Rebuilding: Pulling out the old blueprints?

It's inevitable in professional team sports - players age, change teams and retire, leaving an impact on a team's win/loss record. When a once-successful team starts all over again by assembling a new roster, we call it rebuilding. All teams go through a period of building and rebuilding; some teams seem to be perpetually rebuilding without ever getting closer to the ultimate goal.

There are a few ways of rebuilding: the draft, trades, free agency. There are also different approaches to the rebuiling process - quick fixes, slow and painful, a constantly changing blueprint - but which is the most successful?

One option would be to look to the successful teams of the past and copy the teams that they have assembled. Would this be successful?

For example: What if the Bulls sought to rebuild according to their 1996 championship team?

What if they could get Kobe Bryant to be Michael Jordan? Imagine that he had a Scottie Pippen-like sidekick, say, Kevin Garnett or Shawn Marion. Perhaps even T-Mac could sacrifice some points and fulfil the role.

Now imagine that they could acquire Ben Wallace to fill in for Dennis Rodman. The Beast even brings more blocks and a different kind of hairstyle for fans to pay tribute to. While they're shopping for frontcourt players, they might want to consider picking up a solid big man who can play as well as Luc Longley - though it wouldn't hurt if he was better. Rasho Nesterovic might be a perfect fit.

Now, they need a reformed shooting guard to play the point, a capable scorer off the bench and a player who can come in at any time and provide them with a few points thanks to a deadly jumpshot.

How about Gilbert Arenas, Michael Redd and Wesley Person? Assuming they were willing to sacrifice for the good of the team, they should be able to fill the roles that Ron Harper, Toni Kukoc and Steve Kerr once occupied.

Round out the roster with guys like Samaki Walker, Aaron Williams, Andrew DeClercq and other role players, and you have a team that resembles a team that went 72-10 and won a championship in 1996.

Consider the examples of other championship teams. A dominant centre surrounded by role players and accompanied by a swingman sidekick (Hakeem's Rockets). A team comprised of brutal, physical players led by a talented backcourt duo (the Bad Boy Pistons). Other strong teams of their respective era (the Knicks of 1992 and 1993) might also provide an example of how to build a team that is capable of contending for a title.

Would it work? Would blueprints for success from yesterday work when today's players become part of the equation? I think it would be an interesting experiment. The way some teams struggle to recapture past glory, it's surely worth a try.

Your thoughts?

Well I guess it depends on what you're trying to emulate. You're never going to find perfect matches in terms players, but what you mentioned with Bryant, Garnett, Wallace, Nesterovic would be pretty close in terms of finding individuals who fit the mould of the players before them - in this case MJ, Pip, Rodman, Longley. But that's part of the problem, they're individuals, and as they might have similarities to the players of yesterday, they're also going to have a hundred differences. They may not mesh well.

I don't know if it would work trying to emulate individual players, but perhaps if teams stuck to "what a player should provide at which position" it could be done.
So you may look for a scoring SG, a do it all SF, and defensively and to a degree offensively capable role players to fill out the other starting roles.

But then your stars need to make the players around them significantly better than they really are. I guess the qualities you need go beyond things which could be measured or emulated... the example of the Bulls is a fairly special one. I don't think teams could implement is successfully. Even though good shooting guards are readily available, none could do what Jordan and the Bulls did in Chicago.

I think there might perhaps be a more "user friendly" blueprint for teams. I think the Bulls one was more of a one off. They had a supreme talent in Jordan, and then Pippen, and building aroud them worked with a unique system. They were also some of the best defenders of all time. Kobe, T-mac, Iverson, could not succeed in similar situations in my opinion.

I think a traditionall blueprint would work today better than ever, a team built around a dominant big man. Actually it's not that I think it, but that's what has worked the last few years. You can surround him with whatever you want, you need another all-star possibly, and some shooters, and you have team that can go deep into the playoffs.

I guess that's another reason why the Bulls situation was so weird. The other competitive teams during the Bulls dominance were built around dominant big guys at the 4 or 5 spot. Once Jordan left, Ewing and Hakeem were in the Finals, Tim Duncan and David Robinson got rings, and so did Shaq. Before Jordan there was Parish and Mchale, Abdul Jabbar, and Moses Malone. The Pistons might be the exception, though they had some above average big men.

I like that idea, its real good but its all about how you can mold a player into filling that role that you expect them to play. Many players want to be a star, im not going to say everyone b/c their are players like Brian Cardnal that like being role players but in the case of the Jordan one, getting that second guy to fill the Pippen role is what i think would be tough. I think a Tmac would be the guy that would be the Jordan not the Pippen.

The Bulls replica

Jordan - Kobe
Pippen - Ron Artest
Rodman - Jerome Williams, Ben or Jeff Foster??
Longely - Z or Nesterovic
Harper - Arenas or Crawford
Kukoc - Aaron Mckie
Kerr - Kyle Korver, Richie Frahm or Casey Jacobsen

and then the others

The concept is really nice and well thought of...but the biggest problem would be getting the guys to play as a team in this day and age. Sheesh, you're suggesting, Kobe+T-Mac+Garnett...lol, maybe a few years back, that would be possible, Kobe & Shaq were fighting about touches, everyone wants to be a superstar, nobody is willing to be the sidekick anymore, everyone wants to be a Micheal Jordan, who wants to be a Scottie Pippen? Mediocre players...which Scottie wasnt.

Anyways, nice concept. Best way to rebuild is either to get young players via draft, or the free agency.

Look at the lakers, Malone & Payton arent long time fixes (which sucks) they are only short time. I can only hope for the best in upcoming drafts...since they dont have money to go to the free agent section anyways.

I think it's quite normal for non-contenders to build their team to the likes of a (former) champion and see what they can achieve.
But honestly i dont believe there is an ideal formula for becoming a champion, it's all just a matter of having the right players, good chemistry, a smart coach and and a great never-give-up-spirit. The only thing i see necessary is that there has to be a superstar player on the team, and a second very good player, regardless of of position(though one of them has to be a good big man maybe). But just having a great SG doesnt get you anywhere, neither having a shaq, basketball is still a team sport and anything could happen .

yes now all the ppl wants to shoot more...if T-Mac had stayed in Toronto Raptors no doubt would have one of the best scoring guards in the league...that shows that people wants to be more like Mike and less like a teamplayer....

I"ll like to see a Rasho, Ben, Artest, Kobe, Penny Lineup
Seems like too many stars.. but Penny after his contract would be a mid lvl exception i believe.. Artest is definetly as capable as Scottie on the offensive/defensive end.. Kobe Prime.. Ben and Rasho would provide more shot blocking than Lonely and Rodman brought to da bulls...
Add people like Fred Hoiberg, a Shane Battier, Aaron Williams, Jeff Foster, Mike James..
I'll love to see this.. Penny could be more capable than ppl can imagine.. he is a decent shooter, great passer, very unselfish and fine defender right now post injury.. But he isn't nearly as fast and explosive as he used to be.. Artest and Penny could probally make up the scoring voids Kobe left..

Artest is definetly as capable as Scottie on the offensive/defensive end

No, not at all. How can you say that. Scottie's Top 50 All-Time, while Artest, just isn't there yet. He might be playing like an all-star this year, but to say he's as great as Pippen was, no way man.

Who would coach this team? Because the Bulls never started actually winning until Phil came in. Would they use the triangle, because the first year they used the triangle, they won their first championship (I think I'm right). Kobe Bryant is no Michael Jordan, yet. There is no other Michael Jordan. There is no Scottie Pippen. There is no Dennis Rodman...Rodman wasn't considered a superstar, while Ben Wallace is second in all-star voting(though who else are ya gonna pick?).

