2021-22 NBA Season Discussion

[cupcakesnake]

I think NOLAs problem is that they just made bad trades and bad draft picks. They let a very good PG walk for nothing and replaced him with someone who's terrible (that they drafted). They also can't keep their best two players healthy which is an entirely different issue.

Often times I think that teams do try and pull the trigger too quickly once they have a couple guys that show promise. The timing is key, because if those moves don't cash in like you expected it doesn't really leave a lot of room for improvement when those core players are actually capable of contending (if they ever are).

Personally, I don't think the Cavs should be looking to make a move at this point. The team is 7-4 and effectively in it's first season together. They need to do a lot more to prove themselves before they start packaging draft picks to improve.

Yeah the Lonzo Ball move was strange even if we all saw it coming. Not sure exactly why they telegraphed early how little interest they had in paying Ball.

I was thinking a bit about New Orleans today, as everyone is sounding the alarms on the franchise being doomed. I'm not sure I'm at the same level of concern. Zion's health is by far the biggest factor here. If he's healthy we're looking at a different situation because we're all mad they aren't building an immediate contender around him. If Zion is going to miss most of the season due to his foot and conditioning and future injury concern, this seems like a year to just tank around Jonas Valanciunas. New Orleans hasn't made all bad moves: the package they got for Jrue was what some teams get back for an MVP caliber player. They have a lot of extra draft capital in upcoming years, and if the Lakers fall apart after this season (due to Lebron health), that draft capital is pretty juicy. Zion is 21, and injury concerns might make it hard for him to flee New Orleans early. Some good performance in the draft in the next 2-3 seasons might be the slow build that so many people advocate for.

I think what I’m feeling more and more is that we shouldn’t be going ga ga over GMs that ship out talent for assets. No matter how skilled they are in milking the process for all it’s worth, if they never turn those assets into a great team, there’s no reason another team should hire such GMs after they are fired.

It may still work out for NO simply because Zion is Zion, but it doesn’t feel like they have any actual vision.

I also worry for the city here losing the franchise. Realistically, there are more than 32 other markets that could probably be more lucrative and they are holding on at this point out of inertia. There’s so much to the culture of NO that’s worth celebrating and I don’t want them to lose a source of joy and revenue - and I do feel like a good run with Zion can keep that going - but it’s not looking good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Zion's health is outweighing (no pun intended... sigh) the front office moves. My perception is that New Orleans was hungry to compete right away. They brought in Favors, JJ Redick, and kept Holiday to put around their flashy new core imported from the Lakers. I thought of them that offseason as a potential sneaky playoff team if Zion could hit the ground running. Instead he was hurt, and they pivoted to a slow build since Jrue was 30 and Zion's health was uncertain.

I could at least understand their thinking for those 2 years, and if Zion was a normal healthy player, they'd be in a different situation. Zion also projected to be a plus defender (I remember flying Draymond comparisons and liking them when he was at Duke), instead he's a bit of a liability, so that changes a lot about what they'd have to do to build a contender.

I guess I don't see a problem right now with moving the Zion timeline back a couple years, focusing on him getting healthy and prioritizing flexibility in their team building rather than immediate Zion fits.

Most people would casually say that New Orleans has one of the worst front offices in basketball, but I'm a bit empathetic to the sheer volume on injury problems they've had, going back to the AD era.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah the Lonzo Ball move was strange even if we all saw it coming. Not sure exactly why they telegraphed early how little interest they had in paying Ball.

I was thinking a bit about New Orleans today, as everyone is sounding the alarms on the franchise being doomed. I'm not sure I'm at the same level of concern. Zion's health is by far the biggest factor here. If he's healthy we're looking at a different situation because we're all mad they aren't building an immediate contender around him. If Zion is going to miss most of the season due to his foot and conditioning and future injury concern, this seems like a year to just tank around Jonas Valanciunas. New Orleans hasn't made all bad moves: the package they got for Jrue was what some teams get back for an MVP caliber player. They have a lot of extra draft capital in upcoming years, and if the Lakers fall apart after this season (due to Lebron health), that draft capital is pretty juicy. Zion is 21, and injury concerns might make it hard for him to flee New Orleans early. Some good performance in the draft in the next 2-3 seasons might be the slow build that so many people advocate for.

I think what I’m feeling more and more is that we shouldn’t be going ga ga over GMs that ship out talent for assets. No matter how skilled they are in milking the process for all it’s worth, if they never turn those assets into a great team, there’s no reason another team should hire such GMs after they are fired.

It may still work out for NO simply because Zion is Zion, but it doesn’t feel like they have any actual vision.

