Billy Donovan gets contract extension

[jnrjr79]

I agree that Billy is low down on the totem-pole of what's immediately wrong with the team but as long as the Bulls are seemingly committed to trying to win without the requisite roster changes - Billy is still a problem.

He's a bottom half coach in this league and that does have an impact. We talk about culture and building habits. Billy habitually messes up decisions in game and seemingly doesn't know how to create an efficient offense. As long as the Bulls have high-hopes for their younger draftees, it's important the Bulls keep trying to get the absolute best coaches available. Even Thibs would be an upgrade and the Bulls would likely win 5-10 more games.

The Bulls had more talent than Miami last season and yet got exposed quickly in the play-in. The coaching gap between Billy and Spo was so great it was embarrassing.

What's the value of keeping him? Continuity is useless if you continue making bad decisions.

Again, HC rankings are entirely subjective and hold no weight towards winning. I'm just going to use the CBS list someone mentioned earlier. Here's the coaches they have 16-30 (before the season started):

16. Quin Snyder
17. Taylor Jenkins
18. Jason Kidd
19. Jamahl Mosley
20. Willie Green
21. Kenny Atkinson
22. Doc Rivers
23. JB Bickerstaff
24. Billy Donovan
25. Chauncey Billups
26. Darko Rajakovic (R)
27. Jordi Fernandez (R)
28. Charles Lee (R)
29. Brian Keefe (R)
30. J.J. Redick (R)

5 of the 10 non-rookie head coaches in that list made the playoffs last season.

- Kenny Atkinson won Coach of the Year.
- Taylor Jenkins at one point had the Grizzlies looking like contenders.
- JB Bickerstaff had one of the best statistical turnarounds for a team in league history.

I'm sure everyone would have them higher now, but the point is that coaches simply aren't a huge difference maker outside of a few names. The others on the list?

- Quin Snyder has a career 56% win percentage
- Billy Donovan has a career 55% win percentage
- Willie Green almost won 50 games a year ago when he had a healthier roster.
- Jamahl Mosley has a 53% win percentage the last two seasons
- Doc Rivers has won a championship
- Jason Kidd has been to an NBA Finals.
- I've got nothing for Chauncey Billups.

These are your "bottom half" NBA coaches, most of whom are very competent.

It's a player's league, and the Bulls, like several of the teams on that list, don't have a lot of good players.

Going from Billy Donovan to Michael Malone isn't going to move the needle unless there are significant player moves that align with it. So yes, it makes sense to keep the coach who isn't rocking the boat, who ownership and the front office likes, and who the players still listen to. All of those things can completely change if you go to another coach and then you are objectively in a worse position.

Billy is a final product, we know what he is. Comparing him to coaches that won actually NBA championships and actually had real success at the NBA level isn't very telling.

Fact is, he's won nothing in the NBA and never done anything of any note save for a WCF flameout while having KD/Harden/Westbrook.

Keeping him around and signing him to extensions despite no success just doesn't make sense.

Malone may be better than Billy, Malone won a title recently and coached a Nuggets team to 50+ win seasons. Why not take the chance? What's the actual worst thing that can happen? The Bulls win 31 games instead of the Vegas expected 32? Coby White might not feel supported? The Bulls might actually challenge calls ?

The Bulls need to take chances if they want to escape this hamster wheel of below average output.

I think the point here is there is no head coach living or dead that could get this Bulls roster off the "hamster wheel of below average output."

[Lunartic]

Again, HC rankings are entirely subjective and hold no weight towards winning. I'm just going to use the CBS list someone mentioned earlier. Here's the coaches they have 16-30 (before the season started):

16. Quin Snyder
17. Taylor Jenkins
18. Jason Kidd
19. Jamahl Mosley
20. Willie Green
21. Kenny Atkinson
22. Doc Rivers
23. JB Bickerstaff
24. Billy Donovan
25. Chauncey Billups
26. Darko Rajakovic (R)
27. Jordi Fernandez (R)
28. Charles Lee (R)
29. Brian Keefe (R)
30. J.J. Redick (R)

5 of the 10 non-rookie head coaches in that list made the playoffs last season.

- Kenny Atkinson won Coach of the Year.
- Taylor Jenkins at one point had the Grizzlies looking like contenders.
- JB Bickerstaff had one of the best statistical turnarounds for a team in league history.

I'm sure everyone would have them higher now, but the point is that coaches simply aren't a huge difference maker outside of a few names. The others on the list?

- Quin Snyder has a career 56% win percentage
- Billy Donovan has a career 55% win percentage
- Willie Green almost won 50 games a year ago when he had a healthier roster.
- Jamahl Mosley has a 53% win percentage the last two seasons
- Doc Rivers has won a championship
- Jason Kidd has been to an NBA Finals.
- I've got nothing for Chauncey Billups.

These are your "bottom half" NBA coaches, most of whom are very competent.

It's a player's league, and the Bulls, like several of the teams on that list, don't have a lot of good players.

Going from Billy Donovan to Michael Malone isn't going to move the needle unless there are significant player moves that align with it. So yes, it makes sense to keep the coach who isn't rocking the boat, who ownership and the front office likes, and who the players still listen to. All of those things can completely change if you go to another coach and then you are objectively in a worse position.

Billy is a final product, we know what he is. Comparing him to coaches that won actually NBA championships and actually had real success at the NBA level isn't very telling.

Fact is, he's won nothing in the NBA and never done anything of any note save for a WCF flameout while having KD/Harden/Westbrook.

Keeping him around and signing him to extensions despite no success just doesn't make sense.

