The Freak I cannot believe I am agreeing 100% with you. I can't believe you posted what you posted. I am without a doubt speechless. You have probably summed up the entire list of things I wished I had said, or if I had already came close to saying them, wished that I had said them as well as you. Hell, that doesn't even make sense. But you get the idea. I know it is lame to say this,but: It is as succinct a definition of what I have been attempting to say for over three weeks.Thanks.
Popeye, that really means something coming from you, thanks. You really think that was succinct? I felt like I was saying the same thing over and over! Oh well, glad to see we agree! rocketsfan34 - I honestly don't follow college basketball, so I really don't even know who Morris is. I was really speaking more in a general sense, going on basic beliefs I have about building teams. When you move to the NBA and start to factor in things like endorsement contracts and salary, though, I'm not sure how relevant it is that two guys played together in college. Juwan Howard and Chris Webber's NBA career together didn't exactly have a storybook ending. [This message has been edited by TheFreak (edited January 08, 2000).]
Freak, here's my response to your 14-point manifesto: 1. You want to develop chemistry. So do we. No debate here. 2. I doubt a small guard can be the lone star around whom to build a championship team. Is Steve Francis the next Jordan or the next Payton? I think he’s more likely the latter. If so, he needs a star frontcourt player alongside him. Your list of core players for our future includes only one big man, Cato. Do you think he's the next Olajuwon or the next Mutombo? I think he's more likely the latter, in which case he won't suffice to get us a championship. 3. I think you're confusing caliber with position. No, L.A. doesn't need two Shaqs. But L.A. does need one Shaq, in addition to its Kobe. So do we. 4. True, we're not doing so badly for a rebuilding team. But what kind of consolation is that? I don't want to be a not-so-bad rebuilding team. I want a championship. I'm greedy. If we're going to lose a ton of games this year (which is a done deal), let's be well compensated for it: Let's get another star in the draft who will make our package totally awesome. 5. See #1. 6. You know who complains about ego problems on teams with two stars? Fans like us, who root for teams that lose games because we DON'T have two stars. Ego problems between stars are a luxury. I'd LOVE to have that problem. 7. See #3. Dear God, please let us pick a star frontcourt player in this draft so we can spend the next 10 years worrying about the ego problems between him and Steve Francis while we contend for every championship. 8. See #1. Neither Clutch nor I is arguing that we should deliberately play badly. 9. Whatever. I have no dog in this fight. 10. See #1. 11. See #1. 12. If in doubt about how good a player we need, let's err on the high side. 13. See #1. 14. You conclude, "We had ... a 'once-in-a-lifetime' player in Hakeem, and a team built around him. If we're ever going to win another ring, Francis has to become that player. That's the gamble we took when we traded for him." Now, that would be one hell of a gamble. No team should ever gamble on the assumption that the player it has just drafted is another Hakeem or Jordan, who can be doubled and tripled and still kill you 10 different ways. Yes, one of those players, with the right supporting cast, can become a dynasty. And maybe Francis will be all that. But I don't want to take that gamble. Call me insecure or greedy or whatever. I plead guilty. I want to put another division in this army before we go back out on the battlefield. Basically, Freak, I want everything you want -- the chemistry, the defensive intensity, the progressively refined execution, the grand symphony that leads to the title. I just think we're missing a horn section. That shouldn't deter the string and percussion sections from rehearsing diligently. But let's add that horn section before the curtain opens. [This message has been edited by Will (edited January 09, 2000).]
Will, it looks like our basic disagreement is whether or not our current core has the potential to be a contender some day. You seem to think that a team led by a small guard needs a dominant big man to compete. Let's remember that it's the best team that wins. Don't you think saying you have to dominate at a certain position is a little silly? Chicago had nobody at point guard or center, Houston had nobody in the backcourt, and SA really had nobody anywhere other than the 4 and 5 spots. In at least the last 20 years, there has been only one team led by a small guard that has won a championship, the Detroit Pistons. That team in fact had no dominant big man, and their only post-up threat was 6'4" Mark Aguirre. They won mostly because of their (small) guards, and because they could stop anybody at any time. You want a championship, so do I. I believe in looking at the blueprint of past champions to find out what it takes to get there. You say, "No team should ever gamble on the assumption that the player it has just drafted is another Hakeem or Jordan, who can be doubled and tripled and still kill you 10 different ways.", but the only thing in the last 20 years that all the NBA champions have in common (except maybe Detroit) is a claim to have the best player in the NBA playing for it. That tells me that if you want a ring, that is exactly the gamble you're taking when you draft high. When you think about it like that, you realize exactly how much luck is involved. You have to be in the lottery at the same time as one of these kinds of players enters the draft. That's how lucky we were to have sucked in 1983. We got to draft Hakeem because of it. If we want to win a ring, chances are we're gambling that Steve Francis turns in to one of those kinds of players. That doesn't mean you can't field a competitive team every year and make the playoffs if you don't get one of these guys, it just means you most likely won't win a championship. Thanks for the reply.
TheFreak-I see where the disagreement occurs, you think we have enough talent, while Will and me think we still need a big man. They're just opinions and nobody's wrong. [This message has been edited by rocketsfan34 (edited January 09, 2000).]
There was a discussion in a recent thread about needing a dominant front court player or a dominant back court player to win a championship The examples over the past 20 years showed that a handful of teams have won championships. Magic, Bird, Moses, Isiah, Jordan, Dream and Duncan were the key pieces on their respective teams. TheFreak, if I understand correctly, considers Francis to be among the future elite in the NBA. To draft a front court player who could possibly overshadow Francis (be more dominant at his respective position), would take something like a Shaq, Duncan, Zo or Malone. To be able to draft a front court player that good, would involve: 1. A player with high potential coming out of school. 2. Being the in right spot to be able to acquire that player. 3. That player living up to his potential. Currently, I haven't heard of anyone coming out of school in 2000 that would be able to rapidly join the small circle of elite front court players in the NBA. Mango
