Scott Perry is the new GM of Sacramento Kings

[SacTownKid]

It was just a bunch on ISO Derozan by the end. Ball movement was poor. Never did push the pace. Even if its backups you could see there was little coaching going on.

Sometimes the best coaching in that situation happens off the floor. Hearing the players after the season, Christie did an excellent job on that front. He also had Triano right next to him if you think Christie was just winging it or something.

 

[Jdbraver137]

Sometimes the best coaching in that situation happens off the floor. Hearing the players after the season, Christie did an excellent job on that front. He also had Triano right next to him if you think Christie was just winging it or something.

None of that overcomes the terrible play the last month. It was unwatchable and the GM needs to pick their own coach. Now if the goal is to tank I’d say keep Doug another year or two.

 

[Spike]

It was just a bunch on ISO Derozan by the end. Ball movement was poor. Never did push the pace. Even if its backups you could see there was little coaching going on.

In fairness, you also had assistant coaches to replace as well. It's not like DC had a pool of great people to help him out. I think DC did a great job as interim, considering what he was given to work with. Great enough to justify being the full time coach? IDK. I think it depends on several factors:



1. What roster changes happen over the summer? If it's a rebuild, gimme DC. If it's a retool, it depends. We get rid of Deebo, and I think the remaining guys respond to DC. We get rid of Zach/Domas, IDK. I think you need someone who can reign in DeRozan, and good luck with that.

2. Are we looking for who is out there? I would first see if Jenkins is interested. Let DC interview for the position, and see what he would change up. Give him the opportunity to create a strong staff.

3. Who is in charge? If Vivek (and to a lesser extent, Vlade) is meddlesome, it really doesn't matter who coach is.

 

[Jdbraver137]

In fairness, you also had assistant coaches to replace as well. It's not like DC had a pool of great people to help him out. I think DC did a great job as interim, considering what he was given to work with. Great enough to justify being the full time coach? IDK. I think it depends on several factors:



1. What roster changes happen over the summer? If it's a rebuild, gimme DC. If it's a retool, it depends. We get rid of Deebo, and I think the remaining guys respond to DC. We get rid of Zach/Domas, IDK. I think you need someone who can reign in DeRozan, and good luck with that.

2. Are we looking for who is out there? I would first see if Jenkins is interested. Let DC interview for the position, and see what he would change up. Give him the opportunity to create a strong staff.

3. Who is in charge? If Vivek (and to a lesser extent, Vlade) is meddlesome, it really doesn't matter who coach is.

Doug needs more experience as an assistant before being a serious long term solution as HC.

 

[Warhawk]

It was just a bunch on ISO Derozan by the end. Ball movement was poor. Never did push the pace. Even if its backups you could see there was little coaching going on.

• Monk was out - one of the few really looking to get assists, especially with Domas down low.
• With the loss of Fox and bringing in so many new players, the playbook had to be radically simplified on the fly.
• No practice time was available. The team was playing every other day it seemed like and there were a lot of back-to-backs. No time to implement anything new or to get guys accustomed to each other.
• Injuries to Domas, Monk, Jake, etc., severely limited some matchup options and forced some players to play out of position more.
• Zach had some personal issues to deal with and never looked the same upon his return until the very end.
• Coaching losses and the resulting shortage didn't help at all.
• Many times, DDR was the only guy hitting his shots somewhat frequently. If he's the only one scoring, you keep going back to that just to try to stay in the game.
• When the other teams know you have no PG and are having trouble running your simplified sets, it gets a lot easier to defend you.
• Doug was a brand new coach. These things are learning experiences, especially mid-season on the fly.

I'm sure there's more, but this is right off the top of my head.

Edit - this isn't to say I think he's necessarily the long term solution at head coach for our team. But I also think he, as a rookie head coach, had a better record than our coach that got fired, under much more difficult circumstances, against harder competition, with no time to implement any significant changes and with major roster revisions and injuries/off-court "issues" (Zach) to starters and important role players. Maybe, just maybe, cut him a little slack?

