Where would we be if Dumars didn't sign Smith?

[theBigLip]

We know now the Big 3 doesn't work. But where would we be if Dumars DIDN'T sign Smith? Who would be starting? Would we have signed someone else? What would our record be? Would Cheeks still be coach?

[DBC10]

Wed probably have the same record since Joe would've likely signed some 3 and D players to complement the bigs. There's little evidence to believe we'd be outright worse off.

Sent from my XT1034 using Tapatalk

[ChainLink]

There really weren't any SF options in free agency since Iguodala decided he didnt want to come here. And since NBA rules dictate you need to spend a minimum amount of your cap space (can't just leave it unspent), I think there was really no other option at the time then try the Josh Smith experiment, unless you want to go the Laker route and give a bunch of scrubs 1 year deals.

I think maybe At the time, a lot of people didnt think Drummond was ready for full time starter minutes because last year he kept getting winded or got in foul trouble. Well Dre proved us wrong, and even though thats a good thing he can handle 36+ minutes now, the negative is that it contributed to this logjam. i myself thought that Smith would only start at SF for a couple minutes each game and still primarily be playing PF most of the game with Moose at center.

But then again, I also thought Cheeks would have created better rotations to solve this, and he didnt. And I also thought Smith would curb his 3pt and long range shot attempts, which he hasn't.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[Natopher]

Well, if we hadn't signed Smith then we would either have retained Calderon (better than Jennings) or been able to sign Jennings without a S&T, keeping Knight and Middleton, so I'd say we'd be much better off and have about a .500 record. We'd also see Harrellson a lot more which would be great as he's a good player who's been underutilized.

Probable Lineup:
Calderon(Jennings)/Knight
KCP/Stuckey
Middleton/Singler
Monroe/Harrellson
Drummond/Harrellson

That lineup has a lot of good 3 point shooters on it. If only we hadn't signed Smith...

[theBigLip]

Kyle Korver? Trevor Ariza? Not sure what else we would have done. A lot of the free agents picked up their options or were restricted. Maybe we could have been more imaginative and got a trade for a SF?

[Natopher]

Kyle Korver? Trevor Ariza? Not sure what else we would have done. A lot of the free agents picked up their options or were restricted. Maybe we could have been more imaginative and got a trade for a SF?

Or not traded our SF (Middleton) in what would be an unnecessary S&T if we didn't go after Smith. If you look at our roster before any moves were made, we had a lineup of Knight, KCP, Middelton, Monroe, Drummond. I know a lot of people don't like Knight, but we would capable at every other position. We didn't need a SF, we already had both the starting and backup SF spots set with Middleton and Singler.

[Clarity]

I wonder this everyday, I'd guesstimate we would probably be about 5 or 6 games better. Right now were the same as last year (obv last year was much more watchable)

Drummond's #s would be better & he would likely be in the All Star Game, Monroe's #s would be way better.

[Clarity]

I think maybe At the time, a lot of people didnt think Drummond was ready for full time starter minutes because last year he kept getting winded or got in foul trouble. Well Dre proved us wrong

Many of us knew this last year man.

The Dre winded thing was another urban myth, hes a 20 year old gazelle.

[DBC10]

Kyle Korver? Trevor Ariza? Not sure what else we would have done. A lot of the free agents picked up their options or were restricted. Maybe we could have been more imaginative and got a trade for a SF?

Or not traded our SF (Middleton) in what would be an unnecessary S&T if we didn't go after Smith. If you look at our roster before any moves were made, we had a lineup of Knight, KCP, Middelton, Monroe, Drummond. I know a lot of people don't like Knight, but we would capable at every other position. We didn't need a SF, we already had both the starting and backup SF spots set with Middleton and Singler.

Oh yeah, KMid is developing nicely. Yeah we'd definitely have a better record had we not went the Smith route. And Singler is a decent bench player as well so we would be set at the SF position for a year or two.

Sent from my XT1034 using Tapatalk

[theBigLip]

Kyle Korver? Trevor Ariza? Not sure what else we would have done. A lot of the free agents picked up their options or were restricted. Maybe we could have been more imaginative and got a trade for a SF?

Or not traded our SF (Middleton) in what would be an unnecessary S&T if we didn't go after Smith. If you look at our roster before any moves were made, we had a lineup of Knight, KCP, Middelton, Monroe, Drummond. I know a lot of people don't like Knight, but we would capable at every other position. We didn't need a SF, we already had both the starting and backup SF spots set with Middleton and Singler.

I consider both Knight and Middleton as rotation players at best and not starters on a good team (which we want to be). To have cap space and not use it to fix those two positions would also have been a bad decision in my opinion. I don't think that lineup does much to improve our record this year - the only improvement is more experience from Drummond.

[ChainLink]

Calderon got way overpaid. And too old to fit in the plans for this team.

I actually like Jennings deal, hes way better than Knight and he's on a reasonable deal...if we didnt sign Smith and since we had to spend cap space money somewhere, I guess we could have signed BJ outright and not have to trade Middleton. Then have BK come off the bench with Stuck and not resign Bynum.

Hard to say. You have to spend a minimum amount of your cap space and we had a lot of cap space. Gores also demanded playoffs so the team had to make a splashy move. And smith was the 4th best free agent after CP3, Dwight and Iguodala. He just doesn't fit on our team.


Sent from my iPad using RealGM Forums

[Piston Pete]

Instead of being on JSmoove's doorstep at 12:01 when free agency opened, Joe D should have been courting Martell Webster, Kyle Korver, and/or Iggy (probably in that order of preference too).


Jennings / Bynum / Billups / Siva
Korver / KCP / Stuckey
Webster / Singler
Monroe / Jerebko / CV / Mitchell
Drummond / Monroe / Harrellson


then allow Billups, Stuckey, and CV to all walk after this season, extend Monroe and re-load again next offseason. A nice stretch-4 to come off the bench behind Moose would be desired, and maybe a legit pass-first backup PG too.

Jennings / Bynum / Siva
Korver / KCP
Webster / Singler
Monroe / Jerebko / Mitchell
Drummond / Monroe / Harellson

[theBigLip]

Instead of being on JSmoove's doorstep at 12:01 when free agency opened, Joe D should have been courting Martell Webster, Kyle Korver, and/or Iggy (probably in that order of preference too).


Jennings / Bynum / Billups / Siva
Korver / KCP / Stuckey
Webster / Singler
Monroe / Jerebko / CV / Mitchell
Drummond / Monroe / Harrellson


then allow Billups, Stuckey, and CV to all walk after this season, extend Monroe and re-load again next offseason. A nice stretch-4 to come off the bench behind Moose would be desired, and maybe a legit pass-first backup PG too.

Jennings / Bynum / Siva
Korver / KCP
Webster / Singler
Monroe / Jerebko / Mitchell
Drummond / Monroe / Harellson

Best suggestion yet. Billups and Bynum didn't need two year deals. Webster would have worked and we would still have enough money left over next year to get another free agent.

[sc8581]

Where would the team be without it's best player? Obviously it comes down to who else we would have acquired and considering the options available we would not being any better than we are now.

[DTP]

Iguodala was going to GS all along, I don't understand why that's so hard to understand. Detroit is not a hot FA destination, it's never been. When we get free agents, we have to overpay or take a risk because no one wants to come here. The last good value free agent signing this had has had in the off season was Antonio McDyess...

And with the way we continue to treat veterans and bench guys, no one is going to want to come here.....add the revolving door of coaches too. Without Smith, the team would still be very bad, with less potential. Right now, there's still potential to pull off a nice deal because we actually have assets...mainly Monroe but without Smith, our biggest assets would only be contracts.

Middleton and Webster over Smith? Come on man... Middleton is slightly better than Singler and Webster doesn't have the impact on either end of the floor that Smith does.

[Q00]

Wed probably have the same record since Joe would've likely signed some 3 and D players to complement the bigs. There's little evidence to believe we'd be outright worse off.

ahhh yes, the old 3 and D guy bit. If we had a whole a roster of them we'd be the next 60s Celtics lol

Its odd that you mention there's little evidence to believe they would be worse without him, because there's no evidence to believe they would be better or worse, or the same. There's no evidence at all because we will never know either way what woud've happened.

Its always easy when you are against a move to say the opposite would've better because you know there's no way of ever going back and seeing if that would've actually been the case or not. Can't go back and re-do it. They could've been better.. they could've been worse too... but the fact is we'll never know. So kind of pointless to discuss it in my opinion.

All I know is Monroe doesn't really look like someone I want on my team longterm. So if he doesn't fit and we got a replacement now in Smith who does... whether we would be better right now or not if we didn't sign him... who knows, but I think going forward we will be because we got someone who fits better than Monroe to compliment Drummond. That's a win to me. We'll see how a new coach does though, because its still possible Monroe could be made to fit with the right coaching.

[sfballa13]

We could have and should have kept Knight at least to use off the bench. Same goes for Middleton.

Not one team courted Brandon Jennings, just like not one team wanted Gordon and Charlie V.

The worst part of this summer's signings were bench trash (Billups, Bynum, Datome) --- combined SEVEN million. None of these players have even played meaningful minutes. Add in Jerebko's 4.5 M and Charlie V's 8M and we are paying 20M for players not to touch the floor.

How can anyone in the media or in the front office (Gores, you stupid inept moron!) let our team pay 20M to players that simply dont get any playing time? It's not even like they are veterans providing leadership, they are just hot garbage.

Let's say we sign Jennings to 8M deal outright.

Then instead of flushing 7M down the drain, give 500K more to Korver than what he signed for in Atlanta (7M).

We would keep the 3.6M owed to Knight/Middleton but subtracting that from Smith's 13.5M that would still allow us to run a very fun and deep lineup and keep that 10M in our pockets to spend this summer.

Our bench would be young, bring energy every night, but most importantly cost us 5.5M.
That's 2M less than what we spent on Bynum, Billups, Datome.

Jennings / Knight
Stuckey / KCP
Korver / Singler
Monroe / Middleton - Jerebko
Drummond / Harrelson

Drummond becomes the focal point of the offense and we rebuild the right way.

I despise Dumars and his stupid decisions and have no respect for anyone that continues to hold this man in high regard. Yeh he won us 2 titles as a player and lucked into one as a GM but he has destroyed our franchise from the ground up to the point where the Palace has been empty for 4 years and we have become the laughingstock of the league.

[DBC10]

Wed probably have the same record since Joe would've likely signed some 3 and D players to complement the bigs. There's little evidence to believe we'd be outright worse off.

ahhh yes, the old 3 and D guy bit. If we had a whole a roster of them we'd be the next 60s Celtics lol

Its odd that you mention there's little evidence to believe they would be worse without him, because there's no evidence to believe they would be better or worse, or the same. There's no evidence at all because we will never know either way what woud've happened.

Its always easy when you are against a move to say the opposite would've better because you know there's no way of ever going back and seeing if that would've actually been the case or not. Can't go back and re-do it. They could've been better.. they could've been worse too... but the fact is we'll never know. So kind of pointless to discuss it in my opinion.

All I know is Monroe doesn't really look like someone I want on my team longterm. So if he doesn't fit and we got a replacement now in Smith who does... whether we would be better right now or not if we didn't sign him... who knows, but I think going forward we will be because we got someone who fits better than Monroe to compliment Drummond. That's a win to me. We'll see how a new coach does though, because its still possible Monroe could be made to fit with the right coaching.

Not really. Smith is obviously not a fit at the 3, so having an actual prototypical SF that can shoot and defend makes for a reasonable assumption that the starting roster would be balanced and thus we'd have a better record or same. That much is a reasonable belief and the reason why so many are conflicted with Smith to begin with. It's not even a hard conclusion to make without all the mental gymnastics to go through. Our biggest weakness on the offensive side has been shooting, and arguably, Monroe and Dre have been doing a great job inside. If we actually had competent shooters, we'd be able to actually be offensively relevant besides an inside game. I mean, look at Smith's shot chart for this season, if we actually signed on a decent shooter and gave even half those shots that Smith takes to the alternate universe shooter, you don't think we'd be better off? Our offense would immediately look better due to more spacing and actually give a proper evaluation to the twin towers as a result and whether to trade Monroe or extend him.

Smith marginally fits better than Monroe since both can't shoot and one plays better defense while the other is a better offensive post player. And as we seen and gathered actual stats, Monroe isn't a complete defensive sieve so far in the season (reference to synergy). We still need someone that can space out the floor for Dre, and Smith isn't that guy nor ever was he since defenders always sag on him.

[Q00]

Wed probably have the same record since Joe would've likely signed some 3 and D players to complement the bigs. There's little evidence to believe we'd be outright worse off.

ahhh yes, the old 3 and D guy bit. If we had a whole a roster of them we'd be the next 60s Celtics lol

Its odd that you mention there's little evidence to believe they would be worse without him, because there's no evidence to believe they would be better or worse, or the same. There's no evidence at all because we will never know either way what woud've happened.

Its always easy when you are against a move to say the opposite would've better because you know there's no way of ever going back and seeing if that would've actually been the case or not. Can't go back and re-do it. They could've been better.. they could've been worse too... but the fact is we'll never know. So kind of pointless to discuss it in my opinion.

All I know is Monroe doesn't really look like someone I want on my team longterm. So if he doesn't fit and we got a replacement now in Smith who does... whether we would be better right now or not if we didn't sign him... who knows, but I think going forward we will be because we got someone who fits better than Monroe to compliment Drummond. That's a win to me. We'll see how a new coach does though, because its still possible Monroe could be made to fit with the right coaching.

Not really. Smith is obviously not a fit at the 3, so having an actual prototypical SF that can shoot and defend makes for a reasonable assumption that the starting roster would be balanced and thus we'd have a better record or same. That much is a reasonable belief and the reason why so many are conflicted with Smith to begin with. It's not even a hard conclusion to make without all the mental gymnastics to go through. Our biggest weakness on the offensive side has been shooting, and arguably, Monroe and Dre have been doing a great job inside. If we actually had competent shooters, we'd be able to actually be offensively relevant besides an inside game.

Smith marginally fits better than Monroe since both can't shoot and one plays better defense while the other is a better offensive post player. We still need someone that can space out the floor for Dre, and Smith isn't that guy nor ever was he since defender always sag on him.

That's operating under an assumption that there's nothing wrong with a Drummond/Monroe pairing. That they are perfect and if we just had better players to compliment them we would be better. There is no evidence to prove that to be the case as we have not seen enough positive results from that pairing to draw such a conclusion. So, based on that it hard to say we would be better. Its just as possible that Monroe/Drummond could've been a disaster because of all the noted issues with Monroe at PF, regardless of who is around them. Its also possible the team could end up being better off with Smith/Drummond up front and those same 3 and D guys around them instead. In which case, you have to sign Smith to make that happen, and thus ends up a good signing. But no one really knows either way right now, so its premature to be talking about it until we see how it all plays out.

If a new coach gets them all playing together in a successful rotation, it will be a good signing. If they trade Monroe and suddenly start succeeding with Smith at PF, it will be a good signing. If they trade Smith and end up trying what you suggest they did from the start (surrounding Monroe/Drummond with 3&D guys) and that is what suddenly makes them successful, then we can conclude it was an unnecessary signing and waste of time. Right now though that's all premature speculation, which is why this whole debate has gotten really old and silly.

[DBC10]

ahhh yes, the old 3 and D guy bit. If we had a whole a roster of them we'd be the next 60s Celtics lol

Its odd that you mention there's little evidence to believe they would be worse without him, because there's no evidence to believe they would be better or worse, or the same. There's no evidence at all because we will never know either way what woud've happened.

Its always easy when you are against a move to say the opposite would've better because you know there's no way of ever going back and seeing if that would've actually been the case or not. Can't go back and re-do it. They could've been better.. they could've been worse too... but the fact is we'll never know. So kind of pointless to discuss it in my opinion.

All I know is Monroe doesn't really look like someone I want on my team longterm. So if he doesn't fit and we got a replacement now in Smith who does... whether we would be better right now or not if we didn't sign him... who knows, but I think going forward we will be because we got someone who fits better than Monroe to compliment Drummond. That's a win to me. We'll see how a new coach does though, because its still possible Monroe could be made to fit with the right coaching.

Not really. Smith is obviously not a fit at the 3, so having an actual prototypical SF that can shoot and defend makes for a reasonable assumption that the starting roster would be balanced and thus we'd have a better record or same. That much is a reasonable belief and the reason why so many are conflicted with Smith to begin with. It's not even a hard conclusion to make without all the mental gymnastics to go through. Our biggest weakness on the offensive side has been shooting, and arguably, Monroe and Dre have been doing a great job inside. If we actually had competent shooters, we'd be able to actually be offensively relevant besides an inside game.

Smith marginally fits better than Monroe since both can't shoot and one plays better defense while the other is a better offensive post player. We still need someone that can space out the floor for Dre, and Smith isn't that guy nor ever was he since defender always sag on him.

That's operating under an assumption that there's nothing wrong with a Drummond/Monroe pairing. That they are perfect and if we just had better players to compliment them we would be better. There is no evidence to prove that to be the case as we have not seen enough positive results from that pairing to draw such a conclusion. So, based on that it hard to say we would be better. Its just as possible that Monroe/Drummond could've been a disaster because of all the noted issues with Monroe at PF, regardless of who is around them. Its also possible the team could end up being better off with Smith/Drummond up front and those same 3 and D guys around them instead. In which case, you have to sign Smith to make that happen, and thus ends up a good signing. But no one really knows either way right now, so its premature to be talking about it until we see how it all plays out.

If a new coach gets them all playing together in a successful rotation, it will be a good signing. If they trade Monroe and suddenly start succeeding with Smith at PF, it will be a good signing. If they trade Smith and end up trying what you suggest they did from the start (surrounding Monroe/Drummond with 3&D guys) and that is what suddenly makes them successful, then we can conclude it was an unnecessary signing and waste of time. Right now though that's all premature speculation, which is why this whole debate has gotten really old and silly.

We're going to agree to disagree then. I also added a part in my post about how it would've been the better scenario to properly evaluate whether or not the twin towers can work with shooters around them instead of signing a PF to play SF.