Author Topic: Authority, responsibility and accountability problems in the organization?  (Read 2266 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2848
  • Tommy Points: 299
  • Always offline from 9pm till 1am
I can't find an official report, but from interviews I get the impression that multiple people within the Celtics organization have a vote in roster composition, including Brad Stevens!

If this is true, than I find that really disturbing. You can't let a coach be involved in big management decisions. That's asking for trouble. I think letting a coach have a vote in the drafting process (for instance) is an absolute no-go. Even as an advisor I'd rather trust my scouts. You need authority, responsibility and accountability within an organization. You can't mix them up or you'll create a mess.

When you're not able to sustain those values at the top - macro level (management), then it's not a surprise that you get the same problems at meso level (coaching) and micro level (players).


Let me tell the story of another legendary sports club/franchise:

A couple of years ago (November 2010), there was a 'Velvet Revolution' at Ajax (Football Club). At every position in the organization it was forced that people would need to be replaced by ex-footballers, who would have the knowledge to get the club back on track instead of 'institutionalized' people.

Great idea and only the legend Johan Cruijff could have enforced it, without even being a part of the actual organization. However, he had so much trust in the capabilities of educated ex-footballers with loads of experience as footballers (not as managers) that he created the idea of a 'Technical Heart'.

This 'Technical Heart' consisted of a number of people within the club (general manager, technical director, head of scouting, head of youth academy, development specialist, assistant-coach, head coach). This 'Heart' of the club came together (at least) once a week to manage all the new development programs, playstyle philosophy, trainer evaluations, player evaluations, scouting, transfer policy, you name it.

This 'Heart' had all the power and everybody had an equal vote, this was even written in their contracts. Since the members all had great reputations, most had known each other before as players (teammates), it was expected that difference of opinions could easily be solved. Despite all the sincere intentions, things quickly derailed. It turned out that some members were more radical (wanting to fully focus on youth development) than others (listen to the head coach demands for expensive players).

Soon the head of the youth academy departed, even though he was one of the key figures in enabling the 'Velvet Revolution'. After a while the assistant-coach (who didn't want the responsibility of head coach or technical director), became unhappy because he thought he didn't have enough influence on the training field. So he basically used the 'Technical Heart' to increase his influence, what followed was a big clash between him and the head coach. He demanded the head coach to be sacked and that was what happened.

A year later he clashed with the technical director and he almost succeeded to get him out, but at the last moment the supervisory board stepped in and asked the assistant-coach to leave and he did. After that authorizations, boundaries and clear lines within the club were established. Managers and directors got back decision power. And passersbys like coaches/trainers/specialists/scouts would never have direct influence on policy again.

Long story, but the lesson was learned: always have clear defined roles on authority, responsibility and accountability within the organization.


« Last Edit: June 22, 2019, 07:01:26 PM by RodyTur10 »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • NCE
  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20107
  • Tommy Points: 1331
Quote
If this is true, than I find that really disturbing. You can't let a coach be involved in big management decisions. That's asking for trouble. I think letting a coach have a vote in the drafting process (for instance) is an absolute no-go. Even as an advisor I'd rather trust my scouts. You need authority, responsibility and accountability within an organization. You can't mix them up or you'll create a mess.

I think they have done fine and don't let losing a malcontent like Kyrie send you into panic mode.   Up to now, and that, they have made good moves consistently.   It 's not their fault that Kyrie was mentored by LeBron who leaves every team in worse shape once he lives.   Kyrie learned from the master!

Offline BitterJim

  • NGT
  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9185
  • Tommy Points: 1238
The coach having some say on personnel is standard operating procedure in the NBA. That doesn't mean Brad has veto powers, but it does mean that the guy who will be dealing with and giving out playing time to the players has the chance to tell Danny who he thinks he would work best with/would help the team the most

Having an unclear chain of command is dangerous, but ignoring the opinions of those closest to the issues is just as (if not more) dangerous
I'm bitter.

Offline footey

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16039
  • Tommy Points: 1837
Was listening to someone describe the Raptor organization. Everyone has their own role, very much set up like a corporation. The GM selects the Players, the coach coaches them, the medical group and trainers make the decisions on who is available following an injury.

Everyone stays in their lane.

Offline wiley

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4855
  • Tommy Points: 386
Pretty sure Brad Stevens isn’t committing lane violations.  If Danny uses him to for advice on personnel, it’s because he respects his basketball mind..

Offline jambr380

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13756
  • Tommy Points: 2061
  • Sometimes there's no sane reason for optimism
Pretty sure Brad Stevens isn’t committing lane violations.  If Danny uses him to for advice on personnel, it’s because he respects his basketball mind..

Yeah, and it’s not like he is clueless; he was a college basketball coach who was heavily involved in the recruiting process. He coached very young players and knows player tendencies and personalities.

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2848
  • Tommy Points: 299
  • Always offline from 9pm till 1am
The coach having some say on personnel is standard operating procedure in the NBA. That doesn't mean Brad has veto powers, but it does mean that the guy who will be dealing with and giving out playing time to the players has the chance to tell Danny who he thinks he would work best with/would help the team the most

Having an unclear chain of command is dangerous, but ignoring the opinions of those closest to the issues is just as (if not more) dangerous

Fictional scenario

Let's assume Danny Ainge was very high on one of Bitadze/Fernando/Gafford/Kabengele (player C) after intel from scouts. Then he asks Brad Stevens what he thinks, and Brad tells him he'd like to have someone who can replace Al Horford. After some discussions they come to the conclusion that (player C) is indeed very talented as a rim runner, but lacks the potential IQ/passing/versatility to be able to play a role like Al in Brad's system.

Austin Ainge mentions Grant Williams as an option, they have him high on their list as well. Brad doesn't know much about Williams, but there's enough video material to get him up-to-date and they have Williams in for an extra work-out and Brad likes what he sees. There are some short-comings, but Brad is convinced he can work with him on that. After their initial nr 1 option (player C), everybody is convinced there's little difference in talent so Grant Williams wouldn't be a bad pick.

Conveniently he's mocked later than #14, so they can get him at #20 (or #21) and use #14 to take a gamble on Romeo Langford. Another player that was high on their list. Now everybody is convinced and agrees with the outcome of drafting Williams and Langford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't know how much influence Brad has (knowingly or unknowingly) and if a scenario like this is even remotely plausible, but that it is even possible I find very disturbing. Management needs to dictate roster composition, drafting, trades, contracts and overall policy. A coach just has to deliver with the material he gets to work with. Just as a player (like Irving) needs to play according to the system.


Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 62993
  • Tommy Points: -25466
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I suspect that in both the NBA and — the two leagues where rookies make an immediate impact — coaches are widely consulted.

There’s a difference between consultation and decision-making power.     If Brad is crossing that line it should be reigned in, but consultation isn’t necessarily a bad thing.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER... AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!

KP / Giannis / Turkuglu / Jrue / Curry
Sabonis / Brand / A. Thompson / Oladipo / Brunson
Jordan / Bowen

Redshirt:  Cooper Flagg

Offline RPGenerate

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4646
  • Tommy Points: 473
The coach having some say on personnel is standard operating procedure in the NBA. That doesn't mean Brad has veto powers, but it does mean that the guy who will be dealing with and giving out playing time to the players has the chance to tell Danny who he thinks he would work best with/would help the team the most

Having an unclear chain of command is dangerous, but ignoring the opinions of those closest to the issues is just as (if not more) dangerous

Fictional scenario

Let's assume Danny Ainge was very high on one of Bitadze/Fernando/Gafford/Kabengele (player C) after intel from scouts. Then he asks Brad Stevens what he thinks, and Brad tells him he'd like to have someone who can replace Al Horford. After some discussions they come to the conclusion that (player C) is indeed very talented as a rim runner, but lacks the potential IQ/passing/versatility to be able to play a role like Al in Brad's system.

Austin Ainge mentions Grant Williams as an option, they have him high on their list as well. Brad doesn't know much about Williams, but there's enough video material to get him up-to-date and they have Williams in for an extra work-out and Brad likes what he sees. There are some short-comings, but Brad is convinced he can work with him on that. After their initial nr 1 option (player C), everybody is convinced there's little difference in talent so Grant Williams wouldn't be a bad pick.

Conveniently he's mocked later than #14, so they can get him at #20 (or #21) and use #14 to take a gamble on Romeo Langford. Another player that was high on their list. Now everybody is convinced and agrees with the outcome of drafting Williams and Langford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't know how much influence Brad has (knowingly or unknowingly) and if a scenario like this is even remotely plausible, but that it is even possible I find very disturbing. Management needs to dictate roster composition, drafting, trades, contracts and overall policy. A coach just has to deliver with the material he gets to work with. Just as a player (like Irving) needs to play according to the system.
I see literally nothing wrong with that scenario. Danny and the scouting team trust Brad, and value his opinion. Any functional organization has great communication from top to bottom. This just sounds like you not liking the picks they chose, and trying to find something or someone to blame.
2023 No Top 75 Fantasy Draft Los Angeles Clippers
PG: Dennis Johnson / Jo Jo White / Stephon Marbury
SG: Sidney Moncrief / World B. Free
SF: Chris Mullin / Ron Artest
PF: Detlef Schrempf / Tom Chambers / Buck Williams
C: Ben Wallace / Andrew Bynum

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • NCE
  • Reggie Lewis
  • ***************
  • Posts: 15402
  • Tommy Points: 2785
As crazy a place as we find the team in right now, I honestly can't see any major mistakes the organization made over the last few years.

Trading for Kyrie? Well, it's either THAT or hope/pray/wait on IT4 healing properly the next season (17-18)...which means we can't even be sure that Gordon Hayward comes to BOS with a re-signed, shutdown IT4...

Would asking Big Al and the rest of the team to WAIT on IT4 been selfish? A bit....even best case IT4 wouldn't have been healed until later that year in 2018....which would've meant an older IT4, Big Al, maybe not even having GH on the team and a probable lost season that year...

....which would've made us even LESS attractive to potential FAs...

