PDA

View Full Version : ESPN front office ranking



OKC
04-01-2014, 01:07 PM
ESPN rankings are usually full of controversy, knicks as worst is interesting for sure.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10708140/2014-nba-front-office-rankings

discuss

waveycrockett
04-01-2014, 01:10 PM
Not sure why the Bulls are at 5. That team is saved annually by Thibs and the Bulls FO has a terrible relationship with him and try to push him out but they know the fans will revolt. Imagine if that roster were coached by an average head coach? They would be the ATL Hawks this year.

spreadeagle
04-01-2014, 01:30 PM
Damn, my Raps got higher than the Lakers, the times are a changin

alexander_37
04-01-2014, 01:41 PM
Terrible list

torocan
04-01-2014, 01:52 PM
Not sure why the Bulls are at 5. That team is saved annually by Thibs and the Bulls FO has a terrible relationship with him and try to push him out but they know the fans will revolt. Imagine if that roster were coached by an average head coach? They would be the ATL Hawks this year.

Keep in mind that they separately rated the coaches and FO before melding them into composite scores.

Just having Thibs alone would substantially boost your score. So while the GM/Owner may or may not be amazing, Thibs on the bench makes up for a LOT.

ManRam
04-01-2014, 01:59 PM
This is one of those lists that isn't going to please everyone. It's an incredibly hard thing to really quantify especially as outsiders.

SA, MIA, IND and HOU are for sure in my top 5, and they're all right up there. Splitting hairs after that. Boston probably would be #5. Even with the iffy Harden trade, OKC has to be there as well. Those are my top-6, and they're all in their top-8. Chicago and Dallas probably would be next. So the top looks fine to me.

NYK, DET, and CLE are the obvious bottom 3 IMO, and this list jives with that. I wouldn't have Milwaukee quite that low, but I get it.

In between the very obvious there's gonna be a lot more disagreeing, but whatever.

Walt
04-01-2014, 02:18 PM
At first I disagreed with Dallas at #3 but then I realized our worst season by far the past 12-13 years was last season where we went 41-41 and that was with Dirk missing a fourth of the season and OJ Mayo as our Robin. Every other year, (excluding lockout) we've had at least 50 wins and we have a real chance to get it this year with a 36 year old Dirk and big free agent signings of Monta Ellis, Jose Calderon and Samuel Dalembert.

LongIslandIcedZ
04-01-2014, 02:19 PM
So is this just based on this year?

If that is the case, I'm ok with the Knicks being near the bottom.

But at the same time, how is Boston so high? Because their attempting to tank?

ManRam
04-01-2014, 02:26 PM
So is this just based on this year?

If that is the case, I'm ok with the Knicks being near the bottom.

But at the same time, how is Boston so high? Because their attempting to tank?

I doubt it's just based on this year...that would be kinda pointless to judge a front office based on one season of basketball.

So, in Boston's case, this is the same front office brought in Ray and KG and built an amazingly competitive team and then realized they were past their prime and sold of their pieces which was undoubtedly the right move. Those two more global examples (obviously ignoring tons of moves in between) definitely make them worthy of a top spot. That's great management. A lot of teams don't have the foresight or patience to realize when your run is over and either stay put for too long or, even worse, funnel more irresponsible money into the team to try and keep it up. Those strategies don't have a great track record.


The Knicks are at the bottom regardless of whether it's this year or not. Dolan has had a terrible run for a long time.

valade16
04-01-2014, 02:27 PM
This is one of those lists that isn't going to please everyone. It's an incredibly hard thing to really quantify especially as outsiders.

SA, MIA, IND and HOU are for sure in my top 5, and they're all right up there. Splitting hairs after that. Boston probably would be #5. Even with the iffy Harden trade, OKC has to be there as well. Those are my top-6, and they're all in their top-8. Chicago and Dallas probably would be next. So the top looks fine to me.

NYK, DET, and CLE are the obvious bottom 3 IMO, and this list jives with that. I wouldn't have Milwaukee quite that low, but I get it.

In between the very obvious there's gonna be a lot more disagreeing, but whatever.

I know I am very biased in this regard, but I have to know, what makes OKC above POR?

OKCís team is better but that is almost solely due to OKCís fortune of having Durant fall into their laps instead of Oden.

I mean, take away the fact they have Durant and how good have their moves been really? IMO, not very good.

LongIslandIcedZ
04-01-2014, 02:33 PM
I doubt it's just based on this year...that would be kinda pointless to judge a front office based on one season of basketball.

So, in Boston's case, this is the same front office brought in Ray and KG and built an amazingly competitive team and then realized they were past their prime and sold of their pieces which was undoubtedly the right move. Those two more global examples (obviously ignoring tons of moves in between) definitely make them worthy of a top spot. That's great management. A lot of teams don't have the foresight or patience to realize when your run is over and either stay put for too long or, even worse, funnel more irresponsible money into the team to try and keep it up. Those strategies don't have a great track record.


The Knicks are at the bottom regardless of whether it's this year or not. Dolan has had a terrible run for a long time.

Definitely low, but last?

There are some teams that have been way worse than the Knicks. They are by no means the worst team in the NBA recently.

GunFactor187
04-01-2014, 02:37 PM
We (Pistons) should be lower.

Pierzynski4Prez
04-01-2014, 02:41 PM
Not sure why the Bulls are at 5. That team is saved annually by Thibs and the Bulls FO has a terrible relationship with him and try to push him out but they know the fans will revolt. Imagine if that roster were coached by an average head coach? They would be the ATL Hawks this year.

