RealGM

One thing that always annoys me with commentators on the NBA is the emphasis on "aligning windows" and planning for the "long haul".

To be perfectly blunt, there is no long-term in the NBA. The furthest any team should be looking forward to is the next 3 years. Other than that, it is just a lot of hot air.

Ask yourselves, the simple question, who on your team is still guaranteed to be around in 3 years time. I will answer for the team I support, the Spurs. Only one and that is Wemby, everyone else is moveable for the right opportunity.

The only long-term planning teams need to do is to ensure they have their financials under control. Understand if you go in the tax, what is the opportunity you are doing it for and how long. If that opportunity is not realized, what is the exit strategy.

Secondly, get draft capital. These are cheap players who fill out a roster. If you are lucky, you get one or two that are real contributors while they are rookies. Also, they provide flexibility to get other more proven players for a reasonable cost.

Other than that, long-term planning is just stupidity and an excuse by executives to justify their failings.

I think you might be completely missing some major things that go into running an NBA team.

OKC's development of this current squad started 6 years ago with the acquisition of SGA.

The best GMs have a "long term" in mind.

MrBigShot wrote:OKC's development of this current squad started 6 years ago with the acquisition of SGA.

The best GMs have a "long term" in mind.

And Presti’s plan only appears to have worked because SGA turned into an MVP candidate and they got him in a once in a lifetime deal. Without SGA, Presti’s plan would be looking very mediocre.

Teams need to have a long-term plan but they also need to be able make adjustments and have an understanding of where the league is at. Right now, the league is wide open. It’s not the time to sit back.

I think an underrated long term plan is the unprotected pick 4-5 years down the track secured from a desperate team with a superstar trying to make it work. Portland got some from Bucks for Lillard, Houston has Suns for KD, Spurs now have Minnesotas for Dillingham. It puts those teams in the upper hand when it goes south to secure said superstar. If you see KD in Houston, Giannis in Portland or Ant in San Antonio down the track, those seeds were planted a while back.

I have seen nothing that refutes my point in the above comments. As someone else pointed out, if SGA does not turn out to be a MVP caliber player, is OKC any better than the Rockets now.

However, with SGA, the Thunder are now in the finals and should be all in for the next 2-3 years. In two years time they have to pay two players in Chet and Jalen near max money. How do you think they keep their team together then? The Thunder need to focus on winning now. Presti has been in OKC near 20 years and everyone pretends he is this genius. How many championships has he won?

Whether the Spurs trade for KD or not, I want them to contend in the next 3 years otherwise we will just have a roster of overpaid underperforming players with Wemby the only exception.

Someone mentioned the Timberwolves above. They have made the Conference finals two years in a row. With Edwards playing at his current level, they need to maximize their potential for the next few years. Dillingham offers nothing for them in the next couple of years if they are contending.

Finally the Jazz and Ainge has succeeded in selling their fans a mirage for the past decade. He traded away their best two players and after 5 years, they are even further way than they were then.

Forget the vision your team is trying to sell you and demand that they produce something in the next 3 years or justify why.

I think this is more true than before. Teams seem willing to go all in now to win, and F the future

It makes for better trade deadlines/off seasons and current team buildings. I look at my Bulls-they CLEARLY should have rebuilt 2 years ago but waited and never tore it all the way down. I think they might add a star this summer, and go for it with the East looking weak. It might not be the way I'd do it, but my job is not on the line.

Sort of agree though it's on a case to case basis and well, what your long-term plan is.

Examples;

The Timberwolves are good enough to win an NBA title but has to develop that PG spot. Do you sacrifice development and get another Conley type of veteran player for the next 2-3 years? Or do you trush the young guards to develop in that time span? Difficult decision because they need help there.

The Charlotte Hornets are not good enough to win an NBA title in the next 5 years (or so). So the idea is for this franchise a long-term plan must be in place; keep losing and getting those high picks and maybe there'd be a window when all off them develop to their potential at the same time.

I think some posters are mixing long term with controlling the future.

You plan for the long term, if you are a good GM, and then you act based on the opportunities that come in the short term. And then you pivot your original plan.

That doesn't secure you anything, but better chances. But better chances are not equal to success. Then there are many other variables.

But you do what it is on your hands to maximize your odds.

