Fire Walton

[Livinthedream]

I mean, that’s how the FO will probably spin it, but this is Vivek not wanting pay for another coach. More Vlade fallout. More bad ownership.

Although, if you’re making the argument that our roster is a bit.... soft....Well, I don’t really have a rebuttal to that!

All of it. The players are soft. If the FO is spinning it and the players aren't protecting their own reputation, then that makes them soft too.

The FO leaks a story on Walton's contract. So now Walton coming back is on Vlade. Or is it on the Timberwolves because they hired Chris Finch? Really Monte? If he was your guy, why didn't YOU fire Walton and hire Finch mid season? Maybe Vivek should have hired Sachin Gupta instead since he figured out how to get the coach they wanted to Minnesota.

If the players think they are going to be immune to being scapegoated by this front office, then they are naive.

 

[Turgenev]

Lame. Luke has had five full seasons as a head coach and not once has he posted a winning record or made the post season. This season, he commanded a historically bad defence and a frequently stagnant offence. The party line that followed each loss – “we need more effort; we cannot just outscore teams” – shifts blame and does not indicate any awareness that his decisions also influence the games. Under Walton, it was not uncommon to see CoJo guard Porzingus or Harkless guard a hot handed KAT. Potentially impactful players like Whiteside, as well as young players that have shown they are not completely incapable, sit on the bench while the starters are played into the ground during blow out losses and prolonged losing streaks. No surprise the only starter available for our final stretch of games had a contract incentive to play in 70.

What does this decision say? That the Kings do not want to pay a new coach while Walton builds his strong relationships with a bunch of division 2 NCAA players? Or – potentially more promising – that Monte does not hold Luke accountable for a subpar job of managing a generally thin and underwhelming group of players? How long will Luke last next year – especially if one his motivational speeches precedes another 9-game losing streak? I don’t think we should have to wait to find out. But I don’t get a vote.

Anyway. That’s said now. As I would prefer my offseason to be restorative, I’ll read up on draft prospects, root for the Boomers in the Olympics, and consume select fluff pieces about the whatever new additions we make. Life as a fan.

 

[D13]

I don't know what to think anymore, absolutely nothing they've tried has worked in the last 15 years.

Will another coach change things? Maybe, but who are the available super hero coach's out there willing to fly in and save the day?
Do we give another up an comer a shot and roll dice again?

Seems the only thing we haven't tried is sticking with the same coach for more than 2 years. Might as well check that off the list and see what happens. It's not like we aren't used to losing.

 

[mac]

I don't know what to think anymore, absolutely nothing they've tried has worked in the last 15 years.

Will another coach change things? Maybe, but who are the available super hero coach's out there willing to fly in and save the day?
Do we give another up an comer a shot and roll dice again?

Seems the only thing we haven't tried is sticking with the same coach for more than 2 years. Might as well check that off the list and see what happens. It's not like we aren't used to losing.

That's optimistic thinking, but reasonably speaking, what can you really expect will change in terms of scheme? Honestly my biggest issue with Luke wasn't the effort on the floor, but how we seemed to not have much of a working scheme on both ends of the floor relative to what we see from other teams. I mean, why is it that every other team can have random guys spotting up for open corner 3s, while we with a supposed star point guard can't get our 3 point champion an open shot consistently? Likewise, why do we have to rely on Fox going 1 on 3 so often? All that points to scheme rather than personnel or effort, and that is the biggest concern to me.

 

[Warhawk]

That's optimistic thinking, but reasonably speaking, what can you really expect will change in terms of scheme? Honestly my biggest issue with Luke wasn't the effort on the floor, but how we seemed to not have much of a working scheme on both ends of the floor relative to what we see from other teams. I mean, why is it that every other team can have random guys spotting up for open corner 3s, while we with a supposed star point guard can't get our 3 point champion an open shot consistently? Likewise, why do we have to rely on Fox going 1 on 3 so often? All that points to scheme rather than personnel or effort, and that is the biggest concern to me.

The thing is, we see flashes of this where the ball movement is crisp and lively resulting in great looks. We see them run a nice little set resulting in an easy basket. Then they never go back to it. Man, if something works (due to a mismatch or whatever), go to that every time until they stop it.

 

[dude12]

Carmichael Dave on the radio saying it’s not about money......lmao. Keep spinning that.

I like the idea of some continuity, it’s a great change. Just doing it with the wrong guy.

 

[ESP47]

Carmichael Dave on the radio saying it’s not about money......lmao. Keep spinning that.

I like the idea of some continuity, it’s a great change. Just doing it with the wrong guy.

Apparently the players would rather play for a crappy coach who is nice to them over a big meanie who was capable of getting them into the playoffs.

 

[Folsomkingsfan]

I don't know what to think anymore, absolutely nothing they've tried has worked in the last 15 years.

Will another coach change things? Maybe, but who are the available super hero coach's out there willing to fly in and save the day?
Do we give another up an comer a shot and roll dice again?

Seems the only thing we haven't tried is sticking with the same coach for more than 2 years. Might as well check that off the list and see what happens. It's not like we aren't used to losing.

It couldn't hurt. Assuming a new coach comes in and we finish with the same record next year then what do we do? Bring in another coach? Underachieve and fire the coach is all we've done the last 15 years. Might as well try something new with the most talented team we've had in years.

 

[Peja]

We should start a new thread and name it - "Fire Vivek"..

 

[sactowndog]

I'm not going to stop being a fan, I just am not even going to get sucked in until they show something good. I at least entertain the idea of League Pass every year, I just can't see any chance that's happening if we retain Walton. And I'll skip the Blazers games in person and pick a game where I can actually root for the home team. Maybe if I'm in Sac I'll finally get to see the new arena, but barring that I'm not going to actually put any money towards watching this team stay the course. But I'll come here as I do.

you could get league pass and watch ex Kings players be successful on other teams.

 

[sactowndog]

It couldn't hurt. Assuming a new coach comes in and we finish with the same record next year then what do we do? Bring in another coach? Underachieve and fire the coach is all we've done the last 15 years. Might as well try something new with the most talented team we've had in years.

is it the most talented? For sure it is in the backcourt. But the front court is a dumpster fire.

Monte will have a chance to demonstrate his drafting chops this upcoming draft. I doubt Kuminga is going to slide to our eventual spot. Every player where we pick will be a gamble and we shall see how well Monte sorts the wheat from the chaff.

Being a top notch talent evaluator can overcome a lot of other ills.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

you could get league pass and watch ex Kings players be successful on other teams.

I'll watch hockey or Arizona basketball or something else entirely if the Kings continue to play .400 ball.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

He had LBJ for goodness sake and couldn't win. How can you fail so miserably and still keep your job?

If LBJ played the bulk of his career in the West instead of the East -- with the same teams he had in Cleveland -- he'd be viewed much differently.

I'm not much of a Luke Walton fan, but the Lakers didn't have AD that first season. And the Lakers roster on the whole was much more flawed. And LBJ missed 27 games that season.

Still, they were 20-14 before LBJ missed 17 consecutive games. And they were 28-27 in the 55 games he played.

IMO that more goes to show how much more difficult the West is (even with an elite player) than it says anything about Luke Walton.

The next coach had the luxury of Anthony Davis also on the roster and better fits with regard to role players.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb in suggesting that Walton could have fared much better than 28-27 with the roster the Lakers fielded the very next season.

 

[The Effort Police]

Apparently the players would rather play for a crappy coach who is nice to them over a big meanie who was capable of getting them into the playoffs.

I mean, this is nothing new.

Buddy wants his coach to allow him to fly around the court doing whatever stupid, impulsive thing pops into his head.

Bagley wants his coach to cater to him as the first option he thinks he is and focus on what truly matters: his stats.

Rest of them though, oof. What happens next year when we're floundering in the 11th seed again? Clock is ticking on Fox, might as well trade him at that point. Cousins years all over again.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If LBJ played the bulk of his career in the West instead of the East -- with the same teams he had in Cleveland -- he'd be viewed much differently.

