Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Money Ballin' It - The Spurs should be the blueprint to sustained success?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Matt52 wrote: View Post
    One element missing in the comparison between OKC and SA is the characteristics both teams superstars share.

    Both Duncan and Durant are known to be the hardest workers, most coachable on the team, and most humble (although Durant doing his best Blatche to get a triple double recently was out of character). When you superstar is 100% committed to the team and the leadership guiding it, everyone else falls in line pretty quick.

    Oh and both guys last names start with D - that means something too.


    DeRozan. That's the answer.
    Twitter - @thekid_it

    Comment


    • #17
      Matt52 wrote: View Post
      One element missing in the comparison between OKC and SA is the characteristics both teams superstars share.

      Both Duncan and Durant are known to be the hardest workers, most coachable on the team, and most humble (although Durant doing his best Blatche to get a triple double recently was out of character). When you superstar is 100% committed to the team and the leadership guiding it, everyone else falls in line pretty quick.

      Oh and both guys last names start with D - that means something too.
      One common element is that they're both true superstars. The model is doomed to fail when you try to build around players who aren't true superstars - ie: Bosh, Bargnani, DeRozan, Gay...

      Comment


      • #18
        CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
        The more I think about, I suppose that's true (thanks to Fully's post as well).

        So in summary, the only things preventing the Raptors from building an equally successful organization that follows the Spurs/OKC Model are:

        1. A good, respected management team with long-term vision, which is fully supported by ownership
        2. A good, established and respected head coach, with a fully capable coaching staff
        3. A superstar player to build around


        I think it makes much more sense for the Raptors (and most teams) to follow a more team-oriented model (ie: Pistons championship teams and Indiana currently). This model doesn't require a superstar, but rather a group of talented players who can grow together and develop good chemistry - the 'whole is greater than the sum of the parts' model.


        The problem with trying to go with the Spurs/OKC Model is that even a complete tank job doesn't guarantee success. Say the Raps did clean house and tank next season, with the strategy of targeting Wiggins as their Duncan/Durant; there's still plenty of ways for that plan to go bad:

        1. Other tankers - I'm willing to bet that several teams are salivating over the 2014 draft and see it as their chance to take a huge step forward, so there'll likely be several teams tanking next season
        2. Draft lottery - even if the Raps were 'successful' finishing with the worst record, they may not wind up with the #1 overall pick
        3. Wiggins - plenty of other 'sure things' have failed to live up to their hype/potential, so there's no guarantee that he's going to be the next Duncan/Durant (plus it would put way too much pressure on him to shoulder those expectations, especially playing for the hometown team).
        Who said success is guaranteed? Exactly when is success guaranteed? Is it guaranteed with a 'team oriented' build? How many teams have tried that and failed? How many championship teams, finals teams, conference finals teams have been built that way other than Detroit in the last 10/20/30 years?

        Given that the 'team oriented' build isn't guaranteed they shouldn't go that route either than I'm assuming?

        If the need is a guarantee than the Raptors should just roll the dice on every decision, or fold up the club. Nothing is guaranteed.

        We can however look to the past and present, notice patterns and then identify what is the best opportunity to achieve success. To be a contender. History has shown us a very clear pattern:

        1) a superstar

        In order to get said star you:

        2a) either draft that star
        2b) be a wealthy attractive market and buy him (either on the FA market or from another team in a trade)

        Wealth isn't Toronto's problem. Its being willing to use that wealth. On top of that they are not an attractive market.


        Wiggins - Is Wiggins the only superstar the future holds? Is 2014 the Raptors last chance? If so I agree, the risk reward is not worth it. If, however there will be other superstars, and the Raptors will be able to draft after 2014, then I'll go right to my statement about the strength of the Spurs. Patience.

        Comment


        • #19
          Matt52 wrote: View Post
          One element missing in the comparison between OKC and SA is the characteristics both teams superstars share.

          Both Duncan and Durant are known to be the hardest workers, most coachable on the team, and most humble (although Durant doing his best Blatche to get a triple double recently was out of character). When you superstar is 100% committed to the team and the leadership guiding it, everyone else falls in line pretty quick.

          Oh and both guys last names start with D - that means something too.
          I'd like to stress the "most humble" part Matt52 refers to. Lucking out on a superstar might be a homerun, lucking out on a humble superstar for sure is a grand slam. As an example, it can be argued that LBJ and Howard might be better basketball players than the two D's, however they are not the humble superstars when compared to the two.