Kd Warriors forced teams to stack up on stars or wait them out. That line of thinking still lingers even as there are no real super teams today.
Eventually some stars will team up again to dominate other teams that went the depth route and we will be back in the era of super teams and tankers.

pipfan wrote:I think this is more true than before. Teams seem willing to go all in now to win, and F the future

It makes for better trade deadlines/off seasons and current team buildings. I look at my Bulls-they CLEARLY should have rebuilt 2 years ago but waited and never tore it all the way down. I think they might add a star this summer, and go for it with the East looking weak. It might not be the way I'd do it, but my job is not on the line.

The Bulls are one of those teams who have been ripping off their team for years since they last competed. It seems that the play-in is regarded as a successful team by the management.

The Bulls should decide who is the backcourt of the future, trade the redundant parts, beef up the front court and have a legitimate target of the 2nd round playoffs in the next 3 years or then break it all down and rebuild. They have some nice pieces, they need to decide if they want to be better or not. If mediocrity is all they strive for, at least be honest with the fans about it.

durden_tyler wrote:Sort of agree though it's on a case to case basis and well, what your long-term plan is.

Examples;

The Timberwolves are good enough to win an NBA title but has to develop that PG spot. Do you sacrifice development and get another Conley type of veteran player for the next 2-3 years? Or do you trush the young guards to develop in that time span? Difficult decision because they need help there.

The Charlotte Hornets are not good enough to win an NBA title in the next 5 years (or so). So the idea is for this franchise a long-term plan must be in place; keep losing and getting those high picks and maybe there'd be a window when all off them develop to their potential at the same time.

The Timberwolves need to get a competent PG. There are lots out there. Try either of Tre/Tyus Jones. You don't need a 36 minute PG with the Wolves, Edwards dominates the ball for long stretches anyway. Get a PG who hopefully can shoot and the Wolves can compete this coming season once more. They don't even have to break the bank for that. And if Dillingham turns into anything in the next couple of years, they they have a longer term solution.

With Charlotte, they have components in Ball and a number of their bigs. This is not enough to even contend for a playoff berth. Blow it up and get draft capital to build something better and keep on doing it until they have more than 3 competent NBA players.

Andri wrote:I think some posters are mixing long term with controlling the future.

You plan for the long term, if you are a good GM, and then you act based on the opportunities that come in the short term. And then you pivot your original plan.

That doesn't secure you anything, but better chances. But better chances are not equal to success. Then there are many other variables.

But you do what it is on your hands to maximize your odds.

I think you have it right. Maximize your chances of success. Maintain flexibility through the cap and the draft but anyone who talks of a 5 year plan is simply an executive trying to maximize their tenure. Show me ability in 3 years to improve or give someone else a chance.

For example, the Spurs went through a period of trying to compete when the big 3 retired. It was a disaster. 3 years ago they blew it all up by trading Derek White and Dejounte. They have a chance now to compete.

In the last 7 years I think there has been 7 different champions. Why can't all 30 teams expect competitive teams from their franchises.

Alatan wrote:Kd Warriors forced teams to stack up on stars or wait them out. That line of thinking still lingers even as there are no real super teams today.
Eventually some stars will team up again to dominate other teams that went the depth route and we will be back in the era of super teams and tankers.

With the current CBA, it gets difficult to maintain a real contender for more than 3-4 years before it has to be broken up and teams have to try to compete with a more affordable core. When teams could spend whatever they wanted, they did which meant that certain teams were simply not competitive due to financial ability.

That is now over with the new CBA. Super teams can still be built however, any sustained success requires some players to take less than they are worth. If I was a player, I would always prioritize my financial security before any competitive success. That's why older veterans will become more important in coming years.

Rustyman wrote:I have seen nothing that refutes my point in the above comments. As someone else pointed out, if SGA does not turn out to be a MVP caliber player, is OKC any better than the Rockets now.

However, with SGA, the Thunder are now in the finals and should be all in for the next 2-3 years. In two years time they have to pay two players in Chet and Jalen near max money. How do you think they keep their team together then? The Thunder need to focus on winning now. Presti has been in OKC near 20 years and everyone pretends he is this genius. How many championships has he won?

