We need to trade Blake

[Manocad]

Ben Wallace via trade
Rip Hamilton via trade
Chauncey Billups via MLE free agency
Rasheed Wallace via trade

I know 15 years was a long time ago, but when the Pistons broke up Grant Hill/Jerry Stackhouse... they rebuilt using what worked best

Tayshaun Prince - drafted
Mehmet Okur - drafted
Lindsey Hunter - drafted
Zeljko Rebraca - drafted

And it was 14 years after winning a championship from a team built in large part through the draft with Isiah, Joe D., Rodman and Salley. In any case, a single championship is a pretty small sample size for making an argument for "this is what worked best." Unless you're also trying to make a case that in the other 28 non-championship seasons the team was always trying to build a champion through drafting only. Which of course, they weren't. In fact, I think you could make a pretty strong case that trying to build a champion through trades and free agency was more often the intent in the failed years than not.

Liquorish wins. Even in last years final 4, 3 of the 4 teams were built via trades and free agency. Best shot we have is making smart trades and signing solid free agents. Draft is a massive gamble and most times, teams fail. I rather like to know what I am getting and chances are you know what you are getting in Free Agency or via trade.

There have been zero attempts to build a championship team through development of young players over time since the Bad Boys. Therefore building a champion through trades and free agency is 1 for 30 since then. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for building a champion through trades and free agency. But hey, nice "win"!

[BadMofoPimp]

Tayshaun Prince - drafted
Mehmet Okur - drafted
Lindsey Hunter - drafted
Zeljko Rebraca - drafted

And it was 14 years after winning a championship from a team built in large part through the draft with Isiah, Joe D., Rodman and Salley. In any case, a single championship is a pretty small sample size for making an argument for "this is what worked best." Unless you're also trying to make a case that in the other 28 non-championship seasons the team was always trying to build a champion through drafting only. Which of course, they weren't. In fact, I think you could make a pretty strong case that trying to build a champion through trades and free agency was more often the intent in the failed years than not.

Liquorish wins. Even in last years final 4, 3 of the 4 teams were built via trades and free agency. Best shot we have is making smart trades and signing solid free agents. Draft is a massive gamble and most times, teams fail. I rather like to know what I am getting and chances are you know what you are getting in Free Agency or via trade.

There have been zero attempts to build a championship team through development of young players over time since the Bad Boys. Therefore building a champion through trades and free agency is 1 for 30 since then. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for building a champion through trades and free agency. But hey, nice "win"!

FYI. Most teams that are contenders do not get there through the draft but thru crafty GM'n. I understand that you just want to experience building a team thru the draft for once in your life, thus we are all taking donations and buying you a copy of NBA2K20!!!

[Manocad]

Liquorish wins. Even in last years final 4, 3 of the 4 teams were built via trades and free agency. Best shot we have is making smart trades and signing solid free agents. Draft is a massive gamble and most times, teams fail. I rather like to know what I am getting and chances are you know what you are getting in Free Agency or via trade.

There have been zero attempts to build a championship team through development of young players over time since the Bad Boys. Therefore building a champion through trades and free agency is 1 for 30 since then. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for building a champion through trades and free agency. But hey, nice "win"!

FYI. Most teams that are contenders do not get there through the draft but thru crafty GM'n. I understand that you just want to experience building a team thru the draft for once in your life, thus we are all taking donations and buying you a copy of NBA2K20!!!

Once in my lifetime?

80's Celtics
80's Lakers
90's Bulls
90's Lakers
Spurs
Warriors

All those teams had at least two starters, including at least one star player, who were drafted by the team. Now go count up how many championships those teams won vs "crafty GM'ing" teams.

I can see you're getting a little salty. It will pass.

[thesack12]

There have been zero attempts to build a championship team through development of young players over time since the Bad Boys. Therefore building a champion through trades and free agency is 1 for 30 since then. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for building a champion through trades and free agency. But hey, nice "win"!

FYI. Most teams that are contenders do not get there through the draft but thru crafty GM'n. I understand that you just want to experience building a team thru the draft for once in your life, thus we are all taking donations and buying you a copy of NBA2K20!!!

