PDA

View Full Version : Greatest NBA GM in the last 15 years...whos your pick?



310Casper
11-19-2012, 02:41 PM
I almost think its a no contest, Mitch Cupchak of the Lakers.
Spurs GM comes to mind too, but I give more credit for their success to Popovich.

So many other teams around the league have boneheaded GM's that make horrible moves out of spite and pressure that end up crushing their franchise for years and years.

Its amazing how much magic Mitch has brought to the lakers, think of the trades he pulled off:

The Gasol trade: At the time, it was highway robbery. No one knew Marc Gasol would turn out to be Marc Gasol. The fact that mitch pulled off this trade at the time put him in running for greatest NBA GM of all time. It also brought Kobe 2 more rings immediately after the trade.

The cp3 trade: I still give Mitch credit for pulling this off, he did pull off the trade in terms of logisitcs and teams agreeing. Its the NBA that vetoed it last minute. This trade had more benefits on the backside that we could see on the front. The amount of cap space it would've freed up for the Lakers next 2-5 years was almost as big as getting cp3 himself. Other team owners knew this, saw it, and immediately wrote to David Stern and demanded a veto.

Trading Bynum at JUST the right time. His stock was high, he was considered a max player by NBA standards, had a healthy season...somehow Mitch turned Bynum into Dwight Howard and Steve Nash in 30 days. What impressed me most is that Mitch never bluffed or showed his cards. He refused to give up both Gasol and Bynum to get Howard, something 95% of other NBA gm's would've done, just to get "Dwight Howard" on their team, please their fans, and get credit for it all. Not bluffing ended paying off in the end. Lakers today could've easily had an out-for-the-season Bynum, no Dwight Howard, a frustrated Kobe, and a dark near future. Instead the Lakers are contenders today and things couldn't be better in laker land.

I also have to wonder how much of Mitch's success is because of mitch vs. the fact that he has "the los angeles lakers" as his bargaining chip when making moves as a GM. Could any other top NBA GM do what Mitch did if he were the lakers GM?

It will be a sad day the Lakers lose Mitch as their GM. He's just as important the lakers success in the last decade as Jim Buss and Kobe Bryant, you even could argue that he's the #1 factor in it all. Im surprised other NBA owners havent come to Mitch's doorstep, given him a blank check, and told him to fill in any number he wants in exchange for coming to their team, effective immediately.

torocan
11-19-2012, 02:53 PM
Gotta go with the Spurs GM.

Kupchak has done great things, but his access to a DEEP checkbook makes his job infinitely easier.

Buford is dealing in a small market and with limited resources.

I'm not sure Kupchak could be nearly as effective in a market like OKC or San Antonio, whereas I think Buford's ability to find and spot talent is useful everywhere, especially if you gave him more money in his budget.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 02:59 PM
Buford, for sure. Imagine if he had the market and the money the Lakers do....

310Casper
11-19-2012, 03:00 PM
Gotta go with the Spurs GM.

Kupchak has done great things, but his access to a DEEP checkbook makes his job infinitely easier.

Buford is dealing in a small market and with limited resources.

I'm not sure Kupchak could be nearly as effective in a market like OKC or San Antonio, whereas I think Buford's ability to find and spot talent is useful everywhere, especially if you gave him more money in his budget.

I can respect that. Spurs always pull of trades and signings out of nowhere that end up being unexpected gems. Paired with the fact that they have the best coach in the NBA, match made in heaven.

I do wonder how Mitch would do in a smaller market with less money...hmm

Maybe the lakers will lure Buford away from San Antonio the day Mitch hangs it up. Money talks (most of the time). :D

heyman321
11-19-2012, 03:02 PM
Besides those two, Glen Grundwald has been pretty good too.

KB-Pau-DH2012
11-19-2012, 03:03 PM
1. Buford
2. Kupchak
3. Ainge
4. Riley
5. Dumars (although last couple of lottery yrs have hurt him a bit)

joeystats
11-19-2012, 03:04 PM
Cupcake!!!!!!!!!

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 03:04 PM
1. Buford
2. Kupchak
3. Ainge
4. Riley
5. Dumars (although last couple of lottery yrs have hurt him a bit)

Dumars was awesome from his early tenure until the middle of the 2000's. I honestly think the Darko pick started it all. 7 straight ECFs and a chip. Not bad.

KB-Pau-DH2012
11-19-2012, 03:06 PM
Dumars was awesome from his early tenure until the middle of the 2000's. I honestly think the Darko pick started it all. 7 straight ECFs and a chip. Not bad.

And add to the fact in that 2nd finals appearance, they were a game 7 victory away from repeating.

alexander_37
11-19-2012, 03:13 PM
Kupchak has had more to work with than anyone in history. Sorry but that is like saying the Heat GM is the best for bringing in Lebron and Bosh when the players basically orchestrated it.

IMO to be the best GM you draft players not trade fro them. Who have the Lakers drafted lately besides Bynum?

Eg714
11-19-2012, 03:20 PM
I think it has to be Mitch for sure. Even a lot of the small trades he makes for us works out in the end.

Got ariza who helped win a championship
Traded Shaq and got us championship pieces
Traded fisher for Jordan hill
Traded Walton for sessions
Traded nothing for Shannon brown
Dwight for Bynum
Gasol for kwame
Almost got Cp3
Got Nash for picks

Gibby23
11-19-2012, 03:20 PM
Kupchak has had more to work with than anyone in history. Sorry but that is like saying the Heat GM is the best for bringing in Lebron and Bosh when the players basically orchestrated it.

