Coaching Candidates for next season (merged)
- Thread starter funkykingston
- Start date
Settle people. Vlade will pick a good coach and there are a number of good coaches available out there. I do think that Vlade will go with an experienced, proven coach and will not go for an assistant coach (unless something unforeseen happens).
I would love Thibs but I doubt that would happen. Despite popular belief, I thin Brooks is in the mix but I am not sure that he would be our ideal candidate. From all the "retreads" that are a good chance, I like McHale. I think his personality and basketball philosophy suits this roster. Vlade will need to get him a strong perimeter defender and we could be a very nice team next year.
Just remember that the likes of Carlisle and Adelman were retreads once upon a time too. Just because they didn't achieve the ultimate goal at their previous stop/s, it doesn't mean that they are not good coaches.
I am almost at the point where Thibs is my unrealistic #1 followed by McHale.
I would love Thibs but I doubt that would happen. Despite popular belief, I thin Brooks is in the mix but I am not sure that he would be our ideal candidate. From all the "retreads" that are a good chance, I like McHale. I think his personality and basketball philosophy suits this roster. Vlade will need to get him a strong perimeter defender and we could be a very nice team next year.
Just remember that the likes of Carlisle and Adelman were retreads once upon a time too. Just because they didn't achieve the ultimate goal at their previous stop/s, it doesn't mean that they are not good coaches.
I am almost at the point where Thibs is my unrealistic #1 followed by McHale.
Woodson confirmed and then Vinny next week. Jackson and Mitchell also confirmed by Yahoo
The problem with us is that any credible coach worth having is staying the hell away from our situation.
We are basically left with those on the outside looking in and they are there for a reason.
Our best bet at sustainable success is to hire a young up and coming assistant - Malone was that guy and we screwed that up but that is the mold for success.
These 2nd tier name coaches are just that - 2nd tier and they wont help us beyond being a stop gap.
McHale and Hollins are is the only ones who sparks some interest.
The problem with us is that any credible coach worth having is staying the hell away from our situation.
We are basically left with those on the outside looking in and they are there for a reason.
Our best bet at sustainable success is to hire a young up and coming assistant - Malone was that guy and we screwed that up but that is the mold for success.
These 2nd tier name coaches are just that - 2nd tier and they wont help us beyond being a stop gap.
McHale and Hollins are is the only ones who sparks some interest.
Last edited:
Blaitt being a Princeton guy with international experience is going to mean something with Vlade.
McHale does not interest me. I don't know why Ewing doesn't get more looks from teams. He's worked under both Van Gundys and Clifford, so he should have a good defensive background.
I'd have to see that Hornacek has flexibility in his offensive schemes. Mess is accomplished as everything but a head coach. Luke I don't think is a good mesh.
Much of the rest are retreads.
McHale does not interest me. I don't know why Ewing doesn't get more looks from teams. He's worked under both Van Gundys and Clifford, so he should have a good defensive background.
I'd have to see that Hornacek has flexibility in his offensive schemes. Mess is accomplished as everything but a head coach. Luke I don't think is a good mesh.
Much of the rest are retreads.
To even consider Sam Mitchell means that Vlade didn't follow the Wolves right? I know that a lot of people have faith in Vlade, but this list of candidates is starting to give me nightmares.
I hoped for an up and coming guy like Brad Stevens. A younger coach with a vision and an innovative view of basketball. So far ir sure doesn't look like we are trying to find such a guy.
I hoped for an up and coming guy like Brad Stevens. A younger coach with a vision and an innovative view of basketball. So far ir sure doesn't look like we are trying to find such a guy.
The problem we have is that we don't have the time for an up and coming assistant to grow up. We had it when we hired Malone 3 years ago. We had a young superstar in the making, some talented young pieces in IT2 and Reke who we chose not to bring back but eventually got Gay. The issue is now the Superstar big is in his prime and the roster is made up of veterans with very little young talent. What we need is an experienced coach who can come in and do his thing straight away. We don't really have the time to go through the growing pains of a first time head coach.
With Malone we had a young team and a young coach who could grow together. Things have changed a hell of a lot since then. It has to be an experienced coach with a good level of NBA success as a head coach.
EDIT: Didn't Vlade say in his presser after firing Karl that we are looking for someone with experience.
With Malone we had a young team and a young coach who could grow together. Things have changed a hell of a lot since then. It has to be an experienced coach with a good level of NBA success as a head coach.
EDIT: Didn't Vlade say in his presser after firing Karl that we are looking for someone with experience.
I actually like Sam Mitchell. I don't know why people are so down on him. He took a young Toronto team to the playoffs twice that had no business being there. TJ Ford, Anthony Parker, Jorge Garbajosa, Chris Bosh, and Raso Nesterovic. He won 47 games with that starting lineup! And he did a nice job with the young players on Minnesota this season and they dropped him anyway to try to get Thibs.
Mike Woodson sounds underwhelming too but he coached Atlanta from a 13 win team to a 53 win team before his inability to get them past the conference semi-finals caught up with him. Then he took over the Knicks at the end of the 2012 season and they went 18-6 and made the playoffs and won 54 games the next year. His main players that year: Raymond Felton, Melo, Tyson Chandler, JR Smith, and 39 year old Jason Kidd. His teams made the playoffs 5 times in 9 seasons and advanced past the first round in three of them. His teams play a slow post-up heavy offense which doesn't fit league trends but may work well with DeMarcus. Also another possible benefit of hiring Woodson is that two of the 5 players I want us to acquire this summer played their best basketball for him-- Al Horford in Atlanta and Iman Shumpert in New York.
Neither one would be my first choice, but they're not crap options either. Some of you are coming across like spoiled brats right now. As if anyone would be lucky to coach this team. We're a national punchline. Your average NBA fan thinks our GM is incompetent, our franchise player is a cancer, and our owner is a meddling idiot. If you don't think Mitchell and Woodson are legit NBA coaches and even having them in for an interview is a joke than you're in for a rude awakening.
Mike Woodson sounds underwhelming too but he coached Atlanta from a 13 win team to a 53 win team before his inability to get them past the conference semi-finals caught up with him. Then he took over the Knicks at the end of the 2012 season and they went 18-6 and made the playoffs and won 54 games the next year. His main players that year: Raymond Felton, Melo, Tyson Chandler, JR Smith, and 39 year old Jason Kidd. His teams made the playoffs 5 times in 9 seasons and advanced past the first round in three of them. His teams play a slow post-up heavy offense which doesn't fit league trends but may work well with DeMarcus. Also another possible benefit of hiring Woodson is that two of the 5 players I want us to acquire this summer played their best basketball for him-- Al Horford in Atlanta and Iman Shumpert in New York.
Neither one would be my first choice, but they're not crap options either. Some of you are coming across like spoiled brats right now. As if anyone would be lucky to coach this team. We're a national punchline. Your average NBA fan thinks our GM is incompetent, our franchise player is a cancer, and our owner is a meddling idiot. If you don't think Mitchell and Woodson are legit NBA coaches and even having them in for an interview is a joke than you're in for a rude awakening.
No experienced NBA coach should be considered crap. They all know a lot about basketball.
But we need to take a close look at the situation we are in.
1. The league is trending towards fast paced, perimeter oriented small ball with multiple ballhandlers and shooters
2. We currently sit on a roster, that doesn't really allow us to play that way. Our best player is a groundbound big, that doesn't really come to mind as a top notch lob target. We don't have lots of ballhandlers, willing passers and shooters.
So the task for the new coach, thanks to Vlade building the roster in a certain way, is to come up with a way to be successful while working against the trend OR establishing a playstyle, that follows the main trend, with a once again more or less completely overhauled roster. Both ways don't fall into the category of shortterm goals. We can't hire a coach in order to get to the 8th seed. We need a coach with a vision, how to get past the 8th seed, how to build a team for the years to come that's able to compete, or we set us up for just another coaching search and just another roster overhaul in 1-2 seasons.
