Gentry & Staff Safe?

Gentry seems standup as a person. I just worry it'll be weird to have young rookies under him, and then have the coach change next season.

Yeah, why keep Gentry if he isn’t in the long term plans.

This would be Griffin’s first big move, and it would be a real head scratcher.

Gentry being a nice guy while also being your head coach equals, he will bring drinks to the playoff watching party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Listened to todays In the N.O. pod, and from what Shamit and Mason were saying, not only are we probably keeping Gentry, but Gentry was also a major topic of discussion during interviews. Apparently the ownership are very fond of him (which we kinda knew anyway) and are pretty in favour of keeping him barring anything extreme changing. Shamit went as far as to speculate that some of the disagreements ownership had with Ferry were over Ferry's plans to kick Gentry to the curb.

---

Sad if true that we supposedly wanted to hire a POBO and give him full power only to start meddling from the beginning regarding the coaching decisions.

What coaches are available with impressive NBA records, other than the ones that were figurehead coaches for Lebron in Cleveland? I can't think of any. The percentages have not been good for college coaches or NBA assistant coaches. Any successful college coach would be crazy to leave that gig for the NBA, unless they are involved in a recruiting scandal. We already have a former championship Warriors assistant coach in Gentry, but if we want a fresh face I would go with Jamille McMillan. He will be a head coach eventually and is very charismatic. I have no clue whether he will be successful or not as a head coach, but I's say his chances are better than most.

Bottom line: there is no realistic chance the next coach (whoever is selected) influencing me to renew my season tickets. If we get a guy who develops a competitive team and a we build a training staff that can keep them on the court, then maybe in a year or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NOEngineer

What coaches are available with impressive NBA records, other than the ones that were figurehead coaches for Lebron in Cleveland? I can't think of any. The percentages have not been good for college coaches or NBA assistant coaches. Any successful college coach would be crazy to leave that gig for the NBA, unless they are involved in a recruiting scandal. We already have a former championship Warriors assistant coach in Gentry, but if we want a fresh face I would go with Jamille McMillan. He will be a head coach eventually and is very charismatic. I have no clue whether he will be successful or not as a head coach, but I's say his chances are better than most.

Bottom line: there is no realistic chance the next coach (whoever is selected) influencing me to renew my season tickets. If we get a guy who develops a competitive team and a we build a training staff that can keep them on the court, then maybe in a year or two.

---

Gentry doesn't have an impressive NBA record. Taking a swing at promising first time head coaches like Becky Hammon, or experienced coaches who have won a LOT overseas like Ettore Messina, isn't exactly guaranteed to give you a golden coach but it does show that leadership is taking the movement into the new era seriously and are genuinely looking to break new ground. MAYBE those coaches suck, but maybe they don't. It's an educated guess.

But while there's a chance of failure with them, Gentry is a guaranteed failures because we know he is bad at coaching. He's a guaranteed flop. Might as well take the risk if you're serious about making a new future for this team.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PELICANSFAN

Sad if true that we supposedly wanted to hire a POBO and give him full power only to start meddling from the beginning regarding the coaching decisions.

---

It's worth noting that they also said Griffin was able to (seemingly) leverage it to his advantage, at least in some ways. There seems to be some impression from the organisation that Griffin conceded to keeping Gentry in exchange for being given a larger budget to overhaul scouting and general management.

Again, they did note that this idea is not 100% totally concrete. It just seems to be the general feeling surrounding Griffin's demands during the second interview.

lol

Almost everyone: Griffin is a great hire! Glad we are finally getting a good decision maker at the helm with the power to steer change!

Also almost everyone: Griffin is going to keep Gentry?! That's such a bad decision, he must have been told to do that.

I just have a hard time believing that a GM who many thought was one of the best available GM candidates would allow an organization like the Pelicans to handcuff him on his head coach choice.

The point about leveraging for other concessions for scouting and FO makes sense, but I would expect that the Pelicans would have had to make a lot more concessions than that to get a top candidate like him. I just assumed we pretty much promised him complete control. Maybe I'm underestimating the draw to this job.

Griffin may be keeping Gentry (personally I am against that), but if he is then I think it is his choice, not ownership's.

Griffin: I want to thank Mrs. Benson, Dennis Lauscha, and the entire Pelicans organization for entrusting me with this responsibility and I look forward to working with Alvin Gentry and his staff on building a robust basketball culture in New Orleans.

