Eliminate max contracts and create parity in the league.... If Lebron can make twice as much money playing for Milwaukee, then players wouldnt be pushing for certain cities and playing with other players...
I agree but if you summarize that some more 6 of 12 were drafted. Of the 5 trades, 4 included high (or rather high) draft pick(s). So only the Kobe trade were done by a doh FO. So to summarize further: 10 of the 12 had a high pick involved 1 was done by a doh FO (Hornets in 1996). 1 was a FA. And to summarize even further: Odds are we need a high pick.
Nice breakdown Carl. But you still needed high draft picks in order to aquire some of the 6 "championship superstars" you mentioned. Dirk, for example, was aquired by trading the #6 pick. Without Minny's 1st rounder (projected to be very high at the time), Garnett doesn't get traded to Boston. Kobe wasn't a high lotto pick, so the Vlade trade is not really a good example (after all, Kobe is the best non-lotto player ever, and even he hasn't won a championship without a high lotto pick at his side). Lastly, i don't think looking far back at guys like Moses is all that relevant because the value of draft picks and the business of the NBA has changed so much just within the last twenty years, let alone thirty. I could mention that shaq forced his way out of LA because he was disgruntled and wanted to play with Wade (a top 5 pick) in Miami, or that the city of LA itself was a driving force behind Shaq's free agency signing. Houston has neither enticement. You have a point that there are other ways to aquire championship superstars besides drafting them, but it seems like the best way, for Houston, favors accumulating high draft picks, even if our intention is to aquire a championship superstar through trade.
Really? What about if your boss at work eliminates your guaranteed yearly salary, and strictly pays you for effort on a day to day basis? It goes both ways, eliminate guaranteed contracts, and the owners get lazy about stocking up their team with talent, because they expect the scrubs on their team to play to max every night. Also, I think there will be a lot of fights in the game lol
In the "modern era" only Duncan and Wade won championships with the teams that drafted them. Superstars wanting to jump ship is a much more common practice in the modern era.
DD is more of an employer, than an employee, at least as I understand what he does, although I have no doubt that he's been both. I also don't doubt that he's signed numerous contracts over the years, and will sign them in the future. But hey, we're talkin' basketball!
After reading through all this I have come to the conclusion that the pick is more valuable than the player. In the last 30 years the fact that there are only 12 of the type of star you need to win a championship means that roughly one out of 3 years you MIGHT find one in the draft. Which also means there are 2-5 year droughts without these players because there will be years that have more than one. So what you do with that pick to acquire a player capable of winning a championship is what matters. Quite often that action is NOT drafting a player because more often than not he isn't in the draft where you are picking. If you have identified one of these Champions that is proven and you can trade your pick (or anything else) for him DO IT! Tips for drafting in the top 5: The can't miss guys are almost always 6'10" or bigger and don't come around often. If you aren't sure who you should pick at number 1, you DEFINITELY should trade down. Competitive fire/desire for greatness is the obvious number one defining trait among those 12. If your picking in the top 5 and the guy you want to pick has ANY motivation/motor/heart/desire issues, you are making a mistake.(Thabeet much?) Getting out with future assets is not a bad option because some drafts suck.
Excellent point, I agree. It was a nice breakdown by Carl. I agree with most of this. I think getting high draft picks by being terrible and getting lucky in the right draft year can definitely jump-start a team. I also agree that there are challenges faced by the Rockets if they want to go with a different route. It should be noted, however, that the "tanking route" is similarly full of perils-- drafting the wrong guy (Darko!), tanking in the wrong year (when Kenyon Martin or Pervis Ellison is viewed as the top guy available), your star gets injured before you manage to build around him (Rockets with Yao, Blazers with Roy and Oden), the losing culture killing the development of your young players (what's reportedly happening in Washington now). The bottomline, I believe, is that there is no easy way to championship contention whether you tank or not.
Bird wasn't a 6th pick...he was super duper #1 pick. Auerbach drafted him a year before Bird announced his eligibility for the draft. Bird played another year of college. The NBA made a Bird Rule to prevent that from ever happening again. Bird was effectively the #1 pick for Magic's draft, because he was picked a year before Magic was picked. Auerbach did not tank to get Bird...he just found a loophole to draft him a year before anyone else considered it. The Celtics could have had the 14th pick and still drafted Bird that year. What Auerbach did was tank the year AFTER the Bird pick when he was a Sr at Indiana State facing Magic in the Finals, so he could stockpile draft assets for the McHale and Parish picks that came later. Carl Herrera...do not say what Auerbach did with Bird fits into any simple explanation.
