Which Unlikely Path to a Championship is Best?

[shrink]

As we continue to discuss the NBA's very good, non-superstar players like Iguodala, Mayo, and dare I add, Kevin Love, I thought it would be worthwhile to look at the bigger picture - overall team direction.

I hope that our team's goal, the goal of the posters here, is for the Wolves to ultimately win a championship. So how does a team design itself to win a championship?

1. Superstar Model .. you get the superstar from ..

1A. Lottery Pick or Prospect Becomes a Superstar
1B. Free Agent Superstar Comes to your Team
1C. Trade for a Superstar

2. Bunch of Really Good Players Model (DET 2004)

The first thing to point out is that there really are very few DET's. Championships generally are won by teams with superstars, and its very rare that a team without at least one superstar even makes the Conference Finals. I think this is probably going to become even more rare, if the recent congregations of superstar players in only a couple teams will attest.

However, are MIN's chances even worse for the other options? I don't think MIN fans were surprised when LeBron and other effective free agent superstars did not opt to come play for Minnesota. Trades are possible, but if a team is devoting a lot of assets to get the superstar, his ability to refuse to sign an extension, or worse, demand a trade out, makes this one unlikely and risky. And as we unfortunately know, we've had bad luck seeing our lottery picks become superstars .. Garnett the only exception.


So when we talk about Mayo or Iguodala, we need to keep in mind what our longterm goal is .. not just short term goals. Either good player would add wins, but does it increase our chances of winning a championship? Or maybe it's worth it because it increases the chances a real superstar will join from another team, while it torpedos our lottery chances?

Post, or at least vote.

[The J Rocka]

1. We will never get lucky to get that star in the draft, if you still believe, keep dreaming.

2. Chances of a star signing here are slim to none.

3. You gather a bunch of decent players to put around Beas & Love but we would prolly be a first round exit or at least improve. Doesn't seem to work that way always for Championships.


Our best bet is to acquire a star via trade. We can gather assets, we have the flexibility, we have solid building blocks already, & usually if a player gets traded here for the most part they end up liking it vs. judging during free agency. If we can get that Melo or KD type player, we are set. Then we add role players/vets.

[shrink]

If our direction is to acquire a superstar in trade with a team as bad as ours, I think we need to follow the BOS method. To convince any player to agree with the trade, we need to convince multiple superstars to come together to agree to a trade.

Superstars are very hard to acquire in trade. Teams don't want to give them up, unless they are absolutely forced to (generally by a player demanding a trade, but finances is a possibility). Even if the team isn't winning, superstars carry their own weight for an owner, by developing team interest, merhcandising, ticket sales, and the owner's own personal prestige.

MIN has a lot of assets. Probably not as much as last year, but a set that's probably more valuable than what BOS had to start with, the season after they finished 29th in the league. The key would be for two superstars who both wanted out, and both wanted to play together.

[Krapinsky]

1A -- You touched on this already, but I'll elaborate.

I think when you're Minnesota and not Boston, Los Angeles, Miami or other more desirable destination you're best shot is option 2. Even if we were lucky enough to land a superstar in the draft (1A), would he stay here for the long haul? Or would we face the same fate as Cleveland and soon to be Denver? I think you have to take the unlikely chances of landing a superstar through the draft and then discount that even further by the odds the player would remain here long term. Not every player has the loyalty of a Durant or a Duncan.

If we're talking Mayo or Iggy -- will they affect our chances of getting a superstar in the draft this year? If so, it would be marginally. But is there even a superstar in the draft this year?

2012 -==> Clippers get it.

That puts us at 2013 for our next chance to get a superstar through the draft. If we're still picking in the top 5 by then, well, something went really wrong with what we've done so far.

Thus 1A does not seem like an option.

1B -- Not going to happen. Moving on...

1C -- Also not going to happen. When's the last tiem a superstar was traded who didn't have the leverage to pick his own destination?? See 1B. Not going to happen.

2 -- Unless we already have a superstar on the team, this is our only shot. Time to make best with what we have.

[shrink]

I should probably point out that the vast majority of NBA championships have been won by a team that drafted their superstar in the lottery.

I don't believe past bad luck in the lottery influences future selections (unless you think Stern is pulling the strings). I'm more concerned with our weakness in assessing talent, but if you get a winning lottery pick (top 3), the decision is often pretty clearly defined.

[Krapinsky]

I should probably point out that the vast majority of NBA championships have been won by a team that drafted their superstar in the lottery.

I don't believe past bad luck in the lottery influences future selections (unless you think Stern is pulling the strings). I'm more concerned with our weakness in assessing talent, but if you get a winning lottery pick (top 3), the decision is often pretty clearly defined.

All in big markets. Helps them keep their superstar and attract additional superstars or supporting talent.

[lewdog]

This thread (A Wolves Future Championship) is almost incongruent after last night’s devastating/heartbreaking/gut-wrenching (pick a sorry a$$ adjective) loss.