— New Orleans Pelicans (@PelicansNBA) April 17, 2019

Griffin pretty much confirming that Gentry will be back.

Sigh. There are decent potential explanations for this (continuity, even if it's misguided and will be disrupted in a year when Gentry gets fired anyway) but still disappointment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmontySwilliams

lol

Almost everyone: Griffin is a great hire! Glad we are finally getting a good decision maker at the helm with the power to steer change!

Also almost everyone: Griffin is going to keep Gentry?! That's such a bad decision, he must have been told to do that.

---

Me: Griffin was the safe hire and his record beyond lucking into Lebron is not commensurate to the praise and adulation he has received by fans and his peers in the sports media. He's not bad, In fact he is a pretty solid GM, but we didn't just hire Bob Myers or Danny Ainge or RC Buford. Griffin is going to be solid to above average based on his past performance but for him to meet some fans expectations would require him to take a notable leap from where he was in Phoenix or Cleveland.

He also has some questions on judgment (pushed hard for Anthony Bennett as an example), personal proclivities, and a bit of a good-ole-boy mentality that is probably going to lead to things like the Gentry retainment because he knows him from Phoenix. He's also not going to be the sort of groundbreaking thinker that finds those hidden competitive advantages from recognizing market opportunities others have missed, like the Hinkie's, Buford's, Myers, or Morey's.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N.O.Bronco

Me: Griffin was the safe hire and his record beyond lucking into Lebron is not commensurate to the praise and adulation he has received by fans and his peers in the sports media. He's not bad, In fact he is a pretty solid GM, but we didn't just hire Bob Myers or Danny Ainge or RC Buford. Griffin is going to be solid to above average based on his past performance but for him to meet some fans expectations would require him to take a notable leap from where he was in Phoenix or Cleveland.

He also has some questions on judgment (pushed hard for Anthony Bennett as an example), personal proclivities, and a bit of a good-ole-boy mentality that is probably going to lead to things like the Gentry retainment because he knows him from Phoenix. He's also not going to be the sort of groundbreaking thinker that finds those hidden competitive advantages from recognizing market opportunities others have missed, like the Hinkie's, Buford's, Myers, or Morey's.

---

Me: Griffin has some serious question marks surrounding his name, because he wasn't amazing in Phoenix and while he did have a lot of success in Cleveland, it's always difficult to judge how much of the success a Lebron-team has is due to the GM, because of how much meddling Lebron famously has in the construction of rosters and whatnot. That said, I would prefer him to Ferry because he's about evenly matched with Ferry in regards to his resume, but he's also a fresh name who carries a lot of weight in the league, and making a change of that level indicates that the franchise is more willing than we feared they may be to make changes and actually make something happen in the fanbase. There are still reservations and question marks, but between him and Ferry, I prefer Griffin.

Other people on this board somehow interpret that as me thinking Griffin is Jesus reincarnate, but that's largely due to their own habit of imagining whatever someone else says if it's conducive to being edgy or contrarian.

:hihi:

Nobody on this forum is actually qualified or knowledgeable enough of the inner workings of an NBA franchise to know which front office executives are good or bad at their jobs. All we can do is look at results and combine the league-wide perception of these people to help us form our own opinions. I doubt any of us have any real concept of what Griffin or Demps job might actually entail to even begin to judge what they are good at. We can only guess, really.

Having said that, Griffin's reputation around the NBA is stellar and that shouldn't be forgotten when he makes a decision like to keep Gentry around. Alvin Gentry is a respected head coach across the NBA and to completely upend the basketball side of the franchise while retooling the front office seems like it would create more instability and problems than any path forward. We are not married to Gentry - he could be gone after this season. Rushing to move on from Gentry is a big move but that doesn't mean it's the wise one. We have to think long term, and Gentry could be essential to establishing our new identity and culture that Griffin will steer us toward.

And that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree. I think this forum has seen way too much one-upping and arguing for the sake of arguing. We're on the same team here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bee-Fense

Nobody on this forum is actually qualified or knowledgeable enough of the inner workings of an NBA franchise to know which front office executives are good or bad at their jobs. All we can do is look at results and combine the league-wide perception of these people to help us form our own opinions. I doubt any of us have any real concept of what Griffin or Demps job might actually entail to even begin to judge what they are good at. We can only guess, really.

Having said that, Griffin's reputation around the NBA is stellar and that shouldn't be forgotten when he makes a decision like to keep Gentry around. Alvin Gentry is a respected head coach across the NBA and to completely upend the basketball side of the franchise while retooling the front office seems like it would create more instability and problems than any path forward. We are not married to Gentry - he could be gone after this season. Rushing to move on from Gentry is a big move but that doesn't mean it's the wise one. We have to think long term, and Gentry could be essential to establishing our new identity and culture that Griffin will steer us toward.

And that's just my opinion. Feel free to disagree. I think this forum has seen way too much one-upping and arguing for the sake of arguing. We're on the same team here.

---

I mostly agree with what you've said here. Totally agree that we don't really get given anything like the required information to make full on, legitimate assessments of most front office guys. The only ones we can really know to any degree of certainty are the ones who are blatantly god-awful. At the positive end, it's hard to separate good from lucky, and of course who knows whether a good move actually came from a GM, or whether it was a group decision, or maybe an assistant GM came up with it, or whatever. It's hard to tell.

Also totally agree that Griffin does seem to have a good reputation around the league. That definitely seems to be the case.

My question is: IS Gentry a respected coach around the league, and if so, why? He doesn't produce successful basketball teams. Of course, to some extent there are other reasons for that: injuries, players wanting trades, taking up the job at the end of a core group's time together (as in Phoenix), but once you have 15 years worth of samples, that's enough to just start evaluating somebody's body of work, and for Gentry it's not a good look.

It's true that keeping Gentry around helps with continuity, but only in the short term. Say that you're right, we're not wedded to him, and he goes after next season. All that's done is shift the change in continuity from now until then, which has the bonus of giving the front office stability now, but the downside of introducing turmoil just as the new players who come in from an AD trade are getting comfortable. If you end up taking the Boston trade, it would mean someone like Tatum playing for 3 head coaches in 3 seasons. That's not what you want, if you have the choice.

As for Gentry establishing the new culture and identity: do you think he can do that? Why would he be able to establish a new culture and identity now that he hasn't been able to establish for 4 years prior?

Not looking for an argument, genuinely interested in your responses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I mostly agree with what you've said here. Totally agree that we don't really get given anything like the required information to make full on, legitimate assessments of most front office guys. The only ones we can really know to any degree of certainty are the ones who are blatantly god-awful. At the positive end, it's hard to separate good from lucky, and of course who knows whether a good move actually came from a GM, or whether it was a group decision, or maybe an assistant GM came up with it, or whatever. It's hard to tell.

Also totally agree that Griffin does seem to have a good reputation around the league. That definitely seems to be the case.

My question is: IS Gentry a respected coach around the league, and if so, why? He doesn't produce successful basketball teams. Of course, to some extent there are other reasons for that: injuries, players wanting trades, taking up the job at the end of a core group's time together (as in Phoenix), but once you have 15 years worth of samples, that's enough to just start evaluating somebody's body of work, and for Gentry it's not a good look.

It's true that keeping Gentry around helps with continuity, but only in the short term. Say that you're right, we're not wedded to him, and he goes after next season. All that's done is shift the change in continuity from now until then, which has the bonus of giving the front office stability now, but the downside of introducing turmoil just as the new players who come in from an AD trade are getting comfortable. If you end up taking the Boston trade, it would mean someone like Tatum playing for 3 head coaches in 3 seasons. That's not what you want, if you have the choice.

As for Gentry establishing the new culture and identity: do you think he can do that? Why would he be able to establish a new culture and identity now that he hasn't been able to establish for 4 years prior?

Not looking for an argument, genuinely interested in your responses.

---

I think it's pretty clear that Gentry is well respected. Take a look at this recent string of interviews. The report was that Gentry was consistently labeled a quality coach by all executives that we interviewed and that everyone seemed to be on board with bringing him back. From Jeff Duncan "Pelicans owner Gayle Benson said all of the interview candidates for the Pelicans director of basketball operations job agreed to keep Alvin Gentry on as head coach. “They all agreed he’s a quality coach,” she said.

Why? I think it has to do with the fact that Gentry has been a part of two of the most influential offensive systems, especially in today's NBA. The 7 seconds or less era in Phoenix changed the game completely and broke the mold of what NBA basketball could be. Then what the Warriors did just perfected that system. How much credit should Alvin receive for this? That's hard to say, but I think it's fair to say he should receive some and the fact that he's been a part of two innovative offensive systems is telling. It shows that he understands the game well and will have our guys play "the right way."

