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

Pistons should ignore Tayshaun Prince’s request for a veteran point guard

Tayshaun Prince, via Vince Ellis of the Detroit Free Press:

"Brandon Knight is our starting point guard and will continue to be, but hopefully we can get a veteran point guard to kind of mentor him a little bit," Prince said. "There can be times that me and Ben Wallace can mentor and help him out and whatnot, but I think if you have a point guard that’s been through the wars, he can help him out a little bit better than we can."

In addition to mentoring Brandon Knight, a veteran point guard would improve Prince’s production. Knight – who didn’t even make the TrueHoop Network’s All-Rookie second team – is still very raw as a distributor, and he rarely put Prince in position to score easily. That’s part of the reason, although only one of many of factors, why Prince shot so poorly this season.

I’m not opposed to the Pistons adding a veteran point guard if they can get one cheaply, but that should be very low on their priority list.

A veteran point guard is just as likely to help Knight’s development as harm it. Lawrence Frank, who will surely take a win-first attitude next season, would likely often play reliable veteran ahead of the less-than-established Knight.

Maybe watching a veteran would be good for Knight. Maybe playing more would be better for him. I don’t think that’s an entirely knowable variable, and I would be hesitant too invest much in a short-term fix at point guard when it could hinder Knight’s progress.

A veteran point guard acquired by trading a player with positive value or signed using a sizable an exception would be an unnecessary luxury, and considering the hefty contracts they’ll be paying next season, the Pistons can’t afford that. They should focus on using their modest flexibility on upgrading their font court.

110 Comments

  • Apr 30, 20123:06 pm
    by Vince Ellis

    Reply

    Had to respond. Disagree vehemently that Frank would play said-veteran point guard over Knight. This ain’t Austin Daye. Knight is established as a part of the Pistons future and Frank’s success as a head coach is tied to Knight’s development. Basically if Knight doesn’t develop you could see another pink-slipped coach in the Pistons’ future.                                                                                                                                  And wouldn’t you want to see said-veteran point guard first? Obviously I could understand your concern if it was Chauncey Billups, but somebody like Mike Bibby? All of this is pure speculation at this point, but I would think Knight could hold off Mike Bibby. Not starting an argument, but just saying I agree with Tayshaun. I’ve written in past off-seasons they could use a veteran point guard.

    • Apr 30, 20123:36 pm
      by Alan

      Reply

      Good point.  And I think the key ingredient with any vet PG that comes in, like a Mike Bibby, is that they are relegated to captain of the B squad.  In other words, bring in somebody with the mind to compete with Knight but whose body’s best days are behind them.  This is playing out very well with Andre Miller for the Nuggets. 

    • Apr 30, 20124:19 pm
      by Dan Feldman

      Reply

      Thanks for the reply, Vince. Dumars has consistently said he likes Frank’s message and consistency. The biggest part of that message: The best players will play. In all likelihood, I think a veteran point guard will be better than Knight is right now. If not, there’s no point in acquiring him.

      Knight, to me, ranked somewhere between 25th and 30th among starting point guards this season. Hopefully, he steps forward next season, but this year, I just didn’t think he was especially good. That’s why I think most veterans are better now.

      I think Knight is better now than Bibby, who’s no good today and won’t be any good tomorrow. I just see no point in signing Bibby, who would take a roster spot from someone with a chance to help the team in either the present or the future.

      I agree with you, that the Pistons could use a veteran point guard. But they need front-line help so much more, and I don’t think they have the resources to upgrade both spots.

      • Apr 30, 20124:50 pm
        by steve battle creek, mi

        Reply

        A veteran pg on a minimum contract would be ok and would not burden the cap too much.  this can also be done by ridding ourselves of Will “shoot first no pass” Bynum.  He is on a 3.5 mil expiring contract.  No one would be brought in to take knights spot.  Also i think you have to consider that with a full offseason and past regular season of experience will make knight a better player.  I aslo think you look at Frank’s preference for vet experience incorrectly.  There were two long in the tooth vets on the team Ben and Prince.  There was no one better than them right??  daye over prince?  mackling over Ben?  Additionally i think Frank rewards hard work, which knight i believe is considered the hardest worker on the team.  Lastly, if a vet pg is brought in and he beats out Knight, then we have a major issue w/ our last lottery pick. 

        • Apr 30, 20129:10 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          A vet PG attainable for a min deal will not be as good as Bynum. So what’s the point?

          • May 1, 201210:22 am
            by steve battle creek, mi

            a vet guard with alot of experience can pass on wisdom to the young fella.  that was the point of what prince was saying, he and ben can only give so much info to knight.  he needs someone w/ PG experience.  and btw what excatly has bynum done??  but turn the ball over, dribble out the shot clock, then shoot.   not someone to learn from

          • May 1, 201212:44 pm
            by tarsier

            What wisdom would he be passing on? Don’t turn the ball over? Try to win games? I know mentorship benefits some people. What neither of us has any way of knowing is if a vet PG would be a mentor to Knight or if a mentor would benefit Knight. It’s just not a given. Besides, that is kinda what the coaching staff is for. I believe they have a former PG on the coaching staff to help with PG development. What can a vet offer that he can’t? Competition for minutes? Unlikely if he is on a min deal.

          • May 1, 201212:46 pm
            by tarsier

            In answer to what Bynum has done, I am sure you can look up the past few seasons of work he has put in yourself. He’s no great shakes, but has proven himself as a backup caliber NBA player. The only better vets on min deals are ones on contender discounts.

      • May 2, 20125:47 pm
        by Max

        Reply

        @Dan……….Teams pretty much care three or four point guards.  I don’t think Prince said anything regarding upgrading the spot because he’s not necessarily even asking for a player who will get minutes.   Does signing a player to the veteran’s minimum really effect their flexibility?   They could sign Anthony Johnson or maybe even Derek Fisher.   The player doesn’t even have to be on their active roster.
        One thing though; I wonder if Prince doesn’t think Dee Brown is up to the job because I would think that mentoring Knight and the guards is what the Pistons wanted from Brown.

    • Apr 30, 20127:35 pm
      by domnick

      Reply

      we don’t need to add another guard right now… unless we can dump Will Bynum and BG…
      And I don’t see any reason at all… Brandon Knight’s game will grow without a Veteran PG…
      we really need a guy that can play next to Greg Monroe… maybe Maxiel can but we need a better sized PF or C… and that’s a major priority…

  • Apr 30, 20123:48 pm
    by Joe Dumars

    Reply

    Don’t worry guys we’re on it. I’m bringing Hunter back in the fold to compete for starters minutes with Knight. THERE ARE NO SACRED COWS

    • Apr 30, 20123:52 pm
      by Joe Dumars

      Reply

      Except for Darko…who we will be bringing back…enjoy the off season fellas!

  • Apr 30, 20124:07 pm
    by frankie d

    Reply

    feldman is right.
    the coach has clearly shown a tendency to prefer veteran mediocre predictability over youth. 
    which is why tay plays the most minutes of anyone on the team, takes the most shots, is the offense’s centerpiece, ben w. plays while macklin sits, and damian wilkins plays guaranteed minutes over both jj and daye.
    frank’s pattern is as clear as it could be.  given a choice between an inexperienced young player and a limited, though predictable vet, he will pick the vet.
    bringing in a veteran guy would be the worst thing they could do.
    and just because george karl and denver know how to manage such a situation does not mean that frank can do it.  in fact, as noted, frank has shown that he will not go in that direction if presented with a choice.
    what would work and be positive, imho, is finding a young point guard who is more of a pass-first point guard.  let that player grow and mature as the team grows and matures.
    after all, the idea is to prepare a team to compete in 3-5 years, not muddle through to a .500 season with retread vets.  what is the point of having a bibby-level guy on the roster?  pointless.  about as smart as keeping a damien wilkins around.

    • Apr 30, 20126:15 pm
      by Bygdygod

      Reply

      So your sayin the coach should play the worst player? You ALWAYS play your best players no matter age, status or contract. This gives everyone a clear view of there role on the team AND what it takes to compete on a high level on this team. Which Frank was consistent all year. So if Daye, Macklin, Bynum wanna play. BEAT THE GUY AHEAD OF YOU!

