Jump to content

Recommended Posts

BetMGM Michigan $600 Risk-Free bet

BetMGM Michigan Sports Betting
Michigan online sports betting is now available! Start betting at BetMGM Michigan now and get a $600 risk-free bet bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan Now

The Lakers did it 8 times in a row. The fact you don't remember/know that tells me it wasn't that great of an achievement. It's even worse because they won a title in 4 of those 8 years.

One, any others? And I consider that a pretty great achievement on the Lakers' part. The fact that I didn't remember it is evidence that I'm not a Lakers fan, not that it was not a great achievement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They dont give awards for being competitive, like I said you can find glory in the 6 ECF championships, most other teams of quality have made the choice/sacrifice to retool rather than continually fall short of the big prize. If they would have at least made it to the finals, then your premise would hold water. Is being the 4th or 5th best team, at the end of each season some type of consolation prize we should be proud of..

Again, you must be one disgruntled fan every year. Is there any year in which you're not disappointed?

The fact that you or anyone thinks that any season when you don't win a championship is a failure is a ridiculously high standard, one accomplished by only a few general managers.

One of whom you are saying is a failure.

The lanscape and methodology of the legue has changed during the decade, GM's like Presti, Pritchard, Morey have expanded of how to evuate production, players and games. How those and other progressive GM;s have crafted there rosters reflect that shift.

Like what? How have they crafted their rosters so progressively? Because Morey likes Shane Battier and Rafer Alston? Because Presti took Kevin Durant after Oden was taken first? And you say Dumars is shooting fish in a barrell? Pritchard? What great move has he made to make the TrailBlazers anything more than a first round playoff team? Failing to land Turkoglu? Failing to sign Millsap? What particular piece of genius has he come up with to take his team over the top? After all, that's why you've been lambasting Dumars for failing to do. How can you praise Pritchard and turn around and criticize Dumars?

None of the three GMs you've mentioned have had 1/10th of the success as Dumars. With all their stat sheets and "progressive" attitudes, they haven't won ****. And, after all, if you haven't won a championship, you're a failure. Right? Or does that only count when you're arguing against Dumars?

I think it's pretty clear that if you were an Oklahoma City, Portland or Houston fan, you'd be complaining about how their GMs should all be fired for failing to produce.

Every GM makes mistakes, but a certain success ratio is expected within specific time intervals (use 24 months) go back and disect Dumars personnel/coaching decisons prior to 2004-2008 and let me know how he performed.

54-28

64-18

53-29

59-23

39-43

What GM has been better over that period of time? Or, here's another way to look at it, why don't you list all the teams and all the GMs that have been worse over that period of time? That should keep you busy.

We're not going to agree about Dumars 2004-2008 performance, but we don't need to.

After the 2010 offseason we can revisit this discussion and make some evaluations regarding his legacy. The resume should be easy to evalute.

You've already set the bar by which they should be measured: if they don't win a championship, they're a failure. To me, that's unrealistic and silly. For what was available to him, I think Dumars has done a decent job of acquiring talent. We'll see if Stuckey pans out or not, that will be a big factor in whether this team gets back into the top 3 in the East. I don't see it for next year, but they'll be in the mix for the playoffs. That's pretty good for a rebuilding team.

The other option is to blow it up and pray for luck in the lottery. And that's great for us armchair GMs to hope for, but for actual guys who need to fill seats and get evaulated on wins and losses, it's not so available.

I have never said I agreed with all of Dumars' moves. In fact, I've been pretty critical of him in the past. But I think you're being WAY to critical of him here. How much more do you guys expect him to do with this team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Lakers did it 8 times in a row. The fact you don't remember/know that tells me it wasn't that great of an achievement. It's even worse because they won a title in 4 of those 8 years.

Whoever was the GM during that time for the Lakers was an obvious failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One, any others? And I consider that a pretty great achievement on the Lakers' part. The fact that I didn't remember it is evidence that I'm not a Lakers fan, not that it was not a great achievement.

Lakers have done it twice. Once in the 80's and once in the late 60's early 70's. Celtics have done it before it was the East/West conference finals. Lakers did a 5 year run way back also.

Do you not know who scored 100 points in one game? What coach has won the most titles? Who the all time leading scorer is? Who the all time leading rebounder is? What team has won the most titles? Can you give me a list of the top 5 all time players? How about a list of the top 5 all time players at each position?

Obviously you can answer almost everyone of those questions. But I am curious how you can, since none of them involve the Piston players, coaches, or organization. The Lakers and Celtics are involved in a lot of those answers, but you arent a fan of either team. How can you answer them?

