Is it time to fire McD?

[bwgood77]

Didn't know this, and this proves a good point that jcsunsfan made,, where he said he should be promoted to VP Player Personnel and Scouting or something of that nature, and bring in another GM to handle the interpersonal relationships, dealing with players, scouts, coaches, other GMs, etc, since this is obviously not his strong suit.

... yeah, but that would be a demotion, really. A promotion would be giving McDonough the title of "Vice President of Basketball Operations," which would mean that he would possess even greater clout.

Yeah, in my original response to it I didn't think it sounded like a promotion, and I don't know that Sarver would want to pay a GM and continue to pay McD the same or more.

But just a change in title that doesn't make it APPEAR to be a demotion but a clear change in role would be for the better imo.

[lilfishi22]

If we could talk McD into just running the scouting department, that would be awesome. Unfortunately I think his fate comes down to the lottery this year. We get a top two pick, we probably makes the playoffs next year. A guy like Simmons fills a huge hole on this roster and makes our whole team much better. Anyone not Ingram or Simmons and we may still get a good player, we probably don't improve enough for playoffs and Sarver, as hungry to make those playoffs as he is, will let McD's contract expire.

It all depends on who else we can sign or trade for. I think adding Simmons or Ingram to this current roster wouldn't be enough on it's own and I generally think people overestimate how immediate the impact of adding a premier talent in the draft will be.

AD was great as a rookie, and Blake Griffin and others were great their first years, but rarely does a team transform that quickly because of a rookie.

Clearly more changes to the roster and HOPEFULLY a final set roster to move forward with for the new coach so he isn't in the same situation we just watched happen.

It's not enough to turn this team around and if Ingram or Simmons are available, then it's an obvious no-brainer pick. It's what happens when we don't have the #1 or #2 pick, that's when we really see what McD is made of. Will he make the right pick and what other moves does he make following that?

[GMATCallahan]

I am not necessarily advocating a firing, but the more that I consider matters, the worse that some of McDonough's moves look. The Isaiah Thomas trade was terrible, namely because McDonough traded Thomas for, in effect, Cleveland's first round pick. Cleveland's first round pick is more likely to produce the next Alando Tucker or Archie Goodwin than a major asset. (Yes, Goodwin does possess some ability and he is coming off a good game, but he has given few indications of being a consequential long-term player). Even if the Suns are able to do something with that pick, Isaiah Thomas was worth much more than that—he was worth at least a mid-first round pick, if not a bottom-half-of-the-lottery pick.

A better example of how to do it right was when the Suns were shopping Steve Nash in the late 1990s. After the 1997 season, Phoenix offered Nash to the Vancouver Grizzlies for the fourth pick in the draft. Foolishly, Grizzly general manager Stu Jackson turned down the offer. After the 1998 season, the Suns wanted to re-sign Nash to a long-term contract and eventually start him alongside Jason Kidd, a starting alignment that they had already used ten times after the 1998 All-Star break, including in their final playoff game. Nash, however, wanted to be a clear-cut point guard and to run his own team (remember that his agent is Bill Duffy, who is also Goran Dragic's agent), so he refused to ink a contract extension and effectively forced the Suns to trade him. Phoenix again turned to Vancouver, offering to exchange Nash for the second pick in the draft. Again Jackson foolishly refused. But on draft night, the Suns dealt Nash to Dallas for the Mavericks' first round pick in 1999, which figured to be a prime lottery selection. With the ninth overall pick in 1999, Phoenix drafted Shawn Marion. Conversely, by trading Isaiah Thomas for Cleveland's selection, the Suns are more likely to draft the next Alando Tucker than the next Shawn Marion.

Additionally, one has to wonder why McDonough would have traded a player that he evidently liked—he had just signed Thomas to a four-year contract at reasonable money the previous summer—for such little return.

