The Mike Valenti Trio of Topics

[Manocad]

While listening to 97.1 The Ticket this afternoon, Valenti discussed the Pistons and gave strong opinions on three topics. Now, some people think Valenti is a hack and him being a diehard Sparty I do believe he purports a notion that the vast majority of MIchigan football fans not only think Michigan football is deserving of being put in the upper echelon of consideration like Alabama, Georgia, generally Ohio State, etc. but also accept 10 wins from Harbaugh as fine even if he doesn't beat MSU, Ohio or win the B1G, and that's just not true. However in my opinion he is one of the most astute sports analysts I've ever listened to and when making a prediction or passing a judgement he is right far more often than wrong (case in point: he picked Michigan to beat Ohio outright, and he HATES Michigan). All three of these topics have been brought up in this forum here and there, but I figured I'd throw them all together here as a smorgasbord because they all flow into each other.

Dave Bing's comment that Cade is not the type of player the team should be building around.
Valenti's first comment was exactly the same as mine--he's old, i.e. he's a product of a bygone era of NBA basketball that just doesn't exist anymore, or least not right now. Valenti called Bing's take complete hogwash especially when considering that only four players in NBA history have put up Cade's totals for points, rebounds, assists, steals and blocks after their first 20 games--Lebron, Bird, Ben Simmons, and Alvan Adams. Now, I know what your first thought is here--who the hell is Alvan Adams? 6'9" PF/C for the Suns from 1975-88 who was ROY and an All Star in 1976 (and that was pretty much it). But considering the other three guys, that's a pretty elite list. Now consider that Cade's stats after 20 games have been severely tempered by his poor start, and you can understand Valenti totally dismissing Bing's take as out of touch, especially after Bing said the Pistons' biggest problem is in the backcourt while Valenti said, and I think most of us agree, that while they suck in every aspect right now the lack of front court D and rebounding is easily the most glaring issue.

Taking the big swing--Make a play for Ben Simmons and Miles Bridges to add to Cade
Certainly we've gone over Simmons and mentions of Bridges have come about but I don't recall anyone suggesting making a play for both. Valenti's point was simply this--and he admits that he's probably a bigger Simmons fan than most people--it's a lofty task to land both, it has its risks, but at least it's a big swing and it sure as hell wouldn't be boring to watch. I am admittedly not a big Simmons fan going back to his college days, but right now it's more about his salary relative to what he would bring to the Pistons. That being said, yeah, that would absolutely be a crazy team and if it could be done without killing off all future draft capital it would certainly make things interesting. Valenti said that trading Grant would obviously be part of this equation and said that it should have been done after last season as he suggested.

Casey and the kids
Like we've all said, Valenti expressed concern that the second year players as a collective group seemed to have regressed. He took one caller who wanted to blame Weaver and Valenti ate him up with "Two of three picks in his first draft made the All-Rookie team--what were saying then?" Valenti stressed being patient with the young guys...

...which is what he said about both Casey and Weaver relative to suggestions that either one or both should be canned. As can be expected if you've ever listened to Valenti, his response was "Aaaand...what? Who's the replacement?" He definitely supports not making a change for the sake of change; only when you have a better option. For local references, he brought up Jim Harbaugh and Jeff Blashill, two guys who definitely heard calls for their head recently and now look to be evidence that being patient may be what's needed.

Have fun.

[flow]

While listening to 97.1 The Ticket this afternoon, Valenti discussed the Pistons and gave strong opinions on three topics. Now, some people think Valenti is a hack and him being a diehard Sparty I do believe he purports a notion that the vast majority of MIchigan football fans not only think Michigan football is deserving of being put in the upper echelon of consideration like Alabama, Georgia, generally Ohio State, etc. but also accept 10 wins from Harbaugh as fine even if he doesn't beat MSU, Ohio or win the B1G, and that's just not true. However in my opinion he is one of the most astute sports analysts I've ever listened to and when making a prediction or passing a judgement he is right far more often than wrong (case in point: he picked Michigan to beat Ohio outright, and he HATES Michigan). All three of these topics have been brought up in this forum here and there, but I figured I'd throw them all together here as a smorgasbord because they all flow into each other.



...which is what he said about both Casey and Weaver relative to suggestions that either one or both should be canned. As can be expected if you've ever listened to Valenti, his response was "Aaaand...what? Who's the replacement?" He definitely supports not making a change for the sake of change; only when you have a better option. For local references, he brought up Jim Harbaugh and Jeff Blashill, two guys who definitely heard calls for their head recently and now look to be evidence that being patient may be what's needed.

Have fun.

It's Weaver's job to determine the replacement. That's why he's paid the big bucks. But even the hint of a suggestion that there's no better option out there than Casey is either ignorant or borderline trolling. If Weaver doesn't realize that there are better options & that Casey needs to be replaced with a better coach moving forward, then he should be fired.

[Manocad]

While listening to 97.1 The Ticket this afternoon, Valenti discussed the Pistons and gave strong opinions on three topics. Now, some people think Valenti is a hack and him being a diehard Sparty I do believe he purports a notion that the vast majority of MIchigan football fans not only think Michigan football is deserving of being put in the upper echelon of consideration like Alabama, Georgia, generally Ohio State, etc. but also accept 10 wins from Harbaugh as fine even if he doesn't beat MSU, Ohio or win the B1G, and that's just not true. However in my opinion he is one of the most astute sports analysts I've ever listened to and when making a prediction or passing a judgement he is right far more often than wrong (case in point: he picked Michigan to beat Ohio outright, and he HATES Michigan). All three of these topics have been brought up in this forum here and there, but I figured I'd throw them all together here as a smorgasbord because they all flow into each other.



...which is what he said about both Casey and Weaver relative to suggestions that either one or both should be canned. As can be expected if you've ever listened to Valenti, his response was "Aaaand...what? Who's the replacement?" He definitely supports not making a change for the sake of change; only when you have a better option. For local references, he brought up Jim Harbaugh and Jeff Blashill, two guys who definitely heard calls for their head recently and now look to be evidence that being patient may be what's needed.

Have fun.

It's Weaver's job to determine the replacement. That's why he's paid the big bucks. But even the hint of a suggestion that there's no better option out there than Casey is either ignorant or borderline trolling. If Weaver doesn't realize that there are better options & that Casey needs to be replaced with a better coach moving forward, then he should be fired.

With all due respect, "I don't have the answer but there has to be one out there" isn't much of an argument. It addresses neither who the person is nor if they're even available.

[Phenomenonsense]

While listening to 97.1 The Ticket this afternoon, Valenti discussed the Pistons and gave strong opinions on three topics. Now, some people think Valenti is a hack and him being a diehard Sparty I do believe he purports a notion that the vast majority of MIchigan football fans not only think Michigan football is deserving of being put in the upper echelon of consideration like Alabama, Georgia, generally Ohio State, etc. but also accept 10 wins from Harbaugh as fine even if he doesn't beat MSU, Ohio or win the B1G, and that's just not true. However in my opinion he is one of the most astute sports analysts I've ever listened to and when making a prediction or passing a judgement he is right far more often than wrong (case in point: he picked Michigan to beat Ohio outright, and he HATES Michigan). All three of these topics have been brought up in this forum here and there, but I figured I'd throw them all together here as a smorgasbord because they all flow into each other.



...which is what he said about both Casey and Weaver relative to suggestions that either one or both should be canned. As can be expected if you've ever listened to Valenti, his response was "Aaaand...what? Who's the replacement?" He definitely supports not making a change for the sake of change; only when you have a better option. For local references, he brought up Jim Harbaugh and Jeff Blashill, two guys who definitely heard calls for their head recently and now look to be evidence that being patient may be what's needed.

Have fun.

It's Weaver's job to determine the replacement. That's why he's paid the big bucks. But even the hint of a suggestion that there's no better option out there than Casey is either ignorant or borderline trolling. If Weaver doesn't realize that there are better options & that Casey needs to be replaced with a better coach moving forward, then he should be fired.

