This almost hurts to read

Chauncey goes a cool 8-9 from three point land on his way to 36 points and a nice +30 against the Hornets. I think I’m going to cry.

the point about darko is not to compare dumars with darko but melo with darko as a reflection on dumars. the stuff starts to add up. joe d. had the worst year of all pistons.

remember the original trade had dyess in it too!?!?

Yikes, if Denver had been able to convince Dice to stay, then the “talent for talent” portion of the trade might have gone down as one of the most lopsided in history.

“Yeah, we’ll trade you Billups and Dice for nothing, deal?”

The more I think about this trade, the more I am convinced Joe D screwed up big time.

Obviously, he’s gotten himself out of jams in the past (viz a viz trading Darko for what would eventually become Stuckey — who is no Wade, Melo, or Bosh however), and we can only hope he can pull another rabbit out of his hat over the next couple seasons — because so many teams are in big trouble as a result of the shrinking (or holding) salary cap.

==

@AFB

Can you imagine if Dice had stayed in Denver? We would have been hoping for the 8th spot, not merely hoping to avoid it.

1. The Anthony – Darko thing just doesn’t work. If the Pistons hadn’t taken Darko they would have taken the 2nd best big man out there which was and still remains C. Bosh. The Pistons never in a million years would have taken Anthony given that they had and still have Prince, so that Anthony – Darko thing just doesn’t work period.

2. Billups was traded by Mr. D. primarily for a non-basketball related reason which has never been made public and probably never will be. It was the same kind of thing with Billups as with Zeke. Mr. D. refused to hire Zeke after his playing days for non-basketball related reasons. Mr. D. spoke about this at the time that he was elected into the Naismith HOF though he did not say what the specific reason was then or at any other time.

Billups was traded for

1. Stuckey’s development
2. Cap space
3. A Non-basketball related reason which wieghed more in the decision to move him than the first two reasons. Now that Mr. D. is gone I doubt that the reason will ever be made public. I sure as heck will never state it.

I wonder if the basketball gods are displeased with how eager teams that Iverson play for are to get rid of him…

Like all other Pistons fans, I watched the Nuggets game last night with emotions I guess could be called “mixed” — some satisfaction in seeing Chauncey doing so well, but bitter regret about him not being a Piston.

I think Mike is right about who the Pistons would have taken — Bosh, not Melo. I’m very curious about Mike’s claim about a “non-basketball related reason,” but he says he’s never going to say.

In Joe D.‘s defense, this trade was always risky, and although a sober assessment would have led one to believe it probably wasn’t going to be good for this year, in actuality in worked out about as badly as it possibly could have.

Is there a good Nuggets blog and has anyone been reading it? If so, what have they been saying about Chauncey all year? Did they think it was a good deal from the beginning.

Chauncey scored more points last night than AI did in any of his playoff games with Denver. And he did it on 15 shots.

“If the Pistons hadn’t taken Darko they would have taken the 2nd best big man out there which was and still remains C. Bosh.”

Anthony was the only other player the Pistons brought in. The Pistons gave Denver a double gift in that the Nuggets would have drafted Darko, had Detroit not done so. Wade and Bosh were NOT under serious consideration.

I don’t think it’s fair to grade Joe till we see what we look like in October. If we use the trade to dramatically improve, then we ended up where we wanted to be out of the trade. And if we turn our draft pick into a rotation player and our squad is coached by a guy who is competent, then I don’t think there’s much to complain about. Yeah, this season sucked, but the trade had very little to do with winning now.

Kevin S. I agree that with C. Anthony the only other player worked out it does seem likely that he was in the running but if they had the third pick and had not assumed they would land Darko I bet they would have worked out Bosh too. Could have been a 60/40 gamble on Bosh and Anthony.

From this fickle turn of fate… a pistons colony was born, a small town on the trail of tears out west known as Denver. I hope this Chauncey trade doesn’t end up feeling even more horrendous than it already does if we use our cap on probable basketball aberrations like the D’Antoini inflated value of David Lee or the undersized hustle (think Maxie) of Millsap. That is the recipe for a half decade of middling lottery picks and mediocracy. That would be enough to make Joe D. the patron saint of Denver just as Zeke became the benefactor of Chicago. Here’s crossing our fingers and hoping Joe D. still has some shucking and jiving in him. Boozer in 09? Whaddayall think about that?

I agree, Matt, after watching a team near the top of the league every year, it’s pretty hard to get too excited over this one. It has no shot at beating Cleveland. Just a road bump. I’m looking forward to the offseason to see the plan for digging out. At least what the team lacks in present, it makes up for with a pretty wide open future. Whether that potential is converted, we’ll have to wait and see. But I trust in Dumars’ long-term plans. Maybe a bit less, but I do.

I did watch some of the Nuggets last night — apparently like everyone! It’s nice to see Chauncey do well. I still think of his as one of ours. He’s just exiled to Denver. So it’s some rooting interest in the playoffs, anyway. Better than nothing.

Once again, it is factually wrong to say that the trade had nothing to do with winning this season. That’s what Dumars and the Detroit sportswriters who love him keep saying now, but that is not even remotely what they said when Chauncey was traded. The following is what actually was said:

“The cap situation is a bonus,” said team president Joe Dumars,
standing outside the locker room before Iverson’s Pistons debut last
Friday in New Jersey. “I absolutely would have done the deal [even
without the cap relief]. This is a basketball decision.”

