BuzzerBeater Forums

Maybe it's semantics, but I see what you're saying about PR as more "spin" from the Lakers than PR...
"Public relations" to me would mean that they are trying to appease the public, rather than make the more difficult choice.
Given the city of Los Angeles is baying for Phil Jackson, then I'd take a "PR choice" to be acquiescing to that - even tho' it would mean making some perhaps very difficult changes to the way the entire franchise exists.

So, for me it all comes down to:
- certainty over which Phil you're getting.
- support for Kupchak.
- contract length.
- fit of system.

On those, I believe that Mike D's the better fit. Overall. Is it a deadset certainty? Hell no. But all I'm doing is giving reasons as to why I believe they made the right choice.
(really interesting discussion on this between Ryen Russillo and Bill Simmons on the SVP/Russillo show - today)...

I think Phil's desire for special treatment and accommodations had quite a bit to do with whether he was the right choice. I think a good full time coach is better than a great part timer.

Succinct, and to the point.
I agree wholeheartedly.

I agree with some of your points, but share the same sentiment that given the current situation with the Lakers, Phil was the best candidate to fill-in for the HC vacancy (negotiations fiasco aside), at least for this season. Given the Lakers' payroll this season, I kind of find it laughable they choose to cut costs here, given the circumstances of needing to bring in a veteran coach (x amount of games into the regular season, falling well under .500, even with the injuries, which seems to be getting discounted for whatever reason), but that's how they operate...

Feel like not a lot of guys can handle a big market like LA (coaches that is), and that Phil has shown repeated success (championships) given short time, new faces, and handles pressure/egos/scheduling/veterans extremely well. The job was too big for Mike Brown, and (personally) I think it's too big for D'Antoni as well.

From D'Antoni's short stint with NY, Carmelo Anthony and Amare' Stoudemire in his last season, that alone was a challenge. I don't put a lot of whole stock in it, but the way that instant transformation took place under Mike Woodson, one begins to draw conclusions about some of the shortcomings with D'Antoni. BTW, I love how all of these coaches are named Mike!

Just my two cents, won't weigh in on the basketball side, I've only watched one game so far this season, but have taken a growing interest on following the business and management side of the NBA. o;

Last edited by a-o at 11/14/2012 12:52:00 AM

I won't pretend to know all the specifics here, but Kobe's take on it published http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/story/_/id/8629856/kob... to be given some credence.

Last edited by Demon Hoosier at 11/14/2012 12:56:25 AM

Good post, thanks for sharing!

@Shoei
I agree with a lot of your points.

Last edited by a-o at 11/14/2012 1:08:05 AM

as for management the matter is buss should be given the boot, the very reason why phil jackson wasnt hired is because he doesnt want to be proven wrong as he also got rid of whatever phil jackson influence in laker land. he wanted to prove that he can create a championship team and get rings for years to come outside of the traingle offense, outside the what he seems to think as BS phil jackson doctrine.

as we all know phil jackson is good to players and is a hard ass with management. if it were you would you put the guy again where you work hard to get rid off?

I think the Jim Buss vs Jackson is a fair point - and I do expect that you're right, but aren't we ignoring Mitch Kupchak? Kupchak's had an amazing off-season - one of quite a few, and to put Jackson in would mean a significant impact on what his job would be from that point on. That would be treating one of the association's best GMs pretty harshly.

I do feel that quite a few people here expect that *Phil Jackson* would have been the *Phil Jackson of 2008-10*, not the *Phil Jackson of 2011*.
May I ask why people expect that?

Last edited by malice at 11/14/2012 3:29:08 AM

to put all things into perspective my thoughts are kupchak is just an obedient general under the president or the loyal right hand under the king.

if we look at the news, wasnt it kupchak who said that brown is secured on his coaching job only to change just after 24 hours ?

That was Jim Buss. And Kupchak's the one who's done those deals (Howard... Nash... Pau). Jim/Jerry Buss sign off on them, but the legwork is done by Kupchak.

And as far as the salaries, the Lakers have to be competitive at the very top levels... the Buss family's money comes from the team. And even tho' the team costs a helluva lot to run (salaries in excess of 100 million!), it's still nothing towards the money they get from their TV deal with TWC, the merchandising, the ticketing. If LA aren't a competing team, then relatively soon that money will cease to flow. The Buss family have done brilliantly with this tho': the team is a self-perpetuating juggernaut.

edit: I guess the alternate view would be that the Buss family have been INCREDIBLY lucky...

Last edited by malice at 11/14/2012 8:52:48 AM

Fair enough. Thing is, if that's your take on Kupchak, wouldn't that be true of EVERY GM?