From Canzano yesterday: Did PatterNash and KP really brand themselves that? Should it have been KPatterNash? That was truly atrocious basketball management (of the roster as well as the salaries) and if KP was responsible for much of anything before that fateful Roy draft day, then that does not speak well of his judgment/capabilities. Ed O.
I don't think it's any mistake that JC compares them to three ineffectual, incompetent and phony characters -- he's going to ride this narrative to the end. edit: and no, I don't think they ever branded themselves that way. It really was the Patterson-Nash slash and burn team; they were hired to clean up a mess and get the team's finances in order (which they mostly did) they just happened to be incapable of playing nice with the media (Patterson) or finding adequate talent to replace the players they got rid of for pennies on the dollar (Nash).
At first glance of the thread title, I thought it was talking about Miami's Max 3. Although in their case, I think "The 3 MiamEgos" might be more appropriate.
PatterNash extended Ratliff and Zach and Miles. They f'd up the salary structure while failing to acquire good players. I think you're giving them too much credit. With that being said, I never really heard that KP was part of a troika with PatterNash, and I agree with you that it's probably JC being less than correct in order to make a point. Ed O.
I guess I should have clarified. Patterson was brought in to clean up the business side (the arena financing, cutting non basketball ops related spending, etc.) and Nash was given a mandate to get rid of the players seen as bad eggs. You are correct that the big contracts given Zach, Theo and Darius were pretty insane, but I think they probably felt like they had to try and build around something because I don't think PA was quite ready to commit to a complete gutting and rebuild through the draft. I think he figured he could probably retool the way the Blazers did after the Porter-Clyde-Buck years.
Probably, given the Rasheed trade (the team's future would have been much better had the team made the deal directly with the Pistons that netted the Hawks Josh Smith). That's entirely consistent with PatterNash f'ing things up, though. Ed O.
I'm going to judge Pritchard based on what the team looked like before he became GM compared to what it was when he left. I will not be judging him based on a nickname they all called each other after 2 beers in the Indianapolis airport before he was the GM.
If my aunt had balls, then she'd be my uncle. If Brandon Roy had been injured the past three years, then he would not have made 3 straight All-Star teams. If opinions based on conjecture did not exist, then this board would not exist.
I'll stick by the general meme that Pritchard pushed hard for Chris Paul, regardless of what the Human Cicada Steve Patterson said in his latest appearance. Of course, if Kevin Pritchard thought Telfair was a better long-term answer, then that doesn't reflect very well on his judgement/capabilities.
(I'll respond to you both, since you appear to be the same person.) I'm sorry that you can't simply answer my questions. Ever. I'm sorry that you can't see anything as something less than an attack on KP. My question was whether the three, including KP, actually shared power as Canzano stated. If they DID, then KP deserves some blame for the mess that PatterNash had (to this point) taken the heat over. Asking whether something occurred or not is not the same as asking a hypothetical question. It seems unlikely, given Canzano's personality as a columnist and his penchant for twisting things to fit his world view-of-the-moment, but I wanted to see what people thought. Fortunately, there are posters like Reep who actually add value to this board. Ed O.
You posed a hypothetical about if Pritchard did this or that. None of us know the answers. If you think any of us do, I question your own judgement/capabilities. Again, which poster on this board do you think knows the answer? Plus, as Odd pointed out, once cleared of Patterson and Nash, the organization turned around. I told you what I thought. I answered your hypothetical scenario with my own hypothetical scenarios. If asking questions that no one can possibly know the answer to is adding value, then let me ask you a question. What was Cho thinking when he recommended drafting Robert Swift, if he had anything to do with that pick?
Did you just forget the question mark? By the way. Message boards are pretty fucking simple. You post something and people respond to it. If you don't want people responding to your posts, then don't post. Or look into investing into a typewriter. Edit: BTW both of us have answered your mind bending "name a better GM candidate than Pritchard" about a dozen times each. Just because you don't like the answer does not mean we didn't answer it.
I'm not sure that gives evidence of Canzano coining the term, does it? It seems to use the term, but he's not taking credit for creating the term, unless I'm missing some sort of smoking gun in that short quote.
I love advanced statistics like PER, Ortg, Drtg, TS, etc. OddEnormous hates those same statistics. It seems we're only the same person when both of us are trying to make sense out of your attempts to ask questions that aren't really questions.
My question was to ask if that happened. Not to pose a hypothetical. As I stated, some posters here DO add value. When questions are asked sometimes people actually answer them without dancing around or calling the other person boring. Ed O.
