It was moved to the personnel moves section because that is the proper landing space for trade-related hypotheticals.
Fire Christie
- Thread starter SufferingKingsFan
- Start date
Jdbraver137
Starter
Chat gpt also gets fed nonsense. In your example it is spewing out garbage. Much like your posts. There is no chance Vivek told Doug that this experience will prepare you for Seattle. It makes no sense as while, Seattle is in the running, there is no guarantee. Remember 1st and goal at the 1 yard line? in addition, if vivek thought Doug was a good coach and had promise he wouldn't be selling him on shipping out.
I also read you garbage spew about Mr Wingfield and ,as Billy Madison’s speech evaluator said, We are all now dumber for have read it.
I'm just going to jump in and say I think Seattle is going to get an expansion team whenever that happens (the other will be Vegas, because all the sports leagues are in bed with gaming now and so it goes). But they will not hire Christie. The expansion fees will probably be 5 billion +. If the Kings have that valuation in Sacramento, two premium markets in those two cities may be closer to 11 figures.
People paying that much will not be settling for the old expansion models of yesterday where you get 1 castoff from every franchise and a guarantee at the 5th or 6th pick for two or three years. If you look at recent expansions in NHL and MLS teams got salary cap exemptions and/or other special rules so they could build a competitive team right from the jump. Sometimes just not even having contracts will allow you to field a competitive team because they could go out and sign any number of MLE players (in the new NBA economy) without a star and be far better off than teams stuck paying their best rookie 30m on his second deal.
With that in mind, no, Seattle won't be hiring Doug Christie. Seattle is a hot bed of NBA talent for a few decades now so it's not even like he has favored son status there. Jason Terry might be a more likely hire.
People paying that much will not be settling for the old expansion models of yesterday where you get 1 castoff from every franchise and a guarantee at the 5th or 6th pick for two or three years. If you look at recent expansions in NHL and MLS teams got salary cap exemptions and/or other special rules so they could build a competitive team right from the jump. Sometimes just not even having contracts will allow you to field a competitive team because they could go out and sign any number of MLE players (in the new NBA economy) without a star and be far better off than teams stuck paying their best rookie 30m on his second deal.
With that in mind, no, Seattle won't be hiring Doug Christie. Seattle is a hot bed of NBA talent for a few decades now so it's not even like he has favored son status there. Jason Terry might be a more likely hire.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
On the surface it looks like the classic short, cheap stopgap type of contract. Yes, Doug is learning on the job, but everyone is also learning who Doug is while he's doing it.
Jdbraver137
Starter
Being last in the league in defense and offense is not a thrilling start. And if we were playing a young team I might be able to cover my eyes, but we aren’t.
It did come out after the Knicks game that there was no love between Brown and Christie but also from Jordy and Christie. Rumors of stabbing Mike in the back. If this happened, and none of us really know, but if it happened, Christie will never get another head coaching job and probably not get an assistant coaching job anywhere again. Mike Brown is fairly well liked amongst the coaching ranks.
eleventy
G-League
The recent Knick game?... how was that revealed - how did it "come out"?
This is just radio chatter. I think all we know and can confirm is Mike was given a ton of latitude to build a full roster of assistants in a manner that the Kings franchise had never seen. With the caveat that Doug get to be one of those coaches. We do know Doug was close to Domas and there are former Kings players who have seen fit to cast doubt on Domas's commitment to the team and blame him for fracturing the locker room and the poor play last season. I personally don't buy any of that. But indubitably Brown did hitch his wagon to another horse that ran this team into the ground.
The narrative on Brown is changing as we watch this season. I believe he deserved to lose his job when he did. NYK fans are already tired of him. He has not been an improvement over Thibs and the players aren't buying in. Ironically - from the recent direction of this thread - Mike is a teaching coach. The Knicks don't need teaching.
eleventy
G-League
So far, there's really only one person arguing that Seattle won't (or "may not") get an expansion franchise. Most of us agree that that is likely to happen. It was the chat gpt piece that made me think that expansion is coming soon er than later. The poster who suggested that it may be a different system (rather than each team "protecting" some number of players and expansion teams drafting from those not protected) should watch out, lest he or she be asked to "prove" that (lol).
