PDA

View Full Version : The idea of an "Immediate Contender" vs the idea of a "Team Growing Together"



JordansBulls
10-28-2007, 11:03 PM
I see soo much different fans viewpoints on this matter. I am just curious on what most feel regarding this.

For example,

A young team like Chicago has a lot of time to grow together. They have great talent under 25 and guys that can become allstars really soon even this year. However, many feel that they wouldn't win a championship for years to come if they just kept the same core intact without a superstar.
Chicago is always in trade rumors, whether it was KG, Pau Gasol and now of course Kobe Bryant.

Here is my question: Does it really matter if a team goes for a superstar to try to get them over the hump now? or Should that team just continue to build around the young talent they have?

What's the difference of acquiring the superstar and he brings you a ring vs the idea of your young talent potentially bringing you one?

Which is better?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?

ink
10-28-2007, 11:52 PM
I can only say what my preference would be. I think a city and a franchise can take incredible pride in building a team from the ground up through good drafting, good trading (not for instant superstars) and good management. There are so many examples of this in NBA history and so many good franchises today. Today: Detroit, SA, PHX, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Utah, just to name the most obvious ones. All of the dynasties worked like this: Bulls, Celtics, Showtime Lakers, Pistons, etc. MJ, Bird, Magic, Isiah were all home grown talent if I'm not mistaken. I know that there are lots of cases where a superstar was added to take the team "over the last hurdle", but IMO the most valuable championships are grown, not bought.

Take a team like the Malone/Stockton Jazz. The franchise can still take enormous pride in that elite calibre team years after the fact. It doesn't matter whether they won or not. They still have a legacy.

Lakergirl24
10-29-2007, 01:02 AM
I think if you have a chance to win a championship now by getting that one star, then you should do it. Sure it would be nice to see the bulls win with what they have. But that will probably take them another few years to get there. If they can win now by getting a star like kobe, they should do it

Marius
10-29-2007, 01:11 AM
I see soo much different fans viewpoints on this matter. I am just curious on what most feel regarding this.

For example,

A young team like Chicago has a lot of time to grow together. They have great talent under 25 and guys that can become allstars really soon even this year. However, many feel that they wouldn't win a championship for years to come if they just kept the same core intact without a superstar.
Chicago is always in trade rumors, whether it was KG, Pau Gasol and now of course Kobe Bryant.

Here is my question: Does it really matter if a team goes for a superstar to try to get them over the hump now? or Should that team just continue to build around the young talent they have?

What's the difference of acquiring the superstar and he brings you a ring vs the idea of your young talent potentially bringing you one?

Which is better?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?

The problem is that those players, individually, all capable of becoming superstars, can't. Why? Because they need freedom to make mistakes, to be the "man" of their team. See: T-Mac, Bosh, Baron Davis, Nash, Kobe(when shaq left), Arenas (when Hughes Left). mostly anyone who has really good talent, need to spread their legs at one point. IMO, Deng and Gordon are already more valuable than Bryant. Why? Put them on a mediocre team, they take over, Gordon puts up 25 PPG, and Deng Does the same. 50 PPG vs. 31 PPG. On the other hand, Kobe makes game winnings shots. They call Gordon "4th quarter gordon" for a reason. He's a chucker, but he backs it up. The reason you build up a young team ALL full of good players, is because you want to make a trade for ONE player, that will bring you over the hump. Seperately, the bulls could be tied up for 10 mill for everyone on their starting lineup.

Youth Movement rarely works. Raptors tried it. failed. Celtics tried it. failed. You always need a seasoned veteran, a winner, someone who wants it more than anyone else.

Marius
10-29-2007, 01:12 AM
I can only say what my preference would be. I think a city and a franchise can take incredible pride in building a team from the ground up through good drafting, good trading (not for instant superstars) and good management. There are so many examples of this in NBA history and so many good franchises today. Today: Detroit, SA, PHX, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Utah, just to name the most obvious ones. All of the dynasties worked like this: Bulls, Celtics, Showtime Lakers, Pistons, etc. MJ, Bird, Magic, Isiah were all home grown talent if I'm not mistaken. I know that there are lots of cases where a superstar was added to take the team "over the last hurdle", but IMO the most valuable championships are grown, not bought.

Take a team like the Malone/Stockton Jazz. The franchise can still take enormous pride in that elite calibre team years after the fact. It doesn't matter whether they won or not. They still have a legacy.

I really wish Malone and Stockton won. But, yeah, they do have a legacy, they were only bested by M.J. Had he not been around, Jazz would have gone for a couple titles. That's why they're respected, they were right up there.

ink
10-29-2007, 01:12 AM
The problem is that those players, individually, all capable of becoming superstars, can't. Why? Because they need freedom to make mistakes, to be the "man" of their team. See: T-Mac, Bosh, Baron Davis, Nash, Kobe(when shaq left), Arenas (when Hughes Left). mostly anyone who has really good talent, need to spread their legs at one point. IMO, Deng and Gordon are already more valuable than Bryant. Why? Put them on a mediocre team, they take over, Gordon puts up 25 PPG, and Deng Does the same. 50 PPG vs. 31 PPG. On the other hand, Kobe makes game winnings shots. They call Gordon "4th quarter gordon" for a reason. He's a chucker, but he backs it up. The reason you build up a young team ALL full of good players, is because you want to make a trade for ONE player, that will bring you over the hump. Seperately, the bulls could be tied up for 10 mill for everyone on their starting lineup.

Youth Movement rarely works. Raptors tried it. failed. Celtics tried it. failed. You always need a seasoned veteran, a winner, someone who wants it more than anyone else.

The Raps are trying a youth movement right now. ;) And lots of teams get "over the hump" with their own talent.

ee
10-29-2007, 01:36 AM
I see soo much different fans viewpoints on this matter. I am just curious on what most feel regarding this.

For example,

A young team like Chicago has a lot of time to grow together. They have great talent under 25 and guys that can become allstars really soon even this year. However, many feel that they wouldn't win a championship for years to come if they just kept the same core intact without a superstar.
Chicago is always in trade rumors, whether it was KG, Pau Gasol and now of course Kobe Bryant.

Here is my question: Does it really matter if a team goes for a superstar to try to get them over the hump now? or Should that team just continue to build around the young talent they have?

What's the difference of acquiring the superstar and he brings you a ring vs the idea of your young talent potentially bringing you one?

Which is better?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?


I'd pick be a contender now if the players I'm getting still have 3 or 4 good years left in them.......I dont' wanna be led by great players that are 34 years old like Malone and Stockton did back in the day, I can go for a team with one 34 year old star but the rest have good years left.....

Lost Art
10-29-2007, 01:49 AM
More is better than less, sooner is better than later, riskiness is undesirable.

Take the contender now. Who knows if the young guys will ever develop into what you need them to be. There is no reason to wait if you can win now. Who knows, maybe you'll be able to win now AND in the future? The NBA is pretty unpredictable and good players and good teams seem to basically come out of nowhere...........might as well take the established player and assure that you'll at least compete now.........rather than wait it out and see whether or not you'll ever compete.

josh81589
10-29-2007, 01:50 AM
I would rather have an immediate contender. but i think a team growing together is better cause they can be good for years to come. unless that superstar is young like lebron james. then its immediate contender. but if old. idk

DreamShaker
10-29-2007, 01:54 AM
I would prefer seeing a team grow together....and then adding pieces slowly....I just love watching teams like the Bulls and Raps grow up together....but then again I was one of the only guys in the Rockets Forum all for a Kobe for T-Mac deal....so I like both....I enjoy watching my teams win championships....but equally cool is seeing young guys grow up....like watching Yao has made me fall in love with basketball all over again....

ink
10-29-2007, 03:02 AM
I really wish Malone and Stockton won. But, yeah, they do have a legacy, they were only bested by M.J. Had he not been around, Jazz would have gone for a couple titles. That's why they're respected, they were right up there.

