The real question: Does Martins need to go too?

[barnettej 263]

Yes he does and not just because of the past 5 years but by the way he handles adversity when he is toe to toe with. The whole Billy thing was bad, lucky we were able to "steal" SVG, then Martin handle SVG bad and Dwight.

 

Out of the staff he has put in place and the picks they have selected, I can see we hit one pick out of the park in Dwight, had some solid picks after in Nelson, JJ and Victor... but other than that... the rest hasn't done much in terms of making this team a threat.

 

And that's Martins job, to hire the folks to make a threat team that's going to fill seats and endorsements.

 

This has been the worst 5year stretch our franchise has had. Martins owns this.

[barnettej 263]

But it's okay though... if the Devos continue to be dumb then I will buy the team.

 

At some point they will be so bad the price will be cheap

[Franchise408 116]

Ill say it AGAIN...if Rob wanted Porzingas he should have TRADED UP! WE HAD THE ASSETS! He certainly could have given Oladipo and our pick and got there (without having to give up Sabonis too). If there was bad value at the spot he should have TRADED DOWN. Draft positions are not set in stone and as a GM it is your job to know every damn teams wants and needs on draft day and take advantage of it to get the best value for your pick. It was known the Celts were offering 4 1st rounders for Winslow when he was still on board at 10. Sacramento was known to want to move up too...and WE STOOD PUT and drafted a useless turd....again.

 

Further compounding his error was creating the log jam that forced him to jettison Harris for nothing. Rob failed to move up or down to achieve value period...or he swung and missed on Mario...or both. As the GM THAT IS HIS FAULT ENTIRELY! Saying we just had bad luck in the lotto fails to grasp the issue.

 

I know hind sight is 20/20 but our foresight is like 20/2,000,000. At some point we need a real gm who can pull someones pants down in a trade or on draft night...and when I say down I mean all the way on the ground down! Instead we walk around bare arsed after getting ours pulled down over and over and over.

 

As for tanking not working. When is pick #1 not more valuable than pick #5 or #10? While championships have often been acquired through free agency and trades high picks have great value particularly with guys like Bismack getting a zillion dollars a year. Dont tell me some GM wont give up a great piece for the #1 pick in the draft so he doesnt have to pay an average free agent 15 mill per year. That #1 is worth a lot...and any pick closer to #1 is better. So what if tanking creates a culture of losing...we arent ready or anywhere close and they dont give rings for 14th place.

 

Flat out we need a GM who isnt drinking Zephyr Hills water bottles the entire draft night in the war room. Someone who is wheeling and dealing on 5 phones at a time to get a great value with our pick (up, down or staying put). Someone who exploits every teams needs and weaknesses for the Magic's gains. Find that guy and this team can move in the right direction. Continue with a guy who makes zero calls the whole night (Otis Im talking about you now) and we will continue to suck forever.

 

...but first get rid of Martins!

 

There seems to be this huge disconnect between the message being sent out and the reception of it.

 

Of course the #1 pick is more valuable than any other. I never said otherwise.

 

And of course building through the draft is vital to a team's success. I never said otherwise.

 

What I did say, however, is that you cannot rely on just accumulating high draft picks and then magically expect it to just pan out. You have to utilize ALL forms of team building to properly rebuild, and "losing for ping pong balls" is not in and of itself a viable strategy.

 

The draft is a crap shoot. In the NBA, it's not QUITE the same crap shoot as the NFL, where a #1 overall pick can bust out but a 6th rounder becomes the greatest QB of all time.

 

But the NBA draft IS still a crap shoot. It is not a guarantee of anything, whatever position you may be in.

 

Franchise players have been drafted all throughout various draft positions. For every LeBron James at #1, there's a Kwame Brown at #1 as well.

 

Going back to the "past 20 years" argument:

 

LeBron James was a #1 overall pick, as well as Kyrie Irving. However, in this formation of the Cavaliers, only Kyrie was a #1 draft pick. He was supplemented by the free agent signing of LeBron James.

 

Going back to LeBron James, that same #1 overall talent, he didn't win a championship until he was supplemented with other surrounding talent - Wade and Bosh, on a completely different franchise.

 

Steph Curry was a #7 overall pick, supplemented by a #11 overall pick and a 2nd round pick.

 

Tim Duncan was a #1 overall pick, supplemented by a returning all time great center, and later, by mid to low 1st round and 2nd round picks.