Malone may be better than Billy, Malone won a title recently and coached a Nuggets team to 50+ win seasons. Why not take the chance? What's the actual worst thing that can happen? The Bulls win 31 games instead of the Vegas expected 32? Coby White might not feel supported? The Bulls might actually challenge calls ?

The Bulls need to take chances if they want to escape this hamster wheel of below average output.

I think the point here is there is no head coach living or dead that could get this Bulls roster off the "hamster wheel of below average output."

And neither will any singular move outside of drafting a generational level player.

The point is - why not try a multitude of things? Some small, some big, and some risky?

I don't believe in the approach that suggests the Bulls should shy away from small marginal moves if they don't address the ownership/FO issue.

Gotta improve whenever and where ever you can. And there are coaches that are likely improvements over a coach that has a losing record and loses play-in games to depleted Heat teams.

[jnrjr79]

Billy is a final product, we know what he is. Comparing him to coaches that won actually NBA championships and actually had real success at the NBA level isn't very telling.

Fact is, he's won nothing in the NBA and never done anything of any note save for a WCF flameout while having KD/Harden/Westbrook.

Keeping him around and signing him to extensions despite no success just doesn't make sense.

Malone may be better than Billy, Malone won a title recently and coached a Nuggets team to 50+ win seasons. Why not take the chance? What's the actual worst thing that can happen? The Bulls win 31 games instead of the Vegas expected 32? Coby White might not feel supported? The Bulls might actually challenge calls ?

The Bulls need to take chances if they want to escape this hamster wheel of below average output.

I think the point here is there is no head coach living or dead that could get this Bulls roster off the "hamster wheel of below average output."

And neither will any singular move outside of drafting a generational level player.

The point is - why not try a multitude of things? Some small, some big, and some risky?

I don't believe in the approach that suggests the Bulls should shy away from small marginal moves if they don't address the ownership/FO issue.

Gotta improve whenever and where ever you can. And there are coaches that are likely improvements over a coach that has a losing record and loses play-in games to depleted Heat teams.

if the Bulls hire a new coach, it is substantially likely that the new coach will be worse than Billy Donovan.

At the end of the day, doing stuff just to do stuff isn't a useful strategy.

The Bulls need a better roster. Billy Donovan has fairly consistently overachieved relative to the roster he has been given. Worrying about him is a waste of time.

[Red Larrivee]

And neither will any singular move outside of drafting a generational level player.

The point is - why not try a multitude of things? Some small, some big, and some risky?

I don't believe in the approach that suggests the Bulls should shy away from small marginal moves if they don't address the ownership/FO issue.

Gotta improve whenever and where ever you can. And there are coaches that are likely improvements over a coach that has a losing record and loses play-in games to depleted Heat teams.

Because having an average-to-above average coach in the NBA who your front office, ownership, and players are all aligned on is not an issue. And the level of improvement you're looking for is not realistic without a significant talent upgrade.

Sure, if I could fantasy draft an NBA coach for this team, Donovan wouldn't even be in my thought process, but that doesn't matter. The fact that Donovan is going on 6 seasons here and hasn't lost faith in any level of the franchise despite not being a consistent playoff team should speak volumes.

Look back at past Bulls coaches:

- Skiles lost the locker room
- Boylan never had the locker room
- Del Negro never had the locker room
- Thibodeau lost the locker room and ownership
- Hoiberg never had the locker room
- Boylen never had the locker room

If the players buried Donovan to the front office at any point in his tenure, he probably wouldn't be here.

At the end of the day, Donovan is not failing to get some production out of this team that he should've been getting and his voice is still relevant to players. That's not easy to do and it's why so many coaches are canned after 4-5 years. If the Bulls get to a point where they have a potential contender on their hands, then it's a different discussion, but until then you don't lose anything by hanging on to a coach that's doing exactly what a coach should be doing.

[Lunartic]

And neither will any singular move outside of drafting a generational level player.

The point is - why not try a multitude of things? Some small, some big, and some risky?

I don't believe in the approach that suggests the Bulls should shy away from small marginal moves if they don't address the ownership/FO issue.

Gotta improve whenever and where ever you can. And there are coaches that are likely improvements over a coach that has a losing record and loses play-in games to depleted Heat teams.

Because having an average-to-above average coach in the NBA who your front office, ownership, and players are all aligned on is not an issue. And the level of improvement you're looking for is not realistic without a significant talent upgrade.

Sure, if I could fantasy draft an NBA coach for this team, Donovan wouldn't even be in my thought process, but that doesn't matter. The fact that Donovan is going on 6 seasons here and hasn't lost faith in any level of the franchise despite not being a consistent playoff team should speak volumes.

Look back at past Bulls coaches:

- Skiles lost the locker room
- Boylan never had the locker room
- Del Negro never had the locker room
- Thibodeau lost the locker room and ownership
- Hoiberg never had the locker room
- Boylen never had the locker room

If the players buried Donovan to the front office at any point in his tenure, he probably wouldn't be here.

At the end of the day, Donovan is not failing to get some production out of this team that he should've been getting and his voice is still relevant to players. That's not easy to do and it's why so many coaches are canned after 4-5 years. If the Bulls get to a point where they have a potential contender on their hands, then it's a different discussion, but until then you don't lose anything by hanging on to a coach that's doing exactly what a coach should be doing.

Do you believe Billy Donovan is better than any currently available/possibly available coaches?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough. If the answer is no, why not keep looking?

The Bulls aren't contending with Billy. He hasn't had a single successful season with the Bulls. What's the actual functional reason to close the door on looking for another coach? That some scrubs that can't win 40 games might not love his personality?

