GM SOP

[Amish Mafioso]

Hey guys, I have been looking for info on how GMs operate including general information as well as specific transactions that have taken place. Specifically, I'm looking for info as to the lengths GMs go to when trying to pull off a trade. Such things as players being benched before a trade to avoid having an injury foul it up, as well as cases of players being showcased in hopes of raising a player's value. Seems to be a popular opinion that these things don't happen, which I have a hard time buying. I can believe that GMs don't meddle with the coach for the most part, but I'm doubtful that GMs routinely leave things to chance when managing their assets.

I realize this is the kind of info that FO's keep to themselves for the most part, which I'm sure is why there isn't much info to find. I figure if there are any decent articles on this sort thing, somebody here may know about it. Any help is greatly appreciated. TIA.

[DBoys]

I've heard the idea before that GM's simply "must" be showcasing players they hope to trade, and I think it's silly.

The premise depends on the idea that the acquiring GM must be so stupid that if they see him in one game, they will suddenly be swayed and ignore everything else they know about the player. In addition, it would have to operate under the assumption that said player - if showcased - will somehow play his best game and not his worst.

As recent evidence, I offer Brandan Wright. In Dallas, he played regularly, and Dallas traded him to Boston in a package for Rondo. But preceding the trade, virtually identical minutes as he'd played all season, in the 15-20 per game range.

Then Boston got him and, as we now know, wanted to trade him elsewhere. But instead of playing him more, his minutes while in Boston actually went down from when he was in Dallas, and he was only played 10-15.

The teams played him according to how the coach saw fit, in both cases, imo. The GMs did their thing to match value and money, swapped medical records, did physicals, and the recent play was not a factor from anything I could see. And I was watching fairly closely.

I don't think this was unusual.

[DBoys]

Oh, and by the way, I'm skeptical of the reliability of any "study" that

A - has decided the conclusion (GMs undoubtedly are fiddling with lineups to fit their trade aspirations) before looking at the evidence
B - has decided that both sides of the equation proves their pre-determined conclusion
... from your query, where a player was played a bit less pre-trade, you say "see, they were trying to keep him from injury by lowering his minutes" and
... if they played him more, then "see, they were giving him extra minutes to impress the other teams."
C - has decided that all lack of evidence must be proof that GMs are hiding evidence, thereby validating the pre-determined conclusion that GMs are doing this even if no evidence is found

[Smitty731]

The only time I think showcasing is ever evident is when a vet who has been buried (for any number of reasons) for a long time (a season or a large chunk of one) starts playing again. For example, if the Celtics, who have buried Gerald Wallace for most of two seasons, were to start playing him again, you could consider it showcasing. Not necessarily because GMs don't know what he is, but to show he still has skill. That is probably a horrible example because of his contract and general lack of basketball ability, but no other one immediately came to mind.

But, in general, I don't think it really happens. I think GMs and their staffs usually have a pretty good handle on what a player is, or what they think he can be. I don't think they need to see a player showcased, beyond the possible example I provided above.

[Amish Mafioso]

I understand where you're coming from, and I'm not trying to say this is something that happens regularly, but I'm skeptical that GMs never take action to try and influence a player's value. Especially when you're talking about a rebuilding team that isn't concerned about winning or may even be tanking. As for showcasing, I'll use my team for example. We have fans who have wanted to move Burke to the bench and want to trade Kanter for whatever we can get in fear that he'll get a big offer we won't want to match.

Now, I don't believe Utah is looking to dump Kanter, but for the sake of argument, let's say Utah wants to aggressively explore trades to move Kanter before the deadline. Gobert has emerged as our future starting center, and he's already earned it over Kanter. However, Utah isn't in win-now mode, so my question is whether or not it's reasonable to believe that our GM would coordinate with the coach as to not bench the guy he's trying to move. My fellow Jazz fans would have me believe that the GM isn't ever going to mess with what the coach is doing, despite the fact winning isn't the top priority. Keep in mind that I realize all GMs do things a little differently, and however seldom this sort of thing might be, I have a hard time believing their aren't times when maximizing an asset takes precedence over playing to win. I'm not talking about the spurs FO telling pop what to do, obviously, but I'm skeptical that rebuilding teams don't operate like this at times.

Also, I've heard the arguments as to how moving a player to the bench doesn't affect trade value because GMs already know who they are and just run the numbers. However, there are a couple factors I've never gotten a good answer for. Some players may put up better numbers off the bench, but some players who have fragile egos can be shaken by a demotion and thus their play suffers, so I don't think it's accurate to say it can't hurt TV. Not a certainty, anyway. I believe it can and with a potentially valuable asset, I would think it trumps decisions to win-now. My other point on this is leverage in negotiations. Suppose a GM is close to getting a deal done, and the coach doesn't know about it, and benches the player. To me, it stands to reason that this could weaken your position in negotiations. This seems like common sense that GMs would coordinate with their coaches, but again, some would have me believe that GMs don't ever get involved with the coaching in this way.

Example B- Let's say you are one of the GM/coach/BBall head of operation type guys. Again, your team is in a rebuild and would benefit more from a high draft pick than from immediate wins. You're working on a trade with a player who has significant value, but he's being outplayed by the guy behind him enough that you really can't justify not making the switch. No trade imminent, but say you're a month before the deadline and your potential trade piece is playing consistently. Do you make the switch and assume trade value won't change in a month regardless, or do you try and protect that players trade value?

[Amish Mafioso]

Oh, and by the way, I'm skeptical of the reliability of any "study" that

A - has decided the conclusion (GMs undoubtedly are fiddling with lineups to fit their trade aspirations) before looking at the evidence
B - has decided that both sides of the equation proves their pre-determined conclusion
... from your query, where a player was played a bit less pre-trade, you say "see, they were trying to keep him from injury by lowering his minutes" and
... if they played him more, then "see, they were giving him extra minutes to impress the other teams."
C - has decided that all lack of evidence must be proof that GMs are hiding evidence, thereby validating the pre-determined conclusion that GMs are doing this even if no evidence is found

Yeah, I'm not really looking for an article of speculation. I was more hoping for specific examples anyone might know of, but alas, I realize this info just never gets shared, for obvious reasons. I guess I'll have to wait for some disgruntled GM to write a revenge book or something where they spill an organizations dirty little secrets. As for B, I wasn't talking about players playing less and then making assumptions for why. I'm certain I remember a midseason trade or two where players sat out completely for a game or two when they had been playing, and then got traded. I even seem to remember one that was on tv and the announcers were even talking about the trade being in the works. I kind of remember this happening and then having the trade fall through, but my memory isn't what it used to be, obviously.

[Dunkenstein]

Here's an interesting article on how one NBA GM plans for the future:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/b ... e22438429/