Carmichael Dave innuendo, "We are officially at Defcon One"
- Thread starter Iced Espresso
- Start date
- Status
Adrian Wojnarowski @WojYahooNBA 2m2 minutes ago
Sources: Ty Corbin met w/ front office tonight, left arena as Kings coach. George Karl candidacy at ownership level, still being discussed.
Sources: Ty Corbin met w/ front office tonight, left arena as Kings coach. George Karl candidacy at ownership level, still being discussed.
Actually Ryan Bowen was his assistant in Denver and is an assistant here now. Dee Brown mostly works in the player personnel department more than as a coach and Corliss is relatively new to the NBA coaching ranks but known around the league as a swell guy so there's a chance he sticks (plus the potential media black eye from releasing a fan favorite coach midseason would only serve to compound the bevy of PR problems the Kings are facing.
Looking through some of his former staffers, John Welch is now a Brooklyn assistant so who knows how available he'll be come summertime, Stacey Augmon is back working in UNLV as an assistant, Adrian Dantley is retired, Melvin Hunt (a name that comes up every so often in places as a head coach candidate), Lester Conner and Patrick Mutombo are still working for the Nuggets, and Mike Dunlap is now coaching Loyola.
And of course there looms the spectre of Scott Brooks, who, if let go by the Thunder and unable to find another head coaching job, could be another potential name to serve as associate head coach/guy Vivek could replace Karl with when he gets bored.
Looking through some of his former staffers, John Welch is now a Brooklyn assistant so who knows how available he'll be come summertime, Stacey Augmon is back working in UNLV as an assistant, Adrian Dantley is retired, Melvin Hunt (a name that comes up every so often in places as a head coach candidate), Lester Conner and Patrick Mutombo are still working for the Nuggets, and Mike Dunlap is now coaching Loyola.
And of course there looms the spectre of Scott Brooks, who, if let go by the Thunder and unable to find another head coaching job, could be another potential name to serve as associate head coach/guy Vivek could replace Karl with when he gets bored.
Sorry, I have to make big bold letters of this quote. This is hoping for everyone to be clear that Vivek did address and make himself clear about the firing of Malone. Some of us might have missed this article.
================================================
Vivek Ranadivé speaks out on Malone firing
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2014/12/17/7409997/vivek-ranadive-michael-malone-firing
[/quote]
Prior to last night's game against theOklahoma City Thunder(which theKingsultimately went on to lose 104-92), Vivek Ranadivé finally spoke to the media regarding the firing of former Kings head coachMichael Malone. In an excellent piece for ESPN by James Ham, Ranadivé laid out his five point mantra which can be summarized thusly:
1. Kings fans are the best
2. Michael Malone is a good guy
3. Michael Malone was the right guy to have in place last year to help right the ship and build a new culture out of the dysfunction left by the Maloofs.
4. The Kings aren't satisfied with the status quo and felt the offense needed to evolve and be more innovative.
5. The Kings are willing to spend what it takes.
Regarding point four, Ranadivé tells Ham this:
"Defense is great, but we need defense and offense," he said. "We need to go from a rules-based organization, which was important when you had chaos, to a values-based organization. From kind of a programmatic offense, to a read-and-respond, free-flowing offense. I like to use a music metaphor. We had a Sousa marching band, which was needed when there was chaos, but now we need to shift to a jazz band, where people can be individually showcased and improvised. What we need is a jazz director. I think that's the kind of leadership moving forward."[/quote]
====================================================
It is noteworthy to emphasize here that it is clear Vivek/FO weren't that stupid not to see that the defense was great under Malone. There is no truth to the assertion that they only care about offense. In fact, Malone was rightfully given the credit by Vivek when it comes to defense.
But apparently, they were not happy we weren't winning more games as they expected with just being good on defense, because we were hampered by our very predictable offense. Teams goes zone defense, tighten their defense on Cousins and Gay, then we're in trouble. A lot of fans saw this too, but for some reasons denies they saw a problem. Maybe because Malone was their favorite? Or, they just hate PDA's and Vivek's look? I don't know. This is why I kept on harping to read the "The Fallacy of Hope" thread and the numerous game threads where fans saw the inability of Malone to institute a more meaningful offense, in the hope that they would see the simple reasons why Malone was sucked - and that Malone is still a decade to being the "HOF-coach-to-be" that they think he would be. And this has happened game after game after game, even on those games we lost or won with or without Cousins.
I don't know why fans was so surprized that Malone was sucked. Essentially, Vivek/FO were happy with the defense, but they obviously thought that if we could twick our offense to involve more players at opportunistic times (by increasing PACE which most fans hated) we could have had won more. And I think we all know that every good team use the same principle. To me it is called being versatile. To Vivek/FO, they call it playing like the old glorious Kings.
So, what is wrong with that vision, especially every game fans have had observed and criticized the never-ending and the same iso-heavy plays starring Cousins and Gay, which resulted to losses particularly the games we should have won easily?
To summarize, Vivek/FO wants the best on both ends of the game for the Kings.
================================================
Vivek Ranadivé speaks out on Malone firing
http://www.sactownroyalty.com/2014/12/17/7409997/vivek-ranadive-michael-malone-firing
[/quote]
Prior to last night's game against theOklahoma City Thunder(which theKingsultimately went on to lose 104-92), Vivek Ranadivé finally spoke to the media regarding the firing of former Kings head coachMichael Malone. In an excellent piece for ESPN by James Ham, Ranadivé laid out his five point mantra which can be summarized thusly:
1. Kings fans are the best
2. Michael Malone is a good guy
3. Michael Malone was the right guy to have in place last year to help right the ship and build a new culture out of the dysfunction left by the Maloofs.
4. The Kings aren't satisfied with the status quo and felt the offense needed to evolve and be more innovative.
5. The Kings are willing to spend what it takes.
Regarding point four, Ranadivé tells Ham this:
"Defense is great, but we need defense and offense," he said. "We need to go from a rules-based organization, which was important when you had chaos, to a values-based organization. From kind of a programmatic offense, to a read-and-respond, free-flowing offense. I like to use a music metaphor. We had a Sousa marching band, which was needed when there was chaos, but now we need to shift to a jazz band, where people can be individually showcased and improvised. What we need is a jazz director. I think that's the kind of leadership moving forward."[/quote]
====================================================
It is noteworthy to emphasize here that it is clear Vivek/FO weren't that stupid not to see that the defense was great under Malone. There is no truth to the assertion that they only care about offense. In fact, Malone was rightfully given the credit by Vivek when it comes to defense.
But apparently, they were not happy we weren't winning more games as they expected with just being good on defense, because we were hampered by our very predictable offense. Teams goes zone defense, tighten their defense on Cousins and Gay, then we're in trouble. A lot of fans saw this too, but for some reasons denies they saw a problem. Maybe because Malone was their favorite? Or, they just hate PDA's and Vivek's look? I don't know. This is why I kept on harping to read the "The Fallacy of Hope" thread and the numerous game threads where fans saw the inability of Malone to institute a more meaningful offense, in the hope that they would see the simple reasons why Malone was sucked - and that Malone is still a decade to being the "HOF-coach-to-be" that they think he would be. And this has happened game after game after game, even on those games we lost or won with or without Cousins.
I don't know why fans was so surprized that Malone was sucked. Essentially, Vivek/FO were happy with the defense, but they obviously thought that if we could twick our offense to involve more players at opportunistic times (by increasing PACE which most fans hated) we could have had won more. And I think we all know that every good team use the same principle. To me it is called being versatile. To Vivek/FO, they call it playing like the old glorious Kings.
So, what is wrong with that vision, especially every game fans have had observed and criticized the never-ending and the same iso-heavy plays starring Cousins and Gay, which resulted to losses particularly the games we should have won easily?
To summarize, Vivek/FO wants the best on both ends of the game for the Kings.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sources: Kings and George Karl's rep will re-engage Monday. Front office has recommended hiring, deal terms are close. it's on owners now.
Ty Corbin has been a complete pro and left in impossible situation. Entire process has been undermining to him and needs resolution. Fast.
I guess my point that I was trying to make is that even if the "company man" did things the right way and kept things in house and not a public mess, people would still be calling for his job for a mess that his boss created. That already has happened. It doesn't matter who is running the FO if the ownership is making horrible management decisions behind closed doors and interfering to the detriment of the team, because people have, and will, be calling for changes in coaching/FO.
I was wondering how that question was answered when Fagen asked it of the FO. Maybe I wasn't clear. Quite clearly they were asking it for their client, Boogie, and the fact they never told Boogie was of great interest also. Malone meant a great deaL to Boogie and this was bumbled badly.
This should not require bold letters as obviously you didn't understand what I was referring to.
This should not require bold letters as obviously you didn't understand what I was referring to.
Last edited:
Jason Jones with the rare good point.
Jason Jones @mr_jasonjones 14m14 minutes ago
Remember George Karl will be attending Dean Smith's services, can't imagine him doing much until after that.
Remember George Karl will be attending Dean Smith's services, can't imagine him doing much until after that.
Excellent post. It's rationale and presents both sides. That is, until you try and reconcile all that with having Corbin as a lame duck coach for almost a third of a season while Karl was available. He even said he was available for the Kings. That's where their grand vision falls short. They talk a nice game, but the product you saw out there speaks for itself.
Nothing's wrong with the vision. Everything's wrong with the execution.
Nothing's wrong with the vision. Everything's wrong with the execution.
Ty Corbin has been a complete pro and left in impossible situation. Entire process has been undermining to him and needs resolution. Fast.
Ooops. My bad.
I agree with you I misunderstood your question because somehow I missed the whole context of your post. But anyways, it is certainly very interesting what the FO said about not having told Boogie in advance about the firing of Malone, IF indeed that question was raised by Fegan.
But you know what? I know there was a report that the FO (or was it PDA himself?) informed Cousins of the firing of coach Malone. And as early as summer, there were already talks inside the organization of how Malone was the anti-visionary and that he might get fired. So of all people, Cousins and the players probably already knew what was going on.
What was more interesting was Cousins came out saying he learned of the firing from twitter (which we all know was twitted well in advanced of the formal announcement of the FO that Malone was fired). And Cousins said he was not consulted in response to the reporter. But again, he added "he trusted them" (meaning the organization) about the decision, but at the same time felt guilty that his being sicked might have contributed to losses leading to Malone's firing. (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on...ns-found-out-mike-malone-was-fired-on-twitter)
And there was never any confirmation of who was telling the truth and the FO did not even bother to refute what Cousins have told the media.
WHAT IF......(because Cousins is the biggest question mark in this move......... He and his first coach, Paul Westphal butted heads as Westphal tried to discipline the upstart younger Cousins, and Keith Smart went out of his way to try and be a mentor to him, which Cousins also balked at).......THE FO WAS JUST PROTECTING COUSINS ALL ALONG BY STAYING QUIET?
And when it is all out now that Malone was reluctant to give Cousins his extension at the start? I think the FO did the prudent move to protect Cousins' reputation and prevent their beloved franchise player from farther being mentioned in the controversy.
Well anyway, I don't think that would be hard to explain to Fegan, IF indeed there was a reason for the FO to clarify. It was all intended for the good of the team and Cousins.
I agree with you I misunderstood your question because somehow I missed the whole context of your post. But anyways, it is certainly very interesting what the FO said about not having told Boogie in advance about the firing of Malone, IF indeed that question was raised by Fegan.
But you know what? I know there was a report that the FO (or was it PDA himself?) informed Cousins of the firing of coach Malone. And as early as summer, there were already talks inside the organization of how Malone was the anti-visionary and that he might get fired. So of all people, Cousins and the players probably already knew what was going on.
What was more interesting was Cousins came out saying he learned of the firing from twitter (which we all know was twitted well in advanced of the formal announcement of the FO that Malone was fired). And Cousins said he was not consulted in response to the reporter. But again, he added "he trusted them" (meaning the organization) about the decision, but at the same time felt guilty that his being sicked might have contributed to losses leading to Malone's firing. (http://www.cbssports.com/nba/eye-on...ns-found-out-mike-malone-was-fired-on-twitter)
And there was never any confirmation of who was telling the truth and the FO did not even bother to refute what Cousins have told the media.
WHAT IF......(because Cousins is the biggest question mark in this move......... He and his first coach, Paul Westphal butted heads as Westphal tried to discipline the upstart younger Cousins, and Keith Smart went out of his way to try and be a mentor to him, which Cousins also balked at).......THE FO WAS JUST PROTECTING COUSINS ALL ALONG BY STAYING QUIET?
And when it is all out now that Malone was reluctant to give Cousins his extension at the start? I think the FO did the prudent move to protect Cousins' reputation and prevent their beloved franchise player from farther being mentioned in the controversy.
Well anyway, I don't think that would be hard to explain to Fegan, IF indeed there was a reason for the FO to clarify. It was all intended for the good of the team and Cousins.
Last edited:
Confused?
Why?
And who are we suppose to believe if not those who are actually working inside?
Do you suppose we should believe a few of the fans here, who thinks they have had meaningful experience running an NBA team, who loves conspiracy theories, hate Vivek/FO, and who does not even have a connection inside the Kings organization?
Why?
And who are we suppose to believe if not those who are actually working inside?
Do you suppose we should believe a few of the fans here, who thinks they have had meaningful experience running an NBA team, who loves conspiracy theories, hate Vivek/FO, and who does not even have a connection inside the Kings organization?
Last edited:
Thanks for the compliment. I understand the frustration, because I myself was frustrated why the FO didn't make the move swiftly right after the Malone firing when it was obvious they want coach Karl or a better coach as a replacement. The product could have been better already by now. I guess it is how it is in the NBA, since it is probably not the first time that an interim coach was asked to coach temporarily. Business as usual, long consultations with people concerned, concensus building, etc,,,etc..I wish this is just a high school team they are trying to build, so we can see results right away. It is so damn frustrating to wait.
Last edited:
Prior to last night's game against theOklahoma City Thunder(which theKingsultimately went on to lose 104-92), Vivek Ranadivé finally spoke to the media regarding the firing of former Kings head coachMichael Malone. In an excellent piece for ESPN by James Ham, Ranadivé laid out his five point mantra which can be summarized thusly:
1. Kings fans are the best
2. Michael Malone is a good guy
3. Michael Malone was the right guy to have in place last year to help right the ship and build a new culture out of the dysfunction left by the Maloofs.
4. The Kings aren't satisfied with the status quo and felt the offense needed to evolve and be more innovative.
5. The Kings are willing to spend what it takes.
Regarding point four, Ranadivé tells Ham this:
"Defense is great, but we need defense and offense," he said. "We need to go from a rules-based organization, which was important when you had chaos, to a values-based organization. From kind of a programmatic offense, to a read-and-respond, free-flowing offense. I like to use a music metaphor. We had a Sousa marching band, which was needed when there was chaos, but now we need to shift to a jazz band, where people can be individually showcased and improvised. What we need is a jazz director. I think that's the kind of leadership moving forward."[/quote]
====================================================
It is noteworthy to emphasize here that it is clear Vivek/FO weren't that stupid not to see that the defense was great under Malone. There is no truth to the assertion that they only care about offense. In fact, Malone was rightfully given the credit by Vivek when it comes to defense.
But apparently, they were not happy we weren't winning more games as they expected with just being good on defense, because we were hampered by our very predictable offense. Teams goes zone defense, tighten their defense on Cousins and Gay, then we're in trouble. A lot of fans saw this too, but for some reasons denies they saw a problem. Maybe because Malone was their favorite? Or, they just hate PDA's and Vivek's look? I don't know. This is why I kept on harping to read the "The Fallacy of Hope" thread and the numerous game threads where fans saw the inability of Malone to institute a more meaningful offense, in the hope that they would see the simple reasons why Malone was sucked - and that Malone is still a decade to being the "HOF-coach-to-be" that they think he would be. And this has happened game after game after game, even on those games we lost or won with or without Cousins.
I don't know why fans was so surprized that Malone was sucked. Essentially, Vivek/FO were happy with the defense, but they obviously thought that if we could twick our offense to involve more players at opportunistic times (by increasing PACE which most fans hated) we could have had won more. And I think we all know that every good team use the same principle. To me it is called being versatile. To Vivek/FO, they call it playing like the old glorious Kings.
So, what is wrong with that vision, especially every game fans have had observed and criticized the never-ending and the same iso-heavy plays starring Cousins and Gay, which resulted to losses particularly the games we should have won easily?
To summarize, Vivek/FO wants the best on both ends of the game for the Kings.[/quote]
bro was 100% sure malone was the guy 1 year ago.
maybe he needs to STFU about giving his head coach tips on how to run the team? we'll figure out if vivek is a clown as we go through this process of elimination. we'll if we are experiencing this w/ the next regime we know it's vivek. #wikikingsleaks #nba3.1 #spinelessyesmen #shinyarena
1. Kings fans are the best
2. Michael Malone is a good guy
3. Michael Malone was the right guy to have in place last year to help right the ship and build a new culture out of the dysfunction left by the Maloofs.
4. The Kings aren't satisfied with the status quo and felt the offense needed to evolve and be more innovative.
5. The Kings are willing to spend what it takes.
Regarding point four, Ranadivé tells Ham this:
"Defense is great, but we need defense and offense," he said. "We need to go from a rules-based organization, which was important when you had chaos, to a values-based organization. From kind of a programmatic offense, to a read-and-respond, free-flowing offense. I like to use a music metaphor. We had a Sousa marching band, which was needed when there was chaos, but now we need to shift to a jazz band, where people can be individually showcased and improvised. What we need is a jazz director. I think that's the kind of leadership moving forward."[/quote]
====================================================
It is noteworthy to emphasize here that it is clear Vivek/FO weren't that stupid not to see that the defense was great under Malone. There is no truth to the assertion that they only care about offense. In fact, Malone was rightfully given the credit by Vivek when it comes to defense.
But apparently, they were not happy we weren't winning more games as they expected with just being good on defense, because we were hampered by our very predictable offense. Teams goes zone defense, tighten their defense on Cousins and Gay, then we're in trouble. A lot of fans saw this too, but for some reasons denies they saw a problem. Maybe because Malone was their favorite? Or, they just hate PDA's and Vivek's look? I don't know. This is why I kept on harping to read the "The Fallacy of Hope" thread and the numerous game threads where fans saw the inability of Malone to institute a more meaningful offense, in the hope that they would see the simple reasons why Malone was sucked - and that Malone is still a decade to being the "HOF-coach-to-be" that they think he would be. And this has happened game after game after game, even on those games we lost or won with or without Cousins.
I don't know why fans was so surprized that Malone was sucked. Essentially, Vivek/FO were happy with the defense, but they obviously thought that if we could twick our offense to involve more players at opportunistic times (by increasing PACE which most fans hated) we could have had won more. And I think we all know that every good team use the same principle. To me it is called being versatile. To Vivek/FO, they call it playing like the old glorious Kings.
So, what is wrong with that vision, especially every game fans have had observed and criticized the never-ending and the same iso-heavy plays starring Cousins and Gay, which resulted to losses particularly the games we should have won easily?
To summarize, Vivek/FO wants the best on both ends of the game for the Kings.[/quote]
maybe he needs to STFU about giving his head coach tips on how to run the team? we'll figure out if vivek is a clown as we go through this process of elimination. we'll if we are experiencing this w/ the next regime we know it's vivek. #wikikingsleaks #nba3.1 #spinelessyesmen #shinyarena
Oh, I get it. Jazz. Thanks man. It's all clear now.
They've never stated they wanted to increase pace as a means to involve more players. YOU have said that multiple times and I've never heard anything like that anywhere else. Increasing pace means getting more shots up quicker and scoring more points. That's what it is. Doesn't matter who is taking them. A slow paced team can have ball movement just as well as a quicker paced team. Pace and ball movement are different concepts. One doesn't follow the other.
Vivek didn't even say the word pace.
In fact, digging into your "proof", the much maligned Jazz quote and his 5 point whatever that was , vivek actually mentions "people being individually showcased."
If you bold different parts of the quote you can spin it to mean different things, can't you? Sounds like he wants more ISO ball, right?
Your analysis of how thoughtful and smart they are failed to address The Ty Corbin Era. And how they had no succession plan when they fired Malone. Kinda a big part of this.
They've never stated they wanted to increase pace as a means to involve more players. YOU have said that multiple times and I've never heard anything like that anywhere else. Increasing pace means getting more shots up quicker and scoring more points. That's what it is. Doesn't matter who is taking them. A slow paced team can have ball movement just as well as a quicker paced team. Pace and ball movement are different concepts. One doesn't follow the other.
Vivek didn't even say the word pace.
