The Utah Jazz’s Coaching Search is Different This Time Around

The Jazz are evaluating several head coach hopefuls.

The last time the Jazz hired a head coach, it was clear exactly what type of outfit he would lead. The club was coming off a 25-57 season. They had five recent lottery picks each still working down the developmental path, but nobody who had averaged more than 16.2 points per game. A sixth lottery selection would join the youth brigade just weeks after the new coach was selected. In other words, it was clear to anybody involved in the process that the eventual coach would preside over a rebuilding unit’s climb back to relevance. Eventually, Quin Snyder was selected and did just that, taking a bad team with a lot of young talent and finding a way forward.

Eight years later, the franchise is once again searching for a new basketball leader. Only this time, certain aspects of the job description are a little more nebulous as they relate to the Jazz’s competitive window.

On the surface, the Jazz gig is a chance to helm a very good team that’s hoping to remain competitive in the near term. But if continued stagnation (or a godfather offer for one of their stars) were to send the club in another direction, they could find themselves needing slightly different things from a clubhouse leader. That ambiguity about their future has added an intriguing — if also somewhat complicating — element to their ongoing search.

For those in charge of selecting the next coach, that means gauging how each candidate’s strengths would answer the team’s needs in a few different competitive scenarios. A rebuilding coach may not have the competitive chops if the goal is to try to hold this core’s contention window open a little longer. Conversely, a win-now coach may be frustrated if the Jazz pivot toward a full reset at some point, or he may not have the exact right competencies to support that kind of a shift. They need to probe in these interviews to ensure that the person they hire is qualified and mentally prepared for both scenarios, as well as any number of gradations in between.

The educated guess here is that the Jazz’s preference is to avoid a major overhaul. There’s likely a line in the proverbial sand somewhere at which point the Jazz would have to consider a deal involving one of their All-Stars. But the notion that the Jazz are calling around in search of such a move is, in this writer’s opinion, likely overstated.

That said, the Jazz have tried, broadly speaking, two different roster constructions around Gobert and Donovan Mitchell. The end result has been the same with both groups, albeit with some weird circumstances and ill-timed health challenges contributing to each of their last three early exits. If they want to try a third construction before embracing a major rebuild, that likely involves trading a high-value rotation player for a piece that matches Utah’s needs better. The whispers I’m hearing line up with reports that there is indeed market interest around each of their top six minute-getters from last season.

If that is the approach — fit-based upgrades around their All-Stars with the goal of keeping the competitive window open — then their new coach’s job is to maximize the roster the short term. That’s a tall ask for a candidate pool made up mostly of first-year head coaches. It’s pretty unreasonable to expect a first-year coach to be as good as the leader Snyder developed into over the course of eight years in the role.

Ime Udoka took his team to the Finals in his rookie season as head coach, but even he had to slog through an 18-21 start before things started to click in. (Interestingly enough, the Jazz were 28-10 at that same point in time, meaning Boston was sort of the anti-Jazz this past season: they got their crap together almost precisely as the same time that things were beginning to fall apart for Utah.) Similarly, Snyder started his Jazz tenure at 17-33 before he sussed out a way to prioritize the skill sets that would enable the Jazz to blaze a path back to relevance. But even then, Snyder’s first playoff berth didn’t come until his third season.

Is there a candidate in the mix this time around who has the smarts, people skills and gravitas to be good enough right away if given the right roster? And if so, is that candidate also OK knowing that the roster could shift at some point?

Boston assistant Will Hardy has been described as “a leading candidate” by our friends at the Salt Lake Tribune, and he impressed Jazz brass. But the process is ongoing. In fact, if what I’ve heard is accurate, there are still a handful of individuals with a non-zero chance at being the next Jazz coach.

Hardy’s Boston benchmate Joe Mazzulla also made a strong impression, as did Phoenix assistant Kevin Young, Milwaukee’s Charles Lee and Toronto’s Adrian Griffin, who has been a lead assistant for seven seasons. Two assistants with Utah ties — Johnnie Bryant and Alex Jensen — also remain very much in the mix.  The Jazz, I’m told, believe that several of those seven candidates will be in head coach jobs soon, and they like things about each guy.

Terry Stotts and Frank Vogel are both longtime head coaches with career records above .500. The sense I get, though, is that the Jazz are more likely to opt a first-time head coach, largely because of the number of ways the club’s future could unfold in the medium term.

The Jazz appear to be more focused on getting the right guy than they are on speed, which creates a bit of awkwardness relative to the roster-building window. Free agents can (officially) negotiate with teams as early as this Thursday evening, and many agree to contract terms right away. Is it a competitive disadvantage for the Jazz that they could potentially be sitting down with free agents before they know who will be setting rotations, calling plays and directing player development efforts?

Because the Jazz will primarily be operating in the cheaper end of the free agency market — they can use all or part of the $6.3 million tax MLE and they can sign minimum contracts — you could argue either way. On the one hand, players signing in that range probably want a sense for what their minutes and role will look like, as opposed to the higher-tier free agents who have a pretty good idea that they’re going to have meaningful opportunities wherever they go. On the other hand, the market for minimum-salary guys and smaller exceptions tends to play out a little more slowly, once other opportunities and larger salary slots have been soaked up. (For example, Rudy Gay’s agreement at the tax MLE last season and Hassan Whiteside’s minimum salary pact were both reported by news outlets more than three full days into free agency.)

Either way, it behooves the Jazz to resolve their search as soon as they reasonably can without robbing the process of all its due rigor and seriousness. Coaches are responsible for setting the basketball identity. That means the Jazz right now are without one, and I’m sure even their existing veterans are eager to have a better feel for what’s next for the franchise.

Even beyond X-and-O structure, this is a very meaningful hire for the franchise, at a moment that is really crucial to defining the next several years. The Jazz came out of last season in a weird place emotionally, and a new coach could give everybody a chance to reset their mental energy.

More than perhaps anything else, their next coach should be someone who embodies a bit of that hope, refocusing the energy away from yesterday’s disappointments and toward whatever version of the future that coach will oversee.