How 'GM' Mitch Kupchak Screwed Up the Hiring of Luke Walton

Lakers News Surge Forum/Message Board » Lakers Blogs
Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Search This Topic:
 
SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 8929
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 282
  

The Lakers have their new coach, wonder boy Luke Walton of the champion Warriors.

As fans we all had opinions of who we wanted, we all had our favorites.

Some wanted Luke, the new bright shiny object; others wanted Kevin Ollie, or veteran Messina from the Spurs. Or the well traveled no nonsense Van Gundy.

And if you wanted someone, that's who you hoped would get the job. And that's fine, because you and I are fans. All we have to do is want someone and hope we get that person.

But the GM of a sports team has to do more than just want someone, have a hearts favorite. Because a GM better make the right call. Unlike a fan, if he makes a mistake, it costs dearly.

The funny thing about the hiring of Luke Walton is that it was done by a man who gets paid to be a GM but too often is as callow and shallow as a fan.

Remember when Scott got the axe? Mitch came out and said many candidates would be considered in a very thorough search process. That process never even came close to happening. Mitch asked permission to interview Popovich heir Messina, interviewed Luke and made the hire! That was his process.

To show you how odd that was let me tell you couple stories. Steve Kerr, who is a smart, serious basketball man said that when Luke got the first interview, he expected it to be the start of a long process that would include other candidate interviews then second interviews for those who shinned. He expected that because as a smart, serious man, that is exactly what he would do. It's that important to have a process in place to find the right man. He said he was stunned when the Lakers offered Luke that job after one interview and no other coaching considerations. He should be. So should we.

At one point my Pittsburgh Steelers parted with super bowl winning coach Bill Cowher. Like the Lakers, it was time to find a new head man. The Steelers had a favorite choice, Dave Wanstadt, a local guy who was defensive coach for the champion Dallas Cowboys. They had a couple others they liked. There was also a guy named Mike Tomlin. They had heard of some good things about him but he was not on the top of their list. The main reason they interviewed him was because of the Rooney Rule. That rule said that all NFL teams must consider a minority coach for jobs. It was named that because Steeler owner Dan Rooney was the major driver for it.

Well something funny happened. Tomlin blew the Steelers away in his interview. He also blew out the other coaches, including the Steelers favorites. They had to bring him back for a second interview because Tomlin forced it. And after that second interview, they realized they had to hire him. He was just that good. Since then, Tomlin has coached the Steelers to two super bowl appearances and winning one. Wanstadt failed at two head coaching jobs and is no longer coaching at all in the NFL.

The reason the Steelers didn't make a horrific mistake is they had a true process in place to find the right guy. They didn't just arbitrarily hire the guy they had their heart set on. Without that process, the same process Kerr expected from the Lakers, you just don't get a full measure of who and what is out there.

Now let's say that Messina or some other candidate had gotten that interview. And blow the Lakers and Walton out of the water, like Tomlin did. Would we still have hired Luke? I hope not. But the Lakers, unlike Kerr or the Steelers, never gave anyone else that chance to blow them out of the water. And that is a crime. And that can cause a huge mistake to happen.

I'm not saying Luke will be bust. Or the next great head coach. I don't know. But what I do know is that the Lakers had the time and resources to look over all the qualified candidates and then make the decision.

It doen'st matter whether you wanted Luke or I did or if we wanted someone else. We are fans. It does very much matter what process the Lakers used to select that coach. In this case, no process at all.

I also know Mich and Jim Buss had the responsibility to themselves, the team and the fans to do just that. What was the rush? Too lazy? To complicated? Too much trouble. Too much like a fan who just wanted their favorite? Other more important things to do than finding the best coach?

This is just the latest (for the last example check out his pathetic pitch to Aldridge) example of many why Mitch has neither the gravitas or intellect to be a great GM.

Luke is here now. Nobody else was given a chance, so we have to hope he was the right hire even with no vetting process involved that is common practice for most professional teams.

Mitch is here too. Like a fan instead of the serious GM he is paid to be, he gave nobody a chance. He just signed who his heart wanted. He completely abrogated the responsibility expected by Kerr and executed by the Steelers and every other competent FO and GM.

And that is a bigger problem for us than his pathetic "search" for the new Lakers coach.


userpete1037
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14244
Location: Kobe, Kalifornia
us.gif
votes: 18

I'll say this, they sure didn't exercise the "Rooney Rule". But that's the NFL and even some of them don't exercise it at all. Most already have their coach in mind and just hire them regardless. I'm not sure what to think about the quick hiring of Luke. Maybe they just wanted him all along but thought like many, he wouldn't leave GSW so when they saw the opportunity, they just went for it. That's just my thinking. Doesn't mean it's right but maybe just the reality of the situation and I'm one that knows all too well that reality can be a bytch sometimes. But that's just the world we live in.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

Nice post SPQR. Don't always agree with what you have to say but this is on the money.

I have said in other threads that there was absolutely nothing to lose by interviewing other candidates.

The whole process or lack thereof doesn't make much sense. The spurs were done with their series on the 24th of April. The Lakers got permission to talk to Messina on the 25th according to media reports. Yet the FO were scheduled to interview him mid series with the thunder. Between games 2 and 3. So May 3/4/5. (Classy move part 1)

The Warriors were done with their series on the 27th. The FO got permission that night or early morning the 28th. Interviewed Walton on the 28th early evening and hired him on the 29th.

Why the rush to interview Walton and not Messina? Even if they wanted Walton all along they had ample time to interview Messina beforehand. Even if he was a back up they can still listen to what he has to say/offer.

But they just jumped right in and basically told Messina to f#@k off. (Classy move part 2). The whole thing just makes me smh.

I also don't solely blame Mitch in this, everything goes through Jim.


