Ben Gordon Scores 10 Millionth Point in NBA History; Pistons Lose 10 Millionth Game in a Row
by Packey on Jan 9, 2010 10:56 PM EST
in Detroit Pistons Recaps
Email
Print
What Happened:
The Pistons were embarrassed against one of the few remaining teams in the NBA below them in the standings -- on their home floor no less. The Pistons' late collapse against the Spurs carried over (3 days later) into the first half against Philly tonight. Detroit scored 30 first half points on 28% shooting, fell behind by 26 points, and had Detroit fans everywhere hugging porcelain.
The Good:
What could possibly be good about losing to the 76ers and dropping 12 straight? "Oh, but they fought hard in the 2nd half and pulled to within 7 in the 4th quarter," doesn't really do it for me tonight, sorry. In fact, it makes the loss sting even more.
Austin Daye was a big part of the "comeback" scoring 10 points on 4-5 shooting and grabbing seven rebounds in just 18 minutes. And Ben Gordon made NBA history by scoring the 10 millionth point in NBA history, joining a mighty fine group of others who have hit the other millionth point marks (Stacy Augmon!).
The Bad:
Richard Hamilton. He was 6-22 shooting and had a team-high four turnovers. For comparative purposes, Ben Wallace needed 15 less shots to score 10 points and Daye needed 17 less shots to score 10.
Tayshaun Prince and Rodney Stuckey aggravated nagging injuries and did not play in the 2nd half. Keeping them out was most likely a precautionary measure due to the large 1st half deficit, but the Pistons can't afford any more injuries. Ben Gordon also went down late with what looked like a hamstring injury.
The Cadillac Anderson Unsung Hero:
Ben Wallace. Kuester was cussing the team out during a time out early in the 3rd quarter, and it was audible on NBA League Pass. While pointing to Ben Wallace, he yelled, "He's 35 [expletive] years old and he's the only one pressing, helping out..." and then it cut out to this screen. He didn't have gaudy numbers, but he continues to do the small things that earns mad respect.
The Takeaway:
All things considered, the Pistons did fight hard late and outscored the 76ers by 16 in the 2nd half. Unfortunately, I don't know how useful moral victories are at this point for the Pistons, especially against the likes of the 76ers (without Iverson). Probable answer: They aren't. Something needs to change, and fast, or a top 3 draft pick is imminent.
128 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
haha packey, you have a way with words.
you properly expressed the disgust im feeling right now, and in a humorous manner.
Completely removing myself from the equation
I have to say how bad ass it is that DBB gets game previews and recaps for every game, then the community filling in the holes with fanposts and fanshots.
While Kevin, Matt and even myself are known quantities, I think I speak for the whole community here when I call you not Packey…
…but MFPackey.
Nice recap buddy :)
Thanks, guys.
Finally, my Stuart Smalley pep talk pays off.
I’m going to work my hardest to keep the MF forename.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
oh good
Sorry that happened… SB Nation had a massive spam attack this past fall. Someone posted like 10 FanPosts & FanShots in a row advertising Viagra. The tech team since changed the coding, so if anyone posts multiple FanShots in a row you’ll be banned automatically. I probably should add that to the bottom of the Features post. It’s rare for someone to post so many, and quick enough, to trigger it, but it happened somehow here.
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
you speak for me, MP
I haven’t been around too much lately because of travel, but I have been reading your recaps and sometimes previews to keep up. Very good stuff.
Vent
BLOW UP THE STARTING LINE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
SOMEONE SLAP CHUCKY ATKINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
TAKE RIP TO THE VET AND HAVE HIM PUT DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!
PASS OFF THE DRIVE, STUCKEY!!!!!!!!!!
BRING TAY OFF THE BENCH!!!!!!!!!!
ACTIVATE KWAME FOR GOD’S SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
…..I probably don’t mean most of this (except the chucky stuff, are you fucking serious? we can’t do any better than chucky atkins? SERIOUSLY?!) but it’s getting really really hard to watch. I just hope this suffering pays off come draft time. I’m almost longing for the Iverson days :x
I honestly don't want things to change.
We’re at the point where fighting for a playoff spot is relatively pointless. I’m not for tanking about honestly what’s the point in this team trying to get into the playoffs and losing out on a top 5 pick for the 15th pick? The team obviously has issues, and a high draft pick can address some of those issues.
Now that doesn’t mean lose every game from here on out. Wins are nice, but honestly can we really gain more from the playoffs or the draft at this point? I know it’s tough, but we have to look at the greater good here. If it means more nights like this to be good 2-3 years down the road, so be it. I’ll suck it down. Won’t be fun, but when we’re 2015 champions or something I think it’ll be ok.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 9, 2010 11:38 PM EST reply actions
the shitty thing is
We have a terrible GM when it comes to the draft. So we get a nice pick, but we have a practical moron making the pick.
Yeah, I said it.
Out of 22 draft picks
as GM, he’s only had 3 of significance. Mehmet Okur, Tayshaun Prince and Rodney Stuckey.
While Detroit hasn’t had top 15 picks on the regular, that did include the #2 Darko pick. Compare that to another team with similar draft picks in Joe’s stretch (well, much worse, 26th pick at best), the San Antonio Spurs:
Tony Parker
Luis Scola
Leandro Barbosa
Manu Ginobili
DeJuan F#cking Blair
If we're top 2, he can't blow it.
It goes
#1. Wall
#2. Favors
Yeah, bit of a crapshoot after that, but there’s plenty of quality big men that I would like that will go top 10. And it’s very hard to reach if you’re in the top 5.
The only way he can screw it up is if he drafts another guard. At which point I will personally find and stab Joey D in the face.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 12:05 AM EST up reply actions
If we get anything but the #1 pick
We get zero guarantees. Favors is 6’9, 215 pounds— not even remotely a C in the NBA (although he’s listed as a 4/5 combo). His size makes him far less of a sure thing in the L, he proposes one of Joe Dumar’s greatest weaknesses as a draft pick— “he could be, with development, a great player”. He’s got an SF body, which makes him a sure draft pick by Jod, regardless of his actual production at a position beyond the 3.
Sure, Favors may be a great player in the NBA, but our needs aren’t as much at the 4 then they are at the 5.
However, I doubt we’ll get the 2nd pick anyway. We’ll get 3rd at best. And if we get 3rd, 4th or 5th, that bed of talent gives Joe Dumars the best ability to be Joe Dumars in the draft. No clear winners, a chance for Joe to draft another “project” that’ll never pan out.
Have you watch Favors?
He ain’t no 6’9 215. Dudes at least 6’10, somewhere around 240-245. He might end up being a PF, but he’s beefier than Draft Express’ listing. That was taken his junior year in high school, I believe.
Also, there ain’t many centers in the draft outside of Aldrich and he’s a very “high start, low ceiling” type player. An Emeka Okafor type player. The only other C going in the lottery is Donatas Motiejunas, who is a project. Most of the other players aren’t going to be major projects.
Like I said, there’s very few ways Dumars can actually “Joe Dumars” this draft.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 12:22 AM EST up reply actions
Greg Monroe
He can do it all and has the right University pedigree for a big man. Don’t let his less than sterling numbers fool you. He is going to be a big time NBA player.
I like Monroe.
But not if we’re top 5-8. And anything past that I think is reaching.
If we had a nice mid-rounder, I’d pick him.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 2:24 AM EST up reply actions
Also, if we're going to use former players...
I’d say Afflalo and Amir look to have roles in the NBA. Especially Spellcheck, and keep in mind that San Antonio ultimately took Tiago Splitter that same draft, who ain’t ever coming to the NBA.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 12:17 AM EST up reply actions
hell
if we’re talking NEGATIVES in the draft (you mentioned Splitter), I dont’ have time to go through all of Joe’s shitty draft picks. I’ll just give you two words as a response:
“Walter Sharpe”
Joe Dumars was smiling like a guy who knows something about Walter Sharpe that nobody else knows. He watched "a ton of tape" on him and brought him in to work out, holding him over for a second day.
"He’s good, man, he’s good," Dumars said. "Handles it, shoots it, long and smooth."
Super cool story bro.
Yeah, Walter Sharpe was bad.
But I remember someone doing an analysis of Dumars’ draft picks as whole compared to other NBA teams in the 2000’s, and it fell somewhere between average to below average. By no means is Dumars good at drafting, and having his failure rate greatest in the lottery (0 for 4) it’s tough to have confidence in his ability to pick. But here’s the thing: if Dumars is going to be our GM going forward, these are the type of picks he’s going to have to nail down. If he can’t, well, then it’s time to move on. So I’ll reserve judgment on the latest round of picks until we see where we fall and who we pick. Obviously, he can still mess up the draft but I think this draft is relatively bust-proof, so to speak.
Although I still consider the Darko pick Darko’s fault through and through. Especially with his latest whining.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 12:35 AM EST up reply actions
While the talent he passed up makes it look so horrible right now
I can’t fault Joe for picking the guy everyone labeled as the next great big in a league where teams are in the eternal chase for the great next big.
Perhaps it is because I still think that Darko has lots of talent, sadly it is paired with an amazingly weak mind.
Darko should have been a 20-10 player
All the tools. All the athleticism. All the size.
None of the heart.
I’ll never blame Dumars for that pick. Not in a million years. He came into the perfect situation (Denver, Toronto, and Miami would have thrown him to the wolves and he would have been horrible because of it), could learn for 3-4 years under three very good big men and a couple very smart coaches.
And he complained and whined and dyed his hair and got an earring and did everything in his power not to improve.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 12:48 AM EST up reply actions
By no means is Dumars good at drafting, and having his failure rate greatest in the lottery (0 for 4) it’s tough to have confidence in his ability to pick. But here’s the thing: if Dumars is going to be our GM going forward, these are the type of picks he’s going to have to nail down. If he can’t, well, then it’s time to move on.
Honestly, you’re far more patient than I. IMO, the time to move on is now, Joe Dumars is solely responsible for this team’s performance, he has built a roster that will require a miracle to earn contention, and one that will need to come from an arena where he has proven to be entirely weak— the draft.
My faith in Dumars was questionable after the moves he made last spring. Today, my faith is gone. If these recent games are any indication, we’re in for a very, very bumpy ride…
I treat a rebuild like a 2-3 year process.
This is year one for me, so yeah, I’m patient.
If the team ain’t looking better 2-3 years from now, then I’m worried.
But until then, I’ll just watch how events unfold.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 1:18 AM EST up reply actions
That's where I'm at too.
Losses always bother me, but half hour after the game is over I take a step back and understand this team is still under 40 games into this. I hoped for better results, and the future is looking bleak right now, but this team sucking their way into a high lottery pick while rebuilding doesn’t seem like and oddity.
I respect that, absolutely
But I just can’t give Joe any more passes. He’s had so many failures in the last few years that I’m at my wit’s end. If he doesn’t make any significant strides by the All Star game, I’ll join/begin the chorus that Detroit needs new management.
See, even with recent failures.
And I agree that Dumars has been less than stellar (I will always hate the Iverson trade even if I like Gordon and Villanueva), I have to give the man the benefit of the doubt for what he’s done over the vast majority of his GM career. 8 of 9 seasons, we’ve been playoff bound. 6 ECF. 2 NBA Finals. 1 Championship. And I, unfortunately, don’t know what his vision for the future is. Dumars moves in mysterious ways, pardon my bad song pun. So it’s hard for me to look at this team and get an idea of what Dumars is trying to accomplish. His great years have bought him some time in my eyes. Hence the 2-3 year window. Keep in mind this was the man who was voted GM of the Decade.
This is only the second “awful” year one his decade long tenure. It’s hard for me to complain, but keep in mind I questioned some of his early moves as well, like Rip for Stackhouse and drafting Tay. So I will still criticize moves I don’t like, but I also realize that Dumars has and probably will continue to prove me wrong.
I take a cautious optimism with Dumars. I see a man building a house right now, and I think some people are worried whether or not the drapes match when we haven’t even finished the foundation. Not you specifically, but you get my point.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 1:52 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I'm on this boat
Most teams (and their fans) would kill for the type of success the Pistons have had over the past 8 seasons. As a result, I’m willing to stay in Joey D’s corner until at least April 2011 (unless he brings Darko and/or AI back).
Detroit Bad Boys- SB Nation's Detroit Pistons Blog
Much respect to each of you
But times were very different when Joe earned the reigns at GM. Joe was a genius, a flat out genius who made a few very decisive roster moves between 2001 and 2003 and really hasn’t done anything of significance since. Honestly, the Joe Dumars of 2001-03 was perhaps the league’s most amazing GM— and since then, he hasn’t made a single successful roster move or draft pick other than giving Antonio McDyess a second chance (which was huge in itself).
So you have a GM that is known for one amazing rebuilding project six years ago. Honestly, what the hell has dude done since?
At the time we signed him, Chauncey Billups was a once-in-a-career free agent signing for a GM. Ben Wallace and Rip Hamilton were once-in-a-career trade moves. Tay was a good draft, in contrast to other adjacent draft opportunities for Detroit.
But honestly, every single solid move Joe made was as recent as six fcking years ago. What the hell is it going to take before fans start to question this man?
since someone will likely respond accordingly— Stuckey was a success in comparison to the rest of his draft class, no doubt. but Stuckey’s pick was earned by moving the colossal draft fuckup that was Darko.
I don't blame Darko on Dumars.
I blame Darko on Darko. Dumars couldn’t do anything to prevent that failure without time-travel.
And you’re kind of assuming I don’t question Dumars moves. I sure as hell do.
