Let's Assume Rebuilding Begins in Earnest This Summer

[PosImpos]

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

  You not only have to win the lottery but you have to win the lottery in the year that a franchise player is available and hope that the player pans out and doesn't get a major injury. I really think that this is the last resort way to go.

As has already been said in this thread the only way to get really good in this league is to first get really bad, unless you're a prime FA destination (i.e. LA, NY, or MIA).

We're not a prime FA destination, so that kind of narrows it down to rebuilding through the draft. Obviously there's no guarantee it will work, but it's our only option.

Examples:

LA - drafted Kobe (franchise player) and built around him.
MIA - drafted Wade (franchise player) and built around him.
Mavs - drafted Dirk (franchise player) and built around him.
Bulls - drafted Rose (franchise player) and built around him.
OKC - drafted Durant and Westbrook (franchise players).
Spurs - drafted 3 superstars (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker).

  You forgot the current Celts...

The current Celtics, who had to first get lucky that superstar Paul Pierce fell to them at #10 in the late 90's, draft well by taking Al Jefferson at #15 quite a few years later, then get a high draft pick from being really bad and turn Jefferson and the high draft pick into Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen?

The current Celtics had to get really bad, get high draft picks and draft well in order to become a top contender.  They completed it through a couple trades, but the methods to get there were otherwise the same.

[Who]

Hmm ... it'd be fun to see Garnett in Portland starting alongside LaMarcus Aldridge.

Those two would be a heck of a combination. Keep Gerald Wallace and Wes Matthews on the wing. Lots of defense and quickness. That would be fun to watch.

Hrm, I think both Garnett and LMA like to play too far away from the basket, and neither is at his best playing center.

Aldridge is a very effective center. Portland played their best basketball with him at the five.

[Atzar]

I had this big, wordy post prepared to explain my opinion on the topic, but I decided that I'd spare you all the verbosity and just cut to the chase.

From what I've seen recently, obtaining one superstar really isn't enough to turn a team into a real contender.  You need two.  Boston, LA and Miami have all done it through various means:  Boston and LA made smart trades at the right time, and Miami was a prime free agent destination at the right time.  Meanwhile, the Orlandos, the Garnett-era Minnesotas, the Allen-era Seattles and the Clevelands are stuck in a mire of not-quite-good-enough-to-make-it-but-too-good-to-improve-through-the-draft until their one star wants out, forcing the team to start over at square one.  

My point is this:  Chris Paul alone won't win us championships.  Dwight Howard alone won't win us championships.  But both?

Now you have my attention.  It's a long shot, but frankly I think it's the only way we become contenders again in short order.  Otherwise we get to wait several years while hoping to strike gold again in the draft, and unlike some of you, I do think Rondo is good enough to keep us on that level of mediocrity that is poisonous in the NBA.

[PosImpos]

Hmm ... it'd be fun to see Garnett in Portland starting alongside LaMarcus Aldridge.

Those two would be a heck of a combination. Keep Gerald Wallace and Wes Matthews on the wing. Lots of defense and quickness. That would be fun to watch.

Hrm, I think both Garnett and LMA like to play too far away from the basket, and neither is at his best playing center.

Aldridge is a very effective center. Portland played their best basketball with him at the five.

Hm.  I'll take your word for it; I didn't watch the Blazers enough to have a definite opinion on that, I just always thought of LMA as a pure 4.

If the Blazers would consider giving us Batum and pieces for Garnett, I'd consider making the trade.  But I think they are convinced Batum is a star in the making and thus untouchable.

[Who]

Hmm ... it'd be fun to see Garnett in Portland starting alongside LaMarcus Aldridge.

Those two would be a heck of a combination. Keep Gerald Wallace and Wes Matthews on the wing. Lots of defense and quickness. That would be fun to watch.

Hrm, I think both Garnett and LMA like to play too far away from the basket, and neither is at his best playing center.

Aldridge is a very effective center. Portland played their best basketball with him at the five.

