Colbinii wrote:Monte McNair being named Executive of the Year.
Help me think this one through.
Pros
+Mike Brown Hire [Hired COY]
+Malik Monk
+High-Impact rookie in Keegan Murray
+Trade for Huerter
+Kessler Edwards for Cash
Cons
-Main success for season was 2022 Trade [Sabonis]
-Haliburton looks like a higher ceiling player than both Fox and Sabonis
-Jalen Williams would be a perfect fit on this team with higher upside than Murray
So, I admit, the Cons aren't actually bad. The Kings had a vision in mind last year and went for it [Sabonis, Huerter and Monk additions along with drafting Murray]. This paid off.
Nitpicking Haliburton because we don't know if the Kings would have ever been as good with Haliburton this year, next year, or anytime in the future while keeping Haliburton.
Not picking the best player after Murray isn't really a knock as tons of teams missed on Jalen Williams.
Good thoughts.
I'm certainly considering McNair, but it's always bothered me when EOY gets EOY seemingly primarily for hiring the COY. Not saying it shouldn't count at all, but often it feels like a way of just hedging bets as to who was actually the more essential piece.
I think if you're high enough on Murray or Huerter, would understand being more excited about the choice.
The Sabonis-Haliburton is tricky for multiple reasons, the first of which being that it happened the previous year. As such, as I've said before, I think it's fine for you to have it in the back of your mind when you do this analysis, I don't think it should be given as an explicitly relevant move.
The extra complication there is that the jury will still be out on whether it was a good move or not for some time to come. The year going as well as it did made the move look great, but Sabonis' issues in the playoffs...look pretty much what we were already concerned about with him.
Colbinii wrote:RE: Ainge
I don't value trading stars for future assets in EOY because I look at this award through a lens of Winning is the goal. Acquiring rebuilding assets are part of the goal, but for me it is how you use your assets to win rather than acquiring the assets. Why? Everyone can sell of stars for assets. 25+ teams will be willing to part ways with their assets to acquire a star.
On the flip side, the Markkanen get is huge. If he ends up continuing to be a Top 20-30 guy and can prove to be a #2 on a a championship team then maybe I can look back and see how I messed this up, but as of now I don't have Ainge as better than McNair.
I'm with you in principle, but the acquisition of the guys I might vote for MIP & ROY both coming out of nowhere for me while also hiring a new coach who seems sharp as a tack is damn impressive. Ainge might get my vote.
Colbinii wrote:RE: Stevens
Simply put, the Udoka situation was difficult to maneuver. Stevens didn't do a perfect job [most teams don't] but he found a suitable replacement on the fly. The Malcolm Brogdon addition has been huge and he kept a core together that looks to be on the verge on a second NBA Finals Appearance in as many seasons.
We will see how the Brown situation plays out [Not Boston's fault given the extension rules] and we will see if they keep the core together "1 year too long" which is significantly worse than moving on from a core 1 year early.
I would side with McNair here.
Unlikely I'll seriously consider Stevens here. I should note he was my choice for EOY last year, and so that's related in various ways, but specifically on the coaching thing:
What Stevens did here is promote someone to head coach who was already on staff before he hired the previous coach. If the new coach is THAT great, shouldn't he have promoted him previously? That may not seem entirely fair, but I say it to say that I think Stevens chose Udoka over Mazzulla for a reason the previous year, and his choice to promote Mazzulla had less to do with him being the best coach available and more to do with the fact that the team could just keep doing what they'd learn to do under Udoka. Perhaps a wise move, but not really a stand out GMing move.
I think that if you like Brogdon enough I could see that being a big factor for you, but in general when a GM's big player move is to acquire a backup, this isn't normally enough to get me to seriously think of him as an EOY candidate.
I get that Brogdon won 6MOY so that can make it seem like a particularly special case...but to be perfectly honest I have real reservations about naming a guy as 6MOY who has a negative On/Off.
Colbinii wrote:RE: Booth
Good draft. Had to avoid the Tax per Ownership and could have used JaMychal Green for depth. Added KCP in a great trade with Washington and signed Bruce Brown [The 2nd best MLE contract aside from SlowMo].
He had little to work with, made moves around the edges to improve the depth and quality of the role players [found the right players].
I think I would side with Booth here given what I have seen so far and how I project Denver through the playoffs.
I've been thinking a lot about booth. If it comes down to role player acquisition, the KCP/Brown duo is about as good as they come.
2 concerns other than the fact that someone else might end up just feeling more showy:
1. I'm reluctant to give a guy EOY for making minor moves that are only noteworthy because of the core already in place that was built by another exec. If the Nuggets were to win the title this year and we were to name the most important pieces, we'd have to go through a bunch of names before we got to won that Booth acquired.
