Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:The bottom line +85% of all NBA champions drafted their core players

Im not going to list everyone going back but for example

Pippen Jordan Grant
Isiah Thomas Joe Dumare Bill Laimber
Hakeem
Kobe
Tim Duncan Parker Ginobli
Magic Johnson James Worthy etc
Larry Bird Kevin Mchale Robert Parrish

Go look back--its not even a debate. The draft is the most important process in building your team proven without a doubt

That type of quality is no longer available in the draft. None of those teams you mentioned have been assembled in the past decade. This is a thing of the past. If we were in the 90s I would agree with you, but not today.

What decade do you think Lebron and Wade were drafted in?!

They were drafted 10 years ago. So last decade. And to the previous point, Miami only drafted 1/3 of their championship core. You have to go back to the 80s with all of those (basically 3 decades) with the exception of Parker and ginobili who joined the team in the early 2000s.

Right, they were not drafted in the 90s. Wade (drafted) led the Heat to their earlier title too, and I wouldn't call him just 1/3 of their core.
One thing I find odd though is that "traditional rebuilding" is often equated with "building through the draft"
I view traditional rebuilding as getting young players and patiently waiting for the team to blossom, but they don't have to be drafted. I think Houston is rebuilding with Harden even though they didn't draft him.

if you sell low and buy just past prime or at the peak, you have assets devaluing.

Simple logic. There are times to go all in, but there are times to be cool.

VCoug wrote:Let's just look at the 8 teams that made it to the 2nd round this season. No argument that neither us nor Miami were built through free agency and trades, though Miami isn't what they are today if they don't draft Wade, but take a look at the other teams. OKC was obviously built through the draft; Chicago was built through the draft with Rose, Noah, and Deng; Indy drafted their two best players, Paul George and Roy Hibbert, and another draftee, Granger, will be back next season; and Golden State was built through the draft with Curry, Barnes, and Thompson. That only leaves Memphis and even they weren't built by trading and signing for established players. Conley was drafted, Marc Gasol was traded for but he wasn't established at all and the team got ripped for that, and they got Randolph in a trade for Quentin Richardson which should show how little value he had.

No question building thru the draft can get you a long ways. Many good teams in the league have drafted their own players over the last 10 years. But the ones winning the championships did not, with the exception of San Antonio. So if you are looking to get to the second round like us, than yes building thru the draft properly can get you there if done properly, but as of right now it has yet to prove to win a title. OKC might be able to change that in the near future, but again, if it wasn't for the luck of landing the 2nd pick instead of the first, they would not have Durant and the model for how to build thru the draft that is the OKC Thunder would not exist. OKC was just as lucky as they were skilled at building what they have. The rest of the teams who have built thru the draft are all "up and coming teams" who have yet to pan out.

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

knickscity wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:It seems like every team in the top 5 isn't happy and wants to trade out. Only problem is they likely won't because no one wants to give fair value in trade. In this draft you are better off having multiple mid to late first round picks then a top 5 pick because either way you are likely getting a role player. Charlotte has been in rough shape each season and this one it doesn't really matter that they were lucky again and landed number 4. I really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some of the top 10 picks. But as far as rebuilding thru the draft, between hoping for a draft that consists of franchise talent, to being lucky enough to win a top pick, to making sure you actually get that pick right, then to do it all again and get that process flawless the next season, it's no wonder there are so many teams still trying to get it right. Who knows when or if Charlotte, Detroit, Sacramento, Phoenix, Orlando, Washington, Milwaukee etc will ever get it right. Glad we aren't rebuilding and stuck in that game of luck.

not sure how what you posted backs up what the title of the thread says..

OKC
Indy
GSW
Houston
Atlanta
Spurs
Miami

All of these teams are/were built through the draft, so how is the draft proving to be a difficult way to build a team..

if anything, trying to buy, starphuch, and free agent your way to winning has proved futile over the years...

I really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some of the top 10 picks. But as far as rebuilding thru the draft, between hoping for a draft that consists of franchise talent, to being lucky enough to win a top pick, to making sure you actually get that pick right, then to do it all again and get that process flawless the next season,

I want you to look at what you wrote.. You see when you can't check homerism at the door, it just makes having a logical discussion impossible..

