Dynasties aren't built on trades!!!

[Fan from VT]

The title should be "Dynasties don't happen very often, and when they do, in this specific small time frame, most of the key players are not acquired by trade, but sometimes title winners do build their teams via trade."


It's retrospective and reversing cause and effect: there are 2-3 dynastic players every generation, and teams don't trade them. They either stay where drafted, or choose through free agency.

[JBcat]

If the salary cap era started in 1985 let's forget the 80s Celtics and Lakers. The key players were acquired before.

The title clearly states dynasties not just a single championship.

So how many dynasties have there been since say the late 80s?  The Pistons, Bulls, Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Warriors.  You could argue maybe a few more like the Cavs and C's even being in the finals twice but I left them out.

The Pistons top 2 players were Dumars and Thomas both homegrown as were many of their players. Same for Pippen and Jordan. Kobe was drafted and Shaq a FA. The Spurs major pieces were drafted.  Heat is different with only Wade, but that was almost once in a lifetime thing. 3 out of the 4 Warriors players are homegrown.

What the OP makes sense. Generally if you draft multiple stars at a young age you can have sustained success with a possible dynasty.

Trading for stars as they get older most likely you will have short lived success, a 1 championship and done kind of thing.  I can see what he is trying to say.

The Lakers did not draft Kobe.  he was acquired like a month after the draft well into free agency season.  He never played a game for the Hornets, but he wasn't a draft day trade, he was acquired via an actual trade.  Pretty similar to how the Wolves acquired Wiggins.

I think it still falls under his guidelines as a drafted guy.  Basically what I think the OP is trying to say is trading for an established star with an expensive salary it's harder to build a dynasty with sustained success.  I'm fine with that guideline.  Pistons, Bulls, Spurs, and Warriors (aside from Durant) are dynasties built that way.

[Moranis]

If the salary cap era started in 1985 let's forget the 80s Celtics and Lakers. The key players were acquired before.

The title clearly states dynasties not just a single championship.

So how many dynasties have there been since say the late 80s?  The Pistons, Bulls, Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Warriors.  You could argue maybe a few more like the Cavs and C's even being in the finals twice but I left them out.

The Pistons top 2 players were Dumars and Thomas both homegrown as were many of their players. Same for Pippen and Jordan. Kobe was drafted and Shaq a FA. The Spurs major pieces were drafted.  Heat is different with only Wade, but that was almost once in a lifetime thing. 3 out of the 4 Warriors players are homegrown.

What the OP makes sense. Generally if you draft multiple stars at a young age you can have sustained success with a possible dynasty.

Trading for stars as they get older most likely you will have short lived success, a 1 championship and done kind of thing.  I can see what he is trying to say.

The Lakers did not draft Kobe.  he was acquired like a month after the draft well into free agency season.  He never played a game for the Hornets, but he wasn't a draft day trade, he was acquired via an actual trade.  Pretty similar to how the Wolves acquired Wiggins.

I think it still falls under his guidelines as a drafted guy.  Basically what I think the OP is trying to say is trading for an established star with an expensive salary it's harder to build a dynasty with sustained success.  I'm fine with that guideline.  Pistons, Bulls, Spurs, and Warriors (aside from Durant) are dynasties built that way.

There is no practical difference between trading for or signing in free agency.  I mean take the Heat in order to have enough cap room, they started selling off players and sometimes even included 1st's and thus the Heat gave up a lot of valuable assets in order to acquire James and Bosh through free agency.

The Rockets would have had to do the same thing had they not worked out the trade with the Clippers. 

The Warriors had to dump Bogut and Barnes and let Speights and Ezeli go in free agency to create the room to sign Durant.  They likely will have the same issue this summer as well.  They were able to sign some competent replacements for the minimum or exceptions, but there was certainly no guarantee of that and they might not replace someone like Iguodala if he leaves this summer.

Even Boston is going to have let some valuable starter/rotation players go to sign a max free agent this summer. 

Sure a pure trade probably costs more, but there are real costs to creating max cap room to sign free agents.

[JBcat]

Teams that win two titles in a 10 year span are now considered dynasties?

Fine I'll cut it down even more with 3 or more championships with the same core in the salary cap era post 1985.  We are talking the Bulls, Spurs, and Lakers.  The main stars are drafted aside from Shaq in FA, and Kobe in a trade a month after the draft. Though Kobe was not Kobe the star at the time.  The Lakers still developed him.

Just trying to help out original poster as people seemed to be ganging up on him.

[JBcat]

If the salary cap era started in 1985 let's forget the 80s Celtics and Lakers. The key players were acquired before.

The title clearly states dynasties not just a single championship.

So how many dynasties have there been since say the late 80s?  The Pistons, Bulls, Spurs, Lakers, Heat, Warriors.  You could argue maybe a few more like the Cavs and C's even being in the finals twice but I left them out.

The Pistons top 2 players were Dumars and Thomas both homegrown as were many of their players. Same for Pippen and Jordan. Kobe was drafted and Shaq a FA. The Spurs major pieces were drafted.  Heat is different with only Wade, but that was almost once in a lifetime thing. 3 out of the 4 Warriors players are homegrown.

What the OP makes sense. Generally if you draft multiple stars at a young age you can have sustained success with a possible dynasty.

Trading for stars as they get older most likely you will have short lived success, a 1 championship and done kind of thing.  I can see what he is trying to say.

The Lakers did not draft Kobe.  he was acquired like a month after the draft well into free agency season.  He never played a game for the Hornets, but he wasn't a draft day trade, he was acquired via an actual trade.  Pretty similar to how the Wolves acquired Wiggins.

I think it still falls under his guidelines as a drafted guy.  Basically what I think the OP is trying to say is trading for an established star with an expensive salary it's harder to build a dynasty with sustained success.  I'm fine with that guideline.  Pistons, Bulls, Spurs, and Warriors (aside from Durant) are dynasties built that way.

There is no practical difference between trading for or signing in free agency.  I mean take the Heat in order to have enough cap room, they started selling off players and sometimes even included 1st's and thus the Heat gave up a lot of valuable assets in order to acquire James and Bosh through free agency.

The Rockets would have had to do the same thing had they not worked out the trade with the Clippers. 

The Warriors had to dump Bogut and Barnes and let Speights and Ezeli go in free agency to create the room to sign Durant.  They likely will have the same issue this summer as well.  They were able to sign some competent replacements for the minimum or exceptions, but there was certainly no guarantee of that and they might not replace someone like Iguodala if he leaves this summer.

Even Boston is going to have let some valuable starter/rotation players go to sign a max free agent this summer. 

Sure a pure trade probably costs more, but there are real costs to creating max cap room to sign free agents.

That is a good point.  In a roundabout way to sign a major FA you do sometimes need to make cost cutting trades in order to sign that FA as the Heat and Warriors did.  You are trading off valuable players to do that, and in some ways comparable assets for trading for a star directly.

[Celtics4ever]

Quote
I'm leaving players out of the discussion for now, but you cannot build a dynasty with trades. A single trade for a starter is sure to gut your roster of talent or rob the future of meaningful draft picks. Dynasties are built through free agency and hitting on cost controlled prospects in the draft. This sets up the franchise for perennial success. See GS, Spurs

The only true dynasty in sports the 60's Celtics starting winning as a result of trading for Bill Russell.

Can we give a rock to hide under for the OP instead of Tommy points.   Perhaps a special point system like Lakers Points that would be a black mark on a forum person's soul.

[More Banners]

Jeez, it's tough to not think about those Pistons teams that went to 6 straight ECF and upset the HOF-laden Lakers in a 5-game sweep as Dynastic. Best of the 15 team East for all those years, 4 allstars, anDPOY guy... they were really good and balanced too. Enough to pass on drafting D-Wade, Bosh, or Melo.  Imagine.

That was a team made by trading for cast offs and malcontents. And Ainge should've gotten a ring for facilitating Sheed to Detroit.

[clevelandceltic]

Teams that win two titles in a 10 year span are now considered dynasties?

Fine I'll cut it down even more with 3 or more championships with the same core in the salary cap era post 1985.  We are talking the Bulls, Spurs, and Lakers.  The main stars are drafted aside from Shaq in FA, and Kobe in a trade a month after the draft. Though Kobe was not Kobe the star at the time.  The Lakers still developed him.

Just trying to help out original poster as people seemed to be ganging up on him.

You would have to go back to the 50's for any Lakers team to qualify. They have always traded for at least 1 major star on their team.

[__ramonezy__]

Teams that win two titles in a 10 year span are now considered dynasties?

Fine I'll cut it down even more with 3 or more championships with the same core in the salary cap era post 1985.  We are talking the Bulls, Spurs, and Lakers.  The main stars are drafted aside from Shaq in FA, and Kobe in a trade a month after the draft. Though Kobe was not Kobe the star at the time.  The Lakers still developed him.

Just trying to help out original poster as people seemed to be ganging up on him.

Lol... thanks for the company man... but it's not the first time I've been on this side of the fence on these boards and I'm sure it won't be the last. What I realize here is that you can't win an emotional argument with facts.... bringing up teams from the 80s pre salary cap, using 1-win championship examples when the discussion was about dynasties. Then when you state that over 80% of the top-3 players on the last 27 championship team was acquired through draft or free agency... the response is to still ignore the 80% to try to find some semblance of a logical argument why the facts from the last 27 years are wrong...

With the platform we got from the Nets, I want a prolonged, sustained, winning franchise... not a rushed, push everything in the middle of the table team with a 2-year window.

But that's just my $0.02

[mmmmm]

i haven't gone through and counted, but I would not be surprised if roughly half the picks used to 'draft' half the guys on these 'dynasties' were acquired via trade.

And a huge share of free agency and trade transactions are completely convoluted.

It's ultimately a silly argument.

Dynasties aren't built by simpleton GMs who stick to over-simplistic mantras in lieu of actual strategy.

[Fan from VT]

Pretty sure none of this analysis meets statistical significance.

Too small a time frame, and most of the definitions of what constitutes a "dynasty" and even a "trade" seem to be retrofitted to fit a pre-existing conclusion; such reasoning coupled with lack of statistical significance yields essentially no predictive power as to what to do going forward.

[KGs Knee]

Pretty sure none of this analysis meets statistical significance.

Too small a time frame, and most of the definitions of what constitutes a "dynasty" and even a "trade" seem to be retrofitted to fit a pre-existing conclusion; such reasoning coupled with lack of statistical significance yields essentially no predictive power as to what to do going forward.

Yup

[vjcsmoke]

Tell that to Red.  LOL.
Tell that to DA. LOL.

Teams aren't built on trades?  A lot of dynasty were kick started with a big trade.
But it has to be the right trade.

[KGs Knee]

Per the OP's criteria there are only 2 dynasties over the time frame he/she is willing to consider (Spurs/Bulls).  The 2000's Lakers had 2 mini-dynasties, tied together by Kobe.  But that's it, unless you want to consider Lebron a traveling dynasty, moving from team to team.

Can't draw any definitive conclusion from that.  Just can't.