Yeah, I'd agree with that.
Let's be clear, I'm not part of the "Kpee" crowd. In fact I thought he was an excellent talent evaluator and drafter, but I think he left a lot to be desired in terms of his ability to tweak and fine tune the roster when it came time to make deals and I think he overvalued his own players, which hindered his ability to construct deals with other teams. I'm not bashing the guy I'm just trying to inject a little bit of perspective.
Don't you think there was insufficient time to ascertain whether he was good or bad at "tweaking" the roster to win a title? This is the way I see it:
He was GM for four years.
He spent the first three years building the team from one of the worst to a 50-win team. If we agree that three years for that sort of turn-around is quite good, then we've accounted for his first three years on the job. During those three years, his main task was (as it should have been) building up the team's talent base, not "tweaking it" to maximize winning for any of those seasons.
After those three years, during which he effected a speedy turn-around, he's had exactly one season. That season had an abnormally high number of injuries, even if one accounts for Oden and even Roy being injury risks. This is also the season he traded Blake and Outlaw for Camby.
So, is it really "perspective" to say that after one, injury-plagued season (in which he pulled off an excellent and significant midseason trade), Pritchard has shown himself to be slow, unwilling or poor at taking the next step? Is one season really all a GM who successfully rebuilt the team should get to prove himself at taking the next step?
I think unwarranted skepticism is ruling the day here. Standards are absurdly high if a single season (and an unusual one at that) with a disappointing finish takes the shine off. Very, very few teams simply rocket up and up and up to a title with no seasons of stagnation or disappointment along the way.
I don't think Pritchard was flawless or a genius. His trade of Randolph disappointed me (not that he traded him, but the paltry return). The wooing of Turkoglu baffled me. Passing over Blair in last year's draft seemed like a mistake. But I think the bottom line results are tremendous: taking a team from arguably the worst in basketball to a back-to-back 50-win team...a team so talented that it could win 50 games despite a slew of injuries to some of the team's best players. Yes, the team isn't a title favourite yet...but Pritchard really wasn't given the chance to get the team there prior to being fired.
I'm not commenting on the wisdom of his firing. On basketball grounds, I think it would be beyond idiotic. But there may be factors beyond basketball and, not knowing what those are if they exist, I can't say whether he should or shouldn't have been fired. But I think his basketball legacy with Portland is being unreasonably marginalized.