I just have to commend Shrink and all of the other amazing posters (e.g. Krapinsky) on this board for actually caring enough to write detailed thoughts about this sorry franchise day in and day out. After last night, I actually thought that apathy would set in and the Wolves forum would be shut down. But all of you (for whatever reason) continue to make the Wolves (through your thoughts) actually interesting despite their ineptitude.

Thanks again Shrink and “Keep Hope Alive!”

[Devilzsidewalk]

I wouldn't even say the detroit model is really a model as in something you can replicate, it's probably even harder to basically have the NBA All Defensive team as your starting 5 than it is to draft a superstar. Getting a free agent superstar is completely out the window and trade is basically the same boat, trades are just precursors for free agency and if it isnt, then chances are the guy we're looking at isnt a superstar.

[lewdog]

Oh, and Jonny Flynn sucks.

[Devilzsidewalk]

I think the cold is getting to Jonny, he plays like he's partially frozen and needs a good thawing out

[[RCG]]

Your question asks which approach would give the Wolves the best chance to win a championship, rather than which which approach is most probable or which one makes the most sense.

Having a bunch of good players may just mean making the playoffs. Why wait for a superstar to develop from a draft pick or trade some of your players when you can just sign one outright?

I'm not saying we're likely to sign a superstar but that would give us the best chance to win a championship, signing a superstar and keeping our core intact.

[shrink]

I should probably point out that the vast majority of NBA championships have been won by a team that drafted their superstar in the lottery.

I don't believe past bad luck in the lottery influences future selections (unless you think Stern is pulling the strings). I'm more concerned with our weakness in assessing talent, but if you get a winning lottery pick (top 3), the decision is often pretty clearly defined.

All in big markets. Helps them keep their superstar and attract additional superstars or supporting talent.

For the suspicious, that might mean Stern steers the lottery towards whatever will make the NBA the most profit. But he's not that kind of guy, is he?

Still, San Antonio won a lottery, and won four championships in a smaller market than us.

Why not us?!

[CoffeeJanitor]

I voted the first option, but this is just for the Wolves.

No current stars are coming here. That's the sad truth. And making a team as great as that Pistons team is probably the hardest option of all, with star treatment and all.

EDIT: San Antonio was also smart enough to draft Manu and (I think) Tony Parker, both pretty late in the 1st round. I don't think we have that kind of luck/scouting.

[Swish4]

In the Wolves situation you have to do what we're already doing, taking chances on guys with huge upside, like Beas and Darko, (Randolph?) with baggage and hope they pan out at the same time drafting well.

[Krapinsky]

I should probably point out that the vast majority of NBA championships have been won by a team that drafted their superstar in the lottery.

I don't believe past bad luck in the lottery influences future selections (unless you think Stern is pulling the strings). I'm more concerned with our weakness in assessing talent, but if you get a winning lottery pick (top 3), the decision is often pretty clearly defined.

All in big markets. Helps them keep their superstar and attract additional superstars or supporting talent.

For the suspicious, that might mean Stern steers the lottery towards whatever will make the NBA the most profit. But he's not that kind of guy, is he?

Still, San Antonio won a lottery, and won four championships in a smaller market than us.

Why not us?!

Smaller "market" true. Much bigger city. Also warmer climate and no state income tax though.

Main thing is I think you have it sort of backwards. First we need to create a winning cultute. Once we're a competitive team with the assets we have, then allstar free agents will look to MN and say, hey, I should consider this. Merely playing the lottery and hoping for a good outcome is usually goign to leave you broke. Detroit started it right, but screwed it up. They should have been able to have longer sustained success, like the Spurs, but Dumars made some really bad decisions.

[Fire Mchale]

When you ask how a team should DESIGN itself to win a championship, I think you almost have to eliminate 1A as an option since it is something you can't plan on since there's luck involved.

As for the other options, I think realistically we're looking at the Detroit model. As has already been discussed FA acquisitions won't happen and trades rob you of your depth and assets. That pretty much leaves us with building a team based on depth and overall strength. It's hard to win that way in the playoffs since by default you don't have that star player capable of taking over games. Regardless, I think this is the most realistic way for MN to try and design itself for a title.

As for the Iggy and Mayo thoughts - I want neither for the reason Shrink mentioned. I feel both lend us to settling for average. In Iggy's case, we're hamstrung financially. In Mayo's case, he's not a big enough improvement to merit the potential cost of acquiring him.

[EddyCool]

I should probably point out that the vast majority of NBA championships have been won by a team that drafted their superstar in the lottery.

I don't believe past bad luck in the lottery influences future selections (unless you think Stern is pulling the strings). I'm more concerned with our weakness in assessing talent, but if you get a winning lottery pick (top 3), the decision is often pretty clearly defined.

All in big markets. Helps them keep their superstar and attract additional superstars or supporting talent.

