The fallacy of "Long Term" planning in the NBA

[Rustyman]

Long term planning is 2-3 years with the new NBA CBA.

I think people confuse maintaining cap flexibility and draft capital with building a team with players.

All teams should always plan for cap flexibility and maintaining draft capital and if they veer from it, then then must do so for a very good reason. I compare this to the role of a CFO in a company. It is a basic element of due diligence that you do not get extra points for if you do your job, it is expected.

Putting together players, coaches, playing philosophies is where the GM or CEO role comes in. For me, I expect to see results in 3 years time. I expect substantive improvement in the position and value of team assets overall. If a company declares a bad quarterly result, it does not indicate poor management necessarily. If a company reports 3 years of poor results, that CEO is gone. Executives in the NBA like to state that the NBA is a business, if so, the executives need to be treated in the same way. This does not necessarily mean that the GM is gone but they have to change course if what they have is not working. Even if it works, what are they doing to ensure it continues working, not simply going on what is good today is also going to work tomorrow.

[Rustyman]

I agree there are few if any guys you can truly rely on as cornerstones, but I’m not sure the OP is making a particularly strong point here.

They basically state the only thing you have to worry about for long term is financial flexibility, and draft picks.

In practice, those are the most important aspects of long-term planning.

The stuff about windows aligning…it can be helpful, but nah, I don’t think that’s some widely accepted consensus. You hear it from some fans here, but anyone can easily point to lots of examples where that’s proven false like Robinson/Duncan, Magic/Kareem, Kobe/Shaq.

However, we are not in the era of Robinson/Duncan, Magic Kareem, Kobe/Shaq. In two of those instances, the Lakers simply said we will outspend anyone to keep these players. That is something that is difficult to do with the current CBA. In the Spurs case, Duncan consistently took less money than the maximum to keep the bill for a championship winning team under control because they are a small market franchise.

For me, financial flexibility and draft capital, is a pre-requisite for any management team. If you cannot do that, you don't deserve to last longer than a couple of years.

Planning for me is how are you going to improve the current state of your team performances, maintain it once you have reached a satisfactory level of performance and reconstitute yourself when the basis of your current success is no longer tenable or when it is simply to expensive to maintain. I think all teams should expect that from their management.

[Rustyman]

I have no idea what you mean by us not making it out of the play-in next year. We were one of the best teams in the league over the second half of the season, and some of our competition (GSW, LAC) is built around aging stars. There are definitely some teams that should be better next year too (Spurs, Blazers, Rockets, Pelicans, Grizzlies? Mavs?) Anything can happen, but the Wolves are well positions to be a strong playoff team again next year if they want to be.

Do I really need to point out that the Mavs beat the Cavs in the Western Conference Finals and only made the play-in this year? Yep, that's because they traded Luka however, the Wolves have had good fortune with injuries amongst their top players for a couple of years, there is no guarantee that it continues.

[Rustyman]

I really dislike the perception that the Wolves need to be desperate or all-in about anything. We've been a laughingstock for decades. I've followed the team since 1997 and we had 1 year where we got out of the first round (2004) before this current era. Now I've watched 6 Wolves playoff series in the past 2 seasons! I refuse to become one of these "champoinship or bust" fans. I'm really just enjoying the moment. Only one team can win the championship every year, and while I hope it's the Wolves, I'm not going to allow myself to whine about only making the WCF. I've been through too much not to enjoy this

So choose a path. I don't say that the Wolves have to go all-in unless their target is the NBA Finals next year. Now what is the target for the Wolves for next year?

If you determine that Gobert will be difficult to trade for equivalent value and you want to continue to compete, what are you doing to put players around Edwards and Gobert to continue the success. Are you going to sign Naz Reid for $30m/per and get him to play the Randle role or are you going to sign Randle instead. Do the Wolves want to keep both Randle and Reid? I don't think they are a championship team if they keep both but the will be a very expensive contender for the next 2-3 years.

My view is that the Wolves need to make the hard decision on Randle vs Reid and then acquire the role players required to better fit around the choice the team has made. I don't think "sticking the course" is going to turn out well for the Wolves.

[doogie_hauser]

I am confused that some posters here seem to think Minnesota's future is as dire as say Phoenix's.

Their GM is the one that helped build the Dubs dynasty back in the late 00s/early 10s.

Unfortunately they will never be a major free agent destination because of the climate over in Minnesota, but the Wolves still have cap space and player assets to hang around/contend for a while.

Getting KAT and his massive contract off their books was a smart move for long term planning, even if their return wasn't as good as many hoped.

