Coaching in the NBA is very difficult; Mike Brown won Coach of the Year last season, is the most successful coach in Cleveland Cavs history (winning percentage-wise) and is fired after having back to back 60 win seasons.
Cleveland right now is doing everything in its power to keep LeBron James and that includes a coaching change. If Cleveland really wants to help LeBron stay, get an illustrious free-agent come July; this year is star-packed with free-agents and adding another (and legitimate) superstar would help Cleveland and LeBron (I am talking about a player who is in his prime and is not washed up like Shaq).
What also may have pulled the trigger besides a second round exit was that if Mike Brown wasn't fired within about 10 days, Cleveland would have been forced to give him his salary for next season as his contract was through the 2010-2011 season. Cleveland wanted to make a quick decision and had only days to decide on the coaching position; now the Cavs organization has time to decide who will take over as head coach. As for Mike Brown, it won't take him long to find a job elsewhere. It is a bad deal for him but on the other hand, another team will offer him good money and in the not-too-distant future.
1) If I recall correctly, if LeBron stays then Cleveland will not have enough $$ under the cap to sign anyone too prolific.
2) I think the people fantasizing about Phil Jackson are nuts. No way he comes to Cleveland. I think Calipari would be more likely, and I don't think he's coming either.
3) Mike Brown has done a great job (up to the playoffs this year) of turning the Cavs into a great defensive team. He never did a thing with the offense, and did an absolutely horrific job with substitutions. I hope they get someone who can at least properly manage the personnel and timeouts.
"As you may have read in Robert Parker's Wine Newsletter, 'Donaghy Estates tastes like the urine of Satan, after a hefty portion of asparagus.'" Jack Donaghy, 30 Rock
Originally posted by StingArmyJeff Van Gundy? With the way everyone's been talking about trying to get Phil Jackson there, Van Gundy would be a major letdown.
You know, to take this on a bit of an aside, I can't help but think about Mark Cuban and Steve Kerr getting fined for mentioning LeBron James' pending free agency. But why doesn't that rule apply in regards to coaches that are under contract? Why wouldn't Chicago, New York, or Cleveland talking about Phil Jackson be considered tampering?
I mean, seriously, Phil Jackson's on the rumor mill for about four different teams right now. At some point, it's going to become a major distraction for the Lakers. Remember the '05 Pistons? The wheels fell off for them as soon as the rumors of Larry Brown getting courted by the Knicks started.
If execs can't talk about free agent players without penalty, they shouldn't be allowed to talk about coaches. Those kinds of rumors have the potential to wreck teams that are still playing.
They've become an even more interesting soap opera than usual lately... first off the incident with Rafer Alston and Sam Mitchell, and GM Mike Babcock taking Alston's side: http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Basketball/NBA/Toronto/2005/02/08/924624-ap.