Bee: Maloofs gush over Brooks (merge)
- Thread starter ParniValjak
- Start date
ParniValjak
All-Star
I have read a lot of this comments "If we are rebuilding then why not hire someone new who hasn't been a head coach before?".
Well, if you are rebuilding you bloody well should look for someone who has a proven track record in the NBA for developing young talent and moulding them into a team that can win. None of the names mentioned, other Stan Van Gundy and Terry Porter have that on their resume. Sure they might work out, they might not, but this "Oh it can't hurt" attitude is an absolute setting for failure.
Every strong organization in ANY business landscape goes out and head-hunts proven performers. People with a reputation and a tract record that backs up that reputation. Little league businesses try to find a diamond in the rough, someone with potential and most of the time they fail and they remain the little business that can't mix it up with the big boys.
Now forgive us for thinking that Kings franchise belongs with the big boys and should head hunt the best and not settle for unproven "hot shot". As someone with a lengthy background in business, the biggest mistakes organizations make is promoting their stuff into the most important positions within the organization. Sure if theyhad someone who they groomed under a "legend" for years with a vision of handing over the reins down the track but this current situation with the things is the same as an organization promoting their sales manager with good sales figures to be their CEO. That is a recepie for failure.
Well, if you are rebuilding you bloody well should look for someone who has a proven track record in the NBA for developing young talent and moulding them into a team that can win. None of the names mentioned, other Stan Van Gundy and Terry Porter have that on their resume. Sure they might work out, they might not, but this "Oh it can't hurt" attitude is an absolute setting for failure.
Every strong organization in ANY business landscape goes out and head-hunts proven performers. People with a reputation and a tract record that backs up that reputation. Little league businesses try to find a diamond in the rough, someone with potential and most of the time they fail and they remain the little business that can't mix it up with the big boys.
Now forgive us for thinking that Kings franchise belongs with the big boys and should head hunt the best and not settle for unproven "hot shot". As someone with a lengthy background in business, the biggest mistakes organizations make is promoting their stuff into the most important positions within the organization. Sure if theyhad someone who they groomed under a "legend" for years with a vision of handing over the reins down the track but this current situation with the things is the same as an organization promoting their sales manager with good sales figures to be their CEO. That is a recepie for failure.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
And there would have been with Van Gundy? I mean how does that really change anything? The only difference it makes is that it may be possible to get out of this contract if need be, Van Gundy's would have certainly come at a higher price. It's real easy for armchair GM's to make decisions and spend somebody elses money in their own whacked out version of reality. Will it work? Who knows, but I think it's worth finding out.
Hogwash.
You are conveniently not mentioning that in order to fill a position you have to find someone that is willing to work for you.
This isn't 2002-2003. The Kings ARE NOT a jewel in the NBA crown. As much as some might want to believe people are lining up for the position of head coach with the Kings, there are more things to be considered than simply finding a "big boy" to fill your vacancy.
Head coaches are a rare commodity. And once the top tier of coaches is hired, the rest are just various degrees of second string. Terry Porter is second string.
If you only hired what some feel are the "successful" coaches, there would be a lot of teams without anyone at the helm. And every successful coach has had to start somewhere. Mike Brown is in the NBA finals. Who wudda thunk that????
Come on. Let's quit pretending there's a real jewel out there just waiting to be picked up. It's a crap shoot. Brooks still seems like a worthy candidate to me.
Fresno King
Starter
I may be the only one who still wants Reggie Theus as the new Head Coach. If you're going to rebuild, might as well do it with a guy who can grow into the position without much pressure, and keep ticket sales at a pretty decent level since he used to play for the Kings and has some pizazz. But, I'll take Brooks too. There's something to be said about someone trying to prove himself in his own neck of the woods. Brooks is a Sacramento area native. If that was me, I'd bust my butt 10 times harder just because I'm from there. Local boy makes good. That's also a big reason why The Sacramento Bee did a couple of big stories on Brooks... he's from the area. Local guy, local story. Biggest ticket in town, and the man who could possibly be making all the decisions on the court grew up in Arco's backyard.
I just hope we get someone in there before the draft. Makes no sense to me to go into the draft without the guy who'll be working with him the most.
I just hope we get someone in there before the draft. Makes no sense to me to go into the draft without the guy who'll be working with him the most.
Last edited:
ParniValjak
All-Star
No the thing where you are saying that Brooks is as good a candiate as everyone else IS a hogworsh.
Porter might be a 2nd string but facts are that he has a much better track record than Brooks both as a player, assistant and a head coach. Not to mention that he also can say, "Hey, I helped mould Maurice Williams and Michael Redd into the players they are today and hey Dan Gadzuric played his best nasketball while I was a head coach".
What is it that qualifies Brooks ahead of Porter?! That he was a #1 assistant to an incompetent coach?! Seriously!!!
Kings might not be a jewel in the crown they were back in the "Golden Years" but they sure as hell are not the laughing stock of the NBA either. Fact is that Kings CAN do better than Brooks and appointing him would be a sign of things heading downward fast.
He is NOT the best candidate available and that is the crux of the matter. There is nothing that Brooks brings to the table that cannot be trumped by other candidates on the market.
So forgive me if I think that a #1 assistant under a failed regime and the men with the least impressive resume of the serious candidates on the market is not the right man for the team that I love.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
Brooks' resume isn't nearly as inadequate as you attempt to portray. And helping Gadz into playing well is quite the accomplishment! Sign me up for a ringing endorsement.
I think Reggie just signed a pretty lucrative contract with New Mexico State. I may want to stick there, considering he's riding a wave of success right now...
PurpleHaze
All-Star
I think Theus would have gotten a second interview if the first one blew everyone away - which it apparently didn't. His post interview comments (100% about Reggie and Reggie only) in front of the camera didn't help his case either which I posted about at KingsFans.
I think most of the coaches...wait all of the coaches that are being argued about are in the same bag. Reach in and grab one for the most part. They all bring something to the court and they all have draw backs. I think SVG was the only one available that stood out. The rest of these guys are all on the same level.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
Yeah, I think that Reggie interviewing for this job just makes him that much more of a wanted commodity for the future, should he continue his current trend with the Aggies. His stock as a future NBA coach will just continue to rise, and then he can pretty much pick which vacant opening he might want(given the right situation, of course).
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
Yup, I've been thinking the same thing for a while now, and I remember especially during the 97-98 season when Eddie Jordan was trying so hard to mix and match his line-up to squeek out a #8 playoff spot, and we were like 25-28 at one point, then we lost like 16 of 17 and the only thing we really had going for us was Yogi Stewart...ala Justin Williams(with about 1/4 the playing time as Yogi that year, of course)...but we as fans were pretty much numb and grasping at anything.
The difference is, IMHO, we've been there and done that. I don't believe there's going to be any attempt to eke out a playoff spot next year. That was the plan this year - and we all know how it turned out.
I look at the upcoming season as possibly the beginning of the 1999 season, except for the strike.
I look at the upcoming season as possibly the beginning of the 1999 season, except for the strike.
Circa_1985_Fan
All-Star
I look at the upcoming season as possibly the beginning of the 1999 season, except for the strike.
Big difference is we had money to spend that year, and we weren't strapped with slow vets under contracts that we can't do anything about. Who in their right mind would trade for Miller's slow self and his $10 gazillion dollar contract for 3 more years gauranteed?
kingzzzfan4ever
G-League
I agree with VF21. If Petrie and the Maloofs are in agreement about Brooks, thats great, hire the man. Just give Brooks a shot and hope we land Yi! 
My major problem with Brooks is just wanting to wash my hands completely and totally of last year. Get rid of the vets get rid of almost everyone involved. You need to change the atmosphere surrounding the team at the moment and hiring the top assistant coach isn't going to do that. Sure he may be more liked than Muss but there's a "comfort zone" between him and the players which frankly is the last thing I think we need.
All that aside Brooks seems to be well qualified and have a solid head on his shoulders, but this team and frnachise need a fresh start from last years version and that means shipping off the veteran leadership from that team and all semblances of the coaching staff IMHO. Brooks may be a viable head coaching candidate, but not with this team this year.
All that aside Brooks seems to be well qualified and have a solid head on his shoulders, but this team and frnachise need a fresh start from last years version and that means shipping off the veteran leadership from that team and all semblances of the coaching staff IMHO. Brooks may be a viable head coaching candidate, but not with this team this year.
chelle
Starter
I've said this before, but if our only objection is that he was here last year then that reasoning would also require us to get rid of EVERYBODY. That would also include Martin. I don't think very many of us are willing to toss him away just because he was here last year.
Last year sucked, plain and simple. I, however do not think that Brooks should be passed over just because he was here.
I think that's faulty parrallelism. There's a big difference between the coaching staff and the players on a team. Not only was Brooks on the staff, but he was the lead assistant. While he may not have seen eye to eye with Muss on a good portion of things, he was part of setting the atomsphere and interacting with the players.
Frankly, I don't think the players attitudes/effort were solely influenced by one member of the coaching staff. If they were solely influence by Muss then that in itself is a negative for Brooks. The fact is he was one of the guys responsible for getting and keeping players on the same page and chemistry high and effort high. I think we can all agree that last season team chemistry was poor, effort was low, and in general the Kings weren't well coached. This went beyond simply Muss being a poor gametime coach. The players in general weren't very well prepared and like it or not a portion of the blame must fall on the lead assistant as well as the head coach.
As far as ridding ourselves of everything related to last year... its tempting. I do think major housecleaning is in order but dumping young players doesn't relate necessarily to not bringing back members of the coaching staff. A young player generally is only responsible for himself and how he aperforms in games and prepares for games . A vet can be responsible for himself and in some respects the locker atmosphere. A coach is responsible for team chemistry/effort/preparedness. So in my oppinion we should be seriously considering ridding ourselves of our veteran leadership and anyone related to last years coaching. Which is really why comparing ridding ourselves of coaching staff members and ridding ourselves of a young developing talent is completely different and not a viable defense of Brooks.
chelle
Starter
Technically, I agree with that statement. I was just pointing out that I think that the reasoning behind not wanting Brooks simply because he was here last year is unjustified. If people do not want him due to lack of experience, SPECIFIC things that he has done in the past, or they simply do not like the guy, that's fine. I just think the continually saying that he shouold not be the coach next year because Muss brought him in is silly.
Trust me, I have had bosses that I knew were incapable of doing their job correctly. You can hide their mistakes for only so long. I would have been disgusted with Brooks if he had openly argued with Muss. I do not know if he did behind the scenes, but nor do we know that he did not. An assistant coach is not going to win the battle with the head coach.
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Very interesting. This dovetails into some of our other conversations on this board on whether the front office reads this board. At least there is one newspaper writer who thinks they might, and who thinks it may have affected the Maloofs' excitement over Brooks. Based on what I heard on 1140, the day the Brooks "gushing" article came out there was little interest in him. The phones weren't exactly ringing off the hook.
Similar threads
