Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Anyone at MLSE paying attention? Even GSW can get their act together on GM

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Anyone at MLSE paying attention? Even GSW can get their act together on GM

    The Golden State Warriors announced Thursday
    that the team will retain general manager and executive vice president of
    basketball operations Larry Riley.

    Riley, 66, has been the general manager of the team since May 11, 2009. He
    came to the organization in 2006 as an assistant coach and was named assistant
    general manager in November of 2008.

    His team posted a record of just 26-56 in his first season as general manager,
    but the team improved by 10 games this past season to go 36-46 and finish 12th
    overall in the Western Conference.

    "I think Larry has done a great job and I've been very pleased with his
    performance," said Warriors owner Joe Lacob. "He's had a vision since he took
    the job less than two years ago and he has certainly helped move this team in
    an extremely positive direction in terms of our culture, cap management and
    roster additions."

    Also on Thursday, the team announced that it has named Bob Myers as assistant
    general manager and vice president of basketball operations.

    Myers, 36, joins the Warriors after spending the previous five years with
    Wasserman Media Group in Los Angeles. He represented close to 20 NBA players
    at Wasserman Media Group in his position as managing executive.



    Read more NBA news and insight: http://www.hoopsworld.com/TheWireSto...#ixzz1JbiZdTiL
    Golden State has been one of the worst run franchises for the better part of 2 decades (to be semi-fair though they do have a new owner now). Despite this they are still end rumours of leadership by announcing their GM will stay.

    How does this relate to the Raptors? Because they just became the team with the worst ownership in the league - that includes Heisley. Thank you Teachers and bean counters.

  • #2
    I don't think this is a new revelation, it was just never tested and proven before now and so it's not been publicized. The teachers want out, they'll eventually find a deal and hopefully everything is good after that. This lockout couldn't have happened at a better time for the Raptors. If not for the lockout the Raptors would enter free agency with no general manager. By the time MLSE got their ducks in a row the best free agents could be gone, the Raptors' free agents could be gone, the Raptors' #1 could be waiting in limbo already building a highly negative opinion of his new bosses, the best coaching options could be gone, Triano could be gone, Colangelo could be gone and the best GM options available could be gone.

    To all those hoping Colangelo leaves, this is the worst case scenario. You don't stonewall until June 30th and then maybe start looking for someone new. That's completely idiotic in my opinion for the above mentioned reasons. That's got horrible disaster and wasted upcoming season(s) written all over it. The proper way to get rid of a GM is to either fire the guy during the season or have consensus that it's time to move on. One guy on the board with no professional sports management background holding up the process looks horribly embarrassing on the Raptors. One would think a large group of teachers could do the math on this one...

    Comment


    • #3
      Matt52 wrote: View Post
      Golden State has been one of the worst run franchises for the better part of 2 decades (to be semi-fair though they do have a new owner now). Despite this they are still end rumours of leadership by announcing their GM will stay.

      How does this relate to the Raptors? Because they just became the team with the worst ownership in the league - that includes Heisley. Thank you Teachers and bean counters.
      Not clear on how this relates to the Raptors' situation. Golden State was sold to an ownership group headed by Lacob. This closed November 10, 2010.
      http://www.nba.com/warriors/news/war...te_111210.html

      Meanwhile, MLSE is in the middle of a potential sale:
      http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...le-report.html

      If you're in the middle of a sale process, its very rare to start signing senior leadership to long term deals. Should be obvious, but a new owner wants to drive this process themselves (even if they ultimately come to the same decision). Making long-term commitments in the middle of a sale process isn't wise.
      http://twitter.com/Liston

      Comment


      • #4
        To me, a rebuilding team that's going to potentially lose an entire off-season of great opportunities at a very critical moment makes that team less marketable than having a two time Executive of the Year locked up for two to three more years.

        Comment


        • #5
          Apollo wrote: View Post
          To me, a rebuilding team that's going to potentially lose an entire off-season of great opportunities at a very critical moment makes that team less marketable than having a two time Executive of the Year locked up for two to three more years.
          Won't be able to sign or trade players during the lockout.
          http://twitter.com/Liston

          Comment


          • #6
            No but when it ends everyone else will be able to do that except the Raptors as it stands right now. If the owners and PA surprisingly come to an agreement at their next meeting in early July the Raptors are caught with their pants down.

            Comment


            • #7
              Liston wrote: View Post
              Not clear on how this relates to the Raptors' situation. Golden State was sold to an ownership group headed by Lacob. This closed November 10, 2010.
              http://www.nba.com/warriors/news/war...te_111210.html

              Meanwhile, MLSE is in the middle of a potential sale:
              http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/stor...le-report.html

              If you're in the middle of a sale process, its very rare to start signing senior leadership to long term deals. Should be obvious, but a new owner wants to drive this process themselves (even if they ultimately come to the same decision). Making long-term commitments in the middle of a sale process isn't wise.
              The point is the Raptors are officially the most dysfunctional franchise in the league with the worst ownership in the league. That is a pretty strong (and accurate statement in my opinion) given some of the owners out there (Heisley and Sterling come immediately to mind).

              The flip side to your argument is with no leadership at the helm (especially a 2x EOY and one of most respected in the league outside Toronto) the franchise falls further behind in hopes of becoming relevant again (see Apollo's comments), weakens the fanbase which in turn will cost sponsorships, creates a negative impression of the franchise which will be difficult to change regardless of old or new ownership (which is already a major issue) all of which negatively impacts the value of the franchise.

              This thinking is extremely short sighted and will only hurt fans, possible new owners, and the Teachers.

              When you are selling a house that is a dump you're going to have a tough time. Take a little money and invest in the house with a new bathroom, kitchen, paint and all of a sudden the dump doesn't look so bad. The seller gets their money back from renovations plus extra. It is all optics - right now the Raps are a dump - THANK YOU TEACHERS OF ONTARIO!

              Comment


              • #8
                A good analogy of what could happen is this: You're selling your house and it's the middle of winter. You want to make it as easy on the potential new owners as possible so you go ahead and cut the electricity off in anticipation that they're going to buy the house and of course want to set up their own utilities account. Meanwhile it's 20 below outside and your pipes freeze, which results thousands of dollars in damages. Suddenly your house that's on the block doesn't look as appealing and you or the new owner, if he's still interested, needs to waste lots of time and money getting everything in order.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Liston, if I am a prospective purchaser on a $1.5 billion deal I am not concerned about a $20mm contract. On a deal this large, that is just over 1% of the value of my purchase price and is immaterial to the operations of MLSE. I posted on another thread that, based on my experience with private equity guys, this has less to do with business and more to do with the Teacher's guys just throwing a hissy fit and wanting their own way. If you ever have a two-year old, then you know what it's like dealing with these guys.

                  On the other hand, I am not as concerned as some other fans. Colangelo is a pro and will do a proper job until his time is up. He won't screw anyone over. If he does leave, the team will have plenty of time to find someone else given the pending lockout.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I would keep BryCo just because he's made some good moves recently, very quickly, to put this team on a track to developing. Think about it, within one year, he's gone from trading Bosh and whatever attempts he made to surround him with a contending team to putting together a young group of players to play and grow together, and possibly having a lot of salary cap space this summer (although, obviously, we'll see how that goes with the CBA agreements).

                    He definitely had a plan for the last four years he was here, which was to surround Bosh with players to make and play in the playoffs. It didn't work well, he made mistakes, but he always worked to fix those mistakes. I have no reason to believe that's easy being a GM in the league, especially when every year at least half of the teams in the NBA don't make the playoffs, and even the ones in the playoffs, only a few are contenders.
                    Last edited by webcrawler89; Fri Apr 15th, 2011, 03:53 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Apollo wrote: View Post
                      A good analogy of what could happen is this: You're selling your house and it's the middle of winter. You want to make it as easy on the potential new owners as possible so you go ahead and cut the electricity off in anticipation that they're going to buy the house and of course want to set up their own utilities account. Meanwhile it's 20 below outside and your pipes freeze, which results thousands of dollars in damages. Suddenly your house that's on the block doesn't look as appealing and you or the new owner, if he's still interested, needs to waste lots of time and money getting everything in order.
                      I don't think this is a good analogy at all. You are talking about cutting of a necessity that a buyer will reopen the minute they move in anyways... it will also make the house incredibly uncomfortable when showing to intended buyers. It also risks extreme damage to the product itself. BC is not a necessity, they may not want him there and him not being under contract (or any GM for that matter) will not negatively impact the team, atleast in the short term. Others will fill in for him temporarily... and its hard to argue anyone could do a worse job at this point.

