It's easy to say that when you win. How do we explain Spain then, whom some folks would argue was more experienced, more talented and lost to France who had no Parker or Noah?
Stars: Harden, Howard Borderline: Ariza(debatable), (Trade for one) Significant Role Players: Beverley, Jones, Terry, (Trade for one) Role Players: Papanikolaou, Canaan, Motiejunas Additional depth: Dorsey, Black, Garcia, Johnson I like the 2.5 model. We need to dump the some additional depth for more prominent role players and another "Debatable" star.
I would be happy with any of the choices. Right now we have 2 stars, one good role player, and not much else. At this point I'm just hoping that one or more of our young players quickly blossoms into something special. I know it's unlikely, but it seems more probable than Morey stealing an "elite" player from another team in a trade.
For the people hung up on the Spurs model, please give it up. There is no way we can replicate that given the factors involved in it. 1) They transitioned from hall of famer to hall of famer. Precious few teams are that lucky. People forget that they had David Robinson and then Tim Duncan. That would be like going from Hakeem to Dwight with Hakeem tutoring and nurturing a young rookie Howard. 2) They have arguably the best coach/GM that has been with the team forever who has had the backing of star core players, developing a continuity that is simply not possible for teams nowadays. 3) The core players of the team, the stars of the team, maintain a sense of team loyalty only found in the past era of NBA players, where players stay with the same team out of loyalty. Today's NBA is MUCH more business oriented with players much less likely to take pay cuts for the good of the team. 4) Spurs are a very well managed team that has always been ahead of the curve in terms of international talent scouting and benefitted from that early on. Even our very own Scola was originally a Spurs pick up. This helped them build up a strong core of players that their great coaching staff was able to develop around the foundational pillar of Duncan. In short, we don't have our Duncan, a humble HoF nurtured from the beginning by another humble/classy HoF, who will take payouts, act as a great leader through thick and thin, and take the baton passed by Robinson. That said, I do think that the Spurs era will be ending soon simply because the NBA has become much more business oriented. Once Parker, Ginobli, and Duncan retire, the Spurs will have a much harder time retaining their core consistency IMO.
Really depends on your stars. I mean there are tiers here. Obviously LMA is a star but you are going to need more around him than you would need prime Garnett or Lebron. Obviously you would need less around Jordan. So it really depends. I think if Howard goes back to his Orlando days and Harden takes that next step, we have enough with those two as they do make guys around them better or rather they make the game easier for those around them.
Depends On the Roster. There is no formula, there is only adapting to circumstances, judging fit, maximizing leverage, identifying inefficiencies, and luck.
I have to disagree with your very well thought out post. The SA model in essence is that every player knows their role and is willing to accept that role in the teams interest. Things like club loyalty, home town discounts etc. stem from that system. The Heat are playing to that model. In the absence of LBJ they are playing crisp team first basketball, as are the Rockets. This is a large improvement over the attitudes of Parsons and Lin. Each failed in their own way when presented with the opportunity to play their role and contribute to the overall good of the team. You do have a very good point if the discussion is about building a dynasty.
Unselfish basketball where people know their role is not the SA model, but rather the end result of any basketball team where everyone is on the same page. When people talk about the SA model, they aren't just referring to how they play basketball IMO, but how they evaluate, collect, and develop talent to sustain a winning team each season. The concept of players knowing their roles and making the extra pass extends far beyond the Spurs. It's a fundamental concept of basketball itself. You hear coaches at all levels in all eras preaching to make a smart pass, to make the extra pass. SA can achieve this because of their continuity of their core. It is almost impossible to base a franchise off the Spurs, hence why no one has done it long term. Most cores will eventually break up and go into lull seasons. When the big 3 in Spurs retire for instance, unless they can find another Duncan type player to build around, they too will be stuck in mediocrity for a while IMO.
Given that everyone expects Pop and Duncan to exit together, it is of high probability. Could Pop keep the Spurs as the best franchise in pro sports after Tim retires? We probably will never know.