Meanwhile, giving Tyson Chandler a four-year contract looks like another terrible mistake. A two-year contract would have been acceptable, but four years never made sense to me and looks even worse now. Of course, part of the reason for giving Chandler four years was the motivation to lock him up by any means necessary in order to use him as bait to lure his friend LaMarcus Aldridge. (Hiring Earl Watson, by the way, constituted part of the same plan.) And apparently Aldridge nearly joined the Suns, but in the end, he predictably went elsewhere. Of course, the Aldridge gambit may have reflected Sarver's win-now imperative, in which case the Chandler contract may be principally ascribed to the owner. But unless the Suns hire a big-name executive with authority and a media presence and a championship pedigree, such as Joe Dumars or Isiah Thomas, we may never know where Sarver's role ends and that of his general manager begins. (Of course, we may never know even then, but at least there might be more separation in that case.)

Here is something else to consider: why has Sarver never hired a general manager with prior experience in that role? He has hired four general managers during his ownership, and they have all been novices in the position.

[bwgood77]

If we could talk McD into just running the scouting department, that would be awesome. Unfortunately I think his fate comes down to the lottery this year. We get a top two pick, we probably makes the playoffs next year. A guy like Simmons fills a huge hole on this roster and makes our whole team much better. Anyone not Ingram or Simmons and we may still get a good player, we probably don't improve enough for playoffs and Sarver, as hungry to make those playoffs as he is, will let McD's contract expire.

It all depends on who else we can sign or trade for. I think adding Simmons or Ingram to this current roster wouldn't be enough on it's own and I generally think people overestimate how immediate the impact of adding a premier talent in the draft will be.

AD was great as a rookie, and Blake Griffin and others were great their first years, but rarely does a team transform that quickly because of a rookie.

Clearly more changes to the roster and HOPEFULLY a final set roster to move forward with for the new coach so he isn't in the same situation we just watched happen.

It's not enough to turn this team around and if Ingram or Simmons are available, then it's an obvious no-brainer pick. It's what happens when we don't have the #1 or #2 pick, that's when we really see what McD is made of. Will he make the right pick and what other moves does he make following that?

Well, my guess is that with one year left, the ultimatum will be playoffs or he is gone, so if we don't get top two pick, or there is a guy he REALLY likes, then he may trade the pick in the package for a legit starter. That's the pickle he is in....now unless HE gets an extension HE will be in lame duck status, which means, what good does a raw rookie do for him keeping his job? Not much. We all may hate this even more next year because McD might be more interested in upgrading the talent at the cost of draft picks if he is in lame duck status. And knowing Sarver he WILL be.

The more I think about jcsunsfan suggestion, the more I like it. I do think McD is a good scout. Not sure about the scouting on Brandon Knight at this time so he may have just gotten lucky with the Booker pick. I like Warren too, and like Len more than most here I think.

But if he has the ultimatum to win now and it causes him to sacrifice any of the future for a fantasy land contender next year, the fans are going to be even more pissed.

[AtheJ415]

I am not necessarily advocating a firing, but the more that I consider matters, the worse that some of McDonough's moves look. The Isaiah Thomas trade was terrible, namely because McDonough traded Thomas for, in effect, Cleveland's first round pick. Cleveland's first round pick is more likely to produce the next Alando Tucker or Archie Goodwin than a major asset. (Yes, Goodwin does possess some ability and he is coming off a good game, but he has given few indications of being a consequential long-term player). Even if the Suns are able to do something with that pick, Isaiah Thomas was worth much more than that—he was worth at least a mid-first round pick, if not a bottom-half-of-the-lottery pick.

