Bulls want their next GM to keep Billy Donovan as coach, but history says that isn't a great idea
The Chicago Bulls are preparing for front-office change with one notable condition already attached: whoever becomes the next general manager is expected to keep Billy Donovan on the sideline. On the surface, that kind of continuity sounds appealing. In practice, NBA history suggests it can be a risky way to start a new regime.
Typically, when a team hires a new top decision-maker, that executive is given the freedom to pick a coach whose philosophy, personality, and timeline align with the broader vision. When ownership dictates that the coach must stay, it subtly flips the power structure. The GM is managing around an inherited voice rather than building in lockstep with one.
Across the league, the most successful modern turnarounds usually feature a clean alignment: executive, coach, and best players all bought into the same plan. When that alignment is off, the results often include lukewarm roster moves designed to fit a coach the GM didn’t choose, or quiet internal friction that surfaces once the losses pile up.
For Chicago, the Donovan question is complicated. He is respected, organized, and has shown he can guide a team to a competent baseline. But the Bulls are not chasing “competent.” They are trying to escape the middle, a place where solid coaching can sometimes mask deeper structural issues and delay harder decisions about direction.
League executives watching this situation will recognize the tension. A GM hired with conditions is, in effect, starting in compromise. That can narrow the candidate pool to those willing to accept less autonomy, or to rising assistants who see any shot at the big chair as worth the trade-off. Either way, it limits creativity at a time when Chicago most needs fresh thinking.
If the Bulls are convinced Donovan is the right partner for their future, the best approach is to find a GM who genuinely shares that belief. If not, forcing the marriage may only postpone the inevitable and make the eventual divorce more painful.
Typically, when a team hires a new top decision-maker, that executive is given the freedom to pick a coach whose philosophy, personality, and timeline align with the broader vision. When ownership dictates that the coach must stay, it subtly flips the power structure. The GM is managing around an inherited voice rather than building in lockstep with one.
Across the league, the most successful modern turnarounds usually feature a clean alignment: executive, coach, and best players all bought into the same plan. When that alignment is off, the results often include lukewarm roster moves designed to fit a coach the GM didn’t choose, or quiet internal friction that surfaces once the losses pile up.
For Chicago, the Donovan question is complicated. He is respected, organized, and has shown he can guide a team to a competent baseline. But the Bulls are not chasing “competent.” They are trying to escape the middle, a place where solid coaching can sometimes mask deeper structural issues and delay harder decisions about direction.
League executives watching this situation will recognize the tension. A GM hired with conditions is, in effect, starting in compromise. That can narrow the candidate pool to those willing to accept less autonomy, or to rising assistants who see any shot at the big chair as worth the trade-off. Either way, it limits creativity at a time when Chicago most needs fresh thinking.
If the Bulls are convinced Donovan is the right partner for their future, the best approach is to find a GM who genuinely shares that belief. If not, forcing the marriage may only postpone the inevitable and make the eventual divorce more painful.
