Voisin: Brown Interested in Kings Job (merged)

[BawLa]

The meere fact Brown has won the Championship doe NOT make him a better choce than candidates that have not won.

Yes, yes it does.

I have no Idea what Theus can or would do, nor Brooks or Shaw for that matter, and I have never advocated FOR any of them.

Exactly.

Look you make fair points, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Brown is just going to deliver us to the promised land next year, but at least he gives us more hope or righting this ship than Musselman version 2.0.

And I'm not totally against some of the unknown coaches. The fact is that it's a crapshoot either way. If we are going to start fresh with a young, up and coming coach, then it should be when we have a fresh group of young, up and coming players. We still have Kenny Thomas, SAR, Brad Miller, Ron Artest...well you get the point.

And Larry Brown is hardly responsible for all the mess that is NY. When I look at the group of monkeys that are the Knicks, I wonder, was Larry Brown the only one throwing pewp across the cage?

 

[BRad1055]

Ailene Voisin: Brown wants chance to do what he does

http://www.sacbee.com/100/story/225885.html



By Ailene Voisin - Bee Columnist

Published 12:00 am PDT Saturday, June 16, 2007
Story appeared in SPORTS section, Page C1



He is the only person out there who should immediately disrupt the Kings' coaching search. He is available, accomplished and interested. He is also eccentric and impossible. But he irrefutably is one of the most brilliant teachers and coaches in the history of the game.

Sorry, but promising youngsters Scott Brooks, Reggie Theus and Brian Shaw should step aside for the moment.

Larry Brown wants to talk.

Larry Brown wants to coach.

Larry Brown wants to hear from the Kings.

Think Geoff Petrie might pick up the phone and make the call this time? Who knows? Brown could be this offseason's Don Nelson. Of course, he could also be an unmitigated disaster. He is eminently capable of drilling holes into sinking ships, forcing another one-year-and-out ouster, harming Petrie's health with his incessant demands about retooling the roster with those who "play the right way." He can be a pain in every part of the anatomy.

But this is still Larry Brown, not Joe Schmoe or Stan Van Gundy. He's more than a coach, he's an experience. If he wants to talk ... and he wants to talk.

"I want to get back," a subdued Brown said from his home in Philadelphia. "I miss it terribly. I haven't lost the passion to teach and coach. I don't want to end my career at 23-59 (his 2005-06 record in New York). I feel I can do better. I don't mind going somewhere that's rebuilding, but wherever I go, I want everybody to feel that I'm the right person."

Why Brown might be the right person for the Kings? Because his circumstances have changed drastically. He is 66 years old and mired in the longest slump of his career. He has been out of coaching for 14 months -- 13 months and two weeks longer than at any previous stretch.

While it often was said that the much-traveled Brown arrives with too much baggage, after his disheveled departures from Detroit and New York, all that baggage somehow morphed into damaged goods.

The wooing has ceased. The Larry who won an NCAA championship with Kansas (1988) and an NBA title with the Pistons (2003-04) is no longer Larry the beloved. His friend Michael Jordan spurned him for the vacancy that went to Sam Vincent in Charlotte. Memphis Grizzlies owner Michael Heisley, suspecting Brown lacks the patience to rebuild without a Greg Oden or Kevin Durant, opted for Marc Iavaroni. No one else is sending flowers, leaving one of the league's most fascinating, if quirky, characters feeling lost and demoralized about being overlooked.

"There is something to be said for giving young guys a chance and not recycling coaches all the time," Brown continued during a lengthy conversation, "but I was watching the playoffs and seeing (Gregg Popovich), Jerry Sloan and Don Nelson, what a great job the old guys were doing, and I see Rick (Adelman) getting back. I look at those guys and think that's what I should be doing."

Laughing, he added, "The only time I realize I'm 66 is when I look in the mirror."

Brown, whose health problems aggravated his situation with management in Detroit, insists that his chronic bladder condition is manageable. He says he has been invigorated by the sabbatical and is emotionally eager to resume coaching. He also mentions his appreciation for Sacramento's fans -- "It's like a college environment," Brown praised -- and without prompting, cites his familiarity with several Kings.