GH being hurt? Totally freak accident.....I count this one being right up there with KG getting hurt in Utah in 08-09 season...can't blame this one on Kyrie's pass OR the organization.............

Could Coach Stevens had handled GH's starting role better? In hindsight, I suppose....maybe have him come off the bench until he got acclimated to the game again....maybe told the youth to be patient while he got his legs under him....

...but how crazy a narrative would that be that our same youth that didn't smell themselves during our improbable run in 17-18 couldn't realize that you need STARS to reach the next level?

Did they (JT, JB, Rozier) - honestly think that? Seriously cause a rift with Kyrie and GH?

So should CBS have been more of a disciplinarian? He even admitted that he could've did a better job with this...but THEN you have to account for Danny wanting to stockpile talent to go after the next KG...

...which - evidently - is NOT Anthony Davis.

In THIS alternate universe timeline, Danny Ainge couldn't convince AD to come play KG for us again. He willingly stockpiled talent to go after him, though - just like 2007. Thank KG HIMSELF for this...with his comments in Dec 2018 for AD to join up with LeBron :'(

Even with THIS I moreso blame overly aggressive agents, social media rumors and perhaps a Kyrie that didn't feel like he earned BOS's love.

Overall I grade the organization an B+ or A-....just an unfortunate turn of events. I still believe Danny will turn this around in a few days, though.

Offline RodyTur10

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2848
  • Tommy Points: 299
  • Always offline from 9pm till 1am
The coach having some say on personnel is standard operating procedure in the NBA. That doesn't mean Brad has veto powers, but it does mean that the guy who will be dealing with and giving out playing time to the players has the chance to tell Danny who he thinks he would work best with/would help the team the most

Having an unclear chain of command is dangerous, but ignoring the opinions of those closest to the issues is just as (if not more) dangerous

Fictional scenario

Let's assume Danny Ainge was very high on one of Bitadze/Fernando/Gafford/Kabengele (player C) after intel from scouts. Then he asks Brad Stevens what he thinks, and Brad tells him he'd like to have someone who can replace Al Horford. After some discussions they come to the conclusion that (player C) is indeed very talented as a rim runner, but lacks the potential IQ/passing/versatility to be able to play a role like Al in Brad's system.

Austin Ainge mentions Grant Williams as an option, they have him high on their list as well. Brad doesn't know much about Williams, but there's enough video material to get him up-to-date and they have Williams in for an extra work-out and Brad likes what he sees. There are some short-comings, but Brad is convinced he can work with him on that. After their initial nr 1 option (player C), everybody is convinced there's little difference in talent so Grant Williams wouldn't be a bad pick.

Conveniently he's mocked later than #14, so they can get him at #20 (or #21) and use #14 to take a gamble on Romeo Langford. Another player that was high on their list. Now everybody is convinced and agrees with the outcome of drafting Williams and Langford.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We don't know how much influence Brad has (knowingly or unknowingly) and if a scenario like this is even remotely plausible, but that it is even possible I find very disturbing. Management needs to dictate roster composition, drafting, trades, contracts and overall policy. A coach just has to deliver with the material he gets to work with. Just as a player (like Irving) needs to play according to the system.
I see literally nothing wrong with that scenario. Danny and the scouting team trust Brad, and value his opinion. Any functional organization has great communication from top to bottom. This just sounds like you not liking the picks they chose, and trying to find something or someone to blame.

I don't like the picks overall, you're correct, but I don't think for example that Grant Williams at #21 is such a bad pick.

But it reeks like the picks (Langford and Williams) were made mostly to accommadate Stevens' system.
I suspect that if we had a different coach our draft picks would be different too, and I have a problem with that.

Offline Csfan1984

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8889
  • Tommy Points: 290
My view is if a coach decides who plays on the court and when, why wouldn't he also have a say on who is on the team itself? For me he should have a large say in the matter of who is on the team if not he might just leave because they are not the guys he wants to coach.

As for scouts, trainers, doctors, lower coaches, ect they all need to build data and there should be a consensus based on data on who would be a good addition. DA just needs to direct the team on specific set parameters he wants met so the group knows the type of players to target, follow and then who to bring to the whole groups attention. Once a player meets all the parameters, in the majority's opinion then DA can look into the cost and probabilty of acquiring that player.

Offline Erik

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1649
  • Tommy Points: 235
  • The voice of reason
Seems to work well for the Spurs...

This is one of those “your mileage may vary” and shouldn’t be a blanket statement. Can there be situations in which the coach should stay out? Sure.

Effective management can either be collaborative or autocratic. Either one could be appropriate, it’s just if you are doing things autocratic, you’d better be right.

Offline timpiker

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1727
  • Tommy Points: 113
I'm sticking with my feelings I've had for many years.  I trust Danny.

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
I see OP's point, it does appear that the roster is being constructed to fit Brad's system and Brad's personality. You need ballerz to win in the NBA. The Cs are putting too much emphasis on 'character' guys, whatever that is code for. You better get some tough nosed players if you want to win. The key to Cs last championship was not a big 'character' guy.