Monday, March 29, 2010
Thursday, March 25, 2010
According to a (not worth reading) Pistons blog:
Not sure that analysis is valid but the fact that Dumars is talking about adding players (as opposed to clearing out the roster first) indicates he still doesn't get it, especially with the MLE. This team has nothing to build around and needs to start fresh, not cobble together a fringe playoff team.
Stop wasting time. Fire Joe Dumars.
Joe Dumars said in an interview with Eli Zaret that aired during tonight’s telecast he plans to use the mid-level exception this summer to acquire a quality player.
...
Dumars also said he plans to acquire a quality player through the draft and another via trade (which indicates he’s not looking to dump Richard Hamilton for an expiring contract – at least not as the only deal of the summer).
Not sure that analysis is valid but the fact that Dumars is talking about adding players (as opposed to clearing out the roster first) indicates he still doesn't get it, especially with the MLE. This team has nothing to build around and needs to start fresh, not cobble together a fringe playoff team.
Stop wasting time. Fire Joe Dumars.
Bill Simmons, in his recent(and excellent) NBA diary talked about the Milwaukee Bucks including praise for their GM - John Hammond.
Of course, we all know where Bill got that idea from
Fire Joe Dumars
Bucks GM John Hammond has made three great moves in the past year: the Salmons trade, gambling on Brandon Jennings at No. 10 in the NBA draft and signing Delfino for nothing this past summer. (Not only does Delfino fill up the stat sheet, play both swing spots and give you solid D, but he also has a giant tattoo of a lizard on his left shoulder that looks cool in HD. There's a lot to like.) Meanwhile, Joe Dumars ran the Pistons into the ground in the 18 months after Hammond bolted Detroit for Milwaukee. Were the two events related? Hmmmmmm.
Of course, we all know where Bill got that idea from
And as for past success in Detroit credited to Joe Dumars, one wonders how much of that should go to John Hammond. Given the divergent paths taken since Hammond left Detroit and Dumars was left to his own decision-making, it seems like the philosophy that brought success to Auburn Hills might have been mastermind by the man in Milwaukee.
Fire Joe Dumars
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Measured by his body of work in totality, its probably true that Dumars is one of the top 10-15 GMs, but its also clear that he is outside the top 5 and has been one of the worst in the last 5 years. Your comfort in having an overall mediocre to above average GM depends on your goals.
Many owner’s intent seems to be overall competence to facilitate profitability. What they want is a consistent winner. They see bad teams playing in front of empty seats and want to avoid that. Sure, a championship would be nice, but the first thing is to avoid being terrible. I assume many GMs either agree or are asked to behave as if they do. Joe Dumars has certainly been a success by this measure. Since 2005 (and obviously before), the team has made the playoffs in every season.
But as fans, we generally care more about competing for championships (i.e. being the best) than we do winning 40-60 games consistently (i.e. being above average). We either want a title contender or feel like we're building towards one. As much as winning individual games, we want to follow the team with hope for the future title runs. We'll attend a loss if we can see signs of optimism for the future. Our enjoyment is based largely on our hopes and expectations, and therefore a set of seasons with more losses {20, 20, 40, 50, 60 wins) and a title is far more enjoyable than a set with more victories {40, 45, 55, 50, 45 )with first round losses each year.
Fans will tolerate losing if it is transparent. Give the fans an exciting style, or young players they can hope for, and they'll watch. Give them disinterested veterans on a marginal playoff team and they'll tune out. A GM, together with his owner, needs to have clear objectives that the fans can get behind. The reason most franchises who have 20 loss seasons have no fans attending games is the buildup to the losing from previous seasons, where fans continuously fall off and become disappointed and disinterested.
If owners want to attract and retain fans, their goal shouldn't be to maximize the number of PLAYOFF seasons but to maximize the number of IMPROVING seasons. The implication being, that once your team falls into decline you shouldn't hesitate to pull the plug and rebuild from scratch. Particularly with the way the NBA is structured to be dominated by superstars and the reward of lottery picks for bad teams. Tell your fans what you're doing. They'll understand.
Dumars effort to rebuilding without losing is a tired model and an empty promise. Every other loser franchise strives for this and it almost never works. It is the worst case scenario that we currently see in Detroit, Philadelphia, and, before a few weeks ago Washington.
By 2007 it was clear the Pistons were badly in decline and needed a change. That was a time for the franchise management to tell you the run was done and now its time to to rebuild. Sure the next season would have been awful and the Palace would have many empty seats. But by 2008, you'd have a people returning back to see what the new guys had to offer.
A short-term flame-out isn't bad for fans, but a long-term decline is. Joe Dumars "success" as defined by conventional measures of consistent winning is in reality a tragic failure. There are few franchises in the NBA whose futures look as dim as the Pistons and the fanbase is responding to that. Joe Dumars is the guy who has positioned this franchise into a depressing place it will have trouble getting out of for the next 5-10 years, even with the NBA's quick-turnaround structure. Fire Joe Dumars!
Many owner’s intent seems to be overall competence to facilitate profitability. What they want is a consistent winner. They see bad teams playing in front of empty seats and want to avoid that. Sure, a championship would be nice, but the first thing is to avoid being terrible. I assume many GMs either agree or are asked to behave as if they do. Joe Dumars has certainly been a success by this measure. Since 2005 (and obviously before), the team has made the playoffs in every season.
But as fans, we generally care more about competing for championships (i.e. being the best) than we do winning 40-60 games consistently (i.e. being above average). We either want a title contender or feel like we're building towards one. As much as winning individual games, we want to follow the team with hope for the future title runs. We'll attend a loss if we can see signs of optimism for the future. Our enjoyment is based largely on our hopes and expectations, and therefore a set of seasons with more losses {20, 20, 40, 50, 60 wins) and a title is far more enjoyable than a set with more victories {40, 45, 55, 50, 45 )with first round losses each year.
Fans will tolerate losing if it is transparent. Give the fans an exciting style, or young players they can hope for, and they'll watch. Give them disinterested veterans on a marginal playoff team and they'll tune out. A GM, together with his owner, needs to have clear objectives that the fans can get behind. The reason most franchises who have 20 loss seasons have no fans attending games is the buildup to the losing from previous seasons, where fans continuously fall off and become disappointed and disinterested.
If owners want to attract and retain fans, their goal shouldn't be to maximize the number of PLAYOFF seasons but to maximize the number of IMPROVING seasons. The implication being, that once your team falls into decline you shouldn't hesitate to pull the plug and rebuild from scratch. Particularly with the way the NBA is structured to be dominated by superstars and the reward of lottery picks for bad teams. Tell your fans what you're doing. They'll understand.
Dumars effort to rebuilding without losing is a tired model and an empty promise. Every other loser franchise strives for this and it almost never works. It is the worst case scenario that we currently see in Detroit, Philadelphia, and, before a few weeks ago Washington.
By 2007 it was clear the Pistons were badly in decline and needed a change. That was a time for the franchise management to tell you the run was done and now its time to to rebuild. Sure the next season would have been awful and the Palace would have many empty seats. But by 2008, you'd have a people returning back to see what the new guys had to offer.
A short-term flame-out isn't bad for fans, but a long-term decline is. Joe Dumars "success" as defined by conventional measures of consistent winning is in reality a tragic failure. There are few franchises in the NBA whose futures look as dim as the Pistons and the fanbase is responding to that. Joe Dumars is the guy who has positioned this franchise into a depressing place it will have trouble getting out of for the next 5-10 years, even with the NBA's quick-turnaround structure. Fire Joe Dumars!
“Most GMs run their team into the ground, are fired after 5 years, and the team is screwed for the next 10 as a result”
I'd say this overstates the damage dramatically. Isiah Thomas is generally considered to be the worst GM of our lifetimes. He traded for every bad contract he could seemingly get. Yet, it took Donnie Walsh 2 seasons to dig out of that mess and start clean. In comparison to Dumars, he looks like a genius. Walsh is one of the few GMs who can surpass Joe for NBA longevity. While he doesn’t have a title, he does exhibit an ability to rebuild. This is because he recognizes the reality of his team. Maybe he wouldn’t if he was responsible for putting them in that position. In other words, the first step is recognizing you have a problem. An outsiders view is often necessary to achieve an objective evaluation. That certainly seems to be the case with the Detroit Pistons. Which is why they need to ... Fire Joe Dumars!
The argument for increased job security for GMs has some validity. Desperation is the root of some of the worst GM moves in history. These GMs knew what they were doing was probably stupid but felt the risk was worth it in order to keep their jobs. GMs often avoid the unpleasant task of rebuilding, especially if they've experienced success. But maybe they shouldn't...
I'd say this overstates the damage dramatically. Isiah Thomas is generally considered to be the worst GM of our lifetimes. He traded for every bad contract he could seemingly get. Yet, it took Donnie Walsh 2 seasons to dig out of that mess and start clean. In comparison to Dumars, he looks like a genius. Walsh is one of the few GMs who can surpass Joe for NBA longevity. While he doesn’t have a title, he does exhibit an ability to rebuild. This is because he recognizes the reality of his team. Maybe he wouldn’t if he was responsible for putting them in that position. In other words, the first step is recognizing you have a problem. An outsiders view is often necessary to achieve an objective evaluation. That certainly seems to be the case with the Detroit Pistons. Which is why they need to ... Fire Joe Dumars!
The argument for increased job security for GMs has some validity. Desperation is the root of some of the worst GM moves in history. These GMs knew what they were doing was probably stupid but felt the risk was worth it in order to keep their jobs. GMs often avoid the unpleasant task of rebuilding, especially if they've experienced success. But maybe they shouldn't...
“(Dumars is) great at taking a team from nothing to something over time.”
The development of the 2000 (Atkins-Stackhouse-Wallace) Pistons, being built into the 2004 team is Joe Dumars' claim to fame. Without question, Dumars made several brilliant moves during this juncture. Notably:
-Signing Chauncey Billups as a free agent
-Trading Jerry Stackhouse for Rip Hamilton
-Drafting Mehmet Okhur and Tay Prince with low picks
-Getting Rasheed Wallace without giving anything up
-The Carslile/Brown coaching hires
Two things should be noted before you crown Joe the king of rebuilding: intent and fortune. As I’ve said before, Dumars actually intended to resign Grant Hill. What actually happened was Plan B, a fortunate accident. Also, all of those moves worked out better than even Joe would have imagined, an incredible streak of good luck.
