Bee: Brooks to have second interview (merged)

[sactownfan]

http://www.sacbee.com/kings/story/212736.html

Kings to interview Brooks
By Sam Amick - BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated 4:19 pm PDT Friday, June 8, 2007

The first possible benefactor of the Stan Van Gundy saga might be Scott Brooks, the Kings assistant who will receive a second interview for the Kings head coaching position on Monday in Las Vegas.

The Kings announced the interview today.

Brooks will be the third candidate to receive a second interview, joining Lakers assistant Kurt Rambis and the former Miami coach - Van Gundy - who came so close to taking the job before signing with Orlando on Thursday.

Brooks, a Manteca native who played 12 seasons in the NBA, was the lead assistant for former Kings head coach Eric Musselman before Musselman was fired April 20. Before coming to the Kings last season, Brooks was an assistant under George Karl in Denver.

 

[sactownfan]

this is what i figured would happen if SVG fell through. Brooks was my next choice here. Hes been talked about around the league as being the most ready to make the leap. I think this happens. If Brooks doesnt work out its not going to be this huge deal like Eric Muss. he was unbeaten this year 2-0 !

this also makes it easyer to dump him if his just ok for a big FA coach if one ever wants to come here.

 

[Bricklayer]

he was unbeaten this year 2-0 !

I think that needs some sort of smilie. Mayeb a .

or just a big woot!




And boy does this news fill me with confidence. I mean...man, we are saved.

 

[BMiller52]

I think that needs some sort of smilie. Mayeb a .

or just a big woot!




And boy does this news fill me with confidence. I mean...man, we are saved.

We are saved if we manage to get 1 of Yi, Wright(Brandon), or Horford...

 

[Jechtsphere]

Who cares who we hire...we'll hire them while we rebuild and when we are ready and capable to make the playoffs again we'll get another coach unless we somehow make the playoffs this year.

 

[sactownfan]

wow i just said outloud while reading that last comment "with our luck,we would make that playoffs next year." wow things have changed. hmm i dont wanna get this started again until the dust has cleared from this offseason.but
it worries me to think that if we did manage to make the playoffs next year it might keep the maloofs dream alive,with just making the playoffs, and cause them to think this year was muss's fault. PLEASE LET THIS OFFSEASON GET BETTER..... it would be so awesome to get bibby and ron moved for exciting young talent (picks or players) even if we still lose at least it would be fun to watch.much better than watching... i dont even know what to call what we were watching this year. ?????? how about pure garbage?

 

[nbrans]

I don't really have a problem with Brooks. The front office and the Maloofs saw a lot more of him than we did, and if they like him enough to give him serious consideration then he must have been doing things right. He fits the bill of a former NBA player who has paid his dues as an assistant.

 

[VF21]

The players also like AND respect him. That's a big improvement right there...

 

[kennadog]

The players also like AND respect him. That's a big improvement right there...

Such a novel concept.

You never really know what GP's thinking. Maybe he's trying to give the Maloofs at least two options, but this makes it seem like Rambis was not the fall back choice after SVG. Interesting to wonder what is going on behind the closed doors.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Disposable coach with nothing to loose and every reason to think outside the box and take risks... not a bad choice for a team in rebuild mode espcially if they wnat to be positioned for the 08 lotto.

 

[fnordius]

I'm not sure what to think about Brooks. The players are supposed to like him, but that may be a relative thing. Like when you vote for a politician you don't really like because you can't stand their opponent. They could probably have declared Red Auerbach coach, sprinkled the team with a pinch of Auerbach's ashes, and had them go 2-0 while Muss was out.

So I'm considering Brooks to be an unknown factor. Can't really root for him or against him.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

The players also like AND respect him. That's a big improvement right there...

Yeah, at this point, I'm convinced that Brooks is the right guy for this job. Just do it Geoff!

 

[BMiller52]

I'm not sure what to think about Brooks. The players are supposed to like him, but that may be a relative thing. Like when you vote for a politician you don't really like because you can't stand their opponent. They could probably have declared Red Auerbach coach, sprinkled the team with a pinch of Auerbach's ashes, and had them go 2-0 while Muss was out.

So I'm considering Brooks to be an unknown factor. Can't really root for him or against him.

+1, he has some positives but he's still pretty unknown IMO.

 

[Bricklayer]

Three problems with Brooks -- 1), he is essentially Geoff's pet candidate. And unfortuantely I do not trust the source of that status. It has sounded like it may be bad Geoff who likes him -- conservative play it close to the vest and take no chances Geoff interested in a no hassle candidate close to home.

2) Ailene Voison is publicly politicking for him. Her tastes in coaches suck.

3) The hiring of Brooks could easily be a clarion call for inertia. For keeping large chunks of the roster, for trying it all again. Its the Petrie way. We need a fresh start. The fresher the better. Frankly be more interested in Brooks if he had been an assistant for anyone BUT Eric Musselman in Sacto last year.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Three problems with Brooks -- 1), he is essentially Geoff's pet candidate. And unfortuantely I do not trust the source of that status. It has sounded like it may be bad Geoff who likes him -- conservative play it close to the vest and take no chances Geoff interested in a no hassle candidate close to home.

2) Ailene Voison is publicly politicking for him. Her tastes in coaches suck.

3) The hiring of Brooks could easily be a clarion call for inertia. For keeping large chunks of the roster, for trying it all again. Its the Petrie way. We need a fresh start. The fresher the better. Frankly be more interested in Brooks if he had been an assistant for anyone BUT Eric Musselman in Sacto last year.

...so who's your choice for coach?

 

[Bricklayer]

...so who's your choice for coach?

I am interested in 1998, part deux. I am interested in the rebuild and eventual return to glory.

In 1998 we did NOT go off and hire one of Eddie Jordan's assistants because oh, Eddie was a complete disaster, but really his assistant was wonderful and we know him and he brings me doughnuts in the morning.

Scott Brooks may be a wonderful coach. He may not. Nobody knows. But I do not trust the mentality or process that would lead him to be a top candidate in an NBA wide search. It may be deserved, it may also just be the easy way out (and from the Maloofs' persepctive, the cheap way out).

If you wanted to hire Shaw or Rambis? Sure. I am confident they are being hired on merit. Well..mostly confident. Because they are of cousre getting major brownie points just for the coach for whom they have been assisting. Nonetheless, no reason to choose them unless you think they are the best. Porter? Eh...coaching record is pretty mediocre, and obviously there is a bit of a nepotisitc aspect there, but there's a body of work to judge him on. He would and will be a candidate elsewhere if not here.

But Scott...I really cannot say anything bad about him as a coach (or for that matter about a Shaw or Rambis or Thibadeau or whoever) but neither can I say anything good about him. And no 2-0 against Boston or whoever at home does not matter. And no that he may have played good cop to Muss's bad cop (which BTW in a dark moment could almost be construed as backstabbing Muss depending on how it went down) also does not matter. And so what I need to understand for me to be comfortable with the how/why of him getting a second interview, is how come he is getting a 2nd interveiw with us when so far as I know he was never even on a list, let alone granted a first interview, at any of the other half dozen coaching posts that opened up this summer? Or so far as I know, any of the ones last summer, or the summer before or... Maybe its just his time, maybe he's just emerging. Maybe he's our little secret. Maybe things would have been even worse last year without him. But hiring the top assistant off a failed 1 yr regime is just odd. You normally do that midseason on an interim basis if you're going to do it at all (and it would have been a good idea here so you could see if he could coach). But after a full search? And so you come back home after a national search and say, oh well guess we aren't going to do much better, good enough? That's shaky. Its also a complete bleeping waste of the last two months. It inspires absolutely zero confidence.

 

[Entity]

Where is all this "The players like him and respect him" coming from. I haven't seen one quote from a Kings player saying how much they like or respect Brooks. I am guessing this is just an assumption becasue we won 2 games with him or its just being optimistic about the situation and hoping it is true.

 

[ParniValjak]

I am interested in 1998, part deux. I am interested in the rebuild and eventual return to glory.

In 1998 we did NOT go off and hire one of Eddie Jordan's assistants because oh, Eddie was a complete disaster, but really his assistant was wonderful and we know him and he brings me doughnuts in the morning.

Scott Brooks may be a wonderful coach. He may not. Nobody knows. But I do not trust the mentality or process that would lead him to be a top candidate in an NBA wide search. It may be deserved, it may also just be the easy way out (and from the Maloofs' persepctive, the cheap way out).

If you wanted to hire Shaw or Rambis? Sure. I am confident they are being hired on merit. Well..mostly confident. Because they are of cousre getting major brownie points just for the coach for whom they have been assisting. Nonetheless, no reason to choose them unless you think they are the best. Porter? Eh...coaching record is pretty mediocre, and obviously there is a bit of a nepotisitc aspect there, but there's a body of work to judge him on. He would and will be a candidate elsewhere if not here.

But Scott...I really cannot say anything bad about him as a coach (or for that matter about a Shaw or Rambis or Thibadeau or whoever) but neither can I say anything good about him. And no 2-0 against Boston or whoever at home does not matter. And no that he may have played good cop to Muss's bad cop (which BTW in a dark moment could almost be construed as backstabbing Muss depending on how it went down) also does not matter. And so what I need to understand for me to be comfortable with the how/why of him getting a second interview, is how come he is getting a 2nd interveiw with us when so far as I know he was never even on a list, let alone granted a first interview, at any of the other half dozen coaching posts that opened up this summer? Or so far as I know, any of the ones last summer, or the summer before or... Maybe its just his time, maybe he's just emerging. Maybe he's our little secret. Maybe things would have been even worse last year without him. But hiring the top assistant off a failed 1 yr regime is just odd. You normally do that midseason on an interim basis if you're going to do it at all (and it would have been a good idea here so you could see if he could coach). But after a full search? And so you come back home after a national search and say, oh well guess we aren't going to do much better, good enough? That's shaky. Its also a complete bleeping waste of the last two months. It inspires absolutely zero confidence.

OK, after reading all that, you still haven't answered who would be your choice!

 

[Jerichoholic]

I unfortunately have to agree with brick on this one, I mean if the team tuned out their head coach are they really going to respect and listen to one of that head coaches' assistants? It does just seem to be the easy and cheap way out

However, the two advantages that he does have though is that he seems to be more of a players' coach which is what works in today's NBA unless you have the ultimate respect like a Popovich, Sloan, Riley, etc. Also, we don't know what he can do yet good or bad. It's true a guy like Porter or PJ does have experience but pretty mediocre results, Brooks hasn't been given a chance yet.

 

[GoGoGadget]

Scott Brooks may be a wonderful coach. He may not. Nobody knows. But I do not trust the mentality or process that would lead him to be a top candidate in an NBA wide search. It may be deserved, it may also just be the easy way out (and from the Maloofs' persepctive, the cheap way out).

I wholeheartedly agree with all of your points.

But the thing that concerns me most is that the players, especially if the roster doesn't change as much as we all think it should, would also see his hiring as the cheap and easy way out.

 

[BudWright]

To fnordis: Like everything else, we don't know what goes on inside the locker room, but watching the team play in those two games when he took over for Musselman--it was a just different. We discussed it then. Everyone seemd so much more involved and relaxed. It was reported several times last year how the team seemed to respect Brooks. And I am sure that when the members have their yearly "exit" interview with Petrie, they tell him exactly how they feel. Let's remember that Miller, Martin and Garcia publicly stated how they felt about Musselman and it wasn't good. Annie.

 

[VF21]

Where is all this "The players like him and respect him" coming from. I haven't seen one quote from a Kings player saying how much they like or respect Brooks. I am guessing this is just an assumption becasue we won 2 games with him or its just being optimistic about the situation and hoping it is true.

It's been cited in a couple of articles although I don't have the links at my fingertips. It isn't just an assumption. In addition, it's pretty obvious if you actually got the chance to observe how the players interacted with him in person.

As far as his possible selection being the cheap or easy way out, that just sounds like a potshot at Petrie and the Maloofs that isn't really substantiated. Just because Brooks hasn't (as far as we know) been approached by any of the other teams with head coach openings doesn't mean he might not work out quite well for us.

Brooks has been an NBA player. He's coached at various levels AND has been an assistant coach for two different teams (even though some insist on forgetting he was assistant coach to George Karl for three years). He was not the problem last year. You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, folks. Just because Musselman was an abysmal failure doesn't mean Brooks should be summarily dismissed as a candidate to replace him.

As far as Voisin endorsing him being another bad point, Voisin also supported keeping Adelman, saying he'd earned the right to another contract. Some seem to want to dismiss everything Voisin says, too, and while I'm one of her biggest critics, she does get things right once in a while.

If the Kings decide to go with Scott Brooks, they will make the decision based on a lot of factors. One of them undoubtedly will be the rapport and respect between Brooks and the players. Another will be the rapport and respect between Petrie and the Maloofs. And I guess I'm just dense but I don't have a problem with getting a head coach who gets along with both the GM and the owners.

And as Annie has pointed out, the players have had their exit interviews with Petrie and I'm sure coaching was mentioned.

All in all, Scott Brooks just might surprise some people. The Kings can and have done a lot worse IMHO.

 

[BigSong]

I really dont have a read on Brooks at all, but he's gotta be better than our last coach. Is that enough? Does seem that we'd kind of be settling with Brooks.

 

[Entity]

It's been cited in a couple of articles although I don't have the links at my fingertips. It isn't just an assumption. In addition, it's pretty obvious if you actually got the chance to observe how the players interacted with him in person.

As far as his possible selection being the cheap or easy way out, that just sounds like a potshot at Petrie and the Maloofs that isn't really substantiated. Just because Brooks hasn't (as far as we know) been approached by any of the other teams with head coach openings doesn't mean he might not work out quite well for us.

Brooks has been an NBA player. He's coached at various levels AND has been an assistant coach for two different teams (even though some insist on forgetting he was assistant coach to George Karl for three years). He was not the problem last year. You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, folks. Just because Musselman was an abysmal failure doesn't mean Brooks should be summarily dismissed as a candidate to replace him.

As far as Voisin endorsing him being another bad point, Voisin also supported keeping Adelman, saying he'd earned the right to another contract. Some seem to want to dismiss everything Voisin says, too, and while I'm one of her biggest critics, she does get things right once in a while.

If the Kings decide to go with Scott Brooks, they will make the decision based on a lot of factors. One of them undoubtedly will be the rapport and respect between Brooks and the players. Another will be the rapport and respect between Petrie and the Maloofs. And I guess I'm just dense but I don't have a problem with getting a head coach who gets along with both the GM and the owners.

And as Annie has pointed out, the players have had their exit interviews with Petrie and I'm sure coaching was mentioned.

All in all, Scott Brooks just might surprise some people. The Kings can and have done a lot worse IMHO.

I doubt any suprises. Same roster at best 4 to 6 more victories. Now let me state this. So I don't get any "I told you so" type of crap later. If we get the players we need or player such as a decent frontcourt and Brooks IS our coach and he wins say 40-50 games I will give the credit to the players more than the coach as I think its all crap anyway with coaches.

How many championships did Phil win without MJ or Shaq+Kobe
How many did Riley win without Shaq+Wade or Worthy,Magic,Kareem,Green list goes on with the 80's Lakers
and the Celts Bird,Mchale,Parrish.

Give Phil Jackson last years Kings team and we still suck.

So I am no anti Brook or Pro this I don't care I just want some players to start rolling in here.

 

[KevinSalvadori]

It's been cited in a couple of articles although I don't have the links at my fingertips. It isn't just an assumption. In addition, it's pretty obvious if you actually got the chance to observe how the players interacted with him in person.

As far as his possible selection being the cheap or easy way out, that just sounds like a potshot at Petrie and the Maloofs that isn't really substantiated. Just because Brooks hasn't (as far as we know) been approached by any of the other teams with head coach openings doesn't mean he might not work out quite well for us.

Brooks has been an NBA player. He's coached at various levels AND has been an assistant coach for two different teams (even though some insist on forgetting he was assistant coach to George Karl for three years). He was not the problem last year. You don't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, folks. Just because Musselman was an abysmal failure doesn't mean Brooks should be summarily dismissed as a candidate to replace him.

As far as Voisin endorsing him being another bad point, Voisin also supported keeping Adelman, saying he'd earned the right to another contract. Some seem to want to dismiss everything Voisin says, too, and while I'm one of her biggest critics, she does get things right once in a while.

If the Kings decide to go with Scott Brooks, they will make the decision based on a lot of factors. One of them undoubtedly will be the rapport and respect between Brooks and the players. Another will be the rapport and respect between Petrie and the Maloofs. And I guess I'm just dense but I don't have a problem with getting a head coach who gets along with both the GM and the owners.

And as Annie has pointed out, the players have had their exit interviews with Petrie and I'm sure coaching was mentioned.

All in all, Scott Brooks just might surprise some people. The Kings can and have done a lot worse IMHO.

