Athletic Article On the Kings Today

[mac]

No I dont think he is. He hasnt shown to be much of a role player, mentality wise. He thinks he is a star and he plays like he does too. And hes not. He is a super role player.

Buddy Hield will never carry a team to a championship, let's not even try to kid ourselves. The only person who thinks he can is Buddy. And he is wholly mistake

How does "I want to be starter" = I think I can carry a team to a championship?

Seriously reading this thread half of you guys have convinced yourself that Buddy has said or done things when he simply hasn't. Guy says he wants to be starter and suddenly that means he thinks he's Kobe. Lol. Talk about high context. If he really thought he was Kobe he would not have accepted the extension we offered, I can tell you that.

 

[mac]

Player 1; Age 23 season
Player 2; Age 27 season

Player 1; High IQ, excellent defender
Player 2; ....

@Joshoua you beat me to it because I didn’t hit “post” before getting distracted. Lol

Put Klay on the Kings and that high IQ and excellent defense would suddenly disappear.

 

[jellyfish]

To me both Barnes and Buddy are replaceable by guys who are considered "lesser" and earn way less, I really couldn't care less if Buddy wants to start or come off the bench he has very average to below average impact on winning (same as Barnes). I see Dallas and the trio of DFS/Curry or THJ contribute far more to winning than do our trio of Barnes/Buddy/Bogie the same goes for Memphis who has Brooks/Crowder (traded) Kyle Anderson now/Melton.

I'm also seeing some saying Bogie is going to get 15mil in the offseason and my thought is WTF has he done to earn that? This past offseason has been about as wasteful as it gets and the season itself has been worse with no serious moves at the deadline.

 

[mac]

The point is he went to the bench bc as a starter he was trying to be Kobe and not Klay

Once Fox came back? Nope. Shot just wasn't falling. Buddy's 3FGM%AST (3 pointers that were assisted) as a starter ("playing like Kobe") this year is 70%. As a bench player in 10 games ("playing like Klay") that number is drumroll......72.5%! The difference is bigger for FGM% and 2FGM% though. By comparison, the lowest figure for Klay's 3FGM%AST in 8 years is 90.8%.

My point is that Buddy Hield is not going to be Klay on this team. I completely agree with you that that's an ideal role for him, but we just don't have the personnel for it, unless you play Buddy with Bjeli and Bogs and make Bogs the ballhandler. Our two PGs can't shoot.

 

[mac]

klay was 23 Buddy was 27 with bad defense are you really trying to say buddy can be klay

That's not the argument that has been made - quit changing the goal posts. Defense has not even remotely been brought up as to why Buddy should come off the bench. If it were, then the argument that he's on the floor to close games doesn't hold water.

The question was : "Is Buddy Hield satisfied with being a Klay Thompson?" in a larger context about whether Buddy is ok with coming off the bench - I pointed out two things: 1) Thompson is a starter, and 2) Klay Thompson is able to be Klay (don't dribble, just catch and shoot) largely because he plays with Curry. Given Fox is not Curry, are you really expecting Buddy to fully emulate Klay? And if you are, given point 1, why do you then expect him to come off the bench?

You then came with a useless (as usual) remark that if Buddy was 90% the player Klay was, this would not even be a question. By "this" I assume you mean starting vs not starting. In other words, your view is that Buddy Hield is so far inferior to Klay Thompson that he should not start. I then proceeded to give you their very comparable year 3 stats - a season in which both of them were starting, and you now counter with age as an argument. I don't see even see how age matters at all because we're not even discussing upside - we're talking about Buddy Hield being a starter, not Buddy Hield being a superstar. The Warriors won 50 games that year, and 67 games the following with Klay posting similar statistics (3 more ppg, slightly better %s). So fair enough, defense is a legit argument, though not one that has been brought up before in the context of starting or not.

So how about you actually substantiate why you think Buddy Hield's defense is so bad that he should not be a starter on a 30 win team despite putting up similar numbers to Klay Thompson who started on a 50-60 win team whilst playing alongside one of the best shooters in NBA history? And don't say "we're a 30 win team because he starts" because then that applies to Fox as well.

 

[mac]

Player 1; Age 23 season
Player 2; Age 27 season

Player 1; High IQ, excellent defender
Player 2; ....

@Joshoua you beat me to it because I didn’t hit “post” before getting distracted. Lol

Player 1: Plays/played with Steph Curry and Kevin Durant and DPOY winner
Player 2: ...... plays/played with Willie Cauley Stein?

 

[mac]

To me both Barnes and Buddy are replaceable by guys who are considered "lesser" and earn way less, I really couldn't care less if Buddy wants to start or come off the bench he has very average to below average impact on winning (same as Barnes). I see Dallas and the trio of DFS/Curry or THJ contribute far more to winning than do our trio of Barnes/Buddy/Bogie the same goes for Memphis who has Brooks/Crowder (traded) Kyle Anderson now/Melton.

I'm also seeing some saying Bogie is going to get 15mil in the offseason and my thought is WTF has he done to earn that? This past offseason has been about as wasteful as it gets and the season itself has been worse with no serious moves at the deadline.

Could it be as simple as Doncic > Fox? Always a bit of both don't you think?

 

[jellyfish]

Could it be as simple as Doncic > Fox? Always a bit of both don't you think?

In regard to Barnes no, in regards to Buddy maybe but I have watched the Mavs without Luka and the Mavs are better than us (5-6 without Zinger as well for a few) without Holmes and those three guys has been impactful.

 

[Ezis]

Use all the cap to sing the scrubs and not acquire extra first picks is stupid af. Look at how Memphis did. It is why people hire professional GM not a team legend who know nothing about CBA

Every year we see teams use cap space on bad contracts to acquire assets, and the Kings never do. We always wonder why. Maybe it's because the Kings can't afford to spend cash like that? I dunno. They behave a lot like a cash-strapped franchise in some ways. Makes me nervous.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

Every year we see teams use cap space on bad contracts to acquire assets, and the Kings never do. We always wonder why. Maybe it's because the Kings can't afford to spend cash like that? I dunno. They behave a lot like a cash-strapped franchise in some ways. Makes me nervous.

Yep. My theory—based on Amick’s comments regarding some in the ownership group’s disdain for Vivek’s management of basketball ops, is Vivek is covering cash calls specific to basketball ops himself to avoid further grousing, league office arbitration, etc. Thus, luxury tax payments come out of Vivek’s pocket, and that’s how we get the bizarre statement about being able to afford Bogi’s extension after the trade deadline.

I think our biggest problems are structural, irrespective of personalities, with a two-pronged problem of a fractured ownership and the COO effectively being the only direct report to the controlling owner.

 

[gilly420]

I think Buddy just needs to keep quiet and concentrate on playing better. His attitude during preseason and continuing until now has been a distraction to the team and his play is very inconsistent. It's hard for me and many others to support a guy with a me-first attitude.

 

[HebrewHammer]

For what it's worth, writing this post is what changed my mind about Vlade being a terrible GM. You can take a look if you want, but no worries if you don't. It is rather long-winded.

I did read it and hats off for a well-written piece, long but not long-winded. Having said that, I just can't get behind your reasoning for keeping him.

People at a certain age do not change much anymore, and I think Vlade's track record speak for itself; it lacks a plan and a vision and is all over the place. That is not something that he'll learn and improve on and all of sudden apply properly in a short period of time. Sure, you can learn on the job, but Vlade started at sub zero and then dug himself a hole. How long should we give him to see if and when he will climb out of it.

 

[HebrewHammer]

You may be right. But he is here now with actual business investments in the city. The next owner may be even less invested is my point. An argument of bring in 'x' person is different than an argument of get rid of the current guy.

Let's not forget that he is not a majority owner; he does not hold more than 50% of the shares. He was the guy chosen among a group of the biggest shareholders (reportedly approx. 60%) to represent them and be the President of the franchise. He apparently only owns 20% or thereabout.

So what will likely happen is that someone else from that group of owners would step up in his place, if Vivek would step aside.

Also, that makes me wonder how the other owners feel about the apparent big role by Vivek's son Aneel within the organization, as discussed by Amick recently

 

[HebrewHammer]

What do you mean only superstars get away with it? We literally just traded Dedmond

Yeah, I was not clear: I did not mean that only Superstars can call for trades and get away with it.

I meant that only Superstars get away with things being all about them and less about the team (Leonard, AD for instance). Lesser stars will either have to swallow their pride and buy into the team concept, or find themselves being marginalized.

In other words (assuming that Buddy indeed does not accept a 6th man role): Buddy can think he's a starter, but if he gets traded to a good team with a strong management structure and they think the team is better of with Buddy as a sixth man, Buddy either will have to try his best as a 6th man, or his next stop will be as a starter on some bottom feeder.

That's just my view, of course.

 

[Joshoua]

That's not the argument that has been made - quit changing the goal posts. Defense has not even remotely been brought up as to why Buddy should come off the bench. If it were, then the argument that he's on the floor to close games doesn't hold water.

The question was : "Is Buddy Hield satisfied with being a Klay Thompson?" in a larger context about whether Buddy is ok with coming off the bench - I pointed out two things: 1) Thompson is a starter, and 2) Klay Thompson is able to be Klay (don't dribble, just catch and shoot) largely because he plays with Curry. Given Fox is not Curry, are you really expecting Buddy to fully emulate Klay? And if you are, given point 1, why do you then expect him to come off the bench?

You then came with a useless (as usual) remark that if Buddy was 90% the player Klay was, this would not even be a question. By "this" I assume you mean starting vs not starting. In other words, your view is that Buddy Hield is so far inferior to Klay Thompson that he should not start. I then proceeded to give you their very comparable year 3 stats - a season in which both of them were starting, and you now counter with age as an argument. I don't see even see how age matters at all because we're not even discussing upside - we're talking about Buddy Hield being a starter, not Buddy Hield being a superstar. The Warriors won 50 games that year, and 67 games the following with Klay posting similar statistics (3 more ppg, slightly better %s). So fair enough, defense is a legit argument, though not one that has been brought up before in the context of starting or not.

So how about you actually substantiate why you think Buddy Hield's defense is so bad that he should not be a starter on a 30 win team despite putting up similar numbers to Klay Thompson who started on a 50-60 win team whilst playing alongside one of the best shooters in NBA history? And don't say "we're a 30 win team because he starts" because then that applies to Fox as well.

I’m not saying he can’t be a starter it’s the fact that he insists he can’t come off the bench his talent doesn’t warrant that. No coach is bringing Klay off the bench when he’s a very good defender and option 2 on the team.

 

[KainLear]

Let's not forget that he is not a majority owner; he does not hold more than 50% of the shares. He was the guy chosen among a group of the biggest shareholders (reportedly approx. 60%) to represent them and be the President of the franchise. He apparently only owns 20% or thereabout.

So what will likely happen is that someone else from that group of owners would step up in his place, if Vivek would step aside.

Also, that makes me wonder how the other owners feel about the apparent big role by Vivek's son Aneel within the organization, as discussed by Amick recently

Just to add onto this, per Amick's discussion, Vivek has not been getting a lot of respect from the other owners (while it's understandable on a human level to feel like you should get a voice after putting down the money).

 

[Chupacabra]

Acquiring players isn't the only way to improve the team. You can also develop the players you already have. Presumably, when you draft somebody or trade for somebody and invest in them with a long-term contract you're doing it both because you like the player they are now and because you like the player they will grow into being. Actually putting in the work of making sure that development happens though is the organization's responsibility if they have aspirations of being anything good. The player has to do their part too but taking a guy out of the rotation and telling them to "figure it out" is hurting the team more than it's hurting the player. If he's never going to get it maybe we trade him but you'd like to think we'd have figured that out before signing him to a $94 million extension which will make it very difficult to get anything valuable in return.

Great point. There is a certain naivete in thinking that must either play a certain way or be traded, not accounting for the possibility that the player improves. Bring on the emotional kneejerk replies!

 

[VF21]

would you not be ok with a park? I might be ok with that, but inviting a bunch of internet people to my house might be problematic with the el wifeo.

It would be against copyright law to show it outside in a public setting like a park.

 

[VF21]

Let's not forget that he is not a majority owner; he does not hold more than 50% of the shares. He was the guy chosen among a group of the biggest shareholders (reportedly approx. 60%) to represent them and be the President of the franchise. He apparently only owns 20% or thereabout.

So what will likely happen is that someone else from that group of owners would step up in his place, if Vivek would step aside.

Also, that makes me wonder how the other owners feel about the apparent big role by Vivek's son Aneel within the organization, as discussed by Amick recently

Could you elaborate? Especially the "apparent big role" part?

 

[mac]

Yeah, I was not clear: I did not mean that only Superstars can call for trades and get away with it.

I meant that only Superstars get away with things being all about them and less about the team (Leonard, AD for instance). Lesser stars will either have to swallow their pride and buy into the team concept, or find themselves being marginalized.

In other words (assuming that Buddy indeed does not accept a 6th man role): Buddy can think he's a starter, but if he gets traded to a good team with a strong management structure and they think the team is better of with Buddy as a sixth man, Buddy either will have to try his best as a 6th man, or his next stop will be as a starter on some bottom feeder.

That's just my view, of course.

Fair enough, I don't disagree with you there. Like I said, I think there's a difference between being professional (trying your best at whatever role), which I think as far as on the court goes Buddy has been doing, and ambition/vision. I won't fault Buddy for wanting to be more than a 6th man at this point in his career; I will fault him if he
goes and gives a lacklustre effort just because he's not starting.

 

[HebrewHammer]

Could you elaborate? Especially the "apparent big role" part?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The Athletic&#39;s <a href="https://twitter.com/sam_amick?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@sam_amick</a> joined The Drive this morning to discuss the article he authored with <a href="https://twitter.com/mr_jasonjones?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@mr_jasonjones</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/ShamsCharania?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@ShamsCharania</a> about the inner workings of the Sacramento Kings.<a href="https://t.co/JXkg7iiYmJ">https://t.co/JXkg7iiYmJ</a></p>&mdash; Sports 1140 KHTK (@Sports1140KHTK) <a href="

https://twitter.com/statuses/1228023585601728512

">February 13, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[AMR42700]

No I dont think he is. He hasnt shown to be much of a role player, mentality wise. He thinks he is a star and he plays like he does too. And hes not. He is a super role player.

Buddy Hield will never carry a team to a championship, let's not even try to kid ourselves. The only person who thinks he can is Buddy. And he is wholly mistake

His recent play and play last year implies he can be a good second or third option which is exactly what Klay Thompson is. Obviously Thompson is a better defender but Buddy could at least be average. He had had a few good defensive plays when he tries.

 

[kb02]

Yep. My theory—based on Amick’s comments regarding some in the ownership group’s disdain for Vivek’s management of basketball ops, is Vivek is covering cash calls specific to basketball ops himself to avoid further grousing, league office arbitration, etc. Thus, luxury tax payments come out of Vivek’s pocket, and that’s how we get the bizarre statement about being able to afford Bogi’s extension after the trade deadline.

I think our biggest problems are structural, irrespective of personalities, with a two-pronged problem of a fractured ownership and the COO effectively being the only direct report to the controlling owner.

Agree with this. There are obvious, external money pressures such as the rent on G1C, the DOCO developments (including the Sawyer), no new revenue from extra games (playoffs), and millions tossed away via buyouts (Karl, Pete, Malone, Joeger...).

That said, there is a salary floor that needs to be reached, so even with the salary constraints, they could’ve adopted a we will take your vet for picks to hit that salary floor strategy instead of signing ZBO, Hill, Vince, Caron...

Just another reason to dump this failed FO.