Rudy still a possibility, so is Scalabrine!

That thought bears further analysis. It is a VERY reasonable hypothesis. GM's are ultimately in the business of marketing their teams to the fan base. Then again, you have counterexamples such as Memphis...But there may be contingencies that explain the differences, including the role of ownership, and the passion of the fanbase.

But, as a fan of the Bulls, I could care less what Portland fans want...just give me Rudy for nothin'!

 

I seem to remember a time I suggested that if the Bulls could trade Kirk Hinrich or Ben Gordon for a draft pick that would net them Brandon Roy, they should do it. As I recall, that wasn't a very popular idea

Lessons learned: fans are fickle and the Blazers don't uniquely overvalue their own guys.

I think it's just hard across the board to make trades. Most ideas that talked about never happen, and I think the biggest thing that fans tend to overlook is that most good teams have to be very cautious about any deal because they don't have many options. That is, a good team usually only has so much ammo to make a trade with, and once it's gone, it's gone. So I think a lot of trades fall through because teams wait around for other possibilities to develop. EG, I'm not sure I want to trade for Rudy and foreclose the option of getting Carmelo. The Blazers aren't sure they want to trade for our pick, maybe, because they're trying to wrangle up a better deal somewhere else. I picture most trades as houses of cards, where to actually happen, the conditions have to be just right.

 

I think the obvious point is that none of these rationales should be considered mutually exclusive. Trades probably need to line up with the club's perceived interests, the GM's interest, and the available alternatives. And that's a lot of stuff to line up.

 

But the issue SST brought up, which I think is a good one, is how much is fan base reaction and expectations a factor?

For example, might there be trades you'd consider involving Derrick Rose, which in fact there is no way in hell Gar or Pax will do, because of who he is and what he represents and how fans feel about him?

 

The last part is what SST was talking about, I guess. And he wondered if that would perhaps be more of a factor for a team in a small market, where fan expectations might be more intense due to lack of diffusion (say like in Chicago, where, oh the Bulls are bad, but the Hawks are doing great! And did you see what Jay C. did?)

 

No guts No glory .

Meaning.........

GM'ing should be competitive . It should be about taking risks.

Because sport should be about the contest and unless you are trying to win you are not in sync with what the central tenet of it is about.

But sport is also about money , and with money comes conservation of wealth first, and therefore, protection of assets.

Assets in sport can be both tangible and intangible.

In Chicago's situation for example we never had any tangible asset(s) until we lucked into Derrick Rose , and to a lesser extent ( and later ) with the development of Joakim Noah in his 2nd and 3rd seasons.

Up until that point , and ever since Jordan's Bulls were disassembled , our primary asset was the nostalgia of greatness wrapped around the hope of greatness in "boy's own" slick marketing....get on the ground floor and go the journey in the babes to riches dream , ditched for middle class values and solid citizenry with stout jibness

So our "assets" over this time were a truck load of goodwill thanks to Michael Jordan that kept bums on seats while the organisation pitched concepts in "product" that reflected what they thought their paying customer was and wanted at the time .....the hope of the 3C's in Mark 1 and the Judeao Christian work ethic complete with hard hats and lunch pails of Mark 2 .

And the paying customers lapped it up and believed that Jamal Crawford was the 2nd coming of Penny Hardaway and Curry and Chandler were the perfect complement to each other and would be a genuine twin tower duo that belonged with Robinson and Duncan and Olajawon and Sampson ........until we all gave ourselves an uppercut and then willingly bought into the dog and pony show that was leveraged off the Pistons championship model that was you just needed defense and effort and super role players.....except that our super role playwers just weren't that super.

So the upshot in what I believe is the reality for a GM is what directly drives from ownership which isn't so much what directly drives from the fans in so much as what is more about performing the Jedi mind warrior trick on your fan base- which is about telling them what they want and convincing them that they like it.

Which isn't as hard effecting this on a crowd as effecting it on an individual.

Pritchard or Cho isn't doing anything different with their young talent , in how they overvalue them, then what Chicago has had a tendency to do.

In so doing , they influence an abnornal view of market value of that young talent with their fan base. I mean we missed Pau Gasol because we didn't want to put Lu on the table right ? And I recall at that time there was serious reservation about doing so

And just recently we have had the insane and out of control " talk it up" of Taj Gibson's value to an extent we had one buffoon suggest that Taj's value may be greater than Noah's and a chorus of other buffoon's who think that Taj could be principal piece ( with ballast ) for Carmelo Anthony

No.

Only Cho and Portland fans over value their assets.

We don't. Of course we don't

WE DON"T ! OK !

 

Quite true Tom

And it all comes down to each individual's philosophy in how they judge those that do the job.

For me , I believe you have to take risks when

1. You are only dealing with intangible assets and you have no tangible asset base from which to deal
2. Non core pieces when you have tangible assets

And in terms of #2 , its about value adding to your tangible asset

Our tangible assets ( in order ) are

- Derrick Rose
- Carlos Boozer
- Joakim Noah

Derrick pushes the pace and attacks the basket , Boozer is a post player that we've just shelled out big bucks for and Noah is up there as one of the better offensive rebounders and athletic /active energy scorers around the rim based soley on opportunity that he creates in mop up.

We need a starting quality 2 guard that can shoot and put the ball on the ground to break it up a bit, yet, we don't need someone that is going to be dominate the attack and take away from the tangible assets we already have.

We need an athletic role playing 2 who can shoot and handle for around 25mpg but where he would start .


Kobe, Wade etc would be nice ....but they aren't coming - plus the dye is cast in who we are now building around to try and win a championship

The guy we need and who is the best fit possible for us in what we need is there to be had , and , its time to take a risk and go and get him even if it means in an isolated analysis we're overpaying for him.

I like Taj and Bogans for Rudy and Jeff Pendergraph which I think makes sense for both teams.

 

I think the broader point is right, but I think it's much more limited and less clear in practice. I think a GM gets a certain amount of trust from fans (and owners). Good decisions earn more trust, and bad decisions cost trust. Drafting an unknown prospect over a safe pick simply postpones the reckoning of the decision. Most fans will preach patience with a prospect, but it still counts against the GM if the player turns out to suck, and it only counts in the GM's favor if the prospect turns out to be good.

EG, Tyrus Thomas vs. LaMarcus Aldridge or Brandon Roy. I think on average folks wanted to see how Tyrus played out. After 3.5 years, it's pretty clear it played out poorly and Aldridge would have been a safer pick for the Bulls.

I think to the extent that Paxson suffered from that pick (and we all know Jerry has a death grip on the man and won't let him leave in any case), he would have been better off picking Aldridge when measured as a GM.