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

Detroit Pistons’ roster ranked NBA’s worst

Ben Golliver of CBSSports.com posed this question:

If you were a new NBA owner in an undisclosed location granted the ability to poach an entire roster from a current team — taking with you all of the players and their contracts, but not the coaching and management staffs — who would you take?

He also answered it by ranking the rosters for all 30 teams, and the Pistons were first on his list:

30. Detroit Pistons

Assets: Greg Monroe, Austin Daye, Brandon Knight

Anchors: Richard Hamilton, Ben Gordon, Charlie Villanueva

Questions: Talent, heart, (professionalism), futures of Tayshaun Prince and Tracy McGrady

Analysis: Detroit’s roster sports the toxic combination of multiple, long-term, big-dollar contracts to average or below average players plus a dearth of bankable young talent. Monroe and Knight are the two brightest spots on the roster but they’re both still a long way from making rival GMs salivate jealously. Inheriting this bunch would require a lengthy, multi-year rebuilding plan.  

Right, I forgot to mention Golliver listed the teams in reverse order of preference, but you probably already knew that. Overall, I think Golliver’s points in that excerpt are fair – even if I’d add Rodney Stuckey and Jonas Jerebko to the assets list, and even if I have no idea how Jason Maxiell escaped the anchors list.

But compared to other teams, I think Golliver ranked the Pistons too harshly. I’d definitely take the Pistons over the Bobcats, whom Golliver ranked 25th. I also think Detroit is in the mix with the Raptors (26th by Golliver), Suns (23rd) and Warriors (11th!).

Essentially, I’d argue the Pistons’ roster deserves a ranking between 29th and 26th. Makes you feel a whole lot better about this team, right?

No? Alright, well, here’s the real good news: the Pistons come with more than just their sorry roster. They come with a quality head coach in Lawrence Frank and, more importantly, a general manager with a proven track record of building a winner in Joe Dumars. Neither guarantees success, but they make me a heck of a lot more confident than teams with slightly better rosters who haven’t shown they can build a winner, like the Nets, Hornets and Kings.

99 Comments

  • Jul 27, 20118:40 am
    by Murph

    Reply

    “They come with a quality head coach in Lawrence Frank and, more importantly, a general manager with a proven track record of building a winner in Joe Dumars.”

    The head coach is unproven as a winner, and wasn’t the General Manager the guy who assembled “the worst roster in the NBA”?

    Besides, weren’t you guys crowing just last week that the Pistons could play .500 next season (if we have a season)?  Now you’re running stories that we have the worst roster in the NBA?

    I think the truth is we won’t play .500, and we don’t have the worst roster in the NBA.

    This article represents more nonsense from the folks at PistonPowered. 

  • Jul 27, 20119:15 am
    by RyanK

    Reply

    We’ve been listening to this type of coverage for the last decade.  The Pistons have always over achieved what “experts” predict.  I’d be surprised if the Pistons are not around .500 this season.  If they trade Gordon and CV and can get a contributing defensive big man in return, they will have a shot of getting out of the first round…they will push to 6 games minimum.
     
    Without all the dysfunction, this team would have been in the playoffs last season…what, were they just 5 games out?
     
    I’m going to say the Pistons should be ranked 20-17 in the NBA.  They will not compete for a title with this group without serious development of Monroe, Knight, Daye, and Jonas.  Stuckey is good coaching away from being a standout/allstar.  They need another big man with defense and rebounding on his mind.
     
    These “experts” think superstar basketball wins championships.  The fact is a strong defensive team that executes well offensively will beat superstar isolation play.  The Pistons are not going to have a superstar…but if they are well coached, they don’t need one.

    • Jul 27, 20119:24 am
      by brgulker

      Reply

      These “experts” think superstar basketball wins championships.  The fact is a strong defensive team that executes well offensively will beat superstar isolation play. 

      Did you watch this year’s finals? Without Dirk’s isolation play as a superstar, Miami wins in five or six.

    • Jul 27, 20119:34 am
      by Patrick Hayes

      Reply

      The fact is, every team that has won a championship in the modern NBA except the 2004 Pistons has had a superstar who excels in isolation. It’s vital. And the 2004 Pistons had a historically suffocating defense. The evidence suggests that yes, championship teams are good defensively, but having a superstar player who can consistently create out of isos is a necessity.

      • Jul 27, 201110:27 am
        by RyanK

        Reply

        The fact is, when a team plays top notch defense and effectively creates shots for each other they will score at a higher percentage than superstars can in isolation.  It doesn’t happen much in this league because of the superstar mentality, bird calls, poor coaching, and poor player fundamentals.  When you see it happening, you realize there’s nothing that can be done to stop a 60% field goal percentage.  Contain superstars to 40% from the field and you win.
         
        The 2004 Pistons played a team game on and off throughout the year/playoff run.  The championship was won not because of team play, but because Shaq refused to show on pick and roll.  Pick and Roll is an example of team basketball…that’s all they play consistently in the NBA.  That alone isn’t the type of team game that beats superstars.  Good passes to players/from players going to the rim is the next level which we rarely see happening.  When a team spreads the floor and makes those passes, you might as well leave your superstars at home because they can’t help you.
         
        Why does the USA struggle in international play so much with a team loaded with allstars?  A bunch of gringos run them off the floor executing plays for each other.  Leave the bird calls in the NBA and this is what you see happen.

        • Jul 27, 201111:24 am
          by brgulker

          Reply

          LeBron James has a much higher FG% than Richard Hamilton did during the glory years.

          How does that fit your thesis?

          • Jul 27, 20111:25 pm
            by RyanK

            What does this have to do with what I wrote?  The Pistons really only played a solid team game offensively in the 2003-2004 season.  Larry Brown had them clicking and playing an unstoppable offense at times.  The defense continued to be solid for awhile, but steadily fell off under Flip Saunders.
             
            How can a bunch of players who are not NBA caliber go in and toy with our team of NBA Superstars in the Olympics?  None of the “experts” on this page even want to address that question because it perfectly illustrates my “thesis?”  How come they’ve had limited success in the past 10-15 years or so?  Why can’t our guys just isolate and run Greece, Spain, and Argentina out of the gym?  And why can’t they turn up the D and shutdown the layups and wide open jumpers?
             
            It takes an understanding of the game to answer the questions above.  Simple team basketball is the correct answer to all the questions.  Purist like myself appreciate this rarely practiced style.  It’s not Lebron James breaking someone’s ankles for a highlight dunk.  If Lebron would break the ankles, draw the defense at the rim, and make the pass to a cutting player on the weak side, that would be a thing of beauty.  But that doesn’t get you into a Gatorade commercial.  Coaches don’t force fundamentals on players and the NBA has all but handed out referee whistles to the star players.
             
