#SLOE: People's Basketball Sim League

From the recently . . . renovated? . . . Cleveland facilities:

Owner: Sit down and shut up. I don't know why I'm here explaining myself to so-called men who don't have the cash or the balls to play try to run a team, but nerd boy says this is the thing to do, and he's earned some leash.

You'll notice the accommodations. I did manage to burn down a wing of the facility, but I just kinda <expletive deleted> the rest of it up to send a twisted message. Pretty cool, huh? Bet you wish you were billionaire, huh?



Nerd-o, try to make it quick.


GM: As many of you are aware, we recently traded away some players and draft picks for some more skilled player, tying up our cap space for the remainder of this season and for the next, for the most part. We are set up to compete at a middle to high level for two seasons while we build assets and a rebuild in 2003 and 2004 rather than 2001 and 2002.

We feel these moves were the best of those available to us to meet our overall goals. These goals are:


Owner: Awww, for Frye's sake . . .


Short term (Over the course of the next 2 seasons):
Learn to field a roster in an optimal fashion
Learn to identify holes in the roster
Collect positive assets

Medium term (Over the course of the following 3 seasons):
Be a consistent playoff team
Operate with no net-negative moves

Long-Term (Over the following 5 seasons):
Compete for a title
Perform well in the League on the court and off

Now, here's how we are meeting these goals.

We started with one contract of questionable value, one contract of negative value, negligible contracts, an unknown number of points, and an intact collection of draft picks including on that was not a game-changing pick in the 2001 draft. This set up a clear timetable to operate within, and that timetable was defined by the Nash contract, which ran through the 2003 season.

We collected contracts in salary dumps, some of which were of decent value, including value veteran contracts, rookie scale contracts, and performing expiring veterans. We also have some dead expiring that were worth the acquisition cost.

A decent rebuild was possible starting in 2002 starting at that time, but we felt the asset store was not enough to really deal effectively with rookies, for points reasons at least, and to build around them with other assets.

As such, we decided to start our rebuild in 2003 and spread it into 2004 and use the 2001 and 2002 seasons to build assets and build up our coaching acumen. While we traded 3 first round draft picks, we received one back, the first overall pick from 2000, strong veteran players who we feel are tradeable going forward, and a good wing player on a rookie contract.

Once we reach 2003 and 2004, we have draft picks, and we have assets to acquire more, all while retaining some key assets, such as Michael Redd, who enters restricted free agency in 2004.

Our performance since the trade has not improved, but we feel this justifies our suspicion that we not capable of running a team well. We now have the opportunity to improve as we align our assets for the future.

I've tried to be as comprehensive and open as possible, but we can take any questions you have.


Owner: How the Frye can they have a question? Oh, because you bored them to death!

Look here, dicks, this whole organization is a god damned disaster, so we're weeding out the crap for a couple of years . . . like I said before . . . and we'll make our push on our god damned clock.

Speak.

Generic Wolves Reporter: Is it safe to say that with a lack of draft picks that Michael Redd is going to be your rebuild centerpiece?

GM: Mr. Redd is still developing, and we plan to facilitate that with regular and accelerated training. That said, if we see a better path built around other players, we would make right deal for him.

He is, in a very real sense, our top pick without some of the risk built-in to the lottery process. Avoiding this risk changes his timeline, but that timeline fits with ours.

We are not missing picks; we picked early. We have a 2003 first rounder, and our additional 2002 came in via a trade for... BD... And went back out in a trade. Compared to where we are when we started the season, we are quite thrilled.

At any rate, a trade for the Mr. Redd we envision would need to be very special, indeed. Time will tell if our vision needs correction.

A lot of other GMs have keyed in on your 'outside of the box' approach. If you succeed you'll be lauded as a forward thinking GM who did it his way, but if things go south and you give up 2 top picks for essentially Redd everyone will give you the 'I told you so' mantra. In terms of flexibility on your philosophy, would you say you current strategy is set in stone or would you consider adjusting if you don't feel it's working?

GM: I need to give a few answers to this question.

Owner: Why?! Why not just the right one?! Why are you such a shit?!

GM: First, we acknowledge our methods are different, but so our our goals. We have a line drawn, as we have from the start, as mentioned today and in our initial press event. Prior to this line, we are building as a franchise. This franchise was neglected and was running on autopilot. We don't even have our books in total order yet. To ignore this reality is irresponsible and would only lead to more hollow victories and never to a title

Second, you mischaracterize the deals. We sent out two picks to New York, and we received another pick, Michael Redd, and very capable player who we feel can net a pick in trade next season. We can quibble about the value of picks, but Michael Redd is a first overall pick. If you say he is not worth such a pick, I say then the pick you feel we gave up is not worth as much as you insinuate. We feel we will net assets that are at least as valuable as what we gave up, plus they will be aligned on our timeline.

Third, let's suppose we landed two top picks. Then what? We just "build around them?" How? Using what assets? Cap space and no picks? Well, you saw what team we fielded using that strategy, and now you see what we field adding 3 much better players. Sadly, even if we hit on those picks, they would have been wasted from the perspective of winning a title. In this case, we end with no title and lose several seasons. Here, we lose 2.

In summary, and to be frank, we are essentially an expansion franchise but without an expansion draft. Every other team started with real assets from the outset. We started with deep bench players, a bad contract, and expiring contract of a declining star who was traded again this season. I find it hard to believe that when 2004 rolls around that we'll be worse off. If they are, I will stand up and admit error.

It is a question of timeline, goals, and context, as we mentioned from the start. If our moves are judged as ones supposed to lead to a title this season or next, then our moves are bad, and without question. They advance our goals, which a very specific in time and nature, very well. Most franchises simply do not have the problems we do, so they can not relate. Nor do they have such patient and empowering ownership, so I'd like to applaud our franchise owner for assuming what you would call a risk. I would call it informed discretion. We could not out-Hawk the Hawks this season, as we did not have the assets to trade to build up a salary, plus many top players are spoken for. We can not out-Laker the Lakers, since there was no Kevin Garnett available to us in the prior draft. Our chances of landing Ming were 25%, but 100% for Redd.

A decent parallel is perhaps Seattle, but they have a title-winning GM. Their future could have been lottery picks, but they mortgaged that future on aged and aging veterans with big contracts for a chance at a title this season. If we had tried this, we would have had worse results due to lack of experience, lack of coaching, and competition with Seattle for this build. We applaud Seattle, and they give us hope for our eventual push.

When you look at the actual scenarios available, none of the options were good, so we decided to go a different route and pick a fight we have a chance of winning.

Did some trade deadline deals fall through that you were banking on making to add some more talent to your roster or was your plan to sit pat and figure out the parts in-house?

GM: We wanted 3 deals lined up, not 2, prior to executing the suite of moves. The least important deal, one for a reasonable big, did not materialize. We felt it reasonable to make the moves and pick up a big at the deadline or in the offseason.

Still, our main asset management plan is intact without this deal, and that is our primary motivation now. Also, this is helping our coaching, which tipped our scale for executing the deal.

The roster challenges are opportunities to learn, and we embrace these.

Very good questions. The floor is still open.

42PhD wrote:GM: We wanted 3 deals lined up, not 2, prior to executing the suite of moves. The least important deal, one for a reasonable big, did not materialize. We felt it reasonable to make the moves and pick up a big at the deadline or in the offseason.

Still, our main asset management plan is intact without this deal, and that is our primary motivation now. Also, this is helping our coaching, which tipped our scale for executing the deal.

The roster challenges are opportunities to learn, and we embrace these.

Very good questions. The floor is still open.

Is David Blatt your coach? I've heard part of the issues are the star power of the team butting heads with coach. Any truth to this?

GM: I wouldn't pin the loss count on stars in any way. Let's bring the coach in.

Coach: Our guys want to win. 121%. We just need to come out with energy and put it all together. This is the best team I've ever coached.

Awarded 2 Points (team-centric article)! THANKS FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTION!