[Scott42444Participant]

After the Bulls 3OT victory versus the "juggernaut" that is the injury plagued Orlando Magic, Joakim Noah was asked if his team, the Chicago Bulls, would be better served losing more games to get a better draft pick.  Most of us use the word "tanking" to describe that strategy.  Of course, Noah said that they will NEVER tank.  Good.  I am glad that a player, who gets compensated based on performance, wants to play his hardest and win as many games as he can.  Even Jimmy Butler, who has been struggling with nagging injuries all season, was "happy" he set a Bulls franchise victory by playing over 60 minutes in a meaningless game.  My question is this:

Do NBA fans not understand how the NBA works?  There are quite a few supporters of the Bulls on internet message boards and on sports talk radio who claim that the Bulls should just, "get into the playoffs, you never know what can happen!"  They claim that "REAL" Bulls fans would NEVER want the team to tank.  The Bulls have shown a propensity of finding draft steals in the late 1st round and can/will do it again.  Etc., etc., etc.

I personally think these people are some of the most unintelligent NBA fans in the world.  I do understand that perpetual lottery teams spend years hoping to get a roster that can compete.  I do understand that it takes time for rookies to develop into championship altering talent.  I also understand that there are many times that having the #1 pick in the draft, which is NOT given to the team with the worst record but decided based on a lottery with tiered odds to actually discourage blatant tanking, doesn’t even mean that a team will land an All-Star.  Draft years such as 2000 and 2013 would be excellent examples of times where a #1 pick, or a pick in the Top 5 even, might not do much to alter a franchise for the better.  But ask almost ANY NBA GM about the 2014 draft and you will hear most compare the available talent to great years such as 2003 and 2009.  Those were years where MANY franchises were able to draft perrenial All-Stars who led their teams deep into the playoffs.  

The NBA is a star driven league.  If you look at the history of the teams who are competing for an NBA Championship, which I usually would define as the NBA Champs but we can even include teams that are continually in the Finals or Conference Finals, you will see teams led by high lottery picks.  The Miami Heat are somewhat of an anomaly, since their "Big 3" were put together in a historically different way, but they were led by Miami’s own #5 pick in the 2003 NBA Draft (who also was Finals MVP in the franchise’s first championship) and also the #1 and #4 pick in that same draft.  The San Antonio Spurs were led by their former #1 pick Tim Duncan, the Mavericks were led by their early lottery pick Dirk, the Thunder were in the Finals with their three Top 4 picks of Durant, Westbrook, and Harden.  Kobe Bryant was not a Top 5 pick, but he also was a high school shooting guard during a time that NBA GM’s were unsure of how to draft high school players AND he and his agent let it be known that he would not play for certain teams.  Of course, the Pistons beat a HOF lineup that the Lakers put on the court (Kobe, Payton, Malone, Shaq) but they did it with a starting lineup with all 5 players who were in their prime and were All-Stars.  Former Bulls GM Jerry Krause was adament that teams are in "basketball Hell" when they, like the Boston Celtics of the 1990’s and early 2000’s, are just good enough to make the playoffs but not good enough to compete for an NBA Championship.

I know most fans of the NBA are also fans of the other major sports in America.  It IS true that just getting to the playoffs gives ANY team a chance to compete for a championship.  MLB is notorious for having wild card teams ride a hot streak into the playoffs and straight through to a title.  The NFL is similar, illustrated perfectly by the New York Giants (who had close to a .500 record) defeating the previously unbeaten New England Patriots in the Superbowl.  But, the NBA is a star driven league.  The majority of teams who win are led by one, if not multiple, players considered to be the Top 10 players in the game at that given time.  The rules are actually called differently with stars compared to unproven rookies and role players.  The Chicago Bulls would be greatly benefitted by a Top 5 pick (which is a very real possibility if they finish with one of the 8 worst records in the NBA).  They have a chance to restock the cubbard, so to speak, in a very short time with a couple of picks in a very deep and talent laden draft.  They have some cap space to bring in talent and CANNOT rely on their best player (of course, a former #1 pick who is the ONLY reason they were considered championship contenders to begin with) Derrick Rose because he cannot stay healthy enough to stay on the court.  But, there are quite a few Bulls fans who call themselves "DIEHARD BULLS FANZ!!!" who want another repeat of last season where the Bulls "shocked the world" by beating a bad Brooklyn Nets team in 7 games and narrowly avoiding getting swept by the Miami Heat in the 2nd round (leading to the solid, yet far from franchise changing Tony Snell).  Oh, and they are one of only a couple #1 seeds to lose to a #8 seed the year before in the playoffs.

What do you guys think?  Am I too enamored with the NBA Draft as a frequent visitor of this website?  Does getting to the playoffs give any team a chance to win an NBA Championship, even though I have gone through the history of every NBA champ and could tell that isn’t the case?  I think the new CBA makes drafting superstars even more important.  Luol Deng is most likely going to be a 3-time All-Star this year and he was traded for what COULD be only 2nd round picks.  Teams are NOT willing to give up lottery picks and I think they agree that is the best way to procure championship talent in today’s NBA.  But, maybe I am wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[Sewok15Participant]

I think the team and the coach think win at all costs…get in….maybe we can win. The front office clearly has the more practical approach as do you. It is hard to sell rebuilding/tanking to your fan base when at the start of the season you were a so called title contender. Now a team like the Sixers that has been fighting for the 8th spot the last couple years can easily sell rebuilding to their fans. They have a new coach, owner and GM….Chicago has all those things in place and shouldn’t be in rebuild mode….they should be in win and title contending mode (Rose getting hurts really sucks for all NBA fans).