Dumars has done this exactly once. He himself talks about how difficult (and unlikely) it is to do again, openly expressing a reluctance to do so. This is the problem.
Dumars’ refusal to acknowledge the reality (a team-of-nothing) is the root of the current problems. Dumars is not only unproven as a franchise re-builder, but he seems unwilling to take the task on. Dumars is the wrong guy for the job precisely because he isn’t taking the team up from nothing, but steadily digging it deeper into a pit.
When the Pistons fire Joe Dumars he will (and should be) rehired by another organization. He deserves a 2nd chance to build a title contender. But for now, he is the wrong guy for the Pistons, because hes not the man for the job of rebuilding the team. Fire Joe Dumars!
The development of the 2000 (Atkins-Stackhouse-Wallace) Pistons, being built into the 2004 team is Joe Dumars' claim to fame. Without question, Dumars made several brilliant moves during this juncture. Notably:
-Signing Chauncey Billups as a free agent
-Trading Jerry Stackhouse for Rip Hamilton
-Drafting Mehmet Okhur and Tay Prince with low picks
-Getting Rasheed Wallace without giving anything up
-The Carslile/Brown coaching hires
Two things should be noted before you crown Joe the king of rebuilding: intent and fortune. As I’ve said before, Dumars actually intended to resign Grant Hill. What actually happened was Plan B, a fortunate accident. Also, all of those moves worked out better than even Joe would have imagined, an incredible streak of good luck.
Dumars has done this exactly once. He himself talks about how difficult (and unlikely) it is to do again, openly expressing a reluctance to do so. This is the problem.
Dumars’ refusal to acknowledge the reality (a team-of-nothing) is the root of the current problems. Dumars is not only unproven as a franchise re-builder, but he seems unwilling to take the task on. Dumars is the wrong guy for the job precisely because he isn’t taking the team up from nothing, but steadily digging it deeper into a pit.
When the Pistons fire Joe Dumars he will (and should be) rehired by another organization. He deserves a 2nd chance to build a title contender. But for now, he is the wrong guy for the Pistons, because hes not the man for the job of rebuilding the team. Fire Joe Dumars!
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Within Chad Ford's Insider future franchise power rankings he includes a ranking of management: " Quality and stability of front office, ownership, coaching". So basically, the same thing as my rankings, although I don't care so much about stability or include coaching. Anyway, heres his ranks:
RANK MANAGEMENT
1 San Antonio
2 Houston
3 Okla. City
4 Portland
5 L.A. Lakers
6 Utah
7 Dallas
8 Orlando
9 Denver
10 Boston
11 Detroit
12 Miami
13 New York
14 Milwaukee
15 Cleveland
16 Toronto
17 Chicago
18 Indiana
19 Philadelphia
20 Atlanta
21 New Jersey
22 Phoenix
23 New Orleans
24 Sacramento
25 L.A. Clippers
26 Memphis
27 Minnesota
28 Washington
29 Charlotte
30 Golden State
Pretty similar to my rankings. He puts Utah much higher (stability, I guess, and coaching) as well as Philadelphia (??) and Cleveland much lower. Of course, he has personal relationships with some people (Walsh and Dumars) that make him prone to bias.
It makes sense that our rankings are similar though, since Ford is one of my favorite NBA writers and as such has some influence on my opinions.
RANK MANAGEMENT
1 San Antonio
2 Houston
3 Okla. City
4 Portland
5 L.A. Lakers
6 Utah
7 Dallas
8 Orlando
9 Denver
10 Boston
11 Detroit
12 Miami
13 New York
14 Milwaukee
15 Cleveland
16 Toronto
17 Chicago
18 Indiana
19 Philadelphia
20 Atlanta
21 New Jersey
22 Phoenix
23 New Orleans
24 Sacramento
25 L.A. Clippers
26 Memphis
27 Minnesota
28 Washington
29 Charlotte
30 Golden State
Pretty similar to my rankings. He puts Utah much higher (stability, I guess, and coaching) as well as Philadelphia (??) and Cleveland much lower. Of course, he has personal relationships with some people (Walsh and Dumars) that make him prone to bias.
It makes sense that our rankings are similar though, since Ford is one of my favorite NBA writers and as such has some influence on my opinions.
Monday, March 1, 2010
So where does Joe Dumars rank amid all the other GMs? A case can be made to lump him in with a few different groups: winners with some bad decisions, living off reputation, or ex-players who stink.
That puts him somewhere between 8 and 23 on the list of GMs. I think he fits best in the "faded glory" group, above all the others at #12 because he won a title. I'd put him below the Smith/Ferry/Ainge/Nelson group because he hasn't made a finals since 2005. The recent history is just too terrible to put him in the top 10. Taking a more pessimistic view that he got lucky to win that title, you can stick him in with the former players in the 20s. If he was handed the title team in 2004 instead of the 2000 roster, he'd be a lock for this group, if not worse.
