"Immediate Contender" vs "Team Growing Together"

[Ortho Stice]

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.

[thegreatblaze]

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.

[I_Like_Dirt]

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.

[I_Like_Dirt]

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?

[HarlemHeat37]

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..

[thegreatblaze]

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.

[snaquille oatmeal]

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.

[meatball sub]

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.

[PopAGat]

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.

[satyr9]

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.

[HumbleBumbleBee]

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

[Collie]

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.

[EtchenBa]

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.

[durden_tyler]

Yeah, win now. And NOW.

[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.

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.

[richboy]

The days of waiting for young players to grow and take baby steps to a title are over. Everyone thinks this is the 80s. That you work your way to the top like the Pistons and Bulls did. The CBA ended those days. Now its possible to go from the lottery to the championship. If your busy letting young players grow your likely to get jumped.


In the past you would look at the old Celtics and Pistons and think the young Bulls would jump them soon. In today's NBA thats not the case. With the value of expiring contracts you can make lopsided trades that can turn a mediocre team into a championship contender quickly. Orlando or Cleveland were perhaps the third best team in the East this year. Toronto makes 1 lopsided trade they could jump both those teams. Miami was horrible last year. They make the right trade they could be in the finals next year.

In todays NBA you get young players. You figure out which ones you want to build around. Then you trade the others for better players. The problem with young teams is they are usually bad and the saying someone has to score and rebound applies. What would Josh Smith average if he played on the Spurs. Look at Jeff Green. I hear fans saying whatever team he plays for now is building around him and Durant. Look at his numbers though. Horrible production and efficiency. He averaged 10 points per game on a bad team and the team is talking about him as the future. He played enough he should have gotten 10 points per game. He gets 40 DNps on a good team and doesn't crack 15 mpg. A good gm needs to find out who is the real deal and who is fake.

Letting a young team play is fine. You just better be sure you have the group that can get the job done in the future. I think you may have that in Portland. A team like the Hawks who have yet to make a trade with any of there young pieces is laughable since they have yet to even play 500 ball.

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.

The Spurs didn't grow together. They drafted Tim Duncan and they were a champion shortly after.

The Pistons didn't grow together. The year they won the title they had 2 new starters from the previous year in Prince and Rasheed Wallace.

Did the Bulls really grow together on there second 3-peat? Outside of Jordan and Pippen pretty much the entire roster was different from even a couple of years earlier.

[NoahISmyNinja]

The days of waiting for young players to grow and take baby steps to a title are over. Everyone thinks this is the 80s. That you work your way to the top like the Pistons and Bulls did. The CBA ended those days. Now its possible to go from the lottery to the championship. If your busy letting young players grow your likely to get jumped.


In the past you would look at the old Celtics and Pistons and think the young Bulls would jump them soon. In today's NBA thats not the case. With the value of expiring contracts you can make lopsided trades that can turn a mediocre team into a championship contender quickly. Orlando or Cleveland were perhaps the third best team in the East this year. Toronto makes 1 lopsided trade they could jump both those teams. Miami was horrible last year. They make the right trade they could be in the finals next year.

In todays NBA you get young players. You figure out which ones you want to build around. Then you trade the others for better players. The problem with young teams is they are usually bad and the saying someone has to score and rebound applies. What would Josh Smith average if he played on the Spurs. Look at Jeff Green. I hear fans saying whatever team he plays for now is building around him and Durant. Look at his numbers though. Horrible production and efficiency. He averaged 10 points per game on a bad team and the team is talking about him as the future. He played enough he should have gotten 10 points per game. He gets 40 DNps on a good team and doesn't crack 15 mpg. A good gm needs to find out who is the real deal and who is fake.

Letting a young team play is fine. You just better be sure you have the group that can get the job done in the future. I think you may have that in Portland. A team like the Hawks who have yet to make a trade with any of there young pieces is laughable since they have yet to even play 500 ball.

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.

The Spurs didn't grow together. They drafted Tim Duncan and they were a champion shortly after.

The Pistons didn't grow together. The year they won the title they had 2 new starters from the previous year in Prince and Rasheed Wallace.

Did the Bulls really grow together on there second 3-peat? Outside of Jordan and Pippen pretty much the entire roster was different from even a couple of years earlier.

The Spurs have won more than 1 title. The core of Bowen, Ginobli, Parker, and Duncan have grown together. You can't deny that. After Robinson retired the Spurs ASSEMBLED a team through the draft around Duncan whom they also drafted. The Spurs and Lakers are excellent examples of teams growing together.

Outside the 3 peat? The 3 peat isn't a good enough example of growing together? I'm not saying I wouldn't want an immediate contender, but I'm not sure that was the question.

[triplet1984]

The Pistons didn't really grow together.

Billups and Rip joined in the 02-03 season, Prince started getting regular minutes in the 03-04 season, Sheed joined midway through season, and then they won the title. There was only one season of half-togetherness there.

[Malinhion]

Indeed. And they went from making the Finals those first two years to getting knocked off in the ECF every year thereafter. So they actually got worse over time. You need to improve just to keep up, because when you have a good squad it gets pillaged by free agency.

[celticfan42487]

It doesn't matter as long as you have a player that can be considered a top 5 player.

Spurs might have grown together in the other titles but the first one was immediate contender from tanking and drafting Duncan and having Robinson miracously come back fully healthy.

Shaq was signed, immediate contender doesn't matter if it was Kobe or Divac beside him. He had maybe the best year any NBA player has ever had in the modern era including any of MJ's years.

Heat, same thing Shaq.

Piston, Rasheed acquired almost at the deadline. Latest possible addition and they were put together on the fly and ended up winning. More of a immediate but if you'd like they "grew together" wich netted them a lot of hearbreaking losses and nothing like the success they found in their first year.

There is no best way, the only way is to get someone that can be considered top 5 and have enough around that person to win. Sometimes it's two all-stars[ben,billups/pierce,ray/parker,manu] other times is another top 5 [wade/kobe/robinson]