      • Apr 30, 20127:55 pm
        by frankie d

        Reply

        nonsense.
        a team has to have a direction, a mission.
        any 10 vet will initially perform better than almost any rookie or younger player.
        that is why they call it experience.
        a team that is trying to rebuild will make certain that they prioritize giving younger players, who may lack the skills of the experienced players, still have a chance to play.
        so that they can develop and become older, better, experienced players.
        bad teams that are stuck in lottery hell play old retreads and let their young players languish on the bench. 
        and “beating” a player out is not some sort of subjective, true/false test.  it is a very subjective process.
        that much is obvious by the fact that a player like damien wilkins got so much PT, despite being a horrible player.  subjectively, the coach preferred what he brought to the court…over jj and daye and even stucky.

        • Apr 30, 20127:56 pm
          by frankie d

          Reply

          that should have read, 
          “not some sort of objective test…”

        • May 1, 201210:24 am
          by steve battle creek, mi

          Reply

          as far as direction, EVERYONE in the organization has said the team in going in the direction they want.  So whether you agree or disagree with that direction.  The team is moving forward and has established and identity and what it takes to play on this team. 

      • May 1, 20124:43 pm
        by Desolation Row

        Reply

        That’s not what he said? Way too many illogical people on this board. How does arguing for more minutes for younger players to allow for development, when the alternative is perpetual mediocrity, even begin to translate into saying “you ALWAYS play the worse player”?  

        I’m sorry, but that was just a dumb response to Frankie D.

  • Apr 30, 20124:19 pm
    by N1ck

    Reply

    We need a good backup veteran point guard! Knight will learn nothing on passing the ball from Stuckey and Willy B… :P If he improves that, in season or two we have our man to lead this franchise. Remember, he’s only 20.

  • Apr 30, 20124:22 pm
    by N1ck

    Reply

    And you guys honestly think Daye deserved more minutes?!?! Frank played Monroe & even 20 year old rookie Knight intensively, because they DESERVED it.

    • Apr 30, 20124:38 pm
      by frankie d

      Reply

      so why did wilkins play?
      because he deserved it?
      why was wilkins given more time at the SF spot than JJ?  JJ is clearly being considered for both the SF and PF spot, so why was wilkins repeatedly given time that JJ could have easily played?
      and why wasn’t maklin given a chance to show that he “deserved” to play at the nba level?
      according to frank himself, he played well in practice, he played well in his limited opportunities at the nba level and he was great in the d-league.
      what more could he have done to prove that he “deserved” to play?

      • Apr 30, 20126:22 pm
        by Bygdygod

        Reply

        Just because he plays well in practice doesn’t mean he is playing better than Ben Wallace…Duh! LOL If he beat out Ben then he Deserved to play. Lol an smh! What you think Vernon Macklin was just handing Ben Wallace his lunch??. The better player plays! Wilkins was the backup three an JJ was the backup 4. This gave him the best opportunity for the team THE COACH felt he could win with. Who’s the back up 4? CV? He was hurt most of the year..right?? So JJ was the best he could do at the backup 4. Again coach Frank got the chance at the end of the year to try CV at backup 4 an JJ at backup 3 ..right??

        • Apr 30, 20128:00 pm
          by frankie d

          Reply

          what crap.
          so much contradictory stuff gets said.
          first, it was that certain guys are beasts in practice, so they just have to play.
          now, it’s well, just because he practiced ok, doesnt’ mean he deserved to play.
          what crap.
          certain coaches have a preference for vets.  most nba coaches are in that category.
          it is not a new story.
          frank is one of those who strongly prefers vets.  this year is a great indicator of that fact.
          the problem is that the team is supposed to be rebuilding.  
          an inherent contradiction, imho, that the team has not resolved.

          • May 1, 20123:56 am
            by don

            frankie d is just dan feldman taking on a troll personality.   much like i am taking on his third personality as a whistle blower.  the secret is out..  i have split personalities.

          • May 1, 201210:28 am
            by steve battle creek, mi

            what player did ANYONE from the team say was a beast in practice an didnt play??  Name one time the coaches, dumars, gores said “_____” is a beast at practice???  The team IS rebuilding….hello??  Just because you play two vets doesnt mean your not rebuilding…duh!  i wish you would go follow a team like the wizards, bobcats or kings, they seem to be following your philosophy.   LOL!

  • Apr 30, 20124:40 pm
    by dvs

    Reply

    If there’s a way of replacing bynum with a Vet PG then i’m all for it.
    Stuckey usually plays PG when knight comes out for BG, so the minutes going to the other vet PG wouldn’t be huge, but i think it’s important for both knight and the future of the team that they bring in someone who can help develop knight into a better PG.

  • Apr 30, 20124:46 pm
    by frankie d

    Reply

    the OKC situation is what detroit should aspire to emulate.
    OKC had westbrook, a shoot-first PG.  but they also had eric maynor, more of a traditional, passing point guard.  they worked very well with each other, and they both were young and could grow with the team.  and if westbrook is smart enough, he will pick up on some of maynor’s skills.

    • Apr 30, 20125:02 pm
      by rick

      Reply

      Yeah but eventually Brooks will have to come to terms that the team will be better served when Harden is a starter playing the point rather than Westbrook. Too many defensive players starting and not enough offense. If they are not careful they could get beat by an old but still long and athletic Dallas team, who btw has its fair share of veterans mixed in with youth. The Pistons problem is not the players but a lack of a defensive presence. When you are lacking such all your deficiencies get magnified. Tashaun for instance to me is the same player he always has but now that he has no bigs to help compensate for that lack of foot speed hes being exposed as any team would w/o the presence of a defender in the middle. Its not about who they have with me its more of who they dont have. If they(Detroit) had Tyson Chandler they would be in that 4-8 range with what they have. Thats their problem not who they have now. The players on the team are who they are and none are w/o faults. They al could use a presence in the middle and until then Detroit will continue to tease.

  • Apr 30, 20124:52 pm
    by rick

    Reply

    Here we go and people said I was piggybacking or getting needed help. Btw according to Macklin himeself he was not in shape. I did not know Frank was known for throwing players under the bus.So I can see him giving his players the beneifit of the doubt for nothing other than he actually sees the practices, whereas as fans we dont. Im just saying. As far as pg goes im all for getting better players and lettingthe better players play because who honestly knows who will be on this team in four or five years.  Plus players can always be traded if the potential shows.If that means bringing in competition to increase players abilities so be it. Im not for giving someone something for nothing. College to me is like a resume and it usually speaks for itself.  When were winning we always had a good point guard/backup and Im sorry when someone tries and thinks for another person like saying it would help Tayshaun get better I just start to discredit the comment a bit because it seems biased toward the individual who made it. It will make the team better and we cannot predict who it will affect because if it makes Knight better then it is all a moot point.

  • Apr 30, 20124:58 pm
    by frankie d

    Reply

    ?????????

    • Apr 30, 20125:04 pm
      by rick

      Reply

      ??????????? Wtf

    • Apr 30, 20126:26 pm
      by Bygdygod

      Reply

      Frankie D said VERNON MACKLIN WAS DESTROYING BEN WALLACE IN PRACTICE…Phahaha!!! Wow!

      • Apr 30, 20128:01 pm
        by frankie d

        Reply

        “Frankie D said VERNON MACKLIN WAS DESTROYING BEN WALLACE IN PRACTICE…Phahaha!!! Wow!”

        please point to where i stated that…

        • Apr 30, 201211:01 pm
          by Bygdygod

          Reply

          Well you said Macklin should play over Ben Wallace so you must have been at practice watching Macklin play better than Wallace..right? I mean where do you come across as an authority on who should play an why? You have no crediblty! It’s obvious ALL year that the better players played. An not Any 10 year vet can beat out a rookie..duh. Most high draft picks (knight)play right away because there Talented that’s why there high draft picks. While 2nd rd picks(Macklin) are not as talented ..thus there low draft status.

          • May 1, 201212:07 am
            by frankie d

            (personal attack removed)
            you don’t know how knight got onto the court, do you?  when did he start and why did he start?
            you obviously don’t know id you say what you’ve just said.
            shows how much you know.
            (personal attack removed)
            plain and simple.
            again, point out where i said what you claimed i said.
            obviously you cannot do so, because i never said it.
            (personal attack removed)
            what i did state is that frank had stated that macklin had played well.  how you get that he’d played better than wallace from that simple statement is a mystery to me.
            (personal attack removed)

          • May 1, 201210:51 am
            by steve battle creek, mi

            Ben Wallace is in front of Macklin right?  So if Macklin is supposed to play he has to play better than the person in front of him —> Wallace.  So you keep saying that Macklin should be playing over Wallace right?  An your reason for Macklin taking Ben Wallace minutes is because Frank said Macklin is practicing well..right?  So YOUR logic is that because Frank said Macklin is playing well in practice, he MUST be playing better than Wallace..right?  Did i miss something?? Macklin has admitted to being out of shape going to D league, but YOU say he should have been playing over ALWAYS IN SHAPE BODY BEN WALLACE right? 
            **
            Knight started because first Stuckey got hurt and he played w/ gordon, then stuckey came off the bench for a few games when he came back, then gordon got hurt, so when Stuckey and Knight started together it was OBVIOUS Knight and Stuckey had great chemistry together so they became the starting backcourt… did i miss something?? So Stuckey nor Gordon where able to push Knight back to the bench right?  SMH!  Frankie D they are looking for more fans in New Orleans and Golden State, they seem to follow your preferred philosophy so maybe you can go join them.  PLEASE!!

