Comments on "Comparison of GM drafting records"

Replies to replies on my prior post on LakersGround.net starting on 8/08/07.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

chazz wrote:
The fact that Sasha Vukivichmecalf got a positive 0.5 on being drafted in 2003 makes your whole chart fiction

Sasha was a #27 pick and has had a decent career for someone drafted so late. Some earlier Euro picks from that draft:
#21 - Pavel Podkolzin
Played 6 games for the Mavs

#22 - Viktor Khryapa
Played 231 minutes for Chicago last season

#23 - Sergei Monia
Played 26 games for two teams

Three NBA players drafted after Sasha put up a better Efficiency rating lst season than him: Anderson Varejao, Chris Duhon and Trevor Ariza.

Lots of posters thought Beno Udrih would have be a better pick than Sasha. Sasha had very comparable stats to him last season:
Sasha
4.3 ppg in 12.8 mpg, shooting 39.2%, 37.3% on 3's, 1.5 rpg, 0.9 apg, 0.56 spg, 0.01 bpg, 0.41 TO, 2.13 A-to-TO

Beno Udrih
4.7 ppg in 13.0 mpg, shooting 36.9%, 28.7% on 3's, 1.1 rpg, 1.7 apg, 0.37 spg, 0.01 bpg, 0.77 TO, 2.18 A-to-TO
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ben0075 wrote:
I disagree with your assumption that because a player is traded or leave as a free agent then all of sudden that player doesnt count on the drafting record of the team. As you dont take into consideration why the team let a player go through trade or through free agency.

Mehmet Okur was an absolute steal at #38. However, Detroit didn't recognize that and let him go as a free agent. Does his stellar play in Utah redeem the pick? Some think yes, but I don't

Actually a Okur got a huge contract in Utah because of the skills that he showed in Detroit. He wasnt gonna get a good contract because the Pistons had both Wallaces.

I am focused on is the GM bringing talent onto the team that provides long-term benefits. Letting a player walk after two seasons isn't providing long-term benefit.

Okur was the 6th or 7th man on a NBA Champion that had a very low payroll (the starters and Corliss Willamson made less the $40M). Dumars let him go, the Pistons made one more trip to the NBA Finals and lost, and haven't made it out of the Eastern Conference since. Letting him go was a bad decision and IMHO nullified drafting him.

Ben0075 wrote:
Dumars drafted Okur and Prince to very good starting caliber players plus decent bench players like Maxiel and Delfino. Your ratings is saying he is a below average drafting GM. While a lot of the GMs u have ahead of him havent drafted players as good as Prince or Okur.

Dumars got a low score for drafting Rodney White and Darko Milicic. Both of those were wastes of early draft picks and the GM's ahead of him haven't done anything that bad.

Ben0075 wrote:
Actually Popovich was GM of the Spurs I believe when they drafted Duncan, Parker and Ginoboli. Correct me if I am wrong though but Buford was an assistant GM of the team. With Pop coaching someone had to be doing the majority of the scouting and the recommendations of the players as Pop was busy coaching. But, your right he didnt have the title but he was influential for sure in the drafting of Parker and Ginobili.

You are correct that Popovich was the one who drafted Parker and Ginobili. Popovich was an incredible GM and handed an absolutely stacked team to Buford. A Spurs fan posted here once that Popovich will retire after this season. The Spurs need him to go back to being GM.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

activeverb wrote:
It's a good start. I think it provides a good framework to discuss a GM's drafting success, though the actual ratings can be skewed too easily to provide much value. Because we're talking about a fairly low number of drafts for most GMs, one lucky pick can mean the difference between being great and mediocre. So in essence, we could say that a GM is a great drafter because in one draft the guy he wanted was taken in the spot right before him and he got lucky on the leftover.

I agree with a lot of what you say. There is a lot of luck to drafting. Chris Duhon was a stellar pick for Chicago. However, they should have picked him with the 31st pick and instead they traded that away. They were very lucky that Duhon was still available 7 picks later. Every year, there are good players who just don't look good during the evaluation process and vice versa. Dallas made only two first round picks during that time - one stunning success (Josh Howard) that they were lucky was still available at #29 and one flop.

activeverb wrote:
If possible, it would be good to factor in how good a pick a GM made based on the talent available when he made that choice.

I mentioned that alternative but I can't figure out how to make it work. Rodney White was the #9 pick in the 2001 draft, played only 16 games his rookie year and then was traded. How would you rate that pick? Would picking Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant get the same rating as they were both the best player available when drafted?

activeverb wrote:
It's a fun chart, though i wouldn't take the actual numbers and ratings too seriously.

I hope it beats reading about the merits of trading for JO for the zillionth time.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Laker Lurker wrote:
[The] OP did do a lot of good work. However what sunk the Lakers is not a specificc draft but 3 straight drafts in which the Lakers got "zero" , "nada" in Rush, Cook, and Sasha- for now , consider Walton as nada.

What GM's had 3 straight drafts of "nada" is one of the standards when you really want to compare Kupchak to others.

What sunk the Lakers was 1997 to 2002.
1997 - No first round pick
1998 - Sam Jacobson with #26 pick
1999 - Devean George with #23 pick
2000 - Mark Madsen with #29 pick
2001 - No first round pick
2002 - Kareem Rush with #20 pick
Rick Fox was signed as a free agent in the 2007 off-season, but the free agent signings after that were busts or old. The '01-'02 Threepeat champion had Devean George as its best under-30 player acquired within the last 5 years.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Laker Lurker wrote:
You have to pick your standards and don't quibble. If you want to talk "individuals" and "outstanding" career. -then next to whom?. Barbosa, J howard>>>>>>> Cook. and they were taken after Cook.- well, so much for the pick #24 argument.

Varejao , taken in the second rd>>>>>>>>>>>>Vuljacic , taken in the 1st rd

Walton was Picked before Steve Blake, Pachulia, ball hanling, inside presence- better deals than Walton offers.

Rush wasn't even playing in the NBA for a while and just returned recently from Europe

So in the end, 3 zeroes in a row + a non impact role player who is not better than players picked below him.

One bad pick- attributable to bad luck
two bad picks in a row= maybe abberration
three bad picks in a row= incompetent= Kupchak= Lakers R.I.P.

In 1986, Jerry West traded up to draft Billy Thompson. Thompson would only play 68 games for the Lakers over 2 seasons before being let go through the expansion draft. There were 3 future All-Stars drafted after Thompson - Mark Price, Dennis Rodman and Jeff Hornacek. The first 6 picks in the second round played in the NBA 12, 10, 14, 9, 16 and 12 seasons. In 1987, the Lakers didn't have a first round pick. They last two picks in that draft were future All-Star Reggie Lewis and 10 year vet Greg Anderson. In 1988, Jerry West drafted David Rivers, who played only 47 games with the Lakers. He passed over Andrew Lang (12 NBA seasons), Vinny Del Negro (12 NBA seasons), Grant Long (15 NBA seasons), Vernon Maxwell (13 NBA seasons), Steve Kerr (15 NBA seasons) and Anthony Mason (13 NBA seasons). By your logic, West was an awful, terrible GM.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

LHQ wrote:
I don`t think Dennis made this chart on a intentional way to try to shove us that Mitch is indeed a good GM.

He obviously put some work on the chart, but I do feel that he was a bit influenced from the Mitch performance point of view, and that he started his chart from that point of view...

Absolutely, totally wrong. The first time I did this, I had no idea where Mitch would wind up. I was just tired of posters going on and on about how Mitch was a complete failure at drafting based upon "woulda, coulda, shoulda". I thought if I could provide some perspective to Mitch's picks, perhaps I could stop some of the mindless negativity. Boy, was I wrong.

