- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Posts
- 119,484
- Reaction score
- 60,017
The Lebron show couldn't happen to a more deserving team than the Lakers.
Rumors were out earlier today about Doc Rivers possibly leaving the Clippers to take over the Lakers head coaching job this summer, when they release Walton. Doc came out and squashed that before the Clippers played tonight and said that's not happening. Word is one of the reasons Doc doesn't want to take the job is Lebron. Specifically he's heard that Lebron does not want to be coached.
Lebron has never had a real coach for very long in the NBA. He got David Blatt fired after a year in Cleveland. In his first Cavs run he only had 1 coach fired, 2 if you count Mike Brown but he was leaving anyways. In Miami I remember constant rumors about when Riley would take over for Spoelstra but that never happened. Perhaps Lebron's issues with coaches was clear to Riley then. I know Riley has it made in Miami but I could see their owner siding with Lebron, Wade, and Bosh if they came to him and said to fire Riley, if there was issues, and Lebron would have had a mess to deal with in the media if he couldn't win titles with Riley and/or he got him fired. Riley is smart though, he wouldn't have taken the job as coach if he thought that might happen so he left Spoelstra in charge. Lebron's aversion to hands on coaching could be why Riley didn't take over though. Riley did a few years prior when the Heat traded for Shaq when Stan Van Gundy was coaching the Heat. He did that the year they beat the Mavericks in the finals, taking over after 21 games that season.
Here's an article about Doc coaching the Lakers and the Lebron doesn't want a coach stuff.
https://247sports.com/nba/los-angeles-lakers/Article/Doc-Rivers-Lakers-LeBron-rumor-130329744/
I decided to look up Lebron's history with coaches though and other than his second run in Cleveland there really isn't anything that bad but it does start off a bit questionable with how Paul Silas was fired early on.
In his first year he had Paul Silas as his head coach. In his 2nd year Silas was fired and Brendan Malone took over in the interim. Silas was 34-30 and the Cavs were 5th in the East when he was fired for a reported feud with Eric Snow. What makes that a little odd is Silas was hired to mentor Lebron, brought in his rookie year, but ESPN ran an article when he was fired saying that Lebron sensed it was coming. The last game Silas coached, Lebron played in all 48 minutes and scored 56 points in a loss to Toronto. Mike Brown took over as coach of the Cavs the next season and was their coach until Lebron left, having coached 5 years in Cleveland. The Cavs were
272-138 in that stretch, making the playoffs each year and having a 61-21 record in Lebron's final season. Brown was fired before "The Decision" also, after the Cavs lost in the 2nd round to the Celtics in 2010. Brown was fired 10 days after the Cavs were eliminated, so it wasn't immediate either.
I do find that ESPN piece a little odd, combined with how Lebron went off in Silas' last game as coach. I'm not sure if there is more to that or not but everyone knows Lebron was behind getting Blatt unceremoniously fired as the Cavs coach in Blatt's second season, Lebron's second year back also. Of course Ty Lue couldn't make it 1 full season without Lebron either, as if anyone thought he was a reason for the Cavs "success" the last 3 years he was coach though.
The Lakers have done this several times over the years. They short cut the process. It has worked a couple of times, but has also backfired --Nash and LeBron in particular.The Lebron show couldn't happen to a more deserving team than the Lakers.
The Lakers have done this several times over the years. They short cut the process. It has worked a couple of times, but has also backfired --Nash and LeBron in particular.
Doing this has not turned out well for teams. The Nets tried it years ago, and it ruined them for a long time.It's interesting you posted this. I was thinking about Nash as well. The Lakers are not afraid to attach their future to aging stars.
Doing this has not turned out well for teams. The Nets tried it years ago, and it ruined them for a long time.
The Nets are the measuring stick for bad moves. They seem to be going in the right direction now but it has taken awhile and they still have a long ways to go.
It's been quicker than many thought it would take them though to get back into the playoffs.
The smartest move was to trade with Magic Johnson.They've done remarkably well with their rebuild given the hole they were in but by far their smartest move was to shift from New Jersey to Brooklyn - had they moved to Seattle instead they'd still be years away from a playoff spot.
The smartest move was to trade with Magic Johnson.
Yup. Being in the east skews things a bit.Yeah, that did help quite a bit. I think they also made out well in a trade with the Kings. I was just kidding though, they really did make a lot of smart moves. But they'd still be in playoff purgatory if they were in the West.
Is it just me or does it seem that former players are in management positions, they tend to overvalue aging vets at least at the beginning of their mgmt careers.That says something for how bad the Lakers are run nowadays. It took their desperation and shortsightedness to save the Nets from a few more years or rebuilding. The Nets learned from their mistake and found a team willing to make similar bad decisions and rather than the Lakers learning from it they've on the verge of doubling down by sending all of their young stars away for Davis. I like Davis but if he can lead the Pelicans to the postseason I really don't see how he and an aging Lebron are supposed to contend when they won't have anything but Michael Beasley's and Javale McGee's surrounding them.
xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
These two should be the first ones gone.
Oh the joy that must be for DLo.xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
So. Let’s assume for a moment that the Lakers really wanted to trade for Book, and Book was getting frustrated here. What would they have to put on the table to get him?xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
These two should be the first ones gone.
So. Let’s assume for a moment that the Lakers really wanted to trade for Book, and Book was getting frustrated here. What would they have to put on the table to get him?
Just trying to put their efforts to get THE brow in perspective.
I am not sure they could put something together that would make me pull the trigger.Kuzma, Ingram, a few 1st rounders...minimum.
So. Let’s assume for a moment that the Lakers really wanted to trade for Book, and Book was getting frustrated here. What would they have to put on the table to get him?
Just trying to put their efforts to get THE brow in perspective.
I am not sure they could put something together that would make me pull the trigger.
We'll learn a lot more about Booker next season. He regressed this year, and that's a big concern from my perspective. If he has already peaked and his attitude will prevent him from getting to the next level, the Suns may have to start listening to trade offers. I agree that it's too soon now, however.
Three point shooting and turnovers are the main things people see I think.How exactly has Booker regressed? He's playing defense now, which is new for him, and he's scoring more on better efficiency. I know his FG% has taken a hit but his eFG% and TS% are both up. His health was a concern in the first half of the season but he hasn't had issues recently. I don't know how you could say he's regressed, especially since he's played better as the year has gone on. He might have regressed some at the beginning of the year but he's been riding a high for a while.
Well turnovers should be thrown out considering how much of the ballhandling duties he's taken on this year.Three point shooting and turnovers are the main things people see I think.