Once in my lifetime?

80's Celtics
80's Lakers
90's Bulls
90's Lakers
Spurs
Warriors

All those teams had at least two starters, including at least one star player, who were drafted by the team. Now go count up how many championships those teams won vs "crafty GM'ing" teams.

I can see you're getting a little salty. It will pass.

I don't disagree with your general philosophy, but these aren't great examples.

Bringing up anything 80's/90's isn't the best of comparisons to equate modern day team building. The NBA was an immensely different league back then.

Also "the 90's Lakers" didn't win any titles until 2000, and even then they signed Shaq as a free agent.

The Spurs did build primarily through the draft, but 2 of their core pieces weren't even remotely high picks. Tony Parker was taken 28th, and Manu Ginobili was drafted 57th.

The Warriors is the best example, but their picks weren't all that high. Curry was 7th, Klay was 11th, and Draymond was 35th.

[Manocad]

FYI. Most teams that are contenders do not get there through the draft but thru crafty GM'n. I understand that you just want to experience building a team thru the draft for once in your life, thus we are all taking donations and buying you a copy of NBA2K20!!!

Once in my lifetime?

80's Celtics
80's Lakers
90's Bulls
90's Lakers
Spurs
Warriors

All those teams had at least two starters, including at least one star player, who were drafted by the team. Now go count up how many championships those teams won vs "crafty GM'ing" teams.

I can see you're getting a little salty. It will pass.

I don't disagree with your general philosophy, but these aren't great examples.

Bringing up anything 80's/90's isn't the best of comparisons to equate modern day team building. The NBA was an immensely different league back then.

Also "the 90's Lakers" didn't win any titles until 2000, and even then they signed Shaq as a free agent.

The Spurs did build primarily through the draft, but 2 of their core pieces weren't even remotely high picks. Tony Parker was taken 28th, and Manu Ginobili was drafted 57th.

The Warriors is the best example, but their picks weren't all that high. Curry was 7th, Klay was 11th, and Draymond was 35th.

Whoever said anything about high draft picks? I simply said that building a champion through development of young players--drafted or not--has provided more championships than teams built from a majority of trade/free agency moves. Not great examples? I just covered the vast majority of championships in the last 40 years. The league is different? What does that have to do with anything? Car engines are very different now than they were 40 years ago, but horsepower still wins races.

[thesack12]

Once in my lifetime?

80's Celtics
80's Lakers
90's Bulls
90's Lakers
Spurs
Warriors

All those teams had at least two starters, including at least one star player, who were drafted by the team. Now go count up how many championships those teams won vs "crafty GM'ing" teams.

I can see you're getting a little salty. It will pass.

I don't disagree with your general philosophy, but these aren't great examples.

Bringing up anything 80's/90's isn't the best of comparisons to equate modern day team building. The NBA was an immensely different league back then.

Also "the 90's Lakers" didn't win any titles until 2000, and even then they signed Shaq as a free agent.

The Spurs did build primarily through the draft, but 2 of their core pieces weren't even remotely high picks. Tony Parker was taken 28th, and Manu Ginobili was drafted 57th.

The Warriors is the best example, but their picks weren't all that high. Curry was 7th, Klay was 11th, and Draymond was 35th.

Whoever said anything about high draft picks? I simply said that building a champion through development of young players--drafted or not--has provided more championships than teams built from a majority of trade/free agency moves. Not great examples? I just covered the vast majority of championships in the last 40 years. The league is different? What does that have to do with anything? Car engines are very different now than they were 40 years ago, but horsepower still wins races.

