Young teams don't work

[moiso]

I feel pretty strongly that Wiggins and Lavine are (at least this far) pretty much empty stats guys,

Maybe its tougher because all they see on their team is players like them.

[nickagneta]

The Wolves don't fit very well together which is the bigger problem.  Dieng and Towns aren't a great fit.  Lavine and Wiggins are both poor defenders.  It isn't a question of age as much as fit and team construction.  Seattle/OKC won 20 games in Durant's rookie year, 23 games in Westbrook's rookie year, and 55 games in Harden's rookie year.  In the playoffs they had 30 year old Collison in the rotation, but the next oldest player was 26 year old Perkins (who was obviously a vet at that point).  Durant, Harden, Westbrook, and Ibaka were all 21 or 22.  Thabo Sefolosha was 26 and started over Harden.  Maynor and Cook were both 23 and the other guys that played in all 17 playoff games for the Thunder that year.  They made the WCF that year and the next year were in the Finals with basically the same team (before they traded Harden that summer).  That team just fit well together once they moved Green for Perkins.  They had a defensive/rebounding center in Perkins, a defensive stretch 4 in Ibaka, an offensive juggernaut at SF and SG, and a monster PG.  Russ and Durant were solid defenders, and they started Thabo over Harden because he was a superb defender. 

Roster construction is important.  The Wolves need a defensive oriented wing, a better fit next to Towns (even if just for 15 minutes a game - a guy like Bogut for example), and they need a 3 and D PG.  Rubio is a terrible shooter and while he is a good steal generator isn't a great on ball defender.  They need to find a better fit there.

OKC is the exception to the rule on young teams having success. Super young teams simply dont know how to win. They dont know what it takes to win on the road. They dont now how to finish teams or overcome adversity. They are clueless about how best to travel. They physically havent trained themselves mentally to handle 82 games or back to backs or 4games in 5 days. They just dont win and talent isnt the problem.

OKC was an aberration.

[Moranis]

The Wolves don't fit very well together which is the bigger problem.  Dieng and Towns aren't a great fit.  Lavine and Wiggins are both poor defenders.  It isn't a question of age as much as fit and team construction.  Seattle/OKC won 20 games in Durant's rookie year, 23 games in Westbrook's rookie year, and 55 games in Harden's rookie year.  In the playoffs they had 30 year old Collison in the rotation, but the next oldest player was 26 year old Perkins (who was obviously a vet at that point).  Durant, Harden, Westbrook, and Ibaka were all 21 or 22.  Thabo Sefolosha was 26 and started over Harden.  Maynor and Cook were both 23 and the other guys that played in all 17 playoff games for the Thunder that year.  They made the WCF that year and the next year were in the Finals with basically the same team (before they traded Harden that summer).  That team just fit well together once they moved Green for Perkins.  They had a defensive/rebounding center in Perkins, a defensive stretch 4 in Ibaka, an offensive juggernaut at SF and SG, and a monster PG.  Russ and Durant were solid defenders, and they started Thabo over Harden because he was a superb defender. 

Roster construction is important.  The Wolves need a defensive oriented wing, a better fit next to Towns (even if just for 15 minutes a game - a guy like Bogut for example), and they need a 3 and D PG.  Rubio is a terrible shooter and while he is a good steal generator isn't a great on ball defender.  They need to find a better fit there.

OKC is the exception to the rule on young teams having success. Super young teams simply dont know how to win. They dont know what it takes to win on the road. They dont now how to finish teams or overcome adversity. They are clueless about how best to travel. They physically havent trained themselves mentally to handle 82 games or back to backs or 4games in 5 days. They just dont win and talent isnt the problem.

OKC was an aberration.

Not as much an aberration as you would think.  The Celtics won the 81 Title with only two players with more than 6 years experience on the entire roster.  The Cavs were back to back 50 win teams and a Finals appearance in James' 4th year with just Big Z, Marshall, and Snow in their 30's (at least of rotation players).  The Jazz were a 40 win team with Stockton and Malone immediately and not much in the way of veteran leadership.  The 85-86 Rockets were in the NBA Finals with basically a 7 man rotation in which Reid at 30 was the only guy above age 26.

