Which scenario would you have prefered?
Moderators: dVs33, Cowology, theBigLip, Snakebites
Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,733
- And1: 2,232
- Joined: Sep 16, 2004
-
Which scenario would you have prefered?
1. Current situation, signed Smith, Jennings going for playoffs
2. Didn't sign Smith or Jennings and trade Monroe for something to help the tank
3. Extend Monroe, don't sign Smith or Jennings. Hope for enough losses for a top pick
1. is pretty self explanatory
2. Assume anyone besides drummond and KCP gets packaged together to get a legit prospect(ie overpay to pry someone like Barnes away from a team) Basically you'd have 3 legit prospects + a high pick this year
3. Keep Monroe attempt to build around Monroe- Drummond- KCP
Me personally I'd lean toward #2 just because I think it sets them up very well for the future. I also think Drummond is someone you can build a team around that can compete for a title. Curious to see what Pistons fans think/how they feel about their offseason now that they've seen some action
2. Didn't sign Smith or Jennings and trade Monroe for something to help the tank
3. Extend Monroe, don't sign Smith or Jennings. Hope for enough losses for a top pick
1. is pretty self explanatory
2. Assume anyone besides drummond and KCP gets packaged together to get a legit prospect(ie overpay to pry someone like Barnes away from a team) Basically you'd have 3 legit prospects + a high pick this year
3. Keep Monroe attempt to build around Monroe- Drummond- KCP
Me personally I'd lean toward #2 just because I think it sets them up very well for the future. I also think Drummond is someone you can build a team around that can compete for a title. Curious to see what Pistons fans think/how they feel about their offseason now that they've seen some action
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Head Coach
- Posts: 6,857
- And1: 2,460
- Joined: Sep 28, 2012
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
Cklbmk wrote:1. Current situation, signed Smith, Jennings going for playoffs
2. Didn't sign Smith or Jennings and trade Monroe for something to help the tank
3. Extend Monroe, don't sign Smith or Jennings. Hope for enough losses for a top pick
1. is pretty self explanatory
2. Assume anyone besides drummond and KCP gets packaged together to get a legit prospect(ie overpay to pry someone like Barnes away from a team) Basically you'd have 3 legit prospects + a high pick this year
3. Keep Monroe attempt to build around Monroe- Drummond- KCP
Me personally I'd lean toward #2 just because I think it sets them up very well for the future. I also think Drummond is someone you can build a team around that can compete for a title. Curious to see what Pistons fans think/how they feel about their offseason now that they've seen some action
#2 is based solely off a non tangible premise. We could very well hope for the lottery, be terrible but still end up with the 9th pick with all the other teams out there tanking. Once you lose that pick to Charlotte, then what?
I'm going with choice 4, trade for Jennings and signing Iggy (even though he's hurt and never really was seriously considered). How much better offensively and defensively would this team be with him over Smith?
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using RealGM Forums mobile app
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,949
- And1: 653
- Joined: May 30, 2010
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
I dont understand the whole tanking scenario... Its not typical of this organization so people should stop thinking it was or ever will be an option
RIP PALACE OF AUBURN HILLS
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,733
- And1: 2,232
- Joined: Sep 16, 2004
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
DCintheD wrote:I dont understand the whole tanking scenario... Its not typical of this organization so people should stop thinking it was or ever will be an option
It's not typical of any team unless they're really bad at it.
DetroitSho wrote:#2 is based solely off a non tangible premise. We could very well hope for the lottery, be terrible but still end up with the 9th pick with all the other teams out there tanking. Once you lose that pick to Charlotte, then what?
I'm going with choice 4, trade for Jennings and signing Iggy (even though he's hurt and never really was seriously considered). How much better offensively and defensively would this team be with him over Smith?
Iggy would have been an interesting choice over Smith, but it sounds like he was going to GSW(based off recent news stories)
This team without Smith, Jennings, Monroe would have a very strong tank and practically assure a top 8 pick. For purposes of this you'd be required to assume they do end up in the top 8(with that team top 5 is much more likely)
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 6,374
- And1: 2,604
- Joined: Aug 12, 2010
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
DCintheD wrote:I dont understand the whole tanking scenario... Its not typical of this organization so people should stop thinking it was or ever will be an option
This. Its getting beyond annoying at this point. The goal is winning and this team is currently 1 game out of the 3rd seed. Sure that's as much to do with the rest of the competition as is our improvement, but had we not made these moves this summer, we would not be in this position to capitalize. Because the East turned out so bad, Joe going all in this past summer looks genius now. If you are the Pistons and trying to reclaim a spot amongst the elite in the conference and actually win a playoff series, this is a golden opportunity. Had they not signed Smith and Jennings, we would probably be looking at fighting for an 8th seed and a first round sweep by the Pacers.
