Off-season grades for some teams
Goto page Previous  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
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:34 am    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Dennis_D wrote:
For the '08-'09 season, the Trailblazers paid LaFrentz and Francis $28.4M to do nothing. If the doctor hadn't came through for the Trailblazers, they would have wound up paying $37.4M for non-contributors. Being able to write off that kind of money for non-contributors is just mind boggling to me. Their payroll "slashing" consisted of not trading LaFrentz's expiring contract.


Bingo. They let expiring contracts . . . expire. They cut their payroll by not replacing them with other contracts. The Blazers aren't spending money like they did in past years. Is this news to you?

Dennis_D wrote:
Could you define "contorting" for me?


Have you not been following all the moves that Morey made over the past few seasons to stay under the luxury cap? I can't recount them all off the top of my head, but it was discussed in the media at the time.

Dennis_D wrote:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of the Spurs. However, I seriously question whether the Spurs are a model that can be duplicated by other teams.

I admired the post for looking at the Spurs' complete record and knocking down some common misconceptions about the Spurs. But mine doing that now seems to have really upset you.


If you were criticizing the Spurs' past draft record or the Udoka signing, I'd be with you. But you aren't. You're attacking Buford/Popovich for trying to make one last title run with their existing roster.

I haven't changed my prior opinions at all. The notion that the Spurs have some magical ability to draft players is belied by their actual track record. They tanked a season to get Duncan, then guessed right on Ginobili and Parker. Many of their other picks were poor, and when they were right, they often traded the player away for scant return (Barbosa and Scola jump to mind). There were people gushing about the Udoka signing, but I had my doubts at the time (and turned out to be right).

But you're rating Buford/Popovich on what they did in the summer of '09. What they did in past years has nothing to do with the issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 9:18 am    Post subject:

Good points on SA all around. To be fair to Pop and Buford, they weren't a bad team when they tanked and got lucky with Duncan. Prior to the DRob injury, they were already a 60 win team.

SO they got unlucky with the injury, tanked, and got lucky, both with getting the top pick, and with DUncan being there that year. They then relied on Presti's scouting (particularly internationally) skills and struck twice with Parker and Manu. They were able to go from a vet team built around Robinson, Duncan, and Elliot, with excellent role players like Avery Johnson, to a new trio of Duncan, Parker, and Manu.

Since then they have been very consistent and made a lot of good moves, but have done a lot of things Mitch did early (and West was doing late in his tenure), that is, drafting need and signing vets to keep things going around their big 3.

I believe they were first hurt by changing draft focus (although Splitter was more of a procedural mistake in misjudging whether he'd come), then by losing Presti.

They have made a big splash to see if they can get one more run out of the big 3, and I think they've done that well, but what remains to be seen is do they actually have the skills to rebuild after Duncan and Manu.
_________________
“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: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:15 am    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dennis_D wrote:
For the '08-'09 season, the Trailblazers paid LaFrentz and Francis $28.4M to do nothing. If the doctor hadn't came through for the Trailblazers, they would have wound up paying $37.4M for non-contributors. Being able to write off that kind of money for non-contributors is just mind boggling to me. Their payroll "slashing" consisted of not trading LaFrentz's expiring contract.

Bingo. They let expiring contracts . . . expire. They cut their payroll by not replacing them with other contracts. The Blazers aren't spending money like they did in past years. Is this news to you?

You said, "Really? Then how did they have cap space this year? The answer is that they've been slashing their payroll for the last few years." But they haven't been "slashing their payroll for the last few years". They had cap space this year not because they slashed payroll. The last 3 seasons, they spent a lot of money for a small market team. Was that news to you? All they did was let one expiring contract expire so that they could sign a UFA. Was that news to you?

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dennis_D wrote:
Could you define "contorting" for me?

Have you not been following all the moves that Morey made over the past few seasons to stay under the luxury cap? I can't recount them all off the top of my head, but it was discussed in the media at the time.

I provided you a bunch of his moves. Here are all of them. Was the idea that you could look up a GM's moves on the internet news to you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:10 pm    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
Dennis - Nash is extremely popular in Phoenix, they let him go there's a ripple effect. It's not just attendance but sponsorships, suites, etc. Keeping him is their way of keeping a floor under revenue. Let him go and it's freefall for Sarver and he's not willing to risk that.

