As a fan what form of rebuild in more entertaining / preferred?

[CFAN38]

This off-season brings the next step in the rebuild. As a fan of the Cs which version is more entertaining.

A. Bring in vets, cash in the assets to try to get back into contention ASAP.

B. Hybrid young and old, bring in the 1st round picks place them around the existing vets and see how season goes. Goal is make playoffs

C. Finish a total breakdown, trade Rondo, Green and Bass and go the route of the current Jazz. Play a super young lineup big minutes in the hopes of them growing. Goal is another lottery pick and asset building.

[More Banners]

The best rebuild is a brief one.

Would we rather watch a young player develop over the next few years during Rondo's prime, getting us likely no further than the 2nd round, OR...

Trade picks for top players?

I'd rather win championships than the friggen draft.

[D.o.s.]

I think for this to work we need a C's fan who really followed the team for the last 20 years, a Rockets fan from the same time period, and a Sonics fan who stayed with the team after they left for OKC.

Those fans, I think, would give some proper perspective on rebuilding efforts.

[CoachBo]

None.

Be intelligent enough to evolve, as the Spurs did.

Rebuilding is for the birds.

[Mr October]

None.

Be intelligent enough to evolve, as the Spurs did.

Rebuilding is for the birds.

It helps to have david Robinson followed by Tim Duncan. I look forward to seeing what the spurs do when they dont luck into a number one pick, and a franchise superstar center.

[Mr October]

To the OP's question.

B. i want a mix of talented young players, and steady veterans who help them win and be professionals.

We will see how long it takes Utah or Philadelphia to become contenders with their lack of veterans.

The new big three era was awesome, but the shortness of the window was tough to deal with. I think the risk of growing with a couple lottery picks, while keeping rondo and a couple other vets is worth it if you get to watch winning basketball for 8-10 years.

[Boris Badenov]

I don't care about the process. I care about the outcomes, and the outcomes that matter are championships.

Whatever process that maximizes the number of banners is the one I want.

[slamtheking]

the method that results in us contending for a number of years and not just one.  I'm not particular how we get to that point as long as we get there.

[D.o.s.]

I prefer plan B of the three choices, but I also like rosters with some consistency to them, which I don't think is possible.

[Boris Badenov]

I prefer plan B of the three choices, but I also like rosters with some consistency to them, which I don't think is possible.

I used to be more of a "build from the ground up" guy, because that's what I knew from the mid-1980s Cs teams. But it took me about half a season to fall in love with the KG/Pierce/Allen team.

I will say though that looking back if I could pick between winning in year 1 of the last Big Three era, and winning in year 3, I would pick year 3. I was much more connected to those guys by then.

[D.o.s.]

I prefer plan B of the three choices, but I also like rosters with some consistency to them, which I don't think is possible.

I used to be more of a "build from the ground up" guy, because that's what I knew from the mid-1980s Cs teams. But it took me about half a season to fall in love with the KG/Pierce/Allen team.

I will say though that looking back if I could pick between winning in year 1 of the last Big Three era, and winning in year 3, I would pick year 3. I was much more connected to those guys by then.

Yeah, as blasphemous as it sounds I think a victory in 2010 would've meant more to me than 2008 did.

[PhoSita]

None.

Be intelligent enough to evolve, as the Spurs did.

Rebuilding is for the birds.

Gee, it sure is a lot easier to "evolve" when you have three All-Star caliber guys still on the roster, including a top 10 all-time great big man still near the top of his game despite being 35+ years old.  The Spurs deserve a lot of credit for their ability to find valuable contributors in the mid to late 1st round, though.  That sure makes it easier to reload around aging stars.  Also having the best coach in the league helps.



Ideally, yes, your team would never have to "rebuild" and you could just "reload," but the NBA is not set up for such a strategy to work most of the time.  We tried that last year, in fact, and it failed miserably.  Luckily there was still a monumentally incompetent GM in New Jersey for Ainge to take advantage of.


To answer the question of the OP, I'd say that a quicker rebuild that utilizes draft assets to acquire established players would probably result in a reasonably entertaining team that we could all get behind much more quickly. 

But in order to really put together a really exciting roster, more time and patience is required.  It's a process.

[PhoSita]

I prefer plan B of the three choices, but I also like rosters with some consistency to them, which I don't think is possible.

I used to be more of a "build from the ground up" guy, because that's what I knew from the mid-1980s Cs teams. But it took me about half a season to fall in love with the KG/Pierce/Allen team.

I will say though that looking back if I could pick between winning in year 1 of the last Big Three era, and winning in year 3, I would pick year 3. I was much more connected to those guys by then.

Yeah, as blasphemous as it sounds I think a victory in 2010 would've meant more to me than 2008 did.

That 2010 playoff run meant more to me than the '08 run, in large part because I was much more invested in the team by that point.

However, I can never fully embrace that 2010 team because they made me hate them during the regular season before I could love them.  So up and down and seemingly apathetic a lot of the time.

I'd say the overachieving (and lucky) 2012 team was probably my favorite.  They fell short -- as they ought to have -- but I was wholly satisfied with that playoff run.  In retrospect I kind of wish Ainge had blown it up after that, or that KG had retired.  Go out on a high note.  In my mind I tend to just skip over the '12-'13 season.  What an awful year.

[bdm860]

While of course, I want the C’s to raise banner 18 (and 19, 20, 21, etc.) as soon as possible.  I think from a fan’s perspective, I prefer the developing young talent from the ground up approach and slowly making strides.

I know a few fans here have said they enjoy the excitement around rebuilding (seeing young players grow and develop, projecting out about the possibilities, etc.) and are more excited about the team now than they were in the last few years and I agree with this.

Actually, I feel the C’s were a little cheated with the 2008 championship, because they didn’t really get to experience the journey.  (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining).

OKC is the basic dream scenario.  Or Chicago drafting Jordan.  Draft young stud #1 (Durant/Jordan), watch him grow and add more young studs over the following years (Westbrook/Ibaka/Harden or Pippen/Grant/Armstrong).  Go from hoping to make the playoffs, to hoping to make it out of the first round to hoping to make it to the Finals to winning the Finals.  I mean obviously those scenarios involve being able to draft historic talent, and that’s hard to do, but still.  From drafting Pierce/Dirk in ’98, I would probably prefer the Mavs journey to 1 championship and 1 Finals over the Celtics journey to 1 championship and 1 Finals, either of which I would prefer to the Pistons journey to 1 championship and 1 Finals.

The journey is more fun than the destination, IMO, and in 2008 the Celtics missed out on a lot of the journey.

[Eja117]

Notice "win the draft lottery" isn't even an option as it shouldn't be seeing as how the Celts have never moved up as the result of a lottery and have only moved down