Worst Front Office(s) in the last 15 years?

amcoolio · Post #41 » by **amcoolio** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:19 am

A lot of this depends on luck. For instance Charlotte lost coin flips for Chris Paul and Derrick Rose and was one ping pong ball away from Anthony Davis. That's not to say that Charlotte wasn't completely awful during the pre MJ era. That was horrendous as easily the worst hands down

3Diamantidis · Post #42 » by **3Diamantidis** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:25 am

Judging by the results the bucks FO also deserves a mention. Not the worst but one of the worse

Soupman · Post #43 » by **Soupman** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:27 am

Nets and Knicks.
What are the Nets doing? Really. What are they doing? They can't even tank right.

Knicks fans get tortured yearly by their FO. Good thing they hired Scott Perry to right the ship.

Post #44 » by **Prez** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:30 am

Soupman wrote:Nets and Knicks.
What are the Nets doing? Really. What are they doing? They can't even tank right.

Knicks fans get tortured yearly by their FO. Good thing they hired Scott Perry to right the ship.

Are you talking about the Nets right now? They don't have their pick. The new staff in Brooklyn is doing about as good of a job as you could ask for given the limitations.

giberish · Post #45 » by **giberish** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:34 am

The Nets have the peak here, but not the legs.

The Knicks, Kings and Minnesota really have the consistency over the whole range.

walk with me · Post #46 » by **walk with me** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:14 am

Knicks and kings winning big makes sense

Brooklyn is the trendy pick but they shouldnt be.

Minnesota is the 3rd team

Black Jack · Post #47 » by **Black Jack** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:21 am

I know the arguments but I gotta go Nets. They went scorched earth on their future for YEARS just to get the leftovers of a washed up squad from BOS that LeBron already dismantled. It's really not close.

Even Sacto had Cousins, has a nice future now. NYK has he unicorn. Nets...I mean it's just not fair :nonono:

remember the Crash trade :banghead:

Hangtime84 · Post #48 » by **Hangtime84** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:25 am

Kings and Knicks. Timberwolves

Hangtime84 · Post #49 » by **Hangtime84** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:28 am

Mr Funk wrote:GarPax are really gunning for this recognition considering the dumpster fire and toxic culture they've created, a fine job of running the Bulls into the ground.

Not even close

Post #50 » by **Young_Star11** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:36 am

My picks were Knicks, Kings and Wolves. Poll has it Knicks, Kings and Nets.

Knicks - prove that being in a big market doesn't guarantee anything; were a mess between 2003 - 2010, bad contracts everywhere, decided to clear decks for 2010 and didn't get a lot out of Amar'e/Melo/Chandler (a 2nd round appearance), and the cycle is repeating

Kings - should have won title in 2003, been downhill ever since; haven't tanked properly, drafted poorly for years and years, only good pick (Cousins) hasn't proven to be a winner in the NBA, perhaps finally getting back on track

Wolves - no playoffs since 2003/04, traded KG, missed opportunities and bad draft picks year after year, didn't give Love his 5-year extension and had to trade him (got great value admittedly), finally back on track now.

Post #51 » by **Young_Star11** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:39 am

Can't go the Nets based on the "last 15 years".

Kidd/VC/RJ from 2003-2007 made the playoffs each year, they had a 12-win season one year which was horrible, they moved to Brooklyn (good move), then mortgaged their future for aging stars and have been suffering in last 2 seasons.

jamalkandur · Post #52 » by **jamalkandur** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:47 am

There is no discussion about owners of the first two seats Wolves and Kings which they are holding longest current playoff drought records by far with 13 and 11 concetutive seasons. You can argue about third seat tho.

Mr Peanut · Post #53 » by **Mr Peanut** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:54 am

Detroit hate is real. Six straight ECFs and one championship and they somehow make this list...

Deivork · Post #54 » by **Deivork** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:04 am

Mr Peanut wrote:Detroit hate is real. Six straight ECFs and one championship and they somehow make this list...

Detroit hate is real? Come on man. I'm sorry, maybe you guys are right and Pistons FO hasn't been a top 10 worst front office, but poll is set and as I said in the introduction you can't put them all so you can vote by commenting too. Jeez, no hate.