MAGICLAKEZ
LNS HOF Silver
 Avatar
Posts: 11368
Location: Los Angeles, California
us.gif
votes: 55
Kudos for posting this Randy, This is precisely what I have been trying to articulate on various threads, but in vain it appears. Lol. I had Luke, Ollie and Messina as the front runners for the job, although I had a slight pre conceived bias for Ollie. However I was willing to roll with any of those above mentioned gents for the long haul. I am by no means condemning the selection. Quite frankly I'm glad we got him before Houston or Milwaukee/Knicks. After all he's the hottest ticket out there right now. The sexiest name floating around in....


gemfow
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11879
Location: Maryland
us.gif
votes: 174

The interesting thing about an interview is that people sometimes forget that it's both sides actually interviewing one another to see if it's a good fit for both parties involved. When that prize you want and you know you want is interviewing with other places, you run the risk of losing them. People seem to only think from the side of the Lakers and that they could have taken their time and looked at other candidates but neglect to look at the others side that Luke could have kept interviewing with other teams and could have been blown away by them and ultimately chose another team.

SPQR, you like to use the NFL as a comparison, so I'll bring one your way. When a free agent (same for NBA free agent as well) goes to meet team execs, hasn't there been times where they were blown away by what they saw from that team, the laid out plans and so on that they've cancelled any visits after that and work out a deal? An NFL team sets out to go after a player who is tops on their list and they go an bring that player in who wows them, I don't think it's smart to tell them we would like to bring in other players and allow them to go and do the same and chance losing out. If that one guy killed it at the interview and even if he is the first guy then there is nothing wrong IMO in stopping there.

You know the guy you just recently said you thought he was the best coach in the NBA? That was the only guy that team went after. There weren't any lets go through the process to see if anyone else wows us. They would have ran the risk of him interviewing elsewhere and accepting that job offer instead. The interview process goes both ways my friend.


tmike23
Big-Time Laker Fan
Posts: 732
Location: Atlanta
votes: 6

He was the hottest name on the coaching market. They secured him quick and efficiently. I don't see what's wrong with this. We have a young coach with great experience and who's been surrounded by great mentors his entire career. He'll do just fine. This is the best thing that management's done in years...let's be happy for once. We could always be the Knicks...


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

gemfow wrote:
The interesting thing about an interview is that people sometimes forget that it's both sides actually interviewing one another to see if it's a good fit for both parties involved. When that prize you want and you know you want is interviewing with other places, you run the risk of losing them. People seem to only think from the side of the Lakers and that they could have taken their time and looked at other candidates but neglect to look at the others side that Luke could have kept interviewing with other teams and could have been blown away by them and ultimately chose another team.

SPQR, you like to use the NFL as a comparison, so I'll bring one your way. When a free agent (same for NBA free agent as well) goes to meet team execs, hasn't there been times where they were blown away by what they saw from that team, the laid out plans and so on that they've cancelled any visits after that and work out a deal? An NFL team sets out to go after a player who is tops on their list and they go an bring that player in who wows them, I don't think it's smart to tell them we would like to bring in other players and allow them to go and do the same and chance losing out. If that one guy killed it at the interview and even if he is the first guy then there is nothing wrong IMO in stopping there.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to think that the Rockets were not going to be interested in Luke. They were getting blown out the whole series.

Talk of the FO being surprised by that development blows my mind. As I said earlier (comment above) they had ample time to interview Messina. They didn't know how fast to act when it came to interviewing luke yet set Messina's interview over a week away.

Why wasn't Messina given the same courtesy in interviewing? The FO already had their mind made up who they wanted before they even heard a word of what Luke had to say. It's not hard to be impressed when your already in love with your target.


gemfow
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11879
Location: Maryland
us.gif
votes: 174

Tempy wrote:
It doesn't take a rocket scientist (pun intended) to think that the Rockets were not going to be interested in Luke. They were getting blown out the whole series.

Talk of the FO being surprised by that development blows my mind. As I said earlier (comment above) they had ample time to interview Messina. They didn't know how fast to act when it came to interviewing luke yet set Messina's interview over a week away.

Why wasn't Messina given the same courtesy in interviewing? The FO already had their mind made up who they wanted before they even heard a word of what Luke had to say. It's not hard to be impressed when your already in love with your target.

I guess it was Luke's job to lose and he didn't lose it apparently. I just don't see this thing as some big screw up or them cheating themselves out of being wowed by someone else.

I think the underlying issue is that we all know that LA has picked their coaches poorly three times in a row. If this was San Antonio who hired Luke then the thoughts wouldn't be about the process but more about the Spurs must know something to hire this guy like this. The Spurs ' FO has inspired confidence while the Lakers' FO has inspired disappointment and skepticism. I get it.


userpete1037
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14244
Location: Kobe, Kalifornia
us.gif
votes: 18

gemfow wrote:
I guess it was Luke's job to lose and he didn't lose it apparently. I just don't see this thing as some big screw up or them cheating themselves out of being wowed by someone else.

I think the underlying issue is that we all know that LA has picked their coaches poorly three times in a row. If this was San Antonio who hired Luke then the thoughts wouldn't be about the process but more about the Spurs must know something to hire this guy like this. The Spurs ' FO has inspired confidence while the Lakers' FO has inspired disappointment and skepticism. I get it.

Hopefully we can get back to being respectful like when Dr. Buss was alive and running the team.


