It would be interesting to know the actual extent to which Vivek influences decisions as well as the extent to which decisions / front office responsibilities were shared between Monte and Wes / others in the front office. So much of what we 'know' about how the Kings are run is based on noise and speculation, is generated and amplified by people / social media that are not free from bias, and is reported without a reliable or realistic comparison - e.g., to other franchises / sports clubs / organisations etc.
Should Monte be the GM next year?
- Thread starter Turgenev
- Start date
- Status
There were similar rumblings with Pete D and Chris Mullin and then with Vlade and Joe Dumars about there being multiple voices involved in the front office decision-making. I also remember the baffling statement that Vivek made to justify the Malone firing (the team needed a "Jazz Band leader" not a "Big Band leader") and I saw the complete lack of conviction with which Monte claimed credit for firing Mike Brown when he eventually got around to giving a press conference about it.
When there's a pattern of behavior lasting more than a decade which seems to transcend all coaching and GM hires, to me that points pretty strongly toward ownership as the root cause. That pattern of behavior points toward a consistent ownership methodology of (1) hiring a GM and then undermining them by bringing multiple "advisors" into the conversation (2) hiring a head coach and then undermining them by making demands about play-style, pace, rotation decisions, and assistant coaching hires and lastly (3) scapegoating and firing each GM and coach one after the other for failing to thrive under these impossible conditions.
When there's a pattern of behavior lasting more than a decade which seems to transcend all coaching and GM hires, to me that points pretty strongly toward ownership as the root cause. That pattern of behavior points toward a consistent ownership methodology of (1) hiring a GM and then undermining them by bringing multiple "advisors" into the conversation (2) hiring a head coach and then undermining them by making demands about play-style, pace, rotation decisions, and assistant coaching hires and lastly (3) scapegoating and firing each GM and coach one after the other for failing to thrive under these impossible conditions.
Ok. You have made inferences and crafted a story that concludes with ownership being the root cause of all of the front offices ills. Maybe it's accurate. But it is distinct from my expressed desire for a more reliable description of how much Vivek and others contribute to the front office function as well as how much that varies from the average sports club. I doubt I'll ever get that without running into someone who works for the organisation and will have to settle for low grade tabloids and tweets.
....
I also don't get why Vivek is so important to everyone here. At its core, the NBA is 30 teams, owned by billionaires who are mostly exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us plebs. It's like we all like the NBA but aren't willing to accept what it actually is?
....
I also don't get why Vivek is so important to everyone here. At its core, the NBA is 30 teams, owned by billionaires who are mostly exempt from the rules that apply to the rest of us plebs. It's like we all like the NBA but aren't willing to accept what it actually is?
I think you're being slightly reductive in your summary here or perhaps I just didn't do a good job of explaining my position. I did say that ownership is the root cause of all of our front office ills but that doesn't excuse everyone else of their mistakes. Pete D and Vlade both played a large role in getting themselves fired (in my opinion), same with Dave Joerger and Luke Walton, but that's a whole other discussion which has already mostly been beaten to death here over the years...
What I have inferred is that there appears to be a chronic cycle of hiring and firing professionals who are initially tasked with giving us a fresh perspective and a clean start in their respective roles (principally the GM and Head Coach but each of those has also brought in a lot of other supporting staff) and then once they've accomplished that clean start -- gutted the roster, drafted or traded for 10 players on rookie contracts, changed the offense, etc. -- they have 1-2 years at most to satisfy ownership by winning 50+ games and a playoff series and if they don't meet the bar, they're gone.
Now perhaps I'm being reductive myself in assuming Vivek remains true to his word about applying the same "fail fast" cycle used by tech entrepreneurs to run an NBA franchise. Maybe he has grown and evolved since he made all of those "NBA 3.0" comments as a wide-eyed and enthusiastic new owner. I'll also admit that I've grown increasingly dismayed at the extent to which the global economy and culture have been ceded to tech entrepreneurs and what they've done with that soft power, so that's my own personal bias. I'm not going to say any more about that other than to acknowledge that my feelings toward Vivek's role with the Kings are colored more by that bias than a general hatred for billionaires/owners. My general hatred for billionaire owners comes from John Fisher destroying the Oakland A's.
You posed a question (here) about why so many have voted to keep Monte as GM when fan engagement seems to have reached, if not an all-time low than certainly a strong downward swing, since the mid-point of this season. In answering that for myself the conclusion I've come to is that I no longer feel the person hired to be the GM (or the head coach for that matter) of the Sacramento Kings will be granted the autonomy required to transform this franchise from a perennial punching bag into a team that other franchises are scared to play. They may get a couple years to spread their wings and start the process but as soon as they reach cruising altitude they're going to be shot out of the air and we'll start the whole thing over again.