Barely making the play-in isn't something to rest on laurels.

[jnrjr79]

And neither will any singular move outside of drafting a generational level player.

The point is - why not try a multitude of things? Some small, some big, and some risky?

I don't believe in the approach that suggests the Bulls should shy away from small marginal moves if they don't address the ownership/FO issue.

Gotta improve whenever and where ever you can. And there are coaches that are likely improvements over a coach that has a losing record and loses play-in games to depleted Heat teams.

Because having an average-to-above average coach in the NBA who your front office, ownership, and players are all aligned on is not an issue. And the level of improvement you're looking for is not realistic without a significant talent upgrade.

Sure, if I could fantasy draft an NBA coach for this team, Donovan wouldn't even be in my thought process, but that doesn't matter. The fact that Donovan is going on 6 seasons here and hasn't lost faith in any level of the franchise despite not being a consistent playoff team should speak volumes.

Look back at past Bulls coaches:

- Skiles lost the locker room
- Boylan never had the locker room
- Del Negro never had the locker room
- Thibodeau lost the locker room and ownership
- Hoiberg never had the locker room
- Boylen never had the locker room

If the players buried Donovan to the front office at any point in his tenure, he probably wouldn't be here.

At the end of the day, Donovan is not failing to get some production out of this team that he should've been getting and his voice is still relevant to players. That's not easy to do and it's why so many coaches are canned after 4-5 years. If the Bulls get to a point where they have a potential contender on their hands, then it's a different discussion, but until then you don't lose anything by hanging on to a coach that's doing exactly what a coach should be doing.

Do you believe Billy Donovan is better than any currently available/possibly available coaches?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough. If the answer is no, why not keep looking?

The Bulls aren't contending with Billy. He hasn't had a single successful season with the Bulls. What's the actual functional reason to close the door on looking for another coach? That some scrubs that can't win 40 games might not love his personality?

Barely making the play-in isn't something to rest on laurels.

If the Bulls were to fire Donovan and hire someone else, there's a chance that person would be better, but it's likely the person would be worse. Honestly, the Bulls don't really "deserve" Billy Donovan, and it's not like I think he's the 2nd coming of Phil Jackson or anything.

As for right now, if you thought a new coach would get more wins, then I'd rather not do that, as the team should be taking a bit of a gap year next season when there is a strong draft and the Bulls have lots of expiring contracts. I don't really care about competitiveness until 2027.

I think it'd be fine if the Bulls wanted to let Donovan go, but it would just be one of those moves to try to take heat of AK/ownership, when that's where the actual blame lies. No coach is going to do anything meaningful with this roster, at least yet.

[sco]

Because having an average-to-above average coach in the NBA who your front office, ownership, and players are all aligned on is not an issue. And the level of improvement you're looking for is not realistic without a significant talent upgrade.

Sure, if I could fantasy draft an NBA coach for this team, Donovan wouldn't even be in my thought process, but that doesn't matter. The fact that Donovan is going on 6 seasons here and hasn't lost faith in any level of the franchise despite not being a consistent playoff team should speak volumes.

Look back at past Bulls coaches:

- Skiles lost the locker room
- Boylan never had the locker room
- Del Negro never had the locker room
- Thibodeau lost the locker room and ownership
- Hoiberg never had the locker room
- Boylen never had the locker room

If the players buried Donovan to the front office at any point in his tenure, he probably wouldn't be here.

At the end of the day, Donovan is not failing to get some production out of this team that he should've been getting and his voice is still relevant to players. That's not easy to do and it's why so many coaches are canned after 4-5 years. If the Bulls get to a point where they have a potential contender on their hands, then it's a different discussion, but until then you don't lose anything by hanging on to a coach that's doing exactly what a coach should be doing.

Do you believe Billy Donovan is better than any currently available/possibly available coaches?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough. If the answer is no, why not keep looking?

The Bulls aren't contending with Billy. He hasn't had a single successful season with the Bulls. What's the actual functional reason to close the door on looking for another coach? That some scrubs that can't win 40 games might not love his personality?

Barely making the play-in isn't something to rest on laurels.

If the Bulls were to fire Donovan and hire someone else, there's a chance that person would be better, but it's likely the person would be worse. Honestly, the Bulls don't really "deserve" Billy Donovan, and it's not like I think he's the 2nd coming of Phil Jackson or anything.

As for right now, if you thought a new coach would get more wins, then I'd rather not do that, as the team should be taking a bit of a gap year next season when there is a strong draft and the Bulls have lots of expiring contracts. I don't really care about competitiveness until 2027.

I think it'd be fine if the Bulls wanted to let Donovan go, but it would just be one of those moves to try to take heat of AK/ownership, when that's where the actual blame lies. No coach is going to do anything meaningful with this roster, at least yet.

I'd add that scheme consistency, with Billy staying, is more likely to aid in Matas' development, which IMO is the most important thing the team can do this season.

[Lunartic]

Because having an average-to-above average coach in the NBA who your front office, ownership, and players are all aligned on is not an issue. And the level of improvement you're looking for is not realistic without a significant talent upgrade.

Sure, if I could fantasy draft an NBA coach for this team, Donovan wouldn't even be in my thought process, but that doesn't matter. The fact that Donovan is going on 6 seasons here and hasn't lost faith in any level of the franchise despite not being a consistent playoff team should speak volumes.

Look back at past Bulls coaches:

- Skiles lost the locker room
- Boylan never had the locker room
- Del Negro never had the locker room
- Thibodeau lost the locker room and ownership
- Hoiberg never had the locker room
- Boylen never had the locker room

If the players buried Donovan to the front office at any point in his tenure, he probably wouldn't be here.

At the end of the day, Donovan is not failing to get some production out of this team that he should've been getting and his voice is still relevant to players. That's not easy to do and it's why so many coaches are canned after 4-5 years. If the Bulls get to a point where they have a potential contender on their hands, then it's a different discussion, but until then you don't lose anything by hanging on to a coach that's doing exactly what a coach should be doing.

Do you believe Billy Donovan is better than any currently available/possibly available coaches?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough. If the answer is no, why not keep looking?

The Bulls aren't contending with Billy. He hasn't had a single successful season with the Bulls. What's the actual functional reason to close the door on looking for another coach? That some scrubs that can't win 40 games might not love his personality?

Barely making the play-in isn't something to rest on laurels.

If the Bulls were to fire Donovan and hire someone else, there's a chance that person would be better, but it's likely the person would be worse. Honestly, the Bulls don't really "deserve" Billy Donovan, and it's not like I think he's the 2nd coming of Phil Jackson or anything.

As for right now, if you thought a new coach would get more wins, then I'd rather not do that, as the team should be taking a bit of a gap year next season when there is a strong draft and the Bulls have lots of expiring contracts. I don't really care about competitiveness until 2027.

I think it'd be fine if the Bulls wanted to let Donovan go, but it would just be one of those moves to try to take heat of AK/ownership, when that's where the actual blame lies. No coach is going to do anything meaningful with this roster, at least yet.

But you're trying to have it both ways-

Either Billy is such a good coach that statistically it's going to be hard to hire someone better
or
Billy is such a bad coach that he's helping contribute to losing games and helping the Bulls draft pick chances

If the Bulls want to tank - why not hire a cheaper, high upside but slow to develop coach? This coach would supply more losses.
If the Bulls want to win games and develop a culture of winning, why not go after a higher upside/proven coach?


I agree that getting a better coach would be a marginal move given AKME's failures but I think it's a poor business decision to ignore areas that can possibly be improved just to continue continuity or because there's a risk in trying to improve. What is the worst that can happen? The Bulls lose 5 more games? If the coaching is so limited impact - it shouldn't really matter

[jnrjr79]

Do you believe Billy Donovan is better than any currently available/possibly available coaches?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough. If the answer is no, why not keep looking?

The Bulls aren't contending with Billy. He hasn't had a single successful season with the Bulls. What's the actual functional reason to close the door on looking for another coach? That some scrubs that can't win 40 games might not love his personality?

Barely making the play-in isn't something to rest on laurels.

If the Bulls were to fire Donovan and hire someone else, there's a chance that person would be better, but it's likely the person would be worse. Honestly, the Bulls don't really "deserve" Billy Donovan, and it's not like I think he's the 2nd coming of Phil Jackson or anything.

As for right now, if you thought a new coach would get more wins, then I'd rather not do that, as the team should be taking a bit of a gap year next season when there is a strong draft and the Bulls have lots of expiring contracts. I don't really care about competitiveness until 2027.

I think it'd be fine if the Bulls wanted to let Donovan go, but it would just be one of those moves to try to take heat of AK/ownership, when that's where the actual blame lies. No coach is going to do anything meaningful with this roster, at least yet.

But you're trying to have it both ways-

Either Billy is such a good coach that statistically it's going to be hard to hire someone better
or
Billy is such a bad coach that he's helping contribute to losing games and helping the Bulls draft pick chances

No, you're misreading my post. I think Billy is an average to above average head coach who would likely be replaced by someone worse. He tends to outperform Vegas o/u projections each season, which is a sign he's doing as well with what he's been given as he realistically can.

*You* are arguing he's bad and should be replaced. I disagree, but if it were true, I'm noting that I'd actually be fine with that for purposes of next season in order to have a better draft pick.

If the Bulls want to tank - why not hire a cheaper, high upside but slow to develop coach? This coach would supply more losses.
If the Bulls want to win games and develop a culture of winning, why not go after a higher upside/proven coach?

As to #1, it' because they won't tank, even if they should.
As to #2, it's because they won't get a better "proven" coach. As to upside, sure, you could hire some assistant and see what he turns out to be, but it's overwhelmingly likely that goes worse rather than better. I get, though, that it just doesn't matter all that much with this mid roster. But as Sco noted, it's also probably not worth the developmental risk with the young guys at this point.

I agree that getting a better coach would be a marginal move given AKME's failures but I think it's a poor business decision to ignore areas that can possibly be improved just to continue continuity or because there's a risk in trying to improve. What is the worst that can happen? The Bulls lose 5 more games? If the coaching is so limited impact - it shouldn't really matter

I think we just disagree on whether it's true that the coaching situation can be meaningfully improved by the Bulls, and if they did, it just wouldn't matter. It' rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

[Lunartic]

If the Bulls were to fire Donovan and hire someone else, there's a chance that person would be better, but it's likely the person would be worse. Honestly, the Bulls don't really "deserve" Billy Donovan, and it's not like I think he's the 2nd coming of Phil Jackson or anything.

As for right now, if you thought a new coach would get more wins, then I'd rather not do that, as the team should be taking a bit of a gap year next season when there is a strong draft and the Bulls have lots of expiring contracts. I don't really care about competitiveness until 2027.

I think it'd be fine if the Bulls wanted to let Donovan go, but it would just be one of those moves to try to take heat of AK/ownership, when that's where the actual blame lies. No coach is going to do anything meaningful with this roster, at least yet.

But you're trying to have it both ways-

Either Billy is such a good coach that statistically it's going to be hard to hire someone better
or
Billy is such a bad coach that he's helping contribute to losing games and helping the Bulls draft pick chances
['/quote]

No, you're misreading my post. I think Billy is an average to above average head coach who would likely be replaced by someone worse. He tends to outperform Vegas o/u projections each season, which is a sign he's doing as well with what he's been given as he realistically can.

*You* are arguing he's bad and should be replaced. I disagree, but if it were true, I'm noting that I'd actually be fine with that for purposes of next season in order to have a better draft pick.

If the Bulls want to tank - why not hire a cheaper, high upside but slow to develop coach? This coach would supply more losses.
If the Bulls want to win games and develop a culture of winning, why not go after a higher upside/proven coach?

As to #1, it' because they won't tank, even if they should.
As to #2, it's because they won't get a better "proven" coach. As to upside, sure, you could hire some assistant and see what he turns out to be, but it's overwhelmingly likely that goes worse rather than better. I get, though, that it just doesn't matter all that much with this mid roster. But as Sco noted, it's also probably not worth the developmental risk with the young guys at this point.

I agree that getting a better coach would be a marginal move given AKME's failures but I think it's a poor business decision to ignore areas that can possibly be improved just to continue continuity or because there's a risk in trying to improve. What is the worst that can happen? The Bulls lose 5 more games? If the coaching is so limited impact - it shouldn't really matter

I think we just disagree on whether it's true that the coaching situation can be meaningfully improved by the Bulls, and if they did, it just wouldn't matter. It' rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I think you're right.

Just to be clear, if Carlisle was available right now would you want the Bulls to target him and fire Billy despite him just signing an extension?

[jnrjr79]

But you're trying to have it both ways-

Either Billy is such a good coach that statistically it's going to be hard to hire someone better
or
Billy is such a bad coach that he's helping contribute to losing games and helping the Bulls draft pick chances
['/quote]

No, you're misreading my post. I think Billy is an average to above average head coach who would likely be replaced by someone worse. He tends to outperform Vegas o/u projections each season, which is a sign he's doing as well with what he's been given as he realistically can.

*You* are arguing he's bad and should be replaced. I disagree, but if it were true, I'm noting that I'd actually be fine with that for purposes of next season in order to have a better draft pick.



As to #1, it' because they won't tank, even if they should.
As to #2, it's because they won't get a better "proven" coach. As to upside, sure, you could hire some assistant and see what he turns out to be, but it's overwhelmingly likely that goes worse rather than better. I get, though, that it just doesn't matter all that much with this mid roster. But as Sco noted, it's also probably not worth the developmental risk with the young guys at this point.

I think we just disagree on whether it's true that the coaching situation can be meaningfully improved by the Bulls, and if they did, it just wouldn't matter. It' rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I think you're right.

Just to be clear, if Carlisle was available right now would you want the Bulls to target him and fire Billy despite him just signing an extension?

Maybe! If a true difference-maker were available to the Bulls (e.g. Spoelstra), I'd want them to do it. I just don't think that's a realistic scenario.

[Lunartic]

I think we just disagree on whether it's true that the coaching situation can be meaningfully improved by the Bulls, and if they did, it just wouldn't matter. It' rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

I think you're right.

Just to be clear, if Carlisle was available right now would you want the Bulls to target him and fire Billy despite him just signing an extension?

Maybe! If a true difference-maker were available to the Bulls (e.g. Spoelstra), I'd want them to do it. I just don't think that's a realistic scenario.

Spo was a video editing guy before he was a coach - can't find the diamonds in the rough if you're too busy resigning Billy "1 season above .500" Donovan to half a decade long extensions

But point taken, I think we agree in theory, just not practice

[Red Larrivee]

Do you believe Billy Donovan is better than any currently available/possibly available coaches?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough. If the answer is no, why not keep looking?

The Bulls aren't contending with Billy. He hasn't had a single successful season with the Bulls. What's the actual functional reason to close the door on looking for another coach? That some scrubs that can't win 40 games might not love his personality?

Barely making the play-in isn't something to rest on laurels.

Like I said, going into the season (according to CBS), Kenny Atkinson and JB Bickerstaff were ranked as "bottom half" coaches. Yet, they finished 1 and 2 respectively in NBA Coach of the Year voting. Oh, but now they're two of the "good" coaches?

What does "better" mean and why does it matter so much to you when it doesn't align with results? It's entirely subjective. This is a talent-driven league, and because of that you can win a championship with the 5th, 10th, 15th or 20th best coach.

NBA teams don't fire coaches because they think that the next coach is a better coach from an Xs and Os view.

- Do you think the Lakers fired Frank Vogel because they think Darvin Ham was a better coach?
- Do you think the Knicks fired Tom Thibodeau because they think Mike Brown is a better coach?
- Do you think the Blazers fired Terry Stotts because they think Chauncey Billups is a better coach?
- Do you think the Nets fired Kenny Atkinson because they think Steve Nash is a better coach?

No.

I'm just going to keep saying it, but if you are a HC and:

- Ownership likes you
- The front office likes you and aligns with you
- The players like you and listen to you

You have a very, very strong chance of keeping your job for a long time. Building and sustaining relationships are paramount to being a good head coach. That's why Billy Donovan is entering Season 6 in Chicago. The most turmoil he's ever had was a beef with Zach LaVine, but that got squashed well before LaVine was traded.

There is a high chance that the next coach doesn't have the same stability and respect at each level of the organization and that will set you back.

[Lunartic]

Do you believe Billy Donovan is better than any currently available/possibly available coaches?

