Isn't Michael Holly the logical replacement?
Possible replacement yes.
Logical...we could debate that all day 
I know tons of people, myself included do not want a studio analyst who 85% of the viewers could beat in a game of 1v1. Let alone didn't play in the NBA.
I could care less about his basketball skills, I just find him annoying as a broadcaster. I'm tired of guys who aren't good speakers being on TV for some reason.
Basketball skill set I could agree is somewhat irrelevant. I also agree with your point about speaking.
But other then that, I personally don't want a studio analyst for the greatest franchise in the NBA with 30+ Hall of Famers analyzed by someone who did not even sit on the bench of a NBA team.
This is just my opinion but you have to have some type of NBA credentials to be a credible NBA studio analyst. Otherwise, I could easily nominate several people from this board to take his job.
I don't think it's really neccessary. I mean, if a guy was an ex player, coach, whatever that is fine and definitely can add something, but some of the best TV sports guys are just writers (Kornheiser and Wilbon on PTI come to mind).
And by the same token, not all writers should just get TV jobs (this is what Holly did, even tho IMO he is a terrible broadcaster he just got a job because he was a Celts beat writer).
Personally, I'm tired of TV people getting their jobs based on whatever they did previously. Okay, Lou Holtz is a legendary coach but he is a god awful broadcaster who can't speak clearly and makes points that make you scratch your head (guy picks Notre Dame to win at the beginning of the year last year I believe). Emmitt Smith is another example of the ex-players who get jobs just based on their playing days when in reality they are awful broadcasters. Gary Payton an NBA example (Gary and C-Webb together made for some hilarious if terrible broadcasting moments, tho I think Webber is pretty good on TV now).
Guys who are ex-players can be great TV broadcasters, so can writers, but I just think there is too much emphasis based on whatever else or previously these people had done that gets them TV jobs. I want a good broadcaster first and foremost.
So not disagreeing with you really, just wanted to vent about that. Mostly the better broadcasters stick around but you see a lot of terrible ones show up for a while and a few stick around that really bother me on TV.