From the article:
That's exactly what I want. It's not about stifling growth; it's about making the young players earn their spots. They're supposed to be learning to take over from the vets. They should be able to do so.
Damage control and saving face? Au contraire. It's anything but. It's saying the kids won't get minutes just to get minutes. They will get treated like adults and rewarded accordingly. I'm not sure what you think "youth development" is but do you really want to pamper these young players forever? I happen to think the kids will do fine and will, in fact, earn those extra minutes. Taking the training wheels off means exactly that. They're ride or fall over on their own...and they should.
Here's my big problem, I think you need to let players play in order to get better. They need minutes to get better. We will not be a playoff team. Yes we want to win games, but that should not come at the expense of developing our key players. You have to think long-term success. What does a couple meaningless wins on the backs of Temple, Koufos, and Randolph mean for this team in 4 years? It means absolutely nothing. Wouldn't you rather let young players go through the entire motion? If that's their MO, then the Kings need to hold everyone accountable, not just the young players. George Hill played horribly until a month before the trade deadline. Why was there not the same standard set in place for him? The standard we used that sent Buddy to the bench?
Another thing... if our players really can't out-beat 37yearold Randolph or 32yearold Temple, doesn't that say
A LOT about the FO's player evaluation? The same evaluation that drafted Papagiannis and Richardson..who we wound up cutting 1 1/2 years later?
I can't agree with this line of thinking. Look at how Donovan Mitchell started out his rookie year. First 5 games:
26mins: 3-11 FG, 10pts 4asts 3tos
20mins: 1-7 FG, 2pts 2asts 1to
22mins: 1-7 FG, 2pts 6asts 0tos
30mins: 7-20 FG, 19pts 1asts 4tos
13mins: 1-7FG, 2pts 1asts 3tos
If you're following the logic of Joerger and Vlade, do you think he should still deserves to get 20/mins game? Or would you say he's not earning his minutes and he needs to watch from the bench? Of course if you follow the FO's logic, Mitchell would've been benched. He'd be watching from the sidelines after his 5th game. If that happens, then you'd end up missing out on his next game where he goes 9-16 for 22pts 2asts 5tos. Would he still end up as a ROY candidate?
You see.. I just can't agree with that logic when it comes to young players. Of making them earn it. Steve Clifford had that same ideology and we saw him apply it to Malik Monk. Here's how Monk started out his first 5 games:
21mins: 1-9FG, 3pts 1asts 3tos
19mins: 2-7FG, 6pts 3tos
18mins: 1-6FG, 4pts 1asts 1tos
25mins: 7-14FG, 17pts 2asts 1tos
18mins: 1-8FG, 2pts 3asts 3tos
About 9 games later, Clifford benched Monk. He's only played 63 games this year, averaging 13.5mpg. You know how Monk finished his season? Here's what he averaged in his last 5 games:
24.8mins: 20.4pts 4asts 2tos on 48/41/100
What if Clifford had given a longer leash to Monk? What if Clifford didn't bench him after 14 games? Would Monk be able to explode the same way Mitchell has??? We don't know, and we'll never know. He didn't get the same leeway Mitchell did. Wouldn't you rather know, than not know?