Is it easier to trade for a superstar than to draft and keep one long term?

[nickagneta]

There has been a lot of talk about what is the easies way to get a superstar. It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one. But what is the easiest way to get a superstar and keep one long term?

It just seems to me that with only one team winning a title and for the most part all the same teams always being in the run for the title, that a lot of young stars get fed up waiting on the teams they get drafted by and want to be traded to places willing to spend money in order to win and have a history of winning. Players that have been traded to teams away from the team that drafted them include Howard, KG, Pierce, Allen, Harden, ZBo, PGasol, and a host of older stars. Keeping a superstar from draft to title appears to be the exception, not the rule.

So is the draft important to fill out a roster with complimentary players and the occasional star not superstar while the best way to get a superstar is to trade for one that becomes expendable from a team due to a lack of success or sick of staying on team that is having a lack of success?

[saltlover]

Certainly defining "superstar" is somewhat subjective.  That said, I think drafting and keeping a superstar is significantly more difficult.  To draft and keep one, there are three components:

1) Having a future superstar available at your slot in the draft.
2) Identifiying who that superstar is when you pick.
3) Keeping star happy during the early portion of his career when your team is less likely to be successful (because you've probably had a high draft pick in order to get him).

To trade and keep one, you don't have to worry about the problem of identification, which is huge.  Merely, you need to convince the superstar your situation is better for winning than his other reasonable alternatives (current team and other teams that his team would be willing to trade with), and have enough tradeable assets for his current team.  Much easier to solve than the luck of having a pick when a superstar is available, and the ability to identify the star.

[D.o.s.]

There has been a lot of talk about what is the easies way to get a superstar. It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one. But what is the easiest way to get a superstar and keep one long term?

It just seems to me that with only one team winning a title and for the most part all the same teams always being in the run for the title, that a lot of young stars get fed up waiting on the teams they get drafted by and want to be traded to places willing to spend money in order to win and have a history of winning. Players that have been traded to teams away from the team that drafted them include Howard, KG, Pierce, Allen, Harden, ZBo, PGasol, and a host of older stars. Keeping a superstar from draft to title appears to be the exception, not the rule.

So is the draft important to fill out a roster with complimentary players and the occasional star not superstar while the best way to get a superstar is to trade for one that becomes expendable from a team due to a lack of success or sick of staying on team that is having a lack of success?

From that list, Howard and KG were the only two that were really bonafide superstars when they were traded.

[gpap]

Totally depends on the situation.

If you're drafting a player projected to be a franchise changer like Lebron or Durant, then the most rational decision would be to build around that player.

I think that in 2007 if Ainge ended up with the no 1 or 2 pick, he selects Durant, decides to build around him and some of the younger players were on the team at the time like Al Jefferson, Perkins, Delonte, Tony Allen and go from there. I don't think he makes the KG deal and I also think it's possible he would've dealt Pierce as well.

However, if you're drafting nothing but players that are projected to either be role players or fringe starters, then dealing for an all-star and convincing him this is the place to be is the way to go.

I think the same applies this summer, really.

If by some chance the Celts landed a top 3 pick, then odds are that DA keeps the pick and looks at either Embiid, Wiggins or Parker (whoever fell to him) as a major building block.

But, when you land the no 6 pick, you aren't going to find many players to build around (except maybe the 1979 draft when the Celts drafted a guy named Larry Bird. That is a very rare occurence.)

[greg683x]

It depends on the situation.  If bigger market teams are good at managing the cap, trading and free agency is probably better and easier for them.

For smaller market teams I think it's easier to draft bc these stars would be brought in on a rookie scale contract, leaving you a window of financial flexibility to build around said player.

So it depends on what team your on, bc again the small markets have that window, once you have to give that star a max deal and your owner refuses to pay any luxury tax your kind of stuck, unless you have continuously drafted well or the players you did bring in worked out.

Oklahoma City for example was the perfect storm, home runs on so many draft picks.  So they beat the odds.

[RJ87]

There has been a lot of talk about what is the easies way to get a superstar. It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one. But what is the easiest way to get a superstar and keep one long term?

It just seems to me that with only one team winning a title and for the most part all the same teams always being in the run for the title, that a lot of young stars get fed up waiting on the teams they get drafted by and want to be traded to places willing to spend money in order to win and have a history of winning. Players that have been traded to teams away from the team that drafted them include Howard, KG, Pierce, Allen, Harden, ZBo, PGasol, and a host of older stars. Keeping a superstar from draft to title appears to be the exception, not the rule.

So is the draft important to fill out a roster with complimentary players and the occasional star not superstar while the best way to get a superstar is to trade for one that becomes expendable from a team due to a lack of success or sick of staying on team that is having a lack of success?

