Countdown to Ernie Grunfeld Firing

[dckingsfan]

yep, it would be terrific if Seraphin could somehow stay on track...

[verbal8]

yep, it would be terrific if Seraphin could somehow stay on track...

Seraphin has had a bit of an unusual career progression. He was terrible as a rookie which isn't shocking given his lack of experience. He looked to be improving his 2nd year. Then his 3rd year he was one of the least productive players in the NBA. The one big issue even when he has produced relatively well with him is his defensive rebounding.

If he struggles this season, it is probably best to just let him go. If he looks a little more promising and can be kept as cheap depth, he would be a good option.

[LyricalRico]

This is the thinking I was referring to. If your perspective is that all teams should ONLY make moves that directly result in championship contention, and if there are no such moves immediately available they should then tank for the highest pick possible - that's fine, but I think that's an unrealistic all-or-nothing approach.

I just can't agree that this team making the playoffs (but not winning a title) for rest of Nene's contract would be a "waste of time" and so they should instead be shedding players and hoping Wall breaks a pinkie so they can get a high lottery pick. I'll never agree with that kind of thinking.

Again, if you disagree, that's fine. But I think it's a mistake to view anything other than a championship as of so little value as to be a "waste of time".

Go Wiz!

Preach on, lyrical. Supporting the Okafor/Ariza trade is not the original sin that some posters have portrayed it to be. In fact, Ariza and Okafor played very well last season and (with a healthy Wall and Nene) helped this team win games.

Being competitive in every game, playing good defense, acting like pros on and off the court, etc. was exactly the kind of culture change the Zards needed in order to make the first step of going from a bottom dweller to a team that competes for the playoffs...and eventually to a contender.

On this same topic, looks like the Raptors may put their tanking on hold. Even though Masai (and any other GM, for that matter) would want a star, he understands that there is value in being an above average team so he's potentially pausing the Toronto tank if his guys show they can keep their current streak going.

A few highlights from an article on Grantland:

Add in the cost of tanking, and it's clear Ujiri and his team face a thorny choice. Getting worse isn't pain-free. It alienates a fan base that can only take so much, especially when there is nothing close to a guarantee that said losing would net Canadian proto-legend Andrew Wiggins.4 It can build bad habits among unmotivated players. It can cause friction between the coaching staff and management, which is why Casey wisely stays out of the entire discussion.

<snip>

Ujiri understands the downsides of tanking, a strategy he explicitly avoided in guiding Denver through the post–Carmelo Anthony world. "You play ball to win," Ujiri told Grantland. "It's difficult to teach winning by losing. There is value in winning."

<snip>

A segment of fans tends to view the NBA as a ringz-or-fail league, and following such a philosophy, suggests teams avoid 45-win above-averageness and do whatever it takes to acquire a franchise star. But the real NBA doesn't work that way. Franchise players by definition are a scarce resource. A team that wins 45 to 50 games every season, enjoying a deep playoff run here and there, can be considered a huge success, depending on attendance figures and ownership priorities. Ujiri presided over just such a team in Denver, and he created believers in the possibility that a starless team, constructed the right way, could find itself in the conference finals given some luck with matchups and injuries.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/102 ... to-raptors

[Illuminaire]

Yes, there is value in winning. Value for the owners - winning teams have higher ticket sales and better TV deals, even if they just crash in the first round year after year after year.

But if you're aspiring for elite status, fighting to be mediocre has no objective merit. You need talent to be great in the NBA. You get talent in several ways, but the easiest way to get a top-20 player is in the draft, or by having a lot of draft(ed) assets to trade for one.

What's good for the owner and GM is not necessarily good for the fans or the team. Losing for a time can be immensely beneficial for a franchise of the people guiding it are making wise decisions. Grinding out the 7th seed is not necessarily good for a team OR the fans - hell, look at how hard Bucks fans are shouting for their idiot owner to stop the madness and let them lose.

[Nivek]

The evidence (as has been presented by David Berri and other researchers in an array of places around the web) suggests that tanking does not work. I'm really not in favor of doing it. I'd like to see the league take steps to curtail the practice -- simplest way would probably be to eliminate any weighting in the draft lottery. Everyone who misses the playoffs gets one shot at the top pick. Make it a random drawing all the way down to 14. Heck, I'd even be willing to include teams that get eliminated in the 1st round of playoffs to really eliminate any incentive to tank. No one's going to tank a playoff series for a 1-in-16 shot at the top pick. Or, just make college players and international players true free agents and let teams bid for them -- but using cap space or exceptions (MLE, BAE, minimum salary).