As for Dumars not making a solid move in six years, well, I disagree. I still like the Villanueva signing, Jerebko was a steal in the second round, obviously Stuckey but you already have your counter-argument. He’s done several minor deals in that time that have worked out well for us. The problem is that he hasn’t made the level of deals he did in 2001-2003. Dumars is that he painted himself into a corner with his initial success. I thought that after Ben Wallace left, Dumars should have torn it completely down and started over like he’s done this year. But you know how hard it would be to justify that? After a 64 win season, fire-saleing your team and starting from scratch? Yet it was probably the best move, instead of hanging onto the core for two more years. Everyone thought we broke up the band too early, but we actually waited too long.
See, as the team stagnated, there was desperation to do something, hence the Iverson trade. The Iverson trade was an example of trying to please a fanbase rather than making a smart move. Keep in mind, regardless of our personal opinions, Iverson is ridiculously popular and was still under the “superstar” label. There’s was a notion that in order for Detroit to succeed, it need a superstar player to get them over the hump. Iverson was essentially a last ditch effort to push Detroit into a legitimate contending team. It failed miserably.
See, Dumars walked a very different rope from 2001-2003 and 2004-2008. It’s hard to judge Dumars when he really had his hands tied for the better part of 5 years. So now Dumars is finally going to get some free reign again to wheel and deal as he sees fit, something he hasn’t had in a while. Hence why I’m patient. Joe’s first year on the job included:
Drafting Mateen Cleaves
Trading Grant Hill for scraps
Signing players like Jon Barry, Cliff Robinson while striking out on Chris Webber.
I think you’ll see 2001-2003 Dumars slowly emerge. The key is that he’s got the freedom to make risky/tough choices again, unlike when we were one of the best teams in the league.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 3:20 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
i’m not at all assumign you don’t question Dumars moves, but the opinion of DBB in general until now. Before this season turned bad, how dare anyone question Joe Dumars. Anyone who didnt’ agree with this draft choices or FA signings this season were outcasted.
As for Dumars not making a solid move in six years, well, I disagree. I still like the Villanueva signing, Jerebko was a steal in the second round, obviously Stuckey but you already have your counter-argument.
Villanueva and Jerebko? That’s all he’s done solid in the last six years? I can think of plenty more— MFWB being one. The problem, in spite of the positives, is that they haven’t led to an increase in productivity or a base for improvement in seasons to come. Anything Joe has done in six years has NOT improved our teams W/L record.
It's kind of hard to increase in productivity
When you set the team record for wins.
If you look at our last six years, not including this year:
2008-2009: 39-43
2007-2008: 59-23
2006-2007: 53-29
2005-2006: 64-18
2004-2005: 54-28
2003-2004: 54-28
Our win/losses has stayed in a nice little area with a couple outliers. The problem is that once you build a team so good, it’s hard to improve upon it without drastic measures, and it’s hard to take drastic measures without justification. His hand was forced a couple times, with mixed results (the team survived the loss of Ben Wallace, Larry Brown, not so much Billups).
As for questioning Dumars, I wasn’t exactly a regular on DBB but I can say that RealGM regularly questioned Dumars moves as recently as 2006.
Like I said before, Dumars painted himself into a corner, and therefore was afraid to make a big move for the longest time. You’re right, Dumars’ moves didn’t make a major impact or improve our team significantly in recent years. Because he couldn’t improve much without taking a huge risk, and if he took a huge risk and it failed, well, just look at the Iverson situation.
And keep in mind we made a major overhaul over the offseason. We have 8 new players. The only returning players from last season that were in the regular rotation were Stuckey, Hamilton, and Prince. And two of those guys have been hurt most of the season. The other returning players (Bynum, Brown, and Maxiell) were in and out of the rotation regularly. It’s only natural there’s going to be issues, and major issues with the team.
Dumars gets his fair share of the blame, but I’m not going to lay everything at his feet.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 3:50 AM EST up reply actions
Anyway, I'm tired and I've said what I believe.
I’ll watch and see how things play out in the next coming weeks. Obviously, I’m hoping a deal can be made before the deadline, but like I said, I’ve sat through the teal era. I can give Joe a few years of leeway.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 3:57 AM EST up reply actions
well...
i do blame him for the Darko thing only because I felt like he didn’t draft talent at the time because we didn’t need help at any other position. The pick was made for a solid backup for Big Ben who was falling apart after propping up Shaq in the playoffs.
not to say he isn’t great with trades and seeing diamonds in the rough, though.
Then again, it’s a wierd time in baketball with the new cap and free agent explosion about to happen. His hands look pretty tied. I think most teams want to stand pat right now and see what happens this summer.
On a completely unrelated note
Charles Barkley is on SNL right now and is easily the funniest dude on the show.
"We’re going to turn this team around 360 degrees." –Jason Kidd
Pretty easy choice
If i have to pick between making the playoffs, being humiliated in the first round and getting a 15th pick talent or missing the playoffs and giving Joe a chance to pass up on a top lottery pick talent while there is a tiny chance he gets its right, I’m handing Joe that lottery pick.
Maybe Kuester
can offer Joe some insight on the 2010 draft.
2009 wasn’t a perfect draft by any means, but Jerebko looks like a shrewd pick, we’ll see how Daye & Summers pan out.
"We’re going to turn this team around 360 degrees." –Jason Kidd
Daye has a ton of talent.
But not the body. And I don’t think he ever will, which is why I don’t like the pick. That being said, there ain’t a whole lot of guys I liked that went after Daye, either. Lawson looks nice but I wonder about having 3 PGs on the team.
Summers isn’t going to be able to show much as we’re currently constructed, just not enough minutes. Moving Prince and maybe Maxiell and you open up some playing time for him.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 12:54 AM EST up reply actions
Summers is a tough topic here on the badboys board because everybody just sees blair whenever his name comes up. I’d like the dude to get some real minutes and prove his worth, but like you said, the roster and its’ makeup right now may not allow that to happen.
"We’re going to turn this team around 360 degrees." –Jason Kidd
i'd love to see
Summers get some more minutes, it’s not like we’re winning… At least give us justification of the pick, otherwise he’s just going to expire next season when Prince does without getting any PT.
I feel like just going all in.
Lets move Tay and Rip no matter how we do it. Give our young guys all the burn and let em sink or swim. Time to kick our fires and light the tires?
/takes another swig of rum
Maybe right now
but I’m pretty sure the Pistons will bounce back to playoff contention fairly quickly- the Lions are going to take much longer. You take however long the Stones are out the game and multiply that by 2 or 3 or more, and you have that perpetual rebuilding cycle that the Lions have been mired in for so long.
You can have as dim a view of Dumars’ draft prowess as you want- but he never handicapped the franchise for a decade like Matt Millen did.