Now though, we have a legit chance to get the 3rd seed, host and win a first round series, and maybe even take the Heat to a hard fought 6 games series in the 2nd round. That would be huge for this franchise and a major step towards getting back to winning championships. Tanking for an imaginary rookie sounds pretty lame in comparison.
You look at the East and realistically we should get the 3rd seed now, as we have the 3rd most talented team left in the conference after NY/CHI/BKN's demises. So I couldn't be happier that we went all in now, as the timing couldn't have been better.
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 38,753
- And1: 22,818
- Joined: Oct 08, 2013
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
Q00 wrote:DCintheD wrote:I dont understand the whole tanking scenario... Its not typical of this organization so people should stop thinking it was or ever will be an option
This. Its getting beyond annoying at this point. The goal is winning and this team is currently 1 game out of the 3rd seed. Sure that's as much to do with the rest of the competition as is our improvement, but had we not made these moves this summer, we would not be in this position to capitalize. Because the East turned out so bad, Joe going all in this past summer looks genius now. If you are the Pistons and trying to reclaim a spot amongst the elite in the conference and actually win a playoff series, this is a golden opportunity. Had they not signed Smith and Jennings, we would probably be looking at fighting for an 8th seed and a first round sweep by the Pacers.
Now though, we have a legit chance to get the 3rd seed, host and win a first round series, and maybe even take the Heat to a hard fought 6 games series in the 2nd round. That would be huge for this franchise and a major step towards getting back to winning championships. Tanking for an imaginary rookie sounds pretty lame in comparison.
You look at the East and realistically we should get the 3rd seed now, as we have the 3rd most talented team left in the conference after NY/CHI/BKN's demises. So I couldn't be happier that we went all in now, as the timing couldn't have been better.
This, we've been rebuilding long enough. It's time to take the next step at some point. You have to start getting in the playoffs and let your team get that kind of experience. I guarantee after some playoff experience this year, This team will look so much better come next season. Also as long as we don't fall to a 7th or 8th seed then there is no reason we can't make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs. That would be huge for our young guys.
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Banned User
- Posts: 6,374
- And1: 2,604
- Joined: Aug 12, 2010
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
MotownMadness wrote:as long as we don't fall to a 7th or 8th seed then there is no reason we can't make it to the 2nd round of the playoffs. That would be huge for our young guys.
Exactly. If the playoffs started today, even if we stayed the 6th seed, we'd be playing Washington in the first round. Even without HCA you have to love our chances of winning that series and advancing. And then with the way we match up with the Heat, if we got them in the 2nd round it could at least be a competitive/entertaining series, which will give our guys great experience/confidence going forward, even in defeat.
That's how you build/develop a championship team, not tanking eternally for draft picks. You look at the great dynasties through history and they tanked maybe one or two years, got their franchise player and then moved on to winning. We already tanked and got our franchise player, been there done that, now time to start winning.
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
- BadMofoPimp
- RealGM
- Posts: 48,997
- And1: 12,481
- Joined: Oct 12, 2003
- Location: In the Paint
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
You either shoot for gold or tank forever like the Kings. I definitely don't want to be like the Kings. Pistons didn't win their last Ship by sitting idly hoping a superstar falls into their lap via draft.

Provin Ya'll Wrong!!!
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,850
- And1: 6,818
- Joined: Jun 22, 2013
- Location: Michigan
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
Tanking is so stupid imo, there is never a guarantee that your going to get a good pick. We need to win and need to win now.
Detroit vs Everybody
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Rookie
- Posts: 1,108
- And1: 628
- Joined: Apr 25, 2011
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
Option 1, at least it is exciting to watch, and we have talent.
2016 Pistons All Time Fantasy League Champ!
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 276
- And1: 14
- Joined: Jul 20, 2012
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
Option 3. Moose is too valuable to give up. There is no big man his age or younger that I would take over him, outside of the two ADs.
I didn't/don't agree with bringing in Josh and Brandon. I'm not the slightest bit interested in playoff appearances right now. The only thing I want from Pistons' management is to maximize the chances of this team winning championships down the road. In my opinion, the best way to do that would be to keep the bigs and build through the draft. I'm okay with getting Jennings, because he's young enough that his prime may coincide with Moose and Dre's. But J-Smoove makes/made no sense to me.
