Vlade Divac - Kings GM AKA 21
- Thread starter Kingsfan2002
- Start date
So you don't think Denver botched it by giving up Mitchell? How about the beloved Philly giving up Tatum. How do you explain Philly's handing of MCW, Okafor and Noel. Point is those teams make mistakes also but they seem to get a pass.
As far as how you rate the Kings Young Fellas they are all in the show at the All Star weekend. So someone thinks they are special
Actually I will choose to continue to disagree with you on Denver trading away Mitchell being worse. Mitchell is a known quantity and the pick Vlade traded is unknown. He did get Belinelli--> Malachi --> Bruno and still has Kosta from that transaction so your continued assertion he got "nothing" from that trade is false.
I like Vlade OK. I suspect I defend him because so many of the Vlade antagonists rail to the extreme against his moves. Sure he has made errors. But he has assembled an exciting young corps of players who are starting to show out.
As far as how you rate the Kings Young Fellas they are all in the show at the All Star weekend. So someone thinks they are special
Actually I will choose to continue to disagree with you on Denver trading away Mitchell being worse. Mitchell is a known quantity and the pick Vlade traded is unknown. He did get Belinelli--> Malachi --> Bruno and still has Kosta from that transaction so your continued assertion he got "nothing" from that trade is false.
I like Vlade OK. I suspect I defend him because so many of the Vlade antagonists rail to the extreme against his moves. Sure he has made errors. But he has assembled an exciting young corps of players who are starting to show out.
Sixer trade had no solid logic behind it. We gave away our 1st rounder and swap rights to dump contracts we could have either stretched or just kept. It was a horrible trade from the beginning and it looked like a professional gm Hinkie just completely fooled a rookie gm.
Denver made a mistake evaluating Mitchell but so did the 12 teams in front of him, including Kings twice. If you say Denvers trade was worse as a trade, then you have to say Vlade made the same mistake at 10th.
The cost of stretching JT and Landry was 5 million dollars over 4 years on a 100 million dollar cap. You can "afford" that more than moving back from 3 to 5 and whatever pick the Kings gave up in 2019.
Again, the math is key here. They didn't actually gain cap space they used to sign ANYONE that season. They would have needed that much cap space to sign Wes and Rondo, but they players they ended up signing could have been obtained by flipping Nik for a 2nd rounder that would have never been conveyed and stretching both power forwards. That's no my opinion. That's math. If you disagree, you are just wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. It's math and the order in which they signed players.
They just didn't know what they were doing, didn't want to carry 5 million of dead cap, and didn't appreciate the risks. And a lot of us, myself included said that that the time.
Folks can try to move the goal posts, but the math is the math. They could have signed everybody they did by using the tools that were obvious to any qualified GM (off loading Nik when he was still interesting and using the stretch provision)
Again, the math is key here. They didn't actually gain cap space they used to sign ANYONE that season. They would have needed that much cap space to sign Wes and Rondo, but they players they ended up signing could have been obtained by flipping Nik for a 2nd rounder that would have never been conveyed and stretching both power forwards. That's no my opinion. That's math. If you disagree, you are just wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. It's math and the order in which they signed players.
They just didn't know what they were doing, didn't want to carry 5 million of dead cap, and didn't appreciate the risks. And a lot of us, myself included said that that the time.
Folks can try to move the goal posts, but the math is the math. They could have signed everybody they did by using the tools that were obvious to any qualified GM (off loading Nik when he was still interesting and using the stretch provision)
I think this "oh just stretch everyone" is very shortsighted but I get that some people are in love with the idea. The move from 3 to 5 really cost us little as we'd probably have taken Fox either way. But yes he should have put top 3 lotto protections on these things.
They needed the space to make the offers they did. That Vlade didn't realize Sacramento is where FA go to jack up their bids, that was part of the learning curve.
They needed the space to make the offers they did. That Vlade didn't realize Sacramento is where FA go to jack up their bids, that was part of the learning curve.
