re: People that don't like the SVG hire for bball reasons:explain yourselves

quote:

---

He is older than I like.

---

Fair

quote:

---

He is very rich and doesn't have a huge motivation to succeed

---

Thats a stupid leap of logic. He wants to win a title as a HC. Money isn't what motivates successful coaches and players in the NBA.

quote:

---

He has been fired from his last 3 jobs.

---

Let's break that down:
Pat wanted to coach in Miami and he pissed Shaq off by calling out his conditioning

He lead the Magic to the finals with Dumbass Dwight and got fired after going 259-135 in five seasons with them. WE WOULD KILL FOR A 5 SEASON STRETCH OF THAT. And there was a lot of smoke about Dwight refusing to resign unless Stan got fired.

Detroit was obviously the mistake. Stan isn't a GM. he's was a coach that earned his opportunity in Detroit based off of his successes in his last two stops.

quote:

---

He is a failed executive and that usually does not translate to success on the bench.

---

Stop with the dumbass man. He was a highly successful coach that failed as an executive. You're twisting shite now.

quote:

---

Doc and Carlisle are for me third tier coachs.

---

Big LOL

quote:

---

Thats a stupid leap of logic. He wants to win a title as a HC. Money isn't what motivates successful coaches and players in the NBA.

---

This is a worthless platitude. Everybody "wants" to win a NBA title. It's also silly to believe that money isn't a primary motivator. Sure there are those special breed of guys that are motivated by greater success and legacy building. But it is extremely rare.

quote:

---

Let's break that down:

---

He got fired at all 3 places. That is just a fact. Different situations, different circumstances. He isn't the first winning coach to be fired. I think it is a red flag.

quote:

---

Stop with the dumbass man. He was a highly successful coach that failed as an executive. You're twisting shite now.

---

I'm not twisting anything. He should have migrated to the front office at this point. Once your focus shifts from the bench to the executive level, you are on a different career path. Guys have come down and won (Riley and Popovich). But I can't think of any that elevated up, were fired and returned to the bench at another place and won. Maybe I am wrong and missing somebody. Can you name some?

How much money is he getting?

I look at trends and precedents. I just wanted to know if it has happened before. The one guy gave Carlisle and that pretty much fits. So, point is taken.

The OP asked for people that don't like the hire to sound off. So I did. I figured it'd be a witch hunt or an attack topic, to beat others into agreement. But I listed some of my reasons anyway. So I'm ready for the blowback.

I'd still love to know how much he is getting. Gentry was under 4M. Van Gundy made 7M at Detroit. Did he take less than 5M?

I like what he is going to do with the players mental growth

But I’ve just been thinking, from an X & O standpoint, isn’t it lot like the Bo Pelini hire? Does he have the advantage he once had when he innovated it & was the only one doing it? Whereas now, the whole league is doing it. What will set him apart? I Hope he has some new tricks up his sleeve

I am not defending this stupid hire like I did for Gentry. The ones who like it fine but you will eventually complain and you know it.

quote:

---

The first tier being occupied by coaches like Spoelstra, Nurse, Carlisle, Kerr, Pop, Stevens, Budenholzer.

---

Kinda disagree with including Stevens and Buds in the Tier 1 group listed above... The other named coaches have at least 1 championship or more under their belt and are respected obviously for their coaching acumen and prowess obviously.

Stevens and Buds, while generally respected and are good coaches, have NOT won a championship and have fallen short of winning a championship and "some" blame can be attributed to certain in-game decisions or lack thereof, inability to adjust scheme (Buds) against certain opponents, inability to get players to overcome chemistry issues/ adversity (Stevens last year and playoffs against Miami), etc.. Some issues they can control and affect more than others, but at the end of the day they have no championships. It is what it is.

Stan took Orlando to the Finals. Bud has yet to do so with a team and Stevens has yet to win one. Stan is obviously respected around the league and has had consistent success outside of his Detroit tenure, however Detroit hasnt reached the modicum of success Stan did bc they havent been to the playoffs since Stan left.

If championships separate the greats who have played the game from other good players, then it should be the same for coaches. Tier 1 is for championship coaches and anyone who hasnt, despite their perceived and known coaching abilities and strengths, should not be included. Now, there are certain coaches that have won championships which many would argue should not be worthy of Tier 1 status, i.e. Bron effect-- Frank Vogel, Ty Lue, and others like Doc Rivers, etc. and the argument is legit to say they may not be in said class, but to not have won a chip is exclusionary. No chip, no Tier 1. All "great" coaches have at least 1 championship under their belt and that is a line of demarcation.

Its the same when saying the Tmac's, Vince Carter's, Allen Iverson's of the game get discussed and their place amongst the greats. They were good/great players but they simply cannot be on a 1st, 2nd, 3rd all time team bc they never won a championship. Period. Ditto for coaches.

Stan is a Tier 2 coach and has had more success than many in that grouping, whomever included.

The hire is a solid one given the current situation and ever present circumstances bc the Pels are always in hypotheticsl discussions to relocate if they dont win for a considerable time period.

quote:

---

irvchilichill1

---

What happened to Coach K???

quote:

---

They were good/great players but they simply cannot be on a 1st, 2nd, 3rd all time team bc they never won a championship. Period.

---

I hate this. So are you telling me that derick fisher is better than AI because he has rings? No frickinh way. I hate the ring or nothing argument. Do you think Danny green is better than Vince carter? Because he was on teams that won? Come on now.