          • May 1, 201212:50 pm
            by frankie d

            “So YOUR logic is that because Frank said Macklin is playing well in practice, he MUST be playing better than Wallace..right? ”
            no.  i don’t believe that and i’ve never, ever said anything like that.
            in fact, it is very probable that macklin would not practice better than ben for the next 5 years.  ben is probably the best defensive player of his era, and there simply is no way that a young player is going to be able to show better in a limited environment like a practice.
            that is not the point.
            (i don’t believe the stuff about guys winning spots in practice.  it is not an objective evaluation, like a true/false test, so the preference of the judge – the coach – is most important.  if a coach wants vets, he’s going to judge that vet a better fit than a younger player.)
            you conveniently omit the primary argument i’ve made repeatedly: rebuilding teams give priority to younger players over vets.  it is extraordinarily easy to find a marginal vet who will play just a bit better than a rookie, so that an argument can be made that the vet should play. 
            smart coaches and organizations take a short term hit in performance for the long term benefit of developing a  younger player.
            daly’s handling of dennis rodman was a classic example of that process.
            when rodman came into the league he could barely make a layup.  and he’d often rebound the ball, forgo an easy layup and toss the ball out to the perimeter.  he was afraid to shoot.  but daly stuck with him, kept playing him, played him over vets – sidney green and tony campbell – who were much more skilled and better players at the time.   and he even cut into one of the all-time scorer’s PT – adrian dantley – because he brought some good things to the court, along with his problems.   in fact, after his rookie year, they ditched both green and campbell and then traded dantley for a guy who would be more willing to allow rodman to get the PT he needed.
            i’m sure dantley was his usual dominating self in practice, but that didn’t stop daly from deciding that the team would be ultimately better off by suffering through growing pains with rodman.
            i wish i could point to a team outside of the pistons who follow the philosophy you advocate – prioritizing mediocre vets at the expense of cheap, developing rookies – but unfortunately, or fortunately, the league has largely learned to stay away from that trap.
            even most bad teams now understand that they are much better off finding and paying cheap young players and trying to develop them, rather than keeping retreads.  advanced stats have led most teams to understand that they can get pretty much the same production – and the promise of more – by going with the younger players.  good for you…the pistons are one of the few teams that refuses to actually follow that trend, so we see the treadmill of mediocrity for the last few years.  for fans of that style of roster management – playing old vets who get you 3-35 wins a year, the pistons are your dream.  btw, why are you obsessed with my posts?  if i don’t like what someone posts, i ignore them.  for whatever reason, you seem to be drawn to whatever i write, like bees on honey…..strange….

  • Apr 30, 20125:01 pm
    by Corey

    Reply

    A veteran point guard who is better than Knight would cost too much and create a new logjam at the guard positions, unless they amnesty PG. A vet PG who isn’t as good as Knight had better be cheap and comfortable playing spot minutes. Frankly, their better off with Bynum as the 4th guard – he’s on an expiring contract now- unless they get a young guard in the 2nd round. Young Guys with potential are worth more than old declining guys to this team right now.

    And if they sacrifice the chance to have big cap space next year without solidifying the front court, I’ll cry.

    Corey

  • Apr 30, 20125:05 pm
    by vic

    Reply

    the only pg we need to add is Scott Machado. he’ll show Knight a couple things, and be our future 3rd guard that keeps the offense flowing when he comes in. Walker Russell made the team less selfish when he came in this year. Scott Machado will do the same thing, but with more overall talent.

    • Apr 30, 20125:13 pm
      by rick

      Reply

      Now thats a sentiment I can agree with. Machado is young and nice. Someone who could provide value down the road and possibly net a nice investement in return if the team wants to trade him. If Detroit has a solid bench then they dont a veteran as much as they could take a player like him. On the other hand I get not burning the kid out with someoen who can compete. Someone who could come in and effectively run the team for 10-12minutes a night. I think this article should take aim at the fact towards the end it mentioned Billups. I think that is where the hang up is at. Who even says Billups want sto come back after the way he got done. The points on that list should not scare Knight with the exception of Raymond Felton maybe. Other than that he will be the starter going forward.

  • Apr 30, 20125:41 pm
    by Max

    Reply

    Dare I say: Billups.

  • Apr 30, 20128:06 pm
    by Daye and Knight

    Reply

    A veteran PG would be ok if that veteran PG took the veteran minimum

    I much rather turn our free agent focus on either McGee, Anthony Randolph, Jordan Hill (depending on how his choking allegation goes) or Robin Lopez with the exception of McGee, I can see the other 3 accepting a full mid-level contract and all 3 would have a chance to start. Kaman might even take a discount and come here as well.

    We’re likely going to go with best available in the draft just like last year, or at least I hope so. The only big men I would take with no questions asked are Davis, Robinson and Drummond, and I’m not even 100% sold on Drummond yet. After that maybe Perry Jones III since he has the most upside but after that I wouldn’t mind trading the pick for someone that could contribute right away.

    I still would like to see us try and get Al Jefferson and since they don’t have a draft pick in the first round maybe we could work something out and if not for a draft pick then trade one of our guards (preferably Gordon)

    • Apr 30, 20129:17 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      Who would said PG be? Jamaal Tinsley? Jerry Stackhoue? Stephon Marbury?  Ish Smith? Mike James? Remember, it’s not like they will get someone of the caliber of Ridnour or Miller or Sessions for the minimum.

      • Apr 30, 201210:44 pm
        by Daye and Knight

        Reply

        I wouldn’t want a sessions, or a Ridnour type PG that could cut into Knights minutes, just someone that could mentor him and spell him for 15-17 minutes a game. Let Knight develop and use that money on a big man. If anything we would have a veteran like sessions and he might out produce Knight, but not enough to get us into the playoffs and we’ll be mediocre even longer than expected. Let Knight grow don’t worry about adding a PG unless he’s willing to be more of a mentor…you know who our coach is right? The guy who rather play Wilkins knowing he likely won’t even be on the team next year

        • Apr 30, 201211:41 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          But is a lousy veteran really a great choice for a mentor for Knight? I’d rather he be mentored by Stuckey if he needs mentoring. And who says he does? It’s not like that is valuable for every young player. For some it’s beneficial, for some it’s worthless, and for some I am sure it is just super annoying/distracting to keep hearing how they are supposed to learn from this older player who really has nothing to offer them. And Bynum can spell him 15-17 minutes. I just don’t know of any vet PG who could be had for the minimum who would have any value.

      • May 1, 201212:12 am
        by frankie d

        Reply

        detroit screwed up by signing 29 year old russell this year.
        they could have picked up ish smith, a young, talented guy who is developing into a nice backup point guard, exactly what detroit needs.  smith is young, cheap, talented and developing, and he knows how to play the point, exactly what detroit needs behind knight. 
        typically, joe d screws it up by bringing in an over the hill rookie, instead of a young guy.
        not sure what smith’s contract with orlando is like, but if he comes free, detroit should consider him.  
        he would be perfect.

        • May 1, 201212:40 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          But what would Smith offer the organization that Bynum doesn’t? Sure his game is different, but he is a backup level PG who is young and cheap but is never going to be more than a role player.

          • May 1, 20128:04 pm
            by frankie d

            the choice isn’t between bynum and smith.
            the choice would be between smith and russell.
            instead of signing russell, imho, they would have been better off with smith.  who was available.

          • May 1, 201210:57 pm
            by tarsier

            I understand that. That is why I bring up Bynum. It’s not about choosing between Bynum and someone else but letting Bynum’s presence be a factor for consideration when deciding who to bring in. But neither was necessary. However, if one was to be signed, what Russel brought to the table was more different from what Detroit already had than what Smith brought to the table.

        • May 1, 20122:17 pm
          by Max

          Reply

          @Frankie….you and I couldn’t be more diametrically opposed on just about every philosophy a person could hold about the right way to build a team.
          The Pistons have their young point guard already.   Another young point guard will be frustrated by a lack of playing time and ceiling in terms of his potential with the team.  Such a player may even look at Knight as his enemy.  In any case, he will have nothing to teach Knight.  A veteran on the other hand can both improve Knight’s play by mentoring him and not have a problem with sitting.
          Even if a player like Smith worked out perfectly, the Pistons would wind up having the problem of not being able to retain him and Knight when their contracts were due to be resigned.  These situations never work.  Think of Mark Jackson and Rod Strickland on the Knicks together.  Do you remember how that worked out?   A young backup point guard goes much more naturally with an old starting point guard.
          I mean; what is your goal?  Do you want a backup point guard who is going to help you win games or do you want one who you can develop for a few years to eventually trade while ignoring the present business of winning?   Personally, I don’t like acquiring players if the intention is to eventually trade them in any case.
          Your whole obsession with young talent is entirely suspect.  There is little point in any team having longer than a five year plan and there is nothing wrong with having a revolving group of veterans over that span who play 1-5 years with a given club.   If I had a choice between a good veteran who I was confident would give me two solid years of 20-30 minutes a night and a non-lock prospect who I’m not sure can play steady minutes in the league, I am picking the veteran almost every time.
          Also, the last time Dumars put it all together, he rebuilt entirely by acquiring veteran players and the only truly young contributors were Prince and Okur and even they were older than your typical rookies and sophomores.
          Dallas won the title last year and their average player must have been in their thirties and half the team was made up of players you probably consider to be over the hill.
          You make all the prescriptions about what young teams do but none of them really follow them.  Even the Bobcats, who everyone feels were tanking this year, started Corey Maggette whenever he was healthy this year.  The Wizards traded McGee for Nene.  The Timberwolves played multiple veteran point guards with their young Rubio.   The Raptors continued to start Jose Calderon.   The Nets acquired and played Mehmet Okur.   The Kings acquired and played Chuck Hayes.  The Warriors traded for Bogut.  The Hornets acquired and played Chirs Kamen.  I don’t think you can name a rebuilding team that dispensed with veterans in the way you suggest.
          And stop saying the Pistons should rebuild like Oklahoma unless you first say how they are going to get a player like Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant or LeBron James because the Thunder have one without even mentioning Westbrook, Harden or Ibaka and no current player in the league other than Durant or James would allow them to try to rebuild like Oklahoma.  Bryant and Wade are too old/worn down to rebuild with and none of the other top players like Carmelo Anthony even compare.   You might as well say the Pistons need to add a player like Shaq when you offer the Thunder as a model because you are setting an impossible standard that is based on the incredibly rare circumstance of a team landing an upper tier HOF all-time great talent.   I would say the Pistons should follow the example of showtime Lakers if they could acquire players like Magic, Kareem and Worthy but they can’t and like players don’t even exist right now.

          • May 1, 20123:06 pm
            by frankie d

            @ max
            i actually think that what OKC has done is imminently copiable.  (i know that is probably not a word, but you know what i mean.)
            i think they would be successful even without durant.  he makes it easier and he makes their ceiling higher, but their model is something just about any team can follow. 
            and their point guard situation is exactly what detroit could emulate.
            maynor and westbrook were working out very well.
            maynor gave their offense an ability to run set offenses, a real contrast to the more open court, somewhat chaotic approach of the westbrook-led offense.  and i think that westbrook actually has learned some things from maynor – he actually makes a decent pass to the dive man every once in a while, a la maynor – and he will be a better point guard as a result.
            in fact, OKC is going to miss maynor quite a bit as the playoffs go on, as they don’t have that guy who can come in and settle the offense down.  his loss might be the small loss that becomes more important as things go forward.
            i’ve long posted about ish smith as i think he is a perfect example of a player who should be sought.  he has some huge holes in his game, but he has certain skills and the key is getting him while his is cheap, trying to develop him to smooth out the rough edges and if you are lucky and skilled, you have a nice back up point guard for the next decade.  and it is a lot cheaper to get and retain a guy like that than to get him via free agency.
            obviously lots of GMs feel the same way.  he’s bounced around a bit, but he always gets picked up quick, so others see his potential and are willing to give him a shot.   i think it is only a matter of time before he finds his niche.
            and yes, i am obsessed with younger players.  that is the way the league has gone.
            in the old days, GMs thought they had to have THAT guy so they outbid each other and guys like tim thomas got rich because they were good at one thing.  then advanced stats started becoming more prevalent and GMs – at least the smart ones – realized that they could get pretty much the same production out of a cheap young player, so why pay a vet – who would bring experience, yes, but at a much greater cost – 4 or 5 times the amount that you’d have to pay a young guy.  for pretty much the same production and on-court presence.
            joe d has been one of the guys who’s been slow to recognize the change and his contracts to BG and CV are real evidence of that fact.
            i feel sorry for the older guys now, because the days of the outrageous free agent contract is pretty much gone except for the elite tier players.  (the new CBA has a huge impact also.) but that is the nba world now.  cheap, productive young players who you can sign, keep and develop is the way of the successful nba team nowadays.  i hope joe d finally comes on board.

          • May 1, 20128:55 pm
            by Max

            @Frankie D…..but the old vets win the championship almost every season.

          • May 2, 20124:34 pm
            by tarsier

            Yes, almost every season there are old vets who are major contributors to the championship team. But it is not almost every season that a particularly old team wins it all. There are just some old vets on virtually every contender because that is where they go at the ends of their careers.

          • May 2, 20125:13 pm
            by Max

            @Tarsier……2011
            Mavs—As Old As You Can Find.
            2010 Lakers—Pretty Damn Old–Only Bynum was young.
            2009 Lakers—”                         “–Only Ariza was young.
            2008 Celtics—”                       “—Rondo and Perkin were young but the big three were ancient.
            2007 Spurs—-  Improbably Old
            2006 Heat—– Very old Shaq, Jason Williams, Alonzo Mourning and Gary Payton with a young Wade.
            2005 Spurs——Not very old, but certainly not young.
            2004 Pistons—-”                                                          ”
            2003 Spurs——Somewhat balanced mixture of youth and veterans.  Robinson and Bowen were old and Duncan was in his prime.   Ginobili, Parker and Jackson were young.
            2002 Lakers—–Only Kobe was young.
            2001 Lakers——”                                ”
            2000 Lakers——”                                ”
            1999 Spurs——-”                                ” Duncan was young but the rest of the team was old.
            1998 Bulls——–”Ancient all round.
            1997 Bulls———”                            ”
            1996 Bulls———”                            ”
            1995 Rockets——The most important players were pretty damn old but Cassell and Horry contributed.
            1994 Rockets ——-”                                         ”
            1993 Bulls———-A lot of players in their late prime or prime.
            1992 Bulls———”                                                                     ”
            1991 Bulls———”                                                                     ”
            1990 Pistons——-Deep team of oldish to ancient vets with a couple of players in their prime.
            1989 Pistons——-”                                                                    ”
            1988 Lakers——–Vets, players in their prime and an ancient Kareem.
            1987 Lakers———”                                                      ”
            1986 Celtics———-”                                                   “subtract Kareem, add Walton and Johnson as the ancients.
            1985 Lakers—–Refer to 88 Lakers and add Worthy as a great young player.
            1984 Celtics———Good mix of players in their prime with some old vets.  Danny Ainge was a youngish contributor.
            1983 76s—-Mixture of players in their prime and old players.
            1982 Lakers—-Magic and Rambis were young, Cooper was youngish, the other players were not and Kareem was already ancient.
            1981  Celtics…..This was probably the last young group to win the championship and their point guard was an ancient Nate Archibald.
            So the last young group to actually win the title was in 1981 which is over 30 years ago so yes; a group of old guys does win the championship almost every year.

          • May 3, 20126:25 pm
            by tarsier

            I acknowledged that the good teams typically have old players, but you are overstating it considerably.
            Last year’s Mavs were old, yes, but the only past-his-prime old players were Kidd and Marion.
            For the Lakers two titles, they weren’t all that old. Kobe and Fisher were old. But Pau wasn’t yet 30. Bynum was young. Odom was definitely past his prime. All-around, probably a slightly above average team for age.
            The Celtics big three were not ancient. Now they are, 4 years later. But then, they were all coming off of seasons that were clearly still prime years.

