With the lockout looming there are several teams that actually stand to benefit.
If you are a rebuilding team what is your purpose going into next season, assuming there is one.
Let's check the list:
1. Develop youth
2. Determine your core
3. Build team chemistry
There are probably more items that may need to be on the list. Let's just focus on these 3 for now.
What rebuilding teams really need to focus on all three items?
You have the Washington Wizards, Sacramento Kings, Minnesota Timberwolves, and Utah Jazz.
These rebuilding teams could actually use a full season to do all three of the items on the list. The Wizards could use a full season to really build some chemistry with their new youth, the Kings need to determine their core and see what Greene can do at the 3, the Wolves and Jazz really need to determine their core and build from there.
So what rebuilding teams really wouldn't mind a lockout? The Toronto Raptors and Charlotte Bobcats.
The Raptors just drafted a Lithuanian who wouldn't be able to come to the NBA until 2012-2013 anyhow. After him, their only legit youth they'd like to maybe develop is Ed Davis and Jaryd Bayless. Truth is though that the Raps would need to make adjustments anyhow to properly develop these players and give them more minutes. Andrea Bargnani is currently slotted as the team's power forward and is netting a salary a bit too steep to allow for Davis to overtake him in minutes and shot allocation. Same can be said with Bayless who is behind Calderon in a similar situation.
So either way, a full season wouldn't even guarantee that Toronto would be able to play and develop their young talent.
What about the Bobcats?
Charlotte is coming off a draft in which they dealt their last remaining relevant player (Stephen Jackson) and like Toronto, may not be able to have their recently drafted rookie, Bismack Biyambo, available next season anyhow. Charlotte's other young talent, Kemba Walker, would be in an awkward point guard duel for minutes with DJ Augustine and may benefit from another season, in which Augustine could come off the books and open up minutes at point.
Both Toronto and Charlotte have holes that they'd like to achieve through the draft. Both teams may not want to play a full season to "tank" when there are few other incentives for them. Canceling the season would ensure these teams stay in the lotto, don't look like they are "tanking" for their fans, and perhaps net some valuable talent via the draft so they won't need to think about wasting a season next year.
In such a negative time like the lockout, it's nice to see that canceling a season could actually help a few teams. No wonder it may take a full season to simply resolve the issues.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
Saturday, August 6, 2011
Deals to consider: Igoudala for Granger
Classic NBA trades rarely happen these days like they used to.
Usually teams find themselves in a fork in the road: do we consolidate our youth to make a push at contention? (See Boston in 2008) Or do we trade away our veteran assets in order to rebuild our unit completely (see Utah in 2010)?
Back in the 90s, if you saw a situation to improve your team, even if it was minimal, you made a swap to improve your current roster. For better or worse (being that teams now seem more willing to "tank" for several years like they used to in a rebuilding project) teams tend to have a 3 to 5 year plan down the road that impacts the trade they make today.
A long term plan in any deal is obviously a sound way of thinking. Some teams; however, are actually stuck in that middle ground and should consider making moves that at worst could better determine what state they'll be in several months (i.e. you make a trade to eventually determine whether you need to rebuild or can consolidate and for a title run etc).
Let's take the Indiana Pacers and Philadelphia 76ers as prime examples.
The Pacers and Sixers both were first round and out participants of the 2011 NBA Playoffs. The notion is that such a perennial state (not insisting that either is in that perennial state) of being a one and done playoff team (1st round exit) is the worst stage for an NBA franchise. You're not quite good enough to move up the competitive ladder of your conference and not poor enough to improve roster via high potential draft picks. It is kind of like an NBA state of purgatory.
Each franchise; however, does have the potential to leave this state and choose a direction. It may make more sense for both clubs though to more effectively determine if their current high potential prospect can really be a center piece for the future and while doing so whether rebuilding around that piece or building around him makes most sense.
Let's further explain starting with the Indiana Pacers.
The Pacers are coming off a first round exit against the number one seed Chicago Bulls, a series in which was highly competitive including many contests decided in the final few minutes.
