I'll leave the Rockets out for obvious reasons but why are the Cavs more desirable than the Clippers oops. . .management but the Cavs are barely that much of an upgrade IMO
Because the cavs team got much more potential and we all know that the Clippers are never going any where as long as greedy Sterling is there.
They are all good. That's tough. OBVIOUSLY HOUSTON. Cavs.......they have Lebron James. That's all you need. But who knows....it will be tough to make them a good team. Long rebuilding project. But they have new uniforms! Clippers...well no. If they don't have Lamar Odom, Elton Brand, Andre Miller, Michael Olowokandi, or Corey Maggette anymore, then they are screwed. The only reason I would go there is if I wanted to live in Los Angeles...but their management is cheap. Hornets. They have an OK team. Paul Silas did the best job he could do. They still won't have a chance against the Nets or Pistons next season.....so I wouldn't really want to go there. New Orleans would be a nice city to live in though. I wouldn't like any of them that much. To me......the Rockets have the most appealing resume!.
Don't the Wizards and Raptors fall into the "other" category? Depending on how the cards play out, there may even be a vacancy in Philadelphia. At any rate - I picked the Cavs. Owner Gordon Gund is really serious about building a competitive team around LeBron. IMO, Zydrunas Ilgauskas is one of the best centers in the EC (offensively he may be tops) and a quality coach can get Boozer and Miles to elevate their game. In a recent interview, I heard LeBron say he thinks he is a 1 or a 2 in the NBA. Trading Ricky Davis (who will probably need to many shots to be a good fit with LB & Z) for a solid role player and future 1st would give the Cavs a nice starting unit for 2003-04. Maybe not playoff material, but a starter and a role player or two away in the EC. Everyone might not agree, but I think Wagner at PG and James at SG is the best combination: 1) Dejaun Wagner / Kenny Anderson FA backup 2) LeBron James 3) Darius Miles 4) Boozer / Mihm 5) Ilgauskas / Diop Bottomline is that Gund is not as cheap as the NO ownership or Donald Sterling. That makes a coaches job much easier. Plus I think the Cavs are about $6m under the cap.
I chose NO. Eastern conference,Big lineup,Nice city. With a few changes here and there this could be a dominant team in the east. ALA
my number pick would be HOUSTON! we the talent the rocs have, they are bound to be something big! and if coaches dont see that, i dont consider them coaches anymore. but with houston out of the list, i would say cleveland. cleveland is begining to be a promising team.
Lets See LA Clippers- Id rather sit out a year and see what comes up the next year. Im assuming they will lose most of their FA's as rumored. Team has be unwilling to produce a winner Id be shocked if a big name coach took this job Hornets- intriguing if they were to remain in the east. If they stay healthy you have a great chance at coming out of the east. Once they move to the west..can they make the playoffs? others include toronto- high pick (probaly bosh or ford) plus you have vince + your in the east. This team can easily have a huge turnaround next year with some minor personel changes and IF they stay healthy Washington- maybe even less appealing than the clippers. Stackhouse is your best player hes probaly gone FA. My early pick for the worse record next year unless Kwame starts living up to his potenial. Philly- got AI and some good role players. Nice job have to consider it but your winner is other than houston of course is the Cleveland Cavs Cavs- have a ton of talent. You have a player who is compared to magic johnson. You have Wags Davis Boozer Z and Miles. Okay miles sucks. But this team is loaded. Probaly to loaded once everybody develops. Your also in the East you can easily reach the playoffs w/ in two years if you do a half way decent job
openings so far: Houston, Cleveland, Philly, N.O., L.A.Clip, Toronto, Wash, Atlanta. Ratings: A. City: 1. Clippers 2. Houston 3. Philly 4. Atlanta 5. New Orleans 6. D.C. 7. Cleveland 8. Toronto (nice city, but high taxes, SARS) B. Talent 1. Houston 2. Cleveland 3. New Orleans 4. Clippers (big ???? there) 5. Philly 6. Toronto 7. Atlanta 8. Washington C. Ownership 1. Houston 2. Philly 3. Toronto 4. Atlanta 5. Cleveland (is for sale) 6. Washington 7. New Orleans 8. Clippers Overall: 1. Houston 2. Cleveland 3. Philly 4. Clippers (great city!!!) 5. New Orleans 6. Toronto 7. Atlanta 8. Washington Look for other openings that may come out in the coming weeks: Orlando, Indiana, Dallas, Chicago, Milwakee, New York...
Of the available coaching jobs, I'd rate them in this order: Philadelphia, Houston, Atlanta, Cleveland, Toronto, Washington, New Orleans, LA Clippers. 1. Philadelphia: Good organization. Great players. Allen Iverson. Nice town (not the fans, but perhaps the architecture). Was in the Finals not long ago and still a legit contender. In the East where it is a bit easier to win. Also, city is not really considered a backwater -- it's in the northeast, close to New York and whatnot. Opportunity for a lot of power since their VP of Basketball Ops has quit. 2. Houston: Many of the same organization bonuses as Philly. Don't have Iverson, but do have Francis, Yao and other intriguing players. But, in the West, not contending and will have a hard time making the playoffs. Houston the city is a bit of a backwater. But, no state income tax. Good FA draw. Nice folks. After this point, I thinnk it is less about strong points as it is fewest drawbacks. So, we'll start from the bottom and work up: Last. LA Clippers: Donald Sterling. Any bright point you may see in living in LA (doesn't do it for me, but...), coaching all those lotto picks or what have you is completely negated by the fact that your boss doesn't care to win and will hog-tie the team. Plus, he won't even pay you a decent salary. Next to Last. New Orleans: The organization actually knows what it's doing and is able to field a competitive team every year. You'll be in the playoffs in the East and might even make it in the West if you're good. But, like the Clips, they suffer from bad ownership. They're good at winning on a budget but are too tight-fisted to really go far. And, they won't pay you a decent salary. Last -2. Washington: The desire is there. The owner is willing to pay to win, which is good. But, the front office is obviously lacking because they consistently can't make it. But, they are in a much better position payroll-wise than they were a couple years ago and, if they are wise, could build a playoff team. At least here, a competent coach build a worthwhile team without the owner messing it up. Last -3. Toronto: It used to look like the front office really knew what they were doing back in the Vince Carter hey-day. They were assembling vets and competing in the playoffs. Now, they don't look as strong as the Grizzlies, which is kind of sad. I give them the benfit of the doubt because the front office used to be good so you know they might be good again, plus they have Carter who will be great again if he can overcome the injury. I can see this team easily going in either direction. Last-4. Cleveland: Team looks like it is building something good. They've got some pieces already, and Lebron James. The owner looks like he wants to win, but it'll probably take a couple of seasons to get there. Not the nicest of towns, but it is actually prettier than its reputation. But, the team has no reputation and hardly any history of winning, so you have to wonder if the front office is competent to give you what you need. Last -5. Atlanta: What sets Atlanta apart is that they should have been better last season than they were. The front office doesn't exactly have a great reputation, but they managed some things last summer that everyone thought would put them on the map. I think the right coach is all they are missing.
I wouldn't say number 1, somewhere a little bit lower. Great organization, yes. Nice arena. Philly isn't much to look at (though center city is getting much better). My question is Allen Iverson a plus or minus? He is an undeniably otherworldy talent especially at his size, and he has shown to be a great team player, but the distractions that come with him and the occasional relapses would be definite minuses. He probably took 5 years off of Larry Brown's life! Having multiple mid-life crises after the age of 60 is not recommended. And I have a feeling that Brown was Iverson's muse, for lack of a better word. He got the most out of him that any coach possibly could.
The Cavs should simply hire Paul Silas. Maybe they can check if Brown is interested, but I think Silas is who they need: not a soft touch like Lenny W. or Rudy T., but a player's coach nonetheless. I voted N'awlins. They have good players, just need to stay healthy.
No one in his/ her right mind would have picked Cleveland a week ago. Everyone must think Lebron is the savior now?!!
Lebron is and forever will be the savior for the Cavs. If I were Paul Silas I'd be all over the oppurtunity to coach Lebron and the Cavs.
