Stitch01 said:
I basically agree, although I doubt the team post-Clippers trade wins 35 games and I think they could wait until midseason/the deadline to make some of these moves.
Building the next winning team/We can't stay on topic thread
- Thread starter TomRicardo
- Start date
I basically agree, although I doubt the team post-Clippers trade wins 35 games and I think they could wait until midseason/the deadline to make some of these moves.
Stitch01 said:
An ACL isn't an injury that will affect Rondo's value as this is not a chronic injury. If the surgery is successful per medicals the player should return to his prior level and teams know this. We've seen Grant Hill sign a $90m contract while on crutches following ankle surgery and 3 of the top 6 draft picks next week are going to be Alex Len, Nerlens Noel, and Anthony Bennett.....all coming off serious injuries that shouldn't affect them long-term.
What would you feel is a fair return for Rondo and how many suitors are out there for him since most teams already have very good PGs? I only see a couple and they aren't going to be offering any great shakes for him. Indy for Granger and Hill? Sacramento for Tyreke or a larger deal to include Cousins? Utah for Millsap?
Not sure, but the discussion is predicated on the goal of getting a high pick for a strong '14 draft. In that case, Id lean more towards a crappy contract and future picks that eventually lose protection. Then Id trade him to whatever team I thought had the best chance of crapping out when protection rolled off. Those proposed deals in your post keep the Celtics in that low lottery/8 seed going nowhere range because the return players are too good now. If we're going to rebuild, Id like to royally suck next year, find a high lottery pick to build around, then look to accumulate young talent. Higher chance the team just sucks for a decade, but that maximizes future title equity.
If one is too terrible, then having a franchise player won't help (even Jordan & Lebron couldn't win with a bad supporting cast). There's no point trading good young players (Rondo, Green) for pennies on the dollar when they might be starters on the next championship team. The goal should be to underperform talent level by a lot (through injuries & having to play talented raw players) so that adding a star player via a high draft pick is enough to make the team a contender.
Here's one possible way it could play out:
KG & PP could leave whether or not we get young players / picks back for them.
Rondo & Sully could have a "setback" or decide they're too scared to come back (like D-Rose) or need extended time to find their rhythm in D-league / practice.
A season where the following players get major minutes should be pretty terrible: Avery, JET, Jordan Crawford, Courtney Lee, Terrence Williams, Jeff Green, Brandon Bass, Fab Melo, Shavlik Randolph and #16 pick (say Dieng). My main worry would be that Jeff Green might be morphing into a bona fide all-star and might carry this team to a few too many wins with some ridiculous 40+ point outbursts. If that starts happening, he might have to get "dinged up" a few times and miss 10-20 games as a "precaution."
Here's one possible way it could play out:
KG & PP could leave whether or not we get young players / picks back for them.
Rondo & Sully could have a "setback" or decide they're too scared to come back (like D-Rose) or need extended time to find their rhythm in D-league / practice.
A season where the following players get major minutes should be pretty terrible: Avery, JET, Jordan Crawford, Courtney Lee, Terrence Williams, Jeff Green, Brandon Bass, Fab Melo, Shavlik Randolph and #16 pick (say Dieng). My main worry would be that Jeff Green might be morphing into a bona fide all-star and might carry this team to a few too many wins with some ridiculous 40+ point outbursts. If that starts happening, he might have to get "dinged up" a few times and miss 10-20 games as a "precaution."
The bolded is the essence of my point (though leaning pessimistic). Perhaps a rebuild will give you a multiple year contenda in 5 years (Ainge's work is an example that proves it is possible). But more likely, it won't. More likely, the best "good but not great luck" outcome within 5-8 years is about what next year's "good but not great outcome" would be if we keep this core together.Rudy Pemberton said:
Wu asks
"Even if this team was mediocre and you truly thought they were going to continue to
decline, do you honestly think even then you would be willing to throw in the towel
and move onto the next team"
Ainge's gambit in '08 was fine with me: that was a team with an iffy set of parts (a Green/Rondo/Pierce/Jefferson/Perkins/Allen could of been interesting, but more likely it would of been sort of stupid and frustrating).
The key assumption is "continue to decline" -- and I believe we aren't there yet. The odds of being better next year, perhaps a lot better, are greater than the odds of being worse: there are 4 guys likely to get better (in Rondo's case, a lot better), and 2 likely to be worse (and probably not much worse). When the odds switch, probably in 2014-15, then the sadness of breaking it up becomes less important.
As for "loyalty" -- yeah, the end of the 80's didn't work out great, but there is no proof that had red followed ainge's prescription it would of been that much better (espeially in terms of championships won）. And to just assume that it is costless to be "ruthlessly efficient", in a game where people are the core of the product, is hardly a sign of savvy. Or perhaps Red was coaching kids in proto-basketball?
Btw: perhaps SA's success has a mite to do with "loyal" treatment of its players.
btw2: wu and others have expressed a pre-cognition sadness at the thought of KG et al struggling to be what they once were. While I have no fundamental problems with paternalism, that's too much -- these guys are mature adults and if they want to take that risk, I don't feel a need to save them from themselves.
I always read the threads in here, but rarely post, since I don't know much about bball Xs and Os and the salary cap in the NBA is convoluted to say the least. But, is there any other major American sport that has such perverse incentive structures to team [re]building? The incentive to tank seems to have been present since at least the 90s (possibly earlier?). Comparing to the other 3 major American sports:
Football - IMHO, Football is the model for parity. A salary floor and hard cap make keeping good players at low value very difficult. If a team isn't competing for a championship or at least the playoffs, it's considered a failure. A smart coach/gm tandem can usually swing a bad team around in less than 5 years and more importantly, without tanking. In fact, improving year-to-year is just about necessary just to keep managerial jobs --> good outcome for fans.
Hockey - I'm inclined to say that hockey is the next most parity-driven sport. Again, drafting high is not a requisite for team-building (although it certainly helps). A smart coach/gm tandem can turn around a bad team quickly. Most importantly, I don't think teams in the NHL tank, and if they do, it's not nearly as ubiquitous or beneficial as it is in the NBA. I imagine that the nature of the sport (e.g. 25 players on a team) plays a huge part in this as well.
Baseball - Baseball provides a difficult comparison because of the huge discrepancy between team payrolls. The big market teams seem to be in it close to every year without drafting high and small market teams with smaller payrolls can build foundations drafting high, although that probably means they serve as an example of the value of tanking (A's and Rays come to mind). But even then, there is no incentive to tank and poor results merely lead to better drafting position as opposed to the incentive prevalent in the NBA *to get* poor results. I'm not nearly familiar enough with the changes to the CBA to say whether it's made any impact for better or worse.
I really like a proposal put forth (by many) that the NBA should make the lottery a true lottery and give all teams that don't make the playoffs an equal chance to land the #1 pick, and all subsequent picks for that matter, before getting to the playoff teams. This would rid the league of the perverse incentive structure that leads to tanking.
I'm sure I'm making some incorrect assumptions here, but It just seems like such an inherent and glaring flaw in the system that it nags me at a very fundamental level.
This is a long-winded way of saying I think team-building in the NBA sucks.
Edit: Please feel free to move the post wherever necessary.
Football - IMHO, Football is the model for parity. A salary floor and hard cap make keeping good players at low value very difficult. If a team isn't competing for a championship or at least the playoffs, it's considered a failure. A smart coach/gm tandem can usually swing a bad team around in less than 5 years and more importantly, without tanking. In fact, improving year-to-year is just about necessary just to keep managerial jobs --> good outcome for fans.
Hockey - I'm inclined to say that hockey is the next most parity-driven sport. Again, drafting high is not a requisite for team-building (although it certainly helps). A smart coach/gm tandem can turn around a bad team quickly. Most importantly, I don't think teams in the NHL tank, and if they do, it's not nearly as ubiquitous or beneficial as it is in the NBA. I imagine that the nature of the sport (e.g. 25 players on a team) plays a huge part in this as well.
Baseball - Baseball provides a difficult comparison because of the huge discrepancy between team payrolls. The big market teams seem to be in it close to every year without drafting high and small market teams with smaller payrolls can build foundations drafting high, although that probably means they serve as an example of the value of tanking (A's and Rays come to mind). But even then, there is no incentive to tank and poor results merely lead to better drafting position as opposed to the incentive prevalent in the NBA *to get* poor results. I'm not nearly familiar enough with the changes to the CBA to say whether it's made any impact for better or worse.
I really like a proposal put forth (by many) that the NBA should make the lottery a true lottery and give all teams that don't make the playoffs an equal chance to land the #1 pick, and all subsequent picks for that matter, before getting to the playoff teams. This would rid the league of the perverse incentive structure that leads to tanking.
I'm sure I'm making some incorrect assumptions here, but It just seems like such an inherent and glaring flaw in the system that it nags me at a very fundamental level.
This is a long-winded way of saying I think team-building in the NBA sucks.
Edit: Please feel free to move the post wherever necessary.
That almost makes sense.ALiveH said:
But I worry about the effects on a young team of sucking. Does JG pick up Rudy Gay heroism habits? Does Avery Bradley's confidence disappear when he is asked to do too much?
And at the end of the day, you are still hoping that Sacto/Phoenix/Charlotte/Orlando/etc won't suck even more (you want to bet on that?) and the lottery balls bounce your way AND you pick well.
Zososoxfan said:
I think it has as much to do with the structure of basketball as anything. A single great player just makes a much bigger difference in basketball than it does in any other sport. The QB in Football is the only thing that comes close.
MainerInExile said:
I agree with you, although I might include an incredible goalie in hockey and generational talents like Messi, Zidane, etc. in soccer as well. But, doesn't this make the argument stronger that the system needs to be altered in a way that doesn't provide teams with worse records a better chance at landing the best players via the draft? In other words, if getting these top talents is so important, why do you want to condition getting them on being a franchise with not just poor results, but the *worst* results?
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/19047-blow-it-up-trade-p2-and-start-over-again/
Take a trip down memory lane and argue with yourself.
Take a trip down memory lane and argue with yourself.
bowiac said:
I'm going to go back and read the thread Dylan posted about, but to answer you quickly, the Heat wouldn't be eligible for a lottery pick as a team that makes the playoffs. I understand the point of a lottery is to benefit bad teams and try to get them to be good again (a good thing, which is why all the sports discussed incorporate the concept in a variety of ways), but my issue is with tanking. If teams want to tank to go from a 7 or 8 seed to a team that misses the playoffs, that's their prerogative and also would be dissuaded by the fact that the team would get extra home games, a chance to compete for a title, and (presumably) player bonuses for making the playoffs/extra games played.
Sure. I agree tanking is an issue. I just mean some sort of incentive to suck will probably always exist.Zososoxfan said:
My favored system has always been a power ranking. We have the 30 GMs rank each other's rosters, and the draft goes in that order. Bring a little of the BCS into the NBA.
Zososoxfan said:
The team with the "worst" results only have a 25% chance of securing the #1 pick (ask Rick Pitino) and only 2 of the last 23 teams with the highest probability of winning the lottery ended up with the #1 pick. How much more would you like to alter it? The system is all but "Tank-proof."
HomeRunBaker said:
This may be semantics or perhaps something more, but replace "tanking" with "bottoming out." Either way, the issue is that teams have an incentive to perform poorly for a year, sometimes several years, in order to build a contending team. As the discussion in here shows, bottoming out is one of only a few ways to logically structure a rebuild. Putting one foot in front of the other, it seems like the answer to my question may also involve advocating for more player movement. With so many teams locked into contracts for the glut of midlevel talent, it restricts a team from being more flexible year-to-year. To this end, wasn't there discussion (and actual changes) during the last CBA negotiations of encouraging player movement by restricting the amount of years on a contract?
Zososoxfan said:
General Managers don't have incentives built into their contracts to lose games for multiple years though which is why nobody utilizes this strategy on purpose. Those gigs pay good money and take years of hard work to reach that level to destroy ones resume and career. The teams that are in the lottery next week are those who are perennially missing the playoffs year after year.
Toronto - 5 straight years in lottery
Detroit - 4 straight
Washington - 5
Charlotte - 8 out of 9 years
Portland, Minnesota, Sacramento, New Orleans.......
The theory that you have to get bad to be good is an extremely flawed position as most teams who become bad in this year remain there for many years and those GM's lose their jobs......which is why they don't tank or bottom out purposely. A lot of this has to do with the draft being such a crap shoot.
knucklecup said:
There from like 6 years ago when he spoke on this topic i'll see if i can dig them up.
HomeRunBaker said:
Also the Paul quotes while you're at it because from what I'm seeing in this Chris Broussard article, Chris Paul's reasoning for not wanting to commit to the Celtics long term had more to do with the age of Garnett, Pierce, and Allen, than it did the city of Boston.
http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/7297944/new-orleans-hornets-chris-paul-sign-boston-celtics-dealt-source-says
Edit: Adding link
knucklecup said:
You want links and quotes from years ago that was pretty widespread known around the league? Lol ok. Paul is no different than most other stars who have no interest in playing here......KG had to be bribed as he refused the trade initially until Allen was acquired. These are all well known accounts from years ago that were probably discussed on this board i'd imagine in detail at the time.
HomeRunBaker said:
Then pull them, dude. They shouldn't be hard to find if it's blatantly obvious as you're making it sound.
KG "refused" to play in Boston? Pull that one too.
knucklecup said:
Shit that was discussed in depth either here or on the other private board. Search them.
Thank you, Jon. Went through 37 pages before finding that article.
"And Garnett, sources say, wants to move to a warm-weather city and a team that can claim legitimate championship potential."
He refused to play in Boston or did he prefer a team in a warm-weather city and wouldn't budge unless he deemed that team a legit Championship contender?
I don't see how this proves your point at all.
"And Garnett, sources say, wants to move to a warm-weather city and a team that can claim legitimate championship potential."
He refused to play in Boston or did he prefer a team in a warm-weather city and wouldn't budge unless he deemed that team a legit Championship contender?
I don't see how this proves your point at all.
HomeRunBaker said:
Everything depends on context & timing.
The 2014 draft is supposed to be as historically good as the 2003 draft, which had James, Wade, Carmelo and Bosh go in the top 5 (and Darko). Add any of that level of talent (except Darko obviously) to our young core (Rondo + JG + Sully + Avery) and you have a exciting & competitive and possibly contending team almost instantly. I've seen estimates that any of the top 4-7 players in the 2014 draft would've gone #1 in 2013 (projected to be a historically bad draft). For example, Marcus Smart would've been #1 pick this year (at least Orlando was reportedly targeting him), but he went back to school and is now projected 3-5 in the 2014 mocks.
Btw, any of the worst [x] teams have almost a 100% chance of getting a top [x+2] pick, e.g,. the 4th worst team has almost 100% chance getting a top-6 pick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Draft_Lottery#Process
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/2007/11/agent_0.html
Gilbert Arenas had some scathing things to say about how Jim O'Brien and the Celtics handled him during the pre-draft process, none of which were about the city.
Gilbert Arenas had some scathing things to say about how Jim O'Brien and the Celtics handled him during the pre-draft process, none of which were about the city.
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/topic/20355-rashard-lewis-would-love-to-play-in-boston/
Arguably the best FA on the market in 2007 would "love" to play in Boston according to Dickerson.
Scrub had it right six years ago:
Arguably the best FA on the market in 2007 would "love" to play in Boston according to Dickerson.
Scrub had it right six years ago:
knucklecup said:
What difference does it make if KG and others refuse to play in Boston or prefer a warm weather city unless the Celtics are a contender? Until the Celtics are legitimate contenders like '08 to '10 or receive a healthy dose of global warming this is precisely my point.
HomeRunBaker said:
...because you've been saying for a little less than a week now that nobody wants to play in Boston, and it's flatly wrong, as is pretty much everything else you've said in this thread thus far.
So, given that the Celtics are arguably one of the most successful franchises in the NBA, why have they had a hard time getting significant FA's to sign here? You don't think weather and the size and culture of Boston are factors? Having a hard time seeing what your argument is. You don't think Doc has his fingers on the pulse of NBA players?
knucklecup said:
You mean the links that jon and marble pulled that you requested? Doc said it right there (i mistakenly thought Ainge said that) yet you continue insisting i'm wrong because Rashard Frickin Lewis would have come here. Did you know Ray Allen was pissed as hell at Seattle for the trade to Boston......or do you want a link for that too?
Also, i never said "nobody" in the context of the exact definition but it's well known, as Doc confirms, that Boston is not a prime destination for NBA free agents which is why we have either had to overpay or be a last resort for those on the downside of their careers.
It's funny that the theoretical aversion of free agents to come to Boston does not apply to any other sport. Free agents would die to come here to play for Belichick and the Red Sox have also attracted some pretty good free agents. They've lost out on a few, but that was almost always due to money.
knucklecup said:
IIRC, you argued that Toronto's relative weakness as a free agent destination was one reason you thought the Rudy Gay trade was good for the Raptors. Now I'm as parochial as the next guy when it comes to the fatherland, and I'm loathe to put my Celtics and the Raptors in the same boat, but coming from the perspective of a 20-something NBAer, what makes you think Boston, with it's high taxes and cold weather, is so different from Toronto, with it's high taxes and cold weather?
DannyDarwinism said:
They don't have good players on the roster. Until they do, they won't be able to attract big name talent via free agency, especially when they have big time money committed to small time players which prevents them from targeting free agents to begin with.
If I'm remembering correctly, Vince Carter was ready to commit to the Toronto Raptors before management lied to him about the direction the team was going in.
Edit - Adding Wiki details about Carter's departure from Toronto:
Rafael Araujo and Rafer Alston. Wow.
Boston has spent the vast majority of the salary cap era over the cap except for total crap years. It's hard to get FA with that restriction.
Not a lot of teams build through FA.
Not a lot of teams build through FA.
Cap space isn't just about signing unrestricted Free Agents though. Cap flexibility is a huge asset in trading, it can also be really useful with regards to non-franchise type players. Look at Houston, they added Harden because they had the cap space to re-sign him , they added Lin and Asik because of that cap space which allowed them to structure deals in a way that was impossible for their teams to match.
zenter said:
I am not suggesting we have to make a move just to make a move, I just believe if you want to rebuild and you think you can make a trade to start that process, the odds against you successfully rebuilding shouldnt hold you back. I dont want my GM taking pitches because he is obsessed with his BABIP and so he is scared to swing.
Getting to the logic of this deal, we probably have philosophical differences we wont resolve. You want to wait until later in the day to start your 5 mile run to see if the weather will be better. I want to start it now so I can enjoy my post run oreos sooner. I am impatient and think waiting is silly. That doesnt mean I am creating work.
I also do think that being successful in the NBA Is about taking significant risks, not recluse, foolish risks but being successful is generally facilitated by taking big risks. I think kick-starting the process of becoming bad is risky, but the sooner you get to the lottery the quicker you get to the uptick.
Whats your rebuild philosophy that has a better risk/reward ratio than a draft rebuild? I know you dont like my plan, but I would like to understand what your plan is.
dhellers said:
This is insanely absurd. This team can not add any pieces beyond a 1st round pick. Look at Rose's return and thats evidence of significant risk that Rondo wont just be Rondo Gam1. And KG and PP arent 2 pieces, they are about 25% to 30% of our teams productivity. Last year they played 23% of all the available minutes, they took 30% of the teams shots. So, a 5% uptick in Sully isnt compensating for a 5% drag with KG. Find me another person here who will agree with the bolded without caveats and I will discuss this some more, but I dont even know where to start with that.
dhellers said:
Can you just point to one specific instance where this helped them?
I think there are creative ways to stay competitive with the pieces we have but no, I think it's highly unlikely that there's a way to mix and match this roster to come up with something that's able to overcome Miami next season. It's just not in the cards.
That doesn't mean you can't start a successful rebuild...
That doesn't mean you can't start a successful rebuild...
Zososoxfan said:
I agree with your assessments of the league, and I love to bash Stern but there are a few basketball specific problems that make parity more difficult to obtain in the NBA:
- Only 5 players play at a time. Football has 11, baseball 9, and while hockey has just 6 there are many more shifts than basketball substitutions.
- In the NBA your talent after your top 3 players isnt that important. Thats not to say you can win with an off the street free agent as your worst starter. But if you have the top 3 talents you need to win a title, its not too difficult to fill in those last missing puzzle pieces. But if you dont have those top 3 pieces, your 4-12 talents can be the best in the league and you still can wind up in the lottery
- The top players in the league are head an shoulders better than everyone else. It basically becomes in exercise in collecting as many of the top 20 talented players that you can, and as a result there are clear winners and losers with little parity.
I like your idea with the true lottery, but it might just move tanking around a bit. Now we have some teams tanking to try to get better lottery chances. Come the last month of the season, are any of the Conference seeds from 7 to 10 going to want to win a single game? All of them would want an equal chance at the #1 pick over a short, painful playoff series. It wouldnt be full season tanking, but it would still happen
Team building in the NBA does suck. In football you can stay competitive and draft for development, bring waves of young players in and continually turn your team over filling the gaps with moderate FA signings. In baseball you have your entire minor league system to create a flow of assets to trade and young players to add to your club. In the NBA it just doesnt happen like that. You cant replace a KG with someone you pick #23 overall. Thats what sucks.
Good job good effort -- at ignorning almost all my points. The main one being that a "reasonable luck" outcome of your vaunted rebuild isn't much different from a "reasonable luck" outcome of bringing the gang back for one more year. To be charitable, if maximizing (however slightly) a chance of a championship is all that matters, your tact makes some sense (since all else is the sad wailing of scaredy cats).wutang112878 said:
As for loyalty, or what passes for it in 21st century pro sports. "Loyalty" is an asset a team can use when attracting players. Perhaps not as useful as "warm weather" or "low taxes" or "big city thrills", but not negligible. And if one team could build a good case of loyalty, it is the Celtics ("tradition" and "pride" being kind of associated with loyalty). And to the extent that sharp dealing means you have to toss "loyalty" aside, then sharp dealing is not so effective (as a long term strategy).
Lastly, the consequences of "blowing it up" means I see no way PP is coming back. And that means the actuality of PP being a CelticForLife is gone.
And that is a loss that makes me, as a Boston sports fan, worse off. Yes yes yes, people can come back (hi Pedro) to teams they left, but the coolness of "always a Celtic" is lost.
That is a real cost of the "only thing that matters is championships". So thanks!
This was in regards to your projection of the team:
And this is why I cant discuss the projection of this team, and thus risk/reward scenarios because your projections are so widely off from mine we have no common ground. Its like trying to negotiate a venture capital investment where the VC values the company at $1M and the owner values it at $1B, its best to just end the conversation
This is the best 'dont blow it up' argument, that we can agree on. Paul isnt Larry, but it reminds me of Larry at the end. The last 2 years he played, those teams were toast and I'm sure we still could have got something for Larry, but it was Larry and you had to let him play out the string here. Having said that, its a fine line though, if someone offered Red their franchise for Larry and Larry wanted to go then he might have to think about it. With KG gone, I wonder if PP will indeed ask to go elsewhere, especially because with KG gone most likely Danny is going to buyout Pierce.
And this is why I cant discuss the projection of this team, and thus risk/reward scenarios because your projections are so widely off from mine we have no common ground. Its like trying to negotiate a venture capital investment where the VC values the company at $1M and the owner values it at $1B, its best to just end the conversation
dhellers said:
This is the best 'dont blow it up' argument, that we can agree on. Paul isnt Larry, but it reminds me of Larry at the end. The last 2 years he played, those teams were toast and I'm sure we still could have got something for Larry, but it was Larry and you had to let him play out the string here. Having said that, its a fine line though, if someone offered Red their franchise for Larry and Larry wanted to go then he might have to think about it. With KG gone, I wonder if PP will indeed ask to go elsewhere, especially because with KG gone most likely Danny is going to buyout Pierce.
FWIW, I would really enjoy watching the Celtics draft and develop a truly elite level talent. I think I would enjoy that much more than watching them remain mediocre, make smart trades, and collect assets so that they can (a) trade those assets for an older, elite level talent or (b) develop a deep squad without any true superstars, a la the 12-13 Nuggets. For that reason, I'd like to see them "tank" (for lack of a better term). I am willing to accept the risk that comes with that strategy.
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but to me the Garnett era in Boston always felt superimposed. In one year, the Celtics went from one of the worst teams in the league to the best. We didn't get to watch the team grow and develop into a contender and our superstar really belonged to another fanbase (Minnesota).
We missed out on Duncan. Then we missed out on Durant. Perhaps the third time is the charm and we could hit the lotto for Wiggins. If not, maybe there's another superstar-to-be on the horizon. I'd like to try that route.
I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but to me the Garnett era in Boston always felt superimposed. In one year, the Celtics went from one of the worst teams in the league to the best. We didn't get to watch the team grow and develop into a contender and our superstar really belonged to another fanbase (Minnesota).
We missed out on Duncan. Then we missed out on Durant. Perhaps the third time is the charm and we could hit the lotto for Wiggins. If not, maybe there's another superstar-to-be on the horizon. I'd like to try that route.
Eh, that's a copout,but I agree with your conclusion.
It is my working assumption that Doc wanted out because he knew PP wasn't going to get picked up. That although he was willing to coach his team for a few more years, and "naturally" transition to a rebuild, he wasn't interested in helping supervise a blow up.
Perhaps I am wrong.