would you be satisfied with a 2014 top 5 pick

[BballTim]

I believe it is possible to build a contender without a top five pick.

Without drafting one, without using the pick in a trade, or without having one on your roster?

Are the Pacers a contender this year? 

And I don't think you should count acquiring a former top five pick via trade or free agency, either.  It is possible- reasonable even- for the Celtics to be able to build a contender in the next few years without ever picking in the top five, whether they keep the player or trade the pick.

I figured you'd cite the Pacers, but really I just wanted to know if you'd count having a top 5 pick and trading it away counted as "building a contender without a top five pick."

Well, it's definitely been possible doing it the opposite way (not drafting in the top-5, but at some point trading (or using free agency) to _bring_ a "top 5 pick" talent onto the team).   That has been the most common pattern to get teams over the hump from 'playoff team' to 'title contender'.

Some useful truisms are:

1) Almost all title winning teams have at least a couple of top-5-drafted players as key players.  Duh-uh.  You need top talent to win.

2) The vast majority of top-5-drafted talent will end up moving to other teams before they end up on a contender.

3) Only a couple of top-5-drafted players in recent decades have managed to contribute to winning the title on the team that drafted them.

While I'm eager and hopeful that we get a good draft spot and get great value out of this draft, I'm simply not going to stress out over it if we end up picking, say, 10th or whatever.   The historical trends are that having a top-5 pick isn't that big of a deal towards getting back to a title.   I won't complain if we get one.  But it won't be the end of the world if we don't.

If we don't end up with a top pick, Danny will just have to do some trade magic at some point to get that guy from some other team.   Neither path back to the finals is necessarily going to be faster or slower.

I agree with most of your points here, except I think most people don't realize:

1)how many championship teams or teams that reach the NBA finals do so with at least one of their own top 5-10 picks.
2)How difficult it is to actually win an NBA championship...when only the very best franchises in the NBA control the NBA championship trophy cabinet. How many franchises have won the trophy in the last 25 years?

We're talking about top 5 picks here specifically in this topic, but looking at points 2 and 3 you made, if you change the pick to top 10, pretty much every title team in the last 20 years has at least their own top 10 drafted player and has added to that core.
If you re-worded point 3, most of those guys who left their team were  pretty much conference finals or NBA finals appearance guys who's management could never build around them due to luck or bad choices etc..

How many of the last 20 years of championships have not been won by teams with their own top 5 or 10 pick (franchise guys in most cases- bench All Stars in worst cases) in place already?

Stars to attract stars and developing your own players is key, but....

Looking at the last 20 seasons of NBA champions and NBA finalists, you'll notice that every team that won or made the finals had their own drafted top 10 pick, The exceptions are the Pistons and Kobe on the Lakers- again another example where he went 14th but if he had to play in college was a top 5 prospect quite easily. They acquired the pick (player)by trading Divac.

Anyway, the list of those home-drafted NBA finalist/champs is:

Wade-Miami x3 +finals appearance. Pick number 3 (added Shaq)
Duncan- Spurs x 3(or 4?) +finals appearance Pick number 1 (joined Robinson first championship as rookie)
Pierce x1 2 +finals appearance Pick Number 10 (added KG + Ray Allen)
Dirk Nowitzki x 1 Pick number 9 (drafted by Mavs, added Tyson Chandler DPOY)
Lebron 1x finals appearance Cleveland Pick 1 (drafted by Cavs, added scraps lol)
Kobe 3+ 1 finals appearance pick 13 (Highschool) Draft day trade by Lakers. (added Shaq, Added Gasol, Drafted Bynum)
Bynum x 1 pick 10 (high school)
Shaq 1 in Orlando Pick number 1
Penny Hardaway 1 in Orlando Via first round pick, attained via trading away Chris Webber
Howard 1 in Orlando pick 1
Durant 2x finals appearance pick 2
Westbrook 2x finals appearance

Lets go back a bit further

Nets Kenyton Martin x 2 finals appearances pick number 1. (added Kidd)
Pacers Reggie Miller pick number 11
Knicks Patrick Ewing pick 1
Allan Houston pick 11
Bulls Jordan x 6 pick 3
Pippen x 6 pick 5
Jazz Malone x2 finals pick 13 (Added Jeff Malone)
Stockton x 2 finals pick 16
Sonics Gary Payton pick 2 (Added Perkins, Schrempf)
Shawn Kemp pick 17
Houston Olajuwan pick 1 x 2 championships (added Drexler + Thorpe)
Spurs David Robinson pick 1 (added Duncan)

The math holds a monstrous truism that without your own top 5 or 10 draft pick in place (who's become an All Star), the odds are STACKED against you.

