Poll: OKC or BOS Model of Success?

[Rolf]

In the last two years, David Kahn as made a few references to following “the Oklahoma City model of success.” We’ve heard this from other teams as well (Washington recently comes to mind). The idea is to bottom out, but in the process acquire a lot of young talent, draft picks, and cap flexibility to build a sustainable, competitive team into the future. But is this really the best strategy for building a championship caliber team? In the last decade, the build-through-the-draft strategy has lead exactly 1 team to an NBA championship: the San Antonio Spurs, and they were aided by the best PF in the history of the sport, the most competent front office of their era, and one of the best coaches to ever work an NBA sideline. The other teams to win a championship in the last decade (the Celtics, Heat, Pistons, and two iterations of the Lakers), all did so by cashing in on young talent and draft picks to acquire star-caliber veterans (or the Boston Model of Success).

So here we are, two years into Kahn’s regime, and although the Wolves are possibly the worst team in the league, they have succeeded in accumulating a lot of attractive assets: Love, our pick, Wes, Rubio, Beas, Mem pick, Utah pick, even Randolph and Pek may have some positive value to other teams. My question is; what is the more reliable way to build a winner? Would you prefer the Wolves stay the course with the OKC Model of Success - keep our young core, bring in Rubio and our pick, hope a superstar emerges and a competitive team develops together, or cash in and go with the Boston Model of Success - move all our assets except for 1 or 2 (maybe Love and Wes/Beas/or Rubio) to acquire a few veteran guys playing at a fringe all-star level?

I’m not trying to start another Krapinsky-Dream-Offseason thread. I’m more interested in what everyone’s thoughts are on the two models. Is one inherently better than the other? Is one preferable to the Wolves as a small market team (or as a team with questionable leadership)? The Bos model might bring a bunch of playoff runs but you run the risk of never truly competing for a championship. The OKC model is higher risk and higher reward, but is this franchise willing to suffer through another year or two (or more) on the “risk” side of that ratio?

[john2jer]

Part of the Boston Method success is that it was Boston, a storied franchise that players want to play for, aren't going to whine/cry, and they already had a hall of fame quality player in Paul Pierce. We has got none of that going for us.

Small markets have to go the OKC route because the build through the draft method forces guys to come here and hopefully they can make it a great place to attract free agents.

[Worm Guts]

Even with their storied history and Paul Pierce, KG didn't want to go there until they got Ray Allen. Alot of this is timing and ability to adjust your plan when you see the opportunity. You can't count on being able to trade for superstars, so the you have to start with the OKC model but you also need to be willing to abandon that model if and when something better comes along.

[prefuse73]

A major part of the OKC model is Durant. There rarely is a Kevin Durant type player that comes out, let alone in the 3 to 6 range where Minnesota typically is. The best moves presti made was selecting Westbrook higher than he was projected and taking the flier on Ibaka. However, without Durant, none of this happens and OKC is a 30-35 win team. He was the no-brainer pick which I don't consider a "model" to success, just being in the right place at the right time. (This is not say that we have shown to be particualarly adept at drafting.....)

We still need to find our Durant and our hope is that Rubio can have a westbrook type impact (albeit completely different playing styles).

[skorff26]

You have to pick the BOS model right now... the OKC model will not work for us since we won't be getting a Durant or Duncan type of player since
1) we currently don't have one on our roster
2) I like Rubio a ton, but I don't think he'll end up being a top 10 player in the league, an all-star but not a perennial MVP candidate
3) IMO there isn't a superstar in this years draft
4) we don't have our 2012 1st so we won't be picking one next year
5) our young guys will improve enough by 2013 that we won't be a bottom 5 team thus we won't be able to land that superstar available player (unless we really luck out in the draft, and with our lotto luck, I don't want to take a gamble on that)

As for the BOS model, we have enough assets right now to put 5 solid players together (more of a Detroit Pistons championship model)

[Foye]

**** this "OKC model of success". I can't hear that phrase anymore.

OKC had a lot of luck paired with a good FO. We got no luck and a terrible FO.

[Rolf]

You have to pick the BOS model right now... the OKC model will not work for us since we won't be getting a Durant or Duncan type of player since
1) we currently don't have one on our roster
2) I like Rubio a ton, but I don't think he'll end up being a top 10 player in the league, an all-star but not a perennial MVP candidate
3) IMO there isn't a superstar in this years draft
4) we don't have our 2012 1st so we won't be picking one next year
5) our young guys will improve enough by 2013 that we won't be a bottom 5 team thus we won't be able to land that superstar available player (unless we really luck out in the draft, and with our lotto luck, I don't want to take a gamble on that)

As for the BOS model, we have enough assets right now to put 5 solid players together (more of a Detroit Pistons championship model)

Good point. It doesn't look like there's a Durant waiting for us in the 2011 draft, and we won't be participating in the 2012 draft... so unless the plan is to maintain basement-dweller status until 2013, we don't have much choice but to try the Boston Model (or maybe Detroit Model is more accurate).

[Foye]

You have to pick the BOS model right now... the OKC model will not work for us since we won't be getting a Durant or Duncan type of player since
1) we currently don't have one on our roster
2) I like Rubio a ton, but I don't think he'll end up being a top 10 player in the league, an all-star but not a perennial MVP candidate
3) IMO there isn't a superstar in this years draft
4) we don't have our 2012 1st so we won't be picking one next year
5) our young guys will improve enough by 2013 that we won't be a bottom 5 team thus we won't be able to land that superstar available player (unless we really luck out in the draft, and with our lotto luck, I don't want to take a gamble on that)

As for the BOS model, we have enough assets right now to put 5 solid players together (more of a Detroit Pistons championship model)

Good point. It doesn't look like there's a Durant waiting for us in the 2011 draft, and we won't be participating in the 2012 draft... so unless the plan is to maintain basement-dweller status until 2013, we don't have much choice but to try the Boston Model (or maybe Detroit Model is more accurate).

I'd love to see us having a dirty defensive minded team like Detroit. That is what I dream off when thinking of my basketball team. Don't care about dunks or flashiness. Just give me 10 guys who can all defend and also create their offense.

[cpfsf]

It's easier said than done. You can go either route, but matching their success is what matters. Not every team can do this and expect the same results. We've already followed the "OKC Model" for years. I would even argue that Minnesota started the "OKC Model" the same time Seattle/OKC did.

[karch34]

Good question, but probably moot until we have a legitimate #1. Boston had that in Pierce and OKC in Durant. I'd say Boston tried the OKC model for a number of years and it just didn't work organically and Pierce was getting up there in age so they moved a lot of the assets to build around him.

Without luck or savvy we're not going to get there the OKC way and I'm not sure we can get the perfect storm to do it the Boston way.

[Krapinsky]

Get Harrison Barnes.

Do OKC model with him as center piece at SG (1) (save that debate for draft board).

Add Rubio (2), Love (3), Johnson (4).

Keep Developing Cheapo Backups to be solid role players: Ellington (8), Hayward (10), Tolliver (9)

Keep: Ridnour (7), Darko (5 -- for now -- we're stuck with him)

Trade bait to clear money off books and try to collect future picks: Beasley, Flynn, Webster, Pekovic

Wait and see for one more year: Randolph

[Yes We Kahn]

Get Harrison Barnes.

Do OKC model with him as center piece at SG (1) (save that debate for draft board).

Add Rubio (2), Love (3), Johnson (4).

Keep Developing Cheapo Backups to be solid role players: Ellington (8), Hayward (10), Tolliver (9)

Keep: Ridnour (7), Darko (5 -- for now -- we're stuck with him)

Trade bait to clear money off books and try to collect future picks: Beasley, Flynn, Webster, Pekovic

Wait and see for one more year: Randolph

I like what you've done here. I have decided that Barnes is the guy I'm going to get behind in this draft. I just hope that he doesn't play his way out of our draft position.

I'd like to keep Beas and see if he could figure it out, but if they can get some value for him I wouldn't object. Flynn is about the last person I still want to see on the roster next year. Pek and Web are guys that I would like to see pan out, but if they are required as part of deals so be it.

The wild card is Rubio. I used to be pretty sure he would come over, but now I'm not as convinced... especially with the potential of a lockout and the crappy play of the team this year. Hopefully his crappy play (whatever the reason might be) has brought him back to earth and he decides that coming to play for the Wolves is best for both parties. I still like the idea of trying to pry Nash away to go along with Rubio, but that isn't anything more than a dream.

I know people will says, 'lets get Iggy,' but I don't think Philly is going to part with him. Plus if we get Barnes, I'd rather just give him the keys.

[mandurugo]

**** this "OKC model of success". I can't hear that phrase anymore.

OKC had a lot of luck paired with a good FO. We got no luck and a terrible FO.

That's about it. In the nba there are no "model's of success" in any meaningful sense. Actually, I'm still not convinced that the wolves FO is terrible - they've made some mistakes and some good moves. That's about par for the course, they just have never won big on any move. That's the nba, most gambles don't pay off, there are only so many elite talents in the world. This is definitely a game where luck is more important than skill.

[Klomp]

I'd rather use the Spurs model

[Esohny]

I'd rather use the Spurs model

So instead of lucking into a superstar SF, you want to luck into a superstar PF/C? Okay, that sounds fine.

[cpfsf]

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.

[Krapinsky]

Ya, Spurs or OKC is basically the same. Sam Presti sort of took the model he learned from R.C. Buford. My understanding is it's basically build around X star player and then draft guys high IQ guys that compliment him and can fit the system. If a player can fit a niche and has a high IQ he's probably going to succeed 9 out of 10 times. Then as their game develops you can slowly expand their roles/usage in the offense. Though, there's always a chicken-egg arguement whether guys like Parker and Ginobili would have been great players if drafted else where, which would could of defeat my last supposition of this model.

[Worm Guts]

I'd rather use the Spurs model

So instead of lucking into a superstar SF, you want to luck into a superstar PF/C? Okay, that sounds fine.

No, he wants to luck into 2 superstar PF/C's. I can't argue with that.

[Esohny]

I'd rather use the Spurs model

So instead of lucking into a superstar SF, you want to luck into a superstar PF/C? Okay, that sounds fine.

No, he wants to luck into 2 superstar PF/C's. I can't argue with that.

Yeah, I'm good.

[cpfsf]

Sure they got lucky with Robinson and Duncan, but they found a lot of talent late in the draft...

1997 undrafted Fabricio Oberto
1999 #57 Manu Ginobili
2001 #28 Tony Parker
2004 #28 Beno Udrih
2007 undrafted Gary Neal
2008 #26 George Hill
2009 #37 DeJuan Blair

Traded away
2002 #26 John Salmons
2002 #56 Luis Scola
2003 #28 Leandro Barbosa
2008 #45 Goran Dragic

I know they couldn't deal with the Scola contract, so they had to trade him. I'm not sure if Barbosa and Dragic had the same issue.