duncan228
04-07-2009, 06:33 PM
Seemed timely.
SI.com Roundtable (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/basketball/nba/04/07/roundtable/index.html)
4. The Clippers' Mike Dunleavy has suffered a rough transition from holding the title of coach to holding the title of coach/GM. Clearly, he isn't the first to struggle. Is there a benefit to holding both positions or are teams better served with a separate GM and a separate coach?
Ian Thomsen: Gregg Popovich has both roles in San Antonio, but, in fact, the daily management of the franchise -- including the scouting and trade talks -- is handled by president/GM R.C. Buford, who is among the league's top executives. This kind of situation can only work in a stable environment in which both the coach and his GM are good at what they do and they're able to share responsibility while maintaining respect for one another. A lot of the coaches and GMs in this league are incapable of that kind of relationship. In other words, the coach and GM need to develop a nuanced understanding between them -- and if that kind of understanding is beyond them, then the franchise should revert to the traditional model in which the coach works for the GM and the roles of each job are defined simply in black-and-white terms.
Jack McCallum: In this day and age, there is absolutely, positively no advantage to holding both positions. Think of the most successful franchises over the last few years: Popovich has Buford in San Antonio. Coach Phil Jackson has GM Mitch Kupchak with the Lakers. Coach Doc Rivers has GM Danny Ainge in Boston. Coach Rick Carlisle has GM Donn Nelson in Dallas (as well as an owner sometimes inclined to voice his opinion). Coach (Whoever It Is -- This Year It's Michael Curry) has GM Joe Dumars in Detroit.
There are many, many reasons -- attention to the salary cap and European scouting are two of them -- why the split is necessary, but this is the big one: Everybody needs somebody to argue with. If the only one you have to sell a personnel idea to is yourself, your franchise is in trouble, particularly if your owner is figuratively out to lunch, as is the case in Clipper Land. And don't talk to me about Red Auerbach, who did everything but put the mustard on the hot dogs when he coached and ran the Celtics. These are more complicated times.
Chris Mannix: There is a benefit if the coach/GM knows what he is talking about. The model for the coach/GM is in San Antonio, where Popovich has done a masterful job manning both positions for the last 15 years. But the key to Pop's success has been his ability to bring in smart basketball minds to work under him. On the bench, Popovich had Mike Brown, P.J. Carlesimo and now Mike Budenholzer. In the front office, he had Danny Ferry, Sam Presti and still has Buford. These men are brilliant basketball minds, which is reinforced by the fact that many of them now run franchises of their own. Popovich still has the final say on everything, but his burden is eased knowing that he has competent people working under him. And that's rarely the case.
Steve Aschburner: The only time it works to have one guy wearing both head coach and GM hats is when that guy has proved himself on the sideline first. Like Popovich and, er, Popovich. It's fairly clear that no one ends up on the Spurs' roster whom Pop doesn't want or see a proper use for. It seems to work that way in Utah with Jerry Sloan, even if Kevin O'Connor has the actual roster responsibilities. Generally, though, I say keep the jobs separate. Winning tonight is not the same mission as building a long-term contender, and if the team president isn't capable of distinguishing and evaluating the two people holding those jobs, then he or she should be the one facing extreme evaluation.
That said, I'm having a hard time thinking of examples where an outstanding coach survives two or three underperforming GMs. When GMs finally fall, they usually land on one, two or more of their fired coaches.
SI.com Roundtable (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/basketball/nba/04/07/roundtable/index.html)
4. The Clippers' Mike Dunleavy has suffered a rough transition from holding the title of coach to holding the title of coach/GM. Clearly, he isn't the first to struggle. Is there a benefit to holding both positions or are teams better served with a separate GM and a separate coach?
Ian Thomsen: Gregg Popovich has both roles in San Antonio, but, in fact, the daily management of the franchise -- including the scouting and trade talks -- is handled by president/GM R.C. Buford, who is among the league's top executives. This kind of situation can only work in a stable environment in which both the coach and his GM are good at what they do and they're able to share responsibility while maintaining respect for one another. A lot of the coaches and GMs in this league are incapable of that kind of relationship. In other words, the coach and GM need to develop a nuanced understanding between them -- and if that kind of understanding is beyond them, then the franchise should revert to the traditional model in which the coach works for the GM and the roles of each job are defined simply in black-and-white terms.
Jack McCallum: In this day and age, there is absolutely, positively no advantage to holding both positions. Think of the most successful franchises over the last few years: Popovich has Buford in San Antonio. Coach Phil Jackson has GM Mitch Kupchak with the Lakers. Coach Doc Rivers has GM Danny Ainge in Boston. Coach Rick Carlisle has GM Donn Nelson in Dallas (as well as an owner sometimes inclined to voice his opinion). Coach (Whoever It Is -- This Year It's Michael Curry) has GM Joe Dumars in Detroit.
There are many, many reasons -- attention to the salary cap and European scouting are two of them -- why the split is necessary, but this is the big one: Everybody needs somebody to argue with. If the only one you have to sell a personnel idea to is yourself, your franchise is in trouble, particularly if your owner is figuratively out to lunch, as is the case in Clipper Land. And don't talk to me about Red Auerbach, who did everything but put the mustard on the hot dogs when he coached and ran the Celtics. These are more complicated times.
Chris Mannix: There is a benefit if the coach/GM knows what he is talking about. The model for the coach/GM is in San Antonio, where Popovich has done a masterful job manning both positions for the last 15 years. But the key to Pop's success has been his ability to bring in smart basketball minds to work under him. On the bench, Popovich had Mike Brown, P.J. Carlesimo and now Mike Budenholzer. In the front office, he had Danny Ferry, Sam Presti and still has Buford. These men are brilliant basketball minds, which is reinforced by the fact that many of them now run franchises of their own. Popovich still has the final say on everything, but his burden is eased knowing that he has competent people working under him. And that's rarely the case.
Steve Aschburner: The only time it works to have one guy wearing both head coach and GM hats is when that guy has proved himself on the sideline first. Like Popovich and, er, Popovich. It's fairly clear that no one ends up on the Spurs' roster whom Pop doesn't want or see a proper use for. It seems to work that way in Utah with Jerry Sloan, even if Kevin O'Connor has the actual roster responsibilities. Generally, though, I say keep the jobs separate. Winning tonight is not the same mission as building a long-term contender, and if the team president isn't capable of distinguishing and evaluating the two people holding those jobs, then he or she should be the one facing extreme evaluation.
That said, I'm having a hard time thinking of examples where an outstanding coach survives two or three underperforming GMs. When GMs finally fall, they usually land on one, two or more of their fired coaches.