RealGM

dougthonus wrote:I think the degree there is the key thing. People have also tended to take singular comments or events and then extrapolate that out to "this guy hates Boylen". This all could be true. There certainly aren't many comments talking about how great he is. If it is true that all the players really feel very strongly negative about him, then again, it's criminal to keep him there. There's no way any leader can be successful if none of the people leading him have confidence in him.

What I was getting at in the prior post is that quibbling about "the degree" of dislike is really kind of irrelevant when there's a lot of evidence against and little to no evidence for.

The weight of the evidence on player evaluation is strongly against him.

The evidence from results is strongly against him.

The evidence from analysis (such as looking at theory and statistics and strategy as opposed to simple results) is strongly against him.

The evidence of his embarrassing and unprofessional behavior (kind of a catch all for all the bad will he's generated though other means... saying dumb things in the media, leaving injured players on the court, politicking in an unseemly fashion, wasting everyone's time with nonsense timeouts etc.) is also strongly against him.

Any one of these areas would be reason enough to fire him, but they are literally all squarely on the side of firing him.

There's just nothing to be seen that's going to outweigh all of that.

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:When I say money is an issue, I don't mean the cost of eating Boylen's cheap salary. I mean the cost of bringing in a high-profile coach (~4-5M) in a season with uncertain revenues.

The Bulls don't seem like they will do that though. The two most popular candidate on the forum and based on sources are Adrian Griffin and Ime Udoka. Neither of whom project to be 4-5M per year guys on long contracts. They project to be 3 year guys at maybe 3M.

Again, maybe that's a problem, but when they fired Thibs and owed him 8M, they still committed 25M to Hoiberg. I do agree that it's possible COVID will be a factor there and make them more conservative financially than they might otherwise be, but their history doesn't suggest this level of consevatism with coaching hires despite people constantly bringing it up. Firing Boylen would literally be the lowest change in coaching cost they've had in the past 16 seasons and with the exception of VDN, every other coach is roughly 4-6x as much coast to replace.

dougthonus wrote:

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:When I say money is an issue, I don't mean the cost of eating Boylen's cheap salary. I mean the cost of bringing in a high-profile coach (~4-5M) in a season with uncertain revenues.

The Bulls don't seem like they will do that though. The two most popular candidate on the forum and based on sources are Adrian Griffin and Ime Udoka. Neither of whom project to be 4-5M per year guys on long contracts. They project to be 3 year guys at maybe 3M.

Again, maybe that's a problem, but when they fired Thibs and owed him 8M, they still committed 25M to Hoiberg. I do agree that it's possible COVID will be a factor there and make them more conservative financially than they might otherwise be, but their history doesn't suggest this level of consevatism with coaching hires despite people constantly bringing it up. Firing Boylen would literally be the lowest change in coaching cost they've had in the past 16 seasons and with the exception of VDN, every other coach is roughly 4-6x as much coast to replace.

Luke Walton made 5M on his first job. Bulls gave Hoiberg $5M as you mentioned. I’m not going to pretend to know exactly what Udoka or Griffin would command.

But if, for the sake of argument, it were *only* $3M, it wouldn’t surprise me if that were a big enough deterrent to ownership bringing on a new coach in a developmental year where they’re already projecting massive losses. In fact, I think that is more likely than not a factor.

The finances work the other way too. I simply have no interest in paying to watch the Bulls if they have Jim Boylen as the coach.

No league pass. No games in person. It's not even a boycott, it's simply a decision about what want to spend my entertainment money on. Watching Jim Boylen coach the Bulls is not it.

I love the Bulls but if we're realistic, most fans will acknowledge that the prospect for spending money on the Bulls next year isn't going to be that appetizing in the first place. It's mostly going to be the same not very good team barring something unexpected. About the most we can hope for is the rookies to be exciting and the younger guys to look better than they have. Boylen is, if anything a serious obstacle to that, and adding his aggressively unpleasant style of foolishness and incompetence to the mix takes an already meh prospect and turns it into a solid negative.

MikeDC wrote:The finances work the other way too. I simply have no interest in paying to watch the Bulls if they have Jim Boylen as the coach.

No league pass. No games in person. It's not even a boycott, it's simply a decision about what want to spend my entertainment money on. Watching Jim Boylen coach the Bulls is not it.