Whether the Spurs trade for KD or not, I want them to contend in the next 3 years otherwise we will just have a roster of overpaid underperforming players with Wemby the only exception.

Someone mentioned the Timberwolves above. They have made the Conference finals two years in a row. With Edwards playing at his current level, they need to maximize their potential for the next few years. Dillingham offers nothing for them in the next couple of years if they are contending.

Finally the Jazz and Ainge has succeeded in selling their fans a mirage for the past decade. He traded away their best two players and after 5 years, they are even further way than they were then.

Forget the vision your team is trying to sell you and demand that they produce something in the next 3 years or justify why.

Can you name one example where a team not caring about long term and just for the short term actually worked out? I can't think of a single one. But I know a lot of examples where it put teams in a horrible situation for years.

bkkrh wrote:
Can you name one example where a team not caring about long term and just for the short term actually worked out? I can't think of a single one. But I know a lot of examples where it put teams in a horrible situation for years.

Go back to my first post. I said always maintain cap flexibility and draft capital. Then execute a 3 year plan. If it doesn't work, dump it and refocus. If it does, plan for the inevitable financial crunch and how to extend the opportunity.

The Utah Jazz, the Hornets, the Bulls, the Pistons, the Wizards, etc., all have constantly talked about long-term planning and building a winner and for a decade, they have done nothing. The Brooklyn Nets at least tried and then blew it up when it didn't work. The Raptors were winning 50 games a year for yonks and then decided to push all their chips to the middle of the table for a championship.

The Nuggets are blessed with a generational player and then tried to stick with what won them a championship and are now unlikely to do so until they get rid of the ballast they signed to keep the team together. You can only hope that the Joker is still in his prime when that happens. When teams win, they need to look at how they can sustain success instead of simply keeping the group together.

The Warriors are the perfect example of how a team achieved success with a great group of players and then tried to hold on to that which ensured they would not. They have criminally wasted Steff's last few years but holding on to Draymond and dross because of the memories of what was successful. Instead of giving Poole and Kuminga the chance to develop into replacements, they pushed them away to satisfy over entitled veterans.

Rustyman wrote:

bkkrh wrote:
Can you name one example where a team not caring about long term and just for the short term actually worked out? I can't think of a single one. But I know a lot of examples where it put teams in a horrible situation for years.

Go back to my first post. I said always maintain cap flexibility and draft capital. Then execute a 3 year plan. If it doesn't work, dump it and refocus. If it does, plan for the inevitable financial crunch and how to extend the opportunity.

The Utah Jazz, the Hornets, the Bulls, the Pistons, the Wizards, etc., all have constantly talked about long-term planning and building a winner and for a decade, they have done nothing. The Brooklyn Nets at least tried and then blew it up when it didn't work. The Raptors were winning 50 games a year for yonks and then decided to push all their chips to the middle of the table for a championship.

The Nuggets are blessed with a generational player and then tried to stick with what won them a championship are are now unlikely to do so until they get rid of the ballast they signed to keep the team together. You can only hope that the Joker is still in his prime when that happens. When teams win, they need to look at how they can sustain success instead of simply keeping the group together.

Well that's like telling someone as an investment strategy to constantly buy stocks and crypto when they are at their lowest price and sell them the moment they reach their highest.

That might work in video games, but you are dealing with human GMs, players and owners. You are naming 5 teams that had completely different situations over the last 10 seasons. And basically none of those teams match in any way your description of them, especially Chicago, Detroit & Washington make 0 sense.