From that list, Howard and KG were the only two that were really bonafide superstars when they were traded.

Pau Gasol was a star when he was traded to LA, and in his prime at that. And one could also argue that James Harden was a star - he had been Sixth Man of the Year already and everyone knew that he would be an all-star caliber player.

[Moranis]

There has been a lot of talk about what is the easies way to get a superstar. It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one. But what is the easiest way to get a superstar and keep one long term?

It just seems to me that with only one team winning a title and for the most part all the same teams always being in the run for the title, that a lot of young stars get fed up waiting on the teams they get drafted by and want to be traded to places willing to spend money in order to win and have a history of winning. Players that have been traded to teams away from the team that drafted them include Howard, KG, Pierce, Allen, Harden, ZBo, PGasol, and a host of older stars. Keeping a superstar from draft to title appears to be the exception, not the rule.

So is the draft important to fill out a roster with complimentary players and the occasional star not superstar while the best way to get a superstar is to trade for one that becomes expendable from a team due to a lack of success or sick of staying on team that is having a lack of success?

Pierce won his title with the team that drafted him (though I'm not sure I'd call him a superstar).  Howard, Harden, and Zbo have yet to win titles (and I'd be hard pressed to call the later two superstars).  Allen is not a superstar, but was traded twice before he won his first title.  So I guess KG and maybe Pau are the only guys I would call a superstar from your list that were traded before winning a title (and it is stretching it calling Pau a superstar at the time he was traded to the Lakers).

For the record, Dirk, Kobe, and Duncan are superstars and for all practical purposes were drafted by the team they won their titles with (I know Dirk and Kobe were technically traded, but they were for all practical purposes drafted by Dallas and LA).

Shaq and Lebron were both free agent acquisitions for their first title groupings (I know Lebron was ultimately sign and traded, but he was a free agent signing).  Shaq was traded to Miami for his fourth and final title. 

[badshar]

It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one.

Just because one side of this argument is more vocal than the other doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. Quite frequently, the other side just decides to maintain decency instead of going all out to make the other person agree.

And no, drafting a "superstar" is not the easiest way. Anyone who believes that needs to look around the league. Almost half of the NBA teams are either mediocre year after year or just suck. How's their quest for drafting the next superstar going? How about them bobcats? Oh wait, they got Big Al by signing him, not drafting him. How about the Heat? Oh no, they also won their first championship by trading for Shaq and then won the next two by signing LeBron and Bosh. Kings didn't really get much by trying to draft the next superstar, so they traded for Rudy Gay.

How about the Celtics? I don't remember us drafting KG or Allen.

The fact is that neither is more "easier" than the other. There are teams like Bobcats and Kings who continue to suck year-after-year while trying to draft the next star. At the same time, there are teams like Bulls and Knicks, who would like to trade for a star, but can't seem to get it done.

[D.o.s.]

There has been a lot of talk about what is the easies way to get a superstar. It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one. But what is the easiest way to get a superstar and keep one long term?

It just seems to me that with only one team winning a title and for the most part all the same teams always being in the run for the title, that a lot of young stars get fed up waiting on the teams they get drafted by and want to be traded to places willing to spend money in order to win and have a history of winning. Players that have been traded to teams away from the team that drafted them include Howard, KG, Pierce, Allen, Harden, ZBo, PGasol, and a host of older stars. Keeping a superstar from draft to title appears to be the exception, not the rule.

So is the draft important to fill out a roster with complimentary players and the occasional star not superstar while the best way to get a superstar is to trade for one that becomes expendable from a team due to a lack of success or sick of staying on team that is having a lack of success?

From that list, Howard and KG were the only two that were really bonafide superstars when they were traded.

Pau Gasol was a star when he was traded to LA, and in his prime at that. And one could also argue that James Harden was a star - he had been Sixth Man of the Year already and everyone knew that he would be an all-star caliber player.

The league collectively underestimated James Harden -- there's no way Oklahoma City lets him walk if they thought he would play like he did on Houston. They would've amnestied Perkins instead.

Pau Gasol a star? To quote Bill Walton, "he can run, rebound think, catch, but nobody knows how good Pau Gasol is, he's never played in a meaningful NBA game."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq44jwL4BT0

[Moranis]

It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one.

Just because one side of this argument is more vocal than the other doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. Quite frequently, the other side just decides to maintain decency instead of going all out to make the other person agree.

And no, drafting a "superstar" is not the easiest way. Anyone who believes that needs to look around the league. Almost half of the NBA teams are either mediocre year after year or just suck. How's their quest for drafting the next superstar going? How about them bobcats? Oh wait, they got Big Al by signing him, not drafting him. How about the Heat? Oh no, they also won their first championship by trading for Shaq and then won the next two by signing LeBron and Bosh. Kings didn't really get much by trying to draft the next superstar, so they traded for Rudy Gay.