I love the Bulls but if we're realistic, most fans will acknowledge that the prospect for spending money on the Bulls next year isn't going to be that appetizing in the first place. It's mostly going to be the same not very good team barring something unexpected. About the most we can hope for is the rookies to be exciting and the younger guys to look better than they have. Boylen is, if anything a serious obstacle to that, and adding his aggressively unpleasant style of foolishness and incompetence to the mix takes an already meh prospect and turns it into a solid negative.

It would appear that many people in the organization disagree that Boylen is an obstacle to that and actually think he will help.

This leaves three basic scenarios to me:
1: Everyone agrees, and they will fire Boylen but haven't done so yet due to a lack of pressing need to do so at this moment. (hooray!)

2: They don't agree and have been fooled (god help us!)
3: They don't agree and there is information we aren't privy to which the FO knows mitigates many of the flaws we see (direct orders to do things we didn't like or some other mitigating factor) (maybe it will be ok if he stays and these factors are removed?)

If your company is a small mom n' pop shop operating in a small market, wouldn't whatever Boylen makes + $3M a year too much money already?

dougthonus wrote:

MikeDC wrote:The finances work the other way too. I simply have no interest in paying to watch the Bulls if they have Jim Boylen as the coach.

No league pass. No games in person. It's not even a boycott, it's simply a decision about what want to spend my entertainment money on. Watching Jim Boylen coach the Bulls is not it.

I love the Bulls but if we're realistic, most fans will acknowledge that the prospect for spending money on the Bulls next year isn't going to be that appetizing in the first place. It's mostly going to be the same not very good team barring something unexpected. About the most we can hope for is the rookies to be exciting and the younger guys to look better than they have. Boylen is, if anything a serious obstacle to that, and adding his aggressively unpleasant style of foolishness and incompetence to the mix takes an already meh prospect and turns it into a solid negative.

It would appear that many people in the organization disagree that Boylen is an obstacle to that and actually think he will help.

This leaves three basic scenarios to me:
1: Everyone agrees, and they will fire Boylen but haven't done so yet due to a lack of pressing need to do so at this moment. (hooray!)

2: They don't agree and have been fooled (god help us!)
3: They don't agree and there is information we aren't privy to which the FO knows mitigates many of the flaws we see (direct orders to do things we didn't like or some other mitigating factor) (maybe it will be ok if he stays and these factors are removed?)

The "Just following orders" defense lost a lot of its effectiveness after Nuremberg.
Especially when the guys giving the orders are still there.

Beyond that, it's all a bunch of nonsense to even suggest that stuff. The man went out and publicly proclaimed that Jerry Reinsdorf made him the "CEO".
Let's recap, shall we:

Jim Boylen, Head Coach and CEO of the Chicago Bulls wrote:“JERRY REINSDORF ASKED ME TO BE THE CEO,” BOYLEN TOLD THE ATHLETIC IN OCTOBER. “HE NEVER SAID ‘COACH’ TO ME ONE TIME. (IT WAS) ‘HIRE THE RIGHT PEOPLE. GET THEM ORGANIZED. SET THE COURSE. MAINTAIN THE COURSE. CORRECT THE COURSE.’ THAT’S WHAT HE ASKED ME TO DO. I’M HERE TO LEAD. THE GREAT HEAD COACHES ARE LEADERS.”

There is no reasonable interpretation of that kind of statement that should result in keeping him around. Even in the scenario where the Reinsdorfs and/or Paxson point blank said "do all this crazy stuff or you're fired" the extent to which Boylen self-promotingly got out in front of it with this sort of statement is stunning. Like, to the point where, if I were Jerry Reinsdorf, would I want Jim Boylen saying this kind of thing? Hell no.

Anyway, I'm not paying to see **** like this again:


Just. Not. Going. To. Happen.

MikeDC wrote:The "Just following orders" defense lost a lot of its effectiveness after Nuremberg.
Especially when the guys giving the orders are still there.

Beyond that, it's all a bunch of nonsense to even suggest that stuff. The man went out and publicly proclaimed that Jerry Reinsdorf made him the "CEO".
Let's recap, shall we:

Jim Boylen, Head Coach and CEO of the Chicago Bulls wrote:“JERRY REINSDORF ASKED ME TO BE THE CEO,” BOYLEN TOLD THE ATHLETIC IN OCTOBER. “HE NEVER SAID ‘COACH’ TO ME ONE TIME. (IT WAS) ‘HIRE THE RIGHT PEOPLE. GET THEM ORGANIZED. SET THE COURSE. MAINTAIN THE COURSE. CORRECT THE COURSE.’ THAT’S WHAT HE ASKED ME TO DO. I’M HERE TO LEAD. THE GREAT HEAD COACHES ARE LEADERS.”

