As far as turning that corner, why take it so soon when you have the shot at adding another player that can be part of the core? I just don't understand the rationale at being willing to give up a solid chance at a significant player. It's like saying we draft Westbrook & Durant so let's give up the opportunity to draft Harden for veteran roleplayers. That is a mistake. If you have another shot at a player like that, YOU TAKE IT! You do not sell that opportunity for roleplayers. This is a stars league.
i suppose it depends on how you want to define a team's "core." is it necessarily three players who are all
high-level stars, a la durant/westbrook/harden or james/love/irving? the early-00's kings' "core" was built around a superstar in chris webber, a mid-level star in peja stojakovic, and a fringe star in mike bibby. and those three were surrounded by roleplayers of significant worth, including vlade divac and doug christie. that structure took them far. though it's absolutely a star's league, often it's the make-up of the remainder of a roster that turns out to be the deciding factor between who wins and loses in the nba. you have to build a
team...
for example, i'm certainly no warriors fan or apologist, but they were gutsy in turning down a trade for kevin love and rolling with their established core, which would go on to win a title and is currently working on their second. they have an mvp-level star in steph curry, two low-to-mid-level stars in klay thompson and draymond green, and a bunch of two-way roleplayers of significant worth, including andre iguodala and andrew bogut. trying to add a high-level (and defensively deficient) star like kevin love would have upset their balance considerably, and i think the warriors were right in passing on such a deal. meanwhile, the cavaliers are struggling to find balance between their three high-level stars, and they've struggled to locate chemistry or consistency for two straight seasons in an eastern conference that, while improved, lacks any distinctive contenders. the cavs of lebron's second stint with the franchise have yet to coalesce into a
team for more than a few weeks at a time...
we can also look to the philadelphia 76ers for wisdom on this subject. they're about to draft ben simmons, who has a chance to be a high-level star in this league, but they've spent the last few years collecting "assets" rather than building a
team, and judgment day is coming. what do they do now with all of these "significant players" they've drafted based on the wisdom of BPA, despite obvious issues like fit and balance? there simply aren't enough minutes to go around or complementary skills to properly balance a frontcourt of okafor/noel/embiid/saric/simmons. and if they trade one or more of these "assets," what are the sixers likely to get in return but roleplayers? whose trading them a star--or even a "potential star"--when the sixers are at a lack for leverage? sometimes there is greater value in recognizing when to trade down to justify picking a player that fits your team-building vision, or trading out of the draft altogether in pursuit of some veteran stability...
the thunder, for example, did well in drafting all three of durant, westbrook, and harden. and they may not have been wise to cut ties with james harden when they did and/or how they did, but now we're watching steven adams evolve into a significant and scrappy roleplayer for OKC, and they did manage to take down a well-oiled and machine-like 67-win spurs team, and also managed to claw their way through a tough 7-game series against a legendary 73-win warriors team. and though they ultimately lost the latter series, can we honestly say that they would have been better off with the notoriously me-first, oft-publicized defense-averse harden? i'm not so sure. it's tempting to think that harden could have stayed in his lane as a super sixth man, but it's also easy to believe that he would eventually have soured on such a role, given what we know about his attitude, and given the occasionally prickly demeanor of kevin durant and the headstrong nature of russell westbrook...
as for the timberwolves, about whom this argument was initially revolving around, i'd say they're in a great place precisely because of their flexibility this offseason. they've got a bright future ahead with karl-anthony towns and andrew wiggins, and they can add another talented young player through the draft who can grow with towns and wiggins, or they can trade that pick to bring in some complementary veteran talent that tom thibodeau will no doubt maximize in pursuit of a well-balanced roster. it's not a particularly strong draft, anyway. there will no doubt be some good players who come out of it, but if it's not vital for a rebuilding team to hit a home run in the draft because they've already got their #1 and #2 guys, then i see no reason why trading the pick for complementary pieces would be a bad idea. veteran leadership is so important to a team's growth. just look at the kings' failures on the leadership front across the last decade for proof...
more to the point, draft picks are often more valuable than the players they represent, and can yield a strong return in a trade for proven talent. draft picks represent
hope, after all, even though most of the players in a given lottery will never rise above that maligned "roleplayer" status. think of it this way: the 7th pick in the 2013 draft--weak though it may have been overall--is much more valuable
on draft day than ben mclemore is today. a lottery pick holds so much promise and potential
on draft day. hell, even ben mclemore holds so much promise and potential
on draft day. kings' brass and kings fans alike were bending over backwards to believe that mclemore might be the next ray allen. and what do we know today? mclemore will be lucky if he can remain a utility shooter in the nba...
if i'm minnesota, and i don't see a player that i
absolutely love when i'm on the clock, then i definitely consider tempting another team into
hoping that the answer to
their problems awaits at the 5th spot in the draft. let them convince themselves that "player x" is the second-coming of whoever while i pluck some useful contributors from their roster. if "player x" winds up a star, i may be bothered by it, but i've still got KAT and wiggins as my foundation, and hopefully i've put a strong supporting cast in place to get me to the playoffs sooner rather than later. rebuilds shouldn't be rushed, but again, the kings serve as a good example of what can go wrong when a rebuild never truly gets off the ground because of poor drafting, lack of attention to roster balance, and a lack of veteran leadership...
