2012 T-Wolves > 2012 Celtics

[Moranis]

Yeah, that's it.  Tank for six straight years until you finally get to a place where you have an outside shot at making the playoffs.  That's definitely the way to go.

No, tank for however long it takes to assemble some highly valuable young assets, and perhaps a young franchise star.  Then you use those assets to put together a competitive team, along with free agency and whatever else is at your disposal. 

You need that foundation first, though, and the foundation is always built with high draft picks.  That means being bad for a couple years, at least.

The Timberwolves are an exciting, talented young team, but I wouldn't use their method of team building as a model for how to build a champion.

No NBA champion in at least the last 15 years has built their championship squad by missing the playoffs for 6 straight seasons to build up assets.  Of course, you need assets and when you do get into decent draft position, you need to be a combination of lucky and good to find the right talent. 

By your preferred method, the Kings, the Pistons, the Wizards, the Nets, and the Bobcats should all be knocking on the door by now. 

Yeah but Minnesota has really only been piling up the assets the last four years (08-09 was Love's rookie year and pretty much every asset on the team was brought in after that).  Before that they pretty much still had Garnett and thus couldn't be bad enough to really tank until after he was gone.  So I don't think you can really count them till the 07 summer at the earliest.  They were bad in 07-08 and made the draft day trade for Love and have been building ever since then to get to where they are.

[Celtics18]

Yeah, that's it.  Tank for six straight years until you finally get to a place where you have an outside shot at making the playoffs.  That's definitely the way to go.

No, tank for however long it takes to assemble some highly valuable young assets, and perhaps a young franchise star.  Then you use those assets to put together a competitive team, along with free agency and whatever else is at your disposal. 

You need that foundation first, though, and the foundation is always built with high draft picks.  That means being bad for a couple years, at least.

The Timberwolves are an exciting, talented young team, but I wouldn't use their method of team building as a model for how to build a champion.

No NBA champion in at least the last 15 years has built their championship squad by missing the playoffs for 6 straight seasons to build up assets.  Of course, you need assets and when you do get into decent draft position, you need to be a combination of lucky and good to find the right talent. 

By your preferred method, the Kings, the Pistons, the Wizards, the Nets, and the Bobcats should all be knocking on the door by now. 

Yeah but Minnesota has really only been piling up the assets the last four years (08-09 was Love's rookie year and pretty much every asset on the team was brought in after that).  Before that they pretty much still had Garnett and thus couldn't be bad enough to really tank until after he was gone.  So I don't think you can really count them till the 07 summer at the earliest.  They were bad in 07-08 and made the draft day trade for Love and have been building ever since then to get to where they are.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really change my point that being bad for multiple years in a row is not the way to build a champion.  A lottery pick here or there along the way helps the cause, but to use a strategy of being as bad as possible for as long as possible to get back to the top is not one that has been proven to work. 

[LooseCannon]

To get a top three pick, you usually have to be so bad that you both lack talent and are woefully mismanaged, or you have to get really lucky in the lottery, so to build a championship caliber team, it would be reasonable to say that your best bet is to find a perennial All-Star caliber player outside of the top three draft slots and/or exploit an idiot GM and/or fluke your way into one of those top three slots without having an abysmally untalented team that has you years from assembling good pieces even if you draft a future hall of famer.

[Moranis]

Yeah, that's it.  Tank for six straight years until you finally get to a place where you have an outside shot at making the playoffs.  That's definitely the way to go.

No, tank for however long it takes to assemble some highly valuable young assets, and perhaps a young franchise star.  Then you use those assets to put together a competitive team, along with free agency and whatever else is at your disposal. 

You need that foundation first, though, and the foundation is always built with high draft picks.  That means being bad for a couple years, at least.

The Timberwolves are an exciting, talented young team, but I wouldn't use their method of team building as a model for how to build a champion.

No NBA champion in at least the last 15 years has built their championship squad by missing the playoffs for 6 straight seasons to build up assets.  Of course, you need assets and when you do get into decent draft position, you need to be a combination of lucky and good to find the right talent. 

By your preferred method, the Kings, the Pistons, the Wizards, the Nets, and the Bobcats should all be knocking on the door by now. 

