Building For February - What Does This Mean?

[AHF]

I have a seen a reference on several threads to people saying they think Ferry is "building for February" with his offseason moves. I am not sure what this means. Can someone explain this to me?

For example, here are a couple strategies I understand:

Sign A Star

Objective: Sign superstar free agents

Path: Chris Paul & Dwight Howard, acquire low cost complimentary players on short contracts

Execution: Attempted and failed

Advantage over other strategies: Provides an instant culture change ala the Miami Heat.

Tank

Objective: Develop young players and set the team up for a high pick in the 2014 draft

Path: Sign primarily young players and set the team up with lots of cap flexibility and youth and lose lots of games

Execution: Decided against this

Advantage over other strategies: Maximizes odds of landing franchise player in the draft

Houston Rockets - Mediocre Flex

Objective: Use cap flexibility and assets to trade for players other teams are willing to deal or to sign big FAs

Path: Obtain cap friendly assets while maintaining mediocre results (bottom of the playoffs or bottom of the lottery) to capitalize on cap restraints of competing teams.

Execution: In progress (IMO).

Advantage over other strategies: Culture never descends into a losing one, as is the risk with tanking, and the flexibility gives you the opportunity to pursue players (like Pau Gasol, James Harden, Dwight Howard, etc.) when they become available.

So what is this?

Building for February

[macdaddy]

Building for february = mediocre flex. Its the same thing. Build a team that competes hard in every single game, gain respect in the league, have a lot of quality players on varying reasonable deals that can be packaged to acquire the stars you need.

Its a plan that can go in different directions depending on the opportunities that come up rather than our previous plan which I call:

'is it soup yet?' which is to acquire a bunch of ingredients you think will make a good team, throw them in a pot and then check it every few years to see if its any good.

Edited July 29, 2013 by macdaddy

[AHF]

Building for february = mediocre flex. Its the same thing. Build a team that competes hard in every single game, gain respect in the league, have a lot of quality players on varying reasonable deals that can be packaged to acquire the stars you need.

Its a plan that can go in different directions depending on the opportunities that come up rather than our previous plan which I call:

'is it soup yet?' which is to acquire a bunch of ingredients you think will make a good team, throw them in a pot and then check it every few years to see if its any good.

Why is February a significant date? Looking at the Houston model, they haven't done anything that moved the needle in February. They have been hockey assist type moves in February (moves that precede other moves that are ultimately the higher impact ones).

[macdaddy]

Why is February a significant date? Looking at the Houston model, they haven't done anything that moved the needle in February. They have been hockey assist type moves in February (moves that precede other moves that are ultimately the higher impact ones).

I think its just speculation that we will be active at the trade deadline to try to take a middle of the pack playoff team to a ECF contender. Since we just signed all these guys this summer I don't think we can trade them until december but the february trade deadline is when the action will be.

[thecampster]

I have a seen a reference on several threads to people saying they think Ferry is "building for February" with his offseason moves. I am not sure what this means. Can someone explain this to me?

For example, here are a couple strategies I understand:

Sign A Star

Objective: Sign superstar free agents

Path: Chris Paul & Dwight Howard, acquire low cost complimentary players on short contracts

Execution: Attempted and failed

Advantage over other strategies: Provides an instant culture change ala the Miami Heat.

Tank

Objective: Develop young players and set the team up for a high pick in the 2014 draft

Path: Sign primarily young players and set the team up with lots of cap flexibility and youth and lose lots of games

Execution: Decided against this

Advantage over other strategies: Maximizes odds of landing franchise player in the draft

Houston Rockets - Mediocre Flex

Objective: Use cap flexibility and assets to trade for players other teams are willing to deal or to sign big FAs

Path: Obtain cap friendly assets while maintaining mediocre results (bottom of the playoffs or bottom of the lottery) to capitalize on cap restraints of competing teams.

Execution: In progress (IMO).

Advantage over other strategies: Culture never descends into a losing one, as is the risk with tanking, and the flexibility gives you the opportunity to pursue players (like Pau Gasol, James Harden, Dwight Howard, etc.) when they become available.

So what is this?

Building for February

I had this same thought the other day.

Korver deal is very movable to a borderline contender.

Brand deal could be bery good for a borderline contender. (always need serviceable defense minded bigs).

Or assuming I'm wrong and the team is better or not worse, there is cap room and certain players can be flipped at the deadline for other teams higher priced talent. For example, flipping a few contracts for a Varejeo or Bogut type of a deal.

[DrReality]

I think the critical element is flexibility. If the comes together and grasp the new system we do nothing. But if we struggle and need to make some 'adjustments,' we have that option. I guess its like the triple option in football............see what's open when the time comes.

[Wretch]

I think a few things are missed in this Mediocre Flex strategy. First...how is our national image? How is our appeal to free agents? How is our attendance draw? Bad, bad, and bad...I don't think anybody is arguing that.

Yet, this is not a losing team.

You can't create a winning image...when you already have one, and it hasn't changed anything. We are a middle of the pack team that does very little in the playoffs every year. That's why the fans don't give a damn, that's why the national media doesn't give a damn, and that's why free agents don't give a damn. Short of putting a contender on the court, this will never change.

Secondly, flipping assets works...if you have something to flip. I guess I just disagree that people will really be beating down our door for Korver, Millsap, and Lou. What can we possibly expect to get back in a package for these guys? Maybe if you throw in Teague...but I wouldn't expect a significant pick up in return. The net result to me is going to be a lateral move. When you're in the middle...that means a lateral move to stay in the middle.

This strategy depends on trades and free agency...but it doesn't look promising either way.

[sturt]

Beating down our door, no.

But for what they do, Korver, Williams, and Millsap (think Scott Wedman, Vinny Microwave Johnson and Robert Horry respectively) each could be a key in-season acquisition that is considered to be the difference between being in a conference championship game or not.

The other intangible is who will suffer an injury at a key position in the first half of the season.

Edited July 29, 2013 by sturt

[AHF]

Wow. I didn't think anyone would believe our FA signings this offseason could be flipped for someone that could push us to an ECF or flipped for a high lottery pick. I definitely don't think anyone values our guys that highly.

I think we are out of the running for an ECF appearance or a top lottery pick this season absent something akin to divine intervention.

[yungsta]

Wow. I didn't think anyone would believe our FA signings this offseason could be flipped for someone that could push us to an ECF or flipped for a high lottery pick. I definitely don't think anyone values our guys that highly.

I think we are out of the running for an ECF appearance or a top lottery pick this season absent something akin to divine intervention.

I believe only horford and teague can get us something of value. Alot of people on here overrate our "assets". I see most of our other pieces as fillers.

[Wretch]

Beating down our door, no.

But for what they do, Korver, Williams, and Millsap (think Scott Wedman, Vinny Microwave Johnson and Robert Horry respectively) each could be a key in-season acquisition that is considered to be the difference between being in a conference championship game or not.

The other intangible is who will suffer an injury at a key position in the first half of the season.

I agree 100%. For sure a contender could use these guys. That still doesn't change the core concerns here. What are you getting back for any combination of players outside of Teague/Horford? Secondly, if you include Teague/Horford in the discussions, then you're gutting the core of the team...likely to the detriment of our record. Unless we get back a solid vet, but that really just puts us right back at square one - with Horf as our "solid vet."

This strategy breaks down very simply: maintain cap flexibility, make the playoffs, and hope for a free agent miracle. Outside of a "meltdown" scenario, offering up Teague/Horford, I would not put much, if any, stock into trades. I'm not putting any stock into building with mid-late 1st round draft picks.

[thecampster]

Wow. I didn't think anyone would believe our FA signings this offseason could be flipped for someone that could push us to an ECF or flipped for a high lottery pick. I definitely don't think anyone values our guys that highly.

I think we are out of the running for an ECF appearance or a top lottery pick this season absent something akin to divine intervention.

No no no...quite the opposite. I believe we will be significantly worse and just barely miss the playoffs (we are one Horford torn bicep away from 20 wins max). However we have LT flexibility (though no real cap flexibility). In my sick little world, I can see Ferry flipping Teague/Korver/Brand/Millsap/Williams (anyone but Horford and his draft picks) at the deadline for more picks/cap flexibility and build.

I see what Ferry is doing as a 5 year plan (obviously in the minority here). I see 30 ish wins this year. If no significant moves are made 30-40 next year. Then the draft picks begin to pay off. Schröder/Noguira start to gain weight, etc and we bump back to 45-50 by year 3 and with luck, a signing, etc we're making a push for the ECF in year 4 or 5.

Do I think it will work? I don't know but we greatly resemble the Bulls right now of 6 years ago (pre Rose). Look at this roster from 2007-2008 and see how many similarities you can find.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708CHI.HTM

That team won 33 games but then improved to 41 wins the next 2 years before their drafting, moves finally vaulted them to contention.

[clpear]

30 wins? Really?If Larry Drew managed 40+ wins and a playoff appearance, then why can't Coach Bud?We lost Josh Smith, an oft-injured Devin Harris, Ivan Johnson, Johan Petro and an injured Zaza Pachulia.We replace them with Paul Millsap, Dennis Schröder, Elton Brand, Pero Antić, and Gustavo Ayón. All guys with supposed high basketball iq's. I don't see our losses as major. Demarre Carroll replaces Tolliver... Win...And we get Lou Williams back. Win...I say we get 40+ wins again, and push for a 5 to 6 spot.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 2

[Sothron]

I think a few things are missed in this Mediocre Flex strategy. First...how is our national image? How is our appeal to free agents? How is our attendance draw? Bad, bad, and bad...I don't think anybody is arguing that.

Yet, this is not a losing team.

You can't create a winning image...when you already have one, and it hasn't changed anything. We are a middle of the pack team that does very little in the playoffs every year. That's why the fans don't give a damn, that's why the national media doesn't give a damn, and that's why free agents don't give a damn. Short of putting a contender on the court, this will never change.

Secondly, flipping assets works...if you have something to flip. I guess I just disagree that people will really be beating down our door for Korver, Millsap, and Lou. What can we possibly expect to get back in a package for these guys? Maybe if you throw in Teague...but I wouldn't expect a significant pick up in return. The net result to me is going to be a lateral move. When you're in the middle...that means a lateral move to stay in the middle.

This strategy depends on trades and free agency...but it doesn't look promising either way.

I have thought this the whole offseason. Every one is convinced apparently that teams will be lining up to trade for the cast of misfit toys we picked up this offseason. I just do not see it. Most of these guys could have been had just as easy as a free agent and teams passed on them. Whose beating down the door for Korver? Brand? The only two guys who may be valuable are Milsap and Teague.

And what can we expect for them? I want 2014 draft picks but any future first is a net positive. The problem is when you look at this team the only real trade piece is Horford. That's it. We couldn't get any good deals for Josh Smith. Utah didn't trade Millsap and he had to settle on a two year deal IN HIS PRIME for less than 10 million per season. What does that tell you how the rest of the NBA views him?

My worst fear is that this team of misfit toys manages to scrub its way into the playoffs and after the expected first round exit we are on the outside looking in once again while elite star talent in the draft is picked and all we have is a token and completely meaningless first round exit to show for it.

[MaceCase]

No no no...quite the opposite. I believe we will be significantly worse and just barely miss the playoffs (we are one Horford torn bicep away from 20 wins max). However we have LT flexibility (though no real cap flexibility). In my sick little world, I can see Ferry flipping Teague/Korver/Brand/Millsap/Williams (anyone but Horford and his draft picks) at the deadline for more picks/cap flexibility and build.

I see what Ferry is doing as a 5 year plan (obviously in the minority here). I see 30 ish wins this year. If no significant moves are made 30-40 next year. Then the draft picks begin to pay off. Schröder/Noguira start to gain weight, etc and we bump back to 45-50 by year 3 and with luck, a signing, etc we're making a push for the ECF in year 4 or 5.

Do I think it will work? I don't know but we greatly resemble the Bulls right now of 6 years ago (pre Rose). Look at this roster from 2007-2008 and see how many similarities you can find.

http://www.82games.com/0708/0708CHI.HTM

That team won 33 games but then improved to 41 wins the next 2 years before their drafting, moves finally vaulted them to contention.

I don't really see the comparison between the Hawks and that Bulls team. That was a 40+ win core already that had just reached the end of their rope with Scott Skiles grating coaching style much like every other team has with him. With rookie/sophomore Rose they simply returned precisely to where they already were and then didn't take off specifically as a result of his development but rather because they cleaned out the cupboard of the previous core of Hinrich, Gordon, Nocioni, Wallace and Thomas and built specifically around Rose with complimentary parts.

The Hawks on the other hand have had large turnover and a new coach. The comparison would fit if LD lost the team last season but as is the Hawks are much closer to the post implosion and Vinny Bulls with the long tenured respected assistant taking over his first head job (Thibs/Bud), missing out on the top free agents (Bron/Dwight and Wade/Paul) but ending up with the blue collar influx of former Utah players (Boozer/Millsap, Brewer/Carroll, Korver/Korver). No Rose on this team but we most definitely resemble the 10'-11' Bulls a lot more than the 07'-08' squad.

Edited July 30, 2013 by MaceCase

[macdaddy]

To me it comes down to 2 things. Whether Bud is any good as a head coach and whether Milsap will be as effective/better/worse than Josh Smith. The rest of the parts of the team are the same or better than last year. Teague/Lou/Korver/Horford. I'd argue that the other rotation players are better than last year so unless Bud really sucks as a coach we should be a good team.

[MaceCase]

As to the OP, it's simply a miscategorization being made by people wherein they think that because the deals are "fair" or "short" that that somehow increases the actual value of the players signed to them. You may be able to flip them for other players on "fair" or "short" deals, more likely get players on "unfair" and "long" deals but you certainly aren't getting game changers in exchange or at least not directly but rather as a toppling domino 30 miles down the road. It's even rather dubious as to whether we can flip our "more favorable" deals for a bad deal with the incentive of taking back prospects and picks because there really aren't many of those left behind from the old CBA where a team would feel more inclined to move increased value first rounders to get rid of. It seems like teams would rather just eat the remaining years on those deals unless they have a direct target that they can achieve a la Golden State with Iggy but that would mean that these are "July" moves and not "February" ones.

[AHF]

The Hawks on the other hand have had large turnover and a new coach. The comparison would fit if LD lost the team last season but as is the Hawks are much closer to the post implosion and Vinny Bulls with the long tenured respected assistant taking over his first head job (Thibs/Bud), missing out on the top free agents (Bron/Dwight and Wade/Paul) but ending up with the blue collar influx of former Utah players (Boozer/Millsap, Brewer/Carroll, Korver/Korver). No Rose on this team but we most definitely resemble the 10'-11' Bulls a lot more than the 07'-08' squad.

Given that Rose is an MVP talent, I find that distinction to be of critical importance. Isn't your analogy, a car with an engine to a car without an engine?

[MaceCase]

Given that Rose is an MVP talent, I find that distinction to be of critical importance. Isn't your analogy, a car with an engine to a car without an engine?

Well the 08' Bulls team were a decent sedan that was ran into the ground by Skiles and then they tried to patch it over by just popping a Ferrari engine into the old frame. Obviously a car like that couldn't handle it so they swapped out the surrounding parts to better utilize their top notch engine.The Hawks are newer model and sure the current engine may be not as great but you shouldn't expect them to breakdown on its maiden journey much like a model with hundreds of thousands of more tread on it would.

[Wretch]

As to the OP, it's simply a miscategorization being made by people wherein they think that because the deals are "fair" or "short" that that somehow increases the actual value of the players signed to them. You may be able to flip them for other players on "fair" or "short" deals, more likely get players on "unfair" and "long" deals but you certainly aren't getting game changers in exchange or at least not directly but rather as a toppling domino 30 miles down the road. It's even rather dubious as to whether we can flip our "more favorable" deals for a bad deal with the incentive of taking back prospects and picks because there really aren't many of those left behind from the old CBA where a team would feel more inclined to move increased value first rounders to get rid of. It seems like teams would rather just eat the remaining years on those deals unless they have a direct target that they can achieve a la Golden State with Iggy but that would mean that these are "July" moves and not "February" ones.

Personally, I think it's just a last line of defense. Realistically, this is a playoff team. Barring a phenomenal transcendence of Teague or Horford, this team's ceiling is the 2nd round. Essentially, that means Danny Ferry has built a 2nd round team and we'll see a variation of it every year.

It's my contention that this is Plan B in it's entirety. Hence we have a 32 year old Korver on a 4 year deal. A replacement for Smoove's knuckleheadedness. And a vet big to replace ZaZa. This is our team. It's built around Horford, fueled with efficiency and the expectation is that it can contend for a spot in the ECF's. This isn't BUILDING it's BUILT.

Knowing that ECF's isn't very likely, the immediate retort is, "Nuh-uh. Rome wasn't built in a day. Ferry is building something here. He said so!" To back up their position, folks have to say something. How exactly are we "building?"

Draft? Not happening. We won't be in the lottery and the difference makers are pretty much impossible to find anywhere else. People know that. So...

Free agency? Just gonna pause here for a second.

(...)

Yeah. None of us are holding our breath on that. It'd be nice, but we need a shift in the culture to make that happen. To make us appealing to the top tier of free agents. So here it comes....the last line of defense:

"We're BUILDING that culture NOW!"

Not through free agency and the draft.

"We are putting a winner on the court. These guys will make us a winner in the short term. That is a culture change..."

We're already a winner we already have that kind of winning culture. We've been to the playoffs and won games in the 2nd round even. (This is completely ignored.)

"And their value will increase, we could flip a few pieces for something better..."

Horford is an unrestricted FA in 3 seasons. Realistically, you've got three seasons to do all this flipping if you're not including him in the trade discussions. TWO seasons if you count the one we just farted away.

"And then we'll be just like Houston. We could work a trade like that and get that kind of talent coming back. We would also have cap flexibility too because Danny Ferry is smart enough to only sign short deals..."

Houston traded two lottery picks in addition to what we would be offering.

Cap space doesn't mean anything if players don't want to come here.

"...and all we need is that one deal that makes a difference. It could happen. Teams make great trades all the time. Some of them even trade crappy players to nab a pick in the lottery. So we have the draft covered - and Danny Ferry made some great picks this year. We have free agency covered, because we've got these short deals. And we have trades covered, because we have assets we can flip. Give it about 4 years, Danny's plan will be complete and we will not have to worry about being a losing team."

Yeah, I don't have much faith that it'll work out quite like that. I think we're wasting our time.

"Did you not read anything I just said?"