Exactly one year ago today

[Rose'sACL]

why do you speak as if you know the actual truth, way to be arrogant

when youve been watching for decades and decades you know what fans like to see

if you can grab a good front office then good on you. if not you have to improve it. spurs were nothing before robinson got there. when i was younger they even threw money at artis gilmore and other overpaid players

fans look down on stars who win championships in part thanks to free agency and trades. its why kobe bryant and lebron james are not top 10

tim duncan isnt either and was just lucky the spurs tanked when the other twin tower was hurt or hed be another bob lanier with better defense

nothing you can say will change that

i know the actually truth. the truth that GMs have to do a very tough job. Spotting a good GM and signing him as a tough job in itself.
so if a team signs a good free agent or gets a good trade done then they have done as good of a job as teams who have built through the draft.
the fact that lebron, kobe and duncan are all in top 10s of nearly all greats as well as fans shows that watching decades of basketball doesn't make you more intelligent.

[Smoke117]

cavaliers are still a super team

so was boston and miami

if you need free agency and major trades to form your core then you are not building your team the right way

Uh...if you win...you've built your team the right way, genius.

[Stu Jackson]

i know the actually truth. the truth that GMs have to do a very tough job. Spotting a good GM and signing him as a tough job in itself.
so if a team signs a good free agent or gets a good trade done then they have done as good of a job as teams who have built through the draft.

going out and taking a ready made star is an admission of inadequacy

its not all on the stars --i have tmac ahead of kobe because he was better but unlucky-- but its on the stars and on ownership and gm

titles are won by teams and we as fans appreciate when they are home grown

[Stu Jackson]

Uh...if you win...you've built your team the right way, genius.

why dont you go out and poll casual fans 35 years or older from non major markets and see how they feel about that

a title means more if you earn it the right way

[Rose'sACL]

going out and taking a ready made star is an admission of inadequacy

its not all on the stars --i have tmac ahead of kobe because he was better but unlucky-- but its on the stars and on ownership and gm

titles are won by teams and we as fans appreciate when they are home grown

you are not getting an all time great later in the draft and if you do then it is because you have a good scouting department. if you got a high draft pick then it clearly says that you were inadequate the previous season.

you are the same type of people who say that a player leaving a bad team with bad front office/owner is not loyal but a team dumping a bad player is doing a good job.

[Naero]

fans look down on stars who win championships in part thanks to free agency and trades. its why kobe bryant and lebron james are not top 10

tim duncan isnt either and was just lucky the spurs tanked when the other twin tower was hurt or hed be another bob lanier with better defense

Why they supposedly aren't top-10 stems from fans' misconceptions that champions are such an influential part of a player's legacy.

I'm sure you've all heard the platitude that champions are team-won accolades that require collectivistic success; therefore, for better or worse, any logical assessor will take championships out of the vacuum when evaluating a player's INDIVIDUAL level of play.

Does it look illustrious on a player's resume that they were a (co-)leader for x amount of championships? Of course, but more paramount to that is the INDIVIDUAL impact that propelled their way, which should have its own discrete perspective but sadly is too oftentimes lumped with team-oriented success.

If you were a GM and wanted to enumerate a list of 10 players in their prime that you'd build a team around, are you telling me that Kobe, LeBron and Tim Duncan wouldn't crack your list just because of externalities, such as their front office's acumen, compared to other players who had lesser individual impact but won with a team that was built primarily through rebuilding?

Yes, they are "lucky" that they have had the teams and coaching staff in place to complement them en route to a championship; but that can only detract away from the titles they have earned, not their individual impact--the latter of which players should be judged on.

[Stu Jackson]

you are not getting a all time great later in the draft and if you do then it is because you have a good scouting department. if you got a high draft pick then it clearly says that you were inadequate the previous season.

you are the same type of people who say that a player leaving a bad team with bad front office/owner is not loyal but a team dumping a bad player is doing a good job.

you can trade assets for picks and fans will not mind it. it is only when you have a ready made star

leaving isnt bad if your situation is crap, as long as you are not going to a ready made team and it needs to develop

if you move and you have top players on the team already then that is anti competitive

[rmt]

getting good players in free agency and getting good players through trades is the best way to build a team.

in case you don't know, miami has won 4 titles by doing just this.

4?

I don't agree that that's the best way to build a team. IMO, the best way to build a team is through drafting - that way you get the benefit of 3 years of young, cheap labor - the way the Spurs or OKC is doing it.

[kennethgriffin]

should've been Tim Duncan

lol meanwhile kawhi leads the spurs in scoring while also being their top defender. making lebron sh*t himself when he checks in

[plowking]

fans dont view all championships as equal

bulls winning was bigger than philadelphia or boston or lakers winning then

golden state or dallas winning is bigger than miami or boston or lakers winning now

they are tainted since they are not organic

tanking is bad too which is why i hate the spurs too

This is a load of crap really.

Over the years people look back at all champions as champions. Even after every year, it is always a big deal as to who won.

Sure, some may be remembered for certain impressive feats that occurred in those finals, and looked upon more fondly and memorable, but no championship is worth more than the other.

Good job talking trash about the Heat too. At the end of the day, the Heat won with guys like Wade, Haslem, Chalmers, Joel Anthony, Norris Cole, James Jones, Mike Miller, etc. All guys who were drafted, live, or went to school in Miami. And even now we have guys like Bosh who look like they will settle in Miami and play out the rest of their careers in Miami.

How is that somehow different to Dallas who had Chandler, Marion, Kidd, Butler, Stojakovic, Stevenson, etc? Seems like Dallas was the team full of mercenaries, yet you make it sound as if Heat did it the wrong way. Why not just give the real reason, which is you disliked the team and that be the end of it?

[Rose'sACL]

4?

I don't agree that that's the best way to build a team. IMO, the best way to build a team is through drafting - that way you get the benefit of 3 years of young, cheap labor - the way the Spurs or OKC is doing it.

was on phone.
the best way is the way which gets you a title. there is no single right way to build a title winning team.

[I<3NBA]

was on phone.
the best way is the way which gets you a title. there is no single right way to build a title winning team.

this right here. fans of team who won don't care how the team was built. they only care they won. you're (Stu Jackson) just salty because your team hasn't won. if your team goes the big 3 route and then win, i'm sure you'll change your tune.

[ImKobe]

4?

I don't agree that that's the best way to build a team. IMO, the best way to build a team is through drafting - that way you get the benefit of 3 years of young, cheap labor - the way the Spurs or OKC is doing it.

It works for smaller markets like Spurs and OKC, because most of the time they aren't destinations for top free agents. LMA obviously joined them because Spurs already had a contending roster in place.

If you're a big market like Los Angeles or New York or Miami, Free Agency is the way to go. Obviously, there are a ton of other variables, such as health, team chemistry, coaching and obviously "luck". We've seen franchises like the Kings, Wolves, Sixers, Magic stay in the lottery year after year and they still are likely to be there next year as well...

Do they have promising talent? Sure, but it doesn't guarantee anything in the future because you have powerhouses like OKC, Spurs, Cavs, Warriors, Rockets, Clippers, who are going to be the ones contending for titles the next 3-4 years at least.

[KnittingRyu]

should've been Tim Duncan

Agreed.