Yeah but Minnesota has really only been piling up the assets the last four years (08-09 was Love's rookie year and pretty much every asset on the team was brought in after that).  Before that they pretty much still had Garnett and thus couldn't be bad enough to really tank until after he was gone.  So I don't think you can really count them till the 07 summer at the earliest.  They were bad in 07-08 and made the draft day trade for Love and have been building ever since then to get to where they are.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really change my point that being bad for multiple years in a row is not the way to build a champion.  A lottery pick here or there along the way helps the cause, but to use a strategy of being as bad as possible for as long as possible to get back to the top is not one that has been proven to work. 

You just have to be bad in the right draft and make the right pick.  Sometimes that takes a few seasons.  And there have been so few champions that it is hard to look at just champions, but if you look at real legit title contenders, a great deal of them had a few seasons of lottery picks to get the players to be in the position they are in.  Chicago, Oklahoma City, and LA Clippers all really do fall into that category.  Sure each of them has made trades to add pieces (but they traded high level draft picks to get the players) and by being crappy you have a lot of players all on rookie deals that gives you cap space to add other players (like Boozer for chicago and Butler for LA). 

Orlando the expansion team.  Went to the finals in its 6th year of existence with its key members pretty much all draft picks.  Its first pick ever was Anderson, next year Scott, next year no key members, then Shaq, then the swap of Webber for Penny (can you imagine if they actually kept Webber how much different that might have gone).

It seems to me what you need to do is draft a couple of solid starter type players, still be crappy enough to get a high lottery pick, and hope you get the gold medal superstar player to pair with the earlier high picks in the third or fourth draft.  And then you will be fine.  If you hit that gold medal superstar first (or if you fail before him), then it is much more difficult to get talent around him to win a title (see Cleveland - team was terrible with no young players except Boozer who they let go like idiots and then end up with Lebron, who is so good so early that it doesn't get any other real high picks and thus can't find him a legit #2 after it let Boozer go). 

[PosImpos]

Yeah, that's it.  Tank for six straight years until you finally get to a place where you have an outside shot at making the playoffs.  That's definitely the way to go.

No, tank for however long it takes to assemble some highly valuable young assets, and perhaps a young franchise star.  Then you use those assets to put together a competitive team, along with free agency and whatever else is at your disposal.  

You need that foundation first, though, and the foundation is always built with high draft picks.  That means being bad for a couple years, at least.

The Timberwolves are an exciting, talented young team, but I wouldn't use their method of team building as a model for how to build a champion.

No NBA champion in at least the last 15 years has built their championship squad by missing the playoffs for 6 straight seasons to build up assets.  Of course, you need assets and when you do get into decent draft position, you need to be a combination of lucky and good to find the right talent.  

By your preferred method, the Kings, the Pistons, the Wizards, the Nets, and the Bobcats should all be knocking on the door by now.  

Being bad on its own isn't going to guarantee that you will become competitive.  You have to draft well, develop well, and make the right moves.  Plus, you need a good coaching staff to make the talent work together.

My point is that getting those high draft picks is the necessary starting point.  A lot of teams are bad each year, but only a few organizations are good enough from top to bottom to work their way up from the bottom.  Some bad organizations hit the jackpot in the lottery and jump to the top really fast -- but they often are bad for a long time before that.

The bottom line, though, is that you're not ever going to have a true contender unless you tank and draft high.  It just doesn't happen.  There are maybe 2-3 exceptions over the past 40 years.



The Kings, the Pistons, and the Wizards, at least, have assembled a handful of very valuable assets over the last few years.  Whether they can develop those assets into competitive teams in the next few seasons will depend on how well managed they are, what they do in free agency, etc.  But because they've drafted high they have the raw resources.  

The Nets would be in such a position if they weren't so desperate to be competitive right away that they keep trading away their future for their present.  The same can be said of the Bobcats.  That's the real ticket to long term mediocrity -- mortgaging your future for the sake of being better and more exciting right now.

[Celtics18]

Yeah, that's it.  Tank for six straight years until you finally get to a place where you have an outside shot at making the playoffs.  That's definitely the way to go.

