# Glenn extended



## P-Dub34 (May 19, 2005)

Just saw it on ESPN. Wow.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Yes, they did.

EDIT: URL corrected.


----------



## dts (May 11, 2007)

I saw this over at the Herald and I had to register for the sole purpose of venting.

This is such a terrible move. Guy cost us a spot in the playoffs in the 05-06 season. Guy got us booted from the first round the one year we made it in, despite the fact that the C's were clearly a better team than the Pacers. Guy has failed miserably at developing players. 

In what universe does this make sense?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

So they extended him, then they will lose the lottery and fire him next year. Why not wait until after the lottery?


----------



## Zuca (Dec 4, 2003)

http://www.nba.com/celtics/news/press051007-doc-rivers-contract-extension.html


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

This is about as shocking as Pierce not being on the US Team.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

HKF said:


> So they extended him, then they will lose the lottery and fire him next year. Why not wait until after the lottery?


They won't be firing him. He's the surest blast shielding they have. They're also too cheap to pay someone to watch from the broadcast booth. So we're stuck with him.


----------



## BostonBasketball (Jan 10, 2005)

Don't care, they're not going to be serious title contenders for a few years and by then hopefully we'll have a legitamate coach.


----------



## BackwoodsBum (Jul 2, 2003)

Causeway said:


> This is about as shocking as Pierce not being on the US Team.


Exactly! Like I said a while back, this is his reward for sucking so bad we get a top pick. If he's still coaching the team at the all-star break I'll be surprised though.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Eh, you gotta hand it to the owners. They've finally paid up, especially considering that they'll be paying this guy after they fire him 15 games into the season.


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

So where's the outrage? I saw this post and nearly threw up. This is one of the worst basketball decisions this franchise has ever made, and I'm absolutely shocked/appalled/disgruntled with Doc's past and expected performance, Wyc, and most notably Dr. Pain for subjecting us to this for another X years to save his skin.

If I wasn't in such a good mood from the weather I'd be testing the limits of this swear filter. 11 more days till I get to re-evaluate my fandom.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

A move that makes me happy? No. "one of the worst basketball decisions this franchise has ever made"?? Hardly.

Word is it's a one year extension. Meaning he can be axed during next season without taking too much of a financial hit. Not really a big deal.



> "I think Doc is a leader and has a high basketball IQ."


Is there a line Ainge over-uses more than "a high basketball IQ"? Enough of that already.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

This pretty much sums it all up, for better or worse. "Thanks for The Tank":



> "The same people that want to say that Doc, for whatever reason, was tanking games, which he wasn't doing, also want to hold that record on him," said Ainge shortly before the season ended. "So, he's either doing what's in the best interest for the long term of the Celtics or he's not a good enough coach to win games. But it can't be both. *Doc is a team player. He does what's best for the franchise.* A lot of coaches don't see the big picture. I don't want Doc to see too much of the big picture, but he does understand it and it's for me to communicate with Doc."


Hopefully the next coach will come sooner rather than later, and be more concerned with wins than being a "team player".


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

Causeway said:


> A move that makes me happy? No. "one of the worst basketball decisions this franchise has ever made"?? Hardly.


Allow me to elaborate.

This contract extension is not so much about the dollars or length as much about what it signals. If I suck at my job, I expect to be fired. By rewarding failure management has let it be known that this is acceptable. Well, I take issue with that.

Even if you're a nice guy who's been doing your job for a few years, if your performance gets worse and worse, you keep messing up no-brainer decisions, and continue to be less productive than the year before, well you should be fired. In the real world it takes managers around 3 months to figure this out, apparently our front office has decided it needs 6 years.

One way or the other, after the most embarassing season in franchise history, someone needs to go to show that this will not be tolerated. Instead some sackless higher up decided to blow over to Doc and extend him. Again, my main point is that this signals to everyone: players, fans, owners, staff, etc. that this is what we should expect. Simply put: this is unacceptable.


----------



## dts (May 11, 2007)

Causeway said:


> A move that makes me happy? No. "one of the worst basketball decisions this franchise has ever made"?? Hardly.
> 
> Word is it's a one year extension. Meaning he can be axed during next season without taking too much of a financial hit. Not really a big deal.
> 
> ...


Doc is going to cost this team probably 4 wins over the average coach, based solely upon his inability to teach the team defense. Maybe a few more because he is a terrible in-game coach.

I think Carlisle would probably add a good 10 wins to this team, and I'm not even joking. Doc is going to be the difference between making the playoffs, and being in the lottery another whole year.

And if by some dumb stroke of luck the team does make the playoffs, thee is no way they are getting out of the first round. 

Most coaches have a more or less neutral impact on their team. Doc hurts the team. Having him here makes the Celtics noticeably worse. He is a bad coach and this move in indefensible.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

DaBosox said:


> Allow me to elaborate.
> 
> This contract extension is not so much about the dollars or length as much about what it signals. If I suck at my job, I expect to be fired. By rewarding failure management has let it be known that this is acceptable. Well, I take issue with that.


