We might still be basking in the glow of Kobe Bryant bringing in his retirement with an epic farewell performance, but that doesn’t mean the business of the Lakers has stopped. The team performed their exit interviews on Thursday and Friday, and with that we got every player (save Kobe), Byron Scott, and Mitch Kupchak all on the record discussing this past season and looking ahead to the next one.
It’s that looking ahead which has grabbed Lakers’ fans interest, especially in relation to Scott’s status as the head coach. If you ask Scott, he’s confident he will return next season and has sharp words for anyone who questioned his approach this season. ESPN’s Baxter Holmes has the story:
Scott, who has one more guaranteed year on his deal, said he has not yet met with Lakers management to discuss his future with the team, nor has he been given assurances that he’ll coach the team moving forward.
“I don’t need that,” Scott said. “There’s going to come a time where we’re going to talk, I do understand that, and I do understand this business…
Scott has faced heated criticism from Lakers fans and others all season for his tough-love approach and harsh public criticism of the Lakers’ promising young players, whom he frequently moved in and out of the lineup, varying their minutes.
“I roll with the punches because you guys, they, those guys — they’re not in here every day,” Scott said of his critics. “They don’t see what we’re doing in practice. They don’t see how we’re preparing these guys, so they have no clue … all they’re doing is voicing their opinion, and to be honest with you, I’m much smarter than all of them when it comes to basketball.”
To some (okay, to me), Scott’s confidence might seem misplaced. After all, he’s overseen the two worst seasons in franchise history, winning only 38 games in his two seasons as head man. Claiming intellectual superiority — even if doing so while speaking truths about fans and media not having all the information — isn’t the best look when the vessel you’re shepherding keeps running into things and crashing.
Still, Scott thinks the job will still be his. And, if you’ve been reading recent reports, he’s not alone. The Vertical’s Adrian Wojnarowski also thinks the Lakers hold on to their embattled coach:
Coach Byron Scott has a team option on his contract for next season, league sources told The Vertical, and there’s strong belief within the organization that he’ll be brought back next season. For now, there’s too much discord in ownership to generate a consensus on making a coaching change, sources said.
And Woj’s report comes on the heels of CBS Sports’ Ken Berger also saying Scott could end up returning:
Believe it or not, Byron Scott has what one source described as a “major chance” to stay with the Lakers; Jeanie Buss is said to be pushing for Scott behind the scenes. If so, it could clear the way for a top-to-bottom reset for the franchise in 2017, and the possible return of Jackson to run basketball operations with Luke Walton as the coach.
The Jeanie angle is an interesting one and starts to connect some of the dots from other stories. Look at Woj’s piece again and the mention of fractured ownership. Now, also recall a report from earlier in the season which stated the Lakers were “torn” on whether Scott should be retained. It’s not a huge leap to think that Jeanie might be one of Scott’s key supporters within the organization, complicating the decision making process which will determine Scott’s fate.
What also complicates matters is that Jeanie has long been on the record as not interfering with basketball decisions:
“In my position, I empower people that are in positions to do their jobs. [Executive vice president of player personnel] Jim Buss and [general manager] Mitch Kupchak are responsible for all basketball decisions. They are empowered to do that. My job is to make sure, as a boss, that I provide them the tools to do the job successfully. But it’s up to them to make the day-to-day decisions on how they operate their area of the business.”
While there is a financial component to every basketball decision — and thus a business tie-in — who coaches the team would seem to fall under the umbrella of a basketball decision. According to Berger, Jeanie is, potentially, going back on what she said earlier this season.
Maybe none of this matters. Maybe when Mitch and Jim Buss sit down with Byron Scott in a couple of weeks (as Kupchak noted he would in Friday’s presser), they will let him go. I have been of the mind that the longer they go without letting Scott go, the more likely it is he is retained, but I could be wrong there. Maybe they want the afterglow of Kobe’s final game to keep the news positive for a while longer. Maybe they want to put out feelers on potential candidates while Byron is still employed. Maybe it’s all of the above.
For what it’s worth, Kupchak is sticking with mostly stock language he’s used all season. In Friday’s media availability he again noted that Scott and the rest of the staff are “under contract” and if that changes he’d let (the media) know. Kupchak also praised Scott for the job he did this year, citing the difficulties of leading a team dealing with Kobe’s uncertain health and retirement tour as well as an inexperienced roster with the type of youth which doesn’t often result in good win-loss records.
If Kupchak offered any other hints at Scott’s future, they were veiled at best. At one point Mitch noted that he’s sure Scott’s “hoping that he coaches here forever, but a lot of times what we do is we’re really doing is preparing for the next GM or the next coach, and that’s tough sometimes”, which is an interesting line but doesn’t move the needle much. That quote was also within the larger context of how the development the coaches are working now might now be fully realized for another 2-3 years. So, it makes sense that the current coach might be “preparing for the next one” when put against the backdrop of young player growth.
So, we’re really nowhere closer to knowing what Scott’s future entails. Could it be Jeanie is pushing to keep him on? Sure. Could it also be that Mitch and Jim would like to move in another direction? Indeed. Is the ownership really fractured on this? It’s possible that’s hyperbole, but it could also be 100% accurate. It wouldn’t be the first time we’ve heard of internal strife between Jim and Jeanie.
Ultimately, time will tell which direction the team goes in, but if it were me I would likely make a change. I’ve been somewhat sympathetic to the issues Scott has faced, be it a roster lacking elite talent and boasting too many ill-fitting parts, Kobe’s farewell tour, or the difficulty of balancing young player development with veterans who were brought into to play key roles. On the other hand, however, the schematic struggles, the unsuccessful lineup experiments, the lack of public accountability for his role in the team’s struggles, and consistent youth blaming have, in my eyes, all overshadowed the hurdles he’s faced.
As Byron said Friday, he understands it’s a business. Wins and losses matter. And if you’re not winning, you better be saying the right things in order to win the perception battle and gain support that way. Scott has done neither and, for me at least, a change would be warranted. We will see if the decision makers feel the same way. We should have our answer either way within a couple of weeks.
lakers32 says
Great insight and breakdown of the exit interviews from today Darius. I watched the entire Mitch exit interview and as much as I was disappointed with his praise of Byron…I was more delighted towards the end of the interview where he clearly took a stance against the narrative that the Lakers HAVE to spend money this summer and they HAVE to mortgage the future in order to be in the chase of the 8th seed. This is also the first time I’ve heard him mention that he would try to convince “the decision makers” that they should be “prudent” with their cap space. I really have no freaking clue if he meant Jim or Jeannie but my inclination is Jeannie.
On the coaching issue…I am on board with firing Byron but with today’s comments from Mitch, I think he will be brought back for another year just to give him a “fair chance.” I think if they start out struggling badly next year..they most likely fire him mid-season but either way I don’t see Byron coaching beyond next year. Pretty sure the obvious target is Luke Walton, which is smart thinking because it would kill two birds with one stone (take him away from your competitor and also bring insight on the Warriors). Whether its under Phil or whoever…if we end with Luke as the HC eventually…I will be happy. I wanted Thibs but seeing the rumors of him wanting GM duties along with coaching duty just turns me off. The Brooks rumor is also intriguing but I just don’t think it’s plausible especially with the Durant/Westbrook angle, those guys are not coming to the Lakers. Let’s see what happens after “3 or 4 days” when they have that talk…
Vasheed says
http://www.latimes.com/sports/lakers/la-sp-lakers-report-20160407-story.html
According to Scott’s contract the team has until June 1st to notify him of his services will be retained. So I suspect they will wait until the lottery to decide.
Thomas Rickard says
I’m not sure about Scott staying or going, the one thing I am sure of is we’ve seen a masterful job of tanking without drawing any criticism for it, the Lakers were never going anywhere unless all the planets aligned, for the first time that I can remember there is a bunch of young players
Robbo says
I was on board until I noticed he doesn’t like to take some of the blame at least but he did help us hopefully keep our protected lottery pick but its time for him to go I’m sure I speak for may Lakers fans I would be absolutely disappointed if hes our head coach next season regardless of the roster
J C says
Byron deserves one more year to prove himself.
Dennis Rodman deserves to be President.
And I deserve to drink battery acid.
Any owner or member of management that can justify another year of Byron’s approach to basketball strategy deserves another 17-win season and all the glory that will provide.
Any member of the man agent team that votes to retain this coach should be fired mid-season next year when Byron is.
R says
Wait a minute. I get that Walton would replace Scott as coach, OK. But what would PJ be doing here? The Lakers already have a proven GM who has built championship teams, unlike Phil’s track record. Would Phil be groomed to take over as GM once Mitch retires? Again, wait a minute. Phil is considerably older than Mitch. Earth to Jeanie, do you copy?
Fern says
I think they keep Byron, but i imagine that leash will be 2 inches long. Reportedly Scott Brooks threw his hat in already but I don’t trust anybody that has Scott in his name anymore lol.
