Justice: DM & Alexander didn't want to keep Adelman, coaching search down to two

I feel you, but nobody can coach "heart". You got it or you don't. Lowry, Scola, and Hayes are the only ones I see with it. Maybe PatPat. We need X's and O's

 

Mike Brown had to reject the rockets.

Anybody who hires the guy is plain dumb but the fact he rejected us makes it both sad and lucky at the same time.

 

Wasn't Buck Willliams an all star too when he was with the Blazers? I'm not sure but he was one of the best rebounders at that time. Anyway, just want to let you know that this is the best post from you I have ever read. Repped.

 

We all know its THEIR team and Adelman's just the coach. But the problem wasn't coaching, its the organization's philosophy that fans don't like. All Adelman did was win, if that wasn't good enough then the organization philosophy is misdirected.

Lmao. Nice tap dancing

How can a coach put the future aside by winning ball games? Especially after 30 transactions. That's Rockets PR spin at it best. Adelman did the best a coach could with the players Morey gave him, but the organization put winning aside for a potential "yesman" coach who'll report directly to Morey. Its pure arrogance.

 

I fail to see how swapping Thabeet for Battier improved the team. Brooks played much better in Phoenix, so either Rick was right for trying to get him going and it paid off in Phoenix, or Brooks was never going to play well in Houston this year and it's Morey's fault for waiting all year to move him. I think it's pretty clear that if Morey was going to pay his backup and not his starter, then the starter should have been moved in the off-season.

 

It's like he doesn't even have to meet basic expectations of putting a complete team on the floor. Like starting a 6'6" center is not only acceptable, but worthy of praise, and failing to be an elite defense under those conditions is surprising. The hilariously sad thing is people giving credit to Morey for the team's post-deadline surge. Of course he had nothing to do with the team's poor start at all, that was all Adelman. It's Adelman's fault for thinking Brooks would get going again (which he did in Phoenix) and not leaning on an undrafted rookie instead in Ish. Morey had nothing to do with the minute mandate on Yao early in the year. If he did it was perfectly logical and any coach should have been able to work around that.

 

I believe the Battier trade improved the team by allowing two players with better offensive game to take over Shane's minutes. This team was not winning because of it's defense, it was winning because it was outscoring other teams. Trading Shane opened up Budinger and Lee to take on bigger roles on the team, which in turn made our offense that much better. I would argue that the offensive improvement outweighed the defense that we lost.

I've come to respect your opinions, but I can't help but picture you wearing a Rick Adelman t-shirt and hat as you were typing the above sentence. Here's what you said:

-Brooks played a bit better in Phoenix, so Adelman was correct for playing Brooks during important stretches in Houston (despite it being detrimental for the team).
-So either Rick made the right call by playing Brooks, or.. blame Morey.

 

RJ:
[rquoter]

Who should the Rockets hire? Casey? Frank? McHale?

The Rockets appear to be focused on three names: Dwane Casey, Lawrence Frank and Kevin McHale. All have head coaching experience. Casey and Frank are extremely respected in NBA coaching circles. McHale was one of the great players ever, but hasn’t had the same success as a coach or general manager.

Frank, 40, has far more coaching experience, having led the Nets to four playoff appearances and compiling an over 225-241 record. He has always reminded me of a Jeff Van Gundy clone. That is, he’s super prepared and very, very good on the defensive end of the floor. He’s currently an assistant coach with the Celtics.

Casey, 54, is my personal favorite because he’s an NBA lifer and a very respected coach. He’s only 53-69 in his time has a head coach, but wasn’t put in the best of situations. He played basketball at Kentucky, and while an assistant there, was part of the recruiting scandal that led to Eddie Sutton’s resignation. He coached in Japan for five years, then worked as an assistant for George Karl and Nate McMillan in Seattle. He’s now on Rick Carlisle’s staff in Dallas.

Finally, there’s McHale, 53, who created a lot of the mess Casey stepped into in the Twin Cities. If he’s still in the running_and the Rockets say he is_he clearly impressed Leslie Alexander and Daryl Morey in the interview process. In fairness to McHale, he did a solid job coaching the Timberwolves both times he took over as an interim. Problem was, the rosters he assembled weren’t good enough. Many NBA people believe he’s a far better coach than talent evaluator. He was thought to be done with coaching because of the travel grind, but some time away has gotten his fire burning again.