No, tank for however long it takes to assemble some highly valuable young assets, and perhaps a young franchise star.  Then you use those assets to put together a competitive team, along with free agency and whatever else is at your disposal.  

You need that foundation first, though, and the foundation is always built with high draft picks.  That means being bad for a couple years, at least.

The Timberwolves are an exciting, talented young team, but I wouldn't use their method of team building as a model for how to build a champion.

No NBA champion in at least the last 15 years has built their championship squad by missing the playoffs for 6 straight seasons to build up assets.  Of course, you need assets and when you do get into decent draft position, you need to be a combination of lucky and good to find the right talent.  

By your preferred method, the Kings, the Pistons, the Wizards, the Nets, and the Bobcats should all be knocking on the door by now.  

Being bad on its own isn't going to guarantee that you will become competitive.  You have to draft well, develop well, and make the right moves.  Plus, you need a good coaching staff to make the talent work together.

My point is that getting those high draft picks is the necessary starting point.  A lot of teams are bad each year, but only a few organizations are good enough from top to bottom to work their way up from the bottom.  Some bad organizations hit the jackpot in the lottery and jump to the top really fast -- but they often are bad for a long time before that.

The bottom line, though, is that you're not ever going to have a true contender unless you tank and draft high.  It just doesn't happen.  There are maybe 2-3 exceptions over the past 40 years.



The Kings, the Pistons, and the Wizards, at least, have assembled a handful of very valuable assets over the last few years.  Whether they can develop those assets into competitive teams in the next few seasons will depend on how well managed they are, what they do in free agency, etc.  But because they've drafted high they have the raw resources.  

The Nets would be in such a position if they weren't so desperate to be competitive right away that they keep trading away their future for their present.  The same can be said of the Bobcats.  That's the real ticket to long term mediocrity -- mortgaging your future for the sake of being better and more exciting right now.

The Lakers, the Spurs, the Celtics, the Pistons, and the Heat, the teams that have actually been champions in the recent past, have not built their teams on consistently tanking and they have not gotten a multitude of high lottery draft picks.  And, they didn't really build their way up from the bottom. 

Yes, they hit jackpots on the few high draft picks they had, and, certainly in the case of the Spurs, they picked extremely well later in the draft.  Danny Ainge managed to pick well later in the draft, as well, to pick up many of the assets that eventually were sold off for Kevin Garnett and our team's title.

I find it to be a ridiculous notion that the way to build an NBA contender is to race to the bottom.  I find it unfortunate that it has become widely accepted as the way to manage an NBA team.  It's simply not a proven strategy.  It is a good way for stingy franchises to operate on the cheap, though, and put a crappy team on the floor while convincing the fan base that they are "rebuilding."

[PosImpos]

Yeah, that's it.  Tank for six straight years until you finally get to a place where you have an outside shot at making the playoffs.  That's definitely the way to go.

No, tank for however long it takes to assemble some highly valuable young assets, and perhaps a young franchise star.  Then you use those assets to put together a competitive team, along with free agency and whatever else is at your disposal.  

You need that foundation first, though, and the foundation is always built with high draft picks.  That means being bad for a couple years, at least.

The Timberwolves are an exciting, talented young team, but I wouldn't use their method of team building as a model for how to build a champion.

No NBA champion in at least the last 15 years has built their championship squad by missing the playoffs for 6 straight seasons to build up assets.  Of course, you need assets and when you do get into decent draft position, you need to be a combination of lucky and good to find the right talent.  

By your preferred method, the Kings, the Pistons, the Wizards, the Nets, and the Bobcats should all be knocking on the door by now.  

Being bad on its own isn't going to guarantee that you will become competitive.  You have to draft well, develop well, and make the right moves.  Plus, you need a good coaching staff to make the talent work together.

My point is that getting those high draft picks is the necessary starting point.  A lot of teams are bad each year, but only a few organizations are good enough from top to bottom to work their way up from the bottom.  Some bad organizations hit the jackpot in the lottery and jump to the top really fast -- but they often are bad for a long time before that.

The bottom line, though, is that you're not ever going to have a true contender unless you tank and draft high.  It just doesn't happen.  There are maybe 2-3 exceptions over the past 40 years.