I also don't like the Mo Cheeks hiring. It's my opinion that Dumars is still stuck in the late '80s (as far as how to build a roster) and is much too guard-oriented. I wanted to see this team run the triangle, or at least a style that further emphasizes post play. I think Greg and Drummond can be very effective together, with Moose as a playmaker in the post and Andre as a finisher and rim protector. I think it would be a great move to go in the opposite direction of the league, going big instead of small. However, the guards and small forward absolutely must be able to stretch the floor in order for this to work.
The NBA does not have to be as perimeter-oriented as it is today. People seem to think that these changes are necessary, but this isn't the NFL. There have been no rule changes that dictate a change in play style since '05 when they cracked down on hand-checking.
I didn't/don't agree with bringing in Josh and Brandon. I'm not the slightest bit interested in playoff appearances right now. The only thing I want from Pistons' management is to maximize the chances of this team winning championships down the road. In my opinion, the best way to do that would be to keep the bigs and build through the draft. I'm okay with getting Jennings, because he's young enough that his prime may coincide with Moose and Dre's. But J-Smoove makes/made no sense to me.
I also don't like the Mo Cheeks hiring. It's my opinion that Dumars is still stuck in the late '80s (as far as how to build a roster) and is much too guard-oriented. I wanted to see this team run the triangle, or at least a style that further emphasizes post play. I think Greg and Drummond can be very effective together, with Moose as a playmaker in the post and Andre as a finisher and rim protector. I think it would be a great move to go in the opposite direction of the league, going big instead of small. However, the guards and small forward absolutely must be able to stretch the floor in order for this to work.
The NBA does not have to be as perimeter-oriented as it is today. People seem to think that these changes are necessary, but this isn't the NFL. There have been no rule changes that dictate a change in play style since '05 when they cracked down on hand-checking.
Stuckey Stuckey! Five Dolla!
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Assistant Coach
- Posts: 3,958
- And1: 2,230
- Joined: Jun 25, 2013
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
Option 3b:
Don't sign Smith but don't tank. We were already trending upwards before we signed Jennings and Smith.
I still hold out hope that Jennings can be salvaged (he can light it up assists-wise which we really need).
We need to continue to develop our young core which in itself would entice better quality free agents than what we currently have. I'm not talking about superstars because Detroit's market just isn't big enough. But very nice 2nd tier players who otherwise wouldn't choose the Pistons in previous years.
Don't sign Smith but don't tank. We were already trending upwards before we signed Jennings and Smith.
I still hold out hope that Jennings can be salvaged (he can light it up assists-wise which we really need).
We need to continue to develop our young core which in itself would entice better quality free agents than what we currently have. I'm not talking about superstars because Detroit's market just isn't big enough. But very nice 2nd tier players who otherwise wouldn't choose the Pistons in previous years.
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 9,963
- And1: 2,829
- Joined: Jun 01, 2013
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
We're not going to fully commit to a decent tank as long as Dumars is at the helm. He doesn't believe in tanking at all. So that's why we've been stuck with mid draft pick and happen to get lucky with one by nabbing a potential all-star in Dre.
I would've preferred not to have signed Smith, there is a reason WHY Atlanta let him walk and he's entering his prime so he's not going to change up his game too much anyways. He's always been held back by his BBIQ since he has the athleticism to do whatever he wants.
Jennings is fine, his shot selection and his shooting is like a flaming roller coaster, but whatever.
I think Moose is the other "untouchable" in your list as well. Does nobody remember that the Moose and Dre tandem worked during the last few stretches of the 2012-13 season? It worked beautifully since Moose had decent space to work with and if he couldn't post up correctly, he just passed off to Dre or lob for an easy one. If we signed an actual 3 instead of Smith, other teams wouldn't commit to collapsing the paint early in fear or honoring the kickout to a perimeter guy. Instead, defenders usually sag off Smith since he's terrible at shooting.
I would've preferred not to have signed Smith, there is a reason WHY Atlanta let him walk and he's entering his prime so he's not going to change up his game too much anyways. He's always been held back by his BBIQ since he has the athleticism to do whatever he wants.
Jennings is fine, his shot selection and his shooting is like a flaming roller coaster, but whatever.
I think Moose is the other "untouchable" in your list as well. Does nobody remember that the Moose and Dre tandem worked during the last few stretches of the 2012-13 season? It worked beautifully since Moose had decent space to work with and if he couldn't post up correctly, he just passed off to Dre or lob for an easy one. If we signed an actual 3 instead of Smith, other teams wouldn't commit to collapsing the paint early in fear or honoring the kickout to a perimeter guy. Instead, defenders usually sag off Smith since he's terrible at shooting.