A better example of how to do it right was when the Suns were shopping Steve Nash in the late 1990s. After the 1997 season, Phoenix offered Nash to the Vancouver Grizzlies for the fourth pick in the draft. Foolishly, Grizzly general manager Stu Jackson turned down the offer. After the 1998 season, the Suns wanted to re-sign Nash to a long-term contract and eventually start him alongside Jason Kidd, a starting alignment that they had already used ten times after the 1998 All-Star break, including in their final playoff game. Nash, however, wanted to be a clear-cut point guard and to run his own team (remember that his agent is Bill Duffy, who is also Goran Dragic's agent), so he refused to ink a contract extension and effectively forced the Suns to trade him. Phoenix again turned to Vancouver, offering to exchange Nash for the second pick in the draft. Again Jackson foolishly refused. But on draft night, the Suns dealt Nash to Dallas for the Mavericks' first round pick in 1999, which figured to be a prime lottery selection. With the ninth overall pick in 1999, Phoenix drafted Shawn Marion. Conversely, by trading Isaiah Thomas for Cleveland's selection, the Suns are more likely to draft the next Alando Tucker than the next Shawn Marion.

Additionally, one has to wonder why McDonough would have traded a player that he evidently liked—he had just signed Thomas to a four-year contract at reasonable money the previous summer—for such little return.

Meanwhile, giving Tyson Chandler a four-year contract looks like another terrible mistake. A two-year contract would have been acceptable, but four years never made sense to me and looks even worse now. Of course, part of the reason for giving Chandler four years was the motivation to lock him up by any means necessary in order to use him as bait to lure his friend LaMarcus Aldridge. (Hiring Earl Watson, by the way, constituted part of the same plan.) And apparently Aldridge nearly joined the Suns, but in the end, he predictably went elsewhere. Of course, the Aldridge gambit may have reflected Sarver's win-now imperative, in which case the Chandler contract may be principally ascribed to the owner. But unless the Suns hire a big-name executive with authority and a media presence and a championship pedigree, such as Joe Dumars or Isiah Thomas, we may never know where Sarver's role ends and that of his general manager begins. (Of course, we may never know even then, but at least there might be more separation in that case.)

Here is something else to consider: why has Sarver never hired a general manager with prior experience in that role? He has hired four general managers during his ownership, and they have all been novices in the position.

It's easy to say IT was worth more with no knowledge of the offers out there. Do you believe a mid first was available and McDonough rejected it? Isaiah was a free agent after putting up better numbers than Kyrie Irving his final year in Sac, and Phoenix was his highest offer at $7 mill/year. That is how the league valued him. Then we made him available, and the best deal was that late first. In fact, I'd suspect that if he was made available now, post all-star selection, he might get a 1st and a 2nd, but not much more. His height and ballstopping is a major problem for a lot of league GMs. They have never valued him based on just his numbers or production. If they did he would've had max offers last FA go around. It's not how I'd value him (I like IT), but it is how the league values him.

[AtheJ415]

I thoroughly question anybody who thinks the guy who drafted Booker, Warren, Bogdan, and also Len and Archie in the worst draft of the modern era according to many, should be fired the year our team is set to have its highest pick in a long time.

[bwgood77]

I thoroughly question anybody who thinks the guy who drafted Booker, Warren, Bogdan, and also Len and Archie in the worst draft of the modern era according to many, should be fired the year our team is set to have its highest pick in a long time.

Yeah, he shouldn't be fired, but he should either be moved to the different position focusing more on scouting/drafting, etc, OR if he is going to remain the GM (and I would rather keep him then can him as I have mentioned a team needs continuity) then he should get a one year extension, or perhaps two, because IF he is a lame duck GM, and has the ultimatum to make the playoffs next year, you lose that long term focus that you need in a GM. But all in all, the owner needs to have that long term (and of course, to some extent, realistic short term focus as well).

The problem is, if we were to lose almost all of our games the rest of the year, which is what the majority of us fans want to give us better lottery odds, I wouldn't be surprised if that made Sarver so mad he fired him. He might feel he still has to do more if Suns have their worst season ever. I mean the year one success is probably more of a credit to Hornacek, since McD was trying to tank, and you know how Sarver thinks. Most of the problems of the last year and a half are results of GM's moves or injuries.

But I do think he is very good at drafting.

[lilfishi22]

Additionally, one has to wonder why McDonough would have traded a player that he evidently liked—he had just signed Thomas to a four-year contract at reasonable money the previous summer—for such little return.

Meanwhile, giving Tyson Chandler a four-year contract looks like another terrible mistake. A two-year contract would have been acceptable, but four years never made sense to me and looks even worse now. Of course, part of the reason for giving Chandler four years was the motivation to lock him up by any means necessary in order to use him as bait to lure his friend LaMarcus Aldridge. (Hiring Earl Watson, by the way, constituted part of the same plan.) And apparently Aldridge nearly joined the Suns, but in the end, he predictably went elsewhere. Of course, the Aldridge gambit may have reflected Sarver's win-now imperative, in which case the Chandler contract may be principally ascribed to the owner. But unless the Suns hire a big-name executive with authority and a media presence and a championship pedigree, such as Joe Dumars or Isiah Thomas, we may never know where Sarver's role ends and that of his general manager begins. (Of course, we may never know even then, but at least there might be more separation in that case.)

Here is something else to consider: why has Sarver never hired a general manager with prior experience in that role? He has hired four general managers during his ownership, and they have all been novices in the position.

I think it was multiple factors which "forced" McD to move Thomas.

1. I think this was a move primarily to dissuade Dragic from wanting out and giving him back his touches/role/minutes.

2. I believe we had already been shopping Thomas for a little while ever since Dragic began questioning the lineups etc and it got to the point where Thomas knew he wasn't a priority. It wasn't respectful to Thomas since I'm positive he was given the assurances he would be a starter and whatnot but was relegated to coming off the bench often. This combined with McD shopping him for at least a quarter of the season in an attempt to appease another disgruntled player, it seemed like it wasn't going to be a happy partnership going forward anyway.

The Tyson Chandler signing was a HUGE gamble which we took in order to get us on the top of Aldridge's list of suitors. It got us to the party but it wasn't enough to go home with the girl. Now we have an ageing C on a crumbling team with playoffs far far in the future for $13m a year. The contract is far from a cap killer but it's still $13m a year in the books which we could use to rebuild the team. I'd like to trade him if possible only because he really doesn't have a role here. We could have a veteran leader for cheaper.

I'm assuming Sarver never hired anyone with legitimate GM experience because he didn't want to be told "no" when he's meddling.

[AtheJ415]

If we trade Tyson for even a 2nd rounder, thus having bought a 2nd rounder (similar to buying a 1st rounder via IT), will people still complain about Tyson's deal?

[bwgood77]

If we trade Tyson for even a 2nd rounder, thus having bought a 2nd rounder (similar to buying a 1st rounder via IT), will people still complain about Tyson's deal?

Not me. I won't complain too much about deals with the current cap predicament and most of our roster on rookie contracts. I don't mind him being around. If we were up against the cap, I'd want to get rid of him.

I guess the bigger question is, would another team trade a 2nd rounder for him and his contract? It's not like he was courted by multiple teams in free agency.

I'm assuming Sarver never hired anyone with legitimate GM experience because he didn't want to be told "no" when he's meddling.

Or because he didn't want to pay someone a lot of money.

[lilfishi22]

If we trade Tyson for even a 2nd rounder, thus having bought a 2nd rounder (similar to buying a 1st rounder via IT), will people still complain about Tyson's deal?

It doesn't look good when you think of it as buying a 2nd rounder but it does fix a mistake we've made in the past. I'd much rather a 2nd rounder (preferable in the early 2nd round) than Chandler in the books for another 3 seasons after this

[AtheJ415]

If we trade Tyson for even a 2nd rounder, thus having bought a 2nd rounder (similar to buying a 1st rounder via IT), will people still complain about Tyson's deal?

Not me. I won't complain too much about deals with the current cap predicament and most of our roster on rookie contracts. I don't mind him being around. If we were up against the cap, I'd want to get rid of him.

I guess the bigger question is, would another team trade a 2nd rounder for him and his contract? It's not like he was courted by multiple teams in free agency.