So basically the question is: which of the guys we interview is an innovator. Who is smart enough to come up with a new idea, how to play big man basketball in todays league. That's the task if we decide to keep Cousins.
And thinking, that a coach, who simply plants Cousins in the paint and pounds the ball inside will lead this team anywhere but to mediocrity is delusional in my mind.
This is an uphill battle. The odds are completely against us and just adding a guy, who will preach basic basketball fundamentals and discipline won't lead us anywhere.
Well if we decide to get rid of Cousins things change and given, that we would most likely get back a lot of young assets, a mediocre NBA coach, who teaches basic basketball and how to be a pro in this league would maybe suffice.
But for me getting rid of Cousins isn't really an option. Therefore I would prefer a coach, who is able to reinvent big man basketball.
So just from my personal view - I don't think any of the names mentioned is a remarkably smart basketball innovator. Yes they may be solid NBA coaches, but they are not the type of guys I envision leading us into a bright future.
But we need to take a close look at the situation we are in.
1. The league is trending towards fast paced, perimeter oriented small ball with multiple ballhandlers and shooters
2. We currently sit on a roster, that doesn't really allow us to play that way. Our best player is a groundbound big, that doesn't really come to mind as a top notch lob target. We don't have lots of ballhandlers, willing passers and shooters.
So the task for the new coach, thanks to Vlade building the roster in a certain way, is to come up with a way to be successful while working against the trend OR establishing a playstyle, that follows the main trend, with a once again more or less completely overhauled roster. Both ways don't fall into the category of shortterm goals. We can't hire a coach in order to get to the 8th seed. We need a coach with a vision, how to get past the 8th seed, how to build a team for the years to come that's able to compete, or we set us up for just another coaching search and just another roster overhaul in 1-2 seasons.
So basically the question is: which of the guys we interview is an innovator. Who is smart enough to come up with a new idea, how to play big man basketball in todays league. That's the task if we decide to keep Cousins.
And thinking, that a coach, who simply plants Cousins in the paint and pounds the ball inside will lead this team anywhere but to mediocrity is delusional in my mind.
This is an uphill battle. The odds are completely against us and just adding a guy, who will preach basic basketball fundamentals and discipline won't lead us anywhere.
Well if we decide to get rid of Cousins things change and given, that we would most likely get back a lot of young assets, a mediocre NBA coach, who teaches basic basketball and how to be a pro in this league would maybe suffice.
But for me getting rid of Cousins isn't really an option. Therefore I would prefer a coach, who is able to reinvent big man basketball.
So just from my personal view - I don't think any of the names mentioned is a remarkably smart basketball innovator. Yes they may be solid NBA coaches, but they are not the type of guys I envision leading us into a bright future.
Wont speak for you, but that's exactly what I was saying about further ramifications of the mess with Karl, and I believe I was told "it doesn't matter what the media or rest of the league thinks. We'll be a young promising team with a new building and the best big man in the league", or something to that effect.
I don't see any evidence that the league is trending that way. I see the Warriors as a historically great team, poised to win their second straight title that way and if I squint I can see the Trailblazers sort of doing something similar except that really they just have two scoring guards starting in the backcourt.
The Spurs are the 2nd seed with the highest win total ever and they don't play that way. Neither do the Hawks who use a very similar system. Or the Raptors who are much closer to the Spurs & Hawks than the Warriors. The other playoff teams don't fit that mold either. Not Dallas or Memphis or the Clippers. OKC's two stars are perimeter oriented but they don't play like the Warriors. Few guys ever handle the ball besides Westbrook & Durant and they don't play an unselfish, passing style. In fact I see a lot of bad shots from their role players as if they feel they need to shoot because they don't know when they'll touch the ball again. The Rockets are an ISO based team that revolves around one player and starts Dwight Howard. The Jazz almost made the playoffs with an school defensive anchor in Gobert. And so on for teams in the East.
