Why Are Most GM's Unable To Build A Winning Team?

I start this article by asking a question that is so puzzling, why is it that so few GM's are capable of building a winner? Not just a good division winning team, but a champion? Are GM's simply too scared of failure to 'pull the trigger' on big trades, where you maybe take a couple of good players and trade them for one great one? Do they simply want to play it safe, believing that there is job security in the status-quo, when we all know there really isn't? Do they fail to recognize talent? What is it that makes so few GM's successful?

Yes, it is true, there is only one championship won per season. OK, but being that there is 30 teams, it would be logical that a team on average would win a title every 30 years. But we all know there are quite a few middling, mediocre teams that have never even sniffed a title (Clippers, anyone?). As it is, only a small handful of teams have won most of the titles:

Assuming that every team can spend at least up to the salary cap, every team through trade can have a good chance to win. Yes, landing a free-agent like Dwayne Wade or LeBron James can put a team on the fast-track to winning, but in general it has been shown that unless quality players are surrounded by a good team they won't win.

Since 1947 there have only been 9 professional basketball teams to win multiple titles. So one can see this isn't only a recent phenomena, it is also par for the course in other sports too, there are a handful of teams that win most the titles. Why is it that winning teams are so hard to build?

In the NBA, regardless of player position, of guard, forward or center, it boils down to needing at least one top, dominant player and building around them. The Celtics have shown that it is possible to win without a single 'superstar' as long as you have three or four real good players, but such recent teams as the Spurs and the Lakers have had at least one elite player surrounded by great pieces that compliment them.

As I see it, there are 5 different types of player levels in the NBA:

There are the all-timers, the MJ's, the Kobe's, the Wilt's of the NBA world, these are once-a-generation type talents. Only a couple of these type of players exist in the the league at any one time and the NBA may very well have only one of these players at the moment in Kobe Bryant.

There are the superstars, the Wade's, the Carmelo's, the LeBron's, the Duncan's. There are probably only 10 or so guys in this bracket, a team is lucky to get one of these guys but most winning teams possess at least one top-10 player.

There are the stars, the Paul Pierce's, the Brandon Roy's, the Carlos Boozer's of the league, the top 10% or so of the league, maybe only 40-50 of them. These are the type of players that are great #2 options, they can't carry teams but can be counted on.

Then you have the good players, complimentary role players and specialists, like sharp-shooters. There are about 25% of the league, and the rest of the league is made up of journeymen, bench players and the like, I'd say that 2/3rds of the league is made up of these players, and they are basically expendable.

OK now, it's easy to play GM in a fantasy-league and just pick a few players. However, with the salary cap structure and the fact that the system is geared toward teams retianing their stars, it's not easy getting good players - I'll give you that. No one said that being a GM is an easy job though, that is why most GM's make pretty big bucks.

The key thing is to try to bring a top-10 talent to your team. That should be the sole first pursuit of a GM, try by any means necessary to get one. This upcoming offseason for instance is what many teams have waited years for, and it should be fun to see what franchises luck out and land the big free-agent fishes.

Look at a franchise like the Knicks, they have positioned themselves to get ready for this years free-agency class for several years, if they don't land a big free-agent, what do they do? How can a team in a city with some great basketball fans go so long without a winner? Terrible personel decisions compounded by never fully tearing down a team and starting again. Trying to band-aid a cut artery is a bad move, anyone would know that, yet the Knicks never could come to grips that they were pretty bad and saddled by overpaid, overrated players. Will their desperation mean that they go after a Joe Johnson if they're spurned by LeBron and Wade? That's like getting a Ford after shopping for a Ferrari.

If you look at it this way, a top-10 player would mean that there are 20 or more teams that don't possess one in a 30 team league so a teams gameplan should be to do whatever it takes to get one of these guys.

If I could use the Trailblazers as an example, they might have a star in Brandon Roy, but the rest of the team is made up of good-not-great players. It seems like their entire roster outside of Roy is those types. They definitely have someone to build around, but instead of looking for another star/superstar, they are getting more filler-type material. This is no way to win in the NBA. The Blazers have a lot of trade-bait, but they haven't been able to get another star/superstar type player.

Basically, as a GM you trade everyone for an all-timer (see Lakers for Kareem, circa mid-70s). Those type of players/trades come along like once a decade (like, say, Gretzky to the Kings in hockey) so instead target a top-10 superstar, trade 2 or 3 decent guys for a great player, such as the Lakers trading for Pau Gasol. Look at the Trailblazers GM Kevin Pritchard as example, that is a concept he just doesn't seem to get. The Trailblazers have brought in a number of players with the same type of good talent level, but should be looking for a D-Wade-type talent to put besides Roy. If that means trading say Andre Miller, LaMarcus Aldridge and Marcus Camby to get him - you do it!

Just why most GM's don't seem to have what it takes to be successful though is a mystery. I have to think that deep-down, many teams are more about creating a moderately successful team on a budget, this probably hamstrings most GM's from acting. Yet, there are a few resourceful, creative teams in sports that don't have big payrolls. I guess that there are not too many creative GM's though, at least not currently in the NBA.