2023-24 NBA Season Discussion

[eminence]

Just draft and develop a championship cast is not easily done.

Moving on from Pop is another hurdle they’ll have to navigate.

[Owly]

... The "too patient" error ... it's possible ... has anyone really done it? Nobody's popping to mind.

Maybe a team like Boston when Ainge was GM or OKC now if they don't make a strong consolidation move. Building a war chest of draft assets then not maximizing them because you never got the perfect deal to do so.

Okay ... so the endgame for too patient is ...
probably three straight years of leading the league in SRS ... that's mostly off the back of the core Ainge left them with right? Not saying there's not good stuff done after but yeah I kind of thought of Ainge as a guy tabbed for that and ... we don't know what he would have done, whether he'd have capitalized as well as Stevens but ... he didn't leave them in a bad place.

OKC I think it's much to early to call. They've been really good this year with Holmgren healthy (versus last year without him ... somewhat of a patience thing ... a lot of people last year discussing the draft in season seemed ... high on PB versus acknowledging what Chet might be). One of the things with young teams is can you pay them all. I don't think Boston played necessarily played it perfect (Jaylen seems overpaid to me) I don't know how OKC will do .... And you can't find minutes for an infinite number of picks (though some picks inevitably bust ... you can get a look in practice and through G-League and figure out the keepers).

But yeah I don't see the terrible too patient outcome. Hinkie 76ers had to put up with some rough basketball but the direction of travel was clear, the biggest decision paid off (JE) and there's an argument that the process got slightly short-circuited. Even so and even with imperfections they've been solid (perhaps a fringe contender? one of the better teams in the East) for a long time now, if never as strong (RS and especially playoffs) as hoped.

I can't seem to think of an example of really bad patience. Partly I think that it maybe isn't tried as much and partly because I think it tends to be the better approach where short-termist stuff can be panicky (New Orleans need Maravich and then they need Goodrich. Clippers need Lloyd Free ...)

[Owly]

If Kawhi didn't become available at the exact moment that he did, Toronto would have been the poster child for "too patient." Both before, when they stuck with the Lowry/DeRozan core forever when it was obvious they weren't good enough to contend, and after, when Masai turned into Ainge 2.0 and started overvaluing all his players.

I would argue that's a different thing though.

That's not "too long-termist" vision around a star. That's being content to be a middling team (although it's somewhat hard to argue that for the first iteration given how it panned out though things being as they happened to happen isn't inevitable - the second one we don't know what the offers were but its a shame to see a guy regarded as good enough to get paid big money go for nothing [FVV]). I don't that that that type of thinking is scarce at all.

[Dr Positivity]

Top 5 teams by title probability as of the ASB

1. Denver - #1 because of the conference as I see them as significant West favorites with the Clippers and Suns being injury prone and Minnesota and OKC being early in Edwards and SGA's timeline

2. Boston - They have been the most dominant team this year and are ready to win after contending for years, though Porzingis health is a swing factor

3. Milwaukee - The early Doc results are ok but ultimately Giannis is a best player on a title team guy in his prime and him and Lillard could go on a run like Hakeem and Drexler

4. Minnesota - Since Gobert, Conley and Towns are veterans, I'm going to take them more seriously than a total young team like OKC. They are also one of the best matchups against West favorite Denver.

5. LA Clippers - Harden in the playoffs and Kawhi/George health is a rough combo, but being 28-7 in their last 35 speaks for itself.

[Doctor MJ]

You don't keep tanking for 6-7 years but building rather than going all in for the first 5 years, trying to get good young positive culture talent around your star as you build your way up to a playoff team, then only in the 6th or 7th years of that, you might try to get the "missing piece" if you haven't got enough there and make a big free agent high risk/high reward move for a Harden/Kyrie/Simmons type, that makes a lot of sense to me.

It's different from continuing to trade your solid vets for draft futures and playing guys out of position or giving guys developmental minutes when they aren't really good enough to play yet. You can get away with that for a year or two but you have to start building so that when Wemby can go FA, he has a reasonable belief that you are on the right track.

Yeah I'd say we're on the same page.

