Woj: Kings, Mike Brown table contract discussions, far apart on deal

Status
Not open for further replies.
Padrino

Padrino

All-Star
#61
#61
GWD said:
It is obvious that you favor Coach Brown, and that is well and good. What is not obvious is what specific coaching skills, playing system innovations, and unique abilities have enabled Coach Brown to "lead" the team to a couple of winning records, or in your words, "turning around the franchise".

Others would note that Brown's arrival coincided with the arrival of a considerable influx of talented players and the off-season (pre-Brown) development of others. The appearance of Brown and the improvement of the Kings may have been happenstance rather than coaching genius. He has one year to prove that he is more a genius rather than a hindrance to further Kings' progress. It appears that the management of the Kings agree...and they have far more insight and knowledge of the situation than members of a forum.
Click to expand...
What a joke. Pay the man his money. When your franchise has posted only 10 winning seasons out of 39 in its entire history in the city of Sacramento, and when your franchise has a history of ineptitude that comes complete with its own hashtag, you don't get to be precious or choosy about how you want to win. Children were born, grew up, and learned to drive between this franchise's last two playoff appearances. There were 11 other head coaches in that span, none of whom sniffed .500 before Mike Brown showed up.

Of course Brown isn't solely responsible for the Kings' winning records these last two seasons, but guess what? There isn't a coach in the league who is solely responsible for his team's success. There isn't a coach in the league who doesn't need star talent on his roster in order to reach the playoffs. Mike Brown and his staff have worked tremendously hard to change the losing culture in Sacramento. Genius? Happenstance? Somewhere in between? I honestly don't give a sh*t. Again: 10 winning seasons out of 39. Mike Brown shows up and has 2 winning seasons out of 2 as a head coach of this team. Odds are he had something to do with it. Pay. The. Man. His. Money.
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#62
#62
GWD said:
It is obvious that you favor Coach Brown, and that is well and good. What is not obvious is what specific coaching skills, playing system innovations, and unique abilities have enabled Coach Brown to "lead" the team to a couple of winning records, or in your words, "turning around the franchise".

Others would note that Brown's arrival coincided with the arrival of a considerable influx of talented players and the off-season (pre-Brown) development of others. The appearance of Brown and the improvement of the Kings may have been happenstance rather than coaching genius. He has one year to prove that he is more a genius rather than a hindrance to further Kings' progress. It appears that the management of the Kings agree...and they have far more insight and knowledge of the situation than members of a forum.
Click to expand...
For the Kings 2 seasons. What % would you put on the talent of the team/players and what % on Brown?
 
D

dude12

Hall of Famer
#63
#63
GWD said:
It is obvious that you favor Coach Brown, and that is well and good. What is not obvious is what specific coaching skills, playing system innovations, and unique abilities have enabled Coach Brown to "lead" the team to a couple of winning records, or in your words, "turning around the franchise".

Others would note that Brown's arrival coincided with the arrival of a considerable influx of talented players and the off-season (pre-Brown) development of others. The appearance of Brown and the improvement of the Kings may have been happenstance rather than coaching genius. He has one year to prove that he is more a genius rather than a hindrance to further Kings' progress. It appears that the management of the Kings agree...and they have far more insight and knowledge of the situation than members of a forum.
Click to expand...
Taxman and Padrino have summed up the answers to your question. He’s had 2 winning seasons, the onus is on you to prove he’s not good which you can’t. Why don’t you give a list of coaches that could replace Brown like others are asking you to do?
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#64
#64
GWD said:
Pretending is not real. It is management's responsibility to interview, evaluate, and hire a replacement head coach that fits their vision for the Kings. After all, that is how Coach Brown was hired from a list of eligible talent. Speculation is not much better than pretending.

Brown shouldn't "coach for his job" is an amusing statement. Of course he should, that is what he does and how he is evaluated. Players must play for their jobs. Executives must produce for their jobs. Cheerleaders must cheer (perform) to keep their jobs. Each and every job must "continue to prove" their worth lest they become a burden. That is the world of performance arts.

The players produced wins in Brown's first season. It was a newly-formed team, due to Monte's (EOY) maneuvering, and Brown stumbled into a talent-filled group of players. Commenters are still challenged to enumerate the specifics of Brown's unique coaching talents that lifted the team from the years of being in the doldrums with less talented players.