IMO to be the best GM you draft players not trade fro them. Who have the Lakers drafted lately besides Bynum?

The HEAT players cleared enough enough cap space for almost 3 full Max contracts and made it work under the salary cap rules?

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 03:22 PM
Kupchak has had more to work with than anyone in history. Sorry but that is like saying the Heat GM is the best for bringing in Lebron and Bosh when the players basically orchestrated it.

IMO to be the best GM you draft players not trade fro them. Who have the Lakers drafted lately besides Bynum?

But trades are part of being a GM, and a HUGE part in the NBA, versus the NFL for example. Trades need to be weighed very heavily.

kyubi256
11-19-2012, 03:23 PM
What about Pat Riley. Assembling that beast Heat team.

Or Danny Ainge and his job with Boston. You did say the past 15 years

alexander_37
11-19-2012, 03:23 PM
The HEAT players cleared enough enough cap space for almost 3 full Max contracts and made it work under the salary cap rules?

AN accountant can dump salaries... The Rockets made enough space for 3 max players this offseason are they the best? The only difference is they didn't have Wade to bring in Lebron who brought in Bosh.

alexander_37
11-19-2012, 03:24 PM
But trades are part of being a GM, and a HUGE part in the NBA, versus the NFL for example. Trades need to be weighed very heavily.

IMO drafting a team like OKC takes much more ability as a GM than just making trades.

KB-Pau-DH2012
11-19-2012, 03:25 PM
Kupchak has had more to work with than anyone in history. Sorry but that is like saying the Heat GM is the best for bringing in Lebron and Bosh when the players basically orchestrated it.

IMO to be the best GM you draft players not trade fro them. Who have the Lakers drafted lately besides Bynum?

Jordan Farmar who became a backup PG to 2 Laker championships.

Sasha Vujacic who also won 2 titles and hit the key free throws in game 7 against Boston.

Luke Walton...well....um....he did win 2 titles. :o

justinnum1
11-19-2012, 03:27 PM
Buford and it's not close.

KB-Pau-DH2012
11-19-2012, 03:27 PM
IMO drafting a team like OKC takes much more ability as a GM than just making trades.

But a GM's job is to do both drafting and trading.

Just because a team is able to build up doesn't necessarily mean it's any more impressive than someone who knows how to play his poker cards correctly and able to negotiate well and try to win the trade between the two teams. If anything, negotiation skills and trying to win that trade (so there's also a competitive aspect to that as well) is probably even more impressive than just simply drafting since your teams sucks and you get the lotto pick and best opportunity to draft one of the best college studs.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 03:28 PM
IMO drafting a team like OKC takes much more ability as a GM than just making trades.

Sure it does, but that doesn't mean you just choose the best drafters, otherwise I. Thomas would be a leading name in the conversation.....

Drafting, always having financial flexibility, winning trades, and stockpiling assets and knowing when/how to use them all need to be considered.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 03:29 PM
by the way, its pretty easy to hit in the draft when you pick in the top 5 three years in a row, versus eternally having picks in the 25-30 range (um, isn't that the sign of a great GM?).

Funny enough, OKC's GM is a protege of guess who?

#knickstape
11-19-2012, 03:37 PM
Isiah Thomas... lol

I'd say the Spurs GM. Could've been Thunder GM, but....

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 03:49 PM
Isiah Thomas... lol

I'd say the Spurs GM. Could've been Thunder GM, but....

Thomas was awesome at scouting and evaluating talent. He just sucked at everything else, which was why I was trying to say basing a GM's ability with drafting as such a huge percentage of the answer is not the proper way to go.

dnewguy
11-19-2012, 04:00 PM
Anyone can be sucessful as the lakers and Knicks GM...in most cases, it's the players that want to go there. If Howard has said he's not interested in the Lakers, If Shaq was not interested in the Lakers and if the Grizz we'ren't interested in sending Pau to a contender (Lakers happen to have the picks they wanted)...Kupchack is as useless as a 2 dollar bill. Look at his signings other than free-agents or players that want a trade there...he's always dropped the ball. Remember Luke Walton? Kupchak was high on him

KB-Pau-DH2012
11-19-2012, 04:04 PM
Anyone can be sucessful as the lakers and Knicks GM...in most cases, it's the players that want to go there. If Howard has said he's not interested in the Lakers, If Shaq was not interested in the Lakers and if the Grizz we'ren't interested in sending Pau to a contender (Lakers happen to have the picks they wanted)...Kupchack is as useless as a 2 dollar bill. Look at his signings other than free-agents or players that want a trade there...he's always dropped the ball. Remember Luke Walton? Kupchak was high on him

Translation: Pat Riley is the greatest GM of all time and is the Godfather.


#Heatfanssystem

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 04:06 PM
Anyone can be sucessful as the lakers and Knicks GM...in most cases, it's the players that want to go there. If Howard has said he's not interested in the Lakers, If Shaq was not interested in the Lakers and if the Grizz we'ren't interested in sending Pau to a contender (Lakers happen to have the picks they wanted)...Kupchack is as useless as a 2 dollar bill. Look at his signings other than free-agents or players that want a trade there...he's always dropped the ball. Remember Luke Walton? Kupchak was high on him

The Knicks have a single playoff win in a decade dude. Its not just about being in a big market. Does it help? Sure. But it all starts with talent evaluation, sound financial decisions, and putting out a winning product.

Rockice_8
11-19-2012, 04:33 PM
I almost think its a no contest, Mitch Cupchak of the Lakers.
Spurs GM comes to mind too, but I give more credit for their success to Popovich.

