Man, this kind of post is the best evidence I can think of that we've been following a bad team for a long time. I like Hasheem Thabeet, he might be a really nice center some day ... and if Greg were 31 or 32 and well established in the league I'd say go for it, 'cause sooner rather than later you're going to need a replacement and it never hurts to start grooming a successor when your franchise big man is going to be entering the twilight of his career, but that isn't the problem, in fact having a super steady 29 year old veteran, 7'1" rebounding machine, as a backup for your 20 year old franchise center is even better because he's got somebody to learn from. The second thing is that Hasheem Thabeet being an almost certain high lottery pick is that there is no way in hell he's going to be happy being a permanent backup to G.O., especially when he's likely going to be good enough to anchor his own team as a big minute starter. Here's the thing, get over the lottery and the draft for awhile; the answer to getting better (ie. more consistent) is not going to come from getting even younger, and it might be wise not to get attached to anyone not named Brandon, Rudy, Aldridge or Oden; there's a very real possibility that a consolidation trade is going to require one of Nicolas, Jerryd, or some other young guy with a lot of untapped upside to go along with our "unwanted" spare parts.
A mediocre team has a lot of mediocre players. A team full of good players can be very good (due to the depth) but is unlikely to be the very best team. The 1999-2000 Blazers were actually the exception...they may have been the best team. But the 1999 Blazers and 2001-2003 Blazers weren't the best team despite having a lot of good players. In the playoffs, you play your best players much more, which puts much more importance on the top end of your depth chart and less importance on the lower end. Having great reserves is therefore less important and their talent gets somewhat "wasted" (since they play fewer minutes). Far better to have more of that talent concentrated in your top players.
Hey Min, I agree with your statement in bold here. My issue was that the title of this thread is "Two deep vs. Too deep. The author implies that the reason that team failed in the playoffs was because they were too deep. Which just isn't true. That team failed from internal problems (me first players). My position is that a team can't have too much talent. A talent laden team will not fail from too much talent or being too deep, but it can fail from other issues (big egos, lack of team concepts, poor coaching, bad attitudes etc...)
It depends on how you interpret "deep." I agree that you can't have too much talent. However, if your talent is distributed over depth, I think it's fair to call that "too deep" (if you want to simplify it into a catchy phrase). I don't think the current Portland team should get less talented. I think they should trim their depth by converting depth talent into better starting five talent.
"Too deep" was simply a humorous headline. There's no such thing as too deep, from a talent perspective. In the vein of the headline, the reason that team lost was because they were not two deep. I totally disagree. The biggest complaint about the key players on that team were that they weren't selfish enough. Your recollection of the team appears to be strongly influenced by the subsequent period where they began losing. The "too deep" team was a cohesive group, for the most part.
Inherently a team that is laden with too much talent distributed fairly evenly over the entire team will implode. It is just too difficult to manage. If you have a 12 man roster with two 90 rated players, three 80 rated players and then 5 70 rated players and a couple of 50 rated players it is going to be pretty difficult to tell the 2 or 3 70 rated players who would be 6th or 7th men on other teams that they are not going to play or will play less than 10 minutes a night. It is a waste of talent and it creates a situation that could explode. "Too Deep" is a great problem to have, and isn't that hard to rectify, but IMO it is still a problem that should be fixed to contend for a championship.
That is exactly what I thought you meant, and is exactly what I am addressing. If your theory is correct, then the USA team with so much talent assembled would never win, because they would implode. Of course this is a bad theory and has been proven wrong. The problem is not because of too much talent, it's because of some of the bad attitudes that come with the high talent. There are lot's of talented players that don't let their ego's get in the way of the team, the trick is finding them. That's why you hear KP talking so much about "Culture and Chemistry". In doctor speak: you need to cure the disease, not the symptoms.
You are comparing apples and oranges here, by comparing a voluntary two year commitment not played for money vs. a 9 month per year commitment with millions of dollars in salary at stake based on prior performance -- if you don't get the minutes, you don't get the bucks. You might be lucky and find a couple of players who would willingly sacrifice millions just to sit on the bench, but chances are they wouldn't be all that talented to begin with. How much fun would it be to know you are good enough to play 35 minutes a night on one team and earn 6 to 8 million per year, or you could play 10 minutes a game and get paid the veteran's minimum on your current team? I don't care how team oriented or unselfish a guy is, that is career suicide to pick the latter option.
Pure horseshit. Steve Blake Joel Przybilla Travis Outlaw Greg Oden Martel Webster and more All have no problem coming off the bench for the good of the team. Go ahead and tell them they're not good enough to be starters.
