Official PDA live radio thread
- Thread starter PurpleHaze
- Start date
And you are misunderstanding my point: there are rather more teams that are winning championships that are Top 10 in 'X' than there are that are Top 10 in 'Y'.
And, add to that, one more I just did the legwork on: Number of NBA Champions in the last fifteen years to finish outside of the Top 10 in PPG allowed per 100 possessions: 1 (2001 lakers)
FWIW, the number of teams that got out of the first round is not a number that I would categorize as significantly higher.
And, add to that, one more I just did the legwork on: Number of NBA Champions in the last fifteen years to finish outside of the Top 10 in PPG allowed per 100 possessions: 1 (2001 lakers)
FWIW, the number of teams that got out of the first round is not a number that I would categorize as significantly higher.
Last edited:
Once again, PDA is just a walking contradiction of a man.
When asked why the team is struggling now, he says something like "Cousins still isn't 100%." (paraphrase)
However, when asked why they fired Malone, he says "We were 2-18 w/o Cuz." (paraphrase)
Sooo, team is bad now = be patient. Wait until Cuz is healthy.
Team bad under Malone = fire the dude.
I really don't think he is fully self-aware.
When asked why the team is struggling now, he says something like "Cousins still isn't 100%." (paraphrase)
However, when asked why they fired Malone, he says "We were 2-18 w/o Cuz." (paraphrase)
Sooo, team is bad now = be patient. Wait until Cuz is healthy.
Team bad under Malone = fire the dude.
I really don't think he is fully self-aware.
I missed this part earlier and still haven't (won't?) listen to the interview. Did he really respond that way to #7??
If so, I'm PISSED OFF. My ticket partner and I were SO excited to get season tickets after the team was saved. Her parents had season tickets back in the day and we couldn't wait to jump in. We're not rich people...certainly not corporate STH's. We also live in Chico, so we need to sell about half of our tickets in a season. This has been really difficult lately...sometimes we can't even give the tickets away (and they're great seats). We bought these tickets because we were buying STABILITY. It was an investment, especially with a new arena coming. We were sold by a pretty great sales pitch: priority for the new arena and the promise that these tickets would sell like crazy once the team turned around (which seemed to be happening). I know there are no guarantees of success, but the purposeful and irrational sabotage by our own front office hurts...it hurts BAD. It's personal. I feel like I helped keep this team here. When the HereWeStay campaign was rolling, I pledged that I would buy season tickets when the time came...and I did it. I came through on my end of the deal. Perhaps I don't have the stomach to be a season ticket holder. It has been great much of the time, but it has also added a lot of stress I don't need. I'm sure some would call me crazy for doing this from Chico, but I really care about the team and about the entire region. I know that life is richer in all of NorCal with the Kings around...not just the city of Sacramento. I desperately want to keep my season tickets, but it's getting harder and harder to make sense of it. And when decisions like this are made without reason, it's crushing.
So Pete, YES...it's possible that renewals don't happen because YOU fired a coach. This is OUR team.
If so, I'm PISSED OFF. My ticket partner and I were SO excited to get season tickets after the team was saved. Her parents had season tickets back in the day and we couldn't wait to jump in. We're not rich people...certainly not corporate STH's. We also live in Chico, so we need to sell about half of our tickets in a season. This has been really difficult lately...sometimes we can't even give the tickets away (and they're great seats). We bought these tickets because we were buying STABILITY. It was an investment, especially with a new arena coming. We were sold by a pretty great sales pitch: priority for the new arena and the promise that these tickets would sell like crazy once the team turned around (which seemed to be happening). I know there are no guarantees of success, but the purposeful and irrational sabotage by our own front office hurts...it hurts BAD. It's personal. I feel like I helped keep this team here. When the HereWeStay campaign was rolling, I pledged that I would buy season tickets when the time came...and I did it. I came through on my end of the deal. Perhaps I don't have the stomach to be a season ticket holder. It has been great much of the time, but it has also added a lot of stress I don't need. I'm sure some would call me crazy for doing this from Chico, but I really care about the team and about the entire region. I know that life is richer in all of NorCal with the Kings around...not just the city of Sacramento. I desperately want to keep my season tickets, but it's getting harder and harder to make sense of it. And when decisions like this are made without reason, it's crushing.