 

Dirk was a #9 overall pick, supplemented by various players acquired via trade, free agency, and draft.

 

Kobe Bryant was a #13 overall pick, traded for a not top of his position center, and surrounded by an all time great center in Shaq, and then later on, surrounded by various other free agent and traded for talent.

 

Michael Jordan was a #2 overall pick, surrounded by another top 5 pick, and lots of free agent talent.

 

Dwayne Wade was a #5 overall pick, surrounded by premiere free agent talent, twice in his career.

 

You can cite the flukiness of Steph falling to #7 all you want, and "how would fortunes have been different if..." all you want, but the fact of the matter is, THAT IS part of the reality of the NBA draft.

 

Sometimes Sam Bowie goes above Michael Jordan. Sometimes Darko Milicic goes above Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade. And sometimes, Steph Curry falls to #7 in the draft.

 

That is a reality of the draft, and it really -isn't- a fluke. Because the draft is such an inexact science. This is why "tanking for ping pong balls" is a failed strategy, because it relies on unreliable circumstances that are out of anyone's control. The team winning the ping pong balls doesn't control who is entering the draft, and winning the ping pong balls doesn't ensure that an all time great player will be coming out for you to build around.

 

Yes, the draft is absolutely vital to team building. But purposefully tanking to get higher position is NOT a viable means of building that team.

 

And you cannot just continue to tank over and over again accumulating draft picks hoping that by losing you'll somehow start winning. You have to actually supplement your talent via other means as well.

 

It took Cleveland 5 non-playoff seasons before they finally lucked into LeBron. That's where we are at now, and still nothing to show for it, because there's no LeBron coming out. We have had top 5 picks for all but 1 of those seasons.

 

The Warriors had 18 seasons with only 1 playoff appearance until Steph Curry finally led them back to the post-season 3 years into his career. So 15 seasons of tanking before they finally lucked into him.

 

Yes, you need to draft. That IS vital.

 

It is NOT vital to have the #1 pick.

 

Yes, the #1 overall pick IS more valuable.

 

NO, it is not some form of catch-all guarantee that having the #1 pick is going to turn your franchise around. It requires a lot of luck that is outside of anybody's control.

 

As such, you need to take advantage of what you can control. You win when and where you can, that is the objective of the game. You draft the players that are available to you, and you supplement them with talent via other means.

 

You don't just lose out over and over again, hording away draft picks, hoping that one day, eventually, LeBron James comes out in the draft.

 

Cleveland is, ironically enough, a perfect example of that. They relied on drafting LeBron James, and their first go round with him, they completely rode the fact that they had drafted LeBron James. What did that get them? Absolutely nothing.

 

It wasn't until he came back, and they had talent around him, that he actually paid off.

 

Funny how actually BUILDING a roster nets results.

 

Be proactive, not passive.

 

People keep asking me what my moves would have been if I had been GM, and honestly, I can't say that I know for sure. Because I'm NOT the GM, so I don't know what's going on around the league behind the scenes. I only know what I know as a fan.

 

But what I do know is that if I were GM, I would leave no stone unturned to try to bring talent here. I certainly wouldn't be passive during free agency, settling for free agents like DJ Augustin, Jeff Green, and saving all my cap space for 4 years to make Bismack Biyombo my big splash.

[Magicman28 295]

There seems to be this huge disconnect between the message being sent out and the reception of it.

 

Of course the #1 pick is more valuable than any other. I never said otherwise.

 

And of course building through the draft is vital to a team's success. I never said otherwise.

 

What I did say, however, is that you cannot rely on just accumulating high draft picks and then magically expect it to just pan out. You have to utilize ALL forms of team building to properly rebuild, and "losing for ping pong balls" is not in and of itself a viable strategy.

 

The draft is a crap shoot. In the NBA, it's not QUITE the same crap shoot as the NFL, where a #1 overall pick can bust out but a 6th rounder becomes the greatest QB of all time.

 

But the NBA draft IS still a crap shoot. It is not a guarantee of anything, whatever position you may be in.

 

Franchise players have been drafted all throughout various draft positions. For every LeBron James at #1, there's a Kwame Brown at #1 as well.

 

Going back to the "past 20 years" argument:

 

LeBron James was a #1 overall pick, as well as Kyrie Irving. However, in this formation of the Cavaliers, only Kyrie was a #1 draft pick. He was supplemented by the free agent signing of LeBron James.