00-03 Lakers had Shaq as a free agent
04 Pistons had Chauncey as a free agent, and all of Rip/Ben/Sheed brought in via trades
06 Heat had only Wade as a drafted core player. Shaq/Walker/Mourning/Williams were not drafted by them
08 Celtics Traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett
09-11 Lakers traded for Gasol and Odom
11 Mavericks only Drafted Dirk as a core player. Kidd/Butler/Chandler/Marion were all brought in other ways
12, 13 Heat signed Lebron and Bosh as free agents
16 Cavs signed Lebron as a free agent and traded for Love
19 Raptors traded for Kawhi

Really since 2000, only the 03 Spurs/05 Spurs/07 Spurs //14 Spurs/15 Warriors/17 Warriors/18 Warriors primarily built their teams through the draft

I've seen plenty of races won on gas mileage/better handling/track position/etc. Horsepower is great base to start with, but it alone isn't going to get you the checkered flag.

In other words, there isn't a fool proof blueprint out there.

[Manocad]

I don't disagree with your general philosophy, but these aren't great examples.

Bringing up anything 80's/90's isn't the best of comparisons to equate modern day team building. The NBA was an immensely different league back then.

Also "the 90's Lakers" didn't win any titles until 2000, and even then they signed Shaq as a free agent.

The Spurs did build primarily through the draft, but 2 of their core pieces weren't even remotely high picks. Tony Parker was taken 28th, and Manu Ginobili was drafted 57th.

The Warriors is the best example, but their picks weren't all that high. Curry was 7th, Klay was 11th, and Draymond was 35th.

Whoever said anything about high draft picks? I simply said that building a champion through development of young players--drafted or not--has provided more championships than teams built from a majority of trade/free agency moves. Not great examples? I just covered the vast majority of championships in the last 40 years. The league is different? What does that have to do with anything? Car engines are very different now than they were 40 years ago, but horsepower still wins races.

00-03 Lakers had Shaq as a free agent
04 Pistons had Chauncey as a free agent, and all of Rip/Ben/Sheed brought in via trades
06 Heat had only Wade as a drafted core player. Shaq/Walker/Mourning/Williams were not drafted by them
08 Celtics Traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett
09-11 Lakers traded for Gasol and Odom
11 Mavericks only Drafted Dirk as a core player. Kidd/Butler/Chandler/Marion were all brought in other ways
12, 13 Heat signed Lebron and Bosh as free agents
16 Cavs signed Lebron as a free agent and traded for Love
18 Raptors trade for Kawhi

Really since 2000, only the 03 Spurs/05 Spurs/07 Spurs //14 Spurs/15 Warriors/17 Warriors/18 Warriors primarily built their teams through the draft

I've seen plenty of races won on gas mileage/better handling/track position/etc. Horsepower is great base to start with, but it alone isn't going to get you the checkered flag.

In other words, there isn't a fool proof blueprint out there.

No one made a claim that any blueprint was foolproof. My argument is and has been stated MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times is that the best path to a championship IN MY OPINION is developing a core of young players over time then putting on the finishing touches with trades/free agency. It's the opposing side claiming that path DOESN'T work, and that only the trades/free agency path does.

[Snakebites]

Whoever said anything about high draft picks? I simply said that building a champion through development of young players--drafted or not--has provided more championships than teams built from a majority of trade/free agency moves. Not great examples? I just covered the vast majority of championships in the last 40 years. The league is different? What does that have to do with anything? Car engines are very different now than they were 40 years ago, but horsepower still wins races.

00-03 Lakers had Shaq as a free agent
04 Pistons had Chauncey as a free agent, and all of Rip/Ben/Sheed brought in via trades
06 Heat had only Wade as a drafted core player. Shaq/Walker/Mourning/Williams were not drafted by them
08 Celtics Traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett
09-11 Lakers traded for Gasol and Odom
11 Mavericks only Drafted Dirk as a core player. Kidd/Butler/Chandler/Marion were all brought in other ways
12, 13 Heat signed Lebron and Bosh as free agents
16 Cavs signed Lebron as a free agent and traded for Love
18 Raptors trade for Kawhi

Really since 2000, only the 03 Spurs/05 Spurs/07 Spurs //14 Spurs/15 Warriors/17 Warriors/18 Warriors primarily built their teams through the draft

I've seen plenty of races won on gas mileage/better handling/track position/etc. Horsepower is great base to start with, but it alone isn't going to get you the checkered flag.

In other words, there isn't a fool proof blueprint out there.

No one made a claim that any blueprint was foolproof. My argument is and has been stated MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times is that the best path to a championship IN MY OPINION is developing a core of young players over time then putting on the finishing touches with trades/free agency. It's the opposing side claiming that path DOESN'T work, and that only the trades/free agency path does.

Yeah, I find it bizarre that many insist on absolute proof that accumulating assets is a guarantee of success.

One team out of 30 wins per year. About 2 out of 3 teams haven't won since 1980. There are no foolproof ways of building a champion.

But yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of explaining why, even though Blake put up great numbers, he was a bad investment because he took up over a third of our cap and got us 2 extra wins. Not every move that gives you a few more wins the next year is the right move. Value matters.

[thesack12]

Whoever said anything about high draft picks? I simply said that building a champion through development of young players--drafted or not--has provided more championships than teams built from a majority of trade/free agency moves. Not great examples? I just covered the vast majority of championships in the last 40 years. The league is different? What does that have to do with anything? Car engines are very different now than they were 40 years ago, but horsepower still wins races.

00-03 Lakers had Shaq as a free agent
04 Pistons had Chauncey as a free agent, and all of Rip/Ben/Sheed brought in via trades
06 Heat had only Wade as a drafted core player. Shaq/Walker/Mourning/Williams were not drafted by them
08 Celtics Traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett
09-11 Lakers traded for Gasol and Odom
11 Mavericks only Drafted Dirk as a core player. Kidd/Butler/Chandler/Marion were all brought in other ways
12, 13 Heat signed Lebron and Bosh as free agents
16 Cavs signed Lebron as a free agent and traded for Love
18 Raptors trade for Kawhi

Really since 2000, only the 03 Spurs/05 Spurs/07 Spurs //14 Spurs/15 Warriors/17 Warriors/18 Warriors primarily built their teams through the draft

I've seen plenty of races won on gas mileage/better handling/track position/etc. Horsepower is great base to start with, but it alone isn't going to get you the checkered flag.

In other words, there isn't a fool proof blueprint out there.

No one made a claim that any blueprint was foolproof. My argument is and has been stated MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times is that the best path to a championship IN MY OPINION is developing a core of young players over time then putting on the finishing touches with trades/free agency. It's the opposing side claiming that path DOESN'T work, and that only the trades/free agency path does.

Like I originally said, I don't disagree with your general philosophy.

However, the track record of the modern day NBA has shown us that you need to make savvy trades and signings in order to give yourself the best chances at a 'ship. Still, in most cases teams have at least one homegrown player in their core.

[MotownMadness]

00-03 Lakers had Shaq as a free agent
04 Pistons had Chauncey as a free agent, and all of Rip/Ben/Sheed brought in via trades
06 Heat had only Wade as a drafted core player. Shaq/Walker/Mourning/Williams were not drafted by them
08 Celtics Traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett
09-11 Lakers traded for Gasol and Odom
11 Mavericks only Drafted Dirk as a core player. Kidd/Butler/Chandler/Marion were all brought in other ways
12, 13 Heat signed Lebron and Bosh as free agents
16 Cavs signed Lebron as a free agent and traded for Love
18 Raptors trade for Kawhi

Really since 2000, only the 03 Spurs/05 Spurs/07 Spurs //14 Spurs/15 Warriors/17 Warriors/18 Warriors primarily built their teams through the draft

I've seen plenty of races won on gas mileage/better handling/track position/etc. Horsepower is great base to start with, but it alone isn't going to get you the checkered flag.

In other words, there isn't a fool proof blueprint out there.

No one made a claim that any blueprint was foolproof. My argument is and has been stated MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times is that the best path to a championship IN MY OPINION is developing a core of young players over time then putting on the finishing touches with trades/free agency. It's the opposing side claiming that path DOESN'T work, and that only the trades/free agency path does.

Yeah, I find it bizarre that many insist on absolute proof that accumulating assets is a guarantee of success.

One team out of 30 wins per year. About 2 out of 3 teams haven't won since 1980. There are no foolproof ways of building a champion.

But yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of explaining why, even though Blake put up great numbers, he was a bad investment because he took up over a third of our cap and got us 2 extra wins. Not every move that gives you a few more wins the next year is the right move. Value matters.

Your calling them assets as in build up assets for a trade im assuming. Which once again leaves us with no depth. You cant just sit here and build up all this talent through the draft to use for depth then go sign a star like they do in California.

Your basically just wanting to do the samething which is rebuild flexibility to trade for a star, correct?

Were we not called a treadmill before the Blake trade? Cause i clearly remember that label

[Manocad]

00-03 Lakers had Shaq as a free agent
04 Pistons had Chauncey as a free agent, and all of Rip/Ben/Sheed brought in via trades
06 Heat had only Wade as a drafted core player. Shaq/Walker/Mourning/Williams were not drafted by them
08 Celtics Traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett
09-11 Lakers traded for Gasol and Odom
11 Mavericks only Drafted Dirk as a core player. Kidd/Butler/Chandler/Marion were all brought in other ways
12, 13 Heat signed Lebron and Bosh as free agents
16 Cavs signed Lebron as a free agent and traded for Love
18 Raptors trade for Kawhi

Really since 2000, only the 03 Spurs/05 Spurs/07 Spurs //14 Spurs/15 Warriors/17 Warriors/18 Warriors primarily built their teams through the draft

I've seen plenty of races won on gas mileage/better handling/track position/etc. Horsepower is great base to start with, but it alone isn't going to get you the checkered flag.

In other words, there isn't a fool proof blueprint out there.

No one made a claim that any blueprint was foolproof. My argument is and has been stated MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times is that the best path to a championship IN MY OPINION is developing a core of young players over time then putting on the finishing touches with trades/free agency. It's the opposing side claiming that path DOESN'T work, and that only the trades/free agency path does.

Like I originally said, I don't disagree with your general philosophy.

However, the track record of the modern day NBA has shown us that you need to make savvy trades and signings in order to give yourself the best chances at a 'ship. Still, in most cases teams have at least one homegrown player in their core.

I clearly stated that trades/free agency plays a part...AFTER you've got a core established to build around. I don't buy into the concept that you can swap out players via trades/free agency any time you want to improve and make it happen.

That seems to be the brick wall some people here are banging their heads against--a belief that through trades/free agency the team can ALWAYS be improved, no matter what.

[Snakebites]

No one made a claim that any blueprint was foolproof. My argument is and has been stated MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times is that the best path to a championship IN MY OPINION is developing a core of young players over time then putting on the finishing touches with trades/free agency. It's the opposing side claiming that path DOESN'T work, and that only the trades/free agency path does.

Yeah, I find it bizarre that many insist on absolute proof that accumulating assets is a guarantee of success.

One team out of 30 wins per year. About 2 out of 3 teams haven't won since 1980. There are no foolproof ways of building a champion.

But yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of explaining why, even though Blake put up great numbers, he was a bad investment because he took up over a third of our cap and got us 2 extra wins. Not every move that gives you a few more wins the next year is the right move. Value matters.

Your calling them assets as in build up assets for a trade im assuming. Which once again leaves us with no depth. You cant just sit here and build up all this talent through the draft to use for depth then go sign a star lime they do in California.

Your basically just wanting to do the samething which is rebuild flexibility to trade for a star, correct?

Well, ideally you draft stars, or draft enough solid pieces to trade them for better players. And yes, this approach involves languishing for a while

Take a look at what the Pelicans and Grizzlies are doing. They might fail. But with all of the assets and good picks they have, they've got a much better shot at building a contending team in the next 5 years than we do. There are no guarantees. Go back 30 years, you'll find the majority of teams haven't won a single title. That's the way it is.

The Grizzlies could have wadded together some picks and gotten another win-now piece alongside Gasol/Conley and won a few more games while prolonging the inevitable decline into basement dwellers. Instead they chose to start accumulating assets and now they're in a way better spot than we are. Yet we keep chasing those short term wins, and it's gotten us nowhere in the last 10 years.

