by Zach Bigalke

Created on: March 12, 2008   Last Updated: October 31, 2008

Any NBA team is justified in firing their coach when they deem it necessary. Going to the playoffs is not necessarily a benchmark for success - especially in the East. The Bulls have been steadily amassing talent every year Skiles has been in control... and they have become largely stagnant.

The fact that the team has started slow most seasons that Skiles has been in control is indicative of the fact that his teams underachieve. If Skiles cannot get his players to play an entire season the way their potential indicates is possible, then Chicago has greater warrant to dismiss him.

A .490 career winning percentage in four-plus seasons as a head coach is not a ringing endorsement. His teams, while talented, are not cohesive enough to compete against their opponents on a consistent basis. The Bulls needed to make a change... 12-17, 9-17, and 9-16 seasons as the calendar turns over are indicative that Skiles is not making improvements, either in his game management or his coaching techniques. With the talent in place, the system must be evaluated... and it was evaluated as insufficient for the personnel...

When you look at the facts, you see a coach who hasn't COACHED his players into performing consistently through an entire season. This season is not a statistical anomaly - Skiles is notorious for slow starts...

Management is always within their right to terminate a contract if they think an employee is unsuccessful at his or her task. The Bulls hierarchy saw 3 out of 4 years of poor starts (12-17, 9-17, 9-16) and burgeoning talent who is going nowhere under Skiles' supervision - and it acted. There have been five years of patience with Skiles; to continue fostering the illusion that he was the final piece to get to the promised land would be counterproductive...

We have seen it time and again in sports: when a team full of players goes into a slump, you don't fire the whole team... you fire the coach. The coach might have given you some great years... but where is this Bulls' team headed? What have they done when they get to the playoffs? They beat a depleted Miami team... and lost 4-2 in every other series they have played. Skiles had discovered success, but he couldn't bring growth to the team.

Each organization must evaluate their employees' jobs and determine what they wish to do on a cost-benefit analysis. The Heat do not remove Riley because the public backlash for removing a championship-winning coach would be too great... same with Jackson, especially after coming back from retirement SPECIFICALLY for the Lakers. The Suns, likewise, would be ridiculed if they jettisoned perennial coach-of-the-year candidate D'Antoni. They evaluate the cost of keeping the coach versus the benefit in public relations.

The Bulls determined that the costs of continuing to tread water with the squad they have were greater than the costs of removing the coach. Not every coach can be the next Phil Jackson, and just because he was coaching in Chicago doesn't give Skiles the right to wallow in mediocrity in the hopes he catches lightning...

Learn more about this author, Zach Bigalke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.