Tom T doing work in Chicago

[Showtime]

So, Tom T, the guy who interviewed twice with the Kings, is helping the Bulls to the top of the Eastern conference.

They rank #2 in PPG allowed, #2 in OPP FG%, and they are leading the central division and 2.5 games back of the Celtics for the top spot in the East. All while dealing with injuries to Boozer to start the season, and Noah who has been out with a finger injury.

Good call kings, good call.

 

[vikinginferno]

And you know he would be a good fit here how?

 

[Showtime]

And you know he would be a good fit here how?

No, you're right. Musselman, Theus, Westphal > Tom T.


The guy has championship experience, being the architect of Boston's defense. And no, KG is not entirely responsible for the great team defense from the Celtics. Tom helped make that team defense work with individuals who were not known for their defensive play. Doc was saying he was ready to lead a team, and just needed the chance. I think he was a better choice than Westphal who was out of the NBA longer and got run out of a college gig.

 

[Tetsujin]

No, you're right. Musselman, Theus, Westphal > Tom T.


The guy has championship experience, being the architect of Boston's defense. And no, KG is not entirely responsible for the great team defense from the Celtics. Tom helped make that team defense work with individuals who were not known for their defensive play. Doc was saying he was ready to lead a team, and just needed the chance. I think he was a better choice than Westphal who was out of the NBA longer and got run out of a college gig.

Kurt Rambis also had championship experience and yet look at the TWolves.

Thibodeau may be a good coach but he certainly has the benefit of coaching a squad featuring one of the premier guards in the league, two of the better big men and a gaggle of good, experienced role players.

 

[Section 101]

Kurt Rambis also had championship experience and yet look at the TWolves.

Thibodeau may be a good coach but he certainly has the benefit of coaching a squad featuring one of the premier guards in the league, two of the better big men and a gaggle of good, experienced role players.

That didnt help Vinny.

I wasnt sold on Thibodeau, but he has been pretty impressive so far.

 

[Tetsujin]

That didnt help Vinny.

I wasnt sold on Thibodeau, but he has been pretty impressive so far.

Well, Vinnie is sorta like Westphal and Natt wrapped all into one.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Kurt Rambis also had championship experience and yet look at the TWolves.

Thibodeau may be a good coach but he certainly has the benefit of coaching a squad featuring one of the premier guards in the league, two of the better big men and a gaggle of good, experienced role players.

That didnt help Vinny.

That says more about Del Negro than it does about Thibodeau.

 

[Superman]

No, you're right. Musselman, Theus, Westphal > Tom T.


The guy has championship experience, being the architect of Boston's defense. And no, KG is not entirely responsible for the great team defense from the Celtics. Tom helped make that team defense work with individuals who were not known for their defensive play. Doc was saying he was ready to lead a team, and just needed the chance. I think he was a better choice than Westphal who was out of the NBA longer and got run out of a college gig.

From the time that we originally interviewed him until the time he finally got a gig, was three years. And he interviewed with several other teams over those three years as well. So, to begin with, isn't it worth considering whether he was actually ready for a #1 gig when he first started getting calls? Wouldn't those three years have benefitted him tremendously? We see "hot" assistant coaches get top jobs and bomb out all the time, in a bunch of sports.

Beyond that, isn't it possible that he didn't want to come to Sacramento? Couldn't we have offered him a nice package, and he turned it down because (a) he didn't want to coach a rebuild; or (b) he preferred to stay in Boston and try to win another ring before he jumped off the gravy train? We had Stan van Gundy all but inked, and he changed his mind. Just because we offer doesn't mean the coach has to accept.

So before we throw management under the bus for not selecting a guy who now looks like a no brainer, let's consider all the circumstances.

 

[Showtime]

Kurt Rambis also had championship experience and yet look at the TWolves.

And when was Kurt responsible for one of the main reasons why the lakers won a championship? Oh wait...

Thibodeau may be a good coach but he certainly has the benefit of coaching a squad featuring one of the premier guards in the league, two of the better big men and a gaggle of good, experienced role players.