Sure, you can find failing examples- teams that didn't do the rebuild right. It's still dependent on drafting the right players and making the right moves. I don't KNOW that accumulating assets and letting us decline for a while will pick us back up. But I'm pretty damn sure that continuing to milk assets to add to a fundamentally flawed core isn't going to get us there.

[MotownMadness]

Yeah, I find it bizarre that many insist on absolute proof that accumulating assets is a guarantee of success.

One team out of 30 wins per year. About 2 out of 3 teams haven't won since 1980. There are no foolproof ways of building a champion.

But yeah, I'm getting pretty tired of explaining why, even though Blake put up great numbers, he was a bad investment because he took up over a third of our cap and got us 2 extra wins. Not every move that gives you a few more wins the next year is the right move. Value matters.

Your calling them assets as in build up assets for a trade im assuming. Which once again leaves us with no depth. You cant just sit here and build up all this talent through the draft to use for depth then go sign a star lime they do in California.

Your basically just wanting to do the samething which is rebuild flexibility to trade for a star, correct?

Well, ideally you draft stars, or draft enough solid pieces to trade them for better players. And yes, this approach involves languishing for a while

Take a look at what the Pelicans and Grizzlies are doing. They might fail. But with all of the assets and good picks they have, they've got a much better shot at building a contending team in the next 5 years than we do. There are no guarantees. Go back 30 years, you'll find the majority of teams haven't won a single title. That's the way it is.

The Grizzlies could have wadded together some picks and gotten another win-now piece alongside Gasol/Conley and won a few more games while prolonging the inevitable decline into basement dwellers. Instead they chose to start accumulating assets and now they're in a way better spot than we are. Yet we keep chasing those short term wins, and it's gotten us nowhere in the last 10 years.

Sure, you can find failing examples- teams that didn't do the rebuild right. It's still dependent on drafting the right players and making the right moves. I don't KNOW that accumulating assets and letting us decline for a while will pick us back up. But I'm pretty damn sure that continuing to milk asssireets to add to a fundamentally flawed core isn't going to get us there.

if i had to guess it will be just like Davis and paul before him demanding out after about 8 years of crap. This is a tough market man a really tough market that i dont even know how were gonna survive in either way

[Manocad]

It seems that some people believe that a draft pick not working out means drafting doesn't work, but that signing good players works because...uhh...the players are good! But look at all the examples of good teams just adding more good players and still not winning championships. It takes a lot more than just smashing good players together.

[MotownMadness]

It seems that some people believe that a draft pick not working out means drafting doesn't work, but that signing good players works because...uhh...the players are good! But look at all the examples of good teams just adding more good players and still not winning championships. It takes a lot more than just smashing good players together.

Hey i love the draft and scouting all year long but look at the odds now and it doesnt even make sense to try and be abysmal. How pissed would you be to win 15 games and then watch the top 4 picks go down like it did under the new odds system?

[The Moose]

Which teams would be interested in Blake? I had the rockets as one but obviously not anymore.
Probably needs to be a team that considers itself close to contention with some salary wiggle room

[Spider156]

It seems that some people believe that a draft pick not working out means drafting doesn't work, but that signing good players works because...uhh...the players are good! But look at all the examples of good teams just adding more good players and still not winning championships. It takes a lot more than just smashing good players together.

It's a collective amount of decisions that in the end you need to get lucky at least twice. You need luck to hit the draft, a free agent signing and a trade. Giannis was a lucky draft, Middleton was a lucky trade, Lopez was a lucky free agency signing. Brogdon was the 4th lucky thing they had but he's gone now which is why I think they got worse. They lost depth and Bledsoe is an issue they haven't answered yet. I think they're giving it another year before considering trading him. Toronto got lucky with the draft with Siakam, then lucky with a trade for Kawhi, lucky signings like Lowry. Of course there's Vanvleet another lucky draft. For us we got lucky with Blake, lucky with Doumbouya and lucky with Rose? We need to get lucky in a trade and we have the assets. I'd give Kennard and 2 picks for Beal for assets. Probably would take 2 pick swaps too though. Rose Beal Sekou Blake Dre. Could make some noise.