There is no reasonable interpretation of that kind of statement that should result in keeping him around. Even in the scenario where the Reinsdorfs and/or Paxson point blank said "do all this crazy stuff or you're fired" the extent to which Boylen self-promotingly got out in front of it with this sort of statement is stunning. Like, to the point where, if I were Jerry Reinsdorf, would I want Jim Boylen saying this kind of thing? Hell no.

Anyway, I'm not paying to see **** like this again:

Watch on YouTube

Just. Not. Going. To. Happen.

You're arguing about Jim Boylen In July, odds are pretty good you'll be watching

Seriously though, I wouldn't tell you to watch or not watch or spend your money or not. That's obviously an individual decision. Boylen won't be the difference between whether I watch a ton or just watch a little bit, the difference will be the quality of the team.

I know you think those are 1:1 correlated, but I don't think replacing Boylen will really make much difference. I think the team will still likely be pretty poor no matter what. I'll probably start off watching every game, but if they quickly go into the tank, then I'll just skim through games and watch in the background rather than being really invested.

dougthonus wrote:

MikeDC wrote:The "Just following orders" defense lost a lot of its effectiveness after Nuremberg.
Especially when the guys giving the orders are still there.

Beyond that, it's all a bunch of nonsense to even suggest that stuff. The man went out and publicly proclaimed that Jerry Reinsdorf made him the "CEO".
Let's recap, shall we:

Jim Boylen, Head Coach and CEO of the Chicago Bulls wrote:“JERRY REINSDORF ASKED ME TO BE THE CEO,” BOYLEN TOLD THE ATHLETIC IN OCTOBER. “HE NEVER SAID ‘COACH’ TO ME ONE TIME. (IT WAS) ‘HIRE THE RIGHT PEOPLE. GET THEM ORGANIZED. SET THE COURSE. MAINTAIN THE COURSE. CORRECT THE COURSE.’ THAT’S WHAT HE ASKED ME TO DO. I’M HERE TO LEAD. THE GREAT HEAD COACHES ARE LEADERS.”

There is no reasonable interpretation of that kind of statement that should result in keeping him around. Even in the scenario where the Reinsdorfs and/or Paxson point blank said "do all this crazy stuff or you're fired" the extent to which Boylen self-promotingly got out in front of it with this sort of statement is stunning. Like, to the point where, if I were Jerry Reinsdorf, would I want Jim Boylen saying this kind of thing? Hell no.

Anyway, I'm not paying to see **** like this again:

Watch on YouTube

Just. Not. Going. To. Happen.

You're arguing about Jim Boylen In July, odds are pretty good you'll be watching

Seriously though, I wouldn't tell you to watch or not watch or spend your money or not. That's obviously an individual decision. Boylen won't be the difference between whether I watch a ton or just watch a little bit, the difference will be the quality of the team.

I know you think those are 1:1 correlated, but I don't think replacing Boylen will really make much difference. I think the team will still likely be pretty poor no matter what. I'll probably start off watching every game, but if they quickly go into the tank, then I'll just skim through games and watch in the background rather than being really invested.

I agree the Bulls will be poor, but with a good development coach, we could develop players and look enjoyable watching them. Jim is one of the worst coaches I've seen. I know behind the scenes he has some coaching plays he has learned from other greats. However, he is a terrible coach that protect himself by continuously throw other players under the bus, continue to kiss up to the FO for his own job, and not show much progress. What a development coach could do.

1) Come up with a plan to get Lauri to right spots. Lauri could just be a mediocre big that can get hot from deep, he could be an all-star type player with right development. However, he does not like Jim and wants to be out if Jim is still coaching. Even if we don't want to sign Lauri to a long-term extension, with right development, he could be a trade asset.
2) What to do with Wendell/Gafford. Wendell seems like more of a 4, but we have not seen the range and has had some injuries. However, both Wendell/Gafford don't like the coach.
3) Develop Cobi - we saw him going on a scoring rampage at the end. Was that a flash in the pan? Can he be developed into a lead guard type with more assists?

I mean, I could keep going, but besides development, we could build an identity, and build up more value in our players. If we keep Boylen, we take a chance in alienating not only our fan base, but good will with the FO (sans the owner), and mainly the players. So far, 6 of the players have portrayed and seem to lack respect for Jimbo. It really could hamper a lot down the road in just one year more.

othawhitemeat wrote:I agree the Bulls will be poor, but with a good development coach, we could develop players and look enjoyable watching them. Jim is one of the worst coaches I've seen. I know behind the scenes he has some coaching plays he has learned from other greats. However, he is a terrible coach that protect himself by continuously throw other players under the bus, continue to kiss up to the FO for his own job, and not show much progress. What a development coach could do.

1) Come up with a plan to get Lauri to right spots. Lauri could just be a mediocre big that can get hot from deep, he could be an all-star type player with right development. However, he does not like Jim and wants to be out if Jim is still coaching. Even if we don't want to sign Lauri to a long-term extension, with right development, he could be a trade asset.

Yeah, I just don't think too much of Lauri. I think zero chance he's an all-star regardless of what you do with him and trying to plan around optimizing him will hurt your team in the long term, hope I'm wrong and that he is healthy and just much better than I expect he will be.

2) What to do with Wendell/Gafford. Wendell seems like more of a 4, but we have not seen the range and has had some injuries. However, both Wendell/Gafford don't like the coach.

Wendell is not even remotely a 4 skill wise on offense. Not unless he learns to shoot and score. I think Carter is in for a lot of trouble if he has to play the 4.

3) Develop Cobi - we saw him going on a scoring rampage at the end. Was that a flash in the pan? Can he be developed into a lead guard type with more assists?

Coby really had extremely poor efficiency numbers, but he did tick up a lot towards teh end of the year. I'm not yet convinced he's more than Jannero Pargo at this point, and what we'll find out is if he can be good Coby consistently or if he's just a guy who can shoot a ton and sometimes have hot streaks. Hopefully it's the second of those things.

I mean, I could keep going, but besides development, we could build an identity, and build up more value in our players. If we keep Boylen, we take a chance in alienating not only our fan base, but good will with the FO (sans the owner), and mainly the players. So far, 6 of the players have portrayed and seem to lack respect for Jimbo. It really could hamper a lot down the road in just one year more.

I'll certainly be happy if Jim is gone.

All things considered, if Boylen heeds criticism and makes adjustments, what's the worst thing that'll happen?

If he's willing to coach in the midst of heat and pressure, then that's a win-win for both sides. He's not gonna retain the job into next season if he gets into deep, petty personal squabbles with players, so I don't see the problem with giving him the chance to improve relations and in-game management, and do right with Gafford, Carter, Lauri, etc.

It's just funny, cause if we apply their job expectations to our regular lives, it's not like somebody gets fired every time we have a personal disagreement or displeasure with a manager, boss, employee, client, etc. It's a long, twisting road before any firing happens.

I'll maintain that I'd like a better coach too, but given the bubble state, delayed 20/21 season, shrinking caps and revenues... and the plain possibility that the NBA doesn't resume to in-game normality until late 2021 or 2022, you've really gotta at least consider "Well, maybe Boylen does more coaching in practice than actual games." And I think he's shown he can teach the game in the gym. Biggest strikes have been substitutions, timeouts and offensive play-calling (or lack thereof).

So honestly, I'm indifferent what happens with the coaching position. I don't think Gafford saying Boylen is 'aight' on Twitch is gonna make Jim cry. I really don't think the Bulls are in position to do anything but develop individually, and basketball playing opportunities in any capacity.

dougthonus wrote:

AshyLarrysDiaper wrote:When I say money is an issue, I don't mean the cost of eating Boylen's cheap salary. I mean the cost of bringing in a high-profile coach (~4-5M) in a season with uncertain revenues.

The Bulls don't seem like they will do that though. The two most popular candidate on the forum and based on sources are Adrian Griffin and Ime Udoka. Neither of whom project to be 4-5M per year guys on long contracts. They project to be 3 year guys at maybe 3M.

Again, maybe that's a problem, but when they fired Thibs and owed him 8M, they still committed 25M to Hoiberg. I do agree that it's possible COVID will be a factor there and make them more conservative financially than they might otherwise be, but their history doesn't suggest this level of consevatism with coaching hires despite people constantly bringing it up. Firing Boylen would literally be the lowest change in coaching cost they've had in the past 16 seasons and with the exception of VDN, every other coach is roughly 4-6x as much coast to replace.

When your two franchise are in red making 9 figure loss each, being a billionaire doesnt mean much especially if you dont have much cash but in estates, properties.

Firing Boylen means paying 3 coaches at once, and no sane owner would do it.
Which was why I said keep Hoiberg but everyone ignored saying he was a horrible coach.
Guess what. Now you even have a much worse bald guy running the show. GL on recruiting AD with that garbage roster and coach staff and a cheap owner.

Showtime23 wrote:When your two franchise are in red making 9 figure loss each, being a billionaire doesnt mean much especially if you dont have much cash but in estates, properties.

Firing Boylen means paying 3 coaches at once, and no sane owner would do it.
Which was why I said keep Hoiberg but everyone ignored saying he was a horrible coach.
Guess what. Now you even have a much worse bald guy running the show. GL on recruiting AD with that garbage roster and coach staff and a cheap owner.

Hoiberg is off the books, so they wouldn't be paying three coaches. Also Hoiberg got hired by Nebraska and earned 2.5M, so that offset the amount the Bulls owed him, so they were only paying him 2.5M of the 5M he was guaranteed in 19/20 which was his final year under contract.

Showtime23 wrote:When your two franchise are in red making 9 figure loss each

FWIW this is a completely exaggerated lie to push Reinsdorf's usual woe-is-me financial status. Gate income at Down Arrow Field is nowhere near 9 figures and he doesn't even pay freakin' rent since we all paid for that dumb stadium for him to use for next to nothing. And he's absolutely not losing anywhere near 9 figures on the Bulls.

I do wonder if the Bulls are taking it a bit slow, just to see how rest of season plays out and if anything changes around the probability for having a 2021 season. If the season becomes more at-risk, why invest in a new coach?

sco wrote:I do wonder if the Bulls are taking it a bit slow, just to see how rest of season plays out and if anything changes around the probability for having a 2021 season. If the season becomes more at-risk, why invest in a new coach?

Hope they are just taking it like this and not with premise of keeping him around because we are cheap.

Well... Just got around to reading KC's latest 'Boylen wanted back' article. So I guess I'll see you guys again in a few years.

This f @ c k i n g franchise... Damn.

Again if we keep Boylen this franchise is still a joke and numerous players will ask out. Guaranteed.

My guess? Ownership had every intention of letting AK pick a coach. They advocated for Boylen, but the ultimate decision would’ve been his. But once they understood the financial implications of COVID for 2020-21, AK lost ‘full autonomy’. And he’s playing ball because, what else is he going to do? He’s already in the position, and his new owners are citing > $100M losses. It’s a tough fight to pick (let alone win) four months into the job.

Unless a big change in the underlying circumstances compels the Reinsdorf’s to invest in 2020-21 - e.g. we get the #1 pick or a player demands a trade - my guess is AK will capitulate and we get another year of Boylen.

dougthonus wrote:
You're arguing about Jim Boylen In July, odds are pretty good you'll be watching

Seriously though, I wouldn't tell you to watch or not watch or spend your money or not. That's obviously an individual decision. Boylen won't be the difference between whether I watch a ton or just watch a little bit, the difference will be the quality of the team.

I know you think those are 1:1 correlated, but I don't think replacing Boylen will really make much difference. I think the team will still likely be pretty poor no matter what. I'll probably start off watching every game, but if they quickly go into the tank, then I'll just skim through games and watch in the background rather than being really invested.

Doug,

Do you really believe that if the Bulls magically got, say, a Brad Stevens, that they wouldn't be significantly more successful as a team than under Boylen - a guy who not only has x's and o's but also player-relationship deficiencies?

I look at what coaches like Stevens can accomplish with his various rosters... or Nurse with his current cast (a good but not elite veteran point guard, a good but not elite young point guard, one of the top 4's in the league, rotation level talent at the wings, and two past-their-primes but still-solid 5's)... or Stotts on the Blazers with Lillard, McCullom and not much else for the past few years, or even the difference Thibs made on the Bulls and even the Wolves...

Granted, the chances of the Bulls hiring a coach who is that high a caliber is probably unlikely. It's not clear that Atkinson is that level of coach given his past experiences, something that was hotly debated a few months back (and also noting that coaches can get better in different spots, see Belicheck in Cleveland vs. New England). Who knows if Griffen or Udoka would be that level...

But one thing I can tell you is that Boylen is a "minus" coach, at least in my estimation. He's costing the team both wins and development. And the sooner you move on from a net negative at that position, the better - at least IMO.