Yet again. Which way to go
- Thread starter sactowndog
- Start date
Normally I would say "push for the play-in", however, we annually go through stretches where we don't just lose more than win, we get crushed in losses that are parts of long losing streaks. Why would that happen to a roster that is supposedly put together to get into the playoffs? Thats the kind thing that should be happening to a team that is in rebuild mode.
If the same organization rebuilds the team, we will end up with the same team... and the pleasure of sitting through many additional losing seasons. Unless we're talking new ownership and new personnel under a new leader, I would rather stick with our core and add the missing pieces. I have no illusions that we will win a ring, but I'm not willing to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Perfect is a pipe dream, but Good is doable.
The goal of the Kings getting to the post-season must not now, or ever, be an end unto itself. It should be a building block on the way to being a contender - with the ultimate goal of winning a championship. If mediocrity (finishing in the 10th spot in the Western Conference, for example) is some sort of crowning achievement, then those in pursuit are sadly misguided. Right now, this organization needs to make decisions about personnel free of any arbitrary or small-minded considerations (i.e. “making the play-in”, “ending the playoff drought”). That type of middling mindset has gotten this franchise NOWHERE. After 15 years of futility, a contrived sense of urgency merely in the interest of breaking some streak and nothing more is pure folly. The FO needs to take the longer view and set this team up for REAL success. If that means dismantling the core and writing this season off in favor of a coherent plan for the future, then so be it.
Last edited:
I disagree and I think I am mostly uncertain about that 2nd year. If it were a 1 year deal, eh, big deal, more expirings to move at the deadline if it didn't work. I haven't looked it up lately but I recall seeing it's guaranteed. If so, that was a mistake. He likely overpaid as is, no team was giving Harkless more than the minimum. With things wavering now it would have been nice to have an extra out in a worst case and the cap space this summer to go with it. Being so hell bent on running things back with the way they looked while drafting another PG is probably more clueless on the surface than anything Vlade did in total any single summer.
Yikes dude, come on. McNair having to clean up Vlades 100 million losing core is why he hasn't been able to make any impact moves and have to win on the fringes. I think that value has probably changed over this season with Buddy/Barnes/Holmes all playing so well, so I think it'd be reasonable to say he could get fair value for them now. But unless you were suggesting he just dump the core for nothing, what's he supposed to do? Stuck with big contracts on long-term deals.
He took over for a losing core, no future assets, a loser coach he wasn't allowed to fire and install his own guy. This was never going to be a 2 year turn-around.
He took over for a losing core, no future assets, a loser coach he wasn't allowed to fire and install his own guy. This was never going to be a 2 year turn-around.
I don't think the idea was turn around to begin with when you start re-signing your own fringe players. I have no problem with Barnes/Buddy/Holmes. In fact it shows you how Vlade got some nice steal level deals all things considered. I'm talking the little moves around the periphery that add up in the short term that could cost you long term. Why sign guys to 2 year deals when there is no guarantee about the future of your team? The difference between 105 million on your books this summer and 96 could mean something. It leads me to believe they may have actually been surprised that the Luke experiment failed.