To put it in my own words:

1. Recognize that early on there's much you don't know about what it will take to really work.
2. Recognize that with every asset-spending decision you make, you're limited your flexibility going forward.

But also

3. Recognize that you cannot expect to simply "flip the switch" and go from a bad team to a good team with a contending mindset.
4. Recognize that prolonged losing can cause cultural damage.

I'll say I have concerns about this every single one of these proto-superstar franchise player situations, but not "they shouldn't do it!" concerns so much as "I hope this all works out and we get to see something amazing...but I know it doesn't always".

With the Spurs, I won't claim to know if they're actually "doing it wrong". The start of the year seems like it had both misplaced hope and misplaced focus with Sochan, but maybe I'm wrong, and maybe it's not all that big of a deal if they were wrong on that one.

[TheGOATRises007]

Warriors' defense has been on fire lately. Probably the best defense in the league the past 10 or so games.

[OhayoKD]

[gfycat][/gfycat]

Warriors' defense has been on fire lately. Probably the best defense in the league the past 10 or so games.

Wonder why

[70sFan]

Hello Wilt Chamberlain

https://thehighlow.io/video/ids?ids=24kAPm

[parsnips33]

Call me crazy but Jokic defense last night reminded me of... LeBron James

Ridiculous brainpower and anticipation

[Cavsfansince84]

Hello Wilt Chamberlain

https://thehighlow.io/video/ids?ids=24kAPm

Amazing thing about that is where he started from.

[tsherkin]

Hello Wilt Chamberlain

https://thehighlow.io/video/ids?ids=24kAPm

Wemby doing Wemby things. xD

[Colbinii]

Just saw a video where they said that the Spurs should be trying to build a playoff contender around Victor *this summer* lol. Spurs should just try to organically draft and develop players for the next 6-7 years and then go all in around 2030.

Victor Wembanyama is far too good, impactful and promising to simply sit-back and acquire assets a-la Philly around Embiid.

First of all, an actual re-build in the modern NBA takes 2-3 years, not 6-7 years. Oklahoma City made the post-season in 2020 and in 2024 they are a Top 5-6 team in the NBA--that's 2021, 2022 and 2023 of re-build [Shutting down their best players, selling cap-space for assets, acquiring older players with the idea of re-selling them for additional value, trading current picks for future picks], all of these are typical examples of a team who is in a re-build.

The Spurs are in year 2 [or 2.5] of a re-build, with 2022 starting the sell-off of assets [White in the RS, Murray in the Off-season following the 2022 season]. The team is about to have a Top 3-4 pick in the draft and an incredible $50+ Million in cap-space to operate. It is going to be fascinating for people like me who love to watch a team operate with a massive surplus of assets [Draft Picks & Cap Space].

Second, Victor Wembanyama is him. I made a comment which has been beaten to death by some regulars about Victor being a Horford/Gobert hybrid at his pinnacle--and I was only half wrong. Victor is a Horford/Gobert hybrid--half-way through his rookie season I fully expect Victor to be on the All-NBA team next year, or at the very least in the discussion. Like most ATG rookies, they typically make a notable jump from year-1 to year-2. LeBron was a weak MVP candidate in year 2 and All-NBA 2nd team, Durant was an MVP candidate in his year 21 [3rd season, far less impressive rookie season than Victor], Wade was an All-NBA 2nd team while Derrick Rose won MVP in his 3rd season.

The fact of the matter is Victor, as a basketball player, is as good as anyone we have ever seen at his age in the NBA. There is no reason to sit-back for a half-decade and sell cap space for 2nds [I am looking at you Detroit with Joe Harris, good move for them, bad move if SAS did this].

My expectations are for the Spurs to round out the roster with competent NBA role players and compete for the Play-In in 2024-2025. I expect them to be similar to Houston this season but with a higher ceiling due to the level of player Victor can be--which as good as Sengun has been as their best player, Victor can be far more impactful.

