Team building - Have we been thinking about it all wrong?

[Wingy]

Today the thought came to my mind that one of the theories that I've long held may in fact be dead wrong. Well, many of them are, but who's counting?

I know that there are many, many people who agree with this theory - that we shouldn't trade a bunch of our guys to land a star player because the star would be left with nothing to work with and our team would be just as bad as the star's current team (think KG, Kobe prior to this season).

I thought that having a foundation of a bunch of very good players is preferable to a foundation of a star and a bunch of mediocre to bad players. Now I'm really beginning to wonder. The star is so tough to get, so if we've ever had a chance, we should've pulled the trigger. No one knows, but if we do have a chance in the future we should go for it.

Stars attract the better role players...when everyone's got the MLE, a star often make the difference in attracting the MLE players...the vet minimum guys, the guys that are bought out. When drafting, even lower in the draft, you have a chance (if your GM is decent) to land some very good players to support your star. Where would the Wolves have been if not for Joe Smith-gate and incompetent draft talent evaluation? LA snagged Bynum with the 10th pick, PHX got Amare with the 9th. There are always really good players available.

I'm sure someone can articulate this much better than I have and I don't want to take more time to do a better job, but I hope y'all see the idea. Do people agree?

EDIT: Perhaps a summary statement - Getting a star may not actually look good on paper or do anything to improve your team immediately, but it puts the most important building block in place to give you a better shot at getting you where you want to go down the road.

[musiqsoulchild]

In essence Wingy is saying that the toughest thing to do is to land a superstar.

So when you get a chance at one you go ahead and do it. You worry about the rest (supporting cast, chemistry, coachcing changes, bollocks) later.

I tend to agree with him. Especially if its the right kind of superstar.

[tclg]

Yeah too bad the right kind of superstar is few and far between

[DuckIII]

It pretty much comes down to the age of the superstar in question. If he's young, then yes you should pretty much do what you can to acquire him.

If he's not young, and makes for a small window, then it is usually senseless to gut a core of young talent to acquire the player.

And the opportunity to acquire a young-ish superstar in trade presents itself how often? I'd say never. Its a tricky business.

[Cliff Levingston]

- Pax put his best foot forward in trying to get KG but McHale wasn't ready to deal him.

- Kobe vetoed a trade that both the Bulls and Lakers reportedly agreed upon. Nothing we can do about that.

- The logo wanted a king's ransom for Gasol, and Gasol isn't a superstar anyway.

Most people know here know that having a superstar (or at least star player) is the way to go, it's just very hard to land one (or more) via trade or free agency; it's basically a matter of being in the right place at the right time.

[musiqsoulchild]

Yeah too bad the right kind of superstar is few and far between

I was referring to Kobe , tclg.

I really think we should have snagged him...even overpaid. Hell, we could have tanked after that with His Highness permission.

[Wingy]

In essence Wingy is saying that the toughest thing to do is to land a superstar.

So when you get a chance at one you go ahead and do it. You worry about the rest (supporting cast, chemistry, coachcing changes, bollocks) later.

I tend to agree with him. Especially if its the right kind of superstar.

Yep more or less, thanks...and to be more clear, the bolded part to me is emminently more achievable than getting the star in the first place.

Just as an example, look where Boston's key role players came from - Rondo and Davis were late picks. House and Posey were cheap FA signings.

If you have a star and a good GM, you can build around the star. Just because we've seen other teams with crappy McHale style GM's fail to build around their stars doesn't mean we'd do the same. I think post hypothetical trade with a star and a couple decent players left on the roster, Pax would do a great job of putting the pieces in place through the draft and free agency.

[DuckIII]

-= original quote snipped =-



I was referring to Kobe , tclg.

I really think we should have snagged him...even overpaid. Hell, we could have tanked after that with His Highness permission.

I think you might have missed some of the reports. The one somewhat consistent report that I saw amid all the confusion from that time was that the Bulls and Lakers did agree to terms on one permutation, but that Kobe rejected it.

The Bulls are the fisherman. The Lakers are the lake. Kobe is the fish. The lake yielded the fish to the fisherman, but the fish wriggled off the hook of its own accord.

[musiqsoulchild]

-= original quote snipped =-



I think you might have missed some of the reports. The one somewhat consistent report that I saw amid all the confusion from that time was that the Bulls and Lakers did agree to terms on one permutation, but that Kobe rejected it.

The Bulls are the fisherman. The Lakers are the lake. Kobe is the fish. The lake yielded the fish to the fisherman, but the fish wriggled off the hook of its own accord.

I am afraid I might have. I have been busy with teaching Duck.

I know that Kobe rejected one deal, and that Paxson said that lux-tux was a consideration in not getting him.

I dont know which happened last in chronological order.

[Wingy]

-= original quote snipped =-
The Bulls are the fisherman. The Lakers are the lake. Kobe is the fish. The lake yielded the fish to the fisherman, but the fish wriggled off the hook of its own accord.

Agreed, but it's at least encouraging to see that we were supposedly willing to pull the trigger. Who knows what the package was, but it's nice (and of course disappointing) to think that our franchise was willing to give up what it took to get Kobe....it's just that he was the only fish in the entire world capable of wriggling off the hook.

