# Carroll Dawson officially a horrible GM?



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

Is it true?


----------



## sdfgtrew (Apr 4, 2006)

yes,cd is horrible beyond my mom


----------



## Yao Mania (Aug 4, 2003)

c'mon now, trade's not announced yet, lets wait this one out...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

if he really traded rudy gay for just shane battier, then yes.


----------



## Hibachi! (Sep 18, 2003)

If he traded Rudy Gay for Shane Battier then he's a ****ing moron. If he traded Rudy Gay AND Stromile Swift for Shane Battier, then he might be legally retarded.


----------



## Ballscientist (Nov 11, 2002)

He traded for R jefferson and 2 other first rounders for eddie griffen, he signed Taylor for $10M a year contract..................


----------



## RoxFan (Jun 29, 2006)

Yes CD is a moron...this is what he gives us as a parting gift? thanks CD! He could have gone out on a good note by giving the fans what they wanted, but no. Now we have to hope T-Mac and Yao can win without a 3rd scoring option.


----------



## rainman (Jul 15, 2002)

i think in rudy gay you would be waiting a few years for him to develope. battier to me gives the team the best chance to win a title right now.


----------



## Samael (Sep 1, 2005)

CD is a homophobe it's the real reason why Gay was traded.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

I don't think He has made a good move since Trading for T-Mac.


----------



## J Blaze (Jun 21, 2004)

Yao Mania said:


> c'mon now, trade's not announced yet, lets wait this one out...


Exactly! I'm holding out hope that the trade will not go through or there is something else to this trade. We will see and I have all the faith in the world something else will be included.


----------



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

yet again he mortgages our future for a temporary fill-in, like he did in 04.


----------



## deanwoof (Mar 10, 2003)

The trade that I read on ESPN was this:

Houston sends Stromile Swift + Rudy Gay 

to Memphis for

Shane Battier


----------



## Like A Breath (Jun 16, 2003)

I am still in shock.

This is one of the stupidest moves in NBA history, I'm not even using hyperbole. Rudy Gay is going to be better than Shane ****ing Battier from day 1.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Houston basically in a round about way just traded traded Carmelo Anthony for James Posey.

And dont give me that "time to develope" crap.....Gay is polished and can contribute right now. Drafting Reddick at 8 would not have hurt as bad as this.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Daryl Morey is running the show.


----------



## chocolove (Apr 4, 2006)

Horrible trade, even getting Battier isn't gonna help them win now, their still have 7 more horrible players, should of just waited it out with Gay and improve the rest of the team while waiting. Thats assuming Gay will take a couple years to develop


----------



## GNG (Aug 17, 2002)

The trade becomes official on July 12 from what I've read.

I think that's when Battier is no longer a BYC player.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Premier said:


> Daryl Morey is running the show.


 Apparently not. This has JVG written all over it. I'm still hoping we got something more than Battier out of it, but things look bleak.


----------



## ChristopherJ (Aug 10, 2004)

He needs to be put down for making this trade.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Mr. Predictable said:


> Apparently not. This has JVG written all over it. I'm still hoping we got something more than Battier out of it, but things look bleak.


Regardless, it's not looking good for Houston.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

:laugh:


----------



## darknezx (Apr 13, 2004)

**** him, he officially has eyes that can't see talent written all over Rudy Gay. Last season all the Rocket fans hoped for was a chance to draft Rudy Gay, then the chance of drafting him wasn't high. Now that we can finally get our hands on him, Carroll Dawson has to think up this trade.

He's officially the runaway leader for the Isiah Thomas trophy.


----------



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

im still in shock, I thought I would wakeup and none of this would have happened


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

This just demonstrates how little value Swift has. I partially admire the Rockets for owning up to their mistake from last summer by dumping Swift.

I'm :rotf: yet not surprised that it took the rights to Rudy Gay for the Rockets to upgrade from Swift to Battier.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

This will go down as one of the most unbalanced trades in NBA history. Gay's worst year could very well be better than Battier's best.

And I am a Battier fan. He is certainly a better defender than Rudy will be for at least a couple of years. But please. Gay is 19. Battier is 28.

And Stromile Swift is a useful piece, even if he is not a JVG type of player.


----------



## LA68 (Apr 3, 2004)

Zero Hero said:


> If he traded Rudy Gay for Shane Battier then he's a ****ing moron. If he traded Rudy Gay AND Stromile Swift for Shane Battier, then he might be legally retarded.


