jezzerinho wrote:I wanna be clear on my feelings regarding 1) how an FO should move and 2) what we should be doing to get better
1) "We're not goint to rush anything" keeps getting spouted like its a positive. It's not. It might be the inevitable consequence of following a specific long term plan, but theres nothing great in itself about puting off getting better to a future date.
The argument I keep getting against teams consolidating and/or leveraging assets is a list of the times that went wrong for teams. Ignoring that its the modus operandi of the entire league, so you better be good at it or you are, BY DEFINITION, not a good FO.
An FO needs to recognise the moment that the value for a non-core asset has peaked for the team, but where there's still value on that player in the eyes of the league. If that asset is not core amd there are better/competing options for that player on the team or in the proposed trade, you should move the player. When both buying and selling, you need to take advantage of information and/or value mismatches. Irrespective of what point you're at with your team, this is a fundamental aspect of building a winner.
Being "loyal" has fairly little weight in the NBA. The "players will want to come to the Magic" line is wishful thinking. Agents get paid more whwn players move than when they stand still, so dont believe for a second the liyalty card is a big one for them. Who got paid more the last 5 years, Harden's agent or Lillard's agent?
A good FO, as soon as they recognise they have potential star pieces (which are the cornerstone of any title bid), they need to design a team that will maximise that potential and do it asap. I dont deny that design might include signing no vet starters and doing it all through the draft/bench vets. But as a plan it seems pretty unlikely to work, for reasons of inexperience and future cap glut.
2) What i would have done, as soon as I realised last Xmas that we had 2 potential stars:
I would have used some of Fultz/Suggs/Cole/Harris/Isaac/WCJ/#6/#36/future picks to bring in a vet guard, who will teach our team how to win and play playoff BB. This player would need to have max 3 years remaining (excl team options), so if we had to we could get out from under it before the two max deals coincide.
Paul George would cost a ton, be a huge risk healthwise and will want a big extension. But if we really only are worried about the next 2/3 years to "level-up" our young guys by sharing the court with maybe the most well-rounded guard/forward in the league, I fornone would pay that price. Why? Because i know why im doing it, i know that we cant have more high-pick rooks, i know that if we become a playoff team as we expect we wont have lottery picks, so future picks will be worth less, i know what i have in Fultz/Cole/WCJ/Isaac/Houstan/Harris et al and so i dont habe to worry too much about a Hennigan/Oladipo situation.
George is just one name. There are many other guys we could discuss. But my plan would be to get in a reasonably-priced star on a short deal who can establish a winning culture into a loser team, before the max deals kick in.
Look at the teams with recent success
Denver drafted 3 players: Jokic, Murray, MPJ. Jokic became an all star in year 4, which was their last year in the lottery. JOkic year 5 they probably could be considered contenders, and serious contenders this year (Jokic year 8)...granted Murray and MPJ were hurt previous year.
Golden State - Home grown. Steph Curry year 5 became an all star. They were a bit a head of time with the competing, but year 6 of Curry when they won their first championship.
Boston - they are kind of a weird team because they had the best record in the NBA in 2017, and were able to draft Tatum that year because of that crazy deal they made with the Nets. Tatum became an all star in year 3, and they made it to the finals in Tatum year 5. But again home grown talent, made some deals in the margins up until last offseason..outside of guards pre-Tatum
Suns - Booker year 5 became an all star. Year 6 of Booker was the first year they made the playoffs, and jumped all the way to 2nd seed. They pushed all their chips in this year for better or worse.
Then you have like Cleveland who drafted Garland and Mobley, found a steal trade filler in Jarrett Allen, thought they could accelerate things by adding Mitchell. Garland became an all star in year 3. I don't know it kind of felt like they were headed to the top of the east...but now I am not so sure i think they may have made their move too early to see how the team really fit.
Other teams in home grown situation Memphis, Sacramento (Haliburton turned into Sabonis), Hawks another team that may have made acquistions too early to try and Keep Trae Happy.
76ers definitely home grown over a long period of time then acquired players.
Milwaukee Ginanis year 4 all star, year 6 contender...win championship Giannis year 8 after they added Holiday.
Do you want be good like a 4 seed or do you want to win it all, if its the latter you either have to be very patient with the talent you draft OR be like the Lakers or Miami who can go out and get whatever Free Agents they want with a little bit of planning.
, like, literally, fans here figured it's impossible to not waive him at that point, but they didn't? 
