Both have many flaws and can have many things go wrong. Developing is nice, but if you spent 3-4 years with the same young core and they don't turn into the players they were predicted to be, you are left up s#!t creek without a paddle. The same could be said with the model the C's have taken this year. The big three are all over 30, so probably only have 2-3 years at their peak left. If they can't get a title in this window, they will have nothing to show for it, as they have traded away there future and will most likely pick in the 25-30 range in the next few drafts.

Obviously finding a middle ground is the best way to go, but it is damn near impossible to trade for a superstar without giving up lots, whether it be draft picks, players, or both. As we have seen with KG this off-season (and the Kobe debacle).

I think the best bet would be to develop a nice young core and hope that you can bring in a big-time free agent to turn the team into a contender (see Nash, Steve), but that itself is very hard to do.

Depends on your agenda...

Are you trying to save your job as a GM??? If you are trading is your order just like the Boston method.

Have you just traded your superstar and rebuilding??? In that case I'd want young talent, expiring contracts and build via the draft, a bit of trading and fingers crossed jag someone decent during free agency. Refer to Timberwolves.

Are you the GM of a new franchise that has had a limited salary cap??? Then build through the draft and waiting for that right deal (trade) or big fish free agent. Refer to Charlotte.

The Hawks have had high lottery picks for the past 10 years and it hasn't got them anywhere near the playoffs. Part of the blame goes to players not developing, some weird picks, but I believe it's been the lack of decent free agents that want to goto Atlanta which is the problem. Joe Johnson was the last big free agent, before him it goes all the way back to Mt Mutumbo.

The Spurs and and to a lesser degree the Pistons IMO are the two model franchises. The Spurs broke into the European market before anyone else, got lucky that year the Admiral went down was the year they won the lottery and Duncan was the prize. They have used there picks very wisely and then filled the roster with good role players without shitty attitude. What other superstar in the NBA would take a paycut so the franchise can surround him with better talent.

It takes a bit of wheeling a dealing via trades, some crafty negiotations via free agency and some luck with the ping pongs balls and good scouting to develop a good franchise.... A little bit of luck will also go a long way.

trade is always better for instant success for teams on the brink of a good run .... these days spend time in developing a young guy and he bolts to another team once his contract expires ...so really teams wasted 3-4 years on a young guy, teaches him and then he uses that talent against you or demands max $$$$$ !!! no thnaks ...

You could argue for both methods, as well as a combination. The negatives are pretty scarey for both methods though. Atlanta has great depth right now, they have developed a young side but in a few years do you really think they will be able to keep them all??? Joe will want max, j-smith will want max, then you have the other josh, marvin, sheldon, and round it out with two rookies, one of which could demand big money. thats a lot of big contracts. I guess some teams are just destined to be minor clubs that feed the big fish.
If you'd rather just buy talent- look at the knicks, they buy guys that have career years (in their contract season er der)and put together a team of guys who have got theirs and just don't care.
Jazz are probably the best example of mixing free agents with developed draft picks.
I like toronto's strategy of using euro talent. they are generally more team orientated and less greedy for the bling bling.