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1148558/index.htm

Either Dumars was lying then, trying duplicitously to move tickets when he knew the trade was actually a salary dump, or (much more likely) he’s lying now to cover his ass because he made an atrocious mistake and doesn’t want to man up to it. One way or another he’s lying to the fans.

Dumars remains by far the best GM in sports at manipulating the local media. It’s astonishing how ready local Pistons writers are to say whatever Dumars wants people to hear, and how impossible it is to find a word of criticism about him anywhere. His real genius is in propaganda. Hiring Langlois as in-house propaganda blogger was brilliant.

Bill, what was Joe supposed to say? “AI’s all right, but what I’m really looking forward to is this summer! Ka-shiiiiinng!” And so is it also factually wrong to say that AI’s not playing in the playoffs because he doesn’t want to come off the bench because Joe said that it’s because of his back? Public relations is a required facet of any business. I love Ozzie Guillen as my baseball team’s manager, but I don’t want him as a general manager.

And I didn’t argue that it had “nothing” to do with winning this year. Otherwise he would have moved for Szerbiak, Marbury, LaFrentz, Antoine Walker, or some other expiring contract that we might have gotten some picks in return for. This was absolutely a win later trade (unless anyone really ever looked at AI and said “he plays like he wants to be a Piston”), although wasn’t intended to through away this season.

Are you seriously arguing that Joe D. should be tried and sentenced now – that the cap situation was just a piece of fortune that he back-assedly lucked into?

If we keep Chauncey, we still would not have won the title this year. It would have been a second or third round exit. And, we would only have roughly 10 million to play with in free agency this summer, if that. We were going nowhere with this roster. Joe D. made the right move. What he does with the free agency money is yet to be determined, but he made the right moves so far (in regards to this trade).

Basically, we need two more front court players. McDyess and Wallace are old and will be gone. With the amount of money we have, and with a mid-first round pick, we have a great chance to address our needs.

Mike, if what you say about ‘non-basketball-related’ reasons has any merit, then the only reason I could possibly think of … Billups actively supported Barack Obama, and Bill Davidson was one of the staunchest Republican supporters.

I’m seriously arguing that Dumars made this trade with the intention of winning this season. He had the cap space in his back pocket, but (as he himself said!) that cap space was not at all what motivated the trade. His revisionism now is profoundly dishonest.

Did you watch the introductory press conference for Iverson? Dumars was grinning, having a wonderful time. He thought he had pulled one over on everyone. He was joking around with Iverson, to whom he was only too happy to give Chauncey’s jersey number. He told reporters, “It’s a big day in the history of our franchise,” and he cursorily thanked Chauncey and Antonio “for all they did to bring our franchise to this day.” Those aren’t the words of a man who has made a salary dump. They just aren’t.

Still, let’s say for a moment for the sake of argument that Dumars was just being the good P.R. soldier, even though it’s clear that he wasn’t. Putting on a good face for the public is necessary and fine. But what happened after Iverson arrived would have been exceptionally dishonest, bad-faith P.R., if P.R. it was. Remember the “Fiverson” plan, the first Pistons ticket marketing plan oriented around a single player since Grant Hill? Remember how Dumars, weeks after the trade, told the media that even though the team was struggling and looked bad, “I see so much more promise with this group. Our ceiling used to be here [raises flat hand to about shoulder level]. Now I see, with this group, our ceiling is here [raises flat hand to level above his head]”? If this was all cynical P.R., it was excessive, totally unbecoming a person for whom the NBA sportsmanship award is named.

The much more likely reality is that Dumars royally screwed it up but now wants people to think he knew all along what he was doing. His actions have shown that he doesn’t. He gave himself a little help with the cap space, but we as fans should have no faith that he’ll sign the right people with that space. With all the time he spends spinning, I wonder anyway when he’ll have a moment to think about whom to sign.

Can you believe, too, that Dumars gave away Antonio like trash, with zero guarantee that he would return? He is so lucky that Dyess came back. The Pistons would have been dead in the water without him.

I love this team to distraction and can’t express how sad and upset I am about what’s happened. Dumars put these guys together, through a lot of luck and a few good decisions, and for a very long time I loved the guy and thought he was great. But, for several years, virtually every important strategic decision he’s made has been wrong. He’s lost the plot.

Did you watch the introductory press conference for Iverson? Dumars was grinning, having a wonderful time. He thought he had pulled one over on everyone. He was joking around with Iverson, to whom he was only too happy to give Chauncey’s jersey number. He told reporters, "It’s a big day in the history of our franchise," and he cursorily thanked Chauncey and Antonio "for all they did to bring our franchise to this day." Those aren’t the words of a man who has made a salary dump. They just aren’t.

Still, let’s say for a moment for the sake of argument that Dumars was just being the good P.R. soldier, even though it’s clear that he wasn’t.

Wow. Very convincing. “Those aren’t the words of a man who has made a salary dump. They just aren’t.” Now that’s bringing facts to the table!

Can you believe, too, that Dumars gave away Antonio like trash, with zero guarantee that he would return? He is so lucky that Dyess came back. The Pistons would have been dead in the water without him.

So you’re now undermining your argument that Dumars was planning a win-now strategy?

Yeah, this is just stupid. You jumped all over my suggestion that we wait until we see what Dumars does with the cap space before delivering a grade. That combined with these arguments pretty much just says you’re pissed at Dumars and want to argue. Whatever. Find someone else.

it has been four years without a truly valuable addition to the roster.
so now dumars is under pressure to land someone.
however all he has to do to win my confidence back is fire curry. to look at the situation objectively and say …yes, michael is my friend, yes, michael is loyal, and yes michael was a rookie…but it was bad and it didn’t work, and it is too risky to hope it will change when there are more competent coaches available.
sadly he is not going to do this and i personally have zero confidence in curry.