[suckfish]

Well, ideally you want a superstar talent surrounded with good solid role players who specialize in a variety of areas. The hardest bit no doubt is finding the right superstar, then traditionally you build around that center piece.

We have done the reverse, not intentionally though, in gathering a great supporting cast. We went through the rebuilding stage and drafted some pretty solid players. At this moment in time none are superstars, and the way things are looking we aren't on the verge of developing one anytime soon. I highly doubt it was Paxsons goal to set out and draft good role players and ideal co players (Deng), it's just the way things kind of panned out.

Should we have blown it all up for Kobe or Gasol? I don't think so. It would be different if we could acquire a young budding superstar fresh out of college, but by the time we finally rebuild around Gasol or Kobe both would be nearing the very end of their careers IMO.

So yes, in an ideal world you want to start with the center piece, the franchise player. But finding one who will last throughout the years of rebuilding is a tough task.

[bullzman23]

As previously mentioned, Gasol isn't a superstar and Kobe vetoed the trade(s) we agreed on.

I don't think trading a ton of players for KG would have helped. Look at what he did in Minnesota with medioce role players. Plus he's getting old. It was a risk.

That being said, I have to question the talent level on this team. Before we used to win by having to grind it out and claw back in. This is best exemplified by the 41-41 season where we lost to Miami. We simply didn't have the talent to make the playoffs, but did because we played at least three times as hard as the other teams. How many times did we have to win a game by having Gordon and Pargo shoot us back in? That's not a healthy way to win games.

I complained the previous two seasons that this type of strategy would eventually leave us mentally broken. Can you guys imagine how straining it'd be to have to play your hardest for 82 games just to make the playoffs? Good teams can win a lot of games just by being superior. We can't do that.

I know guys like Smith and Tim Thomas are hated on this board, but they would have been upgrades over guys like Duhon, Sefolosha, Sweetney, Allen, O.Harrington, etc. They also have the talent to get "easy" points. We made a mistake by deciding that we were too good for these players. Good teams care about what a guy can do on the basketball court and not if he's a prick.

I don't think we need to blow things up in Chicago, but we need to lower our standards. If a player isn't good enough to play for a mediocre Chicago team, but is good enough to play for a contending Phx team then something is seriously wrong. Things like that make me question Paxson.

[Wingy]

So yes, in an ideal world you want to start with the center piece, the franchise player. But finding one who will last throughout the years of rebuilding is a tough task.

Maybe the thread title is misleading...

I'm not questioning any sort of "inaction" (which in and of itself is just likely perceived) by Pax or any particular deal (imaginary or otherwise). I'm also not saying 'hey, I figured it out, you start with a star'. That's an "uh duh!" sort of thing. Of course you start with a star if you can.

What I am questioning is the theory that overpaying for a star isn't worth it. That's what I used to think, but I've just realized today that I've changed my mind. I think it is worth it.

Did you think LA could've done it...put a cast around Kobe? I didn't, but it looks like they have. How long was KG aging for? Quite a long time before he was actually traded. With a good GM at the wheel, I bet MN would've been damn good with KG.

I agree that going for the young star is ideal, but that's not happening. You can get the older star at a more reasonable price. If you're looking at our team, you likely didn't really take much of a step backwards, if any, to get the star (could we be worse than we are right now?? likely not). If you miss during his window, so what?

You are completely setup for lottery-ville which is where championship teams (or even hopes of championship teams) are made: Magic, Bird, MJ, Duncan, Lebron, Dwight. Of course even that takes some luck...but you've got absolutely no shot being a middling playoff team.

Again, bottomline...I'd now gladly overpay for a superstar. I wouldn't have in the past.

[Wingy]

I don't think trading a ton of players for KG would have helped. Look at what he did in Minnesota with medioce role players. Plus he's getting old. It was a risk.

As I said, I'm not questioning any particular inaction or trade Pax didn't make. I think that's folly because we don't know the real details.

I think that the exact kind of statement above though is at the root of what I am questioning. The theory that we should not make the cupboard bare because 'look at KG's team' or 'look at Kobe's team'....'they're no better than we are'.

That line of thinking is false because 1) McHale is a moron and 2) 'Look at Kobe's team' looks like a bad argument...LA put the pieces in place and we just weren't patient enough.

[kyrv]

In essence Wingy is saying that the toughest thing to do is to land a superstar.

So when you get a chance at one you go ahead and do it. You worry about the rest (supporting cast, chemistry, coachcing changes, bollocks) later.

I tend to agree with him. Especially if its the right kind of superstar.

I would say *only* if it's the right kind of superstar. The league is full of superstars who don't make the playoffs or don't get past the first round.

[Badboy]

You should do what ever you can to get a star. They have more marketability and added to Chicago and what Jordan has already done for the city and basketball. It should be much easier for you to build a championship team than say the timberwolves. Just get that star almost no matter the cost. We can focus on building around them after. If you intend to win the championship the same season you get them then worry about who you retain on the team. You want a dynasty get the star and build. It's like getting the proper foundation for building any building. In the NBA it starts with a star.