Versace

        That partly depends on how his working relationship with other GMs
and agents goes.

--
 Bart: Actually, we were just planning the father-son river rafting
       trip.
Homer: Heh heh, you don't have a son.
 -- People unclear on the concept, "Boy Scoutz 'N the Hood"

In article <38e96 @rsl2.rslnet.net>,

BTW, this positive comment from Donnie Walsh
should be included in any fair analysis of
Versace:

"I know Dick Versace would love to get back
in the league in some capacity," said
Pacers' president Donnie Walsh, who has
kept in touch with Versace over the years.
"I think he would do a fine job in whatever
role the new owner has for him. He's very
knowledgeable, knows the league and has a
good idea of what it will take to win."

http://www.vancouversun.com/ne wsite/sports/000201/3525237.ht ml


--
In the midst of winter, I finally
saw that there was in me an
invincible summer--ALBERT CAMUS

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

In article <38e96 @rsl2.rslnet.net>,

That's what has been puzzling about
the analysis of Versace so far. The views tend
more to assess his morality, rather than
his basketball track record.  It would have
clearly been a STU-pid (sorry I couldn't resist)
move to sit idle while Jackson's fate was
up-in-the-air (if it ever was up-in-the-air).

We've seen first-hand for 5 years what a
'nice' GM accomplishes.  Maybe Versace's
aggressive, 'immoral' approach to assembling
a roster will lead to a group of winners
rather than our current group of whiners.
I think a team assembled in Versace's image
will be more successful than a team assembled
in Jackson's image. Versace doesn't exactly have
to shoot-for-the-moon to put together a more
successful team.


--
In the midst of winter, I finally
saw that there was in me an
invincible summer--ALBERT CAMUS

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

Excellent research on Versace, Mattila.
Thank you.

It appears to me that Versace's 'talent'
places him somewhere between Jackson and
mediocrity.  On the bright side, mediocrity
would be a significant upgrade for the
Grizz.  Let's hope that Versace has learned
something from his past mistakes and is
primed to be successful in his first
opportunity to run his own NBA team. But
hope aside, it appears Versace is "Stu:
The Sequel".

If nothing else, I suspect this off-season
will be entertaining for fans, as the roster
is completely turned over. At least we'll have
some new faces to complain about next season.
And you never know, Versace may get lucky and
inadvertently acquire us a hard-nosed leader
(I am allowed to dream aren't I?).  ;O)


--
In the midst of winter, I finally
saw that there was in me an
invincible summer--ALBERT CAMUS

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

I have spent this entire evening searching newspaper archives trying to find
something on Versace. What I found isn't much but it is starting to make the
picture a little clearer. There never seemed to be more than a blurb here or
there, it was like squeezing blood from a stone. For the benefit of all the
readers I will post the tidbits of info I found on Versace so everyone gets
a better idea of who will be controlling the fate of our beloved Grizzlies.

Insight #1 - How Versace got into coaching.
______________________________­________
Can coach come too?
Hiring prep coaches is ploy to sign top players

A key component in some master plans is adding a high school coach to a
staff to improve the likelihood of a regal recruit tagging along with him.

Saint Louis: Dick Versace joined Bob Polk's staff directly with Leartha
Scott in 1973 before becoming coach at Bradley. Scott was the Billikens' No.
2 scorer as a freshman before encountering academic problems and
transferring to Wisconsin-Parkside.
______________________________­____
It's nice to see that Versace got his break based on his talent as a coach,
Not because a division 1 school was recruiting one of his highschool
students.

Insight #2 - How Versace got the job with Heisley

It's good to see his basketball skills were what got his foot in the door
again.
______________________________­_____
Heisley was best friends with Versace's brother in high school. The Bucks
gave Versace, along with head coach Chris Ford, the ax after the 1997-'98
season, and Versace has admitted a desire to get back into the league.

Versace said Saturday that he was hired on a two-year retainer - 14 months
are left on the deal - but that he had received no indication if he would be
hired as part of the basketball operation.
Link: http://www.jsonline.com/sports /buck/feb00/bucksid20s1021900. asp
______________________________­______

Insight #3 - Versace's talents

Strait from the horse's mouth.
______________________________­_______
"All I can say is that I have a variety of skills, some are in business,
some are in media and some are in coaching," Versace said. "If I got the
right offer in any of those I would be interested."
Link: http://detnews.com/2000/sports /0002/06/02060129.htm
______________________________­_______

Insight #4 - Versace's evaluation of talent.

We all have read about Versace's evaluation of Shrempf while he was at
Indiana. Here are a couple more evaluations by Versace.
______________________________­_______
On Glenn Robinson

"In the history of the league there are a lot of guys that were scorers that
were great players," said Versace. "It's just how can you max him out. I
think he's an offensive genius.

        Sounds super-bad, but I wouldn't predict _perpetual_ Clipperdom.
Don't forget, the Clippers constantly suck cause of their owner's constant
meddling. Versace doesn't sound like he stays in a GM/coaching job too
long.

--
In 1997, much brainpower and capital will be expended developing blurry,
jerky video for the Internet, ignoring the full-motion, full-color video
device often referred to as a "TV."
 -- Suck Predictions.

In article <8cbhk3$f6 @nnrp1.deja.com>,

I agree. It was a good job.

What puzzles me is the putz who placed him just above
Hitler in the nice people of the earth category because
he had assembled a scouting staff and they were active.

I'd be disappointed if Heisley hadn't had him do it.
Any new owner would be a total fool not to clean house
and put his own people in areas of responsibility, and have
them working now in preparation for the takeover.

Jim

foamy
Official Canucks NG Legal Scholar
Pavel Attack Dog

In article <8c62k3$lp @nnrp1.deja.com>, rojan <r @my-deja.com>
wrote:

I would guess that there are a few examples (none of which I can
remember), but this is unusual. And what the heck do you mean by "as
well"--in addition to how his winning record with the Knicks and his
leading the Wisconsin basketball program back into the NCAA tourney
displayed "how bad a coach he is"?

And the "added weight" is useless in that particular situation. It would
do little for team morale to threaten players' contracts, for one. Also,
it would be insane to release any of the legit NBA players who get any
playing time when you're in the position that the Grizz were in, and the
players probably would want to be traded away from a 14-68 team playing
in the NBA's most disliked city (except by a few superstar players and
coaches who like it--Olajuwon and Shaq, obviously, and remember that Stu
tried to get Phil Jackson to be the Grizzlies coach during the first
Bulls-Jazz finals, and Phil considered it supposedly because he likes
Vancouver so much).

Well, even though I would disagree that sports is *all* about wins and
losses, your statement on that is beside the point. Certainly Carter,
especially in the last two months, has been playing incredible and
hitting game winning shots. Is that the difference between the Grizzlies
and the Raptors? Well, it's part of it. Is it the difference between SAR
and Carter. It's part of it.

But really, what is the difference between the Raptors this year and
last year? Essentially, they have gelled as a team, added Antonio Davis,
an their two young players, Carter and McGrady, have improved while
taking on more of the scoring load.

Or he only wins in LA because he has Shaq, the current best player in
the league, and Bryant on his team. And Riley hasn't won a championship
since he was with the Lakers, so obviously he relied on Magic Johnson.
Whatever fits your position fits whatever side you're on now, right?

It's actually amazing how much hostility I get here whenever I try to
remind people that basketball is a team sport. Good players and coaches
obviously contribute to making their team good, some more than others.
Most people would guess that Phil Jackson coaching the Clippers (or the
Grizzlies) would make them better than they are now. The same thing
would probably have been said about Brian Hill in his days with the
Orlando Magic (not to suggest that Hill was considered equal with Phil
Jackson, or anything).

My original point was that Versace's record is only a part of the story.
It would be great for your argument if it somehow proved that he was a
good coach, but it doesn't. It was one season.

Yes.

As I said.

BC is a useful player when he puts his mind to it, and I wouldn't call
him a "bust" at all, despite his problems with being in shape for
starting the season. His contra

In article <worldwide-56F947.191319010420­00@
news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>, CJL

Well I agree totally that basketball is a team sport. Basketball
is a great team game, if it's played as a team game. Unfortunately
it hasn't been played as such for a very long time. The modern era
of basketball is marked by 5 guys playing one-on-one. The odd
exception of course.

Ego is the one thing preventing most teams from being successful.
Any coach who could gather or make players willing to check their
egos at the door would be over the first and biggest hurdle in having
a winner. All a _team_ needs to win is a good point guard, a good 3
or 4, and a good big guy in the middle, and two role players filling
the other two spots who take great pride in what they can contribute.
[ I'm ignoring the bench for the moment ].

For example, if the Grizz just changed 1 man on offense, Harrington,
they would be much more successful IMO. Just think of Rodman
playing that spot. [ that's why I have never understood why Long
when he is healthy is not the starter over Harrington ]. A team simply
cannot have 3 guys up front wanting to score all the time, and one
guy pouting if he doesn't get the touches he thinks he deserves.
We need somebody to do the dirty work, and revel in it.

Jim

In article <worldwide-
56F947.19131901042 @news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>,



By "as well", I mean as well as being a bad GM.
As far as his coaching record with the Knicks,
he was a dismal failure. He took over a 52-30 .634
team from Rick Pitino that was primed to reach
the next level and led them to a 45-37 .549 record
and an identical 2nd round playoff exit as the
year before. In his second season, he was canned
early because the team was playing poorly and the
Knicks finished at 39-42 .476. Pitino had taken
over a Knick team in 1987 that had won 24, 23, and
24 games in the 3 previous seasons and took them
to the playoffs in 87-88 with an improved record of
38-44 .463. The season before Jackson took over the
helm, Pitino's 88-89 Knicks posted the best record
for the team since they won the championship
in 72-73. Pat Riley took over from Jackson's interim
replacement John Macleod in 91-92 and the Knicks
haven't had a losing season since.

I'll give you that Jackson did a good job with
Wisconsin, which is why he got the Grizz job.
Irregardless, he has been an abject failure
with the Grizz as a GM and coach.

I disagree. But I agree that Stu's "added weight"
was useless.

It would
How much morale does an 8-35 team have?
Also,

The problem was the team had few, if any, legit
NBA players. Surely, he could have spurred
on these NBA hangers-on to exhibit a little more
effort and win a few extra games for the Gipper?

Its almost unbelievable that they had a poorer
record under him than Brian Winters, if he was
a good coach as you say.




The Raptors did well last year too in the strike-
shortened season, especially when compared to the
Grizz.


So your position is that Pat Riley and Phil Jackson
would take the Grizz to the same record as Stu
Jackson or Brian Winters?

Of course, basketball is a team sport. But if the
leader of your team (the GM) is incompetent it
dooms your team to failure on the court.
Good players and coaches

Has Doc Rivers made the Magic much better
than Stu Jackson would have as coach?

Are you dissing Phil Jackson again?

Some would say, Brian Hill never got a chance
to coach the Grizz when they were healthy
except for his first season when he took them
to a franchise best 19 wins. What do you
say to those people?


But in his "one season" with the Pacers he took
them from out-of-the-playoffs to into-the-playoffs
and the team's won-loss record improved substantially,
while in Jackson's "one-season" with the Knicks they
dropped 7 games in the win column. Versace accomplished
something while Jackson accomplished nothing.




I disagree. He is a BIG bust. :O)

Stoudamire and Finley would have been much
better picks than BC.


They've helped but not very much.




What do we have to show for Benjamin, Peeler

In article <worldwide-
5F0A2C.14162801042 @news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>,



Thats certainly worrisome for Grizz fans,
but again nothing concrete.




That would be great if you could find some
concrete examples indicating he was a
bad coach and a lousy talent-evaluator.
Or would it?  :(

If anything that part season with the Grizz showed
how bad a coach he is as well.  He is the one and
only example I can think of where a replacement
coach had a worse record than a fired coach. And
he had the added weight of being able to threaten
players with being traded and released:

Brian Winters------8-35--.186
Stu Jackson--------6-33--.154

 I generally think it is a

I disagree here.  Sports is all about wins and
losses.  Vince Carter is a better player than
SAR, because he has been able to drag his team up to
new heights while SAR could not. New heights to me
means more wins than losses and making the playoffs
and ultimately a championship.

Phil Jackson and Pat Riley are the best coaches
because their teams win many more games than
they lose and they win championships.  No one
would be referring to Phil Jackson as the second-
coming, if the Lakers were 19 and 52.  They would
instead be saying how he only won in Chicago
because he had Michael Jordan on his team.

That said, a team should IMPROVE with a new coach.
The Pacers went from a non-playoff team to being
a play-off team in Versace's short tenure.  The Grizz
are almost as bad as they were 5 years ago, under
Jackson's tutelage.




"The team sucks on the court".  Sorry, but for me
that is the bottom-line in assessing Stu's record.

, and for many

The 'talented' (and whether they are in fact
talented is highly arguable) players he has brought
here were through the draft. A blindfolded
kid using a dart board could have done better.
He's made 6 first round picks and he's out-
and-out blown 3 of them completely.  BC is a
bust, Daniels was a bust and Roy Rogers was
a bust.  There are no brilliant 2nd round picks
on the team who are contributing.  There are no
players on the team that he brought in because
he saw something special in them before someone
else did.  There are no European or CBA finds
that have contributed to the team's improvement.

As far as talented free-agents, Brian Hill
convinced Dennis Scott to play here and SAR
convinced Grant Long to sign here. And in the
final analysis, have they really helped much?

I do not see one brilliant move in 5 years that
can be attributed to Stu. Do you?




And this is inexcusable in year 5 of a 5-year plan.

situation.

And who assembled this personnel?  Jackson.

And whats really scary is that Dickerson is our
best player and he has shaky confidence.  A
playoff run or an NBA title generally do not
come to leaders who have shaky confid

---> I actually wrote this reply a few days ago.

In article <8bs6ss$tv @nnrp1.deja.com>, rojan <r @my-deja.com>
wrote:

Another five reasons?

Versace's last season as a head coach was ten years ago, and I didn't
follow the NBA as closely then as I do now. Perhaps I should ask for
comment from the Pacers newsgroup (oh, I see you've already done that,
good). Looking at Deja.com, there's a post from January where someone,
in response, lists Donnie Walsh's (the GM and president of the Pacers)
mistakes over the years and ends the list which includes the likes of
Dwayne Schizintius by saying "And worst of all:?? Dick Versace!"

Basically, my impression of Versace before this seasson was that he was
a mediocre coach whose main problems were that he often alienated his
players (and people in general) and couldn't judge talent at all. I can
see how you might think that all of these comments from various
newspaper columnists attacking Versace probably just show that he's a
jerk who has pissed lots of people off (the stunts he pulls, like when
he was scouting out the Milwaukee Bucks coaching job by sitting in the
stands with sunglasses and a trenchcoat on a few years back, are bound
to make people think he's a fool), but there really are some issues
about his ability as a GM behind those comments, I'm sure. His evident
ability to make enemies certainly isn't a good start.

As far as concrete examples go? I can seem to remember Versace getting
into fights with a few players and then not playing them where Versace's
position was viewed as weak around the league (which then caused
problems in the dressing room). He often tried strange new coaching
tactics that backfired (he's not the most conservative coach), even late
in games, which is probably what his "gaffes" were during games. . . .

I think I will try to find some NBA books from around that period in the
next few days, because as you can see I don't remember too much. If I
find anything interesting, then I'll post it here.

Yes, but if you look at Stu's *coaching* record, it probably is only
slightly worse than Versace's (that part-season with the Grizzlies
probably brought down Stu's records, as well). I generally think it is a
bad idea to trace a player or coach's ability down to their team's
record, though fans and most certainly journalists love to do so.
Basketball is overwhelmingly a team game, despite what the NBA tries to
do with it--Brian Hill did lead the Magic to a few 50+ win seasons and
the NBA finals once, after all.

I'm going to keep this short, so I don't know if I can cover this
exactly as I'd want, but . . .

About Stu: I don't think he's been nearly as bad as most Grizz fans here
seem to think. I mean, sure, the team sucks on the court, and for many
Grizzlies fans that can be held up as definite and nearly undeniable
proof that Stu Jackson doe

For sheer lack of objectivity, the only thing I can think
of that compares to this is when Jackson evaluated
Reeves. For example, you point out the great offensive
season Miller had, as though that's solely due
to Reggie. Maybe Versace's system had something
to do with freeing him up to make all those shots.

Frankly, I'm not interested in the one (possibly lucky)
season Stu Jackson had 10 years ago. I'm interested
in the fact that the Grizzlies under Stu have not progressed
a whit, and are going to finish this season with about
2 wins in their last 25 games. Versace simply cannot
fail to be an improvement on Jackson and Hollins.

Need I remind you that, in his brief (but seemingly
endless) tenure, Jackson has given us

1) Otis Thorpe
2) Doug Edwards
3) Doug West
4) DuJuan Wheat
5) Milt Palacio
6) Roy Rogers

What you are looking at in the above collection is a group
of guys who were either manifestly unable to play at the NBA
level, with obvious truck-sized holes in their games, OR
serious personal-physical problems that any competent GM
would have uncovered.

I challenge you to examine Versace's record and find
6 players who match the above.

Thanks.
That was exhaustive.
A+.
Colin.

In article <38E1386D.8172B @home.com>, Colin Plant <cspl @home.com>
wrote:

I don't think there's anything on the internet that would be like what
you're looking for. Because you asked, and a few posters are running
around trying to spin everything about Versace into proof that he's a
real NBA coach (probably because of their eternal hate for Stu Jackson),
here's what I can note from memory and looking at a few things I have on
my computer (not much) and a few web pages.

Versace (pronounced phonetically as if it were actually an English name)
has been the head coach at Bradley University and for the Indiana
Pacers. He has been an assistant at a few teams, I think the Bucks most
recently, and before that the Pistons and maybe a few other teams (I
think). He also was a TV analyst for TNT a while back.

His one NBA head coaching stint, with the Pacers as mentioned, was only
somewhat successful. The team had some mediocre record, about .500,
during his last season as coach there, but had some major talent,
including Reggie Miller, Chuck Person (probably one of his better
seasons, he was in his prime), Rik Smits, Detlef Schrempf, and Vern
Fleming back when he was good at point guard. Four of their starters
shot over 50% from the field, and the one who didn't was Person was at
almost 49% from the field while shooting 37% on threes and scoring
almost twenty a agame. Reggie Miller shot over 41% on threes while
taking 360+ of them and scoring 24ppg during Versace's first season!

(To make a valid comparison, some posters here forget that Stu Jackson,
during the exact same season, led the New York Knicks, who certainly
didn't have the offensive talent of the Pacers, at least, to a 45-37
record, though he was replaced when his Knicks started the following
season 7-8.)

To editorialize, I think Versace is an idiot. Historically, I've viewed
him as a bad coach who doesn't know what he's doing, and he seems to me
to spend a lot of time playing politics with players, other coaches,
management, and so on. The few times I saw him as a colour commentator
on TNT when he was working there he was annoying. Apparently, he gave
Stacey Augmon the nickname "Plastic Man" during that time, which is
probably right, as I can't figure out how the heck "Plastic" would apply
in this case. (Versace probably meant to say "Elastic", or doesn't know
the difference, or something. I could be missing some connection here,
so if that nickname actually makes some sense, please tell me how.)

Here's some quotes about Versace that I've collected, some of which have
been noted on this newsgroup:

=====
. . . This is turning into one wacky outfit, and we have some guy named
Michael Heisley to thank for it. Stu Jackson is purportedly running his
team, but Dick Versace is already on board as a "consultant." Versace,
whose only qualification is his talent

Wow. I thought I hated Stu Jackson for
his incompetence, but your analysis of
Versace is a real skewering.
The problem is, to quote that great Wendy's
commercial, "Where is the beef?".
The Schrempf mistake evaluation has been
repeated over and over. Give me another
5 examples please.
Versace took over a 6-23 team and finished
his first season 22-31 and in his second
season went 42-40 and made the playoffs,
losing in the playoffs to the eventual
Champion Pistons. He then went 9-16 in
his 3rd season and was fired.
I've heard vague references to his coaching
gaffes. Please give me some examples.
At this point, the evaluations of Versace
that I have read, most of which you refer
to in your post, are generalizations without
reference to specifics. It appears to me
that its Versace's bad character that is at
issue i.e. how dare he self-promote and jockey
for jobs.
I care only about the history of his ability
to evaluate talent and his history of coaching
tactics, motivation of players etc. I want
specifics not unsubstantiated hatchet-jobs. I
want wins. I am sick and tired of losing.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying Versace is
MY choice for the Grizz. He is HEISLEY's choice
for the Grizz, so I want to know with concrete
examples, of why he is the wrong choice or better
yet, the right choice.
If Versace is, in essence, Stu: The Sequel, then
I would like some concrete examples of his
incompetency, before I write off next season,
before he even officially gets the job.
As it stands now, Versace's coaching record of
73-87 .456 with one playoff appearance looks
far better to me than Stu's franchise record of
75-290 .205, which has culminated in a late 5th
season 'run' of 9-26 .257.
Stu is a 'dead-man walking' and he deserves to
be. You are in a very small minority of people
who thinks he should get a contract extension.
The jury is still out on Versace, at least until
the criticism of his past is justified by
numerous concrete examples. And if the solid
examples do come, perhaps we should give him
a year to see if he has improved since then.
Afterall, you want to give Stu a 6th year and
more. Why not give Versace at least 1 year?
In article <worldwide-
EBA0B6.20513128032 @news.nvcr1.bc.wave.home.com>,



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.