Originally Posted by TheLogo
Listen, when Rick Carlislie was replaced by Larry Brown a few years ago everyone said it was a crazy move by Dumars. You had all the wimps crying about Loyalty and saying that Rick "deserved" to coach this team. After Larry Brown won the championship everybody changed their tune and called DUmars a genuis. Perfect coaching move... yada, yada, yada...
The same thing is happening here. Pat Riley is a MUCH better coach than SVG. It is not even debateable. Basketball isn't about loyalty. It is about winning. And if Pat thinks he is what it takes to get this team a NBA championship than who are we to question his decision.
I tell you this, as a Spurs fan, I would MUCH rather face the Heat in the Finals lead by SVG rather than Pat Riley. Riles is a proven championship coach.
You assume that Carlisle would have not won a ring with that same Pistons team in 2004. That could be true, but the fact is that we will never know. The addition of Rasheed Wallace was what put the Pistons over the top that year, not LB. Brown did not even want Rasheed on the team when the pick up was first announced.
You also assume that loyalty and winning are seperate entities. Ask the Chicago Bulls if loyalty and winning are seperate. Maybe you can recall that after the dismantling of the Bulls after 6 championships and the firing of Jackson they couldn't find a single respectable big talent vet to go play for them because they (Jerry Krause mostly) had the reputation of lacking a shred of loyalty.
Pop was one of those "loyal wimps" you speak of in '2000 when TD hurt his knee and the Spurs could not properly defend their '99 championship. Pop did not and has not ever pushed his players to play injured and initially he took time to see if Tim's knee would heal on its own so TD could avoid surgery. Do you think that Tim gave consideration to that loyalty when Orlando was offering him big $$ and he could have left the Spurs and gone to a larger market with more marketing / endorsements ?
My point is that one needs to be very careful in assuming that loyalty and winning do not co-exist. There is a very fine line there, and often we find out that they are in fact joined at the hip.