In Print: Dumars' hands are tied

We've all speculated that Dumars has had a red light on making moves since Mr. D passed on. In a comprehensive article outlining the fall of the Pistons not only on the court, but off as well, the Detroit news puts it in print:

"While many have criticized the signings of Gordon and Villanueva, Dumars has been prevented from making big additions until the sale of the team. Dumars, in fact, hasn't made a major trade since moving Billups. He was forced to turn down a number of deals to trade Hamilton because ownership reportedly did not want to add payroll; in fact, he can only deal Hamilton for an expiring deal or a contract that costs less than Hamilton's, a tough chore as Hamilton's production has fallen off.

"Joe's hands are tied," [former Piston's Coach Ray Scott] said."

over 1 year ago Big Z in Orlando 18 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

We’ve all speculated that Dumars has had a red light on making moves since Mr. D passed on

Except for signing Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva, of course.

F***KING TAYSHAUN ISOLATION.

by Mike Payne on Jan 31, 2011 11:35 AM EST reply actions

I suppose.

But I don’t think there was a way not to spend that AI/Sheed money on something. I don’t know what the salary floor was at the time, but I think they needed to spend most of that money. Not to mention not signing anyone would have been a blatant FU! to all the Piston’s fans out there.

Now, if you want to talk about how the money was spent, I’m right there with you. CV and BG not turning out to be a great way to spend a chest full of doubloons.

by Big Z in Orlando on Jan 31, 2011 2:49 PM EST up reply actions

a blatant FU! to all the Piston’s fans out there.

Um, what are BG and Charlie V?

Twitter

by brgulker on Jan 31, 2011 3:11 PM EST up reply actions

You're being cute

Sarcasm to make a point, I get it. But Gordon was coming off an electric playoff series, and Villainy appeared to replace at least some of what the team was losing in Rasheed.

I maintain there is a big difference between signing substandard talent (more apparent to the hard-core than the casual fan) and literally sitting on one’s hands.

by Big Z in Orlando on Feb 1, 2011 10:12 AM EST up reply actions

Yes, I was being cute

I know what you’re saying. I was just messing around.

Twitter

by brgulker on Feb 1, 2011 11:26 AM EST up reply actions

Meanwhile the Team continues to lose value

So when will the sun shine on the dog’s ass ?

Formerly known as SCNTFC!

by soufpaw on Jan 31, 2011 12:46 PM EST reply actions

The entire article is a good read, not just the bit about JOD.

by -PS- on Jan 31, 2011 1:04 PM EST reply actions

Yeah, but when will there be some media reporting on this issue that isn't, um, us?

by garrettelliott on Jan 31, 2011 2:27 PM EST up reply actions

Heh.

by -PS- on Jan 31, 2011 3:54 PM EST up reply actions

No offense intended to the writers, but how are the words of Scott not speculation? Just because someone formerly associated with the organization says it’s so, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s so.

Twitter

by brgulker on Jan 31, 2011 3:11 PM EST reply actions

Fair point

The problem is there will likely be no definative source on this for a long time. Maybe when Joe gets canned or possibly some time after the sale, we’ll find out for sure. In the meantime, if it quacks like a duck…

Technically, it is speculation. Unless, of course, Jon Barry somehow knows more than we think. I’m glad more people are writing about it, even if they have to quote Barry and Scott. It obviously doesn’t absolve Dumars, but it should be considered when pondering the mess of the last couple years.

by waulie on Jan 31, 2011 7:13 PM EST up reply actions

I get it, and I think it’s logical to assume that the ownership transition has, even from the most generous perspective, stunted growth. That said, the single biggest obstacle to rebuilding is one of Jod’s own doing, and for that, I have zero sympathy (i.e., Rip’s contract extension, in case it’s not obvious). Ownership transition had nothing to do with that eff up.

Twitter

by brgulker on Feb 1, 2011 12:11 AM EST up reply actions

But

Isn’t it fair to at least consider that Dumars had a plan, or backup plan, in place to move Hamilton if he couldn’t get the Stuckey/Gordon/Hamilton trio to work out? It may be that the second part of his plan (to dump Rip) was put on hold indefinitely due to the ownership situation, which is not something he necessarily could plan on. Sure, Mr. D was getting old, but it’s tough to expect him to know how Mrs. D was going to react when he died.

I’m not absolving Dumars of guilt here. I’m simply saying that there may have been more to his plans that may have mitigated some of the disaster we are seeing now; plans which he was prevented from completing (Hamilton for Boozer?) due to the ownership situation.

by Big Z in Orlando on Feb 1, 2011 10:15 AM EST up reply actions

I think it’s reasonable to assume all of that tentatively. I just think it’s important to remember that all we’ve got right now is he said, she said information.

Twitter

by brgulker on Feb 1, 2011 11:27 AM EST up reply actions

I heard something similar on the radio a couple months back. Terry Foster was talking about one trade that would have definitely made the Pistons better that Dumars wasn’t allowed to pull the trigger on.

by Quick Darshan on Jan 31, 2011 7:18 PM EST reply actions