  People get a little too into dissecting previous teams IMO. It's true most title teams have players that they drafted in the top 10. It's also true that most teams that don't win titles have players on their roster that they drafted with a top 5-10 pick. Also, you're pointing out that the vast majority of these title teams have players that they picked in the top 5-10 that became all-stars. We have Rondo, who we drafted and who became an all-star. If we'd have traded up and drafted him 10th would we suddenly be more likely to win a title? Of course not. Some people (not necessarily you) argue that we need to pick top 5 because other champions did like there's magic involved, and we're basically doomed if we don't get such a pick.

[mmmmm]

I believe it is possible to build a contender without a top five pick.

Without drafting one, without using the pick in a trade, or without having one on your roster?

Are the Pacers a contender this year? 

And I don't think you should count acquiring a former top five pick via trade or free agency, either.  It is possible- reasonable even- for the Celtics to be able to build a contender in the next few years without ever picking in the top five, whether they keep the player or trade the pick.

I figured you'd cite the Pacers, but really I just wanted to know if you'd count having a top 5 pick and trading it away counted as "building a contender without a top five pick."

Well, it's definitely been possible doing it the opposite way (not drafting in the top-5, but at some point trading (or using free agency) to _bring_ a "top 5 pick" talent onto the team).   That has been the most common pattern to get teams over the hump from 'playoff team' to 'title contender'.

Some useful truisms are:

1) Almost all title winning teams have at least a couple of top-5-drafted players as key players.  Duh-uh.  You need top talent to win.

2) The vast majority of top-5-drafted talent will end up moving to other teams before they end up on a contender.

3) Only a couple of top-5-drafted players in recent decades have managed to contribute to winning the title on the team that drafted them.

While I'm eager and hopeful that we get a good draft spot and get great value out of this draft, I'm simply not going to stress out over it if we end up picking, say, 10th or whatever.   The historical trends are that having a top-5 pick isn't that big of a deal towards getting back to a title.   I won't complain if we get one.  But it won't be the end of the world if we don't.

If we don't end up with a top pick, Danny will just have to do some trade magic at some point to get that guy from some other team.   Neither path back to the finals is necessarily going to be faster or slower.

I agree with most of your points here, except I think most people don't realize:

1)how many championship teams or teams that reach the NBA finals do so with at least one of their own top 5-10 picks.
2)How difficult it is to actually win an NBA championship...when only the very best franchises in the NBA control the NBA championship trophy cabinet. How many franchises have won the trophy in the last 25 years?

We're talking about top 5 picks here specifically in this topic, but looking at points 2 and 3 you made, if you change the pick to top 10, ...

i'm pretty sure the point of this whole thread is about the 'top 5'.  That is what my comments were concerned with.

If you expand it to 'top-10', yes the numbers get better, but still not really as compelling as you think.  When you do that, yes, nearly every title team has a top-10 player that they drafted (though usually a looong time before winning the title). But so does nearly every other team in the league, good OR bad...

The presence of a top-10-drafted player or two on a team has less of a correlation with winning titles as is the presence of elite, top-5 talent. 

So it is the latter that you want to aim for with your roster:  To have that top-5 level talent on it. 

But, as I said, _drafting_ that talent directly has not really correlated well with _keeping_ it long enough to win a title.

[hpantazo]

I would be happy with a top 4 pick, but not 5 or worse.

[Tr1boy]

I would be happy with a top 4 pick, but not 5 or worse.

And what's your projected top 4?

[hpantazo]

I would be happy with a top 4 pick, but not 5 or worse.

And what's your projected top 4?

Emblid
Parker
Wiggins
Exum

[D.o.s.]

I would be happy with a top 4 pick, but not 5 or worse.

And what's your projected top 4?

Emblid
Parker
Wiggins
Exum

I think that's pretty consistent across everyone's personal boards, both CB and media, right?

[Tr1boy]

I would be happy with a top 4 pick, but not 5 or worse.

And what's your projected top 4?

Emblid
Parker
Wiggins
Exum

It's too bad people don't see the upside in Randle.  He could end up being the best pick down the line. Especially if Embiid can't put it together, Parker can't improve his body/defense, Wiggins turns out to be Jeff Green part 2 and Exum with putting on more strength slows his game down + inconsistent jump shot

What Randle already has vs some of these guys is a pro body, ability to get to the FT on a consistent basis, advanced post scoring skills and a high end motor. Cutting down on turnovers and improving his jump shot will happen at the next level. And lack of shot blocking skills is his only real weakness imo. I mean that is a pretty safe, ready to transition into the nba prospect. 

