https://www.yahoo.com/sports/nba-coach-reportedly-t-hot-193910785.html “You can’t have a hot woman in the NBA,” says one veteran NBA coach. “Guys will be trying to f— her every day.” “By and large the NBA is an incredibly sexist environment,” says the veteran NBA coach. “I listen to players talk about women. I have a daughter and it’s sometimes disturbing. But it’s nothing new. It hasn’t gotten worse over the years. In our society there are men uncomfortable working under women and a handful of our players would have a problem with it.”
Wow! What an article! Here I wonder if the Blazers will ever again have a coach that knows the game well enough to be a master, knows people and character well enough to lead, knows how to command. These are the qualities of the winner. Holy hell, why do we have to think about, female or male, gay or straight? What the fuck has that to do with a Championship?
Obviously Hammond should not be hired simply because she's a woman. But she has worked as an assistant coach for the Spurs. She might have had to deal with some sexist shit, but by all accounts she has done her work well and earned respect. That is why she should be considered for head coaching job. This is an old argument with multiple variations. White soldiers could never respect a black officer, but they do. Men could never work for a female manager. Straight people would never vote for a gay candidate. Saying change the world, then hire is a cop out. The hiring helps change the world. And attitudes.
Every time a writer “quotes” an anonymous source, one of two things is true. The source is a coward, or the writer is a liar. Usually it’s the latter.
Hammond has GOT to be better than Stotts. I'd have hired her 6 months after she joined the Spurs. Maybe a year but just so she can learn some NBA stuff.
I would hire her tomorrow if I thought she could lead us to a Championship. Come to think of it, I suspect she has a better chance than what we have now.
Incorrect yet again my good man. By and large, a source requests anonymity or to be quoted as “background” becuase the source has something to lose / is worried about retribution. Having used anonymous sources, I know this to be a fact. Rather than being scared, the anonymous source typically risks their career to speak to a reporter. They are not scared, they are brave. Your lack of accurate information sometimes is really painful to watch.
