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

Part 2: Joe Dumars put Pistons on wrong track, but it didn’t matter in the least bit

This is the second of a two-part series examining how we should use future projections, not his past performance, to determine whether Joe Dumars should remain the Pistons’ general manager. Part 1 examined why Dumars’ first championship as an executive doesn’t necessarily make him the best candidate to bring the Pistons their next title.

Me at the Detroit Free Press:

In the NBA, teams should be very good or very bad. Between is a failure.

About the worst place a team can be is in the lower half of the lottery, picking Nos. 6-14 or so. Those teams aren’t good enough to make the playoffs and aren’t bad enough to have a reasonable chance at drafting a player who can turn around the team. In some circumstances, when a team makes the playoffs but is completely overmatched, picking 15-18 is just as futile.

In the last five years, the Pistons have picked No. 8, No. 9, No. 8, No. 7 and No. 15.

They have been building the absolute wrong way, as I wrote last week.

But it hasn’t mattered.

Thanks to sound drafting and a little luck, the Pistons have emerged from this rut with a promising team led by Andre Drummond and Greg Monroe, and maybe that should be enough to save Joe Dumars’ job.

Redo the 2012 draft, and Drummond goes No. 2, behind Anthony Davis. Redo the 2010 draft, and Monroe goes No. 3 or No. 4, behind Paul George, John Wall and maybe DeMarcus Cousins.

Drummond and Monroe are the type of players teams tank to get.

For the Pistons to get those two without tanking into the top end of the lottery took a little luck, obviously. If the Toronto Raptors took Drummond instead of Terrence Ross and/or the Golden State Warriors took Monroe instead of Ekpe Udoh, Dumars might already be gone.

But they didn’t, and Dumars deserves credit for drafting well.

A tired argument exists that anyone could have picked Drummond and Monroe where Dumars did, but the same people who make that point still would make it if the Pistons had drafted No. 8 instead of No. 9 in 2012 and No. 6 instead of No. 7 in 2010. As we know, and as obvious as it should have been to draft Drummond and Monroe, the teams that actually held those picks didn’t.

So despite his efforts to contrary (i.e., vainly relying on highly paid veterans such as Tayshaun Prince, Richard Hamilton, Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva to lead the Pistons into the playoffs), Dumars has emerged from this down spell with two great pieces to build around.

Dumars’ failure to set the correct course for the franchise is now irrelevant. The Pistons’ direction already has been established.

It can be tweaked, but they’re building around Drummond with Monroe, Josh Smith , Brandon Jennings and Kentavious Caldwell-Pope as key support pieces. They have the potential to add another in free agency next summer. Otherwise, the only real opportunity to add a fundamental building block is to trade those players for another building block.

In that regard, I trust Dumars much more than a theoretical replacement general manager. Tweaking already-built teams is what he does well.

113 Comments

  • Aug 30, 20132:56 pm
    by The Rake

    Reply

    Interesting take that “tweaking already built teams is what he does well.” Hopefully, that is indeed the case. This team is in many ways a potential mess and in many ways could only be a year or two from being a top 10 team (i.e.-guys they have play to potential, we add one piece next year with cap room and draft well, and we dump the bloated weight in CV and/or Stuckey.) Still, a lot has to fall right for this to happen which makes me skeptical. Ultimately, the Heat are getting older, if we can get a true scorer/shooter to compliment our bigs, I think we’ve got a shot. Coaching another often overlooked question mark. Is Cheeks the right guy? Time will tell. If nothing else, this is definitely the first time since 08/09 that this team is a must watch to start the year. Looking forward to it.

  • Aug 30, 20132:59 pm
    by Kobina

    Reply

    You also can’t reduce this; Joe has made it clear to his very important young pieces, that not playing to win, every night, is unacceptable.  As much as I hated those annual, late-season, meaningless win streaks that cost us draft position, I look back and see their value.

    I look at the teams that drafted before us, Kings, Cavs, Wizards, Raptors and Bobcats and feel we are in a better place than all of them.  Who on any of teams has shown a willingness to play to win every night?  They strike me as guys waiting for their teams to get good, playing to make the All Star Game, Team USA or a new contract.  With far less acclaim, Monroe has consistently played harder than all of them (Though not necessarily out played them).  And for all the hype he gets, I think Drummond’s ceiling is far higher than Irving’s and I think Irving is more like to leave the Cavs than Dre is to leave DET.  Club culture means something and JD has done a better job establishing a good one in DET, than most.

    • Aug 30, 20134:15 pm
      by Max

      Reply

      I love when people remember the importance of culture to a franchise.   

    • Aug 31, 20138:47 am
      by MrHappyMushroom

      Reply

      Plus, Irving will average 50 games a year because of injury.
      Of course, that could be true with Andre.  But Irving is 3 for 3 (incl. Duke) in missing substantial time. Might just be bad luck.  But I don’t think so.

  • Aug 30, 20134:16 pm
    by Max

    Reply

    Great article, Dan! 

    • Aug 30, 20135:02 pm
      by Anthony J.

      Reply

      I too enjoyed this article. A lot of people usually bash Dan (and I have had my fair share of complaints) but this article was a good one.

      It seems like the Dan bashing has ceased a little bit these past few weeks. I respect Dan a lot for voicing his opinion as a FAN. I have much more respect for Dan than someone like Keith Langlois who doesn’t question things the team does. He fully agrees with all the team moves no matter how bad. 

      • Aug 31, 201310:44 am
        by Ryan

        Reply

        Keith Langois is doing a job it’s a whole different thing.

        • Aug 31, 20139:42 pm
          by Anthony J.

          Reply

          Yeah that’s true but he just gets sooo annoying with his full agreement with everything. I have no problem with him doing his job or anything. I’m just saying, I like when fans support the team but also questions the moves that are made.

    • Sep 2, 20136:13 pm
      by Crispus

      Reply

      I thought this article was a good read, and much more focused and effective than part 1.

  • Aug 30, 20134:39 pm
    by MIKEYDE248

    Reply

    When I first read the headline, I thought it was going to be bashing Joe, but it turned out to be a compliment to him.  Hopefully with what Joe has done since the end of last season will erase some of the bad taste we as fans have had for him the last couple of years.

    I agree with the posts above that it’s hard to root for your team to loose, even if you know that it’s doing more harm than good.  I don’t really see that moving up a spot or two would have helped the Pistons anyway.

    Let’s just hope that the bad years are behind us and they can go on another run like they did when Joe first got here.

  • Aug 30, 20135:05 pm
    by Charles D

    Reply

    This logic of Contend or Tank is profoundly spurious and incorrect. What you want are assets and flexibility. A 40-win team with *good contracts* has both, and they can use them to get better. You have to be a 40-win team in-between being a 20-win team and a 60-win team (unless your former teammate gives you a sweetheart trade, which is something you can’t count on.

    Also, your non-contract assets are as good as you make them — the Pacers and Spurs have drafted well in recent years despite not having high picks — and teams like the Bobcats get nothing out of the draft, despite having high picks.

    So, the recipe for success isn’t (necessarily) to clear the decks and tank first — that’s just *one* way (among many) to get assets and flexibility. The real solution, no matter where you start and no matter what you have, is to draft *well* and make *smart* signings. It’s easier said than done, but I’d rather try and do that than wait on some highly-touted franchise savior who never comes (or takes his talents to <Attractive Market X> without winning anything.)

    • Sep 5, 201310:52 am
      by JOB

      Reply

      this is exactly right. Bron, Shaq, KG didn’t even win with the team that drafted them. Tanking hasn’t done more (yet) for teams than slow builds, and smart (or lucky) late drafting.
      The big problem i see is the players ability to pick their dest in FA or influence trade destinations. Small mkt teams will never have a chance to add talent that way as is. Players should get blind drafted by all equal FA offers (or equal trade offers. tougher to eval, but do able) OR pick to stay w drafted team. Even ray allen shoulda been ‘redrafted’ after Boston. Im sure 4 teams woulda still paid 3 mill/yr for him. Either he can enter that draft, or stay in boston at that point (assuming like salary offer from current team). Teams would then def tank less, and things i think would even out a bit more. 

  • Aug 30, 20135:22 pm
    by Otis

    Reply

    Here’s where this falls apart for me: “A tired argument exists that anyone could have picked Drummond and Monroe where Dumars did, but the same people who make that point still would make it if the Pistons had drafted No. 8 instead of No. 9 in 2012 and No. 6 instead of No. 7 in 2010. As we know, and as obvious as it should have been to draft Drummond and Monroe, the teams that actually held those picks didn’t.”
     
    Dan, you might personally be “tired” of that argument, but it’s a perfectly valid standpoint. What isn’t valid is to play the “woulda, coulda, shoulda” game to form counterarguments against the evaluation of events that DID happen. I suppose I always assumed (for no real reason) that you went to college, but did you ever take an argumentative writing class? Who picked before Detroit is neither here nor there when it comes to the individual performance of Joe Dumars. Golden State and Toronto’s GMs aren’t on trial here, and their reasoning for passing on Monroe and Drummond, respectively, doesn’t enter into an independent evaluation of Dumars’ drafts. It’s a non starter. If you’re doing an analysis of Joe’s drafting, the only thing that matters is who was available and who Joe took. Full stop.
     
    Frankly, it’s bizarre that you seemingly acknowledge how lucky Joe got that Golden State didn’t take Monroe and Toronto didn’t take Drummond, but still want to give him “credit” for taking those guys because the teams ahead of him didn’t. What those teams did before Joe’s pick is of the utmost irrelevance when it comes to an independent evaluation of his performance. You would have taken those guys, I would have taken those guys, anyone would have taken those guys. The teams directly ahead of us certainly had compatibility issues with those guys (slow-as-molasses Monroe would be an awkward fit in GS’s uptempo offense, and Toronto already had a high upside center in Valanciunas) but none of that has anything to do with Joe’s available options.
     
