CB Historical Draft - Team Rosters/Panelists Comments

[stoyko]

I think we can all agree that Sean Elliot would be an excellent pick for the Kidney Transplant Allstars!

[Fan from VT]

I think we can all agree that Sean Elliot would be an excellent pick for the Kidney Transplant Allstars!

Throw in 'Zo, right?

And potentially Manute Bol.

[Redz]

I think the Panelists should also take into consideration how effective the players were in the playoffs for the season they are slotted.  I didn't necessarily draft with this in mind, but there are definitely guys who had huge "step it up" playoff performances.  I used the case of Boris Diaw as an example.

[Donoghus]

I think the Panelists should also take into consideration how effective the players were in the playoffs for the season they are slotted.  I didn't necessarily draft with this in mind, but there are definitely guys who had huge "step it up" playoff performances.  I used the case of Boris Diaw as an example.

So people should probably want to avoid Nick Andersen like the plague, huh? 

[StartOrien]

Looking for advice:

Do you guys think I should start T-Mac or Allan Houston? T-Mac's clearly better, but he might be better suited to start off the bench in a Ben Gordon like role.

[Who]

Looking for advice:

Do you guys think I should start T-Mac or Allan Houston? T-Mac's clearly better, but he might be better suited to start off the bench in a Ben Gordon like role.

Start McGrady.

Allan Houston is a shooting guard and a shooting guard only. Putting him at the three puts unnecessary pressure on the rest of your lineup due to his lack of rebounding (subpar for a SG, awful for a SF) and so-so defensive play. Also, you gain no offensive advantage by having him there, he's less of a threat as a three than a two (his size advantage and post up game against smaller two guards is lost + doesn't have the handle or penetration skills to beat taller defenders).

Allan Houston doesn't add much to your team. Not at this level.

Tracy McGrady is the second best player on your team and one of your best advantages.

[StartOrien]

Just for clarification, if I started Houston I'd move Spree to the small forward

[Roy Hobbs]

I think you're better off starting TMac, as well.

I'm not quite as sure about J.O.  In his prime, he was more of a PF.  Against the great centers in this draft, I think he'd take a pounding.

[Who]

Just for clarification, if I started Houston I'd move Spree to the small forward

It doesn't change much. Sprewell was a fairly mediocre rebounder himself so rebounding is still a problem area. Also, having Sprewell alongside won't stop the opposition from deciding to have their SF defend Houston if they think it gives them superior defensive matchups.

And continuing on, defensively Sprewell will struggle against the post games and physical size of Ron Artest + James Worthy + Carmelo Anthony and possibly Scottie Pippen. He is a fine defensive matchup against LeBron and Grant Hill (both ball-handlers/slashers) but both of those players still have matchup advantages against Sprewell due to their immense talents.

It is not a combination that will serve you well. Not at this level of competition.

[StartOrien]

I think you're better off starting TMac, as well.

I'm not quite as sure about J.O.  In his prime, he was more of a PF.  Against the great centers in this draft, I think he'd take a pounding.

Ya, I've considered it too, but I think he'll manage. Outside of Shaq, I think JO and KG can manage the greats. KG is a pretty good matchup for the Hakeems, Robinsons and McHales of the world and I'm hoping JO would take the more physical-Ewing types. Not as good of a matchup but I any means, but I'm hoping he could manage.

I could start either Oak or Mase, but I think the dropoff in offense would outweight the increase in defense. Mase was a decent offensive player, but his best offense generally came when he was running the show. So I can't imagine him and Nash being on the floor at the same time too often.

That being said I haven't taken a hard look at all the rosters, and could see myself switching up my opinion a couple hundred times over the weekend.

[nickagneta]

Chemistry & compatability are two factors that have played a huge role in my drafting so far.  I want guys that will complement each other well rather than, necessarily, a team of all-stars.  We saw in recent Olympics and World Championships before '08 how a team of all-stars fares.  I pretty much took that philosophy and extended it here.  I want role players and guys who excelled at the very highest levels (Olympics & NBA Finals) but who also fit in and seem to know their roles.  From a matchup standpoint, I really don't think its going to hurt me because I can mix & match these guys to cater to whatever they're going up against.  

