Off-season grades for some teams
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Topic HOF This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2014
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:09 am    Post subject: Off-season grades for some teams

Note: changed the title from "Off-season grades for some GM's"

Note on grading: if a GM drafted with the picks he had and made no major moves, then he got a "C". If they made a significant move that helped the team outside of drafting with his current pick, then he got a "B" (or a "D" if the significant move hurt the team). I gave a GM an "A" or an "F" for multiple significant moves that helped or hurt the team.

Note: I believe that a team should rebuild once it is apparent that the existing core has reached its peak but can't contend for a championship. Typically, the first move a team should make is to trade away their oldest star with trade value. I think the Suns, Rockets and Spurs fall into that category, but some people think that the Spurs can still contend for a championship so I gave the Spurs two grades.

The grades apply to only the basketball operations of the franchise.
Lakers: A
The NBA champs with a fairly young roster
What should have been his goals
1. Keep the championship team together
2. Keep the salary structure within reason

Moves summary
* Re-signed UFA's Brown, Mbenga, Odom and Powell to reasonable contracts
* Lost Ariza to free agency, but signed Artest in his place to a MLE contract
* Sold the 29th and the 42nd picks for a surprising amount of cash (and 2011 2nd round picks)

Comments
I would have preferred that he re-signed Ariza

Celtics: A
A championship caliber team with 3 aging stars
What should have been his goals
1. Keep the championship-caliber team together
2. Add a veteran or two to help the team compete now
3. Get some youth for his team

Moves summary
* Signed Wallace, Daniels and Williams
* Re-signed Davis

Comments
Achieved all of his goals

Clippers: A
I can't say I understand why the Clippers were so utterly miserable last season. They had plenty of talent. They had some injury issues, but that doesn't explain how they were terrible from the start.
What should have been his goals
1. Get rid of malcontents
2. Improve depth
3. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
4. Maximize salary cap flexability

Moves summary
* Traded Randolph to Memphis for Richardson
* Traded Richardson to Minnesota for guard Telfair, Smith and Madsen
* Traded a conditional future second-round pick to New Orleans for Butler
* Re-signed Novak and Skinner
* Lost Acker and Jones to free agency
* Drafted Griffin with the 1st pick

Comments
Getting rid of Randolph was huge as he is player he puts up great stats while his team plays poorly and it frees up PT for Griffin. He then got some bench support for next to nothing. Next off-season, the Clippers will be way under the salary cap and could be a very attractive destination for free agents.

Grizzlies: F
A team with some nice young players in Gay, Mayo and Gasol, but none appear to be All-Stars.
What should have been his goals
1. Get some quality big men
2. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
3. Maximize salary cap flexability

Moves summary
* Traded Milicic to the Knicks for Richardson and cash
* Traded Buckner to the Mavericks for Stackhouse, who was then waived
* Traded Richardson to the Clippers for Randolph
* Signed Williams and Iverson
* Traded a future conditional second-round pick to the Nuggets for Hunter, a protected 2010 first-round pick and cash
* Lost Ross and Warrick to free agency
* Drafted Thabeet with the #2 pick, Carroll with the #27 pick and Young with the 36th pick

Comments
I don't understand what Wallace was trying to do. Bringing proven cancers Randolph and Iverson on to a young team? Reaching to draft a project center in Thabeet when they have a quality young center in Gasol? He seems to have set the team back, which is hard to do with a 24 win team.

Hornets: B/Incomplete
During the '07-'08 season, looked to be a young team capable of contending for a long time, but took a step backward last season and faces severe revenue problems
What should have been his goals
1. Keep his key players
2. Upgrade key positions
3. Key the salary structure reasonable

Moves summary
* Traded Chandler to Bobcats for Okafor
* Traded Butler ($4M expiring) to Clippers for future 2nd round pick
* Traded Daniels and 2014 2nd round pick to the Timberwolves for Brown and Songaila
* Signed Diogu
* Re-signed Marks
* Drafted Collison (#21) and traded two future 2nd round picks for the rights to Thornton (#43)
* Lost Bowen and Pargo to free agency

Comments
The only significant move was the trade of Chandler for Okafor. It looks like a very smart move, ridding the team of the offensive limited, injury proned Chandler for a proven low post scorer. The "Incomplete" is because I am hesitatant to judge the trade because Okafor's teams have never won more than 35 games and how much of that bad play is Okafor's fault?