If the answer is yes, then fair enough. If the answer is no, why not keep looking?

The Bulls aren't contending with Billy. He hasn't had a single successful season with the Bulls. What's the actual functional reason to close the door on looking for another coach? That some scrubs that can't win 40 games might not love his personality?

Barely making the play-in isn't something to rest on laurels.

Like I said, going into the season (according to CBS), Kenny Atkinson and JB Bickerstaff were ranked as "bottom half" coaches. Yet, they finished 1 and 2 respectively in NBA Coach of the Year voting. Oh, but now they're two of the "good" coaches?

What does "better" mean and why does it matter so much to you when it doesn't align with results? It's entirely subjective. This is a talent-driven league, and because of that you can win a championship with the 5th, 10th, 15th or 20th best coach.

NBA teams don't fire coaches because they think that the next coach is a better coach.

- Do you think the Lakers fired Frank Vogel because they think Darvin Ham was a better coach?
- Do you think the Knicks fired Tom Thibodeau because they think Mike Brown is a better coach?
- Do you think the Blazers fired Terry Stotts because they think Chauncey Billups is a better coach?
- Do you think the Nets fired Kenny Atkinson because they think Steve Nash is a better coach?

No.

I'm just going to keep saying it, but if you are a HC and:

- Ownership likes you
- The front office likes you and aligns with you
- The players like you and listen to you

You have a very, very strong chance of keeping your job for a long time. Building and sustaining relationships are paramount to being a good head coach and that's why Billy Donovan is entering Season 6 in Chicago. The most turmoil he's ever had was a beef with Zach LaVine, but that got squashed well before LaVine was traded.

There is a high chance that the next coach doesn't have the same stability at each level of the organization and that will set you back.

Firstly, all those teams you listed are fairly dysfunctional

The Lakers were injured all that season and won something like 33 games, they fired Vogel because of that poor season and inability to make adjustments. Ham arrived and the Lakers traded Westbrick, signed Rui and Vanderbilt? + Bron and AD were healthy.
Having 33 wins and missing the playoffs is a recipe for termination and I doubt Vogel networking better would have kept him on.

The Knicks are brutally dysfunctional and won't experience anywhere near the RS/PS success as they just did with Thibs, this is not indicative of a good move. This is awful and Knicks fans bemoaned the hiring of Brown.

The Blazers fired Stots because of repeated playoff failures. They fired him because he - like Billy has no postseason success. I don't see how this isn't a similar parallel to the Bulls except that Terry actually made the playoffs. The Bulls went ahead and signed their "stotts" to an extension rather than fire him and hire a younger, higher upside coach whilst bottoming out to tank.

Steve Nash won 66% of his games as a year 1 head coach vs Atkinson's 45% wins in his final season. It's very clear who the better coach was for the Nets.
Again, Atkinson experienced repeated failures and the Nets wanted new blood combined with the newly traded for KD and Irving wanting Steve Nash.


None of those above examples are indicate of teams trading their coaches because the coaches lost the lockeroom or the FO didn't like them. They all appear to be clearly win-tank now moves that all yielded better results. Keeping Billy despite his poor record is the exact opposite of that.

Set the Bulls back where exactly ? They can't even make the play-in, they aren't good and I'm not convinced Billy is improving them.

[Red Larrivee]

Firstly, all those teams you listed are fairly dysfunctional

The Lakers were injured all that season and won something like 33 games, they fired Vogel because of that poor season and inability to make adjustments. Ham arrived and the Lakers traded Westbrick, signed Rui and Vanderbilt? + Bron and AD were healthy.
Having 33 wins and missing the playoffs is a recipe for termination and I doubt Vogel networking better would have kept him on.

The Knicks are brutally dysfunctional and won't experience anywhere near the RS/PS success as they just did with Thibs, this is not indicative of a good move. This is awful and Knicks fans bemoaned the hiring of Brown.

The Blazers fired Stots because of repeated playoff failures. They fired him because he - like Billy has no postseason success. I don't see how this isn't a similar parallel to the Bulls except that Terry actually made the playoffs. The Bulls went ahead and signed their "stotts" to an extension rather than fire him and hire a younger, higher upside coach whilst bottoming out to tank.

Steve Nash won 66% of his games as a year 1 head coach vs Atkinson's 45% wins in his final season. It's very clear who the better coach was for the Nets.
Again, Atkinson experienced repeated failures and the Nets wanted new blood combined with the newly traded for KD and Irving wanting Steve Nash.

None of those above examples are indicate of teams trading their coaches because the coaches lost the lockeroom or the FO didn't like them. They all appear to be clearly win-tank now moves that all yielded better results. Keeping Billy despite his poor record is the exact opposite of that.

Set the Bulls back where exactly ? They can't even make the play-in, they aren't good and I'm not convinced Billy is improving them.

That is normal for NBA teams. There are countless examples of teams firing "better" coaches to hire someone who isn't perceived as "better", and the reason is usually about fractured relationships in the organization.

You're looking at NBA coaching through the lens of an NFL impact and it just isn't the reality. You do not need one of the "best" coaches to win at the highest level in the NBA. Your coach does not need to be one of the best Xs and Os guys to win at the highest level. Is it great if you have that coach anyway? Sure, but the difference is not enough to get worked up over.

These things move the needle in the NBA:

1. Talent
2. Talent
3. See #1.

The HC of the Hornets could win 60+ games with one of the most talented teams in the league. The best coach in the league is not winning 60+ games with one of the least talented teams in the league or even a middle of the road team.

Atkinson didn't have Harden or Durant in his final season in Brooklyn. Nash did. So, naturally the results are better with Nash because it's a talent league. Nobody cares about Billups "upside" and it hasn't mattered towards evaluating the Blazers future.

Every example I listed involved either the coach losing ownership, the front office, the locker room, or some combination of the three.

[Lunartic]

Firstly, all those teams you listed are fairly dysfunctional

The Lakers were injured all that season and won something like 33 games, they fired Vogel because of that poor season and inability to make adjustments. Ham arrived and the Lakers traded Westbrick, signed Rui and Vanderbilt? + Bron and AD were healthy.
Having 33 wins and missing the playoffs is a recipe for termination and I doubt Vogel networking better would have kept him on.

The Knicks are brutally dysfunctional and won't experience anywhere near the RS/PS success as they just did with Thibs, this is not indicative of a good move. This is awful and Knicks fans bemoaned the hiring of Brown.

The Blazers fired Stots because of repeated playoff failures. They fired him because he - like Billy has no postseason success. I don't see how this isn't a similar parallel to the Bulls except that Terry actually made the playoffs. The Bulls went ahead and signed their "stotts" to an extension rather than fire him and hire a younger, higher upside coach whilst bottoming out to tank.

Steve Nash won 66% of his games as a year 1 head coach vs Atkinson's 45% wins in his final season. It's very clear who the better coach was for the Nets.
Again, Atkinson experienced repeated failures and the Nets wanted new blood combined with the newly traded for KD and Irving wanting Steve Nash.

None of those above examples are indicate of teams trading their coaches because the coaches lost the lockeroom or the FO didn't like them. They all appear to be clearly win-tank now moves that all yielded better results. Keeping Billy despite his poor record is the exact opposite of that.

Set the Bulls back where exactly ? They can't even make the play-in, they aren't good and I'm not convinced Billy is improving them.

That is normal for NBA teams. There are countless examples of teams firing "better" coaches to hire someone who isn't perceived as "better", and the reason is usually about fractured relationships in the organization.

You're looking at NBA coaching through the lens of an NFL impact and it just isn't the reality. You do not need one of the "best" coaches to win at the highest level in the NBA. Your coach does not need to be one of the best Xs and Os guys to win at the highest level. Is it great if you have that coach anyway? Sure, but the difference is not enough to get worked up over.

These things move the needle in the NBA:

1. Talent
2. Talent
3. See #1.

The HC of the Hornets could win 60+ games with one of the most talented teams in the league. The best coach in the league is not winning 60+ games with one of the least talented teams in the league or even a middle of the road team.

Atkinson didn't have Harden or Durant in his final season in Brooklyn. Nash did. So, naturally the results are better with Nash because it's a talent league. Nobody cares about Billups "upside" and it hasn't mattered towards evaluating the Blazers future.

Every example I listed involved either the coach losing ownership, the front office, the locker room, or some combination of the three.

You are mischaracterizing my argument. I'm not saying coaching is a top-tier concern for the Bulls, or any team generally. I'm saying the Bulls shouldn't be locking in a coach that can't make the playoffs with an all-star scoring guard and All-NBA DDR in the weak eastern conference after 5 years. Do you expect them to make the playoffs this year?

You wanna know a good way to lose the ownership/FO/Lockerroom? Lose.

Are there any examples in modern NBA history in which a team that wasn't outright tanking ala Philly, retained their coach through 5+ losing seasons when the team expected to actually compete?

I imagine it's a rarity and it's probably not healthy if a coach is doing poorly but is retained because of their relationship with the bosses.

The only thing that actually matters in the NBA is winning (or money for the current owners) I don't see how Billy has impacted winning in a positive way since he came to Chicago, he squandered his 3 All-stars in OKC and never created an offense that didn't involve isolation for his stars and he did the same thing in Chicago, DDR iso and Lavine iso play after play. The Bulls offensive rating was below league average for his entire tenure and so was the Bulls defensive rating.

These Bulls don't need a personality Phil Jackson coach, they aren't good enough to have their egos managed. They need to a coach that has elite X/Os and can teach them the game and yes there are coaches that have better X/Os than Billy.

[Red Larrivee]

You are mischaracterizing my argument. I'm not saying coaching is a top-tier concern for the Bulls, or any team generally. I'm saying the Bulls shouldn't be locking in a coach that can't make the playoffs with an all-star scoring guard and All-NBA DDR in the weak eastern conference after 5 years. Do you expect them to make the playoffs this year?

You wanna know a good way to lose the ownership/FO/Lockerroom? Lose.

Are there any examples in modern NBA history in which a team that wasn't outright tanking ala Philly, retained their coach through 5+ losing seasons when the team expected to actually compete?

I imagine it's a rarity and it's probably not healthy if a coach is doing poorly but is retained because of their relationship with the bosses.

The only thing that actually matters in the NBA is winning (or money for the current owners) I don't see how Billy has impacted winning in a positive way since he came to Chicago, he squandered his 3 All-stars in OKC and never created an offense that didn't involve isolation for his stars and he did the same thing in Chicago, DDR iso and Lavine iso play after play. The Bulls offensive rating was below league average for his entire tenure and so was the Bulls defensive rating.

These Bulls don't need a personality Phil Jackson coach, they aren't good enough to have their egos managed. They need to a coach that has elite X/Os and can teach them the game and yes there are coaches that have better X/Os than Billy.

Except, he made the playoffs with LaVine and DeMar before, and they didn't the next couple of seasons. Donovan was not expected to compete in all 5 of his seasons in Chicago. If you want to compare his W/L record to expectations impartially, the Bulls have overachieved Vegas W/L totals by 15.5 wins to this point in his tenure.

He never coached 3 all-stars in OKC, but OKC won 55 games in Donovan's only season coaching Durant and Westbrook together. Isolation play was not the reason they lost to the Warriors.

Again, Xs and Os are not the most prominent thing for being a good NBA HC. Maybe that matters most to a specific group of fans, but you have to be good at many other things. If you are not good at those particular things, you will probably not keep a job no matter how good of a strategist you are. Donovan happens to be good at those things, while also being at least baseline as a strategist, and that's why he's very far down the list of issues for the Bulls and still maintains buy-in from every level of the organization that matters.

Is he flawed? Yes. Are you going to disagree with things he does? Yes, just like every other coach. My favorite coach? No, but he's fine. And fine is good for NBA coaches.

[drosestruts]

I do think there's a disconnect amongst fans and posters as to what the job of an NBA head coach is.

Some here think they're more of a people manager - and I tend to agree with this.

Others think of a coach as purely an X's and O's guy - there's an entire staff for that.

An NBA Head Coaches job is primarily to maintain and foster a good environment. Billy achieves that, which is hard to do on a winning team (see Thibs and Malone) let alone an underacheiving team (see the Bulls).

[Jcool0]

You are mischaracterizing my argument. I'm not saying coaching is a top-tier concern for the Bulls, or any team generally. I'm saying the Bulls shouldn't be locking in a coach that can't make the playoffs with an all-star scoring guard and All-NBA DDR in the weak eastern conference after 5 years. Do you expect them to make the playoffs this year?

You wanna know a good way to lose the ownership/FO/Lockerroom? Lose.

Are there any examples in modern NBA history in which a team that wasn't outright tanking ala Philly, retained their coach through 5+ losing seasons when the team expected to actually compete?

I imagine it's a rarity and it's probably not healthy if a coach is doing poorly but is retained because of their relationship with the bosses.

The only thing that actually matters in the NBA is winning (or money for the current owners) I don't see how Billy has impacted winning in a positive way since he came to Chicago, he squandered his 3 All-stars in OKC and never created an offense that didn't involve isolation for his stars and he did the same thing in Chicago, DDR iso and Lavine iso play after play. The Bulls offensive rating was below league average for his entire tenure and so was the Bulls defensive rating.

These Bulls don't need a personality Phil Jackson coach, they aren't good enough to have their egos managed. They need to a coach that has elite X/Os and can teach them the game and yes there are coaches that have better X/Os than Billy.

If you want to compare his W/L record to expectations impartially, the Bulls have overachieved Vegas W/L totals by 15.5 wins to this point in his tenure.

Bulls don't tank so outperforming the Vegas odds is meaningless. Bulls weren't projected at 30 wins and won 44 making the playoffs. That might be indicative of good coaching. Last year the Bulls were projected to win around 30 games, they were on that pace until going 15-5 to end the season. Does that mean next year we should project that out to 60 wins? Vegas right now has Bulls at 32.5 wins and if you look at that thread i started the CHGO video talk about how that is an easy over on wins because of the Bulls going 100% all season which most teams in that position are not doing.

[Lunartic]

Except, he made the playoffs with LaVine and DeMar before, and they didn't the next couple of seasons. Donovan was not expected to compete in all 5 of his seasons in Chicago. If you want to compare his W/L record to expectations impartially, the Bulls have overachieved Vegas W/L totals by 15.5 wins to this point in his tenure.

I'm sure Vegas Odds will award the Bulls the title soon.
Odds are irrelevant to the discussion - people think the Bulls suck and they do.

He never coached 3 all-stars in OKC, but OKC won 55 games in Donovan's only season coaching Durant and Westbrook together. Isolation play was not the reason they lost to the Warriors.

My apologies;
Harden was the 6MOY
KD was All-NBA and All-star
Westbrook was All-NBA and an All-star
Ibaka was All defensive first

That's an awesome amount of talent and Billy didn't do much with it.

Again, Xs and Os are not the most prominent thing for being a good NBA HC. Maybe that matters most to a specific group of fans, but you have to be good at many other things. If you are not good at those particular things, you will probably not keep a job no matter how good of a strategist you are. Donovan happens to be good at those things, while also being at least baseline as a strategist, and that's why he's very far down the list of issues for the Bulls and still maintains buy-in from every level of the organization that matters.

What aspect of coaching impacts games and thus wins, directly? X/Os. Name a single GOAT level coach that didn't build their names from actually managing the games.

I can name you a dozen coaches that are great inter-personally and have great reps as nice guys and player coaches. Here's a list of the last 10 title winning coaches

Joe Mazzulla
Michael Malone
Mike Budenholzer
Frank Vogel
Nick Nurse
Tyronn Lue
Steve Kerr

Every single one of those coaches are great to elite X/O-game management coaches. Vogel might be the weak link here and he had the benefit of 2 top-10 players and the bubble craziness.

Again, I'm not saying coaching is everything, I'm saying it's something. And that something matters enough to keep looking for upgrades when possible and not locking yourself into mediocrity which is exactly what Billy is - mediocre. He's in the pathetic East and he made the post-season 1 time and got obliterated. So lets sign him to another 3-5 years! Why?

Is he flawed? Yes. Are you going to disagree with things he does? Yes, just like every other coach. My favorite coach? No, but he's fine. And fine is good for NBA coaches.

Not when the talent is weak. You want every possible advantage. Could he be alright coaching Miami's big 3 or some stacked team like SGA's OKC? Yeah, probably.