Remember when Malone went to the Lakers to finally get his championship. The lineup was incredibly stacked. Everyone started counting the rings then too. Look what happened ...

I'm sure Malone is prouder of his Jazz legacy than his "instant contender" legacy with the Lakers.

ImmortalD24
10-29-2007, 08:13 AM
You never know how the young kids are going to pan out, money will eventually separate the team so might as well try to win now with a proven superstar and become immediate contenders.

Draco
10-29-2007, 08:47 AM
Which is better?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?

Since the Bull's are mentioned as an an example for this question I'll speak specifically about the Bull's: It's a misnomer to suggest that the Bull's are not Contender's. Actually it would help if you defined what the requirements are to be considered one. Making it to the finals? I suppose you could argue that Dallas accomplished that two years ago and therefore are considered Contender's but they didn't make it out of the first round last year. The Cav's made it to the finals partly because they had such an easy time making it to the ECF - yet a lot of people rank the Cav's below the Bull's.

Another way to frame this question: Is it better to build through the draft or build through FA or trade for a disgruntled star? The salary cap pretty much favors the draft over FA but that doesn't imply a guarantee. (ie. Your GM still has to have some intelligence about him) Why not integrate a disgruntled star into a team?


The Bulls' source reminds they are not built for Kobe Bryant and trying to replace four roster slots before the season opens would be tough.
http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=5818


I asked one veteran general manager about a Bulls team led by Bryant and Deng and he said, "That's not a team I'd have a lot of worries about. If you're facing them, you basically have to beat two guys. Other teams where there were two perimeter guys, Paul Pierce and Antoine Walker, Vince Carter and Richard Jefferson, Ray Allen and Rashard Lewis, Allen Iverson and Carmelo Anthony. Where do they go?"
http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/basketball/bulls/cs-071020smith,1,1526012.column?coll=cs-bulls-headlines

Manos
10-29-2007, 09:14 AM
The problem is that those players, individually, all capable of becoming superstars, can't. Why? Because they need freedom to make mistakes, to be the "man" of their team. See: T-Mac, Bosh, Baron Davis, Nash, Kobe(when shaq left), Arenas (when Hughes Left). mostly anyone who has really good talent, need to spread their legs at one point.

I've heard that theory before, but it was always concerning the music/movie industry, young starlettes trying to break into the business, but never about ballplayers, (pun intended).

Draco
10-29-2007, 09:20 AM
The reason you build up a young team ALL full of good players, is because you want to make a trade for ONE player, that will bring you over the hump.

This makes no sense. If there was one player legitimately worth more than several "good" players then chances are he would not be on the trade block. Therefore, you don't build a team with that purpose in mind. I also don't think that the Bull's have come close to leveling off in growth and so the idea that the team needs a player to get them "over the hump" is flawed. The adage, one in the hand is worth two in bush applies here or don't fix it if it ain't broke.

arlubas
10-29-2007, 09:22 AM
Remember when Malone went to the Lakers to finally get his championship. The lineup was incredibly stacked. Everyone started counting the rings then too. Look what happened ...

I'm sure Malone is prouder of his Jazz legacy than his "instant contender" legacy with the Lakers.

True that but that team seriously gets less props than what they deserve. They got to the finals edging all the teams of the Western Conference and that's not an easy task. Sure they lost to Detroit in the Finals but I think people overlook how good that team was.

And as for Malone going there to compete for a ring and getting a lot of bad rap from fans all over, I don't think that was a bad thing to do for him. He still competed and reached the finals where the Lakers would've had a better chance had he actually been healthy enough to play through the series.

But there ain't no doubt his Jazz legacy is more legendary than his late Lakers run. But in all fairness, you can't really compare a 18 yr (?) career with a one year run at a ring.

kgceltics
10-29-2007, 09:38 AM
I'll take the immediate contender. With them you know you have a chance to win, whereas the other group, you hope you would eventually have a chance to win.

DreamShaker
10-29-2007, 03:18 PM
You never know how the young kids are going to pan out, money will eventually separate the team so might as well try to win now with a proven superstar and become immediate contenders.

Great point....with free agenjcy and the market the way it is now it's becoming increasingly more difficult to keep a young core of a team together....

_Supreme_
10-29-2007, 03:28 PM
Most of the time when a team has finally grown into a contender the players start leaving for whatever (usually finacial) reason.

Can anyone name any team starting out young and growing into a team that actually stayed together and won anything recently?

Maybe the Spurs are closest, but I'm not sure through which ways they assembled their roster(s). I think free agent signings also played an important part for them, so they wouldn't count either.

kgceltics
10-29-2007, 03:49 PM
Most of the time when a team has finally grown into a contender the players start leaving for whatever (usually finacial) reason.

Can anyone name any team starting out young and growing into a team that actually stayed together and won anything recently?

Maybe the Spurs are closest, but I'm not sure through which ways they assembled their roster(s). I think free agent signings also played an important part for them, so they wouldn't count either.

Spurs and the Bulls in the early 90's.

Draco
10-29-2007, 05:48 PM
Most people would agree that these four teams (Bulls, Spurs, Suns and Mav's) are well built.

Observations:
1. All four teams in this post drafted their cornerstones with the exception of the Sun's/Nash. The "immediate contender" scenerio doesn't apply to any of these four teams.
2. None of the four teams gutted their team in a trade.
3. None of the four teams splurged on a restricted free agent.
4. Most of the unresticted free agents are role players.
5. Considering the youth of the Bull's drafted cornerstones in comparison with the older cornerstones (all drafted) on the Mav's, Sun's, Spur's there's no reason to think that the Bull's need a player to get "over the hump"

There is nothing about how the Spurs, Mav's or Sun's are built that suggests that the Bull's should trade for 4 or 5 players for Kobe Bryant.

Bulls - Kirk Hinrich 2003 draft
Bulls - Ben Gordon 2004 draft
Bulls - Luol Deng 2004 draft
Bulls - Chris Duhon 2004 draft
Bulls - Thabo Sefolosha 2006 draft
Bulls - Tyrus Thomas 2006 draft (Eddy Curry trade)
Bulls - Thomas Gardner 2007 draft
Bulls - JamesOn Curry 2007 draft
Bulls - Joakim Noah 2007 draft (Eddy Curry trade)
Bulls - Aaron Gray 2007 draft
Bulls - Andres Nocioni 2004 undrafted
Bulls - Adrian Griffin 2006 UFA
Bulls - Ben Wallace 2006 UFA
Bulls - Joe Smith 2007 UFA
Bulls - Viktor Khryapa 2006 traded from Portland

Suns - Shawn Marion 1999 draft
Suns - Amare Stoudemire 2002 draft
Suns - Leandro Barbosa 2003 draft
Suns - DJ Strawberry 2007 draft
Suns - Alando Tucker 2007 draft
Suns - Raja Bulls 2005 UFA
Suns - Steve Nash 2004 UFA
Suns - Marcus Banks 2006 UFA
Suns - Sean Marks 2006 UFA
Suns - Eric Piatkowski 2006 UFA
Suns - Brian Skinner 2007 UFA
Suns - Grant Hill 2007 UFA
Suns - Boris Diaw 2005 traded from the Hawks


The Phoenix Suns on the other hand offered Nash a six-year, $63 million contract. Nash was reluctant to leave Dallas and returned to Cuban to see if he would match the deal; Cuban did not, and Nash signed for the Suns for 2004–05 season


traded in the offseason of 2005 with two future first round picks to the Phoenix Suns in exchange for Joe Johnson.