In fact, digging into your "proof", the much maligned Jazz quote and his 5 point whatever that was , vivek actually mentions "people being individually showcased."
If you bold different parts of the quote you can spin it to mean different things, can't you? Sounds like he wants more ISO ball, right?
Your analysis of how thoughtful and smart they are failed to address The Ty Corbin Era. And how they had no succession plan when they fired Malone. Kinda a big part of this.
Last edited:
There is nothing wrong with that vision, except that the Vivek/FO needs to be committed to winning and not pace or whatever style they want. Many elements of the Malone offense works out, given the hot start. Iso basketball should be a treasured option for the Kings -- an option that some other teams might not have. Iso shouldn't be looked down upon as much as it is. But note that Malone wasn't all iso.
The way that the FO approached improving the offense was really, really bad. They sacrificed the once-in-a-decade intangibles of Malone (not to mention his tangibles, too!) in order to try to bring about an offense with a certain style. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll say that they wanted a "better" offense.
I'd recommend to the front office: rather than fire Malone, why not let the losses speak for themselves? Let Malone take care of the coaching because, regardless of what Vivek says about wins and losses, the Kings are still a young team. We have time to have Malone develop -- about 3 years until Gay and Collison turn away from their primes. And develop he will -- he's the kind of character to do so.
Despite the FO's commitment to statistics, they couldn't properly create an accurate cost-benefit analysis of the aftereffects of firing Malone. They sacrificed Malone's intangibles and tangibles in order to bring about something that could have been very likely developed under the same guy, while still maintaining a semblance of loyalty and stability. The FO should match DeMarcus' loyalty.
Looking to the future, I don't have faith in the front office. They'll have to do very well to gain my trust.
The way that the FO approached improving the offense was really, really bad. They sacrificed the once-in-a-decade intangibles of Malone (not to mention his tangibles, too!) in order to try to bring about an offense with a certain style. Giving them the benefit of the doubt, we'll say that they wanted a "better" offense.
I'd recommend to the front office: rather than fire Malone, why not let the losses speak for themselves? Let Malone take care of the coaching because, regardless of what Vivek says about wins and losses, the Kings are still a young team. We have time to have Malone develop -- about 3 years until Gay and Collison turn away from their primes. And develop he will -- he's the kind of character to do so.
Despite the FO's commitment to statistics, they couldn't properly create an accurate cost-benefit analysis of the aftereffects of firing Malone. They sacrificed Malone's intangibles and tangibles in order to bring about something that could have been very likely developed under the same guy, while still maintaining a semblance of loyalty and stability. The FO should match DeMarcus' loyalty.
Looking to the future, I don't have faith in the front office. They'll have to do very well to gain my trust.
On their show this morning, they got to the Kings/Karl segment, and at one point, J Ross asked, "But why NOW? Why didn't they go to Karl months ago?"
And Carmichael Dave immediately answered, "Because of the Dallas game."
WTF?!
What apoplectic wailing and gnashing of teeth could have happened at THAT game that could have caused the front office to wake the f up, and start making calls?
They really have looked like they were asleep for two months, and woke up panicky and started flailing about calling people and leaking to social media to make something happen. But Karl's been steady for many weeks, saying he wants to coach and Demarcus' "all-powerful camp" hadn;t been spoken to and smoothed over months ago?! It makes no sense.
The Dallas game wasn't particularly painful - they got spanked by a far better roster.
The Utah game was incalculably worse, IMO.
Why is the Dallas game considered such a spectacular fail that it jostled this front office into actually making a change?
And Carmichael Dave immediately answered, "Because of the Dallas game."
WTF?!
What apoplectic wailing and gnashing of teeth could have happened at THAT game that could have caused the front office to wake the f up, and start making calls?
They really have looked like they were asleep for two months, and woke up panicky and started flailing about calling people and leaking to social media to make something happen. But Karl's been steady for many weeks, saying he wants to coach and Demarcus' "all-powerful camp" hadn;t been spoken to and smoothed over months ago?! It makes no sense.
The Dallas game wasn't particularly painful - they got spanked by a far better roster.
The Utah game was incalculably worse, IMO.
Why is the Dallas game considered such a spectacular fail that it jostled this front office into actually making a change?
- Status