"We’re going to turn this team around 360 degrees." –Jason Kidd
who would have ever thought it would come to this? comparing Jod to Matt Millen.
even if he compares favorably the fact that we are having this conversation is a dark portent.
regarding dumars and is it time for him to leave?
im willing to give him a little more time to turn this thing around. if we get a high pick and he drafts well then that would certainly help his case. im just tired of all these project players that never develop. you know, darko, amir, and sharpe. Austin Daye can shoot really well and he is super tall, but i doubt that he will ever bulk up enough to be a really effective player. i hope im wrong cause he would be a beast if he could get a little stronger.
it always feels like jod thinks he is smarter than everyone else and thinks he can get a steal in the draft by not drafting the obvious choice. i know that our picks havent been that high and that a lot of drafted players dont turn into anything but i just want some good solid role players with those picks.
also doesnt it feel like that trade that we were all sure was going to happen that would balance out the roster a lil more might not happen this year? i get the feeling that this is pretty much the roster that we will have until the off-season.
Joe Dumars, soft on defense?
I think Joe Dumars thinks it’s easier to play defense than it actually is for NBA players. Dumars was one of the elite defenders of all-time and I think he underestimates that giving effort and grasping assignments are a skill. I think Dumars is a bit in denial about his own talent and thinks he can take offensive players and just add grit and have elite players. It doesn’t really work that way.
Look at the players that former Dumars assistant John Hammond has landed in Milwaukee vs. the players that Dumars has selected. Hammond looks much more defensive minded. Afflalo, a very good defensive player picked by Dumars, was given away for nothing and is now starting for a 50 win team in Denver. I’m tired of ‘Detroit Basketball’ meaning getting players and teaching them defense. How about getting good defensive players to start with?
its funny you say that he is soft on defense
i was thinking the same thing, but due to his pre-season comments about how the league wont let teams be lock down defensive teams anymore, that the league is making the game all about scoring. the gist that i got from those comments was that dumars was giving up on the thing that made this team great in the past and won us a championship, namely team defense, and was just going to try and build a team with all scorers that would out shoot opponents. well he has done that in a way. we do outshoot opponents, just none of those shots go in.
His comments are true, though.
Changes in hand-checking, the rise of the new superstar, the league just won’t simply let you play the lockdown defense that the 2004 Pistons played. As good as the 2008 Celtics were defensively, they could never do what we did in 2004 thanks to both rule changes and ability.
I agree that we need better defenders, but I don’t think Dumars is wrong in his thinking. The problem is that he built a team to run and we’re still 29th in pace. There’s a difference in philosophy here between the roster make-up and what Kuester is trying to run. He wants to be Larry Brown when he needs to be more like Nellie (though not AS crazy).
Dumars was basically forced to abandon what made our team great because the league went out of it’s way to ensure that 2004 never happens again. You’ll never see a squad like that ever again. It’s why I’m on board with landing a top 5 pick. We need that superstar level player to compete with the best in the league, otherwise we’ll still be getting screwed by the refs and whatnot. I don’t like it, but it’s the way the league works. Has for a number of years.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 7:11 PM EST reply actions
On Waiting For Dumars to Right the Ship
I mentioned before this season started that I’d reserve judgement of joe until the trade deadline, and unless he could make a big trade to complete the roster that I’d lose what remains of my faith. Sure, my complaints have started a bit early, but only because I don’t see Joe making a move.
However, had Jod made different decisions this summer, we could be playing with this roster right now:
rajon rondo – will bynum – ty lawson
ray allen – ben gordon – aaron afflalo
jonas jerebko – chase budinger
charlie villanueva – channing frye
ben wallace – dejuan blair – kwame brown
Had he made that trade that Boston offered and played the draft a bit more wisely, I can’t imagine that we’d be talking about lottery right now. Add Ray Allen’s $20M expiring contract to the discussion, we’d be in a position to make trades or bring in another FA this year. Instead, we’ve got a completely fubar’d roster with no real relief in sight.
I realize hindsight is 20/20, but the difference here is that there were a lot of us, all over this very site, suggesting the right draft picks and how to manage that trade. So in this case, “hindsight” isn’t a very accurate term— because for many of us, it was foresight…
That deal was later confirmed bogus.
Yeah, that wasn’t really on the table.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 11:06 PM EST up reply actions
Like I said down below, I couldn't find the link.
Another thing I remember was how inconsistent the reports were. One rumor had Boston offering the deal. Another had Dumars offering the deal.
The closest I could find to a denial was this:
"We’re certainly not doing anything this year to get a draft pick that’s a developmental project that is going to prevent us winning a championship this year," Ainge said. "I’ve had many conversations. But a rumor that said lower-level executives are talking about a trade rumor pretty much means it doesn’t really have any merit or any value, if it’s not being discussed at the top."
http://www.boston.com/sports/basketball/celtics/extras/celtics_blog/2009/06/report_celtics_2.html
I take the whole thing with a grain of salt. More than likely, some low level guys in each organization floated this idea past each other and Dumars/Ainge were never involved.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 2:09 AM EST up reply actions
Wasn't a bogus suggestion
The Boston trade wasn’t bogus.
A lower-level Boston exec. proposed the idea to a lower-level Detroit exec. It was squashed early (by Detroit), so it never went anywhere.
That Rip + Stuck + Tay for Rondo + Ray Allen didn’t at the very least intrigue Detroit’s front office is a sign that we’re not on the right track in terms of our thought processes.
Also.
We’d probably still be at or close to the lottery, and with the decreasing cap we wouldn’t really have that much to bring in another free agent thanks to Rondo’s extension. Remember, he’s making $10 million a season starting next year. One of the benefits of Stuckey over Rondo is Stuckey’s still on a rookie deal for two more years. Rondo gets a nice, fat payday next season.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 11:10 PM EST up reply actions
Rondo's $10M
Is less than Prince is due next year— and also less than Hamilton is due next year. Rondo’s $10M vs. the $22M owed to Prince and Hamilton next year? Pretty apparent what is more appealing.
As for Rondo vs. Stuckey— Stuckey only has one more year on his rookie deal, then he’s an RFA. So that is one whole year where we pay Rondo $9M before Stuckey gets a new contract.
My point was that.
Realistically, we would have not had enough room to make a major move in 2010. The net gain in that trade is essentially Rondo and a bit of capspace.
And keep in mind that it’s unlikely Stuckey gets Rondo type money. He’s probably going to get $6-7 million at most.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 1:40 AM EST up reply actions
Stuckey isn’t WORTH Rondo type money. Not even close. Rondo is a top 3 point guard in the league, worth more even than his new extension.
And I didn’t say we’d have “enough room to make a major move”, I said “we’d be in a position to make trades or bring in another FA this year”. I’d be more interested in trade opportunities with Allen’s contract than I would the $10 million his $20 million contract would give us.
by Mike Payne on Jan 11, 2010 2:50 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But here's the thing.
I believe both Rip and Tay can be dealt. I definitely believe Rip’s contract can be shorted to a 2011 expiring.
