Sign in to follow this  
Thomas

Grizzlies Give Hollins Permission To Interview With Other Teams

Recommended Posts

I'm still trying to get where Ed Davis was this great "centerpiece/major player" in the Rudy trade. Based upon his three years in the NBA, basketball-reference.com compares him to Thurl Bailey, Mike Olberding, Mike Miller, Robert Horry and Keith van Horn for what they accomplished in their first three years in the league. Those are not "game changing players." One of the most common comparisons many of us make visually is a comparison to Lorenzen Wright, and the stats bear that comparison out. http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/pcm_finder.cgi?request=1&sum=1&p1=davised01&y1=2013&p2=wrighlo02&y2=1999 But remember, Ren was playing on the Clippers in his first three seasons, back when Loy Vaught was one of their stars (62-152 record during his three seasons there). I love Ren, and think one of the biggest mistakes the Grizzlies organization ever made was not resigning him, but that is neither here nor there. He was not a player that would normally be considered "the centerpiece of a trade" and I'm not going to consider Ed Davis one either until he shows me something more than he has on the court so far.

 

If Grizz can get production out of Davis like SAS gets out of Splitter, I would be very happy with the trade (in this analogy Duncan = Gasol). I agree with your comparison to Ren, but he is more athletic than Ren ever was.

He's not bulky enough to be a powerful post presence but he can finish around the rim, and should be able to defend the post and the pick and roll well.

If he does all of these things, he would be more valuable to this Grizz team than Rudy ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hahahahaha I can feel the love its tangible.

 

Sure how about you read this article

http://m.espn.go.com...uehoop&id=58751

And get back to me on how similar pops and hollins are when it comes to player development.

 

You avoid the point. And then direct me to a smooth anti-Hollins article written by one of Hollinger's good buddies.

Not so smooth.

 

Looks like to me the guys that were spouting that maybe Hollins wasn't the right guy for the job for this FO going forward were RIGHT.

 

I doubt even with all your inside knowledge of what's going on in folks minds that you know much more than I do. And its just as likely that the issue is really money. It usually is.

 

 

No I'm not saying he benched them to spite levien I'm just telling you what happened. You are welcome to make that leap but don't put it on me.

 

I don't leap to such conclusions when the implications impune others, besides you haven't shown the radio date and playing times that support your accusation.

 

Heck yes I cursed Hollins Rudy Mayo Zbo Gasol and mike or losing that 25pt lead to clippers. We couldn't draw up a play to hit one freaking bucket in 8 minutes??? That's all we needed - I guess hollins only gets credit for victories in your eyes.

 

Again, you avoid the point. Its understandable.

And then set up a straw man. So predictable.

 

Quote:

Also his JOB is whatever his employers ask him to do. If they wanted him to possibly incorporate the new guys a little more then guess what - that became part of his job. He wasn't working for Heisley anymore.

End Quote

 

You act like he rarely played. He started some games. He had lots of opportunities. He's a weird tweener. His game is better suited for Center yet he's not strong enough to be a Power Forward. After the trade, when I first heard you guys talking him up, I thought great he must be a stretch-4. And then I come to find out that he has trouble hitting 5ft jumpers. Forget free throws. You guys with you all your cleanup-time-AA amaze me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a retarded argument. Front offices run teams, front offices make player personnel moves, front offices build the vision for the team. If a coach is blatantly not down with that vision why re-sign him? If the front office makes a move to add players they think will help but the coach refuses to give those players court time, so the FO can see how their investment meshes with the team, he's basically saying to his boss "screw what you think, screw your ideas, screw your business intellect, I'm doing it my way you just live with it." tell me what executive running a team would allow a coach to do that? Even great coaches like POP, Phil and Larry Brown work in unison with their front offices. Do they always agree NO! But they understand there has to be continuity in an organization.

 

So for anyone bashing the FO for not wanting to pay a guy to ignore what they say and their thoughts on improving this team. Your argument from a business standpoint and a basketball standpoint is enormously retarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You avoid the point. And then direct me to a smooth anti-Hollins article written by one of Hollinger's good buddies. Not so smooth. I doubt even with all your inside knowledge of what's going on in folks minds that you know much more than I do. And its just as likely that the issue is really money. It usually is. I don't leap to such conclusions when the implications impune others, besides you haven't shown the radio date and playing times that support your accusation. Again, you avoid the point. Its understandable. And then set up a straw man. So predictable. Quote: Also his JOB is whatever his employers ask him to do. If they wanted him to possibly incorporate the new guys a little more then guess what - that became part of his job. He wasn't working for Heisley anymore. End Quote You act like he rarely played. He started some games. He had lots of opportunities. He's a weird tweener. His game is better suited for Center yet he's not strong enough to be a Power Forward. After the trade, when I first heard you guys talking him up, I thought great he must be a stretch-4. And then I come to find out that he has trouble hitting 5ft jumpers. Forget free throws. You guys with you all your cleanup-time-AA amaze me.

 

Everything you are debating is a "straw man" argument. Why don't you re-evaluate your own statements. I don't even know what you are arguing about. It is pretty apparent to anyone who has been paying attention to the events as they unfolded. That Lionel rubbed mgmt the wrong way with his "style" and they have always wanted their own guys anyway. They are completely within their rights to hire people that fit their vision.

It has nothing to do with him playing my FAVORITE players? i have no real stake in Davis or Daye all i care about is winning - short-term and long-term. I was wrong about the Rudy trade but now i kind of understand the direction that FO wants to take the team in and i am good with it in theory. But to pretend like Lionel is the easiest person to work with and ignore his shortcomings as they would affect his fit with this regime is questionable on your part. I am loyal to the GRIZZLIES not a single coach or player. We survived after Hubie we survived after Fratello and we will survive after Lionel too.

 

This is a retarded argument. Front offices run teams, front offices make player personnel moves, front offices build the vision for the team. If a coach is blatantly not down with that vision why re-sign him? If the front office makes a move to add players they think will help but the coach refuses to give those players court time, so the FO can see how their investment meshes with the team, he's basically saying to his boss "screw what you think, screw your ideas, screw your business intellect, I'm doing it my way you just live with it." tell me what executive running a team would allow a coach to do that? Even great coaches like POP, Phil and Larry Brown work in unison with their front offices. Do they always agree NO! But they understand there has to be continuity in an organization. So for anyone bashing the FO for not wanting to pay a guy to ignore what they say and their thoughts on improving this team. Your argument from a business standpoint and a basketball standpoint is enormously retarded.

 

Thank you!! There is a reason Lionel was a career assistant for so many years till Heisley took a chance on him. His attitude that helped him excel as a player and even as a coach at times is not the most endearing to most decision makers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is a retarded argument. Front offices run teams, front offices make player personnel moves, front offices build the vision for the team. If a coach is blatantly not down with that vision why re-sign him? If the front office makes a move to add players they think will help but the coach refuses to give those players court time, so the FO can see how their investment meshes with the team, he's basically saying to his boss "screw what you think, screw your ideas, screw your business intellect, I'm doing it my way you just live with it." tell me what executive running a team would allow a coach to do that? Even great coaches like POP, Phil and Larry Brown work in unison with their front offices. Do they always agree NO! But they understand there has to be continuity in an organization. So for anyone bashing the FO for not wanting to pay a guy to ignore what they say and their thoughts on improving this team. Your argument from a business standpoint and a basketball standpoint is enormously retarded.

 

 

Pop is a pretty rare case all around because he was the g.m., appointed himself head coach, and then hired the GM to replace him.

 

Larry Brown certainly has clashed with management, but that guy doesn't stick around long enough anywhere to have too big of clashes.

 

And Phil working in unison with FO? Laughable. He had his disagreements in Chicago with Jerry Krause and why do you think Mitch Kupchak and Jim Buss didn't bring back the 11x coaching champ and instead chose D'antoni?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so both large market teams have an assistant coach and a would be 1st timer ahead of Lionel Hollins, but it's crazy for Memphis to do it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I find "retarded" is how many people actually think that a front office lawyer/former sports agent and stats analyst/sportswriter should tell an experienced NBA head coach with an excellent record of continued success and improvement how to coach his team. Do either Levien or Hollinger have any coaching experience at any level? High School? Their kids pee wee league? Anything?

 

I think a lot of people are making far too big a deal out of Hollins alleged refusal to accede to management's demands. The front office apparently didn't think it was that bad or they would have fired him. I sincerely doubt that management ever told Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, Jerry Sloan, or even Red Auerbach who to play or when. When you hire a coach you need to give him carte blanche in order to accomplish his job, otherwise you are limiting his ability to do what he can do. If there are great philosophical differences you get another guy, but I would add a word of caution to that. If a different coach is brought in with a different system to match management's philosophies don't expect the current roster to have the same success. This group of players may not function as well with a new playing philosophy and it may take some restructuring to actually field a successful team. That's what you call rebuilding, and I think a lot of us already know how long that can take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hollins might be a jerk but he deserves more respect for what he's done for the franchise. He's loyal and he's a winner. He brought us respect and an appearance in the WCF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this FO didnt have to suffer through the lean years like us die hard fans- they come in and try to remake the franchise in their image despite us already having an image and a winning culture thanks to LH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hollins might be a jerk but he deserves more respect for what he's done for the franchise. He's loyal and he's a winner. He brought us respect and an appearance in the WCF.

I can definitely see both sides of this, and am really okay either way. Wth that said he cannot continue to call out his bosses in the media and not think there will not be some push back. If I am constantly telling my boss to shove it and Dave me alone then there is a good chance at some point I will be run out of there

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they dumped 30m or more in salary.

Got us a MLE to improve

Got us a TPE to improve.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
King Dork read my post again I said "one" of the worst not "THE" worst franchises in NBA history. The Rudy Gay trade IMO was still a bad trade.Short term it worked out but long term. We were already the top defensive team in the NBA with Rudy Gay and you didn't get any promising young prospects or draft picks in return. BTW why did the we outperform what the experts predicted? Could it have been the coach Lionel Hollins?

 

I have to disagree here. Ed Davis is exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I have to disagree here. Ed Davis is exactly that.

 

We got a draft pick aswell :).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is the correct LH thread to place it in :P

 

but ESPNs Chris Broussard posted this:

 

Source confirms @CAGrizBlog report that Memphis denied Nets permission to speak to L Hollins. Nets not sure whether they'll ask again.

 

 

Does this mean the FO is bringing him back afterall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure if this is the correct LH thread to place it in :P/>/>/>/> but ESPNs Chris Broussard posted this: Source confirms @CAGrizBlog report that Memphis denied Nets permission to speak to L Hollins. Nets not sure whether they'll ask again. Does this mean the FO is bringing him back afterall?

 

No, it means the Nets aren't interested in talking to him right now. The sequence was:

Nets request to speak with Hollins day after the end of WCF -> Grizz FO says no ->few days later, Grizz FO says it's ok for Hollins to speak to other teams -> Nets don't make another request to speak with him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if this is the correct LH thread to place it in :P/>

 

but ESPNs Chris Broussard posted this:

 

Source confirms @CAGrizBlog report that Memphis denied Nets permission to speak to L Hollins. Nets not sure whether they'll ask again.

 

 

Does this mean the FO is bringing him back afterall?

 

Not really. They said no right after the season ended and before all this drama started.

 

We recently gave Lionel permission to talk to the Clippers. If the Nets asked again, we'd probably let them talk to Lionel as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. They said no right after the season ended and before all this drama started. We recently gave Lionel permission to talk to the Clippers. If the Nets asked again, we'd probably let them talk to Lionel as well.

 

My theory:

I think Nets have settled on Brian Shaw as their head coach and because they have so much money they don't think he will say no.

Really the Clippers job is the only one left and it will between Byron Scott and Hollins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My theory:

I think Nets have settled on Brian Shaw as their head coach and because they have so much money they don't think he will say no.

Really the Clippers job is the only one left and it will between Byron Scott and Hollins.

 

You're probably right.

 

I just hope we dont resign Lionel for a two year deal. Don't wanna go through this drama again. Either figure out how to work with him or show him the door.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're probably right. I just hope we dont resign Lionel for a two year deal. Don't wanna go through this drama again. Either figure out how to work with him or show him the door.

 

My theory is that the whole 2 year deal talk is PR bs for both sides to save face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My theory is that the whole 2 year deal talk is PR bs for both sides to save face.

 

It's just weird. I think Lionel would take a two year deal, since Tillery is the one reporting it and he's BFFs with Lionel.

 

The FO worked with Lionel all year. Lionel had an expiring contract during that time, yet he still refused to play your guys and publicly criticized you multiple times in the media. What will change after giving him a guaranteed deal for two years?

 

The 76ers are interested in Joerger, so the FO needs to figure out what they want soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tillery just posted this article which is truly awesome in its one sidedness:

The Grizzlies continue talking with coach Lionel Hollins’ agent about his future with the team, and CEO Jason Levien expects to meet with Hollins by week’s end.

For now, though, the question of whether Hollins will return to the Memphis bench remains unanswerable, weeks after he led the Grizzlies to the Western Conference finals.

So during this apparent holding pattern, we asked beat reporter Ronald Tillery some key questions about the situation and what may be ahead:

Q: The Grizzlies act as if they’re still open to Hollins’ return, and Hollins has been on a radio tour this week expressing his desire to remain the Memphis coach. But are there real indications that a return is becoming more likely -- or does a parting of ways still seem probable?

A: A source close to the situation insisted Wednesday that “the door is still open” for a Hollins return. It depends on what you believe in terms of the information. Hollins clearly seems blindsided by the recent developments and reports of “philosophical differences” given he says that no concerns were expressed in his last meeting with Levien. For his part, Levien has remained quiet through all of this. Sources with knowledge of team management’s thinking say that they are seriously concerned about having a more collaborative effort and want to be absolutely sure that can take place with Hollins. That the process is so deliberate at this point following a long season in which Hollins/Levien “dated” suggests that a “marriage” isn’t likely.

Q: How complicated are the “philosophical differences” we read about? Are they deep, complex and numerous? Or is it simply a case that management wants open lines of communication, while Hollins prefers to be left alone to coach his team?

A: The “philosophical differences” aren’t deep, complex or numerous at all. This simply comes down to a level of comfort and a generation gap. People are fooling themselves if they think this is about basketball. Levien & Co. is a group made up of 40-somethings who are like-minded people with similar backgrounds. To some, Hollins is an acquired taste. But that doesn’t make Hollins uncooperative. That’s a ridiculous notion given Hollins’ history. He spent seven years as an assistant with the Phoenix Suns. He worked with every coach and front office in Memphis/Vancouver Grizzlies history, excluding Marc Iavaroni. He wasn’t on board with every decision former owner Michael Heisley made (i.e. Allen Iverson) but worked with the hand he was dealt and made his boss look good. Hollins initially didn’t like the Rudy Gay trade but he got on board and rallied the troops for the sake of what’s good for the franchise. Hollins also has great relationships in the community with Griz limited partners Staley Cates, Pitt Hyde and other business leaders. So anyone who believes Hollins is difficult to deal with is naïve. Hollins is almost 60 years old, direct and has conviction about what he’s doing. There is zero evidence to suggest that he isn’t loyal. Not sure who has cared more for the Grizzlies than Hollins given his length of service. When Levien & Co. tells Hollins exactly what they want and if Hollins balks, then we’ll truly know what “philosophical differences” really mean.

Q: What do you make of Hollins’ radio tour, in which he repeatedly, and passionately, says he wants to remain the Grizzlies coach? Is he publicly fighting for his job, trying to win a PR battle, or taking jabs at management? Or none of the above?

A: He just sounds like a man fighting to remain in a city he’s fond of and a program he played a major role in building into a contender. Unfortunately for Hollins, a lot of what he says is turned into extreme negativity when he’s trying to make a simple point. This is what makes me sick about the media world today. We want people to be honest and forthcoming and then we kill them for it. Sources say that none of the radio interviews has rubbed Griz management the wrong way. Team brass is said to view it as emotional outbursts and not jabs.

Q: If he’s not on the Griz bench next season, might Hollins be a coach without a team? There are no indications that he’s in the thick of the race for the open jobs with Brooklyn or Los Angeles Clippers, both of whom reportedly are targeting Indiana associate head coach Brian Shaw.

A: Shaw is clearly the hot commodity right now. Hollins will be a serious candidate for whatever job Shaw doesn’t get. Shaw will be the next coach hired somewhere. And there’s always a chance that Hollins will be without a team next season.

Q: It almost seems a foregone conclusion that Griz assistant Dave Joerger will be the next head coach, if Hollins departs. Is there any thought within the organization that a team that made the conference finals should consider hiring a more proven commodity?

A: Joerger will be the Griz head coach if Hollins departs. Period. It’s an unprecedented move on a few levels. A title contender isn’t usually handed to a person with zero NBA head coaching experience. And Joerger has been turned down for head jobs by several bad teams over the past two years. No one has asked for permission to talk to Joerger this year when several jobs have been filled by assistant coaches. Also, NBA protocol since the beginning of time has never allowed for an assistant on a good team to entertain overtures for his boss's job. That’s not to say Joerger’s a bad coach. Joerger is a bright, young coach. But those are the facts, and another fact is that Griz brass won’t consider hiring a more proven coach. Joerger will be the coach if Hollins leaves.

Q: OK, we’re putting you on the spot. How soon does this saga conclude, and what’s the outcome?

A: Hollins has proven he’s earned an extension by winning at a rate no one thought was possible. Yes, this decision is about the future and not the past, but Hollins developed players to foster a winning environment so there’s evidence to suggest he could help a rebuilding plan down the road. However, I see the Griz offering Hollins a short-term deal and Hollins declining on principle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this