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

[Moranis]

Presti's biggest problem is he has hung on to a crappy coach far too long.

[D.o.s.]

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.

No, it is that different. Red operated in an entirely different era, especially when it came to scouting players.

You know how the Spurs were way far ahead of everyone when it came to evaluating international talent? Red was doing that with homegrown players -- check out the Russell trade sometime - the other GM hadn't even seen Russell play when he traded him.

He was also doing things that don't fly in the modern NBA, like drafting Bird during Bird's junior year of school.

[clover]

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.

That's right, Ray, KG and Paul all met that definition--the first two with draft picks, including the Minny pick, and Pierce because the C's picked him at 10. But yes, Ray, not Green is what became of the C's last top-10 pick, in 2007, and he's of course no longer with the team. Green is here not because of either a Celtics top-10 pick that they held or because they traded a top-10 pick for him.

I stand by my observation. The top-10 teams as presented in this thread all used a top-10 pick to land at least one of their top three players--and the C's have no such player on their roster.

Jeesh!!!

Oh, and I agree as to what the C's need, but I think KO has a chance to grow into a top scorer. I'm not sold on Green as being a top-two scorer on a championship team, and I think the C's are unlikely to find that really top scorer picking below 4 (though Hairston could be a dark horse for the role). Embiid's back may just possibly drop him closer to where the C's likely pick. And I think there's still a reasonable chance that Rondo gets traded away this summer.

[mmmmm]

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.

No, it is that different. Red operated in an entirely different era, especially when it came to scouting players.

You know how the Spurs were way far ahead of everyone when it came to evaluating international talent? Red was doing that with homegrown players -- check out the Russell trade sometime - the other GM hadn't even seen Russell play when he traded him.

He was also doing things that don't fly in the modern NBA, like drafting Bird during Bird's junior year of school.

Those seem like distinctions without a real difference, though.   tstory_97 already cited the Spurs as 'getting it right' (per Red dictums) with Duncan and the idea that they would look to find value in places no one else is looking (international players) is consistent with Red's strategies.

Tactics need to be different today for all the reasons you cite and more.

But that doesn't invalidate Red's larger strategic approach, which is really the moneyball approach of finding assets that are undervalued or whose value is not visible to everyone else.

Danny has clearly looked to find value where no one else is looking.  It hasn't alway worked (Fab Melo).  But often it has (Rondo, Sully).   Pressey seems to be a small such victory.  Jury is still out on Faverani, Iverson.

[More Banners]

Interesting how quite a few teams have a mid-late round gem that they developed.

Many have top draft picks headlining them also.

And few avoid trade/FA signings altogether.



We have a few nice mid-late gems, most notably Rondo and most recently Sully, and quite possibly Bradley counts here, too.

Our GM looks for value, like scouring the Southwest for Bradley (Texas) and taking Olynyk from little Gonzaga, and trading up to get him.  So that's good.

But without a home-grown homerun player, will we have to overpay to get that next star and perfect fit via trade?  We sure do have the pieces, all we need is a seller.

[PhoSita]

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.

I'd love for THIS draft to be the difference maker for our franchise.  But there's no guarantee.  We might not get the kind of player we need, regardless of whether we pick in the top 5 or 8th or 9th or 10th.  Draft picks are never a sure thing.

But your best chance to add talent like that without giving up assets is to draft in that range, so I place a lot of value on any opportunity to do that.  This year, our team is really bad and lacking in talent, so that's an opportunity.  That's why I've said all along I'd be disappointed if we backed into the playoffs.  I'd view that as a missed opportunity.

[PhoSita]

You know how the Spurs were way far ahead of everyone when it came to evaluating international talent? Red was doing that with homegrown players -- check out the Russell trade sometime - the other GM hadn't even seen Russell play when he traded him.

Yeah, unfortunately these days rim protectors "who fight to the end" on defense don't get undervalued.  There's no market inefficiency there to exploit, as far as I can see.  The only way to acquire a player like that without spending plenty of money and giving up ample assets is to trade for a guy who hasn't yet developed, or has been a backup so far in his career, and hope he can blossom.