Jazz: C
A solid, young playoff team that needs to just a little more talent in order to be a contender
What should have been his goals
1. Keep his key players
2. Upgrade key positions
3. Key the salary structure reasonable

Moves summary
* Re-signed Millsap and Price
* Drafted Maynor (#20) and Suton (#50)
* Lost Almond and Collins to free agency

Comments
The Jazz are going to go with essentially the same team as last year

Kings: C
The worst team in the NBA last season that has a roster with little upside
What should have been his goals
1. Get rid of the weak players on the roster
2. Get some quality big men
3. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
4. Maximize salary cap flexability

Moves summary
* Fired head coach Natt and hired Westphal
* Traded the draft rights to #31 Pendergraph to the Trail Blazers for Rodriguez, the draft rights to #38 Brockman and cash
* Signed May and Mason
* Drafted Tyreke Evans (#4) and Casspi (#23)
* Lost Diogu and Simmons to free agency

Comments
The Kings lost big in the lottery, getting the #4 pick despite having the worst record. Changing head coaches was the only significant move of the off-season, so I expect the Kings to conitnue at the bottom of the league.

Mavericks: F
What should have been his goals
1. Rebuild the roster
2. Get some quality big men
3. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
4. Maximize salary cap flexability

Moves summary
* Did a S&T with Wright and George for Marion, Humphries and Jawai
* Traded Stackhouse for Buckner
* Signed Ross, Thomas, Gooden
* Re-signed Kidd
* Lost Bass to free agency
* Drafted Beaubois with the 25th pick

Comments
Last year, the Mavericks were 50-32 for 6th in the conference with a veteran core. Rather than admit that their core wasn't good enough to contend, the Mavericks invested heavily to make the current team as competive as possible. The team could have had incredible cap room in 2011, now they will have $16.5M tied up in 38 year old Kidd and 33 year old Marion.

Nuggets: D
What should have been his goals
1. Keep the championship-caliber team together
2. Add a veteran or two to help the team compete now
3. Get some youth for his team

Moves summary
* Traded Charlotte's protected 2010 #1 pick for the 18th pick Lawson
* Traded draft rights to Hervelle for White
* Traded a 2011 2nd round pick for Afflalo and Sharpe
* Traded Weems, Sharpe and Cash for Allen
* Traded Hunter and a protected 2010 first round pick to Memphis for a future conditional 2nd round pick
* Re-signed Andersen, Carter and Petro
* Lost Jones and Kleiza to free agency

Comments
It looks like Warkentien was trying to build a cheap bench so that he could avoid the luxury tax. He made 5 trades and the best vet he added was Afflalo. Trading Charlotte's pick for the 18th pick in what was considered a weak draft seems a drop in talent and the Nuggets already had a solid back up PG in Carter. Why trade something useful for White when he has flopped with 3 other teams?

Pacers: C
What should have been his goals
His team is a small market team with a big payroll and not much talent
1. Cut payroll
2. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible

Moves summary
* Signed Dahntay Jones, Watson and Solmon Jones
* Waived Tinsley
* Drafted Hansbrough with the 13th pick

Comments
Didn't make any bad moves but didn't make any good moves.

Pistons: F
What should have been his goals
1. Rebuild the roster as his only decent players were Hamilton and Prince
2. Get some quality big men as they lost McDyess and Wallace
3. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
4. Maximize salary cap flexibility
5. Sign a quality head coach

Moves summary
* Signed Gordon, Villanueva, Wallace
* Traded Johnson, Afflalo and Sharpe for close to nothing
* Hired John Kuester as head coach
* Drafted Daye with the 15th pick

Comments
Two tweeners (Gordon and Villanueva) to big $$$, long term contracts? Kwame and Big Ben as your centers (and both are UFA's after this season)? Hired as your head coach a no-name assistant coach with no NBA head coaching experience? One of the worst off-seasons I can remember

Rockets: D/Incomplete
What should have been his goals
It's really tough because his goals if McGrady and Ming come back are much different than if they don't. Given the uncertainty, I would say his goals should have been:
1. Sign a PF/C
2. Add scoring punch
3. Sign short (1 or 2 season) contracts

Moves summary
* Signed Ariza
* Traded for rights to Andersen and signed him
* Let Artest and Wafer go

Comments
Andersen is key to this off-season and I don't know how to evaluate him. In the past year, he averaged 11.1 points and 4.1 rebounds in 23 Euroleague contests. 4.1 rebounds seems awful for a PF/C. Andersen is 6'11" and the next tallest Rocket is 6'9" The Rockets have 11 players 6'7" to 6'9" on their roster (out of 17).

I think the Ariza signing will be a disaster for the Rockets. They can't put Ariza and Battier on the court at the same time as they averaged only 16.2 ppg combined last season. Unless McGrady fully comes back, I just don't see where the Rockets are going to be getting any scoring as 4 (Ming, Artest, Alston, Wafer) of their top 7 scorers aren't back for this season.

