Comments on: Lionel Hollins gives a lesson in how Michael Curry probably would’ve saved his job as Pistons coach http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/10/lionel-hollins-gives-a-lesson-in-how-michael-curry-probably-wouldve-saved-his-job-as-pistons-coach/ Your Go-To Source For Pistons Coverage Thu, 23 May 2013 14:20:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.1 By: Tweets that mention Lionel Hollins gives a lesson in how Michael Curry probably would’ve saved his job as Pistons coach – PistonPowered -- Topsy.com http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/10/lionel-hollins-gives-a-lesson-in-how-michael-curry-probably-wouldve-saved-his-job-as-pistons-coach/comment-page-1/#comment-9427 Tweets that mention Lionel Hollins gives a lesson in how Michael Curry probably would’ve saved his job as Pistons coach – PistonPowered -- Topsy.com Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:30:10 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=3554#comment-9427 [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Patrick Hayes, PistonPowered Feed. PistonPowered Feed said: Lionel Hollins gives a lesson in how Michael Curry probably would’ve saved his job as Pistons coach: Something Pis... http://bit.ly/9biRtR [...] [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Patrick Hayes, PistonPowered Feed. PistonPowered Feed said: Lionel Hollins gives a lesson in how Michael Curry probably would’ve saved his job as Pistons coach: Something Pis… http://bit.ly/9biRtR [...]

]]> By: Laser http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/10/lionel-hollins-gives-a-lesson-in-how-michael-curry-probably-wouldve-saved-his-job-as-pistons-coach/comment-page-1/#comment-9422 Laser Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:14:34 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=3554#comment-9422 @nuetes: we had dyess signed for another season. denver bought him out, but half of that buyout was still on their books that year. and joe did not "just let dyess expire," we did not have his rights after the trade and buy-out. he came here on a veteran's minimum and got more money to play in san antonio.   and to answer your question, no i don't re-sign either of them. and i don't think joe would either. he went the "cap space" route, and you're right that the trade was a CRUCIAL fork in the road. but that's all it was. it wasn't the end. just the beginning of the end. see above for a choose-your-own adventure of how this team could have gone forward. iverson was FAR from the end of joe's blunders. @nuetes: we had dyess signed for another season. denver bought him out, but half of that buyout was still on their books that year. and joe did not “just let dyess expire,” we did not have his rights after the trade and buy-out. he came here on a veteran’s minimum and got more money to play in san antonio.
 
and to answer your question, no i don’t re-sign either of them. and i don’t think joe would either. he went the “cap space” route, and you’re right that the trade was a CRUCIAL fork in the road. but that’s all it was. it wasn’t the end. just the beginning of the end. see above for a choose-your-own adventure of how this team could have gone forward. iverson was FAR from the end of joe’s blunders.

]]> By: Laser http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/10/lionel-hollins-gives-a-lesson-in-how-michael-curry-probably-wouldve-saved-his-job-as-pistons-coach/comment-page-1/#comment-9421 Laser Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:09:26 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=3554#comment-9421 that's what i meant, hayes. and i disagree wholeheartedly. i'm interested to see if anyone agrees with you. here's a few for-instances:   A)everything plays out the same up until the trade deadline. joe sees that iverson is not working out as planned. he realizes that if he didn't think the team was going to compete for a championship with chauncey at the helm (and they might have), he gets creative and changes course. he jump-starts the rebuilding process and trades one or both of his expiring contracts (sheed and iverson) for productive players on sensible contracts to teams looking to win big in the summer of lebron. OR...   B) everything goes as it did until last summer. joe decides that patience is a virtue (his current philosophy, now that he's left himself with scraps) and offers a ben gordon-ish contract (maybe a bit richer) to someone like david lee. the knicks match or they don't. if they match, dumars switches to plan B for all that cap space. he decides to take the unconventional approach; he goes around the league and targets teams that are looking to shed some contracts and win big in the summer of lebron.   C) joe sits on his cap space and tries to win big in the summer of lebron. he probably comes up short (i'm nothing if not realistic), so he continues to sit on his cap space. after all, in each of these scenarios he hasn't given away arron afflalo or amir johnson for absolutely nothing. so we have nice pieces and plenty of flexibility. amir's contract will have expired by now, so maybe it was traded at last year's deadline. the team isn't very good, but it's not much worse than it is now, and best of all: there's hope for the future. he can still absorb contracts if he wants to, and the team really isn't that much different. he's got defined starters (in fact, the same ones he's got now if he wanted), nobody stepping on rip's toes as far as minutes and a role as go-to scorer goes. afflalo's still here to play backup SG/SF and knock down threes while being a defensive stopper. charlie and ben are somebody else's albatross. fans are probably still calling for his head, but they have NO idea how good they have it in this imaginary dream world.   on the other hand, it's hard to imagine things being all that much worse for us. that’s what i meant, hayes. and i disagree wholeheartedly. i’m interested to see if anyone agrees with you. here’s a few for-instances:
 
