Poll: OKC or BOS Model of Success?

[Tirion]

to implement any model of success you need a competent front office and a owner who's willing to get with the program and spend money. without those two components you will fail regardless of the model you chose. Wolves have neither and never will with Taylor.

[Klomp]

to implement any model of success you need a competent front office and a owner who's willing to get with the program and spend money. without those two components you will fail regardless of the model you chose. Wolves have neither and never will with Taylor.

Glen Taylor has shown that he will spend money if needed, but it's foolish to spend money for the sake of spending. Just look at the Bucks and Pistons...

[Steve_Holiday]

neither of these are 'models'...also, okc has not won a championship.

[Tirion]

to implement any model of success you need a competent front office and a owner who's willing to get with the program and spend money. without those two components you will fail regardless of the model you chose. Wolves have neither and never will with Taylor.

Glen Taylor has shown that he will spend money if needed, but it's foolish to spend money for the sake of spending. Just look at the Bucks and Pistons...

Taylor's pockets has been closed for 7 years now. And he's horrible at personel decisions, so the chances of him hiring right man for the job are slim to none.

[Worm Guts]

For the majority of those 7 years, our plan has been to try and create cap space. Taylor has spent when he thought we had a chance, hell, hes spent to the point of stupidity and even stepped over McHales head a couple times to give players more money. Maybe he's lost enough money that he's been forever changed, but we haven't been in a situation where spending a ton of money has been in our plans.

[C.lupus]

OKC model is our best bet but it's premature to call it a model of success. They still haven't won anything.

[john2jer]

I would still take their model of not having won anything over our model of not having won anything. Respectability would be awesome.

[C.lupus]

I agree. I was just pointing out that it's early to call it a model of success. They could implode in a couple years like Portland.

[champalift]

I would still take their model of not having won anything over our model of not having won anything. Respectability would be awesome.

What is the difference? Drafting Durant?
I guess I don't really know what the difference is strategy wise... clear contracts, get draft picks, build with youth... that sounds exactly like the Wolves to me.
How great would OKC's model look if Durant went one and Oden fell to two? I guess we will never know, but I am confused why everyone in the NBA is "modeling" after them. If the OKC model is draft a superstar, then draft solid talent to fill in around them, yes I am in...
I guess the bottom line is having great scouts/talent evaluators and luck.

[Esohny]

I would still take their model of not having won anything over our model of not having won anything. Respectability would be awesome.

What is the difference? Drafting Durant?
I guess I don't really know what the difference is strategy wise... clear contracts, get draft picks, build with youth... that sounds exactly like the Wolves to me.
How great would OKC's model look if Durant went one and Oden fell to two? I guess we will never know, but I am confused why everyone in the NBA is "modeling" after them. If the OKC model is draft a superstar, then draft solid talent to fill in around them, yes I am in...
I guess the bottom line is having great scouts/talent evaluators and luck.

As others have pointed out, they also made good draft choices outside of Durant. They also seem to actually develop their youth. So the Wolves can say that they're trying to follow that model, but they're failing on all counts.

[champalift]

I would still take their model of not having won anything over our model of not having won anything. Respectability would be awesome.

What is the difference? Drafting Durant?
I guess I don't really know what the difference is strategy wise... clear contracts, get draft picks, build with youth... that sounds exactly like the Wolves to me.
How great would OKC's model look if Durant went one and Oden fell to two? I guess we will never know, but I am confused why everyone in the NBA is "modeling" after them. If the OKC model is draft a superstar, then draft solid talent to fill in around them, yes I am in...
I guess the bottom line is having great scouts/talent evaluators and luck.

As others have pointed out, they also made good draft choices outside of Durant. They also seem to actually develop their youth. So the Wolves can say that they're trying to follow that model, but they're failing on all counts.

That is why i said "bottom line is having great scouts/talent evaluators." I agree that they have done a phenomenal job building a whole team, but there is plenty of luck to that. Having a player like Durant does SO much for everyone around him.
So really what the "OKC Model of Success" is simply being successful at building a young team through the draft that can grow together. Really it is the success part that matters, not the model part, because there are plenty of teams that are using that model. OKC is just leaps and bounds ahead of most teams because they evaluate and develop talent well.
It is all about execution.

