Influence of Good Executives

It is impossible to understate the potential influence, positive or negative, of a top executive in professional sports.  These executives undoubtedly have the most sway in the NBA.  Much like in most other arenas in society, poor jobs receive a lot more heat than good jobs receive praise.  Even casual NBA fans know of the disaster that was Isiah Thomas and the Knicks, but far fewer know about Sam Presti and R.C. Buford.  At the end of the day, players play the game, so how much influence do the executives have?  Kobe Bryant was the 13^th pick in the 1996 draft (behind Kerry Kittles and Antoine Walker), Amare Stoudemire went 9^th in 2002 (behind Drew Gooden and Chris Wilcox), Dirk Nowitzki was taken 9^th in 1998 (after Robert Traylor and Raef LaFrentz); should the executives that, in hindsight, blew those previous picks be blamed for their mistakes? Simply put, no, they should not.  Sometimes executives drop the ball.  More often, a sleeper is a sleeper and it is really no ones fault that the player snuck by.  While most of these front offices lie somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, which ones lie at the ends and how much influence do they actually have?

R.C. Buford has been the Team President of the San Antonio Spurs since 1997 and the team’s General Manager since 2002.  In the past 13 seasons under Buford, the Spurs have won a league best four NBA Championships.  Winning four out of thirteen championships is effectively considered a dynasty.  Each dynasty in basketball history has had its centerpiece (Russell, Johnson, Bird, Jordan, O’Neal, Duncan), but what separates these dynasties from every other team with an all-time great player is the supporting cast.  The second guy on each dynasty is a member of the NBA’s Top 50 Players of All-Time list—excluding Kobe Bryant because the list was released in 1996—; a remarkably telling fact (Russell>Cousy, Johnson>Abdul-Jabbar, Bird>McHale, Jordan>Pippen, O’Neal>Bryant*, Duncan>Robinson^).  The possible exception to this rule is the current Spurs dynasty under the leadership of the aforementioned R.C. Buford.  While Tim Duncan had a strong David Robinson in the first title run, the team has lacked a second dominant player since 2000.  What about the modern NBA can explain this change and why have the Spurs been so good at figuring it out?

Since the Lakers’ three-peat from 2000-2002, five different franchises have won the title: Spurs (’03, ’05, ’07), Pistons (’04), Heat (’06), Celtics (’08), and the Lakers (’09,’10).  Of these five teams, only the 2006 Heat fit the classic “Batman and Robin” model.  The new trend involves two formulas: one superstar with balanced surroundings (Spurs, Lakers), or a truly balanced team with no superstars but multiple studs (Pistons, Celtics).  Interestingly, in these eight seasons, the first formula has been more successful while it also seems to be the more difficult to achieve.  Tim Duncan and Kobe Bryant were the centerpieces of their respective championship teams but why were the Spurs able to surround Duncan with championship talent and the Lakers the same with Bryant, while the Cavaliers, 76ers, Mavericks, Timberwolves, and Suns not able to do the same with their MVP centerpieces?

General Managers cannot be blamed for missing on sleeper picks in the draft, however then can be praised for catching them.  Outside of Tim Duncan, the Spurs central pieces over the last decade have been sleeper picks that R.C. Buford deserves praise for.  Tony Parker (28th pick), Manu Ginobili (57th), and more recently, George Hill (26th), and DeJuan Blair (37th), have all been sleeper picks that have turned into championship caliber players.  The Spurs have surrounded their superstar with solid late draft picks to aid his success.  By comparison, the Cavaliers surrounded LeBron James with: Shannon (later traded), Daniel Gibson, J.J. Hickson, Christian Eyenga, and Danny Green.  Basketball is a team sport and team support is a necessity for any level of player that is attempting to carry his team to a title.

Conversely, a poor front office can set a team back a number of years.  Isiah Thomas' failure as the General Manager of the Knicks was due to the terrible free agent signings he consistently made.  While poor decision-making in the free agent market can hinder a team's development, poor drafting can be equally as debilitating.  The poster-boy for poor draft choices in recent years has been Timberwolves GM David Kahn.  The Wolves are perennially one of the league's worst franchises and, while they are one of the youngest teams in the league, unlike the Thunder, they are not filled with young talent.  The main difference between Oklahoma City's development as a young franchise and Minnesota's (besides Kevin Durant) has been the high percentage of "hits" on first round draft picks for Oklahoma City compared to the high percentage of "misses" or "busts" for Minnesota.  Certain teams, like Portland with Greg Oden, are not to be blamed when draft decisions do not work out, but others, like Minnesota taking three point guards in the first 18 picks of the 2009 draft, are to be held accountable.

To illustrate the point, a redo of the 2009 draft, with a better General Manager, could transform Minnesota from a cellar-dwellar to a competitive team.  Minnesota held the four 1st-round picks (5, 6, 18, 28), and two 2nd-rounders (45, 47).  With those picks they selected Ricky Rubio, Jonny Flynn, Ty Lawson, Wayne Ellington, Nick Calathes, and Henk Norel.  Of those six players, only two are currently on the roster and they combine both average only 19 minutes per game.  At the time of the draft, the roster consisted of: Al Jefferson, Ryan Gomes, Kevin Love, Craig Smith, Sebastian Telfair, Corey Brewer, and Brian Cardinal.  Redoing the draft, the picks would be Stephen Curry, DeMar DeRozan, Ty Lawson, DeJuan Blair, and Chase Budinger (trade 45th and 47th picks for 44th pick).  One year later, a pitiful Minnesota franchise turns into a competitive team with a starting lineup of Curry, DeRozan, Brewer, Love, and Jefferson, with a bench of Lawson, Budinger, Gomes, Smith, and Blair.  Or, if they continue to execute the Al Jefferson and Michael Beasley trades, a lineup of Lawson, Curry, DeRozan, Beasley, and Love, with a bench of Telfair, Brewer, Budinger, Smith and Blair.  With either lineup that is a team that can compete for the 8, 9, 10 spot in the Western Conference, something that is laughable now.

No team can be expected to hit on every draft pick, but the championship teams are the ones that hit on late picks and the cellar-dwellars are the ones who miss on lottery picks.  As important as players are to team success, the value of a good front office cannot be downplayed.