Way to stay classy. And I'm not talking about Joel and Steve who project as career backups, I'm talking about guys who are almost exclusively on rookie scale deals, who have a lot to prove in the league, and without minutes and production are wasting their one big shot to make an impact and show what they are worth. Nicolas Travis Webster Jerryd Sergio Channing Ike Rudy The only one on that list who is locked up long term is Martell, but everyone else is on their first deal or is coming up on a team option (Travis) and need to get on the court to earn their next contract. No way in hell you can keep all 8 of them happy when you have Blake and Joel getting heavy minutes, and Brandon, Greg and Lamarcus are all going to get their 35+
Nicolas, Jerryd, and Rudy (along with Webster as you mentioned) are all locked up for at least 3 more years if we want them to. And we do. So that leaves Ike and Channing. (Travis will get his minutes) So I fail to see the urgency to make sure they get their minutes that will ensure they get a better new contract. I hear what you are saying, but we are not there yet. And the theory that are losing trade value by sitting is also ridiculous IMO. Most of the GM's in this league are brighter than the average poster. Let this year play out. Unless KP gets a deal he can not refuse.
I never said it's a problem right now and frankly I'm pretty sure KP knows the right levers to pull and when to pull them, but I think it's funny how some people around here don't see the looming minute crunch as having any downside. These players (for the most part) are all in the league because they want to make money and play, riding the pine on a winning team can work for awhile, but eventually everyone with an ounce of pride gets tired of picking splinters out of their ass and is going to want their shot. If you are Glen Davis playing behind Kevin Garnett you know two things: 1) Garnett is way better than you and 2) he's going to be retiring in a few years so it's probably OK to bide your time. If you are Jerryd Bayless and your idling behind another young guy in Sergio, the talent disparity isn't as wide and there's no imminent retirement to look forward to. Enough time goes by not playing and guys start asking for trades -- and they should.
False. A team with an over-abundance of talent may begin to implode over the course of a couple of years, but that isn't the case with our team. There is no reason to make a trade to consolidate talent this year. All of the players genuinely like each other and they are young enough to accept playing a limited role for this year. We have a chance to win the championship this year with the team constructed as it currently is. Making a trade over the summer might be a good idea, but not now.
Look, your basic premise is wrong. Because it's built on a faulty theory you've ended up out on this tangent and I'm not going to follow you out there and argue it with you. Have you ever heard of someone that really knows basketball subscribe to your theory? I know the blazer brass doesn't. You don't hear them talking about too much talent. Please enlighten me if you've EVER heard KP or Nate even mutter anything about too much talent. What you hear instead is all this talk about "culture" and getting/keeping team players. You're not going to hear the players talking about it either. I've never ever heard a player say that there is too much talent on his team. They'll bitch about playing time and money but if you hear them bitching about too much talent on their team they should be cut or traded because they have no concept what a team is about. The term Garbage in = Garbage out, applies here. Your basic premise is faulty, so your conclusions are wrong.
We will have to agree to disagree here. Because as i have said in other threads, I realize it CAN be a problem, but at the same time it isn't right now AND it doesn't change the fact that if KP does "consolidate" this year that he won't come away with two more young studs this summer and be in the exact same situation next year. (Or every year for that matter) There are 15 roster spots and literally a whole world of talent out there. And with our scouts doing a good job internationally it is not inconceivable that we always have a bunch of talented young players on the end of the bench collecting splinters. I doubt that you can talk KP out of loading up the team with as much talent as possible. Veterans also can complain about playing time. As they need to play for that LAST contract. The key is just finding the right players. But realistically you will always have a couple of unhappy players.
I hope you are right, because changes in the offseason make for a better transition and I love watching this team. But where the hell do you put Webster in this lineup? Personally, I am going to miss seeing Batum in this lineup after Webster comes back. I am not necessarily clamoring for a trade right now, but if the target is Hinrich then you are probably going to get your best value in the next couple of months. I am just speculating here, like many, but I think KP will be making a trade soon. If not, OK. I just hope that KP doesn't wait too long. If the chemistry starts going downhill, we will be forced to make a trade as opposed to being able to trade from a position of strength.
Are you sure Batum won't be in the lineup when Webster returns? I'm not. I'm sure Nate will figure out what the best combination of players is. It may take a few games, but he'll figure it out.
I hope Pritchard does exactly that--load up the team with as much talent as possible. And I hope he continually makes "consolidation" trades to convert some of those talented kids at the end of the bench into better talent in the top six players on the roster. Repeat forever. Sounds great to me. So, we're in the first iteration of that cycle. He's loaded the roster with talent. Now we should do the first consolidation trade. Not to lower the talent level on the roster, but to change the talent distribution, top-loading the roster.