So many other teams around the league have boneheaded GM's that make horrible moves out of spite and pressure that end up crushing their franchise for years and years.

Its amazing how much magic Mitch has brought to the lakers, think of the trades he pulled off:

The Gasol trade: At the time, it was highway robbery. No one knew Marc Gasol would turn out to be Marc Gasol. The fact that mitch pulled off this trade at the time put him in running for greatest NBA GM of all time. It also brought Kobe 2 more rings immediately after the trade.

The cp3 trade: I still give Mitch credit for pulling this off, he did pull off the trade in terms of logisitcs and teams agreeing. Its the NBA that vetoed it last minute. This trade had more benefits on the backside that we could see on the front. The amount of cap space it would've freed up for the Lakers next 2-5 years was almost as big as getting cp3 himself. Other team owners knew this, saw it, and immediately wrote to David Stern and demanded a veto.

Trading Bynum at JUST the right time. His stock was high, he was considered a max player by NBA standards, had a healthy season...somehow Mitch turned Bynum into Dwight Howard and Steve Nash in 30 days. What impressed me most is that Mitch never bluffed or showed his cards. He refused to give up both Gasol and Bynum to get Howard, something 95% of other NBA gm's would've done, just to get "Dwight Howard" on their team, please their fans, and get credit for it all. Not bluffing ended paying off in the end. Lakers today could've easily had an out-for-the-season Bynum, no Dwight Howard, a frustrated Kobe, and a dark near future. Instead the Lakers are contenders today and things couldn't be better in laker land.

I also have to wonder how much of Mitch's success is because of mitch vs. the fact that he has "the los angeles lakers" as his bargaining chip when making moves as a GM. Could any other top NBA GM do what Mitch did if he were the lakers GM?

It will be a sad day the Lakers lose Mitch as their GM. He's just as important the lakers success in the last decade as Jim Buss and Kobe Bryant, you even could argue that he's the #1 factor in it all. Im surprised other NBA owners havent come to Mitch's doorstep, given him a blank check, and told him to fill in any number he wants in exchange for coming to their team, effective immediately.


And what you give no credit to "the best coach of all time" Phil Jackson. :eyebrow:

Lake_Show2416
11-19-2012, 06:17 PM
a little over 15 years Jerry West should b mentioned, got Shaq, drafted Kobe & put together the core of the current Grizzlies squad

my answer is Kupchak tho, he's the man, keeps us Lakers fans spoiled

Greedy22
11-19-2012, 06:27 PM
I have to go with Buford here.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 06:34 PM
how can it not be Buford? He gets the same results as Kup, with far less money, and in a small market. Do you know how much harder that is to do?

JasonJohnHorn
11-19-2012, 06:50 PM
Burford and Pritchard. Both draft very well.

Mitch is lucky... he was handed a team with Shaq and Kobe. It's not like he's drafted that talent on his roster. Bynum was Buss' project. I can't think of a single player other than Bynum that LAL has drafted since West stepped down that is actually good. Mitch was just lucky he had an expiring contract when Memphis was looking to dump Gasol's contract, and just as lucky that Orlando's GM couldn't put a winner around Dwight and that Dwight demanded a trade. As for free-agent signings... all-star calibre players like ARtest and Jamison have always been willing to sign with LAL because they are a contender. It's not like Mitch scouted these guys and talked them into signing with LAL.

Mitch is lucky.


Buford and Pritchard are amazing on draft night, and that is 90% of being a great GM. Free agent signings... I mean, we usually have seen what these players can do on the court. It's not like scouting college and european players. And trades... there is a lot of luck. What teams are getting pressure from players to get traded? And are they afraid of losing the player for nothing?

Dumars is pretty good, though he has made some bad moves.

lakerboy
11-19-2012, 07:07 PM
Kupchak has had more to work with than anyone in history. Sorry but that is like saying the Heat GM is the best for bringing in Lebron and Bosh when the players basically orchestrated it.

IMO to be the best GM you draft players not trade fro them. Who have the Lakers drafted lately besides Bynum?

Lakers have had 1 lottery pick in the whole decade, and they got Andrew Bynum for the #10th pick. This is why we are the best organization in the world. We got the best or the second best player in that lottery at #10.

How many times did your mess up a draft pick?

JasonJohnHorn
11-19-2012, 07:10 PM
Could any other top NBA GM do what Mitch did if he were the lakers GM?

Yeah... Buford could have done it, and drafted Parker and Ginobli in the process. I mean seriously, what has Mitch ever accomplished on draft day?

Look at what West accomplished as the Lakers GM in the draft. He picked up SO many great players that contributed to a contender and kept them a championship squad ever as Kareem aged. AC Green. Byron Scott. Divac. Elden Campbell. Nick Van Excel. Eddie Jones. Doug Chistie. Fisher. Kobe. George Lynch.

I mean... what has Mitch done in the draft? I don't expect a GM to find a steal every year in the draft, but I expect at least one in ten years.

StarvingKnick22
11-19-2012, 07:12 PM
Pretty obvious: Pat Riley

lakerboy
11-19-2012, 07:17 PM
how can it not be Buford? He gets the same results as Kup, with far less money, and in a small market. Do you know how much harder that is to do?

This is a close call between Buford and Kupchak. There are different advantages/disadvantages for each.