[freshinthehouse]

TP.  I do agree that a lot of people are selling Randle short.  There seems to be a thought going around that he is too small for PF.  Every measurement I've seen shows him to by typical PF size.  And while he may not be an athletic freak, he's hardly a slug on the court.

That said, he wouldn't crack my top three. But he's a heck of a talent to get with the 4th or 5th pick.

[LilRip]

Ideally, I want a pick in the top 3. But I'd settle for a top 5 as well.

And IMO, I think we should forget this whole "number of top5 picks in previous championship teams" or whatever. I think the more obvious point is, multiple all stars on a team stand the best chance at winning a ring. A way of acquiring an all star (on the cheap too!) is by drafting him.

Now, it's true that drafting an all star and keeping an all star are two different things. So let's say a team like the Bucks drafted one and he's available because Milwaukee is a lost cause. The next question to ask is, how well can the C's attract FA all stars? Exactly. Thus, it stands to reason that we probably stand a better chance at retaining our drafted all star rather than attracting one another team drafted via FA.

Trades are a whole other issue, but I would assume that a pick in the top 5 is worth more than a pick in 10-15. The better asset would, in theory, make it easier to trade for an all-star.

That said, while top 5 picks aren't surefire all stars, the odds of you getting one while picking in that range are much higher than if you pick one in the 10-15 or 10-20 range.

We're not doomed if we don't get a top 5 pick. I mean, never say never, right? But it's not a farfetched thing to think that the road to prominence would likely be harder and longer if we didn't. We'd also likely need more luck as well, and "luck" or "chance" seems to be what "anti-tankers" are allergic to the most.

[mmmmm]

Ideally, I want a pick in the top 3. But I'd settle for a top 5 as well.

And IMO, I think we should forget this whole "number of top5 picks in previous championship teams" or whatever. I think the more obvious point is, multiple all stars on a team stand the best chance at winning a ring. A way of acquiring an all star (on the cheap too!) is by drafting him.

Now, it's true that drafting an all star and keeping an all star are two different things. So let's say a team like the Bucks drafted one and he's available because Milwaukee is a lost cause. The next question to ask is, how well can the C's attract FA all stars? Exactly. Thus, it stands to reason that we probably stand a better chance at retaining our drafted all star rather than attracting one another team drafted via FA.

Trades are a whole other issue, but I would assume that a pick in the top 5 is worth more than a pick in 10-15. The better asset would, in theory, make it easier to trade for an all-star.

That said, while top 5 picks aren't surefire all stars, the odds of you getting one while picking in that range are much higher than if you pick one in the 10-15 or 10-20 range.

We're not doomed if we don't get a top 5 pick. I mean, never say never, right? But it's not a farfetched thing to think that the road to prominence would likely be harder and longer if we didn't. We'd also likely need more luck as well, and "luck" or "chance" seems to be what "anti-tankers" are allergic to the most.

These are good points.

The Milwaukee situation may raise an opportunity.  If they get #1 and take Embiid, do they think about trading Sanders?

Do we think about trying to get him?

[LilRip]

Ideally, I want a pick in the top 3. But I'd settle for a top 5 as well.

And IMO, I think we should forget this whole "number of top5 picks in previous championship teams" or whatever. I think the more obvious point is, multiple all stars on a team stand the best chance at winning a ring. A way of acquiring an all star (on the cheap too!) is by drafting him.

Now, it's true that drafting an all star and keeping an all star are two different things. So let's say a team like the Bucks drafted one and he's available because Milwaukee is a lost cause. The next question to ask is, how well can the C's attract FA all stars? Exactly. Thus, it stands to reason that we probably stand a better chance at retaining our drafted all star rather than attracting one another team drafted via FA.

Trades are a whole other issue, but I would assume that a pick in the top 5 is worth more than a pick in 10-15. The better asset would, in theory, make it easier to trade for an all-star.

That said, while top 5 picks aren't surefire all stars, the odds of you getting one while picking in that range are much higher than if you pick one in the 10-15 or 10-20 range.

We're not doomed if we don't get a top 5 pick. I mean, never say never, right? But it's not a farfetched thing to think that the road to prominence would likely be harder and longer if we didn't. We'd also likely need more luck as well, and "luck" or "chance" seems to be what "anti-tankers" are allergic to the most.

