↓ Login/Logout ↓
Schedule/Results
↓ Roster ↓
Salaries
↓ Archives ↓
↓ About ↓

Rodney Stuckey becomes first Joe Dumars draft pick to be denied extension by Detroit Pistons

Until midnight last night, Joe Dumars had never drafted a player, been in a position to extend his rookie contract and not done so.

But the deadline for Rodney Stuckey to receive an extension has come and gone without him signing one. Really, that speaks to what Stuckey has done in Detroit – enough to keep him, not enough to believe in him.

This move makes sense. The next Collective Bargaining Agreement will likely be friendlier to teams than players. Plus, after such a busy summer of spending, few teams will have the money to drive up Stuckey’s value after this season.

Stuckey would have to have a heck of a year for this decision to backfire on the Pistons.

How Dumars handled other first-round picks

Given an extension:

Traded before eligible for an extension:

  • Arron Afflalo
  • Darko Milicic
  • Carlos Delfino
  • Rodney White
  • Mateen Cleaves

Not yet eligible for an extension:

11 Comments

  • [...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Patrick Hayes, PistonPowered Feed. PistonPowered Feed said: Rodney Stuckey becomes first Joe Dumars draft pick to be denied extension by Detroit Pistons: Until midnight last … http://bit.ly/dfllXI [...]

  • Nov 2, 20105:41 am
    by Tom Y.

    Reply

    Good move. Seems like he played most of those well – except for Max and Spellcheck. Of course it may still backfire but it doesn’t seem likely.

  • Nov 2, 20108:43 am
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    Mike Conley just got a 5 year/$45 million extension from Memphis.
    Conley is the player Stuckey is most often compared to production-wise, mainly because both are very, very average.
    I think Stuckey has played fairly well so far this season, but I don’t know how the Pistons can afford to pay another guard $9 million a year with what they already have committed. Hopefully Conley doesn’t continue to be the benchmark for Stuckey when he’s a free agent in the offseason.

  • Nov 2, 20108:46 am
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    Seriously. Mike Conley? Is someone so desperate to get Mike Conley that you have to lock him up now, Memphis? When both of your really good frontcourt players (Gasol/Randolph) are also going to be free agents? When you drafted a guy who is cheap and might be better in Greivis Vasquez? Mike Conley?
    It is unbelievable to me that some GMs have jobs in this league. To think that with the disastrous mistakes Joe Dumars has made the last couple years, he’s still middle of the pack compared to some of the incredibly dumb moves of his peers is crazy.

  • Nov 2, 201012:41 pm
    by whoolio e glacies

    Reply

    boy do the pistons look bad

  • Nov 2, 201012:44 pm
    by whoolio e glacies

    Reply

    where did they find mcgrady?
    the old folks home?

  • Nov 2, 20101:27 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    joe’s not “middle of the pack” right now. he’s been one of the worst GMs in the league for 3 years running. i’d lock up mike conley to that deal before i’d extend rip to that contract he signed. same for charlie v. so i’d say we have two worse contracts than that. i mean, i wouldn’t have given conley that contract or anything close to it, but joe’s done worse.
     
    how do y’all compare joe’s decision with chauncey and atlanta’s with joe johnson? they’re both at extreme ends of the spectrum, joe giving his leader away for cap space, atlanta wildly overpaying theirs? both are bad, but for all the crap atlanta receives (probably rightly) for that extension, would they have been smarter to dump johnson for nothing? it comes down to their commitment to him. money isn’t really as much of an issue as commitment, because once you’re over the cap there aren’t many ways to get over it. if you have a great young core and are already over the cap, you just decide whether to keep it together or not.

  • Nov 2, 20103:48 pm
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    General managers aren’t and shouldn’t be evaluated on little snapshots in time.
    Dumars had three bad years preceded by like eight really good years. He certainly made quesitonable moves in that span as well, but the basic goals of any NBA team are to: 1. Make money (Palace was always full and deep playoff runs brought in huge amounts of revenue, team never went into luxury tax, key players locked up to below-market contracts) 2. Win (Championship, Finals appearance, six straight ECF, second round appearance, etc).
    By any measure, Joe Dumars has done those things better than Chris Wallace has in his career, and bad three years or not, Dumars has done those things better than a lot of GMs in the league.
    If the conversation is “worst general managers of the last three years” then yeah, maybe Dumars gets in there. But worst general managers period? Please. Not even close. His body of work collectively compares favorably to several GMs, and it frankly blows several other GMs out of the water.
    Wallace? Rick Sund? Billy King? Bryan Colangelo (remember, his dad was running things in PHX, not him)? Anyone who has been in charge of the Clippers or Knicks or Warriors? David Kahn? Kevin McHale? John Paxon? Larry Bird?
    I defy you to find me 15 guys who can claim that their teams have made money the way the Pistons have and have won the way the Pistons have during Dumars tenure.
    Each poor year brings his collective body of work down for sure, but to use that solely to dub him one of the worst in the league is crazy.