Buford

Pros for Buford
1. Small market team but gets the talent
2. Best in the league in drafting players (along with the Mavs, Knicks) and by far the best in developing players
3. NEVER NEVER NEVER OVERPAYS

Cons against Buford.
1. When you get Tim Duncan as your first pick and Pop as your coach, 50% of your work for the decade is done. You just need to draft well and not mess up




KUPCHAK
Pros for Kupchak
1. GOAT in making trades. Not even close, and definitely not fair.
2. One of the best drafters in the game. LA has 1 lotto pick in the whole decade and picks at #10, gets the second best player in the draft and trades him for Dwight Howard.
3. Best in dumping contracts


CONS
1. Has Kobe and Phil
2. Best owner in the league
3. Big market argument, which in my opinion does not significantly impact a team's success (see Clippers, Knicks, Bulls, Dodgers, Mets)


To say that one is significantly better than the other is way off in my opinon.

lakerboy
11-19-2012, 07:22 PM
Burford and Pritchard. Both draft very well.

Mitch is lucky... he was handed a team with Shaq and Kobe. It's not like he's drafted that talent on his roster. Bynum was Buss' project. I can't think of a single player other than Bynum that LAL has drafted since West stepped down that is actually good. Mitch was just lucky he had an expiring contract when Memphis was looking to dump Gasol's contract, and just as lucky that Orlando's GM couldn't put a winner around Dwight and that Dwight demanded a trade. As for free-agent signings... all-star calibre players like ARtest and Jamison have always been willing to sign with LAL because they are a contender. It's not like Mitch scouted these guys and talked them into signing with LAL.

Mitch is lucky.


Buford and Pritchard are amazing on draft night, and that is 90% of being a great GM. Free agent signings... I mean, we usually have seen what these players can do on the court. It's not like scouting college and european players. And trades... there is a lot of luck. What teams are getting pressure from players to get traded? And are they afraid of losing the player for nothing?

Dumars is pretty good, though he has made some bad moves.

They are both good. You can't call one lucky and the other good.

You can't say Mitch is lucky to have Kobe. If the Spurs didn't get #1 pick in the 1997 draft, where would they be without Duncan?

This is a ridiculous argument. Drafting is NOT 90% of being a good GM. In fact, its probably around 40-50% only.

You can make the argument that luck is 50% of drafting --- without getting #1 picks, you get stuck to a team with just Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker with no Tim Duncan.

I am not saying Buford is a bum. I think him and Kupchak are so close at being #1, and I am saying you calling Kupchak lucky is a ridiculous statement.

Kupchak makes trade miracles almost every other season.

JasonJohnHorn
11-19-2012, 07:24 PM
Pretty obvious: Pat Riley

Pat Riley is good, but "obviously" the best? He's not much to write home about on draft day. All he really did is get lucky when the Lakers were looking to dump Shaq, and then Shaq talked a bunch of agin all-stars to cme in and help MIA win a ring. That was Shaq recruiting players. Then Riley took a huge gamble by clearing a bunch of capspace to sign Bosh, Wade and LBJ. He took a huge gamble, and it paid off. He's good, but he's not in the conversation with Pritchard and Buford (or Pop for that matter).

alexander_37
11-19-2012, 09:01 PM
Daryl Morey has a better success rate in the second round than Kup has in the first...

Raps08-09 Champ
11-19-2012, 09:02 PM
Spurs have been finding gems the last 15 or so years in the league.

Hawkeye15
11-19-2012, 09:15 PM
This is a close call between Buford and Kupchak. There are different advantages/disadvantages for each.

Buford

Pros for Buford
1. Small market team but gets the talent
2. Best in the league in drafting players (along with the Mavs, Knicks) and by far the best in developing players
3. NEVER NEVER NEVER OVERPAYS

Cons against Buford.
1. When you get Tim Duncan as your first pick and Pop as your coach, 50% of your work for the decade is done. You just need to draft well and not mess up




KUPCHAK
Pros for Kupchak
1. GOAT in making trades. Not even close, and definitely not fair.
2. One of the best drafters in the game. LA has 1 lotto pick in the whole decade and picks at #10, gets the second best player in the draft and trades him for Dwight Howard.
3. Best in dumping contracts


CONS
1. Has Kobe and Phil
2. Best owner in the league
3. Big market argument, which in my opinion does not significantly impact a team's success (see Clippers, Knicks, Bulls, Dodgers, Mets)


To say that one is significantly better than the other is way off in my opinon.

where did I say Buford was far better? I simply said, I believe he is the best GM, and there is no 1b. Doesn't mean there is a large dropoff.

alexander_37
11-19-2012, 09:23 PM
This is a close call between Buford and Kupchak. There are different advantages/disadvantages for each.

Buford

Pros for Buford
1. Small market team but gets the talent
2. Best in the league in drafting players (along with the Mavs, Knicks) and by far the best in developing players
3. NEVER NEVER NEVER OVERPAYS

Cons against Buford.
1. When you get Tim Duncan as your first pick and Pop as your coach, 50% of your work for the decade is done. You just need to draft well and not mess up




KUPCHAK
Pros for Kupchak
1. GOAT in making trades. Not even close, and definitely not fair.
2. One of the best drafters in the game. LA has 1 lotto pick in the whole decade and picks at #10, gets the second best player in the draft and trades him for Dwight Howard.
3. Best in dumping contracts


CONS
1. Has Kobe and Phil
2. Best owner in the league
3. Big market argument, which in my opinion does not significantly impact a team's success (see Clippers, Knicks, Bulls, Dodgers, Mets)


To say that one is significantly better than the other is way off in my opinon.

How do you justify writing off Buford for having Pop and DUncan with a smaller market

While Kup has Kobe Phil Shaq and arguably the most attractive market. Kup is not a good drafter face it several GM's have found more talent in the second round in less time than Buford has in the first. He had one good draft pick.

