I hate seeing this type of thinking from GMs -- in 2009, Bryan Colangelo was afraid of Bosh leaving so he went out and got him one of his best friends in Jarrett Jack. He thought that would convince Bosh to stay.
NO!!!!
Winning convinces players to stay. Better than anything else. Find a way to improve the team and move it forward. Give the player a reason to stay by showing them you can win a Championship here.
It is not about friends. It is about winning. Be ruthless.
Being buddy-buddy only gets you short term rewards. It does not get you long term loyalty. Winning is the only thing that consistently earns you long term loyalty. Focus on winning. Not buddy-buddy moves or player's blessings.
It is okay to ask a player's opinion but understand it is you -- the GM -- that is solely responsible for the decision at the end of the day. The player accepts no responsibility to the decision regardless of the role he played in it.
And if that decision flat lines, that player will leave you out to hang. He will look after himself first - what is best for his career. He will leave your team if you failed to build well around him regardless of how much you cozzied up to him and/or involved him in decisions. He will be selfish. Trust his selfishness. It will help you (the GM) make better decisions.
You think Stevens is doing the right move in asking Tatum, Brown and Smart about their choice for Head Coach?
Given Smart, Brown and Tatum had experience with Team USA in being coached by Udoka, I think Brad asking them about Udoka makes complete sense.
Luka has no experience being coached by Kidd so asking his opinion of the hire is quite different than Stevens asking Smart and the Jays.
I mean those observations aside, it's been standard procedure for the most part for a while now to ask some of your core players for some input in coaching hires one way or another, else you risk alienating your players needlessly. It's not about choosing who they want, but listening to their input as part of the equation for the choice being made.
We may not like it, but players have a lot of power now as compared to previous years.
this raises a question i have had for a long time. why do many fans object to players having a say over their salary, careers, hires, etc? we do not object to the owners, GMs, coaches, et al having a say over players.
i see again and again, posts that object to player voices in the decisions of teams. it is if we all suckled at the teat of capitalist ideology...bosses have the control. workers dont, they should just keep quiet and do their jobs.
and then we seem project this set of beliefs into sports as if this model were the default mode, or the automatic best approach because it is what exists currently.
enough studies show show that a more mixed/balanced approach to workplace relations can be a good thing. having tatum, brown, and smart provide their view points is a good thing.
There's a contract and part of the contract says you can trade them if need be, if we don't like it we complain about management doing a bad move, but that's part of the contract. If you don't want it that way, you setup a no-trade clause or some player options.
Then we have players who are too powerful, they decide they don't want to perform, hold a franchise hostage sometimes to the point they need to sell low if they want to salvage the situation, and suffer the consequences. It's not salvageable in most situation since you already screwed-up your cap situation because of the player, so moving that player sometimes is not enough to repair the damage.
To say nothing of players earning MILLIONS regardless if they live up to the contract or not. Players are making a lot of money regardless of the actions they take and there's no accountability, so screw them... and I'm looking at you Harden in particular.
I don't have a problem with them being involved in the decision making and the direction of the franchise, but they're holding whole franchise hostages too often for my tastes just to fulfill their selfish needs.