Countdown to Ernie Grunfeld Firing

[Nivek]

(Didn't the Zards get a second round pick for Jordan that helped them move up to get G. Rice II?)

Nope. They got Barbosa and Collins.

You might be thinking of the 2nd round pick they got in the Nick Young trade, except that pick is in 2015.

[Zonkerbl]

So, with the same luxury tax restrictions that everyone else has, EG has put together a starting five that, with some help from the bench, may sniff 50 wins someday, but because of his incompetence in the draft and incompetence mismanaging the assets he has, the bench is a huge net negative, resulting in a sub .500 team that will never, EVER contend for a championship.

Nice post. My only objection is that I really don't think this roster can get to 50 wins. The only reason we're at a roughly .500 pace right now is because of the historically bad competition. In a normal season, we are 4 or 5 games under .500, not 1 game under. I expect some modest improvement as Beal develops faster than Nene declines, but we're only going to improve by a few games. I figure the team as currently constructed peaks at 45 wins, maybe 47 if the East remains really weak next year.

Well, I mean just looking at the starting five, that's the starting five of a 50 win team, depending on the bench. It's really the bench that is the weak part of the roster, and it's weak because instead of Jordan Crawford and Andray Blatche, who are worth *something*, the zards have NOTHING. Blatche simply walked away, and Crawford was traded away for essentially nothing.

A good GM figures out how to get through to Blatche. A good GM DEFINITELY does not let the Crawford situation go down the way it did.

[FAH1223]

If I were Ted, I would look back on EG's tenure with him objectively. EG has managed to put together a decent starting five, more or less. His team has underachieved primarily because of a lack of a bench.

Why is the bench so bad?
1) Vesely is a bust
2) Singleton is a bust
3) Kevin Seraphin is a disappointment
4) Blatche was run off the team - arguably a residual gungate effect. Zards got absolutely no assets in return, except for a little cap space.
5) Jordan Crawford was run off the team - that was blatant mismanagement by EG. Zards got absolutely nothing for him.
6) Javaris Crittendon -- *shudder*
7) Booker -- the only player currently on the bench who can be considered a net positive. And his contribution is barely adequate.
8) Porter -- jury's still out. Props for not selecting whatsisname the huge bust at #1, but why did we skip on Noel?

So, with the same luxury tax restrictions that everyone else has, EG has put together a starting five that, with some help from the bench, may sniff 50 wins someday, but because of his incompetence in the draft and incompetence mismanaging the assets he has, the bench is a huge net negative, resulting in a sub .500 team that will never, EVER contend for a championship.

Ted gave EG the benefit of the doubt and given him a chance to show what he can do. On the plus side, he has swung a few decent trade to surround Wall and Beal with a playoff quality starting five. On the minus side, he flubbed the Vesely pick, possibly flubbed the Porter pick (depending on how Noel turns out), failed to collect any significantly valuable assets among Booker, Singleton, and Kevin Seraphin, and pissed away valuable assets in Crawford and Blatche.

The best team EG can possibly assemble is a sub .500 team. Given the assets he has had to work with, that is a monumental failure. There is no reason this team should not be contending for home court in the playoffs by now. Losing Crawford and Blatche for nothing are enormous, fireable offenses -- those failures are directly responsible for our sub .500 record now. He should be fired at the end of the season.

[Kanyewest]

If I were Ted, I would look back on EG's tenure with him objectively. EG has managed to put together a decent starting five, more or less. His team has underachieved primarily because of a lack of a bench.

Why is the bench so bad?
1) Vesely is a bust
2) Singleton is a bust
3) Kevin Seraphin is a disappointment
4) Blatche was run off the team - arguably a residual gungate effect. Zards got absolutely no assets in return, except for a little cap space.
5) Jordan Crawford was run off the team - that was blatant mismanagement by EG. Zards got absolutely nothing for him.
6) Javaris Crittendon -- *shudder*
7) Booker -- the only player currently on the bench who can be considered a net positive. And his contribution is barely adequate.
8) Porter -- jury's still out. Props for not selecting whatsisname the huge bust at #1, but why did we skip on Noel?

