PDA

View Full Version : Does 'Rebuilding' in the NBA win you a Championship?



CubsBullsBucs
04-29-2013, 01:02 AM
To me, it seems like most of the good teams in the NBA didnt really 'rebuild' to get good.

Boston: Signed Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen to big contracts, won a championship within 2 years because of the money they spent.
Miami: Signed Chris Bosh and Lebron James to big contracts, won a championship within 2 years because of the money they spent.
Lakers: have always been good, but signed Gasol and Artest to big contracts, another team that won the championship because of the $ they spent
Dallas: Signed older players like Marion, Chandler, Terry and Kidd to win a championship. Another team that won a championship because of signing older free agents.

Those are the four previous NBA champions. None of them "rebuilt" to win a championship. Now lets look at some teams that are really good, but havent won a championship yet.

Nets: Signed Deron Williams, Joe Johnson and traded for Gerald Wallace. They sucked, but then they spent big money to get good suddenly. The Nets didn’t rebuild anything, they spent money and became contenders over night.
Knicks: Signed/Traded for Carmelo, Chandler and Amare, essentially becoming great over night. They didnt rebuild, they bought their way to where they are. Just like the Bulls, they sucked bad for a lot of years and became very good suddenly.

Now we are seeing teams like Washington, Cleveland, New Orleans and Orlando 'rebuilding', and im wondering if it will get any of them a championship. The past 4 NBA champions core roster were all signed or traded for, none of them were brought up through the draft. This also can be confusion with the term “rebuilding”. It seems like these teams get one great player, and then sign and trade to build around them. Is that really rebuilding, or just getting a great player to build around. Kobe, Dirk and Pierce were built around with older players. The only counter example to this are the Thunder, but they haven’t won anything yet (plus i want to concentrate more on past NBA champs over teams that are just contenders, but i brought up some examples to back up my argument). I am hearing this term ‘rebuild’ so much. Obviously this hinges on what you consider ‘rebuilding’, but the past 4 NBA champs didnt rebuild to get good. They got one good player and then spent money on older players to build around them. I think in the MLB you need to rebuild with younger players because there are so many pieces to a championship roster, but in the NBA i am getting annoyed with teams saying they are rebuilding. If New Orleans signed Dwight and CP3 over the summer, did they rebuild? Or did they just tank to get one good player (Anthony Davis) and then spent money on older guys to build around him? In your opinion, do you see any of these teams like Orlando, Cleveland, Washington or New Orleans winning a championship with what they drafted, or does it always take signing or trading for a big name to win a championship?

Guppyfighter
04-29-2013, 01:04 AM
Dirk and Kobe came from where, dude?

CubsBullsBucs
04-29-2013, 01:06 AM
Dirk and Kobe came from where, dude?

well thats my question. is drafting one good player considered rebuilding?

Clippersfan86
04-29-2013, 01:08 AM
Your argument of acquiring players vs homegrown players doesn't mean a hell of a lot considering the Spurs and Lakers have like 9 of the last 15 championships or w/e on a lot of career team players. Sure the Lakers got Shaq.. but Kobe never played a game in another uniform and the Spurs obviously have never had to sign or trade for a big name to win rings. Then like Guppy said Dirk never has worn another jersey.

BALLER R
04-29-2013, 01:21 AM
Your argument of acquiring players vs homegrown players doesn't mean a hell of a lot considering the Spurs and Lakers have like 9 of the last 15 championships or w/e on a lot of career team players. Sure the Lakers got Shaq.. but Kobe never played a game in another uniform and the Spurs obviously have never had to sign or trade for a big name to win rings. Then like Guppy said Dirk never has worn another jersey.

I think the point he's making or asking is that you don't need a total rebuild to win a championship. Just one player or two from the draft but the rest are acquired from trades and free agency.

Clippersfan86
04-29-2013, 01:25 AM
I think the point he's making or asking is that you don't need a total rebuild to win a championship. Just one player or two from the draft but the rest are acquired from trades and free agency.

Who ever said you need a full rebuild though? Most contenders do a small rebuild or a re-tooling, not a franchise rebuild. So his point is that homegrown+ free agent signings is the best? Well of course. Because you're using ALL of your ability to get great players. That's like saying diet+exercise is better than just diet or just exercise. It's common sense stuff.

CubsBullsBucs
04-29-2013, 01:58 AM
Who ever said you need a full rebuild though? Most contenders do a small rebuild or a re-tooling, not a franchise rebuild. So his point is that homegrown+ free agent signings is the best? Well of course. Because you're using ALL of your ability to get great players. That's like saying diet+exercise is better than just diet or just exercise. It's common sense stuff.

then why isnt it called retooling? if ur rebuilding you are starting from the ground up.

Hellcrooner
04-29-2013, 03:17 AM
Rebuilding does not only mean getting players trough Draft, but trough trades or f.a too.


Showtimes lakers started from scratch in kareem in the last 70s and built around here trough draft ( magic, worhty, Scott, ac Green), F.A ( rambis) and trades ( Wilkes, Kutchap) etc.

Bad boys pistons did the same, draft ( thomas, dumars, rodman), Trade for ( Aguirre, Lambieer) etc.

Same for Jordans bulls draft ( jordan, pippen, Grant) Trade for ( Cartwright) sign ( hodges, paxon).

and so on.

DreamShaker
04-29-2013, 03:26 AM
Thunder and a healthy Bulls team are the only teams I can think of that boasts a core of drafted players able to contend. The Spurs lucked into Duncan while still having a star in Robinson and good role players to never really drop much at all. I think it is just all about making smart moves. Bad front offices have limited or destroyed other teams, but you gotta have a little luck as well. I am not sure there is a perfect blueprint for sucess, but making smart moves is usually the key.

Guppyfighter
04-29-2013, 03:27 AM
Thunder and a healthy Bulls team are the only teams I can think of that boasts a core of drafted players able to contend. The Spurs lucked into Duncan while still having a star in Robinson and good role players to never really drop much at all. I think it is just all about making smart moves. Bad front offices have limited or destroyed other teams, but you gotta have a little luck as well. I am not sure there is a perfect blueprint for sucess, but making smart moves is usually the key.

Sustaining elite play for 16 years isn't luck, dreamshaker.

DreamShaker
04-29-2013, 03:37 AM
Sustaining elite play for 16 years isn't luck, dreamshaker.

I agree, but getting Duncan sure was when they already had Robinson. Only a Robinson injury could have made them bad enough to have a chance at Duncan, which has been the biggest reason they have been great for so long. But they keep retooling in smart and effective ways. I consider the Spurs the smartest organization in basketball and there is a reason they have sustained greatness, but a little luck is always involved. You think if Robinson would have never went down they would have for sure been the team they are now?

Guppyfighter
04-29-2013, 03:39 AM
I agree, but getting Duncan sure was when they already had Robinson. Only a Robinson injury could have made them bad enough to have a chance at Duncan, which has been the biggest reason they have been great for so long. But they keep retooling in smart and effective ways. I consider the Spurs the smartest organization in basketball and there is a reason they have sustained greatness, but a little luck is always involved. You think if Robinson would have never went down they would have for sure been the team they are now?

Yes.

Tony, Manu. And plus the PF's they let go that were pretty good. Obviously no where near the level of Duncan, but the Spurs would have been contenders without Duncan if they never got him. They would have just went about building the team differently.

DreamShaker
04-29-2013, 03:55 AM
Yes.

Tony, Manu. And plus the PF's they let go that were pretty good. Obviously no where near the level of Duncan, but the Spurs would have been contenders without Duncan if they never got him. They would have just went about building the team differently.

I am not sure I totally buy into them winning any championships without Duncan. Good team, sure. Great team, probably not. But then again, they could have gotten Lebron or something, and could have still been great. That is why so much of it is luck that puts you from good to great. But smart teams do tend to build for success. I think we both agree on that

Guppyfighter
04-29-2013, 03:57 AM
I am not sure I totally buy into them winning any championships without Duncan. Good team, sure. Great team, probably not. But then again, they could have gotten Lebron or something, and could have still been great. That is why so much of it is luck that puts you from good to great. But smart teams do tend to build for success. I think we both agree on that

Maybe, maybe not. But they would have built a team capable of winning championships.

DreamShaker
04-29-2013, 04:01 AM
BTW, I do really like the Spurs, and give them all the credit in the world for finding guys like Manu and TP out of seemingly nowhere and signing outcasts like Bowen, Avery Johnson, and Nesterovich to build championship teams. From coaching, to the front office, to the ownership, they are a grade A+ team.

DreamShaker
04-29-2013, 04:12 AM
Maybe, maybe not. But they would have built a team capable of winning championships.

I get where you are coming from, but teams need superstars to win, with a few rare exceptions. Unless you consider TP a superstar capable of being the best player on a championship team. Which is not a bad opinion by any means. I guess I am just saying it is much harder to build a team capable of winning it all. There have been great teams and great players who have never done it. Tim Duncan is one of the greatest players of all-time, and the Spurs did an amazing job building around him, but he is not a guy you could just plug someone else in and expect the same results. He was the engine that drove every championship team they had.

PHX2daDEATH
04-29-2013, 04:23 AM
well if the warriors win it all this year, yea im pretty sure rebuilding brings championships because they have been rebuilding since run TMC split..you had the 06 "I believe" Warriors but they were an upstart who beat the piss out of the best team in league that year.... Rebuilding should be universally known as ..'we're going to suck for 5-10..maybe 15 years.." in the nba..thats why only 9 franchises have won titles in the last 30 years, teams like the Kings, Wizards, Bobcats, Raptors, T-Wolves always in the lottery because they are 'rebuilding"...

bholly
04-29-2013, 05:49 AM
then why isnt it called retooling? if ur rebuilding you are starting from the ground up.

People rarely every call that rebuilding, and often call it retooling. If it's a major overhaul (ie the 2010 Heat offseason) then people might drop that word in casually, but rebuilding almost always refers to a longer-term thing that usually involves sucking for a while.

Asik's better
04-29-2013, 06:15 AM
Best example are the spurs. Also even though they haven't won a championship, the thunder have done a rebuild through the draft. Perkins, Martin and thabo sefolosha are the only players of note worthy that they haven't drafted.

mightybosstone
04-29-2013, 08:54 AM
You have to be able to build through the draft and free agency in today's NBA. Every NBA champion I can think of in the history of the league had at least one drafted superstar on their team prior to acquiring other pieces. If the Celtics don't have Pierce, they don't get Allen or KG. If the Lakers don't have Kobe, they don't get Shaq or Gasol. If the Heat don't have Wade, they don't get Lebron or Bosh.

The Spurs seem to be the exception to the rule, but they're the proof that a team with smart front offices who build around the draft can succeed in the NBA. But bottom line, "rebuilding" is almost a necessity in this league, because without that first superstar, it's almost impossible to acquire a second.

D-Leethal
04-29-2013, 09:11 AM
You really need to strike gold in the lotto, it takes a lot of luck or you can get stuck in rebuild mode for the better part of a decade. You need to make a big time splash, whether you get a top 3 surefire pick or you stockpile assets and make a blockbuster trade.

Unless its surefire elite superstar talent, stockpiling young talent usually gets teams nowhere.