How Are Top Teams Built? (Survey - Part 1)

[D.o.s.]

You'd also need a very good coach.

All these top teams share one common thing, a great or a very good coach.

Smart trades, smart FA signings are indeed a big thing in building a contender, but you'd still need someone to manage the personnel well.

It's hard to gauge the importance of a coach.  It's easy to think of examples of coaches who hindered the development of their teams.  But how much of the perception that a coach is "good" or "great" is generated by outcomes?

Is Scott Brooks a "great" coach, or is he just a pretty solid coach who has Durant on his team?  Same with Spoelstra. 

Doc Rivers is a pretty good coach, in a situation that fits his personality and style.  Looking at the Clippers, it's obvious he's an upgrade over Vinny Del Negro.  But that Clippers team would be really good with any coach decent enough not to get in the way.

Spolestra's a much better coach than Scott Brooks.

Look at the difference between LeBron's last year in Cleveland and LeBron's 2012 in Miami. Spolestra created an entire system around LeBron and forced him to play an entirely different game than what he was used to. And it worked, it worked really, really well.

[PhoSita]

You'd also need a very good coach.

All these top teams share one common thing, a great or a very good coach.

Smart trades, smart FA signings are indeed a big thing in building a contender, but you'd still need someone to manage the personnel well.

It's hard to gauge the importance of a coach.  It's easy to think of examples of coaches who hindered the development of their teams.  But how much of the perception that a coach is "good" or "great" is generated by outcomes?

Is Scott Brooks a "great" coach, or is he just a pretty solid coach who has Durant on his team?  Same with Spoelstra. 

Doc Rivers is a pretty good coach, in a situation that fits his personality and style.  Looking at the Clippers, it's obvious he's an upgrade over Vinny Del Negro.  But that Clippers team would be really good with any coach decent enough not to get in the way.

Spolestra's a much better coach than Scott Brooks.

Look at the difference between LeBron's last year in Cleveland and LeBron's 2012 in Miami. Spolestra created an entire system around LeBron and forced him to play an entirely different game than what he was used to. And it worked, it worked really, really well.

Spoelstra has done a fine job in Miami, don't get me wrong.

But what kind of career would he have had if he had never hooked up with LeBron and Bosh, or even a player of Wade's caliber?

In any case, I'm not worried about the coaching angle.  Brad seems perfectly capable to me, and he's got time to work on his shortcomings.

[D.o.s.]

Gotchya. I'd agree.

[mmmmm]

So it looks like every one of those top-10 teams got at least one of their top players either as a top-10 pick or through trading a top-10 pick.

The C's haven't had a top-10 pick since 2007. There's nobody on the team now they drafted in the top 10 or traded for a top 10.

Jeff Green was picked #5 in 2007.  You are correct though, that they didn't 'pick' him (they traded his pick for Ray) or 'trade a top 10' pick for him, though (they traded Perkins & Nate for JG & Krstic).

Ray _was_ that guy that met that definition.   And KG, too, since among the things we gave up for him was what turned out to be a #6 pick (that Minnesota burned on Johnny Flynn).

Otherwise, correct.  It's hard to have a that sort of guy on roster when you have been a title contender for several seasons.

Danny has done an amazing job of acquiring talent with value transactions.   Obviously, Rondo stands out as one of the biggest value picks ever -- a #21 who has arguably been the 2nd most valuable player from his draft.    But also with other moves such as getting JG back for a wounded, soon-to-be-FA Perkins, picking up Sullinger (who would have easily been a top-10 pick if not for the back issues) again, at #21, and taking a flyer on Bradley, who imho came out a year too early for his own good.   And the early returns on Olynyk make him look like far better than the #13 player out of his draft (Of the 12 guys picked ahead, I'd say at least 4 or 5 look like they should not have been.).

Unfortunately, we are still missing a couple of key pieces.  We need a legit top level scorer to complement/take the attention off Green and we need a top defender to help close the open gate in front of our rim.   We should be able to get at least one of those (probably the former) out of this draft.   I'm expecting we don't get Embiid so will have to trade for the latter or look to the 2015 draft.

[PhoSita]

Danny has done an amazing job of acquiring talent with value transactions. 

He definitely has.  Danny has a proven track record of doing that, and it's a great trait in a GM. 

My feeling on this, though -- and I get the sense from your post that you agree, at least to some extent -- that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. 