                      I think its more like setting up a new source of electricity that costs more but you think is better. The problem is the potential buyers may not and it may actually detract from the sale as it will cost them to remove it and hook up their intended source.

                      If BC is resigned his salary is going to be on the books for potential buyers and will be a guaranteed costs. While it may be a small portion of the total value of the sale, it is still an extremely high cost (approx 5 mil a year is nothing to scoff at). When you sell business you want as few guaranteed costs as possible as it will look more enticing for potential buyers. Its why you often see teams gutting their rosters before they sell the team.... the new owners will prefer to take on costs of their own choosing, not long term contracts the previous owner(s) were responsible for.

                      It all comes down to what the buyer wants... but when you leave more room for that person to work with when they take over, you likely going to get more interest.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Matt52 wrote: View Post
                        The point is the Raptors are officially the most dysfunctional franchise in the league with the worst ownership in the league. That is a pretty strong (and accurate statement in my opinion) given some of the owners out there (Heisley and Sterling come immediately to mind).

                        The flip side to your argument is with no leadership at the helm (especially a 2x EOY and one of most respected in the league outside Toronto) the franchise falls further behind in hopes of becoming relevant again (see Apollo's comments), weakens the fanbase which in turn will cost sponsorships, creates a negative impression of the franchise which will be difficult to change regardless of old or new ownership (which is already a major issue) all of which negatively impacts the value of the franchise.

                        This thinking is extremely short sighted and will only hurt fans, possible new owners, and the Teachers.

                        When you are selling a house that is a dump you're going to have a tough time. Take a little money and invest in the house with a new bathroom, kitchen, paint and all of a sudden the dump doesn't look so bad. The seller gets their money back from renovations plus extra. It is all optics - right now the Raps are a dump - THANK YOU TEACHERS OF ONTARIO!
                        To think this is the Teachers Pension Plan's fault takes a shit load of assumption based on nothing buy guess.

                        I would also mention BC has done a horrible job with this team to date... throwing a bucket of paint on a wall that is half demolished does not increase the value of the house. Thats all you are doing with resigning BC if its in hopes it increases the value of the team to potential buyers.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I don't think we had the worst ownership the last couple years. Maybe before BC our owners were reluctant to spent money and seek the best but that all changed with the arrival of BC.

                          They went out there and got one of the best reputed GMs and made him one of the highest paid GM in this league ( I believe 3 million a season). Then they allow him to hire any coach that he wants , bringing Ivironi and then the ...

                          Based on what BC has said on many times before, he has had the green light to spent money and EVEN go over the Cap.He has had this freedom for last 3-5 years !!

                          They also gave the GM total power ( again, this is PER BC himself). So I am not sure where we are getting the notations that the owners are not good.

                          After 5 years of spending, they have a team with few scrubs and third worst record in the league. I think it only makes sense and it is quite logical for them to take the time and reconsider the man in charge of the money ( BC) before, dumping another 10-15 million and 4-5 years down the toilet.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            GarbageTime wrote: View Post
                            To think this is the Teachers Pension Plan's fault takes a shit load of assumption based on nothing buy guess.

                            I would also mention BC has done a horrible job with this team to date... throwing a bucket of paint on a wall that is half demolished does not increase the value of the house. Thats all you are doing with resigning BC if its in hopes it increases the value of the team to potential buyers.
                            The Teachers are the majority owners - I'm not sure it is that big of an assumption but, I do agree, that is an opinion statement.

                            We'd have to disagree on BC's job. It has not been a rousing success but there have been good times especially considering the state of things when he took over. An Atlantic championship, 2 playoff appearances, 5th at the ASG last season was not horrible. There has been a lot of well-noted bad luck along the way (Garbo, Bosh injuries last year, players quitting last year). They do have assets, good value from the 9 and 13 picks the last 2 years, a high draft pick this year, and the 5th lowest payroll heading in to next season with an uncertain future due to the CBA situation.

                            Given the state of the franchise over its 16 years of existence, horrible can be a relative term.