Circling back to Derrick Rose, he won the MVP in his 3rd season. Tatum was in ECF in his rookie year. Wade won FMVP in year 3. Luka was a killer in the post-season by year 2. LeBron made the NBA Finals in year 4. The idea that there needs to be a 6 or 7 year rebuild is absolutely wild and archaic thinking. That's some Pre-Free Agency logic that just misses everything about the Modern NBA and its landscape.

[Owly]

Just saw a video where they said that the Spurs should be trying to build a playoff contender around Victor *this summer* lol. Spurs should just try to organically draft and develop players for the next 6-7 years and then go all in around 2030.

Victor Wembanyama is far too good, impactful and promising to simply sit-back and acquire assets a-la Philly around Embiid.

Being good starts the clock. Until you''ve got some pieces that you could reasonably imagine building a good team around it's useless to say that there is specific, constant (artificial) window as it will ultimately extend the period of being an insignificant (at best, probably poor) team. I'm not sure why a great player would move the mean position of your contending window forwards.

If you want to say you think a player is great but, actually or with significant potential to be, fragile ... that moves your timeline forward. A player you project to be great ... would seem to expand your potential contending window in both directions.

First of all, an actual re-build in the modern NBA takes 2-3 years, not 6-7 years. Oklahoma City made the post-season in 2020 and in 2024 they are a Top 5-6 team in the NBA--that's 2021, 2022 and 2023 of re-build [Shutting down their best players, selling cap-space for assets, acquiring older players with the idea of re-selling them for additional value, trading current picks for future picks], all of these are typical examples of a team who is in a re-build.

I would argue one team is insufficient sample to figure how long a rebuild takes.

The Spurs are in year 2 [or 2.5] of a re-build, with 2022 starting the sell-off of assets [White in the RS, Murray in the Off-season following the 2022 season]. The team is about to have a Top 3-4 pick in the draft and an incredible $50+ Million in cap-space to operate. It is going to be fascinating for people like me who love to watch a team operate with a massive surplus of assets [Draft Picks & Cap Space].

Well per the above I'd argue the clock on a rebuild starts once you've got significant pieces cumulatively (whether by one superstar or multiple smaller pieces) to seriously envision a contender. There's no point starting a clock, perhaps retrospectively, saying you should be good because you were bad a few years ago even if you haven't got any even average players is to doom yourself to short termism and likely spend a bit of time in the 30-40 win bracket but end up on a second rebuild without ever being good.

All of that is to say in this case ... the clock starts with VW. His contract, particularly his second one (no first rounder leaves on the first, don't know as much how 2nds do, though Jokic sticking suggests it's at very least better than the Arenas days) is the thing that could blow up something with potential and that dictates their clock.

Second, Victor Wembanyama is him. I made a comment which has been beaten to death by some regulars about Victor being a Horford/Gobert hybrid at his pinnacle--and I was only half wrong. Victor is a Horford/Gobert hybrid--half-way through his rookie season I fully expect Victor to be on the All-NBA team next year, or at the very least in the discussion. Like most ATG rookies, they typically make a notable jump from year-1 to year-2. LeBron was a weak MVP candidate in year 2 and All-NBA 2nd team, Durant was an MVP candidate in his year 21 [3rd season, far less impressive rookie season than Victor], Wade was an All-NBA 2nd team while Derrick Rose won MVP in his 3rd season.

The fact of the matter is Victor, as a basketball player, is as good as anyone we have ever seen at his age in the NBA. There is no reason to sit-back for a half-decade and sell cap space for 2nds [I am looking at you Detroit with Joe Harris, good move for them, bad move if SAS did this].

I don't know accurately how good he is already. I haven't seen him a bunch and it's a small sample. If he's good enough that he opens your contention window regardless of teammates then he does that. But per above - unless you're concerned about durability ... and I can see that in a guy this size - him being good also improves back end outcomes and doesn't necessarily move the center of gravity. At the margins there's the risk that the later years aren't with you. At the same time you're greatly advantaged by CBA rules and the whole point is that what you do makes that risk greater or smaller.

The Spurs should aspire to have great teams whenever VW is great and to peak as a team when he peaks. If he's great soon, great. But the Spurs are awful. And they have to get pieces that will be good when VW is (a) at his best and (b) can most plausibly leave.

FWW ...
LeBron left at the end of his second contract. The team spent their early cap money on Larry Hughes and then had limited flexibility to have good players entering his prime as he was.

Durant left after his second contract ... mitigating circumstances with the cap spike and the Warriors as an option ... but the team allowed a young superstar (no SG his age had Harden's age 22 Reference composites since Jordan) to leave and didn't get anything like equivalent long-term value and more precisely didn't get anything on the same timeline as Durant [Martin old, picks young]. I have to believe they did so for money reasons. I would imagine that gave off a small-time vibe.

So ... the two (I think most believe) best players above were lost to their drafting teams in part because they failed to plan long-term. That's just from players that you highlighted.

Circling back to Derrick Rose, he won the MVP in his 3rd season. Tatum was in ECF in his rookie year. Wade won FMVP in year 3. Luka was a killer in the post-season by year 2. LeBron made the NBA Finals in year 4. The idea that there needs to be a 6 or 7 year rebuild is absolutely wild and archaic thinking. That's some Pre-Free Agency logic that just misses everything about the Modern NBA and its landscape.

Rose won MVP by a travesty.
Tatum's team didn't rebuild, they perhaps retooled on the fly. They were in the ECF in the year before he arrived. I'm not sure how his team's success relates to a "rebuild" argument.
Dwyane Wade had an incredible run in year 3. He's also an outlier.
And Doncic's team has had an unclear vision for him long term acquiring and dumping assets. They missed the playoffs last year and are now hitched to the Kyrie Irving bandwagon. There has been chatter of him as a potential flight risk.
LeBron has been covered.

There doesn't "need" to be any particular set period of time in terms of "rebuild" which is, itself a somewhat artificial, fuzzy notion. But for a long time, and especially now with more punitive luxury taxes, it is important that a team has a long-term vision. Now if that means ... "his body won't last" then you understand your window that way. And as has been discussed you should considered cultural impacts of different intended trajectories. But those are considered responses to surveying long-term prospects. Not "he's good so we need to win now".

As has been discussed above free agency (and the time before in which a team fears losing a player via it) is when a player has leverage. Unless a player is willing to fail to live up to their contract, act in a manner that can be interpreted as risking the competitive integrity of the league (which also does the former) or I guess go on some variation of the "that Hitler said some interesting things" tour or equivalent (at not insignificant cost to the themselves) ... I'm not sure how the "modern NBA" changes that.

[Colbinii]

Just saw a video where they said that the Spurs should be trying to build a playoff contender around Victor *this summer* lol. Spurs should just try to organically draft and develop players for the next 6-7 years and then go all in around 2030.

Victor Wembanyama is far too good, impactful and promising to simply sit-back and acquire assets a-la Philly around Embiid.

Being good starts the clock. Until you''ve got some pieces that you could reasonably imagine building a good team around it's useless to say that there is specific, constant (artificial) window as it will ultimately extend the period of being an insignificant (at best, probably poor) team. I'm not sure why a great player would move the mean position of your contending window forwards.

You don't think that having a great player at present starts your clock or moves your clock forward?

Of course it does. When you have a player who can be the best player on a title team in 2-3 years, then you want to try and hit that timeline as close to as possible.

I would argue one team is insufficient sample to figure how long a rebuild takes.

Minnesota Timberwolves

Started rebuild during 2018-2019 season. Made an All-In move towards winning following the 2022 NBA Season. That is 3.5 seasons but Minnesota was ready to compete in the 2021-2022 season, which is just 2.5 seasons past the mid-way point of the 2018-2019 season.

Denver Nuggets

Re-built following the 2013 NBA Season, built a playoff-caliber team by 2017-2018. That's 4 seasons of acquiring the right players and assets.

Memphis Grizzles

Fully Commit to rebuild in 2019 season, win 56 games in 2022.

