Wizards Fire Flip Saunders, Will Likely Again Compete With Kings For A Coach
by Tom Ziller on Jan 24, 2012 9:45 AM PST
in Commentary
Email
PrintThe Washington Wizards have reportedly fired coach Flip Saunders, elevating assistant Randy Wittman. I can't imagine that the former King Wittman, who has just an abysmal record as a head coach, will get the job beyond this season ... which means that Washington will be looking for a new head coach in May. Sacramento extended Keith Smart a team option for the 2012-13 season upon elevating him to head coach earlier this month, but that's a team option, and it's not terribly apparent that the Kings are on the path to the necessary wins to instill faith in Smart, for better or worse.
Chances are that both teams will be looking ... just like in 2009. That year, the Wizards moved swiftly, locking up Saunders to a four-year deal for a pretty penny ($16 million) soon after the season ended. The Kings moved slowly. Really slowly. They eventually settled on Paul Westphal for two years, $2.5 million in June, and picked up his team option for Year 3 (this season) after a surprisingly hot start. (That option turned out to be a bad but inexpensive idea.)
Will the same game play out in May? Will the flush Wiz -- bolstered by Ted Leonsis' warchest -- race to sign one of the league's top free agent coaches (whoever they may be)? Will the Maloofs, as broke as J.J. Hickson's jump shot, wait for someone to present themself for the lowest salary in the league? Will the Maloofs being in the process of selling and secretly taking cues on the major decisions from the incoming owner? (Bill Clinton for head coach!)
Chances are, the Wizards will be in the pole position again. What's not clear is whether there are any can't-miss options like Flip seemed to be in 2009.
The other question, of course: is Flip now in play for the Kings?
100 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Not flipping for Flip
Asked if the Kings had any intention of trading Cousins, basketball president Geoff Petrie said, "No."
by Slam_Dunk on Jan 24, 2012 9:53 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
Will the Maloofs being in the process of selling and secretly taking cues on the major decisions from the incoming owner? (Bill Clinton for head coach!)
(and yes I think it’s not a matter of if but when … and really hoping it’s soon and tied into the whole arena issue)
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 9:57 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
If Bill is coach
A lot of leads will be blown
35 and 31. I'm calling it now. Reke and Cousins 1-2 in most improved award both All-stars. Jimmer leads rookies in scoring, passing and Ole's. Make 2nd round of playoffs and Salmons is not here by seasons end.
by ElRonToro on Jan 24, 2012 10:09 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
Which leads to a victory cigar
35 and 31. I'm calling it now. Reke and Cousins 1-2 in most improved award both All-stars. Jimmer leads rookies in scoring, passing and Ole's. Make 2nd round of playoffs and Salmons is not here by seasons end.
by ElRonToro on Jan 24, 2012 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 6 recs
I've been thinking the same thing for awhile.
A new arena and potentially another top 10 lottery pick is going to be the best chance for the Maloofs to sell.
by Crocoduck on Jan 24, 2012 10:14 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Okay when I say "really hoping" above though it's not that they sell right after the arena deal is done and a top 10 pick
I am referring to a sale as part of the whole arena process as my hope. I know it’s a bit nitpicky and unlikely but that is technically what i am referring to because I have a real hard time seeing how this whole arena plan works unless the NBA or a third party decides do something historic … or the Maloofs are trapped and can’t move yet can’t afford the arena and get “an offer they can’t refuse.”
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 10:18 AM PST up reply actions
sorry didn't finish the thought
… abd get “an offer they can’t refuse” while new owner is that “third party” helping with financing the arena.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 10:19 AM PST up reply actions
What do you mean by "doing something historic"?
My understanding of their contribution to the arena deal would be through a long term lease. I’m not sure if there are any numbers on what kind of money that would be, but I think it will ultimately be decided by the city and what Stern agrees is fair. Do you think that the other sources of revenue won’t be enough?
My thought process, as wishful as it may be, is that the deal gets done, the Maloof’s really are as broke as we joke about and know they can’t continue to run the Kings without the deal with Anaheim, and take advantage of the opportunity to sell high.
Probably not the best post to have this discussion on, but you’ve been one of the few Kings fans I’ve seen with concerns about the arena deal and I’m curious to know what you think.
by Crocoduck on Jan 24, 2012 1:36 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I say historic
because the NBA hasn’t exactly payed much for an arena before and neither has an unrelated third party unless they get a huge chunk of revenues back their way.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 2:15 PM PST up reply actions
Ugh
Question for those in the know – at the end of this season, will the Kings be done paying all their head coaches?
"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott
Yep
Musselman and Theus went off the books in 2009. Westphal was signed through this season. Smart’s next season is a team option that they’ll decline if they make a change.
Nothing wrong with smart.
He has a lot of bad habits to break and damage done by past coaches to un-do. The guy is passionate, loved by his players and seems very knowledgeable basketball wise. IMO the best coach we had since Adelman and I don’t think there are too many better options out there for a franchise in our modest position.
by rise_to_mediocrity on Jan 24, 2012 9:59 AM PST reply actions 4 recs
Tend to agree
We’ll see, there’s a lot of season left. But I like what I’ve seen out of Smart so far.
Agree, also...
The Kings have only had more than 1 day off between games once thus far, and only have one more back-to-back until after the all-star break. Now until then will be a pretty good measuring stick for the development of this team.
"First we get jobs, then we get the khakis, then we get the chicks."
by Wonderchild on Jan 24, 2012 11:30 AM PST up reply actions
I would like us to get Flip if Smart goes south
Flip seems more realistic than a Sloan, Nelson, or Van Gundy since he was a NBA coach a few hours ago and will probably be the best fit on our team. My worry with Sloan and Nelson is that they have had issues with stong personalities like Deron Williams and Webber. Sloan has the potential to make Cousins a Hall of Fame player if they don’t kill eachother first. Nelson, well, I just don’t want Nelly ball on this team; we have enough shooters and while Nelly would teach them to score more, I’m not sure he would teach them to pass like a real team. I think it’s a reach to think Van Gundy would leave his TV job for the mess the Kings are in. I guess add in Larry Brown, but I would say no for the same reasons as Sloan.
That leaves Flip. He is probably looking for a job to redeem himself after the mess of Washington, he’s a proven coach, and hes a player friendly coach that could keep Cousins happy. I know Washington was ugly, but even Rick Adelman had those dark years with the Warriors.
I still hope Smart works out and ends up being the next up and coming coach, but I like that Flip is an option for plan B at the moment. The only problem is plan B relys on the Maloofs to spend a little more (which is a BIG roadblock to a big name coach)
Not even the Maloofs could get suckered into hiring Don Nelson (especially at the amount he'd want)
Sloan is still extremely interesting to me, as would be a guy like Larry Brown.
Flip is living off of Kevin Garnett’s MVP-type seasons IMO. Do not want.
"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott
by otis29 on Jan 24, 2012 10:02 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Flip also had time on the Pistons where he went far, but no ring
3 EFC games with the Pistons, 1 60+ win season, 2 50+ win seasons, 1 Eastern allstar game coach. I’m sure there are better coaches, but he would come in as the best Kings coach since Adelman without question.
Sloan and Brown, IMO, could bring our team to new heights or tear it apart. I’m a little hesitant to get those two after seeing how Cousins acted around a coach he didn’t like. Outside of the fear of Sloan and Brown clashing with players, they are near the top of coaches I want. I guess I’m still traumatized after our last 4 coaches.
by SharkKings49 on Jan 24, 2012 10:39 AM PST up reply actions
That's a fair point (regarding Detroit)
Although that was really Larry Brown’s championship team that was turned over to him.
Just not a big Saunders fan – I’d just as soon see what Smart brings to the table over time.
"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott
I still hope Smart makes this Flip debate pointless too
Smart is more realistic on the Maloofs budget and I enjoy it more when my team can find a dimond in the rough, kind of like what the Bulls did with Thibs. Either way, just get a real coach that can increase our wins a few years in a row instead of making us worse.
by SharkKings49 on Jan 24, 2012 11:00 AM PST up reply actions
Thibs was not a diamond in the rough.
He’s been responsible for two of the best defenses of the past decade. He was going to get a shot somewhere. I was personally hoping the Kings would make a move on him back in ’09, but no such luck.
A lonely Kings fan in a sea of gold and purple...
by Jaycee on Jan 24, 2012 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
In a way he was
I remember a lot of teams passing on him. The Kings did and I think the T-Wolve or Knicks may have too. He may have been an obvous choice due to his defensive work as an assistant, but he was never a head coach before now so I think everyone had to take his defensive work with a grain of salt.
In a (lesser) way, Smart is the same way with the work he did in his time with the Warriors; granted he was even less proven than Thibs.
by SharkKings49 on Jan 24, 2012 1:38 PM PST up reply actions
i never really got the the “Flip as a proven coach” sentiment (even back in ’09). he had one playoff run with arguably the best player of the time in Garnett; and was the headman for a mess of a detroit team that got ran out by his players. any playoff success that he oversaw in Detroit was left over by the larry brown led championship teams. he seems a bit like westphal to me. lots of hype and not really the resume that folks think he has.
by gaindeyouth on Jan 24, 2012 10:47 AM PST up reply actions
totally agree with this assessment
… seems that he eventually has difficulty getting players to “buy in”. We’ve had too much of that lately.
by henryclemente on Jan 24, 2012 3:56 PM PST up reply actions
flip? no thanks
The problem with the kings is their roster is so lean and the owners are so cheap any coach they bring in is almost destined to fail. Adelman had the best lineup of any coach in Sacramento history. Lastly who said the Maloofs were selling. I haven’t seen any news on that
by kuhreem on Jan 24, 2012 10:05 AM PST via mobile reply actions
By the way Tom
you been reading up on the Dodgers sale process? Interesting and complicated stuff.
Embattled Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt has received a record $1.2 billion, all-cash bid for the franchise, with some of the money coming from investors linked to the Chinese government, according to the Los Angeles Times.
The offer comes from Los Angeles Marathon founder Bill Burke and would be funded by American investors and “certain state-owned investment institutions of the People’s Republic of China,” according to a letter sent to McCourt and obtained by the Times.
By the way, it’s usually a big big deal if someone offers $100 million in cash for a sports team, let alone $1.2 billion.
Major League Baseball is skeptical of the legitimacy of the bid, the Times reports, citing an anonymous consultant who works with MLB and other pro leagues.
“There are questions within the sports industry about whether this is a genuine offer,” the Times quoted the consultant as saying.
Here’s an article today about how some of the groups bidding might merge and it’s interesting that Burkle is being labeled as “may” be interested despite the rumored offer made yesterday.
Jeebus
McCourt’s going to end up getting the last laugh on all this, isn’t he?
"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott
by otis29 on Jan 24, 2012 10:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
The Dodgers are the most untapped revenue generator in all of sports
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 10:11 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It's amazing that a guy like McCourt was able to buy them in the first place
Basically, on credit too. And then he’s proceeded to strip the carcass clean.
"I DECLARE BANKRUPTCY!" - Michael Scott
by otis29 on Jan 24, 2012 10:13 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
An interesting sidenote...
Those same Chinese investors were looking at purchasing a NBA team (the Kings were mentioned, but not the top option) last year and moving it to Kentucky.
ah Bruce Miller
you sure it’s the same investors though? I see none of the Chinese investor names (believe it or not but there are quite a few rich people in China).
Do remember Miller though. Pretty sure I linked an older article here. Pretty sure last February he and Stern had a lot of phone conversations going on about trying to get a team into the YUM! Center.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 4:00 PM PST up reply actions
by the way Louisville is getting royally screwed right now from the financing for that arena.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 4:02 PM PST up reply actions
It isn't that bad.
Revenue projections from the special tax district aren’t up to par, but they are trending upwards. Also, the bookings are increasing to rental projections. Not surprising in the first year.
Well minus the fact that the city has been told to be prepared to pay an additional $3.3 million a year because of the revenue shortfalls
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 4:16 PM PST up reply actions
Not happening...
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120120/BUSINESS/301210044/kfc-yum-center-louisville-arena The reason you read about a problem first is that the C-J has a slant against Jim Host. As bad as it sounds, even if it came to an additional contribution by the City (which I doubt) for the business growth that the arena has already generated, $3 million is a drop in the “bucket”
Steve Rowland, Louisville’s chief financial officer, said Host told him this week that the city should prepare to increase its amount for the fiscal year that starts in July 2013. The increase could amount to $3.3 million a year.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 5:26 PM PST up reply actions
Read further...
