If the Celtics get another ring is Ainge the best active GM?

[wdleehi]

  I don't think you could find a single person here that was talking about how lucky Danny was when we finished 5th in the lottery. And your definition of luck covers every GM ever, including Red. He only drafted players that other teams didn't draft, he only traded for players that were made available by other teams. What if Bird hadn't been available at #6, GS hadn't traded Parrish and a pick for the #1 pick, or DJ hadn't been available? He'd have been pretty mediocre in the 80s and I'm sure you could ask similar questions about all the other players he acquired.

And thus I wrote before

And teams get their star through luck as much as skill. 

Ainge has built one championship team that is having it's current run.



Spurs have built two championship runs.

[Fafnir]

  I don't think you could find a single person here that was talking about how lucky Danny was when we finished 5th in the lottery. And your definition of luck covers every GM ever, including Red. He only drafted players that other teams didn't draft, he only traded for players that were made available by other teams. What if Bird hadn't been available at #6, GS hadn't traded Parrish and a pick for the #1 pick, or DJ hadn't been available? He'd have been pretty mediocre in the 80s and I'm sure you could ask similar questions about all the other players he acquired.

And thus I wrote before

And teams get their star through luck as much as skill. 

Ainge has built one championship team that is having it's current run.



Spurs have built two championship runs.

Spurs also had Tim Duncan his entire career.

If you were talking about the combination of McHale/Ainge the Spurs are clearly better. But Ainge has been on the job less time.

[wdleehi]

  I don't think you could find a single person here that was talking about how lucky Danny was when we finished 5th in the lottery. And your definition of luck covers every GM ever, including Red. He only drafted players that other teams didn't draft, he only traded for players that were made available by other teams. What if Bird hadn't been available at #6, GS hadn't traded Parrish and a pick for the #1 pick, or DJ hadn't been available? He'd have been pretty mediocre in the 80s and I'm sure you could ask similar questions about all the other players he acquired.

And thus I wrote before

And teams get their star through luck as much as skill. 

Ainge has built one championship team that is having it's current run.



Spurs have built two championship runs.

Spurs also had Tim Duncan his entire career.

If you were talking about the combination of McHale/Ainge the Spurs are clearly better. But Ainge has been on the job less time.

But we can only talk about what he has done up to this point.


It is like comparing Rondo's career to Isiah Thomas. Thomas wins in a land slide because we can see his entire career.



I also said the Ainge has the time to prove to be great.   

[Fafnir]

  I don't think you could find a single person here that was talking about how lucky Danny was when we finished 5th in the lottery. And your definition of luck covers every GM ever, including Red. He only drafted players that other teams didn't draft, he only traded for players that were made available by other teams. What if Bird hadn't been available at #6, GS hadn't traded Parrish and a pick for the #1 pick, or DJ hadn't been available? He'd have been pretty mediocre in the 80s and I'm sure you could ask similar questions about all the other players he acquired.

And thus I wrote before

And teams get their star through luck as much as skill. 

Ainge has built one championship team that is having it's current run.



Spurs have built two championship runs.

Spurs also had Tim Duncan his entire career.

If you were talking about the combination of McHale/Ainge the Spurs are clearly better. But Ainge has been on the job less time.

But we can only talk about what he has done up to this point.


It is like comparing Rondo's career to Isiah Thomas. Thomas wins in a land slide because we can see his entire career.



I also said the Ainge has the time to prove to be great.   

How he build around Rondo then.....

[wdleehi]

Ainge, so far, really good GM.


Ainge in the future ...

[RJ87]

Ainge has been REALLY good so far... The best active GM? Idk, the jury is still out.

I will say this though - if the C's get #18 this year, Danny deserves some GM of the Year consideration. The deadline trade was certainly a risky one, breaking up the #1 team in the East and a team that made it to the Finals last year. If it pays off.... WOW.

[BballTim]

  I don't think you could find a single person here that was talking about how lucky Danny was when we finished 5th in the lottery. And your definition of luck covers every GM ever, including Red. He only drafted players that other teams didn't draft, he only traded for players that were made available by other teams. What if Bird hadn't been available at #6, GS hadn't traded Parrish and a pick for the #1 pick, or DJ hadn't been available? He'd have been pretty mediocre in the 80s and I'm sure you could ask similar questions about all the other players he acquired.

And thus I wrote before

And teams get their star through luck as much as skill. 

Ainge has built one championship team that is having it's current run.



Spurs have built two championship runs.

  Changing a few pieces around a franchise player isn't really the same thing as what you're talking about Danny doing. If Duncan leaves and they win a title around Manu and Parker it would be similar.

[wdleehi]

  I don't think you could find a single person here that was talking about how lucky Danny was when we finished 5th in the lottery. And your definition of luck covers every GM ever, including Red. He only drafted players that other teams didn't draft, he only traded for players that were made available by other teams. What if Bird hadn't been available at #6, GS hadn't traded Parrish and a pick for the #1 pick, or DJ hadn't been available? He'd have been pretty mediocre in the 80s and I'm sure you could ask similar questions about all the other players he acquired.

