Should we give Donnie credit?

[Mavsfan12]

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.

---

Also, my thoughts have nothing to do with specific names. Any names given are purely for example purposes as we have no clue, even with statements made public what has or would happen in any given scenario, one way or the opposite.

I was there when you started discussing it there and I moved my comment to one of the first posts on this thread.  The NBA is not a level playing field.  At any given year, any number of teams could have an elevated advantage for any number of reasons.  Usually, clubs have to go through a period of accumulating assets before they can cash in that stockpile to acquire players that make it attractive to players.  Some teams have to work harder/longer at it before they break through, as their market limits their attractiveness.  Some clubs, are attractive good bad or ugly.  Some teams are well run despite market limitations.  Some have all the market advantages and incompetence still limits them.  Dallas has an upper level GM that is well respected in the league.  

Anyway, I think I have said my piece on this thread.  Have at it!