RealGM

Just curious how would you approach this? I say hell no as players need to stay in their place. Just read that Devin Booker had input on the Sun's coaching selection and I am like what the hell has Booker ever won in this league? I think that only bush league teams let their players be involved in the process.

A little bit of input at most. Like if most of the players outright disliked or hated a coach then it wouldn't be a good idea to hire them.

But I would not trust any players judgement on whether a coach would be competent or not.

I would do end of year interviews with the players. I would keep good lines of communication open with the players and keep their opinions in mind.

I would believe in a collaborative relationship and definitely would seek input about who they feel would best get the most out of the team. I don’t think too many players would want to stay in your organization if your attitude is shut up and dribble.

Now input does not mean hand selecting

Yes, a little. But it is coaches job to coach.

If I owned an NBA team, I hate to say it, but I would have been more like Donald Sterling than say a Steve Ballmer. If you weren't an All-NBA level player (meaning second team or above), no concessions would ever be made for you and you are completely expendable until we get real difference makers on the roster that make us a title contender.

Chuck Everett wrote:If I owned an NBA team, I hate to say it, but I would have been more like Donald Sterling than say a Steve Ballmer. If you weren't an All-NBA level player (meaning second team or above), no concessions would ever be made for you and you are completely expendable until we get real difference makers on the roster that make us a title contender.

Hopefully just in terms of basketball operations…

If someone whats to put together a well reasoned opinion, I'd listen. Don't mind listening to key stakeholders. But wouldnt be determinative.

Chuck Everett wrote:If I owned an NBA team, I hate to say it, but I would have been more like Donald Sterling than say a Steve Ballmer. If you weren't an All-NBA level player (meaning second team or above), no concessions would ever be made for you and you are completely expendable until we get real difference makers on the roster that make us a title contender.

V Stiviano says hello

EmpireFalls wrote:

Chuck Everett wrote:If I owned an NBA team, I hate to say it, but I would have been more like Donald Sterling than say a Steve Ballmer. If you weren't an All-NBA level player (meaning second team or above), no concessions would ever be made for you and you are completely expendable until we get real difference makers on the roster that make us a title contender.

Hopefully just in terms of basketball operations…

I've had the displeasure of meeting the man many years ago and thankfully, I'm not an unabashed racist.

Yes, of course. The relationship between your players and coaches is kind of important. If you hire someone your best player or two doesn't want you to hire, that's an issue. It's also going to hurt your ability to attract stars when your reputation is ignoring your players' inputs.

absolutely not. These dudes have 90 IQs at best. Why would you give a player that power when they're so apt to bounce when things go wrong?

I think as an organization you can't have anarchy but you need alignment, which starts from the top down. The owner and the GM need to be on the same page as far as what the overall direction of the team is. The GM and the coaching staff need to be aligned on team philosophy and what kinds of players fit the system (and to a lesser extent, your franchise player). And the players need to buy in to the coaching strategy, while the coaching strategy fits the strengths of the players. So while I wouldn't let players full on call plays (unless they're Jokic maybe), there should already be alignment on what the menu of options in the playbook are and coaches should definitely be receptive to input from players

Not one bit.

...

JayMKE wrote:I would believe in a collaborative relationship and definitely would seek input about who they feel would best get the most out of the team. I don’t think too many players would want to stay in your organization if your attitude is shut up and dribble.

Now input does not mean hand selecting

You would be surprised at exactly how many people would translate asking them for input into them hand selecting. And the way the same people act when you don't take their advice and they take offense.

FarBeyondDriven wrote:absolutely not. These dudes have 90 IQs at best.

Which dudes? Say what you really want to say if you are going to go this far.

yes, definitely. although it depends on the player how seriously i would take their feedback. also, straight up complaints from players are a different thing than well reasoned criticism.

e.g. if KAT came to me and said "i dont like Thibs" that would mean nothing to me. but if he came to me and said "hey ive been doing everything I can to get better at drop coverage but I physically/mentally just dont handle it well, ive communicated this to Thibs and he keeps asking me to do it, but i'm hurting the team if we keep going this direction and he's being stubborn af for no reason. we have alternatives that would be more successful, so that we stand a better chance to win" then I listen.

Hell no

Yes, a star. Like, a big star.

Wouldn't be afraid to go against his wishes, though.

Or, input is only info. Why not accept it from anyone in the org who has it? But still, I don't care if you're Jokic (LeBron, etc.), you'd have to give good reasons for your preference.