Spurs: A or C depending if you think they can contend or not
What should have been his goals
1. Get some youth for his team
2. Add a veteran or two to help the team compete now

Moves summary
* Traded Bowen, Thomas and Oberto for Jefferson
* Signed McDyess and Ratliff

Comments
The Spurs decide to get help for their core in order to make another push for a championship with the Duncan core. I don't think it will be enough and long term will hurt the team. The oldest team in the NBA didn't even try to add any youth, settling for only adding the 37th pick in the draft. Once Duncan retires, this is going to be a really bad team for years.

Suns: D
What should have been his goals
1. Rebuild the roster
2. Get some quality big men
3. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
4. Maximize salary cap flexability

Moves summary
* Traded Shaq for players they eventually waived
* Re-signed Hill and extended Nash
* Signed Frye and Griffin
* Drafted Clark with the 14th pick

Comments
Last year's 46-36 team had 3 starters aged 36, 34 and 36 and a fourth starter recovering from a severe eye injury. Their bench is poor beyond Barbosa. Dumping Shaq for waivable players was the right move, but that left Stoudemire as their only qualtity big man. So Kerr re-signs Hill and extends Nash? All that does is extend the pain.

Thunder: C
What should have been his goals
1. Get some quality big men
2. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
3. Maximize salary cap flexability

Moves summary
* Drafted Harden with the #3 pick and Mullens with the #24 pick
* Traded Atkins and Wilkins for Thomas, a 2010 2nd round pick and a 2010 conditional 2nd round pick

Comments
The best 23 win team in the NBA, which means they sucked. They got killed at every position except SF (per 82games.com). Presti didn't address his most pressing need (which is for quality big men) but he didn't make any bad moves. Unless something surprising happens, their lack of big men will keep them a mediocre to bad team for the foreseeable future.

Timberwolves: A
A young struggling team with some talented players but lots of holes
What should have been his goals
1. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible
2. Maximize salary cap flexability

Moves summary
* Traded Foye and Miller to the Wizards for Thomas, Songalia, Pecherov and #5 pick
* Drafted Rubio (#5), Flynn (#6), Ellington (#28) and Norel (#47)
* Traded rights for Lawson (#18) to Denver's for Charlotte's protected next #1 pick
* Traded Telfair, Madsen and Smith to the Clippers for Richardson ($8.7M expiring)
* Traded Thomas ($8m expiring), a 2nd round pick, a conditional 2nd round pick to the Thunder for Atkins and Wilkins ($7.1M expiring)
* Signed Hollins, Sessions and Pavlovic
* Named Rambis as head coach
* Traded Richardson ($8.7M expiring) to the HEAT for Blount ($8M expiring)
* Traded Songalia and Brown to Hornets for Daniels ($6.6M expiring) and 2014 2nd round pick
* Lost Carney, Collins, Ollie and Williams to free agency

Comments
I love both the Foye and Miller trade and the Lawson trade. There were a lot of moves to reduce salaries this season and free up an amazing amount of salary cap space for next season ($37.5M in salaries). The free agent signings were reasonable amount for young players. My philosophy is that young teams are better off picking veteran coaches where as veteran teams are better off picking young coaches, so based upon that hiring Rambis was a mistake, though I hope I am proven wrong. The only thing that didn't go well was that the T-Wolves didn't sign Rubio. That may turn out OK in the future as they could sign him or trade his rights later, but it hurts short term. Also, with so much youth it would have been good to acquire a hard working vet to provide some leadership.

Trail Blazers: B
A young team that tied for the 2nd best record in the Western Conference
What should have been his goals
1. Keep his key players
2. Upgrade key positions
3. Key the salary structure reasonable
4. Add a hard working vet to provide some locker room leadership

Moves summary
* Signed Miller
* Signed Roy to a contract extension
* Traded Rodriguez, the draft rights to Brockman (#38) and cash to the Kings for the draft rights to Pendergraph (#31)
* Drafted Claver (#22), Cunningham (#33), Brockman (#38) and Mills (#55)
* Lost Frye to free agency

Comments
Signing Miller upgraded their weakest position, PG. The only other significant move was getting Rodriguez out of town, though I don't know why the Blazers thought they would be better without him.

Warriors: C
What should have been his goals
1. Get rid of his overcompensated players
2. Acquire as much first round pick talent as possible

Moves summary
* Traded Crawford to Atlanta for Law and Claxton
* Traded Belinelli to Toronto for George and cash
* Signed Moore
* Re-signed Watson
* Drafted Curry with the #7 pick

Comments
The Warriors got creamed by injuries last season and wound up winning only 29 games. The Warriors have a young roster, but no one who is an All-Star caliber player. They are in the no man's land of not good enough to contend but not bad enough to get a high draft pick necessary to have a good chance at drafting an All-Star. Their top 4 contracts run 4-5 years, so they won't have any cap room to pursue free agents for the foreseeable future. They are where the Pacers were a couple of years ago. Riley made a couple of money saving trades, but nothing to move the Warriors out of the no man's land. I think they just have years of misery ahead of them.

Edit: Finished the Western Conference


Last edited by Dennis_D on Thu Oct 15, 2009 6:18 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46024

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:13 am    Post subject:

Mike Dunleavy gets an A.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:23 am    Post subject:

I strongly disagree with your assessment of San Antonio's offseason. They addressed their two biggest weaknesses, which were an athletic wing (Jefferson, whom they got for nothing) and offensive rebounding/interior defense. (McDyess/Ratliff) They were BY FAR the worst offensive rebounding team in the league last year, and McDyess was 9th (IIRC) in the league in this respect in less than 30mpg.

Capitalizing on the tail end of Duncan's productive years is a lot more important for them than adding youth at this point, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 86712
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:36 am    Post subject:

I disagree with the minus on LA as well. Yeah, I would have liked to have seen Ariza back, and yeah Ron scares me, but you have to say that "trade" was at the very least lateral.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2014
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:51 am    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
I strongly disagree with your assessment of San Antonio's offseason. They addressed their two biggest weaknesses, which were an athletic wing (Jefferson, whom they got for nothing) and offensive rebounding/interior defense. (McDyess/Ratliff) They were BY FAR the worst offensive rebounding team in the league last year, and McDyess was 9th (IIRC) in the league in this respect in less than 30mpg.

Capitalizing on the tail end of Duncan's productive years is a lot more important for them than adding youth at this point, IMO.

Last season, they were tied for the 5th best record overall, tied for 2nd in the West and lost in the first round. In the playoffs, Duncan and Parker had PER's of 27.3 and 29.3 respectively, but everyone else who played significant minutes had a PER of less than 10. Duncan, Ginobili and Finley will look even older this year. Even with these moves, I would place them at best third in the West behind the Lakers and Portland and a likely second round loser. Is that worth mortgaging your future for? I say "No", but you may say something else.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LAkers 4 Life
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 14629

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:01 pm    Post subject:

Spurs are in a win now mode. The moves they made were all short term and certainly is an upgrade over what they had last season.

You were too generous with Kerr and Dumars. Give them a Z for ruining title contenders in such a short amount of time.

A little harsh on the Lakers. Mitch did very well within the salary constraints that the team had. It's not Mitch's fault that David Lee is in fantasyland with regards to his demands. Mitch did very well to get a potential upgrade in talent in Artest for the price that he was willing to spend.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LOGoods7
Starting Rotation
Starting Rotation


Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 448

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:47 pm    Post subject:

a C for the Spurs? Really?

They looked like they were done last year, and I'd say now they're definitely in the hunt again..They got rid of 3 old players for RJ and got McDyess who is pretty good....definitely deserve an A to me
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:49 pm    Post subject:

Dennis_D wrote:
Last season, they were tied for the 5th best record overall, tied for 2nd in the West and lost in the first round. In the playoffs, Duncan and Parker had PER's of 27.3 and 29.3 respectively, but everyone else who played significant minutes had a PER of less than 10. Duncan, Ginobili and Finley will look even older this year. Even with these moves, I would place them at best third in the West behind the Lakers and Portland and a likely second round loser. Is that worth mortgaging your future for? I say "No", but you may say something else.


That's because the dropoff from Duncan/Parker to the rest of the team was extreme, considering that Manu was hurt. Michael Finley may have been their 3rd best player at that point. IMO, this supports the case that they could still be contenders with a better supporting cast. If they remain healthy, they're adding Manu, Jefferson, & McDyess to the mix with Duncan/Parker, who are still very effective.

The Spurs' championship window is directly tied to Duncan. What future did they mortgage? They didn't have cap space, and there were no young stars to be had for the MLE. Acquiring a decent, young player wouldn't matter much, because their future consists of Parker in his prime, and Duncan/Manu far past it.

Building for a future that solely centers around Tony Parker and an unidentified young player would have been poor judgment because that team would have to acquire A LOT more talent to compete for a championship. They're seizing their opportunity at a championship while they can. The future that centers around Parker is still there, they didn't do anything to mortgage it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MIMLaker
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 18 Jul 2001
Posts: 9851
Location: Los Angeles/ Alhambra, CA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Dennis_D wrote:
Mitch Kupchak of the Lakers: A-
What should have been his goals
1. Keep the championship team together
2. Keep the salary structure within reason

Moves summary
* Re-signed UFA's Brown, Mbenga, Odom and Powell to reasonable contracts
* Lost Ariza to free agency, but signed Artest in his place to a MLE contract
* Sold the 29th and the 42nd picks for a surprising amount of cash (and 2011 2nd round picks)

Comments
He would have gotten an A if he had been able to re-sign Ariza


Would have gotten an A+ if he had both Ariza AND Artest, or added a big guard like Daniels to Artest and Ariza.