    Also, you’ve brazenly ignored another trademark quality of Joe’s: His atrocious habit of growing irrationally attached to players he likes, overcommitting to them, and holding onto them for far too long. The chief difference between now and last decade (and it is a BIG one) is that these are his guys. He inherited someone else’s guys and was therefore free to evaluate them objectively and do what had to be done. For that reason, I’d buy the premise that his performance from 2002-2004 was an indicator of his ability to turn around, say, a new team should he get fired from Detroit. Even at my lowest level of respect for the guy, I told people if he got fired he’d go somewhere else and probably do a much better job. Because he didn’t have his own pets and the biases that came with them. Almost anyone who wasn’t emotionally attached to Tayshaun would have traded him to Dallas for a first rounder a few years ago, or would have traded Stuckey on his rookie deal before giving him that regrettable $25M extension, or would have done SOMETHING with Amir other than salary dump him for less than $2M in cap space.
     
    It’s been a good sign that he eventually moved Tayshaun (in what amounted to a salary dump; really wish we’d gotten that first rounder, but apparently Joe didn’t think it was “enough” to make him ship out his best pal), that he’s seemingly been shopping Stuckey (far past the point where he had any actual value) and that he cut bait on Knight in time to actually get something for him. But I think his track record indicates that he’s just as likely to stick with his stubborn game plan in an attempt to save face than to objectively evaluate guys HE brought here and do what’s best for the team. There’s just so much that’s happened in the last decade that you’re ignoring for the sake of a flawed argument that relies entirely on someone’s job performance from forever ago.

    • Aug 31, 20138:52 am
      by MrHappyMushroom

      Reply

      *Of course* Joe deserves massive credit for drafting Monroe and Drummond.  The fact that he was “lucky” to have the opportunity doesn’t diminish that in the slightest.  Taking advantage of good fortune (I wasn’t born poor and by default was some day headed for college) doesn’t mean a thing unless you do something with it (I got my degree and am really satisfied in my career as a high school history teacher).  There’s no contradiction at all.
       
      Were the Heat “lucky” that neither Leonard or Manu hit both free throws or that Duncan wasn’t on the court to snare a key rebound?  Yup.  Does this mean the Heat don’t deserve massive credit for a back-to-back?  Nope.

      • Aug 31, 20133:36 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        So do you also give the Spurs a ton of credit for drafting Duncan? Orlando for taking Shaq? Cleveland for taking LeBron? Seattle for taking Durant?

        All of these selections were painfully obvious. Yes, give someone credit for not messing it up. But less credit is earned for easy accomplishments.

        Think about James’ game winner against the Pacers. He doesn’t deserve a ton of credit for hitting his layup. I would have hit that. He deserves a ton of credit for being able to get in position to have that shot. Dumars flailed about trying to make the playoffs, failing miserably, but not aiming to rebuild and then lucked into drafting after incompetent GMs. And then he hit his bunny shots. Give him a pat on the back, but not a standing ovation. 

        • Aug 31, 20135:42 pm
          by Otis

          Reply

          If you give Dumars a pat on the back, it had better be a sarcastic one. The absolute most those picks warrant is a nod of approval, because it was the obvious and easy choice. I would have made the same choice, and so would anybody. It was easier than a layup. Luck is going to come and go, but I literally could have done exactly what Joe did when he picked up a telephone and said the word “Drummond” or “Monroe.” Hand me the phone that night, I’d have said those words without hesitation, and I’d get credit for it for a lifetime. I couldn’t play a second in the NBA, so I’m not going to diminish anyone’s accomplishments on the court, but I could have drafted for the Pistons in the first round of the 2010 and 2012 drafts and the results would have been the same. So I’m not going to pat him on the back.

          • Sep 1, 20131:16 am
            by tarsier

            A pat on the back vs a nod of approval? What’s the difference? You really want to pick a fight over what incredibly minor gesture of approval is warranted for not messing up an insanely easy call?

          • Sep 1, 20131:47 pm
            by Anthony J.

            “ I would have made the same choice, and so would anybody.” Apparently not the 6 teams ahead of us in 2010 and the 8 teams in front of us in 2012…

            Monroe and Drummond (from the sample that we have seen this season) appear to be top 3 talent from their draft class (John Wall, Cousins, Monroe and Paul George are the best from 2010 and Lillard, Davis and Drummond are the best from the 2012 class.) Dumars could have done the same thing as the other GM’s who did not pick them in the top 3 or beyond. He could have easily passed on both those players. Heck, in 2010 he could have drafted Paul George! So I don’t think picks are that obvious. There are 60 players in a draft. Some will be bust and some will outplay their draft position.

            Another example that I look at is the 2007 draft. The “obvious” choice for the 1st pick was Greg Oden. Everyone thought KD was too skinny and would be bullied on defense. Looking back, I’m pretty sure the Trailblazers would have passed on Oden if they knew that this skinny kid who couldn’t lift a haf a pound (yes overexaggeration) would become arguably the second best player in the league. Oden had talent no doubt but KD is, like I said, the second best player in the league.   

          • Sep 1, 20132:03 pm
            by Otis

            Anthony no no no no Anthony. You’re f#cking up your argument so bad. You’re bad at arguing. Check this out: I didn’t say Monroe was the best available player in the 2010 draft, or that Drummond was in 2012. So take what those other teams did, wad it up into a little ball, shove it somewhere dark and forget all about it. I’m talking about the seventh and ninth picks, respectively. The other picks don’t matter, because the players who got taken were GONE when Joe made his pick. Taking into account one’s particular roster makeup, the only two questions that matter and can be fairly weighed are: Who was available? and Who did Joe pick?
             
            I’m not saying Drummond should have been picked fourth or third or first, and the fact that he wasn’t doesn’t affect my argument in the least. I’m saying with the other players available to Joe at the time of his pick, drafting Monroe and Drummond were absolute no-brainers. The previous teams made their picks, and I was 100% sure that no other players were even CLOSE to those two and that Joe couldn’t possibly be foolish enough to pass on these golden opportunities. If you want to give him a round of applause for doing something most elementary school kids could have done, that’s a reflection on your capacity for independent thought and your basketball acumen.

          • Sep 1, 20132:19 pm
            by Otis

            The difference between a pat on the back and a nod of approval is that a pat on the back is a minor act of congratulations, signifying that someone has done something, however slightly, above and beyond the call of duty. “You did a GOOD job there.” A not of approval means “you didn’t f#ck it up.” You have conformed your behavior to the minimum standard of acceptability.
             
            To shift it to another workplace where most of us have been. Say you’ve got a coworker who’s always spitting in the coffee, and you take him aside and instruct him that he should not spit in the coffee anymore. The next day, when you come into the office and taste the coffee and you can’t taste his spit inside, are you going to pat him on the back for not spitting in the coffee? Only sarcastically, if at all, I think. Because not spitting in the coffee is the bare minimum that’s expected of anyone. It’s not like he did a bang-up job securing the Bush’s Baked Beans account, which would warrant an act of congratulations. But Joe didn’t secure the Bush’s Baked Beans account. Not even close. Anyone can come in and do the absolute bare minimum that anyone on the planet could do, and they don’t need a pat on the back. That’s what their paycheck is for. That’s how they’re compensated. And I guarantee you Joe has dutifully collected his paycheck every other week for the past five years of awfulness. The only thing Joe Dumars did with those picks is not spit in the coffee.

          • Sep 1, 20132:31 pm
            by Anthony J.

            Wow. That wasn’t the response I was looking for from a reasonable person to argue with. No reason in claiming that  a 17 year old teenager is bad at arguing.

            Like Tarsier said. No need to give him a standing ovation for the picks BUT he does deserve credit for actually picking those guys. Honestly, lookng at how this team is built now, I would have preferred Paul George instead of Monroe.

            But I guess since you shot down my OPINIONS with no respect (Which is part of the reason why we write on these boards) I have nothing more to say to you.

          • Sep 1, 20133:39 pm
            by tarsier

            Ever thought that someone else may consider a nod more approving than a pat? I mean, I don’t think we have some sort of a universally accepted scale of approving gestures.

          • Sep 1, 20136:20 pm
            by tarsier

            Anthony J.,

            Your entire post there supports the idea that Dumars doesn’t deserve credit for the Drummond and Monroe picks. Yes, sometimes the obvious picks bust. But they’re still the obvious picks. If they never busted, nobody would ever mess them up.

            But let’s put it this way. Ignore the notion of “everybody would have taken _____”. Instead, let’s look at who a motley group of fans and blog site commenters would have taken. We don’t have inside information. Most of us haven’t seen much college ball before March. Our draft expertise and knowledge should be pretty damn weak.

            But if you polled the PP commenters on who they should have taken in the 2010 and 2012 drafts given who was already gone, you would have gotten Monroe and Drummond in an absolute landslide (like, probably well over 95% of the vote). If a bunch of nobodys like us can figure it out, it’s clearly not that hard.

            Even if other GMs might have screwed up the pick, that’s just evidence that we esteem GMs far too highly. They’re guys who know the right people and manged to land nice jobs. There are tons of nobodies who could do just as well.

            The problem of course is figuring out which of the tons and tons more nobodies are the ones who could do just as well. But I think the practical upshot is this. If your GM has not established himself as damn good at his job (well above the field), then he shouldn’t be paid 7 figures. Why pay a guy $5M/yr when you could probably get someone to do just as well for $150K/yr? Players make a lot because other people just can’t do what they can do. Lots of people can do what GMs do.

          • Sep 1, 20138:26 pm
            by Anthony J.

            “Your entire post there supports the idea that Dumars doesn’t deserve credit for the Drummond and Monroe picks. Yes, sometimes the obvious picks bust. But they’re still the obvious picks. If they never busted, nobody would ever mess them up.” Haha, sorry for the confusion there Tarsier. My intent was to give Dumars a bit of credit. I guess I could have worded it differently to be clear about it.

             
            “But if you polled the PP commenters on who they should have taken in the 2010 and 2012 drafts given who was already gone, you would have gotten Monroe and Drummond in an absolute landslide (like, probably well over 95% of the vote). If a bunch of nobodys like us can figure it out, it’s clearly not that hard.
            Even if other GMs might have screwed up the pick, that’s just evidence that we esteem GMs far too highly. They’re guys who know the right people and manged to land nice jobs. There are tons of nobodies who could do just as well.”Not much I can say there. That’s a true statement you got there. 