I'm not much of a Luke Walton fan, but the Lakers didn't have AD that first season. And the Lakers roster on the whole was much more flawed. And LBJ missed 27 games that season.

Still, they were 20-14 before LBJ missed 17 consecutive games. And they were 28-27 in the 55 games he played.

IMO that more goes to show how much more difficult the West is (even with an elite player) than it says anything about Luke Walton.

The next coach had the luxury of Anthony Davis also on the roster and better fits with regard to role players.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb in suggesting that Walton could have fared much better than 28-27 with the roster the Lakers fielded the very next season.

I thought the case for hiring him was he did manage to eek out improvement of very poor Lakers teams pre-LeBron and he had the team in ok position before LeBron missed a large chunk. So if he was Vlade's first choice, in the year coming off our most promising season since Adelman left, I was on board. But its been 2 years and we suck and show no signs of improvement. I see no indication that without some kind of major roster overhaul the team can be better next year, in fact there's plenty of reason to believe that we'll be worse because some of the teams beneath us held players out to secure higher picks. We have no cap space so unless we get big bites on Buddy or Bagley, which seems odd, there really isn't much room for improvement outside of the draft.

Although the report that Monte/Fox conversation revolved around Fox/Hali back court may mean Buddy is not long even if we have to take a low ball or wait a year or two for a draft pick.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I thought the case for hiring him was he did manage to eek out improvement of very poor Lakers teams pre-LeBron and he had the team in ok position before LeBron missed a large chunk. So if he was Vlade's first choice, in the year coming off our most promising season since Adelman left, I was on board. But its been 2 years and we suck and show no signs of improvement. I see no indication that without some kind of major roster overhaul the team can be better next year, in fact there's plenty of reason to believe that we'll be worse because some of the teams beneath us held players out to secure higher picks. We have no cap space so unless we get big bites on Buddy or Bagley, which seems odd, there really isn't much room for improvement outside of the draft.

Although the report that Monte/Fox conversation revolved around Fox/Hali back court may mean Buddy is not long even if we have to take a low ball or wait a year or two for a draft pick.

Agreed.

I'm not at all advocating for Walton to remain head coach. Just trying to be accurate and fair.

He did have that Lakers team above .500 when LBJ played and that team didn't yet have Anthony Davis and the right mix of role players for those two players to utilize.

If Frank Vogel had been the head coach that initial season, I don't believe the result would have been any different. That roster wasn't good enough in the West.

Hell, they are barely in the top 8 this season for many of the same reasons.

 

[The_Jamal]

I mean, that’s how the FO will probably spin it, but this is Vivek not wanting pay for another coach. More Vlade fallout. More bad ownership.

Although, if you’re making the argument that our roster is a bit.... soft....Well, I don’t really have a rebuttal to that!

The problem is... none of us really know, which makes it impossible to properly evaluate McNair if this is actually his coaching decision or not. That's how screwed up Vivek has this franchise; McNair very well could be tying his ship to Walton, or he may have had no choice but to do so.

 

[The_Jamal]

Regardless, this is one of the bigger moves, if not the biggest move of McNair's tenure as GM. Whether it's actually his decision or not to keep Walton, the fallout if things go badly next year is now on him and doesn't get passed off to being "Vlade's leftover"

 

[ridingagain]

I wasn’t a big fan of Walton this year but I’m ok keeping him another year. The revolving door of coaches and players clearly hasn’t worked. The fact that the players seem to like him is a good thing. Much better than the alternative. I also trust Monte, Luke’s staff, players and others are giving Luke feedback on things he can correct going forward.

 

[Warhawk]

If LBJ played the bulk of his career in the West instead of the East -- with the same teams he had in Cleveland -- he'd be viewed much differently.

I'm not much of a Luke Walton fan, but the Lakers didn't have AD that first season. And the Lakers roster on the whole was much more flawed. And LBJ missed 27 games that season.

Still, they were 20-14 before LBJ missed 17 consecutive games. And they were 28-27 in the 55 games he played.

