The Death of the "Two-Headed Monster". Is it a new era?

[count55]

Over the past few years, there has been significant debate over who was running the Pacers: Donnie or Larry? Which decisions were made by Donnie? Which ones should we blame Bird for? The below was written in response to something else, but I think I can pull it out and start a decent conversation here.

As I think back now, I'm actually of the opinion that Bird has played a large role in all of the decisions made during his tenure. That is not to say that Donnie Walsh didn't wield significant power and influence over the Pacer front office in the last five years. Quite the contrary, I believe he held the ultimate decision making authority. A veto, so to speak, over all moves made by the franchise. However, I believe you can see in most cases Bird as either the progenitor of the idea or the catalyst for the change.

Below is a review of the major decisions during the time that Bird and Walsh were both in the Pacer front office:
(Forgive me if I miss any, I'm doing this off the top of my head)

1. 2003 Firing Isiah/Hiring Rick - There's little doubt in my mind that Isiah's days were numbered once Bird was hired. This town simply wasn't big enough for the two of them. However, I have a contrary view to the relatively popular theory that Bird and Walsh lied to JO when they told him that Isiah's job was safe. Based on years of Walsh-watching, along with his spotty history with coaching hire/fire decisions, I believe that when Walsh to JO that he was keeping Isiah, he fully intended to keep Isiah. Walsh tended to be too loyal (perhaps a poor word, maybe attached is better) to the people he considered to be his decision. He probably objectively knew Isiah needed to go, but he was going to give him another chance for any number of motivations. If Bird made the same promise to JO (I honestly can't recall if he did or not), then it was almost certainly followed by a whispered "this summer" or "because Donnie won't let me." I'm sure that Bird told Walsh up front that Isiah did not have a long future in Bird's eyes, and, when Carlisle became available, Bird probably went to Walsh, said something to the effect of "Look, Isiah's completely useless, and now we have a perfect replacement candidate, so let's stop dicking around and get this done." Walsh agreed, and we got the coaching change.

2. 2004 through early 2006: Staying with Ron Artest - As Bird and Carlisle came on board, this team made the leap to the top of the league. After winning 61 games and advancing to the ECF in 2004, the Pacers were showing every indication of being arguably the best team in basketball on November 19, 2004. Without rehashing all of the travails that occurred during the balance of Ron-Ron's stay with us, I want to focus on the gamble that was going on during this time frame. It's my belief that Ron Artest was the core identity of that team. His skill and style of play were the reason that the Pacers could grind out wins against pretty much anybody virtually anywhere. (It's also his shortcomings that cost us at critical junctures, but that's another tangent.) I believe that both Bird and Walsh felt this was the case as well. If they really had the opportunity to deal Artest for Peja when both were at the top of their game (pre-brawl & injuries), I think they both would've passed. At the top of his game, Artest was a difference maker, a player whose skills at both ends of the court could get you a title. They took the calculated risk that the good Ron-Ron would get us the prize before the bad Ron-Ron destroyed us. They were both wrong, but there's little question in my mind that each would've made the same decision individually, without any influence from the other.

3. Summer 2005: Sarunas Jasikevicius - There seems to be little argument on this point. Bird had done extensive scouting in Europe, and by all accounts played a large role in bringing Saras to Indy.

4. Dec 2005 through Summer 2006: Artest to Peja to TE to Harrington - This is probably the most difficult sequence to see Bird's role clearly here. In fact, I think that the Pacers were in full reaction mode the entire time, so it's difficult to tell if anyone was steering the ship. IIRC, Walsh seemed to be the front man during this time, but I think the Simons also started to take a more active role. The trade exception seems to be either the work of the Simons, Morway, or a combination of both. Harrington was probably a Walsh target, but the way the deal was done (lengthy negotiations, apparent quibbling over relatively small details, the shorter contract) makes it look like the Simons were being pretty specific about the way it was to be handled.

5. January 2007: The Golden State deal - At the time, Walsh was out front, but in retrospect, this really looks like a Bird move. The players acquired seemed to fit Bird's tastes, and the quick, quiet way that it occurred was new. There were no rumors...none at all. Everybody just woke up one morning and, poof, there was the trade. Most of the deals that involved Walsh tended to come as an evolution rather than a revolution. The Harrington deal and the Rose-to-Chicago deal had been rumored for weeks prior to actually occurring. Hell, the Peja-for-Artest and Detlef-for-Derrick deals had been rumored for years before they actually came to fruition.

6. Summer 2007: Firing Carlisle, Hiring Obie - I actually believe that Bird wanted to fire Rick after the NJ series in 2006, but Walsh vetoed it. This is based the tenor and content of Bird's public communications that summer, as well as his long-standing "3 years and out" philosophy about coaches. After the veto that summer, the following season was another struggle, and by decision making time, everybody, including Carlisle were almost certainly sure that it was over. O'Brien makes perfect sense as a Bird hire from the perspective that he was a coach who, though flawed, had proven results. His style was closer to what Bird wanted, both on the floor and in the locker room. While he may not be a perfect fit for what Bird envisions, it is unlikely that Larry wanted to take a chance on untested commodities like Jim Boylan or Mark Jackson given the fact that he, himself was probably starting to wonder about his job security. It also makes sense given the reported pursuit of Stan Van Gundy.

7. 2004-2007: The Drafts (Harrison, Granger, Williams, White, Stanko) - It's been my opinion all along that, with the possible exception of Harrison, these were clearly Bird's choices. I have no doubt Walsh had heavy input, but I don't think there's anybody on that list that Walsh "forced" on Bird. With regard to Williams, I think Bird didn't necessarily see the "interchangeable parts" aspect. Instead, I think he believed that Williams could develop into a highly-skilled power forward. Honestly, I think he saw the same thing that he saw in Croshere when he coached him. A quick, reasonably athletic player with good shooting skills whose best spot would be as an undersized four rather than a big three. If you don't like the Croshere comparison, then I'd bring up Detlef Schrempf (though Detlef had better playmaking skills).

So, I think there's ample circumstantial evidence to say that Bird should bear a significant amount of the responsibility for the decisions and consequences of the Pacers' front office during his tenure. However, I would also say that, prior to Donnie's departure, there were no "All-Larry" decisions. With Walsh holding the veto power, all of the decisions were flavored with his presence. In some cases, it was probably little more than an OK (Sarunas), in others Walsh's presence was probably far heavier (timing of Rick's firing, the Artest-Peja-TE-Harrington saga). In any case, it leads me to conclude that the worst decision made by the Pacers in the last five years wasn't a basketball decision. It was a management decision.

Setting aside the specifics of the negative events and factors that the Pacers have faced over the past five years and looking only at how they responded to them tells you a story. It shows an organization caught unprepared for the changes that were happening around them. It's been a mish-mash of reacting too slowly, overreacting, mixed messages, and fits and starts. As someone who's spent the last 16 years at various levels of business management, much of which has been working with turnarounds, these are all symptoms of an organization lacking a clear, unified vision and strategy. With the exception of sticking with Artest (and, possibly drafting Danny Granger), I see little evidence of Donnie and Larry ever operating under the same mission statement, or even sharing a sufficiently similar view of where the Pacers should go, and how they should get there. The biggest mistake made by the Pacers was not having a clear, well-defined, and much, much quicker transition plan from Donnie to Larry.

For the sake of argument, let's agree that, as VP of Basketball Operations, Larry Bird should have been responsible for setting the vision and direction of the Indiana Pacers on the basketball floor. It is my position that, though Bird's fingerprints are all over the Pacers, Donnie Walsh' presence prevented Larry from fulfilling this key role as completely as necessary. Now, you're welcome to argue that Walsh prevented things from being worse, or that Walsh diluted Bird's vision and hurt the franchise. I can see really strong arguments on both sides. However, I'm not picking a side there. I've been stunned over the past few years how every reasonable (at the time)risk the Pacers took somehow managed to result in the worst possible outcome with alarming consistency. My argument now is that this "bad fortune" is, in fact, the unavoidable result of too many cooks in the kitchen. Not having one direction often leaves you in the gawdawful hell of "in between". In business, it's one of the worst places you can be. Without the benefit of a clear direction on where you "should" be, and the playbook that goes along with it, virtually every decision you make is pure reaction. It is often dictated to you, or you're left with trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Doesn't that sound like exactly what we've been doing for the last few years.

In retrospect, I believe the Simons (and by extension, the Pacers and their fans) would've been better served by placing a sunset on Donnie Walsh's tenure of one year after the hiring of Bird, or not hiring Bird (or anyone) until they felt Donnie's departure was imminent. While it is only my belief, and therefore unprovable, I have no doubt we would have made it through the last five years in much better shape had there only been one: Donnie or Larry. I don't know which would've been better than the other, but I am convinced that either would be better than where we were at the end of this past season.

I think that this is clearly now "Larry Bird's Front Office", and this is something that will be understood both internal and external to the organization. While Herb Simon and David Morway will be more visible than they have been in the past, neither will have the visibility that Walsh has had. Simon will be simply, the owner. While he may become more active than they have in the past, I don't think any of us expect Herb to all of a sudden morph into Mark Cuban or George Steinbrenner. Morway may be a talent and a key member of the team, he simply lacks the name recognition and presence that Larry Bird has. Bird's name and reputation has both helped and hurt him in his new role. In some cases, he gets a free pass, and in others he probably gets more blame than he deserves. In any case, I believe the message will now be consistent from the Pacers, the media, and, eventually, us: This is Bird's team, and he should get the credit for the successes and the blame for the failures, first and foremost. If, as you glumly projected, we start seeing the shifting of blame to Simon/Morway/Perkins by any one other than shameless Bird apologists, then it will be the result of the Pacers making the same mistake they made five years ago and muddying the waters. I would still believe Bird should be held responsible, but the mixed message issue would ultimately be the fault of ownership.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I'm on the fence about Bird. I am still hopeful that he can become successful, but far from convinced that it will happen. If it wasn't already evident from my others posts, I have been pleased with the moves this summer. I see no reason, at present time, not to assume that Bird will continue in his role for a number of years. However, if the moves this summer do not work out. If these first, apparently purposeful steps towards a turnaround are followed closely by more of the dithering that we've seen over the past five years, then I can see him being out of work as early as next summer.

The last few years have been harrowing times for the Pacers and their faithful. For the first time in quite a long while, some of my fear and disquiet is being replaced by excitement and growing anticipation. I'm really looking forward to dispensing with arguments over what the direction is and who's driving, and getting to the meat of arguing about whether it's the right direction in the first place.

[APerna]

A very nice well-written blend of recap and analysis, but I have news...we're still in a similar situation with Morway and Bird in the co-op role now.

[Miller4ever]

I don't think Morway-Bird compares in the least bit to Bird-Walsh. Most teams have the biggest authority, and other people who they consult to make decisions. The last era saw definite input from both people, and even though Morway may have a huge hand in what's happening, all the moves are being credited to Bird, unlike before when they'd have given some credit to Bird and Walsh. Morway may be making moves, but he's still not in it.

[notque]

From your analysis, plus my opinion I come away with

Larry Bird is absolutely great for this franchise.

The Williams pick. The GS trade. Aside from Saras, which wasn't THAT bad considering where we were at, I think he's done an excellent job, and have faith his talent evaluations will continue with Rush.

[count55]

A very nice well-written blend of recap and analysis, but I have news...we're still in a similar situation with Morway and Bird in the co-op role now.

In that case, I have a question, then a comment.

What is your opinion that we've just change to a different "co-op" based upon?

If we've just swapped on two-headed monster for another, then the optimism generated this summer is fool's gold. Without a clear, single voice setting the direction, we are subject to the same mistakes we've made over the past five years.

[Wizop]

I think Bird and Walsh each had a lot of respect for the other and deferred to each other's judgment. Bird often said, "I have a boss," when Donnie was here. Morway is not his boss. Donnie was pretty conservative and tended to stick with his guys unless he could make a deal that clearly made us better. Bird has taken the reins this summer and is cleaning house not caring whether or not that makes us better in the short run. of the deals you've listed, I'm only comfortable saying that firing Isiah was Bird's call. the rest were joint decisions as far as I can tell and I think there would have been more deals if either one had felt free to call shots that the other didn't agree with.

and when you apply hindsight to the deals of the last few years, don't overlook how many of them were forced. now the deal to get Al was a flop on it's own. I wrote against it before it happened, too. the first Al deal for Jackson was okay. Jackson, however, was a real factor in the brawl and had to go once it was clear he was never going to control his temper. the deal with GS was pretty much forced. Jackson had to go and Al wasn't working out with JO and JO was playing on one leg so moving him instead of Al wasn't really an option. even this year's JO trade was pretty well forced.

the question for the fall is not so much how many early wins we have but whether their are more butts in the seats. the draft party was a huge success but we need 4 times that many people every night.

[count55]

I think Bird and Walsh each had a lot of respect for the other and deferred to each other's judgment. Bird often said, "I have a boss," when Donnie was here. Morway is not his boss. Donnie was pretty conservative and tended to stick with his guys unless he could make a deal that clearly made us better. Bird has taken the reins this summer and is cleaning house not caring whether or not that makes us better in the short run. of the deals you've listed, I'm only comfortable saying that firing Isiah was Bird's call. the rest were joint decisions as far as I can tell and I think there would have been more deals if either one had felt free to call shots that the other didn't agree with.

and when you apply hindsight to the deals of the last few years, don't overlook how many of them were forced. now the deal to get Al was a flop on it's own. I wrote against it before it happened, too. the first Al deal for Jackson was okay. Jackson, however, was a real factor in the brawl and had to go once it was clear he was never going to control his temper. the deal with GS was pretty much forced. Jackson had to go and Al wasn't working out with JO and JO was playing on one leg so moving him instead of Al wasn't really an option. even this year's JO trade was pretty well forced.

the question for the fall is not so much how many early wins we have but whether their are more butts in the seats. the draft party was a huge success but we need 4 times that many people every night.

I agree that they were forced. This was a large part of my thesis. Some of this post doesn't translate clearly because I was responding to someone who didn't think Bird was involved in many of the decisions...that it was Walsh. My point was that there was no clear leader. Walsh should've either taken full control back or gotten completely out.

I firmly believe that this lack of a single vision is what caused so many forced deals. The joint decisions were what was killing us.

To extrapolate that further, I believe that we will only move forward if we have a single voice running the team. Bird may delegate responsibility to Morway, but Morway must act in accordance with the direction being set. If, as PP said earlier, we have another "co-op", then we are still rudderless. The decisions and moves made this summer, right, wrong, or indifferent, and the improvements gained from them will be fleeting. We will start to drift once again, and then we will continue to see "forced" moves.

[APerna]

Here's how I feel about it...

Bird/Walsh and Bird/Morway are both two-headed "monsters".

However, they differ greatly. Walsh was here for twenty years and even when Bird "took the reigns" I think he still had Donnie standing over him with a watchful eye. Even though Larry was calling the shots, I don't think it really became "his team" until Donnie officially left for New York.

Now, even though Morway has technically been in the front office longer, it's Larry's vision with David's assistance. Similar to how things began with Bird in the front office helping Donnie.

Right now, Larry makes the decisions with David as his "Robin" with a hand in everything. One thing I dislike about the NBA is the team-by-team structure of the front office. In my opinion, the GM should be calling the shots, with the president simply overseeing everything. Similar to the way the government works, with guys answering to him.

Then you've got teams where head coaches are making decisions, like say Popovich in San Antonio, while Jim O'Brien claims that he just sits back and lets Larry run the show here.

So, in summary...I don't think we are rudderless at all.

Larry is Batman to Morway's Robin. Prior to this offseason, Larry was Batman, but Walsh was flying around as Superman...

[count55]

I can live with this.

Regarding whether the GM vs. the President should call the shots, I think it's kind of meaningless. I've worked for six different companies, and I've yet to seen two of them use the same title structure. The general framework was there, but I've worked in companies where they gave out the title "Vice President" like candy, and in others where "Director" was the pinnacle. I've held the title of "Business Manager" in one company, then, years later, was an "Analyst" making more than twice as much with far greater responsibility.

I can't say this with absolute authority, but I believe that the Pacers went through most of Walsh's tenure without a GM. I think Donnie held Larry's title of "President of Basketball Operations".

Again, I expect Morway to have a big role in the organization. He apparently has talent, and it should be utilized. This will be fine as long as he isn't in a position to divert or undercut the vision being set by Larry. Again, this isn't because I believe Larry has the right vision. I'm far from convinced that it is, and I'm not even sure he's fully fleshed one out yet. It's simply because we need to pick a direction and go with it.

Back to Boneman's point of forced trades, we've been experiencing an NBA version of the axiom I always tell my operations managers and directors: "If you do not make a decision, one will be made for you."

[Wizop]

I think you misunderstand Morway's role. Bird wants to be in charge of basketball and leave the business matters to others. Morway is a contracts guy. he also probably needed to be given an increased title and pay to avoid losing him. don't read Morway's promotion as a threat to Bird's role. this isn't like Bird and Walsh where you had two guys who could judge talent. now we have a talent guy and a money guy working together. that's a good thing.

[cdash]

I dont think that having two guys working together on personnel moves is necessarily a bad thing. A great deal of teams have a similar system to this. Some combinations are better than others, some are worse. Bird and Walsh didnt work. Bird and Morway? I like what I've seen thus far.