Ailene Voisin: No better choice than Whiz, kids

Roch Royals Fan · May 27, 2006

thesanityannex said:

Well, if it's just coaching period, than why hasn't Van Chancellor had a shot in the NBA?

http://www.wnba.com/coachfile/van_chancellor/index.html
During the 2000 season, Chancellor and the Comets won their fourth consecutive WNBA Championship and became the only professional sports franchise in the United States in the past decade to win four straight titles.

He's also a Basketball Hall of Famer, and has coached the Women to a gold medal.

According to your logic, if it's just coaching, we'd be MUCH better off hiring Van Chancellor, rather than the 'whiz'.

It's not just coaching, period!! Experience has shown that NBA experience is vital to being a successful NBA coach.

The 'whiz' would be a fine assistant coach, but not a head coach.

thesanityannex · May 27, 2006

Roch Royals Fan said:

Maybe Chancellor just likes women.

My reply was to BMiller52 and was mainly to just make the point that the guy has coached before and has had success doing it. Will he be successful in the NBA.............who knows. But I'm not going to run around on this board saying this is the worst move ever and the Kings will suck....................... until I see him coach, if he is indeed the next coach. Besides, I've always thought the guys "on the court" were more important than the coach.

Padrino · May 27, 2006

thesanityannex said:

one non-nba championship does not make an "impressive track record," especially when it comes in a league that plays 34 games a season (the lockout-shortened nba season in '99 was 50 games, for reference's sake). but wait a minute, it gets better. only 4 teams per conference play in the wnba playoffs, the first and second rounds are a best of 3 series, and the wnba finals is a best of 5 series. this is not a slam on the wnba. its still in its infant stages, having been established just 10 years ago. more teams will be created, and the level of play will elevate over time as the competitive value of the playoffs increases, but as of right now, IT DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE LEVEL OF PLAY SEEN IN THE NBA!!!

whisenant is the least-credentialed coach that i have ever seen just handed a head coaching job. it's a goddamn travesty that mario elie, eric mussleman, and pj carlesimo are being completely played by the maloofs. as much as i don't want pj or mussleman as our head coach, i'd take either any day of the week and twice on sunday over whisenant. if whis was, by some miracle, the most qualified of the coaches being interviewed for this position, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. however, he is not qualified in any capacity to coach in the nba. we don't need a 60 year old rookie coaching our team. if we're gonna hire a rookie coach, it might as well be a young and fiery coach who isn't gonna brown-nose his way into favor with the maloofs. i'm gonna say it again, hiring whisenant would be an utter travesty considering the talent available. if he works out, fine, i'll admit my wrongs and i will shut my mouth on the subject. HOWEVER, that is a huge ****ing risk to take with a franchise that is clawing its way back into elite status. the maloofs may "own" the team in dollars and cents, but the fans are the actual owners of the team in that without them, there is no team. plain and simple. and you don't **** with my team by bringing in unqualified personnel.

thesanityannex · May 27, 2006

Padrino said:

one non-nba championship does not make an "impressive track record," especially when it comes in a league that plays 34 games a season (the lockout-shortened nba season in '99 was 50 games, for reference's sake). but wait a minute, it gets better. only 4 teams per conference play in the wnba playoffs, the first and second rounds are a best of 3 series, and the wnba finals is a best of 5 series. this is not a slam on the wnba. its still in its infant stages, having been established just 10 years ago. more teams will be created, and the level of play will elevate over time as the competitive value of the playoffs increases, but as of right now, IT DOES NOT EVEN COME CLOSE TO THE LEVEL OF PLAY SEEN IN THE NBA!!!