Now human nature should suggest that eventually after our owner, or whoever is in his ear at the time, gets tired of playing Duck Hunt with his/her/their own employees they'll realize that this is no way to run a professional sports franchise and the behavior will change. Most of what we do here on this message board fretting over trades and draft picks and playing time is done with the implied assumption that the folks in charge of making those decisions share our interest in making personnel decisions aimed at improving the performance on the court. Inadvertently or otherwise I now feel that the owner has created a culture where the people put in those roles are probably too concerned with looking over their shoulder to even form a long-term strategy. At which point indifference is the only recourse left for me.
What I have inferred is that there appears to be a chronic cycle of hiring and firing professionals who are initially tasked with giving us a fresh perspective and a clean start in their respective roles (principally the GM and Head Coach but each of those has also brought in a lot of other supporting staff) and then once they've accomplished that clean start -- gutted the roster, drafted or traded for 10 players on rookie contracts, changed the offense, etc. -- they have 1-2 years at most to satisfy ownership by winning 50+ games and a playoff series and if they don't meet the bar, they're gone.
Now perhaps I'm being reductive myself in assuming Vivek remains true to his word about applying the same "fail fast" cycle used by tech entrepreneurs to run an NBA franchise. Maybe he has grown and evolved since he made all of those "NBA 3.0" comments as a wide-eyed and enthusiastic new owner. I'll also admit that I've grown increasingly dismayed at the extent to which the global economy and culture have been ceded to tech entrepreneurs and what they've done with that soft power, so that's my own personal bias. I'm not going to say any more about that other than to acknowledge that my feelings toward Vivek's role with the Kings are colored more by that bias than a general hatred for billionaires/owners. My general hatred for billionaire owners comes from John Fisher destroying the Oakland A's.
You posed a question (here) about why so many have voted to keep Monte as GM when fan engagement seems to have reached, if not an all-time low than certainly a strong downward swing, since the mid-point of this season. In answering that for myself the conclusion I've come to is that I no longer feel the person hired to be the GM (or the head coach for that matter) of the Sacramento Kings will be granted the autonomy required to transform this franchise from a perennial punching bag into a team that other franchises are scared to play. They may get a couple years to spread their wings and start the process but as soon as they reach cruising altitude they're going to be shot out of the air and we'll start the whole thing over again.
Now human nature should suggest that eventually after our owner, or whoever is in his ear at the time, gets tired of playing Duck Hunt with his/her/their own employees they'll realize that this is no way to run a professional sports franchise and the behavior will change. Most of what we do here on this message board fretting over trades and draft picks and playing time is done with the implied assumption that the folks in charge of making those decisions share our interest in making personnel decisions aimed at improving the performance on the court. Inadvertently or otherwise I now feel that the owner has created a culture where the people put in those roles are probably too concerned with looking over their shoulder to even form a long-term strategy. At which point indifference is the only recourse left for me.
Last edited:
never assume that an impressive feat is necessarily also a success 
I know fandom has increasingly become championship or bust but I know from experience living in Portland for a full 20 NBA seasons now that making the playoffs regularly, the second round semi-regularly and one WCF run is enough still in this day and age for fans to be rabid about the team.
That's all I want again. I mean yes, a championship would be the cherry on top but I just think the league adds too many extra hurdles to teams in markets it deems unworthy of big TV time. And the Kings are clearly that. Even following up on the magical Beam Team we weren't shown any respect in year 2 by officials or the networks.
The early 2000's team was considered a contender and got lots of network TV time, because the league actually feared and respected them as a real threat. Didn't matter that they were in Sacramento. They were a hot item, because they were an outstanding team.
Milwaukee won a championship recently. It can happen in a smaller market, with the right roster and chemistry. For me, it's dangerous playoff team and contender or bust. In other words, actually believing (not wishing) that the team could make a deep playoff run....and if things go their way, a chance to contend.
Milwaukee won a championship recently. It can happen in a smaller market, with the right roster and chemistry. For me, it's dangerous playoff team and contender or bust. In other words, actually believing (not wishing) that the team could make a deep playoff run....and if things go their way, a chance to contend.
Well I will tell you people in Portland thought Dame's team was a threat even though as an outsider living here I felt they were nowhere close even in 2019 when they went to the WCF. If you get to the second round with any regularity and don't get swept you are realistically a credible threat to have one good run in you during that stretch.
Jeez the whole stupid process that Philly built has never made it past the second round and some people here cite that as a model we should adopt.
The problem is we haven't been out of the first round since 2004 so I think people forget how it feels to be a top 8 NBA team by virtue of playoff success (and arguably top 4 in the West is top 5 since the East generally hasn't had more than one or two credible teams in all that time).
Jeez the whole stupid process that Philly built has never made it past the second round and some people here cite that as a model we should adopt.
The problem is we haven't been out of the first round since 2004 so I think people forget how it feels to be a top 8 NBA team by virtue of playoff success (and arguably top 4 in the West is top 5 since the East generally hasn't had more than one or two credible teams in all that time).
Ask me after July 15.
