OT - Will the Pistons make the NBA finals this decade?
What are everybody's thoughts on the current debacle that is the Detroit Pistons? In a way this team reminds me of the 2001 Pistons (veterans on the team that can possibly be replaced by younger players).
The only difference (and reason why I feel they won't make a run) is that it's a completely different Eastern Conference. Back in the early 2000s, the only legitimate threat in the East were the NJ Nets. Indiana occassionally reared its head. Both teams were relatively vulnerable.
We will see after this off-season but if the big 3 (Lebron, Wade, Bosh) get added to legitimate rosters in the East, it'll be tough to get past them.
Orlando has already established themselves as the guardians of the Eastern Conference for the next couple of years.
Thoughts?
No, you're right. The east is loaded now. Of course, Boston only has 1 or maybe two more years with their nucleus of Pierce and Garnett in position to threaten. Orlando will be very good for a while, as long as they have Dwight and Nelson. Plus, whichever team winds up with Lebron (especially if its the Knicks with another superstar like Bosh or Amare) will be one of the immediate favorites also.
Maybe
It's sad that I read "Pistons" in the title and wondered what you are talking about.
But as you (and others) mentioned, the East is not the little kid it was back in the early 2000s. Things move in cycles, though, so I could see Detroit getting back to relevance with a few nice drafts and FA signings. Oh, and a little luck.
I'd feel better placing money on the Lions winning a championship this decade than on the Pistons.
that in the NBA, all you essentially have to do is be at .500 or above to make the playoffs, I certainly hope so. If the Pistons don't crack .500 for TEN YEARS then I will be extremely surprised and depressed.
But the question isn't whether they will crack .500 and make the playoffs. It is whether they can win 3 series against teams like Orlando, Boston, Cleveland, etc and make it to the finals
Critical readings skills -- I am a master of those.
I just don't see us with anywhere near the core of players we need to make the Finals. Perhaps if we really, really suck for a couple years, get some nice lottery picks and then resurface in 7-8 years, that's how I see it happening.
We're talking about a decade here. Before Boston got their big three, they were a pretty bad team; now they are a perennial contender. I haven't agreed with much of what he's done the last couple of years, but I will never underestimate Joe Dumars. He did build an NBA champion from scratch, so he certainly has to be given at least a "puncher's chance" to do it again.
A lot of it depends on how the FA's turn out. There will be a lot of movement in the league; it's not like NBA players are known for their loyalties to their teams or for staying in one place very long. Can they do it next year? No. But it's a long time until 2020, and I won't bet against Joe getting the job done again.
After all, Joe Dumars has been directly involved in every NBA Championship the Pistons have won. To me, that counts for something.
Though I don't agree with his signings Gordon/Villanueva signings. It seemed like they were moves just for the sake of making moves. But, at the time I also didn't like trading Grant Hill and Stackhouse away, so what do I know.
The franchise has been on a steady and slow decline. Dumars mistake has been refusing to acknowledge the reality that the team needs to be blown up. He has added role player types here and there but has failed to replace the Billups/Wallace franchise cornerstones or even provide any significant young talent (Stuckey and Maxiell haven't really helped the team win many games). The last half decade has been a total failure on his part to improve the team or transition to its next shot at contention.
Objectively speaking, the Pistons roster is one of the worst positions in the NBA. There are no franchise players to build around and there are a number of really bad contracts (Hamilton, Villanueva, Gordon). The hope for the Pistons lies in trading some of these contracts (and Prince) for some young assets and draftpicks. There aren't even many glimmers of hope on the roster (Bynum? Daye? Jerebko?).
Boston is getting old-I don't think they'll be in the top 2-3 in a few years. LeBron could be leaving Cleveland, but he'll still be in the Eastern Conference. Whatever team he's on will be good. Orlando will be good for the forseeable future. Atlanta is pretty young. It's possible that they can make it, but if they do it'll be a totally different Pistons team.
They have way to many bad contracts given to mediocre(at best) players. Charlie V, Ben Gordon, Rip,Tay, Stuckey,Maxiell are all overpaid for what they provide. A few good trades and luck in the draft lottery would expedite the process, but as I see it now, no.
They will
Ask me again after Tuesday night...
Just like in Baseball (excluding Yankees and BoSox) if you have players making much more than the value they provide to the team, you are going to have tough sledding. 10 years is a long time, but in the next 5-6 years, I just do not see it as a real possibility at all. BTW - does anyone else just not care for the NBA anymore? I am 31 and remember being a kid and thinking the NBA was as great as any other sport I enjoyed, but now it is pretty much dead last.
dead last for me too. It was definitly in my top two (redwings/pistons) for watching in the early mid 2000's. After the two Finals runs the Pistons really turned me off due to their sense of entitlement in the playoffs. And the NBA playoffs just seem so predictable. At least the first couple rounds. Not to mention the worship of the superstar is just ridiculous in the NBA.
unless Joe D. can hire another great coach and avoid picks like Darko.
You do know that EVERYONE thought the Darko pick was the rigth move at the time, right? Hindsight is 20/20, but at the time it was the best pick.