Damn you must be in a pretty high up position in the Bulls FO to know that stuff. Good work.

ManRam
04-01-2014, 02:42 PM
Definitely low, but last?

There are some teams that have been way worse than the Knicks. They are by no means the worst team in the NBA recently.

The Knicks have a HUGE leg up on teams like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. for one significant reason: they are in NEW YORK CITY...a place where most any star in the world would be more than willing to play in. A ton make it clear that's where they actively want to play. That's a HUGE advantage...and not capitalizing on it is bad. What they've done, or really haven't done, over the last 13 or so years is just embarrassing. There's really one good year in there. ONE.

LongIslandIcedZ
04-01-2014, 02:56 PM
The Knicks have a HUGE leg up on teams like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. for one significant reason: they are in NEW YORK CITY...a place where most any star in the world would be more than willing to play in. A ton make it clear that's where they actively want to play. That's a HUGE advantage...and not capitalizing on it is bad. What they've done, or really haven't done, over the last 13 or so years is just embarrassing. There's really one good year in there. ONE.

Solid argument, I just disagree with it.

I have no problem with the Knicks being at the back of the list, but the worst? I just don't think that is an accurate assessment.

valade16
04-01-2014, 02:56 PM
The Knicks have a HUGE leg up on teams like Milwaukee, Cleveland, Detroit, etc. for one significant reason: they are in NEW YORK CITY...a place where most any star in the world would be more than willing to play in. A ton make it clear that's where they actively want to play. That's a HUGE advantage...and not capitalizing on it is bad. What they've done, or really haven't done, over the last 13 or so years is just embarrassing. There's really one good year in there. ONE.

And even that one good year was based on a terrible contract for Stoudemire that was fully guaranteed when everybody and their mother was wary of his injuries.

They truly have been abysmal in nearly every way. From 2005-2008 they had all the following players come through NY:
Jamal Crawford, Trevor Ariza, Channing Frye, David Lee, Zach Randolph, Nate Robinson, Wilson Chandler, and Danillo Gallinari. That would be a playoff team in the East right now. That is simply if they kept their assets.
Not even if they had correctly managed their assets or turned them into better assets, just if they had done nothing but keep them on the teamÖ And that was 5-7 years agoÖ

ManRam
04-01-2014, 02:57 PM
I know I am very biased in this regard, but I have to know, what makes OKC above POR?

OKCís team is better but that is almost solely due to OKCís fortune of having Durant fall into their laps instead of Oden.

I mean, take away the fact they have Durant and how good have their moves been really? IMO, not very good.

Hitting on Durant, Ibaka, Harden and RWB is HUGE. They're the poster child for that new-age rebuild model...and they're still the only team to really pull it off, mainly because they hit HUGE on 4 picks. Yes, there's luck involved in that they got Durant and not Oden, that they stunk the two years after drafting Durant, etc...but there's a model a lot of these teams "bottoming out" are following, and OKC is the team that everyone wants to emulate.

Hey, I admitted in my first post that this isn't something that you can ever find a consensus on. There's SOOO many ways to go about it. I'm not gonna sit here and act like my opinion is "right" or anything. For the most part this is mostly opinion. It's hard to be terribly empirical with stuff like this.



Solid argument, I just disagree with it.

I have no problem with the Knicks being at the back of the list, but the worst? I just don't think that is an accurate assessment.

That's fine. I'm not gonna say you're wrong or that I'm right...for the reasons said above. There's little separating a lot of these teams.

Jetsguy
04-01-2014, 02:57 PM
I am a Knicks fan and even if this covers the last decade we have to be last or bottom 3 anyway. It has been a miserable run since the 90's.

-Kobe24-TJ19-
04-01-2014, 03:03 PM
Solid argument, I just disagree with it.

I have no problem with the Knicks being at the back of the list, but the worst? I just don't think that is an accurate assessment.

trust me...which team was willing to give a first for Bargnani?

that alone should put them dead last

John Walls Era
04-01-2014, 03:08 PM
I dont remember the last great move the Knicks (Dolan) was able to pull off. In recent years, Linsanity was the greatest thing they were a part of.

abe_froman
04-01-2014, 03:19 PM
Solid argument, I just disagree with it.

I have no problem with the Knicks being at the back of the list, but the worst? I just don't think that is an accurate assessment.

many dumb moves since the heyday of the 90's-trading 2 lotto picks for eddy curry,handing huge contract to amare,using amnesty on someone other than amare,trading a first for bargs,ect.,ect.,there is just so much you can point to

colinskik
04-01-2014, 03:42 PM
I dont remember the last great move the Knicks (Dolan) was able to pull off. In recent years, Linsanity was the greatest thing they were a part of.

They've drafted pretty well the last decade. That's good for something.

dodgersuck
04-01-2014, 03:52 PM
GS at 10? Hell no, they have drafted and signed FA's very well over the years. The Lee deal was a steal and getting Curry and Thompson in successive drafts is enough for them to be in the top 1-6

FriedTofuz
04-01-2014, 04:00 PM
when you change GMs ever year and are owned by Dolan, one of the worst owner in all of pro sports, you should be ranked last. I may be biased but I dont think the lakers deserve to be so low, nor for the Heat to be that high.

colinskik
04-01-2014, 04:07 PM
when you change GMs ever year and are owned by Dolan, one of the worst owner in all of pro sports, you should be ranked last. I may be biased but I dont think the lakers deserve to be so low, nor for the Heat to be that high.

Yes, you are being biased.

juggla53
04-01-2014, 04:14 PM
I know I am very biased in this regard, but I have to know, what makes OKC above POR?

