The Right Franchise Model to Follow

[QC Thundercats]

Everyone keeps saying how we need to copy the Thunder model of building a franchise, as they were built from the ground up into a budding dynasty. But the thing is, there was extreme luck and fortune involved, which is something that we can’t necessarily count on in our equation to build up the franchise.

They basically hit a walk-off, game 7, World Series winning Grand Slam in Durant, a 3-run homer in Westbrook, and a 2-run homer in both Harden and Ibaka, to go along with all their other brilliant moves. The Thunder were basically on a 3-4 year hot streak, where every selection they made turned into a cornerstone.

But we’re the Bobcats, we don’t get lucky. We hope to get Anthony Davis, but we actually have a higher percentage chance to get the 4th pick than to land the 1st pick. The more realistic, and just as brilliant model for building a franchise is the one currently dismantling the star-studded (or I guess now semi-studded) Heat, the Indiana Pacers. Their core of guys all were either drafted in the double figures, traded for bit players, or signed to modest free agent deals. They didn’t require hitting the lottery or getting a super free agent signing. They just continued to build their team over 4-5 years, and now they are a deep, tough, young team who is already a 3rd seed, and could only continue improving as they gain experience.

Check out how they acquired their pieces:
2005, 17th pick – Danny Granger
2008, 17th pick – Roy Hibbert
2009, 13th pick – Tyler Hansbrough
2009, 52nd pick – AJ Price
2009, signed 4 year, 11M contract for Dahntay Jones
2010, 10th pick – Paul George
2010, traded for Darren Collison (Troy Murphy)
2011, 15th pick traded for George Hill
2011, signed 2 year, $20M contract for David West
2011, traded for Louis Amundson (Brandon Rush)
2012, 2nd round pick traded for Leandro Barbosa

I mean, I’m staring at this list in awe, at the sheer genius of Larry Bird. He nailed two 17th picks, a 13th, a 10th, got better value for a 15th, got incredible value for a 2nd round pick, drafted a rotational player in a late 2nd round pick, acquired a young talent while dropping an overpriced salary, and signed an all star to a modest 2 year deal. This roster has 3 All-Stars in Granger, Hibbert, and West, a potential one in Paul George, a 6th man of the year winner in Barbosa, a deep, young, and talented PG rotation in Hill, Collison, and Price, and balls out hustle players in Hansbrough (who has potential as a future starter), Amundson, and Jones.

On the other hand, we’ve had a 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 13th in the same draft, 7th, 8th, and two 9ths, and our roster comprises zero All-Stars, and no one showing the potential to get there in the near future.

Now if you were starting a franchise today, which series of draft picks would you take to fill out your roster? Seeing how Indiana was able to build a 3 seed with all mid round picks and low value trade assets, shouldn’t we study exactly how they accomplished this, especially as a fellow mid major market that doesn’t have super star appeal? This model takes luck out of the equation, as it doesn’t depend on a once in a generation superstar to take us to the promised land.

I think Cho does have the vision and analytical basketball mind to evaluate the kind of players that fit the same mold. Here's hoping we can shortcut the process with a lottery winning pick or two like the Thunder, but with the fallback of continuing to build like the Pacers if that doesn't happen.

[ohara831]

If we can have the success of either OKC or Indiana, then I will be happy. Cho is the man who can get it done. MJ just has to listen to him.

[dnbman]

While they have done well, they have also been very fortunate in taking changes on guys like Granger and Hibbert, both projected to be high picks until scaring teams off on draft day for whatever reason.

I like what they've done, but I can't really get behind them as an organization. They had a lot of missteps over the last several years before putting this group together. I don't really think they are model to follow so much as an example how you can be successful if a LOT of things fall into place for you, which is certainly encouraging.

OKC is an example of organization making the conscious attempt to burn and raze and rebuilding with youth, acquiring veterans only after a core of young talent is assembled. That's what we need to do.

[SWedd523]

not a bad idea, but keep in mind that "Pacers Model" is just about as rare.

While it's unlikely to pick a really good player with a to 3-5 pick, it's even more rare to get three guys who can play with double-digit picks. Only about half of the players picked in the lottery each year end up being starters so you can imagine how uncommon it is that you get talent that late in the draft. A lot of their success has to do with Hibbert, who if taken in a redraft, probably goes top 3, and West, who is probably getting paid more (per year) than he warrants.