So where does the process go from here? My guess is that Morey will turn his recommendation over to team owner Leslie Alexander, who’ll make the final call. If it’s either Casey or Frank, the hiring likely will be delayed until their teams are eliminated from the playoffs, and in the case in Dallas, that could be awhile.[/rquoter]

 

Valid opinion. The problem is when people credit Morey for any improvement in the team that may have happened as a result of that trade. The Battier trade wasn't made to improve the team in the short-term. That's why Rick has a right to be upset by it. The trade was made b/c Battier was an expiring contract. That and that alone was the only reason for the trade. That's what Rick would call a "non-basketball" move. That's also the only reason Brooks was traded, which makes it so ridiculous to credit Morey for any improvement that may have happened as a result of those trades, since his motive was purely financial. Had Shane and Brooks not been expiring contracts, they would never have been traded.

I must say I'm honored to have earned the respect of "LongTimeFan" on the clutchfans bbs. Now that that's out of the way, I'm not saying blame Morey. I'm saying don't blame the coach for trying to get one of his most important guys going. That's actually the kind of long-term thinking that Rick supposedly doesn't engage in. I mean he gets crucified for just trying to win each game, then when he keeps going to a guy that isn't producing in hopes that he WILL produce eventually, he gets slammed again. It's not consistent.

 

This point is grossly neglected by the Adelman critics. On the one hand, they criticize Adelman for losing games by trying to get Brooks going again. Then they turn around and say that he tried too hard to win games disregarding the future of the team.

I don't think anyone can objectively argue that players like Williams and Thabeet are more likely to become good players than Brooks can regain his form.

 

Fair points, hard to argue with most of them.

I will say there was probably a few more reasons behind the Brooks trade as opposed to Battiers. Yes, he was about to get paid via free agency, but he was also pouting and walked out on the team during a critical game. His whole attitude was off this year, and by extension, his game followed. I think Brooks sealed his own fate with his antics moreso than his contract situation.

That said, I do think Morey should get some credit for possibly identifying Dragic as a hidden gem. Obviously the Suns felt Brooks was the better player (as did I), but Dragic really outplayed Brooks in his time here. I don't know if it's DragonGirl's PR campaign or what, but I'm starting to wonder if we stumbled on to something that could greatly exceed our expectations.

Anyone that was paying attention this year could see that Terrence Williams was not going to help us win. What I've questioned with regard to Adelman is why Thabeet couldn't find minutes after we were eliminated from the playoffs? That's what makes no sense to me. You're trying hard to make the playoffs -- play your best guys. You get eliminated? Give a shot to some other guys to see what you have in the making for next year. The last game of the season, which we won by 19 points, Rick played Brad Miller twice as much as he did Jordan Hill and Thabeet didn't see one minute. I just don't get that -- why not give Thabeet some run and see if RGV did anything to help? What could it really hurt? I'm sure the front office was asking themselves the same thing.

 

Not only that, but he did the same thing with Budinger to get him going, and then what happens? He breaks out of his slump and the "Great Trade" moving Shane for what will probably end up being a low 1st round pick (if Thabeet winds up a significant contributor next year, I'll compliment Morey for the deal. so far, he looks like crap) is proving to be a tremendous benefit to the team that beat us out of the last spot. So the same thing he did with Bud didn't work with Brooks' fragile ego. That's Adelman's fault? Bud gets more minutes because of the trade. Who's in the second round of the playoffs?

 

I don't know if this was directed at me or not, but those guys were responding to my post so I'll assume it is.

First of all, I don't see myself as a Adelman critic at all. As far as coaching I think he has done a fine job. There are things I don't agree with but I don't think I've criticized him much over them.

However, when I see someone ask something like, "If you don't extend the coach, why should he think long term for the team?" That is so logically flawed that I have to disagree with it while using HIS assumptions that the coach didn't think of the team long term. Even though that isn't why I personally think the coach was let go. While there are things that make you scratch your head like LTF has pointed out, I don't think anything to do with TWill or Thabeet was so damning that they couldn't work out with some compromises.

