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
oldschool32
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 20032

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 8:02 am    Post subject:

Spurs definately get an A.

Wing? Jefferson for free.
Help down low? McDyess.
Youth? Blair..... and Hill should be ready to contribute now.
_________________
"It's just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I beat people up."-The Greatest
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 17, 2009 8:30 am    Post subject:

GoldenThroat wrote:
I'd like to hear a feasible alternative from you that would be superior to what they did this offseason.

What Mitch did in 2004 - move your aging all-star while you can still get value for him (I think Mitch would have moved him in 2003 except Malone and Payton signed up). The most common mistake GM's make is to think their aging team can still contend and that the should keep the core together yet another season. I think Dallas should have moved Nowitzki this off-season. Kerr set his team rebuilding schedule back by holding on to Hill and Nash when he really should have bought Nash out. Trading Duncan or Nowitzki would have been hugely unpopular, but the teams would have been able to rebuild far more quickly.

Everyone has opinions about what is going to happen. I am not really trying to convince you that you are wrong because I can't. I am more setting down markers that I think many people are wrong about this topic (the Spurs had a good off-season) or that topic (the future looks bright for the Thunder). Next summer or the summer after that, we can look back and see who was right. When I look back at markers I put down in years past, I think I did quite well.
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 8:44 am    Post subject:

Dennis_D wrote:
GoldenThroat wrote:
I'd like to hear a feasible alternative from you that would be superior to what they did this offseason.

What Mitch did in 2004 - move your aging all-star while you can still get value for him (I think Mitch would have moved him in 2003 except Malone and Payton signed up). The most common mistake GM's make is to think their aging team can still contend and that the should keep the core together yet another season. I think Dallas should have moved Nowitzki this off-season. Kerr set his team rebuilding schedule back by holding on to Hill and Nash when he really should have bought Nash out. Trading Duncan or Nowitzki would have been hugely unpopular, but the teams would have been able to rebuild far more quickly.

Everyone has opinions about what is going to happen. I am not really trying to convince you that you are wrong because I can't. I am more setting down markers that I think many people are wrong about this topic (the Spurs had a good off-season) or that topic (the future looks bright for the Thunder). Next summer or the summer after that, we can look back and see who was right. When I look back at markers I put down in years past, I think I did quite well.


You know, that actually IS a philosophy that I agree with, and I think you're right in the respect that teams tend to hold onto players for too long and they don't maximize their value while they can. And I think that trading Duncan is probably the only feasible alternative that I would agree with that would fall in line with the general theory that you're espousing, so props to you for that.

However, in the Spurs' case, I think that it's reasonable for them to believe that they're legitimate contenders for the title with their current roster. And in doing so, they didn't do too much damage to their future for two reasons...

1) The salary that they added was generally short term, and the only two players who are under contract for more than 2 years are Duncan & McDyess. They maintained flexibility for rebuilding, even while putting their eggs in the 09-10 basket.

2) There will still be a huge market for Duncan next offseason if they choose to go that route. There are a ton of "buyers" for the 2010 free agency class, and some of them will come up dry. Duncan becomes very attractive at that point to a team with cap space that needs one guy to "put them over the top". So unless Duncan is injured badly, he maintains a very high value next offseason.


Bottom line...from a risk/reward, best case/worst case scenario standpoint, I think the Spurs were smart. They take a shot at the title this year, and if they're wrong, they haven't lost much flexibility in trying to rebuild. Opportunities will still be there to a great degree.
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 8:59 am    Post subject:

ok if laying down predictive markers is the intent.

San Antonio had a good off-season, but unless LA falls to injury the Spurs won't go to the finals. Dyess is good but not good enough and a risk to hold up. Trading Duncan is not an option for them Dennis you have to be realistic.

Phoenix was all about the money, that's the common thread in every move. Keeping Nash is gate receipts

Oklahoma City will improve but obviously they do need bigs and will just have to wait until next summer to shop, assuming Bennett will be willing to open the wallet. Harden isn't that athletic but he's a better player than folks realize and will definitely help them.

Agreed on Nowitzki but Cuban's ego prevents that.

