Van Gundy had a tumultuous run with the Pistons. The Pistons made the playoffs only once during his tenure in Detroit. The question becomes was it because of his ability as a GM or as the coach that the Pistons failed during his time.
He made some irrelevant moves, as all GMs do, and I am not going to spend time critiquing second-round draft picks and end of the roster moves. How do you even evaluate a trade for the end of his career Jameer Nelson in which the Pistons gave up Willie Reed? You do not. It is a waste of time. There is only one exception to this rule: Spencer Dinwiddie. I will return to that in a minute.
I am of the personal opinion that Van Gundy was a better GM than a coach. I say this with some hindsight. Not a single young player saw much development during his time in Detroit. The lack of development could be that he had a singular knack for acquiring players that would immediately become worse.
Although, it seems more likely that the issue was with his coaching, however, I should give credit where credit is due. While the team was inconsistent on the floor, some veteran players, including Brandon Jennings and Reggie Bullock, improved. Van Gundy, however, kept trying to keep Bullock out of the rotation.
Some players, Reggie Jackson, actually went in the wrong direction while playing for Van Gundy. I know many will blame Jackson’s struggles entirely on injury issues, but it seems the longer he has been in Detroit the more often he dribbles the ball 30 feet from the basket for an entire possession.
So how did Van Gundy draft? Well, his major selections were Dinwiddie, Johnson, Ellenson, and Kennard. Let’s put Kennard aside because he may, in fact, turn out to be a solid NBA player due to Dwane Casey’s player development skills. Dinwiddie, it turns out, would have been a great pick. Van Gundy, apparently, had some issues with Dinwiddie. In limited playing time, Dinwiddie proved himself a decent ballplayer. There were rumors that they had conflicts in the locker room. Well, of course. Dinwiddie is a competitor that wants to win games and Van Gundy is a competitor that wants to win arguments.
Van Gundy showed time and time again that he wanted to control the way that guys played. He had a perception of what a player should be and forced that perception onto players. He wanted Stanley Johnson to be a 3 and D guy, but Stanley was obviously a slasher and a hustler. Let him go out there and contribute by being what he is. Ultimately Stanley is a role player but if used correctly he is an effective player in spot minutes.
Of course, when you are drafted before Devin Booker the expectations are not that of “a role player.” This is understandable. Coaches can help players improve in areas of weakness, but the greatest coaches utilize the player's unique abilities. Popovich has been doing this for years in San Antonio.
Henry Ellenson was never given much of a chance. His drafting does not hurt as bad because neither Booker or Donavon Mitchell were selected immediately after him. He showed some spark in New York after he was waived last season. Overall, Van Gundy did nothing special in drafting these players, however, he did nothing special in player development either. If you can neither draft well or develop well, you are going to struggle as a GM and a coach. The fact of the matter is either he drafted poorly and he cannot develop players. Maybe he can do neither.
Van Gundy’s foray into free agency is a myriad of overpaid and underachieving role players with the exception of Ish Smith. Ish was a bargain for being such a skilled backup. During his time in Detroit, he was arguably the best point guard they had.
Jodie Meeks, Jon Leuer, Aron Baynes, Boban Marjanovic, and Langston Galloway. Meeks and Galloway are insufferable gunners. I know some Pistons fans love Galloway because every once in a blue moon he will get hot and score twenty. Unfortunately, in the interim, he does not play as well. The exception is the streak of games where he did not miss a three this year. Does that make up for how he is scored on with regularity? I do not believe so, but in today’s NBA most will probably love it.
I liked Leuer, Baynes, and Boban, but there is no denying they were not successful in Detroit. I am still not sure what Baynes does aside from not catch the ball. Leuer had a hard time staying healthy and when he came back from injury, he was a fraction of the player he was before (a solid role player). Boban could have been a solid player for Detroit, but Van Gundy was obsessed with Eric “Can’t make a layup” Moreland.
Again, I question his coaching because some of these guys had career years before coming to Detroit and then their careers took downturns. I am just playing the odds. Did all of these players get worse and fail to improve because of chance or was it because of coaching? I think it is obvious which is true.
Van Gundy did his best work in making trades. Reggie Jackson, even though he has been inconsistent, was a steal. I still believe that. He acquired Ilyasova, Bullock, Tolliver, and Morris for Tony Mitchell, a 2nd round pick, and Caron Butler. Then he robbed Orlando in acquiring Tobias Harris. That may, in fact, be the best move he made. The Pistons acquired Harris for an injured Brandon Jennings and Ilyasova.
Then he made the worst move he made in Detroit; he swapped Dinwiddie for Cameron Bairstow and then cut Bairstow. This seems personal to me. How else do you even look at that? I know a lot of people say, “how could he have known that Dinwiddie would be good?” He could have given him consistent minutes. What did he have to lose? 5 more games? Risk not getting swept in the first round to develop young talent and save cap space to sign good players with the young talent. Cause that obviously does not work except in Denver, Philadelphia, Boston, and Brooklyn. Developing young talent, keeping cap space, and stashing draft picks is the way to climb out of mediocrity.
Of course, the Blake Griffin trade got Detroit a superstar player. Griffin may not be worth the cost. Fans will have to wait and find out if the incredibly talented Griffin helps Detroit to any more than a first-round exit. I fear he has more in common with Grant Hill than Isiah Thomas. Hill got the Pistons to the first-round several times and nothing more. He provided lots of highlight plays and stuffed the stat sheet, but to what end? The first round.
So, did Van Gundy fail as a GM or as a coach? Yes. He left Detroit with huge contracts and underdeveloped draft picks. Fans are excited about the future and with good cause. Casey and Stefanski have acquired a number of bargain deals, and Kennard and Bruce Brown look as though they are developing more than any draft pick did during the Van Gundy years.
We cannot fully see Van Gundy’s legacy in Detroit for at least a few years. If Griffin leads the Pistons to the promised land, the second round in our case, will it be considered a good move? Do any more of his draft picks follow Dinwiddie and develop outside of Detroit? Guess we will have to wait and see how good or bad these moves turn out to be. As of right now, Van Gundy’s time in Detroit looks “meh” at best.