whisenant is the least-credentialed coach that i have ever seen just handed a head coaching job. it's a goddamn travesty that mario elie, eric mussleman, and pj carlesimo are being completely played by the maloofs. as much as i don't want pj or mussleman as our head coach, i'd take either any day of the week and twice on sunday over whisenant. if whis was, by some miracle, the most qualified of the coaches being interviewed for this position, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. however, he is not qualified in any capacity to coach in the nba. we don't need a 60 year old rookie coaching our team. if we're gonna hire a rookie coach, it might as well be a young and fiery coach who isn't gonna brown-nose his way into favor with the maloofs. i'm gonna say it again, hiring whisenant would be an utter travesty considering the talent available. if he works out, fine, i'll admit my wrongs and i will shut my mouth on the subject. HOWEVER, that is a huge ****ing risk to take with a franchise that is clawing its way back into elite status. the maloofs may "own" the team in dollars and cents, but the fans are the actual owners of the team in that without them, there is no team. plain and simple. and you don't **** with my team by bringing in unqualified personnel.

Do you have your pitchfork ready?

I'm going to wait and see the product he produces before I pass judgement.

Padrino · May 27, 2006

thesanityannex said:

i don't get it. why are so many of you people out there ready to accept something less than the kings deserve as a team? this is not about "passing judgement." it's never been about "passing judgement." i'm not even "passing judgement." and if i am, it's on the maloofs, not on whisenant.

this is about the owners of our basketball team exercising blind nepotism over calculated thoroughness. does anybody out there other than me want to see a winning team take the floor next season? is everybody so ready to accept whisenant that they'd sacrifice next season, in part or on the whole? nobody can honestly believe that the kings will kick off next season with a string of 10-15 wins, regardless of who the head coach is. there is going to be a transition period. i'm confused as to why so many people would see that transition period extended in order to accomodate the learning curve of a complete rookie to the nba, and one who is 60+ years old. i don't know if anybody out there in cyberspace pays attention to the human aspects of coaching, but 60 year old guys don't like to change much. they don't adapt well. see larry brown for reference.

my pitchfork is not ready. that's a bull**** term to begin with, and i won't be pigeon-holed with all the naysayers who don't know how to argue logically. i will root for this team until its dying days, whether they be in sacramento or las vegas. but i've mulled this decision over many times now, and i can not think of ONE good reason as to why the maloofs should hire whisenant over someone like elie...or even don nelson, for goodness' sake. if someone can prepare me a good, logical, and well-argued reason as to why we should all just sit back and accept the irrational, reactionary, and undisciplined decision the maloofs are about to make, then i will step down. but not ONE person has been able to provide me with a reasonable argument. "i'm going to wait and see the product he produces before I pass judgement" is not a reasonable argument. that shows weakness of thought.

one must consider the consequences before one acts on emotion. the maloofs are hiring john whisenant because they believe one wnba championship--and nothing else of value on a resume--is enough to carry an nba team to a championship. that's not good enough. not for my team, not for your team, not for anybody's team. so i say to you, do yourself a favor, and think this through before you resign yourself to the prospect of whisenant as coach. a fan should be educated, and should be able to think rationally even in the most hopeless of times. this is hardly a hopeless time for the kings. leave hopelessness to teams like the knicks. the kings have a bright future, and i don't want to see it ****ed up by an amateur, and trust, whisenant is an amateur when it comes to the nba--there is no argument that can prove that statement false.

Kingsgurl · May 27, 2006

The Maloofs own 2 basketball teams. I see this move as pretty bad for one and worse for the other. Way to go.

thesanityannex · May 27, 2006

Padrino said:

i don't get it. why are so many of you people out there ready to accept something less than the kings deserve as a team? this is not about "passing judgement." it's never been about "passing judgement." i'm not even "passing judgement." and if i am, it's on the maloofs, not on whisenant.

this is about the owners of our basketball team exercising blind nepotism over calculated thoroughness. does anybody out there other than me want to see a winning team take the floor next season? is everybody so ready to accept whisenant that they'd sacrifice next season, in part or on the whole? nobody can honestly believe that the kings will kick off next season with a string of 10-15 wins, regardless of who the head coach is. there is going to be a transition period. i'm confused as to why so many people would see that transition period extended in order to accomodate the learning curve of a complete rookie to the nba, and one who is 60+ years old. i don't know if anybody out there in cyberspace pays attention to the human aspects of coaching, but 60 year old guys don't like to change much. they don't adapt well. see larry brown for reference.

