Give a big like to your post because it's well researched and supported. 
Now here's why I don't agree with you.
Let's grant you that a guy like Bam is the prototypical ideal center of today's ideal NBA team.
Thinking that everyone has to go copy Bam is thinking in a box. It doesn't take into account the variation of talents and it ignore the realities of actually winning and losing.
How many Bam's will you find that are as good as Bam in the same areas that Bam excels in?
Answer not many. Dallas for example played Maxi Kleber our best bam imitation as a mobile athletic center that can move in space, hit from the perimeter and defend in general.
Of course Maxi is not Bam. In fact most teams Bam lights are not going to be good enough to beat Bam at his own game. Thinking in the box, which you and Rick Carlisle do, is always trying to out-Bam Bam even if you don't have a Bam.
Now let's suppose you have a player today who is the newest incarnation of Shaquille O'Neal.
Are you going to try and use him like Bam Adebayo because of the way the game is played today?
Are you going to bench Shaq today and just give him token minutes?
Are you going to cut him as useless and just find the closest guy to Bam you can find even if he turns out to the the 20th best Bam like player in the league?
Are you going to sit Shaq out on the perimeter and make him an overgrown screen setter like most other centers?
I suggest that thinking out the box means you have to use Shaq differently today. He won't be able to dominate the game the way he did in his day BUT a Shaq is still an absurdly high % 2 point shot whenever you need it.
THAT still has value, especially at certain points in the game.
How about if you play your Bam and I play my Jokic, or my McGee/Dwight Howard combo because that's what I have in my hand.
Now here's why I don't agree with you.
Let's grant you that a guy like Bam is the prototypical ideal center of today's ideal NBA team.
Thinking that everyone has to go copy Bam is thinking in a box. It doesn't take into account the variation of talents and it ignore the realities of actually winning and losing.
How many Bam's will you find that are as good as Bam in the same areas that Bam excels in?
Answer not many. Dallas for example played Maxi Kleber our best bam imitation as a mobile athletic center that can move in space, hit from the perimeter and defend in general.
Of course Maxi is not Bam. In fact most teams Bam lights are not going to be good enough to beat Bam at his own game. Thinking in the box, which you and Rick Carlisle do, is always trying to out-Bam Bam even if you don't have a Bam.
Now let's suppose you have a player today who is the newest incarnation of Shaquille O'Neal.
Are you going to try and use him like Bam Adebayo because of the way the game is played today?
Are you going to bench Shaq today and just give him token minutes?
Are you going to cut him as useless and just find the closest guy to Bam you can find even if he turns out to the the 20th best Bam like player in the league?
Are you going to sit Shaq out on the perimeter and make him an overgrown screen setter like most other centers?
I suggest that thinking out the box means you have to use Shaq differently today. He won't be able to dominate the game the way he did in his day BUT a Shaq is still an absurdly high % 2 point shot whenever you need it.
THAT still has value, especially at certain points in the game.
How about if you play your Bam and I play my Jokic, or my McGee/Dwight Howard combo because that's what I have in my hand.