Jayson Tatum: Narrative Says We're A Superteam, But We Didn't Get Rewarded Like We Are

[Hans1984]

Well then go an play like a superstar instead of whining like a lil baby.

[mtcan]

This kind of talk is abhorrent for a star to say. If you truly are a super team you don't beg for calls.

[Cassius]

It's not a super team per se. But it's also not a team built the way you are describing exactly. They are still living off an astronomical mistake by another team that have had abundance of extra (nice) resources added to it as a result. You still have to draft 'em but not exactly difficult to build like a "super team" with all those extras.

Who is NOT living off an astronomical mistake by another team?

Knicks got Brunson because Cuban for the 2nd time in 20 years meddled in GMing and said "we're not going to pay this *secondary* star who isn't an MVP caliber point guard"

Dallas lucked into Luka because of Vlade Divac -- in one of the worst decisions by a GM in recent memory

GSW lucked into Curry because David Kahn -- in again one of the worst decisions by a GM -- took not one but TWO point guards immediately before Steph Curry.

Oklahoma City was gifted SGA in the PG13 demand on top of FIVE FRPs and 2 FRP swaps

Minnesota is absolutely destroying Denver in games 1 and 2 on a roster that was built by Denver's OWN creator, Tim Connelly because of the astronomical mistake that Stan Kroenke made when he decided that he wasn’t going to do what it took to keep Connelly.

Not one of these moves was hindsight -- these were well chronicled mistakes in the moment they happened. (Real hindsight is something like Memphis pretending they knew Marc Gasol would become a star when they made the Pau trade).

The point is, Boston isn't some outlier of random good fortune that only happened to them, while the rest of the leauge "really had to work" with no luck of their own.

Billy King made tons of other mistakes that benefited his competitors. Ditto for Colangelo.

EVERY single team has to be good AND lucky. Full stop.

I agree with your general point about every team needing luck, but almost all of these examples were very much hindsight--in the sense that yes many people criticized those moves but no one knew they would 100% turn out as catastrophically as we know now, and there was definitely many other possible outcomes at the time of these transactions.

Just taking two examples: lots of folks thought throwing in SGA to a rich package was a lot, and some people could even say they were extremely high on SGA. But almost no one would've legit bet their house on him becoming an all-NBA guy, let alone a legit MVP candidate. And yes Curry was a really nice prospect and Kahn shouldn't have taken Johnny Flynn over him, but the people who were highest on him didn't even expect him to become this good (and if you try to guess on prospects like Curry you'll be wrong most of the time).

Also in the case of BOS--the Pierce-KG trade was pretty widely criticized but no one thought that the Nets would become garbage within two seasons. They had a top-10 guy in his prime (Deron) and another young low-level AS (Brook Lopez) plus 3-4 other nice starters, and they were just adding in KG and Pierce to that. People thought they traded too much , but it was an extremely unlikely and very unlucky outcome for D Will to mysteriosuly wash out before he turned 30 and everything else to fall apart within two years. The picks BOS got should've been mostly mid-late 1sts and then maybe a nice one at the end, getting 3 straight top picks was really just dumb luck and the result of something totally unforeseeable falling in their lap.

Yup, the dumb luck for Boston really came from the second Obama administration pushing green initiatives that tanked oil prices, so the then-Russian owner (Mikhail P - sp?) had to go back on his plans to spend his way to a title, soccer style.

EDIT: Oh, and the league forcing Colangelo on the Sixers for him to hijack the franchise and make the Fultz trade also helped.

And as dumb as David Kahn looked and looks for passing on Steph twice, Flynn put up 13.5 and 4.4a and a steal on 42/36/83 as a rookie before offseason hip surgery basically ended his career. He and Rubio would have been fine together. And we can’t forget that Dell told Minnesota not to pick his son once they knew Rubio would be there, too.

[haste10176]

It's not a super team per se. But it's also not a team built the way you are describing exactly. They are still living off an astronomical mistake by another team that have had abundance of extra (nice) resources added to it as a result. You still have to draft 'em but not exactly difficult to build like a "super team" with all those extras.

Who is NOT living off an astronomical mistake by another team?

Knicks got Brunson because Cuban for the 2nd time in 20 years meddled in GMing and said "we're not going to pay this *secondary* star who isn't an MVP caliber point guard"

Dallas lucked into Luka because of Vlade Divac -- in one of the worst decisions by a GM in recent memory

GSW lucked into Curry because David Kahn -- in again one of the worst decisions by a GM -- took not one but TWO point guards immediately before Steph Curry.