How about the Celtics? I don't remember us drafting KG or Allen.

The fact is that neither is more "easier" than the other. There are teams like Bobcats and Kings who continue to suck year-after-year while trying to draft the next star. At the same time, there are teams like Bulls and Knicks, who would like to trade for a star, but can't seem to get it done.

That's because there are only 5-10 superstars in their prime in the league at any given time, which means the vast majority of the teams will not have one, especially when certain teams have more than one superstar. 

Superstars in their prime currently (of varying degrees)
Lebron
Durant
Paul
Howard
George
Anthony
Westbrook

Superstars no longer in their prime (again of varying degrees)
Kobe
Dirk
Duncan
Garnett
Wade
Pau
Nash (hard to say a 2 time MVP was not a superstar at some point)

Guys on the cusp of being a superstar that could get there
Harden
Aldridge
Curry
Love
Griffin


Then you have Rose, who was a superstar pre-injury.

That is pretty much it for superstars.  There are plenty of really good all star players in the league, but to be a superstar you are at a different level.

[badshar]

It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one.

Just because one side of this argument is more vocal than the other doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. Quite frequently, the other side just decides to maintain decency instead of going all out to make the other person agree.

And no, drafting a "superstar" is not the easiest way. Anyone who believes that needs to look around the league. Almost half of the NBA teams are either mediocre year after year or just suck. How's their quest for drafting the next superstar going? How about them bobcats? Oh wait, they got Big Al by signing him, not drafting him. How about the Heat? Oh no, they also won their first championship by trading for Shaq and then won the next two by signing LeBron and Bosh. Kings didn't really get much by trying to draft the next superstar, so they traded for Rudy Gay.

How about the Celtics? I don't remember us drafting KG or Allen.

The fact is that neither is more "easier" than the other. There are teams like Bobcats and Kings who continue to suck year-after-year while trying to draft the next star. At the same time, there are teams like Bulls and Knicks, who would like to trade for a star, but can't seem to get it done.

That's because there are only 5-10 superstars in their prime in the league at any given time, which means the vast majority of the teams will not have one, especially when certain teams have more than one superstar. 

Superstars in their prime currently (of varying degrees)
Lebron
Durant
Paul
Howard
George
Anthony
Westbrook

Superstars no longer in their prime (again of varying degrees)
Kobe
Dirk
Duncan
Garnett
Wade
Pau
Nash (hard to say a 2 time MVP was not a superstar at some point)

Guys on the cusp of being a superstar that could get there
Harden
Aldridge
Curry
Love
Griffin


Then you have Rose, who was a superstar pre-injury.

That is pretty much it for superstars.  There are plenty of really good all star players in the league, but to be a superstar you are at a different level.

It all depends on your definition of a superstar. Are Kevin Love, Dwight Howard and LeBron James all superstars by the same definition. Will LeBron come and turn your franchise around all by himself? Yes. Will Dwight do that? Debatable, hasn't done it in Houston even with Harden. Will Love do it? No.

It's fair to say that there are only 5-10 "stars" at a time like Durant and LeBron. CP3, Westbrook, Love are in their own categories and they will always be around.

[GreenWarrior]

sorry double post.

[GreenWarrior]

yup depends on the situation. but at some point either way you do have to hit on some draft picks.

if you take us and paul pierce. at the time we had no choice but to build through the draft because of bad luck, bad management, an unfortunate death. all of which contributed to us not able to rebuild in a short period of time.

it was/is a long process building through the draft. because as good as a college or even highschool player might be there are numerous variables that could contribute to that player or players not panning out. being in the lottery yr. after yr. and building strictly that way is more likely going to keep you in that perpetual vicious circle.

and even if you are in the right place at the right time and are fortunate enough to draft that guarantee can't miss player. there is no guarantee of turning your franchise around quickly. it took Jordan 6 - 7 yrs, Lebron took 6 or 7 I believe as well and the team that drafted him after being in the lottery yr. after. yr. could never build a team around him and are right back where they were before getting Lebron.

depending on the draft is fools gold. while everyone dreams of being the Spurs, they are a unique situation they had a lot of opportunistic luck. and for another franchise to try repeating what they did is a mistake. as they'll likely spend a lifetime trying to achieve that goal.   

building through trades and free agency is a lot more successful. but you do need to gain those assets. be it through the draft and actually have the player(s) pan out or acquired free agents that are on an expiring contract or draft picks themselves. like I mentioned before at some point I do think you need to draft some players that pan out and contribute on the floor or used as a commodity in a trade.

