This is the mentality that exists in the heirarchies of the NBA that really bugs me ... a guy gets his team to the Eastern Conference Finals, and yet his job is more in jeopardy than a guy who coaching a last-place team. Huh? I just don't get it.
"OK, you got us to the semi's, Flip, but since you couldn't get us over-the-top, you've got to go!" Jeez ... I mean, I'm not crazy about the guy, and yes, this team has come close many times and not seemed to have the final thrust, but when a guy's getting you so deep each year, don't you think he's doing something right? Wouldn't you'd sooner think your team is just a player or two short?
It's a bit baffling to me, and it's the same "made or trade" philosophy that players are assessed by today. Sorry, but there's something to be said for consistency and loyalty, and I miss the teams of the 80's, whose core groups were kept together as much as possible, in order to achieve the familiarity and consistency that the best teams have had. Today, if it's at all questionable ... trade him ... or fire him, and roll the dice again.