When you look at the most successful rebuilding strategies in this era of GSW and ‘superstars on speed dial and trade demands’, I find that there are starting to materialise three different models, or methodologies, to the practice. I found this as very interesting and important for all of us fans to notice and learn from.
Before I get into it, let me preface this maturely as saying that the WeHam FO is only 2 years old and is still saddled with Hennigan contracts mucking up the cap structure and flexibility today (most particularly; Fournier, a good player, and Mozgov, an injured big).
I am also extremely curious as to how many of you would classify or add to the methods to rebuilding. I am sure a large part of you want the tank-out method, but I am still curious if you’re starting to see the “other/worser” ways like me, how you would classify the methods/paths to rebuilding, what can you touch on or add to the discussion, or what you can outright explain and classify better than me! I find all of this very interesting, because it clarifies better what we are looking for and hoping for as fans from a FO & team. And I hope you find this post interesting too.
In no particular order,
Method 1:
The GM’s hat method
As exemplified by BOS and DAL, you trade for your lottery first and hit absolutely big on it (Tatum, Luka). The other component is then consistent flexible cap space, AND maintaining it consistently until the opportunity arises (ex.s, sign Horford and Hayward, acquire bad contracts and KP with your expirings). On a side note tho, notice how DAL’s large offer to Noel was rejected by him. If he accepted, it would have hurt the cap space to put another superstar or more pieces around KP and Luka. Although I kinda like the pair for Luka if it happened; one roll man, and one pop man. Returning to the main point tho, maintaining that flexible cap space consistently thru seasons is a tricky part, for sure. There's also that one bit about knowing who's going to be a superstar when 29 other teams don't see it as strongly as you, AND successfully getting them via trade!
Method 2:
The tank-out method
Looking at teams like PHI, OKC (longer ago), and PHO today (although PHO might be classified as a #1 as well), there is a clear strategy to merely keeping yourself soundly in the top 4 picks for a span of time until it’s worth it to build from there. There are caveats tho. With PHI and OKC, the draft years were strong classes. With PHI, they drafted their fair share of busts as well, but they stayed in the tank-out strategy until it payed off very well, as well as making some shrewd trades too. With OKC, they showed you what happens when you have a smart, draft-savvy FO doing the strategy (but a tragic, money-saving ownership to mess it up, unlike our DeVos family). And with PHO, who would be the most representative of this strategy if ORL tried it today, you see that weaker draft classes this last decade-and-half are starting to hit hard, and coming out of rock-bottom is hard work. But still, when you have amazing players like Ayton, Booker, and Mikal & T.J., the strategy is very enticing.
Method 3:
The smartest-drafters method
You might not be a large market, or have a trade-savvy or trade-happy FO, but you do draft consistently better than the average FO in the draft green room and beyond. And that may “even” (and now, perhaps, “even often” is a better phrase in this GSW era) include landing your own superstar type draft hit despite being in a later, less-sexy draft spot (UTA, MIL, DEN, and arguably TOR & SAS all fit this method).
Furthermore, all are teams that valued winning and have a system of basketball that players could fit into and grow within, rather than a faceless, wanderless system with no common themes and system features. Take DEN, for example, they always had an offensively-geared, fast-paced system of basketball, and now all of a sudden they are hitting on players perfect for their system and who represent big hits for their draft positions (Jokic standing out the most). But even their late picks tend to be panning out very well too! (Monte Morris as the most recent example). UTA as well, has drafted two superstar type players in Gobert and Mitchell (who I like even more than Booker) and works around a common system more than others. MIL represents it well by hitting on the biggest superstar type player in Giannis, and although the smart-drafter label doesn’t apply as consistently as DEN and 1-2 others, there was still a critical 2-3 others drafted making big impacts, as well as other 2nd rounders making some great production for their draft position.
So where does ORL fit in these three methods? And perhaps the three labels are less static and more like three influential bases.. For example, one team might have the tendencies to show, say, 60% ‘GM’s hat’, 30% ‘smart-drafting’, and 10% ‘tank-out’ in their overall strategy. And so on and so forth in different variations for different examples.
For me, ORL seems to have the 4 GM’s and FO staff to work around the ‘smartest-drafters’ method, but I caution their “system” might be tricking them to draft big men and length when what they should really continue emphasising from ORL’s common system of the last two decades is its savvy SAS-like passing and IQ. They also missed on the two superstar type ones, Mitchell and Luka, to date. On the flip side, BPA is BPA and nothing else matters, and a versatile All-NBA Defender or two along the way is awfully nice too (ahem, AG and JI). And from a fan-review perspective, ORL will have to start showing somewhat consistent draft hits in the next 2-3 years (and a draft “hit” will count if say, J.I. or Bamba make a huge step in year 3) with a good system of basketball for them to fit in, grow from, and win with. If they don’t, then they will not quite be close enough to match this “smartest-drafters” label, and maybe it might fit/take to them better a ‘GM’s hat’ or ‘tank-out’ method within the next 2-3 years. Once this summer hits, the last major parts of the old FO’s cap structure will be only Fournier (good player) and Mozgov (injured big) left as well.
Interestingly, ORL has also shown tendencies of the 'GM’s hat' method, which is to value cap space consistently and look at interesting trades. There have been previous, minor FO talks of trading up into a top 3 spot, and there has also been two years of consistent cap-saving/minded moves as well.
Thoughts? Opinions?