What has Swift done besides count cash ???

He is too soft to rebound, can't score. When Yao was out, what did he do...not a doggone thing!! He can't outplay old J Howard. Trading him would be a good thing. He has been in the league too long to do so little. 

As I said before. Gay is a ? Battier can play now. TMac's back will go out completely before Gay comes out of his shell, The Rockets can't afford to wait on him.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

LA68 said:


> As I said before. Gay is a ? Battier can play now. TMac's back will go out completely before Gay comes out of his shell, The Rockets can't afford to wait on him.


im tired of people saying this. If you feel that bad about McGrady's back this is exact reason why to keep Gay. Unless you want Yao's prime to start out like Hakeems....surrounded with bo bo


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Not as bad of a trade as you guys are making it out to be. As much potential as Rudy Gay has, he is still a risk, and he doesn't have the long ball in his game yet. If you told Rockets fans before the draft that they could walk away with Shane Battier at the 8th pick, I think they would be happy with that. 

This has been labeled a weak draft. Shane Battier is a jack of all trades player. He can shoot the long ball which compliments Yao, he can match up with the other teams best wing player, which takes defensive pressure off McGrady, and he hustles his butt off on every play. Plus you can never say enough about a guy who just knows the game of basketball. 

I obviously like this deal for Memphis too, but I think Battier for an 8th pick is pretty good value because he is a pretty good player, it's a sure thing, and he compliments your stars well, and fits the system.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

tone wone said:


> im tired of people saying this. If you feel that bad about McGrady's back this is exact reason why to keep Gay. Unless you want Yao's prime to start out like Hakeems....surrounded with bo bo


 This is an important point: Since McGrady has been hurt so much I think this is why you take a risk with Gay instead of just going with Battier. You need another star to complement Yao and if Tmac isn't available then it's worth waiting on Gay as Yao is still young.

If McGrady was completely healthy i could understand the trade from Houston's perpective a bit more but a back injury can become chronic


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Not as bad of a trade as you guys are making it out to be. As much potential as Rudy Gay has, he is still a risk, and he doesn't have the long ball in his game yet. If you told Rockets fans before the draft that they could walk away with Shane Battier at the 8th pick, I think they would be happy with that.
> 
> This has been labeled a weak draft. Shane Battier is a jack of all trades player. He can shoot the long ball which compliments Yao, he can match up with the other teams best wing player, which takes defensive pressure off McGrady, and he hustles his butt off on every play. Plus you can never say enough about a guy who just knows the game of basketball.


were not dealing with a regular 8th pick. A week ago Houston fans were talking about taking Ronnie Brewer at #8...no one ever considered getting a guy like Gay at that pick. Battier fits Houston perfectly but he aint worth Gay and Stro.

Alston/Head
McGrady/
Battier/Bogans/Bowen/Novak
Howard/Hayes
Yao/Deke

Add the MLE signing to this and you have Houstons roster. This is a 2nd round team at best...slightly better than the 04-05 team. So houston lost 43 games last year just to barley improve on a team that got beat by 40pts against Dallas.


----------



## crazyfan (Dec 9, 2005)

Leading up to the draft everyone was hoping houston will take rudy and most fans were hoping to get him although they knew the chances were slim. And when they finally got him they trade him away with Stro for Battier! Houston needs athletism everywhere on the court and they give up 2 super athletic players for battier, who is a fantastic player, but has moderate athletism and they add Steve Novak who is lights out shooter but cant do much else. Houston really get a F grade this year.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

Grade: "F"? 

Keep moving your hand to the right. G or H at best; maybe even J or K.


----------



## lilrip133 (Dec 25, 2005)

even though rudy gay doesn't have a long ball thats what they drafted novak for. rudy gay didnt get a rep as one of the best players if not the biggest potential pick for his shooting. its because he can flat out play. and stro is still one of the most athletic big men in the league, so you lose two crazy athletes and get one good player.. not god trade


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> Not as bad of a trade as you guys are making it out to be. As much potential as Rudy Gay has, he is still a risk, and he doesn't have the long ball in his game yet.


He's streaky, but he's considered to have a very good and natural shot. Even in the coming year, everything else Gay provides immediately makes Battier only a small amount better. Houston with Battier is not much more of a contender than Houston with Gay.

And in all future seasons, reasonable expectations are that Gay will dwarf Battier in value.



> If you told Rockets fans before the draft that they could walk away with Shane Battier at the 8th pick, I think they would be happy with that.


