A little bit of the past – a jersey retirement for Rasheed Wallace? – and a little bit of the future – what’s in store for this summer? – as we dive into another Pistons Mailbag.
Ken (Dharamsala, India): Has anybody with clout broached the subject of Rasheed Wallace’s jersey being retired? A brash character, perhaps, but a sweet performer even in the dark days of the Davidson decline. He shut down Garnett, Duncan, Mourning routinely. “Ball don’t lie” – he belongs in the rafters.
Langlois: There are no hard and fast parameters for what stamps a player worthy of having his jersey retired. Different organizations have different yardsticks. As ownership or management changes and time passes – and as careers get put into broader perspective – things can and do change. We’ve already gotten the three most predictable jersey retirements from the Goin’ to Work crew out of the way: Ben Wallace, Chauncey Billups and Rip Hamilton. They all had much longer careers with the Pistons than Rasheed Wallace. Tayshaun Prince and Rasheed Wallace were always going to be the tougher calls. If I had to guess, I’d say they’ll both have their days eventually. There hasn’t been a starting five so inextricably linked in the NBA since … the early ’70s Knicks? Yeah, that seems the most apt comparison. Reed, Frazier, Monroe, Bradley and DeBusschere. Prince never made an All-Star team and Rasheed Wallace only spent five-plus seasons with the Pistons, but their connection to the fan base and their contributions to the 2004 NBA title forever cement their legacy with the Pistons. No, I don’t have any insight into the discussions that have taken place about future jersey retirements. But I’d wager that we’ll see both players have their day in the not-too-distant future.
Isaac (Irvine, Calif.): Any indication how willing the owners/management might be to go over the luxury tax line for a year or two? It seems that may be necessary in order to make substantial improvements.
Langlois: The Knicks of the fairly recent past aside, going over the luxury tax is usually something a franchise does when it feels a championship is within reach. Stan Van Gundy has said often (and Tom Gores has never indicated otherwise) that he’s never been told the Pistons can’t exceed the tax line. Management teams are typically loath to do so, though, in situations as the Pistons find themselves in now. In other words, it’s something you’d do if you feel you’re one player away from a title run but not if you feel you’re a player away from escaping the lottery. Put another way, I don’t think you’ll see the Pistons making moves this summer that would push them over the tax line heading into the season. (As a reminder, it should be again noted that a team is never really over the tax line until the regular season ends and the total is computed; prior to that, teams can make moves during the season to duck under the line.) But let’s say we get to February, the Pistons are on pace to win 50-plus games and a move presents itself that pushes them past the threshold. Then? Maybe, for the right move.
Arom (Paterson, N.J.): Do you think Blake Griffin is the Pistons franchise player they are looking for the past few years?
Langlois: I’m not a fan of that term, “franchise player,” because what does it really mean? I’ll say this much: It’s clear that the Pistons – owner Tom Gores, Stan Van Gundy and general manager Jeff Bower, in essence – believed that Griffin was a player worthy of the commitment of significant cap space. They took on about $150 million worth of contract for four-plus seasons worth of Griffin, so they’ve tied a big piece of the immediate future of the franchise to Griffin. If you accept that as a definition of “franchise player,” then Griffin qualifies. If he’s healthy, he makes the Pistons a much different team, a more formidable team against a variety of opponents. Ex-Charlotte coach Steve Clifford summed it up well, I thought, when he said that it’s about winning in the playoffs and Griffin is one of the few players in the league who commands the double teams for a win-or-lose last possession that every team in the league is chasing. When the opportunity to acquire one of those rare talents comes along, a franchise is compelled to act. The cost is never cheap. All things considered, the Pistons got Griffin for a reasonable return. The gamble – the key for it paying off for them – lies in his ability to avoid the sort of nagging injuries that have dogged him for the past four seasons. But there’s always a gamble to take when a player of his ilk is made available in trade. Oklahoma City took a gamble in acquiring Paul George – that it could retain him in free agency. The gamble is usually a little narrower in free agency, but the Pistons knew a franchise that hasn’t been a playoff regular for a decade – no matter where it’s located, as the recent inability of the Knicks and Lakers to attract elite free agents has proven – wasn’t going to be a realistic option for a marquee free agent at this point. When they have cap space again in a few years, a team built around Griffin might have a different level of appeal to free agents. And if that’s your definition of “franchise player,” then Griffin qualifies on that count, too.
The Respected Oldman (@KHMakerD): How would you handle Reggie Jackson? He keeps getting hurt, which puts us behind the eight ball.
Langlois: I’m not ready to label Jackson as injury prone based on two unrelated injuries in consecutive seasons, especially when one of them – this season’s sprained ankle – is something that a majority of players have endured at one point in their playing days. Jackson’s just happened to be the mother of all sprained ankles and it completely undermined the Pistons season, just as his knee tendinosis was the single biggest corrosive force to the 38-win season that preceded it. It’s tough, but if you’re management you have to take the emotion of having injuries to the same player gut consecutive seasons with lofty expectations out of evaluation and action plans. The reality: two unrelated injuries, neither considered career limiting. So how I’d handle him is promote a sophisticated off-season training regimen that maximizes injury prevention in all the ways possible these days, hand him the ball on the first day of training camp and cross my fingers. Beyond that, do whatever you can to limit the impact of his absence. Blake Griffin – and a full off-season to implement an offense that caters to his strengths – figures to go a long way on that count.
Matthew (@MWesley13): Clearly, trading for Blake Griffin was a shortsighted move either done by Stan Van Gundy to try to make the playoffs and save his job or orchestrated by Californian Tom Gores. Which one was it?
Langlois: Clearly, neither. Let’s take the second one first. Tom Gores isn’t spending time on the phone engineering trades. They’re the product of thousands of phone calls and texts from general manager Jeff Bower to his 29 peers around the league to get a grasp on which players can be had at any given moment and it’s a perpetually shifting landscape. Gores certainly isn’t involved at that level. When something gets pushed to the 1-yard line – at least something of the magnitude of the Griffin trade – then of course the owner, any owner, would be brought into the discussion. Stan Van Gundy signed off on the trade because he thought it was a move to upgrade the talent base, pure and simple. Van Gundy has made no secret of the fact that the Pistons have checked in when any elite player has become available in trade since he landed here. So if upping the talent level is interpreted as a move to save his job, then that’s an accusation you can level at any GM after pretty much any trade. But the motivation – not primary, but sole – was to better the franchise. He didn’t necessarily think it would pay immediate dividends and he was candid about that when the trade was made, citing the huge differences in playing style between Griffin and Tobias Harris and the problems of overhauling the offense in mid-season the trade created. He was clear that the trade was more about 2018-19 and 2019-20 than this season. At the time of the trade, he also expected to get Reggie Jackson back for 20-plus games and they wound up with 12 – and only four of them with Jackson and Griffin in the lineup together.
Detroitdavid (@davidgadaskin): With all the bad money spent in free agency, do you see the Pistons trying to trade anyone during the off-season?
Langlois: The motivation to make trades this off-season will come from a desire to improve the roster or, perhaps more precisely, to improve the fit now that they’ll have an off-season to tailor the roster to better complement Blake Griffin. I don’t know that they’re that far off, though, given the shooting that Reggie Bullock and Luke Kennard offer at the two wing positions. Stanley Johnson is the other key player at those spots and it’s possible – as Johnson heads into the final year before he’s eligible for restricted free agency – that the front office is looking at every option available as a solution to addressing what comes next for him. I’m going to assume that by “bad money spent in free agency” you’re mostly talking about Jon Leuer and Langston Galloway. (Ish Smith, Anthony Tolliver and Reggie Bullock surely can’t count; neither could Aron Baynes before them.) Given the way their seasons unfolded – missing 74 games for Leuer and finishing out of the rotation for Galloway – it’s fair to guess their trade value is depressed at the moment. In Leuer’s case, I don’t think it matters. The front office remains bullish on him and sees him as a valuable and versatile frontcourt piece. With Tolliver headed for free agency and little wiggle room under the cap as it currently stands, he becomes more important. As for Galloway, the emergence of Bullock and Kennard would appear to make him expendable. He’s the No. 3 shooting guard as it stands and wasn’t used much at point guard. If there’s a fit for someone who offers a little bit different skill set, it wouldn’t be surprising to see him moved. If you want to scan opposing rosters to see who has a spare small forward and a backcourt need, you might find a match.