But, looking at "Acquire High-end talented Rookie/Player and try to win" montra:

Memphis: Draft Ja in 2019, win 56 games in 2022
Minnesota: Draft ANT in 2020, win win 46 games in 2022 and make all-in move following 2022 season
Denver: Draft Jokic in 2015, make playoffs in 2019
Dallas: Draft Luka in 2018, make playoffs in 2020 and WCF in 2022

Well per the above I'd argue the clock on a rebuild starts once you've got significant pieces cumulatively (whether by one superstar or multiple smaller pieces) to seriously envision a contender. There's no point starting a clock, perhaps retrospectively, saying you should be good because you were bad a few years ago even if you haven't got any even average players is to doom yourself to short termism and likely spend a bit of time in the 30-40 win bracket but end up on a second rebuild without ever being good.

Yup, which means the team should be trying to be as good as possible in 2024-2025 without sacrificing major flexibility moving forward. They shouldn't push all-in for a superstar trade this off-season a la Phoenix Suns and tie up all 1st for 7 years in trades [Either by giving away picks or adding swaps to the picks].

But, they should try to be a better team next year than this year. And they should understand that there is a very high chance Wemby is a Top 10 player in 2025-2026 and capitalize on that.

The Spurs should aspire to have great teams whenever VW is great and to peak as a team when he peaks. If he's great soon, great. But the Spurs are awful. And they have to get pieces that will be good when VW is (a) at his best and (b) can most plausibly leave.

FWW ...
LeBron left at the end of his second contract. The team spent their early cap money on Larry Hughes and then had limited flexibility to have good players entering his prime as he was.

Durant left after his second contract ... mitigating circumstances with the cap spike and the Warriors as an option ... but the team allowed a young superstar (no SG his age had Harden's age 22 Reference composites since Jordan) to leave and didn't get anything like equivalent long-term value and more precisely didn't get anything on the same timeline as Durant [Martin old, picks young]. I have to believe they did so for money reasons. I would imagine that gave off a small-time vibe.

So ... the two (I think most believe) best players above were lost to their drafting teams in part because they failed to plan long-term. That's just from players that you highlighted.

Oh, what I am saying isn't easy. If it were easy then Minnesota would have built around KG instead of squandering 3 years of drafts which made in nearly impossible for them to truly build a contender around him [But they were able to due to Sam Cassell having a career year and KG simply peaking as high as he did].

Like you said, Cleveland failed to built a high-end contender around LeBron James. The Pelicans tried around AD and when they got Cousins--who looked great next to AD for half a season--he got injured.

What I am saying isn't to go all in. I am saying be mindful of just how good Wemby is and utilize the cap space to acquire winning talent and pieces without sacrificing major future assets or flexibility [whether its cap space or picks].

[Owly]

Victor Wembanyama is far too good, impactful and promising to simply sit-back and acquire assets a-la Philly around Embiid.

Being good starts the clock. Until you''ve got some pieces that you could reasonably imagine building a good team around it's useless to say that there is specific, constant (artificial) window as it will ultimately extend the period of being an insignificant (at best, probably poor) team. I'm not sure why a great player would move the mean position of your contending window forwards.

You don't think that having a great player at present starts your clock or moves your clock forward?

I've explicitly said it does start your clock. Because you have a great thing and at some point it might be gone. But you said the Spurs were in year 2.5. That means you started an arbitrary rebuild clock just because they were bad.

Of course it does. When you have a player who can be the best player on a title team in 2-3 years, then you want to try and hit that timeline as close to as possible.

Well ... you want to hit that players timeline as best as possible. As I say a great player expands both ends. If your existing tools are orientated towards win now and/or you think there are injury concerns you might prioritize the front end. If not being great doesn't move the center of gravity.

I would argue one team is insufficient sample to figure how long a rebuild takes.

Minnesota Timberwolves

Started rebuild during 2018-2019 season. Made an All-In move towards winning following the 2022 NBA Season. That is 3.5 seasons but Minnesota was ready to compete in the 2021-2022 season, which is just 2.5 seasons past the mid-way point of the 2018-2019 season.

Denver Nuggets

Re-built following the 2013 NBA Season, built a playoff-caliber team by 2017-2018. That's 4 seasons of acquiring the right players and assets.

Memphis Grizzles

Fully Commit to rebuild in 2019 season, win 56 games in 2022.