The Kings, the Pistons, and the Wizards, at least, have assembled a handful of very valuable assets over the last few years.  Whether they can develop those assets into competitive teams in the next few seasons will depend on how well managed they are, what they do in free agency, etc.  But because they've drafted high they have the raw resources.  

The Nets would be in such a position if they weren't so desperate to be competitive right away that they keep trading away their future for their present.  The same can be said of the Bobcats.  That's the real ticket to long term mediocrity -- mortgaging your future for the sake of being better and more exciting right now.

The Lakers, the Spurs, the Celtics, the Pistons, and the Heat, the teams that have actually been champions in the recent past, have not built their teams on consistently tanking and they have not gotten a multitude of high lottery draft picks.  And, they didn't really build their way up from the bottom.  

Yes, they hit jackpots on the few high draft picks they had, and, certainly in the case of the Spurs, they picked extremely well later in the draft.  Danny Ainge managed to pick well later in the draft, as well, to pick up many of the assets that eventually were sold off for Kevin Garnett and our team's title.

I find it to be a ridiculous notion that the way to build an NBA contender is to race to the bottom.  I find it unfortunate that it has become widely accepted as the way to manage an NBA team.  It's simply not a proven strategy.  It is a good way for stingy franchises to operate on the cheap, though, and put a crappy team on the floor while convincing the fan base that they are "rebuilding."

The Heat and the Celtics both had to build their teams with highly drafted players or high picks.

The Lakers are a team whose model cannot be emulated, unless the Celtics move to Hollywood and become the new "spotlight" team.

The Spurs drafted #1 overall twice.

The Pistons are the one team in the last three decades that's won without a highly drafted superstar; the exception to the rule.

You're not really making your case here.


If anything, tanking to rebuild through the draft is something that only teams with wealthy, patient owners can afford to do.  Stingy teams with owners desperate to make a profit are the ones that make every move they can just to make the playoffs each year at the expense of actually ever getting good enough to go anywhere in the playoffs.  Those teams usually can't afford the years of mediocrity that come with rebuilding, and they are often in such small markets with such uninterested fan bases that once they do get a star, the guy leaves as soon as his rookie contract is up.

I think it's safe to say the Celtics aren't in that predicament, though.

[LooseCannon]

The Spurs drafted #1 overall twice.

I've come up with the perfect strategy for rebuilding.  Rondo needs to break his foot and miss the 2012-2013 season.

[PosImpos]

The Spurs drafted #1 overall twice.

I've come up with the perfect strategy for rebuilding.  Rondo needs to break his foot and miss the 2012-2013 season.

Would breaking his foot really keep him out the entire season?

[ManchesterCelticsFan]

The Spurs drafted #1 overall twice.

I've come up with the perfect strategy for rebuilding.  Rondo needs to break his foot and miss the 2012-2013 season.

Just like David Robinson was injured for 76 Games in the 1996-97 season and many other top Spurs like Sean Elliot (missed 43 games) were injured. This is a team that won 59 games the year before, gets to Draft #1 and land TIM DUNCAN(!!!!) in a Draft which the C's had by far the best chance to get and by far a worse roster as they went 33-49 the year before. (had many injuries, real and fictious to bring the record down to 15-67)

http://www.spursreport.com/forums/spurs-nba-fan-feedback/26906-what-robinsons-injury-1996-97-a.html

[LooseCannon]

The Spurs drafted #1 overall twice.

I've come up with the perfect strategy for rebuilding.  Rondo needs to break his foot and miss the 2012-2013 season.

Just like David Robinson was injured for 76 Games in the 1996-97 season and many other top Spurs like Sean Elliot (missed 43 games) were injured. This is a team that won 59 games the year before, gets to Draft #1 and land TIM DUNCAN(!!!!) in a Draft which the C's had by far the best chance to get and by far a worse roster as they went 33-49 the year before. (had many injuries, real and fictious to bring the record down to 15-67)

http://www.spursreport.com/forums/spurs-nba-fan-feedback/26906-what-robinsons-injury-1996-97-a.html

Yeah, I thought my reference was obvious and didn't need to be spelled out.