[Manocad]

It seems that some people believe that a draft pick not working out means drafting doesn't work, but that signing good players works because...uhh...the players are good! But look at all the examples of good teams just adding more good players and still not winning championships. It takes a lot more than just smashing good players together.

Hey i love the draft and scouting all year long but look at the odds now and it doesnt even make sense to try and be abysmal. How pissed would you be to win 15 games and then watch the top 4 picks go down like it did under the new odds system?

I wouldn't be pissed at all. That's the breaks.

And maybe that's the difference here. I don't get pissed when things don't go my way relative to my favorite sports teams. Disappointed maybe. But not enough to throw a hissy fit.

[buzzkilloton]

I don't disagree with your general philosophy, but these aren't great examples.

Bringing up anything 80's/90's isn't the best of comparisons to equate modern day team building. The NBA was an immensely different league back then.

Also "the 90's Lakers" didn't win any titles until 2000, and even then they signed Shaq as a free agent.

The Spurs did build primarily through the draft, but 2 of their core pieces weren't even remotely high picks. Tony Parker was taken 28th, and Manu Ginobili was drafted 57th.

The Warriors is the best example, but their picks weren't all that high. Curry was 7th, Klay was 11th, and Draymond was 35th.

Whoever said anything about high draft picks? I simply said that building a champion through development of young players--drafted or not--has provided more championships than teams built from a majority of trade/free agency moves. Not great examples? I just covered the vast majority of championships in the last 40 years. The league is different? What does that have to do with anything? Car engines are very different now than they were 40 years ago, but horsepower still wins races.

00-03 Lakers had Shaq as a free agent
04 Pistons had Chauncey as a free agent, and all of Rip/Ben/Sheed brought in via trades
06 Heat had only Wade as a drafted core player. Shaq/Walker/Mourning/Williams were not drafted by them
08 Celtics Traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett
09-11 Lakers traded for Gasol and Odom
11 Mavericks only Drafted Dirk as a core player. Kidd/Butler/Chandler/Marion were all brought in other ways
12, 13 Heat signed Lebron and Bosh as free agents
16 Cavs signed Lebron as a free agent and traded for Love
19 Raptors traded for Kawhi

Really since 2000, only the 03 Spurs/05 Spurs/07 Spurs //14 Spurs/15 Warriors/17 Warriors/18 Warriors primarily built their teams through the draft

I've seen plenty of races won on gas mileage/better handling/track position/etc. Horsepower is great base to start with, but it alone isn't going to get you the checkered flag.

In other words, there isn't a fool proof blueprint out there.

Alot of these teams used draft picks or players they drafted to land the stars they traded for. Good young players are just valuable assets and they have more value then just helping your team win they get you back cool stuff in trades.

KG the center piece was Al Jefferson. Cavs used the number 1 pick to get Love to go with Irving a number 1 pick. Raps center piece was DDR for Leonard who they drafted early. Then looking at this list every team outside the pistons had a franchise player on it they drafted outside of the raps as i wouldnt call Siakam a franchise player YET.

Some teams like the lakers have it way easier to build a contender without drafting well because there the number 1 free agent destination. Everyone else outside of the pistons one year had to home brew some big time talent or use some homegrown talent high lotto picks to trade.

[MotownMadness]

It seems that some people believe that a draft pick not working out means drafting doesn't work, but that signing good players works because...uhh...the players are good! But look at all the examples of good teams just adding more good players and still not winning championships. It takes a lot more than just smashing good players together.

Hey i love the draft and scouting all year long but look at the odds now and it doesnt even make sense to try and be abysmal. How pissed would you be to win 15 games and then watch the top 4 picks go down like it did under the new odds system?

I wouldn't be pissed at all. That's the breaks.

And maybe that's the difference here. I don't get pissed when things don't go my way relative to my favorite sports teams. Disappointed maybe. But not enough to throw a hissy fit.

im not throwing a hissy fit. At the end of the day im gonna sit down with my wife and kids and not really give a crap but in my sparetime i like to be entertained by sports