I also don’t think Rondo is that great. Top 10? Definitely. Top 5? Pushing it. Top 3? Gonna have to disagree quite a bit.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:02 AM EST up reply actions
Rondo
is absolutely a Top 5 PG, potentially top 3.
Chris Paul, Steve Nash, Jason Kidd, Rajon Rondo.
That would be my top 4 from season to season; where each of them falls will vary a bit, but it’s hard to find better PGs than them.
Deron Wiliams might have issues with that list.
by garrettelliott on Jan 11, 2010 10:47 AM EST up reply actions
Until he can get numbers that are head and shoulders above, say Andre Miller, he ain’t gonna crack the top 5, IMO: http://goo.gl/Y4cy
I’d probably say Top 10, though.
Isn’t it more effective comparing his current stats to the other players’ current stats, since you’re talking about the current top 5 PGs? Deron is up there with Rondo, isn’t he? http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/tiny.cgi?id=4sP54
by garrettelliott on Jan 11, 2010 11:51 AM EST up reply actions
Another thing.
Channing Frye looked like he was out of the league last season. Granted, Wilcox looked not much better but honestly I didn’t expect much from either. That was kind of luck of the draw. Which useless big would somehow magically turn around his career? I think playing in Phoenix helps, as Frye can chuck to his wildest desire.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 11:18 PM EST up reply actions
Channing Frye
was just one example of a better free agent signing than Joe had. Wilcox was garbage last year. I almost put Hakim Warrick in there instead of Frye. Pick your poison. There were better options before Jod signed Wilcox.
the dumb thing with Wilcox was/is...
That Jod signed him for 2 years, with the second year a player option. As Kevin wrote at the time, giving a journeyman like Wilcox that type of contract made no sense. It’s not like Wilcox had any leverage to demand a 2nd year on his contract, but if Jod really, really, really wanted to give him a 2 year deal then why not just insist on making it guaranteed? Then, in the off chance that Wilcox blew up (like Frye has) we’d have him locked into a cheap contract for another season.
Basically the way Jod did structured the deal: If Wilcox sucked, we’d be stuck with him for longer than want. If he was great, he’d be gone by next season. A subtly retarded move from Jod.
Wilcox has actually pretty solid recently. 6-7 and 4-5 the last two months.
I disagree that there were better options at the time. Especially since Warrick is a tweener forward with no real position, and we needed a guy who could actually play center. And like I said, neither Frye nor Wilcox looked good last season. I was actually on the Gooden train, but at the time they were all interchangeable. Below MLE bigs that hadn’t looked good last season. As for Warrick, he would have made sense if we didn’t already draft 3 tweeners of our own.
I don’t see what’s so bad about the contract. You want to give a player incentive to earn more money. Locking Wilcox into two years guaranteed means that he’s likely to not give optimal effort his first season then play for a contract next season. Everything is a gamble. Give him two guaranteed years, he might half-ass the first year. Give him one guaranteed, one unguaranteed, he works harder and earns a nice pay raise. It doesn’t matter either way. The likelihood of him overplaying his $3 million contract was minimal. It’s his, what? 7th? 8th season?
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 1:50 AM EST up reply actions
…right, the chances are he would continue to be a below average player. So just sign him for 1-2 years.
Giving Wilcox the player option means that the least optimal outcome for us is guaranteed. Either he continues to not be good, and we curse Jod for signing him for 2 years instead of just 1. Or he plays good, and leaves.
Giving incentive is usually a good way to increase production.
If you sign a one year deal, it means that no matter what you’re going to have to give him a new contract. And after signing Jarvis Hayes to a one year deal, he bolted after one healthy season to get more money in Jersey.
Sign a two year deal, and he’s likely not going to perform as well in the first season as he will in the second. So you’re screwed either way.
Honestly, this is a relatively minor detail because the overlying fact was that he was unlikely to outperform his contract. I mean, Channing Frye’s second year is a player option. Kwame Brown’s second year was a player option. Grant Hill’s second year is a player option. Shannon Brown’s second year is a player option. A lot of these below MLE deals have player options, because their agents push for them. It’s just the name of the game.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 2:30 AM EST up reply actions
???
Yes, we gave Wilcox an incentive to play better. If he magically fit with our roster (like, say, Channing Frye has fit with the Suns), then he would opt out and make more money elsewhere. If he sucked, then he would suck for an extra year the same way we would if he just signed a regular 2 year deal.
The upside with P/O: chance of 1 good year. Downside: probably 2 bad years.
Upside without P/O: chance of 2 good years. Downside: probably 2 bad years.
by Gabe F-B on Jan 11, 2010 2:48 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
honestly
Gabe is totally right, as was Kevin Sawyer when he pointed it out— Wilcox could totally shit the bed, he could sit in center court and make poop drawings, and he’d have a guaranteed second year of his contract worth $3M. If he busts his ass and shows his worth, we have no right to retain him and another team can offer him slightly more than $3M and he’s gone.
The likelihood of him overplaying his $3 million contract was minimal. It’s his, what? 7th? 8th season?
EXACTLY— so why the hell do you give him a player option for $3M for the second year? Un-fucking-fathomable.
So then.
What about guys like Frye, Hill, Brown, and more different Brown?
All of them have/had player options.
I mean, people are complaining about how we should have signed Frye instead of Wilcox, yet both are on similar deals. If Frye was on the team, he’d be out-performing his contract and we’d be complaining about that, too. And it’d be worse, too. I mean, if Frye could get the player option in Phoenix, he could get it in Detroit, too.
Like I said, this is such a minor detail I don’t get why people are getting upset about it.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:00 AM EST up reply actions
no shit
so Frye’s $4M deal (and the lightyears of better production it is netting Phoenix) justifies giving Wilcox a $6M deal? And what does hill/brown/hill have to do with it?
this isn’t hindsight— there was a chorus of people here calling for signing Frye.
But that's the problem.
You guys wanted Frye for cheap and for two years guaranteed, which is what he got. He got the exact same deal as Wilcox, meaning we’d be having the exact same discussion to the opposite effect.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:06 AM EST up reply actions
How's it a change of subject?
It’s perfectly valid when the guy people wanted (Frye) got the exact same deal.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:05 AM EST up reply actions
exact same deal?
in what alternate reality does $4 million = $6 million? even if it was the same, how is it perfectly valid given the monstrous margin of production between the two players?
Two years, second year player option.
That’s what I mean by the same deal. Both are making relatively minimal in the grand scheme of things.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:07 AM EST up reply actions
by that rationale
If Wilcox was given a $30 million contract with a second year player option
and Frye was given a $150k contract with a second year player option
they’d still be the same deal? like Gabe said below, it seems like you’re just arguing for arguing’s sake.
They are not even remotely the same deal, given the $ disparity and, like I said, “the monstrous margin of production between the two players”.