My three cents.

And therein lies the question. How did the '08 Olympic Team and Dream Team and the team after the Dream Team succeed while so many others failed. To me it isn't quality of role player nearly as much as quality of character of the player that was the difference with those teams.

For that reason I tried like hell to fill my roster with the absolute best talent but stayed away from players(for the most part) that were head cases or locker room problems(Marion maybe the only exception) or were super ball dominant players. Almost every player on my team played with other superstars or on star laden teams and had to sacrifice their games accordingly at some point in their careers. To me that shows they are superstar level players that get "it" much like the players on the Dream and Redeem Teams were where so many other Olympic and World Championship teams weren't.

I also love Dons approach as well and think it works tremendously. I won't pick out any other team but there are teams that have multiple ball dominant players that have never been known to acquiesce to others. That will be a huge problem chemistry wise for those teams.  

This was my approach as well. I do think "role players" get pretty overrated in the NBA today...well, not overrated compared to other players of this era or compared to "value," but compared to other players of the past.

So once a team wins a title, we all like to retroactively construct the narrative of how each component of the title run was necessary for the championship, as well as simultaneously concluding that any alterations to any of those components would have meant no title.

In today's NBA, role players always end up being valuable, but more because of the salary structure of the NBA: you can't have that many great players on one team and pay them all.

(Let's be clear, though, at the same time there are certain types of stars: those that love sharing the ball and winning (high character high efficiency stars) and those that need to "get there's." I think it's clear that Golden State tried to stack their squad with multi-dimensional high-character guys who do their thing efficiently.)

But because of the salary structure, by definition A particular role player will be important to a championship team, not necessarily because that role player is vital to the team's success, but because the NBA requires that role players be a part of the team.

Take Robert Horry. Yes, he made plays that contributed to several Spurs titles. So now the story goes the Spurs needed his particular plays in order to win the title. I would argue two things: 1. It is a thousand times more the case that Horry needed Manu, Parker, and Duncan to win the title more than they needed Horry, and 2. Had Horry been replaced with a better player who had a good attitude (say, KG), the championship run would have unfolded in an unforeseeable way, but they very likely would still have won the title without needing the specific clutch plays Horry provided.

Another example: PJ Brown.

Fact: C's do not win the title if PJ Brown doesn't make his 4th quarter jumpers.

Myth: No matter what, there was going to be a need for those jumpers.

Myth 2: Only PJ Brown had the exact skill set to make those jumpers

Myth 3: No other player in that position would have netted the title, as events needed to unfold exactly as they did in order to win.

So what if we swapped out PJ Brown and threw in in-his-prime Marcus Camby? Camby can certainly drain elbow jumpers. But let's be honest, do we need elbow jumpers if we have Prime Marcus Camby for 7 games? And you might say Camby would be unhappy coming off the bench behind Perk. Well, as Nick pointed out, What are his options? Camby has a great attitude, so players of his skill level in this league cannot start for another team (they're all all-time teams) so they know they're bench players. Point is, on the floor, Camby's a great team player. And besides, this is an all-time team, so he's not sitting behind Perk, his sitting behind DPOY/In Prime Alonzo Mourning.

This is not to bash Don's picks. Horry was a very good pick, a good all-round player with a good attitude. My point is that just because Horry was a good all round player with a good attitude who happened to have the good luck to sign with several elite teams does not mean that a BETTER all round good player with a good attitude also could have won titles...just that, financially, the spurs couldn't fit him into their team.

In conclusion, I think it's more important to consider the skills and teamsmanship/general attitude of players and not as much the retroactively placed "elite role player" tag in and of itself.

Take a guy like Steve Kerr, though.  There's no doubt that he doesn't have the all-around game of the overwhelming majority of the players selected so far.  In fact, Steve Kerr may be the very worst all-around player selected thus far.  However, he fills a role:  he is an elite three point shooter (one of the best, if not the best, of all time), and he hit clutch shots.