I could go on.  It isn't all that uncommon for great players to win without veterans, they just need a team that makes sense.  I don't think the Wolves make sense.  They just don't have pieces that fit all that well together.  They aren't in the Sixers in that regard, but they need a few changes to really reach their potential and that doesn't need to be veterans (though certainly could be). 

[moiso]

The Wolves don't fit very well together which is the bigger problem.  Dieng and Towns aren't a great fit.  Lavine and Wiggins are both poor defenders.  It isn't a question of age as much as fit and team construction.  Seattle/OKC won 20 games in Durant's rookie year, 23 games in Westbrook's rookie year, and 55 games in Harden's rookie year.  In the playoffs they had 30 year old Collison in the rotation, but the next oldest player was 26 year old Perkins (who was obviously a vet at that point).  Durant, Harden, Westbrook, and Ibaka were all 21 or 22.  Thabo Sefolosha was 26 and started over Harden.  Maynor and Cook were both 23 and the other guys that played in all 17 playoff games for the Thunder that year.  They made the WCF that year and the next year were in the Finals with basically the same team (before they traded Harden that summer).  That team just fit well together once they moved Green for Perkins.  They had a defensive/rebounding center in Perkins, a defensive stretch 4 in Ibaka, an offensive juggernaut at SF and SG, and a monster PG.  Russ and Durant were solid defenders, and they started Thabo over Harden because he was a superb defender. 

Roster construction is important.  The Wolves need a defensive oriented wing, a better fit next to Towns (even if just for 15 minutes a game - a guy like Bogut for example), and they need a 3 and D PG.  Rubio is a terrible shooter and while he is a good steal generator isn't a great on ball defender.  They need to find a better fit there.

OKC is the exception to the rule on young teams having success. Super young teams simply dont know how to win. They dont know what it takes to win on the road. They dont now how to finish teams or overcome adversity. They are clueless about how best to travel. They physically havent trained themselves mentally to handle 82 games or back to backs or 4games in 5 days. They just dont win and talent isnt the problem.

OKC was an aberration.

Not as much an aberration as you would think.  The Celtics won the 81 Title with only two players with more than 6 years experience on the entire roster.  The Cavs were back to back 50 win teams and a Finals appearance in James' 4th year with just Big Z, Marshall, and Snow in their 30's (at least of rotation players).  The Jazz were a 40 win team with Stockton and Malone immediately and not much in the way of veteran leadership.  The 85-86 Rockets were in the NBA Finals with basically a 7 man rotation in which Reid at 30 was the only guy above age 26.

I could go on.  It isn't all that uncommon for great players to win without veterans, they just need a team that makes sense.  I don't think the Wolves make sense.  They just don't have pieces that fit all that well together.  They aren't in the Sixers in that regard, but they need a few changes to really reach their potential and that doesn't need to be veterans (though certainly could be).

How old was a player with 6 years of experience in 1981?  Old.

[nickagneta]

The Wolves don't fit very well together which is the bigger problem.  Dieng and Towns aren't a great fit.  Lavine and Wiggins are both poor defenders.  It isn't a question of age as much as fit and team construction.  Seattle/OKC won 20 games in Durant's rookie year, 23 games in Westbrook's rookie year, and 55 games in Harden's rookie year.  In the playoffs they had 30 year old Collison in the rotation, but the next oldest player was 26 year old Perkins (who was obviously a vet at that point).  Durant, Harden, Westbrook, and Ibaka were all 21 or 22.  Thabo Sefolosha was 26 and started over Harden.  Maynor and Cook were both 23 and the other guys that played in all 17 playoff games for the Thunder that year.  They made the WCF that year and the next year were in the Finals with basically the same team (before they traded Harden that summer).  That team just fit well together once they moved Green for Perkins.  They had a defensive/rebounding center in Perkins, a defensive stretch 4 in Ibaka, an offensive juggernaut at SF and SG, and a monster PG.  Russ and Durant were solid defenders, and they started Thabo over Harden because he was a superb defender. 

