So where could they go? A Rebuilding Thread.

[Smills91]

Kenny Thomas


for

NBostjan Nachbar
Jeff McInnis

07 2nd rounder
just makes WAY too much sense NOT to happen

 

[SLAB]

Well, here ya go...Rebuild in three trades.

Ron Artest and Jason Hart to LA for Corey Maggete and Shaun Livingston.

We do it because: We get a point guard who has all the potential in the world, and has yet to realize it. We also get the hyper-athletic swingman who isn't going to have a potential meltdown.

LA does it: Because they become instant contenders. Cassell/Mobley/Artest/Brand/Kaman could be extremly tough in a series.

Mike Bibby to Boston for Theo Ratliff and Kendrick Perkins.

Why we do it: Drop Bibby, and in the process gain a huge ender in Ratliff, and potentially our PF of the future.

Boston does it: Because they want to win the east. Bibby/Pierce and a now dominate Jefferson could be the combo for winning that weak conference.

SAR and Vitaly Potopenko to Chicago for PJ Brown.

We do it: Because PJ is a big ender. Save money to sign free agents.

Chicago does it: Because PJ is not happy in Chicago. Also they need a low post presense...SAR solves the issue.

We look like this...

PG: Livingston/Douby/Price
SG: Martin/Salmons/Cisco
SF: Maggete/Salmons/Cisco
PF: Thomas/Perkins/Corliss
C: Miller/Brown/Ratliff


After the year we have these players coming off the books: Ratliff, Brown, and Corliss.

Also...

1: Look around the league for takers for Brad Miller and Kenny Thomas.

2: However, like it or not, we are probably stuck with K9 for awhile. He continues to start for us as Perkins is groomed into what everyone hopes he can be.

3: Hope to get a number 1 pick...Draft Oden, and we have a team that could dominate in years down the road.

Imagine having this team in 4 years.

PG: Livingston
SG: Martin
SF: Maggete
PF: Perkins
C: Oden

::: Drools :::

 

[Smills91]

Well, here ya go...Rebuild in three trades.

Ron Artest and Jason Hart to LA for Corey Maggete and Shaun Livingston.

We do it because: We get a point guard who has all the potential in the world, and has yet to realize it. We also get the hyper-athletic swingman who isn't going to have a potential meltdown.

LA does it: Because they become instant contenders. Cassell/Mobley/Artest/Brand/Kaman could be extremly tough in a series.

Mike Bibby to Boston for Theo Ratliff and Kendrick Perkins.

Why we do it: Drop Bibby, and in the process gain a huge ender in Ratliff, and potentially our PF of the future.

Boston does it: Because they want to win the east. Bibby/Pierce and a now dominate Jefferson could be the combo for winning that weak conference.

SAR and Vitaly Potopenko to Chicago for PJ Brown.

We do it: Because PJ is a big ender. Save money to sign free agents.

Chicago does it: Because PJ is not happy in Chicago. Also they need a low post presense...SAR solves the issue.

We look like this...

PG: Livingston/Douby/Price
SG: Martin/Salmons/Cisco
SF: Maggete/Salmons/Cisco
PF: Thomas/Perkins/Corliss
C: Miller/Brown/Ratliff


After the year we have these players coming off the books: Ratliff, Brown, and Corliss.

Also...

1: Look around the league for takers for Brad Miller and Kenny Thomas.

2: However, like it or not, we are probably stuck with K9 for awhile. He continues to start for us as Perkins is groomed into what everyone hopes he can be.

3: Hope to get a number 1 pick...Draft Oden, and we have a team that could dominate in years down the road.

Imagine having this team in 4 years.

PG: Livingston
SG: Martin
SF: Maggete
PF: Perkins
C: Oden

::: Drools :::

Trade 1 is semi realistic(iof we got the Minny pick I'd do it). Trades 2 and 3 absolutely suck. They look like trades for change just for the sake of change manuevers.

 

[SLAB]

Trade 1 is semi realistic(iof we got the Minny pick I'd do it). Trades 2 and 3 absolutely suck. They look like trades for change just for the sake of change manuevers.

It's not about trying to get better. It's about getting cap room, and getting that high pick in this draft...Those trades accomplish both those goals, and in the process could possible help us get better in the future.

If we are going to rebuild, we have to do it the right way, not this "rebuild on the fly, while the result is a mediocre .500 team" type of way.

 

[kingsfan101]

if petrie ever got serious about rebuilding, he'd probably dust off his copy of "Rebuilding Your Basketball Team - For Dummies: Volumes 1-3." in one of those volumes, i'm sure it says that, in a rebuilding process, you liquidate everything you've got in your starting lineup that is older than 28. one or two old savvy vets are valuable off the bench, but you trade all of your expensive crap away for enders. if you can get talented youth in return, that's great, but its unlikely. and you do this over the course of a couple of years, all the while putting yourself in a position to draft well so that you know what gaps to fill along the way. so, brick's pretty much on the money. its not really about what you can get back, its who's gonna take them?

I'm not a huge fan of cap space. Some cap space is good, but lot of cap space rarely gets you a young superstar. You either get a middle aged superstar, who, after couple of years of honeymoon, you are looking to trade, or you get a second tier star. You may get lucky and such a guy may play at a higher level than earlier in his career (Nash, Arenas), and it might look like a bargain, but that is often an exception.

Teams shall try their best to hold on to their superstars. If they do lose them (usually because the star wants out), they try to get something in return via sign and trade. Good cap space can get you decent second tier guys, but a superstar, around whom a championship level team can be built, shall usually be obtained via draft, or S&T.

One area where high cap space might be good is if you want to front load the contract (think Atlanta did it for JJ and Chicago for Ben). It lures the free agent, pays him high when he is actually playing well, gives you more financial flexibility in future, and makes it easier to move him as his production starts declining.