OKCís team is better but that is almost solely due to OKCís fortune of having Durant fall into their laps instead of Oden.

I mean, take away the fact they have Durant and how good have their moves been really? IMO, not very good.

Since drafting Durant they have also drafted Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka, James Hardren, Eric Bledsoe, and Reggie Jackson.

No team in the NBA has done as well drafting as the thunder over the last 5-6 years. I wont disagree that they did not handle the James Harden situation as best they could but they have built themselves into a consistantly contending team in a small market. They have also done a good enough job ensuring that Kevin Durant is one of the very few top teir players who's name isnt always brought up in trade or FA speculation.

Kaner
04-01-2014, 04:18 PM
Not sure why the Bulls are at 5. That team is saved annually by Thibs and the Bulls FO has a terrible relationship with him and try to push him out but they know the fans will revolt. Imagine if that roster were coached by an average head coach? They would be the ATL Hawks this year.

Not even Thibs would have been able to save this team if the Bulls hadn't been very successful on very low first round draft picks since Forman took over. Butler and Gibson their 2nd and 3rd best players this season were taken 30th and 26th. Only the Spurs and Maybe OKC have been as successful in that regard. The Bulls were also the front office that finally gave Thibs his shot as well, so you can't say Thibs is the reason they've been so successful without giving the Bulls front office some credit for being the ones to hire him.

Cal827
04-01-2014, 04:21 PM
If the Knicks are last on this list, can someone explain to me how exactly Brooklyn is at 15? Yes, they have the better record as of right now, but their future situation is terrible. They have to pay roughly 55-60 million (which is pretty much at the Salary Cap) for Brook Lopez, Joe Jonson, and Deron Williams over the next three seasons. Lopez is oft-injured (When he is playing, he is great though), but the latter two are declining. They also have given away potentially high picks over the next 4 years to Boston and Atlanta, in order to acquire the two.

For what they were expected to be this season, Brooklyn should be a lot lower on this list IMO. But hey, maybe their moves will pay off come playoff time, we will have to see.

Kaner
04-01-2014, 04:26 PM
I think Philly's way too low, their front office may be filled with tanking scumbags but pretty soon their going to be looking like very smart scumbags when they cash in on those draft picks and cap space.

edit: Just noticed Clippers were 14, no way they should be lower than 8, that team is built perfectly.

torocan
04-01-2014, 04:42 PM
So is this just based on this year?

If that is the case, I'm ok with the Knicks being near the bottom.

But at the same time, how is Boston so high? Because their attempting to tank?

The Knicks are near the bottom because of the way the score is done. One score for the Head Coach. One score for the owner. One score for the Management.

Dolan
Woodson
Steve Mills (Jackson doesn't count as he just joined and hasn't proven anything yet)

If you put Dolan and Woodson at or near the bottom of the NBA, and Steve Mills ranked solidly in the bottom 3rd of the NBA then it's easy to see a bottom ranking.

As for Boston, yes they tanked but they've done a fantastic job clearing cap space, accumulating draft picks, and they've hired a really nice young coach in Brad Stevens. And their ownership has shown consistent commitment to team direction and allowing the Management to pursue their plans, whether it was the building of the big 3, or allowing the team to be dismantled and tank.

So while #5 *might* be a bit high, I don't think it's *that* far off.

Houston I can see the ranking being pulled down by McHale. Unless someone wants to argue he's a top 5 Head Coach in the NBA? Yah... didn't think so.

ManRam
04-01-2014, 04:49 PM
As for Boston, yes they tanked but they've done a fantastic job clearing cap space, accumulating draft picks, and they've hired a really nice young coach in Brad Stevens. And their ownership has shown consistent commitment to team direction and allowing the Management to pursue their plans, whether it was the building of the big 3, or allowing the team to be dismantled and tank.

Moreover, why is "tanking" something that should be considered bad, or something worth knocking points for? The alternative -- being a bad team with aging assets that you would end up getting nothing for -- isn't a better option.

People have been wondering if it was time for Boston to "blow it up" for years now. They stretched it a little bit to moderate success, but in the end that's what they did because (1) it was the right thing to do (2) they had no other choice. Them "tanking" (I hate to call it that in their case) isn't something worth docking points for. That's still one of the very best front offices there is, and Brad, like you said, has done a pretty great job all things considered.

valade16
04-01-2014, 04:58 PM
Since drafting Durant they have also drafted Russell Westbrook, Serge Ibaka, James Hardren, Eric Bledsoe, and Reggie Jackson.

No team in the NBA has done as well drafting as the thunder over the last 5-6 years. I wont disagree that they did not handle the James Harden situation as best they could but they have built themselves into a consistantly contending team in a small market. They have also done a good enough job ensuring that Kevin Durant is one of the very few top teir players who's name isnt always brought up in trade or FA speculation.

And of those five two are now on different teams (you can add Jeff Green to that list). What do they have for James Harden, Eric Bledsoe, and Jeff Green? Kendrick Perkins and Doron Lamb?
They have done an amazing job drafting but they have been about the worst at maximizing the value of those picks. If Westbrook becomes the next Rose and is continually hurt the decision to let Harden go could look disastrous.

John Walls Era
04-01-2014, 05:11 PM
GS at 10? Hell no, they have drafted and signed FA's very well over the years. The Lee deal was a steal and getting Curry and Thompson in successive drafts is enough for them to be in the top 1-6

Who can they be ahead of? You're using a sample size of 4 years. How many playoff series have they won in the past decade? 10 is very reasonable.

