RealGM

Joe D (one of the best gm's IMO) touched on this during his press conference. He was questioned about his team "tearing it down" to "make yourself bad, and then make the team good"

He said he will make 'significant changes' but not tear it down.
He has not seen yet where an organization that is really good (but cant get over the top ie pistons) and completely tears it to the ground and be bad and all of the sudden be great and claims it's a 'farce'

He says the celtics/lakers are exceptions and says "it doesn't happen like that, the celtics beat us and are in the finals, its been 21 years and they happen to get a really good player, same thing with lakers (last 4 years struggling) who didnt have to give up anything"....

He kept hinting at the celtics and lakers saying they got max contract players w/o giving up depth, he said he doesn't expect one of those type of phone calls like they got.

So my question is, is he correct, do you agree/disagree?

Has there been one team that has completely gone into 'rebuilding mode' and became a contender?

what do you think?

Sure, but it usually takes a while. Orlando was truly bad and got the top drafts picks in Shaq then Penny and became a contender. SA before David Robinson was terrible, with him they quickly became a contender despite no other stars. The key is to get that one great player you can build around.

The Lakers were on top BEFORE the acquired Gasol. So yes, you can. they'd still be in the finals without Gasol if Bynum had stayed healthy.

You could also make the case that the Spurs "rebuilt" between the mid-90's and 99 when they won the chip. They rebuilt against during the Lakers three-peat run.

The Lakers also rebuilt after Magic retired in 1991. They were a contender again by 1996.

Seems to me that the key ingredient is great drafting (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Bynum) or great signings (Shaq).

Joe's just salty because they'd be a dynasty if he had selected anyone BUT Darko.
Melo, Bosh, Hinrich, Wade LOL.

Completely rebuilding is definitly over rated. Not only does it rarely benefit teams, but GM's often make the wrong moves. In my opinion, sure talent is the only way to go. Trading for top draft picks and young players often does not bring titles. Way too much value is placed on young players which often results in teams tearing their team apart for a bunch of young, unproven prospects or young talent. It's like the DWade and the #2 for the #1 thats on wiretap right now. It's just a rumor and probably won't (and definitly shouldnt" happen, but the fact that it's even a rumor shows the emphasis placed on young talent. Teams are better off trading current pieces for different pieces and/or pieces that are simply a better fit for their team's system. Sometimes all you need are different faces.

It's all about the lottery baby. If you get the #1 pick and there is a superstar waiting to happen, then you will "rebuild" almost instantly.

magicfan4life05 wrote:Joe D (one of the best gm's IMO) touched on this during his press conference. He was questioned about his team "tearing it down" to "make yourself bad, and then make the team good"

He said he will make 'significant changes' but not tear it down.
He has not seen yet where an organization that is really good (but cant get over the top ie pistons) and completely tears it to the ground and be bad and all of the sudden be great and claims it's a 'farce'

He says the celtics/lakers are exceptions and says "it doesn't happen like that, the celtics beat us and are in the finals, its been 21 years and they happen to get a really good player, same thing with lakers (last 4 years struggling) who didnt have to give up anything"....

He kept hinting at the celtics and lakers saying they got max contract players w/o giving up depth, he said he doesn't expect one of those type of phone calls like they got.

So my question is, is he correct, do you agree/disagree?

Has there been one team that has completely gone into 'rebuilding mode' and became a contender?

what do you think?

Miami?

They were consistently in the post-season year in and year out during the 90's, but they couldn't get over that hump known as the Knicks.

They gutted major pieces and built what many called a title contending team around Zo in Hardaway, Eddie Jones, Anthony Mason, Brian Grant, Dan Majerele, and Bruce Bowen. But, with Zo's illness, that plan went down the drain.

We hit rock bottom, went into the lottery 2 straight years, and got very lucky with our picks in Caron Butler and Dwyane Wade, and then a few good free agent signings turned into Lamar Odom, and then a few good trades turned up Shaq, Posey, Walker, Williams. Which in turn netted the Heat a legit shot at a title once again.

But, those scenarios are few and far between. Though with the right people in place, in can get done....

Patterns wrote:It's all about the lottery baby. If you get the #1 pick and there is a superstar waiting to happen, then you will "rebuild" almost instantly.

Kwame and Kandi Man say hello.

LakerFanMan wrote:Completely rebuilding is definitly over rated. Not only does it rarely benefit teams, but GM's often make the wrong moves. In my opinion, sure talent is the only way to go. Trading for top draft picks and young players often does not bring titles. Way too much value is placed on young players which often results in teams tearing their team apart for a bunch of young, unproven prospects or young talent. It's like the DWade and the #2 for the #1 thats on wiretap right now. It's just a rumor and probably won't (and definitly shouldnt" happen, but the fact that it's even a rumor shows the emphasis placed on young talent. Teams are better off trading current pieces for different pieces and/or pieces that are simply a better fit for their team's system. Sometimes all you need are different faces.

I haven't seen the Miami deal but if you can trade Wade and in the process clear out enough cap space to get Brand then it's probably worth it.

