What it will take to get Stotts fired?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Buffalo Custard said:
Does that mean you are unimpressed with our GM?

Why does this have to be an either/or question? If someone wants to make a case against Olshey, surely there are better ways to do it than to over-inflate the value of Stotts?
Click to expand...

Correct I'm unimpresed by Olshey.

I just think pointing out that Portland having less Top 100 players than the average team doesn't really back up that a coach who has made the playoff for 7 years, in the West, is below average.
 
Tince said:
This is also a great point.

I do think in the case of Toronto, they probably knew Nurse was something special and didn't want to lose him. The Oregon Ducks kindly asked the most successful football coach in the history of the univeristy to step aside because they thought Chip Kelly was special. If we have some mad genius in our organization that nobody knows about, I would hope we would make the move.
Click to expand...

Does that preclude the Blazers from saying "OK, Terry's taken us as far as he can, let's do a thorough search and find someone we feel has a good chance of taking us another step or two"?

Because if you aren't willing to do that then you pretty much are telling everyone you don't believe this team can be any better or that you can come away from a coaching search with someone at least as good as the current average guy or you are afraid to make a big move while your star player's final viable years are being spent competing for the seventh or the eighth seed.

To me, that seems a lot like not trying.
 
Tince said:
How many below average coaches in the league have a 7 year playoff streak under their belt? If coaching was the end-all, be-all, wouldn't an average coach make the playoffs half the time?
Click to expand...
I still don’t understand your logic. You keep saying that coaching is overrated yet you keep pining for Stotts to stay. If coaching were overrated, there would be no risk to firing Stotts. You would actually be highly incentivized to make the move since there is virtually no risk. If you find a lesser caliber or comparable coach, the impact is minimal. But if you find a better coach, you are better off than remaining static.
 
Buffalo Custard said:
Does that mean you are unimpressed with our GM?

Why does this have to be an either/or question? If someone wants to make a case against Olshey, surely there are better ways to do it than to over-inflate the value of Stotts?
Click to expand...

I've been making the argument that both guys have kind of been exposed for having major deficiencies. I wouldn't be heartbroken to have new people in both positions at the start of next season.

But there's a caveat with that. This offseason is so contracted that it's going to be hard to make a change at either spot, let alone both. With everything being done with the draft and free agency in such a tight window, finding a coach would be a rush job. Finding a GM AND a coach would be really problematic.

That's a shame, because I think the Blazers could do better or at least as good at either spot, but this is the one weird offseason that you could make the argument for keeping the Gold Dust Twins simply because there's not enough time to make an informed decision to find a replacement and get all the on-court pieces in place.
 
PCmor7 said:
The vast majority of coaching changes are done -- rightly or wrongly -- because the GM or owner or star player aren't happy with that coach.
Click to expand...

I agree that that happens a lot, but Stotts isn't in that category--he's not at odds with star player, owner or GM. Outside of that scenario, I think that coaches are generally fired because the team thinks they have better options.
 
PCmor7 said:
Does that preclude the Blazers from saying "OK, Terry's taken us as far as he can, let's do a thorough search and find someone we feel has a good chance of taking us another step or two"?

Because if you aren't willing to do that then you pretty much are telling everyone you don't believe this team can be any better or that you can come away from a coaching search with someone at least as good as the current average guy or you are afraid to make a big move while your star player's final viable years are being spent competing for the seventh or the eighth seed.

To me, that seems a lot like not trying.
Click to expand...

Olshey/Jody certainly have every right to draw that conclusion.

If I were Olshey, I would wait to fire Stotts until I absolutely had to because after he brings in a new coach, doesn't provide Dame with another all-star and multiple 3&D players, he knows he'll be next. I think Olshey knows Stotts isn't the problem and firing him would expose that his roster is the problem.

Paul might have forced Olshey's hand, but I'm not sure Jody will.
 
Minstrel said:
I agree that that happens a lot, but Stotts isn't in that category--he's not at odds with star player, owner or GM. Outside of that scenario, I think that coaches are generally fired because the team thinks they have better options.
Click to expand...

We're going to disagree on that, unless your idea of better options is just that the current coach is easily replaceable with someone of at least similar ability. I've really not heard much of these coaching changes that are made because a GM or owner falls in love with a potential replacement while a coach already is in place and without doing some kind of search.
 
Minstrel said:
I don't particularly care if Stotts remains coach or not. I guess like Tince, I've seen that every time the Blazers fall short on talent, people talk about how the coach is substandard. And if I'm being brutally honest, it sounds a lot like sports radio call-ins. I know everyone here fancies themselves a basketball expert, but being a big basketball fan doesn't necessarily make you an expert. Coaches are just the easiest change to make, so that's what fans latch on to. The obvious issue is lack of talent, but you can't just change that with the snap of one's fingers. You can fire the coach just like that.

As I said, Stotts in no way was holding back the 2014-15 team that had a lot of talent and looked elite before injuries derailed them. And since then, he's had a pretty weak hand to play. I don't think Stotts is clearly a below average coach and I don't honestly think either of you are capable of making such a determination either, at least in a convincing manner.

I'm not going to mourn if Stotts is fired--and if the Blazers have a conviction about some unproven, intriguing coaching prospect, sure, they should pull the trigger. But for every Phil Jackson or Nick Nurse plucked from relative obscurity, there's a hundred Tim Floyds. I'm against firing Stotts just to "make a change." That's a terrible reason. You fire a coach because you've found someone you believe to be better.
Click to expand...
How do you identify a new coach if you don’t commit to firing Stotts? You want them to find the new coach first then fire Stotts?
 
Tince said:
Olshey/Jody certainly have every right to draw that conclusion.

If I were Olshey, I would wait to fire Stotts until I absolutely had to because after he brings in a new coach, doesn't provide Dame with another all-star and multiple 3&D players, he knows he'll be next. I think Olshey knows Stotts isn't the problem and firing him would expose that his roster is the problem.

Paul might have forced Olshey's hand, but I'm not sure Jody will.
Click to expand...

I think that's another important element in this dynamic. Does Jody follow -- and care -- enough about this team to want to go through this process. I think Paul at least followed things through the league, had an idea of the inner workings of a team and a front office. I think he liked it and cared about it. I don't know if Jody has that same passion or interest, and that probably will go a long way into making front office and coaching moves.
 
OneSport3 said:
How do you identify a new coach if you don’t commit to firing Stotts? You want them to find the new coach first then fire Stotts?
Click to expand...

Teams are always doing their due diligence, or should be. If they're dissatisfied with their current coach, I certainly want them to be discreetly looking at their possible options among the NBA assistant coaches, college coaches and anyone else they think might be worthwhile and have already identified a few candidates that they believe to be more promising.

I don't think the team actually is particularly dissatisfied--as I said, the last time the team had really good talent, they looked like an elite team. I don't see the evidence right now that Stotts holds the team back. I put myself in the "not an expert" category, so I could certainly be wrong about whether he's holding them back.
 
OneSport3 said:
I still don’t understand your logic. You keep saying that coaching is overrated yet you keep pining for Stotts to stay. If coaching were overrated, there would be no risk to firing Stotts. You would actually be highly incentivized to make the move since there is virtually no risk. If you find a lesser caliber or comparable coach, the impact is minimal. But if you find a better coach, you are better off than remaining static.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm fine if Stotts goes from a coaching stand point, but I think in terms of increasing our odds of winning a championship with this exact roster, it will have zero impact. There is a chance it would potentially piss off Dame and he would want to leave sooner than normal, which would reduce our talent, which to me has a greater impact on us winning a championship. I just don't see the risk/reward ratio being a positive one.

I would rather all our time and resources go towards improving the talent around Dame, not providing Olshey with another excuse for why we need to wait for 3 more years for the talent to show itself.
 
Tince said:
Olshey/Jody certainly have every right to draw that conclusion.

If I were Olshey, I would wait to fire Stotts until I absolutely had to because after he brings in a new coach, doesn't provide Dame with another all-star and multiple 3&D players, he knows he'll be next. I think Olshey knows Stotts isn't the problem and firing him would expose that his roster is the problem.

Paul might have forced Olshey's hand, but I'm not sure Jody will.
Click to expand...
Why aren't we talking about Chris McGowan. He's the one who can make these decisions. It doesn't have to be about Jody nor do I want it to be.
 
I have been watching the last dance and they are talking about the Bulls firing Doug Collins the year after he went to the ECF because his entire offense was built around, and tell me if this sounds familiar, getting the ball into the hands of his best player and nothing else. Doug Collins' offense was entirely built around iso ball.

They fired his ass and went with Phil Jackson and Tex Winter because Phil's philosophy was that they needed to build an offense around lifting up the other players.

We will never win with our version of Doug Collins.
 
KSF-ERIC said:
Why aren't we talking about Chris McGowan. He's the one who can make these decisions. It doesn't have to be about Jody nor do I want it to be.
Click to expand...

Good point. He's always struck me as a business guy, not a basketball guy like some presidents. If he's making sure Jody's investment is doing ok, I believe he'll have a job. He obviously would be the one to fire Olshey, but why would he really want to rock the boat either?
 
Natebishop3 said:
I have been watching the last dance and they are talking about the Bulls firing Doug Collins the year after he went to the ECF because his entire offense was built around, and tell me if this sounds familiar, getting the ball into the hands of his best player and nothing else. Doug Collins' offense was entirely built around iso ball.

They fired his ass and went with Phil Jackson and Tex Winter because Phil's philosophy was that they needed to build an offense around lifting up the other players.

We will never win with our version of Doug Collins.
Click to expand...

Only difference is, we don't have the best player in the history of the NBA. We also don't have one of the best two-way players in the history of the NBA. Phil only won when he had 2 of the top 5-10 players in the NBA.
 