He coached Mike Bibby to a superb performance with the 2003 U.S. national team and Shareef Abdur-Rahim in the 2000 Olympic Games. He drafted John Salmons and extracted a very productive season out of Kenny Thomas during their time together in Philadelphia. Additionally, Corliss Williamson, who won the Sixth Man of the Year award and his only NBA title with Brown in Detroit, remains a strong admirer.

More reasons to give Brown a look? For every nasty breakup in Detroit and New York and Philadelphia -- and, yes, we remember New Jersey -- the Brown portfolio offers many more successful, if not necessarily long-term, unions. He is as much a builder as he is a closer, his clubs routinely characterized as well-prepared overachievers. In 23 NBA seasons, he has endured four losing campaigns. He even took the Clippers to the playoffs for the first time on the West Coast, then did it again a year later.

In a Western Conference loaded with talent -- and experienced, talented coaches -- Brown would be a tremendous asset, even for a team in transition and groping for an identity. Kevin Martin, Francisco García, Quincy Douby and Justin Williams would develop under his precise, demanding tutelage. Brad Miller's strengths would be utilized. Bibby would be forced to guard the ball and play at a faster pace. Ron Artest would have a coach he couldn't bully, that he would have to respect.

And Brown's presence alone would return the buzz to Arco Arena and the conversation to the chat rooms. There is room for compromise, for some creative thought: "You get an older coach like me," Brown suggested, referring to the candidacy of Shaw, Theus and Brooks, "and then you have a young guy sitting next to him ready to take over in a few years. At this point in my career, that could be a good thing."

Geoff? Joe and Gavin? Are you listening to this? Are you feeling the pulse -- hey, an actual pulse! -- of your community?

Make that call this time.

 

[Wuster]

No thanks, Mr. Brown. Take your act somewhere else (oh, wait a minute... nobody else with a coaching vacancy is calling on you - you might not be able to!).

 

[nbrans]

Ailene? Ailene Voisin? Are you listening to this? Are you feeling the pulse of your community?

We don't want Larry Brown.

 

[Entity]

I do like the last statment. I think Brick brought up that scenerio in the other thread.

 

[JoMama]

How can they not call Brown? How do you hire a Theus or Brooks without making the phone call? Brown puts the Kings back in the national spotlight. Voisin has done an admirable job of arm-twisting and throwing the coaching hunt into another dimension. The line about only four losing NBA seasons out of 23 is rather intriguing, dontcha think?

 

[Kingster]

I'm warming up to the idea of hiring Brown after reading his comments on having an understudy take over for him in a few years. Hire Brown and Shaw (or Brooks, my second choice) and have Brown tutor the young guy for 2-3 years. I like the idea of Shaw because it would be nice to have the future-future coach tutored by two Hall of Famers - Brown and Jackson. That said, Petrie seems to like the milk-toast types, kind of like himself, so he might feel threatened by a guy like Brown. So much the better. This organization needs to be shaken up a bit.

One thing for sure, nobody can say that Brown isn't the best coach out there. The first time I became knew of him is when he became the coach of UCLA. He took a team with the tallest player at 6'8" in Kiki Vandewegh(sp?) and a 6'6" center in Michael Sanders to the finals. It was an unbelievable coaching job. With that team, he played fast; with Detroit, he played slow. He will adopt a style that maximizes the talent of the team. He would definitely bring out the best in every player he coaches.

 

[kupman]

What is up with Ailene? I few weeks ago she was campaigning for Bill Laimbeer and now with Larry Brown.

Ailene are you listening to this? You are not on the hiring committee. You are a sports writer. Stop trying to be a part of the story.

 

[zeke04]

I would take Brown with Jon Barry as his understudy. Barry mentioned on Grants show that he would like to coach but would want to be an asst. for 2-3 years first.

 

[Kingster]

We do not need Larry Brown. And if the Kings were interested I think they already would have approached him. I strongly suspect he's simply too high-maintenance for even the Maloofs, regardless of what they might say in public. They're already paying one coach to NOT coach. I don't think they'll be interested in having to do it again and Brown's track record speaks pretty loudly about that type of thing.

Sorry, Larry. You need to just kick back and relax, and enjoy spending the millions you're being paid to do absolutely nothing.