On the Spurs I think you need to factor in small market. The Lakers can afford to let Shaq go, the Spurs can't afford to let Duncan go. The FO would rather delay the music and ride Duncan all the way out. imo they will never trade him. They have a team that can win if LA gets hurt and clearly they'll take that option over blowing it up. Given that SA is a one trick pony sports town I don't see the Spurs leaving for greener pastures.

I will be interesting to see how things play out in Phoenix, Dallas and San Antonio.

In the '04 off-season, Nash was 30 years old and wildly popular in Dallas. The Mavs let him walk, saying "We think we will be better without him". The Mavs upped their wins from 52 to 58 and attendance held steady. In the '05 off-season, Finley was 32 years old and had been the face of the Mavs organization for years. The Mavs waived him for the luxury tax amnesty, saying, "Finley wasn't that key of a contributor and the savings was just too good to pass up". The Mavs upped their wins to 60 and their attendance held steady.

This off-season, the Mavs 5 man guys were Kidd (36), Terry (32), Howard (29), Nowitzki (31) and Dampier (34). The Mavs had dropped to 50 wins, 6th in the conference. So what does the courageous Mavs organization do? They give 31 year old Shawn Marion a 5 year, $39M contract, extend Kidd for 3 years, $25M and sign journeyman Drew Gooden to a one year, ~$5M contract. The highest scoring guy under 29 returning for the Mavs is James Singleton at 5.1 ppg. Checking Hoopsworld, ESPN and SI, they all think the Mavs are only the 5th best team in the West.

I know that some will argue that making one last push was a good idea for the Mavs. Dirk has two more years on his contract, so why not be in win now mode? I guess it is philosophy - if the goal is to win a championship, I think teams are better off accepting that their current core won't do it and start on building the next core rather than throw their future away on the off chance that the stars align and they come out of nowhere to win the championship.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 5:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Dennis_D wrote:
You said, "Really? Then how did they have cap space this year? The answer is that they've been slashing their payroll for the last few years." But they haven't been "slashing their payroll for the last few years". They had cap space this year not because they slashed payroll. The last 3 seasons, they spent a lot of money for a small market team. Was that news to you? All they did was let one expiring contract expire so that they could sign a UFA. Was that news to you?


Wow. Do you realize how high their payroll used to be? Evidently not. At one point, they had the highest payroll in the league, at over $100M. More recently, they've had one of the three to five highest payrolls in the league. If you think they cleared cap space by letting one contract expire, I really don't know what to say to you.

In a league with long-term, guaranteed contracts, a team can't slash payroll significantly in one year, barring highly unusual circumstances. Instead, you let your expiring contracts expire while investing in youth. The Blazers have been doing just that for the past 3-5 years. If you don't know that, or can't understand it, you have no business sitting in judgment of GMs who are forced to operate in the real world.

Dennis_D wrote:
I provided you a bunch of his moves. Here are all of them. Was the idea that you could look up a GM's moves on the internet news to you?


Again, wow. Do you think that someone could pull up a list of transactions on the internet and explain the luxury tax ramifications of all of those moves? It's nice that you have the internet skills to find a list of transactions. It's not so nice that you have zero knowledge of what the Rockets have been accomplishing in recent years. If you want to learn something about it, go read up on that Mike James/Bonzi Wells trade. That's the biggest of the luxury tax transactions. It wasn't the only one, but it's the simplest one for you to educate yourself about.

It was big news in Houston a couple years ago when Les Alexander said that he might consider letting the team go a little bit over the luxury tax threshold if they had the chance to win a title (or words to that effect). Not every team is like the Lakers or the Knicks.
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: Fri Sep 25, 2009 7:36 am    Post subject:

Dennis - Cuban isn't willing to blow it up and start over. Riskiest thing he did was dump Nash and he did it because the twisted agent logic in asking for huge money seriously pissed him off. Cuban is smart in business but overly emotional in basketball. Letting Nash go out of spite, too attached to Dirk.

On Portland the forgotten element in Allen's spending is that they paid a ton of money to guys who didn't even play. The goal was to get last years and therefore cap room, but when Memphis signed Miles that put him back on the Blazers cap and all their plans for big room went up in smoke. Then this summer they were done in by Banu Turkoglu insisting on Toronto. Now any space has to go to re-signing their core over the next few years. Bad karma in Portland.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
LakerSanity
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 33474
Location: Long Beach, California

PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2009 8:14 am    Post subject:

I'm liking that bad karma... Hedo in Portland would have been dangerous.

I don't think the situation Re: Nash in Dallas v. Phoenix are that similar. As popular as Nash was in Dallas, he was still only one of a group of players - they still had Dirk. You could argue Phoenix still has Amare, but Phoenix fans don't like Amare much and, truthfully, when Phoenix fans think of the Suns, they think of Steve Nash. I'm not going to get into why that is... but lets just say that in Phoenix Dan Majerle is just as popular as Charles Barkley. Dallas and phoenix aren't the same markets.

Re: Duncan - I don't think they'll ever trade him unless he requests it or leaves via Free Agency on amicable terms. Him being their primary attraction isn't the only reason... he's also devoted to Popovich and I'm not sure he'd ever want to play for anyone else. I also wouldn't be surprised if Duncan basically follows the David Robinson path, where his skills decline and he just decides to retire as a Spur (even if a year or two early) instead of becoming an NBA veteran journeyman (ala Shaq). That said, although a lot of SA's success has come down to two good drafts of international players before teams knew how to approach the international market (Parker and Ginobili) and a really lucky pluck of a ping pong ball (Duncan), they have still proven themselves to be a competent organization that should be able to bounce back.
_________________
LakersGround's Terms of Service

Twitter: @DeleteThisPost
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Sat Sep 26, 2009 5:52 am    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dennis_D wrote:
I provided you a bunch of his moves. Here are all of them. Was the idea that you could look up a GM's moves on the internet news to you?

Again, wow. Do you think that someone could pull up a list of transactions on the internet and explain the luxury tax ramifications of all of those moves? It's nice that you have the internet skills to find a list of transactions. It's not so nice that you have zero knowledge of what the Rockets have been accomplishing in recent years. If you want to learn something about it, go read up on that Mike James/Bonzi Wells trade. That's the biggest of the luxury tax transactions. It wasn't the only one, but it's the simplest one for you to educate yourself about.

If you look at just one or two moves, you can prove anything about any GM. You made a strong statement that the Rockets had "been contorting themselves in recent years to avoid luxury tax" and that is the only transaction you can point to? By that standard, the Lakers have been contorting themselves in recent years because trading Radmanovic for Morrison and Brown had positive luxury tax implications.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dennis_D wrote:
You said, "Really? Then how did they have cap space this year? The answer is that they've been slashing their payroll for the last few years." But they haven't been "slashing their payroll for the last few years". They had cap space this year not because they slashed payroll. The last 3 seasons, they spent a lot of money for a small market team. Was that news to you? All they did was let one expiring contract expire so that they could sign a UFA. Was that news to you?

Wow. Do you realize how high their payroll used to be? Evidently not. At one point, they had the highest payroll in the league, at over $100M. More recently, they've had one of the three to five highest payrolls in the league. If you think they cleared cap space by letting one contract expire, I really don't know what to say to you.

In a league with long-term, guaranteed contracts, a team can't slash payroll significantly in one year, barring highly unusual circumstances. Instead, you let your expiring contracts expire while investing in youth. The Blazers have been doing just that for the past 3-5 years. If you don't know that, or can't understand it, you have no business sitting in judgment of GMs who are forced to operate in the real world.

I have absolutely no idea of what your point about Portland is. Could you explain it to me? Are you saying that Paul Allen has dropped what he is willing to pay in payroll down to $55M? My position is that Paul Allen got tired of having the Jailblazers being a bunch of overpaid, underperforming embarassments and fired that team. He was willing to spend whatever it took to get rid of those players and rebuild with high first round picks (Pritchard has done a nice job of that). Now, a nice side effect of firing that team is the Portland payroll has dropped down this season, but it will shoot up again once their stars come off their rookie contracts. I fully expect Paul Allen to be happy to pay a high payroll again when that happens.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Sun Sep 27, 2009 4:36 am    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Dennis_D wrote:
If you look at just one or two moves, you can prove anything about any GM. You made a strong statement that the Rockets had "been contorting themselves in recent years to avoid luxury tax" and that is the only transaction you can point to?