OKC
04-01-2014, 05:39 PM
And of those five two are now on different teams (you can add Jeff Green to that list). What do they have for James Harden, Eric Bledsoe, and Jeff Green? Kendrick Perkins and Doron Lamb?
They have done an amazing job drafting but they have been about the worst at maximizing the value of those picks. If Westbrook becomes the next Rose and is continually hurt the decision to let Harden go could look disastrous.

we made the finals two years ago, last year losing westy prevented us another opportunity. OKC are a dominant team in a tough western conference and all that without paying the luxury tax.
what we got for Harden? Steven Adams, who I really like, Jeremy(!) Lamb and we got a year of Kevin Martin. not much but could be worse.
I think the Thunder is a very well run organization and if not for Scotty's mediocrity we would be higher on that ranking.

Clippersfan86
04-01-2014, 05:47 PM
Lmao at Clippers being 16th. Two straight years runner up exec of the year, with two different GM's. Consistently good signings and trades. Hell the two most coveted buyouts were Granger and Davis and we got BOTH. Joke ranking.

koreancabbage
04-01-2014, 06:11 PM
Definitely low, but last?

There are some teams that have been way worse than the Knicks. They are by no means the worst team in the NBA recently.

poorly managed and in a big market with the resources to do anything to win. took gambles on Stoudemire and Chandler (didn't really pan out- Chandler has been average coming to the Knicks but he can't do it all and is very one dimensional), didn't resign Lin, resigned Felton, didn't really add any depth while Melo was here. and a team in a big market that has not won anything or have been consistent in terms of winning - thats def grounds for being near the bottom, if not last. At least Boston was a championship within the last 10 years and at least made the correct moves to win a championship 6-7 years ago. This year, its pretty evident they are tanking so we know what they are doing - pretty clear sign and direction from management - we have no idea what the Knicks are doing.

valade16
04-01-2014, 06:12 PM
we made the finals two years ago, last year losing westy prevented us another opportunity. OKC are a dominant team in a tough western conference and all that without paying the luxury tax.
what we got for Harden? Steven Adams, who I really like, Jeremy(!) Lamb and we got a year of Kevin Martin. not much but could be worse.
I think the Thunder is a very well run organization and if not for Scotty's mediocrity we would be higher on that ranking.

Coach aside, I think the mediocrity of the FO is why they havenít been more successful.

As I mentioned, they fell into Kevin Durant. Outside of that they have done all they can to ship away their assets without getting equal value in return. The way in which they have screwed up that roster cannot be overstated.

If they had kept guys like Harden, Bledsoe, Green, etc. we are looking at perhaps the most talented team of all-time, not among the best teams in the league.

I give them props for getting talent, but I have to subtract far more for getting rid of the talent.

koreancabbage
04-01-2014, 06:13 PM
Lmao at Clippers being 16th. Two straight years runner up exec of the year, with two different GM's. Consistently good signings and trades. Hell the two most coveted buyouts were Granger and Davis and we got BOTH. Joke ranking.

recent success doesn't mean the years of agony beforehand didn't mean anything. lets be real here. They have been decent the last few years but if this recent success continues for the next few years i.e. 3-5 more, they should be top 5 in due time.

ManRam
04-01-2014, 06:15 PM
Lmao at Clippers being 16th. Two straight years runner up exec of the year, with two different GM's. Consistently good signings and trades. Hell the two most coveted buyouts were Granger and Davis and we got BOTH. Joke ranking.

I'm going to guess it's because the voters have the ability to remember things that happened longer than 3 years ago. I'm also sure Sterling brings things down QUITE a bit on his lonesome. 16th maybe is low, but how much higher do you realistically expect them to be? Can't be much

John Walls Era
04-01-2014, 06:16 PM
Lmao at Clippers being 16th. Two straight years runner up exec of the year, with two different GM's. Consistently good signings and trades. Hell the two most coveted buyouts were Granger and Davis and we got BOTH. Joke ranking.

That large sample size really should bring them to the top 5...

koreancabbage
04-01-2014, 06:17 PM
Coach aside, I think the mediocrity of the FO is why they havenít been more successful.

As I mentioned, they fell into Kevin Durant. Outside of that they have done all they can to ship away their assets without getting equal value in return. The way in which they have screwed up that roster cannot be overstated.

If they had kept guys like Harden, Bledsoe, Green, etc. we are looking at perhaps the most talented team of all-time, not among the best teams in the league.

I give them props for getting talent, but I have to subtract far more for getting rid of the talent.

other than the Harden trade, they have had major success at finding the right talent. They can only keep so much talent for so long at low salaries. Harden/ Durant/ Westbrook would have handcuffed them from resigning maybe Ibaka for instance - they could not afford all 4 players at or near max levels.

Thats why I find it fair for them to be top 10 because they have been on the uptick since moving to Seattle and we've seen the progression. Thats great management there, in the sample size we are using here.

NoahH
04-01-2014, 07:25 PM
Lol @ knicks...

valade16
04-01-2014, 09:19 PM
other than the Harden trade, they have had major success at finding the right talent. They can only keep so much talent for so long at low salaries. Harden/ Durant/ Westbrook would have handcuffed them from resigning maybe Ibaka for instance - they could not afford all 4 players at or near max levels.

Thats why I find it fair for them to be top 10 because they have been on the uptick since moving to Seattle and we've seen the progression. Thats great management there, in the sample size we are using here.

So Kendrick Perkins is "the right talent"? They gave up Jeff Green to get him...

The thing about the Thunder is once they drafted their main 4 guys every year their team has less talent than the year before.

This years team has less talent than last years, which had less than the year before, which had less than the year before, etc.