Wade and the #2 for #1 and Brand = a no brainer IMO.

Flash3 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Kwame and Kandi Man say hello.

so does bargnani

Where were the cavs before Lebron? Id say they struck the lottery good there.

Flash3 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Kwame and Kandi Man say hello.

and D12 and Lebron

Flash3 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

Kwame and Kandi Man say hello.

I mean a superstar waiting to happen like a Lebron, Duncan, etc.

If you can get a superstar without a top draft pick you don't need to rebuild.

If you can't, I'd suggest tanking a few years.

Generally speaking, marquee markets need to rebuild less than small markets because they have more ability to acquire a superstar via trade and free agency.

Competely rebuilding and hoping for the draft without a young player you hope will lead your team is like playing russian roulette .

You just don't know what you get in the draft .

penbeast0 wrote:Sure, but it usually takes a while. Orlando was truly bad and got the top drafts picks in Shaq then Penny and became a contender. SA before David Robinson was terrible, with him they quickly became a contender despite no other stars. The key is to get that one great player you can build around.

Drafting Shaq was the 4th year in their franchise. They never "tore it down". It was never there to begin with.

I agree with Joe Dumars. Teams might tank and get a good draft pick like Lebron or Howard, but their teams still aren't as good as the Pistons so what does that say about that strategy? Teams like Boston and LA got good Free Agents on top of good Free Agents, but there is really no incentive to tank it.
A team like Detroit that is competitive for a championship and always comes up short by the skin of their teeth would be crazy to purposely tear it all down and get some draft pick who MIGHT be a good player.

SunTzuMachiavelli wrote:I agree with Joe Dumars. Teams might tank and get a good draft pick like Lebron or Howard, but their teams still aren't as good as the Pistons so what does that say about that strategy? Teams like Boston and LA got good Free Agents on top of good Free Agents, but there is really no incentive to tank it.
A team like Detroit that is competitive for a championship and always comes up short by the skin of their teeth would be crazy to purposely tear it all down and get some draft pick who MIGHT be a good player.

At least someone got what he was saying... Obviously if you suck and get a LeBron, Wade, Howard, or whatever, than you improve greatly...

What he's saying is that good teams don't just say, "Hey, we're not good enough to win it all so let's start from scratch" That would be foolish... It could be years before they have a team that is close to where they are now....

He's open to trading anyone on the team but he's not just gonna trade them for caproom and draft picks... He's going to trade them for similarily talented players to give us a better mix.

Bgil wrote:The Lakers were on top BEFORE the acquired Gasol. So yes, you can. they'd still be in the finals without Gasol if Bynum had stayed healthy.

You could also make the case that the Spurs "rebuilt" between the mid-90's and 99 when they won the chip. They rebuilt against during the Lakers three-peat run.

The Lakers also rebuilt after Magic retired in 1991. They were a contender again by 1996.

Seems to me that the key ingredient is great drafting (Duncan, Parker, Ginobili, Bynum) or great signings (Shaq).

Joe's just salty because they'd be a dynasty if he had selected anyone BUT Darko.
Melo, Bosh, Hinrich, Wade LOL.

If we draft Bosh, we probably don't make the trade for Sheed... and did you really add Hinrich with those other 3? LOL, a dynasty with him... Wow... I'd take Stuckey (Whom we got for Darko) over Hinrich....

Bgil wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
I haven't seen the Miami deal but if you can trade Wade and in the process clear out enough cap space to get Brand then it's probably worth it.

Wade and the #2 for #1 and Brand = a no brainer IMO.

Getting Brand is no sure thing, you'd be taking a HUGE risk. You'd be trading a past finals MVP and the 2nd best shooting gaurd and a top 5 player in the league for the chance of getting someone who may become just as good. Not only that, but, in my opinion, the 1 is just as good as the 2 this year. You can't go wrong with Rose or Beasley.

Me, I'd take Wade and the 2 over the 1 and the possiblity of getting Brand any day.

LakerFanMan wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Getting Brand is no sure thing, you'd be taking a HUGE risk. You'd be trading a past finals MVP and the 2nd best shooting gaurd and a top 5 player in the league for the chance of getting someone who may become just as good. Not only that, but, in my opinion, the 1 is just as good as the 2 this year. You can't go wrong with Rose or Beasley.

Me, I'd take Wade and the 2 over the 1 and the possiblity of getting Brand any day.

True. Brand isn't a sure thing. I don't buy into the idea that Wade will ever be as successful without, his health, Shaq, and the great crop of role players they had. He doesn't have the multi-faceted game that you can mold around several different styles of play and still be successful. He's not Dirk, Kobe, T-Mac, or KG in that sense. Without tons of shooters he's basically useless.

Brand is an underrated big IMO. He's up there in the KG, Duncan, Dirk discussion but he plays for a crappy organization.
I think he goes to a great organization and blows up.

Going forward, I'd rather have Brand. He's not the better player (than Prime Wade) but he's easier to build around.