pdxKingsFan said this:
I'm really confused the point of this story. Does the head coach exist to serve the whims of the away fans in the cheap seats? Does a second round rookie deserve this kind of respect?
and
It seems like you have quite the bone to pick with the coach, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but I am really curious who you think would actually come coach here that's better after what had been done to the franchise under the stewardship of the previous front offices?
---------------------------------------------------
May I take the second part first?
I have no bone to pick. I am agnostic about the coach and I have no one in mind who would be superior. Why would I, since it isn't my decision anyway?
I make judgments about the DECISIONS he makes. As I pointed out earlier, A) I selected "not sure" in the poll (rather than a "low grade") and B) although my nature is to point out existing problems (which need to be solved) rather than praising that which is already going acceptably well (and needs no corrective focus), I occasionally "praise" (see "Jackson lob to Temple for slam dunk out of timeout").
Your "who would come here?" point is well taken but, if accepted as written, you seem to be suggesting that Joerger is a second tier coach who had no other options.
So, who WOULD come here?
Well, George Karl was a guy who was never going to get any other offers (as was true at the time of Bill Russell, Dick Motta and even Rick Adelman).
Adelman, who had been dumped by Portland, then failed miserably at Golden State, turned out to be a good choice, for awhile.
Despite his obvious lack of drive and energy (the result of two cancer battles), George Karl might have been the same had Vlade not emasculated him (presumably because he "inherited" him - not "his guy").
In fact, I can make a case that had the referees not blown a key call, George Karl (and DMC) might still be here, entering their third straight playoff year, with Vlade in the rearview mirror - but that is not how things turned out.
I remember when Karl came into a dysfunctional system (Malone dumped midseason, Corbin as interim) late in the season, in preparation for a full season the next year. It was an impossible task, but valuable for him to "evaluate personnel for the future". As such, that first half season, he was not all about "winning" (that season's ship had already sailed) and there was a lot of fan criticism on khtk. Napear used to defend him, saying, "the guy is going into the hall of fame - do you think he suddenly forgot how to coach?" However, the following season (with his buddy Vlade in the GM seat and having undercut Karl after the DMC locker room tirade) Napear turned on Karl, hastening his departure.
Now Grant gushes over "ice fishing with Dave" as though that has anything to do with coaching ability.
Ironically, both Karl and Joerger (and Phil Jackson) made their bones coaching in the CBA, a route former players usually do not have to take.
But the premise of the second part of your question is wrong.
Here is that part that I think is incorrect:
-----------------------------------------------
"... after what had been done to the franchise under the stewardship of the previous front offices?
----------------------------------------------
Actually, the previous misadventures made this job MORE attractive.
1) ANYONE who just stopped the bleeding would look good in comparison.
2) Other than Cousins (who turned out to be expendable - do you think Vlade and Joerger discussed his eventual phaseout before the hiring?), a new coach was coming in with very few long term contracts - in fact, every coach probably dreams about "shaping his own roster", but usually that is not fully possible. Had the "stewardship of the previous front offices?" left a new coach facing eight long term guaranteed contracts for players the new coach did not want, that would be a very different thing.
Now, to explain my "Frank Mason" point, you are playing the "straw man" game when you say this:
----------------------------------------
Does the head coach exist to serve the whims of the away fans in the cheap seats?
-----------------------------------------
That is not the issue at all (and I think you know that).
But when you say THIS:
---------------------------------------
Does a second round rookie deserve this kind of respect?
----------------------------------------
Are you suggesting that it would be different if Mason was a first round pick or a tenured veteran?
Because I believe that the most successful coaches find a way to treat all players in an equal way. Coaches who cater to the whims of stars ("two sets of rules") are ultimately divisive and unsuccesful You have to find a way to hold all players accountable to the same standard.
I would have made this point no matter WHO the player was.
It so happened that this was Mason's hometown. And, as a rookie, he must have had a certain amount of pride at returning home on an NBA roster (with absolutely no guarantee that that would be the case the following season). Maybe the coach did not KNOW that this was Mason's hometown. Maybe he did not care about that basic human emotion of "pride in celebrating an achievement with friends and - probably - former competitors". But even if he did not know beforehand, as Gary Gerold obviously did not, like Gerold, he could not help but notice "something going on here".
Now, if this were a close game, that becomes the last thing on Joeger's mind. But this was one of the most lopsided losses of the season - the game was a blowout and when the fans began chanting for Frank, the game was well past lost. In fact, most other fans were walking out. This was literally the ONLY meaningful thing going on at the end of a dreadful game.
So, what HARM would it have done to give Mason a couple of minutes. That is, "what was the risk?"
And the "reward" might have been a young guy shining in a situation where everything else screamed "epic fail". Some good MIGHT have come out of a bad game. Even just getting a "thanks, coach" from a guy you might very well NEED in your camp as the season went on, THAT possibility would have justified whatever "risk" you might think existed.
But Joerger decided to ignore the emotions of a young player who, to my mind, has been doing everything asked of him with a positive attitude. I just don't see the "positive" in denying him a couple of minutes to shine, the only chance he would get before friends and family this year. For Joerger, opportunity missed and I get all quizzical when I see a coach pass up a chance to bond with players when there is no apparent risk to doing so. Maybe he is just trying to establish a "tough guy boss" persona, but I would have liked to have seen some emotion there - put the kid in and give him a big hug at the end of his two minutes. Is that so wrong?