The Thunder's story hasn't been written yet and they obviously have potential to win several titles in the next few years. But if they don't it will likely be because of the terrible decisions they've made the last few years.

Essentially they drafted a straight flush and traded it away. Sure they traded their way to a full house, but they could've had so much more if they'd played their cards right...

koreancabbage
04-01-2014, 09:49 PM
So Kendrick Perkins is "the right talent"? They gave up Jeff Green to get him...

The thing about the Thunder is once they drafted their main 4 guys every year their team has less talent than the year before.

This years team has less talent than last years, which had less than the year before, which had less than the year before, etc.

The Thunder's story hasn't been written yet and they obviously have potential to win several titles in the next few years. But if they don't it will likely be because of the terrible decisions they've made the last few years.

Essentially they drafted a straight flush and traded it away. Sure they traded their way to a full house, but they could've had so much more if they'd played their cards right...

They went for the size, which is understandable. They can't have Jeff Green and Harden. they are getting and their salaries are ballooning every year. and they needed to move their assets for needs.

you can't tell me, that with their success the last few years and managing salaries that they don't belong in the top 10? they have been contenders for a few years now. and have been been up on the uptick. like i said, progress is tracked and its being recognized.

valade16
04-01-2014, 10:20 PM
They went for the size, which is understandable. They can't have Jeff Green and Harden. they are getting and their salaries are ballooning every year. and they needed to move their assets for needs.

you can't tell me, that with their success the last few years and managing salaries that they don't belong in the top 10? they have been contenders for a few years now. and have been been up on the uptick. like i said, progress is tracked and its being recognized.

The Perkins trade was understandable but still terrible.

And they managed salaries by getting rid of talent for inferior talent.

Name a trade the Thunder have made that brought back better (or even the same) talent as they got rid of.

Their biggest 2 trades were to trade Green for Perkins (which very well could have forced them to need to get rid of Harden) and then Traded Harden, who has become a Top 10-20 player, for 1 year of Kevin Martin and an as of yet unknown.

They are making progress because they drafted so well, but since that point they've been steadily hemorraging talent and assets...

koreancabbage
04-01-2014, 10:40 PM
The Perkins trade was understandable but still terrible.

And they managed salaries by getting rid of talent for inferior talent.

Name a trade the Thunder have made that brought back better (or even the same) talent as they got rid of.

Their biggest 2 trades were to trade Green for Perkins (which very well could have forced them to need to get rid of Harden) and then Traded Harden, who has become a Top 10-20 player, for 1 year of Kevin Martin and an as of yet unknown.

They are making progress because they drafted so well, but since that point they've been steadily hemorraging talent and assets...

but they got a bunch of talent back in their bench. Perry Jones and Lamb. they need some time to develop but thats the dream of a GM if they can get development from young cheap talent. Reggie Jackson is a talent as well

It also, hopefully, gives them flexibility to get another player thats better than Perkins once his contract is traded/expires in this continued cycling of players. I'm not saying the GM was right for trading Harden but maybe the GM 1) made a mistake 2) GM thought they would not coexist with Harden, Durant and Westbrook and one basketball.

alexander_37
04-01-2014, 11:39 PM
Houston should seriously be top 5 if not 3. They rebuilt while continually making or being close to the playoffs. They rebuilt without getting an even decent lottery pick. Morey continually rolls assets and steals into bigger and bigger chips before cashing them in. I honestly don't think there is anywhere near as good a GM at churning the roster like that.

Cracka2HI!
04-01-2014, 11:40 PM
If this is based on right now the Clippers should be a lot higher. If you consider how big of a douche Sterling has been the majority of the time he's owned the team it's easy to understand the ranking. It doesn't really matter to me, the Clippers certainly don't have the 14th best team.

Kaner
04-01-2014, 11:55 PM
Houston should seriously be top 5 if not 3. They rebuilt while continually making or being close to the playoffs. They rebuilt without getting an even decent lottery pick. Morey continually rolls assets and steals into bigger and bigger chips before cashing them in. I honestly don't think there is anywhere near as good a GM at churning the roster like that.

To be fair isn't Morey the guy who had both Lowry and Dragic and let them walk to sign Lin for more money then either of them. Morey has generally been great but that move could end up being the difference between 2nd round exit and Championship.

ChiSox219
04-02-2014, 12:02 AM
I like Houston, Miami, Orlando under Hennigan, San Antonio, and New Orleans.

Crackadalic
04-02-2014, 12:05 AM
Agree with most of it. Knicks being last is 100% right.

ChiSox219
04-02-2014, 12:06 AM
Also, you could put anything around KD and get 50 wins so it's hard for me to give OKC credit when the Harden trade is one of the worst ever.

Hawkeye15
04-02-2014, 12:18 AM
Definitely low, but last?

There are some teams that have been way worse than the Knicks. They are by no means the worst team in the NBA recently.

The Knicks have the ability to carry a $100 million dollar payroll year in, and year out, yet have sucked for 17 years.

Yes, they are the worst run NBA team. Easily. This coming from a Wolves fan, whose team is also a joke when it comes to the FO.

Imagine if SA or OKC had the financial ability to sustain teams like the Knicks. They would have won everything in site the last 15 years.

Hawkeye15
04-02-2014, 12:22 AM
And of those five two are now on different teams (you can add Jeff Green to that list). What do they have for James Harden, Eric Bledsoe, and Jeff Green? Kendrick Perkins and Doron Lamb?
They have done an amazing job drafting but they have been about the worst at maximizing the value of those picks. If Westbrook becomes the next Rose and is continually hurt the decision to let Harden go could look disastrous.

