There are a variety of reasons that this may be a stupid question. Maybe it's been discussed here, maybe its premise is ridiculous. I don't know. So as I have in so many times of desperate confusion, I turn to the internet for answers:
I have no idea if JVG is interested in coaching in the NBA in 2009 (let alone in Sacramento). Logically, it makes sense to me - he's still relatively young, and coaches usually can't stay away. But I'm completely unaware of his personal circumstances.
So why do I bring him up? Well, like others around here I believe that Sacramento's next head coach needs to have an established track record as a success at this level. We have too many "project" players to also have a "project" coach.
Eddie Jordan (who has been advocated for on StR and elsewhere) has the credentials, the Kings connection, and the x-and-o ability to improve any team's offense. I think he's a great candidate.
Still, I wonder if Van Gundy wouldn't be an equally-good or better candidate, and why he hasn't been discussed more on StR. His reputation suggests that he could help give the Kings something that fans have pined for in Sacramento for years: defensive toughness. And his record (career 57.5 and 50 win percentages in the regular season and postseason, respectively) suggests that whatever he does works.
I understand the argument that a coach should play to his personnel's strengths, and teams put together by Petrie tend to be offensive minded. But I also think this group has parallels to teams that Van Gundy has suceeded with in the past (i.e. skilled bigs, scrappy wings, and a pure-scoring guard. The idea of a bunch of offensively-skilled young players versed in Coachie's system, who have Van Gundy's style of hardnosed defense drilled into them excites me.
But when all is said and done, I admit to knowing little about Van Gundy or Jordan specifically and NBA coaching generally, which is why I came to you in the first place. So chew it over while you watch the #1 seeds trounce the #16's and get back to me.