SPQR
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 8929
Location: Pennsylvania
votes: 282
Gem, I understand your point about a special circumstance: A team really wants to hire a certain guy as coach and is worried he may go somewhere else. In that situation I can see where they would need to move with alacrity, maybe even eschewing the normal hiring process. But not all hires have that circumstance and this one certainly didn't. We spoke about the possible hire a couple times and I will iterate what I said to you then. This was Luke's dream job. He played for the Lakers, became part of the "family". His team won rings here and became part of Lakers championship lore. He made contacts here. And he was a southern California boy, with all that entails, including watching the Lakers growing up. Part of being a smart GM is not only understanding what your situation is, but also understanding the situation others are in, what the desire, what they want. If I was the Lakers GM, I would have been very comfortable knowing Luke was mine to have or reject. Wow, that last line made me feel like I'm writing about Star Wars. Remember, Phil sent out feelers to Luke just a short while back which he rebuffed. There was a reason for that. That reason was the Lakers job. Mitch had the ace card in this situation. Once Mitch put that first hook in him, the first interview, there is no doubt in my mind Luke wasn't going to accept any job until he knew whether he was going to get his dream job. There is no way other interviews were going to scare Luke away. In fact, I'm sure he expected the Lakers to do other interviews and was as shocked as Kerr was when he got that fast offer. So yeah, in the circumstance you describe, I can see taking....


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 6635

us.gif
votes: 13

I can see SPQR/Tempy's points and I think Gemfow makes really good point. I agree with what you're saying, Tempy, I'm just not upset about it because I see the point GEMFOW is making. They always say, don't let that free agent leave without signing a contract. Well in this case Luke was that free agent and they felt they had to secure him. Also I think they likely/HOPEFULLY got the right guy. But yes, they should have interviewed more probably.


lakerdude
Laker GM
 Avatar
Posts: 4627
Location: lakerdude
votes: 36

Fantastic thread SPQR. I have been going at lengths to make my point that I believe the Luke Walton hire was as ridiculous as it comes. It makes me see how the Lakers way of doing things has fallen. I've been saying, like you, that this was supposed to be a process, and that there would be in depth interviews and they'd be taking this hiring seriously.

What do they do instead? The saw Luke at the door, he said a couple sentences starting with hello, and the Lakers brass grabbed their pen and papers and said "please sign here". Luke probably tried to say a few more words and the pitch man said "Luke stop, just stop. You had us at hello. You had us at hello".

This is no surprise. It's the same Laker group that humiliated themselves by bowing down to a player like Dwight Howard by putting up billboards begging him to stay. This organization feels and acts like losers. They don't seem to make plans and desicions that the best sports franchise in history would make.

They seem desperate, more every year. Sad days man. If this hiring of Luke doesn't work out, this youthful squad we have will be a waste of the future. We deserved the chance to scour and dig and find the best prospect out there, not this quick to pull the trigger nonsense. I'm highly concerned dude, and damn scared, about where this team uis headed. . Great post Randy.


TheSHOEMAKER
Die-Hard Laker Fan
 Avatar
Posts: 1055
votes: 4

Didn't the Lakers get a ton of flak for firing Byron too late and letting Brooks and Thibodeau sign with other teams? I'm assuming they didn't want to miss out on the chance of getting Luke. From the sound of things from people close to the Lakers organization, Luke absolutely crushed his interview. Would it have hurt for them to interview a few other coaches? Probably not, but I'm not upset about it and here's why. The Lakers didn't just need a coach, they needed a teacher as well. That's why Byron was a flop. Sure he didn't have much talent to work with but from his interviews and people close to the team, he wasn't really willing to teach the young guys. He was an old school player and coach so he didn't feel it was his job to help his players grow and develop.

The only other potential coaching candidate out there that really seemed like a great fit to teach these young guys was Kevin Ollie, and that was more of a pipe dream. He's having great success at Uconn and it would take a lot to make him leave (like a gig that Thibodeau got with the T-Wolves). Kupchak wasn't going to give up much power to Ollie in that regard.

Nonetheless, I think Luke was a great hire because of his ability to relate to the young guys and he's a coach that can grow with the team. We've heard nothing but good things from everyone within the Warriors organization since his hire. I for one am pretty stoked to see what kind of offensive system he puts in place here with his knowledge he gained from working for the Warriors. We needed a coach our players could respect and I truly feel Luke is that guy. It'll be weird to have a coach that will actually have his players' backs and will actually let them know what they're doing wrong an need to fix.


TheSHOEMAKER
Die-Hard Laker Fan
 Avatar
Posts: 1055
votes: 4

lakerdude wrote:
I've been saying, like you, that this was supposed to be a process, and that there would be in depth interviews and they'd be taking this hiring seriously.

What do they do instead? The saw Luke at the door, he said a couple sentences starting with hello, and the Lakers brass grabbed their pen and papers and said "please sign here". Luke probably tried to say a few more words and the pitch man said "Luke stop, just stop. You had us at hello. You had us at hello".

T

You realize they had a 6 hours interview with him right? We know of your distaste for the Lakers management but don't make it sound as if it wasn't a legitimate interview. And from all accounts it sounds like Walton crushed his interview detailing what he's learned from coaching and his would be plan for the Lakers if he were made coach. I'm not necessarily saying it was right for the Lakers to cancel their other interviews and offer Walton as soon as they did, but don't sell Luke short during the process.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

TheSHOEMAKER wrote:
Didn't the Lakers get a ton of flak for firing Byron too late and letting Brooks and Thibodeau sign with other teams? I'm assuming they didn't want to miss out on the chance of getting Luke.

If you are worried about losing Luke then why did they hold on to Scott while Luke was talking to the Knicks? It doesn't make sense.

They took 11 days to deliberate on keeping Scott who was absolutely garbage and took less than 24 hours from interview to contract signed in getting Luke. It just defies logic.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

TheSHOEMAKER wrote:
You realize they had a 6 hours interview with him right? We know of your distaste for the Lakers management but don't make it sound as if it wasn't a legitimate interview. And from all accounts it sounds like Walton crushed his interview detailing what he's learned from coaching and his would be plan for the Lakers if he were made coach. I'm not necessarily saying it was right for the Lakers to cancel their other interviews and offer Walton as soon as they did, but don't sell Luke short during the process.