But, looking at "Acquire High-end talented Rookie/Player and try to win" montra:

Memphis: Draft Ja in 2019, win 56 games in 2022
Minnesota: Draft ANT in 2020, win win 46 games in 2022 and make all-in move following 2022 season
Denver: Draft Jokic in 2015, make playoffs in 2019
Dallas: Draft Luka in 2018, make playoffs in 2020 and WCF in 2022

an actual re-build in the modern NBA takes 2-3 years

So I'm not sure when/why you're drawing line here which makes things confusing. You had the Spurs 2.5 years in. That suggested the timeline started with sucking. Yet Memphis's only starts in 2019. When "rebuild" ends in also a fuzzy matter. My point has always to have a clear vision. Even with this uncertainty ...
Minnesota by your own definition took longer than the window you cited.

Denver Nuggets ... took longer than cited. Are an outlier in getting perhaps the best player of his generation in the second round. Nuggets started with surplus draft capital from the Anthony trade.

See above re Grizzlies. Grizzlies got some immediate term assets for former generation players (Gasol, Conley). Grizzlies arguably short-circuited their improvement upgrading Valanciunas for Adams but giving up Trey Murphy to do so.

Dallas ... first and foremost see above post regarding where they are now. Also not outright awful team (-2.70 SRS) given chance to select what appeared to be clear cut best player in the draft by circumstance.

Well per the above I'd argue the clock on a rebuild starts once you've got significant pieces cumulatively (whether by one superstar or multiple smaller pieces) to seriously envision a contender. There's no point starting a clock, perhaps retrospectively, saying you should be good because you were bad a few years ago even if you haven't got any even average players is to doom yourself to short termism and likely spend a bit of time in the 30-40 win bracket but end up on a second rebuild without ever being good.

Yup, which means the team should be trying to be as good as possible in 2024-2025 without sacrificing major flexibility moving forward. They shouldn't push all-in for a superstar trade this off-season a la Phoenix Suns and tie up all 1st for 7 years in trades [Either by giving away picks or adding swaps to the picks].

But, they should try to be a better team next year than this year. And they should understand that there is a very high chance Wemby is a Top 10 player in 2025-2026 and capitalize on that.

Okay. But try to be better than awful. Yeah VW hopefully does that. Not doing Sochan experimtent helps. If there's improvement that's great and there's low hanging fruit in this case. But I don't think anyone argued against that. But if you aren't good and you get a high pick for someone on VW timeline that works too.

The Spurs should aspire to have great teams whenever VW is great and to peak as a team when he peaks. If he's great soon, great. But the Spurs are awful. And they have to get pieces that will be good when VW is (a) at his best and (b) can most plausibly leave.

FWW ...
LeBron left at the end of his second contract. The team spent their early cap money on Larry Hughes and then had limited flexibility to have good players entering his prime as he was.

Durant left after his second contract ... mitigating circumstances with the cap spike and the Warriors as an option ... but the team allowed a young superstar (no SG his age had Harden's age 22 Reference composites since Jordan) to leave and didn't get anything like equivalent long-term value and more precisely didn't get anything on the same timeline as Durant [Martin old, picks young]. I have to believe they did so for money reasons. I would imagine that gave off a small-time vibe.

So ... the two (I think most believe) best players above were lost to their drafting teams in part because they failed to plan long-term. That's just from players that you highlighted.

Oh, what I am saying isn't easy. If it were easy then Minnesota would have built around KG instead of squandering 3 years of drafts which made in nearly impossible for them to truly build a contender around him [But they were able to due to Sam Cassell having a career year and KG simply peaking as high as he did].

Like you said, Cleveland failed to built a high-end contender around LeBron James. The Pelicans tried around AD and when they got Cousins--who looked great next to AD for half a season--he got injured.

What I am saying isn't to go all in. I am saying be mindful of just how good Wemby is and utilize the cap space to acquire winning talent and pieces without sacrificing major future assets or flexibility [whether its cap space or picks].[/quote]
Okay ... but the poster you quoted cited a video where there's inexplicable urgency to go from dreadful good right away. I'm reluctant to give it another click but they seemed to implicitly want to pursue Tre Young. And the broader debate here that followed from my side was always have a long term vision and be aware of when players have the leverage to go.