I am not saying Kup is bad but he is not a good drafter and has arguably the easiest job of any GM.

vandoc
11-19-2012, 10:24 PM
Pat Riley---the fact that Shaq recruited Payton and Wade recruited Bosh and LeBron just testifies to the fact that he has that kind of hold over his players. He got Mike Miller, Battier and Ray Allen, drafted Norris Cole, got Haslem as an undrafted free agent. made the trade for Jason Williams, Posey, Antoine Walker and the list can go on back to the days of getting Mourning and Tim Hardaway.

Jerry West ---if you mention Kupchuck, then you should know he is working from the foundation West put in place. He did wonders in Memphis as well.

Buford---can draft well and finds the right pieces to fit around his big 3.

Presti ---protege of San Antonio's system so he drafts well...not as good with trades though

torocan
11-20-2012, 01:45 AM
I think it has to be Mitch for sure. Even a lot of the small trades he makes for us works out in the end.

Got ariza who helped win a championship
Traded Shaq and got us championship pieces
Traded fisher for Jordan hill
Traded Walton for sessions
Traded nothing for Shannon brown
Dwight for Bynum
Gasol for kwame
Almost got Cp3
Got Nash for picks

It's hard to argue Kupchak over Buford when many of Kupchak's biggest trades are impossible if the Owner is unwilling to go FAR over the salary cap.

The Lakers are heading towards $100M in salaries. If Buford was free to spend that much I have no doubt he could have executed a few "super trades".

Instead, he has to watch his pennies... and he still racked up a TON of championships, tons of 50+ win seasons, and perenniel Playoff/Championship contending teams while playing musical chairs with significant parts of his roster.

Kupchak is good, but I still gotta go with Buford...

JasonJohnHorn
11-20-2012, 10:02 AM
They are both good. You can't call one lucky and the other good.

You can't say Mitch is lucky to have Kobe. If the Spurs didn't get #1 pick in the 1997 draft, where would they be without Duncan?

This is a ridiculous argument. Drafting is NOT 90% of being a good GM. In fact, its probably around 40-50% only.

You can make the argument that luck is 50% of drafting --- without getting #1 picks, you get stuck to a team with just Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker with no Tim Duncan.

I am not saying Buford is a bum. I think him and Kupchak are so close at being #1, and I am saying you calling Kupchak lucky is a ridiculous statement.

Kupchak makes trade miracles almost every other season.

Again, I will say: Kupchak got lucky. He was lucky that Memphis was dumping Gasol and only wanted expiring contracts and picks. He was lucky that Dwight Howard forced a trade and that BK dropped the ball. If these things hadn't happened, LAL woudn't have won anything after the Shaq trade.

The Bynum pick was Jerry Buss. Jerry Buss has seen Bynum in highschool and thought he was a prodigy. Buss was the one who made the call on that pick.

Now... take away the two big trades (Gasol and Howard) and Bynum, and what is Kupchak left with?

West handed Kupchak a dynasty. West is the one who was amazing in the draft. West was the one who brought Shaq in. West was the one who traded for Glen Rice and fill the team out.

I haven't seen Kupchak do anything special. He has an owner who is willing to spend, and he has been lucky in the timing of certain trades. If Memphis had not decided to rebuild, Gasol would not be in LAL. That is not a miracle that Mitch pulled off, it's Mitch getting lucky. The Howard deal, Mitch failed over and over to get it done and essentially is lucky that the deal came back to him because BK dropped the ball. There is a huge difference between something falling in your lap, and finding talent.

A GM's job is to find talent. Mitch did not 'discover' Pau or Howard. He was lucky he could trade for them. And Mitch has done nothing in the draft.

As for Buford, he was lucky to in that Pop (who was the GM before him) handed him th keys to a corvette. But he has done an amazing job drafting players in the late first round and secnd round. Parker. Ginobli. Scola. Splitter. Beno Udrih. Dragic. George Hill. Dejuan Blair. Kawhi Leonard. Gary Neal.

You put a team of the players that Mithc pulled out of the draft against a team of players that Buford pulled out of the draft and Mitch's team would be destroyed!

And that's not even getting into all the great signings that Buford has pulled off. It's easy to get players to sign in LAL, but Buford has brought in cheap, affordable talent that fits in perfect with his team.

D-Leethal
11-20-2012, 11:01 AM
RC Buford does not have the asset of playing in Hollywood. Thats huge for a GM. Guys WANT to play there. Its a lot harder to lure guys to San Antonio, Buford had to get a lot more creative and build his team through the draft, not thru marquee trades and free agency for established superstars (guys approaching contract time, making it known they will not resign, forcing teams to trade them where they want to go - LA has a huge advantage in that department).

Buford built a dynasty around his cornerstone superstar using late first and second round picks and 14 years later they are still winning 60+ games on the reg.

DoMeFavors
11-20-2012, 11:02 AM
I may be a little biased here but Billy King took Philly to the finals, took a 12 win team to a contender in 2 years. The guy knows how to get good players.

D-Leethal
11-20-2012, 11:03 AM
The guy knows how to overpay out of utter desperation for good players.

fixed.

Chronz
11-20-2012, 11:03 AM
Are you asking us who the best GM's are or whos had the most success as a GM of any team? Kupcake is not a top GM to me but if you look at the Lakers success you would include him simply because they have a ton of great players. Mitch is competent but Im not impressed with his drafting/trading. I dont give GM's credit for signing no brainers.

