khans2k5 wrote:lipoli390 wrote:khans2k5 wrote:lipoli390 wrote:khans2k5 wrote:lipoli390 wrote:monsterpile wrote:Houston could legitimately have a championship already. You wonder if their owner had been willing to spend more money the last few months if things would be a bit more happy around there.
If GS stays healthy the Kawhi acquisition may not seem like such a home run. There are a lot of ways of putting together a roster. I think a lot of options should be considered. Look at the Warriors. They traded away Ellis, did everything they could to sign Iggy and added Livingston as well as let their high draft pick leave and signed Durant who went on to win 2 Finals MVPs.
I get locked into thinking certain ways myself. GS made some of their own success and had some good fortune as well. They did also think outside the box at times to build a hell of a team. The Raptors took some risks and it paid off. It seems like Rosas and this front office is genuinely going to be looking at all options. It's a refreshing change.
There is certainly more than one way to build a championship contender. My point is is two-fold. First, it's generally more effective to build your core PRIMARILY through the draft. And that's especially true for a franchise that isn't considered a destination franchise like the Lakers. Second, it's generally more sustainable to build your core through the draft. I think the draft is less important for filling out the rest of the team with complementary role players around the core. I'll add that the next best thing to using the draft to build most of your core is to acquire young up-and-comers via trades or free agency -- players like Middleton.
Note that even two of the three players in Toronto's core (Siakam and Lowry) this season were drafted by the Raptors. Obviously, trading for Kawhi was key in going from championship contender to champion. But that trade was possible because Toronto previously drafted DeRozan.
Lowry was drafted by the Grizzlies and then played for the Rockets before he got to Toronto. He was another asset they traded for. Pascal was the only player in their whole rotation they actually drafted.
Ok. But my point still holds as a general proposition.
And our point is there are multiple ways to build a contender. There isn't one right way to do it and considering we are a late lottery team right now trying to build through the draft doesn't have great odds of working out.
I've already acknowledged that there is more than one way. In fact, I never said there wasn't. So I'll try one more time. I said building your core primarily through the draft has proven to be a more effective and sustainable approach, especially for a mid-market, non-destination franchise like the Wolves. If you disagree with that, then fine. But understand I'm not disputing that there's more than one way.
The overlooked piece of your argument is drafting multiple Hall of Famers is the most effective approach to building a team. Not just building through the draft. Those are the outliers. The Spurs and the Warriors. That's it. Nobody else has had extended championship success through the draft in the last 20 years and it takes drafting multiple Hall of Famers to get to that level of sustainable success. Everyone else has had to trade and sign their way to the title. Lakers (two eras with Shaq and without), Celtics, Heat, Cavs, Raptors. So if you think Garland is relatively likely to be a Hall of Fame PG then we're set. If he's not, then we aren't one of those teams you are referring to when you say that's the most effective way to team build and we're right back to square one of needing to trade or sign for the pieces to put us into contender status.
This will be my last post on this issue. It's getting old. Draymond Green isn't a future hall-of-famer. And we're talking about championship contenders, not just teams that have won championships. So it's not just the Warriors of today. It's the Blazers, Nuggets, and Sixers as well. Each of these teams got most of their key or core 3 players through the draft. Blazers (Lillard & McCollum), Nuggets (Murray, Jokic, Harris), Sixers (Simmons, Embiid). The Spurs long run as a championship contender was built around a core of Duncan, Parker and Manu (later Kawhi), all of them drafted by the Spurs. Thibodeau's contending Bulls drafted all of their core players - Rose, Deng, Butler and Gibson. I'll add that the only likely hall-of-fame player from that team is Rose. Going back to Michael Jordan's Bulls teams, both MJ and Pippen were drafted by the Bulls. Horace Grant was the 3rd core player for the Bulls' initial 3-peat and I'd argue that Tony Kukoc was a key core player during the second 3-peat, yet neither Grant nor Kukoc is likely headed to the hall of fame. The main competitors to Jordan's Bulls in the West, the Jazz, were built around two of their own picks, Malone and Stockton. The Celtics before then were built primarily around a core of their own picks, Bird and McHale The Lakers back then were built around a core of Magic, Worthy and KAJ - two of the three drafted by the Lakers.
Yes, there are examples of contenders with cores built primarily through free agency and/or trades. Miami's a good example - with LeBron and Bosh. But even in those cases, one member of their core was their own draft pick, Dwayne Wade. Even the Rockets have had one of their own draftees, Capella, as part of their core in their recent run. And I'd argue Capella was far more important than the often-injured Chris Paul. And yes, there are more examples. I just think when you factor in sustainability and market, the draft is the better, more effective tool for building a contending core.
But that's enough on the subject because I think we both agree with Cam's point that it's ultimately about accumulating talent and then having the coaching to develop, guild and meld the talent into a winner. And we violently agree that there are multiple ways to accumulate that talent. :) Let's hope the Rosas regime can get it right!