Back to the Wizards for a moment, the problem I've had with the team's moves has been how short-sighted they were. Older players good enough to get the team to .500, but not much of a pathway to improvement. I thought the moves for 30-something big men were pretty clearly designed to preserve jobs of folks in the front office (and coaching staff) by getting the team out of the league's gutter. Trading that 1st for Gortat seemed downright cynical to me. I think they could have gotten the team into playoffs while using their resources to get younger players with a more realistic chance of being productive parts of a good team in the future. But, the moves are done now, and the team is fun to watch -- at least when they have their top 7 on the floor.

[Dat2U]

Tanking looks like it doesn't work because frankly it's really hard to tell a bad or completely inept team from a team that's strategically trying to tank.

I think a strategical tank can work with the right leadership. Tanking should only happen at the organizational level, it shouldn't trickle down to impact what the coaching staff or players do. On court, the players and coaches should be trying to win. That should never change. I'd never want to see a situation where players are actually tanking. No one wants to watch that.

[dckingsfan]

Given that the East is bad. Given that the team is playing better as a whole. Given that Wittman is coaching better and more consistently. Given that we may well be the 3rd seed in the east.

At this point, I am sad to report that EG will probably be back

[closg00]

Given that the East is bad. Given that the team is playing better as a whole. Given that Wittman is coaching better and more consistently. Given that we may well be the 3rd seed in the east.

At this point, I am sad to report that EG will probably be back

I am still hopeful that he will "retire"

[hands11]

Vesely, Singleton and Seraphin will be gone at years end (caveat, they might keep Seraphin for the min).

Yup. Vesely and Singleton are definitely gone. Seraphin will only be kept if the price is very low. Seraphin at least can fill a role in certain situations. The guy can play above average post defense.

It'll be interesting to see if his recent good play is just an aberration, or if it's a product of playing with Nene and is therefore sustainable. In the last 4 games, he has averaged 21 points and 9 boards per 36 minutes (TS% .622, ORtg 118). Obviously, if he can keep that up, then this is an entirely different conversation.

Line ups do matter after all.

[hands11]

Given that the East is bad. Given that the team is playing better as a whole. Given that Wittman is coaching better and more consistently. Given that we may well be the 3rd seed in the east.

At this point, I am sad to report that EG will probably be back

I am still hopeful that he will "retire"

Given where the team is and where its draft picks are likely to be, I see EGs downside exposure as less, so him staying or going isn't as big a deal. Here is why. Will he bust on lower picks ? Well not bust, but not get the best players that were available. Maybe.

But now he will know a lot more clearly what he needs with those picks then when he got here. Then he was swinging for the fence with those picks. Drafting to a bad team with low picks is different then where they are now. Not sure what he would do now.

And he would have better FAs to pick from.

Its easier to GM a team that is winning with good players then a franchise with a bad reputation and bad players.

There is really no telling what Ted will do either at this point. But if they get to the 2nd round, seems more likely then not that EG gets at least another 2 year extension. I would be surprised if it was more then that.

[hands11]

Let see. He signed a two year contract around May this year, right.

So that puts the count down at around 18 mouths.

I don't think I can be that patient. But I also don't think Ernie has 18 months to turn this around.

Its really not a matter of how patient you are, its a matter of how patient Ted is.
He made a decision to extend him for two years. Not one year. Two years.
That said, I doubt he has even started to second guess that decision to cut that contract short.
By the vary nature of the length of the contract, he has set that date to re-evaluate what to do with EG
until about somewhere near the trade deadline next season.

What he is likely doing right now is watching individual players that are new like Beal, Trevor A, Okafor, Barron, Webster, Price and Pargo and evaluating what is the next piece they can add while they wait for their two best players to return so the pieces they have can continue to develop.

One sign that they are indeed doing that is the Livingston signing just 7 games into the season. Livingston in, Pargo out. Now he will evaluate how much adding a 6-7 27 year old vet PG helps a team that desperately needs a steady PG until Wall returns and who needed a solid back up going into the season anyway. The Livingston move was one I was hoping they would make and believed it was on the table for them even though they went into the season with Price and Pargo. I'm glad to see what I believed actually was what they were considering.

He is also evaluating how Randy is doing as head coach. But again, unless Randy loses the team, he is here for two years. Ted has made these two decisions and he is moving forward.

Ted knew what all of us know. The team was going to have a huge uphill fight to start the year with 7 new players, a new coach and no Wall or Nene. Not having those two players to start the year is why many of us projected low 30's in wins for the season instead of low to mid 40s. We know the start of this year was going to be really tough to get a win.

I'm sure he sees the reality of that situation and is looking forward to seeing what the team looks like once Wall and Nene return. For now, I'm sure he is excited to see how much adding Livingston can help. Livingston may not be an All Star, but he is a piece the team desperately needed since they are mostly a group of players that can't create their own shots given youth and injuries.

Once they get their core piece back out there, I'm sure they will be working to back channels to see what trades might be available come the trade deadline. Lots of work to do.

I would be shocked if Ted even spent 2 minutes second guessing the decision he made about the two year contract for EG at this stage of the game. He did that evaluation before the contracts and he will decide again what he wants to do sometime around the trade dead line next season.

So if you counting down, you most likely have about 14 months of counting to do.

Above from Nov 2012

So here we are. Still counting down. I'm sure Ted is still evaluating. He is going to wait and see the actual results. This season has been touch and go. Rough start. Bounced back. Then dipped. Now coming back better then ever. Gotta see where this goes first. The team still has some upside.

[sashae]

Based on his actions with McPhee and the Capitals, I'd say the odds of Grunfeld /not/ getting extended are near zero, not matter how historically inept he is as a GM.

[dckingsfan]

Vesely, Singleton and Seraphin will be gone at years end (caveat, they might keep Seraphin for the min).

Yup. Vesely and Singleton are definitely gone. Seraphin will only be kept if the price is very low. Seraphin at least can fill a role in certain situations. The guy can play above average post defense.

It'll be interesting to see if his recent good play is just an aberration, or if it's a product of playing with Nene and is therefore sustainable. In the last 4 games, he has averaged 21 points and 9 boards per 36 minutes (TS% .622, ORtg 118). Obviously, if he can keep that up, then this is an entirely different conversation.

Line ups do matter after all.

True - just not with those two players.

[dckingsfan]

Given that the East is bad. Given that the team is playing better as a whole. Given that Wittman is coaching better and more consistently. Given that we may well be the 3rd seed in the east.

At this point, I am sad to report that EG will probably be back

I am still hopeful that he will "retire"

Made me laugh closg! I can you hear you talking to Ernie

EG: What the hell is this horsehead doing on my bed
closg: I strongly recommend that you think about retiring

[hands11]

Yup. Vesely and Singleton are definitely gone. Seraphin will only be kept if the price is very low. Seraphin at least can fill a role in certain situations. The guy can play above average post defense.

It'll be interesting to see if his recent good play is just an aberration, or if it's a product of playing with Nene and is therefore sustainable. In the last 4 games, he has averaged 21 points and 9 boards per 36 minutes (TS% .622, ORtg 118). Obviously, if he can keep that up, then this is an entirely different conversation.

Line ups do matter after all.

True - just not with those two players.

We will see. Lots of posters here were calling Kevin a dead end no more then a few games ago. Now he seems to be getting a prime slot next to Nene on the 2nd unit with Webster and Otto.

I'm not counting anyone out just yet, though clearly some players have the lead on others. Minutes are going to be tough to come by for Ves, Singleton and Glen. But I can see Ves getting his chances with either the starter or the Webster/Otto/Nene line up. Hell, maybe even Singleton gets his changes. Injuries happen. Players get in foul trouble. Player have off games.

And there is still AH in the wings. I see his role as helping if they make the playoffs. They really don't need him right now. He needs to just focus on getting healthy and helping lead in locker room. Help mentor younger players.

The team is in a good spot to grow more and evaluate players before they need to decide who stays and who goes.

[dckingsfan]

I think Porter and Rice are in a different place. First year in the league.

I think Singleton, Vesely are done - stick a fork in 'em. They might have a chance to contribute a few minutes here or there... but that will be that.

Seraphin also for this season. But if he goes for the vet minimum he could be back.

Booker will get a chance to prove he is durable.

Harrington and Maynor were just bad signings. Harrington because of his knees. Maynor because he isn't that good.

[fishercob]

Tanking looks like it doesn't work because frankly it's really hard to tell a bad or completely inept team from a team that's strategically trying to tank.

I think a strategical tank can work with the right leadership. Tanking should only happen at the organizational level, it shouldn't trickle down to impact what the coaching staff or players do. On court, the players and coaches should be trying to win. That should never change. I'd never want to see a situation where players are actually tanking. No one wants to watch that.

The problem is the coaches and players aren't stupid. They know when the organization is tanking. They then internalize the message that the organization values them just enough to try to lose with them. It's culturally poisonous.