Does any team have the payroll to bring in Kobe Bryant, Ben Wallace, Kevin Garnett, Rasho Nesterovic, and Gilbert Arenas. This team is more talented than the Bulls. It's a better blueprint, but is it possible. The Lakers this year have a more talented starting lineup than the 72-10 Bulls, but unless they go on a huge winning streak, does anyone actually see them beating that record? I just don't see how it's possible attaining all these players, making them take paycuts (I imagine) and having them run the triangle. To make an actual copy of this team really isn't possible(obviousy) so there's no guarantee that this team could remotely attain the same success.

Sheesh, you're suggesting, Kobe+T-Mac+Garnett

T-Mac OR Garnett in the sidekick role. Having those three wouldn't be the same as the Bulls' formula.

But honestly i dont believe there is an ideal formula for becoming a champion, it's all just a matter of having the right players, good chemistry, a smart coach and and a great never-give-up-spirit.

That's true. But you still need an idea of what kind of roster you will assemble, and the kind of system you will implement.

Who would coach this team? Because the Bulls never started actually winning until Phil came in. Would they use the triangle, because the first year they used the triangle, they won their first championship (I think I'm right).

They won it the second year Phil was coaching, so it was the second year they were running the triangle. However, they did go seven games with the defending champion Pistons in Phil's first year as coach.

I didn't mention anything about the coach in my original post - I guess I should do that now. I think you would need a coach who can handle the egos, the internal bickering, and motivate his team. Phil Jackson is obviously the top candidate for this role. The system would have to depend on the players and the coach.

Does any team have the payroll to bring in Kobe Bryant, Ben Wallace, Kevin Garnett, Rasho Nesterovic, and Gilbert Arenas. This team is more talented than the Bulls. It's a better blueprint, but is it possible.

I agree, it's not a team that you could put together now that those guys have big contracts and are too valuable to give up without adequate compensation. But I was just taking examples of players who might be able to fill the same roles.

The blueprint assumes that these players can be acquired, through the draft, free agency or trades. For the sake of a hypothetical, it assumes the Bulls could acquire all of the necessary players. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have given examples of actual players, but rather examples of the roles the Bulls' 1996 championship team assigned: a high scoring shooting guard, a versatile do-it-all small forward, a couple of solid frontcourt players and a shooting guard playing the point.

I just don't see how it's possible attaining all these players, making them take paycuts (I imagine) and having them run the triangle.

It isn't possible. And it doesn't have to be. I'm just giving examples of players who might have been able to fill the same kind of roles, had things turned out differently.

To make an actual copy of this team really isn't possible(obviousy) so there's no guarantee that this team could remotely attain the same success.

That's most likely true for the Bulls example. But what about the formula that other teams have found success with, whether they've won titles or simply been annual contenders?

The Lakers this year have a more talented starting lineup than the 72-10 Bulls, but unless they go on a huge winning streak, does anyone actually see them beating that record?

Not now that they're 20-7 heading into the new year. They'll have to go 53-2 to beat 72-10. The Lakers are a great team, but that's highly unlikely. I'm predicting around 65 wins for the Lakers this year.

That's most likely true for the Bulls example. But what about the formula that other teams have found success with, whether they've won titles or simply been annual contenders?

I know, so I guess using the Bulls wasn't the best example in my mind, since I don't see how you can take anybody in this league, even guys like Kobe and T-Mac, and tell them that they are going to play the same role as Michael Jordan once did. And same when telling guys to play like Pippen and Wallace. Phil Jackson molded MJ into a different player in his second year coaching, but some guys just aren't capable at this moment. MJ changed his game to benefit his team because he could. He wasn't told to model a different player because Phil thought that would be better.

Kobe is the closest to MJ; T-Mac is pretty close to Pippen; Wallace is the closest to Rodman, but they and any other players aren't exactly the same as MJ, Pippen, and Rodman. They were one of a kind. I'm just trying to explain how the Bulls aren't the greatest example to use and are probably the toughest to come remotely clsoe to blueprinting.

Now lets take a team of today such as the Nuggets. Look at how successful they are today. Do you think it's because they have an above average distributing point guard(Miller), a veteran shooter(Lenard), a rising rookie(Anthony), etc. On paper, these guys are worse than the Suns, and about even with the Clippers. But its the way they play and the way they play together that makes them so good. They don't have the talent that some teams do, but they are playing better basketball than them. Not because of their formula. I really don't know why because I haven't seen them play much, but I know it's not because of their loads of talent, because they don't have loads of talent. They're playing like a playoff team right now, and could very well do the same in the future, but if you make a blueprint of them, this team could be at the bottom of the league.

Apologies Andrew, but still...McGrady didnt want to stick it in Toronto cuz it wasn't his team, so playing second fiddle to Kobe wouldnt work IMHO.

Same thing counts for vice-versa.

Now, Kobe playing along side Garnett? Sounds nice, but again...as is known to all, Kobe wishes to be "the man" on any team. Garnett is an extra ordinary athlete, put him on any team, and he will be a focal point of that team. Putting Kobe + Garnett together wouldnt work in my opinion, due to Kobe not getting (all) the attention.

Like I've said before, there will be no other Jordan...Kobe or anyone else for that matter, don't compare.

The blue print thing is a nice topic to work, but as you many many times have said, things that seem nice on paper, don't nessecarily mean that they will work out in real life.

The Bulls are doing just fine with the rebuilding...although they aren't using the blue print method.

Eddy Curry & Chandler will be a dominating force in the years to come. They are being polished right now, soon, they will shine.

The bulls used the long, hard way...through the draft, but all of it, will pay off.

I see your point. Copying former blueprints player for player may not yield the same results. But to take the idea in a slightly different direction, what if teams looked to the past for successful elements?

The success of the Chicago Bulls during the 90s is proof that you can build a championship team around a guard. The Bad Boy Pistons were led by an even smaller guard. The success of the Lakers in recent years is unquestionably the result of Shaq's presence. That's not to say Kobe sat around and watched, but Shaq truly is the team's MVP.

However, should Kobe or Shaq move on, whoever ends up with Kobe Bryant could still be a successful team. Surround him with teammates such as the ones MJ had, and it's possible Kobe can win a title or two without the Diesel.

Then you have other formulas. An inside-outside duo, like Elgin Baylor/Jerry West and Karl Malone/John Stockton. A bruising frontcourt, like the Knicks that featured Patrick Ewing, Charles Oakley, Anthony Mason and Xavier McDaniel. A physically and mentally tough team such as the Bad Boy Pistons.

If you assembled a team today with similar players, preached the same philosophy and implemented a good system, would it be successful? Some teams seem to struggle to rebuild; could ideas from the past, whether it's copying a blueprint player-for-player or simply borrowing an idea here and there, be the answer rebuilding teams are looking for?

The bulls used the long, hard way...through the draft, but all of it, will pay off.

i'm not trying to start a war or pick a fight...

it seems that you are suggesting that there was an alternative, quicker way to rebuild the team. what realistic route could the bulls have taken to rebuild quicker?

Quick, short period fixes as Andrew mentioned...free agency etc.

There are a few ways of rebuilding: the draft, trades, free agency. There are also different approaches to the rebuiling process - quick fixes, slow and painful, a constantly changing blueprint

Quick, short period fixes as Andrew mentioned...free agency etc.

There are a few ways of rebuilding: the draft, trades, free agency. There are also different approaches to the rebuiling process - quick fixes, slow and painful, a constantly changing blueprint

free agency...

krause tried that FA plan and it painfully backfired. duncan resigned, tmac and hill went to orlando. even players like tim thomas and eddie jones turned the bulls down. heck, players were using the bulls in their negotiations to get higher salaries from the teams they intended to sign with. bulls FA pickups: the best they could do was pickup leftovers- miller, mercer and erobbery (both busts)

what are these quick fixes/alternative, quicker rebuilding schemes you speak of? can you at least be more specific and mention what players the team could have realistically gone for?... please don't just cop out by saying 'they could have traded or picked up some fa's" or quote what andrew said