Open your eyes. Kent Bazemore needed a change; we needed a change. That's what it's about. It wouldn't be even close to the first time a player has come to the Kings and proceeded to play the best ball of his career.
It just seems you're looking very hard to find the dark lining to the silver cloud.
My eyes are open, thank you. In the last decade plus, I have seen more players come to the Kings and play underwhelming, or get a nice contract and then play underwhelming, than that I have seen players blossom. Based on that track record, and the facts that Bazemore for the majority of his career has been no more than an okay player, and the still small sample size of his play here, and the fact that he might not even be here next year, excuse me for being cautious about him.
Also, one could argue that you are the one squinting to see the silver lining on a very dark cloud.
Despite the recent run, which is very nice, we still need a 8 game win-streak to reach .500. So the bar is set very low for a sliver cloud, if you ask me.
And let's say we can sustain this run and limp into the postseason this year, at the expense of some heavily injured teams, what does that say? It seems to me that many people are oh so willing to use the injury excuse when we lose, but when it works in our favor it isn't relevant. But setting that aside, I do not believe that this one play-off run by a sub .500 team is a good foundation to keep building on. Next season, NO and Memphis will have matured a bit, likely Portland will be healthy and improved, GS will have its two all stars back, and even sorry old Phoenix (for perspective, just two games behind us) may overtake us.
We have a good chance of losing Giles and losing (or overpaying for) Bazemore, Bogi and Len. And by next season, Holmes is just a one-year rental for whom we don't hold the Bird rights. As much as I like Fox, Hield and Barnes, and have not discounted the upside of Bagley, this is not a core I get very excited about.
And then we have a FO, which has had quite some horrible decisions, and some good ones and a whole bunch of meh ones. But if you look at the process of the decisionmaking, it is hard to shake the illusion that there is no tangible plan mid- to long term plan, actions have a reactionary vibe and it is hard to shake the impression that the good decisions have been largely stumbled into by luck.
I can to a certain extent understand getting excited about the current run, but I think it can just as validly be seen as fool's gold. I think this organization can only take serious steps towards relevance if sweeping changes are made at the top. I could be wrong, I hope I am wrong, but I am not holding my breath.