 

Going back to LeBron James, that same #1 overall talent, he didn't win a championship until he was supplemented with other surrounding talent - Wade and Bosh, on a completely different franchise.

 

Steph Curry was a #7 overall pick, supplemented by a #11 overall pick and a 2nd round pick.

 

Tim Duncan was a #1 overall pick, supplemented by a returning all time great center, and later, by mid to low 1st round and 2nd round picks.

 

Dirk was a #9 overall pick, supplemented by various players acquired via trade, free agency, and the draft.

 

Kobe Bryant was a #13 overall pick, traded for a not top of his position center, and surrounded by an all time great center in Shaq, and then later on, surrounded by various other free agent and traded for talent.

 

Michael Jordan was a #2 overall pick, surrounded by another top 5 pick, and lots of free agent talent.

 

Dwayne Wade was a #5 overall pick, surrounded by premiere free agent talent, twice in his career.

 

You can cite the flukiness of Steph falling to #7 all you want, and "how would fortunes have been different if..." all you want, but the fact of the matter is, THAT IS part of the reality of the NBA draft.

 

Sometimes Sam Bowie goes above Michael Jordan. Sometimes Darko Milicic goes above Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade. And sometimes, Steph Curry falls to #7 in the draft.

 

That is a reality of the draft, and it really -isn't- a fluke. Because the draft is such an inexact science. This is why "tanking for ping pong balls" is a failed strategy, because it relies on unreliable circumstances that are out of anyone's control. The team winning the ping pong balls doesn't control who is entering the draft, and winning the ping pong balls doesn't ensure that an all time great player will be coming out for you to build around.

 

Yes, the draft is absolutely vital to team building. But purposefully tanking to get higher position is NOT a viable means of building that team.

 

And you cannot just continue to tank over and over again accumulating draft picks hoping that by losing you'll somehow start winning. You have to actually supplement your talent via other means as well.

 

It took Cleveland 5 non-playoff seasons before they finally lucked into LeBron. That's where we are at now, and still nothing to show for it, because there's no LeBron coming out. We have had top 5 picks for all but 1 of those seasons.

 

The Warriors had 18 seasons with only 1 playoff appearance until Steph Curry finally led them back to the post-season 3 years into his career. So 15 seasons of tanking before they finally lucked into him.

 

Yes, you need to draft. That IS vital.

 

It is NOT vital to have the #1 pick.

 

Yes, the #1 overall pick IS more valuable.

 

NO, it is not some form of catch-all guarantee that having the #1 pick is going to turn your franchise around. It requires a lot of luck that is outside of anybody's control.

 

As such, you need to take advantage of what you can control. You win when and where you can, that is the objective of the game. You draft the players that are available to you, and you supplement them with talent via other means.

 

You don't just lose out over and over again, hording away draft picks, hoping that one day, eventually, LeBron James comes out in the draft.

 

Cleveland is, ironically enough, a perfect example of that. They relied on drafting LeBron James, and their first go round with him, they completely rode the fact that they had drafted LeBron James. What did that get them? Absolutely nothing.

 

It wasn't until he came back, and they had talent around him, that he actually paid off.

 

Funny how actually BUILDING a roster nets results.

 

Be proactive, not passive.

 

People keep asking me what my moves would have been if I had been GM, and honestly, I can't say that I know for sure. Because I'm NOT the GM, so I don't know what's going on around the league behind the scenes. I only know what I know as a fan.

 

But what I do know is that if I were GM, I would leave no stone unturned to try to bring talent here. I certainly wouldn't be passive during free agency, settling for free agents like DJ Augustin, Jeff Green, and saving all my cap space for 4 years to make Bismack Biyombo my big splash.

 

 

We're not trying to tank. You still keep saying we're tanking. We're not. We suck.

 

Reason why is Skiles and Martin's. Henny was ready to develop the talent he acquired.l to play winning basketball. He had to get a coach to do that. Skiles was not the answer but it's what Martins wanted and believed was best moving forward. Skiles has some history of developing Jennings and some others but it was also a good PR move (this is why Martins pushes it). Locals loved Skiles as a player and bringing him would jolt the local community and give the media something to talk about. Same exact reasoning for BHill part deux. It's like history repeating itself here.

