As an NBA coach you are generally hired to get a team more wins than it had with it's previous previous coach with the possible exception of teams that are tanking. Veterans players tend to bring more victories than rookie players, therefore it is generally accepted practice that the new coach is going to play the more experienced players on his new squad. Another reason for veteran players to play in front of rookies is to keep egos in check in the volatile NBA locker room. All this can be understood, however some coaches have been known to play veterans over rookies, simply for being veterans. Maurice Cheeks - "For sure. They get first crack. I'm a veterans' coach," Cheeks said. "Guys who've been around, they get first crack at most things but they have to get the job done." Pistons coach Maurice Cheeks is a firm believer that rookies should be seen, not heard. Now I can understand if a team is winning that you don't mess with the formula. I also have no major issue with a rookie earning playing time. I can even understand showcasing a veteran on an expiring deal for trade purposes. But at what point does a GM, who drafted and/or traded for players to fill specific roles demand that his coach play those respective players if they are not being used? 1 month, 2 months, trade deadline? How much is a reasonable amount of time to give a coach or are you a believer that the GM should have no say whatsoever and stay away from the actual games??