You said you really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some top 10 picks.. well of course that can happen with any team.. you can get lucky, it has happened, but you will need very good scouting.. when have the knicks ever done that? we don't have a history of that..

then you go on to basically say that teams picking high, have to make sure they get the pick right, if not go through it again.. well lets be fair, if you think the knicks will get it right at 24, then you must assume that the teams picking in the lottery will apply the same logic and get it right, and since they have higher picks, will most likely take the best talent..

what you basically said, and I will sum it up is..

Because we are the knicks, I feel we will get a stud at 24

lottery teams most likely will screw up and draft a dud and have to repeat the process over and over again..

LOL.. really man? really? well maybe not, maybe 7 of lottery teams get it right, maybe they all do.. who knows.. but what we do know are teams are taking a different approach, and teams are getting better, quick... to assume that the sixers, kings, wolves, raptors, cavs,wizards, suns,portland.. all who have done very well in the draft the past few years will just muck this one up, and the knicks will land a stud at 24 is just a bit ridiculous.....

Anthony davis, kidd gilchrist, bradley beal, dion waiters,Thomas Robinson, Damian lillard,harrison barnes, Terrance ross, Andre drummond..

from the looks of it, most of those teams have gotten some fantastic playes.. Lillard, waiters, beal, gilchrist,davis, ross, barnes, all seem to be more than solid picks and I can tell you, 4 to 5 of those guys will be allstars very soon... another draft like that, and those teams will be shooting up the rankings...

YES YOU CAN BUILD THROUGH THE DRAFT.. that with a combination of smart FA signings.. Not starphucs...and you will have a good team.. see the pacers!!

Of all the teams you just mentioned only spurs and heat have won a title, and only spurs have won it centered around their own picks. The rest of the teams are only hopefuls at this point. But thank you for supporting my point with your examples. Okc is the example of when everything in a rebuild goes right in a 3 year period, and even with them their is no guarantee. This draft is an example of why hopeful rebuilding teams will have to fast forward thru yet another year of tanking so they get another try. That is what I was pointing out.

Also know one said we pick a stud at 24 and all lotto teams get it wrong, sorry you interpreted it that way.

All of those player you mentioned could be good, however it's unknown if they can be core players or franchise players to help a championship team. Yes the pacers are good, one of the few examples of a team that is successful in rebuilding, although no guarantee they win it all.

OKC been to the finals, Atlanta has been consistently good, and the other teams are on the rise.. that is the point.. the knicks trying the way they have been has resulted in nothing but heartache and dissappointment...

Are you happy with what happened this year? honestly..

How is the Knicks way heartache and disappointment when the other team you're praising havent even gotten that far?

Denver has yet to get out of the first, as Houston and they made it mainly due to Harden acquisition which was a trade.

The issue is there is no proven way OKC is the exception not the norm, and there is no guarantee they make it back.

Give it up, there's no sense trying to talk sense to someone who thinks
1) Miami and Houston were built through the draft
2) Atlanta is consistently good.
3) The Knicks suck at everything.

Gotta give him kudos though. His badly cherry picked list didn't mention Denver at all.

There may be hope yet.

The next GM is gonna shake that mess up, Denver is not in a good shape right now....even TKF knows it, which is why he didn't mention it.

Denver is exactly what many thought they would be from the start. A good team that is very deep but lacks a go-to player and has way too much money invested in good but not great players.

For a team without a go to scorer, they had remarkably little difficulty scoring in the regular or post-season! Maybe that really wasn't the issue.

It's the altitude in Denver and their balls to wall offense playing at home. It's why they went 38-3 at home, and sucked cack on the road(19-22). Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing you posted indicates that their critical problem was lacking a "go to scorer."

It's the "system" they play in. The share the wealth, sum is greater than the parts, play the whole roster, no star uptempo system. Popularized by alot of colleges, old school type ball. Good enough to win games in the regular season, but obviously can't win in the playoffs without a star or go to scorer when the paces slows and defenses are stingier.

Basically Denver wasn't ever going to win dick in the playoffs without at least a true #1 option.

Starless teams like Memphis at least had 2 guys you could dump it into in the post...Denver had nada.

that is ridiculous. but answer this, you think the knicks have one.. why were we eliminated?

Denver scored well over 100 points in that series per game... their problem wasn't scoring..

you guys are still trying to defend this true #1 option.. for the record, denver never had one and neither do we... if we are going to judge by results.. right?

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:It seems like every team in the top 5 isn't happy and wants to trade out. Only problem is they likely won't because no one wants to give fair value in trade. In this draft you are better off having multiple mid to late first round picks then a top 5 pick because either way you are likely getting a role player. Charlotte has been in rough shape each season and this one it doesn't really matter that they were lucky again and landed number 4. I really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some of the top 10 picks. But as far as rebuilding thru the draft, between hoping for a draft that consists of franchise talent, to being lucky enough to win a top pick, to making sure you actually get that pick right, then to do it all again and get that process flawless the next season, it's no wonder there are so many teams still trying to get it right. Who knows when or if Charlotte, Detroit, Sacramento, Phoenix, Orlando, Washington, Milwaukee etc will ever get it right. Glad we aren't rebuilding and stuck in that game of luck.

not sure how what you posted backs up what the title of the thread says..

OKC
Indy
GSW
Houston
Atlanta
Spurs
Miami

All of these teams are/were built through the draft, so how is the draft proving to be a difficult way to build a team..

if anything, trying to buy, starphuch, and free agent your way to winning has proved futile over the years...

I really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some of the top 10 picks. But as far as rebuilding thru the draft, between hoping for a draft that consists of franchise talent, to being lucky enough to win a top pick, to making sure you actually get that pick right, then to do it all again and get that process flawless the next season,

I want you to look at what you wrote.. You see when you can't check homerism at the door, it just makes having a logical discussion impossible..

You said you really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some top 10 picks.. well of course that can happen with any team.. you can get lucky, it has happened, but you will need very good scouting.. when have the knicks ever done that? we don't have a history of that..

then you go on to basically say that teams picking high, have to make sure they get the pick right, if not go through it again.. well lets be fair, if you think the knicks will get it right at 24, then you must assume that the teams picking in the lottery will apply the same logic and get it right, and since they have higher picks, will most likely take the best talent..

what you basically said, and I will sum it up is..

Because we are the knicks, I feel we will get a stud at 24

lottery teams most likely will screw up and draft a dud and have to repeat the process over and over again..

LOL.. really man? really? well maybe not, maybe 7 of lottery teams get it right, maybe they all do.. who knows.. but what we do know are teams are taking a different approach, and teams are getting better, quick... to assume that the sixers, kings, wolves, raptors, cavs,wizards, suns,portland.. all who have done very well in the draft the past few years will just muck this one up, and the knicks will land a stud at 24 is just a bit ridiculous.....

Anthony davis, kidd gilchrist, bradley beal, dion waiters,Thomas Robinson, Damian lillard,harrison barnes, Terrance ross, Andre drummond..

from the looks of it, most of those teams have gotten some fantastic playes.. Lillard, waiters, beal, gilchrist,davis, ross, barnes, all seem to be more than solid picks and I can tell you, 4 to 5 of those guys will be allstars very soon... another draft like that, and those teams will be shooting up the rankings...

YES YOU CAN BUILD THROUGH THE DRAFT.. that with a combination of smart FA signings.. Not starphucs...and you will have a good team.. see the pacers!!

Of all the teams you just mentioned only spurs and heat have won a title, and only spurs have won it centered around their own picks. The rest of the teams are only hopefuls at this point. But thank you for supporting my point with your examples. Okc is the example of when everything in a rebuild goes right in a 3 year period, and even with them their is no guarantee. This draft is an example of why hopeful rebuilding teams will have to fast forward thru yet another year of tanking so they get another try. That is what I was pointing out.

Also know one said we pick a stud at 24 and all lotto teams get it wrong, sorry you interpreted it that way.

All of those player you mentioned could be good, however it's unknown if they can be core players or franchise players to help a championship team. Yes the pacers are good, one of the few examples of a team that is successful in rebuilding, although no guarantee they win it all.

OKC been to the finals, Atlanta has been consistently good, and the other teams are on the rise.. that is the point.. the knicks trying the way they have been has resulted in nothing but heartache and dissappointment...

Are you happy with what happened this year? honestly..

How is the Knicks way heartache and disappointment when the other team you're praising havent even gotten that far?

Denver has yet to get out of the first, as Houston and they made it mainly due to Harden acquisition which was a trade.

The issue is there is no proven way OKC is the exception not the norm, and there is no guarantee they make it back.

simple, the last 10 years has have been horrible and just when walsh started cleaning this mess up, we go into sabotage mode again.... we have an old team, a lot of uncertainties and 3 bloated salaries.... no youth(except 1 player) very little picks.. yes this is a dissapointment..

Denver, Houston, GS all have bright futures, they are already better than the knicks and their best years are ahead of them, why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Again, your opinion of these teams is based on the idea of untapped potential and not sustainable results. It's easy to say so and so has a bright future. You talk about this team like we are stuck this way forever. Keep in mind this team has an Out in 2 years. In those 2 years we will still be a good team, still likely have better success then the teams you mention, and plenty of flexibility when those 2 years are done.

we are stuck because we have horrible deals on the books and no picks and no real young talent.. it is simple.... those other teams, when you project out, are in better shape... now anything can happen, but keeping things on course for the knicks and those teams, their future is just in much better shape...

tkf wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

ChuckBuck wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

knickscity wrote:

jrodmc wrote:

knickscity wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:It seems like every team in the top 5 isn't happy and wants to trade out. Only problem is they likely won't because no one wants to give fair value in trade. In this draft you are better off having multiple mid to late first round picks then a top 5 pick because either way you are likely getting a role player. Charlotte has been in rough shape each season and this one it doesn't really matter that they were lucky again and landed number 4. I really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some of the top 10 picks. But as far as rebuilding thru the draft, between hoping for a draft that consists of franchise talent, to being lucky enough to win a top pick, to making sure you actually get that pick right, then to do it all again and get that process flawless the next season, it's no wonder there are so many teams still trying to get it right. Who knows when or if Charlotte, Detroit, Sacramento, Phoenix, Orlando, Washington, Milwaukee etc will ever get it right. Glad we aren't rebuilding and stuck in that game of luck.

not sure how what you posted backs up what the title of the thread says..

OKC
Indy
GSW
Houston
Atlanta
Spurs
Miami

All of these teams are/were built through the draft, so how is the draft proving to be a difficult way to build a team..

if anything, trying to buy, starphuch, and free agent your way to winning has proved futile over the years...

I really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some of the top 10 picks. But as far as rebuilding thru the draft, between hoping for a draft that consists of franchise talent, to being lucky enough to win a top pick, to making sure you actually get that pick right, then to do it all again and get that process flawless the next season,

I want you to look at what you wrote.. You see when you can't check homerism at the door, it just makes having a logical discussion impossible..

You said you really believe that if we draft right we will land a player at 24 that is as good as some top 10 picks.. well of course that can happen with any team.. you can get lucky, it has happened, but you will need very good scouting.. when have the knicks ever done that? we don't have a history of that..

then you go on to basically say that teams picking high, have to make sure they get the pick right, if not go through it again.. well lets be fair, if you think the knicks will get it right at 24, then you must assume that the teams picking in the lottery will apply the same logic and get it right, and since they have higher picks, will most likely take the best talent..

what you basically said, and I will sum it up is..

Because we are the knicks, I feel we will get a stud at 24

lottery teams most likely will screw up and draft a dud and have to repeat the process over and over again..

LOL.. really man? really? well maybe not, maybe 7 of lottery teams get it right, maybe they all do.. who knows.. but what we do know are teams are taking a different approach, and teams are getting better, quick... to assume that the sixers, kings, wolves, raptors, cavs,wizards, suns,portland.. all who have done very well in the draft the past few years will just muck this one up, and the knicks will land a stud at 24 is just a bit ridiculous.....

Anthony davis, kidd gilchrist, bradley beal, dion waiters,Thomas Robinson, Damian lillard,harrison barnes, Terrance ross, Andre drummond..

from the looks of it, most of those teams have gotten some fantastic playes.. Lillard, waiters, beal, gilchrist,davis, ross, barnes, all seem to be more than solid picks and I can tell you, 4 to 5 of those guys will be allstars very soon... another draft like that, and those teams will be shooting up the rankings...

YES YOU CAN BUILD THROUGH THE DRAFT.. that with a combination of smart FA signings.. Not starphucs...and you will have a good team.. see the pacers!!

Of all the teams you just mentioned only spurs and heat have won a title, and only spurs have won it centered around their own picks. The rest of the teams are only hopefuls at this point. But thank you for supporting my point with your examples. Okc is the example of when everything in a rebuild goes right in a 3 year period, and even with them their is no guarantee. This draft is an example of why hopeful rebuilding teams will have to fast forward thru yet another year of tanking so they get another try. That is what I was pointing out.

Also know one said we pick a stud at 24 and all lotto teams get it wrong, sorry you interpreted it that way.

All of those player you mentioned could be good, however it's unknown if they can be core players or franchise players to help a championship team. Yes the pacers are good, one of the few examples of a team that is successful in rebuilding, although no guarantee they win it all.

OKC been to the finals, Atlanta has been consistently good, and the other teams are on the rise.. that is the point.. the knicks trying the way they have been has resulted in nothing but heartache and dissappointment...

Are you happy with what happened this year? honestly..

How is the Knicks way heartache and disappointment when the other team you're praising havent even gotten that far?

Denver has yet to get out of the first, as Houston and they made it mainly due to Harden acquisition which was a trade.

The issue is there is no proven way OKC is the exception not the norm, and there is no guarantee they make it back.

Give it up, there's no sense trying to talk sense to someone who thinks
1) Miami and Houston were built through the draft
2) Atlanta is consistently good.
3) The Knicks suck at everything.

Gotta give him kudos though. His badly cherry picked list didn't mention Denver at all.

There may be hope yet.

The next GM is gonna shake that mess up, Denver is not in a good shape right now....even TKF knows it, which is why he didn't mention it.

Denver is exactly what many thought they would be from the start. A good team that is very deep but lacks a go-to player and has way too much money invested in good but not great players.

For a team without a go to scorer, they had remarkably little difficulty scoring in the regular or post-season! Maybe that really wasn't the issue.

It's the altitude in Denver and their balls to wall offense playing at home. It's why they went 38-3 at home, and sucked cack on the road(19-22). Nothing more, nothing less.

Nothing you posted indicates that their critical problem was lacking a "go to scorer."

It's the "system" they play in. The share the wealth, sum is greater than the parts, play the whole roster, no star uptempo system. Popularized by alot of colleges, old school type ball. Good enough to win games in the regular season, but obviously can't win in the playoffs without a star or go to scorer when the paces slows and defenses are stingier.

Basically Denver wasn't ever going to win dick in the playoffs without at least a true #1 option.

Starless teams like Memphis at least had 2 guys you could dump it into in the post...Denver had nada.

that is ridiculous. but answer this, you think the knicks have one.. why were we eliminated?

Denver scored well over 100 points in that series per game... their problem wasn't scoring..

you guys are still trying to defend this true #1 option.. for the record, denver never had one and neither do we... if we are going to judge by results.. right?

Nalod wrote:OKC

Durant-Westbrook-Harden-Ibaka

No chip, but a drafted core. OKC has Martin and three of the top 32 picks in this years draft, plus jeremy Lamb on the bench. No surefire line up but if they do this right, they might get lucky or have assets to make a trade.

GSW used Ellis (drafted) for bogut. The rest were drafted.

Drafting well produces assets that give you trade options to fill out your roster. Developing assets is the key. Marc Gasol was not a blue chipper but his growth made the Pau deal. SAS trades George Hill who they could not afford and develops Kwai Leonard.

Its not easy to do and it requires patience and vision. This is not how Knicks do it.

Look at the parallel between how the Knicks built around Ewing vs. SAS with Duncan. both Stars with long careers. Granted, Duncan is staying on top longer (better health) but SAS takes a longer term approach and it took 6 years to get back to the finals! Look how Splitter was developed and how long that took to not just get him on the team after drafting him, but then getting him NBA level! Knicks would have used him as a throw in to get a past prime player and try to win sooner. Thats how most Knick fans want it. If you constantly Sell low and buy high teams that do that have very small window's to win in. It helps when you have a star like Duncan who is down with the program and not like ewing who threatened to leave. There was a time when ewing could have been traded or we let him walk and rebuild. At the time, I must admit I would have not liked that at all and we did not know the true state of ewings health. Better basketball minds understood his physical state and projected better the future and if longer term competitiveness is the goal, then we would have dealt with it different. When starphuch hype and ticket sales is the short term goal you'll have smaller windows to win.

exactly....

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:The bottom line +85% of all NBA champions drafted their core players

Im not going to list everyone going back but for example

Pippen Jordan Grant
Isiah Thomas Joe Dumare Bill Laimber
Hakeem
Kobe
Tim Duncan Parker Ginobli
Magic Johnson James Worthy etc
Larry Bird Kevin Mchale Robert Parrish

Go look back--its not even a debate. The draft is the most important process in building your team proven without a doubt

That type of quality is no longer available in the draft. None of those teams you mentioned have been assembled in the past decade. This is a thing of the past. If we were in the 90s I would agree with you, but not today.

What decade do you think Lebron and Wade were drafted in?!

They were drafted 10 years ago. So last decade. And to the previous point, Miami only drafted 1/3 of their championship core. You have to go back to the 80s with all of those (basically 3 decades) with the exception of Parker and ginobili who joined the team in the early 2000s.

Right, they were not drafted in the 90s. Wade (drafted) led the Heat to their earlier title too, and I wouldn't call him just 1/3 of their core.
One thing I find odd though is that "traditional rebuilding" is often equated with "building through the draft"
I view traditional rebuilding as getting young players and patiently waiting for the team to blossom, but they don't have to be drafted. I think Houston is rebuilding with Harden even though they didn't draft him.

that is very true bonn, it doesn't always have to be with Drafted pieces, but you very often have to use Draft picks and young pieces to get those types of players. .In other words, the rockets had to give up a lottery pick in lamb and a pick to get harden, either way, you are using assets to get it done, often being draft picks and or young players... what Houston didn't do, was use those assets and chase some aging, overrated and overpaid Allstar..

tkf wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

knickstorrents wrote:

Knixkik wrote:

BRIGGS wrote:The bottom line +85% of all NBA champions drafted their core players

Im not going to list everyone going back but for example

Pippen Jordan Grant
Isiah Thomas Joe Dumare Bill Laimber
Hakeem
Kobe
Tim Duncan Parker Ginobli
Magic Johnson James Worthy etc
Larry Bird Kevin Mchale Robert Parrish

Go look back--its not even a debate. The draft is the most important process in building your team proven without a doubt

That type of quality is no longer available in the draft. None of those teams you mentioned have been assembled in the past decade. This is a thing of the past. If we were in the 90s I would agree with you, but not today.

NBA Champs past Decade:
Heat - Wade
Mavericks - Nowitzki
Lakers - Kobe
Spurs - Duncan, Parker, Ginobili
Pistons - the lone exception, but even then Tayshaun Prince was a starter and key component.

So how is Briggs point wrong???

Again you are talking about players drafted in the 90s and only San Antonio has more than one player drafted that consists of its championship core. A team built around wade does not win a title, he has 2 other players who joined him later on. Nowitzki didn't win until he had the right formula of guys such as Kidd chandler and Marion join via trade. Same with boston. Same with the lakers who only have won with Shaq and gasol. So to Briggs point it is accurate to say that 85% of teams who won drafted a core player but not their core players. Typically only 1/3 of their core consists of drafted player. It's the free agent signing and trades that allow them to win a title. Only exception in the past 15 years in San Antonio where their championship core can be attribute completely to building thru the draft. No one else even has half of their core drafted.

Looking at the following heat roster in 2006 when they won the finals.. please tell me who this team was built around.. and DO NOT SAY SHAQ!!!!

I highlighted the name to help you out there buddy...

G/F 5 Derek Anderson (Kentucky)
G/F 49 Shandon Anderson (University of Georgia)
C 30 Earl Barron (Memphis)
C 51 Michael Doleac (Utah)
SF 24 Jason Kapono (UCLA)
C/PF 33 Alonzo Mourning (Georgetown)
C 32 Shaquille O'Neal – Captain (LSU)
PG 20 Gary Payton (Oregon State)
SF/G 42 James Posey (Xavier (Ohio))
PF 25 Wayne Simien (Kansas)
SG 3 Dwyane Wade – Captain (Marquette)
PG
{Eddie Jones
55 Jason Williams (Florida/Marshall)
SF 1 Dorell Wright (South Kent Prep HS,
Lawndale, California)
F 40 Udonis Haslem (University of Florida)
F 8 Antoine Walker (University of Kentucky)
Chris Anderson N/A

They would not have won the title if it wasn't for Shaq. He was the difference maker. If you need proof of that, look at how wade did in the years between shaq and lebron.