You can answer those questions because they are great achievements. Great achievements are remembered regardless of what team or players you are fans of.

Look at the Lakers in the 80's. Me and you are about the same age. We are both what I would call above average basketball fans. Our beloved Pistons were battling that same Laker team who was going to 8 straight WCF's and neither one of us remembered it. 20-30 years from now who will remember the Pistons went to 6 straight ECF's outside of Piston fans? Hardly anyone.

The Pistons had a very very good run. But I don't think making it to the ECF's six times is a great achievement. I think unique would be a better way to describe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whoever was the GM during that time for the Lakers was an obvious failure.

He sure became one later on in life. Much like some of us are worried is happening to Dumars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lakers have done it twice. Once in the 80's and once in the late 60's early 70's. Celtics have done it before it was the East/West conference finals. Lakers did a 5 year run way back also.

Do you not know who scored 100 points in one game? What coach has won the most titles? Who the all time leading scorer is? Who the all time leading rebounder is? What team has won the most titles? Can you give me a list of the top 5 all time players? How about a list of the top 5 all time players at each position?

Obviously you can answer almost everyone of those questions. But I am curious how you can, since none of them involve the Piston players, coaches, or organization. The Lakers and Celtics are involved in a lot of those answers, but you arent a fan of either team. How can you answer them?

You can answer those questions because they are great achievements. Great achievements are remembered regardless of what team or players you are fans of.

Look at the Lakers in the 80's. Me and you are about the same age. We are both what I would call above average basketball fans. Our beloved Pistons were battling that same Laker team who was going to 8 straight WCF's and neither one of us remembered it. 20-30 years from now who will remember the Pistons went to 6 straight ECF's outside of Piston fans? Hardly anyone.

The Pistons had a very very good run. But I don't think making it to the ECF's six times is a great achievement. I think unique would be a better way to describe it.

So what if your average fan outside of the city won't remember it? Does that mean it wasn't a great achievement? Hardly.

I remember that the Pistons made it to the ECF five teams in a row as the Bad Boys. Do fans in Peoria, Illinois remember that? Chances are they do not. Does it mean it wasn't a great achievement? Of course not.

What were the great teams of the 80s? Were the Sixers among those teams? I would say yes even though they only won one title. Same with the Pistons. If there are teams of the 00s, it would have to be the Spurs, Lakers and Pistons. That's an achievement, IMO, a great one considering the Spurs have Tim Duncan and the Lakers have Kobe/Shaq and the Pistons have.....Chauncey Billups? If anything, that says a lot about Joe Dumars and the Pistons.

Let's see how quickly the Spurs bounce back after Duncan retires before we call their GM some sort of genius.

Edited by Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what if your average fan outside of the city won't remember it? Does that mean it wasn't a great achievement? Hardly.

I remember that the Pistons made it to the ECF five teams in a row as the Bad Boys. Do fans in Peoria, Illinois remember that? Chances are they do not. Does it mean it wasn't a great achievement? Of course not.

It absolutely matters. Public opinion determines what is and what is not great. Two idiots like me and you do not get to determine that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were the great teams of the 80s? Were the Sixers among those teams? I would say yes even though they only won one title. Same with the Pistons. If there are teams of the 00s, it would have to be the Spurs, Lakers and Pistons. That's an achievement, IMO, a great one considering the Spurs have Tim Duncan and the Lakers have Kobe/Shaq and the Pistons have.....Chauncey Billups? If anything, that says a lot about Joe Dumars and the Pistons.

I guess this is why we disagree. If I am making a list consisting of the top teams of the 00's. Its 1) Lakers 2) San Antonio 3) every other team.

If you want to list Detroit over Miami or Boston based on their 2 finals apperances, OK. I have no problem with that. But it still doesn't even bring them close to LA or SA.

Let's see how quickly the Spurs bounce back after Duncan retires before we call their GM some sort of genius.

Go look at the Spurs roster from their first title in 99. Look at their roster for the next title in 03. Totally rebuilt via the draft and key trades/free agency moves. They then went on to win 3 more titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other option is to blow it up and pray for luck in the lottery. And that's great for us armchair GMs to hope for, but for actual guys who need to fill seats and get evaulated on wins and losses, it's not so available.

Yup.

That's why I occasionally regurgitate the Darko pick.

That was the lone decision that may prevent Joe from becoming one of the great GMs.

...He can't tank it and delve into the lottery top-five picks. He's not allowed to.