I'm not disagreeing that Brown is high maintenance. But Ron Artest is high maintenance CUBED. Unload Artest. Hire Brown. You just lowered the net maintenance on the Kings by an exponential factor of 2. So you just added a Hall of Fame coach, subtracted a guy who isn't even an All-Star, and lowered the net maintenance on the Kings. Have Brown sign a 2 or 3 year contract, lowering the potential liability to the franchise. Hire Shaw as Brown's student, with the understanding Shaw will take over in 2-3 years. The risk-reward is a LOT lower than the Artest trade, that's for sure.

 

[vfettke]

i would looooooove to have Brown with Brooks as his apprentice. the only problem is this: if Petrie agrees to it he better understand that he's gotta start demolishing this team. this team has a whole lot of overpaid underachievers who are starting to move past their prime... does that remind you guys of another team he recently coached?

i would love to see Brown as our coach if we were rebuilding with a bunch of youngsters

 

[Kingster]

i would looooooove to have Brown with Brooks as his apprentice. the only problem is this: if Petrie agrees to it he better understand that he's gotta start demolishing this team. this team has a whole lot of overpaid underachievers who are starting to move past their prime... does that remind you guys of another team he recently coached?

i would love to see Brown as our coach if we were rebuilding with a bunch of youngsters

Couldn't agree more that Petrie's got to blow it up and go with the youngsters. Brown would be perfect for teaching how them how to play "the right way."

 

[HndsmCelt]

Yes, yes it does.



Exactly.

Look you make fair points, don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Brown is just going to deliver us to the promised land next year, but at least he gives us more hope or righting this ship than Musselman version 2.0.

And I'm not totally against some of the unknown coaches. The fact is that it's a crapshoot either way. If we are going to start fresh with a young, up and coming coach, then it should be when we have a fresh group of young, up and coming players. We still have Kenny Thomas, SAR, Brad Miller, Ron Artest...well you get the point.

And Larry Brown is hardly responsible for all the mess that is NY. When I look at the group of monkeys that are the Knicks, I wonder, was Larry Brown the only one throwing pewp across the cage?

Sory Bawla we are going to have to go to the mat on this one. First off you want to disagree with my statement that just beceause a coach has reings he therefore is a beter candidate than one with out. You also conviently cliped the quot befoer my examples. Sloan and Adelman. So based on your statement we ahve to asume you would rather have Brown coaching than Sloan, Adelman, Nelly, Jeff Van Gundy... (you get my point)

Next you like other Brown appoligist want to claim that poor Larry was handed a bunch of loosers and did the best job he could with them. While that roster was NOT going to set the NBA on fire they had tallent, and they grossly UNDER performed under Brown. He actually seemed to bring out almost every player's innner knuckel head. Their record was no jsut bad it was the worst record in franchise history since the god awfull mid 80's when they were a bad team in a very strong confrence. Brown inhereted a arguably IMPROVED team from 2004-2005 that only won 33 games. Under Larry not only did they drop to 23 wins but player after player nutted out. The next year Zeek took virtually the same squad back up to 33 wins. The key factor missing was Brown.

Ironically Muss managed to amass a 33 win season himself so IF history and past actions are an indicator of future performance we could expect Larry to once again amass 22 wins in 2008 and we can watch Bibby and Artest's fist fight on Youtube... and THAT is an opimistic view assuming Larry has not lost a step since 2005.

 

[Sac4cwebb]

I love the idea of Larry Brown coaching the Kings. Aren't we the team that gives stars with a troubled past a second chance? He is a great, experienced teacher who would command the repect of the players. Brown has something to prove like Webber and Artest. Lets give him that chance.

 

[kingsfaninhumboldt]

I got to weigh in on this.

