Statements
LOS ANGELES -- On Monday, the Lakers experienced a significant setback as they lost out on acquiring Dan Hurley. The Lakers' pursuit of Hurley, despite a generous six-year, $70 million offer, ended in disappointment as Hurley turned them down. This outcome was hardly a shock to many observers.
Hurley, who is currently chasing a third consecutive NCAA championship, clearly had compelling reasons to stay in college basketball. Despite the Lakers' offer, the job may have been perceived as a poisoned chalice, with no guarantee that a hard-charging coach with no NBA experience like Hurley would mesh well with LeBron James. LeBron, with his exacting standards and particular vision of team operations, prefers to be a partner with the head coach rather than a subordinate.
Uncertainty and Embarrassment
This episode highlights a troubling uncertainty within the Lakers' organization. They have not only embarrassed themselves by publicly chasing a high-stakes gamble, but they also appear to lack a clear identity or direction. The pursuit of Hurley was seen as a gamble, and the Lakers ended up being spurned in a public, slow-moving manner, which diminishes their stature and lends an air of amateurism to their management practices.
This misstep raises the question of why the Lakers would place such a high-risk bet on a college coach who ultimately did not want the job. While Hurley could have potentially been a massive success in Los Angeles—given his winning track record and the tactical prowess of his UConn teams—there remains skepticism about the ability of college head coaches to transition successfully to the NBA. While notable examples like Brad Stevens and Billy Donovan have made the leap, each case is unique, and past success does not always predict future outcomes.
Impact on Candidates
The fallout from Hurley's rejection is significant. JJ Redick, for example, must feel particularly stung. He had hinted at an imminent coaching gig on his podcast, only to find himself left in an awkward position on national TV, pretending he hadn't been overshadowed by the chase for Hurley. James Borrego, another candidate, was left in a state of limbo and rejection over the past few days.
As the Lakers' two strongest candidates with NBA experience witnessed the failed pursuit of Hurley, they could not have been more different. Hiring Hurley would have represented an investment in a longer-term strategy, possibly looking to a post-LeBron reality and leveraging three first-round picks to build a youthful, vibrant team. On the other hand, appointing Redick would have indicated a focus on maximizing the remaining years of LeBron's career, potentially trading those same picks for a star player to compete in the short term.
Strategic Missteps
The Lakers' approach seems haphazard, treating the hiring of an NBA head coach as if it were akin to scrolling through Netflix. This is an unsound way to run a professional sports franchise. There are significant consequences for such a slipshod approach, and Hurley turning down the Lakers only complicates their search for a winning candidate.
The Lakers cannot afford for LeBron to consider relocating. With significant leverage, LeBron might now have a firmer say in selecting the next head coach. Alongside the new coach, he might also push for a trade to bring in another star player. While such a plan could be effective if well thought out, it should not be the unintended consequence of an embarrassing high-profile rejection like Hurley's.
Lack of Vision
Ultimately, the pursuit of Hurley was a shocker for the Lakers. The biggest surprise, however, is that the team Hurley declined to join appears to lack a coherent plan for future success. They seem to be groping in the dark, without a clear vision of how to build a winning team moving forward.
Quotes
"I can do better."