According to the Louisville Convention and Visitors Bureau, downtown hotel taxes of $7.7 million as of Sept. 30, 2011, were up 8 percent from the previous year and up 12 percent from two years ago.
Still, if all the revenues envisioned to pay down debt don’t materialize, Host said the arena has $16 million in a debt service reserve fund.
The whole article is full of political posturing. The State owns the facility. There is tension between the State and City. Jim Host ran over a lot of people getting it built. That said, even IF the City had to come up with $3 million, it is less than 0.5% of the budget.
$3.3 million a year
Per year until the bonds are paid is what they are talking about, not one year.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 8:30 PM PST up reply actions
It's not that the article doesn't say that
but I think you have to be a local to put it in context and understand that it is fairly typical posturing by different power groups who each believe that they are much more clever than they are.
It wouldn’t shock me if there might be SOME additional contribution required at some point. OTOH, the numbers they are talking about would be a high as the CJ could possibly report them, and even then, would not cause a significant issue with the City budget.
The projected shortfalls are based on 2010 numbers, before the arena opened, and while the local economy was still recovering. In the past year, I have personally seen over 20 busy restaurants and bars open near the arena. A new $100 million project is starting on the block next to the arena.
Smoke and mirrors.
Also, I'm not trying to be argumentative
It is just not:
by the way Louisville is getting royally screwed right now from the financing for that arena.
I would hate for public opinion about an arena proposal for Sacramento to be affected by a questionable news article from Louisville.
I was on the fence about the arena project. I was wrong. The impact on the City has been visible and impressive.
Well don't worry, Lousville took a completely different road, a TIF
completely different and yes they are getting screwed because they are looking at already shouldering somewhere around $54 million they weren’t planning on shouldering because there is no sales tax jump in that 6 block radius.
by wallywagon11 on Jan 25, 2012 8:14 AM PST up reply actions
The arena opened in October 2010
Tax revenues for 2011 aren’t available yet, but my bet is that it is much improved.
Part of the subtext in the article is because Louisville generates much more income for the State than it receives back from the State. Getting funds approved for Louisville from the state legislature is always a problem because of resentment for the “big city.” The State owns and operates the arena. The City’s comments are jockeying for a position so if there is any surplus debt the State picks it up. Seriously, it is just politics.
BTW, the City owns and operates the parking garages and could make up any shortfall by increasing event parking a few bucks.
Yes. There was a follow-up that I read somewhere
that the Chinese investors that he was originally talking to might get over the labor issues, but wouldn’t be interested right now because they were involved in the Dodgers purchase.
Miller is a piece of work, but I admire his confidence.
2-14 Record this year
Flip Flop (sorry, had to be said. Had to be)
by betweentheeyes on Jan 24, 2012 10:12 AM PST reply actions
Semi off-topic question relating to Maloof's ownership
Since the ownership issue would influence the hiring of a new coach: Does anyone know how much actual equity the Maloofs have in the Kings?
One back-of-the-envelope approach, coming from an extreme non-expert, would be:
1. Estimate value of the Kings franchise
2. Subtract all outstanding loans:
— the $70 million owed to City of Sacramento
— do I recall hearing about a large NBA loan to the Kings?
— any others?
3. Divide the result by Percentage of the franchise owned by the Maloof family
4. Equals an estimate of their equity in the franchise
If it’s less than $70 million (Sacramento’s stake, in a sense) or the NBA loan, then it may well be that the Maloofs are owners in name only. Could that be why the NBA has been negotiating the arena/city discussions on the Maloof’s behalf? Maybe the NBA “owns” the Kings, but they don’t want to go on record since they already own another franchise (Hornets)?
Crazy thoughts, but I am curious.
do I recall hearing about a large NBA loan to the Kings?
Can actually find the documents at the city’s webpage when the Kings refinanced the $70 million with the city but pretty darn sure that the NBA is a preferred creditor on $70 or $75 million before the city (and could be more because since then the NBA extended their line of credit to NBA teams up to somewhere around $125 million – sorry this stuff gets fuzzy after awhile-but that would be behind the money owed on the loan.)
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
derp
behind the money owed on the loan with the city).
by wallywagon11 on Jan 24, 2012 10:30 AM PST up reply actions
Depending on how bad the Maloofs really are, it could be like the Palms
1) They get in debt
2) People/ companies buy their debt
3) Maloofs give up most of their ownership for pay off the debt.
This would be ideal if this happend to the Kings too, but I’m thinking that losing the Palms may have bought them some time to try to hold on to the Kings.
by SharkKings49 on Jan 24, 2012 10:45 AM PST up reply actions
Answer to Kings estimated value
This Forbes article from early 2011 estimates the Kings value at $293. I’m guessing it would be less than that now.
(mistakenly posted this at the bottom first time).
Did the CBA make small market teams more valuable with rev. sharing?
I almost want the answer to be “no” if it can put enough pressure on the Maloofs to sell to someone who can afford a team. I guess I would be ok with a “yes” if it provides the selling opportunity the Maloofs are waiting for.
by SharkKings49 on Jan 24, 2012 11:21 AM PST up reply actions
Maloof actual equity may be less than the City's or NBA?
This article says the Maloof own only 53% of the Kings, with minority owners having a 47% stake.
So, let’s say the franchise value is $293 million.
The city loan is $70 million.
The NBA loan may be $75 million, as high as $125 million, but let’s stick with the $75 mentioned above.
That brings the total owner’s unencumbered equity down to 293-145= $148 million (back-of-the-envelope estimate).
The Maloof’s 53% share of that would be about $78 million. So, if the NBA loan is more than $75 million, they would have more money tied up in the Kings than the Maloofs do.
There are a lot of assumptions here (size of the NBA loan, Maloofs inability to pay back either loan), but it may explain why the NBA seems to be saying “we’re making the important decisions now.”
That isn't how loans work
The bank has more equity in my house than I do, but as long as I pay every month they dont get to choose my furniture and paint colors
thats the wifes job of course
by lchristmas on Jan 24, 2012 2:35 PM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
But with many home loans today
If the bank knows the home ‘owner’ can’t possibly ever pay off the loan, and they aren’t ready to foreclose and take a loss, they may well wait before they close in on you. If you decided to have the home put on wheels and moved to Anaheim, I bet the bank wouldn’t let you do that. Choose the colors, they can live with that….. (and the Maloofs aren’t paying down their loans, I suspect).
Oh I know that
The NBA gets to approve/reject team moves regardless of whether they have loans out… Thought you were referring to personnel decisions and such. Though if they fired petrie thats ok with me
by lchristmas on Jan 24, 2012 4:26 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Depends on who they would replace him with
Never Turn Back - Crush 40
Being a Fan: 10% luck, 20% skill, 15% concentrated power of will, 5% pleasure, 50% pain, and 100% reason to remember the name!
by raiderking21 on Jan 24, 2012 6:52 PM PST up reply actions
Heh, 293 dollars you mean?
I’d believe it.
I kid. I kid.
Claremont Mckenna College
Forbes #3 in the West, #12 in the Nation
"Crescit cum comercio civicas"
Throw it around the back so it look fly when I pass//
Just to avoid the block go high off the glass//
I'm killing them out there they gon' have to bring caskets//
This all I hear after the baskets *swoosh*//
by HarveySpecter on Jan 24, 2012 3:09 PM PST via Android app up reply actions
whoever is coach
Wont win many games with this roster as is. Sorry but that’s the truth. Adelman had weapons of mass destruction. This team is just a mass destruction. I know ppl already don’t want to come to Sacto but they would if a Good coach (Sloan) was here and with solid players.
by kuhreem on Jan 24, 2012 10:48 AM PST via mobile reply actions
sadly
Both teams GMs should be fired instead of the coaches. They can only coach the product that they have available to them. Both teams are horribly constructed, I think they have a better team than us talent wise but you can’t have a bunch of low bb iq guys on the same team playing for themselves. We have 2 many shooting guards on our team, they have guys with huge egos. This is all part of the rebuilding process, PW did deserve the boot though because he had no structure for this team to follow, not sure about Flip. Either way both teams have a long way 2 go.
by Chent on Jan 24, 2012 10:55 AM PST via mobile reply actions
ESPN Chat
David Thorpe had his chat this AM, and some interesting comments abt the Kings. I think he nails it when he says the franchise is “poisonous” right now with bad management, cheap owners, no accountability, no faith from fans, etc:
Tom A (Sacramento)
Why no love shown to Isaiah Thomas of the Kings? For a 2nd rounder (last pick in the draft) he seems to be contributing when he gets time, competes hard, and is pretty athletic.
David Thorpe (12:16 PM)
I think he’s been a pleasant surprise in yet another poisonous season in Sacto. May beat out Jimmer for minutes soon.
Dan (CA)
What can the Kings do to get better? They’ve been stuck in the same place since firing Adelman. Just a bunch of young guys with no veteran leadership.
David Thorpe (12:17 PM)
The problems there run deep. It may take awhile to shake off the Westphal impact. He and Rambis have to be in the running for worst coaching job of the last 20 years
lol
He and Rambis have to be in the running for worst coaching job of the last 20 years
Smart Era, y'all.
by bench_blob on Jan 24, 2012 11:03 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
He and Rambis have to be in the running for worst coaching job of the last 20 years
Also in the running: Kenny Natt, Eric Mussleman, Reggie Theus
by SharkKings49 on Jan 24, 2012 11:04 AM PST up reply actions 5 recs
Thorpe
I like Thorpe. I really do. But he seems to have taken things very personally with how things went down with Kevin Martin. Since then, he’s come across extraordinarily negative against the Kings. It may very well be justified, but it really seems to impact his assessment of the team these days.
Never forget, I'm a complete idiot.
Follow me on Twitter
Author of Inside-Out Game
Kevin Martin works with Thorpe
Thorpe didn’t seem to appreciate the way the Kings handled the Kevin/Tyreke dynamic, and the way they traded Martin. He’s never said anything publicly that I can recall, so we don’t know what it was that upset him. But since that time, he seems very negative about the organization.
As I said, could be totally justified, but we don’t know.
Never forget, I'm a complete idiot.
Follow me on Twitter
Author of Inside-Out Game
Got it
Nothing would make me happier than the Kings proving him wrong…but so far it seems like he’s got a point.
by gregory l on Jan 24, 2012 1:24 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
All things considered, with Thorpe's assessment of Westphal's coaching job...
he should be glad Kevin Martin got out of Sacramento.
Asked if the Kings had any intention of trading Cousins, basketball president Geoff Petrie said, "No."
by Slam_Dunk on Jan 24, 2012 2:03 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
IT is already beating out jimmer for minutes
And unlike jimmer, he seems to get them whether hes playing well or not
by lchristmas on Jan 24, 2012 2:33 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Flip seems to a better fit with veteran teams based on his work with the Pistons and Wolves. He sure as hell lost the Wizards team and really had done little to build much cohesion around John Wall but also think that lockerroom is a mess, by all reports – with a lot of bad character types.
by VirginiaKingsFan on Jan 24, 2012 11:01 AM PST reply actions
Uhm...
…doesn’t say much if you can’t coach young guys. Maybe he should apply for a job in an over-30 league.
by henryclemente on Jan 24, 2012 3:59 PM PST up reply actions
Coaches and Politics
I believe a bad coach can make a team perform below its potential. However, its not so clear to me that a good coach can make a team all that much better, unless he’s replacing a decidedly bad one. Its still, at the end of the day, about the sum of the parts performing on the floor (i.e. the players). As an analogy, lets talk politics. Historically, presidents get reelected when the economy is on the upswing in an election year, and get replaced when the economy’s in a downturn. But, the truth is, a president doesn’t have all that much to do with underlying function of the economy – which has much more to do with market forces. But people want a scapegoat.
Thought about this too..
its not so clear to me that a good coach can make a team all that much better, unless he’s replacing a decidedly bad one.
There’s an interesting post over at Cannibus Hoopus analyzing the difference between Kurt Rambis and Rick Adelman. I read it a few weeks ago and saw the obvious parallels between their situation and ours…
The conclusion is that a good coach can, regardless of personnel, force the opponent to take more shots from 3 to 23 feet, in other words, take away shots at the rim and the 3 point line, since eFG% is appreciably higher across the league, season after season at the hoop and from distance.
In turn, a good coach creates more of his team own shots at rim and from ‘3’, in other words, implements an offensive scheme to generate more layups, fast breaks, and open 3s.
This is one way to evaluate Coach Smart versus former coach. How many easy baskets are the King getting now versus then, and more importantly, what is Coach Smart doing to force the opponent into relatively low eFG%? Early returns are underwhelming but partially encouraging, with zone defense versus Pacers in 4th quarter, effective double team versus Dwight Howard, as highlights.
What A Difference a Coach Makes
By the way I do think there is some problems with this analysis, primarily that an open 15 footer is preferable to a contested three pointer. Ultimately the goal of an effective offensive scheme is to generate open shots, not shoot from a particular spot on the floor, just as the goal of an effective defensive scheme is to disallow open shots, not simply to force the opponent to shoot from midrange. Still I think this analysis has merit.
Smart Era, y'all.
What About the "Tune-Out" Phenomena
Okay, fair enough. But what do you do with the whole “tune out” concept. In other words, what if a coach initially helps to create the shot opportunities you’re talking about (and the equivalent defensive adjustments), but then in year 2 of his contract those percentages go down again. What do we attribute that to? And what do we do with coaches that were successful in one place (like Westphal in Phoenix, for instance), who fail to create the same turnaround somewhere else?
I sometimes wonder if we, and the media, just grasp at straws when trying to split hairs between coaches who are good enough to coach at the elite level.
by Darren King on Jan 24, 2012 12:06 PM PST up reply actions
Westphal and Phoenix
Westphal did not turnaround Phoenix. He took a 53 win team, and added Charles Barkley to make them a 62 win team.
Seattle had been a 61-win team with George Karl. In a lockout shortened season Westphal went 25-25, .500. The following season Seattle won 45 games, a .549 winning %.
He never had a history of turning around teams. There were the concerns that only a few voiced, and many (like myself) ignored.
Never forget, I'm a complete idiot.
Follow me on Twitter
Author of Inside-Out Game
by Exhibit G on Jan 24, 2012 12:20 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Westphal Aside...
Fair point. Perhaps Westphal is not a good example. However, I’m sure those examples do exist. Just because one team situation is turned around is no guarantee that another one will be – with the same coach. Which goes to my point that we place more emphasis on the coaching that is really warranted. Yes, coaching matters. But at this level we’re talking about splitting hairs amongst elites.
We ignored the Westphal concerns...
… because we were all just relieved the Maloofs didn’t hire their cleaning lady as the next coach.
by henryclemente on Jan 24, 2012 4:02 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Not familiar with the Tune Out "Phenomena"
But when players tune out a coach it seems to me it is rooted in a lack of respect, based upon inconsistent discipline of players, sporadic leadership illogical substitutions and ineffective play calling. In other words, everything the former Kings coach was guilty of over 2+ years.
Not saying a coach needs to be perfect, but obviously evaluations are a two-way street, and over time a consensus positive or negative impression is formed, relationships grow or deteriorate, independent of results achieved on the court.
Bottom Line: There’s no risk of players “tuning out” their coach if the coach acts in ways to worthy of respect. If a coach maintains a great work ethic, open dialog, a generally optimistic attitude, inspired leadership, etc. players will want to “tune-in”.
Smart Era, y'all.
Respect, Yes.... But What About Familiarity?
I agree with you that respect plays a large role. However, are there times when players tune out coaches merely because of familiarity? My guess is that does happen sometimes. And that’s why we see good coaches being let go. As we all know, even for excellent coaches, its not a matter of if they’ll be replaced, but when.
Admittedly, someone like Sloan is an exception to this role, as he excused himself eventually. But still… the point is generally true, almost without exception.
Coach Smart has more to worry about then his players being too familiar with him
Its been less than a month. But I actually put the onus on the coach, in part, to recognize when his message becomes redundant. And to convey message in ways to prevent its occurrence.
I work as a teacher part-time when not running my own businesses, so I am sensitive to when the student is stagnating or not receptive to information. Instead of beating the same old drum, its in incumbent upon the coach (teacher) to pursue alternate approaches that resonate with the student, given learning style and their present state of development. Coach Smart strikes me as an above average communicator, not with his words, but with his emotions. Emotion matters more than words, and so I think there is good chance for success.
Smart Era, y'all.
Answer to #1
This Forbes article from early 2011 estimates the Kings value at $293. I’m guessing it would be less than that now.
ESPN's 2011-12 All-Disappointment Team
John Salmons, Sacramento
And saving the worst for last, we go to Salmons, who has the worst PER of any player with at least 400 minutes played. This is doubly impressive because he had an off year the previous season in Milwaukee and figured to bounce back some; instead, his PER has dropped by nearly five more points, which again gives him one of the league’s worst declines. Somehow, he’s started every game, even though he hasn’t made more than half his shots in any of them; he’s at 34.5 percent for the season and has made 11-of-51 from 3. While we’re here, I’ll again mention that the Kings traded down in the draft in order to acquire Salmons and the three years and $25 million remaining on his contract, and they also sent out a pretty decent player (Beno Udrih) who happens to play the one position where the Kings have no players at the moment.
by elSAVinator on Jan 24, 2012 11:09 AM PST reply actions 3 recs
Sweet
And saving the worst for last, we go to Salmons
This made me laugh, got to enjoy the little things during another bad year.
by SharkKings49 on Jan 24, 2012 11:15 AM PST up reply actions
wow that's brutal
but pretty accurate
"when young kids go to shootaround at the park, they shoot followay shots and buzzer beaters and pretend to be Kobe and Lebron…but what they don’t realize is that when they shoot more than 50 shots they are actually pretending to be John Salmons."
by TheFifthMookie on Jan 24, 2012 11:16 AM PST up reply actions
Completely accurate in every way
Petrie’s big draft trade brought us a bloated contract, he dumped a player who had been producing at a decent clip, and we traded down to take the least NBA-ready PG between Jimmer, Brandon Knight and Kemba.
Again, if a bunch of knuckleheads at Sactown Royalty could see this was a terrible trade, how can we trust this GM?
But do you remember when petrie brought in jimmy jackson?
One of the top GMs in the game
by lchristmas on Jan 24, 2012 2:30 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Flip‘s record with wiz : 51W - 130L
Worse than Westfail‘s
by Jimmered. on Jan 24, 2012 11:18 AM PST via mobile reply actions
Another view of coaching and losing
Who is the best worst team at this point in the season?
The sub .400 teams:
Washington
New Orleans
Charlotte
Detroit
Toronto
New Jersey
Golden State
Milwaukee
Sacramento
9 teams with dismal records. It is another perspective as we Kings fans recite the usual and customary “woe is me” chant..
by betweentheeyes on Jan 25, 2012 12:23 AM PST reply actions
ooops
Forgot
Cleveland
Phoenix
so – 11 teams, or more than 1/3 the League to consider.
by betweentheeyes on Jan 25, 2012 12:24 AM PST up reply actions
NJ doesn't have Brook Lopez.
It’s painful watching Deron Williams try to orchestrate an offense where Marshon Brooks is his best option.
"We're not talking about me and Darko in the same sentence." - Chris Webber vs KAHN!
by caseycheesecake on Jan 25, 2012 10:02 AM PST up reply actions
Unless the Kings can get Sloan,
they should stick with Smart. The team seems to be developing under his coaching. If it continues, he might even be a better option than Sloan. Of course, he could be another Westphal, showing promise before turning out to be a horrible coach (not likely imo but more likely than him being better than Sloan).
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
NBA Playoffs Content Module
Related FanPosts on Sactown Royalty
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Ball Don't Lie - NBA - Yahoo! Sport
- Kendrick Perkins does not think much of Andrew Bynum’s relative intelligence
- Behind the Box Score, where the Boston Celtics are moving on to the conference finals
- NBA Playoffs Fan Fiction: San Antonio Spurs vs. Oklahoma City Thunder
- The Indiana Pacers? Gone till November
- Shaquille O’Neal is in a Chinese beer commercial, too (VIDEO)