Roster construction is important.  The Wolves need a defensive oriented wing, a better fit next to Towns (even if just for 15 minutes a game - a guy like Bogut for example), and they need a 3 and D PG.  Rubio is a terrible shooter and while he is a good steal generator isn't a great on ball defender.  They need to find a better fit there.

OKC is the exception to the rule on young teams having success. Super young teams simply dont know how to win. They dont know what it takes to win on the road. They dont now how to finish teams or overcome adversity. They are clueless about how best to travel. They physically havent trained themselves mentally to handle 82 games or back to backs or 4games in 5 days. They just dont win and talent isnt the problem.

OKC was an aberration.

Not as much an aberration as you would think.  The Celtics won the 81 Title with only two players with more than 6 years experience on the entire roster.  The Cavs were back to back 50 win teams and a Finals appearance in James' 4th year with just Big Z, Marshall, and Snow in their 30's (at least of rotation players).  The Jazz were a 40 win team with Stockton and Malone immediately and not much in the way of veteran leadership.  The 85-86 Rockets were in the NBA Finals with basically a 7 man rotation in which Reid at 30 was the only guy above age 26.

I could go on.  It isn't all that uncommon for great players to win without veterans, they just need a team that makes sense.  I don't think the Wolves make sense.  They just don't have pieces that fit all that well together.  They aren't in the Sixers in that regard, but they need a few changes to really reach their potential and that doesn't need to be veterans (though certainly could be).

The main Celtics player were in their mid mid to upper 20s. Those Cleveland teams had one contributing young player in the rotation, Lebron.

All your examples gave the "young" players in their mid twenties. Young nowadays means players in their teens and very early twenties. Complete apples to oranges comparison.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

i am surprised no one has brought philly into this conversation. if what people say here is accurate, then a serious question must be raised about the "process" in philly as it has run so far.

and it does not seem so simple as saying "bring in 2-3 veterans" it seems.

You are absolutely right.  So tanking for 3 years means it might be 7 years before a team made of those young guys is any good.  A team like OKC was on the quicker end of that, but they drafted 3 absolute superstars.

That's pretty standard for an NBA rebuild...

There are a few exceptions like landing a Lebron type or whatever, but most teams aren't really championship competitors for 5+ years in a rebuild.

OKC took 5 to really be a legit contender and they drafted Durant, Wetbrook, Harden and Ibaka.

[RAAAAAAAANDY]

I feel pretty strongly that Wiggins and Lavine are (at least this far) pretty much empty stats guys,

Maybe its tougher because all they see on their team is players like them.

I mean the team has awful defenders at 2 of their starting spots, and then Towns has fallen off a cliff defensively. I don't buy the empty stats stuff as their offense is actually pretty good, they just stink to high heaven on defense. 

Oh and both of their PGs are total non-factors offensively... So there's that, which matters a ton in crunch time where they blow games (along with the 3rd Q).

[mctyson]

i am surprised no one has brought philly into this conversation. if what people say here is accurate, then a serious question must be raised about the "process" in philly as it has run so far.

and it does not seem so simple as saying "bring in 2-3 veterans" it seems.

I don't think the Philly comparison is fair.  My assessment of their process is that they would keep tanking year-in, year-out, until they got a player in the Kobe/Lebron/Duncan realm of NBA greats (and no, Embiid is not in that realm).  I think Hinkie was going down that road until he was "fired."

The problem with that process is of course that you create an atmosphere of losing within your organization, which is a terrible thing to teach young NBA players.  Also, while I generally agree with the idea that generational talents are the most assured way of winning championships in the league, you never know for sure if a guy is going to be that.  Even Lebron had his question marks at one point.

As for Minnesota...they are not some team stacked with young, guaranteed talent.  I think that is the biggest mistake people are making with them.  Towns is a legit NBA All-Star talent.  After that...who is even close?  Wiggins is not good enough yet and looks like he never will be.  Lavine is a nice player, but if he wasn't a dunk champion no one would care about him.  Rubio is neither young nor good at this point. 

