I find some amusement in looking at each franchise as their own model. It's silly though as there are many common characteristics that championship teams all seem to share. The three biggest ones are that they have:
- great interior defenders who rebound like men
- one or two All-NBA Players (this means having 1 or 2 of the Top 15 NBA Players)
- having a very legit Go-To-Guy who also gets to the line all game long, especially in crunch time
I've looked at all the rosters of championship teams since 1980 till now. Those are the most common things you need. Do the work yourself, you'll see how true this is. Some other traits are: solid outside shooters, the ability to space the floor, a good coach (who can make refs change how they call games by working them), and one starter who is there for the team, and for team defensive purposes. Some teams are built quickly, some take a long time to gel. They are always led by All-Stars who have 'rep'.
How did the Boston Celtics do it last? Well, they moved a lot of youth, picks, and potential to cash in, in the 'now' to get players to support their best player (Paul Pierce). They were lucky that they were able to hold onto Kendrick Perkins (strong interior defender who meant they didn't have to double anyone in the post), and Rajon Rondo (team first defender who didn't take shots away from others). And, of course, they moved the parts they needed to bring back two First Ballot Hall of Fame players.
It was a high risk move that greatly changed the course of their franchise. They were in an "absolutely win now" mode, and they were actually legit contenders. They went to two NBA Finals in a row (what our Utah Jazz did at our peak), and they came away with one victory. Kudos to them.
We don't have any championships. We seem to favor the low risk, high stability moves of making small steps every year. Some would argue that we're on a "get lots of youth" kick. Well, the thing is that if you don't have a desire to actually a) wait that long, and b) play that youth -- there are a lot of teams who do want that. You can flip potential starts for legit stars in the now. It's happened before, it just means that the franchise needs to make up it's mind on what they want, and go all in. (Instead of doing two things with half an ass... we've gone over this before)
What do you think of this? Could the Jazz decide to go all in and move the youth, could we be contenders - but with a small window? Should the Jazz instead stay the course and be happy with 2-7 playoff wins a season? Should the Jazz try to develop the youth (btw, look at Enes Kanter and Derrick Favors mins in the last two game)?
The "Boston Model" is an alternative that we meet some of the qualifications for -- we have a lot of young talent and assets. We don't have a Top 15 guy to build around (like they did with Paul Pierce), though. Is this something that interests you?
The Boston Model is . . .
. . . something our GM should seriously consider (10 votes)
. . . something our GM should study and learn from, but not sign off on (58 votes)
. . . a legit model that we can't follow due to our talent level (30 votes)
. . . a legit model that our front office doesn't have the 'fortitude' to pull off (19 votes)
. . . a once in a life-time crapshoot -- akin to winning the lottery (77 votes)
. . . actually meaning you're 100% saying you are a contender and making the moves to contend. Which is wrong and immoral. Middle of the road is the way to go. I may or may not work for KFAN : ) (15 votes)
209 total votes