Quote:

RC Buford of the Spurs: C
What should have been his goals
1. Get some youth for his team
2. Add a veteran or two to help the team compete now

Moves summary
* Traded Bowen, Thomas and Oberto for Jefferson
* Signed McDyess and Ratliff

Comments
The oldest team in the NBA didn't even try to add any youth, settling for only adding the 37th pick in the draft. Once Duncan retires, this is going to be a really bad team for years.


Respectfully disagree, DD.

1. On the Spurs, youth is relative. As I'm sure you'll agree, when a team has an MVP-level player, it's all about maximizing the window. Since this team regularly rotates players multiple players over the age of 32, anybody under 30 is considered "youth."

That being said, they added 2 people you forgot to mention. First, DeJuan Blair is generally considered to be a great fit for this team. Here's the NCAA's leading rebounder, a wide-body with good mobility, a little short at 6-7 to 6-8, but a solid 250 lbs., with plenty of experience playing a hard-nosed defensive style under Jaime Dixon (the Ben Howland protege) at Pitt. His job will be to bang, board, and play smart on offense. Easy fit for the rookie out of college.

The other pseudo-youth addition is Marcus Haislip. 6-10 and 230, played the past few years in Europe, after benchwarming here, so he doesn't have nearly the mileage a 29-year-old baller would otherwise have in the NBA. And we all know how well the Spurs do with Euro-influenced players -- maybe not a lot of All-Stars, but solid enough rotation guys.

Could they have added more youth? Sure, but Mason's emergence last year in the face of other players' injuries at elast keeps Father Time at bay a little while longer.

2. In Jefferson, SA added a smart, athletic, legitimate 2-way player at the 3-spot whose only apparent chemistry problems involve his marital status. In the emerging SF arms race, SA pulled in a GOOD one.

While SA sure didn't reduce the average age with McDyess and Ratliff, McDyess is still a surprisingly productive player at the power spots, averaging around 9 and 9.

IMO, a C is too harsh. With Jefferson, Blair, and McDyess, that's 3 solid, solid gets.

I'd give them an A-.

MIM
_________________
Targets w/ Kawhi (*cap exception or split): Anthony, Caruso, Carter, Cook, Cousins*, THT (2-way), Lin, McGee*, Norvell, Rondo*.

Targets w/o Kawhi: Same as above, but add Green (up to $16M) and Holiday.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 23818

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

We've already debated Sam Presti elsewhere, so I'll just skip that one.

Dennis_D wrote:
Mitch Kupchak of the Lakers: A-


That's reasonable. I don't like giving Artest five years, so I'd probably give him a B+. But reasonable minds can differ on that.

Dennis_D wrote:
Danny Ainge of the Celtics: A
What should have been his goals
1. Keep the championship-caliber team together
2. Add a veteran or two to help the team compete now
3. Get some youth for his team


You set the bar pretty low for him. It wasn't very hard to meet those goals, and I don't know that he accomplished them very well. It all depends on how Rasheed plays this year. But if those goals are your standard, I can buy your analysis.

Dennis_D wrote:
Joe Dumars of the Pistons: F
Comments
Two tweeners (Gordon and Villanueva) to big $$$, long term contracts? Kwame and Big Ben as your centers (and both are UFA's after this season)? Hired as your head coach a no-name assistant coach with no NBA head coaching experience? One of the worst off-seasons I can remember


I agree, except that I don't know anything about the new coach. There are a lot of "no-name assistant coaches" who aren't no-name within the basketball community. You may be right.

Dennis_D wrote:
RC Buford of the Spurs: C
What should have been his goals
1. Get some youth for his team
2. Add a veteran or two to help the team compete now


Some people think they got a steal with their second round draft pick, so it may turn out that they did better than you think. Anyway, item 1 may not have been a legitimate goal for them. Once Duncan retires, they'll be in a full blown rebuilding mode anyway. They obviously think that the right move is to make an effort to milk one more title run out of this roster. I wouldn't criticize that decision.

Dennis_D wrote:
Steve Kerr of the Suns: D


I'm with you on this one. I don't understand what Kerr is trying to accomplish. Dumping Shaq while extending Nash seems strange.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Annihilator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 3344

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:00 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Mike Dunleavy gets an A.

No chance. Every year people think the Clippers have done something to turn around their franchise and every year something bad happens. It is the curse of the Sterling. Somehow, the Clippers will screw this up. Dunleavy might deserve an "Incomplete" but until the Clippers actually make it to the playoffs in consecutive years I have no hope for them at all.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46024

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:04 pm    Post subject:

Annihilator wrote:
ocho wrote:
Mike Dunleavy gets an A.