That's why hitting on talent in the top part of the draft -- or making the most of a pick in that range by trading it -- is so important.

[GreenWarrior]

You'd also need a very good coach.

All these top teams share one common thing, a great or a very good coach.

Smart trades, smart FA signings are indeed a big thing in building a contender, but you'd still need someone to manage the personnel well.

It's hard to gauge the importance of a coach.  It's easy to think of examples of coaches who hindered the development of their teams.  But how much of the perception that a coach is "good" or "great" is generated by outcomes?

Is Scott Brooks a "great" coach, or is he just a pretty solid coach who has Durant on his team?  Same with Spoelstra. 

Doc Rivers is a pretty good coach, in a situation that fits his personality and style.  Looking at the Clippers, it's obvious he's an upgrade over Vinny Del Negro.  But that Clippers team would be really good with any coach decent enough not to get in the way.

Spolestra's a much better coach than Scott Brooks.

Look at the difference between LeBron's last year in Cleveland and LeBron's 2012 in Miami. Spolestra created an entire system around LeBron and forced him to play an entirely different game than what he was used to. And it worked, it worked really, really well.

I think those differences are more about mike brown than spolestra and what Phosita was saying about "coaches hindering teams".

and I agree I don't think it takes a great coach to make a championship team but a bad one could kill a team.

as much as I hate admitting it I do think phil Jackson is/was a great coach. for simply getting his teams playing together for the one goal. getting the egos put aside or even in some cases dislike amongst teammates. and I think that might be the simple difference between the good and great coaches really.

[GreenWarrior]

Danny has done an amazing job of acquiring talent with value transactions. 

He definitely has.  Danny has a proven track record of doing that, and it's a great trait in a GM. 

My feeling on this, though -- and I get the sense from your post that you agree, at least to some extent -- that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. 

That's why hitting on talent in the top part of the draft -- or making the most of a pick in that range by trading it -- is so important.

I agree that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. and for the most part I think danny has done really well with drafting or turning traded draft picks into at least contributors....even if those players are no longer here.

perk - contributed to a championship
Jefferson - prototypical PF and one of the top PF's in the league
allen - regarded as one of the best defenders around the league

to name a few. and in '07 while everyone was saying you have to take Oden regardless of how talented Durant is. danny stuck to his guns and said we'd take Durant if we got the #1 pick overall.

so to sum it up. I trust that ultimately danny will get it right.

[Moranis]

Danny has done an amazing job of acquiring talent with value transactions. 

He definitely has.  Danny has a proven track record of doing that, and it's a great trait in a GM. 

My feeling on this, though -- and I get the sense from your post that you agree, at least to some extent -- that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. 

That's why hitting on talent in the top part of the draft -- or making the most of a pick in that range by trading it -- is so important.

I agree that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. and for the most part I think danny has done really well with drafting or turning traded draft picks into at least contributors....even if those players are no longer here.

perk - contributed to a championship
Jefferson - prototypical PF and one of the top PF's in the league
allen - regarded as one of the best defenders around the league

to name a few. and in '07 while everyone was saying you have to take Oden regardless of how talented Durant is. danny stuck to his guns and said we'd take Durant if we got the #1 pick overall.

so to sum it up. I trust that ultimately danny will get it right.

Ainge never said that about Durant and Oden.

[mmmmm]

Danny has done an amazing job of acquiring talent with value transactions. 

He definitely has.  Danny has a proven track record of doing that, and it's a great trait in a GM. 

My feeling on this, though -- and I get the sense from your post that you agree, at least to some extent -- that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. 

That's why hitting on talent in the top part of the draft -- or making the most of a pick in that range by trading it -- is so important.

To me, hitting on this draft is important, but I don't give it anywhere near the importance that I've seen you place on it.

Danny has so many movable assets that he can still acquire the missing pieces even if whomever we get in this draft is a dud, or if the lottery balls give us the 7th pick.  It just may take a couple more years before you see that materialize.  But even if we hit a 'star' in this draft, it will STILL take several years for this to turn into a 'contender' anyway.

Danny hasn't just been acquiring talent with value transactions.  He also turned Pierce, KG & JT into future picks and some solid pieces like Hump & Bogans' expiring deal.

[Celtics4ever]

1) Luck - you need some of this.
2) Wise drafting - develop resources, though this is partly luck as well.
3) Good Coach
4) Winning Culture.
5) Good Cap Management

[GreenWarrior]

Danny has done an amazing job of acquiring talent with value transactions. 