                            I still stick to the claim there is no worse ownership situation in the league than the current Raptors situation.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Matt52 wrote: View Post
                              The Teachers are the majority owners - I'm not sure it is that big of an assumption but, I do agree, that is an opinion statement.

                              We'd have to disagree on BC's job. It has not been a rousing success but there have been good times especially considering the state of things when he took over. An Atlantic championship, 2 playoff appearances, 5th at the ASG last season was not horrible. There has been a lot of well-noted bad luck along the way (Garbo, Bosh injuries last year, players quitting last year). They do have assets, good value from the 9 and 13 picks the last 2 years, a high draft pick this year, and the 5th lowest payroll heading in to next season with an uncertain future due to the CBA situation.

                              Given the state of the franchise over its 16 years of existence, horrible can be a relative term.

                              I still stick to the claim there is no worse ownership situation in the league than the current Raptors situation.
                              First off OTPP is a majority share holder in MLSE... that means they do have an influence in the day to day operations of the corporation, but thats significantly different than being a direct owner of a company. They do not sit there and tell MLSE or the Toronto Raptors exactly what to do. They do however help decide how money will/should be allocated. They do have an influence over how much money will go to salary, they do not however decide how salary will be spent... they exception ofcourse being the executive branches.

                              If you look around the league, look at lvls of success and failure, GMs that have been moved and brought in... you will find this ownership group is not nearly as bad as others out there. Its easy to say they are the worst because this team is bad, and they are a big faceless corporation, but just spend sometime reading up on other owners, ownership groups, their involvement with their teams, their actions.... many other teams failures can be directly attributed to onwerships. This teams is due to its GM.

                              One of the interesting things I find here is how people who like (or maybe atleast don't dislike) BC still don't like MLSE and even further OTPP. Which I find interesting. When they signed BC they gave him free reigns to do as he pleased, took a step back from the organization. Almost everything this team has done over the past 5 years is BCs child.... the only exception perhaps being Sam Mitchell, but he also did resign him after one year (any of the few players left when his first season started could have been potentially been moved... the majority were...., Bosh was signed to an extension under BC, Jose and Mo Pete weren't BCs but they were quality players anyways) While they didn't open the wallet to unlimited spending they did allow him to spend up to the max, with the ability to spend over if it would be worthwhile. There are not alot of teams that get that privilege. They more or less gave him the ability to do what he wanted, within reasons, which I would think should be supported by those who are on BC's side(?).

                              That said I guess I'm the opposite... I have nothing against MLSE or OTPP but do not like what BC has done with this team. I have no issues with them as they are a strong ownership group, which greatly reduces the possibility of the team being moved. It is also an ownership group with a lot of $, which means given the right situation, they will be open to spend above the cap... thereby helping create the possibility of a championship team in Toronto. (note: I don't think spending money necessarily means winning, but there aren't a lot of teams who win that don't spend. While having money doesn't guarantee it will be spent, its atleast is more likely than not having money).

                              Now I just want to take note that I have not always disliked BC... I do however think that he has made some very bad decisions since he took over. I'm not sure if they were due to an overreaction due to injuries, Bosh potentially leaving etc, or if it was due to arrogance in his own ability. I was initially excited about him coming, happy with his first year, satisfied with his second, understanding of his 3rd, disappointed in this 4th, disgusted with his 5th. I think any of his good moves have been suprpassed by his bad ones.... and more than anything his unwillingness to let go of this Bargnani dream he has led to the majority of this teams problems (that and both building around and not trading Bosh... when it was abundantly clear that Bosh was neither someone to build around or was going to stick around with the team).

                              I will be highly disappointed in MLSE if BC is resigned with this team.... I will much less disappointed if BC is resigned and does something about the failed Bargnani experiment. Atleast then he and this organization can start taking steps forward rather than backwards or sideways.

                              I think we as fans put way too much credence into who or what owns a team. The ones I would be much more concerned about are the ones who stick their nose into the GMs business and limit his ability to do what he wants or needs to do. Not the ones that sit back and say run this team and your next contract will be based on what you achieved. This ownersip group is making the right decision as of right now by not yet resignin BC. Both from a financial perspective (ie. OTPP want to keep costs low in order to potentially sell their share) and from a team perspective (ie. not rewarding BC for spending 5 years to build a 22 win team). While I do want stable management with this team... I want good stable management, not just the status quo because its easy.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X