Technically he wasn't GM when Parker and Manu were picked...he did pick Dragic as well..(unless they picked who phoenix wanted) he's done a solid job despite not having high picks, but he did have a lot that didn't pan out.
Interesting. If Chad Ford had him at #7 and NBA.COM at #6, he's still a reach, just not a humongous leap. But after the draft, there were a lot of people scratching their heads about the pick and that OKC was definitely taking a chance on him. IIRC correctly, everyone was surprised. Either way, considering how often top 5 picks don't work out, Presti hit two grand slam home runs with WB and Harden considering there were other players expected to taken ahead of them. On Ibaka, I've looked at a lot of videos of him 1-2 years before he was drafted. I don't see how so many teams missed on him. He was obviously a unique athlete. One on video where they were measuring vertical jumping reach, he jumped/reached higher than the contraption could measure. Several videos show him drilling outside jumpers at 17-18 years-old. It was obvious he had a high upside.
Yes thats true, Durant is just one player, one franchise player. A westbrook/Harden/Ibaka core is Sacramento esque. He is an okay GM who had incredible luck. Morey blows Presti out of the water as a GM.
u guys probably forget sam presti came from san antonio front office. He learned from pop and bufford. Of course he is great on his own, but he is just following the spurs model.
win the lottery in a year that a future HOF/MVP/All timer is a no-brainer first choice? That makes things very very easy. Not saying he's bad, but getting a Duncan or Durant (who are not only superstars, but not prima donnas either) rather than a bust-a-lot draft with Kenyon Martin or Emeka Okafor on or near the, or even a good yet high-maintenence/baggage guy like Iverson makes a lot of things look easy.
The goals of a GM are: 1. Win 2. If you can't win, position your team to win in the future In however many years he's been here, Morey has not done either of those. He has created a state of perpetual mediocrity with no real way out of it.
Sure, if you're not grading on a curve, that's absolutely true. Of course with respect to 2, he's been expressly not allowed to take the best available avenue (and the way that the Bufords and Prestis of the world have taken). So much of NBA GM-ing is just chance. Does anybody here think Jerry Krause is the world's greatest GM? His sustained run of success is paralleled only by the Red Auerbach Celtics (diff't era in which it was much easier to win.....). By the criteria above, he's hands down the best. He even plucked a future HOF'er out of the second round. Then he lost Jordan (whom he inherited), and his teams were awful, and he botched the rebuilding job. Was he really that good? I don't know, but I do know that it seems judging whos good and who's not at GMing based on wins seems to be heavily dependent on chance. I think scoring individual deals, picks, or non-moves, adjusted for circumstance, is a better criteria.
It's def. RC Buford. His other moves go underappreciated because they're not ones that are big and bold, but his small moves are every bit as good. He picks the right guys to fit in the Spurs culture and doesn't just pick anyone with talent like TWill who is a headcase. RC is so damn good, other teams spy on their scouting so they could nab who they are after like Portland stealing Batum after they heard Spurs wanted him. The Spurs learned their lesson last year when they basically sent NOONE to scout Leonard and relied on hearsay and game tapes. That's amazing if you ask me. People who are saying he's just lucky because of Duncan are ignorant and envious. They've made amazing moves that are subtle but great. Every gm makes mistakes, and none of his ever held the Spurs back.
Here is Sam Presti's moves up till 2010. http://www.basketball-reference.com/executives/prestsa99x.html
I agree that luck plays a big role, but that's how we judge everyone. Jordan and Olajuwon are held are held in higher esteem than, say, Barkley or Stockton - and it's entirely because of championships, which require an element of luck and being surrounded by the right role players: both things that are outside the control of the superstars themselves. I think the problem with judging a GM by individual deals is that every GM has different goals. A GM might be great at getting more talent in his trades - but if that talent isn't resulting in more winning or doesn't mesh with the superstars on the team, is that really a positive? In Morey's case, he's made a bunch of circular moves - constantly trading out parts for other parts. But at the end of the day, his teams are no better or worse: they just end up the same. And that's great if your team is great - but the Rockets aren't, so they are just stuck in mediocrity. It might be the owner's fault - I don't disagree with that. But I find it hard to say a GM is good, and certainly not great, if the end result is that he just kept the team in sustained mediocrity. Frankly, in that scenario, I'd almost rather just have a bad GM who could drive the team into the ground unintentionally. His job ultimately is to win. Part of that is convincing the owner to let him make the moves needed rather than whatever the owner might want - this was something, for example, that Gerry Hunsicker was great at while Tim Purpura and Ed Wade seemed terrible at for the Astros. If he's not good at that part of the job and isn't able to make the moves he wants to make, then the rest of what he does is sort of irrelevant because it's not leading anywhere.
