Welcome Vince Carter
- Thread starter lwc
- Start date
It's funny, I lurk at realgm from time to time, and they have a Kings thread over there with basically the same vets vs rebuild argument.
I feel like those against these recent signings are over valuing the impact of the vets in the W/L column and under valuing their impact in the locker room.
I want the kids to get playing time. I also would not mind another high lotto pick, especially in next year's draft. But I think having Vince, Hill, Z-Bo, and Temple around to help Joerger babysit the kids (I joke) will really pay off.
None of those guys will make an impact close to Cuz on the court. Don't worry naysayers, we'll still suck next season. And if we don't suck, it means the kids are balling, and then I could care less about another draft pick.
I feel like those against these recent signings are over valuing the impact of the vets in the W/L column and under valuing their impact in the locker room.
I want the kids to get playing time. I also would not mind another high lotto pick, especially in next year's draft. But I think having Vince, Hill, Z-Bo, and Temple around to help Joerger babysit the kids (I joke) will really pay off.
None of those guys will make an impact close to Cuz on the court. Don't worry naysayers, we'll still suck next season. And if we don't suck, it means the kids are balling, and then I could care less about another draft pick.
Vlade crafted our young core carefully and with surprising skill...I'm very confident he has no plans to let them wither on the vine.
Joerger has an impressive record of accomplishment that cannot reasonably be boiled down to being some Yahoo with a vet infatuation. Both have a breadth and depth of player development knowledge/experience that I'm confident exceeds that of even our most accomplished bedwetters.
I'm excited for the year ahead, grateful for the off-season we've had, and will be sleeping soundly tonight in my very comfortable, dry bed. ;-)
Joerger has an impressive record of accomplishment that cannot reasonably be boiled down to being some Yahoo with a vet infatuation. Both have a breadth and depth of player development knowledge/experience that I'm confident exceeds that of even our most accomplished bedwetters.
I'm excited for the year ahead, grateful for the off-season we've had, and will be sleeping soundly tonight in my very comfortable, dry bed. ;-)
That's because you're completely missing the point IMO. If the vets are taking away "chunks of minutes" from the players you listed, it's because they're not good enough or ready to play yet. Pure and simple. If any of those players are good enough and ready, they'll overtake the veteran player and get their time. It's pretty simple actually.
The goal is for these young players to earn their spots, not have it handed to them. And they have some savvy, experienced vets to beat out for PT. When it's all said and done, if any of these young players aren't getting the playing time you think they should, focus your frustration at them for not being ready or not working hard enough. And the ones that aren't ready this year will learn what it takes to make that next step and they'll end up better players for it.
I really don't get how others don't get this very simple philosophy.
The goal is for these young players to earn their spots, not have it handed to them. And they have some savvy, experienced vets to beat out for PT. When it's all said and done, if any of these young players aren't getting the playing time you think they should, focus your frustration at them for not being ready or not working hard enough. And the ones that aren't ready this year will learn what it takes to make that next step and they'll end up better players for it.
I really don't get how others don't get this very simple philosophy.
Last edited:
I really didn't think you would have a complaint about this signing. We have 1 real sf right now and he's a non lottery pick. Bogs, Malachi and gt are all sg that can play sf but they're really sg. Vince is old enough where he won't steal too many minutes at a position we have no depth at. I just don't think we should start 5 rooks/soph and play them all year. It's starting to sound like you would hate any free agent signing that can possibly start over a bunch of kids, some who are totally unproven.
I can see the argument for just letting the kids get all the minutes but I just believe surrounding them with vets and making them earn it is better for them long term. It also means the Kings aren't forcing Fox to guard Westbrook, Curry, Paul, etc from day 1. It also means the team isn't depending on Giles for backup PF minutes and can let him develop slowly and get plenty of run in the G-League.
And Carter is the signing that bothers me the least in terms of "taking minutes". For one he's just not capable of playing big minutes. And secondly the Kings only have one true other SF on the roster in Jackson and I think he develops into a role player. Can Malachi or Bogdan play SF? Maybe. But so far they've both been SGs so I'm not sure I want them playing big minutes against taller, stronger guys yet anyway.
The Kings potentially have WCS under contract for two more seasons, Hield, Papagiannis, Richardson, Labissiere and Bogdanovic for three and Fox, Jackson, and Giles for four. And likely a Mason for at least two and possibly three.
This being a developmental year isn't that bad. If they show enough they'll get the burn they deserve this year and in the years to come there will be a ton of minutes available.
I also don't worry about Joerger starting vets over the kids even if the kids are "earning it". NBA players will tell you that one thing that hurts morale more than almost anything else is a coach giving preference/minutes to a guy when another player is kicking his butt everyday in practice.
The best players will play.
And Carter is the signing that bothers me the least in terms of "taking minutes". For one he's just not capable of playing big minutes. And secondly the Kings only have one true other SF on the roster in Jackson and I think he develops into a role player. Can Malachi or Bogdan play SF? Maybe. But so far they've both been SGs so I'm not sure I want them playing big minutes against taller, stronger guys yet anyway.
The Kings potentially have WCS under contract for two more seasons, Hield, Papagiannis, Richardson, Labissiere and Bogdanovic for three and Fox, Jackson, and Giles for four. And likely a Mason for at least two and possibly three.
This being a developmental year isn't that bad. If they show enough they'll get the burn they deserve this year and in the years to come there will be a ton of minutes available.
I also don't worry about Joerger starting vets over the kids even if the kids are "earning it". NBA players will tell you that one thing that hurts morale more than almost anything else is a coach giving preference/minutes to a guy when another player is kicking his butt everyday in practice.
The best players will play.
I agree. It is a bit of a misnomer that coaches like Joerger prefer to play vets over youth. It is kind of revealing that this complaint is made about almost every very good (or great) coach I have seen. The truth is that coaches prefer that their young players KNOW the system on both ends of the floor. Once they earn the coach's trust, they start getting more minutes. What they do with those minutes determines the rest.
My worry is that Joerger will unfairly give VC the upper hand over younger players just because he's a vet and he's been in his system before. We saw him go to Matt Barnes time after time despite Barnes not earning his PT on the floor. He gave Barnes an uncomfortably long leash compared to players like Casspi, Ben, and Willie. I have no problems with making young players fight for their PT, but I would have a big problem if the young players are clearly better than vets, yet don't get their share of PT. I really don't think anyone could say with a straight face that Matt Barnes deserved his 25mins/game. Because he didn't.
I didn't like the Cousins/Koufos lineups or Barnes getting burn while Omri rode the bench. But I also didn't see what went on in practice. Joerger apparently thought Barnes gave the team the best chance to win.
I trust Joerger but it doesn't mean I agree with his decisions. So I will be upset if he plays veterans over the kids when it looks like the youngsters look like the better players.
But (1) Vince Carter just can't play big minutes at this point and (2) we can't complain about the Kings always being terrible on defense and then also grumble when Joerger prefers vets that play good team defense over more offensively exciting kids that make a lot of mistakes on the other end.
I think things will work out. They likely won't win many games but I think the young guys will develop nicely.
I trust Joerger but it doesn't mean I agree with his decisions. So I will be upset if he plays veterans over the kids when it looks like the youngsters look like the better players.
But (1) Vince Carter just can't play big minutes at this point and (2) we can't complain about the Kings always being terrible on defense and then also grumble when Joerger prefers vets that play good team defense over more offensively exciting kids that make a lot of mistakes on the other end.
I think things will work out. They likely won't win many games but I think the young guys will develop nicely.
I have to say the Kings have absolutely nailed this off-season so far. I suspect there will be no other changes, other than maybe trading Kosta for a future pick to a contending team and then picking up a cheap big to fill out the roster but overall, the type of players (and positions) that the Kings have singed has been been spot on.
I recall him most as a 3/4 actually. He played a LOT of minutes at the 4 if I'm remembering correctly. But the concern here isn't about who he's beating out necessarily, rather that he hardly earned those minutes. After the first ten games he really should've played himself out of the rotation in favor of whoever. It at least calls into question Joerger's coaching methods for a rebuilding team. We can talk about what we think is the way to go but there's a lot of assumptions, and there's no way to know that this slow and easy development for them is actually the agenda. It could just as easily be that Joerger like to roll with whatever he feels has the best chance of winning the game and that's just the bottom line with development taking a back seat. Vivek being in charge in the background and Vlade putting a timetable on himself also muddies things for me a bit.
It also makes me wonder what would've happened if we HADN'T waived Matt Barnes after the trade. Would Skal have never broke into the rotation, WCS still playing limited minutes, and our opinion of him (WCS that is) still be at an all time low because of that? I don't know.
This time last year, the goal was different. We were still rolling with DMC and trying to win now, so vets playing heavy minutes above all else was more appropriate. We could argue about how good of team defense those vets actually played but that's neither here nor there. That turned tremendously after the trade, and went towards development. Nowadays it hardly matters if they make mistakes just like the W/L column doesn't matter.
It also makes me wonder what would've happened if we HADN'T waived Matt Barnes after the trade. Would Skal have never broke into the rotation, WCS still playing limited minutes, and our opinion of him (WCS that is) still be at an all time low because of that? I don't know.
This time last year, the goal was different. We were still rolling with DMC and trying to win now, so vets playing heavy minutes above all else was more appropriate. We could argue about how good of team defense those vets actually played but that's neither here nor there. That turned tremendously after the trade, and went towards development. Nowadays it hardly matters if they make mistakes just like the W/L column doesn't matter.
Last edited:
People understand the philosophy. It's about how far do you really need to take it? Sometimes players benefit from being on the court more than sitting and watching vets play it out. You can keep putting "better" vets in front of your young guys but eventually they're going to need to play whether they're better or not. The development doesn't just come from practice. In game time is a valuable thing as well.
Coaches don't always just wake up one day and go "Alright vet, so and so the rook is out performing you in practice by a little bit every day so I'm going to bring you off the bench and start him from here on out". Sometimes the veteran experiment goes on for way too long. In fact, it happens all the time. There is no rule that states that every young player has to compete with an old veteran to get on the court.
I guess I'm just being a crybaby about it but in a year when we aren't going to make the playoffs anyway, I was hoping that we would just run a committee of Temple, Bogdan, Malachi and/or Jackson at the 3 so we can kind of loosen the traffic jam at SG. I know they aren't real proven SFs but this was the perfect season to test it out on. We just have three guys at SG who could possibly squeeze over and play some minutes at the 3. We already know Temple can hold his own there. I was really wanting to get a good look at Malachi this year but I have a feeling he is going to be sent back to Reno now that Vince is here. Seemed to me like he was putting on the weight in anticipating for getting playing time at the 3.
I didn't want to start all the kids, I wanted vets. I'm ok with Randolph. I think Hill will hurt our lottery position, would have rather had Lawson there. Add in Temple and Kofous and I figured we would have had enough vets to go around. Seems like the FO wants to add a vet in every position which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me other than the fact that they are going to try and make a run at the playoffs.
I know where you're coming from, I would have just handled it differently. For the record, I never wanted the team to just be all kids. I just didn't see the need for a veteran at every single position either. I guess I'm just sounding like a broken record but the Carter signing just bugs me because it further intensifies the log jam at the 2 spot and I thought the 3 spot was going to alleviate that a bit. I was just looking forward to seeing the kids play a good amount this year. I'm not looking forward to watching Hill, Carter, Randolph and Kofous play 25 minutes a game. I don't know about you but last year at the end of the year I was just sitting there bored, waiting until Joerger put in Skal, Papa or Malachi. Barnes, Tolliver and Koufos playing meaningless minutes was hard to watch
Hopefully some of these new and young guys can beat them out because I've been as excited for basketball this year than I ever have. I don't think I've ever posted so much on this forum in so little time.
Coaches don't always just wake up one day and go "Alright vet, so and so the rook is out performing you in practice by a little bit every day so I'm going to bring you off the bench and start him from here on out". Sometimes the veteran experiment goes on for way too long. In fact, it happens all the time. There is no rule that states that every young player has to compete with an old veteran to get on the court.
I guess I'm just being a crybaby about it but in a year when we aren't going to make the playoffs anyway, I was hoping that we would just run a committee of Temple, Bogdan, Malachi and/or Jackson at the 3 so we can kind of loosen the traffic jam at SG. I know they aren't real proven SFs but this was the perfect season to test it out on. We just have three guys at SG who could possibly squeeze over and play some minutes at the 3. We already know Temple can hold his own there. I was really wanting to get a good look at Malachi this year but I have a feeling he is going to be sent back to Reno now that Vince is here. Seemed to me like he was putting on the weight in anticipating for getting playing time at the 3.
I didn't want to start all the kids, I wanted vets. I'm ok with Randolph. I think Hill will hurt our lottery position, would have rather had Lawson there. Add in Temple and Kofous and I figured we would have had enough vets to go around. Seems like the FO wants to add a vet in every position which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me other than the fact that they are going to try and make a run at the playoffs.
I know where you're coming from, I would have just handled it differently. For the record, I never wanted the team to just be all kids. I just didn't see the need for a veteran at every single position either. I guess I'm just sounding like a broken record but the Carter signing just bugs me because it further intensifies the log jam at the 2 spot and I thought the 3 spot was going to alleviate that a bit. I was just looking forward to seeing the kids play a good amount this year. I'm not looking forward to watching Hill, Carter, Randolph and Kofous play 25 minutes a game. I don't know about you but last year at the end of the year I was just sitting there bored, waiting until Joerger put in Skal, Papa or Malachi. Barnes, Tolliver and Koufos playing meaningless minutes was hard to watch
Hopefully some of these new and young guys can beat them out because I've been as excited for basketball this year than I ever have. I don't think I've ever posted so much on this forum in so little time.
Hill has missed an average of around 13 games a year and Randolph & Carter aren't in a position to play big minutes.
I think the kids will get plenty of opportunities.
And I think the end of the season will be somewhat similar to last year's. Once the team is out of playoff contention I think the young guys will get more PT.
I think the kids will get plenty of opportunities.
And I think the end of the season will be somewhat similar to last year's. Once the team is out of playoff contention I think the young guys will get more PT.
I completely disagree with this. The entire point for any team in any sport is to field the very best team they can. You play the best players regardless of their age, what position they were drafted or how they were acquired. While every front office hopes their youth develops and grows to a point where they are the marquee players on the team, that's not always gonna be the case.
Playing a young player over a vet when the vet is better is somewhat akin to playing your 1st round pick over your 2nd round pick when the 2nd rounder has proven to be better. Why would you do that?
When the Kings drafted Jimmer and Isaiah in 2011, guess which player played more? The better player. End of story.
Playing a young player over a vet when the vet is better is somewhat akin to playing your 1st round pick over your 2nd round pick when the 2nd rounder has proven to be better. Why would you do that?
When the Kings drafted Jimmer and Isaiah in 2011, guess which player played more? The better player. End of story.
I think the dream at this point was to get respected vets who also may have more to give than a year or two (cough, Crowder), which still seemed available possibly in FA or trade. With Hill, Hield etc, I hadn't given up on a playoff run now with a solid starting SF once the org went in that direction. Are we trying to win or go with youth. Signing vets who might not help the win, while not going with youth, can seem a little tedious, but I hope it works out
I don't think the vets are going to get as many minutes as you're imagining. Probably too many minutes at the beginning of the year, given Joerger's method. But then the youngsters will begin earning Joerger's trust, and combined with the usual injuries to older guys, I expect the minutes in the 2nd half of the season to be dominated by the youngsters. If the stars line up and we're chasing a playoff berth (as unlikely as that may be), then I would expect Joerger to lean on the vets down the homestretch. At least those that are playing well.
Last edited:
I like the moves of signing some vets, even if it costs us a few spots in the draft next year.
Including Willie and Bogdan, we have 10 young guys in the team. I think their development is more crucial than our position in next year's draft, and I think vets who mentor them, make them earn their play time, teach them how to be responsible pros, how to win, and equally important, how to stay focused during losses, will be critical in this.
As some folks have already pointed out, some teams would have outdone us in suckitude even if we had not signed any of the vets. One can quibble with the list, and where we would have ended in the draft without the vets, but I do agree that there are 4-5 teams that would have quite likely ended lower than us, with us even playing the kids. So, chances of a super high pick were slim to begin with. If these signings, which don't impact our long term flexibility, help the kids develop, we are in good shape.
We do need 2-3 all stars from this group. But it's not necessary that all of them have to come from this group only. If some of them show promise, we can use some of them to get an all star (like Bulls did with Butler, Rockets with Paul, or OKC with PG). Two years down the line, if we show some promise (and some of the current powers some decline), we might even be an attractive FA destination, particularly if we can use our space wisely. So, next year's draft is not the only way to upgrade the roster, and in fact, might not even be the most efficient way.
Oh, and welcome Vince. After all, this is a welcome thread
Including Willie and Bogdan, we have 10 young guys in the team. I think their development is more crucial than our position in next year's draft, and I think vets who mentor them, make them earn their play time, teach them how to be responsible pros, how to win, and equally important, how to stay focused during losses, will be critical in this.
As some folks have already pointed out, some teams would have outdone us in suckitude even if we had not signed any of the vets. One can quibble with the list, and where we would have ended in the draft without the vets, but I do agree that there are 4-5 teams that would have quite likely ended lower than us, with us even playing the kids. So, chances of a super high pick were slim to begin with. If these signings, which don't impact our long term flexibility, help the kids develop, we are in good shape.
We do need 2-3 all stars from this group. But it's not necessary that all of them have to come from this group only. If some of them show promise, we can use some of them to get an all star (like Bulls did with Butler, Rockets with Paul, or OKC with PG). Two years down the line, if we show some promise (and some of the current powers some decline), we might even be an attractive FA destination, particularly if we can use our space wisely. So, next year's draft is not the only way to upgrade the roster, and in fact, might not even be the most efficient way.
Oh, and welcome Vince. After all, this is a welcome thread
