Raptors Next GM

[Raptors_]

i think they'll resign BC if they want this team to be successful. There aren't any other GM's out there i'd take. But considering how stupid MLSE is they'll probably let him go.

[Apollo]

Well, if you want to get technical, consensus is not a majority

Yes, let's get technical:

con·sen·sus   /kənˈsɛnsəs/ Show Spelled
[kuhn-sen-suhs]
–noun, plural -sus·es.
1. majority of opinion

Source: Dictionary.com

And the majority of people can vote for something but that doesn't mean a large portion can't vote for something else. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

No doubt but Golden posted a link that showed the minority (7%) was not a large portion.

[Employee]

Pritchard wouldn't have accomplished much if billionaire owner Paul Allen had not went out and bought up draft picks and tossed money around. He won't have that luxury in Indiana where they're in the red and have the worst attendance in the league. They were in the red before their attendance plummeted by the way...

Fair enough. But his trades were pretty solid too and what he did with all the picks was impressive.

I think the good outweighs the bad here: http://hoopshype.com/general_manager..._pritchard.htm

[Tim W.]

Hey, when you're saying one minute you agree that Oden was the consensus #1 and the next minute you're saying a large portion of the population felt Durant was the top pick you should be able to understand why I didn't follow.

Well, if you want to get technical, consensus is not a majority but simply the group as a whole agreeing on one thing. And the majority of people can vote for something but that doesn't mean a large portion can't vote for something else. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

[Apollo]

Hey, when you're saying one minute you agree that Oden was the consensus #1 and the next minute you're saying a large portion felt Durant was the top pick you should be able to understand why I didn't follow. Define "large portion" for me because this is that part I'm sticking on. There is a link in this thread posted by Golden where it clearly shows 93% of the major mock drafts suggesting Oden was the #1 pick. Do you define 7% as a large portion?

[Tim W.]

Tim, consensus means majority.

Yes, I know consensus means majority, which is why I said "yes, the majority of people", as in agreeing that the consensus said that Oden was the top pick. My point, which you seemed to miss, was that while Oden was the consensus pick, he was not the undisputed best player, like Tim Duncan was. In other words, selecting Kevin Durant first would have been a surprise, but certainly a controversial move like drafting Keith Van Horn over Tim Duncan. In fact, quite a number of experts were saying that Portland would have been better off drafting Durant instead of Oden at the time.

[Tim W.]

geez, tim, relax...it feels like you're creating an argument here. i agree with you, i was simply saying that discounting individuals out of hand is as silly as assuming someone would be qualified based on unrelated experience. you go down that road, and all of a sudden, you're discounting legit prospects because they've 'only' ever been an asst GM, or an asst coach, when they may be the best candidate for the job.

oh, and for FWIW, some of the roles you mentioned above (scouting, running the business side, etc.) are largely handled - or can be - by assistants. the key becomes whether the GM is smart enough to hire the right people for those jobs. further, nash has not exhibited any DOCUMENTED ability to scout or judge players, because he's a player, and not a GM...but to assume he doesn't know other players' strenghs & weaknesses as well or better than most involved in scouting/coaching/managing is, IMO, patently absurd. i'm speaking only, of course, of pro players, and the realistic limitation that comes with the fact that he doesn't 'see' as many players who aren't his direct competitors or teammates.

lastly, i absolutely agree that being a great player does not equate to being a great coach or manager...but i do think that the TYPE of great player (or hell, mediocre player) one is can be a sign of the type of coach/manager one can be. nash gets it. he wasn't someone born with a gift to be great, he made himself great. there is probably not a harder worker in terms of preparing himself mentally & physically to be the best he can be in the L, and i think those traits go a long way in determining how successful - or not - one can be at managing.

I didn't realize I was getting worked up. Just responding to a comment.

And I'm not dismissing anyone out of hand, just as I'm not dismissing looking at someone from the Spurs or Thunder organization, I'm just saying that too many people assume that just because someone was a great player or worked for a great organization means they are qualified to teach/coach/GM. For all we know, the next best GM might be working for Sacramento.

[Apollo]

Pritchard wouldn't have accomplished much if billionaire owner Paul Allen had not went out and bought up draft picks and tossed money around. He won't have that luxury in Indiana where they're in the red and have the worst attendance in the league. They were in the red before their attendance plummeted by the way...

[Employee]

Well at least some teams are getting their sh*t together. Mark my words, watch out if the Pacers get him.

[Apollo]

Another example from Indiana on how it's done

Spurs assistant GM Dennis Lindsey isn’t the only person the Pacers have called around to do background checks on.

