Should we give Donnie credit? - Printable Version +- MavsBoard (https://www.mavsboard.com) +-- Forum: Boards (https://www.mavsboard.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Dallas Mavericks and the NBA (https://www.mavsboard.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=2) +--- Thread: Should we give Donnie credit? (/showthread.php?tid=256) |
RE: Should we give Donnie credit? - ItsGoTime - 12-06-2019 (12-06-2019, 11:21 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote:Nothing more to say here either cause we just look at it differently. I see a lot of the things you say as excuses if the GM/FO is good to great and deserving of credit/praise for the work they did. Good to great is a moving scale too, and it moves based on performance year in and year out. For longer tenured GM's like Donnie, performances don't move the scale greatly like they would a newer GM, but you take all performance into account. Performances like last offseason where I think is less than good. If I was to give a grade, it would be about a C to C-. I guess it started as a C-, and became a C based on the gelling to this point. They are doing what I had hoped getting better players would have accomplished which is all but guaranteeing a playoff spot.(12-06-2019, 11:06 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote:(12-06-2019, 10:42 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: Just because a GM doesn't get a particular player that they target, it DOES NOT equate to that GM being any more/less skilled than the guy who gets the player.Yes, I worded it in a way that made the job as a whole good or bad, that was not my thought, just didn't come out in words well. For an offseason grade or "credit" for the offseason, what was said is very much true, and in the context of what this whole thread is about. Have you read the genesis of this discussion? It started in the mavsluvr's Mavs Lakers recap. IMO if we had a better offseason, we would be better to this day (and I believe there was plenty of opportunity to get better players than we got). Getting better players is better. RE: Should we give Donnie credit? - Mavsfan12 - 12-07-2019 (12-06-2019, 11:59 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote:(12-06-2019, 11:21 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote:Nothing more to say here either cause we just look at it differently. I see a lot of the things you say as excuses if the GM/FO is good to great and deserving of credit/praise for the work they did. Good to great is a moving scale too, and it moves based on performance year in and year out. For longer tenured GM's like Donnie, performances don't move the scale greatly like they would a newer GM, but you take all performance into account. Performances like last offseason where I think is less than good. If I was to give a grade, it would be about a C to C-. I guess it started as a C-, and became a C based on the gelling to this point. They are doing what I had hoped getting better players would have accomplished which is all but guaranteeing a playoff spot.(12-06-2019, 11:06 PM)ItsGoTime Wrote:(12-06-2019, 10:42 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: Just because a GM doesn't get a particular player that they target, it DOES NOT equate to that GM being any more/less skilled than the guy who gets the player.Yes, I worded it in a way that made the job as a whole good or bad, that was not my thought, just didn't come out in words well. For an offseason grade or "credit" for the offseason, what was said is very much true, and in the context of what this whole thread is about. Have you read the genesis of this discussion? It started in the mavsluvr's Mavs Lakers recap. Ok... I'll bite on that one. I still disagree with how you view the grades and actually for the reason you said. It is a moving scale. Each year is different. With the way you are grading it would be like if this were the draft grades and all of the teams that had the top 3 picks and actually picked the consensus top 3 players all get A+ and teams that pick at the lower parts of the draft pick up lesser players and therefore deserve lesser grades no matter how well they utilized those picks. Well duh. haha. That is not how I look at it. I view it that a GM's performance grade should be based on availability and fit. How well did you execute with what was available to you? If players aren't available, or don't want to come there, I am not holding that against the GM - at least in the short term of one off season. Things I hold a GM accountable for are based on fit, value, and stewardship of assets. I stated earlier that the Mavs could have done better in asset management, and that they missed out on some opportunities (Iggy is an example) as the opportunity cost for attempting to get some top targets on their list. For that, they clearly don't deserve an A. But I don't take credit away because the K's didn't want to come here. That is not our GM's fault - if so, a WHOLE LOT of GM's sucked at their jobs this season. Alright, I am tapping out for real. lol. Good conv. RE: Should we give Donnie credit? - reckoner07 - 12-07-2019 (12-06-2019, 06:55 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote:(12-06-2019, 04:27 AM)reckoner07 Wrote:The discussion is around giving credit for Donnie’s performance in the last off-season. Not about what he can do with the assets he got.(12-04-2019, 08:02 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote:(12-04-2019, 06:36 AM)omahen Wrote:GSW using us to get KD. Utah moving Favors to get Bogdanovic. I’m sure there are many other examples. If you sign guys to reasonable contracts, you can move them and get assets. If you make a wrong decision and sign someone to a bloated contract, you attach the extra assets. That’s how other FO’s work, why can’t ours? Getting better players is better.(12-04-2019, 06:02 AM)reckoner07 Wrote: And if they find a strong long-term player that makes it worth passing on Giannis earlier than expected I posted for 6 months that Brogdon was getting paid while Dlord argued vehemently for 3 million low. I wanted the Brogdon/Favors combo as much as anyone....but we can't have what we want, so we put together what we can get. Donnie didn't even really have an option to get Brogdon without massively overpaying, because he was staying put with that team. Period. In fairness, I put out a range of $18-$22m on Brogdon, but I actually threw out the idea that it could get to like $24 if the Mavs did that. Better players are better - if they are available. Donnie doesn't get to decide if Kemba wants to go to Boston. Donnie can't massage Danny Green to Dallas because he wants to go play in LA. Maybe the price is wrong (bitch ) on Favors. We don't have assets. Klay & KD...dammit Donnie, how could you not pull that off! What we do have is a very nice assembly of chemistry, and experience playing together. That's what this entire plan is - continuity. And fit with Luka. Everything of course is what optimizes Luka. And this is the team that Donnie built. It is a very good team right now. This is exactly the team that Luka needs now. He is 20 years old. While mature beyond his years on the court, he is still just a kid. He can't drink in a bar legally. Having a young, laid back team makes it so easy for him to feel happy with life, and play his best. Obviously, this is not to say that they would sacrifice talent just to keep it like this. They went after Kemba and Brogdon, and those guys decided not to play with Luka. Dan said that nobody was coming to play with a 20 yr old , while I said some player is going to see what Luka is, plus they got KP. Dan was right, lol. I guess I gave the players too much credit. But I think Porzingis was viewed as a wild-card too....which he kind of is. The thought of trading the 2025 pick makes me nauseous. (12-06-2019, 03:41 PM)Mavsfan12 Wrote: I love the way you stated this. Having to contend with the Dallas starters knowing that you are laying points because the Mavs bench is better than yours? Priceless. (12-06-2019, 06:19 PM)jesusshuttlesworth82 Wrote: For the 100th time, Brogdon was traded only after he agreed to 4/$85 with Indiana. If we are assuming he's a rational human being, that's the highest offer he got. As you've pointed out before, we generally agree in most opinions. We were both eager to pay $95m to Brogdon to get him. Where I diverge is with the "rational human" theory. Baseball players sit around and get paid the most to hit and field. These guys want to play where they believe they win a championship, and where they have an easy path to great performance. It all depends on his preferences, but who knows what would have happened if Dallas had posted it. ( posted, as in let his agent know the offer). Maybe the Bucks go up to $90m. In any event, I think these guys are so driven by the star(s) and cast they're joining for the next 4 years of their basketball life, that they will take significant cuts to stay, or to go. And it doesn't get quite as illogical financially if the player puts himself into an optimal situation where he will put up bigger numbers for the future. Maybe it's being a #2 guy on a different team instead of a #3...or for Brogdon, it might be an important role on a championship team. All speculation of course...but I'm not convinced we could have gotten him. |