I'm really struggling to follow the logic of this other popular contrarian "hot take" today that Whitman did something unethical by courting Lovie and getting a handshake agreement before firing Cubit. The whole point of the two-year deal, which was openly acknowledged at the time it was announced, was that it specifically structured to provide an option for the new AD, whoever that was, to reverse course and bring in someone else at any time. If Cubit did not want this outcome, he needed to hold out for a longer contract with a bigger buyout or not take the job. Whitman could not have fired first and searched second. For one thing, the riskiness of that approach would have been immense; we could have gotten hung out to dry on an epic scale. And second, we'd have no leverage in negotiations even if Lovie or someone else was interested in the job. It was either do it this way or retain Cubit. There was no third option.
So, are these critics of ours really suggesting that the "right" thing to do would be to pass on Lovie, sit on Cubit until the end of the 2016 season, and then take our chances with whoever we could land on the open market during silly season ten months from, all because it would be considered kind of jerky for some people for us to exercise a clause that was part of the deal from day one and gives us an opportunity to massively revitalize the program which we may never see again? I love the hypocrisy of all this. Like these sports pundits judge teams and athletes and sports executives by how nice and considerate they are, and not on sheer results. Like these same guys' hot takes next November after we went 4-8 wouldn't be to critique that "amateur" Whitman for letting it happen.
Pathetic.