Now, when you're talking about the 11th or 12th player on a roster, would you rather have the guy who can fit a role and can handle a particular game situation masterfully, or would you better have a better all-around player even though there are already two or three other all-time greats ahead of him on the depth chart?

But here's is where I think we differ.

Steve Kerr is a role player and you are lauding Dons drafting of role players for end of bench picks. You then say but wouldn't it be better to have a role player that was great at his particular skill than a better overall player that might not be able to fill that role as well.

But personally I would rather have that player that can do that skill, maybe not to the effect that Kerr did but definitely did it and was extremely successful at it to the point of being one of the best ever at it as well, as well as having the ability to do other things to contribute.

I see the validity of the argument for both sides and I don't think you can go wrong either way. Heck, I have done it both ways. Jayson Williams will be a situational role player for me but by the same token I like Sean Elliot as an all around player with his versatility to do a lot of things at a high level as well.

I'd agree, if we're talking about role players in the heavy rotation.  That's Fan From VT's point, and I agree:  having a one-dimensional, or at the very least limited, player in your rotation doesn't make sense, because your competitors all have guys who can do it all.

However, I'm assuming that teams aren't going to play with 12 man rotations.  That being the case, why does a team need a spectacular all-around player as his 7th big man, for instance?  Doesn't it make sense to fill those slots with all-time greats at certain skills?

In a normal league, health would be a concern, but I'm assuming that people are going to be choosing seasons where their players were largely healthy.  That being the case, does it make sense to have a team of 12 all-around great players, or, say, 10 great all-around players, and two "role" players who had elite skills in one or two areas?

I would personally choose the latter situation.  Sean Elliot is a better all-around player than Steve Kerr, but if I needed a three to tie or win the game, I'd take Kerr.  Thus, I'd rather have Kerr as my 12th man, since neither is going to be seeing minutes except in specific circumstances.

Except your comparing apples and oranges. Sean Elliot would never be someone I have in a game for the specific purpose of taking a three pointer. Be fair Roy, I have yet to address that need.

What good does it do to have an elite all-around all-star as your 12th or 13th man, though.  He's never going to see playing time.  At least a guy like Kerr -- or potentially Horry -- will.

Well, of my small forwards he's probably the most capable of defending fast, quick, offensively minded SFs. And if I need him late in games or I want to know that just because he is a good defender that he can also accomplish other things.

Also, late bench guys tend also to be practice guys. Guys you want to run other team's sets and to scrimmage your regulars and having the highest quality players in those positions will make the regular rotation players better during the year in practices.

Small potatoes all around because I am using both philosophies. I just don't think that any one philosophy is better than the other and that both are good and work.

[nickagneta]

Gentleman,

First off let me say what a thoroughly enjoyable two weeks it has been doing the 1st Annual CB Historical Darft with you. Everyone who participated was great and did a fantastic job.

So now, back to business.

First, I still need Drucci and GaBerkowitz to mke their final selections so that I can post them and so I can start the finalization process of the draft. Once their picks are in there will be a schedule from here on out. This is how it will go:

Time of last pick - Tuesday May 25th 6:00PM EST: Trading period. Teams are allowed to discuss trades and make them. Amount of players in the trades does not matter. I would like to suggest something that occurred in another draft. First three teams to make a three way trade will receive 5 TPs per team for the successful completion of the trade. First four teams to make a four team trade will receive 10 TPs for the successful completion of the trade.

Tuesday May 25th 9:00PM EST: All final rosters with playing year of each player must be posted in the CB Historical Draft - Team Rosters/Panelists Comments Thread:

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=37447.0

Failure to comply will render that team ineligible to be awarded awards

Wednesday May 26th 6:00PM EST: The following team must have their team presentation posted in the CB Historical Draft - Team Rosters/Panelists Comments Thread:

Indiana
Portland
Boston
New Jersey
Utah

http://forums.celticsblog.com/index.php?topic=37447.0 where they will be reviewed by the Panelists and the Panelists will post questions to the owners about their team.