OKC has a revenue max out, because they play in OKC. They are TOO good at drafting, and have had no choice but to move/let go some of their talent.

SouthSideRookie
04-02-2014, 12:22 AM
Not even Thibs would have been able to save this team if the Bulls hadn't been very successful on very low first round draft picks since Forman took over. Butler and Gibson their 2nd and 3rd best players this season were taken 30th and 26th. Only the Spurs and Maybe OKC have been as successful in that regard. The Bulls were also the front office that finally gave Thibs his shot as well, so you can't say Thibs is the reason they've been so successful without giving the Bulls front office some credit for being the ones to hire him.

T Jones, Parsons and Beverley. That's one of Morey's strengths.


To be fair isn't Morey the guy who had both Lowry and Dragic and let them walk to sign Lin for more money then either of them. Morey has generally been great but that move could end up being the difference between 2nd round exit and Championship.

Yeah, except if the Lowry trade doesn't happen then there's no Harden to the Rockets. Houston used the Toronto pick acquired via the Lowry trade in the Harden deal.

Hawkeye15
04-02-2014, 12:23 AM
Lmao at Clippers being 16th. Two straight years runner up exec of the year, with two different GM's. Consistently good signings and trades. Hell the two most coveted buyouts were Granger and Davis and we got BOTH. Joke ranking.

they do say their are 3 factors. Owner/GM/Coach.

Sterling kills you in this equation.

Hawkeye15
04-02-2014, 12:26 AM
If this is based on right now the Clippers should be a lot higher. If you consider how big of a douche Sterling has been the majority of the time he's owned the team it's easy to understand the ranking. It doesn't really matter to me, the Clippers certainly don't have the 14th best team.

well, when you get multiple #1 picks over the course of 20 years, you should hit it right eventually..

Hawkeye15
04-02-2014, 12:28 AM
T Jones, Parsons and Beverley. That's one of Morey's strengths.



Yeah, except if the Lowry trade doesn't happen then there's no Harden to the Rockets. Houston used the Toronto pick acquired via the Lowry trade in the Harden deal.

I used to think Morey was an overrated GM, but have come to the conclusion that behind Buford, and maybe Bird, he is the best in the league.

Chrisclover
04-02-2014, 12:52 AM
Finally Lakers is not being yelled at to beat this year. But we will be soon.

Kaner
04-02-2014, 01:26 AM
T Jones, Parsons and Beverley. That's one of Morey's strengths.

Well technically he signed Beverley, Jones and Parsons were amazing picks though I just forgot about them.


Yeah, except if the Lowry trade doesn't happen then there's no Harden to the Rockets. Houston used the Toronto pick acquired via the Lowry trade in the Harden deal.

good point he still chose Lin over Dragic after Dragic completely tore it up when Lowry went down.

Cracka2HI!
04-02-2014, 01:39 AM
well, when you get multiple #1 picks over the course of 20 years, you should hit it right eventually..

Yep, we finally did!

alexander_37
04-02-2014, 01:56 AM
Well technically he signed Beverley, Jones and Parsons were amazing picks though I just forgot about them.



good point he still chose Lin over Dragic after Dragic completely tore it up when Lowry went down.

To be fair Lin has improved his shooting efficiency ( .572% TS that's damn good) and turnovers.

effen5
04-02-2014, 02:16 AM
Solid argument, I just disagree with it.

I have no problem with the Knicks being at the back of the list, but the worst? I just don't think that is an accurate assessment.

Those 3 teams have been in the playoffs more than the Knicks has since 2000.

Hawkeye15
04-02-2014, 02:18 AM
Yep, we finally did!

that is all I mean. Any Clippers fan should know they have not had a top 15-20 front office for eternity. They finally got it right, that shouldn't just makeup for the fact they blew 2 decades of having high picks, multiple #1's, and happen to be in the 2nd biggest market in the US.

Ebbs
04-02-2014, 02:18 AM
Anyone who is actually complaining about Dallas's ranking ask yourselves how many 50 win seasons they've had? How many conference finals appearances, a championship. Found ways to stay competitive every year without getting locked into **** contracts. Absolutely deserve their placing.

Hawkeye15
04-02-2014, 02:21 AM
Morey gets major points from me, because he was tasked by Les Alexander to rebuild a team while not tanking. Les refused to let Morey just blow the roster apart and suck, to get a high pick. So instead, he drafted 14th every single year, and STILL built enough chips to trade for Harden, and then created enough flexibility to sign Howard. He is a master at trading players just as they are about to make more money (Budinger, Morris), while keeping flexibility open.

San Antonio is the runaway here. Nobody close. At all. They broke this up by 3 phases. Owner/GM/Coach. The Rockets do deserved to be top 5.

Hawkeye15
04-02-2014, 02:22 AM
Anyone who is actually complaining about Dallas's ranking ask yourselves how many 50 win seasons they've had? How many conference finals appearances, a championship. Found ways to stay competitive every year without getting locked into **** contracts. Absolutely deserve their placing.

yeah, Dallas is top 5. Cuban would kick a puppy to win, Carlisle is an excellent coach, and they have been excellent for over a decade.

Ebbs
04-02-2014, 02:22 AM
Anyone who is actually complaining about Dallas's ranking ask yourselves how many 50 win seasons they've had? How many conference finals appearances, a championship. Found ways to stay competitive every year without getting locked into **** contracts. Absolutely deserve their placing.

yeah, Dallas is top 5. Cuban would kick a puppy to win, Carlisle is an excellent coach, and they have been excellent for over a decade.