So, with the same luxury tax restrictions that everyone else has, EG has put together a starting five that, with some help from the bench, may sniff 50 wins someday, but because of his incompetence in the draft and incompetence mismanaging the assets he has, the bench is a huge net negative, resulting in a sub .500 team that will never, EVER contend for a championship.

Ted gave EG the benefit of the doubt and given him a chance to show what he can do. On the plus side, he has swung a few decent trade to surround Wall and Beal with a playoff quality starting five. On the minus side, he flubbed the Vesely pick, possibly flubbed the Porter pick (depending on how Noel turns out), failed to collect any significantly valuable assets among Booker, Singleton, and Kevin Seraphin, and pissed away valuable assets in Crawford and Blatche.

The best team EG can possibly assemble is a sub .500 team. Given the assets he has had to work with, that is a monumental failure. There is no reason this team should not be contending for home court in the playoffs by now. Losing Crawford and Blatche for nothing are enormous, fireable offenses -- those failures are directly responsible for our sub .500 record now. He should be fired at the end of the season.

The next step to view EG's tenure effectively IMO is to compare him to all other GMs and teams. Where does EG rank among the league's GMs? I would say it's hard to do it based on wins and losses since every team has a different starting point, gets lucky around the way, or has more resources. Still, just because it is hard doesn't mean it can't be done. I think something like "EG is the 22nd worst GM in the league is a more convincing argument" than "EG is the worst GM in the league".

[Zonkerbl]

Well, everybody works under the same luxury tax limitations so really wouldn't wins and losses be the ultimate metric of success? Assuming there's a level playing field...

Wins per dollar spent?

[verbal8]

I think something like "EG is the 22nd worst GM in the league is a more convincing argument" than "EG is the worst GM in the league".

22 might be generous.

These guys the argument is pretty strong:
Billy King
Dell Demps
Chris Grant
Glen Grunwald

These guys you could pick one based on past(Ferry with CLE) or ignoring it(Dumars ):
Dumars
Ferry


John Hammond - rough start, but seems to have nailed some recent picks
Flip Saunders - probably should be "incomplete" at this point

[DCZards]

Well, everybody works under the same luxury tax limitations so really wouldn't wins and losses be the ultimate metric of success? Assuming there's a level playing field...

Wins per dollar spent?

Wins and losses alone won't work when judging a GM. It doesn't take into consideration injuries for example. Chicago would certainly have a lot more wins over the past two seasons--and its GM would rank a lot higher on the W-L scale--if D. Rose had been healthy. Also, how about a team that is consciously tanking....like Boston. Can you really judge Ainge on wins and losses this year...or next for that matter?

[Kanyewest]

Well, everybody works under the same luxury tax limitations so really wouldn't wins and losses be the ultimate metric of success? Assuming there's a level playing field...

Wins per dollar spent?

I don't think it's that easy. For instance, I think Cleveland when they had LeBron was a worse run organization than the Wizards. I'm not sure New Orleans is run better than the Wizards but I think there prospects are better because they got Anthony Davis but looked like they missed badly on Austin Rivers. And then there are teams like Washington (Arenas) and Portland (Roy and Oden) that suffer injuries. Then you have teams that are just stuck in mediocrity Atlanta. Then there are teams that are tanking the right way like Orlando and Philly and good prospects- and then there's the Bobcats who don't really seem to know what they are doing.

For now these are the teams that I would trade front offices with:
OKC
San Antonio
Indiana
Chicago
Detroit
Portland
Houston
Dallas
Memphis

Then there are teams I would think we would be just as worse or worse off-
Denver
Charlotte
New York
Brooklyn
Minnesota

Then there teams with new GMs who hard to judge since there is not enough evidence but may have promise:
Orlando
Philadelphia

Then there are teams like Miami and LA Lakers where I'm not sure how to judge them but they have elite players and the prestige to draw players.

[verbal8]

Well, everybody works under the same luxury tax limitations so really wouldn't wins and losses be the ultimate metric of success? Assuming there's a level playing field...

Wins per dollar spent?

Wins and losses alone won't work when judging a GM. It doesn't take into consideration injuries for example. Chicago would certainly have a lot more wins over the past two seasons--and its GM would rank a lot higher on the W-L scale--if D. Rose had been healthy. Also, how about a team that is consciously tanking....like Boston. Can you really judge Ainge on wins and losses this year...or next for that matter?

