Petrie: Kings will not be hurried

[VF21]

...On the other hand, a coaching candidate should get many points for saying upfront to management that there's no way on God's green earth that he's going to be the Kings coach with Ron Artest on the team.

I wouldn't want any coach that would make that kind of statement up front. It's a coach's job to get the most of the players he's given to work with.

 

[PurpleHaze]

I wouldn't want any coach that would make that kind of statement up front. It's a coach's job to get the most of the players he's given to work with.

I agree. It reminds me of an infamous quote by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he was criticized... "You go to war with the army you got, not one you wish you had."

 

[BMiller52]

IMO this basically confirms that the coach we want is either Porter or Iavaroni. They're the only 2 still in the playoffs.

 

[SacTownKid]

I'm sort of coming around to the Carlisle idea. I know people don't like the style of offense he favors, with the emphasis on half-court play, but look, that's the style that wins in the playoffs every single time. The Spurs play it, the Jazz play it, the Suns can play it when they're not running, Detroit plays it. Run and gun is fine for the regular season (and apparently the occasional first round upset), but if you're going to win a title you're going to have to know how to grind it out in the half court. That style isn't the most fun to watch during the regular season, but hey, you'd better have practice playing that way if you're going to hope to win in the playoffs.

Carlisle knows how to win. He's been a winner in two places. Now, it's of some concern that he's worn out his welcome for two teams, but maybe with the right backing from the front office, which he has never had, it would work.

And its a style most of our personnel are probably better suited for at the moment.

 

[ParniValjak]

I think people are kidding themselves if they think Rick Carlisle is goign to let a team uptempo -- he seeks control above all else, of the pace, of who shoots etc. etc. Anything that's free flwoing and out of his control he is uncomfortable with. His pace ratings, at both Detroit and Indiana, have been 90.9, 88.7, 88.8, 90.9, 91.3, and whatever it was last year. For comparison Van Gundy in Houston has been between 89-91. That's bottom 5 in the league stuff. His team last year averaged 95.6pts -- by far the highest in his coaching career (and offset by the 98.0 going back the other way), and I think clearly the result of him losing control of the team, and his preferred style of play, to crappy results. If he were to show up he WOULD take the air out of the ball -- its what he does. Expecting him to in any significant way run the ball is like hiring Nellie and expecting him to run halfcourt sets focused on post play.

But that's a stylistic point -- ugly ball to be sure. But he nevertheless has gotten results...for a while. Made the playoffs 5 of 6 years, and even after the recent struggles he's still a career 281-209, a .573 win%. I think there's a question...beyond a question actually -- a pattern -- of his players getting sick of micromanagement within two years. But he is to Muss as a Lamborghini is to a Yugo: if you're going to be a contol freak stats crazed accountant of a basketball coach, Carlisle's the gold standard. Its ugly, there will be chemistry issues sooner or later, Kevin et. al. will have to get used to playing with a ball and chain on his ankle, but you know you have a pro, and a guy who has won and coached teams deep into the playoffs. This is what we got when we hired Rick all those years ago: the proven winner. That's a lot rarer than people think in the NBA.

I actually have real doubts whether Carlisle can/will ever win a title for the same reasons I doubt Van Gundy will: lack of imagination. But in our position, a stablizer who can just get us back on the right track is infinitely preferable than the risk of looking for a 4th coach in 4 years come next summer. Like the Pistons, you can always can Carlisle in the future if he's made you a winner, but is stalled out and grating on his players somewhere below the mountaintop. But first things first.

Couldn't have said it any better.

The only time Carlisle let his team run was after the brawl and even then he felt very uncomfortable with it but it was the only way he felt they could make the play-offs.

Carlisle is a control freak. He absolutely hates it when ever the teams turns the ball over, has to call every pass and play from the sideline. He doesn't have the overbearing personality of Muss but other than that, their styles are pretty similar except as you say, Carlisle is a MUCH MUCH better coach overall.

If we do get him, I don't expect him to be here longer than 2-3 seasons and I suspect that his style would hinder the development of kids. Kids make mistakes, its natural, except that Carlisle just can't stand mistakes.

 

[Venom]

IMO this basically confirms that the coach we want is either Porter or Iavaroni. They're the only 2 still in the playoffs.

I concur, and I am leaning towards Iavaroni. With these rule changes we should be shifting towards a more open style of play.

 

[VF21]

I suspect Iavaroni is going to offers from teams with more potential than we have at the moment.

 

[kennadog]

I wouldn't want any coach that would make that kind of statement up front. It's a coach's job to get the most of the players he's given to work with.