          Whereas Duncan said no to Disneyland and stuck with the small market Spurs, and Durant announced his contract extension on Twitter, Howard cried his way out of Orlando to an even bigger market in L.A., and LBJ had "The Decision". Similar highly drafted superstar franchise players, different attitudes in humility.

          Ownership/management in both Cleveland and Orlando will say that they did the best they could to keep their respective players. It just so happened that these players made their own decision to leave the team.

          Maybe we should change the spelling of Bargnani to Dargnani. In that way whenever he fails to rebound we can all scream "DARGN!" in unison.

          Comment


          • #20
            Craiger wrote: View Post
            Wiggins - Is Wiggins the only superstar the future holds? Is 2014 the Raptors last chance? If so I agree, the risk reward is not worth it. If, however there will be other superstars, and the Raptors will be able to draft after 2014, then I'll go right to my statement about the strength of the Spurs. Patience.
            What would Toronto (and every other similar team) do in the meantime, while they patiently await the arrival of their future hall-of-famer? I just don't think that's a viable strategy, since there is so much luck involved. The franchise would also doom itself, since constant tanking would turn off potential GM/coaching candidates, free agents, prospects, media, sponsors and fans. The team could successfully tank for a decade and never wind up with a franchise-altering draft pick - what then?

            My point of comparing the two different approaches is that a team can be quite successful by taking a non-superstar team building approach. Obviously there's no such thing as guaranteed success, but I do believe there's much more liklihood of success via that route, than waiting/hoping/praying/lucking into a superstar via the draft. Of course, even "success" is subjective, regardless of the route taken.

            Comment


            • #21
              JStockton wrote: View Post
              I'd like to stress the "most humble" part Matt52 refers to. Lucking out on a superstar might be a homerun, lucking out on a humble superstar for sure is a grand slam. As an example, it can be argued that LBJ and Howard might be better basketball players than the two D's, however they are not the humble superstars when compared to the two.

              Whereas Duncan said no to Disneyland and stuck with the small market Spurs, and Durant announced his contract extension on Twitter, Howard cried his way out of Orlando to an even bigger market in L.A., and LBJ had "The Decision". Similar highly drafted superstar franchise players, different attitudes in humility.

              Ownership/management in both Cleveland and Orlando will say that they did the best they could to keep their respective players. It just so happened that these players made their own decision to leave the team.

              Maybe we should change the spelling of Bargnani to Dargnani. In that way whenever he fails to rebound we can all scream "DARGN!" in unison.
              I actually disagree with this quite significantly. This is one of the strengths of teams like the Spurs and OKC lies.

              Lebron and Dwight both re-signeded with their teams initially aswell (much like Durant they were restricted free agents).

              Their secondary and tertiary peices were guys like Antwan Jamison, Mo Williams, Rashard Lewis, Hedo Turkoglu, Larry Hughes, end of their career Gilbert Arenas, Vince Carter and Shaq.

              Do any of these guys sound like OKC or Spurs guys?

              This isn't intended to discredit Duncan or Durant. I agree they are very level headed and rather humble guys. But Lebron and Howard only got their reps AFTER they left their teams, who were doing a rather poor job building around them. Throwing money at inefficient players who had a name.

              OKC and SA kept snagging up efficient well rounded players when no one else was looking.

              Comment


              • #22
                Craiger wrote: View Post
                I actually disagree with this quite significantly. This is one of the strengths of teams like the Spurs and OKC lies.

                Lebron and Dwight both re-signeded with their teams initially aswell (much like Durant they were restricted free agents).

                Their secondary and tertiary peices were guys like Antwan Jamison, Mo Williams, Rashard Lewis, Hedo Turkoglu, Larry Hughes, end of their career Gilbert Arenas, Vince Carter and Shaq.

                Do any of these guys sound like OKC or Spurs guys?

                This isn't intended to discredit Duncan or Durant. I agree they are very level headed and rather humble guys. But Lebron and Howard only got their reps AFTER they left their teams, who were doing a rather poor job building around them. Throwing money at inefficient players who had a name.