[Future Celtics Owner]

IMO Minny's management is not rushing to fill certain roles/positions to win. For right now, it seems wiser to draft at the appropriate position and add to their core. They have the pieces and could make trades to let Towns, Wiggins, Lavine, and etc. play with vets, players that will not be in their future plans, in order to win more games .....but they will severely sacrifice draft position AND those vets will leave/walk (like ET/Bass/Sully/ and etc.)

[Moranis]

The Wolves don't fit very well together which is the bigger problem.  Dieng and Towns aren't a great fit.  Lavine and Wiggins are both poor defenders.  It isn't a question of age as much as fit and team construction.  Seattle/OKC won 20 games in Durant's rookie year, 23 games in Westbrook's rookie year, and 55 games in Harden's rookie year.  In the playoffs they had 30 year old Collison in the rotation, but the next oldest player was 26 year old Perkins (who was obviously a vet at that point).  Durant, Harden, Westbrook, and Ibaka were all 21 or 22.  Thabo Sefolosha was 26 and started over Harden.  Maynor and Cook were both 23 and the other guys that played in all 17 playoff games for the Thunder that year.  They made the WCF that year and the next year were in the Finals with basically the same team (before they traded Harden that summer).  That team just fit well together once they moved Green for Perkins.  They had a defensive/rebounding center in Perkins, a defensive stretch 4 in Ibaka, an offensive juggernaut at SF and SG, and a monster PG.  Russ and Durant were solid defenders, and they started Thabo over Harden because he was a superb defender. 

Roster construction is important.  The Wolves need a defensive oriented wing, a better fit next to Towns (even if just for 15 minutes a game - a guy like Bogut for example), and they need a 3 and D PG.  Rubio is a terrible shooter and while he is a good steal generator isn't a great on ball defender.  They need to find a better fit there.

OKC is the exception to the rule on young teams having success. Super young teams simply dont know how to win. They dont know what it takes to win on the road. They dont now how to finish teams or overcome adversity. They are clueless about how best to travel. They physically havent trained themselves mentally to handle 82 games or back to backs or 4games in 5 days. They just dont win and talent isnt the problem.

OKC was an aberration.

Not as much an aberration as you would think.  The Celtics won the 81 Title with only two players with more than 6 years experience on the entire roster.  The Cavs were back to back 50 win teams and a Finals appearance in James' 4th year with just Big Z, Marshall, and Snow in their 30's (at least of rotation players).  The Jazz were a 40 win team with Stockton and Malone immediately and not much in the way of veteran leadership.  The 85-86 Rockets were in the NBA Finals with basically a 7 man rotation in which Reid at 30 was the only guy above age 26.

I could go on.  It isn't all that uncommon for great players to win without veterans, they just need a team that makes sense.  I don't think the Wolves make sense.  They just don't have pieces that fit all that well together.  They aren't in the Sixers in that regard, but they need a few changes to really reach their potential and that doesn't need to be veterans (though certainly could be).

How old was a player with 6 years of experience in 1981?  Old.

The Celtics basically were a 9 man rotation in the 81 playoffs.  The ages were 23, 24, 25, 25, 25, 27, 30, 32, 32.  Not exactly a collection of old men. 

Shaq and Penny won at an early age with limited veterans.  Lebron won at an early age with limited veterans.  Durant/Westbrook/Harden won at an early age with limited veterans.  Even our own Horford was in the playoffs as a rookie on a team led by a bunch of players under 25 (with Johnson at 26 and Bibby at 29).  By Horford's 2nd year they were winning a playoff series. 

Obviously players get better as they get older, but that doesn't mean they will win either.  Winning is much more about team construction and fit than experience.  I'll take the young team that makes sense every day of the week over the veteran team that doesn't fit well together. 

The Wolves don't make sense from a team construction stand point which is why they are struggling.  They need to make some moves, not to get experience but to get a better construction on the roster.  That starts with moving Rubio. 

