No Hidden Agendas in Defense of Pat Riley
By David Ramil
The truth, unlike fact, is always subjective. It is personal, an interpretation and thus cannot be considered binding. You’ve likely heard the expression that there are three sides to every story – one side, the other side and what actually happened. Therein lies the issue in trying to understand the legacy of Pat Riley in Miami.
Riley delivered his usual season-end address on Monday, summarizing an unsuccessful 2014-15 campaign while looking ahead to the future. When asked if there was any lingering resentment toward LeBron James and how he unceremoniously left Miami last July, Riley quickly answered, “No.”
But in a follow-up question about the upcoming free agency period, the team president’s answer was interpreted as a thinly-veiled slight to James by saying that during this summer there will be “no more smiling faces or hidden agendas.”
Riley quickly backtracked when asked if that was directed at James, responding that the comment could have been about “anyone across the board,” implying that there’s always a little deception in the art of player negotiations.
Still, Riley’s response has been quickly weaponized to attack his character, further evidence of a career built upon “ruthless business decisions.”
ESPN’s Brian Windhorst is wielding the mighty pen in this case, using Riley’s own words to draw what Windhorst perceives as hypocritical blood. His argument is that Riley shouldn’t cast any stones at James for the way he departed considering that Riley himself has “burned several” bridges throughout his career.
More from Heat News
- NBA 2K24 Ratings: Takeaways and reactions to Miami Heat player ratings
- Miami Heat’s Nikola Jovic gives entire world reason to love him
- 1 Advantage the Heat have over every Southeast Division team
- Three former first-round picks the Miami Heat should take a chance on
- Former NBA exec says Trail Blazers should take Heat’s Tyler Herro in Damian Lillard trade
The problem with Windhorst’s claims – his version of “the truth” – is that they’re all far from factual.
He first points out that Riley “made a name for himself” as coach of the Los Angles Lakers, falling luckily into his first job as a head coach. In reality, Riley had been the lead assistant to Paul Westhead who had coached the Lakers to their first championship. However, Westhead had largely succeeded because of a commitment to a fast-paced playing style implemented by former head coach Jack McKinney, who was himself fired by owner Jerry Buss after a biking accident led to a prolonged stint in the hospital. Westhead kept that prolific offense in place, won a title in 1980, and then sought to implement a vastly different (and less effective) offense.
Westhead was fired at the start of the ’81-’82 season and Riley, a former player and broadcaster, became the head coach.
Windhorst compounds the mistake by saying that Riley “bolted the Lakers when a prime broadcasting job opened up at NBC”. Again, he obscures the facts to his benefit. Riley had been struggling to lead the Lakers by the time he resigned in 1990 but the decision to leave the team was a mutual one, and he was actually “forced to resign after nine seasons by owner Jerry Buss because of mounting player dissatisfaction.”
Riley eventually resumed coaching – this time with the New York Knicks – but ultimately resigned in 1995 after four very successful seasons. However, Windhorst again uses a widely-accepted narrative to continue his attack on Riley.
The story goes that Riley resigned his post with New York out of the blue, sending his resignation letter to the team by fax machine after agreeing to a position with the Heat. Bereft of journalistic integrity (it is ESPN, after all), Windhorst labeled the move “cold-blooded” and “conniving”.
He conveniently omits that Riley’s negotiations with the Knicks has been at a standstill for weeks; he wanted control over the team that the Knicks refused to give it to him. Riley has since clarified the situation on multiple occasions, explaining that former team president Dave Checketts was well-aware of the situation and that an internal power struggle with Knicks general manager Ernie Grunfeld was the actual reason for his departure. This is glossed over by Windhorst’s creative use of the phrase “cutthroat maneuvering with the Knicks.”
With Riley moving on to the Miami Heat, you might think he’d be free of Windhorst’s barbs, especially considering his 20 years of success alongside owner Micky Arison.
Far from it.
Windhorst continues to rewrite history when he examines Riley’s “calculating” relationship with former franchise player Alonzo Mourning. He describes how Riley had sold Heat fans the idea of Mourning as a “team legend” but incorrectly writes that Riley moved Zo to the New Jersey Nets in 2003 in favor of “younger and healthier” players like Lamar Odom, Caron Butler and rookie Dwyane Wade.
The reality, one very different from what Windhorst misreports, is that Mourning’s lingering health issues had held the franchise hostage for years. While you can hardly blame Mourning, who fought bravely through a kidney disease that was once considered potentially fatal, his huge salary was an albatross the Heat could ill-afford to carry (imagine combining Steve Nash’s contract with the Lakers and Josh Smith’s with the Pistons to have an idea of the impact). Riley had built a team around Zo but with Mourning more frequently out of the lineup than in it, the team struggled regularly and fell out of the playoff picture for the first time in Riley’s tenure with Miami (it all worked out, though, as the lottery pick that resulted led to selecting Wade fifth overall in the 2003 draft).
When Mourning had reportedly returned to health and became a free agent, he – not Riley – decided to move on from his tenure with Miami by accepting a four-year deal with the New Jersey Nets for more than $20 million. Riley had desperately wanted to re-sign Zo but couldn’t commit such a high salary to a player whose health was, at best, questionable. The decision would ultimately be one of Riley’s best, as Mourning would struggle with the Nets, and be considered one of the team’s worst free-agent acquisitions in recent memory.
Windhorst saves his best attack for last, somehow managing to simultaneously blast Riley for how he mishandled James during free agency while comparing the two as “fuzzy mirror images” of one another. He uses several examples – the draft selection of Shabazz Napier, the free-agent additions of Josh McRoberts and Danny Granger and, of course, Riley’s “bizarre and mildly-insulting” 2014 end-of-year speech – as signs indicating how the situation was bungled from the start.
But Windhorst points out that James, like Riley has allegedly been throughout his career, was “callous” and “exceedingly calculated” in his decision, taking several days to formally announce his choice to join the Cavaliers. He points out that Wade and James spent several days together without LeBron ever saying “one word about his future,” despite having already given his exclusive interview to Sports Illustrated.
It’s telling that the end of the vitriolic piece is where Windhorst finally seems to sympathize with Riley in that he may have fallen prey to the same Machiavellian behind-close-doors dealings that he himself has allegedly perfected. In truth, it just seems like sour grapes – Windhorst has been hanging on James’ coattails for years, working his way up from an Akron-area beat reporter to the glorified offices of the World Wide Leader.
It’s less sympathy for Riley and more petulant anger that SI’s Lee Jenkins, and not Windhorst, scooped him for the story of the year.
It fits perfectly with Windhorst’s lazy and misguided narrative. He conveniently bends “the truth” to his favor, while ignoring the facts. The irony is almost too rich that in pointing out Riley’s alleged failings and hypocrisy, Windhorst reveals his own just as easily.