And whilst there's some fuzziness about when such a spell starts and ends, you argued that "That's some Pre-Free Agency logic that just misses everything about the Modern NBA and its landscape" ... which reads to me as an assertion that free agency (and period before the end of the second contract) isn't the major leverage point ... without evidence as to why that would be.

If there's good pieces that don't tie you up and you think there are routes to depth through the present roster (whether development or trade) then that's one version of long term vision. But often the guys available are flawed (present teams can pay the greatest players more ... and if team thinks they'll lose them then they shift them ... often leaving only lesser players). None will be as young as VW and will, being further along the ascending career trajectory, likely be paid more than him whilst they are together and make you need to make tough decisions sooner. Not that optionality is everything. At some point you need good players. But you build with a long-term vision.

Everything is contextual. But the flaw I'm worried about in building around a star is rarely that the team is being too patient. If you have cap space that's going to disappear there's some imperative to use it though there should be caution in turning it into a negative value "asset". But if there isn't something in your long term interests then waiting is better than rushing, and if you can rent out that space at a fair price that gives you an asset on a timeline that's close to optimal for your star I don't see why that would be a bad thing. You get the space back down the line and a functionally free (not to owners) asset that fits your timeline.

[tsherkin]

Rose won MVP by a travesty.
Tatum's team didn't rebuild, they perhaps retooled on the fly. They were in the ECF in the year before he arrived. I'm not sure how his team's success relates to a "rebuild" argument.
Dwyane Wade had an incredible run in year 3. He's also an outlier.
And Doncic's team has had an unclear vision for him long term acquiring and dumping assets. They missed the playoffs last year and are now hitched to the Kyrie Irving bandwagon. There has been chatter of him as a potential flight risk.
LeBron has been covered.

Wade also had a second star who was still good enough to matter a lot that early in his career. Shaq was an MVP candidate in 05 (2nd, in fact) and only wasn't in 06 because he played a mere 59 games. But he still led the league in FG% while logging 20/9 in 30 mpg. That made a fairly large difference in Wade's ability to carry the Heat forward that year. And of course, Wade himself was a beast.


In terms of this overall discussion... Wemby's the guy. They want to start pushing to put pieces around him soon. Running him with a decent PG and at the 5 has produced results.

Since Dec 8:

34 GP, 21.5 ppg, 10.4 rpg, 3.8 apg, 1.3 spg, 3.7 bpg, 48.5% FG, 34.7% 3P (and he's like 7th in the league in pull-up 3P%), 81.6% on 5.1 FTA/g, 58.5% TS.

In 27.7 mpg.

He's been a demon. And he's been 20 for 2 months. Dude's showing it already. It wouldn't take much to make this team really interesting. It would make little sense to really extend a rebuild stretch, because very soon, they won't have the luxury just on the back of his play.

[eminence]

Hart is an absolute dog, but damn Thibs. 47+ minutes in a regulation game is rough.

[edgymnerch]

Yeah, Wemby should be ROTY. He's absolutely snatched Chet's chain this year lol

[RCM88x]

Yeah, Wemby should be ROTY. He's absolutely snatched Chet's chain this year lol

Kind of wild that the second best player on a possible #1 seed in their conference is going to lose ROY to a guy on the last place team in the conference. Not saying it's un-just at all, but going into the year I don't think many people would think Wemby would be a ROY frontrunner if SA was last place in the west.

[AEnigma]

Yeah, Wemby should be ROTY. He's absolutely snatched Chet's chain this year lol

Kind of wild that the second best player on a possible #1 seed in their conference is going to lose ROY to a guy on the last place team in the conference. Not saying it's un-just at all, but going into the year I don't think many people would think Wemby would be a ROY frontrunner if SA was last place in the west.

In general, I have never seen a player on a sub-30-win team receive this much praise. Similarly not saying the praise is undeserved (for the most part), but better players have been pilloried for much less.