Oklahoma City was gifted SGA in the PG13 demand on top of FIVE FRPs and 2 FRP swaps

Minnesota is absolutely destroying Denver in games 1 and 2 on a roster that was built by Denver's OWN creator, Tim Connelly because of the astronomical mistake that Stan Kroenke made when he decided that he wasn’t going to do what it took to keep Connelly.

Not one of these moves was hindsight -- these were well chronicled mistakes in the moment they happened. (Real hindsight is something like Memphis pretending they knew Marc Gasol would become a star when they made the Pau trade).

The point is, Boston isn't some outlier of random good fortune that only happened to them, while the rest of the leauge "really had to work" with no luck of their own.

Billy King made tons of other mistakes that benefited his competitors. Ditto for Colangelo.

EVERY single team has to be good AND lucky. Full stop.

Just to add to this GSW was going to trade Curry but the bucks didnt want him so they got saved from their own mistake

[niha17]

this is why tatum wont ever win when it counts

[rajajackal]

honestly he makes a really sound argument lol. but obviously having the "best" all around you and in greater quantities than other orgs depreciates each internal piece's individual value

[puja21]

almost all of these examples were very much hindsight

lots of folks thought throwing in SGA to a rich package was a lot, and some people could even say they were extremely high on SGA. But almost no one would've legit bet their house on him becoming an all-NBA guy, let alone a legit MVP candidate.

who is saying this now?

You're making a straw man argument about SGA having to be known as "future All NBA" for it to be a mistake.

Without LA including a coveted prospect they didn't *need* to trade (remember George demanded out to LA), then OKC wouldn't be this good today.

All I said was "Oklahoma City was gifted SGA" -- this is 100% what was reported on NBA twitter and the big pods (like Dun'cd On, The Athletic, WIndy, Lowe Post, Mismatch etc...). Doc/Frank rushed it.

You can even find some of it in print/written media:

Clipperholics blog from 7/6/19 the day of the trade:
"It has long been known that Gilgeous-Alexander was virtually untouchable for the Clippers. They got out in front of things when Anthony Davis was made available in New Orleans, putting out that SGA was a non-starter in any deal for Davis. In fact, it’s been widely believe that Gilgeous-Alexander would have been off-limits in basically any trade."

Marc Stein 7/6/19:
"In the trade, the Clippers got Paul George and the Thunder ended up getting Four future unprotected first-round picks, Danilo Gallinari, and yes, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who the Clippers had deemed untradable just a few months ago."

NYT 7/7/19
"This is worth emphasizing: The Clippers gave up a ton. Gilgeous-Alexander, 20, was the team’s starting point guard as a rookie and has all the makings of a future star."

The Ringer 7/23/19
"Thunder May Already Have Their Next Face of the Franchise: Oklahoma City scored an unprecedented haul of draft picks this summer, but Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the lone young player it acquired, could easily become the cornerstone for its next title push. Their future is bright. They have a franchise player before they even start rebuilding"

"the LA Clippers forfeited too much in young Gilgeous-Alexander. SGA on top of the massive draft picks haul was overkill for George."

SBNation 8/23/19
"Shai was the Clippers’ best, most promising rookie since Blake Griffin nearly a decade before. His steady, mature play quickly won him the hearts of Clippers’ fans everywhere, and his highs made him appear to be not just a future cornerstone of the Clippers, but a potential franchise player. He was considered untouchable, the one piece that was most likely to be on the Clippers five years ahead. His trade, therefore, was correspondingly shocking."

Even in McMahon's recent article (Feb), Doc claims (not putting much stock in Doc here though) they double-checked with Leonard:
"I even brought it up to Kawhi: 'Are you sure?'" Rivers recalled. "'I think Shai's going to be an amazing player. It may take a year or two, but I think you're underestimating how good Shai's going to be. Is there any way we can do this deal without putting Shai in it?"

I could dig up the Celtics / Billy King stuff too -- I participated that conversation right here on RealGM -- but I think the point has been made.

[HotelVitale]

almost all of these examples were very much hindsight

lots of folks thought throwing in SGA to a rich package was a lot, and some people could even say they were extremely high on SGA. But almost no one would've legit bet their house on him becoming an all-NBA guy, let alone a legit MVP candidate.

who is saying this now?

You're making a straw man argument about SGA having to be known as "future All NBA" for it to be a mistake.

Without LA including a coveted prospect they didn't *need* to trade (remember George demanded out to LA), then OKC wouldn't be this good today.

All I said was "Oklahoma City was gifted SGA" -- this is 100% what was reported on NBA twitter and the big pods (like Dun'cd On, The Athletic, WIndy, Lowe Post, Mismatch etc...). Doc/Frank rushed it.

You can even find some of it in print/written media:

Clipperholics blog from 7/6/19 the day of the trade:
"It has long been known that Gilgeous-Alexander was virtually untouchable for the Clippers. They got out in front of things when Anthony Davis was made available in New Orleans, putting out that SGA was a non-starter in any deal for Davis. In fact, it’s been widely believe that Gilgeous-Alexander would have been off-limits in basically any trade."

Marc Stein 7/6/19:
"In the trade, the Clippers got Paul George and the Thunder ended up getting Four future unprotected first-round picks, Danilo Gallinari, and yes, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who the Clippers had deemed untradable just a few months ago."

NYT 7/7/19
"This is worth emphasizing: The Clippers gave up a ton. Gilgeous-Alexander, 20, was the team’s starting point guard as a rookie and has all the makings of a future star."

The Ringer 7/23/19
"Thunder May Already Have Their Next Face of the Franchise: Oklahoma City scored an unprecedented haul of draft picks this summer, but Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the lone young player it acquired, could easily become the cornerstone for its next title push. Their future is bright. They have a franchise player before they even start rebuilding"

"the LA Clippers forfeited too much in young Gilgeous-Alexander. SGA on top of the massive draft picks haul was overkill for George."

SBNation 8/23/19
"Shai was the Clippers’ best, most promising rookie since Blake Griffin nearly a decade before. His steady, mature play quickly won him the hearts of Clippers’ fans everywhere, and his highs made him appear to be not just a future cornerstone of the Clippers, but a potential franchise player. He was considered untouchable, the one piece that was most likely to be on the Clippers five years ahead. His trade, therefore, was correspondingly shocking."

Even in McMahon's recent article (Feb), Doc claims (not putting much stock in Doc here though) they double-checked with Leonard:
"I even brought it up to Kawhi: 'Are you sure?'" Rivers recalled. "'I think Shai's going to be an amazing player. It may take a year or two, but I think you're underestimating how good Shai's going to be. Is there any way we can do this deal without putting Shai in it?"

I could dig up the Celtics / Billy King stuff too -- I participated that conversation right here on RealGM -- but I think the point has been made.

Think you're being unnecessarily defensive here, cut off like 90% of my post to take this as an insult to you. Which it's not, just putting some more subtlety on things. You're making a general point that lots of teams got their stars through other teams' errors, I'm agreeing but adding that those 'mistakes' were at the time somehwere between not-great and pretty reasonable, and then luck and unforeseen things broke the wrong way and they became catastrophic. I said this several times too, e.g.: hindsight "in the sense that yes many people criticized those moves but no one knew they would 100% turn out as catastrophically as we know now, and there was definitely many other possible outcomes at the time of these transactions."

Straw man's the wrong phrase here because it 100% matters if the teams trading things away could've known these guys would become extremely high-level franchise-changing stars. It seemed like your point about hindsight needed to jump from 'some people criticized a trade' to 'it was obvious at trade time that this would lead to young superstars' and that's just not right.

SGA is one of the better examples for your point since he had actually played a NBA season and they had him in hand. But even in the case of SGA, most people thought it was rough to include him and the price had become very high for PG then, but that went from bad move to a catastrophic decision only when SGA took a bunch of huge leaps that no one expected. So again, many people criticized that move but no one thought it would become what it has--most strong SGA supporters expected something more like him becoming maybe a top 60 or even 40 guy, but not literally top-3. (Also as you probably remember, OKC didn't have to trade PG and he wasn't about to quit on them, and Kawhi wanting to come to LAC was contingent on them getting PG. Not excusing the Clippers but we all knew the deal at the time--and also only bad injury luck made the upside of that deal (in addition to the downside of losing SGA and picks) catastrophic).

[puja21]

almost all of these examples were very much hindsight

lots of folks thought throwing in SGA to a rich package was a lot, and some people could even say they were extremely high on SGA. But almost no one would've legit bet their house on him becoming an all-NBA guy, let alone a legit MVP candidate.

who is saying this now?

