Who are contenders?

sactowndog

Hall of Famer
It’s a long and distinguished list but who are the contenders for top 5 worst GM’s in Sacramento Kings history.

Petrie is the best. Vlade is an easy first choice. Some may disagree but I put Monte on the list.

Pete was bad but wasn’t around long enough to really do damage so not sure about him.

Others to be considered?
 
Sheesh, Monte must’ve really did a number on your “front office friend.” Anyone who’s spent more than two minutes on this board knows where you stand.

I could be wrong, but there have only been two GMs in Sac Kings history that have been able to assemble a team that made the playoffs 1. Geoff Petrie and 2. Monte McNair. (I don’t count the OG 85 squad that lost to the Rockets in the 1st round as the team was already put together from KC)
 
Sorry, but Monte is nowhere near being the worst GM in Sacramento Kings history.
Vlade, by far, is number one on my list. Dude was just BAD. Not drafting Luka and drafting Papagiannis, just themselves, are enough reasons for him to solidify the top spot on my list.
Pete D, I guess can go up there as well...I mean, his tenure was so meh that I can't remember much of what he actually accomplished during his tenure.

Best GM? By far, Geoff Petrie.
 
I forget a whole lot of the Pete era… he fired Malone and gave away Isaiah Thomas, right? Even in a short time, that’s Vlade level stupidity.
Worse than Vlade. Vlade was a figurehead in over his head that had handlers who made a few bad decisions.

Would put Russell and Axelson before Vlade on the bad list

Worst:
1. gerbil
2. Axelson
3. Rusell (Sorry Bill, RIP)

Best:
1. Petrie
2. vacant
3. Monte
 
This dude trolls for a living lol.

No one is going to put Monte but you bud. He's been fired for months, its time for you to move on.

But to actually answer the question its:
1. Petrie
2. Monte.

And everyone else was god awful and not even worth ranking "3rd" place
 
the wrong question is being asked here. the Kings are on their 4th GM since Vivek took ownership in 2013 with an average job security of 3 years to get it right and make the 8th seed or get booted and repeat process again.
 
the wrong question is being asked here. the Kings are on their 4th GM since Vivek took ownership in 2013 with an average job security of 3 years to get it right and make the 8th seed or get booted and repeat process again.
Given that the GM was just hired, the average tenure for a GM here under Vivek is 4 years, but that is brought down because the first GM Vivek hired didn't make it two years and was comically bad. I think 5 years is a little closer to average for a failed GM to last. I think it is fair to say Monte could have been given another year or two but most fans would disagree.
 
Petrie is really the only good one but his last decade or so wasn’t very good at all. I put a lot of it on the Maloofs financial problems, but he still made some awful decisions when there was no pressure on him to help ticket sales like I think there was when he drafted Jimmer.

But there was a near decade where he seemingly couldn’t miss.

Monte would be a far distant second. He had one smart summer and seemingly never made a move again that wasn’t spending nearly 10 second rounders unloading players they wasted second rounders on and wasting more second rounders to unload the players they got back. Last summer was laughable display of asset management.

Pete fired Malone, had an awkward town hall afterwards, traded IT for nothing, and got fired.

Vlade is the worst.

You would think a team that had only made one postseason in 19 years would have more front office turnover than they have had. Comparable to the coaches..but Petrie held on to that job for near 20 years
 
Given that the GM was just hired, the average tenure for a GM here under Vivek is 4 years, but that is brought down because the first GM Vivek hired didn't make it two years and was comically bad. I think 5 years is a little closer to average for a failed GM to last. I think it is fair to say Monte could have been given another year or two but most fans would disagree.

I wonder what the average tenure is for a GM for other franchises around the association that aren't consistent Playoff contenders
 
I wonder what the average tenure is for a GM for other franchises around the association that aren't consistent Playoff contenders
1752886917754.png

Table cuts off but Spurs, LA and Bulls had 10.33 averages for GM.

Just speculating but I would bet it has actually gotten shorter over the last 7 seasons.

source: https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/sbm-09-2022-0081/full/html

If you scroll down the table the Kings are in the category of lowest tenured head coaches at under 3 years.
 
Worse than Vlade. Vlade was a figurehead in over his head that had handlers who made a few bad decisions.

Would put Russell and Axelson before Vlade on the bad list

Worst:
1. gerbil
2. Axelson
3. Rusell (Sorry Bill, RIP)

Best:
1. Petrie
2. vacant
3. Monte
Who was gerbil? I got here in 93 so I missed a few
 
Jerry Reynolds was bad but I won't say god awful because he did get us Mitch, Walt Williams and L-Train. Obviously we sucked but at least he managed to bring in some likeable players.
Yeah I think if we can find it you would want to know how many assets they left the person after them both in terms of players and picks
 
Yeah I think if we can find it you would want to know how many assets they left the person after them both in terms of players and picks
Bill Russell was really, really bad in his one year. Axelson you can just go through the list of people he passed in the draft. Jerry is nothing special but he did leave Petrie stuff to work with. Petrie just came in day one and started making moves. Drafted Brian Grant and Michael Smith which lead to a playoff push immediately followed by the second playoff appearance in Sacramento Kings history the following year. The wheels fell off right after and in the modern NBA that might have got him sacked, but his next two off seasons were banging and that sparked the turnaround and our golden years.

In reality - Monte probably leaves the Kings with more assets than Jerry did, but the come down from the promise of 22-23 combined with watching Tyrese ascend in the East is too much for most fans to bear. I would have liked to see what he could have done this offseason with the mess he created - assuming maybe he had a vision at one point(?), but I kind of think Perry is better at the little interpersonal skills that go a long way.

Also we'll never know if Monte and Wes were tight, there was plenty of speculation that they were competitive. But I think that Perry and BJ may actually be on the same page. Too early to tell.
 
Just looking at Jerry Reynolds. Might be most unlucky but had some very good picks and made some good trades. Ricky Berry was going to be a star. Lionel Simmons was a player, Billy Owen’s got us Mitch who got us Webber.
I did not love the Hurley pick but also have to give that one an incomplete.
 
I hopped on the bandwagon as a kid during the Petrie era, and while his seasons leading up to the sale of the team were real stinkers, the guy put together the Golden Era contenders (and shoulda-won'ers). Easy 1st.

I'd still say Monte gets 2nd best GM award in the 2000s. He got this sorry franchise to the Playoffs. But I think this says more about the overall lack of FO competency in this franchise as opposed to being a glowing review of Monte's fairly disappointing tenure.

Vlade will forever be last place for me. All of his big moves were atrocious (Philly trade, Cousins trade, Bagley draft) and all his smaller moves were nothing but shuffling deck chairs on the titanic.

Pete D'Gerbil was pretty bad too but I feel like he didn't get a chance to really **** things up like Vlade, aside from Machiavelli'ing Malone out the door.
 
Back
Top