When the news broke yesterday that the Kings had chosen Mike Brown as their new head coach, I was relieved. It wasn’t the elation of having absolute confidence in the Kings new coach, it was relief that they hadn’t chosen a worse option.
But the longer I reflect on the process to hire Mike Brown, the less relief I feel.
The Kings started off with what I felt was a rather inspiring pool of candidates. Darvin Ham, Will Hardy, Charles Lee, Mike D’Antoni, Mike Brown, Steve Clifford, and Mark Jackson. It was a mix of first time candidates, experienced coaches, offensive minds, and defensive minds. But as the process continued it became clear that the Kings truly care about two things: defense and experience.
And if that’s what the Kings wanted from their next head coach, why did they assemble the pool that they did?
If the Kings wanted a defensive focus, why did the Kings bother interviewing D’Antoni? If the Kings wanted experience, why did they waste the time of Darvin Ham, Charles Lee and Will Hardy? And if the goal was experienced coaches, why didn’t the Kings interview coaches like Kenny Atkinson, Terry Stotts, or Frank Vogel?
Perhaps Mike Brown still would have emerged from that group, but it feels like the initial candidate pool was less about collecting a group of candidates who fit what the Kings wanted, and more like a candidate pool meant to check off every box and generate excitement from various factions of fans, even if it ultimately led to disappointment.
In the coming days and months we may learn even more about the process behind the coaching search, but it’s hard to have faith in this organization when Mark Jackson was a credible threat to beat out Brown. It’s hard to trust that this was a methodical coaching search when we once again had reports that Vivek was overly involved and could overrule his basketball decision makers. The fact that Vivek allowed McNair to pick his head coach should be a standard expectation, not something the fan base should feel excited abd relieved about.
It’s not my intention to take anything away from Mike Brown. If the Kings wanted experience and defense, Mike Brown is an excellent candidate. Of the three finalists for the job, Brown is the youngest, has the most coaching experience, and has the best career win% as a coach. But it’s hard to take the decision seriously when it feels like Brown didn’t actually beat out the pool. Over half the pool never even stood a chance, according to what the team was actually wanting in their next coach. And Brown vs Jackson wasn’t a battle of merit so much as a battle of GM vs Owner. I believe the Kings hired the best candidate of their three finalists, I just wish I had confidence in the process that got us here.
Hopefully none of this matters. I hope Brown is the right man for the job and can bring us back to success, no matter how he got the job. But in the league where we often hear about trusting the process, we’re left to ignore the process and trust the results.
I’m shocked, I tell you, shocked to the core that the Kings had no clue how to conduct a coaching search.
This team bores the hell out of me with their ineptitude. Pretty soon it won’t fun even making fun of them. But hey, that No. 7 pick in the lottery will turn the tide. Bet on it.
I am not shocked and you are undoubtedly sarcastic. But’s that’s fine. Sarcasm is required here.
Ineptitude- yes. I am still at the angry and perplexed stage- you, I believe have reach acceptance which is indeed boredom.
Is “the process” Vivek’s new nickname? He’s really the one thing that we should all fear.
Move Over Murphy, you have met your match
I think this is reading too much between the lines and looking for something negative. Their choice could have depended on a number of factors, including familiarity with the roster make up, current strengths and weaknesses, and what can/should be done in terms of draft and roster construction. They may have had an open mind to pick the guy who has the best vision for what this team can and should be in the short and long term and Mike Brown may have just been best aligned with the organization.
I’m with you here. To quote Lindsey Graham “This is a giant nothingburger”.
On the other hand, if you could get McNair to engage in an open, honest discussion about how he went about constructing his list and why individuals either made the list or didn’t make the list that would provide some very interesting insights into Monte’s thinking.
Lacking that, this is just another exercise in meaningless handwringing clickbait.
You got me to click though so there is that.
click, click
But honestly how is he going to improve this team?
He will be barely around when the draft occurs.
and he inherits a team that dumped it’s worst defenders last season. The old “let’s clean house trick” is blunted.
I do believe their is still a lurking/dark cloud of Vivek. He is the only thing to fear. Maybe he’s backed off but it’s tenuous. The foundation is shaky as hell. The fact that Jackson was even considered speaks to that.
But McNair does seem to have decision making power. For how long? Who knows. Hopefully it’s a corner turned.
And quoting Graham on anything is equally as gross as Vivek’s ego. Which is Vivek’s big flaw. Not putting his trust into wrong person, as purposed by someone on this site in another thread.