I'm really not defending it but I just think it's been beaten to death. With the benefit of hindsight it was an extremely poor deal. Had the signings paid off it's probably best not to have stretched those contracts and had dead money on the books in the run up to maxing out Cousins. It also isn't the worst move a GM has ever made in NBA history and when you figure in it was an early mistake in his career it's fairly acceptable even though it's a bitter pill to swallow.
Again, they could have used a stretch and the trades AND STILL SIGNED EVERYONE THEY DID.
https://www.sactownroyalty.com/2016...and-impact-of-76ers-trade-v-stretch-provision
This is NOT a matter of ... well if the signing had worked out. This is just a matter of hiring and employing people that have any idea what they are doing.
https://www.sactownroyalty.com/2016...and-impact-of-76ers-trade-v-stretch-provision
This is NOT a matter of ... well if the signing had worked out. This is just a matter of hiring and employing people that have any idea what they are doing.
Why not wait until we got an agreement from Wes Matthews though? Let's be honest.. I'm sure Koufos and Belinelli would've been there in day 3 of FA. Another thing to keep in mind, nobody even wanted to touch Rondo after his debacle in Dallas. It was a shock he even got $9million...
it was a move that was clearly not thought out. As some posters above already said, we could've signed Wes Matthews without giving up what we did. Why didn't we do that? that's a costly mistake on Vlade's part.
it was a move that was clearly not thought out. As some posters above already said, we could've signed Wes Matthews without giving up what we did. Why didn't we do that? that's a costly mistake on Vlade's part.
Again, and this is something that you continually fail to acknowledge, by trading Thompson/Landry/Stauskas instead of stretching them the Kings saved $25M of actual cash. If we stretched them, we would have had to pay them. Because we traded them, Philadelphia paid them, which put $25M of cold hard dollar bills - not cap space, that could have also been had by the stretch provision - but actual cash money in our pockets. And this was during an era when, prior to the new arena opening, we were temporarily forfeiting league revenue sharing payments. Exactly the era when we needed cash. Exactly the era when we couldn't afford to stretch somebody and have to pay them ON TOP of our salary obligations.
Bottom line, your repeated contention that we could have done exactly the same thing with the stretch provision with exactly the same results, and therefore we stupidly threw away a draft pick and a pick swap for absolutely nothing is simply wrong. We traded a draft pick and a pick swap for $25M of actual cash. It's perfectly fine to make the case that giving up a pick and swap for $25M is getting ripped off, because at least it recognizes the reality of the situation. Making the case that we gave up a pick and a swap for absolutely nothing because we were stupid and didn't know any better is simply wrong.
Bottom line, your repeated contention that we could have done exactly the same thing with the stretch provision with exactly the same results, and therefore we stupidly threw away a draft pick and a pick swap for absolutely nothing is simply wrong. We traded a draft pick and a pick swap for $25M of actual cash. It's perfectly fine to make the case that giving up a pick and swap for $25M is getting ripped off, because at least it recognizes the reality of the situation. Making the case that we gave up a pick and a swap for absolutely nothing because we were stupid and didn't know any better is simply wrong.
I love when people say "nobody wanted to sign x player we could have gotten him for half price".
Yet almost every season we say "holy sh** I can't believe XXX signed for $YYY". And sometimes those are guys posters here were claiming were vet min guys.
We signed Rondo. He seemed to want to come and we had players here that wanted him here and we did what we had to do to get him here. Honestly, I think it was a worthwhile try. He was better than he was in Dallas. Everybody knew the Dallas mess was on Carlisle.
Yet almost every season we say "holy sh** I can't believe XXX signed for $YYY". And sometimes those are guys posters here were claiming were vet min guys.
We signed Rondo. He seemed to want to come and we had players here that wanted him here and we did what we had to do to get him here. Honestly, I think it was a worthwhile try. He was better than he was in Dallas. Everybody knew the Dallas mess was on Carlisle.
Doing salary dumps and giving up pick swap and 1st rounder is idiotic for a team that is a boarderline playoff contender. You dont hamstring your future to possibly fight for a 8th seed. The trade was awfull then even by the logic that we needed to win now. As many could have predict, we werent even that close to 8th seed so that logic failed miserably and while we are now rebuilding, the trade looks even worse.
As I previously said it was clearly a rookie mistake where an experienced gm fleeced a rookie gm.
As I previously said it was clearly a rookie mistake where an experienced gm fleeced a rookie gm.
So, for CF and and handful of folks not rocking the false "we needed the cap space" or "most objective people didn't think the risk was excessive at the time" ...
Your theory is that, we somewhat understood the risk and it was about the money? Since that's reported in zero other places, I have some follow up questions. Sure revenue sharing was a factor, but in your mind were the Kings: not properly capitalized / liquid; or properly funded and just sometimes unreasonably cheap? That's a pretty huge distinction so I'm sincerely curious what you think and not just trolling like most here.
I'm good with the term "unreasonable," because accidentally selling an unprotected super high 2019 pick for 25 million dollars is objectively unreasonable. The last time something like that happened was the Barron Davis trade to Cleveland and that was both Sterling and the trade was agreed to be malpractice as soon as folks found out the pick was unprotected.
Follow up question CF, are you aware that most of the contractors working on the condos near the arena received a demand for a 10% pay cut and then had to sue to get full pay? Does this factor into your assessment that the team is sufficiently liquid and/or not unreasonably cheap?
Your theory is that, we somewhat understood the risk and it was about the money? Since that's reported in zero other places, I have some follow up questions. Sure revenue sharing was a factor, but in your mind were the Kings: not properly capitalized / liquid; or properly funded and just sometimes unreasonably cheap? That's a pretty huge distinction so I'm sincerely curious what you think and not just trolling like most here.
I'm good with the term "unreasonable," because accidentally selling an unprotected super high 2019 pick for 25 million dollars is objectively unreasonable. The last time something like that happened was the Barron Davis trade to Cleveland and that was both Sterling and the trade was agreed to be malpractice as soon as folks found out the pick was unprotected.
Follow up question CF, are you aware that most of the contractors working on the condos near the arena received a demand for a 10% pay cut and then had to sue to get full pay? Does this factor into your assessment that the team is sufficiently liquid and/or not unreasonably cheap?
I have serious questions about Vlade but I think your analysis is incomplete.
1) If a player hasn’t played at least two years (some would say 3) you can’t judge a draft pick. After year 1 you would have gladly taken Evans over Curry. So you need to mark them all incomplete (unless the team released them)
2) Your 27, 28, 29, have to be incomplete also because you don’t know what Vlade will do with the cap space he cleared. If he uses it to sign Hezonja I think that set turns green.
3) Your draft pick analysis needs more color also. For example, Drafted WCS instead of Miles Turner, Devin Booker, Frank Kamisky. If your player rises in a 3 year redraft you did well. If they fall in a redraft you did poorly. Willie is definately a meh maybe a bad pick. You also left out our 2016 second rounder.
4) the point of signing the vets was to teach the rookies. If Giles has learned some SloBo moves that would be a good move so I think that is incomplete.
1) If a player hasn’t played at least two years (some would say 3) you can’t judge a draft pick. After year 1 you would have gladly taken Evans over Curry. So you need to mark them all incomplete (unless the team released them)
2) Your 27, 28, 29, have to be incomplete also because you don’t know what Vlade will do with the cap space he cleared. If he uses it to sign Hezonja I think that set turns green.
3) Your draft pick analysis needs more color also. For example, Drafted WCS instead of Miles Turner, Devin Booker, Frank Kamisky. If your player rises in a 3 year redraft you did well. If they fall in a redraft you did poorly. Willie is definately a meh maybe a bad pick. You also left out our 2016 second rounder.
4) the point of signing the vets was to teach the rookies. If Giles has learned some SloBo moves that would be a good move so I think that is incomplete.