This is not a popular belief around here! Be careful. But seriously, well articulated post. Good take on Morey so far. I couldn't agree more that building a truly great team takes an element of luck, the right mix of coaching, and a better-than-hoped amount of chemistry - much more so than 'get a top tier superstar and throw d-leaguers around him'.
Exactly. It's not about getting players with talent, it's getting players who fit. RC has been the master of this. Also, if you discount everything he has done because he got lucky for drafting Duncan, then you have to rank everyone down who has picked busts with high draft picks. RC simply took advantage of the opportunity, look at other teams who's had high draft picks over and over again.
RJ and Scola didn't hold them back? He's good, but the job becomes easier when you inherit a core of TD/Manu/Parker. All he had to do was not fck it up, rather than make something out of nothing. He gets credit for getting them help, but some of that help came in the form of aging vets who mainly came to play for their big 3 and Pop. He's yet to show he can build a team from scratch and for that reason i can't say he's the best. That's not what it it's all about. That's just what he fell into. And it's definitely much easier to look for less talented players who "fit" than trying to find talent to lead and form a core. No one is discounting everything he did because of this, at least im not. I'm just saying that it made his job easier because it allowed him to start further ahead. It's like giving a team a bye up to the conf finals. Give them credit, if they win it all, but they won't be in the discussion for the best team to win a ring.
Those moves are in hindsight. And he is alreadly brilliantly rebuilding the Spurs while still being contenders. I have no doubt they will still have a bright future after TD. New core going forward: Green, Leonard, Splitter, CJ (i believe he will be a stud). But TD is not gonna retire anytime soon, and even then at his old age RC will surround him with more youth to help him now and the Spurs after he retires.
And the comment "make something out of nothing": he does that all the time and the recent example is Danny Green.
No, they're not. That RJ move was pure desperation on their part, as they tried to stay relevant and young (er). They were trying to get any talent they could afford at the time. It was a questionable move then because it wasn't a good fit and that's what it turned out to be. And Scola for Vspan? Everyone knew we got the better end of that deal. "Briliantly rebuilding" is an exaggeration. If a young core of role guys and one or two semi-stars is brilliant, then Morey's way ahead of him. You completely took my comment out of context. I was referring to making something out of a stripped down team(nothing). As in, turning them into contenders, or at the very least, a competitive team. He's never faced that situation, so we don't know if he'd pull it off.
Only time will tell... Let's see what he does when TD retires. Btw why do you think he was gift wrapped Parker and Manu?
Sure, if it's all about W's and L's that's great, but if we acknowledge that it's a metric that depends mostly on chance and what you inherit, then what's the point? It's sort of like saying how good of a worker you are be measured by your salary you are doing depends on how much money you are making, since people work to earn money and survive, regardless of occupation, location etc. But we all know that there's much more that goes into it than that, so what's the point of that? His biggest failure is not being to fully rebuild because he keeps on assembling teams that are above average and greater than the sum of their parts (regularly outperforming expected win total), and apparently isn't allowed to tank. If being able to convince the owner to tank is a measurable GM skill, he has failed miserably. Of course neither RC Buford nor Sam Presti has done this either.
He wasnt the GM when they were drafted, so i dont think he deserves credit for their selections, at least not completely or most of it...and Presti was mainly responsible for convincing SA to pic Parker.
