Grunfeld a Great GM. Proves Doubters Wrong

[dckingsfan]

EG isn't entirely incompetent. His FA deals are... average. It's his drafting that stinks big time.

It is interesting... is it his mediocrity in FA dealings or his really poor drafting that has him as a bottom 5 GM. Something interesting to ponder.

[montestewart]

I was wrong about EG's mustache.

[hands11]

Give me some historical analysis, statistical comparisons, give me something other than this newagey hippie crap. Tell me why I should believe there's a title contender in this group of players.

I don't know whether to get on you for poo-pooing new age hippie crap while asking for "historical analysis" or bump Doc's new age hippy crap thread to remind you how well the metaphysics work.

Actually, I think
a) This squad isn't a contender. At all. In fact, short of Lebron or Durant, we're not even at "1 player away" status. Contenders are lucked into, not made. Between the lottery and the randomness at which generational talents pop up (Lebron, Durant...) there's really no way for a GM to even come up with a road map to championships. It's entirely up to fate. And hell, Lebron didn't get one until 2 years ago and Durant still doesn't have one. Dwight is ringless, as is Chris Paul. KG is a top 20 player of all time and only played in the finals but twice. Rings are damn hard to come by. Contenders are damn hard to assemble. Demanding a 5 year plan without a single all-nba caliber talent is shooting for the moon a bit.

b) EG isn't entirely incompetent. His FA deals are... average. It's his drafting that stinks big time.

I think the new CBA its going to make it a easier to design a championship contending team but you do always need some luck. Players have to work out. Injuries. Etc.

Those DET teams where mostly designed weren't they ? Hell, B Wallace, R Wallace and Rip were all Wizards

That was a good example of the pieces fitting together well regarding talent, personalizes, roles, leadership and coaching.

[pancakes3]

Those DET teams where mostly designed weren't they ? Hell, B Wallace, R Wallace and Rip were all Wizards

That was a good example of the pieces fitting together well regarding talent, personalizes, roles, leadership and coaching.

So you've decided to ignore the 6 MJ rings, 5 Kobe Rings, 4 Duncan rings, 5 Magic rings, 3 Bird rings, 2 Isiah Thomas rings, 2 Hakeem rings, 2 Lebron rings, Wade/Shaq's ring, the Boston 3 party, and Dr.J/Moses's ring (that's 32 of the last 34 championships), say that we should follow the '04 Pistons and the '11 Mavs as the best way to field a contender?

And even with the Pistons, you don't think there's a massive overdose of luck?
a) Not one of those guys made over 7 mil a year.
b) Ben Wallace was a 2x DPOY, 2x all-NBA talent who the Pistons absolutely lucked into as filler for a last second sign-and-trade as the injured Grant Hill originally wanted to leave in free agency.
c) Rasheed Wallace was also lucked into as he was double-traded in a confusing carousel of players spun around in a span of 10 days.

You can't tell me that Dumars had that in mind from the beginning. If it was by design, you'd be hard pressed to argue that he also designed fitting a Josh Smith-sized peg into a small-forward sized hole and getting a 29 win team out of it.

[Zonkerbl]

You can get to the finals with good squad design. Stockton+Malone. 89-90 Portland Trailblazers. Barkley's Suns.

To win the Championship right now you need good squad design + one of the all-time greats, Duncan or Lebron or Durant.

[Nivek]

If by "squad design" we mean "getting good players" then, yeah. There's certain work that needs to get done to win games, and that work gets done if you have good players. Those Wallace-Wallace-Billups teams were a collection of lots of really good players. Ben Wallace was an All-NBA level producer for 6+ years, and a borderline MVP-level producer in 2-3 seasons. Billups was another guy playing at a near-MVP level in multiple seasons. These are guys whose production (doing things that cause teams to win) was greater than their reputations.

[Zonkerbl]

I guess I mean "good squad design + luck" because you can't get an all time great by design. That just sorta happens.

[hands11]

Those DET teams where mostly designed weren't they ? Hell, B Wallace, R Wallace and Rip were all Wizards

That was a good example of the pieces fitting together well regarding talent, personalizes, roles, leadership and coaching.

So you've decided to ignore the 6 MJ rings, 5 Kobe Rings, 4 Duncan rings, 5 Magic rings, 3 Bird rings, 2 Isiah Thomas rings, 2 Hakeem rings, 2 Lebron rings, Wade/Shaq's ring, the Boston 3 party, and Dr.J/Moses's ring (that's 32 of the last 34 championships), say that we should follow the '04 Pistons and the '11 Mavs as the best way to field a contender?

