gts1 wrote:I think there is more to the story, it'll probably leak out that they whole 3 years vs 5 years deal was not the only hurdle, Lakers may not have ever been sold on Lue in the first place so unless it was on their terms it was never gonna happen... to me it was a good offer, Lue was only interviewing because of Lebron, the Lakers were only talking to him because of Lebron and Lebron is only here for three more years
I actually see this as one of the first positive decisions to come out of the FO in weeks
How could this possibly be spun as a good sign for the front office?
If it’s true that they didn’t truly believe in Lue and weren’t all in, why offer him a contract at all? Why limit the search to just 3 candidates? Why allow your other top target Monty to go off to Phoenix? Why didn’t they reach out to Vogel/Hollins/Woodson before the talks with Lue fell apart?
According to your view, If the front office got what they wanted, they were willing to settle for a coach they didn’t really want, how is that encouraging?
Anyway you paint it, it’s a massive failure by the front office.
If they really wanted Lue but thought he’d settle for a below market deal, there’s a massive failure.
If they didn’t really want Lue but were willing to settle for him for the next 3 years, that’s a massive failure.
If they only offered Lue the job cause of lebron, that’s a massive failure.
If they, as previously reported, were concerned with optics of appearing to be only going after Lue cause of Lebron then only offer him a 3 year deal to align with Lebrons deal, that’s a massive failure.
If, after all things considered, they were ok with only going after Lue cause of Lebron, then just offer him a market value five year deal (look at Luke’s and Monty’s new deal) and fire him after lebron is gone, only thing stopping that is cheapness, so that’s a massive failure.
"We must try not to sink beneath our anguish, Harry, but battle on." - Dumbledore
+ 
= 