What your asking IS a legit concern. Vivek is the managing partner but reportedly only owns 20% of the team. He was and is not what they termed Burkle, a whale. After he sold his shares in Tibco(?), how much more does he have. (i.e. sources of revenue)
It took a conglomeration of individuals with their own agendas to put together the purchase price. Those agendas might not have the team as number one on the priority list or even on that list. Some of those partners will make their money from the purchase elsewhere. The team was simply the ticket to get in the door for these other opportunities. I hope my cynicism is completely unfounded in this case.
It took a conglomeration of individuals with their own agendas to put together the purchase price. Those agendas might not have the team as number one on the priority list or even on that list. Some of those partners will make their money from the purchase elsewhere. The team was simply the ticket to get in the door for these other opportunities. I hope my cynicism is completely unfounded in this case.
If Vivek, Mastrov etc just barely found enough nickels under sofa cushions to barely buy the team, and then had to scrimp a bit in the early going (insufficiently liquid/unreasonably cheap)... I don't care. I don't care one bit and I give them a mulligan on the last 3-4 years if that was the motivation.
I remember seeing Mastrov & Stern at Oracle Arena and thinking hoping praying "please somehow make this miracle happen".
So if we had lean coffers for a few years after - so what. To me - that's fine.
I remember seeing Mastrov & Stern at Oracle Arena and thinking hoping praying "please somehow make this miracle happen".
So if we had lean coffers for a few years after - so what. To me - that's fine.
My concern is for tomorrow. What happens when the next max contract comes due? Do we get cold feet again, if that played a part with Boogie?
Am I overly concerned? Nope, simply because I don't know the truth. If it becomes a trend then that's a different story. Today I'm simply enjoying having the hope that the corner may finally be being turned.
Am I overly concerned? Nope, simply because I don't know the truth. If it becomes a trend then that's a different story. Today I'm simply enjoying having the hope that the corner may finally be being turned.
Yes, my belief is that we understood the risk, and it was about the cash. I don't have any actual insight into the Kings' books at the time, but seeing as we weren't receiving revenue sharing at the time, the former is at least likely. Either way, $25M is nothing to sneeze at.
I don't have any particular objection to the opinion that the value we got for the draft pick was or was not reasonable - this is certainly a reasonable topic for discussion. As far as the Davis trade goes, I'm not sure that was universally agreed to be "malpractice". Davis was owed about $33-34M (I'm not sure how much to prorate the contract for the traded season), so the Clippers saved even more than the Kings, and were looking at giving away a pick that was 8+ until they magically hit the lottery. Should they have protected it? Sure. Could they have protected it? I don't know. Perhaps the Cavaliers insisted on no protections. If they were spending more than $30M on a lottery ticket, they probably didn't want any strings attached.
The best study that I know of that has tried to assess the monetary value of a first-round pick is from 538.com (link). It was done in the summer of 2014, so it's perfectly relevant for the Thompson/Landry trade. The conclusion would be that only the #1 pick and maybe the #2 pick are expected to be worth $25M:
So this is why I don't think that an unprotected draft pick for $25M was unreasonable at the time. Unless we got very unlucky, the value of the pick would be less than the money we got. There have been changes since then (the lottery has expanded to the first four picks, lottery pay structure has changed, and the salary cap has changed a lot based on the new TV deal) that will affect the values here, but none of those were predictable at the time.
I am completely unaware of this. Were these condos owned by the Kings?
I don't have any particular objection to the opinion that the value we got for the draft pick was or was not reasonable - this is certainly a reasonable topic for discussion. As far as the Davis trade goes, I'm not sure that was universally agreed to be "malpractice". Davis was owed about $33-34M (I'm not sure how much to prorate the contract for the traded season), so the Clippers saved even more than the Kings, and were looking at giving away a pick that was 8+ until they magically hit the lottery. Should they have protected it? Sure. Could they have protected it? I don't know. Perhaps the Cavaliers insisted on no protections. If they were spending more than $30M on a lottery ticket, they probably didn't want any strings attached.