So the question remains. Is being the #12 (or so) GM in the NBA good enough reason to keep the job?
I say no. Fire Joe Dumars!
That puts him somewhere between 8 and 23 on the list of GMs. I think he fits best in the "faded glory" group, above all the others at #12 because he won a title. I'd put him below the Smith/Ferry/Ainge/Nelson group because he hasn't made a finals since 2005. The recent history is just too terrible to put him in the top 10. Taking a more pessimistic view that he got lucky to win that title, you can stick him in with the former players in the 20s. If he was handed the title team in 2004 instead of the 2000 roster, he'd be a lock for this group, if not worse.
So the question remains. Is being the #12 (or so) GM in the NBA good enough reason to keep the job?
I say no. Fire Joe Dumars!
What separates these GM's is their ability to win multiple non-consecutive titles while maintaining long-term success. The two toughest things to do as a GM are getting over the hump to win a title and recovering from the championship hangover without resorting to desperation.
It's not a fluke. I've got multiple titles with different rosters.
2. Kupchak LAL
Began in 2000, so he's credited with multiple titles including successfully recruiting Shaq, then navigating the loss of Shaq and a lot of Kobe drama before getting Pau Gasol. Unearthed good players later in the draft including M.Gasol, Turiaf, Bynum. Stole Ariza from Orlando but also has consistently overpaid for weak players and gave away Caron Butler. Benefits from a great situation, and has been far from perfect, but you can't argue with the decade of success. Underrated job managing all the egos and personalities involved (including Phil Jackson). Still well off #1 because he was so bad for a while; Kobe almost left.
1. Buford SAS
Began in 2002 as GM though he's been with the Spurs since '88 and part of the brain-trust since at '97. Continuous excellence here, building multiple champion caliber teams. As GM, besides the obvious stuff (resigning the core players), he's managed to find talent from free agents (Devin Brown) and late draft picks (Barbosa, Udrih, Hill, Blair). Has somehow never won executive of the year. It'll be interesting to see how he responds to Duncan aging - more misteps like the addition of Richard Jefferson or will they rebuild? Like the Montana/Rice/Walsh 49ers, the only issue here is how to distribute the credit between Buford/Popovich/Duncan. They can't ALL be the greatest ever can they?
It's not a fluke. I've got multiple titles with different rosters.
2. Kupchak LAL
Began in 2000, so he's credited with multiple titles including successfully recruiting Shaq, then navigating the loss of Shaq and a lot of Kobe drama before getting Pau Gasol. Unearthed good players later in the draft including M.Gasol, Turiaf, Bynum. Stole Ariza from Orlando but also has consistently overpaid for weak players and gave away Caron Butler. Benefits from a great situation, and has been far from perfect, but you can't argue with the decade of success. Underrated job managing all the egos and personalities involved (including Phil Jackson). Still well off #1 because he was so bad for a while; Kobe almost left.
1. Buford SAS
Began in 2002 as GM though he's been with the Spurs since '88 and part of the brain-trust since at '97. Continuous excellence here, building multiple champion caliber teams. As GM, besides the obvious stuff (resigning the core players), he's managed to find talent from free agents (Devin Brown) and late draft picks (Barbosa, Udrih, Hill, Blair). Has somehow never won executive of the year. It'll be interesting to see how he responds to Duncan aging - more misteps like the addition of Richard Jefferson or will they rebuild? Like the Montana/Rice/Walsh 49ers, the only issue here is how to distribute the credit between Buford/Popovich/Duncan. They can't ALL be the greatest ever can they?
No titles here, but in their brief tenure these GMs have improved their teams prospects dramatically. Aggressive, with moves that appear sound to the rational fan. They get it.
"I'm smarter than you and soon I'll prove it."
7. Hammond MIL
Began in 2009. Drafted Jennings and signed bargain players while getting rid of trash. Was he the real mastermind of the Piston's successes? He's probably ranked way too high considering he just got the job, but every decision so far looks like a homerun.
6. Morey HOU
Began in 2007. With a roster constrained by Tmac and Yao contracts, he's added solid complementary players and been aggressive in making moves. Aaron Brooks, Carl Landry, Kyle Lowry were great finds. Has a knack for adding players who excel at one or more elements of the game and know their limitations. Adding Kevin Martin to Yao is his biggest move so far. We'll see if it works, but its clear he's looking to find an edge by operating differently than the rest.
5. Pritchard POR
Began in 2007. Dismantled the Jailblazers into one of the most admired young cores in the NBA. His undoing may be that he consistently ignores injury concerns. Ultimately a smart strategy if you're interested in keeping your job because an excuse is always available.
4. Warkentien DEN
Began in 2006. Stole Billups and Afflalo from Dumars, JR Smith from the Hornets . Unearthed Dhantay Jones. Drafted Ty Lawson. Working under major roster constraints, has crafted a title contender. Not sure he has made a mistake yet.