Unlike past drafts you may have been associated with only the Panelists or non-participants of the draft may ask questions. Team owners can not ask other team owners questions. Please do not ask someone who is a non-participant to ask questions for you, This is against the spirit of this draft.

Panelists or non participants I do ask that when questioning a team after they have posted their presentation star your post with the team's name in bold red font. It will make it easier for owners to sort through the posts and see which posts are addressed to them.

Thursday May 27th 6:00PM EST: The following team must have their team presentation posted in the CB Historical Draft - Team Rosters/Panelists Comments Thread:

New Orleans
San Antonio
Memphis
Chicago
Milwaukee

Friday May 28th 6:00PM EST: The following team must have their team presentation posted in the CB Historical Draft - Team Rosters/Panelists Comments Thread:

Golden State
Charlotte
Philadelphia
Houston

Wednesday May 26th 6:00PM - Monday May 31th 9:00PM EST: Panelists ask questions and get them answered by team onwers. The reason for the length of this endeavor is to give everyone the opportunity to ask as many questions and follow up questions as possible while getting them answered while at the same time providing people the chance to have a life over a holiday weekend here in America.

Tuesday June 1st 1:00PM EST: Votes will be due in from the Panelists to me via PM for each of the awards in the following format:

Best Overall Team
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Best Offensive Team
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Best Defensive Team
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Tuesday May 25th 9:00PM - Tuesday June 1:00PM EST - as a fun thing for everyone to participate in I will be holding votes for the era's

Best Player
Best Center
Best Power Forward
Best Small Forward
Best Shooting Guard
Best Point Guard
Best Defensive Player
Best Offensive Player
Best Rebounder
Best Passer
Best Sixth Man
Best Coach
All-NBA First Team and Second Team
All-Defense First Team

Tuesday June 1st 7:00PM EST: Voting results for the Best of era announced

Tuesday June 1st 8:00PM EST:Awards to be announced

I hope this leads to a lot of interaction, discussion about players and teaches us a little bit about our game's history while having some fun doing it.

Thank you ahead of time for everything you will be doing and congratulations to everyone on a job well done.

Nick

[Moranis]

Here are my players with the year I have chosen

John Stockton   1994-1995
Terrell Brandon   1999-2000
Raja Bell   2006-2007
Joe Johnson   2004-2005
Jim Jackson   1995-1996
Lebron James   2009-2010
Tayshaun Prince   2006-2007
Shane Battier   2007-2008
Dennis Rodman   1991-1992
Al Jefferson   2007-2008
Zach Randolph   2009-2010
Juwan Howard   1995-1996
Chris Bosh   2009-2010
Kevin Willis   1991-1992
Andrew Bogut   2009-2010

Of those 15 years, I have the following breakdown of awards/honors

MVP - 1
1st Team All NBA - 2
3rd Team All NBA - 4
1st Team All Defense - 3
2nd Team All Defense - 3
All Star - 7

I will put my the rest of my presentation (why I chose who I did, why I chose the year, etc.) together some time today or tomorrow.

[Who]

I thought Terrell Brandon's two best seasons were 95-96 and 96-97. It was at the All-Star break in 1997 when Brandon made the cover of Sports Illustrated and was proclaimed the best point guard in the NBA.

Brandon's assist numbers are higher in Minnesota but that is only the difference between Flip Saunders' point centric offense and Mike Fratello's offense (more about ball movement and equal opportunity).

[Moranis]

I thought Terrell Brandon's two best seasons were 95-96 and 96-97. It was at the All-Star break in 1997 when Brandon made the cover of Sports Illustrated and was proclaimed the best point guard in the NBA.

Brandon's assist numbers are higher in Minnesota but that is only the difference between Flip Saunders' point centric offense and Mike Fratello's offense (more about ball movement and equal opportunity).

Brandon was a better defender in 99/00, a better shooter (though not by much), and I took a year in which he wasn't the top dog.  I didn't want my backups on this team all from years as top dogs, because I thought the flow would be better.  I did however struggle with Brandon and a couple of other guys picking between years.  Given I still have have some time before the deadline, I might still switch it up, but that was just how I was leaning.