I like having a sophisticated analytical approach to personnel decisions. People who say "Well, Lindsey is a stat guy too" or "JVG is a stat freak too" don't really know what the new "number crunching" techniques in recent years are all about. I think it is good to be innovative. I always remember how the "old school" people jeered at Tom Landry when he started using computer technology to aid his work 30 some years ago. Besides, Morey is not just about statistics. He's into braintype too. So it is a lot more sophisticated than just being a "number" guy. That said, being a good GM is more than knowing what moves are good for your team. Being able to make the moves is important too. And that is still an unknown about Daryl Morey. Is he a good negotiator? Does he have good people skills? Can he work with the coach? CD is good at these things and we will miss him.
I love this guy's last name. You put a 'n' for the 'r' in the middle and it becomes 'Money'. Did LE$$ mis-read and think his last name is Money?
A good number of the personnel decisions (including contracts) over the last several years have been RIDICULOUS! Who is responsible? Not sure. LA, CD, Rudy, JVG? Probably some combo of the aformentioned, but it is time, past time, for the "good ole boy" wheeling and dealing and the Ole Knick retirement pipeline to end OR the Rockets are a team without a future. The Rockets organization have painted themselves into a corner. Every personnel move from here on is critical IF they are to take advantage of the Ming/TMac era. If TMac can't come "back," then building around Ming is still an issue. The new guy is an obvious "beancounter," but "stupid" should be easy to beat.
I don't mind a sophisticated analytical approach, but in your Cowboy example Landry and Schramm no doubt looked at statistical data but neither relied heavily on it. Gil Brandt did however, and as brilliant as he was, he never became a GM. I just don't like the idea of having a GM with zero basketball experience and I really think this decision represents a bottom line approach by Les that will put butts in seats but this new approach hasn't exactly been proven to provide a blueprint for championship contention.
I'm fine with having a stats guy providing input on who's worth pursuing and who isn't. But, as the head guy? It'd have sat better with me to have a basketball guy (Lindsey or someone else) as GM and you can hire Morey as an Asst GM or similar role. The problem is not that he'll put too much emphasis on stats. The problem is that he doesn't know basketball.
And why do you presume he does not/can't learn? And furthermore, I'm not sure what counts as 'knowing" basketball but I'm pretty sure Isiah, Mchale, Baylor, others would count as "knowing" basketball. As would Carroll Dawson and Dennis Lindsay - and they made some stinker decisions too. I don't really think it's nearly as hard as some of you make it out to be - a lot of it is just straight luck.
It may not be end up being bad, but your argument has made me feel worse: essentially since every GM (excepting Weisbrod) has been a basketball guy every mistake a GM has made shows they're not necessarily any better than non-basketball people. It's eerie.
You may be right. In a way, it makes similarly little sense to entrust a business position to a guy who's done nothing with his career to date but play basketball. I'm sure he'll learn plenty about the sport over time. He's done some with the Celtics, and will learn more in CD's last year. Is that enough? Is he close enough to the game to see enough? I'm not sure. A guy like Lindsey has got years and years of experience in the nuts and bolts of the team and of the front-office. I just don't see how he can beat credentials like that. Not to mention he doesn't have much work experience, period. He's 32. How many multi-million dollar companies entrust their future in 32 year olds?
Morey isn't and has never been in Basketball Operations for the Celtics. He will no doubt learn much next year.
Not disputing it, but where did you hear this? I know Dan took a job with an NBA team, but hadn't heard it was with the Wizards.
The conservative in me doesn't trust this young dude. At least his track record with Boston Celtics shows he's not very savvy on acquiring talents.
That's not fair. Those two guys were acquired by our GM. That's why people are so concerned about his basketball credentials. However, I do agree with your earlier argument. Having been a basketball player doesn't make you a good GM. We have all witnessed what Thomas and McHale (we might as well include Jordan too) have done at GM. Just like you don't have to be a good player to be a good coach, I don't think you have to be even a player to be a good GM. A good GM needs a good business mind together with a good system of talent evaluation.
