Say what you will about Chicago Bulls GM John Paxson and his recent coaching hire, but I think ol' Johnny got it right. Why pay top dollar when coaches don't matter very much anyways? While one could argue there are a few top notch coaches that could make ANY NBA team good, like Red Auerbach, Phil Jackson, Pat Riley, Jerry Sloan, and Gregg Popovich, it's a tough make your argument stick. After all, each of those men enjoyed the services of elite players like Bill Russel, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jordan, Karl Malone, and Tim Duncan (along with a slew of other greats) during their most successful seasons. It's true that no one wins without talent, but it's hard to prove that coaches really make much of a difference. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that a bum off the street could coach an NBA team with decent success. Far from it. You still need to have the right experience, the right background, etc. All I'm saying is that a guy like Vinny Del Negro has just as good of a chance of leading the Bulls as does Mike D'Antoni because coaches are a pretty small part of the picture. Here's why: 1) Coaches can't "motivate" anyone. There's a common misconception in the business world that a good manager can motivate his or her employees. The same goes for any coach in any sport. If your employees (or players) aren't motivated to perform, there's absolutely nothing you can do to change that. Successful people all share one trait: A drive that comes from within. Neither Mike D'Antoni, Phil Jackson, or Tony Robbins has figured out how to make people REALLY care. 2) Coaches can't really change playing time. One of the great myths of the basketball business is that players have to work for playing time. While it is true that a lot of role players have to work very hard to get decent run, a coach rarely has the ability to bench whoever he wants. Top talents MUST be played - the economics of the NBA demand that top players spend lots of time on the court. Most NBA fans don't enjoy coming out to see role players execute crisp offense and play stifling defense. Fans come out to see Mr. Wonderful make some outrageous play. Even if Mr. Wonderful hurts his team by being selfish and playing no defense, his minutes will not be effected. 3) The NBA is dominated by talent. Teams without big-time talent can achieve decent results (see the '05-06? Chicago Bulls), but ultimately success in the league is determined by the game's superstars. Unless you're fortunate enough to enjoy a roster full of almost super-stars (like the Pistons), you're going to struggle to make it past the first round of the playoffs without majorly talented players, regardless of your coach. Put another way, ANY lesser-known coach (Mike Brown) will enjoy success if he has a top notch player (like Lebron James). 4) NBA coaches have no leverage. Ninety percent of NBA coaches have no power over their players ninety percent of the time. NBA players have guaranteed contracts that result in big paychecks regardless of performance. NBA players are difficult to trade. NBA player egos often exceed rational thought (see Latrell Sprewell). Add it up and you quickly realize that an NBA coach has no leverage over his players. There is a brief period of time right after a coach is hired when he has the ability to convince the team's ownership to make a change and trade a player. The threat of a trade can be motivating, but after a year or two the coach's influence with the ownership is usually gone. 5) Games are ultimately decided by players. Until the NBA institutes some sort of "coach deathmatch", where each NBA team sends their coach out to battle the other team's coach for the win, NBA coaches don't decide the game. Granted, all things being equal, better coaching will prevail in a close game. But all things are rarely equal in the NBA. 6) Most NBA players are too immature to be 'coached'. Let's put our make-believe hats on and pretend that we're 22 years old, playing in the NBA, and a multi-millionaire. We have arrived. Now, let's also pretend that 'some old guy' is telling us our jump shot is weak and that we don't play enough defense. Can you imagine yourself responding to that coaching positively? While I think there are some players who have enough maturity and humility to accept coaching, I think that is the exception rather than the rule. So where does that leave us? I would contend NBA coaches don't really matter. Unless they have a top-notch championship pedigree (Riley and Jackson), complete financial control (Auerbach), and/or the total confidence of ownership (Popovich and Sloan), NBA players aren't likely to pay much attention. I would argue that the team management's commitment to a coach is equally as important as a coach's knowledge and skill. At least a coach with the owner's backing can trade players and influence contracts.