                OKC and SA kept snagging up efficient well rounded players when no one else was looking.
                So perhaps the true strength of the Spurs/OKC Model is the talent/respect/longevity of their GM, Head Coach and scouting department, and their ability to target appropriate support/role players, while getting all players (including the superstar) to buy into a team-first system. Success begets success, allowing the entire franchise the freedom to maintain a long-term view of the team, predicated on success and job security.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Craiger wrote: View Post
                  I actually disagree with this quite significantly. This is one of the strengths of teams like the Spurs and OKC lies.

                  Lebron and Dwight both re-signeded with their teams initially aswell (much like Durant they were restricted free agents).

                  Their secondary and tertiary peices were guys like Antwan Jamison, Mo Williams, Rashard Lewis, Hedo Turkoglu, Larry Hughes, end of their career Gilbert Arenas, Vince Carter and Shaq.

                  Do any of these guys sound like OKC or Spurs guys?

                  This isn't intended to discredit Duncan or Durant. I agree they are very level headed and rather humble guys. But Lebron and Howard only got their reps AFTER they left their teams, who were doing a rather poor job building around them. Throwing money at inefficient players who had a name.

                  OKC and SA kept snagging up efficient well rounded players when no one else was looking.
                  I agree with what you are saying on the overspending on names.

                  However, LeBron was known as a primadonna ever since he entered the league and Howard quickly lost the wholesome christian label.

                  A part of this is young men growing up in the spotlight with a lot of money and surrounded by "yes" men.... and women lol. However a level head and humility goes a long way and that is a big difference between Durant/Duncan and LBJ/Howard. I don't think Durant or Duncan have ever thought of themselves as bigger than the team whereas LBJ and Howard definitely have.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Yeah i wish we had a superstar/hall of fame coach/GM that wasn't borderline retarded
                    @sweatpantsjer

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Matt52 wrote: View Post
                      I agree with what you are saying on the overspending on names.

                      However, LeBron was known as a primadonna ever since he entered the league and Howard quickly lost the wholesome christian label.

                      A part of this is young men growing up in the spotlight with a lot of money and surrounded by "yes" men.... and women lol. However a level head and humility goes a long way and that is a big difference between Durant/Duncan and LBJ/Howard. I don't think Durant or Duncan have ever thought of themselves as bigger than the team whereas LBJ and Howard definitely have.
                      Guys like Duncan and Durant also seem like throwback type players to me, in that they like/accept the challenge of winning on their own, with their team. They don't seem like the type of players/people to go for the whole "super team" approach. Duncan's Spurs and Durant's Thunder are way more like Jordan's Bulls, Magic's Lakers and Larry's Celtics, while LBJ & Howard both prefer the easy way out of teaming up with other superstars to 'cheat' the competitive spirit of sports.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                        So perhaps the true strength of the Spurs/OKC Model is the talent/respect/longevity of their GM, Head Coach and scouting department, and their ability to target appropriate support/role players, while getting all players (including the superstar) to buy into a team-first system. Success begets success, allowing the entire franchise the freedom to maintain a long-term view of the team, predicated on success and job security.

                        I don't think for a second ownership in SA or OKC hired Burford/Presti and said "we'll give them a decade+ to their thing". These guys earned their security by making good decisions.

                        Absolutely success can beget success, but it needs to start somewhere. In the NBA you become successful by being bad first - and only then are you successful over the long haul.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Without reading what everyone else has written, here are some of my points. I don't know if you can call the Spurs a model, I mean they got extremely lucky by getting Tim Duncan right around the time David Robinson was finishing up his career. The equivalent of that would be if we had Chris Bosh and managed to draft, say, Blake Griffin just as Bosh made his exit. The chances of that are slim to none, of having that level of luck and coincidence.

                          The Thunder also has a great "model" if you can call it that. I think it has more to do with shrewd decision making than anything else. Jeff Green was a perfectly good young player that they turned into Kendrick Perkins. Not a flashy player but a player that fills a role they desperately needed. I'm not sure you would see Colangelo ever make a move like that. The decision to not pay James Harden and seize an opportunity to keep building was another shrewd business decision. DeRozan is far from Harden but you look at what we did there, jumped the gun and bid against ourselves and gave him an undeserved contract extension. I mean, Harden deserved one more than DeRozan did, but they traded him instead. Looking back they don't even miss the guy, they're doing just fine without him... they might even be better without him and they have young players on the team plus a draft pick coming in.

