Days after the Los Angeles Lakers were reported to have signed Mike D'Antoni as their next head coach, skeptical pundits and fans like myself are still struggling to find the words that accurately encompass the Lakers' recklessness. Whether or not Phil Jackson's alleged demands - greater authority in personnel decisions, skipping some road games, etc. - will always be a contentious debate. At the end of the day, though, we will never know what happened behind closed doors.
According to Jackson's agent, Todd Musburger, and a statement released by Jackson himself, the 11-time champion made no such demands in his hour-and-a-half long meeting with Jim Buss and general manager Mitch Kuptchak on Saturday. Apparently, Jackson was given until Monday to make a decision and he was about to accept the job. In one of the most sly negotiations in sports history, though, Kuptchak awakened Jackson with a phone call right after midnight on Sunday night - technically, Monday morning - to inform Jackson that they had hired D'Antoni instead.
In an article by Mike Bresnahan in today's Los Angeles Times, Kuptchak is quoted as saying: "There was no agreement to wait for [Jackson's] response on Monday. He told us that's when he would get back to us. I could see where he might interpret that as 'I thought you guys would wait for me.' But I thought when I said I had to go on and interview other candidates that it was clear I had a job to do."
The entire situation appears, as Jackson described the midnight call, "slimy."
According to Kuptchak, if Jackson had immediately confirmed his interest in returning to coach the Lakers at Saturday's meeting, the job was his. Instead, Jackson's request for two days to think the matter over completely changed the trajectory of the Lakers' future.
My frustration extends beyond the Lakers' disrespectful, or at least slimy, negotiations. The Lakers claim that Jackson's "Triangle offense" was the deal-breaker; the offense resembled the "Princeton offense" that Mike Brown failed to instill. With Dwight Howard as the team's cornerstone going forward, D'Antoni's up-tempo offense would have a better chance of convincing Howard to resign with the Lakers at the end of the season as opposed to Jackson's methodical triangle. Jackson was also rumored to have wanted $10 milion or more annually in addition to other ludicrous demands.
No matter how many excuses the front office come up with, the organization knew what it was getting into when it pursued Jackson. Yes, the Princeton offense and Triangle offense do require practice in order to execute well, perhaps more practice than other offenses. But prior to the Lakers' Tuesday night loss againt the Spurs, the Purple and Gold had only played 6 games. There were still months of practice remaining and 76 games left to master the offense before the playoffs. And, unlike Jackson's second return in 2005, the Lakers have a core group of players already familiar with this offense - leaders in Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, and, dare I say, Metta World Peace - who could help in the instructional phase.
Much has been reported of Jackson's alleged demands. For the most part, all of them have been false. According to Bresnahan's article, "Jackson told Jim Buss and Kuptchak that he wanted the same communication between them on personnel decisions that he held in his second tenure from 2005 to 2011." All the crazy talk of Jackson wanting to skip road games and seek an ownership stake in the franchise was absolute nonsense.
Even if Jackson actually made some extra demands, other than skipping road games, he has every right to ask for a little more. The Lakers are the one in the desperate situation seeking his services, not the other way around. Plus, Jackson, a mastermind who has played and coaches in the Association for decades, certainly knows more about the game than Jim Buss. The illustrious coach seems to have a rocky relationship with the younger Buss, but respects Kuptchak, and with good reason. When Kuptchak has taken the lead in decision-making the results have been much better than when Jim Buss stepped up (i.e. hiring Mike Brown). Any personnel decisions would likely have been made in conjunction with the expertise of Kuptchak. Yes, Jackson would have likely commanded $10-12 million in annual salary. But what happened the last time the Lakers were stingy about hiring a head coach? Oh, right.
With regard to retaining Howard, the center could have either learned under an 11-time champion coach who took Shaquille O'Neal to the Promised Land three consecutive times or from a coach whose own post player of several years, Amar'e Stoudemire, says that D'Antoni did little to foster his post skills. However, we should not be too worried about the post skills because, at its prime, the Nash-Stoudemire pick n'roll tandem was nearly flawless. What it comes down to is whether Howard will be more content with winning championships, albeit with less flare, or flashy wins without the silverware to back them up.
There were no surprises with Jackson. If the front office claims that they did not sign Jackson for basketball reasons, then they should not have even interviewed Jackson in the first place. They already knew Jackson's fundamental philosophy, the Triangle offense, so if they did not think the 11-time champion would be a good fit, it was inappropriate to even meet with Jackson and offer the job to him.
There's the problem, though: The Lakers front office passed on an 11-time champion, much less for a coach who has never been to the NBA Finals. The messianic Jackson, arguably the greatest coach in pro sports history, by far had the most credibility of any possible coaching candidate. No one believes D'Antoni is a bad coach or unfit for the job. In fact, Bryant himself told Jim Buss that his top preference was D'Antoni, until he found out Jackson was an option. Criticism of D'Antoni's lackluster defensive teams is not necessarily valid with a Lakers team that has two former defensive players of the year in Howard and World Peace alongside a 12-time All-Defensive team selection in Bryant. My argument is not one against D'Antoni, but for Jackson. Heck, I'm even willing to admit that D'Antoni was a better long-term solution for the Lakers. But for an organization that claims to be driven to win now, Jackson would have been the best man for the job.
Current Phoenix Suns head coach Alvin Gentry captured my sentiment best when he commented on the Lakers' shocking decision: "The one thing I don't understand is that guy [Jackson] has been to [13] out of 20 NBA Finals and won 11 of them. I don't know how you can pass on a guy that can pretty much guarentee you a championship every other year."
Ultimately, any front office is confronted with the following options in order of priority.
1) Optimal scenario: Win a championship AND be exciting.
2) Second-best scenario: Win a championship, but perhaps without an exciting offense.
3) Last resort if you do not have the resources for a championship-caliber team: Excite the fans.
The front office has made a huge gamble: either the Lakers will thrive in the optimal scenario or be victims of a general manager's last resort, where mind you, anything less than a championship will be considered a disappointment and anything other than a Finals appearance considered an utter faliure.
