NyKnicks1714 wrote:Well you're a fan too FYI. And unless I was bashing him for playing Reaves/Russell, which I wasn't, this whole line of conversation is irrelevant.
One thing I hope to never do is put myself in a position where I'm representing myself as anything more than a fan. I know my lane and my limits.
NyKnicks1714 wrote:
Again, I wasn't killing him for that, so that's irrelevant.
Except it is relevant because it's establishing context. He didn't bench Austin or D'Lo when other guys were lighting it up, in fact he did it at a time when both guys were struggling so much even the laymen fans scattered throughout the internet were calling for them to be benched.
They turned around and killed Ham for benching those guys after he did it too, because that's how this seems to always work. Like I said, it seems Darvin's biggest crime here is that he didn't will those guys into hitting the ground running and staying consistent throughout the season and pulling 50+ wins and a high seed out of this group.
Injuries and underperformance suck. It sucks that those things happened to us this season, but as another poster alluded, it's unreasonable to believe Darvin was making guys play so poorly nearly the entire fanbase was calling them unplayable.
NyKnicks1714 wrote:None of this is relevant as it pertains to starting Reddish/Vanderbilt and having Reaves/Russell come off the bench.
Yeah injuries and underperformance and simple availability of individual guys on a roster are all highly relevant actually and I'm not at all interested in holding anyone's hand through trying to understand that.
NyKnicks1714 wrote:Cool. Doesn't apply to what I'm saying at all
Well so what are you saying here, then? Simply that Ham should be fired for benching Austin and D'Lo, even though they were in fact underperforming, to the point fans were in fact asking for them to be benched?
Or that he should be fired for playing guys like Reddish and Prince when people liked those acquisitions when they happened, and at one point they were literally the only wings with any experience available to play outside of LeBron?
Reddish completely lost his spot in the rotation as the season went on btw. And Prince improved as the season went on and the team got healthier and the rotations stabilized. That seems like it should matter in this discussion yes.
NyKnicks1714 wrote:No, it's what he says on said podcast, and to a lesser degree when calling games. Lots of former NBA players have popular podcasts. I don't think they should all be coaches. And no, he hasn't coached before. The Lakers don't have much to lose; it's worth the risk.
If you're trying to say it's unfair to hire first-time coaches when there are a lot of assistants who have paid their dues, fair enough, but that's not what you said.
NyKnicks1714 wrote:
Who said he'd "do much better right away"? I said he has a good chance to be better.
So I don't know that I necessarily care that much about fairness with regards to this subject, insomuch as I'm assuming the Lakers will and have practiced fair hiring ethics with regards to not caring about things that are actually irrelevant like race or gender or sexuality or anything like that.
I'm not particularly attached to Darvin Ham as the head coach of my favorite team. I'm a Lakers fan who would like to see my favorite team win as much as possible, and I don't think the pattern of coaching turnover is necessarily conducive to that for a couple of different reasons, even if I will totally acknowledge that no team should stick with a bad coach in the name of continuity or whatever.
I've seen the Lakers go through quite a few coaches since Phil Jackson retired, and so my position on "Should the Lakers get a new coach?" has been and still is this:
Who are they getting that is tangibly better?
Sometimes that answer is fairly easy! Like in the case of a Byron Scott or a Luke Walton or even a Mike D'antoni, the answer was literally just about anyone but them. But those are guys I would put in the "Bad to the point it actively hurts and limits your team" pile of coaches that I alluded to in an earlier post.
So like, sure, fire Darvin Ham, who I think is probably going to have a fairly solid-average career as an NBA head coach. BUT, when you fire your coach and go looking for a new one, you open yourself up to the risk of hiring a Scott, Walton, D'antoni, etc.
And as someone who watched teams coached by those guys, I can tell you from experience that yes there is in fact quite a lot to lose with those kinds of disaster hires! Especially considering this is a team whose centerpieces are 40 and 35 years old respectively!
And there's simply no reason to believe that JJ Redick of all people wouldn't be one of those disaster hires.
Like we're talking about a guy who thinks Larry Bird would stink in today's NBA.
But even if we ignore all of the tangibly dumb stuff he's said on his podcast or on ESPN, or any other possible red flags, there's still the simple fact that there's absolutely zero precedent for a guy with no coaching experience whatsoever just coming in and succeeding as a head coach at the NBA level. In fact, the most recent examples we have of other teams trying this resulted in disasters - Derek Fisher, Steve Nash, I feel like I'm forgetting one now... Oh yeah Jason Kidd, who is probably the most successful example of this type of hire? And I feel like nobody wants Jason Kidd to be the coach of their team.