When Rick Adelman was not re-signed, I thought the only way to upgrade at coach was to get someone who won a championship as a coach. Here is an FYI, since Magic Johnson and Larry Bird came into the league in 1979-1980, only 10 coaches has coached teams to an NBA title. Those coaches coached the 8 franchises who won titles in that period. Here is the list:

Paul Westhead (Lakers 1980)
Bill Fitch (Celtics 1981)
Pat Riley (Lakers 1982, 1985, 1987, 1988. Heat 2006)
Billy Cunningham (76ers 1983)
K.C. Jones (Celtics 1984, 1986)
Chuck Daly (Pistons 1989, 1990)
Phil Jackson (Bulls 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996, 1997, 1998. Lakers 2000, 2001, 2002)
Rudy Tomjanovich (Rockets 1994, 1995)
Gregg Popovich (Spurs 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007)
Larry Brown (Pistons 2004)

Let me cut to the chase. I felt last season that the Kings should have gone after Larry Brown after the organization decided not to the re-sign Adelman. I feel to this day that Adelman is probably the best coach to not win an NBA title as a coach. If the Maloofs thought Adelman was not the answer, then you need to find a way to get one of those coaches who won a title. The only problem is six of them are retired from coaching (Westhead, Fitch, Cunningham, Jones, Tomjanovich, and Daly) and three are coaching (Jackson, Riley, and Popovich). Lastly, Brown is an executive vice president for the 76ers. If Brown wants to coach, then the Kings MUST call him about the job.

I'll say this, this team is not that far away from being a playoff team. The injuries were a problem last year. All I know is this team could compete for a playoff spot. By bringing in Brown, I think this team could step up and make the playoffs next year. That is my bold prediction.

 

[VF21]

I'm not disagreeing that Brown is high maintenance. But Ron Artest is high maintenance CUBED. Unload Artest. Hire Brown. You just lowered the net maintenance on the Kings by an exponential factor of 2. So you just added a Hall of Fame coach, subtracted a guy who isn't even an All-Star, and lowered the net maintenance on the Kings. Have Brown sign a 2 or 3 year contract, lowering the potential liability to the franchise. Hire Shaw as Brown's student, with the understanding Shaw will take over in 2-3 years. The risk-reward is a LOT lower than the Artest trade, that's for sure.

Apples and sea slugs. "Maintenance" isn't something you can merge like boxes of rotten fruit.

Larry Brown is another heart-break waiting to happen and, if history is any indication, it will cost the Kings a ton of change to get out any contract they sign with him.

Have Brown sign a 2- or 3-year contract? Yeah, fine. But for how many bazillions of dollars? The dude has left financial tragedy behind him.

And I'm sorry but we'll simply have to agree to disagree about the difference in "risk/reward" for Brown and Artest. Although I am somewhat curious to know how you would define "risk/reward" in these instances.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Couldn't agree more that Petrie's got to blow it up and go with the youngsters. Brown would be perfect for teaching how them how to play "the right way."

No he is not. It is CLEAR that Larry is trying to rehab his rep, so if anyone gives him a chance to coach he will be trying to win games, not develop tallent for the future. In fact the one coach in basketball history that clearly has NEVER looked to the future is Mr. Hit and Run Down Town Brown. he will wnat vets, he will paly vets and he will likely still loose with vets then once again ride off into the sunset.

The problem the Kings face now is that most if not all experienced coaches want o protect their records and so they balk at our roster, and rebuild teams in general. Folks argued Van Gundy would be differnet but that ship has sailed. If what the Kings want to do (the smart thing) is gut the roster, bring in youth and position it's self for the future writing off the 07-08 season as a rebuild year, then you are most likely looking for either a former assistant with no record to protect who has spent lotsw of time developing young players and teaching fundementals or better yet a successfull college coach who has been teaching fundementals to kids for a while. One other shot might be a Euro coach who once again stresses fundementals.

If you sign a rebuild coach you have to expect a couple things. First the 07-08 record is irrelevant for evaluation. The guiy is also probably a temporarly coach for a 2-3 year period and will/should be replaced if he does not set then NBA on fire in his second or third year and as experienced coaches become avalilable.

 

[VF21]

I'll say this, this team is not that far away from being a playoff team. The injuries were a problem last year. All I know is this team could compete for a playoff spot. By bringing in Brown, I think this team could step up and make the playoffs next year. That is my bold prediction.

And that, unfortunately, was the thinking last year when the Kings should have started cutting their losses and rebuilding. Being a playoff team when you're on the way up and have a legitimate shot at the title is good. Being a playoff team when you're on the way down and don't have a chance in the world of getting past teams like the Suns or the Spurs is just an agonizing extension of the season.