Do you have a source for that interview and it's length. I've yet to read that it was that long. Not being sarcastic, just curious and would like to read up on it.


gemfow
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11879
Location: Maryland
us.gif
votes: 174

Tempy wrote:
Do you have a source for that interview and it's length. I've yet to read that it was that long. Not being sarcastic, just curious and would like to read up on it.

https://lakeshowlife.com/2016/04/29/lak ... interview/


gemfow
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11879
Location: Maryland
us.gif
votes: 174
SPQR wrote:
Gem, I understand your point about a special circumstance: A team really wants to hire a certain guy as coach and is worried he may go somewhere I know the "best coach" in the NBA you alluded to is Pops, lol. Now did the hire meet your special circumstance? Was that why he got the quick hire with no other consideration?
I necessarily wouldn't call it a special circumstance. Two popular coaches in Brooks and Thibbs came off the board. I'm not sure if that was a media thing or if LA had interest in those guys but they were gone....


AChad92
Laker GM
Posts: 4769
votes: 13

Yes I was very surprised it happened this quickly as well as anyone else. Messina was interesting too, but I feel he's the only other candidate. Ollie was telling his recruits that he wasn't leaving and JVG wanted too much control and probably a lot more money. I feel Luke has so much potential and talent already there to not fail us as a coach. He's young, he's hungry. He's willing to adjust his plans for the sake of the team, he's a player's coach. He gets respect from his players no matter where he coaches. He's learned from the best. When he played for Lakers Phil used to bring him into the coaching meetings and show him around so he's not lacking anything in that department.

Mitch signed Luke because who knows how long he would even be on the market for. He was a top 3 wanted coach coming into this summer and it's best we booked him early. I can't wait for playoffs to be over so he can start putting together a solid coaching staff. His first real test.


LakerDymes
Laker GM
 Avatar
Age: 29
Posts: 3741
votes: 19
Personally I don't see anything wrong with getting the guy you want right away. Especially if his vision for the team fits your own. From my understanding (reading/hearing reporters) when a team gets permission to interview a coach they are allowed to actually call him and give him a mini interview over the phone. From every report I've read out there , it seems that messina is going to replace pop once he retires. Having worked for the Lakers before I'm sure it wasn't to hard for mitch to contact him and get a feel for if he wanted the job. Maybe the meeting with messina was a courtesy one by him and he had no intention of actually taking the job and mitch knew before hand. Same thing with ollie. Before the Lakers interviewed Luke there were reports that ollie was telling recruits that he was staying at uconn. It's not hard to imagine that 2 of their top 3 candidates weren't interested in the job. At that point why expand and prolong a search when the rest of the field is filled with retreads? Mark jackson, hornacek,etc. There's also the fact that there were better jobs potentially available to luke. Houston has a better gm and a legitimate star player in harden. They can easily turn over the roster by letting Dwight go and making a couple of trades. Milwaukee also might potentially fire kidd. They are way better than this Lakers team in talent, especially when you consider it's young talent. And there's a couple of other jobs he could have looked at but let's not forget he could have just simply stayed at Golden state since Kerr might retire due to his horrible botched surgery and become head coach there. There is a lot of inside information we are not privy....


TEAMLakers
Serious Laker Fan
Posts: 479
Location: San Diego, CA
us.gif
votes: 6
Everyone makes valid points on why the FO should have waited and gone through all their candidates. I, for one, agree with Gem here. Put yourself in the interview process. When you interview for a job and are completely blown away by a company that can give you everything you want, would you tell them you need to check out the other 3 interviews that you have lined up. I would cancel the rest and take the job. Look, as ESPN puts it, checked all the boxes for the Lakers and the Lakers were his dream job. ....


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

AChad92 wrote:
Yes I was very surprised it happened this quickly as well as anyone else. Messina was interesting too, but I feel he's the only other candidate. Ollie was telling his recruits that he wasn't leaving and JVG wanted too much control and probably a lot more money. I feel Luke has so much potential and talent already there to not fail us as a coach. He's young, he's hungry. He's willing to adjust his plans for the sake of the team, he's a player's coach. He gets respect from his players no matter where he coaches. He's learned from the best. When he played for Lakers Phil used to bring him into the coaching meetings and show him around so he's not lacking anything in that department.

Mitch signed Luke because who knows how long he would even be on the market for. He was a top 3 wanted coach coming into this summer and it's best we booked him early. I can't wait for playoffs to be over so he can start putting together a solid coaching staff. His first real test.

This comment is not directed at you, just piggy backing on one of your comments.

" He's learned from the best. " is there any correlation to this actually being true?

Rob Sacre could workout with Ewing, Kareem, Shaq, olajuwon and he wouldn't be any better. He just doesn't have the skill to become great.

You, myself, Luke or anyone reading this comment could learn something from PJ or Kerr if we were part of the set up. The same would be true of learning things from Byron Scott. I think it's being talented enough to use those tools in an effective manner that is the important factor. I don't care if you learned from Phil, Pop or Kurt Rambis, you have to have your own style, it's not going to work otherwise. You can't call a friend in a timeout with the game on the line.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39
LakerDymes wrote:
Same thing with ollie. Before the Lakers interviewed Luke there were reports that ollie was telling recruits that he was staying at uconn. It's not hard to imagine that 2 of their top 3 candidates weren't interested in the job. At that point why expand and prolong a search when the rest of the field is filled with retreads? Mark jackson, hornacek,etc.
There is no correlation that retreads are any worse or any better than rookie coaches.
Quote:
Since the ABA-NBA merger, coaches on their third full-time job have won 51 percent of their games -- similar to the 51.7....