GM of the Year will probably be between Otis Smith and Danny Ferry.
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 9:14 am    Post subject:

Sky, I agree that the Spurs can't take down the Lakers without something significant happening to our squad, but I think that they're wise to try being that they don't lose much flexibility for the future and there's no clear cut #2 in the West. Stranger things have definitely happened.

In terms of setting down future markers, I think that people are overlooking Orlando. I think they upgraded from Hedo to VC, from within with the return of Nelson, and with depth in the acquisitions of Bass & Barnes.

Personally, I think that that the acquisition of Rasheed Wallace by the C's was somewhat redundant, in that they have very good interior defenders in KG & Perkins. He'll help, but I don't think they'll provide much of anything that isn't already there. However, they match up extremely well with Orlando, and they would have beaten them this year if KG was healthy. They're the only team that can take Orlando out in the East, IMO.

I'm not sure what to make of Cleveland. They've improved their depth, but I think they're going to continue to struggle defending the pick and roll, and Shaq definitely doesn't help that need.
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 9:35 am    Post subject:

Throat - I'd give Orlando the edge to make it out of the east right now. They're still a matchup nightmare for Cleveland while KG's knee is stapled together and a shaky bet to last the season.

Vince helps them in multiple ways. Hedo needed the ball and Vince can work off-ball, which allows Jameer to keep it and he's far more effective as a result. Carter can play 2 or 3 so they could go with Pietrus at 2, Vince 3, Shard 4 and be a smallball mismatch.

The Magic's season comes down to this though. Howard has to develop more than one post move. If he remains Dudley Do Right they can be defended and stopped. He must develop a left and more than just a jump hook. He can go left if he sets up midblock, but not low block. He corrects that, they become very dangerous.

Shaq's pick and roll defense will be the Cavs achilles heel. But keep in mind he is on a contract drive playing for his final three-year deal. I think he'll be lighter and quicker, but it'll only translate to points and boards, not D. LeBron will also have to adjust to Shaq being there, I think their O execution will take time to click as a result.

San Antonio didn't really have a choice. A small market can't dump the face, foundation and identity of the franchise. They will ride Duncan into the glue factory, therefore Buford had no choice but to remake around Tim as he did. But it won't be enough. The three Laker bigs are one too many for them to handle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Futuristic
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Posts: 1394

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:36 am    Post subject:

The Lakers got better with Artest. He should have gotten an A+.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Dennis_D
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


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

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:08 am    Post subject:

GoldenThroat, we'll see. I think Portland would have been willing to pay dearly for Duncan this off-season and they had the young talent to make such a deal worthwhile for the Spurs. Then the Spurs could have used their ~$20M in expiring contracts for a mid-season trade. Add that to a base of Parker and Jefferson and the Spurs are good again really quick. Next off-season, Duncan is a year older, Ginobili is a UFA who walks for nothing if he sees the team is going to rebuild and the Spurs' expiring contracts are Jefferson and Parker, who they don't really want to give up.

On Kerr, is Nash really going to put $30M more fans into seats over the next three seasons to watch an average team with no future? My impression is that it takes a while for attendance to degrade and hopefully by that time the Suns would have been rebuilt with a promising future.

Sky, I know that trading Duncan would be wildly unpopular in San Antonio. Then again, being terrible for years will be wildly unpopular. It comes down to when the Spurs FO is willing to face the music. Or maybe their plan is to ride the Duncan train as long as possible then move to a new town when they need to rebuild like Seattle did.
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 10:15 am    Post subject:

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.
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 17, 2009 10:22 am    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
Oklahoma City will improve but obviously they do need bigs and will just have to wait until next summer to shop, assuming Bennett will be willing to open the wallet. Harden isn't that athletic but he's a better player than folks realize and will definitely help them.

What I think people don't realize is hard it is to get a quality big. Without a couple of quality bigs, the Thunder will never make it out of the first round. However, Harden is going to make them good enough that they will be drafting too low to draft a quality big. I don't think the Thunder are going to land a quality big through free agency as who wants to move to OKC? To me, they are the new incarnation of the 90's Kings.
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 10:25 am    Post subject:

From purely a fan standpoint, I would be disappointed if Duncan didn't play his entire career as a Spur. One of my favorite parts about basketball is that they do a better job than any sport (IMO) at marketing individual players, and those players often come to personify that team through staying there.