Mid-Wilshire says
My one hope is that Jim Buss rarely seems to be influenced by what his sister thinks. The next two weeks should be interesting.
(I still say the selection of a Head Coach should be Mitch Kupchak’s call.)
Warren Wee Lim says
I’m really digging the Jeannie angle on this one. And if that’s really the case, its going to take a long time to build a winner.
R says
Mid@mitch should have the call on HC
Yes heartily agree the one person who seems to have a clue should make that decision.
rr says
I think the Lakers would actually have taken less criticism if they had just gone with all young guys which is one reason I don’t buy stealth tank theories.
As to Byron there is no reason to deliberate about it. Again: track record.
Jeanie: should either let Jim and Mitch decide about Byron or just can Jim now. If the checkerboard conspiracy theory about Jeanie and Phil is true, then that is obviously on Jeanie. Since Jim is presumably the final signoff on all basketball decisions I think responsibility has and should rest ultimately with him. But if Jeanie is interfering then that is a different thing.
Brooks: I have mentioned him many times. He has LA ties and worked with young guys in OKC. He also has the Westbrook connection. Brooks has taken flack for his tactical acumen.
Robert says
As everyone knows, I have for years said that our FO is a disaster. At this point, there are few arguing with that. However, I now see that many Laker writers and fans are now going to frame this as a Jeanie vs. Jim thing. And there is a large element of that. That being said, I have maintained all along that the best thing for the Lakers and their fans would be to have the Buss Family sell the team. If that is not going to happen, then the entire family needs to stay out of basketball operations. And let’s be reasonable – they are still owners, so yes they will have final approval on major things like GM hires, Coaching hires, and Super Star Deals. Day to day operations and even the majority of the deal making on the major items – No. This is the way Jerry Buss ran the team and this is the way the team should be run now. At present we have one sibling completely running (meddling) in basketball ops, and we have a possible behind the scenes proxy fight with another sibling who is supposed to be Governess. All of this needs to be resolved, but most likely in that order. Jim needs to go and if Jeanie needs to cross boundaries to get that done, then so be it. Byron can go out the door with Jim, but not until then. The new “top” basketball ops guy should pick the next coach. With regard to the Phil rumors, I am not fully on board with that, other than the fact that if it means that Jim is out, then it is better than where we are now. What we need is an owner who owns and stays away from ops, a basketball strong man President who has final say on all deals, and then a separate details GM and a separate coach – so a total of 4 people running the team, preferably who are not related to each other by blood or marriage. Something like Jerry Buss, Jerry West, Mitch Kupchak, and Phil Jackson. That was a pretty successful period, and we should duplicate that formula. Perhaps the closest we can get to that (nice names too) is Jeanie Buss, Phil Jackson, Ryan West, Next Laker Legendary Coach. Let’s do it.
LT Mitchell says
According to Woj , Minnesota has set up interviews with Thibs and Jeff Van Gundy, while Brooks is Washington’s main target.
Thibs and Jeff will likely demand GM responsibilities and an executive title, similar to Stan Van Gundy’s deal in Detroit.
Between Thibs and JVG, I would be ecstatic with either. Give the new coach Jimbo’s position, and the Lakers could potentially kill two birds with one stone with a single hire.
rr says
Brooks obviously would be hired to try to get KD to DC
Mid-Wilshire says
The meter is running.
Baylor Fan says
Personally, I have always felt that Bobby Knight said it best: “I’ve forgotten more about this bleepin’ game than you’ll ever know.” In Scott’s case, this is true but beside the point. He is incredibly reliable to have as a coach if your team needs to lose a string of games. There was some strong competition for the biggest loser this season. Philadelphia had their GM overtly sabotage the makeup of their team and Phoenix and Brooklyn put on late rushes to see who could lose more games. The Lakers actually tried to put together a team that would have a shot to make the playoffs. Kobe played way more minutes and games (66 games, 28.2 mpg) than anyone but his most faithful followers might have predicted. Hibbert, Bass, and Williams all put in seasons that were in line with their previous ones. There was more than enough veteran experience to help guide the younger players. Clarkson held up his scoring but lost his passing touch as his assists dropped. Russell and Randle had strong years for rookies but are far from finished products. Could any coach have won more games with this mix of players? Maybe, but it was clear by the All-Star break that Scott would not become that person. It is equally clear that his coaching style and beliefs do not work for this team and it is time for a change.
Apollos says
I don’t think the Lakers will hire a coach in the “hope” they will get a superstar player. They will, I’d bet, let a superstar dictate a coaching choice as a condition of coming to the Lakers. This would all be handled by agents. Agents for the elite athletes have become increasingly involved in trying to shape the systems their client works in. In the next FA period, we will surely see the top people like KD wanting to see control over the coaching style as an element. That sort of control over the playing environment is a real enticement to a top 10 player since the $ are more or less the same everywhere. It makes sense to keep Scott out there as the coach so that if a (as examples only) KD/Brooks or James/Jackson deal is in play. The best coach will be the one who can recruit the best FA. Not saying this will happen, but, for example, Mark Jackson and Lebron have the same agent. I can easily see that package being put to the Lakers if it is rejected by the Cavs. If you want to know who that is, don’t look at records, look at locker rooms and agents.
Anon#1 says
KD is not going anywhere. Likely resigning in OKC with an opt out next summer. If he does leave he’ll go to the Warriors. But I think he gives OKC one more shot next year.
The Lakers should plan ahead and bring over Troy Weaver from OKC to run the Team. Give him a year to hire a coach and shape up the organization for a 2017 run at KD, Westbrook etc.
Problem is that Jim and Jeanie are not that creative or forward thinking.
DonFord says
Mitch may have tipped his hand in his comments about Scott.
Yes, I know this is me reading tea leaves, guessing. And Mitch is famously carefully-spoken, and he doesn’t make the final decisions of course.
But notice the “but” and the “was” in the following quote:
“I know he’s hoping that he coaches here forever. *But* a lot of times, what we do is we’re really preparing for the next [general manager] or the next coach, and that’s tough sometimes. I mentioned earlier, veteran coaches want veteran players, because it does take time to develop young players. So we’ll know in two to three years how effective Byron **was** as a parent to the young guys on this team.”
Why would he say “WAS” – “how effective Byron WAS” – ? To me, that telegraphs his own expection that Byron will be long gone 2 years from now.
Back to the disclaimers: That doesn’t mean Mitch wants to fire him this week, but that maybe he’d let this next year’s contact run out. And Mitch talks careful and who knows what he means. And Jeannie/JIm, and etc.
But just thought those interesting words were worth pointing out for brief moment of conjecture. DO IT MITCH! (lol)
Kbj says
Here’s what I think is going to happen. Jeanie is giving Scott one more season because she is giving Mitch and Jim one more season to fix the team. If they fail, she will fire all 3 of them.
Here’s the problem. We know that they will fail. This team won’t make the playoffs next season. She might as well get rid of them right now.
Btw, I don’t like Jeanie either. So I would prefer all 4 (Jeanie, Mitch, Jim and Byron) step down.
stats says
Haven’t had a chance to listen to all of the exit interviews – did Mitch or others give insights into the fate of players like Huertas? I don’t think he’s under contract, and I’d like to see him back. I’d love to see Bass back, too, but if I were him I’d take his option and look elsewhere. Presumably Swaggy is gone (amen!); hopefully Black stays; etc.
J C says
As Jeannie has been running the business side of things, who among us can say she hasn’t been excelling at her job? The Kobe Farewell Tour was a smash hit all the way to its dream finale.
As her father’s daughter I’m certain Jeannie feels qualified to hazard a guess as to Byron’s value to the team.
If retaining Byron is a ploy to prove Jim incompetent – or prove some other point – that seems a sacrificial bloodletting in the extreme.
Only in Hollywood.
Clay Bertrand says
If Jeanie is going to overstep her role as Head of Business Operations and Team President at this time and FORCE the retention of Byron Scott, she isn’t honoring her word to empower the basketball people to do their jobs and stay out of their way.
So if Jeanie doesn’t have to honor HER word, why does Jim HAVE to honor HIS and step down when his sister is clearly meddling in his authority to act??????????
Phil Jackson is not the answer. Jeff Van Gundy??!??!!?!?!?!? For god’s sake……WHAAAAT!? Why would anyone want to have Jeff Van Gundy as their GM??? Oh yeah….it’s Minnesota. Keep Calm and carry on……..
Another alarming narrative that is playing out and was mentioned by Mitch is this concept that you only go to hire a good coach when you are the verge of WINNING or expecting to win. Huh????? So we stick with CRAPPY coaches until the team has the talent to compete and THEN we go hire a top coach?!!?!?!?!?!?!? Who TEACHES the young talent to be better then?? The CRAPPY COACH??????????? WTH????!?!!?!?!?!?!?