Because most people thought Gay would have been off the board. Battier compared to Brewer sounds okay. The fact that Houston got a stroke of luck that couldn't have been predicted doesn't make this trade less terrible.

Battier might not be bad value for the #8 pick, but they gave up amazing value for the #8 pick. That makes it a very, very poor trade.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> Battier might not be bad value for the #8 pick, but they gave up amazing value for the #8 pick. That makes it a very, very poor trade.


You're overlooking the negative value Swift has in this equation. Getting rid of Swift and his contract was important to the Rockets.

Another overlooked point is that players don't play in a vacuum. Gay's value under JVG is far less than his value under The Czar. I'd put the chances at 70% that Gay wouldn't develop properly under JVG.sd


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> You're overlooking the negative value Swift has in this equation. Getting rid of Swift and his contract was important to the Rockets.


I don't think that's true. All reports seemed to be that Dawson put a surprisingly high value on Swift. I don't think he viewed Swift as a crushing negative and Swift is not a crushing negative. He's been very overhyped in his career and he's probably not worth his contract, but it's not a huge contract. He does have some value on the court. For his money, he's quite equivalent to Al Harrington in value if Harrington gets his double-digit million contract.



> Another overlooked point is that players don't play in a vacuum. Gay's value under JVG is far less than his value under The Czar. I'd put the chances at 70% that Gay wouldn't develop properly under JVG.sd


If that's true, the answer is to fire Van Gundy. You don't cripple the talent of your team because your coach "won't develop them anyway."


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I don't think that's true. All reports seemed to be that Dawson put a surprisingly high value on Swift. I don't think he viewed Swift as a crushing negative and Swift is not a crushing negative. He's been very overhyped in his career and he's probably not worth his contract, but it's not a huge contract. He does have some value on the court. For his money, he's quite equivalent to Al Harrington in value if Harrington gets his double-digit million contract.


It is odd of you to use a report of Dawson's high opinion of Swift in the same thread where you are questioning his decision to trade Gay.

Swift has value about once every 4 or 5 games. Other than that, he makes a tremendous amount of dumb decisions that hurt his team. Comparing him to Al is a mistake because Al will score every game he plays while Swift is only consistent in his inconsistency. So yes, Swift is a negative




> If that's true, the answer is to fire Van Gundy. You don't cripple the talent of your team because your coach "won't develop them anyway."


What is the goal of a team? For most it is to win a championship and championship teams are often more than the sum of their parts. Very rarely does the most talented team win the championship.

Should Larry Brown have been fired by Detroit because he refused to develop Darko?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> It is odd of you to use a report of Dawson's high opinion of Swift in the same thread where you are questioning his decision to trade Gay.


I think you misunderstand my point. My point is not, "Hey, Dawson likes him, he must be good." My point is that I don't think _Dawson_ views him as a major negative, so I don't think Dawson's thinking was, "I'm going to give up Gay to make up for the massive negative that Swift represents." In other words, I don't think you're right about Dawson's reasoning for dealing Gay, that Gay was the cost of dumping Swift.



> Swift has value about once every 4 or 5 games. Other than that, he makes a tremendous amount of dumb decisions that hurt his team. Comparing him to Al is a mistake because Al will score every game he plays while Swift is only consistent in his inconsistency. So yes, Swift is a negative


Both score inefficiently. Neither is a terribly great rebounder or passer. Both are inconsistent defenders. While I think Harrington is marginally more valuable, Harrington will also likely be paid more.

Swift is a negative, but not a major one considering he's not paid a ton. At worst, he's an overpaid backup. He's not a payroll crusher that has to be moved, regardless of what the cost is.



> What is the goal of a team? For most it is to win a championship and championship teams are often more than the sum of their parts. Very rarely does the most talented team win the championship.


I'd argue the opposite. Very rarely does the most talented _not_ win a series. Chemistry matters also, but talent almost always rules in the NBA. The supposed exceptions are generally people focusing on the names, rather than the ability. The Detroit Pistons beating the Los Angeles Lakers in the 2004 Finals was not an example of the less-talented team prevailing. It was a matter of the Lakers' "four Hall of Famers" hype being unfounded. Gary Payton was nowhere near his Hall of Fame prime ability. Malone was no longer a Hall of Fame caliber player and he was hurt. It boiled down to Shaq and Kobe versus an extremely deep, balanced and talented Pistons team.

The best teams in the NBA, in no particular order, are the Pistons, Heat, Mavericks, Spurs and Suns. The five most talented teams in the NBA are the exact same list.

So, the goal is to win the championship. The method is to acquire and develop as much talent as possible.



> Should Larry Brown have been fired by Detroit because he refused to develop Darko?


Brown is a Hall of Fame coach, so the positives he brought probably outweighed the negatives of being unable/unwilling to develop the team's young talent. Further, Detroit already had a championship nucleus, so it was not quite as important.

Van Gundy does not have Brown's bonafides, so his negatives may not be outweighed by positives. Further, Houston still needs to build their talent to championship-caliber...if Van Gundy hampers that, he's hurting their ability to win a championship.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> I think you misunderstand my point. My point is not, "Hey, Dawson likes him, he must be good." My point is that I don't think _Dawson_ views him as a major negative, so I don't think Dawson's thinking was, "I'm going to give up Gay to make up for the massive negative that Swift represents." In other words, I don't think you're right about Dawson's reasoning for dealing Gay, that Gay was the cost of dumping Swift.


Yes I did misunderstand your point; however, Swift was an absolute disapointment for Houston (not that I was surprised by that). He is an even bigger failure as a FA signing when you consider the lost opportunity cost of not landing the other players available last summer with the MLE. We can continue to debate this or agree to disagree.



> Both score inefficiently. Neither is a terribly great rebounder or passer. Both are inconsistent defenders. While I think Harrington is marginally more valuable, Harrington will also likely be paid more.
> 
> Swift is a negative, but not a major one considering he's not paid a ton. At worst, he's an overpaid backup. He's not a payroll crusher that has to be moved, regardless of what the cost is.


Harrington is at least 10 times the offensive player Swift is because he has more ways to score. Additionally, although not a great passer, he is light years ahead of Swift. You also are overlooking BBall IQ in which Harrington has a huge advantage (not that Harrington is that smart of a player, rather Swift is that dumb).




> I'd argue the opposite. Very rarely does the most talented _not_ win a series. Chemistry matters also, but talent almost always rules in the NBA. The supposed exceptions are generally people focusing on the names, rather than the ability. The Detroit Pistons beating the Los Angeles Lakers in the 2004 Finals was not an example of the less-talented team prevailing. It was a matter of the Lakers' "four Hall of Famers" hype being unfounded. Gary Payton was nowhere near his Hall of Fame prime ability. Malone was no longer a Hall of Fame caliber player and he was hurt. It boiled down to Shaq and Kobe versus an extremely deep, balanced and talented Pistons team.
> 
> The best teams in the NBA, in no particular order, are the Pistons, Heat, Mavericks, Spurs and Suns. The five most talented teams in the NBA are the exact same list.
> 
> So, the goal is to win the championship. The method is to acquire and develop as much talent as possible.


The Mavs were a more talented team and they lost to the Heat. Where the Lakers that beat Kings and the Blazers more talented? I don't believe they were, rather they were the better team. Also, the Amare-less Suns weren't more talented than the Clippers. I can go on and on with examples, but the easiest one is the Knicks. On paper they have top 10 talent; however, they don't have talent that understands or desires to sublimate themselves for the greater good of the team.




> Brown is a Hall of Fame coach, so the positives he brought probably outweighed the negatives of being unable/unwilling to develop the team's young talent. Further, Detroit already had a championship nucleus, so it was not quite as important.
> 
> Van Gundy does not have Brown's bonafides, so his negatives may not be outweighed by positives. Further, Houston still needs to build their talent to championship-caliber...if Van Gundy hampers that, he's hurting their ability to win a championship.


Brown is an overrated coach that is given too much credit for his system. JVG took a mediocre Knicks team to the NBA Finals because of his system. This system is what Houston is commited to and it is a system that requires people to fit into it. Just as some players are better fits for the Triangle offense, others are better fits for JVG's system.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Yes I did misunderstand your point; however, Swift was an absolute disapointment for Houston (not that I was surprised by that). He is an even bigger failure as a FA signing when you consider the lost opportunity cost of not landing the other players available last summer with the MLE. We can continue to debate this or agree to disagree.


We're not disagreeing. I think Swift was a very poor signing. I simply don't think Dawson felt that Swift was such a major negative that he had to give away a possible star just to dump Swift. Again, Swift doesn't make enough for that. Even if Swift were the worst player in basketball, you call it a blown signing and bench him. His money is wasted, but it's not a crushing salary. You don't rationally give up a great prospect just to dump an MLE salary.



> Harrington is at least 10 times the offensive player Swift is because he has more ways to score. Additionally, although not a great passer, he is light years ahead of Swift. You also are overlooking BBall IQ in which Harrington has a huge advantage (not that Harrington is that smart of a player, rather Swift is that dumb).


You're debating the peripherals and ignoring what it means on the court. It doesn't matter "how many ways a player has to score." All that matters is how well and efficiently they put the ball into the net. Is Tony Parker a greater offensive player than a prime Shaq because he has "more ways to score"? Obviously not. Regardless of how many ways they have, a prime Shaq simply put the ball in the hoop much more effectively.

Neither player passes the ball well. Harrington is not "light years" ahead of anyone in the NBA as a passer. As for basketball IQ, Swift may be dumb as a rock, but it translates into only slightly worse production and defense.

Harrington may be slightly better as a passer and defender, but I've already said Harrington is better. But Harrington will also be paid more. Swift was an MLE signing, Harrington might get $10 million / year. At that price, Swift is no worse a contract than Harrington will be.



> The Mavs were a more talented team and they lost to the Heat.


Your opinion. Both teams were extremely talented. Arguing which of two incredibly talented teams "should have won" does nothing to show that you don't need a ton of talent to win a championship.



> Where the Lakers that beat Kings and the Blazers more talented? I don't believe they were, rather they were the better team.


Again, it's arguable. The Kings and Blazers had more evenly distributed talent, but neither team had players the caliber of Shaq and Kobe. The Lakers had a ton of talent concentrated into those two players, and a group of decent role-players. The Kings and Blazers had a group of good to very good players, but no uber-stars.



> Also, the Amare-less Suns weren't more talented than the Clippers.


They weren't less talented either. The two teams were extremely well-matched in talent and it was a great, tight series.



> I can go on and on with examples, but the easiest one is the Knicks. On paper they have top 10 talent


Well, I don't think your examples are proving your point.

In the case of the Knicks, it helps to look at _where_ they were talented. They had a fair amount of offensive talent, but they were definitely not talented in defense or rebounding. So I think your claim that they were a top-ten team in terms of talent is quite wrong. And if you look at their *offensive* ranking (by FG%, as a quick-and-dirty check, since PPG is influenced heavily by pace), they ranked 13th. Much higher than their winning percentage rank and near where you pegged them. Had Eddy Curry's production not fallen off from the previous season, they would have likely been top-ten.



> Brown is an overrated coach that is given too much credit for his system. JVG took a mediocre Knicks team to the NBA Finals because of his system.


Van Gundy took his Knicks team to a surprising Finals in an incredibly weak East. What has he done since then to suggest he's a tremendous coach?

Brown, meanwhile, has a string of successes. He got the Clippers, the symbol of futility, to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons. After he left, they wouldn't reach the playoffs again for a decade. He took a moribund Sixers franchise and made them a perennial Eastern contender, getting them to the Finals once. Since his departure, they've relapsed into a pretty mediocre franchise. He took Detroit to the Finals twice, winning the title once. It's interesting to note that, yet again, after his departure his former team struggles...despite still being extremely talented, they barely got past the Cavs and then got wiped out by the Heat.

Brown's record is substantiated by multiple instances of teams turning around (positively) after he arrived and then struggling when he leaves.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> We're not disagreeing. I think Swift was a very poor signing. I simply don't think Dawson felt that Swift was such a major negative that he had to give away a possible star just to dump Swift. Again, Swift doesn't make enough for that. Even if Swift were the worst player in basketball, you call it a blown signing and bench him. His money is wasted, but it's not a crushing salary. You don't rationally give up a great prospect just to dump an MLE salary.


Well, I'm not willing to stipulate to great prospect and neither one of us has mentioned lockerroom issues. Swift has a very recent history of being a malcontent when not getting the playing time he thinks he deserves.



> You're debating the peripherals and ignoring what it means on the court. It doesn't matter "how many ways a player has to score." All that matters is how well and efficiently they put the ball into the net. Is Tony Parker a greater offensive player than a prime Shaq because he has "more ways to score"? Obviously not. Regardless of how many ways they have, a prime Shaq simply put the ball in the hoop much more effectively.
> 
> Neither player passes the ball well. Harrington is not "light years" ahead of anyone in the NBA as a passer. As for basketball IQ, Swift may be dumb as a rock, but it translates into only slightly worse production and defense.
> 
> Harrington may be slightly better as a passer and defender, but I've already said Harrington is better. But Harrington will also be paid more. Swift was an MLE signing, Harrington might get $10 million / year. At that price, Swift is no worse a contract than Harrington will be.


Comparing a PG and C isn't a fair comparison. Swift and Harrington are both ostensibly PF's. I fully agree that $10 million is too much for Harrington, but I disgree that overpaying for someone that can produce consistently is the same as overpaying for someone that infrequently produces.



> Your opinion. Both teams were extremely talented. Arguing which of two incredibly talented teams "should have won" does nothing to show that you don't need a ton of talent to win a championship.
> 
> Again, it's arguable. The Kings and Blazers had more evenly distributed talent, but neither team had players the caliber of Shaq and Kobe. The Lakers had a ton of talent concentrated into those two players, and a group of decent role-players. The Kings and Blazers had a group of good to very good players, but no uber-stars.
> 
> ...


When you talk about where they are talented, you open up a new can of worms as being a good teammate, fitting into team concepts and filling your assigned role are all talents. Phil's Bulls and Lakers teams were the epitome of teams having that kind of talent.



> Van Gundy took his Knicks team to a surprising Finals in an incredibly weak East. What has he done since then to suggest he's a tremendous coach?
> 
> Brown, meanwhile, has a string of successes. He got the Clippers, the symbol of futility, to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons. After he left, they wouldn't reach the playoffs again for a decade. He took a moribund Sixers franchise and made them a perennial Eastern contender, getting them to the Finals once. Since his departure, they've relapsed into a pretty mediocre franchise. He took Detroit to the Finals twice, winning the title once. It's interesting to note that, yet again, after his departure his former team struggles...despite still being extremely talented, they barely got past the Cavs and then got wiped out by the Heat.
> 
> Brown's record is substantiated by multiple instances of teams turning around (positively) after he arrived and then struggling when he leaves.


The 1999 East wasn't weak and you are giving Brown too much credit. I also noticed that you left out his time in Indiana where Larry Bird and Rick Carlisle took the team to the finals after Brown left. You also are missing the fact that the Clippers made the playoffs under Bill Fitch in 4 seasons later. The Sixers got worse after he left because Billy King is a flat out idiot. 

As far as Detroit, they got the second finals over a very injured Heat team and they lost to a heathly Heat team this past season. Brown doesn't make one bit of difference in that equation.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Comparing a PG and C isn't a fair comparison. Swift and Harrington are both ostensibly PF's.


The principle is still the same. Number of ways to score doesn't matter...scoring effectively is what matters. If you have two forwards, and one can only slash while the other can slash, shoot mid-range jumpers, shoot three-pointers and post-up, but the first forward scores 20 PPG on 1.5 PPS (point per shot, 1.5 being incredible) and the second scores 18 PPG on 0.80 PPS (weak), who's more valuable?

I think the first forward pretty clearly is. He may only get it done one way, but he gets it done better.

Swift is actually a more efficient scorer than Harrington, despite Harrington's more varied repitoire. Harrington may be more fun to watch, but he's not a more effective scorer, really



> I fully agree that $10 million is too much for Harrington, but I disgree that overpaying for someone that can produce consistently is the same as overpaying for someone that infrequently produces.


They both produce a certain amount, Harrington a bit more. It's arguable whether consistent production is more valuable than seesawing between highs and lows but, in the end, Harrington's final production is really not that much higher.



> When you talk about where they are talented, you open up a new can of worms as being a good teammate, fitting into team concepts and filling your assigned role are all talents. Phil's Bulls and Lakers teams were the epitome of teams having that kind of talent.


They were also the epitome of having some of the best players in the game and good, competent role-players surrounding them. That style of team (concentrating a great deal of your overall talent into two or three players) is usually the most successful because the Derek Fishers and the Ron Harpers of the world aren't going to vye with the Jordans and Shaqs for shots. I don't think that's "talent for fitting in," I think that's role-players knowing that they are expendable while the stars are not.

Jackson's Bulls and Lakers teams (that won titles) were far from untalented, though. They were extremely talented. They aren't examples of how the less talented teams win championships.



> The 1999 East wasn't weak


The East had been declining for years. The Bulls had masked that by giving the East a great team to play in the Finals. Once the Bulls were broken up, you were left with a bunch of mediocre teams and a couple of good ones. Definitely no great teams.

And, still...what has Van Gundy done since 1999?