So Pete, YES...it's possible that renewals don't happen because YOU fired a coach. This is OUR team.
And therein lies the problem. Even after today's presser, we're still left with a big, fat "IF."
The only real hints at any sort of "plan," were:
a) RUN
b) Ty Corbin
c) New Arena
d) Be patient
e) "I know what I'm doing."
However, the saddening thing is that (and he prob wasn't even aware he said it) he even admitted at one point in referencing Corbin that he "doesn't know" what lies beyond this year.
If he's been GM now for 18 months or so and we still can't tell wth he's doing, that's a problem. It's no longer a "wait and see, be patient" approach OR a "well, he's inherited a Maloof mess," no, this is HIS mess now and he needs to be held accountable.
The only real hints at any sort of "plan," were:
a) RUN
b) Ty Corbin
c) New Arena
d) Be patient
e) "I know what I'm doing."
However, the saddening thing is that (and he prob wasn't even aware he said it) he even admitted at one point in referencing Corbin that he "doesn't know" what lies beyond this year.
If he's been GM now for 18 months or so and we still can't tell wth he's doing, that's a problem. It's no longer a "wait and see, be patient" approach OR a "well, he's inherited a Maloof mess," no, this is HIS mess now and he needs to be held accountable.
The Kings are a poor 3 point shooting team and that's a weakness that needs to be addressed. Simply taking more threes isn't going to help if the team shoots a terrible percentage though.
And that's part of why I asked my question after the broadcast. This team seems absolutely assembled for the style Malone was playing - half court, grind it out, play defense and rebound and attack the basket. Not counting Boogie's 1 for 2 performance from behind the line this season there are no Kings shooting over 40% from three and only three guys (McLemore, Collison and Gay) shooting over 32% from three. As a team the Kings are 22nd in 3pt% and 29th in both attempts and makes from distance.
The only two players left on the roster D'Alessandro inherited are Cousins and Thompson. Every other player has been somebody PDA brought in via draft, trade or free agency. He brought in a starting PG with a career 36.7% shooter (38.1% this year) who more importantly had never averaged more than 2.4 3pt attempts per game until this season (3.1) For reference Steph Curry takes 7.7 3pt shots per game. The numbers say Collison is a decent 3pt shooter and yet he takes a fairly low number of them. The eye test says that's because he doesn't get much elevation on his shot, doesn't have a quick release and thus can only take 3's when he has a lot of space. He's not a natural long distance shooter and is much better from midrange, especially off the dribble vs off the catch. PDA brought in a backup PG that has shot 31% for his career. Rudy Gay 34% career shooter. Derrick Williams is just under 30% from three. McLemore is a welcome surprise this year because honestly, if he's not hitting from outside this team has ZERO reliable outside shooters to consistently stretch the floor.
D'Alessandro hasn't brought in a single stretch four to play off the bench. In fact, he traded one away in Patrick Patterson who is shooting 46% from three off the bench in Toronto.
http://vorped.com/1-nba/2014-2015/player/1230/patrick-patterson/shotchart/
Again, couldn't he have forced Toronto to take Jimmer's expiring instead? Because then at least I'd say the GM values outside shooting. I just don't get it.
How can someone look at this roster - one they assembled no less - and think it should be playing at a much faster pace with less half court offense and shoot more threes? Cousins, Thompson, Landry, Evans, Gay - none of those guys are transition guys. And quite honestly neither is McLemore. He can finish, but he doesn't have the ball handling, passing or decision making (not yet at least) to have the ball in his hands on the break very often.
Hearing Pete talk today I got a much better idea of exactly what type of team he'd like the Kings to be. But that's not the team he built.
I also think D'Alessandro really wants to build a good team. But I'm just not sure he has the ability. But we'll see. Barring 10 day contracts and the like, by the trade deadline we'll know the roster that will finish the year and hopefully that gives us some insight into what PDA actually has planned.