If Byron Scott knew half as much about “this business” as he pompously claims he does, how does he NOT know that he needed to talk constructively about the team as much as possible, explain the slow process and mention that he sees improvements even subtle ones. He needed to bring up and highlight the positives few as they may be as often as he could. Not knock the players from atop his lofty perch as a know it all curmudgeon of a “Head Coach” with a record of 454-647 (.412).
Darius put it so very succinctly: “…..if you’re not winning, you better be saying the right things in order to win the perception battle and gain support that way. Scott has done neither…..”
Exactly. What’s to debate?
Chris J says
Speaking of mortgaging the future in order to be in the chase of the 8th seed…
Not a day goes by that I don’t thankfully reflect on the loss of Dwight Howard and all that that brought with it. His -16 line in today’s blowout, all while giggling on the sidelines while down nearly 20 points, pretty much sums up everything about him in a nutshell.
Even with three straight disastrous seasons, I’m still glad the Lakers front office was too inept to keep that clown in 2013. Some said the Lakers “lost” that billboard-driven sales pitch, but that was really a win. Same with being spurned by Carmelo…
What scares me is what other past-his-prime, overpaid, ringless “superstar” will Jim and Mitch hope to woo this off-season? Make sure they know Moses Malone died, otherwise they want to bring him in for a meeting.
R says
It doesn’t really matter because the views of all of us carry zero weight, but I’m curious why Mitch is so frequently lumped in with other, demonstrably people who can’t do their jobs, like for example Byron Scott. Unlike Byron and arguably others in the Lakers “leadership” group, Mitch actually does know how to do his job.
Clay Bertrand says
R,
IMO, Mitch is UNFAIRLY “lumped in” with the perception that Jim Buss is inept and the FO is dysfunctional and because he works in the FO somehow this perversion of logic is spewed by some: Jim is Inept and the FO is Dysfunctional (because of JEANIE AND JIM). Mitch Kupchak works in the FO. (ERRONEOUS) ERGO, Mitch Kupchak is a problem/part of the problem/a poor GM etc. and we need to hire a new GM with way less experience who works for a team that has been to one Finals ever and never won anything (Troy Weaver) or else we have to bring in Phil Jackson who has never built a team, has a barren coaching tree, a huge ego, is older than dirt, is engaged to the team president, and sleeps on TRIANGLE bed sheets.
IMO, there are only a few GMs that are in Mitch’s class. I haven’t seen any of THEM pull off a deal so good the league had to literally BLOCK IT for no reason. I think RC Buford in San Antonio is one of the best. I think San Antonio has done better drafting for value with their usually pretty low draft picks. They do really well with draft and stash euro guys who they seem to always have a couple of in the pipeline.
I wouldn’t have a problem adding to the current FO if it was a really sharp guy on a mainly consultant type basis. If Mitch Kupchak is truly the dominant basketball voice of the FO (and I believe that he is), then I feel the Lakers are in good hands.
Robert says
Clay: “What’s to debate” Nothing. It is time to clean house. Some are zeroing in on Scott as if he is the cause of all of this. Others want a fresh start and realize blame is deserved in many places.
R: I agree that Mitch is the most deserving of his job. I have also said many times that Mitch can stay if the rest go. I just think if we bring in a new President or VP of Ops, then they are gonna want their people. So Mitch is a casualty.
Kbj: “So I would prefer all 4 (Jeanie, Mitch, Jim and Byron) step down.” Nice ! A grand slam would be nice but I do not think that is possible. That is why I am rooting for a 3 run homer.
Warren Wee Lim says
If you think the Laker owners are going to fire themselves, then we do have a problem that cannot be solved.
Ya’ll need to realize that winning will cure everything. Construct a talented team, hire a coach that can unleash their potential. Jeannie and Jim can squabble over every last million dollar but once the winning comes, the squabble will go.
Like Darius, I’m (NOT) the biggest Byron fan. I’ve hated the hire since day 1, my opinion hasn’t changed 1 bit. I’m looking at the Pacers beat the more talented Raptors today, with less talent but with a great coach. Pacers FO is not very good, they cannot spend at all and heck, its Indiana. They can’t even lure great free agents to come over, they even lose mediocre ones (Lance Stephenson) elsewhere (thankfully for them). The Mavs are so bad they don’t deserve to be in the playoffs with 500yo Dirk. But, thanks to Carlisle, yet another great coach, they are. Although they don’t really deserve to be there, they are.
The Lakers need to hire a good one, and be patient with the future. Luke Walton makes the most sense. No, he won’t do what he did w/ the Warriors and go 24-0 for us next season, but he can make us decently connected with the youth of the team along with mixing them with the vets. And if a trade can be made midway, we do it.
What am I advocating? Fire Scott next week. Talk and hire Walton.
Keep Russell, Randle, Nance, Brown, Williams… stretch Nick Young and explore Clarkson SnT possibilities. Hope to land a top 2 pick, the #1 if possible (duh) and draft Ingram.
(edited for trade speculation)
Hassan Whiteside is a shoe-in, if he chooses. He has the age and timeline closest to our kids. By the time our kids are ready to compete, he’ll only be hitting his prime.
Sign players of good character and get rid of the Nick Youngs. A veteran leader is more valuable than cap space at this point because you are hoarding 4-5 rookies/sophs on the team. Consider signing the likes of Joakim Noah, who would bring the team defensive identity. Considering bringing in Marvin Williams and Brandon Rush. Short-term deals.
Chris J says
why Mitch is so frequently lumped in with other, demonstrably people who can’t do their jobs
——
Speaking solely for myself, I don’t find Mitch to be in the same category of bad as say, Byron. As rr likes to say, look at the track record — Byron’s been awful for several consecutive seasons, and but for his success with Jason Kidd, who knows if he’d ever have been given another head coaching gig? On the flip side, Mitch has many extremely solid years under his belt, has drafted reasonably well and has pulled off some stunning deals, from landing Pau to landing Chris Paul pre-veto.
That said, it’s been disconcerting to see some of the more-recent moves that Mitch has made which have clearly tarnished his reputation among some fans. To wit: four picks for an injury-prone, older Nash; Kobe’s extension; letting assets like Gasol, Hill, Meeks, Davis and Kaman walk for nothing in return; this season’s power forward-palooza; and some questionable coaching choices, among others of late.
I’m particularly concerned by the ongoing “swing for the fences” push in free agency, chasing big names who wouldn’t have been a good fit if they had signed with the Lakers — adding/keeping Howard, Carmelo, Aldridge would have only saddled the salary cap, but in actuality done little to bring the Lakers a championship. Perhaps those were Jim-driven moves, but it’s become harder and harder to tell who does what in that front office.
Botton line, I’d have no issues with Kupchak staying. Byron, on the other hand…
Clay Bertrand says
Robert,
Curious what you are saying here regarding Mitch. You say a grand slam where “all 4” step down would be nice. However right before this, you say that you agree that Mitch is the most deserving of his job (of the 4) and that he can stay if the rest go and that he may just be a victim of a new regime coming in. I think you are saying you favor a full overhaul including getting rid of Mitch. Not sure if you meant that or not.
I would also agree with those who say that we DO need a fresh start of sorts. I understand that this season was the result of a convergence of circumstances, namely The Kobe Tour, very young rookies, choppy roster construction, and ineffective coaching.
We have to look at all of these aspects of what went wrong this season, and how they will look going forward. First off next year, there will be no distracting Kobe Tour or separate special rules for anyone on the team. Second, the rookies with a full year under their belt will have gotten a little NBA wiser and will have been able to work on their bodies and their games this off season to at least be better prepared. They will all know what they are going into next year. Third, there SHOULD and likely will be at least, a more balanced and at least, a more talented roster next season (even if that talent level increase is not as huge as we would like).
So to me, that leaves the ineffective coaching. Now while Byron SHOULD and MAY have some better success with more talent and more experienced rookies, IMO that would be from the TALENT and not necessarily from his coaching. This is the ONLY problem area TOTALLY WITHIN THE LAKERS IMMEDIATE CONTROL. They can hit the reset button, and gain a fresh start from a team culture point of view with a more talented, more modern strategist and teacher by hiring a new and better coach.
Further, a coaching change doesn’t cost the team anything from a talent or asset perspective at all–just $4 Million–a proverbial drop in the Kobe Tour financial boon. It doesn’t depend on other teams bidding or on a player deciding to change addresses or wanting to play with their friends. It doesn’t depend on the actions of another team in making their desirable players available in trade.
They are not going to fire the whole FO including Jeanie and hire brilliant, and top level, can’t-miss FO people this year, or possibly ever. Even if they did do this, it wouldn’t pay any immediate measurable dividends. A new FO would still have the same assets after all and reshaping the team under a new vision would take time.