3. Prestie OKC
Began in 2007. Pure brilliance in turning the sad-sack Sonics into the most exciting franchise in the NBA. Every move has been awesome except drafting BJ Mullens. Would have been interesting if the Tyson Chandler trade went through.
"I'm smarter than you and soon I'll prove it."
7. Hammond MIL
Began in 2009. Drafted Jennings and signed bargain players while getting rid of trash. Was he the real mastermind of the Piston's successes? He's probably ranked way too high considering he just got the job, but every decision so far looks like a homerun.
6. Morey HOU
Began in 2007. With a roster constrained by Tmac and Yao contracts, he's added solid complementary players and been aggressive in making moves. Aaron Brooks, Carl Landry, Kyle Lowry were great finds. Has a knack for adding players who excel at one or more elements of the game and know their limitations. Adding Kevin Martin to Yao is his biggest move so far. We'll see if it works, but its clear he's looking to find an edge by operating differently than the rest.
5. Pritchard POR
Began in 2007. Dismantled the Jailblazers into one of the most admired young cores in the NBA. His undoing may be that he consistently ignores injury concerns. Ultimately a smart strategy if you're interested in keeping your job because an excuse is always available.
4. Warkentien DEN
Began in 2006. Stole Billups and Afflalo from Dumars, JR Smith from the Hornets . Unearthed Dhantay Jones. Drafted Ty Lawson. Working under major roster constraints, has crafted a title contender. Not sure he has made a mistake yet.
3. Prestie OKC
Began in 2007. Pure brilliance in turning the sad-sack Sonics into the most exciting franchise in the NBA. Every move has been awesome except drafting BJ Mullens. Would have been interesting if the Tyson Chandler trade went through.
Proven winners here who have recently built NBA finalists or champions. They have a mixed reputation; made obvious blunders but also pulled off huge acquisitions. Yet where are they without the franchise players they may or may not deserve credit for acquiring? Too many stupid moves to be considered smart, yet they've had great success.
"If I'm so dumb, how did I make the finals?"
11. Nelson DAL
Began in 2002, but this is another murky situation where Mark Cuban and Dad/Don Nelson played a big role. With basically unlimited resources, Nelson hasn't been able to move the Mavs over the top and has signed off on a number of terrible contracts. They keep winning though and every season are on the borderline of title contention. Also keeps finding solid players later in the draft.
10. Ferry CLE
Began in 2005. Easy job when gifted Lebron and a rich owner. He's made some questionable personnel decisions (Larry Hughes as Lebron's sidekick?) and spent money recklessly. To his credit, he found Shannon Brown, Daniel Gibson, JJ Hickson in the draft and has finally put a strong team around Lebron with a quality Head Coach.
9. Ainge BOS
Began in 2003. Great: drafting Jefferson, Perkins, Rondo, West. Awful: Signing LaFrentz than dealing away the pick that could have been Brandon Roy to dump his contract, trading for Ricky Davis. A mixed record, but ultimately the drafting gave him the assets to win a title and he did what it took to get Garnett and Allen while being smart enough to hold on to Pierce.
8. Smith ORL
Began in 2005. Alternates between awful moves (drafting Vazquez and Redick, trading away Ariza) and smart ones (drafting Lee and Gortat, trading for Ariza). Earned my respect by completely fooling Dallas this offseason to keep Gortat while getting Bass. Got killed for overpaying Lewis, but it ended up working out just fine. Not afraid to make bold moves.
"If I'm so dumb, how did I make the finals?"
11. Nelson DAL
Began in 2002, but this is another murky situation where Mark Cuban and Dad/Don Nelson played a big role. With basically unlimited resources, Nelson hasn't been able to move the Mavs over the top and has signed off on a number of terrible contracts. They keep winning though and every season are on the borderline of title contention. Also keeps finding solid players later in the draft.
10. Ferry CLE
Began in 2005. Easy job when gifted Lebron and a rich owner. He's made some questionable personnel decisions (Larry Hughes as Lebron's sidekick?) and spent money recklessly. To his credit, he found Shannon Brown, Daniel Gibson, JJ Hickson in the draft and has finally put a strong team around Lebron with a quality Head Coach.
9. Ainge BOS
Began in 2003. Great: drafting Jefferson, Perkins, Rondo, West. Awful: Signing LaFrentz than dealing away the pick that could have been Brandon Roy to dump his contract, trading for Ricky Davis. A mixed record, but ultimately the drafting gave him the assets to win a title and he did what it took to get Garnett and Allen while being smart enough to hold on to Pierce.
8. Smith ORL
Began in 2005. Alternates between awful moves (drafting Vazquez and Redick, trading away Ariza) and smart ones (drafting Lee and Gortat, trading for Ariza). Earned my respect by completely fooling Dallas this offseason to keep Gortat while getting Bass. Got killed for overpaying Lewis, but it ended up working out just fine. Not afraid to make bold moves.
Sterling reputation for past success offset by recent blunders. Check out this list of top GMs from 2007.
"Can we just pretend its still 2006 please?"
