Concern with Larry Drew's Contract

[AHF]

If the decision to sign Drew over other options was a basketball decision where the decision-makers felt he was the best guy to win the most games and advance in the playoffs, why did Drew only get two years? If he was the best candidate, the fact that Drew only got a 2 year deal makes no sense to me because it means that after 1 season he is already on the proverbial hotseat. The small amount of his contract and short length threatens to undermine his authority with the players who will be getting paid a ton more and whose contracts are longer.

Now add in the fact that our GM has essentially admitted that Drew was not his top choice and that puts him in an even more precarious position. He then is a coach with no track record with this team that is on an exceptionally short first contract with the team and whose GM did not ultimately believe he was the best choice.

Is anyone else concerned this could undermine Drew?

I would not have chosen Drew from my seat on the sidelines, but if I concluded he was the best man for the job I would have given him at least a 3 year contract. For all the problems I had with Woodson, we clearly reaped some benefits from the stability of him being in place that long. This short deals threatens to accomplish the opposite by introducing uncertainty and potential instability too early in his tenure.

[AHawks89]

People already doubting Drew. Why spend so much money on a coach who don't know our team and don't know the problems? We don't need some coach to come in and act like he knows the problems and players. Drew, himself, has seen all the problems and knows the players great. Also, players love him. He has 14 years experience under coaches, and from what I hear, he has a lot of basketball knowledge. With ASG being so cheap, why would you go out and hire a coach who does not know nothing about this team or players, and hoping the players like the new coach? In my opinion, ASG did the right thing. Drew was the best pick in both sides of the ball; money wise and coach wise. We do not need to rebuild our team. We have the team to take us somewhere. Maybe a few little updates here and there will get us over the hill.

[AHF]

People already doubting Drew. Why spend so much money on a coach who don't know our team and don't know the problems? We don't need some coach to come in and act like he knows the problems and players. Drew, himself, has seen all the problems and knows the players great. Also, players love him. He has 14 years experience under coaches, and from what I hear, he has a lot of basketball knowledge. With ASG being so cheap, why would you go out and hire a coach who does not know nothing about this team or players, and hoping the players like the new coach? In my opinion, ASG did the right thing. Drew was the best pick in both sides of the ball; money wise and coach wise. We do not need to rebuild our team. We have the team to take us somewhere. Maybe a few little updates here and there will get us over the hill.

Ummm...OK....but to the subject of the thread, don't you think it would have been smarter to give him more than a 2 year deal? That is extraordinarily short for an guy's first contract as an NBA coach with a team. By way of comparison, I can't think of a single hire in recent years where the team only locked down their new coach for 2 years. For goodness sake, even Monty Williams got a 3 year deal from notoriously cheap NO.

Why wouldn't you invest 3 years in Drew if you believe in him? My point is that if you are going to go with Drew, then put him in a position to succeed and to avoid being in lame duck status in just his second year with the team.

[Buzzard]

Valid points but I think there are other multiple reasons for and against such a contract. 1st off I think the ASG felt like they were burned with Woodys' longterm deal, secondly I think they feel, as do I, that Drew knows this team like the back of his hand and should be able to hit the door running. My 3rd point is a negative one; if Drew turns out to be very successful, who is to say he may not be the next coach of a bigger market team? Short contracts can backfire just as well as protect.

I think Drew may be a good coach, I just hope we are not his proving grounds for a more lucrative deal elsewhere down the road...

Edited June 21, 2010 by Buzzard

[AHF]

As far as the short contract backfiring, it makes zero sense to me. The Bulls got the best of both worlds by locking Thibodeau down for 3 years but only guaranteeing the first two of them. Why wouldn't we do this when Drew obviously had much less bargaining leverage?

Moreover, I really do think 2 years is just noteworthy for the brevity and I don't get how the ASG could have felt burned by Woody's deal. They fought to keep him after the first deal (so how could that have burned them?) and the second deal was a short two years which was short enough that they just let it ride out.

[TheNorthCydeRises]

Yep. That's why I was shocked when I heard the length and the money being paid per year. I think this also makes Drew more easy to FIRE, should something go terribly wrong next year. That way, they'd only be on the hook for his 1.5 million next year.

I thought a "cheap" Drew or Casey contract would see the ASG giving one of them a 3 yr - 6.5 million dollar deal. But they got away with giving Drew a 2 yr - 2.5 million deal, with an optional 2 mill in yr 3.

I think the ASG would counter the "cheap" argument by saying . . . "well, those other teams went "cheap" too. Chicago hired Thibedeau . . New Orleans hired Monty Williams . . and Philly hired a cheap retread in Doug Collins. Only the Nets "spurlged", and signed Avery to a bigger deal.

Because the players know and seemingly like Drew, the issue of him being underminded may be a non-issue. Drew's problem is that he has no job security whatsoever. If we come back as full strength, and this team is playing .500 or slightly below ball, he could easily get fired.

[AHF]

Yep. That's why I was shocked when I heard the length and the money being paid per year. I think this also makes Drew more easy to FIRE, should something go terribly wrong next year. That way, they'd only be on the hook for his 1.5 million next year.