Do I think this roster is good, no. That was a problem created by the Fox nightmare. But do I think there is a path out if the org is willing to part with a DDR and Monk, or able to part with one and convince the other to come off the bench? Yes. Especially if we can retain Jake (which I am not exactly optimistic about).
We'll have the MLE as well. There's still a longshot we win a top 4 pick, and I will note strange things do happen when teams give up a star player. Notably we secured a top 3 pick (that wound up 5 to Philly) with a top 2 the following year after DMC and the 4th pick after trading Hali. But it happens to other teams as well.
I think those are the only 3 times we have won a lottery thing since Pervis, but I don't quite recall how the lottery format worked the year we drafted Owens and traded him for Rock.
I have already said that I am giving this team until the next trade deadline to get it together and if it isn't working I am going to be sad about it, but we'll need to ship Domas and Zach (ok less sad about that) between the deadline and the offseason - Zach has a 26 option so he's either an expiring or a one year guy so his contract won't be an albatross. Much of our fate will be determined between the draft and the beginning of free agency.
Do I think this roster is good, no. That was a problem created by the Fox nightmare. But do I think there is a path out if the org is willing to part with a DDR and Monk, or able to part with one and convince the other to come off the bench? Yes. Especially if we can retain Jake (which I am not exactly optimistic about).
We'll have the MLE as well. There's still a longshot we win a top 4 pick, and I will note strange things do happen when teams give up a star player. Notably we secured a top 3 pick (that wound up 5 to Philly) with a top 2 the following year after DMC and the 4th pick after trading Hali. But it happens to other teams as well.
I think those are the only 3 times we have won a lottery thing since Pervis, but I don't quite recall how the lottery format worked the year we drafted Owens and traded him for Rock.
I have already said that I am giving this team until the next trade deadline to get it together and if it isn't working I am going to be sad about it, but we'll need to ship Domas and Zach (ok less sad about that) between the deadline and the offseason - Zach has a 26 option so he's either an expiring or a one year guy so his contract won't be an albatross. Much of our fate will be determined between the draft and the beginning of free agency.
I think there is a certain segment of media, including those with Kings ties, that enjoys trolling the devoted fans with low effort crap like this, at least in part to spur hatred against Vivek despite there being at least half a dozen owners doing more to hurt their teams than Vivek does and probably another 8-10 who are absentee check signers. I actually have a hard time seeing this, for all we know if there’s any smoke here it’s just Vivek firing back at Malone’s petty grudge in some way, though I think that’s beneath Vivek, maybe one of the children or minority owners threw it out for a laugh.
It would be a laughingstock hire.
It would be a laughingstock hire.
I don't believe that either. Two nights after he was sitting with Vivek he was sitting with Jeannie in LA.
Fact is whether Monte is on the hot seat or not an Assistant GM needs to be hired and I could at least see Booth in the mix for that. I don't think it would be Vlade because he already stepped down when he was going to be the clear #2. And I don't think it will be Anjali who is being groomed for the franchise governorship down the road. None of the owner's kids that take over or are in line to takeover ever actually are GM on an org chart no matter how involved they are. It's a line of separation that they like to keep because GMs get fired and owners don't.
Fact is whether Monte is on the hot seat or not an Assistant GM needs to be hired and I could at least see Booth in the mix for that. I don't think it would be Vlade because he already stepped down when he was going to be the clear #2. And I don't think it will be Anjali who is being groomed for the franchise governorship down the road. None of the owner's kids that take over or are in line to takeover ever actually are GM on an org chart no matter how involved they are. It's a line of separation that they like to keep because GMs get fired and owners don't.
Monte screwed up the Fox deal imo. Should have gotten more....like Castle. Getting Lavine is kind of a bad deal because once upon a time, nobody wants Lavine's huge contract and Bulls were begging team to take him for FREE lol.
I don't know how Kings is going to solve this mess. The lineups are screwed up. All the starters aren't 2-way players and even though each of them qualify to be starter, each of them do not play defense and need to be surrounded by more 2-day players in order to function properly.
I don't know how Kings is going to solve this mess. The lineups are screwed up. All the starters aren't 2-way players and even though each of them qualify to be starter, each of them do not play defense and need to be surrounded by more 2-day players in order to function properly.
As it sits, Denver is the only team with an opening and they are allegedly bringing in a former executive of theirs who works in Minny under Tim. Booth and Griffin are the two guys with experience available. Griffin has actually done a great job drafting but has done poorly with trades. If you go to basketball reference and look at Booths transactions I’d say he actually has made the right decision most of the time. Having said that, he has a weird personality and I absolutely hate front office drama. We have already been through that. If we absolutely insist on firing Monte, I’d probably lean Griffin due to draft record.
Personally, I could give a crap as long as they don't bust all future picks or any rebuild assets like Keegan, Carter, Keon etc. to go all in on this situation. The results don't necessarily indicate they have to take a jackhammer to the veteran core right now but for craps sake, it's certainly saying "STOP, TURN BACK NOW!" lol.
- Status