 

Problem is Skiles doesn't have the DNA to develop a team that had EP, Dipo, AG, Mario, Fournier, Tobias (who he wasn't a big fan of), and Vuch that needed to be developed. He was in over his head and that's evident with him mumbling to his coaches how he wanted to quit not even halfway through his first season as coach.

 

Skiles wanted to fast forward this development. First step, trade away Tobias. Mario was there. AG was there. Henny was open to the idea because of those two and because it wouldn't kill our cap situation. Skiles wanted some familiarity. In comes Jennings and IIyasova. Jennings might be able to unseat EP and that was something that was talked about here. How long until Jennings starts? Well, it failed because Jennings wasn't good and the trade didn't make us any better.

 

Skiles then wants to trade EP. Ok but who's going to start at Pg? Jennings? Who wants EP at this point? The NBA is going in another way. Away from pass first PG'S. There was no deal there without being one of those where we are the ones with our paints down to the ground.

 

Fast forward to the summer and Skiles actually does quit. The man wanted complete control of roster moves despite one of his wants (Jennings and IIyasova) failing to be a successful transaction. We should've hold on to Harris. At least he could've been used before this deadline in a trade. It was Skiles who pissed that asset away. With him quitting it was a setback because we had to find another coach and waste a year to develop guys properly. If we had the chance to hire Vogel last year instead of Skiles and did, I think we'd be ahead of where we are.

 

The Skiles fiasco set us back.

 

Henny was never passive. He had Millsap thinking of leaving a contender. He made moves to appease coaches and collect assets. If you admit that you don't know what goes behind the scenes how in the hell are you going to say he was passive despite evidence saying he wasn't? We were in talks with many teams every deadline and was one of the teams trying to land Cousins this past deadline. Unfortunately it wasn't worth giving up a ton for a guy with an agent who said he wouldn't resign with us and a agent we've had problems with before.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

There seems to be this huge disconnect between the message being sent out and the reception of it.

 

Of course the #1 pick is more valuable than any other. I never said otherwise.

 

And of course building through the draft is vital to a team's success. I never said otherwise.

 

What I did say, however, is that you cannot rely on just accumulating high draft picks and then magically expect it to just pan out. You have to utilize ALL forms of team building to properly rebuild, and "losing for ping pong balls" is not in and of itself a viable strategy.

 

The draft is a crap shoot. In the NBA, it's not QUITE the same crap shoot as the NFL, where a #1 overall pick can bust out but a 6th rounder becomes the greatest QB of all time.

 

But the NBA draft IS still a crap shoot. It is not a guarantee of anything, whatever position you may be in.

 

Franchise players have been drafted all throughout various draft positions. For every LeBron James at #1, there's a Kwame Brown at #1 as well.

 

Going back to the "past 20 years" argument:

 

LeBron James was a #1 overall pick, as well as Kyrie Irving. However, in this formation of the Cavaliers, only Kyrie was a #1 draft pick. He was supplemented by the free agent signing of LeBron James.

 

Going back to LeBron James, that same #1 overall talent, he didn't win a championship until he was supplemented with other surrounding talent - Wade and Bosh, on a completely different franchise.

 

Steph Curry was a #7 overall pick, supplemented by a #11 overall pick and a 2nd round pick.

 

Tim Duncan was a #1 overall pick, supplemented by a returning all time great center, and later, by mid to low 1st round and 2nd round picks.

 

Dirk was a #9 overall pick, supplemented by various players acquired via trade, free agency, and draft.

 

Kobe Bryant was a #13 overall pick, traded for a not top of his position center, and surrounded by an all time great center in Shaq, and then later on, surrounded by various other free agent and traded for talent.

 

Michael Jordan was a #2 overall pick, surrounded by another top 5 pick, and lots of free agent talent.

 

Dwayne Wade was a #5 overall pick, surrounded by premiere free agent talent, twice in his career.

 

You can cite the flukiness of Steph falling to #7 all you want, and "how would fortunes have been different if..." all you want, but the fact of the matter is, THAT IS part of the reality of the NBA draft.

 

Sometimes Sam Bowie goes above Michael Jordan. Sometimes Darko Milicic goes above Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade. And sometimes, Steph Curry falls to #7 in the draft.

 

That is a reality of the draft, and it really -isn't- a fluke. Because the draft is such an inexact science. This is why "tanking for ping pong balls" is a failed strategy, because it relies on unreliable circumstances that are out of anyone's control. The team winning the ping pong balls doesn't control who is entering the draft, and winning the ping pong balls doesn't ensure that an all time great player will be coming out for you to build around.

 

Yes, the draft is absolutely vital to team building. But purposefully tanking to get higher position is NOT a viable means of building that team.

 

And you cannot just continue to tank over and over again accumulating draft picks hoping that by losing you'll somehow start winning. You have to actually supplement your talent via other means as well.

 

It took Cleveland 5 non-playoff seasons before they finally lucked into LeBron. That's where we are at now, and still nothing to show for it, because there's no LeBron coming out. We have had top 5 picks for all but 1 of those seasons.

 

The Warriors had 18 seasons with only 1 playoff appearance until Steph Curry finally led them back to the post-season 3 years into his career. So 15 seasons of tanking before they finally lucked into him.

 

Yes, you need to draft. That IS vital.

 

It is NOT vital to have the #1 pick.

 

Yes, the #1 overall pick IS more valuable.

 

NO, it is not some form of catch-all guarantee that having the #1 pick is going to turn your franchise around. It requires a lot of luck that is outside of anybody's control.

 

As such, you need to take advantage of what you can control. You win when and where you can, that is the objective of the game. You draft the players that are available to you, and you supplement them with talent via other means.

 

You don't just lose out over and over again, hording away draft picks, hoping that one day, eventually, LeBron James comes out in the draft.

 

Cleveland is, ironically enough, a perfect example of that. They relied on drafting LeBron James, and their first go round with him, they completely rode the fact that they had drafted LeBron James. What did that get them? Absolutely nothing.

 

It wasn't until he came back, and they had talent around him, that he actually paid off.

 

Funny how actually BUILDING a roster nets results.

 

Be proactive, not passive.

 

People keep asking me what my moves would have been if I had been GM, and honestly, I can't say that I know for sure. Because I'm NOT the GM, so I don't know what's going on around the league behind the scenes. I only know what I know as a fan.

 

But what I do know is that if I were GM, I would leave no stone unturned to try to bring talent here. I certainly wouldn't be passive during free agency, settling for free agents like DJ Augustin, Jeff Green, and saving all my cap space for 4 years to make Bismack Biyombo my big splash.

 

Nobody argues that one single draft pick is going to result in the salvation of our franchise.

 

Everyone is arguing that the most difficult piece to find is the foundational player. Once you have that, building everything else is a lot easier because you can find players that fit along side them and also use that foundational player as leverage in negotiations (i.e. we have ___ they don't. come here to play with ___). And the only feasible way to find that player is through the draft. and you're statistically more likely to find that player the higher you pick.

 

and you cant say "I wouldn't have settled for free agents like ____ " when there weren't other options out there. That's a pointless argument because it assumes that there was a successful option out there.

 

The best move Hennigan could have made was not overpaying for free agents which would result in him getting fired for not trying to make a playoff push this year and stuffing the roster with scrap players that would be putting Vogel in a position to fail. Sometimes every pathway leads to losing and there's no winning pathway.

[Justin Jaudon 221]

No you wanna know what happened with Skiles? No one wanted to hire him. His way of coaching was prehistoric and never fitted in with development. He needed the money and he still had the itch to coach but he also wanted more power and he knew he had Martins as a connection. He contacted upper management. NOT Henny mind you. Rob didn't contact him. Skiles literally called Martins up consistently weeks before showing interest. His intentions was to become a GM/Coach like Stan. He knew Henny's plan. You don't sign a multi year deal as a coach without a plan being presented to you up front and i bet 100 bucks Henny was straight up about keeping Payton and developing him because that's what you do with a team like ours full of youth and potential. You develop them and that takes time. Time that most (including you) don't want to accept.

 

Skiles signs on knowing in the back of his mind, he might be able to sneak into that GM job. Dude literally threw the biggest child like hissy fit after a great start followed by a bad month. He never had any intentions to developing he youth. He was going to liquidize em all for vets and he started with Tobias. A player he had beef with before. He finally got his boys Iiyasova and Jennings after his temper tantrum. It was a failure. Jennings was awful and IIyasova wasn't consistent.

 

Skiles had no intention to developing the youth. Maaaybe Mario but that's because he could reach Mario. EP is different. A good coach knows this. You just can't go around screaming, spitting, at everyone. You teach according to a player's ability to process information.

