Guys get blackballed for whatever reason when they aren't as powerful or influential. Maybe he did some stupid stuff in the past but i haven't seen anyone say he can't coach and i doubt he's the same person he was 10 years ago. I don't think we're hiring him anyway but people are so dramatic when it comes to the Kings, i'm sure they'll make this a bigger deal than it is. When some other team hires him they'll be geniuses all of a sudden, kinda like Haliburton suddenly being the next Luka cuz he had 17 assists that one time.
Kings first round of coaching candidate interviews comes out
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
- Status
I'm not a fan of him butting into basketball ops where he doesn't belong (though let's be honest - most owners do this in some form or other to varying success) but yeah, his biggest failure off the court was probably agreeing not to take the Kings share of the luxury tax split apparently ever. Seems like 5-10 years would have been enough to prove his point. But it also helped him keep the team in Sac, and arguably it gives the team a reason to remain competitive and not just throw out a G league roster. Arguably that may also be part of the reason he refuses to throw out a G league roster for draft advantage.
I read the rumors that Mike Malone did most of the “coaching” under Jackson and think he is a good coach. Most of the people who don’t want mark jackson are quoting a lot of the off the court issues, I’m not really for him either but don’t believe he’s a bad coach, just a bad choice for the kings. He also had steph, klay and green. I’m also one of the haters who doesn’t think Phil jackson is great. Might be my blind hate for the lakers but don’t recall him being so great without mj/pippen or Kobe/Shaq or Kobe/gasol. I wouldn’t go as far as saying he’s a bad coach cuz even I can admit he’s not. Just a bad gm. You quoted someone mentioning lebron. I quoted you because I wanted to point out that lebron is one of the greatest players of all time. There’s a difference between winning with him on your team vs 1 or 2 all stars. I never said you don’t need good players to win games. My logic is if a coach can get a team to play high level and get to the playoffs, finals etc (without needing arguably top 3-5 nba players of all time + top 75 nba players all time) then yea I’d consider them good or even great. If he can take a team with borderline allstars or young players and have them improve every year and reach their potential, than I’d consider them good to great.
I don’t have time track it down, but I believe forgoing the rev sharing was only until G1C was built. Once built, the Kings started receiving rev share. You can backtrack this by looking at how Forbes values the Kings where the majority of its value is from (future) NBA rev share. See note #9.
https://www.forbes.com/teams/sacramento-kings/?sh=3768bd3662e6
https://www.forbes.com/teams/sacramento-kings/?sh=3768bd3662e6
Phil's greatest strength was managing the egos of the Jordans and Kobes he worked with and getting them to buy into a team game. Look at how Jordan ran all over Collins (and installed him as his yes man in his forgettable DC run) or young Kobe with Harris/Rambis. That's Phil's magical skill. I'm guessing he could have run whatever offense he wanted with the players he had and had good luck, and it's also why the triangle wasn't dominant outside of the most stacked team in the league.
I'll admit to having a huge blindspot to Brown because of LeBron. Success with the Warriors is a mixed blessing as we've seen. But it does appear he's the defensive architect there currently. So my concern is that he may need an offensive version of him as second in command. Who will that be? It also seems like one of his demands will be that he gets to pick his staff. I hope we agree to this even if it means cutting loose some beloved golden era staff. I don't think Walton earned the right to pick all his buddies to run the team, it was a problem in LA for him to the point it became a distraction. But Brown I think has.
I'll admit to having a huge blindspot to Brown because of LeBron. Success with the Warriors is a mixed blessing as we've seen. But it does appear he's the defensive architect there currently. So my concern is that he may need an offensive version of him as second in command. Who will that be? It also seems like one of his demands will be that he gets to pick his staff. I hope we agree to this even if it means cutting loose some beloved golden era staff. I don't think Walton earned the right to pick all his buddies to run the team, it was a problem in LA for him to the point it became a distraction. But Brown I think has.
Conversely there is this report - which is just the opposite - the new arena is when the stopped the sharing:
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/... questions,revenue-sharing recipient or payer.
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/news/... questions,revenue-sharing recipient or payer.
I have no concerns about Brown on the defensive side of the ball. I just want to know that on the offensive side he has more imagination than trying to fit the Warriors system onto Kings' personnel. Sabonis and Fox are not Green and Curry. I'd sure feel more comfortable with him if I could get assurances that he has the brains to create an offensive system that maximizes the talents of the Kings' best players.
This was leading up to the vote. There's a later article that said the arrangement was no rev sharing until the arena. From a pure business perspective, there is no way any new investor would buy into the Kings without rev sharing. And there is absolutely no world where they get a $2B valuation if the economics of it were limited to only Sacramento. Area under the curve, the TAM would just be too small.
I agree I just had this thrown back at me or something similar when I disputed it by folks I assume know better than I do. On the other side of the coin it makes some degree of sense that once you get a shiny new arena the public has paid for (all or partially) you need the help less than you do running in old Arco. so I dunno. don't really care either since the value in ownership is selling it at some later date.
Yea, the carrot of getting the arena built sooner than later lines up better with no revs until it gets built. The top line (compressed) and the bottom line (red; especially in the last few years) would likely have the team valued closer to $200M than $2B without Rev Sharing (remember, the Kings don't own the arena, so that is omitted from the Kings valuation).
You are forgetting the fact that historically BBall teams are about status and fancy toys, not business. Vivek would easily get whatever valuation would be for a pro team in California and the billionaires would be lined up one by one. As such he would probably also be able to leverage it by quite a margin as I'm sure most teams do at some point. It also depends on what actual revenues would be for a team like the Kings. I think average revenue a few years ago for the NBA teams was like 200 million but that's certainly not being drawn from more than a few teams that were of a you know who variety.
THIS. Thanks for an outstanding synopsis… it’s so easy to look back with our filters and only remember the pieces that fit our narratives, misrepresenting and oversimplifying the rest. This is a great reminder that a lot of good ideas were in in play back then, some working out and some not. With a vastly better ability to identify talent in the draft, Vlade might still be here today.
- Status