 

[Jdbraver137]

• Monk was out - one of the few really looking to get assists, especially with Domas down low.
• With the loss of Fox and bringing in so many new players, the playbook had to be radically simplified on the fly.
• No practice time was available. The team was playing every other day it seemed like and there were a lot of back-to-backs. No time to implement anything new or to get guys accustomed to each other.
• Injuries to Domas, Monk, Jake, etc., severely limited some matchup options and forced some players to play out of position more.
• Zach had some personal issues to deal with and never looked the same upon his return until the very end.
• Coaching losses and the resulting shortage didn't help at all.
• Many times, DDR was the only guy hitting his shots somewhat frequently. If he's the only one scoring, you keep going back to that just to try to stay in the game.
• When the other teams know you have no PG and are having trouble running your simplified sets, it gets a lot easier to defend you.
• Doug was a brand new coach. These things are learning experiences, especially mid-season on the fly.

I'm sure there's more, but this is right off the top of my head.

Edit - this isn't to say I think he's the long term solution at head coach for our team. But I also think he, as a rookie head coach, had a better record than our coach that got fired, under much more difficult circumstances, against harder competition, with no time to implement any significant changes and with major roster revisions and injuries/off-court "issues" (Zach) to starters and important role players. Maybe, just maybe, cut him a little slack?

Alm…I am not saying things were a cakewalk, but seriously even if it’s the bench the style of play should be free flowing and pushing the ball. Even the b-league level players can try to go up tempo and avoid 1 on 1 ball stopping. Christie couldn’t get the main guys to do it and that’s a huge red flag especially if you aren’t letting the new GM pick a coach. Let’s face it Michael Malone > Christie at this point t of their careers. So if we are staying in win mode we need a new coach. If tanking let Christie continue

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think a better comparison is Chauncey Billups. And Doug > Chauncey. Blazers wanted to win with him and even with the great conclusion to this season he is nowhere near that, nor could he do it with Dame. Doug did manage to pull off a winning record despite all the difficulty.

Again, who the assistants are matters. And that's where Doug needs to step up in any re-interview. They are doing most of the work, coach is more like a CEO these days. That's why losing Jordi hurt so much and why Brown 100% refused to fire any assistants (as well as was adamant about bringing a far deeper bench of assistants than the Kings had used prior to his arrival).

 

[gunks]

It's tricky, because you very much want the GM to be able to pick the coach that fits his vision. We also know Vivek loves Christie and has forced multiple HCs to keep him on staff when it came time to pick assistants.

OTOH, Doug did pretty good considering how chaotic this past season was.

I think it depends on what the plan is. Doug would be a good HC for a rebuild, but if we're trying to compete (likely), Perry may want somebody more seasoned. I'm sure there will be more big names available after the post season.

At the very least, I'd hope Perry is empowered to interview multiple candidates, Doug included.

 

[Elektrik]

We already have Morgan for the pre- and post- shows. She is way better at it than Katy on her best day. Plus she has a sponsored advantage with the HVAC ads.

Morgan rocks!

 

[Warhawk]

Alm…I am not saying things were a cakewalk, but seriously even if it’s the bench the style of play should be free flowing and pushing the ball. Even the b-league level players can try to go up tempo and avoid 1 on 1 ball stopping. Christie couldn’t get the main guys to do it and that’s a huge red flag especially if you aren’t letting the new GM pick a coach. Let’s face it Michael Malone > Christie at this point t of their careers. So if we are staying in win mode we need a new coach. If tanking let Christie continue

All I'm saying is let the GM make that decision. And if he (not Vivek) thinks Doug is the best option for a year, or more, then so be it. I would be interested in seeing what Doug could do with a better roster and a training camp and an actual coaching staff. If they decide on someone else, I'm fine with that, too. But I think overall Doug did a good job as a rookie coach with a losing team with all the circumstances. I'm not about to crucify him for that.

I think back on when I changed jobs about 20 years ago - still engineering, but I was tackling totally different projects. My work product sucked until I got my feet underneath me and got some training to understand the differences in work product and required analysis methods. But my employer had my back and gave me time to adjust. Now I'm considered one of the "experts" at my company and will likely be leading a company-wide effort across about 10 offices to provide such training and knowledge to others. Sometimes changes in position or duties require patience, training, and support. I'm glad I got it. I'm therefore willing to cut others a little slack, too, sometimes, especially when thrown into a new role.

 

[Kingster]

All I'm saying is let the GM make that decision. And if he (not Vivek) thinks Doug is the best option for a year, or more, then so be it. I would be interested in seeing what Doug could do with a better roster and a training camp and an actual coaching staff. If they decide on someone else, I'm fine with that, too. But I think overall Doug did a good job as a rookie coach with a losing team with all the circumstances. I'm not about to crucify him for that.

I think back on when I changed jobs about 20 years ago - still engineering, but I was tackling totally different projects. My work product sucked until I got my feet underneath me and got some training to understand the differences in work product and required analysis methods. But my employer had my back and gave me time to adjust. Now I'm considered one of the "experts" at my company and will likely be leading a company-wide effort across about 10 offices to provide such training and knowledge to others. Sometimes changes in position or duties require patience, training, and support. I'm glad I got it. I'm therefore willing to cut others a little slack, too, sometimes, especially when thrown into a new role.

All that is fair, but I don't think it's apples to apples. It's one thing to have an underling learn on the job and after a few years promoted to middle manager. It's quite another thing to take an underling with a year of experience and make him CEO. If Christie were in the league for many years, became a lead assistant and acquired a reputation for his coaching acumen, he might be a good candidate for HC among many other good candidates. As of now, I don't think he qualifies for consideration.

I guess there are always exceptions to the rule. Pat Reilly was the color guy with Chick Hearn and the LA Lakers when Jerry Buss made him HC. He turned out to be pretty good. Of course he did have Jabbar, Magic et al on his team, which helped a bit. IMO, Christie isn't Pat Reilly and the circumstances aren't nearly as happy on the Sacramento Kings.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Christie fits the mold of many successful NBA coaches right now. Ty Lue, JJ, apparently Chauncey. He's been putting in the work, he wasn't just handed the job out of thin air.

I'm not against looking at more experienced coaches but that's just more turnover and instability when the players really seem to like Doug and respect that he did what he is asking them to do. This is a player's league now (well it has been for decades, but now more than ever).

 

[The_Jamal]

Christie fits the mold of many successful NBA coaches right now. Ty Lue, JJ, apparently Chauncey. He's been putting in the work, he wasn't just handed the job out of thin air.

I'm not against looking at more experienced coaches but that's just more turnover and instability when the players really seem to like Doug and respect that he did what he is asking them to do. This is a player's league now (well it has been for decades, but now more than ever).

I'm not against Christie persay, but what I DO have a problem with is who is making the call to bring him on? My assumption is that if he is the coach, Perry took the job knowing he would have to hire Christie to be his coach. Which... is not great. Any successful GM has to be able to make decisions and calls as he sees fit...which we're finding out that Monte seemingly lost the power to do so over the last year.

And while Christie was up and down, I'm more than willing to give him a real off-season to install what he wants to run, which assistants he wants on his staff, let him go through a training camp, etc. Stuff like that matters and considering all the organizational turnover we had during the season this year, I remain fairly impressed that the wheels of this team really didn't fall off as it should have.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I'm not against Christie persay, but what I DO have a problem with is who is making the call to bring him on? My assumption is that if he is the coach, Perry took the job knowing he would have to hire Christie to be his coach. Which... is not great. Any successful GM has to be able to make decisions and calls as he sees fit...which we're finding out that Monte seemingly lost the power to do so over the last year.