Tince said:
Only difference is, we don't have the best player in the history of the NBA. We also don't have one of the best two-way players in the history of the NBA. Phil only won when he had 2 of the top 5-10 players in the NBA.
Click to expand...

Yeah, exactly, we don't have the best player in the history of the NBA. If that offense didn't work with the best player in the history of the NBA, why the fuck would it work with Dame?
 
Tince said:
Again, I'm fine if Stotts goes from a coaching stand point, but I think in terms of increasing our odds of winning a championship with this exact roster, it will have zero impact. There is a chance it would potentially piss off Dame and he would want to leave sooner than normal, which would reduce our talent, which to me has a greater impact on us winning a championship. I just don't see the risk/reward ratio being a positive one.

I would rather all our time and resources go towards improving the talent around Dame, not providing Olshey with another excuse for why we need to wait for 3 more years for the talent to show itself.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that improving the roster and firing Stotts are mutually exclusive? You can do both concurrently.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Because we're pissing away Dame's prime.
Click to expand...

What about McGowan has made you feel he bleeds black/red and dies with our success on the court? I've never got the feel. He strikes me as a business guy doing his job, to keep his boss happy by trying to stay out of the red.
 
Last edited:
Natebishop3 said:
Yeah, exactly, we don't have the best player in the history of the NBA. If that offense didn't work with the best player in the history of the NBA, why the fuck would it work with Dame?
Click to expand...

We're not running Doug Collins' offense and I don't think the triangle is going to take this roster to the promise land.
 
KSF-ERIC said:
Why aren't we talking about Chris McGowan. He's the one who can make these decisions. It doesn't have to be about Jody nor do I want it to be.
Click to expand...
McGowan doesn’t handle basketball operations. He is mainly responsible for business operations.
 
OneSport3 said:
Why do you think that improving the roster and firing Stotts are mutually exclusive? You can do both concurrently.
Click to expand...

I don't they're mutually exclusive. I think every minute spent trying to improve the players on the roster is of greater value than a minute trying to improve a guy in a suit. Humans can't multi-task, so you need to decide which activity is of greater value.
 
Tince said:
Again, I'm fine if Stotts goes from a coaching stand point, but I think in terms of increasing our odds of winning a championship with this exact roster, it will have zero impact. There is a chance it would potentially piss off Dame and he would want to leave sooner than normal, which would reduce our talent, which to me has a greater impact on us winning a championship. I just don't see the risk/reward ratio being a positive one.

I would rather all our time and resources go towards improving the talent around Dame, not providing Olshey with another excuse for why we need to wait for 3 more years for the talent to show itself.
Click to expand...

We have to be honest with ourselves, though. As great as Dame is, his being on the roster hasn't attracted a heck of a lot of help toward winning a championship.

I've said elsewhere that I think a fair share of that failure falls on Olshey's shoulders, that he hasn't done a good job selling the chance to ride with Dame and the upsides to playing in Portland to free agents or players wanting to be traded.

But one could make the argument that trading Dame now could improve the overall talent of the team significantly over the course of the next 3-5 years. If you imagine what kind of a haul a trade for Dame would return, you're probably talking 5 first-round picks, a young lottery pick, maybe a couple of other decent role players and it would open a lot of cap space. I'd imagine any trade of Dame would also mean a move for CJ, who also probably would net at least one reasonably high draft pick and a young, unproven talent.

If the Knicks offer the Blazers Barrett, Mitchell Robinson, and Ntilikina and 5 first round picks, including both of this year's first rounders, and maybe the Sixers come in and offer Josh Richardson and a first rounder for CJ, would you think the Blazers were on their way to being a better overall team than they are now? Because I've been looking at our prospects for the offseason ... I don't see a guy we can pick in the draft making this team better next year, and, if we lose Melo and Whiteside and Hezonja, that makes an already depleted bench that much weaker and I don't know how we fill those spots; btw, I am not saying Hezonja is good, but he does have value as a ballhandler because I'm not comfortable with Trent, Ant, or any of our army of small forwards initiating the offense like he can.
 
OneSport3 said:
That was my point. I said if they don’t COMMIT to firing Stotts then the process of identifying a coach won’t begin.
Click to expand...

I remember a few years ago, the Miami Dolphins hired a Dallas Cowboys assistant named Tony Sparano. Turned the team around from 1-15 to 11-5 his first year. But the Dolphins made a couple of questionable personnel decisions the next two years and finished around .500.

Around that time, the owner, a Michigan guy, decided to approach Stanford coach Jim Harbaugh to see if he'd be interested in becoming the Dolphins head coach. Not only did Harbaugh not take the job, but word leaked out that Stephen Ross had offered it to him.

Ross, in a PR quagmire, signed Sparano to an extension, but the team suffered and Sparano was fired midway through the year. The interim coach did well and eventually got a head coaching job somewhere else, but not with the Dolphins. It was a fiasco.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top