            Hands down a well executed play will work better than an isolation against a good team defense.

          • Jul 27, 20111:39 pm
            by Patrick Hayes

            Seriously? You act like they lost to effing Angola or something. Every team they lost to in international competition had multiple NBA caliber players. Maybe not as talented as Team USA’s roster, but damn dude … you clearly don’t follow international basketball. Argentina and Spain are loaded. Hell, one of Spain’s best players, J.C. Navarro, only bothered to play one season in the NBA (and made the all-rookie team) because he could make more money overseas. Not all international guys who can play in the NBA decide to come here.

            And when you say Team USA has had “limited” success over the last 10-15 years, what does that mean? They’ve won the gold medal at every Olympics from 1992-2008 except one (in 2004) when the NBA’s best players nearly unanimously elected not to play or were young and hardly played by Larry Brown (or are you going to make a case that a team led by Shawn Marion and Stephon Marbury is the best America had to offer then?).

            But that’s not even the ridiculous part of what you’re arguing. You’re comparing a thrown together all-star team playing in international competition against professional players who have played their whole lives together to what it takes to make the NBA Finals. You have no thesis to disprove. You have a bunch of sloppy, poorly argued drivel.

          • Jul 27, 20111:49 pm
            by neutes

            Larry Brown had them clicking and playing an unstoppable offense at times

            By unstoppable you mean no need to be stopped right? You don’t remember all those 8 minute scoring droughts that the defense held tight for? That offense was pathetic at times.

          • Jul 27, 20111:50 pm
            by brgulker

            You said,

            The fact is, when a team plays top notch defense and effectively creates shots for each other they will score at a higher percentage than superstars can in isolation.

            But, when Detroit and Cleveland clashed in the Playoffs, superstar isolation plays trumped team offense, as demonstrated by the FG% disparity between LBJ and Rip. 

            The onus is on you. Prove to me that the majority of NBA champions over the past 10 – 20 years have done so through team offense (and defense) over and against start players taking over games in iso.

            Good luck!

          • Jul 27, 20112:38 pm
            by RyanK

            brgulker: I guess you’re not understanding what I wrote.  Detroit wasn’t playing a team game when they faced LBJ.  Does that make sense?
             
            Patrick: So now the whole world is loaded with superstars…that explains why the USA can’t run them out of the gym.  That’s weak!  Very weak!  It proves how poor your argument is…you have to twist the truth to a delusional level.  You can’t possibly believe your own argument…if you do we should stop this right now.
            World championship are international play and we all know what’s happened there.  Is Greece loaded?  How did they outplay the USA with a bunch of scrubs who can’t make an NBA roster?
             
            Stick to the last 10 years as I posted, not twenty years.  The fact is the USA has struggle against inferior players who know how to play a team game together.  If Superstars can beat team players, why does this happen?
             
            The silliest part of your post: “But that’s not even the ridiculous part of what you’re arguing. You’re comparing a thrown together all-star team playing in international competition against professional players who have played their whole lives together to what it takes to make the NBA Finals.”  You just proved my point with this statement.  These guys have played international basketball together, far from playing their entire live on the same team.  Gasol has been in the NBA nearly his whole life.  Manu, at least the last 9-10 seasons.  You total invalidated yourself with this comment alone.  Just look it up.
             
            Hopefully we will see some team basketball so you will get a better feel for what I’m expressing.  We haven’t seen it in a long time.  It all fell apart in the 80s with Bird, Magic, and the death blow: Michael Jordan.  A team of good defenders who play together offensively will compete for a NBA championship every season…today, tomorrow, and any past season you want to look at.

          • Jul 27, 20112:50 pm
            by RyanK

            I shouldn’t include Magic…  I’m only putting his name in there because he played in the era where it all went wrong.  Bird’s teams played together some years as well.  Jordon and his mass media machine destroyed the type of basketball I’m referring to.  It still pops up once in a while, but not very often.

          • Jul 27, 20112:53 pm
            by Patrick Hayes

            @Ryan:

            I’m not going to get into an international vs. NBA debate when the premise is stupid. What has or hasn’t happened in the Olympics has zero to do with winning NBA championships. There is no connection. There is no example you could possibly use from the Olympics that proves your point that NBA teams apparently win titles all the time without using an elite player who excels in isolation.

            And if you think the offense the team used under Larry Brown was superior to the one they used under Flip Saunders, I just don’t think this discussion will go anywhere.

            Further, you, like a couple other commenters here, frequently employ this style of debate: make a controversial statement that is solely an opinion based on your observation, then put the onus on others to disprove its veracity. That’s not how it should work. If you believe something support it with relevant data (and no, Olympics are not relevant data to your original point), then we have a basis for a discussion. There can’t be any discussions with you because you refuse to use evidence other than “I see it this way and I KNOW I’m right!”

          • Jul 27, 20112:55 pm
            by Dan Feldman

            “A team of good defenders who play together offensively will compete for a NBA championship every season…today, tomorrow, and any past season you want to look at.”

            The team that fit that best this year… the Miami Heat. LeBron and Wade are two of the game’s best defenders at their positions, and Joel Anthony and Udonis Haslem are both very good defenders, too. Plus, Chris Bosh is an underrated defender.

            The Heat didn’t always play together offensively. No team does. But by the end of the year, more often than not, they move the ball well and scored efficiently.

          • Jul 27, 20113:22 pm
            by RyanK

            No, you have two players in Wade and Lebron that dominate the basketball and create offense for themselves…they might pass to an open teammate, but it’s almost always on the same side of the ball.  And this would be a bad example anyways because yet didn’t have a team offense even when they did move the ball.  They isolate Lebron or Wade, then make the pass to an open man after the defense collapses.  It’s still isolation not team basketball.
             
            The weakside is where Lebron and Wade need to create for teammates to be the type of basketball I’m referring to.  Movement away from the ball is required.  The NBA’s current version of a weakside attack is an open 3 point shot most the time.  Every now and then you’ll see the movement and a good pass…  That’s when the defense can do nothing except watch it happen.
             
            International players are much better at passing to the weakside when the defense has committed to the strong side.  If you don’t know what I mean by the weakside, I’m referring to the side the side of the court help defenders have their back turned to or are out of position to make a quick adjustment.  Strong side is the side where the ball is and they are ready to contest.

