The reason I don't dismiss the original post is because its criticism seems to be mostly of a certain motivation for the next coaching hire. I must admit, the billboard is odd in that the chances seem statistically interesting if the two best choices are Hammond and Lawson in either order. Whether one or both of them is the best fit, does it seem likely that the other would be the definitive second best choice?
Not that you asked, but my feelings on the matter are as follows:
1) The billboard is reductive, as is all billboard/bumper sticker logic. You don't have very much space, so you have to make a very basic point. This is a given, we presume, when we look at billboards or bumper stickers. Maybe it isn't.
2) The tautological reaction that the only reason to hire a woman would be for "woke points" (i.e. you hire a woman because she is a woman) is more or less beneath everyone in this thread.
The C's aren't going to hire a coach to do anything other than win basketball games (even if next season is a wash). It's the same rationale behind how we wound up with the first African-American head coach, but in reverse. If this conversation was taking place a few decades ago, it's very easy to see how Mahk from Quinzee would say that you shouldn't hire an African-American head coach because he wasn't the best available option, even if it was Bill Russell.
"He's never coached".
"I have no interest in this franchise being the guinea pig for a meaningless social experiment".
and so on.
In other words, when it comes to this discussion "whichever side may call itself the victor, there are no winners, but all are losers".