I'm assuming Sarver never hired anyone with legitimate GM experience because he didn't want to be told "no" when he's meddling.

Or because he didn't want to pay someone a lot of money.

Point being, I'm kind of shocked so many hate the IT trade. It's probably just because he made the all-star team recently. I never believed we signed IT for any reason other than to trade him. We were in the asset accumulation phase, and saw an undervalued player who we could sign and later trade, thus buying a first with our unused cap space as opposed to overpaying for a guy at a position of need.

[bwgood77]

If we trade Tyson for even a 2nd rounder, thus having bought a 2nd rounder (similar to buying a 1st rounder via IT), will people still complain about Tyson's deal?

Not me. I won't complain too much about deals with the current cap predicament and most of our roster on rookie contracts. I don't mind him being around. If we were up against the cap, I'd want to get rid of him.

I guess the bigger question is, would another team trade a 2nd rounder for him and his contract? It's not like he was courted by multiple teams in free agency.

I'm assuming Sarver never hired anyone with legitimate GM experience because he didn't want to be told "no" when he's meddling.

Or because he didn't want to pay someone a lot of money.

Point being, I'm kind of shocked so many hate the IT trade. It's probably just because he made the all-star team recently. I never believed we signed IT for any reason other than to trade him. We were in the asset accumulation phase, and saw an undervalued player who we could sign and later trade, thus buying a first with our unused cap space as opposed to overpaying for a guy at a position of need.

I agree. Great use of cap space for a first rounder. I don't give a crap what fans or analysts think he might have been worth, because we used cap space for a first.

With Tyson, if he is tradeable, fine. I think he probably will be, to somebody, but I'm not completely sure. At least shot blocking, rebounding centers are not as common in the league these days as point guards, so some team may want or need him at some point.

[AtheJ415]

Not me. I won't complain too much about deals with the current cap predicament and most of our roster on rookie contracts. I don't mind him being around. If we were up against the cap, I'd want to get rid of him.

I guess the bigger question is, would another team trade a 2nd rounder for him and his contract? It's not like he was courted by multiple teams in free agency.



Or because he didn't want to pay someone a lot of money.

Point being, I'm kind of shocked so many hate the IT trade. It's probably just because he made the all-star team recently. I never believed we signed IT for any reason other than to trade him. We were in the asset accumulation phase, and saw an undervalued player who we could sign and later trade, thus buying a first with our unused cap space as opposed to overpaying for a guy at a position of need.

I agree. Great use of cap space for a first rounder. I don't give a crap what fans or analysts think he might have been worth, because we used cap space for a first.

With Tyson, if he is tradeable, fine. I think he probably will be, to somebody, but I'm not completely sure. At least shot blocking, rebounding centers are not as common in the league these days as point guards, so some team may want or need him at some point.

I'm not really sure either. I think our best bet would be a team that wants Dwight failing to get him, or Miami losing Whiteside and needing a replacement, but I'd be weary of the contracts we'd have to take back in the latter scenario to make it work.

We should keep at least 1 vet, and it does seem like Tucker and Markieff will finally be moved this deadline, so I'm okay keeping Chandler for now, but I just look at this team and we can make better use of Tyson's cap space.

[GMATCallahan]

1. I think this was a move primarily to dissuade Dragic from wanting out and giving him back his touches/role/minutes.

2. I believe we had already been shopping Thomas for a little while ever since Dragic began questioning the lineups etc and it got to the point where Thomas knew he wasn't a priority. It wasn't respectful to Thomas since I'm positive he was given the assurances he would be a starter and whatnot but was relegated to coming off the bench often. This combined with McD shopping him for at least a quarter of the season in an attempt to appease another disgruntled player, it seemed like it wasn't going to be a happy partnership going forward anyway.