And even with the Pistons, you don't think there's a massive overdose of luck?
a) Not one of those guys made over 7 mil a year.
b) Ben Wallace was a 2x DPOY, 2x all-NBA talent who the Pistons absolutely lucked into as filler for a last second sign-and-trade as the injured Grant Hill originally wanted to leave in free agency.
c) Rasheed Wallace was also lucked into as he was double-traded in a confusing carousel of players spun around in a span of 10 days.

You can't tell me that Dumars had that in mind from the beginning. If it was by design, you'd be hard pressed to argue that he also designed fitting a Josh Smith-sized peg into a small-forward sized hole and getting a 29 win team out of it.

Look, unless you want me to write an essay for every post, than posts are not going to include everything. I was focusing on moving forward and the new CBA. And I did mention luck so I don't get your point.

Hard to see how anyone would take issue with my post unless they are just looking to be argumentative.

[pancakes3]

My point is that you shouldn't just mention luck. Luck is the bulk of it. Whatever best laid plans you, or EG, or whoever the next GM is, is insignificant when compared to luck as it pertains to fielding a legitimate title contender. We can wheel and deal our way to a playoff team (like we currently are) but to expect to compete without a generational player is a pipe dream.

[Brenice]

The draft is pure luck. The year the Wiz picked Kwame #1, #1 he was rated as such and outside of Gasol, who was really available?

For Grunfeld, we got Wall #1 #1 and I'm not complaining, but there was no LeBron, Shaq, Duncan, Durant, etc. The year we picked Vesely, Vesely was rated at that spot, just like JaVale, Nick Young. Ernie hit on Beal, because he could have chosen someone else. Otto, I still think he was picked as part of the Georgetown/Ted connection, possibly by Ted when you consider we already had 2 players at his position.

Ernie had his failures surrounding the draft, but not in the picks that was obvious so he gets no credit for Wall or no fault for Vesely. His mid-first picks are just that, crapshoots like everyone else.

[milellie111]

Comments so far are interesting. The fact is, some moves that seem "terrible" now and are used to make it seem like Grunfeld is a horrible GM, are moves that made sense at the time and are moves that other GM's would have made if they were in those positions.

In 2011, Vesely was picked where he was ranked and expected to go even on mocks. This was not a head scratcher or a reach. http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2011/
He was the right pick at the time, over Biyomobo, Brandon Knight, Kemba Walker, and Fredette. All whom he was ranked over and based on need. As a glimpse into Vesely's profile, his weaknesses were glaring (shooting and taking care of the ball/creating his own shot) but those are not weaknesses that could not have been fixed. His strengths on the other hand were eye appealing and showed promise of an athletic freak of a big man with hustle and high upside.

"He rarely, if ever, was asked to go out and create his own shot on his own, seeing just 2.8% of his offense in isolation situations, which ranks 15th of the 18 players in this study, ahead of Malcolm Thomas and Matthew Bryan-Amaning, but nevertheless ranked as the 5th most turnover prone, coughing the ball up on 15% of his possessions.

By contrast, 25% of his possessions came in spot-up situations, which puts him near the top in this category after Robin Benzing (39%), Chandler Parsons (26.2%) and Justin Harper (25.5%).

He was not terribly effective as a jump-shooter, though, garnering .78 points per shot he attempted, 5th worst in this group—almost all of which in catch and shoot situations.

On the other hand, Vesely's athleticism shines through with the way he was able to convert opportunities around the basket, shooting 74% from the field in these situations, first in this group.

Not surprisingly, Vesely ranks amongst the most effective finishers off cuts (3rd), offensive rebounds (2nd), post-ups (3rd) and in transition (6th).

He was also able to draw free throws at the third highest rate (on 19.4% of his possessions) in this study, trailing just Derrick Williams and Jimmy Butler.

If Vesely can shore up his ball-handling and perimeter shooting ability, he has all the makings of an incredibly versatile player.

From DraftExpress.com http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Jan-Vesely-1402/




Blaming Ernie Grunfeld years later for drafing Jan Vesely and not skipping over 5 higher rated players to draft Klay Thompson is unbelievable and unrealistic. Most GM's in that situation would not have done that, so why expect it from Ernie?