We don't need Larry Brown. What we need is a different mix of players. We need a power forward who IS a power forward and not an overpriced, undersized pretender. We need a frontcourt that can actually play in the front court, backs to the basket and arms in the air.

Taken separately, there are a lot of good pieces in the Kings puzzle box. Unfortunately, they are never going to fit together as a competitive, cohesive team.

You want to look at a team that has it right? Look at the Spurs. And then, look again. They have balance, they have a clear picture of who they are and how they want to play the game.

The Kings have neither at the moment. They haven't known who they were since the day Webber left for Philadelphia. And they certainly didn't have a clue last season about how they wanted to approach the game.

This has to be a true rebuild. Not a fixer-upper. If not, even if Brown got the team to the playoffs, they wouldn't go far.

There's a very good reason Larry Brown is still sitting at home. Team owners don't live in caves. They've watched how he handled his last two jobs. He's lightning in a bottle and anyone who would hire him had better know going in it could end very, very badly.

We've had "end badly"... We had it last season. I strongly suspect the Maloofs and Geoff Petrie don't want another year like that. They'll pick the candidate who isn't likely to try to wander away the first time the gate is left open and he sees how green the grass is on the other side of the fence.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I'll say this, this team is not that far away from being a playoff team. The injuries were a problem last year. All I know is this team could compete for a playoff spot. By bringing in Brown, I think this team could step up and make the playoffs next year. That is my bold prediction.

You are absolutly correct and also dead wrong. Last years Kings DID underperform and probably could have nabed the 8th seed or with some luck the 7th. And that IS the problem. This team could be forever stuck in the first round exit mode for years to come UNLESS there is a rebuild. Unfortunaltly the only part that Brown could serve in a rebuild is looseing more games. There really is no reason to belive he could take THIS team back into the play offs, nor is there anyreason to belive he can, would or even wants to be part of 2-5 year rebuild plan.

 

[VF21]

Geoff? Joe and Gavin? Are you listening to this? Are you feeling the pulse -- hey, an actual pulse! -- of your community?

Make that call this time.

What pulse, Ailene? Are you privvy to some secret poll no one else knows about.

Voisin acts as though she's speaking for all of US - the fans - instead of promoting her own agenda again. After all, it's clear from the article that she's the one who initiated the call to Brown.

If this doesn't demand a Kingsfans.com poll, I certainly can't think of anything that does...

 

[ovrush]

My quick thoughts on this- A month ago I would have said no no no and no to Brown as a possibility. If my Choices are now between Brown and an assistant from last year, Shaw and Theus I would take Brown... with caveats.

I think Brown would have to come at a reduced price. If Brown wants back in the game he has to acknowledge that he isn't worth what he was coming out of Detroit. I think the reduced price and the fact that he isn't a coaching superstar at the moment may hel to mitigate his Ego. If he is coming back to fix his legacy I think he may be closer to the coach that rebuilt all those franchises with young guys than the egomaniac who clashed with the sea of egomaniacs in New York.

If we brought him in he also would have to accept that GP is a long tenured and well respected GM and he would have to accept his decisions.

If he could do those two things, which I think are perhaps possible given the negative light he is seen in now, he really would be the best candidate. Mostly because this is a guy known for being a rebuilder, and the other guys we're looking at our young candidates who are kind of roll the dice type situations.

 

[hrdboild]

I'm a little surprised at the number of people who don't think Larry Brown is at least worth an interview. As far as coaching credentials go, they don't get any better. I wouldn't hire him unless all parties concerned were very clear upfront that they had a common interest, but if the best NBA coach of the last decade (arguably, but at least top 3 -- at least) says he wants to coach your team and you're currently interviewing guys like Scott Brooks, Reggie Theus, and Brian Shaw....how can you not give the guy an interview?

 

[VF21]

My quick thoughts on this- A month ago I would have said no no no and no to Brown as a possibility. If my Choices are now between Brown and an assistant from last year, Shaw and Theus I would take Brown... with caveats.

