Cavaliers need to emulate OKC & how they were built

[RikSmits]

So we should model our championship team after the type of team that won a single championship instead of the numerous titles that involved superstars before and after that Pistons team?

I question this logic. In a star driven league, you think we can win with a roster of nobodies as long as they play defense. That is what I am hearing.

No, I'm not saying nobodies. But I do not believe in the formula that Superstar = championships. Apart from teh discussions about what a superstar is, and whether a championship creates superstars, the fact remains that it is very hard to get and keep that one (or two) guy(s) to get you to the promised land. But some good quality players, who can put an emphasis on team play and defense are more easily obtained than your Jordans, Duncans, Wades etc.

 

[RikSmits]

Other than the fact that it has won a single championship.

Better one than zero.
I don't get this point.

 

[Chris]

Better one than zero.
I don't get this point.

You don't? There have been a lot of NBA titles. The so called "Detroit Model" has won one.

Do the math.

 

[Chris]

No, I'm not saying nobodies. But I do not believe in the formula that Superstar = championships. Apart from teh discussions about what a superstar is, and whether a championship creates superstars, the fact remains that it is very hard to get and keep that one (or two) guy(s) to get you to the promised land. But some good quality players, who can put an emphasis on team play and defense are more easily obtained than your Jordans, Duncans, Wades etc.

Superstars don't always get you titles, but they give you the best chance to get one. Get a superstar, then surround them with your defensive All Stars and role players. Then you may have a point.

 

[RikSmits]

You don't? There have been a lot of NBA titles. The so called "Detroit Model" has won one.

Do the math.

Utah, with two hall of famers have zero.
It's better to get one than none. What is so hard to understand?

Superstars don't always get you titles, but they give you the best chance to get one. Get a superstar, then surround them with your defensive All Stars and role players. Then you may have a point.

Repeating the same argument isn't equal to making a point.
How do you get that superstar, keep that superstar, surround him with your defensive all-stars etc.?
For unattractive, small-market teams, that formula worked only once in the last decades (San Antonio), who had two great no. 1 picks.
What are the chances of that happening?

 

[CalBuckeyeRob]

Utah, with two hall of famers have zero.
It's better to get one than none. What is so hard to understand?


Repeating the same argument isn't equal to making a point.
How do you get that superstar, keep that superstar, surround him with your defensive all-stars etc.?
For unattractive, small-market teams, that formula worked only once in the last decades (San Antonio), who had two great no. 1 picks.
What are the chances of that happening?

The odds for every team to win it all is incredibly small. If the chances were totally random the odds would be 1 in 30 to win a title. For small market teams the odds are probably more like 1 in 100 in the current environment. But the teams within that subgroup that are considered contenders all have elite stars. That is just the reality of the sport. You can wish for a world where "scrappy overachievers" win titles. But the NBA ain't "Hoosiers".

 

[Chris]

Utah, with two hall of famers have zero.
It's better to get one than none. What is so hard to understand?

You are TOTALLY missing the point. :rofl: Your beloved model has won one title, whereas every other champion has stars, hall of famers, superstars, however you want to describe those great players. Your model has won a SINGLE title in NBA history. I don't know how else to put it.

Repeating the same argument isn't equal to making a point.
How do you get that superstar, keep that superstar, surround him with your defensive all-stars etc.?
For unattractive, small-market teams, that formula worked only once in the last decades (San Antonio), who had two great no. 1 picks.
What are the chances of that happening?

Yet you're advocating a model that has won a single NBA title in history.

Checkmate, bro. I'm sorry, but you are just wrong on this. The NBA is a star driven league. Advocating the model that has won a single title in NBA history over the won that has won dozens of NBA titles is so crooked and off base I'm shocked we're even having this discussion.

Draft stars, draft good players, make savvy trades. Your stars will stay if your team is contending for a title, whether it's a small market or not. If you have bad management and dilly dally, your stars will leave. That's how it works.

 

[tsteele316]

You are TOTALLY missing the point. :rofl: Your beloved model has won one title, whereas every other champion has stars, hall of famers, superstars, however you want to describe those great players. Your model has won a SINGLE title in NBA history. I don't know how else to put it.



Yet you're advocating a model that has won a single NBA title in history.

Checkmate, bro. I'm sorry, but you are just wrong on this. The NBA is a star driven league. Advocating the model that has won a single title in NBA history over the won that has won dozens of NBA titles is so crooked and off base I'm shocked we're even having this discussion.

Draft stars, draft good players, make savvy trades. Your stars will stay if your team is contending for a title, whether it's a small market or not. If you have bad management and dilly dally, your stars will leave. That's how it works.

i think the point he's making, which you aren't grasping, is that your "model" just simply isn't viable for small market teams.

 

[Chris]

i think the point he's making, which you aren't grasping, is that your "model" just simply isn't viable for small market teams.

Yes...it actually is...and I addressed that.

Is this real life? Small markets can't draft stars?

 

[narbar32]

These arguments are so silly. What model does everybody think all the other non-contending teams are trying to follow? You try to draft the best players, make smart trades, and use FA to fill in the holes. As many have said, the "OKC Model" is not some sort of secret formula pioneered by Presti, nor have the Thunder won a sausage to this point (or done anything the Lebron Cavs did not). You think other GMs don't want to draft the best players available at their draft positions? And really, in the draft that turned it all around for the Thunder, they even "missed" on the second pick - what if they had had the Celtics draft Noah for them instead of Jeff Green?

Skill and luck, just like everything else. Big/destination markets seem to need less luck because the allure of the franchise acts as a bit of a safety net. But either way you have to have an owner willing to spend, a GM with an eye for talent in the draft, a solid vision of how the talent should fit together, and the foresight to put the team in a position to take advantage of opportunities in the future, and the luck that only a fraction of the billions of things that can go wrong actually do go wrong. The specifics of the "model" change based on circumstance. Ainge's decision to trade his team to put together the Boston big 3, along with a nice pick in Rondo, both requiring an enormous amount of luck, got them to the promised land and Boston has had fun watching basketball since then even in the years when the team came up short. Yet San Anton went the complete opposite direction, incredibly lucky circumstances giving them the opportunity to draft one of the best big men the league has ever seen just before their former superstar big man's star faded, then skillfully picking and luckily succeeding in finding great international talent. How bout the Lakers? Or the Heat? What models are those?

Make sound decisions, take advantage of opportunities to get better when they arise. I hope the Cavs continue to gather assets to be able to make moves to get better. As a bad team, I hope they keep trying to get as many high picks in the draft as possible. I hope we get awesome players with those picks. And I hope Grant has a vision and makes smart decisions--based on specific opportunities available to him--to get over the hump to actually win it all. What model is that? And are any teams following some different model?

 

[Chris]

These arguments are so silly. What model does everybody think all the other non-contending teams are trying to follow? You try to draft the best players, make smart trades, and use FA to fill in the holes. As many have said, the "OKC Model" is not some sort of secret formula pioneered by Presti, nor have the Thunder won a sausage to this point (or done anything the Lebron Cavs did not). You think other GMs don't want to draft the best players available at their draft positions? And really, in the draft that turned it all around for the Thunder, they even "missed" on the second pick - what if they had had the Celtics draft Noah for them instead of Jeff Green?

Skill and luck, just like everything else. Big/destination markets seem to need less luck because the allure of the franchise acts as a bit of a safety net. But either way you have to have an owner willing to spend, a GM with an eye for talent in the draft, a solid vision of how the talent should fit together, and the foresight to put the team in a position to take advantage of opportunities in the future, and the luck that only a fraction of the billions of things that can go wrong actually do go wrong. The specifics of the "model" change based on circumstance. Ainge's decision to trade his team to put together the Boston big 3, along with a nice pick in Rondo, both requiring an enormous amount of luck, got them to the promised land and Boston has had fun watching basketball since then even in the years when the team came up short. Yet San Anton went the complete opposite direction, incredibly lucky circumstances giving them the opportunity to draft one of the best big men the league has ever seen just before their former superstar big man's star faded, then skillfully picking and luckily succeeding in finding great international talent. How bout the Lakers? Or the Heat? What models are those?

Make sound decisions, take advantage of opportunities to get better when they arise. I hope the Cavs continue to gather assets to be able to make moves to get better. As a bad team, I hope they keep trying to get as many high picks in the draft as possible. I hope we get awesome players with those picks. And I hope Grant has a vision and makes smart decisions--based on specific opportunities available to him--to get over the hump to actually win it all. What model is that? And are any teams following some different model?

I kind of wanted to post this, because I find it funny how everybody is treating these so-called "models" as some sort of perfect templates or some, as you put it, secret formula. :chuckles:

Draft great players, make savvy trades and FA acquisitions, and give it your best shot. That's how you win titles. Plus, a little bit of luck, of course.

I'm just sick of the notion that you don't need any stars to win a title, or that small markets can't retain stars.

 

[Pavlovic3Ball]

No, I'm not saying nobodies. But I do not believe in the formula that Superstar = championships. Apart from teh discussions about what a superstar is, and whether a championship creates superstars, the fact remains that it is very hard to get and keep that one (or two) guy(s) to get you to the promised land. But some good quality players, who can put an emphasis on team play and defense are more easily obtained than your Jordans, Duncans, Wades etc.

No offense, but im happy you aren't the GM of the Cavs.

 

[Chris]

Who needs stars, 3Ball? I mean, Sasha Pavlovic and Daniel Gibson led us to the Finals!!

 

[Pavlovic3Ball]

Who needs stars, 3Ball? I mean, Sasha Pavlovic and Daniel Gibson led us to the Finals!!

Exactly

The perfect storm had to happen for the Pistons to dominate the way they did. Much easier to build around superstar. Paxson struck out on how many lottery picks? He hit on one, and we were back.

 

[Pavlovic3Ball]

i think the point he's making, which you aren't grasping, is that your "model" just simply isn't viable for small market teams.

Drafting is the absolute best way for small markets to build. There isn't a chance in hell we ever do something like the Heat did. And the chances of us doing something like Detroit did aren't that good either.