Teams need Superstars to build around and Chicago already has one in D Rose. Now since he is hurt and they have no chance to win it all this year they really should tank and try to get a Jabari Parker to play next to him. It would be the best move you could make if your ultimate goal is to win the Championship. Now I am not saying all teams that don’t have a shot to win the title should tank. I am not going to say the Hawks should trade Teague and Lou Williams and throw away the season. Certain times tanking is the best option and if I am Chicago with the financial situation the team is in I would consider a high draft pick the best way to improve my team for next year and go all in with a healthy (hopefully) D Rose.

[Sewok15Participant]

I think the team and the coach think win at all costs…get in….maybe we can win. The front office clearly has the more practical approach as do you. It is hard to sell rebuilding/tanking to your fan base when at the start of the season you were a so called title contender. Now a team like the Sixers that has been fighting for the 8th spot the last couple years can easily sell rebuilding to their fans. They have a new coach, owner and GM….Chicago has all those things in place and shouldn’t be in rebuild mode….they should be in win and title contending mode (Rose getting hurts really sucks for all NBA fans).

Teams need Superstars to build around and Chicago already has one in D Rose. Now since he is hurt and they have no chance to win it all this year they really should tank and try to get a Jabari Parker to play next to him. It would be the best move you could make if your ultimate goal is to win the Championship. Now I am not saying all teams that don’t have a shot to win the title should tank. I am not going to say the Hawks should trade Teague and Lou Williams and throw away the season. Certain times tanking is the best option and if I am Chicago with the financial situation the team is in I would consider a high draft pick the best way to improve my team for next year and go all in with a healthy (hopefully) D Rose.

[BogDon_KryptParticipant]

You are mostly correct that those top picks are the only way to an NBA championship (unless your the heat or lakers), but there are other ways.  Take the Pacers, for example, who have a real shot at winning this year:

 Paul George – 10th Pick

Roy Hibbert – 17th pick

David West 20 something pick (signed by Pacers)

Lance Stephenson – 40th Pick

Danny Granger – 17th pick

George Hill – 2o0something pick traded for the 15th pick Kawii Leonard.

 

 

 

 

 

[Scott42444Participant]

…you are correct.  The Pacers are one of the rare teams in the current NBA that were able to draft their superstar at #10.  The Spurs did well with Parker and Manu as well.  Kobe would be a great example, too.  Although he is an all-time HOF superstar, the fact that he was a guard coming out of high school in the mid-90’s makes THAT a bit different.  NBA GM’s always seemed to have a hard time scouting high school players properly.  Well, maybe not the scouting but the development.  A draft or two before Kobe, Garnett was taken and it was a BIG deal.  The Wolves weren’t going to bring him on all of the road trips and have him room with the coaching staff when he did.  NBA front offices made quite a few mistakes when it came to the scouting and development of the high schoolers.  Just ask MJ and Kwame.

  

[Scott42444Participant]

…you are correct.  The Pacers are one of the rare teams in the current NBA that were able to draft their superstar at #10.  The Spurs did well with Parker and Manu as well.  Kobe would be a great example, too.  Although he is an all-time HOF superstar, the fact that he was a guard coming out of high school in the mid-90’s makes THAT a bit different.  NBA GM’s always seemed to have a hard time scouting high school players properly.  Well, maybe not the scouting but the development.  A draft or two before Kobe, Garnett was taken and it was a BIG deal.  The Wolves weren’t going to bring him on all of the road trips and have him room with the coaching staff when he did.  NBA front offices made quite a few mistakes when it came to the scouting and development of the high schoolers.  Just ask MJ and Kwame.

  

[BogDon_KryptParticipant]

You are mostly correct that those top picks are the only way to an NBA championship (unless your the heat or lakers), but there are other ways.  Take the Pacers, for example, who have a real shot at winning this year:

 Paul George – 10th Pick

Roy Hibbert – 17th pick

David West 20 something pick (signed by Pacers)

Lance Stephenson – 40th Pick

Danny Granger – 17th pick

George Hill – 2o0something pick traded for the 15th pick Kawii Leonard.

 

 

 

 

 

[wrectorParticipant]

 TLDR I’d give you a +1 but its not double spaced with 1 inch margins.

 

 

Seriously tho, +1 for effort lol

 

 

 

[wrectorParticipant]

 TLDR I’d give you a +1 but its not double spaced with 1 inch margins.

 

 

Seriously tho, +1 for effort lol

 

 

 

[AmiableBaller34Participant]

As a Celtics fan, I want nothing more than to get a top 3 pick this year, but you will never see me cheering for my team to lose, and you will never hear me complain about my team winning. The Celtics are the team I give my support to, and whether they are a lottery team or a contender, that doesn’t change the fact that every year I’m going to watch and support them. There can only be one winner at the end of the year, and the chances of it being the Celtics is 1/30 at best. I understand this as a fan, and am just happy when my team is one of the final 16 teams standing. If they are a real contender, then even better. If they aren’t? Well, thankfully I’m a fan of one of the most historic sports franchises in North America. Now onto your post. 