[fishercob]

The evidence (as has been presented by David Berri and other researchers in an array of places around the web) suggests that tanking does not work. I'm really not in favor of doing it. I'd like to see the league take steps to curtail the practice -- simplest way would probably be to eliminate any weighting in the draft lottery. Everyone who misses the playoffs gets one shot at the top pick. Make it a random drawing all the way down to 14. Heck, I'd even be willing to include teams that get eliminated in the 1st round of playoffs to really eliminate any incentive to tank. No one's going to tank a playoff series for a 1-in-16 shot at the top pick. Or, just make college players and international players true free agents and let teams bid for them -- but using cap space or exceptions (MLE, BAE, minimum salary).

Back to the Wizards for a moment, the problem I've had with the team's moves has been how short-sighted they were. Older players good enough to get the team to .500, but not much of a pathway to improvement. I thought the moves for 30-something big men were pretty clearly designed to preserve jobs of folks in the front office (and coaching staff) by getting the team out of the league's gutter. Trading that 1st for Gortat seemed downright cynical to me. I think they could have gotten the team into playoffs while using their resources to get younger players with a more realistic chance of being productive parts of a good team in the future. But, the moves are done now, and the team is fun to watch -- at least when they have their top 7 on the floor.

I have never been quite as negative as you have on the acquisitions for veterans, but have always felt like you were basically right -- that trading for "old guys" (in NBA terms) was a losing bet. And yet, as I look around the league, I don't really see many examples of teams rebuilding without devoting some significant resources to veterans.

Golden State is a young team on the upswing -- but Bogut is 29 and Lee and Iguodala are both 30.
The Pacers' rise has been heavily dependent on David West, now 33.
Charlotte signed Al Jefferson, 29.
After Love and Rubio, the T-Wolves are hardly spring chickens -- Pekovic, Kevin Martin and Brewer are 28, 30, and 27.

Yes, New Orleans has turned their fortunes around and are a very young team. But I suspect a lot of their success can be attributed to the simple fact that they lucked into ANthony Davis. In fact, I think they may wind up regretting "going young" by investing so heavily in Holiday and Evans. Several of the other really young teams around the league simply suck -- Philly, Sacramento, Utah and Cleveland among them.

It seems to me that no matter how you're selecting players -- as free agents, in the draft, or in trades -- what is most important is that you know how to evaluate and select good ones. Ernie and his staff clearly don't cut the mustard when it comes to player evaluation. That's why we signed Maynor and Harrington, drafted Vesely and Singleton, and traded for Mike MIller and Randy Foye (the issue was that they traded for mediocre players, not that they traded that pick). So yeah, fire Ernie by all means. But I don't think the answer is to necessarily just stay away from older players.

[Illuminaire]

Tanking looks like it doesn't work because frankly it's really hard to tell a bad or completely inept team from a team that's strategically trying to tank.

I think a strategical tank can work with the right leadership. Tanking should only happen at the organizational level, it shouldn't trickle down to impact what the coaching staff or players do. On court, the players and coaches should be trying to win. That should never change. I'd never want to see a situation where players are actually tanking. No one wants to watch that.

The problem is the coaches and players aren't stupid. They know when the organization is tanking. They then internalize the message that the organization values them just enough to try to lose with them. It's culturally poisonous.

That seems to depend on the organization. Philly, Orlando, and Boston are doing just fine tanking away without harming their culture. Heck, they're even getting young guys some great experience while still maintaining an environment of accountability and professionalism.

[nate33]

Tanking looks like it doesn't work because frankly it's really hard to tell a bad or completely inept team from a team that's strategically trying to tank.

I think a strategical tank can work with the right leadership. Tanking should only happen at the organizational level, it shouldn't trickle down to impact what the coaching staff or players do. On court, the players and coaches should be trying to win. That should never change. I'd never want to see a situation where players are actually tanking. No one wants to watch that.

The problem is the coaches and players aren't stupid. They know when the organization is tanking. They then internalize the message that the organization values them just enough to try to lose with them. It's culturally poisonous.

I think this overstates the problem. Players want to win games for pride's sake, and they want to put up good numbers so they can get paid well. Both of those motivations are going to outweigh an institutional decision to get a higher draft pick.

I don't think tanking is much of a problem. Teams may make a decision that they can no longer compete with their current veterans, and that it's time to get younger and start developing younger players, but I don't see that as "tanking". I see that as a rational, long-term approach. As a fan, I'd rather watch my team win 24 games with young up-and-coming players, than win 32 games with over-the-hill vets.