RealGM

You're John Paxon, you hire Scott Skiles to clean up the organization but he gets more wins then you expect, you make a big move trading Curry and you barely miss a step, how can you not stay with Skiles' system? He can't and brings in Wallace for basically Chandler.

Now here's the whole problem began between Skiles and Paxson, instead of drafting a shooter for the current system in Roy, Paxson went with his vision of where the NBA was going with a project in Tyrus but also drafts a big guard for the current system. In essence, Paxson looked long term instead of strengthening the current team in the current system.

So we warp to this year, we draft a guy that can work in either system but went away from a center who would help complete the current team in Hawes with his low post scoring. It's as if Paxson had started moving towards the new System while the old one was running it's course.

We then have a total meltdown, we decide to move away from the old system but can't completely with the current roster, so Paxson fires Skiles, brings in someone who can run the old system while the old players are here and slowly transition in the young players and going in a completely different direction next year hence the reason for not hiring a new coach yet because we have the wrong personnel for that direction right now.

So in conclusion...
Paxson came in to clean house... check
Skiles got more out of the team then expected... problem
Paxson backed Skiles even though it's not the style he wanted... problem
Paxson started getting his new players for a new system... Check
Skiles' quit having success... check
Waiting to start a new system in the offseason with a new coach... pending
Retooling the roster to better fit a new system... pending
Start getting the young players more time to be better ready next year... in progress.

There is a silver lining to this season... we're justing in the transition period and that sucks.

Paxson, per Paxson, never planned to just draft for every need and never make any trades. I think people sometimes feel his plan was to draft and fill all of his needs via the draft (or FA).

Now it did work better than expected, so, that could be both good and bad.

AirP, I don't disagree with you at all. But...there is another thread on this year being a fluke. Paxson could see it as a fluke. Maybe it is. Obviously we don't know what they will or would do next year if kept intact.

As far as over achieving being somewhat of a negative - very possible. It raised expectations to a perhaps unreasonable level, and kept a coach and some players around longer than maybe they should have been around.

kyrv wrote:Paxson, per Paxson, never planned to just draft for every need and never make any trades. I think people sometimes feel his plan was to draft and fill all of his needs via the draft (or FA).

Now it did work better than expected, so, that could be both good and bad.

AirP, I don't disagree with you at all. But...there is another thread on this year being a fluke. Paxson could see it as a fluke. Maybe it is. Obviously we don't know what they will or would do next year if kept intact.

As far as over achieving being somewhat of a negative - very possible. It raised expectations to a perhaps unreasonable level, and kept a coach and some players around longer than maybe they should have been around.

Couple that in with Skiles' style, it's the kind that has a short shelf life for a franchise. A lot of people thought burnout or tuning out was going to happen sooner or later and it finally did, Paxson just looks like after the Wallace move, he was looking to strengthen for the future. It's quite possible if we kept Chandler, maybe we would have drafted the most nba ready guard in the draft... Roy. I think Paxson was forced to get Wallace from above because management believed in Skiles more then he should have been.

I really believe Tyrus was the beginning of the end with the partnership of Skiles and Paxson. It showed Skiles that Paxson wasn't putting 100% into the current system which was built off of shooters and that Paxson was looking at the next step, a new system.

Paxson came in to clean house... check

Can't argue with that...

Skiles got more out of the team then expected... problem

Say what?

Paxson backed Skiles even though it's not the style he wanted... problem

Not really buying that.

Paxson started getting his new players for a new system... Check

Nope. not really buying the theory.

Skiles' quit having success... check

Undeniably so.

Waiting to start a new system in the offseason with a new coach... pending

Wouldn't be surprised if there is a regime change at the end of the season, but I'm not seeing it as the culmination of some master plan.

Retooling the roster to better fit a new system... pending

Again, not seeing this as some master plan in progress.

Start getting the young players more time to be better ready next year... in progress.

Seeing the kids get PT is overall a good thing.



No, overall, I'm just not buying the concept that Paxson hired Skiles to be some one and done hatchet man and Skiles just managed to hang on longer than expected.

I do see Paxson's draft thinking as looking at players long term rather than immediate players to plug in holes. He definitely subscribes to the BPA philosophy.

Not sure that having a dreadful season is a blessing. The team is basically still young, it upgraded it's weakest link in the starting rotation with Joe Smith and there is no legitimate reason for the team to respond this poorly this year.

A team truly destined for better things should not have this type of season. There is a big difference in making changes and playing young players because something good is happening and when you are forced to because the squad sucks.

I consider this year a fluke but I also am of the opinion that a fluke like this year would not happen to the team if it were as good as most people thought coming into this year.

The only conclusion is that some major retooling will have to be done sooner than hoped for and some young assets will have to be traded who will later blossom on another squad. That is not a blessing.

Quote:
Paxson backed Skiles even though it's not the style he wanted... problem


Not really buying that.

TB, Paxson said he gave Skiles 100% control on lineups and systems and plays, even though "he (Paxson) didn't always agree with what he was watching".

I think that is what AirP is referring to...

Paxson's drafting Tyrus makes ZERO sense for Skiles. This is key. All Skiles ever looked for from Tyrus and even Noah was energy and rebounding. If that was the goal, we could have obtained lesser overall players in the league that did those things better for a lot less and not waste lottery picks.

Skiles' system is all about the outside shot, why would you not get the best shooters you could and grab some "energy" guys through free agency or through smalltime trades?

It was even mentioned that Tyrus was not Skiles' pick in the draft, that right there tells you the GM and Coach were no longer on the same page.

so you would rather we draft Hawes over Noah?

Paxson has talked about acquiring assets for the last few years of drafts. If you were to go back and ask him before the 2006 draft (or even after the trade of Curry) if he thought he would have made no major moves by the present time, he would probably be shocked.

And I'm not counting the Chandler trade as a major move (in the sense of with the purpose of making the team better as it was a salary dump).

Tbone23 wrote:so you would rather we draft Hawes over Noah?

Me, no. But for Skiles' system it would be kind of hard not to pick him over Noah. Noah's more athletic but if it's not really utilized what good is it?