 I didn’t read your entire post, but I did read most of it and skimmed it a few times, and I still think you have it all wrong from what I did read. You make the same arguments that most people make, and seem to miss one of the biggest points: Free Agency and Trades. 

Yes you can draft star players and the such, and sure, go ahead and explain how "no team can win without drafting a top player in the league" argument that we’ve all heard a million times before. At the end of the day none of that means jack unless you can convince that star player to stay, and if you can build a team around them. 

The Show Time Lakers signed Kareem, one of the best big men in the game. The Houston Rockets aquired Drexler and won another ship. The 96′ Bulls signed Rodman. Celtics traded for Parish and McHale, and signed Bill Walton and DJ. 2004 Pistons signed/traded for their whole team. The Threepeat Lakers signed SHAQ. Dallas signed Jason Kidd. 2008 Celtics traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. The 2006 Heat signed SHAQ. The Back to Back Lakers stole Pau Gasol. 

That’s almost every championship team going back to the late 70’s that I can name off the top of my head that didn’t draft one of their star players. The Spurs are the only exception that I can think of, but theres a reason why the "Spurs Modle" is being immitated by every team in the NBA. Yes, drafting a star player is important, but as I highlight above, it’s just as important to have a good winning culture, and the pieces to make acquisitions like signing a top free agent possible, or the prospects to trade for one. It’s about aquirering assets, not putting all your eggs into one basket, that basket being an 18 year old kid. 

Look at the NBA today. Do you really think the Wolves are in a good position? How about the Knicks? Both those teams are probably going to lose their star player, and the team that is positioning themselves to be a suiter will be the real winner at the end of the day. Not the team who tanked half the century just to be mediocre. 

[Sewok15Participant]

The Bulls added Rodman to a team that had Michael Jordan. The Celtics added all those guys to a team with Larry Bird. The Lakers added Shaq and then Gasol to a team with Kobe (although Shaq was their MVP at first). When the Heat signed Shaq it was their young draft pick D Wade that was Finals MVP. The Mavs signed Jason Kidd (they also drafted him years earlier) but he shot 36% and only scored 8 points a game…Dirk (a player they drafted) was the league and Finals MVP that year.

The only team that really won a title without drafting a Superstar was the Pistons in 2004. They were the rare exception to the rule and didn’t have any Superstars but had a lot of very good players and were as cohesive a unit as there has been. That being said that year only had two years that they were really in contention…where if you look at the Spurs, Lakers and Bulls who had a Superstar to build around have/had been title contenders for a decade and in Duncan’s case 15 years.

Now I know you need to build around these guys with role players but you really need one of those guys to begin with to have almost any chance to win it all. The best way to acquire one of these players is clearly through the draft and most often at the top of the draft. Now you always have guys drafted a little lower who become Superstars a la Paul George but this is rare as well. The Spurs did this better than anybody with Manu and Parker…that has a lot to do with their success but it is still Tim Duncan and Pop that is the common thread through these titles.

Teams that don’t have the assets to trade for KG and Ray Allen have to resort to tanking…which big name free agent is going to go sign in Utah? Sometimes tanking is the only real way to turn your team in a contender. In a draft like this where 3 guys have set themselves apart from the pack you want to make sure you get one of those 3 if you are in position.

[AmiableBaller34Participant]

 You make a fantastic point, but you aren’t talking about Superstars, you’re talking about Legends. Those guys are all Top 30 players all time, and I think there’s a big difference there that needs to be mentioned. There is a difference between superstars and generational type talent, and I don’t think that can be over looked. 

Guys like Chris Webber were superstars, acting as a top player in the league of their generation, but I wouldn’t consider him a legend. Legends are those rare type of players who you know, no matter what, you’re probably going to win a title with them on your team. That’s what made Jordan such a remarkable player, because he made other legends wait their turn, something that had never really been seen in modern NBA. 

You can win a title with guys like Webber and Reggie Miller, but they need a little more help than guys like Bird and Magic. 

I understand what you’re trying to say in your last point, but again that’s just you buying into the tankmachine. The Celtics just turned Jordan Crawford into two future draft picks after he had no value at all, so I don’t want to hear that crap. Get a good coach, a smart gm, showcase your talent and pray that someone bites. That is the only fact of the NBA, and teams need to start realizing this. Don’t give guys like Larry Sanders 4/44 million because they showed promise. Ship them out for more assets. Teams just need to stop falling in love with marginal talent, and start looking to aquire what will be, and always has been, in demand: Draft picks and young talent. 

[AmiableBaller34Participant]

 You make a fantastic point, but you aren’t talking about Superstars, you’re talking about Legends. Those guys are all Top 30 players all time, and I think there’s a big difference there that needs to be mentioned. There is a difference between superstars and generational type talent, and I don’t think that can be over looked. 

Guys like Chris Webber were superstars, acting as a top player in the league of their generation, but I wouldn’t consider him a legend. Legends are those rare type of players who you know, no matter what, you’re probably going to win a title with them on your team. That’s what made Jordan such a remarkable player, because he made other legends wait their turn, something that had never really been seen in modern NBA. 

You can win a title with guys like Webber and Reggie Miller, but they need a little more help than guys like Bird and Magic. 

