Should we give Donnie credit?

[ItsGoTime]

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!

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. 


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.