You must have missed the response I wrote later:

Dennis_D wrote:

ericp6387 wrote:
I think you gave Turiaf a .5 when he should have been given a 2.5 for being a solid rotation player.

Turiaf is a second round pick and he has to prove that this season is not a fluke before he gets the 2.5 rating. See the section that starts with "Second round picks that..." Mitch was tied with Thorn for the top rating before I added the rules for second round picks.

I had the post done with Mitch tied for #1, then I changed how I did the ratings and because of that change, Mitch went to seventh.

LHQ wrote:
For example, only in the Lakers can Walton be a starter. Put him on a deep team like the Spurs, and he is bench material.

Last season, Oberto and Elson started 74 games between them and they had a net PER of -4.5 and -8.2. Walton had a net PER of -0.3.

LHQ wrote:
Another question: Let`s imagine Ginobili was drafted along the years this chart is using, and that Buford was the actual GM who drafted him. Ginobili is on the bench, 6th Man of the Year candidate for sure. He could start in the Spurs and, because he can play 3 positions quite well, could start in 90% of the other NBA teams...

You credit him as a Bench player? Or as a Starter? Let`s be clear, and put him as a Bench player, because that`s how the Spurs play him. Ok, Fine. But Ginobili had been a Laker, he would have given West/Mitch 6 points to the Lakers, and not 2 points to Pop/Buford like he would do had his draft class been included on this draft.

I would have consider the following as starters last season for the Spurs: Duncan, Parker, Bowen, Elson and Ginobili, based upon games started and mpg.

LHQ wrote:
I still believe this kind of work is commendable, but futile:

You cannot assess a GM work with a mathematical formula and a nice looking chart, no matter how appealing may end up being for the Laker fan (mind you, I`m not a Laker fan)

It's a framework for evaluating the drafting record of GM's. Without something to put draft picks in perspective, it is really easy to base your opinion of the drafting ability of a GM on one or two picks taken out of context.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Comparison of GM drafting records

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/08/07.

A year and a half ago, I did a post where I evaluated the drafting of 17 GM's based upon a simple scoring system. It's a crude system, but no one suggested anything better. As there isn't much going on right now, I thought I would update it.

Here's my GM rating (best to worst):
+4.1 - Rod Thorn of New Jersey
+4.0 - Geoff Petrie of Sacramento
+3.9 - Randy Pfund of Miami
+3.8 - John Paxson of Chicago
+3.1 - Bryan Colangelo of Phoenix
+3.0 - Don and Donnie Nelson of Dallas
+2.6 - Mitch Kupchak of the LA Lakers
+2.1 - Joe Dumars of Detroit
+1.6 - Indiana
+1.1 - Rick Sund of Seattle
-0.4 - Kevin McHale of Minnesota
-0.7 - RC Buford of San Antonio
-1.6 - Jerry West of Memphis
-2.1 - Carroll Dawson of Houston
-5.2 - Kevin O'Connor of Utah
-8.3 - Elgin Baylor of LA Clippers

I expect for each pick in the draft order to net a certain level of talent. If a GM drafts better talent with lottery picks than another GM does with late first round picks, that GM isn't necessarily doing a better job. So, I defined what level of talent I expect with each pick, then I will give GM credit (positive points) or blame (negative points) if he the player he drafts turns out better or worse than I expected. Here is the scoring chart:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
      |        |        |        |        |        |  Deep  | Never  |
Pick  |All-Star|  Star  |Starter |Rotation| Bench  |  Bench | in NBA |
======|========|========|========|========|========|========|========|
1-2   |   1    |   0    |  -1    |  -2    |  -3    |  -4    |  -5    |
3-4   |   1.5  |   0.5  |  -0.5  |  -1.5  |  -2.5  |  -3.5  |  -4.5  |
5-8   |   2    |   1    |   0    |  -1    |  -2    |  -3    |  -4    |
9-12  |   2.5  |   1.5  |   0.5  |  -0.5  |  -1.5  |  -2.5  |  -3.5  |
13-16 |   3    |   2    |   1    |   0    |  -1    |  -2    |  -3    |
17-20 |   3.5  |   2.5  |   1.5  |   0.5  |  -0.5  |  -1.5  |  -2.5  |
21-24 |   4    |   3    |   2    |   1    |   0    |  -1    |  -2    |
25-28 |   4.5  |   3.5  |   2.5  |   1.5  |   0.5  |  -0.5  |  -1.5  |
29-32 |   5    |   4    |   3    |   2    |   1    |   0    |  -0.6  |
33-40 |   5.5  |   4.5  |   3.5  |   2.5  |   1.5  |   0.5  |  -0.2  |
41+   |   6    |   5    |   4    |   3    |   2    |   1    |   0    |
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The columns mean the following:

• All-Star - Selected as an All-Star
  
• Star - Not an All-Star, but one of the team's two best players
  
• Starter - Not a star, but starts when not injured
  
• Rotation - Plays when not injured, gets 15 - 24 mpg
  
• Bench - Plays 10 - 15 mpg, occasionally has a DNP-CD
  
• Deep Bench - Gets erratic minutes, will generally play in the NBA three seasons or less
  
• Never in NBA - Not made it on to to his team's roster or played just a handful of games

My assessment is based upon the player's current year unless he has played more than 4 seasons in the NBA, in which case it is based upon his fourth year. What matters is how the player did on the team that drafted him. The fact that George Lynch went on to be a starter on other teams doesn't change the fact that he didn't do well as a Laker draft pick. If a team trades a player, I assess his value in the trade (which will be based mostly on his performance to date) and then don't evaluate him further. If a team lets a draft pick walk, the draft pick gets a "Deep Bench" rating for the rest of his career. If a player who walked made the rotation for a season for his team before walking, I am going to give the GM a +0.5 bonus. The fourth year cut off is because most players are what they are after their fourth season and the chance of trade, career-ending injury, being beat out by a newer draft pick, etc. greatly increases after that.

Second round picks that make the bench for a year or two don't really matter for a team's fortunes. Also, a second round pick can get playing time one season because of injuries, shortness of bench, etc. and that shouldn't inflate a GM's score. To reflect that, here are some special rules for players picked 33 or later:
1. If the player plays only one season and then is waived, the GM gets a 0.1
2. If the player never played more than 500 minutes, then the GM gets a 0.1
3. If the player is at least a Bench player during his fourth season, the GM gets the full score
4. If the player is at least a Rotation player for two seasons, then GM gets the full score
5. If the player is at least a Starter player, then GM gets the full score
6. If the player doesn't meet #3, #4 or #5, then the GM gets 0.3 if the player is a Bench player and 0.5 if the player is a Rotation player

Alternatives considered
Assessing players for years 2-4 of their career
I tried this but realized it didn't work after I did Atlanta to Indiana. This alternative is considering the years 2-4 of a draft picks career, giving more weight to the most recent years. A draft pick's second year would have a weight of 1, third year a weight of 2, and fourth year a weight of 3. Then, the GM would be credited the weighted rating for the player. For most players, this didn't move the rating that much. For some players, this alternative didn't work. What to do about Eddie Griffin, the #7 pick who was a rotation player his second season, and then released after the season? What to do about Mehmet Okur, who was a rotation player his second season and then left Detroit through free agency? Isn't Orien Greene, who played 15.4 mpg in 80 games his rookie year before being cut a better late second round pick than someone who never played a game for the team?

Rating players how they did regardless of their team
Mehmet Okur was an absolute steal at #38. However, Detroit didn't recognize that and let him go as a free agent. Does his stellar play in Utah redeem the pick? Some think yes, but I don't

Adjusting scores for C's, PF' and PG's
Centers are extremely hard to draft. SG's and SF's are relatively easily. I played with the idea of adding a point for Centers that earn at least a Bench rating and 0.5 points for PF's and PG's that make at least a Bench rating. However, I don't know the positions of all NBA players and didn't know what to do with PF/C's and combo guards.

Seeing how each pick rated out of the available talent
For each draft pick, assess all of the players taken after that pick and how well the player ranked relative to the other players. For example, Chris Duhon would have better a pick that Sasha, but Sasha was the second best option. To do this would require evaluate and rank every player drafted for 4 years, which is more work than I want to do.

Known Flaws to This System
No adjustment for depth in draft
The 2003 draft has produced 5 All-Stars so far, so drafting one then was much than in the 1997 draft, which produced 2.

GM's of bad, young teams are overrated
Philidelphia, Boston and Atlanta score very high in these rankings because those teams have gotten rid of most of their veteran players and are playing most of their draft picks regardless if their are NBA quality or not. For example, of the 12 players who played the most minutes for Boston last season, 7 were drafted in the last 3 years and one more was drafted the year before. As a consequnce, players like Salim Stoudamire, Ryan Gomes Green and Willie Green get large positive ratings when they aren't NBA quality players. I have moved the rankings for those three teams out of the overall rankings.

Evaluations
Mitch's picks and my scoring of them:
2001
No picks
2002
Kareem Rush (20) - Traded for 2 high second round picks => -1
2003
Brian Cook (24) - Bench (0)
Luke Walton (32) - Starter (3)
2004
Sasha Vujacic (27) - Bench (0.5)
Marcus Douthit (56) - Never in NBA (0)
2005
Andrew Bynum (10) - Rotation (-0.5)
Ronny Turiaf (37) - Rotation (0.5)
Von Wafer (39) - Deep Bench (0.1)
Overall Score
+2.6

Tenures to short to evaluate
Bernie Bickerstaff of Charlotte (3 seasons)
Danny Ferry of Cleveland (2 seasons)
Mark Warkentien of Denver (1 season)
Chris Mullin of Golden State (3 seasons)
Larry Harris of Milwaukee (3 seasons)
Jeff Bower of New Orleans (2 seasons)
Isiah Thomas of New York (3 seasons)
Otis Smith of Orlando (2 seasons)
Kevin Pritchard of Portland (New)
Bryan Colangelo of Toronto (1 season)
Ernie Grunfeld of Washington (3 seasons)

Ratings pulled because they are for bad, young teams
+12.0 - Billy King of Philadephia
+10.8 - Danny Ainge of Boston
+3.7 - Billy Knight of Atlanta

Billy Knight's picks (Atlanta) and my scoring of them:
2001
Wasn't GM yet
2002
Wasn't GM yet
2003
Boris Diaw (21) - Rotation then traded => 1
Travis Hansen (37) - Never in NBA (-0.2)
2004
Josh Childress (6) - Rotation (-1)
Josh Smith (17) - Star (2.5)
Donta Smith (34) - Deep Bench (0.1)
Royal Ivey (37) - Bench (0.3)
Viktor Sanikidze (42) - Never in NBA (0)
2005
Marvin Williams (2) - Starter (-1)
Salim Stoudamire (31) - Rotation (2)
Cenk Ayol (59) - Never in NBA (0)
Overall Score
+3.7

Danny Ainge's picks (Boston) and my scoring of them:
2001
Wasn't GM yet
2002
Wasn't GM yet
2003
Marcus Banks (13) - Bench then traded => -1
Kendrick Perkins (27) - Rotation (1.5)
Brandon Hunter (56) - Deep Bench (0.1)
2004
Al Jefferson (15) - Star (2)
Delonte West (24) - Starter then traded => 2
Tony Allen (25) - Rotation (1.5)
Justin Reed (40) - Deep Bench then traded => 0.1
2005
Gerald Green (18) - Rotation (0.5)
Ryan Gomes (50) - Starter (4)
Orien Greene (53) - Deep Bench => 0.1
Overall Score
+10.8

John Paxson's picks (Chicago) and my scoring of them:
2001
Wasn't GM yet
2002
Wasn't GM yet
2003
Kirk Hinrich (7) - Starter (0)
Mario Austin (36) - Never played in NBA (-0.2)
Tommy Smith (53) - Never played in NBA (0)
2004
Ben Gordon (3) - Star (0.5)
Luol Deng (7) - Star (1)
Chris Duhon (39) - Rotation (2.5)
2005
No picks
Overall Score
+3.8

Don and Donnie Nelson's picks (Dallas) and my scoring of them:
2001
Kyle Hill (43) - Never in NBA (0)
2002
Mladen Sekularac (54) - Never in NBA (0)
2003
Josh Howard (29) - All-Star (5)
2004
Pavel Podkolzin (21) - Never in NBA (-2) Note: Played 1 game
2005
No picks
Overall Score
+3.0

Joe Dumars' picks (Detroit) and my scoring of them:
2001
Rodney White (9) - Bench then traded => -1.5
Mehmet Okur (38) - Rotation, lost to FA because of CBA, became Star => 4.5
2002
Tayshaun Prince (23) - Starter (2)
2003
Darko Milicic (2) - Deep Bench then traded => -4
Carlos Delfino (25) - Not signed for a year, Rotation (0.5)
Andreas Glyniadakis (58) - Never in NBA (0)
2004
Rickey Paulding (54) - Never in NBA (0)
2005
Jason Maxiell (26) - Bench (0.5)
Amir Johnson (56) - Deep Bench (0.1)
Alex Acker (60) - Deep Bench (0)
Overall Score
+2.1

Carroll Dawson's picks (Houston) and my scoring of them:
Note: Daryl Morey is now GM for Houston
2001
Eddie Griffin (7) - Rotation then released => -2.5
2002
Yao Ming (1) - All-Star (0.5)
Bostjan Nachbar (15) - Bench then traded => -1
Tito Maddox (38) - Deep Bench (-0.1)
2003
Malick Badiane (44) - Never in NBA (0) => 0
2004
Vassilis Spanoulis (50) - Took until '06-'07 to sign
2005
Luther Head (24) - Rotation (1)
Overall Score
-2.1

Indiana Pacer's picks and my scoring of them:
2001
Jamison Brewer (40) - Deep Bench (0.1)
2002
Fred Jones (14) - Rotation (0)
2003
James Jones (49) - Rotation then traded for 2nd round pick => 1.5
2004
David Harrison (29) - Deep Bench (0)
Rashad Wright (59) - Never in NBA (0)
Overall Score
+1.6

Elgin Baylor's picks (Clippers) and my scoring of them:
2001
Traded away draft rights to Tyson Chandler
2002
Chris Wilcox (8) - Bench then traded for Vladimir Radmanovic => -2
Melvin Ely (12) - Deep Bench then traded => -2.5
Traded away rights to Mario Kasun (41)
2003
Chris Kaman (6) - Starter (0)
Sofoklis Schortsanitis (34) - Never in NBA (-0.2)
2004
Shaun Livingston (4) - Injury prone all career. Estimate: Rotation (-1.5)
Lionel Chalmers (33) - Deep Bench (0.1)
2005
Yaroslav Korolev (12) - Deep Bench (-2.5)
Daniel Ewing (32) - Bench (0.3)
Overall Score
-8.3

Jerry West's picks (Memphis) and my scoring of them:
Note: Chris Wallace is now the GM of Memphis
2001
Wasn't GM yet
2002
Drew Gooden (4) - Difficult to evaluate because traded mid-rookie season in a multi-player deal. Estimate: Starter (-0.5)
Robert Archibald (32) - Deep Bench (0)
2003
Troy Bell (16) - Deep Bench (-2) Note: Acquired draft day trade
Dahntay Jones (20) - Rotation (0.5) Note: Acquired draft day trade
2004
Andre Emmett (35) - Never in NBA (-0.2) Note: Acquired draft day trade and played 8 games
Antonio Burks (36) - Deep Bench (0.1) Note: Acquired draft day trade
Segei Lishouk (49) - Never in NBA (0)
2005
Hakim Warrick (19) - Rotation (0.5)
Overall Score
-1.6

Randy Pfund's picks (Miami) and my scoring of them:
2001
Ken Johnson (49) - Deep Bench (0.1)
2002
Caron Butler (10) - Difficult to evaluate because traded twice. Estimate: Starter (0.5)
Rasual Butler (53) - Bench then traded => 2
2003
Dwayne Wade (5) - All-Star (2)
Jerome Beasley (33) - Never in NBA (-0.2) Note: Actually played 2 games
2004
Dorell Wright (19) - Bench (-0.5)
Albert Miralles (39) - Never in NBA (0) Note: Acquired draft day trade and rights were later traded
Matt Freije (53) - Never in NBA (0) Note: Was waived by Heat before playing
2005
Wayne Simien (29) - Deep Bench (0)
Overall Score
+3.9

Kevin McHale's picks (Minnesota) and my scoring of them:
2001
No draft picks
2002
Marcus Taylor (52) - Never in NBA (0)
2003
Ndudi Ebi (26) - Deep Bench (-0.5)
Rick Rickert (55) - Never in NBA (0)
2004
Blake Stepp (58) - Never in NBA (0)
2005
Rashad McCants (14) - Rotation, had microfracture knee surgery => 0
Bracey Wright (47) - Deep Bench (0.1)
Overall Score
-0.4

Rod Thorn's picks (New Jersey) and my scoring of them:
2001
Richard Jefferson (13) - Star (2)
Jason Collins (18) - Starter (1.5)
Brandon Armstrong (23) - Deep Bench (-1)
Brian Scalabrine (35) - Bench (1.5)
2002
Nenad Krstic (24) - Starter (2)
Tamar Slay (54) - Deep Bench (0.1)
2003
Zoran Planinic (22) - Deep Bench (-1)
Traded rights to Kyle Korver (51)
2004
Traded rights to Viktor Khryapa (22)
Christian Drejer (51) - Never in NBA (0)
2005
Antoine Wright (15) - Bench (-1)
Mile Ilic (43) - Not signed until '06-'07 season
Overall Score
+4.1

Billy King's picks (Philadephia) and my scoring of them:
2001
Samuel Dalembert (26) - Starter (2.5)
Damone Brown (37) - Deep Bench (0.1)
Alvin Jones (57) - Deep Bench (0.1)
2002
Traded rights to Jiri Welsch
John Salmons (26) - Rotation (1.5)
Sam Clancy (44) - Never in NBA (0)
Randy Holcomb (56) - Never in NBA (0)
2003
Willie Green (41) - Rotation (3)
Traded rights to Paccelis Morlende (50)
Kyle Korver (51) - Rotation (3)
2004
Andre Iguodala (9) - Star (1.5)
2005
Louis Williams (45) - Bench (0.3)
Overall Score
+12.0

Bryan Colangelo's picks (Phoenix) and my scoring of them:
Note: Colangelo is now the GM of Toronto
2001
Alton Ford (51) - Deep Bench (0.1)
2002
Amare Stoudemire (9) - All-Star (2.5)
Casey Jacobsen (22) - Rotation then traded => 1
2003
Zarko Cabarkapa (17) - Deep Bench then traded for 2 second round picks => -1
Leandrinho Barbosa (28) - Rotation (1.5) Note: Acquired draft day trade
2004
Jackson Vroman (31) - Deep Bench then traded => 0
2005
Dijon Thompson (24) - Deep Bench (-1)
Overall Score
+3.1

Geoff Petrie's picks (Sacramento) and my scoring of them:
2001
Gerald Wallace (25) - Deep Bench then selected in expansion draft => -0.5
Maurice Jeffers (55) - Never in NBA (0)
2002
Corsley Edwards (58) - Never in NBA (0) Note: played 10 games for Hornets in '04-'05 season
2003
None
2004
Kevin Martin (26) - Star (3.5)
Ricky Minard (47) - Never in NBA (0)
2005
Francisco Garcia (23) - Rotation (1)
Overall Score
+4.0

RC Buford's picks (San Antonio) and my scoring of them:
2001
Wasn't GM yet
2002
Wasn't GM yet
2003
No Draft Picks
2004
Beno Udrih (28) - Bench (0.5)
Romain Sato (52) - Never in NBA (0)
Sergei Karaulov (57) - Never in NBA (0)
2005
Ian Mahinmi (28) - Never in NBA (-1.2)
Overall Score
-0.7

Rick Sund's picks (Seattle) and my scoring of them:
2001
Vladimir Radmanovic (12) - Rotation (-0.5)
Earl Watson (40) - Bench then let go as FA => 0.1
2002
Peter Fehse (49) - Never in NBA (0)
2003
Nick Collison (12) - Starter (0.5)
Luke Ridnour (14) - Starter (1)
Paccelis Morlende (50) - Never in NBA (0) Note: Acquired draft day trade
2004
Robert Swift (12) - Bench (-1.5)
David Young (41) - Never in NBA (0)
[2005]
Johan Petro (25) - Rotation (1.5)
Mickael Gelabale (48) - Didn't play until '06-'07 season
Overall Score
+1.1

Kevin O'Connor's picks (Utah) and my scoring of them:
2001
Raul Lopez (24) - Two years to sign, Deep Bench, then traded => -1
Jarron Collins (53) - Rotation (3)
2002
Curtis Borchardt (18) - Deep Bench then traded => -1.5 Note: Acquired draft day trade
2003
Aleksandar Pavlovic (19) - Bench then taken in expansion draft => -1.5
Maurice Williams (47) - Bench then lost to FA => 0.1
2004
Kris Humphries (14) - Deep Bench then traded => -2
Kirk Snyder (16) - Deep Bench then traded => -2
2005
Deron Williams (3) - Starter (-0.5)
CJ Miles (34) - Deep Bench (0.1)
Robert Whaley (51) - Deep Bench then traded => 0.1
Overall Score
-5.2

On Whether Mitch wanted Bynum or May

Posted in several places on this LakersGround.net thread on 8/06/07.

I started off with this post in reply to a Mike@LG post:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You left out this quote from Lazenby in the middle article:

(And the Lakers have always had a complicated "court." Magic Johnson is a voice that's around that cares a lot and is hard to ignore. Jerry West always had his say when he was there. There are a lot of voices even in simpler times.)

My impression from what I have read is that many people are involved with major decisions including Magic, Jerry Buss and Jim Buss. But I have not seen anything and there is nothing in the stories you mentioned that indicates that Mitch was overruled by Jim Buss.

Let's say the following happened:
In Mitch's teaching of Jim about the type of moves the Lakers should make, Mitch strongly emphasizes that the Lakers need a top-notch big man to anchor their defense. Mitch says Mihm isn't good enough and the Lakers need to look at other possibilities. Jim Buss then gets the scouting reports of the players are seriously considering, reads about Bynum and says, "He sounds like just the big man the Lakers need!" The Lakers work Bynum out to rave reviews by the scouting staff. A meeting happens afterwards where Mitch proposes making a promise to Bynum in exchange for Bynum canceling all his other work outs. Given the high risk of the pick, Mitch asks for ownership's agreement to the promise (and pick). Jerry turns to Jim and says, "What do you say, Jim?" Jim says, "Do it!"

Wouldn't that story fit Jim Buss being a champion of Bynum and thinking he is the one who drafted Bynum? Yet at the same time, Mitch would have been driving the whole process?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
I shouldn't have posted the hypothetical situation because it wasn't close to what happened.

I did some research and reported that:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I search on LG to see the first mention I could find of "Jim Buss" and Bynum. I found a post quoting a 1/28/07 Mark Heisler story:

Mark Heisler wrote:
With no great centers in his class, Bynum was a McDonald's All-American. The Lakers saw him at the game in South Bend, Ind., and put him down as too heavy.

Several weeks later, NBA teams were invited to a workout after Bynum's AAU coach, James Marshall, put him through a crash conditioning program. Lakers assistant GM Ronnie Lester attended and changed his mind on the spot.

The Lakers worked Bynum out in secret before the Chicago pre-draft camp. This time Mitch Kupchak was there, too, along with Jim Buss.

Then they worked him out in secret here for Jackson, who liked him. Nevertheless, Bynum hadn't even turned 18 and there was little chance he would be much help to Jackson, who was on only a three-year deal.

The decision-making process could go down in Lakers history with Jerry West trading Vlade Divac, getting Kobe Bryant and setting them up to sign Shaquille O'Neal in 1996.

Even with Jackson returning, as if borne by angels after a 33-49 season, the organization stayed on its timetable, not his.

Jerry Buss had always been willing to gamble. Jim helped persuade him — over the phone to Europe, where his father was vacationing — that drafting Bynum instead of North Carolina's Sean May was worth another gamble.

Some posters took this as confirmation that Buss wanted Bynum and Mitch wanted May. Jim Buss was definitely active involved in choosing Bynum, but I don't see any evidence that Bynum wasn't also the choice of Mitch.

Looking around some more, apparently Peter Vecsey is the source for the Mitch-wanted-May rumor. I found a post from 1/10/06 that quoted a Vecsey column:

Peter Vecsey wrote:
Word from the wise in La-La Land: Phil Jackson strongly encouraged Jim Buss to include Andrew Bynum in a package proposal for Ron Artest, but the owner's son fervently negated the notion. Though everyone in the front office maintained shared aims last June, people in the know maintain Buss and assistant GM Ronnie Lester were instrumental in the drafting of 7-foot Bynum, whereas Jackson and GM Mitch Kupchak preferred Sean May and Danny Granger.

How the Lakers could hire Jackson for three years and select an undeveloped high-school project when the team clearly needed immediate help has never been explained logically or otherwise.

I used to think Jackson was overpaid at $10M per. Now I'm convinced he's underpaid.

Still, at least one cockeyed optimist within the organization remains convinced the Lakers somehow will bag Artest.

"I'm looking forward to the peace and quiet Ron would bring to our locker room," he dryly declares.

Not that Vecsey was ever wrong about the Lakers.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Doing more research, I came up with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
A post-2005 draft story by Mark Heisler, as quoted by True Hoop:

For a week, the organization debated it. In the end, the decision wasn't made by Jackson, as everyone thought it would be, but by Kupchak with a nod from Buss to go for the greatness he saw in Bynum, and it was the right one. Kupchak says Jackson was on board all the way, but others aren't as sure. Afterward, someone asked a Laker official if Jackson had been against taking Bynum. "I'm sure he was," the official said.

(link)

In May of '07, Jim Buss went on 570 AM and said:

"What that tells me is that my decision on drafting Bynum actually got us to the position to get an MVP in the league and we'll use the example of Kevin Garnett. If that's a deal breaker then I did make a great decision drafting Andrew Bynum because that's a deal breaker, meaning he is valuable.

"Now if it was Channing Frye would Minnesota make that a deal-breaker because of Channing Frye? I doubt it. But if they're talking about Andrew Bynum and that's a deal breaker it means we made a great selection at 10."

(link)

Again, I don't see anything that indicates that drafting Bynum wasn't a joint decision of the Lakers FO.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I argue with Mike@LG about criticizing the Lakers' FO

Mike@LG and I went back and forth on LakersGround.net on 8/05/07.

I started things off with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

A Mad Chinaman wrote:
How does Mitch compares to others such as the GMs with the Spurs, Suns, Memphis (Jerry West - when he was there), Jerry West (when he was with the Lakers), Bill Sharman (w/Lakers), Toronto (not that Congelo?!?! is there), Knicks (Isiah), Dallas, etc.

This question is not asking on the level of success, but whether it was good decision at the time.

A set up for another FO bashing thread

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Mike@LG comes back with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
1. The question and statements provided by the original poster of this thread is valid.

2. The response provided by melo about Sky's post was factual.

3. No criticism was made of the FO. Just laying out the facts.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike@LG wrote:
1. The question and statements provided by the original poster of this thread is valid.

What statements did A Mad Chinaman make? He asked for an assessment of Mitch during a period when there is a regular parade of threads about how Mitch needs to be fired.

Mike@LG wrote:
2. The response provided by melo about Sky's post was factual.

And completely unresponsive to the OP. Ginobili was the final pick in the second round of the draft. Does that mean every other GM who drafted in that second round is incompetent?

Mike@LG wrote:
3. No criticism was made of the FO. Just laying out the facts.

If you pick and choose at any GM's record, you can make any GM look bad.

Dennis O'Connor's drafting for Utah, 2001-2004
2001 - #24 Raul Lopez
Took two years to sign him. In his rookie year, averaged 7.0 ppg in 82 games. In his sophomore year, averaged 5.2 ppg in 31 games. Was then in a trade for Greg Ostertag and out of the NBA

2002 - #18 Curtis Borchardt (through trade)
Sat out his rookie year because of injuries (was injury prone in college). Played 16 games his second year, 12.8 mpg in 67 games his third year. Was then in a trade for Greg Ostertag and out of the NBA

2003 - #19 Sasha Pavlovic
Played 14.5 mpg in 79 games his rookie year. Was taken by Charlotte in expansion draft and then traded to Cleveland

2004 - #14 Kris Humphries and #16 Kirk Snyder
Kris Humphries played 2 unimpressive seasons in Utah before being traded for Rafael Araujo. Kirk Snyder had an unimpressive rookie season then was in a trade for Greg Ostertag.

5 first round picks over 4 drafts and all Utah had to show for it was Greg Ostertag and Rafael Araujo. Really, really bad drafting. Is O'Connor an incompetent boob?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Mike@LG replies:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dennis_D wrote:
What statements did A Mad Chinaman make? He asked for an assessment of Mitch during a period when there is a regular parade of threads about how Mitch needs to be fired.

A simple request of information and question. There was no criticism, yet, your choice of words leads this thread to be a thread of criticism.

Dennis_D wrote:
And completely unresponsive to the OP. Ginobili was the final pick in the second round of the draft. Does that mean every other GM who drafted in that second round is incompetent?

No, because that's just one example. Sky listed multiple examples in back to back years.

Dennis_D wrote:
If you pick and choose at any GM's record, you can make any GM look bad.

Dennis O'Connor's drafting for Utah, 2001-2004
2001 - #24 Raul Lopez
Took two years to sign him. In his rookie year, averaged 7.0 ppg in 82 games. In his sophomore year, averaged 5.2 ppg in 31 games. Was then in a trade for Greg Ostertag and out of the NBA

2002 - #18 Curtis Borchardt (through trade)
Sat out his rookie year because of injuries (was injury prone in college). Played 16 games his second year, 12.8 mpg in 67 games his third year. Was then in a trade for Greg Ostertag and out of the NBA

2003 - #19 Sasha Pavlovic
Played 14.5 mpg in 79 games his rookie year. Was taken by Charlotte in expansion draft and then traded to Cleveland

2004 - #14 Kris Humphries and #16 Kirk Snyder
Kris Humphries played 2 unimpressive seasons in Utah before being traded for Rafael Araujo. Kirk Snyder had an unimpressive rookie season then was in a trade for Greg Ostertag.

5 first round picks over 4 drafts and all Utah had to show for it was Greg Ostertag and Rafael Araujo. Really, really bad drafting. Is O'Connor an incompetent boob?

If you want to Isolate draft, sure, it's equally bad. But considering you're pointing out Kevin O'Connor 2001-2004, then sure. He's just as incompetent being draft specific.

If you want overall picture? He got Okur from Detroit, Boozer, and drafted Deron Williams.

Did O'Connor dramatically improve team record? Yes. Did he build a franchise core? Yes.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

I reply:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Mike@LG wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
What statements did A Mad Chinaman make? He asked for an assessment of Mitch during a period when there is a regular parade of threads about how Mitch needs to be fired.

A simple request of information and question. There was no criticism, yet, your choice of words leads this thread to be a thread of criticism.

I am not sure I follow you when you say, "There was no criticism, yet, your choices of words leads this thread to be a thread of criticism". Just about every thread recently has become a thread of criticism of the FO. davidse, melo061 and calistrtballr all criticized the FO before I posted.

Mike@LG wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
And completely unresponsive to the OP. Ginobili was the final pick in the second round of the draft. Does that mean every other GM who drafted in that second round is incompetent?

No, because that's just one example. Sky listed multiple examples in back to back years.

The OP asked for a comparison of Mitch to other GM's. The post from melo061 that you cited (which included the comments from Sky) instead bashed some of Mitch's move. I guess I would have been clearer if I had not included the comment about Ginobili. I tried to be responsive to the OP being listing the draft picks of another GM who most think is a successful GM. Every GM makes mistakes, but many posters here seem to demand that Mitch never make a mistake.

Mike@LG wrote:

Dennis_D wrote:
If you pick and choose at any GM's record, you can make any GM look bad.

Dennis O'Connor's drafting for Utah, 2001-2004
2001 - #24 Raul Lopez
Took two years to sign him. In his rookie year, averaged 7.0 ppg in 82 games. In his sophomore year, averaged 5.2 ppg in 31 games. Was then in a trade for Greg Ostertag and out of the NBA

2002 - #18 Curtis Borchardt (through trade)
Sat out his rookie year because of injuries (was injury prone in college). Played 16 games his second year, 12.8 mpg in 67 games his third year. Was then in a trade for Greg Ostertag and out of the NBA

2003 - #19 Sasha Pavlovic
Played 14.5 mpg in 79 games his rookie year. Was taken by Charlotte in expansion draft and then traded to Cleveland

2004 - #14 Kris Humphries and #16 Kirk Snyder
Kris Humphries played 2 unimpressive seasons in Utah before being traded for Rafael Araujo. Kirk Snyder had an unimpressive rookie season then was in a trade for Greg Ostertag.

5 first round picks over 4 drafts and all Utah had to show for it was Greg Ostertag and Rafael Araujo. Really, really bad drafting. Is O'Connor an incompetent boob?

If you want to Isolate draft, sure, it's equally bad. But considering you're pointing out Kevin O'Connor 2001-2004, then sure. He's just as incompetent being draft specific.

Oops on O'Connor's first name. As I looked up his name on HoopsHype.com, I don't know how I screwed it up.

I don't see how you can say wasting #14, #16, #18, #19 and #24 picks was comparable to what Mitch did (#20 Rush, #24 Cook, #27 Vujacic) in the same time period.

The criticism quoted from Sky was on Mitch's first three drafts. Mitch has drafted three times since then. Perhaps Mitch learned something from his first few drafts? Angel had the first reply and he said, "That is three in a row drafting winners in the last three drafts. He must be doing something right." No one disagreed with Angel but instead went further back in time so they could bash Mitch. Will people never move on from the "Mitch didn't draft Prince" pick in evaluating Mitch?

Mike@LG wrote:
If you want overall picture? He got Okur from Detroit, Boozer, and drafted Deron Williams.

Did O'Connor dramatically improve team record? Yes. Did he build a franchise core? Yes.

On overall picture, I think Mitch stands up pretty well. 2 NBA championships, a trip to the NBA Finals, then rebuilding the team in 2 years until a young competitor. Major injuries to three starters (Mihm, Odom and Walton) set the team back last year, but the team has a lot of young promising talent in the pipeline (Bynum, Turiaf, Farmar, Critterton).
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Thoughts on rumor that Lakers could have had JO for Bynum

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/03/07.

From a Hoopsworld article:

If the Indiana Pacers launch the 2006-07 season with Jermaine O'Neal it will be a surprise. They've been shopping him for much of the summer, with the Los Angeles Lakers being a primary target. In fact, if the Lakers had been willing to part with Andrew Bynum at last year's trade deadline O'Neal would probably already have 20 or so games as a Laker under his belt.

I don't believe this one. The About The Author box for Bill Ingram says:

Bill Ingram is Executive Editor for Basketball News, powering HOOPSWORLD.COM, SWISH Magazine, and The Basketball News Report. He is a member of the Professional Basketball Writers Association and primarily covers the Dallas Mavericks, Houston Rockets, and San Antonio Spurs. He can be heard on tonight on KRLD 1080AM in Dallas.

So some sportswriter who covers the Mavs, Rockets and Spurs knows what happened between the Pacers and the Lakers? I would trust Indy Dave more.

20 or so games mean that JO would have joined the Lakers by roughly 3/9. The trade deadline was 2/22. I guess he is assuming that JO would miss ~ 9 games after being traded to the Lakers.

On 1/17, Indy made a multi-player trade with the Warriors that made them younger. They went 9-6 between the trade and the trade deadline. The first two games were losses, so they Pacers were really looking at a 9-4 record with the new line up. Why would they break that up? Particularly as trading for Bynum is effectively blowing up the team.


After the trade deadline, the Pacers went 6-23. Trading JO now makes a lot more sense.

Note: indy_dave00 had lots of good Pacers posts in that thread

Team Situations and What GM's Should Do

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/02/07.

I was thinking of writing a post evaluating GM's and I came to the conclusion that I need a framework for evaluating a GM based upon the situation his team is in. The moves a GM should make for a contender are very different than the moves a GM should make for a team rebuilding. Here are what I think are the possible situations a team can be in, in order of desirability:

Contender
This is a team that thinks it has a chance to win it all. Normally to be considered in this situation, a team has to have been to at least the conference finals recently . Sometimes a team will consider themselves in this situation right after a major acquisition.

Teams currently in this situation
Spurs, Mavericks, Suns, Cavaliers, Pistons, Heat

What a GM should do
1. Keep your existing core
2. Add a starter or key reserve through FA or trade that can put you over the top
3. Trade picks as necessary for #2, but make your 1st round picks count when you do draft

Examples of Successful GM's for Contenders
'80's Lakers (Drafted AC Green and V Divac, traded for B Scott, M. Thompson, signed S Perkins)
'90's Bulls (Drafted Kukoc, acquired D Rodman, R Harper, L Longley, S Kerr)

Risks
1. The team never acquires enough talent to win it all. Example: Patrick Ewing's Knicks
2. The team makes a move that they hope will put them over the top, but it flops. Example: The Nets trading for Mutombo
3. Star player leaves or demands a trade. Examples: Nash leaves Dallas. Shaq and Artest demand trades

Young Competitor
This is a team with a young (mostly under 28) roster that has made the playoffs, but is not good enough to be a contender

Teams currently in this situation
Bulls, Raptors, Wizards, Magic, Rockets, Jazz, Warriors, Lakers, (on the bubble) Hornets

What a GM should do
1. Acquire through trade or FA an All-Star that makes the team a contender
2. Keep the salaries sane so that tradeable players aren't overpaid and/or the team can get under the cap to sign quality FA's
3. Keep the young players who are going to become something and get rid of young players who aren't
4. Don't sign veteran FA's to big contracts unless they are a #1 type player
5. Drafting provides some talent, but player development is the main source of improvement

Examples of Successful GM's for Young Competitors
Lakers of the mid-90's (signed O'Neal as a FA)
'03-'04 Heat (traded two promising young players for O'Neal)
'03-'04 Pistons (acquired R Wallace through mid-season trade)

Risks
1. All-Star caliber talent comes available only so often and there are many teams competing for it, so the team is likely to lose out
2. The team gets rid of a player who blossoms later. Example: T-Wolves letting Billups go as a FA
3. A major acquisition flops. Example: Suns trading Kidd for Marbury
4. The team never steps up to being a contender. Example: Jerry West's Grizzlies

Veteran Competitor
This is a team with an old (mostly over 27) roster that has made the playoffs, but is not good enough to be a contender

Teams currently in this situation
Nets, Nuggets, Pacers

What a GM should do
#1 Have your star player get injured, tank the season and then win the lottery when a franchise player is coming out
OR
#2 Trade your veterans for young talent and/or let their contracts expire and then rebuild

Examples of Successful GM's for Veteran Competitors
#1 - '96-'97 Spurs
#2 - '03-'04 Lakers, '00-'01 Heat

Risks
1. The major risk is that the team keeps trying to contend until its veterans lose all their trade value. Example '98-'03 Jazz
2. The #1 plan requires a huge amount of luck
3. The #2 plan requires salary planning, good drafting and (perhaps) good trades

Rebuild While Staying Near .500
Teams currently in this situation
None that I know

What a GM should do
1. Good trades and good drafts

Examples of Successful GM's for Rebuild While Staying Near .500's
'99-'04 Pistons (turned over starters with one losing season and that was 32-50)
'91-'94 Lakers (turned over most of roster in three seasons with a 33-49 the worst record)

Risks
I think all GM's of veteran teams dream of rebuilding it while keeping a decent record, but it rarely happens

Rebuild by Blowing Up the Team
This is a very bad team who hopes to keep what little talent it has while positioning itself to acquire top talent through the draft and/or free agency

Teams currently in this situation
Seattle, Memphis, Charlotte, (on the bubble) Atlanta

What a GM should do
1. Making the right draft pick is critical
2. Get rid of and don't acquire expensive veterans
3. Keep what young talent you have
4. Stay bad until the team has enough young talent to compete and then look to sign a top-notch FA

Examples of Successful GM's for Rebuild by Blowing Up the Team
'02-'03 Cavaliers (Drafted James, kept Ilgauskas and Gooden, signed Hughes and Marshall)
'82-'84 Rockets (Drafted Olajuwon, won 2 NBA titles eventually with him as their star)

Risks
1. You get a top pick in a weak draft year. Example: Bucks in 2005, Wizards in 2001
2. You get hosed in the draft lottery. Example: Memphis this year
3. You make the wrong choice with your big pick. Example: Wizards taking Brown over Gasol and Chandler
4. Your big FA signing is a flop. Examples: Bobby Simmons, Larry Hughes
5. Your team is so stripped of talent that it never builds up the talent to compete. Example: Post-Jordan Bulls

Young But Bad Team
Teams that are young, not good enough to make the playoffs but not bad enough to get a great pick to get them over the hump. Classic examples: '02-'06 Warriors, '01-'05 Clippers, '83-'99 Kings, '86-'01 Nets

Teams currently in this situation
(on the bubble) Atlanta

What a GM should do
1. Pray for luck in the lottery
2. Keep your young talent but don't overpay them
3. Trade some of your young talent for an All-Star that can turn your team around
4. Hire an excellent coach who can install a winning attitude

Examples of Successful GM's for Young But Bad Teams
The '01-'03 Nets went to the NBA Finals twice after years of mediocrity

Risks
1. Your players never learn to win so they always underperform. Example: Grizzlies before West became GM
2. After spending years developing a player you drafted, he leaves for a winning opportunity. Example: Clippers losing Odom
3. You have to financially commit to your young players without knowing if that can be successful on a winning team, so you overpay not very good players. Example: Mike Dunleavy

Failed Rebuild
The GM blew up the team, got a high pick, signed some FA's and the team peaks at barely making the playoffs. Now the team is locked into some big dollar long-term contracts and has to re-sign its high draft pick(s). It will take years to undue the damage of the failed rebuild.

Teams currently in this situation
Clippers, Bucks, (on the bubble) Hornets

What a GM should do
Quit. You had your big chance and you blew it

Examples of Successful GM's for Failed Rebuilds
By definition, these are unsuccessful GM's

Risks
1. The team is good enough that it isn't going to get any help in the draft
2. The team has a big enough payroll that all it can offer is the MLE and the good MLE FA's don't want to go there because the future isn't bright

Bad And Expensive
These team have payrolls well over the salary cap and possibly in the luxury tax, but have few wins to show for it. They have decent young talent which they are overpaying and which no other team wants because they are overpaid. It will take years to get out of this situation.

Teams currently in this situation
76ers, Trailblazers, Knicks

What a GM should do
Quit. You did an awful job and there isn't any reason to think you will do a better job in the future.

Examples of Successful GM's for Bad And Expensives
By definition, these are unsuccessful GM's

Risks
The biggest risk is that the owner won't fire the terrible GM

Old, Bad And Expensive
These team have payrolls well over the salary cap and possibly in the luxury tax, but have wins to show for it. Their roster is full of overpaid veterans that no team is interested in. It will take years to get out of this situation.

Teams currently in this situation
Minnesota, Sacramento

What a GM should do
Hari Kari comes to mind. The GM has done such a terrible job that the team's fans will be alienated for years.

Examples of Successful GM's for Bad And Expensives
By definition, these are unsuccessful GM's

Risks
The biggest risk is that the owner won't fire the terrible GM

Later I added:

angrypuppy wrote:
Sorry Dennis, but your team situation isn't a function of the age of the roster. That's like a naval task force by looking at the average gun bore or missle coverage that the smaller ships provide. It doesn't work that way. You look at overall offensive punch (typically airpower), which is why you organize a task force around a carrier. In the NBA, we have superstars who are like aircraft supercarriers. The rest of the task force (the team) is there to provide support and defense... that's why they are called role players. You don't build around the average age of the NBA role players, just as you don't build around the capabilities of the small ships in a naval task force.

That's why you have to profile teams differently.

So you are saying the Pacers are better off than the Bobcats because they have an All-Star and the Bobcats don't? That the Nets are in better shape than the Raptors because they have two All-Stars and the Raptors one? That the T-Wolves were better last year than the Warriors because they had an elite player and the Warriors didn't even have an All-Star? For the last three seasons, the Lakers and the T-Wolves have had an elite player and then a big step down to the next best player. Does that mean they have been in the same situation the last three seasons?

Take a few minutes and put together some kind of team ranking based upon the presence of aircraft supercarriers, battleships and cruisers. See how well it holds up to scrutiny.

The most important things in assessing a team are (1) are they winning now and (2) are they likely to be winning in the future. Superstars, All-Stars, etc are just means to an end.

And more:

angrypuppy wrote:
You look at a team on what it can deliver now, and what direction you can take it tomorrow. In both cases, you value franchise and potential franchise players first and foremost, both in terms of capability and age (naval metaphor: firepower and obsolescence). The support players are important, as a franchise player or two (or even three) is never enough. But they just serve a role, and they are not rare.

I think I do this. For example, I have the Nets as a Veteran Competitor because their two best players (Kidd and Carter) are 34 and 30. The rest of their starting 5 (Jefferson @ 25, Kristic @ 22, Collins @ 27) isn't that old. Yes, I didn't explicitly say this, but the post was long enough as it is.

angrypuppy wrote:
In your profile, you didn't weigh the age and capabilities of the franchise or possible franchise players much more heavily than you weigh the support pieces, and that's the first step you take to deciding what to do next. You instead are opting for an aggregate at best, or oversimplifying at worst. Using your methodology, most would have classified Boston as a Failed Rebuild, which whether you agree or not, is a potential application of what your model describes.

Actually, the Celtics at the end of the season didn't fit any category well. They were a bad team with a big payroll whose success depends on a 29 year old All-Star, but they had one of the youngest rosters in the NBA. Ainge was striving for a Rebuild While Staying Near .500, but failed miserably. I probably would have put them as Rebuild by Blowing Up the Team.

angrypuppy wrote:
But if you start with Paul Pierce, it gives you a real baseline decision as a GM... Do you get more franchise players, as Pierce is only one year older than Kobe, or do you trade Pierce and base the future on Jefferson, D. West, G. Green, etc.

I thought the trade for Ray Allen was terrible. I thought they would struggle to make the playoffs and it set back their rebuilding. I never would have guessed that McHale would take less for KG then he could have gotten on draft day. I thought Ainge should have traded Pierce on draft day.

angrypuppy wrote:
And you know, that's what the Lakers face as well. Let's hope they choose wisely.

I guess I disagree. The Lakers won 18 more games than the C's last season. The C's high potential player (Jefferson) had a break out season last season and the C's were still awful. Bynum is almost 3 years younger than Jefferson, so it is hard to say how good the team will be when he reaches his potential. With the roster the C's had at the end of the season, it was hard to see them making the playoffs in the foreseeable future. The Lakers managed to make the playoffs last year despite being ravaged by injuries.

Thoughts on will the "battle" for starting Center be beneficial?

Posted on LakersGround.net on 8/01/07.

To me, the big thing about the competition is NOW. If you are Mihm or Brown and you hear buzz that Bynum is working out hard this summer, what are you going to do? You have millions riding on getting PT next off-season. I would be working out to the max. Ditto on the PG situation - you think Farmar is relaxing this off-season after starting in the playoffs, then seeing the Lakers sign Fisher and Critterton? He wants to stay the starter and he knows he has got to IMPROVE if he is going to stay the starter.

Another thing about the competition - I hope that Mihm can be effective when he comes back, that Bynum really improves over the summer and that Brown can be effective. The chances of any one of those things happening aren't the best. However, I think the odds of at least one of the three happening are pretty good. I am not sure Fisher can be a quality starting PG. Or that Farmar can. Or that Critterton can. But I feel pretty good that one of the three is likely to step up to it.

More thoughts on Garnett trade

Posted on LakersGround.net on 7/31/07.

LakerSanity wrote:
Lamar or Jefferson - slight edge to LO

I agree

LakerSanity wrote:
Butler or Green/Gomes - edge to Minny (Butler and Green about even given relaticely to the time of the trades) and Gomes gives the edge.

As Mike@LG said, Green has a low BB IQ. The only time he has played well is when the C's were tanking. Gomes is OK as a bench player, but got a lot of minutes in Boston because they were so bad. Butler was a #10 pick who average 15.4 ppg his rookie year. Big Edge to the Lakers.

LakerSanity wrote:
Grant or Telfair/Ratliff - HUGE advantage to Minnesota as they get expiring contracts while we got a three year deal worth something like $45 mil. Additionally, Telfair is young and could still have something to offer.

Agree on Ratliff. Telfair has been a bust on two teams, so I wouldn't count on him contributing anything.

LakerSanity wrote:
Miami 1st round pick or 2 1st round picks - HUGE advantage to Minnesota; the Celtics 1st round evens out the Miami 1st rounder, but Minnesota gets their 1st rounder back which is likely a top 5 pick.

The Minny pick doesn't matter. The Clippers get the next non-lottery Minny pick. The C's pick was the next non-lottery Minny pick after the pick to the Clips and one draft. If a team doesn't get a pick within a set number of years, they lose the pick. With Minny trading away KG and having McHale as a GM, they are going to be in the lottery for so long that the draft pick trade was going to expire.

Later I added:

LakerSanity wrote:
^^^The Minny pick does matter being that they will likely be the worst team in the league, which means that pick will not only be in the lottery (i.e. a pick the Clippers thus will not get), but will also be a likely top 5 pick in next years draft (see Mayo or Rose).... it was a pick they otherwise did not have and thus a HUGE part of the trade. They can still lose a pick in later years, but it won't be this pick which will be a VERY HIGH pick. In any case, if they didn't get this pick, they would still lose another pick later... so that logic makes no sense.... they got something they didn't have before, and something that is very valuable (being a top 5 pick).

From Larry Coon's FAQ:

Teams can only trade draft picks five years into the future (for example, if this is the 2005-06 season, then the 2010 pick can be traded, but the 2011 pick can't).

Minny traded the pick to the C's in January 2006. My understanding then is that the C's have to get the 2010 pick. If they don't, that part of the trade gets voided. Minny can't trade back-to-back draft picks, so the C's have to wait at least two drafts after the Clips get the Minny pick. My understanding is that for the C's to get the 2010 pick, the T-Wolves would have to make the playoffs this season. Then, the Clippers would get their 2008 pick and the C's would get the 2010 pick. If the T-Wolves don't make the playoffs next season (which is really, really likely), then the C's won't get a draft pick from Minny.

LakerSanity wrote:
Also, Butler, when he was traded to us, was coming off a very bad year. Green still is seen by many to have superstar potential. That is why I say they were even AT THE TIME. Can't use hindsight in this argument.

He averaged 12.3 ppg, 6.4 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.5 spg. He played only 68 games that season, so probably his drop off was due to injuries.

If you take away April when the C's were tanking, Green averaged last season 9.7 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 0.9 apg and 0.5 spg. Green was healthy the whole season. Per 82games.com PER, Sasha is a better player offensively and defensively than Green. Green has a very low BB IQ. I can't see why any one would look at his stats for his first two years and think he has superstar potential.

Still later I added:

LakerSanity wrote:
Green v. Butler is about league value.... I know for a fact Green is a highly regarded prospect around the league now, and I also know, at the time, Butler has a lot of questions around him (more than Green) which despite his better stats lowered his value to about the same relative worth as Green. We can just disagree there.

I would be shocked if Green is highly regarded around the league, but I can agree with disagreeing.

On the pick, I found something on RealGM:

Minnesota's own 2008 1st round pick to the L.A. Clippers (top 10 protected in the 2008 Draft, top 10 protected in 2009, top 10 protected in 2010, top 10 protected in 2011, and unprotected in the 2012 Draft)

Minnesota's own future 1st round pick to Boston in the "First Allowable Draft", defined below (top 14 protected in the First Allowable Draft, top 5 protected in the Draft following the First Allowable Draft, top 3 protected in all subsequent Drafts through and including the 2011 Draft, and unprotected in the 2012 Draft). If Minnesota's own 1st round pick is not conveyed to Boston by the end of the 1st round of the 2012 Draft, then Minnesota shall instead convey its own 2012 2nd round pick to Boston. [Boston - Minnesota, 1/26/2006]. The "First Allowable Draft" shall be the Draft that occurs two years following the year in which Minnesota satisfies its existing obligation to convey a future first round pick to the LA Clippers in accordance with the LA Clippers

The earliest the pick can go to Boston is 2010 and as long as the T-Wolves are in the Top 10 of the draft, the pick slides out. It's not clear to me, but I think if the T-Wolves don't make it out of the top 10 by the 2010 draft, then the C's get their 2012 second round pick.