Thanks for the explanation. The fact remains, though, that even teams in the modern era (free of such glaring loopholes) can manage to acquire stars that lead them to titles without tanking.
True but you have to weigh that tanking risk against the risk and rewards of not tanking. Picking 13 or 14 or being first round fodder for years on end, riding the mediocrity treadmill wasting the prime years of the young and second tier talent already on the team, in hopes of pulling off the miraculous trade hasn't worked so far for any team. The odds still favor tanking. Les wants the Rockets to do something that no team has done before, return to contention without being terrible first. I wish him luck, but it ain't likely. Moreover, I don't think the Rockets are bound to become the Wizards or Bobcats if they tank. First, this organization far outshines those inepts. Second, They do not have to bleed all talent worth anything to lose. This team is critically flawed and just by letting that flaw persist and letting some aging vs move on to contenders, they will lose plenty enough to be in the top 7 picks. But they will enter the draft with Lowry in hand, with Courtney Lee on the roster, with Patterson growing at the four, and a prospect in DMo -- all young, developing players. Let along what Morris or Williams may become. This team just needs a big talent to plug into it. The timing is right for this Rockets squad. Of course, they might miss on the pick. But that is no worse than picking 14 again looking forward to another season hoping somebody's game takes the leap Lowry's has.
Yes they can, but at what success rate. Most of those trades for stars involved a high pick. Not using the pick is the exception.
Actually, the Lakers did this, twice. The first time, after they lost Magic Johnson. That team was never "terrible" winning 43, 39, 33 games before bouncing back with 48 and 53 win seasons around a cast of non-superstars. They then acquired Shaq and Kobe, and, a few years later, Phill Jackson, who coached them to the title. The second time, after the team lost Shaq. They won 34, 45 and 42 games before pulling off the Gasol trade. The draft picks they landed during the "medicore years" were not very high. The Pistons also pull this off-- won 32 games after losing Grant Hill, before bouncing back to 50 win seasons and, later, a title. It's not easy, but not impossible.
i understand your point about all drafts not being equal, but this idea that only 12 times in the last 30 years you can get a star that will get you to a championship is incorrect. For many of the championship teams mentioned, it was more than one high lotto pick that contributed to winning the championship. Example: Shaq/Wade, Billups/Hamilton, Allen/Garnett, etc. Even if a team is lucky enough to get their hands on a high-lotto franchise player, few teams are able to pair that player with another franchise player, or strong enough complimentary pieces to win a championship. Its not that Darren Williams is not good enough to win a championship. Its that Darren Williams is not good enough on his own to win a championship. And who's to say anyone is good enough in the modern NBA to carry his team to a championship. Even players like Kobe and Lebron can't do it by themselves. If Darren Williams was paired with a Josh Howard, or a Kevin Durant, then they'd likely be contenders. So (exceptions like Kobe aside), you need at least one high-lotto pick/franchise player, and likely more than one, to win a championship. Now whether you draft this caliber of player or trade for this caliber of player makes no difference. Either way, your chances of aquiring a championship/franchise player are best with high draft picks. 2nd to that, have a franchise player already on your roster to attract other franchise players (but again, you would probably need at least one high lotto pick to get that player). The 3rd option ...be a franchise located in New York or LA, where the city itself is a draw.
I always wait for the Lakers example. LA is an exception to nearly every rule. How many stars seem to be clamoring to get to LA each year? Still, the Lake show was bad enough to pick 10. Both the Lakers and Pistons used a top 10 pick at some point in their rebuilds. The Lakers hit on Eddie Jones, who was crucial to making sure they did not retail others fodder. Jones was considered a key part of their championship plans and part of the appeal for Shaq jumping on board. The Pistons missed on Rodney White. But part of the Detroit rebuild was getting Ben Wallace and Atkins in return for trading Grant Hilll to the Magic. Even if we say those teams are the model to follow (the Rockets have no Grant Hill to trade and still no top 10 pick), what percentage of star acquisitions do they account for? Still those teams made top 10 selections. I think Morey has been trying to replicate the Pistons' success while hoping for the mega trade. I think he should continue looking for Billups and Hamiltons but also let this team take its lumps for a season. For me, it is not about saying "so you're saying there's a chance?" It is about going the route with the greatest probability of success.
