Remaining schedule strongly suggests Portland will miss the playoffs

Dallas. Calling them a "major market" is a joke, if you've ever been to Dallas/FW. Football is king there. Then again, Cuban spent the money to be patient and finally surround his 33 year-old franchise player with enough talent to win a title. This was after years of being mediocre, with one Finals appearance thrown in years beforehand. Dirk hadn't had a PER over 24.6 for five years prior to the title, yet Cuban stuck with him.

 

I don't advocate resigning all of those players. But, unless you can make a trade that significantly improves the team, either short term or preferably long term, I don't think blowing the team up mid-season when they are still in the race for a playoff spot is a good idea. Fight with everything you've got to make the playoffs and let Aldridge get some post season experience as the number 1 option and Batum as a potential number 2 or 3 option. Let Elliot Williams get a little post season experience and see how he responds.

Then after the season is over and all, or some, of the above become free agents, you decide who you want to keep and explore sign and trade options where possible and let the others walk. The only guy on your list I'd lock up long term is Batum. I don't want Felton back even if he's free. Camby, I'd make a 1 year offer with a second year team option. Wallace two, maybe three years max - if the price is right. This all assumes they can't get anything better for less, or equal money.

The point is, don't kill your chances to make the playoffs and waste a chance to get some valuable post season experience for the core of your future team. And then look to make moves during the off season.

Nope, but that doesn't mean blowing things up in the middle of a playoff race. If there is a deadline deal that makes the team better, of course you do it. If not, be patient and make your moves in the off season when you will have more flexibility and there are more options available.

BNM

 

Definitely not. They couldn't even keep their own starting center after winning the championship. They lost Chandler to a true big market team - shitty weather and all.

Dallas has acquired most of the players surrounding Dirk with a large number of very aggressive trades. They tried a LOT of pieces until they finally found a combination that worked. Point being, they didn't spend years of sucking to build a championship team through high lottery picks.

I can't think of any team in recent memory that has. The only current team that comes close is OKC, and they haven't won a title yet, and it will be interesting to see what happens when all those young, high lottery picks all come off their rookie deals and want to be paid. Will they be able to keep that roster together long enough to win a title? It's yet to be seen.

The last team to truly build a championship team through the draft was probably the Bulls during their first 3-peat. Of course, drafting the GOAT was the biggest prize, but it wasn't until they also added Pippen and Grant that they become a contender. And, for the record, the Bulls made the playoffs every season Jordan played for them. They didn't tank to dip back into the lottery. Any lottery picks they had were obtained through trades, not through sucking. They learned to become champions through all the great post season experience against champions like the Celtics and Pistons.

The Spurs are a bit of a fluke. Their best player was injured and missed most of the season proceeding the Duncan lottery. They added Duncan and brought back a healthy David Robinson for their first title. Parker and Ginobili were late picks. They continued to retool and win titles without dropping back into the lottery.

Boston tried to tank for years and constantly missed out on the number 1 pick (Duncan, Oden - in hindsight, they dodged that bullet, but at the time they thought he was their next Bill Russell), but it wasn't until they gave up tanking and added pieces through trades that they won another title.

Cleveland sucked for years, won the Lebron lottery and still didn't win a title.

The Clippers had seemingly decades worth of high lottery picks and have no rings, not even close, to show for it.

Orlando won the Shaq lottery and the one one right after it and later the Dwight Howard lottery, and they have exactly zero rings to show for it.

Dipping into the lottery, even winning the lottery when a future first ballot Hall of Famer is available seems to have no correlation to winning titles. Multiple years in the lottery has a very strong negative correlation to winning titles.

A much more successful model is to gradually add better and better pieces through a series of very aggressive trades (or possibly free agency if your a destination market like Miami or Los Angeles). That's how Boston won, that's how the Lakers won by adding Pau, that's how the Heat won by adding Shaq, that's how the Pistons won and that's how Dallas won. Gradually upgrading your roster, while your best players improve and gain valuable post season experience seems to be the best model for winning titles.

OKC has a chance to reverse that trend, but it's yet to be seen if they can keep all their young lottery picks together long enough to win a ring.

BNM

 

Not from a fan's perspective, but from the player's perspective it most certainly is. low taxes, endorsement opportunities, big spending owner, warm(er) weather during the season. It's not LA or New York, but the difference from a free agent's perspective is barely noticeable.

 

I got burned out on this kind of basketball from the mid-to-late 90s. Watching us lose in the first round over, and over, and over. I don't' want to go back to that. I would rather tank and make a run at getting another Brandon Roy or a Kevin Durant. You guys realize that we could have Kevin Durant because of our losing record? We almost built a legit title contender through the draft. It was a sad twist of fate that Roy and Oden turned out to be so injury prone. I do not enjoy watching a mediocre basketball team.

 

Tyson Chandler disagrees.