> and you are giving Brown too much credit. I also noticed that you left out his time in Indiana where Larry Bird and Rick Carlisle took the team to the finals after Brown left. You also are missing the fact that the Clippers made the playoffs under Bill Fitch in 4 seasons later. The Sixers got worse after he left because Billy King is a flat out idiot.


Okay, I forgot the Clippers made the playoffs in 1997. True, but it still doesn't invalidate the fact that Brown did a great job with the Clippers, a team that was mostly futile before and after him. The Pacers made the playoffs three years after his departure, but were a perfectly successful team under Brown, getting close to the Finals a couple of times. The Bulls were consistently in the way of the Pacers under Brown; Bird got the Pacers to the Finals after the Bulls were gone and East had sunk into extreme mediocrity. I think the removal of the Bulls as an obstacle played a much greater role in Indiana's finally breaking through, not Bird's stewardship.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> The principle is still the same. Number of ways to score doesn't matter...scoring effectively is what matters. If you have two forwards, and one can only slash while the other can slash, shoot mid-range jumpers, shoot three-pointers and post-up, but the first forward scores 20 PPG on 1.5 PPS (point per shot, 1.5 being incredible) and the second scores 18 PPG on 0.80 PPS (weak), who's more valuable?
> 
> I think the first forward pretty clearly is. He may only get it done one way, but he gets it done better.
> 
> Swift is actually a more efficient scorer than Harrington, despite Harrington's more varied repitoire. Harrington may be more fun to watch, but he's not a more effective scorer, really


Again you are exagerating the differences. Last season, Swift had a PPS of 1.066 and Harrington had a PPS of 1.026. This minimal difference takes this part of the evaluation out of the equation. Consider that the past two seasons, Kenyon Martin has had a better PPS than Rasheed Wallace does that make him a better scorer?






> And, still...what has Van Gundy done since 1999?


You mean besides getting a declining Knicks team into the playoffs and then improving the Rockets?




> Okay, I forgot the Clippers made the playoffs in 1997. True, but it still doesn't invalidate the fact that Brown did a great job with the Clippers, a team that was mostly futile before and after him. The Pacers made the playoffs three years after his departure, but were a perfectly successful team under Brown, getting close to the Finals a couple of times. The Bulls were consistently in the way of the Pacers under Brown; Bird got the Pacers to the Finals after the Bulls were gone and East had sunk into extreme mediocrity. I think the removal of the Bulls as an obstacle played a much greater role in Indiana's finally breaking through, not Bird's stewardship.


Bird took a team that Brown had lead to a 39-47 record in 96-97 to a 58-24 record the very next season. Not only did the Pacers have more playoff success, they also were a better team. Yes Brown had some nice seasons but he also took over a playoff team from Bob Hill that added Antonio Davis and Byron Scott to its roster. The Pacers are a clear example of Brown's overrated-ness.

With the Clippers, you also have to look at the roster changes they had after Brown left such as trading away Danny Manning


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> You mean besides getting a declining Knicks team into the playoffs and then *improving the Rockets*?


your sure about that?

In Rudy T's last season with Houston (02-03), they had a record of 43-39 and barely missed the playoffs. Mind you this was Yao's rookie season. The next year Van Gundy "improved" their record to 45-37 making the playoffs and losing in the first round to the lakers. An improvement of a full 2 games.

And if im not mistaken that '99 Knicks was considered to be somewhat of a disapointment going into the playoffs even though they had injuries problems that year. Them playing better in the playoffs had a lot to do with Camby being healthy and logging starter minutes.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

cpawfan said:


> Again you are exagerating the differences. Last season, Swift had a PPS of 1.066 and Harrington had a PPS of 1.026. This minimal difference takes this part of the evaluation out of the equation.


It doesn't take it out of the equation, it simply makes it less of a slam dunk. The overarching point is not that Swift is a better offensive player (he's not), but that Harrington is not that much better. To claim he's "ten times" the offensive player because he has more moves is crazy. He's a better offensive player because he scores more without dropping off in efficiency too much, but he's not _much_ better. If Harrington played as third option to McGrady and Yao, his scoring output would be considerably lower.



> You mean besides getting a declining Knicks team into the playoffs and then improving the Rockets?


Getting the Knicks into the playoffs was not impressive. They weren't bereft of talent and the East was the same horrible conference.

He didn't make the Rockets better. He took the team to a substantially similar record as Tomjanovich did the year before, but with a better, older Yao.



> The Pacers are a clear example of Brown's overrated-ness.


The Pacers, in basically not getting better or worse with Brown, clearly prove he's overrated. But his obvious successes in LA, Philadelphia and Detroit show nothing. That seems a bit selective.

The only time Brown has clearly failed was this past year in New York. But his career prior was long and stellar.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

tone wone said:


> your sure about that?
> 
> In Rudy T's last season with Houston (02-03), they had a record of 43-39 and barely missed the playoffs. Mind you this was Yao's rookie season. The next year Van Gundy "improved" their record to 45-37 making the playoffs and losing in the first round to the lakers. An improvement of a full 2 games.
> 
> And if im not mistaken that '99 Knicks was considered to be somewhat of a disapointment going into the playoffs even though they had injuries problems that year. Them playing better in the playoffs had a lot to do with Camby being healthy and logging starter minutes.


Well, JVG convinced ownership and management that they needed to trade Francis. That can't be underestimated in how much that has improved the team.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

cpawfan said:


> Well, JVG convinced ownership and management that they needed to trade Francis. That can't be underestimated in how much that has improved the team.


Van Gundy does seem to have reach when it comes to personel moves but McGrady had more to do with that trade than anyone with the rockets...other than Yao maybe. Tracy dictated that entire deal....he wanted to play with Yao. 

Him and Orlando had a fallin out cause he woulnd't sign an extension. Given how much you have give up for a player like tracy knowing he only has one year left on his deal would make teams a little cautious. Tracy told Houston he would sign an extension if they traded for him...he wouldn't make that promise for other teams (Indiana and Phoenix in particular).


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> It doesn't take it out of the equation, it simply makes it less of a slam dunk. The overarching point is not that Swift is a better offensive player (he's not), but that Harrington is not that much better. To claim he's "ten times" the offensive player because he has more moves is crazy. He's a better offensive player because he scores more without dropping off in efficiency too much, but he's not _much_ better. If Harrington played as third option to McGrady and Yao, his scoring output would be considerably lower.


We've been going back and forth on this and the original context has been lost. Plus, you have a far greater opinion of Swift and a far lower opinion of Harrington than I do. While I don't mind having a long back and forth, these are two players that I don't wish to have it about.



> Getting the Knicks into the playoffs was not impressive. They weren't bereft of talent and the East was the same horrible conference.


Anytime a coach can get mismatched talent to perform to a level that is greater than the sum of their parts, it is impressive. After all, that is what you are crediting Brown for doing. Sure, on paper, those Knicks teams had talent; however, they were seriously flawed teams anchored by an injured former all star center that couldn't deal with the fact that he wasn't as good as he wanted to be.



> He didn't make the Rockets better. He took the team to a substantially similar record as Tomjanovich did the year before, but with a better, older Yao.


Better Yao, yes and worse Francis. Steve never truely adapted to what JVG wanted and it was hurting the Rockets. Getting more wins, even a slight amount, considering Francis is quite an acomplishment.




> The Pacers, in basically not getting better or worse with Brown, clearly prove he's overrated. But his obvious successes in LA, Philadelphia and Detroit show nothing. That seems a bit selective.
> 
> The only time Brown has clearly failed was this past year in New York. But his career prior was long and stellar.


I've already debunked the LA myth, it is far too early to draw any conclusions from Detroit and Philly has had to deal with incompetent management and coaching since Brown left. So yes, you can extract from the Philly situation that Brown is a better coach than Ayers, O'Brian and Cheeks.

Yes Brown has had a long career and he has won games, but that isn't my point. He is an overrated coach. Yes he is far better than the average coach and he is definitely a good coach, but I draw the line at calling him a great coach as his ego has long prevented that from happening.


----------



## cpawfan (Jun 20, 2004)

tone wone said:


> Van Gundy does seem to have reach when it comes to personel moves but McGrady had more to do with that trade than anyone with the rockets...other than Yao maybe. Tracy dictated that entire deal....he wanted to play with Yao.
> 
> Him and Orlando had a fallin out cause he woulnd't sign an extension. Given how much you have give up for a player like tracy knowing he only has one year left on his deal would make teams a little cautious. Tracy told Houston he would sign an extension if they traded for him...he wouldn't make that promise for other teams (Indiana and Phoenix in particular).


Certainly TMac wanting to come to Houston facilitated the process, but I have no doubts that Francis would have been shipped out by the Rockets during that time period.

While JVG can blend talents to build a team, he is primarily a system coach and he needs his best players to fit into that system.


----------

