but it was impossible to have a neutral discussion on this topic. Every pessimistic opinion was dismissed with loads of youtube-videos of how great Sheed was in 2002 and "Ball don´t lie"-posts.
Really?
I remember debating it with several posters about the pros/cons of it all.
Well, I´d like to see those threads, they certainly only made a small percentage compared to all the hoopla-threads about winning 73 games and what not.
Anyway, it´s moot to discuss this now. The fact is, only because most people approved of the deal doesn´t validate it.
Danny gets paid to make a decision, he made it, and I think we can all agree that it was a mistake to give Sheed a contract of this size. However, looking at his entire body of work, he brought us a championship, and did a solid job overall, in my opinion.
My problem is more the strategy itself, not so much it´s execution.
Former All-Stars over steady role-players almost never works, not even in less athletically demanding and intensity-driven (and maybe worse paid) sports as basketball.
I don´t like that we don´t go for more players in their prime. A 20-year-old and a 36-year-old don´t equal two 28-year-olds.
I don´t like that we go for headcases like Marbury or Wallace, or for everyone who is buddy-buddy with KG.
For a team that lives and dies by it´s team offense and defense, we sure had a lot of divas with star pedigree on this team over the last 3 years.