I give up. It's not my job to teach you how the NBA works, nor is it my job to educate you about what's going on with the teams around the league.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:55 pm    Post subject:

I added the Mavericks and the Nuggets
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 7:45 am    Post subject:

Finished the Western Conference
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Hawkins
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 14 May 2003
Posts: 1171

PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:21 am    Post subject:

IMO, Tim Duncan will probably retire in two seasons if the Spurs don't reach the Finals when his contract is through. Anything after that depends on the team's success.

Tim Duncan not going anywhere. Period. The one known time the owner Peter Holt stepped in and emphatically vetoed Pop and RC's plan to test the waters for DROB in 2001 were crushed to stone dust. The worst years of the Spurs franchise were the years after Ice was traded and DROB came aboard. Those lessons weren't lost. DROB is now in the ownership group and I suspect it will happen to Tim after he retires. Expect to see DROB and Duncan sitting together at games on occasion for decades to come.

Duncan took 9 million dollars less than he could have gotten on his last extension on Pop's promise to keep them competitive and contending. The Spurs have thrown the dice. They have never gone into the luxury tax like this level ever. This is a team that has budgeted and used the luxury tax rebates in its operational budget. Finances dictate this team, it is not an option. IMO, Duncan paid the luxury tax this year for the Spurs.

LA and other major market teams can go into the luxury tax with impunity and I don't think LA fans truly understand how revolutionary that one event is for SA and what it represents. And if SA gets to the WCF's or beyond then I think Pop and RC should be considered Exec/ COY honors. That was huge. As a long time Spurs fan I'm still floored that the FO is paying 10 million for a lux tax. Win or lose...it was very imaginative and creative FO leadership. They changed and upgraded this team in single summer and are still viable, championship continuity and contenders and improved on paper for just 10 million dollars sans the tax. The season will tell the story.

The team is already transitioning over to be Tony Parker's team, just as DROB became the second fiddle in Tim's second year. Tony played world ball this summer and he will probably the team's main scorer. DuJuan Blair if he rebounds only 10-15 a game will be a huge improvement for SA and a tremendous trade asset when his rookie contract is over. Pop has stated that he wants to get back to "stingy defense" an he says it has hurt them. Jefferson comes off the book in two years or is immediately tradable. Mason and George Hill (Pop calls Hill his "favorite player") are young and rich veteran transitions to come for the future will be coming back with a year of Pop's system under the belt. Ratcliffe and McDyess are two players who realize this is their last shot and will be motivated and who will keep Duncan's minutes down and both have the experience to and skill level to keep Duncan healthy however slow and old, I have no doubt they are motivated. Both are better or the equivalent of an Oberto, Rasho, Bonner, Vaughn, et al that Tim has had previously at his side post DROB. Good pickups. Manu is healthy as he has been in two years. Duncan lost 15 lbs this summer to help his knees and will be wearing knee braces for the rest of his career.

And the Spurs may have 'tanked' but Duncan's selection was never a foregone conclusion in the draft, in fact SA had the third best odds at the ping pong balls in 1997.

And the Spurs when Tim retires and Manu retires and Jefferson has moved on (or stays) will not become a dog team because when they were not championship or contending always made the playoffs (The Spurs have only had 4 lottery teams in the team's history. 3 of them before before Pop and RC. Playoff money is a part of the budget and is essential its been said and to keep the season tickets coming back. DROB and Tim and the City building their own venue finally cemented a permanent NBA presence for SA for generations to come. That's their hidden legacy.

So for the Spurs to get a "C" for this summer's efforts, I would disagree compared to who? No one on that list has done as much with less than SA. Barring injuries (a disaster on any team) and as a SA fan, I really can see a team that did as better, changed their team dynamic , took greater risks and threw the dice than SA. I'm pretty confident that LA and SA will be the WCF teams this season. Season starts in about two weeks and I think the Spurs will start slow and fly under the radar as is the custom. And they won't even play LA until what mid Jan? This off season was anything but an "average 'C' summer". Time will tell.

