Should the Kings get Phil Jackson? -- Yes

Bricklayer said:
b) Phil hasn't turned bad defensive players into good ones anymore than Rick has. Michael, Scottie, Rodman, Grant were great defenders with or without Phil. As, I warrant, would Kobe have turned out to be. Phil got Shaq to get in shape for a year or two, but that has a lot more to do with Shaq and his unprofessional conditioning than it does with Phil.

Rick Fox couldn't play much defense when Phil first got to LA. He became one of LA's top defensive guys after PJ was there for awhile.

Kobe was a dreadful defender, same transition.

Shaq improved his team defense DRAMATICALLY when PJ got to LA. DRAMATICALLY.

Your comment that Phil didn't turn bad defensive players into good ones is inaccurate. He's done it several times.
 
PJ's agent or some reporter already said last week it was NY/LA and NY was in the lead. I wouldn't mind him here but it's not going to happen
 
my thinking is 9 rings, go for that.

BUT

i was talkign with my lakers friend last night, told him about the articles and he was like BAD IDEA. he says we don't have the players to run the triangle, and of course no real superstar ;)
 
If I was Phil, I would take on Minny. They have a mega star in KG and with the right kinda support around him, they can easily be contenders again. Spree and perhaps even Cassell need to go but I think the Tri would work great with KG as the focal point. Trade Wally and get another star and some good roleplayers around him and the Twolves will be right back in contention.
 
hoopsfan said:
I read a lot about the NBA and the ONLY place I've seen it mentioned about PJ coming to Sac. was from Miss Voison....3 times last week.


And thats why shes the....< see my avatar > :p
 
Evenstar said:
i was talkign with my lakers friend last night, told him about the articles and he was like BAD IDEA. he says we don't have the players to run the triangle, and of course no real superstar ;)

It's funny that you mention that the Kings don't have the players to run the triangle, because the Kings have ran the triangle offense in the past.

They actually adapted it after LA beat them a few times in the playoffs and The Bee posted an article about the whole thing. Something like "If you can't beat them, join them."

I don't know how possible it is to run the triangle offense with the guys we have right now, but I imagine since we've done it in the past -- it's not going to be completely new to most of the guys.
 
Why?

I know, a little too arrogant speaking of a man with 9 rings. (One of them ours)
a) He would never come here, just play the Lakers or NY for more $.
b) He would gut our team, bring in a bunch of (deleted) and alienate our fans.
c) Petrie would not stay.
d) Haven't any of you seen "Damn Yankees"?


EDIT: The team name is the Lakers... in addition, bypassing the profanity filters is not acceptable. VF21
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tubiscus said:
a) He would never come here, just play the Lakers or NY for more $.
b) He would gut our team, bring in a bunch of (deleted) and alienate our fans.
c) Petrie would not stay.

I don't get these assumptions.

A) How would those teams pay him more money than the Kings? Both of them are over the cap, even beyond what were are. Sac could pay him as much as anyone, and the Maloofs aren't exactly poor.

B) "Gut the team" is quite an overstatement. I think everyone agrees he'd want some changes made, but, EVERYONE wants to see some changes made at this point, and that includes Petrie.

C) This one again I don't understand. If PJ were to come in, the situation would be clear. Petrie is the GM, PJ is the coach. Would both guys have a say in what the other guy does? Of course. Would either guy be able to force his opinion on the other? Nope.

I don't see Petrie bolting because we bring in PJ. If things went bad, sure. If things went bad with Adelman, I could see Petrie leaving.

I'd like to see some reasons to back up your statements.
 
A. Coach salaries are independent from salary cap.

B. No comment.

C. Jackson is notorious for not getting along with GMs and, in fact, wanting to be the de facto GM. Geoff Petrie might well end up preferring not to have to constantly battle over the decisions. Do you think Jerry West left simply because he'd always wanted to live in Memphis?

The main point you're ignoring is that there is NOTHING to draw Jackson to Sacramento other than the wishful dreaming of Ailene Voisin. In addition, you are not adding in the "Jeannie Buss" factor which is real.
 
Last edited:
bozzwell said:
Maloofs can get Phil if Buss doesn't offer ownership and they do.

Buss explained his "no % for coaches" decree. He said he doesn't want a situation where every additional coach he hires wants % and he all but said that he wants to remain the man as far as team decisions are concerned. That sounds more like a general owner concern rather than a Buss-specific concern. In addition, he has 3 kids to bequeath the team to. Plus, I doubt Buss respects and trusts Phil enough to offer %. Yes, he did give 5% to Earvin, but he's been Jerry's baby since 79.

