What came first? The chicken or the egg?

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

I believe Robinson went down with an injury, and they decided to tank.

So you could say they acquired the pieces, then decided they wanted to go after Duncan.

Common Nilanka, work with me here! hahahaha

[Puffer]

...is it better to target a franchise player, acquire him, then build a team around him, OR, keep stockpiling assets, acquire players who could be cornerstones of your team, then either wait for a franchise player to come along or trade for or sign a franchise player once your team has been established.

The single key unanswered question is, "How do you get a franchise player to come to your city if your team is crap."

And for all those who answer "The Draft" how long are you going to patiently wait around at the bottom of the league hoping to grab the number one or two draft pick? And how are you going to ensure your draft pick is, in fact, a franchise player? There is a long list of number one or number two picks who have not fulfilled that promise, either because it turned out they didn't have the tools, the work ethic, or else they were injured and it never worked out.

Not saying the draft doesn't work, but every year is a crap shoot. How often does the worst team get the #1 pick? How often does that pick lift a team from the bottom to the top? And how often does that pick stay with the team as opposed to going someplace else once their rookie contract obligations are over?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

Cavs had junk when they drafted James. Spurs got lucky. I don't think you can count drafting a player 1st overall as a situation where you built the team and then got the player.

I think better examples would be Pistons and then acquiring Rasheed.
Bucks acquiring Sprewell.
Knicks acquiring Sprewell.
Jazz acquiring Boozer, Okur.
Mavericks with all the guys they have brought in over the years.

The Cavs actually had a decent team in Ilgauskus, Boozer, Jeff McInnis, Dajuan Wagner, Ricky Davis and Darius Miles. oh and dont forget Yogi.

[Nilanka]

How did they get the 1st pick and draft Duncan?

I believe Robinson went down with an injury, and they decided to tank.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

Spurs already had a franchise player in Robinson. They just happened to luck into a 2nd franchise player.

How did they get the 1st pick and draft Duncan?

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

I guess "successfully" should have been included. Houston may be trying the approach but it hasn't worked. Yet. I have trouble with the Celtics example cause Pierce was already there and they added Allen, too. Thing is, most of the examples I can think of where a good team added a superstar don't realyl work cause there was already a superstar there....

True.

I think the essence of the question is, or at least the way i interpreted it was, is it better to target a franchise player, acquire him, then build a team around him, OR, keep stockpiling assets, acquire players who could be cornerstones of your team, then either wait for a franchise player to come along or trade for or sign a franchise player once your team has been established.

[Letter N]

Cavs had junk when they drafted James. Spurs got lucky. I don't think you can count drafting a player 1st overall as a situation where you built the team and then got the player.

I think better examples would be Pistons and then acquiring Rasheed.
Bucks acquiring Sprewell.
Knicks acquiring Sprewell.
Jazz acquiring Boozer, Okur.
Mavericks with all the guys they have brought in over the years.

[Nilanka]

I could be wrong, but i think Spurs and Duncan and Cavs and James would be examples as well.

The spurs already had an established lineup when they drafted Duncan, same as the Cavs and James.

Spurs already had a franchise player in Robinson. They just happened to luck into a 2nd franchise player.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

Can someone provide an example of a team using the "build the team then get the player" approach? The only one that pops into my head is Phoenix and Nash.

I could be wrong, but i think Spurs and Duncan and Cavs and James would be examples as well.

The spurs already had an established lineup when they drafted Duncan, same as the Cavs and James.

[slaw]

Currently, Houston.

In the past, the Celtics come to mind with the trade for KG. The problem with building the team then getting the player is you have to trade away the team you built to get the player.

I guess "successfully" should have been included. Houston may be trying the approach but it hasn't worked. Yet. I have trouble with the Celtics example cause Pierce was already there and they added Allen, too. Thing is, most of the examples I can think of where a good team added a superstar don't realyl work cause there was already a superstar there....

[Marz]

Can someone provide an example of a team using the "build the team then get the player" approach? The only one that pops into my head is Phoenix and Nash.

Currently, Houston.

In the past, the Celtics come to mind with the trade for KG. The problem with building the team then getting the player is you have to trade away the team you built to get the player.

[slaw]

Can someone provide an example of a team using the "build the team then get the player" approach? The only one that pops into my head is Phoenix and Nash.

[TheGloveinRapsUniform]

IMO, build then get the franchise player.

Reason 1: a franchise player should be versatile, hence the tag, franchise player. Your top player should be able to adapt to any condition he's put in, thats why youre making the star, and paying him the big bucks. He should be able to customize his game towards what the team needs him to do, and be able to do what is necessary to carry the team forward.

Reason 2: if you get a franchise player and build a team around him, supporting how he plays instead of him adjusting to the team, then he leaves, now what? you're stuck with a bunch of players whose games are tailor-made to support a specific type of player with a specific type of skill-set. Like what Orlando did with Howard. Surrounded him with perimeter shooters then he leaves, not theyre getting rid of everybody as well.

[Letter N]

Getting the player first and then building the team requires an exceptionally mentally strong player. You put even the most talented player in the world on a team with a losing record 3 years in a row and with not so great players and they'll stop trying unless they are born leaders or winners.

Look at John Wall, could be a top 3 PG in the league but you surrounded him with crap and now they're worried that he might never achieve his potential because of how poorly the organization built that team.

On the other hand if you get lucky with a Jordan, Garnett or Nash they can lift bad teams up. But it's pretty rare to find guys like them.


I voted build team, then get players.

[ceez]

build then add