Let's not also forget that this Pacers team has been incredibly lucky these playoffs. Their biggest strength is their bigs and they play Orlando without Dwight in the first round (leaving Davis and Anderson) and are now playing the Heat without Bosh (leaving.... Turiaf? Anthony? Pittman? and LeBron playing out of position)


I don't really think there's a certain "model" to be followed. However, it's a pretty common belief that the best first step for a (re)building franchise is to shed old players and big salaries and aim for some young talent. Where you go from there is totally determinant on what happens along the way. We need to remember we just hit square 1 this year and are at the very beginning of our process. Does it really matter where we pick? If we get Davis #1 and then trade for a pick and get another really good player with the #17, which model are we following?

[dnbman]

I don't really think there's a certain "model" to be followed. However, it's a pretty common belief that the best first step for a (re)building franchise is to shed old players and big salaries and aim for some young talent. Where you go from there is totally determinant on what happens along the way. We need to remember we just hit square 1 this year and are at the very beginning of our process. Does it really matter where we pick? If we get Davis #1 and then trade for a pick and get another really good player with the #17, which model are we following?

This. The other point I was going to make is that we've basically already committed to the "reset button" model. I like the thinking in that we don't have to draft a Durant type player to be successful, though.

[QC Thundercats]

Let me clarify real quick. I'm not saying that there is one specific model we have to follow, and nothing else. What you do is look at successfully built teams, especially smaller market ones, and see what they did to build it up.

Look at what the thunder and pacers did, but also the Spurs, Grizzlies, Sixers. The spurs were basically the model the thunder followed, in grabbing a superstar and smartly building a team around him. The others don't have any real super talents, but how each of the teams identified the right mix of players is the reason they are successful now.

Every article or discussion I read pointed to the Thunder way of doing it, which involved drafting a once in a generation player. My point was that even if we can never land a superstar caliber talent, there still is a way to build up a great team, ala the Pacers. Outside of their draft, they got Collison, Hill, and Barbosa for a 15th pick, future 2nd, and Troy Murphy. All teams have such modest assets, but they were able to capitalize on it to get good pieces.

I know there is extreme luck involved in the drafting process, no matter where you pick. But there is a way to evaluate players outside the top 10, seeing if their particular skillset will actually translate in the league. The Spurs, outside of Duncan, never had a lottery pick to maintain their championship caliber team. But they, out of all NBA teams, saw something in Tony Parker to grab him at 28. They hit the reverse lottery in Ginobili at the 57th pick, but again, they identified his skillset and mentality as one that would fit in on the team, and got lucky he turned into a multiple all star.

Even outside those two, they've identified and drafted talent like Luis Scola (55th), Goran Dragic (45th), Dejuan Blair (37th), Barbosa (28th), Tiago Splitter (28th), Beno Udrih (28th), Ian Mahinmi (28th), George Hill (26th), And John Salmons (26th). Now they didn't keep all of them, but they identified the talent and drafted or traded them for pieces. Luck would be getting one or two right, but 11 players from the 26th pick to the 2nd round? They have a method and an incredible eye for talent.

The Grizzlies were an absolute mess, but now they are one of the toughest teams in the league through patient building and putting the right puzzle pieces together. I can't go through all rosters and their transactions, but there is a difference between these teams, and those that stay spinning their wheels in the mud like the Warriors, Raptors, wizards, nets (even with Deron), bucks, and unfortunately us.

[stun704]

Pacers are a treadmill team and have no true superstar(None of their current core was a top 3 pick); we need to avoid their situation at all cost.(The Hawks could have similar success this year if they didn't match up with the Celtics) they will never win a championship with current core, the only reason they are beating the Heat is because Bosh is Injured and Hibbert is about a foot taller then any other player on the Heat roster. if the bulls were healthy the Pacers def wouldn't sniff the finals

[dnbman]

The point can't be stated enough that we can't rely on drafting another Durant. If we become successful, it will likely look more like how Indiana did than OKC.

However, Indiana was a painfully mediocre team for a while that escaped mediocrity through a lot of luck. It would be nice to match San Antonio's ability to draft, but they are by far and away the best drafting team of the last 10 years. Expecting to draft like SA is akin to expecting another Durant: it would be great if it happens, but don't count on it.

I do like how Indiana exchanged relatively comparable pieces for ones that worked better together. That is definitely something we need to emulate starting soon.

[stun704]

The point can't be stated enough that we can't rely on drafting another Durant. If we become successful, it will likely look more like how Indiana did than OKC.