Yes but they are both younger and will be under far more pressure than Morey to produce night in night out, yet you seldom here anybody voice concerns about that. And fair or not - it's also ultimately true. If Mcgrady's back comes back in line, Dawson (and to an extent by virtue of proximity, Morey) looks like a genius. If not, then again, they both look like fools. Anyway, our GM also acquired a lot of sh-tty players too. I don't see how Dennis Lindsay and Carroll Dawson's reservoir of eminence grise helped too much with the acquisition of Swift, Anderson, Eddie Griffin, Nachbar --- etc. My point is that the age factor and "future of a multimillion dollar organization is in his hands" thing is a bit overblown in the grand scheme. I mean the future of a multimillion dollar organization was formerly in the hands of Dawson, who on camera comes across like he couldn't be the assisstant manager of a Jack in the Box. Hell, I'm younger than Morey and have dealt with multi-hundred million dollar issues at work where, had i acted idiotically, could have cost people lots of money -- and I am by no means unique in that regard. NBA people are people just like everybody else.
While I would say we should definitely wait before passing judgement on this guy, that certainly wouldn't be any fun, and the rookies definitely need some decent topic to pad their post count and make an impression so their free registrations stick (including me). The only thought on the topic I have to share is that we should be naturally fearful of this hiring; but logically optimistic. The NBA is a notorious copycat league, and new and unprecedented ideas are generally looked upon with scorn. Whether it was the three point shot, perimeter-oriented big-men, point forwards, twin-towers, high-school draftees, foreign draftees, gritty defense and ugly offense, fast paced offense and little defense, almost everything in the NBA today has been criticized, ridiculed, scorned and analyzed to death when first tried, then copied and shamelessly plagiarized if sucessful. Some things work (high-schoolers, foreigners), some don't (John Weisbrod). The Rockets are taking a risk here, but Les Alexander has always looked to take big risks. Few new ideas are ever met with universal praise and acclaim, but if Daryl Morey works out for us, just watch as the rest of the NBA scrambles to catch up, though they'll all be two years behind the curve. And, if you're still fearful, at least you can be assured that if Morey is as big a stats guy as some assume, we won't be hanging on to Flyin' Ryan Bowen, who I'm pretty sure is statistically one of the worst players in the NBA regardless of the model one uses.
I just don't understand why Les could not have just promoted Lindsay to GM and hired DM for Lindsays replacement. At least in the begining. I am excited about what he might bring to the table, but as the GM??? Good hire... wrong posistion?
Your comparison of Morey's role as GM with Yao and McGrady is still not fair. Youth is a virtue for basketball players. The GM is a business position. Experience counts a lot in the business realm. And how can you judge a guy by his appearance on camera? Besides, you can't just site the mistakes Dawson made because (1) he is not the only decision maker in player acquisition, and (2) you can make a poop list for every GM who has been in the league long enough. You have to judge the guy's overall performance against his peers'. Anyway, we both agree that it is not a bad thing to try a new approach. I am excited to have a guy who can do some serious objective talent evaluation.
Doubtful. Most brilliant individuals tend to hit their mental peak around age 30 - and I know many,many sharp businesspeople who are at that age or younger. Experience as an NBA GM is a virtue? Well, Elgin Baylor is the longest running GM I know. On the other side, the new hot GM is Brian COlangelo - 35 when hired, now 40 and toast of the NBA. Sure it's a virtue, but let's not overvalue it the way a lot of people are. You can't - just like you can't say "Morey is young, therefore he will fail," as a lot of people seem to be saying. So am I. A lot of our past talent evaluation decisions were straight ass - and a lot were brilliant - but a lot of that is due to luck. Had we not got Yao's ping-pong ball and ended up with Mike Dunleavy - would anybody be lamenting the loss of an experienced GM like Dawson? I don't think so. Would Popovich still be regarded as a great coach and GM had they ended up getting a Kwame Brown type player in their draft instead of Tim Duncan? Again, don't think so.