            I could go on, but I think your idea of old is kinda skewed. In today’s NBA, 30 is not old. It may be getting old, but it’s not usually there yet. Personally, I start thinking of players as old once it becomes clear that they are past their prime, regardless of actual age. So both Nash and Wade I would refer to as old but not ancient (in spite of their wildly different ages). But even if you define it as a certain age, you should probably choose something like 32+ just based on how long players play these days.

            Now, obviously championship teams tend to be somewhat on the older end. This isn’t because being older makes you a better contender, it’s because being a contender usually makes you older. You have a good team, so you are not drafting very high. So the influx of youth to your team are not players liable to get major roles. Also, in team construction, you are targeting older players because an older player with the same value as a younger player is better right now. Think of the value of a player as how good he is times how many years you can have that goodness. If somebody only has two productive years in him, he is a lot less valuable than a comparably good player with 10 productive years left. So yeah, if you’re trying to win now, you mortgage the future for the present. It doesn’t mean old vets are necessary, just that they are sometimes what you settle for because they are the best you can get.

          • May 4, 20125:02 am
            by Max

            Nowitski is old by NBA standards and certainly the standards of this debate which is about giving time to prospects over proven players.  Prince is being treated as ancient by this entire crowd and he is younger than Nowitski.  Nowitski and Marion are the same age.  Beyond that, Terry, Stevenson, Haywood, Peja and Butler were all old last year by NBA standards.   You want to say Tyson Chandler was a young or prime 28 last year.  Fine, but he was also a ten year veteran last season.   That’s old.  Their nod to youth was a 26 year old Barea.   Frankie D wants to play teenagers.
            I was going more by how many seasons a player had played than age and I was completely disregarding how good the player was and whether they were still one of the top players in the league.   Kobe just finished second in scoring but he has played a billion minutes.  That is why I would call him old.   My overarching point has less to do with age than it does experience and if you look at the history of the league, it is quite an anomaly when the team that wins the title doesn’t have overwhelming experience as well as talent.  I’m defending the old by calling them old and saying it is a distinction they carry proudly since it also means they are the only ones with a chance to win the title.
            This whole debate grew out of Frankie D’s obsession with handing out roster spots to prospects instead of proven players and my basic argument is that prospects rarely contribute to a title until they have been in the league 4-12 years and the chances are that they are no longer playing for the team that developed them.   When the Pistons last won the title, other teams developed every relevant player but Prince and the Pistons acquired them as they were entering their prime or were in their prime.

          • May 4, 20126:54 am
            by tarsier

            I agreed that the Mavs were an old team, even though I thought that had more bearing on their ability to defend the title than their ability to win it. Also, yeah, as I said, of course contenders tend to be old by age/experience. It’s not because old makes a team into a contender (talent does that), it’s because you can get more talent right now for the same asset with old players than young ones.

    • May 1, 20122:02 am
      by BIG MARV

      Reply

      Idk about Kaman I dont want him no more hes falling off and we should have got him a few years ago when he was in LA post Blake. The other guys you name are cool too I would like to get my hands on McGee or either Robin Lopez. If not you have to draft either Zeller or Leonard from Illinois.

  • Apr 30, 20128:56 pm
    by Daye and Knight

    Reply

    People have compared Sullinger to Kevin Love or Carlos Boozer and said worst case scenario he would end up like Glen Davis…but the way Davis has been playing lately without Howard, a Davis worst case scenario might not be so bad…just food for thought.

    • Apr 30, 20129:11 pm
      by frankie d

      Reply

      i think sullinger is going to be a fine player.  not a franchise guy, but a good solid pro for a decade.
      boozer is a good comparison, imho.

      • Apr 30, 201210:49 pm
        by Daye and Knight

        Reply

        I was down on Sullinger most of the year, but I think he would be a good player to have as long as he has an athletic shot blocker playing next to him to cover up his flaws. That being said, it’s tough to imagine Monroe being that guy for obvious reasons; however, Monroe is only in his second year and could surprise us all and improve on both aspects of his game, and if he did and we had Sullinger down low next to him we would have a nice young front court to build on…all we would need is an athletic wing and we could compete for a playoff spot

  • May 1, 201212:10 am
    by Shaun

    Reply

    What the Pistons need is someone who can replace Ben Gordon, who hasn’t done anything since they got him and someone to start in Tayshaun Prince’s place to give him a few more years in the league.  They need to get young at the SG and SF positions before Knight and Monroe get to old and the cycle continues over and over for the next 5 years.

  • May 1, 20121:56 am
    by BIG MARV

    Reply

    I kinda agree with Tay but why not bring in a veterian position coach more like a PG guru instead of getting a old guy that still wants to play or that will whine for playing time. Maybe bring in a guy like a Gary Payton or a Rod Strickland. Hell Isaiah Thomas is out there now why not groom under a hall of famer Piston Legend to teach him how to play tough and be a vocal leader.

  • May 1, 20127:28 am
    by MrBlockedShot

    Reply

    Don’t think Monroe could improve that much to be considered an athletic player. He obviously can improve a lot of things physicaly (his legs need to get a lot stronger desperately). But most of all he is going to be the same kind of player, a crafty post player over the years. He’ll probably develop a better shot from mid range. But defensively he needs help with big athletic guys. Imho we don’t need another undersized player in the inside. Sullinger will struggle a lot against athletic PF/C. I wish we could get Davis or Robinson to pair with Monroe, but a combo of Monroe-Zeller or Monroe_Lenard makes more sense. And, in addition, remember we have two second rounders, Macklin and maybe a trade that could bring more improvements to our frontcourt. Can’t wait for the lottery day to come…LOL

  • May 1, 201212:01 pm
    by Tiko

    Reply

    title should read: ‘Pistons Should Ignore Tayshaun Prince’s Request to Stay With Pistons’

  • May 1, 20121:08 pm
    by Evita Luisa

    Reply

    Ben Wallace rules. IF you still don’t get that though, please go online and check out any reliable and valid source on Big Ben’s stats over the past, oh, like 17 seasons. Big Ben, even at age 90, will surely be better than pretty much everyone else out there. Just look at the stats, it’s all in the stats. Oh, and who’s out right now after smashing his fist into glass yesterday?? Sheesh!!!

  • May 1, 20121:19 pm
    by Ray

    Reply

    only one Beef….Marshon Brooks over Knight? really…. Case for Knight: he has started and played more games than any other rookie….He didnt play with a top 3 player at their position, and both their numbers are also identical, accept Knight shot 38% for 3′s while Brooks shots 31%. as a factor of fact Brooks shot 25% for 3′s in the 2nd half of the season and Knight still shot 38%. just saying

  • May 1, 20121:20 pm
    by Ray

    Reply

    kind of feel like Knight was the most disrespect rookie in this whole class by the media

    • May 1, 20122:27 pm
      by Max

      Reply

      I don’t care that fans of every team say this: the media hates the Pistons and never gives them their fair due.   I don’t know how long this has been true but it has been as long as I’ve been a die hard since the mid-eighties.  The best way for Knight to get them back is by leading the Pistons to a title one day although I can’t see the light at the end of the tunnel right now.   The only time the Pistons ever get any credit whatsoever is when they win the whole thing.  I have even heard the 04 group compared to the Buffalo Bills by national media types regarding their repeated trips to the conference finals as if they had not won it all, unlike the Bills.

      • May 1, 20123:48 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        They don’t hate the Pistons, they forget about the Pistons because this Detroit team is so forgettable. But you are wrong that “this has been true as long as I’ve been a die hard since the mid-eighties.” 2004-2008, the Pistons were media darlings. They may not have been headline makers, but everyone loved them as the exemplar team. Like the Nuggets at the beginning of this season. Heck, I remember when the playoffs started, the year that the Celtics assembled their big three and won it all, about half the analysts were still picking Detroit to come out of the east even though Boston was better on paper and had so thoroughly out-played them all season long.

        If these Pistons want headlines, they need a superstar. If they want media love, they need to significantly outperform expectations. That’s really all there is to it, for them and for at least 20 other teams in the league (yeah, we’ll always hear more about the Lakers and Knicks than such a formula would predict, and maybe a couple other teams), but the Pistons are no more media-hated or media-forgotten than most teams would be if they put out the same product.

