NBA Front Office: Free agents to avoid

NBA Front Office

Jul 3, 2014, 12:05 PM ET

1. With free agency upon us, which team-building model is better -- shooting for multiple stars, or taking a team-oriented approach?

Amin Elhassan: I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all approach to team-building, other than that you need talent that "fits." Most teams really aren't free to pursue three top-10 talents at their leisure, so they must acquire talent that brings out the best in the talent they already have.

Kevin Pelton: I don't know that either is better. As the Finals demonstrated, the best team-oriented roster can be better than one with superstar talent. It's difficult to accumulate that much talent, and much easier -- and quicker -- to build around stars.

Chad Ford: For all but a handful of teams, it's the team-building approach that the San Antonio Spurs or Indiana Pacers have taken. It's very tough for most markets to get a big three via free agency or trade and even harder to build one through the draft. If you can get one star to build around, that's the way to go.

George Karl: I think it depends what you're capable of getting. If you can put three studs on your team, it's a great model. But what happens, I think, is you sometimes spend money on players who aren't studs, who aren't superstars. I think coaches have a list of superstars -- it might be 10 to 15 people. Agents have a list that's 30 or 40 players long. I think the best thing is, you have to manage your salary cap and put a structure in place that allows you to manage your versatility and creativity. If you can go get three studs like Chris Bosh, LeBron James and Dwyane Wade, that's great. But Denver can't. They have to have another formula. They have to develop role players, build a bench. I don't think there's one way.

Tom Penn: If you're going to win a championship, you've got to get blue-chip, marquee talent first. Other than the Detroit Pistons of 2004, every team that's won the title has had a stud -- or studs -- that can take over the end of games. In today's NBA, you must have that first. Go get the big talent and sort the rest out later.

David Thorpe: There is but one goal for a franchise: Create a roster and style of play that give your team enough of a chance to to win 55 games or so every season. That's the end, but the means will differ among teams. No one "plan" is necessarily better, and in reality, one can lead to the other. A team can draft great talents and develop them into stars, or begin to build a quality supporting cast that eventually gets supplemented with a great player. Still, no plan is bulletproof. If your "Big 3" is made up of selfish players, there's no title coming. And if your "team approach" lacks elite talent and coaching, you're equally doomed.

2. Would you ever hire a coach or player with no, or one year of, coaching experience?

Elhassan: It would have to be a very special circumstance, where the individual in question had some sort of experience removed from playing the game. From my time as a front office executive in the league, I've noticed that most players are ignorant of the process and workings of the team outside of their own personal requirements (watching film as a team, showing up to practice, lifting weights, getting extra court-work done, etc.). Coaching demands an extraordinary work ethic and discipline of the mind. If you haven't been there before, it's hard to fathom the full extent of the commitment to understand exactly what you're getting into and what's demanded of you.

Pelton: Probably not. You certainly can be successful hiring coaching neophytes. Doc Rivers is a good example of someone who got his first head coaching job just a few years removed from playing. But I still think success is more likely when those sorts of promising ex-players have spent some time on the bench, learning the game from a different perspective.

Ford: In most cases, no. There are always exceptions -- Doc Rivers comes to mind. But for the most part, a few years spent as an assistant seems like such a wise course -- not only for the team doing the hiring, but for the coach himself. I know hiring veteran assistants can help the transition, but to gain the respect of the locker room, it helps to learn what you need to do beforehand.

Karl: I could never do that. It would be against everything that I believe is successful. Would I hire a coach and back him up with an inexperienced, talented personality -- like a Derek Fisher -- and give him a year or two to learn under a good coach? I would do that. In fact, I like that idea. We know coaches have a short life span, so creating a three- to four-year window like that would be appealing. But too much change is detrimental to success. Continuity and consistency is undervalued in the NBA. Continuity has a lot of value: You've seen it with the Miami Heat, with the Spurs, with the Los Angeles Lakers. You see it in so many organizations, across sports -- the Steelers in the NFL, especially. Continuity of a philosophy and of a personality -- an organizational unity -- has a lot of success. If you believe in continuity like I do, putting your team in the hands of someone who's never done the job is a big risk.

Penn: It would be very difficult, including with college head coaches. That position is so complicated and so diverse in terms of the challenges posed that if you're going to hire a rookie -- a complete rookie -- you have to expect significant growing pains for at least a year.

Thorpe: Without a doubt. A strong front office can help a new coach develop quickly in a year or so. Then he can be helped along until he grows into an elite bench guy. Head coaching experience shouldn't be the top qualifier for a candidate. Just as teams draft players based on who they will be eventually -- as opposed to who they are today -- teams that aren't expecting to win right away can invest in inexperience with the hope that person will become someone special down the road. But that guy has to have a strong work ethic. He had better be a quick, diligent study and a natural leader.

3. Which lottery team could emerge from free agency as a playoff contender?

Elhassan: I'd be interested in hearing an answer other than the Phoenix Suns. They won 48 games last season and were in the hunt for a playoff spot up until the last week of the season, and they stand to improve significantly via free agency and trade.

Pelton: Cleveland Cavaliers. They play in the East, and with the addition of No. 1 overall pick Andrew Wiggins, they aren't far from being a .500 team. Adding another talented wing like Gordon Hayward would make them a likely playoff team.

Ford: If the Lakers get back a healthy Kobe Bryant and somehow lure Carmelo Anthony to L.A., I like their chances, even though that's going to have to somehow equal 20-plus added wins. But those are big ifs. The team most set up for a playoff run next year looks like the Cavs. The East isn't particularly strong, they've just added Wiggins and the team is getting aggressive in free agency (although I believe the Jazz will match any offer for Hayward).

