“The decision to not match Big Ben's offer 3.75 years ago was definitely the right one.”
I don’t understand why Pistons fans keep saying this. Taken in a vacuum, sure, Ben Wallace was overpaid. But, by not resigning him, an elite team was destroyed. The Pistons got worse and gave up a shot at winning more titles. It was the end of the title run. Maybe the Pistons wouldn’t have won another title with him, but losing Ben meant they never really got close ever again. And what was gained? Financial flexibility that allowed the team to resign Tay Prince, Sheed Wallace, etc? Players and contracts Dumars had to work to dump.
Given where the team is, its obvious that the moves made as a result of Ben losing didn’t work at all. It would have been worth signing Ben if for no reason other than it would have facilitated the rebuilding process earlier and avoid the string of disappointing seasons. Not to mention, that he still looks like a pretty solid player when his role is clearly defined.
In fairness to Dumars (or perhaps this is a critique if you maintain letting Ben walk was a good choice) his hand might have been forced by an owner unwilling to go far above the salary cap.
...
Some of the most often cited reason by Joe Dumars supporters of good moves are really managerial blunders that exhibit why he should be let go. Fire Joe Dumars!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
1. Sheed was re-signed two years before Ben was
2. The Pistons lost to the Spurs in the finals and then lost to the Heat in the Eastern Conference finals before getting rid of Ben. They went on to lose in the Eastern Conference finals two more years after Ben. Also, Ben's numbers were on the decline for a couple years before he left.
3. I'm not sure how re-signing Ben would start the rebuilding process earlier.
4. The Pistons were offering Ben a number that would have made him the highest paid Piston ever. The Bulls gave him a contract that was much bigger than that. If I'm Bill Davidson (which I am) Joe made me money and maintained the same competitive level by letting Ben go.
Making the finals in an uncompetitive Eastern Conference...thats hardly the same thing as winning a title and playing San Antonio to a draw. I realize they lost to Miami in the Conference finals, but that was a championship team as well. So that's 3
In truth, the Pistons decline began when Larry Brown left. But thats as much the result of his replacement's incompetence as anything else.
Ben Wallace was named to the all NBA 2nd team and was defensive player of the year in his final season with the Pistons. He was probably better 3 years earlier, but the fact remains: He was replaced by a hobbled Dale Davis, Nazr Mohammed and eventually a crippled Chris Webber.
The team was never the same.
No one is arguing that Ben was worth the money or as good as he used to be. That's besides the point. What matters is the outcome, which was the Pistons being consistently worse than they were with him, even if they only made the conference finals, as in his last season.
Without Ben the team lost to an inferior Cleveland team because Lebron could drive with impunity. Thats probably another NBA finals team with Ben. He also could have been the deciding factor in beating the Celtics the following year. Last year, the team probably avoids the 8 seed and instead gets to face a Magic team they matched up far better with.
The Rasheed resigning was well before Wallace left, but Dumars chose to extend Prince instead of resigning Wallace.
What did the Pistons gain with the money they saved by not paying Wallace? I guess the owner saved a few million but much, if not all, of that money was spent on other players.
Resigning Ben Wallace would have put the Pistons in a position where they had a chance of maintaining their position as title contenders. That distinction left town the same time Wallace did.
Bottom line: if the Pistons resigned Wallace things would have been different. Its hard to say they would have been worse.
Since the team was probably going to fade in either case, at least keeping him would have probably forced the franchise into an earlier breakup. Since the Wallace contract was not an asset Joe would have had to give something of value up to get better or dump salaries...that probably means Prince or Hamilton, the Pistons we currently want to get rid of most.
At the time, Lank celebrated losing Wallace to the Bulls.
Why don't you want to keep Tayshaun? You have no love? No loyalty?
I did not celebrate it, but I thought it was the right decision. I definitely wasn't sure, but the degree to which the Bulls overpaid made it hard to match the contract. That doesn't mean it was the right decision. It was also hard to pass up on Darko and Oden in the draft.
I like Rip and Tay. Its better for everyone involved if Detroit can move on to rebuilding, and they can spend the latter years of their productive NBA careers on contending teams. I'd be happy to have them back a la Ben Wallace's return.
By that I mean, back later, when they are just happy-to-be-here veteran role models without franchise crippling contracts.
Post a Comment