I understand what you’re trying to say in your last point, but again that’s just you buying into the tankmachine. The Celtics just turned Jordan Crawford into two future draft picks after he had no value at all, so I don’t want to hear that crap. Get a good coach, a smart gm, showcase your talent and pray that someone bites. That is the only fact of the NBA, and teams need to start realizing this. Don’t give guys like Larry Sanders 4/44 million because they showed promise. Ship them out for more assets. Teams just need to stop falling in love with marginal talent, and start looking to aquire what will be, and always has been, in demand: Draft picks and young talent. 

[Sewok15Participant]

The Bulls added Rodman to a team that had Michael Jordan. The Celtics added all those guys to a team with Larry Bird. The Lakers added Shaq and then Gasol to a team with Kobe (although Shaq was their MVP at first). When the Heat signed Shaq it was their young draft pick D Wade that was Finals MVP. The Mavs signed Jason Kidd (they also drafted him years earlier) but he shot 36% and only scored 8 points a game…Dirk (a player they drafted) was the league and Finals MVP that year.

The only team that really won a title without drafting a Superstar was the Pistons in 2004. They were the rare exception to the rule and didn’t have any Superstars but had a lot of very good players and were as cohesive a unit as there has been. That being said that year only had two years that they were really in contention…where if you look at the Spurs, Lakers and Bulls who had a Superstar to build around have/had been title contenders for a decade and in Duncan’s case 15 years.

Now I know you need to build around these guys with role players but you really need one of those guys to begin with to have almost any chance to win it all. The best way to acquire one of these players is clearly through the draft and most often at the top of the draft. Now you always have guys drafted a little lower who become Superstars a la Paul George but this is rare as well. The Spurs did this better than anybody with Manu and Parker…that has a lot to do with their success but it is still Tim Duncan and Pop that is the common thread through these titles.

Teams that don’t have the assets to trade for KG and Ray Allen have to resort to tanking…which big name free agent is going to go sign in Utah? Sometimes tanking is the only real way to turn your team in a contender. In a draft like this where 3 guys have set themselves apart from the pack you want to make sure you get one of those 3 if you are in position.

[AmiableBaller34Participant]

As a Celtics fan, I want nothing more than to get a top 3 pick this year, but you will never see me cheering for my team to lose, and you will never hear me complain about my team winning. The Celtics are the team I give my support to, and whether they are a lottery team or a contender, that doesn’t change the fact that every year I’m going to watch and support them. There can only be one winner at the end of the year, and the chances of it being the Celtics is 1/30 at best. I understand this as a fan, and am just happy when my team is one of the final 16 teams standing. If they are a real contender, then even better. If they aren’t? Well, thankfully I’m a fan of one of the most historic sports franchises in North America. Now onto your post. 

 I didn’t read your entire post, but I did read most of it and skimmed it a few times, and I still think you have it all wrong from what I did read. You make the same arguments that most people make, and seem to miss one of the biggest points: Free Agency and Trades. 

Yes you can draft star players and the such, and sure, go ahead and explain how "no team can win without drafting a top player in the league" argument that we’ve all heard a million times before. At the end of the day none of that means jack unless you can convince that star player to stay, and if you can build a team around them. 

The Show Time Lakers signed Kareem, one of the best big men in the game. The Houston Rockets aquired Drexler and won another ship. The 96′ Bulls signed Rodman. Celtics traded for Parish and McHale, and signed Bill Walton and DJ. 2004 Pistons signed/traded for their whole team. The Threepeat Lakers signed SHAQ. Dallas signed Jason Kidd. 2008 Celtics traded for Ray Allen and Kevin Garnett. The 2006 Heat signed SHAQ. The Back to Back Lakers stole Pau Gasol. 

That’s almost every championship team going back to the late 70’s that I can name off the top of my head that didn’t draft one of their star players. The Spurs are the only exception that I can think of, but theres a reason why the "Spurs Modle" is being immitated by every team in the NBA. Yes, drafting a star player is important, but as I highlight above, it’s just as important to have a good winning culture, and the pieces to make acquisitions like signing a top free agent possible, or the prospects to trade for one. It’s about aquirering assets, not putting all your eggs into one basket, that basket being an 18 year old kid. 

Look at the NBA today. Do you really think the Wolves are in a good position? How about the Knicks? Both those teams are probably going to lose their star player, and the team that is positioning themselves to be a suiter will be the real winner at the end of the day. Not the team who tanked half the century just to be mediocre. 

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 Sometimes people tend to forget that the draft is not the only way to build a contending team. When you’re a in a big market like the Bulls, you can’t just lose money by having a bottom tier roster, specially when there’s absolutely nothing that guarantees that the player you will take in the top 5 will be a star.

[Sewok15Participant]

The Bulls are a big market but they aren’t exactly known for bringing in big time free agents. I mean the biggest signing I can remember was Carlos Boozer and there has been talk of amnestying him for the past two summers. The Bulls built with big time draft picks Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen (who although was traded by Seattle only played for the Bulls until he went to Houston in 1998.) The next time they were title contenders again they drafted Derrick Rose #1 and Deng and Noah in the top 10.

You think of Chicago is a large market that should be able to bring in big time players just because…but what have you seen post MJ that makes you think that is truly the case? It has been 15 plus years and who have they brought in? They tried to do it through the draft and failed with the baby twin towers in Curry and Chandler (Jay Williams carry ending injury really killed that team). Then they got it right the next wave of players led by Rose which is really what puts this team over the top. The no brainer #1 pick guy who won the league MVP at age 22.

