Trades for superstars are not fool's gold at all. The nets traded for Williams and they seem to be doing okay. The Lakers traded for Gasol and it resulted in 2 rings. Celts traded for KG and got a ring as well. WHat won't work is if you destroy your roster just to get one guy, like when NY traded their players for one of the most overrated so-called superstar in history (as an aside how about them Nuggs without Melodrama? :grin. What Morey is doing is compiling assets, so that when we do get that superstar we won't have to roll around with garbage like Rafer Alston and Juwon Howard, which is what happened in the 1-11 era. I'm not sure why that's a fool's gold. As long as Morey can keep revolving around his assets (like what he did with Battier and Brooks), given time he'll get enough assets to trade for a superstar. That's a better, more sure-fire way to get a superstar rather than hoping against hope that that project forward you get is the next tim duncan.
I agree with you in principle. I think the best way to build is by acquiring a star in the draft and build around that star. But I do have a few minor points of contention. Kobe was drafted, sure, but by Charlotte, not the Lakers. It was a draft day deal. The Lakers didn't have a high pick so they packaged Vlade Divac for Kobe. And Dirk wasn't drafted by the Mavericks either. He was also acquired in a draft day deal with Milwaukee (for Robert 'Tractor' Traylor no less). Granted, those are really minor points of contention since both players were picked expressly to be traded to the teams they've played their entire careers with, but it's still worth bringing up since the Rockets could also accomplish something similar. And while the Suns did draft Amare, I don't think they ever built around him. Nash was already their center piece when Amare arrived and he's remained such.
Stop trying to argue just to break his argument. That is besides the point. All data come with outliers, that team is an outlier. The OP is making a very good argument and your worried about something that is irrelevant. Add to the forum and not your pride.
Ok. Yao and Tmac are gone. Done. But let's ride it out. Only thing we can do as fans. I fell in love with the 22-0 Rockets. After that, I'm down for the long run. Rockets forever
There will always be debates regarding which way is easier to acquire a star. And there are only 3 options. 1. The Draft 2. Trade 3. Free Agency Are they even chances? Which one has a greater chance then the others? Which one gets you to contention level quicker? Which one is heathier for the organisation? ie to draft top 5 - you need to suck, to trade - you need to give up players, to acquire through FA - you need to let go of players. So and so on..... I say at this point we should try balance our team in way which allows us to be flexible to all three options. As someone posted earlier - stars can be found around in the low teens - which is where we are headed. We need to work on piling up "assets" - which we are doing. We are looking pretty good cap wise come 2012. So, we are pretty flexible for all options on deck. Its just a waiting game from here on in. Its pretty easy to lose patience though.
The problem is that the draft is no guarantee either. Sure there is Tim Duncan winning with the Spurs, but there is also Yao getting injured, Darko amounting to nothing, LeBron leaving as soon as possible, Kobe forcing a draft day trade, etc. It takes tremendous luck to win a title. To act as if there is some magic formula that will guarantee one is preposterous. There is no greater benefit to getting a player through the draft than through free agency. Trades obviously require sending other assets out, but sometimes you get a steal like Pau or Kevin Martin. All of the tools in the bag should be utilized by Morey, and that appears to be exactly what he is doing.
You might be able to use history to support your argument for the next couple years, but if the players have their way that tradition will soon be broken. The building of championship teams seems to be more centered around location than organization now. Say New York becomes a powerhouse in the next two years. How many of their players will have been "home grown"? Amare? Carmelo? Deron/Paul? No Rucker Park does not count. The point is, there's many ways to skin a cat, and although the cat has been skinned one way by everybody in recent memory, that doesn't mean someone can't come along and do it different, and do it better. I'm disappointed like everyone else that we couldn't acquire a superstar at the trade deadline. However, one thing we do still have is good management. We did not cave in and trade for star-but-not-superstar talent like Monta Ellis or Gerald Wallace. We did not take on cap-crippling salaries. Once Yao comes off the books this summer that will be the first time you could really say Morey's had the financial flexibility to build the team he envisioned. And then we'll see. No it's not tantamount to a free pass, more so an understanding that to start over would be far, far, far worse at this point than to keep pushing and waiting to see if that superstar will become available. I mean, Boston could have started over and traded Paul Pierce away back then, but they kept at their mediocrity and voila, the clouds opened up. Now if only David Stern will grant us that courtesy this time around...Houston's important too you know! (Only the transplant radio show hosts would not have you believe that, because they suck and shouldn't be working here if they weren't true fans beforehand.)
