Even if what you're stating is true then it applies to about 90% of the GM/President/Owners in the league. All other GM's are operating under the same chain of command as I SAY UGH so if the end result is they make .01ct to $1,000,000 more than I SAY UGH it doesn't matter they performed better than he did.
Paxson, Ferry,Ainge, Dumars, Kupchak, Mullin,Kerr are some of the GMs that actually have a history with their club/organization before ever becoming GMs. If you want someone with a few chamionships by virtue of being the coach of arguaby the most talented team in the modern era (Lakers) - then you should be prepared to make him part owner (Reilley).
All I have ever said was that it was apparent from the day IT was hired - that he was not the 'first choice' and given the acrimony that followed him from Tornto, Indiana and the CBA - a 3 year contract at nominal pay - that one could infer that he did have the same purview or carte blanche -as say a Jerry West or Bryan Colangelo or even Don Nelson - when he was brought in to Dallas.
Please do name GM who has had two HOF coaches hired with in his first two years? How many 'new' gms can have the sway not to or to make a HOF coach Larry Brown the highest paid coach in the history of the sport after one year of being on the job? After - all if anyone should be the highest paid coach in the NBA - it should be Jackson -since he has won more championships than anyone in the modern era. How many GMs in the league ended up coaching the team in their last contract year -so that they would be extended?
Also -we forget about luck. Ferry made SURE to tank - in the Le Bron lottery-and the team was in serious trouble if they didn't get that pick. Boston was going nowhere - if it wasn't for McHale dealing KG. Kupchak was in serious jeopardy of losing his job- but he also lucked out. No one knew Bynum would not be a Kwame Brown, Curry, etc - which is why he went so late- he also got a little help from a Jerry West/Wallace connection in terms of Gasol.
Are you're trying to sell the fact I SAY UGH the GM was at the mercy of LB the coach? A coach doesn't tell a GM what to do. He may strongly suggest but he doesn't have authority over him. You saw who got fired right? If this is true what would be the dichotomy or harmony of Dolan's and I SAY UGH'S relationship? In threads in the past one of your arguments was that I SAY UGH was under a mandate of Dolan's to make the playoffs, hence why he wasn't able to properly rebuild maybe the way he truly wanted to when he first took the job. He fails to meet such mandate going on 4yrs in a row. So ultimately I SAY UGH failed his boss although it was Dolan's pushing and not his own. Sighting LB's statements on the trade in no way indicts LB as the mastermind behind acquiring Jalen. If anything you're more guilty of inferrence than anyone else. Those statements can be taken in any direction...as I pointed out or as a coach trying to publicly support what the GM is doing.
Answer this question which I SAY UGH is running the show now the coach or the GM?
I am not trying to sell anything regarding LB. I have just made an inference that someone who is being made the highest paid coach in the NBA - would/should have input in most scenarios- so why should the largest moves during that year (which inexplicably contained two of his old players-as well as a virtual clone of the guy he was having trouble managing and to which he was quite vocal about) be attributed solely to IT. That to me - is the opposite of common sense or even proper reasoning.
As for the 'mandate' about making the playoffs. I don't know. I do know - that any owner of a major market franchise - if he doesn't have a Kobe Bryant, KG etc - is primarily interested in generating interest in his club. I have already pointed out - that the Portland/Seattle route has fiduciary consequences- such as lack of public financing and more stringent terms for revenue sharing and tax breaks (both property and income).
Note- the Seattle lawsuit recently and also the shell game involving the Paul Allen and the Rose Garden (last year). These consequences are far more damaging to the franchise than giving up draft picks for Stephon MArbury or Eddie Curry - especially if you are the owner/management. I have already asked people to read "Free Lunch'. A careful read of this book and some diligent follow up will show that most of these teams are not financially viable if they were purely private enterprises. It is only because they are heavily taxing the state/municipalty/city and gaining massive publicly financed subsidies that these 'private monopolies' can continue to operate. If they were truly private - why would you need congressional hearings on steroids? Why are there no wrestler's being brought in front of congress- (the answer is because they are not publicly financed - just like Mr. Olympus contests).
As for the future - I can only speculate. It all depends- if as the owner - I can generate more revenue by firing him - I will. If the revenue hasn't fallen off dramatically despite the dismal season, the team is getting closer to meeting the cap (first time in over 25 years!!) then perhaps I let him run out his contract. At this point - I don't ever recall - so many newspaper's talking about the Knicks so much -everyday in fact- instead of losing interest - it seems people are MORE interested . I don't recall this many articles about the GM and the Knicks with this much constancy - when Layden was the GM. So - even if IT is terrible - he apparently has the Knicks in the news everyday - he obviously is getting the Knicks a lot of publicity (even if it may be bad) - it is still generating a lot of interest. Note - the sold out game against Charlotte!
[Edited by - iyamwutiam on 02-29-2008 6:39 PM]
2/29/2008 6:44 PM
