RealGM

I hear a lot of people say that if teams like the Pistons or the Mavs or the Suns or even the Rockets don't win it all or don't do damage in the playoffs that they need to rebuild, but why is that the case?

Why would those teams need to rebuild if they are still winning 50+ games yearly?

With that in mind, I guess my real question is, at what point does a team need to officially say it is time to rebuild?

When the management believes they have gone as far as they could with the current core of players in place. And while keeping them together they will continue to win 45-50 games, the will also continue to fall short of winning the ultimate goal, so they want to start from the bottom again.



Also, let the record show, few teams really "rebuild" and then become successful again, the last time in the last 10-15 years to do that may only be the pistons and the heat.

Other than that, you got a bunch of teams "rebuilding" saying they are trying to win in the future, when in reality hiding behind the phrase and they are buying time to continue to have mediocrity be accepted by the fans and media while they are still making a profit...booooo



(that's just my opinion tho, im prolly wrong!!)

Well if your the owners in Atlanta its just after bringing in the veteran that finally gets your young core over the hump and into the playoffs. Oh ya they have to almost beat the future NBA champions.

I know they haven't actually traded Josh Smith yet but I couldn't resist.

A series of first round exits is a sure sign, at least regarding the Mavericks.

In the case of the Pistons and Suns, I think they just need tweaking.

i think you'd have to argue that if 'tweaking' comes into it than mavericks are the biggest needed case. A solid team who always wins alot of games but just lack something come playoff time.

On the other hand i reckon its Pistons who are past tweaking stage. in this case the core is so old that there on a decline (obviously not the whole core but a big part), so any new players have to make up for the gap and the decline.

However i guess it also depends what you call tweaking and rebuilding. I think that detroit need to get rid of billups and sheed for a good player and let some of the young guys play. Rip is a scoring machine who doesn't need much ball, and tay is a do it all player. I guess i'm a bit of track anyway.

I'd say you need to rebuild when you know you can't make a run at the playoffs with your core, no matter who you're going to bring in. (i.e- Seattle had Ray, Rashard, 2nd pick, by the time the second pick has developed the other guys will be dead)

I think Letterman could make a top 10 outta this topic...

Nummmmmmmmmmmmber 10---When your team's fans start wearing paper bags over their heads to games

Nummmmmmmmmmber 9--When the loudest person in the building is the floor cleaner humming the tune of a Beach Boys hit single in between plays

...and you get the idea.

when they trade Artest for Donte Green and a future 1st?

Here is a clue. If you are paying or almost paying the luxury tax but are still in the lotto, you should probably rebuild.

When you're not a contender.

Not Isaiah Thomas.

When adding the one role player or secondary star is not enough to get you to the second or third round of the playoffs. This is why I still have hope for teams such as the Suns and the Mavs. Suns need a good three point shooting wing that can defend (Should have kept marion) and the Mavs need someone that can put the clamps down on D.

IMO the most obvious time is when a contending team, with no infusion of new blood, starts having continual first-round exits or even losing seasons. The '02 Knicks and '08 Nets are good examples. Really, when the same formula stops working, that's Exhibit A in needing to rebuild. A veteran team under .500 is a nightmare.