Mike Lowry wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2026 6:32 pm
Had some pretty competitive matchups in the first round.
What can you say about the second tier of competitors in the league?
Which teams are on the second tier?
How big is the gap between them and the favorites?
Do you think the gap will close due to these teams continuing to develop, or will the top tier come back to earth?
What can I say about the second tier of competitors in the league? If the last couple of seasons have taught us anything, it's taught us that there is an enormous gap between "playoff teams" and "contenders" and that the contenders will crush anyone else.
We've heard it said that the lifeblood of the league is "trades." This is just plain wrong. The lifeblood of the league is "hope." When a team loses hope in the present ("I can compete for a title this year"), it latches on to hope in the future ("I can compete for a title in some uncertain future year") and tears everything down to the studs in the hope it can tank well enough to get a generational talent that will allow them to rise to the top. Of course, in the process of tearing down to the studs, teams gift depth of talent to the top teams that makes it unlikely that even with one transcendent superstar they can rise again. It takes multiple good moves, patiently accrued over the years, to get to the top.
That last question presupposes the gap will close - either due to "other teams continuing to develop" or due to the "top tier come back to earth." There are only two mechanisms by which top tier teams "come back to earth" - they either age out of contention and TC starts eroding them, or they suffer an unlucky defection in Free Agency. More frequently, "the pack" doesn't catch up, instead one team rises up to challenge like the Bulls did to the Bucks this year.
Truly elite GMs have mastered the art of making avoiding either issue - they find ways to trade their top talent away for equally good but younger talent before that talent ever hits Unrestricted Free Agency. It's all about control.
Here's a textbook example of how to make one of these moves almost every single season:
1990: Trade 29-year-old Doc Rivers (heading for UFA and potentially lose for nothing) for 25-year-old Mark Jackson (heading for RFA and 4 more years of control)
1989: Trade 27-year-old Charles Barkley (two years into a UFA deal and two more years of control) for 25-year-old Ron Harper (heading for RFA and 4-5 more years of control)
1987: Trade 30-year-old Kevin McHale (going into a player option year so potentially lose for nothing) for 24-year-old Charles Barkley (heading for RFA and 4-5 more years of control)
1986: Trade 28-year-old Joe Barry Carroll (two years left before UFA) for the #4 pick (24-year-old Jeff Hornacek and 4 years of rookie deal plus RFA for 8-9 total years of control)
1984: Trade 25-year-old Sleepy Floyd (with 2 years left on his rookie deal, 6-7 years of control) for 23-year-old Doc Rivers (with 3 years left on his rookie deal so 7-8 years of control)
1982: Trade for 29-year-old Robert Parish with 2 years left on his contract for 23-year-old Alton Lister (with 3 years left on his rookie deal followed by RFA so 6-7 years of control)
I'm
not angry at Quail for this record of trades. He's putting on a clinic. What
does surprise me is that other GM's still want to convince themselves that they're going to come out long-term ahead in any trade with Quail - he's obviously very good at convincing you to look at the short term - in every single one of these trades, you could argue he traded away the better player "that season" - but the very next season the player he got in return was the better player (and remained that way afterward). As long as he can find GMs susceptible to this, his team will remain elite.