And the irony is that the Kings DID try to play a fast paced (and often small ball), perimeter oriented offense and were awful this year.
And the reality is that no team is going to copy the Warriors style and do it better than the Warriors because no other team has Steph Curry & Draymond Green, not to mention Thompson, Iguodala, Barnes Etc.
Of course a team can win in the NBA playing inside out basketball. And I think the Kings could very easily make the playoffs next year doing just that - well that and a much improved team defense. Will they beat the Warriors? Nope. But no other team has been able to do that yet either.
Trends have always come and gone in the NBA based on the team or teams that are winning the most games at any point in time and while technology has made the game more sophisticated in some ways and rule changes have had an impact the basic goal of the game is still simple - get your team high percentage shots and force your opponent into lower percentage shots. And part of that is playing to the strengths of your best players.
The Spurs are the 2nd seed with the highest win total ever and they don't play that way. Neither do the Hawks who use a very similar system. Or the Raptors who are much closer to the Spurs & Hawks than the Warriors. The other playoff teams don't fit that mold either. Not Dallas or Memphis or the Clippers. OKC's two stars are perimeter oriented but they don't play like the Warriors. Few guys ever handle the ball besides Westbrook & Durant and they don't play an unselfish, passing style. In fact I see a lot of bad shots from their role players as if they feel they need to shoot because they don't know when they'll touch the ball again. The Rockets are an ISO based team that revolves around one player and starts Dwight Howard. The Jazz almost made the playoffs with an school defensive anchor in Gobert. And so on for teams in the East.
And the irony is that the Kings DID try to play a fast paced (and often small ball), perimeter oriented offense and were awful this year.
And the reality is that no team is going to copy the Warriors style and do it better than the Warriors because no other team has Steph Curry & Draymond Green, not to mention Thompson, Iguodala, Barnes Etc.
Of course a team can win in the NBA playing inside out basketball. And I think the Kings could very easily make the playoffs next year doing just that - well that and a much improved team defense. Will they beat the Warriors? Nope. But no other team has been able to do that yet either.
Trends have always come and gone in the NBA based on the team or teams that are winning the most games at any point in time and while technology has made the game more sophisticated in some ways and rule changes have had an impact the basic goal of the game is still simple - get your team high percentage shots and force your opponent into lower percentage shots. And part of that is playing to the strengths of your best players.
Last edited:
Good news for funkykingston:
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/ailene-voisin/article72761742.html#storylink=cpy
Begins by saying Vlade is most intrigued by Walton, Messina, Thibs and Brooks...
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/ailene-voisin/article72761742.html#storylink=cpy
Begins by saying Vlade is most intrigued by Walton, Messina, Thibs and Brooks...
It's just that I don't think Sam Mitchell or Mike Woodson are mediocre coaches. They may not be all-time greats but there's nothing embarrassing about giving them an interview. The joke has been that Vlade can't get anyone to want to come to Sacramento. If he gets a dozen coaches to come in and interview that's clearly not the case. Actually, the respect that so many people in basketball have for Vlade Divac is probably a big part of why he's able to get so many interviews. And while you could call this approach indecisive, you could also call it thorough and professional if you wanted to. It's just a matter of point of view.
That article is actually really encouraging in a few ways. It helps underscore that Vlade is really just starting his interviews with whoever he can get in right away, thus Mitchell, Del Negro & Jackson, two of whom have no engagements that I know of and the third who just has to work around his TV schedule.
Thibs and Brooks could also interview at any time but clearly they prefer other openings and are pursuing those first. Understandable. And likely that they accept an offer before ever meeting with Divac. And Van Gundy gets courted every year and has yet to take a coaching job. I think the only one he'd possibly take would be Houston since he still lives there but I could see the T'Wolves job appealing to him too. I doubt he'd have any interest in the Kings job.
But Walton? Messina? Blatt? Udoka? McHale? I'm a LOT happier with the idea of those guys than I am with VDN, Mark Jackson, Sam Mitchell or Mike Brown.
