You'd have to take in to account our historic lack of free agency draw as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.
You'd also have to take into account the way the NBA owners locked the players out after The Decision and The Melodrama and came back with a new CBA that gives many more incentives to players staying with a team as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.
You'd also have to take into account the relatively tiny media market, high income tax, and (unless you're big on seasons) mediocre weather that comes with spending time in New England, especially if you're already leaving money on the table by coming to a team that isn't the team that drafted you, as one reason why Boston couldn't be that other team.
I do agree that trying to duplicate the Spurs 96-97 model is futile, but I definitely believe that they ended up deciding to tank that season after the injuries to Robinson, Person and Sean Elliot.
1) What exactly is a "historic lack of free agency draw" and why does that have anything to do with why Boston can't be that other team. Seriously, your words here don't convey anything tangible. Are you saying that there is some historical (compelling) evidence that free agents _don't_ want to come to Boston? Do you have numbers? The fact is, the Celtics have been over the salary cap for ages and have not really played much in the free agent market so I don't believe there is any evidence to really support that. The fact that the Patriots, Bruins & Red Sox have signed a ton of big name free agents during that span suggests that Boston does not emit some innate 'free agent repellent'.
2) Yes, the owners got a few tighter controls on player movement, but nothing fundamental other than top-end salary control in the form of the repeater tax. It remains to be seen whether that will truly hinder player movement. If anything, some teams will be forced to trade players in order to avoid it so it may _cause_ movement as much as it inhibits it.
3) Since when is Boston a 'relatively tiny media market'? Boston is ranked as the 7th largest TV media market (
http://www.stationindex.com/tv/tv-markets). Forbes ranks the Celtics as the 4th most valuable NBA team with estimated revenue of over $140M (
http://www.forbes.com/nba-valuations/). That's just a bizarre characterization of Boston. Further, the "high income tax" thing is blown WAY out of proportion because local income tax differences only apply to home games since athletes pay tax in each state they play in.
[Aside - Barron's does regular analysis which tends to show that the 'true tax' differences in most states ends up being negligible because states ultimately extract revenue one way or another. If it is not income tax, then it is sales tax. If it is not sales tax it is real estate tax. If not that, then it is usage fees. And so on. That doesn't mean one state might be vastly better for a given individual of course.]
4) But, the fact is, those guys _were_ injured. They weren't told to sit. The NBA is cruel when it comes to injuries because rosters are small and there are no 'reserve' modes with which to stash players. It is really hard to replace talent mid-season. Especially if you are trying to keep your injured talent on the roster for the future's sake. We Celtic fans should know this well by now after the last few years. Hence with San Antonio. Once those guys were injured, what choice did they have? They _tried_ to bring Robinson back. But he got hurt again. And this wasn't the vague 'bad back' that had him sidelined earlier. He broke his freaking foot. The end. Stick a fork in it.
They had to rely on guys like Dominique, signed at 37 years old to be just bench depth and who now was their leading scorer. The Spurs roster to start that season was not a tanking roster. And they didn't trade talent away or sit better players. They were just plain not good enough to win in the NBA without Robinson & the others. Sure, at some point resignation set in and they looked toward the draft and 'next year'. But the fact is, the best odds they could possibly get at Duncan would be 1 in 4 (and their final odds were much less). That draft wasn't loaded with 5 or 6 'franchise changers' like 2014 is being hyped up. It was Duncan and a 'bunch of guys'. You don't purposely tank for those kind of odds.
They were just plain not good. But they were lucky.