First off, Rondo wasn't anywhere near the best at his position when Tom was there. Second, many of those players were coming together for the first time, so building the league's most effective team defense right off the bat, even with veterans, is impressive. Oh, and he's doing it once again in Chicago.

And again, he still was in the league more recently, with more recent proven success than any of the candidates the Kings picked.

 

[Showtime]

From the time that we originally interviewed him until the time he finally got a gig, was three years. And he interviewed with several other teams over those three years as well. So, to begin with, isn't it worth considering whether he was actually ready for a #1 gig when he first started getting calls? Wouldn't those three years have benefitted him tremendously? We see "hot" assistant coaches get top jobs and bomb out all the time, in a bunch of sports.

First off, who calls in a guy to interview if they don't think he's a potential candidate for the job? He got interviewed because he was ready. Teams just made bad choices, like they always do every single season. And it's not like Boston was his only experience. He coached with the rockets when they were a top defensive team mid 2000's. So he proved himself in Houston, in Boston, and now in Chicago.

Beyond that, isn't it possible that he didn't want to come to Sacramento? Couldn't we have offered him a nice package, and he turned it down because (a) he didn't want to coach a rebuild; or (b) he preferred to stay in Boston and try to win another ring before he jumped off the gravy train? We had Stan van Gundy all but inked, and he changed his mind. Just because we offer doesn't mean the coach has to accept.

First time, the Kings just passed on him. The second time he interviewed (when have you interviewed for a job you had no intention of taking?), and the kings were leaning in another direction, he withdrew himself to go back to Boston. I can't blame him either, because if the worst team in the league doesn't want me, and has to think about it to consider a guy who was out of the league and run out of college, I would go back to coaching my championship team too.

So before we throw management under the bus for not selecting a guy who now looks like a no brainer, let's consider all the circumstances.

Yes, let's consider that the Kings passed on him twice,
that the team recently wanted to change the stigma of the team by adding size and gritty players and improve defensively and still passed on the perfect coach for that,
that he had more recent success in the league and proven track record
that having not had a head coaching job, would probably come cheap for the opportunity

I said it when it happened: the indications were that he was the best man for the job, period. There's no 20/20 hindsight, this is the current reality reinforcing many people's past opinion.

Jesus, I know this is a fan forum, but why is it so hard to admit the kings screwed up?

 

[Superman]

First off, who calls in a guy to interview if they don't think he's a potential candidate for the job? He got interviewed because he was ready. Teams just made bad choices, like they always do every single season. And it's not like Boston was his only experience. He coached with the rockets when they were a top defensive team mid 2000's. So he proved himself in Houston, in Boston, and now in Chicago.

So the past three years didn't help him become a better coach? Yes, he was a good coach already. Does that mean he couldn't get better?

And I don't really understand your question. No one interviews someone that they don't expect to be a potential candidate. That's the point of the interview, to determine whether (a) the candidate is capable and qualified to your liking, and (b) the candidate is a good fit for your team/company/department, etc. That's why you interview. You're acting like interviewing someone necessarily requires that you are ready to offer them the job.

First time, the Kings just passed on him. The second time he interviewed (when have you interviewed for a job you had no intention of taking?), and the kings were leaning in another direction, he withdrew himself to go back to Boston. I can't blame him either, because if the worst team in the league doesn't want me, and has to think about it to consider a guy who was out of the league and run out of college, I would go back to coaching my championship team too.

It's not like the Kings are the only team that interviewed him. He was one of the hottest assistants in the NBA. So the idea that his only recourse was to go back to Boston is not factual. Even if they were leaning in a different direction, they had not yet decided. Him taking his hat out of the ring was his decision, not theirs.

And I know that perhaps the recent joblessness has affected perceptions on job interviews, but there was a time when people would interview for jobs that they weren't necessarily interested in taking. I've done it, and I would be that anyone who has been in the work force for more than five years has done it as well. Just because you go for a job interview doesn't mean you're committed to accepting an offer.