 

Skiles was not the right fit for this team. That's on Martins and everyone in upper management who put nepotism before basketball.

 

Just turning that speculation knob up to "crazy conspiracy," huh?

[Magicman28 295]

Just turning that speculation knob up to "crazy conspiracy," huh?

 

 

A lot of facts in there. Pay attention for 20+ years, talk to some people in the know, learn how to connect dots using those facts, use some common sense, it becomes so damn bright you wonder how in the hell does no one else see it.

[Justin Jaudon 221]

We're not trying to tank. You still keep saying we're tanking. We're not. We suck.

 

Reason why is Skiles and Martin's. Henny was ready to develop the talent he acquired.l to play winning basketball. He had to get a coach to do that. Skiles was not the answer but it's what Martins wanted and believed was best moving forward. Skiles has some history of developing Jennings and some others but it was also a good PR move (this is why Martins pushes it). Locals loved Skiles as a player and bringing him would jolt the local community and give the media something to talk about. Same exact reasoning for BHill part deux. It's like history repeating itself here.

 

Problem is Skiles doesn't have the DNA to develop a team that had EP, Dipo, AG, Mario, Fournier, Tobias (who he wasn't a big fan of), and Vuch that needed to be developed. He was in over his head and that's evident with him mumbling to his coaches how he wanted to quit not even halfway through his first season as coach.

 

Skiles wanted to fast forward this development. First step, trade away Tobias. Mario was there. AG was there. Henny was open to the idea because of those two and because it wouldn't kill our cap situation. Skiles wanted some familiarity. In comes Jennings and IIyasova. Jennings might be able to unseat EP and that was something that was talked about here. How long until Jennings starts? Well, it failed because Jennings wasn't good and the trade didn't make us any better.

 

Skiles then wants to trade EP. Ok but who's going to start at Pg? Jennings? Who wants EP at this point? The NBA is going in another way. Away from pass first PG'S. There was no deal there without being one of those where we are the ones with our paints down to the ground.

 

Fast forward to the summer and Skiles actually does quit. The man wanted complete control of roster moves despite one of his wants (Jennings and IIyasova) failing to be a successful transaction. We should've hold on to Harris. At least he could've been used before this deadline in a trade. It was Skiles who pissed that asset away. With him quitting it was a setback because we had to find another coach and waste a year to develop guys properly. If we had the chance to hire Vogel last year instead of Skiles and did, I think we'd be ahead of where we are.

 

The Skiles fiasco set us back.

 

Henny was never passive. He had Millsap thinking of leaving a contender. He made moves to appease coaches and collect assets. If you admit that you don't know what goes behind the scenes how in the hell are you going to say he was passive despite evidence saying he wasn't? We were in talks with many teams every deadline and was one of the teams trying to land Cousins this past deadline. Unfortunately it wasn't worth giving up a ton for a guy with an agent who said he wouldn't resign with us and a agent we've had problems with before.

 

So, Skiles' major roster opinions, that we can guess, are that we needed to trade Harris, and that EP was not the future at PG? That first one was absolutely true, and virtually everyone here, including you, agreed with that notion. We absolutely shouldn't have kept Harris, because we needed to develop Aaron Gordon, which Skiles did very well. What sucked was the pants-****ting bad deal Hennigan got for him. As for the second - wanting to replace EP - he may still be proven right on that front, and he certainly was right at the time that EP wasn't going to work with that roster.

 

We can keep blaming Skiles and Martins for everything, but the fact is Martins, before Hennigan got here, was part of a consistently winning organization, and Skiles is the only decision this team has made since Hennigan came on that delivered the desired results, in the form of a 10-win increase over the previous season. Hennigan chased him off, got his own coach, and in one off-season they managed to utterly destroy a team that almost certainly would have been a playoff team if Skiles had stayed.

[Justin Jaudon 221]

A lot of facts in there. Pay attention for 20+ years, talk to some people in the know, learn how to connect dots using those facts, use some common sense, it becomes so damn bright you wonder how in the hell does no one else see it.

 

Well, I've got everything here covered except the "talk to some people in the know" part. Who are these people in the know who told you that Skiles wanted to be the GM? Or hinted at that? Do I think Skiles wanted to be listened to, when it comes to player development and decisions? Yes. He was the coach, he should be listened to. But I would love to know what sources told you he came here with the intention of eventually being the new GM.

[Fultz4thewin 2,464]

So, Skiles' major roster opinions, that we can guess, are that we needed to trade Harris, and that EP was not the future at PG? That first one was absolutely true, and virtually everyone here, including you, agreed with that notion. We absolutely shouldn't have kept Harris, because we needed to develop Aaron Gordon, which Skiles did very well. What sucked was the pants-****ting bad deal Hennigan got for him. As for the second - wanting to replace EP - he may still be proven right on that front, and he certainly was right at the time that EP wasn't going to work with that roster.

 

We can keep blaming Skiles and Martins for everything, but the fact is Martins, before Hennigan got here, was part of a consistently winning organization, and Skiles is the only decision this team has made since Hennigan came on that delivered the desired results, in the form of a 10-win increase over the previous season. Hennigan chased him off, got his own coach, and in one off-season they managed to utterly destroy a team that almost certainly would have been a playoff team if Skiles had stayed.

 

Thats a weird way to look at things but ok.

 

Hey maybe we're biased. If only there were other outside sources... hmm...

 

Oh http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/19156846/jeff-van-gundy-magic-ceo-alex-martins-is-unprofessional-and-knows-nothing-about-basketball

 

Oh https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ball-dont-lie/stan-van-gundy-being-fired-blasts-orlando-magic-130406155--nba.html

 

http://orlandomagicdaily.com/2016/05/16/orlando-magic-ceo-alex-martins-learns-lesson-with-scott-skiles-departure/

 

http://nypost.com/2015/02/05/magic-fire-jacque-vaughn-in-most-humiliating-way-possible/

[Magicman28 295]

Well, I've got everything here covered except the "talk to some people in the know" part. Who are these people in the know who told you that Skiles wanted to be the GM? Or hinted at that? Do I think Skiles wanted to be listened to, when it comes to player development and decisions? Yes. He was the coach, he should be listened to. But I would love to know what sources told you he came here with the intention of eventually being the new GM.

 

I'm not a person of many sources. I'm not even going to perpetuate like that. In my expertise, you do meet people. Especially athletes or families of athletes as I have. These people never suggested to me anything about Skiles. The few I've talked with extensively were around the Dwight days.

 

It's clearly dot connecting on my part based on what was brought out from local media and the way Skiles handled everything.

Going to Martins and not Rob weeks/months before Rob even had candidates in mind. This was confirmed by many. Also the fact that he signed on to coach and develop a young team but does a complete 180 and wants to quit and didn't even converse with Rob but expressed that to everyone else BUT Rob. Wanted to trade a former player for other former players he liked more. That Martins had to arrange a freaking trust camp with Rob and Henny. Tells me right there Martins is trying to force this situation. Then eventually Skiles quitting despite it all.

 

He's like a kid who tries to manipulate to get what he wants, doesn't get it and takes his ball and goes home. He wanted to play the game his way despite knowing that's not how the game was going to be played.

[Justin Jaudon 221]

Thats a weird way to look at things but ok.

 

Hey maybe we're biased. If only there were other outside sources... hmm...

 

Oh http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on-basketball/19156846/jeff-van-gundy-magic-ceo-alex-martins-is-unprofessional-and-knows-nothing-about-basketball

 

Oh https://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ball-dont-lie/stan-van-gundy-being-fired-blasts-orlando-magic-130406155--nba.html

 

http://orlandomagicdaily.com/2016/05/16/orlando-magic-ceo-alex-martins-learns-lesson-with-scott-skiles-departure/

 

http://nypost.com/2015/02/05/magic-fire-jacque-vaughn-in-most-humiliating-way-possible/

 

I hear you. I do. But understand, I'm not saying I love Martins. I hate the way he fires people, for one. as for those articles:

 

JVG and SVG of course hate him. Of course he's not a good basketball mind. It's a good thing the basketball part of the job can be left up to the GM.

 

The funny thing about the orlandomagicdaily article is that it was written right after Skiles' departure, with the assumption still out there that Hennigan was making the right decisions. I disagree with the article only in that, had Martins backed Skiles in the feud with Hennigan, we likely would have made the playoffs this year and everyone would be talking about what a good decision it was. It sounds like, from that article, with the benefit of nearly a year watching Hennigan and Vogel turn this team into a joke, that the only thing Martins did wrong in terms of Skiles was not back him enough.