He does suck. But at least for this season, that's what they wanted. A coach who could accept sucking.



> Even if you're a nice guy who's been doing your job for a few years, if your performance gets worse and worse, you keep messing up no-brainer decisions, and continue to be less productive than the year before, well you should be fired. In the real world it takes managers around 3 months to figure this out, apparently our front office has decided it needs 6 years.


See above.



> One way or the other, after the most embarassing season in franchise history, someone needs to go to show that this will not be tolerated. Instead some sackless higher up decided to blow over to Doc and extend him. Again, my main point is that this signals to everyone: players, fans, owners, staff, etc. that this is what we should expect. Simply put: this is unacceptable.


Actually, not too long ago, we had a worse season, with 15 wins. 

What this signals is not too many (good) coaches want to step into the current situation. After the draft, and the expected trades, if and when Doc still sucks, he will be gone.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

dts said:


> Doc is going to cost this team probably 4 wins over the average coach, based solely upon his inability to teach the team defense. Maybe a few more because he is a terrible in-game coach.
> 
> I think Carlisle would probably add a good 10 wins to this team, and I'm not even joking. Doc is going to be the difference between making the playoffs, and being in the lottery another whole year.
> 
> ...


I'd be thrilled to can Doc and hire Carlisle.


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

When I initially opened this, I needed to keep reminding myself "take the high road man. High road. Got it."



Causeway said:


> He does suck. But at least for this season, that's what they wanted. A coach who could accept sucking.


Since we're talking about an _extension_ wouldn't you want a coach who doesn't suck? I'd like to think that going forward we'd want to do more than that. Call me crazy.




Causeway said:


> What this signals is not too many (good) coaches want to step into the current situation. After the draft, and the expected trades, if and when Doc still sucks, he will be gone.


Maybe I might just be too type A. But isn't it already obvious that he's trash? Do we really need more time and more young players to determine that he can't teach anyone how to defend a pick and roll? Or that a running team should have better offensive plays than one titled "random?" And that in order to develop players you should play them? 

Don't let the front office spin confuse you. He's there, like EH said, as a blast shield for Danny. There's a serious agency problem here since Danny wants to keep his job and the fans want to win. Which is why us as fans and the source of money for the Celtics should be up in arms over this.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Who is this great coach wanting to come to Boston? Because if he's out there, I will call him myself.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

For the record - if it were up to be - he would not have an extention. I am in no way a fan of Doc's coaching.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

An expected move at an unexpected time. The decision should have been made after the lottery. Another instance of ownership influencing front office decisions or incompetence in the front office.


----------



## E.H. Munro (Jun 22, 2004)

Premier said:


> An expected move at an unexpected time. The decision should have been made after the lottery. Another instance of ownership influencing front office decisions or incompetence in the front office.


Yeah, it's exactly the timing of the announcement that I find most bizarre. Has Stern already informed Danny that we won't be winning the lottery or something? With Oden or Durant in tow, you have a lot more options. But instead Danny extended his kevlar vest before knowing whether or not the bullets were coming at him. The article in the Globe about the whole thing is hilarious, in the same sad way that Danny's defense meltdown was. It's looking more and more like the last days of Nixon there.


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

Premier said:


> An expected move at an unexpected time. The decision should have been made after the lottery. Another instance of ownership influencing front office decisions or incompetence in the front office.


Yup, we could have at least got a better deal on the contract after we gain leverage through the draft. We accomplish nothing by getting the deal done quickly save for showing Doc that Danny really likes him and wants to hold hands.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Also, the reasoning that the front office and the ownership is rewarding Rivers for the dismal seasona and a sub forty percent shot at GregOdenKevinDurant is ridiculous. No half-competent person extends a failure of a coach as a reward. They extended Doc because he is a convenient scapegoat.

Rivers is not the problem. He is a bad coach, but the roster is the problem. The front office created that problem. The ownership directed the front office to create that problem to save money.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

If Doc is the scapegoat, as is now the new mantra in here, why not fire him now? Extend him to fire later fire him as the scapegoat, which will cost more money with the extension? How does this save money?


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> If Doc is the scapegoat, as is now the new mantra in here, why not fire him now? Extend him to fire later fire him as the scapegoat, which will cost more money with the extension? How does this save money?


I dunno Cause, even if they gave him another five million dollar contract, they make this up very quickly.

Plus, it's not like the owners need money, if there's a guy they can blame other than themselves, it'll be worth the five million.

The easiest guy to blame is the coach and usually the first, too.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

There are two things that are repeated over and over in here:

Doc will be the scapegoat for poor management decisions, decisions that were all made for financial reasons, and -

The owners are cheap. 

But 5 million is not a big deal for the owners to toss away?


----------



## BleedGreen (Jun 24, 2002)

Doc tanked so he gets to keep his job. Its obvious. It just goes to show you what our front office is like.

I guess its not so bad because there aren't any good ooaches available.


----------



## DaBosox (Apr 10, 2007)

Premier said:


> Rivers is not the problem. He is a bad coach, but the roster is the problem. The front office created that problem. The ownership directed the front office to create that problem to save money.


Premier just got BINGO. If we trace back the decisions we ultimately do end up at the top. It's really too bad that instead of making decisions that actually help the team we're stuck debating the smoke and mirrors campaign that our front office has put out.


----------



## aquaitious (Jun 11, 2002)

Causeway said:


> There are two things that are repeated over and over in here:
> 
> Doc will be the scapegoat for poor management decisions, decisions that were all made for financial reasons, and -
> 
> ...


No, because they're not opperating at a loss. 

Change the coach, you have to start changing players, then personel, etc.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> If Doc is the scapegoat, as is now the new mantra in here, why not fire him now?


If the owners fire Doc, they will have to yield to fan pressure to hire a qualified coach. Since Boston isn't exactly attractive as a coaching destination, they would have to offer a considerable amount of money to attract a coach of some talent. If the Celtics continue to lose next season, the fans would have figured out that the coach wasn't the problem, since he had a good coaching record before arriving in Boston. The fans would then focus their anger on the front office and the owners, rather than directing it on the convenient figure in Doc Rivers. Less fans would show up to Celtics games. Less fans will buy Celtics merchandise. The owners will make less money. So, hiring a qualified coach not only costs more money in contract, but if and when the Celtics lose, the owners will also lose money in game revenue.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Sorry I guess I was not clear. I get why Doc was not fired. But your explanation only explains why he was not fired - not the extension. If Doc is fired during next season "as a scapegoat", the extension makes no sense. If he sticks around through the extenstion (I hope not), or at least half-way through the last year, then your theory makes sense.

AND...your theory assumes that our team, plus a top 5 pick, and a likely trade of youth for a. Vet or 2, PLUS a new and competent coach - would not have success.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Causeway said:


> AND...your theory assumes that our team, plus a top 5 pick, and a likely trade of youth for a. Vet or 2, PLUS a new and competent coach - would not have success.


 You make it sound so easy.

The Celtics cannot afford to maintain their high payroll next season [with three players making nearly 75% of the salary cap] and the following season with Jefferson's near-max extension, West's considerable extension, along with the salaries of a multiple lottery selections. This means that the Celtics, if they do not end up with OdenDurant, trade down and move Wally for a decent veteran. This means the Celtics end up with Pierce, Jefferson, and a decent veteran as the only above average players on the roster. That roster that may contend for the sixth spot in the playoffs if Pierce does not ask to be traded. The Celtics' mismanagement of the cap means that they cannot add an impact player in free agency and their trade commodities are all overrated by the front office. So, the future "franchise players" include a questionable Al Jefferson, multiple low lottery selections, and role players. A championship team? Hardly.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

Doc extended for one season at five million dollars plus meaningless playoff incentives.


----------



## Causeway (May 18, 2005)

Premier said:


> You make it sound so easy.
> 
> The Celtics cannot afford to maintain their high payroll next season [with three players making nearly 75% of the salary cap] and the following season with Jefferson's near-max extension, West's considerable extension, along with the salaries of a multiple lottery selections. This means that the Celtics, if they do not end up with OdenDurant, trade down and move Wally for a decent veteran. This means the Celtics end up with Pierce, Jefferson, and a decent veteran as the only above average players on the roster. That roster that may contend for the sixth spot in the playoffs if Pierce does not ask to be traded. The Celtics' mismanagement of the cap means that they cannot add an impact player in free agency and their trade commodities are all overrated by the front office. So, the future "franchise players" include a questionable Al Jefferson, multiple low lottery selections, and role players. A championship team? Hardly.


It's not easy. But it's also not as gloomy as you have painted it. We do have a (low %) real shot at the 1/2 pick. Please send your prayers and positive vibes towrd that happening. In the event we do not end up with 1/2 we either trade down for who knows what - hopefully something good - and get a pick. West could very well be traded. Jefferson could also become traded - or continue to improve on the pace he had last season. Not a bad thing. Pierce could be moved as well, or be part of the future. There are way too many unknowns to say with any certainty what the future holds for our team. Think what you want about the management of the Celtics, but they are smart enough to know that the good will they received from the fans last season it's wearing thin. The only certainty is there will be moves and changes to the Celtics.


----------



## Premier (Oct 30, 2003)

I do not trust the current management and ownership. They have not set team direction. They have not shown that they are willing to sacrifice personal monetary gain for team improvement. They have not displayed any competence in maintaining a proper payroll in future seasons. They tragically overrate their ability to find talent and then proceed to overrate their mediocre talent. Other general managers continually take advantage of them in trades with Jim Paxson as the sole exception. Nevertheless, they continue to raise ticket prices, as the team continually underperforms each season.


----------



## narrator (Feb 11, 2006)

Rivers' extension is 10 kinds of unwarranted. This is a horribly move by the Celts. If they weren't going to fire him, they certainly should've waited on the extension. (Sorry for the late response.)

On the plus side, it created a good debate for 2 pages. Well done, boys and girls.


----------