And considering the fact that Thibodeau didn't accept any of the other jobs that he was interviewed for, it's plausible that he was waiting for a better opportunity to coach a team that wasn't in the middle of a protracted rebuild. Potential coaches in all sports go for interviews two or three years before they actually accept a job all the time. The Vikings Leslie Frazier has been interviewing for head coaching jobs for about five years now, and finally got his shot only after the head coach was fired. Josh McDaniels and Steve Spagnuolo were turning down jobs a year before they finally accepted. And Thibodeau did the same thing. Maybe he wanted to be on the east coast (he's from Connecticut, right?) Maybe he wanted to wait for his kids to be a little older. Maybe Doc Rivers begged him to stay. Maybe with Doc contemplating retirement, he thought he might have a chance to succeed him in Boston.

You don't know all the particulars.

Yes, let's consider that the Kings passed on him twice,
that the team recently wanted to change the stigma of the team by adding size and gritty players and improve defensively and still passed on the perfect coach for that,
that he had more recent success in the league and proven track record
that having not had a head coaching job, would probably come cheap for the opportunity

I said it when it happened: the indications were that he was the best man for the job, period. There's no 20/20 hindsight, this is the current reality reinforcing many people's past opinion.

Jesus, I know this is a fan forum, but why is it so hard to admit the kings screwed up?

I'm not defending the decision to pass on a coach that would quite obviously have been a better option than the guy we have now (or anyone we've had in the last several years). I'm just suggesting that maybe it wasn't completely up to the Kings that Thibodeau isn't their head coach. We don't know what was discussed in interviews, we don't know what his priorities were, or even whether he was seriously interested in leaving the Celtics yet. It's not a one-way street.

All I'm saying is that it's possible Thibodeau passed on the Kings, and not the other way around.

 

[hrdboild]

I really like Thibodeau and he could have been the right coach for us, but his success in Chicago right now has a lot to do with Derrick Rose and Carlos Boozer. It's not irrefutable proof that he would have worked out in Sacramento. For instance, would he be able to handle some of our volatile personalities? Most of the questions about him as a head coach were related to his inexperience managing personnel. Not to mention we probably don't have Cousins right now or maybe Evans either if we hire Thibodeau instead of Theus. Sometimes you just have to move on and be happy with what you did get.

 

[Showtime]

So the past three years didn't help him become a better coach? Yes, he was a good coach already. Does that mean he couldn't get better?

What's the relevance of that to my point? Even prior to the past few years, he was a better candidate than Westphal, which was my point all along.

And I don't really understand your question. No one interviews someone that they don't expect to be a potential candidate. That's the point of the interview, to determine whether (a) the candidate is capable and qualified to your liking, and (b) the candidate is a good fit for your team/company/department, etc. That's why you interview. You're acting like interviewing someone necessarily requires that you are ready to offer them the job.

"isn't it worth considering whether he was actually ready for a #1 gig when he first started getting calls?"

He wouldn't have been interviewed for several positions if he was not ready to coach a team.

It's not like the Kings are the only team that interviewed him. He was one of the hottest assistants in the NBA. So the idea that his only recourse was to go back to Boston is not factual. Even if they were leaning in a different direction, they had not yet decided. Him taking his hat out of the ring was his decision, not theirs.

It wasn't his choice the first time, which IMO had a hand in the second outcome. Again, I can't blame a guy that good to pull out when he wasn't wanted as the top candidate for the worst team in the league. I'm fine with him washing his hands of the kings after what happened.

And I know that perhaps the recent joblessness has affected perceptions on job interviews, but there was a time when people would interview for jobs that they weren't necessarily interested in taking. I've done it, and I would be that anyone who has been in the work force for more than five years has done it as well. Just because you go for a job interview doesn't mean you're committed to accepting an offer.

It doesn't mean you are committed to accepting an offer, but it also means that you are already pre-determined not to accept the offer. Anybody who has absolutely no intention of taking the job doesn't waste the time with an interview.

And considering the fact that Thibodeau didn't accept any of the other jobs that he was interviewed for, it's plausible that he was waiting for a better opportunity to coach a team that wasn't in the middle of a protracted rebuild. Potential coaches in all sports go for interviews two or three years before they actually accept a job all the time. The Vikings Leslie Frazier has been interviewing for head coaching jobs for about five years now, and finally got his shot only after the head coach was fired. Josh McDaniels and Steve Spagnuolo were turning down jobs a year before they finally accepted. And Thibodeau did the same thing. Maybe he wanted to be on the east coast (he's from Connecticut, right?) Maybe he wanted to wait for his kids to be a little older. Maybe Doc Rivers begged him to stay. Maybe with Doc contemplating retirement, he thought he might have a chance to succeed him in Boston.

You don't know all the particulars.

I'm not defending the decision to pass on a coach that would quite obviously have been a better option than the guy we have now (or anyone we've had in the last several years). I'm just suggesting that maybe it wasn't completely up to the Kings that Thibodeau isn't their head coach. We don't know what was discussed in interviews, we don't know what his priorities were, or even whether he was seriously interested in leaving the Celtics yet. It's not a one-way street.

All I'm saying is that it's possible Thibodeau passed on the Kings, and not the other way around.

What we know is that he interviewed twice, was passed over the first time and pulled out the second time. To totally absolve the kings of all responsibility in losing out on the opportunity with Tom as the head coach is taking huge liberties. It's totally reasonable to assume that Tom was willing to take the job, and that things didn't work out, and that the organization was partly responsible for things not working out. That is what is upsetting.

 

[Superman]

What's the relevance of that to my point? Even prior to the past few years, he was a better candidate than Westphal, which was my point all along.

You're saying he was a proven candidate as many as three years ago, as if his continuing experience with the Celtics didn't have any impact. So yes, he's good now, but that doesn't mean he would have been good at the beginning.

"isn't it worth considering whether he was actually ready for a #1 gig when he first started getting calls?"

He wouldn't have been interviewed for several positions if he was not ready to coach a team.

How would teams know whether he was ready or not without interviewing him? All you know is that he's a hot assistant that seems to be ready to take the next step. You simply cannot know whether he's your guy until you interview him.

Another name that comes to mind is Marc Iavaroni. He interviewed with a number of teams before landing with the Grizzlies.

It wasn't his choice the first time, which IMO had a hand in the second outcome. Again, I can't blame a guy that good to pull out when he wasn't wanted as the top candidate for the worst team in the league. I'm fine with him washing his hands of the kings after what happened.

So, because they passed on him the first time, he decided to wash his hands the second time? But only after he interviewed with them? I get what you're saying, I just think you're being overly simplistic.

It doesn't mean you are committed to accepting an offer, but it also means that you are already pre-determined not to accept the offer. Anybody who has absolutely no intention of taking the job doesn't waste the time with an interview.

What?

First of all, I never said he had absolutely no intention of taking the job. I said that just because you go on a job interview doesn't mean you're necessarily going to accept the job, assuming it's even offered. A job interview is just a first step.

Secondly, just because you go on an interview and don't accept an offer doesn't mean that you wasted your time, or anyone else's.

What we know is that he interviewed twice, was passed over the first time and pulled out the second time. To totally absolve the kings of all responsibility in losing out on the opportunity with Tom as the head coach is taking huge liberties. It's totally reasonable to assume that Tom was willing to take the job, and that things didn't work out, and that the organization was partly responsible for things not working out. That is what is upsetting.

I did not attempt to absolve the organization of any responsibility. I simply pointed out that, perhaps, at the end of the day, Thibodeau didn't want to coach the Kings. Perhaps the interviews didn't go well. Perhaps his idea of how to run a team and the direction the franchise was headed in didn't sit well with him. Or any other number of reasons that he may have been put off, as I mentioned in the previous post.

It maybe be totally reasonable to assume that he was willing to take the job. But that's still an assumption. I'm just saying that they did interview him, and they did consider him.