Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Raptors Next GM

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

  • #61
    Tim W. wrote: View Post
    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.
    Last edited by yertu damkule; Mon May 2, 2011, 01:48 PM.
    TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.

    Comment


    • #62
      Tim W. wrote: View Post
      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.

      Comment


      • #63
        Another example from Indiana on how it's done

        Source: RealGM.com

        Comment


        • #64
          Well at least some teams are getting their sh*t together. Mark my words, watch out if the Pacers get him.
          Eh follow my TWITTER!

          Comment


          • #65
            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...

            Comment


            • #66
              yertu damkule wrote: View Post
              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.
              Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
              Follow me on Twitter.

              Comment


              • #67
                Apollo wrote: View Post
                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.
                Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                Follow me on Twitter.

                Comment


                • #68
                  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?

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Apollo wrote: View Post
                    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.
                    Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                    Follow me on Twitter.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Apollo wrote: View Post
                      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
                      Eh follow my TWITTER!

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Tim W. wrote: View Post
                        Well, if you want to get technical, consensus is not a majority
                        Yes, let's get technical:

                        majority of opinion
                        Source: Dictionary.com

                        Tim W. wrote: View Post
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Apollo wrote: View Post
                            Yes, let's get technical:

                            Source: Dictionary.com


                            No doubt but Golden posted a link that showed the minority (7%) was not a large portion.
                            Again, those were predictions, not polls as to who they THINK should be drafted first. As I said, it was pretty clear that Portland was going to draft Oden, which is why everyone predicted they would. Only 7% predicted they would select Oden. But that has nothing to do with what people felt they should have done.

                            Oden was the favourite, but there was quite a few who felt that Durant would be the better player and the better pick. Of course, the only one I can think of at this point is Bill Simmons, but he wasn't the only one by far. I know my buddy and I debated right up until the draft who they should pick (we both decided Oden).

                            Not that it matters, but here's another definition...

                            1. An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole: "Among political women . . . there is a clear consensus about the problems women candidates have traditionally faced" (Wendy Kaminer). See Usage Note at redundancy.
                            2. General agreement or accord: government by consensus.

                            http://www.thefreedictionary.com/consensus
                            Read my blog, The Picket Fence. Guaranteed to make you think or your money back!
                            Follow me on Twitter.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Tim,

                              It's ok to be wrong sometimes you know. I have never seen you admit you're wrong on anything. You're always right to the bitter end. Well, if you can't see you're wrong here then I'm not going to waste any more time with you on this. It's blantantly obvious that Durant wasn't being consider a real option for the #1 overall pick heading into the 2007 draft. There was just a small minority. He wasn't being seriously tossed around by most. There was no large group saying he was the guy. That he was the best.

                              If you called it back then, hats off to you because if you did you were in a select few.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                fellas, fellas...chill with the pissing contest. i get the impression that tim is implying that while most pundits thought portland WOULD pick oden over durant, there were more who felt that they SHOULD pick durant over oden. i actually thought the blazers would pick durant, simply because of the risk for that franchise in particular in picking a big who had a questionable health history over a guy who had the potential to be an all-timer...and how devastating it would be for the fanbase to go through something like that again.

                                and, uh, remembering that it's ok to be wrong sometimes is applicable to everyone.
                                TRUE LOVE - Sometimes you know it the instant you see it across the bar.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X