Agree to agree.
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: Sun Oct 11, 2009 7:39 pm    Post subject:

wow, i saw the additional rankings, and i disagree with so much it's hillarious.

the mavs get an F, the nuggets a D, but the WOLVES who have done just about the worst possible job with the amazing resources they had this offseason - get an A ?????



if i have time tomorrow i'll try to comment in more detail on team by team.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:17 am    Post subject:

davidse wrote:
wow, i saw the additional rankings, and i disagree with so much it's hillarious.

the mavs get an F, the nuggets a D, but the WOLVES who have done just about the worst possible job with the amazing resources they had this offseason - get an A ?????


I hadn't been following the "updates" recently, but your post caught my attention. Yes, these ratings have reached the unintentional comedy stage. I just love this rationale for giving the Mavs an F:

Quote:
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.


How dare the Mavs try to be as competitive as possible while Dirk is near his peak? Any sensible GM would have given up and waited for cap space two years from now! Brilliant!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:26 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
davidse wrote:
wow, i saw the additional rankings, and i disagree with so much it's hillarious.

the mavs get an F, the nuggets a D, but the WOLVES who have done just about the worst possible job with the amazing resources they had this offseason - get an A ?????


I hadn't been following the "updates" recently, but your post caught my attention. Yes, these ratings have reached the unintentional comedy stage. I just love this rationale for giving the Mavs an F:

Quote:
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.


How dare the Mavs try to be as competitive as possible while Dirk is near his peak? Any sensible GM would have given up and waited for cap space two years from now! Brilliant!


So you are grading the Mav's roster based on the goal of making it 'As competitive as possible'while Dennis states his ratings consider that
Quote:
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.


So the question becomes what is the goal of Cuban and the Mavericks? If being as competitive as possible is their goal then, they accomplished it, and deserve a higher rating. If their goal is to win a Championship then they are failing because keeping Kidd and adding Marion won't get them to the promised land. I think Dennis is saying that squeezing the most from a doomed roster doesn't equal success even if it make them 'as competitve as possible' in the short term. If you consider that factor and understand the remainder of his grading system, Dennis' evaluation makes a lot more sense. That approach is probably why Dennis was one of the few posters here saying that Mitch was doing a Great job through the rebuilding of the Lakers while almost everyone else disagreed. Here, read what he says:

Dennis_D wrote:
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.

Donnie Nelson of the 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.

Can this roster realistically be in contention to win a ring in the next 3 years? If you think they can, then disagree with Dennis based on that. If you think they can't, then you essentially agree with Dennis and his contention that being 'as competitive as possible' has replaced winning a ring and for that, the Mavs deserve an F.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:57 pm    Post subject:

I have done several hilarious posts in the past. I had them rolling on the floor with my Dec 2005 post that had Mitch as one of the best drafting GM in the leagues and RC Buford as merely average at drafting. I cracked up many a poster with my Sept 2007 post on how Fisher was a very good signing. The way I learn about basketball is to come up with a controversial idea and then back it up. I have thought a lot about what constitute a good move for a GM and my grades are based upon that. May be I have come up with something thoughtful, may be I embarrassed myself. Time will tell.
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: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:08 pm    Post subject:

I think the philosophy of if you can't win it all blow up the aging core is right in theory but not very realistic. Especially with an owner who is too invested emotionally like Cuban, it's just not going to happen. A GM will get the marching orders and it's those orders that need to be criticized not the GM.

Phoenix. Orders to liquidate but keep Nash to put a floor under revenue. Gasol trade. Orders to remove contracts to attract potential buyers. San Antonio. Orders that you are never trading Tim Duncan. You can't leave ownership out of the equation. Also have to factor in that some teams don't have championships as the end goal. Look at Sterling.

