Hopefully this is the case and he is extended soon. But it isn't a good look to go into the offseason not having even discussed it. If they had said "We'll look into it this summer" or "We'll take care of it after the Finals are over" (as if agents can't work on this any time) that would probably make folks a little more comfortable about his situation.
[Amick] No discussions for Monte extension
- Thread starter SLAB
- Start date
At some point it's about getting the organization and front office to run correctly. That means matching the contract lengths of GM and coaches. It's about fixing past mistakes, not about rewarding Monte. Vivek allows Monte to trade Halliburton and hire a new coach. This sets the team on a new path. Why let a guy alter the franchise if you're unsure of him.
It's crazy, because Vivek keeps telling us who he is. Some people just won't listen. Even the fact that Monte came out and used the Jazz band reference in his first press conference. It made me want to puke. The Tech guy's way of doing things is content turnover, dog eat dog, best idea wins, short term positions. The average length of stay of an executive at a tech company is under 4 years now. Shocking that is what we have seen here. It's apples and oranges from a business standpoint. Literally all anyone in and outside the organization is clamoring for is consistency. That is it.
Is Monte the best GM in the NBA (we have no way to quantify, really)? Who knows, but he's not a bad one. Any GM working for the Kings is going to be 3 steps behind. We have probably the smallest front office support staff in the NBA, the least scouts, one of if not the smallest budget. Yet, he drafted two homers players at the positions he did and made some pretty decent moves on the fringes. Were they all perfect? Hell, no.
Look what Portland just did. I'd argue that McCollum trade was awful, yet that GM just got an extension. At some point you gotta pick a horse and run with it for a while. Again, Monte may not be the epitome of the best GM (I personally think hes done pretty well) but I don't think he's going to sabotage this team...unless he has no security moving forward. That's when you get home run swings to try and save a job.
Is Monte the best GM in the NBA (we have no way to quantify, really)? Who knows, but he's not a bad one. Any GM working for the Kings is going to be 3 steps behind. We have probably the smallest front office support staff in the NBA, the least scouts, one of if not the smallest budget. Yet, he drafted two homers players at the positions he did and made some pretty decent moves on the fringes. Were they all perfect? Hell, no.
Look what Portland just did. I'd argue that McCollum trade was awful, yet that GM just got an extension. At some point you gotta pick a horse and run with it for a while. Again, Monte may not be the epitome of the best GM (I personally think hes done pretty well) but I don't think he's going to sabotage this team...unless he has no security moving forward. That's when you get home run swings to try and save a job.
This.
Plus it takes time for a GM to implement their plan. They need a coach, draft picks, free agents and trades to build the team around their vision. If you hire a GM halfway into another GM's plan, they have to undue the parts of the previous GM's plan that they didn't like and then begin to build around their own. That doesn't happen overnight and when money comes into play, it may take even longer if you wind up stuck with a coach you don't want.
McNair isn't perfect but he's well above average for a Kings FO hire. No need to throw that away and add him to the Joerger/Malone/Petrie list of people they never should have gotten rid of just because he can't turn chicken s*** into chicken salad in 3 years with no top 3 draft picks and an inability to sign high level free agents due to the market/owner.
Plus it takes time for a GM to implement their plan. They need a coach, draft picks, free agents and trades to build the team around their vision. If you hire a GM halfway into another GM's plan, they have to undue the parts of the previous GM's plan that they didn't like and then begin to build around their own. That doesn't happen overnight and when money comes into play, it may take even longer if you wind up stuck with a coach you don't want.
McNair isn't perfect but he's well above average for a Kings FO hire. No need to throw that away and add him to the Joerger/Malone/Petrie list of people they never should have gotten rid of just because he can't turn chicken s*** into chicken salad in 3 years with no top 3 draft picks and an inability to sign high level free agents due to the market/owner.
All true.
The other important point is that by nature a GM should be looking long term and big picture. Players and coaches should be focused on winning individual games - the front office should be focused on building a long term contender.
When you put your GM on a short leash it changes that approach. Now they have to (at least partially, if not fully) be focused on the short term. That can work if you're a GM in Miami or LA or maybe Brooklyn. It's not a recipe for success for a GM in Sacramento.
The other important point is that by nature a GM should be looking long term and big picture. Players and coaches should be focused on winning individual games - the front office should be focused on building a long term contender.
When you put your GM on a short leash it changes that approach. Now they have to (at least partially, if not fully) be focused on the short term. That can work if you're a GM in Miami or LA or maybe Brooklyn. It's not a recipe for success for a GM in Sacramento.
I'm just sick of all the stupid wasted years. McNair has spent the last 2 years having to clean out the Vlade era. Now he's on the chopping block with a freshly hired 4 year coach?
Give McNair-Brown 3 years to see what they can do. If they're bad, can them together and start over with a fresh GM/power structure and coach together. McNair should have never been allowed to hire a new coach if his job actually wasn't safe; I would have rather him been fired and the new GM got to pick his coach.I'm not even asking this organization to be good persay; I'm asking them to just stop making decisions that will have a 0% chance of working.
Give McNair-Brown 3 years to see what they can do. If they're bad, can them together and start over with a fresh GM/power structure and coach together. McNair should have never been allowed to hire a new coach if his job actually wasn't safe; I would have rather him been fired and the new GM got to pick his coach.I'm not even asking this organization to be good persay; I'm asking them to just stop making decisions that will have a 0% chance of working.
Vlade also had a big mess to clean up, did it inefficiently, and it sunk the franchise even worse (of course all he had to do was nail one frickin pick and we'd be in the WCF right now).
Vlade got 5 years. Even though 2 years in all he had to accomplish was a huge swing and miss in Free Agency which tied our draft capital down for years with pick swaps and an eventual lost pick (while we still owed another that never conveyed because we sucked that much).
Why the hell is a guy doing a better job after ~20 months uncertain about his status going into year 3?
Vlade got 5 years. Even though 2 years in all he had to accomplish was a huge swing and miss in Free Agency which tied our draft capital down for years with pick swaps and an eventual lost pick (while we still owed another that never conveyed because we sucked that much).
Why the hell is a guy doing a better job after ~20 months uncertain about his status going into year 3?
We are also just assuming the worst because we have been bad so long. None of the recent events indicate Monte is on the verge of getting fired. If we make zero improvements to the roster, he whiffs on the draft choice and we finish bottom 8 again then yeh I expect he will not be retained. I don’t anticipate that happening.