Has Jason Terry gotten any coaching experience since retiring as a player?
I must admit, I was looking at a system of "protecting some/exposing others to the draft"
Someone asked "Why would Vivek do that?" and one answer would be that (let's say Doug coaches next year and the year after that, expansion kicks in) Vivek would be in a position to essentially "trade" Doug to the Seattle expansion franchise in return for them selecting (or not selecting) a particular player.
In the case of "not selecting", the player would be "protected" in return for Doug being hired in Seattle (my understanding is that Doug has two years guaranteed but the team has control over him for longer than two years).
What did Denver give up to hire Sean Payton?
Not saying Christie has the cachet that Payton has, but that trade was New Orleans got a first and second round pick and gave Denver a 3rd rounder. That seemed like a high price, but he paid off.
Btw, the reason I went here is that a number of posters in the first twelve pages said something like, This is Doug's only chance" and I disagree with that (depending, of course, on how his tenure is evaluated).
Ron Rothstein was the Miami expansion Coach (first three years)
here is his bio (from the Heat):
www.nba.com
similar to Doug except Rothstein didn't play in the NBA and had notmbeen a head coach until he took over in Miami
Has Jason Terry gotten any coaching experience since retiring as a player?
I must admit, I was looking at a system of "protecting some/exposing others to the draft"
Someone asked "Why would Vivek do that?" and one answer would be that (let's say Doug coaches next year and the year after that, expansion kicks in) Vivek would be in a position to essentially "trade" Doug to the Seattle expansion franchise in return for them selecting (or not selecting) a particular player.
In the case of "not selecting", the player would be "protected" in return for Doug being hired in Seattle (my understanding is that Doug has two years guaranteed but the team has control over him for longer than two years).
What did Denver give up to hire Sean Payton?
Not saying Christie has the cachet that Payton has, but that trade was New Orleans got a first and second round pick and gave Denver a 3rd rounder. That seemed like a high price, but he paid off.
Btw, the reason I went here is that a number of posters in the first twelve pages said something like, This is Doug's only chance" and I disagree with that (depending, of course, on how his tenure is evaluated).
Ron Rothstein was the Miami expansion Coach (first three years)
here is his bio (from the Heat):
Bio: RON ROTHSTEIN | Miami Heat
www.nba.com
similar to Doug except Rothstein didn't play in the NBA and had notmbeen a head coach until he took over in Miami
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
First of all, I highly doubt the NBA would allow coaches to be traded in the same way that the NFL does. Nor do I think the NBA would necessarily allow a coach to be traded at all...BUT...If such a deal ever materializes, I'd want something more in return than just "protection rights" in the expansion draft.
I see your point and I understand your thought process. I just don't think it will ever happen in the NBA.
Edit: Thank you, @Capt. Factorial, for calling me out for being a complete idiot...I will leave this post here for context, but yes, I do take back everything I have said here.
Last edited:
Stan Van Gundy, Doc Rivers, and Jason Kidd have all been traded as coaches (for draft picks) this century.
QWERTYLICIOUS
Starter
I take back whatever I previously said! You are correct, Sir.
He was a GM and coach in the G-League in between a stint with Sean Miller at Arizona and is now an assistant with Will Hardy and the Jazz.
