I think its safe to assume many big name signings become failures whereas many lesser known signings are much more productive. what I don't understand though is this most free agents aren't rookies so the teams must know what the players can bring. for examples of this look at Kidd, vs Nash Minnesota's signings vs Phoenix's, in both cases the latter was much more heralded than the former yet they aren't producing at the same level. is this a bad job by the scouts or the G.M. I remember a few years ago everyone called Kahn an idiot I don't think anyone would now. does a g.m. have more power to shape a teams on court success then the coach? Kahn and cho have made a tremendous impact on their teams, I fail to understand how Pritchard who was once seen as one of the NBAs best young G.M.s is failing to do more then mediocre in Indiana.
Idk man it's hard to tell. Each situation is unique so it's hard to just compare Kidd to Nash or one teams signings to another ya know? Each team brings in certain players to do certain things. A lot of times either the player can't adjust to it or the coach doesn't use that player to the best of their abilities. Another thing is that a lot of coaches and GMs will overvalue certain players for previous success. Like Ben Gordon at Detroit. They knew that they were getting a sixth man spark plug who could light it up but not much more. They paid him to be an all star caliber shooting guard then they played him like the sixth man. In that case it's bad management. But I think in another case like Jeremy Lin it's on him to adjust his game and take it to the next level but he has struggled. Just depends
Nash would be playing better if he were actually playing. You can't count the mess he had to do with Mike Brown there