He definitely has.  Danny has a proven track record of doing that, and it's a great trait in a GM. 

My feeling on this, though -- and I get the sense from your post that you agree, at least to some extent -- that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. 

That's why hitting on talent in the top part of the draft -- or making the most of a pick in that range by trading it -- is so important.

I agree that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. and for the most part I think danny has done really well with drafting or turning traded draft picks into at least contributors....even if those players are no longer here.

perk - contributed to a championship
Jefferson - prototypical PF and one of the top PF's in the league
allen - regarded as one of the best defenders around the league

to name a few. and in '07 while everyone was saying you have to take Oden regardless of how talented Durant is. danny stuck to his guns and said we'd take Durant if we got the #1 pick overall.

so to sum it up. I trust that ultimately danny will get it right.

Ainge never said that about Durant and Oden.

hmm? I could've sworn I remember danny saying he'd prefer Durant over oden.

[hwangjini_1]

Danny has done an amazing job of acquiring talent with value transactions. 

He definitely has.  Danny has a proven track record of doing that, and it's a great trait in a GM. 

My feeling on this, though -- and I get the sense from your post that you agree, at least to some extent -- that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. 

That's why hitting on talent in the top part of the draft -- or making the most of a pick in that range by trading it -- is so important.

I agree that acquiring "value" talent can only take you so far. and for the most part I think danny has done really well with drafting or turning traded draft picks into at least contributors....even if those players are no longer here.

perk - contributed to a championship
Jefferson - prototypical PF and one of the top PF's in the league
allen - regarded as one of the best defenders around the league

to name a few. and in '07 while everyone was saying you have to take Oden regardless of how talented Durant is. danny stuck to his guns and said we'd take Durant if we got the #1 pick overall.

so to sum it up. I trust that ultimately danny will get it right.

Ainge never said that about Durant and Oden.

this web page wishes to disagree with your post. 
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-just-in/21114751/wyc-ainge-wanted-durant-over-oden

[Donoghus]

I've always found the whole Ainge/Durant thing a bit murky.  I'm not sure you can say with absolution would he or wouldn't he have drafted Durant based on what's reported. 

[D.o.s.]

this web page wishes to disagree with your post. 
http://www.weei.com/sports/boston/this-just-in/21114751/wyc-ainge-wanted-durant-over-oden

That's from 2011. And quoting Wyc.

This is from 2007:
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/2007/05/ainge_on_oden_d.html

"I think [Oden and Durant] are very talented players that have very bright futures," Ainge said. "Oden's body is more ready for the rigors of the NBA."

When asked if thought Durant had more long-term potential, Ainge added: "I don't know that. They both have a lot of potential long term. We're trying to decide before the draft. Right now, we're trying to prepare one through five. We think there's more than two players in the draft. I know that sounds like the company line, but we have it narrowed down to 12 players at this stage that we think would be a great fit for the Celtics, that would make us a better team. We'll narrow that down more. We like a lot of the guys in this draft and think that they can help us. ... They're all ice cream, just different flavors. It is important that we make the right decision."

[tstorey_97]

Being old, I would suggest reviewing Red Auerbach's approach for two reasons, the second, perhaps being most important. (I would like to address the "different era" objections here. Yes a different era, but, good Lord, not THAT different. Look at the man's draft record/team building record.)

1. Red used the draft to acquire the pieces to beat other GM's.
2. Ainge is Auerbach's protege. Unquestionably, Ainge has and will follow Auerbach's lead because it worked the other 17 times.

Yes, like Belichick, any winning program has been lucky. You must however, MAKE that luck by planning, studying, fighting and doing these things consistently for an adequate length of time. All is not won in a season or two.

The Thunder sure have a good ball club, but they are flawed enough to expose Presti's building principles and affirm Auerbach's.

Red got his centers. They had to have offensive ability, but, they had to fight to the very end on defense. HAD TO. Russell, Cowens, Parish all had solid offensive games along with the commitment to defense. Sam Presti skipped this step while assembling a highlight reel generating offensive team. San Antonio, obviously got it right with Tim.

Ainge, hired by Auerbach, gets Garnett. Auerbach was whispering in his ear from Heaven..."This Garnett fights to the end, put him underneath. He's the defender you build around..."

Auerbach always had a "defensive leader" on the court. Every town needs a sheriff and it helps if this sheriff is bigger than everyone else.