IMO, every aspect of the team that contributed to this foul season WILL improve by next year to some extent EXCEPT FOR THE COACHING STAFF! Is Byron going to be Brad Stevens or Popovich, or Doc Rivers by next fall???? Clearly, NO. Is he going to have a totally revamped, NEW coaching style, philosophy and schemes????? Again, NO. Is he willing to hire a high profile assistant a la Ron Adams or Darren Erman to augment his staff???? Very likely, NO.
The only way the coaching aspect of the team can be drastically improved is with a NEW COACH who simply is better fit, a better basketball coach than Byron Scott, doesn’t dump all over the players in the media, doesn’t thump his arrogant chest with a .412 career win %, and DOESN’T threaten to FIGHT fans on Twitter.
Coaching is the only aspect of the problems we have that is TOTALLY 100% WITHIN THE LAKERS IMMEDIATE control AND the only thing that WILL NOT improve significantly on its own. This would perhaps be, to make a Windows analogy, akin to REBOOTING as opposed to doing a System Restore at this time.
That is what I feel the team should be looking to do this off season.
DonFord says
Mitch has been successful and shrewd for years — and should go for 2 reasons (neither of which is really his fault, as such).
1. Politically and organizationally, he is tarred with the failures of these last years. The Busses will obviously remain as owners even if Jim is fired/quits, and Mitch is, to some extent, untangleable from the regime he has served during this time. It’s not his fault, but it is his situation and circumstances that can’t be retroactively wished away.
2. He’s too old school. He doesn’t seem too savvy with analytics and the new, 2016 world of the NBA (from what info we the public are privy to, anyway). Mitch is sharp as hell, is obviously a keen judge of talent, and has kept a shrewd, careful profile all these years. But he has been at this a long time and, to match the pace and strategies for current nba basketball team management, I get the sense he’s not the best fit going forward (nor, yee gods, is Phil Jackson, however brilliant he may be). This is not Red Auerbach’s league, where guts, moxie, and shrewdness carry the day – it’s a business with enormous state-of-the-art data and personnel challenges to manage.
It would be ideal if he were to retain an ad hoc, consultant/advisor role similar to Jerry West’s current role, if that were a possibility.
Todd says
The Lakers need to stop using the rear view mirror to plan their future. There is enough evidence, during these past three years, to justify moving both Jim and Mitch out. Byron is another rear view mirror decision.
Time to look forward. The game has progressed in many ways and the Lakers now have a very ‘old school’ reputation.
J C says
If this team has a problem, it’s not Kupchak.
Listen to his exit interview.
He’s still sharp. He hasn’t lost his eye for talent.
He knows how to engineer a trade.
He understands how to build a team.
There were multiple circumstances we’ve discussed here that affected us dramatically the last few seasons.
There will be a lot of heat and expectation this coming year and off-season. Whether they retain their pick or not, there will be plenty of opportunity for the management team, the existing roster, and possibly this coach to show what they can do going forward.
Todd says
I’m not opposed to Mitch having a role similar to Jerry West’s with the Warriors. JW provides insight and gravitas to a young talented GM, coach and ownership group.
Again, the last three years would indicate that the Lakers problems run pretty deep. Change can be daunting but it becomes easier when you realize what you are holding onto is not working.
J C says
I agree. Kupchak’s position or title could be shifted to allow for additions to the front office that could provide fresh perspectives. I think that would be a step in the right direction. But if that means Jim Buss must step away, I don’t expect that to happen just yet.
I hate making excuses. But for the sake of argument I was considering some of the reasons a Jim Buss could use to justify asking for more time to show progress, and the list is actually fairly compelling.
The Veto
Julius Randle’s broken leg
Steve Nash’s nerve damage
Kobe’s Achilles tear and subsequent shoulder injury
Dwight Howard’s bizarre non-personality
Kobe return from injury and Farewell Tour
I’m a huge Jerry West fan and I’ve heard him state that any team’s fortune is at the mercy of injuries to key players and that one factor alone can make or break a season.
One could argue that none of the above events were management’s fault. The Kobe tour sold a lot of tickets and let’s face it, this is a business. I personally liked the Nash deal at the time, a few didn’t. Kobe’s reputation and clout has more or less forced their hand to reach for trades or FAs to extend a championship window and that approach probably delayed this rebuild.
I believe the team now feels liberated from that obligation for the first time in a long time. Kupchak stated that the team will now prudently approach the grooming of young players while seeking FAs or trades to improve their standing but that it will take time. That seems like a reasonable statement from a seasoned voice finally unshackled by the burden of building around an aging superstar.
On the flip side, errors IMO that should be considered the responsibility or fault of this management team:
The Kobe contract extension
Clumsy FA pitches
Coaching hires Brown, Dantoni, Scott
I’m making an educated guess only, but I don’t lay the shorter list of bad moves made exclusively at the feet of Kupchak.
Adding to the FO team would probably be productive but if it means other decision-makers need to start sitting on their hands, I’m not holding my breath.
John Barber says
As many of you have eloquently stated, Mitch is not the problem. He needs to have more control and the Busses need to trust him. Also give Ryan West a bigger position like Asst GM.I think Byron needs to go. He’s too toxic. I think Luke would be great or an older teacher type like Doug Collins. As far as retaining players go, keep Russell, Randle, Brown, Clarkson, Nance, Black, Huertas, Bass. They should trade Williams to get a player or a 2nd round draft choice. Also trade Ryan Kelly to Phila for Jordan McCrae. As far as free agency goes, DONT go after top name guys like Durant, but players who would complement the above players, like Whiteside, Gerald Green ( who does more than Nick Young and is cheaper), but don’t overpay them. The key is entrusting Mitch with more control, firing Byron, and go after complimentary FA.
Clay Bertrand says
Nice post J C.
The FULL shake up I think I could get behind is Jim reverting to simply an owner, Mitch becoming President of Basketball Operations, a young new GM being hired (from the Spurs organization preferrably–although probably not possible at this time), and a new Head Coach being hired. I’d be very interested in a larger coaching staff with better development guys and maybe a guy with a defensive specialty. Retain Ryan West as Assistant GM. Continue to grow the analytics integration with the new Coach and look to expand international scouting particularly.
I don’t know if Ryan is ready to be a GM at this point. They just gave him the Asst. GM title last year I believe.
Nets just hired Sean Marks from the Spurs and I don’t know how many more guys of value are there for the poaching at this time. Nets also JUST hired Kenny Atkinson from the Hawks as Head Coach.
See, THATS how moves are made. Not weeks into the offseason after Jim finally comes in for a casual lunch. No urgency here SMH…., “We won 17 games so……we ain’t sweatin’ nothin. Maybe we might talk about it over lunch in a week or two!!” SO LAME!!
LT Mitchell says
While I give props to Mitch for orchestrating the trades for Gasol, Ariza and Chris Paul, it’s difficult to overlook the fact that he was the head architect of the Smush/Kwame era. He gave up a future all star in Caron for Kwame, gave Luke and Cook extensions, and the best PG he could find to team up with Kobe in his prime was Smush.
Fair or not, he is also linked to the worst three years in franchise history. If you think Mitch was simply a victim of Jimbo’s meddling, he will likely continue to be the victim (aka puppet) if he is retained. It’s time to move on.
Anon#1 says
The stink of the last three years is all over Mitch. Whether he stood idly by while Jim made one poor decision after another, was ignored altogether or acquiesced willingly makes no difference. He was the GM during the worst three year period of the entire franchise.
It doesn’t help his cause that he is viewed by Jeanie as being part and parcel of the FO. She does not use language that implicates Jim singularly and absolves Mitch.
In truth, I like the above solutions that put Mitch in a JW role. That would be smart move. But ‘smart’ is a description I have not used with any of the Buss kids.
Baylor Fan says
How can Kupchak not be part of the problem since he was the architect of two record setting losing teams? This year’s team was not meant to tank. The veteran’s signed were supposed to solve the team’s most glaring weaknesses and everything hinged on Kobe’s health. Kobe was remarkably healthy and the veteran’s performed about as could be expected. The rookies also played well enough to justify their time on the court. The coach was touted for developing young players and was respected by Kobe. The narrative of the team changed once it became obvious to all but the coach that winning was not on the menu. How did having Kobe be healthy for the last game become the sole reason for the Lakers playing the entire NBA season? Questions need to be asked like why were the rookies not put in better positions to succeed? Why would you draft a player because of his insane passing abilities and then surround him with players who preferred to create off of isolations and could not run basic pick and rolls? What has Mitch done to suggest that he understands how to build a team around young talent? This team’s record is as much on Mitch as it is anyone. His interviews so far have done little to convince me that next year will be all that different.