Because my biggest frustration is one that I didn't even realize until yesterday's broadcast. We had a team winning games and competing every night when DeMarcus was healthy. More importantly it looked like we had a GM and a coach working in lockstep. Darren Collison was a huge key to Malone being able to have his team give effort on defense the way he wanted. Omri was a great sparkplug. Even the Landry signing looked much better this season. I was giving PDA a lot of credit for the moves he made BECAUSE of the way the team was playing under Malone. I eased up my criticism of him and started thinking that maybe we DID have a front office and coach that could grow together like RC Buford and Pop or Sam Presti and Scott Brooks.
Sure Malone had his warts as a coach and some things he needed to grow into. But PDA also missed out on Robin Lopez, got nothing for IT, gave up a promising piece in Patterson when Toronto was giving away Gay, has built a bench that can't score etc. He's made plenty of mistakes too. But they all could have grown together and seen where it went.
I could at least envision that path to success. I have no idea what the pathway is now, if indeed there is one.
And that's part of why I asked my question after the broadcast. This team seems absolutely assembled for the style Malone was playing - half court, grind it out, play defense and rebound and attack the basket. Not counting Boogie's 1 for 2 performance from behind the line this season there are no Kings shooting over 40% from three and only three guys (McLemore, Collison and Gay) shooting over 32% from three. As a team the Kings are 22nd in 3pt% and 29th in both attempts and makes from distance.
The only two players left on the roster D'Alessandro inherited are Cousins and Thompson. Every other player has been somebody PDA brought in via draft, trade or free agency. He brought in a starting PG with a career 36.7% shooter (38.1% this year) who more importantly had never averaged more than 2.4 3pt attempts per game until this season (3.1) For reference Steph Curry takes 7.7 3pt shots per game. The numbers say Collison is a decent 3pt shooter and yet he takes a fairly low number of them. The eye test says that's because he doesn't get much elevation on his shot, doesn't have a quick release and thus can only take 3's when he has a lot of space. He's not a natural long distance shooter and is much better from midrange, especially off the dribble vs off the catch. PDA brought in a backup PG that has shot 31% for his career. Rudy Gay 34% career shooter. Derrick Williams is just under 30% from three. McLemore is a welcome surprise this year because honestly, if he's not hitting from outside this team has ZERO reliable outside shooters to consistently stretch the floor.
D'Alessandro hasn't brought in a single stretch four to play off the bench. In fact, he traded one away in Patrick Patterson who is shooting 46% from three off the bench in Toronto.
http://vorped.com/1-nba/2014-2015/player/1230/patrick-patterson/shotchart/
Again, couldn't he have forced Toronto to take Jimmer's expiring instead? Because then at least I'd say the GM values outside shooting. I just don't get it.
How can someone look at this roster - one they assembled no less - and think it should be playing at a much faster pace with less half court offense and shoot more threes? Cousins, Thompson, Landry, Evans, Gay - none of those guys are transition guys. And quite honestly neither is McLemore. He can finish, but he doesn't have the ball handling, passing or decision making (not yet at least) to have the ball in his hands on the break very often.
Hearing Pete talk today I got a much better idea of exactly what type of team he'd like the Kings to be. But that's not the team he built.
I also think D'Alessandro really wants to build a good team. But I'm just not sure he has the ability. But we'll see. Barring 10 day contracts and the like, by the trade deadline we'll know the roster that will finish the year and hopefully that gives us some insight into what PDA actually has planned.
Because my biggest frustration is one that I didn't even realize until yesterday's broadcast. We had a team winning games and competing every night when DeMarcus was healthy. More importantly it looked like we had a GM and a coach working in lockstep. Darren Collison was a huge key to Malone being able to have his team give effort on defense the way he wanted. Omri was a great sparkplug. Even the Landry signing looked much better this season. I was giving PDA a lot of credit for the moves he made BECAUSE of the way the team was playing under Malone. I eased up my criticism of him and started thinking that maybe we DID have a front office and coach that could grow together like RC Buford and Pop or Sam Presti and Scott Brooks.
Sure Malone had his warts as a coach and some things he needed to grow into. But PDA also missed out on Robin Lopez, got nothing for IT, gave up a promising piece in Patterson when Toronto was giving away Gay, has built a bench that can't score etc. He's made plenty of mistakes too. But they all could have grown together and seen where it went.
I could at least envision that path to success. I have no idea what the pathway is now, if indeed there is one.
Last edited:
Yes, and it really caught me off guard. He then went on to talk about being patient, that the Kings management would deliver a winner etc etc. But his initial reaction was that he thought anyone being that upset was a total overreaction on their part. At least that's how I took it.
And to be clear, he (1) said this after the broadcast and (2) was making it as a kind of "true fans need to stick it out" type statement. It seems clear that he truly believes he's going to deliver a winning team in Sacramento. Obviously I hope he's right.
And to be clear, he (1) said this after the broadcast and (2) was making it as a kind of "true fans need to stick it out" type statement. It seems clear that he truly believes he's going to deliver a winning team in Sacramento. Obviously I hope he's right.
Last edited:
Please go back and read through what I have been saying again. You have entirely missed the point I was trying to make. I never once said three pointers were MORE important than defense. In fact I said the opposite. And the dispute here is not about defense anyway.
The whole thing started when I said (implied, really) that three-pointers are good.
You challenged this by making an argument based on NBA champions and #1 teams in three-point rate. This is a small sample size of statistical outliers, and really shouldn't be used to draw serious conclusions.
I responded by making a nice plot to show you that there is in fact a correlation (and a pretty good one) between how good of an offensive team you are and how many three pointers you take. This is a better way to measure the value of the three point shot than your argument.
You dismissed this and reiterated your "championship" argument.
So I tried to point out - using your own argument against an aspect of basketball that you like (defense) - that your argument against an aspect of basketball that you don't like (three pointers) was not a good argument. This was obviously a mistake on my part because 1) the magnitude of how bad the argument is when used against defense is not as large as the magnitude of how bad the argument is against three pointers (precisely BECAUSE defense is more important, by the way), and 2) it led you to think I was arguing against defense when I was doing no such thing. The strategy I used to try to point out why your argument wasn't good, well, that strategy wasn't good. My fault.
At any rate, defense and three pointers are of course not mutually exclusive. We can have both defense AND improve our offense. (In fact, we'd better do both if we want to win.)
The whole thing started when I said (implied, really) that three-pointers are good.
You challenged this by making an argument based on NBA champions and #1 teams in three-point rate. This is a small sample size of statistical outliers, and really shouldn't be used to draw serious conclusions.
I responded by making a nice plot to show you that there is in fact a correlation (and a pretty good one) between how good of an offensive team you are and how many three pointers you take. This is a better way to measure the value of the three point shot than your argument.
You dismissed this and reiterated your "championship" argument.
So I tried to point out - using your own argument against an aspect of basketball that you like (defense) - that your argument against an aspect of basketball that you don't like (three pointers) was not a good argument. This was obviously a mistake on my part because 1) the magnitude of how bad the argument is when used against defense is not as large as the magnitude of how bad the argument is against three pointers (precisely BECAUSE defense is more important, by the way), and 2) it led you to think I was arguing against defense when I was doing no such thing. The strategy I used to try to point out why your argument wasn't good, well, that strategy wasn't good. My fault.
At any rate, defense and three pointers are of course not mutually exclusive. We can have both defense AND improve our offense. (In fact, we'd better do both if we want to win.)
So basically PDA wants to follow the trend of the league right now - early offense, ball movement, decent outside shooting, defense.
What's wrong with that? To me this sounds like the right vision moving forward.
I'm not a stats guy, but the way I watch the contenders play right now, is focused around these points PDA made.
I'm not frustrated by the vision but by the poor execution. the coaching change did nothing to improve our weaknesses and messed up our defensive effort.
We are still a selfish, turnover prone team and rely on Cousins post presence too much, not even trying to giveBen or Nik more shots.
As already mentioned the roster moves PPDA made, didn't fit this vision at all.
What's wrong with that? To me this sounds like the right vision moving forward.
I'm not a stats guy, but the way I watch the contenders play right now, is focused around these points PDA made.
I'm not frustrated by the vision but by the poor execution. the coaching change did nothing to improve our weaknesses and messed up our defensive effort.
We are still a selfish, turnover prone team and rely on Cousins post presence too much, not even trying to giveBen or Nik more shots.
As already mentioned the roster moves PPDA made, didn't fit this vision at all.
because "trends" come and go, they're entirely dependent on the talent available to a given roster, and they're predictable to defend. under mike malone, the kings were playing a hard-nosed style of basketball that rival coaches, executives, and players described as "tough." before demarcus cousins contracted viral meningitis, the kings' starting five was one of the strongest defensive units in the entire nba. for the first time in almost a decade, the kings were tough to beat because they beat up they're opponents with defense and with a relentless low-post oriented offense. they don't shoot lights out from beyond the arc. they don't whip crisp passes around the court. but they were tough, and tough is a proven way to get yourself wins in the nba...
the memphis grizzlies shoot approximately 16 threes per game, and they hit approximately 36% of them. the kings shoot approximately 15 threes per game, and they hit approximately 34% of them. more to the point, the memphis grizzlies offensive pace factor is 94, good for 27th in the nba. they're a slow, grind it out team that doesn't lean very heavily on outside shooting, yet they're 25-9 (.735) and currently 3rd seeded in the mighty western conference (oh yeah, and with years of playoff success in tow despite using a slow, grind it out style)...
now, this isn't to invalidate the trendy nature of offensive philosophy spreading across the nba. this is simply to say that there's more than one way to skin a cat; you can win in the nba without running all over the court. you can win in the nba without tossing threes at the rim all game long. you can win in the nba without an abundance of assists. perhaps most importantly, you must win in the nba with the roster you have, rather than the roster you wish you had...
here's a simple question: does the make-up of the kings' roster (the very same roster that pete d'allesandro has assembled in its entirety outside of demarcus cousins and jason thompson) more closely resemble the golden state warriors or the memphis grizzlies? mike malone knew the answer to that question. hell, mike malone understood the nature of the roster that PDA assembled better than PDA himself understands the nature of the roster he assembled. malone knew how to inspire legitimate, sustainable culture change in his team through strong defensive principles and a punishing low-post oriented attack. he got his team to play with "grit and grind." he got his team to win, and to believe that they were winners (they were downing western conference heavyweights left and right before viral meningitis took the kings' legs out from under them)...
what has pete d'allesandro managed to inspire in this kings team since he fired mike malone? confusion? apathy? anger? all of the above? what has pete d'allesandro managed to inspire in kings fans since he fired mike malone? confusion? apathy? anger? open revolt? all of the above?
the memphis grizzlies shoot approximately 16 threes per game, and they hit approximately 36% of them. the kings shoot approximately 15 threes per game, and they hit approximately 34% of them. more to the point, the memphis grizzlies offensive pace factor is 94, good for 27th in the nba. they're a slow, grind it out team that doesn't lean very heavily on outside shooting, yet they're 25-9 (.735) and currently 3rd seeded in the mighty western conference (oh yeah, and with years of playoff success in tow despite using a slow, grind it out style)...
now, this isn't to invalidate the trendy nature of offensive philosophy spreading across the nba. this is simply to say that there's more than one way to skin a cat; you can win in the nba without running all over the court. you can win in the nba without tossing threes at the rim all game long. you can win in the nba without an abundance of assists. perhaps most importantly, you must win in the nba with the roster you have, rather than the roster you wish you had...
