# John Freaking Lucas????



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

That would have been a laugh riot. Oh my God. I can see the headlines now. Blazers bring in drug counselor, perfect for all the drug addicts on the team. Talk about a retread. If John Lucas was really the guy then then I have no faith whatsoever in John Nash and Steve Patterson leading this team back to contention.


----------



## Ukrainefan (Aug 1, 2003)

Yeh, we really caught a break if this guy turned us down. He reminds me of Cheeks, somebody who is a buddy to the players but doesn't really command their respect because he's never done anything and isn't strong on tactics and organization. And it also makes me worry about Nash and Patterson.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

> The closest the Blazers got to offering the job was to Lucas, the former San Antonio coach, Houston Rockets guard and current Houston-area drug counselor. Lucas confirmed Monday that he was involved with the Blazers, but when asked if he was offered the job, he referred all questions to the Blazers. Nash wouldn't comment on Lucas, saying he didn't want to start revealing names of people interviewed



:banghead:


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Lucas? OH NO!

Where did you guys hear/read this?


----------



## cimalee (Apr 17, 2003)

I would have to say no also . The blazers will make the right choice


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

I REALLY hope none of this is true.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Lucas? OH NO!
> 
> Where did you guys hear/read this?




It's in the Snoregonian, and also on hoopshype.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

This Lucas rumor doesnt gel with Nash's comments on Courtside last night.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> This Lucas rumor doesnt gel with Nash's comments on Courtside last night.



Here are some names that do

MacMillen
Magic
PJ Carlisemo
Flip Saunders



Magic is a name I just threw in there. The guy has coaching experience and is working the finals. I don't think he's a viable candidate, but neither was John Lucas in my eyes.


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Where is anyone getting the idea that he turned the Blazers down?

It's okay if they interviewed him - not sure why they would, but if they offered him the job, they're crazy.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Nash says in the story that they DID NOT offer Lucas the job.



> . We weren't making an offer to him yet, but we were further down the path."


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> Nash says in the story that they DID NOT offer Lucas the job.



It's ridiculous that they were even talking to him in the first place. Why is it this organization can't see the embarrassment that this would have caused nationwide. The last thing this team needs is a drug counselor as their coach.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> It's ridiculous that they were even talking to him in the first place. Why is it this organization can't see the embarrassment that this would have caused nationwide. The last thing this team needs is a drug counselor as their coach.


I agree... but at least it gives us something to talk about today, other than the fact that the Beavs are going to the College World Series! 

GO BEAVERS!


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

BEER&BASKETBALL said:


> I agree... but at least it gives us something to talk about today, other than the fact that the Beavs are going to the College World Series!
> 
> GO BEAVERS!



Funny. I don't remember anyone talking about that but you.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

mediocre man said:


> Funny. I don't remember anyone talking about that but you.


:laugh:


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Jason Quick is the source of this information. Consider his % of being correct.

If true, Mgmt hasn't set their sights very high. Or, we've sunk lower in appeal than any of us dreamed and simply cannot attract anyone better.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Iavaroni would be like getting Dean Smith, compared to J.Lucas.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Come on guys, where's the kneejerk defense of PatterNash? I'll do my part.

(a) Lucas is part of the plan! Nash and Patterson know what they're doing

and/or

(b) It's not Nash's fault that Lucas doesn't want to coach the Blazers!

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Blazer Ringbearer said:


> Where is anyone getting the idea that he turned the Blazers down?
> 
> It's okay if they interviewed him - not sure why they would, but if they offered him the job, they're crazy.


"That person had a change of direction and is no longer involved," Nash said. "He was an attractive candidate, but for personal reasons he decided not to pursue it any further. But we were closer with him than we have been with anybody else. . . . We weren't making an offer to him yet, but we were further down the path." 

The Blazers clearly won't offer the job formally until they know the person will accept. That way they can have the position of not being rejected.

Ed O.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Come on guys, where's the kneejerk defense of PatterNash? I'll do my part.
> 
> (a) Lucas is part of the plan! Nash and Patterson know what they're doing
> 
> ...


No defense here! I'm glad he reportedly doesnt want to coach here.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

O.M. FREAKING G.!!

MM, what you did to my stomach with your thread title is just not right. This is simply unbelievable. Just the mere idea that PatterNash would even talk to or consider John Lucas as a strong candidate has made me suddenly lose all faith and hope. I've never been a fan of Nash or Patterson, but somehow over the past few weeks I've managed to convince myself that a good draft and good trades were on the horizon. AND THAT THEY WOULD HIRE A GOOD COACH.

My day is ruined.

Oh, well, at least the BEAVS ARE IN THE COLLEGE WORLD SERIES!


----------



## Blazer Ringbearer (Jan 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> "That person had a change of direction and is no longer involved," Nash said. "He was an attractive candidate, but for personal reasons he decided not to pursue it any further. But we were closer with him than we have been with anybody else. . . . We weren't making an offer to him yet, but we were further down the path."
> 
> The Blazers clearly won't offer the job formally until they know the person will accept. That way they can have the position of not being rejected.
> 
> Ed O.


Gross. I just can't understand their thinking on this...

PR issues aside, the guy is just a bad coach. Isn't he the guy famous for flat out not coaching his team during timeouts - making them huddle up and figure it out? Also, isn't he on the growing list of coaches who had issues with Miles? Just seems stupid all around. 

He must interview well or something...


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

If John Lucas is the best they can do as coach, then Nash deserves to be fired today.

However, I doubt that this is even remotely close to the truth.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

ANY pursuit of John Lucas is disturbing IMO....

His last coaching gig was a disaster.....


----------



## TP3 (Jan 26, 2003)

George Freaking Jefferson????


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

TP3 said:


> George Freaking Jefferson????



well, we would be moving on up, to the east side. To a delux apartment, in the sky. We'd finally got a piece of the pie! And hey, you know that fish don't fry in the kitchen, beans don't burn on the grill. took a whole lot of trying just to get up that hill..now we up in the big leagues, gettin our turn at bat!

as long as we live, it's you and me baby..ain't nuttin wrong with that!


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

I have to agree with most everyone on this board on this. John Lucas as a assistant, maybe. As a head coach is a joke. He hasn't had any success over any period of time in his career. I believe he had one good year. If he was the choice, this job must be considered a bottem 5 job in the NBA, or our management is terrible. Basicly we would be hiring Cheeks again with a drug counciling degree. Nash/Patterson better have a explaination that makes sense on this one, or Patterson and Nash should be blown out of here at the end of the year. This looks a lot like a Jim Paxon kind of move and it should cost you your job when combined with the aweful contract extensions of Theo,Zach and Miles last summer.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

In an interview today, Damon said that if John Lucas (his buddy) is hired on as head coach of the Blazers, then he will sign on for any part of the MLE.


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

One more thing to add is that Nash could make the negative John Lucas thing go away by just saying we have had not talks with John Lucas or his agent and he was never considered a viable option of this team as a head coach. End of story.


----------



## CelticPagan (Aug 23, 2004)

How about Paul Wesphal? He was a good basketball mind in the mid 90's. Maybe he's ready for a return! He's still fairly young.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

ABM said:


> In an interview today, Damon said that if John Lucas (his buddy) is hired on as head coach of the Blazers, then he will sign on for any part of the MLE.



That would be the straw. I'd even start rooting for the Lakers instead.


----------



## BBert (Dec 30, 2004)

ABM said:


> In an interview today, Damon said that if John Lucas (his buddy) is hired on as head coach of the Blazers, then he will sign on for any part of the MLE.


You're evil. :devil:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

ABM said:


> In an interview today, Damon said that if John Lucas (his buddy) is hired on as head coach of the Blazers, then he will sign on for any part of the MLE.


for the love of god, you best be making that up.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> for the love of god, you best be making that up.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hmmm...well should we be blaming the Blazers for considering Lucas and NOT offering him a job, or should we be praising them?

Seems to me that people seem to quik to assume the worst rather than saying 

"hey he is a guy who has experience and has a reputation for working with young players, why shouldn't they at least give a wandering thought to, him, but at leeast they had the ability to realize that he wasn't a good choice and didn't proceed further"


----------



## Fork (Jan 2, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Hmmm...well should we be blaming the Blazers for considering Lucas and NOT offering him a job, or should we be praising them?
> 
> Seems to me that people seem to quik to assume the worst rather than saying
> 
> "hey he is a guy who has experience and has a reputation for working with young players, why shouldn't they at least give a wandering thought to, him, but at leeast they had the ability to realize that he wasn't a good choice and didn't proceed further"


That's exactly what I was thinking. And would it be smarter to say to the press - 'we got pretty close, but certain things happened and it didn't work out.' or 'he was a terrible candidate, never really had a chance, but we figured what the hell.' I don't think he was ever a serious candidate, but the Blazers are trying to say the right things. As usual, finicky Blazers fans interperet everything as a sign of our GM's stupidity.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I can't believe the Blazers offered their Head Coaching job to John Lucas.....beyond that, I can't believe he turned it down! What has this franchise become? John Lucas?

In a nut shell, I'm quickly losing faith in Blazers management. I'm getting very frustrated. I feel the Blazers are on the brink of losing their stature as an elite franchise forever.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> I can't believe the Blazers offered their Head Coaching job to John Lucas.....beyond that, I can't believe he turned it down! What has this franchise become? John Lucas?
> 
> In a nut shell, I'm quickly losing faith in Blazers management. I'm getting very frustrated. I feel the Blazers are on the brink of losing their stature as an elite franchise forever.


Hmm did you read the article?



> Nash wouldn't comment on Lucas, saying he didn't want to start revealing names of people interviewed. "That person had a change of direction and is no longer involved," Nash said. "He was an attractive candidate, but for personal reasons he decided not to pursue it any further. But we were closer with him than we have been with anybody else. . . . *We weren't making an offer to him yet, but we were further down the path."*


Considering we know that the rest of the guys have only been interviewed once, further down the path could mean the went out for coffee after the interview.


----------



## hasoos (Jan 3, 2003)

Hell I didn't even know a college world series happened until I read this. That is how big it is. :biggrin:


----------



## Peaceman (Jan 15, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Hmmm...well should we be blaming the Blazers for considering Lucas and NOT offering him a job, or should we be praising them?
> 
> Seems to me that people seem to quik to assume the worst rather than saying
> 
> "hey he is a guy who has experience and has a reputation for working with young players, why shouldn't they at least give a wandering thought to, him, but at leeast they had the ability to realize that he wasn't a good choice and didn't proceed further"


I disagree. When you consider an employee(or coach), you look at their qualifications, work history and overall record. You don't interview or even consider canidates who are questionable if you are a good business. John Lucas has never done anything good accept relate to troubled players. Our last coach did that, so why fire Cheeks. John only strength is turning around troubled players. How many players are our roster do we need to turn around and if that is our #1 goal, we are a very sorry organization. John Lucas should be a good consideration as a assistant, but never a head coach of any decent organization.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Hmm did you read the article?
> 
> 
> 
> Considering we know that the rest of the guys have only been interviewed once, further down the path could mean the went out for coffee after the interview.



Yeah, and I read between the lines.

Last week the Blazers Blog reported that the Blazers "had a guy they were comfortable with for the head coaching job" and it was "someone with previous head coaching experience" and that person reportedly wasn't Flip or Phil or P.J.. And clearly wasn't an assistant or College coach. That candidate fell through and that candidate was John Lucas. The Blazers don't want to flat out admit that he turned down their offer. Is that so hard to believe? I've given PatterNash the benefit of the doubt until this very moment. I've always known they're arrogant and aloof, and I've accepted that. But now I'm starting to wonder if they're competent.


----------



## RoseCity (Sep 27, 2002)

Whether or not he was/is a viable candidate is useless to debate because we have no info either way. It is common practice in the NBA to interview a good portion of the potential candidates espically minoritys, sad to say. The NBA and other major leauge sports holds rules, social or written I'm not sure, that teams interviewing must bring a certain % of minoritys as to give all a chance, EOE and all.

With that said, Lucas is probably the worst choice at this point. Carlesimo is Jack Ramsey like when compared to Lucas! Maybe Damon will go into retierment and join the staff, Kemp is probably getting low on funds for dope/new children-he could be Lucas' head assistant...who else?


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> Yeah, and I read between the lines.
> 
> Last week the Blazers Blog reported that the Blazers "had a guy they were comfortable with for the head coaching job" and it was "someone with previous head coaching experience" and that person reportedly wasn't Flip or Phil or P.J.. And clearly wasn't an assistant or College coach. That candidate fell through and that candidate was John Lucas. The Blazers don't want to flat out admit that he turned down their offer. Is that so hard to believe? I've given PatterNash the benefit of the doubt until this very moment. I've always known they're arrogant and aloof, and I've accepted that. But now I'm starting to wonder if they're competent.


Eric Musselman


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> "hey he is a guy who has experience and has a reputation for working with young players, why shouldn't they at least give a wandering thought to, him, but at leeast they had the ability to realize that he wasn't a good choice and didn't proceed further"


Nash said they didn't offer the job. He did NOT say that they were not considering doing so... in fact, he said that for personal reasons the coach chose not to pursue the position.

Maybe he turned them down because he knew he had no chance, but Nash makes it sound like the Blazers were still looking at him when he pulled out.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Nash said they didn't offer the job. He did NOT say that they were not considering doing so... in fact, he said that for personal reasons the coach chose not to pursue the position.
> 
> Maybe he turned them down because he knew he had no chance, but Nash makes it sound like the Blazers were still looking at him when he pulled out.
> 
> Ed O.


Or Quick made it sound that way.....

I'm not saying if they did ir didn't this or that, but the fact is John Lucas is not going to be our coach one way or the other, so people are criticiszing Nash because Quik mentioned the name John Lucas. Interestingly enough Quicks boy Damon also had comments about it.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Eric Musselman


Lionle Hollins is also a name we have heard that the Blazers contactes, he also has head coaching experience, as does Paul Silas....there are plenty of guys Portland supposedly has been in contact with that meet the criteria, of having head coaching experience, and that doesn't necessarily mean John Lucas....Heck Personel reasons cold be Darius Miles still on the team to Paul Silas.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Eric Musselman



They said it wasn't Musselman, either. Do I really have to copy paste the exact verbiage? I believe you read the same article I did.

You can't tell me the hair on the back of your neck didn't stand at attention when you heard the name John Lucas. There's nothing wrong with giving the benefit of the doubt, but John Lucas?!?! :curse:


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Schilly said:


> Lionle Hollins is also a name we have heard that the Blazers contactes, he also has head coaching experience, as does Paul Silas....there are plenty of guys Portland supposedly has been in contact with that meet the criteria, of having head coaching experience, and that doesn't necessarily mean John Lucas....Heck Personel reasons cold be Darius Miles still on the team to Paul Silas.


Again, they said it wasn't Hollins, Silas...etc...etc...don't you remember that discussion/article? I don't have time to run it down....


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> Again, they said it wasn't Hollins, Silas...etc...etc...don't you remember that discussion/article? I don't have time to run it down....


They never said it was Lucas either.


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Schilly said:


> They never said it was Lucas either.


You're right. They said it WASN'T Lucas....interesting....


http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/b...olive_blazerblog/archives/2005_06.html#064802

Blazers pinpoint a coach?
Kerry Eggers of the Portland Tribune is pretty sure who the next coach of the Blazers WON'T be:

It is known that Phil Jackson and Larry Brown are not candidates for the Portland job. It is believed that Lionel Hollins, Jim O’Brien, Terry Stotts, Eric Musselman, John Calipari and John Lucas — all with head-coaching experience in the league — are not being considered.

GM John Nash tells Eggers Flip Saunders is also out of the mix.

So who is in the mix? Nash also says: “We have at least one (coach) we all are comfortable with." Who could that be?

Among the names are Paul Silas, Del Harris, Dennis Johnson, Johnny Davis and Alvin Gentry. Silas is the only one of those who would seem to make sense as a viable candidate in Portland.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> You're right. They said it WASN'T Lucas....interesting....
> 
> 
> http://www.oregonlive.com/weblogs/b...olive_blazerblog/archives/2005_06.html#064802
> ...


Interesting, No?


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

The Olive blog this morning made it sound like it was definitely Lucas that turned them down:



> John Lucas? John Lucas? Where did he come from? Yes he was a finalist for the Pistons' job 4 or 5 years ago but he's been off the coaching radar forever.
> 
> We called Jason to follow up, and he says he heard it at the mini-camp in Chicago from various sources. Lucas was "squirmy" when asked, and Nash eventually confirmed it by not denying it.
> 
> What does it say about the Blazers when a big part of Lucas' reputation is his ability as a "counselor"? What does it also say when he "withdraws"?


It's still possible that the blogster is misreading the evidence or Quick is mistaken in his reporting.

Ed O.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The Olive blog this morning made it sound like it was definitely Lucas that turned them down:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If the latter is true, then Jason-buddy should be fired.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> The Olive blog this morning made it sound like it was definitely Lucas that turned them down:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


ADd to taht the fact that Nash never confrims or deny's anything, until it's official.

For all we Know Lucas who lives in Houston was asked by the BLazers for his input on a potential draftee from a Houston HS.


----------



## NBAGOD (Aug 26, 2004)

I know it makes for interesting debate, but realistically how much does the coach really matter?

Let's face it, good players win games....really doesn't matter who the coach is. The only coach I can think of who has year in, year out gotten more than expected out of his team is Larry Brown. 

I mean Mike Dunleavy was a genius in 1999....fired in 2001. Doc Rivers was Coach of the Year in 2000....fired in 2003. Mike D'Antoni was a bum in Denver, but is Coach of the Year now (coincidently the same year they get Steve Nash and Amare blossoms into a superstar). Adelman was great in Portland and Sacramento (with talent), but was run out of Golden State (no talent). Byron Scott won 2 conference titles with talent in NJ and lost 60 games with none in New Orleans....good coach or bad coach?? 

When the Blazers have good players (who stay healthy) they will win again.....whether the coach is John Lucas or Maurice Lucas, Flip Saunders or Flip Wilson.


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

NBAGOD said:


> I know it makes for interesting debate, but realistically how much does the coach really matter?
> 
> Let's face it, good players win games....really doesn't matter who the coach is. The only coach I can think of who has year in, year out gotten more than expected out of his team is Larry Brown.
> 
> ...



I'd like to point to the Denver Nuggets last year for the answer. Or to the Florida Marlins of their last World series victory.


----------



## Foulzilla (Jan 11, 2005)

NBAGOD said:


> I know it makes for interesting debate, but realistically how much does the coach really matter?


Quite a bit. I will agree that talent tends to be more of a limiting factor then coach, but you don't win championships without a good coach. I think you vastly understate their importance. Keep in mind that winning COY doesn't necessarily mean you are a good coach. Usually it just means you had a good year. The media votes on it, not the players or other coach's.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

I really think this is Quick once again taking parts of info and piecing them together to paint a conclusion that is not accurate.....

