How long should a team wait...

[Andrew]

...before giving up on one "blueprint" and starting over with a new coach, trading away key players and perhaps making changes in the front office?

This came to mind when the issue of competing now and sacrificing the future or building up to competing down the road came up again in another thread. Assuming a team can build to the point where they're making Conference Finals appearances or at least getting out of the first round every year but never winning it all, how long should they stay the course before going for broke and making a major change to try and get over the hump? Should they just ride their stars until they ride into the sunset and the inevitable rebuilding phase officially begins? Could you really put a standard length of time on it, or is it simply a case-by-case matter?

On the other hand, you may have a team that's lurking in the basement and never seeming to get ahead. How much rope should general managers, coaches and players be given before it's decided that the current plan isn't going anywhere and it's time to blow up the roster, get a new coach and find someone new to call the shots when it comes to basketball operations? And again, what conditions could you place on that length of time and should some teams stick it out longer than others?

For a team that is winning but isn't getting over the proverbial hump, I think they have to be getting closer and closer to the goal each year and have come very close a couple of years running, say losing in six or seven in the Conference Finals. So long as there's that continued improvement, I'd say four or five years of progress and near-misses before pulling the trigger on a major change, either a new coach or one of the key players in the rotation. If no real progress is being made, perhaps only three years before making a change; not necessarily blowing the team up, but I think three years is about as long as an above average team should go without getting any closer to the ultimate goal.

For an unsuccesful team, I would again say four or five years, depending on the blunders being made. Obviously if the decisions were really poor or there was a real problem with a player or coach then changes might come quicker, but barring a situation like the Celtics' 2007 offseason, there's not going to be a turnaround in the space of one season. In the normal case, five seasons should be enough for a basement team to draft a couple of players and work some other magic in terms of trades and free agent signings. If there's no progress by that point, it's time for changes to be made. Not necessarily wholesale changes with the roster but perhaps a coaching change and certainly someone new in the front office with a different plan moving forward.

[hova-]

I guess it depends on how your team is built. If you have a real franchise player then you should just try to make moves which can take your team to the next level without giving up your go-to-guy. Good examples are the Spurs, Lakers and Mavs. Building around TD, Kobe and Dirk respectively without making a complete change into another direction. Just puzzling around with parts of the team which you can improve.

It worked for the Spurs (who have an enormous come-and-go although nobody really recognizes that) and the Lakers (the Gasol trade was maybe a bit more than just a role player deal but still they kept Kobe and Odom as well as Bynum and were not really willed to give away any of them). The Mavs could not win it all but still did not have a major break up after their two 1st round exits and imo looked quite good last season and will make another step this season (although you can never predict such things).

So breaking up the whole team and trying to rebuild makes sense for teams like the Grizzlies of 2006. Okay, they have been to the playoffs from 2004 to 2006 but had three first round exits (0-4 each series). They did not have a real go-to-guy for me. It just looked like Gasol could not be the leader of this team. It's simply his mind set. A hard worker and not a real scorer. So you have not franchise player to build around. Then it does not make sense to try to get the team to a better level by pulling of minor deals because in the NBA you simply need one guy who can carry your team, run isos and draw fouls.

[Andrew]

I should clarify, by major change I don't necessarily mean tossing in the towel, especially with a team that is successful. With a team like the Mavericks, trading Devin Harris for Jason Kidd was a major move even if other core players were retained.

[The X]

If we're looking at random rules that I've made up on the spot....

1. If you are paying luxury tax and not a legit title contender then new blueprint

If I put myself in an owner's shoes, I would not want to pay $1 tax for every $1 of player's salaries over the threshold. But if team is a contender or on cusp of being one, then that's when it's alright. The additional revenues from playoff games, TV, merchandise etc would help soften the blow. If you're not a legit chance for title, maybe cut some salary, try to re-tool for next challenge.

Example: If you are Boston, Cleveland, Lakers, Orlando, Spurs (& maybe Nuggets if you are a fan) then alright to be paying luxury tax whilst they still have a chance to win a title.