I think Brown would have to come at a reduced price. If Brown wants back in the game he has to acknowledge that he isn't worth what he was coming out of Detroit. I think the reduced price and the fact that he isn't a coaching superstar at the moment may hel to mitigate his Ego. If he is coming back to fix his legacy I think he may be closer to the coach that rebuilt all those franchises with young guys than the egomaniac who clashed with the sea of egomaniacs in New York.

If we brought him in he also would have to accept that GP is a long tenured and well respected GM and he would have to accept his decisions.

If he could do those two things, which I think are perhaps possible given the negative light he is seen in now, he really would be the best candidate. Mostly because this is a guy known for being a rebuilder, and the other guys we're looking at our young candidates who are kind of roll the dice type situations.

You don't mitigate egos. And you aren't going to mold the person with the name "Larry Brown" into someone new. You're asking for a completely different person than the Larry Brown we all know exists.

Voisin made him sound contrite when I suspect he's nowhere near contrite. Notice in the first article she says:

"I want to get back," Brown said when contacted at his home in Philadelphia.

In the full piece for this morning's paper she subtly makes a change to elicit more sympathy from the reader:

"I want to get back," a subdued Brown said from his home in Philadelphia.

A leopard doen't change its spots even if someone starts to call them stripes. Larry Brown isn't going to become a different person simply because people see him in a negative light. If he did, he would ultimately resort to his true colors.

 

[VF21]

I'm a little surprised at the number of people who don't think Larry Brown is at least worth an interview. As far as coaching credentials go, they don't get any better. I wouldn't hire him unless all parties concerned were very clear upfront that they had a common interest, but if the best NBA coach of the last decade (arguably, but at least top 3 -- at least) says he wants to coach your team and you're currently interviewing guys like Scott Brooks, Reggie Theus, and Brian Shaw....how can you not give the guy an interview?

Have you read all the comments? I think people are being pretty clear about why they don't want Larry Brown around. And this whole coaching credentials thing is silly IMHO. Yes, there are coaches out there with MUCH better credentials. Unfortunately, they're all working elsewhere.

You "wouldn't hire him unless... "

As soon as you say that, you admit you recognize there are potential problems big enough to warrant a pre-emptive proviso.

 

[Entity]

Where is this crap coming from that Brown doesn't play young guys?? Prince played in 42 games his rookie year as the 23rd pick in the draft. The next year he started all 82 on his way to the championship. That year 9 players on the Detroit roster averaged double figures in min. not only that in Detroit he didn't have any young guys except for Prince and Milicic. Price started and PLEASE tell me this isn't coming from the Milcic camp of he could be the greatest center ever hooplah/crap.

So he took a step back in NY. He left Det on bad terms. That is the past.
Fact is he is a PROVEN coach. We need a proven coach to get us on the right track. Not a coach learning with the palyers. It takes somebody who has seen it all been in the trenches been in the playoffs been in the championships. He has been there. Can the other candidates say they have that kind of coaching experience? I applaud Voison this one time. She took it upon herself to step in and make it seem as though its the fans outcry for Brown to be interviewed. She knows as many of you should it takes something bold like this to start. If we don't make a big trade this could be our biggest move. Sorry but signing Scott Brooks as coach isn't a big move.

 

[hrdboild]

Have you read all the comments? I think people are being pretty clear about why they don't want Larry Brown around. And this whole coaching credentials thing is silly IMHO. Yes, there are coaches out there with MUCH better credentials. Unfortunately, they're all working elsewhere.

You "wouldn't hire him unless... "

As soon as you say that, you admit you recognize there are potential problems big enough to warrant a pre-emptive proviso.

Yes I've read all the comments. That's why I'm in such disbelief. Yes, obviously there is reason for concern. If there wasn't, he'd already be coaching the Lakers or the Knicks or the Celtics or some other big market team that gets whatever they want because they have "history" right? I'd argue that no one has won more with less than Larry Brown has (not even Jerry Sloan) but that's probably a discussion that belongs in it's own topic. He's not just the best coach available, he's already guaranteed a place in the hall of fame. How many active coaches can you say that about? Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, maybe Jerry Sloan? No hall of fame coach is ever going to come to Sacramento. Most of the nation still thinks Sacramento is a cow town. I grew up in Sacramento, I'd rather live there right now than LA, but regardless that's the perception. Here you've got a hall of fame coach who's interested. The only reason he's interested is that he screwed up his last job, the job he'd been waiting for his whole career, so bad that he may never coach again. Isn't he at least worth an interview? You're telling me that if we hire Scott Brooks and this team is just as bad in six months you're not going to be wondering if maybe Larry Brown wouldn't have been worth a look? That's what I'm saying. When you're already turning over stones trying to pluck some diamond in the rough coach that no one else wants and expect them to be your leader for the next 5 years --what have you really got to lose? I'm just saying, he deserves an interview.