my pitchfork is not ready. that's a bull**** term to begin with, and i won't be pigeon-holed with all the naysayers who don't know how to argue logically. i will root for this team until its dying days, whether they be in sacramento or las vegas. but i've mulled this decision over many times now, and i can not think of ONE good reason as to why the maloofs should hire whisenant over someone like elie...or even don nelson, for goodness' sake. if someone can prepare me a good, logical, and well-argued reason as to why we should all just sit back and accept the irrational, reactionary, and undisciplined decision the maloofs are about to make, then i will step down. but not ONE person has been able to provide me with a reasonable argument. "i'm going to wait and see the product he produces before I pass judgement" is not a reasonable argument. that shows weakness of thought.

one must consider the consequences before one acts on emotion. the maloofs are hiring john whisenant because they believe one wnba championship--and nothing else of value on a resume--is enough to carry an nba team to a championship. that's not good enough. not for my team, not for your team, not for anybody's team. so i say to you, do yourself a favor, and think this through before you resign yourself to the prospect of whisenant as coach. a fan should be educated, and should be able to think rationally even in the most hopeless of times. this is hardly a hopeless time for the kings. leave hopelessness to teams like the knicks. the kings have a bright future, and i don't want to see it ****ed up by an amateur, and trust, whisenant is an amateur when it comes to the nba--there is no argument that can prove that statement false.

That is how "I" feel about the situation. It is not even an arguement to be honest. I just really don't feel the "possible" hiring of Whis is the end of the world for the Kings. There is no possible way of saying Whis can't win at the NBA level until we see it for ourselves. I still think the players are more important than the coach. Larry Brown had the Knicks sucking even more this year, he's supposed to be great right? Flip Saunders ain't that good of a coach, he's in the Eastern Conference Finals right now. Are you telling me each of these situations is because of coaching?

shaka zulu · May 27, 2006

thesanityannex said:

So if players are more important opposed to coaching why are we even having this conversation, why isn't adelman coming back as coach if the players are more important.

PixelPusher · May 27, 2006

Roch Royals Fan said:

I'm a male, and I'm not down with Wis as the next head coach for the Kings. I guess this means I'm a sexist. Thanks AV, for illuminating the root of all my biases regarding who I think will be a good coach in the NBA.

SacKings384 · May 27, 2006

Yes, a guy that hasn't sniffed the NBA in his entire career is the best option...

Jerryaki · May 27, 2006

thesanityannex said:

while i agree that whis be given a chance, it does nothing to negate padrino's argument that he is the least-qualified of the bunch, and if that is the case...why hire him?

the kings are not in the rebuilding stages, they need an experienced coach. preferably not one with 700+ wins though, that's just lame.

SacKings384 · May 27, 2006

You gamble on trading Webber =Worst possible? Webber plays great and the guys you get ruin your team Upside? You get movable good pieces and good character players Gamble on Artest=Worst Possible? Artest refuses to play and the Kings stink... Upside? You get a great player that saves your season and turns your whole team around... Gamble on Coach W=Worst possible? He doesn't know what to do in the NBA game, players don't respect him, and it's a disaster... Upside=? A semi-decent coach? I always thought the thing about gambling was that you had to possibly get something that's good enough to take the fact that you might suffer a huge loss...

thesanityannex · May 27, 2006

shaka zulu said:

I would have liked to see him back myself.

captain bill · May 27, 2006

I know this is late, but Padrino won the thread a while ago. Everyone else should just hide their faces in shame (this means you, sanity).

shaka zulu · May 27, 2006

SacKings384 said:

Artest didn't turn the season around alone it was 50/50 with his defense and leadership abilities combined with the system already in place and the coaching staff who created a condusive atmosphere for Ron, bonzi and others to be succesful in mid season on the fly without much intergration and no training camp and little practice time.

SacKings384 · May 27, 2006

No Artest's PLAY didn't turn the season around, but that trade did. And I was simply stating what the upside COULD be before they make the move, the upside for this one is pretty lackluster...

Monty'sBiggestFan · May 27, 2006

I find it somewhat humorous that Whiz is now so tightly identified as a "women" coach....when he first took over the reigns of the Monarchs the criticism he received was that he had never coached women. The guy understand the game of basketball period, regardless of the gender of the players and he has the ability to adapt. My criticism of the Maloofs' decision (if he is indeed their ultimate choice) is that it's impulsive. Then again, his whole purpose for the Maloofs asking him to come to Sacramento in the first place may very well have been to do just this and the Monarchs coaching job just got in the way, and then he went and won a championship and further mucked things up.

Bricklayer · May 27, 2006

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

No its worse than Whiz being just a "women's coach". It is in fact that that is the ****ing highlight of his sad little career. Nice, but its a different sport.

Mentioned in another thread, I'd be willing to bet Whiz has never coached a single player as good as the 12th man on the Kings. And if you don't think that makes an absolutely enormous difference, just check out the track records of the far MORE accomplished stud college coaches that flop out year after year int he NBA. They know basketball too. But that doesn't mean diddly in the NBA.

Monty'sBiggestFan · May 27, 2006

I'm not arguing Brick, I'm as pissed off as the rest of everyone. I just find it humorous that he's getting called a "womens" coach.

He actually has coached a pretty decent player in Michael Cooper. I think he was better than a 12th man on this current Kings roster.

Bricklayer · May 27, 2006

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

I assume this was while he was an assistant coach at New Mexico?

By coached I meant actually head coached rather than carried a clipboard, but I suppose at the point when the option is coaches a mean AAU team, you have to take your highlights where you can find them.

Warhawk · May 27, 2006

Padrino said:

Actually, you are. You are assuming the guy can't get it done. Period. That is the underlying assumption in all your arguements. OK, well that and the assumption that Elie can because he's played on championship teams.

News flash: So has Corliss (one, anyways). If he spent 2 years on a bench for a losing team, would you consider him to be highly qualified to be a head coach?

It takes more than being a player on a team with a ring and a couple years as an assistant on a bench to be "coach" material. There are a lot of intangibles to consider as well.

What if the solution by Elie and PJ was to blow up the team and start from scratch in the interviews? What if they demanded $7 mil/year to start? What if they asked for Swedish massages every night after a game and wouldn't coach back-to-backs to rest up? Point is, we have no idea what the interviews were like, what personalities worked or clashed, or what input current players have given as far as what they might like to see in a coach.

We all (except for some fans here supporting other teams) want the Kings to go undefeated next year and win it all. So do the Maloofs and Petrie.

Maybe they are going to choose a coach that, on "paper", doesn't appear to be the most attractive to you.

Maybe this is because the intangibles are outweighing the "paper".

Maybe it is nepotism to an extent and this is the wrong choice to make, if indeed it is made to have Whis coach the Kings. But it is their choice to make and their team, and they want to win it all as much as anyone here. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and give the guy a chance. He deserves that without being skewered in public, as do the Maloofs.

Rome · May 27, 2006

Warhawk said:

Actually, you are. You are assuming the guy can't get it done. Period. That is the underlying assumption in all your arguements. OK, well that and the assumption that Elie can because he's played on championship teams.

News flash: So has Corliss (one, anyways). If he spent 2 years on a bench for a losing team, would you consider him to be highly qualified to be a head coach?

It takes more than being a player on a team with a ring and a couple years as an assistant on a bench to be "coach" material. There are a lot of intangibles to consider as well.

What if the solution by Elie and PJ was to blow up the team and start from scratch in the interviews? What if they demanded $7 mil/year to start? What if they asked for Swedish massages every night after a game and wouldn't coach back-to-backs to rest up? Point is, we have no idea what the interviews were like, what personalities worked or clashed, or what input current players have given as far as what they might like to see in a coach.

We all (except for some fans here supporting other teams) want the Kings to go undefeated next year and win it all. So do the Maloofs and Petrie.

Maybe they are going to choose a coach that, on "paper", doesn't appear to be the most attractive to you.

Maybe this is because the intangibles are outweighing the "paper".

Maybe it is nepotism to an extent and this is the wrong choice to make, if indeed it is made to have Whis coach the Kings. But it is their choice to make and their team, and they want to win it all as much as anyone here. I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and give the guy a chance. He deserves that without being skewered in public, as do the Maloofs.

I agree with everything. good post

Padrino · May 27, 2006

Warhawk said:

no. i am not assuming that whisenant cannot get it done. i am claiming that he is unqualified, and that there are better [and obvious] alternatives to his hiring. that is not passing judgement. that is a reasonable argument.

yes, there certainly are other intangibles. i agree entirely. however, considering that both elie and whisenant are general risks, i'll take that risk with the guy who's played at the nba level for 11 years and has manned the bench as an assistant coach for 2 years over the guy who hasn't had a single whiff of the nba experience.

this is just silly. hyperbole aside, the fact that the subject of this debate was reported as a lock for the position during the two-day period in which mussleman and elie were to be interviewed, without having been interviewed himself, i think it's safe to assume that there is more at work here then the interview process.

as for these intangibles, again, i go back to my argument that you take the guy with the nba experience any day of the week. that guy, mario elie specifically, knows exactly what "intangibles" are necessary to win an NBA Championship, having been there himself 3 times before. i see both these supposed "intangibles" with a guy like mario elie, who is as hard-nosed as they come for a young assistant coach, and the "paper" credentials, which i also believe are incredibly important at the coaching level.

Superman · May 29, 2006

thesanityannex said:

You say there is no way of knowing whether he'll be able to win in the NBA until we see it, but that's the same as hiring someone off this board and saying "Well, let's give him a chance; there's no reason to pass judgment on him until we see what he can do." It's not about the WNBA or Whisenant. It's about the Maloofs not hiring the best potential candidate available for the job.

Had they fired Adelman last summer and hired Phil Jackson, that would be justified. One of the best NBA coaching resumes in the world. Great ego management. Was the best available candidate at the time.

Larry Brown is coaching a terrible team, and he decided to make it worse in order to get control of the team. Back-fired on him, but he's still a championship coach. And before he won in the NBA, he won in college. And it still took him several seasons with several teams to be considered a great coach. Dues paid.

Flip Saunders has only missed the playoffs twice in his 11 years coaching in the NBA. He spent several years as one of the absolute best coaches in the CBA. Dues paid.

The Maloofs are NOT making a good basketball decision by hiring Whisenant. Are they making a bad one? Can't tell, but that's not a reason to make the move. They should find the most qualified candidate available and hire him.

If a head coaching candidate had spent four seasons in the CBA and won a championship, would you consider him to be the best candidate available? Or even qualified to coach in the NBA?

Superman · May 29, 2006

Monty'sBiggestFan said:

I think I missed that. Who's called him a "women's coach"?

Ailene Voison gave the whole "men won't respect him because he's coming from the WNBA" line of reasoning (or lack thereof, if you ask me). But no one here is saying that there's anything wrong with him being moved up from the WNBA to the NBA.

In fact, consider the situation at the beginning of last season when Michael Cooper was hired to coach the Nuggets. He was accepted because he had extensive NBA experience, not only as a player, but as a coach, an assistant to "Logo" in LA, etc. He also had an even more impressive WNBA resume than Whisenant does. Back to back WNBA championships, went to the Finals three years in a row, coach of the year, etc. But when he got another crack at coaching at the NBA level, was he hired to be the head coach of a perennial playoff team that was trying to climb back to elite status? A team that had posted several consecutive winning seasons and had just parted ways with a 700 win coach with a winning regular season and playoff percentage? No. He was hired as an assistant coach for the lowly Denver Nuggets. And was eventually promoted to interim head coach for half a season, until the Nuggets found a more qualified candidate.

Whisenant isn't being blasted for being a WNBA coach. In fact, that has nothing to do with it. And I, as a male and a "Whisenant for Head Coach" opposer, take offense at the fact that this is being made into a WNBA issue. This is an NBA issue. And Whisenant has NO NBA experience on any level: player, assistant coach, front office experience, scout, etc. He's never even sniffed the NBA. He has no tangible qualifications for the job aside from having a successful stint in the WNBA. There's nothing wrong with that, in itself. But that's all he has to his credit. And it's not enough to convince me or anyone else that he's the most qualified candidate for the job.

I'd rather have Larry Brown, Isiah Thomas, Chuck Daly, Don Nelson, Stan van Gundy, Jeff Bzdelik, Del Harris, Mario Elie, Elston Turner, etc. Why? They all have extensive NBA experience, which - in my opinion - makes them far more qualified than John Whisenant or any other candidate with no NBA experience whatsoever.

And to be even more off the wall, I'd rather have Pat Summitt as well. So it's definitely NOT about gender. It's about experience.

curitibagarrett · May 29, 2006

I don't like the idea of him becoming the coach but I will give him a chance if he is the coach

VF21 · May 29, 2006

Superman said:

Actually, Supes, in the myriad of comments posted in the various threads over Whis becoming the Kings head coach, there have been those who are objecting because he's a "women's coach."

The majority may be objecting because of his lack of NBA experience of any kind, but Monty'sBiggestFan is correct is saying SOME are judging him because he's coming from the women's program.

Superman · May 29, 2006

VF21 said:

No problem. That's not the reason he shouldn't be the coach, and I'll go on record as saying that.

But the reason(s) that he shouldn't be head coach have been documented and elaborated on enough - and are strong enough - for us to be able to leave the whole "women's coach" thing by the wayside and focus on the fact that he's not qualified.

And as an aside, I still don't think the objection is that he's a "women's coach," by the way. And I may be wrong, as I don't want to speak for anyone else. I think the problem is that he's only been a "women's coach," and only for a few years. Again, he's not qualified.

shaka zulu · May 29, 2006

flip saunders has won 64 games this season. The pistons had the best record in the league this year, they were said to be a better team under his leadership than with larry brown.Flip has paid dividens,coaching in the CBA and coaching the wolves to 8 consecutive playoff apperances. But yet flip hasn't done enough and some say he is losing the respect already from his players,who openly are criticizing his coaching methods.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/28/AR2006052801082.html

Okay now if flip saunders an veteran NBA coach, Respected by his peers, if he is still work in progress as a head coach what is whis at this point of time. Does whis have what it takes to lead the kings to the NBA finals next season or the season after. where does whis stand as leader for the kings. The pistons players are already tuning flip out and questioning his methods as Head coach. What will the kings do with whis once difficult times arise and ther are Bumps in the 82 game road.

shaka zulu · May 29, 2006

Detroit Pistons' Flip Saunders says griping isn't a new problem

http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Basketball/NBA/2006/05/29/1605051-ap.html

What do you think Bibby or Artest or wells will tell whis if differences arise.

Ailene Voisin: No better choice than Whiz, kids

G-League

thesanityannex

Guest

All-Star

thesanityannex

Guest

All-Star

Starter

thesanityannex

Guest

Bench

Starter

Starter

Starter

Starter

thesanityannex

Guest

Starter

Bench

Starter

Starter

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Starter

Don't Make Me Use The Bat

Give blood and save a life!

Rome

Guest

All-Star

All-Star

All-Star

G-League

Super Moderator Emeritus

All-Star

Bench

Bench