          • Jul 27, 20113:35 pm
            by RyanK

            Patrick, what amazes me is you think you are proving your arguments right with your continues babble.  When I post things that make sense, you twists my points into something other than what I wrote.  Then when you’re proven wrong, with facts, you say the entire argument out as invalid.  Sounds like a kindergarten approach to this to me.
             
            If you’re going to have a position, defend it…don’t say it doesn’t count after you’re proven wrong.  This is typical of ESPN writers…change your opinion until you’re right.  That’s the criteria to hook up with ESPN apparently because all of you do it.

          • Jul 27, 20113:42 pm
            by Patrick Hayes

            First, I’m not an ESPN writer. I write for an independent blog that is affiliated with ESPN. That’s an important distinction to make.

            Second, there are two things you’ve said that I think are factually incorrect and easily provable as such. One, you suggested that so-called “experts” (I assume you mean the national media) always picked against the Pistons, which is untrue based on the SI links Dan posted and the ESPN links I posted. Second, you said this:

            “These “experts” think superstar basketball wins championships.  The fact is a strong defensive team that executes well offensively will beat superstar isolation play.  The Pistons are not going to have a superstar…but if they are well coached, they don’t need one.”

            Every NBA champion over the last 40 years except for the 04 Pistons and late 70s Sonics had what I would call a “superstar” player, a player who, at any time, could create for himself or others out of an isolation.

            History proves that you do, in fact, need a superstar caliber player to win titles. Defense is important, good complimentary players are important, but it is far, far more rare to win minus a “superstar” caliber player.

    • Jul 27, 201110:19 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      “If they trade Gordon and CV and can get a contributing defensive big man in return, they will have a shot of getting out of the first round…”

      Really if Detroit can trade arguably its two worst contracts for someone helpful, it will vastly improve? No way! And if Orlando could trade Arenas for Iggy or Smoove, it could potentially be a contender again. The problem is there isn’t a contributing big man on a bad enough contract that someone would give him up for Charlie and Ben, who are both negative assets.

      • Jul 27, 20111:47 pm
        by RyanK

        Reply

        Your right, but Joe D has shown the ability to spin straw into gold over the years.  These two are not his first mistakes…they are the mistakes he hasn’t been able to correct so far.  He signed Nazr to a bad deal and was able to shove that off on a sucker.  Don’t over estimate the average GM in this league…they do stupid things.

    • Jul 27, 201111:17 am
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      “We’ve been listening to this type of coverage for the last decade.  The Pistons have always over achieved what “experts” predict.”

      That’s just not true at all.

      2010-11
      Predicted finish in East: 7th
      Actual finish in East: 11th

      2009-10
      Predicted finish in East: 9th
      Actual finish in East: 12th

      2008-09
      Predicted finish in East: 3rd, conference semifinalists
      Actual finish in East: 8th, first-round loss

      2007-08
      Predicted finish in East: 2nd, conference champions
      Actual finish in East: 2nd, conference finals loss

      I’m going to stop looking up old article here. I’m sure you can find seasons Sports Illustrated underrated the Pistons, but it’s been at least four years since the magazine has. I picked SI because its NBA previews usually represent the mainstream opinion.

      Don’t make up facts.

      • Jul 27, 201112:33 pm
        by Laser

        Reply

        feldman, you can be ridiculously frustrating. why bother mentioning the 08-09 season at all? may as well toss any predictions out the window once the chauncey-dyess-iverson trade went down. it’s another bullet point for your argument, but it weakens the damn thing by ignoring essential factors. i just don’t get it.

        • Jul 27, 201112:48 pm
          by Dan Feldman

          Reply

          My argument is simply that the “experts” don’t consistently underrate the Pistons. I’m not trying to prove the opposite.

      • Jul 27, 201112:59 pm
        by RyanK

        Reply

        Look back a little further and go beyond sports illustrated with your research.  The Pistons were never picked to show up in 6-7 straight Eastern conference finals…little on win a championship.
         
        I’m not making up facts.  “Experts” like yourself demonstrate over and you don’t do anything except look at box scores and really don’t have an understanding of the game.  I read your comments and it’s obvious you have limited knowledge of the game anyways.  Yes this comment will fire you up, but I really don’t care.  I’m a true piston fan so I’m only here because there’s nothing else going on elsewhere.  This is not the place to get real information about the team.  Sherod Blakley was the only good media source we’ve had in the last 10 years and he’s long gone.

        • Jul 27, 20111:11 pm
          by Patrick Hayes

          Reply

          “The Pistons were never picked to show up in 6-7 straight Eastern conference finals…little on win a championship.”

          Seriously? I agree that few, if any, picked them to win a championship. But seriously, they were favorites to at the very least, get to the ECF from 2005-2008. They were favored to beat Miami in 2006 (Detroit, if you remember, had four all-stars and even had some early talk from these mysterious experts you reference that they could threaten the 70-win mark). They most certainly were favored to and should have beaten Cleveland in 2007 and were upset. And although they weren’t favored to beat Boston in 2008, most everyone predicted that it would be Detroit-Boston in the ECF.

          Dan gave links to credible news outlets that did, in fact, predict the Pistons to be better than they actually ended up being several times. You threw out a blanket statement that is a personal opinion supported by no data. If you feel like “experts” didn’t pick the Pistons to do well over the last decade, provide links to support your argument. And if you choose not to support it, don’t be a crybaby when your argument easily gets picked apart.

          “This is not the place to get real information about the team.”

          And yet here you are. What a treat.

          • Jul 27, 20111:35 pm
            by RyanK

            Easily picked apart in your narrow mind.  Show me some ESPN predictions over the years…that’s where you find the guys like yourself who are almost always wrong.
             
            Yes, after they start playing good basketball the ESPN guys like yourself switched their positions and started talking about 70 wins.  These are they same guys who predicted Indiana to be the beast of the east year in and year out.  It’s no different than anything else…if I’m wrong about my predictions I admit it!  If “experts” are wrong, they change their opinions.  I’m okay with that, because I’ve recognized the fact that guys like you are almost always wrong.  It’s the other posters on here that think otherwise I’m trying to enlighten to that fact.

          • Jul 27, 20111:38 pm
            by Jason

            Because we comment on here makes you a good sports writer.  Please explain Patrick

          • Jul 27, 20111:45 pm
            by Dan Feldman

            Ryan, YOU show me some examples. I’m not the one claiming the “experts” consistently overrate or underrate the Pistons.