To their disposal, Indiana also has a large amount of cap space (pending on the new CBA agreements) in which to use potentially on free agency. It would seem most sensible that such cap space were used on the team's weakest position, power forward.
Instead of focusing on what Indiana should or should not do with that extra cap space, let's talk about a semi quandary the team currently has at small forward. You have long term team leader and high scorer Danny Granger. You also have high potential 2nd year wing, Paul George.
Now George played the 2-guard effectively, but he could be more effective at his natural Small Forward slot, or playing more off the ball.
Now onto the Sixers.
Philly spent the number 2 pick last season on Ohio State phenom Evan Turner. Turner is a nice slashing wing with a high basketball IQ who needs the ball in his hands to be most effective.
The Sixers though already have a highly paid talent performing those duties in Iggy.
By swapping Iggy for an off the ball wing, Turner could develop more with the ball in his hands and further show Sixers' brass why he was worth the 2 pick.
An Iggy for Granger swap would solve these issues and more. It would further let each team fully comprehend what high talented 2nd year players they really have. More so, it would give both teams a better idea of what route they should take.
This specific trade may not drastically alter the course of either team immediately, but both teams would need such a deal to take place before answering the old age NBA question: To rebuild or contend.
Usually teams find themselves in a fork in the road: do we consolidate our youth to make a push at contention? (See Boston in 2008) Or do we trade away our veteran assets in order to rebuild our unit completely (see Utah in 2010)?
Back in the 90s, if you saw a situation to improve your team, even if it was minimal, you made a swap to improve your current roster. For better or worse (being that teams now seem more willing to "tank" for several years like they used to in a rebuilding project) teams tend to have a 3 to 5 year plan down the road that impacts the trade they make today.
A long term plan in any deal is obviously a sound way of thinking. Some teams; however, are actually stuck in that middle ground and should consider making moves that at worst could better determine what state they'll be in several months (i.e. you make a trade to eventually determine whether you need to rebuild or can consolidate and for a title run etc).
Let's take the Indiana Pacers and Philadelphia 76ers as prime examples.
The Pacers and Sixers both were first round and out participants of the 2011 NBA Playoffs. The notion is that such a perennial state (not insisting that either is in that perennial state) of being a one and done playoff team (1st round exit) is the worst stage for an NBA franchise. You're not quite good enough to move up the competitive ladder of your conference and not poor enough to improve roster via high potential draft picks. It is kind of like an NBA state of purgatory.
Each franchise; however, does have the potential to leave this state and choose a direction. It may make more sense for both clubs though to more effectively determine if their current high potential prospect can really be a center piece for the future and while doing so whether rebuilding around that piece or building around him makes most sense.
Let's further explain starting with the Indiana Pacers.
The Pacers are coming off a first round exit against the number one seed Chicago Bulls, a series in which was highly competitive including many contests decided in the final few minutes.
To their disposal, Indiana also has a large amount of cap space (pending on the new CBA agreements) in which to use potentially on free agency. It would seem most sensible that such cap space were used on the team's weakest position, power forward.
Instead of focusing on what Indiana should or should not do with that extra cap space, let's talk about a semi quandary the team currently has at small forward. You have long term team leader and high scorer Danny Granger. You also have high potential 2nd year wing, Paul George.
Now George played the 2-guard effectively, but he could be more effective at his natural Small Forward slot, or playing more off the ball.
Now onto the Sixers.
Philly spent the number 2 pick last season on Ohio State phenom Evan Turner. Turner is a nice slashing wing with a high basketball IQ who needs the ball in his hands to be most effective.
The Sixers though already have a highly paid talent performing those duties in Iggy.
By swapping Iggy for an off the ball wing, Turner could develop more with the ball in his hands and further show Sixers' brass why he was worth the 2 pick.
An Iggy for Granger swap would solve these issues and more. It would further let each team fully comprehend what high talented 2nd year players they really have. More so, it would give both teams a better idea of what route they should take.
This specific trade may not drastically alter the course of either team immediately, but both teams would need such a deal to take place before answering the old age NBA question: To rebuild or contend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)