Dom says
Mitch is an employee, he has to have owner approval for everything he does. Mitch did orchestrate the Pau trade. He also orchestrated the CP3 deal that got vetoed. Anyone who thinks as an employee he has final say is delusional. After the Nash trade and subsequent injury, Dwight getting pissed because JImB decided he wanted D’Antoni when D12 wanted Phil, the Kobe 2 season ending injuries, the Lakers made a business decision to look at the next 5 years and decided on a path that is ugly but is the only way back to building a championship roster. BScott gets paid 5 million a year to be a company man. To take the heat and make sure the franchise keeps it lottery protected picks this year and next. As a life long Laker fan i dont want an 8 seed team that is out in the first round i want to see a perpetual championship contender.
The team needed to rebuild its core after the veto, the D12 failed experiment, the Nash fiasco, and injuries. This involves finding a way to get the best young talent in the draft, tanking. Given the fact that all of their picks were traded the only potion was to tank to try to get back the top 3 protected picks 3 years in a row, last year this year and next. You cant blame BScott or Mitch for the mismanagement of the team. It falls squarely in JimB’s head. Magic and others in the know lay the blame squarely in JimB’s shoulders. At the end of the day if we get Ingram or Simmons and a top 3 pick next year then i believe the team is poised to rise from the ashes.
It is my belief if we are planing to tank again BScott will be retained. In my mind this is the only reason to retain him. After next years draft i believe you will see the changes we are all clamoring for.
In the mean time its gonna be a long year next year with more growing pains.
Clay Bertrand says
Anon#1,
I harken back to a couple of days ago and a curious statement in Mitch’s exit interview where he said something like he hopes to be able to convince the “decision makers” (his words) to spend prudently this offseason and not spend just to spend and lock the team into mediocrity for the next 5 years (paraphrased).
“The stink of the last three years is all over Mitch. Whether he stood idly by while Jim made one poor decision after another, was ignored altogether or acquiesced willingly makes no difference.”
_________
If you TRULY believe that, then why on earth would you even want him around in any capacity at all???? It seems as though you’ve shot Mitch down across the board here: If he stood by Idly, he stinks; If he agreed with the moves, he stinks; EVEN If he totally disagreed and had a better plan but was ignored by JIM BUSS he STILL stinks!?!?!?!!?
Yet you still want him around as a Senior Consultant and think that would be a ‘smart’ decision by the Buss kids???????
A bit of a head scratcher there brother.
I agree with where you arrived but it’s a little fuzzy how you got there. Mitch is a basketball professional. Mitch didn’t hire JIM to work ABOVE him as his organizational higher up and co basketball mind. Mitch didn’t give a ridiculously unrealistic 3 year deadline to be competitive.
Frankly, there is enough stink to cover the whole organization the last few years. But IMO, it hasn’t been emanating from Mitch Kupchak. IF he himself is a problem at all, he is the very very LEAST of the Lakers problems IMO.
Tom Daniels says
It is amazing how many people here know so much about what is going on behind the scenes in Lakers front office. All we have heard is rumors and speculation.
After two multi-title runs, a rebuilding era was inevitable. By swinging for the fences with the Howard/Nash deals the Lakers ended up extending theirs, and making it worse. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth trying. (And whoever called Nash “injury prone” – the dude was incredibly healthy over his long career until the freak injury that doomed his Laker years)
So now they suck and have to build from scratch with new NBA rules that make it harder to do it all at once. That is what is going on. And all of the front office soap opera – if it is even happening – is not the cause of a team rebuilding from zero assets being crappy.
Robert says
Clay: “I think you are saying you favor a full overhaul including getting rid of Mitch. Not sure if you meant that or not.” Yes I did. I want a house cleaning as I have said many times. Mitch is the least guilty of the group – true, however a fresh start is needed. Now that said:
“Mitch didn’t give a ridiculously unrealistic 3 year deadline” No he did not. I am “OK” with keeping Mitch as long as the guy who did make the pledge is gone (out of Ops). This would not be as good as the house cleaning but it would be second best. And please do not use Jeanie (as some do) to defend Jim. I am not “Pro Jeanie”. She is just the lesser of the evils, because she is not involved in Ops (and if she needs to get involved to win this proxy fight – I am OK with that – after she wins – she needs to back out again).
I know that some find the FO convo tiring, but right now, other than the ping pong balls, it is (IMO) the relevant convo. Talking about Byron without the “context” of Jim’s deadline and the Jim/Jeanie feud is not looking at the complete picture. The dream of firing Byron, hiring Luke, winning the lottery, having Jeanie pardon Jim, and then us becoming the Lakers again might sound good – but it is simply not happening. And what I am most worried about is a couple of those items happening and the last one not happening.
Mid-Wilshire says
I’m not sure that I see the FO Office discussion as being necessarily “relevant.” If anything, it strikes me as being a bit hypothetical.
It’s similar to discussing metaphysics in a philosophy class. It’s very difficult to relate it to reality. You see, the reality is that Jim Buss, in the immediate future, is not going to step down. Jeanie Buss will not exit the picture. Mitch is not going to be fired. And the Buss kids are not going to sell the team. None of this will happen.
It’s a pipe-dream, perhaps, and a monomania that verges on neurosis in the minds of some commenters. But it’s very far from reality.
The one realistic option, however, is the possible firing of Byron Scott. Now that actually could happen. That is worth discussing.
Any discourse on the FO is plowing over ground that has already been tilled a hundred times. And that ground is fallow. It’s a discussion that will yield nothing.
Discussions about the Head Coach, Free Agents, and the upcoming Draft — now those are real. We should dive into those issues. But wrangling over the FO (over and over again) is fruitless.
You might as well be talking about castles in the sky.
Anon#1 says
Clay — I think the evidence falls more on the side that Jim and Mitch are deemed partners in crime. Those are harsh words for me to say — he was the one individual, since JW left, that I had faith in.
I guess part of me wants to look the other way and give Mitch a break. It can’t be easy working for the owner’s son — especially when his qualifications are so thin. I had heard that Mitch favored Adelman over Brown and was over ruled. I wish there were more instances that leaked out about him standing up to Jim.
Bottom line — I think the Lakers are long over due for some fresh leadership perspective.
harold says
1. Let’s not forget that lots have changed since Mitch was last successful. League has changed, scouts were let go, analytics got better, West is gone, Buss is gone, Kobe is gone, and a host of other small things have changed. Chances are he is no longer the best GM for the job.
2. Same goes with Byron. He never really had the kind of acumen nor the rapport with his players that makes a great coach. All he did was pander to the most powerful Laker on the team. Now that Kobe’s gone, it will be interesting to see if he can get any sort of buy in from the players, especially as the focus shifts to those that were in his doghouse.
3. Buss-es: unfortunately, unless they sell, which is not happening, nothing will change here. The best we can hope for is that they hire a great GM and enable him/her.
4. We will see a WHOLE lot of Kobe-was-cancer type of articles next season, especially if we have anything close to a decent year with 40 wins. That’s like 2.5 times the win total of this year; if the team manages it under Byron with mostly this year’s cast…
rr says
None of this will happen.
—
Probably not, but you don’t know that for sure. Also, none of the other topics that you prefer are completely real right now, either:
1. The Lakers may not keep the lottery pick, and if they do, we don’t know whether it will be 1, 2 or 3.
2. We have no idea which FAs the Lakers will go after nor which ones might actually want to play here. You can post 20 more times saying that you want Whiteside and that you really like Tarik Black and want him to play more, but there is no guarantee either one will be on the team next year.
3. Scott is still the coach. If he does get fired, we don’t know who the Lakers will interview or which coaches might want to come here.
So, this basically comes down to your expressing a personal preference, which is that you are tired of people talking about the FO. That’s OK, but at the same time, all the regulars here repeat ourselves, none of us has any actual power over the Lakers and what they do, and I am personally tired of some topics here as well, notably additional repetitions of Byron Scott’s numerous shortcomings as a coach.
So, you might be better off talking about topics that interest you and ignoring those that don’t.
rr says
Kupchak: I think three patterns emerge from his track record:
1. His drafting record and his judgment on trading for young talent is mostly good:
Bynum, Farmar, Walton, Ariza and Shannon Brown all helped the Finals teams. Brian Cook had a career. The current guys—Russell, Randle, Clarkson, Nance, Black and maybe even Anthony Brown—all have positives.
2. Until December of 2011, his big moves all worked. Since then, none of them has:
Keeping Kobe over Shaq and getting Odom over Shaq set the stage for 2008-11. They org. brought Phil back, and then topped it off with the Pau trade. But since then we have seen the Veto, the Nash deal, Howard’s ugly season here, Kobe’s extension, and three questionable-to-bad coaching hires. Kobe’s deal met its business objectives, but unless you are a Stealth Tank Believer, it failed on the floor.
3. He has a very spotty track record when it comes to bargain-hunting and adding veterans. The 2002-2004 and 2012-2013 teams had weak back ends of the roster: Some names: Mitch Richmond, Samaki Walker, Kareem Rush, Slava Medvedenko, Jason Kapono, Troy Murphy, Darius Morris, Chris Duhon, Devin Ebanks, Antawn Jamison. Every NBA team has some weak players, but almost all of these guys looked questionable at the time and wound up playing more than they should have.
Since 2012, the Lakers have gone bargain-shopping a lot, picking up journeymen from Ramon Sessions to Lou Williams. Some of these moves seemed reasonable at the time; others, like the Nick Young and Lou Williams deals, seemed problematic at the time and mostly have not helped the team.
We don’t really know who has final say and how active Jim is day-to-day. I think the answers are “Jim” and “very” myself, but ultimately I don’t know. Weighing everything that I can see, I think the best role for Kupchak at this point is probably elder statesman/respected and listened-to consultant.
TempleOfJamesWorthy says
What I would LIKE to believe is Bryon Scott hasn’t been fired yet because the Lakers are “keeping their powder dry.” It’s a principle of sports team management that you don’t fire the guy you have until you know who you are going to get that you’re reasonably sure will be better.
If the Lakers fire B.Scott now, before some of their draft/roster uncertainties have been resolved, it may limit their options and leverage, because worthwhile candidates may balk to join the current uncertain circumstances.
And, if things go really badly (esp. the Lakers give up their 2016 pick), then maybe keeping B. Scott one more year isn’t the worst outcome. Given how talent-thin the Lakers will be next year, what would be the point of bringing in a top-notch coach? The hypothetical uber-coach would be expensive, would worsen the Lakers’ draft position in 2017, and would waste a year on his coaching clock (every coach eventually wears out his welcome, unless it’s Jerry Sloan or Greg Popovich) on a going-nowhere team.
I’d RATHER the Lakers let Scott go, but I can understand there might be scenarios where replacing him doesn’t move the needle enough to matter.
If the rumors about Jeannie allegedly wanting to keep Scott another year so she can bring Phil back next year are true….well, the Lakers deserve all the awfulness that scenario will probably generate. The team has undeniably been hamstrung by Kobe’s three-year retirement sendoff, and arguably hamstrung by the front office structure (designated by the late Jerry Buss, I must note). But if Jeannie is going to conflate her personal wishes with what’s best for the Lakers, that’s not good (I have energetically argued Kobe has been guilty of just that issue). So, let’s hope the rumors are not true.
Alex says
The Buss family will not be selling the Lakers, so they stay. Mitch is indeed still sharp (to @J C’s point, above), has continued to make the right calls with the draft, and selecting talent. Who’s proven better out there, short of Jerry West? Especially can’t afford GM rooks now. Mitch stays. Now, here is the balancing act. Let’s say the team has decided to fire Byron. And I believe it has, as @DonFord nails it, above. When do you do it? and what do you say about Byron now? They care about Byron and want a humane exit that allows him to get employed again. They don’t want to throw him to the wolves. So, instead of a 3-days-after-Kobes’s-60 firing, it becomes dependent on this summer’s haul – pick and max vets. If it’s useful as a recruiting tool for a KD-type player, they cash in the option and replace Byron. if not they can still pick a coach that fits best the mix. The PR: “we thank Byron, but coach X is best fit for new superstar and roster”. But if the Lakers strike out again with picks and FA’s *and* top coaches, a possibility probably on their mind, it may make sense to keep Byron for continuity, maybe bring in some new helpful assistants and execute again in 2017.
Clay Bertrand says
Tom Daniels,
Excellent realist post. I agree 100%. Its the natural course of things to be down at some point. We extended our down period believing in a once in a lifetime player and making moves to let him and the team contend. It was going for one more championship run because we still had the superstar vets to possibly pull it off. Freak injuries ruined that vision and turned traded away picks in the 20s into traded away lottery selections.
SO here we are to rebuild in a NBA CBA world much different from the one we once ruled. They didn’t PHILLY TANK, and its not some secret Stealth Tank conspiracy plan— but face it, they purposely didn’t build a team or hire a top quality coach to not have a shot at the playoffs (regardless of what they TOLD the public). They signed KOBE to intoxicate and placate the ignorant masses and block the clear view of the embryonic rebuild that HAS to take place. Now hindsight informs every critic that these were terribly ill advised moves by unqualified and incompetent FO management. I don’t see it that way.
No one turns it around in ONE YEAR or THREE. The fact that we even got meetings with half the FAs we pursued is borderline miraculous. We are void of talent and guys want to play with OTHER good guys if they can. Even Shaq came to a decent Laker team that wasn’t full of one and done’s in their first and second years. Rookies in the 90s when Shaq did come generally came into the game at a more mature age and with more polish than today.
Mid-Wilshire, Your post is EXACTLY been my point in here in this thread. The only thing that can immediately move the needle that is realistic and 100% within Lakers control is a coaching change. The FO talk is the most speculative of all topics because its the least public and the biggest unknown. They are NOT selling the team and they are NOT firing themselves any time soon. Just like Lebron isn’t coming here.
As far as tired topics, there are always gonna be pulverized horses around here especially when we are mired in the off season doldrums with a dearth of basketball activity to spawn new talking points.
Mid-Wilshire says
According to Marc Berman of the New York Post (via Harrison Faigen of Silver Screen and roll), Luke Walton has been given permission by Golden State to interview for Head Coaching positions. Apparently, Luke has already spoken with the Knicks and the Nets but is a long ways from making up his mind. Below is an excerpt of Harrison Faigen’s article (Faigen quotes Berman at length):
“according to Marc Berman of the New York Post.
‘However, it’s not a done deal Walton accepts the Knicks job, or any head coaching job at all:
‘A league source said Walton could stay with the Warriors another season, and he isn’t close to deciding what to do.
‘”It’s going to be a long, deliberate process,” the source said.
‘Jackson said Thursday he would conduct a narrow coaching search confined to people he knows. Walton â?? who played in Los Angeles from 2003-11, when he won two titles and played in four NBA Finals â?? is considered to have been one of Jackson’s favorite players with the Lakers.
‘Walton is considered a long shot to want the Knicks job as he is a West Coast product, having grown up in Southern California and played at Arizona. But a source said he is considering it because of the “uniqueness” of working for Jackson.'”
Faigen then resumes his commentary:
“The Warriors may be giving Walton permission to interview for jobs during their (likely extended) playoff run, but he most likely won’t accept such a job until closer to the end of the postseason. The Lakers may just keep Scott and render all of this moot, but if they delay the process much longer, they may miss out on one of the offseason’s top coaching options.”
Clay Bertrand says
Mid-Wilshire,
Interesting. I can’t see Luke going to NY. Seems he himself feels he may not be ready to make the HC leap anywhere at this time. If the Lakers are going to make a change, I sure hope their seemingly lax approach doesn’t foreclose them getting someone good.
Altemawa says
i’m not so sure why some of you guys want Jeanie to step down, I mean she’s a Buss and represents this team as a true Laker. i read the articles and they seem to be baiting to hate more on the management, and not look on the reasons why people are still on our team. it is not yet time to fire BS, we have few months/days to decide.
the drama added on the influence of Jeanie in basketball ops is not helping, although it makes us Lakers newsworthy.
If anyone needs changing, it will only be coach Scott for doing a masterful job of tanking for 2 straight years, and Jim because he said he will let others do the job if he’s not effective.
Mitch has done good if not better job on positioning our team to compete the past years, it just happened to backfire because of unforeseen basketball reasons.
anyways, my take if to hire a new coach, I heard Brooks is open for the job and could help us luring KD or Westbrook…
Walton is also a good fit since he’s a Laker. we also saw what he can do to a stacked lineup, and has been on a team on a tear, he knows how to coach.
rr says
But for the sake of argument I was considering some of the reasons a Jim Buss could use to justify asking for more time to show progress, and the list is actually fairly compelling.
The Veto
Julius Randle’s broken leg
Steve Nash’s nerve damage
Kobe’s Achilles tear and subsequent shoulder injury
Dwight Howard’s bizarre non-personality
Kobe return from injury and Farewell Tour
———————-
One problem with this is that all of these things except for the first two relate directly or indirectly to decisions that the Jim Buss FO made, and that Randle’s injury really didn’t hurt the team that much—you can even argue that it helped, since you can argue it helped to set up the team to draft second. It may have hurt his development arc, but I kind of doubt it. The other problem is that this list leaves out a bunch of other stuff that is directly on the FO.
The argument for keeping the FO guys and giving them more time is simple and hasn’t changed in three years:
1. The organization went all-in and then doubled and tripled down trying to get one more run for Jerry Buss and Kobe. That was totally understandable if perhaps unwise in some respects.
2. The Veto. Some people like to bash Chris Paul, in part because the Clippers are not a likable team and in part because of the playoff losses, but Paul remains an outstanding player, has been outstanding the entire time that he has been with the Clippers, and is one of the best PGs ever. The Lakers still have not recovered from it.
Anonymous says
1. Byron has no coaching future so let’s get that off the table now.
2. Agree that a decision on Byron is delayed until after the draft and free agency. If the Lakers strike out in both — next season will indeed be ‘Tank Part 4’ and they’ll need Byron to lead the way.
3. If they get a top pick, Barnes and Whiteside then BS is out. In that situation, even Luke would have to take a long look at the position.
Anonymous says
I don’t see Luke going to the Knicks. Melo is on his biological clock and that would put immediate pressure on any coach to win now. Even in the east the Knicks are hard pressed to really compete.
Should the Lakers add a top pick, Barnes and Whiteside their ceiling would still be only an 8th seed next year. The pressure would be far less years 1 & 2 and the long term upside would be far greater with the Lakers.
rr says
Brooklyn has hired Kenny Atkinson.
Kbj says
The Nets look more competent already. Amazing what a change in F.O can do.
Chris J says
@Tom Daniels — I was the one who called Nash injury prone at the time the Lakers dealt for him, and I stand by that. He missed a quarter of the season the year prior, and that was with the Suns’ amazing medical team. He was a tough guy, but he’d play through chronic back issues for several seasons. By his late 30s, something was going to give and four picks was a foolish move. Even if Nash had been healthy, adding him wasn’t going to help slow down the youngsters like Westbrook or Curry or Paul — all of whom would have loomed come playoff time.
@LT Mitchell — Good points about the down years, but keep in mind Mitch flipped Cook for Ariza; Kwame for Pau; and Luke to get Sessions, whom many held in high regard as the answer for PG. He even flipped Fish’s corpse for a productive player in Hill. You have to have some lemons to deal to make the eventual lemonade, no?
matt says
The fans deserve a new coach.
LordMo says
Stealth Tanking?
Nope! With the record we had the “cat is out of the bag!”
We tanked and will likely go for the tank again in 2017.
The Lakers are free-falling…
Like I have posted before… A modern day “King Lear” story is playing out before our eyes.
T. Rogers says
Here’s the thing. At the start of last season Buss stated that the Lakers had “turned a corner”. Mitch stated that he expected to the team to be fighting for a playoff spot. Put those statements together and the guys up top expected the Lakers to be in the 38 to 42 win range. Fighting for a playoff spot in the West means winning about 40 games, give or take.
Instead the Lakers, with no major injuries this season, won 17 games. They were worse this year than last year. In fact, they had the worst record in franchise history. And this was after the GM and president of basketball opps publicly stated they had much higher expectations.
So either the FO guys are terrible judges of team potential. Or Byron is a horrible coach. Maybe both are true. Either way going into next season with the same three people running the team makes no logical sense.
Lou says
T. – ‘So either the FO guys are terrible judges of team potential. Or Byron is a horrible coach. Maybe both are true. Either way going into next season with the same three people running the team makes no logical sense.’
You the nail on the head. 3 bad coaches in a row. They need to hire someone to hire a coach and build a wall between the running of the team and the family. The chances of that happening are slim.
Anonymous says
Random memories from Jeanie’s interviews:
– She was totally on board with giving Kobe that huge contract.
– She wanted to give Kobe another ring.
– She was a huge Nick Young fan when he was re-signed.
Anonymous says
Perhaps the closest we can get to that (nice names too) is Jeanie Buss, Phil Jackson, Ryan West, Next Laker Legendary Coach. Let’s do it.
____
Jeanie: See above.
Phil: Not a great track record as a GM. Plus Jerry Buss didn’t want him to have influence.
Ryan West: Has less experience in basketball operations than Jim Buss. Both guys had successful fathers, though.
Next coach: The last one you were pushing for was Byron. Was he the best teacher for young players we could have gotten?
Dom says
According to most coaches in the NBA Bret Brown is a really good coach but hes with Philly. At the end of the day do ypou really expect the Lakers to pull a Hinke and say to the fan base “look we suck, we made a few gambles that havent paid off, so now we are gonna give you a lousy product, now please come buy our product”. Of course not as a matter of fact other than the 76ers what team in any sport says at the beginning of the year we are gonna suck. Right now the Cleveland Browns are telling their season ticket holders we are gonna make the playoffs. We are fans, merely dollar signs to the owners and players. They want us to buy them, not one of them is going to say its anything but championship or bust. The only reason to hire a coach would be to begin to implement his system but, what if the system works too soon? You have the Portland Trailblazers, making the playoffs getting crappy draft picks and making the playoff but never really contending. Tank you very much. 2017 tankenstein. Tanks for the memories, Tanke Schoen, tank by any means necessary. Get that 2017 top 3 pick to go along with the this years and the nucleus. Then hire a coach and build your culture
Warren Wee Lim says
Mitch has been good at his job. It would be foolish to let him go when he has gravitas around the league.
The Buss children own this thing until they decide they won’t. So them stepping down, selling or something like that is not happening.
Scott is gone. Too much PR hit to keep him. Walton should be our next coach. Scott Brooks is a decent 2nd choice although I would really like to dis-associate my next coach form the last one since we already did the Mike-and-Mike before. Lets not do Byron-Scott-Brooks this time.
For those complaining about the owners, you’ll have better luck rooting for a different team.
Baylor Fan says
Have the Trailblazers? Yes, please. An owner whose football team recently won a Superbowl and knows how to stay clear of the day to day operations. A GM who has a strong track record of finding gems in the draft without needing a top 3 pick and works with the coach to build the team. A respected coach who understands how to win in today’s NBA. They are in the playoffs because of the pride and talent of their players. The players decided that they would work hard and make the playoffs and not make excuses about not having enough talent. Wouldn’t you be pumped up if next season the young Lakers made a similar decision? In addition, Kupchak is already beating the Lakers have too many young players drum. Is he really willing to continue to build from the draft going forward?
matt says
I think if we keep the pick everyone agrees byrons services are done and he should be fired, if we don’t keep the pick maybe we keep byron on and 2017 pick would end up at least top 5.
My opinion is fire him no matter what, the players obviously are not playing well under his coaching, the fan base would love it, it’s not like we would be set back because of them learning a new system.
Anonymous says
really want to read these comments on the day the Lakers announce they are retaining scott
LT Mitchell says
I don’t get this infatuation with Luke. While he did a fine job this season with subbing and calling timeouts, all the real work was done by Kerr the previous season.
It was Kerr who tweaked the already potent offensive with new sets, while preaching more ball movement. It was Kerr who implemented a new defense, and made it a priority. It was Kerr who kept Draymond in the starting lineup even after David Lee returned (seems like an obvious decision now, but it was a bit controversial at the time). It was Kerr who decided to utilize Draymond at center, creating one of the most potent small lineups ever, and have Iguadala come off the bench.
Luke took over a well oiled machine. His reputation as a coach has skyrocked by riding on Kerr’s coattails (similar to his playing days when he rode Kobe’s coattails to an undeserving extension). Luke may turn into a good head coach some day, but he has not done enough to enough in my book to be considered a strong coaching candidate for the Lakers, especially for a rebuilding team.
R says
According to report(s) Luke not interested in Knicks HC job.
Which seems very smart, all things considered.
Mid-Wilshire says
Below is a link to a recent article by David Murphy of Bleacher Report detailing 5 key priorities for the Lakers this off season. No surprises here. But it’s a nice summary of what the Lakers have to do to get to the next level.
Here’s the link:
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2633564-top-2016-offseason-priorities-for-the-los-angeles-lakers
Clay Bertrand says
Just to clarify…….
Anonymous @ *;26pm April 17,
“Agree that a decision on Byron is delayed until after the draft and free agency.”
Some people both inside and outside (looking at YOU Don Maclean) of this forum are making flawed and misleading comments about how to the Lakers should handle their coaching situation. A number of people have this clever WAIT AND SEE approach where we see who we draft or who we sign AND THEN decide who to coach the team.
That plan is totally logical. It’s perfect. It’s PEACHY. Its just that its literally IMPOSSIBLE to do that. Here’s why:
Lottery Draw: May 17
Contractual Deadline Day to Notify Scott of his Retention as Coach : JUNE 1 !!
NBA Draft: June 23
NBA Free Agency Negotiations but NO SIGNING: July 1
NBA Signing Period Begins: July 6 (reportedly shortened from original date of July 9)
SO as can be clearly seen by the above official dates involved here, the Lakers are contractually required to make a decision on whether to retain Byron Scott BY JUNE 1 meaning that this decision MUST PRECEDE: The Draft, FA Negotiations Period/Moratorium, AND the FA Signing Period—–by AT LEAST 3 WEEKS!
The Lakers simply cannot wait to see how their roster shakes out before making a coaching decision because they are required to make that decision BEFORE the other roster related dates and events unfold.
Will Byron be sitting to witness the Draft Lottery as the Lakers’ representative on May 17??? Will the Lakers make a decision before that date as they perhaps SHOULD so as to not lose out on available coaches??? Will NO decision be made by May 17 and we oddly see Jeanie or Jesse Buss as the team representative???
Absent a coaching move before that May 17 Lottery Drawing, I have it pegged as a day to pay close attention to WHO is there and what that might indicate as far as the coach of the Lakers next season.
SO much for letting a STAR FA dictate his coaching preference.
T. Rogers says
LT,
I think part of Luke’s allure is the culture he would help create. The belief is he would bring in some new ideas from his stint in the Bay. I tend to think Kerr’s changes where spearheaded by him with heavy input from his staff. Luke was part of that. Does that mean he will be a good head coach? Who knows. But we already know that Bryon isn’t. I’d roll the dice with Luke in heartbeat.
This team desperately needs some fresh thinking.
R says
How the coaching transition plays out or whether it happens at all this off season may provide new insights into the functionality or dysfunctionality of Lakers ownership. It may either dispel or confirm dark suspicions some of us may harbour ….
Anonymous says
Clay, coaching contracts can be bought out & fired. It’ll cost more money, but it’s not as if there’s nothing that can be done about it.
Dom says
In truth Mark Jackson created the philosophy of the Dubs not Kerr, Kerr inherited a championship team and gave Jackson his due for developing the team work ethic etc. In Jacksons first season 11-12 the Dubs were 23-43. in 12-13 they were 47-35, in 13-14 they were 51-31. Jackson rubbed the FA the wrong way but he developed a culture, and showed marked improvement as the players grew within his system. Kerr did tweak the system and won the championship but he did not coach the culture or install the philosophy.
Luke did a fine job with Kerr babysitting him while he baby sat the team but that doesnt qualify him as a candidate for this kind of rebuild. Id like to add Jackson to the pool given his success rebuilding the Dubs.
Clay Bertrand says
Darius, (New Topic Idea for you here) — Can you PLEASE put this issue to rest and keep people from perpetuating BS about BS and his coaching situation. People do not know the operative NBA business dates and how they relate to Byron’s contract retention notification date. As a result, all kinds of false assumptions are being made and debated.
Please inform the forum OFFICIALLY so that people can have a realistic idea of how things must unfold if they “unfold” at all.
Case in point from some OTHER site:
http://www.silverscreenandroll.com/2016/4/18/11448136/la-lakers-free-agency-rumors-draft-lottery-odds
Here is one problematic quote from that article:
“Because LA did not attract any free agents, the Lakers decide to play out another year of Scott’s contract in hopes that he will better manage the young players.” WRONG!!!!!
The dynamic at play here has to be explained to people to keep the BS from flowing. Lord knows we all provide enough of it around here!!! ; )
Darius Soriano says
RE Mark Jackson, one reason I will never support him being hired as a Lakers’ coach is due to a report Zach Lowe published in the aftermath of the Warriors winning the championship last year:
Any coach who would pull such a maneuver is beyond suspect in my opinion. In fact, toxic is a more apt descriptor to me. I have no reasons to doubt Lowe’s report and have heard from people who report on the Warriors it is true.
Yes, he helped turn around the culture of the Warriors. He should be credited for that and has been repeatedly. But the way he worked behind the scenes…I’m not for that at all. Not with a young team.
I’d also argue that Kerr did more than just take what Jackson did and “tweak” it. Kerr installed a totally new offense and brought a level of fun and charisma to the team which has elevated them to the juggernaut they are today. I’d also add that taking a team from bad to good (or even very good) is less difficult than taking them from very good to championship level or historically great as these Warriors are under Kerr.
The Lakers are not close to being good yet, but I’d prefer Jackson is not the person to try and take them up the ladder from bad to good.
Clay Bertrand says
Anonymous,
Good point. I Totally Agree and I technically misspoke saying it was impossible to deal with FAs and THEN hire a coach. Coaches can certainly be bought out and fired etc. Its just that I cannot see the Lakers doing Byron Scott, “one of their own” in that fashion. (Although if its for the right FA, I doubt many tears are shed.)
The scenario you are implying could happen is that the Lakers TELL BYRON he will be the Coach on or before June 1. THEN they go and Fire Him/Buy Him Out a month later because Kevin Durant wants Scott Brooks for example or the Newly Acquired Boogie Cousins DEMANDS George Karl…….(c’mon its a joke!!!).
I know the FO called Phil at Midnight. I know the FO Fired Mike B. a handful of games into the season. But this public screw job of Byron Scott would be on a higher level — a terribly disrespectful way to treat a former Laker. Especially one for which some FO people apparently still have an affinity. Now he would still get paid, but dollars are not what we are talking about. Them publicly retaining Byron only to fire him weeks later because a FA DOES NOT want to play for him is certainly possible. But I’d say unlikely.
So again my bad. I misspoke when I said its “impossible” to have roster dictate the coaching. I should have said HIGHLY UNLIKELY as I would be very (pleasantly but still VERY) surprised if it happened like this.
PS: AMEN DARIUS!!! NO MARK JACKSON FOR ME!!!! That guy is bad news. Arrogant and Preachy as hell too!!!! He’s Byron Scott with a Bible (no disrespect to religion or Christianity). That EZELI incident is unbelievably evil.
Mid-Wilshire says
Off-topic, Kelly Dwyer of Yahoo Sports reports that Kawhi Leonard has repeated as Defensive Player of the Year with Draymond Green coming in 2nd once again.
Interestingly, the number 3 choice for DPoY was Hassan Whiteside. Here’s the link:
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/blogs/nba-ball-dont-lie/kawhi-leonard-wins-second-consecutive-defensive-player-of-the-year-141924399.html
Dom says
Zack Lowe reported what he did with the all familiar unnamed sources however the Bubs players and Kerr did credit Jackson. I tend to go with what the players and Kerr said rather than unnamed sources within the organization. Offensively yes i agree they have flourished under Kerr but it was Jackson who installed the defense, motivated and developed the players not Kerr.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2271582-how-the-golden-state-warriors-offense-has-evolved-under-steve-kerr by Adam Fromal
Vasheed says
I really want Scott to go. I think he is just a cancer on the team. After reading Darius comments on Mark Jackson I’d say ditto for him.
Luke Walton seems like the perfect choice if you want a total youth movement. He has the pedigree of being a former Laker which does mean something in Lakerland. But he was known as a smart player which bodes well for him as a coach. He learned how to run a team in today’s most highly acclaimed system in the Warriors. As far as young coaches go I don’t think you could ask for much more.
If we consider more experiences coaches I think there is a lot of room for debate. However, as the Lakers are constructed right now I would favor a young coach. My opinion might change if I knew what the Lakers planned to do in free agency.
Darius Soriano says
Dom,
Ask Andrew Bogut what he thinks of Mark Jackson.
And, again, I know the players liked Jackson. I know Curry, especially, liked him. That’s important, of course, and no one is downplaying that.
As an aside, as someone who has dealt with people behind the scenes from NBA teams, I understand unnamed sources and why things work that way. Sometimes people do not want their name attached to a report. That doesn’t make it less true. On the flip side, people who say things on the record, it doesn’t always mean those things *are* true.
Renato Afonso says
I’m with Darius on this one. What Mark Jackson did to locker rooms when he was a player and then as a coach is too important to simply ignore. Remember that he was the guy trying to turn a team against John Stockton when he was the backup PG in Utah.
People should also remember that he was imposing his religion on his players when he was with the Warriors. A coach should never do that. And this is before checking his X’s and O’s or going in depth with the firing of assistant coaches, namely Brian Scalabrine. To me, he is the worst possible hire for the Lakers. I would rather go through another year of Byron Scott than see Mark Jackson coach the Lakers.
Note: While Phil Jackson was a buddhist (or followed some buddhist beliefs and rituals) he mostly taught players to meditate and clear their minds, which is really not comparable to what Mark Jackson did as a coach. People should check what Doc Rivers did as a coach in Orlando to properly understand the need to separate things.
R says
I’m with Renato in that I’d actually prefer BS to Mark Jackson, which is really saying something. Jackson’s all around behavior is pretty appalling; amply documented here in FB&G.
Hard to believe there’s even more – but since I like posting here I’m not going there.
A Horse With No Name says
Late to the party: I can say with the up-most certainty that Mark Jackson will never even be considered for hire by Lakers–or likely any other NBA franchise for a head coaching gig.That’s how badly damaged his reputation is now. That’s from people I work with who know Warrior ownership personally. Nobody here should sweat it. (I posted these thoughts many months ago when we had a similar discussion in here.)
Clay Bertrand says
A Horse With No Name,
“I can say with the up-most certainty that Mark Jackson will never even be considered for hire by Lakers–or likely any other NBA franchise for a head coaching gig.”
_______________________________
Never say “never”. Somehow, Jackson is interviewing in Minnesota and Sacramento for a head coaching gig. Go figure. Certainly NOT my choice but who can argue with the esteemed team building moxy of…..VLADE???