Should Monte get an extension?

Should Monte be extended?

  • Yes

    Votes: 48 80.0%
  • No

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Probably, but let's wait

    Votes: 8 13.3%
  • Probably not, but let's wait

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    60
#93
Question for the contributors. Any of you have a job in which you continue to have poor results, but are offerred a guaranteed extension, a year before your existing contract is up?
First, it depends on how you define poor results. I’m sure you’ll say everything Monte touches turns to dog doo, but prior year win/loss record does not necessarily mean poor result. Otherwise, Sam Presti should be shown the door for their poor performance over the past two years. It obviously needs to be more nuanced than wins and losses (I grant you not forever). So if you take record aside as the measure of poor performance for a GM, most everything else Monte has done can be argued one way or the other qualitatively in the context of his longer term vision.

Second, I would argue being an nba GM is unlike 99% of the jobs in America. You may say that just shouldn’t be and they should be held to the same standard as the rest of us hard working Americans, but that’s just not reality. They sign multi year guaranteed contracts, but can generally be terminated at will by their employer. They are hired, extended and fired for a variety of reasons, some of which is for PR purposes. They are a decision maker, long term team architect/planner, manager, public relations front man, owner scapegoat. They are very often extended for the sole purpose of projecting stability of leadership, and fired to “shake things up”, often disconnected from any quantifiable short term performance. This is all just not very common in any “real world” job. The closest you probably get is the figurehead CEO, and I would argue that world is even more absurd with golden parachute payouts for a terminated CEO that has driven financial performance into the tank.
 
#94
First, it depends on how you define poor results. I’m sure you’ll say everything Monte touches turns to dog doo, but prior year win/loss record does not necessarily mean poor result. Otherwise, Sam Presti should be shown the door for their poor performance over the past two years. It obviously needs to be more nuanced than wins and losses (I grant you not forever). So if you take record aside as the measure of poor performance for a GM, most everything else Monte has done can be argued one way or the other qualitatively in the context of his longer term vision.

Second, I would argue being an nba GM is unlike 99% of the jobs in America. You may say that just shouldn’t be and they should be held to the same standard as the rest of us hard working Americans, but that’s just not reality. They sign multi year guaranteed contracts, but can generally be terminated at will by their employer. They are hired, extended and fired for a variety of reasons, some of which is for PR purposes. They are a decision maker, long term team architect/planner, manager, public relations front man, owner scapegoat. They are very often extended for the sole purpose of projecting stability of leadership, and fired to “shake things up”, often disconnected from any quantifiable short term performance. This is all just not very common in any “real world” job. The closest you probably get is the figurehead CEO, and I would argue that world is even more absurd with golden parachute payouts for a terminated CEO that has driven financial performance into the tank.
Extending him now could create this very issue, if the Kings tank next year.
 
#96
Extending him now could create this very issue, if the Kings tank next year.
First, it depends on how you define poor results. I’m sure you’ll say everything Monte touches turns to dog doo, but prior year win/loss record does not necessarily mean poor result. Otherwise, Sam Presti should be shown the door for their poor performance over the past two years. It obviously needs to be more nuanced than wins and losses (I grant you not forever). So if you take record aside as the measure of poor performance for a GM, most everything else Monte has done can be argued one way or the other qualitatively in the context of his longer term vision.

Second, I would argue being an nba GM is unlike 99% of the jobs in America. You may say that just shouldn’t be and they should be held to the same standard as the rest of us hard working Americans, but that’s just not reality. They sign multi year guaranteed contracts, but can generally be terminated at will by their employer. They are hired, extended and fired for a variety of reasons, some of which is for PR purposes. They are a decision maker, long term team architect/planner, manager, public relations front man, owner scapegoat. They are very often extended for the sole purpose of projecting stability of leadership, and fired to “shake things up”, often disconnected from any quantifiable short term performance. This is all just not very common in any “real world” job. The closest you probably get is the figurehead CEO, and I would argue that world is even more absurd with golden parachute payouts for a terminated CEO that has driven financial performance into the tank.
Monte is under contract for another year. And during the course of that year, much more information will become available with which to make a decision. Why would ownership not take into consideration the most recent information available to make the decision to re-up Monte.

Whereas 80% in this poll are advising that Monte should be extended now, it looks like ownership is going in the opposite direction and taking a wait and see approach too-just like Charlotte did recently.

Charlotte Hornets GM Mitch Kupchak signs multiyear contract extension (espn.com)
 
#98
It is a short-sighted perspective, indeed, to say that Monte has "sucked" because he hasn't transformed a team with the NBA record for playoff futility into a winner in his first two seasons on the job. It is mighty rare for a general manager to turn a perennial loser into a playoff contender within two seasons. That should not be the benchmark for early "success" in a GM's tenure under those conditions. Instead, you measure draft selection. You measure player profiles. You measure roster construction. You measure asset management. You measure coaching hires. Etc.