  • Nov 2, 20104:06 pm
    by Laser

    Reply

    i only said one of the very worst of the last three years. and i think it would be irresponsibly optimistic to guess the bleeding stops at three. five to six looks more reasonable right now. and by then we’re firmly in our second rebuilding effort, as rip and gordon and cv will be on to their next contracts (whether here or not).
     
    the thing is, he did a great thing by taking a team from the bottom to the top without the benefit of any superstars and without paying the tax. but (A) he did all the work in a few short seasons with a few moves that paid off big time. once the team was built it was all upkeep. he gets credit for building a sustainable core, but since early 2004 the ONLY great move he’s made was bringing in dyess. (B) the manner and speed in which he dismantled everything he “worked so hard” to build was staggering. how much satisfaction can be expected from the gambler who built a fortune out of a pittance after he’s blown it all; it was nice while it lasted, but do memories of living luxuriously bring you that much comfort when you’re eating out of a garbage can for the foreseeable future? and it was ALL your own doing? no lebron to blame, no excuses whatsoever. anyone who took over joe’s job right now would have a LOT more work to do than joe ever did.
     
    all i ever said was “worst 3 years running,” but it sounds like you’re putting words in my mouth even though you agree with my premise. and if this team was close to looking good right now, i’d cut the guy more slack. but things are bleak, and the end is nowhere in sight. what if it’s six years of misery? anyone can lose 50 games six years in a row, have average drafts, and build a contender.

  • Nov 2, 201010:45 pm
    by Mike Payne

    Reply

    @Patrick Hayes:
    “Dumars had three bad years preceded by like eight really good years.”
    This is not an accurate statement.  Joe hasn’t done anything of positive consequence since grabbing Rasheed in 2004, save for the signing of Antonio McDyess.  For the three seasons following the 2003-04 championship, Joe didn’t NEED to do anything.  A GM’s value is determined by the transactions he makes, and he didn’t do anything of note since the championship.  You can point at his brilliant tenure since he gained the GM job through to the championship, but you can’t say Joe had “eight really good years”.
    I’m not linking to this to be self promotional, only to point to a resource where I spelled out this issue fully after the trade deadline ended last season:
    http://www.detroitbadboys.com/2010/2/22/1320329/joe-dumars-and-the-dark-side-of
    He has had 3 really bad years, preceded by 3 very inactive years that were initiated by some downright brilliant moves once he assumed the role as GM.  He was once brilliant, but the most recent evidence of this brilliance dates all the way back to 2004.

  • Nov 3, 201012:07 pm
    by Patrick Hayes

    Reply

    @Mike Payne:
    It is an accurate statement based on my measure of a GM’s success, as I spelled out in the comments.
    Did the team win? Yes. Did the team make money? Yes. Then was the GM successful by those standards? Yes.
    From the perspective of understanding that not drafting well or not developing young talent kill your future, then no, he hasn’t been good at those things. From the perspective that bad contracts kill your future, he hasn’t been successful. But the bad contracts have all been in the last three years.
    Anyway, my point is that Dumars tenure in Detroit has been overwhelmingly successful because he’s made the team a lot of money through winning a lot of regular season games which have sold out, winning a lot of playoff games, which have sold out, and keeping the team out of the luxury tax every year.
    We can dissect the failure of several of his signings and draft picks, but the bottom line is if a guy makes a team money continuously, he’s going to have a job for a long time, mistakes or not. Making money is the mark of success for a GM in the eyes of virtually every owner in the league. Now, I would say the team hasn’t done quite so well financially the last two years, and they have an expensive roster, so things could change in a hurry for Dumars.
    But i’m not gonna buy into the argument that any year that they made the playoffs, other than the Michael Curry year, was not a success for him.
     

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here