There have been a few comments to a recent post (near the end) that had a link to FB&G, which suggested that successful franchisees have a long-term plan and commit to it. They decide where they are going and how they will get there, then commit to coaches and players that fit the bill.
All of the comments generated referenced the recent Celtics as a team that had no plan, but then turned into an NBA Champion overnight. They traded for a few "final pieces" (don't forget that they gave up a pretty healthy future in Al Jefferson and last year's #5 pick - Jeff Green) to win a championship without such a long-term plan. However, I do not think that the Celtics example is dismissive of the premise, instead it is the exception rather than the rule.
Rather than pointing to a one-and-done Celtics team (that's right, no repeat because they have ZERO CHANCE of getting past the Cleveland LeBrons this year), I would instead point to two recent teams that better define the "long-term plan = success" rule: 1990s Bull and Spurs over the last decade.
Let's look at some similarities -
1990s Bull - lucked into the greatest player ever at #3.
Last-decade Spurs - lucked into greatest PF ever by somehow winning the lottery.
[Long-term plan decided without much thought ... build around superstar.]
1990s Bull - put pieces in place around MJ to take advantage of his skillset.
Last-decade Spurs - put pieces in place around Timmy D to take advantage of his skillset.
1990s Bull - eventually won 6 titles in 8 years.
Last-decade Spurs - eventually won 4 titles in 9 years.
Sort of sounds like the current Bull team, no? Lucking into a superstar / potential HoF PG by winning a lottery we had no right winning. Now we know the long-term plan - build around D-Rose. If we can put the right pieces in place, we can compete for multiple titles over the next 10 years (following the 1990s Bull / last-decade Spurs rule), rather than hope to throw together a one-and-done championship team (under the current Celtics exception to the rule).