So: are we going to be TOO good?

He just turned 25 in July. I would say at least five or six years at his peak.

 

It seems like your rebuttals aren't very thought out.

Yes a decade. Just because a player is past his peak doesn't mean he cant still be part of a core, especially an already established core.
For the last 3 years Duncan, Ginobli and Parker have been a core, but they are all past their peak.

Also, for a core to be established around your franchise, doesn't mean the franchise player is actually the best player., but still part of the core. I am not saying that Dame will always be our number one.

A good mix of players yes, but not the core. Look at the core of most champs, the three or four main guys are almost always within a 3-4 year window.
Garnett/Peirce
LBJ, Dwade/Bosch
Duncan/Parker/Ginobli

Etc.

Those guys all had a mix of ages around them.

 

I knew Duncan was the old one of that bunch.

I didn't list Shaq and Kobe because I knew they were further apart. Most cores though are pretty close in age throughout the history of great teams.

If you have 2 players in the top 50 best players ever, then yes, the age wont matter as much. but we don't and I think that's in part a bigger reason to keep the ages closer. So they can groom together. Kobe was brought in as an 18 year old and rode the bench and learned from Magic. By the time he was thrust next to Shaq, he was ready and was the next Jordan. with players of that caliber, age isn't as big a factor. The same could be said about Parker and Duncan. Duncan is a top 50 player (not sure about Parker).

I think though SA is the model you are describing, especially as we watch them continue to tweak and modify.

 

I could have sworn Magic came back that one season during Kobes rookie year? I thought Shaq was still in Orlando Kobes rookie year? Ahh symantics anyhow.

Great examples of model teams that didn't have the 3 superstars, but rather team ball. That goes for both of Detroits' ring teams, the bad boys and the Wallace brothers.

 

Not by me, lol...

 

No I disagree with OP. Ideally this team wins more games because that means we have multiple valuable pieces on the roster. The benefit of having multiple players exceeding expectations trumps the downside of losing value with our draft pick.

The draft pick becomes a consolation price if our season goes worse than we hope. But that isn't the goal. If we get a top draft pick it means the rest of our roster is bad. If that's the case we would need much more than one great player to contend.

 

Kevin Durant or bust!

 

Why are we concerned with dame's timeline? Is this a real question?

When was the last time we had an all star PG?

It's a guards league right now, so ya...I'd say it would make sense to focus on the franchise centerpieces timeline so we can surround him and contend.

Maybe New Orleans should say screw it and start building for when Anthony Davis is 30, they should tank. Fuck how long Ant Davis will be in his prime.

 

It shouldn't be a concern this year. Even next season if the team is losing its still fine. But if we aren't a playoff team by 2017-18 it might be time to consider trading Lillard while he's in the final couple years of his prime. So I think because of Damian's age this rebuild has a two year window. If we were rebuilding around a 19 year old rookie it would be very different.

 

But he'll be 27... that still gives him 3-4 really good years, maybe more if he can get his shot back.

 

Make the play-offs or get a top 5 pick. Any other result is a failure.

 

Sooner you want to be a contender, the more playoff experience you want young players to have..tanking is for pussys..I like getting high draft picks after they've been in the league a couple of years

 

Finish 8th in your conference and you make the play-offs. Finish 15th and you get a high draft pick. Finish 9th or 10th and what do you get? The knowledge that next season is going to suck also.

Ridiculous? It is the only sensible way to look at it. Name one person in the HOF who cared about "moral victories".

 

Charles Barkley

 

I think the playoff is its own school. If you want a team to improve, they need to get some playoff experience..we have cap space and assets to trade..the draft is as much a crap shoot as a strategy.

 

Not sure what you base that on. I've never heard Barkley singing the praises of just missing the play-offs.

 

No..in Barkley's case he talked about being a HOFer without a championship..I thought that was praising a moral victory