No chance. Every year people think the Clippers have done something to turn around their franchise and every year something bad happens. It is the curse of the Sterling. Somehow, the Clippers will screw this up. Dunleavy might deserve an "Incomplete" but until the Clippers actually make it to the playoffs in consecutive years I have no hope for them at all.


Historically, of course, they have run into the Clipper curse but how can you argue a summer in which they luck into Blake Griffin, find a suitor for Zach Randolph, made a couple of nice role player acquisitions and cleared cap space to make them probably the most appealing LeBron destination?
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
gng930
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 8790

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:28 pm    Post subject:

If Mitch gets a (-) for losing Ariza (despite replacing him with Artest), then so should Danny for losing Powe (despite replacing him with Wallace).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
CandyCanes
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 Dec 2007
Posts: 29987
Location: Santa Clarita, CA (Hell) ->>>>>Ithaca, NY -≥≥≥≥≥Berkeley, CA

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 8:30 pm    Post subject:

Kupchak deserves an A... Artest is an upgrade over Ariza. We can't have both.

The Spurs deserve an A as well. They stole Jefferson for next to nothing and added some more big man support.
_________________
Damian Lillard shatters Dwight Coward's championship dreams:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZrbEjppnd4
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Annihilator
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 02 Jul 2001
Posts: 3344

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:01 pm    Post subject:

ocho wrote:
Annihilator wrote:
ocho wrote:
Mike Dunleavy gets an A.

No chance. Every year people think the Clippers have done something to turn around their franchise and every year something bad happens. It is the curse of the Sterling. Somehow, the Clippers will screw this up. Dunleavy might deserve an "Incomplete" but until the Clippers actually make it to the playoffs in consecutive years I have no hope for them at all.


Historically, of course, they have run into the Clipper curse but how can you argue a summer in which they luck into Blake Griffin, find a suitor for Zach Randolph, made a couple of nice role player acquisitions and cleared cap space to make them probably the most appealing LeBron destination?

On paper it looks like the Clippers have had a great summer. But somehow, Sterling will find a way to screw it up. Somehow. Someplace. Somewhere. Any positive expectations for the Clippers is an absolute waste. This is not the first off-season where people have thought that the Clippers have some how turned it around. Every year people post in LG how the Clippers are finally going to have a competitive team. Every year, on paper, it looks like they are right. It does not take long for it to become clear that the Clippers have fallen apart. The team has only had six winning seasons in its entire history and only two since it moved to LA in 1984. The Clippers are Los Angeles's version of the Chicago Cubs except nobody really cares.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Jacko
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 5159

PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:13 pm    Post subject:

Spurs had a great offseason....

RJ for pretty much nothing,

Blair in 2nd round is the biggest steal of the draft.....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address Reply with quote
limchrc
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Posts: 11477

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:51 am    Post subject:

Spurs gets an A.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Rick12322
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 19164

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:05 am    Post subject:

I give Mitch an A+ for his amazing patience and ability to make decisions under pressure. Nobody could have handled that situation any better, IMO. He had plan b being courted by Lebron, which had to be tempting for Artest, meanwhile his verbal proposal to Ariza was about 30% under the amount Trevor was seeking, and he had a mouthy defiant manager threatening to end negotiations right there.

Trevor is not innocent in all of this as he full well knew our finances were limited and we still needed to make a deal for LO. Inspite of that he was willing to leave the team for more money.

We wanted Trevor and LO, the only way to make that happen was with two mle type salaries. Mitch made a verbal MLE offer that was rejected. Mitch suggested letting the league dictate Trevor's value by shopping around, then coming back with the offer sheets. Had David Lee accepted, Mitch would have waited, but when Lee huffed and puffed and threatened not to come back, that was it. Not Mitch's fault. It was a difficult situation with time constraints, that's why his handling of it deserves an A+.


Last edited by Rick12322 on Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:17 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2014
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:10 am    Post subject:

My post on the Spurs from August, 2007
Dennis W. Disney wrote:
Man, I am so sick of the "Spurs always do the right thing" posts.
:
The Spurs were one of the oldest teams, if not the oldest team, in the NBA. Last season, Horry was 36, Barry and Bowen were 35, Finley was 33, Oberto was 31, Duncan was 30 and Ginobili was 29. The Spurs FO made the following moves last off-season:
1. Traded Nesterovic (30) for Matt Bonner (26) and Eric Williams (34) and a 2009 2nd round pick
2. Signed Jacque Vaughn (31)
3. Signed Jackie Butler (21)
4. Signed Francisco Elson (30)
5. Signed James White (24)
6. In Feb, traded for Melvin Ely (28)

That means the Spurs players under 30 besides Parker and Ginobili were:
Udrih - In his 3rd season, put up numbers very similar to Sasha
Bonner - Averaged 11.7 mpg in 56 games
White - Played in 6 games, cut after the season
Butler - Played in 11 games, traded after the season
Ely - Played in 6 games, not re-signed

This off-season, the Spurs traded Butler and the draft rights to Luis Scola (27) to Houston for Vassilis Spanoulis (25), who averaged 8.8 mpg in 31 games last season and who has since gone back to Europe.