Last year's end of the season run I think showed that Gentry's style of play can be really effective. If KD never joined the Warriors, whose to say last year's team couldn't have been a serious contender, especially with a quality SF? Obviously the answer to this hypothetical isn't really important other than to understand that it's possible for a team to have major success under Gentry.

Now, I am a skeptic of Gentry's leadership qualities and don't always agree with his coaching methods on a social/interpersonal level. I'm a coach in my own area of expertise and I find Gentry is a bit too up and down and not as steady emotionally as I would prefer a coach to be. I don't think he's the strongest social leader. He seems to be better at following the flow rather than setting the tone which would support the idea of him being better as an assistant than HC. But, I'm not a basketball coach and maybe both styles of leadership are possible, especially when supported with a full staff and veteran players like Jrue. I think the HC can only do so much for culture and identity - it really starts with the owner and then all the way down. I think Griffin will do more for this than Gentry ever could.

Here's another point I'd like to make about Gentry too - how much credit does he deserve for Jrue's development? Jrue Holiday has turned into one of the NBA's best two way players and Gentry's willingness to play a two lead guard system has opened up a lot for Jrue. I personally don't think Jrue would be where he's at if he was still playing with a coach like Monty or most coaches in the NBA. Most point guards shine under Gentry and I think it's really nice know that our PG's talent will more or less be maximized by our HC. Not every team has that luxury.

Lastly, we have to consider the fact that even if we move onto Gentry, we would be making the next hire without a lot of information about the new team (assuming we still trade AD). To hire the next coach without knowing how all the pieces fit together both on and off the court would be much more difficult. So even in a world where we have a failed season next year, it's not wasted. That will give us more information to make the best decisions going forward.

I think deciding on a new coach at this point without understanding the future roster would be rash. And remember, the grass is not always greener.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bee-Fense

Nobody on this forum is actually qualified or knowledgeable enough of the inner workings of an NBA franchise to know which front office executives are good or bad at their jobs.

---

Hey speak for yourself. I worked in the old CBA way back during my salad days and attended several NBA Marketing meetings. You'd be surprised how inept some senior NBA/franchise executives are. I actually had an interview with the Magic and was offered a lower level Executive position with the Hawks but alas, chose Graduate school and the rest is history. Hindsight is always 20/20 and maybe I should have jumped on the offer, but the pay is awful at the lower end of the scale and was worse in the CBA and I wanted to conquer the world. A great experience nonetheless. Lots of drinking and office shenanigans too. Would make a great book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bee-Fense

I think it's pretty clear that Gentry is well respected. Take a look at this recent string of interviews. The report was that Gentry was consistently labeled a quality coach by all executives that we interviewed and that everyone seemed to be on board with bringing him back. From Jeff Duncan "Pelicans owner Gayle Benson said all of the interview candidates for the Pelicans director of basketball operations job agreed to keep Alvin Gentry on as head coach. “They all agreed he’s a quality coach,” she said.

---

I think that's kind of irrelevant, to be honest. It's been made exceptionally clear that there was an ''Alvin'' stage of the interview process, and that any executive who didn't agree to the front office's perspectives on Alvin would be essentially guaranteeing themselves failure. It would be, given those circumstances, more shocking if any interviewee didn't praise Alvin. Take that with a grain of salt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bee-Fense

Last year's end of the season run I think showed that Gentry's style of play can be really effective. If KD never joined the Warriors, whose to say last year's team couldn't have been a serious contender, especially with a quality SF? Obviously the answer to this hypothetical isn't really important other than to understand that it's possible for a team to have major success under Gentry.

---

I've said elsewhere on the board (not going to waste time trying to find it) that Gentry does have the ability to run an offense at a high level. I've never denied that. My problem is with almost every other aspect of his coaching ability. He can make a team put up large numbers of points. He cannot do so in conjunction with anything resembling a consistent offense. His rotations are chronically appalling. He cannot extract consistent effort from players. His ability to call plays out of timeouts is god-awful. He can make a team score a lot, but thats it. That's what someone gets hired as an assistant coach for, not a head coach role.