Now that they are in a position where they have Rose a legit star in the league under contract but not playing. That puts them in position to A. Either fight for the 8th seed and get crushed by Indy or Miami or B. Trade some expiring deals and get some assets to reload while not winning a ton of games and getting a potential all-star to help Rose. Option A would make the fans happier in the short term for sure but long term option B is really the best way to go. Instead of being medicore this year and probably next year….be bad this year and maybe great the year after.

Most good teams are built through the draft. Look at the Kincks and Nets this year…and the Lakers last year…they brought in all the big names they could but the team didn’t gel together and didn’t work. Just like drafting in the top of the draft isn’t a sure thing….neither is trading for or signing a big name player. There are also only certain teams that can even operate in the fashion of the LA and NY teams. Chicago while a bigger market than Milwaukee doesn’t really have much better of a better signing free agents.

Take a look at the best teams in the league right now. We have Miami who brought in LeBron and Bosh…but they already had D-Wade who was truly the guy who facilitated that whole thing. Indiana got a Superstar with the 10th pick in Paul George. Did great drafting Hibbert at 17 and Stephenson in the 2nd round. They added Hill with a draft day trade and West is a mid level free agent. They proved to be a great drafting team by getting all star players at picks 10 and 17 (They also drafted another all star with the 17th pick in 2005 in Danny Granger). It is rare that a team could be this good in the NBA without a single top 5 pick on their roster.

Out West you have the Blazers who are led by Aldridge who was picked 2nd overall and Damian Lillard who was 6th overall. Their next two best players are Nic Batum whom they drafted 25th overall and Wes Matthews who was an undrafted free agent (one of the best of the last 20 years). We all know the story of OKC and their former big 3 of Durant, Westbrook and Harden all of whom were top 5 picks. The Clippers have had it both ways with Blake Griffin #1 and the league facilitating the CP3 trade.  The Spurs are Duncan and Pop with great late drafting mixed in. The Warriors have made some trades and brought in Free Agents (Iggy) but their backcourt is their strength and both drafted 7th and 11th.

Really all I am saying is that the easiest way to get a great player is to draft him yourself. It isn’t impossible to win titles with teams full of star players thrown together but it hasn’t happened all that often. (Like the Lakers bringing in Malone and Payton and losing anyway.)

[Sewok15Participant]

The Bulls are a big market but they aren’t exactly known for bringing in big time free agents. I mean the biggest signing I can remember was Carlos Boozer and there has been talk of amnestying him for the past two summers. The Bulls built with big time draft picks Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen (who although was traded by Seattle only played for the Bulls until he went to Houston in 1998.) The next time they were title contenders again they drafted Derrick Rose #1 and Deng and Noah in the top 10.

You think of Chicago is a large market that should be able to bring in big time players just because…but what have you seen post MJ that makes you think that is truly the case? It has been 15 plus years and who have they brought in? They tried to do it through the draft and failed with the baby twin towers in Curry and Chandler (Jay Williams carry ending injury really killed that team). Then they got it right the next wave of players led by Rose which is really what puts this team over the top. The no brainer #1 pick guy who won the league MVP at age 22.

Now that they are in a position where they have Rose a legit star in the league under contract but not playing. That puts them in position to A. Either fight for the 8th seed and get crushed by Indy or Miami or B. Trade some expiring deals and get some assets to reload while not winning a ton of games and getting a potential all-star to help Rose. Option A would make the fans happier in the short term for sure but long term option B is really the best way to go. Instead of being medicore this year and probably next year….be bad this year and maybe great the year after.

Most good teams are built through the draft. Look at the Kincks and Nets this year…and the Lakers last year…they brought in all the big names they could but the team didn’t gel together and didn’t work. Just like drafting in the top of the draft isn’t a sure thing….neither is trading for or signing a big name player. There are also only certain teams that can even operate in the fashion of the LA and NY teams. Chicago while a bigger market than Milwaukee doesn’t really have much better of a better signing free agents.

Take a look at the best teams in the league right now. We have Miami who brought in LeBron and Bosh…but they already had D-Wade who was truly the guy who facilitated that whole thing. Indiana got a Superstar with the 10th pick in Paul George. Did great drafting Hibbert at 17 and Stephenson in the 2nd round. They added Hill with a draft day trade and West is a mid level free agent. They proved to be a great drafting team by getting all star players at picks 10 and 17 (They also drafted another all star with the 17th pick in 2005 in Danny Granger). It is rare that a team could be this good in the NBA without a single top 5 pick on their roster.

Out West you have the Blazers who are led by Aldridge who was picked 2nd overall and Damian Lillard who was 6th overall. Their next two best players are Nic Batum whom they drafted 25th overall and Wes Matthews who was an undrafted free agent (one of the best of the last 20 years). We all know the story of OKC and their former big 3 of Durant, Westbrook and Harden all of whom were top 5 picks. The Clippers have had it both ways with Blake Griffin #1 and the league facilitating the CP3 trade.  The Spurs are Duncan and Pop with great late drafting mixed in. The Warriors have made some trades and brought in Free Agents (Iggy) but their backcourt is their strength and both drafted 7th and 11th.

Really all I am saying is that the easiest way to get a great player is to draft him yourself. It isn’t impossible to win titles with teams full of star players thrown together but it hasn’t happened all that often. (Like the Lakers bringing in Malone and Payton and losing anyway.)