Given that next season the Spurs will have more players who are over 33 and on the last year of their contract than players under 30, I would think that signing some youth would be paramount. But instead, the Spurs sign a project player who is 30! And the move earns kudos for many Laker fans for its brilliance!

That summer, the consensus on this board was that signing Fisher was a terrible move and signing Udoka was brilliant. If the Spurs had signed a good young free agent instead of Udoka, he could still be contributing in Duncan's last season where as Udoka won't be contributing even this season. Now the core is 2 years older, all of the new acquisitions since the '06-'07 season ended have not panned out, so the need for young talent has gotten more severe.

This year, this is the Spurs have as starters Parker (27), Finley (36), Jefferson (29), Duncan (33), McDyess (35) and their 6th man is Ginobili (32 with chronic bad ankle). Their bench is incredibly weak and the two main additions there (Ratliff and Blair) have chronic injury problems. Yes, they could all stay healthy all season, but how likely is that? After this season, Ginobili, Finley, Mason and Bonner are UFA's. This season looks like it will be the last one the Spurs can dream of contending and losing in the second round is far more likely. It's not like they are going to disband the Spurs franchise once Duncan retires. A GM should be planning for at least 5 years, but Buford has for years been making moves for Right Now! and those haven't panned out. Given that 2006, 2007 and 2008 off-seasons were all "F"'s, going with a "C" for this off-season is probably optimistic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
davidse
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 03 Jul 2005
Posts: 14302

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:34 am    Post subject:

1. disagree about the spurs - no team has improved more than they did.
nuff said.
an A if i've ever seen one.

2. i'd probably give mitch an A without the minus, but that may be because i was so much in favor of the artest move for years.
all things considerred - i think he's earned an A regardless.

3. ainge and boston have done a fantastic job, but imo they failed to adress the back up sf position, and the resigning of big baby for a super bargain contract does not get nearly enough credit - regardless of davis' options. that is a SUPER bargain.

4. also disagree about presti and the thunder.
getting a quality big wasn't an offseason goal. it was a preference.
they weren't looking to put the final pieces on a team looking to contend in 2010...

sure, they would have loved to get a talented young big, but not at the expense of overpaying a player or hurting the team's future.

they weren't about to become contenders next year either way...

so they did the smart thing - got a young, talented and cheap sg in the draft - which they needed, maintained their cap flexibility, and kept the payroll low which is crucial for that team.

actually, the team which you gave an F to - the pistons - did the exact opposite of what the thunder did.

instead of showing the patience and forsight that presti did by not pressing the issue - dumars settled for the best that he could get now.
and what it got him was a team that might make the playoffs now, but probably won't make the confrence finals for many many years...

presti avoided temptation (if there even was one), and kept the thunder on the slow safe course to becoming an elite team - if their economics allow it.
because barring financial issues, the thunder have bypassed portland this offseason as the team with the best future prospect in the nba.

and there's no way all of that is worth a C.

B for his actions, B+ for not forcing the action.


Last edited by davidse on Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sky
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Up

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:36 am    Post subject:

Kupchak A, Ainge A-, Buford B with the chance to go higher if Blair pans out. What killed San Antonio was the braindead Scola trade and that Splitter has been reluctant to leave Spain.

Kerr's moves are all about money. Shaq for trash as a cost cutting move, re-signing Nash as a keep attendance up move. That's not on him it's Sarver. Any time GM moves are based on money instead of the floor the team suffers. Agreed on Dumars he just kept whiffing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:40 am    Post subject:

Dennis_D wrote:
That summer, the consensus on this board was that signing Fisher was a terrible move and signing Udoka was brilliant. If the Spurs had signed a good young free agent instead of Udoka, he could still be contributing in Duncan's last season where as Udoka won't be contributing even this season. Now the core is 2 years older, all of the new acquisitions since the '06-'07 season ended have not panned out, so the need for young talent has gotten more severe.