So what should Donnie Nelson's rating be in light of his orders from Cuban? It's Cuban that refuses to blow it to kingdom come, not Donnie. Give Cuban the F, but within the orders what Donnie did was a low B high C. Beaubois is looking like a solid pick. Matrix is finally healthy. They aren't F moves, the orders from above are the issue.
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: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:19 pm    Post subject:

As for your Dec 2005 post, Kupchak didn't cover himself in glory until after that. The repeated process mistake of taking draft board over scouts in whiffing on Rush over Tayshaun and Cook over Barbosa. Two glaring mistakes. Sasha, drafting gunner matador on a team that already had too many of them was boneheaded.

Kupchak turned around his drafting when he finally started to value physical skills and corrected the process mistake by listening to scouts over the board. He turned around the roster the same way. When he got rid of the gunner matadors in quadruplicate and added the sorely lacking speed, athleticism, defense skillsets the team rose up. He finally finally FINALLY addressed balance. Once he did that then they succeeded. Not a minute before.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 5:33 pm    Post subject:

JerryMagicKobe wrote:
So you are grading the Mav's roster based on the goal of making it 'As competitive as possible'while Dennis states his ratings consider that
Quote:
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.


So the question becomes what is the goal of Cuban and the Mavericks? If being as competitive as possible is their goal then, they accomplished it, and deserve a higher rating. If their goal is to win a Championship then they are failing because keeping Kidd and adding Marion won't get them to the promised land. I think Dennis is saying that squeezing the most from a doomed roster doesn't equal success even if it make them 'as competitve as possible' in the short term.


If that's his rationale, then we're getting deep into unintentional comedy territory. How can you have a GM rating system that is completely divorced from what GMs attempt to do in the real world? Can you imagine a GM walking into an owner's office and saying, "I know we're three years removed from the NBA Finals, and we're two years removed from having the best record in the league, and we won 50 games last year and made second round of the playoffs, and we have an irreplaceable superstar who is still near his peak, but we probably won't win a title, so let's blow up the roster and play the free agent market in two years"? That GM gets FIRED.

I don't think the Mavs are going to win a title with their current roster, but they aren't going to give up and dream about overpaying free agents in 2011. They're going to take their best shot. And that merits an F? Are you kidding me?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 12 Apr 2001
Posts: 2017
Location: North Dallas

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:44 pm    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
I think the philosophy of if you can't win it all blow up the aging core is right in theory but not very realistic. Especially with an owner who is too invested emotionally like Cuban, it's just not going to happen. A GM will get the marching orders and it's those orders that need to be criticized not the GM.

I hold the GM responsible for all the basketball decisions made by a team. If Donnie Nelson knows what the right course is and knows that Cuban will oppose it, then it is his job to persuade Cuban to do the right course. The owner will set what an acceptable payroll is for the team and sometimes GM's will have to make moves that hurt the team in order to stay within that limit, but to me staying within the team's payroll limit is part of the job. I have never been a fan of trying to guess a team's internal politics.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Can you imagine a GM walking into an owner's office and saying, "I know we're three years removed from the NBA Finals, and we're two years removed from having the best record in the league, and we won 50 games last year and made second round of the playoffs, and we have an irreplaceable superstar who is still near his peak, but we probably won't win a title, so let's blow up the roster and play the free agent market in two years"? That GM gets FIRED.

The season that Magic retired, the Lakers were coming off of playing in the NBA Finals and still had 4 starters off that team. The team started 27-16, but injuries to Divac (36 games), Worthy (54 games) and Perkins (63 games) pulled the team down. What did Jerry West do in the 1992 off-season? Did he sign vet free agents and trade away resources for vets so the team could be as competitive as possible? No, he walked into Jerry Buss' office and said "Let's blow up the roster". Rather than hire a big name coach he promoted long-time assistant Randy Pfund to essentially oversee the blowup. He traded Sam Perkins mid-season to Seattle for hold out Doug Christie and Benoit "Human Boat Anchor" Benjamin so that Elden Campbell could become the starter. Rookie Peeler played almost as many minutes as vet Byron Scott. West let Scott walk at the end of the season. The team suffered through a 39-43 record that season and a 33-49 season the next, but because West didn't sacrifice the future for the present the Lakers were back to their winning ways the next season, posting a 48-34 record.