The best study that I know of that has tried to assess the monetary value of a first-round pick is from 538.com (link). It was done in the summer of 2014, so it's perfectly relevant for the Thompson/Landry trade. The conclusion would be that only the #1 pick and maybe the #2 pick are expected to be worth $25M:
So this is why I don't think that an unprotected draft pick for $25M was unreasonable at the time. Unless we got very unlucky, the value of the pick would be less than the money we got. There have been changes since then (the lottery has expanded to the first four picks, lottery pay structure has changed, and the salary cap has changed a lot based on the new TV deal) that will affect the values here, but none of those were predictable at the time.
I am completely unaware of this. Were these condos owned by the Kings?
Captain, I really want to thank you for your thoughtful and sincere response. The prime directive here is often to keep long standing fights brewing and pointedly ask questions you don't want answered to essentially shout "Good day to you." I sincerely wanted to know what you were thinking and your response is helpful and interesting.
Man, I hope you are wrong. (Not just to be right, again violating prime directives.) Revenue sharing will help cash flow, but man, that would be brutal to again be a small market, cash strapped team, with a mercurial owner. That's a rough combination with TOUGH odds. I knew the Kings were nowhere near Paul Allen territory, but except for the handful of years the Maloofs were rich (on paper and before they over extended themselves) the Kings have been playing with a short deck.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article196522844.html
Here is the link to the Kings condo story. It's on top of the hotel next to the arena. The Kings / their development groups own the plaza, the condos, the mall, most of the block of K street next to the arena, and I think all of the next block down K street. This is good for the long term prospects for the team because they can make money outside the arena 365 days and have real estate equity.
Beyond the team someday becoming good, it should be great for the city because a dilapidated stretch of downtown would have a master plan backed by one well financed group.
The condos and mall are over a year behind their proposed completion dates and payment disputes with many of the condo / hotel contractors landed in court. And there are, of course, narratives to explain this all as normal -- payment disputes for contractors are normal, aggressive initial timelines, wet 2017, ect. But, they allegedly asked over 20 contractors to take the same 10% pay cut and it behooved the Kings to open as much of DoCo and the mall as quickly as possible to the opening of Golden One. As quickly as possible, you want to your fans to become used to spending their dollars in your team owned or leased buildings on event nights. Quickly as possible is very relative in real estate development, particularly many blocks down downtown, but still. One way to keep that on goal, is to push more labor at the projects that fall behind. That did not happen here. In fact, the contrary allegedly happened.
Man, I hope you are wrong. (Not just to be right, again violating prime directives.) Revenue sharing will help cash flow, but man, that would be brutal to again be a small market, cash strapped team, with a mercurial owner. That's a rough combination with TOUGH odds. I knew the Kings were nowhere near Paul Allen territory, but except for the handful of years the Maloofs were rich (on paper and before they over extended themselves) the Kings have been playing with a short deck.
http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/article196522844.html
Here is the link to the Kings condo story. It's on top of the hotel next to the arena. The Kings / their development groups own the plaza, the condos, the mall, most of the block of K street next to the arena, and I think all of the next block down K street. This is good for the long term prospects for the team because they can make money outside the arena 365 days and have real estate equity.
Beyond the team someday becoming good, it should be great for the city because a dilapidated stretch of downtown would have a master plan backed by one well financed group.
The condos and mall are over a year behind their proposed completion dates and payment disputes with many of the condo / hotel contractors landed in court. And there are, of course, narratives to explain this all as normal -- payment disputes for contractors are normal, aggressive initial timelines, wet 2017, ect. But, they allegedly asked over 20 contractors to take the same 10% pay cut and it behooved the Kings to open as much of DoCo and the mall as quickly as possible to the opening of Golden One. As quickly as possible, you want to your fans to become used to spending their dollars in your team owned or leased buildings on event nights. Quickly as possible is very relative in real estate development, particularly many blocks down downtown, but still. One way to keep that on goal, is to push more labor at the projects that fall behind. That did not happen here. In fact, the contrary allegedly happened.