all of those moves were after the season had proved to be a disaster. unless your are in favor of giving everyone from this current team a lifetime contract just to have continuity because that's just how much you believe in continuity, then it's pretty hard to argue you think this year's team was prevented from turning it on by a lack of continuity. that's generally how it works. staying put with what you know isn't working isn't a viable strategy. it might be a good way to always win in the high 40's or low 50's but isn't much of a strategy for having the flexibility and maneuverability to make the move(s) necessary to become a contender. look at a team like the hawks. should they bring everyone back? they already know what they have isn't good enough and if they bring everyone back they won't have much flexibility to get better. so what good is continuity going to do them? they can hope some fluky thing happens that suddenly propels them up another 10 wins out of no where, but it's a fairly low percentage strategy. the mavs seemingly built a million teams around nowitzki. and eventually one of them won the championship. the ones that didn't they tore down and built again. the spurs have had tons of role players around the big 3. the ones that weren't going to help them win a championship were shipped out or let go. role players are tough to line up perfectly. if they're too young, they probably can't help a contender. too old and they might not be able to help either or you realize they might be just about to fall off by the time you really construct your perfect roster. need a new contract and they might be too expensive to allow you to build a perfect roster. the churn is a necessary evil until you've already proven you are a contender. then you can start sacrificing the flexiblity and other long-term factors and adopt a "perfect is the enemy of good" attitude. until then, stars like harden and nowitzki are the only thing that should be, uhh, continuous.
Winning titles in the NBA is inevitably all about having the one of the few best NBA players at that time in the NBA. There are a few exceptions, but they are rare. Morey has basically done whatever he could to try to get players who could be that (Harden and Dwight). His methods have extreme but because one he has not been able to really use the draft to get one of those players. It is not some crazy "lovefest" or obsession with getting stars. There is great historical precedent. People keep thinking running a team or managing a franchise is easy when it is really like trying to take over Westeros in Game of Thrones. Then on top of that, it is not like anyone here actually knows much of the decision-making of Morey has been directly or indirectly meddled with by Les.
The only way to have a long extended window of championship contender is to have and keep star players. Ensemble teams don't reach that level, or when they do fade very quickly.
