Thought Experiment: Trading top 6 players for 1 star.

[tarheelsxxiii]

Our 7-12 plus a star isn't winning much of anything, regardless of our depth.

If our top 6 is Thomas, Smart, Sullinger, Amir, Crowder, and Bradley, you'd end up with a primary unit of Evan Turner, Jonas Jerebko, David Lee, Kelly Olynyk, and a star.  That would be a bad team, especially since the bench would be a bunch of first and second year players with zero meaningful NBA experience.

Sobering reality to consider how many teams there are out there with multiple stars. Sad, but true. Future looks bright with coach, BKN picks, and a crop to choose from for a core, though. Here's to figuring it out (and getting lucky along the way)!

Some of the teams with multiple stars are starting to look not so hot because of poor systems, roster balance, and coaching. Houston, Clippers, and Washington off the top of my head. It goes a long way in showing that you can no longer throw stars together and hope for success like you may have been able to years ago. Teams know how to scheme way better nowadays. GSW would have likely fell victim to this if they had kept Mark Jackson as coach, and guys like Green and Klay would likely not have anywhere near the rep they have right now if Kerr didn't flip their system on its side.

Definitely, and we could probably list off many more than that. Lucky to have Stevens (and DA) at the helm to make us different from them once the time comes. Really trust in both now and think it's just a matter of time till we're in the upper tier of the East.

[billysan]

Our 7-12 plus a star isn't winning much of anything, regardless of our depth.

If our top 6 is Thomas, Smart, Sullinger, Amir, Crowder, and Bradley, you'd end up with a primary unit of Evan Turner, Jonas Jerebko, David Lee, Kelly Olynyk, and a star.  That would be a bad team, especially since the bench would be a bunch of first and second year players with zero meaningful NBA experience.

Sobering reality to consider how many teams there are out there with multiple stars. Sad, but true. Future looks bright with coach, BKN picks, and a crop to choose from for a core, though. Here's to figuring it out (and getting lucky along the way)!

Some of the teams with multiple stars are starting to look not so hot because of poor systems, roster balance, and coaching. Houston, Clippers, and Washington off the top of my head. It goes a long way in showing that you can no longer throw stars together and hope for success like you may have been able to years ago. Teams know how to scheme way better nowadays. GSW would have likely fell victim to this if they had kept Mark Jackson as coach, and guys like Green and Klay would likely not have anywhere near the rep they have right now if Kerr didn't flip their system on its side.

Definitely, and we could probably list off many more than that. Lucky to have Stevens (and DA) at the helm to make us different from them once the time comes. Really trust in both now and think it's just a matter of time till we're in the upper tier of the East.

Thanks for the thread LarBrd33. This comment above also came to my mind. I think there is a good chance one of these teams makes a trade of an impact level player to attempt a restart. I dont think it is out of the question that the Rockets for example trade Harden or Dwight for a reasonable package at some point soon if the coaching change doesnt turn it around.

I would offer them Bradley, Sully and Jerebko with a decent number 1 and High number 2 for Harden and a prospect. Let them think about that for a while. That would improve their team depth and they still have the core of Parsons and Howard, etc etc.

[Moranis]

You absolutely 100% of the time make the trade if the star is locked up long term (and still in his prime).  You don't give it a second thought and you never look back.  Role players are easy to replace.  And  it isn't like you wouild just get 1 player back, you would get players back from the team you are trading with because they have to free up the roster spots. 

Let's just say it is Cousins.

So Boston trades Amir, Sully, Thomas, Smart, Crowder, Bradley (that's about 40 million in salary)

In order to trade for Cousins and his 16 million, others would have to come back.  And not just the 5 least paid players because that isn't enough salary.  You would have to start with Bellinelli, Casspi, and Butler and may even need to include someone like Rondo just to get the dollars there. 

Even if the star had a bigger contract like Carmelo you would still need to add another 10 million or so in salaries, so real actual players would have to come back. 

[mctyson]

What say you?

Let's use the Cousins example.

I don't think DMC is going to Boston in any trade that doesn't include at least this year's Brooklyn pick, which might be top-3.  If I am Sacramento I demand Boston's 2017 pick as well, which has swap rights. If they trade DMC they need to rebuild, through the draft, and it starts with those picks. 

If Ainge is hell-bent on keeping picks, the only counter to that demand is Marcus Smart.  Sacramento is still going to want at least one 1st rounder with him, so maybe you include the 2018 unprotected and Smart.  That's the only counter you can make that doesn't get the phone hung up on you.

In the end it would probably cost us Smart, Hunter, the 2017 swap, the 2018 unprotected, and Lee for salary.

[Celtics18]

There seems to be a general theory going around that there are two distinct categories of NBA players:  a). Super Star, b). Role Player.

And, that any player within either category is more or less interchangeable. 

In my opinion, this theory contributes to confusing a lot of observers and fans about what it takes to build a successful NBA franchise. 

[PhoSita]

There seems to be a general theory going around that there are two distinct categories of NBA players:  a). Super Star, b). Role Player.

And, that any player within either category is more or less interchangeable. 

In my opinion, this theory contributes to confusing a lot of observers and fans about what it takes to build a successful NBA franchise.

I've seen some of that, but I'd say the general wisdom tends to be a bit more nuanced.

It's more like "Superstar," "All-Star," "Above average starter," "solid starter," "role player," "rotation player," and everybody else.


I agree that the effort to place players into categories, or rank them against one another, has a tendency to make team building into a much simpler exercise than it is in real life.

A superstar on one team might just be a star on another.  A solid starter in one place might go to a different team or play under a different coach and find himself out of the rotation.

[Celtics18]

There seems to be a general theory going around that there are two distinct categories of NBA players:  a). Super Star, b). Role Player.

And, that any player within either category is more or less interchangeable. 

In my opinion, this theory contributes to confusing a lot of observers and fans about what it takes to build a successful NBA franchise.

I've seen some of that, but I'd say the general wisdom tends to be a bit more nuanced.

It's more like "Superstar," "All-Star," "Above average starter," "solid starter," "role player," "rotation player," and everybody else.


I agree that the effort to place players into categories, or rank them against one another, has a tendency to make team building into a much simpler exercise than it is in real life.

A superstar on one team might just be a star on another.  A solid starter in one place might go to a different team or play under a different coach and find himself out of the rotation.

Well put. 

Would you break it down roughly like this?:

Top 1 to 5:  Superstar

6 to 25:  All Star

26 to 60:  Above average starter

61 to 120:  Solid starter

121 to 200:  Role player

201 to 300:  Rotation player

300 through rest