I also worry for the city here losing the franchise. Realistically, there are more than 32 other markets that could probably be more lucrative and they are holding on at this point out of inertia. There’s so much to the culture of NO that’s worth celebrating and I don’t want them to lose a source of joy and revenue - and I do feel like a good run with Zion can keep that going - but it’s not looking good.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think Zion's health is outweighing (no pun intended... sigh) the front office moves. My perception is that New Orleans was hungry to compete right away. They brought in Favors, JJ Redick, and kept Holiday to put around their flashy new core imported from the Lakers. I thought of them that offseason as a potential sneaky playoff team if Zion could hit the ground running. Instead he was hurt, and they pivoted to a slow build since Jrue was 30 and Zion's health was uncertain.

I could at least understand their thinking for those 2 years, and if Zion was a normal healthy player, they'd be in a different situation. Zion also projected to be a plus defender (I remember flying Draymond comparisons and liking them when he was at Duke), instead he's a bit of a liability, so that changes a lot about what they'd have to do to build a contender.

I guess I don't see a problem right now with moving the Zion timeline back a couple years, focusing on him getting healthy and prioritizing flexibility in their team building rather than immediate Zion fits.

Most people would casually say that New Orleans has one of the worst front offices in basketball, but I'm a bit empathetic to the sheer volume on injury problems they've had, going back to the AD era.

Well and of course, Zion's health is the elephant in the room.

Re: hungry to compete right away. Yes they were and that can be seen as a mistake, but I do think with guys like Adams & Favors they are essentially trying to give Zion an on-court partner to take care of stuff he's not ready to take care of yet. Your ideal scenario involves Zion at the 5, but you just can't do that now, so what do you do? Can't draft a young 5, so you need to go get veterans. The logic may be right or wrong in the end, but it's not crazy.

I'm much more disturbed by the way Griffin seemed to decide quickly "I've got my 2 stars in Zion & Ingram, and everything else we've got to let go", because I have yet to see any evidence that Zion & Ingram actually make sense together and I don't see any reason to elevate Ingram to co-franchise player. I'm not sure what the right move was, but if Griffin had kept Lonzo for a reasonable price and traded Ingram for a haul, that would have been more reassuring to me. I got how Zion & Lonzo fit together, so it's discouraging to see Griffin so quick to trade the guy Zion showed chemistry with.

Re: no problem with moving the timeline back. Except they are on their 3rd coach in 3 years as of the start of this season. You can certainly try to get people to be patient with the process now, but as of this past off-season, that's not how Griffin's been operating with any facet of things.

It definitely reminds of how things were in Cleveland with LeBron - in both stints - and I continue to marvel the way Griffin managed to come out of Cleveland with people impressed by him when every other GM from the Cavs became a punchline.

Re: people say one of the worst front offices but.... Well, I do think this is a situation where it's important not to put too much stock in the throughline because I think Demps was a very different story than Griffin. With Demps you're talking about a guy who got literally countermanded by David Stern - still one of the most egregious abuses I've ever seen a commisioner do - he was a placeholder, who got held in place a long time, and so while he did a poor job, it was a classic case of being set up to fail.

With Griffin, I can't take any responsibility and place it elsewhere. He was hired to be the Man, and he's done his job like it. The fact that his performance is also suspect I think is largely coincidental with the fact that the prior regime was too.

[Texas Chuck]

I think what I’m feeling more and more is that we shouldn’t be going ga ga over GMs that ship out talent for assets. No matter how skilled they are in milking the process for all it’s worth, if they never turn those assets into a great team, there’s no reason another team should hire such GMs after they are fired.

I think there is a place for guys who are skilled at a teardown and willing to make painful decisions. It's like when a corporation needs to downsize/reorganize they often bring in an interim CFO who comes in and just makes painful, drastic cuts with no emotion or attachment. Just trim the fat, invest in the profitable portions of the business etc. Then once all the decisions that the majority of employees hate are over, a new CFO comes in without the baggage of all the pain.

Some GM's just don't have the guts to trade fan favorites or don't have the foresight to understand we've hit our limits with this group and the only way forward is to go back so lets speed up the process by tearing it down and getting assets to build back up with. There is meaningful value in that.

What Sam Presti did for instance is a masterclass in scooping up assets. Now no question if he remains with OKC as I think we all expect, its more going to matter what he can do with that stockpile. But I look at Donnie Nelson, a GM I defend a lot btw and how he(and Cuban) weren't willing to be honest with themselves when Dirk was 35. And they kept bringing in vets trying to win 45 games and didn't do anything to collect assets. And so they gave up an extra pick for Luka which of course was an absolute bargain. Then they gave up 2 more for KP and that's been a bust. But had they been adding young talent or additional draft picks they'd still have stuff and could try again right now for a 2nd star. But they didn't. It hurts.

The reality is at some point a team is just done. Your core ages out or leaves in free agency. If you've been a contender you've been drafting late and probably trading off some picks for vets. And being able to pivot to selling is valuable.

Danny Ainge will get another job because he did a great job of this too. He traded some sacred cows for a haul. He made lots of microtransactions that picked up additional assets. He went bargain hunting to get value contracts like IT and Crowder.

That stuff really does matter. I mean even the Lakers who get stars forcing their way their needed all those high lotto picks to get AD. The Nets had to have collected up some assets to get Harden.

[penbeast0]

I think Zion's health is outweighing (no pun intended... sigh) the front office moves.

I don't believe you, you intended that from the start.

[cupcakesnake]

I think Zion's health is outweighing (no pun intended... sigh) the front office moves.

I don't believe you, you intended that from the start.

[

Well and of course, Zion's health is the elephant in the room.

We are bad people on this board!

[Doctor MJ]

I think what I’m feeling more and more is that we shouldn’t be going ga ga over GMs that ship out talent for assets. No matter how skilled they are in milking the process for all it’s worth, if they never turn those assets into a great team, there’s no reason another team should hire such GMs after they are fired.

I think there is a place for guys who are skilled at a teardown and willing to make painful decisions. It's like when a corporation needs to downsize/reorganize they often bring in an interim CFO who comes in and just makes painful, drastic cuts with no emotion or attachment. Just trim the fat, invest in the profitable portions of the business etc. Then once all the decisions that the majority of employees hate are over, a new CFO comes in without the baggage of all the pain.

Some GM's just don't have the guts to trade fan favorites or don't have the foresight to understand we've hit our limits with this group and the only way forward is to go back so lets speed up the process by tearing it down and getting assets to build back up with. There is meaningful value in that.

What Sam Presti did for instance is a masterclass in scooping up assets. Now no question if he remains with OKC as I think we all expect, its more going to matter what he can do with that stockpile. But I look at Donnie Nelson, a GM I defend a lot btw and how he(and Cuban) weren't willing to be honest with themselves when Dirk was 35. And they kept bringing in vets trying to win 45 games and didn't do anything to collect assets. And so they gave up an extra pick for Luka which of course was an absolute bargain. Then they gave up 2 more for KP and that's been a bust. But had they been adding young talent or additional draft picks they'd still have stuff and could try again right now for a 2nd star. But they didn't. It hurts.

The reality is at some point a team is just done. Your core ages out or leaves in free agency. If you've been a contender you've been drafting late and probably trading off some picks for vets. And being able to pivot to selling is valuable.

Danny Ainge will get another job because he did a great job of this too. He traded some sacred cows for a haul. He made lots of microtransactions that picked up additional assets. He went bargain hunting to get value contracts like IT and Crowder.

That stuff really does matter. I mean even the Lakers who get stars forcing their way their needed all those high lotto picks to get AD. The Nets had to have collected up some assets to get Harden.

Glad you're willing to engage Chuck, and as always I hope it's clear how much I respect you and how much I enjoy our conversations.

I'll acknowledge up front that there is skill in a good tear down and that that's something you really benefit from in many organizations. It is valuable.

I'd point out though: Because it's valuable in many places - the guts to have a cutthroat drive to efficiency you speak to - it's not actually a domain-specific skill. And so this is a particular task where it can make sense to hire a CEO from another industry to come in and trim the fat.

As such, the idea of hiring someone for this specific purpose as your CEO with the intent to replace him when it comes time to build back up, makes sense, and I'd say the same thing in theory should be true for NBA GMs. There are complications to do this though that I'm sure are clear to all of us, and this is generally not how GMs are chosen or judged.

In the end, my pet peeve is specifically the EOY award which I think it's worth saying up front is just an award and I shouldn't be let influence me so. But Presti in particular has really made me dwell on this.

In the end, he's getting praise year after year because he's in a situation he's only in because he blew his best opportunity to win titles, and that just seems wrong to me. Partially because in the end the NBA is about being the best rather than just achieving profitability, but also partly because it feels like we're getting guys more consistently get named for EOY based on continued tear down moves rather than continued build up moves.

It makes sense why this could happen: You don't get the opportunity to make the big talent acquisition splash very often. It ties up a lot of your cap space, it make require trading a lot of assets. You're often getting only one bite at the apple to pull it off, and even when it works, in subsequent years you're just riding the wave.