But even without those taken into account, wouldn't both GMs rate much higher than EG.

[verbal8]

Then there are teams I would think we would be just as worse or worse off-
Denver
Charlotte
New York
Brooklyn
Minnesota

I have New Orleans on that list, although they did get the better of EG.

Minnesota I would say is an incomplete at this point
Denver would an incomplete, but the moves so far have been pretty awful

Then there teams with new GMs who hard to judge since there is not enough evidence but may have promise:
Orlando
Philadelphia

It may not work, but they seem to be headed in the right direction

[fishercob]

Well, everybody works under the same luxury tax limitations so really wouldn't wins and losses be the ultimate metric of success? Assuming there's a level playing field...

Wins per dollar spent?

Wins and losses alone won't work when judging a GM. It doesn't take into consideration injuries for example. Chicago would certainly have a lot more wins over the past two seasons--and its GM would rank a lot higher on the W-L scale--if D. Rose had been healthy. Also, how about a team that is consciously tanking....like Boston. Can you really judge Ainge on wins and losses this year...or next for that matter?

It's a sample size thing, Zards. Sure, it's hard to look at the C's record this year and get an accurate read on his GM skills. But look at his full tenure in Boston -- a title, another finals appearance, another in the ECF. When looking at the aggregated data, it's not hard to see that he's a successful executive.

By contrast, look at Ernie who has been here for a decade. Sure he's had some bad luck (like everyone else who does anything for a decade), but that comes out in the wash over time. The height of his success was mediocrity or a thread above it. He's overseen a few complete dumpster fires of seasons. He's bad at his job.

[Zonkerbl]

Well, everybody works under the same luxury tax limitations so really wouldn't wins and losses be the ultimate metric of success? Assuming there's a level playing field...

Wins per dollar spent?

Wins and losses alone won't work when judging a GM. It doesn't take into consideration injuries for example. Chicago would certainly have a lot more wins over the past two seasons--and its GM would rank a lot higher on the W-L scale--if D. Rose had been healthy. Also, how about a team that is consciously tanking....like Boston. Can you really judge Ainge on wins and losses this year...or next for that matter?

It's a sample size thing, Zards. Sure, it's hard to look at the C's record this year and get an accurate read on his GM skills. But look at his full tenure in Boston -- a title, another finals appearance, another in the ECF. When looking at the aggregated data, it's not hard to see that he's a successful executive.

By contrast, look at Ernie who has been here for a decade. Sure he's had some bad luck (like everyone else who does anything for a decade), but that comes out in the wash over time. The height of his success was mediocrity or a thread above it. He's overseen a few complete dumpster fires of seasons. He's bad at his job.

I was going to respond and then Fisher ninja'd me.

+1, begrudgingly.

[tontoz]

Well, everybody works under the same luxury tax limitations so really wouldn't wins and losses be the ultimate metric of success? Assuming there's a level playing field...

Wins per dollar spent?

Wins and losses alone won't work when judging a GM. It doesn't take into consideration injuries for example. Chicago would certainly have a lot more wins over the past two seasons--and its GM would rank a lot higher on the W-L scale--if D. Rose had been healthy. Also, how about a team that is consciously tanking....like Boston. Can you really judge Ainge on wins and losses this year...or next for that matter?

It's a sample size thing, Zards. Sure, it's hard to look at the C's record this year and get an accurate read on his GM skills. But look at his full tenure in Boston -- a title, another finals appearance, another in the ECF. When looking at the aggregated data, it's not hard to see that he's a successful executive.

By contrast, look at Ernie who has been here for a decade. Sure he's had some bad luck (like everyone else who does anything for a decade), but that comes out in the wash over time. The height of his success was mediocrity or a thread above it. He's overseen a few complete dumpster fires of seasons. He's bad at his job.

The reason that Ainge was able to pull off the KG trade is because he made good use of his draft picks. He had young players that other teams wanted. If he had blown his draft picks the Big 3 would have never happened.

[Nivek]

I'm not going to argue that the sole measure of a GM's success is team record, BUT...Grunfeld isn't the new guy. This is his 11th season. At some point, it's fair to compare the record of teams he built to his competitors.