A)everything plays out the same up until the trade deadline. joe sees that iverson is not working out as planned. he realizes that if he didn’t think the team was going to compete for a championship with chauncey at the helm (and they might have), he gets creative and changes course. he jump-starts the rebuilding process and trades one or both of his expiring contracts (sheed and iverson) for productive players on sensible contracts to teams looking to win big in the summer of lebron. OR…
 
B) everything goes as it did until last summer. joe decides that patience is a virtue (his current philosophy, now that he’s left himself with scraps) and offers a ben gordon-ish contract (maybe a bit richer) to someone like david lee. the knicks match or they don’t. if they match, dumars switches to plan B for all that cap space. he decides to take the unconventional approach; he goes around the league and targets teams that are looking to shed some contracts and win big in the summer of lebron.
 
C) joe sits on his cap space and tries to win big in the summer of lebron. he probably comes up short (i’m nothing if not realistic), so he continues to sit on his cap space. after all, in each of these scenarios he hasn’t given away arron afflalo or amir johnson for absolutely nothing. so we have nice pieces and plenty of flexibility. amir’s contract will have expired by now, so maybe it was traded at last year’s deadline. the team isn’t very good, but it’s not much worse than it is now, and best of all: there’s hope for the future. he can still absorb contracts if he wants to, and the team really isn’t that much different. he’s got defined starters (in fact, the same ones he’s got now if he wanted), nobody stepping on rip’s toes as far as minutes and a role as go-to scorer goes. afflalo’s still here to play backup SG/SF and knock down threes while being a defensive stopper. charlie and ben are somebody else’s albatross. fans are probably still calling for his head, but they have NO idea how good they have it in this imaginary dream world.
 
on the other hand, it’s hard to imagine things being all that much worse for us.

]]> By: nuetes http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/10/lionel-hollins-gives-a-lesson-in-how-michael-curry-probably-wouldve-saved-his-job-as-pistons-coach/comment-page-1/#comment-9420 nuetes Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:03:11 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=3554#comment-9420 I think Curry should have started Iverson at PG and kept Stuckey coming off the bench. Continued to let Iverson be Iverson and see where it went. AI thought he had to come here and 'fit in' or something, and he couldn't do it. I see the opposite approach. Just let him run wild and jack up all the shots he wants. It's what he always did, and he was successful. Would that have made the team better? Doubtful, but it wouldn't have been as sad of an ending to the AI story or to the Billups trade.   The truth is the trade in itself caused the downfall. The team was about to take a spin anyway because Dumars wasn't forward thinking enough. Sheed and Dice were going to expire at the end of the season anyway. Would you really have wanted to resign them? Sheed had nothing left. Seeing as how Dumars just let them expire and leave it seems unlikely had he kept Billups that he would have traded them for something before they walked out the door for nothing. It was probably an inevitable downfall, but the trade becomes the obvious fork in the road. I think Curry should have started Iverson at PG and kept Stuckey coming off the bench. Continued to let Iverson be Iverson and see where it went. AI thought he had to come here and ‘fit in’ or something, and he couldn’t do it. I see the opposite approach. Just let him run wild and jack up all the shots he wants. It’s what he always did, and he was successful. Would that have made the team better? Doubtful, but it wouldn’t have been as sad of an ending to the AI story or to the Billups trade.
 
The truth is the trade in itself caused the downfall. The team was about to take a spin anyway because Dumars wasn’t forward thinking enough. Sheed and Dice were going to expire at the end of the season anyway. Would you really have wanted to resign them? Sheed had nothing left. Seeing as how Dumars just let them expire and leave it seems unlikely had he kept Billups that he would have traded them for something before they walked out the door for nothing. It was probably an inevitable downfall, but the trade becomes the obvious fork in the road.

]]> By: Rick http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/10/lionel-hollins-gives-a-lesson-in-how-michael-curry-probably-wouldve-saved-his-job-as-pistons-coach/comment-page-1/#comment-9416 Rick Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:30:57 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=3554#comment-9416 Its simple if you trade Chauncey Billups the MVP of the Finals for a player that does not have a ring nor will he ever get one, you cannot expect to win at all. A team has to have a leader and thats what Chauncey was. I expect this team to struggle for a long time and the truth is Joe Dumars made a huge mistake. Its simple if you trade Chauncey Billups the MVP of the Finals for a player that does not have a ring nor will he ever get one, you cannot expect to win at all. A team has to have a leader and thats what Chauncey was. I expect this team to struggle for a long time and the truth is Joe Dumars made a huge mistake.

