Team Situations and What GM's Should Do

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/02/07.

I was thinking of writing a post evaluating GM's and I came to the conclusion that I need a framework for evaluating a GM based upon the situation his team is in. The moves a GM should make for a contender are very different than the moves a GM should make for a team rebuilding. Here are what I think are the possible situations a team can be in, in order of desirability:

Contender
This is a team that thinks it has a chance to win it all. Normally to be considered in this situation, a team has to have been to at least the conference finals recently . Sometimes a team will consider themselves in this situation right after a major acquisition.

Teams currently in this situation
Spurs, Mavericks, Suns, Cavaliers, Pistons, Heat

What a GM should do
1. Keep your existing core
2. Add a starter or key reserve through FA or trade that can put you over the top
3. Trade picks as necessary for #2, but make your 1st round picks count when you do draft

Examples of Successful GM's for Contenders
'80's Lakers (Drafted AC Green and V Divac, traded for B Scott, M. Thompson, signed S Perkins)
'90's Bulls (Drafted Kukoc, acquired D Rodman, R Harper, L Longley, S Kerr)

Risks
1. The team never acquires enough talent to win it all. Example: Patrick Ewing's Knicks
2. The team makes a move that they hope will put them over the top, but it flops. Example: The Nets trading for Mutombo
3. Star player leaves or demands a trade. Examples: Nash leaves Dallas. Shaq and Artest demand trades

Young Competitor
This is a team with a young (mostly under 28) roster that has made the playoffs, but is not good enough to be a contender

Teams currently in this situation
Bulls, Raptors, Wizards, Magic, Rockets, Jazz, Warriors, Lakers, (on the bubble) Hornets

What a GM should do
1. Acquire through trade or FA an All-Star that makes the team a contender
2. Keep the salaries sane so that tradeable players aren't overpaid and/or the team can get under the cap to sign quality FA's
3. Keep the young players who are going to become something and get rid of young players who aren't
4. Don't sign veteran FA's to big contracts unless they are a #1 type player
5. Drafting provides some talent, but player development is the main source of improvement

Examples of Successful GM's for Young Competitors
Lakers of the mid-90's (signed O'Neal as a FA)
'03-'04 Heat (traded two promising young players for O'Neal)
'03-'04 Pistons (acquired R Wallace through mid-season trade)

Risks
1. All-Star caliber talent comes available only so often and there are many teams competing for it, so the team is likely to lose out
2. The team gets rid of a player who blossoms later. Example: T-Wolves letting Billups go as a FA
3. A major acquisition flops. Example: Suns trading Kidd for Marbury
4. The team never steps up to being a contender. Example: Jerry West's Grizzlies

Veteran Competitor
This is a team with an old (mostly over 27) roster that has made the playoffs, but is not good enough to be a contender

Teams currently in this situation
Nets, Nuggets, Pacers

What a GM should do
#1 Have your star player get injured, tank the season and then win the lottery when a franchise player is coming out
OR
#2 Trade your veterans for young talent and/or let their contracts expire and then rebuild

Examples of Successful GM's for Veteran Competitors
#1 - '96-'97 Spurs
#2 - '03-'04 Lakers, '00-'01 Heat

Risks
1. The major risk is that the team keeps trying to contend until its veterans lose all their trade value. Example '98-'03 Jazz
2. The #1 plan requires a huge amount of luck
3. The #2 plan requires salary planning, good drafting and (perhaps) good trades

Rebuild While Staying Near .500
Teams currently in this situation
None that I know

What a GM should do
1. Good trades and good drafts

Examples of Successful GM's for Rebuild While Staying Near .500's
'99-'04 Pistons (turned over starters with one losing season and that was 32-50)
'91-'94 Lakers (turned over most of roster in three seasons with a 33-49 the worst record)

Risks
I think all GM's of veteran teams dream of rebuilding it while keeping a decent record, but it rarely happens

Rebuild by Blowing Up the Team
This is a very bad team who hopes to keep what little talent it has while positioning itself to acquire top talent through the draft and/or free agency

Teams currently in this situation
Seattle, Memphis, Charlotte, (on the bubble) Atlanta

What a GM should do
1. Making the right draft pick is critical
2. Get rid of and don't acquire expensive veterans
3. Keep what young talent you have
4. Stay bad until the team has enough young talent to compete and then look to sign a top-notch FA

Examples of Successful GM's for Rebuild by Blowing Up the Team
'02-'03 Cavaliers (Drafted James, kept Ilgauskas and Gooden, signed Hughes and Marshall)
'82-'84 Rockets (Drafted Olajuwon, won 2 NBA titles eventually with him as their star)

Risks
1. You get a top pick in a weak draft year. Example: Bucks in 2005, Wizards in 2001
2. You get hosed in the draft lottery. Example: Memphis this year
3. You make the wrong choice with your big pick. Example: Wizards taking Brown over Gasol and Chandler
4. Your big FA signing is a flop. Examples: Bobby Simmons, Larry Hughes
5. Your team is so stripped of talent that it never builds up the talent to compete. Example: Post-Jordan Bulls

Young But Bad Team
Teams that are young, not good enough to make the playoffs but not bad enough to get a great pick to get them over the hump. Classic examples: '02-'06 Warriors, '01-'05 Clippers, '83-'99 Kings, '86-'01 Nets

Teams currently in this situation
(on the bubble) Atlanta

What a GM should do
1. Pray for luck in the lottery
2. Keep your young talent but don't overpay them
3. Trade some of your young talent for an All-Star that can turn your team around
4. Hire an excellent coach who can install a winning attitude

Examples of Successful GM's for Young But Bad Teams
The '01-'03 Nets went to the NBA Finals twice after years of mediocrity

Risks
1. Your players never learn to win so they always underperform. Example: Grizzlies before West became GM
2. After spending years developing a player you drafted, he leaves for a winning opportunity. Example: Clippers losing Odom
3. You have to financially commit to your young players without knowing if that can be successful on a winning team, so you overpay not very good players. Example: Mike Dunleavy

Failed Rebuild
The GM blew up the team, got a high pick, signed some FA's and the team peaks at barely making the playoffs. Now the team is locked into some big dollar long-term contracts and has to re-sign its high draft pick(s). It will take years to undue the damage of the failed rebuild.

