Bucks GM is the same GM that screwed up in Washington for several years. Ernie Grunfeld. Had those Washington teams with all-offense no-defense. Then those Washington teams with all those knuckleheads / immature guys. Screwed up a lot in Milwaukee until recently as well. Should have been kicked out of NBA long ago. Bad GM.
Billy King and Ernie Grunfeld common factors here.
John Hammond is the GM of the Bucks.
Grunfeld was the Bucks GM for a few years at the end of the 90s / early 2000s after being the GM of the Knicks. He's still the GM of the Wiz.
Ah, got confused there. Thank you.
I guess the question, then, is how long have some well-managed teams had to wait between title contenders? Or is defining "good management" too difficult here because it's so results-driven (i.e. if you don't build a contender soon enough, you're a "bad GM")?
Defining good management is usually easy enough.
Teams built with an understanding of what wins championships = (1) defense & rebounding (2) teamwork (3) sharing the basketball (4) value and utilization of depth
Quality of playing staff personnel decisions - draft, free agency, trades.
Quality of non-playing staff (coaches) personnel decisions -- very important to watch out for GMs who scapegoat their head coaches in order to save their own hide. These guys generally repeat their actions throughout their careers and quit when the going gets tough and blame things on others instead of striving for constructive solutions - which can sometimes be firing the coach but not nearly as often as firings happen.
Cap management.
Front offices who will stand up to players and say "no" to them. Like when a player demands a trade. A weak front office capitulates (like Bryan Colangelo in Phoenix with Joe Johnson or every Orlando GM ever = Shaq forcing out a head coach, Penny ousting another head coach, Tracy McGrady trade demand, Dwight getting SVG fired and another trade demand. Ever star player in Orlando's history pushes around their front office because they have a weak owner who hires weak GMs which is a shame because the owner is an otherwise very good and likeable owner). A strong front office has the backbone to refuse the trade demand (like LAL with Kobe Bryant). This gives a very clear indication whether your GM has a backbone or not.
Long term plan -- whatever type of plan it is. Commitment to it. Full rebuild. Building through draft (OKC, Philly). Developing young talent (Utah & Milwaukee currently). Retooling on the run while trying to stay competitive. Trade (asset collection) based strategies (Bad Boy Pistons, Morey, Ainge now?). Free agency based strategy (Pat Riley in 2008-2010 leading to 4 straight finals and two titles).
Big believer in how a man handles adversity tells you a lot about his character. Same for GMs. You need strength of character. Some GMs have it. Many don't (player trade demands, scapegoating coaches, admitting mistakes).
The capacity to admit you were wrong. That the plan/decision you made did not work and that you have to move on. Bad GMs (like Bryan Colangelo) will refuse to admit their mistakes (Bargnani) and keep hammering away at their first idea to the detriment of their team (stopping team from moving forward, eventually causing Bosh to leave and forcing team into a rebuild). Good GMs know when to move on from the decision (Joe Dumars with Darko Milicic) and move in a new direction.
Also important to see a GM keep strong believe in initial evaluations. It should take a lot for a GM to change his opinion otherwise there was something wrong with the initial process that led him to that opinion in the first place. So a team giving up on a lotto pick (like Sacramento with Thomas Robinson and Stauskas) too quickly is a red flag. GMs who change their mind quickly and often is a sign of bad decision-making process at point of origin for initial decision.
GMs can and will make mistakes. Admitting from them, learning from them and fixing them is the sign of a top GM.
Topic: When Was the Last Time Each Team Was A Contender? (Read 5158 times)