[Celtics18]

Yeah, that's it.  Tank for six straight years until you finally get to a place where you have an outside shot at making the playoffs.  That's definitely the way to go.

No, tank for however long it takes to assemble some highly valuable young assets, and perhaps a young franchise star.  Then you use those assets to put together a competitive team, along with free agency and whatever else is at your disposal.  

You need that foundation first, though, and the foundation is always built with high draft picks.  That means being bad for a couple years, at least.

The Timberwolves are an exciting, talented young team, but I wouldn't use their method of team building as a model for how to build a champion.

No NBA champion in at least the last 15 years has built their championship squad by missing the playoffs for 6 straight seasons to build up assets.  Of course, you need assets and when you do get into decent draft position, you need to be a combination of lucky and good to find the right talent.  

By your preferred method, the Kings, the Pistons, the Wizards, the Nets, and the Bobcats should all be knocking on the door by now.  

Being bad on its own isn't going to guarantee that you will become competitive.  You have to draft well, develop well, and make the right moves.  Plus, you need a good coaching staff to make the talent work together.

My point is that getting those high draft picks is the necessary starting point.  A lot of teams are bad each year, but only a few organizations are good enough from top to bottom to work their way up from the bottom.  Some bad organizations hit the jackpot in the lottery and jump to the top really fast -- but they often are bad for a long time before that.

The bottom line, though, is that you're not ever going to have a true contender unless you tank and draft high.  It just doesn't happen.  There are maybe 2-3 exceptions over the past 40 years.



The Kings, the Pistons, and the Wizards, at least, have assembled a handful of very valuable assets over the last few years.  Whether they can develop those assets into competitive teams in the next few seasons will depend on how well managed they are, what they do in free agency, etc.  But because they've drafted high they have the raw resources.  

The Nets would be in such a position if they weren't so desperate to be competitive right away that they keep trading away their future for their present.  The same can be said of the Bobcats.  That's the real ticket to long term mediocrity -- mortgaging your future for the sake of being better and more exciting right now.

The Lakers, the Spurs, the Celtics, the Pistons, and the Heat, the teams that have actually been champions in the recent past, have not built their teams on consistently tanking and they have not gotten a multitude of high lottery draft picks.  And, they didn't really build their way up from the bottom.  

Yes, they hit jackpots on the few high draft picks they had, and, certainly in the case of the Spurs, they picked extremely well later in the draft.  Danny Ainge managed to pick well later in the draft, as well, to pick up many of the assets that eventually were sold off for Kevin Garnett and our team's title.

I find it to be a ridiculous notion that the way to build an NBA contender is to race to the bottom.  I find it unfortunate that it has become widely accepted as the way to manage an NBA team.  It's simply not a proven strategy.  It is a good way for stingy franchises to operate on the cheap, though, and put a crappy team on the floor while convincing the fan base that they are "rebuilding."

The Heat and the Celtics both had to build their teams with highly drafted players or high picks.

The Lakers are a team whose model cannot be emulated, unless the Celtics move to Hollywood and become the new "spotlight" team.

The Spurs drafted #1 overall twice.

The Pistons are the one team in the last three decades that's won without a highly drafted superstar; the exception to the rule.

You're not really making your case here.


If anything, tanking to rebuild through the draft is something that only teams with wealthy, patient owners can afford to do.  Stingy teams with owners desperate to make a profit are the ones that make every move they can just to make the playoffs each year at the expense of actually ever getting good enough to go anywhere in the playoffs.  Those teams usually can't afford the years of mediocrity that come with rebuilding, and they are often in such small markets with such uninterested fan bases that once they do get a star, the guy leaves as soon as his rookie contract is up.

I think it's safe to say the Celtics aren't in that predicament, though.

In the past thirteen seasons, since the Bulls relinquished their dominance on the NBA, there have been six separate teams who have won championships.  5 for the Lakers, 4 for the Spurs, and one apiece for Miami, Dallas, Boston and Detroit.  Of those championship teams, only the Spurs and the Miami team have been led by a top 5 draft pick that the team drafted themselves.  That's less than half of the championships won by getting in the top five and drafting a franchise player in what I consider to be the current era of the NBA. 