That's what Morey did in trading for Asik, and it's mostly worked out for the Rockets, although they had to pay Asik a lot to do it.  The only player I can think of who maybe fits this model now is Bismack Biyombo, who may develop into an (offensively challenged) rim protector, but is currently playing short minutes backing up Big Al in Charlotte.

Otherwise, the Celtics could kick the tires on Sanders or Asik and see if the price is right.  Maybe one of those guys could become consistent and reliable here, though I'd be concerned about injuries and off-court stuff in both cases.

I'm not wild about trying to draft those players, unless it's a can't-miss kind of talent like Duncan or Davis.  Maybe Embiid is that -- I don't know.  But the "hit rate" versus the "bust rate" on athletic shot blockers seems to be pretty bad, and you have to draft them high.

I wouldn't mind Ainge using a pick in the middle or toward the end of the first round hoping to get a "hit" on that sort of guy.  Cauley-Stein comes to mind.

[D.o.s.]

I think Sanders is a better bet than Asik, and would be estatic if we snagged him for cheap.

[jaketwice]

TP to PhoSita for an insightful analysis. I don't know about other programs, but due to Boston's cold weather, and fairly or unfairly deserved reputation as racist, I think we need to build through trades and the draft.

[PhoSita]

I think Sanders is a better bet than Asik, and would be estatic if we snagged him for cheap.

Yeah, Sanders intrigues me as a buy-low option (the cost of his contract notwithstanding). 

He has bigger question marks / red flags than Asik does, but the upside is higher, I think, because I don't think Asik will ever be much of an offensive player.  Asik is basically a seven foot version of pre-injury Perk (sans the epic scowl).  That's pretty good.  Sanders could be Tyson Chandler / Deandre Jordan.

[LooseCannon]

Asik is basically a seven foot version of pre-injury Perk (sans the epic scowl).

I think this comparison minimizes Asik because it doesn't illustrate the gap in their rebounding ability.  Deandre Jordan had to make a massive improvement this season to bring his rebounding numbers up to the level of Asik, who should be talked about as being on the same tier as Dwight Howard and Kevin Love, with respect to rebounding.

[Celtics4ever]

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.

My money it was Riley not Spoelstra.   From what I have seen of Spoelstra, A) He is only as good as his players  b) He does whatever Riles tells him to do.

[kozlodoev]

Asik is basically a seven foot version of pre-injury Perk (sans the epic scowl).

I think this comparison minimizes Asik because it doesn't illustrate the gap in their rebounding ability.  Deandre Jordan had to make a massive improvement this season to bring his rebounding numbers up to the level of Asik, who should be talked about as being on the same tier as Dwight Howard and Kevin Love, with respect to rebounding.

Perkins, robotic as he was, is an infinitely better finisher than Asik, though.

[LooseCannon]

Asik is basically a seven foot version of pre-injury Perk (sans the epic scowl).

I think this comparison minimizes Asik because it doesn't illustrate the gap in their rebounding ability.  Deandre Jordan had to make a massive improvement this season to bring his rebounding numbers up to the level of Asik, who should be talked about as being on the same tier as Dwight Howard and Kevin Love, with respect to rebounding.

Perkins, robotic as he was, is an infinitely better finisher than Asik, though.

Counting only his time in Boston, Perkins averaged 9.5 rebounds per 36 minutes with a 16.4 total rebounding percentage and a 21.4 defensive rebounding percentage.  Asik's career numbers in those stats are 13.1, 20.7, and 27.7.  I don't think Perk's slightly superior offense makes up for that.  Asik is also a better defender and screen-setter.  He also accepts his role on offense, unlike a pre-injury Perkins, who seemed to think that he deserved more touches.

[D.o.s.]

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.

My money it was Riley not Spoelstra.   From what I have seen of Spoelstra, A) He is only as good as his players  b) He does whatever Riles tells him to do.

But you've never seen Spolestra without Riley, and Riley never coached LeBron. They don't seem to come from the same coaching trees, though.

And most coaches are only as good as their players -- ask Rick Adelman about that.