here's a simple question: does the make-up of the kings' roster (the very same roster that pete d'allesandro has assembled in its entirety outside of demarcus cousins and jason thompson) more closely resemble the golden state warriors or the memphis grizzlies? mike malone knew the answer to that question. hell, mike malone understood the nature of the roster that PDA assembled better than PDA himself understands the nature of the roster he assembled. malone knew how to inspire legitimate, sustainable culture change in his team through strong defensive principles and a punishing low-post oriented attack. he got his team to play with "grit and grind." he got his team to win, and to believe that they were winners (they were downing western conference heavyweights left and right before viral meningitis took the kings' legs out from under them)...
what has pete d'allesandro managed to inspire in this kings team since he fired mike malone? confusion? apathy? anger? all of the above? what has pete d'allesandro managed to inspire in kings fans since he fired mike malone? confusion? apathy? anger? open revolt? all of the above?
Last edited:
+100.
I was saying this a month ago in the fire Malone thread. PDA is inept and arrogant.
I brought up a quote of his from around the time of our 5-1 start, the gist of it was that PDA felt our roster s was complete.
Scary thing is, these recent quotes of his make it seem like he STILL thinks his roster is complete.
We have one pissed off star, one heavily flawed star, two decent guards that would probably be benchers on contending teams.... And that is it.
Hubris, thy name is Gerbil.
I was saying this a month ago in the fire Malone thread. PDA is inept and arrogant.
I brought up a quote of his from around the time of our 5-1 start, the gist of it was that PDA felt our roster s was complete.
Scary thing is, these recent quotes of his make it seem like he STILL thinks his roster is complete.
We have one pissed off star, one heavily flawed star, two decent guards that would probably be benchers on contending teams.... And that is it.
Hubris, thy name is Gerbil.
Well i dont think I can convince you or any of the posters here, that are calling for the head of PDA. I don't like the way the way we are playing lately and i don't disagree with your opinion on our playstyle under Malone.
But the basketball the Kings played under Malone is not even close to the basketball the Grizzlies play under Joerger or at least it isn't as far as i can judge it. I don't buy this comparison and i don't think PDA wants us to play like the Warriors.
I get that you are posting stats, but those stats just don't fit with the basketball I watch every Grizzlie game.
The Grizzlies move the ball as well as the Wizards or Hawks, they run every time they get a stop, they actually get into their offense early and wait for Gasol to catch up, if there is no quick shot available, they run multiple Pick&rolls on and off the ball and they rely more on Conley than on Randolph when it comes to scoring or running the offense. Their role players get a lot of open shots and everyone has the green light to shoot the ball.
The Kings offense under Malone was a slow, iso-heavy approach relying totally on DMC and to a lesser extent Gay. The Kings didn't move the ball well, they had countless turnovers on simple plays, they were slow to get into the offense, they didn't play the pick&roll game successfully and their role players were getting almost no easy baskets. And keep in mind that the moment DMC was out of the game our whole offense simply collapsed.
I believe you hit the point, that you have to work with the roster you have available. I believe you hit the point with the bond between Malone and the players. And I don't think that PDA did a good job up to now, in particular with Malons successor and the short term improvement of our playstyle.
But trends in the NBA are there for a reason. This doesn't mean that one must follow every trend 100%, but it will be difficult to succeed in the NBA, if you are taking the completely opposing approach. There are reasons, why the Grizzlies added Carter, Udrih and Lee. There are good reasons that most teams are in love with the 3point shot. There are good reasons that most teams don't rely on isolation plays. And there are good reasons that most teams try to get into their offense as early as possible.
And adjusting to the current trends doesn't turn neither the Grizzlies nor the Kings into the Warriors.
But the basketball the Kings played under Malone is not even close to the basketball the Grizzlies play under Joerger or at least it isn't as far as i can judge it. I don't buy this comparison and i don't think PDA wants us to play like the Warriors.
I get that you are posting stats, but those stats just don't fit with the basketball I watch every Grizzlie game.
The Grizzlies move the ball as well as the Wizards or Hawks, they run every time they get a stop, they actually get into their offense early and wait for Gasol to catch up, if there is no quick shot available, they run multiple Pick&rolls on and off the ball and they rely more on Conley than on Randolph when it comes to scoring or running the offense. Their role players get a lot of open shots and everyone has the green light to shoot the ball.
The Kings offense under Malone was a slow, iso-heavy approach relying totally on DMC and to a lesser extent Gay. The Kings didn't move the ball well, they had countless turnovers on simple plays, they were slow to get into the offense, they didn't play the pick&roll game successfully and their role players were getting almost no easy baskets. And keep in mind that the moment DMC was out of the game our whole offense simply collapsed.
I believe you hit the point, that you have to work with the roster you have available. I believe you hit the point with the bond between Malone and the players. And I don't think that PDA did a good job up to now, in particular with Malons successor and the short term improvement of our playstyle.
But trends in the NBA are there for a reason. This doesn't mean that one must follow every trend 100%, but it will be difficult to succeed in the NBA, if you are taking the completely opposing approach. There are reasons, why the Grizzlies added Carter, Udrih and Lee. There are good reasons that most teams are in love with the 3point shot. There are good reasons that most teams don't rely on isolation plays. And there are good reasons that most teams try to get into their offense as early as possible.
And adjusting to the current trends doesn't turn neither the Grizzlies nor the Kings into the Warriors.
There were a number of moments yesterday that I really wanted to be able to followup on things PDA said especially when they seemed completely contradictory, and that was absolutely one of them. Unfortunately the format didn't allow it. But I actually threw out the questions I'd composed to followup when he said that part of Malone's firing was the team's record without Boogie and yet he wanted to be patient with Corbin because DeMarcus was only at "60%". Lots of moments like that, where the contradictions didn't make sense to me.
Malone wasn't doing a phenomenal job as coach (too much isolation and not enough movement, and his end of game plays were maddening) and PDA wasn't doing a phenomenal job as a GM (limited bench, lack of outside shooting, no shotblocking etc) but I felt like they were working hand in hand and building a foundation they could both move forward with. Malone needed the team to cut down on turnovers while increasing ball movement. PDA needed to tweak the roster to have a more effective bench and better shooting and weakside defense. Vivek should have told the two of them to work it out.
If PDA doesn't have the roster he wants now and we cut him the slack to say that he's still working on building it then why wouldn't we cut Malone slack and say that the team isn't playing the way it should but he's still working on it?
The Kings took a giant leap forward on defense this season and that's always been Malone's first priority. Isn't it reasonable to expect that he'd later focus more on improving the offense once the defensive foundation was fully in place?
I was frustrated to hear PDA call for patience in letting every young player develop but a complete lack of patience with his first time coach.
Malone wasn't doing a phenomenal job as coach (too much isolation and not enough movement, and his end of game plays were maddening) and PDA wasn't doing a phenomenal job as a GM (limited bench, lack of outside shooting, no shotblocking etc) but I felt like they were working hand in hand and building a foundation they could both move forward with. Malone needed the team to cut down on turnovers while increasing ball movement. PDA needed to tweak the roster to have a more effective bench and better shooting and weakside defense. Vivek should have told the two of them to work it out.
If PDA doesn't have the roster he wants now and we cut him the slack to say that he's still working on building it then why wouldn't we cut Malone slack and say that the team isn't playing the way it should but he's still working on it?
The Kings took a giant leap forward on defense this season and that's always been Malone's first priority. Isn't it reasonable to expect that he'd later focus more on improving the offense once the defensive foundation was fully in place?
I was frustrated to hear PDA call for patience in letting every young player develop but a complete lack of patience with his first time coach.
Last edited:
Yes you are right. The firing of Malone was premature. I won't argue that.
I just won't agree with the assumptions, that PDA wants to turn us into Golden State Vol. 2 and that there were no reasons at all to fire Malone.
After all the Kings look like a poorly run franchise, but for me this includes the work of Malone to some degree.
I just won't agree with the assumptions, that PDA wants to turn us into Golden State Vol. 2 and that there were no reasons at all to fire Malone.
After all the Kings look like a poorly run franchise, but for me this includes the work of Malone to some degree.