 

[Entity]

As far as the poll goes. Lets see my choices are

Brooks
Theus
Shaw
Brown
and uhm Vincent the one legged turtle

lets see i'll take the guy with the rings and with more that 6 games under his belt as a head coach.

 

[Entity]

Yes I've read all the comments. That's why I'm in such disbelief. Yes, obviously there is reason for concern. If there wasn't, he'd already be coaching the Lakers or the Knicks or the Celtics or some other big market team that gets whatever they want because they have "history" right? I'd argue that no one has won more with less than Larry Brown has (not even Jerry Sloan) but that's probably a discussion that belongs in it's own topic. He's not just the best coach available, he's already guaranteed a place in the hall of fame. How many active coaches can you say that about? Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, maybe Jerry Sloan? No hall of fame coach is ever going to come to Sacramento. Most of the nation still thinks Sacramento is a cow town. I grew up in Sacramento, I'd rather live there right now than LA, but regardless that's the perception. Here you've got a hall of fame coach who's interested. The only reason he's interested is that he screwed up his last job, the job he'd been waiting for his whole career, so bad that he may never coach again. Isn't he at least worth an interview? You're telling me that if we hire Scott Brooks and this team is just as bad in six months you're not going to be wondering if maybe Larry Brown wouldn't have been worth a look? That's what I'm saying. When you're already turning over stones trying to pluck some diamond in the rough coach that no one else wants and expect them to be your leader for the next 5 years --what have you really got to lose? I'm just saying, he deserves an interview.

Great post your right if you are looking in bathrooms and hotel rooms for coaches why not give the guy with the goods a looksee it can't get much worse than last year.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Yes I've read all the comments. That's why I'm in such disbelief. Yes, obviously there is reason for concern. If there wasn't, he'd already be coaching the Lakers or the Knicks or the Celtics or some other big market team that gets whatever they want because they have "history" right? I'd argue that no one has won more with less than Larry Brown has (not even Jerry Sloan) but that's probably a discussion that belongs in it's own topic. He's not just the best coach available, he's already guaranteed a place in the hall of fame. How many active coaches can you say that about? Pat Riley, Phil Jackson, maybe Jerry Sloan? No hall of fame coach is ever going to come to Sacramento. Most of the nation still thinks Sacramento is a cow town. I grew up in Sacramento, I'd rather live there right now than LA, but regardless that's the perception. Here you've got a hall of fame coach who's interested. The only reason he's interested is that he screwed up his last job, the job he'd been waiting for his whole career, so bad that he may never coach again. Isn't he at least worth an interview? You're telling me that if we hire Scott Brooks and this team is just as bad in six months you're not going to be wondering if maybe Larry Brown wouldn't have been worth a look? That's what I'm saying. When you're already turning over stones trying to pluck some diamond in the rough coach that no one else wants and expect them to be your leader for the next 5 years --what have you really got to lose? I'm just saying, he deserves an interview.

You make a good point that from a MARKEING perspective Brown makes sense. And if the Maloofs could get him on a one year say 1mil sallery with a second year option by the team I don't think you would be hearing quite as strong an objection from some of the fans who have no to Brown. But in the real world Brown can not be had for a one year contract will not work for 1 mill a year, and will in all likelyhood do nothing for the actual players ont he court. Infact while Brown may bring the national spot light with him, NBA vets are likely to steer clear of Sac as FA's BECEAUSE Brown is here.

Sorry every practical bone in my body says the worng guy to help rebuild the Kings is Brown.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Great post your right if you are looking in bathrooms and hotel rooms for coaches why not give the guy with the goods a looksee it can't get much worse than last year.

22 wins