          • Jul 27, 20111:52 pm
            by Patrick Hayes

            @Ryan:

            Chad Ford in 2004: Pistons, Spurs and Wolves have what it takes to win the championship

            In 2005, ESPN the Magazine said the Pistons have the best starting five in the league

            Marc Stein picked the Pistons to win the East in 2006. Chris Sheridan picked them to win it in 2007. JA Adande, Jon Barry, Ric Bucher, Chad Ford, Scoop Jackson and Jalen Rose picked the Pistons to win the East in 2008. In fact, more ESPN pundits picked the Pistons (six) in 2008 to win the East than picked the Celtics (four).

    • Jul 27, 201111:26 am
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      “I’m going to say the Pistons should be ranked 20-17 in the NBA.”

      Name 10-13 teams whose roster you wouldn’t trade the Pistons’ for. Remember, it’s about overall appeal, not just who will win the most games next year. Cap room, age, etc. all count.

      • Jul 27, 201111:41 am
        by Jason

        Reply

        Boston
        Atlanta
        Charlotte
        G.S.
        Milwaukee
        Minn
        N.J.
        N.Y.
        Orlando
        Suns
        Toronto
        Wash
        Cavs
        Houston
        Pacers (Maybe)
        Lakers (Maybe)
        Philly (Maybe)
        Sac (Maybe)

        That is just a quick glance.  If we can trade Rip for the Cavs trade exception will really change things for us.  And the fact Gores was saying he wants to win now at the draft party makes me believe he may spend some money.  Give Dumars more financial room than he had under Davidson WATCH OUT!

        • Jul 27, 201112:26 pm
          by Dan Feldman

          Reply

          The Pistons can’t trade Rip for the Cavs trade exception. Why would Cleveland ever do that?

          • Jul 27, 20111:24 pm
            by Jason

            Why were we almost close to trading him for it before?

          • Jul 27, 20111:30 pm
            by Dan Feldman

            Cleveland would’ve done it if Detroit included a first-round pick. Would you want to make that trade?

          • Jul 27, 20111:35 pm
            by Jason

            Have I told you I lost complete respect for you cause of your Hamilton ESPN crap.  You a sell out. 

            Just reminding you.

        • Jul 27, 20116:45 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          Wow you would maybe take the Pistons’ roster over the Lakers’. That just says it all. The Lakers are in a a super close race with Miami for the most talented roster in the league. I don’t know which I’d say is first and which is second so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and pick Miami. The Pistons may have slightly more upside 4-5 years down the line, but the Lakers have a Kobe who still has at least three more all-star years in him, Gasol right around his peak, Bynum who may or may not get healthy but may be the second best center in the league, and Odom who is an underrated do it all player who should be a starter on any team in the league except Miami.

  • Jul 27, 20119:22 am
    by brgulker

    Reply

    For the record, Lawrence Frank has a losing record as a head coach. I think that’s mostly about the players he had to work with, but still, hard to call him proven or a winner. 

    If you take into account Detroit’s salary profile, we’re definitely in the bottom five in the league. There are teams that have comparable rosters, but much better contracts.  Minnesota is a good example of that.

    • Jul 27, 201110:23 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      I think they mean he is a proven winner as an assistant coach. Big deal, there are piles of those out there. I think given the options, he was a decent hire. but not so much better than other bad team’s coaches as to make any significant difference in where the teams should be ranked.

      And about the salary profile. It’s true, but the real problem isn’t how much Detroit is currently spending, but who it is spending it on. There is almost an inverse relationship on this team between salary and productivity. And that makes it hard to get rid of the unwanted players, hard to get value in return for the desirable ones, and means that as the unwanted players come off the books, the desirable ones will be in line for a raise.

    • Jul 27, 201111:30 am
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      I meant proven winner as a head coach. In his first few years on the job, Frank proved he could win. Of course, later, he also proved he could lose. But by proving he could win (relative to his expectations), Frank set himself apart from a lot of newly hired head coaches.

      • Jul 27, 201112:38 pm
        by Laser

        Reply

        sigh. frustration is the name of the game lately.
         
        if i go to the casino and make ten bets on roulette and win half of them, that’s not a proven record that i can win at roulette. that means i’ve won at times. i’ve also lost half the time, so it proves nothing.
         
        moving from frank to dumars, since it’s the same basic argument, dude had a worse team when KD tied his hands than the one he inherited a decade earlier. what more is there to know? lots of success, but nothing to show for it but fond memories and a ring to remind everyone how good it could still be if joe knew how to roll over assets.

        • Jul 27, 201112:50 pm
          by Dan Feldman

          Reply

          Your standard is ridiculously high. Show me one team since the NBA-ABA merger that has rolled over its assets into continued contention without a drop in success.

          • Jul 27, 20112:38 pm
            by khandor

            Amen to this cogent observation. In my book, Joe Dumars actually deserves at least some praise for making an attempt to pull off this caper on behalf of the Pistons during the last 3 seasons. Unfortunately, he has been unable to work a miracle and, instead, has had s similar fate befall him as the other top notch GMs who have also attempted to turn this trick over the years with other high quality organizations [e.g. like Red Auerbach, Jack McCloskey, Jerry West, and Carroll Dawson].

          • Jul 27, 20116:50 pm
            by tarsier

            That’s true, but Dumars has not shown a coherent plan for how to get back into contention. Rather he has put together a roster which even Langlois, the most biased writer I ever read, thinks should challenge for the last couple playoff spots. And this without very much room on the team for internal growth. Detroit lucked into Monroe and overstated the values of Stuckey, Daye, and Jerebko. But this still isn’t a team built to go anywhere. Agreed about the hands-tied situation. We will have to wait and see what Dumars does next. But the philosophy behind the “retool” that he has continually stated is what I find the most disconcerting, not the poor results due to an unfortunate situation.

  • Jul 27, 20119:30 am
    by Steve K

    Reply

    Perhaps the silver lining is that the Knicks are only a few years removed from being the worst-constructed team in the league. They turned it around.

    • Jul 27, 201110:09 am
      by oracle

      Reply

      The Knicks gave up first round draft picks from now until eternity to get out of their bad contracts.  They are hardly a model to follow

  • Jul 27, 201110:28 am
    by tarsier

    Reply

    I wish I could trust in Dumars’ proven track record, and I could if there was any indication that he had a smart goal he was working toward. But all indications coming from the Pistons for years now are that he wants to “retool while staying competitive.” His unwillingness to sacrifice the present for the future or the future for the present has gotten Detroit into this mess. Getting better now and later is simply a nearly unrealizable ambition. I wish he would take a page out of Cleveland’s book and take on bad contracts in exchange for getting more young players with potential. Then he just has to wait for the contracts to expire and try to get as much veteran talent as possible before his young guys get expensive.