2. I think we may have to ask ourselves how much the GMs in Denver are really doing. On another team an owner letting a successful GM like Connolly go would feel like hubris of the "Dumbass billionaire thinks he knows more about basketball than basketball people", except of course the owner in this case (Josh Kroenke) was actually a college basketball player while his previous GM wasn't. Booth of course had a more successful playing career than Kroenke, but suffice to say that I don't think that that's why Kroenke hired him.
Colbinii wrote:RE: Presti
Good Draft. Dort contract isn't great. Kenrich Williams contract is good. Locked in nice role players [similar to Booth acquiring Role Players but to a lesser degree] and made a strong push for the post-season.
Similar tier as Booth and McNair, behind both though.
I dunno. Doesn't really seem like he did much to be relevant for this award this year.
Colbinii wrote:RE: Altman
I like going for it with the Mitchell Trade. You aren't given many opportunities to find a guy of his caliber often. However, the fit isn't great and as we see the team really needs a Kenrich Williams, Bruce Brown or KCP on the wing and they don't have that.
How good could they have been had they kept Lauri Markkanen and went for a Turner/Allen type swap at Center?
Captain Hindsight, I know, but the team isn't there and the puzzle is still missing key pieces.
I said at the end of the RS that he was #1 on my EOY list, but much depended on whether the odd team he put together seemed to work in the playoffs.
It didn't work, so now he won't be anywhere near my ballot, and frankly if I were ownership I'd be asking him very seriously what his contingency plans are.
Colbinii wrote:RE: Morey
He signed Harden last year. P.J. Tucker is the perfect [alright, he isn't perfect but he does fit] complimentary piece to Harden/Maxey/Harris/MVPIID [He deserves it].
It sucks building around a generational center like Embiid who is never healthy for a full post-season run.
The Harden Contract was a deal and a half [seriously, Harden is a Max-level player making just over half the Max].
Under the table or not, Morey would be ahead of Altman and Stevens for me, really close to the McNair/Booth/Presti Tier. Probably ahead of Presti.
So, first the obligatory mention of not picking a guy primarily because of something he did in the previous season.
Beyond that, there's a major elephant in the room: If the 76ers lose in the 2nd round again, then they'll basically have made zero steps forward since '17-18 when Simmons got them to the 2nd round largely without Embiid.
That's a bit unfair but I know full well that good moves have been made since then and not all 2nd round teams are equally good, but I'll put it this way:
If the 76ers lose in the 2nd round, I'd be expecting Morey to strongly consider firing Rivers and replacing him with a coach of his own choosing, which will then be the biggest decision he's made other than the game of chicken he played with Ben Simmons. What both of those two moves will have in common is that neither happened this year, even though one of them (firing Rivers), could have happened.
Colbinii wrote:edit: Missed Rose and Pelinka
I think Rose is a clear candidate. I have mixed feelings about him primarily because I don't think he made a decision of "We shouldn't trade for Mitchell because we got Brunson and there's only one ball" so much as "We think it makes sense to build our team around two point guards but we're going to rely on a game of chicken to get the second point guard because we're sure Ainge will cave...oh, he didn't cave."
I also have a tendency to be cautious around teams that don't seem to be on their way to a championship contending core. Not a fundamental rule, but if we think about a team like the Chicago Bulls last year, I think it's clear the concern. As good as things seemed right off the bat last year, the fact that the Bulls are now in the middle of a "This is fine" meme isn't a great surprise.
Unless Brunson emerges as a true superstar, do we really see this team as poised to contend? Are we really looking to give EOY to someone who has agreed to be paying Julius Randle $29 million in '25-26?
Pelinka is someone who I've been dismissive of but who I'm starting to feel like I need to reconsider.
Fundamentally: I don't believe in giving someone EOY for trading away Westbrook unless they weren't the one to acquire Westbrook. I understand that the decision to trade for Westbrook was driven by LeBron, but when you're the Exec, that goes on your ledger, and so I think we need to compare what you get for Westbrook to what you decided to give up when went after Westbrook.
However:
1. The specific decision to acquire and embrace Reaves is something noteworthy. Pelinka doesn't deserve anything like sole credit for it, but again, when you're the Exec, that goes on your ledger too.
2. The Vanderbilt acquisition. If by the end of the post-season I see Vando as big enough, that will really help his case. Seeing the 6'9" chase Curry around yesterday was eye-opening. Seems like he might be a perfect role player.