I am just saying - you look at the history of contenders, and they are almost always built around a YOUNG superstar to start off with. They didn't start with getting a vetern superstar, and most times it came from the draft (or a draft day deal). It could be for many reason. My theory is this. 1. You have to get your first super star young so you have time to add more. It could take a few years, or it could take 10. But it takes time, and starting with a carmelo and amare won't work for NY because they are too old already. 2. You have to give up too much in trades and such in acquiring that much talent. 3. It's easier to make huge ego's mess on a talented team when you have an established superstar instead of having 2 new ones compete. Whatever the reason, the pattern is clearly there.
you missed my point. I am not saying you don't trade for superstars to win.....i am saying you do it only after you have an established star to begin with. I don't think K-mart is our established star. History seems to indicate that you need that initial star, that initial building block to start with as a rookie or straight out of the draft.
It's hard to say they built around Peja because he was only their third best player when they were contenders. Webber and Bibby were their two best guys, and they were both brought in via trade. As were Divac and Christie.
1. The superstar has to be in the draft to be drafted. 2. The superstar has to be available when you pick to be drafted. There are only two potential superstars in this upcoming draft, Kyrie Irving and Derrick Williams. There are probably around 3-5 more players who will be very good star players in this year's draft. Everybody else will be average NBA players to below average players. And here's the thing. While Kyrie and Derrick have the potential to be superstars, we already know that Deron Williams is a superstar. So, if we could get Deron, it would be better than taking a chance on something that is really unknown. However, if we can't get Deron or Dwight or some other established NBA superstar, then the next best option is to put ourselves in a position to get one of the players that are potential superstars in the draft.
Why is everything either Fools Gold or the most amazing thing ever? Sometimes, a team can be more than just a sum of its parts.
Some how you forget that the round mound of rebounds wasn't drafted by Phoenix. You're analogy of Paul Pierce doesn't make sense. Paul Pierce was a stat stuffer for years. Yes he would carry a fantasy team but not a playoff team. They traded away their whole roster for two sure fire hall of famers. Thats how they won a championship and are now contenders. I'm sorry but no one was building around Kobe when Shaq was signed in LA. Also, that team was loaded to begin with beyond just those two. The Lakers trading away Kwame brown for Pau Gasol was a joke. That has to be in its own category. The Hawks are built around Joe Johnson and he was a Free Agent. New York becoming an over night contender with the trade for Melo after signing Amare as a FA. Phoenix did not rise to the forefront because of drafting Amare... It was because they signed Nash. Let's not turn a blind eye to that. In the past, Webber was not originally on the Kings... neither was Divac. Adelman wouldn't give time to Hedo and Gerald... they used to ride the pine. There seems to be a lot of circular logic here. As if the addition of new players via trade or FA did not enhance the productivity of the players on the original roster that were drafted by the team. As if T-Mac didn't make Yao a better player on the court. Sometimes when you add amazing talent via free agency or trade you turn some of those high potential players into superstars as well.
That's a convenient list that omits elite players acquired through trades. You could also make a long list of all the players drafted in the past 10 years who teams thought would become their franchise player/superstar and lead them to a championship, but who didn't pan out. Common sense tells you you acquire your "stars" any way you can, and build around them. You don't have to "start over" or "rebuild" or "tank," and you don't have to have your best player on board first. That's very limiting, and foolish. The current Lakers, Suns, Celtics - the list goes on - were built not just through the draft, but through trades. Overly relying on the draft to build a contender is fool's gold.
It is how you define a Super Star... Lets see we have Super Star > Star> Great Player > Good > Decent but I prefer Tier 1 > Tier 2 > Tier 3 To me the difference between Tier 1 vs Tier 2 is more than stats.. It's getting to the free throw line The Refs making the calls for you Handling the rock when it matters most Taking over the game in the 4th qtr. etc.. Tier 1: D'Wade,Lebron,D, Howard, Amare, Kobe, Derrick Rose, Kevin Love (Yes I went there)... Tier 2: Kevin Martin, Chris Bosh, Brook Lopez, Tony Parker, Manu, Josh Smith, Luis Scola (I put Luis between Tier 2 and Tier 3).... I believe Tier 2 can be had in a trade but Tier 1? Hell NO unless that team is really trying to rebuild.
its a good point but the chances of drafting a superstar is also very low. you might just end up drafting a kwame or an olowokandi or milicic. landing a star also requires a lot of luck on top of good scouting. and then there's the injury factor. and the gasol to the lakers is a big joke. before he joined the lakers i remember they cant even make the playoffs. so on top of superstar via draft, team must also make good trades and have the right pieces. basketball is a team game, you dont depend on 1 or 2 players. and then there's the ref bias issue, example Kings Vs Lakers. then there's players like Horry, Steve Kerr who knock down those big shots. there's just too many factors. of course, i do agree, drafting a superstar leads us to a good chance to a title but do consider the other factors.
You bring up a false comparison with Anthony and Stoudemire, they aren't really superstars. Superstars play both sides of the court. There's a reason that both of those guys have barely won anything in their careers. Anyway, as already shown by previous posters, MOST championship teams don't tank to get where they are. And MOST teams that tank don't end up being successful. That's all that needs to be said.