I've also said that he has a severe inability to adjust and that his style of play only works with specific types of players, since he has no versatility and cannot adjust a game plan for a roster. Thanks for agreeing with me on that: sure, in a hypothetical world where we make a small forward come out of thin air, maybe we're good. But that's my whole point: if you hand Gentry a ready made team with a bunch of perfect-fit players on it, yeah, he does well. Congratulations to him, I guess, for being a good coach in circumstances where the team is 100% tailored to him personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bee-Fense

Lastly, we have to consider the fact that even if we move onto Gentry, we would be making the next hire without a lot of information about the new team (assuming we still trade AD). To hire the next coach without knowing how all the pieces fit together both on and off the court would be much more difficult. So even in a world where we have a failed season next year, it's not wasted. That will give us more information to make the best decisions going forward.

I think deciding on a new coach at this point without understanding the future roster would be rash. And remember, the grass is not always greener.

---

That's the only argument you made that I think I can at least understand. I don't agree with it, because it means that if we end up firing Gentry, we will do so in a year. Which is after the new players have come in and started to settle. Is it better to have a large continuity break now, and build from there, or to have half a continuity break (new GM) now, and another one a year from now when Gentry leaves? Especially when you consider that in the case of us accepting something like the Boston trade, it would be making Tatum play under 3 different head coaches in 3 seasons. The only way to avoid that is to keep Gentry on long term, or cut him now. Since I don't think he is a quality head coach, that only leaves cut him now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WildlifeAirGrp

Hey speak for yourself. I worked in the old CBA way back during my salad days and attended several NBA Marketing meetings. You'd be surprised how inept some senior NBA/franchise executives are. I actually had an interview with the Magic and was offered a lower level Executive position with the Hawks but alas, chose Graduate school and the rest is history. Hindsight is always 20/20 and maybe I should have jumped on the offer, but the pay is awful at the lower end of the scale and was worse in the CBA and I wanted to conquer the world. A great experience nonetheless. Lots of drinking and office shenanigans too. Would make a great book.

---

I've always said that part of the point of getting a higher education is to find out exactly how small the gap is between you and the professionals. A well read undergrad student in their final year is often able to talk on a relatively even level with a professor on most topics (obviously if that professor has a particularly arcane knowledge of a niche specialty, maybe not, but in general). I would be stunned if that relationship was different in this regard.

NBA GMs are not magic. They don't go to a GM school where they learn the magic secrets to being a GM. They work in a front office before getting the job, sure, so they have some extra familiarity with specifics, but I'm willing to bet that there are absolutely fans out there who know everything that any GM knows about the CBA, or about the rulebook, or any other thing. The only difference is that the GM has the insider knowledge. Well guess what? The fan could easily have that if you gave them 6 months to mix in among all the other executives.

The difference between a super-fan and a GM is not in what they know, it's in who they know. GMs are not wizards.

Griffin keeping Gentry on as coach, to me, is not such a bad idea. Sure there are negatives attached to Gentry as coach. But Griffin has a lot of emergent things to deal with: Draft/AD/FO hires; analytics team, scouting team, medical team hirings or maneuvering.

Gentry has two years on his contract. He is 64 years old. And fundamentally, he and Griffin are about the exact same type of team to build; i.e. high IQ players with ball movement.

Finch would be a good hire and is sitting on our bench now.

Waiting to decide on a coach is something Griffin does not have to immediately address.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I think that's kind of irrelevant, to be honest. It's been made exceptionally clear that there was an ''Alvin'' stage of the interview process, and that any executive who didn't agree to the front office's perspectives on Alvin would be essentially guaranteeing themselves failure. It would be, given those circumstances, more shocking if any interviewee didn't praise Alvin. Take that with a grain of salt.

---

Why is that irrelevant? You asked if Gentry iswell respected around the league and there have been no reports to the contrary and in fact only in the affirmative. Griffin himself said he was interviewing the Pelicans as much as the Pelicans were interviewing him. I think if an executive really wanted to move on from Alvin or thought that there was a better option out there, then they would say so plainly.

If that is to be taken with a grain salt here is something that can't be: Alvin Gentry has been an NBA coach for 30 years now. I think if his reputation wasn't strong in the NBA he would not be around for so long. Whether it's deserved or not is another issue but if this doesn't convince you then I don't know what will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

I've said elsewhere on the board (not going to waste time trying to find it) that Gentry does have the ability to run an offense at a high level. I've never denied that. My problem is with almost every other aspect of his coaching ability. He can make a team put up large numbers of points. He cannot do so in conjunction with anything resembling a consistent offense. His rotations are chronically appalling. He cannot extract consistent effort from players. His ability to call plays out of timeouts is god-awful. He can make a team score a lot, but thats it. That's what someone gets hired as an assistant coach for, not a head coach role.

I've also said that he has a severe inability to adjust and that his style of play only works with specific types of players, since he has no versatility and cannot adjust a game plan for a roster. Thanks for agreeing with me on that: sure, in a hypothetical world where we make a small forward come out of thin air, maybe we're good. But that's my whole point: if you hand Gentry a ready made team with a bunch of perfect-fit players on it, yeah, he does well. Congratulations to him, I guess, for being a good coach in circumstances where the team is 100% tailored to him personally.

---

If you're able to give me a list of more than 5 NBA coaches that can have consistent success with different styles of basketball, then I think your points (which are really not quantitative and can't really be proven or disproven) will have more validity. Otherwise I think you overestimate the impact a coach can have on winning and you list out mistakes that can be said for most if not all NBA coaches. If you go to Spurs and Celtics forums you'll see these same list of complaints about Pop and Stevens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

That's the only argument you made that I think I can at least understand. I don't agree with it, because it means that if we end up firing Gentry, we will do so in a year. Which is after the new players have come in and started to settle. Is it better to have a large continuity break now, and build from there, or to have half a continuity break (new GM) now, and another one a year from now when Gentry leaves? Especially when you consider that in the case of us accepting something like the Boston trade, it would be making Tatum play under 3 different head coaches in 3 seasons. The only way to avoid that is to keep Gentry on long term, or cut him now. Since I don't think he is a quality head coach, that only leaves cut him now.

---

It's better to make important decisions with complete information. Is it better to hire a coach now and then have to revisit this process in 3 years?

Either way, I don't think it's such a black and white issue and I've said my thoughts on the topic and I think it's worth mentioning something from your original post

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelicanidae

Not looking for an argument, genuinely interested in your responses.

---

This feels like it quickly turned into an argument where my points were either deemed irrelevant or somehow agreeing with your "argument" as if any of this can be really proven. You do this a lot with other posters and it's very MM-like and I wish you would just say your points without having to deconstruct others' to make yours more effective. You obviously really care about the team and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that goes behind your posts but you don't need to be right about everything. To me, it's missing the point of being a fan of basketball and probably can't be proven anyways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bee-Fense

Why is that irrelevant? You asked if Gentry iswell respected around the league and there have been no reports to the contrary and in fact only in the affirmative. Griffin himself said he was interviewing the Pelicans as much as the Pelicans were interviewing him. I think if an executive really wanted to move on from Alvin or thought that there was a better option out there, then they would say so plainly.

If that is to be taken with a grain salt here is something that can't be: Alvin Gentry has been an NBA coach for 30 years now. I think if his reputation wasn't strong in the NBA he would not be around for so long. Whether it's deserved or not is another issue but if this doesn't convince you then I don't know what will.

If you're able to give me a list of more than 5 NBA coaches that can have consistent success with different styles of basketball, then I think your points (which are really not quantitative and can't really be proven or disproven) will have more validity. Otherwise I think you overestimate the impact a coach can have on winning and you list out mistakes that can be said for most if not all NBA coaches. If you go to Spurs and Celtics forums you'll see these same list of complaints about Pop and Stevens.

It's better to make important decisions with complete information. Is it better to hire a coach now and then have to revisit this process in 3 years?

Either way, I don't think it's such a black and white issue and I've said my thoughts on the topic and I think it's worth mentioning something from your original post

This feels like it quickly turned into an argument where my points were either deemed irrelevant or somehow agreeing with your "argument" as if any of this can be really proven. You do this a lot with other posters and it's very MM-like and I wish you would just say your points without having to deconstruct others' to make yours more effective. You obviously really care about the team and I appreciate the thoughtfulness that goes behind your posts but you don't need to be right about everything. To me, it's missing the point of being a fan of basketball and probably can't be proven anyways.

---

It's irrelevant because we know that there was a strong Alvin focus in the interviews, and any candidate who is worth their salt would be easily able to tell that saying bad things about Alvin would get you nixed from the job almost immediately. Therefore, it makes sense that none of the candidates said bad things about Alvin.

Alvin has been around the league coaching for 30 years, sure, but he hasn't been a head coach that entire time. He's been in assistant roles more often than not, and he's fine there because he is not required to manage the entire thing: he can focus on the things he is good at, and there are some things he is very good at indeed. Whenever he has been a head coach, he's pretty consistently been a losing one.

Yes, I'm aware that if you go to a Spurs forum, Spurs fans will complain about Pop. The difference is that when it comes down to it, the only question that matters is whether or not a coach is doing things that result in winning. Spurs fans can complain about Pop all they want, but Pop makes sure they never miss the playoffs and has won them 5 rings. Alvin doesn't get that sort of benefit of the doubt or immunity because he doesn't deliver results. He loses. Pop wins 5 rings, is the all time wins leader as coach, makes the playoff 20 straight years, and yes, he gets a different evaluation than Alvin Gentry, who regularly crashes teams out into the lottery. That's why when Spurs fans complain about Pop, they may occasionally have a point, but the fact remains that Pop delivers the results. It's nitpicking. When we complain about Gentry, what defense can be made of him? Certainly not that he gets results anyway. It's not nitpicking with Gentry, it's the fundamental foundations of how you go about coaching an NBA team.

Like I said, I understand the perspective which has us keeping Gentry on for at least one more year just to maintain continuity and give him a chance with the new direction of the franchise. I don't like it, but I don't have to like it, it's what Griffin is doing anyway. I get it. There are arguments in favour of that preference, and I understand them. It's just at the end of the day, some points aren't mathematical (like you said, not entirely black and white) and you've got to make value judgments on what you find most convincing. I don't find those points convincing enough given the history of failure Gentry has had with this franchise, and other franchises.

I see it as immaterial. I wanted a clean slate, but maybe there's a component that is more than just the game. Maybe Griffin needs to fully establish his new regime and keep the hearts and minds of the players. I mean, he's building a real NBA organization from almost nothing it sounds like. Throwing in a coaching search might be biting off more than one can chew.

And like certain folk have said, who is available to be head coach now that won't be available next year? Do we really think Becky Hammon is the next big thing? Or the other guy from Europe? Eh. I mean, I'm not saying they won't. But do we really expect our team to be contending next year anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eman5805

I see it as immaterial. I wanted a clean slate, but maybe there's a component that is more than just the game. Maybe Griffin needs to fully establish his new regime and keep the hearts and minds of the players. I mean, he's building a real NBA organization from almost nothing it sounds like. Throwing in a coaching search might be biting off more than one can chew.

And like certain folk have said, who is available to be head coach now that won't be available next year? Do we really think Becky Hammon is the next big thing? Or the other guy from Europe? Eh. I mean, I'm not saying they won't. But do we really expect our team to be contending next year anyway?

---

I don't think we'll be contending next year, and depending on the trade, I don't think we'll be contending the year after that either.

One thing that Griffin talked about a lot in his podcast with Woj was that when he first took up GM in Cleveland, he brought in David Blatt and he realised that Blatt didn't really have much if any NBA experience, but he was okay with that because he knew that Blatt knew the fundamentals of coaching and was a smart basketball mind. Griffin knew they weren't going to be contending for a while, so he didn't care about Blatt's lack of experience because he knew he had the skills to teach younger plays how to play the game right, and he was smart enough to learn the minutiae of NBA coaching whilst on the job: the team could grow together, including the coach.

Of course, that plan was dynamited once Lebron decided he was going back to Cleveland and Blatt was kicked to the curb to accommodate a more 'win-now' mindset.

I could easily imagine (although we've been told it's not going to happen, but hypothetically) Griffin hiring someone like Hammon or Messina, fully aware that they've not really got the NBA head coach experience, but willing to give them that same mandate that he gave Blatt, especially with how much he talked about growing a family and maturing the team in a sustainable and organic way. All of this is moot because ownership seems to have had Alvin Gentry locked into the HC position by fiat, but the scenario above wouldn't be crazy to picture.

Is it bad to say Alvin Gentry has won me over and it has literally nothing to do with his coaching ability?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelifan

Is it bad to say Alvin Gentry has won me over and it has literally nothing to do with his coaching ability?

---

He's a great individual guy.