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Starter
- Posts: 2,073
- And1: 180
- Joined: Jul 06, 2012
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
#3- there was a short list of guys I wanted to bring in that BJ and Smith weren't on. Iggy and Millsap were probably the two biggest names on it. after striking out on those guys I would have preferred to stand pat, make a few small signings, pull the Beans/Rush trade with G.S. and wait for the right fit, rather than just signing any known name that'd be willing to come here and hoping for the best.
as far as the draft, any draft considerations were secondary to making the right moves to complement Dre and Moose for me. I wasn't really expecting a pick this year anyway with the addition by subtraction of Bynum/Max/Maggette coupled with better complements shooting wise around our bigs, plus Dre and Mooses progression/more time on the floor together and the tank-fest that is the Leastern Conference this season, we'd more than likely be in the playoff hunt regardless.
as far as the draft, any draft considerations were secondary to making the right moves to complement Dre and Moose for me. I wasn't really expecting a pick this year anyway with the addition by subtraction of Bynum/Max/Maggette coupled with better complements shooting wise around our bigs, plus Dre and Mooses progression/more time on the floor together and the tank-fest that is the Leastern Conference this season, we'd more than likely be in the playoff hunt regardless.
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 13,527
- And1: 1,230
- Joined: Dec 13, 2003
- Location: Surprise AZ
- Contact:
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
In the end Dumars all in summer may push the rebuild into high gear if the Pistons end up winning a 1st rd in the playoffs. getting 15 playoff games for Jennings, Smith, KCP,Moose and Drummond could actualy put us a yr ahead of schedule.
Setting us up for 2015 as the young, experienced challenger that is ready to contend with the yr older shallower Heat, Pacers. The Bulls are done IMHO. That window is closed and that team is going look more like AIs philly teams from here out.
Setting us up for 2015 as the young, experienced challenger that is ready to contend with the yr older shallower Heat, Pacers. The Bulls are done IMHO. That window is closed and that team is going look more like AIs philly teams from here out.
HomoSapien wrote:Warspite, the greatest poster in the history of realgm.
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
- MrBigShot
- RealGM
- Posts: 18,587
- And1: 20,148
- Joined: Dec 18, 2010
-
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
I hate tanking. Sometimes it pays off(spurs) but most of the time it doesn't. Most of the time it just ends up building a losing culture...
"They say you miss 100% of the shots you take" - Mike James
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
-
- Freshman
- Posts: 81
- And1: 3
- Joined: Jun 05, 2013
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
Three is the ideal situation, but instead of tanking, you just need to keep building. Greg and Dre are the basis for our future and are the centerpieces of this teams, if we were going to bring player in we needed to make sure we take time so we can find the right fits. Smith is a bad fit, and jennings is not an efficient enough player to truly supplement them. I would have signed Jeff Teague to a high offer sheet and then set ourselves to improve and find other places along the process. Signing assets like Josh has just devalued him and I think stalled some of the progress the team could have made if they had been built around who they were meant to be. Greg and Andre
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
- Damon_3388
- Sixth Man
- Posts: 1,953
- And1: 1,056
- Joined: Jul 09, 2010
- Location: Australia
Re: Which scenario would you have prefered?
I'm interested in how we would have done if:
- We didn't trade for Jennings (and kept Knight, Middleton and Kravtsov)
- We didn't sign Smith
- We didn't sign Billups
- We didn't cut English
- We bought out Charlie V
- We drafted MCW instead of KCP
Line-up
C - Drummond
PF - Monroe
SF - Singler
SG - Knight
PG - MCW
-----
C - Harrellson
PF - Jerebko
SF - Middleton
SG - Stuckey
PG - Bynum
C - Kravtsov
PF - Mitchell
SF - Datome
SG - English
PG - Siva
Better? Maybe not, but certainly more intriguing, younger and possibly with more potential as well.
- We didn't trade for Jennings (and kept Knight, Middleton and Kravtsov)
- We didn't sign Smith
- We didn't sign Billups
- We didn't cut English
- We bought out Charlie V
- We drafted MCW instead of KCP
Line-up
C - Drummond
PF - Monroe
SF - Singler
SG - Knight
PG - MCW
-----
C - Harrellson
PF - Jerebko
SF - Middleton
SG - Stuckey
PG - Bynum
C - Kravtsov
PF - Mitchell
SF - Datome
SG - English
PG - Siva
Better? Maybe not, but certainly more intriguing, younger and possibly with more potential as well.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever.