Is it more effective in today’s NBA era to build a homegrown team and keep the development continuity etc or is it better to team hop until you run the assets dry then move onto the next team?

Let’s say the teams Zion or Doncic are on can’t manage to develop a legit #2 on their squads. Maybe KP can’t play as a legit #2 next to Doncic or nobody develops on the Pelicans, just hypothetically. Is it in their better interest to stick it out and try to develop though the draft or is it better to team up with an already established star?

Theoretically if Jordan went to the Knicks in the early 90s with Ewing, he instantly would have had a better running mate, but ultimately the Knicks would’ve probably been good for 2-3 titles and not 6 like the Bulls achieved

I think it really comes from the fan base, when you have a once in a lifetime talent are the fans truly winners? If they’re not they can’t propel that talent and the people in the front office behind that talent to ultimately reach the next level, sadly...

theres no shortcuts to success. organic development always supersedes

LeBron is about to win his 4th ring by team hopping and collusion, KD sleep walked into 2 rings and could’ve been 3+ with health. Just saying it can potentially lead to some success

This post was edited by Giannis on Sep 19 2020 11:07am

yet not everyone holds lifetime achievement awards over resiliency and perseverance

Better to teamhop in terms of winning championships.


Obviously building a team from ground up is more impressive.

Strictly in the point of view of maximizing championship opportunities without weighing degrees of difficulty. Part of the argument for advocating team hopping is the heightened competition (players more athletic across the board, perhaps more superstar caliber players, etc)

championship context is all that really matters, which I thought The Last Dance illustrated refreshingly.


it's a team sport though and inevitably forces join, some just seem a lot more desperate.


stiffer competition is a stale angle that discredits the path paved. why do you think guys like Luka didnt even bat an eye at the hoopla surrounding his "feat surpassing kareem" in his 1st two playoff games.

Ai ww

It’s all a gamble. Too many variables.

Sixers tank for ten years, get picks, developed them and still lost.

GSW drafts Curry, Klay, and Green. Develops them. Adds some pieces and win 3 chips.

Lebron tries to win with the cavs for seven years. Realizes the organization is trash because they failed to get some real talent other than himself. Then orchestrates the big three in Miami and wins two chips.

Spurs draft Parker, Ginobili, Duncan. They win 4 chips together.

Generally, you want to build a team from the draft. In theory, that is the best way to get most championships. History has shown that smart organizations like the Spurs, Bulls (when they had Krause), and GSW build great teams from the draft and achieve great success. However, history has also shown that success is always achieved like the Sixers team.

Therefore, the most effective strategy for an organization is to build from the draft.

However, for a player, it depends on the situation and it doesn’t always work out. Lebron was never going to win with that garbage Cavs team. The best strategy for him was to become Le GM and get players to agree to play with him. For him, it wasn’t only team hopping.

Kevin Durant hops to GSW after getting a 3-1 lead on them in the conference finals. Then wins two chips.

LaMarcus Aldridge hops to the Spurs, wins zero chips.