And thus I wrote before

And teams get their star through luck as much as skill. 

Ainge has built one championship team that is having it's current run.



Spurs have built two championship runs.

  Changing a few pieces around a franchise player isn't really the same thing as what you're talking about Danny doing. If Duncan leaves and they win a title around Manu and Parker it would be similar.

So you are saying if Ainge is incapable of building another title team, he is still the best GM? 


I would say that would put him in the same category as Dumars.

[BballTim]

  I don't think you could find a single person here that was talking about how lucky Danny was when we finished 5th in the lottery. And your definition of luck covers every GM ever, including Red. He only drafted players that other teams didn't draft, he only traded for players that were made available by other teams. What if Bird hadn't been available at #6, GS hadn't traded Parrish and a pick for the #1 pick, or DJ hadn't been available? He'd have been pretty mediocre in the 80s and I'm sure you could ask similar questions about all the other players he acquired.

And thus I wrote before

And teams get their star through luck as much as skill. 

Ainge has built one championship team that is having it's current run.



Spurs have built two championship runs.

  Changing a few pieces around a franchise player isn't really the same thing as what you're talking about Danny doing. If Duncan leaves and they win a title around Manu and Parker it would be similar.

So you are saying if Ainge is incapable of building another title team, he is still the best GM? 


I would say that would put him in the same category as Dumars.

   My main point was that the only real advantage Pop had over Danny is ping pong balls, but if he doesn't build us back into a contender in the somewhat near term then he'll no longer be seen as the best GM.

[Brendan]

I think its unfair to judge what may or may not happen in the future.

The only luck of being a GM is ping pong balls. You control what assets you have other than draft picks. So Ainge getting KG and Ray is not luck. It's being prepared and taking advantage of opportunity. Spurs getting Duncan = LUCK. Spurs lucked into the draft pick, and Duncan was the obvious no brainer draft pick and one of the three elite big men of the last ten years (KG and Shaq being my other two.) OTOH Spurs getting Manu and Parker != luck. That's being prepared (knowing who the players were) and taking advantage (drafting the right guys.)

(Side note: calling getting the 5th pick lucky is only in true, in that it forced Ainge to win now and get Ray. Wasn't that the worst possible finish the C's could have had? I guess we can say he's lucky he didn't get the first pick, since he might have taken Oden. But then again maybe he trades down for Durant and another asset - we can't know what other possibilities or failures would have happened.)

[Brendan]

That being said, I'm not sure Ainge is the "best" or that a title puts him over the top.

w/r/t LAL - hasn't there been some turnover? Kobe and Shaq were brought in by Jerry West. So the last run in the late 90s and early 2000s gets current GM no credit. That means he's on run 1, just like Ainge. But Kobe >> Pierce, so I think he's << Ainge if C's win this year.

Other guys would be Pop in SA (he's the real GM.) He's capitalized on having Duncan for his whole career - but that's not trivial. Minny couldn't do anything similar for KG, and had more opportunity to do so. Ainge has capitalized on the opportunity KG has presented, maintaining a core that could win now, adding pieces, and keeping future possibilities available. (Would you rather be in SAS or BOS position for the next 5 years? They are both top contenders this year and similar prospects for winning after this year with the core.)

Detriot? No way. He's made too many bad franchise killing deals. It appears he fell into a championship and his true colors are failure. (He's like the inverse of Ainge, who made some silly initial moves - Scal, Raef, but got better as he got his base.) Also look at his coaching turnover. He whiffed big on the Darko pick too.

Who else Riley in MIA? I think he gets less credit than he should: pulled off a quick Shaq steal to sneak in a title, then retooled on the fly to get Lebron and Bosh. That team will get better every year for the next couple years, and you have to guess they'll get a couple of titles. That would be two legit title contenders, and even though Wade is a solid piece, he brought in a better piece to build around.

You have a bunch of other "contenders" that don't impress me: ATL, ORL, CHI, PHO, DAL. Dallas has done good work to keep things competitive during Dirk's career, but there have been serious misteps (and who is the GM Cuban or Donny?)

Then you have a bunch of the young stats guys in POR, SEA/OKC, HOU - but really they are too new to know if their approach will yield better results. POR for one seems terrible at injuries - both evaluating and preventing, GM has to take some heat. HOU's team is a well positioned, but I don't see a title any time soon.

No one else jumps out. That was anecdotal.

I think you could look at what they inherited and what each move did to reposition them and if they made their team better or worse over that time to evaluate more objectively.

[BballTim]

Other guys would be Pop in SA (he's the real GM.) He's capitalized on having Duncan for his whole career - but that's not trivial. Minny couldn't do anything similar for KG, and had more opportunity to do so.

  It's easier to capitalize on having Duncan when he comes to a fairly loaded team. Three of the starters on the first title winning team were on the roster before Duncan was drafted. They won 55+ games 5 of the 7 seasons prior to their tank year. Three of the 4 starters that TD played with when they won the finals were on the roster when TD was drafted.