On most counts, Monte has done quite well, and in a league where stability often breeds sustainable success (e.g. Heat, Spurs), it is a useful skill to be able to recognize a good thing when you see it. The alternative is a return to the endless churn and chaos that instability breeds. Not many teams win under those conditions. Certainly not small market basement dwellers, at any rate.
 
It is a short-sighted perspective, indeed, to say that Monte has "sucked" because he hasn't transformed a team with the NBA record for playoff futility into a winner in his first two seasons on the job. It is mighty rare for a general manager to turn a perennial loser into a playoff contender within two seasons. That should not be the benchmark for early "success" in a GM's tenure under those conditions. Instead, you measure draft selection. You measure player profiles. You measure roster construction. You measure asset management. You measure coaching hires. Etc.

On most counts, Monte has done quite well, and in a league where stability often breeds sustainable success (e.g. Heat, Spurs), it is a useful skill to be able to recognize a good thing when you see it. The alternative is a return to the endless churn and chaos that instability breeds. Not many teams win under those conditions. Certainly not small market basement dwellers, at any rate.
Everybody knows what Sam Presti is doing. And Houston and Portland for that matter. They are tanking and selling and building draft capital. That formula does work. And they have the plan in place. See Philly.

On the other hand, the Kings-on the trying to win now path- record does suck.

Remembering Monte has another year on his contract here. I'm simply saying wait to obtain more information during the course of this final contract year.
 
Last edited:
Remembering Monte has another year on his contract here. I'm simply saying wait to obtain more information during the course of this final contract year.
We have a key piece of information 3 weeks ago: we hired a coach on a 4 year deal. Even if Monte is the worst GM on the planet (impossible given everyone who has been here since Petrie has been factors of 10x worse) the most important thing this franchise can do moving forward is put any future GM and coach on the same hiring/firing timeline ie; 2 year extension. That way if you move on from Monte, you're only on the hook for one year of Brown if the new GM wants to make a move. Or that GM can live with Brown for a year while he tinkers but not be forced into a second year of a bad coach like Monte was.
 
https://tenor.com
We have a key piece of information 3 weeks ago: we hired a coach on a 4 year deal. Even if Monte is the worst GM on the planet (impossible given everyone who has been here since Petrie has been factors of 10x worse) the most important thing this franchise can do moving forward is put any future GM and coach on the same hiring/firing timeline ie; 2 year extension. That way if you move on from Monte, you're only on the hook for one year of Brown if the new GM wants to make a move. Or that GM can live with Brown for a year while he tinkers but not be forced into a second year of a bad coach like Monte was.
 
We have a key piece of information 3 weeks ago: we hired a coach on a 4 year deal. Even if Monte is the worst GM on the planet (impossible given everyone who has been here since Petrie has been factors of 10x worse) the most important thing this franchise can do moving forward is put any future GM and coach on the same hiring/firing timeline ie; 2 year extension. That way if you move on from Monte, you're only on the hook for one year of Brown if the new GM wants to make a move. Or that GM can live with Brown for a year while he tinkers but not be forced into a second year of a bad coach like Monte was.
That's sounds like the same stuff I heard when the Kings extended Vlade. Same discussion on need for continuity, consistancy within the organazation. He needs his coach..Luke. And now the Kings pay, Vlade, Luke and Gentry.

I didn't read hear that Monte is the worst GM. Kindly tell me where? What I think is just let us wait and see.

No second round hits. No acquired draft capital. Giveaway of 2 second round picks. Questionable 1st round pick last year. Prior year 1st pick Haliburton-since traded- wasn't getting us more wins. Haliburton then traded with hopes of Kings reaching the playin. And now, despite not making the playin-which is trying to get to 18th place out of 30 teams, we are again at the state of -incomplete or to be determined. But the record is the record and it does suck.

I have not seen Monte excel at being the Kings GM. Have you? What am I missing here? Oh yeah, that "complete roster" he assembled last year did have lots of bigs but lacked in wings.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
Hadn't voted until now, but ultimately had to go with "yes". My caveat is that what I'd like to see is a one-year extension (although I guess that would depend on how much Monte is making, if he's cheap enough I'd guarantee two years).

Sure, we could wait out Monte in a lame-duck year, as there's not much reason to believe somebody will swoop in and poach him, but I worry about the kind of moves that a lame-duck GM might make in a year where he feels he will NEED to make the playoffs in order to keep his job. Future draft picks? Those have little value to a GM who won't be around to make those picks if he doesn't pull off a major turnaround. Maybe landing Jerami Grant helps Monte keep his job? Sure, here's three future unprotected picks! If it doesn't work, hey, the Kings' draft situation isn't Monte's problem! It's easy to sell low on somebody else's draft picks.

The bottom line is that Monte could potentially damage the future of the franchise in an attempt to save his job in the here and now, because having a job for a crippled franchise is better than not having a job for a healthy franchise. If we give him the option of having a job for a healthy franchise, he'll probably take door #3.
 
Remembering Monte has another year on his contract here. I'm simply saying wait to obtain more information during the course of this final contract year.
This is like when the forum was losing it's mind when the Kings didn't extend or qualify (whenever the term is) the future C-Webb Harry Giles (barely showed anything other than "emotion" on the court).
 
Hadn't voted until now, but ultimately had to go with "yes". My caveat is that what I'd like to see is a one-year extension (although I guess that would depend on how much Monte is making, if he's cheap enough I'd guarantee two years).

Sure, we could wait out Monte in a lame-duck year, as there's not much reason to believe somebody will swoop in and poach him, but I worry about the kind of moves that a lame-duck GM might make in a year where he feels he will NEED to make the playoffs in order to keep his job. Future draft picks? Those have little value to a GM who won't be around to make those picks if he doesn't pull off a major turnaround. Maybe landing Jerami Grant helps Monte keep his job? Sure, here's three future unprotected picks! If it doesn't work, hey, the Kings' draft situation isn't Monte's problem! It's easy to sell low on somebody else's draft picks.

The bottom line is that Monte could potentially damage the future of the franchise in an attempt to save his job in the here and now, because having a job for a crippled franchise is better than not having a job for a healthy franchise. If we give him the option of having a job for a healthy franchise, he'll probably take door #3.
Except that the idea of trading future draft picks would be ultimately decided by Vivek for sure. If Vivek approved, then it would be on him.
 
so then you should have fired him before hiring a coach on a 4 year deal or forced another year of Gentry on him.

The Kangziest thing ever would be bringing a new GM into year 2 of a coach on a 4 year deal.

I don't understand why this is up for debate. It's been our circle of life for the entire Vivek regime, we've actually lost a great coach and one competent coach over it.
Maybe if the kings actually stopped the cycle did something right, we might actually become a good team and there would be nothing to debate about anymore. Meh who am I kidding, this forum will always find something wrong to complain about. :p
 
Question for the contributors. Any of you have a job in which you continue to have poor results, but are offerred a guaranteed extension, a year before your existing contract is up?
A job some contributor has versus a position as general manager of a professional sports team. I'd say those are different enough. False comparison fallacy.
 
20-21 record 31-41
21-22 record of 30-52
The GM is not the coach.
There is no way he was able to fire Walton this season, because he had too much left on his contract, no matter what was assumed.

He was hired in September of 2020, I'm giving him a pass on that off-season. That said, he did pick Haliburton, who turned into Sabonis, without losing a draft pick or taking on excess salary. That's a win, no matter how you slice it.
He fortified the bench, with TD and Len, successfully traded Bagley, and we ended up with DDV. This team has professional depth now at most positions. You couldn't say that before.

He finally has his coach, and that bench looks like true professionals and developers of talent. While they don't appear to be big names that will blow the doors off, they seem competent and capable of player growth and success.

McNair enters this off-season with decent future flexibility and the #4 pick in the draft.

Don't be short-sighted; there is plenty that shows McNair making moves to set up Sacramento for success. If all you care about is the record, and can't see the moves being made for success, then you're missing out on how pieces are lining up. Attitudes like yours are how we get rid of coaches like Malone right before they're ready to pop, or GMs like Petrie before the vision comes into fruition.
 
As it turns out, the vote is finalized and Vivek has decided to put this decision on hold...like lingering. So I guess, at this point, the decision maker thinks, Monte does not really deserve an extension at this point.
 
Did you say this? kind of foolish, don't you think?
Yesterday at 8:37 AM
#115

Spike said:
Additionally, the results are not poor. At worst, they are inconclusive on the court, but positive off the court.
No, it really isn't foolish at all. You're just short-sighted and missing the forest for the trees.

The Kings went:
39 - 43
39 - 43
34 - 48
27 - 55

Would you have fired the GM who "led them to that record" before he had a chance to put it all together? Based on your responses, I'm guessing yes.
 

dude12

Hall of Famer
No, it really isn't foolish at all. You're just short-sighted and missing the forest for the trees.

The Kings went:
39 - 43
39 - 43
34 - 48
27 - 55

Would you have fired the GM who "led them to that record" before he had a chance to put it all together? Based on your responses, I'm guessing yes.
Was that really Petrie’s record before it got turned around?