Hm.  I'll take your word for it; I didn't watch the Blazers enough to have a definite opinion on that, I just always thought of LMA as a pure 4.

If the Blazers would consider giving us Batum and pieces for Garnett, I'd consider making the trade.  But I think they are convinced Batum is a star in the making and thus untouchable.

Yeah, I don't think Portland is a real option either.

I was just looking through the list of teams and wondering who might be interested and enjoyed the thought of Aldridge + Garnett playing alongside one another.

[BballTim]

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

  You not only have to win the lottery but you have to win the lottery in the year that a franchise player is available and hope that the player pans out and doesn't get a major injury. I really think that this is the last resort way to go.

As has already been said in this thread the only way to get really good in this league is to first get really bad, unless you're a prime FA destination (i.e. LA, NY, or MIA).

We're not a prime FA destination, so that kind of narrows it down to rebuilding through the draft. Obviously there's no guarantee it will work, but it's our only option.

Examples:

LA - drafted Kobe (franchise player) and built around him.
MIA - drafted Wade (franchise player) and built around him.
Mavs - drafted Dirk (franchise player) and built around him.
Bulls - drafted Rose (franchise player) and built around him.
OKC - drafted Durant and Westbrook (franchise players).
Spurs - drafted 3 superstars (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker).

  You forgot the current Celts...

The current Celtics, who had to first get lucky that superstar Paul Pierce fell to them at #10 in the late 90's, draft well by taking Al Jefferson at #15 quite a few years later, then get a high draft pick from being really bad and turn Jefferson and the high draft pick into Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen?

  No, the other current Celtics.

The current Celtics had to get really bad, get high draft picks and draft well in order to become a top contender.  They completed it through a couple trades, but the methods to get there were otherwise the same.

  The Celts didn't get high draft picks, did they? They only had 1 top 5 pick since probably Billups.

[Who]

I disagree with the multiple superstars theory. I think there are lots of ways to build contenders. I wouldn't get too bogged down into one method.

[PosImpos]

Again, it's a crapshoot.  You have to get a high draft pick that gives you a likely franchise player.  You have to be very bad or extremely lucky to draft that high, and you have to be both in order to get a true superstar with the pick.

But that's what it takes.

  You not only have to win the lottery but you have to win the lottery in the year that a franchise player is available and hope that the player pans out and doesn't get a major injury. I really think that this is the last resort way to go.

As has already been said in this thread the only way to get really good in this league is to first get really bad, unless you're a prime FA destination (i.e. LA, NY, or MIA).

We're not a prime FA destination, so that kind of narrows it down to rebuilding through the draft. Obviously there's no guarantee it will work, but it's our only option.

Examples:

LA - drafted Kobe (franchise player) and built around him.
MIA - drafted Wade (franchise player) and built around him.
Mavs - drafted Dirk (franchise player) and built around him.
Bulls - drafted Rose (franchise player) and built around him.
OKC - drafted Durant and Westbrook (franchise players).
Spurs - drafted 3 superstars (Duncan, Ginobili, Parker).

  You forgot the current Celts...

The current Celtics, who had to first get lucky that superstar Paul Pierce fell to them at #10 in the late 90's, draft well by taking Al Jefferson at #15 quite a few years later, then get a high draft pick from being really bad and turn Jefferson and the high draft pick into Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen?

  No, the other current Celtics.

The current Celtics had to get really bad, get high draft picks and draft well in order to become a top contender.  They completed it through a couple trades, but the methods to get there were otherwise the same.

  The Celts didn't get high draft picks, did they? They only had 1 top 5 pick since probably Billups.

They had the #5 that they used to get Ray Allen.  That's my point.  They would never have gotten Ray (and thus wouldn't have gotten KG) if they hadn't been awful in 06-07 and gotten that draft pick.

[Redz]

Lakers didn't draft Kobe.  They gave up Divac for him.

[PosImpos]

I disagree with the multiple superstars theory. I think there are lots of ways to build contenders. I wouldn't get too bogged down into one method.