It literally takes ZERO thought process to sign Bron, Bosh, Wade, now I know with Riles him carrying his swag prolly played a role, and in that sense hes a great GM, if he has enough pull to sway superstars thats a great quality, but in terms of basketball IQ, it doesn't take a genius to realize getting Bron is a great move for any franchise.

Chronz
11-20-2012, 11:13 AM
This is a close call between Buford and Kupchak. There are different advantages/disadvantages for each.

Buford

Pros for Buford
1. Small market team but gets the talent
2. Best in the league in drafting players (along with the Mavs, Knicks) and by far the best in developing players
3. NEVER NEVER NEVER OVERPAYS

Cons against Buford.
1. When you get Tim Duncan as your first pick and Pop as your coach, 50% of your work for the decade is done. You just need to draft well and not mess up




KUPCHAK
Pros for Kupchak
1. GOAT in making trades. Not even close, and definitely not fair.
2. One of the best drafters in the game. LA has 1 lotto pick in the whole decade and picks at #10, gets the second best player in the draft and trades him for Dwight Howard.
3. Best in dumping contracts


CONS
1. Has Kobe and Phil
2. Best owner in the league
3. Big market argument, which in my opinion does not significantly impact a team's success (see Clippers, Knicks, Bulls, Dodgers, Mets)


To say that one is significantly better than the other is way off in my opinon.

From your post it seems one is significantly better, amazing how subjectivity works. I didn't buy most of your opinions but even so I dont know how its not Buford.

I mean having Tim Duncan is less of an advantage than having Kobe considering Duncan has been removed from his prime for abit longer than Kobe. You compare the markets but comparisons outside of basketball do not translate. LAC has the market and it helps but only once our owner decided he should start spending. Knicks have been run incompetently so you shouldn't think people are saying that of Kupcake.

I dont see how hes the GOAT at making trades or dumping contracts. I mean he was lugging around Grant's 15+ million dollar contract for 3 years, which inevitably left to Kobe asking to be traded. And wasn't Bynum a Buss family decision? Didn't he want to take May or someone? I dont see what makes him a great drafter if thats true, and even with Bynum its still up for debate.

DoMeFavors
11-20-2012, 11:31 AM
fixed.

Like it or not he gets the job done.

JasonJohnHorn
11-20-2012, 12:05 PM
I may be a little biased here but Billy King took Philly to the finals, took a 12 win team to a contender in 2 years. The guy knows how to get good players.

King is solid. He found some real gems via free-agency. Gieger played well for him. George Lynch. And traded for Tyrone Hill. King really put the right players in place to allow Iverson to win. He picked up Tod McCullen (who was a steal for the late second round and played well though his career was cut short due to a medical issue) and he drafted Dalembert in the late first round, which was a steal. Lou Williams was a steal in the late second round. I wouldn't say he was a master at drafting, but he held his own. He made some good picks. Ultimately though, Iverson just wasn't the right guy to build around. I know King wanted to trade iverson at one point to the Clippers, and that might have actually ended up being good for Philly, but ultimately somebdoy decided to stick with Iverson (I don't know if it was King or the ownership) and King got them to the finals... so... His rebuilding didn't go as well as it could have, but it was hard because they weren't getting very high picks in the draft because they were still winning fair amount of games.


In BK though, he's lucky to have an owner that will spend. It allowed him to make that trade for Joe Johnson... let's be honest, most owners would not have given King he green light to bring in a contract like that, and then give big deal to D-Will, Wallace, Humph and Lopez.

I'd say King has certainly proved a competent GM. I wouldn't mind having him in Toronto.

RaiderLakersA's
11-20-2012, 12:12 PM
Which GM has the most wins in the last 15 years?

Which GM has the most championships in the last 15 years?

One of the above is the best GM.

Chronz
11-20-2012, 12:19 PM
Which GM has the most wins in the last 15 years?

Which GM has the most championships in the last 15 years?

One of the above is the best GM.

Do you know what a GM is?

Chronz
11-20-2012, 12:21 PM
King is solid. He found some real gems via free-agency. Gieger played well for him. George Lynch. And traded for Tyrone Hill. King really put the right players in place to allow Iverson to win. He picked up Tod McCullen (who was a steal for the late second round and played well though his career was cut short due to a medical issue) and he drafted Dalembert in the late first round, which was a steal. Lou Williams was a steal in the late second round. I wouldn't say he was a master at drafting, but he held his own. He made some good picks. Ultimately though, Iverson just wasn't the right guy to build around. I know King wanted to trade iverson at one point to the Clippers, and that might have actually ended up being good for Philly, but ultimately somebdoy decided to stick with Iverson (I don't know if it was King or the ownership) and King got them to the finals... so... His rebuilding didn't go as well as it could have, but it was hard because they weren't getting very high picks in the draft because they were still winning fair amount of games.


In BK though, he's lucky to have an owner that will spend. It allowed him to make that trade for Joe Johnson... let's be honest, most owners would not have given King he green light to bring in a contract like that, and then give big deal to D-Will, Wallace, Humph and Lopez.

I'd say King has certainly proved a competent GM. I wouldn't mind having him in Toronto.
Was King around during the early part of Iverson's career? I think your being too unkind on AI. He wasnt an easy player to build around but anytime your missing the playoffs with his kind of talent or making a trade for an old Webber, its going to bring up questions of intelligence.

JasonJohnHorn
11-20-2012, 12:29 PM
Which GM has the most wins in the last 15 years?

Which GM has the most championships in the last 15 years?

One of the above is the best GM.

You can't fairly give Mitch credit for the three rings LAL won with the team Jerry West built. When Mitch took over as GM, the Lakers has just won the first of three rings with Kobe and Shaq. And Mitch has been

robbed on a number of deals. He got robbed on the Shaq deal. In the Butler trade he gave up a promising young player who would go on to make two all-star games for Kwambe Brown. He lost Glen Rice in a trade, let Fisher and Horry walk away (Horry would sign with the Spurs who then beat the Lakers and won two rigns with Horry as a key contributor while the Lakers felt the loss of a quality back-up PF when Malone went down with injury). Shaq talked Malone and Payton into signing with LAL, not Mitch. He gave away a first-round draft pick along with Rick Fox and Gary Payton to the Celtics (that first round draft pick ended up being Rondo). He gave up MarK Gasol in a trade where he very easily would have been able to retain him since Memphis was desperate to get rid of Pau's contract. And he's given away 5 first-round draft picks since march. Not to mention hiring Mike Brown as Jackson's replacement.

Yes. He landed Pau and Dwight.

So the most wins in the last 15 years would go to Mitch. Doesn't make him the best GM. Just the luckiest. He almost lost his franchise player because he was doing such a poor job in the post-Shaq era. He was saved by the skin of his teeth by the Gasol trade. If Memphis had a better GM at the time, the Lakers would have lost Kobe.

The most wins in the last 15 years if Buford, and that has been the result of multiple great draft picks and miltiple clever signings.

When Mitch took over from West, he had Shaq, Kobe and Phil Jackson... let's not pretend that Mitch is the reason LA has won 5 championships in the last 15 years... it's more about West's work before he took over.

Mitch is a good GM, but he's not even in the conversation with Buford.

Gibby23
11-20-2012, 12:29 PM
Do you know what a GM is?

Do you? You said you don't give GM's credit for no brainer signings. Pau was a trade, Nash was a trade, Howard was a trade for Bynum. They took Bynum at number 10 in the same draft as Howard and just flipped him for the #1 pick in Howard. Small trades that paid off include Ariza and Shannon Brown. Farmar played a good role as a late 1st rounder. He also drafted Marc Gasol in the 2nd round. Not saying he is the best, but with limited money to sign FA's, he does his job as good or better than any GM. He also has the team set up for the next 2 years to win and play at a high level and a ton of money coming off the books. He has been rebuilding while the team has been going to the playoffs.

3RDASYSTEM
11-20-2012, 12:31 PM
WEST
RILEY
MITCH
BUFORD
DALLAS GM
PORTLAND GM

And stop with the small market shittalk for SA

TX is big as market as ya get,its the entire state market, not just the city, you think people born in SA dont reside in a DALLAS/HOUSTON city or a midwest/east/westcoast city? TX market has multiple NBA/MLB/NFL teams, it dont get no bigger than that outside of LA/NY/CHI

you can damn near drive 24hrs from one city to another in the state of TX alone

JasonJohnHorn
11-20-2012, 12:34 PM
Was King around during the early part of Iverson's career? I think your being too unkind on AI. He wasnt an easy player to build around but anytime your missing the playoffs with his kind of talent or making a trade for an old Webber, its going to bring up questions of intelligence.

Fair enough. Sometimes, when the clock is running out, you swing for the fences and it doesn't always work out. But I think King is one of the better GMs. He is not in the conversation with Pop, West and Buford, but he's worth having around if you can't get any of those guys.

JasonJohnHorn
11-20-2012, 12:36 PM
WEST
RILEY
MITCH
BUFORD
DALLAS GM
PORTLAND GM

And stop with the small market shittalk for SA

TX is big as market as ya get,its the entire state market, not just the city, you think people born in SA dont reside in a DALLAS/HOUSTON city or a midwest/east/westcoast city? TX market has multiple NBA/MLB/NFL teams, it dont get no bigger than that outside of LA/NY/CHI

you can damn near drive 24hrs from one city to another in the state of TX alone

I agree with having West at the top of the list. He was perhaps the greatest GM the league has seen in the post Russell era. Mitch though has built his success off West's work (and has actually undone some of the work West did). Riley, took a huge gamble and is very lucky it paid off. Had LBJ and Bosh decided to play elsewhere, it likely would have been very hard for Miami to even keep Wade and Riley would be standing around with egg on his face. He is VERY lucky that paid off for him.

Gibby23
11-20-2012, 12:42 PM
I agree with having West at the top of the list. He was perhaps the greatest GM the league has seen in the post Russell era. Mitch though has built his success off West's work (and has actually undone some of the work West did). Riley, took a huge gamble and is very lucky it paid off. Had LBJ and Bosh decided to play elsewhere, it likely would have been very hard for Miami to even keep Wade and Riley would be standing around with egg on his face. He is VERY lucky that paid off for him.

It's part of the Job. What if he didn't take that chance? They wouldn't have 2 straight Finals trips, a ring, and the best player in basketball.

king4day
11-20-2012, 12:43 PM
Gotta go with the Spurs GM.

Kupchak has done great things, but his access to a DEEP checkbook makes his job infinitely easier.

Buford is dealing in a small market and with limited resources.

I'm not sure Kupchak could be nearly as effective in a market like OKC or San Antonio, whereas I think Buford's ability to find and spot talent is useful everywhere, especially if you gave him more money in his budget.

This is the perfect response top to bottom. Everything I wanted to say, you did.

Chronz
11-20-2012, 01:12 PM
Do you? You said you don't give GM's credit for no brainer signings.
That applies to trades and drafts as well. It doesnt take a genius to draft LeBron just as it doesnt take a genius to sign him.



