(The Athletic) Rafael Stone: 'this is not a job anyone can do perfectly'

Well in my defense regarding me saying harden is washed. How the hell was I supposed to know he would go into a time machine recently and play like he did 3 yrs ago? Never happens to any player other than Justin Verlander. Let's face it ,2020 harden showed up to camp like a blimp morbidly obese. He was terrible on the nets and his first yr with 76ers. He was so awful in the last playoffs that stephen a smith said on the air harden might be losing on purpose to get his coach fired or that harden shrinks under playoff pressure so bad that it looks intentional. So I said today hes washed. Do I watch all the 76er games hell no, haven't seen any this yr. Not one, fine, maybe Harden has found a new way to adapt to the nba to still be a star without his athletism. Dont know if its embiid that's making harden better though.

I will admit, watching harden with sengun would be fun,

 

I'd probably have more confidence if it was say an outsider who became GM. But Stone's been with the org since CD, I think he was here even longer than Morey. At the very least his plan for a massive tank job was done to perfection.

 

Generalize much? I spent a career in government and I can just about guarantee I have been in more stressful situations, worked more time-compressed crises, and dealt with more complexities and uncertainties than C-Suite types. (I certainly have enough PTSD to make a good argument.) Performance matters. Your professional and personal reputation were always on the line along with the lives and well being of people, families, and communities. If you didn't perform civilization suffered. Literally. If you didn't perform, you became a pariah. I haven't read a Business Week hagiography or a management p*rn book that is comparable to a hot, dry, windy afternoon with fire one ridge from town and a couple of crews stuck in the middle.

I do agree that some skills are transferable. For a GM, I think setting the culture and expectations are key, as is putting in place the right objectives and processes. You can find smart people to think cleverly about salary cap, player evals, and such--that is a necessity these days as the top-down hierarchical approach is too rigid for the modern world. There is just too much data/information, too many systems, too many people, and too many decisions to be made for there to be only one guy at the top of the heap. Culture is the thing.

 

Meh. Call me a cynic, but I don't think it's a coincidence that this interview comes out so soon after Fertitta's drunken "pray for Victor" goes viral.

It seems like a PR switch and bait to protect the owner and get people talking about something else.

 

On average it takes 1 MVP level player and a second near-MVP level player to win a title. People are being so absurd about how to rebuild for a championship. Guys we have a blank canvas. We know all the problems we ran into in the past. Let's just do it right this time, even if it takes an extra year or two to get there.

To get those two players, the main focus has to be on the first player. The second player is often (and more easily) a lesser player who wants to join the first franchise player. How good does that first guy have to be? You have to believe that he can have one of the highest impacts on the floor in an NBA Finals game. That's very hard to project for young player but there are certainly some indicators. In the FA and trade market you can certainly find players like that. If we get that guy internally or externally without having a large chunk of our cap taken up by an underserving asset, we are in prime position to open a 10-year title window sprinkled with bonus draft picks and swaps from the Nets. Players that good tend to become available after the playoffs when teams to discover who they really are. Expect a player or two of that calibre to become available after the playoffs.

Let's look at a worst case scenario. We sign Harden to the max for four years (because why the hell else would he leave) and he shows up out of shape. He is frustrated with his teammates because, well, they are kids and kids make a lot of mistakes. Harden's performance declines because he's not playing off an MVP candidate and talented veteran role players. We're now paying him what $35m and he's a 0 on defense, an ace on assists and mediocre efficiency 25 points. Total disaster. If he doesn't drop these 20 lbs we are locked into that contract forever. For what? For that one season he masterfully orchestrated the offense en-route to a play-in finish? Total madness to take this risk. Harden has not shown that he will age gracefully. He's a perfect piece for a team that doesn't need him to play defense in the regular season and needs a floor general who can score (basically, a contender). I'm sure we won't end up with the worst case scenario, but that risk seems way too possible for my liking.

Waiting is absolutely a plan. What on earth are you talking about? Waiting is literally a part of every plan. You don't wait on everything, you just tactically and strategically plan what to do with the cap space. That doesn't stop you from getting some vets at good market deals on short terms contracts, it doesn't stop you from developing your players and drafting well, it doesn't stop you from anything coaching-wise. We should totally wait even till next summer to spend this cap space, 1 year (i.e. 2 summers and a trade season) is a fair amount of time to wait for the best possible talent to break loose. An old, barely in shape James Harden is not the best player we can get. Stop being so insecure. We will win 30+ games next season if we do nothing at all but add a top 4 pick. Add a MLE-level PG and MLE-level defensive C and you're flirting with 40 wins without risking an ounce of your spending power or young talent.

The only instance I condone signing James Harden is if we actually land Wemby. That would change the whole strategy of course.

 

He is winging it alright.

 

I would tolerate the losses more if there were a culture of accountability and measures of success outside of losing such as visible growth out of our top rookie weaknesses.

Stone is too new and insecure to draw negative attention so all he does is Stone Wall and bluster while praying his moves pan out. This might work on a Live GM simulator but real people need real time management. They break down from time to time and need the right encouragement or push to feel motivated again. They might try to smile away all their problems when they need a swift kick in the pants to think differently or ask for a assistant coach to plug personal weaknesses.

When you don't see people getting taken care of and losing starts permeating through the walls of the franchise, all you hear is my successes and their failures.

It all starts from the top.

 

I stopped reading right here

 

so wembanyama is not perfect? how so?
neither is alperen sengun but better than wembanyama

 

Folks here love the heck out of generalizations.