I personally think if you have the assets and can improve your team with players that you know what you're getting instead of waiting to see what you have. then why wouldn't you? I know the answer why some wouldn't but I won't get into that.

 

[GreenWarrior]

It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one.

Just because one side of this argument is more vocal than the other doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. Quite frequently, the other side just decides to maintain decency instead of going all out to make the other person agree.

And no, drafting a "superstar" is not the easiest way. Anyone who believes that needs to look around the league. Almost half of the NBA teams are either mediocre year after year or just suck. How's their quest for drafting the next superstar going? How about them bobcats? Oh wait, they got Big Al by signing him, not drafting him. How about the Heat? Oh no, they also won their first championship by trading for Shaq and then won the next two by signing LeBron and Bosh. Kings didn't really get much by trying to draft the next superstar, so they traded for Rudy Gay.

How about the Celtics? I don't remember us drafting KG or Allen.

The fact is that neither is more "easier" than the other. There are teams like Bobcats and Kings who continue to suck year-after-year while trying to draft the next star. At the same time, there are teams like Bulls and Knicks, who would like to trade for a star, but can't seem to get it done.

That's because there are only 5-10 superstars in their prime in the league at any given time, which means the vast majority of the teams will not have one, especially when certain teams have more than one superstar. 

Superstars in their prime currently (of varying degrees)
Lebron
Durant
Paul
Howard
George
Anthony
Westbrook

Superstars no longer in their prime (again of varying degrees)
Kobe
Dirk
Duncan
Garnett
Wade
Pau
Nash (hard to say a 2 time MVP was not a superstar at some point)

Guys on the cusp of being a superstar that could get there
Harden
Aldridge
Curry
Love
Griffin


Then you have Rose, who was a superstar pre-injury.

That is pretty much it for superstars.  There are plenty of really good all star players in the league, but to be a superstar you are at a different level.

It all depends on your definition of a superstar. Are Kevin Love, Dwight Howard and LeBron James all superstars by the same definition. Will LeBron come and turn your franchise around all by himself? Yes. Will Dwight do that? Debatable, hasn't done it in Houston even with Harden. Will Love do it? No.

It's fair to say that there are only 5-10 "stars" at a time like Durant and LeBron. CP3, Westbrook, Love are in their own categories and they will always be around.

but Lebron couldn't do it by himself. he said screw this it's too difficult doing it by myself.

[Moranis]

It has been argued by a very vocal section of this blog that drafting a superstar is the easiest way to get one.

Just because one side of this argument is more vocal than the other doesn't necessarily mean that they are right. Quite frequently, the other side just decides to maintain decency instead of going all out to make the other person agree.

And no, drafting a "superstar" is not the easiest way. Anyone who believes that needs to look around the league. Almost half of the NBA teams are either mediocre year after year or just suck. How's their quest for drafting the next superstar going? How about them bobcats? Oh wait, they got Big Al by signing him, not drafting him. How about the Heat? Oh no, they also won their first championship by trading for Shaq and then won the next two by signing LeBron and Bosh. Kings didn't really get much by trying to draft the next superstar, so they traded for Rudy Gay.

How about the Celtics? I don't remember us drafting KG or Allen.

The fact is that neither is more "easier" than the other. There are teams like Bobcats and Kings who continue to suck year-after-year while trying to draft the next star. At the same time, there are teams like Bulls and Knicks, who would like to trade for a star, but can't seem to get it done.

That's because there are only 5-10 superstars in their prime in the league at any given time, which means the vast majority of the teams will not have one, especially when certain teams have more than one superstar. 

Superstars in their prime currently (of varying degrees)
Lebron
Durant
Paul
Howard
George
Anthony
Westbrook

Superstars no longer in their prime (again of varying degrees)
Kobe
Dirk
Duncan
Garnett
Wade
Pau
Nash (hard to say a 2 time MVP was not a superstar at some point)

Guys on the cusp of being a superstar that could get there
Harden
Aldridge
Curry
Love
Griffin


Then you have Rose, who was a superstar pre-injury.

That is pretty much it for superstars.  There are plenty of really good all star players in the league, but to be a superstar you are at a different level.

It all depends on your definition of a superstar. Are Kevin Love, Dwight Howard and LeBron James all superstars by the same definition. Will LeBron come and turn your franchise around all by himself? Yes. Will Dwight do that? Debatable, hasn't done it in Houston even with Harden. Will Love do it? No.

It's fair to say that there are only 5-10 "stars" at a time like Durant and LeBron. CP3, Westbrook, Love are in their own categories and they will always be around.

but Lebron couldn't do it by himself. he said screw this it's too difficult doing it by myself.

but he turned the Cavs around, which was the point.  No player wins a title by himself, but the superstars make you relevant and put you in contention.