:laugh:

Clippersfan86
04-02-2014, 02:24 AM
These rankings are power rankings for top front offices right now. Why are people bringing up sample sizes? Over the last 3 years the Clippers have been the most successful front office in the entire league arguably.

koreancabbage
04-02-2014, 02:32 AM
These rankings are power rankings for top front offices right now. Why are people bringing up sample sizes? Over the last 3 years the Clippers have been the most successful front office in the entire league arguably.

thats just disrespect to the Spurs, Heat, Pacers.

Clippers have yet to do anything to be considered a serious threat in the NBA. 2nd round exit and a 1st round exit in the last two years. Thats hardly anything to be boastful about. on court performance has been a dud.

effen5
04-02-2014, 02:34 AM
thats just disrespect to the Spurs, Heat, Pacers.

Clippers have yet to do anything to be considered a serious threat in the NBA. 2nd round exit and a 1st round exit in the last two years. Thats hardly anything to be boastful about. on court performance has been a dud.

I think Pacers are pretty equivalent with the Clippers. The other two teams I'd agree.

koreancabbage
04-02-2014, 02:43 AM
I think Pacers are pretty equivalent with the Clippers. The other two teams I'd agree.

agreed with Pacers opinion.

Deadpool
04-02-2014, 03:53 AM
Here's the criteria on how they valued each position of a front office:


But how do we know which role is the most important?

We asked the voters. The results, on a scale of 0 to 100:

ē Owners: 26.5 percent
ē Front office: 40.3 percent
ē Coach: 33.2 percent

Dallas is a no-brainer lock as a top 5 team, especially with the criteria provided.

Kashmir13579
04-02-2014, 04:12 AM
ESPN rankings are usually full of controversy, knicks as worst is interesting for sure.
http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/10708140/2014-nba-front-office-rankings

discuss if you really think its interesting as in you are surprised they are last, you don't know much about the Knicks and their owner. Not just NBA, worst run organization in sports arguably.

Kashmir13579
04-02-2014, 04:13 AM
I dont remember the last great move the Knicks (Dolan) was able to pull off. In recent years, Linsanity was the greatest thing they were a part of. Yep.

WadeKobe
04-02-2014, 08:44 AM
The Perkins trade was understandable but still terrible.

And they managed salaries by getting rid of talent for inferior talent.

Name a trade the Thunder have made that brought back better (or even the same) talent as they got rid of.

Their biggest 2 trades were to trade Green for Perkins (which very well could have forced them to need to get rid of Harden) and then Traded Harden, who has become a Top 10-20 player, for 1 year of Kevin Martin and an as of yet unknown.

They are making progress because they drafted so well, but since that point they've been steadily hemorraging talent and assets...

This. People can talk about the revenue limits all they want, but it is a moot point because their problem is that they have so poorly managed that revenue they have available.

They traded away a young, cheap asset for an aging, expensive player who was not as good. Then, because they acquired the bad expensive player, they couldn't afford to sign a young, great player and instead of getting rid of the old expensive player, they traded away the young heap asset. As if all of that was bad enough, they got a terrible exchange forthw asset.

And to top it all off, they continue to emply a miserable basketball coach who, despite the fact that everyone in the world is now aware of how terrible Perkins is, he continues to give him significant minutes.

The Thunder are gods on draft day. Unfortunately, their prowess at drafting is only surpassed by their prowess at ****ing it all up after draft day.

MonroeFAN
04-02-2014, 08:47 AM
I don't see how Detroit's front office can be placed higher than Milwaulkees.

Hammond practically rimmed Joe D this summer.

LongIslandIcedZ
04-02-2014, 09:19 AM
Hmm I don't think I've ever had my post quoted so many times in 2 pages.

I still think last seems excessive, but I guess its tough to argue for the Dolan/Isaiah team, they were abysmal. I'm starting to come around lol.

mdm692
04-02-2014, 09:52 AM
Suns should be a bit higher IMObut then again I'm a Suns fan lol. For real though we doubled our projected wins total when everybody had written us off. Goran Dragic is the best SG in the league this year for just 8 mill a year and let's not forget how important the Plumlee and Green acquisition was for this team. We turned Dudley into EB and then turned Caron Butler into Ish Smith who was huge when Bledsoe went down. Gortat became a 1st round pick and a 14 million dollar contract for the injured Okafor that is insured. TBH the job done has been brilliant. I guess it's that Celtics pedigree.

mdm692
04-02-2014, 10:00 AM
To be fair Lin has improved his shooting efficiency ( .572% TS that's damn good) and turnovers.
Sorry but that's no excuse. He had to pay Dragic 9 mill only. If I'm not mistaken Houston wouldn't go past 8 mill. For 1 mill more though you guys could of had the best backcourt in the entire NBA by a mile.

Clippersfan86
04-02-2014, 10:42 AM
Korean are you reading, or just talking? Results of the team isn't what the ranking is about. It's about how good the owners, coaches and front office execs are right now.

The Clippers have a top notch front office as evidenced by back to back runner up GM of the year (one they should have won), nd will likely be in the running again this year. Coaching staff led by Doc/Gentry easily ranks among the top 5 as well. Considering that owner weighs at just 25 percent, Sterling shouldn't be enough to drag the Clippers so low. Nevermind that Sterling has been decent for a near decade and has paid out more contract money than any owner recently, including two 100 million dollar contracts in back to back years. The bottom line is people are still stuck in the past. This CURRENT ranking is disrespectful.