And while Christie was up and down, I'm more than willing to give him a real off-season to install what he wants to run, which assistants he wants on his staff, let him go through a training camp, etc. Stuff like that matters and considering all the organizational turnover we had during the season this year, I remain fairly impressed that the wheels of this team really didn't fall off as it should have.

I think it's sorta BS that we're forced to decide that was a prerequisite for the job, I mean it is what it is, but I really think Christie earned at least one more year. And if that is part of why Monte is gone so be it. Would we not be savaged by the NBA media if we make another coaching change? I think we will be. Even though the media was not kind to Christie during the last season they have no reason to be kind to the Kings, they'll suddenly point out his above .500 and impossible odds with the Fox trade.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

I think it's sorta BS that we're forced to decide that was a prerequisite for the job, I mean it is what it is, but I really think Christie earned at least one more year. And if that is part of why Monte is gone so be it. Would we not be savaged by the NBA media if we make another coaching change? I think we will be. Even though the media was not kind to Christie during the last season they have no reason to be kind to the Kings, they'll suddenly point out his above .500 and impossible odds with the Fox trade.

If Christie is announced as head coach tomarrow at the press conference for Perry, it would only be common sense that it was a prerequisite. Unless you believe that Perry with full freedom to decide, would have chosen Christie without going through a full search and interviews? I don't think anybody outside the Kings fan base would actually believe that

 

[MizzouKing]

A lot of great points being made here, and I'm finding myself on the pro-Christie train. In addition to all the comments above, there's the issue of situational awareness. We are not in a corporation or even a rational enterprise where the best and the brightest have risen to the top. We are a profit-driven sports franchise, led by a meddling billionaire owner, with chronic instability, and a coaching job that is only attractive to qualified candidates as a stepping stone and a paycheck.

Enter Doug Christie.

• He is the one candidate with HC experience who will be loyal to the organization no matter what. He would do this job for free. He performed admirably by any rational measure -- quantitative or qualitative -- in an extremely difficult situation. At the end of an extremely frustrating season, he has a winning record and no player has a bad word to say about him.
  
  
• In an organization wracked with instability, he has the trust and buy-in of the one with all the power who is the source of that instability. Until ownership changes, there is no other way bring stability to the Kings HC role. A new outside coach may walk on water, but he'll leave for a more stable gig or be fired in a year or two.
  
  
• We need more than a few more dawgs. With DC, our head coach is one of them.

This job is not a draw for a highly successful, proven, baggage-free NBA coach. If you give me a group of candidates who may or may not be great coaches someday, only one has survived a trial by fire and emerged on the winning side. I want that guy. And I know he'll stick around even if he's wildly successful.

Mizzou King

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If Christie is announced as head coach tomarrow at the press conference for Perry, it would only be common sense that it was a prerequisite. Unless you believe that Perry with full freedom to decide, would have chosen Christie without going through a full search and interviews? I don't think anybody outside the Kings fan base would actually believe that

Because maybe his record since taking the job under the conditions he was given and having the support of the players actually matters and a competent GM can see that?

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Because maybe his record since taking the job under the conditions he was given and having the support of the players actually matters and a competent GM can see that?

So you think he is most likely Perry's choice for head coach, if he was allowed to interview anyone that he wanted and given the power to choose?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

So you think he is most likely Perry's choice for head coach, if he was allowed to interview anyone that he wanted and given the power to choose?

While I think a GM should be able to have wide latitude in a coaching vacancy, I think that maintaining some semblance of stability in the organization after what we have just been through while we plot the next course is more important than just changing coaches AGAIN to placate a new GM.

This is not really the case of hiring a brand new coach a month before the GM like Malone and the ratgerbil who were never on the same page. Christie was in place and has the support of those in the organization outside of some recent departures. Several players went to bat for him in their exit interviews, including at least one free agent we'd seemingly like to retain.

 

[ockingsfan]

Again, who the assistants are matters. And that's where Doug needs to step up in any re-interview. They are doing most of the work, coach is more like a CEO these days. That's why losing Jordi hurt so much and why Brown 100% refused to fire any assistants (as well as was adamant about bringing a far deeper bench of assistants than the Kings had used prior to his arrival).

Almost forgot about Jordi. It is very possible that Jordi was the one that helped Brown achieve better results. The wheels did fall off the Brown bus once Jordi left.

If Doug is retained as HC, he will need to get a good set of experienced coaches to help him right this ship.

 

[iowamcnabb]

It’s actually kinda interesting that we haven’t heard anything. If Doug is the guy is he just going to show up to the presser? Or maybe he doesn’t need an introduction given he would essentially just be getting the interim tag

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Almost forgot about Jordi. It is very possible that Jordi was the one that helped Brown achieve better results. The wheels did fall off the Brown bus once Jordi left.

If Doug is retained as HC, he will need to get a good set of experienced coaches to help him right this ship.

And to be clear I am 100% not advocating for Doug to be retained with the same bench. I expect some will be leaving on their own and he will have big holes to fill and hopefully he is capable of getting some competent guys with Perry's assistance and guidance.

 

[The_Jamal]

While I think a GM should be able to have wide latitude in a coaching vacancy, I think that maintaining some semblance of stability in the organization after what we have just been through while we plot the next course is more important than just changing coaches AGAIN to placate a new GM.

This is not really the case of hiring a brand new coach a month before the GM like Malone and the ratgerbil who were never on the same page. Christie was in place and has the support of those in the organization outside of some recent departures. Several players went to bat for him in their exit interviews, including at least one free agent we'd seemingly like to retain.

Uhh what? What do you mean placate a new GM? That's the dude in charge! He's the one who should have free reign to install his own coach and vision for the squad. That's what he's hired to do. By nature of firing Monte, we're now saying Perry *should* have the ability to mold this team how he sees fit. We've already experienced the organizational turnover at every level, keeping an old regime HC for "stability" makes zero sense.

Of course that's very likely not the case and seemingly Vivek has his hands in the proverbial cookie jar once again. Look, even if we get a "We're going to have coaching search" and that guy ends up being Christie, fine. We can at least lie to ourselves that Perry has some control and power here. But Christie getting named off rip would really just confirm that Vivek is fully running things and Perry is the public face

 

[chief bromden]

While I think a GM should be able to have wide latitude in a coaching vacancy, I think that maintaining some semblance of stability in the organization after what we have just been through while we plot the next course is more important than just changing coaches AGAIN to placate a new GM.

This is not really the case of hiring a brand new coach a month before the GM like Malone and the ratgerbil who were never on the same page. Christie was in place and has the support of those in the organization outside of some recent departures. Several players went to bat for him in their exit interviews, including at least one free agent we'd seemingly like to retain.

If stability is important, then the org needs to give him a three year contract with the aim of keeping him for two years to see it through. This "give Doug one more year" stuff is just setting the stage for continued instability next season and beyond.

I'm curious if they keep Doug, will they force an assistant or two on his team that will be waiting to take over when things go south? Maybe we will find out more tomorrow

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Plenty of teams with good coaches have had GM changes where changing the coach is off the table. I'm not saying Doug is at that level but if you have a coach you are happy with, you want a GM that can work with him not someone that will just further rip the team apart.

I don't get why that is controversial?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

If stability is important, then the org needs to give him a three year contract with the aim of keeping him for two years to see it through. This "give Doug one more year" stuff is just setting the stage for continued instability next season and beyond.

I'm curious if they keep Doug, will they force an assistant or two on his team that will be waiting to take over when things go south? Maybe we will find out more tomorrow

I've said a 3 year contract and keeping him through a complete tear down is appropriate. I anticipate a tear down being needed. The question is whether Vivek will allow it.

 

[hrdboild]

A lot of great points being made here, and I'm finding myself on the pro-Christie train. In addition to all the comments above, there's the issue of situational awareness. We are not in a corporation or even a rational enterprise where the best and the brightest have risen to the top. We are a profit-driven sports franchise, led by a meddling billionaire owner, with chronic instability, and a coaching job that is only attractive to qualified candidates as a stepping stone and a paycheck.

Enter Doug Christie.

• He is the one candidate with HC experience who will be loyal to the organization no matter what. He would do this job for free. He performed admirably by any rational measure -- quantitative or qualitative -- in an extremely difficult situation. At the end of an extremely frustrating season, he has a winning record and no player has a bad word to say about him.
  
  
• In an organization wracked with instability, he has the trust and buy-in of the one with all the power who is the source of that instability. Until ownership changes, there is no other way bring stability to the Kings HC role. A new outside coach may walk on water, but he'll leave for a more stable gig or be fired in a year or two.
  
  
• We need more than a few more dawgs. With DC, our head coach is one of them.

This job is not a draw for a highly successful, proven, baggage-free NBA coach. If you give me a group of candidates who may or may not be great coaches someday, only one has survived a trial by fire and emerged on the winning side. I want that guy. And I know he'll stick around even if he's wildly successful.

Mizzou King

You make some excellent points. Doug is the one candidate for the job who has long ties to this franchise. If he were a mediocre coach that wouldn't matter but so far he looks like he's at least in the conversation as a newcomer who may have what it takes to thrive in such a difficult role. He was handed a mess of a roster and an unwinnable chemistry problem and did pretty well with it, certainly a lot better than other interim coaches we've put in that position.

It's a risky move given we haven't seen him scheme up a new offense or lead a training camp but he can build relationships with players and he understands the value of team defense. We're in a weird spot right now as a franchise in limbo, caught between a likely tear-down and a recent rebuild. It's a position no team wants to be in and the type of situation which has always resulted in short-term coaching hires in the past. The one thing that makes me apprehensive about making Doug the guy is that odds are he's not going to last through the roster turnover. But I'd love to be proven wrong about that.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Plenty of teams with good coaches have had GM changes where changing the coach is off the table. I'm not saying Doug is at that level but if you have a coach you are happy with, you want a GM that can work with him not someone that will just further rip the team apart.

I don't get why that is controversial?

Because what are the examples of it working. What are the success stories for teams with a head coach that the owner insisted upon for the new GM?

It's not impossible that it could work, however the odds are heavily against it. Which is probably part of the reason that this owner operates the way he does. It's his pet project play toy and he's not interested in anyone changing his mind about how to mess around with it. If any success were to happen, he wants to be able to point back and say "see, I didn't follow any else's lead and set a new precedent for something that can work"

 

[pdxKingsFan]

The one thing that makes me apprehensive about making Doug the guy is that odds are he's not going to last through the roster turnover. But I'd love to be proven wrong about that.

I'm apprehensive about this too but it's a big part of why I'm even more apprehensive of hiring another guy who won't make it.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Because what are the examples of it working. What are the success stories for teams with a head coach that the owner insisted upon for the new GM?

It's not impossible that it could work, however the odds are heavily against it. Which is probably part of the reason that this owner operates the way he does. It's his pet project play toy and he's not interested in anyone changing his mind about how to mess around with it. If any success were to happen, he wants to be able to point back and say "see, I didn't follow any else's lead and set a new precedent for something that can work"

Portland and Chauncey Billups - Neil Olshey to Joe Cronin. The latter just extended him.

I think Doug has shown more in his 4 month stint than Billups showed in 4 years.

Why must we fire yet another coach just because we have a new GM. We all know this roster is a disaster needing to be fixed, why not let the GM fix the roster so the coach doesn't have to deal with the stench of that and if Doug proves himself able in the interim all the better. Otherwise you just start the new coach in the hole and we keep the treadmill going. While building up the dysfunctional narrative further.

We gave Brown the courtesy of cleaning up the roster and making Gentry suffer. If all Doug winds up is being fodder for a clean roster and future coach so be it. I think he has shown he deserves better, but if we hire a coach right now willing to sign with this roster it isn't going to end better. Only a chump would do that if they aren't already under contract to the team.