Magic was the Lakers. Kobe is the Lakers.
Jordan was the Bulls. (yes, I know he played for the Wizards, but the circumstances were unique)
Duncan is the Spurs.


etc, etc.
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 11:02 am    Post subject:

Dennis - Bigs are hard to attain no question. Harden improves them but not enough to make the playoffs. Quality bigs can still be had mid-to-late lottery depending on the year. As for free agency, no one wants to move to OKC, but if the money is highest off they go. Money in OKC also goes a very long way.

Comes down to Bennett and how much he will spend. A young big may be attracted to the team, particularly if Durant takes another step forward and starts looking like a superstar that can carry a team.
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 17, 2009 11:44 am    Post subject:

Jacko wrote:
Blair in 2nd round is the biggest steal of the draft.....

The consensus of the NBA front offices as determined by their actions is that Blair was not one of the 36 best players in the draft. Now, the consensus is wrong about a few players every draft, but it is by far the most accurate estimate for a draft pick's potential. There are a few GM's (Mitch, Ainge) that have proven that they are usually more accurate then the NBA consensus, but Buford is not one of those GM's. The Spurs drafting record since Buford became the Head Scout in 1994 has been very inconsistent, being mostly whiffs with a few home runs (Parker, Ginobili). Even if Blair is better than the average 37th pick, he is unlikely to significantly effect the Spurs record.
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 17, 2009 2:22 pm    Post subject:

Dennis_D wrote:
Jacko wrote:
Blair in 2nd round is the biggest steal of the draft.....

The consensus of the NBA front offices as determined by their actions is that Blair was not one of the 36 best players in the draft. Now, the consensus is wrong about a few players every draft, but it is by far the most accurate estimate for a draft pick's potential. There are a few GM's (Mitch, Ainge) that have proven that they are usually more accurate then the NBA consensus, but Buford is not one of those GM's. The Spurs drafting record since Buford became the Head Scout in 1994 has been very inconsistent, being mostly whiffs with a few home runs (Parker, Ginobili). Even if Blair is better than the average 37th pick, he is unlikely to significantly effect the Spurs record.


Blair, like Turiaf, fell for worries about physical condition (in his case the knees)
_________________
“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
gng930
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 13 Apr 2001
Posts: 11475

PostPosted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 4:40 pm    Post subject:

Sky wrote:
Dennis - Bigs are hard to attain no question. Harden improves them but not enough to make the playoffs. Quality bigs can still be had mid-to-late lottery depending on the year. As for free agency, no one wants to move to OKC, but if the money is highest off they go. Money in OKC also goes a very long way.

Comes down to Bennett and how much he will spend. A young big may be attracted to the team, particularly if Durant takes another step forward and starts looking like a superstar that can carry a team.


Bosh, Stat, and Booz are the only bigs out in free agency next year that can anchor an offense. Bosh might stay in Toronto. Even if he leaves, it's either to follow another mega FA to NJ or to Chicago, where there's equivalent talent on the perimeter, and where he could play PF with Noah and presumably a resigned Brad Miller able to man center.

Presti's also a character guy, so he might shy away from Stat and Booz.

I think OKC's best hope is to dangle Etan's expiring K for Brand if he recovers from his injury. Philly would love to unload that contract.
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 17, 2009 6:49 pm    Post subject:

I added the Pacers and Rockets.
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: Sat Sep 19, 2009 5:54 am    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Dennis_D wrote:
Daryl Morey of the 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.


Okay, I skipped over your agenda-driven criticism of Sam Presti, but this one is too much. You can't tell us what Morey should have done, but you give him a D because you think the Ariza signing was bad. How is this any better than the grading from professional sportswriters that you so dearly love to criticize? But of course those hated professional sportswriters love Presti, Morey, and Buford. You're just being a contrarian, and you aren't doing a very good job of it.

I don't think Ariza was a very good signing, either. But there's a lot more to being a GM than that. Morey got handed a nightmare scenario, with Yao and TMac suffering major and possibly permanent injuries (at least, that's what it looked like in June). Oh, and let's not forget Mutombo's injury, so they actually lost two centers. With the team tumbling toward the lottery and potentially going into a multi-year rebuilding process, he had zero attraction for veteran free agents who want to play for a winner. He also had financial constraints, given that the Rockets aren't exactly a high revenue team.

