I've been watching this thread since it began and i could not help but notice that the op did not pose this as a question ("Is it time to fire Coach Christie?") but instead suggested that now is the time to fire the coach (in November???)
I'm glad that posters responded negatively to the idea of prematurely firing yet another coach, but I suspect that there are a number of people (including myself) who believe that Doug will get his two years - and that will be enough. More on that at the end.
People are saying that Doug is a "yes-man" (for Vivek) but if Doug is saying, "Hell no - we aren't tanking", recent performances suggest that this tanking thing is premature - or perhaps it is just a one year tank to get a player to build around and the supporting cast might be ok (at least for next year - after all, except Keon, everyone is signed). Add just one lottery pick (say, a Cooper Flagg type) to Sabonis, DeRozen, LaVine and Keegan (and a good young point guard acquired at the trading deadline) and tell me that is not a competitive team!
I realize that the record is terrible - for all intents and purposes, the slow start dooms the Kings to finishing in the bottom five in the west - and people naturally blame the team anchors, DeRozen and LaVine - Sabonis and Murray haven't played enough to be blamed for the start.
Like everyone, i hated when the team was noncompetitive, but this homestand has been different and I do not want to "give away" LaVine and DeRozen. If someone is going to offer good first rounders for them, ok, but I don't think we should unload them just for the sake of movement.
When I watch DeRozen, I see a guy who is playing like he knows exactly what he is doing - he is so careful about taking good shots (from his "spots") and he takes no "bad shots" - some don't go in, but i rarely feel that he us hurting the team by his shot selection.
His game may be "slow paced" (dribble, dribble, get position, shoot), but DeRozen is using "finesse" rather than "speed and power", so, I would not be surprised if he played well until he was forty.
Same with LaVine, If the shot is there, he takes it ; if not, he passes.
Westbrook and Schroeder I'm not sold on - if we are going to make a deadline deal, let's get a starting point guard (even if he's young).
Miles "Deuce" McBride fits our needs- but I will start a separate thread on the trade deadline.
Wrapping up this post on this thread, let me give you a different way to look at Doug:
Doug is learning on the job. He still doesn't understand the "use of time outs" (or is it "times out?). On Sunday, Portland made their "run" in the latter stages of the second quarter, then held on to the lead. Both teams had used their "mandatory time outs . With two minutes left, Doug refused to call a time out. Big mistake, especially for a team that is "out of it".
I would urge Doug to use a timeout whenever there is a "teaching moment". At this moment, Doug is a "teacher" learning to be a "strategist". For this year, at least, forget about "strategy" (that is for "winning" teams) and focus on teaching.
I would urge a "radical" style of coaching (for this season) which would begin with this "rule":
USE A TIMEOUT WHENEVER YOU SEE A "TEACHING MOMENT"
If that means calling ALL SEVEN allotted time outs in the first half, DO IT.
A lot of people don't understand the timeout rules (including the "mandatories"). I'm willing to bet that Doug has never thought this through - that will come with time.
A coach may use his allotted time outs whenever he wants (with no penalty - even if he calls all seven in the first quarter).
After that (let's say you are out of timeouts after quarter number one) a coach (or a player) cannot CALL a timeout. without penalty (technical foul- free throws for the opponent) BUT the refs will still assess a mandatory timeout each of the remaining quarters because THE PURPOSE OF MANDATORY TIMEOUTS IS TO GUARANTEE COMMERCIAL TIME FOR SPONSORS.
So, in this example (all seven timeouts called in first quarter) the team would still wind up with TEN time outs, but NO penalty (the only "penalty" regarding time outs is if you CALL one after you are out of them). So, more "teaching moments".
There is a lot to learn about coaching. And if we are adding a lot of young players. teaching moments will be necessary.
But the most important thing about Doug is that the Kings job is not necessarily his goal.
The previous post ended thusly:
"Seattle would check a lot of those boxes and so would Las Vegas when expansion happens."
I expected someone to piggyback on that statement, realizing that Doug is FROM Seattle.
Vivek is both taking a look at how the Kings would look with Christie on a five year contract AND doing Doug a "favor" by allowing him to gain the experience that would allow an expansion franchise to hire him as their first coach (BJax is in the wings)
As a middle schooler, living in the Seattle projects, Doug had a remarkable experience, maybe even "life changing". The Supersonics had a "contest" whereby middle school students could submit their names to go in a drawing, but only if they got signatures from two teachers and the Principal that said that the student was working hard to live up to their academic abilities. Doug had to work hard to find that second teacher but he got in the drawing and HIS NAME WAS DRAWN.
The "prize for winning" was that a Sonics player would arrive in a limo to pick up the student and they would ride to the arena together, shake hands and say goodbye and the player would enter through the player's tunnel and the student would get a good seat to the game (then the limo would bring him home alone).
You can imagine how thrilled (and important) young Doug must have felt when a limo arrived and out stepped the Sonics best player (Xavier McDaniel) asking the crowd (a limo drew some attention), "Where is Doug Christie - I'm here to take him to the game" while the kids in the crowd ooohed and aaahed, "That's the X-Man and he's here to pick up Doug".
I hope that Doug institutes this program in Sacramento next season, or re-institutes it in Seattle.
But my point is that Seattle would be a dream job and an expansion coach is not "expected" to "win right away". Seattle is Doug's eventual destination and as a "teacher", working mostly with young players, that is his specialty.
So, if the tradeoff for being "suitable for hire" (after 2+ years as a Head Coach, thanks to Vivek) is that he is perceived as a "yes man", well, I think Doug can take that heat.
He may not be the right fit for this team, but he will be perfect for the new Sonics. Doug is playing the long game.
(some of you may want to google, "Chat GPT Predicts next 75 NBA Champions" from last year. Pay particular attention to when the Sonics are predicted to win one and when the Kings will get one - most of us will be dead when the Kings celebrate if GTP is correct).