            I could have worded my argument differently but what I really meant to implement is that Dumars deserve a little, even if it’s nothing more than a pat on the back, for picking these guys.

          • Sep 3, 20132:22 pm
            by Otis

            And I guess my main point is that Dumars can’t simultaneously thank his lucky stars Monroe and Drummond were available (which he should) and also be given credit for picking them (which he shouldn’t). It happens that these guys fit our greatest need, at least on paper, when each was drafted. And they were the highest rated available prospects by a very wide margin. There is no logical argument that would have anyone picking anybody else over either one of them. As much as I hate and mistrust Dumars, when it was our turn to pick I didn’t even have a shred of worry that Joe could possibly take anyone else. There was no way it was happening.
             
            Also, if you look at the draft that came between those two, Bismack Biyombo would have been the obvious choice. No matter how good or bad he ended up, I’m pretty confident that was the guy Joe was taking. But when he had an actual decision to make between two similarly rated prospects, it’s hard to argue that he didn’t screw it up by taking Knight over Walker. I mean, for a guy who never seems to know when to call it quits on a guy, it only took him two years to give up on Knight. If we’d picked Walker, I don’t think we would have cut bait on him. Just saying.

          • Sep 3, 20132:57 pm
            by tarsier

            “And I guess my main point is that Dumars can’t simultaneously thank his lucky stars Monroe and Drummond were available (which he should) and also be given credit for picking them (which he shouldn’t).”

            Then your main point is wrong. Almost all accomplishments in life require some combination of being fortunate enough to have opportunities and then going on to take advantage of those opportunities.

            Also, I have no idea what Dumars’ draft board looked like in 2011. Biyombo was not an obvious call like Monroe and Drummond. I was really hoping for Valanciunas. I certainly would have taken Knight over Walker. But I was torn between Knight and Leonard. The popular opinion was that Tristan Thompson was Joe’s guy. But even of the options left to him, there were good arguments to go after Burks, Thompson, either Morris, or Faried as well.

  • Aug 30, 20136:39 pm
    by AYC

    Reply

    Well if we are done with the past and looking to the future, the whole thing boils down to- “Who would you rather have than Joe Dumars?” 

  • Aug 30, 20137:08 pm
    by Oracle

    Reply

    Did you mean tweaking or Twerking? I’ve been watching way too much Miley Cyrus!

  • Aug 31, 20138:04 am
    by jeff

    Reply

    actually, the article made me reevaluate joe d; however, I do want to make a point about joe’s drafts. joe was given a huge pass on the darko drafting (where he could have had bosh, wade, melo, and a few others). he has also had a few other busts: dj white, Rodney stuckey, and Jason maxiell. his 2001 drafting of Rodney white (what is up w/ him drafting people named white?) saw joe Johnson go next (as well as seeing tony parker, gilbert arenas, Zach Randolph, and Gerald Wallace). while Austin daye and Brandon knight are still young, those two picks are looking shaky. he got lucky by having two good picks fall into his lap, and he made them. I just can’t give him a pass for the whites, darko, et al.

    • Aug 31, 20138:54 am
      by MrHappyMushroom

      Reply

      Maxiell wasn’t a bust late in the first round. Probably out-performed expectations.  Neither is Stuckey.  Give or take a slot, that’s a 15 pick for you.

    • Aug 31, 20139:06 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      You can’t evaluate someone’s drafting by the criteria of whether anyone better was still there after his pick. If you do, every GM ever has an abysmal record.

      Darko was a big whiff, understandable though it may have been. He deserves flak there. Stuckey is one of the better subs in the league. That’s good value at 15. Maxieall has way outperformed his draft place. DJ White is about what you expect out of a 29th pick. Daye and Rodney White were mistakes, but everyone has some.

      Nobody claims Dumars has drafted perfectly. But in the draft, it’s all about success rate. Dumars’ picks do better, on average, than most GMs’. So he’s a good drafter.

      • Sep 1, 201310:21 am
        by jeff

        Reply

        I had to cringe at “he’s a good drafter”. I will concede that we got a decent role player in maxiell; however, stuckey is not one of the better subs in the league. everyone is eagerly anticipating the end of his contract. I admit that I am biased in that dumars kept him over billups, but the facts rest that stuckey is a cap drain w/o a return (yes he can get to the line, but Chauncey did that as well as shoot 3′s, post up, and 50 other things). I agree that late draft picks are dicey, but there have been a ton of good players taken late in the draft. shoot, the spurs have thrived on a great bench off of picks in the late 20′s. even when dumars hit a homerun in the draft in okur, he let the boy go. I guess that I will grant that drafting is dumars’s “strength”, but it is like saying that the “America’s puniest man” winner’s greatest strength is his 90 lbs bench press.

        • Sep 1, 20133:42 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          Stuckey’s not worth his current contract. but he’s more than worth his draft position.

          • Sep 1, 20138:32 pm
            by Anthony J.

            Yeah I don’t think Stuckey is as bad of a player as most people figure him to be. Stuckey was a pretty good 15th pick. He did have potential to be a 20 point scorer and he could have used his size to bully people on defense. The thing with Stuckey is that 1. He doesn’t fit with the Pistons “identity” (A true PG, good bigs who can bully the opposing team and DEFENSE!!!!) and 2. Like you stated, he hasn’t lived up to that 8 million dollar contract. But the bottom line is that picking Stuckey at pick 15 wasn’t a terrible pick at all. I believe he’s just a victim of circumstance.

  • Aug 31, 201311:19 am
    by Tyson

    Reply

    I read both pieces and I was expecting more.  Here’s the problem. DRAFTING nowadays isn’t what drafting once was.   In the “AAU Culture “(induce vomiting) we’re in now.  Top guys are not near, nor are complete “studs”.   Off the top of my head the last guys drafted high that are “supertars” are Durant, Blake Griffin (still not complete)  and D Rose..   I’m saying this to say “tanking” is ridiculous. 

    What Joe did that I loved is he DEBUNKED the “SUPERSTAR THEORY”.  When you hear something so much you tend to believe it.  You DON’T need superstars to win a championship.  What you need are players that “CAN” step up and be “superstars”.  The problem is that people accepted the Lakers, Celtics 80′s model as fact.  People will say, “But even the late 80s Pistons had superstars” but that’s a fallacy.  They had all star caliber talent (Laim wasn’t an all star by the time the Pistons was a championship team fyi) but it wasn’t littered with superstars. 

    In fact Dumars was a DRAFT “steal” himself (thank you the late great Will Robinson).  Houston only had 1 superstar (the 2nd team Drexler came late and was on the back 9 of his careeer).  The point is you don’t have to build that way. 

    Here’s a question to ask yourself and this is where Joe went wrong.  You look at the successful franchises in ANY sport and the one common denominator what they have is “AN IDENTITY”.   The Spurs identity hasn’t changed in 15 years and IMO they’re (R C Buford) the GOLD STANDARD in the NBA..  

    What happened after 2008 was Joe thought acquiring experienced guys (good, you got a real body of work vs an un-proven college guy. But we should tank?) in an offensive league would work.  Problem is, the Pistons team was built on DEFENSE and that was gone when we acquired Charlie and Ben (sighing). 

    The point is create an identity and build your talent around that.  In the cap and AAU era, Detroit isn’t going to be on the top of ANY F A’s list unless we’re winning (typical Gen Y front running). 

    We wouldn’t be having this conversation if Kobe Bryant (hate him but would have loved if he came here) wouldn’t have vetoed a trade in 2007 that was sealed and delivered for Rip and Tay.  I’m adding the last part to say lets not act like Joe didn’t try.    When you factor the team’s sale that really handcuff him. 

    PISTONS 2014 !!!

    • Aug 31, 20133:50 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      It’s true. You don’t technically “need” superstars. But with a salary cap, you need a team that is much more valuable than that cap. That requires underpaid players. And the majority of the most underpaid players are superstars (also a handful of rookies who get really good while still on rookie deals, but those guys are rarely on contenders).

      If Dumars had managed to get just one signing comparable to Wallace’s and Billups’ massive underpayments in all the years since, I’d be much more confident that he could repeat his unconventional model. But he hasn’t. And as long as he doesn’t, he won’t have five fringe all-star caliber players on a team again.

      • Aug 31, 20134:50 pm
        by Max

        Reply

        He’s close to having that right now.  

        • Aug 31, 201310:07 pm
          by Otis

          Reply

          WHAT?? IN WHAT WAY?? Do you even believe the bullshit you type here??

          • Sep 1, 201312:55 am
            by Max

            Dumars is close to having five fringe all star caliber players on one team.  Greg Monroe, Josh Smith and Brandon Jennings already qualify.   Andre Drummond looks somewhat likely to surpass them all.  Joe would then just need one player among KCP, Mitchell, Datome and even Stuckey or anyone else to qualify and players do come out of nowhere sometimes.  The Pistons will probably have the amount of money next off season that could land the kind of player that would satisfy getting that kind of player on a reasonable deal if the player exceeds expectations.  If the Pistons have a good year they might be able to attract such a player.  

            Now before you or anyone gets all fired up and tries to bat all these players down remember that Tarsier said the Pistons had five fringe all stars.   I’ve been accused in the past of being too partial regarding Tayshaun Prince and of overrating him but he never made the all star team so making the all star team obviously wasn’t Tarsier’s criteria when he made his statement.  

            Personally, I don’t think Prince was better than Smith, Monroe and Jennings have been already and the Pistons current trio obviously has more room to improve.   I don’t believe Prince was better than Drummond will be this season.  I even believe there is a chance Drummond could surpass every player from the 04 group.  And I don’t believe it’s out of the question that someone who is already on the roster or someone Joe comes up with can be as good a player as Prince.  Therefore, Dumars is close to having five fringe all star caliber players now.  I’d say he’s one player away.         
              

