DuckIII wrote:(c) Landry Fields is a revelation.
Good post overall. I think this point is best worded by Alan Hahn in a tweet not so long ago - we caught lightning in a bottle twice with Fields and Shawne Williams turning out to be good rotation players.
I think the debate in the overall thread though comes from what Boston did in one offseason. They were an atrocious team and fans were reeling after they lost out of the Durant/Oden sweepstakes after tanking their season. Despite that, they acquired star players, good youth and returned a respectful franchise back to relevancy.
In doing so, their model for building a championship level team really changed things. We can all recall the question marks and the skepticism, but the result was a 60 win season and a championship. Not only that, they have been a championship contender ever since and have also been a hub for veteran free agents and role players that win playoff series.
This is contrast to a second model of building one brick at a time - something more along the lines of Atlanta. They were atrocious but started to string together improvement through the draft and free agency (side note - who knew Zaza Pachulia would be living up to his role instead of being a 12th man/out of this league? Seriously.)
However, the Hawks seemed to have plateaued in a sense with their model of step by step addition over a few seasons and the model doesn't stand as viable or smart compared to the Celtics one based on star power which was instantly rewarding.
Do we expect too much too quickly? Absolutely. Does the pursuit of Carmelo and other free agents cast an unnecessary shadow over our team? Absolutely.
But is there an automatically always right model to pursue for team building? Absolutely debatable.