Honestly my view of the coaching search is being colored by my notion that this is the last attempt to win with Cousins in Sacramento. I could see the next coach winning with a team centered around Boogie and I could see the team struggling again, possibly with DMC not getting along with his new coach.
I'm obviously hoping for the first scenario but if the second occurs I think there's zero chance it's the coach that gets pushed out. It would be Cousins getting traded in that case.
McHale, to me at least seems like maybe the best choice for trying to maximize Cousins' talent and moving forward with a team built around DMC. But I don't see him as the right choice necessarily for a young, rebuilding team if it comes to that.
Udoka, Messina, Blatt and Walton all seem like better choices in that scenario.
We'll see. Right now I'm just happy to see some names I like on Vlade's list.
Thibs and Brooks could also interview at any time but clearly they prefer other openings and are pursuing those first. Understandable. And likely that they accept an offer before ever meeting with Divac. And Van Gundy gets courted every year and has yet to take a coaching job. I think the only one he'd possibly take would be Houston since he still lives there but I could see the T'Wolves job appealing to him too. I doubt he'd have any interest in the Kings job.
But Walton? Messina? Blatt? Udoka? McHale? I'm a LOT happier with the idea of those guys than I am with VDN, Mark Jackson, Sam Mitchell or Mike Brown.
Honestly my view of the coaching search is being colored by my notion that this is the last attempt to win with Cousins in Sacramento. I could see the next coach winning with a team centered around Boogie and I could see the team struggling again, possibly with DMC not getting along with his new coach.
I'm obviously hoping for the first scenario but if the second occurs I think there's zero chance it's the coach that gets pushed out. It would be Cousins getting traded in that case.
McHale, to me at least seems like maybe the best choice for trying to maximize Cousins' talent and moving forward with a team built around DMC. But I don't see him as the right choice necessarily for a young, rebuilding team if it comes to that.
Udoka, Messina, Blatt and Walton all seem like better choices in that scenario.
We'll see. Right now I'm just happy to see some names I like on Vlade's list.
While I really enjoy our respectful conversations I sometimes wonder, if you actually misread my posts.
1. this isn't about the Warriors
2. there is no team in this league, that actually plays inside out with the Grizzlies injured and the Spurs using Leonard and Parker to start their offense. Granted the Spurs and Grizzlies are the closest you can get to a traditional inside out team today and we all witnessed, how they faired versus the Warriors and will take a very close look at the hopefully upcoming showdown between the Warriors and the Spurs.
3. Hawks run their offense through Teague, Baze, Schröder or Millsap all operating from the outside with Horford as the finisher and with the start of this season as another additional 3pt threat. Horford, who is a very capable big, maybe gets 2 to 3 post plays in an entire game and only when the clock is ticking down. Besides both Millsap and Scott fit the mold of an undersized PF, who can step out to the perimeter on D.
4. You think Patrick Patterson is a traditional PF? Because the way I look at things, he is much closer to Draymond Green than to the strong PF's of the past that ruled the paint. Everything is built around DD, Powell, Joseph and Lowry and JV is more or less an afterthought on offense. He is a rebounder and finisher not the guy they run their offense through.
5. How about the Cavs using Love at the 5 in the PO or Thompson as their starting center?
6. How about Detroit with two interchangable tweener forwards and with a stellar center limited to put backs and lobs, while his guards and forwards run the offense?
Strangely it's obvious to me, that traditional inside out basketball based on big man in the post is more or less dead. I wonder, why so many people on this board are looking at the same league in such a vastly different way.
And like you said, this doesn't mean it must remain dead. Maybe it's possible to revive it. Maybe it's possible to win like that in this league. I would never think I'm smart enough to deny that and this was the main part of my previous post.
If we want to revive it, we need a top notch coach, because it won't be easy to do.
No I don't think it would work like: "lets simply go big and beat the crap out of those small teams".
