NBA playoffs prove continuity is the best course

[biba]

PETERSEN: NBA playoffs prove continuity is the best course

Matt Petersen - Daily Herald | Posted: Saturday, May 12, 2012 12:15 am |


Nine years ago, the San Antonio Spurs were the No. 1 seed in the Western conference behind Tim Duncan and Tony Parker.
Nine years and several "they're declining" proclamations later, nothing has changed.
A look at the other teams that have advanced in this year's NBA playoffs likewise proves that while roster movement is fun to talk about, it doesn't help as much as stability.
Indiana kept last year's playoff group intact and improved. Ditto for Oklahoma City and Miami. Like the Spurs, Boston refuses to go away. Chicago would be in this conversation as well if it weren't for their fatal rash of injuries.
"Wait, you can't tell me winning in the NBA is like winning a blink-first contest!"
Actually, it's like that a lot. If the Rockets had blinked at any point, just once, with Hakeem from 1984-93, there would have been no back-to-back les in '94 and '95. If the Spurs cave to frustration during the Lakers' three-peat from 2000-02, there's no rings in 2003, 2005 and 2007. Had Dallas said "screw it" during three first-round exits in four years (2007-10), there would have been no 2011 miracle run.
Franchises that choose gambling over grooming usually regret it. When the Lakers landed Pau Gasol for nothing (Marc Gasol was nothing back then) in 2008, their chief contenders panicked.
Phoenix, despite having the best record in the conference at the time, traded Shawn Marion for Shaquille O'Neal. Dallas flipped Devin Harris for Jason Kidd just eight months after making the NBA Finals.
Two months later, the Suns and Mavericks both bowed out in the first round.
This isn't to say continuity is as simple as keeping the same people around as long as possible. The Spurs had Duncan. The Lakers had Kobe. Injuries (Sacramento and Chris Webber), bad luck (Phoenix and the playoffs) and malcontent (Utah and Deron Williams) happen.
Yet what keeps teams like the Spurs and Lakers perennially relevant (besides conspiracy theories) are two things: 1) riding star players as long as possible and 2) their for ude in role player spending.
Example: The Spurs kept Duncan despite three consecutive years of not making the NBA Finals, but when Nazr Mohammed's contract was up after a serviceable playoff run, the Spurs said "thanks, but we're keeping our money."
The reason? San Antonio knew there was no replacing Duncan, but they could easily replace a role player without paying through the nose for one.
The lesson? Don't spend big money on bit players.
The Thunder will learn that one way or another next year, when James Harden and Serge Ibaka are up for contract extensions. Harden seems a lock for big money, but how much will the Thunder (or another team) pony up for a rebounder, shot-blocker and unreliable post-up scorer?
The prediction here: too much.
It may seem a presumptive verdict, but it's the same one that has kept the Spurs contending longer than any team in NBA history other than the 1960s Celtics.
It couldn't hurt to take notes.

Matt Petersen can be reached at [email protected]. You can follow him on Twitter @TheMattPetersen.


Read more: http://www.heraldextra.com/sports/bl...#ixzz1umR8HZlp

[Jimcs50]

nice