I would also expect Jamal Crawford to be involved with a new Seattle franchise in some form.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
And we still don't know what Perry's real goal is here. Christie is a Vivek guy not a Perry guy either. This could all be that DC is trying to navigate yet another **** show, could be he's adding to it, we'll find out at some point. All we can go on right now is the same thing as last season. He's living and dying with his vets and the future suffocates in it's wake. This is what really leads to wonders about Devin Carter. Is he a "Mike Brown" pick? I've seen blurbs on twitter. That would at least partially explain his complete exclusion from the Kings young core. If he succeeds it shows abilities of the predecessor which personally, it's hard to compare the two at the moment as one is far ahead of the other in almost all areas historically and otherwise. Hopefully that isn't the case because if the organization is back to being that petty? Just get the next 3 years over with so the roulette wheel of who's in charge in that moment can spin yet again because it's inevitable.
Brown never got the chance to play Carter but given how he handled Davion it would be a strange pick for him.
Given what I consider to be the extreme ultimate price of picking and keeping Devin, I want nothing more than for him to show himself as a real NBA player but my hopes are waning, and it's not because I think Doug or anyone else in this organization is being petty.
He may or may not have been a Mike Brown pick, but Devin Carter definitely feels like the type of player that Monte McNair consistently prioritized with his acquisitions. Or maybe not prioritized so much as "could afford". He fit the mold of the kinds of players McNair was able to acquire cheaply or with late lotto (and later) draft picks.
For the staff now in charge the attitude mostly has been "either he plays PG or we have no use for him". I don't agree with this point of view but I can understand where it comes from. It was also McNair who signed Malik Monk and Keon Ellis and traded for Kevin Huerter during the same week then later traded Kevin Huerter for Zach LaVine after drafting Devin Carter. When you have 4 players who are all too small to play the wing but aren't primary ball handlers there's going to be problems finding enough playing time for somebody.
Monk and Carter at PG this season wouldn't have been a terrible plan given where we are now in the standings, but Perry obviously didn't feel comfortable with that and went after Schröder and Westbrook instead and also traded back into the 1st round to draft Nique Clifford (another SG) and so here we are. Perry is Doug Christie's boss so it's no surprise that Doug has prioritized finding playing time for the 3 guards he acquired.
Last edited:
eleventy
G-League
pdx said:
The narrative on Brown is changing as we watch this season. I believe he deserved to lose his job when he did. NYK fans are already tired of him. He has not been an improvement over Thibs and the players aren't buying in. Ironically - from the recent direction of this thread - Mike is a teaching coach. The Knicks don't need teaching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Mike Brown's firing, I believe (but can not prove) that Mike was fired on a kind of "emotional response", not unlike the firing a few weeks earlier of the Bears coach after he blundered in one game (and was fired the next day). I believe Thibs lost his job for almost the same reason (did not understand the "coach's challenge" rule)
This is going WAY into the weeds - read on at your own peril (or abandon all hope and read on)
==================================================================================
Here is the link to ESPN's Play by Play for the 12/26 game w/Detroit:
www.espn.com
Mike was fired after he "blundered" in the Pistons game when they lost a game that there was only one longshot way he COULD lose.
But if you go back in that game to the play by play, you will find that early in the game, Mike blundered. He called a timeout two minutes into the game, for no apparent reason, with the Kings trailing 10-6. Strike One, but it's just one strike, no big whoop.
The Pistons trailed 23-20 when they called their mandatory t.o. (at 5:33). The Kings built the lead to 28-20 before the Pistons made a minor run, cutting the lead to 31-30. At this point (Strike 2), I believe (but can not "prove") that Mike forgot he had already used a time out and called another with 3:21 left in the quarter, I believe he "forgot" because sure, Detroit had scored five straight points (to trail by one) but it was a one point game when Mike called this (weird) time out. I think he forgot he had called one at the beginning of the period. Strike two (he wasted a timeout that would have been quite handy at the end of the game).
The Kings finished the first quarter up 37-34.
Moving to the second quarter;
The game is going the King's way. They are up 52-38 with 7:01 left, when Kevin Huerter was involved when the ball went out of bounds and the ball was given to the Pistons. It was one possession, early in the game, with the Kings up 12, but Huerter knew the ball wasn't actually off him, so he pretty much threw a fit until Mike challenged it (he won the challenge - big deal, you got an extra first half possession - see "risk versus reward").
The coach SHOULD have already set a policy for coach's challenges and one principal should have been "I only have two challenges and seven time outs (three discretionary), so DON'T ask me to challenge a call, ESPECIALLY in the first half unless the reward is great (we might challenge a foul on Sabonis if he already had two, but a "change of possession on an out of bounds call"? - DON'T ask me to do that").
But it became clear that Mike HAD no "Coaches Challenge policy". Strike three.
The Pistons make an unsuccessful successful coach's challenge at the 2:34 mark. Lose a timeout and both of their challenges. Monk hits two FT's and the score is Kings up 60-49.
At halftime, Kings up 68-53 BUT I THINK (but cannot Prove) that the refs erred (in the Kings favor)
Because there were only two timeouts called in the second quarter, both to initiate coach's challenges. The Kings (successful) challenge was at 7:01, a second before the "mandatory" rule would have taken effect. Yet in the rest of the quarter, the Kings were NOT required to call a timeout.
The Pistons lost their challenge, so their time out (to initiate the challenge) must have counted as their mandatory and the Kings (successful) challenge MUST have counted as THEIR mandatory, even though it occurred a second before the "mandatory t.o," would have kicked in.
Am i misinterpreting the rule?
Third quarter:
Kings are assessed mandatory time out at 6:48, up 79-62, game well in hand.
Pistons call their mandatory at 4:10 down 82-64, everything's good.
at 1:23, Kings still up 18 but Beasly hits b/b three's cutting lead to 12.
With 43 seconds left, Brown calls another timeout.
This is strike four.
With a full possession and 43 seconds left, if the Kings simply inbound the ball and run off most of the 24 second clock, the WORST the Kings could be (if they don't score and if Beasly hits ANOTHER three) is up 9. They finish up 14 but that was another wasted timeout.
Now we come to the fourth quarter and Mike has used two of his three discretionary timeouts.
Kings are still up 12 when they call their mandatory at 7:11.
Kings still up 10 when the Pistons are assessed their mandatory at 2:46.
Mike has one timeout left. He has burned two while being comfortably up for the whole game (but we already gave him strikes one and two for that).
Now the Pistons get hot,
Malik Beasley hits two MORE threes sandwiched around Cunningham two, then a Fox two and it is a three point game 18.1 seconds left, Detroit ball and they use another timeout ( why not - THEY have them).
Jaden Ivy scores a two and four seconds after the Pistons T.O. , Brown calls his last timeout.
(WHAT? you DIDN'T have a play called in case Detroit scored? - they HAVE to foul so, why not save that timeout?)
four seconds later (at 10.1) Huerter hits two free throws for a three point lead.
But Detroit still has a timeout and they call it to set up a final play.
They are down three and out of timeouts, so you have to assume a three is coming.
Mike decides not to foul deliberately (no strikes for that - just another bad decision, but one many coaches would have made).
And we all know it turns out.
Instead of fouling BEFORE the shot, Fox fouls Ivey ON the three point shot, he makes the free throw and Mike is fired the next day.
But wait - there are three seconds left - can't the Kings call timeout, advance the ball and get a good final shot?
Oh, wait - the Kings are OUT of timeouts.
I just think (but can not "prove") that Kings brass watching that game must have said, "Huh?" in the first half and "I KNEW those timeouts would come back to bite us" in the second half. Mike blew it and the Kings followed the Bears model - get rid of the guy - quickly.
And that is my take on the Brown firing. Maybe it would have happened anyway. But Mike handed them the sword and they used it..