- The Raptors won in a situation were everything alligned perfectly for them, but they did exactly the opposite of what you mentioned. They had DeRozan, Lowry and Ibaka just resigned to long term deals. They were lucky in that sense that the rare occasion happened that an MVP level player and an elite role player, both on super favorable contracts became available and that the same exact season Siakam and FVV improved a lot, accumulating in Siakam winning MIP. This is not something you can plan for and generally what a lot of teams do, but you need to get lucky in that sense on when that trade lines up and which other teams can make possibly better offers.
- A decade ago the Jazz were building a young team around Hayward and were a playoff team from 16-17 to 20-21. There isn't much they can do if Hayward decides to leave in free agency to play for his college coach and if Mitchell doesn't want to be in Utah. Ainge is actually exactly doing what you are asking for. Keeping cap flexibility, keeping good players on the roster than can be draft capital in the future like Markkanen, but since it's not a video game, you can't predict how young players will develop, so Utah didn't have much success there. Ainge always worked like that and was never affraid to pull the trigger when he felt the moment was right in Boston, as proven by Garnett, Ray Allen, Rondo, Isaiah THomas, Kyrie and so on.
- The Hornets are generally a badly run franchise that constantly drafts bad and are at best a low playoff seed. They are unattractive to free agents and barely have any trade capital. They aren't rebuilding, they never did build anything yet. So how exactly are they supposed to maintain tradecapital, if they don't have any in the first place?
- The 14-15 Bulls were a 50 win team with Derrick Rose, Noah, Gasol and MIP winner Jimmy Butler. They got rid of Rose and Noah due to health and decline. They didn't keep 35 year old Pau Gasol when he was still an All Star. They tried to build a new team around Butler, Dwade and Rondo, which ended in a disaster. They traded Butler when he wanted to leave for LaVine and picks, who just had a breakout season and is an All Star player if it wouldn't be for his injury issues. They signed Jabari Parker and traded him the same season for Otto Porter, when it became clear that he isn't the same player after his injuries. Otto Porter was constantly injured. They traded him and young assets for Vucevic.The same offseason they trade for DeRozan and Ball, sign Caruso as a free agent and traded Markkanen for Derrick Jones. So exactly what you are describing, going all in, making a win now team with a 3-4 year window and giving up the long term planning for it. Things go well until the injuries start. Next season they sign Dragic, Drummond & Beverley. Next season they trade for Giddey. So at what point exactly did Chicago do their year long rebuild? They still have LaVine, Vucevic and Ball on the roster right now.
- The Pistons in 14-15 still had Josh Smith, Jennings, Drummond and Greg Monroe on the roster. They got rid of Smith, who was originally supposed to be their new franchise player the season before, Jennings got hurt, Drummond and Monroe didn't fit any more in the direction the league was moving over the next years. They traded for Reggie Jackson, Tobias Harris and Marcus Morris and made the Playoffs. They again do exactly what you say and trade their young players in Avery Bradley, Tobias Harris and a 1st for Blake Griffin and go absolutely nowhere. They try to bring in players like Calderon, Derrick Rose, or Christian Wood but have 0 success, again also related to injuries and decide to blow it up in 2021. So they did a 3 year rebuild, which is a pretty normal time frame for that, added a bunch of vets this season and just made the Playoffs.
- The Wizards were a constant playoff team with a lot of upside until 17-18 and signed players like Dwight Howard during that period. Their issue were the constant injuries of John Wall and later on Bradley Beal, so in 2020 they traded Wall for Russell Westbrook, so again doing exactly what you are saying and going for a 3-4 year window with 32 year old Westbrook and Beal. Since that didn't work they continue that route the next season and trade Westbrook for Kuzma, Dinwiddie, Harrell and KCP and later in the season Dinwiddie for Porzingis. Since they still don't have any success they finally blow it up during 2023, so 2 seasons ago.

So 4 of your 5 examples are making no sense and 3 of them are pretty much a proof of what can go wrong if you use that approach^^.

Devin Booker is someone the Suns should cash out on and get as many picks and young players in the summer for the future, but apparently Phoenix is close to giving him a 2 year year extension which doesn't move the needle for their chip hopes at all.

I agree. Luka is the only long term fit on the Lakers. Pelinka will back up all the brinks trucks and then some to ensure he stays around. Everyone else is expendable.

Many fans say player X or player B is untouchable on their team. On the outside looking in, I chuckle at it. Lakers fans may overvalue their guys but we never talk that way about obvious role players. Hell, even LeBron was never seen as a lock.

I think it does matter where a team is in its progression.

I also now think that once a team is at a certain level, considerations for, say, three year chunks matter. Still effective KD for a short window while Wemby, who is clearly ready now, is still on his rookie contract.

But long term planning had us wait to take advantage of DD trade, not take on long salary in the #2 trade and not trade MLA, had us taking full advantage of the Murray trade by featuring as the top O choice for a year.

So again it depends on where a team is in its progression. Just be ready for as many upgrade scenarios as you can, and until then, you have to clear the books and acquire assets along the way.