Mavs - Dirk Nowitzki 1998 draft (technically traded from Bucks)
Mavs - Josh Howard 2003 draft
Mavs - Maurice Ager 2006 draft
Mavs - Nick Fazekas 2007 draft
Mavs - Didier Ilunga-Mbenga 2004 undrafted
Mavs - José Juan Barea 2006 undrafted
Mavs - DeSagana Diop 2005 UFA
Mavs - Devean George 2006 UFA
Mavs - Brandon Bass 2007 UFA
Mavs - Eddie Jones 2007 UFA
Mavs - Jason Terry 2004 traded from the Hawks
Mavs - Devin Harris 2004 traded from the Wizards
Mavs - Jerry Stackhouse 2004 traded from the Wizards
Mavs - Erick Dampier 2005 traded from the Warriors
Mavs - Trenton Hassell 2007 traded from the Timberwolves


The New Orleans Hornets declined to tender a qualifying offer to Brandon Bass making him an unrestricted free agent.


Dallas sends Christian Laettner, Eduardo Najera, two future first-round draft picks and the draft rights to guards Luis Flores and Mladen Sekularac to the Warriors for Dampier, Dan Dickau, Evan Eschmeyer and the draft rights to Steve Logan.


Days prior to the draft, the Washington Wizards and Dallas Mavericks consummated a deal that involved the Wizards' 5th overall pick going to the Mavs along with Jerry Stackhouse and Christian Laettner in exchange for Antawn Jamison.


Technically, he was drafted by the Milwaukee Bucks, but the Bucks were selecting for the Mavericks; the two teams had a pre-arranged deal. The Mavericks had likewise selected Robert "Tractor" Traylor for the Bucks with the sixth pick. Even though the two teams were selecting for each other, the Nowitzki-for-Traylor deal has gone down as one of the most infamous and lopsided trades ever.


Hawks acquire Antoine Walker and Tony Delk from Dallas in exchange for Jason Terry, Alan Henderson and a future first round pick.

Spurs - Tim Duncan 1997 draft
Spurs - Manu Ginóbili 1999 draft
Spurs - Tony Parker 2001 draft
Spurs - Beno Udrih 2004 draft
Spurs - Ian Mahinmi 2005 draft
Spurs - Darius Washington 2007 draft
Spurs - Fabricio Oberto 2005 undrafted
Spurs - Ime Udoka 2007 undrafted (class of 2000)
Spurs - Bruce Bowen 2001 UFA
Spurs - Robert Horry 2003 UFA
Spurs - Brent Barry 2004 UFA
Spurs - Michael Finley 2005 UFA
Spurs - Jacque Baughn 2006 UFA
Spurs - Francisco Elson 2006 RFA
Spurs - Matt Bonner 2006 traded from the Raptors


For three seasons, backup center Francisco Elson dutifully served as an affordable insurance policy.
On Thursday, the Nuggets decided his updated premiums were just a tad too high. The Nuggets once again are sans Francisco after declining to match the two-year, $6 million offer sheet Elson signed last week with the San Antonio Spurs.


For financial reasons, however, in 2005 he was waived by Dallas to avoid luxury taxes (as part of the league's new labor agreement) on his 51.8 million USD salary over the next three years. Finley became an unrestricted free agent and after being aggressively pursued by high-caliber teams like Detroit, Miami, Minnesota and Phoenix, he elected to remain in Texas with the San Antonio Spurs.


On June 21, 2006, Bonner was traded with Eric Williams and a second round pick in the 2006 NBA Draft to the San Antonio Spurs for Radoslav Nesterovic and cash considerations.

ink
10-29-2007, 06:47 PM
The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?

After reading the responses this thread was getting, I realized why it was so easy for people to pick the first option. It's such a loaded question. Who wouldn't want "a great chance to win now" over the uncertainty of "not knowing what will happen in the future"? ;) That's what EVERYONE wants. lol.

In reality, neither option guarantees anything of the sort. Trading for a superstar is no guarantee of a championship. It's still a huge risk.


More is better than less, sooner is better than later, riskiness is undesirable.

The last part assumes again that trading away the core of your team for an unhappy superstar is not a risk. I'd say it was a HUGE risk.


And as for Malone going there to compete for a ring and getting a lot of bad rap from fans all over, I don't think that was a bad thing to do for him.

I know you're mostly agreeing, but on this point I wanted to point out that I wasn't criticizing Malone, just observing that it didn't work out. I was really excited for Malone (and for Payton) when they both jumped on board with the Lakers. I just wanted them to finally win a ring. They didn't.


Most people would agree that these four teams (Bulls, Spurs, Suns and Mav's) are well built.

Observations:

1. All four teams in this post drafted their cornerstones with the exception of the Sun's/Nash.

Excellent post Draco. :clap: One important point ... the Suns DID draft Nash #15 in 1996, Kobe's draft year. That only strengthens your point about building from within. All FOUR of those teams drafted their cornerstone players.

--

There are very few megadeals that resulted in championships. The Lakers were involved in two of the biggest names, and both of them were for dominant big men: with Shaq they won, with Kareem (acquired from the Bucks in 75), they had to wait a full five years until the trade paid off AND they had to wait until Magic Johnson joined the team in 1980 before they won a championship. Hardly an "instant contender".

If a team has to wait anyway, which I think is closer to the truth, why not build from within and feel like you actually built the championship team yourself?

arlubas
10-29-2007, 06:56 PM
I know you're mostly agreeing, but on this point I wanted to point out that I wasn't criticizing Malone, just observing that it didn't work out.
That wasn't directed at you specifically, it's just something that I have noticed throughout the years and just let it out in that post since I was already talking about Malone.

jrice9
10-29-2007, 07:19 PM
After reading the responses this thread was getting, I realized why it was so easy for people to pick the first option. Who wouldn't want "a great chance to win now" over the uncertainty of "not knowing what will happen in the future"? ;) That's what EVERYONE wants. lol.

In reality, neither option guarantees anything of the sort. Trading for a superstar is no guarantee of a championship. It's still a huge risk.



The last part assumes again that trading away the core of your team for an unhappy superstar is not a risk. I'd say it was a HUGE risk.



I know you're mostly agreeing, but on this point I wanted to point out that I wasn't criticizing Malone, just observing that it didn't work out. I was really excited for Malone (and for Payton) when they both jumped on board with the Lakers. I just wanted them to finally win a ring. They didn't.



Excellent post Draco. :clap: One important point ... the Suns DID draft Nash #15 in 1996, Kobe's draft year. That only strengthens your point about building from within. All FOUR of those teams drafted their cornerstone players.

--

There are very few megadeals that resulted in championships. The Lakers were involved in two of the biggest names, and both of them were dominant big men: with Shaq they won, with Kareem (acquired from the Bucks in 75), they had to wait a full five years until the trade paid off AND they had to wait until Magic Johnson joined the team in 1980 before they won a championship. Hardly an "instant contender".

If a team has to wait anyway, which I think is closer to the truth, why not build from within and feel like you actually built the championship team yourself?
i agree however really they did trade nash away so technically he comes from outside the organization.

ink
10-29-2007, 07:29 PM
i agree however really they did trade nash away so technically he comes from outside the organization.

BC drafted him, screwed up by trading him away and then signed him back to correct his mistake. He still drafted and developed him for 3 years behind Kidd and Johnson. It was because of those two other guys that BC thought his first rounder was expendable.

Draco
10-29-2007, 07:31 PM
i agree however really they did trade nash away so technically he comes from outside the organization.

The Suns didn't give up any assets in acquiring Nash and he was signed to a very modest contract. On the other hand, the Bull's would lose multiple assets and have to sign Bryant to a contract extension that would reach $30M. No thank you. Nash might have come outside the organization but he was a smart addition.

JordansBulls
10-29-2007, 07:37 PM
Most people would agree that these four teams (Bulls, Spurs, Suns and Mav's) are well built.

Observations:
1. All four teams in this post drafted their cornerstones with the exception of the Sun's/Nash. The "immediate contender" scenerio doesn't apply to any of these four teams.
2. None of the four teams gutted their team in a trade.
3. None of the four teams splurged on a restricted free agent.
4. Most of the unresticted free agents are role players.
5. Considering the youth of the Bull's drafted cornerstones in comparison with the older cornerstones (all drafted) on the Mav's, Sun's, Spur's there's no reason to think that the Bull's need a player to get "over the hump"

There is nothing about how the Spurs, Mav's or Sun's are built that suggests that the Bull's should trade for 4 or 5 players for Kobe Bryant.

Bulls - Kirk Hinrich 2003 draft
Bulls - Ben Gordon 2004 draft
Bulls - Luol Deng 2004 draft
Bulls - Chris Duhon 2004 draft
Bulls - Thabo Sefolosha 2006 draft
Bulls - Tyrus Thomas 2006 draft (Eddy Curry trade)
Bulls - Thomas Gardner 2007 draft
Bulls - JamesOn Curry 2007 draft
Bulls - Joakim Noah 2007 draft (Eddy Curry trade)
Bulls - Aaron Gray 2007 draft
Bulls - Andres Nocioni 2004 undrafted
Bulls - Adrian Griffin 2006 UFA
Bulls - Ben Wallace 2006 UFA
Bulls - Joe Smith 2007 UFA
Bulls - Viktor Khryapa 2006 traded from Portland

Suns - Shawn Marion 1999 draft
Suns - Amare Stoudemire 2002 draft
Suns - Leandro Barbosa 2003 draft
Suns - DJ Strawberry 2007 draft
Suns - Alando Tucker 2007 draft
Suns - Raja Bulls 2005 UFA
Suns - Steve Nash 2004 UFA
Suns - Marcus Banks 2006 UFA
Suns - Sean Marks 2006 UFA
Suns - Eric Piatkowski 2006 UFA
Suns - Brian Skinner 2007 UFA
Suns - Grant Hill 2007 UFA
Suns - Boris Diaw 2005 traded from the Hawks





Mavs - Dirk Nowitzki 1998 draft (technically traded from Bucks)
Mavs - Josh Howard 2003 draft
Mavs - Maurice Ager 2006 draft
Mavs - Nick Fazekas 2007 draft
Mavs - Didier Ilunga-Mbenga 2004 undrafted
Mavs - José Juan Barea 2006 undrafted
Mavs - DeSagana Diop 2005 UFA
Mavs - Devean George 2006 UFA
Mavs - Brandon Bass 2007 UFA
Mavs - Eddie Jones 2007 UFA
Mavs - Jason Terry 2004 traded from the Hawks
Mavs - Devin Harris 2004 traded from the Wizards
Mavs - Jerry Stackhouse 2004 traded from the Wizards
Mavs - Erick Dampier 2005 traded from the Warriors
Mavs - Trenton Hassell 2007 traded from the Timberwolves











Spurs - Tim Duncan 1997 draft
Spurs - Manu Ginóbili 1999 draft
Spurs - Tony Parker 2001 draft
Spurs - Beno Udrih 2004 draft
Spurs - Ian Mahinmi 2005 draft
Spurs - Darius Washington 2007 draft
Spurs - Fabricio Oberto 2005 undrafted
Spurs - Ime Udoka 2007 undrafted (class of 2000)
Spurs - Bruce Bowen 2001 UFA
Spurs - Robert Horry 2003 UFA
Spurs - Brent Barry 2004 UFA
Spurs - Michael Finley 2005 UFA
Spurs - Jacque Baughn 2006 UFA
Spurs - Francisco Elson 2006 RFA
Spurs - Matt Bonner 2006 traded from the Raptors

Great Research "Draco"

Afridi786
10-29-2007, 07:39 PM
Its more fun to watch a team grow together and know they will be successful for years and years to come than hope that you win a ring within the next few years b4 you sink into mediocrity.

futureman
10-29-2007, 08:32 PM
When was the last time an immediate contender won the championship?

I guess it was Miami. But judging by how they did last season it goes to show that Immediate Contenders don't last very long.

kgceltics
11-09-2007, 06:03 PM
When was the last time an immediate contender won the championship?

I guess it was Miami. But judging by how they did last season it goes to show that Immediate Contenders don't last very long.

Miami did and the Pistons in 2004.

Redbull
11-09-2007, 08:10 PM
It really matters how good your team is, If you can trade for someone cheap and could become title contenders without trading your hole team for one guy I would do that but if you really need that one guy to get over the hump and you can keep him some of your role players just go ahead and do it.

JordansBulls
11-19-2007, 02:02 AM
It really matters how good your team is, If you can trade for someone cheap and could become title contenders without trading your hole team for one guy I would do that but if you really need that one guy to get over the hump and you can keep him some of your role players just go ahead and do it.

The way the Bulls are playing now, I would rather follow the Boston model or the Miami model in 2005 and 2006.

U1timateCubsFan
11-19-2007, 05:45 AM
It depends on the scenerio...

However, I would personally prefer to immediate contender. If that team can legitimately contend (aka Boston Celtics) then I would say go for it. You probably give yourself a 2-5 year window to win. If you go for the growing method, you never know what's going to happen. You may think you can contend for the next 10 years but what if there is an injury to one of your budding stars? You also have to account for the FA that will be changing teams and the trades that could be made. Your conference could improve drastically and your window might not look to great.

Therefore, if you have the shot to win for the next 2-5 years, then I say go for it and hope that you can win in that period. At least you know that you have a really good chance to win in the next few years, which is garunteed. You don't know if you will ever become a legit contender if you try the other method.

Tom81
11-19-2007, 12:05 PM
Team Growing Together

kgceltics
11-20-2007, 02:49 PM
It depends on the scenerio...

However, I would personally prefer to immediate contender. If that team can legitimately contend (aka Boston Celtics) then I would say go for it. You probably give yourself a 2-5 year window to win. If you go for the growing method, you never know what's going to happen. You may think you can contend for the next 10 years but what if there is an injury to one of your budding stars? You also have to account for the FA that will be changing teams and the trades that could be made. Your conference could improve drastically and your window might not look to great.

Therefore, if you have the shot to win for the next 2-5 years, then I say go for it and hope that you can win in that period. At least you know that you have a really good chance to win in the next few years, which is garunteed. You don't know if you will ever become a legit contender if you try the other method.

You always go for the immediate contender.

ThePhxHasRizen
11-20-2007, 07:15 PM
let me ask you this, is it better to win the lottery over night or work your butt off for 30 years? didn't think so.

ink
11-20-2007, 07:17 PM
let me ask you this, is it better to win the lottery over night or work your butt off for 30 years? didn't think so.

yeah but how many people win the lottery?

BigDaddy
02-29-2008, 05:16 PM
Immediate

cdnsportsfan
02-29-2008, 06:25 PM
Team Growing together for sure, not a question by me. I mean really, would you want to win a championship one yr and 2 yrs later end up sitting idle in the basement due to aging superstars brought in for the Ring and injury problems? If you have a young team doing well that's growing together you have success for a few years to come, you have fans that won't jump onboard for one season but build a rapport with the team, and you have financial success as a franchise with more sellouts, playoff runs, etc.

I understand this is a hard question everyone wants to win now, but it's better to build from within imho. Right now the teams really going this route appear to the Bulls, Raps, and Blazers especially (and btw no, the Raps have not failed in their 2 season building young....unless of course that's the time limit for a young team to grow together?)

JordansBulls
02-29-2008, 08:04 PM
Immediate

This thread is over 4 months old, but I'll let it slide as a few teams have sacrificed growing together by going for the immediate contention. Dallas traded youth in Harris for experience in Kidd and the same for Phoenix when they traded Marion for Shaq.

Tblaze
03-01-2008, 01:25 PM
This thread is over 4 months old, but I'll let it slide as a few teams have sacrificed growing together by going for the immediate contention. Dallas traded youth in Harris for experience in Kidd and the same for Phoenix when they traded Marion for Shaq.

however phoenix was going to be screwed anyway since Nash is the heart of the team and without them they'll have to go into rebuilding mode anyway.

But ye, Dallas could've had a shot for atleast 4-5 more years and they shut that window to about 2...

ink
03-01-2008, 01:31 PM
however phoenix was going to be screwed anyway since Nash is the heart of the team and without them they'll have to go into rebuilding mode anyway.

But ye, Dallas could've had a shot for atleast 4-5 more years and they shut that window to about 2...

IMO those moves will probably do more to prove the point that you rarely get an immediate contender through big trades. What I think those two trades especially signal is that both teams had big struggles and something needed to be done to salvage their championship hopes. i.e. neither team was looking like a champion and this was necessary to make one huge final attempt to get the ring. Unfortunately, I think both teams peaked in the past.

jrice9
03-01-2008, 02:04 PM
teams growing up together now are raptors,magic a little bit hornets

_Supreme_
03-01-2008, 03:39 PM
When was the last time a team "growing together" won a title?

:cricket:

JordansBulls
03-01-2008, 05:22 PM
When was the last time a team "growing together" won a title?

:cricket:

1991 Bulls

ink
03-01-2008, 05:34 PM
When was the last time a team "growing together" won a title?

:cricket:

I'd say the Spurs are a pretty good model. ;) There were trades and such involved in the building process, but they didn't depend on a blockbuster deal to win.

Spurred1
03-01-2008, 06:41 PM
IMO those moves will probably do more to prove the point that you rarely get an immediate contender through big trades. What I think those two trades especially signal is that both teams had big struggles and something needed to be done to salvage their championship hopes. i.e. neither team was looking like a champion and this was necessary to make one huge final attempt to get the ring. Unfortunately, I think both teams peaked in the past.
I hope your prediction about peaking in the past isn't true. But I agree-they both looked stagnant and had to do something. Standing pat wouldn't work and their respective trades might work or might not. Both teams had gotten nowhere with their long standing cores and something had to change.

LakersHistory
03-31-2008, 03:54 PM
The Contender is what teams are doing now. Look at what both Dallas and Phoenix have done recently. Also the Celtics. They had Pierce, Allen and Jefferson and decided to forgo the future with Jefferson to acquire Garnett.

futureman
03-31-2008, 09:19 PM
Instant contenders rarley win championships. In the past 20 plus years only the Miami Heat and Houston Rockets have done so. The Bulls,Celtics,Spurs, Lakers, and Pistons all grew together.

DerekRE_3
03-31-2008, 09:24 PM
The Celtics are the the team this year that was built to contend now. You can say the same about the Lakers and Suns (Because of the trades this season). The perfect example of building a team from the ground up would be the Trailblazers to me. The Hornets as well. They have had the same core of guys for awhile. Maybe the Bobcats (hopefully).

I'd rather see a team grow together. Watching the Kings grow from just an exciting team in the late 90's to a contender was beautiful to watch.

RoxFan111
03-31-2008, 10:57 PM
Hmm, I think an immediate contender is better because first of all
You never know how the young players will pan out, so the team growth is risky
And bringing in a star defines a leader and takes pressure of the young guys, also, the leader can mentor the rookies and stuff.

Of course the only exceptions I can think of are the superstars like King James and Melo because they developed into All Stars almost immediately after entering the NBA.

But what was the last team to win a championship without a DEFINED star?
The only one I can think of is the Pistons, and even that worked with trading for some good veterans.

JordansBulls
07-07-2008, 03:04 PM
This is virtually a carbon copy of a thread I did back in October of last year.

However in light of what just happened with the Bulls last season and then to see what happened with Boston, I think it is a good time to bring it back up but starting a new thread based on it.


Which is better?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" vs the idea of a "Team Growing Together"


I see soo much different fans viewpoints on this matter. I am just curious on what most feel regarding this now especially after Boston just won the title and seeing what happened to the Bulls last season and seeing how much talent the Blazers have now.

For example,

A young team like Chicago or Portland has a lot of time to grow together. They both have great talents under 25 and guys that can become allstars really soon even this year. However, many feel that neither team would win a championship for years to come if they just kept the same core intact without adding a superstar.
Chicago is always in trade rumors, in the past it was KG, Pau Gasol, Kobe, and even this spring during the playoffs with regard Arenas, Melo, Wade, etc.

This scenario probably applies more so to Portland because they have ample time to grow together to win as does the Bulls if they resign everyone.

Here is my question: Does it really matter if a team goes for a superstar to try to get them over the hump now? or Should that team just continue to build around the young talent they have?

What's the difference of acquiring the superstar and he brings you a ring vs the idea of your young talent potentially bringing you one?

Overall which is better and which do you prefer?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?

carter15
07-07-2008, 03:27 PM
id rather a long run of success llik portland rather then just 2 or 3 years like the celtics will get....therefore i say growing together

Cadarn
07-07-2008, 03:28 PM
id rather a long run of success llik portland rather then just 2 or 3 years like the celtics will get....therefore i say growing together

I'd rather win a couple of championships now than gamble on a team that might have a slim chance of making the playoffs in a few years.

Why wait for a team that might develop talent over building one that definitely has talent now?

chicagowhitesox
07-07-2008, 03:35 PM
But there's no guarantee you're going to win, even with high profile FA acquisitions. So you could be setting your franchise back for years by trying to win it all immediately.

JordansBulls
07-07-2008, 03:58 PM
But there's no guarantee you're going to win, even with high profile FA acquisitions. So you could be setting your franchise back for years by trying to win it all immediately.

But even so, having a team grow together doesn't mean your team will ever reach it's potential either and you may never get as far as the one that is trying to win it all immediately.

SwaggaIke
07-07-2008, 04:27 PM
You play the game to win championships. Immediate contenders have a better chance to get it done. Teams that grow together, hardly ever grow together. Players outplay contracts and leave because of money. Coaches get fired, GM's get fired.

Dirty Dirk41
07-07-2008, 04:39 PM
id rather a long run of success llik portland rather then just 2 or 3 years like the celtics will get....therefore i say growing together

are you kiddin me...you say that like u know for a fact Portland is going to win titles....ill admit there LOADED wit young talent that just ooze potential...but you just never know....will oden stay healthy????? I would much rather a ring, or multiple rings than chance "POSSIBLY being good".. Last year we had young talent that "possibly" could of been great in the future. But instead im walking around my city as CHAMPS!! much better feeling trust me

dre1990
07-07-2008, 04:57 PM
growing together like da pistons

_Sn1P3r_
07-07-2008, 05:03 PM
I would want to be an immediate contender right away and win the championship instead of waiting and waiting. It would also be a bonus if you have a young star (LeBron, Wade, Bosh, etc.) as one of your stars so after you sign veteran stars, you still have someone to build around. Also, if the youngsters win a championship, they will do anything to get back there and make the team even hungrier for it.

JordansBulls
07-07-2008, 05:30 PM
growing together like da pistons

The Pistons didn't grow together, they acquired Rasheed Wallace in a trade midseason.

Only team in recent memory that grew together were the Spurs, but that was mainly due to them having David Robinson injured a whole season and they got Tim Duncan with the #1 pick and a healthy Robinson the next year.

ink
07-07-2008, 09:39 PM
It really depends on how strictly we're using the terms "immediate contender" and "team growing together".

To me, pulling off megadeals like the Celtics did this year are "immediate contender" deals -- and they're rare. And rarely successful.

A "team growing together" can include trades like the Pistons made IMO. Every team makes trades or key FA signings at some point. I think the question is whether it's more likely or more satisfying to produce a more-or-less homegrown championship or whether it can be created instantly with a block-buster trade.

Despite the Celtics' rings this season, I still think the "homegrown" championship is the way to go. Draft well, trade well, assess talent well, and sign FA well.

But hey, whatever it takes to win ... no one's going to argue with a championship.

dre1990
07-08-2008, 12:57 AM
The Pistons didn't grow together, they acquired Rasheed Wallace in a trade midseason.

Only team in recent memory that grew together were the Spurs, but that was mainly due to them having David Robinson injured a whole season and they got Tim Duncan with the #1 pick and a healthy Robinson the next year.


I know that but everyone else grew

lavis
07-08-2008, 01:23 AM
Do you want to date a girl 3 months before ****ing her or just **** her right away?

dre1990
07-08-2008, 04:11 PM
Do you want to date a girl 3 months before ****ing her or just **** her right away?

**** her right away. PUMP IT AND DUMP IT

Rivera
07-24-2010, 01:56 AM
im gonna solve this thread in basic terms and in a question


if this happens to be the NBA FINALS who would u root for

the oklahoma city thunder vs the miami heat



unless ur a heat fan or a LBJ dick ryder ur choosing the heat



/thread

pheagles10
07-24-2010, 02:07 AM
im gonna solve this thread in basic terms and in a question


if this happens to be the NBA FINALS who would u root for

the oklahoma city thunder vs the miami heat



unless ur a heat fan or a LBJ dick ryder ur choosing the heat



/thread

Wouldn't everyone else root for the Thunder?
If we followed your way, everyone would root for the heat

ldc62
07-24-2010, 05:26 AM
I'm all for "team growing together" if I get KD and company (maybe even the Kings or Blazers 4 years back).... otherwise give me Wade and his sidekicks.

Rivera
07-24-2010, 11:14 AM
Wouldn't everyone else root for the Thunder?
If we followed your way, everyone would root for the heat

lol i didnt even notice that typo i meant to write the thunder lmao

mikealike305
07-24-2010, 11:24 AM
have to pick a immediate contender... with a team growing together u have to hope everything goes right for 4-5 years vs a contender u just have to hope they gel

Chronz
07-24-2010, 11:25 AM
I honestly dont know the last time a team grew into a contender, players usually dont offer that kind of potential that they can grow into impact players to that degree.

Like the Spurs became champs because they added Duncan to a franchise that could already contend without him. Is that building it up even though that 1 acquisition is what put them over the top.

The 2K Lakers had to grow into a contender, Kobe being a teen does that to you.

The Pistons aquired players over the span of 3 years, signing Billups to the MLE and recognizing Bens talent in Orlando are 2 of the greatest SKILL moves from a GM.

But the recent champs are instant contenders.

Hawkeye15
07-24-2010, 11:27 AM
a championship is a championship. Doing a Boston, and now a Miami gets you the same results as building a team.
Now, as for a fan, I would prefer a team start young, grow together, and win. Its just a better story.
But a ring is a ring.

MiamiWadeCounty
07-24-2010, 11:28 AM
growing together shows more pride and development, which makes the organization as a whole look good. immediately contending quickly changes the fan base and helps create great profits. also winning a quick title makes the superstars look great rather than saying the coach or gm or owner really improved this team other than getting than players.

Slimsim
07-24-2010, 11:36 AM
Some times Growing your own champion Contenders never work out due to money issue or City. When your a rookie your force to play were your drafted. When you become a vet you might not want to stay in that particular city which breaks up the core. For example Westbrook might decide to chase a bigger market and leave Durant in OKC.

Rivera
07-24-2010, 11:43 AM
Some times Growing your own champion Contenders never work out due to money issue or City. When your a rookie your force to play were your drafted. When you become a vet you might not want to stay in that particular city which breaks up the core. For example Westbrook might decide to chase a bigger market and leave Durant in OKC.

i will bet u ANYTHING that russell westbrook would not leave OKC when his contract expires

Chronz
07-24-2010, 11:49 AM
a championship is a championship. Doing a Boston, and now a Miami gets you the same results as building a team.
Now, as for a fan, I would prefer a team start young, grow together, and win. Its just a better story.
But a ring is a ring.

This marks the second time Miami has built am instant contender

Slimsim
07-24-2010, 11:51 AM
i will bet u ANYTHING that russell westbrook would not leave OKC when his contract expires

I hope he stays but what if he feels like he wants to be the main man on the team. I mean Look at Rondo,Rose, Paul, Williams They are the main guys on their team he might want to do the same.

djlamer
07-24-2010, 11:56 AM
the best would be a combo of both like the 2000-2002 lakers where we drafted kobe, developed him, and signed superstar o'neal.

mikantsass
07-24-2010, 11:58 AM
The Bulls are the best team to ever be assembled. They are an immediate contender and a team to grow together. I would be very surprised if they do not win the next 15 NBA titles. Rose will be better than Jordan. Brewer will be better than Kobe. Deng will be better than Bird. Noah will be better than Russell. And Boozer will be better than Duncan. I cant WAIT for the BULLS DOMINANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOHOOOOOOO I WANT TO BLOW YOU D ROSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

netsgiantsyanks
07-24-2010, 12:01 PM
The Bulls are the best team to ever be assembled. They are an immediate contender and a team to grow together. I would be very surprised if they do not win the next 15 NBA titles. Rose will be better than Jordan. Brewer will be better than Kobe. Deng will be better than Bird. Noah will be better than Russell. And Boozer will be better than Duncan. I cant WAIT for the BULLS DOMINANCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WOOOOHOOOOOOO I WANT TO BLOW YOU D ROSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

im glad your joking.

gmckenziejr82
07-24-2010, 12:26 PM
OK even though I hate what the Heat did, they still played within the rules. The NBA gives you these options to build a team by so whatever way you do it, and as long as it's by the rules, then it is fair. Only thing I don't like about the new direction the NBA is headed in is the fact that some players are talking and planning on building these mega teams in their off time. To me I think it comes down to how you feel personally on this subject. But I would much rather watch a team build over time and win chips.

HoopsDrive
07-24-2010, 12:51 PM
A ring is a ring. Any way that gets you to the big prize is the best way. Idc if it's an immediate contender like the Heat and Cs did in the previous 3 years or the growing together like the Thunder are doing now.

JordansBulls
07-24-2010, 12:57 PM
This marks the second time Miami has built am instant contender

Yeah, and I don't like it.:)

Hurricane H
07-24-2010, 01:32 PM
Yeah, and I don't like it.:)

Wade, LBJ and Bosh wanted to play in the same team and it just so happen that the team was Miami. Any team out there would have done the same thing.

heattiltheend94
07-24-2010, 01:41 PM
I would rather of a team grow together, but it's better to become immediate contenders

JordansBulls
07-24-2010, 04:29 PM
Wade, LBJ and Bosh wanted to play in the same team and it just so happen that the team was Miami. Any team out there would have done the same thing.

I'm not doubting that.

SupeUnagi
07-24-2010, 04:37 PM
yea id rather see a team suck for 3 years instead of just being good and competetive

still1ballin
07-24-2010, 04:41 PM
Yo no se

SA5195
07-24-2010, 04:52 PM
Team Growing Together.

We tried to atleast become a legit playoff team, but things haven't worked out cause most moves were made in a rush.

JordansBulls
07-24-2010, 07:23 PM
yea id rather see a team suck for 3 years instead of just being good and competetive

It is a greater feeling winning with the same guys you started with and got better with.

ATX
07-24-2010, 07:49 PM
I'd vote for a team growing together, but in our society, we all look for shortcuts to win, plain and simple. If a CEO believes a CFO from another company could greatly improve his/her company he/she would do whatever was within their means to grab that individual. He/She may stick it out for an undetermined period of time with the current empoyee, but if that employee doesn't produce the expected results, you have to cut them loose for the betterment of the company as a whole. It happens ALL THE TIME in every industry.

ink
07-24-2010, 09:11 PM
I voted for a team growing together when this thread was first started and I would still do that. Give me Kevin Durant and the Thunder anytime as a model for success. Even if they don't win a championship I prefer that model of team building. Very exciting to watch that team develop.

dodie53
07-24-2010, 09:14 PM
win now

last stand
07-24-2010, 09:29 PM
teams win when they have to fight through adversity. teams that just put it all together rarely succeed immediately.

even the celtics were filled with guys who had their hearts ripped up or were in team hell for years upon years.

teams that fight through adversity win.

see 2009 lakers. team was put together starting in 2005, team was going nowhere, lakers in 2008 make a bunch of moves and make it to the finals only to lose

but with that experience and the previous 4 years they all new how to fight and won the next 2 rings

LivinLakers
07-24-2010, 10:07 PM
I remember the Lakers first championship with Kobe, Shaq and Fish. I was so excited when they won it all, I cried. I cried because of all those years of losing in the playoffs. The airballs from Kobe against the Jazz, that dominant front line of the spurs. Getting so close, thinking you finally had what it takes to win it all, and to come up short. Then when you finally win it all, it makes all those years of losing fade away and you finally get the celebrate the journey (including the losses).
If you just build a championship team in 1 year, you don't get to celebrate the journey the same way. I am a diehard Lakers fan because I have been through the Randy Fund and Kurt Rambis years, as well as the Pat Riley and Phil Jackson Years.
For those of you that are true sports fans, that are with your team do or die, you know that there really is no comparison...Just ask San Antonion fan, or Houston Fan, or Chicago fan, or Boston fan. The diehard fans that are with their teams through the ups and downs.
That is what being a sports fan is all about.

DerekRE_3
07-24-2010, 10:31 PM
I'd much rather build a team the way OKC has. Hopefully the Kings can follow that blueprint.

JordansBulls
07-24-2010, 11:46 PM
I'd much rather build a team the way OKC has. Hopefully the Kings can follow that blueprint.

Yeah I think it is the best way

jackdawson
07-25-2010, 12:08 AM
I see soo much different fans viewpoints on this matter. I am just curious on what most feel regarding this.

For example,

A young team like Chicago has a lot of time to grow together. They have great talent under 25 and guys that can become allstars really soon even this year. However, many feel that they wouldn't win a championship for years to come if they just kept the same core intact without a superstar.
Chicago is always in trade rumors, whether it was KG, Pau Gasol and now of course Kobe Bryant.
Here is my question: Does it really matter if a team goes for a superstar to try to get them over the hump now? or Should that team just continue to build around the young talent they have?

What's the difference of acquiring the superstar and he brings you a ring vs the idea of your young talent potentially bringing you one?

Which is better?

The idea of an "Immediate Contender" giving you a great chance to win now or the idea of a "Team Growing Together" not knowing what will happen in the future?

:confused::confused:

I am assuming this is a 3 years old thread. If so then :facepalm: to the person who brought this up here to confuse the **** out of people.

PrettyBoyJ
07-25-2010, 12:14 AM
the nba is a now league.. owners want things to happen now rather then a few years.. but imo I'd rather watch a team grow together and win it all.. take OKC a bunch of young talent that improve each year and now have a chance of being contenders.. I think the more work you put in as a team you can get to the big stage without a superstar..

Raph12
07-25-2010, 12:59 AM
Let's take a look at the champs in the last 5 years:
2010 - Lakers - Pau added to LA = Immediate contenders
2009 - Lakers - Pau added to LA = Immediate contenders
2008 - Celts - KG+Ray added to Boston = Immediate contenders
2007 - Spurs - TimmyD+Manu+Parker for years = Team growing together
2006 - Heat - Shaq added to Miami = Immediate contenders

Hmmm...

Jonathan2323
07-25-2010, 01:01 AM
This league is about talent, talent wins. Teams growing together won't get you as far, just look at the Hawks.

Blazers#1Fan
07-25-2010, 01:11 AM
Let's take a look at the champs in the last 5 years:
2010 - Lakers - Pau added to LA = Immediate contenders
2009 - Lakers - Pau added to LA = Immediate contenders
2008 - Celts - KG+Ray added to Boston = Immediate contenders
2007 - Spurs - TimmyD+Manu+Parker for years = Team growing together
2006 - Heat - Shaq added to Miami = Immediate contenders

Hmmm...

this! i say players that are friends with each other like how the celtics came together so i put immediate contenders

ragee
07-25-2010, 04:47 AM
I'd have to go with immediate contenders coz it is hard to keep a young team's core together...

JNA17
07-25-2010, 04:53 AM
so basically....the Heat or the Thunder right?

JordansBulls
07-25-2010, 09:58 AM
:confused::confused:

I am assuming this is a 3 years old thread. If so then :facepalm: to the person who brought this up here to confuse the **** out of people.

Yeah, I didn't even catch that.:facepalm:

jackdawson
07-25-2010, 10:39 AM
Yeah, I didn't even catch that.:facepalm:

lmao! And it was posted by you JB :laugh2:

midwestmadman
07-25-2010, 10:52 AM
current vote total: 44 Immediate Contenders and 53 for Team growing together

translation...... 44 heat fans have viewed this thread.

AddiX
07-25-2010, 10:55 AM
Teams growing together won't get you as far, just look at the Hawks.


Wow, throughout the entire history of the NBA, all you need to do is "look at the Hawks" for an example of why teams growing together won't get it done.
:facepalm:

MUCH more props to teams building through home grown talent!

No one even cares that the Heat or Celtics won a ring.

dtmagnet
07-25-2010, 10:56 AM
I don't know why you used the Bulls as an example in your original post, the team that I think of building together is the Thunder. Personally I think its better to build the core of your team together and then to add role players when you're ready to contend.

nuggetsyankees
07-25-2010, 11:05 AM
the best example of team growing together has to be the Thunder

zambo4president
07-25-2010, 11:20 AM
Before I even opened it I knew it was gonna be a Bulls vs. Heat thread. But it's from 2007?!

JordansBulls
07-25-2010, 10:09 PM
This league is about talent, talent wins. Teams growing together won't get you as far, just look at the Hawks.

Bulls since MJ grow together. No star player was acquired via free agency or by trade.

Spurs in the late 90's grew together. Duncan was drafted and Robinson was already there.

Lakers in the 80's and Celtics in the 80's were just like the Bulls in that there franchise players were there and other guys were drafted as well.

JordansBulls
07-29-2010, 11:16 PM
the best example of team growing together has to be the Thunder

And if Westbrook improves this year, they may be the team of the future.

JPHX
07-30-2010, 12:06 AM
Im more fond of teams that grow together. If a team finds success that way it shows your FO actually has quality talent evaluators and can assemble a good team the right way. When you say immediate contenders i think of these recent superteams that have emerged and its kinda sad that the only way you can win a championship nowadays is if you are a jeweled NBA franchise with enough financial backing to basically buy a championship (i.e. Lakers, Boston, maybe Miami). Sucks that a teams payroll has to exceed $90mil to be considered as a contender.

JordansBulls
07-30-2010, 08:42 AM
Im more fond of teams that grow together. If a team finds success that way it shows your FO actually has quality talent evaluators and can assemble a good team the right way. When you say immediate contenders i think of these recent superteams that have emerged and its kinda sad that the only way you can win a championship nowadays is if you are a jeweled NBA franchise with enough financial backing to basically buy a championship (i.e. Lakers, Boston, maybe Miami). Sucks that a teams payroll has to exceed $90mil to be considered as a contender.

Well that is the landscape of the NBA

S-Dot
07-30-2010, 08:50 AM
My preference is a team who develops a star from the day he was a drafted, and brings in talent to help them win a ring.

For instance, if the Jazz can win a championship from drafting Deron Williams, and bringing in talent like Al Jeff, and other players to help them grow as a team and win a ring, I have the utmost respect for that team.

The same applies to Carmelo in Denver, KD in OKC, or Jennings/Bogut in Milwaukee. If either of these teams could win a ring by just growing together and bringing in pieces that can help these stars accomplish this goal, I would respect it.

arkanian215
07-30-2010, 09:00 AM
My preference is a team who develops a star from the day he was a drafted, and brings in talent to help them win a ring.

For instance, if the Jazz can win a championship from drafting Deron Williams, and bringing in talent like Al Jeff, and other players to help them grow as a team and win a ring, I have the utmost respect for that team.

The same applies to Carmelo in Denver, KD in OKC, or Jennings/Bogut in Milwaukee. If either of these teams could win a ring by just growing together and bringing in pieces that can help these stars accomplish this goal, I would respect it.

This applies to Miami, Boston, LAL too, yes?

S-Dot
07-30-2010, 09:08 AM
This applies to Miami, Boston, LAL too, yes?

When I say bring pieces to help the star, I don't mean LeBron or Pau Gasol as pieces. These guys aren't pieces...they're established franchise players. Both were the bst players in their franshise's history before going to Miami and LAL.

I could say Boston because KG and Ray Allen surely weren't in their prime when they came there; however, they're the not the exact type of situation I was thinking of.

I see where you're coming from though.

BaddNewz
07-30-2010, 09:30 AM
Im torn...i look at boston and they put that team together and won...and I look at the suns...they grew together and havent won...but both are good teams

HiphopRelated
07-30-2010, 10:11 AM
When I say bring pieces to help the star, I don't mean LeBron or Pau Gasol as pieces. These guys aren't pieces...they're established franchise players. Both were the bst players in their franshise's history before going to Miami and LAL.

I could say Boston because KG and Ray Allen surely weren't in their prime when they came there; however, they're the not the exact type of situation I was thinking of.

I see where you're coming from though.
that has way too many rules and regulations

The front office job is to win, not bring in players that are good...but not too good.

That's some crazy talk that has arisen lately

alencp3
07-30-2010, 10:23 AM
Team growing together like OKC who I believe will win ring in the near future 2 or 3 years
Also Kings and Bulls maybe

JordansBulls
07-30-2010, 12:15 PM
Team growing together like OKC who I believe will win ring in the near future 2 or 3 years
Also Kings and Bulls maybe

You believe the Bulls and Kings will win a ring in the next 2-3 years?

ballpd05
07-30-2010, 12:38 PM
It depends. I am all about winning now, but you need to have a mixture. I think it is always a good idea to have a few young guys so they can grow and take over the team should the old guy get disgruntled or want too much money or start to decline.

It is always understandable that sometimes you have to rebuild, but if you can win now it is always a plus.

I think you start by building a nucleus that you feel will be able to compete. Maybe one or two players, and try to build a solid mix of young and veterans around them. Every good team needs solid veterans.

REGular
07-30-2010, 12:40 PM
I think it obviously depends on the foresight of the front office.
For example, an "immediate contender" that commits to veteran free agents that aren't going to be enough win now anyway, is a waste of time and that money & playing-time would be better committed to growing a young nucleus of talent.

However, if the front office is able to pull together superstars, like the Celtics did, then I believe that's the "smarter"/better move.
The Celtics could have maintained a young team of Rajon Rondo, Al Jefferson & Jeff Green. But who's to say that all of those guys will develop into NBA championship talent.
And who's to say that the window of opporunity for that franchise will be any greater than the 3-4 year window the "immediate" Celtics have achieved.

I think most fans would prefer to contend (and win) with drafted talent the way the Thunder, Bulls, and Blazers seem to be doing, but I think realistically it's much riskier.
And I don't think Celtics fans championship was cheapened any by the fact that those guys weren't Celtics the previous season.

alencp3
07-30-2010, 02:38 PM
You believe the Bulls and Kings will win a ring in the next 2-3 years?
OKC probably.
bulls and kings have also 'team growing together'

REGular
07-30-2010, 02:49 PM
OKC probably.
bulls and kings have also 'team growing together'

How many 'teams growing together' have won championships in recent years?

alencp3
07-30-2010, 03:58 PM
How many 'teams growing together' have won championships in recent years?

Spurs , pistons

mikealike305
07-30-2010, 04:00 PM
Spurs , pistons

how long ago was that? dont gt me wrong a team growing together is nice if it works but a contender now is so much better

8kobe24
07-30-2010, 04:09 PM
There's no guarantees for either choice, IMO a team growing up together would be better because the cohesiveness would be there which is 1 major recipe for a championship.

arkanian215
07-30-2010, 04:19 PM
When I say bring pieces to help the star, I don't mean LeBron or Pau Gasol as pieces. These guys aren't pieces...they're established franchise players. Both were the bst players in their franshise's history before going to Miami and LAL.

I could say Boston because KG and Ray Allen surely weren't in their prime when they came there; however, they're the not the exact type of situation I was thinking of.

I see where you're coming from though.

Eh I frankly do not care that much. Add the best possible pieces you can if you can.

arkanian215
07-30-2010, 04:23 PM
There's no guarantees for either choice, IMO a team growing up together would be better because the cohesiveness would be there which is 1 major recipe for a championship.

You would have to count on landing a superstar through the draft. That'd mean sucking really bad for a couple of years/tanking (or getting lucky) and grabbing the guy. Chances are, being a mediocre team drafting mid first round talent won't bring Championships.

arkanian215
07-30-2010, 04:25 PM
I love how the results were evenly split 3 years ago and now there's a +20 or so gap. in favor of teams growing together.

Would your opinions be different if OKC kept sucking?

Jaji
07-30-2010, 07:52 PM
Well let's see, 3 years later, the Bulls are still building... Meanwhile the Heat became a contender overnight. Does that answer your question?

JordansBulls
07-31-2010, 12:15 AM
Well let's see, 3 years later, the Bulls are still building... Meanwhile the Heat became a contender overnight. Does that answer your question?

Bulls acquired a star as well.

Jaji
07-31-2010, 12:24 AM
Bulls acquired a star as well.

3 years later, the Bulls are still building... Meanwhile, the Heat became a CONTENDER overnight.

The Bulls are not a contender and even though they've improved, they improved via the "immediate contender" method. But sorry, they're not legitimate contenders in the East. They're the 4th best team in the conference at best with some very good teams ahead of them. Miami >>>>> Chicago right now and for the foreseeable future. You can of course thank Mr. James for that.

BrotherRedz
07-31-2010, 12:32 AM
Haha OKC is a fluke... never would gained recognition if it weren't for CP3's injury
Oh here comes overrating wagon OKC again

I wonder how immediate contender shifted NBA power rankings in just 3 years, it's great for the league to separate bad players from the good ones.

From Boston < Lakers < Heat , who will be next NYC or NETS probably with the next years freeagency

It just to show that there is a lack of exceptional talents that are drafted especially in the 2000's era