          • Sep 1, 20131:26 am
            by tarsier

            Jennings hasn’t come close to sniffing an all-star nod.

          • Sep 1, 20131:45 am
            by tarsier

            But Max, I’ll give you that there are a lot of guys with potential on the team right now. This is why I have previously mentioned a Pistons window lasting until 2016. Because for the Pistons to contend, Drummond will have to at least be close to max deal worthy. And Jennigns will have to significantly outperform his contract too.

            Since both of their deals expire in 2016, if both of those conditions are met, the Pistons will be unable to afford to keep them along with Monroe, Smith, and free agent X from next summer assuming free agent X is any good. And if eh isn’t, then the Pistons probably aren’t contenders anyway.

            My point is simple: you can’t pay five guys like fringe all-stars (unless you go the Brooklyn route). That’s why you need a superstar.

            But even your idea that the Pistons could be there after next summer depends on Monroe and Smith continuing to play at that level (reasonable), Drummond jumping to that level (reasonable), Jennings skyrocketing to that level (unlikely, hence why nobody wanted him this summer), and the Pistons signing another all-star caliber guy (unlikely since Dumars won’t even have that cap space unless he manages to move Jerebko, and because landing extra all-star types is rarely easy).

            So, once more, unless about half a dozen things all manage to fall perfectly, that’s why Detroit needs a superstar to compete.

            Here’s hoping Drummond becomes one. 

          • Sep 1, 20132:43 am
            by Max

            There is a big difference between going the Nets route and keeping the five fringe stars the Pistons could have and the Thunder example I’ve seen before isn’t a good one either.  

            Only Drummond and Monroe could possibly make as much as Brooke Lopez of the Nets but three players on the Nets make more than Lopez.   Joe Johnson makes 21 and a half million.  No Piston could possibly be eligible to approach such a salary.  Brandon Jennings makes significantly less than anyone in their starting lineup.  Whoever would be the fifth player couldn’t make as much as three of the Nets either and probably wouldn’t have to make as much as any of their five starters.  Also, while it is somewhat likely that Monroe and Drummond could max out their extensions they also might not.  Marc Gasol didn’t get the max.   

            The Thunder aren’t a good case because all four of their drafted players warranted max or near max extensions and they couldn’t live without the worst of the four in Ibaka because he was the only big and overlapped with the other three skills sets the least.   Still, they should have just signed all four.  They could have.  They still pay other players good money.  They could have gotten rid of those players and just been extremely cheap to anyone else.  

            Let’s say Drummond, Monroe and Smith combine for 45 million a year after their extensions.   Add Jennings and you’ve got the four of them making 53 million.   There’s room after that to be paying one or two more players while being cheap to everyone else without hitting the tax or going too far into it.   

          • Sep 1, 20132:54 am
            by Max

            Jennings wouldn’t have to skyrocket to be an all star let along a fringe all star who never makes it.   Winning changes people perceptions and I’m guessing if Jennings were on a 50 win team while putting up only slightly better numbers people would start taking him as an all star possibility.    He has finished years in the top ten in points, steals and three pointers made while leading his team in assists every year of his career.   He’s 23 years old.  You can think it’s incredibly unlikely a player like that becomes all star worthy but I think you are selling him short.  Personally, I think any player that is in the top ten in points is at least in the conversation of being a fringe all star.  Nobody wanting Jennings this summer is a pretty harsh judgement.   For one thing, the Pistons wanted him this summer.  For another, there have been a lot of players who fell by the wayside of free agency when they were restricted free agents.   Would you say no one wanted Pekovic this summer? Only the Timberwolves made him an offer and that was the most protracted negotiation of the entire but I think you are wrong if you think the situation wouldn’t have been different for both of them if they had been true free agents.    

          • Sep 1, 20139:16 am
            by tarsier

            Wow, you really overvalue inefficient bulk scoring. And you really tried to bolster his case with “he led his team in assists”? He was their PG, of course he did! Look at this list:
            Rondo, Williams, Rose, Curry, Paul, Westbrook, Parker, Irving, Lawson, Conley, Rubio, Holiday, Lillard, Wall
            At least 90% of people would take every PG on that list over Jennings.
            Teague, Walker, Calderon, Lin, Hill, Nash, Felton, Dragic, Bledsoe, Lowry, Vasquez
            Most people would take about half of these guys over Jennings (though which half would vary greatly).
            So Jennings is somewhere between the 15th and the 25th best PG in the league (how many better PGs do you think there are?). That is nowhere close to an all-star nod. Typically 6 PGs get in. By your definition of “fringe all-star”, there must be about 60 fringe all-stars in the league.

            Being on a worse team typically lets a guy put up better numbers because there is less competition for touches.

            If Jennings were on a 40 win team and putting up better numbers than in the past, that would involve playing a lot better. If the Jennings of today is averaging around 20 ppg in Detroit, the Pistons will probably be a sub .500 team.

            Also, Jennings was a RFA, but that wasn’t changing much because the Bucks didn’t really wasnt him. 

          • Sep 1, 20139:18 am
            by tarsier

            Everyone assumed any offer to Pek would be matched. Do you honestly think the same was true for Jennings? His name was constantly involved in trade possibilities. Pek’s wasn’t.

          • Sep 1, 20139:21 am
            by tarsier

            Oh, and consider what it took to get Jennings. A guy who has been one of the top 3 worst starting PGs in the league for both of his seasons so far. That is the bar for how much he was valued. No other team offered the Bucks more.

          • Sep 1, 20138:40 pm
            by Anthony J.

            I agree with Tarsier on this one. Big Pek was definetly a solid free agent candidate. I can’t say that I know exactly why it took so long for him to get a deal BUT I think it’s way different than Brandon Jennings circumstances. As a Piston fan, I hope BJ works out but his value isn’t high. Like Tarsier said, we gave up one of, if not THE, worst starting PG in the league for BJ. That is a testiment as to how much value John Hammond saw in BJ.

          • Sep 2, 20136:02 am
            by Max

            In any year of free agents there is usually only a handful of teams that can spend a lot of money on free agents.   More often than not, the best free agents are scooped up pretty quickly and the best restricted free agents are left with no leverage.  Sometimes,  a few teams will still have money at this point and one of them will take a chance on signing a restricted but most teams will not take such a chance and it usually doesn’t work out well for them if they do because most teams usually match these offers unless there has been bad blood.   Restricted free agents tend to do well though when they are true greats.

            And we don’t know that the Bucks didn’t want Jennings.  We do know they bucked at his salary demand which was well north of what the Pistons gave him.   

          • Sep 2, 20136:20 am
            by Max

            Your definition of fringe all star included Prince once again so unless you want to back track making the team isn’t the criteria.   When you define it by using rigid positions as you do you don’t allow for the variations of depth regarding the positions .  Think of it like this.   Let’s say Al Jefferson, Roy Hibbert or Al Horford start the all star game next year.   Let’s also say Tony Parker misses the all star game and Paul, Curry and Westbrook get in but Parker puts up career best numbers.  This could happen.   Now you have one player who is starting the all star game and another who doesn’t even make the team but Parker would still be the best player by far in question.  He’s not even a fringe all star in this case but a bonafide one in my book due to his history and due to being better than players who actually made the all star team that year.  To me the bottom line of a fringe all star is more about whether a player is in the conversation than who actually makes the team so it’s about the number of real candidates and not the number of slots.  Politics and who has better teammates has a lot to do with who makes these teams too.  

            Also, one again you are assuming perfect health when you rank these point guards and some of the ones you say are better than Jennigns didn’t have better seasons last year and haven’t proven they can be healthy.   Jennings has had good enough health in his career that he has always finished better in the rankings than a peseason rank in your style would project.   

          • Sep 2, 20139:49 am
            by tarsier

            Ok, let’s make this really simple. Prince was once a very good two way player. Jennings is about as good on O as he was. Jennings is much, much worse on D.

            I recognize that the 10th best PG could be the 20th best player in the league or the 100th best player int he league. I don’t list all the players in the league better than Jennings because that would take much too long. Suffice it to say that he is not a top 50 player.

            I’d say there are about 20 (give or take 3ish) players better than he at his position alone. This is the quickest way to give a list showing that he’s not that good. But, excepting SG, there are also at least 10 better players at every other position (and a lot of PFs).

            What you are missing in this discussion is that it has nothing to do with making the ASG. That’s just an arbitrary benchmark because it typically only includes a certain caliber of player. This is about how good your players are. Making or missing the ASG is actually irrelevant to contention. Being good enough to is not.

            Please tell me why you think Jennings is so good. Is it really just because he took a ton of shots on a team with basically one other offensive option? I think he is significantly better than Knight. I think he is a good fit here. I think his contract is about fair. But $8M is not fair for an all-star caliber guy. He could even make a big leap to being worthy of serious consideration for the ASG. But it would take that huge leap.

          • Sep 2, 20139:52 am
            by tarsier

            Also, if Detroit doesn’t have a superstar (we’ll see, Drummond has Howard upside), they’ll need a lot of very good players (something I am arbitrarily defining of someone who, in a typical year, should either get into the ASG or be considered among the top snubs). If Jennings reaches those heights (unlikely, but here’s hoping), he will be able to demand a very large pay increase in three years (when Drummond will too).

            If the Pistons got another near all-star caliber player in 2014, they will probably already be well over the cap entering summer of 2016. Jennings + Drummond will take about $11.5M off the books. Then to re-sign them will probably cost over $25M. There is almost no way that doesn’t push the team well into the tax.

            So that is why I say that the Pistons will need a superstar to extend a window more than two years. And that is why I wish Dumars had signed Jennings for $40M/5 yrs (yes, I acknowledge that I don’t know if Jennings would have taken it, but I’m guessing he would). That would involve a bigger risk. If Jennings fell flat on his face, his deal would have been really hard to get rid of. But it would have created the possibility of having an underpaid guy on the roster for years.

