What's your worst case for us in the off-season?

[Phenomenonsense]

Premise one: It's a mistake to not draft the player I think the team should draft
Conclusion: I know better

Pretty simple.

It's only "I know better" if you believe the front office is infallible. If it is possible for people who know better than me to still make mistakes then saying they're making a mistake doesn't equate with the idea that I know better.

Your first sentence makes no sense. If you believe the front office is infallible, i.e. perfect, then you wouldn't assume you know better. Pointing out a mistake after it's been made is not the context here; it's determining that a potential move is a mistake before it's even made and thus can't be properly judged. If you or others want to give yourselves that kind of cachet have at it; you're just not going to get it from me.

Infallible is often used with God which makes you think it means perfect, but my sentence is easily "It's only 'I know better' if you believe the front office is incapable of making mistakes." I'll spell out context since for ya, this means "I know better" is relevant because this is the best possible decision that the front office can make and they're flat out wrong. I can say that the front office is capable of making a mistake, that they're looking Player X when I believe he is a bust, have that player turn out to be a bust, say "I told you so" and STILL not think I simply know better than them.

[Manocad]

Good question. Stewart frustrates me, so I'd rather trade him. His passion, and physicality are absolutely top notch, everything I want in a C/F, but his insanely limited athleticism,(specifically leaping ability)stunts Cades playmaking by being unable to catch a lob over 3inches.

I am still shocked at how ground bound Stewart is, with as fast, and how well he moves his feet on defense.

I can't remember ever seeing a player like this before. Fast, strong, excellent side to side movement, leaps like a stone.

Stew actually isn't a bad leaper at all. He just can't seem to get off his feet in a crowd.

Wouldn't that make him a bad leaper? He's at the Center spot, so he's always gonna be in a crows. Besides that, how many times did we see Cade throw what should have been a lob, only turn into a turnover, or some wierd catch, bring it down, layup or lose the ball deal?

Stewie really needs to work on his leaping ability. If he could get a few more inches, and jump in a crowd, he'd be perfect. Not to mention him having the ability to shoot a three as well.

Sure. Obviously lack of ability and lack of execution are both ultimately equivalent to "bad." I'm just differentiating between a lack of physical ability and lack of execution.

[mattao313]

Stewart's 2020 pre-draft vertical measurements were actually very good for the center position. I'm sure he's added a bit of bulk up top since then, but he isn't a bad leaper for a center. 29 inch standing vertical and 35 inch max vertical are decent for a big man.

Who cares about pre draft numbers we both watched 2 seasons of the guy being glued to the floor.

Sent from my 5087Z using RealGM mobile app

[Manocad]

It's only "I know better" if you believe the front office is infallible. If it is possible for people who know better than me to still make mistakes then saying they're making a mistake doesn't equate with the idea that I know better.

Your first sentence makes no sense. If you believe the front office is infallible, i.e. perfect, then you wouldn't assume you know better. Pointing out a mistake after it's been made is not the context here; it's determining that a potential move is a mistake before it's even made and thus can't be properly judged. If you or others want to give yourselves that kind of cachet have at it; you're just not going to get it from me.

Infallible is often used with God which makes you think it means perfect, but my sentence is easily "It's only 'I know better' if you believe the front office is incapable of making mistakes."

No. There's a lot of range between "perfect" and "not good at something, and I know better." It's not either/or.

[flow]

Of course its a crap shoot to a certain degree... if the draft didn't have an element of chance, it would be pretty boring.

I didn't say I got it "right" and the team got it "wrong". I did little research for that particular draft and was OK with the SJ pick.

I simply pointed out an objective post from the past had it 43-5 for Stanley Johnson vs. Devin Booker. Yet I personally hear from alot of people who criticize the SJ pick because Booker was available. Yeah, I find that strange.

It can only lead you to two places: (a) people don't remember the truth or (b) the few people who really wanted Booker are always posting about it. I could see (b) occurring to an extent, but I'm betting there's some (a) in there as well.

There's also (c), which is, Regardless of who a poster may have voted for, he's not precluded from complaining about the pick years later. He's not paid $5 mil annually to figure it out & get it right. The GM is.

Or course not, as long as they criticize themselves just as loudly about the picks they didn't get right and the team did. That's exactly my point.

The fact that none of us are paid $5 million a year to get it right only means our opinions don't count for s**t. That in no way is an "out," i.e. "I'm smarter than the GM when I get it right and if I don't, oh well--it's not my job to get it right."

I agree, in as much as, I freely admit when I get it wrong. And praise the GM when he gets it right.

True, our opinions don't count for s**t, except for on here. This is a message board. We present, discuss and debate ideas on subjects we have passion for/interest in. And we make a record in the process. It's entertainment, words on a screen, as you like to say. When we're right, we boast. When we're wrong, we hear about it. When the GM F's up, we vent. When we disagree with the GM, we express it. We get to play GM on here if we want to. If you choose to extrapolate it as a proclamation of, "I'm smarter than the GM," then so be it.

[Manocad]

There's also (c), which is, Regardless of who a poster may have voted for, he's not precluded from complaining about the pick years later. He's not paid $5 mil annually to figure it out & get it right. The GM is.

Or course not, as long as they criticize themselves just as loudly about the picks they didn't get right and the team did. That's exactly my point.

The fact that none of us are paid $5 million a year to get it right only means our opinions don't count for s**t. That in no way is an "out," i.e. "I'm smarter than the GM when I get it right and if I don't, oh well--it's not my job to get it right."

I agree, in as much as, I freely admit when I get it wrong. And praise the GM when he gets it right.

True, our opinions don't count for s**t, except for on here. This is a message board. We present, discuss and debate ideas on subjects we have passion for/interest in. And we make a record in the process. It's entertainment, words on a screen, as you like to say. When we're right, we boast. When we're wrong, we hear about it. When the GM F's up, we vent. When we disagree with the GM, we express it. We get to play GM on here if we want to. If you choose to extrapolate it as a proclamation of, "I'm smarter than the GM," then so be it.

Sure. But I don't hear whole lot of "I definitely screwed that one up" around here. I hear a WHOLE lot more about GM's potentially screwing things up...before it's even verified that it was indeed a poor choice. And yep, you're absolutely right that I extrapolate "This is a mistake if the GM does this" as "I know better." Especially when people are openly criticizing Weaver for doing nothing more than a passable job.

"My opinion is that this won't work out well, and here's why..." plays a lot better.

[zeebneeb]

The Wiretap headline of "Pistons interested in Dennis Schroeder as alternative to Jalen Brunson" .... pretty sad to see. Schroeder has a bit of Reggie Jackson in him, and perhaps he's been humbled to the point of possibly being a good scoring guard off the bench for us to pair with Hayes... but also very possible even at 2 years $10 million <<with 2nd year being a TEAM option>> that he'd be a bad pickup for us and a bad locker room guy. I'd be surprised for sure if we added him, but on the other hand we do need scoring, especially off the bench next to Hayes who doesn't provide much in that area.

"Stein also confirms that the Pistons continue to be linked to free agent center Mitchell Robinson and have “very strong interest” in re-signing former No. 2 overall pick Marvin Bagley III."

None of this surprises me, and fits the narrative that Weaver laid out, about getting better.

I honestly believe that the Pistons really want Ayton, but are unwilling to either pay Ayton a max salary, or engage with PHX about a sign and trade, hence the link to Robinson. PHX already views Ayton as replaceable, without a drop-off, for much less money, so it makes sense that maybe Weaver feels the same way.

It's really starting to feel like one of two scenarios are going to play out here;

Pick is Murray. Robinson signed, Schroeder signed, Bagley resigned, Grant moved.

Pick is Ivey. Robinson signed, Bagley resigned, Grant kept.

And I wouldn't be bothered by the fact that the only moves we made are the 5 pick, get an actual backup/almost starting caliber center and an actual back up PG not named Cojo. That's enough to squeeze a few more games than last year with some room for more

It's nothing flashy but I'm of the opinion that the rebuild actually started the moment we drafted Cade, every one else is a auxiliary piece that can either hope to grow with him or asset accumulation to cash out on a future more ready player. So we got some time considering this is coming up on year 2 of the Cade era

Sounds exactly how im thinking about the team. Cade is all that matters, everyone else is expendable, if the right deal comes along.

Thats my reasoning if Weaver wants to move up and snag Chet, he has the assets to do it. As long as its everyone but Cade used, im okay with it.

Your right about Cojo though. I don't think people realize how much better this team is going to be based purely on Cades growth, and better players around him. If that pick hits(Murray is a perfect NBA ready talent)and a SG along with another year of growth of Hayes, we could all be looking at double digit growth in wins(10-15). So many damn games were lost by 5 points or less last year it was nuts, and due to horrendous gaurd play from anyone but Cade.

I'm pretty excited, but as a Piston fan im nervously waiting for the axe to drop, and Weaver bungles the offseason. I have to reason to belive this based off of his performance so far, but since trading Billups, this franchise has been one long, disturbingly horrific car crash.

Blood on the highway car crash.

[chrbal]

I'm pretty excited, but as a Piston fan im nervously waiting for the axe to drop, and Weaver bungles the offseason. I have to reason to belive this based off of his performance so far, but since trading Billups, this franchise has been one long, disturbingly horrific car crash.

Blood on the highway car crash.

It can always be worse. The Sacramento Kings exist after all.

1- draft a big over a future hall of famer. They did that with Bags

2- draft a player in the lottery only to waive him halfway into his second season. They did that with Papagiannis

3- expose a player in the expansion draft, when you only had to leave one unprotected, to become a face of the new franchise. They did that with Gerald Wallace.

4- have a legendarily bad gm who was a key player on a really good 90s team. They did that with Divac.

5- they fired current nuggets head coach, Mike Malone, 24 games into his second season being head coach of the Kings. He was 11-13 at the time.


Divac made Dumars’ late guessing look intelligent. No. 2 applies to us with Darko. But we’ve had it no where near as awful as the Kings have. And that’s just 5 random examples.