Perhaps you don't need multiple superstars, but I really believe you need at least one.

Even the '04 Pistons, the most recent example of the "non-superstar champion" had Ben Wallace in his prime, who was the most dominant defensive player of that time (won 4 DPOY in 5 years, though ironically they gave it to Artest instead the year the Pistons won it).

Lakers didn't draft Kobe.  They gave up Divac for him.

Indeed; I and I believe one other person in this thread were mistaken on that one.  I'm not sure whether that was luck or just a really, really savvy move on the part of the Lakers management.  Safe to say, though, that if the plan is to try and trade an aging star for a #13 pick who will end up being one of the greatest players ever, we're going to be waiting a while.

[Atzar]

I disagree with the multiple superstars theory. I think there are lots of ways to build contenders. I wouldn't get too bogged down into one method.

Which champion hasn't had at least one superstar, though?  The Celtics have Pierce, KG and Ray.  The early 00's Lakers had Shaq and Kobe, and the current Lakers have Kobe and Gasol.  Miami had Wade and Shaq.  The Spurs had Duncan, Ginobili and Parker.  Going back further, you find Jordan and Pippen.  Hakeem and Drexler.  Sure, the Pistons buck the trend - instead of more than one superstar, they simply had five All-Star-caliber players whose games meshed almost perfectly. 

I suppose you could quibble about my loose usage of the term 'superstar', but I just don't think one star is enough for the vast majority of teams.  The best players - Paul and Howard both belong in this category - are really only good enough to put a team in that "not good enough to contend but too good to land a great draft pick" territory.  But if you have the means to grab two stars, then you can really contend.

[Who]

The best players - Paul and Howard both belong in this category - are really only good enough to put a team in that "not good enough to contend but too good to land a great draft pick" territory.  But if you have the means to grab two stars, then you can really contend.

I disagree with this.

Dwight Howard brought his team to the NBA Finals two years ago. In terms of starters, they had a top 10 PF, a top 15 PG and a top 15 SF and good bench (elite backup C, elite backup wing). Sprinkle a little more talent on that squad and they could have won a title.

The only reason the Magic are stuttering so much now is that they have a very weak supporting cast around him after their mid-season trades.

Chris Paul's New Orleans Hornets were close to a title a few years ago. They didn't have enough but they were close. Paul had three guys who were borderline All-Stars or a notch below All-Star status really alongside him. A top ten center in Tyson Chandler, a top 15 PF in David West and the last good year out of Peja Stojakovic and Peja was only really a mediocre starting SF at that point. If Peja was able to do a little more and/or if New Orleans had more depth ... they would have won the West that year.

Both of those guys, Chris Paul and Dwight Howard, are capable of fielding a legitimate title contender and winning a title without a second superstar alongside them.

Obviously, their chances improve significantly if their respective clubs could land a true superstar to play alongside them. Top tier talent is always preferable. The more the better.

But it's not an absolute necessity ... their teams are still capable of getting the job done without second/third superstar.

[Who]

Sure, the Pistons buck the trend - instead of more than one superstar, they simply had five All-Star-caliber players whose games meshed almost perfectly. 

Seattle in the late 1970s also. They didn't have a superstar either.

So it's possible to win without one superstar ... those teams have shown that ... but it's also extremely difficult to achieve.

You really want at least one guy that can build around. Preferably more.

[ballin]

As far as the Kobe thing goes, according to wikipedia:

"The teams agreed to the trade the day before the draft and the Lakers did not tell the Hornets who to select until five minutes before the pick was made.[29] Branch said that prior to the trade agreement, the Hornets never even considered drafting Bryant"

In other words, one of the conditions of the Lakers trading for the pick was that they would get to tell the Hornets who to draft. So the Lakers de facto drafted Kobe, even if they didn't technically draft Kobe.

Hell, even if the Lakers didn't tell the Hornets to select Kobe, trading for drafted player that hasn't played yet is essentially the same thing as trading for a pick and then selecting him yourself.


