Woj: Casey will be back

[dylan123]

I too believe Casey is staying. He has a year left in his contract.

From a purely business perspective, it makes no sense to pay a new guy's salary plus Casey's salary in a season where the roster is nowhere even remotely close to being a contender. It would be different if we could sign a guy that would turn this team into ECF contenders, but we aren't even close to that right now.

How does your business look if they continue to disappoint again and again? The reason you cut ties early is so you can quicker improve your business, you don't keep someone that's not improving your team (when they've got the power to) just because they're contracted. Take the loss (the 3.4mill or w/e it is that Casey would get in his final year) on the chin for the future of the team.

[KeonClark]

I too believe Casey is staying. He has a year left in his contract.

From a purely business perspective, it makes no sense to pay a new guy's salary plus Casey's salary in a season where the roster is nowhere even remotely close to being a contender. It would be different if we could sign a guy that would turn this team into ECF contenders, but we aren't even close to that right now.

Sure, but while this is a business first and foremost, it's not as cut and dry as comparing to come tech or oil corporation. This is a business interested in winning sports games. So sometimes money is spent (wasted?) in the interest of improving the team

[Bonus Jonas]

Don't forget about Steve Kerr mchappy

[mcHAPPY]

Don't forget about Steve Kerr mchappy

Right you are.

I forgot him because the article was spurred by the firing of Jackson.

But at the time the article was written, Kerr had not been hired.

[SamMitchells]

I find it pretty interesting that the few people who have stated that they're fine with Casey staying have yet to actually list any active positive to be gained by sticking with the man. It pretty much boils down to "wait him out" or "give him guys that could run his system."

The former isn't actually a positive but more "sure he's bad, but who cares, we're not winning a championship anyways" and the latter ignores that the man possessed a better roster than last year and made absolutely zero attempts at adjustments once his system was found out and adjusted to (something the man himself has admitted to). The system is flawed and very easy to be taken advantage of. And this is of course, ignoring that there wasn't an offensive system.

Not to mention that it's very backwards. You find the good coach first and adjust to fit their needs rather than build around a bad coach, hope the team overachieves with the bad coach and then find a better one.

At this point, even replacing him with just one of the current assistants is a better idea than just keeping him because "why not."

Seriously, there is no better reason to move on from Casey than his own exit interview.

+1

[nubreed000]

Has this been posted here yet?

[SamMitchells]

Has this been posted here yet?

Thx for the share. Glad it's in the forefront.

Lets try to understand why Masai doesn't see what the world sees.
Apparently he was praised for the wins in this season which means absolute shit. No praise for that in my book. Do something in the playoffs then we'll talk

[SamMitchells]

You know it's funny when Casey says , "we don't have the personnel to run my defence" ( though he insists on playing that style)
Is the exact same as me saying as an offensive coach ,
"My team does not have a single 3 pt shooter but I prefer 3's Amir Johnson stay open from beyond the arc buddy and just shoot!"

What the hell? If you have no 3pt shooters you don't give your players 3 pt shots. You work the inside or what ever.

This is an absurdity. Illogical

[psrs1]

My idea of success for a new coach, regardless of roster construction, would be a competent offensive and defensive system. You can see this even with poor players, Boston in Stevens first year is a perfect example. That team barely won, but you could tell if the roster got better that the team would be good.

I want to see good coaching. Plain and simple. Wins and losses don't matter as they're roster dependent. If we go all young guys, and they're swinging the ball around on offense until we get a good look, then I'll be happy, regardless if the shot goes in or not.

To me one of the biggest failures under DC was lack of ball movement. Everyone knew we were ISO heavy at the end of the year. When we moved the ball we were much better offensively. With missed shots in ISO mode the other guys are standing around and slow to get back in transition on missed shot.

[psrs1]

You know it's funny when Casey says , "we don't have the personnel to run my defence" ( though he insists on playing that style)
Is the exact same as me saying as an offensive coach ,
"My team does not have a single 3 pt shooter but I prefer 3's Amir Johnson stay open from beyond the arc buddy and just shoot!"

What the hell? If you have no 3pt shooters you don't give your players 3 pt shots. You work the inside or what ever.

This is an absurdity. Illogical

Thus it is even more illogical to keep DC as coach. If you can't adapt to what you have you are not a good coach period.

[SamMitchells]

Thus it is even more illogical to keep DC as coach. If you can't adapt to what you have you are not a good coach period.

Well I guess the only rational excuse I can think of is that Casey is showcasing his defensive system. He has cried out for personnel which match his defensive structure and is not willing to settle down to the needs of lower skilled defenders.

The question is do you build around Casey? For sure not. Basketball is an offensive game as well and not having some backup plan when teams have figured your poorly thought out offence then what?

Need a coach who commits to making adjustments and knows what line up to use at the right time.

James Johnson over Casey any day. We will probably never get the players Casey needs for his defence.

Fuck Masai the clown

[golden]

Thx for the share. Glad it's in the forefront.

Lets try to understand why Masai doesn't see what the world sees.
Apparently he was praised for the wins in this season which means absolute shit. No praise for that in my book. Do something in the playoffs then we'll talk

The thing that worries me is here is what MLSE see and thinks, which could trump anything Masai might really want to do. I'm sure there are bean counters at MLSE and on the board who wake up in a cold sweat at the thought of eating Casey's $4M salary even for a one year. They could easily justify keeping him from a purely dollars vs. wins perspective.

I know, MLSE is a multi-billion dollar organization - but they didn't get that way by throwing money away.

And then there's the whole Tim Leweike situation. Wasn't he supposed to be long gone already, and is TL owed a severance? Was TL helping Masai get the funds he needed for the practice facility and now the D-League team? What happens to Masai's financial flexibility for player/coach moves when he's gone?

[planetmars]

Regarding MLSE.. I'm worried too. BC hung around after Masai came on board. TL basically resigned but is hanging around as well. It's like MLSE doesn't want lose any money.... but on the other hand they did agree to amnesty Kleiza and helped buy out Camby (and JV).

So I do think if Masai wants Casey fired, then I'm sure MLSE will let him.

[nubreed000]

Thus it is even more illogical to keep DC as coach. If you can't adapt to what you have you are not a good coach period.

This is applicable to a lot of things in life too (especially business), not just coaching. I don't understand why casey gets a pass for this kind of shit.

[Primer]

Let me just start by saying that I never supported the hiring of Dwane Casey. I have no idea why we hired this guy in the first place when there were better, more experienced options available to us. His performance, based on the second half of the season and the horrific playoff performance is obviously grounds for a dismissal. While it may not be the best business decision, from a pure performance perspective, no one would be surprised if he was shown the door.

Every year when the team surprised me and entered the playoffs, I kept saying -- this is still basically the same roster that I expected to win 20 games 2 years ago. Instead we won 48 and 49. After we traded Gay, I said trade DeRozan next, and then trade Lowry. I hate that I've grown attached to these guys over the past two years. They're both terribly flawed players that no fundamentally wired basketball fan should want on their team, and yet I love those guys. Lowry's heart and bull-headedness. DeRozan's crazy desire and work ethic.

Anyway..

You said you want to see good coaching, which you defined as competent offensive and defensive systems. By that description I assume you mean to say Casey doesn't have that, and therefore a coach who does have that should be considered a success.

You also said winning doesn't matter, but I say winning does matter, but I digress.

I guess the issue I have with judging a system is how far or at what point can you say this is the coach's doing versus this is a bunch of players who aren't playing the way the coach wants them to play?

Let's take one simple example of boxing out. There is no coach on this planet that is telling his players not to box out. Not to protect the paint. If I think back on the Dallas Mavericks they did it. They did it fairly well, limiting Bosh's ability to cut to the hoop and also prevent Wade from cutting and getting easy baskets. I'm fairly certain the whole reason for hiring Casey was because of Dallas' stellar defensive system.

So now we look at the Raptors, and you're saying this system is crap. But I saw a system that really worked so the conclusion I drew was that the players weren't doing what the coach asked them to do, but that wouldn't be a grounds to getting fired. What would be grounds to getting fired is NOT telling his players to box out. Not to protect the paint. If a coach were doing that, then yes please fire that guy. Let's say it would greatly surprise me that Casey would have decided to do the opposite of what won a championship, yet what we saw on the floor was precisely how to lose games.

But you said winning doesn't matter. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

How about a timeframe for deciding when the new coach has succeeded in implementing these systems? The reason I brought this up is because there weren't a lot of people asking for Casey's head at the end of last season. Things were looking.. decent. And then things fell apart. The main point for me here is that I feel that if we do hire a coach, and the team continue to be made up as it is with heavily flawed players, that maybe after one year things will look decent and then things will fall apart again, because that sort of happens when you have not-so-great players.

So yea.. at what point would you deem that the new coach's system is a success. Since winning doesn't matter to you, I'm not sure there is really a way to measure that.

The reason I say wins doesn't matter is because I don't know what kind of roster the new coach will get. If we go complete rebuild, it wouldn't be fair to expect a bunch of wins while coaching a very young team, e.g Brad Stevens first season in Boston. If we go out and sign some key free agents or make trades for better fits, then I'd expect a good amount of wins.

That's why the best measure of success is using your eyeballs, watching games, and seeing if the coaching makes sense. If the new guy runs full iso all the time and has the players running a defensive system that is a huge failure all year, and makes zero adjustments, then he isn't a success.

Regarding time, Casey has been the coach 4 years, he's one of the longest tenured coaches in the NBA. He's gotten a fair shake and then some.