Which Unlikely Path to a Championship is Best?

[abrewbro68]

This might seem dumb, but if Melo gets traded this year, I would love to see the Wolves try and get Billups back here. It could really go a long way having a ball handling leader in here to groom Beasley and Love.

[shrink]

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.

You're right, maybe "design" was a poor choice of word.

If the course (rebuilding) is to be temprarily bad enough to acquire lottery picks in the hopes you get a potential superstar, that's one path. That path is pretty much prevented from, say, acquiring a bunch of good (not star) players, that get you out of the lottery, but may not give you a championship. I think this is also a bit of a discussion about a gradualist approach to trying to win, versus a more punctuated one (thanks Stephen Jay Gould).

What I'm struggling to say is that there is luck involved in all four of these options. You can make moves to improve your chances in each of these areas, but they may reduce your chances in another area. I'm trying to determine which direction you could go that would give you the best chance, of four unlikely options.

[Casperkid23]

Wonder what I'll vote....


It's the draft. It doesn't have to be a high pick either, superstars are found throughout the lottery (Timberwolves may have passed up a chance on one in Cousins last year, but that won't be determined for another 3-4 years), and sometimes teams get extremely lucky (say, one in 10 drafts) an find one outside of the lottery. If you don't ever find that player in the draft, then you're forced into the DET mold, but that's not something you go into by choice.

[cpfsf]

Hate the title

1A: We can only hope for the best
1B: Not going to happen
1C: Iguodala is the best player we can realistically obtain. I'm hesitantly leaning towards a trade to acquire the swingman, but who knows what Philadelphia wants.

[C.lupus]

I was going to post last night but was too tired to put my thoughts down and some of those thoughts have been expressed now but here it is anyway....It's going to sound like a cop out response but I think a team like Minnesota has to cover all of the bases.

1A. Lottery Pick or Prospect Becomes a Superstar - this is pure random luck but the team can strive to be great at development.

1B. Free Agent Superstar Comes to your Team - Everyone says this is impossible. Well, yeah, right now but the team is a few years away right now. If, for instance, you keep Love and Beas together and they continue to develop, then you've got two stars the same age on the team. They both have lots of friends in the league. It's not unreasonable to think in a few years they could coerce a Westbrook, or Rose or somebody to join them if the team is good. Develop a winning culture here and make your own fate.

1C. Trade for a Superstar - Kind of the same as 1B. The team just needs to stay flexible enough to jump on potential trades and have a culture that players would find appealing. I firmly believe that winning a ring would trump any concern about cold weather for 99.9% of NBA players.

2. Bunch of Really Good Players Model (DET 2004) - This is probably the easiest route to establishing that winning culture. The BRGP model should at least get you to the conference finals and show others that your team is just a star away from domination (and you could be that star!).

[doctor him]

Interesting and thoughtful discussion. Allow me to add my 2 cents as a Sixer fan.

In terms of models I think there is something that is absent from this entire discussion. The system. Or rather organizational stability. Or vision (i.e. the way we do things and how we view the game).

Before picking out the superstar versus team of equals model, you have to have stability which will lead you to evaluate players within your system consistently.

Bad teams change their coaches, GMs, etc...from year to year and don't develop that consistency in how they play and how they evaluate. Therefore they end up with pieces that don't fit.

They fire guys for not winning, but winning is a product of consistency and is naturally upset by excess of change.

I do agree in the taking players with upside and some risk approach. However, in the end you're building a team and not just collecting talent. If a guy fits well into your system of how you play, then you have to be willing to pay a little more. If he doesn't then you don't go after him.

I also do think that the NBA is going to attack the small market trap in this lockout. I think salaries are going to be lower by a good bit and I think it's going to become harder for guys to blackmail their teams into sending them to the Knicks.

On Iguodala and what the Sixers would want...1 good asset to start and likely 2 other smaller assets. Dealing him for a couple ok players who might be 7th/8th men types doesn't work. We need at least 1 guy who would project to one day start for a contender.