    • Jul 27, 201111:24 am
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      “Getting better now and later is simply a nearly unrealizable ambition.”

      I’m glad you wrote “nearly” because Joe Dumars already did it. Between 2001-02 and 2007-08, the Pistons won 50 games. Compare their rosters the first and last years of that streak. Not a single player from the first year stayed with the team through the last year. The Pistons completely rebuilt while winning 50 games every year.

      • Jul 27, 201112:42 pm
        by Laser

        Reply

        there’s no reason any NBA team shouldn’t be able to compete now and later. if you’re any good, you should be able to roll over your assets. i stand by that. let’s see what denver can do at this point.
         
        the thing is that rarely do you try to rebuild when you’re already good. for many reasons it just doesn’t happen. i think denver’s doing it right now and doing a fine job of it so far. just make smart moves. roll over assets. no reason it couldn’t work if you decided to roll the dice and retool on the fly. teams are just very rarely motivated to do it.

      • Jul 27, 20112:41 pm
        by khandor

        Reply

        Dan,
        Cogent observation No. 2. Who were the Pistons coaches through that transitional period? What characteristics, if any, might they also share with Lawrence Frank?

      • Jul 27, 20116:52 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        Yes, I acknowledge it is doable, if not usually successful. But you need outrageous luck as well as doing great work to pull it off. Especially if a superstar doesn’t drop into your lap.

  • Jul 27, 201111:35 am
    by neutes

    Reply

    There are certainly worse rosters out there on a pure talent level. The Kings for sure, especially if they let Thornton get away. Difference is they have a roster bad enough to hit the top of the lotto again and also have a bunch of cap flexibility if they ever did choose to use it. So while they have a horrible roster they still have more ability to turn it around than the Pistons.
     
    The Pistons are stuck with what they have due to lack of cap flexibility and undesirable contracts. Mornoe, Knight, Jerebko, and Stuckey are solid, and better than any 4 players on the Kings. The problem is the Kings don’t have guys like Rip, Gordon, CV, and Max eating up their remaining cap space. They have a young (albeit crappy) core without having the long-term vet contracts. We have a young (slightly promising) core and long-term vet contracts. Tough call.
     
    I don’t necessarily agree the Warriors should be 11th, but they do have a good roster. I’d take that roster over the Pistons in a second. He has the Knicks at 4, but unless he included the must do task of trading Amare and/or Melo ASAP in his analysis I can’t agree with that one. The Knick simply cannot win keeping both.

    • Jul 27, 201112:21 pm
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      DeMarcus Cousins and Tyreke Evans are definitely more valuable than Stuckey, Jerebko and Knight. I’d probably put Monroe between Cousins and Evans, but I could argue any order there.

      • Jul 27, 201112:37 pm
        by brgulker

        Reply

        Cousins had a really bad rookie season, but he’s loaded with potential. Evans had a great rookie season but sucked last season.

        I’m not sure I’d count them as more valuable just yet.

        • Jul 27, 20116:55 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          I disagree that Cousins had a really bad rookie season. He was wildly inconsistent and showed all the attitudinal problems that had been flagged. But he still averaged pretty decent numbers for a rookie. He was just overshadowed b Griffin.

          • Jul 27, 201110:27 pm
            by neutes

            Cousins had a worse TS% and higher turnover rate than John Wall, a rookie PG who’s shooting and turnovers were questioned coming into the league. I’d say that qualifies as a bad season. I don’t know about you but I don’t want my center shooting 43% and turning the ball over 4 times a game. Cousins had the 5th most turnovers in the league while playing over 700 minutes less than each of the 4 players above him. He also committed the most fouls in the NBA while ranking 52nd in minutes played. And again – 43% shooting.
             
            Evans was thoroughly outplayed by Thornton down the stretch, and shot 41% for the season while committing 3 turnovers per game.
             
            If these are the two players you’re banking your future on I say good luck to you. I’ll take Stuckey and Monroe, which still isn’t all that promising. I’ll also take Knight over Fredette and Jerebko over Hickson. The wild cards are Thornton and Daye, in which case the Kings win one matchup of young talent. They still win the cap battle so they have that going for them.

      • Jul 27, 20111:01 pm
        by neutes

        Reply

        A core of Jimmer, Evans, Hickson, and Cousins has a win ceiling of about 20. If it wasn’t for Udrih, Dalambert, and Thornton the Kings would have been the worst team in the league. Thornton is better than Evans. If they lose him they’re in rough shape talent-wise. Still good shape cap-wise.
         
        I’d say Monroe, Jerebko, and Stuckey alone could surpass 20 wins. Knight might not contribute anything but he has the potential. Also what I like about Stuckey, Monroe, and Jerebko as opposed to Evans, Hickson, and Cousins is that they are more productive, but they don’t score enough to end up ridiculously overpaid.

      • Jul 27, 20112:46 pm
        by khandor

        Reply

        Dan,
        Over the future course of their NBA careers, collectively, I would be willing to bet that the foursome of Stuckey, Jerebko, Daye and Knight eventually out-shines the twosome of Evans [who got off to a solid start 2 years ago] and Cousins [who, IMO, qualifies only as a legitimate "loose cannon"].

        • Jul 27, 20114:07 pm
          by Dan Feldman

          Reply

          I’d take that bet in a heartbeat. You’re also ignoring that the Kings will pay those two much less than the Pistons will pay their four, so Sacramento has more room to add another good player.

          • Jul 27, 20114:46 pm
            by khandor

            Dan,
            Okay, then … we will consider this a friendly wager between the two of us, re: the long term productivity of these 6 players. “Room to add another good player” is an irrelevant consideration at this point, since we will not be appraising “how the team does, as a whole”, inasmuch as “how these 6 players do, as two collective groups.”

          • Jul 27, 20115:08 pm
            by Dan Feldman

            To be clear, I’m talking per player. In sum, I’d rather take my chances with four quality young players.

          • Jul 27, 20118:06 pm
            by khandor

            Dan,
            Of the 6 players mentioned in our friendly wager, on an individual basis, my projections would look like this:
            1. Evans
            2. Knight
            3. Stuckey
            4. Daye
            5. Jerebko
            6. Cousins
            for their ability as NBA players on a long-term basis. IMO, neither Cousins nor Jerebko is likely to develop into a dominant player down-the-road, albeit for very different reasons.