By contrast, a tear down can achieved as essentially as chain of chemical reactions. You trade your proverbial dollar for 5 quarter, then you look to trade a quarter for 3 dimes, a dime for 2 nickels and a penny, etc. Every time you do it, you bring in a haul and you have the potential for praise and if things go okay, people will delay judging you based on you W-L record.

In a very real sense then, if your goal as GM is to make sure as many off-seasons as possible have your name in the news making positive moves, there's nothing more profitable to you than getting in the position where you can sell off talent.

If that seems absurd, that's because it is, but it's not absurd because the logic doesn't follow. It's absurd because in the long term, that's just not how the GM will be judged.

One note that definitely applies to Presti & Ainge: They are good GMs, and I'm not saying otherwise. I have voted for Ainge as our EOY, I know I'd have done the same if we were giving that award in '07-08, and I surely think that Presti deserved that award for his drafting performance preceding the Thunder golden age.

But I just know how sour all that asset-hoarding tastes if it never actually gets transformed into great talent leading a top tier team. When you acquire draft picks, while we understandably call that an "asset", it might be better termed a "potential asset". I'm not looking to change our vocabulary here or anything, but the NBA calls it a lottery for a reason. When someone buys a lottery ticket that wins and gives them millions, we don't call them a genius because they bought the lottery ticket. It's the transformation into a "winning lottery ticket" that is the key moment, and I suppose I'd say it's that sort of moment that I'm looking for when I look to talk about best GM performances.

[Texas Chuck]

Glad you're willing to engage Chuck, and as always I hope it's clear how much I respect you and how much I enjoy our conversations.

Spoiler:

I'll acknowledge up front that there is skill in a good tear down and that that's something you really benefit from in many organizations. It is valuable.

I'd point out though: Because it's valuable in many places - the guts to have a cutthroat drive to efficiency you speak to - it's not actually a domain-specific skill. And so this is a particular task where it can make sense to hire a CEO from another industry to come in and trim the fat.

As such, the idea of hiring someone for this specific purpose as your CEO with the intent to replace him when it comes time to build back up, makes sense, and I'd say the same thing in theory should be true for NBA GMs. There are complications to do this though that I'm sure are clear to all of us, and this is generally not how GMs are chosen or judged.

In the end, my pet peeve is specifically the EOY award which I think it's worth saying up front is just an award and I shouldn't be let influence me so. But Presti in particular has really made me dwell on this.

In the end, he's getting praise year after year because he's in a situation he's only in because he blew his best opportunity to win titles, and that just seems wrong to me. Partially because in the end the NBA is about being the best rather than just achieving profitability, but also partly because it feels like we're getting guys more consistently get named for EOY based on continued tear down moves rather than continued build up moves.

It makes sense why this could happen: You don't get the opportunity to make the big talent acquisition splash very often. It ties up a lot of your cap space, it make require trading a lot of assets. You're often getting only one bite at the apple to pull it off, and even when it works, in subsequent years you're just riding the wave.

By contrast, a tear down can achieved as essentially as chain of chemical reactions. You trade your proverbial dollar for 5 quarter, then you look to trade a quarter for 3 dimes, a dime for 2 nickels and a penny, etc. Every time you do it, you bring in a haul and you have the potential for praise and if things go okay, people will delay judging you based on you W-L record.

In a very real sense then, if your goal as GM is to make sure as many off-seasons as possible have your name in the news making positive moves, there's nothing more profitable to you than getting in the position where you can sell off talent.

If that seems absurd, that's because it is, but it's not absurd because the logic doesn't follow. It's absurd because in the long term, that's just not how the GM will be judged.

One note that definitely applies to Presti & Ainge: They are good GMs, and I'm not saying otherwise. I have voted for Ainge as our EOY, I know I'd have done the same if we were giving that award in '07-08, and I surely think that Presti deserved that award for his drafting performance preceding the Thunder golden age.

But I just know how sour all that asset-hoarding tastes if it never actually gets transformed into great talent leading a top tier team. When you acquire draft picks, while we understandably call that an "asset", it might be better termed a "potential asset". I'm not looking to change our vocabulary here or anything, but the NBA calls it a lottery for a reason. When someone buys a lottery ticket that wins and gives them millions, we don't call them a genius because they bought the lottery ticket. It's the transformation into a "winning lottery ticket" that is the key moment, and I suppose I'd say it's that sort of moment that I'm looking for when I look to talk about best GM performances

.

Thanks Doc. And right back at you. I love that I know I can directly disagree with you on something(wait until you see my new post in the Nash/Moses thread ) and you will come back and engage respectfully. You might tell me I'm dead wrong, but that's cool. This place is boring if we all agree.