As I watched Jerry talk about the % rumors, I could see the disgust on his face at the thought of giving Phil %. This is a guy who ran off the legendary figurehead of the team. Phil came in lacking respect for West. He's told reporters without compunction that Bill Sharman was the true architect of the 80s dynasty. He's also a guy who nixed trades West had on the table for Baron and TMac. And he wanted to trade Kobe for Kidd and Marion as far back as 99. Finally, he MUST have a player(s) to antagonize as part of his MO (Ho, Rice, Kobe, GP in particular). There are positives too. Namely, the guy really can coach. He managed to win a title in 1 year with A.C. Green as a starter while Harris couldn't win jack with the 2nd deepest squad in LA history.

Now...do the Maloofs really want to have someone as disreputable behind doors as Jackson sitting in on personnel decisions for the rest of their tenure with the team? I think they're smarter than that. Sacramento is too apple pie to deal with a cat like Phil Jackson.
 
Bricklayer said:
a) Peja looks a lot like Glen Rice, who Phil had absolutely no use for;

b) Phil hasn't turned bad defensive players into good ones anymore than Rick has. Michael, Scottie, Rodman, Grant were great defenders with or without Phil. As, I warrant, would Kobe have turned out to be. Phil got Shaq to get in shape for a year or two, but that has a lot more to do with Shaq and his unprofessional conditioning than it does with Phil.

c) the triangle. Its Phil's offense. His crutch, even though contrary to popular belief he neither designed it nor is its guru. To win a championship with it requires major league stars which we do not have.

d) There is not room for Phil's ego and a GM. He clashed badly with Krause over the years, and was more or less fired over it. He then chased Jerrry West out of L.A. Don't even want to mess with that happening to Geoff.

e) basic structure -- think about it. Phil Jackson won 9 championships. And EVERY one of the 9 looked virtually identical as far as players and roles:

1) Batman and Robin -- two great HOF talents. At least one of whom has to be a strong post player (actually both must be able to play in there if needed), both of whom defend.
2) Defensive roleplaying PFs
3) PGs who's duties were bring the ball up, hand it off, then go stand at the three point line and spot up. On the other end, defend.
4) A 5th low minute starter who's job is to be a 3rd gun if needed, which isn't too often, provide a little defense, and stay out of the way. Most flexible positon Years 1-3 = Cartwright. Years 4-6= Longley. Year 7=Rice. Years 8-9=Fox.
5) Everybody else = roleplayers who shoot only when open, play defense, hustle.
6) The Kukoc years showed that there was room for a 6th man in the system, even one who does not play defense. But Phil was never terribly comfortable with it, and it may well have been an aberration as there was no equivalent before or after.

In short, we might be the last team ont he planet with the necessary pieces to run Phil's stuff. His Cs post up (nope) his PGs spot up and defend (nope) his PFs defend (nope) and its all keyed around two incomparable talents drawing double teams and creating space, without which the system would likely collapse. You have to squint really hard to see our pieces fit that system. And so you say, maybe for the first time in his 15 years of coaching Phil does something new. Tries a new structure. But that's not what you're paying $10mil for. You have no idea whether Phil can win it all with a different structure, even if he was willing to try it.

I'll bite.

Keep in mind, I am in no way speculating that this can/should be done, only that it's possible to rebuild the team with/for Phil Jackson.

Trade 1:

Bibby/Miller for KG/Hoiberg

Trade 2: Peja/Tag/filler/picks for Pierce

Sign a center for the MLE

Lineup:

Skinner/FA Center
KG/Thomas
Pierce/Corliss
Hoiberg/Martin
Bobby/House

KG/PP: Batman and Robin

Hoiberg: The spot up shooter

Bobby: the PG who brings up the ball and defends, although Bobby is probably too aggressive for this role.

FA Center: defensive role player.

OK, I understand this needs work and isn't perfect, but just that it could happen, in some warped NBA Live alternate universe


:p
 
And as additional disclaimer:

This isn't me saying we should do this. It's me saying, "Hey, look what I can do instead of writing the 8-10 page research paper on the Roman Empire that's due tomorrow!"
 
Actually, after I thought about this ... I wouldn' t want the Kings to have anything to do with Filthy Phil.
 
LPKingsFan said:
And as additional disclaimer:

This isn't me saying we should do this. It's me saying, "Hey, look what I can do instead of writing the 8-10 page research paper on the Roman Empire that's due tomorrow!"

All you have to know about the Roman Empire is that it fell due to Christianity. Stupid Christians, do you know if they never got so popular we'd still be having gladiators fight to the death.:D
 
Catalyst said:
It's funny that you mention that the Kings don't have the players to run the triangle, because the Kings have ran the triangle offense in the past.

They actually adapted it after LA beat them a few times in the playoffs and The Bee posted an article about the whole thing. Something like "If you can't beat them, join them."

I don't know how possible it is to run the triangle offense with the guys we have right now, but I imagine since we've done it in the past -- it's not going to be completely new to most of the guys.

yah i remember that.

it was just my friends opinion.
 
About communication between coaches and GMs...I seriously wonder if GP and RA talked about Ostertag. We got him, he was out of shape like always, and he sat on the pine while we got killed inside. In this case, some communication would have been nice between our GM and coach. Why the hell would anyone expect Ostertag to be in shape for the first time in his career????

I'm ticked off because I see how exposed the Sonics were without their easy rebounds.
 
VF21 said:
The main point you're ignoring is that there is NOTHING to draw Jackson to Sacramento other than the wishful dreaming of Ailene Voisin.

Actually, that's not true.

The reason why is the Phil Jackson and Red Auerbach saga. Red make quite a few disparaging remarks about Phil Jackson, his coaching abilities, himself as a person, etc, etc. Basically, Red called Jackson out on every level of his professional career and tried to make him look like he stinks. I forget how long ago it was, but you can make a strong guess that Phil Jackson hasn't forgotten.

Red happens to have 9 championship rings, the same as Phil Jackson.

This actually was quite a topic back when PJ was with the Lakers, and I heard it a number of times -- that he badly wanted championship #10. Mainly to be the all-time leader and get another shot in at Auerbach.

Where this comes in to play as it stands right now the Kings are closer to a championship than the Knicks or Lakers, and in my opinion the TWolves. This means Sacramento isn't that outside of a shot to gain his services, at least in my eyes.

And what's the Jeannie Buss factor?
 
Gargamel said:
I assume it's that the Kings have no one in management with whom Jackson can have sexual intercourse.

Jerry Reynolds is kind of cute. ;)


Actually his daughter actually IS -- former member of the RCD. Jerry would be well advised to keep her away from the office if the Zen slimewad actually were to be hired.
 
Catalyst said:
...And what's the Jeannie Buss factor?

Jeannie Buss, daughter of Dr. Buss, is actively campaigning for her father to rehire her long-time boyfriend and main squeeze, Phil Jackson.
 
If we win the championship, the Laker fans are gonna say that we won it just because he's our coach... but yeah it'd be great having him as our coach.
 
The only thing I'm okay with is Phil possibly helping with our defense. But Phil is unproven with a roster like ours. That's why it's not worth spending $10 million a year for a guy who normally helps a team with two superstars get to the Finals.

As mentioned on hoopshype.com, the Houston Rockets would actually be a good fit for Phil Jackson. While Yao isn't a superstar, McGrady is there and Phil could apply the triangle offense with those two. The other 3 players are probably going to be changed around in the offseason. Too bad for Phil, Van Gundy is there.
 
Bricklayer said:
Jerry Reynolds is kind of cute. ;)


Actually his daughter actually IS -- former member of the RCD. Jerry would be well advised to keep her away from the office if the Zen slimewad actually were to be hired.

Shes going to college in Southern Cal so she'd be safe anyway. But if PJ does go to the Lakers....:eek: ;)
 
Catalyst said:
I don't get these assumptions.

A) How would those teams pay him more money than the Kings? Both of them are over the cap, even beyond what were are. Sac could pay him as much as anyone, and the Maloofs aren't exactly poor.

B) "Gut the team" is quite an overstatement. I think everyone agrees he'd want some changes made, but, EVERYONE wants to see some changes made at this point, and that includes Petrie.

C) This one again I don't understand. If PJ were to come in, the situation would be clear. Petrie is the GM, PJ is the coach. Would both guys have a say in what the other guy does? Of course. Would either guy be able to force his opinion on the other? Nope.

I don't see Petrie bolting because we bring in PJ. If things went bad, sure. If things went bad with Adelman, I could see Petrie leaving.

I'd like to see some reasons to back up your statements.


Sorry it took me awhile to get back.....In response, as stated repeatedly by others;

a) Jackson is, in my opinion just using the Kings job as leverage in his negotiations with the Lakers and Knicks.

b) If Jackson did become the Kings coach, look for many of our favorites, ie. Bobby, Mo Evans, Songaila, Skinner, to be gone. To me, that's gutting the team. Look for former Lakers thugs, the kind of players we despise to be signed. Look for a large increase in player arrests and suspensions as players of that mentality alienate our fanbase with their off court problems. The Kings as we know and love them will be gone, and so will the team within 5 years.

c) Geoff Petrie will not stay if Jackson is the coach. In fact this entire escapade seems to me to be the Maloof's doing exactly what they've said in the past they will not do. Just a few weeks ago on the Jimmy Kimmel show they talked about how they trust Petrie to run the team and they leave the coaching to the coach. They've screwed this whole thing up so bad that I would not be surprised to see both Petrie and Adelman resign. Call me a paranoid conspiracy theorist if you will, but to me hiring Phil Jackson to coach the Sacramento Kings is like hiring Darth Vader, in come the evil forces of the dark side. I'd sooner invite Kobe Bryant to be my daughter's prom date.

If I were Rick Adelman, I'd ask for a meeting with the owners and Petrie as soon as Geoff is clear to do so. My initial statement would be, "You obviously are interested in a coaching change. Thank you for the contract extension for next season, but I don't feel it is in the best interests of the organization that I continue. Kindly release me from my contract. I'm sure he'd have a job within a week, probably in Portland, but wouldn't he make an interesting coach in Cleveland, New York, or Minnesota. If Jackson takes another or no job, we'll be shopping for a coach after the better candidates are gone. If I were a minority owner, my shares would already be for sale. When owners start trying to run the team, you get the Redskins and the post Jimmy Johnson Cowboys. What stinks is that I'll still be a Kings fan. I'll just live a lot farther away from where they play. :mad:
 
I don't see the need for Adelman to resign. This whole thing, IMHO, is getting blown way out of proportion. So far, all we know is that Joe Maloof tried to call Petrie and couldn't get ahold of him (for reasons we all know quite well now). He (Joe) apparently went ahead and contacted Phil Jackson's representative. We don't know what else went on and we certainly don't know what's happened since.

I'm not quite ready to paint the Maloofs with tar and feathers quite yet. Instead of jumping to conclusions, why not wait and see what happens?

I think the most likely scenario is that Joe has already spoken to Adelman and cleared the air.

This whole thing is just one reason I hate TDOS so much...
 
^^ EDIT Ya beat me VF--- My reply is regarding tubiscus post.

I understand your rant but I think your going a tad overboard. Your post contains a lot of speculation of the inner workings in the org.

Your Cowboys joke is not funny :) I am a Cowboys fan; I think JJ learned his lesson considering we had the best draft of all the teams this year (well at least on paper.)

It’s better to have owners that care, actually show up for the games then to have owners that hire people to run just another biz. The Maloofs appear to have their hearts in this team and I would take an owner that cares vs. one that doesn’t.

My question to you would be, if you were a CEO, ran a biz but came under earnings (translated for sports, not winning a ring) would you expect to be fired? For what 8 years? I think the axe would fall in the normal biz world and this is a business. Sure it’s a sport to us fans but in reality its all about money.

RA is a great coach IMO. On the FLIP (hint) side I have no problem with change.

If RA stays great, if he is replaced with someone else same thing it’s not the end of the world. Change happens.

I do agree with one point you made. I also think PJ is just using the Kings to get more money but that is outside looking in. I doubt anyone here knows... Well maybe AV does as she knows everything :)
 
Andriod_KiNg said:
If he is desires to coach to the fullest than i say we bring him in...

What does that mean?

Coach to the fullest as opposed to half-coach?

Phil Jackson DOES NOT walk on water. He is NOT the answer to every problem a team might have. He is good at some things but he is not perfect. AND he's not going to want to take on a project like Sacramento for a lot of reasons but one really good one: He doesn't have to. Right now the Kings are a risky proposition for any coach to try and handle. We are not, at this moment in time, an elite team. We are - right now - no better than a mediocre team in the Western Conference. Phil Jackson doesn't do mediocre, especially when there's no superstar to build around. What Phil Jackson is - is smart. He's not going to risk his reputation coming to a team that could easily go either way. Why should he?

::VF21 drags soap box back into the corner::
 
Back
Top