>so we're gonna put this on DWIGHT now? holy shit. awesome.
>five games with dwight, get fired. how long did stan van gundy
>last with dwight hating on him? hint: LONGER THAN FIVE GAMES.
>lol.

Did I put it on Dwight? I just gave two more examples, good grief dude. Here's another one...during Bickerstaff's first game as head coach, there was a huddle shot of everyone crowded around, locked in on what he was saying, and both our commentators made it a point to contrast that with how the players conducted had been conducting themselves in Mike Brown timeouts.

>I addressed it long ago. Mike brown, whether he was good or
>bad, was fired *faster* than similar white coaches ever would
>be. Mike Brown, whether you liked him as a coach or not, did
>not get the same chances coaches of other races would get. can
>you agree to that? if so, why you fighting it? Doesn't matter
>if the racism is that incompetent whites get longer than
>incompetent blacks or if it's that competent whites get longer
>than competent blacks, shit, or if incompetent whites get more
>time than competent blacks. what matters is the inequality in
>all three. and that's what's transparent here--that
>inequality.

You are using such general brush strokes without looking at the specific context and gravitas of THIS team and situation. Name me another team where you had 3 aging superstars AND a young one whose re-signing is very dependent upon the success of the team this year? This season is not only important for the present but to guarantee our future as well. There was enough doubt with Mike Brown and his lack of improvement to give him the axe...shit, I was leading that march.
.
>i mean, from the jump, I agreed. mike brown was a bad fit for
>the lakers. but bad fits get more time than he did--or they at
>least get fired in the offseason if it's about "fit" with the
>players.

Bad fits get more time when there isn't THIS much pressure to win right now and there is a chance of your superstar center leaving in free agency.