Freeing up/dumping cap space is the new trend with these CBA which is why we may see more off season trades than ever before in the summer, with many teams looking for cap relief

[Rustyman]

I am confused that some posters here seem to think Minnesota's future is as dire as say Phoenix's.

Their GM is the one that helped build the Dubs dynasty back in the late 00s/early 10s.

Unfortunately they will never be a major free agent destination because of the climate over in Minnesota, but the Wolves still have cap space and player assets to hang around/contend for a while.

Getting KAT and his massive contract off their books was a smart move for long term planning, even if their return wasn't as good as many hoped.

Freeing up/dumping cap space is the new trend with these CBA which is why we may see more off season trades than ever before in the summer, with many teams looking for cap relief

I am not a doomer on the Wolves' future. I will however say that this off-season is critical for the team's future. Randle vs Nas Reid vs both, who do they choose to keep because that decision determines the potential for the team to improve next year. Yes, I know they have a couple of rookies, however, does anyone expect those rookies to play a major role next year?

The question to people like doogie is how does the Wolves improve as this year showed once more that they are (just) short of championship caliber.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

Putting together players, coaches, playing philosophies is where the GM or CEO role comes in. For me, I expect to see results in 3 years time. I expect substantive improvement in the position and value of team assets overall. If a company declares a bad quarterly result, it does not indicate poor management necessarily. If a company reports 3 years of poor results, that CEO is gone.

it depends on how you define success. you definitely want to see results in 3 years, if you are the owner. but it doesn't mean winning a championship and it might even not mean making the playoffs.
you might want to see asset accumulation. you might want to see players' development. you might want to see constant improvement on the floor. you might even want to see an engaged fanbase (who can be very excited to see an young team grow).
focusing on the "long term" doesn't mean not sharing a plan (with ownership) with clear milestones and intermediate goals, a plan you'll be measured against.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

However, we are not in the era of Robinson/Duncan, Magic Kareem, Kobe/Shaq. In two of those instances, the Lakers simply said we will outspend anyone to keep these players.

This is not true, the Lakers were not close to be the biggest spenders in the early 00s. In 2002 they weren't even in the top10.
Today it would be even easier, as player like Shaq was making more than 50% of the cap, at the time.
In the current CBA, there's no issue in spending all you can for two top5 players. The problems come when you want to give that kind of money to top25 guys, like Brown or Towns. Then you can't afford the elite supporting cast that you need (not for long).

[CodeBreaker]

Spurs are winning the chip in 3 years, as long as they don't trade for KD or Giannis now.

[pepe1991]

It will take years until teams change how they do business to adjust to aprons.
For start, they should kiss goodby whole "high pick, solid stats = max contract " concept that has been going on for years now.
Knowing who is actually your "core" and who are spare parts needs to be focus. Today you have teams that keep and overpay role players for years. Most notorious example are Nuggets and Porter. But many other teams do the same. Long term it goes back to bite them in a** when they can't get rid of their contracts and don't have much wiggle room in salary left.

Did teams in 2020-2021 or 2022 knew about specific changes that new CBA will bring in 2023-24? If not ( probably didn't) whole point of "long term planing" as strategy goes out of window, because it shorten their ability to accumulate assets and whole plan had to be adjusted.

In past you could suck for 4-5 years, get 1 star, promise him max and still fish in lottery for second star. Now, due how limited salary flexibility is, you simply can't afford to suck for that long.

"Championship window" concept has always been fool's gold. By the time your core is ready to compete for title, you can always end up in situation where other team "cheats" into 2013/14 Miami or 2016 Warriors.
Risk of injuries to target specific 2-3 years window is also very questionable.
Often teams simply overvalue own players and by the time their "window" opens, they simply do not have quality required for deep runs, or other teams simply have better, or more stacked teams.

Current NBA is all about ability to adjust and be proactive.
Slow GMs, reactionary GMs, GMs who are retroactive will be eaten alive in current league.

When you look how OKC is built it shows what proactive FO looks like. Presti figured being in second apron will be hard to sustain for long, knew Holmgren and J Will still have cheap years on deals left, used salary cap to sign missing peace and traded 6# pick for better fit, who is 31 years old.
By the time aprons become actual problem, OKC should already win championship, and he will adjust again, before it happens.

Most teams simply don't have guts to pull such trades in fear of backlash from media, fans, own players, who knows.

You also need to utilize your draft capital and be able to find solid players in first and second round to keep bottom part of the roster fresh and cheap.

[ShadyMoney]

Honestly it all depends on timing and location

The right combination can either make u a bottom feeder or a dynasty.