RealGM

Im not saying his entire argument is wrong just that that part doesn't help it

The only teams that really won after "growing together" were teams that happened to be able to "grow together" with either Duncan or Shaq.

It doesn't matter how they win. As long as they do it by legitimate means then nothing else is important as long as they win a title. If you are a GM, would you try to do it the hard way by getting scrubs and hope they can develop into a good team, or will you try to obtain the best trading assets for a superstar? You can't do everything via draft alone because it's very difficult to find the right players, Memphis and Clippers are great examples of that, once you try to do everything via the lottery, you stay in the lottery.

What Boston pull off is pretty much unimaginable. If someone told me from four years ago that Boston added 11 new players to win a title I wouldn't have believed him. Teams more or less have to go through growing pains for several years before they pull off a big move to put themselves as a contender.

Well the Celtics enjoyed 20 years of utter mediocrity to get to that point of getting 11 new players, so we know where their sentiments are.

Shaq and Kobe came together in 96 and they won in 2000. I think they did a lot of "growing together" for four years. Maybe if Bynum was not injured the Lakers will be contenders nonetheless.

It's obviously a combination. The Celtics went all out and traded for stars. The Pistons traded away pieces like Hill, Stackhouse, and used expirings and cap space to get Billups, Hamilton, and the Wallaces, while drafting Prince. The Lakers drafted Kobe and used cap space to get Shaq (same for Gasol). The Bulls drafted Jordan, Pippen, Grant, Armstrong, basically their whole core during their first three-peat. Same with the Spurs.

There is no formula for championships. You just have to acquire the best talent (draft, signings, or trades), get complimentary role-players, and a coach who can preach defense and create chemistry.

Unless you're pretty sure you're going to get a great player, draft picks are more valuable as trade assets, paired along with expiring deals or other players to get a proven, veteran player. The Celtics could have had a great young team with a lot of cap space if they kept their young players and draft picks and let Ratliff's contract expire. But they traded all those assets, as we all know, for Garnett and Allen, and with their remaining money, signed inexpensive veterans. Young teams with potential are exciting for fans because they offer hope, yet it's proven that veterans win the championships. And due to the nature of the game now, players don't stay with their teams for a long time, so if you want a team full of veterans, you'll surely have to sign or trade for the majority of them. There probably will be some young players you drafted who'll have important roles, and your best player may even be a player you drafted, but championship teams consist mainly of veterans, and these veterans are mainly attained via trades of free agency.

I personally prefer watching a young team grow together, because the satisfaction you get if/when you finally hoist that trophy is that much more satisfying, IMO.

sabi wrote:trading for kobe on his draft = drafting him. He's still on your team since he was a rookie and that's all that counts.

Why on earth would trading for a player on draft night be the same as drafting him if the team involved didn't have to go through all the losing in order to "earn" the pick to actually get the player? And in Kobe's case, his declaration that he would only play for the Lakers makes things trickier, still. If a team trades down to get a particular player then I suppose things are a little different but in terms of trading for star players to continue improving the team I don't think it matters how old they are, just that winning teams usually have a combination of several top NBA talents so the more a team can add on in that regard the better off they will be. Stupid teams are the ones who trade quality picks for non-top-quality talents or who trade star players for picks and young players who never amount to anything close to what those star players still have left in the tank.

OdenRoyLMA2 wrote:I personally prefer watching a young team grow together, because the satisfaction you get if/when you finally hoist that trophy is that much more satisfying, IMO.

Which example of a championship for your favourite team did you find more satisfying because they grew together and which example did you find less satisfying because they didn't?

for fans, it doesn't make a difference IMO..winning a title is great in every way, even if your owner bought it in 2002..

for a team, it's different though..I think you would definitely feel a lot better winning a title if you did it with the teammates that you grew with and that you experienced your toughest losses with..

I_Like_Dirt wrote:

OdenRoyLMA2 wrote:I personally prefer watching a young team grow together, because the satisfaction you get if/when you finally hoist that trophy is that much more satisfying, IMO.

Which example of a championship for your favourite team did you find more satisfying because they grew together and which example did you find less satisfying because they didn't?

No example, but I can base it off other aspcets of my life. Such as working hard to get something, rather than having it handed to you. It feels more rewarding.

sabi wrote:trading for kobe on his draft = drafting him. He's still on your team since he was a rookie and that's all that counts.

I wouldn't say that since the Lakers lost a prime Divac in the process of getting Bryant.

The problem with having a team grow up together is it usually breeds mediocrity, inconsistency and losing. I think Portland is the only young team in the NBA with a legitimate shot at stopping that trend.

Immediate contender. Then when your rebuilding its always a fun process.

Like the draft hype and such. I mean look what we went through...Loren Woods, Araujo, Rafer, Mike James, VC trade....

Good times.

I'll take immediate contender vs. growing as well. Growing can work IMO, but not solely based on drafting. There's always a trade for an important piece that falls into place, because your chances of finding all the right pieces at the right time through the draft, even if you have a perfect eye for talent is pretty close to zero. Portland's the best current example of growing together, but IMO they'll make the major jump to contender if Oden can be healthy and they find a good time to make that one move that adds the right ingredient (like the 'sheed to detroit trade type of move). I will say, growing together is probably your only hope of developing a true long term dynasty, but even then it's only feasible if you've got ownership willing to spend crazy money and you can time your picks and cap space perfectly. Imagine if Chicago's growth had worked out better and right now they were looking at max deals for Deng and Gordon and no Rose? Would their ownership shell out and still try to add more talent? Would they re-sign TT or Noah after that as well? If they'd been able to make one of those reported moves for Kobe or KG they'd still have been better off then if all their growth had been optimized last year, and there was always the potential that it wouldn't, and it didn't. Portland's in a similar situation (although IMO it's even better) to Chicago a year ago. They've also got more time to find the right deal before they need to start re-signing and eating up space and they've got an owner that'll likely spend whatever he feels like to win.

The window for winning in professional sports is so small…if an opportunity is there to make moves (like Boston), take it and run.

Picking up veterans from trades/ FA/ etc, will usually be the safer choice, since you know what you're getting. James Posey isn't gonna be a 20 ppg scorer, but you know what you're getting with him. Teams that need good defending, good shooting forwards will go after him because you know what he's gonna give you. You knew right away KG was gonna be a beast - it would have been foolish to think otherwise.

On the other hand, draft picks are harder to predict. The pesky defender you drafted may turn out to be a great scorer (ala Michael Redd). The star center you were hoping for can turn out to be a bumbling idiot (ala Kwame). Even if most of your players pan out, the probability that all of your young guys will develop into the players the teams want is very small. If someone like Greg Oden turns out to be a superstar center like many predicted, and then Jerryd Bayless turns out to be Sebastian Telfaire 2.0, then the Blazers would still need a good PG to run the team. That's where getting veterans and other players come in.

All in all, if you're team is lucky enough to be great with your young guys, then that's great. More often than not though, moves have to be made to build around the core guys in your team. It's about getting the right pieces.

A team that grows together, if developed correctly, would be better than any immediate contender team. Of course that's easier said than done. I think that the Spurs and the Bulls are the best recent example.

Yeah, win now. And NOW.

I_Like_Dirt wrote:

sabi wrote:trading for kobe on his draft = drafting him. He's still on your team since he was a rookie and that's all that counts.

Why on earth would trading for a player on draft night be the same as drafting him if the team involved didn't have to go through all the losing in order to "earn" the pick to actually get the player? And in Kobe's case, his declaration that he would only play for the Lakers makes things trickier, still. If a team trades down to get a particular player then I suppose things are a little different but in terms of trading for star players to continue improving the team I don't think it matters how old they are, just that winning teams usually have a combination of several top NBA talents so the more a team can add on in that regard the better off they will be. Stupid teams are the ones who trade quality picks for non-top-quality talents or who trade star players for picks and young players who never amount to anything close to what those star players still have left in the tank.

Because you're acquiring a rookie which means you have to develop them which doesn't fall into the Immediate Contender category. Trading for rookie kobe is nothing like the Pistons trading for Wallace or Celtics trading for Garnett. It's not the same at all. Trading for rookie Kobe doesn't make any team an immediate contender. The poster I quoted had put Kobe's trade on the same category as the Garnett and Wallace trade. You think it's the same? Try not to fall off from the discussion too much next time.