2. If you are over the salary cap and not a playoff team then new blueprint

Obviously some might be over the cap due to expiring contracts and that is the exception to this rule. If I'm an owner and I'm spending more than the cap, I want to be in the playoff hunt every year.

3. If you have been in the lottery for three straight seasons then new blueprint

Either new GM or new coach or both. Fans don't deserve to support losers year in & year out.

Examples: Charlotte (5 years), Minnesota (5 years), New York (5 years), Indiana (3 years), LA Clippers (3 years), Memphis (3 years), Milwaukee (3 years), Sacramento (3 years). I have excluded Oklahoma City as I'll consider them a new team for now with only 1 years service. I will however include Golden State (2 years) as that was their only playoff appearance in the last 15 years.


Those few will do for now. Please note I have use the word "blueprint" as Andrew had mentioned that. It more or less means a new direction, whether it be new GM, coach, new players, new cheer girls or whatever.

[Andrew]

new cheer girls

Worked for Boston.

I'd agree with those rules, though in the case of the Clippers they did oust Elgin Baylor last year so they've only had one year to make changes with new people running the basketball operations.

[Lamrock]

Not all teams have championship or bust mindsets. You can still make a lot of money and have a great legacy without winning a title. The Nuggets have very little chance of winning it all n ext year, despite coming off a WCF appearance, but I'm sure they would welcome another season like this last one with open arms. I doubt Suns fans saw their 2004-2007 run as a failure either. Not to mention teams like Atlanta, Toronto and Washington that are clearly built to just make the postseason, no more, no less,

In the case of second and third round exit teams, I think its best to keep it going until the team starts to decline, and maybe try to do a blockbuster to get over the hump like the 04 Pistons. Rebuilding sucks.Despite Minnesota stockpiling young talent and having nowhere to go but up, I would still rather be in the Hornets shoes, despite them going nowhere.

I agree with X's rules, except for the Warriors needing to rebuild. 2007-08 was a 48 win season, while last year was terrible luck. I fully expect Golden State to beat out Phoenix for Houston's vacant playoff spot.

[hova-]

Not all teams have championship or bust mindsets. You can still make a lot of money and have a great legacy without winning a title. The Nuggets have very little chance of winning it all n ext year, despite coming off a WCF appearance, but I'm sure they would welcome another season like this last one with open arms. I doubt Suns fans saw their 2004-2007 run as a failure either. Not to mention teams like Atlanta, Toronto and Washington that are clearly built to just make the postseason, no more, no less,

That's what I was talking about. Those teams have their core of go-to-guys and just need to deal some good players around them to make it deep into postseason. They do not need to rebuild.

[Hedonist]

I agree with Lamrock. Ultimately the championship is what all franchises want and should pursue, but it's not realistic to demand. I think it depends on how forgiving the fan base is, and the ambition of the management.

Also, loyalty to franchise players who have been huge but who are over the hill can delay rebuilding efforts.

[The X]

I agree with X's rules, except for the Warriors needing to rebuild. 2007-08 was a 48 win season, while last year was terrible luck. I fully expect Golden State to beat out Phoenix for Houston's vacant playoff spot.

You must remember that the Warriors have recently ditched Mullin as GM so they have already recently made a change of 'blueprints'. I was merely listing all teams who fell into relative categories. I would argue that making the playoffs twice in 15 years doesn't cut it.

[Andrew]

Not all teams have championship or bust mindsets. You can still make a lot of money and have a great legacy without winning a title. The Nuggets have very little chance of winning it all n ext year, despite coming off a WCF appearance, but I'm sure they would welcome another season like this last one with open arms. I doubt Suns fans saw their 2004-2007 run as a failure either. Not to mention teams like Atlanta, Toronto and Washington that are clearly built to just make the postseason, no more, no less,

True, though I think at some point it's the ultimate goal of all teams, or certainly their key players in most cases. I think the Nuggets would still have been disappointed with the way their 2009 season ended because they were close to at least making the Finals; just two wins and some late game heroics (or blunders, depending on how you want to look at it) from truly being in striking distance of the championship.