If New Orleans Pelicans fire everyone, this trade shouldn’t be why

The New Orleans Pelicans seem bent on making major organizational changes this offseason. At the forefront of this potential shakeup: The futures of executive vice president of basketball operations David Griffin, as well as head coach Willie Green.

Given the Pelicans' situation, the prospect of upheaval is fair—so long as it's for the right reasons.

It isn't clear whether that's the case here.

David Griffin is on the hot seat

Shamit Dua of the In The N.O. podcast and Substack provided our first glimpse into the team's thinking. "Over the past week noise has been steadily getting louder in league circles that David Griffin's time in New Orleans is coming to an end," he wrote on Bluesky. "I won't say this is a forgone conclusion—but this is the loudest I've ever seen (heard?) it. "

Shortly thereafter, Jake Fischer and Marc Stein of The Stein Line confirmed both Griffin and Green are on the chopping block, and that Griffin, in particular, seems all but dunzo. "This is Griffin's sixth season in charge and there are some in New Orleans, league sources say, who are undeniably bracing for his exit," they write.

This is, for the most part, a natural order of operations. The Pelicans have made just two playoff appearances during Griffin's tenure, with zero series victories. Injuries have derailed the squad at every turn, including this season. That provides a level of cover. But six years is an eternity in the league's current landscape.

Blame for New Orleans' shortcomings and (many) missteps over this span will invariably fall on someone, even if no one person is entirely responsible. The health and availability of Zion Williamson is often singled out—and rightfully so. But for better or worse, and unless a more viable option emerges, he is the Pelicans' future lifeline.

Changing the lead executive and head coach is far easier than pivoting off your only tent-pole building block. (No disrespect meant, Mr. Trey Murphy). Griffin's job security, specifically, was always going to be thrust under the microscope following a season that ended with fewer than 25 wins and flagrant tanking efforts despite much higher expectations entering the year.

Did the Dyson Daniels trade cost Griffin his job?

Still, the justification behind (what feels like) Griffin's and Green's inevitable departures is already shaping up to be weird, and is potentially missing the mark. As Fischer and Stein point out, the rise of Dyson Daniels since joining the Atlanta Hawks has been a "source of tension in the organization this season, with Green facing questions internally about his perceived past preferences for playing pesky guard Jose Alvarado rather than Daniels."

This makes some sense on the surface. Not only has Daniels entered the running for All-Defense, Most Improved Player, and, just maybe, Defensive Player of the Year honors in his new home, but he's more than doubled his scoring output per game while showcasing secondary playmaking chops—especially in transition.

It raises the question: Why wasn't Daniels given a bigger opportunity as a member of the Pelicans?

In hindsight, including him in the Dejounte Murray trade looks like a miss. Emphasis on hindsight.

Assessing these decisions is always easier in retrospect. But context matters. Daniels showed hints of what he's doing for Atlanta while in New Orleans, including a nice floater touch, tertiary table-setting and, of course, defense that both disrupts and stifles. It was never to this extreme, particularly on the offensive side of the floor.

Plus, the Pelicans were not set up in the same way to capitalize on Daniels' offensive strengths. They already had enough ball-handlers with limited shooting touch or, in Brandon Ingram's case, inclinations.

Daniels banging in 34 percent of his threes with the Hawks should not prompt any of us to revise this functional awkwardness. That efficiency is hardly coming on absurd volume (3.1 attempts per game), and defenses don't guard him like a real threat. Over 80 percent of his long-range opportunities go completely unguarded.

Optimizing Daniels requires better floor balance than New Orleans ever had during his tenure. It also mandates putting the ball in his hands with relative frequency. That's a tough sell for a team that employed Zion and Ingram. Even CJ McCollum needed to shape-shift his game to adapt to the dynamic.

Granted, it is not like Atlanta itself boasts banner spacing. Trae Young's perimeter efficiency has fallen off, and Daniels' teammates rate below average in overall off-ball gravity, according to BBall Index.

Now feels like a good time to note that the Hawks are worse offensively with The Great Barrier Thief on the court. That doesn't make him a damaging player. But it does speak to the difficulty of his fit, even as a change-of-pace ball-handler during stretches without Young and the injured Jalen Johnson. Atlanta's offense has ranked in the 30th percentile with him as the de facto point guard.

Figuring out reps for him in New Orleans was even tougher. Its primary playmakers were seldom A-plus shooting threats, making it harder to build a fully functioning offense if he logged time alongside the team's top talent.

To be fair, certain data suggests otherwise. Across the previous two seasons, the Pelicans averaged over 124 points per 100 possessions when playing Daniels, Zion and Ingram together, per PBP Stats.

That is a monster number. You know what's not? The sample size, which checks in at a not-so-whopping 219 minutes. So even if the prospective fit wasn't an issue (it was), injuries didn't necessarily allow New Orleans to plumb the full depth of Daniels' value relative to the best version of itself.

This should not be why Griffin and Green get the ax

There are legitimate reasons for the Pelicans to move on from Griffin and/or Green. The Dyson Daniels breakout in Atlanta isn't one them.

If nothing else, it's unfair to judge their tenures on that trade when no one could have predicted Murray would miss most of this year and, ultimately, tear his right Achilles. Impressions of this deal may even look entirely different if Murray never suffers a wrist injury during his Pelicans debut that would require surgery.

Rewind back to the time of the trade, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone opining how unforgivable it was to include Daniels as part of the package. Most judged the Hawks' return on the first-round-pick equity over the now-22-year-old.

This is not necessarily an argument to keep Griffin or Green. Their list of organizational transgressions are fairly extensive.

Most damningly, the Pelicans offense has never ranked higher than 23rd in three-point-attempt rate over the past five years. That is beyond frustrating even when weighted against their endless injury issues.

Is this more so on Green, for not getting his players to (sustainably) adapt or evolve? Or is it more so on Griffin, for not constructing the type of roster conducive to higher-volume three-point shooting?

It is a combination of both, though Griffin seems poised to shoulder most of the blame. He clung to the Ingram-Zion vision, which was hazy even at its best, for much too long. He also didn't really address (enough) of the three-point concerns by prioritizing Murray, a moderate-volume marksman at his best.

There are other misses to cover—half-measure rather than home-run-swing trades (see: McCollum, CJ), a revolving door of less-than-ideal centers, weird rotations, et al. Any combination of these issues is enough to warrant a discussion on the futures of Griffin and Green.

The Dyson Daniels breakout in Atlanta, though? Peddling that as the tipping point is disingenuous. He never hinted at being this good in New Orleans, and more critically, even this version of him wouldn't be an intuitive fit alongside Zion.

Dan Favale is a Senior NBA Contributor for FanSided and National NBA Writer for Bleacher Report. Follow him on Bluesky (@danfavale), and subscribe to the Hardwood Knocks podcast, co-hosted by Bleacher Report's Grant Hughes.