Why the Timberwolves shouldn't hire Vinny Del Negro
It emerged yesterday that Vinny Del Negro is a 'leading' candidate for the vacant Minnesota Timberwolves head coaching job. The news came as quite a shock to everyone. And it was a shock because of Del Negro's coaching history.
After retiring as a player, Del Negro joined the Phoenix Suns and worked with their development staff in the front office. He must have brought quite a lot to the table, as he left that franchise with great standing and reputation, so much so that he walked into another job he had never done before.
In his time with the Suns, Del Negro must have learned quite a lot about coaching and networking, and getting others to appreciate what he could do. He must have, or else he would not have had his name surface as a future head coaching candidate despite having had zero coaching experience of any kind at any level. He must have, or else he would not have been able to ace the interview with the Chicago Bulls that saw them appoint him as their head coach in the summer of 2008. He must have, or else he would not have beaten all the other interviewees to the job, including current Bulls coach Tim Thibodeau (hired in his second attempt).
Vinny must have done something right to get that interview. He must have done something to get one with the L.A. Clippers, too. And he must have done something right to stay in that job for three years, however tenuously he clung on towards the end. Now, he's landed another interview, and seemingly done very well with it. Vinny Del Negro, it seems, is a great interviewer.
That, however, is the frustrating part. From this side of the fence, it is tough to understand what it is that he must have.
Wojnarowski cited Del Negro's prognosis for developing sporadic point guard prospect Ricky Rubio as the reason he did so well in the interview. It follows from there that Del Negro has a plan for the development of the player - a former director of player personnel in Phoenix, it follows that whatever else his coaching resume suggests he can and cannot do, Del Negro is a specialist in developing future talents, ones whose development is integral to the future of a franchise.
If so, it is tough to see how. In his time as a head coach thus far - two mediocre seasons with a talented if ill-fitting group of players, and three better years in Los Angeles with two elite talents and highly capable role players - Del Negro has not established a legacy of developing young talents and building for the future. Indeed, it has been the opposite. Players did not significantly develop, and relations certainly didn't.
Accused by John Paxson of being selfish and unapologetic, and famously benching Derrick Rose for Kirk Hinrich in end-of-game situations, distrust and disrespect fostered to the point that it culminated in the famous Tiegate incident, a physical altercation between Vinny and Paxson. As over evaluated and overwrought as that incident was, it nevertheless spoke to how toxic of an environment it had become. The coach ultimately bears much of the brunt for this.
Coaches are always judged primarily on their win totals and coach as best they know how to, yet they are also required to establish and/or develop a foundation for the future. And if Del Negro passes the interview in Minnesota based on how well he says he can develop the team, Minnesota needs to remember he said the same thing in Chicago. He was hired on account of the vast amount he brought - literally brought, in a ring binder - to that interview about how he would maximize and develop their talent, particularly with reference to Rose. And then he didn't do any of it, benching Rose at times until he was ordered not to by the front office, and running the few same plays over and over again (including the same we-need-a-three play for Ben Gordon 18 times in one season, a play which ended on an 0-for-17 streak).
It is very easy for those of us on this side of the fence to lament retread head coaching hires, instead wishing teams would go after 'the next great assistant prospect' and hoping they have no flaws. It is also very often misplaced to do that - we generally have no idea who the hot prospects are, or, even if we do get a name, we generally do not know why they are the hot prospects. We just buy into the groupthink, because the grass is always greener elsewhere. It is a strategy as varied in success as any other - for every Thibodeau and Steve Clifford-like success, there is a Jim Boylan or a Larry Krystkowiak, who for whatever reason cannot make the transition to NBA head coach.
It is also all too easy to assume that a coach cannot improve and learn from his mistakes, despite there being evidence to the contrary. It is true that coaches are often a stubborn breed, with a philosophy they have to strongly believe in if they are to convey it, yet they can (must) learn to nuance them, to manage personalities, to know when to stroke egos and provoke bears, to identify and strategize for opponent's weaknesses and to ever expand their playbook. All of those are things to get better at over time. Coaches do not, or at least ought not, ever stop learning. Rick Carlisle is a much better coach in Dallas than he was in Indiana, and the assistant he brought in in his time there, Terry Stotts, has become a much more multifarious coach with Portland than he ever was previously.
However, in the case of Del Negro, not much improved in Los Angeles. The team won games still, but it was hard to see what palpable effect he had on them. The offensive schemes were painfully simplistic, the defensive schemes just as predictable, the players did not seem to engage with him (something best evidenced by the lack of lamenting his departure publicly or privately), and no player seemed to develop significantly under his tenure. Indeed, DeAndre Jordan and Eric Bledsoe seemed to do much better when he had gone. Aside from encouraging Luol Deng to start shooting threes again (after Scott Skiles had previously advised him to stop), Del Negro's five years of coaching offer little evidence by way of player development.
Apart from not being choked out the second time around, nothing seemed all that different with the Clippers compared to when he was with the Bulls. Del Negro is not responsible for a lot of the faults thrown his way, and nor is any coach - their responsibility is merely to win, and ideally be liked while doing it. Yet there is little to suggest from the five-year body of work that he learnt from his past mistakes and became a better coach for it. What, then, did he say in the interview that overshadowed the five awkward years he managed to date? This is something we will never understand. And thus should he be hired in the end, it will not make much sense from this end.
Then again, the hot assistant coaching prospect game is always fun to play. You know who has served many years as an assistant coach, was a former quality point guard with plenty to teach Rubio, and even has some Minnesotan ties? Sam Cassell. I have no evidence that he would be good at the job, but we can only work with what we know. Such is life from this side of the fence.