        • May 1, 20129:08 pm
          by Max

          Reply

          @Tarsier…………..I’ve been a die hard since the mid-80s and the media has hated on the Pistons and not given them their due.
          Isiah was treated horribly in general and he and the Bad Boys were cast as Michael Jordan’s villainous enemies.    Isiah was never given MVP consideration and was left off the dream team due to silly politics.   If the media had not hated Isiah and adored Jordan and Magic, then the media would have cast Jordan and Magic as villains for so despicably excluding Isiah when he so overwhelmingly deserved the distinction.
          Later, when Grant Hill was totally beloved by the people, the media still denied him a clear ROY win and consistently failed to give him as many votes as he was due for MVP.
          The 2004 group was rightly celebrated in the immediate aftermath of their title as all champions are but I can tell as a New Yorker who has worked as part of the media that the media and the NBA hated the prospect of the Spurs and Pistons going deep in the playoffs as the did throughout the 2000s and the prevailing opinion on both teams always led with the notion that they were boring to watch.
          Last season, Monroe was left off the all rookie first team because he production trailed behind his advanced stats and yet this year Knight is being left off because his advanced stats trail behind his production.   In both years, there are players who prove the selection criteria is hypocritical and contradictory and in both years a player on the Pistons got the short shaft.

          • May 1, 201210:38 pm
            by tarsier

            Monroe being left off was a travesty. Knight being left off would not be. But we also don’t yet know that it will happen. As I’ve mentioned before, it would not be shocking if Knight made the rookie first team or failed to make the second team. There are enough rookies who have similarly compelling cases.

            The media hated the prospect of the Spurs and Pistons going deep because it would not be as exciting or whatever as some other teams. But that doesn’t mean they predicted against it. They gave those teams their due and simply hoped for a thrilling upset (much like how many people would love to see the Clippers come out of the West this year).

            I started following the Pistons in the early 2000s so I won’t comment on the other stuff from before then. It’s possible that the media didn’t give the Pistons the respect they were due. But for the half decade after winning their third title, Detroit got respect, got the benefit of the doubt, got everything they could expect from the media (they got 4 all-stars one year for crying out loud). Still not most of the headlines, but as mentioned before, those are for superstars.

        • May 1, 20129:58 pm
          by Max

          Reply

          @Tarsier……3 more points.
          1.  Both eras of Pistons greatness were possibly undermined by changes in the rules that hurt the Pistons chances of future success and aided their primary rivals.
          2.  The comment about the 2004 group that, “they were the only team to win without a HOF”, which has been said by untold numbers of the media, either reveals a total lack of basketball acumen or, more likely, an anti-Pistons bias.   It attacks the individual members of the team and seeks to discredit them in spite of their accomplishments.   It was bad enough when they had just won and all of the players on the team were too young to close the book on but it became increasingly worse after they went to the finals again and several more conference finals.   These nasty minded and intellectually dishonest commentators are still saying it, but with few exception, nearly no member of the media who I respect in general has ever said it.
          Personally, as a child of the eighties who grew up in media central NYC I will never forget, and they keep reminding me anyway, that a large proportion of my generation, no matter where they grew up, are Bulls fan boys.   A lot of kids who grew up Bulls fans have always hated the Pistons and a lot of them are now in the media.   A large pct of the national NBA podcast hosts these days are admitted Bulls or Celtics fans who have little positive to say about any Pistons team or player of all time.   I even know a few marketing managers in positions of power in one large firm who in concert make most of the decisions.   Three out of the four are Bulls fans even though they are working on Park Ave in Manhattan.  They do indeed hate the Pistons.   These things do have effects.

          • May 1, 201210:52 pm
            by tarsier

            When it was said “the only team to win without a superstar” or “the only team to win without a sure thing HOFer” (I haven’t seen many claim that none of that team has a shot at HOF), it was typically said in a very positive way. As in, they played the epitome of team ball and were greater than the sum of their parts. Does it in some way imply that the players weren’t absolutely incredible individually? Sure, but when those players were no longer part of that team, they proved that fact to be true, all but Billups. Ben performed way below expectations in Chicago. Once the team was broken apart, Sheed, Prince, and Rip looked like shells of their former selves. Only Billups actually looked good when taken out of that team. But 4 all-stars in one year does a good job of telling you that the Pistons were recognized as very good, even individually, just not superstars. And superstars they were not.

            As for the bias from fans of Bulls and Celtics, any team that was good at some point has that. The team forms rivalries. Fans of other teams come to dislike that team. Some write it off, some give it begrudging respect.

            I absolutely agree that the media totally screwed up on Monroe. Even though he was playing for a Pistons team that was horrible and made horrible viewing, he should have made all-rookie first team. But by and large, the media hates Detroit no more than they hate, say, Milwaukee, just to pull a name out of a hat.

            Seriously, since the Grant Hill trade, what Pistons have been significantly undersold by the media other than Moose last year? And even on the count of Moose, they were just late to take notice. Have you seen how much praise there is out there these days for Greg Monroe? Way more than most players get if they are not flashy and don’t play for relevant teams.

          • May 1, 201211:09 pm
            by Max

            They didn’t disprove anything…..they aged and weren’t the same players.
            4 all stars has nothing to do with the media and I am claiming a media bias.  The coaches voted the Pistons into the all star game.
            It is not about underselling or overselling but about framing and Monroe should be much more popular in my view than he is.  I doubt you can even find his jersey in the NBA store in Manhattan and it had never yet come into the store the last time I was there.

          • May 2, 20127:16 am
            by tarsier

            Yeah the coaches voted them in. But did they suffer backlash from the media? No. And you better believe being an all-star affect your standing in the media. And yeah, the players aged. But they weren’t that old. That’s why it was a shock when Wallace played so poorly on the Bulls and when Rip sucked in the post-Billups era. These were players that were supposed to have a couple years at least of prime left in them. There are debates now about how good Prince is, but any dropoff in his game can hardly be attributed to age. He is getting old but doesn’t yet qualify as old. And this is the era of the NBA when players continue at a high level longer than ever.

            Who cares is Monroe’s jersey is for sale in Manhattan. There have been a number of stories this year proving that the media has really come around on him and is taking notice of how good he is. But jersey sales are like votes from the coaches, they are only nominally tied to media opinions. In Manhattan, I’d expect sales of jerseys from the Knicks, maybe the Nets, and other flashy, exciting players.

          • May 2, 20125:18 pm
            by Max

            They have jerseys for every team and do offer Stuckey jerseys and the decision about whose jerseys are in the store probably comes directly from the league office.   Visibility is a large part of marketing and Monroe could be a lot more visible.   Kenneth Faried got more pub for twenty to thirty good to decent games out of 66 whereas Monroe has gotten less for a great statistical year as a whole.  I’d be willing to bet money I can go to the store and find Faried’s jersey.

          • May 2, 20126:55 pm
            by tarsier

            Fair. I am surprised that Stuckey’s is available but Monroe’s isn’t. I don’t get to NYC very often so I’ll take your word for it. That would not be indicative of an anti-Pistons bias to me (because why are they offering Stuckey’s jersey?), but that is Monroe not getting his due. This could be at least partly related to the franchise’s insistence upon not marketing Monroe.

            Faried’s acknowledgement comes from contributing significantly to a good (playoff) team. For a more apt comparison, look at Stuckey’s rookie year. He missed half the season with an injury but got a lot of hype from closing the season strongly.

          • May 2, 20128:07 pm
            by Max

            They have a section for every team and I doubt whether the Pistons get to decide who the NBA decided to market or not nationally and internationally.    They have Stuckey jerseys because they aren’t paying attention to developments in Detroit the way they do other teams and they usually have the lottery picks for most of the bad teams whether the players do well or not.   Unless things have changed, I would bet they have Jimmer jerseys and not Brandon Knight.  For some reason, they don’t bother about Monroe last year and it was exceptional and peculiar rather than otherwise.    I haven’t been there is a couple of months at least though so they may have finally gotten Monroe jerseys.
            Also, the Pistons didn’t get their fair share of national games this year.   Almost every team in the league got one and the Pistons, as Patrick likes to say, are a flagship franchise that has won three titles in modern times.  Further, even if the Pistons have been bad for a couple of years now, they have never fully bottomed out and didn’t this year either.  Only the perpetual bottoming out teams were left off the schedule.   The Pistons were originally given one game but it was replaced.   Seems like yet another bias to me.