The Tyson Chandler signing was a HUGE gamble which we took in order to get us on the top of Aldridge's list of suitors. It got us to the party but it wasn't enough to go home with the girl. Now we have an ageing C on a crumbling team with playoffs far far in the future for $13m a year. The contract is far from a cap killer but it's still $13m a year in the books which we could use to rebuild the team. I'd like to trade him if possible only because he really doesn't have a role here. We could have a veteran leader for cheaper.

I'm assuming Sarver never hired anyone with legitimate GM experience because he didn't want to be told "no" when he's meddling.

The Suns may well have been shopping Thomas in the first place to try and persuade Dragic to remain in Phoenix, but McDonough had already traded Dragic by the time that he dealt Thomas. For his part, Thomas stated that he was stunned by the trade, that it was not something that he had been expecting or looking for, and that he initially proved disappointed. And Thomas did play great basketball for the Celtics last season in the same kind of Sixth Man role that he had played with Phoenix, so he was not categorically opposed to coming off the bench, and he certainly was not a Markieff Morris-type of quitter. That is not to say that Thomas was happy, but he still "played," if you will.

McDonough may have possessed legitimate reasons for trading Thomas, but the trade was premature—if all that you are going to get is a pick likely to be at number twenty-six or lower. Remember, in 1988, the twenty-sixth pick in the draft would have been a second-round pick. Sure, you might be able to receive something valuable there, but the odds are not good, especially in this era where so many players enter the NBA way too early and thus never develop properly. At least in 1988, the vast majority of players spent four years in college and almost no one entered the draft with less than three years of collegiate experience.

I certainly concur with your concluding sentence about Sarver, which is why I asked that rhetorical question. And for that reason, I would—sooner or later—like to see him hire an executive with a track record and leverage. Perhaps if the losing keeps mounting and the lottery streak keeps extending, Sarver will eventually feel compelled to hire an experienced, big-name, highly paid honcho.

[GMATCallahan]

With their sizes, you couldn’t play all three together a lot and they were all starting-caliber players who deserved to play and had a lot of success in the league.

-Ryan McDonough

http://www.azcentral.com/story/sports/nba/suns/2016/01/15/phoenix-suns-trade-sent-isaiah-thomas-celtics-stardom/78849516/

If McDonough felt that way, and if he still expected to re-sign Bledsoe (an outcome that the Suns could control), then why did he ink Thomas in the first place? When Phoenix obtained Thomas, I imagined that the team's plan was to often feature a three-guard offense similar to what Detroit ran in the late eighties and early nineties with Isiah Thomas, Joe Dumars, and Vinnie Johnson—an alignment (with Johnson coming off the bench and then playing with Thomas and Dumars for significant stretches) that helped produce five straight trips to the Eastern Conference Finals (1987-1991), three straight trips to NBA Finals (1988-1990), and consecutive NBA championships (1989 and 1990). All of those guards were small (6'3" and under in listed heights, almost certainly 6'2" and under in actual heights); all of them were probably shorter than Dragic, although none were as small as Isaiah Thomas. And they thrived in an era where many small forwards were 6'8" or taller and/or constituted major post-up players and/or major rebounders and/or very physical players—Larry Bird and James Worthy for just a couple of examples.

So I felt that McDonough was planning on seeing the three of them play together a fair amount, especially since today's NBA—with the rules and the court spacing—is more conducive to that kind of outside-the-box concept. If he was not planning on doing so, then he really should not have inked Thomas, even if the mighty mite provided insurance for Bledsoe given the latter's restricted free agency and history of knee injuries.

For the record (at least according to the available data, which at least represents the overwhelming majority of the data), the Suns played Thomas, Dragic, and Bledsoe together for a total of 95.8 minutes in two different five-man lineups—numbers seven and eighteen here:

http://www.82games.com/1415/1415PHO2.HTM

The super-small lineup (number seven), with Thomas, Dragic, and Bledsoe playing with P.J. Tucker (as the nominal power forward) and Markieff Morris (as the nominal center) produced a modest +2 net points total. That lineup constituted one of the Suns' worst defensively, because it was obviously just too small—there was no true center and four of the players were probably under 6'4" in actual height. Additionally, that lineup likely enabled opponents to play small lineups themselves and thus switch defensive assignments easily and effectively, diminishing Phoenix's offense advantage.