BNM

 

Yeah, but that's exceptionally rare. There was a reason that Pritchard (rightly or wrongly) was being called a genius...hitting home runs on two draft picks (Roy and Aldridge) is incredibly hard to do. And then to get the lucky stroke of a #1 pick in a draft with two phenoms. It was a perfect storm in terms of getting all that talent and, unfortunately, a perfect storm of misfortune that unraveled it.

You can't expect something like that to happen again. Trying to be bad to chase that kind of dream is likely to turn the Blazers into the Warriors or Cavs of 1995-2005.

 

I see that as a combination of two things: It's a symptom of the luxury tax rules that are set to kick in soon, where even Cuban recognizes just how brutal the new tax is going to be. And for a really old team, like the Mavs who are probably about a year or two from a roster overhaul (and for a team that has its eye on Dwight and D-Will) signing Chandler to a long term deal didn't make much sense.

 

But those late 1990s teams made the Western Conference finals twice and came within an epic 4th quarter collapse of winning it all - without dipping into the lottery once. I'd take that over five years in the lottery without a singe playoff series win to show for it. I'll take 8 years of first round exits and 2 WCF appearances over a 10 year stretch over 5 years of sucking and 5 first round exits. Even the one year when both Oden and Roy were healthy, they couldn't get out of the first round. Why? No playoff experience. They were totally shell shocked, lost Game 1, gave up HCA and lost to Houston.

I prefer winning basketball over losing basketball. Simple as that. I'd rather be above .500 and in the playoffs every year than five years of totally sucking, losing 3/4 of your games and still not advancing past the first round after all of that. Those late 1990s teams came a LOT closer to a title than the team that was built through the lottery.

BNM

 

Tyson Chandler does not qualify as an example. Chandler accepted the Knicks offer because it was four years, 65 million to the Mavs offer of one year, 20 million. Considering Tyson's age and injury history this was a no brainer for financial security.

The Mavericks made a one year offer so they could maintain cap flexibility next year and go after Dwight and Deron. It is the same reason they did not make a long-term offer to Caron Butler.

 

That's a rather short sighted view to take as defending champions. Giving away Chandler for nothing basically cost them any chance at a repeat. If the goal is to win as many championships as possible, it would have made a lot more sense to pay Chandler what he wanted and have one, maybe two more serious title runs. Then if Chandler is overpaid for the last year or two of his deal, at least he eventually might become a valuable trading chip with a big expiring contract. As it is, Dallas got nothing for him now, lost any hope of a repeat and got nothing for the future.

I suspect Chandler also thought he was the piece New York was lacking to become a title contender. He would give that front line the rebounding and defense they lack. Who knows, now that they've found their PG, maybe they can contend when Amare' and Melo are healthy. I doubt it, as they'd have to get by Miami and/or Chicago. Still the Knicks are definitely better with Chandler than without him, and Dallas is worse.

BNM

 

And what are the chances Dallas will get either Dwight or Deron? Pretty low, given that both seem to prefer NJ or LA over Dallas.

Chandler is only 29 and hasn't missed a game this season and is putting up the best numbers of his career - for the second year in a row. They gave up a very good center in his prime for the illusion of imaginary cap space. It cost them a chance to defend their title this season, and given the unlikely event they actually sign Deron or Dwight, any future chance at contending.

BNM

 

Both Roy and Oden were healthy for that playoff series?

 

They sure were. That was the series when Ron Artest called Roy the best player he'd ever guarded. Oden was a foul prone 2nd year rookie who played 61 games that season and the entire first round series against Houston.

BNM

 

No he wasn't. Back then there were only 24 teams in the NBA and no draft lottery. The first NBA draft lottery was two years after Clyde was drafted. That was the famous bent corner lottery drawing that sent Patrick Ewing to the Knicks. When Clyde was drafted teams simply picked in the reverse order of their records.

BNM

 

I wouldnt call Oden healthy that series. it takes most athletes two years two regain confidance and explosiveness back from MF surgery.
as for the rockets they were the only team i think beats us in round one that year. we were simply out coached and it was a very very close series with only game 1 being a blowout. Im still mad at nate for giving Bayless no burn when blake was getting lit up again and again by brooks while being useless on offense.

Sent from my LS670 using Tapatalk

 

with our sched.... and minny/denver on our asses....

lotto

 

Here's a fun game: go back the past few years and pick the best player available at the time we made our pick. Do you get a winning team?

(Obviously taking Chris Paul and Kevin Durant would help, but that's cheating because that's when we "lucked" into the top 3. The Drexler and Whitsitt years didn't have lottery picks.)

 

Nope

 

Somewhat difficult, since we then screw up trades that have happened, especially removing Bayless' pick, since he was traded indirectly for Wallace. But, all things being the same, but different picks, having Hibbert at C would be nice. Or ibaka as well. Taking DeAndre Jordan or Mario Chalmers in the 2nd, but we traded that pick for Batum, so maybe keeping Asik. At th least, it gives us the flexibility to move Camby elsewhere.