Klay Thompson had weaknesses as well which could be argued as to why he didn't deserve to be selected higher:


"Thompson's 1.103 PPP on pick-and-rolls easily ranks first in the class (no one else breaks the 1.0 threshold), while his 1.15 PPP on spot-ups and 1.0 PPP on screens are both above average. Thompson is less impressive in isolations, where his 0.788 PPP ranks just 13th overall, unsurprising given his athletic limitations.

Thompson's 1.094 PPS on jumpers ranks third in the class, but his 9.1 jumpers per game is the most of any player, and the two players ranking above him in efficiency both take far fewer attempts (Jon Diebler at 5.4 and David Lighty at 4.1).

On the other hand, Thompson's limitations show in his ability to finish around the basket, where his 1.116 PPS ranks 12th overall.

From DraftExpress.comhttp://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Klay-Thompson-5490/


Again, easy to bash now 3 years later and looking at the unforseen but I highly doubt someone could use this as a way to define a GM as terrible. No one had a "crystal ball".

Trading away the 2009 #5 pick was not franchise crippling as many make it seem. Looked who was picked at 5. Rubio then Johnny Flynn at 6. Yes, Curry was picked at 7, but again how did it set the franchise back when we selected Wall the following year? Then Beal in 2012? Compare the backcourt of Wall and Beal with Curry and Thompson. Both are in discussions as the best backcourts in the league. Some give a slight nod to Curry and Thompson right now, but Wall and Beal are both younger and will only get better. Plus, Wall is a much better defender than Curry. Interesting article posted today on that very subject: http://thebiglead.com/2014/04/23/john-wall-and-brad-beal-or-klay-thompson-and-stephen-curry-which-is-the-best-young-backcourt-in-the-nba/

Many say all Ernie does is "clean up his own mess". Well that's what I want. A GM who realizes something isn't working out and is proactive in fixing the problem. Not a GM who is too arrogant to do anything because he wants to prove everyone wrong that his picks/transactions will work out eventually.

[daSwami]

In 2011, Vesely was picked where he was ranked and expected to go even on mocks. This was not a head scratcher or a reach. http://www.draftexpress.com/nba-mock-draft/2011/
He was the right pick at the time, over Biyomobo, Brandon Knight, Kemba Walker, and Fredette. All whom he was ranked over and based on need. As a glimpse into Vesely's profile, his weaknesses were glaring (shooting and taking care of the ball/creating his own shot) but those are not weaknesses that could not have been fixed. His strengths on the other hand were eye appealing and showed promise of an athletic freak of a big man with hustle and high upside.

The thing about most of these Internet "mock drafts" is that they slot players based on the source intel they have re: which players teams are looking at. For whatever reason, the mock sites knew EG had his sights set on Vesely waaayy before the draft. They had JV locked into the sixth slot, not because he was universally thought of as the sixth-best player in the draft, but because EG had already tipped his hand.

[Nivek]

Except, Millie, knocking the Vesely pick isn't hindsight. Many on this board specifically didn't want Vesely. Of those who didn't want Vesely, I don't remember anyone who preferred Thompson. Most wanted Kawhi Leonard and Faried in the 1st round. At the time. Before the picks were made.

[montestewart]

The draft is pure luck. The year the Wiz picked Kwame #1, #1 he was rated as such and outside of Gasol, who was really available?

For Grunfeld, we got Wall #1 #1 and I'm not complaining, but there was no LeBron, Shaq, Duncan, Durant, etc. The year we picked Vesely, Vesely was rated at that spot, just like JaVale, Nick Young. Ernie hit on Beal, because he could have chosen someone else. Otto, I still think he was picked as part of the Georgetown/Ted connection, possibly by Ted when you consider we already had 2 players at his position.

Ernie had his failures surrounding the draft, but not in the picks that was obvious so he gets no credit for Wall or no fault for Vesely. His mid-first picks are just that, crapshoots like everyone else.

Make a note of this so I don't have to keep repeating it. Vesely WAS NOT the consensus 6th best player in the draft. The consensus was that the Wizards would pick Vesely because they telegraphed that move so heavily leading up to the draft, so much so that some people just assumed they were bluffing. If Wall, Beal, Porter fall short, hard to fault EG too much for that. Vesely is far from the same case.

[montestewart]

Except, Millie, knocking the Vesely pick isn't hindsight. Many on this board specifically didn't want Vesely. Of those who didn't want Vesely, I don't remember anyone who preferred Thompson. Most wanted Kawhi Leonard and Faried in the 1st round. At the time. Before the picks were made.

There was a poll. I think "Anyone but Vesely" came in 3rd.

