How Larry Legend built a contender

[kozlodoev]

Then how did they win those three championships?
They drafted a top 5 player in the league. He attracted one of the top free agents in the league in Shaq.
He then attracted the top free agent in Lebron, and another starting caliber All Star free agent in Chris Bosh.

Except Shaq was in actuality traded to Miami, and James and Bosh wouldn't have been able to sign in Miami if the team didn't have the cap space. So you may want to chalk a good portion of these championship to Riley's executive talents.

Or perhaps to the weather in South Beach, because there's a good argument to be made that those two, along with a third top free agent may have signed with Miami anyhow (see, I can play this game too ).

[hwangjini_1]

Perhaps if we follow this mold, we too can be great in 2021.

Right. Let's follow the mold of the Clippers. After all, all those top draft picks they had turned them around in just a couple of years, right? Oh wait...

good one. but remember, the celtics - thank the gods in the heavens - have different owners and a different GM. i think the celtics, given picks of the clippers, would have turned out a tad different.

Hwangjini I wish you would post more, you are one of my favorite Celtics minds.
So reasonable, so logical- willing to accept both sides of the argument.

TP man.

thank you very much for the tp and kind words. i would post more if some one could figure out how to add a few more hours to my day...maybe with 28 hour days i could do more. 

right now i am focusing on post # 3,000...huff puff...not too many more to go.

[Jailan34]

I just don't get what people have against the draft, especially when our team is unable to sign top free agents. Every player pretty much comes in the league through the draft, and there are people whose entire career is evaluating talent, sure they're not perfect but they also haven't been sensationalist in comparing every good draft class to 2003.

This year they did.

We aren't going to win the title this year that's a fact. So yeah lose a few more games and try to get one of these kids and if we don't get lucky move on, the year is no more wasted because we won 23 than if we won 30.

Any basketball fan can see the talent in these kids, Parker, Randle and Wiggins all look like they will grow into great nba players. What is wrong with trying to get them, and if not them one of the other good players in the draft.

So whats the harm?
 

[kozlodoev]

I just don't get what people have against the draft, especially when our team is unable to sign top free agents. Every player pretty much comes in the league through the draft, and there are people whose entire career is evaluating talent, sure they're not perfect but they also haven't been sensationalist in comparing every good draft class to 2003.

This year they did.

We aren't going to win the title this year that's a fact. So yeah lose a few more games and try to get one of these kids and if we don't get lucky move on, the year is no more wasted because we won 23 than if we won 30.

Any basketball fan can see the talent in these kids, Parker, Randle and Wiggins all look like they will grow into great nba players. What is wrong with trying to get them, and if not them one of the other good players in the draft.

So whats the harm?

I have nothing against the draft. I have something against the idea that the draft is some sort of a surefire salvation, and that it's worth giving away serviceable players, and developing poor habits with young players (see Jefferson, Al).

[hwangjini_1]

I just don't get what people have against the draft, especially when our team is unable to sign top free agents. Every player pretty much comes in the league through the draft, and there are people whose entire career is evaluating talent, sure they're not perfect but they also haven't been sensationalist in comparing every good draft class to 2003.

This year they did.

We aren't going to win the title this year that's a fact. So yeah lose a few more games and try to get one of these kids and if we don't get lucky move on, the year is no more wasted because we won 23 than if we won 30.

Any basketball fan can see the talent in these kids, Parker, Randle and Wiggins all look like they will grow into great nba players. What is wrong with trying to get them, and if not them one of the other good players in the draft.

So whats the harm?

I have nothing against the draft. I have something against the idea that the draft is some sort of a surefire salvation, and that it's worth giving away serviceable players, and developing poor habits with young players (see Jefferson, Al).

based upon his recent track record, danny may be in agreement with you.

[bdm860]

Great fairy tale story.
As Lar says, it only took them 8 years to look decent. I hope everyone knows that to draft Hibbert and George they missed the playoffs and from 2006-2010 they didn't make the playoffs once.

What the article doesn't explain is the luck involved in

a)drafting Hibbert and George with late lottery picks

b)having them become all star caliber players. BOTH of them.

c)then having them re-sign with the club that drafted them
That is a combination of luck that is just as hard, if not harder to pull off than binking a number one pick.
It's the same as collecting up all your trade chips and hoping to get Dwight Howard like Houston did.

How lucky was Houston to get Harden, have him excel in that starting role, then sign Howard ahead of the Lakers and the other 4 teams trying to get him.

The Rockets are also still a while away from being a contender at this point.

Back to the Pacers, they still have to beat Miami, luckily for them we suck, and so do the Bulls that now D Rose is out- so they'll have an easy path to the Heat if the Nets don't get healthy or work out the coaching situation.