I don't agree with that at the hiring stage. This is supposedly a top name. If you are a coach likely to be sought after by a number of teams, why the heck wouldn't you say, "I'm not coaching Artest, thanks, but no thanks," if that's really true? And I think Ron isn't your typical player, anyway.

Coaches in big demand are going to make a number of demands as part of any deal they accept.

In my opinion, the Kings are likely looking to move Artest anyway, so its not going to be a big deal to them, if the candidate they really want, doesn't want Artest around either.

 

[ParniValjak]

I wouldn't want any coach that would make that kind of statement up front. It's a coach's job to get the most of the players he's given to work with.

Yeah and coaches also have an obligation to themselves and their families to make a career out of coaching and if a player that is a known distraction is there, I am sure many coaches would have concerns with that.

Artest is not your typical bad apple type. He has proven over time that he can single handedly destroy a franchise. No one in their right mind would want to put their reputation on the line because of Artest.

IMHO, there would only be about 2-3 coaches in the league that could handle him and we are not going to be getting any of those as our next coach.

 

[Kingster]

I wouldn't want any coach that would make that kind of statement up front. It's a coach's job to get the most of the players he's given to work with.

I want a coach with cojones to tell management what he thinks and not be the "I'm just happy to be here" kind of guy. I want a coach who has the confidence so turn down a job with the Kings if they choose to keep Artest. I don't want a toady to Petrie or the Maloofs. And I certaintly don't want a moron who thinks he can handle Artest, or a someone desperate for the job who takes it despite Artest. The Kings' management decision to trade for Artest has hurt this franchise's credibility. Even if they trade him, who is to say they won't do something like this again? Any coach with brains must have a discussion with both Petrie and the Maloofs on the type of players they want to bring to the Kings. Are they going to be high character guys, or are they not? The answer to that question should be very important to any prospective hire.

 

[sidney]

I suspect Iavaroni is going to offers from teams with more potential than we have at the moment.

I hope so. He's a flavor of the week that has proven nothing. He better get Nash a nice Christmas gift because he's the only reason Iavaroni is in ANY discussions for ANY head coaching positions.

 

[sidney]

I really don't get the concern over Carlisle. It's like not going to a restaraunt because the head chef is a control freak in the kitchen. If the food is great, the guy probably knows what he's doing so who cares?

I can only assume people don't like Carlisle because they personally don't like being micromanaged. If you want to win and are looking at the current crop of coaches available, he's clearly the best guy to get you there.

 

[quick dog]

If I was an NBA owner, I would try to hire a coach like Jerry Sloan who is capable of managing any player, regardless of the player's reputation. What kind of wimp whines that he can't manage a given player?

Ownership support is the required element. If I were the prospective coach I would simply inform management what they already know, that the potential downside of keeping Ron Artest on a team might be having to bench him throughout a large part of the season for insubordination.

The prospective coach who laid down the Artest-ultimatum with Petrie must have an unhappy close personal experience with Artest, and he knows from the start that he can not manage the guy. In that case, he has demonstrated his inability to manage a difficult player. This must be someone like Fratello or Brown, or Musselman.

 

[sidney]

If I was an NBA owner, I would try to hire a coach like Jerry Sloan who is capable of managing any player, regardless of the player's reputation. What kind of wimp whines that he can't manage a given player?

Artest + Sloan would be an epic disaster. Sloan could not manage him.

 

[kennadog]

If I was an NBA owner, I would try to hire a coach like Jerry Sloan who is capable of managing any player, regardless of the player's reputation. What kind of wimp whines that he can't manage a given player?

Ownership support is the required element. If I were the prospective coach I would simply inform management what they already know, that the potential downside of keeping Ron Artest on a team might be having to bench him throughout a large part of the season for insubordination.

The prospective coach who laid down the Artest-ultimatum with Petrie must have an unhappy close personal experience with Artest, and he knows from the start that he can not manage the guy. In that case, he has demonstrated his inability to manage a difficult player. This must be someone like Fratello or Brown, or Musselman.

Where did it report that? Maybe he said I don't want to manage Artest. Huge difference between can't and don't want to and we don't know exactly how it was said, or even if this was really said by someone.

 

[kennadog]

Artest + Sloan would be an epic disaster. Sloan could not manage him.

Sloan obviously has the total and full support of ownership/management. With the Jazz, if Sloan didn't want Artest at all, Artest would never be under him in the first place. And if we could get Sloan as our coach by getting rid of Artest, I do that in a heartbeat. Sloan is not leaving the Jazz for another team, tho.

To me Sloan is an example of how to be a very tough coach without micro-managing everything to the anal-rententive point. I'd put Pop and PJ in that category, too.

There is something in between a wimp and a control freak; something between a manager who knows the capabilites and judgement of his employees and trusts them and the manager who hovers at your desk constantly, to make sure you're properly doing each step of work you've been performing at a highly competent level for years.

The best managers find the middle ground.

 

[Superman]

The best managers find the middle ground.

The best managers get results. The proof is in the pudding.

Anyone who has ever been a manager will tell you that they rate their success on how well the job got done, whether their employees enjoyed working for them or not. A sales manager doesn't care about ruffling feathers if he's getting production. Sometimes it's necessary to get the best out of your employees. It is necessary to somehow find a balance; no one lasts long as a dictator. But I don't think it's necessary to find someone who is willing to compromise what he thinks is best for his team to improve and win games. I'd rather have a coach go down in flames because he did it his way than have a coach yield to his players and still not get results.

I think Carlisle's record has proven that he can help a team win games. He's made the playoffs all but one year of his career, and gone deep in the playoffs with both teams he's coached.

I don't think we'll have the type of team next season that would make Carlisle feel comfortable with a more open offense, and that's why I don't think he'd work out well here next season. I do think he's the best candidate available so far, with a proven track record of coaching winning teams (none were as much of a mess as we are right now, except maybe the post-brawl Pacers).

If we want to have a team that runs up and down the floor like the Suns and the Warriors, then we have a lot of work to do. We're five or six key players away from that type of system. I honestly don't want to see us become that type of team.

The most effective way to create transition opportunities is to defend well and control the defensive boards. Not to just run up and down the court firing jumpers and hoping they go in. We don't have Steve Nash. We need to build a team that force turnovers and rebound well, and we'll have plenty of transition opportunities. Carlisle has had good defensive teams at both of his previous stops, and their defense created transition opportunities. I think if he took over for us and we provided him with a team that could get stops and rebound well, you'd see us score in transition. He's never going to coach a team that scores 110 a night, and we're not going to have the players to make that happen under any coach.

 

[Kingster]

Sloan obviously has the total and full support of ownership/management. With the Jazz, if Sloan didn't want Artest at all, Artest would never be under him in the first place. And if we could get Sloan as our coach by getting rid of Artest, I do that in a heartbeat. Sloan is not leaving the Jazz for another team, tho.

To me Sloan is an example of how to be a very tough coach without micro-managing everything to the anal-rententive point. I'd put Pop and PJ in that category, too.

There is something in between a wimp and a control freak; something between a manager who knows the capabilites and judgement of his employees and trusts them and the manager who hovers at your desk constantly, to make sure you're properly doing each step of work you've been performing at a highly competent level for years.

The best managers find the middle ground.

Perfectly said!

 

[Kingster]

I agree. It reminds me of an infamous quote by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld when he was criticized... "You go to war with the army you got, not one you wish you had."

Your analogy doesn't hold. Say you are a good coach in the NBA. You are either an assistant or an ex head coach. Because you have confidence in your abilities and your reputation around the league, you aren't impatient or desperate enough to take any offer that comes around. Now, why would you decide to take a job coaching a nut-job? That's like if you're a manager at a Fortune 500 company. You know you're good. So why would you take a job at a higher managerial level if as part of the job you had to baby-sit a nut-job? Of course you wouldn't take the job. Why would you? - to prove to the world that you could baby-sit a nut-job? Of course you decline the offer, because you know that you're good enough to get a better job elsewhere.

It's one thing if you're already the coach of a team and management unilaterally shoves (trades) a nutcase down your throat. Yeah, then you have to deal with it as best as you can. It's entirely different if you have the choice of whether to coach a nutcase or not.

 

[sidney]

Sloan obviously has the total and full support of ownership/management. With the Jazz, if Sloan didn't want Artest at all, Artest would never be under him in the first place. And if we could get Sloan as our coach by getting rid of Artest, I do that in a heartbeat. Sloan is not leaving the Jazz for another team, tho.

Sloan is great because he has owner support and would say "I don't want to deal with Artest's baggage on my team", but Carlisle is a wimp because he MIGHT have said something to the effect - "I don't want to deal with Artest's baggage on my team"? Please explain

 

[sidney]

The best managers get results. The proof is in the pudding.

Too true

I think Carlisle's record has proven that he can help a team win games. He's made the playoffs all but one year of his career, and gone deep in the playoffs with both teams he's coached.

And there it is.

Imagine if the Bobcats had a choice of hiring Adelman or Iavaroni and picked Iavaroni because Adelman "just can't win it all". They would be crazy, just as we will be for not hiring Carlilse. Adelman > Carlisle but he is the closest thing to his level of talent even available to the Kings. And it's not even close.

 

[Bricklayer]

I really don't get the concern over Carlisle. It's like not going to a restaraunt because the head chef is a control freak in the kitchen. If the food is great, the guy probably knows what he's doing so who cares?

I can only assume people don't like Carlisle because they personally don't like being micromanaged. If you want to win and are looking at the current crop of coaches available, he's clearly the best guy to get you there.

No, the concern over Carlisle would be that NOBODY likes to be micromanaged. Actually, take that back: some people just crave order and being told what to do at every turn. But MOST people do not like being micromanaged.

And of course in Carlisle's case its not just speculation -- his teams have grumbled, grown tired of him/it, and last year, just flat out quit on him. What happened in that game we played in Indiana was just embarrassing -- was mildly surprised he did not get fired on the spot.

You can't compare NBA "managing" to almost any other manager, because the power relationships are much different. A micromanager in Joe's Widget Supplies has all the power -- his employees are all at will hires, who can be dismissed at any time, and for whom there is a nearly endless supply of qualified replacements. All the power is in his hands, and if somebody is unhappy with his managing style, they either grumble and accept it, or they get canned.

Not the way it works in the NBA: the players can't be easily fired, and they are the absolute elite in their profession -- there is no endless supply of replacements, and they are very likely to be the very best players that management was able to get its hands on in the first place. So now Mr. Micromanager comes in and starts stepping all over everybody's toes and...no. The players basically hold a veto. If they don't like the way you are managing, its going to be a constant struggle. And unlike the widget making business, where maybe even an unhappy employee can still perform his/her assigned task at an adequate level, a competitive team sport like basketball is very sensitive to even slight dropoffs, chemistry issues, lack of energy, etc.

So its far more than an academic concern. Carlisle's history says he can coach a team to a lot of wins, that he knows the game, can drive his teams for a while. It also says that his personality traits and management style might very well be ill suited for long term success because he's in an industry where you have to lead, not dictate. Where the followers hold tremendous power and its much closer to a voluntary arrangement than one that they have no control over. You hire him, you are getting a proven pro, and somebody who should be able to stablize things in the short term. Solid hire in that aspect. But history says you can almost bank on there being significant chemistry issues within a couple of years, and so whether he is a long term solution is very much up in doubt. In many ways, he is the perfect assistant coach, as he was to Larry Bird: the has all the answer uber-organized statistically oriented power behind the throne guy who gives intellectual punch and structure to the man out front. But pull back the curtain, put him out front, and he's about as inspiring as binary code.

 

[kennadog]

Sloan is great because he has owner support and would say "I don't want to deal with Artest's baggage on my team", but Carlisle is a wimp because he MIGHT have said something to the effect - "I don't want to deal with Artest's baggage on my team"? Please explain

I didn't call Carlisle a wimp anywhere, nor do I think that, if you read my other posts above. I'm in the camp that says if a top coach with lots of job choices doesn't want to manage Artest, as opposed to can't, I think he should say so. If getting rid of Artest gets us a good coach, I'm all for it.

 

[sidney]

I didn't call Carlisle a wimp anywhere, nor do I think that, if you read my other posts above. I'm in the camp that says if a top coach with lots of job choices doesn't want to manage Artest, as opposed to can't, I think he should say so. If getting rid of Artest gets us a good coach, I'm all for it.

note to self - kennadog , quickdog. different posters. my fault

 

[kennadog]

The best managers get results. The proof is in the pudding.

Anyone who has ever been a manager will tell you that they rate their success on how well the job got done, whether their employees enjoyed working for them or not. A sales manager doesn't care about ruffling feathers if he's getting production. Sometimes it's necessary to get the best out of your employees. It is necessary to somehow find a balance; no one lasts long as a dictator. But I don't think it's necessary to find someone who is willing to compromise what he thinks is best for his team to improve and win games. I'd rather have a coach go down in flames because he did it his way than have a coach yield to his players and still not get results.

Totally agree with this, if I didn't make that clear. Well, except maybe the go down in flames. Don't compromise values, but if what a manager thinks is best isn't working he has to be flexible enough to consider alterations to the plan.

All I'm saying is that I've generally found that managers whose employees hate working for them are not going to get very good results. Does that mean you never check their work, prod them to keep them on track and reprimand or even fire when necessary? Of course not. While I don't like micro-management, I also don't like a manager who won't deal with problem employees.

Middle ground may have been the wrong choice of words. Maybe balance would have been better. Something between a dictator and an anarchist.

 

[kennadog]

note to self - kennadog , quickdog. different posters. my fault

No problem. I actually had to go back and double-check that post, wondering what I wrote.

 

[VF21]

So its far more than an academic concern. Carlisle's history says he can coach a team to a lot of wins, that he knows the game, can drive his teams for a while. It also says that his personality traits and management style might very well be ill suited for long term success because he's in an industry where you have to lead, not dictate. Where the followers hold tremendous power and its much closer to a voluntary arrangement than one that they have no control over. You hire him, you are getting a proven pro, and somebody who should be able to stablize things in the short term. Solid hire in that aspect. But history says you can almost bank on there being significant chemistry issues within a couple of years, and so whether he is a long term solution is very much up in doubt. In many ways, he is the perfect assistant coach, as he was to Larry Bird: the has all the answer uber-organized statistically oriented power behind the throne guy who gives intellectual punch and structure to the man out front. But pull back the curtain, put him out front, and he's about as inspiring as binary code.

I think this is arguably the best summary of Carlisle's potential as I've seen. Thanks, Brickie.

 

[sidney]

No, the concern over Carlisle would be that NOBODY likes to be micromanaged. Actually, take that back: some people just crave order and being told what to do at every turn. But MOST people do not like being micromanaged.

And of course in Carlisle's case its not just speculation -- his teams have grumbled, grown tired of him/it, and last year, just flat out quit on him. What happened in that game we played in Indiana was just embarrassing -- was mildly surprised he did not get fired on the spot.

You can't compare NBA "managing" to almost any other manager, because the power relationships are much different. A micromanager in Joe's Widget Supplies has all the power -- his employees are all at will hires, who can be dismissed at any time, and for whom there is a nearly endless supply of qualified replacements. All the power is in his hands, and if somebody is unhappy with his managing style, they either grumble and accept it, or they get canned.

Not the way it works in the NBA: the players can't be easily fired, and they are the absolute elite in their profession -- there is no endless supply of replacements, and they are very likely to be the very best players that management was able to get its hands on in the first place. So now Mr. Micromanager comes in and starts stepping all over everybody's toes and...no. The players basically hold a veto. If they don't like the way you are managing, its going to be a constant struggle. And unlike the widget making business, where maybe even an unhappy employee can still perform his/her assigned task at an adequate level, a competitive team sport like basketball is very sensitive to even slight dropoffs, chemistry issues, lack of energy, etc.

So its far more than an academic concern. Carlisle's history says he can coach a team to a lot of wins, that he knows the game, can drive his teams for a while. It also says that his personality traits and management style might very well be ill suited for long term success because he's in an industry where you have to lead, not dictate. Where the followers hold tremendous power and its much closer to a voluntary arrangement than one that they have no control over. You hire him, you are getting a proven pro, and somebody who should be able to stablize things in the short term. Solid hire in that aspect. But history says you can almost bank on there being significant chemistry issues within a couple of years, and so whether he is a long term solution is very much up in doubt. In many ways, he is the perfect assistant coach, as he was to Larry Bird: the has all the answer uber-organized statistically oriented power behind the throne guy who gives intellectual punch and structure to the man out front. But pull back the curtain, put him out front, and he's about as inspiring as binary code.

Muss is the stat guy as inspiring as binary code that completely loses his team. Carlisle is the guy who wins as a head coach to the tune of 3 seasons of 50+ wins on two squads, a coach of the year award, and then dealt with the absolute disaster that has been Indiana for the past 3 years. The brawl, Artest trade, and horrible trade this year.

He's not perfect, but he's just so far above anyone else available. IMHO, of course.

 

[gunks]

So as all these head coaching candidates are being interviewed by various teams is it really a good thing that Petrie is taking his time?

I mean, his "wait and see" approach is responsible for this awful roster we have....Why let it be responsible for another awful coach?

 

[Smills91]

So as all these head coaching candidates are being interviewed by various teams is it really a good thing that Petrie is taking his time?

I mean, his "wait and see" approach is responsible for this awful roster we have....Why let it be responsible for another awful coach?

Oh how you forget too easily...last year a RUSH to make the coaching change to Musselman with a whole lot of THREE coaches who interviewed for the ONLY position available as head coach in the NBA last year. That was the Maloofs call. You let Petrie clean up this mess HIS way and we'll get back to an 2002 caliber team again soon. You let the Maloofs meddle with stuff and it'll only take longer for that to occur.