Clippersfan86
04-02-2014, 10:46 AM
ESPN once again makes some sort of criteria in which theyy don't even stick to. Reminds me of their top player lists.

therealwd27
04-02-2014, 11:33 AM
I can't argue here. Even though my bias always puts Miami #1 but can't argue bein behind the Spurs

torocan
04-02-2014, 11:44 AM
Sorry but that's no excuse. He had to pay Dragic 9 mill only. If I'm not mistaken Houston wouldn't go past 8 mill. For 1 mill more though you guys could of had the best backcourt in the entire NBA by a mile.

The breaking point for Dragic wasn't the money, it's that he wanted a 4th year player option.

Contracts with 4th year player options are notoriously hard to trade due to their uncertainty. If the player is injured or massively regresses in the 3rd year, the contract becomes worthless. If they play well, you can't plan your budget going forward as you're facing an uncertain cap hit in year 4.

Remember, when Morey let go of Dragic they did NOT have Lin, Harden, Asik OR Dwight. Morey was planning for maximum trade and cap flexibility. And Morey was fully willing to pay the salary that Dragic eventually received from Phoenix. Even Phoenix wasn't willing to pay him $9m. Morey just wasn't willing to take a 4th year player option as part of the deal.

Morey was unwilling to lock up salary in an unpredictable way that would could potentially jeopardize the signing of an impact player.

Lin and Asik's contracts fit that bill. Despite their actual salaries of $5/5/15M, the predictability of $8.3M/year meant that the cap hits were 100% predictable. This allowed Morey to plan his cap and asset management, and was critical in being able to sign Dwight when he became available in free agency.

Given the choice, Morey would still probably do it the same way simply because there was no way of knowing WHICH stars he would end up attempting to acquire at the time he made those decisions.

alexander_37
04-02-2014, 01:02 PM
The breaking point for Dragic wasn't the money, it's that he wanted a 4th year player option.

Contracts with 4th year player options are notoriously hard to trade due to their uncertainty. If the player is injured or massively regresses in the 3rd year, the contract becomes worthless. If they play well, you can't plan your budget going forward as you're facing an uncertain cap hit in year 4.

Remember, when Morey let go of Dragic they did NOT have Lin, Harden, Asik OR Dwight. Morey was planning for maximum trade and cap flexibility. And Morey was fully willing to pay the salary that Dragic eventually received from Phoenix. Even Phoenix wasn't willing to pay him $9m. Morey just wasn't willing to take a 4th year player option as part of the deal.

Morey was unwilling to lock up salary in an unpredictable way that would could potentially jeopardize the signing of an impact player.

Lin and Asik's contracts fit that bill. Despite their actual salaries of $5/5/15M, the predictability of $8.3M/year meant that the cap hits were 100% predictable. This allowed Morey to plan his cap and asset management, and was critical in being able to sign Dwight when he became available in free agency.

Given the choice, Morey would still probably do it the same way simply because there was no way of knowing WHICH stars he would end up attempting to acquire at the time he made those decisions.

Kill shot

alexander_37
04-02-2014, 01:05 PM
Morey gets major points from me, because he was tasked by Les Alexander to rebuild a team while not tanking. Les refused to let Morey just blow the roster apart and suck, to get a high pick. So instead, he drafted 14th every single year, and STILL built enough chips to trade for Harden, and then created enough flexibility to sign Howard. He is a master at trading players just as they are about to make more money (Budinger, Morris), while keeping flexibility open.

San Antonio is the runaway here. Nobody close. At all. They broke this up by 3 phases. Owner/GM/Coach. The Rockets do deserved to be top 5.

100% agreed. I want to hate on SA but they make it hard too. They just do everything the right way.

Clippersfan86
04-02-2014, 01:13 PM
I think I've determined that ESPN is ranking this as a lifetime achievement award, which does NOT fall in line with a current front office power ranking list. Sterling is really the 29th worst owner? Even RIGHT THIS SECOND? Lol.

Cracka2HI!
04-02-2014, 07:39 PM
I think I've determined that ESPN is ranking this as a lifetime achievement award, which does NOT fall in line with a current front office power ranking list. Sterling is really the 29th worst owner? Even RIGHT THIS SECOND? Lol.

Have to agree here. I understand if people want to downgrade the Clippers situation because of Sterling but to do so is ignoring what he has done for quite a while. You left out the huge extensions he signed Brand and Maggette when he had a chance for success in the middle of last decade. I guess it's his fault Brand's achilles popped and Livingston's leg fell off. I'm not sure how long he has to sign big contracts(that are smart contract as well), hire good people in the front office and generally stay out of the way and let them do there job before some of the stank starts to wear off. I don't blame people for clowing him and the Clippers. It doesn't bother me. I find it ammusing how little they actually know about the sitatuion here. Even if you take a decade long sample size I don't think you can rank Sterling 29th. If you take a 3-5 year sample size I don't see how he doesn't crack the top 14, which makes the 14th overall ranking kind of silly IMO.

Clippersfan86
04-02-2014, 08:43 PM
Good points. Nevermind that our front office and coaching staff are top 5 for sure currently. Sterling should be more around 15 which would make the Clippers 4-7 ISH RIGHT NOW. Which seems far more fair. Media still can't look passed Clippers history, even for CURRENT analysis.

dalton749
04-02-2014, 11:23 PM
Good points. Nevermind that our front office and coaching staff are top 5 for sure currently. Sterling should be more around 15 which would make the Clippers 4-7 ISH RIGHT NOW. Which seems far more fair. Media still can't look passed Clippers history, even for CURRENT analysis.

clippers are basically tied with the raps, who put together one of the best front offices in the league this summer