quote:And when your bottom of the 1st round picks don't develop into all-stars like your very unlikely scenario describes, then what?
I think we need to stop using OKC as the template and use San Antonio. one bad draft landed them duncan and since then it's been smooth sailing for the past decade. why?
pops took the time to develop players through his own picks or just free agents that came cheap.
Using the Spurs highly unlikely model of just developing mediocre players isn't the way of proving your point
And you're asking a lot for Davis to turn into Duncan, Gordon to remain healthy and become a perennial allstar, and Monty become a top 2 coach of all time.
I like the direction this team is heading as much as anyone but hoping things work out even remotely close to how they have for the Spurs is asking a metric ton.
quote:You are the type of poster that makes the Hornets Talk awful. I was one of the initial proponents for a Hornets board and can probably count on two hands the amount of times I've posted here.
quote:That's exactly what I want us to do, but teams generally do it through FA... not drafting two perfect complements and perennial all-stars at the back end of the 1st round. I'm just not getting my hopes up about doing it "the Spurs way". Smartly building =/= to what SA has done; they have been as close to perfect as you can get for a non-monstrous market team
what are the other available choices besides building smartly around your 19yo potential HOF player and all-star caliber 24yo sg and hoping it works out?
I was one of the initial proponents for a Hornets board and can probably count on two hands the amount of times I've posted here.
but teams generally do it through FA
not drafting two perfect complements and perennial all-stars at the back end of the 1st round.
quote:Reinforces my point
Basically, it comes down to this. The Spurs have been smarter than everyone else, and that intelligence has yielded the necessary supporting characters for Tim Duncan that eveyone else has to go out and buy through free agency or trade. They're just better, and that's the explanation for their longstanding success; the same intelligence that yielded them Ginobili and Parker (and Hill and Leonard and...) is the same intelligence that helps them build with the right role players within the right system. Parker was drafted 28th, Ginobili 57th. You can find role-player veterans who can hit 3s and rebound, can find capable nondescript contributors to fit the system. But finding two vital cogs and spectacular players to go alongside your icon, late in the draft?
You just can't do that.
How do you do that?
How do you draft, at minimum, two Hall of Fame players, one in the high 20s, the other in the second round?
And that's the struggle. That's why you can't replicate what they've done. But there's another reason this combination is so special. And it has a lot to do with the conspicuous absence of a major team in the comparison spectrum.
I read it when you first posted it.
When people say do things the SA way I'm taking it fairly literally, which is why we're probably disagreeing
quote:That's right. The Hornets have already done an exceptional job with the complementary players, but finding stars through means other than high draft picks or being a FA destination is the more difficult part.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're focusing more on the star accumulation aspect, while I'm looking more at post star team building.
finding stars through means other than high draft picks or being a FA destination is the more difficult part.