Seriously?
You’re comparing a $1 million difference to a 29.85 million dollar difference? Payne, you’re better than that.
My point is that both are on relatively cheap deals, and that both have second year player options. If Frye was going to sign here, it was going to be for a similar deal ($2-3 million a year, second year player option) meaning we’d have the problem with his overperforming his contract.
That’s the whole point of this discussion. You guys believe that giving a second year player option is the worst case scenario, and then want a player who got said deal.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:14 AM EST up reply actions
the "everyone else is doing it" explanation
generally you give p/o’s out to guys as favors or as a sweetener.
…so Hill gets one because he plays for the Suns for peanuts.
Brown gets one because he came to LA in a “make good” situation and made good.
Frye got one because he had a bunch of suitors (most of them good teams who wanted "stretch PF’s), so the Suns had to give a little extra to convince him sign.
Nobody was in hot pursuit of Wontcox. We gave him the p/o because…. Well, I have no clue why.
Frye had suitors?
If Frye had suitors he certainly wouldn’t be playing for a contract SMALLER than his rookie deal last year. Hot commodities don’t settle for a pay-cut.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:21 AM EST up reply actions
So a bunch of suitors = one team?
And how much was left to Cleveland’s MLE at the time? Could have been less than what Phoenix was offering.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:24 AM EST up reply actions
I disagree that there were better options at the time.
I’ll let you argue with yourself on that one:
I was actually on the Gooden train
I didn't think Gooden was better than Wilcox
He was just the guy I wanted. When we signed Wilcox, my reaction was “whatever.” They were all the same.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 2:57 AM EST up reply actions
Sorry to post again.
But am the only one who thinks Budinger is completely overrated? His stats look nice at first until you break them down, stuff like a .498 TS% is pretty bad. And his defense is questionable at best.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 10, 2010 11:27 PM EST up reply actions
DaJuan Summers
I don’t know if you were mentioning that in the context of my list above or not, but just in case I made that a link to a comparison between Budinger and Summers. Beyond that comparison, I do agree with you, despite that he’s pretty efficient where most rookies make mistakes — turnovers and fouls — I think his scoring will improve with time.
But am the only one who thinks Budinger is completely overrated?
Are you? Who is rating him too highly? He’s a player we could have had on the roster for the $500,000/year. He’d have to be pretty horrible not to be worth that.
His stats look nice at first until you break them down, stuff like a .498 TS% is pretty bad.
Scoring efficiency is his biggest statistical weakness at the moment. Otherwise he rebounds very well for a SG, passes well, and has a Tayshaun Prince-esque low turnover rate, but with a higher usage %.
And his defense is questionable at best.
You’re an opinionated dude. Sometimes I’m not sure where those opinions come from. It took me about five seconds to look this up. It’s not definitive proof that Budinger’s an amazing defender. But (IMO) it’s not meaningless.
The defensive comment was him in college.
That was one of his biggest knocks coming out of Arizona, along with toughness. If he’s playing better defense, great, good for him. But out of college, he was definitely a soft defender.
My issue is with some people still BAWWWWWWing over Budinger. Blair, I can understand as he’s actually been quite impressive. But Budinger is easily getting outplayed by Jerebko and honestly looks no better than Daye. Keep in mind Budinger keeps the turnover rate low by usually not forcing the issue. When he catches the ball, it’s usually to shoot. He also hasn’t logged a single minute at SG this season. So his rebounding is solid for a SF.
As for the Summers/Budinger comparison, keep in mind that Budinger is a regular in the rotation, whereas Summers has been in and out all season. That would actually help with some of the consistency. And that’s another issue I have, Budinger wouldn’t have gotten to play in Detroit more than likely. He would be either our third SG or potentially 3rd or 4th SF. Unless, of course, we swap him out for Summers at which point… he’s our 3rd SG or 3rd or 4th SF.
Now, in MP’s scenario, he’s our back-up SF. But like I said earlier, the Rondo/Allen for Prince/Hamilton/Stuckey deal was later confirmed hogwash (I wasn’t able to find the article on it).
But what always bothered me is how upset people got about Afflalo and Budinger, and yet how OK they were with the Chauncey trade. Maybe it was different here, but a lot of other places people freaked out about letting Afflalo and Budinger go for nothing while had no problem with Billups essentially going for nothing. That always ticked me off.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 2:02 AM EST up reply actions
He also hasn’t logged a single minute at SG this season.
This is not true… 82games is listing him at SF regardless of who he’s on the court with. There’s several lineups where Budinger is obviously the SG, but is being listed at SF because of his height.
But what always bothered me is how upset people got about Afflalo and Budinger, and yet how OK they were with the Chauncey trade. Maybe it was different here, but a lot of other places people freaked out about letting Afflalo and Budinger go for nothing while had no problem with Billups essentially going for nothing. That always ticked me off.
Believe me, the Billups/AI deal dwarfs any Budinger/Spellcheck shit by such a huge margin that they can’t really be compared.
I think you spelled out exactly what people are annoyed with though: the “for nothing” part is pretty difficult to stomach. It just comes off as bizarre that Jod casts aside assets for literally no reason.
No, 82 games goes by.
Who he’s defending. If he’s defending opposing SFs, he’s listed at SF. Which essentially means he is playing SF since A) that’s his match-up and B) the SF then is guarding SGs.
As for the for nothing part, it’s an obvious exaggeration. Each one technically was for a reason.
Billups was for capspace to sign Gordon and Villanueva.
Afflalo was for capspace to sign Wilcox.
Budinger was dealt for a future 2nd rounder plus it left an open spot for Deron Washington to compete (Dumars operates under the 14 man roster).
They’re seen as “for nothing” because we didn’t get anything tangible in the actual deals. But every move was done for a reason.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 2:35 AM EST up reply actions
???
If he’s defending opposing SFs, he’s listed at SF. Which essentially means he is playing SF since A) that’s his match-up and B) the SF then is guarding SGs.
Every time Budinger and Battier are on the court together, 82games lists Budinger as the SF. Budinger’s usage % is almost twice Battier. The kid plays SG.
Disagreeing with that = disagreeing just for the sake of disagreement.
Now, in MP’s scenario, he’s our back-up SF. But like I said earlier, the Rondo/Allen for Prince/Hamilton/Stuckey deal was later confirmed hogwash (I wasn’t able to find the article on it).
Dude, if you can’t produce a reference to that deal being “hogwash”, we’re not going to accept that it is true.
I put Ainge's comment up there.
That’s the closest I could get to finding the actual denial of the trade. I’d keep looking but honestly I really don’t feel like it.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:03 AM EST up reply actions
then its not really worth mentioning. it doesn’t discuss that trade specifically, so why mention it?
Because it's essentially a denial of his involvement.
Which is as good as saying Ainge never offered Rondo/Allen directly.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:22 AM EST up reply actions
I agree with MFTL. Especially after I just saw an NBA commercial for, “Where Defense Happens” and it was just a bunch of junk. The highlight of the commercial was LeBron blocking a shot into the third row. Sure, that’s great defense, but it’s great defense from one individual superstar that may or may not happen every game depending on a zillion variables. Great TEAM defense is something that teams [used to be able to] do on a consistent basis from position 1 to 5. I bet it’ll be another decade until a team can sneak in under the league’s radar and bust people up on the defensive end, possibly winning a championship.
by garrettelliott on Jan 11, 2010 12:16 AM EST reply actions
San Antonio?
Not that they will do it in the next decade, but when you think about the combined success of SA and Detroit in the last decade, it was all accomplished by defense first, I think.
Boston, Cleveland too
Boston’s got one chip built on defense.
If the Cavs get one this year or soon, it will be because of great team defense and LBJ.
The best route for a franchise player.
Is through the draft. Trades and signings rarely happen that way. It’s why, as much as I hate being terrible, I realize that sooner or later this needed to happen. If the team was semi-successful like the 7th-8th seed, it would be stuck in mediocrity for a long period of time. People are worried about the lack of movement now, yet if you add 2-3 top 10 picks to this team, you’ll have more assets then you can shake a stick at. But if you’re stuck drafting 14-15th every year, you’re not going to improve much. You become the Washington Wizards. This might suck, but every team competing for a title this year has had to go through what we’re going through today, with the exception of the Lakers who still had to go through the lottery at least once. Boston needed several lottery picks to get Allen and Garnett. Dwight Howard, #1 pick. Same with LeBron. Carmelo #3. Etc.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 2:44 AM EST reply actions
The best route for a franchise player is through the draft.
So you want to give Joe D. the keys to those decisions?
Dwight Howard, #1 pick. Same with LeBron. Carmelo #3.
Man, crazy that Carmelo went #3, would have been nice to have a shot at that!
All of that aside, I think aiming for a “franchise player” is foolish. Detroit didn’t win with a franchise player in 2004. Boston didn’t win with a franchise player in 2008. It’s moreso about all star caliber talent, and that doesn’t come through the draft alone, but through trades. Trades and the draft, is how championship teams are built. I agree that it isn’t free agency that puts a team over the top. But I disagree that winners are made in the draft. If that were the case, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Sacramento and others woudl be at the top of the league right now.
What?
Detroit didn’t win with a franchise player in 2004.
Yep, us and the 1979 Supersonics. And that’s it. Also, rules have been changed to ensure another superstarless team doesn’t get back. So going back to the 2004 route isn’t an option.
Boston didn’t win with a franchise player in 2008.
What?
Seriously?
Did Paul Pierce suddenly disappear?
Did Kevin Garnett suddenly disappear?
If that were the case, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Sacramento and others woudl be at the top of the league right now.
Keep in mind that OKC and Sacramento are very much teams on the rise in the NBA. And we’ve seen teams like Cleveland and Orlando already rise up. So that’s your proof right there.
You need a franchise player in order to succeed in the NBA. That doesn’t mean that’s ALL you need, but it’s been a key to a lot of teams success. Your Michael Jordans, your Isiah Thomas, Larry Birds, Magic Johnsons, Tim Duncans, Shaqs, Kobe Bryants. With rare exception, you need those type of players.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:19 AM EST reply actions
Big Ben and Chauncey
I think you can make a strong case that they were the franchise players. They were head and shoulders more productive than their peers or opposition.
Ben anchored and defined the defensive end of the floor.
Billups anchored and defined the offensive end of the floor.
Neither of them were media “superstars,” but that doesn’t mean they weren’t franchise-caliber players.
dude
are you some sort of logic chameleon?
the term “franchise player” refers to a singular entity. so…
Did Paul Pierce suddenly disappear?
Did Kevin Garnett suddenly disappear?
Pick one. Oh, and if “Kevin Garnett” is your choice, you’re contradicting yourself "_ The best route for a franchise player is through the draft._ Did Boston draft Garnett?
Shaq, Kobe Bryant— were they drafted by the Los Angeles Lakers?
that’s my f-ing point, man — championship teams are built through the draft AND by trades. AND BY TRADES.
i think what terrance means by franchise player is merely a synonym for superstar
which if thats the case i agree with him. it would be the height of folly for joe d to try and recreate the 2004 team. the league wont allow a team like the pistons 2004 to win again. they fundamentally changed the way the game is played. now, not only do you just need 1 superstar player to win its actually preferable to stack your team with at least two ie the big three, yao tmac and artest last year(though it didnt quite work out for the rockets), kobe and pau, duncan parker ginobli etc. the boston chip a couple years ago is the definition of a superstar team. anyone of the big three could be considered a “franchise player” and have been in their careers. other than a focus on defensive intensity i dont think boston 08 is comparable to detroit 04.
but you are also correct in your point mp, champs are built through good drafting and shrewd trades.
See, MP sees this season as something bad.
I see it as something necessary. This team really does need to bottom out and add a lottery pick. It’s the only way we can get back to the top, one way or another. The absolute worst thing that could have happened this season is if we got stuck in 8th seed or around there, with minimal room for growth. I look at MP’s roster, and it’s nice, maybe even good enough for the 5th spot. But I don’t see any level for growth. I’d see it probably hovering around the same area for a couple years, only to start falling off after a while.
Now you can argue that this current team has no future as currently constructed, but the big difference is that this current team can go out and add a franchise player rather easily. That other squad would probably struggle to do so. Maybe it could, but it’s definitely less likely than our current position.
And I always believe that Rip/Tay can always be moved. They’re not part of the future and I can guarantee by 2011 neither will be on the team. And if we have two bad years, you suddenly have two high quality players to add to the team for cheap.
Like I said, OKC is a team on the rise. So is Sacramento. We’ve seen Orlando and Cleveland already rise, and they all had to bottom out first. So must we.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 4:05 AM EST up reply actions
yeah its the "circle of life" in the nba
pretty much all the recent champion teams(except maybe the lakers) had to go through rough stretches that led to the lottery. it would be nice to have a superstar player here in the d that isnt totally washed up and not named allen iverson. i would love a hometown marquis player. i have always wondered what fans of kobe or lebron feel like when their superstar player gets the totally bullshit calls by simple benefit of their status.
now trades are the way to go say for a team like the heat are kept in respectability by d wade’s herculean efforts, which also prevents them from getting great talent in the draft.
Give OKC a center
And you may as well give them the league.
My God, what a starting lineup top to bottom. Westbrook, Harden, Durant, and Green. They don’t have a great center, yet, but this is the draft of the big man so they could possibly find one here.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 5:37 AM EST up reply actions
You can pick either.
If it’s Pierce, it’s a guy they got through the draft.
If it’s Garnett, it’s a guy they got with a draft pick. Keep in mind that without the Allen trade, Garnett doesn’t come to Boston.
Yes. When you look back on draft night, there was a lot of speculation on a trade involving Garnett. With Garnett initially vetoing the trade, that gave Boston the chance to get Ray Allen. With Allen and Paul Pierce, it made Boston an interesting place for Garnett to consider. Garnett sees the East as his best chance to make a run during the playoffs.
http://www.nba.com/features/collins_garnett_070731.html
Not to mention the fact that it took several of Boston’s recent picks plus two future picks to land Garnett.
Shaq is an exception to the rule. In the past 15 years, only 3 superstars left as free agents. Grant Hill, Shaq, and Tracy McGrady. The CBA rewards players for sticking with their current teams as they can get longer contracts/more money
My point is that this season is done. We shouldn’t be wanting Dumars to try and improve the team in the short run unless it improves them in the long run, and by quite a bit because that’s what it would take to get back to championship level. It’s easier for the team to bottom out and add a high lottery pick, then start to work it’s way back up, then to try and make a midseason run and get into the playoffs with a deadline deal. That would leave our team with no serious future, because the guys currently on our squad only have a limited level of improvement. There’s no guy right now that can jump to franchise player, maybe not even All-Star. A lottery pick can do that, or packaged with another player, can get a guy who can. So I’m not holding Dumars head against the fire demanding a trade during the season because I don’t want the team stuck in mediocrity for a long time. That’s how you become the Washington Wizards, obsess about the now, don’t look towards the future.
What happens this season is of little consequence to me.
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:57 AM EST up reply actions
We just have two very different views on how to build a team.
It’s all in good fun and debate. Hey, no hard feelings, right?
by Terrence J. Lynch on Jan 11, 2010 3:58 AM EST up reply actions
It's all on Dumars now
Q has tried just about every possible lineup. Tonight, we’re supposed to see something resembling “up-tempo” ball, which in the best-case scenario is a band-aid. Our players have played hard, IMO, from the top to the bottom of the roster.
This roster just isn’t going to cut it. There’s no magic button for our coaches to push. There’s no new rotation to try, offensive scheme to implement, or defensive matchup to exploit. This team just won’t work until Joe makes sense out of this roster that he’s created.
And for the record, I’m with MP in the above discussion — draft and trades.
Think about the best teams in the league right now, and think of how they acquired their superstar talent:
Cleveland: LBJ — draft.
Orlando: Howard — draft
Boston: KG — trade; Ray Allen — trade; Pierce — draft; Rondo — draft-day trade
LA: Kobe — draft; Gasol — trade
SA: Dunca — draft; Parker — draft; Ginobili — draft
Denver: Melo — draft (ouch!!); Billups — trade (ouch!!!)
Portland: Roy — draft; Oden — draft; Pryz — FA signing
Historically, the way to build a franchise is through the draft and through trades. To count on one but not the other seems foolish.
A Challenge for Terrance
Based n his comment here:
I see it [this crap of a season] as something necessary. This team really does need to bottom out and add a lottery pick. It’s the only way we can get back to the top, one way or another.
Of the past 15 championship teams, did the majority of them experience a “bottoming out” and then reconstitute their championship teams solely through the draft?
If so, then you’ve made at least part of your case. If not, I think your argument is mostly fubared.
basically what it comes down to is draft a superstar, then make good trades to put around him.
09 Finals Lakers vs Magiv LAL WIN
08 Finals Lakers vs Celtics BOS WIN
07 Finals Spurs vs Cavs SAS WIN
06 Finals Mavs vs Heat MIA WIN
05 Finals Spurs vs Pistons SAS WIN
04 Finals Lakers vs Pistons DET WIN
03 Finals Spurs vs Nets SAS WIN
02 Finals Lakers vs Nets LAL WIN
01 Finals Lakers vs Sixers LAL WIN
00 Finals Lakers vs Pacers LAL WIN
99 Finals Spurs vs Knicks SAS WIN
98 Finals Jazz vs Bulls CHI WIN
97 Finals Jazz vs Bulls CHI WIN
96 Finals Sonics vs Bulls CHI WIN
95 Finals Rockets vs Magic HOU WIN
94 Finals Rockets vs Knicks HOU WIN
if you look over that list you will see it mainly dominated by three teams, Lakers, Bulls and Spurs.
Now with chicago i would say that you have to say jordan won those chips for them (who was drafted by the bulls) with pippen as his right hand man (who was drafted by the soncis but was a draftday trade) but he did have tons of free agency help.
The lakers won with Kobe and shaq, kobe who was a draft pick for them, and shaq who was a fa pickup. shaq as a free agent is somewhat of an anomaly though as stated above that superstars dont often switch teams, so the lakers got a chip through the draft, but also through a very advantageous free agent signing.
. The spurs won with a core of Duncan, Parker and Ginobli but also with robinson in 1999 and 2003 so they would be the ultimate advocate for the draft argument.
otherwise you got a couple teams like Miami who drafted wade but again got shaq in free agency. so draft well, trade well worked for them, for at least one year and the rockets who drafted Hakeem the Dream, horry and cassell but then traded for guys like Drexler, horace grant, and kenny smith through free agency to put them over the top.
so as you can see from that list, drafting a superstar is somewhat important but if you dont make the proper trades to bolster said superstar then you dont win it all. you end up in constant mediocrity like the miami heat or n.o. hornets of present.
by dandresden on Jan 11, 2010 1:58 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
quick edit, parker and ginobli werent on the spurs in 1999, only all the championships after words.
dont think that torpedoes the argument for the spurs winning through drafting though.
Great work
Thanks for taking the time to break it down like this.
At the very least, it demonstrates quite clearly that you have to draft and trade well in order to build a contender.
Thanks, dan!
Championships are about VALUE
Championships aren’t about drafting or trading necessarily. Championships are about value. How much production can you squeeze out of your payroll.
Having a superstar doesn’t get you any closer to a Championship than not having one. If you pay max money for a guy who puts up great numbers, you’re still behind the game. In order to get value from a max-contract player, you need other worldly numbers. Either that, or you need to make up for it by having a bunch of role-players getting paid much less than they are worth.
Now, if a team can draft well, it can get a TON of value from its draft picks. And a team can get good value from free agent signings. Trades rarely bring value as typically a team isn’t willing to give up a player worth more than he’s making.
I just don’t like hearing that you “can’t win without a superstar”. You CAN still win without a superstar as long as you get sufficient value from the players you have.
Of course, no one says that predicting the future is easy, which is basically what I’ve been saying above. But, the idea that building a good basketball team is about bottoming out and then getting a sure-thing 1-3 pick in the draft is baloney. Plenty of teams bottom out and never win a championship. The GM’s who stock their roster with players performing over their heads (regardless of their contract size) are the ones that win championships.
by Big Z in Orlando on Jan 11, 2010 5:56 PM EST reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Detroit Bad Boys
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