                          In terms of the Spurs model of drafting, a lot has to do with scouting. Apollo said they never got hammered for their draft picks. Well, it's not likely you'll get hammered by Stephen A Smith when you picked 28th or lower every year because people just don't care. That's not to say they haven't selected extremely well, but I don't know how you can "follow" that unless you try to lure the Spurs' scouts over.

                          I would say rather than following a "model", you just need to be versatile. You need to able to seize opportunities and adapt as needed without getting desperate.
                          Last edited by ebrian; Wed Apr 24, 2013, 02:01 PM.
                          your pal,
                          ebrian

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View Post
                            What would Toronto (and every other similar team) do in the meantime, while they patiently await the arrival of their future hall-of-famer? I just don't think that's a viable strategy, since there is so much luck involved. The franchise would also doom itself, since constant tanking would turn off potential GM/coaching candidates, free agents, prospects, media, sponsors and fans. The team could successfully tank for a decade and never wind up with a franchise-altering draft pick - what then?

                            My point of comparing the two different approaches is that a team can be quite successful by taking a non-superstar team building approach. Obviously there's no such thing as guaranteed success, but I do believe there's much more liklihood of success via that route, than waiting/hoping/praying/lucking into a superstar via the draft. Of course, even "success" is subjective, regardless of the route taken.
                            I think Houston and Denver would be good examples of what you're talking about here. Houston just kept collection solid players and draft picks to get more solid players, flipped some of them for Harden... then went right back to collecting pieces (Thomas Robinson). Denver got a great haul of good to really good players for Carmelo and are now perennial playoff contenders one upgrade away from being a championship contender. I read a lot of posts that said patience is key; I would add foresight to that. Carmelo was traded early enough that Denver still had some leverage and Morey is on record saying he doesn't think the Harden trade goes down without Toronto's lottery pick.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Time for a reality check. Let's see how many players come into the league with the potential to take their teams to the finals in the past 10 years.

                              2003.) Lebron #1
                              I don't include Wade because he needed Shaq to get to the finals, and the team reverted to mediocre garbage once Shaq was gone until LBJ arrived.

                              2004.) Dwight Howard #1

                              2007.) Kevin Durant #2
                              2008.) Derrick Rose #1
                              Rose is debatable since he hasn't taken his team there yet, but I think without the superstars convening in Miami they would have been in the finals already.

                              There hasn't been a franchise changing star drafted since 2008 (a player that can carry his team to the finals). That's 5 years in a row where tanking leaves you in the same boat the next year, albeit with a great player, but still a team that can't hang. That's why "suck and luck" (I love that term) is a super high risk proposition. Not only do you need to have a lotto pick, you pretty much need the 1st overall pick. The odds on getting the first overall pick, combined with the odds of that pick being a hall of fame talent, are absurdly low.

                              People are trying not to admit it, but the Spurs success is entirely predicated on Duncan. When he retires, they will not be a championship contender anymore. That is where the real test of the Spurs system will begin. Can they build another championship contender without Duncan? I think they can, and I don't think they'll do it by tanking, but instead by some aggressive trades. It will be fun to see either way. I just want people to realize the Spurs success isn't due to brilliant management or coaching (they both helped), it's due to Tim Duncan. Without him, the Spurs have zero championship appearances, let alone championships.

                              A more realistic model for the Raps to copy is the Dallas model. They built around a 9th overall pick and turned it into a championship contender and winner. I think we need to look at Jonas as our "Dirk", and start to build around him the way Dallas did. I actually think we're doing a decent job of it now, we just need to keep it up and keep our fingers crossed Jonas gets to a Dirk level of domination (that hook shot + his FT skills could do it in time).

                              For more perspective, Dirk was drafted in 1998. Dallas didn't make the playoffs until 2001, but has made the playoffs every year since then until this year. They made the NBA finals twice in that span, winning once. That's a pretty damn good run, and shows you how a championship team can be built through years of playoff experience. Just look at the roster of their championship team.
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2...vericks_season
                              Dirk is the only superstar in the bunch. The Raps could build something like that.

                              I think Jonas will be ready to take the team to the next level in the 2015-16 season, when the Raps have plenty of space to put whatever missing pieces we need around him. The Heat should also be significantly diminished by then, meaning that we have a real shot of coming out of the East. That is the most realistic path for the Raps to get to the NBA finals, the Dallas plan.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Durant is debatable as well. Last year, when they got to the finals, he had arguably two top 20/30 players beside him and one of the top defensive players in the league.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X