They’ve also checked on former Portland general manager Kevin Pritchard, according to a source.

Pritchard traveled with the Pacers on two of their West Coast games in January. Pritchard and Bird are former teammates with the Boston Celtics.

Bird could bring in a new general manager if he returns and decides to part ways with Morway.

The Pacers also have to hire a coach.

Source: RealGM.com

[Apollo]

Not according to a number of people who wondered whether Oden would struggle with injuries throughout his career. Yes, the majority of people felt Oden was the best pick, but there was a large portion of the basketball population that felt that Durant was the better pick and the player who would have the better career. This wasn't exactly Tim Duncan, here.

Tim, consensus means majority.

[yertu damkule]

Being a coach and being a GM are two very different things. And the number of players who have immediately gone on to become a head coach and succeeded are tiny. Maybe a few? As for running a franchise immediately, it's even less, I think.

My point, though, is that Steve Nash has not exhibited any ability to scout and judge players. Nor has he exhibited any knowledge of how the team runs on the business side. I think he's a smart guy, and he's obviously a great player, but I just think it's ludicrous when people assume that just because a guy is a great player he will also be a great teach/coach/GM etc. It doesn't work that way.

geez, tim, relax...it feels like you're creating an argument here. i agree with you, i was simply saying that discounting individuals out of hand is as silly as assuming someone would be qualified based on unrelated experience. you go down that road, and all of a sudden, you're discounting legit prospects because they've 'only' ever been an asst GM, or an asst coach, when they may be the best candidate for the job.

oh, and for FWIW, some of the roles you mentioned above (scouting, running the business side, etc.) are largely handled - or can be - by assistants. the key becomes whether the GM is smart enough to hire the right people for those jobs. further, nash has not exhibited any DOCUMENTED ability to scout or judge players, because he's a player, and not a GM...but to assume he doesn't know other players' strenghs & weaknesses as well or better than most involved in scouting/coaching/managing is, IMO, patently absurd. i'm speaking only, of course, of pro players, and the realistic limitation that comes with the fact that he doesn't 'see' as many players who aren't his direct competitors or teammates.

lastly, i absolutely agree that being a great player does not equate to being a great coach or manager...but i do think that the TYPE of great player (or hell, mediocre player) one is can be a sign of the type of coach/manager one can be. nash gets it. he wasn't someone born with a gift to be great, he made himself great. there is probably not a harder worker in terms of preparing himself mentally & physically to be the best he can be in the L, and i think those traits go a long way in determining how successful - or not - one can be at managing.

[slaw]

Source: RealGM.com

See this is the kind of stuff I've been talking about. Most of the good options are going to be gone by the time the Accountant comes on board or gets his way.

Apollo, as I speculated before, I think OTPP is doing exactly what it wants: it gets BC to run the draft; let's everyone expire; lockout happens July 1; name placeholder interim GM or potted plant; continue with MLSE sale; close MLSE sale late in year; leave new ownership to sort out mess prior to new season beginning in January or February(?). If they wanted a GM in place (either BC or someone else) they would have done it already. I believe that the current scenario isn't by happenstance, it's a plan.

[Tim W.]

well, to be fair, what credentials do ANY current players have to be anything related to the running of a pro team, or coaching? in general, i agree...but at the same time, i wouldn't want to discount anyone out of hand. with respect to nash, i could see him being successful in a team-building role - as mentioned above, he's a guy who simply 'gets it.' not that i would necessarily want his first GM experience to be as a raptor...it would be nice if he became involved with the team (or any team) in an assistant-GM capacity first (though the ideal mentor, IMO, wouldn't be BC), and develop the necessary skills/experience to become a GM over the course of a few seasons - like stevie Y.

Being a coach and being a GM are two very different things. And the number of players who have immediately gone on to become a head coach and succeeded are tiny. Maybe a few? As for running a franchise immediately, it's even less, I think.

My point, though, is that Steve Nash has not exhibited any ability to scout and judge players. Nor has he exhibited any knowledge of how the team runs on the business side. I think he's a smart guy, and he's obviously a great player, but I just think it's ludicrous when people assume that just because a guy is a great player he will also be a great teach/coach/GM etc. It doesn't work that way.

[yertu damkule]

The name isn't the important information. It's the actual act that's the important thing here. This doesn't validate Lindsey as a good candidate, just as a canadidate.

i'll give you that. i guess i just got confused when you said, 'Most of the good options are going to be gone by the time the Accountant comes on board or gets his way.' i assumed you were implying that lindsey was one of those you consider a 'good' option. my bad...

time will tell. meanwhile...tick-tock...what's the over/under on navel-gazing by the board?