Mike Brown Fired

Ok…then we simply disagree. You say we’ve had bad luck in those close losses, I see many blunders, questionable coaching decisions and epic meltdowns. There is no ‘right‘ decision here. I feel a change with brown was warranted and you do not.
Ok so with your logic now that these horrible coaching blunders and decisions are out we should make a run as a playoff team right?
 
Ok so with your logic now that these horrible coaching blunders and decisions are out we should make a run as a playoff team right?
Are you purposely trying to not read the words I’m writing?

I do not think firing Brown and replacing with Christie saves the season. I’m ready for Fox (and maybe more) to be traded and to start with either a full rebuild or a roster reconstruction on the fly. Maybe Monte pulls a rabbit out of his hat at the trade deadline but otherwise I suspect he’s probably gone also.
 
I think that this firing of HC will have good impact for the team, because it was purely on Brown for majority loses of this season. Weird substitutions, playing wrong guys, bad strategy on offense and defense and, obviously, bringing tensions in the locker room and losing player trust. Not sure when it was the turning point, but I have sensed that changes should arise.

And probably, some more changes can come, not only HC change.
 
And the good thing is DC has worked his *** off as a coach. If these players don't buy in with him, wrong players. Tear it down.
Good on him, he has that in common with hundreds of other people. He wouldn’t even be mentioned if he wasn’t from the 02 team. It’s as simple as that. There’s absolutely nothing to put him above anyone else apart from nostalgia.
 
Good on him, he has that in common with hundreds of other people. He wouldn’t even be mentioned if he wasn’t from the 02 team. It’s as simple as that. There’s absolutely nothing to put him above anyone else apart from nostalgia.
Good vibes mean something. So does having a background of actually doing it both on the court and as an assistant. 2 for 2. People act like he hasn't been putting in the work. He has. If he's not the right guy, we'll see it. Although right now the Kings are pretty much in that last ditch position now. If they don't turn this around? Bet on Christie sticking around unless he's a total cluster F because you're rebuilding at that point anyway.
 
The other consideration could be the team peaked 2 years ago and caught the league by surprise with Fox/Sabonis playing amazing (Huerter was insane for the first few months as well) plus the West being banged up/injured, the team got scouted and maybe does not possess the quality to overcome that. In order to overcome that they tried for a panic move for DDR which has back fired not due to talent but due to fit.

While I don't know if Brown deserved to be fired every time a coach gets fired they don't deserve it according to other coaches it's getting tiresome hearing it.
 
Good on him, he has that in common with hundreds of other people. He wouldn’t even be mentioned if he wasn’t from the 02 team. It’s as simple as that. There’s absolutely nothing to put him above anyone else apart from nostalgia.
That take is rather unfair. Doug Christie has a number of advantages that an outsider, say Frank Vogel, would have stepping in at mid-season. He also brings significant professional background.

1) He already knows the players extremely well, in terms of their personalities, and in terms of their strengths and weaknesses on the court. There is a game every two nights starting Saturday night, and no time to waste.

2) He already has the players' respect. He has been there every game, greeting the players every time they come off the court.

3) He already knows the offensive and defensive schemes that the team has been using thus far this season, and can implement changes strategically, rather than wholesale.

4) Christie, by all accounts, did a fine job in Summer League, especially on defense. The Kings' squad was sixth in Las Vegas in opponents' scoring.

5) He has strong opinions, which fans know from his three years as a television analyst.
 
Well, what's done is done. Time to move on.

Let's see how much of this comes true:
1. Keon sees more playing time and becomes an important scorer.
2. Keegan finds his shot.
3. Huerter finds his shot.
4. DeRosen finds his niche, shoots better, plays more team ball.
5. Fox puts forth more consistent high effort in his game minutes.
6. Opponent's 3PT shooting percentage and frequency drops precipitously.
7. Free throw shooting improves even more.
8. Kings win 60% of the games for the remainder of the season.
9. Monk and Sabonis continue their productive ways.
10. The Kings have some post-season play.

Admittedly, some of this may happen as a "bubble" reaction to change but it still represents growth and improvement.

To quote the signature of a forum member on here, "I may be wrong, but I doubt it".;)
Thanks for the shout out.

Based on what I've seen so far, I think these things are true:

1. Mike Brown lost the locker room for whatever reason.

2. In times like these, the coach has to take the first fall.

3. The way in which Mike Brown was relieved of duty wasn't the best way, and it should have been done with more respect, no matter the discomfort.

4. All persons in the organization need to be ready for authentic feedback and accountability, no matter how uncomfortable it may be. You can't have a good team without it.
 
"Lack of leadership and accountability..." - A good take by Bruno on the leadup to Mike Brown being fired.

it makes me wonder... did the decision get made BY Monte (trying to deflect attention from his own more sizable responsibility for the current mess) or FOR Monte (who is dutifully taking the blame for a meddling owner in over his head)?

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/l...ses-deeper-issues-within-the-sacramento-kings
This is the best and most objective analysis I've seen thus far. I agree 100% with it.
 
That take is rather unfair. Doug Christie has a number of advantages that an outsider, say Frank Vogel, would have stepping in at mid-season. He also brings significant professional background.

1) He already knows the players extremely well, in terms of their personalities, and in terms of their strengths and weaknesses on the court. There is a game every two nights starting Saturday night, and no time to waste.

2) He already has the players' respect. He has been there every game, greeting the players every time they come off the court.

3) He already knows the offensive and defensive schemes that the team has been using thus far this season, and can implement changes strategically, rather than wholesale.

4) Christie, by all accounts, did a fine job in Summer League, especially on defense. The Kings' squad was sixth in Las Vegas in opponents' scoring.

5) He has strong opinions, which fans know from his three years as a television analyst.
This new style by Sam Amick seems to confirm several of these points. Christie's relationships throughout the organization had a lot to do with him leapfrogging Jay Triano and Luke Louks.

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6023065/2024/12/28/mike-brown-firing-sacramento-kings-nba/
 
and im not sure if you understand basketball. 3-11 in games decided by 5 pts or less. That can easily swing to 11-3 with 1 possession, 1 missed shot, 1 made shot. The team finally had stability, and they throw it out the window. So please explain what changes with Mike Brown out and Doug Christie in?
Potentially using defensive players more in certain situations down the stretch. We'll see soon enough if anything looks different
 
Whether you believed Brown should have been fired mid-season or not, there are ways to do these things and this was not it.

Mike Malone on Brown’s Firing calls Kings Classless
The Athletic article today said the final decision was not made until mid afternoon and part of the hold up was they had to have a replacement in place which is why Doug was not at practice. I don’t like the decision to fire him but if they made the call then it would have been even worse had they let him travel. So either make it when they did or earlier in the morning but it sounds like there were some complications there
 
The Athletic article today said the final decision was not made until mid afternoon and part of the hold up was they had to have a replacement in place which is why Doug was not at practice. I don’t like the decision to fire him but if they made the call then it would have been even worse had they let him travel. So either make it when they did or earlier in the morning but it sounds like there were some complications there
30 million complications to be exact.
 
the Athletic article says Monte is safe. If true I’d imagine he has a deadline plan layed out for Vivek. If he and Wes keep their job it’s hard to imagine that Doug is their long term choice. Monte is an offense first guy, he should be after the dudes in San Antonio or Memphis. Their might only be 2-3 jobs open in the offseason
 
You’re kidding me, right? So because Vivek owned the team during both events, that makes him THE common denominator?

You know what else is a common denominator? The team being located in Sacramento. So does that mean WE are responsible too?

C’mon man, you’re smarter than that!

Besides, was Vivek running the team when all this instability and dysfunction first began back in 2006? Nope. Was he running the team when they first started swinging and missing on their draft picks in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2013? Nope.

Did Vivek fire Adelman? Nope. Did he hire and fire Musselman, Theus, Natt, Westphal, and Smart? Nope.

