europa wrote:-= original quote snipped =-
That's the impression I got. It seems like a lot of misguided anger placed in Gherardini because Bargnani hasn't played up to expectations so far. But that doesn't tell us whether Gheradini has the qualifications to be a good GM or not. I do like the fact he's worked with Colangelo. Unless he's a complete idiot, one would think he picked up a thing or two about being a GM from one of the game's best. So that's a huge plus in his favor. But the complete unknown about him makes the analysis difficult.
I will say that even though I know next to nothing about him I'd take him over Sund and Babcock without hesitation.
That's a large part of it. It's really impossible to gauge what kind of sway Gherardini holds over the decisions made by Colangelo, and as such he has been deemed the root of all evil on the Raptors board (no one anoints and attacks scapegoats quite like we do); everything good that happens was Colangelo's doing, while anything that goes wrong is immediately blamed on Gherardini. Thus, BC was responsible for signing Parker and Garbajosa on the cheap (both of whom were integral to our success last year), but it was Gherardini's Jedi mind tricks that caused us to take Bargnani...even though he was hired just two days before the draft.
In regards to Gallinari, there's two sides to that coin: on one hand, Gherardini might draft his countryman because he's more familiar with European players. However, the flip side to that argument is the fact that Gherardini is likely more acquainted with his faults than many 'North American' general managers...while Gallinari's stock will rise or fall dramatically with his workouts (and with his skillset, he should be a workout warrior), Gherardini enters with a much broader base of knowledge from which to work.
If it's a choice between Gherardini and a re-tread with a less-than-stellar track record, I'd lean toward Gherardini.
