Marc Stein: Big Don Nelson to the Kings?

#1

Don of a new age?

By Marc Stein
ESPN.com

You will not see Don Nelson's name when ESPN.com provides your monthly opportunity to register bench grades and gripes via our NBA Coach Approval Ratings.

Not this February.

But by next February . . .

Don't be surprised if he's at midseason with his new team.

Multiple Nellie associates inform ESPN.com that the 65-year-old has dropped hints about considering other jobs after sitting out the rest of this season. It's highly unlikely that Mavericks owner Mark Cuban would let Nelson go anywhere before next season anyway, and a couple of those same Nellie associates say a return to the bench won't happen unless someone out there offers him an annual salary of at least $5 million, but you can be pretty sure someone will in the off-season.

Reason being: There isn't a better coach on the planet who isn't working.

He's officially a Mavericks consultant these days, but Avery Johnson's Mavs don't consult Nelson for much. This is also the final season in which Nelson is earning $5 million, after which comes a drop to a more consultant-like $1 million (and change) but also more freedom to leave for a head-coaching spot, which is why a new gig would shock no one who knows him.

Media types in the Bay Area are already tossing out Nelson's name as an ideal successor to Mike Montgomery in Golden State, given that the Warriors haven't been to the playoffs since Nelson's last full season there in 1993-94. Nelson will also be mentioned as a candidate in Seattle -- barring the re-hiring of the recently promoted Bob Hill -- because of Nelson's longstanding friendship with Sonics general manager Rick Sund.

But I'm betting on Sacramento.

Nelson remains undeniably close with Warriors vice president Chris Mullin, but that alone isn't enough to legitimize the link. Team sources, for starters, insist that reports of friction between Montgomery and star guard Baron Davis are a media creation. Yet even if the Warriors continue to fade and miss the playoffs for the 12th consecutive season, Nelson can't be considered a serious contender to take over in Oaktown unless his relationship with Warriors owner Chris Cohan is mended. Don't forget that Cohan's messy 1995 parting with Nelson was not wrapped up until 1999, when an NBA arbirtator ruled that Nelson could keep $1.6 million that Cohan expected him to repay after Nelson was hired to coach the Knicks.

The Sonics? My suspicion -- endorsed by everyone I've presented it to -- is that Seattle won't be looking to hire a $5 million-a-year coach if Hill is not retained.

Which brings us to Sacramento, where Rick Adelman is in the final few months of his contract. If the Adelman era ends at season's end, as widely expected after a run of eight seasons, Nelson really is a natural successor there. For a few reasons.

1) As we said about the Lakers' Phil Jackson and Denver's George Karl, Nelson is sufficiently eccentric in his own right to have a shot at clicking with new Kings cornerstone Ron Artest.

2) Kings co-owner Joe and Gavin Maloof are undoubtedly willing to pay top dollar for coach, as evidenced by their not-so-secret attempt to hire Jackson before Phil returned to L.A.

3) Nelson is already working for the Maloofs. The madcap brothers own the production company that, with George Clooney as their producer, is putting together a basketball sitcom

Donnie Nelson, president of basketball operations for the Mavericks and Nellie's son, doesn't doubt that his dad's name will come up for several jobs. Noting that the starting-over Toronto Raptors just created a front-office opening, Donnie said: "Anybody looking for a coach or GM should have Nellie on their list. He's already built three franchises from the ground up."

The younger Nelson is quick to add, though, that he'll be lobbying his father to turn down any offer that comes, and not simply because he'd rather see Big Nellie -- who left Monday for a vacation in New Zealand -- stay with the Mavs as a Red Auerbach-style godfather.

"I would just ask him, 'How many more mountains can you climb?'" Donnie said. "He's the second-winningest coach of all-time. He's achieved pretty much everything there is to achieve as a player, coach and executive. If he asks me, for health reasons and everything else, I'd tell him, 'You don't need it.'"

If that speech doesn't work . . . Donnie can always throw out the ESPN.com NBA Coach Approval Ratings as another deterrent.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-060202
 
#2
Nelson is not a good coach anymore. Just look what Avery Johnson has done with the Mavs, he has gotten them to play defense. Nellie just doesn't coach defense he doesn't seem to care about it.

Huge mistake if the Kings were to hire Nellie
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#4
Oh he's still a good coach, but just not one that is going to get you anywhere special. Offensive genius. Defensive dolt. Old enough to be collecting social security. Much as I am sure Ron would love it when he's switched to PF so Don can get a second PG on the floor, there are reasons Don has never won anything, and never will. You never know if it is the Maloofs call, but that would be a pointless and silly fantasy basketball move again. A move to look good and get attention, but not a serious one.
 