If Brown leaves, for whatever reason, obviously there will be a replacement. He/she may be slightly better at team production or may be slightly worse. He/she will be subject to the same scrutiny that Coach Brown has endured, be it positive or negative. It goes with the position.
Click to expand...
Fox is eligible for his extension after this season. If we don't meet expectations, as the best player on the team, should he go into the final year of his contract without an extension?

Let's be consistent here with our thought process. Players do impact a game far more than a coach does. So if Brown "fails" that also concludes that Domas/Fox "failed" as the team leaders, so then we should wait and see with Fox if he steps up in the final year of his deal.

Right?
 
GWD

GWD

Bench
#65
#65
dude12 said:
Taxman and Padrino have summed up the answers to your question. He’s had 2 winning seasons, the onus is on you to prove he’s not good which you can’t. Why don’t you give a list of coaches that could replace Brown like others are asking you to do?
Click to expand...
Entertaining but illogical. Accepting that there are two possibilities, "good" or "not good" then by not being able to enumerate good attributes logic only leaves "not good" as the conclusion. This is similar to the mathematical proof that the square root of 2 is an irrational number.

A Brown replacement has been answered in other posts. It is a management responsibility since they are far more informed concerning the availability, philosophies, and compliance with the vision management has for the Kings. Change will happen someday, as with all but a few NBA coaches.
 
GWD

GWD

Bench
#66
#66
The_Jamal said:
Fox is eligible for his extension after this season. If we don't meet expectations, as the best player on the team, should he go into the final year of his contract without an extension?

Let's be consistent here with our thought process. Players do impact a game far more than a coach does. So if Brown "fails" that also concludes that Domas/Fox "failed" as the team leaders, so then we should wait and see with Fox if he steps up in the final year of his deal.

Right?
Click to expand...
Players are individuals that perform in a team setting. If Fox's performance is sub-par and raises concerns, then he must "play for his contract" and prove his worth (or a trade arranged). If he departs then the Kings will have lost a sub-par and concerning player, which is no loss at all.

It is illogical to link a Brown failure to any sort of Domas/Fox failure as "team leaders". The players can be floor leaders during a game, but leadership "comes from the top" is a common expression for a reason. Any leadership failure is back in Brown's lap.
 
Kingster

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#67
#67
This is ridiculous. The little man Vivek is exerting his power. Let's all bow to him, scrape and grovel so we can have a solid coach who insures stability for this team going forward. Whatever the exact amount of money at stake for Coach Brown is peanuts compared to contracts of lesser NBA players. The ONLY way it all makes sense is looking through through the neurotic egotistical lens of Vivek.
 
GWD

GWD

Bench
#68
#68
The_Jamal said:
For the Kings 2 seasons. What % would you put on the talent of the team/players and what % on Brown?
Click to expand...
While this might be an entertaining off-season exercise, it will lead to nothing but conflict.

It is refreshing that you acknowledge that players have far more influence on the performance of the team than the coach does (in another post).
 
R

Rain man

Starter
#69
#69
SacTownKid said:
Yeah, but barely on the cusp and usually first round fodder in years that mimic what things are starting to look like in the West. And this is a new era of the play in. It's a different game now which plays into that stat so it's actually somewhat false in historical context. There is also what appears to be a really solid upper crust forming. I don't think Monte is wanting his team to be 6-8 in the deck. Nobody really does. However, sitting or making the wrong move can keep your team there. It happens all the time.
Click to expand...
I agree that a solid upper crust is forming, but I am not sure it is so dire that our ceiling is setting in at the 6-8 range.

Denver and OKC are clearly the top dogs long term. Denver is built perfectly, and OKC has so many assets to add to an already good team. But even these two teams aren't impervious to a step back. Denver could step back if something happens to Joker and OKC could step back if they don't add some bulk, or if they take their assets and swing for the fences in a way that messes up their chemistry. Still these seem like the top 2.

I'm definitely not sold on Minnesota being upper crust. The West is filled with lots of teams who pop up one year and down the next. There is zero evidence that a team can with with Gobert in the playoffs, KAT appears unwilling or unable to be the star they need when it counts, and the entire team admits how reliant they are on a 36 year old point guard to provide on floor stability. I am not sure what assets they have to replace Conley long term, but he is SO important to what they do. Ant will continue to grow, but I am not sure this team should be written in pen into the upper tier.

Dallas looks really good, but Luka hasn't always been the consistent MVP level force they need. If this is year 1 of him playing consistently like an MVP, then look out. If this was an MVP type season followed by a more indifferent one (as he has done in the past), then they could slide. Also, Kyrie is extremely mercurial, and also pushing closer to mid-30s. PJ and Gafford were great additions, but still not a ton of depth. If Luka and Kyrie keep playing like they are now this is a very good team, but history has told us that is a mighty big "if."

I view New Orleans and Memphis similar to the Kings. Teams that have done good things at times, but also not established themselves consistently. These seem like the Western Conference middle class, with one solid move possibly vaulting them up higher, or (as these teams have all seen) inaction, wrong moves, or injuries leading to a setback.

The Lakers, Clippers, Suns, and Warriors are all in similar boats to me. Old teams, aging stars trying to hold on to the league, not many options for the teams to get better, and committed to playing out the hand they have because it is the best one available. I know the Clippers were slightly better than that, but if PG13 leaves they are in real trouble. These teams combined to win 3 playoff games this year in a season where Lebron, AD, Steph, KD, Booker, and PG13 all played most of their games. These are not long term threats, as constructed.

Houston, San Antonio, and Utah all have promising young rosters, but none of them appear to be passing the Kings this coming year. If anything, these teams might be cycling out some of the older Pacific division teams.

Portland is way below.

So the way I see it:

Upper Tier
Denver
OKC

Next Tier (I think right now these teams are probably in two sub tiers, but with plenty of movement possible within this group)
Dallas
Minnesota
--------
New Orleans
Sacramento
Memphis

Hanging on Tier
Phoenix
LAL
LAC
Golden State

Risers
Houston
Utah
San Antonio

Rebuilding
Portland
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#70
#70
ShastaKingsFan said:
Winning 46 and 48 games and making no inroads in the playoffs is "far exceeding expectations"? Only if you have very minimal expectations of simply having a better than .500 record, because the team had a losing record for a long time. Makes me wonder where the bar is set for just a passing grade, if this is what's considered "far exceeding".

Setting rather minimal expectations based on what happened years ago, with different coaches, players, and a different GM, is a mediocre mentality
Click to expand...
While partly true, and Brown certainly for the most part just let his system be built around Fox and Domas it's pretty much a given, even finding a coach that takes that very common sense approach is apparently what actually makes a "good" coach. 30 wins to playoffs numerically looks pretty good on paper. This is a Monte problem in getting to the next step right now, not a Brown problem from the looks of it. Unless Brown is basically saying lock in the team and make no moves, but that's not sounding like what's going on here. Pay Brown his money.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#71
#71
Rain man said:
I agree that a solid upper crust is forming, but I am not sure it is so dire that our ceiling is setting in at the 6-8 range.

Denver and OKC are clearly the top dogs long term. Denver is built perfectly, and OKC has so many assets to add to an already good team. But even these two teams aren't impervious to a step back. Denver could step back if something happens to Joker and OKC could step back if they don't add some bulk, or if they take their assets and swing for the fences in a way that messes up their chemistry. Still these seem like the top 2.

I'm definitely not sold on Minnesota being upper crust. The West is filled with lots of teams who pop up one year and down the next. There is zero evidence that a team can with with Gobert in the playoffs, KAT appears unwilling or unable to be the star they need when it counts, and the entire team admits how reliant they are on a 36 year old point guard to provide on floor stability. I am not sure what assets they have to replace Conley long term, but he is SO important to what they do. Ant will continue to grow, but I am not sure this team should be written in pen into the upper tier.

Dallas looks really good, but Luka hasn't always been the consistent MVP level force they need. If this is year 1 of him playing consistently like an MVP, then look out. If this was an MVP type season followed by a more indifferent one (as he has done in the past), then they could slide. Also, Kyrie is extremely mercurial, and also pushing closer to mid-30s. PJ and Gafford were great additions, but still not a ton of depth. If Luka and Kyrie keep playing like they are now this is a very good team, but history has told us that is a mighty big "if."

I view New Orleans and Memphis similar to the Kings. Teams that have done good things at times, but also not established themselves consistently. These seem like the Western Conference middle class, with one solid move possibly vaulting them up higher, or (as these teams have all seen) inaction, wrong moves, or injuries leading to a setback.

The Lakers, Clippers, Suns, and Warriors are all in similar boats to me. Old teams, aging stars trying to hold on to the league, not many options for the teams to get better, and committed to playing out the hand they have because it is the best one available. I know the Clippers were slightly better than that, but if PG13 leaves they are in real trouble. These teams combined to win 3 playoff games this year in a season where Lebron, AD, Steph, KD, Booker, and PG13 all played most of their games. These are not long term threats, as constructed.

Houston, San Antonio, and Utah all have promising young rosters, but none of them appear to be passing the Kings this coming year. If anything, these teams might be cycling out some of the older Pacific division teams.

Portland is way below.

So the way I see it:

Upper Tier
Denver
OKC

Next Tier (I think right now these teams are probably in two sub tiers, but with plenty of movement possible within this group)
Dallas
Minnesota
--------
New Orleans
Sacramento
Memphis

Hanging on Tier
Phoenix
LAL
LAC
Golden State

Risers
Houston
Utah
San Antonio

Rebuilding
Portland
Click to expand...
Well, even if the Kings are stuck in 4-5, or 3. Stuck is stuck. The Kings can only go on the fact that they look to be a team that will be in that upper 40's low 50's (maybe) win range on any given year. Then again, they are a shooting team and for the last number of years teams can trick their way pretty far on any given season with shooting being their main weapon whether through team shooting or building around a Curry/Trae type, but the decline is usually just as quick. Last year? Top 3 was the level, years moving on? Play in window potentially. And it's teams like Houston and the Spurs that should be scaring people. If Wemby pans out you know the NBA is going to do everything in it's power to build around him. That might happen sooner than later if he does so the Kings and many teams in the West with players nearing that 28-30 range age wise with their stars better bust that window open now if they can. Whether by preparing for a FA haul or trades.

Also as far as how the teams stack, when healthy the Kings were nowhere near the Pels level. The Pels were up near the top until they got hurt. If they can't stay healthy it probably doesn't matter but if so, they are up near those top teams if last year meant anything.
 
TaxMan

TaxMan

Starter
#72
#72
SacTownKid said:
Well, even if the Kings are stuck in 4-5, or 3. Stuck is stuck. The Kings can only go on the fact that they look to be a team that will be in that upper 40's low 50's (maybe) win range on any given year. Then again, they are a shooting team and for the last number of years teams can trick their way pretty far on any given season with shooting being their main weapon whether through team shooting or building around a Curry/Trae type, but the decline is usually just as quick. Last year? Top 3 was the level, years moving on? Play in window potentially. And it's teams like Houston and the Spurs that should be scaring people. If Wemby pans out you know the NBA is going to do everything in it's power to build around him. That might happen sooner than later if he does so the Kings and many teams in the West with players nearing that 28-30 range age wise with their stars better bust that window open now if they can. Whether by preparing for a FA haul or trades.

Also as far as how the teams stack, when healthy the Kings were nowhere near the Pels level. The Pels were up near the top until they got hurt. If they can't stay healthy it probably doesn't matter but if so, they are up near those top teams if last year meant anything.
Click to expand...
Things change every year.... There is something to be said for maintaining a general level of solid play year over year, and then being ready to strike/get lucky in the playoffs. If I told you these would be our win totals over the next 7 years, would you call it success or failure to only win one championship: 46 wins, 54, 46, 47, 48, 53, 57... (Nuggets last 7 years :))
 
T

The_Jamal

Hall of Famer
#73
#73
GWD said:
Players are individuals that perform in a team setting. If Fox's performance is sub-par and raises concerns, then he must "play for his contract" and prove his worth (or a trade arranged). If he departs then the Kings will have lost a sub-par and concerning player, which is no loss at all.

It is illogical to link a Brown failure to any sort of Domas/Fox failure as "team leaders". The players can be floor leaders during a game, but leadership "comes from the top" is a common expression for a reason. Any leadership failure is back in Brown's lap.
Click to expand...
That.... no

If you think NBA stars aren't leaders of the franchise with significant pull, don't really know what to say to that. Maybe that was true in the 80's/90's, hasn't been true for a long time
 
ShastaKingsFan

ShastaKingsFan

All-Star
#74
#74
The_Jamal said:
That.... no

If you think NBA stars aren't leaders of the franchise with significant pull, don't really know what to say to that. Maybe that was true in the 80's/90's, hasn't been true for a long time
Click to expand...
It's definitely a challenge or a potential problem, when your highest paid (franchise) player isn't really a leader,.....while at the same time expecting to have a lot of 'pull'. One of the reasons I have serious doubts about this really working, if the goal is to be a championship contender
 
twslam07

twslam07

All-Star
#75
#75
For what it’s worth, we do have a small sample where Fox & Sabonis played together on a team not coached by Mike Brown:
  • When both Fox & Sabonis played without Mike Brown as the coach, they were 5-8 (31.5 win pace).
  • When both Fox & Sabonis played with Mike Brown as the coach, they were 85-61 (47.7 win pace)
Obviously there were other roster differences across these time periods (Huerter vs. DiVincenzo, Murray vs. Holiday/Harkless/Metu, etc.) but nothing that seems quite seismic to explain a 16.2 win differential (granted the pre-Brown era sample is not massive).
 
Last edited:
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#76
#76
TaxMan said:
Things change every year.... There is something to be said for maintaining a general level of solid play year over year, and then being ready to strike/get lucky in the playoffs. If I told you these would be our win totals over the next 7 years, would you call it success or failure to only win one championship: 46 wins, 54, 46, 47, 48, 53, 57... (Nuggets last 7 years :))
Click to expand...
That's true but, the Nuggets didn't just sit, they made their moves. They traded for Aaron Gordon, they traded for KCP to fill needs, etc. If they don't make those moves where do they end up? This is exactly kind of where the Kings sit right now. The next question is whether or not there is an MVP level talent lurking on the Kings somewhere.
 
kingsboi

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#77
#77
SacTownKid said:
Yeah, but barely on the cusp and usually first round fodder in years that mimic what things are starting to look like in the West. And this is a new era of the play in. It's a different game now which plays into that stat so it's actually somewhat false in historical context. There is also what appears to be a really solid upper crust forming. I don't think Monte is wanting his team to be 6-8 in the deck. Nobody really does. However, sitting or making the wrong move can keep your team there. It happens all the time.
Click to expand...
one would just hope that if they do manage to stay in that 6-8 range that they don't prolong the inevitable
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#78
#78
kingsboi said:
one would just hope that if they do manage to stay in that 6-8 range that they don't prolong the inevitable
Click to expand...
You mean the downhill slide? I think sooner than later Monte McNair would gamble before that. He's been so aggressive trying to make a big move after casually dealing Hali for Domas. He even hasn't been all that protective of his draft assets TBH. He left one in limbo in a very Vlade esque way for Huerter and then traded one last year for cap space. The problem right now is players that they brought back as plan B options like Huerter and Barnes were in a position where the coach started to prepare for life after them by shifting offense to Murray and minutes to need guys and that diminished their value. The contracts aren't terrible, thankfully, but Monte's window for flexibility to add without subtraction is about 1 year too late with them still on the books. I still think when you look at the contracts Monte signed with this run it back scheme he did so specifically to have a plethora of salary matching potential. The issue was where he was going to get value from. Maybe that 13th pick changes things? Who knows. But yeah, that's a Monte problem NOT a Mike Brown problem unless they both have a different philosophical approach about where to go from here. Which I doubt they do.
 
kingsboi

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#79
#79
SacTownKid said:
You mean the downhill slide? I think sooner than later Monte McNair would gamble before that. He's been so aggressive trying to make a big move after casually dealing Hali for Domas. He even hasn't been all that protective of his draft assets TBH. He left one in limbo in a very Vlade esque way for Huerter and then traded one last year for cap space. The problem right now is players that they brought back as plan B options like Huerter and Barnes were in a position where the coach started to prepare for life after them by shifting offense to Murray and minutes to need guys and that diminished their value. The contracts aren't terrible, thankfully, but Monte's window for flexibility to add without subtraction is about 1 year too late with them still on the books. I still think when you look at the contracts Monte signed with this run it back scheme he did so specifically to have a plethora of salary matching potential. The issue was where he was going to get value from. Maybe that 13th pick changes things? Who knows. But yeah, that's a Monte problem NOT a Mike Brown problem unless they both have a different philosophical approach about where to go from here. Which I doubt they do.
Click to expand...
either the slide or just not really improving enough to continue to advance in the Postseason. regarding the pick, unless you can package it for another all-star/border all-star talent, I say keep the pick and develop him and if improvement comes, it makes the pick that much more valuable either for the roster or for a trading asset
 
Capt. Factorial

Capt. Factorial

ceterum censeo delendum esse Argentum
Staff member
#80
#80
twslam07 said:
For what it’s worth, we do have a small sample where Fox & Sabonis played together on a team not coached by Mike Brown:
  • When both Fox & Sabonis played without Mike Brown as the coach, they were 5-8 (31.5 win pace).
  • When both Fox & Sabonis played with Mike Brown as the coach, they were 85-61 (47.7 win pace)
Obviously there were other roster differences across these time periods (Huerter vs. DiVincenzo, Murray vs. Holiday/Harkless/Metu, etc.) but nothing that seems quite seismic to explain a 16.2 win differential (granted the pre-Brown era sample is not massive).
Click to expand...
The pre-Brown era was also a brand new pairing, stuck together in the middle of a season - no familiarity with each other, no well-practiced offensive schemes incorporating both players, etc. All that stuff had to wait for the first offseason and training camp. Certainly the predominant vibe around here following that 5-8 fox/Domas record after the trade wasn't that the sky was falling, it was "give it time".
 
TaxMan

TaxMan

Starter
#81
#81
SacTownKid said:
That's true but, the Nuggets didn't just sit, they made their moves. They traded for Aaron Gordon, they traded for KCP to fill needs, etc. If they don't make those moves where do they end up? This is exactly kind of where the Kings sit right now. The next question is whether or not there is an MVP level talent lurking on the Kings somewhere.
Click to expand...
Yeah but they didn’t trade for Gordon until 2021. That’s in the middle of that string of winning between 45 and 50 wins for a couple years. The whole point is you can’t always just manufacture an Aaron Gordon type perfect trade. Needs some level of patience to have sustained success.
 
Insomniacal Fan

Insomniacal Fan

Starter
#84
#84
Tetsujin said:
https://twitter.com/statuses/1795847378291040522

the longer Vivek waits, the more expensive the eventual Brown extension is going to get
Click to expand...
NBC sports reports $14 million a year for 5 years, which is on the low end of the range of what Brown will be able to command in a year.

I figure in a couple years, veteren head coaches will average around $15 million a year.

If we only want Brown for 3 years, price might be 18-20
 
TaxMan

TaxMan

Starter
#85
#85
Insomniacal Fan said:
NBC sports reports $14 million a year for 5 years, which is on the low end of the range of what Brown will be able to command in a year.

I figure in a couple years, veteren head coaches will average around $15 million a year.

If we only want Brown for 3 years, price might be 18-20
Click to expand...
Here's the issue. Going rate for above average coaches now appears to be $10M to $15M. Some will certainly argue Lue is a better coach, but he's a comp, as is Monty Williams (as stupid as he salary now appears). If we don't pay brown $10 to 15M per, we better have a similar name lined that we are prepared to pay, otherwise we immediately revert back to clown franchise. Not saying a cheap rookie coach couldn't work, but the optics would be terrible, not just for the reputation of the franchise externally, but for Fox/Sobonis/Murray/Monk internally. If they really wanted to move in another direction, the option was Jordi and he's off the table.
 
SacTownKid

SacTownKid

Hall of Famer
#87
#87
TaxMan said:
Here's the issue. Going rate for above average coaches now appears to be $10M to $15M. Some will certainly argue Lue is a better coach, but he's a comp, as is Monty Williams (as stupid as he salary now appears). If we don't pay brown $10 to 15M per, we better have a similar name lined that we are prepared to pay, otherwise we immediately revert back to clown franchise. Not saying a cheap rookie coach couldn't work, but the optics would be terrible, not just for the reputation of the franchise externally, but for Fox/Sobonis/Murray/Monk internally. If they really wanted to move in another direction, the option was Jordi and he's off the table.
Click to expand...
Yeah, for the interim but the long term option was always going to DC IMO. Jordi is a Brown guy, DC is the type of coach you have on your roster that's an everybody guy that you give a shot to because the organization has been grooming them, not any given coaching hire.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.