Why The Lakers Shouldn't Hire Byron Scott

Already in deep decline due to some stupid moves, the LA Lakers are about to make another monumental blunder--hiring Byron Scott as head coach.

After several interviews, Scott is the leading candidate, boasting  the support of two iconic, influential Lakers--Magic Johnson and Kobe Bryant. Johnson played with Scott during the Showtime era, while Bryant has fond memories of Scott as a mentor during his rookie season.

But there are plenty of reasons the Lakers should look elsewhere for a head coach.

First of all, check Scott's record. After nearly 1000 games as head coach, he has a crappy 44% win percentage. In eleven seasons, he guided teams to the playoffs only four times. And what about the fact that he was unemployed all last season and no one hired him? If he's such a good coach, why didn't other teams come after him? Could it be that he's not such a great coach?

Scott has had three head coaching jobs--New Jersey Nets (2000-2004), the Charlotte Hornets (2004-2009) and the Cleveland Cavaliers (2010-2013). All ended badly. The Nets and Hornets didn't even wait until the end of the season to dump him. Charlotte, where he had been named Coach of the Year in 2008, kicked him out just nine games into the 2009 season. The Nets and Hornets players were fed up with Scott, leaving management no choice but to get rid of him.

Things were even worse in Cleveland. All three of his seasons were disasters. Stumbling along with awful defenses, with teams that were barely NBA caliber, he never won more than 24 games. Though he didn't have top-notch talent to work with, he could have gotten more production out of those players.

NBA players aren't crazy about Scott. According to several sources, when you talk to players around the league, off the record, they'll give you the lowdown on Scott. And it's not pretty. Most brand him as an egomaniac who lets his ego get in the way of decisions. Some players also damn him as notoriously stubborn, which has hurt his teams and turned players against him. Also, they don't like his coaching style. He's an abrasive, surly type whose harsh handling of players wears thin after a few years. As a result of those mental beat-downs, players stop listening and tune him out. In New Jersey, a player uprising, led by Jason Kidd, ran Scott out of town.

As a tactician, Scott is questionable. Though his New Jersey teams were strong defensively his status as a defensive strategist was severely tarnished by his miserable years in Cleveland. As an offensive coach he's always been considered sub par. Ask around the league about Scott in this capacity and you hear the same criticisms over and over--his schemes are ridiculously predictable and are totally lacking in imagination and creativity. His deficiencies in this area got him booted out of Charlotte. The Hornet players hated his offense and deplored his abilities to map game-plans and make in-game adjustments. Sources report that those players griped that Scott made the wrong decisions about who to play and when to play them. In short, they had little confidence in his coaching skills.

And another thing. The shining star on his resume--coaching the Nets to the NBA Finals in 2002 and 2003--is tainted. The Eastern Conference was truly awful then, as bad as it is now, so topping that division wasn't a big deal. In both Finals, the Nets, clearly inferior, were trashed by the Western team.

After that fiasco in Cleveland, many wondered if Scott would ever get another coaching job. There's surprise in NBA circles that he's being considered for a plum job like the Lakers' head-coaching gig since he's not considered a top coach. The Lakers need a smart leader to guide their rebuilding years. That ain't Scott. Laker management may be looking at the turnarounds in New Jersey and Charlotte, for which Scott gets credit. But in both cases, great point guards--Kidd in New Jersey and Chris Paul in Charlotte--were as important as Scott.

At best Scott is a passable coach. The Lakers, one of the top franchises in all of sports, deserve better. They took a few steps down in hiring Mike D'Antoni. They finally came to their senses and sent him packing. And now they're going to hire Scott? Can't they see that is nothing but another step down?

One question. If Phil Jackson were, as he should be, guiding Laker management decisions or at least having a say in them, do you think Scott would be anywhere near the head coaching job? Of course not.

Don't you get the uncomfortable feeling that the inmates are running the asylum?