In the 2004 off-season, the Lakers were coming off of playing in the Finals. He was essentially forced to trade Shaq to insure that Kobe would re-sign. But he still had the best player in the game in Kobe, a future HOF in Payton, a vet center in Divac (who was a year older than McDyess is today), a future HOF that hopefully would join the team mid-season. So what did Mitch do? Did he trade away resources for vets so the team could be as competitive as possible? No, he walked into Jerry Buss' office and said, "Let's blow up the roster". He traded Payton for a journeyman PG and a young center that had flopped on two teams. He let Fisher walk. The Lakers suffered through three mediocre seasons with 34-48, 45-37 and 42-40 records, but because Mitch didn't sacrifice the future for the present the Lakers were back to their winning ways, posting a 57-25 record and went to the NBA Finals.
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: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:58 pm    Post subject:

Is it that hard to guess the internal politics of the Dallas Mavericks? If Donnie says we need to trade Dirk, Cuban scowls at him, next.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:17 pm    Post subject:

Aeneas Hunter wrote:

If that's his rationale, then we're getting deep into unintentional comedy territory. How can you have a GM rating system that is completely divorced from what GMs attempt to do in the real world? Can you imagine a GM walking into an owner's office and saying, "I know we're three years removed from the NBA Finals, and we're two years removed from having the best record in the league, and we won 50 games last year and made second round of the playoffs, and we have an irreplaceable superstar who is still near his peak, but we probably won't win a title, so let's blow up the roster and play the free agent market in two years"? That GM gets FIRED.

I don't think the Mavs are going to win a title with their current roster, but they aren't going to give up and dream about overpaying free agents in 2011. They're going to take their best shot. And that merits an F? Are you kidding me?

That is his rationale - he put it right in his original post so how is that missed until now? And you find 'unintentional comedy' in a sytem of grading GMs based on putting their team in a position to win a Championship ABOVE just being competitive? I doubt Mavs fans would find it funny since everyone I've ever met values only 1 thing in their sports teams: WINNING IT ALL. You think his ratings would be better if he just measured being a Top 10 team who makes the playoffs but can't actually win - because that is where the Mavs are? Can you imagine being Mark Cuban and having your GM tell you "we are 3 years removed from losing in the Finals. 2 years from losing in round 1 and a 6 seed last year now capped out, old and extended with Jason Kidd and Shawn Marion. We can't really hope to actually win, but we can keep on selling tickets and making the Playoffs and winning 50 games and being competitive until Dirk breaks down."

You admit that they are not going to win and are fine with just being competitive and selling tickets and you want a GM rating system that values that?. Do YOU think that is Cuban's goal? Everything I hear about Cuban is how badly he wants to win a ring, and the moves his GM is making is assuring a likely first round exit for the next few years while eating up Dirk's prime and THEN waking up to the reality of rebuilding.

And do you really need to insult people to get your point across? Dennis has put his well organized thoughts in print for 4 years now and has an actual track record. If you want to pick his ratings apart at least find out what his track record is - he even gave the links for goodness sakes. With your love of these things, Aeneas, come up with some ratings of your own and compete head to head rather than just sniping. You can weight toward being competitive and doing what GMs in the real world do, and blow away his system that is based on GMs getting a team to the Championship. And I admit THAT kind of thinking is why I agreed with Dennis 4 years ago when the Lakers were going through these decisions, why I defended Mitch and Buss then and agree with Dennis now.

Look, this is his opinion so take from it what you will, but don't sell him short when he has the guts to put his opinion in writing and back it up for 4 years.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
JerryMagicKobe
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 28 Jul 2005
Posts: 15100

PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:28 pm    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
Is it that hard to guess the internal politics of the Dallas Mavericks? If Donnie says we need to trade Dirk, Cuban scowls at him, next.