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

TEAMLakers wrote:
Everyone makes valid points on why the FO should have waited and gone through all their candidates.

I, for one, agree with Gem here. Put yourself in the interview process. When you interview for a job and are completely blown away by a company that can give you everything you want, would you tell them you need to check out the other 3 interviews that you have lined up. I would cancel the rest and take the job.

Then you are selling yourself short. Do you buy the first auto insurance quote you get or do you shop around?

Interviewing at other jobs is the only way you can find out if your getting a good compensation package. Sure company A might give you what your looking for, but Company B or C might offer more money, more vacation time, flexi hours etc etc.

Sure Luke may have ticked all the boxes, but no coach is perfect. Who is to say Ollie or Messina wouldn't have checked those same boxes and then some more.

The Lakers didn't know how fast to jump in with the hottest thing in the nba, no one can deny that. Time will tell if it was the right decision, but how often do impulse decisions turn into regret.


Ray
Big-Time Laker Fan
Posts: 995
Location: Ray
votes: 15


Repped High Quality Post

Half of this entire post is just people repeating themselves just using different words or examples. There are 2 sides for this posts.

1) You think we should of extended our search further and listened to all of our options.

or

2) You believe once we found what we like the search is over.

Everyone can believe which ever way they see fit and nobody is right or wrong.


TEAMLakers
Serious Laker Fan
Posts: 479
Location: San Diego, CA
us.gif
votes: 6

Tempy wrote:
Then you are selling yourself short. Do you buy the first auto insurance quote you get or do you shop around?

Interviewing at other jobs is the only way you can find out if your getting a good compensation package. Sure company A might give you what your looking for, but Company B or C might offer more money, more vacation time, flexi hours etc etc.

Sure Luke may have ticked all the boxes, but no coach is perfect. Who is to say Ollie or Messina wouldn't have checked those same boxes and then some more.

The Lakers didn't know how fast to jump in with the hottest thing in the nba, no one can deny that. Time will tell if it was the right decision, but how often do impulse decisions turn into regret.

Purchasing insurance and interviewing for a job are two different scenarios. One is a service that you know for sure you need to shop around for and can always come back to since they are dependent on you purchasing something. Searching for a job is like searching for a relationship to see if there is a fit. But I get what you are saying.

However, if you find your dream job/relationship that gives you everything you want and need, why wouldn't you take it. Sure there might be better scenarios out there for you, but why wait and why bother if you have everything you want???

You would only see what else is out there if the present situation isn't everything you want it to be.


userpete1037
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14244
Location: Kobe, Kalifornia
us.gif
votes: 18

^^^

True indeed.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

Ray wrote:
Half of this entire post is just people repeating themselves just using different words or examples. There are 2 sides for this posts.

1) You think we should of extended our search further and listened to all of our options.

or

2) You believe once we found what we like the search is over.

Everyone can believe which ever way they see fit and nobody is right or wrong.

Yeah lol its old already


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

TEAMLakers wrote:
Purchasing insurance and interviewing for a job are two different scenarios. One is a service that you know for sure you need to shop around for and can always come back to since they are dependent on you purchasing something. Searching for a job is like searching for a relationship to see if there is a fit. But I get what you are saying.

However, if you find your dream job/relationship that gives you everything you want and need, why wouldn't you take it. Sure there might be better scenarios out there for you, but why wait and why bother if you have everything you want???

You would only see what else is out there if the present situation isn't everything you want it to be.

At how many job interviews have you been offered the job on the spot, right after the interview?


TheSHOEMAKER
Die-Hard Laker Fan
 Avatar
Posts: 1055
votes: 4

Tempy wrote:
This comment is not directed at you, just piggy backing on one of your comments.

" He's learned from the best. " is there any correlation to this actually being true?

Rob Sacre could workout with Ewing, Kareem, Shaq, olajuwon and he wouldn't be any better. He just doesn't have the skill to become great.

You, myself, Luke or anyone reading this comment could learn something from PJ or Kerr if we were part of the set up. The same would be true of learning things from Byron Scott. I think it's being talented enough to use those tools in an effective manner that is the important factor. I don't care if you learned from Phil, Pop or Kurt Rambis, you have to have your own style, it's not going to work otherwise. You can't call a friend in a timeout with the game on the line.

I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people here think Kerr is a smart guy and a good coach. As far as I'm aware, Luke's first assistant coach job in the NBA was with the Warriors last year and Kerr saw first hand what Luke was capable of coaching wise. That's why he made him his lead assistant after just one year. Walton was thrown into the fire to start the season and coached a team to the best ever start in NBA history.

Almost everyone within the NBA community has LOVED the Luke hire by the Lakers. He was regarded as the best potential available head coach this year (after Brooks and Thibbs got hired) so I have no problem with them locking him up quickly. I think of it like free agency. Say the Lakers meet with Kevin Durant this summer and both parties are interested in getting a deal. Should the Lakers hold off signing him so they can meet with other players? Well that would allow Durant to sign elsewhere. Kevin Durant is the top free agent this summer. Luke was the top head coach candidate (again, after the other hires). Now I'm not saying Luke is the Kevin Durant's of coaching, I'm just saying that if you have a chance to grab the number one player available (in this case a coach), then why not got for it?

I get the Lakers probably could have benefited by exploring other options, but Luke had 3-4 other interviews set up. He could have easily taken the job after one of his other interviews. He's always had the dream of becoming a head coach in the NBA and he could have jumped at another offer to do so. I personally believe they made the right choice in locking him up.