Teams currently in this situation
Clippers, Bucks, (on the bubble) Hornets

What a GM should do
Quit. You had your big chance and you blew it

Examples of Successful GM's for Failed Rebuilds
By definition, these are unsuccessful GM's

Risks
1. The team is good enough that it isn't going to get any help in the draft
2. The team has a big enough payroll that all it can offer is the MLE and the good MLE FA's don't want to go there because the future isn't bright

Bad And Expensive
These team have payrolls well over the salary cap and possibly in the luxury tax, but have few wins to show for it. They have decent young talent which they are overpaying and which no other team wants because they are overpaid. It will take years to get out of this situation.

Teams currently in this situation
76ers, Trailblazers, Knicks

What a GM should do
Quit. You did an awful job and there isn't any reason to think you will do a better job in the future.

Examples of Successful GM's for Bad And Expensives
By definition, these are unsuccessful GM's

Risks
The biggest risk is that the owner won't fire the terrible GM

Old, Bad And Expensive
These team have payrolls well over the salary cap and possibly in the luxury tax, but have wins to show for it. Their roster is full of overpaid veterans that no team is interested in. It will take years to get out of this situation.

Teams currently in this situation
Minnesota, Sacramento

What a GM should do
Hari Kari comes to mind. The GM has done such a terrible job that the team's fans will be alienated for years.

Examples of Successful GM's for Bad And Expensives
By definition, these are unsuccessful GM's

Risks
The biggest risk is that the owner won't fire the terrible GM

Later I added:

angrypuppy wrote:
Sorry Dennis, but your team situation isn't a function of the age of the roster. That's like a naval task force by looking at the average gun bore or missle coverage that the smaller ships provide. It doesn't work that way. You look at overall offensive punch (typically airpower), which is why you organize a task force around a carrier. In the NBA, we have superstars who are like aircraft supercarriers. The rest of the task force (the team) is there to provide support and defense... that's why they are called role players. You don't build around the average age of the NBA role players, just as you don't build around the capabilities of the small ships in a naval task force.

That's why you have to profile teams differently.

So you are saying the Pacers are better off than the Bobcats because they have an All-Star and the Bobcats don't? That the Nets are in better shape than the Raptors because they have two All-Stars and the Raptors one? That the T-Wolves were better last year than the Warriors because they had an elite player and the Warriors didn't even have an All-Star? For the last three seasons, the Lakers and the T-Wolves have had an elite player and then a big step down to the next best player. Does that mean they have been in the same situation the last three seasons?

Take a few minutes and put together some kind of team ranking based upon the presence of aircraft supercarriers, battleships and cruisers. See how well it holds up to scrutiny.

The most important things in assessing a team are (1) are they winning now and (2) are they likely to be winning in the future. Superstars, All-Stars, etc are just means to an end.

And more:

angrypuppy wrote:
You look at a team on what it can deliver now, and what direction you can take it tomorrow. In both cases, you value franchise and potential franchise players first and foremost, both in terms of capability and age (naval metaphor: firepower and obsolescence). The support players are important, as a franchise player or two (or even three) is never enough. But they just serve a role, and they are not rare.

I think I do this. For example, I have the Nets as a Veteran Competitor because their two best players (Kidd and Carter) are 34 and 30. The rest of their starting 5 (Jefferson @ 25, Kristic @ 22, Collins @ 27) isn't that old. Yes, I didn't explicitly say this, but the post was long enough as it is.

angrypuppy wrote:
In your profile, you didn't weigh the age and capabilities of the franchise or possible franchise players much more heavily than you weigh the support pieces, and that's the first step you take to deciding what to do next. You instead are opting for an aggregate at best, or oversimplifying at worst. Using your methodology, most would have classified Boston as a Failed Rebuild, which whether you agree or not, is a potential application of what your model describes.

Actually, the Celtics at the end of the season didn't fit any category well. They were a bad team with a big payroll whose success depends on a 29 year old All-Star, but they had one of the youngest rosters in the NBA. Ainge was striving for a Rebuild While Staying Near .500, but failed miserably. I probably would have put them as Rebuild by Blowing Up the Team.

angrypuppy wrote:
But if you start with Paul Pierce, it gives you a real baseline decision as a GM... Do you get more franchise players, as Pierce is only one year older than Kobe, or do you trade Pierce and base the future on Jefferson, D. West, G. Green, etc.

I thought the trade for Ray Allen was terrible. I thought they would struggle to make the playoffs and it set back their rebuilding. I never would have guessed that McHale would take less for KG then he could have gotten on draft day. I thought Ainge should have traded Pierce on draft day.

angrypuppy wrote:
And you know, that's what the Lakers face as well. Let's hope they choose wisely.

I guess I disagree. The Lakers won 18 more games than the C's last season. The C's high potential player (Jefferson) had a break out season last season and the C's were still awful. Bynum is almost 3 years younger than Jefferson, so it is hard to say how good the team will be when he reaches his potential. With the roster the C's had at the end of the season, it was hard to see them making the playoffs in the foreseeable future. The Lakers managed to make the playoffs last year despite being ravaged by injuries.