It's hard to judge his pick because he basically had to make it. Don's point still stands, though. It would be in Dumars' best interest to avoid flops like Darko. That is a given. Also, on the coach, I think this guy could be pretty solid. His name escapes me, but I think we should give him a chance. I think getting rid of Flip was a rash call by Dumars, but he's not doing much with Washington now so it may have been the right call.
I was one of the ones that thought Darko was a good pick and had many arguments about it (as Melo blew up his freshman year). Darko had the stroke of a young Dirk and the natural shot blocking ability of a young Marcus Camby when he was 17. The problem is he had never done anything in Europe or dominated any kind of basketball before. I firmly believe that with his talent if Darko had been developed properly he would have become a star instead of the human victory torch he became on the Pistons. They should have let him develop for a few more years in Europe (there was no NBDL at the time) before bringing over or hired the right developmental personnel. Clearly Dumars didn't know anything about developing young (and he was 17 when he came over) talent or wasn't aware that Larry Brown has no patience for talented players who "don't play the right way" or jump shooting big man. Don't draft a 17 year old on championship worthy team with the number 2 pick if you aren't going to give him some PT and surround him with the right people.
This was the first of Dumar's many bad moves.
I can agree with this. Developing a player is NOT the same as drafting a player. This criticism is legit.
I would disagree that Darko had the shooting stroke of a young Dirk, if he did, he NEVER EVER showed it. How the hell do you hide a great shooting stroke for ever. A classic case of drafting potential, alas it didn't work out.
Another case of drafting potential, since Jameer Nelson has been mentioned in this thread, is the case of Sebastian Telfair getting drafted 13th overall by Portland in 2004, while Nelson slipped to 20th, was drafted by Denver and traded to Orlando. Nelson was a far superior player to Telfair in 2004 and has remained so to this day, but.... Telfair supposedly had more potential.
Telfair/Darko had much higher ceilings (the potential to be great) than Nelson (came in more polished, but without the top-end savoriness). So it goes to the teams drafting. If a team is drafting in the lottery, they are looking at more than a 1-2 year turnaround, so they can draft the "project" and hope he pans out. Obviously the Pistons got the #2 pick through a trade, so it was a luxury. Teams that can use a solid player off the bench will typically take someone who can contribute sooner, but may not have the potential to be a superstar player.
Yes, I know this, which accounts for Orlando drafting Dwight Howard first overall in 2004. However, Telfair, c'mon how much upside is there to a 6' guard who can't shoot?
As far as Darko goes, yeah I agreed with picking Darko at the time, but Dumars over hyped Darko to make him sound like a can't miss. The little bit of film available on Darko didn't show anything, coupled with the fact, he hardly played on his Euro team, made Darko an unknown. I have often wondered where in the hell are all the skills Darko presumably possessed.
Darko, Kwame Brown, Patrick O'Bryant, Mouhamed Sene, you can go through many a potentially great big man before you stumble onto a Dwight Howard
Darko was said to be the next absolute CAN'T-MISS prospect from Europe. It was written up and down about his abilities. And Detroit needed a big that they could develop and work into the rotation. It just didn't work out, but the "Joe D blew it with Darko, I can't believe he didn't take Melo" meme is 100% inaccurate and so damn tired.
Just not for the reasons you are thinking. As I said above, Dumars stuck Darko a coach who had no interest in developing him and Dumars and Brown insisted that he play on the block when he was too weak and his skill set was that of a Dirk, Detlief, or Kukoc. He was a great prospect but if they and done their scouting and their research they would have realized they weren't getting exactly what they were expecting and/or they needed to have a development stategy for him. I think Darko would have become Joakim Noah with a jump shot if properly developed but since they clearly failed in developing him you wonder why the Pistons didn't trade down for Bosh or Kaman if they wanted a big man.
Given the quality of teams in the East, it would be hard.
Worse, given the economic reality of the league, and the Detroit market in particular, it will be impossible. I anticipate that large market or profitable franchises (Lakers, Boston, NY, Chicago, maybe a few others) are going to be able to clean up with free agents. This is because they have the money to pay for them, and because many FA want to play in a large market, with the attached night life, amenities and fringe benefits, opportunities for local advertising dollars, etc. I just don't see many players clamoring to go to Nashville, or Oklahoma, or Detroit, or Cleveland, etc. So the strong and rich get stronger and richer, and the rest suffer.
The only way this will change is with adjustments to revenue sharing and ways the commissioner's office rigs things to favor smaller markets. The problem is that TV wants finals matchups with large market teams.
Clearly you haven't read Larry Coon's salary cap FAQ. The system is structured such that Big Market teams have no salary cap advantage over Small Market teams when it comes to free agents. They all have to operate under the same salary cap. Every wonder why the Knicks haven't signed a big time free agent in the last 15 years? Because they've never bothered to get under the salary cap enough to sign a major free agent until this year. Now once you have a player you can go over the salary cap to resign him and that's whey some teams have huge payrolls. Cleveland has one of the highest payrolls this year because they can afford to with Lebron James packing the house every night.
All the small market teams that struggle to bring in money is usually due to poor product on the court. And your assertion that TV wants big markets to make it to the finals is partially false. The Houston-New York series in 94' had terrible ratings compared to the series with Jordan because New York was a slow boring team to watch and Houston wasn't much more exiting. If Phoenix and Cleveland make the finals this year you can bet that will be an exiting series with big ratings.
I can go on all day because my unhealthy obsession with basketball surpasses even my blindly optimistic faith in Michigan Football.
Stucky can't defend well enough to win a 'ship as the starting PG. They have no one in the post. It would take an unbelievable streak of luck to get two franchise guys at PG and PF/C in the lottery and I don't see a top-flight free agent coming to Detroit. I also don't think Dumars would manage the salary cap well enough to surround said franchise players with good roleplayers/"glue guys". The Pistons are going to start missing John Hammond soon, if they aren't already.
Too many variables to have even a remote idea. There are prospects who are just entering high school that could have an effect on this question.....not to mention the FA pool this year is the most talented in history and could shift the balance of power wherever they decide to go. I'd have to guess no but that's just based on a recent lack of success more than anything.
only a quarter of the teams have won a championship in the last 25 years? I don't feel like looking it up, but a given team has a crap chance of winning the Finals, even over a decade. It's the opposite approach to baseball, basically. Everybody gets to make the playoffs, but only the best teams actually win the Finals. At least Dumars has shown he has the know-how to craft a championship-caliber club without having a megastar dropped in his lap.
By my count, since 1984, seven teams have won it: Lakers (7), Bulls (6), Spurs (4), Celtics (3), Pistons (3), Rockets (2), Heat (1)
If you extend back to 1979, it's still just eight teams (add the 76ers) in 30 years.
That said, it's not like any team, aside from the 90s Bulls, has been dominant for more than a few years. The Lakers' seven championships were with three unique sets of players (aside from Kobe). I think the small number of franchises that have won is attributable to coincidence more than anything.
The bigger roadblock to another 'ship this decade will be the absolute anchors of contracts that Gordon and Villanueva signed last year.
it's the nature of a game featuring 5 players logging the vast majority of the playing time. overall dominance can indeed be matched to dominant players. since resources are about the same, the difference is usually one or two players.
Its hard to argue with the view that the '04 Pistons were an outlier from the superstar-lead teams that win nearly any other season. Billups and Sheed were arguably pretty elite players at their position and they were surrounded by excellent role players and a loaded bench that provided a perfect complement to and change of pace from the starters.
Theres 2 ways of looking at this. 1. What Dumars did was amazing. 2. Dumars got really lucky.
Personally, I think both are true. Dumars built an excellent team but he was a little fortunate along the way since no one, not even he, expected Billups and B.Wallace to be as good as they were, and Prince and Sheed kind of fell in his lap. At the time, the east was kind of weak, and the Lakers really were having chemistry issues that doomed them in the finals.
This shouldn't take away from his accomplishments. I bring it up only to say that its perhaps what Dumars did in the early 2000's can not be repeated. If Dumars is trying to win a title with another balanced team of 5 above average starters and no true stars, its unlikely to work again.
argument that one of the only reasons the Pistons beat the Lakers was because the Lakers had chemistry issues. Then how come San Antonio and everyone else in the West that year couldn't stop the Lakers?
What's that? Ah -- Playoffs? Don't talk about -- playoffs?! You kidding me?! Playoffs?
The Pistons did make the NBA finals this decade. 2001 was the first year of the new millenium, century, and decade.
As for 2011-2020, I firmly believe that every NBA team is about one player away from having a great chance to make a run, so maybe.
but by your logic George Bush was elected during the 1990's. Interesting. . .
So I'm going to say yes. There aren't dynasties anymore. Teams that are on top now will fall back into the pack, leaving opportunity for others to step up. I think the Pistons can be one of those teams.
Obviously, there's a lot of rebuilding to be done. And change of ownership and possibly management coming. More 1st rounders than not are going to need to turn into solid players - any that turn into superstars would be huge. 2nd rounders that contribute are a bonus. Trades and free agent signings will need to be more like the early part of the 00s than lately. And if the pieces can be assembled, will there be a championship caliber coach to put it all together?
Seems like a long shot looking at the state of the team now, but they're my team, and I remain hopeful.
I think its possible. All you need to make is a couple big moves to be a contender, just look at the Boston Celtics. These next couple drafts and what we do in free agency will go a long way to shape up how we do this decade.
... is a good lottery pick, the bulls went from nothing to a playoff team. not a great team but we are one player away from being possible title contenders, if the pistons hit gold in the lottery they will be back sooner than later.
Saving all that Iverson-Wallace money for this off-season seems like the way to go. Couldn't have been much worse than they were anyway. Take a high draft pic (Wall? Big Man?), add it to Hamilton and Stuckey (off the bench, behind Wall, preferably), and your pitch James or one of the other big time free agents. Couldn't be any worse striking out there than they are now.