The superstar model may be irrelevant for the Celtics

[ddb]

it takes special circumstances to go down the superstar model of building a title team.  typically in order for this technique to work you need a home grown, established star in place who is locked in and willing to play for your team long-term.  Then you need a ridiculous amount of young players and assets.  And THEN the final piece is you need a dance partner or 2 willing to trade THEIR superstar for your platter of assets.  And then of course there is free agency.  So you also need to have managed your salary cap and positioned your franchise to have the cap space to go after a star free agent.  and of course that Star free agent needs to be willing to take less money to go play for you.      The Celtics (08), Heat (10) and now the Cavs have all had these ingredients but in the grand scheme of things is very, very difficult to build this way. 

Most teams build through the draft, develop their guys and establish a long-term culture of winning.  Spurs are the pinnacle of the development model.  Teams like the Thunder, Clippers, Warriors, Magic, Sixers, Rockets, Celtics and Hawks are all trying to duplicate this model with the Thunder being the closest in comparison to the Spurs because like San Antonio, the Thunder also lucked out on draft night and selected a SUPER DUPER STAR. 

Boston is on the right track.  Ainge made a good effort at landing KLove and would have landed KLove had he won the draft lottery.  But obviously the lottery balls didn't go his way and once Cleveland (who was already in the running for LeBron) landed that top pick it was ALL OVER for Boston.  What happened was basically the worst case scenario for Danny Ainge.  However, I believe that in life, when things don't go as planned, it's often times for the better.  For all we know Marcus Smart is a future super star.  For all we know, Andrew Wiggins for Kevin Love could be the next Kobe Bryant for Vlade Divas type move.  You just never know. 

I'm excited to see this play out.  I believe in Danny Ainge, Wyc and Brad Stevens.  I believe that they are building a winning culture that will last long-term and lead to sustained success.  Boston is far from a finished product, but even still have a group of guys with a TON of talent.  Lets see what happens.  I still feel like multiple moves will be made to the roster before opening night. 

[TitleMaster]

Concerning the '04 Pistons, did everyone forget Rip Hamilton? After a slow game 1 start, he went nearly ~24 ppg for the remainder of the series. That wasn't some motley crue of misfits but a bunch of excellent players who gelled at the right time.

[D.o.s.]

Concerning the '04 Pistons, did everyone forget Rip Hamilton? After a slow game 1 start, he went nearly ~24 ppg for the remainder of the series. That wasn't some motley crue of misfits but a bunch of excellent players who gelled at the right time.

Everyone forgets everything about the '04 Pistons -- any team that forces the NBA to change the rules for the following season can't be dismissed as a fluke.

They also had one of the all-time top tier coaches on the bench.

[BballTim]

Concerning the '04 Pistons, did everyone forget Rip Hamilton? After a slow game 1 start, he went nearly ~24 ppg for the remainder of the series. That wasn't some motley crue of misfits but a bunch of excellent players who gelled at the right time.

Everyone forgets everything about the '04 Pistons -- any team that forces the NBA to change the rules for the following season can't be dismissed as a fluke.

They also had one of the all-time top tier coaches on the bench.

  Getting very good play from good players isn't the same thing as having a Shaq or MJ or Bird or Duncan though. Of course teams and players have to play well for a team to win the title. For the purposes of the thread though, I'd say it still qualifies as winning without a superstar.

[D.o.s.]

That's true -- the Pistons didn't have anyone that's going on a defensible shortlist for All-Time Starting Five consideration at any position.

edit: and it would seem that either method is much more prone to failure than to success. This just in, building a title-winning team isn't easy. More at 11.

[crimson_stallion]

The Spurs play team ball, but I too consider, Duncan and Parker stars and Manu a former star, Not to mention Leonard who is arguably a young star

I would argue that Parker is a borderline star, and that Duncan and Manu are both former stars. 

Duncan is still a very productive player, but he does not offer star production these days.  No longer is he a guy who can give you 30/15 on any given night.  If you get 20/10 from Duncan, then it's a good day. 

When it comes to Miami though, Wade and Lebron are both legit stars (both are >20 PPG scorers who can score 30 on any night) while Bosh is a very good semi-star. 

There's no doubt that Miami has the greater star power, but they couldn't beat San Antonio's depth and teamwork.

I also don't think Lebron's Cleveland 'super team' will go as well as his Miami one did.

When Lebron went to Miami, Wade was top 5 superstar who had already led the Heat to a title.  He already had that killer instinct, the clutch ability, the pure desire to win and the leadership.  Lebron on the other hand was the best (or at least, most talented) player on the planet, and had already made multiple Finals appearances.  Bosh didn't have that same success, but with two guys as dominant and Lebron and Wade, he only needed to be a nice third wheel.

Now you have the best player in the game (and multiple championship winner) in Lebron, but the other two guys are young players with no history of team success.  Kyrie has never really led the Cav's anywhere and has had his mentality questioned (seemingly unable to share the spotlight with other young teammates) while Love has come under a ton of criticism for his inability to ever make a playoff game, and his total lack of leadership skills. 

Ultimately though Lebron will run in to the same problem he did the last couple of years in Miami - he, Love and Kyrie will take up approximately $60M in cap space between the three of them.  That leaves Cleveland with the need to fill another 10-12 roster spaces with borderline vet minimum players.  How far can Lebron carry a bunch of nobody's, and a pair of hyped stars who have never achieved anything?

I think the best match for a team like that is always going to be a team that is stacked with a deep roster, a team like the spurs.  Their stars may not be as elite as the ones on the other team, but you can't just focus your defence on three guys either - everybody on the court is a scoring threat.  That's a very tough task for any defense.
 

[obnoxiousmime]

Honestly, I don't even think we're at this stage yet. Ainge is just collecting the most possible assets he can without giving away Rondo. You could argue that he should have dealt Rondo regardless but we don't know what offers were there or if it were even possible considering Rondo's ability to threaten not re-signing.

Since they are really high on Stevens, I can see them shaping the roster towards his preferred style at some point. Or, if Smart shows enough they can label him a building block. However, other than those two there really isn't a player on the roster that is special enough to make long-term, team-building decisions around. They're just some nice pieces that could be rotation guys on a good team.

And yeah I think it's misleading to say the Spurs don't have a superstar, even if it's true Duncan and Ginobili aren't playing at their previous peak levels. The problem is it might actually be easier to go the traditional superstar route. If just collecting good-but-not-great talent was enough, everybody would do it. The Spurs have spent years perfecting their system and environment and made great finds without the benefit of lottery picks. I think that's just as hard, if not harder than getting a few superstars which sometimes depends on luck (looking at you Cleveland).

[LB3533]

The 2004 Pistons won the title, can't take that away from them.

The extracurricular happenings (Kobe & Shaq in fighting / hating on eachother. Aging Karl Malone & Gary Payton neither had the right mind set heading into the series. Phil Jackson overestimating himself, underestimating the Pistons & Larry Brown.) surrounding the Lakers played a factor in LA's Finals demise.

Having only 1 Laker, in Shaq show up to the 2004 Finals also had something to do with it.

Only 1 other Laker (Rick Fox) besides Shaq, bothered to shoot 50% or better, but he only played in 3 games and a total of 30 minutes all 2004 Finals.

Every other Laker shot under 40% in the whole Finals series.

When your team's 2 thru 6 top options play terrible, how can you expect to compete?

Now the Lakers' horrible play had something to do with Detroit's defense. But the Pistons didn't really outplay the Lakers on the offensive side of the ball. The Pistons really just did't suck on the offense as much as the Lakers did suck horrifically.

As far as the Heat vs Spurs are concerned, I am pretty sure Lebron saw the "writing" on the wall. They were not going to continue to repeatedly duplicate their Eastern Conference playoff success with an aging Wade & Bosh, and Lebron knew he was also aging as well, added to these questions was zero young Heat talent on the way to provide future supporting help.

The Spurs are an awesome frachise. No, they are not awesome with the "flash" or overimposing with "superstar" persona. They are the franchise of SUBSTANCE over style.

The Spurs have 3 big time players who were/are the consistent mainstays, for the Spurs' franchise, over each's entire NBA career. Duncan, may be the only one considered a "superstar".

Beside all that, the Spurs had something the Heat did not have. A future star.....prospective superstar in Kawahi Leonard (2014 Finals MVP).

Spolestra is a good, very good coach, but coach Pop crushes Spolestra. Sorry....KRUSHES him. 

[BballTim]

The 2004 Pistons won the title, can't take that away from them.

The extracurricular happenings (Kobe & Shaq in fighting / hating on eachother. Aging Karl Malone & Gary Payton neither had the right mind set heading into the series. Phil Jackson overestimating himself, underestimating the Pistons & Larry Brown.) surrounding the Lakers played a factor in LA's Finals demise.

Having only 1 Laker, in Shaq show up to the 2004 Finals also had something to do with it.

Only 1 other Laker (Rick Fox) besides Shaq, bothered to shoot 50% or better, but he only played in 3 games and a total of 30 minutes all 2004 Finals.

Every other Laker shot under 40% in the whole Finals series.

When your team's 2 thru 6 top options play terrible, how can you expect to compete?

Now the Lakers' horrible play had something to do with Detroit's defense. But the Pistons didn't really outplay the Lakers on the offensive side of the ball. The Pistons really just did't suck on the offense as much as the Lakers did suck horrifically.

  Did the Lakers suck horrifically in their other playoff series that year?

[Celtics4ever]

I call BS that the Pistons had no stars. 

Wallace, I would argue was a stars for a few years.  Ben Wallace was an all star in 2003-2006, All NBA Second Team for three years and NBA Defensive Player of the year from 2002-2006.  He was a star, folks. 

Hamilton was all star after their stint from 2006-08.  So he was a rishing star.

Sheed was an all star in 2006-08.  The Championship elevated him.

Billups was an all star  and All NBA Second time in 2006.  All NBA Second Team in 2005.  Another rising star.  Dang you Pitino!

Prince was All NBA Defensive Second Team in 2005.  Another player on the edge of edge of defensive greatness but I am sure the title elevated him. 

Some of these guys were clearly further elevated after winning the title in 2004 but they were already buddy stars and Ben Wallace was a Blue Ribbon Star Already.

What they lacked was a superstar but one could argue that Wallace was in 2004.  12.4 RPG and 2 blocks is elite.

[D.o.s.]

But, again, the Piston's didn't have one of those players that you could make a convincing argument for an All-Time starting five. You're not angling for Ben Wallace over Shaq on your hypothetical early 00's Best of the NBA lineup.

[Celtics4ever]

In 2003-04 Ben Wallace was stud.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/wallabe01.html

Career highlights and awards
NBA champion (2004)
4× NBA All-Star (2003–2006)
3× All-NBA Second Team (2003, 2004, 2006)
2× All-NBA Third Team (2002, 2005)
4× NBA Defensive Player of the Year (2002, 2003, 2005, 2006)
5× NBA All-Defensive First Team (2002–2006)
NBA All-Defensive Second Team (2007)
NBA blocks leader (2002)
2× NBA rebounding champion (2002, 2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Wallace

Now I do not think he is a good as Shaw, but I do think people have been dismissive or unaware of his accomplishments.   I know I was until I started looking this morning.   Suprised the heck out of me.

[Moranis]

I call BS that the Pistons had no stars. 

Wallace, I would argue was a stars for a few years.  Ben Wallace was an all star in 2003-2006, All NBA Second Team for three years and NBA Defensive Player of the year from 2002-2006.  He was a star, folks. 

Hamilton was all star after their stint from 2006-08.  So he was a rishing star.

Sheed was an all star in 2006-08.  The Championship elevated him.

Billups was an all star  and All NBA Second time in 2006.  All NBA Second Team in 2005.  Another rising star.  Dang you Pitino!

Prince was All NBA Defensive Second Team in 2005.  Another player on the edge of edge of defensive greatness but I am sure the title elevated him. 

Some of these guys were clearly further elevated after winning the title in 2004 but they were already buddy stars and Ben Wallace was a Blue Ribbon Star Already.

What they lacked was a superstar but one could argue that Wallace was in 2004.  12.4 RPG and 2 blocks is elite.

Just to play devil's advocate in 2003-2004 Eric Dampier averaged 12.0 rpg and 1.9 bpg (also scored 12.3 ppg on 53.5% and a respectable 65% from the line).  I don't think anyone would call him a superstar.  Though to be fair to Wallace he was at 3 blocks a game in 03-04 of course he scored just 9.5 ppg on an atrocious 42.1% from the floor and a monstrously bad 49% from the line.

As good as Wallace was defensively he was every bit as bad offensively.  That is why he was not nor never should have been considered a blue ribbon superstar.  There are two sides on the court.  The all timers are at least good on both ends.  Wallace was not.


The rest of those guys were all young and on the upswing, but they weren't there yet.  That was just a team that had all of the luck going there way.  The East was weak and they just had the right convergence of players at the right time.  That is not a way to build a title contender historically.

[bdm860]

If we're changing the argument from "the Pistons didn't have any stars!" to "the Pistons had stars in Ben Wallace (and maybe Billups)", then we just need to figure out how to get those "stars" on non-rookie deals to sign for $5m-$6m per season, which is what Ben Wallace and Billups and Hamilton were all playing for.

Ben Wallace 2004 salary: $5.5m (signed for $34m/6 years)
Billups 2004 salary: $5.0m (signed for $35m/6 years)
Hamilton 2004 salary: $6.5m (signed for $62m/7 years)

Now for comparison, here's the list of 2004 salaries, here you'll see guys like Eric Dampier, Kelvin Cato, Greg Ostertag, and Theo Ratliff making more than Wallace, while guys like Jahidi White, Calvin Booth, and Scott Pollard make just as much. (List looks incomplete though, only shows 172 players).  So how can we get these stars to play for $5m per year on non-rookie deals?

[D.o.s.]

You would have to identify elite aspects of their playing that didn't show up in the kind of stat sheet metrics that nominally lead to players getting larger contracts.