 

I read the whole article and I'm pretty comfortable with what they're saying even though it's a lot of PR mumbo jumbo in there. They're clearly aware of avoiding the mistake of signing someone overpriced or on a bad contract.

Understanding we desperately need some good vets who can play this summer:

Also confirmed that we're sticking with the Alpe experiment.

Overall I like what I'm hearing, but words are not actions.

 

He was hired after Daryl Morey and MDA left the Rockets, and the organization knew that Westbrook and Harden wanted out. I don't know if Stone told Silas that information or not, but they were aware of it..... just like ownership was given advances notice that Daryl Morey was leaving.

Also, the person in Dallas that developed the Mavericks offensive philosophy, and who was making changes at practice, etc. was Rick Carlisle.

Stephen Silas certainly worked on the offensive end, but he did not have as much impact as the Mavericks top defensive assistant, who had more autonomy.

It also isn't a complete shock that Stone wanted Silas, as it was someone Daryl Morey wanted after McHale was fired and Bickerstaff was in over his head at the time.

Stone brought over Tate because that was what Morey intended to do before he left, same with bringing in Christian Wood and the assistant coach, Weaver.... all were Morey ideas.

You can lose and still do a good job having and enforcing expectations of young players, and the Rockets under Stone and Silas have very few.

Sam Hinkie sold the tank really well to the fans, they were very much supportive of it. The mistake Hinkie made was being so public about it, and the league got him back. The Sixers are now one of the best teams in the league, and that is after a couple picks only being "meh" and Elton Brand absolutely destroying a lot of the assets and flexibility the organization had.

It refers to have players like KPJ on your roster, and having Christian Wood for a few season.... it refers to having a coaching staff and front office that holds others accountable. Where there is smoke and a raging inferno, there is fire.

I agree the games are ugly, but bottom line - Win and everyone is happy. Lose and everyone is angry. Fans can't comprehend or accept tanking.[/QUOTE]

False, fans can absolutely comprehend tanking.

 

I never get this kind of reasoning. Just because you can't do a better job than the professional means that you can't criticize the professionals of doing a bad job? If a professional plumber left you a leaky pipe, you couldn't say he's doing a bad job just because you didn't know how to fix it either?

 

I reread my original post again and I'm trying to find where I said criticism is not allowed. Can you please point that out for me? I never understood this kind of straw man arguing with points that weren't made.

 

If I misread you, my bad. I thought your post were directing at people who are "armchair GMs" criticizing Stone while offering no alternatives.

BTW, this same kind of argument goes in lots of threads. For example, in the Harden return thread, those who support signing Harden keep pressing those who don't for offering any alternatives, as if not being able to have a better alternative means that the proposed action can't be a bad one.

 

Fair enough. I think there is an element of my comment about armchair GMs. My comment was mostly saying that it's really easy to criticize when you don't have to offer an alternative and you can use hindsight to judge the person who doesn't get that benefit.

In your plumber analogy, I can certainly be upset with the plumber if I feel he hasn't fixed the issue, but anyone can do that. If I can't really fix it, I don't see what good complaining would do. If a plumber is telling me, "I think this plan I have to fix it is going to work, it may take time" then how could I doubt them? They have all the relevant expertise in the field and I don't. I could seek the advice of other plumbers I guess, but assuming that plumber is the only one in town and they're doing the best they can, I'll just have to go with them until an alternative presents itself.

For the Harden situation, I think it's fair to ask for an alternative. If you don't have one, you can just say "I don't have one," and that will suffice. If we don't sign Harden (assuming we even have the option), I'd like to know which direction people think we should go. If no one knows, then I suppose we're just stuck with whatever Stone decides and we can support it. Complaining without an alternative just comes off as empty.

I appreciate you asking me to clarify though and I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the no-alternatives thing more.

 

DING! The culture within the Rockets sucks and has a lot to do with that. The Rockets can reverse this though. Just get an experienced HC and don't skimp on the assistants. Move on from KPJ, while his talents are there, in terms of mentality he is not good for the lockerroom. Sunk cost, move on.

 

I don't really see is that way. So lets say harden isn't signed, and we know money will be spent this offseason. If it's not on harden, we know it'll be on much lesser players who don't have nearly his impact. and add to the fact that this fa pool is not any good. So if the harden scenario is considered "bad" to you and the other alternative is clearly worse, you're basically looking at the lesser of two evils with this logic I guess. yeah not much of an argument to me.

Providing a better alternative is absolutely a valid point in the harden scenario. And there's a reason why nobody can because the alternatives are clearly worse off for the rockets.

 

Serious question:

How many GM’s in the past 40 or so years have been able to draft the #2 and #1 pick two years in subsequent years or the #1 the #2 pick?

(yes I’m counting Jabari as the #1 pick. Bite me)

And how many of those teams didn’t end up with a foundational star player in those two drafts??

 

If Harden truly becomes a FA, he is absolutely the best available. That doesn’t make it a no brainer to sign him. Alternatives don’t necessarily have to come from the FA pool. If we don’t draft Scoot, I think we should explore trade options. Lamelo would be at the top of my list, but the price would be Jalen Green and several firsts. We could do some lesser deals for the likes of Conley, Lonzo Ball, Rubio as placeholder veteran mentors. It’s also important to play TYTY 30 mins a game the rest of the year to see if he could be the solution (although I think that is a long shot).