After two legitimate stars, I question the value of a third. Generally stars need the ball in their hands, because they've been used to being ball dominant, and are generally very good with it. How many great players play well off the ball? And at that point, are they being used to their maximum potential and salary? I don't think it's an efficient use of resources. Give me some fringe stars to round out the starting 5 to be a really strong unit, with enough bench depth to go 9 deep for playoff time. The rest of the guys are just to keep the starters' minutes lower during the regular season and reduce wear and tear, or to give some young/overlooked guys a chance and see how they do.
I really think Horford could be a star in this league. If he can stay healthy, get in the right situation, and move back to playing the 4 instead of the 5. Houston would be a good situation for him. Would let him move back to the 4, which would hopefully help him stay healthier as well. Still don't think there is anyway we get him. But I can dream.
I personally believe "stars" have a pretty limited marginal value after 2. When you group more, even in the good groupings some have to subsume themselves into roles that aren't typical "star roles" (for example, Allen and Rondo on the championship Celtics, or Bosh on the Heat; for a dysfunctional example, Pau on the Dwight Lakers). I think 10-deep style bench depth is also overrated. I'd forsake any shot at either to have guys #3-7 be the quality of, say, San Antonio's 3 through 7 guys.
The way the cap is structured, the best way to build your team is by fitting as many true max player in your cap then rounding out the team with players on rookie contracts/vet mins. The best value in the league are players on those types of contracts (rookie/vet min) and even max contract if the player is a true max player (sorry Parsons, Hayward, etc.) Look at Harden's max contract; he is making around 15 million a year, a large sum of money no doubt, but his value on the court trumps the salary the Rockets pay him. Honestly, we are getting a huge discount since Harden is on his first and relatively small max contract. If there wasn't a cap on the max a player can get, Harden's true value would be somewhere in the 20+million per season, in my opinion. Consequently, the worst way to use you cap is by signing guys to mid-level contracts, or the in between of rookie/vet min and max contracts. Because, in actuality, you are playing them what they truly deserve i.e. not getting a discount like you would by having Harden at the same price. Would you rather have Jeff Green (9.2M) and Brandon Bass (6.0M) or Harden (>15M)? Case closed. On this Rocket's team, I think we are one significant piece away from being true contenders. Harden and Howard are our stars and Ariza, while on a mid-level contract, is on a fair and team friendly contract. Jones, Bev, D-Mo, Dorsey, and most everyone else is on rookie deals/ vet min. Terry is an expiring as is Kostas as his contract has a team option after this season. If we can add a Paul Millsap for, at worst, the NOP pick and Jones, we will be set.
Obviously it depends heavily on who the players are. Not every star is equal. A LeBron is not the same as a Harden. A Noah is not the same as a Howard. A Love is not the same as a Davis. If you have two of the top 5 players on your team, I'd say get the best and deepest supporting cast as fast as you can and go to war. The real question is, even if you have two second tier stars, do you hold off building your supporting cast to maintain the flexibility you need to get another star or do you invest in the good role players long term (more or less) and try to compete? It's a hard choice.
Given Ariza's impact, my vote would be to add Ariza-type players. However, at $7m per year, it may be hard to label him just a role player. An Ariza type player at pg who can facilitate and consistently knock down 3s would be great. I'm thinking of a Jose Calderon or Dragic. I don't see Dragic as an All Star, but a good pg who can perform the duties asked. A PF who can defend the post and knock down 3s again would be ideal in my opinion. These don't have to be stars, but players like Ariza who know their role and can fulfill it.
Thanks, I've been curious about this for awhile and figured it might be something others have strong opinions on too. Looking at the results of the poll it looks like about half of CF prefers going after one or two more borderline stars with our remaining flexibility and letting DM find a few quality role players on value contracts. I'm inclined to go this direction too. As one poster mentioned before, we don't know if a 3rd "true" max player shakes lose next off season and it's a big chance to wait for KD. If Dragic/Milsap/Horford or some borderline star becomes available I'd cash in now for those guys, fill out the bench and run with that.
Except that you are vague about Horford and Millsap because Horford is a star and Millsap is close to being a star in this league If you are talking about fit and not quite the star Ryan Anderson fits the bill perfectly. He played with Dwight well check He can space the floor check He is intelligent check He is a veteran check He is good but not great, knows his role check He can rebound the ball check Defense is the only thing that he might be having a problem with but we have defensive players around him which makes him the perfect fit and fostering young PFs like Terrence Jones off the bench