Post #55 » by **Froob** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:39 am

Knicks, Kings, T-Wolves. Nets had the worst run, but they weren't consistently terrible.

Pharaoh · Post #56 » by **Pharaoh** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:56 am

Deivork wrote:
Mr Peanut wrote:Detroit hate is real. Six straight ECFs and one championship and they somehow make this list...

Detroit hate is real? Come on man. I'm sorry, maybe you guys are right and Pistons FO hasn't been a top 10 worst front office, but poll is set and as I said in the introduction you can't put them all so you can vote by commenting too. Jeez, no hate.

I believe the reason Piston fans are annoyed is: they shouldn't have been included in the poll in the first place due to the championship & back to back Finals

What have you done for me lately is not an excuse

Sent from my SM-J110F using RealGM mobile app

HeatedEnd · Post #57 » by **HeatedEnd** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:11 pm

The only real options has to be between the Knicks and the Kings. Disfunctional front office, no remote significant success on the court. The nets had a short decent run. The wolves you can argue as a third team but they actually look like they are finally turning the corner recently. I'm not sure what the Pistons nor the Bulls are doing in this list.

Mrva · Post #58 » by **Mrva** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 1:32 pm

HotelVitale wrote:Unrelated note: a lot of the Wolves bad moves were draft busts, and I don't think it's interesting or useful to judge FOs based on weak drafting as long as they didn't reach for prospects. Guys like Corey Brewer, Wes Johnson, and Derrick Williams were busts but someone would've taken them right after them, more reasonable to chalk that up to draft unpredictability.

There was definitely some inability to develop talent on the Timberwovles. Some of those guys weren't put in a position to succeed.

For example, if Leonard landed on the Wolves, he wouldn't be the player he is today. On the Spurs, in his first year he had only one primary focus. Once he showed he can do that task successfully (defend 1vs1), he was given the next task to build upon that one (spot up 3pt). And so on. That way he was developed gradually, with his confidence raising steadily.
We had a lot super young and super raw guys who needed much more development before being thrust into a demanding role. They were just allowed to play without any system, and it was immediately expected of them to contribute. The failures got into their heads, decreased their confidence, and they weren't able to maximize their potential.

Seabass11 · Post #59 » by **Seabass11** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 3:23 pm

CarMalone wrote:Cleveland should be an option. They were absolutely horrible before they lucked into LeBron James. They wasted the early years of James's career, drafted horribly, and is only a contender because they lucked into three #1 picks + James coming back.

While I can't argue they wasted LeBron's early years with some terrible trades, they made the playoffs 8/15 years, made the Finals 4 times, and have an NBA champsionship...and you think they should be an option for WORST front office during that span? C'mon man...

CarMalone · Post #60 » by **CarMalone** » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:00 pm

Seabass11 wrote:
CarMalone wrote:Cleveland should be an option. They were absolutely horrible before they lucked into LeBron James. They wasted the early years of James's career, drafted horribly, and is only a contender because they lucked into three #1 picks + James coming back.

While I can't argue they wasted LeBron's early years with some terrible trades, they made the playoffs 8/15 years, made the Finals 4 times, and have an NBA champsionship...and you think they should be an option for WORST front office during that span? C'mon man...

I didn't say they were the worst. I just said that they should be an option. I think most front offices would have had more success had they been given the same opportunities as the Cavs during that same span. If an organization was given four #1 picks including arguably the second best player of all time, a #6 pick, two #4 picks, and largely avoided major injuries during that span, they should be expected to make the playoffs 8/15 years and it shouldn't be a complete surprise to make the Finals 4 times in the East.

A lot of their mistakes were unforced errors (Carlos Boozer's departure, poor drafting, Mike Brown, Larry Hughes, etc). I don't think the Cavs's playoff success is an indication of how good their front office is, it's more a testament to how good LeBron is. Most people would agree that putting LeBron James on a generic team in the East in the past 15 years would instantly make them a playoff team and give them a high probability of making the Finals.

Which Front Office(s) has/have been the worst in the last 15 years (2003-2017)? Up to 3 choices