We need to find a way to deal with zone defense, with defenders fronting, with double teams on Cousins as soon as he catches the ball. We need to find ways to improve Cousins efficiency in the paint, because more often than not, we will trade 2 for 3. And most of all we need to improve our defense, while keeping Cousins out of foul trouble, because he needs to carry us on offense (which for a big man is much harder to accomplish than for a guard, especially if he is constantly put in the pick&roll and needs to contain smaller, faster players going at him with momentum. This is just another disadvantage like we all saw with Mike Malone).
All this with a roster, which might incorporate the weakest guard line in the league, a low IQ SF best at mid range and redundant big man.
This is a tough task for any NBA coach, so better bring someone in, who really has an idea how to be successful and not another guy, who will play the usual "give the ball to Cousins and see what happens" thing.
Maybe I'm alone, but I finally want a real offense and a solid defense. I'm tired of the crap the Kings put on the court.
1. this isn't about the Warriors
2. there is no team in this league, that actually plays inside out with the Grizzlies injured and the Spurs using Leonard and Parker to start their offense. Granted the Spurs and Grizzlies are the closest you can get to a traditional inside out team today and we all witnessed, how they faired versus the Warriors and will take a very close look at the hopefully upcoming showdown between the Warriors and the Spurs.
3. Hawks run their offense through Teague, Baze, Schröder or Millsap all operating from the outside with Horford as the finisher and with the start of this season as another additional 3pt threat. Horford, who is a very capable big, maybe gets 2 to 3 post plays in an entire game and only when the clock is ticking down. Besides both Millsap and Scott fit the mold of an undersized PF, who can step out to the perimeter on D.
4. You think Patrick Patterson is a traditional PF? Because the way I look at things, he is much closer to Draymond Green than to the strong PF's of the past that ruled the paint. Everything is built around DD, Powell, Joseph and Lowry and JV is more or less an afterthought on offense. He is a rebounder and finisher not the guy they run their offense through.
5. How about the Cavs using Love at the 5 in the PO or Thompson as their starting center?
6. How about Detroit with two interchangable tweener forwards and with a stellar center limited to put backs and lobs, while his guards and forwards run the offense?
Strangely it's obvious to me, that traditional inside out basketball based on big man in the post is more or less dead. I wonder, why so many people on this board are looking at the same league in such a vastly different way.
And like you said, this doesn't mean it must remain dead. Maybe it's possible to revive it. Maybe it's possible to win like that in this league. I would never think I'm smart enough to deny that and this was the main part of my previous post.
If we want to revive it, we need a top notch coach, because it won't be easy to do.
No I don't think it would work like: "lets simply go big and beat the crap out of those small teams".
We need to find a way to deal with zone defense, with defenders fronting, with double teams on Cousins as soon as he catches the ball. We need to find ways to improve Cousins efficiency in the paint, because more often than not, we will trade 2 for 3. And most of all we need to improve our defense, while keeping Cousins out of foul trouble, because he needs to carry us on offense (which for a big man is much harder to accomplish than for a guard, especially if he is constantly put in the pick&roll and needs to contain smaller, faster players going at him with momentum. This is just another disadvantage like we all saw with Mike Malone).
All this with a roster, which might incorporate the weakest guard line in the league, a low IQ SF best at mid range and redundant big man.
This is a tough task for any NBA coach, so better bring someone in, who really has an idea how to be successful and not another guy, who will play the usual "give the ball to Cousins and see what happens" thing.
Maybe I'm alone, but I finally want a real offense and a solid defense. I'm tired of the crap the Kings put on the court.
Ultimately everything we write is a matter of point of view. 
We will all know, who steps in as a coach soon enough. And I'm not against the interviews. I was just shocked by the names on the first list, because I need an inspiring name to keep some kind of optimism going towards next season.
Now the second list quoted some minutes ago, looks much more encouraging.
We will all know, who steps in as a coach soon enough. And I'm not against the interviews. I was just shocked by the names on the first list, because I need an inspiring name to keep some kind of optimism going towards next season.
Now the second list quoted some minutes ago, looks much more encouraging.