The point of the matter is, to build a contender you need to acquire at least one superstar through the draft, and unless you get really lucky and draft a Kobe-like player with the 13th pick, you USUALLY need to get a much higher pick in order for the plan to work. (see: Duncan, Dirk, Pierce, Wade, Durant, Westbrook, et. al.) Let's call this step 1. If you're really good at drafting you might end at step 1 like the Spurs, or essentially the Thunder.

Next is step 2. Once you get a superstar through the draft, you can work on acquiring complimentary talent, usually by discarding other assets you acquired while your team was terrible, and also through free agency. (see: us trading a pick for Ray, who then convinces KG to come on board) Some teams have a built-in free agent advantage (NY, LA, MIA). However, other teams can create attractive locations for free agents by showcasing a superstar talent (see: part of the reason Lebron and Bosh went to Miami was because they already had Wade).

Step 3: contend for a championship.

99% of championship contenders have followed that mode, going back to the beginning of the league.

Rondo frankly isn't good enough to be that guy. He's not a Kobe, Duncan, Pierce, Durant, Wade, or going back, a Jordan, a Hakeem, a Magic Johnson, an Isiah, a Bird...

Notice something? That method I just described explains every championship going back for about the last 3 decades, with the exception of that freakish Pistons team. Unless you think much more highly of Rondo than I do, I say forget it, we need get high draft picks by getting bad.

[PosImpos]

As far as the Kobe thing goes, according to wikipedia:

"The teams agreed to the trade the day before the draft and the Lakers did not tell the Hornets who to select until five minutes before the pick was made.[29] Branch said that prior to the trade agreement, the Hornets never even considered drafting Bryant"

In other words, one of the conditions of the Lakers trading for the pick was that they would get to tell the Hornets who to draft. So the Lakers de facto drafted Kobe, even if they didn't technically draft Kobe.

Hell, even if the Lakers didn't tell the Hornets to select Kobe, trading for drafted player that hasn't played yet is essentially the same thing as trading for a pick and then selecting him yourself.


The point of the matter is, to build a contender you need to acquire at least one superstar through the draft, and unless you get really lucky and draft a Kobe-like player with the 13th pick, you USUALLY need to get a much higher pick in order for the plan to work. (see: Duncan, Dirk, Pierce, Wade, Durant, Westbrook, et. al.) Let's call this step 1. If you're really good at drafting you might end at step 1 like the Spurs, or essentially the Thunder.

Next is step 2. Once you get a superstar through the draft, you can work on acquiring complimentary talent, usually by discarding other assets you acquired while your team was terrible, and also through free agency. (see: us trading a pick for Ray, who then convinces KG to come on board) Some teams have a built-in free agent advantage (NY, LA, MIA). However, other teams can create attractive locations for free agents by showcasing a superstar talent (see: part of the reason Lebron and Bosh went to Miami was because they already had Wade).

Step 3: contend for a championship.

99% of championship contenders have followed that mode, going back to the beginning of the league.

Rondo frankly isn't good enough to be that guy. He's not a Kobe, Duncan, Pierce, Durant, Wade, or going back, a Jordan, a Hakeem, a Magic Johnson, an Isiah, a Bird...

Notice something? That method I just described explains every championship going back for about the last 3 decades, with the exception of that freakish Pistons team. Unless you think much more highly of Rondo than I do, I say forget it, we need get high draft picks by getting bad.

Really well explained.  TP.

The more I think about the Pistons, by the way, the more I want to say that they didn't buck the trend as much as it seems on the surface.  Ben Wallace was a four time DPOY in his prime in '04.  He only wasn't a superstar because he was really bad on offense -- but they had Mr. Big Shot for that.  

I guess my point is, Ben Wallace should be a Hall of Famer some day, a bona fide top 50 player because of what he did on defense.  Ben Wallace was a superstar on defense.  The funny thing about Ben Wallace, though, is that he was undrafted.