      • Sep 2, 201310:24 pm
        by mike

        Reply


        It’s true. You don’t technically “need” superstars. But with a salary cap, you need a team that is much more valuable than that cap. That requires underpaid players. And the majority of the most underpaid players are superstars (also a handful of rookies who get really good while still on rookie deals, but those guys are rarely on contenders).

        If Dumars had managed to get just one signing comparable to Wallace’s and Billups’ massive underpayments in all the years since, I’d be much more confident that he could repeat his unconventional model. But he hasn’t. And as long as he doesn’t, he won’t have five fringe all-star caliber players on a team again.” – tarsier

        What are you talking about? What do you call Drummond, who realistically could be the best Center in the league, making only 2 mil/yr???

        What do you call Monroe, who is likely a top 5 PF this year, making only 4 mil this year?

        How do you think Dumars has been able to afford Smith and Jennings, AND have space next year to add even another all-star caliber player? Its because he’s got his 2 most important starting positions filled for only 6 mil of the cap, and not just filled with scrubs, filled with elite production.

        You’re right that getting Wallace and Billups for so cheap last time is what allowed him to add all that talent around them. But you are flat out wrong thinking he doesn’t have the same exact setup again this time. Drummond IS his Wallace for this next era, but like that situation on steroids. Because instead of paying Wallace 6 mil/yr, he’s got Drummond for only 2 mil/yr. And unlike Ben, who was past his prime when that contract expired, Drummond will just be entering his prime when his contract is up. Therefore, its not going to just be a 4-5 year run like he had with Wallace. Its going to be a 10+ year run with Drummond.

        Also, Jennings absolutely produced like an all-star last year. Which makes 1 more underpaid player for this next era. Getting all-star production for 8 mil/yr is a steal, and is going to allow Joe to add even more talent than he otherwise would not have been able to, had he paid the 10-12 mil a player of Jennings production usually commands. Same goes for Smith at only 13.5/yr, whose production and defense would normally command a max contract of 17-19 mil/yr.

         

        • Sep 2, 201310:50 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          “What do you call Drummond, who realistically could be the best Center in the league, making only 2 mil/yr???
          What do you call Monroe, who is likely a top 5 PF this year, making only 4 mil this year?”

          I call those “guys on rookie deals”. Now, Drummond is most definitely not the best center in the league. He has the potential to become that, but he is quite far from it at the moment. And Monroe is still well short of a top 5 PF (the deepest position in the league outside of PG).

          Note how when I mentioned Billups’ and Wallace’s contracts being key, I didn’t bring up Prince. Prince’s rookie deal was also essential. But getting underpaid guys in their first four seasons is less impressive because so many players are at that point. And it’s unsustainable because rarely are they big contributors as rookies, so that leaves you maybe a 3 year shelf life for underpayment.

          But yes, Monroe and Drummond are severely underpaid. Of course, they won’t be for long (especially Monroe). So yeah, if you accept that the Pistons have a window and it lasts until 2016, I agree (assuming a bunch of things go right).

           ”Its going to be a 10+ year run with Drummond.”

          Wait, you expect Drummond to be making $2M/yr for a decade? He could go superstar on us and be massively underpaid on a max contract for a decade. But that certainly wouldn’t undermine my argument about needing superstars.

          “ the 10-12 mil a player of Jennings production usually commands”

          If that’s what a guy like Jennings normally commands, how come nobody came close to offering him that? How come opinions are basically split on whether he is underpaid or overpaid? No, a player who takes lots of shots and scores quite a bit (although not a ton) inefficiently, distributes fairly well, takes excellent care of the ball, and plays horrid D is worth about what Jennings is getting.

          And he was nowhere close to being an all-star. He didn’t get enough votes to even make the lists that the NBA put out whenever they tallied votes. If you think he was all-star caliber last year, you should think there were 20 all-star caliber PGs last year.

          “(Smith) would normally command a max contract of 17-19 mil/yr”
           
          Ummm, once again, if so, why didn’t he? The consensus is again that Smith is fairly paid. There are more opinions that he is overpaid than underpaid, but that is mostly because people don’t like his fit in Detroit.

          Either of these guys could step it up to the point that they’re bargains, but it’s unlikely that they will be major bargains. 

          “have space next year to add even another all-star caliber player” 

          And think, if Dumars hadn’t foolishly handed Bynum a two year deal, he may have been able to sign someone to a max contract.

          But yes, I love where Detroit is at for the 2014-15 and 2015-16 seasons if Dumars manages to score big time again in free agency next summer. But short of massive improvements, Monroe won’t be underpaid for long and Drummond won’t be after that point. And Jennings definitely won’t be after then even if he massively improves. 

  • Sep 1, 20131:57 pm
    by MrShourite

    Reply

    Did anyone read Will Bynum’s blog on HoopsHype?
    Pretty good read, and Will seems like one of the good guys. Check it out. 
    http://hoopshype.com/blogs/will-bynum/will-bynum-an-eventful-summer

     

  • Sep 2, 20136:49 pm
    by AYC

    Reply

    I’m going to ask this again-  Who should be Joe D’s replacement?  

    • Sep 2, 20139:42 pm
      by Anthony J.

      Reply

      That’s a pretty hard question because a lot of GM’s came up through the front office ranks and are not well known outside of the organization. I’m guessing Dumars would be replaced by a rookie GM if he were to be let go therefore it could literally be hundreds of people to choose as the next GM. I don’t believe picking a GM is as easy as picking a coach. Most coaching positions are filled by retread and pretty known coaches. The GM field, IMO, is a much bigger field than the coaching field.

    • Sep 2, 201310:54 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      Like Anthony J. pointed out, probably someone we’ve never heard of. The fact that you or I don’t know someone’s name, though, does not mean he’d not be an improvement.

    • Sep 3, 20133:16 am
      by AlC

      Reply

      And what evidence do we have that this yahoo will do a better job than Joe D?  In my mind the wannabe GMs here calling for Dumars to be canned without a specific replacement in my mind are coming across as real amateurs.  Firing a guy just for the sake of firing him, especially someone with a track record of success (how many GMs have won titles?), without any replacement in my mind does not make sense. 

      • Sep 3, 20137:47 am
        by tarsier

        Reply

        What evidence do we have? None. Remember, we haven’t heard of this person. However, I obviously don’t advocate ownership choosing a replacement without their having any evidence. But ownership can sit down with candidates and talk to them about their strategies for how to build a winner. And here’s the thing about GMs: they don’t have to hit shots or whatever. So if they can talk a good game, then all they need to do is follow through on what they said they’d do.

        This we know about Dumars: when he has a 30ish win team on his hands, he will think that team is good enough to be vying for the playoffs and he will think that is an acceptable place to be even if there is minimal room on the roster for internal growth.

        In my opinion, that is unacceptable. Dumars has been lucky that the past couple season he has way overrated the assembly of “talent” he has put together. If they were indeed “contending for the playoffs”, he never would have been able to draft Monroe or Drummond. Then the Pistons would be essentially where the Bucks are at.

        When over the better part of a decade, a GM’s two best moves were no-brainers and were only made possible because of his own egregious inability to assess the talent on his roster, is that really a guy you want to keep around just because he won a championship once upon a time? 

      • Sep 3, 201310:56 am
        by Huddy

        Reply

        I don’t necessarily think Dumars should be fired (I am holding judgement until we see how this seasons plays out) but the argument of “what evidence do we have that someone new will be better” makes very little sense.  Every successful GM has been an amateur at some point and ones like Dumars who have been successful can go through huge slumps like the team has been for the past few years.  A GM decision is almost never going to be a no brainer…there are too many variables.  Ownership demands, talent of players, coaches…and how many GMs have proven success?  Should a team just never change GMs because their aren’t a bunch of seasoned GM vets waiting for new jobs? 
         

      • Sep 3, 201310:59 am
        by AYC

        Reply

        Well, until the Chauncey trade there weren’t major moves to make.   The much maligned signings of CV and Ben Gordon I don’t believe are as disastrous as was made out to be.  Who else would sign with Detroit?  When you have an aging veteran core that produced a run of Conference Finals appearances, its rather difficult to trade for younger promising players.  It didn’t work.  The situation was dealt with responsibly- rebuild through the draft, get some core pieces, get some tradable assets.  Next free agency period hits- sign the players that would be willing to come to Detroit.  

        The Pistons were not going to stay Conference Finals contenders forever with everyone hitting north of 30.  Rebuilding the team was necessary.  He tried with Free Agency instead of tanking.

        The point is that while the pieces in place may have been flawed, the overall concept was sound enough.   He demonstrated the ability to understand when something had run its course and not to get attached to it, the willingness to be bold and decisive, aggression in execution of a plan, and a willingness to take the necessary steps to remedy one’s mistakes rather than existing in denial.

        Now unless we have a person in mind who demonstrates those qualities, I think it is best to not get swept away in a sea of emotion and unrealistic expectations.  A track record of taking a franchise to 6 straight Conference Finals appearances, including a title, without a superstar, going through an ownership change and a period of inaction, combined with 5 losing seasons is on the balance, favorable.  

        Until someone names a specific replacement in mind and why they’re going to be better, they have no rational plan of action.  Sacking Dumars without a replacement in mind is focusing on the past, not charting a path for the future.  

        • Sep 3, 201311:24 am
          by tarsier

          Reply

          Ok, you want a specific replacement? Gores could call up Zach Lowe. He seems to have a pretty good idea about how the NBA works.

          I’m sorry that I don’t know the names of most front office types. But I would rather throw out incompetent for a wildcard. The wildcard may be worse, sure. but if he is, easy solution: get rid of him too. It shouldn’t take too many tries to find someone who can tell the difference between a 30 win team and a playoff team. And it shouldn’t take too many tires to find someone who recognizes that “contending for the playoffs” is a terrible place to be if you don’t have a bunch of young guys who are blossoming. 

        • Sep 3, 201311:40 am
          by tarsier

          Reply

          “The much maligned signings of CV and Ben Gordon I don’t believe are as disastrous as was made out to be.”

