Who should be the next coach of the Washington Wizards?

[Rafael122]

Joerger was interviewd by the Cats so he is on other teams radar.

Since we are already paying $4 million for Flip, I'd be surprised if added more salary for a new coach while Flip is still on the books. That and D'Antonio would be a bad fit with this roster full of non-shooters.

I read somewhere, I think it was the Post, Flip is no longer under contract. Apparently he had a club option??

[Nivek]

Rose's conclusions about D'Antoni losing that series for the Suns because he didn't prepare them properly are laughably nonsensical.

[MikeTheKid]

Anyone up for the possibility of Mo Cheeks? Hes AC with the Thunder right now

[fishercob]

CCJ, I admit I find it a little surprising that you so categorically dismiss coaching prospects on the basis of age. I'd get it if you were a young whipper-snapper yourself, but do you want someone judging your ability to do a job based on your DOB? It's all the stranger to me because you have at times tended to prefer "mature" (washed up) D-leaguers to young rooks who ate still learning the league. You want your players old and your coaches young?

"I can't see why on earth people run to hire 70-yr Jerry Sloan..." Maybe because he's one of the greatest, most successful coaches on the face of the planet. I'm not saying he's the right guy here or not. But given the fact that most of us have never heard Joerger speak, I'm open to the notion that there could be more than one good path here.

[jivelikenice]

Unless they have a great young coaching prospect in mind, they might as well keep Wittman - for continuity sake - considering there was very good development among several of the young players - other than Wall. I don't think he'd do any worse than a recycled coach who's been found wanting elsewhere.

Retaining Wittman for the sake of continuity is actually the opposite. That is unless you think Wittman will be here for the next 5 yrs? If you retain Wittman, you're likely setting up another coaching change (at least in my opinion) within the next two years and it will just be symbollic of a franchise that can't get out of its own way. They need to pick a horse for the long haul and stick with it. Retaining Wittman would be the culmination of Ted bothcing nearly every major decision since they drafted John Wall.

[Nivek]

I understand what you're saying, jive, but I don't think changing coaches in a couple years is that big a deal IF they decide to keep Wittman. Teams change coaches all the time, and it's not uncommon for teams to can a coach and bring in someone else to "put them over the top." A couple examples that spring immediately to mind: Phil Jackson replacing Doug Collins in Chicago; Larry Brown replacing Rick Carlisle in Detroit.

[jivelikenice]

Nivek, I'd agree if Wittman were the 1st coach under Ted and w/ Wall, but now we're on to coach #2, two and a half years into Ted's ownership. The last thing you'd want is to have to bring in coach #3 in only his first 5-years of ownership, also coinciding with when a lot of our rooks will be up for for FA.

[Nivek]

Nivek, I'd agree if Wittman were the 1st coach under Ted and w/ Wall, but now we're on to coach #2, two and a half years into Ted's ownership. The last thing you'd want is to have to bring in coach #3 in only his first 5-years of ownership, also coinciding with when a lot of our rooks will be up for for FA.

I don't think it's a big deal. For me at least, a long distance from the "last thing" I'd want for the team if I was in Ted's spot.

That said, I'd prefer to replace Wittman with some of the guys I've listed earlier in the thread. But it wouldn't be a disaster to keep Wittman for another year or two, and then make a move.

[dobrojim]

The only disaster would be in opportunity cost and the likelihood
that some of our top choices now would be unavailable in 2-3 years.
But it's just as possible that someone not currently on our radar would
be available at that time. So who knows.

[Ruzious]

Unless they have a great young coaching prospect in mind, they might as well keep Wittman - for continuity sake - considering there was very good development among several of the young players - other than Wall. I don't think he'd do any worse than a recycled coach who's been found wanting elsewhere.

Retaining Wittman for the sake of continuity is actually the opposite. That is unless you think Wittman will be here for the next 5 yrs? If you retain Wittman, you're likely setting up another coaching change (at least in my opinion) within the next two years and it will just be symbollic of a franchise that can't get out of its own way. They need to pick a horse for the long haul and stick with it. Retaining Wittman would be the culmination of Ted bothcing nearly every major decision since they drafted John Wall.

If they re-hire him, I can't imagine they do it with the intention of getting rid of him in 2 years. There wouldn't be an assumption of failure.

