11-13-2023, 07:08 PM
(11-13-2023, 06:22 PM)DanSchwartzgan Wrote: I'm enjoying this conversation. I do want to challenge the bolded statement. Being better this season is probably mostly the result of trading for Kyrie. It feels really good that they turned the #10 pick into two younger assets (and didn't trade it for some over-the-hill star). It feels good that our MLE level signing isn't some 30 year old. But, Kyrie is the biggest difference and he probably falls in the win-now category more than he does "playing for the future" catagory...no?
Not directed at you necessarily as many people throw these terms around, but could someone come up with a definition for terms like "true contender" and "Championship Caliber" and the like. Where do we need to finish to be a true contender? We got to the final four a few years ago and people then said "yeah, but...". Would final four this year with two stars be enough to warrant true contention. Do you have to make the NBA finals to make a win-now trade worthwhile? This kind of matters to these conversations IMHO. If one thinks we are a 9 seed and a good trade might get us to 6, that is far different than someone who thinks we are a 4/5 seed and a good trade might get us to 2.
I think we end up vying for 4th/5th seed as constructed. Making the West Finals would be dependent on matchup. So, similar to 21-22. If we made a trade (call it Grant) and it cost us 2027 unprotected, but that probably ensured a WCF appearance. Is that good enough to be "true"? What is the line where it is OK to give up a pick and an asset? What is the line where it is pick, but not one of the kids?
I agree the "contender" term is thrown around often and means something different to everyone. I think you probably have to win at least 50 games to be a contender. You need at least 7 proven rotation players as well. We might conceivably win 50 games this season. We might have 8 or 9 quality rotation players.
However, I believe there are two factors that make us very unlikely to win the championship this season:
1. Dereck Lively is only 19. It is really rare for rookies to succeed in the playoffs. Not only is he our starter but I'd argue he is already our third most indispensable player. I think it would be extraordinary for a team so reliant on a 19-year old rookie to win a championship.
2. Jason Kidd is a below-average coach. Things have gone well this season and a lot of his lineups are working. I accept that coaches can improve with experience just as players can. Even with some improvement though, he'll still be below-average. Our offense is successful because of the brilliance of our stars rather than coaching. Kidd really just seems like a spectator more than a coach. I think a coach like Spoelstra or Nick Nurse might be able to turn this roster into a contender this season. I don't think Kidd can. I would love to be wrong though.
I think we should let the season play out for a few months to at least see which of our young players are progressing. Is Jaden Hardy our 6th man of the future? Can Omax be a solid rotation player? Is Green the ideal role player we need starting next to Luka and Kyrie? How good can Lively be with experience? Time will answer these questions. Let's give this team some time.