PDA

View Full Version : What gives a team the better chance to be a title contender? A or B or C



JordansBulls
04-06-2010, 02:55 PM
What gives a team the better chance to be a title contender?

A)
Drafting a Superstar talented player in the NBA Draft. (Examples: MJ, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, K.Malone, Russell, Kareem, Lebron, Ewing, Robinson, Duncan, etc)

or

B)
Trading for a Superstar Talented player in the NBA. (Examples: Wilt, Kareem, Chris Webber, Moses Malone, Barkley, Drexler, etc)

or

C)
Getting a Superstar by Free Agency. (Example: Shaq, etc)

abe_froman
04-06-2010, 02:59 PM
i dont see why it matters how said team gets one..how it impacts anything??

jb you must be really bored and running out of ideas

Swashcuff
04-06-2010, 03:06 PM
Option A for me.

BOSTON617
04-06-2010, 03:07 PM
its pretty much all on the team and player obv like no offense to certain teams but like for example minnesota no free agent is going to want to sign there so they would have to draft.... its really on the situation

29$JerZ
04-06-2010, 03:10 PM
I'd say Drafting is the best way to go but also the most unlikely of the 2. Trading or out right signing them requires money.

JordansBulls
04-06-2010, 03:10 PM
Most will say the draft obviously. But you gotta remember as well that stars won't get traded to teams that aren't contenders either. Also a superstar free agent isn't going to go to a bad team either. So it's not like this is a gravy pick here.

Swashcuff
04-06-2010, 03:15 PM
Most will say the draft obviously. But you gotta remember as well that stars won't get traded to teams that aren't contenders either. Also a superstar free agent isn't going to go to a bad team either. So it's not like this is a gravy pick here.

i honestly think that you have a good point. eg Garnett and Allen or Shaq etc. So you have a point but both those teams also had the "franchise player" who they drafted. Though there is no question who changed the team's fortune (the trade player). If you really think into it deeply it really gets interesting.

abe_froman
04-06-2010, 03:25 PM
i honestly think that you have a good point. eg Garnett and Allen or Shaq etc. So you have a point but both those teams also had the "franchise player" who they drafted. Though there is no question who changed the team's fortune (the trade player). If you really think into it deeply it really gets interesting.

no its not.

to say it matters how is like saying signing a player that somehow god curses that player/team from winning a ring.or that david stern is some kind of wizard that when he calls your pick on draft night it imbues your team,and that player with special championship getting powers

that winning a ship has nothing to do with the star themselves and how good their abilities are,or how well a team is constructed or the opponents they face in the playoffs.

Raph12
04-06-2010, 03:25 PM
It's a wash, different teams in different situations will be impacted differently...

Ie: Spurs drafted Timmy with the #1 pick because their superstar (David Robinson) was injured all season long. They'd go on to win 58 games after only winning 23 they year prior, AKA instant contenders via draft.

Ie2: Celtics were one piece away from being elite and traded the future for the present when they traded for KG by giving up Big Al and draft picks, etc. They went from being a 24 win team to a championship team the next season, AKA instant contenders via trade.

Ie3: Lakers signed Shaq with their bright lights, big market and potential, he turned that good playoff team into a multi-championship team in a short 4 years, AKA instant contenders via free agency.

Like I said, it's a wash, different teams, different scenarios.

Swashcuff
04-06-2010, 03:37 PM
no its not.

to say it matters how is like saying signing a player that somehow god curses that player/team from winning a ring.or that david stern is some kind of wizard that when he calls your pick on draft night it imbues your team,and that player with special championship getting powers

that winning a ship has nothing to do with the star themselves and how good their abilities are,or how well a team is constructed or the opponents they face in the playoffs.

apparently you dont understand my post

alencp3
04-06-2010, 03:54 PM
What gives a team the better chance to be a title contender?

A)
Drafting a Superstar talented player in the NBA Draft. (Examples: MJ, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, K.Malone, Russell, Kareem, Lebron, Ewing, Robinson, Duncan,Mike 'The Goat' James etc)

or

B)
Trading for a Superstar Talented player in the NBA. (Examples: Wilt, Kareem, Chris Webber, Moses Malone, Barkley, Drexler, etc)

or

C)
Getting a Superstar by Free Agency. (Example: Shaq, etc)

A) of course!

Raoul Duke
04-06-2010, 04:04 PM
I guess I'd go with option A, but it seems like a total wash. Aquiring a superstar player is a great way to start building a championship contender regardless of how you do the actual aquiring.

PLAYERS FAN
04-06-2010, 04:20 PM
B

Chi City23
04-06-2010, 04:21 PM
Option A because of the rookie contract which allows you to still get good role players or even another superstar with the cap space.

MagicDojo
04-06-2010, 04:25 PM
As a magic Fan I have seen all three tried.

Drafted by Orlando: Shaq and Dwight...= 2 trips to finals.
Got TMAC and Grant Hill in free agency....=flop
Lost Shaq to LA= LA championship
Lost Ben Wallace and Chauncy Billups to Detroit= detroit championship.
Gotta go with Drafting the New Phenom and building around them though.

JordansBulls
04-06-2010, 05:49 PM
As a magic Fan I have seen all three tried.

Drafted by Orlando: Shaq and Dwight...= 2 trips to finals.
Got TMAC and Grant Hill in free agency....=flop
Lost Shaq to LA= LA championship
Lost Ben Wallace and Chauncy Billups to Detroit= detroit championship.
Gotta go with Drafting the New Phenom and building around them though.

Yeah, it seems from Orlando's perspective that they drafted the right guys, but only free agency brought a title to someone else.

td0tsfinest
04-06-2010, 05:56 PM
I personally like to build from the draft. But any of the three methods work. Obviously, if you trade for or sign a superstar, you have short-term prospect of winning a championship. But with a draft pick, it's going to take a little longer than that.

DerekRE_3
04-06-2010, 05:58 PM
Most will say the draft obviously. But you gotta remember as well that stars won't get traded to teams that aren't contenders either. Also a superstar free agent isn't going to go to a bad team either. So it's not like this is a gravy pick here.

When Webber was traded to the Kings they weren't contenders.

MacFitz92
04-06-2010, 06:14 PM
i dont see why it matters how said team gets one..how it impacts anything??

jb you must be really bored and running out of ideas

This.

Chronz
04-06-2010, 08:53 PM
Draft is always the best, allows you to operate under an easier salary scale.

Covert
04-06-2010, 09:20 PM
Bottom line, teams that get good players win I guess. ;)

JordansBulls
04-12-2010, 05:52 PM
When Webber was traded to the Kings they weren't contenders.

Not in 1999 they werent.

DerekRE_3
04-12-2010, 05:55 PM
Not in 1999 they werent.

Right and you said that stars don't get traded to non-contenders, when obviously there have been, Webber being the case in point. He was traded to a team that was not close to contending when he first came there.


Most will say the draft obviously. But you gotta remember as well that stars won't get traded to teams that aren't contenders either. Also a superstar free agent isn't going to go to a bad team either. So it's not like this is a gravy pick here.

Hawkeye15
04-12-2010, 06:00 PM
A for me. It comes down to flexibility. If you draft a superstar, you didn't have to give anything up for them, and they can grow and you can add pieces around them before they command a big deal. Free agency, you don't give up anything, but you have to sign them to a big deal, hurting what you can put around them. Trades will at the very least, deplete you're team for a period of time.

GSW Hoops
04-12-2010, 06:03 PM
I'd go with C for ONE title, but A for multiple titles.

If you draft a great player, you're probably not very good to begin with, so you have a lot more work to do. However, A is the best long-term strategy.

I'm thinking of Miami, Boston, and L.A., who each won titles in this decade by trading for superstars (Shaq, KG/Allen, Gasol). Not a great long-term strategy, though.

Hawkeye15
04-12-2010, 06:07 PM
I'd go with C for ONE title, but A for multiple titles.

If you draft a great player, you're probably not very good to begin with, so you have a lot more work to do. However, A is the best long-term strategy.

I'm thinking of Miami, Boston, and L.A., who each won titles in this decade by trading for superstars (Shaq, KG/Allen, Gasol). Not a great long-term strategy, though.

Gasol wouldn't qualify as a superstar imo. The superstar got the sidekick in that trade, but I get what you are trying to say. Just not sure I like the Shaq/KG company with him

rhaas74
04-12-2010, 06:09 PM
I would go with option C. If you think about it, why would a superstar willingly go to a team unless he felt they could win.

To get one in the draft that means you have a very poor team due to having one of the worst records.

And to trade for one you have to somewhat leverage your future and give up talent in return to land that player.

Hawkeye15
04-12-2010, 06:10 PM
I would go with option C. If you think about it, why would a superstar willingly go to a team unless he felt they could win.To get one in the draft that means you have a very poor team due to having one of the worst records.

And to trade for one you have to somewhat leverage your future and give up talent in return to land that player.

$$

Hawkeye15
04-12-2010, 06:11 PM
I could simply be having a brainfart, but can someome tell me the last team that won a ring the year they signed a so called big time free agent??

GSW Hoops
04-12-2010, 06:30 PM
Gasol wouldn't qualify as a superstar imo. The superstar got the sidekick in that trade, but I get what you are trying to say. Just not sure I like the Shaq/KG company with him

Gasol is way underrated. I hate to say it since I'm such a big Kobe fan, but Gasol has been that team's MVP this season. Kobe's hit the big shots, but Gasol has kept them in games when the rest of the team has played like dirt.

Shahrose
04-12-2010, 06:47 PM
probably option A b/c when you draft that player, and keep the same core team, you build your team chemistry. unlike trading/drafting where its something completely new.

kingkenny01
04-12-2010, 06:59 PM
drafting is the way to start but trading and free agency (but mostly trading) is the best to get a team to the next level