He's required to add pieces that makes each season interesting enough to ticket buyers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess this is why we disagree. If I am making a list consisting of the top teams of the 00's. Its 1) Lakers 2) San Antonio 3) every other team.

If you want to list Detroit over Miami or Boston based on their 2 finals apperances, OK. I have no problem with that. But it still doesn't even bring them close to LA or SA.

Then we'll disagree on the standard for calling a team a top team.

So are the Pistons not a top team of the 80s? How about the Sixers? Are the Celtics and Lakers the only top teams of the 80s?

Go look at the Spurs roster from their first title in 99. Look at their roster for the next title in 03. Totally rebuilt via the draft and key trades/free agency moves. They then went on to win 3 more titles.

Hmmm...I am looking at them. Want to know what I see?

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Makes a GMs job a lot easier when the team completely tanks, gets lucky in the lottery in the one year when the greatest power forward of all-time is available.

Again, Dumars missed on Darko, obviously. But he still made the team competitive despite that. That's pretty good, IMO. Damn good actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then we'll disagree on the standard for calling a team a top team.

So are the Pistons not a top team of the 80s? How about the Sixers? Are the Celtics and Lakers the only top teams of the 80s?

Hmmm...I am looking at them. Want to know what I see?

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Tim Duncan

Makes a GMs job a lot easier when the team completely tanks, gets lucky in the lottery in the one year when the greatest power forward of all-time is available.

Again, Dumars missed on Darko, obviously. But he still made the team competitive despite that. That's pretty good, IMO. Damn good actually.

And why do they have Tim Duncan? Because the drafted well when given a top pick. Dumars, not so much. Huge plus for SA, huge negative for Dumars. You are proving one of my biggest points.

Parker, Ginobli, Bowen, Horry, Barry, Finely...all key draft picks, trades, or free agent acquisitions after the Spurs won a title. What did Dumars do? Dyess was huge, but what do you have after him? Jason Maxiell? Afflalo? Sleepy? Flip Murray? Nazr? (Who by the way, the Spurs let go and didn't even make an offer to. Even though they were desperate for big men at the time).

Look, Dumars did an amazing job building this team. As good as he was at building it, he was just as bad at maintaining it and improving it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why do they have Tim Duncan? Because the drafted well when given a top pick. Dumars, not so much. Huge plus for SA, huge negative for Dumars. You are proving one of my biggest points.

I think everyone will admit that Darko was a bad pick. It doesn't prove any point of yours.

BTW: Are you going to answer my question about the Pistons and Sixers? Or just admit that the only top teams of any decade since the 50s are the Celtics and Lakers and Spurs and everyone else doesn't matter?

Parker, Ginobli, Bowen, Horry, Barry, Finely...all key draft picks, trades, or free agent acquisitions after the Spurs won a title. What did Dumars do? Dyess was huge, but what do you have after him? Jason Maxiell? Afflalo? Sleepy? Flip Murray? Nazr? (Who by the way, the Spurs let go and didn't even make an offer to. Even though they were desperate for big men at the time).

Let's see: Spurs draft picks since they lucked into Tim Duncan.

Felipe Lopez

Derrick Dial

Manu Ginobli

Chris Carrawell

Tony Parker

Robert Javtkovas

Bryan Bracey

John Salmons

Luis Scola

Randy Holcomb

Leandro Barbosa

Beno Udrih

Romain Sato

Sergei Karaulov

Ian Mahimi

Damir Markota

Tiago Splitter

Marcus Williams

Giorgos Printezis

George Hill

Goran Dragic

James Gist

That's three hits for them in over 10 years. Scola was traded to Houston for nothing. Udrih signed with the Kings after doing nothing in San Antonio. Barbosa was traded for a future pick. Salmons was traded for Speedy Claxton. What a great player he was.

If Dumars drafted Scola and gave him away, you'd be screaming. Same with Barbosa. They didn't miss on Tim Duncan? Well no ****, nobody did. Duncan was the surest thing of sure things. Notice that Cleveland didn't miss on LeBron James, but plenty of teams would have missed on Darko at 2. That doesn't excuse Dumars, but the equivalent of missing on Duncan would have been to take Darko over LeBron, not Darko over Melo and Wade. They had issues at the time, Duncan never did.

The Spurs have made plenty of personnel mistakes over the years. What has covered up for them - and what has made their signings look so good - is the presence of the best all around low post player in the history of basketball, not some genius GM or genius coach (and Popovich's true genius? Firing Bob Hill after Robinson got hurt and installing himself as coach just in time to get Duncan in the draft and Robinson back from injury).

