not worth it.

[Who]

What is funny about Denver in 2009 is that they gave away Camby for nothing in a cap dump a few months before adding Billups. Who knows, maybe Camby could have been that final piece the Nuggets needed to put them over the top. Certainly possible.

Instead they were penny pinching because they thought they were not good enough to win. Then were surprised by how good they were with Chauncey but had no trade assets left because they gave away Camby for nothing.

[slamtheking]

I picked both to make the playoffs this year so I'd probably go with the Suns based on a much better record

[PhoSita]

What is funny about Denver in 2009 is that they gave away Camby for nothing in a cap dump a few months before adding Billups. Who knows, maybe Camby could have been that final piece the Nuggets needed to put them over the top. Certainly possible.

Instead they were penny pinching because they thought they were not good enough to win. Then were surprised by how good they were with Chauncey but had no trade assets left because they gave away Camby for nothing.

Camby had another 4 solid years in the league after that, too

[PhoSita]

What did Denver do after that 2009 WCF playoff run? 1st round and out in 2010. 1st round and out in 2011. Melo gone by 2012. Followed by a couple more 1st round losses followed by a major rebuilding phase that saw them miss the playoffs for the next five years.

That was not worth it.

Agree to disagree.  For a team like Denver, with a star in his prime, I think it makes sense to go for it, just so long as you're not totally sacrificing your future.  Do you think Melo was gonna stick around if they had done something different?  I doubt it.

I also disagree that none of those other teams that were in the mix in the West ever had a shot.  The Suns were right there with the Lakers in 2010. 


I'll admit that the 2009 Nuggets and the 2010 Suns are two teams I really enjoyed watching.  I wanted them to beat the Lakers very badly and I enjoyed those series a lot until the Lakers won.  My recollection of those series is colored by my enjoyment of those teams, for sure.

[PhoSita]

It is actually very similar to our Celtics team today. Tatum and Jaylen are both under long term contract and are young enough to withstand some rebuilding right now. But within a few years, that window will be closing. They will older and less willing to rebuild + their contracts will be running down so they will be actively analyzing their options.

That is what happened with Melo and he decided he did not want to rebuild. So what we are seeing with Boston now could be the example of what I thought Denver should have done in 2009 versus what they actually did which was go all-in on a bad hand.

I agree with you that the Celtics are in a similar spot, and I entirely disagree with your prescription for how the Celtics should proceed.

The Celtics have just 3 seasons with both Jaylen and Jayson under contract remaining.  That means two years from now, Jaylen will be entering the final year of his contract before he has the chance to enter unrestricted free agency.

If the Celtics aren't already an exciting and talented team for Jaylen to be on at that point, I have no confidence that he's going to be committed to stick around.  The Celtics may very well be in a position where they have to seriously consider trading him at that point to avoid losing him for nothing.

Tatum might follow a year later, for the same reasons.


What do you think is going to happen if the Celts are a 40-45 win, 1st round exit team the next two seasons while they develop a young supporting cast?  Do you think Jaylen and Jayson are going to remain committed to being in Boston while they watch their peers (Mitchell, Booker, Trae, Simmons, Embiid, etc) make deep runs?


If you have stars under contract in their prime, you can't afford to throw away seasons if you have any other choice.  The Celtics already lost a year this season with those two under contract due to COVID, injuries, and general roster mismanagement.  If they embrace a soft rebuild / reset now, how many good years will they have with Jayson and Jaylen once they've completed that rebuild?  One?


Honestly, I think the Celtics are in a very dangerous territory right now where if they can't figure out a way to set this right and put themselves in a position to at least be competitive with the other top teams within a season or so, they probably have to consider trading Jaylen and maybe even Jayson.  The alternative might be waiting a year or so and then getting forced into making a much crappier deal (as we've seen some teams make recently) due to a trade demand.

[Moranis]

The cost was that they (1) weren't quite good enough to take out the best of the best (2) did not have the trade assets required to make that one final move that would make them good enough to beat the best of the best (3) would have to rebuild in the middle of Melo's prime to replace aging players.

I think you're underselling that Nuggets team a bit.