  • Jul 27, 201111:51 am
    by Laser

    Reply

    it’s official: Joe Dumars knows how to build a proven winner! yes, i seem to recall him doing that once. like almost a full decade ago. ah, memories.
     
    also official: he knows how to smash that winner to smithereens! turning every last asset into nothing whatsoever if we’re lucky, or crippling liabilities if we’re not!
     
    this infinite line of credit Dumars gets makes me SICK. absolutely sick.
     
    NEWS FLASH, Feldman: this roster. the one that’s ranked 30th by this guy (who probably isn’t wrong. we certainly have the least promising cross-section of young talent and flexibility among bad teams) and that you admit belongs between 26 and 29 IS JOE’S TEAM. he put it together almost exactly like this! with unlimited flexibility! you think being free to trade either rip hamilton or ben gordon for another similarly bad contract makes the difference?? heading into the 08-09 season we were coming off the second best record in the league. karen davidson’s interruption of joe’s magnificent rebuilding plan was not the problem. this roster is his and his alone. he’s just been stuck with it too long. but if he wanted to make improvements, he’s not going to be able to move these wretched contracts for anything worth having. and that’s NOT karen davidson’s fault.
     
    STOP MAKING EXCUSES FOR THIS GUY ALREADY. please. i’m begging you. i’m typing this on my hands and knees. the handcuffs are officially off. no need to speculate about what a f*cking genius this idiot is anymore. we’ll all get front row seats to see what he can do with this mess– HIS MESS. so let’s stop acting like the man deserves any more goodwill.

    • Jul 27, 201112:24 pm
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      Laser, I noticed when you list Dumars’ mistakes, you never mention signing Nazr Mohammed. That five-year, $30 million contract was about as bad as any of his other moves. Why don’t you ever list that mistake?

      • Jul 27, 201112:39 pm
        by brgulker

        Reply

        That contract isn’t all bad. Nazr still played a role as recently as this season on a winning team. Plus, Nazr appeared to be a legit starting C at the time, and if you’re gonna take a risk with an MLE-type deal, a big man is the place to do it.

      • Jul 27, 20117:03 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        It’s also not quite as big a mistake because Detroit was unlikely to have cap space any time soon. So as an owner who has to pay the contract, it might be just as a bad. But as a fan who wants to the the team get good, a waste of $6M that you cant use on another player anyway doesnt matter so much.

        But it’s true, that was yet another mistake by Dumars, and kudos to him in getting out from under it. Still Laser’s point is valid in that Dumars took a team full of valuable veterans and with quite a number of promising young guys too, and turned it into a roster which has a net value around zero (in other words, to get rid of all the bad contracts, I think it would require giving up virtually all of the positive assets on this team).

  • Jul 27, 201112:39 pm
    by RandomGuy313

    Reply

    But compared to other teams, I think Golliver ranked the Pistons too harshly. I’d definitely take the Pistons over the Bobcats, whom Golliver ranked 25th. I also think Detroit is in the mix with the Raptors(26th by Golliver), Suns (23rd) and Warriors (11th!).

  • Jul 27, 201112:43 pm
    by RandomGuy313

    Reply

    You win comments section. White flag has been raised

  • Jul 27, 20111:52 pm
    by rob

    Reply

    If this is all based on their bad contracts, yes I agree, but a smart GM doesnt choose a team based on how mant aging vets on bad contracts he has. He chooses based on the promising talent on the team thats he’s going to build around going forward.

    Its easier to trade away a bad contract than it is to acquire good talent. So in that sense, the Pistons should be more middle of the pack.

    Once those a few of those bad contracts are moved, they are going instantly go from one of the worst cap situations to one of the best. Because they are going to be left with a great young starting lineup filled with guys on rookie contracts. So, they are going to end up with huge amounts of space to work with to add to those players, and actually be one of the best situations in the NBA.

    Right now middle of the pack. By next year, when most of those bad contracts should be gone, easily a top 10 roster, based on the criteria of great young talent and lots of capspace, which most GM’s covet most.

    • Jul 27, 20111:59 pm
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      The rankings are all things considered — bad contracts and young talent.

      How exactly do you suggest the Pistons magically rid themselves of their bad contracts by next year?

      • Jul 27, 20112:14 pm
        by rob

        Reply

        My prior comment was adding on to my first post, not in response to your post.

        I didn’t say they would rid themselves of all their bad contracts by next year. I said some of them. They only have 3 bad contracts. By this time next year, Rip’s contract actually will ”magically” turn into a good contract when it becomes an EXP.

        So that leaves 2 in BG and CV. One could easily be voided if there is an amnesty clause. If not, I think there is a market for Gordon, where the Pistons could trade him if they wanted by next year.

        So that removes 2/3 of their bad contracts leaving them only CV, the least of the 3 bad contracts. And a team with Monroe, Knight, Daye, and Jerebko, players or capspace gained from trading Gordon, and a $12 mil exp in Rip, with CV’s contract as the only bad one on the roster is a pretty good situation, imo.

        • Jul 27, 20112:18 pm
          by Dan Feldman

          Reply

          Even if the NBA repeats the same amnesty clause it used before, those contracts still count against the cap. The only amnesty came with the luxury tax.

          How will the Pistons trade Gordon without taking another bad contract in return? It’s much easier said than done.

          And you left out Maxiell.

        • Jul 27, 20113:53 pm
          by brgulker

          Reply

          I didn’t say they would rid themselves of all their bad contracts by next year. I said some of them. They only have 3 bad contracts. By this time next year, Rip’s contract actually will ”magically” turn into a good contract when it becomes an EXP.

          Fact fail. Rip’s not expiring this time next year.

          • Jul 27, 20117:10 pm
            by tarsier

            He means it becomes an expiring deal, not it expires. But the more egregious fails are the fact that a year from now, Stuckey and Jerebko will not be on rookie deals. And three years from now, when all the bad contracts are off the books and it’s time t make a move in free agency, all the “promising, young talent” will have gotten big raises except for Knight. Timing is hugely important which is why I have strongly supported trading Stuckey, Jerebko, and Daye for a long time now. That and Jerebko and Daye are incredibly replaceable players.

          • Jul 27, 20118:12 pm
            by rob

            Response Fail. You can’t quit making yourself look like a dummy can you?

            Either you don’t know how to read, or you are just so used to taking ppl’s quotes out of context, that you automatically ignore key words in sentences.

            I said:

            By this time next year, Rip’s contract actually will ”magically” turn into a good contract when it becomes AN EXP.”

            Meaning, “An expiring contract”. Nowhere in my post did I say it would be expired.

            Rip’s contract expires at the end of the 2012-2013 season, which means at this time next year, going into the ’12-’13 season, his contract WILL be an expiring contract. Is that clear enough for you?

    • Jul 27, 20112:00 pm
      by rob

      Reply

      The only way I see them deserving of last place is if they only had aging vets on bad contracts, and no Monroe, Knight, or Daye. Those are the types of teams that should be last.

      The first team that comes to mind like that are the Spurs. Their championship run is over, imo, and all they have are a bunch of aging vets on bad contracts, with little to no young talent to rebuild around. Getting Leonard in the draft was a great pick up, but he’s not enough to outweigh how bad a situation they are going to be in, possibly as soon as next year, once Duncan and Ginobli can no longer produce and they are stuck with those albatross contracts. I would put them last, tbh.

      All the teams that should typically be at the bottom at least have a nucleus of young talent and capspace on the horizon to build with. The Spurs have neither. Their only assets are their coach and GM, and this list is only based on roster.

      • Jul 27, 20112:11 pm
        by Dan Feldman

        Reply

        The Pistons have more salary committed next summer than the Spurs.

        • Jul 27, 20112:27 pm
          by rob

          Reply

          Based on hoopshype, the Pistons actually have less, $41 mil, vs the Spurs’ $44 mil. Lets call it even.

          The difference is, you trade away those vets on bad contracts off the Spurs and they are left with nothing but capspace.

          You trade away the vets with bad contracts on the Pistons, and you are left with capspace AND a great nucleus of young talent on rookie contracts.

          The Pistons arent relying on their vets to win. They are basically throwaway contracts. The Spurs are still relying on those vets to win. Thats a big difference. Plus, they arent trading Tim Duncan. So he will be re-signed, and likely rewarded with an overpaid contract for his career of services, even though he cant play anymore.

          Pistons have a much better situation than the Spurs. I would put Boston into that category with SA too, but Rondo is such a great young piece to rebuild around, they have a saving grace. The Spurs have little to nothing. I cant think of any other team that has nothing to build around going forward, and all their current good players at the end of their careers.

          • Jul 27, 20112:36 pm
            by Dan Feldman

            I highly recommend you use ShamSports for salary numbers. It’s much more accurate than HoopsHype.

            If the Spurs trade away their big contracts, they’ll get valuable young pieces and cap space in return. Duncan, Ginobili and Parker all have tremendous value right now.

            If the Pistons trade away their big contracts, they’d likely have to include valuable young pieces just for another team to take them. Hamilton, Gordon, Villanueva and Maxiell have negative value.

            Also, I wouldn’t assume Tim Duncan is more likely to be overpaid for his next contract anymore than Rodney Stuckey is.

      • Jul 27, 20112:22 pm
        by neutes

        Reply

        The Spurs, theoretically, could turn around Duncan, Ginobili, and Parker into a bunch of picks/young talent if they so chose. The Suns could trade Nash. The Celtics could do the same with their roster. These teams don’t necessarily have to take their players to the grave, even if they choose to do so.
         
        As for the Pistons young talent – Monroe is about all your banking on, and if you’re looking at the best player you’d easily pick Griffin, Wall, Love, etc over Monroe. Daye isn’t all that great of a prospect. Knight could very well end up a bust. If you take over the Pistons roster based on young talent you’re looking at one sure thing, and that sure thing isn’t even a top 25 player. And the bad contracts/vets they have aren’t going to fetch young talent or picks, in fact, in order to get rid of them young talent or picks would probably have to be leaving.
         
        The Pistons roster is a huge gamble right now – Knight.

        • Jul 27, 20112:42 pm
          by rob

          Reply

          I dont think its going to be that easy for the Spurs to just turn a bunch of overpaid aging vets into young talens/picks or capspace. What team is going to give them anything of value for basically a one year rental of Duncan or Ginobli? They probably only have a year left in the tank at that level.

          I agree the Pistons young guys are a gamble but so is every teams young guys pretty much. At least the Pistons’ guys were high draft picks with potential to be great. The Spurs dont really have any thing like that.

          • Jul 27, 20112:47 pm
            by rob

            The only type of teams that are going to be interested in those 3 are going to be teams on the verge of winning it all, and need that one piece to get over the hump.
            Those teams arent going to have any great young pieces available that’ll make a big difference for the Spurs’ future. Plus, any draft picks would be just late 1st rounders. I dont think we’ll see any lottery teams giving up their picks for a year or two rental of one of those guys, or giving away their young talent.

          • Jul 27, 20112:54 pm
            by neutes

            The Spurs have Splitter, Leonard, Neal, and Blair. That’s really not that bad as far as young talent goes. They don’t have to blow it up. They could gradually find good deals for a player at a time, or keep Duncan and rebuild on the fly by making sound decisions with Parker and Ginobili. I’m not saying deals are there, you’d have to be patient because obviously any time you try to do such a thing the move has to be right or it could cost you.
             
            Look at Dumars with Billups. He got antsy and wanted to make a change. He traded a star for straight cap space. Sure if Iverson was good the Pistons could have made one last run, but he had no intention of keeping Iverson at the end of the year either way. What boggles my mind is that Dumars got nothing for Billups. Not a pick. Not a young player. Nothing.

          • Jul 27, 20113:13 pm
            by Dan Feldman

            Rob,

            Off the top of my head, if the Spurs wanted to rebuild with young talent, which team would say no to these deals, and which wouldn’t put the Spurs in a great position:

            • Tim Duncan for Chris Bosh
            • Tony Parker for Mike Conley and O.J. Mayo
            • Manu Ginobili for James Harden
      • Jul 27, 20113:49 pm
        by brgulker

        Reply

        The first team that comes to mind like that are the Spurs. Their championship run is over, imo, and all they have are a bunch of aging vets on bad contracts, with little to no young talent to rebuild around. Getting Leonard in the draft was a great pick up, but he’s not enough to outweigh how bad a situation they are going to be in, possibly as soon as next year, once Duncan and Ginobli can no longer produce and they are stuck with those albatross contracts. I would put them last, tbh.

        Again, I am literally speechless.

        This is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen about basketball on the internet.  

        A team coming off a 60-win season has a worse roster than the Detroit Pistons!

        • Jul 27, 20117:53 pm
          by rob

          Reply

          Calm down there, buddy. I was speaking about roster in terms of this list of what team a GM would most like to take over. Which means which team has the brightest future, not present.

          The one type of team that should always be last on these types of lists are the old team whose championship run is over, and have little young talent to rebuild with. Rather a bunch of big contracts still on the books from those veterans who cant produce what their contracts demand anymore.

