No one should have a problem with Steve Kerr being a leading candidate for "a" coaching job.
He's a five-time champion. He's been groomed by champions. He's a former executive and a respected basketball mind who is far from the first individual with no coaching experience whatsoever to be on the verge of landing a head-coaching gig.
But that would be "a" job. As in one job. Not two jobs. Or three. Or four, depending on what reports you believe. For any individual with Kerr's lack of experience to have that many opportunities laid at their doorstep, it begs the question: "What the hell has Steve Kerr done to deserve multiple dabs at the cookie jar?"
Feel free to provide an answer to this question, folks.
Take your time. I'll wait.
For weeks, we've heard that Kerr has been the candidate for the New York Knicks' coaching vacancy. He's the guy Knicks president Phil Jackson wants. Actually, he's the only one, since no other candidate has even entered the equation. And if anyone has a problem with this, consider it nonsensical.
It's Kerr who won titles with Jackson. It's Kerr who knows the triangle offense. It's Kerr who has a personal relationship with Jackson, and is the man in whom Jackson purportedly trusts. And if the former coach with 11 rings wants a personal mentee to serve as a subordinate on the sidelines, it makes perfect sense.
But what sense do the Golden State Warriors make, since they called Kerr to gauge his interest practically minutes after firing Mark Jackson, fresh off of a 51-win season? What about the Los Angeles Lakers, who reportedly have some interest? Or the Utah Jazz, for that matter, who conceivably have zero chance of any reciprocated love from Kerr considering the other opportunities placed at his front door?
The answer would be simple: It makes absolutely no sense at all.
As unpopular as it might be to ask, I must: What exactly makes Kerr so special to anyone other than Jackson and the Knicks job? And oh, by the way, when has such an opportunity ever presented itself to any of his counterparts, especially blacks?
Avery Johnson is a former NBA Coach of the Year who guided the Dallas Mavericks to an NBA Finals, but can't get a sniff right now. Sam Mitchell, another former COY, has been relegated to depending on NBA TV and Sirius XM Radio to remain relevant.
Stan Van Gundy, an exceptional coach, is still available. Lionel Hollins can't garner interest despite guiding the Memphis Grizzlies to the Western Conference finals last year -- even while his successor followed it up with getting bounced in the first round. Some have questioned whether Mike Woodson will ever get another look after the season the Knicks just had, despite the fact that he'd just won 54 games and took the Knicks to the conference semis for the first time in 14 years just a season earlier.
We won't even bother elaborating on how former Detroit Pistons president Joe Dumars was forced by ownership to hire Lawrence Frank instead of Woodson more than two years ago, before being forced to fire Mo Cheeks about 50 games into this season. And we won't bother with how Kerr is actually a hot commodity compared to Jackson, who was just fired by the Warriors despite back-to-back playoff appearances for a franchise that hadn't accomplished that feat since 1992.
Instead, one must ask, why Kerr? Does anyone know if he can coach? Not necessarily for the Knicks' job, but more so for the several jobs apparently at his disposal?
"I've known him for 20 years," Warriors co-owner Joe Lacob said of Kerr, almost immediately following Jackson's firing. "I think very highly of him as an individual -- a great human being as well as a great basketball mind and a great pedigree."
But since when were those personal characteristics enough to qualify someone with zero experience at any level for multiple head-coaching gigs?
Has anyone taken a moment to ask if personal relationships and affections are all it takes to be a prime candidate these days, especially in three of the largest markets in the United States? What exactly does that say about black candidates -- and others -- who don't have such personal relationships to lean on?
As disgusted as we all should be that Mark Jackson lost his job after a 51-win season, the Warriors have every right to move in a different direction if they so choose. And so does Phil Jackson, particularly since anything would qualify as an improvement after the season we just witnessed in New York.
If Kerr has such intimate relationships with any of the other teams interested in him, more power to the TNT analyst. He's an incredibly nice man, unquestionably astute at the game of basketball, who deserves a shot. Mark Jackson got his without experience. So did Doc and McHale.
Except it's one thing to be a candidate for "a" job, and quite another to be THE candidate for several.