They split the first 4 games against the Lakers.  They were tied heading into the fourth quarter of Game 5.

They lost that fourth quarter and then got blown out in Game 6.


That to me says they were pretty close but lost a pivotal fourth quarter and then fell apart in Game 6.  Run that series over again 10 times and I think the Nuggets could have won a few of them. 

Anytime you're getting that close to a title I think it's worth it. 

The previous season with Iverson, they got swept by the Lakers.


Not for nothing, the Nuggets also enjoyed two more 50+ win seasons after that 2009 run, although they were nowhere near as close to a title.

I disagree.

The Lakers had an extra gear that Denver could not match. They were toying with them. They win that series 10 times out of 10. Only injuries would derail them.

The West was strange in that period. You had one elite team in LA and then 3-5 very good teams. All of those teams were one piece away from rivaling LA but none were good enough to take them out in their present state at the time.

What ended up happening was these 3-5 very good teams took turns making the Conference Finals and believing they were on the verge of greatness. All deluded themselves in this dream. And all failed to ever make that next step.

Best current example of this was Portland making the WCF two years ago. Then thought they had arrived. Cruel reality came back to slap them across the face.

What did Denver do after that 2009 WCF playoff run? 1st round and out in 2010. 1st round and out in 2011. Melo gone by 2012. Followed by a couple more 1st round losses followed by a major rebuilding phase that saw them miss the playoffs for the next five years.

That was not worth it.

But what else could they do?  It isn't like they traded away 1st round picks or young players to land Billups.  They acquired Billups, McDyess, and Samb for Iverson (they basically immediately waived McDyess who hung around awhile after that).  That was the entirety of the trade.  If they kept Iverson, what was the other path they could have gone down that would have stopped the rebuild?

[Who]

The cost was that they (1) weren't quite good enough to take out the best of the best (2) did not have the trade assets required to make that one final move that would make them good enough to beat the best of the best (3) would have to rebuild in the middle of Melo's prime to replace aging players.

I think you're underselling that Nuggets team a bit.


They split the first 4 games against the Lakers.  They were tied heading into the fourth quarter of Game 5.

They lost that fourth quarter and then got blown out in Game 6.


That to me says they were pretty close but lost a pivotal fourth quarter and then fell apart in Game 6.  Run that series over again 10 times and I think the Nuggets could have won a few of them. 

Anytime you're getting that close to a title I think it's worth it. 

The previous season with Iverson, they got swept by the Lakers.


Not for nothing, the Nuggets also enjoyed two more 50+ win seasons after that 2009 run, although they were nowhere near as close to a title.

I disagree.

The Lakers had an extra gear that Denver could not match. They were toying with them. They win that series 10 times out of 10. Only injuries would derail them.

The West was strange in that period. You had one elite team in LA and then 3-5 very good teams. All of those teams were one piece away from rivaling LA but none were good enough to take them out in their present state at the time.

What ended up happening was these 3-5 very good teams took turns making the Conference Finals and believing they were on the verge of greatness. All deluded themselves in this dream. And all failed to ever make that next step.

Best current example of this was Portland making the WCF two years ago. Then thought they had arrived. Cruel reality came back to slap them across the face.

What did Denver do after that 2009 WCF playoff run? 1st round and out in 2010. 1st round and out in 2011. Melo gone by 2012. Followed by a couple more 1st round losses followed by a major rebuilding phase that saw them miss the playoffs for the next five years.

That was not worth it.

But what else could they do?  It isn't like they traded away 1st round picks or young players to land Billups.  They acquired Billups, McDyess, and Samb for Iverson (they basically immediately waived McDyess who hung around awhile after that).  That was the entirety of the trade.  If they kept Iverson, what was the other path they could have gone down that would have stopped the rebuild?

Not stop the rebuild. Start the rebuild.

Start sooner. Give yourself a chance to put enough long term pieces around Melo to convince him to stay. Maybe you do, maybe you don't but you got a shot.

You have no shot down the Billups road.

[PhoSita]

Not stop the rebuild. Start the rebuild.

Start sooner. Give yourself a chance to put enough long term pieces around Melo to convince him to stay. Maybe you do, maybe you don't but you got a shot.