We all know that if we evaluate Grunfeld based on team record since he came to DC, he has obviously failed.

So, here's the challenge (should you choose to accept it):

Is it possible to construct a metric in which Grunfeld looks like a good GM?

Maybe "good" is too strong. "Average"?

In the 30 seconds of thought I gave these questions, I couldn't come up with one. Maybe you guys will do better.

[closg00]

Wins and losses alone won't work when judging a GM. It doesn't take into consideration injuries for example. Chicago would certainly have a lot more wins over the past two seasons--and its GM would rank a lot higher on the W-L scale--if D. Rose had been healthy. Also, how about a team that is consciously tanking....like Boston. Can you really judge Ainge on wins and losses this year...or next for that matter?

It's a sample size thing, Zards. Sure, it's hard to look at the C's record this year and get an accurate read on his GM skills. But look at his full tenure in Boston -- a title, another finals appearance, another in the ECF. When looking at the aggregated data, it's not hard to see that he's a successful executive.

By contrast, look at Ernie who has been here for a decade. Sure he's had some bad luck (like everyone else who does anything for a decade), but that comes out in the wash over time. The height of his success was mediocrity or a thread above it. He's overseen a few complete dumpster fires of seasons. He's bad at his job.

The reason that Ainge was able to pull off the KG trade is because he made good use of his draft picks. He had young players that other teams wanted. If he had blown his draft picks the Big 3 would have never happened.

Nice

[AFM]

I'm not going to argue that the sole measure of a GM's success is team record, BUT...Grunfeld isn't the new guy. This is his 11th season. At some point, it's fair to compare the record of teams he built to his competitors.

We all know that if we evaluate Grunfeld based on team record since he came to DC, he has obviously failed.

So, here's the challenge (should you choose to accept it):

Is it possible to construct a metric in which Grunfeld looks like a good GM?

Maybe "good" is too strong. "Average"?

In the 30 seconds of thought I gave these questions, I couldn't come up with one. Maybe you guys will do better.

Number of #1 overall pick busts traded for All Star SFs?

[fishercob]

I'm not going to argue that the sole measure of a GM's success is team record, BUT...Grunfeld isn't the new guy. This is his 11th season. At some point, it's fair to compare the record of teams he built to his competitors.

We all know that if we evaluate Grunfeld based on team record since he came to DC, he has obviously failed.

So, here's the challenge (should you choose to accept it):

Is it possible to construct a metric in which Grunfeld looks like a good GM?

Maybe "good" is too strong. "Average"?

In the 30 seconds of thought I gave these questions, I couldn't come up with one. Maybe you guys will do better.

You idiot.

The eye test!

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

In response to Kevin's challenge, how about this?

Is in the top 5% of making his owner feel good about himself.

[Nivek]

In response to Kevin's challenge, how about this?

Is in the top 5% of making his owner feel good about himself.

Can't know whether this is true. Leonsis may feel like vomiting every time he sees or speaks to Grunfeld, but is keeping him in the job because Grunfeld has some incriminating evidence. Or something.

It would seem safe to claim that Grunfeld is among the top GMs at keeping his job. Portland, for example, has changed GMs several times with the kind of record that would seem to make Leonsis want to give Grunfeld a lifetime extension. Denver let Ujiri leave for reasons I cannot begin to fathom.

[Kanyewest]

I'm not going to argue that the sole measure of a GM's success is team record, BUT...Grunfeld isn't the new guy. This is his 11th season. At some point, it's fair to compare the record of teams he built to his competitors.

We all know that if we evaluate Grunfeld based on team record since he came to DC, he has obviously failed.

So, here's the challenge (should you choose to accept it):

Is it possible to construct a metric in which Grunfeld looks like a good GM?

Maybe "good" is too strong. "Average"?

In the 30 seconds of thought I gave these questions, I couldn't come up with one. Maybe you guys will do better.

What about this:

How many playoff appearances did the Wizards go to in the previous 10 years or how about since 1988 before Grunfeld? What have the Knicks done and Bucks done since Grunfeld left them? Do GMs get credit for tanking( see 2009-2012)?