The Lakers faced public embarrassment Monday when UConn’s Dan Hurley declined their offer to become the team’s head coach. This rejection not only leaves the Lakers without a coach but also exposes a deeper issue: the organization seems to lack a coherent plan.
Hurley’s decision to turn down a reported six-year, $70 million offer is not entirely shocking. With the opportunity to pursue a third consecutive NCAA championship—a feat not achieved since John Wooden’s era—Hurley has compelling reasons to stay at UConn. Additionally, the Lakers job, despite its allure, presents significant challenges that may deter even the most ambitious coaches.
The fit between Hurley, who has no NBA experience, and LeBron James was always questionable. LeBron’s high standards and unique approach to team dynamics might have clashed with Hurley’s coaching style. The possibility of friction between a hard-driving college coach and an NBA superstar made Hurley’s potential appointment risky.
The Lakers’ real problem, however, is their apparent lack of direction. Chasing Hurley, a long shot, only to be rejected so publicly, diminishes the franchise’s prestige and suggests amateurism. The question arises: why would they gamble on a college coach uninterested in the role?
While Dan Hurley is a proven winner and respected tactician, the transition from college to NBA coaching is fraught with uncertainty. Few have successfully made the leap, with Brad Stevens and Billy Donovan being notable exceptions. The scepticism surrounding such transitions was palpable among NBA insiders during the Finals.
Being publicly turned down is one thing, but for the Lakers, a storied franchise, to be spurned by a college coach is another. It signals a troubling uncertainty about the team’s future direction.
Consider the implications for candidates like J.J. Redick, a former player and ESPN broadcaster who was once a top contender for the Lakers’ coaching job. Redick’s ego likely took a hit after seeing the Lakers’ overt pursuit of Dan Hurley. The same goes for James Borrego, the Pelicans’ assistant coach, and other NBA-experienced candidates who watched this debacle unfold.
The Lakers’ two leading candidates—Hurley and Redick—represent vastly different visions. Hurley’s appointment would have signaled a focus on long-term player development and a post-LeBron future. In contrast, Redick’s hire would have emphasized immediate competitiveness, potentially trading future assets for present success alongside LeBron and Anthony Davis.
This indecision raises doubts about the Lakers’ strategic coherence. Well-run organizations commit to a vision and execute it methodically. The contrasting approaches of teams like Houston, Dallas, Orlando, and Phoenix underscore the importance of a tailored strategy aligned with their specific goals.
The Lakers’ approach, akin to aimlessly browsing Netflix for a movie, lacks the deliberate planning required in the NBA. Such a scattershot method has tangible consequences, including the necessity of offering a substantial package to attract a capable coach who can both win games and win over the media.
Furthermore, the possibility of LeBron considering a move elsewhere looms, which would place even more pressure on the Lakers. This scenario enhances LeBron’s leverage in deciding the next head coach, likely pushing for a short-term strategy focused on trading draft picks for another star.
While this could work as a well-considered plan, it’s currently unfolding as an unintended consequence of Hurley’s very public rejection.
The Lakers’ pursuit of Hurley might have been a bold move, but the fallout reveals a franchise struggling with its identity and lacking a clear vision for the future.
Comments