The narrative on Brown is changing as we watch this season. I believe he deserved to lose his job when he did. NYK fans are already tired of him. He has not been an improvement over Thibs and the players aren't buying in. Ironically - from the recent direction of this thread - Mike is a teaching coach. The Knicks don't need teaching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Mike Brown's firing, I believe (but can not prove) that Mike was fired on a kind of "emotional response", not unlike the firing a few weeks earlier of the Bears coach after he blundered in one game (and was fired the next day). I believe Thibs lost his job for almost the same reason (did not understand the "coach's challenge" rule)
This is going WAY into the weeds - read on at your own peril (or abandon all hope and read on)
==================================================================================
Here is the link to ESPN's Play by Play for the 12/26 game w/Detroit:
Pistons 114-113 Kings (Dec 26, 2024) Play-by-Play - ESPN
Play-by-play action for the Detroit Pistons vs. Sacramento Kings NBA game from December 26, 2024 on ESPN.
Mike was fired after he "blundered" in the Pistons game when they lost a game that there was only one longshot way he COULD lose.
But if you go back in that game to the play by play, you will find that early in the game, Mike blundered. He called a timeout two minutes into the game, for no apparent reason, with the Kings trailing 10-6. Strike One, but it's just one strike, no big whoop.
The Pistons trailed 23-20 when they called their mandatory t.o. (at 5:33). The Kings built the lead to 28-20 before the Pistons made a minor run, cutting the lead to 31-30. At this point (Strike 2), I believe (but can not "prove") that Mike forgot he had already used a time out and called another with 3:21 left in the quarter, I believe he "forgot" because sure, Detroit had scored five straight points (to trail by one) but it was a one point game when Mike called this (weird) time out. I think he forgot he had called one at the beginning of the period. Strike two (he wasted a timeout that would have been quite handy at the end of the game).
The Kings finished the first quarter up 37-34.
Moving to the second quarter;
The game is going the King's way. They are up 52-38 with 7:01 left, when Kevin Huerter was involved when the ball went out of bounds and the ball was given to the Pistons. It was one possession, early in the game, with the Kings up 12, but Huerter knew the ball wasn't actually off him, so he pretty much threw a fit until Mike challenged it (he won the challenge - big deal, you got an extra first half possession - see "risk versus reward").
The coach SHOULD have already set a policy for coach's challenges and one principal should have been "I only have two challenges and seven time outs (three discretionary), so DON'T ask me to challenge a call, ESPECIALLY in the first half unless the reward is great (we might challenge a foul on Sabonis if he already had two, but a "change of possession on an out of bounds call"? - DON'T ask me to do that").
But it became clear that Mike HAD no "Coaches Challenge policy". Strike three.
The Pistons make an unsuccessful successful coach's challenge at the 2:34 mark. Lose a timeout and both of their challenges. Monk hits two FT's and the score is Kings up 60-49.
At halftime, Kings up 68-53 BUT I THINK (but cannot Prove) that the refs erred (in the Kings favor)
Because there were only two timeouts called in the second quarter, both to initiate coach's challenges. The Kings (successful) challenge was at 7:01, a second before the "mandatory" rule would have taken effect. Yet in the rest of the quarter, the Kings were NOT required to call a timeout.
The Pistons lost their challenge, so their time out (to initiate the challenge) must have counted as their mandatory and the Kings (successful) challenge MUST have counted as THEIR mandatory, even though it occurred a second before the "mandatory t.o," would have kicked in.
Am i misinterpreting the rule?
Third quarter:
Kings are assessed mandatory time out at 6:48, up 79-62, game well in hand.
Pistons call their mandatory at 4:10 down 82-64, everything's good.
at 1:23, Kings still up 18 but Beasly hits b/b three's cutting lead to 12.
With 43 seconds left, Brown calls another timeout.
This is strike four.
With a full possession and 43 seconds left, if the Kings simply inbound the ball and run off most of the 24 second clock, the WORST the Kings could be (if they don't score and if Beasly hits ANOTHER three) is up 9. They finish up 14 but that was another wasted timeout.
Now we come to the fourth quarter and Mike has used two of his three discretionary timeouts.
Kings are still up 12 when they call their mandatory at 7:11.
Kings still up 10 when the Pistons are assessed their mandatory at 2:46.
Mike has one timeout left. He has burned two while being comfortably up for the whole game (but we already gave him strikes one and two for that).
Now the Pistons get hot,
Malik Beasley hits two MORE threes sandwiched around Cunningham two, then a Fox two and it is a three point game 18.1 seconds left, Detroit ball and they use another timeout ( why not - THEY have them).
Jaden Ivy scores a two and four seconds after the Pistons T.O. , Brown calls his last timeout.
(WHAT? you DIDN'T have a play called in case Detroit scored? - they HAVE to foul so, why not save that timeout?)
four seconds later (at 10.1) Huerter hits two free throws for a three point lead.
But Detroit still has a timeout and they call it to set up a final play.
They are down three and out of timeouts, so you have to assume a three is coming.
Mike decides not to foul deliberately (no strikes for that - just another bad decision, but one many coaches would have made).
And we all know it turns out.
Instead of fouling BEFORE the shot, Fox fouls Ivey ON the three point shot, he makes the free throw and Mike is fired the next day.
But wait - there are three seconds left - can't the Kings call timeout, advance the ball and get a good final shot?
Oh, wait - the Kings are OUT of timeouts.
I just think (but can not "prove") that Kings brass watching that game must have said, "Huh?" in the first half and "I KNEW those timeouts would come back to bite us" in the second half. Mike blew it and the Kings followed the Bears model - get rid of the guy - quickly.
And that is my take on the Brown firing. Maybe it would have happened anyway. But Mike handed them the sword and they used it..
Last edited:
I believe Mike's firing was emotional but not because of that timeout or that game. That game De'Aaron Fox most certainly got Brown fired with his boneheaded play.pdx said:
The narrative on Brown is changing as we watch this season. I believe he deserved to lose his job when he did. NYK fans are already tired of him. He has not been an improvement over Thibs and the players aren't buying in. Ironically - from the recent direction of this thread - Mike is a teaching coach. The Knicks don't need teaching.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Mike Brown's firing, I believe (but can not prove) that Mike was fired on a kind of "emotional response", not unlike the firing a few weeks earlier of the Bears coach after he blundered in one game (and was fired the next day). I believe Thibs lost his job for almost the same reason (did not understand the "coach's challenge" rule)
This is going WAY into the weeds - read on at your own peril (or abandon all hope and read on)
==================================================================================
Here is the link to ESPN's Play by Play for the 12/26 game w/Detroit:
Pistons 114-113 Kings (Dec 26, 2024) Play-by-Play - ESPN
Play-by-play action for the Detroit Pistons vs. Sacramento Kings NBA game from December 26, 2024 on ESPN.
Mike was fired after he "blundered" in the Pistons game when they lost a game that there was only one longshot way he COULD lose.
But if you go back in that game to the play by play, you will find that early in the game, Mike blundered. He called a timeout two minutes into the game, for no apparent reason, with the Kings trailing 10-6. Strike One, but it's just one strike, no big whoop.
The Pistons trailed 23-20 when they called their mandatory t.o. (at 5:33). The Kings built the lead to 28-20 before the Pistons made a minor run, cutting the lead to 31-30. At this point (Strike 2), I believe (but can not "prove") that Mike forgot he had already used a time out and called another with 3:21 left in the quarter, I believe he "forgot" because sure, Detroit had scored five straight points (to trail by one) but it was a one point game when Mike called this (weird) time out. I think he forgot he had called one at the beginning of the period. Strike two (he wasted a timeout that would have been quite handy at the end of the game).
The Kings finished the first quarter up 37-34.
Moving to the second quarter;
The game is going the King's way. They are up 52-38 with 7:01 left, when Kevin Huerter was involved when the ball went out of bounds and the ball was given to the Pistons. It was one possession, early in the game, with the Kings up 12, but Huerter knew the ball wasn't actually off him, so he pretty much threw a fit until Mike challenged it (he won the challenge - big deal, you got an extra first half possession - see "risk versus reward").
The coach SHOULD have already set a policy for coach's challenges and one principal should have been "I only have two challenges and seven time outs (three discretionary), so DON'T ask me to challenge a call, ESPECIALLY in the first half unless the reward is great (we might challenge a foul on Sabonis if he already had two, but a "change of possession on an out of bounds call"? - DON'T ask me to do that").
But it became clear that Mike HAD no "Coaches Challenge policy". Strike three.
The Pistons make an unsuccessful successful coach's challenge at the 2:34 mark. Lose a timeout and both of their challenges. Monk hits two FT's and the score is Kings up 60-49.
At halftime, Kings up 68-53 BUT I THINK (but cannot Prove) that the refs erred (in the Kings favor)
Because there were only two timeouts called in the second quarter, both to initiate coach's challenges. The Kings (successful) challenge was at 7:01, a second before the "mandatory" rule would have taken effect. Yet in the rest of the quarter, the Kings were NOT required to call a timeout.
The Pistons lost their challenge, so their time out (to initiate the challenge) must have counted as their mandatory and the Kings (successful) challenge MUST have counted as THEIR mandatory, even though it occurred a second before the "mandatory t.o," would have kicked in.
Am i misinterpreting the rule?
Third quarter:
Kings are assessed mandatory time out at 6:48, up 79-62, game well in hand.
Pistons call their mandatory at 4:10 down 82-64, everything's good.
at 1:23, Kings still up 18 but Beasly hits b/b three's cutting lead to 12.
With 43 seconds left, Brown calls another timeout.
This is strike four.
With a full possession and 43 seconds left, if the Kings simply inbound the ball and run off most of the 24 second clock, the WORST the Kings could be (if they don't score and if Beasly hits ANOTHER three) is up 9. They finish up 14 but that was another wasted timeout.
Now we come to the fourth quarter and Mike has used two of his three discretionary timeouts.
Kings are still up 12 when they call their mandatory at 7:11.
Kings still up 10 when the Pistons are assessed their mandatory at 2:46.
Mike has one timeout left. He has burned two while being comfortably up for the whole game (but we already gave him strikes one and two for that).
Now the Pistons get hot,
Malik Beasley hits two MORE threes sandwiched around Cunningham two, then a Fox two and it is a three point game 18.1 seconds left, Detroit ball and they use another timeout ( why not - THEY have them).
Jaden Ivy scores a two and four seconds after the Pistons T.O. , Brown calls his last timeout.
(WHAT? you DIDN'T have a play called in case Detroit scored? - they HAVE to foul so, why not save that timeout?)
four seconds later (at 10.1) Huerter hits two free throws for a three point lead.
But Detroit still has a timeout and they call it to set up a final play.
They are down three and out of timeouts, so you have to assume a three is coming.
Mike decides not to foul deliberately (no strikes for that - just another bad decision, but one many coaches would have made).
And we all know it turns out.
Instead of fouling BEFORE the shot, Fox fouls Ivey ON the three point shot, he makes the free throw and Mike is fired the next day.
But wait - there are three seconds left - can't the Kings call timeout, advance the ball and get a good final shot?
Oh, wait - the Kings are OUT of timeouts.
I just think (but can not "prove") that Kings brass watching that game must have said, "Huh?" in the first half and "I KNEW those timeouts would come back to bite us" in the second half. Mike blew it and the Kings followed the Bears model - get rid of the guy - quickly.
And that is my take on the Brown firing. Maybe it would have happened anyway. But Mike handed them the sword and they used it..
But - my take - he was on a 4 year deal with a mutual option for year 4. He went through the press/local media to demand a raise and extension at the end of year two. This put a bad taste in ownership's mouth as the time to renegotiate would have been at the conclusion of Year Three. Hey fine, do what you gotta do my dude. When the team opened up in such disappointing fashion and it appeared all the players had tuned the coach out, the ownership already upset with Brown cut him loose. But the larger story is Fox and Monte were far more to blame for the start with the roster they put together and Fox's selfish and lackadaisical play. Unfortunately after that Detroit game something needed to be done to ignite the club. They couldn't/didn't want to trade Fox overnight, and canning Monte wouldn't have made the team win 9 of their next 10 before Fox just up and quit on us.
There's also a rumor that they had asked Brown to fire or demote one of his assistants (Loucks possibly?), which may actually have something to do with why there is bad blood with Christie if that is true.
So they made the one move they could. Fired the coach that made a summer time powerplay and was underperforming. Was it the right move? Possibly, had we not botched the Fox deal and brought Zach in. Pretty much utterly pointless now.
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
It would have been the smart plan and no doubt, Perry might be regretting some of his own decisions this summer. He's compounded his own ails with his few moves already.
eleventy
G-League
Maybe it was just co-incidence, but i tend to look at the "timing"
Granted, football is different (each individual game "means more"), but there is no doubt that the Bears coach was fired because of his moves in one game.
I tend to think that maybe the Pistons game was just "the last straw", but NO ONE wants to be seen as "heartless" (firing a guy the day after Christmas?), but i think that the Pistons game forced their hand.
He might have been fired a week or a month later anyway, but the Pistons game was the biggest reason he was fired AT THAT TIME (imho)
I agree that the Pistons was the last straw as it was a 5 or 6 game losing streak at that point and the Pistons were at the time perceived as a trash opponent that we should have beat (turns out they maybe were good after all). But Fox blew that game and it wasn't just the penultimate play.
No coach survives that start except maybe Phil Jackson, Pat Riley (maybe Spoelstra by extension), Popovich, and maybe a few years ago Kerr.
ShastaKingsFan
Hall of Famer
Carter is a lot more versatile defender. Mitchell is in reality exclusively a Pg. Carter can compete at a high level against taller players 1-3
In theory.
ShastaKingsFan
Hall of Famer
You don't believe he can defend at a higher level than Mitchell against 2's and 3's?
You said compete not defend. At this point there is little to no evidence Carter can compete at all at the NBA level.
ShastaKingsFan
Hall of Famer
It's a given at the highest level that you have to compete in order to defend well. Carter is that. The question is will someone allow him the space to develop offensively, in order to let his defense shine
eleventy
G-League
i'm not sure that was an unsurvivable start - they were 13-13, then lost 3 in a row, then the pistons game...
doug comes in and loses at the Lakers, then wins seven in a row (ten of eleven)
in fact, the Kings were 32-28 before the bottom fell out.
and look where we are now - on a Fire Christie thread
SacTownKid
Hall of Famer
That's mostly by the Kings own doing. Even after the Nuggets game where he finally got some run it was right back to obscurity for him and L's for the team. His lone start against the Cavs last season should have been the light getting a little greener but for some unknown reason, nope, they'd rather keep the perpetual state of decay of the most recent lottery pick on the roster in full effect. And for literally NOTHING. So Westbrook can climb charts. DUMB. If he busts he busts but the Kings are just busting themselves with purpose and intent in the end. Nothing new.
GWD
Bench
At what point does Christie realize that running the same product out will create the same general results?
I get that he hates losing as a player. However, he is no longer a player, having become a head coach. The philosophy has to undergo a change that reflects the responsibility to develop a team rather than attempt to win each game in an untenable situation. Short-sightedness is not a characteristic of a quality coach.
I get that he hates losing as a player. However, he is no longer a player, having become a head coach. The philosophy has to undergo a change that reflects the responsibility to develop a team rather than attempt to win each game in an untenable situation. Short-sightedness is not a characteristic of a quality coach.