[rockymac52]

Somebody mentioned D'Antoni being an assistant for team USA as a positive. To me, it's a negative, at least for what the Wizards are trying to do. Ted keeps talking up how last offseason the coaches couldn't work with the players because of the lockout. Which makes sense... So why would we want a new coach that can't work with the players this summer because he's busy coaching the other superstars around the league for the olympics?

[rockymac52]

Also, re: D'Antoni waiting for a possibly better job to open up (the Clippers), it was just announced that the Clippers are bringing back Vinny Del Negro for next season.

[rockymac52]

"WojYahooNBA: With Del Negro staying, Scott Brooks has lost a great deal of leverage in contract talks with OKC. Wizards likely to keep Randy Wittman."


Not sure if that nugget is related to the one before it. Does that imply that the Wizards were hoping to land Scott Brooks? Could explain why no announcement about Wittman has been made yet, seeing as Brooks' Thunder are still in the playoffs.

Plus I don't see Brooks leaving OKC, even if there's more money elsewhere (unless I guess if the Wizards land Davis, who knows?). I'd rather not be used as leverage if it isn't genuine.

[fishercob]

‏@WojYahooNBA
With Del Negro staying, Scott Brooks has lost a great deal of leverage in contract talks with OKC. Wizards likely to keep Randy Wittman.

[miller31time]

It's not so much that I dislike Randy Wittman. It's just that, rarely do I see a coach change his M.O so drastically from one team to another. While I liked the development of our young bigs under his tutelage, I'm reminded that we faced some incredibly weak competition at the end of last season and that, that winning streak not-withstanding, Randy probably wouldn't be under serious consideration for return next year.

I also think this team, this franchise, this fanbase -- needs a splash. A move that says to everyone "we're building something special here." Wittman doesn't work in that context. MDA doesn't really scream that to me either, but Stan Van would.

[rockymac52]

‏@WojYahooNBA
With Del Negro staying, Scott Brooks has lost a great deal of leverage in contract talks with OKC. Wizards likely to keep Randy Wittman.

Right, but is that his analysis after the Clippers announced VDN was coming back, or is that a report that he's making based on inside information?

Even though it's not HUGE news by any means, I'd think he'd report that the Wizards are bringing back Wittman in a separate tweet.

[Nivek]

Somebody mentioned D'Antoni being an assistant for team USA as a positive. To me, it's a negative, at least for what the Wizards are trying to do. Ted keeps talking up how last offseason the coaches couldn't work with the players because of the lockout. Which makes sense... So why would we want a new coach that can't work with the players this summer because he's busy coaching the other superstars around the league for the olympics?

There really isn't much "coaching" done in the offseason. If there is one-on-one work with a coach being done, it's almost always done with an assistant coach.

Assuming D'Antoni becomes the next Wizards coach, him coaching with the national team wouldn't have much effect, if any. Wall's work would be happening with an assistant or a consultant anyway.

[fishercob]

I had the same question Rocky. But that said, when Woj reports something it's usually true -- whether he's saying is likely to happen or will happen.

Miller, I couldn't care less about a "splash." MJ was a splash. Flip was a relative splash. Gilbert's tenure, the John Wall welcome parade, etc., all filled with splash. People want results. I don't care if John McCain is the coach if we show progress and win.

[miller31time]

Miller, I couldn't care less about a "splash." MJ was a splash. Flip was a relative splash. Gilbert's tenure, the John Wall welcome parade, etc., all filled with splash. People want results. I don't care if John McCain is the coach if we show progress and win.

Well, there's "splash" for the sake of making a splash. That's what D'Antoni would be. I just stated that I would not support such a decision. Hiring a guy because he's a big name and not because he would work within the context of the team is senseless.

But there is the idea of making a splash that's actually full of substance -- a big move that makes sense. Stan Van Gundy has a proven track record as an excellent head coach AND is a big-time name without a job.

Regarding showing progress, that's the point I was trying to hit on in the first part of my post -- that the "results" and "progress" with Wittman may not be as much as advertised. If we don't win out in the last stretch of the season, does he keep his job? If we face teams that either weren't resting their best players or were somewhat healthy and we lose half (or more) of the games, are we in the same position regarding Randy that we're at right now?

[Floater]

Scott Jackson
‏@JacksonSports
Spoke with ‪#Wizards‬ President Ernie Grunfeld today and he says Coach Randy Wittman will return next season.