He's been fired. I don't think Chicago would take him given our "commitment to defense" but he'd probably make the most out of our small-ball roster. Of course, that'd just make me want to change our roster even more
I suppose I'm not being that fair in my small ball comments. I guess you could make a case that D'Antoni did the best with what he had to work with. But someone make that case. Is he the sort of guy that is willing to seek out and acquire any sort of play to win in the playoffs, or is he the sort of guy who's wedded to his system?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (cpawfan @ Apr 30 2008, 10:48 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Does anyone see Paxson and D'Antoni working well together?</div> Paxson could have been on vacation since the trade deadline for all I can tell. He certainly didn't give appearances of being closely involved with anything so I don't know how anyone would say whether he worked well with the coaches or not. He seemed to more or less give free reign to Boylan. Prior, he supposedly traded guys away because Skiles wanted them gone, although I personally don't believe that. He seemed to be particularly upset with Skiles' refusal to sit Ben Gordon on the bench to start games, but that's just my impression. None of it really gives me a sense of how he'd work with D'Antoni.
Did D'Antoni play PG somewhere? With Mark Jackson's name even being mentioned, it seems like that's the big qualification Pax looks for.
MikeDC, your 1st post in this thread says "He's been fired" in red. What does that mean? He hasn't been fired, as we know. However, he was just given permission to talk to the Bulls (and the Knicks says the bottom line on ESPN). Here's a link: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...1,5673013.story Steve Kerr seems to have changed his mind. I live in Phoenix, and he said on local radio here that he wouldn't let D'Antoni talk with other teams. D'Antoni has 2 years, 8.5 million left on his deal with Phoenix. Is there any chance Reinsdorf would ever match that deal (4.25 million per year) and maybe extend the deal by a year (12.75/3 years)? If he's the guy we want, I hope Reinsdorf isn't too cheap to get him. Coaches don't count against the salary cap/luxury tax. D'Antoni is known for his offense, not his defense. Perhaps I'm enamored with foolsgold, but I'd love to see somebody try to put together an interesting offense in Chicago for the first time in 10 years.
D'Antoni is a great choice for coach of the Bulls if it can happen. Reinsdorf paid Skiles $4M/year, so the price isn't out of line with the bottom line. D'Antoni's coaching style is a great fit for the personnel we have, and he'd certainly turn some of our players who disappointed last season into much better players. I certainly see some of the younger guys, and even Hinrich, flourishing under his schemes. And I agree with DMD that it'd be great to see an interesting offense.
If you read the Trib today, D'Antoni will be interviewing with the Bulls. I want Avery over him, since I want a coach that focuses on defense. But how about this idea. Hire D'Antoni to coach the team. Then hire Tom Thibodeau as his assistant. Thibo is only on a 1 year contract with the Celtics, so lets show the guy the money, make him a highly paid assistant. We don't really need an MLE guy, or anything, just a backup point guard probably...so why not spend 2-3 million on a helluva an assistant? With this, we would have both offense and defense covered pretty well. The only other opening I could see for Thibodeau is in Phoenix, since Mark Jackson seems to be the Knicks guy. However, I think Phoenix is more likely to go after Avery Johnson, and I could see Jeff Van Gundy renegging on what he said to coach the Suns. Just don't see a head coaching job being there for him. If we hire D'Antoni, I hope Paxson pursues Thibodeau hard for that defensive assistant spot.
Mark Jackson is an announcer. That qualifies him to be GM of the Bulls. Taking the coaching job in NY is a pretty good step down for him
I must say, I'm in camp Avery. I can't see D'Antoni winning without bringing in a top assistant like Thibodeau. I'll take Avery, the disciple of Gregg Popovich (who was the disciple of Larry Brown). Look at the connection from that tutilage: Larry Brown, Mike Brown, Avery Johnson. In the recent NBA era.... Gregg Popovich: 4 finals appearances, 1 championship. Larry Brown: 3 finals appearances, 1 championship. Mike Brown: 1 finals appearance. Avery Johnson: 1 finals appearance. I think taking on a disciple of Gregg Popovich would be very wise.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (darius miles davis @ May 5 2008, 01:43 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>MikeDC, your 1st post in this thread says "He's been fired" in red. What does that mean? He hasn't been fired, as we know.</div> Yeah, that was based on the initial reports <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>However, he was just given permission to talk to the Bulls (and the Knicks says the bottom line on ESPN). Here's a link: http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...1,5673013.story Steve Kerr seems to have changed his mind. I live in Phoenix, and he said on local radio here that he wouldn't let D'Antoni talk with other teams. D'Antoni has 2 years, 8.5 million left on his deal with Phoenix. Is there any chance Reinsdorf would ever match that deal (4.25 million per year) and maybe extend the deal by a year (12.75/3 years)? If he's the guy we want, I hope Reinsdorf isn't too cheap to get him. Coaches don't count against the salary cap/luxury tax. D'Antoni is known for his offense, not his defense. Perhaps I'm enamored with foolsgold, but I'd love to see somebody try to put together an interesting offense in Chicago for the first time in 10 years.</div> I don't know what to think about D'Antoni. It's pretty hard to judge what he'd to and what he'd focus on without Steve Nash. The Suns did seem to try hard to improve their defense, but i don't think they had a whole lot to work with aside from Marion. So maybe he'd be better with better players. Still, I have a big fear we'll be tied to a philosophy that runs up lots of regular season wins and is designed to flop in the playoffs. Of course, that's better than lots of regular season losses and a flop in the playoffs, so why should i care.
All the craziness about Paxson getting a hold of D’Antoni seems pretty silly to me. Paxson has a coaching vacancy. He needs to interview replacements. Its not like he’s proactively and boldly forging ahead in a new direction. He’s interviewing who is out there. Carlisle. D’Antoni. Probably all the major candidates. The fact that he’s all over the map just shows how lost he really is. He’s looking for “a new vibe” but has little clue what he’s looking for. I can perhaps buy into that this roster might do better under a small ball coach. I also know small ball does not win titles for the most part, so its just a short term juicing. But, the Paxson “right way” methodology was a failure, so might as well try something else. This team is a scrap heap, IMO. Its been ridden into the ground. Carlisle. D’Antoni. Thribadau. To be honest, I’d like to care, but I don’t really. This Paxson roster is so bleh that the coach does not really matter a ton, IMO. I’d prefer a coach that emphasizes both D an O, but to be honest, I don’t think this team is going anywhere, so a run-n-gun style might be more fun to watch. Average players playing run-n-gun is still an average team though. Paxson is desperate. He really has no clue what he’s doing, IMO.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (kukoc4ever @ May 5 2008, 10:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>All the craziness about Paxson getting a hold of D’Antoni seems pretty silly to me. Paxson has a coaching vacancy. He needs to interview replacements. Its not like he’s proactively and boldly forging ahead in a new direction. He’s interviewing who is out there. Carlisle. D’Antoni. Probably all the major candidates. The fact that he’s all over the map just shows how lost he really is. He’s looking for “a new vibe” but has little clue what he’s looking for. I can perhaps buy into that this roster might do better under a small ball coach. I also know small ball does not win titles for the most part, so its just a short term juicing. But, the Paxson “right way” methodology was a failure, so might as well try something else. This team is a scrap heap, IMO. Its been ridden into the ground. Carlisle. D’Antoni. Thribadau. To be honest, I’d like to care, but I don’t really. This Paxson roster is so bleh that the coach does not really matter a ton, IMO. I’d prefer a coach that emphasizes both D an O, but to be honest, I don’t think this team is going anywhere, so a run-n-gun style might be more fun to watch. Average players playing run-n-gun is still an average team though. Paxson is desperate. He really has no clue what he’s doing, IMO.</div> Just to add to your comments. How do you run and gun with a team that can't run and gun? The team was brutal in the open court last season. We don't have a handler besides Chris Duhon, really, and he is too incomplete to play forty minutes a game. Skiles was a good coach for this team -- despite all of his major shortcomings. His strengths played to the Bulls' strengths, at least for a couple of years.
I think Paxson was actually pretty smart. We obviously have a lot of talent, we won 49 games with this team...young, and our players still have a lot of upside potential they may meet. Paxson brings in a bunch of coaches has them tell him how they'll use his players, and what went wrong last year. I think getting a bunch of outside opinions is a good idea.