I completely agree, and think it's also very telling that he and Petrie seem to have a very casual and candid relationship, meeting for lunch periodically and generally seeming to be on very good, established terms. Also, I like that the players were almost excessively vocal and approving when he was in charge for two games. Players are very loathe to put themselves out there like that for a variety of reasons, but some of the most underquoted players were speaking up, as well as Bibby, who rarely is as direct as he arguably should be.

I think it could be a great hire, a nice transition from a coach they clearly turned out to one they clearly respected, and a good way of keeping some good assistant talent in the organization, particularly Jason Hamm.

 

[Kingster]

The players also like AND respect him. That's a big improvement right there...

So, we have a situation in which the players like him. Yet we know that some of the players were quite antagonistic to each other and that the chemistry on this team was gawdawful. Is it a positive thing that all the players like him? Does that imply that he just kept himself out of it - on the periphery? It doesn't tell me that he tried to set any of the players straight. That tends to have players not like you. Or, did he leave the dirty work to Muss?

I just don't know if having everybody like him as an assistant coach is a good thing. As a head coach, rest assured, if he is good, there should be some players that don't like him, especially if he's the coach of this team as it is presently constituted.

The one thing that I liked about the Voison column is that she said he was "tough." If we hire him, he better be.

 

[KevinSalvadori]

So, we have a situation in which the players like him. Yet we know that some of the players were quite antagonistic to each other and that the chemistry on this team was gawdawful. Is it a positive thing that all the players like him? Does that imply that he just kept himself out of it - on the periphery? It doesn't tell me that he tried to set any of the players straight. That tends to have players not like you. Or, did he leave the dirty work to Muss?

I just don't know if having everybody like him as an assistant coach is a good thing. As a head coach, rest assured, if he is good, there should be some players that don't like him, especially if he's the coach of this team as it is presently constituted.

The one thing that I liked about the Voison column is that she said he was "tough." If we hire him, he better be.

To be 5'11 and survive in the league as long as he did speaks a lot to that, in my opinion...

And this is a guy that Barkley was a fan of....

 

[VF21]

So, we have a situation in which the players like him. Yet we know that some of the players were quite antagonistic to each other and that the chemistry on this team was gawdawful. Is it a positive thing that all the players like him? Does that imply that he just kept himself out of it - on the periphery? It doesn't tell me that he tried to set any of the players straight. That tends to have players not like you. Or, did he leave the dirty work to Muss?

You're writing a fantasy scenario here. It wasn't up to Scott Brooks or any other assistant coach to step in a "set players straight."

I just don't know if having everybody like him as an assistant coach is a good thing. As a head coach, rest assured, if he is good, there should be some players that don't like him, especially if he's the coach of this team as it is presently constituted.

Au contraire, mon ami. There's no reason why players cannot like a head coach and respect him for the job he's doing. Rick Adelman always had the respect of the players, with the exception of a couple of tools who weren't here that long for obvious reasons.

I'm not trying to say Brooks is going to be the next Gregg Popovich or even the next Rick Adelman. I'm simply pointing out that of the remaining candidates for our head coach position, I certainly think he's a legitimate contender.

 

[GoGoGadget]

As far as his possible selection being the cheap or easy way out, that just sounds like a potshot at Petrie and the Maloofs that isn't really substantiated. Just because Brooks hasn't (as far as we know) been approached by any of the other teams with head coach openings doesn't mean he might not work out quite well for us.

I realize I'm not privy to any behind the scenes info, but I can't shake the thought that if TPTB had been that impressed with the job Brooks did last year, they would have ended the Musselman ugliness sooner and just promoted him then. The fact that they didn't, coupled with this year's careful search, would make Brooks' hiring feel like settling.

I, for one, am waaaaay over settling.

 

[Bricklayer]

I completely agree, and think it's also very telling that he and Petrie seem to have a very casual and candid relationship, meeting for lunch periodically and generally seeming to be on very good, established terms. Also, I like that the players were almost excessively vocal and approving when he was in charge for two games. Players are very loathe to put themselves out there like that for a variety of reasons, but some of the most underquoted players were speaking up, as well as Bibby, who rarely is as direct as he arguably should be.

If the players were, and I did not particualrly note it, but if they were, that would likely as much be about anti-Muss as pro-Brooks, no?