Now on to the meat. I think we agree more than we don't. I agree the league should employ specialist FO people. Where you know this guy is who you want when you need to tear it down. This guy is who you want when you are trying to land a franchise cornerstone because you don't have one. This guy is who you want when you have a contender and you need to be able to maintain/add the right piece. Just like we have some head coaches like this. Guys who you know aren't really a championship level head coach, but you know will come in and install discipline and culture and then when the young players are veterans and don't need that kind of coach and his message is wearing thin, you bring in the guy you think can take you all the way. Avery Johnson was kind of that guy for Dallas. Forced the team to embrace defense, including Dirk, but simply was outmatched in the playoffs in 06 and 07.


Presti is a fascinating guy. He's had great longevity. And his career starts with nailing the draft like maybe nobody ever has. In 3 drafts he picked Kevin Durant, Jeff Green, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and Serge Ibaka. On top of that he kept making nice little value trades picking up additional picks and young players. Say what you want about Kendrick Perkins but that was a bold trade that paid dividends. He traded for Tyson Chandler to upgrade their weakest position even further only for medicals to fail it. So great start.

Then he didn't insist ownership pay James Harden. Major strike. Then he made a terrible James Harden trade. But even with that huge blunder, he still had Kevin Durant and a team good enough to contend. But instead of using those extra assets he had picked up to turn Perkins money into production once he was done as a useful player, he fell into the trap of thinking he could repeat his draft heroics again. Only he couldn't. Lots of wasted picks and the team left with unnecessary holes around its stars.

Then a rebirth. New ownership says we still want to win even though KD left us. So he got aggressive. Went and got Paul George. And Melo. PG was great, Melo was a bust. But he really went for it. Then PG wants out, so he gets an absurd haul starting with a great young player in SGA. He fleeces Houston in the Westbrook/Paul deal getting multiple assets to get the better player. Paul and SGA keep them in the playoffs.

Then you could argue maybe he should have kept and extended Paul and used that already sizable pile of assets to bring in some frontcourt help. But he chose the other option and traded Paul and then just traded everything not nailed down. Often trading guys he just got for more stuff. Just piled up picks.

I thought he should have been fired after the Harden debacle and the sitting on his hands with assets in hand and Kevin Durant in house. But they kept him and he did amazing work after that. And looks like he gets the chance to turn those assets into players. A rare second act most guys don't get.


And then I'm mostly with you on the last part. The lottery is largely fool's gold. We've seen franchise after franchise draft at the top of the draft and get nowhere. I'm a guy whose philosophy on team building is simple. Do whatever it takes to get a star, ideally through the draft, but get a star. Then I'm all about trading picks and prospects for vets.

If we had a basketball Moneyball, good vets are the undervalued currency and draft picks are wildly overvalued. But that's part of why I can appreciate Presti and Ainge. Because they in theory can take advantage of those teams still overvaluing picks and "cost-controlled" assets. When good teams realize players matter more. Every year over on the trade board when we are discussing off-season and deadline moves, you see see good teams trading late 1sts for role playing vets. And every year most people claim the team getting the pick "won". And I'm over there going nope. PJ Tucker is worth more to the Bucks than that late 1st.

[falcolombardi]

I think what I’m feeling more and more is that we shouldn’t be going ga ga over GMs that ship out talent for assets. No matter how skilled they are in milking the process for all it’s worth, if they never turn those assets into a great team, there’s no reason another team should hire such GMs after they are fired.

I think there is a place for guys who are skilled at a teardown and willing to make painful decisions. It's like when a corporation needs to downsize/reorganize they often bring in an interim CFO who comes in and just makes painful, drastic cuts with no emotion or attachment. Just trim the fat, invest in the profitable portions of the business etc. Then once all the decisions that the majority of employees hate are over, a new CFO comes in without the baggage of all the pain.

Some GM's just don't have the guts to trade fan favorites or don't have the foresight to understand we've hit our limits with this group and the only way forward is to go back so lets speed up the process by tearing it down and getting assets to build back up with. There is meaningful value in that.

What Sam Presti did for instance is a masterclass in scooping up assets. Now no question if he remains with OKC as I think we all expect, its more going to matter what he can do with that stockpile. But I look at Donnie Nelson, a GM I defend a lot btw and how he(and Cuban) weren't willing to be honest with themselves when Dirk was 35. And they kept bringing in vets trying to win 45 games and didn't do anything to collect assets. And so they gave up an extra pick for Luka which of course was an absolute bargain. Then they gave up 2 more for KP and that's been a bust. But had they been adding young talent or additional draft picks they'd still have stuff and could try again right now for a 2nd star. But they didn't. It hurts.

The reality is at some point a team is just done. Your core ages out or leaves in free agency. If you've been a contender you've been drafting late and probably trading off some picks for vets. And being able to pivot to selling is valuable.

Danny Ainge will get another job because he did a great job of this too. He traded some sacred cows for a haul. He made lots of microtransactions that picked up additional assets. He went bargain hunting to get value contracts like IT and Crowder.

That stuff really does matter. I mean even the Lakers who get stars forcing their way their needed all those high lotto picks to get AD. The Nets had to have collected up some assets to get Harden.

Glad you're willing to engage Chuck, and as always I hope it's clear how much I respect you and how much I enjoy our conversations.

I'll acknowledge up front that there is skill in a good tear down and that that's something you really benefit from in many organizations. It is valuable.

I'd point out though: Because it's valuable in many places - the guts to have a cutthroat drive to efficiency you speak to - it's not actually a domain-specific skill. And so this is a particular task where it can make sense to hire a CEO from another industry to come in and trim the fat.

As such, the idea of hiring someone for this specific purpose as your CEO with the intent to replace him when it comes time to build back up, makes sense, and I'd say the same thing in theory should be true for NBA GMs. There are complications to do this though that I'm sure are clear to all of us, and this is generally not how GMs are chosen or judged.

In the end, my pet peeve is specifically the EOY award which I think it's worth saying up front is just an award and I shouldn't be let influence me so. But Presti in particular has really made me dwell on this.

In the end, he's getting praise year after year because he's in a situation he's only in because he blew his best opportunity to win titles, and that just seems wrong to me. Partially because in the end the NBA is about being the best rather than just achieving profitability, but also partly because it feels like we're getting guys more consistently get named for EOY based on continued tear down moves rather than continued build up moves.

It makes sense why this could happen: You don't get the opportunity to make the big talent acquisition splash very often. It ties up a lot of your cap space, it make require trading a lot of assets. You're often getting only one bite at the apple to pull it off, and even when it works, in subsequent years you're just riding the wave.

By contrast, a tear down can achieved as essentially as chain of chemical reactions. You trade your proverbial dollar for 5 quarter, then you look to trade a quarter for 3 dimes, a dime for 2 nickels and a penny, etc. Every time you do it, you bring in a haul and you have the potential for praise and if things go okay, people will delay judging you based on you W-L record.

In a very real sense then, if your goal as GM is to make sure as many off-seasons as possible have your name in the news making positive moves, there's nothing more profitable to you than getting in the position where you can sell off talent.

If that seems absurd, that's because it is, but it's not absurd because the logic doesn't follow. It's absurd because in the long term, that's just not how the GM will be judged.

One note that definitely applies to Presti & Ainge: They are good GMs, and I'm not saying otherwise. I have voted for Ainge as our EOY, I know I'd have done the same if we were giving that award in '07-08, and I surely think that Presti deserved that award for his drafting performance preceding the Thunder golden age.

But I just know how sour all that asset-hoarding tastes if it never actually gets transformed into great talent leading a top tier team. When you acquire draft picks, while we understandably call that an "asset", it might be better termed a "potential asset". I'm not looking to change our vocabulary here or anything, but the NBA calls it a lottery for a reason. When someone buys a lottery ticket that wins and gives them millions, we don't call them a genius because they bought the lottery ticket. It's the transformation into a "winning lottery ticket" that is the key moment, and I suppose I'd say it's that sort of moment that I'm looking for when I look to talk about best GM performances.

how long would you hold presti mistake in 2012 against him ?

we all know he **** up trading harden but that yo me sounds like diminishng lebron finals in, lets say, 2020 because of his struggles in 2011

if executive of the year is a early award it makes sense to give everyone a blank slate with each season

[Doctor MJ]

how long would you hold presti mistake in 2012 against him ?

we all know he **** up trading harden but that yo me sounds like diminishng lebron finals in, lets say, 2020 because of his struggles in 2011

if executive of the year is a early award it makes sense to give everyone a blank slate with each season

This isn't personal against Presti. I bring him up because Presti's gotten so much praise in recent years and everyone can understand that this in the end won't matter much unless he converts draft picks into great players.

I do start with a blank slate each season. I'm not holding anything against Presti right now other than the fact that his team is still bad, and as I'm expressing, I'm getting lower and lower on the idea of giving EOY awards to guys whose teams' fans are watching them lose night after night even if I can agree that sometimes a GM in that position is making shrewd moves.

[MartinToVaught]

I think what I’m feeling more and more is that we shouldn’t be going ga ga over GMs that ship out talent for assets. No matter how skilled they are in milking the process for all it’s worth, if they never turn those assets into a great team, there’s no reason another team should hire such GMs after they are fired.

Theoretically, you could always hire one of those GMs specifically to get the assets, then bring in a different GM to build the team back up with those assets. It's like how teams will often hire a motivational coach to build a positive culture and teach the players how to win, then replace them with a more tactical coach to put them over the top. Different styles for different needs.

[Colbinii]

how long would you hold presti mistake in 2012 against him ?

we all know he **** up trading harden but that yo me sounds like diminishng lebron finals in, lets say, 2020 because of his struggles in 2011

if executive of the year is a early award it makes sense to give everyone a blank slate with each season

This isn't personal against Presti. I bring him up because Presti's gotten so much praise in recent years and everyone can understand that this in the end won't matter much unless he converts draft picks into great players.

I do start with a blank slate each season. I'm not holding anything against Presti right now other than the fact that his team is still bad, and as I'm expressing, I'm getting lower and lower on the idea of giving EOY awards to guys whose teams' fans are watching them lose night after night even if I can agree that sometimes a GM in that position is making shrewd moves.

1) EOY awards should be about who put their team in the best position to win a championship.

2) I think the entirety of building a team organically is primarily random. The NBA draft (In terms of which prospects are best or will succeed) is random as it is a game of telephone between scouts and members of management. What Presti is doing is purchasing as many lottery tickets as possible and while important, isn't exactly the correct way to go about building a team. The best way to build a team (in my personal opinion) is to acquire enough assets where you can make a play on a Budding or Proven Star. Once that is in place then you are on the "clock" to best build around them in your 3-5 year window.

Houston did a marvelous job of this.
Minnesota did horrible after having Towns and more importantly, ACQUIRING BUTLER! They needed to move Wiggins the same day they acquired Butler for a win-now player and botched that opportunity and now Towns is going to be gone in a year or two.
Washington has done a poor job with Beal (Imagine if they acquired CP3 instead of Westbrook).
Miami landed Butler with literally nothing else besides prospects (all worse than Towns) and look at what they have done.

I dont blame Presti but he needs to be cashing in on the assets for proven commodities, not "worst player in the NBA" Poku.

[Doctor MJ]

I think what I’m feeling more and more is that we shouldn’t be going ga ga over GMs that ship out talent for assets. No matter how skilled they are in milking the process for all it’s worth, if they never turn those assets into a great team, there’s no reason another team should hire such GMs after they are fired.

Theoretically, you could always hire one of those GMs specifically to get the assets, then bring in a different GM to build the team back up with those assets. It's like how teams will often hire a motivational coach to build a positive culture and teach the players how to win, then replace them with a more tactical coach to put them over the top. Different styles for different needs.

Yup, and I said as much in another post. It's just that a) that's not how GMs actually are hired in practice and b) this side of things isn't really basketball-forward and it results in a more negative experience for the fanbase the more you take it to a logical extreme.

[Doctor MJ]

how long would you hold presti mistake in 2012 against him ?

we all know he **** up trading harden but that yo me sounds like diminishng lebron finals in, lets say, 2020 because of his struggles in 2011

if executive of the year is a early award it makes sense to give everyone a blank slate with each season

This isn't personal against Presti. I bring him up because Presti's gotten so much praise in recent years and everyone can understand that this in the end won't matter much unless he converts draft picks into great players.

I do start with a blank slate each season. I'm not holding anything against Presti right now other than the fact that his team is still bad, and as I'm expressing, I'm getting lower and lower on the idea of giving EOY awards to guys whose teams' fans are watching them lose night after night even if I can agree that sometimes a GM in that position is making shrewd moves.

1) EOY awards should be about who put their team in the best position to win a championship.

2) I think the entirety of building a team organically is primarily random. The NBA draft (In terms of which prospects are best or will succeed) is random as it is a game of telephone between scouts and members of management. What Presti is doing is purchasing as many lottery tickets as possible and while important, isn't exactly the correct way to go about building a team. The best way to build a team (in my personal opinion) is to acquire enough assets where you can make a play on a Budding or Proven Star. Once that is in place then you are on the "clock" to best build around them in your 3-5 year window.

Houston did a marvelous job of this.
Minnesota did horrible after having Towns and more importantly, ACQUIRING BUTLER! They needed to move Wiggins the same day they acquired Butler for a win-now player and botched that opportunity and now Towns is going to be gone in a year or two.
Washington has done a poor job with Beal (Imagine if they acquired CP3 instead of Westbrook).
Miami landed Butler with literally nothing else besides prospects (all worse than Towns) and look at what they have done.

I dont blame Presti but he needs to be cashing in on the assets for proven commodities, not "worst player in the NBA" Poku.