The Magoofs went through 6 coaches in 8 seasons. Vivek has been through 7 coaches in 12 seasons.

While Vivek has made more than his fair share of mistakes over the past 11 years, there’s still no proof that he’s making these decisions over the head of GM he hired over 4 years ago.

If you can provide proof or at least some sound evidence to the contrary, please do so. Otherwise you can take the “common denominator“ nonsense and shove it. Wild speculation stemming from an anti-Vivek bias/agenda does not constitute proof.

I’m in no way a Vivek apologist. I just believe in being fair. And to this point in time, nobody has been able to bring any damning evidence to the table proving Vivek as the villain. Until proven otherwise, what basis do we have to assume that anyone other than the actual GM, Monte McNair, was responsible for the decision? The idea that Vivek has reportedly meddled in the past doesn’t automatically mean that it’s happening now.

The only concession I’ll make is that ownership has to sign off on McNair’s decision making due to the financial impacts of paying Brown while having to pay a new head coach. But that doesn’t mean that the decision to fire Brown was solely or even largely Vivek’s idea. He very well just be supporting his GM in doing the job he hired him to do.
lol settle down
actually he was the common denominator spanning 3 gms and 8 HC ;)
 
Last edited:
The only grievance I have with the timing is it seems like it was done on the phone which is a bit cowardly. Though there’s not great context around that, perhaps they called him real quick so he wouldn’t get on plane and then set up in person meeting. In which case really not that bad.

I mean he was fired before the flight, not after. I think that timing is overblown. What would have been better, right after game last night? 1st thing in morning I guess? But not biggest deal. Timing in terms of being after the Detroit game specifically is a bit odd in my opinion though - I mean they played pretty spirited ball for 40 minutes unlike previous games. But rest of “timing” seems overblown
 
I would just think that a HC that got this team to end its playoff drought and made us relevant again deserves a longer leash than this.

It would be one thing if we had a roster built to be a contender and were performing this way, but no sane person thinks this roster is built to be a contender in the playoffs. I’m not even sure it is built to get there.
 
I would just think that a HC that got this team to end its playoff drought and made us relevant again deserves a longer leash than this.

It would be one thing if we had a roster built to be a contender and were performing this way, but no sane person thinks this roster is built to be a contender in the playoffs. I’m not even sure it is built to get there.
I agree that he should have had a longer leash. Especially when two of his best 3pt shooters are shooting horrifically for no good reason whatsoever.

This roster should at minimum be a play in team IMO. Definitely should not be lower in the standings than San Antonio. We're 3 games behind the Spurs. That's sad.
 
"Lack of leadership and accountability..." - A good take by Bruno on the leadup to Mike Brown being fired.

it makes me wonder... did the decision get made BY Monte (trying to deflect attention from his own more sizable responsibility for the current mess) or FOR Monte (who is dutifully taking the blame for a meddling owner in over his head)?

https://www.basketballnetwork.net/l...ses-deeper-issues-within-the-sacramento-kings

Man, I have to say - after watching the video of the exchange between Brown and Fox at the bottom of this article? Watch it and try and think Fox didn't know exactly what was coming for Brown. Watch Fox's eye contact with Monk just following the conversation.
Actually makes me pretty sick.
 
Considering Brown was fired after a game where he decided not to foul with a 3 point lead to there is a somewhat related question:
Has any of you have an example where fouling and not allowing a team trailing by 3 very late in a game backfired. Obviously there are plenty of examples weekly of teams not fouling and paying for it and yet coaches refuse to foul.Why, am I missing some kind of data?
 
Considering Brown was fired after a game where he decided not to foul with a 3 point lead to there is a somewhat related question:
Has any of you have an example where fouling and not allowing a team trailing by 3 very late in a game backfired. Obviously there are plenty of examples weekly of teams not fouling and paying for it and yet coaches refuse to foul.Why, am I missing some kind of data?
The kings were instructed to foul if a player had his back to the basket. The PLAYERS did not do it even though they had opportunities