Based on that history of recent champions, clearly you don't need to land in the top half of the lottery to position yourself to become a championship contender.  There are other ways to build your team than tanking.




 

[Moranis]

Yeah, that's it.  Tank for six straight years until you finally get to a place where you have an outside shot at making the playoffs.  That's definitely the way to go.

No, tank for however long it takes to assemble some highly valuable young assets, and perhaps a young franchise star.  Then you use those assets to put together a competitive team, along with free agency and whatever else is at your disposal.  

You need that foundation first, though, and the foundation is always built with high draft picks.  That means being bad for a couple years, at least.

The Timberwolves are an exciting, talented young team, but I wouldn't use their method of team building as a model for how to build a champion.

No NBA champion in at least the last 15 years has built their championship squad by missing the playoffs for 6 straight seasons to build up assets.  Of course, you need assets and when you do get into decent draft position, you need to be a combination of lucky and good to find the right talent.  

By your preferred method, the Kings, the Pistons, the Wizards, the Nets, and the Bobcats should all be knocking on the door by now.  

Being bad on its own isn't going to guarantee that you will become competitive.  You have to draft well, develop well, and make the right moves.  Plus, you need a good coaching staff to make the talent work together.

My point is that getting those high draft picks is the necessary starting point.  A lot of teams are bad each year, but only a few organizations are good enough from top to bottom to work their way up from the bottom.  Some bad organizations hit the jackpot in the lottery and jump to the top really fast -- but they often are bad for a long time before that.

The bottom line, though, is that you're not ever going to have a true contender unless you tank and draft high.  It just doesn't happen.  There are maybe 2-3 exceptions over the past 40 years.



The Kings, the Pistons, and the Wizards, at least, have assembled a handful of very valuable assets over the last few years.  Whether they can develop those assets into competitive teams in the next few seasons will depend on how well managed they are, what they do in free agency, etc.  But because they've drafted high they have the raw resources.  

The Nets would be in such a position if they weren't so desperate to be competitive right away that they keep trading away their future for their present.  The same can be said of the Bobcats.  That's the real ticket to long term mediocrity -- mortgaging your future for the sake of being better and more exciting right now.

The Lakers, the Spurs, the Celtics, the Pistons, and the Heat, the teams that have actually been champions in the recent past, have not built their teams on consistently tanking and they have not gotten a multitude of high lottery draft picks.  And, they didn't really build their way up from the bottom.  

Yes, they hit jackpots on the few high draft picks they had, and, certainly in the case of the Spurs, they picked extremely well later in the draft.  Danny Ainge managed to pick well later in the draft, as well, to pick up many of the assets that eventually were sold off for Kevin Garnett and our team's title.

I find it to be a ridiculous notion that the way to build an NBA contender is to race to the bottom.  I find it unfortunate that it has become widely accepted as the way to manage an NBA team.  It's simply not a proven strategy.  It is a good way for stingy franchises to operate on the cheap, though, and put a crappy team on the floor while convincing the fan base that they are "rebuilding."

The Heat and the Celtics both had to build their teams with highly drafted players or high picks.

The Lakers are a team whose model cannot be emulated, unless the Celtics move to Hollywood and become the new "spotlight" team.

The Spurs drafted #1 overall twice.

The Pistons are the one team in the last three decades that's won without a highly drafted superstar; the exception to the rule.

You're not really making your case here.


If anything, tanking to rebuild through the draft is something that only teams with wealthy, patient owners can afford to do.  Stingy teams with owners desperate to make a profit are the ones that make every move they can just to make the playoffs each year at the expense of actually ever getting good enough to go anywhere in the playoffs.  Those teams usually can't afford the years of mediocrity that come with rebuilding, and they are often in such small markets with such uninterested fan bases that once they do get a star, the guy leaves as soon as his rookie contract is up.

I think it's safe to say the Celtics aren't in that predicament, though.

In the past thirteen seasons, since the Bulls relinquished their dominance on the NBA, there have been six separate teams who have won championships.  5 for the Lakers, 4 for the Spurs, and one apiece for Miami, Dallas, Boston and Detroit.  Of those championship teams, only the Spurs and the Miami team have been led by a top 5 draft pick that the team drafted themselves.  That's less than half of the championships won by getting in the top five and drafting a franchise player in what I consider to be the current era of the NBA. 