          The Spurs are the epitome of that type of team right now.

          You say they won 60 games. I say they lost in the 1st round to an 8th seed and their run is over.

          The Pistons were there in that position just a few years ago. As we know, the few years that followed weren’t pretty, and never are when a teams run ends. Which is what the Spurs are about to face.

          The Pistons have a few years head start now, and have better young talent, with much higher ceilings. Which is why their future is brighter, and why I would choose the Pistons roster if I were a GM. The Spurs are about go down that road that all teams do when their run ends, and no GM should want to inherit the mess. I would bet that if Joe offered Monroe, Knight, Jerebko, and Daye to the Spurs for Blair, Spliiter, Neal, and Leonard, R.C Buford would make that trade in a second. Thats why the Pistons roster is better to take over, long-term. You cant count the old vets that wont even be on the team anymore in a few years, and barely contributing if they are.

          The Pistons have the two most important and hardest to fill positions (Center and PG) locked up with 2 potential future All-Stars. The Spurs have Leonard, their onyl potential all-star, at the easiest position to fill. Then an undersized backup PF in Blair, an average role playing center in Splitter, and an above average SG in Neal. The Pistons roster is better long-term any way you look it at.

          • Jul 27, 201110:03 pm
            by Dan Feldman

            Rob, the question isn’t about brightest future or brightest present. It’s about balancing both.

          • Jul 28, 201110:01 am
            by brgulker

            You say they won 60 games. I say they lost in the 1st round to an 8th seed and their run is over.
            The Pistons were there in that position just a few years ago. As we know, the few years that followed weren’t pretty, and never are when a teams run ends. Which is what the Spurs are about to face.

            The Spurs are one of the most effectively managed franchises in the entire NBA. To put them lower than the Pistons right now is asinine, borderline delusional.

            Is their championship window closing-to-closed? Of course.

            Does that make them worse than the Pistons?  The answer is so obvious the question seems rhetorical.

          • Jul 28, 201110:08 am
            by brgulker

            The Pistons have the two most important and hardest to fill positions (Center and PG) locked up with 2 potential future All-Stars.

            I missed this the first time. Who on earth are you talking about? Monroe looks capable of putting up numbers similar to a guy like Okafor. Don’t get me wrong, that’s solid basketball, and I welcome it. But it’s not all star basketball.

            As far as I can tell, we don’t have a PG on the roster who would have started on any of the top 8-10 playoff teams. So if you’re talking about Stuckey, again, I think you’re denying reality.

    • Jul 27, 20113:47 pm
      by brgulker

      Reply

      Right now middle of the pack. By next year, when most of those bad contracts should be gone, easily a top 10 roster

      I … don’t even know what to say.

      • Jul 27, 20118:02 pm
        by rob

        Reply

        Boy, you like taking things out of context to prove your imaginary points, dont you?

        Here’s the ending of that quote for those getting snookered by this guy’s responses:

        “Right now middle of the pack. By next year, when most of those bad contracts should be gone, easily a top 10 roster, based on the criteria of great young talent and lots of capspace, which most GM’s covet most.”

        Like I said, once those 3 contracts are gone, to his is going to be a roster full of great young talent on rookie deals, leaving loads of capspace to add to them. If you disagree, then name me 10 teams who will have that next year. Otherwise, your responses are lame.

        • Jul 27, 20119:23 pm
          by Dan Feldman

          Reply

          Gordon and Villanueva’s contracts won’t expire until 2014. You really believe there aren’t 10 teams who appear on track to contend sooner than that? You’re also assuming the Pistons don’t acquire any new bad contracts between now and then.

        • Jul 28, 201110:05 am
          by brgulker

          Reply

          +1 to Dan. Gordon and CV’s contracts aren’t just going to disappear. They’re going to bog down the franchise in terms of bad talent and financially. 

          And what great young talent will we have on rookie deals in 2014?

          Mornoe, a solid big man with Okafor-like upside, yes.

          Austin Daye, who hasn’t proven himself to be anything more than a reserve, yes.

          Knight, who was pretty bad as a freshman and completely unproven as an NBA player, yes.

          In sum, we’ll have one good player on the last year of his rookie deal, and then a roster full of huge question marks. Nothing good or special about that at all.

  • Jul 27, 20113:26 pm
    by Jason

    Reply

    So lets come up with lineups but first what do you think it will take per year to sign Stuckey and Jerebko.

    Stuckey = 6 million???

    Jerebko = 4 million???

    Singler and Macklin = 2 million???

    Knight = 3 million??

    What do all you experts think??????

    • Jul 27, 20113:28 pm
      by Jason

      Reply

      And what is the expected cap going to be  55 million?????

      Dan & Patrick please participate.

    • Jul 27, 20113:34 pm
      by Jason

      Reply

      We dont have to sign Stuckey for 8 million do we????

    • Jul 27, 20113:41 pm
      by Jason

      Reply

      No one wants to play? Did i lose everyone’s respect.

  • Jul 27, 201111:23 pm
    by Jodi Jezz

    Reply

    that article was full of garbage!!! If we trade for a decent center we will be in the playoffs next season…

    • Jul 28, 201112:41 pm
      by khandor

      Reply

      This is one version of the Pistons’ expected roster heading into the next season that I just posted on Ben Gulker’s blog which should be able to compete for the No. 7 & 8 playoff spots whenever the lockout comes to an end.
      Hopefully it’s okay that I post it in this location, as well.
      ————————–
      If:

      i. Jerebko returns to good health, and
      ii. Monroe continues to improve steadily, and
      iii. CV is used strictly as a limited minutes scorer off the bench, and
      iv. Ben Wallace decides to finally retire, then
      the Pistons will be in the hunt for the final couple of playoff spots in Lawrence Frank’s first season. The major thing which held the Pistons back from being more solidly in the middle of the pack the last 2 seasons was the inept coaching of John Kuester. Although it’s a given that Detroit does not have the horses to compete with the upper echelon in the East those who think a collection of players which looks like this:
      1st Unit: PG – Stuckey, OG – Gordon, SF – Prince [or Daye], PF – Jerebko, C – Monroe
      2nd Unit: PG – Knight, OG – Hamilton, SF – Daye [or another UFA], PF – Maxiell, C – UFA?
      3rd Unit: PG – Bynum, OG – White, SF – Singler, PF – Villanueva, PF – Macklin
      is somehow void of some legit NBA “talent” … when directed by a competent head coach … are sorely mistaken.
      ————————–

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here