I think that significantly depends on what the plans are today. If our goal was to win as many games as possible today that would be the case. It isn't.

[Manocad]

While listening to 97.1 The Ticket this afternoon, Valenti discussed the Pistons and gave strong opinions on three topics. Now, some people think Valenti is a hack and him being a diehard Sparty I do believe he purports a notion that the vast majority of MIchigan football fans not only think Michigan football is deserving of being put in the upper echelon of consideration like Alabama, Georgia, generally Ohio State, etc. but also accept 10 wins from Harbaugh as fine even if he doesn't beat MSU, Ohio or win the B1G, and that's just not true. However in my opinion he is one of the most astute sports analysts I've ever listened to and when making a prediction or passing a judgement he is right far more often than wrong (case in point: he picked Michigan to beat Ohio outright, and he HATES Michigan). All three of these topics have been brought up in this forum here and there, but I figured I'd throw them all together here as a smorgasbord because they all flow into each other.



...which is what he said about both Casey and Weaver relative to suggestions that either one or both should be canned. As can be expected if you've ever listened to Valenti, his response was "Aaaand...what? Who's the replacement?" He definitely supports not making a change for the sake of change; only when you have a better option. For local references, he brought up Jim Harbaugh and Jeff Blashill, two guys who definitely heard calls for their head recently and now look to be evidence that being patient may be what's needed.

Have fun.

It's Weaver's job to determine the replacement. That's why he's paid the big bucks. But even the hint of a suggestion that there's no better option out there than Casey is either ignorant or borderline trolling. If Weaver doesn't realize that there are better options & that Casey needs to be replaced with a better coach moving forward, then he should be fired.

I think that significantly depends on what the plans are today. If our goal was to win as many games as possible today that would be the case. It isn't.

Yep, one of the points made by Valenti relative to having patience, with Harbaugh being his example of "It appears this guy is taking the program in the opposite direction but look where it ended up" in the context of giving the coach time to put it all together even when it may not look like it's coming together.

[Canadafan]

Love this post. Weaver needs to listen to Valenti and bring in Simmons asap

[flow]

While listening to 97.1 The Ticket this afternoon, Valenti discussed the Pistons and gave strong opinions on three topics. Now, some people think Valenti is a hack and him being a diehard Sparty I do believe he purports a notion that the vast majority of MIchigan football fans not only think Michigan football is deserving of being put in the upper echelon of consideration like Alabama, Georgia, generally Ohio State, etc. but also accept 10 wins from Harbaugh as fine even if he doesn't beat MSU, Ohio or win the B1G, and that's just not true. However in my opinion he is one of the most astute sports analysts I've ever listened to and when making a prediction or passing a judgement he is right far more often than wrong (case in point: he picked Michigan to beat Ohio outright, and he HATES Michigan). All three of these topics have been brought up in this forum here and there, but I figured I'd throw them all together here as a smorgasbord because they all flow into each other.



...which is what he said about both Casey and Weaver relative to suggestions that either one or both should be canned. As can be expected if you've ever listened to Valenti, his response was "Aaaand...what? Who's the replacement?" He definitely supports not making a change for the sake of change; only when you have a better option. For local references, he brought up Jim Harbaugh and Jeff Blashill, two guys who definitely heard calls for their head recently and now look to be evidence that being patient may be what's needed.

Have fun.

It's Weaver's job to determine the replacement. That's why he's paid the big bucks. But even the hint of a suggestion that there's no better option out there than Casey is either ignorant or borderline trolling. If Weaver doesn't realize that there are better options & that Casey needs to be replaced with a better coach moving forward, then he should be fired.

With all due respect, "I don't have the answer but there has to be one out there" isn't much of an argument. It addresses neither who the person is nor if they're even available.

The answer is Casey should not be the coach of this team next season. I don't need to know a replacement in order to know that someone should be replaced. I know Casey should be replaced. Because he's not doing the job well enough to continue. It's Weaver's job to figure out who the replacement should/will be. If they want to pay me to quit my job and conduct the coaching search, I'll be happy to do it.

[zeebneeb]

I have zero issue with anything on that list(taking a swing is actually less a gamble then sucking and drafting unknown talents and hoping they pan out)save for one;

Casey is a terrible coach, period. There is no master plan, or yet to be unlocked playbook for when the kids mature. He has a long track record before the Pistons, and during his tenure for the Pistons is the 2nd worst coach in Pistons history for any coach having coached over 100 games which is barely over 1 season.

This team cannot turn any corner, or get better until he is fired.

I also don't have any problems with Weaver as well. Steering this leaking barge back to the shipyards is a tenuous job at best. He completely changed the team, and has done what all of us wanted, quickly. He needs to bite the bullet, and accept that extending Casey was a terrible move, whomever did it.(I'm not sure if that was Weaver, or a direct thing Gores wanted)

I have zero faith in Casey because of his comments in the past about playing veterans when Pascal was up and coming, by his unbelievably rigid playoff lineups in Toronto that lost them multiple series by every analytical measure, and by his actions here in Detroit, and his insane rigidity when it comes to all aspects of his coaching. I can usually come within a minute, or even 30 seconds of when lineup changes are coming, no matter what is happening on the floor.

Dwayne Casey is a poor coach by almost every conceivable measure, and to those who would ask;

"Who are you going to replace him with"?

There are 29 other teams with loads of assistant coaches champing at the bit to get a shot. I've stated in the past that perhaps getting a first time coach that can grow with this super young team may be the best bet, instead of going with a tired retread.

The team is in disarray, 12 game losing streak which looks like it could extend indefinitely. The poor play of the teams second year players I place squarely at the feet of Casey, for not putting them into a position to succeed, and his insane usage of vets who have no business playing over rookies is unacceptable. There is no reason not to play Lee, Garza, Pickett, Livers, e.t.c. over ANYONE on a team that is 4-22. His job is to find out if the investment the team has made into new players is worth it, and if they have actual talent and can play. They can't do that nailed to a bench.

[DetroitSho]

Gotta be honest Mano, for years I thought you WERE Valenti. This post honestly does nothing to deter that thinking. Lol

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

[Sort]

Casey absolutely has earned it if he gets fired. That said, picking the next coach is a process, and there's a reason it's not normally done during the basketball season unless it's just promote the assistant. Weaver needs to get the next coach right.

Do any of you really want to end up with an enormous four year deal with Scott Brooks?

[Kalamazoo317]

Casey's not the solution, but he's also not the problem, IMO. We just don't have enough talent yet. Cade's a keeper, though. Agreed on Bing being out of touch.

[Kalamazoo317]

Oh, and not sure how we could possibly get Bridges in a trade at this point, much less Simmons. When it comes to trades, you have to have something the other team wants as well!

[Snakebites]

Yeah...not sure how we possibly have the assets to attain Simmons and Bridges.

We can't (and shouldn't) trade first rounders given what's owed, there should be no Cade deal, and outside of that we don't have anything that approaches that level of value- there's no blue chip trade pieces there.

I was surprised to see Bing speaking so negatively about Cade. The kid has struggled in stretches and his percentages still aren't pretty but has also shown an awful lot to us. You could be generous and say that all he REALLY said was that Cade isn't a franchise guy (which he might not be- he was never touted as a sure fire franchise guy), but it still came off as out of touch and unnecessary even in the kindest interpretation of the words. And yeah, talking down the backcourt while acting like our front court has been fine was kind of bizarre. Not every player and former player makes a good analyst. The REAL shade was thrown on Killian, who Bing didn't mention but tore down pretty effectively with the "we gotta get a good point guard" remark, though that was the most defensible thing he said.

As for the "patience with the young guys" line from Valenti, not exactly an electrifying take, but yeah, sophomore slumps aren't exactly a new phenomenon. It's just that we've got two of the more intense ones on our team at the moment.

[MotownMadness]

Yeah I didn't take anything serious about what Bing had to say. It just felt like letting a dinosaur try to have a few words.

[bstein14]

#1, Easy to say you can't "build around" most NBA players. You build around a player like Giannis because he needs 4 shooters. You build around a player like Embiid, Zion, Jokic, LeBron, etc.

You can still be a top 10-20 player and not be a build around player. The mistake is building around guys that aren't build around players. You shouldn't be worried about building around a guy like Drummond. I think Cade ends up a top 11-20 player for multiple seasons in the league in his prime but I don't think he's the guy you need to build your roster around as much as a guy that you add to.

RIP, Billups, Ben, and Sheed all can easily have been said that they weren't "build around" players but they were all top 30 players in the mid 2000s that fit well as pieces together. If anything Ben Wallace would have been the "build around" guy in that group really wanting four other guys that can shoot and score the basketball and also guys that would buy into the defensive system because Ben wasn't going to sell out each night on defense just to watch you defend like a young Carmelo out there.

Cade just seems like an overall really solid piece to the puzzle. If you're talking about "building" around him I'm mostly want another guard and wing that can handle the ball a bit, defend, and hit a good amount of 3 pointers but I think that is pretty much what most teams want for their 1/2/3s If you're talking big, maybe you want a guy we can run pick and rolls with that can also pop out and hit the jumper like a Kelly O.... but also be a lob threat. Not a lot of those in the NBA right now as far as good perimeter shooters and elite athletes jumping out the gym catching lobs at the basket as the pick man.

As far as adding multiple borderline all-star type players.... you can get one with our MAX capspace but you have to get the right guy. GIving Bridges or Ayton a max contract offer for four years could land one of those guys... OR we could end up with neither if both their teams want to keep them at a MAX deal. Buying "low" on Simmons has also been appealing. Or perhaps buying "low" on Sabonis. Just landing another good young (25 or younger) player to pair with Cade needs to be a goal. You can't always get those players through the draft. Even some of the best draft picks take years before they finally put it together and become all-stars. I can understand why Bing would want to accelerate this rebuild by buying into guys that are a few years older than Cade rather than watch Cade struggle with rookies younger than him trying to learn the game. Once we start trying to compete for a playoff spot, its very likely our newest lottery pick won't be a starter and might be a borderline rotation player. We've seen that for years with guys in the Dumars and SVG era.

[Manocad]

Gotta be honest Mano, for years I thought you WERE Valenti. This post honestly does nothing to deter that thinking. Lol

Sent from my SM-N975U using RealGM mobile app

We actually have pretty similar looks except that his nose is definitely bigger and I'm grayer due to being a little older. Taller too; from what I've read he's four inches shorter than me at 5'8". Plus he's a State alum and I'm a Michigan alum.

That wouldn't be a bad gig except that I'm not THAT big a sports fan that I'd enjoy watching all the sports and all the teams, college and pro, to be able to do his job. Not that I wouldn't take the money; I've done really well for myself and even though they say that local radio show hosts generally make a lot less than you think they would (TV is where the money is), I doubt I'm at Valenti's level. If I had to venture a guess I'd figure he's in the 250-300 a year range. But get on a mic and have to be quick-witted with some biting sarcasm? Yeah, I could do that.

[kpt]

Point guards notoriously have a slower transition in the first few years into the NBA and Cade has been playing at the very least some point guard. Yeah he needs to fine-tune the percentages and turnover piece but the foundation is there for him being a great piece of the piston puzzle. The Pistons have not had a franchise player in the modern era. I see Cade as potentially being better than any of the going to work players individually. Now we just need to get or develop the team that goes around him.

[NYPiston]

Valenti is a bit of a blowhard. He tends to say off the wall things to generate viewership, sort of like a Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless.
Also, he proposed trading #1 overall for Ben Simmons, for the record.

With that said, he's not completely wrong about Dave Bing's take on Cade but I can sort of understand where Bing is coming from in the sense that Cade doesn't really give off that "Alpha Male" vibe that a lot of the superstars have. He tends to prefer getting teammates involved rather than get his own and while unselfishness is a good attribute to have, you need to develop that "take over" mode when needed to reach that next stratosphere. I feel like Cade fades into the background too often even going back to college.

As far as his skillset is concerned, he has all the ability to be an elite player in this league but does he REALLY want to be or is he content with being merely really good, that's the question. It's not like Bing was trashing Cade, he did say that he has All Star potential. Some people are acting like Bing trashed Cade which I didn't sense at all, more like measured expectations.

[Manocad]

Point guards notoriously have a slower transition in the first few years into the NBA and Cade has been playing at the very least some point guard. Yeah he needs to fine-tune the percentages and turnover piece but the foundation is there for him being a great piece of the piston puzzle. The Pistons have not had a franchise player in the modern era. I see Cade as potentially being better than any of the going to work players individually. Now we just need to get or develop the team that goes around him.

That's kind of how I look at the definition of "player you build around." In simple terms, he's the guy you'd let go of last. You get him for the player he is and what he does, and don't try to turn him into something else. Then you put players around him that either complement his style of play and/or offset his deficiencies. Now, Cade is not Lebron but he literally plays the same role in the sense that he's a #1 pick kind of a do-it-all player while being the leader of the team and face of the franchise. And maybe Bing just meant that he doesn't think Cade will be the level of star needed for the team to be in championship contention if he's the best player on the team, that another bigger star needs to be added, e.g. a max level center. I don't have any problem with that take and if that's what he meant he just worded it poorly.

I don't take "a player you build around" as meaning "must be the most talented player/biggest star on the team; all other players would likely have lesser talent/stats/star power." I look at it as the last player you'd need to replace in order to be a championship contender because players like that just don't come along very often. Personally I don't see any reason why Cade shouldn't be considered at that level. Again, is he Lebron? No. But good enough? Yes. Consider this--in what scenario would you add a player and say "Cade has to go." And not in the sense that you'd have to trade Cade in order to get said player, but in the sense that if you added said player's skill set it wouldn't make sense to keep Cade on the team. The only logical replacement for Cade IMO is literally a better version of Cade--like the next Lebron. When you've got a player who can put up star numbers and literally coexist with every other position/playing style on the floor, i.e. everybody can get theirs, you've got a building block player. And if you want to make an argument that if the next Greek Freak comes along and can be had by trading Cade you do it, I'm fine with that. But that doesn't make Cade NOT a building block player; it just means you traded him for a better building block player.

[Manocad]

Valenti is a bit of a blowhard. He tends to say off the wall things to generate viewership, sort of like a Stephen A. Smith or Skip Bayless.
Also, he proposed trading #1 overall for Ben Simmons, for the record.

With that said, he's not completely wrong about Dave Bing's take on Cade but I can sort of understand where Bing is coming from in the sense that Cade doesn't really give off that "Alpha Male" vibe that a lot of the superstars have. He tends to prefer getting teammates involved rather than get his own and while unselfishness is a good attribute to have, you need to develop that "take over" mode when needed to reach that next stratosphere. I feel like Cade fades into the background too often even going back to college.

As far as his skillset is concerned, he has all the ability to be an elite player in this league but does he REALLY want to be or is he content with being merely really good, that's the question. It's not like Bing was trashing Cade, he did say that he has All Star potential. Some people are acting like Bing trashed Cade which I didn't sense at all, more like measured expectations.

Hah. The bolded is proof I'm not Valenti. I've been as critical of the idea of getting Ben Simmons as anyone here and certainly would have gone nowhere near passing up Cade to get him.

I don't disagree with your take on Bing's comments other than that Cade is 21 games into his career thus it's too early to make a judgement like that IMO, not to mention that Cade has certainly taken the steps toward Alpha male status in the last five games. To that point, on the show Rico said Bing sounded like he might have watched one quarter of one game where Cade didn't play well then made his assessment.