However, Indiana was a painfully mediocre team for a while that escaped mediocrity through a lot of luck. It would be nice to match San Antonio's ability to draft, but they are by far and away the best drafting team of the last 10 years. Expecting to draft like SA is akin to expecting another Durant: it would be great if it happens, but don't count on it.

I do like how Indiana exchanged relatively comparable pieces for ones that worked better together. That is definitely something we need to emulate starting soon.
IMO The Pacers are still mediocre, they're just blessed that they're playing in a shortned season when most of the top dogs have been Injured, I seriously doubt they make it out of the first round if Dwight was motivated and healthy

[dnbman]

IMO The Pacers are still mediocre, they're just blessed that they're playing in a shortned season when most of the top dogs have been Injured, I seriously doubt they make it out of the first round if Dwight was motivated and healthy

That's probably true, but I see what QC is saying: they've made themselves a lot better with smart choices rather than relying on landing a top-5 player.

That being said, only four teams (MI, CHI, OKC, and SA) won more games this season than Indiana. I don't think they're a legit championship contender, but that's better than mediocre, even in a shortened season.

[Mustachio]

This. The other point I was going to make is that we've basically already committed to the "reset button" model. I like the thinking in that we don't have to draft a Durant type player to be successful, though.


Agreed. 1. I think the Pacers are just a product of a mediocre Eastern conference. They don't stand a chance to make it past the conference finals. (granted we should be so lucky, but I still think we should aim higher)

I understand but dislike the thought of emulating another team. I don't want to get someone else's coach and someone elses system. I think we should blaze our own trail, and have teams in 2014 saying, damn lets use the Charlotte rebuild method. It goes back to what I think is the underlying problem with this team. A complete and total lack of genuine confidence.

[superb1]

I like some of the moves the Pacers have made but I think it is a long time coming. OKC benefited from lotto luck and drew the Durants, Westbrooks and Hardens. We need to draft like SA and make moves like OKC. Pray that we can be lucky in the lotto. IND luck came at others bad luck. Like others said, I see them more different than ATL and PHI. A healthy Boston will bring them back to earth.

[Potato]

Weren't we like 2 picks away from Hibbert? Fmlll.

[ziggy]

Weren't we like 2 picks away from Hibbert? Fmlll.

Missed out on Roy and wound up with THIS :facepalm:

http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w301/bobcatsplanet/ajinca-4.jpg

[superb1]

but I think he was a nice consolation prize, right.

[teej]

I don't think you guys are giving enough credit to Frank Vogel and what he's done. Remember Jim O'Brien had a very similar roster and couldn't make the playoffs. Hibbert has become a beast for Vogel, and West, Hill and Barbosa, while important, aren't so key as to cause the difference between O'Brien failing and Vogel succeeding on this level.

Also, for those calling Indy mediocre, they played Chicago extremely tough last year in the playoffs, and at the rate the Celtics are going, I think the Pacers are going to make the Finals.

[Toocool]

Don't underrate the Pacers.
Will give the Heat huge trouble, and Hibbert has become a beast, took him a while but every year you could see the gradual improvement.
Granger is a great scorer, got energy guys like T. Hans and Amundson on the bench, and signed West who can pour on the points on any given day.
They have a very solid team.

[polarcat]

I think we were kinda like the Pacers with our previous model, but were the norm (mediocre picks, dissapointing picks, a couple of gems) rather than their exception (jackpot on several picks in the teens, no top-5 picks, won the upside of trades). Granted, we had albatross contracts since about year 3, but we've missed out on our three top-5 picks. I watch Indiana and am happy that their roster is not my favorite team's roster. I like their results, but I agree with the thought that the OKC model is as likely to occur as the Indiana model.

[QC Thundercats]

I seems people think these are the same old mediocre Pacers that have been around since the Bobcats started up, and don't realize the extent of the changes they've made the past couple seasons. They picked up West, George, Hill, Collison, and Barbosa since the beginning of last season. While these names won't blow anybody away, that's 5 starter quality players that have made that team incredible deep without any major weaknesses.

Combine that with the continued improvement of Hibbert's game, George's sudden late growth spurt of a couple inches, Granger becoming more well rounded - this is a very good team, with room still to improve.


Pacers are a treadmill team and have no true superstar(None of their current core was a top 3 pick); we need to avoid their situation at all cost.(The Hawks could have similar success this year if they didn't match up with the Celtics) they will never win a championship with current core, the only reason they are beating the Heat is because Bosh is Injured and Hibbert is about a foot taller then any other player on the Heat roster. if the bulls were healthy the Pacers def wouldn't sniff the finals

See, the Hawks are more the definition of a treadmill team. They peaked 3 years ago, and have been the exact same every year since. They are not going to get better, and are trapped under Joe Johnson's contract. Indiana has gone from a winning percentage of .390, to .451, to .636. Must be a hell of an incline treadmill to improve at that rate then.

And I don't understand how we need to avoid the Pacer's situation at all costs. So we should avoid drafting well if we have a late pick, not make trades that bring in a good young player for basically nothing, and not sign free agents to contracts that won't cripple your salary cap for years on end? I'd say thats exactly what we need to do, instead of what the Bobcats have been doing, and then just hope that we also can draft a star in the mean time so we can become better than what the Pacers did. But to say we should avoid what they are doing makes no logical sense to me.


Agreed. 1. I think the Pacers are just a product of a mediocre Eastern conference. They don't stand a chance to make it past the conference finals. (granted we should be so lucky, but I still think we should aim higher)

I understand but dislike the thought of emulating another team. I don't want to get someone else's coach and someone elses system. I think we should blaze our own trail, and have teams in 2014 saying, damn lets use the Charlotte rebuild method. It goes back to what I think is the underlying problem with this team. A complete and total lack of genuine confidence.

Here's the thing - 30 teams are aiming to become championship contenders. The problem is only one team per year can do that. So in the mean time, shouldn't we want to build a competitive team that fights and claws, and a team we all can get behind and be proud of? For those of us that loved the old Hornets - they never got out of the second round, but damn didn't we love watching that team. All the great moments during the season, the hope we had with each iteration of the team. I know ultimately it is about winning championships, but are we not still able to enjoy a competitive team with personalities we love, even if we haven't quite made it there yet?

I have a good friend who is a Pacers fanatic, and this is the best season he's had since the Reggie Miller years. He loves all the players on the team and their blue collar, hard working, team oriented style of basketball. I'd love to be experiencing the same highs he has with my own team, especially with a good shot to not only make the conference finals, but even the finals as well. Sign me up for that ride.


I think we were kinda like the Pacers with our previous model, but were the norm (mediocre picks, dissapointing picks, a couple of gems) rather than their exception (jackpot on several picks in the teens, no top-5 picks, won the upside of trades). Granted, we had albatross contracts since about year 3, but we've missed out on our three top-5 picks. I watch Indiana and am happy that their roster is not my favorite team's roster. I like their results, but I agree with the thought that the OKC model is as likely to occur as the Indiana model.

I'm almost sounding like a Pacers homer now, but I guess I hold them in a much higher regard than many people here. I don't think we were that similar to the Pacers because we blew our salary space on some terrible signings and made dumb trades, and didn't get equal value in many (most) of our transactions. The Pacers avoided this. I think Indiana did have some luck in being able to draft the players they did, but sometimes you can create your own luck with proper preparation. The Thunder had "gods-shining-down-on-you-luck", while the Pacers more or less took advantage of their situation, and were prepared when there was an opportunity for good fortune. Thats why I've been arguing that they have built their roster in a more realistic manner with smart management.

Good and bad breaks happen every year, the teams that are ready will advance, if not, they will fail. And because of their great preparation, they in fact were able to take advantage of other teams' misfortunes.

Last point - even if you're still not impressed with their roster as comprised, they have amassed such depth and assets to become better two ways. First, they've created a very competitive team, where a star free agent who's looking to win might decide that the Pacers situation is best to accomplish that. Or two, they have enough pieces to make an extremely strong trade offer to take on such a star player, like the Clippers were able to do to get Chris Paul, or how the Knicks could get Melo. You have enough quality, a team will bite, especially if they are forced to trade a star or lose them for nothing.

[JGib23]

I agree 100% with QC Thundercats.

Larry Bird has done an incredible job building that team. They have a great mix of veterans and young guys, their salary cap situation is great with only 34 million committed to next season with Hill and Hibbert being RFA's.

I haven't really appreciated Frank Vogel until the playoffs, it seems every time they have the camera in the huddle, he is giving the team so great pointers and telling them to focus on specific elements of the game....

Everyone wants to follow the Thunder Blueprint and that's great if you can luck into a once in a generation talent and add 3 all star caliber players beside him with 4 straight awesome drafts but, that's tough to emulate. What Indiana has done has been equally ( if not more impressive) considering the talent they have accumulated and the spots they were drafted.