Based on that history of recent champions, clearly you don't need to land in the top half of the lottery to position yourself to become a championship contender.  There are other ways to build your team than tanking.

Though, Kobe, Dirk, and Pierce were all lottery picks drafted by the team they won the title with and led their team to titles (kobe and dirk were technically draft day trades, but they only ever played with one team).

[PosImpos]

In the past thirteen seasons, since the Bulls relinquished their dominance on the NBA, there have been six separate teams who have won championships.  5 for the Lakers, 4 for the Spurs, and one apiece for Miami, Dallas, Boston and Detroit.  Of those championship teams, only the Spurs and the Miami team have been led by a top 5 draft pick that the team drafted themselves.  That's less than half of the championships won by getting in the top five and drafting a franchise player in what I consider to be the current era of the NBA.  

Based on that history of recent champions, clearly you don't need to land in the top half of the lottery to position yourself to become a championship contender.  There are other ways to build your team than tanking.

The Celtics wouldn't have won a title without Ray and KG, who were only acquired because the Celtics had the 5th pick in the draft to trade.

The Mavs were led by a superstar drafted in the top 10 (Dirk was 9th).  I doubt that with the greatly improved foreign scouting of modern times that a foreign star like Dirk would fall to 9, though.

You're right about the Pistons and Lakers, however.  But I have serious doubts about the ability of other teams to successfully emulate the models used by those two teams in putting together a championship team.  

The Pistons were kind of a "everything coming together perfectly" situation -- a handful of All-Star wing players and an undrafted four-time DPOY.  In any case, they only won once and then fell short every time after that.  I think some might argue that the league was a kind of weak the season that the Pistons won it all.

The Lakers won titles with two superstar big men -- one who was poached from the Magic in free agency with the lure of the spotlight of LA, and the other acquired in one of the most lopsided trades in NBA history.

[Celtics18]

In the past thirteen seasons, since the Bulls relinquished their dominance on the NBA, there have been six separate teams who have won championships.  5 for the Lakers, 4 for the Spurs, and one apiece for Miami, Dallas, Boston and Detroit.  Of those championship teams, only the Spurs and the Miami team have been led by a top 5 draft pick that the team drafted themselves.  That's less than half of the championships won by getting in the top five and drafting a franchise player in what I consider to be the current era of the NBA.  

Based on that history of recent champions, clearly you don't need to land in the top half of the lottery to position yourself to become a championship contender.  There are other ways to build your team than tanking.

The Celtics wouldn't have won a title without Ray and KG, who were only acquired because the Celtics had the 5th pick in the draft to trade.

The Mavs were led by a superstar drafted in the top 10 (Dirk was 9th).  I doubt that with the greatly improved foreign scouting of modern times that a foreign star like Dirk would fall to 9, though.

You're right about the Pistons and Lakers, however.  But I have serious doubts about the ability of other teams to successfully emulate the models used by those two teams in putting together a championship team.  

The Pistons were kind of a "everything coming together perfectly" situation -- a handful of All-Star wing players and an undrafted four-time DPOY.  In any case, they only won once and then fell short every time after that.  I think some might argue that the league was a kind of weak the season that the Pistons won it all.

The Lakers won titles with two superstar big men -- one who was poached from the Magic in free agency with the lure of the spotlight of LA, and the other acquired in one of the most lopsided trades in NBA history.

So you are admitting that the Pistons and the Lakers are an exception to your rule.  Dallas is somewhat of an exception, too.  Sure, foreign scouting is better, but finding a star player at number 9 is still well within the realm of possibility.  the Celtics got Pierce at number 10.  Yes, they used a high draft pick to help turn their existing assets into their championship team, but they didn't tank for many years in a row. The Spurs tanked more than a decade ago to get Duncan, but have been a playoff team ever since. 

You need to define what you mean by needing to reach the bottom to build your way back up and needing "multiple high draft picks." You really seem to be trying to mold history to fit your own theory.