Leslie Forman wrote:Red Larrivee wrote:Better question: Let's say for some crazy reason Luka Doncic becomes available. Why would he want to go to a stripped down, losing Bulls team that's building for the future? Why would any all-star want to go there? I'm not saying LaVine and Vucevic are some recruiting juggernaut, but I sure as hell would be more interested in playing there especially if I'm seeing the front office isn't scared to make moves to compete.
This is like asking where you're going to store your future collection of Lamborghinis when you have 50 bucks in your bank account.Red Larrivee wrote:Rookie contracts are valuable, but they're more valuable when they are contributing to a competitive team. Brooklyn had Russell, LeVert, and Allen all playing well and pushing the team into the playoffs before Irving and Durant. That allowed them to move those players in deals for superstars. When the Bulls had Hinrich, Gordon, Deng and others on rookie deals and they were winning games, they were in trade talks for each disgruntled star.
All that winning Jeff Green, Al Jefferson, Andrew Wiggins, etc., etc. did sure was vital to their trade value.Red Larrivee wrote:Tanking is a viable strategy to building a team; however, the issue is that now more than ever so much that's out of your control has to go right for it to even get running. There's a 60% chance that the worst team in the league doesn't pick in the Top 3. There's almost a 50% chance the second and third worst team in the league doesn't pick in the Top 4.
It's by far the most hands-off route possible. You need to win the lottery just to get to the point where you enter the low odds of winning a championship with a #1 overall pick. Again, only three of the last 30 #1 overall picks have won a title with their original team. So, unless you get one of the 10 greatest players ever, you are virtually SOL.
You are still completely ignoring the entire point I was trying to make.
It's not about drafting a superstar. If you do end up drafting a superstar? Well that's a just a real nice little surprise.
It's about quantitatively maximizing your asset portfolio, which then gives you a qualitatively better warchest to work with. Lauri and Wendell after their first couple years were putting up completely empty numbers on an awful team and yet they were seen as incredibly valuable trade assets. Picks and young prospects that are showing any sort of a pulse (they don't even actually have to be good) are what really matter as assets.
This is exactly what Hinkie and Presti have done/are doing and it's pretty much what every single baseball team that isn't dumb as rocks tries to do nowadays.
I agree with alot of this, but the baseball example doesn't work IMO.
In baseball you have seen examples of teams getting bad, gathering assests and the slowly developing a team and then winning a championship.
That is so rare in the NBA because 1 player can ruin your "come up" because he is just better then you. Its 5 players not 25 and a minor league system.
If this worked in the NBA the Timberwolves, Kings and Pelicans would show some sort of improvement. They don't and probably wont ever because no one wants to play or stay there, even if they got a generational talent....and on top of that they wont ever gather enough assests to beat a team with one of those guys anyways.
Team building through assests rarely works because LeBron has broughr his friend with him and is just better then you, no matter what you do.