They've made some great picks in Parker and Ginobili. They've also made some stinkers. But Dumars has made some great picks in Prince and Okur, as well as the many documented stinkers.

But Dumars doesn't have Tim Duncan. If he did, we'd be talking about the Pistons as one of the greatest teams of all-time. To compare the Pistons situation to the Spurs situation is to compare apples to oranges.

Look, Dumars did an amazing job building this team. As good as he was at building it, he was just as bad at maintaining it and improving it.

I agree that he's made some mistakes, but I don't think it's as easy as some of you seem to think it is. It's not easy to trade players. It's not easy to sign free agents. It's not easy to get superstars.

We shall see if they can keep it going. I, for one, think he's done a decent job this offseason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think everyone will admit that Darko was a bad pick. It doesn't prove any point of yours.

BTW: Are you going to answer my question about the Pistons and Sixers? Or just admit that the only top teams of any decade since the 50s are the Celtics and Lakers and Spurs and everyone else doesn't matter?

The Chicago Bulls say hi.

Lakers and Celtics are the team of the 80's no doubt. Pistons aren't far behind. But I can't count Philly. I need multiple titles to include a team. Unless something odd happened and you didn't have repeat winners in a decade.

You keep tossing Duncan in my face, and I don't understand that. Dumars had his shot to get his Duncan and he ****ed it up. That pretty much proves my point on Dumars drafting doesn't it? Toss in another top 10 bust in White and another lottery bust in Cleaves and things are looking real good.

Yes the Spurs have made some mistakes. But guess what? You get some leeway when you win a title every other year for 8 years, don't you think? The more success you have, the more space you get on your mistakes. You know this though, but you just want to argue.

I gave you a long list of players SA acquired after winning a championship. You fired back with guys Dumars acquired before they won. I already gave Dumars all the credit in the world for building that team that won. My beef is what he did after. Where is the guy who can penetrate? Where is the guy who can create his own shot? Where is the good coach?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Chicago Bulls say hi.

Lakers and Celtics are the team of the 80's no doubt. Pistons aren't far behind. But I can't count Philly. I need multiple titles to include a team. Unless something odd happened and you didn't have repeat winners in a decade.

The Pistons won one title in the 80s, so I guess you can't include them either. Seems like a pretty ridiculously high standard to me.

From 76-86 the Sixers won one title, lost in the finals three times, and lost in the ECF twice. Do you think they were a great team during that period that had a great achievement even though they only won one title? I do.

You keep tossing Duncan in my face, and I don't understand that. Dumars had his shot to get his Duncan and he ****ed it up. That pretty much proves my point on Dumars drafting doesn't it? Toss in another top 10 bust in White and another lottery bust in Cleaves and things are looking real good.

I keep tossing him in your face because you bring up San Antonio as some sort of example of what a great job a GM can do as opposed to what Dumars did. I think the situations are not the same because San Antonio has Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan makes all those great FA guys look like actual players when in reality, they ain't much. The Pistons don't have that guy. Citing the Spurs as some argument as to what a good GM can do as opposed to what Dumars did is silly, it's apples and oranges.

Yes the Spurs have made some mistakes. But guess what? You get some leeway when you win a title every other year for 8 years, don't you think? The more success you have, the more space you get on your mistakes. You know this though, but you just want to argue.

Yeah, you get that leeway when you have the best power forward in history on your team to make also rans like Michael Finley and Brent Barry into seemingly good moves. But you know this already and are really just arguing to argue.

I gave you a long list of players SA acquired after winning a championship. You fired back with guys Dumars acquired before they won. I already gave Dumars all the credit in the world for building that team that won. My beef is what he did after. Where is the guy who can penetrate? Where is the guy who can create his own shot? Where is the good coach?

Again, I'm not going to argue that Dumars hasn't made mistakes. That's obvious to almost everyone. But I don't think the mistakes are as egregious as you make them out to be (other than Darko) and that mistake was made before you think he started to slide as a GM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep tossing Duncan in my face, and I don't understand that. Dumars had his shot to get his Duncan and he ****ed it up. That pretty much proves my point on Dumars drafting doesn't it?

Not the same. If Dumars had the #1 pick and taken Darko over Lebron it'd be one thing. As good as Carmelo, Wade, and Bosh are, none of them are Duncan or Lebron. Everybody in the NBA knew who was going to be drafted first in 1997 and 2003 long before they knew which team would be drafting. If Pops had the #2 pick in that draft and had picked somebody like Van Horn or Billups, he's have been out of a job a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Pistons won one title in the 80s, so I guess you can't include them either. Seems like a pretty ridiculously high standard to me.

From 76-86 the Sixers won one title, lost in the finals three times, and lost in the ECF twice. Do you think they were a great team during that period that had a great achievement even though they only won one title? I do.

I forgot Detroit won one in the 90's so I guess technically I wouldn't include them. And yes it is a high standard. When you say someone or something is great, you should hold it to a high standard.

I keep tossing him in your face because you bring up San Antonio as some sort of example of what a great job a GM can do as opposed to what Dumars did. I think the situations are not the same because San Antonio has Tim Duncan. Tim Duncan makes all those great FA guys look like actual players when in reality, they ain't much. The Pistons don't have that guy. Citing the Spurs as some argument as to what a good GM can do as opposed to what Dumars did is silly, it's apples and oranges.

Dumars had his shot to land his Duncan and **** the bed. He didn't draft Melo, Wade, or Bosh. He took Darko. I don't care who else would have picked Darko. The fact is Dumars took him and blew a future HoF player in Melo, and possibly the best player in the game today in Wade.

And if Duncan makes things so easy. Go talk to Danny Ferry after he gets canned for not winning next year. Go talk to Minnesota when they had KG, how about Philly when they had Barkley, Dirk in Dallas. A superstar doesn't guarantee you anything but ticket sales. For every Duncan, I can give you 10 super stars who didn't win jack. You cant just roll the ball out with Duncan and collect titles.

Yeah, you get that leeway when you have the best power forward in history on your team to make also rans like Michael Finley and Brent Barry into seemingly good moves. But you know this already and are really just arguing to argue.

See above. James has a bunch of also rans and what has he done? One finals appearance and disappointment. It isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I forgot Detroit won one in the 90's so I guess technically I wouldn't include them. And yes it is a high standard. When you say someone or something is great, you should hold it to a high standard.

You should hold it to a high standard, just not a ridiculously high standard.

Dumars had his shot to land his Duncan and **** the bed. He didn't draft Melo, Wade, or Bosh. He took Darko. I don't care who else would have picked Darko. The fact is Dumars took him and blew a future HoF player in Melo, and possibly the best player in the game today in Wade.

Again, no one will deny this, but it has nothing to do with the argument about San Antonio filling in the pieces with great acquisitions after they won the title while Dumars didn't.

Duncan was already there. They didn't draft him after they won. They made some smart moves to get Parker and Ginobili, obviously. They also made some stupid moves. And the some of the supposedly smart moves they made in free agency look smart only because they have Duncan.

Whether Dumars screwed the pooch by not taking Wade, etc. is not the issue. At least it wasn't the issue you were talking about.

And if Duncan makes things so easy. Go talk to Danny Ferry after he gets canned for not winning next year. Go talk to Minnesota when they had KG, how about Philly when they had Barkley, Dirk in Dallas. A superstar doesn't guarantee you anything but ticket sales. For every Duncan, I can give you 10 super stars who didn't win jack. You cant just roll the ball out with Duncan and collect titles.

True, but a couple of points: Duncan has been better than all those other superstars to this point. This isn't an argument that the Spurs haven't supplemented their big man with horribly matched players like they did in Cleveland and Minny, but rather that they added very average players (other than Parker and Ginobili) who were made much better by having Duncan around them. That says a lot about Duncan.

Dumars was in a different situation than San Antonio.

And I would argue that the Pistons signing of McDyess was as good a move as anything San Antonio has done in free agency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, Dumars missed on Darko, obviously. But he still made the team competitive despite that. That's pretty good, IMO. Damn good actually.

Nobody is arguing that. The job Dumars did in building that team w/o a clear top 5 player in the game is simply remarkable. But, the failure in that 2003 draft is a big reason why we are mediocre now. After the fact, it was revealed that it came down to Darko or Chris Bosh b/c we wanted a big man. Ok, so lets say he drafts Bosh. And, with the Delfino pick, lets say he drafts Josh Howard. Bingo. We are literally set for the next several years and win several more championships barring injury, and we do not have to go through a couple "transition" years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should hold it to a high standard, just not a ridiculously high standard.

Expecting a team to win 20% of the titles in a decade to be called great is not a ridiculously high standard. How can you say the Pistons are great, but Miami and Boston arent?

Again, no one will deny this, but it has nothing to do with the argument about San Antonio filling in the pieces with great acquisitions after they won the title while Dumars didn't.

Duncan was already there. They didn't draft him after they won. They made some smart moves to get Parker and Ginobili, obviously. They also made some stupid moves. And the some of the supposedly smart moves they made in free agency look smart only because they have Duncan.

Whether Dumars screwed the pooch by not taking Wade, etc. is not the issue. At least it wasn't the issue you were talking about.

SA and Duncan had nothing to do with my original argument. In fact, I never brought them up at all until after you did. You said lest see what a genius the SA GM is after Duncan retires and like the idiot that I am, I took the bait and mentioned he has already rebuilt the roster once.

True, but a couple of points: Duncan has been better than all those other superstars to this point. This isn't an argument that the Spurs haven't supplemented their big man with horribly matched players like they did in Cleveland and Minny, but rather that they added very average players (other than Parker and Ginobili) who were made much better by having Duncan around them. That says a lot about Duncan.

Dumars was in a different situation than San Antonio.

By this logic, we could never compare two GM's. Everyone is in a different situation. Whether its big/small market, stat/no star, can/cant spend, etc. every GM is in a different situation.

And I would argue that the Pistons signing of McDyess was as good a move as anything San Antonio has done in free agency.

Great move. Better then what the Spurs did? Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Expecting a team to win 20% of the titles in a decade to be called great is not a ridiculously high standard. How can you say the Pistons are great, but Miami and Boston arent?

Sure it is, when you downgrade them for getting close and not winning.

Neither Miami nor Boston were consistently in the top 4, therefore, they're not in the same class as the Pistons. I don't think Dallas is either. Or New Jersey.

SA and Duncan had nothing to do with my original argument. In fact, I never brought them up at all until after you did. You said lest see what a genius the SA GM is after Duncan retires and like the idiot that I am, I took the bait and mentioned he has already rebuilt the roster once.

Well, I was originally arguing with sportz, but you butted in and gave your own opinion. That's where the SA argument came in. But you certainly picked up the ball and ran with it.

By this logic, we could never compare two GM's. Everyone is in a different situation. Whether its big/small market, stat/no star, can/cant spend, etc. every GM is in a different situation.

Not true at all, however, when you're comparing GMs, you have to take their circumstances into context and realize if one of them has the best player of his generation on the team, that might make his borderline role player pick ups look better than they actually are.

Great move. Better then what the Spurs did? Maybe.

what Spurs move was better? Brent Barry? Steve Kerr? Michael Finley? Kurt Thomas? Robert Horry? What stand up shooter who can stand all alone on the outside and waits for the other team to double team Tim Duncan did I miss?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Truth I measure success in championships..not ECF particpated in..we have different standards..in fact the idea you are that close to the title and came away with only one is an indictment on the fact you didn't make the move to put you over the top..

So had the Pistons missed the playoffs for 6 consecutive years you would find that equivalent to their actual record?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure it is, when you downgrade them for getting close and not winning.

Neither Miami nor Boston were consistently in the top 4, therefore, they're not in the same class as the Pistons. I don't think Dallas is either. Or New Jersey

Getting to the round that determines who plays for the championship, is not close. Playing in the round that determines the champ and losing, is close.

Well, I was originally arguing with sportz, but you butted in and gave your own opinion. That's where the SA argument came in. But you certainly picked up the ball and ran with it.

My apologies. I will not respond to anymore of your posts unless you directly reference me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies. I will not respond to anymore of your posts unless you directly reference me.

That will save us all some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That will save us all some time.

And to answer your easy question, since it was directed at me. Bruce Bowen was a far better pickup then Dyess. Became a starter and lock down defender. 3 time second team all NBA defensive team member. 5 time first team all NBA defensive team member. It's not even close.

Edited by Deleterious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


Michigan Sports Betting Offer

Michigan launched online sports betting and casino apps on Friday, January 22, 2021. We have selected the top Michigan sportsbooks and casinos that offer excellent bonus offers. Terms and conditions apply.

BetRivers Michigan - Get a 100% up to $250 deposit bonus at their online sportsbook & casino.

Click Here to claim $250 deposit bonus at BetRivers Michigan For Signing Up Now

FanDuel Michigan - Get a $1,000 risk-free bet at FanDuel Michigan on your first bet.

Click Here to claim $1,000 Risk-Free Bet at FanDuel Michigan

BetMGM Michigan - Get a $600 risk-free bet at the BetMGM online casino & sportsbook

Click Here to claim $600 risk-free bet at BetMGM Michigan

   


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      97,066
    • Total Posts
      3,066,015
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...