In a brief session with reporters on Saturday, Grizzlies general manager Zach Kleiman accepted sole responsibility for the decision to dismiss head coach Taylor Jenkins, but he didn’t explain why he felt a coaching change was necessary, writes Dave McMenamin of ESPN.
Kleiman spoke for less than three minutes during the team’s shootaround (Twitter video link), stating that he didn’t talk with any players before opting to replace Jenkins. It was his first public comment since the move was announced.
“I came to the conclusion that this is in the best interest of the team, and urgency is a core principle of ours, so decided to go on with the move,” Kleiman said. “… The players were not consulted on this decision. This decision is mine and mine only.”
McMenamin notes that hiring Jenkins was one of Kleiman’s first major decisions after being put in charge of the front office in 2019. Jenkins leaves as the winningest coach in franchise history, compiling a 250-214 regular season record, but he had limited success in the playoffs, winning just one series.
The Grizzlies are in the midst of a 9-13 slide after starting the season 35-16 and rising as high as second in the West. They are currently tied with the Lakers at 44-29 and face a difficult schedule the rest of the way as they try to avoid the play-in tournament.
Kleiman opened his remarks by thanking Jenkins for his years of service to the organization and saying that he has a bright future in the NBA, according to Jonah Dylan of The Commercial Appeal.
“Taylor made very significant contributions to this team on the court and off the court during his six years here,” Kleiman said. “Leaves the team in a much better position than when we started. Great person and a great coach, and he’s going to be a great coach in this league for a long time.”
There have been rumors that star guard Ja Morant has been unhappy with changes to the offense that emphasize movement over screens, leading to him playing off the ball more often than in past seasons. Responding to a question about Morant, Kleiman reiterated that the move wasn’t made in response to player complaints, per William Guillory of The Athletic.
“I’m focused on how we operate. I’m responsible for everything. I’m responsible for coaching. I’m responsible for the roster. I’m not trying to absolve myself of anything. I’m excited to see what this team can do the rest of the way,” Kleiman said. “This is the conclusion I came to that this is in the best interest of the team and we push forward with this group.”
Assistant Tuomas Iisalo was named interim coach in the wake of Jenkins’ firing and will guide the team for the first time tonight in a showdown with the Lakers. Kleiman refused to say whether the rest of the season and the playoffs will be an audition for Iisalo to become the permanent coach.
“Looking forward to seeing what he is able to do with this group,” Kleiman said. “There is realistic expectations. There’s not going to be time to install a bunch of things this time of the year. My expectations are clarity of direction, and we’ll see what we can do, we’ll see what we can execute.”
Sounds like he should go be the co-GM with that idiot in Dallas…time for these GMs to learn their place.
He’s not even 40 and never played the game, what right does he even have to a GM job? The owner and whoever hired him made a horrific choice and they should fire Kleiman and rehire Taylor.
Learn their place? As in be the lead decision makers?
He’s owning the decision, and that’s good thing. But explaining it would also be a good thing too, particularly in light of the circumstances. He dismissed a HC that established his team’s current culture, and did so with 10 games left in a successful season, all without consulting any players. That’s certainly not self-explanatory, and stating that it was his decision exclusively doesn’t add anything. He owes at least his fanbase (aka the people the team is trying to sell playoff tickets to) something.
This whole thing reeks of “cocaine decisions”…
> did so with 10 games left in a SUCCESSFUL season
“Successful”?
The team has beaten only 1 opponent with over a .500
record in 8 weeks, was 9-13 in the easiest quarter of their season schedule, and with some embarrassing losses where the players appeared disinterested.
> all without consulting any players
That’s typically the way it’s done. It’s also common for GM’s to say so even if it’s untrue. Do you think players want it public that they were involved in a coach’s firing?
They were missing JJJ for a good chunk of that where he just returned from like a 5 game absence and Ja has missed a lot of that stretch as well and seems to be bothered by lingering injuries. Outside that one big game Ja has been pretty bad lately
Zach Kleiman is like 36 years old and is too immature for his job, and is also a lifetime Bulls fan, so giving him a job on another team is self-sabotage.
Really? – “typically the way it’s done”-? LOL, no, certainly NOT, when there’s 10 games left in the season. They’re in the playoffs with the current #3-5 seed, so its a successful season to date. Beyond that, it doesn’t matter what their 2k rating is or your opinion (or anyone else’s) regarding how “good” they are. Coaching decisions made on the coaching merits are (solely) off-season or very early season decisions for people who understand what coaching is. This decision was either made not on the coaching merits (90%), or the guy making the decision is clueless on the nature of coaching.
Dude, firing the guy now means the players are assumed to be the reason, almost irrebuttably. He doesn’t help the players with this kind of statement.
DXC, You removed the context from my statement, “that’s typically how it’s done”, when I stated how a firing occurs.
When a GM fires a coach, he will always take complete responsibility, and he will typically say he did not consult with players, even if he had.
Players don’t want that label. And players won’t feel free to offer an honest opinion unless it’s in confidence.
A FO can only shield the players from that by creating an (affirmative) believable narrative to the contrary. Not just a statement guiding people away from the obvious narrative.
Maybe Kleiman didn’t feel the need to do that because he knows that there is a real story (which will come out at some point) that exonerates the players from a charge of being complicit, and/or also indicates he had no real choice, or only a series of bad choices. So, give the media a glib version of what happened without any real lies and then let them go at it.
Sounds like a power trip. He’ll be the next to go.
These rich guys already have everything they want so they find ways to show people they are powerful. Fire a helpless man and take food off his family table? Who cares. So long as a rich owner makes a headline and can point to his name in a newspaper. Makes me sick.
Helpless man? Food off his family table? It’s a rich dude firing another rich dude. Give me a break
You must love the taste of Italian leather since you enjoy licking the boots of the 1% so much…makes me sick
Front offices worry little about creating a narrative of any kind about a firing.
To the contrary, the less said about any kind of firing, the faster it’s forgotten, which enables all attention turns to the new order. Kleiman doesn’t have to explain any further, and he won’t do it voluntarily.
Writing was on the wall at start of season when Jenkins had to dump his staff and institute a new offense. Jenkins should’ve resisted such change. He didn’t so it was just a matter of time.
How do you know he didn’t do so?
Doesn’t look like a boss. Looks like a yes man to the most important people in the world… Sports athletes
You need a veteran coach, veteran staff and two veteran players on the the bench preferably a big man and a guard to help direct this young team out. Veterans have been an important thing in the NBA until this era of narcissists
Can this guy fire Coach Finch now too?