No wonder Blazer officials see him and walk the other way...

Lucas confirmed he met with POR...nothing more

When pressed for further info...he directed Quick to the Blazers.

Nash reitirated that he 
A) Wouldn't reveal canidates names
B) That they did have a "lead" canidate who withdrew for personal reasons
C) That this lead canidate was further along in the process than any other canidate...

Where is the direct proof it was John Lucas? Once again, and this is a CONTINUING PROBLEM with Quick...H emakes leaps in logic and announces that John Lucas was the top canidate, and that he turned it down....Where NOWHERE in that article did I see Nash or Lucas admit that was the case.....

Quick uses Nash's comment, and frames it as a non comittal...which means yes? WTF?

Nash just stuck by this standard line....."We are not going to discuss\name individual canidates"....ie....NO COMMENT.


----------



## B_&_B (Feb 19, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> I really think this is Quick once again taking parts of info and piecing them together to paint a conclusion that is not accurate.....
> 
> No wonder Blazer officials see him and walk the other way...
> 
> ...


Exactly... when stuff like this comes out of the blue, you gotta consider the source, and in most cases, if the source is the Oregonian, you run away and laugh.

I sure hope your right Kmurph.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

Kmurph said:


> Nash just stuck by this standard line....."We are not going to discuss\name individual canidates"....ie....NO COMMENT.



I am actually quite happy to hear them do this actually. I would love for this whole process to be over and know who it is... but if it helps keep things under wrap so they can do their job.. bully for them!

but I am sure we all want what is best for the team. And keepig us guessing for a while, while they get the best they can would be just fine with me.


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

If i am not then lord help us...b\c even inquiring into Lucas disturbs me...


----------



## Storyteller (Dec 31, 2002)

If Quick is wrong about Lucas....well, it certainly wouldn't be the first time, now would it?

If Quick is right about Lucas....all I can say is that I'm happy it didn't work out....


----------



## Kmurph (May 7, 2003)

As reported by the FAN today...a source within the Blazers called Ian Furness and reported that POR NEVER even considered Lucas for the coaching position....

This is pretty much what I thought when I read Quick's article....he took pieces of info and tried to make an educated guess...He guessed wrong...

I feel better now....


----------



## mediocre man (Feb 24, 2004)

Kmurph said:


> As reported by the FAN today...a source within the Blazers called Ian Furness and reported that POR NEVER even considered Lucas for the coaching position....
> 
> This is pretty much what I thought when I read Quick's article....he took pieces of info and tried to make an educated guess...He guessed wrong...
> 
> I feel better now....



I'm not sure who to believe on this one. After reading this mornings paper I asked my Birdie. And he said he never heard John Lucas' name come up. Then again he doesn't know everything. He said he thinks they were asking his advice on candidates and personel.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

I stayed out of posting any comments about this yesterday for one key reason and one minor reason:

Key: The byline was Jason Quick. For those of you that don't know by now, Quick has a history of not getting it right from time to time. Who knows if this is one of those times?

Minor: John Lucas didn't make any sense as a coaching candidate. Certainly the near unanimous opinion on this board is that would be a horrible hire.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Funny how being a messsage board junkie, we can actually aquire sources about stuff. I just got some info from my insider (no I won't mention names, unless I don't want and insider anymore).

Supposedly Lucas had planted a story about himself talking to McHale about the Minnesota job about 6 weeks ago. Basically what we have is a situation where a guy is getting asked if he is being contacted and by responding the way he is it is in a way misleading medai personel, and at teh same time putting his name out there connected to jobs. Basically he's generating PR , by misleading people into thinking there is interest in him, hoping that other teams will say "Hey So and So is interested in Lucas, maybe we should be".

Here's a link to the story

Lucas Interested in Timberwolves 

Sounds really familiar huh? Lucas saying he's been talking to a team and the team denying it.


----------

