Re: [Celtics' Stuff ] Don't get the detractors

[Kim Malo <kimmalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 05:47 PM 2/22/2004, Josh Ozersky wrote:
> I understand why Danny left Carroll in charge.

Josh- I wasn't questioning that, if that's unclear (since you were replying 
to me). Danny himself has said he wants a veteran coach with some 
experience and the options right now are limited at best, with likely 
better ones in the offseason. That veteran coach thing is also why I 
assumed Carroll got the opportunity over Conner, although I don't think it 
would have made a significant difference in either case.

But it's rudderless on the court, at least in part because Danny has 
removed what leadership we had and traded looking exclusively to talent. 
Which is OK in limited doses but not as a lifestyle. And while that 
wouldn't matter as much if there was stablity elsewhere, the effect of that 
is magnified by all the other changes, from the extreme overall turnover in 
personnel to the mixed/multiple messages coming out from the top if reports 
of Danny and owners interference have any validity. And players' likely 
perception that Obie was driven away, no matter what the rights and wrongs 
of that situation are.

>  He wants
> the new coach to come in with a fresh start, his own training
> camp, his own authority and message, and even the best coach
> will be squandered by coming in mid-season.  It would be good
> to get a high lottery pick, to say the least.

Why? Even if you pick well, how many of them make any kind of immediate 
impact and we're very young and immature as it is. Sorry, but for every you 
have to build with the lottery knee jerk, there are the two teams in LA 
proving just how wrong that is. The Clippers who have been in the lottery 
every year and the Lakers who did it without relying on it. Admittedly 
other circumstances made this happen for both, but I'm really really really 
really tired of hearing about a top lottery pick as the answer to all 
problems. Yes it would be nice to get someone good, but continually relying 
on that as the answer to all problems creates The Clippers. And is even 
less likely to address the oncourt leadership issue, at least for a few years.

> But I'm thinking that this team needs a Bill Fitch-type leader, a
> details guy who the players will despise but respect.   The old guys
> are making a comeback:  Hubie Brown and Lenny Wilkins are both
> doing a great.  Maybe the Celts could get an old-time coach.  Any
> suggestions?  Besides Tommy I mean.

Where on earth did you get the idea that Tommy is/would be my suggestion. I 
haven't been able to even listen to him broadcast in years, and I'm 
supposed to back the idea of modern players wanting him as coach, no matter 
how knowledgeable he is? It's easy to spout a lot of nonsense about how you 
could have these guys fast breaking in 15 minutes. Yeah, they could run a 
play. Now run a game.  Tommy was a very good coach 20 years ago, as was 
Fitch. Different eras, different players and one of our most fundamental 
disagreements is over your apparent belief (based upon your posts) that 
it's never the players responsibility but always the coach's fault, so I 
expect our ideas on what is needed are worlds apart anyway. Starting with 
the fact that I was talking about oncourt leadership.

They need the best of whomever is available as coach. I've no idea who that 
will be.
Kim