          They were exactly as disastrous as made out to be. They were 5 year contracts and they completely wasted 5 years of Detroit basketball. How could they have been any worse? Subsequent moves could have piled compounded those problems (as the one year of BG for a first rounder may yet do). But the BG and CV signings themselves basically maxed out the harm they could do to the Pistons.

          “Who else would sign with Detroit?” 

          It’s true that there weren’t a lot of options that summer. But better to do nothing than to set yourself backwards. More specifically, though, David Lee would have been a better option. And there were plenty of teams willing to give up assets for cap space in order to prepare for the much-ballyhooed summer of 2010. 

          “The situation was dealt with responsibly” 

          No, it wasn’t. The Pistons had plenty of assets that anyone with a lick foresight could have realized were not going to be building blocks of the next contending Pistons team.Those assets should have therefore been traded for anything that would help further down the road. Instead, Dumars gave up a first round pick to get Gordon off the books a year early (when he could have done the exact same thing with the amnesty clause).

          Dumars messed this up enormously. And then he profited from some of the best prospects in two drafts falling to him. In spite of not receiving one windfall but two, it remains a long shot that the Pistons will be a serious contender in the near future. That’s bad GMing. I’ll take my chances that random unknown person will be competent.

  • Sep 3, 20133:18 pm
    by Corey

    Reply

    I object to the assumption that tanking is the correct way to build title team.  It’s conventional wisdom, but it’s wrong.  Particularly, tearing down a team and tanking for several years seems like a very long road. 

    If you think that tearing a team down and losing as many games as possible for multiple years to secure multiple high drafts pick is the way to build a title team, then answer me this:

    Who has done it that way?

    I’ll grant that the Thunder built their team that way, and could win a title any year. But they haven’t done so yet, and that’s only one team.  And even the Thunder have failed to win a title before the big contracts of all those high draft picks required them to start tearing the team apart, and they may never win a title because of it.  Who else? Why are so many people so convinced that it’s the correct way to build a team, when it’s had so little success?  

    Can we really say that the Rockets, for example, went about building a team all wrong, because they didn’t tank, and they just got lucky?

    • Sep 3, 20133:58 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      Because it’s the easiest way for most teams to get a superstar. you don’t necessarily have to take the really slow approach OKC did. But think how many of the top contenders of recent years were led by someone drafted very high. The main exception is LA. They somehow keep bringing in stars. And Kobe was undervalued when he was drafted because people hadn’t yet figured out how to evaluate straight-out-of-high-school prospects. Dirk too got snagged a bit later for a similar reason (nobody knew how to evaluate international prospects).

      Contenders out of the East of recent years include the Cavs (tanked for LeBron), the Heat (tanked for Wade), the Magic (tanked for Howard), the Celtics (tanked for the pick they traded for Allen which led to getting Garnett and Pierce was a high pick too), and the Bulls (got really lucky in the lottery, jumping from 9th to 1st).

      Contenders out West have included the Spurs (tanked for Duncan), the Lakers and Mavs (discussed above), and the Thunder (tanked for their whole team). The West is a bit trickier because how do you know whether to count the Grizz, Nuggets, Clippers, Suns, etc as contenders?

    • Sep 3, 20134:00 pm
      by Huddy

      Reply

      Support of tanking doesn’t mean throwing away 5-7 years completely to try and get 5-7 #1 picks.  The main complaint for teams like the Pistons is that they remain below average to the point where it is incredibly hard to get any better through the draft.  When you add that to poor financial decisions like over paying Gordon/CV or resigning guys too high like Stuckey/Prince then the team can’t get better via free agency either.  The Rockets accumulated cap space and complimentary players and invested big money in proven star players…quite different than the Pistons over the past few years.
       
      If the choice is waste money to stay mediocre so that the team doesn’t get labeled as “tanking” I would much rather lose games and have a chance to get better through the draft.  “tearing a team down” can also mean getting rid of over paid players that can’t bring the team into contention in favor of cheaper younger players that have a chance to do so in the future. 

      • Sep 3, 20136:06 pm
        by tarsier

        Reply

        Well put.

        I don’t think a team must tank. If Dumars had a plan laid out (like Houston’s), I’d be fine with “trying to stay competitive in the meanwhile”. But he just stood pat and built through the draft. If that’s the strategy you’re going to take, might as well aim for the best the draft has to offer. 

        • Sep 4, 20136:07 pm
          by JOB

          Reply

          houston’s “plan” still involved gambling on Harden w a hefty contract… easy to say he was obviously this good now, but top 5 gaurd and potential top 5 overall NBA player? no one knew. Coulda been gilbert arenas… or ben gordon (another touted 6th man with great per min numbers). Bron, Garnet, Shaq didnt win with teams that drafted them, they won with teams that have city draw appeal and money. Wade, Pierce and Kobe were the drafted stars and none we top 4. Wade was 5, then 10 and 13 for Pierce and Kobe. No three of those guys were much more than 1st round exit team stars without the ability of their franchise city to gobble up proven and prime top picks without having to tank or gamble on lottery day. San An still had to have great scouting to draft Ginobli and Parker, players available to everyone. If we could trade our front office and coaching for Pop and Spurs scouting… i would. Otherwise i don’t look around and see any other mid and mini market teams that have had some plan i “wish” we had the past 8 years.

          • Sep 5, 201310:16 am
            by tarsier

            Of course Houston’s plan involved risk. But it was still a plan. Dumars’ “plan” was sit on his thumbs, do nothing, let his assets decay into liabilities, and assume his team will be just about playoff caliber.

            A key difference between Houston and Detroit is that Morey got lucky that he bet on Harden and was right. Dumars got lucky that he bet on other guys and was wrong. So he had 7th and 9th picks to turn into Monroe and Drummond.

            Yes Kobe and Pierce were drafted relatively late. I addressed Kobe earlier. What’s your point with Wade? Do you think there is a big difference between top 4 and 5th? The higher the pick, the better the player it will, on average, produce.

            Also, LeBron, Garnett, and Shaq did lots of winning with their original franchises. They all brought a chance at a tile to those teams. 

          • Sep 5, 201310:30 am
            by Huddy

            Houston didn’t predict Harden to be a top 5 guard they drafted a successful player at a position that is relatively weak on star power in the NBA.
             
            If tanking isn’t the way then what do Charlotte, Orlando, Phoenix, etc. do then?  There are only so many proven players to invest in so regardless of effort the teams are going to remain non competitive so does it really make sense to look down on a team for attempting to get the highest pick possible?
             
            Tarsier is right about Lebron, Garnet, Shaq.  Taking a nothing CLE team deep in the playoffs and ECF is an incredible improvement over drowning in the lottery.  I think Charlotte fans would be thrilled to get one player that could take them even 1 or 2 rounds in the playoffs, which is exactly why teams like that are tanking.  People against tanking ignore the alternative, which is remaining bad, but trying hard really.

          • Sep 5, 201311:59 am
            by JOB

            Houston followed Joe’s model! Parsons = Prince. Okur = asik. Harden = Billups. Sheed = DHo.  Good job to both. Rockets, Det, Memphis, Atl, Indy, Bulls, Jazz, Bucks, Sixers, Denver vs Wiz, ‘Cats, Orlando, Portland, Minny, Pelis, GSW, Cavs, Suns, Rapts, Okc… creative GMing vs tanking. While it’s true the later had more of the generational super stars, which method is really working better? I’m leaving out teams that have had clear benefit from spending wildly over cap and/or the city allure to lump on FAs: Boston, Dallas, Lakers, Miami, Clips, Nets, Knicks. San Antonio, i call the Patriots of the NBA bc their scouting is so damn good they just stay on top. Hard to say whether last 5 years are more about duncan, or ginobli and parker, plus journeymen they coax into solid starters.
            Espn is putting all this crap out about draft/tanking, but i think the real problem is in FAs picking their cities or directing trades by announcing who they would resign with. Maybe there should be mini lotteries for players of more than 3mil in value for all teams that want in at the price. Players then decide to stick w drafted team, or go into a FA/trade draft. Anyway, that’s where we need something for smaller mkt teams. Ray Allen could’ve got 3m from plenty of squads, but just went to Miami. He might be better next year than ANY PICK from this years draft, and he’s what? the 4th best player?

          • Sep 5, 20133:17 pm
            by Huddy

            @JOB so the Jazz, Bucks, Sixers and ATL all have creative GMs?  Where is that getting any of those teams.  The Sixers might be on the verge of relevancy if MCW and Noel turn out, but besides that none of those teams are really going anywhere. 
             
            How are the Bulls a good example of why teams shouldn’t tank when their recent success is mostly due to the play of their #1 overall pick Derrick Rose?  (obviously the team made a nice run without him last year, but no one would argue that he isn’t the best player on the team and makes the team a real contender rather than a slightly overachieving playoff team)
             
            You praise those teams over Washington, the Cavs and Golden State?  Golden State is having its best success in a long time and the Cavs and Wizards easily on the upswing as well.  In addition, putting down tanking doesn’t answer how teams like Orlando, PHX, etc. have any other chance of improving.  Your theory of mini lotteries is impossible and regardless nothing like that exists so you can’t judge teams based on what they should do given made up circumstances.  As the NBA exists now the worst teams have almost no way to improve without a lucky FA signing (IE someone not concerned with playing on a losing team) or the draft.
             

          • Sep 5, 20133:29 pm
            by tarsier

            That Houston to Detroit analogy may be the shakiest comparison I’ve seen in quite some time.

          • Sep 5, 20138:28 pm
            by JOB

            Huddy: my point with those two groups is that i certainly don’t see one method working so obviously better than the other and the bottom end teams of the tanking strategy generally always are putrid. The bulls werent a tanking team. Not tanking can involve a top pick, but Chicago’s shown to be a pretty smart team with higher picks and mid FAs as well which i think is the difference in them becoming a next level franchise. In other words the Noah pick was much tougher than the rose pick and to me should get just as much stress in team building, so should the Boozer signing. Lets say they didn’t get the first pick, would they definitely be worse today??? Had they been pushed past Mayo and Westbrook would their scouting have grabbed Love or Lopez to pair w Noah? No need for Boozer then… maybe a top PG shakes loose. Have any since 2009 that might like Chicago?
            GSW is getting over the hump with Mark Jackson getting them to play D, new front office help giving them very good late picks the past two years. I threw them in the tanking side, but with you telling me the Bulls are a pro tank example bc rose was a 1 pick then maybe GSW isn’t since they don’t have a top 5 draft pick the past 10 years looks like?
            You have to be taking chances and showing skill in multiple areas of team building at ALL TIMES, especially for smaller market squads. I don’t see a great case for tanking for 1-4 being the most critical element, or “must do” first step.

  • Sep 3, 20138:05 pm
    by BooG

    Reply

    Everybody who replied to this post talking like they could easily be a GM in the NBA is foolish. It’s not an easy job. If it were you’d have the job already. There’s no way you could just apply for a GM position with absolutely no experience & outperform Joe Dumars. Some of you guys are hilarious & very disrespectful at the same time. 

    I’m sure most can agree that Dumars has made some good & bad moves. But reality shows that he’s better than most GMs in the NBA based on his track record. The only GMs with an equal or better track record since he’s been our GM, work for the Spurs, Lakers, Celtics, Mavericks & Heat. So, quit all the nonsense. Joe Dumars has done a lot for this organization. And has done better than 26 other GMs in the NBA. He deserves credit for what he’s done good & criticism for what he’s done bad. Leave it at that. Don’t disrespect his job title. There’s a lot more to the job of an NBA GM than you know or realize.

    Judge this season after it’s over. Please. 

    • Sep 3, 201311:21 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      I disagree that he’s done better than 26 other GMs. Especially over the past 7 years.

      “ It’s not an easy job. If it were you’d have the job already.”

      I don’t know whether or not it’s an easy job. And neither do you. So knock off the indignance. But if it were, that doesn’t mean just anyone could have it. There are a lot more people who would love to be GMs than there are GM posts. 

    • Sep 3, 201311:32 pm
      by Geoff

      Reply

      BooG, well said.  I like to read PistonPowered, but usually for all the BS :D

    • Sep 4, 20135:11 am
      by AYC

      Reply

      I also think a lot of people are overlooking both the lockout and the Davidson situation.  That really tied his hands.  In today’s game, you can’t plan if you have no idea how much money is available to spend and what the CBA will be.  One or the other, maybe, but not both.

    • Sep 4, 201310:31 am
      by Huddy

      Reply

      This is a sports fan site and no discussion is going to be going on with anyone who actually is a GM.  The same can be said for complaining about players…should commenters need to be able to drop 20 in an NBA game to complain about a player’s ability?  Acting like the job is too difficult for everyone to fathom makes little sense.  No fan would be able to have an opinion on anything if it required real experience.  There are only so many people with actual GM experience in the world, but that doesn’t mean that no one gets to judge GMs ever.  I don’t think fans should accept everything that is fed to them simply because they wouldn’t be a candidate for the job themselves.

  • Sep 4, 201310:02 am
    by JOB

    Reply

    i got dumber reading this. Luck in the draft? What percent of picks are ‘not their draft position’ 4 years later? How many drafts have 3 of the top 8 picked outside the lottery? The tanking to get top drafts argument is still badly over used. It only works in years where there’s a no brainer number one pick (every 3-5 years), AND STILL requires ‘luck’ of non injury. Portland has been a very smart team in trades and picks, and tanking and haven’t had sh!t for years. Roy and Oden fell apart, and now Aldridge may walk if the team isn’t a serious playoff squad this year because the team just keeps playing for draft picks. You think Aldridge wouldnt rather have played on a 2nd round exit team the last 4 years?
    The championship or bust mentality is for people who don’t actually like the sport. I like regular season games. I want my team to have a 50/50 chance or better to win those games. If that’s 1st and 2nd round exit in playoffs after 40 home games, winning near 30, that’s a very good season AS A FAN. Golden State dumped Monta ellis for Bogut and the management got booed at the next ‘ceremony’ home game and announcers wondered why?!?! Because their remaining home tickets were frickin worthless! that’s why.

    • Sep 4, 201310:11 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      Any given draft, the order of the best players won’t go 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. But on average, #1 picks tend to be better than #2 picks who tend to be better than #3 picks, etc.

      Just like how in a game, the better team certainly doesn’t win every time. But, on average, the better teams tend to win more.

      If we take your draft rationale and apply it to team building in general, there’s no reason to try to put together a good team, because worse teams beat better teams with regularity. 

      • Sep 4, 201310:33 am
        by Huddy

        Reply

        I don’t think people look at it in the way you put it tarsier.  It seems like a lot of people see someone get picked at 15 and be better than who was picked at 4 and feel like that skews the whole importance of draft position without realizing that the guy at 15 was available at 4 so it doesn’t make the pick worse.

        • Sep 4, 20134:16 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          What I guess it comes down to is that, while there are many good to very good players scattered throughout drafts, the superstars almost always go in the first few picks.

      • Sep 4, 201310:53 pm
        by Max

        Reply

        @Tarsier   He didn’t say it was worth it for a 1 pick but a no brainer 1 pick.   Examples would be James, Duncan, Ewing, Olaujuwon, Shaq and a few more but it has nothing to do with your response that the best players don’t always go #1.  He is talking can’t miss superstar 1 pick.   Those don’t even always come along even once in five years.   

        • Sep 5, 201310:20 am
          by tarsier

          Reply

          And my point was that even when there isn’t a such a player in the draft, the 1st overall pick is still the most likely place to grab a superstar, followed by second overall, then third, etc.

      • Sep 5, 201312:38 pm
        by JOB

        Reply

        that’s true. But it’s rare for that single pick to make more than a 1st round playoff team. Wade, Kobe, CP3, Steph Curry, D Will, Pierce, D Rose, Wall, Kyrie, Love, P George, Westbrook, Aldridge, Blake Griff, M Gasol, B Lopez i think we all could agree these guys are worthy top 3 picks even though not all were. that’s 17 diff teams! Who cares. None of these guys can take a squad to CFs or Finals without some still good GMing: more upside later 1st round picks and savy trades and signings. Lebron, DHo, Shaq, KG, Duncan are at that next level and even then arent champions alone. It might also be the case that teams who get good at tanking are terrible at FA signings and trades once they do get their star. Cav and Orlando signings (and drafts really) after DHo and Lebron made CV and Gordon look like money well spent! A little too out of practice evaluating existing NBA players talent i guess.

        • Sep 5, 20133:29 pm
          by Huddy

          Reply

          “it’s rare for that single pick to make more than a 1st round playoff team”
           
          What does that statement have to do with anything?  One player usually doesn’t answer all of a teams questions?  So what.  That doesn’t make the player not the best possible option for the team.  Teams aren’t better off without top 5 pick talent just because top 5 pick talent doesn’t solve everything.  Picking in the top few pick remains the best possible chance to get the best possible player.  Of course more moves need to be done to make a contender, but a team like Charlotte or Orlando needs at least a 1-2 building block top picks to even think about contending.
           
           
          The fact that later picked players emerge to be better that their draft spot on many occasions doesn’t make picking early irrelevant.    It is lucky that a player like Kobe falls so low, but that doesn’t mean you would rather have picked lower.  If your talent scouts are good they would still grab him earlier without worrying about multiple teams selecting him before your teams pick.

          • Sep 5, 20136:55 pm
            by JOB

            My point is the draft does it’s job for every team. Every one. Well, the ‘cats are godawful at it, but Kemba is ok. The problem with Minny, Sac, ‘cats, Wiz is stabilizing the rest of the team by getting solid mid level vets and rotational defenders, and then getting over the top with a big trade or free agent walk over. Those later two parts, i think, are the tough ones for GMs, especially for lesser market teams. I actually think Joe’s not as good at the easy part: getting a 1-10 draft pick through 5 years of drafting that’s a legit future allstar candidate, but i dont think it requires all this friggin tanking and discussion to do it either. At this point we’ve got our draft guys: monroe and drummond. It took a while, but statistically it was bound to happen like it did for all those teams i mentioned above. Now we’ll see if Joe’s offseson moves end up being better or worse than those made by all the teams i listed and others in current rebuild. Bynum, Nene, Iggy, Kmart, robin lopez, tyreke, ryan anderson, Jrue, Al Jeff, Millsap, Vasquez, Mbah Moute… we got BJ and Josh Smith. We will see who did well at that at least as equally important piece of team building soon enough.
            Also one thing i think we all can agree on is that tanking culture does destroy defense and a defensive mindset for the team and your players, including your top picks. I think that’s a tough switch to just turn on. You need vets who give a sheet to play NBA d, and young guys who get coached early on it and when i look at orlando, minny, cats, wiz, and cavs all that extra tanking to drop 3 more spots really has made them horrible defensive franchises. It’ll be interesting to see what they give per game this year averaged out.

          • Sep 6, 20132:40 am
            by Dan Feldman

            Wizards and Timberwolves had better defenses than the Pistons last season.

          • Sep 6, 20131:45 pm
            by JOB

            Minny did have 2 fewer losses. Wiz the same tho and that’s with us ‘tanking’ out and finally cutting Prince loose (which i agree was right esp when it was obv Drummond could be worth a future 10M+ contract). Look, it will be interesting to see how we compete with those squads this year considering the different way the teams have been handled the past 5ish years. I just don’t see anything so obvious as who is better. Minny’s records the past 8 years… how many diff lottery picks have they fielded last 2 or 3 seasons? Pek may be the best pick they’ve made in 10 years and was a 31st pick. I know they agreed the Love for Mayo draft day, and we’ll see if rubio can survive physically, but after all that rubble… Pek’s the current big rook contract they can’t let go. Kind of funny i think.

    • Sep 4, 201310:24 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      I do agree with you about the follies of the championship or bust mentality. But ultimately, championships are the goal.

      So for me to really enjoy watching the team, it has to be good enough to have a shot (even a long one) at winning the championship.

      If I can hope, that’s good enough. If the team is bad enough that I can’t, well that’s just no fun at all. 