14. Riley MIA
Began in 2008 technically, but has been involved in managing the Heat since 1995. Ultimately he won a title but Dwayne Wade fell in his lap and trading for Shaq seems obvious. Since the Wade/Shaq title team, Riley has done a pretty poor job of putting a good team around DWade. They're still dealing with the Shaq contract in the form of Jermaine Oneal and seem desperate overall. Seems to be impatient and better suited as a head coach. Get it, suited.
13. Petrie SAC
Began in 1995. Built the Kings into perennial contenders but his star has dimmed as the Kings have been in decline since before Chris Webber left in 2005. Currently in full-blown rebuild mode but still tied down by bad contracts with no real franchise player to build around. Franchise is now being accused of laziness, which seems unfair, but many saw their problems coming long ago.
12. Colangelo TOR
Began in Toronto in 2007, but was in Phoenix for 11 years and built the Suns into a uniquely entertaining team. In Toronto, ironically, euroball hasn't worked nearly as well. Even if they keep Bosh, which seems unlikely, they're loaded with bad contracts, play no defense and have little chance of contending anytime soon. Seems desperate.
"Can we just pretend its still 2006 please?"
14. Riley MIA
Began in 2008 technically, but has been involved in managing the Heat since 1995. Ultimately he won a title but Dwayne Wade fell in his lap and trading for Shaq seems obvious. Since the Wade/Shaq title team, Riley has done a pretty poor job of putting a good team around DWade. They're still dealing with the Shaq contract in the form of Jermaine Oneal and seem desperate overall. Seems to be impatient and better suited as a head coach. Get it, suited.
13. Petrie SAC
Began in 1995. Built the Kings into perennial contenders but his star has dimmed as the Kings have been in decline since before Chris Webber left in 2005. Currently in full-blown rebuild mode but still tied down by bad contracts with no real franchise player to build around. Franchise is now being accused of laziness, which seems unfair, but many saw their problems coming long ago.
12. Colangelo TOR
Began in Toronto in 2007, but was in Phoenix for 11 years and built the Suns into a uniquely entertaining team. In Toronto, ironically, euroball hasn't worked nearly as well. Even if they keep Bosh, which seems unlikely, they're loaded with bad contracts, play no defense and have little chance of contending anytime soon. Seems desperate.
These GMs have a pretty mixed history. They could be fired, yet have material to justify more time too.
"I'm still here but even I'm not sure I deserve to be."
18. Kahn MIN
Began this year, so why is he lumped in with all these seasoned vets? Given his lack of qualifications and inauspicious start he might already wonder when he'll see Kevin Love tweeting about his pink slip... Started well by dumping some veterans for the 5th pick in the draft but then drafted 2 PGs, including Rubio who has little incentive to leave Europe. Has a very curious roster right now but they're rebuilding. At this stage, he's right not to succumb to pressure to trade away assets because they don't fit together well. He hasn't been there long enough to judge really, but already several head-scratchers make you wonder.
17. Thorn NJN
Began in 2000. Got Kidd for Starbury, which turned things around for many seasons, but he never got them over the top. Hung on to Kidd for way too long and the franchise got stuck for years. Has done well since finally deciding to rebuild (although the Harris contract may be too rich). Despite their record this season, NJ is well-positioned with lots of young talent, draft picks, and cap space.
16. O'Connor UTA
Began in 1999, as the Malone/Stockton era wound down. Has consistently overpaid for big men (Okur, Boozer, Millsap, Kirilenko), but probably has to, considering SLC's desirability. Keeps finding solid players in the draft and the team is very competitive since DWill arrived. Probably not close to winning a title though and the prospects for getting better aren't great.
15. Walsh NYK
GM in Indiana since the 80s, moved to NY in 2008. Has successfully orchestrated a massive overhaul of the Knicks roster with the goal of hitting a 2010 free agent. Has done way better than anyone expected but has had to give up many draft picks to do it and may lose David Lee for nothing. Did OK in Indiana overall, but never quite won a title and left the franchise in pretty poor shape.
"I'm still here but even I'm not sure I deserve to be."
18. Kahn MIN
Began this year, so why is he lumped in with all these seasoned vets? Given his lack of qualifications and inauspicious start he might already wonder when he'll see Kevin Love tweeting about his pink slip... Started well by dumping some veterans for the 5th pick in the draft but then drafted 2 PGs, including Rubio who has little incentive to leave Europe. Has a very curious roster right now but they're rebuilding. At this stage, he's right not to succumb to pressure to trade away assets because they don't fit together well. He hasn't been there long enough to judge really, but already several head-scratchers make you wonder.
17. Thorn NJN
Began in 2000. Got Kidd for Starbury, which turned things around for many seasons, but he never got them over the top. Hung on to Kidd for way too long and the franchise got stuck for years. Has done well since finally deciding to rebuild (although the Harris contract may be too rich). Despite their record this season, NJ is well-positioned with lots of young talent, draft picks, and cap space.
16. O'Connor UTA
Began in 1999, as the Malone/Stockton era wound down. Has consistently overpaid for big men (Okur, Boozer, Millsap, Kirilenko), but probably has to, considering SLC's desirability. Keeps finding solid players in the draft and the team is very competitive since DWill arrived. Probably not close to winning a title though and the prospects for getting better aren't great.
15. Walsh NYK
GM in Indiana since the 80s, moved to NY in 2008. Has successfully orchestrated a massive overhaul of the Knicks roster with the goal of hitting a 2010 free agent. Has done way better than anyone expected but has had to give up many draft picks to do it and may lose David Lee for nothing. Did OK in Indiana overall, but never quite won a title and left the franchise in pretty poor shape.
Famous former players who won titles but appear incompetent as GMs.
"I won as a player, so I think I should be a GM"
22. Higgins/Jordon CHA
Not clear who is to blame here between Jordan/Higgins/Brown, but the franchise exhibits no regard for cap management, with a bunch of highly paid mediocre players. They also haven't drafted well, which matches Jordon's profile in Washington. No hope for contending for a title any time soon. They are sort of fun though.
21. Bird IND
Began in 2003. He started off well by firing Isiah Thomas, hiring Rick Carlisle and moving out a bunch of roster trash. Nothing Bird has done has been overly stupid but he just keeps adding role players while the roster slowly declines. Does have Danny Granger, but 7 seasons is a long time to do nothing, even if Donnie Walsh takes some of the heat along with Bird.
20. Paxson CHI
Began in 2003. Paxson has made a lot of moves, some good some bad , but ultimately has made zero progress and usually ends up in the lottery. Overpaying for Ben Wallace was awful. Seems unwilling to make a bold move to advance the team towards title contention despite what seems like a solid young core at all times.
19. Kerr PHO
Completely messed up what Dantoni and Colangelo built, then tried to reverse direction. This should be an easy franchise to run - surround Nash with young athletes and cheap shooters. Its an attractive destination and they play a fun style. How do you screw this up? The answer is of course by trying to win a title. Kerr gambled and lost but deserves some credit for admitting it and going in reverse. His moves all have some logic. But whats next? Now he's either going to overpay Stoudamire or watch him walk away for nothing. The latter is preferable but far from optimal.
"I won as a player, so I think I should be a GM"
22. Higgins/Jordon CHA
Not clear who is to blame here between Jordan/Higgins/Brown, but the franchise exhibits no regard for cap management, with a bunch of highly paid mediocre players. They also haven't drafted well, which matches Jordon's profile in Washington. No hope for contending for a title any time soon. They are sort of fun though.
21. Bird IND
Began in 2003. He started off well by firing Isiah Thomas, hiring Rick Carlisle and moving out a bunch of roster trash. Nothing Bird has done has been overly stupid but he just keeps adding role players while the roster slowly declines. Does have Danny Granger, but 7 seasons is a long time to do nothing, even if Donnie Walsh takes some of the heat along with Bird.
20. Paxson CHI
Began in 2003. Paxson has made a lot of moves, some good some bad , but ultimately has made zero progress and usually ends up in the lottery. Overpaying for Ben Wallace was awful. Seems unwilling to make a bold move to advance the team towards title contention despite what seems like a solid young core at all times.
19. Kerr PHO
Completely messed up what Dantoni and Colangelo built, then tried to reverse direction. This should be an easy franchise to run - surround Nash with young athletes and cheap shooters. Its an attractive destination and they play a fun style. How do you screw this up? The answer is of course by trying to win a title. Kerr gambled and lost but deserves some credit for admitting it and going in reverse. His moves all have some logic. But whats next? Now he's either going to overpay Stoudamire or watch him walk away for nothing. The latter is preferable but far from optimal.
Should be fired, but managing to hang on thanks to ummm...generous..owners.
"My owner doesn't care and neither do I."
25. Riley/Nelson GSW
Riley is a rookie GM but also just a figurehead. Nellie is the man here - a legend who keeps finding good players and runs a unique and entertaining style but never knew how to finish the job. His recent struggles are what put him in the "just bad" category. People are saying he's trying to get fired so that he can retire while getting paid - its completely believable.
24. Bower NOH
Began in 2005. Handed a roster with Chris Paul, David West, and Brandon Bass. No impressive moves since (excluding Darren Collison draft) since and has failed to surround Paul with a competent supporting cast. A bad owner situation to be sure, but wasted what little money he had on James Posey. Maybe this is a harsh placement, but MAN - you have Chris Paul! Don't suck.
23. Dunleavy LAC
Began in 2008. Career loser who hasn't made a good move yet, besides maybe firing himself as head coach. This happened twice. Despite him, the Clips are positioned pretty well for next season. They could be better off though, because Dunleavy gave away Camby and Thornton and got nothing in return.
"My owner doesn't care and neither do I."
25. Riley/Nelson GSW
Riley is a rookie GM but also just a figurehead. Nellie is the man here - a legend who keeps finding good players and runs a unique and entertaining style but never knew how to finish the job. His recent struggles are what put him in the "just bad" category. People are saying he's trying to get fired so that he can retire while getting paid - its completely believable.
24. Bower NOH
Began in 2005. Handed a roster with Chris Paul, David West, and Brandon Bass. No impressive moves since (excluding Darren Collison draft) since and has failed to surround Paul with a competent supporting cast. A bad owner situation to be sure, but wasted what little money he had on James Posey. Maybe this is a harsh placement, but MAN - you have Chris Paul! Don't suck.
