Originally posted by sacniner:
Yes, the Lakers had to make a deal to get Howard. But, they at least had the oppurtunity to. The Kings for example, even if they had great owners, would never even have that oppurtunity in today's NBA. Also, the Howard trade was a no brainer where they came out ahead. Bynum is really good, but Howard is the bonafide best center in the NBA, not like it was a hard trade to do from the Lakers end.
The Kings lineup you mentioned can happen again, but like I said, it's just extremely hard to do. Not sure what the odds are for a team like the Kings to have that kind of lineup, but the entire time they have been in Sac they have only had one run like that. They came in 1985 so I'm not sure when we'll see that again. To the contrary, the Lakers or Knicks for example have a much easier road to get good. They can just get the best FAs and players with one year left. I swear I'm not b*tching, I'm just calling it like it is. That's reality. At least the Lakers have the oppurtunity to make these deals that are no brainers.
If you took an honest look at the rest of the teams in the NBA, with the ground up approach, I think we'll see that it doesn't work most of the time. It's just really hard to do and rare. This is why most fans of the "other teams" in the NBA get frustarated. I still love the NBA, but I think this is reality.
I see very few teams committing to a ground up approach. I see MANY more teams making moves in an overvalued market (Free Agency) and committing to mediocrity. For example, the Nash Era ends in Phoenix and what do they do? Throw $10M per year at Goran Dragic and try to sign Eric Gordon to a max deal. The Hornets...instead of being patient and using the appeal of Anthony Davis on his rookie contract + a ton of cap space to attract big time FAs, they give Ryan Anderson $9M and Eric Gordon a max deal. The Warriors...sign Lee to that ridiculous deal, then trade for Bogut & Jefferson & sign Landry & Jack. I could go on and on. These teams have committed to mediocrity. I've very curious to hear from you which teams have committed to a true ground up approach in your opinion, and have failed. The only team I can think of that fits that description is Portland, and that's because of terrible luck with injuries.
The Lakers got Howard because they had the best asset available on the market. Of course it was a no-brainer for them, but the only reason the other team said yes is because the Lakers had the most desirable trading piece. The part that I feel you're overlooking is that the Lakers had ZERO chance to acquire either Dwight Howard or Steve Nash via free agency. As a result, they had to give up assets in order to get them. The only reason that those is because they hit a home run on a draft pick several years before when they selected Andrew Bynum. The only reason Phoenix says yes to a deal to the Lakers is that they were willing to give up far more for him than anyone else would have.
You say that the Kings couldn't make this deal in the modern NBA, even with great ownership, and I'd say..."why not"? 14 years ago, a malcontented superstar was on the trade block, and you did exactly what the Lakers did...you put the best asset on the table (Mitch Richmond) and you were able to acquire him. He was a cocky kid from Michigan who had no interest in Sacramento, yet you were still able to keep him because he would have been crazy to leave that situation.
What's different now, sac? (aside from your ownership) Who are the teams in the NBA that have really tried to rebuild from the ground up, but it hasn't worked out? I'm someone who loves strategic games like chess, Warfish, and things of that nature, and IMO there are very few teams who know how to play the strategy game that is the composition of an NBA roster.