The bigger lineup (number eighteen), however, with Thomas, Dragic, and Bledsoe playing with Markieff Morris and Alex Len, performed spectacularly at +36. Granted, the minutes sample was only half as large, but it represented the Suns' best offensive lineup (1.32 points scored per possession) and their best defensive lineup (0.83 points allowed per possession). Evidently, that lineup gave the Suns the best of both worlds: they could play their three best offensive players (Thomas, Dragic, and Bledsoe) simultaneously while also enjoying enough size and rim protection defensively. Len's size might have also resulted in better offensive screens and a greater presence on the offensive glass, thus enhancing the unit's offensive efficiency as well.

In other words, there was some serious potential there—if Phoenix had begun featuring that lineup for even five or ten minutes per game, the Suns probably would have made the playoffs last year. Potentially, Hornacek just needed more time to sort through matters and develop his rotation, or he just needed more input from the "analytics" people. Yet McDonough either was unaware of this data or he decided that other priorities—Dragic's looming free agency and some of the chemistry concerns—warranted pushing the reset button and rearranging the roster. Still, playing the three guards together could work—doing so resulted in a net of +38 points over 95.8 minutes. And when playing the three of them with the Suns' best natural center (Len) and starting power foward (Markieff Morris), the alignment worked spectacularly.

So McDonough signed a player whose acquisition only really made sense if the Suns would use a three-guard lineup for a fair amount of minutes. And at least with the right complements of big men, that lineup indeed worked with spectacular efficiency. But McDonough then traded two of the three guards on the same day and later proclaimed that the trio was not not viable as an on-court unit.

If any of that makes McDonough seem like a guy who really knows what he is doing, let me know ...

[8on]

We still don't understand the IT signing.

Here's what it could've been:
a. insurance for Bledsoe taking the QO that summer, in an attempt to stay somewhat competitive
b. insurance for Dragic walking the following the summer, for the same purpose
c. insurance in the event that Bledsoe were to get hurt again
d. consistent backup PG play

I think it was all of those things. For $7M a year? Grand theft roto.

We know the egos in the locker room began to clash. We know what Dragic said. We knew we had to trade Dragic.

We wanted to get better defensively, and we weren't going to do that with Bledsoe and Thomas. We looked at a potential buy low opportunity in Brandon Knight, and, given his perceived willingness to play off the ball, we went for it.

(I've just seen a rumor that Milwaukee has put MCW on the block. Makes me wonder whether they'd like a mulligan.)

Did the IT signing push Dragic out?

First of all, how do you know that the IT signing was the reason that Dragic wanted to go? I've heard rumblings that Dragic wanted Bledsoe gone, so he could be the sole point guard.

In today's game, this may seem like a crazy idea, but I think the job of the FO should not be to manage and/or cater to players' egos, but rather to bring in players WITHOUT egos, or with minimal egos. Those tend to be the guys who play selfless basketball, anyway.

If Dragic wanted to go to Miami or LA, we couldn't really stop him. It doesn't matter why. The IT signing was, if nothing else, a great insurance policy. Once we had the green light on the Brandon Knight deal, we didn't need it anymore, so we got some picks out of it instead.

Doesn't need to be anymore complicated than that. Given how tight McD and Horny seemed to be, yes, it does take some credibility away from him. Do I want him gone? I think he's much more of an asset than a liability. I think that despite winning 48 games, that formula wasn't going to last, especially given how Channing Frye has been playing in Orlando. So, McD had to build a new ship. It's not easy to see what happened, but I honestly feel like McD did the best job he could in trying to reshape a roster that wasn't going to sustain its success, and transitioning into a young roster with abundant potential.

We do have to wait to see that potential play out. It's been sticky, but I still trust McD.