Author Topic: Forget The 2004 Pistons...  (Read 9706 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Forget The 2004 Pistons...
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2014, 09:23:20 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
both those Kings and Pistons teams had multi all-stars.

Sure when you put a 60 win team together, you're most likely going to get some guys selected to the All-Star team as a result of your team winning.  That's just how the system works.  Hey Mo Williams and Jameer Nelson were All-Stars too when they were on 60 win teams, I don't think that's really saying anything though.

But Sacramento and Detroit each had only one player who was an All-Star before they got to Sacramento/Detroit (and those guys weren't even current All-Stars when they were brought in).  Those teams were built around players that just about any GM in the league could have attained for a reasonable price.  They were both built around nowhere-near-max free agents; small trades; and mid-to-late 1st round draft picks, something any team in the league can do, theoretically at least.
Um.  Detroit had 5 top 10 picks.  Hamilton 7, Billups 3, R. Wallace 4, Hunter 10, Milicic 2.  Williamson was a lottery pick. 

Sacramento only had two, but they were its two best players and both were top 2 picks. Webber 1, Bibby 2.

Now sure you greater point is that most of the players could be reasonably acquired on the cheap, but it doesn't change the fact that they had plenty of high draft picks as part of the rotation.

Ok, true.  But I'm talking about how those teams acquired those players.  The Pistons/Kings didn't acquire those players through the draft with top 5, top 10 lottery picks, (well except for Milicic, who wasn't even a rotation player).  Where you're drafted doesn't really matter after your rookie deal or once you've bounced around the league with several different teams.

That's like saying the Celtics have top picks with Evan Turner and Jeff Green.  Not the same thing at all.  Hey I guess the rebuild is almost done now that the C's have 3 top 6 picks on the roster  ;D

Those teams didn't acquire any of their rotation players by drafting them in the lottery, giving out max or near-max contracts, or by trading away multiple 1st round picks and prospects.  But you see that, which is the point I'm making.

Not that I'm pushing for any particular rebuilding model, but I do believe there are multiple ways to be build a championship team (none of which are easy though).
Sacramento traded top 5/10 draft picks players for Webber and Bibby though.  Sacto acquired Webber by trading Richmond (5) and Thorpe (9).  Sacto acquired Bibby by trading Williams (7) and Anderson (11).  And they had recently drafted Williams at the time of the trade for Bibby.  They had acquired Richmond by trading the most recent 3rd pick in the draft.
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Forget The 2004 Pistons...
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2014, 10:08:05 AM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
both those Kings and Pistons teams had multi all-stars.

Sure when you put a 60 win team together, you're most likely going to get some guys selected to the All-Star team as a result of your team winning.  That's just how the system works.  Hey Mo Williams and Jameer Nelson were All-Stars too when they were on 60 win teams, I don't think that's really saying anything though.

But Sacramento and Detroit each had only one player who was an All-Star before they got to Sacramento/Detroit (and those guys weren't even current All-Stars when they were brought in).  Those teams were built around players that just about any GM in the league could have attained for a reasonable price.  They were both built around nowhere-near-max free agents; small trades; and mid-to-late 1st round draft picks, something any team in the league can do, theoretically at least.
Um.  Detroit had 5 top 10 picks.  Hamilton 7, Billups 3, R. Wallace 4, Hunter 10, Milicic 2.  Williamson was a lottery pick. 

Sacramento only had two, but they were its two best players and both were top 2 picks. Webber 1, Bibby 2.

Now sure you greater point is that most of the players could be reasonably acquired on the cheap, but it doesn't change the fact that they had plenty of high draft picks as part of the rotation.

Ok, true.  But I'm talking about how those teams acquired those players.  The Pistons/Kings didn't acquire those players through the draft with top 5, top 10 lottery picks, (well except for Milicic, who wasn't even a rotation player).  Where you're drafted doesn't really matter after your rookie deal or once you've bounced around the league with several different teams.

That's like saying the Celtics have top picks with Evan Turner and Jeff Green.  Not the same thing at all.  Hey I guess the rebuild is almost done now that the C's have 3 top 6 picks on the roster  ;D

Those teams didn't acquire any of their rotation players by drafting them in the lottery, giving out max or near-max contracts, or by trading away multiple 1st round picks and prospects.  But you see that, which is the point I'm making.

Not that I'm pushing for any particular rebuilding model, but I do believe there are multiple ways to be build a championship team (none of which are easy though).
Sacramento traded top 5/10 draft picks players for Webber and Bibby though.  Sacto acquired Webber by trading Richmond (5) and Thorpe (9).  Sacto acquired Bibby by trading Williams (7) and Anderson (11).  And they had recently drafted Williams at the time of the trade for Bibby.  They had acquired Richmond by trading the most recent 3rd pick in the draft.

Lol, whille I think we see eye-to-eye on my main point, we're still arguing for some reason.

I guess I'm surprised you think a 35 year old Otis Thorpe, drafted #9 by a team that played in Kansas City, and already traded away 5 different times, who played only 23 mpg in half a season for the Kings  is that relevant to my point.  Same with a 32 year old Mitch Richmond, or a 33 year old Nick Anderson (who played only 8mpg in 21 games).

I think none of those players you mentioned were great assets.  Again, where you drafted doesn't really matter after the fact.  It didn't matter if Bibby was drafted 2 or 52, he could have been acquired for the same non-high-valued assets.  Despite Jason Williams being drafted #7 three years earlier, he wasn't going to bring back that much.

Every team in the league is likely going to have multiple players who were drafted in the top 10 somewhere along the way.  I'm not really sure what you're arguing, especially because I never said that those teams didn't have any players on their roster who were drafted in the lottery somewhere along the way.  I'm arguing there teams were built cheaply, with smallish trades, mid-to-late picks, and without signing max or near max players.  They didn't use the hopeful-Philly or OKC method of getting a bunch of lottery picks in consecutive years and grow them together, they didn't clear cap room and sign a 2-3 maxish players, and they didn't trade all their assets like teams did for Kevin Love, Carmelo, or Dwight.

I view it like this, the hardest player to get for Detroit/Sacramento could be had for what it would take to get Josh Smith from the Pistons right now.  And i'm of the opinion most teams could have him if they want him.  Both teams started trading away a low level veteran All-Star (Richmond and Stackhouse, both of whom were acquired through trades and not drafted) and a bunch of other non-high-valued assets to build their teams.  These are things I view the vast majority of NBA teams being able to do, theoretically.  Do you disagree?

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Forget The 2004 Pistons...
« Reply #32 on: August 26, 2014, 10:22:45 AM »

Offline Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
Webber was a max contract player though.  And the Kings acquired Webber by trading a max contract player in Richmond for him.  The Kings acquired Bibby on his rookie contract and then  signed him to essentially a max contract when able.  In other words, the Kings two best players were max contract players. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Forget The 2004 Pistons...
« Reply #33 on: August 26, 2014, 11:38:53 AM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1760
  • Tommy Points: 349
both those Kings and Pistons teams had multi all-stars.

I wasn't trying to say that we will have some magic potion that will turn Jeff Green or Avery Bradley into an all star (fingers crossed though). I don't even want to try to lay out a plan to actually make this happen because there are way too many variables. It's been proven that stars make good teams. I want all-stars on this team, whether it be through draft or trade or whatever. I'm just saying that once we get good players, I'd love for them to play like the Kings of the early 2000's because they made basketball really really fun to watch.   

Re: Forget The 2004 Pistons...
« Reply #34 on: August 26, 2014, 12:42:13 PM »

Offline Future Celtics Owner

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3097
  • Tommy Points: 191
  • Celtic's only raise championship Banners
Webber was a max contract player though.  And the Kings acquired Webber by trading a max contract player in Richmond for him.  The Kings acquired Bibby on his rookie contract and then  signed him to essentially a max contract when able.  In other words, the Kings two best players were max contract players.
Peja was also right up there too. He made it dangerous for teams to collapse on Weber and Vlade, effectively giving them the time needed to make passes from the post.

That team was great all around and super fun to watch. And they had a great bench...Bobby Jackson and Hedo

Re: Forget The 2004 Pistons... Revisited
« Reply #35 on: April 27, 2015, 11:42:29 PM »

Offline GetLucky

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1760
  • Tommy Points: 349
Upon seeing DefenseWinsChamps' excellent post about the Celtics' offense this year, I remembered this thread that I started last summer. At the time, the Celtics playing like the Kings was a stretch, almost a dream, due to Rondo's ball-dominance and Jeff Green's lack of floor recognition. However, in the wake of an unexpectedly good season, I believe that the foundation has been set to be the new "Best Show on Court."

In the initial thread, a few principles were mentioned: floor spacing, ball movement, and taking advantage in semi-transition chief among them. Once again, Rondo and Green didn't seem to fit the bill.

Now, though, the personnel fits the style of play much better. Rondo's lack of shooting ability is now not a deterrent, and neither is Green's tunnel-vision or "Uncle Snooze" mode.

In addition, as DefenseWinsChamps pointed out in his post, the Celtics are among the best in the league at getting open shots (4-6+ ft. of space between defender and shooter) while taking the the least possible amount of dribbles and shooting early in the shot clock, as the C's led the league in field goals attempted per game. We can all agree that this created great looks for what was considered an undertalented team. I remember a few people saying, "If you watch the Celtics, you'd assume they have great shooters, but they really have no dangerous shooters." That, however, is a testament to the unselfishness, quick passing, quick advancements of the ball, and good off-ball action.

The kicker of the stats from DWinsChamps? The Celtics were at or near the bottom-half of the league, if not the bottom third, in field goal percentage for all types of shots. So the crazy thing is this teams gets good, open shots without having to dribble or resort to isolations, all while keeping the game at a breakneck pace and without any significant talent advantage over other teams. I see lots of room for improvement internally, nevermind potential acquisitions made by Danny.

What do you guys think? Is this connection more than wishful thinking after what happened this season, or is it still a dream deferred that I am too hung up on?
« Last Edit: April 27, 2015, 11:49:20 PM by GetLucky »

Re: Forget The 2004 Pistons...
« Reply #36 on: April 27, 2015, 11:46:16 PM »

Offline TheFlex

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2791
  • Tommy Points: 367
It might be a pipe dream, but if we get Love and Cousins this offseason and Young develops, I can see Stevens orchestrating a dazzling offense a la Sacramento.


Draft: 8 first rounders in next 5 years.

Cap space: $24 mil.

https://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague/