If the team gets worse over the course of the 2017 season, even with the addition of its touted new DP, that suggests the team was in fact over-achieving under Kinnear.
And you and other fans will hold that sentiment just long enough to renew your season tickets, all according to plan.
Jazzy I think you miss my point. It is possible to aspire to be better without considering past or present performance a failure. And under-achievement is in sporting terms failure. Ive never heard that term used in sports without implying some sort of serious failure. Jazzy, you have to consider who Carlisle was asking. He was not asking Jesse. He was not even asking Dom. He was asking Wondo. Wondo is at the very bottom of the ladder in terms of big picture. His job is generally very simple, try to win games. Hes not asked to deliver on big picture, hes not developing multi-year plans or evaluating the teams vision. Hes trying to win games. So when you ask a player "is the team underachieving" there really is only one possible context for that, because of who is being asked. And that is the wins and losses context. Your playing a little bit of a game of telephone here. You are going from "the team can do better" to "the team is sub-par" to "is this team a bunch of losers?" Each one is similar, but has slightly different connotations and ultimately utterly changes the meaning of the statements. And circling back to Jesses original words. Dom was not fired because of performance this year. Dom was fired because Jesse did not feel comfortable going forward with him next year. It took effect this year in Jesse's words because he didnt want Dom to be a lame duck. But the central disappoinment appears to be one of process, not results.And this matters, because regardless of what the results Dom might have gotten for the remainder of the year had he stayed, Jess wouldnt have changed his mind. Colorado last year was a good example. Their results were good, excellent. But the fundamental process was very shaky. Focusing on results you clearly would bring Mastroeni back, focussing on process it should have been clear that you needed to make a change. Colorado is paying for focussing on results over process. But if you were the GM last offseason and you said "I think we can do better as a team. Im not going to renew Mastroeni" it would not even remotely follow that you thought Colorado underachieved last year. But by your logic, by saying Colorado could achieve more then you are saying Colorado underachieved. The point is that its being framed in terms of results, and being out of the blue and at an odd time based on those results (or predicted future results). I think the rush to frame it as such utterly misses the story and what makes the firing unique. This is not about results or position in the table at all, but a fundamental misalignment of vision between Kinnear and Fioranelli that Jesse decided could not be resolved. And the story of what it means is far more interesting to me then asking Wondo if the team should have more points in the table in a way that is baiting him into either slamming his teammates, his GM, or his former coach.
Not necessarily. I'm still undecided on whether to renew. I admit that it is more enticing to renew now since Kinnear is gone, and I imagine firing him now had something to do with that. I'm not naive enough to think it wasn't part of the equation. However, I do also believe that there are genuine changes being made within the organization. I can't say whether that will yield better results or not, but I don't think you can honestly say you expect things will be worse. Not making the playoffs in five years is pretty bad, and any change would be welcomed. But my choice to renew is more about whether or not I will be able to make it to the majority of the games, whether or not my father, who owns the tickets with me, can make it up from the San Joaquin Valley to make it to games often enough to make it worth it to him, etc. There's more to it for me than just "Kinnear got fired? Sign me up!".
First of all you are redefining "under-achievement as "serious failure". In "sports" it would normally mean that the team is not performing at a level that you'd expect given the quality of players, coaching staff, facilities, etc. It does not have to be "serious failure". Wondo is smart enough to know that it is not purely about wins and losses coming from Jesse. He's heard him talk many times. We can go back to last year, and Kaval's comments (that led to Doyle's dismissal) about the team being "boring". Wondo has heard all of that. He understands it. He knows that they are close to the bottom in goals scored, etc. He knows they didn't get a shot on goal at home against KC until the 53rd minute, etc. I have no idea what you're talking about here. You referenced a segment where I talked about under-achieving as being the coach's responsibility ultimately (a point you did not address). You are talking about "telephone" and quoting stuff that I did not write. I have no idea whatsoever what you're trying to say here. Jesse: “I realized that the improvements and the efforts that we had done were not leading to the results we were hoping for.” Jesse doesn't distinguish wins / losses from "process" in determining performance. It is all part of performance which will be evaluated. He would not be bamboozled by Mastroeni's results last year, and this year, with his "Stats will lose to the human spirit every day of the week"! Jesse understands that if you are outshot 22-4 week after week, you are not going to have a very good record over the long haul. As I said, I didn't like the question when I first heard it, but after reading Jesse's comments, it is clear to me that he thinks the team is under-achieving this year, not just in terms of wins / losses but also in terms of the "how". So I can't say it wasn't a fair question, like he was stating a falsehood. And it is his prerogative as a journalist to ask a question that may stir things up a bit.