So he starts off by buying three second round draft picks (he tried for a first round pick, but couldn't get it done), and uses them to add Jermaine Taylor and Chase Budinger. Nice move by a team that needs young players in the pipeline. Next, he gets the league to approve the injured player exemption. Slick move. It gave the Rockets some extra flexibility, though the team still had financial constraints. Next, he made the decision not to offer Artest a multi-year deal. Smart move. Artest is not a guy you want on a rebuilding team.

Then he signed Ariza. I don't like that move, but calling it a "disaster" is hyperbole. I don't see Trevor becoming a star, but he is an Adelman type player, and he'll contribute. Next, Morey signed Anderson, who gives them a functional center. Given the reality of the market for centers, that's not bad. You're not going to lure a veteran center to a rebuilding team even for the full MLE. Anderson was cheap and should give them some decent minutes while they look for a long-term replacement. Then he signs Pops Mensah-Bonsu to add some depth in the front court. Pops isn't much, but he's cheap, and Morey is on a budget.

So the Rockets enter the year with a modest roster with more youth, as they wait to find out the fate of TMac and Yao. It now sounds like TMac may bounce back, in which case Morey could have a tremendously valuable expiring contract to dangle at the trade deadline or before.

And you give Morey a D, while giving Danny Ainge an A for doing next to nothing? I'm sorry that you feel so much resentment toward Sam Presti, R.C. Buford, Daryl Morey, and professional sportswriters, but you aren't exactly putting them in their places.
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 19, 2009 2:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
I don't think Ariza was a very good signing, either.

We agree

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
But there's a lot more to being a GM than that.

We agree

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Morey got handed a nightmare scenario, with Yao and TMac suffering major and possibly permanent injuries (at least, that's what it looked like in June).

We agree

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Oh, and let's not forget Mutombo's injury, so they actually lost two centers.

Given that Mutombo was as old as dirt, it shouldn't have been a surprise that he couldn't go another season.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
With the team tumbling toward the lottery and potentially going into a multi-year rebuilding process, he had zero attraction for veteran free agents who want to play for a winner. He also had financial constraints, given that the Rockets aren't exactly a high revenue team.

I don't know about the financial constraints, but I will take your word for it.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
So he starts off by buying three second round draft picks (he tried for a first round pick, but couldn't get it done), and uses them to add Jermaine Taylor and Chase Budinger. Nice move by a team that needs young players in the pipeline.

I think it is smart to buy a high second round pick, particularly when a team doesn't have a first round pick. I wish Mitch would have done it during the 2000-2002 offseasons. However, buying 3 second round picks (you left out Llull) isn't three times as smart. There simply isn't that many good choices and there isn't enough minutes to develop that many young marginal players. So if the Rockets are as financially constrained as you say then the money spent buying the rights to Llull and Budinger wasn't money well spent.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Next, he gets the league to approve the injured player exemption. Slick move. It gave the Rockets some extra flexibility, though the team still had financial constraints.

Strikes me as a no-brainer move

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Next, he made the decision not to offer Artest a multi-year deal. Smart move. Artest is not a guy you want on a rebuilding team.

We agree

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Then he signed Ariza. I don't like that move, but calling it a "disaster" is hyperbole. I don't see Trevor becoming a star, but he is an Adelman type player, and he'll contribute.

We differ here. Now, if they Rockets traded Battier for a big, then the signing would make sense. This was the Rockets' major opportunity to fill a roster hole and they picked someone with redundant skills. I think that the Rockets can't play Ariza and Battier at the same time, even further diminishing his value. Not may teams need a defensive SF, so if Ariza doesn't work out, the Rockets will find it very difficult to trade him.

Full MLE signings are rarely successful. I hope Artest proves the trend wrong. Radmanovic was considered the best MLE option the year he signed and we know how he turned out. Given the uncertainty around the Rockets' situation, I think it was a poor move to take the risk.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Next, Morey signed Anderson, who gives them a functional center. Given the reality of the market for centers, that's not bad. You're not going to lure a veteran center to a rebuilding team even for the full MLE. Anderson was cheap and should give them some decent minutes while they look for a long-term replacement.

I said that this move is key to the Rockets' off-season and I don't know how to evaluate it. My gut feeling is that Andersen isn't a NBA quality big man, but Scola was a big success so maybe Morey will proven right again. If Andersen works out, Morey deserves a big kudo.

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Then he signs Pops Mensah-Bonsu to add some depth in the front court. Pops isn't much, but he's cheap, and Morey is on a budget.

He is the 17th player under contract. If Morey is on the budget, why sign someone that will force him to cut someone else? It's not like Pops is anything to get excited about.

A problem I have with Morey's style is that he seems to make lots of moves in the hope that one or two will succeed. He does have his successes (Brooks, Scola), but the roster overall isn't improving. I don't like churn and only Barry, Battier, Brooks, Dorsey, Hayes, Landry, Ming, McGrady and White were on the roster at the start of last season. Of those 9, Barry will be 38 this season and Dorsey and White played 4 and 3 games. So Morey goes out and signs 3 players with no NBA experience. It is really hard for a coach to hone the execution of his team when he has to spend so much time just teaching the basics of his system to newbies.

Despite making all those moves, Morey wound up with a very unbalanced roster. He only has two PG's, his SG's behind the often injured McGrady are the 37 year old Barry and the second round pick Taylor, he has 11 players 6'7" to 6'9", and his centers are Ming, Andersen (who has never played in the NBA) and Dorsey (played 4 games last season).
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: Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:49 pm    Post subject:

^ Disagree about playing Battier and Ariza at the same time. Ariza's pretty mobile, and can guard a lot of two's as well as 3's, and Battier was starting alongside Artest, and taking the toughest wing opponent at the 2 or 3.

I actually think Ariza will be a better fit in their offense than Artest. If his 3pt shooting wasn't a fluke, he's actually more of a catch-and-shoot player than Artest, and a better cutter, along with being more explosive on the break. Artest got almost all his offense while dominating the ball, which hurt Houston, given that he doesn't score at an efficient enough clip to dominate the ball like that, doesn't create enough off his offense for others, destroys ball movement, and is pretty useless without the ball most of the time.

Ariza's a guy who can get 12-15 ppg within their flow, and also open up more opportunities for others to touch the ball.
_________________
“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
Aeneas Hunter
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 31763

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:30 am    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Dennis_D wrote:
A problem I have with Morey's style is that he seems to make lots of moves in the hope that one or two will succeed. He does have his successes (Brooks, Scola), but the roster overall isn't improving. I don't like churn and only Barry, Battier, Brooks, Dorsey, Hayes, Landry, Ming, McGrady and White were on the roster at the start of last season. Of those 9, Barry will be 38 this season and Dorsey and White played 4 and 3 games. So Morey goes out and signs 3 players with no NBA experience. It is really hard for a coach to hone the execution of his team when he has to spend so much time just teaching the basics of his system to newbies.

Despite making all those moves, Morey wound up with a very unbalanced roster. He only has two PG's, his SG's behind the often injured McGrady are the 37 year old Barry and the second round pick Taylor, he has 11 players 6'7" to 6'9", and his centers are Ming, Andersen (who has never played in the NBA) and Dorsey (played 4 games last season).


So we finally get to the bottom line: You don't like Morey's style. We know it drives you nuts that the media thinks that Morey is a good GM. You've made that clear in prior threads about Morey and Presti. But when you give Danny Ainge an A for doing essentially nothing, then give Morey a D for making the best of a disastrous situation and Buford a C for having what most people consider a great offseason, your agenda is showing through.

Seriously, you would criticize Morey for having an unbalanced roster? Really? He loses Yao, Mutombo, and TMac, then makes the wise decision to let Artest go. He has only the MLE and DPE to rebuild with. The team is unlikely to contend in the short term, so it isn't an attraction for veteran FAs. And you offer us bits of wisdom like "the roster overall isn't improving." Well, duh, Einstein.

You're giving grades to people you don't even understand. Seriously, did you not realize that the Rockets have financial constraints? Do you really think that there are hordes of inexpensive veterans looking to join a rebuilding team? When Yao got hurt, and when it became apparent that he might not ever be back, the Rockets were forced to made a radical course change on the fly. There is no reasonable scenario under which they will be a contender again this year. Morey knew what he needed to do. You still haven't figured it out, but you do know that you resent Morey's popularity with the media.
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: Mon Sep 21, 2009 5:57 am    Post subject:

anderson is a good player, but i'm not sure how his game will translate to the nba.
he may be decent offensively, but defensively he'll struggle for sure.

and i think the rockets viewed ariza as the best "investment".
he was probably the best mle-range unrestricted free agent this summer if you consider age (and a team in houston's situation is defenetly looking at age).

now either they become a surprize team by some miracle (not likely), or they simply move battier for more young pieces since they already have his replacement.

just because the rockets didn't go all out to try and retool, doesn't mean that they weren't smart to do that - who knows what their options were ?
the alternative can be what dumars did with the pistons...

you very quickly dismiss patience with low grades, and for me that's showing near-sightedness than an nba gm can't afford.

the rockets have a good cap position looking forward, they signed a good young free agent, and they've put themselves in position to add battier to their trade bait.

i wouldn't have gone lower than a C.
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 Sep 21, 2009 10:07 am    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
You're giving grades to people you don't even understand. Seriously, did you not realize that the Rockets have financial constraints?

All team face financial constraints. The question is how much are those constraints affecting personnel decisions and IMHO that is mainly determined by the owner's current mood, which is generally not public information.

Forbes did a valuation of all NBA teams 9 months ago. The Rockets were the 6th most valuable team, #6 for revenue and #4 for operating income (link). That doesn't look like a team facing financial constraints. But then again, the Suns are #8 for total value, #9 for revenue and #6 for operating income and Sky says they are making bad decisions for financial reasons. OTOH, Portland is #20 for total value, #17 for revenue and #21 for operating income and they don't seem financially constrained at all. I can remember the Nets for a while were spending freely, then slashing costs, then spending freely, all within a few years with the same owner.

The Rockets aren't acting like a team financially constrained - signing a player to a full MLE contract, buying high second round draft picks, signing a player to a guaranteed contract when they have 16 players already under contract. The Lakers are acting like a team financially constrained - selling draft picks and going with a 13 man roster. But the Lakers financial constrains give them far more flexibility than say Milwaukee.

I have studied for years the moves of successful GM's and I think I have an idea of what a GM should do in a given situation. That is what I used for the basis of the grades I gave. I could be wrong - the W's and L's will let everyone know.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
10scott10
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 17 May 2006
Posts: 7428
Location: Making the games you play

PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:18 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.

the whole reason behind the scola trade was that he said he wasn't going to come to the NBA to play for the spurs and back up duncan. So it was either take a loss on him never coming over or getting some value for him.
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: Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:29 am    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Dennis_D wrote:
All team face financial constraints. The question is how much are those constraints affecting personnel decisions and IMHO that is mainly determined by the owner's current mood, which is generally not public information.


It's not just a question of the owner's mood. It's also a question of the debt of the owner's pockets. Anyway, the owner's willingness to spend money may not literally be public information, but it is often reported in the media and is reflected by the team's personnel decisions.

Dennis_D wrote:
Forbes did a valuation of all NBA teams 9 months ago. The Rockets were the 6th most valuable team, #6 for revenue and #4 for operating income (link). That doesn't look like a team facing financial constraints. But then again, the Suns are #8 for total value, #9 for revenue and #6 for operating income and Sky says they are making bad decisions for financial reasons.


Right. The Suns are a good analogy. Sarver doesn't want to pay luxury tax, which is the case for many owners.

Dennis_D wrote:
OTOH, Portland is #20 for total value, #17 for revenue and #21 for operating income and they don't seem financially constrained at all.


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. Paul Allen is one of the richest men in the world, but even he got sick of losing tons of money with a huge payroll.

Dennis_D wrote:
The Rockets aren't acting like a team financially constrained - signing a player to a full MLE contract, buying high second round draft picks, signing a player to a guaranteed contract when they have 16 players already under contract.


And yet they've been contorting themselves in recent years to avoid luxury tax. I guess you just didn't know that. Daryl Morey knows that, though.

Dennis_D wrote:
I have studied for years the moves of successful GM's and I think I have an idea of what a GM should do in a given situation. That is what I used for the basis of the grades I gave. I could be wrong - the W's and L's will let everyone know.


