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.