<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">I think Bickerstaff will get a look as a long-term option, but there IS a relationship between DM and Scott Brooks. Worth keeping in mind.</p>— Ben DuBose (@BenDuBose) <a href="https://twitter.com/BenDuBose/status/667004314737446912">November 18, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Many will spin it this way but no. Just no. "Oh, Houston just hired Scott Brooks? Well they shot way up the list of teams I'm considering!"
Brooks would be a big mistake. He's better than McHale, but he's still a players coach. We need something very different right now. And the idea that you hire Brooks to lure Durant next summer is insane. Wasn't that part of the justification for having McHale here? Guys loved to play for him. And yes, Dwight did come here, but Bosh and Melo said no, and Parsons and Smith(who reportedly DID love playing for the guy) had no problem leaving.
I have your answer ....Money,Money, Money and oh yeah its all about MONEY! Loyalty is only a factor if money is either not an issue or equals out.
Not true. Harden struggled in the finals (guarding Lebron in his prime among other things), but he shredded the Spurs in the WCF.
Brooks has not won a championship with Durant, WB and Harden so yup but he was a pretty good regular season coach before he lost the team
Brooks sucks. OKC was in a similar situation as us whereas they needed to get rid of brooks if they wanted to compete for a championship.
That was coming off the bench Harden and hungry to get into the starting lineup harden not the saturated, satisfied one