I thought a "cheap" Drew or Casey contract would see the ASG giving one of them a 3 yr - 6.5 million dollar deal. But they got away with giving Drew a 2 yr - 2.5 million deal, with an optional 2 mill in yr 3.

I think the ASG would counter the "cheap" argument by saying . . . "well, those other teams went "cheap" too. Chicago hired Thibedeau . . New Orleans hired Monty Williams . . and Philly hired a cheap retread in Doug Collins. Only the Nets "spurlged", and signed Avery to a bigger deal.

Because the players know and seemingly like Drew, the issue of him being underminded may be a non-issue. Drew's problem is that he has no job security whatsoever. If we come back as full strength, and this team is playing .500 or slightly below ball, he could easily get fired.

I am glad to hear we actually did get an option for year 3 but you have articulated my problem with the contract. Even if I don't agree with the decision to hire Drew, I want to see us hire someone who we believe in enough to actually give them some credibility and security. This contract seems like it was framed in a way that makes it easy to get rid of Drew and when you combine that with the fact that he wasn't the GM's top choice, that is a little scary.

As you point out, even the "cheap" deals elsewhere give those guys more stability - $6.5M/2 years for Thibedeau or 3 years guaranteed for Monty.

[MaceCase]

As far as the short contract backfiring, it makes zero sense to me. The Bulls got the best of both worlds by locking Thibodeau down for 3 years but only guaranteeing the first two of them. Why wouldn't we do this when Drew obviously had much less bargaining leverage?

Moreover, I really do think 2 years is just noteworthy for the brevity and I don't get how the ASG could have felt burned by Woody's deal. They fought to keep him after the first deal (so how could that have burned them?) and the second deal was a short two years which was short enough that they just let it ride out.

I'm confused here. Isn't Drew also signed for 2 guaranteed years with the third year being an option? Thibodeau was far more sought after yet is locked in on a similar deal just for slightly more annually. I may confused but I swore Drew was on a 3 year deal from all the threads and sources I was reading.

[hazer]

3 words: Doc Riv Ers :lol6:

Edited June 21, 2010 by hazer

[AHF]

I'm confused here. Isn't Drew also signed for 2 guaranteed years with the third year being an option? Thibodeau was far more sought after yet is locked in on a similar deal just for slightly more annually. I may confused but I swore Drew was on a 3 year deal from all the threads and sources I was reading.

You are right. As I said in the post before your post, I am glad to hear that we did sign him with a third year $2M option.

I do disagree with the "slightly more annually" though.

If Drew coaches 3 years, he gets $4.5 million. Thibodeau gets $10 million for the same time frame.

Thibodeau accepted the Bulls' offer of a three-year deal worth around $10 million

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=385971&src=150

Thibodeau earns nearly $1 million more his first year than Drew earns in his first two years.

[Admin]

Could we not look at it like we're giving Drew a short term deal and after this season if he really impresses we can extend it and give him a nice raise and more years? If it does take him one more year, which could be easy to see happening if we lose JJ, then after the 2nd year we decide whether to keep him long term or let him go. I highly doubt we'll just pick up the option on the 3rd year since 2 years is more than enough to know what direction we should go in.

And I suppose I lean more towards being optimistic but I see the 2 year contract and low salary as an incentive to the players to play hard if they want LD to be their coach as much as they claim to want him to be. They can come out and play hard and earn him a new deal or they can play like crap and we can cut bait after the 1st year and hope that there will be a more qualified coach available next season.

The only concern I have regarding the short length and low dollars goes to the persistent rumors that the ASG are trying to sell the team and if you're looking to buy a team I think that you'd want to buy a team where you wouldn't owe a lot of money to the current coach just in case you have someone in mind that you want to replace him with.

[Sothron]

Drew's contract per that SI link in the other thread also states he'll only get half his salary if there is a lockout after next season. The rest of the coaches recently hired have no such stipulation AFAIK. Yet another example of how cheap the ASG is.

[Blunt91]

Drew's contract per that SI link in the other thread also states he'll only get half his salary if there is a lockout after next season. The rest of the coaches recently hired have no such stipulation AFAIK. Yet another example of how cheap the ASG is.

The ASG should be ashamed of themselves. These clowns don't deserve to own a professional franchise, that is no way to treat your headcoach.

[mrhonline]

FWIW, I read someone (don't remember where) that suggested Thibodeau was not as sought after as we all had been led to believe...Regardless, I doubt any other team would've considered Drew their top choice.

I really want him to succeed, though. For Larry Drew's sake...

[KB21]

You are right. As I said in the post before your post, I am glad to hear that we did sign him with a third year $2M option.

I do disagree with the "slightly more annually" though.

If Drew coaches 3 years, he gets $4.5 million. Thibodeau gets $10 million for the same time frame.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=385971&src=150

Thibodeau earns nearly $1 million more his first year than Drew earns in his first two years.

Every other source that I can find says Thibodeau's deal is worth $6.5 million over 3 years with the first two years guaranteed.

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nba/news/story?id=5254978

http://www.hoopsnotes.com/2010/06/bulls-tom-thibodeaus-contract-is-skimpy/

http://cbs2chicago.com/sports/tom.thibodeau.bulls.2.1734647.html

The difference in salary in the first year of Larry's and Tom's contracts is $300,000. Larry will make $1.2 million while Tom will make $1.5 million. I think both Chicago and Atlanta were cautious when making these contracts.

I will agree with you that this does not give either coach much security, and I would have preferred a five year deal with anyone. In both instances, it will not be hard to get rid of either coach if someone with a "name" becomes available.

Also, someone mentioned that the Hawks guaranteed only half of Larry's salary if there is a lock out. This is not an isolated event. The Phoenix Suns also guaranteed only half of Alvin Gentry's contract if there is a lock out.

Scott Brooks also signed a 2 year deal with an option for a 3rd year and averages about $1.5 million per season. Source.

While everyone wants to badmouth the Hawks for doing this and call them cheap, this is obviously something that is standard operating practice in the NBA at this time.

[KB21]

Oh, and the Memphis Grizzlies actually gave Lionel Hollins an 18 month contract in 2009. They told him that he had a year and a half to prove that he could be a head coach. Lionel had his Grizzlies team exceeding expectations this past season, and he got a 3 year extension. His salary wil apparently be around $2 million per season on average.

The deal the Hawks gave Larry Drew is actually a smart deal, IMO. I know people are upset that the Hawks didn't pay up to get Avery Johnson, but as I have said before, Avery would have just been a higher paid, more popular version of Mike Woodson overall with his slow paced style and isolation heavy offense. As far as the other candidates go, whether it was Larry Drew, Dwane Casey, or Mark Jackson, I doubt the Hawks would have gone longer than 2 years guaranteed with an option for a third year. This way, if the team ends up declining this year, they have wiggle room to get out of the deal. It's not something I'm a proponent of, because I have always supported the idea of giving a coach a chance to prove something, but I do see this as a different situation than what Mike Woodson walked into. Larry isn't taking over a rebuilding team. He's taking over a playoff team looking to take the next step, so he shouldn't get as many years to prove himself as Mike Woodson did, IMO. Players make the coach, and Larry has the players to make the playoffs.

My hope is that in two years, we will be seeing that Larry Drew and Tom Thibodeau are getting multi year extensions from the Hawks and the Bulls because the NBA desperately needs this kind of new blood in their head coaching ranks. I do hope Dwane Casey gets a fair opportunity, which he did not get in Minnesota, but I fear that if he takes that Clippers job, it could be career suicide for him. Add Monty Williams to that list. I just looked, and John Keuster got a 3 year deal in Detroit last year with all three years guaranteed. His deal was worth around $6 million.

[MaceCase]

Sometimes people are too insulated with this team and can only latch on to sources that feed their confirmation bias without any perspective on the league. Anyone else remember when articles like this were the norm?

[NJHAWK]

I think folks are reading what the people like myself who are concerned about the Drew hire are trying to say. Its not that I want Drew to fail or even that I expect him to fail. I have no idea if he will be a good coach or not. Im just concerned about our ownership group once again pullin the puppet strings on our gm. Im concerned that once againg they took the cheapest way out. If Sund cant pick the coach that what else is ASG holding him back from? Maybe they have vetoed some trades Sund had on the stove like they did with BK. Maybe Sund had some players lined up for the mle that ASG said no thanks to. Maybe Sund cant even make pick #24?

[Guest]

While everyone wants to badmouth the Hawks for doing this and call them cheap, this is obviously something that is standard operating practice in the NBA at this time.

Two total teams have their coaches on for half the salary if there is a lockout. That constitutes standard operating practice? Are you on dope? If you are referring to 3 year deals, well that just isn't what Drew has. There is a big difference between 2 years plus team option and 3 years, if Drew does well then is it likely that the ASG tears up the deal and starts anew? They certainly haven't shown the propensity to do anything like that with the Hawks or Thrashers.

People are starting to recognize that the ASG are cheap. That is good. This deal should concern people, and for some to defend this deal is perplexing. The argument of this being a smart deal in the event of the ASG wanting to sell the team is foolish. Do you really think a potential buyer will say "you know I like the Hawks, I would offer $300 million for the team but they have a coach I don't like on the hook for $3 million next year, thats just too much for me. I don't want to buy"??? NO! Thats a foolish idea that a coach is going to influence a potential buyer. The buyer will just factor all current costs into their bid. A short deal will encourage Drew to try harder? It will take extraordinary circumstances for the ASG to change the contract from a 2 year plus option to a guaranteed large yearly pay.

[Gray Mule]

:conversation:

It's always easy to spend someone else's money.

It's also very easy to say how bad this team will be with Drew as coach.

We beat up on the owners for not throwing money around and judge our new coach, not by how good he may be

but by the fact that he's not making a huge pot of money.

Drew is new at being a head coach. I hope he does well. In fact, I hope he's wildly successful. Just because

this is what I want, I can't see spending all this money that the owners don't have just lying around.

If he's successful, the Hawks make money and they can afford to pay him more $$$. If he's a bust, they are

not on the hook for big $$$. I know that may not make a lot of sense to some people but it does to me.

GO DREAM!!