Dennis woukd trade Dirk, I would too, and sky, you probably know it is the right move, but let's say Cuban refuses. The GM still has options that don't included Harris for Kidd and bringing in Marion. Those are just bad moves short term AND long term. If Dirk is the cornerstone then you still have to compile Championship pieces, and you better do it quickly (like Mitch) before Dirks time runs out. Making a last-ditch desperation acquisition or two to try to compete now can't work and is a sure way to KILL the rest of Dirk's prime years. And that's exactly what they did. They were either afraid of taking the big risk to get the big payoff, or they were not very good with their player valuations or they just settled for first/second round exits. Whatever the flaw was, they failed. And what grade corresponds with 'failed'?
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: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:19 am    Post subject:

JMK - My point is this. If Cuban refuses to trade Dirk, and he's made public comments asserting precisely that, who gets the F? Donnie? Hardly. The F goes to Cuban, he's the one that refuses to blow it up due to being too attached to Nowtizki.

I'd trade Dirk and blow it up, so would you, so would Dennis. But if Cuban refuses you can't just say well it's on Donnie to convince him to trade him. An egomaniac as headstrong as Cuban is very unlikely to be talked into dealing Dirk. You can't make it incumbent upon Nelson to force logic on an emotional owner. You make your case, Cuban says no, keep building a now team, Nelson's hands are tied.

It's convenient to say well I'm not going to predict office politics but the fact remains those politics are real. Those politics can force things despite the best arguments of a GM. You don't just get to sweep them under the "well that's office politics and that's a black box" rug. The politics exist. The politics prevent moves that can be made in theory. The GMs operate within limitations set by ownership, that's the reality.
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: Tue Oct 13, 2009 5:30 am    Post subject:

JerryMagicKobe wrote:
Sky wrote:
Is it that hard to guess the internal politics of the Dallas Mavericks? If Donnie says we need to trade Dirk, Cuban scowls at him, next.

Dennis woukd trade Dirk, I would too, and sky, you probably know it is the right move, but let's say Cuban refuses. The GM still has options that don't included Harris for Kidd and bringing in Marion. Those are just bad moves short term AND long term. If Dirk is the cornerstone then you still have to compile Championship pieces, and you better do it quickly (like Mitch) before Dirks time runs out. Making a last-ditch desperation acquisition or two to try to compete now can't work and is a sure way to KILL the rest of Dirk's prime years. And that's exactly what they did. They were either afraid of taking the big risk to get the big payoff, or they were not very good with their player valuations or they just settled for first/second round exits. Whatever the flaw was, they failed. And what grade corresponds with 'failed'?



harris for kidd is irrelevant.
marion was such a horrible move ?
i'd say it's better than giving luke that extention or signing vlad to the full mle contract - by the gm who did it "quickly" according to you.

actually, you'd give mitch a fail back then for signing these guys and not trading odom for an expiring - right ?
or do you think gasol was part of some "plan" rather than a flat out miracle that allowed things to work even with the mistakes (according to your and denis' philosophies) of keeping odom, luke, and vlad...

and why is anyone assuming the mavs are done ?
howard is just about the best trade bait in the nba and the addition of marion (and gooden as a back up pf) makes him expendable.
dampier is also very attractive with only a small amount of his salary guarenteed for the 2010/11 season, and the mavs have an owner who's proven to be willing to shake up the roster and spend.

is rebuilding some type of guarentee ?
i can probably name you a dozen teams that would have gotten an A from dennis and yourself every year for the past decade or longer, and still suck year after year - gradualy losing fan base, revenue, and a credible reputation among players and agents.
it has gotten them nowhere.
rebuilding hasn't proven to be the only or even the best strategy to become an nba champion. far from it.

retooling is just as legit of a strategy as rebuilding.
in fact, i'm pretty sure there were far more championship teams that were built by retooling than by rebuilding.
even the lakers didn't rebuild when they traded shaq - they took back 3 contracts - 1 horrible one, 1 overpaid one, and 1 great asset which they wasted away.

and even though i myself would like my chances better with rebuilding than retooling - that has been proven more often than not to be false hope, and handing out F's to a team that decides to go the other way is ridiculous.
might as well just eliminate all other grades and leave only A's and F's, or only have 4-5 teams every year actually try and improve rather than dump salary...

if you're willing to trade a guy like dirk - you'll always be able to blow things up and move him with your bad contracts - and the mavs don't really have a bad one other than possibly marion who can help any contender that trades for dirk.

so does all of that means that i'd give the mavs an A ?
absolutly not.
but an F is ridiculous.

not as ridiculous as the wolves getting an A, but still...
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 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 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