[King CaluchaParticipant]

 Sometimes people tend to forget that the draft is not the only way to build a contending team. When you’re a in a big market like the Bulls, you can’t just lose money by having a bottom tier roster, specially when there’s absolutely nothing that guarantees that the player you will take in the top 5 will be a star.

[CrossyboyParticipant]

It is a bit of a catch-22.
a
Yes, getting a high draft pick is extremely important. But a balance needs to be struck. 1 top 3 pick isn’t going to suddenly make a team a contender. In order to succeed, you need to build a winning mentality, whilst losing, which isn’t easy. If you create a team mentality that states it is ok to lose, you can’t suddenly expect those same players to play like winners simply because they’ve added a 19 yr old kid.

The Thunder managed to do it, building a team that grew together and always played hard, improving incrementally. The Bulls, supposing Rose comes back fit and Mirotic lives up to the hype, may be able to pull it off. I look at Philly, with Noels, MCW and a pick this year, possibly pulling it off. I’m not sure the other teams can pull off this delicate balancing act.

[CrossyboyParticipant]

It is a bit of a catch-22.
a
Yes, getting a high draft pick is extremely important. But a balance needs to be struck. 1 top 3 pick isn’t going to suddenly make a team a contender. In order to succeed, you need to build a winning mentality, whilst losing, which isn’t easy. If you create a team mentality that states it is ok to lose, you can’t suddenly expect those same players to play like winners simply because they’ve added a 19 yr old kid.

The Thunder managed to do it, building a team that grew together and always played hard, improving incrementally. The Bulls, supposing Rose comes back fit and Mirotic lives up to the hype, may be able to pull it off. I look at Philly, with Noels, MCW and a pick this year, possibly pulling it off. I’m not sure the other teams can pull off this delicate balancing act.

[The Scare Crow RisesParticipant]

I think The Thunder have been the model of success many GM’s are trying to copy cat

The teams I see pulling off a feat like that is the 76ers and Jazz

If they can land the right prospect and add a player in Free Agency they could be a quick turnaround…

 

  

[The Scare Crow RisesParticipant]

I think The Thunder have been the model of success many GM’s are trying to copy cat

The teams I see pulling off a feat like that is the 76ers and Jazz

If they can land the right prospect and add a player in Free Agency they could be a quick turnaround…

 

  

[JD’s_TimberpuppiesParticipant]

This whole tanking thing has gotten really annoying to constantly hear about.  The last few years they have been very few "sure deals" coming out of the draft.  It seems there are a lot of busts in the top 10 these days, but a lot of good players getting picked in the 10-20 range.  Tanking brings a losing culture into the locker room and it hinders the development of the pieces in place already.  Each team only has 5 players on the court at a time and only12-13 active for every game.  Turning it around can happen quick when on of those 5 starters go from bad to good.  The issue in my opinion stems from how many star players leave the team that initially drafted them.  It would be nice to see more of a financial incentive for players to re-sign with their original team and then having a 2-3 year team option following the original rookie deal.  Say a player drafted in the second round far outplays his expectation if the 2-3 year option period was laced with incentives based on performance this could really work well.  I hate the fact the major league baseball doesn’t have a salary cap but the way players are controlled through incentives and arbitration gives smaller market teams a shot.  Most of the time in the MLB players aren’t free agents until 27.  I would love to see the NBA move in a direction similar to that.

[JD’s_TimberpuppiesParticipant]

This whole tanking thing has gotten really annoying to constantly hear about.  The last few years they have been very few "sure deals" coming out of the draft.  It seems there are a lot of busts in the top 10 these days, but a lot of good players getting picked in the 10-20 range.  Tanking brings a losing culture into the locker room and it hinders the development of the pieces in place already.  Each team only has 5 players on the court at a time and only12-13 active for every game.  Turning it around can happen quick when on of those 5 starters go from bad to good.  The issue in my opinion stems from how many star players leave the team that initially drafted them.  It would be nice to see more of a financial incentive for players to re-sign with their original team and then having a 2-3 year team option following the original rookie deal.  Say a player drafted in the second round far outplays his expectation if the 2-3 year option period was laced with incentives based on performance this could really work well.  I hate the fact the major league baseball doesn’t have a salary cap but the way players are controlled through incentives and arbitration gives smaller market teams a shot.  Most of the time in the MLB players aren’t free agents until 27.  I would love to see the NBA move in a direction similar to that.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

“Am I too enamored with the NBA Draft as a frequent visitor of this website?”

First things first, yes. You are too enamored with this draft. Watch the college games, watch the NBA. The vast majority of the prospects are not banging down the door of NBA greatness. The vast majority of these players were eligible for the bad 2013 draft, would not have made a difference in the quality of that draft, and returned to school. Now, because Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker are better prospects than Anthony Bennett and Victor Oladipo, the narrative about everyone else has changed despite the players being the same guys. Yes, T.J. Warren is better this year. Yes, Jerami Grant is better this year. In most cases, though, they look like the same players. I like Adreian Payne, Gary Harris, Dario Saric, and Rodney Hood, but I am not imaging them as franchise-changing stars because of hype over Wiggins and Parker.

“Do NBA fans not understand how the NBA works?”

“I personally think these people are some of the most unintelligent NBA fans in the world.”