  • May 1, 20121:22 pm
    by Ray

    Reply

    Sullinger WILL BE A GOOD NBA PLAYER, but the Pistons need guys that run, jump and get some easy baskets. Sullinger is not it

  • May 1, 20123:53 pm
    by tarsier

    Reply

    Why is everyone so convinced that Knight would profit from a mentor? Has every stand-up citizen/good potential role model/class act/strong work ethic co-worker you’ve ever had improved your work performance? Or even improved you as a person? If no to the former, why do you assume it must happen with Knight? The latter is probably more likely but not a guarantee either, and it dos not even represent the gains most fans would expect even if it is still all around a good thing on some level.

    • May 1, 20129:21 pm
      by Max

      Reply

      How about the fact that Prince, who is closer to the situation then any of us are, suggested that Knight could benefit from one and that he and Wallace weren’t fully up to the task?

      • May 1, 201210:30 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        That is worth something. But I don’t really trust Prince. He’s never seemed to embrace this changing of the guard. He liked his old team but not these new young guys. Also, see the post itself for how a vet PG has real potential to benefit Prince at Knight’s expense.

        • May 2, 20125:53 pm
          by Max

          Reply

          Tarsier: Do you realize that Prince and Knight went to Kentucky and that the two were interacting with each other long before Knight was drafted by the Pistons?    Why distrust Prince so?   Doesn’t he have a pet play with Knight where he throws him an opp off the back screen?   Personally, I think Prince would be committed to helping Knight’s game even if Prince was traded away and so, I do think he is not acting out of self interest when he says Knight could benefit from being around an experienced point guard which is something the Pistons don’t have unless you count Stuck.

          • May 2, 20126:49 pm
            by tarsier

            I don’t trust Prince because based on what reports I have seen on the team’s interactions, Prince has never gone out of his way to help young players. But I am probably being unduly biased by how annoyed I am merely by the fact that he is on this team. Anyway, while he would certainly have more insight on the matter than I would, I’m not convinced that Prince would necessarily know what would best benefit Knight. Also, unless you want Knight mentored by a lousy PG (by NBA standards), it would cost more than a min contract. I am doubting Billups would return for $1M.

  • May 1, 20124:45 pm
    by Desolation Row

    Reply

    How about Joe Dumars as a mentor?

  • May 1, 201210:10 pm
    by Max

    Reply

    OFF TOPIC:  Tay is on NBATV tonight as a commentator.

  • May 1, 201211:01 pm
    by tarsier

    Reply

    I dunno, Max, you really seem to have a martyr complex. The media isn’t out to get your team. Your only good case from recent days is whiffing on Monroe last year. One example does not a trend make.

    • May 1, 201211:12 pm
      by Max

      Reply

      I made several valid points that you disagree with and several others that you say you don’t go far enough back to comment on.   You don’t go back very far either and I mean no offense but I don’t know that you can really see the historic trend.   I even cited a New York media firm that I personally know is biased against the Pistons by Bulls fans and does have an impact.

      • May 2, 20127:09 am
        by tarsier

        Reply

        Hence why I said recent days. If the media was biased 20 years ago (I can’t comment if it was), that has no bearing on today as virtually every person involved with the media and with the team has changed in that span.

        And some Bulls fans in a media firm who are biased is also irrelevant, I answered that. Every team that has media members biased against it. But most of the time, biases actually form by historically being bad, not historically beating up on someone’s favorite team. The latter is typically a cause of begrudging respect. I can’t speak to your couple of individuals you are referring to. But I could give you evidence just as strong by finding a couple people in the media who are biased against Dallas and a couple against Toronto etc.

        • May 2, 20125:30 pm
          by Max

          Reply

          Do you really not believe that the Bulls, Lakers and Celtics are in the neighborhood of nationalized teams like the Cowboys or Yankees?
          Do you not realize that each of these teams considers the Pistons a rival?  Do you not realize that the Pistons Bulls rivalry is perhaps the most bitter in the entire sport?
          Do you also not believe that the Bad Boy Pistons were the most widely despised group in the history of the league?—although the Heat may have taken over the crown.
          You may be right that I go too far but the Pistons are not the Raptors or the Bucks.   Now one outside of their markets cares about those teams enough to hate them.  The Pistons aren’t unique.  If I said a lot of people hate the Cowboys or the Yankees would you disagree?   How about the Heat?   The difference though in the Pistons case is that these three teams are nationalized and have the bandwagon crowd whereas the Pistons never really received that popularity so they are much more disliked than the few teams in sports that have transcended their own local market.    It all started with the Pistons being framed as Jordan’s enemy and when Isiah and Laimbeer were probably the two most hated players in the league.  Those were important days in the formation of the league’s identity around Jordan and the effect has not worn off regarding the Pistons because a lot of youngsters were disproportionately influenced by those times and are now a major part of the workforce in the media.

          • May 2, 20127:03 pm
            by tarsier

            Yeah, i guess I can see that the Pistons not being in a city where much media coverage originates could reduce the number of people with biases for them. I still don’t see any reason why that would make them suffer relative to the Mavs or Rockets or Magic or whatever, but I can see how the Celtics and Knicks would gain big edges.

            By the way, you have never answered the point about begrudging respect. That really does happen a lot. Why would Detroit be immune?

            Also, there may have been a time when the elite teams considered the Pistons a rival. But I guarantee that they don’t today. Today, the Pistons fit with other teams that nobody outside the market cares enough about to bother to hate. That has more to do with talent than anything. Although I acknowledge that history also plays a role.

            Anyway, to add to my pile of anecdotal evidence, somebody freaking gave Greg a vote for DPOY.

          • May 2, 20128:18 pm
            by Max

            The Pistons weren’t given grudging respect; they were called dirty in one era and a boring team that won as a fluke with no future hall of famers that won to quote Bill Simmons’ sentiment during the worst era of NBA basketball ever.    I don’t believe any of that hogwash but I’m quoting the far more commonly offered perception than grudging respect.  The Bad Boys obviously won some fans but for a lot more people they are something like the most evil team in the history of sports.  There are still people still hate Isiah and Laimbeer with a vitriol that makes them to speak in the tones that should be reserved for speaking about dictators like Adoph Hitler.
            Why don’t you answer my earlier question that whenever the Pistons are winning, they change the rules in a way that hurts them and helps their rivals?  Does that not seem biased to you?

          • May 2, 20128:46 pm
            by tarsier

            The media doesn’t change the rules. That and I disagree. Let’s take the winning Pistons of half a decade ago.What rule changes hurt them? The change in how people played the game hurt them, but that has more to do with what sort of talent was coming out of college. I’m sure you are not arguing that little kids growing up were practicing skills specifically aimed to make the league tougher for the sort of team they projected Detroit might have down the line.

          • May 2, 20128:58 pm
            by tarsier

            I think part of this is also confirmation bias. That 2004 team is very often spoken of as the only team in forever (since Dennis Johnson’s Sonics) to win without a superstar (ok, a few wanna say Big Ben was a superstar, I disagree). Occasionally, they will include other statements implying that they thought it was a fluke or that they thought it was the result of them epitomizing teamwork like few other squads ever have. Most of the time, neither of those is appended. In those cases, I am guessing you tend to assume they are thinking the former. I probably tend to assume they are thinking the latter.

            Incidentally, for my personal take, almost every championship is a fluke (2001 Lakers being among the rare exceptions). I think about a year ago, I looked back through the last dozen or so playoff runs that ended in championships. On average, each winning team was less than 6 points away from getting knocked off at some point. Sustained excellence, on the other hand, is not a fluke. And given how good those Pistons were for 5-6 years, odds were that they’d get to the top at some point in there.

          • May 2, 20129:03 pm
            by tarsier

            Oh, and one more thing, it would be very difficult for rule changes to target a team as you seem to imply. Most of the time, it takes a while for the league to adapt to any major rule change, basically because while things might change a bit at first, you have to wait for a new crop of players to grow up developing the skill set better suited to the new rules. As has been pointed out before, the NBA is only now starting to really appear to approach an optimal level of adaptation to the 3 point line.

            So a rule change that hurts a team could only do so a little bit. Most of its impact will happen later on when there is no saying who will play where.

        • May 2, 201210:14 pm
          by Max

          Reply

          Ok, first thing, the media and the NBA largely overlap as the NBAs own promotional machine is as responsible for its image as anything and the actual media take their cues from them.
          Lots of rule changes have been targeted at the Pistons and Spurs.   Specifically, there was even a “Laimbeer Rule” that outlawed Laimbeer from blocking the area under the rim on screens because he was forcing players to run longer routs out of bounds.
          In general, when the Pistons and Spurs won back to back to back titles between them from 2003 to 2005 the NBA made a lot of rule changes to limit defense and open up one one one play and to specifically help Lebron, Wade and Kobe to beat the defensive minded, team oriented squads.

