TheR3dMenace wrote:
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Money Ballin' It - The Spurs should be the blueprint to sustained success?
Collapse
X
-
To your comments about the Spurs drafting, I think BC tapped into RC Buford selecting Q Acy over Q Miller this past draft. At the time I was scratching my head, but Ace is legit.
Leave a comment:
-
Exactly. Some people seem to be afraid to become mediocre. I say, damn, that would be nice (for about 5 years).
Leave a comment:
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostOne 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...
Without the superstar, you may never win the championship, but boy, 5 or 6 years in a row of getting to the second round is looking very desirable right now. And continually getting to the second round will eventually attract that superstar when everything aligns correctly.
You cannot win if you throw everything over every two years.
Leave a comment:
-
p00ka wrote: View PostThere's no question that the Spurs are a very well coached team, and have done very well with a great coach, and one of the best of all time in Duncan, but some people need rid themselves of this myth that the organization are geniuses in judging talent and drafting.
1. Ginobli: If anyone believes the Spurs actually had a clue what Ginobli would turn into, why would they have waited
until the 57th pick to grab him, instead of wasting the 29 pick on a mentally ill Leon Smith who never saw the floor for them? Great scouting on a pick that spent as much time in mental institutions as in the NBA, hey.
2. Since Ginobli was drafted in 1999, other than getting Parker (2001) at 28, the best picks they've made (Scola, Barbosa, Dragic), they traded away for what turned out to be scrap, before they even saw the floor for them. Otherwise their "great scouting and drafting" have netted them:
2000, #41 Chris Carrawell
2000, #54 Corey Hightower
2001, #55 Robertas Javtokas
2001, #57 Bryan Bracey
2002, #26 John Salmons (Spurs type player?)
2002, #55 Luis Scola (traded for scrap before seeing the floor for them)
2002, #56 Randy Holcomb
2003, #28 Leandro Barbosa (traded for scrap before seeing the floor for them)
2004, #28 Beno Udrih
2004, #52 Romain Sato
2004, #57 Sergei Karaulov
2005, #28 Ian Mahinmi
2006, #59 Damir Markota
2007, #28 Tiago Splitter
2007, #33 Marcus Williams
2007, #58 Giorgos Printezis
2008, #26 George Hill
2008, #45 Goran Dragic (traded for scrap before seeing the floor for them)
2008, #57 James Gist
2009, #37 DuJuan Blair
2009, #51 Jack McClinton
2009, #53 Nando De Colo
2010, #20 James Anderson
2010, #49 Ryan Richards
2011, #29 Cory Joseph
2011, #59 Adam Hanga
2012, #59 Marcus Denmon
So, any great genius draft picks in the last 11 years? The idea that keeps getting spewed, that they always seem to make good picks late in the draft, is totally a myth, yet people keep spewing it over and over. The draft is as much a crap shoot for them as anyone else.
Leave a comment:
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostIt took Dirk a few years to develop into the HOF'er he is and the team didn't have success until he did. All the success after that (including their championship), was the exact same formula as the Spurs/OKC, etc... put the right parts around a superstar.
At this point in time there's no way of guaranteeing that any Raptor player will become a legit superstar to be built around. That's all just wishful thinking, which has been BC's approach in the past with Bosh, Bargnani, etc...
Leave a comment:
-
Primer wrote: View PostThe big difference being Dirk was a #9 pick who was a somewhat unknown international player that Dallas developed into a star (Jonas anyone?). Dirk barely played his first season. Tim Duncan was a known beast right from the start. averaging nearly 40 minutes per game and 21pts right out of the gate. Dallas also struggled in the lotto for several years after they drafted Dirk. San Antonio has made the playoffs every year since Duncan was drafted and won the NBA championship in Duncan's second year. I just think the Dallas situation is way more applicable to the Raps. They also had a GM who made some mistakes (letting Nash go) but eventually got it right, which is much closer to the Raps GM situation. People can't look at the Spurs and say, the Raps could do that. I think you can look at Dallas and say, the Raps could do that. Jonas can be our Dirk in 3 years (20 and 10 guy).