Building a contender requires an insane amount of luck- and the Pacers STILL did it with draft picks, David West is a good player but he ain't an All Star any more- he's a solid veteran- they're relying on their draft picks for their success.

Point of the Pacers story.

*You can be a small market team and be successful. You don't have to tank, but you still need to get incredibly lucky to draft lottery picks that turn out to be stars. (George)

*You then have to be lucky enough to ensure they don't pursue free agency.(same with Hibbert)

*Then you might have a chance at beating the teams with the legitimate franchise guys in your conference, which also helps when some of your biggest threats are injured.(Derrick Rose, Noah, Deron Williams, Chris Bosh)

*You'll be forgotten in the wind once the franchise player and his cronies hoist the Larry O'brien trophy once again as you ALMOST beat them.

I do think the Pacers are a great team, I also like that they're the underdog. I do hope they beat the Heat.
Just don't forget how insanely lucky you have to get to have their current situation.
It doesn't matter if you choose the draft or free agency- you'll have to get some crazy luck.
I think what this also highlights is how important your top level management and GM is to your teams success.
If this were the Charlotte or Minnesota front offices it wouldn't be the same story.

A couple of things I disagree with:

1) I disagree with 8 years.  By my count it was 6.  They were contenders in '05 (but the brawl kind of killed them, but there was still hope when every but Arest came back from suspension).  Even to start the '06 season people thought they were contenders.  Then in 2012, they won the equivalent of 52 games and had a great series against Miami.  In 2012 they're in the playoffs, they're winning, and clearly headed in the right direction.  Maybe not a legit contender, but definitely headed in the right direction, and definitely not rebuilding. So '06 to '11 is 6 years, not 8.  But that's really semantics, so no real point in arguing there.

2) I don't think I've ever heard of drafting guys outside of the top 10 as lucky.  So what's the difference between luck and good GM skill?  Personally, I don't think it's luck, I think Indiana is one of the best run franchises in the league, perhaps the most underrated franchise, possibly even the best run franchise.

When people think of well-run franchises, especially when it comes to small markets, they usually think of San Antonio, but perhaps Indiana is even more well-run.

Sure you can point to San Antonio’s 4 championships, but that took them winning the Duncan lottery to do that (and also the Robinson lottery in ’87).  If Robinson doesn’t get injured in ’97 and/or they don’t win the ’97 lottery, I don’t see San Antonio being much different than Indiana over the last 20 years.  Now that's luck.

For a small market team, Indiana has done incredibly well when it comes to rebuilding.  Actually for any size market team, Indiana has done incredibly well.  Think about it:

’94, ’95, ’96, went from dark horse to probably more legitimate championship contenders.  In ’94 and ’95 they went to Game 7 of the Conference Finals.  Then they ended up getting bounced early in ’96 and missing the playoffs in ’97.  Some teams might make drastic trades here, but they kept the core, and made solid additions, and came back strong in ’98, ’99, and ’00 going to the Conference Finals and Finals (and being only 1 of 2 teams to take a Jordan championship team to 7 games).

Had to rebuild, and basically put together a whole new championship caliber team in 2004 and 2005.  It only took them about 4 years, and they didn’t even have to tank to come back with basically a whole new team.

Rebuilt for another 6-7 years without tanking, and then has come back with another championship caliber team that you have now.

In 20 years, despite being a small market, they’ve assembled 3 different championship contender caliber teams, and never lost more than 32 games, and only twice lost more than 35.  When they’re a contender, they never go out in less than 6 games.  They’ve done this all without a game changing superstar (Jordan, Shaq, Duncan, LeBron, etc.).

During those 20 years, they’ve usually come out on top in major trades, Antonio Davis for Jonathan Bender probably the one exception.  Twice they traded a player away, and brought him back for pennies on the dollar (Mark Jackson and Al Harrington).

San Antonio gets all the love for the best run team, but maybe, just maybe you need to consider Indiana for that honor.

[indeedproceed]

I just don't get what people have against the draft, especially when our team is unable to sign top free agents. Every player pretty much comes in the league through the draft, and there are people whose entire career is evaluating talent, sure they're not perfect but they also haven't been sensationalist in comparing every good draft class to 2003.

This year they did.

We aren't going to win the title this year that's a fact. So yeah lose a few more games and try to get one of these kids and if we don't get lucky move on, the year is no more wasted because we won 23 than if we won 30.

Any basketball fan can see the talent in these kids, Parker, Randle and Wiggins all look like they will grow into great nba players. What is wrong with trying to get them, and if not them one of the other good players in the draft.

So whats the harm?

I have nothing against the draft. I have something against the idea that the draft is some sort of a surefire salvation, and that it's worth giving away serviceable players, and developing poor habits with young players (see Jefferson, Al).

Is that really the only course on the table between 'being bad enough to get a good pick' and 'playing to win' though?

I mean..who are the 'winning attitude' guys that we can't trade? Rondo, I guess, but I think (without doing a poll or anything) that most people (like me) who are excited about this draft would only trade Rondo for a package that is almost a 'insta-build' with very good prospects and hopefully salary relief built in. Jeff Green is a good player as well, but I doubt anyone is advocating trading him for $.60 on the dollar either.

And Id also disagree that being on a losing team automatically makes players with bad or unwelcome habits. It happened with Tyreke Evans and Al Jefferson, but it seemed to work alright for Jeff Green, Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, Damian Lillard, John Wall, Kevin Love (not that they won anything yet...just that they seem to be capable leaders with an urge to win).

To a certain degree, a large degree Id argue, players can 'learn to win' or 'learn to lose', but it's also probable that players just are who they are sometimes too. Nobody is going to teach Jabari Parker or Marcus Smart to lose, anymore than they could teach Big Al or Eddy Curry how to put winning at the front of their daily menu.

[Celtics17]

I remember when someone once asked John Wooden was asked who had the best basketball mind in NBA history. His reply was that noone was every quicker the Larry Bird.

It was obvious as a player that Bird was brilliant and even as a coach. It now looks like it has translated to the GM role as well.

[indeedproceed]

I remember when someone once asked John Wooden was asked who had the best basketball mind in NBA history. His reply was that noone was every quicker the Larry Bird.

It was obvious as a player that Bird was brilliant and even as a coach. It now looks like it has translated to the GM role as well.

It's goes beyond smart and or lucky drafting too. Larry Bird personally mentored Lance Stephenson and stood by him during a rocky start to his career, recognizing talent and not quitting on it, even though by many counts Stephenson was written off as a lost cause by others within the Pacers organization.

Does anyone know the story about Bird being mad at the Cs when they didn't want to hand the reigns over to him at the turn of the century? I remember hearing about it but can't Renee the details.

Oh man, imagine the alternative paths if we'd had Larry Legend as GM/sometimes coach for the last 15 years. Not that I'm not an Ainge supporter, I am. Just saying , imagine the symmetry.

[LatterDayCelticsfan]

Oh dear another one of those threads where pro tanking folk and anti tanking folk bash each other with whatever stats suit their argument. Clearly both methods among several other can work. Why the hair ball? The real difference I see between successful and disastrous rebuilds is the competence of the front office running the show. At the end of the day some of us take the train to work others use the bus, yet most of us consistently get to work on time because we are competent enough to know how to manage the risks of commuting using whatever means we settle for.   

[pokeKingCurtis]

Oh dear another one of those threads where pro tanking folk and anti tanking folk bash each other with whatever stats suit their argument. Clearly both methods among several other can work. Why the hair ball? The real difference I see between successful and disastrous rebuilds is the competence of the front office running the show. At the end of the day some of us take the train to work others use the bus, yet most of us consistently get to work on time because we are competent enough to know how to manage the risks of commuting using whatever means we settle for.

This should be stickied.

[guava_wrench]

It doesn't really make much sense to pick a team and then copy them because it is the actual players on the team, not the pattern that matters.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

Larry didnt just drafted right, he made the right moves trade wise.

That JO trade that landed them Hibbert was a stroke of genius. At this point O'neal is on the decline because of injuries but is still making a ton of money ans still owed more for two years, and he got a way to get rid of that salary.

He also had luck. If David West signed with Boston, Indiana won't be the contender we know today.

Good thing for us, we don't have to wait 8 years to "copy" what Larry did in Indiana. We have a much better movable assets in expiring contract/s, productive veterans in Bass and Lee who are in long but reasonable contracts, and young developing players along with a plethora of first round picks to use to rebuild. Having a talented draft class helps too. And more importantly, Danny's ability as a GM will make rebuilding quicker.

[D.o.s.]

There's also the fact that tanking in Indiana may never have been in the cards as a viable strategy post-Malice. Not only did that completely destroy a very good basketball team, but it caused an outrageous nosedive in fan interest and support. I don't know, but I suspect that the Indiana front office was unwilling to compound the fiscal backlash from that incident with a roster completely devoid of talent.

Remember, despite being good-to-great for the last few years, they've consistently ranked in the cellar as far as home attendance goes (with the usual exceptions for things like games against the Heat, etc.)

[PhoSita]

Oh dear another one of those threads where pro tanking folk and anti tanking folk bash each other with whatever stats suit their argument. Clearly both methods among several other can work. Why the hair ball? The real difference I see between successful and disastrous rebuilds is the competence of the front office running the show. At the end of the day some of us take the train to work others use the bus, yet most of us consistently get to work on time because we are competent enough to know how to manage the risks of commuting using whatever means we settle for.

I approve of this.