“the NBA is a star driven league. The majority of teams who win are led by one, if not multiple, players considered to be the Top 10 players in the game at that given time”

“I think the new CBA makes drafting superstars even more important. Luol Deng is most likely going to be a 3-time All-Star this year and he was traded for what COULD be only 2nd round picks. Teams are NOT willing to give up lottery picks and I think they agree that is the best way to procure championship talent in today’s NBA.”

No. If you want to play superstar basketball and think stars will win you titles, then the Miami Heat are going to win every title until LeBron gets hurt or break down (which by the way might be seven years from now). This is where narratives impact opinion and override what was clear as day last spring and in recent years. What did Indiana and San Antonio do to put Miami in a difficult spot, and in the case of San Antonio require an incredible play on the part of Ray Allen to survive? They exploited their lack of bulk inside with Duncan, West, and Hibbert, passed the ball effectively to get easy shots from “non-stars”, defended intelligently, attacked the glass, and limited the Heat’s opportunities in transition. What is important to also note even though it is implicit in what I already wrote, the Spurs were better against Miami when they did not play star-reliant offense. Two of the Pacer wins came when they had five guys score in double digits, the third win came with four in double digits and held Miami to 77. They were getting the 18+ plus assists per game, which would be even greater if not for the fouls that put them on the line repeatedly. A similar story held for San Antonio. They won when the Heat scrambled defensively and left men open. The Spurs won two games with 5 double digit scorers, and blew them out when they had 4 (along an 8 and 9 point game) and held the Heat to 77. The Spurs were right there when it was the stars going to work in Games 6 and 7, but it cannot be argued that they were not better off when they were not going toe-to-toe star-for-star with Miami. Remember, OKC tried to go star-for-star with Miami and got rolled, and they have good stars. Derrick Rose is a phenomenal star player when he is healthy, the Bulls got rolled when he was relied upon to match score for score. Yet, you come saying stars are the only way. Well, ok, but the biggest star is LeBron and he is not retiring anytime soon. You either find another way, and there are two teams with a good blue print, or you are wasting your time.

Back to your Bulls, they do not have the offensive talent to exploit a Bosh-Haslem/Battier/Birdman frontcourt in the way Indiana and San Antonto did. Regardless as to what their plans were with Deng, this is still an issue. Also, there is not a single big man in this draft who can exploit the Heat frontcourt the way Duncan, West, and Hibbert have. Chris Bosh has weight on Joel Embiid, and probably will for another three or four years. This is not the 6’7 and under Iowa State squad. The other issue that builds on this is that Noah, Taj, Deng, and Butler are not going to initiate the offense and force the defense to change shape when the ball is in their hands. Boozer is not going to when he is giving up 2-3-4 inches the man guarding him. Would adding a different small forward capable of creating be beneficial? Yes. Do I think the Bulls probably could have possibly addressed that with Deng in a sign-and-trade next summer? Yes. Do I think what they received from Cleveland will address that issue? No. Will what little cap room they will have allow them to add that guy, probably not, though you never know who can be made available six months from now.

“The Chicago Bulls would be greatly benefitted by a Top 5 pick (which is a very real possibility if they finish with one of the 8 worst records in the NBA).”

Take Jabari Parker and Andrew Wiggins out of the draft for a moment. The Bulls already have more wins than the Bucks will have all season. There has never been any way that the Bulls could position themselves to have a better than 20 percent chance of landing a top 2 pick without sacrificing the 2014-15 and 2015-16 rosters as well as probably the coach. The sacrifice would be guaranteed for a 20 percent shot at the prize that could possibly make the sacrifice worth it in the future, and if the lottery balls do not fall your way you probably see Derrick Rose leave the next chance he gets. It is beyond stupid to make that trade off. The other players in this draft are not altering the state of the Bulls. Part of it is that 6 of the top 18 (at this moment) are point guards or combo guards, and none of those six are of the caliber of Derrick Rose. If Derrick Rose is out of the picture in your world, then your entire picture for winning a title is different. Given that the team has found C.J. Watson, John Lucas, Mike James, Nate Robinson, and D.J. Augustin off the scrap heap and gotten quality returns out of them, I would think they need not draft a backup. They just cannot entrust Marques Teague to be the next man up. I do not see the post scorer who can work over the Heat’s frontcourt, nor do I see a wing creator who can ensure LeBron does not guard Derrick Rose in the 4th quarter when Miami needs a stop.

So yes, the Bulls have problems that need to be addressed in order for them to have the chance to beat the Heat, but the idea that tanking is the solution ignores the facts. This is like people saying the Lakers need to trade Pau or the thread about dealing Rondo. No. The Lakers are bad right now despite him. If they are lucky enough to hit on their likely 20 percent shot at Wiggins or Parker, then they will still need a good big man next year and he is the only one for whom they have Bird rights. There is little chance that any guard in this draft ends up being as good as Rondo, so how does it benefit Boston to get another pick to add a guard who will never be as good as him.

[BothTeamsPlayedHardParticipant]

“Am I too enamored with the NBA Draft as a frequent visitor of this website?”

First things first, yes. You are too enamored with this draft. Watch the college games, watch the NBA. The vast majority of the prospects are not banging down the door of NBA greatness. The vast majority of these players were eligible for the bad 2013 draft, would not have made a difference in the quality of that draft, and returned to school. Now, because Andrew Wiggins and Jabari Parker are better prospects than Anthony Bennett and Victor Oladipo, the narrative about everyone else has changed despite the players being the same guys. Yes, T.J. Warren is better this year. Yes, Jerami Grant is better this year. In most cases, though, they look like the same players. I like Adreian Payne, Gary Harris, Dario Saric, and Rodney Hood, but I am not imaging them as franchise-changing stars because of hype over Wiggins and Parker.

“Do NBA fans not understand how the NBA works?”

“I personally think these people are some of the most unintelligent NBA fans in the world.”

“the NBA is a star driven league. The majority of teams who win are led by one, if not multiple, players considered to be the Top 10 players in the game at that given time”

“I think the new CBA makes drafting superstars even more important. Luol Deng is most likely going to be a 3-time All-Star this year and he was traded for what COULD be only 2nd round picks. Teams are NOT willing to give up lottery picks and I think they agree that is the best way to procure championship talent in today’s NBA.”

No. If you want to play superstar basketball and think stars will win you titles, then the Miami Heat are going to win every title until LeBron gets hurt or break down (which by the way might be seven years from now). This is where narratives impact opinion and override what was clear as day last spring and in recent years. What did Indiana and San Antonio do to put Miami in a difficult spot, and in the case of San Antonio require an incredible play on the part of Ray Allen to survive? They exploited their lack of bulk inside with Duncan, West, and Hibbert, passed the ball effectively to get easy shots from “non-stars”, defended intelligently, attacked the glass, and limited the Heat’s opportunities in transition. What is important to also note even though it is implicit in what I already wrote, the Spurs were better against Miami when they did not play star-reliant offense. Two of the Pacer wins came when they had five guys score in double digits, the third win came with four in double digits and held Miami to 77. They were getting the 18+ plus assists per game, which would be even greater if not for the fouls that put them on the line repeatedly. A similar story held for San Antonio. They won when the Heat scrambled defensively and left men open. The Spurs won two games with 5 double digit scorers, and blew them out when they had 4 (along an 8 and 9 point game) and held the Heat to 77. The Spurs were right there when it was the stars going to work in Games 6 and 7, but it cannot be argued that they were not better off when they were not going toe-to-toe star-for-star with Miami. Remember, OKC tried to go star-for-star with Miami and got rolled, and they have good stars. Derrick Rose is a phenomenal star player when he is healthy, the Bulls got rolled when he was relied upon to match score for score. Yet, you come saying stars are the only way. Well, ok, but the biggest star is LeBron and he is not retiring anytime soon. You either find another way, and there are two teams with a good blue print, or you are wasting your time.

Back to your Bulls, they do not have the offensive talent to exploit a Bosh-Haslem/Battier/Birdman frontcourt in the way Indiana and San Antonto did. Regardless as to what their plans were with Deng, this is still an issue. Also, there is not a single big man in this draft who can exploit the Heat frontcourt the way Duncan, West, and Hibbert have. Chris Bosh has weight on Joel Embiid, and probably will for another three or four years. This is not the 6’7 and under Iowa State squad. The other issue that builds on this is that Noah, Taj, Deng, and Butler are not going to initiate the offense and force the defense to change shape when the ball is in their hands. Boozer is not going to when he is giving up 2-3-4 inches the man guarding him. Would adding a different small forward capable of creating be beneficial? Yes. Do I think the Bulls probably could have possibly addressed that with Deng in a sign-and-trade next summer? Yes. Do I think what they received from Cleveland will address that issue? No. Will what little cap room they will have allow them to add that guy, probably not, though you never know who can be made available six months from now.

“The Chicago Bulls would be greatly benefitted by a Top 5 pick (which is a very real possibility if they finish with one of the 8 worst records in the NBA).”

Take Jabari Parker and Andrew Wiggins out of the draft for a moment. The Bulls already have more wins than the Bucks will have all season. There has never been any way that the Bulls could position themselves to have a better than 20 percent chance of landing a top 2 pick without sacrificing the 2014-15 and 2015-16 rosters as well as probably the coach. The sacrifice would be guaranteed for a 20 percent shot at the prize that could possibly make the sacrifice worth it in the future, and if the lottery balls do not fall your way you probably see Derrick Rose leave the next chance he gets. It is beyond stupid to make that trade off. The other players in this draft are not altering the state of the Bulls. Part of it is that 6 of the top 18 (at this moment) are point guards or combo guards, and none of those six are of the caliber of Derrick Rose. If Derrick Rose is out of the picture in your world, then your entire picture for winning a title is different. Given that the team has found C.J. Watson, John Lucas, Mike James, Nate Robinson, and D.J. Augustin off the scrap heap and gotten quality returns out of them, I would think they need not draft a backup. They just cannot entrust Marques Teague to be the next man up. I do not see the post scorer who can work over the Heat’s frontcourt, nor do I see a wing creator who can ensure LeBron does not guard Derrick Rose in the 4th quarter when Miami needs a stop.

So yes, the Bulls have problems that need to be addressed in order for them to have the chance to beat the Heat, but the idea that tanking is the solution ignores the facts. This is like people saying the Lakers need to trade Pau or the thread about dealing Rondo. No. The Lakers are bad right now despite him. If they are lucky enough to hit on their likely 20 percent shot at Wiggins or Parker, then they will still need a good big man next year and he is the only one for whom they have Bird rights. There is little chance that any guard in this draft ends up being as good as Rondo, so how does it benefit Boston to get another pick to add a guard who will never be as good as him.

[Author]

Posts