"Immediate Contender" vs "Team Growing Together"

[JordansBulls]

I did a thread like this a while ago, but since it seems like it is gone, I figure to do it again.

What do you think is better?


I see soo much different fans viewpoints on this matter. I am just curious on what most feel regarding this now especially after Boston just won the title and seeing what happened to the Bulls last season.

For example,

A young team like Chicago has a lot of time to grow together. They have great talent under 25 and guys that can become allstars really soon even this year. However, many feel that they wouldn't win a championship for years to come if they just kept the same core intact without a superstar.
Chicago is always in trade rumors, in the past it was KG, Pau Gasol, Kobe, and even this spring during the playoffs with regard Arenas, Melo, Wade, etc.

This same concept probably now applies more to Portland because they have ample time to grow together to win as does the Bulls if they resign everyone.

Here is my question: Does it really matter if a team goes for a superstar to try to get them over the hump now? or Should that team just continue to build around the young talent they have?

What's the difference of acquiring the superstar and he brings you a ring vs the idea of your young talent potentially bringing you one?

Overall which is better and which do you prefer?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?

[Malinhion]

Always go for an immediate contender. Young teams that grow together never meet their expectations. You can't expect every one of your prospects to grow up and reach their potential. Especially if they are all competing for minutes. The truth is, growing together more often than not leaves you with an early playoff exit, where you draft another talent just good enough to keep you treading water.

True championship squads are made through trade. The Lakers have many more championships than lottery picks. That's no coincidence.

[CircleCitysportsfan]

I did a thread like this a while ago, but since it seems like it is gone, I figure to do it again.

What do you think is better?


I see soo much different fans viewpoints on this matter. I am just curious on what most feel regarding this now especially after Boston just won the title and seeing what happened to the Bulls last season.

For example,

A young team like Chicago has a lot of time to grow together. They have great talent under 25 and guys that can become allstars really soon even this year. However, many feel that they wouldn't win a championship for years to come if they just kept the same core intact without a superstar.
Chicago is always in trade rumors, in the past it was KG, Pau Gasol, Kobe, and even this spring during the playoffs with regard Arenas, Melo, Wade, etc.

This same concept probably now applies more to Portland because they have ample time to grow together to win as does the Bulls if they resign everyone.

Here is my question: Does it really matter if a team goes for a superstar to try to get them over the hump now? or Should that team just continue to build around the young talent they have?

What's the difference of acquiring the superstar and he brings you a ring vs the idea of your young talent potentially bringing you one?

Overall which is better and which do you prefer?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?

I'd rather win now. Championships are forever. The growing together thing does not work most of the time. Even when this current Celtic is done, they can start over with picks and a boatload of cap space. I'd venture to say they'd win another championship when they are rebuilding faster than Minnesota or Memphis who have a few years head start.

[sabi]

(Level of attachment to your team + winning a championship) divided by risk of failure
Assumptions:
-level of attachment increases with number of years the players are on your team
-risk of failure increases by letting your team grow together without improving it by trade

[greenbeans]

its been proved time and time again that if you actually want to win you have to go all in at one point another and go for the "immediate contender" option. young, exciting players are fun but old guys who win are a LOT more fun

[Malinhion]

The only point of having a "team growing together" is to have the right mix of talent, expiring contracts, and good roleplayers to make a run at a disgruntled superstar. Then you can hopefully pull them for .70 on the dollar and have the pieces to contend. This takes incredibly good timing, but some teams are in position to make a move for years without ever doing so. If the Bulls acted quick they could have nabbed Kobe last offseason. Instead they got lucky in the draft. I still don't see it taking them far without a blockbuster.

[Collie]

It really depends on how a team that "grows together" pans out. The Bulls, for example, all drafted the 3 guys essential to their first championship (MJ, Pippen, Grant). It's harder for a young team to reach their potential together (quite different from each player reaching their own potential), and usually the immediate contender will have, well, more immediate success. A young team may or may not pan out. You know what you're getting with older and more reliable stars - as opposed to a young team where greatness isn't guaranteed.

And even if it doesn't work out, you could always trade those young players for veterans to build around your franchise guy.

Kinda like a high risk, high reward kind of deal. People will usually take that risk.

[CircleCitysportsfan]

Look at Portland for an example. Do you trade Oden for Duncan? Hell no, if your Minnesota or Memphis..hell even ...the Pacers you trade your all your young talent for Duncan. (Yes, Spur fan I know he's untradeable to those teams...just an example)

[NoahISmyNinja]

If you look at the recent past, there are really only 2 teams that won a championship after a trade.

That was the Heat and the Celtics

Every other team has had to "grow" together. Bulls, Lakers,Spurs,Pistons, all had starting lineups that remained basically intact for 3-5 years, suffer through conference finals and semi-finals defeats and first round losses.

Personally i think that no team is in a better position than Portland. Any GM that says he'd rather have his team than Portland's is lying. Maybe with the exception of the Lakers with a reasonably young mega-star in Kobe and a young improving core outside of him.

[greenbeans]

If you look at the recent past, there are really only 2 teams that won a championship after a trade.

That was the Heat and the Celtics

Every other team has had to "grow" together. Bulls, Lakers,Spurs,Pistons, all had starting lineups that remained basically intact for 3-5 years, suffer through conference finals and semi-finals defeats and first round losses.

Personally i think that no team is in a better position than Portland. Any GM that says he'd rather have his team than Portland's is lying. Maybe with the exception of the Lakers with a reasonably young mega-star in Kobe and a young improving core outside of him.

pistons didnt grow, they added Rasheed at the deadline. and imo, id certainly be in Bostons place. or even SA or LA, KNOWING you have a shot, not hoping things pan out

[NoahISmyNinja]

If you look at the recent past, there are really only 2 teams that won a championship after a trade.

That was the Heat and the Celtics

Every other team has had to "grow" together. Bulls, Lakers,Spurs,Pistons, all had starting lineups that remained basically intact for 3-5 years, suffer through conference finals and semi-finals defeats and first round losses.

Personally i think that no team is in a better position than Portland. Any GM that says he'd rather have his team than Portland's is lying. Maybe with the exception of the Lakers with a reasonably young mega-star in Kobe and a young improving core outside of him.

pistons didnt grow, they added Rasheed at the deadline. and imo, id certainly be in Bostons place. or even SA or LA, KNOWING you have a shot, not hoping things pan out

And they've been to 6 straight conference finals with basically the same lineup. You can make a trade and STILL have to grow together, but I see what you're saying.

[KB20]

The thing about "growing together" is the developing chemistry. I've been playing ball for a long time and playing with guys that you know and have been playing with for a long time you just tend to know how to play with them. The comfort level makes a huge difference. That's how great teams are formed. Players use their strengths to mask each other's weaknesses. Most of the time when a trade is made to become an immediate contender like the Kidd or Shaq trades of recent take some time to adjust to. However, if the new guys fit in right away like KG and Ray did then it obviously works out.

[Malinhion]

If you look at the recent past, there are really only 2 teams that won a championship after a trade.

That was the Heat and the Celtics

Every other team has had to "grow" together. Bulls, Lakers,Spurs,Pistons, all had starting lineups that remained basically intact for 3-5 years, suffer through conference finals and semi-finals defeats and first round losses.

Personally i think that no team is in a better position than Portland. Any GM that says he'd rather have his team than Portland's is lying. Maybe with the exception of the Lakers with a reasonably young mega-star in Kobe and a young improving core outside of him.

Detroit got Rasheed at the deadline, which pushed them over the top.

Lakers Shaq was signed in FA and they traded for Kobe on draft day.

Lakers made the Finals this year by pulling a midseason deal for Gasol.

[sabi]

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.

[greenbeans]

^^then what about the more important piece of that 1-2, Shaq??

[sabi]

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

[pillwenney]

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

[microfib4thewin]

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.

[dingclancy]

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.

[realball]

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.