This year, this is the Spurs have as starters Parker (27), Finley (36), Jefferson (29), Duncan (33), McDyess (35) and their 6th man is Ginobili (32 with chronic bad ankle). Their bench is incredibly weak and the two main additions there (Ratliff and Blair) have chronic injury problems. Yes, they could all stay healthy all season, but how likely is that? After this season, Ginobili, Finley, Mason and Bonner are UFA's. This season looks like it will be the last one the Spurs can dream of contending and losing in the second round is far more likely. It's not like they are going to disband the Spurs franchise once Duncan retires. A GM should be planning for at least 5 years, but Buford has for years been making moves for Right Now! and those haven't panned out. Given that 2006, 2007 and 2008 off-seasons were all "F"'s, going with a "C" for this off-season is probably optimistic.


I have no idea what them signing Udoka in 2007 or their '06, '07, or '08 offseasons have to do with what they did this offseason. "Given that those offseasons were all "F"'s, giving them a "C" this offseason is probably optimistic."? That's like saying that Vlade Divac, Aaron Mckie, & Vladimir Radmanovic were bad MLE signings by the Lakers, therefore Ron Artest is too. One has nothing to do with the other.

Parker (27) & Jefferson (29) are in the prime of their careers. Duncan (33) is at the tail end of his prime and is still one of the best bigs in the game. McDyess (35) was the 9th best offensive rebounder in the game LAST year, and is still very productive. Finley (36) is definitely past his prime, and Manu MIGHT be due to injuries.

A GM shouldn't be planning for 5 years, he should be planning to win championships. That is much, much, much more likely with Duncan still close to his prime than it is without him. No, they're not going to disband the Spurs, don't exaggerate the point that's being made.

I'd like to hear a feasible alternative from you that would be superior to what they did this offseason. This is the roster you have to work with, and you have no cap space.

PG: Tony Parker, George Hill
SG: Manu Ginobili (de facto starter), Roger Mason
SF: Bruce Bowen, Marcus Williams
PF: Tim Duncan, Kurt Thomas, Ian Mahinmi
C: Matt Bonner, Fabricio Oberto

Tools at your disposal: 37th pick, MLE, LLE, trade, vet minimum, and the ability to re-sign your own free agents. (Michael Finley)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
GoldenThroat
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 37474

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:46 am    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
Kupchak A, Ainge A-, Buford B with the chance to go higher if Blair pans out. What killed San Antonio was the braindead Scola trade and that Splitter has been reluctant to leave Spain.

Kerr's moves are all about money. Shaq for trash as a cost cutting move, re-signing Nash as a keep attendance up move. That's not on him it's Sarver. Any time GM moves are based on money instead of the floor the team suffers. Agreed on Dumars he just kept whiffing.


While the Scola trade was atrocious, it was the product of a separate offseason, and the Splitter situation is something that's out of Buford's control. If we're judging the last few offseasons, yes, the Spurs have made several mistakes, but this offseason they did about as well as they could have with the tools at their disposal.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ocho
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 24 May 2005
Posts: 46024

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:56 am    Post subject:

Annihilator wrote:
ocho wrote:
Annihilator wrote:
ocho wrote:
Mike Dunleavy gets an A.

No chance. Every year people think the Clippers have done something to turn around their franchise and every year something bad happens. It is the curse of the Sterling. Somehow, the Clippers will screw this up. Dunleavy might deserve an "Incomplete" but until the Clippers actually make it to the playoffs in consecutive years I have no hope for them at all.


Historically, of course, they have run into the Clipper curse but how can you argue a summer in which they luck into Blake Griffin, find a suitor for Zach Randolph, made a couple of nice role player acquisitions and cleared cap space to make them probably the most appealing LeBron destination?

On paper it looks like the Clippers have had a great summer. But somehow, Sterling will find a way to screw it up. Somehow. Someplace. Somewhere. Any positive expectations for the Clippers is an absolute waste. This is not the first off-season where people have thought that the Clippers have some how turned it around. Every year people post in LG how the Clippers are finally going to have a competitive team. Every year, on paper, it looks like they are right. It does not take long for it to become clear that the Clippers have fallen apart. The team has only had six winning seasons in its entire history and only two since it moved to LA in 1984. The Clippers are Los Angeles's version of the Chicago Cubs except nobody really cares.


I totally and completely understand this sentiment. If history repeats they probably will find a way to suck. Still impressive for a team stuck in such mire to free up cap space and have the potential to be the premiere free agent destination in maybe the best FA class ever.
_________________
14-5-3-12
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Sky
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 15 Apr 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Up

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 7:58 am    Post subject:

Agreed this off-season Buford did well to maintain contention. Just saying that what got them off the rails was Scola and Splitter.

Presti is under cost control pressure from ownership, who took some big hits in their portfolio that caused them to balk on Chandler. Harden is a quality player. They'll still have cap to shop next summer. The problem for them is they had cap room with minimal competition this summer and saving it for 2010 means competing against nearly the entire league.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Topic HOF All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB