Play GM

[TheGrey08]

At the end of the day they had similar talent and Spo made 4 straight finals winning two of them and Brooks made 1 final with no title. Lebron isn't and wasn't that much better than KD and Westbrook has been better than D Wade for years now and yet they weren't even making it to the finals let alone winning any.

As painful as it is for me to admit (I've always liked Durant more), Lebron is & was better than Durant due to his defense and ability to handle the ball and create for teammates.

Westbrook was better in certain ways and worse in others. He's only recently become more of a team player. He liked to take the ball out of Durant's hands, take stupid shots, not get teammates involved, etc. He had some growing up to do to become that top 10 player, which didn't happen for what, 4 years? and now he's arguably top 5. Next year I expect big things out of the Thunder if they stay healthy and it's going to be largely due to the players, not the new coach.

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

I'm on the other side on this one...I see Brooks as a big upgrade over Flip, and would approve hiring him (spoiler alert...it's not gonna happen). I always sided with Durant/Westbrook's defense of Brooks when the media ripped him after his 4-1 loss to Miami. Yes, OkC was enormously talented that year, but Miami was more talented...not to mention more seasoned and more desperate for a win. I never really saw OkC as having much of a chance in that series...Miami was not going to be denied.

I think Brooks would be a terrific choice to grow with the young core Flip has put together. This has a lot to do with my coaching prejudices. I favor an inspirational guy who gets his guys to play hard every night over a supposed x's and o's genius, and I think that defines Brooks. Orlando's front office sees this, and that's why they are rumored to be considering him to coach their young team.

Flip could actually save face a little if he hired Brooks. He could say "Scottie wasn't really given a chance to coach this year with the injuries to his stars", and astute NBA fans would know he was really talking about himself. Nevertheless, not likely to happen.

Miami was not more talented than OKC. Westbrook/Harden/Durant/Ibaka is a better core than Lebron/Wade/Bosh. Brooks had two top 5 players and another top 10 player on his team for multiple years and only made the finals once. Even after the Harden trade he still had two top 5 players in the league. He's had the best talent in the league his whole time in OKC and he got to the finals once. Only Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG is probably a better top 4 in the past decade than what he had. The Heat made it to four straight finals because they had great talent and Spo is actually a great coach. If Brooks was a great coach I think he would have more than 1 finals appearance.

Gotta disagree with you on the talent comparison, khans. Miami had the consensus best player in basketball and two other top 5 picks. Neither Harden or certainly Ibaka were considered top 5 talent coming out of college, and you have to credit Brooks for their overachievement. And regardless of what the truth is about the talent comparison, there is no question that the Heat were much more seasoned. This was a series of talented vets against talented guys in their early 20s, and we all know who wins that kind of matchup in the NBA.

Another angle supporting Brooks as Wolves' coach...Durant loves him and is a free agent after next year. Hmm...

Where you are drafted has literally no bearing on how good you are. Harden was sixth man of the year. Ibaka was second in DPOY voting. Durant was the scoring champ and Westbrook was All-NBA second team. The Heat had the best player and the best coach combined with experience, but they did not have the best talent and if Brooks is a better coach they have a much better chance at winning that series because of their overall talent advantage.

I agree that where a player is drafted doesn't always correlate to their future performance...just look at Darko, Beas, Wes and Williams! But if guys like Ibaka end up performing much better than their draft position, shouldn't the coach be given some credit for their development. I don't know if Brooks would be the right guy to coach the Wolves, but guys like Ibaka and Westbrook have clearly improved under his tutelage. And isn't that what we want paired with our high-potential young core?

[khans2k5 [enjin:6608728]]

I'm on the other side on this one...I see Brooks as a big upgrade over Flip, and would approve hiring him (spoiler alert...it's not gonna happen). I always sided with Durant/Westbrook's defense of Brooks when the media ripped him after his 4-1 loss to Miami. Yes, OkC was enormously talented that year, but Miami was more talented...not to mention more seasoned and more desperate for a win. I never really saw OkC as having much of a chance in that series...Miami was not going to be denied.

I think Brooks would be a terrific choice to grow with the young core Flip has put together. This has a lot to do with my coaching prejudices. I favor an inspirational guy who gets his guys to play hard every night over a supposed x's and o's genius, and I think that defines Brooks. Orlando's front office sees this, and that's why they are rumored to be considering him to coach their young team.

Flip could actually save face a little if he hired Brooks. He could say "Scottie wasn't really given a chance to coach this year with the injuries to his stars", and astute NBA fans would know he was really talking about himself. Nevertheless, not likely to happen.

Miami was not more talented than OKC. Westbrook/Harden/Durant/Ibaka is a better core than Lebron/Wade/Bosh. Brooks had two top 5 players and another top 10 player on his team for multiple years and only made the finals once. Even after the Harden trade he still had two top 5 players in the league. He's had the best talent in the league his whole time in OKC and he got to the finals once. Only Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG is probably a better top 4 in the past decade than what he had. The Heat made it to four straight finals because they had great talent and Spo is actually a great coach. If Brooks was a great coach I think he would have more than 1 finals appearance.

Gotta disagree with you on the talent comparison, khans. Miami had the consensus best player in basketball and two other top 5 picks. Neither Harden or certainly Ibaka were considered top 5 talent coming out of college, and you have to credit Brooks for their overachievement. And regardless of what the truth is about the talent comparison, there is no question that the Heat were much more seasoned. This was a series of talented vets against talented guys in their early 20s, and we all know who wins that kind of matchup in the NBA.

Another angle supporting Brooks as Wolves' coach...Durant loves him and is a free agent after next year. Hmm...

Where you are drafted has literally no bearing on how good you are. Harden was sixth man of the year. Ibaka was second in DPOY voting. Durant was the scoring champ and Westbrook was All-NBA second team. The Heat had the best player and the best coach combined with experience, but they did not have the best talent and if Brooks is a better coach they have a much better chance at winning that series because of their overall talent advantage.

I agree that where a player is drafted doesn't always correlate to their future performance...just look at Darko, Beas, Wes and Williams! But if guys like Ibaka end up performing much better than their draft position, shouldn't the coach be given some credit for their development. I don't know if Brooks would be the right guy to coach the Wolves, but guys like Ibaka and Westbrook have clearly improved under his tutelage. And isn't that what we want paired with our high-potential young core?

I don't think players becoming good is just automatically due to the coach. We saw here in MN that Love became an all-star on his own when the coaching staff and front office were not high on him. Westbrook plays harder than anyone else in the league. Does that mean it is because of Brooks that he is that way? Or did he become great because of his own personal drive? Brooks played a roll in their development, but there's no way to quantify how big of an effect he really had. I see a team that doesn't know how to play team basketball and plays hero ball almost the entire game. That to me says Brooks gave them the reigns and they took over from there. I guess from what I have seen, he gave them the opportunity to succeed and they took it. He also had a future MVP candidate coming off the bench and the second Harden was given the keys to the car in Houston he dominated. So I just can't tell how responsible Brooks really is for the players they are today. They seem to be good at the things players can become good at due to their own work ethic and they seem to struggle in the areas of teamwork that a coach is supposed to develop in them. How much credit do you give Mike Brown for how good Lebron is today?

[longstrangetrip [enjin:6600564]]

I'm on the other side on this one...I see Brooks as a big upgrade over Flip, and would approve hiring him (spoiler alert...it's not gonna happen). I always sided with Durant/Westbrook's defense of Brooks when the media ripped him after his 4-1 loss to Miami. Yes, OkC was enormously talented that year, but Miami was more talented...not to mention more seasoned and more desperate for a win. I never really saw OkC as having much of a chance in that series...Miami was not going to be denied.

I think Brooks would be a terrific choice to grow with the young core Flip has put together. This has a lot to do with my coaching prejudices. I favor an inspirational guy who gets his guys to play hard every night over a supposed x's and o's genius, and I think that defines Brooks. Orlando's front office sees this, and that's why they are rumored to be considering him to coach their young team.

Flip could actually save face a little if he hired Brooks. He could say "Scottie wasn't really given a chance to coach this year with the injuries to his stars", and astute NBA fans would know he was really talking about himself. Nevertheless, not likely to happen.

Miami was not more talented than OKC. Westbrook/Harden/Durant/Ibaka is a better core than Lebron/Wade/Bosh. Brooks had two top 5 players and another top 10 player on his team for multiple years and only made the finals once. Even after the Harden trade he still had two top 5 players in the league. He's had the best talent in the league his whole time in OKC and he got to the finals once. Only Rondo/Allen/Pierce/KG is probably a better top 4 in the past decade than what he had. The Heat made it to four straight finals because they had great talent and Spo is actually a great coach. If Brooks was a great coach I think he would have more than 1 finals appearance.

Gotta disagree with you on the talent comparison, khans. Miami had the consensus best player in basketball and two other top 5 picks. Neither Harden or certainly Ibaka were considered top 5 talent coming out of college, and you have to credit Brooks for their overachievement. And regardless of what the truth is about the talent comparison, there is no question that the Heat were much more seasoned. This was a series of talented vets against talented guys in their early 20s, and we all know who wins that kind of matchup in the NBA.

Another angle supporting Brooks as Wolves' coach...Durant loves him and is a free agent after next year. Hmm...

Where you are drafted has literally no bearing on how good you are. Harden was sixth man of the year. Ibaka was second in DPOY voting. Durant was the scoring champ and Westbrook was All-NBA second team. The Heat had the best player and the best coach combined with experience, but they did not have the best talent and if Brooks is a better coach they have a much better chance at winning that series because of their overall talent advantage.

I agree that where a player is drafted doesn't always correlate to their future performance...just look at Darko, Beas, Wes and Williams! But if guys like Ibaka end up performing much better than their draft position, shouldn't the coach be given some credit for their development. I don't know if Brooks would be the right guy to coach the Wolves, but guys like Ibaka and Westbrook have clearly improved under his tutelage. And isn't that what we want paired with our high-potential young core?

I don't think players becoming good is just automatically due to the coach. We saw here in MN that Love became an all-star on his own when the coaching staff and front office were not high on him. Westbrook plays harder than anyone else in the league. Does that mean it is because of Brooks that he is that way? Or did he become great because of his own personal drive? Brooks played a roll in their development, but there's no way to quantify how big of an effect he really had. I see a team that doesn't know how to play team basketball and plays hero ball almost the entire game. That to me says Brooks gave them the reigns and they took over from there. I guess from what I have seen, he gave them the opportunity to succeed and they took it. He also had a future MVP candidate coming off the bench and the second Harden was given the keys to the car in Houston he dominated. So I just can't tell how responsible Brooks really is for the players they are today. They seem to be good at the things players can become good at due to their own work ethic and they seem to struggle in the areas of teamwork that a coach is supposed to develop in them. How much credit do you give Mike Brown for how good Lebron is today?

I don't give Mike Brown much credit at all, because LeBron is a special talent. Just like I don't give Brooks a great deal of credit for Durant. Durant was a special talent coming out of college, and all any coach had to do was not get in the way. Westbrook, Harden and Ibaka, though, were not great players right out of the chute, and Brooks has to be given credit fro their development. Yes, Harden's stats are more impressive since he left for Houston, but if you dig into them, you'll find his improved scoring is due to volume...not efficiency. Whereas he was a third option in OkC, he's far and away the #1 option in Houston, and inevitably is scoring much more. His shooting percentages have dropped quite dramatically since leaving OkC.

I think we can all agree that Spoelstra has never shown that he can develop players, since he inherited stars that were already in their prime. On the other hand, there is a lot of evidence that Brooks is a capable developer. That's why I would be comfortable with him replacing Saunders, although I don't expect it to happen.

[Monster]

Coaching and chemistry is very hard to quantify.

I used to think Spolstra was overrated and then he just kept getting to the Finals and actually out coaching teams. Let's be honest that Miami team last year it was amazing they were as good as they were that team was held together with Duct tape a prayer and Lebron. There aren't many guys that you think of as championship coaches but Spolstra is one to me but I think he is more of a Phil Jackson type where he is able to take stars make them good and fill in around them. Who did Phil Jackson develop? Having said that you don't win without coaching being a factor you just dont. Phil is/was an unique guy and was fortunate to end up in situations that allowed his strengths to show and pile up championships. I think it's amazing how Pop and the Spurs seem to be able to do it all. Stars develop players fill in around everyone and you know like coach too.

It doesn't matter the sport I think the great players will become great no matter what. You could argue that Love was an example of developing into a very good player despite coaching and the organization. You put the greats in the worst position they will still succeed. Do the coaches get a little credit for not screwing it up? It's back to being hard to quantify the value of coaching.

[MikkeMan]

At the end of the day they had similar talent and Spo made 4 straight finals winning two of them and Brooks made 1 final with no title. Lebron isn't and wasn't that much better than KD and Westbrook has been better than D Wade for years now and yet they weren't even making it to the finals let alone winning any.

Even though I have always hated Oklahoma's offense during the time Brooks have coached them, I think Brooks results are not that much worse than what Spoelstra had.

2010-11 they lost to Dallas in conference finals and Miami lost to same team in NBA finals.
2011-12 they lost to Miami in NBA finals. I give credit about Miami's 1st championship mainly to their role players that were more experienced and performed much better than Oklahomas. Battier, Miller and Chalmers shot 30 three pointers 50% accuracy. It is impossible to win team that has its role players playing that high level. Especially if you consider that Harden was quite mediocre
during finals.
2012-13 was lost opportunity for Oklahoma because Westbrook was injured. Without his injury they might have met in finals again.
2013-14 Oklahoma lost to San Antonio in conference finals and Miami lost them in NBA finals. Oklahoma had also clearly better series against San Antonio than Miami.

So main difference in results have been that Oklahoma has had to play against NBA champion one round earlier and only time they met in finals Miami won because they had much better performing role players.

[TRKO [enjin:12664595]]

Ok here is what I would do. I doubt this is what happens though.

Hire:
Billy Donavan- A young highly accomplished coach who would thrive with our youth and athleticism.

Trade:
Kevin Martin
To New York For
Jose Calderon
Future first round pick

This trade accomplishes 3 things that are vital this offseason. One it clears playing time for LaVine and Muhammed. It gives us a quality backup PG. It also gives us a future first to make up for some poor trades in the past. Martin is a great fit in Phil's triangle offense. The Knicks will want to win next year.

Draft
1 Karl Anthony-Towns C Kentucky-
High upside two way player who fits a huge need.

33 George Luca PG Brazil- A stash candidate who is highly athletic and a 7' wingspan. Very high upside.

36 Robert Upshaw C Washington- High upside, with character issues. In my view second round picks should be used on high upside gambles.

Resign:
Kevin Garnett- Having the veteran Garnett playing with and being around Towns is huge. Towns could develop into a bulkier KG. Watching how KG goes about things and learning from him should only help Towns.

Gary Neal- A good three point shooter for his career. Played well for us in 11 games this year. Fills the backup SG spot.

First Team:
C- Karl Anthony-Towns
PF- Kevin Garnett
SF- Andrew Wiggins
SG- Zach LaVine
PG- Ricky Rubio

Second Team:
C- Nikola Pekovi?
PF- Gorgui Deng
SF- Shabazz Muhammed
SG- Gary Neal
PG- Jose Calderon

Analysis- The PF position isn't ideal. My idea with an old Garnett and a fragile Pekovi? along with a versatile Towns is to platoon Garnett and Pekovi?. Hopefully you can keep minutes low for both of them and stretch out their usage. Wiggins, Towns, and LaVine is a heck of a young trio.

[worldK]

Ok here is what I would do. I doubt this is what happens though.

Hire:
Billy Donavan- A young highly accomplished coach who would thrive with our youth and athleticism.

Trade:
Kevin Martin
To New York For
Jose Calderon
Future first round pick

This trade accomplishes 3 things that are vital this offseason. One it clears playing time for LaVine and Muhammed. It gives us a quality backup PG. It also gives us a future first to make up for some poor trades in the past. Martin is a great fit in Phil's triangle offense. The Knicks will want to win next year.

Draft
1 Karl Anthony-Towns C Kentucky-
High upside two way player who fits a huge need.

33 George Luca PG Brazil- A stash candidate who is highly athletic and a 7' wingspan. Very high upside.

36 Robert Upshaw C Washington- High upside, with character issues. In my view second round picks should be used on high upside gambles.

Resign:
Kevin Garnett- Having the veteran Garnett playing with and being around Towns is huge. Towns could develop into a bulkier KG. Watching how KG goes about things and learning from him should only help Towns.

Gary Neal- A good three point shooter for his career. Played well for us in 11 games this year. Fills the backup SG spot.

First Team:
C- Karl Anthony-Towns
PF- Kevin Garnett
SF- Andrew Wiggins
SG- Zach LaVine
PG- Ricky Rubio

Second Team:
C- Nikola Pekovi?
PF- Gorgui Deng
SF- Shabazz Muhammed
SG- Gary Neal
PG- Jose Calderon

Analysis- The PF position isn't ideal. My idea with an old Garnett and a fragile Pekovi? along with a versatile Towns is to platoon Garnett and Pekovi?. Hopefully you can keep minutes low for both of them and stretch out their usage. Wiggins, Towns, and LaVine is a heck of a young trio.

This sounds good and reasonable.

[Camden [enjin:6601484]]

TRKO, essentially we have the same plan with a few different parts. Wonder if you saw my GM plan earlier in this thread. If not, you'd probably enjoy.

[TRKO [enjin:12664595]]

TRKO, essentially we have the same plan with a few different parts. Wonder if you saw my GM plan earlier in this thread. If not, you'd probably enjoy.

Just went back and read it. I shouldn't have even posted one. Should have just said ditto. Good job.

Went back and watched a lot of Towns. Perfect fit for us. I think the two most underrated aspects of his offensive game is his ability to get great positioning in the post and his passing ability. His defense and rebounding fill huge needs.

I'm not sure we can fix the PF problem this offseason. Maybe platooning the bigs and using Towns versatility can give us some sort of decent play.