Agree, and would like to take it a step further. Neither of these models is terribly accurate in terms of team-building. You wouldn't pass up a good move because you either only want a superstar or specifically want non-superstar, good players top to bottom in your rotation.

Currently, the only player you can make an argument for being a superstar that's on a sub-.500 team is Nash, and that has developed this season and it's likely in Phoenix's best interest to trade him off and reboot at this point.

For the rest of the superstars, those with strong supporting casts (or whatever you'd call Miami) are the only real contenders. Boston, LA, Orlando, Dallas, San Antonio, and Chicago could get up there but are still some real improvement away, have groups of dynamic, all-star level (in some form or another) talent to support a star.

Averaging 20 and 15, Love can become a star in this league. He needs to improve - like most 21 year-olds - and, most importantly, he needs to start winning to get that kind of respect (I'm not saying he's the only one, but he is the most ripe for analysis because of his presence in the national media, as well as his recent comments about just wanting to win). I don't see his comments as being a sign that he wants out of here like the Trade Board wants to take it, but I do have a problem with it. He's echoing this sentiment that's been around for about the last 10 years in the league that being a winner means being on a winning team. Of course you can't be considered a winner if your team loses 60% of their games, I'm not arguing that point. But I would consider players like Charles Barkley and Dominique Wilkins bigger superstars and better core players ahead of (I'm avoiding guys like Kerr and Horry here) players like Billups and Parker who have been named Finals MVP, because they had rare, elite level competitiveness. I completely give Barkley a pass on seeking a championship in Phoenix and Houston because he did it after he had built a sensational career and was running out of time to lead a team there.

...wow, getting off track. While Billups and Parker meet the non-superstar model illustrated in Shrink's post, both of those teams were built on capitalizing on great opportunities when they presented themselves. Detroit wouldn't have been there if Sheed hadn't arrived from Portland by way of Atlanta that year, or if San Antonio hadn't had Duncan fall in their laps when the Admiral went down and then done an incredible job scouting the still foreign (heh) international scene to produce Manu and Parker (not to mention developing guys like Stephen Jackson and Bruce Bowen in the process)

I guess my long-awaited point is that it's not about having a yay or nay model to superstars, because those opportunities are so rare, and you can only succeed if you get it in the right circumstance (Orlando nabbed HIll and McGrady in the same offseason, but Hill's injuries and sketchy supporting casts left them with nothing to show for it). It's a far more delicate process than which is best. Winning teams need to have strong, cohesive units with 2 or more guys that can go head-to-head with any teams best on any given night. We don't have that now, but that doesn't mean that things we have now can't become that.

Edit: I hate typos.

[EddyCool]

When you ask how a team should DESIGN itself to win a championship, I think you almost have to eliminate 1A as an option since it is something you can't plan on since there's luck involved.

As for the other options, I think realistically we're looking at the Detroit model. As has already been discussed FA acquisitions won't happen and trades rob you of your depth and assets. That pretty much leaves us with building a team based on depth and overall strength. It's hard to win that way in the playoffs since by default you don't have that star player capable of taking over games. Regardless, I think this is the most realistic way for MN to try and design itself for a title.

As for the Iggy and Mayo thoughts - I want neither for the reason Shrink mentioned. I feel both lend us to settling for average. In Iggy's case, we're hamstrung financially. In Mayo's case, he's not a big enough improvement to merit the potential cost of acquiring him.

That line is essentially what I wish I would have said.

[Grits n Gravy]

In the Wolves situation you have to do what we're already doing, taking chances on guys with huge upside, like Beas and Darko, (Randolph?) with baggage and hope they pan out at the same time drafting well.

i agree, get randolph here now....we'll figure minutes and what not later

[shangrila]

Well, we acquired our star through a trade...so, number 3?

In all seriousness, I think this team is on the right track for the moment. Beasley has taken several steps already this year and while he'll never be a Lebron, I think he can reach that Pierce/Anthony level. Ditto with Love who's looking like a star in his own right.

As far as how they should build, I don't know if there's any specific blueprint. They got lucky getting Beasley, but that's the same with anyone really. Chicago got lucky with Rose, Clippers with Griffin, Washington with Wall, Oklahoma with Durant, etc, etc. I think the easiest way is to get someone in the draft but you can't exactly plan for that. Trading for a star is even harder and takes the stars aligning (PUN!) to pull off. Boston with Garnett/Allen and LA with Gasol are perfect examples. The Detroit example is harder then all of the rest to pull off, as for every 04 Detroit there's an Atlanta Hawks and Memphis Grizzlies team that tries the same and only achieves mediocrity.

Moving forward, this team definitely needs to develop a winning culture. They need to bring in an older veteran that can actually produce, even if it's just for a few years, to get the ball rolling. Vince Carter comes to mind. Outside of that I really think they still need to overhaul a fair bit of the roster. They need more defenders in the front court to compensate for Love. They need a new point guard, which is hopefully Rubio. They also need someone who can defend on the wings without being out of control like Brewer. That, at least, would be a start.