Karl: Two teams that come to mind: Cleveland and Phoenix. Cleveland has tradable options and cap space. They had the No. 1 pick in the draft and they signed a great point guard. And they still have money to play with. I love what the Suns did this year in the draft, and what they are poised to do going forward. They have cap space and flexibility. They have to bring back Eric Bledsoe, though.

Penn: None can become true contenders. New contenders will come through organic growth, from the teams that have their act together already -- someone like the Portland Trail Blazers or the Los Angeles Clippers or the Oklahoma City Thunder or the Chicago Bulls. Of the bunch, I think Chicago has the best chance to emerge as a serious title threat if it lands a star like Carmelo Anthony.

Thorpe: The Bulls are the obvious answer, even if they don't sign anyone great. I like their draft selection, and getting Derrick Rose back in the lousy East should spell a pretty easy return to the postseason. The Minnesota Timberwolves are my dark horse out West, a team that based on expected win-loss record was a playoff team last season, despite massive injuries, a tired (and now retired) coach and some incredibly bad luck late in games. If they strike it rich with their trade plans for Kevin Love and Flip Saunders can do a great coaching job, they could make a big leap this season.

4. Which free agent not named LeBron James is the closest thing to a slam dunk signing?

Elhassan: It has to be Dirk Nowitzki. He showed last season that he very much is still one of the most productive bigs in the league, and he's probably going to take a significant, Tim Duncan-style pay cut to ensure that the Mavs can enhance his supporting cast, which will in turn allow them to demand less of him, which will prolong his window of productivity.

Pelton: Chandler Parsons. Not yet 26, Parsons hasn't quite reached his peak, and his skill set lends itself to value in a complementary role. As long as some team doesn't acquire Parsons to be the guy, he's a safe bet for the next four years.

Ford: Kyle Lowry. He's in his prime, most advanced statistics point to him being one of the three or four most valuable players in the market, and I think his contract -- four years, $48 million -- was reasonable. Perhaps he struggles to live up to his contract value in the last year of his deal, but overall, I think this is a can't-lose endeavor for the Raptors. I'm surprised rival teams didn't offer him more.

Karl: I think there are three guys who are no-nonsense players: Gordon Hayward, Luol Deng and Chandler Parsons. I would love to have any of these guys on the roster because they're pliable. They can fit on a fast team, on a defensive team, and they can fit with a team that's going to play slow. They have this adaptability, and they're all all-star talents. They have a substance to their character, too, that's improvement to the growth of a team. Those are guys that I would overpay.

Penn: Luol Deng. He's still an outstanding small forward who plays well at both ends. He's a coach's dream.

Thorpe: It's a relatively long list, but Chris Bosh seems to be a can't-miss guy if he leaves Miami. We know he can be a 20-10 (20 points, 10 rebounds) guy and an elite defender. We know he's a great teammate who now has the experience of making four straight Finals appearances and winning two titles. And we know he can serve as a primary weapon in games or a stretch big who can open up the lane for a high-scoring teammate.

5. Which FA would you not touch with a 10-foot pole?

Elhassan: Almost every player in the NBA is desirable for the right price, but I think I'd steer clear of Lance Stephenson, absent a tremendous discount (which does not seem realistic after he turned down a reported $44 million deal from the Indiana Pacers). I think Stephenson is the type of player who benefits from a very particular set of circumstances: a rigid structure, strong leadership in both the locker room and the front office, and a no-nonsense attitude from his teammates and coaches. When he's in check, he's a tremendous talent, but his maturity issues can drag him down.

Pelton: Rodney Stuckey. Of course, Andrew Bynum is a free agent, too, but given that Bynum is not likely to make much more than the minimum, I'll go with Stuckey as a candidate to be overpaid. Stuckey has had a below-average PER the past two seasons. Plus, his poor 3-point shooting (27.3 percent last season) is not conducive to a smaller role. He depends on his athleticism and size, and he's already 29. I see his game declining early in his next contract.

Ford: Lance Stephenson. Lance has tons of talent, but he's inconsistent, still shows signs of major immaturity and he's done that playing in a contract year. What happens when he gets big-time guaranteed money? The Pacers were able to control him, in part, by surrounding him with veterans and an intricate player development program. If he's on his own as a star, you could see the second coming of J.R. Smith.

Karl: The one guy who scares a little bit that seems to be valued higher than I think he's earned is Greg Monroe. I like him as a player, but he's on the Pistons, which has lost a lot of games and had nightmarish seasons. My belief is when you string together a few seasons like that, the blame deserves to go around to everybody. I don't know if that's true or not. But we have this guy who is close to a max player, and he's never been on a team that has won more than 30 games. There are probably four or five teams out there that think he fits what they need and will give him the money he's asking for. But for me, I've always had problems taking players off of bad teams.

Penn: Lance Stephenson. Give me a 12-foot pole, maybe. He's too erratic, too volatile -- on and off the court. You don't know what you're getting quarter-to-quarter with him, and it's really hard to build a culture around that with other quality, high-IQ guys.

Thorpe: I worry less about the names than I do the contracts. Hayward on a max deal? No way. Wade for $50 million over four years? Yikes. Mike Miller for four years at $4 million per? No thanks. However, those guys would be great to get on fair deals. If I had to pick one high-dollar guy who would scare me the most, assuming he signed for a fair contract, I'd say it's Stephenson. He just seems like the opposite of what the Spurs and Heat had the past two years. When every single player buys into the concepts and mindset of a team, it gives a team its best chance to win big and survive late into the playoffs. I don't trust Lance to do that. Still, I allow for the likelihood that he will grow up, mature and fall in line, eventually.

5-on-5: Super-sized edition

More NBA Front Office content