  • Sep 4, 201311:44 am
    by JOB

    Reply

    My point is that Joe is drafting well and he’s shown the ability to find undervalue/left in the tank FAs that are championship team starter caliber. Jennings, Drummond, Monroe = Dumars led drafting. 1-4 usually do better? At what? for who? Is kyrie worth tanking for? Is Anthony Davis? Will they be the next Chris Paul or DHo??? Two of the greatest players at their positions never won titles with their draft team. Orlando got in the area, but don’t even have that star anymore. It takes so much more than a 1-4 pick that even pans out for the drafting team, so much more. There’s so many 1-4 picks in the league. We’re not a big market, big spending team like Miami, Dallas, Boston, LA (both), Knicks, and now Nets… they get pull strategies the rest of us can’t (one good draft pick, then the FAs just run over, or do so when they ‘give up’ on their mini market team). Drafting a franchise big or pg doesn’t do more than realizing Rip Hamilton and Billups are undermarket value, or that Marc Gasol is a good prospect and Zbo has some motivation left in the tank… or that a Hibbert West front court is top 4, and Paul George is a sleeper. Which squads are we following?? OKC and San An worked (though OKC is no better yet than many years worth of Joe D squads) through strictly draft by rightly picking guys who ended up being top 10 players in near consecutive drafts. That’s a very tough thing to do. And even OKC shows us that that’s not even the end game! You have to roll the dice when all those rook contracts come up and decide which of your 3 draft studs to keep. Could Harden, Durant, Westbrook, Green, Ibaka beat Miami last year?? We’ll never know. OKCs gm got it wrong, so we’ll never know.
    I do not think championships are the goal, i think happy fans  and a respectable product are. I measure that a game or at least a month at a time averaged over many years and def give a title month a higher weight, but not ridiculously so. thats me. 

    • Sep 5, 201311:06 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      It’s funny how Miami gets mentioned as a team at an advantage. They never would have been before the summer of 2010. Sure, there’s the whole nice climate and state tax thing, but Orlando has those exact same advantages.

      If you play your cards right, you get seen as a good franchise and that helps. That’s all that happened to Miami, Why can’t it happen to any other team?

      • Sep 5, 201312:06 pm
        by JOB

        Reply

        Miami is debateably the most popular offseason town for american pro athletes. Pat Riley also works their. Orlando?? Really? Come on man! I’ve never heard of someone ‘going to orlando’ for anything other than older relatives and disney. Pat Riley grab though was obviously critical for Miami too. I’m not sure what’s easier for Detroit though: getting 80 degree year round ocean line, or having Zen Master join the front office! Hell, i might move back if Detroit got those two things.

        • Sep 5, 20133:31 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          Miami was never considered a big destination for FAs before 2010. You can throw out all the excuses you like, but that remains a fact.

          • Sep 5, 20136:04 pm
            by JOB

            Shaq. Shaq. oh, and Shaq. he pushed the trade and the destination. it wasn’t random.

          • Sep 5, 201310:51 pm
            by tarsier

            Didn’t matter how much he pushed and where for. The Lakers owned his rights. He didn’t have a no trade clause. He ended up in Miami because Miami sent a nice pair of young players (Odom + Butler) to LA for him.

      • Sep 6, 20132:35 pm
        by Max

        Reply

        Miami was a free agent destination of choice as soon as Pat Riley arrived.   The first free agent summer though they signed Juwon Howard for 110 million!–but the league stepped in and said Riley had the deal in place before it was legal and punished the Heat and voided the contract.   Washington wound up resigning him for that same 110 million!   

        After that failed free agency, Riley made trade to acquire Mourning, Hardaway, Jones, Mashburn, Odom and Shaq and never got well under the cap again until 2010.  They’ve always been able to make nice little pickups though as have the Magic who also had their big summer when they got Hill and McGrady even though it didn’t work out because players love Florida.   

  • Sep 4, 20136:49 pm
    by JOB

    Reply

    i completely disagree w this:
    Rondo, Williams, Rose, Curry, Paul, Westbrook, Parker, Irving, Lawson, Conley, Rubio, Holiday, Lillard, Wall
    At least 90% of people would take every PG on that list over Jennings.
    Teague, Walker, Calderon, Lin, Hill, Nash, Felton, Dragic, Bledsoe, Lowry, Vasquez 
    >>>>  

    why can’t Jennings do whatever you think it is makes conley better? Look at BJs lockout year team, would Lawson, Conley, Rubio, Lillard, Teague (or any of the bottom liist players) do anything w that squad better than BJ did? He got wins, assists, and low TOs immediately for the crap Bucks. Now we’ll see, but he’s playing w 3 guys who could be top 20 front court players this year. he’s never played w anything close to that talent.

    http://fantasynews.cbssports.com/fantasybasketball/rankings   

    • Sep 4, 201310:16 pm
      by tarsier

      Reply

      Why can’t Jennings shoot efficiently and play D? Ummm, I don’t know. He just doesn’t. But it would be great if he did.

      • Sep 5, 20131:51 pm
        by JOB

        Reply

        well if you’re a Stons fan you should hope so! I agree that if his defense and shooting %s dont improve having better frontcourt D and O players, that’s a major problem. Conley’s defense and shooting certainly benefit from Marc Gasol, Zbo and Tony Allen. Jennings *should* be 1st option only 1/3 of the time now with Smith and Monroe on the floor, and that should improve his %s on O.

        • Sep 5, 20133:32 pm
          by tarsier

          Reply

          He used to play with Bogut and Sanders. What defensive slouches.

          • Sep 5, 20135:51 pm
            by JOB

            what 4 years apart, each for 2/3 of a season? Luckily we won’t be pairing him with only Drummond for only 60 games, and then go get Gooden and Ersan to fill in the other front court minutes on D.

          • Sep 5, 201310:57 pm
            by tarsier

            2/3 of a season each? 4 years apart? What are you talking about? In his 4 seasons, Jennings has played with Bogut for 2 of them (146 games) and Sanders for 3 of them (183 games–one was lockout shortened).

            And why complain about Ilyasova? He would have helped get Jennings extra open looks by spreading the floor. And he’s not a phenomenal defender, but he’s above average on that end. A lot better than Monroe.

          • Sep 6, 201312:49 pm
            by JOB

            look at the game starts. come on.

          • Sep 6, 20131:39 pm
            by tarsier

            Who cares whether they started? They were playing.

          • Sep 6, 20131:41 pm
            by tarsier

            But my favorite part was the “4 years apart”. Jennigns hasn’t yet played five seasons. He hasn’t even had the opportunity to play with two guys 4 years apart, never mind the fact that Sanders and Bogut were in Milwaukee together.

          • Sep 6, 20133:09 pm
            by Max

            Jennings has started for Bucks teams that had elite defensive ratings overall and were suffocating during stretches so people might be focusing as is often the case on a player’s individual defensive approach versus his team defensive approach.  Personally, I’ve never felt he was as bad defensively as some are stating.

            That said, other than Monta Ellis, Jennings hasn’t even played with many average scorers.   
             

          • Sep 8, 20135:04 pm
            by JOB

            I forgot how much of the season bogut played after the wrist break and double dislocation (elbow and shoulder?) injury during BJs rookie season. Anyway, i considered BJs rookie and Fourth season as those where he was running practices with a legit pick roll DEFENDING center. Yes, bogut and Sanders. I don’t know how that 2nd offseason went as far as defensive sets, but i doubt they involved Bogut. Otherwise he’s played with a massive mix and match of bigs and fellow starters. In any sport if you don’t know who you start with, how can you practice defense and particularly communication.

            In 4 years, only in one did he have more than one player within 10 starts of him. One. 
            Here’s what Jennings was able to ‘get used to playing with’ during his years w the Bucks:

            Rk
            Player
            GS ?

            1
            Monta Ellis
            82

            2
            Brandon Jennings
            80

            3
            Larry Sanders
            55

            4
            Ersan Ilyasova
            54

            5
            Luc Mbah a Moute
            45

            6
            Marquis Daniels
            33

             
             
             

             
             
             

             
             
             

            1
            Brandon Jennings
            66

            2
            Carlos Delfino
            53

            3
            Drew Gooden
            46

            4
            Ersan Ilyasova
            41

            5
            Shaun Livingston
            27

            6
            Luc Mbah a Moute
            22

            7
            Monta Ellis
            21

             
             
             

             
             
             

             
             
             

            Rk
            Player
            GS ?

            1
            John Salmons
            70

            2
            Andrew Bogut
            65

            3
            Brandon Jennings
            61

            4
            Luc Mbah a Moute
            52

            5
            Carlos Delfino
            40

            6
            Ersan Ilyasova
            34

             
             
             

             
             
             

             
             
             

            Rk
            Player
            GS ?

            1
            Brandon Jennings
            82

            2
            Andrew Bogut
            69

            3
            Carlos Delfino
            66

            4
            Luc Mbah a Moute
            62

            5
            Charlie Bell
            39

            6
            Ersan Ilyasova
            31

               

  • Sep 4, 20137:44 pm
    by moron

    Reply

    God damn! You people are morons!

  • Sep 7, 20131:12 am
    by jason mc

    Reply

    Monroe being resigned to a new deal should be the pistons main concern.  joe d is gonna have his job b/c he is all Gores knows. Once CV is off the roster joe d will most definitely be the man

    • Sep 7, 201310:11 am
      by tarsier

      Reply

      I wouldn’t call it the main concern. It’s important, but it’s also really easy. He will be a RFA so all Dumars has to do is tell him that they are looking to add yet another good piece to the team to push them over the top. So they are waiting to sign Monroe until after that so they’ll have more money to work with to sign the new player.

      In the meantime, Monroe can look to sign an offer sheet with another team, Detroit doesn’t need to really care. Because they’ll probably match whatever. Since we have no reason to believe that Monroe would take a 1-year QO deal, if nobody makes him an offer, Detroit can sign him probably a few million under the max, because Monroe has no leverage.

  • Leave a Reply

    Your Ad Here