This is why you get a failing grade. You refuse to acknowledge the bigger picture items that every real world GM has to deal with. You value the short term over the long term when it suits your agenda (Morey), but then value the long term over the short term when it suits your agenda (Buford). You exalt a GM who already has a great roster in a big market (Ainge), but discount a GM who is trying to build a contending roster in a small market (Presti). You don't consider financial constraints, the willingness of veteran free agents to sign with a particular team, and in general the fact that a team may have objectives that are different from what you think they should be doing.

Ws and Ls aren't going to confirm your analysis. Barring some catastrophe, the Celtics are going to be a lot better than the Rockets and the Thunder this season. But that's almost entirely due to things that Ainge did two years ago, not due to what he did this summer.
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: Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:16 pm    Post subject: Re: Off-season grades for some GM's

Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dennis_D wrote:
OTOH, Portland is #20 for total value, #17 for revenue and #21 for operating income and they don't seem financially constrained at all.

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. Paul Allen is one of the richest men in the world, but even he got sick of losing tons of money with a huge payroll.

In the 2006 off-season, they acquired Raef LaFrentz in order to grease getting the #7 pick from Boston. LaFrentz already had injury issues and had 3 years, $37M left on his contract.

LaFrentz played 352 minutes in the '06-'07 season for $10.9M, while Derek Anderson and Darius Miles got paid $9.7M and $7.75M respectively for not playing, making $28.4M for non-contributors (link).

The next off-season (2007), Portland decided it needed to spend more on non-contributors. Portland acquired Steve Francis as the cost for getting rid of Zach Randolph. Portland then waived Francis, eating his 2 year, $30M contract. Derek Anderson's contract was gone, but LaFrentz (who played only 291 minutes), Miles and Francis got paid $35.2M to not contribute.

Fortunately for the Trailblazers, an independent doctor in April, 2008 declared Miles' injuries "career ending", so insurance wound up paying ~80% of Miles salary and his salary no longer counted for determining luxury tax. Still, ~20% of his salary is not chump change.

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. (link). The reason they had cap space this off-season is because Miles no longer counted against their cap.
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Dennis_D wrote:
The Rockets aren't acting like a team financially constrained - signing a player to a full MLE contract, buying high second round draft picks, signing a player to a guaranteed contract when they have 16 players already under contract.

And yet they've been contorting themselves in recent years to avoid luxury tax. I guess you just didn't know that. Daryl Morey knows that, though.

Could you define "contorting" for me? Last year, they held off on re-signing Mutombo until after they traded Francis (they paid Memphis for the rest of Francis' salary) so they wouldn't go into luxury tax. That was after trading for Ron Artest, signing Brent Barry to a 2 year, $4M contract and matching Charlotte's 3 year, $9M offer for Carl Landry. After the Mutombo signing (for ~vet min), they waived Luther Head and ate the rest of his contract to add James White to the roster. Then this off-season they bought three second round picks, signed Ariza to a full-MLE contract (after letting Artest walk), signed Pops Mensah-Bonsu to give them 17 contracts and are now probably looking to pay someone to take Brent Barry off their hands. I am not seeing a lot of "contorting" there.

Aeneas Hunter, I have enjoyed your posts in the past. I was looking for something I wrote in 2007 and I came across this post from you:
Aeneas Hunter wrote:
Quote:
The Spurs model can be duplicated simply by drafting well and making low profile, low risk, high reward signings like Udoka without overspending by outbidding other clubs for marginal MLE players.


The Spurs really haven't drafted well. They hit home runs on Ginobli and Parker, for sure, but that was largely because they were ahead of the curve on scouting overseas players. Everyone does that now.

In the ten drafts since they took Duncan, the best pick they've made other than Ginobli and Parker has been Leandro Barbosa, who they traded away for a draft pick. Not counting this year's picks, 8 of their 16 post-Duncan draft picks never played in the NBA.

I don't know whether Udoka is a good signing or not. He did okay last year in Portland, but the Blazers weren't impressed enough to keep him. Maybe he'll work out for the Spurs, or maybe he'll just be a guy at the end of the bench. Either way, the Spurs aren't winning titles because of low budget free agent signings of young players like Udoka.

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.
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 2 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