Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





View Poll Results: The idea of an "Immediate Contender" vs the idea of a "Team Growing Together"

Voters
130. You may not vote on this poll
  • Immediate Contender

    56 43.08%
  • Team Growing Together

    74 56.92%
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 136
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    HCA (Homecourt Advantage)
    Posts
    66,635

    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.

    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?
    "Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships."
    - Michael Jordan

    Thanks MJ-Bulls for the picture.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    55,525
    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.
    Last edited by ink; 10-29-2007 at 12:08 AM.
    If we're all such great coaches why do we recruit so hard? You need players.

    ~ Jack Armstrong, ECF 2016

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,226
    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

    Thanks MJ-Bulls

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by JordansBulls View Post
    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.


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    2,363
    Quote Originally Posted by ink View Post
    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.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    55,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Marius View Post
    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.
    If we're all such great coaches why do we recruit so hard? You need players.

    ~ Jack Armstrong, ECF 2016

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    9,698
    Quote Originally Posted by JordansBulls View Post
    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.....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Santa Monica
    Posts
    19,276
    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.

    Yep, this sissy is bringing LA another title.......deal with it!!!!!!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Burleson
    Posts
    591
    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

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    11,674
    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....

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    VANCOUVER
    Posts
    55,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Marius View Post
    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.
    Last edited by ink; 10-29-2007 at 03:04 AM.
    If we're all such great coaches why do we recruit so hard? You need players.

    ~ Jack Armstrong, ECF 2016

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,265
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10,594
    Quote Originally Posted by JordansBulls View Post
    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....ulls-headlines

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,611
    Quote Originally Posted by Marius View Post
    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).
    Last edited by Manos; 10-29-2007 at 09:17 AM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    10,594
    Quote Originally Posted by Marius View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •