What's Geoff Petrie been up to?

[funkykingston]

I understand Vivek wanting fresh blood, but it's a damn shame that Geoff got kicked to the curb before they had time to change the locks at STA.

Vivek had a great basketball mind with deep knowledge of the team offering to help the transition and he gave him the cold shoulder. Curious at least if Geoff could have provided some stability in the first year, especially now in retrospect that we see the train wreck that was the front office hirings of that fateful summer...

Given that players were already being brought in for workouts etc I always found it surprising that there wasn't a more gradual transition from Petrie (who knew the roster well etc) to the next GM. One of the guys I liked for the job was Travis Schlenk from Golden State and I figured he could come on as Vice President of Basketball Operations and then take over from Petrie the next offseason. Shareef Abdur-Rahim also seems to be held in some esteem within NBA circles and would have been a smooth transition. My first choice for GM was Sam Hinkie though if he was to employ the same approach in Sacramento (all out tanking and pick/cap space accumulation) there'd be no need for a transition. Probably no DeMarcus either though.

Even as a longtime Petrie supporter I don't want to take an overly rose colored view of the last few years of his tenure based on how the team has flamed out this season. In fact, two months ago I was praising D'Alessandro because it seemed like he reworked the roster to largely give Malone exactly the players he needed to play his style of basketball.

It makes the firing of Malone and the tire fire that this season has become even more befuddling.

 

[captain bill]

Given that players were already being brought in for workouts etc I always found it surprising that there wasn't a more gradual transition from Petrie (who knew the roster well etc) to the next GM. One of the guys I liked for the job was Travis Schlenk from Golden State and I figured he could come on as Vice President of Basketball Operations and then take over from Petrie the next offseason. Shareef Abdur-Rahim also seems to be held in some esteem within NBA circles and would have been a smooth transition. My first choice for GM was Sam Hinkie though if he was to employ the same approach in Sacramento (all out tanking and pick/cap space accumulation) there'd be no need for a transition. Probably no DeMarcus either though.

Even as a longtime Petrie supporter I don't want to take an overly rose colored view of the last few years of his tenure based on how the team has flamed out this season. In fact, two months ago I was praising D'Alessandro because it seemed like he reworked the roster to largely give Malone exactly the players he needed to play his style of basketball.

It makes the firing of Malone and the tire fire that this season has become even more befuddling.

I agree with all of this. I've been one of PDA's most vocal defenders here, but it has less to do with my personal esteem for him than with my belief that the Kings troubles run much deeper than him, and that we should be more worried about management that stifles dissent and marginalizes outside voices or guys who are not the management's favored sons.

Bill Walsh famously had trouble with the 49ers FO. I'll post some links, but the bottom line is that the top brass always valued winning and did it's best to suppress or defer fights and conflicts.

Here, I understand the criticism of PDA that he might ignore the defensive side of the ball, and that he made some questionable moves. But I think he did a great job in a short time, and believe, like you, that even if they didn't see eye to eye on everything, MM was doing a great job with the guys PDA got him.

I think that sort of fruitful dischord is actually a recipe for success - two guys measure value and worth differently, but they both *understand* value and are good at getting it - either from other teams or from the players on our roster.

GP would be one more outside voice who probably wouldn't have been 100% on the same page, but would undoubtedly have made some valuable contributions, and it's a shame that our FO cabal is making a habit of ignoring people like that.

On Walsh:

http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/2012/02/02/carmen-policy-on-eddie-d-the-genius-who-hired-the-genius/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Bill_Walsh.aspx

 

[pshn80]

I pretty much agree with both of you. Reading both analyses makes me feel even more strongly that most of our recent disorders lay at the hands of Vivek Ranadive. If that is the case, I hope he can see the error of his ways and be open to better ways of solving our problems. He seems like a smart man, so let him prove it.

 

[funkykingston]

I agree with all of this. I've been one of PDA's most vocal defenders here, but it has less to do with my personal esteem for him than with my belief that the Kings troubles run much deeper than him, and that we should be more worried about management that stifles dissent and marginalizes outside voices or guys who are not the management's favored sons.

Bill Walsh famously had trouble with the 49ers FO. I'll post some links, but the bottom line is that the top brass always valued winning and did it's best to suppress or defer fights and conflicts.

Here, I understand the criticism of PDA that he might ignore the defensive side of the ball, and that he made some questionable moves. But I think he did a great job in a short time, and believe, like you, that even if they didn't see eye to eye on everything, MM was doing a great job with the guys PDA got him.

I think that sort of fruitful dischord is actually a recipe for success - two guys measure value and worth differently, but they both *understand* value and are good at getting it - either from other teams or from the players on our roster.

GP would be one more outside voice who probably wouldn't have been 100% on the same page, but would undoubtedly have made some valuable contributions, and it's a shame that our FO cabal is making a habit of ignoring people like that.

On Walsh:

http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/2012/02/02/carmen-policy-on-eddie-d-the-genius-who-hired-the-genius/

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Bill_Walsh.aspx

Yeah, Eddie DeBartolo was always in favor of telling people to work it out and keep the wins coming. Had he still been running the 49ers instead of Baalke I'm guessing Harbaugh would have returned. I'll be rooting for Tomsula because I'm a 49ers fan and also because he seems like a genuinely good guy but it's an incredibly questionable hire. And one driven by wanting to reduce conflict instead of increasing wins.

Part of what has fueled my renewed nostalgia for Petrie is that he was a relatively flexible guy. I can't picture him firing Malone because he wanted a different style on the court. That said, who knows what the roster would even look like had Petrie stayed in place. Was he even in favor of keeping Cousins? I don't know. I certainly would have been okay with Ranadive giving Petrie another shot. But really I would still be very okay with D'Alessandro had he not fired Malone. I'm always going to disagree with some of the moves by anybody serving as the Kings GM but it was that one move (and every comment/interview/rumor that came out of it) that completely soured me on the guy.

But I am 100% in agreement that this is a dysfunction that doesn't stop with D'Alessandro as I think it's very much the fault of Ranadive and Mullin. It has seemed from the beginning that those guys were infatuated with Golden State. And not the Golden State that's looking like the best team in basketball this year but their own eras of Warriors basketball. Vivek loved Monta Ellis. Never mind that trading him for Bogut is what improved the team - he liked the run and gun small ball of the Curry/Ellis backcourt with Klay Thompson at the three. And Mullin is a Nellie disciple. I understand that he's the coach that Mullin had his own personal best years under, but I think he'd realize that the Indiana teams he played with at the end of his career were far better, more balanced and played a style that won in the playoffs. I wouldn't say Larry Bird was a better coach than Nelson, but clearly he knew what worked.

I think a lot could have been avoided by Ranadive taking a much slower approach to things. Instead of making wholesale changes, just leave Petrie in place and learn the ins and outs of being an NBA owner before deciding that you know best and trying to approach basketball the way you approach the tech industry. I can't say I'm a Mark Cuban fan per se I think he's a bright guy and good for the NBA. And I think one of the best moves he made was to ease his way into things with the Mavericks. The Kings ownership and front office are seeing the results of their hubris now. And honestly, I'm fine with some growing pains. But we'll see how much they learn from it all.

Because if Chris Mullin is the coach next year, I think things are only going to go downhill. On the upside, the Kings are in Sacramento for 30 years. Which means I'll long outlast D'Alessandro's tenure as GM. And very likely outlast Ranadive's tenure as owner. I just hope I don't have to wait that long for a good Kings team.

 

[Glenn]

I am happy to see that the conversation is swinging around to Vivek. PDA is doing what Vivek wants. Now that everyone seems to be understanding that what has happened has resulted in a disaster, we have to hope that Vivek is seeing it also. He will have to eat one gigantic crow. I suspect a reason we aren't hearing much from him is because he is licking his wounds. He has a lot of ego wrapped up in what is happening and what is happening is not working. There is no good time to right the ship this year so IF Vivek catches on to what really works in the NBA, he will wait until next year. By then he should have learned a bit about NBA basketball and how it differs from middle school girls' basketball. The fans will have calmed down a little. Then we continue building what I think can be a very good basketball team.

It all depends on Vivek having adequate insight. He REALLY needs to do what he says and that is to turn the team over to people who are smarter than he is.

 

[captain bill]

Yeah, Eddie DeBartolo was always in favor of telling people to work it out and keep the wins coming. Had he still been running the 49ers instead of Baalke I'm guessing Harbaugh would have returned. I'll be rooting for Tomsula because I'm a 49ers fan and also because he seems like a genuinely good guy but it's an incredibly questionable hire. And one driven by wanting to reduce conflict instead of increasing wins.

Part of what has fueled my renewed nostalgia for Petrie is that he was a relatively flexible guy. I can't picture him firing Malone because he wanted a different style on the court. That said, who knows what the roster would even look like had Petrie stayed in place. Was he even in favor of keeping Cousins? I don't know. I certainly would have been okay with Ranadive giving Petrie another shot. But really I would still be very okay with D'Alessandro had he not fired Malone. I'm always going to disagree with some of the moves by anybody serving as the Kings GM but it was that one move (and every comment/interview/rumor that came out of it) that completely soured me on the guy.

But I am 100% in agreement that this is a dysfunction that doesn't stop with D'Alessandro as I think it's very much the fault of Ranadive and Mullin. It has seemed from the beginning that those guys were infatuated with Golden State. And not the Golden State that's looking like the best team in basketball this year but their own eras of Warriors basketball. Vivek loved Monta Ellis. Never mind that trading him for Bogut is what improved the team - he liked the run and gun small ball of the Curry/Ellis backcourt with Klay Thompson at the three. And Mullin is a Nellie disciple. I understand that he's the coach that Mullin had his own personal best years under, but I think he'd realize that the Indiana teams he played with at the end of his career were far better, more balanced and played a style that won in the playoffs. I wouldn't say Larry Bird was a better coach than Nelson, but clearly he knew what worked.

I think a lot could have been avoided by Ranadive taking a much slower approach to things. Instead of making wholesale changes, just leave Petrie in place and learn the ins and outs of being an NBA owner before deciding that you know best and trying to approach basketball the way you approach the tech industry. I can't say I'm a Mark Cuban fan per se I think he's a bright guy and good for the NBA. And I think one of the best moves he made was to ease his way into things with the Mavericks. The Kings ownership and front office are seeing the results of their hubris now. And honestly, I'm fine with some growing pains. But we'll see how much they learn from it all.

Because if Chris Mullin is the coach next year, I think things are only going to go downhill. On the upside, the Kings are in Sacramento for 30 years. Which means I'll long outlast D'Alessandro's tenure as GM. And very likely outlast Ranadive's tenure as owner. I just hope I don't have to wait that long for a good Kings team.

RE: Cuban - he's definitely a good measuring stick for new and active owners. He made lots of crazy moves but kept adapting and admitted when he was wrong. He's also a true Mavericks fan and basketball nerd, so it buys him some cred. Following his moves might give you a heart attack, but I think he's a great owner.

But what REALLY scares me is not that Vivek loves small ball. Yeah that's bad, but if his beliefs are born of a genuine love of basketball, they can and will change based on the product. He is admittedly newer to the game than most owners, but if he is smart and open-minded, he can adapt.

This is what scares me: that we didn't get a Cuban (an overexcited young fan), we got a Prokorov. Enough similarities are there: buying a struggling team, putting up a new arena, lining up for better revenue streams, and building a team based not on principle but on the idea of getting butts in the seat and eyes on the TVs when the doors on the new digs open.

We know that with the new TV deals (local and national) along with a favorable CBA and a new arena, the Kings are going to be printing money. My fear is that Vivek will emphasize 2016-2018 as "entertainment" years and mortgage our future to get attention on Sac and then flip the team in a couple years for a nice half-billion profit. Nothing he has said or done convinces me that he's a basketball lifer, much less a Sactown lifer.

The one thing franchises with sustained success have in common is stability. If Vivek is making a short term play, it could cost us the chance to give Cuz a HOF career in Sacramento.

Do I 100% believe this to be true? No. And it also wouldn't be the end of the world, since Vivek's cash IS a big part of why the Kings are here. But I DO think it's possible and worth thinking about.

I love Sacramento and I love the Kings, but I hate that sports and civic pride can so easily be milked to line the wallets of billionaires these days.

 

[VF21]

My fear is that Vivek will emphasize 2016-2018 as "entertainment" years and mortgage our future to get attention on Sac and then flip the team in a couple years for a nice half-billion profit. Nothing he has said or done convinces me that he's a basketball lifer, much less a Sactown lifer.

The one thing franchises with sustained success have in common is stability. If Vivek is making a short term play, it could cost us the chance to give Cuz a HOF career in Sacramento..

One thing to remember is that Vivek Ranadive does not have a controlling majority. I don't buy into your fear, but I would like to assuage it just a bit. If Vivek wants to sell his percentage of the Kings, it wouldn't negate the deals the ownership group have with Sacramento.

 

[whozit]

One thing to remember is that Vivek Ranadive does not have a controlling majority. I don't buy into your fear, but I would like to assuage it just a bit. If Vivek wants to sell his percentage of the Kings, it wouldn't negate the deals the ownership group have with Sacramento.

Interesting, I thought he did. But it does make sense that with so many partners splitting up the ~70%, that he wouldn't have the majority. I guess it would depend on the partnership arrangement to whether or not the other minority owners could remove him from the decision making powers.

I wouldn't mind a minority revolt (i.e. coup) that is done in the background (emphasize background) that changes the decision making, making management more in tune with the reality of the NBA.

 

[One and Done]

It's funny we're revisiting this thread but sour times make you wonder "what if".

With the utmost respect for his basketball acumen, I'm in the camp that Geoff Petrie is a stellar GM of a bygone era, especially when it comes to revitalizing a small-market franchise with a history of losing. Today's basketball GM needs to compete in a field of innovative legal maneuvers, creative contract structuring and analytics - ie "new school" - as well as general talent evaluation, savvy trades and excellent scouting. In the late aughts, Geoff was unfortunately cramped by ownership objectives that he could not mitigate; but he increasingly got hosed in areas needing "new school" acumen, like trades and contracts.

At this point, I'm giving Pete the summer to figure it out - and in my experience watching franchises rebuild, that's all he really has. One trade deadline won't fix this. One draft won't fix this, neither will a good FA signing or trade over the summer. It's going to take all of the above - and some luck - for Pete's vision to become successful. I'm doubtful - yet, as a Kings fan (and the masochist label that is increasing attached to being one), I'm hopeful.

Pete - like Geoff - is under extreme pressure from ownership, and this may be hampering his ability to do his job well. The difference is, Vivek truly wants to win and is more willing to spend to do it (for now). The problem is, he's trying to do to much at once (basketball 3.0), and simply needs to focus on winning. As an owner, he might need to fail first to realize how to do it . And that means Pete has from now through the summer to turn it all around in Year 3, as I truly don't believe that Vivek will have the patience for lack of progress come summer 2016.

May Vivek get bored and sell the franchise in five years? It might happen - you never know; the franchise could still be flailing, tickets go unsold on what will be a massive lower level with less intimacy, fans my cry foul about not being able to find parking for a crummy game, Vivek may need $ after Tibco, the list goes on. But at the very least, we have an owner that won't stop trying until he sells. Can't say the same for the previous.

 

[captain bill]

One thing to remember is that Vivek Ranadive does not have a controlling majority. I don't buy into your fear, but I would like to assuage it just a bit. If Vivek wants to sell his percentage of the Kings, it wouldn't negate the deals the ownership group have with Sacramento.

Where did I say he's trying to move the team??

He's a finance dude. He can flip the team in 2-4 years and clear $200mm+ in profit. Why should he care about things like installing a long term culture when he can fire a good coach, install the patented "Vivek Run-n-no-D" offense in a new arena, and skip town back to San Jose with a ton of money and a totally dysfunctional franchise behind?

 

[VF21]

Where did I say he's trying to move the team??

He's a finance dude. He can flip the team in 2-4 years and clear $200mm+ in profit. Why should he care about things like installing a long term culture when he can fire a good coach, install the patented "Vivek Run-n-no-D" offense in a new arena, and skip town back to San Jose with a ton of money and a totally dysfunctional franchise behind?

Where did I say you said he was trying to move the team?

You posit a scenario that has very little chance of ever coming to fruition. Why? Because there are a plethora of other owners who could and probably would buy him out. You also seem to feel he is not invested in winning, which I think is unsubstantiated.

I understand the vitriol against the entire front office right now, I really do. We Kings fans have suffered a lot because of owner machinations. I just cannot buy into the paranoia. Vivek is not the devil incarnate nor is PDA. They are trying to do what they think is best for their team. As a new GM, Pete is going to make mistakes. And Vivek is also not going to be 100% right, but you know what? Nobody ever is.

All of this rampant hate just gets old after a while. They are still our Kings and we still have a team to root for. I'm not happy with what's happening right now, but I don't feel the need to vilify Vivek or PDA or Mullin or anyone else in order to voice that discontent.

But maybe that's just me.