The Sacramento Kings have narrowed down their coaching search to finalists Mike Brown, Steve Clifford, and Mark Jackson, according to reports from Shams Charania and Adrian Wojnarowski.
Mark Jackson has emerged as a finalist for the Sacramento Kings head coaching job, sources tell me and @sam_amick. Kings GM Monte McNair has begun to notify candidates whether they will move onto in-person meetings.
— Shams Charania (@ShamsCharania) April 30, 2022
Golden State assistant Mike Brown and Brooklyn consultant Steve Clifford are among finalists for Sacramento Kings’ head coaching job, sources tell ESPN.
— Adrian Wojnarowski (@wojespn) April 30, 2022
While the reports don’t definitively finalize this as the only three candidates still in the running, there’s nothing to suggest that any other candidates are still in contention. This means that the Kings have narrowed down the list to three coaches with previous head coaching experience.
Other candidates had included Darvin Ham, Will Hardy, Charles Lee, and Mike D’Antoni.
Coaching Profiles
Mike Brown
Steve Clifford
Mark Jackson
Update: James Ham has confirmed that Brown, Clifford, and Jackson are the only three finalists.
Confirmed that the three finalist for the Sacramento Kings head coaching job are Mark Jackson, Steve Clifford and Mike Brown. The other four candidates have been told that they are no longer in the running. In person meetings are next.
— James Ham (@James_HamNBA) April 30, 2022
Hahahahahaha… was there ever any doubt?
Monte’s decision?
..
This is not good at all. Jackson shows either Vivek is still meddling or Monte and Co have their head up their ass.
Why get a young upcoming coach and build like so many teams have started doing when you can hire re-treads and asshats?
Oh, and Vivek, go fuck yourself.
He’ll sure as shit defend it like it was his decision if Vivek picks Jackson. Like I said sarcastically when this came up last week, Jackson’s reputation for creating division and chaos certainly seems to fit the Kings management ethos.
That’s part of the GMs job though. Fair or not.
You think he just put Jackson’s name out there to please his boss after all? Probably never considered him but if it gets his boss to stop nagging him about it. I can see it
Vivek was there in Oakland when all this went down. Lacob said not one of the two hundred staff there liked Jackson. That would presumably include Vivek, wouldn’t it? Why would he be ok with this hire unless monte wanted it? I’m just not understanding the logic of this hire from anyone’s point of view.
You’re looking for a rational decision. Does Vivek strike you as rational when it comes to bball decisions?
I think he’s canny about making money, at the very least. Hiring Jackson with his very public anti-lgbqt stance is one way to turn off some of the fan base. Why even chance it? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I’m looking at the final 3 as this is Mike Brown’s job to lose at this point. I would be hard pressed to see why the Kings would prefer Clifford over Brown (mainly due to health reasons), and it’s even more difficult to see Jackson over Brown largely due to the fact that Mike Brown is actually coaching. Mike Brown has spent more time in this stint as the assistant to Steve Kerr on GSW’s bench than Mark Jackson has ever spent time coaching period.
I get why Mark Jackson didn’t return to coaching though. He’s got a great gig working one of the top analyst spots for ABC/ESPN. I can see why he wouldn’t leave that to be an assistant, and frankly, I don’t think that’s why he’s a good candidate for this job. The Lakers I get because they could probably use him and can afford whatever coaching staff he needs to get the job done. But the Kings can’t.
Mike Brown is capable of working with Alvin Gentry and Doug Christie and even Rico Hines, and keeping the staff on as is. I don’t see Mark Jackson being able to do that, and frankly I don’t see a first timer being able to pull it off, either. I guess the difference is I can see Mike Brown figuring out a way to get past that and bridge the gap where I’m not convinced anybody else would do as well.
And this is just one element of what makes the Sacramento Kings such a messy place for head coaches and players alike. Too much goddamn chaos and dysfunction. With Mike Brown, at least you know what you’re getting. Steve Clifford too, I just don’t see him being able to potentially stick around as long as Brown could.
Vivek is not a “staff member.”
He’s above such riff-raff.
That’s one thing Vivek and Jackson have in common. Nobody in the organization liked them.
Well this isn’t what alot of people wanted to hear, that’s for sure. Me included. I’m hoping there’s a young guy invited in the list…. but if I have to pick one (of the 3 named) I’d pick Brown if he’d take the job.
Same here, though I think if it’s one of these young guys they might be easier to be manipulated by this dumb ownership company to cave in to their unrealistic and sometimes outrageous demand. Brown and Clifford are at least the type of coaches who have both the reputation and track record to put their foot down.
It’s Brown or bust for me at this point.
I’d be okay with Clifford, but less enthused. Like I’ve said a few places in this thread, I had Brown, Ham and Hardy as my top 3 anyway.
I don’t have a problem whatsoever with Mike Brown as the next head coach. I think he checks a lot of boxes that this team needs, and one of those is a veteran coach who can manage a complicated roster with a complicated messy organization. I can see why, Ham and Hardy in particular, a first timer might not be the best choice given what the Kings are facing.
That said, I’d be a lot more excited about Darvin Ham over the longer term, and I’d be more excited about Will Hardy, too. It just might be a time and place thing.
What concerns me most, really, is that Mark Jackson is a finalist. And I’m hoping that’s mostly lip service as a veteran. I don’t see any way fans wanting to see Mark Jackson as a HC. I see that in LaLa land, but not here.
I guess we’ll find out in a week or 10 days or so.
I know I might be in a bit of a minority, but I would be fine with Clifford. I watched a lot of Orlando for a few years, I was following Oladipo’s career and for some reason enjoyed Vooch’s game. I think he is a good coach, smart game planner. Not a sexy pick, but did some decent work with a very mediocre roster in Orlando.
I am not sure I am completely buying the Mark Jackson rumors. I wouldn’t put it past Vivek to be doing a favor to Jackson and his agency by giving him some good press after hearing Jackson complain earlier in the year that the Warrior narrative has ruined his coaching opportunities.
I think what’s more important is that it pretty much hands Mike Brown the job if he wants it at this point. And I highly doubt Mike Brown would end up a finalist in LA, Charlotte, or Utah (if that opens up). So the strategy might not be to end up with the absolute best 3 finalists but 3 guys who fit a certain criteria (previous HC experience) and are known quantities. With the top guy (Brown) and another guy who might wow you more in person than he did on Zoom (Clifford), and another guy who can say we gave a shot to (Jackson).
Maybe that’s just hope on my part, though. It very well could be. But something tells me this is probably McNair’s call and I just don’t see McNair wanting to get after it with a Mark Jackson type.
I agree. I think Mike Brown would be a fine pick as well.
I know Jerry has mentioned a few times about how he trusts a guy who has done it before, and Brown has a pretty damn good resume.
Not every rookie coach with a good pedigree is going to be Willie Green or Ime Udoka. They could be Brian Shaw, Nate Bjorken, or Luke Walton.
I think it is important to note Adelman was thought of as a retread as well, not to mention Monty Williams.
Brown says Brown is good
As long as it’s not Jackson, I’m okay. A new commodity would have been more exciting, but also would’ve been higher risk (and, yes, higher reward). There’s something to say for predictable competence. Of course, there’s always the possibility that the new commodities were advised by their mentors to avoid Sacramento like the plague and removed themselves from consideration, so this is the final three by default.
None of these 3 days excite me, but I could be OK with Clifford or Brown. If it’s Jackson, we as a city need to go nuclear on this org.
All arrows are pointing towards him
All aboard the USS Retread! Your destination? The middle of the ocean where you will do circles for a couple of years before groundhog day resets again.
Either that, or the hire will actually start moving the ship in the right direction only to be fired for…reasons. (Malone and Joerger say hello) Then groundhog day resets again.
Best summary yet of our next two years.
Of course it’s those 3 candidates who are the finalist for the Kings job! It would just be another Kings special “Signing them for 4 years to coach for 2 years”..
Let’s go Mark Jackson!
#Kangz!
Mark Jacksson was disliked by the entire Warriors organization, but he is a final three in our coaching search….wtf Monte. Grow a pair and tell Vivek no!
No one says no to the smartest guy in the room
Mark Jackson led the Warriors to the playoffs and then he got fired. Was it because they knew Steve Kerr was so much better “suited” to the team (official story), or was Jackson just a behind the scenes nightmare?
Jackson was a nightmare.
Part of me wonders if these are the only 3 that are interested more than it’s Monte narrowing it down. 2 of them aren’t even in the league right now.
I’d guess the likes of Ham, Hardy and Lee would be more interested in the Hornets or the Lakers. Kings only get the leftovers from the poo poo plater.
If Snyder leaves Utah, that’s immediately the most coveted position out there.
Pops may hang them up too. If the Spurs job opens up, that’s even more competition for quality coaching.
Maybe this is just Jackson trying to get leverage to land the Lakers job. I’m sure LeBron and Davis will love getting anti-gay preaching in the locker room.
Lbj and AD are gay?
My point was more that I’m sure those two stars, after having such an embarrassing season, would just love to end up with a coach who has other agendas besides trying to win.
Besides, Hollywood and homophobia isn’t a great looking combination, but hey, if the Buss family wants to take that leap, they can go right ahead.
Sam Amick said the other day on Deuce and Mo podcast that Snyder is reported to be burned out from coaching and probably would take a break before taking another gig
So he’ll be ready in 2 years, when we fire this incoming coach.
I don’t think the young assistants who have never been a HC would be picky about attaining one of thirty positions in existence.
Have you seen what this organization has done to coaches over the last 16 years?
Of the 11 coaches since Adelman, only one is still a head coach in the NBA. We joke that Sacramento is where a player’s career comes to die, but it seems to be the same for coaches.
To be fair, only two of the coaches we’ve had in that time deserve to still be head coaches in the NBA. I’m thinking that once he gets “fully” recovered, Joerger will get another HC gig.
Mama, there goes that fanbase.
Lots more malarkey where that came from. Kangzz!
Here we go again.
Fuck this FO!
If Jackson is hired as coach, I will cease being a King’s fan. My interest is minimal as it is – watched no games this year – but this would be the death knell.
Bye bye
We’re the most cursed franchise in the NBA
..
Two guys that preach defense, and one guy that preaches for whom there is no defense. Got it.
The only defense against Mark Jackson is having mace in your purse. What an unrepentant scumbag he is.
But you know, also self-righteous, which is a terrible combination, unless you seek to get ahead in politics. Selecting Jackson would be at least as bad as selecting Bagley over Doncic, just another crippling move by a franchise that is already dragging itself across the floor with its one good arm.
Why am I not surprised?
This was almost exactly my thought.
WHY
We absolutely need to flood Mark Jackson’s social media inboxes to try to convince him out of the running. He’s the only one that could save the Kangz from themselves.
I just did. I sent this to his Instagram account as a direct message.
“Please stop. You are a fine commentator of nba games. If you are hired as the Kings next coach you will destroy the very thin ice the fan base is standing on at this point in time. You will not be welcomed by Kings fans in Sacramento. It will be ugly. Please stop. I’m begging you. There’s is absolutely no good that can come from this. Keep the very good job you have and enjoy a happy life. Thank you.”
I’m glad that the only laughter I can enjoy as a Kings fan is this type of interaction because of how bleak things are. If Mark Jackson is hired, I’ll tune out anything Kings until he’s fired and we’re in the same position. As part of my studies in Kinesiology, I took an elective in sports psychology and the Kings have effectively broken every rule ever written for building up athletes and a franchise. I’m now confident that my couch GM abilities surpass this organization. This is a bad episode of Seinfeld.
Thanks for speaking for all of the fans. Boy do we need more folks like you.
I’ve already adopted the handle I needed in anticipation of the slow-motion catastrophe that is the Kings organization. (That said, deep down I’m a fan and actually really like the current roster once we can add a real 4.)
It was a nice dream…
Put me back to sleep!!
If it’s Jackson that might be the last straw for me. It’s like we made a deal with the devil to keep the team here. The team stays but we get the worst owner in professional sports.
I don’t believe this report. Sorry.
Had it said Mike Brown and Steve Clifford are the finalists for the kings head coach position then I would believe it. The fact that Mark Jackson is listed makes me wonder how informed this report is.
this is click bait reporting as far as I’m concerned. Lord knows I hope my intuition is correct because man, if Jackson is the choice then say goodbye to Sabonis and Fox. Aren’t they supposed to have some input I’m on this choice. I can’t imagine Sabonis would be happy if Jackson is his next coach.
James Ham has confirmed this, also.
James Ham only knows what the organization tells anyone.
I hope it is a lie…..l.
This is patently false. But, believe whatever you want I guess.
James Ham has the Kings interview schedule?
The Kings are notorious for not dealing with the local media. He knows what Kings put out there and what everyone else reads.
If there are reports from Shams and Woj and those are being confirmed by Ham, it means it’s real. Choosing to believe those three are collectively wrong or lying to you, that’s just you being in denial.
My point is that James Ham reports what the Kings tell him or what he reads. The same stuff anyone with the internet can read. Woj, Shams, etc…
I like James Ham but, he is a local Kings reporter. The Kings do not do anything with the local media. Realistically James Ham is not the best source for Kings mews because the organization controls what he knows. They talk to the national media first.
It is not my intent to say that James Ham is lying. It is my intent to express my hope that this crap about Mark Jackson being seriously considered as a coach is a lie. Mark Jackson putting it out there because he is what he is. The Kings putting it out there for whatever reason. Who knows?
I sincerely hope that it is not true.
Hamm does not work for the Kings anymore. He speaks the truth again, as he did before he worked for them.
Never said he does not speak the truth. I did say that he only knows what he is told by the organization or reads what other journalists report.
I hope that Mark Jackson as a finalist is a lie from the organization.
Better run this by the Ministry of Truth.
It’s still a circular firing squad among those three if the source isn’t reliable, which we can’t know, since he (and it is a he) is too chickenshit to go on the record.
He doesn’t report everything he knows. There’s a difference. There’s a fine line to walk when you’re a local reporting providing local coverage. If you think Jason Andersen or Jason Jones, Sean Cunningham or anyone else in the media is dumping it all out there, you’re crazy. It’s not how that works.
The national media is who the Kings talk to, not the local media. Anything of any substance does not come from the local media first. It should but, it doesn’t.
KANGZ
I respect this POV, but I completely and wholly disagree. I’d even go as far to say that this is complete and utter bullshit. The dynamic is different, therefore what gets reported is different.
Local media dynamic is different. We agree there. The organization could improve greatly by actually allowing the local media to have a local advantage. It would give the front office more credibility in my opinion.
IF you are being critical of the org for how they have handled media members, totally 100% agree ABB. If you are being critical of the Ham, Cunningham, Jones, Anderson’s of the world (and more than just them), that’s where I draw the line.
I don’t care who reports what first. I get far more information from Ham, Cunningham and Brenden Nunes on their pod (and from Jill Adge if I listened to hers– which I do not– and that says nothing about her) than I have from national sources. Woj and Shams might break the information ‘first’, but I care much more about being right.
The whole ‘Mark Jackson was a finalist’ thing was for shock value, nothing else. And for an hour I was fairly rocked by that list and wholly underwhelmed by it.
But Jackson excepted, I totally get where McNair is going with that list, and I think Ham presented that in his Sunday Musings yesterday pretty well. If the Kings choose Mike Brown (and it seems like that’s where this is going) and it ends up working out for a half decade or longer, will it really matter that you didn’t choose Will Hardy or Darvin Ham? No. Look at the column Ziller wrote this morning in GMIB about Mark Jackson. There’s a pretty compelling argument, I think, for Jackson to coach…..the Lakers.
But I’ll be listening to Tuesday’s pod with Ham, Cunningham and Nunes (if it’s a trio) to see what they say. Why? They are local media and they know once you walk that horse out of the barn you can’t walk it back in so to speak.
The Kings are not the source for most of the national reporting. It is usually agents or the league office because the Kings need to formally request permission to talk to employees/consultants from other organizations.
Had those “Kings rumours” are a lie before?
Fxxk that why not even one assistant coach are on the list. (I really doubt how comprehensive those interviews had been)
Also, why they just can’t wait longer to wait to see if other playoff coach would be released, so the FO can add them (like Q Synder into consideration)
Let’s try to think like Monte for a minute. Monte is a conservative GM. The evidence: two fairly safe draft picks, not matching the Bogi extension, taking his sweet time in making any moves.
The question for Monte doesn’t seem to be “who has the highest upside?” if that were the case, we have some more inexperienced finalists. Instead, the question seems to be “who has the least downside?“ or “Who has the most bankable median outcome?”
The good news is, that isn’t Mark Jackson.
The other two are a toss-up, but my guess is Mike Brown, only because that pick probably makes Monte‘s constituents a little happier. Golden State connection for Vivek, a less boring brand of basketball for the fans.
I think you’re on to something. Monte has shown himself to be extremely deliberative, patient, and middle-of-the-road in his thinking. Honestly, after the extreme dysfunction of the Pete D and Vlade eras, this may be exactly the kind of leader the Kings FO needs– someone whose number one goal is to avoid shooting himself in the foot by getting cute and going against the grain. Not sure that’s a recipe for a championship future, but it may also be a recipe for, at the very least, a competent future. That’s progress around here.
So next season 32 wins and 11th in the West . Wow, sounds like a great strategy to lose the shrinking fan base .
This fan base is going to shrink a lot faster if they make the mistake of hiring Jackson.
I’m half guessing the addition of Jackson to the list is to make the hiring of Mike Brown all the more palatable. Unfortunately I don’t think it makes the playoffs any more realistic in the near future. I’m wrong a lot, though.
This is quite the salient take. And I will point out, too, this fits with Houston hired coaches as well. That’s definitely something to remember.
I was hoping for Ham or Hardy of the group named. But clearly that was not where this was going.
Just when you think it can not get worse, but with Vivek ,its always possible .
NBA 3.0! (Vivek’s grade as owner: 1.0, as in ‘D.’ That’s the only D we have on this team–and don’t count Doug Christie, he’s not active any more.)
Honestly. If Mark Jackson becomes the Kings coach I think that will be it for me. I’ve been through a lot of good and bad times being a fan since the year they moved to Sacramento but this would almost definitely seal the end of my fandom.
We’ve already watched enough terrible basketball under the guidance of a scumbag head coach. Damned near anyone other than Mark Jackson would be a tangible improvement.
I’m probably the only one that would be fine with Mark Jackson as a coach. In fact, I prefer him over the other two options. Regardless, if it is Monte’s decision I am all for it.
Also, I encourage people to read up on the Mark Jackson situation. It isn’t as black and white as people are making it out to be.
Mark Jackson burner account found.
Just kid……..
I mean why you would prefer Mark Jackson than the other two ?
Haha i think when it comes to basketball we arent giving him nearly enough credit. he got a young team to buy in and were ready to fight for him. and they played defense. ive also watched a few clips from former players and coaches about mark jackson and not everything is black and white as people make it out to be
Why even argue for Jackson? This was like when they hired Puke. Everything pointed to Walton being a shitty coach, because he was.
Same with Jackson. No one has hired him since the Warriors got rid of him, and yes, it is black and white. He’s a problem, so why the fuck even go down the path?
Kimgs need to stop going against logic and reason. And you are agreeing with Vivek, yet another sign that this os a terrible idea.
if this is true, it again proves the organization and ownership are a complete joke.
Anyone have some interesting names out there for our next GM in two years?
If the Kings hire Mark Jackson might as well pull out the rolodex for David Kahn
Can I be allowed to be objective without getting blasted off the blog? IMO, Jackson thus far is as qualified as any of the other candidates. Is it possible that he learned from his mistakes as Warrior coach and will be a much better coach this time around? He must have impressed Monte with the first interview to even get a second interview.
I was never sure Mark Jackson had a child until now.
C’mon man. Wow.
This is a bit much.
Ok, adopted child then. As an adopted individual I can make that joke.
He hasn’t coached, or even been an assistant coach, since he was fired by the Warriors in 2014. He has no other coaching experience other than his 3 years with Golden State where he improved the team each year. If he hasn’t gotten a job in the league over the past 8 years there may be something going on there.
That’s the thing. He improved the team each year. Who’s to say he can’t do the same with the Kings if he’s provided an upgraded, balanced roster.
That’s an acceptable theory. Unfortunately, nothing about McNair’s tenure shows he’s capable of either upgrading or balancing a roster.
I guess the Kings didn’t acquire Domantas Sabonis for a 2nd-year non-All Star and Buddy “Negative Asset” Hield, after all? Come on now.
The Sabonis Kings didn’t bring additional wins over the previous roster, nor is it (or has it) been anywhere close to balanced.
I like Sabonis and liked the trade. That said, I don’t see this roster going out and competing for a playoff (or even a play-in), next season. Buddy, for as much as I disliked him, looked almost like a competent player after leaving.
That’s on buddy. He was an absolute disaster on the kings. Fuck him.
This is a solid point. Even if Haliburton turns into an mvp 2 years from nowvthe deal for Sabonis in exchange of a non allstar 2nd year player that hasn’t proven shit is a pretty sweet trade.
facts are facts. The deal was a sweet deal in the moment and considering all historical factors of nba prospects. Could it backfire? Sure. Doesn’t change the fact that it was an awesome trade all things considered.
and for the record…. I LOVE HALIBURTON and I was pretty upset when the trade happened.
Who’s to say 100 other qualified coaches who don’t have hooker articles or homophobic articles written about them can’t do the same thing? There’s bold moves and then there are completely idiotic moves.
I had said in a previous article that after reading the tweets and other articles about his tenure in Golden State I wouldn’t consider Jackson. It’s on Monte, whomever his hired, just get it right.
Should just copy what I said above…why even argue for Jackson? All he’s proved is he was a problem and was fired. No other team has picked him up…why do you think that is? Because he’s a problem.
And why hire or argue for someone who is t good/worth it.? It’s Puke all over again.
But you can continue agreeing w Vivek.
Coaches who are successful, even if they are substantial assholes, will always get jobs, and that’s hardly a fact exclusive to the NBA.
Do you have any idea how big of a pile of shit you need to be to not get hired after having reasonable success as a head coach?
Even knowing what we know about Jackson, I guarantee that there’s even worse stuff that teams are aware of, or he’d have gotten a coaching/consulting job before now. He’s polarizing as fuck, and that’s not a thing that good teams can overcome, let alone the Kings.
There’s just no sugar coating any of it…we truly are doomed with Vivek running this clown show.
As fan we can’t vote for the choice but you can voice opinion based on game attendance.
As for my one opinion, and the Mark Jackson question- it would be a perplexing choice for GM McNair as it will label his career. He finished the late two seasons with disappointing results and advocacy for sticking with Luke Walton. Should he proceed with a Mark Jackson hire, I would insist he get a 4 year extension, were I his agent.
We have seen polling that tacitly approves a Mark Jackson hire from The Sacramento Bee and this information, along with a surprisingly vocal contingent on TNT would be used to support the selection.
As for me – The 2 unsexies – Steve Clifford and Mike Brown are fine choices and should not be dismissed. They know the game, have strong resumes and are Association stalwarts. They do not have the panache of a Ham, Lee or Hardy but that isn’t a negative in my book, just not as shiny a look. Clifford and Brown are interchangeably safe choices. For them, it is a chance to return as Head Coaches – believe me, Sacramento is no one’s first choice.
For the 1st timers, after a play-in/playoff with Wilie Green, Taylor Jenkins, Ime Udoka – a new face is highly desirable. And after all is said and done, it must be a tough sell to be on Vivek’s Kings. It’s about as ugly a legacy as there can be (at least NY has Madison Square Garden).
Clifford <> Brown
Solid points, all around.
I agree with Adam. Solid points. And we really don’t know why the final 3 are who they are.
I’m just hoping it’s not a deal of ‘these are the candidates left standing.’ That will not inspire confidence from anyone.
My attendance in past 4 years (not including COVID): 0. There, my vote counts. Fact is, Sac people will pay anything and continue to go to games no matter how crappy this team is. As long as that happens, Vivek’s making coin and doesn’t have any incentive to actually win.
My two favorite sports teams are the Kings and the Kansas City Chiefs (I used to live in Kansas City and followed the Kansas City Kings until they skipped town, became a Kings fan again when I moved to Sacramento during the Kings’ heyday).
Watching the NFL draft this weekend and then reading this report. What a difference? As usual, every pick the Chiefs made looks solid. The Chiefs haven’t had a losing season since 2012 and it looks like they’re going to keep on rolling. Meanwhile, the Kings might hire Mark Jackson. Why? Because he used to coach Golden State. Didn’t we learn our lesson with Luke Walton?
Back in the 80s when the Chiefs were in their playoff slump, draft day was always a mystery. They picked who? The Kings had some decent teams in the very early 80s. but then the early version of the Kangz emerged. Phil Ford, who they picked over Larry Bird, and had superstar potential, got hurt and was never the same. Then the team started winning just enough games to not be able to draft Hakim Olajuwan or Patrick Ewing or Michael Jordan (say hello Reggie Theus and LaSalle Thompson). Then the team moved out to California someplace and that was it.
I picked up on the Kings at that same time as well, I was a big Phil Ford fan, and I enjoyed Otis Birdsong a lot (tried to mimic his jumper), Sam Lacey (would be great in today’s game), and the great Phil Robinzine.
For the most part I have thought Monte is doing a decent job. I’ve defended him on here numerous times and always thought while somewhat true the Vivek meddling was overstated.
I originally thought Jackson was just part of the group to appease Vivek. Maybe that’s still the case. I don’t super care who else it is out of the other 6 suggested , but if it’s Jackson there’s really no defending Monte anymore. I don’t even care if they win 50 games with the guy. He’s a colossal douche bag and can’t stand the thought of him representing my favorite team. As others state, I’m out if Jackson is the choice and I will have been woefully wrong about Monte. Fingers crossed
I would call it major meddling when Vivek and Brandon chose Bagley over Doncic and surprise surprise Bagley is drafted. You can’t suck this bad every year under Vivek’s ownership and not realize it starts at the top.
I really thought Vivek like to draft Doncic。
He looks so happy in that “Dinner photo”
Are you implying that it wasn’t a dinner, isn’t a photo, or both?
Don’t disagree with the last part, but Vlade has owned that pick numerous times on the record and said he was the one who made the pick. Gave numerous reasons why, even after he was let go and could have tried to change the narrative. There seemed to be an organizational consensus…unfortunately.
As much as I dislike Vivek Ranadive, he’s not responsible for every problem the Kings org faces right now. Really, when you get down to it, Vlade Divac was a bad judge of talent who missed a lot in the draft. With ample opportunities multiple years to get it right, no less.
If the Kings are going to hire Jackson, the team should insist that he rely upon a great offensive assistant. Jackson was terrible with offense at GS, and he was resistant to change, very outdated.
If we’re just going to hire an(other) unexciting retread, someone explain to me why we didn’t just keep Alvin Gentry? It’s not like there is a massive jump in quality from Gentry to Brown/Clifford, and Jackson is a downgrade from Gentry in my book.
Like others here, if it’s Jackson, I’m done, and I’ve been going to games since the very first season in the Arco I warehouse – almost 40 years of fandom – done.
I’m ok with Brown. He’s definitely got the best resume, by a mile, out of the three. My preference was Ham, but we could do (and have done) a hell of a lot worse than Brown.
If I had a final 3, and obviously I don’t, I’d have picked Brown, Ham and Hardy.
So if Mike Brown ends up being the choice, I’m okay with it. Steve Clifford, too, but as a distant 4th choice.
Nothing about this feels exciting, not as of yet.
Ham was my #1, as I’ve seen copious amounts of positive press about him (not just in connection with this opening, but in general). Aside from that, I had three coaches I have no interest in: D’Antoni, Clifford, then way far back Jackson.
D’Antoni I got, but he was just too old. Clifford, I get too, but the health issues scare me about him more than anything. I still don’t really get the appeal of Mark Jackson even if some of the players on the roster might like him and be willing to play for him. I think most of these guys would do that at this point in their career BTB.
I have continued to get the feeling that it’s MIke Brown’s job unless he doesn’t want it.
And1: I had this feeling since Friday listening to the TKB pod with James, Sean and Brenden with the way they are talking. Mike Brown, for all his warts and everything else, just might really be the best candidate for this job. And this is, for better or worse, a very complicated job.
Great point about the difference between Gentry and Brown/Clifford. I expect the same results.
I told you it is going to be Jackson , we aren’t letting Shaq steal him to the Lakers!
I hope that if Jackson is hired, all who say they will stop being Kings fans live up to their word. Also, please stop commenting on this site. Stick to your words, it will be appreciated!
What does being a Kings fan have to do with commenting on this site?
After watching Willie Green inspire that Pelicans team, all I got to say
Please save us Doug Christie!
DC, if he’s interested, easily becomes my No. 1 choice
Actually, Bobby Jackson is more experienced and deserving than Christi .
You are damn right…
I would prefer Bobby Jackson or Dough Christie over Mark Jackson and Steve Clifford
I’ve already been on the record as hating most of these (especially Mark Jackson. However. I did some research that pulled some interesting results. I looked at who the coaches were who broke the longest playoff droughts for nearly every NBA team (with a few exceptions that I’ll get to). The data on it was interesting to say the least. If you’d rather jump right to the data, you can look here for yourself. Here are some highlights that were note worthy.
*The average age of coaches who break droughts is just a few months from 50.
* Only 3 were internal hires (current assistants) and only 3 others had any previous ties to the organizaiton.
* It was a pretty even split on former players and non-players.
* Most of the time if a coach doesn’t get there in the first two years they aren’t. There are a few high profile exceptions (Don Nelson, Mike Dunleavy and Frank Layden) Our own Gerry St. Jean holds the record for making it in his fifth year.
* Only twice (!) has a coach ever broken the drought without having been a head coach before. One of which was St. Jean.
* They averaged 11 years of head coaching experience at the time of hire.
* Nearly 1/3 had coached in college or semi-pro as a head coach.
I have to admit that all of this surprised me. I anticipated confirmation bias telling me that sharp young people with short but impressive track records under great coaches were going to be the legit curse breakers. But that’s not what I saw. It’s not even close.
Here’s what I didn’t look at with this deep dive. I didn’t look at successful hires who continued good trends. I didn’t look at how many chamiponship winners were first time coaches, or how many first time coaches made the playoffs. That’s someone else’s weekend night that gets sucked away. I just wanted to see what traits were there in the coaches who took a foundering team to a respectable one. I know that ignores factors like roster and so forth, but in a vacuum, I think the data says some things. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the business book “Good to Great”, but with all due respect that’s not what we’re doing. We’re building out of the muck. We’re just laying foundation that’s good enough to go somewhere.
Monte is a Data guy, and with all due respect, Vivek is too. You don’t accomplish what he’s done in the Tech world and even with the Arena without understanding metrics that matter. The data sides strongly with someone who has been there before, who has enough experience to stick around, and who has a strong feel for what they do as a coach. In that light, I get the picks of Brown and Clifford. If I squint, I can see a couple of weak comparisons to Mark Jackson.
Does any of this mean anything? No. I’d still have liked Ham or Hardy. I’m surprised we don’t have a single assistant advancing here unless I just magically replicated a study Monte already had done. But we’re not looking to make a leap from good to great. We just need someone to get us respectable. And, frankly, Mark Jackson oversaw that too.
All things considered after this deep dive, I’d go Mike Brown. He’s dealt with big egos. He’s been respected by them. He’s about the right age. He’s been on the bench for 3 rings in the last 20 years, and he seems to be super high character. Heck, maybe we draft Bronny and lure LeBron to snag that sweet sweet six seed in a couple years.
+1 — The teams I didn’t look at.
I didn’t look at a Blazers coach because they’ve have not had a playoff drought over 4 years since the merge. Same with the Rockets. The Hornets don’t have a good number because they were out of the league for a time. Pellies have a lot of 3 year gaps and I didn’t count them. I also didn’t include the Spurs becuase their longest drought is their current one under Pop, which hardly counts. Also of note, Miami’s longest drought in their existance since expansion is 3 years.
I also included the double droughts of the T’Wolves, Wizards/Bullets, Clippers Warriors and your 2007-???? Sacramento Kings!
Excuse the typos. I’m tired and just wrote another long paper. I write reviews of plays for Utah Theatre Bloggers.
Only grammar nazi’s give a shit, Scotty.
Oh, you mean my mother?
Ahahahaha. Fair. I, too, have a grammar nazi for a mother.
Seriously, this is not a doctoral thesis you are writing so it’s not that serious. And if I have to spend 5 minutes even figuring out what the grammatical errors are, it’s not worth it.
Seems the Kings should just keep Gentry based on that and he coached a playoff team in NO in 2018.
Entirely possible. I think with a clean slate he’d have been a reasonable consideration. But I think Monte knows that just sticking with the status quo wouldn’t have done it for anyone. Even Mark Jackson is at least change at that point.
Yep. Mike Brown’s age and experience.
This is amazing, thanks for sacrificing one night of your life to do this. Certainly counterintuitive for me, but just because something is intuitively attractive doesn’t mean it’s right. And lol at your line about Monte doing the exact same research project.
Thanks for the spreadsheet and great comment, Scotty. You make a great argument for MIke Brown, in particular, and I always did think Brown had a good shot at being the next head coach. He also doesn’t give me giggle fits and makes sense as the next head man.
I guess I was more or less looking forward to a younger guy which is why I’m mostly disappointed. It’s a path, that so many have pointed out, the Kings have never really tried outside of Michael Malone.
My exact impressions. And Malone was a huge success. Same with so many others that are true successes. I’m guessing that whoever we hire isn’t going to be going to the Hall of Fame based on their time in Sacramento (though if they break the curse amid all the crap here…) but it at least gives me some context for what the F.O. could possibly be thinking.
This is the way I look at it Scotty (and I’m curious to hear your thoughts, of course) w/r/t Mike Brown.
He has experience dealing with challenging and chaotic situations as a head coach. He has experience as an assistant in stable organizations.
I think it’s instructive for a number of reasons. In some ways, I consider a Mike Brown hiring to the Kings to be similar to Terry Stotts when he got hired in Portland. He was a two time loser retread (ignoring the fact that the rosters in Atlanta and Milwaukee weren’t all that good), he inherited an All Star big in LaMarcus Aldridge and a talented, but not what he would ultimately become, PG in Damian Lillard. A year later they draft CJ McCollum. Within two years they are in the playoffs. Lillard and McCollum, for everything they did and did not do, played well under Stotts. They just never made that championship leap, and, well, what’s new about that? That’s true of a lot of talented teams like the Blazers.
Mike Brown has coached 4 50+ winners (and the last 2 years with LeBron James in Cleveland 60+ wins) in his first 5 years on the job in Cleveland. He had a winning record with LA even if people mostly remember his time there for the chaos. His 2nd go around in Cleveland had a young Kyrie, a young Tristan Thompson and one of the greatest 1:1 busts of all time in Anthony Bennett (hello, David Griffin!) and a young Dion Waiters. But did he get fired because he only won 33 games with that group? I doubt it. LeBron James didn’t want to play for him again. And that is simply that.
Brown was out of the league for 2 years and has been with the Dubs under Kerr as an Assistant since 2016. Let’s start there. First, I’m not giving Brown primary or a lot of credit for player development. That goes to the players, and then Steve Kerr. After all, the head coach’s philosophy is what you are working with as an assistant. But….I think it’s interesting the players that heve developed since Brown has been the assistant there. I think it’s interesting that in the last several years, you have had young players from Toscano-Anderson, Payton II, Damion Lee, and other players under that system. Again, not giving Brown credit for that. Just saying he’s a successful part of that system and that system is finding a lot of talent for cheaply at that.
Mike Brown has been helpful in a veteran turning his career around in Andrew Wiggins, a notable young player taking a major leap in Jordan Poole (and that’s taken a whole village in truth), and helped integrate a Hall of Famer, out with really what used to be a career ending injury, back into the rotation and helped Klay Thompson be productive while doing that.
Is Mike Brown really that responsible for all of this stuff? No. He’s an assistant, and while assistants matter and everything else, assistants are not the name on the door. But Steve Kerr has consistently praised Mike Brown for everything he has done (stuff that we know about and stuff that we don’t), just as he did with Alvin Gentry and Luke Walton, as well. Mike Brown gets praise from Draymond Green publicly, and for his defensive acumen. That’s worth something to me, even if not making you necessarily qualified.
Mike Brown has coached Damion Jones when he was the Warriors, coached Chimezie Metu on the Nigerian national team, certainly has opinions on DiVicenzo, Mitchell, Fox and Sabonis, and probably has a good feel for the rest of the guys on the roster that could be here if the circumstances aligh correctly. He might even have an idea on how to play Richaun Holmes and Domantas Sabonis together if Holmes can’t be traded this summer (I highly doubt that– though). That’s all a part of being prepared. Mike Brown is nothing if not a meticulous (highly OCD to quote Ham and Cunningham off TKB pod) and prepared guy. He might have loosened up a little in Dubby Dubs land, but he’s still an OCD type.
I can see why the Kings tilted away from a first timer with the funky dynamics of the veterans on the roster and the challenges of putting together a 2 way roster, the forever chaos agent looming in the background, and a fanbase frustrated and tired with a complete lack of success in just about every way imaginable (keeping the team in Sacramento not withstanding).
If you were looking for a defensive coach, who has seen significant player development of both veteran and young personnel, a coach with history in chaotic and messy situations, a guy with coaching experience of some of your role player options and a firsthand knowledge of them, and a guy who could come in and find a way to make a challenging, but talented, dynamic offensive pairing work?
Perhaps the area where Brown has learned the most from Kerr is figuring out how to maxmize offensive contributions from players while not sacrificing defensively. You don’t stop growing as a coach just because you have a reputation.
If you told me all of that as the 7 names were announced, I would have told you there was only one candidate back then that checked all those boxes. And even if Mike Brown isn’t the most inspiring choice today, it’s really about whether or not it works. There’s a lot of reason to believe Mike Brown could very easily work, and much better than a first timer like Darvin Ham and Will Hardy (or Charles Lee for that matter).
In the end, I was always hoping for Mike Brown if he was the veteran coach chosen (Warriors angle aside), and largely because his body of work is an interesting development that has seen him grow from where he was when he first started in Oakland under Kerr. After all, it’s not just assistants that learn from the past before getting their first job as the head man. It’s also former head men that grow, too. Evolving is part of the job as a coach, and perhaps Mike Brown is more evolved than any of us realize. If that is indeed the case, I think I probably prefer Mike Brown over any of the other candidates regardless of coaching experience.
The return of Pookey!
What do you mean I’m back? I never left you dinkus.
True, to an extent.
That post rose to peak vintage Pook-tivity tho
Fine, I will grant you and Spackler that point upon much reflection. Spackler’s still a dinkus, though.
And that’s exactly where that I landed, too. Would I have loved someone who checked a lot of those boxes with more relatable success (Quin Snyder?) Sure! But Brown really seems to get it, and I think that it will be useful for Mike Brown to be able to talk about what he’s seen work for Kobe, LeBron, Steph and more. Sabonis seems like he’d eat that up, and I imagine that he’s given his input as well. I think that you don’t get a list like this that spits directly in the face of the wishes of your best players, as well as, from what I see, history.
I think that Ham and Hardy will land successfully when they do (same with lee). I don’t think that D’Antoni would struggle to succeed as much as he’s got a shorter runway a la Hubie Brown. But I think that there are much more sound case studies out there to look at what makes coaches work in specific situations.
At the end of the day, we don’t know what happens behind closed doors, what they know, or discuss. That’s already a huge upgrade from Vlade posting pictures with his off-season plans. It’s already an upgrade from buddy hiring (which is of course the worry with Mark Jackson). But Monte strikes me as a person who is willing to stump for what he believes works and what the data will support. I don’t have a crystal ball, but so far it’s much better and I’m coming around.
Unless it’s Mark Jackson. Woof.
You bring up a great point about the data and how Monte goes with that. Perhaps one area Brown has improved on in GSW is incorporating data into his coaching. The Warriors are a data driven org in many ways and perhaps Brown grew more comfortable in that area than he was before. I’m just noodling here, I don’t know for sure.
Woof is a great way to describe how I’d feel if the Kings hired Mark Jackson. And I predict alot of fans stay away. There’s just no way to justify him in Sac even if there’s justification to hire him again elsewhere.
I forgot to mention this as well, but in the spreadsheet the only 1st time HC to break a drought other than Gerry St. Jean (in his fifth year?) Mike Brown in his second. With Lebron? Sure. But still eye catching.
Mike Brown made the playoffs every year he was in Cleveland. He was hired in 2005, not 2004. Paul Silas and Brenden Malone coached the 2004-05 team.
But your point stands about Brown coaching the team that broke the drought in Cleveland.
Another take, as an embarrassingly long time Kings fan, is knowing with complete certainty, that this fan base, desperate as we are for reasonable accomplishment, can talk ourselves into almost anything.
Mike Brown – absolutely. Steve Clifford – sure, I can do that, gladly for either of these two.
__________________
Mark Jackson doesn’t cross that line of reasonable acceptance for me. I can’t convince myself that anything he does, even successfully, will amount to much more than waiting for the other shoe, one in support of his disreputable nature, to drop.
Were this an organization with a history of common or higher standards, choosing Jackson would be surprising, even unsettling. However I would consider my team’s well earned legacy of fan and franchise trust, and I’d talk myself into the “this guy is ready to show he’s learned and let’s give him a chance”. But Kangz.
Brown and Clifford are top soil – I can picture growth and blossoming. Jackson has dug his reputation a hole, and he has to dig out of that muddy depth or he’ll bury GM McNair with him.
Yep, no doubt true. I’ve talked myself into a few things over the years. Although not lately, though, I will say.
But Mark Jackson will not be received well. And I have a few theories as to why he was included in the final 3. Mainly it was the defensive improvement of the Dubs during his time in Oakland. It’s not as big a deal as Clifford or Brown, but I can kinda see why he’s on the final list.
I do believe it’s Mike Brown’s job to lose.
Soilid analogy…
At this point, I don’t care what this franchise does. They have drained every ounce of goodwill out of this fanbase.
Does anyone believe Monte is the actual GM ? Asking for a former Kings fan .
Maybe he is but isn’t a very good one?
Either Brown or Clifford will be fine. I like that two of the finalists are Defensive focused coaches, which shows that the organization might have a clue as to what their areas of improvement are.
Jackson…no, please no.
Oh dear Jesus why would we expect anything different from this clown show. I hope a meteor hits the Mark Jackson introductory press conference.
Every time I try to get excited about this team, they kick me in the nuts.
They’re like Draymond and CP3 all rolled up in one.
3 coaches with losing records. Yup, Kings!!!!
FWIW, this isn’t true. Steve Clifford has a 292-345 record for a .458 win percentage. That’s better than every coach in the Sac era except Adelman.
Mark Jackson has a 121-109 career record for a .529 winning percentage.
Mike Brown has a 347-216 career record for a .620 winning percentage.
You and your facts.
Mike brown has a 241-352 win loss record.
these are facts. Alternatives to those other ones. Prove me wrong. Actual counting of games that have been recorded digitially, accounted for in the nba standings each year he coached and all that stuff is debatable at best. Wherever the data you’re getting information from is false.
sarcasm font
I try to be positive, but if the pick Jackson I’m done. It’s possible to quit an abusive relationship. After years of suffering I broke up with United Airlines. It’s doable.
For sure. I figure hiring Jackson helps grow the clown show, so I’m definitely on Team Jackson.
#HereWeBillbroadAgain
#NoMarkJackson
It seems like Vivek Ranadive is someone who can’t take advice from anybody else, and will continue to “double down” on a course of action to matter how poorly it goes.
In regards to Mark Jackson, I firmly believe that he’ll be hired as the next head coach.
Mainly because VR seems to be determined to show everybody what a genius he is. If we all think this is the wrong hire, he’s going to show us how stupid we are for doubting him.
Worst owner in all of sports.
It is folly to take this seriously. The owner is an egomaniacal twat and his Mctoadie will do what he is told. For all of us who thought that Doug would be an idiotic choice…checkmate. This has got to be intentional. Can’t be this stupid. I’m going to go put on my purple tinfoil hat now.
Ladies and Gentlemen let’s welcome your 2029 Las Vegas Kings.
I feel like the restaurant owner in Goodfellas. It’s a f*cking shame.
The coach won’t matter. These guys are all competent and the marginal difference is virtually nil. You want something new and different, hire Randy Bennett from St. Mary’s.
Here’s the real problem.
To keep Sabonis he will have to get a max contract. We then have two players not superstars on max contracts and no willingness to spend beyond the cap. So management then needs to fill out the roster within the limited remaining cap space and expect to get players to compliment Fox and Sabonis that will produce a playoff competitive roster. An almost impossible challenge barring a miracle with the draft lottery.
The answer is to tear it down and trade Fox and Sabonis and build through the draft and take on a bad contract in exchange for young talent. Sabonis to Portland for this years and next years first with some salary fillers. Fox to somewhere else for a similar deal perhaps to Boston for 2022 and 2024 first plus Pritchard and Nesmith and a salary filler. Maybe Barnes plus salary fillers Holiday and Len to the Warriors for Wiggins and Moody.
Then you have Mitchell, Moody and Wiggins plus perhaps 7 first rounders in the next three drafts. You could quite possibly put this team on the court next year.
Mitchell, Pritchard
Josh Hart
Nesmith, Moody, TD
Wiggens, Murray, Harkless
Horford, Lyles, Duren
Koloko, Queta, Horford
That would be an exciting young team that will struggle but will get a lot of NBA playing experience next year. In 2023 we have 2 more first round picks, and two more in 2024. That’s the best blueprint to move forward.
Btw there are 15 players with similar roles to Fox that are better. Lillard, LaMelo Ball, Morant, Harden, Antetkombo, Curry, Murray, Murray, D. Mitchell, Trae Young, Garland, Brunson, Kyrie, D. Russell, Beal, McCullum,
Jordan Poole might also be better now.
Sabonis and Fox are gonna have to put up monster numbers next year for this team to even have a chance to make the playoffs next year. They might be able to pull it off but keeping Hali and trading Fox for whatever you could was the smart move. This is contradictory to what I said about hali after he got traded but I think he’s gonna absolutely ball out next year, I just have a gut feeling
I think you’re correct. When I say being playoff competitive that means making the playoffs and also making some noise in the playoffs like winning a first round matchup. This roster is miles from accomplishing that and a couple of tier two and three free agents will not get us there. Sabonis and Fox are not good enough to carry a team. They need a couple more players close to their abilities plus several solid supporting cast players. They have neither at the moment.
Don’t forget the part that nobody wants to come to basketball hell.
True something else to consider when trying to build the roster.
I guess I’m just hoping for Mike brown to get hired out of this list. I was hoping we would have given dawn Staley an interview in the original list.
This off-season has been so underwhelming. I’m only looking forward to the draft now.
Kings scrape the bottom of the barrel again. The only thing I’m confident of is that Vivek will make the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. NBA 3.0!
More specifically, choosing Mark Jackson would be the stupidest move. Hence, I’m betting that’s what Vivek will do.
It could be possible that the 3 hot shot assistants with the most options dont want to take the first job offered, when the lakers are open, and also the jazz, charlotte, and sixers could be coming. If kings got idea that those guys would simply use them for leverage, they could just be cutting the chord.
I also don’t think it is egregious if the owner (who will always have to sign off on the coach) wants to go with a more experienced coach.
And finally, I read somewhere that Mark Jackson is repped by Klutch. So maybe his name still being out there is some agent shit.
So hope for Mike Brown I guess.
These coaches aren’t winners and Mark Jackson says the most dumb obvious stuff as an announcer. I just keep adding years to when I think the Kings will be good again.
smell like VR to me. M. Jackson is worse than terrible. Mike Brown would be ok but what in the world is wrong with Ham and Hardy? too young? come on.
For what it’s worth…Ham is almost 49, Brown 52. Hardy is young though yes.
Mark Jackson? I fucking dare you, Vivek.
Badge Legend