Say what you want about Lins, they certainly know a nothingburger when they see it, having pushed dozens of them for decades.
I agree. I think Kings fans are suffering from PTSD and maybe not completely ready to see (or acknowledge) that things really might be different under Monte. It’s too soon to tell whether the moves he’s made will work out, but I’m encouraged that he’s slowly cleaning house, the organizational leaks have essentially stopped, and he has yet to make an indefensible move. There are a number of valid reasons Monte could have started with those 7 names—I’m not going to waste my time and energy handwringing over the why when the the result is Mike Brown. The next indicator to watch for is Brown’s assistants. Stay tuned…
That would be false.
Every organization has leaks, but relative to what the Kings had been, or to what we see from other teams, I think the Kings’ leaks have have essentially stopped. It’s also likely that some “leaks” are strategic, and it’s hard for us to know when that happens. The point I’m trying to make is that from the internal leak perspective, the Kings now just seem like a typical NBA organization rather than the dysfunctional sieve they were before Monte. Baby steps.
The head coach hiring process has been one leak after another.
And what evidence do you have that that came from the Kings front office?
The national media heads who cover the Kings leaked what the front office is doing. Other than that….
I know you WANT to believe the leaks have stopped, but the never-ending front office leaks over the last several weeks suggest otherwise.
I know you WANT to believe the leaks haven’t stopped, but in a coaching search there are many people involved in the process but outside the organization (e.g., candidates and their agents) with more to gain from leaking information. The point I’m trying to make is, for the first time in years, the leaks pertaining to the Kings seem to be pretty much in line with the rest of the NBA. Like I said, baby steps.
Hard to decipher all this. The final goal/aim clearly seems to be defense minded coach + experience. But that goal was not present at the outset. Did the goal evolve or reveal itself once the candidates were initially interviewed?
In my view, setting a goal first is the best way, not letting the goal emerge within the scattered process.
My goal would have been to build culture, togetherness, let the roster reveal the strengths of offense and defense. Hence, my goal would have resulted in a young an emerging coach- Lee, Ham or Handy. This would have been parallel to NOP (Green), Minnesota (Finch) , Memphis(Jenkins), Suns( Williams) etc. who all hired inexperienced but emerging coaches who have all built a culture and team identity and then looked at strengths to move towards offense or defense.
But if the goal is defense and experience, then Brown is the right guy. And he can achieve some of the culture goals that the young guys bring.
He might have enough experience to attract some players. Kyrie-?? (big joke)
His assistants are key. Does he choose or does Monte?
They will work together.
Williams was a head coach in N O for several years .
Once a hater, always a …
😄 😄
Any “process” Vivek is involved in worries me.
Genuine question – Do people feel Vivek is still better than the Maloofs?
See Amonk81’s comment below. I couldn’t put it any better.
Yes
My two cents (disclaimer: the following is not actually worth two cents):
The question remains as it pertains to whether or not this organization chose the right path when they traded Haliburton for Sabonis, basically eschewing a total rebuild for the hope of a quick turnaround. But given that this is the chosen path, I think that Mike Brown was the leading candidate.
This is not an organization that is currently interested in growing its own head coach, giving him/her the on-the-job training of motivating multi-millionaire professional basketball players. This is an organization that wants results right now, and Brown seems best-positioned for getting the most out of Fox and perhaps even growing Sabonis a little.
I count about eight or so NBA coaches that I would rather have than Brown for this squad, and about the same number of NBA coaches where I would rather have Brown. That leaves a dozen coaches with whom I find him interchangeable.
An important point in his favor as he does not historically appear to be a head coach that clashes with the front office, which may have been a contributing factor to the end of Malone and Joerger here. In that regard, Brown may be the best blend of coaching talent and organizational fit since Adelman. Important to note that I am casting no blame towards Malone or Joerger here, as I think that both front offices were in shambles when they gated these two guys. But Brown just seems to be less of a blunt instrument than Malone and Joerger, and that could work in his (and the organization’s favor).
None of this really matters much if the Kings don’t figure out a way to significantly improve the top of the roster, as has been discussed here by numerous members.
I was on the Darvin Ham train (mmm, Ham), but I understand the Brown hire based on the narrow path that the organization has chosen to pursue. I’m still not setting aside any time for the 2022-23 playoffs, but I think that the Kings made the right choice based on their chosen path.
The Chosen Path
Well, at least we’ll never have to worry about being out front.
Mama, there goes that man
top tier comment. props
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both. And be one traveler, long I stood. And looked down one as far as I could. To where it bent in the undergrowth; Then took the other, as just as fair, And having perhaps the better claim, Because it was grassy and wanted wear; Though as for that the passing there.
Me: AAA?
You: Robert Frost, pinhead!
The hat fits me.
You two tramps should toddle off to mudtime.
#KThxBye
Google maps
So, a guess as to your coach rankings (not a worst to best but for this squad):
Prefer this coach:
Williams
Spoelsta
Udoka
Lue
Jenkins
Budenholzer
Nurse
Popovich
Interchangeable:
Kerr
Malone
Bickerstaff
Fitch
Green
Snyder
Rivers
Donovan
McMillan
Carlisle
Casey
Daigneault
Prefer Brown:
Kidd
Mosley
Unseld
Nash
Stone
Thibideau
Billups
And you thought I was joking…..
Vivek: “How do I convince them I’m not meddling?”
Matina: “Right before you hire Brown, leak you want Jackson.”
Vivek: “Niccccccce.”
…
Congrats to anyone who gets relief from the latest revolving door down at The Old Clown Show.
Agree with your tales but I do see on 3 occasions now that Monte seems to have won. Not hiring Doug, firing Walton and now Brown.
Is that enough to sustain and win?
Well there is that pesky on-the-court issue.
Ha. They are a mess, and I’m dubious Vivek gives up power but maybe a small move toward that.
Also– Dumars is gone after trying and failing to usurp Monte’s authority. Vivek clearly sided with Monte over Joe on that one. I think Monte has done a good job of establishing control over the FO and the organization’s direction. Vivek is still presumably Viveking, but Monte seems to handling him alright.
I guess at this point, I don’t really care how we got to a good result, so long as we did.
I can’t imagine that if VD had done a month-long process of interviews, but still ended up with Lose Walton that we’d take solace that the process was sensible. As long as we get sausage and not failson patè.
I agree with everything you said except the last part about pheasant pate. Pate needs more respect. 😉
Agreed, but the rest of this feels super flimsy.
Gotta say…if I was choosing a very public face/leader and of my 2 billion dollar company, your damn right I would be very involved.
In the end (if reports are true, we have no flippin clue), he had Monte choose his guy and deferred, as he should.
It’s not something to celebrate your correct, but it’s also not something to not give credit for and still find a way to spin to a negative.
Zero and I mean zero chance that certain TKH writers wouldn’t have lambasted the org for not interviewing perceived up and comers if they said they wanted experience. I would have.
That said, I don’t see a problem in getting a mixture of coaches you are interested in and seeing what they had to offer and then settling on a particular type. Maybe that’s what happened…leaping to the conclusion that the Kings were just wasting young coaches time and it was lip service interviews, seems like quite a stretch, based on anything any of us know.
Also none of us have ANY clue about the younger guys, how they interviewed, what their demands/visions were etc. We assign all these new guys certain attributes without really knowing anything since they haven’t coached. They are new and shiny…at this point Monte knows way more than any of us whether Ham, Hardy etc were the type of coach the Kings needed…for better or worse. He made his choice, you cross your fingers.
Rec’d.
The FO took their time with the search and included a wide array of
candidates, I don’t see what there was to complain about aside from including Mark Jackson as a candidate and finalist.
With where the franchise has been and where it currently sits, Brown was the ideal hire given his experience and non combative personality and coaching style.
This franchise is still an elite player away from relevance, but this hire is a step in the right direction towards competence. And who knows, maybe the draft luck falls our way and we land a third cog with elite upside to pair with Fox and Sabonis.
There is always the possibility this is exactly what they want you to believe.
I appreciate your stepping up, as it was a tremendous burden on me to be the most reflexively negative commenter.
And as ever, who is “they?” And why?
We are currently discussing the Kings front office.
I don’t believe I’m being negative at all. I believe I have a pretty realistic view of the team I follow who holds the distinction of being the worst franchise in the history of the NBA. A team who finally drafted a floor general then promptly traded him away for a center with yesterday’s game.
I agree that this could have been an opportunity to shore up Vivek’s terrible rep, but I’m so used to them doing the stupidest possible thing that I’ll settle for just plain average. I don’t love it for fixing every problem (it won’t), but at this point, all I can ask for is that I don’t hate it. At least the coach isn’t Luke F. Walton. Run of the mill competence is an actual step forward.
If they are playing 3 dimensional mind game chess with me then so be it…the results are the results and I am relatively pleased with the end outcome. \
The Kings have been a shit franchise and yet have a respectable/competent head coach who shouldn’t be the reason that prevents them from succeeding. That’s a win…helps there are only 30 of these gigs I guess.
The 1 thing I don’t agree with and never understand is the take that if I/you were owner and paid massive money to own a team you’d be involved too as a way to excuse Vivek’s ego maniacal running of the organization into th ground.
Most owners aren’t so involved they crush the organization, which is what Vivek has done. Only the shitty owners do this.
Vivek is overly involved and that is exactly why this team has been fucked. It takes a special/huge type of ego to not see over involvement causing harm.
It doesn’t excuse the results…it’s just realism. I call BS that many other owners (not all), who have often built successful companies based on their decision making, aren’t very involved.
Now, many other owners either have better instincts than Vivek when making choices or are smart enough to let basketball people eventually make decisions. But I think the reflexive take that Vivek is involved in the decision is somehow out of place/line is unfair. It’s what he does with the involvement that is questionable and in this case, I can’t find tons of fault with it on the surface without knowing more info.
My issue with Vivek Ranadive’s involvement is that it invites chaos and curveballs into the process, not that he’s involved. It’s unrealistic to expect owners not to be involved in this process. The issue is that Vivek is just bad at it.
And1: I don’t know how to solve the Vivek issue.
Agreed he’s been bad at it…but seemingly the last couple of years it does feel like basketball people are making decisions. Feels like Monte was behind the Sabonis deal. I can’t think of any other moves that have been major head scratchers. Agree or disagree with those choices, but it just doesn’t seem like Vivek is pulling all the strings here anymore. Maybe he finally learned to let the GM do their job.
In the end, none of us know jack and we frequently just fall one way or the other in terms of perception. I could just be incredibly naive to believe things may have changed.
I don’t really think it’s a matter that Ranadive has made basketball decisions (or not as often as some think). He’s just had people that weren’t good at it.
The issue is he’s erratic in decision making and overly reactive to bad moments.
Which is exactly the issue: How do you fix this? How he handles success (assuming there is any) will be instructive IMO. But I’m not sure trusting him to do the right thing is something I can ever do.
Yeah I don’t think trust is probably the word I would use…that would probably only come with some sustained success.
Think it’s more lack of a better choice. He’s the owner of my favorite team. That’s probably not changing…but some shitty owners have found some success in recent years. Dolan, Sterling, Sarver, Gilbert, Jordan (?) etc. It’s not ideal by any means, but not impossible.
I am willing to believe in the possibility Vivek might change even if there isn’t ton of evidence for it. But I don’t think the last couple years in particular have proved a lot of evidence against him and meddling either. He has a poor narrative going against him, which is his doing, but only time and results will change that.
All this is good fun to discuss, but moderate success in the NBA just hangs on the edge of a knife. I mean what is the narrative on Vivek if they drafted Luka and were winning 45+ games each year? One simple decision and I reckon it would be very different and you just never know when that change might come.
So short of hiring a raging homophobic douchebag like Mark Jackson, I’ll stay on for Kings games, TKH and keep hoping against hope. I’m feeling optimistic…at least today ; )
Yep. 100% agree here.
Yep. Winning cures all ills as they say.
Cautiously optimistic myself, overall. There’s plenty of reason to believe there could be better days coming.
I contend that Bill Duffy, superAgent, would not ever allow EuroLeague MVP at 19, Luka Donçic to sign with Vivek Ranadive and Vlade Divac in Sacramento over Mark Cuban and Dallas, No way in Basketball Hell is that happening. Vivek’s (and Vlade’s) rep was already too well established to allow that to happen. It might not be real, but in my mind, it’s a truth that makes too much sense to ignore. And that is how you spell Marvin Bagley III.
Those owners you named backed off or were forced out. The teams got good because these owners allowed a GM etc to get players and coaches. This is where Vivek is lost.
However, I do agree that McNair seems to have power now—or more so. Maybe Vivek is backing off just enough?
But Vivek has been involved in bad decisions since the jump, including hiring the wrong people , like Vlade and Pete. Those are Vivek’s bad decisions too, not that he trusted the wrong person.
If his ego wasn’t so overblown he’d allow GM etc to have the decision making power.
Well said
Wiz only has one move anyway: The right to left crossover. Well, that, and the high socks were cool.
Then what is your view of Monte retaining Walton, not firing him after the end of last season and then firing him after 17 games?
If that is not an example of the owner not giving his GM full autonomy and the tools to succeed, you have to ponder the alternative. That Monte thought keeping Luke around after last season was a good idea, really thought that this was a play-off roster and then changed his mind just 17 games into the season…
That wouldn’t make me optimistic about Monte’s BBIQ and decisionmaking.
I should have clarified. Good owners/probably most, aren’t so involved in player personnel decisions. Good owners hire a GM etc and step the fuck back.
That is where Vivek deserves zero leeway. Not every owner does that, the bad ones do.
And Vivek has been involved in practically every horseshit decision with basketball-players/coaches since the jump. Staiskus, Vlade, Bagley etc etc etc
His over-involvement is why the Kings are atrocious.
And I was talking about Basketball teams, not companies.
Do you think Vivek would be allowed to have this type of ownership with any of the top franchises? Hell no as the NBA would not allow them to be destroyed as one of their top money makers. Vivek has no clue how to run a team. 8 years of dog shit results speaks loud and clear to most of the fan base.
James Dolan says hello…
But I don’t disagree with the last part and clearly said multiple times Vivek’s been a shitty owner.
I doubt that guys who’ve not been head coaches are too sour about getting some reps in as far as the interview process. Hell, the interview alone raises their profiles, certainly more than just throwing their names around, as has happened through other teams. I’m not seeing it as a negative, let alone as a thing with which to be concerned.
Excellent comment Wiz.
Also: As for the veteran coaches mentioned in the article that the Kings did not interview (Atkinson, Vogel, etc.), there’s a perfectly reasonable and likely explanation for it: the Kings reached out to those coaches’ reps/agents, and received word that they were not interested in the job. Not every coach is going to be gung-ho about joining the most hapless franchise of the 21st century, especially not veterans with good reputations who will doubtless get looks from other teams in the near future. I sympathize with this article’s perspective, but I don’t think taking the ultra-pessimistic view of this hiring process is warranted.
Agree with all this. I have to say I love this site and the content but quite frankly this is a pretty bad article. Lots of reaching
I would add that I have learned not only from TKH in general but from Greg in particular. Everyone overreaches now and then.
Strange article. Came off as nitpicky and whiny with no basis. The FO wanted a coach with experience and a defensive minded background. That doesn’t mean you don’t interview a wide pool of candidates that have different strengths to offer. Just my opinion.
What evidence is there that Monte selected the coach ? Seems more like Vivek had two Warrior coaches on his radar and he along with Monte (hopefully) selected Brown .
Please stop
Still zero evidence and just opinions .
I don’t conduct a lot of formal interviews, but I do hold auditions regularly. What I do is work to get people in the room who excite me, or who — at minimum, I have faith could impress me. However, the door is always open until it’s not. I always tell the people who audition for me that I’m hoping they make my decision hard. I would much rather have a hard time choosing from many great candidates than to feel like I’m scraping the bottom of the barrel to just do a show for the sake of doing a show.
My guess is that agents and those relationships play a role in this process. There are optics to the interview process which there are for auditions as well. And the optics for HC of an NBA team are much higher stakes than any audition process I’ve ever been a part of. I would guess that when paring down the list from “every person on the planet” to “5-10 people who we’d be willing to guarantee millions of dollars to” that there were criteria they wanted to meet. Diversity is a major consideration in terms of racial and age background, but I imagine also in terms of just seeing what’s out there.
Here’s what I know about the interviews as well as my totally speculative insights as I have no special connection here.
D’Antoni was considered. My guess is that they know his history, and wanted to at least see if he could knock their socks off. He wasn’t top 3, so I imagine he didn’t. Could it be because they realized just how little he could analyze the defense? Maybe! Could it be a myriad of things? Sure. But I imagine they hoped he’d say “look, I’m 71, but here’s what you get from me for 4-6 years” and they weren’t impressed.
Lee was considred. Based on the KH profile, he’s a great collaborator. He’s good with people. But I have no idea if he’s offense or defense focused. My guess? He went in, preached communication, but couldn’t speak enough about our players on our team. I’ve interviewed for jobs I hope to be ready for someday but clearly wasn’t, and I walked out going “wow. I know what I need to know next time.” My guess is that as one of the youngest, he’s in that camp too.
Similar things with Hardy. My guess is that he’s incredibly articulate, has great fundamentals, but the kings walked away feeling like he’s not the right timeline for them. They might have even felt like he’s destined for San Antonio and wouldn’t have been interested in the long haul there.
Ham was considered. But even TKH notes that we know so little about him.
Going back to these four in particular, why bother bringing them in? Because you’re open to being surprised. Because if you’re an idiot who pre-casts your show you have no shot at seeing there might be better options than who you first thought. (hi Luke Walton!) Because if you bring those people in the room, you get contrast which helps highlight what you really need. I imagine hearing Mike Brown talk about coaching and hearing Will Hardy talk about it is different because of the gravity and experience Brown brings. He knows what it’s like to be a young, first time HC, and he’s much further in the process than that. And he can talk about his habits with, you know, Kobe, LeBron, Steph and others. He’s been there. Even if it was with great talent.
I can’t speak to why Clifford or Jackson made it further. Vivek bias? Sure. But he didn’t get his way apparently, and I don’t get why we’re doubling back on hating him for this. I said 10 years ago that I would rather have basketball in Sac that was garbage than no basketball. And while it sucks actually seeing that come to fruition, I still feel that way. Vivek > Maloofs simply for not actively undercutting the team that’s here. And maybe those two just interviewed better. Maybe the more people they saw — like an audition — you get a better sense of what you’re looking for. And you bring everyone in the room to audition or interview even if you’re not sure they’ll fit just because you are trying to see what that contrast looks like.
I posted about this in another thread, but I was irritated at first about the failure to hire and up and comer. But up and comers don’t break curses (see my spreadsheet!) Mike Brown may not either, but the team, while having some worrying trends, landed in what is a totally rational place. Perhaps the most rational one.
It could be worse. We could be saddled with the Lakers situation. Imagine the screaming if we’d missed the playoffs with AD, LeBron and Westbrook… and we didn’t have a first round pick for the next decade. And they’re interviewing Mark Jackson, too. (Yes they won a championship 2 years ago and we’d make that trade. But still. )
Excellent
+1, Things change fast in this business. There are teams that fire HCs who make it to the final 4 becuase they’re concerned about getting over the hump. The longest tenured coach is Pop. The next longest is Spo in Miami (2008). Then you have 3 guys who have been with their teams for 6-7 years (Snyder, Kerr and Malone). Everyone else has turned over since 2018. That gives you (by my count) 2 guys who have their job on lock until they don’t want it any more (Kerr and Pop), a handful of guys who I’d rather have today — some of whom have been fired or on hot seats before (Snyder, Carlisle, Malone, Budenholzer, Jenkins Monty Williams), and bunch of guys who have mixed results — sometimes powered by great players and teams (Nurse, Casey, Thibs, Doc, Lue). Every other coach out there? Either too new to call (Udoka) or I’m much happier with Brown. I wanted Jay Wright or Snyder. Neither was gonna happen for us this year. Brown is at the top of tier 3 or bottom of tier 2 for me. I think the way we got there was fine.
Just a ton of things to like here. Good recap, and reasonable speculation based on what we actually know.
My two cents, the Kings interviewed a Team of Rivals, with credit to Kearns. That’s a good thing.
Nice summary.
Excellent comment Scotty.
Excellent spreadsheet! Now take us to your leader
hmm, if you are Monte, you know that Luke Walton sucks. You probably know that you can’t fire him because the boss lost money during the pandemic. Still, you know that you need a plan B. Then you bridge the gap to the new season with Alvin after you finally get the green light to let LW go. You know that Alvin is a great human being, but his success as a coach leaves a lot to be desired and you need a new head coach soon. So you might have one year where you are able to make contingency plans. You have time to reach out to agents. You know your current team, their strengths and weaknesses. And then you still invite that many people? I mean yeah, possibly if you have no information and you only met those applicants on a hallway or so like in your case. But a GM should have far more intel IMHO and should have a good idea if a potential coach fits his philosopy and the team you have in mind. But I don’t know how serious those interviews were, maybe they were conducted to give the impression of an open mind to the public.
This is a odd one TKH.
seems like click bate and an attempt to start a controversy or maybe even worse, a damaging narrative to a fan base that is already at a really tough spot. Kinda lame I gotta say.
everything is always bad and everything kings sucks. Even when it’s good it’s somehow bad.
eye roll emoji
I don’t see it as clickbait, just discussing idea that Vivek is still owner and the foundation still needs more repair. I mean, even the consideration of Jackson shows this.
And how is this a damaging narrative? If you don’t know the Kings are a wreck and corners still to be turned you have your head in the sand.
And if you don’t believe, how the hell can a THK article have impact on da base.
TKH represents a strong faction of kings fans.
“damaging”… it’s all relative. Maybe it’s better if I say that this article is just completely unnecessary in my opinion. It’s an article based around a borderline conspiracy theory type of thought. I didn’t enjoy it and I enjoy nearly everything the TKH produces. I felt weird reading it which is why I’m typing this and typed that earlier.
that’s all.
It’s a thought for a comment in the “kings hire Mike brown as their next head coach” thread, not an entire article based around it. In my opinion.
What percentage of the entire fan base reads TKH do you think?
1%?
.1%?
.01%?
Still too high?
between 1 and .1%
agreed.
Touché 😂
although you left out “even when it’s good it’s bad.”🤜🤛
I tend to edit things significantly to suit my own narrative. All these years I just assumed nobody noticed. 😜
And if Jackson goes to the Lakers and wins a championship?
“Jackson is a high profile name who coached the then young Warriors to back-to-back playoffs appearances before being ousted. The former NBA point guard frequently clashed with Warriors management, but was known as a players coach.”
“And if Jackson goes to the Lakers and wins a championship?”
Good for him. He had Lebron and AD
and Westbrook.
no other response to this hypothetical
The head coach of the Los Angeles Lakers is expected to win a championship. And not eventually, but every single season.
And even when you do, it doesn’t much extend your expiration date. Ask Frank Vogel.
And fuck the Lakers, anyway.
I wont lie. That crossed my mind as well especially after listening to James Ham on his podcast last week. He mentioned about the Kings were looking for experience and a proven track record. As soon as James Ham mentioned that, the first thing that I thought was “Well why bother including the 3 assistants in Ham, Hardy and Lee if they were looking for experienced coaches. Why not instead add Atkinson, Stotts to the list instead?”
But heh its the Kings. I won’t overthink or stressed about it. What matters is Brown is a good coach. Now its up to Mcnair and Wilcox to tweak this roster to Brown’s liking.
I think viv was trying to accomplish 2 things: 1. Leak he had a favorite so it would ultimately appear monte is in control, 2. Manipulate the lakers to hire jackson before the kings do.
Viv is one smart cookie…
Now that this is all over, I so hope you’re right.
Totally unnecessary article. They conducted a coaching search, picked who they feel is the right person for the job and that’s it. Nothing more to see here.
Counterpoint: An active thread with various opinions.
I may not agree with the crux of the article, but I don’t know that I would label it as unnecessary, based on the ensuing conversation.
I just don’t see the point of negative article like this, but like you said, an active thread with various opinions.
Tell me, what exactly are necessary articles?
It’s a fan forum for the most dysfunctional franchise in the NBA. Nothing written here is necessary.
But it is this part of the year where the positivity police comes out again. The season is over, some change is made, the slate is clean and we are at the stage where many of us are trying to convince ourselves that the coming season, everything will be different. And those who write things that distort that process will be frowned upon.
It’s the same thing every year. Fascinating to see.
Dang!! My apologies for commenting. My bad.
I just don’t see the point of such an unnecessary, negative comment. 🙃
You’re right. Thank you sir.
Was the process messy? Yep, that’s the Vivek Ranadive factor for you.
My question: If Monte McNair had more control, I wonder what the final 3 looks like.
Ultimately , the Kings arguably came away with the best candidate of the bunch. At the very least, we know that Mike Brown was chosen by the basketball people as opposed to Mark Jackson chosen by Vivek Ranadive.
The process was messy, but usually basketball decisions and Vivek Ranadive are messy. This is par for the course. What matters is the FO basketball folks got their guy, messy process or not.
But it doesn’t stop there. Align the FO and Brown’s contracts. Have a good summer. Get internal improvement.
This is the first time I feel like the Kings have a shot at success for a longer period. A big part of that will be synergy between the FO and the HC.
it’s a colossal job and there is reasonable hope that GM McNair and HC Brown can join forces and float that boat that has been stuck on the sea bottom for so long.
I’ll give extra credit to Mike Brown for being brave enough to accept the job. He’s been around a very long time and knows the ups and the downs of a variety of organizations and has no doubt heard all of the issues involved with King Vivek’s Kingdom. He decided that he is up to the task – and I give him credit enough to know better (including that there is a Kangz discount should this turn out poorly). It wouldn’t surprise me if the NBA and Commish Silver looked in on this situation and provided advice and perspective. That is full on conjecture on my part.
Welcome aboard Head Coach Mike Brown.
I’m happy that Brown is here, but I don’t know how brave it is. Being head coach of the Kings is a no-lose game. If you win, you’re going into the rafters where Rick Adelman should have been years ago. And if you lose, well, Jake, it’s SacTown.
Roman Polanski’d.
Ew.
…Jake, it’s SacTown…
I see what you did there. Have a thumb.
I have to believe Mike Brown knows the game in Sacramento – and I agree, reputations will continue to get the SacTown Discount – and to me, that still speaks to courage; to leave a great job with Golden State and venture back to Head Coaching in Sacramento of all places.
I see Mike Brown as becoming the face of the franchise – not De’Aaron Fox nor Sabonis. And that – that is bravery. Let’s just hope he doesn’t get undercut by the insecure billionaire who, to use your reference, would cut his own nose (to spite his face, so to speak).
I feel that the face of the fans has been Alfred E. Newman, but I am optimistic that there is improvement on the horizon (say, 3 seasons from now).
Good points, certainly, and thank you for continuing the Chinatown theme, my brother.
My father.
My brother.
My father.
EINHORN IS FINKLE. FINKLE IS EINHORN.
Faye Dunaway gave birth to Lois Ray Einhorn-Finkle. You cannot convince me otherwise, Gittes Sims.
You’re making a lot of assumptions here. They ended up with a good coach. Let’s move on.
I’m more interested in the result in this case. It’s like when my kids were applying to colleges. Daughter applied to about a dozen. Finally had to pick one. The Kings futility has drained me of my “give a damn”. Glad they got who appears to be a competent coach. Don’t care too much for how they chose him.
Kerr tested positive. The current Kings head coach is coaching in a playoff game. As far as I’m concerned, the drought is over🥹
He should recuse himself…
It’s funny the impact Lebron James has on a coaching record. I have a feeling Mike Brown’s coaching record next year will be very similar to his last year in Cleveland.
Lebron is like having another head coach on your team. His BBIQ and will to influence other players around him is part of his greatness. Brown..Not sure he’s a good coach or another Viveked deluded choice. .Brown had prime time Lebron for most of his coaching career.
Sac is the greatest job in the NBA. Sign a 4 year deal. You only have to work 2 years. The last 2 you’re on PTO.
Good post. I wouldn’t get too worked up over this coaching decision. It all comes down to whether are not they can build a winning roster. Brown will succeed if he has the players and he will fail like the 10 previous coaches if the roster doesn’t improve significantly. The real discussion is how do we improve this roster with not many chips to do it. I’ve been an advocate of a total rebuild. I’d move Fox, Barnes, Holmes and even Sabonis and collect all the draft capital and cap space i could acquire. It’s highly unlikely that a franchise who will have two max players who are not even top 35 players and an unwillingness to exceed the salary cap can construct a playoff competitive roster.
A very possible trading partner for the Kings is Portland. They want win now talent around Lillard so Sabonis for this years first and next years first with some salary fillers one being Josh Hart. If you can snatch Keegan Murray with that pick that you get Murray, Josh Hart and a first round pick in 2023 for Sabonis and that would be a decent haul. This team is multiple years away from seriously competing and I don’t see them resigning Sabonis in two years..
It would be much more enjoyable to watch a young developing team with growing pains than what we have now.
While I think the fear of Vivek’s influence (see Jackson + win-now mindset) are warranted and fair, I’d like to offer a separate theory regarding the diverse and experientially-varied early list: Monte was testing possibilities against preferences.
I’m guessing McNair, based at least in part on Vivek‘s desires, had five objectives with the coaching search: 1) Get a defense-minded coach, 2) Get a coach who knows how to make the team win as soon as possible; 3) Make sure the process is thorough; 4) Make sure the process looks thorough; and 5) Get the coaching search settled early, if possible, to focus on the draft and other roster moves.
While I think appearances do matter to McNair (see objective 4 and hi McNair if you’re reading), I do think he’s analytical enough to test against preferences. Following objectives 1,2, and 5 would mean getting a defensively-minded experienced coach in place quickly, but objective 3 means checking to see if anyone outside the preferred mold piqued interest and still meets objectives 1 and 2.
In short, I think Monte was seeing if anyone of the assistant coaches from his list, along with D’antoni, “wowed” him enough in the interviews to change course. When that didn’t happen, he went with the three guys who fit the mold. Perhaps this is hopeful thinking, but it could also be a sign of competent GMing.
When looking at the structure of the front office, Mike Brown’s hiring makes more sense. If Monte is building an organization similar to the one he came from in Houston then his assistant GM is likely to deal with the coaching staff. Wes Wilcox has worked with Brown for several years in Cleveland including a year as an assistant coach. So their relationship and the communication between FO and coaching staff should be strong.
I would be interested in hearing McNair’s answers to the questions about the hiring process posed in the article. But that’ll have to wait until the Warriors are done.
Badge Legend