Pau was a trade, Nash was a trade, Howard was a trade for Bynum.
By that token, Bron going to Miami was a trade, Bosh as well IIRC. The concept is the same.



They took Bynum at number 10 in the same draft as Howard and just flipped him for the #1 pick in Howard.
You didn't answer my question regarding Bynum. So before we go off examining this, I'd like to know the facts if you know them. Was he or was he not a Buss project. And did Kupcake not suggest drafting Sean May?



Small trades that paid off include Ariza and Shannon Brown. Farmar played a good role as a late 1st rounder. He also drafted Marc Gasol in the 2nd round. Not saying he is the best, but with limited money to sign FA's, he does his job as good or better than any GM.
Some of those are moves I am more impressed by than adding Gasol. He raped Orlando/Charlotte for those quality role players. Farmar added depth, these were the kind of moves he failed to pull off during the Shaqobe era, he inherited a championship team and he allowed its supporting cast to degrade. Jerry West was the architect who left it for him to oversee so we should agree those 3 chips were not a product of his genius. Even the year they made the Finals because GP+Malone came on board, that was because of Shaq. So we ignore the Shaq years, lets focus on what he did after.

The Shaq trade was huge, I honestly dont know what to make of it. I never expected him to win the trade but the ramifications of adding Briant Grant's contract nearly cost the Lakers Kobe. Still when a player demands to be traded, your left with few options. Its the same reason I dont value the Pau move for the Lakers. You have to weigh both moves for and against him if you want to be consistent.

Instead of focusing too much on things like that I like to focus on things I know are PURELY a result of the GM working his thinking cap. They are moves for lesser players.


Ive said this before, a GM who can consistently find diamonds in the rough is more valuable than the GM who trades/Signs/Drafts LeBron. The move for LeBron will obviously win his team more games but I dont need a genius to tell me going for Bron is the right thing to do. I need someone who can build a team once I have Bron.

Kupcake is decent at that job but I havent been overly impressed in comparison to Buford. I mean your talking about a true innovator here, finding Franchise players in Manu/TP with really late picks smash on everything Kupcake has done. He was the first to really scout overseas players and of course for blending stats with aesthetics. From what Ive read, hes also a fan of the "2nd draft" which is just the cheeky way of saying taking other peoples talented scrapheaps and turning them into productive players knowing he has a coach/system in place to do so. As a result his team has done a better job of sustaining depth. His biggest mistake was holding Luis Scola hostage, you didnt mention it in your post but I can see why its best not to, he couldn't get his owner to budge on the buyout so its not his fault.
These are the kind of issues Mitch doesn't even have to deal with. And for all the love you give him for drafting/trading those guys, lets not forget he also let them go and replaced them with less athletic players. Something that cost them dearly in their repeat attempts.



He also has the team set up for the next 2 years to win and play at a high level and a ton of money coming off the books. He has been rebuilding while the team has been going to the playoffs.
I dont give him the credit for that, I give the credit to the fact that he has a **** load of no brainer talent. If he could convince all this talent to go to a place like... say Milwaukee, then maybe it would be pertinent. Or if he had gotten the Lakers to play at this level with slick moves that required some kind of cunning. But saying yes to a deal of Bynum for Dwight, or agreeing to absorb Nash doesn't strike me as genius. Particularly when Nash himself says part of the reason he came to LA was to be closer to his kids on a contender.

ManningToTyree
11-20-2012, 01:13 PM
Spurs GM

Chronz
11-20-2012, 01:19 PM
It's part of the Job. What if he didn't take that chance? They wouldn't have 2 straight Finals trips, a ring, and the best player in basketball.
Yes its part of the job and Im not saying he doesnt deserve some credit, its just sooo circumstantial tho, your depending on alot of variables to fall in line. Its not like he had this vision years in advanced, he literally backed his way into that situation when he struck out with Boozer/Odom over the years. I give Riley more credit for being a motivational speaker than a glorified accountant who created CAP space by wasting some of Wade's prime years and striking out on players he targeted.

DoMeFavors
11-20-2012, 01:23 PM
King is solid. He found some real gems via free-agency. Gieger played well for him. George Lynch. And traded for Tyrone Hill. King really put the right players in place to allow Iverson to win. He picked up Tod McCullen (who was a steal for the late second round and played well though his career was cut short due to a medical issue) and he drafted Dalembert in the late first round, which was a steal. Lou Williams was a steal in the late second round. I wouldn't say he was a master at drafting, but he held his own. He made some good picks. Ultimately though, Iverson just wasn't the right guy to build around. I know King wanted to trade iverson at one point to the Clippers, and that might have actually ended up being good for Philly, but ultimately somebdoy decided to stick with Iverson (I don't know if it was King or the ownership) and King got them to the finals... so... His rebuilding didn't go as well as it could have, but it was hard because they weren't getting very high picks in the draft because they were still winning fair amount of games.


In BK though, he's lucky to have an owner that will spend. It allowed him to make that trade for Joe Johnson... let's be honest, most owners would not have given King he green light to bring in a contract like that, and then give big deal to D-Will, Wallace, Humph and Lopez.

I'd say King has certainly proved a competent GM. I wouldn't mind having him in Toronto.

Im impressed you know your basketball! good knowledge of the NBA!

JasonJohnHorn
11-20-2012, 01:58 PM
It's part of the Job. What if he didn't take that chance? They wouldn't have 2 straight Finals trips, a ring, and the best player in basketball.

Well, if he was a good GM he wouldn't be in a position where his team is in the lottery so soon after winning a championship.