So, to be clear: You can absolutely make the argument that in any given year the guy doing the most to further his team's championship odds is a tanking GM, which is why I totally get putting these guys in EOY contention - and I've certainly done so in the past.

I think I'm just haunted by the possibility of a guy who knows nothing about basketball winning EOY multiple years in a row because he's just acquiring draft picks left and right even though he has no idea who how to actually draft well, and ends up drafting nothing but stiffs.

Yes, that's an extreme example, but there's nothing logically preventing it, and so that gives me nudge to thinking about EOY candidacy - and in the end, GM scouting - in terms of a GMs demonstration of making a move that directly leads his team to get better.

Now, aside from the debate we've been having, there is also the issue that the guy who drafted in any given year typically isn't clear during the year of that draft, and so by the time you recognize a draft pick that is EOY-worthy, it's literally too late to give the guy that award.

The only real solution to this is to drop the idea of EOY and replace it with something that might more literally be thought of as "Executive of the Past X Seasons" where X might be 2, 3, or perhaps 5. Short of that happening, EOY is always going to be an even more imperfect award than other post-season accolades.

And I suppose that what I'm really feeling is that I'd like to choose a criteria I can look back on and specifically point to the successes that made great teams great rather than stuff that can easily amount to nothing and just look embarrassing years down the road.

[Texas Chuck]

The only real solution to this is to drop the idea of EOY and replace it with something that might more literally be thought of as "Executive of the Past X Seasons" where X might be 2, 3, or perhaps 5. Short of that happening, EOY is always going to be an even more imperfect award than other post-season accolades.

I am 100% behind this idea. 5 is probably too long, but 2 or 3 definitely is better. And frankly that's how a lot of winners are picked as is. For example last year a lot of people were going with the Atlanta GM, but really a lot of his better work was done before last season so I refused to consider him because I was limiting it to the one year.

Your plan far more logical.

[Doctor MJ]

The only real solution to this is to drop the idea of EOY and replace it with something that might more literally be thought of as "Executive of the Past X Seasons" where X might be 2, 3, or perhaps 5. Short of that happening, EOY is always going to be an even more imperfect award than other post-season accolades.

I am 100% behind this idea. 5 is probably too long, but 2 or 3 definitely is better. And frankly that's how a lot of winners are picked as is. For example last year a lot of people were going with the Atlanta GM, but really a lot of his better work was done before last season so I refused to consider him because I was limiting it to the one year.

Your plan far more logical.

Thanks Chuck!

I'll admit that I was in the group that strongly consider him for EOY, and I have to acknowledge that the context from the prior season was part of his candidacy.

Of course here's the thing that's interesting: The big move for Schlenk was trading the rights to Doncic to get Young, which I still consider a bad move. So me thinking about him as a candidate wasn't a literal statement of considering the past 3 years together, rather it was about him making quality moves around his previous choice with a clear sense of how it all went together that left him one of the most impressive GMs of the year for me.

As I say all of that, part of what held me back in the end pertains to what we see now. As good as Atlanta looked when they were beating NY & Philly, we'd still never seen them be elite for a sustained run and in the end a conference final run isn't really enough to remove all doubts to my mind.

While I think it's pretty likely that a significant part of Atlanta's struggles right now have to do to changes in the game beyond any one franchises' control, I can't help but think of Shlenk's run more in terms of "Not Doncic" when the Hawks struggle.

[penbeast0]

...
Washington has done a poor job with Beal (Imagine if they acquired CP3 instead of Westbrook)....

I think Shepard has done a pretty good job of taking a disastrous situation he inherited from Ernie Grunfeld and turning it into an interesting team, though not IMO a title contender. It wasn't so much about acquiring Westbrook as getting rid of the albatross contract that was John Wall. There was no way you were getting Chris Paul for those assets and the team was a long way from competing even with Wall. Then, they got out of Westbrook's lesser albatross contract and got decent assets for it; again, not gold for dross but players with some use and less problematic contracts. And, the roster fits together pretty well; a bit overly deep and it could use some consolidation but if you look at what he inherited, I think you have to give Tommy Shepard a pretty good grade.

Now, if you are going back to the Ernie Grunfeld years, yeah, EG was bad.

[GSP]

Finished listening to part 2 of Elgees (Thinking Basketball) pod on top 75. Didnt know he thought hard of leaving Russ out and hes lower on his peak too than I thought. Seems to have the likes of Grant, Penny, Draymond clearly highe

[Statlanta]

I thought MartinToVaught was embellishing when he said Joe Ingles was a dirty player but now I’m having doubts

[eminence]

CP3 just keeps chugging along.

[Fadeaway_J]

Garland and Mobley are fun to watch.