[pancakes3]

Couple that with the devil-may-care approach when it comes to adding draft picks into trade packages and it only strengthens the argument that EG is a terrible drafter - comprehensively.

[Brenice]

The draft is pure luck. The year the Wiz picked Kwame #1, #1 he was rated as such and outside of Gasol, who was really available?

For Grunfeld, we got Wall #1 #1 and I'm not complaining, but there was no LeBron, Shaq, Duncan, Durant, etc. The year we picked Vesely, Vesely was rated at that spot, just like JaVale, Nick Young. Ernie hit on Beal, because he could have chosen someone else. Otto, I still think he was picked as part of the Georgetown/Ted connection, possibly by Ted when you consider we already had 2 players at his position.

Ernie had his failures surrounding the draft, but not in the picks that was obvious so he gets no credit for Wall or no fault for Vesely. His mid-first picks are just that, crapshoots like everyone else.

Make a note of this so I don't have to keep repeating it. Vesely WAS NOT the consensus 6th best player in the draft. The consensus was that the Wizards would pick Vesely because they telegraphed that move so heavily leading up to the draft, so much so that some people just assumed they were bluffing. If Wall, Beal, Porter fall short, hard to fault EG too much for that. Vesely is far from the same case.

As a "project" he was. Game wise no, but athletically and length, yes. Yes he was a mistake. But he would not have slid far down based on the length and athleticism. It's not like Ernie picked Vesely instead of Wade, Bosh, or Melo like Dumars did when he picked Darko. Nobody of Wade, Bosh, or Melo caliber was available.

[montestewart]

The draft is pure luck. The year the Wiz picked Kwame #1, #1 he was rated as such and outside of Gasol, who was really available?

For Grunfeld, we got Wall #1 #1 and I'm not complaining, but there was no LeBron, Shaq, Duncan, Durant, etc. The year we picked Vesely, Vesely was rated at that spot, just like JaVale, Nick Young. Ernie hit on Beal, because he could have chosen someone else. Otto, I still think he was picked as part of the Georgetown/Ted connection, possibly by Ted when you consider we already had 2 players at his position.

Ernie had his failures surrounding the draft, but not in the picks that was obvious so he gets no credit for Wall or no fault for Vesely. His mid-first picks are just that, crapshoots like everyone else.

Make a note of this so I don't have to keep repeating it. Vesely WAS NOT the consensus 6th best player in the draft. The consensus was that the Wizards would pick Vesely because they telegraphed that move so heavily leading up to the draft, so much so that some people just assumed they were bluffing. If Wall, Beal, Porter fall short, hard to fault EG too much for that. Vesely is far from the same case.

As a "project" he was. Game wise no, but athletically and length, yes. Yes he was a mistake. But he would not have slid far down based on the length and athleticism

For me, length and athleticism got old a long time ago. If you can't play ball, it ain't much good. I hated that pick, but once he was on the team, I wanted him to succeed, somehow. But trying for a solid contributor rather than a long shot home run would have been a better move at that point, especially a rebounder, which is what made Faried, Leonard, and Vucevic attractive targets.

[daSwami]

But guys, remember EG has done an amazing job of ridding this team of God-awful contracts. (Never mind that he was the one who either acquired or negotiated those bad contracts in the first place.)

[Brenice]

Make a note of this so I don't have to keep repeating it. Vesely WAS NOT the consensus 6th be St player in the draft. The consensus was that the Wizards would pick Vesely because they telegraphed that move so heavily leading up to the draft, so much so that some people just assumed they were bluffing. If Wall, Beal, Porter fall short, hard to fault EG too much for that. Vesely is far from the same case.

As a "project" he was. Game wise no, but athletically and length, yes. Yes he was a mistake. But he would not have slid far down based on the length and athleticism

For me, length and athleticism got old a long time ago. If you can't play ball, it ain't much good. I hated that pick, but once he was on the team, I wanted him to succeed, somehow. But trying for a solid contributor rather than a long shot home run would have been a better move at that point, especially a rebounder, which is what made Faried, Leonard, and Vucevic attractive targets.

I agree. But as edited in my post you quoted, no sure fire all star was available. It didn't work out, but I understand the pick.

It ain't like Vesely couldn't have panned out, he just didn't. Some team traded Tractor Traylor for Dirk. If Ernie had picked Faried instead of Vesely, what would people be saying about Ernie if Jan's game grew to match his athleticism and he was an all-star? You know what is said about the Webber and Rasheed trades. It's a gamble.