]]> By: Patrick Hayes http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/10/lionel-hollins-gives-a-lesson-in-how-michael-curry-probably-wouldve-saved-his-job-as-pistons-coach/comment-page-1/#comment-9415 Patrick Hayes Thu, 28 Oct 2010 15:07:47 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=3554#comment-9415 <p>"iverson did not “single-handedly” kill this team"</p> <p>Didn't say he did. But that move did.</p> “iverson did not “single-handedly” kill this team”

Didn’t say he did. But that move did.

]]> By: Laser http://www.pistonpowered.com/2010/10/lionel-hollins-gives-a-lesson-in-how-michael-curry-probably-wouldve-saved-his-job-as-pistons-coach/comment-page-1/#comment-9413 Laser Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:56:20 +0000 http://www.pistonpowered.com/?p=3554#comment-9413 i agree that this would have been the right approach. there are a lot of things curry should have done differently. at one point, even though he had not found a good formula, curry stopped tinkering with the starting lineup (perhaps a mandate from joe), but he still had dyess starting. dyess was moved to the starting lineup to help erase iverson's defensive mistakes. the result was no bigs on the bench to stretch the floor, and an unnecessary imbalance. if things were humming along, i would understand the unwillingness to change, but they weren't. curry just made a stubborn, mechanical decision to settle on a starting five. yes, the guy was terrible. but there's more to it than this...   A) the buck stops with joe. for years now, this has been "his" team. Mr D gave him the reins, and say back; everybody on the floor and the coaching staff is his choice and his responsibility. he hired curry and paid the guy $7.5 million ($2.5 annually) to coach here, then handed curry a foreseeably bad situation. no matter how bad curry was, joe deserves every bit of the blame for putting an unfit coach in a position to fail.   B) iverson did not "single-handedly" kill this team, or come close. no rational person could think he did. it's a bold, melodramatic stance to take, but it's patently untrue and ridiculous. the only person that had the ability to do that was joe, who was pretty much given carte blanche. he built the team on his own, with the presumable caveat that they stay on the right side of the tax line. once iverson was chased out of town, there was a golden opportunity to set this team on the right path. almost a clean slate, except for a major contract or two for players he hand-selected. joe just blew it.   curry and iverson make great scapegoats. i hate them both, and i hate the parts they played in this team's downfall. but joe's the director here. joe's the only one worth pointing a finger for this absurd collection of players and the team's bleak future. curry and iverson should have been bit players, but they were given marquee starring roles. blame the guy who gave them those roles. people just can't resist making excuses for joe dumars. i agree that this would have been the right approach. there are a lot of things curry should have done differently. at one point, even though he had not found a good formula, curry stopped tinkering with the starting lineup (perhaps a mandate from joe), but he still had dyess starting. dyess was moved to the starting lineup to help erase iverson’s defensive mistakes. the result was no bigs on the bench to stretch the floor, and an unnecessary imbalance. if things were humming along, i would understand the unwillingness to change, but they weren’t. curry just made a stubborn, mechanical decision to settle on a starting five. yes, the guy was terrible. but there’s more to it than this…
 
A) the buck stops with joe. for years now, this has been “his” team. Mr D gave him the reins, and say back; everybody on the floor and the coaching staff is his choice and his responsibility. he hired curry and paid the guy $7.5 million ($2.5 annually) to coach here, then handed curry a foreseeably bad situation. no matter how bad curry was, joe deserves every bit of the blame for putting an unfit coach in a position to fail.
 
B) iverson did not “single-handedly” kill this team, or come close. no rational person could think he did. it’s a bold, melodramatic stance to take, but it’s patently untrue and ridiculous. the only person that had the ability to do that was joe, who was pretty much given carte blanche. he built the team on his own, with the presumable caveat that they stay on the right side of the tax line. once iverson was chased out of town, there was a golden opportunity to set this team on the right path. almost a clean slate, except for a major contract or two for players he hand-selected. joe just blew it.
 
curry and iverson make great scapegoats. i hate them both, and i hate the parts they played in this team’s downfall. but joe’s the director here. joe’s the only one worth pointing a finger for this absurd collection of players and the team’s bleak future. curry and iverson should have been bit players, but they were given marquee starring roles. blame the guy who gave them those roles. people just can’t resist making excuses for joe dumars.

]]>