Sixers/Cheeks close to an extension

Post #41 » by **Sixerscan** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:41 pm

blazehound wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

It is strange. Stephanski has maintained the exact same course of action BK has, but nobody has a problem with it? We haven't dumped Miller, we're playing ourselves out of the lottery, and lining ourselves up for a meaningless 4 game sweep against Boston, Detriot, or Orlando. Sounds like last year doesn't it?

I don't disagree with you totally but King wouldn't have traded Korver for an expiring. He called the guy "untouchable" last year.

mraisman255 · Post #42 » by **mraisman255** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:44 pm

Mo got a ONE YEAR deal

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3254453

Great work by Ed - How he has to work very hard for another extension. The players play hard for him. Good Move.

Post #43 » by **Sixerscan** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:45 pm

That's fine I guess.

The Sixer Fixer · Post #44 » by **The Sixer Fixer** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 8:49 pm

barkley34 wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

I do.

You have Rick Carlisle, Larry Brown and Jeff Van Gundy all available and all much better than Cheeks but you lock up Mo? I am starting to think the problem might be at the top of the organization.

They saved money by dumping Marc Jackson for nothing.
They saved money by buying out Webber instead of keeping him around and using his expiring contract as a trade chip.
They save a ton of money by bringing an average coach like Cheeks back instead of one of the 3 listed above.

Notice a trend?

We didn't save THAT much by buying out Webber. That was more a deal to rid us of that cancer on a young team. I think buyouts are for 80% or more of what is still owed the player so you don't save much. If they were cheap, they would not just decide to pay him for walking away.

While you claim they saved money by choosing Cheeks over other bigger names, your argument falls apart when you consider the fact that we have fired almost every coach before him and wasted $$ paying coaches who weren't here anymore, in addition to the current coach. If we were cheap, they would just ride out the current coach until the contract expires. Paying 2 HC's at the same time isn't my idea of being cheap.

barkley34 · Post #45 » by **barkley34** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:05 pm

The Sixer Fixer wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

We didn't save THAT much by buying out Webber. That was more a deal to rid us of that cancer on a young team. I think buyouts are for 80% or more of what is still owed the player so you don't save much. If they were cheap, they would not just decide to pay him for walking away.

While you claim they saved money by choosing Cheeks over other bigger names, your argument falls apart when you consider the fact that we have fired almost every coach before him and wasted $$ paying coaches who weren't here anymore, in addition to the current coach. If we were cheap, they would just ride out the current coach until the contract expires. Paying 2 HC's at the same time isn't my idea of being cheap.

In the past they definitely were not cheap however the last year or two I think there has been a shift. With attendance revenue falling and Comcast's stock price dropping I think they have tightened the purse strings.

To get a big name coach you are talking about a 4-5 year deal at like 8 million per season. Pay Mo one year for like 1.5 million or sign a great coach for 40 million?

There was an article written after the BK firing mentioning they fired him partially because Snider/King's plan was to bring back Larry Brown but the head honchos above Snider didn't want to pay him 40 million to coach the team.

IggyTheBEaST · Post #46 » by **IggyTheBEaST** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:12 pm

dond wrote:-= original quote snipped =-

This is the type of statement that I just do not understand. "HE NEEDS A LOT OF HELP ON THE COACHING END". In my mind, that statement can only come from someone with a strong background in the field (NBA Coach) of the person he is commenting on.

Of coarse you know im not an NBA coach, but yes, I do have coaching experience. Dont you dare tell me that Mo Cheeks doesnt make fundamental mistakes that even a little league coach wouldnt. Just watch a damn game for g-ds sake. Can you honestly look me in the eye(if you could) and tell me you believe Mo Cheeks is an above average professional basketball coach?

IggyTheBEaST · Post #47 » by **IggyTheBEaST** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:13 pm

mraisman255 wrote:Mo got a ONE YEAR deal

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3254453

Great work by Ed - How he has to work very hard for another extension. The players play hard for him. Good Move.

Post #48 » by **tk76** » Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:25 pm

I read this 1 year extesion as partly Ed deciding he will need another year to pull of the rebuilding moved that will cement the teams identity. He clearly isn't getting a big move done by the deadline, and we may not find our key PF until next year's deadline or even summer '09.

It makes sense to keep the status quo until then, because different coaches are better suited to certain personell. The right coach if we get a sign young RFA like Okafor or Smith (unlikely) and move Miller for a young PG is not the same as the right coach if we sign a vet PF like brand or JO and keep Miller.

noone · Post #49 » by **noone** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:21 am

I'm fine with the extension as long as it's only a 1 year extension. Had it been 3 years, I would've hated it. I think Mo does deserve another year to prove himself mainly because the expectations were pretty low this season and they've played well above them. However, assuming we sign a FA or two over the summer, expectations will be much higher next season especially playing in the weak East, so Mo will have to show much more and be able to coach a good team above expectations to get my approval.

Post #50 » by **The Guilty Party** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:44 am

The 1 year deal is fine but I better not hear Stefanski say that he needs more time to review everyone.

Post #51 » by **The Guilty Party** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:59 am

By the way, the 1 year deal is suspicious. Is Stefanski waiting for Lawrence Frank to get canned in NJ??

Dedicated_76ers_fan · Post #52 » by **Dedicated_76ers_fan** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:02 am

Fine by me. Before Jason Kidd had a half-hearted effort. Lawrence Franks was one of youngest high-percentage win coaches in the NBA playoffs. Think a mini Avery Johnson.

LieCheatSteal · Post #53 » by **LieCheatSteal** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:37 am

I was thinking the same thing. Lawrence Frank would be an excellent coach here. Smart. passionate.

Mo's fine. The players play well for him. He commands respect. He seems like a good mentor to bring young players along.

Post #54 » by **The Guilty Party** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:49 am

If Mo does a solid job next season, then I'm fine with extending him again but I do like that Stefanski is keeping the risk down for the franchise so that if Mo stumbles next season, he can correct the problem.

dond · Post #55 » by **dond** » Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:45 pm

I pretty much agree with the previous 5 or 6 comments. Now, that they have given him a 1-year extension, it appears that they wish to see him coaching a team with a little more talent and THEN make a decision on his future with the Sixers. I see nothing wrong with that. I personally believe that he will show that he is worth keeping, but there is nothing wrong with being cautious. If it turns out that Cheeks does not do well, I would not be against the FRANK thing. He seems to be a passionate coach who would be fine with the Sixers. The only downside of this is that we now have to go through another year of FIRE THE COACH threads with each bad loss. But, such is the nature of being an NBA basketball fan ...