          When the NBA instituted the new technical foul rules that could lead to suspension, the only player that was extremely likely to get suspended the following year was the Pistons Rasheed.
          You might remember that handchecking used to be legal.   Thank the lord that Joe Dumars was allowed to handcheck Michael Jordan.

          • May 2, 201210:18 pm
            by Max

            And btw: The current generation of point guards is benefiting enormously from the rule changes because the rules have made it nearly impossible to defend a guard with speed that can break ankles.  This wasn’t true when Isiah Thomas played.   He’d probably average 30 and 16 these days.

          • May 3, 20126:58 am
            by tarsier

            What rule changes around 03 to 05 are you referencing?

          • May 3, 20127:15 am
            by tarsier

            Also, projecting that Isiah Thomas would, under modern rules, average 30 and 16 is a little preposterous. Teams today average under 100 ppg. If he played 40 mpg (a lot), that would put him on the floor, on average, for 80 points per game. Assuming moderate numbers of made 3s (we’ll say 5) and free throws (we’ll say 13) by his teammates in those 40 minutes, Zeke would have to score or assist on every single bucket in order to get those numbers.

            Also, you just don’t appreciate all the differences in the league. People also like to say that MJ would average 50 under these rules (no hand checking). But the elite scorers score at a lower volume and percentage these days than in his. Defense has actually improved.

          • May 3, 20121:52 pm
            by Max

            The focus on defense has improved but the rule changes have made it guarding a player one one entirely more difficult.   Kobe averaged 37 points a few years ago and several players have scored around 30.  My assumption is that Isiah could blow away the stats that any current point guard is putting up and that Jordan could do the same regarding any shooting guard or scorer in general.    There is no current player who can touch Isiah’s ball handle or even come close and that ability combined with the current defenders inability to touch him would make the league cake for Isiah during one on one situations.
            As for rules changes.
            After the Pistons won the championship in 2004 the following changes were made during the summer.
            2004-05
            • New rules were introduced to curtail hand-checking, clarify blocking fouls and call defensive three seconds to open up the game
            All of these rules were designed to end the Spurs and Pistons two year hold on the title so players like Kobe, LeBron and Wade would dominate in one on one situations and be unguardable.  Also, the rules were designed to stop players like Big Ben and Duncan from camping in the paint too long.
            I once read through all of the rule changes in history and this change in 2005 had the most drastic effect on the current champion of any rule in NBA history and was responsible in my view for the Heat beating the Pistons and winning the title in 2006 and also for the Pistons losing to LeBron in 2007.

          • May 3, 20125:07 pm
            by tarsier

            Kobe averaged 35. And it was only once. And there have been a lot of years lately in which the league leading scorer was under 30.I get so sick of all these people claiming that the old timers could dominate in today’s league. How do you know today’s stars aren’t more talented? Sure they may not look as good because the average NBA player is so much better (as a result of more people getting into it from an extremely early age and the talent pool being increasingly large/international). But seriously, guys like Lebron, Wade, Durant, Paul, and Kobe would dominate in any era. Even MJ didn’t lead the league in scoring every year during his prime. So why would he be a sure thing to now?

            And ok, there were minor rule changes. And they may have hurt the Pistons and Spurs. But what argument do you have that they were designed to do so? No, they were designed to make the NBA a “better” product in some sense. Scoring was down and it made the game less exciting to watch. You can hardly blame the league, or call it biased, for trying to increase its marketability. Well, maybe you can, but it would be an absurd thing to do.

            So tell me, do you honestly believe that Stern or some subset of the media with a lot of influence over him deliberately conspired thinking, “Hmmm, how can we make it harder for Detroit to win? What rule changes can we implement, not to improve the game in any way but just to hurt the Pistons?” Do you really, honestly believe that? You seem reasonably intelligent so I am having a hard time wrapping my head around how you could be such a conspiracy theorist.

          • May 3, 20126:10 pm
            by tarsier

            By the way, here is a quote from the only specific Piston-hater you mentioned, Bill Simmons, out of his latest column:
            “ I hated the ’89 Pistons with every fiber of my body, but they’re probably our no. 1 most underrated great team.” 
            If that isn’t begrudging respect, I don’t know what is.

          • May 4, 20125:21 am
            by Max

            I don’t think old timers could dominate the sport today in general and maybe even think the reverse.  Stick Wade in the 60s, exactly as he is, and we might be calling him the greatest wing ever.   However, Michael Jordan was one of the greatest athletes in any sport ever and he was much more skilled than any of the players you name and had fewer mental flaws.  Isiah Thomas is the greatest ball handler in the history of the game and the only other player who even rates a mention is Pete Maravich.  When I say Jordan would dominate more now than he did in the past it is mostly because the rule changes have consistently aided his kind of player.
            You ask me if I think Stern was conspiring against the Pistons.  I wouldn’t put it like that but I will say that that he wanted Kobe to beat the Spurs and Wade or LeBron to beat the Pistons for the sake of popularity.   The Spurs and the Pistons were great defensive teams.   Kobe, LeBron and Wade were great individual offensive players who were at their most exciting when they drove to the basket.   The league wanted another Jordan ever since Jordan had left and anointed many a player as the next Jordan.  However, defense and team was ruling the day as it usually does.  This is a cycle in NBA history.  Rule changes are implemented to create more scoring.  If the rule is serious enough, as with no handchecking or the 24 second shot clock, it will have an immediate and profound effect.  However, every time Stern changes the rules, coaches and teams catch up and figure out how to make defense the most important element again.   Then come the rule changes.  For some reason, the NBA has always been dedicated to punishing the good defensive teams through rule changes that help their more offensive oriented rivals.    Nevertheless, there is no way Wade and LeBron score on the the Pistons with 04 rules the way they did from 05 on,  That Big LeBron game where he scored a bagillion points in a row during the 4th quarter and overtime—never would have happened without Stern helping him.

          • May 4, 20125:24 am
            by Max

            And read Simmons book of basketball before you quote me Simmons or just read the chapter on Joe Dumars alone.    That chapter is the opposite of grudging respect and a travesty of poor writing in the context of his great book.

          • May 4, 20125:29 am
            by Max

            And also, I do blame Stern and them.   I hate the rule changes.  Play some youtube clips of the Bad Boys and then find a clip of the flagrant foul called on Tyson Chandler for setting a pick a LeBron.   It’s pathetic the way the league has gone.

          • May 4, 20125:55 am
            by Max

            These days, point guards score all the point and big men can barely score unless they learn to play like a guard like Nowitski.  This as much a result of the changes in rules as anything.   Shaq couldn’t quite be the Shaq he was if he was drafted now so I am now making the opposite case and Shaq is of a later generation than Jordan.
            Jordan and Isiah would be much better now but Wilt and Shaq would be much worse.   Centers and big men are still of great importance in their role as anchor but titles are rarely now won by dominating big men with their backs to the baskets.  Beyond the ever gaining importance of three point shooting, the death of the primacy of centers is about the the ever mounting changes in rules that rewarded face up offense.
            Look at the league right now.  Point guards have been coming out of college and Europe for half a decade now and have found the NBA rules giving them a big boost right away.   The reason is that no defender ever born, including Pippen, Payton, MJ, Rondo, Shumpert or any defender you want to name can stay in front of a speedy guard with handle under the condition that any touch whatsoever is a foul.   It’s been open season since 05 for any player who could drive to the basket to draw fouls at will.   It was the best thing Billups did thereafter and its the best thing Stuckey does now.
            Jordan and Isiah were lethal killers who no one could stay in front of with handchecking.   The only real hole in my argument that I see is that today’s rules wouldn’t force them to become as skilled as they became.  Things would be too easy.

          • May 4, 20126:02 am
            by Max

            I think Mosgov said it best after being dunked on by Blake Griffen as a rookie…..he said something like, “The NBA is the only basketball league in the world where if a player runs into you, it’s a foul on you.”

  • May 1, 201211:32 pm
    by Mark

    Reply

    I think they should get Chauncey Bulips back. he will be a great team leader. he will also help knight grow and knight could get more experience from him. and the pistons MUST amnesty clause Chirle v nad Ben Gorden. this way they will have more room to get a good player that could come and give them a boost when they needed it.

    • May 2, 20124:31 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      They must amnesty two players? Good luck with that.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here