#9
Just keep Adelman if you're even considering Don Nelson. There's no point for a change. Virtually the same coach in some ways. And, I agree with SacDoug, I'd rather see Elston Turner take over the team at that point. Is Stan Van Gundy the super intense one of the Van Gundy brothers?? If so, I don't think that would be a good mix with Artest.
 
#10
for god's sake please not don nelson. he couldn't do squat with a much more talented dallas mavs team. if people are screaming for a replacement for RA, what are they going to do if its don nelson???!? talk about total chaos and lack of consistent rotation.

its not like the kings haven't been able to run an effective offense...no way is don nelson an ideal candidate for this team!
 
#11
We need a defensive first coach. We don't need Nelly. He might be the best available coach, personally I'd rather still have Rick over Nelly. But I'd rather have a tough minded defensive coach then them both.
 
#12
Bill Cowher, of the Steelers, said something in regards to his longevity (13 years) and the various theories about coaching-shelf life (coaches only last 3 to 5 years before their message gets old and stale): In the modern NFL he can stay longer than the traditional 3 to 5 year shelf-life of coaches and their messages because most players are not on the team for more than 3 years anyways. So its basically like you are a 1st year coach every 3 years, so the message never gets old.

Why do I bring this up now? Because, as many of you are so fond of reminding us, nobody is still here from the great Kings team of just a few years back.

Adleman is a better coach than Don. Doing Don is going in the wrong direction.
 
#13
Rick is a great offensive coach, we're getting much better defensive players. This is going to be a great combo once everything starts gelling. I say we resign Rick.
 
#15
The Maloofs will probably wait and see how Adelman finishes out the year. I wouldn't be surprised to see them ask him to stick around longer--as long as he's not too miffed about his lame-duck year or too burned out.

I can't believe that after acquiring more defensive-minded players they would go out and get Nelson...

The weird thing is that Adelman does have two very defensive minded coaches in T.R. Tunn and Elston Turner.
 
P

playmaker0017

Guest
#16
I would replace Rick Adleman as soon as sneeze. Not because I think he's a bad coach - but because I think he's a bad coach for THIS team.

I don't like the Princeton offense, and I like it less with this squad. It's like we've lost our minds ... we post the smalls and have the bigs take jumpers. It's like dyslexic basketball.

In my opinion, you get a solid coach. One that focuses on fundamentals and one that focuses on defense. It doesn't HAVE to be a big name, although I'm sure it will be.

I think Don is a better step for this team offensively and at par with what we've got now defensively. It's not the move I'd make, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it was.

Perhaps we could lure Nate from Portland ... he's got to be regretting his current choice right now ... :D
 
#17
playmaker0017 said:
I would replace Rick Adleman as soon as sneeze. Not because I think he's a bad coach - but because I think he's a bad coach for THIS team.

I don't like the Princeton offense, and I like it less with this squad. It's like we've lost our minds ... we post the smalls and have the bigs take jumpers. It's like dyslexic basketball.

In my opinion, you get a solid coach. One that focuses on fundamentals and one that focuses on defense. It doesn't HAVE to be a big name, although I'm sure it will be.

I think Don is a better step for this team offensively and at par with what we've got now defensively. It's not the move I'd make, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if it was.

Perhaps we could lure Nate from Portland ... he's got to be regretting his current choice right now ... :D
I disagree completely. Every single player on the current team is a great fit for Adelman's offense -- multiskilled, good passers, can play from multiple spots on the floor, can hit outside shots. Plus, Rick Adelman is about as skilled a head-case manager as has ever existed in the league. When has he ever had a problem with a player? And what other coach in the entire recent history of the NBA not named Phil Jackson has a resume like that? It's a terribly undervalued strength.

When Rick had a bunch of good-guy underachievers I started to question whether he was the guy for the Kings because he's not a motivator and the early-season Kings needed a big kick in the rear, which Rick wasn't able to provide. Now that the Kings have Artest, who can hopefully serve as a leader/motivator but needs an ego-free coach who he won't clash with, Adelman is damn near essential.
 
#18
nbrans said:
Oh dear god no. Pleeeeease re-sign Rick Adelman.
My sentiments exactly! For the last few seasons I firmly believed that RA's time here was done and that he should be sent packing. However, I now believe that he should be kept around with the team that we now have. If the Kings can somehow finish the season at or right around .500 then he should be kept. Realistically, RA has less than half a season with the new starting five. With his history of being able to help so called problem guys turn their careers around and with a few of them on the roster I think he should stay if things don't go any more south from here. By the way...Nellie would be awful!!!
 
P

playmaker0017

Guest
#19
nbrans said:
I disagree completely. Every single player on the current team is a great fit for Adelman's offense -- multiskilled, good passers, can play from multiple spots on the floor, can hit outside shots.
Which is exactly why I dislike the Princeton offense for this squad.

The Princeton Offense was designed to mask the fact that the team was unable to do these things. It was designed to take away individual talents.

This is why I keep saying that we need to move to a traditional set. But, we don't. We've got Reef feeding guards. A center who won't go into the paint if his life depended on it.

I think posting up guards is good, occationally ... but last night we did it to exclusion. And it wasn't working.

We've got the talent on this squad to actually perform QUITE WELL.

A more traditional offense would work wonders, but the high post to exclusion is a waste of talent if you ask me.

Personally, I would get a defense only coach. I'd get a guy that thrives on defense. Our players are talented enough to score offensively with or without a dedicated system.
 
#20
playmaker0017 said:
I think posting up guards is good, occationally ... but last night we did it to exclusion. And it wasn't working.
Didn't they win by feeding Artest in the post every possession in the 4th Quarter?
 
#21
What if RA doesn't want to re-up?

Maybe, after the Jackson faux pau Rick is just playing out his contract. It's interesting that people assume that RA even wants to come back. I'm not saying it's out of the question just that there may be more to the issue.
 
P

playmaker0017

Guest
#22
nbrans said:
Didn't they win by feeding Artest in the post every possession in the 4th Quarter?
Is that WHY they won or was it just a coincidence?

I remember us having a lead in the 3rd, and if I remember correctly we were dead even in the 4th.

7-19 for Artest and 3-16 for Wells.

Personally, I think that's too many shots for both of them. I'm not going to begrudge it right now, since Reef and Miller are still hurt - but if that's the offense we plan to run into the ground ... I'll be dismayed.

I preferred that we were taking post shots ... but I fail to see how Bonzi/Artest are these over-the-top, amazing post players. They are good to above average ... but not players in a position that should be fed the ball all night.
 
#25
playmaker0017 said:
Which is exactly why I dislike the Princeton offense for this squad.

The Princeton Offense was designed to mask the fact that the team was unable to do these things. It was designed to take away individual talents.
Please, not this discussion again.

The PO was designed to mask lack of athleticism, not mask the talents of multiskilled players who were able to pass the ball and make shots from multiple spots on the floor. Infact, the PO DEPENDS on that to be effective.

I'm not disagreeing with you that a more traditional offense might be better for this team, although I don't exactly know that the PO isn't a good option for any team. But your assessment about the PO is highly inaccurate, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:
#26
playmaker0017 said:
Is that WHY they won or was it just a coincidence?

I remember us having a lead in the 3rd, and if I remember correctly we were dead even in the 4th.

7-19 for Artest and 3-16 for Wells.

Personally, I think that's too many shots for both of them. I'm not going to begrudge it right now, since Reef and Miller are still hurt - but if that's the offense we plan to run into the ground ... I'll be dismayed.

I preferred that we were taking post shots ... but I fail to see how Bonzi/Artest are these over-the-top, amazing post players. They are good to above average ... but not players in a position that should be fed the ball all night.
It worked against the Nuggets. If it doesn't work against another team the Kings can give them a different look. If that doesn't work they can try something else. The beauty of the system is that it is not just "throw it into the post and stand around," it has inherent flexibility that makes it very difficult for teams to adequately defend.
 
#27
I don't put too much stock into anything Marc Stein says. The guy is too busy sucking up to Kobe Bryant and the Lakers to actually know anything about future coaching changes for the Kings. The way I see it, he's just trying to stir up some sh**.
 
#29
Diabeticwonder said:
My sentiments exactly! For the last few seasons I firmly believed that RA's time here was done and that he should be sent packing. However, I now believe that he should be kept around with the team that we now have. If the Kings can somehow finish the season at or right around .500 then he should be kept. Realistically, RA has less than half a season with the new starting five. With his history of being able to help so called problem guys turn their careers around and with a few of them on the roster I think he should stay if things don't go any more south from here. By the way...Nellie would be awful!!!
I completely agree. I was all for letting Rick Adelman go at the end of the season, until the Artest trade was made. Now i feel that if the Kings make a serious run into the post season, the Maloofs have to bring him back. Yes I would like a more defensive minded coach, but who is out there:

Terry Porter
Del Harris
Mario Elle

I like Elle and Porter, but I would rather have Rick back with this current team.