You're making a straw man argument about SGA having to be known as "future All NBA" for it to be a mistake.

Without LA including a coveted prospect they didn't *need* to trade (remember George demanded out to LA), then OKC wouldn't be this good today.

All I said was "Oklahoma City was gifted SGA" -- this is 100% what was reported on NBA twitter and the big pods (like Dun'cd On, The Athletic, WIndy, Lowe Post, Mismatch etc...). Doc/Frank rushed it.

You can even find some of it in print/written media:

Clipperholics blog from 7/6/19 the day of the trade:
"It has long been known that Gilgeous-Alexander was virtually untouchable for the Clippers. They got out in front of things when Anthony Davis was made available in New Orleans, putting out that SGA was a non-starter in any deal for Davis. In fact, it’s been widely believe that Gilgeous-Alexander would have been off-limits in basically any trade."

Marc Stein 7/6/19:
"In the trade, the Clippers got Paul George and the Thunder ended up getting Four future unprotected first-round picks, Danilo Gallinari, and yes, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, who the Clippers had deemed untradable just a few months ago."

NYT 7/7/19
"This is worth emphasizing: The Clippers gave up a ton. Gilgeous-Alexander, 20, was the team’s starting point guard as a rookie and has all the makings of a future star."

The Ringer 7/23/19
"Thunder May Already Have Their Next Face of the Franchise: Oklahoma City scored an unprecedented haul of draft picks this summer, but Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the lone young player it acquired, could easily become the cornerstone for its next title push. Their future is bright. They have a franchise player before they even start rebuilding"

"the LA Clippers forfeited too much in young Gilgeous-Alexander. SGA on top of the massive draft picks haul was overkill for George."

SBNation 8/23/19
"Shai was the Clippers’ best, most promising rookie since Blake Griffin nearly a decade before. His steady, mature play quickly won him the hearts of Clippers’ fans everywhere, and his highs made him appear to be not just a future cornerstone of the Clippers, but a potential franchise player. He was considered untouchable, the one piece that was most likely to be on the Clippers five years ahead. His trade, therefore, was correspondingly shocking."

Even in McMahon's recent article (Feb), Doc claims (not putting much stock in Doc here though) they double-checked with Leonard:
"I even brought it up to Kawhi: 'Are you sure?'" Rivers recalled. "'I think Shai's going to be an amazing player. It may take a year or two, but I think you're underestimating how good Shai's going to be. Is there any way we can do this deal without putting Shai in it?"

I could dig up the Celtics / Billy King stuff too -- I participated that conversation right here on RealGM -- but I think the point has been made.

Think you're being unnecessarily defensive here, cut off like 90% of my post to take this as an insult to you. Which it's not, just putting some more subtlety on things. You're making a general point that lots of teams got their stars through other teams' errors, I'm agreeing but adding that those 'mistakes' were at the time somehwere between not-great and pretty reasonable, and then luck and unforeseen things broke the wrong way and they became catastrophic. I said this several times too, e.g.: hindsight "in the sense that yes many people criticized those moves but no one knew they would 100% turn out as catastrophically as we know now, and there was definitely many other possible outcomes at the time of these transactions."

Straw man's the wrong phrase here because it 100% matters if the teams trading things away could've known these guys would become extremely high-level franchise-changing stars. It seemed like your point about hindsight needed to jump from 'some people criticized a trade' to 'it was obvious at trade time that this would lead to young superstars' and that's just not right.

SGA is one of the better examples for your point since he had actually played a NBA season and they had him in hand. But even in the case of SGA, most people thought it was rough to include him and the price had become very high for PG then, but that went from bad move to a catastrophic decision only when SGA took a bunch of huge leaps that no one expected. So again, many people criticized that move but no one thought it would become what it has--most strong SGA supporters expected something more like him becoming maybe a top 60 or even 40 guy, but not literally top-3. (Also as you probably remember, OKC didn't have to trade PG and he wasn't about to quit on them, and Kawhi wanting to come to LAC was contingent on them getting PG. Not excusing the Clippers but we all knew the deal at the time--and also only bad injury luck made the upside of that deal (in addition to the downside of losing SGA and picks) catastrophic).

Wasn't trying to project being insulted

This is fair: "jump from 'some people criticized a trade' to 'it was obvious at trade time"

No criticism is universal after all