TEAMLakers
Serious Laker Fan
Posts: 479
Location: San Diego, CA
us.gif
votes: 6

Tempy wrote:
At how many job interviews have you been offered the job on the spot, right after the interview?

I have been offered a job right after the interview but that is not the point. Point is both parties have to love each other and this case, they did..

Regardless... we both have differing opinions... so we can just agree to disagree.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

TEAMLakers wrote:
I have been offered a job right after the interview but that is not the point. Point is both parties have to love each other and this case, they did..

Regardless... we both have differing opinions... so we can just agree to disagree.

What was the job for?


TEAMLakers
Serious Laker Fan
Posts: 479
Location: San Diego, CA
us.gif
votes: 6

Tempy wrote:
What was the job for?

That is besides the point. I don't see why you want to push on this... We can agree to disagree and call it a day.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

TheSHOEMAKER wrote:
I think it's pretty safe to say that the majority of people here think Kerr is a smart guy and a good coach. That's why he made him his lead assistant after just one year. Walton was thrown into the fire to start the season and coached a team to the best ever start in NBA history.

Almost everyone within the NBA community has LOVED the Luke hire by the Lakers. He was regarded as the best potential available head coach this year (after Brooks and Thibbs got hired) so I have no problem with them locking him up quickly. I think of it like free agency. Say the Lakers meet with Kevin Durant this summer and both parties are interested in getting a deal. Should the Lakers hold off signing him so they can meet with other players? Well that would allow Durant to sign elsewhere. Kevin Durant is the top free agent this summer. Luke was the top head coach candidate (again, after the other hires). Now I'm not saying Luke is the Kevin Durant's of coaching, I'm just saying that if you have a chance to grab the number one player available (in this case a coach), then why not got for it?

I get the Lakers probably could have benefited by exploring other options, but Luke had 3-4 other interviews set up. He could have easily taken the job after one of his other interviews. He's always had the dream of becoming a head coach in the NBA and he could have jumped at another offer to do so. I personally believe they made the right choice in locking him up.

He wasn't regarded as the best potential coach until after he coached them to that record. He wasn't even mentioned in any circles of up and coming coaches prior to that run. If I am wrong post a link proving so.

He was also only promoted because Alvin Gentry left to take a HC job.

I am not diminishing what he achieved, I don't think any coach walks in and does what he did, but let's also be realistic and say this Warriors team is the best roster in the nba and it's not even close, they have the reigning MVP and Curry is most likely to repeat as the MVP. It's not even funny how much better he is this season. It's a hell of a lot easier to look good when your winning compared to what he is going to be doing with the Lakers roster.

Walton was the flavor of the month, his resume falls flat when you put it up against Messina, Ollie or even Blatt's. Again I'm not against Walton, I am happy with the hire, just not the process. The FO have a terrible track record of selecting coaches, nothing they did in hiring Walton assures me they did the right thing in hiring him quickly.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

TEAMLakers wrote:
That is besides the point. I don't see why you want to push on this... We can agree to disagree and call it a day.

Lol fair enough.


userpete1037
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14244
Location: Kobe, Kalifornia
us.gif
votes: 18

Ray wrote:
Half of this entire post is just people repeating themselves just using different words or examples. There are 2 sides for this posts.

1) You think we should of extended our search further and listened to all of our options.

or

2) You believe once we found what we like the search is over.

Everyone can believe which ever way they see fit and nobody is right or wrong.

Lol!!!!....yeah we don't have a life....lol.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

userpete1037 wrote:
Lol!!!!....yeah we don't have a life....lol.

Eat.

Sleep.

Lakers Top buzz!


userpete1037
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14244
Location: Kobe, Kalifornia
us.gif
votes: 18

Tempy wrote:
Eat.

Sleep.

Lakers Top buzz!

Sounds like a healthy diet.


Tempy
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11035
Location: El Pueblo de la Reina de Los Angeles
calif.gif
votes: 39

userpete1037 wrote:
Sounds like a healthy diet.

Kobeade is delicious. Lol


userpete1037
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 14244
Location: Kobe, Kalifornia
us.gif
votes: 18

Tempy wrote:
Kobeade is delicious. Lol

Lol!!!..no doubt.


BaadMaster
LNS HOF Bronze
 Avatar
Posts: 7296
votes: 94

lakerdude wrote:
Fantastic thread SPQR. I have been going at lengths to make my point that I believe the Luke Walton hire was as ridiculous as it comes. It makes me see how the Lakers way of doing things has fallen.. Great post Randy.

As one who was so disgusted by the Lakers FO that I briefly deserted, I am hit with a wonderful surprise upon my return -- the hiring of Luke!

Although opinions are like....you know...this is as great a non-player move as they could have made.

As to the premise of this trail, I respectfully disagree. Just like Michael Corleone says, in a pivotal moment in The Godfather, "We can't wait..." Imagine had the Lakers dawdled and Luke was lost. And then Ollie was gone. The FO would have been lambasted for losing out on two great coaches.

I think -- for whatever that is worth -- that Luke will be the best Lakers coach hiring other than Riles and PJax. This guy has seen firsthand how one of the greatest teams in history has done it. He is a winner (two rings) and was a coaching winner when called upon.

Given a first or second draft pick, Luke will be given a young core that could be one free agent signing from returning to contention.

I thought I'd never say it, but good job Jim and Mitch.


lakerdude
Laker GM
 Avatar
Posts: 4627
Location: lakerdude
votes: 36

BaadMaster wrote:
As one who was so disgusted by the Lakers FO that I briefly deserted, I am hit with a wonderful surprise upon my return -- the hiring of Luke!

Although opinions are like....you know...this is as great a non-player move as they could have made.

As to the premise of this trail, I respectfully disagree. Just like Michael Corleone says, in a pivotal moment in The Godfather, "We can't wait..." Imagine had the Lakers dawdled and Luke was lost. And then Ollie was gone. The FO would have been lambasted for losing out on two great coaches.

I think -- for whatever that is worth -- that Luke will be the best Lakers coach hiring other than Riles and PJax. This guy has seen firsthand how one of the greatest teams in history has done it. He is a winner (two rings) and was a coaching winner when called upon.

Given a first or second draft pick, Luke will be given a young core that could be one free agent signing from returning to contention.

I thought I'd never say it, but good job Jim and Mitch.

He's a fan favorite it seems for sure. Other than being a part of the Warriors recent run, he is a non figure. If it weren't for them he'd be invisible. The facts are he was just a fill in. He didn't make this team, and he didn't build this team.

All he did was stand in for Steve Kerr. Other than that, what has he done to prove worthy to be the coach of the best franchise in sports history? I hope everyone realizes he is just a gamble. Everyone is "hoping" he can replicate the Warriors success and translate it to the Lakers. He hasn't prove anything in his short coaching stint.

Luke is a rookie in my opinion and nothing else. The Lakers gambled their future on a rookie. Some gambles result n a win fall, yet most result in a big loss. I'm not a big gambler, I always bet on the most sure thing. This is not a sure thing. I hope the gamble pays off, but I am far from sold. I actually hate this hire. I hope the majority of you are right, but I would not bet my money on it..

To me, most of you all are in what the say, a prisoner of the moment. I say good luck to that. Your hoping on a wind and a prayer. Luke Walton just got out of the league a few years back. His history is a player that was filled with "so called injuries", that sat on the bench, collected checks, and hurt the Lakers financially. That is my last image of Luke. He cost us hella money because of his contract, and got paid sitting on his butt. That's my memory of your all great Luke Walton.


gemfow
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11879
Location: Maryland
us.gif
votes: 174

lakerdude wrote:
He's a fan favorite it seems for sure. Other than being a part of the Warriors recent run, he is a non figure. If it weren't for them he'd be invisible. The facts are he was just a fill in. He didn't make this team, and he didn't build this team.

All he did was stand in for Steve Kerr. Other than that, what has he done to prove worthy to be the coach of the best franchise in sports history? I hope everyone realizes he is just a gamble. Everyone is "hoping" he can replicate the Warriors success and translate it to the Lakers. He hasn't prove anything in his short coaching stint.

Luke is a rookie in my opinion and nothing else. The Lakers gambled their future on a rookie. Some gambles result n a win fall, yet most result in a big loss. I'm not a big gambler, I always bet on the most sure thing. This is not a sure thing. I hope the gamble pays off, but I am far from sold. I actually hate this hire. I hope the majority of you are right, but I would not bet my money on it..

You do realize any coach you get is a gamble right? The Lakers put the future of their franchise in the hands of a 36 year old former Laker before and that didn't turn out too bad. That former Laker had two years of experience as an assistant coach, the facts were he didn't make that team and he didn't build that team which to me are irrelevant to whether he does a good job or not. What did that two year assistant do to prove worthy of being the head coach of the Lakers? Very similar yet different scenarios. What did Mark Jackson prove in order to become head coach of the Warriors? He had no previous coaching experience, neither did Kerr who is now the coach at GS. We don't know how it may turn out but you seem to be angry about it and yet you don't necessarily have anything to lean on but lack of experience.


lakerdude
Laker GM
 Avatar
Posts: 4627
Location: lakerdude
votes: 36

gemfow wrote:
You do realize any coach you get is a gamble right? The Lakers put the future of their franchise in the hands of a 36 year old former Laker before and that didn't turn out too bad. That former Laker had two years of experience as an assistant coach, the facts were he didn't make that team and he didn't build that team which to me are irrelevant to whether he does a good job or not. What did that two year assistant do to prove worthy of being the head coach of the Lakers? Very similar yet different scenarios. What did Mark Jackson prove in order to become head coach of the Warriors? He had no previous coaching experience, neither did Kerr who is now the coach at GS. We don't know how it may turn out but you seem to be angry about it and yet you don't necessarily have anything to lean on but lack of experience.

OK Gem. We usually have similar opinions and I don't remember the last time we disagreed. We were on the same boat on many a tooic. This one, I am 100% against your take dude. It's not because of the known, which we usually agree on, this is because of the unknown.

You seem to be a fan of the Luke Walton hire. I barely see your take on it because of your spin on it. It makes no sense to integrate Mark Jackson or Steve Kerr's name into this. They started their coaching career on a Warriors team that was almost there. The Warriors had a squad that was ready to explode before they were hired. The Warriors were on the cusp.

You act like the Warriors were 20 and 72 when either of these 2 started. Once Curry was drafted this team was on the rise. Doesn't it seem strange to you that no matter what coach they plugged in, they were great?it's math bro. The Warriors were already to explode no matter what they did. Mark Jackson did good, but got fired. Kerr didn't miss a beat, Walton stepped in and kept it going. Big deal.

The Warriors success is more based on talent than coaching. The Lakers need a "COACH" I think your reasoning is whack on this one bro. I don't get you this time dude. The only thing I agree with you on is the freakish Pat Riley hiring if that's who you were talking about. But didnt he have Kareem, Magic, Worthy? This doesn't compare to that at all in my opinion. Sorry Gem.


kkennon1
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 10306
Location: Phoenix, AZ
us.gif
votes: 17

lakerdude wrote:
OK Gem. We usually have similar opinions and I don't remember the last time we disagreed. We were on the same boat on many a tooic. This one, I am 100% against your take dude. It's not because of the known, which we usually agree on, this is because of the unknown.

You seem to be a fan of the Luke Walton hire. I barely see your take on it because of your spin on it. It makes no sense to integrate Mark Jackson or Steve Kerr's name into this. They started their coaching career on a Warriors team that was almost there. The Warriors had a squad that was ready to explode before they were hired. The Warriors were on the cusp.

You act like the Warriors were 20 and 72 when either of these 2 started. Once Curry was drafted this team was on the rise. Doesn't it seem strange to you that no matter what coach they plugged in, they were great?it's math bro. The Warriors were already to explode no matter what they did. Mark Jackson did good, but got fired. Kerr didn't miss a beat, Walton stepped in and kept it going. Big deal.

The Warriors success is more based on talent than coaching. The Lakers need a "COACH" I think your reasoning is whack on this one bro. I don't get you this time dude. The only thing I agree with you on is the freakish Pat Riley hiring if that's who you were talking about. But didn't he have Kareem, Magic, Worthy? This doesn't compare to that at all in my opinion. Sorry Gem.

You just said it, Warriors success is based on talent, any coach that comes in will need talent to be successful. Any Coach!!!


JJCali
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 6635

us.gif
votes: 13

People are discounting the Warriors' coaching regardless of if it's Kerr or Walton. Both of those guys deserve credit. NO team is winning like that without good coaching. Just because they are extremely talented doesn't mean the coach doesn't deserve credit. I'm not discounting the point that they are already a great team that Walton was able to come in and coach, but that doesn't discount that he coached them to 39-4! The Bulls couldn't win a title with Michael freaking Jordan and Scottie Pippen until Jackson showed up. And then they won 3 in a row (6 in a row when Jordan was actually there). Take the 99 Lakers vs the 2000 Lakers. Shaq and Kobe are arguable the best 1-2 punch of all time (definitely top 3) and they couldn't win a ring until Jackson got there. So just to say that they had all this talent doesn't mean that ANY coach would be winning just as much there. A coach could easily mess things up in any situation.


gemfow
LNS HOF Silver
Posts: 11879
Location: Maryland
us.gif
votes: 174
lakerdude wrote:
a beat, Walton stepped in and kept it going. Big deal. The Warriors success is more based on talent than coaching. The Lakers need a "COACH" I think your reasoning is whack on this one bro. I don't get you this time dude. The only thing I agree with you on is the freakish Pat Riley hiring if that's who you were talking about. But didn't he have Kareem, Magic, Worthy?
No need to apologize for a disagreement. This team does need to acquire talent and this team also needs to develop the talent that they do have. That's....


Shepherd
LNS HOF Bronze
Posts: 9427

ez.gif
votes: 49

Well they did the same rush job on selecting Mosgov. And overpaying him. So no surprise there. Glitch has never been a good GM. The only good things that happened on his watch fell into his lap via Jerry. On his own he's been a total bust. I've wanted him gone for years. Whatever it takes. None of the last few Laker coaching changed were done very methodically. They had in their minds who they wanted, and that's what they took. It's not that there was no process this time, there hasn't been a proper coaching selection process in LA for years.


Ray
Big-Time Laker Fan
Posts: 995
Location: Ray
votes: 15

I personally think most peoples opinion comes down to whatever coach you would of liked the Lakers to sign.

If you wanted Walton, like me. Then you're ok with how the whole situation went down.

If you wanted another coach, then of course most will say the Lakes should of did this or that.

Regardless of how they went about the job search, they got the Coach they wanted. I mean who exactly did we miss out on, that was grabbed by another team? Thibs. Has anyone even signed Messina? So let's not act like he was some prized piece teams were fighting over.

Couple years ago, some Lakers fans cry when we take our time and picked Byron or even if we take our time on a FA. But this year we have our minds made up and make plenty of decisive picks, with Walton as coach and some FA. But now fans are made that we went to fast. It's just stupid.

At the end of the day we got the Coach we wanted and their wasn't no guarantee he was coming to us. There was plenty of other teams that are in a better position then us, that he could of signed with. As a first time head coach, you typically do not have the power to be picky on the first team you coach. If we didn't get him this year, then we probably never would have. Whatever coach we did sign, would be with us for 3 years and Walton would most likely be signed by another team and the 2 of us would of never meet up.

I personally think the only better coach on the market for us to sign was Thibs and the Lakers didn't want to give him power and that is fine with me. We got the guy we wanted, why do so many care that we didn't waste our time on other coaches, that we really didn't wan't to sign anyways, it's not like these other coaches were be taking by other teams. If things didn't work out with Walton, a lot of our options were still ope at that point.


mrlandlord
Casual Laker Fan
Posts: 173
votes: 3

I have always admired how the Spurs conduct their business on and off of the court. Any addition from that coaching staff would have been fantastic. Luke was in the right place at the right time. If you have players that can jack up shots from 30 feet anywhere on the floor, you can't call that good offense or a good coach. You call that the splash brothers. The Spurs have taken mediocre players, no name players and young players and have figured out who fits, who doesn't, who should coached in what way, and how this compliments their stars for the last 20 years. I want leaders cut from that cloth, not the new shiny guy.


Options Quick Reply: RE: How 'GM' Mitch Kupchak Screwed Up the Hiring of Luke Walton
register
You are an anonymous user- or .
Quote the last message
Attach signature (signatures can be changed in profile)
Notify me when a reply is posted
Don't Check Spelling
   
  register
You are an anonymous user- or .'>
Go To the Top of the ThreadGo Home
Post new topic   Reply to topic
register
You are an anonymous user- Register now or Log in Now!


Add our Los Angeles Lakers Blog RSS Feed, the Lakers Rumors RSS Feed, the Lakers News RSS feed, and the Lakers Forum RSS feed to get the latest Laker News and Rumors and Lakers Game info in your RSS/XML reader!