[Future Celtics Owner]

i am surprised no one has brought philly into this conversation. if what people say here is accurate, then a serious question must be raised about the "process" in philly as it has run so far.

and it does not seem so simple as saying "bring in 2-3 veterans" it seems.

I don't think the Philly comparison is fair.  My assessment of their process is that they would keep tanking year-in, year-out, until they got a player in the Kobe/Lebron/Duncan realm of NBA greats (and no, Embiid is not in that realm).  I think Hinkie was going down that road until he was "fired."

The problem with that process is of course that you create an atmosphere of losing within your organization, which is a terrible thing to teach young NBA players.  Also, while I generally agree with the idea that generational talents are the most assured way of winning championships in the league, you never know for sure if a guy is going to be that.  Even Lebron had his question marks at one point.

As for Minnesota...they are not some team stacked with young, guaranteed talent.  I think that is the biggest mistake people are making with them.  Towns is a legit NBA All-Star talent.  After that...who is even close?  Wiggins is not good enough yet and looks like he never will be.  Lavine is a nice player, but if he wasn't a dunk champion no one would care about him.  Rubio is neither young nor good at this point.

Why does everyone think Lavine sucks. He is shooting the 3 better than any Celtic right now and he's younger than Marcus Smart.

Zack Lavine
2.8 3pm each game and he's shooting better than a 40% clip from downtown. It's not a fluke either. He has been shooting very well from beyond the arc since he got in the league.

[#1P4P]

Patience is a virtue with these young teams...

It took Steph and the Warriors 4 seasons to become competitive ('12-'13), after winning 23 games in the strike shortened season of '11-'12. Excellent drafting (Steph, Klay, Draymond, and, on a lesser note, Barnes) and acquisitions at the right time (Bogut-Ellis trade, Igoudala signing, not trading Klay for Love). Today, they've been to the Finals the past 3 years and their window will be open for the foreseeable future because of their patience.

Minnesota is a prime candidate for making a leap in the next few years with the right moves. Towns is an elite player in the developmental stage, but already a top 30 player. Wiggins is a top 50 player with the potential to be an elite player, and Lavine has developed ahead of schedule into a top scorer. With that core, Thibodeau, and the trade assets they have, they can accelerate their timetable for next year or 2018. Horford would be a Bogut-like acquisition once this team is ready to compete (although Boston isn't trading Horford and his value is higher than Bogut's was at the time). For a more immediate impact, how about after this season: Dieng, Rubio, 2017 1st (they're positioned to be a bottom 5 team) for John Wall?

Young teams certainly work, but patience (and intelligence) is key. It is the difference between the Warriors and OKC or Utah and SAC/NOP.

[Rondo9]

i am surprised no one has brought philly into this conversation. if what people say here is accurate, then a serious question must be raised about the "process" in philly as it has run so far.

and it does not seem so simple as saying "bring in 2-3 veterans" it seems.

I don't think the Philly comparison is fair.  My assessment of their process is that they would keep tanking year-in, year-out, until they got a player in the Kobe/Lebron/Duncan realm of NBA greats (and no, Embiid is not in that realm).  I think Hinkie was going down that road until he was "fired."

The problem with that process is of course that you create an atmosphere of losing within your organization, which is a terrible thing to teach young NBA players.  Also, while I generally agree with the idea that generational talents are the most assured way of winning championships in the league, you never know for sure if a guy is going to be that.  Even Lebron had his question marks at one point.

As for Minnesota...they are not some team stacked with young, guaranteed talent.  I think that is the biggest mistake people are making with them.  Towns is a legit NBA All-Star talent.  After that...who is even close?  Wiggins is not good enough yet and looks like he never will be.  Lavine is a nice player, but if he wasn't a dunk champion no one would care about him.  Rubio is neither young nor good at this point.

Why does everyone think Lavine sucks. He is shooting the 3 better than any Celtic right now and he's younger than Marcus Smart.

Zack Lavine
2.8 3pm each game and he's shooting better than a 40% clip from downtown. It's not a fluke either. He has been shooting very well from beyond the arc since he got in the league.

He's not a good defender, rebounder or passer and tends to be a black hole at times.