23. Dunleavy LAC
Began in 2008. Career loser who hasn't made a good move yet, besides maybe firing himself as head coach. This happened twice. Despite him, the Clips are positioned pretty well for next season. They could be better off though, because Dunleavy gave away Camby and Thornton and got nothing in return.
In the course of thinking about where Joe Dumars fits in among his NBA General Manager peers, I noticed there was a stunning lack of comparative GM evaluations available on the Internet. Besides some amateur hacks here or there that aren’t worth linking to, I only found this 2007 article by a pretty mediocre basketball writer. With the benefit of hindsight his rankings look pretty awful.
So, to fill the gap I'm ranking NBA GMs myself, complete with Bill Simmons-style awkwardly forced groupings. This is a “who would I hire now” type of evaluation which weighs recent developments more heavily than their C.V. in totality. Look up their individual histories here if you're so inclined.
Here goes the list from worst to first starting with the first group of "Awful":
[oh yeah, the list begins with 29 because I'm omitting Joe Dumars for now...we'll discuss his placement later]
AWFUL
I get frustrated thinking about these people. Why are rich NBA owners so dumb?
Group Quote:
"Can we talk about something other than basketball?"
29. Grunfeld WAS
In Washington since 2003. He over-committed to a middling core and then tried to rebuild without getting rid of his worst contract (Arenas) and giving away his assets without getting anything in return. A few months ago he was trading draft picks for veterans and now he's giving away veterans as fast as he can. That he didn't learn his lessons from his Milwaukee success (namely, you can't win a title with your 3 best players being offensive-oriented wings) is the least of his problems.
28. Stefanksi PHI
Began in 2008. Badly overpaid for Iguadala and Brand, binding up the teams salary cap for several years to come. Didn't learn from his terrible predecessor (Billy King) apparently.
27. Wallace MEM
In Memphis since 2007, before that he was awful in Boston (his highlight was drafting Joe Johnson, who he then traded away for nothing.) Memphis hasn't done much better, despite their surprisingly OK season. Too many draft blunders to list. The Gasol (for Gasol) trade wasn't nearly as bad as was made out, but it wasn't great.
26. Sund ATL
"The expansion Dallas Mavericks hired him in 1979 at 28 years of age, making him the youngest general manager in the NBA's history." Before Cuban bought them, the Mavs were perpetual losers, so of course he's been hired numerous times since then, notably running the Pistons (prior to 2000) and Sonics (prior to the OKC move) into the ground. Random lowlights in Seattle: Drafted center Saer Sene 10th overall and gave Calvin Booth a long term contract. His current team, Atlanta, looks pretty good, but this retread can't take any of the credit since he just got there last year. His only move of note is trading for Jamal Crawford (which does look good so far.) If history is any indicator, he'll screw up Atlanta soon though. Enjoy it while you can Hawk fans.
So, to fill the gap I'm ranking NBA GMs myself, complete with Bill Simmons-style awkwardly forced groupings. This is a “who would I hire now” type of evaluation which weighs recent developments more heavily than their C.V. in totality. Look up their individual histories here if you're so inclined.
Here goes the list from worst to first starting with the first group of "Awful":
[oh yeah, the list begins with 29 because I'm omitting Joe Dumars for now...we'll discuss his placement later]
AWFUL
I get frustrated thinking about these people. Why are rich NBA owners so dumb?
Group Quote:
"Can we talk about something other than basketball?"
29. Grunfeld WAS
In Washington since 2003. He over-committed to a middling core and then tried to rebuild without getting rid of his worst contract (Arenas) and giving away his assets without getting anything in return. A few months ago he was trading draft picks for veterans and now he's giving away veterans as fast as he can. That he didn't learn his lessons from his Milwaukee success (namely, you can't win a title with your 3 best players being offensive-oriented wings) is the least of his problems.
28. Stefanksi PHI
Began in 2008. Badly overpaid for Iguadala and Brand, binding up the teams salary cap for several years to come. Didn't learn from his terrible predecessor (Billy King) apparently.
27. Wallace MEM
In Memphis since 2007, before that he was awful in Boston (his highlight was drafting Joe Johnson, who he then traded away for nothing.) Memphis hasn't done much better, despite their surprisingly OK season. Too many draft blunders to list. The Gasol (for Gasol) trade wasn't nearly as bad as was made out, but it wasn't great.
26. Sund ATL
"The expansion Dallas Mavericks hired him in 1979 at 28 years of age, making him the youngest general manager in the NBA's history." Before Cuban bought them, the Mavs were perpetual losers, so of course he's been hired numerous times since then, notably running the Pistons (prior to 2000) and Sonics (prior to the OKC move) into the ground. Random lowlights in Seattle: Drafted center Saer Sene 10th overall and gave Calvin Booth a long term contract. His current team, Atlanta, looks pretty good, but this retread can't take any of the credit since he just got there last year. His only move of note is trading for Jamal Crawford (which does look good so far.) If history is any indicator, he'll screw up Atlanta soon though. Enjoy it while you can Hawk fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