Similarly, I've pointed out many times that our second half surge was primarily due to the team trading away Brooks. I've pointed to this argument when people say it was because of Adelman's coaching or when Morey's trades were criticized. That might seem like I am blaming Adelman for playing Brooks in the first place, which isn't the case. Even though that certainly led to many of our losses, and in the end did not work out, I saw the reasoning behind it and have no problem with him instilling confidence in Brooks. The fact remains that the reason why we played better was due to the trades Morey made. Even if I don't think Adelman did anything wrong.

I hope that clears up what "criticisms" I've had of Adelman. I've stated the real reason he was let go many times as well. When your coach is not onboard or appreciates the entire philosophy that your GM was hired on- statistical analysis, AND he is not onboard or appreciates the direction management is going in, AND he wants more say over the organization's transactions, that is a recipe for... well nothing. When they are so far apart like that nothing will get done.

That is not a criticism of Adelman's coaching. It is an explanation of why things played out the way they played out. Whether you think that was the right way to go or not is a WHOLE other discussion. Something that I've barely expressed my opinion on. There are way too many people who are confused over why things played out the way they did for me to even get to that.

 

All your other points are fair, except this.

The coach is hired to coach to WIN, not to build a team. You were arguing that since he is paid to do the job, he should be doing it even though he knew he wasn't wanted to be back. But that is NOT his job.

And you use pouting players as examples. Players are paid to play to win. Coaches are paid to coach to win. Let me give you a more suitable example for you. If the GM asked Martin to teach TWill the rope so that when TWill learned the game, THEY COULD DUMP MARTIN. Would you do it if you were Martin? Of course not. That would be a slap to the face. Why would I want to help the FUTURE of the team if I am not part of it, and it is not part of my job descriptions?

Asking the coach to not play the best players to win games for the future good of the team is the same as asking the players on the floor not to play hard so they can get a better draft pick. You can't blame the players for not cooperating because they are not paid to help the future. They are paid to win games on the floor.

Sure the GM can see the coach as a partner to build the team and most coaches would comply as long as he sees himself as part of the future.

I don't know why this point is so hard to grasp.

 

Why is winning and building a team mutually exclusive? A good coach should be doing both -- trying to win now while also developing his team for future seasons. A greater emphasis should be put on the development part of that once you are eliminated from the playoffs. I've still yet to hear a good reason why Thabeet never saw any game action once the Rockets were eliminated from the playoffs. I'm not asking Rick why Thabeet wasn't starting and playing 30 minutes a game -- I'm asking him why Brad Miller was averaging 25 minutes a game after we were officially lotto-bound. He really couldn't find more time for Jordan Hill or Thabeet over Brad freakin Miller? Jordan Hill had a DNP-CD on the second to last game of the season; Miller played 30 minutes that game. Simply put, that should not happen.

For the record, I loved Adelman. I think most people did -- I don't know who's an "Adelman critic," as most people in this thread were never calling for him to be fired.

 

Isn't that just an objective thing? Lowry's contract had expired; Brooks' had not.

 

Emphasis: HIS TEAM. That's not going to be HIS TEAM after the season. I didn't say it was mutually exclusive. I am just saying that you can't use "that's his job" to say that he was obligated to do that. That's his job only if that help HIM to win in the future.

I don't know how playing a guy for 3 or 4 meaningless games makes that much of a difference in terms of developing players. Why is that such an uproar? What significance would that have accomplished?

 

I think you'll find Jordan Hill got plenty of time last year, when the coach wasn't a lame duck. In fact I don't remember near as many complaints about Rick leaning on vets last year as this year. But that's the risk you run with the whole 'no extensions' policy. I can't remember who it was, maybe verse, that started a thread about making a decision on Adelman last off-season, not this one. By leaving him without an extension, he's forced to audition for other teams and show how good he can coach. He came out and said it many times in fact, that he told the players around the deadline that he was in the same boat as them, with uncertainty about his future, and all they could do is go out and win games. If you didn't want this to happen, you should have let him go sooner. Just like if you want to pay some players and not others (Brooks), you should be prepared to move the ones you choose not to pay. There are negative consequences to operating this way. Not saying they outweigh the positives, just pointing it out.

 

That's true. That still doesn't mean all players are going to be down with that.

 

stop playing...lets get real.......