IMO that more goes to show how much more difficult the West is (even with an elite player) than it says anything about Luke Walton.

The next coach had the luxury of Anthony Davis also on the roster and better fits with regard to role players.

I don't think I'm going out on a limb in suggesting that Walton could have fared much better than 28-27 with the roster the Lakers fielded the very next season.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree on Walton's coaching acumen. His teams are atrocious on defense, his substitutions and usage of players are head scratching, and he's never had a winning season as a coach; even with LBJ playing he was BARELY 0.500, which is woefully underperforming.

 

[iowamcnabb]

it’s hard for me to imagine Luke being the long term answer but we will have to deal with him for at least another part of a season.

I feel like a good head coach is a motivator and a strategist. What we have heard about Luke is he is likable and a good developer. Those sound like qualities of an assistant coach. We need Luke to improve as a motivator (get Fox to not suck at defense for example) and to improve his in game management.

On the flip side. Fans generally think almost everyone is a bad coach in the NBA. If we did a poll of the last, say 100 head coaches, how many would the fan consensus mark as good or above?

 

[Insomniacal Fan]

I'm thinking that management doesn't see a short term benefit from replacing the coach. We aren't winning now, but we probably aren't winning next year either. Given that management is still working on the roster, placating our existing players becomes an important part of the job.

It’ll be easier to bring on an accomplished coach once new hires can imagine us getting better.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

On the flip side. Fans generally think almost everyone is a bad coach in the NBA. If we did a poll of the last, say 100 head coaches, how many would the fan consensus mark as good or above?

To me, you can objectively evaluate based on season goals/expectations (Realistic ones). So for lotto teams, are players being developed, improved, good rotations, player management, etc. I am not sure Luke meets that. But even so, Luke was hired to make us a playoff team, so by that metric he's also out.

You take a guy like Stotts, he's a decent coach, but not one that is going to get the Blazers to the next level. But a guy like Stotts probably would be better than Walton. Same with McMillan, who is the one retread I'd be on board with. Stevens may not have much longer to go in Boston and would probably improve this team. But again I don't know about just picking up guys immediately after they are canned. I really hope Monte has a long term guy in mind and maybe just has been convinced to give it one more year because the players want him and the money is tight. but yikes, horrible reasons.

 

[SacTownKid]

Another year of excuses and blaming Walton incoming.

Nah, this will be a quick hitter most likely. He has probably about 25 games next season to not blow it. The problem is this could be another wasted year though if he does. Basically, all fans can hope for at this point is that the "good" Walton sticks this time. If not, you get another midseason change that may or may not work out. If it doesn't then a potential rebuild begins, yet again.

 

[SacTownKid]

Vlade effed this one up by giving Walton that contract. It’s THE only reason Walton is still here. Ownership would rather waste another year of Fox’s career with a bad head coach instead of doing the right thing and dumping his behind.

I'm starting to believe it. I didn't realize that the Kings also had one of the lowest salary sheets this year, and their moves depict it. Now, what they do this summer will tell EVERYTHING about where this franchise is headed.

 

[Telemachus]

To me, you can objectively evaluate based on season goals/expectations (Realistic ones). So for lotto teams, are players being developed, improved, good rotations, player management, etc. I am not sure Luke meets that. But even so, Luke was hired to make us a playoff team, so by that metric he's also out.

You take a guy like Stotts, he's a decent coach, but not one that is going to get the Blazers to the next level. But a guy like Stotts probably would be better than Walton. Same with McMillan, who is the one retread I'd be on board with. Stevens may not have much longer to go in Boston and would probably improve this team. But again I don't know about just picking up guys immediately after they are canned. I really hope Monte has a long term guy in mind and maybe just has been convinced to give it one more year because the players want him and the money is tight. but yikes, horrible reasons.

My biggest problems witj Walton are mostly game time decisions. He isn't good at making adjustments to what other teams are having success at. I can't criticize too much on player development because I think they have been good in that regard the last couple of seasons. More of that probably goes to Rico Hines, but Walton was the head coach (so I don't think it is fair to give him no credit).

I feel the Kings had enough talent to be better than several of the teams that finished above them this season, especially after they strengthened their bench. There were 2 things that kept them from finishing bettet IMO.
1. Coaching. Walton got out coached in a lot of games this season. If not for the supurb play of Fox & Halliburton in the 4th quarters, they would've lost even more games because of him.
2. Defense. The Kings had 3 sections (8-10 games) this season where they were as good as almost any team in the league. Their defense was rated in (or just outside) the top10 during those stretches. The rest of the season they played record setting bad defense. There is no excuse for this.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

2. Defense. The Kings had 3 sections (8-10 games) this season where they were as good as almost any team in the league. Their defense was rated in (or just outside) the top10 during those stretches. The rest of the season they played record setting bad defense. There is no excuse for this.

This was a pretty big deal for me, because there were times where I was blown away by their defensive effort and then they would just go to the worst in history. I don't know how that falls on anyone but the coach.

As for development, I guess it isn't fair to Walton, but I still base a lot on Bagley. He had to be put into a position to succeed and I'm not sure he ever has been, but he also can't stay healthy. But it seems like he's also put in the position where he is a constant scapegoat when he does play, and I'm not sure he deserves that either. So again, bad scheming.

 

[SacTownKid]

it’s hard for me to imagine Luke being the long term answer but we will have to deal with him for at least another part of a season.

I feel like a good head coach is a motivator and a strategist. What we have heard about Luke is he is likable and a good developer. Those sound like qualities of an assistant coach. We need Luke to improve as a motivator (get Fox to not suck at defense for example) and to improve his in game management.

On the flip side. Fans generally think almost everyone is a bad coach in the NBA. If we did a poll of the last, say 100 head coaches, how many would the fan consensus mark as good or above?

I think if Luke was a cheerleader for a contender then he could be a really good option as a players coach. He's not totally and completely a failure although when it comes to crunch time he's shown time and time again what he lacks in all forms of strategy from timeouts, to rotations, to play calls, etc. To me, they are still fighting history. Rarely if ever do FO changes not include the previous regimes crony hire as a part of that change. Hey math nerds, your answers are right there in the history books.

And most of them are "bad" because most of them think THEY are the reason a team wins or loses. This isn't college, this is the NBA, talents wins and coaches that use their talent to their strengths tend to stick. It's not rocket science. Then when coaches get to a perceived level a greatness they get to call their own shots and most of the smart ones are pretty selective. Just ask Mr. Zen Phil Jackson. The one time he didn't pick a team with the two best players on the roster and forced HIS system down their throats it was a disaster.

 

[SacTownKid]

Regardless, this is one of the bigger moves, if not the biggest move of McNair's tenure as GM. Whether it's actually his decision or not to keep Walton, the fallout if things go badly next year is now on him and doesn't get passed off to being "Vlade's leftover"

I firmly believe Joe Dumars is running this show. As soon as it was reported his duties wouldn't conflict with Vlade and barely a year later Vlade was asked to step aside for Dumars you knew what was going on. They hired a cheap rookie GM that won't stand in his way.

 

[iowamcnabb]

I think if Luke was a cheerleader for a contender then he could be a really good option as a players coach. He's not totally and completely a failure although when it comes to crunch time he's shown time and time again what he lacks in all forms of strategy from timeouts, to rotations, to play calls, etc. To me, they are still fighting history. Rarely if ever do FO changes not include the previous regimes crony hire as a part of that change. Hey math nerds, your answers are right there in the history books.

And most of them are "bad" because most of them think THEY are the reason a team wins or loses. This isn't college, this is the NBA, talents wins and coaches that use their talent to their strengths tend to stick. It's not rocket science. Then when coaches get to a perceived level a greatness they get to call their own shots and most of the smart ones are pretty selective. Just ask Mr. Zen Phil Jackson. The one time he didn't pick a team with the two best players on the roster and forced HIS system down their throats it was a disaster.

I largely agree but how does the best basketball league in the world have only a handful of consensus good coaches?