These are good points.

The Milwaukee situation may raise an opportunity.  If they get #1 and take Embiid, do they think about trading Sanders?

Do we think about trying to get him?

i think trading Sanders is definitely on their minds, with or without Embiid. He hasn't played up to his contract and they've got another big in John Henson who has become an intriguing prospect.

However, much like Rondo, i don't think the Bucks would be willing to give up Sanders for "cheap". I expect he'll carry a price tag similar to Rondo. It would likely take an interesting prospect (Bradley? Exum, if we draft him?) and pick/s. After all, the prospect they'll probably be on the hunt for is a guard since they already have the Greek Freak and Henson (and presumably, Embiid).

[HomerSapien]

I think I’d be “satisfied” with a top 6 pick.  For me it goes like this:

#1 pick - Screaming from the rooftops with joy:
Embiid

Top 3 pick - Ecstatic:
Wiggins
Parker

Top 5 pick - Really excited:
Exum (As intriguing as top 3, but slightly bigger unknown & greater risk based on limited info)
Vonleh (Probably a bigger project, but I love his potential and could easily see him being one of the 3 best players in this draft)

Top 6 pick - Satisfied:
Randle (I agree with others sentiment that he's being undersold.  He'll be a solid NBA player.  Not an ideal match with Sully, but what the C's need right now is talent acquisition and he fits the bill)

When we get to the Aaron Gordon & Marcus Smart zone, that is where my sentiment shifts to disappointed.

[tankwatch1]

I think I’d be “satisfied” with a top 6 pick.  For me it goes like this:

#1 pick - Screaming from the rooftops with joy:
Embiid

Top 3 pick - Ecstatic:
Wiggins
Parker

Top 5 pick - Really excited:
Exum (As intriguing as top 3, but slightly bigger unknown & greater risk based on limited info)
Vonleh (Probably a bigger project, but I love his potential and could easily see him being one of the 3 best players in this draft)

Top 6 pick - Satisfied:
Randle (I agree with others sentiment that he's being undersold.  He'll be a solid NBA player.  Not an ideal match with Sully, but what the C's need right now is talent acquisition and he fits the bill)

When we get to the Aaron Gordon & Marcus Smart zone, that is where my sentiment shifts to disappointed.

Good post. I have to point one thing out however. Exum is not  going pick number 5. There is no way POSSIBLE  Exum goes higher than 4. As much as people don't want to admit it the top 4 picks are already locked in (Embiid,Parker,Wiggins,Exum) Once the the season ends, and the GM's, and the scouts get to see Exum more its over. Outlook: Big, smooth guard with tremendous ball-handling skills and creativity. Outstanding talent and clear-cut NBA prospect. If he can improve his jump-shot, the sky is the limit.

[Yoki_IsTheName]

I would be. A top 5 pick would put us in a great position to rebuild. Either we pick a player or we use it for trade to land an established All Star.

It will have a ton of value, hence I will be very satisfied with it.

Will be more satisfied if the next pick will be below the 20's.

[Boris Badenov]

I think I’d be “satisfied” with a top 6 pick.  For me it goes like this:

#1 pick - Screaming from the rooftops with joy:
Embiid

Top 3 pick - Ecstatic:
Wiggins
Parker

Top 5 pick - Really excited:
Exum (As intriguing as top 3, but slightly bigger unknown & greater risk based on limited info)
Vonleh (Probably a bigger project, but I love his potential and could easily see him being one of the 3 best players in this draft)

Top 6 pick - Satisfied:
Randle (I agree with others sentiment that he's being undersold.  He'll be a solid NBA player.  Not an ideal match with Sully, but what the C's need right now is talent acquisition and he fits the bill)

When we get to the Aaron Gordon & Marcus Smart zone, that is where my sentiment shifts to disappointed.

Good post. I have to point one thing out however. Exum is not  going pick number 5. There is no way POSSIBLE  Exum goes higher than 4. As much as people don't want to admit it the top 4 picks are already locked in (Embiid,Parker,Wiggins,Exum) Once the the season ends, and the GM's, and the scouts get to see Exum more its over. Outlook: Big, smooth guard with tremendous ball-handling skills and creativity. Outstanding talent and clear-cut NBA prospect. If he can improve his jump-shot, the sky is the limit.

You seem pretty sure of yourself, tankwatch. Are you an NBA scout?

Like the ranking Homer, btw. TP.