Jason Kidd to Coach the Nets

[tsherkin]

I can get behind this idea, especially if Kidd has Lawrence Frank as an assistant. Kidd has the right kind of motivational personality, he's always been a strongly influential figure on his teams and Frank is an Xs and Os guy. This could happen and it could work out reasonably well.

It's not like Brooklyn is going to magically suck as the result of a change in HC, too; they know how to play and the talent will be the biggest determinant in their success. Still, I think this is good publicity for the team and it may even work out rather well; Avery Johnson burns his players out and while PJ did a solid job, I guess they felt like this would be about as good or a little better because of the PR.

Interesting stuff; I'd call this a positive move.

[Cujo]

more qualified based on what?
shaw has more rings
shaw has more coaching experience, both on a winner (LAL) and coaching up a up and coming team (IND)

this was a marketing move by BKN and to satisfy their star in deron

I 100% see your point that Shaw has a better resume' and that Jason Kidd is such an unknown.

But I'm not arguing whether or not this was a good or bad move for the Nets.

I'm saying that for whatever reason, right or wrong, the Nets felt that he was the best man for the job.

My point is that you don't hire somebody simply because they've paid their dues.

[Trader_Joe]

FYI: Jason Kidd's contract numbers...4 years, 10.5M, 7.5M guaranteed. Year 4 is team option...according to Edward Snowden

— Peter Vecsey (@PeterVecsey1) June 13, 2013

[sp6r=underrated]

the job shouldve gone to shaw, he put in his dues as a assistant coach, kidd didnt...its a travesty kidd can just leap frog over former players who have paid their dues as working asst coaching jobs and have more rings

It has nothing to do with "paying dues".

Right or wrong, the Nets felt that he was the best person for the job.

Nobody should EVER be put into a head coaching position because they "paid their dues".

Bottom line, the Nets felt that Kidd was more qualified so he got the job.

Kidd was more qualified because the Nets main qualification for the head coach position is someone with a big name so they can get their name in the papers.

[Trader_Joe]

the job shouldve gone to shaw, he put in his dues as a assistant coach, kidd didnt...its a travesty kidd can just leap frog over former players who have paid their dues as working asst coaching jobs and have more rings

It has nothing to do with "paying dues".

Right or wrong, the Nets felt that he was the best person for the job.

Nobody should EVER be put into a head coaching position because they "paid their dues".

Bottom line, the Nets felt that Kidd was more qualified so he got the job.

more qualified based on what?
shaw has more rings
shaw has more coaching experience, both on a winner (LAL) and coaching up a up and coming team (IND)

this was a marketing move by BKN and to satisfy their star in deron

Marketing move, yes. But this has nothing to do with Deron. Shaw would have been a player friendly coach as well. Deron is locked up and there is no reason to kiss his butt anymore.

And again.. why does everyone assume Shaw would have taken the BK job?
It's been rumored for some time his preference is and has been the Clipps for numerous reasons.
Shaw would have been the other best choice, but I'm so glad we took Kidd over the likes of Hollins, Karl, Larry Brown, etc. The only veteran coach I would have wanted was Phil, who said no.

[Trader_Joe]

the job shouldve gone to shaw, he put in his dues as a assistant coach, kidd didnt...its a travesty kidd can just leap frog over former players who have paid their dues as working asst coaching jobs and have more rings

It has nothing to do with "paying dues".

Right or wrong, the Nets felt that he was the best person for the job.

Nobody should EVER be put into a head coaching position because they "paid their dues".

Bottom line, the Nets felt that Kidd was more qualified so he got the job.

Kidd was more qualified because the Nets main qualification for the head coach position is someone with a big name so they can get their name in the papers.

BTW, I think I asked you yesterday who you think they should have hired and you never responded. Curious your opinion.
Also, who do you want Denver to hire and who do you expect them to?

[diablerouge]

Huge mistake IMO

based on what? mark jackson is doing just fine, larry bird was pretty good in indiana. imo football is the only major sport where you need to be groomed to coach even if you have a lot of experience playing. doc rivers and kevin mchale were never asst coaches. if you go back, donn nelson and lenny wilkens went straight to HC jobs, they did ok to say the least.

[tsherkin]

more qualified based on what?
shaw has more rings

This doesn't qualify Shaw for anything. This would be like using rings to support Horry, which is an argument I believe otherse have dissected here already. Yeah, he's had some deep playoff runs for sure, with both Orlando and Los Angeles, but Kidd has three Finals runs of his own, and was more directly involved in managing the team and understanding how things meshed on the court in terms of strategy.

shaw has more coaching experience, both on a winner (LAL) and coaching up a up and coming team (IND)

He certainly does have more official coaching experience, though again, we're looking at someone who has defined the offensive and defensive strategies of his teams with his talent and is a very heady player in terms of strategy... and who is purportedly backing himself up with a good assistant crew to cover his deficiencies. I wonder too if Shaw decided to pitch the triangle or if he was planning on going with a more conventional system, since that might have played a role here as well. If he's not going with the triangle, most of his experience under Phil (who himself told Shaw to distance himself from Jackson) is for naught.

this was a marketing move by BKN and to satisfy their star in deron

I absolutely agree, but in terms of potential for success, you're not really losing anything. If Frank comes back, you essentially have a former HC (for the Nets themselves, no less!) to handle the Xs and Os, and Frank was the guy who masterminded the system under Byron Scott and then Eddie Jordan.

So what are they really missing out on compared to what they're definitely gaining with Kidd over Shaw? I like Brian, he's put in the work, but as another poster said, so has Ewing. That doesn't speak to their skill at all, just that they've put in the time. You could say that after 6.5 seasons with the franchise that included a two-year run of Finals appearances, Kidd has also put in his time with the franchise.

the job shouldve gone to shaw, he put in his dues as a assistant coach, kidd didnt...its a travesty kidd can just leap frog over former players who have paid their dues as working asst coaching jobs and have more rings

Why does that matter? It's nothing more than a feel-good situation for Shaw to hire him if the Nets thought they could extract greater value from Kidd, even if it's just from the fact that he'll be good PR with the fans and with Deron. Plus, Kidd was himself a point guard and can maybe help Deron develop with the benefit of his own considerable experience to an extent which Shaw (as a roleplayer combo guard) could not.

Shaw may eventually find a job, but "paying your dues" doesn't earn you the right to be a HC; that's a privilege that must be extended because the team sees value in you, and more value than any other candidate, at that. Clearly, Brooklyn didn't see that.

[sp6r=underrated]

It has nothing to do with "paying dues".

Right or wrong, the Nets felt that he was the best person for the job.

Nobody should EVER be put into a head coaching position because they "paid their dues".

Bottom line, the Nets felt that Kidd was more qualified so he got the job.

Kidd was more qualified because the Nets main qualification for the head coach position is someone with a big name so they can get their name in the papers.

BTW, I think I asked you yesterday who you think they should have hired and you never responded. Curious your opinion.
Also, who do you want Denver to hire and who do you expect them to?

I gave a general response to your post here. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1255671&start=75#p36108170

I have no strong opinion on who the Nets or Nuggets should hire.

My problem with the Kidd hire is the logic behind the move. I am strongly convinced that the reason the Nets hired Kidd is primarily because they want a big star to be head coach because management is obsessed with that stuff.

As an analogy think back to your high school math classes. You were graded not just for getting the right answer but being able to show the work (the logic behind how you reached the decision). If you wrote down the right answer but didn't show your work because you guessed you didn't get any points. The reason you didn't get any points is because guessing in the long run is an inefficient method of solving math problems and will lead to poor outcomes.

Hiring a coach for to get a big name as Head Coach may occasionally work but in the long run IMO it leads to worse outcomes for the league with regards to the quality of coaching than hiring people for coaching quality. I made a thread a few weeks about the increasing number of coaches who were not former players or who were hired primarily for their coaching background rather playing experience. I think that is a good thing and should be encouraged.

The Nets hire from my perspective is a step in the wrong direction especially if the Nets get lucky and Kidd turns out to be a good coach because that means teams will again stop placing a strong value on coaching background and instead will increasingly value a big name due to his playing days.

That is why I am angry about the move.

[Niko23]

Huge mistake IMO

based on what? mark jackson is doing just fine, larry bird was pretty good in indiana. imo football is the only major sport where you need to be groomed to coach even if you have a lot of experience playing. doc rivers and kevin mchale were never asst coaches. if you go back, donn nelson and lenny wilkens went straight to HC jobs, they did ok to say the least.

Jackson/Bird/Mchale/Rivers did not go from playing to coaching immediately. Horrible examples

And Nelson/Wilkens did this 1000 years ago. Nelson was barely 500 in his first 3 seasons and Wilkens in his first 5 seasons. Is Brooklyn looking to rebuild?

[brownsmith89]

these arguments can be used against olowokandi or eddy curry or tim thomas. players who seemed lazy and didn't reach their potential. why should a player go directly to a head coaching job?

but for kidd, who has poise and bbiq, i think he's automatically more qualified than yes-men assistants who sit on the sideline.

[tsherkin]

Let's find out who his assistant team includes before worrying a lot about his experience or lack thereof; Mark Jackson succeeds with an Xs and Os bench, leaving him as a motivator.

[E-Balla]

I think Kidd could be a great Xs and Os guy. He's one of the smartest players on the court so all he needs to do is think "what would I do" and he'll be fine that way. He can also be a motivator like he was on the Knicks and Mavs. And didn't he want Deron to go to Dallas so he could mentor him? Brooklyn screws up a lot but this might be the best move they've made since the trade to get Kidd.

[tsherkin]

I think Kidd could be a great Xs and Os guy. He's one of the smartest players on the court so all he needs to do is think "what would I do" and he'll be fine that way.

I'd be careful about that; most stars don't do too well as coaches because of a mixture of control issues and the instinct/exposition barrier. Knowing what to do because you see it in the moment is different than preparing others to read and react in-game. We'll see what happens. I'm fairly confident that if Kidd does what is rumored and brings Frank aboard, he'll be fine and he can just focus on working as a motivator as you note later in your post.

[sp6r=underrated]

Let's find out who his assistant team includes before worrying a lot about his experience or lack thereof; Mark Jackson succeeds with an Xs and Os bench, leaving him as a motivator.

NBA Head Coaches are grossly over-paid if you are right that teams can just get by with an assistant as the Xs and Os while leaving the head coach to be a glorified motivator due to his charisma and playing background.

Most NBA players are broke after 3-6 years with little skills that can be translated into a high paying job in other fields. Out of this sub-set many have a lot of charisma.

Teams should just take one of these broke dudes with charisma offer him 200k/yr and hire assistants to do the Xs and Os. If he turns it down go to the next former NBA player who had a good career and is now broke and offer him 200k.

That would be the logical thing to do if you are right that all you need is a motivator as a head coach. Motivational skills aren't rare and are in fact fairly common.

[tsherkin]

NBA Head Coaches are grossly over-paid if you are right that teams can just get by with an assistant as the Xs and Os while leaving the head coach to be a glorified motivator due to his charisma and playing background.

The examples abound, though, and it's way harder than you seem to think to keep everyone focused and on the same page, juggling egos, managing fatigue and injuries, etc, etc.

That would be the logical thing to do if you are right that all you need is a motivator as a head coach. Motivational skills aren't rare and are in fact fairly common.

Nah, you're definitely underrepresenting the importance here. It's one thing to make a motivational speech; it's quite another to keep guys motivated for eight months out of the year and to micromanage all of the other little details that go on apart from your on-court strategy. But very clearly, the style of head coach who emphasizes ego management and motivation is more important to a head coach, as well as a basic vision, while the Xs and Os specifics are more appropriate to an assistant coach in all but the most extreme cases (Phil, Pops, etc).

Anyway, the money involved in the league is ridiculous at all levels and it's driven by the revenue the sport produces, so of course salaries will be disproportionate compared to our understanding of salary... Having said that, I think it's fairly clear that coaches have only so much impact, but that at the high and low ends of ability, they do very well (or very poorly). Most teams have a comparatively neutral coach and yeah, they get paid a lot and don't necessarily do all that much in most cases.

[Trader_Joe]

I gave a general response to your post here. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1255671&start=75#p36108170

I have no strong opinion on who the Nets or Nuggets should hire.

My problem with the Kidd hire is the logic behind the move. I am strongly convinced that the reason the Nets hired Kidd is primarily because they want a big star to be head coach because management is obsessed with that stuff.

As an analogy think back to your high school math classes. You were graded not just for getting the right answer but being able to show the work (the logic behind how you reached the decision). If you wrote down the right answer but didn't show your work because you guessed you didn't get any points. The reason you didn't get any points is because guessing in the long run is an inefficient method of solving math problems and will lead to poor outcomes.

Hiring a coach for to get a big name as Head Coach may occasionally work but in the long run IMO it leads to worse outcomes for the league with regards to the quality of coaching than hiring people for coaching quality. I made a thread a few weeks about the increasing number of coaches who were not former players or who were hired primarily for their coaching background rather playing experience. I think that is a good thing and should be encouraged.

The Nets hire from my perspective is a step in the wrong direction especially if the Nets get lucky and Kidd turns out to be a good coach because that means teams will again stop placing a strong value on coaching background and instead will increasingly value a big name due to his playing days.

That is why I am angry about the move.

Aren't you a Denver fan?
You have "no strong opinion" about who they hire, but who the Nets hire makes you "angry"?
Seems you do have a strong opinion about this.

And I don't get this....

"If the Nets get lucky and Kidd turns out to be a good coach because that means teams will again stop placing a strong value on coaching background and instead will increasingly value a big name due to his playing days."

You really think other teams will follow the Net model because of this one hire?
I don't.

[E-Balla]

Let's find out who his assistant team includes before worrying a lot about his experience or lack thereof; Mark Jackson succeeds with an Xs and Os bench, leaving him as a motivator.

NBA Head Coaches are grossly over-paid if you are right that teams can just get by with an assistant as the Xs and Os while leaving the head coach to be a glorified motivator due to his charisma and playing background.

Most NBA players are broke after 3-6 years with little skills that can be translated into a high paying job in other fields. Out of this sub-set many have a lot of charisma.

Teams should just take one of these broke dudes with charisma offer him 200k/yr and hire assistants to do the Xs and Os. If he turns it down go to the next former NBA player who had a good career and is now broke and offer him 200k.

That would be the logical thing to do if you are right that all you need is a motivator as a head coach. Motivational skills aren't rare and are in fact fairly common.

Coach Sheed?

[dho4ever]

The math analogy is bad. The purpose of a math class was for a student to learn the material. The purpose of selecting a coach is to well.. select a good candidate. What work is there that you need to show?

If he's a good coach, then he's a good coach. If he's bad, then he's bad.

Let's stop acting like there's some imaginary "Coach Training Camp" that all coaches should go through.

the candidate in mind is Jason Kidd, one of the smartest players ever, has been a successful floor general, and a team leader for numerous seasons. In that regard, I think that's qualified.

[Niko23]

Trader I am too lazy to go read your posts. I am not a fan of the move but what is your take on this?