(12-13-2020, 02:38 PM)KillerLeft Wrote: I'd say that, to a certain extent, this happens with EVERY NBA team. It's just more public in some places than others.
I believe that our own Mark Cuban is likely one of the most shameless interfering influences, but again, I doubt there's a single team that's run the way we all think it should be - with the owner shutting up and writing checks. And frankly, I doubt any of us could force ourselves to run a team that way if we were somehow able to acquire one, either.
So, in the context of your earlier question, if A) we're going to claim that the small market approach is holding Presti back and B) it's true that the Lakers had interest in hiring him away (taking your word for that) then yes, I absolutely view that as a missed opportunity for him to move on to better things.
Now, NY? I agree - You'd have to pay me a LOT to take that job, and I'm literally talking about myself in reality, not as some hypothetical, qualified GM. That's the Titanic.
Its one thing for the owner to have say on basketball decisions but the Lakers are well known to have too many former players involved in decision making. That cultural is toxic to an outsider. There is a reason why no active GM wanted to touch that job when it became open. Hard to blame Presti for passing on that job.
Also, I'm not blaming a small market holding Presti back. I'm blaming Clay Bennet himself. He could have easily paid the luxury tax for a chance at a title. I think he realized it later after Durrant left when he actually paid the tax.