Mannn Phuck a salary cap dump. I wasn’t completly against the trade when it was made because Hell somebody convinced me that there were no “sacred cows” here in Detroit. But I’m pretty sure I got the wool pulled over my eyes just like when Joe D tried to convince me some Euro kid who I never seen play was better then a charismatic freshman from Syracuse. Joe. D has single handidly built two franchises in both Denver and Detroit with his moves. That person also convinced me that the window was closed and going to the ECF’s 6 years straight wasn’t really good at all. I liked Joe D as a player because of his honest, hard working, swear free background but he’s been telling some tall tales and expecting me to believe it. Riddle me this?

Why during our previous era were all the Pistons who had something to do with the success of the Pistons allowed to retire Pistons. From Isiah, to Bill Laimber, to Joe D himself they all were rewarded for their efforts by being able to finish their careers as Pistons. I know Joe D said he wanted to avoid that down period that the Pistons had when they all retired but there is a certain thing as honor and respect. Joe Dumars is losing credibility. Billups was the figure head for this new era and he was the first to go. That would of been like trading Isiah in the previous era after all of our success. But this is a new era I guess where the bottom dollar and the new and fancy is all that’s praised and not the people who kept our team decent for multiple seasons. We might as well go back to the uniform with the hosre on front next year because at this rate that is where we are headed. Bad karma is bad karma no matter which way you slice it and Joe Dumars did not act like a man with any honor.

Shinons, man, I’m not trying to attack you. Not at all. I’m sorry if I came off as wanting to prove you personally wrong or something. It’s not my intention.

Reading back Dumars’s words from that press conference, and looking once more at his actions in the weeks after, do you truly believe it was all just P.R. and that all along he was thinking “salary dump, salary dump, salary dump”? If you do, then of course you’re perfectly entitled to think that. I just think you’re absolutely wrong about it, and I think that most people who look at the evidence will agree. It’s not personal, truly—you’re a fan as much as I am, and you care about the team as much as I do.

Re: giving away Dyess, I think Dumars was so confident that Iverson would work out that he thought the Pistons wouldn’t need Dyess. To me it signifies another gross miscalculation, almost as bad as the Chauncey one. He had been fixated on Iverson since at least 2001, and he finally was getting his prize, and he thought it was all going to work out great. He had a tin ear for team chemistry and no sense of who led the team or kept it steady in rough waters.

Exactly Bill Higgins. He acted like Iverson was a girl he always wanted to Bone and he didn’t care that the chick gained weight and lost a limb eight years later. He just had to get his nut.

Either Dumars was lying then, trying duplicitously to move tickets when he knew the trade was actually a salary dump, or (much more likely) he’s lying now to cover his ass because he made an atrocious mistake and doesn’t want to man up to it. One way or another he’s lying to the fans.

It’s called PR, Bill. Next time you watch a press conference, you might want to look out for it.

/sarcasm… don’t read it as anything more than a friendly jab :)

I think you might be partially right but partially wrong. Anyone with half a basketball brain had to wonder about whether or not AI could fit in with Detroit, and I also think that anyone who watched Detroit regularly did more than a double take when they read the headlines.

I have to believe Joe D knew this.

Which is why I think Joe was hoping for the best — that AI could make an impact in the here and now — but was prepared for the worst (although the ‘worst’ in November probably didn’t look quite this bad).

I think Joe D made some key mistakes, which I’ve described before and can sum up this way:

1) Undervalued CB (although TJ is right about Denver reinvigorating him.
2) Overvalued Stuckey — lots of promise which isn’t quite there yet.
3) Overestimated both AI’s ability (willingness?) to adapt to a new system AND overestimated the roster’s ability to adapt to AI.
4) Overestimated the ability of MCIAFI to mesh this mess together.

====

A Non-basketball related reason which wieghed more in the decision to move him than the first two reasons. Now that Mr. D. is gone I doubt that the reason will ever be made public. I sure as heck will never state it.

No offense intended, because maybe you do have access, but it’s really difficult to read a post like this (i.e., completely anonymous on a blog) and take it seriously. And conveniently, the only way to prove it’s not BS is to reveal the “secret” which is something you are compelled not to do.

Hey brgulker, I understand the P.R. angle, but, again, in my view Dumars’s actions in that press conference and in the weeks that followed were so over-the-top in their expressions of confidence and praise of Iverson as to cross the line of P.R. and become truly dishonest. P.R. lets you massage the truth, but there are boundaries. If Dumars was spinning all along, then that was some profoundly cynical spinning.

Of course, I don’t think he was spinning. I couldn’t agree more with you that “anyone with half a basketball brain had to wonder” about Iverson. But couldn’t you say exactly the same thing about Curry? Yet Dumars hired Curry and stands by him today, despite an incredible first year of failure and no sign that progress will ever be possible. Dumars’s words and actions re: Iverson when he brought him to Detroit showed exactly the same hubris in the face of prudence and measured judgment.

I guess my question at root is, why should I possibly assign any kind of wisdom or prescience to Dumars these days when he hasn’t made a truly good, impactful decision for the Pistons since he signed McDyess? The only smart, impactful move he’s made since then was to let Ben go, as painful as that was at the time. In four years that’s all he has to show for himself.

I’m afraid that Dumars bought into the hype and decided that he was in fact a genius. Being a genius, he was free to pursue whatever crazy ideas his gut told him were right, bringing in Iverson and hiring as head coach an amateur who had never been a head coach on any level. If the chattering classes wondered about it, what of it? Dumars was the genius, not them. And so did pride lead inexorably to the fall.

I hear you, Bill. And I understand where you’re coming from… the difference is I never believed Joe D or the media hype about him (Fiverson ticket packages, et al), and I’m not completely convinced Joe D believed himself — because I believe Joe is a pretty smart GM.

Obviously, we can argue until we’re blue in the face about Joe D’s intentions, but honestly, that’s kind of silly, because we each have our mind made up I’m guessing.

That said, I do see where you’re coming from, and I respect that.

I guess my question at root is, why should I possibly assign any kind of wisdom or prescience to Dumars these days when he hasn’t made a truly good, impactful decision for the Pistons since he signed McDyess? The only smart, impactful move he’s made since then was to let Ben go, as painful as that was at the time. In four years that’s all he has to show for himself.

Again, I hear you, and I wonder myself, especially if I’m wrong about the motives for the trade. If Joe really did think the trade would work out positively, then there’s no question you’re right.

If, however, this trade was primarily about cap space and only secondarily about this season, then I think judgment is premature.

You’re right about your comment about Dyess and the signings since then. Clearly, our bench that he created has bombed year after year. And you’re right about letting Ben go… but I remember thinking it was a bad move at the time, and it was clearly a brilliant move in hindsight. Ben is clearly one of the most over-payed players in the East — I certainly wouldn’t have predicted that.

But, a couple points of dissent.

1) I think MCIAFI is a good coach for last year’s team. I remember watching our first two games this season and being thoroughly impressed. We looked hungry and revitalized, and I attributed that (rightly, I think) to the coaching change. Now, I’m not one to defend MCIAFI, because I think he’s botched this season — but in an attempt to be fair, I don’t think he was equipped to handle AI. I think he was a good coaching selection for the roster we had, and he simply wasn’t prepared to deal with that level of controversy.

Strangely, that could be used as a further criticism against Joe D and the trade, I guess.

2) When Joe D signed CB, Ben Wallace, and then traded for Rip — whoda thunk we would have won a championship with that group? And then played in the finals the next season? And then been a legitimate contender for six years? I don’t mean to argue that past successes completely outweigh present failures, because they don’t. But, they should buy the guy the benefit of the doubt at least, shouldn’t they?

Now, I’m saying all this as one who’s ripped on Joe D here and elsewhere freely — mostly when I’ve been more emotional than not. So again, I hear you loud and clear.

But my point is this: Joe D has taken some big risks as a GM. The first few of his risks worked beautifully, produced a championship and a perennial powerhouse. His vision for his team was almost prophetic.

Now, I’m not saying that this is another such foretelling moment for Joe. And in fact, all the tangible evidence, ie the team’s performance, seems to indicate it is not. However, there is a lot yet to be seen. There are some good players in this FA class, and there are a host of teams who will be scrambling to dump the salaries of very good players in favor of young players with small contracts, expiring contracts, and draft picks — and they will need a team with all of those plus cap space for trades to work out.

Amazingly, Joe D created all those possibilities while other GMs overpaid “superstars” with enormous contracts in a tightening economy.

Now, will all that happen? I don’t know. No one does. But, we can’t fairly evaluate this risk until the possibilities it has created have come to fruition. Frustratingly, it will be another two years before all that happens.

In sum, here’s my view of Joe D:

He’s a forward-sighted risk taker who’s not willing to overpay ‘superstar’ talent, and he’s produced a perennial powerhouse in the Eastern Conference. Plus, he’s got as much (literally) flexibiltiy as any other GM in the league during some of the most exciting FA turnover in recent memory.

I hate the trade (emotionally) because I loved Buh buh buh buh buh Billups, and I’ve hated the canswer for years. But, there are a lot of reasons to think Joe D will pull this off, and I’m choosing to hope that he can.

all dumars has to do is fire curry….but he won’t.

No offense intended, because maybe you do have access, but it’s really difficult to read a post like this (i.e., completely anonymous on a blog) and take it seriously. And conveniently, the only way to prove it’s not BS is to reveal the “secret” which is something you are compelled not to do.

@ brgulker:

Mike doesn’t have any access. He probably read something about a “non-basketball-related reason” on a Pistons message board, that’s all. Ultimately it’s classic conspiracy theorizing: he sets up a simple logic problem, explains away certain solutions, and then lets his imagination run wild.

To wit: if the reason for the trade wasn’t (1) to make the team play better basketball or (2) to improve the team’s payroll situation, then the reason had to be (3) “non-basketball-related,” because all of the other obvious explanations have been eliminated. Now it’s time to dream up a conspiracy! What could it be? Billups supported Barack Obama (like everyone else in the league except Spencer Hawes). Trade him! Billups had an affair with Mr. D’s niece. Trade him! Billups used non-Guardian glass when he renovated his home. Trade him! Billups always ate the last donut at team meetings. Trade him! Billups hid the keys to Mr. D’s executive washroom. Trade him! Etc., etc., etc.

BTW, if you read old DBB threads you can see Mike claiming to have access with Amir Johnson’s former high school coach, of all people. Plus he has all of these great sources at the Palace with the inside scoop on all things “non-basketball-related.” Who doesn’t Mike know?

All right Bill. It just drives me crazy when people take the subjective and try to turn their opinion into fact. I think there are a lot of stretches in your reasoning – for instance, a guy who played his career as a guy on teams that chemistry was more important than stars, traded Hill under that same thought, won a championship as a GM under that thought, then all the sudden after operating one way his entire career turns a blind ear toward chemistry. I said my opinion on the matter in my first post: That the jury’s out until October. That judging at this point is extremely presumptuous.

You’re free to your opinion, but Dumars saying something in a press conference doesn’t mean he’s being candid. Fact vs. opinion. Joe D. made the deal entirely based on merit without any say toward cap implications? That’s opinion.

He had been fixated on Iverson since at least 2001, and he finally was getting his prize, and he thought it was all going to work out great.

If this is true, then why was there no indication on Dumars part that they were going to do what they had to do to keep AI around? Are there any mentions by Dumars of AI as a long-term member of the Pistons? Any mentions of Dumars talking to AI’s agent?

Reading back Dumars’s words from that press conference, and looking once more at his actions in the weeks after, do you truly believe it was all just P.R. and that all along he was thinking "salary dump, salary dump, salary dump"?

I answered this earlier:
“And I didn’t argue that it had "nothing" to do with winning this year. Otherwise he would have moved for Szerbiak, Marbury, LaFrentz, Antoine Walker, or some other expiring contract that we might have gotten some picks in return for. This was absolutely a win later trade (unless anyone really ever looked at AI and said "he plays like he wants to be a Piston"), although wasn’t intended to through away this season.”

My thought, and I said this same thing back in November, is that it’s a bit of both.

I guess my question at root is, why should I possibly assign any kind of wisdom or prescience to Dumars these days when he hasn’t made a truly good, impactful decision for the Pistons since he signed McDyess? The only smart, impactful move he’s made since then was to let Ben go, as painful as that was at the time. In four years that’s all he has to show for himself.

You don’t have to. No one’s asking you to. You’re the only one here who’s used the word “genius” with Dumars. I don’t think anyone on DBB thinks Joe is a genius or anything like that – in fact, the reason I felt compelled to write the original post in the first place is because he gets an awful lot of criticism that is sometimes a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” sort. Like “Joe never makes big moves!” followed by “That big move didn’t work!” when he finally does. I just think it makes sense to have all the facts before deciding if the move sucked or not. We turned Billups into AI, which will soon be cap space, which will dictate what we actually ended up with out of the Billups trade.

brgulker, thanks for writing that thoughtful note. You’re absolutely right to remind me that Dumars has always taken risks (i.e., it’s not a new thing this season), and that some of those calculated risks have proved to be brilliant. The best of these in my view was trading Stackhouse for Rip, because that trade was wholly Dumars’s doing and was not forced on him by anyone. Dumars got Ben kind of by accident after his desperate attempts to keep Grant Hill failed; he landed Chauncey only because it was evident that Chucky Atkins would never be a successful starting point guard and because Chauncey was one of the only reasonably pedigreed point-guard free agents available; he got Rasheed only because Danny Ainge inexplicably agreed to take Chucky for Mike James. But you’ve got to be lucky to be good, and those moves still entailed risk. It’s easy to criticize the risks that have failed today while attributing to luck the risks that succeeded in the past, when really both the failures and the successes extend from the same attitude and approach to decision-making. That is a great point.

I used to love Dumars, not only because his hit rate was so high but because he was never afraid to admit when he had made a mistake and to address it quickly and decisively. Remember Mateen Cleaves; remember Rodney White. Both were lottery picks, and it quicklky became apparent in both cases that the players were not going to work out, so Dumars got rid of the guys. The man owned his mistakes and fixed them, without apparent ego.

That’s what worries me most about Dumars’s behavior today. When I see him talk about the Iverson trade, all I see are desperate, dishonest attempts to deflect blame and escape accountability. Maybe Curry would have been a serviceable, cheap hire for the old roster—I agree with you that he would have fit that team a lot better than he fit the team with Iverson—but I think it’s become evident that he can’t lead the Pistons as they look now, or as they will look after they’re further changed. Maybe Curry could have watched over a team led by savvy veterans, but he’s not at all able to develop young guys, and the Pistons are only getting younger and more reliant on their coach for leadership. Yet Dumars refuses to acknowledge that Curry is a mistake, even as most Piston fans see it clearly.

If Dumars has lost that self-critical faculty that used to be so valuable to him—if he’s bought into his own myth, and thinks that his instincts are always right and need no formal check in the organization—then I think his days of savvy trades and signings are done for good. People who are not reflective, who cannot check their own excesses and question their biases, who will not listen closely to others’ ideas, almost never show good judgment.

I want so badly for Dumars to do the right thing with this cap space, as he used to do all the time. I have no faith these days that he will. But I would be just completely thrilled to have to eat every one of my words.

Hey Shinons—I understand your position. Barring some kind of revelation down the line, I will always believe that Dumars absolutely, 100% intended to win this year with the Iverson trade, and that the cap flexibility was a very distant second in consideration. (To me it’s like the Bush Administration citing WMD as justification for Iraq and then, when no WMD were found, saying instead that all along the primary intention had been to spread democracy—potentially a valid justification in itself, but certainly not how the thing was originally sold.) You don’t believe that’s how it was, and that’s absolutely fair. I really do want you to be right, because I’d much rather have a cynical GM than an incompetent one.

It should be noted as we prepare to enter the offseason that the Grant Hill trade was not made due to Dumars’s fidelity to the team concept but rather because Hill demanded to go to Orlando, despite Dumars’s pleading with him to stay, and Dumars had no choice. Often the best moves are the ones you’d rather not happen in the first place. We’re probably going to need some similar serendipity this offseason.

Often the best moves are the ones you’d rather not happen in the first place. We’re probably going to need some similar serendipity this offseason.

I’d be a lot more skeptical of Joe’s intentions if we weren’t in such a good position for that serendipity to happen. Being one of only two teams this summer with mucho cap space, a couple big men who could be moved for cap reasons (Boozer either as FA or trade, Brand, all of the Clippers), one for long term viability reasons (Bosh), some acquirable young RFAs (Lee, Millisap), and a pupu platter of clearance items (Odom, Marion, Artest) – all that makes me feel better. If we turn Chauncey into a 20-10 player in his 20s, I’ll give Dumars an A on this deal.

As far as what his intentions were, I really don’t care very much. If his intentions were to win this year, hopefully he learned his lesson. I’m just going by what makes sense on the surface to me, presumably the same as you are.

will he fire curry and what is the reason not to?

Yeah. I just wish he’d understood which players were tradeable and which should be kept at all costs. Chauncey was one to be kept. Not that it can be changed now, but I still get up in the morning thinking about it and feeling miserable.

Have any of you guys also found that the Pistons’ struggles have made you really boring? I find myself writing long missives about the Pistons to friends who are not from Detroit and could not care less about them. I will rant about the Pistons to virtual strangers at the slightest provocation. They have turned me into an insufferable bore. Damn it, Dumars.

or should i say what is the advantage in sticking with him? what is the promise that dumars sees?

what are curry’s strengths? does he have any?

andy: Dumars said when he hired Curry that of all the coaches he’d hired Curry was the one who most reminded him of himself.

How you read that statement will depend in large part on your views on Dumars.

A lot of good stuff in here, but something caught my eye: “Dumars got Ben kind of by accident after his desperate attempts to keep Grant Hill failed”

If my memory is correct, that’s not entirely true. Yes, Ben came via trade, but I’m 95% sure it was a sign and trade both ways — G.Hill was an unrestricted FA before the trade, and so was B.Wallace. Dumars liked Wallace enough that he made a six-year commitment to him by giving him the MLE despite the fact he was relatively unheralded at the time. And if a sign and trade involving Hill wasn’t worked out, I’m pretty sure Wallace was still going to sign with the Pistons. (I could have this wrong — my memory is a little hazy — but that’s how I remember it…)

Matt, I’d forgotten about Ben being a free agent—I know that Grant wanted the sign-and-trade because that way he could get slightly more money than if he signed with the Magic outright, but I don’t remember about Ben’s situation. I’m sure you’re remembering right. So that’s another vote in favor of the work of Past Dumars.

Yeah. I just wish he’d understood which players were tradeable and which should be kept at all costs. Chauncey was one to be kept. Not that it can be changed now, but I still get up in the morning thinking about it and feeling miserable.

Hindsight’s obviously 20/20, but I keep mulling over a “what if” scenario.

What if we had packaged Sheed+Amir+Draft pick for a guy like Bosh or Amare.

Raptors/Suns get capable, unique veteran with expiring contract + young, promising talent + the pick.

Now, I don’t know how the financials would have worked out in a deal like that, but it seems like something like that could have worked quite well.

We would have kept our all-star backcourt, in spite of CB’s age, and could have developed Stuckey more slowly, in the 25-30 mpg role. Then, in the last year of his deal, slide CB to the bench and start Stuckey (assuming would could resign him at that point).

I favor Bosh over Amare, so let’s assume that was the deal that got done. Doesn’t Bosh + Dice + Max + Kwame plus the old faithful backcourt make for a winning combo?

I guess I kind of agree with Bill in that I think we might have traded the wrong guy.

Have any of you guys also found that the Pistons’ struggles have made you really boring? I find myself writing long missives about the Pistons to friends who are not from Detroit and could not care less about them. I will rant about the Pistons to virtual strangers at the slightest provocation. They have turned me into an insufferable bore. Damn it, Dumars.

Not boring per se, but I hear you. I am constantly posting stons articles to my FB page and discussing their woes with friends. I did that before, too, but with a slightly different tone.

andy: Dumars said when he hired Curry that of all the coaches he’d hired Curry was the one who most reminded him of himself.

I think the word Joe used was “like-minded” but my memory is also hazy. And that makes sense when I think about the types of players both Joe and MCIAFI were… both cerebral, played D, valued team before self. Obviously, Joe was much more talented, but it makes sense to me why Joe would say that.

We turned Billups into AI, which will soon be cap space, which will dictate what we actually ended up with out of the Billups trade.

As much as this season has p’d me off, and as long as it took me to admit it, I’ve come to agree.

I still like to play the “what if” game, though.

brgulker, i don’t think colangelo trades bosh for what you mentioned. I don’t think we would have landed stat for that, either. I think we were the only place on the nba map that would consider amir a “promising young talent” (except for mike). It’s my opinion that the ai trade was probably the only one where we could trade an all star for an all star (with a former all star). A look around the league and there aren’t many other teams that needed a pg and had another star to trade (maybe atl/mil/por/hou/gst). And we could agreed that moving chauncy was the main goal to clear cap/develop stuck. Waiting until the deadline would’ve only slowed stuck’s growth and given the team less time to gel with the new piece. For as much credit as the organization has been given for “over valuing” stuck, i think the bigger miscalculation was thinking amir/max were ready. We traded dyse and gave the starting spot to amir, but we were still going to take stuck off the bench. That was a pretty huge mistake. Now, maybe a different coach could’ve gotten more out of what we had, but i think that this was the biggest miscalculation with our roster. I guess this is the risk when you take in a youth movement.

Alot of good posts here, great thread. Two things: the more we would have gotten into CB’s contract, year 4 or 5, the less he would have brought in trade value (or cap space) and with Stuck waiting in the wings teams would have known that the pistons were looking to deal. Joe D. unfortunately let his hand show last summer when he said everyone was available except Stuck.

Second, we essentially got our “PG/franchise player of the future” into the game along with tons of cap space in the same year. Some may argue “franchise player” but right now Stuck’s it if for no other reason than Joe D. has indicated as such.

Let’s say we do the same thing as the last 3 years (against a conference that has gotten better) and we either lose to Mia, Clev or Boston with CB still on board. Then what? “Let’s give it another year?” Hell, we’ve been saying that since 2005 going against a conference that has gotten aprreciably better. And I’m tired of saying that.

Given the economics of the NBA, this summer or in a year or two, teams are going to look to jettison contracts, longer term contracts than what we got for CB/AI trade. I don’t think this trade can be evaluated until Joe D. spends his cap space in some manner. When he does, I think the CB for XX would be a resonable comparison. CB for Bosh? CB for Amare? CB for Boozer + 2nd tier superstar? CB for Brand + 2nd tier superstar? I think we’d all pretty much agree that is a trade(s) we’d all make. Until that happens, we essentially traded CB for cap space. Lopsided until the cap space is given a name or two.

@ Craig:

Perhaps you are right, but at the start of the season — which is when we made the trade — wasn’t Amir still “a promising young talent?”

In other words, wasn’t his trade value a lot higher in November than it is now?

And I still find it hard to believe that Sheed wasn’t valuable on the trade market. He still has talent. He can post up, rebound, and shoot the 3, and he has an expiring contract.

I find it hard to believe we couldn’t have moved him + Amir/Max and/or draft pick.

I could be wrong, but there had to be someone who would have jumped at that chance, if for nothing more than the cap space of Sheed’s deal.

Or, maybe I’m completely wrong.

brgulker: I think alot of people might have wanted to jump with Sheed + ?? / ??, but as you say, “jumped at that chance, if for nothing more than the cap space” means Joe D. would have to take back some extra contracts. I agree a straight up expiring contract for someone with Sheed’s abilities is enticing, but only to the extent that we got back expiring or a PF/PF position swap. I sincerely doubt that this was the kind of offer presented to Joe D.

Hey fellas. I want to point out that it’s not quite accurate to say that in the end we’re trading Chauncey for whomever Dumars winds up signing in the offseason. Because we had to endure that miserable year with Iverson before we could get whatever new players Iverson’s cap space will allow us to sign, we also gave up in the deal a prime year of the careers of every one of our other players. Rip is a year older now; Tay is a year older now; Sheed and Dyess too (and those last two definitely aren’t getting younger). That’s a meaningful ancillary sacrifice that the Pistons had to make as a result of this trade, and should always be incorporated into the analysis when you think to yourself “well, the trade really boiled down to getting [insert signed player] for Chauncey, and Iverson was just the awful temporary means to get us there.”

We will get [signed player], sure, but we’re giving up Chauncey plus a good year of the careers of every one of our other guys. Keep that in mind, because it may change how you evaluate the trade.

(Never mind the reputational impact of a bad year on the Pistons’ ability to attract marquee free agents, the effect of which has yet to play out. That’s just another piece of collateral damage thanks to Iverson.)

@ Bill H: Don’t totally agree. You could say that since 06 – 08 when we didn’t make the finals. Another year older and still no chip. That doesn’t make this year any different than the last 3. And I think that with Boston and Cleveland getting better from last year, we shouldn’t have been surprised at the same outcome this year.

Plus, Stuck got some great experience this year. Some good, some not so good. This idea people have of “developing” Stuck this year giving him 25-30 mins would come from exactly where? Billups playing 35 mpg would still leave 10-15 mins to come from somewhere. Stuck for Rip, not likely since we want Stuck to be a PG and develop that mentality. Billups at the 2? Also not likely. This isn’t a pure analogy, but until Tom Brady went in for Bledsoe and Cassell for Brady, “learning while watching” only goes so far in terms of evaluating talent.

Hey fellas. I want to point out that it’s not quite accurate to say that in the end we’re trading Chauncey for whomever Dumars winds up signing in the offseason.

I’d say no matter how things play out, the trade was Chauncey for AI. That from here, the more accurate phrase would be “we turned Chauncey into ____.” And I think the extra year aging thing is nitpicky. That it’s going to be clear whether it was worth it or not. If we get a top flight player like Boozer, Bosh, Stoudemire, or Brand or a combination of two solid players (say Chandler and Odom, just as an example), then it was worth it to me. If we get a guy who’s going to be a risk like Lee or Millisap, some may say it’s still worth moving Chauncey for one of those guys, but I’m not one of them.

We will get [signed player], sure, but we’re giving up Chauncey plus a good year of the careers of every one of our other guys. Keep that in mind, because it may change how you evaluate the trade.

Partially agree. Partially disagree.

You’re obviously right about the guys aging, but you also have to answer the question: Could last year’s Pistons have won this year’s EC? At best, we’re the third or fourth seed with CB, and we still have to go through Cleveland.

I’d like to believe we could beat them, but the odds would be against us.

So, the alternative to the trade was:
A) Trade somebody else. I’ve mentioned Sheed+Amir/Max and/or draft pick, and others have pointed out the problems with such a deal.
B) Do nothing and get bounced by Cleveland in the 2nd round.

Now, would this season have been less painful had we not traded CB? Yes. But, Cleveland still would have been there regardless. And a healthy Boston is no joke regardless.

The end result of all this is, had we not traded CB (or some other core guy), we wouldn’t have any flexibility this year or next year — and we would have had a roster full of better-than-average, aging players.

I agree with all of you guys that it would have been tough to win a championship this year. There was a chance; I truly believe that any of a certain set of teams each year could win the chip and that luck plays an enormous role in shaking things out—a bounce of the ball here or there at a crucial moment, or a tweaked ankle or knee. The Pistons could easily have won one or two more titles in the last few seasons, if not for some plain bad luck in important moments. But, as you all said, the odds would not have been extremely high, especially given just how good the Cavaliers have become this year. So, yeah, the outcome of the season probably would have been the same, if you measure outcomes through a binary “did they win the chip, or did they not” lens. And there was also the “development” of Stuckey this season, although I wish the guy would show us some sign that he might someday learn how to shoot. I’m sure it would help him if the Pistons employed a coach who had any kind of ability to teach the point-guard position. Stuckey’s best teacher left town when Billups was shipped out.

My point, to try to express it a little differently than I did before, is that time still has some measurable value. A trade for Iverson this year with a potential signing of Boozer in the offseason (although, please God, don’t let it be that heartless, injury-prone Boozer—Utah can’t wait to get rid of that guy, and that’s a really bad sign) isn’t the same as a straight trade for Boozer this season would have been.

To use an analogy, it’s the same essential reason why people in business apply discount factors to anticipated future cash flows. The key driver is risk. Anticipated wins in future seasons (or anticipated cash flows in future years) are subject to greater uncertainty than anticipated wins (or cash flows) in the near-term, because the more time that gets between you and the event that you’re anticipating, the more room there is for unexpected disasters to happen, such as injuries to crucial players, or shifting competitive dynamics between teams, or rule changes that favor certain styles of play over others (or, to return to the business world, such as unexpected changes in consumer taste that destroy the business plan you had carefully created).

This uncertainty means that a plan which, if executed right, will deliver a championship in three years had better be a lot more convincing and more likely to succeed than a plan that might deliver you a championship this season. The risk that comes with time weighs heavily on plans whose rewards will be realized only in the future.

You can make a persuasive argument that, even given this logic, Dumars did the right thing by making a trade, because the Pistons’ chances of winning this season were so small. But I wanted to mention the concept, because I think it’s relevant: a trade with delayed benefits is less valuable than an equivalent trade whose benefits are realized immediately. I also mention the concept because writing this note has let me put off the actual work I need to do this afternoon.

@Bill H: I understand better now. I too am putting off work I will do this afternoon.

But the analogy of discounting cashflow is interesting. Would our chances of winning a chip this season be greater than next, all things equal. Yes, if only for the reason of age. But that risk increases each year we don’t get a chip and given the last 3 years of not getting to the Finals, I think playing the risk with this core had run its course. I also think this is a different discussion if we had managed to get to the Finals in at least two of the last three years. At the end, we were still short of a chip by two winning playoff series.

You look around, and as long as PP & KG are in Boston, they’re a shot to win it all. Ditto for anyone with LeBron and a sidekick. Orlando and Dwight also. Looking around this year and weighing the risks this year of winning a chip vs. trading CB, then the risk next year and so on doesn’t take into consideration at what point did the current team as constructed become “risk is so high it isn’t worth it” figuring that into “should I trade someone now or is it too late to get good value in return.”

And when that point occurs, we’re totalling screwed because the talent received back (or potential FA) will fall each year for anyone of the core because they too are one year older. An additional variable that can’t be measured is the financial condition of teams. Because of the cap, I believe there will be a boatload of players available for the picking because the other team is not do this deal at an “arm’s length transaction.” They doing this deal because of a distressed position.

Selling my motorcycle now because I want a new bike versus selling it because I lost my job will result in two very distinct outcomes. Trading CB and having lots of cap space makes us a player in those games, this year. Lots of teams had been angling towards the LeBron/Wade/Bosh/Etc sweepstakes of 2010. And if they don’t get anyone, they’re at least financially better off.

On a side note, I saw some rumors that Shaq may still end up in Clev next year. I think Shaq can help, but with Z having a decent 15-18 foot shot, I think Shaq clogs the lane and Bron gets to the rim less because of the congestion.

You can make a persuasive argument that, even given this logic, Dumars did the right thing by making a trade, because the Pistons’ chances of winning this season were so small. But I wanted to mention the concept, because I think it’s relevant: a trade with delayed benefits is less valuable than an equivalent trade whose benefits are realized immediately. I also mention the concept because writing this note has let me put off the actual work I need to do this afternoon.

That makes very good sense, and I think I understand where you’re coming from much better.

An additional variable that can’t be measured is the financial condition of teams. Because of the cap, I believe there will be a boatload of players available for the picking because the other team is not do this deal at an "arm’s length transaction." They doing this deal because of a distressed position.

There’s a blog that details this well. Google Teams with cap space problems 2009 and you’ll find it.

There will be some players for the taking.

brgulker, that website is nbaroundtable.wordpress.com. Click on “Free Agency” at the bottom. It shows you why teams like New Orleans, Phoenix, Washington, Utah and Los Angeles are dire need of shedding payroll.