At this point in time there's no way of guaranteeing that any Raptor player will become a legit superstar to be built around. That's all just wishful thinking, which has been BC's approach in the past with Bosh, Bargnani, etc...
Leave a comment:
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostOne could argue that the 'Dallas Model' also starts with a HOF PF and the team's success comes from putting the 'right' parts around him.
There seems to be 2 basic models for franchises to follow:
1. Build around a superstar by adding players that 'fit' (ie: high skilled role players) - OKC, Spurs, Mavs models
2. Build a well rounded team, continually improving the 'weak link' on both the starting and 2nd units, without having a superstar to build around
We've seen Toronto try and fail multiple times to use #1 with illegitimate superstar (ie: Bosh, Bargnani, DeRozan), so I think approach #2 is the logical option going forward.
Leave a comment:
-
Primer wrote: View PostSorry I made a new thread, but I posted this a few days ago and no one responded or mentioned Dallas as a possible model, just kept talking about the Spurs. Maybe they skipped my post because it was long. Either way, I don't want to talk about the Spurs as a model, I want to talk about Dallas a model, hence the new thread. The Spurs discussion is dumb in my eyes because it all started with a #1 pick who became possibly the greatest PF of all time. That's not a blueprint, that's luck. Everything else they did doesn't mean shit unless they get Tim Duncan in that draft.
There seems to be 2 basic models for franchises to follow:
1. Build around a superstar by adding players that 'fit' (ie: high skilled role players) - OKC, Spurs, Mavs models
2. Build a well rounded team, continually improving the 'weak link' on both the starting and 2nd units, without having a superstar to build around
We've seen Toronto try and fail multiple times to use #1 with illegitimate superstar (ie: Bosh, Bargnani, DeRozan), so I think approach #2 is the logical option going forward.
Leave a comment:
-
Sorry I made a new thread, but I posted this a few days ago and no one responded or mentioned Dallas as a possible model, just kept talking about the Spurs. Maybe they skipped my post because it was long. Either way, I don't want to talk about the Spurs as a model, I want to talk about Dallas a model, hence the new thread. The Spurs discussion is dumb in my eyes because it all started with a #1 pick who became possibly the greatest PF of all time. That's not a blueprint, that's luck. Everything else they did doesn't mean shit unless they get Tim Duncan in that draft.
Leave a comment:
-
Money Ball: The Dallas plan to sustained success
Lots of talk about the Spurs being a blueprint for sustained success that the Raptors should follow. I have to disagree, because the Spurs success was built on getting a hall of famer with the #1 overall pick. Without Tim Duncan, the Spurs don't win or even compete for any championships. So, is getting a top lottery pick the way to go, or is there a better more easily accomplished model? 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.
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.
Leave a comment:
-
Mediumcore wrote: View PostThe Spurs are a good team to look at for sustaining their success. They more than any other team in the league, and that's including the Lakers, have maximized their talent for the longest duration by continually putting the correct pieces around their core of Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. But having said that they had a centre peice, franchise player to build around and they didn't do anything shrewd to attain him. They were simply blessed by the draft day Gods when they landed the number one pick and snagged Duncan. Simple, dumb, luck.
Leave a comment:
-
The Spurs are a good team to look at for sustaining their success. They more than any other team in the league, and that's including the Lakers, have maximized their talent for the longest duration by continually putting the correct pieces around their core of Duncan, Parker and Ginobili. But having said that they had a centre peice, franchise player to build around and they didn't do anything shrewd to attain him. They were simply blessed by the draft day Gods when they landed the number one pick and snagged Duncan. Simple, dumb, luck.
Leave a comment:
-
CalgaryRapsFan wrote: View PostGuys 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.
Howard though... no comment, lol
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: