Building the next winning team/We can't stay on topic thread

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Latest draft night rumor is Pierce to Cleveland for 2 2nd rounders.  I love that deal for Boston because it would generate a fat trade exception (plus give two picks with decent value, #31 and #33).  But why would Cleveland do it?  They are nowhere near a championship.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
dhellers said:
 

Eh, that's a copout,but I agree with your conclusion.
 
This is disingenuous.  Its not like we havent tried over and over.  The definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results.
 
Remember this thread?  I started it specifically with you and mind to try to align us on what next season might look like, it got us to this point where you didnt disagree with some of my statistical observations that screamed 'this team is average' and has been for a while.  You pointed out that to project next year we also really had to project the individual players, which is very true.  You provided your projection, I provided some counterpoints and you said:
 
dhellers said:
While I could pick at some details, such as the implication that Green's improvement is tied to Rondo's absence (rather than getting healthy) overall Wu's counterpoints are legit.   They  provide a "blah" story to my "spun positively" story. 
 
Which means (to me) that for any given player, the likelihood of either (blah or positive) are about equal. 
 
So I repeat my core point:  that proceeding under the hope that there will be a number of "spun positively"  outcomes is .. a gamble. I don't see as being a worse gamble then the various kinds of blowItUp or tradeEmWhileYouCan gambles. For example: consider how one would feel right now if KG was out west and the Celts had one Demarcus Cousins in
his place.
 
Full disclosure: I see it as being a better gamble. And since for me the benefits of indulging in naive loyalty are greater than the tantalizations of naive newness, I conclude that it is best to keep the band together for one more year.
 
 
Which left us at virtually the same spot.  You didnt significantly disagree with my projection of the team, but you still want to rebuild because of your strategy on how to run a franchise.  My strategy is very different, and we cant bridge that gap.
 
So dont say I didnt try.  I am just tired of having the same conversation over and over again in different threads, because it boils down to exact the same thing, its tiring.
 
 
ALiveH said:
I'm about 50/50 that Hellers has been elaborately trolling us for months.
 
I am about 80/20
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Brickowski said:
Latest draft night rumor is Pierce to Cleveland for 2 2nd rounders.  I love that deal for Boston because it would generate a fat trade exception (plus give two picks with decent value, #31 and #33).  But why would Cleveland do it?  They are nowhere near a championship.
 
Whats the cap floor $50Mish?  They are at $36M so perhaps they want to just add his buyout $5M to the books so they dont just have to go spend foolishly in free agency?  That seems silly but beyond that, I cant think of a single reason why
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
wutang112878 said:
 
Whats the cap floor $50Mish?  They are at $36M so perhaps they want to just add his buyout $5M to the books so they dont just have to go spend foolishly in free agency?  That seems silly but beyond that, I cant think of a single reason why
I think that, coupled with a veteran presence, is pretty much it. It also ensures them cap space for LeBron, too.
 

dylanmarsh

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
6,608
Brickowski said:
Latest draft night rumor is Pierce to Cleveland for 2 2nd rounders.  I love that deal for Boston because it would generate a fat trade exception (plus give two picks with decent value, #31 and #33).  But why would Cleveland do it?  They are nowhere near a championship.
Plus, Danny doesn't even have to offer guaranteed money to second round picks. It's minimal savings but could help with the cap down the road.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Here's one reason Cleveland might do it:  Cap is $58M, Cleveland is at $35M (according to Hoopshype).  They need to get to $52M in salary to satisfy the new 90% salary floor.  If they are below the floor, they pay the difference to the league. (It think the penalty gets divided up among the other teams, but I'm not sure.) Pierce for one year at $15M is probably better than overpaying for free agents, because when PP comes off the books, they will have the cap space to sign LeBron or another member of the 2014 free agent class. 
 

HomeRunBaker

bet squelcher
SoSH Member
Jan 15, 2004
30,096
Brickowski said:
Here's one reason Cleveland might do it:  Cap is $58M, Cleveland is at $35M (according to Hoopshype).  They need to get to $52M in salary to satisfy the new 90% salary floor.  If they are below the floor, they pay the difference to the league. (It think the penalty gets divided up among the other teams, but I'm not sure.) Pierce for one year at $15M is probably better than overpaying for free agents, because when PP comes off the books, they will have the cap space to sign LeBron or another member of the 2014 free agent class. 
 
Was just about to post this.  You nailed all the benefits for Cleveland plus they get to dump two 2nd round picks (they already have the 1st and 19th in the first round) for an asset and a positive veteran presence.  I've always maintained that young players at any level learn more from their teammates on the floor than they ever will from any amount of coaching while playing with similarly inexperienced teammates. 
 
I love this deal for Cleveland.  Zero downside with about 4 positive angles........no long-term commitment to marginal FA, cap space move for LeBron, Pierce's veteran presence and abilities, and they receive value for two picks that won't likely make the team or that you would want to make your team with 1 and 19 already there.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Rudy Pemberton said:
Pierce would actually report to Cleveland?
 
 
Exactly, if they plan to keep him and not just buy him out, this could be a problem.  He goes from the only team he ever played for in Boston who makes the playoffs, to a cellar dweller while his coach and teammate are traded over to a team with decent titles hopes close to his home town.  I dont think that goes over well, and if he does report I think its doubtful his presence would help the young players develop, he could quickly become a cancer in the lockeroom.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Why would Cleveland care if Pierce reports?  If he does not, they have the best of both worlds:  his salary stays on their cap until he officially retires, enabling the Cavs to avoid the penalty for being below the minimum salary floor.  Meanwhile, they pocket the $15+ million they would otherwise have had to pay him (which becomes fully guaranteed if the Celtics trade Pierce).  Plus, he's still a valuable trade chip at the deadline.
 

SoxScout

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jun 19, 2003
30,149
Team sources confirmed Ainge has also been trying to secure a first-round pick for veteran Paul Pierce, who can be bought out by June 30 for $5 million. The Celtics have been unsuccessful thus far, leaving open the possibility they keep Pierce and his $15.3 million contract on their books, and attempt to deal him again at the trade deadline next winter, when teams historically look for veteran help and are willing to overpay.
Jackie Mac http://espn.go.com/boston/nba/story/_/id/9415256/los-angeles-clippers-agree-principle-doc-rivers-deal-sources
 

Burkharts Uppercut

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 18, 2003
138
One barrier to a trade scenario like that happening is that it has to be done as a good faith deal because the Cavs won't officially have cap space until July 1st.  So they would have to draft on our behalf, wait a week and trade the draft rights of the two picks for Pierce possibly without knowing whether he'd report.  And if the trade falls apart, it will be past the date when Pierce can be waived.
 

dylanmarsh

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
6,608
Burkharts Uppercut said:
One barrier to a trade scenario like that happening is that it has to be done as a good faith deal because the Cavs won't officially have cap space until July 1st.  So they would have to draft on our behalf, wait a week and trade the draft rights of the two picks for Pierce possibly without knowing whether he'd report.  And if the trade falls apart, it will be past the date when Pierce can be waived.
I believe the Cavs can renounce enough of their free agents to absorb PP's salary before July. Walton+Gibson+Harangody is about $12M worth of cap holds. The trade could then be PP for Alonzo Gee and picks.
 

Burkharts Uppercut

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 18, 2003
138
It doesn't work like that.  There's no way for the Cavs to get under the cap until the start of the new season on July 1 which is when they will start renouncing free agent rights to free up cap space.  
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
There's no reason why the Cavs can't draft for the Celtics and then consummate the trade after the end of the quiet period.  Or, the Cavs could simply trade some of their expiring trash for Pierce on draft night.  The problem with the draft night approach is that the C's lose the fat trade exception, which in my mind is a much more significant asset than the picks.
 
And again, I'm guessing that the Cavs would have no issue with Pierce's refusal to report.
 

crystalline

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 12, 2009
5,771
JP
Bumping an old thread to keep the "blow it up" discussions contained.

Mark Cuban is quoted saying that he won't blow up the Mavs to acquire more talent because he thinks team culture is more important:
I cant speak from the Celtics perspective at all, but from my perspective, culture is one of the most important things to develop as a team, Cuban said. Dirk is the continuity for our culture. So Id rather give up something when you blow it up you never know what direction your culture is going to go.

http://m.metro.us/boston/sports/2014/02/13/mark-cuban-on-why-mavericks-kept-dirk-nowitzki-why-celtics-traded-paul-pierce
Cuban's fun because he's basically a fan.


To the extent he's thinking like a GM, this speaks to the idea that you want some vets around to teach the kids.
 

Jer

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
278
Boston, MA
I like Cuban and it's obvious he's bringing some of his corporate experience with culture to this discussion. Corporate culture is very hard to develop and maintain. If managed successfully it can help produce stellar returns.
 
However, Cuban faces a bit of a paradox when applying that model to a sports franchise. Unlike a great business executive/employee, Dirk's contributions don't age well. Sooner or later Dirk won't be a contributing member of the team. So then what? Will he be transitioned into the front office? Is Dirk really the only guy capable of holding the culture together?  How will the cultural contributions he brings be transitioned to younger players on the team? Is he a teacher? Would that have been true if he wasn't also the best player on the team?
 
You can't build a strong culture on a flawed business model. A basketball team that lacks talent and assets is a flawed business model.
 
For a smart guy, I think Mark has a blind spot on this one.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I wouldn't read too much into puff quotes anyway. I think the reason he doesn't want to blow it up is because the math is pretty ambiguous as to the best way to build a title contender, tanking vs. "building", and to the extent such an ambiguity exists, it's nice to not watch an abomination of a team in the interim, plus it sells tickets and puts money in his pocket.
 

Jer

New Member
Jul 17, 2005
278
Boston, MA
Yeah, you're probably right. It seems like Cuban is just using "culture" as an excuse to do whatever he wants to do. Here's a fun snippet from the failed Mavericks Dwight Howard pitch...
 
 
 
Let me address here the inevitable question of Dwight vs Mavs culture.  We saw it as somewhat of a risk, but felt like because Dwight by all appearances and checking we did,  is a good guy and with our support systems we believed we could make it work.  if not, he was obviously a very trade-able asset.  But, as everyone knows, we didn’t sign him. He went to the Rockets.  I do have to say the meeting with Dwight was very interesting. He is a smart guy. Much smarter than people give him credit for. He is also a very, very good listener.  Unlike most people, he spent far more time listening than talking.  And he had the best response to an opening question that I have ever heard from a player, or anyone for that matter.  When we asked him what his goal was, his response was very specific ” I want to be Epic” .  Which was a perfect lead in to the video we created for him
 
I like how he doesn't actually address the question of Dwight vs the Mavs culture. But hey he's a good guy and we can always trade him if he's a disaster. Now that's dedication to your culture!
 
Something cringe-worthy from that page...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptT9Le6N9xI
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
The moment of reckoning is coming soon for the Mavs.  If Cuban would prefer that Dirk retire as a Mav, that's an owner's prerogative, but the culture is going to change when his older players leave whether he wants it to or not.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Brickowski said:
The moment of reckoning is coming soon for the Mavs.  If Cuban would prefer that Dirk retire as a Mav, that's an owner's prerogative, but the culture is going to change when his older players leave whether he wants it to or not.
Dirk remains a true superstrar. Yes he's old, but it's not crazy to think he can remain extremely effective for another few years, during which time the Mavs can try and acquire other pieces. Not saying they will, but Cuban is probably correct that when most rebuilding teams are tanking, going the other way, and rebuilding without bottoming out may be easier than normal.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Brickowski said:
The moment of reckoning is coming soon for the Mavs.  If Cuban would prefer that Dirk retire as a Mav, that's an owner's prerogative, but the culture is going to change when his older players leave whether he wants it to or not.
 
The moment of reckoning will involve Dirk's contract negotiations this off-season. The key for Dallas will be getting him locked into a reasonable deal that allows them flexibility to build. If he wants another max deal, that's a risk they can't take. If he's willing to take 10 million a year, then it's much easier to re-sign him and treat him as your cultural ambassador, or whatever.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Grin&MartyBarret said:
 
The moment of reckoning will involve Dirk's contract negotiations this off-season. The key for Dallas will be getting him locked into a reasonable deal that allows them flexibility to build. If he wants another max deal, that's a risk they can't take. If he's willing to take 10 million a year, then it's much easier to re-sign him and treat him as your cultural ambassador, or whatever.
For all that I love the Spurs and Popovich (and I do love them so), one of their less heralded secrets to their success has been to get Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker under contract for a total of around ~$30M this year. Now that number is at a low this year, but neither Parker nor Manu, even at their peaks, ever got a max deal, and Duncan took a pretty big pay cut a couple years ago, even while he was still at an elite level.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
crystalline said:
Bumping an old thread to keep the "blow it up" discussions contained.

Mark Cuban is quoted saying that he won't blow up the Mavs to acquire more talent because he thinks team culture is more important:
 
Cuban isnt recognizing the difference in team building philosophy, Cuban has gone the 'financial flexibility' route whereas we go the 'asset building' route. The Mavs have used either cap room or their ability to overspend to add talent at market value prices.  When you get established pieces you get instant results.
 
Alternatively, Danny has never tried that approach here and instead has looked to build assets by acquiring young pieces and developing them.  You just dont win a lot of games with young developing pieces.  Its not that Danny wants to suck, its a by-product of how he wants to build.
 
Another difference is that Cuban has a piece to build around, Dirk is still effective and he can add pieces around him.  Danny did that for years with KG & PP, and eventually that strategy was providing diminishing results.  The definition of insanity is to repeat the same process over and over and expect different results.
 
In summary, Cuban is a baboon.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
bowiac said:
For all that I love the Spurs and Popovich (and I do love them so), one of their less heralded secrets to their success has been to get Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker under contract for a total of around ~$30M this year. Now that number is at a low this year, but neither Parker nor Manu, even at their peaks, ever got a max deal, and Duncan took a pretty big pay cut a couple years ago, even while he was still at an elite level.
 
I dont understand why the Spurs dont get more attention for the amazing run and management they have had during it.  Its the cumulative effect of :
  • As you said, having 3 stable, long-lasting pieces under reasonably priced contracts
  • An almost ageless, elite, game changing piece
  • Avoiding virtually any cap problems
  • Allowing players to walk without being scared of replacing them (hand in hand with previous bullet)
  • Finding cheap talent in the draft
  • Have elite coaching
  • Have players who respond to this elite coaching
They've done this for over a decade now, most franchises cant do half of this for a couple years let alone a decade.  Its pretty freaking amazing
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
I'm with Wutang on this one, although I don't think Cuban is any more of a baboon than Auerbach was in 1992 or 1993.
 
It's not just Dirk who is getting old.  The Mavs have Marion, Carter, Dalembert and Calderon, all 32 or older.  Monta Ellis is Rondo's age, and Devin Harris is two years older than that. Dallas may have some cap space 1-2 years down the road, but unless the Mavs get really bad for a year or two, it is unlikely that they will have  enough young talent to make better free agents come there.
 
And, in contrast to a team like the Spurs, there is no Danny Green, Kawhi Leonard or Patty Mills on the Mavs roster.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I don't get it - why is he wrong here? Financial flexibility is an asset as much as anything else.
 

ishmael

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 3, 2006
640
Brickowski said:
I'm with Wutang on this one, although I don't think Cuban is any more of a baboon than Auerbach was in 1992 or 1993.
 
It's not just Dirk who is getting old.  The Mavs have Marion, Carter, Dalembert and Calderon, all 32 or older.  Monta Ellis is Rondo's age, and Devin Harris is two years older than that. Dallas may have some cap space 1-2 years down the road, but unless the Mavs get really bad for a year or two, it is unlikely that they will have  enough young talent to make better free agents come there.
 
And, in contrast to a team like the Spurs, there is no Danny Green, Kawhi Leonard or Patty Mills on the Mavs roster.
 
But they have an owner willing to spend, a warm climate, and no state tax.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,467
Somewhere
Free agency is a desert for the next two offseasons at least, so the next winning franchise will have to come via trades and the draft.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Brickowski said:
It's not just Dirk who is getting old.  The Mavs have Marion, Carter, Dalembert and Calderon, all 32 or older.  Monta Ellis is Rondo's age, and Devin Harris is two years older than that. Dallas may have some cap space 1-2 years down the road, but unless the Mavs get really bad for a year or two, it is unlikely that they will have  enough young talent to make better free agents come there.
None of those players other than Calderon on are signed to long term deals. Insofar as they decline, it's not going to really be on the Mavericks' dime. By that point if they're still doing this, they can sign the next group of free agents nobody really wants.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
bowiac said:
I don't get it - why is he wrong here? Financial flexibility is an asset as much as anything else.
 
Are you asking why Cuban is wrong in focusing on culture?
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Devizier said:
Free agency is a desert for the next two offseasons at least, so the next winning franchise will have to come via trades and the draft.
 
Why? This offseason includes Carmelo, Pierce, Deng, Dirk, Marion, Lance Stephenson, Kyle Lowry, Pau, Zach Randolph, potentially LeBron James, Bosh and Wade, and next off-season could include Tony Parker, Danny Green, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Love, Wesley Matthews, Goran Dragic, Thaddeus Young, Arron Afflalo, Tyson Chandler, Roy Hibbert, Marc Gasol, Asik, Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap, and Brook Lopez. Oh, and Rondo.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
wutang112878 said:
 
Are you asking why Cuban is wrong in focusing on culture?
I was referencing your statement that "Cuban has gone the 'financial flexibility' route whereas we go the 'asset building' route", which seems to suggest that financial flexibility isn't an asset.
 
I by and large agree the Celtics are in better shape going forward than the Mavericks, but I think it's closer than it might look. The Celtics are in okay shape mostly because they got an amazing offer on KG & Pierce from a team that looks to be a trainwreck. Even if Cuban wanted to move Dirk, there's no guarantee they could have gotten anywhere near as much. Regardless, the Celtics aren't like the 76ers - I don't think their stockpile of assets is so large really.
 
When you add in how much more fun it is watching the Mavericks in the interim, I'm not sure I'd rather be a Celtics fan.
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
It seems to me that financial flexibility per se is less of an asset under the new CBA, because now there is a de facto hard cap.  As a team gets up towards the luxury tax apron, several bad things happen.  You lose your MLE, you lose the ability to make certain trades, etc.  And the tax itself is much worse, especially for repeat offenders.  Even if Cuban is willing to spend like Prokhorov,  it is very unlikely that the Mavs or any other team can effectively rebuild without young, cost controlled players who can make a significant contribution.  Right now the Mavs don't have any. 
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Brickowski said:
It seems to me that financial flexibility per se is less of an asset under the new CBA, because now there is a de facto hard cap.  As a team gets up towards the luxury tax apron, several bad things happen.  You lose your MLE, you lose the ability to make certain trades, etc.  And the tax itself is much worse, especially for repeat offenders.  Even if Cuban is willing to spend like Prokhorov,  it is very unlikely that the Mavs or any other team can effectively rebuild without young, cost controlled players who can make a significant contribution.  Right now the Mavs don't have any. 
I think the case for flexibility is that it allows you to sign veterans and roll them over for assets in the future.
 
I'm not sure exactly what the Mavericks are doing in fairness however. I am mostly assuming they're trying to do a Rockets-style rebuild of signing veterans, rolling them over for picks/other piece , and trying to remain competitive and hoping a couple superstars fall into their laps eventually. They've been less active with the trades so far than I'd have expected however, so who knows. 
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,467
Somewhere
Grin&MartyBarret said:
 
Why? This offseason includes Carmelo, Pierce, Deng, Dirk, Marion, Lance Stephenson, Kyle Lowry, Pau, Zach Randolph, potentially LeBron James, Bosh and Wade, and next off-season could include Tony Parker, Danny Green, LaMarcus Aldridge, Kevin Love, Wesley Matthews, Goran Dragic, Thaddeus Young, Arron Afflalo, Tyson Chandler, Roy Hibbert, Marc Gasol, Asik, Al Jefferson, Paul Millsap, and Brook Lopez. Oh, and Rondo.
 
1) the Celtics have a little cap space this offseason, assuming they can free up the non-guaranteed money before the free agency period, although at least $3M of that will be eaten up by draft picks. So let's generously give them $10M in cap space, assuming they don't retain Bradley. This offseason, that leaves Stephenson as pretty much their only real target and I would put the odds at really long for that happening.
 
2) Barring a great run in the draft this year, I don't see premier free agents like Love, Hibbert, Gasol, or Aldridge signing with the Celtics next year unless their respective teams trade them to Boston (i.e. not free agency acquisition). Secondary pieces might fall in, but again I think that depends more on the Celtics fielding a competitive team first.
 
this is where the "desert" statement comes from. Unless you somehow see a reason for Lebron to sign with Boston.
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
bowiac said:
I was referencing your statement that "Cuban has gone the 'financial flexibility' route whereas we go the 'asset building' route", which seems to suggest that financial flexibility isn't an asset.
 
I by and large agree the Celtics are in better shape going forward than the Mavericks, but I think it's closer than it might look. The Celtics are in okay shape mostly because they got an amazing offer on KG & Pierce from a team that looks to be a trainwreck. Even if Cuban wanted to move Dirk, there's no guarantee they could have gotten anywhere near as much. Regardless, the Celtics aren't like the 76ers - I don't think their stockpile of assets is so large really.
 
When you add in how much more fun it is watching the Mavericks in the interim, I'm not sure I'd rather be a Celtics fan.
 
I'm not saying his approach is wrong, its his criticism that misses the mark. He is wrong to critique us losing our 'culture' because with our approach of 'flip assets for young assets and develop' there is no way to avoid losing your culture.  Its if RC Buford said 'well I think stability, provided by long term contracts, is the most important thing for an organization, so I wouldnt do what the Mavs are doing'.  With every approach there are gives and takes. 
 
As for the Mavs, lets look at their situations because they are different.  Dirk is 35 and amazingly he doesnt seem to be slowing down.  Dirk needs to be resigned, say thats at $10M, now next year they have $41M in cap commitments and they can go add a max guy.  But to go on a run you need a guy who can start taking the torch from Dirk.  They have a chance for a smooth transition, and they can try to figure out how to replace Dirk later but they need a real difference maker in free agency.  The Mavs are better off for the next 3 years, they can add to the Dirk core.  But then they will have a team thats probably at its peak while Dirk declines/retires and will have difficulty replacing him.  If, and its a big if, they get the FAs they really need they can have a decent run for 3 years.
 
Contrast that with the Celts where PP & KG were aging, and thats a big fundamental difference.  Adding pieces wasnt going to get it done, and then once that Nets possibility came around they couldnt pass that up.  But now the Celts are paying the piper for all the old adding pieces during the KG/PP days.  At the start of the year they had Lee, Green, Bass and Wallace on the books, so the didnt have the financial flexibility to add pieces, so realistically what are your other options to add talent than to add via the draft?  You cant make 5 flip moves and turn Bass into Kevin Love.  When you dont have a fundamental building block like Dirk or Duncan, then you lose your best pieces and dont have financial flexibility then you are going to have a dip down.  But in 2 years the Celts financially could be a clean, blank slate with young pieces on the roster, and with a few moves and luck could be setup for a legit 5 year run in years 3 - 8.
 
So when we think of better, its probably about which one you want one more focused on the long-term vs short-term.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
Devizier said:
 
1) the Celtics have a little cap space this offseason, assuming they can free up the non-guaranteed money before the free agency period, although at least $3M of that will be eaten up by draft picks. So let's generously give them $10M in cap space, assuming they don't retain Bradley. This offseason, that leaves Stephenson as pretty much their only real target and I would put the odds at really long for that happening.
 
2) Barring a great run in the draft this year, I don't see premier free agents like Love, Hibbert, Gasol, or Aldridge signing with the Celtics next year unless their respective teams trade them to Boston (i.e. not free agency acquisition). Secondary pieces might fall in, but again I think that depends more on the Celtics fielding a competitive team first.
 
this is where the "desert" statement comes from. Unless you somehow see a reason for Lebron to sign with Boston.
 
My bad. Given that your statement was posted in the middle of a debate about the financial flexibility route Dallas is taking vs. the asset gathering route Boston's pursuing, and because you used the word "franchise," I didn't read your comment as specific to the Celtics.
 

Grin&MartyBarret

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2007
4,932
East Village, NYC
wutang112878 said:
 
I'm not saying his approach is wrong, its his criticism that misses the mark. He is wrong to critique us losing our 'culture' because with our approach of 'flip assets for young assets and develop' there is no way to avoid losing your culture.  Its if RC Buford said 'well I think stability, provided by long term contracts, is the most important thing for an organization, so I wouldnt do what the Mavs are doing'.  With every approach there are gives and takes. 
 
As for the Mavs, lets look at their situations because they are different.  Dirk is 35 and amazingly he doesnt seem to be slowing down.  Dirk needs to be resigned, say thats at $10M, now next year they have $41M in cap commitments and they can go add a max guy.  But to go on a run you need a guy who can start taking the torch from Dirk.  They have a chance for a smooth transition, and they can try to figure out how to replace Dirk later but they need a real difference maker in free agency.  The Mavs are better off for the next 3 years, they can add to the Dirk core.  But then they will have a team thats probably at its peak while Dirk declines/retires and will have difficulty replacing him.  If, and its a big if, they get the FAs they really need they can have a decent run for 3 years.
 
Contrast that with the Celts where PP & KG were aging, and thats a big fundamental difference.  Adding pieces wasnt going to get it done, and then once that Nets possibility came around they couldnt pass that up.  But now the Celts are paying the piper for all the old adding pieces during the KG/PP days.  At the start of the year they had Lee, Green, Bass and Wallace on the books, so the didnt have the financial flexibility to add pieces, so realistically what are your other options to add talent than to add via the draft?  You cant make 5 flip moves and turn Bass into Kevin Love.  When you dont have a fundamental building block like Dirk or Duncan, then you lose your best pieces and dont have financial flexibility then you are going to have a dip down.  But in 2 years the Celts financially could be a clean, blank slate with young pieces on the roster, and with a few moves and luck could be setup for a legit 5 year run in years 3 - 8.
 
So when we think of better, its probably about which one you want one more focused on the long-term vs short-term.
 
For what it's worth, I don't actually think he criticized the Celtics at all.
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,671
When talking about cap flexibility, I think you have to bring up that it means more to different teams. Devizer touched on it, but it could be further explained. Cap room means very little for the Celtics outside of retaining their own players. In today's NBA, star players really only want to go to either huge markets (NY, Chicago, LA) or they want to go to warm weather cities. When was the last time Boston got a big time free agent, or Cleveland, Washington, Minnesota, Detroit, Milwaukee, Portland, Indiana or Toronto? For a team like Miami, or NY, cap space is ultra-important, and we saw how that worked out with The Decision. But for most of the other teams, the best way to get better is to tank and to stockpile young talent. Indiana got really good not because they lured in any max players, but because they drafted smartly and signed key players to extensions.
 
Cuban, as the owner of the Mavericks, could make the case that cap flexibility is more important FOR HIM than it is for other teams. The Mavs are in a pretty big market and have the Texas sun. It is conceivable that they could land a big market FA, like how Houston signed Howard last summer. For the Celtics, that card is not really in the deck for them, so they have to rely on stockpiling young assets. 
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I don't give much weight to the "culture" comment, as I said, I think that's mostly just puffery. Cuban has said before that what the Mavericks are doing is going after short term veterans when everyone else is trying to tank, because he thinks those guys will consequently be undervalued. Now the question is where that leaves the team in 5 years - i.e. are they going to be trapped on the 6-8 seed treadmill. 
 
I personally don't think cleaning house and tanking has all that much better a track record than the alternatives, so given where the Mavericks were with Dirk, that doesn't seem to be a huge concern to me. The Mavericks, like most teams that aren't quite good enough, are in a tough boat. They're gonna need to get lucky a bunch of times to field a true contender again. But that doesn't make them so different than the teams like the Celtics, who also need a series of good strokes of luck to get back. 
 

luckiestman

Son of the Harpy
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
32,620
Dirk, on Simmons' podcast, said he was expecting to take a pay cut and couldn't see himself anywhere but Dallas. Dirk (even aging) on a bargain deal is a nice piece. 
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
bowiac said:
I personally don't think cleaning house and tanking has all that much better a track record than the alternatives, so given where the Mavericks were with Dirk, that doesn't seem to be a huge concern to me. The Mavericks, like most teams that aren't quite good enough, are in a tough boat. They're gonna need to get lucky a bunch of times to field a true contender again. But that doesn't make them so different than the teams like the Celtics, who also need a series of good strokes of luck to get back. 
 
Its sort of a game theory thing.  On one hand you can go the Mavs route and have maybe a 2% chance to win for 5 years.  Or you go the Danny building the Big3 route where you have a 1% chance of putting that team together but you have an amazing high probability window for 3-4 years.  The Heat Lebron scenario is another example.  I'd prefer the later because I'd rather ride the roller coaster than the teacups
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
wutang112878 said:
 
Its sort of a game theory thing.  On one hand you can go the Mavs route and have maybe a 2% chance to win for 5 years.  Or you go the Danny building the Big3 route where you have a 1% chance of putting that team together but you have an amazing high probability window for 3-4 years.  The Heat Lebron scenario is another example.  I'd prefer the later because I'd rather ride the roller coaster than the teacups
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying you'd give up some chance of winning a title (2% vs. 1% here) in order to experience the highs and lows of the NBA?
 

wutang112878

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2007
6,066
Not exactly, lets imagine 2 scenarios both having a 10% chance of winning 1 title over 5 years:
- Mavs approach where because they are a marginal playoff team they have something like a 2% chance of winning each year
- Big or go home approach, where the chance of putting together a team that would be favored to win the title is remote.  But that team could have the 50% odds that title favorites generally get for 3 years.  Because the chances are so remote of putting that type of team together, the overall chance of success (1 title) is 10% here as well
 
I think you want the former because you value the fun of watching the Mavs while they are good but not great.  Whereas, I want the later because I am drawn to the idea of watching a team where the season is a failure if you dont win a title.  When you think about it, if the math lines up, its really just about your preference for playing the odds.  The odds of 5 $2 scratch tickets or 1 $10 scratch ticket is virtually the same and it doesnt matter that much because the odds against are so high anyway
 

Brickowski

Banned
Feb 15, 2011
3,755
Really, most successful strategies combine the two approaches.  The Heat Lebron scenario only worked because the Heat tanked in 2002-03 (25 wins) which enabled them to draft Wade.  They tanked again in 2007-08 (15 wins), but blew the draft (Beasley).  However, they were able to switch gears and by the end of 2010 they had enough veteran expirings to fit both LeBron and Bosh under their cap.  (As an aside, imagine how scary the Heat would be today if they had taken Westbrook, Love, Hibbert or Ibaka with that pick instead of Beasley.)
 
You can see the Lakers pursuing a similar strategy this year.  If they can luck into a great player in this year's draft, they will be ready to load up on free agents when Kobe retires, and of course LA is a city and a franchise that can attract them.
 
The Celtics are doing it too.  In July of 2015 the Celtics will have enough cap space to sign a max free agent, and hopefully there will be enough young talent to attract one.  Then in 2016 another $20M comes off the books (Green and Wallace).  This is the first time in my memory that the C's have had this much cap space, and the theory that no premier free agents want to play in chilly Boston will finally be tested.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
Depending on how things go, the Mavericks may well end up in the same category as the Lakers there, or they might be able to bring in another star to pair with Dirk to make another run that way.
 
More generally, I don't think there's a "formula". There isn't enough history of the draft lottery for history in general, plus the fact that teams that win tend to win for a long time (only eight teams have won a title since the lottery began).
 

The X Man Cometh

New Member
Dec 13, 2013
390
I'm not really familiar with all the intricacies of the new CBA, but my impression is that a lot of the "top heaviness" in the NBA is because the value which players present is not in direct proportion to their payscale.
 
 
The generationally good players (Duncan, Lebron & Durant, prime KG, etc.) get paid in that 17-20 mil range. The other stars who are not as good also get paid in that 17-20 range. Then you have free agents like Tyreke Evans and Ryan Anderson who are glorified role players commanding 10 mil a year. And at the other end of the spectrum? You have rookies who are about as useful/useless as low end vets and half the cost.
 
My point? Durant costs two Ryan Andersons against the tax line (less actually), but IMO he gives you four Ryan Andersons worth of "intrinsic value". Not really something I could argue but its a hunch at least and I feel its true.
 
So a team with the generational guy has a HUGE head start building a team. 1) They get the man at a relatively reduced rate 2) their competition has to overpay for access to the leftover semi-stars.
 
So to me the Philly/Orlando strategy makes a good deal of sense.
 

bowiac

Caveat: I know nothing about what I speak
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
12,945
New York, NY
I agree with respect to your first point (the true superstars in the NBA are badly underpaid). I'm not sure how it follows however that the Philly/Orlando strategy (whatever that is) is the correct solution to this issue. 
 

The X Man Cometh

New Member
Dec 13, 2013
390
bowiac said:
I agree with respect to your first point (the true superstars in the NBA are badly underpaid). I'm not sure how it follows however that the Philly/Orlando strategy (whatever that is) is the correct solution to this issue. 
 
Good point. I guess where I was going, is that flooding the team with low cost fliers that are fluid instead of middling vets is something you might as well do.
 
i.e. the Hollis Thompsons of the world