[spectre]

It all boils down to drafting smart and using space wisely. Both those teams did it and it panned out. Since we've never done either of those things just fixing that will put us onto the correct model.

[EvetsMorrison15]

Let me clarify real quick. I'm not saying that there is one specific model we have
to follow, and nothing else. What you do is look at successfully built teams, especially smaller market ones, and see what they did to build it up.

Look at what the thunder and pacers did, but also the Spurs, Grizzlies, Sixers. The spurs were basically the model the thunder followed, in grabbing a superstar and smartly building a team around him. The others don't have any real super talents, but how each of the teams identified the right mix of players is the reason they are successful now.

Every article or discussion I read pointed to the Thunder way of doing it, which involved drafting a once in a generation player. My point was that even if we can never land a superstar caliber talent, there still is a way to build up a great team, ala the Pacers. Outside of their draft, they got Collison, Hill, and Barbosa for a 15th pick, future 2nd, and Troy Murphy. All teams have such modest assets, but they were able to capitalize on it to get good pieces.

I know there is extreme luck involved in the drafting process, no matter where you pick. But there is a way to evaluate players outside the top 10, seeing if their particular skillset will actually translate in the league. The Spurs, outside of Duncan, never had a lottery pick to maintain their championship caliber team. But they, out of all NBA teams, saw something in Tony Parker to grab him at 28. They hit the reverse lottery in Ginobili at the 57th pick, but again, they identified his skillset and mentality as one that would fit in on the team, and got lucky he turned into a multiple all star.

Even outside those two, they've identified and drafted talent like Luis Scola (55th), Goran Dragic (45th), Dejuan Blair (37th), Barbosa (28th), Tiago Splitter (28th), Beno Udrih (28th), Ian Mahinmi (28th), George Hill (26th), And John Salmons (26th). Now they didn't keep all of them, but they identified the talent and drafted or traded them for pieces. Luck would be getting one or two right, but 11 players from the 26th pick to the 2nd round? They have a method and an incredible eye for talent.

The Grizzlies were an absolute mess, but now they are one of the toughest teams in the league through patient building and putting the right puzzle pieces together. I can't go through all rosters and their transactions, but there is a difference between these teams, and those that stay spinning their wheels in the mud like the Warriors, Raptors, wizards, nets (even with Deron), bucks, and unfortunately us.

I hear ya. The Pacers have a mold that every team should adapt to. Everyone wants "The Best" instead of finding "The Best Winning Combination".

What players forget is that it was their team that helped them play so well and not their own individual talent. Shannon Brown, JR Smith, Tyson Chandler, etc all left good teams to be notable somewhere else. But what they don't realize that it was the make-up of the team that made them look like a million bucks and not just their own talent. But don't get me wrong, they have great talent. That's why they were drafted and why they were so affective on the teams they were on. But they want more than the identity of a role player but that only feeds their Ego.

Every player wants to play for a certain team until they get bored and want to play somewhere else because they like the teams color scheme. Scottie Pippen, Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing all stuck with their team through and through until it was time to leave at the tail end of their careers. I'm not being a stuck up traditionalist. I'm 25 and am all about changing with the times. But with every player leaving and bailing on teams just to make an extra buck is bullshit. You will never find instant success within two or three years. You work for it. You learn longevity and build a strong mindset. But instead you have players wasting their careers by being immature and not making smart decisions.

OKC, IND, SA, MEM aren't going to have to deal with that with their players. Sure a lot of the players on those teams will be traded or let go in the next few years, but they won't have to worry about Durant, Granger, Hibbert, and Gay giving them Free Agent drama. They know their team is doing good because of the make-up of their team and will do anything and everything to keep their core intact. Plus they are already the stars of their team and not role players. Not all of them are Top-5, but even Durant won't bail on OKC. He's too smart of a player and person to ruin that great thing the organization put together as well as the reaction from the people of OKC.

Duncan, Parker, and Ginobli are examples of that. They all know how great this team is and how they can still box with the other teams in the NBA over the past 10 years. 10 years!!! The Spurs have always been there. 54 wins was the lowest total wins over the last ten years.

You want players who want to get better, who want to stick around and transcend their talents every year as well as the teams win total and the distance they make in the Playoffs. Not Carmelo's, CP3's, Dwight's, LeBron's, and Deron Williams who bail when times get tough for their team and want to partner up with other Stars so they can have off-nights. It sells tickets, jerseys, and gets national TV into your city but only creates drama not Rings. That should be the ultimate goal shouldn't it?