You have no shot down the Billups road.

How long do you think a rebuild takes, realistically?  To me, a rebuild takes at least 2-3 years, assuming you have very good luck.

The Nuggets had Carmelo under contract through the 2012 season (he signed a 5 year extension in 2006 which started in the 07-08 season).

If they had initiated a rebuild after the 08 season, rather than trading for Billups etc, they would have come out of that rebuild with a reinvigorated, younger team by ... 2011?  At which point they'd have one year left with Melo, and likely would have spent the previous 2-3 seasons being mediocre or worse.

Would that have enticed Melo to stay, do you think, rather than jumping ship to the Knicks?

Kinda seems to me like Melo wanted to be on the Knicks for a long time, and he was always going to end up there.  Denver did pretty well to get a WCF run, a handful of 50+ win seasons on top of that, and then a trade haul from New York when Melo finally left.


If they preferred a rebuild to a few years of pseudo-contention with Melo as their lead guy, they may as well have started shopping Melo in 2009 or 2010, when they could have gotten a huge haul for him.  Maybe they could have tried to trade him for a top 5 pick in one of those loaded drafts.

My guess is Denver (a small market team) was not looking to rebuild.  They were looking to be competitive and entertain their fans while they still had a very good player on board.

[Who]

It is actually very similar to our Celtics team today. Tatum and Jaylen are both under long term contract and are young enough to withstand some rebuilding right now. But within a few years, that window will be closing. They will older and less willing to rebuild + their contracts will be running down so they will be actively analyzing their options.

That is what happened with Melo and he decided he did not want to rebuild. So what we are seeing with Boston now could be the example of what I thought Denver should have done in 2009 versus what they actually did which was go all-in on a bad hand.

I agree with you that the Celtics are in a similar spot, and I entirely disagree with your prescription for how the Celtics should proceed.

The Celtics have just 3 seasons with both Jaylen and Jayson under contract remaining.  That means two years from now, Jaylen will be entering the final year of his contract before he has the chance to enter unrestricted free agency.

If the Celtics aren't already an exciting and talented team for Jaylen to be on at that point, I have no confidence that he's going to be committed to stick around.  The Celtics may very well be in a position where they have to seriously consider trading him at that point to avoid losing him for nothing.

Tatum might follow a year later, for the same reasons.


What do you think is going to happen if the Celts are a 40-45 win, 1st round exit team the next two seasons while they develop a young supporting cast?  Do you think Jaylen and Jayson are going to remain committed to being in Boston while they watch their peers (Mitchell, Booker, Trae, Simmons, Embiid, etc) make deep runs?


If you have stars under contract in their prime, you can't afford to throw away seasons if you have any other choice.  The Celtics already lost a year this season with those two under contract due to COVID, injuries, and general roster mismanagement.  If they embrace a soft rebuild / reset now, how many good years will they have with Jayson and Jaylen once they've completed that rebuild?  One?


Honestly, I think the Celtics are in a very dangerous territory right now where if they can't figure out a way to set this right and put themselves in a position to at least be competitive with the other top teams within a season or so, they probably have to consider trading Jaylen and maybe even Jayson.  The alternative might be waiting a year or so and then getting forced into making a much crappier deal (as we've seen some teams make recently) due to a trade demand.

A soft rebuild. I like that. That is a good description.


Yes, it is not pleasant. It is not desirable. But it is where we are and it is where we are because we lost Horford, Kyrie and Hayward in FA while getting nothing in return for them.

It wasn't planned this way. There was a plan. It was a good plan. It just did not work out. That happens.

Now it is time to move forward. The goal is not a good regular season team (50-55 win squad). The goal is to win a Championship. You risk losing them (Tatum, Jaylen) just as much if you sell out all your assets / flexibility and end up capping your team as a second round and out sort of club (players get fed up of that if they see no promise of better days ahead). And you risk more if your plan fails (spend all your assets but end up only a 47-50 win team) or if your plan is dependent on old guys whose wheels are falling off (guys in their mid to late 30s) cause those young guys see that rebuild right around the corner and they don't want any part of it.

However much they hate a rebuild right now, they will hate it much more 2-3 years down the line when they older and smack bam in their prime. Better to do it now when they hate is less than later when they hate it more.

I wish there was a nicer road to travel down. One where we could make big leaps forward right away. I just do not see any. This team has limited trade assets (outside of Jaylen, Tatum) and limited cap flexibility (short term). This needs to be a medium term plan. There is no quick fix solution.

Be patient. Develop youth. Be opportunistic ... but always while maintaining enough flexibility to grow sustainably to title contention. Do not cap yourself too early in the game.

[Who]

Not stop the rebuild. Start the rebuild.

Start sooner. Give yourself a chance to put enough long term pieces around Melo to convince him to stay. Maybe you do, maybe you don't but you got a shot.

You have no shot down the Billups road.

How long do you think a rebuild takes, realistically?  To me, a rebuild takes at least 2-3 years, assuming you have very good luck.

The Nuggets had Carmelo under contract through the 2012 season (he signed a 5 year extension in 2006 which started in the 07-08 season).

If they had initiated a rebuild after the 08 season, rather than trading for Billups etc, they would have come out of that rebuild with a reinvigorated, younger team by ... 2011?  At which point they'd have one year left with Melo, and likely would have spent the previous 2-3 seasons being mediocre or worse.

Would that have enticed Melo to stay, do you think, rather than jumping ship to the Knicks?

Kinda seems to me like Melo wanted to be on the Knicks for a long time, and he was always going to end up there.  Denver did pretty well to get a WCF run, a handful of 50+ win seasons on top of that, and then a trade haul from New York when Melo finally left.


If they preferred a rebuild to a few years of pseudo-contention with Melo as their lead guy, they may as well have started shopping Melo in 2009 or 2010, when they could have gotten a huge haul for him.  Maybe they could have tried to trade him for a top 5 pick in one of those loaded drafts.

My guess is Denver (a small market team) was not looking to rebuild.  They were looking to be competitive and entertain their fans while they still had a very good player on board.

Impossible to say. It depends on how well you do it.

You could do a great job. Or you could do a terrible job. Or anywhere in between. How well you execute depends on the success or the failure of the plan.

How well do you use their draft picks? Do you pickup a Gordon Hayward or a Paul George with a late lotto pick in 2010? Or do you pick Aminu or Cole Aldrich? Do you find Klay Thompson in 2011?

How much cap space can you free up? Can you dump Kenyon along with Iverson? Can you rebuild around Melo and Nene. Melo would be one of the most respected and sought after teammates of that era. He would be a fantastic asset in attracting superstars to Denver.

Can Denver get in on the 2010 free agency class? Can they convince Amare to come over to play with Melo and Nene? Joe Johnson?

Do they instead hold their assets / flexibility and go all in on the trade market. Go after the next upset superstar who wants out. Deron Williams was available in 2011. Have they amassed enough young assets to get him? Deron & Melo would be a highly attractive duo to build around long term (obviously not knowing how much Deron would fall off in near future).

There was lots of opportunities. You cannot guarantee you will take advantage of those opportunities but you can put yourself in a position to have the chance to take advantage of them. You can clear cap room. You can get better draft picks. You can build up your trade assets by doing both of these things and get back into the trade market in the future.

These are all positive decisions to give yourself opportunities. It doesn't mean it'll work. It just means you have a chance.

[PhoSita]

I guess my feeling on this is that once you have players like Jaylen and Jayson locked up on their second contracts, you're on the clock.

As to whether you're going to be a 50-55 win team or a "true" contender, that's going to be determined largely by

- luck
- chemistry
- finding players in the mid-late 1st who contribute right away and who are better than expected

and more than anything

- just how good are those guys? are they "just" All-Stars, or are they in the tier above that?



If you're already in the second contract phase with your young stars and you're not sure if those guys are good enough to be the core of a title team, I think your options are pretty much:

"build around them and hope they surprise you"

or

"start thinking about the most advantageous way to trade those guys before they tank their value by asking out."



Recent history of the NBA doesn't give much hope for a team that enters a "soft rebuild" with just few years left of their young star(s) under contract and then isn't ready to be truly competitive until there's just a year or two left on those deals.