As mentioned, Kobe wasn't drafted by the Lakers. San Antonio was a strange scenario when they got Duncan. They already had an established once-a-decade type player in Robinson, he just happened to be injured at the right time. Rondo was definitely not largely responsible for the Celtics winning their title. He was the fourth best player on the team. Wade was drafted by the Heat, true. They also had a once-in-a-lifetime dominate player named Shaq. Except, not. Additionally, going back to Jordan and Hakeem is almost 3 decades. So your list consists of 3 examples out of 3 decades. Not a very compelling argument.
Well, according to the voters, Pierce was the player most responsible for actually winning the NBA title. I thought the question pertained to winning NBA titles?
Draft trades happen all the time. Roy, Love, Mayo etc. As long as that player plays for said team from day one, I count it. Plus, it's not like the Lakers got Kobe for a cookie. Divac was actually a solid player at the time, and there's no guarantee a "prized prospect" turns into a good player.
It does. Winning a title involves winning lots of games, regular season games, playoff games in every round. Garnett was the best player on the Celtics team that did all that. Therefore, he was the most important player to the Celtics' winning a title.
With that logic, the Blazers never drafted Aldridge or Roy. We should be giving KP credit for Tyrus Thomas and Randy Foye instead. Jerry Krause can't take credit for Pippen either. Trading a player before they ever step foot on a court is essentially drafting a player, especially in the context of this discussion.
You're not exactly helping your argument. If we want to open this discussion up to "players that turn their team into contenders", then there's even more evidence for building through the draft. Guys like Robinson, Dwight Howard, LeBron James...etc. As mentioned before, the NBA is so dominated by a few teams, you end up overlooking once in a decade players just because they came close, but didn't actually win the title. Fair enough, but he's kept their team in contender status with the big 3 aging. Wade was the best player. Besides, the Heat only won one Championship in that time. The rest went to the Bulls, Lakers, Spurs, etc.. Except, yes. Jordon and Hakeem were drafted in the 80s, but won titles in the 90s. If you want to argue this point, you're just being stupid.
But when you're trading an actual asset, you're making a trade. In other words, you had to engineer a deal, not just draft well. What's the difference between trading for a rookie and trading for a second year player? In addition, Kobe demanding his way into LA pretty much makes that example impossible to use for the general case. I also don't give Denver credit for "drafting" John Elway, because they didn't. The Colts did and Elway demanded a trade. LA (and Denver) couldn't have drafted those players, without the demand, because they wouldn't have dropped and neither team wanted to trade the pick or player (unlike Boston wanting to trade the pick the Blazers used for Roy). So there's a pretty big difference.
Garnett was the most important player in getting the Celtics to the Finals. Pierce was the most important player in the actual winning of the title. No title, none of this matters in the context of this thread.
Of course KP can take credit for Roy and Aldridge, and Krause can take credit for Pippen. Because Pritchard and Krause traded for them. They get credit for amazing trades.
Even if we pretend award voting dictates reality, which is a pretty silly claim, that still doesn't wash. Garnett still played the Finals and was a big reason why they won that Finals series. So when you combine Garnett's importance in "getting them there" and his importance in winning that series, he still comes out as the most important player on that title team.
It's both. Trading for a rookie is targeting a player that hasn't shown anything yet, but you believe will turn out to be a good player. It's the same logic used when "drafting" a player.
As far as I'm concerned, once you have to put assets together to make a deal with another GM, you've moved out of the realm of simply drafting. I'm fine with it being "both," but "both" is different from simply drafting a star.
they can? What team is going to take Roy with the 73M over 4 he's due after this season? Is this an example of the sort of well thought out personnel moves you were alluding to? How cute... STOMP
I didn't change the discussion to "being a contender". Not sure why you're bringing up Lebron, Dwight, etc. Stay on-topic please. My point was they were lucky enough to add Duncan to a once-in-a-decade center named Robinson. We don't have one of those, so the Duncan example is irrelevant. Stay on topic please, or start a new thread if you like. We don't have a once-in-a-lifetime dominating player named Shaq. Put Wade on this Blazers squad and we still don't win a title. Yes, 80's, 90's and 2000's. That is three decades of drafts... just like I said. And you came up with three valid examples over 30 years. Nice work. And you're being a neener-head. Name-calling is so fun.
Comparing the John Elway trade to the Kobe Bryant trade is laughable. Baltimore did not draft Elway with a trade in mind. The Hornets drafted Bryant for the Lakers. The Divac trade was already agree to at the time. I suggest you read the entire article, because you seem confused on Bryant's "demands" and how the led him to the Lakers. http://www2.journalnow.com/sports/2...e-for-bryant-has-been-misconstrued-ar-113126/
So was Pierce. The biggest reason, if you will. Rondo also played very well in the Finals. Anyhow, this is a silly debate that really has no wrong or right answers. Boston won, and a player they drafted was Finals MVP. Seems like a good draft pick to me.
Except Robinson wasn't even that good by then. And the Spurs were still relevant (and won titles) after Robinson retired. What happens then? What's your point, no team can win with one player? I thought you actually had an argument, but now I see that you're just arguing semantics. Have fun.
Gee, I wonder what team was willing to pay Darko 20 million over 4 years? What team was willing to trade for Hedo's 50/5....twice? Just because you think something looks impossible, doesn't mean it is. You're not part of any teams front office, so it's probably better you don't answer for them.
HAHA! Wow. 25 / 12 / 3.3 28 / 11 / 3.2 30 / 11 / 3.3 Those were Robinson's season averages for pts / rbs / blks the three seasons before Duncan was drafted. Learn the game, then post.
You're right. I didn't know that the Hornets had made the trade the day before the draft. I remembered Kobe's agent Arn Tellum, after the Hornets drafted him, saying "Kobe playing in Charlotte is an impossibility." Thanks for the information. I retract the "Kobe trade demand" issue, but I still don't think it counts as LA simply drafting Kobe. Once a trade is involved, as I said to B-Roy, it is no longer simply making a draft pick.