[Klomp]

As others have pointed out, they also made good draft choices outside of Durant. They also seem to actually develop their youth. So the Wolves can say that they're trying to follow that model, but they're failing on all counts.

Right, but its easier to say that those draft choices are good when they are playing with Durant. Much like how Szczerbiak, Marbury, etc. played their best basketball of their career in Minnesota playing alongside Kevin Garnett.

I'm not sure Westbrook, Ibaka, etc would've developed as quickly next to someone other than Kevin Durant.

[cpfsf]

I'd say the best route is to play for a big market. When your playoff windows are closing, you can start rebuilding (you can even pursue the OKC model if you want). Than you acquire big name free agents in the future. I can dream can't I?

Anyway, I noticed that a lot of people are saying that the OKC hasn't won anything. You can't base your whole future on OKC's success or failure. Many big and small market teams follow this path, and it certainly isn't the first time this strategy has been used. You can't possibly expect that following one route is going to lead to guaranteed success.

[Flash4thewin]

I want the Memphis model of success. Do stuff that makes absolutely no sense and just wait for it to magically work out in the end.

lol thats a good one. The truth is by going the OKC path you easily set yourself up to transition to a BOS model if the right player becomes available but even then luck is needed and a competent front office.

[fallacy]

Durant - Drafted #2 2007
Westbrook - Drafted #4 2008
Harden - Drafted #3 2009
Ibaka - Drafted #24 2008
Perkins - Traded for Jeff Green/Nenad Krstic 2011
Sefolosha - Traded for the #26 draft pick in 2009
Collison - Drafted #12 2003
Maynor - Acquired from Utah for taking on Matt Harpring's contract, nothing traded
Cook - Traded from Miami along with the number #18 pick for OKC's #32 pick

OKC was built about equally in draft picks and trades. BY FAR the number one reason OKC has a team like it has now is because it is always below the salary cap. We got Eric Maynor literally for free because Utah had to dump cap space and we had plenty of cap space.

[HeartSouloma]

OKC was built about equally in draft picks and trades. BY FAR the number one reason OKC has a team like it has now is because it is always below the salary cap.

1+

[TrentTuckerForever]

Durant - Drafted #2 2007
Westbrook - Drafted #4 2008
Harden - Drafted #3 2009
Ibaka - Drafted #24 2008
Perkins - Traded for Jeff Green/Nenad Krstic 2011
Sefolosha - Traded for the #26 draft pick in 2009
Collison - Drafted #12 2003
Maynor - Acquired from Utah for taking on Matt Harpring's contract, nothing traded
Cook - Traded from Miami along with the number #18 pick for OKC's #32 pick

OKC was built about equally in draft picks and trades. BY FAR the number one reason OKC has a team like it has now is because it is always below the salary cap. We got Eric Maynor literally for free because Utah had to dump cap space and we had plenty of cap space.

I voted for the OKC model - makes the most sense for a small market team (and I agree with some who posted earlier, I don't think even the OKC front office would mind it being called the "Spurs model.") The thing that stands out most for me is that the Wolves lack that real 1st option - the "signature move" that Kahn talked about but hasn't materialized.

As fallacy says there is a plan here, but it's not just about GMing skill. The Thunder got lucky - they got the 2nd pick in a two-player draft, then got lucky again when the Blazers made the wrong pick. Imagine if they'd taken Oden and everything else happened the same way. Does Westbrook look as good as a first option, or do his warts stand out more? Can Ibaka, Green and Harden take their time to develop without the attention paid to Durant?

The Wolves have been good as far as the cap space, young talent part of the plan goes. What they need now is actually the hardest thing to get - that #1 guy who will mold the team in his image, be the catalyist. It's the opposite of the above question - how good would Love look next to a legit point guard? Or Johnson across from a true 1st option scoring wing?