Bagley refused to come into game
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
If by "coach killer" you mean Bagley recognized that he was being misused and mishandled by an inept coach and decided to make a statement (probably was more emotional that planned in advance), I don't mark that against him. Only good/rotational players can legitly be called "coach killers." Seems to me Bagley made a good bet that Walton was headed out the door, and his statement is less an impetus for that than a reflection of the dwindling respect for the coach. The fact that no other assistant coaches made statement against Bagley's behavior afterwards only bolsters this perspective.
The two coaches Vivek is paying this year are the same two he was already paying. Albeit one got a raise. He gets the fans excited again and he may recoup that investment made via the raise.
I seriously doubt Walton was deliberately holding Bagley back. I suspect Bagley was simply collateral damage for attaining the goal. Walton's goal of self-preservation. Whether or not Walton was effectively effective in holding him back is yet to be determined. If Walton was, it will not be the first player that he had an adverse effect on.
My assumption is that the reasons a player may not go in ranges in all sizes and shapes. Some more defensible than others. On the surface looking from the outside, it appears that Bagley's action falls in the latter category. However with the support that his fellow players and at least one coach gave him, there is a fair probability that there's a lot more to the other side of the story.
I seriously doubt Walton was deliberately holding Bagley back. I suspect Bagley was simply collateral damage for attaining the goal. Walton's goal of self-preservation. Whether or not Walton was effectively effective in holding him back is yet to be determined. If Walton was, it will not be the first player that he had an adverse effect on.
My assumption is that the reasons a player may not go in ranges in all sizes and shapes. Some more defensible than others. On the surface looking from the outside, it appears that Bagley's action falls in the latter category. However with the support that his fellow players and at least one coach gave him, there is a fair probability that there's a lot more to the other side of the story.
Wait. You're saying Marvin forced Walton out the door by not coming in the game?
If Walton wanted to keep his job, he needed to win games. That game was already decided.
How about Walton had 2 nine game losing streaks last year and the FO was not about to let that happen again without making a change.
If Walton wanted to keep his job, he needed to win games. That game was already decided.
How about Walton had 2 nine game losing streaks last year and the FO was not about to let that happen again without making a change.
Marvin is not what got Luke fired. Holy heck. It was another horrid losing streak and the not-full arena chanting/demanding he be fired, along with just a complete display of "I don't know what I'm doing here" coaching acumen that has been prevalent for all but a handful of games during his tenure. Marvin isn't the only person who suddenly looks like a different player, not the least of whom is our maxed out "franchise" player who the fan base had also turned on.
List of people who got Walton fired:
Luke
Fans
Fox
Littlefinger
.
.
.
Joerger getting cancer and making people in Sacramento reminisce about happier times when our competent coach was feuding with our incompetent FO
,
.
Marvin
List of people who got Walton fired:
Luke
Fans
Fox
Littlefinger
.
.
.
Joerger getting cancer and making people in Sacramento reminisce about happier times when our competent coach was feuding with our incompetent FO
,
.
Marvin
bagley only gets the blame/credit because of his timing. right or wrong, he made a statement by refusing to go in a game. the front office then had to do SOMEthing. and it appears that they told luke to downplay it and by the way, start playing marvin (which may actually BE why he sat harkless for metu - which looked pretty out of the blue - so he could bring marvin in, still as a bench player).
but everyone knew that the team did not support the coach, and even though i think they intended to give luke a longer leash, marvin had poisoned the well and luke had to go immediately, to give gentry half a chance.
excerpt:
Only good/rotational players can legitly be called "coach killers."
i disagree with that, but i understand your point. i would add "high lottery picks" to "elite players" as people who can be coach killers. the team has so much invested in a high lottery pick that what they do (or refuse to do) and their relationship to the coach has a certain amount of importance. bagley refusing to go in isn't like fox refusing, but he took a significant stand against his coach and the team could either let it fester or cut luke loose.
fwiw: the kings have a pregame radio show for an hour, then scott leaves and hank remains, replaced by jason and gary for the half hour leading up to the game.
so, the commercial set between both shows is likely the highest visibility.
well, on sunday, leading into the game in memphis, khtk dived into the vault and found promos from marvin's rookie year (the theme was "the kings play here") and were running the one that proclaims, "marvin bagley plays here - the kings play here".
guess he is getting a career restart.
so, the commercial set between both shows is likely the highest visibility.
well, on sunday, leading into the game in memphis, khtk dived into the vault and found promos from marvin's rookie year (the theme was "the kings play here") and were running the one that proclaims, "marvin bagley plays here - the kings play here".
guess he is getting a career restart.
He's not starting. Not getting special treatment. Not technically a core piece of the team. Marvin has been given a role and he's happy.
Sounds like Marvin just wanted a coach who didn't publicly lament the franchise passing on another player for him, or publicly forgetting that his name was Marvin Bagley and not Marvin Gaye. Or maybe he didn't like playing for a coach who has a history of trying to put confident high draft picks in their place by benching them and keeping them off the court in the 4th qtr.
Sounds like Marvin just wanted a coach who didn't publicly lament the franchise passing on another player for him, or publicly forgetting that his name was Marvin Bagley and not Marvin Gaye. Or maybe he didn't like playing for a coach who has a history of trying to put confident high draft picks in their place by benching them and keeping them off the court in the 4th qtr.
Last edited:
Never understood this line of thinking that someone needs to be humbled. Life will humble a man on it's own if warranted. It doesn't need to be artificially created. That's what Luke tried to do with the majority of his high draft picks.
Luke, who was given everything he has ever had in life, is not the man to try and humble or lecture anyone.
This humbling thing is fascinating to me. It's usually the people who THINK they achieved everything on their own through hard work believing that the actual ultra talented, hard working person isn't deserving of what they've earned and needs to be knocked down a few pegs.
Luke, who was given everything he has ever had in life, is not the man to try and humble or lecture anyone.
This humbling thing is fascinating to me. It's usually the people who THINK they achieved everything on their own through hard work believing that the actual ultra talented, hard working person isn't deserving of what they've earned and needs to be knocked down a few pegs.
what's worse is that when vlade pounced on luke (immediately after the lakers let him go), he said, "we have wanted him for awhile but he wasn't available".
that suggests that joerger was really not vlade's first choice (although he also pounced on him as soon as memphis let him go and talked about how lucky the kings were to get him - AFTER the lakers signed luke).
this indicates that "you can't trust vlade" (which is why it's good that he's gone).
it also makes it look like joerger was merely a place holder until walton came available.
no wonder joerger had his problems with the front office and with the benefit of hindsight, it looks like brandon williams may have been doing his duty by trashing joerger when he did - greasing the skids for his eventual departure (and vlade did not fire or discipline williams until the end of the season - at the same time he got rid of joerger).
given that vlade did not support coach karl when cousins stormed his office, armed with epithets, in preseason (and should have received a short suspension), it's easy to see why no veteran coach would want to rely on the kings' front office.
although vlade is gone, monte has continued this "refusal to back the coach" when monte took no action when marvin refused to go in the game - in fact, given walton's cryptic press conference, luke seems to have known that things would be settled in then following week and probably thought that marvin would now be traded no matter what his worth.
however, it was luke who barely lasted the week.
things i would like to know.
1) did the kings look for a "best offer available" after marvin defied his coach?
2) was luke told, "play it down - he'll be gone by next week" (deception)?
3) how do marvin's teammates feel (anything from "what a prima donna - can't wait until he's gone" to "the wicked luke is dead - hail marvin")?
timeline 2019 : vlade fires joerger (4/11), lakers fire walton (4/12), kings hire walton (4/14)
timeline 2016: lakers agree to hire luke walton (4/29); memphis fires dave joerger (5/7); kings hire joerger (5/9 - cancelling upcoming interview with nate mcmillan).
maybe an actual search this time - but no self respecting coach is coming here without some resolution of the marvin bagley situation - either he proves himself worthy of a new contract or he is gone, but a new coach should want to know the lay of the land before signing on.
grant used to say "there is a big black cloud hanging over this team".
same as it ever was.
that suggests that joerger was really not vlade's first choice (although he also pounced on him as soon as memphis let him go and talked about how lucky the kings were to get him - AFTER the lakers signed luke).
this indicates that "you can't trust vlade" (which is why it's good that he's gone).
it also makes it look like joerger was merely a place holder until walton came available.
no wonder joerger had his problems with the front office and with the benefit of hindsight, it looks like brandon williams may have been doing his duty by trashing joerger when he did - greasing the skids for his eventual departure (and vlade did not fire or discipline williams until the end of the season - at the same time he got rid of joerger).
given that vlade did not support coach karl when cousins stormed his office, armed with epithets, in preseason (and should have received a short suspension), it's easy to see why no veteran coach would want to rely on the kings' front office.
although vlade is gone, monte has continued this "refusal to back the coach" when monte took no action when marvin refused to go in the game - in fact, given walton's cryptic press conference, luke seems to have known that things would be settled in then following week and probably thought that marvin would now be traded no matter what his worth.
however, it was luke who barely lasted the week.
things i would like to know.
1) did the kings look for a "best offer available" after marvin defied his coach?
2) was luke told, "play it down - he'll be gone by next week" (deception)?
3) how do marvin's teammates feel (anything from "what a prima donna - can't wait until he's gone" to "the wicked luke is dead - hail marvin")?
timeline 2019 : vlade fires joerger (4/11), lakers fire walton (4/12), kings hire walton (4/14)
timeline 2016: lakers agree to hire luke walton (4/29); memphis fires dave joerger (5/7); kings hire joerger (5/9 - cancelling upcoming interview with nate mcmillan).
maybe an actual search this time - but no self respecting coach is coming here without some resolution of the marvin bagley situation - either he proves himself worthy of a new contract or he is gone, but a new coach should want to know the lay of the land before signing on.
grant used to say "there is a big black cloud hanging over this team".
same as it ever was.
It wasn't artificially created. If he went to the Spurs with Pop or any other good org he would have gone through the a humble-pie period. Has nothing to do with personalities causing him to lower his head in shame. He thought he was a lot better than he was; he wasn't. He seems to have finally gotten understood his limitations, ergo he's starting to grow up, ergo he's playing better. If anything, Walton leaving gives him an nice out - it was all Walton's fault he didn't play well. Nonsense. My only beef with Walton is that he didn't lower the boom on the kid from the get-go and told him flat out that he needed to start working hard to become a basketball player rather than a hooper before he got major minutes or more than the 4th or 5th offensive option. He didn't do the kid any favors in that regard.
P.S. I just heard an interview with Gentry in which he and Walton and the rest of the coaching staff were in agreement on Bagley before Walton left and Bagley got more pt. He attributes the additional minutes of Bagley to Bagley being better, not Gentry having some different view on Bagley than Walton.
P.S. I just heard an interview with Gentry in which he and Walton and the rest of the coaching staff were in agreement on Bagley before Walton left and Bagley got more pt. He attributes the additional minutes of Bagley to Bagley being better, not Gentry having some different view on Bagley than Walton.
Last edited:
Well this goes to my original comment of being fascinated with this mindset. The mindset of needing to punish someone for being talented and knowing it.
If we're being honest, that approach has more to do with being jealous of someone's natural talents and believing that for whatever reason (I'll let people soul search on their own reasons even though I have my assumptions), that person isn't deserving of those talents. That it's the "bosses" job or the mobs job to beat him into submission.
Still haven't heard anyone in the organization say Marvin wasn't a hard worker or that he wasn't a good teammate for that matter.
If we're being honest, that approach has more to do with being jealous of someone's natural talents and believing that for whatever reason (I'll let people soul search on their own reasons even though I have my assumptions), that person isn't deserving of those talents. That it's the "bosses" job or the mobs job to beat him into submission.
Still haven't heard anyone in the organization say Marvin wasn't a hard worker or that he wasn't a good teammate for that matter.
LOL. CD doesn't want that narrative to shift.
Bagley IS probably gone by the trade deadline. But to throw it out there that Marvin is only playing because of an agreement to get his value up? Ok. That works if Marvin is capable if playing well enough to get the value up. If he's capable of that and adding value to the team, why park him on the bench to begin with?
This is also completely ignoring what is actually happening on the court.
1. The 3 and 4 guard line-up wasn't working the way the team planned.
2. There were several injuries to key big men that opened up playing time.
3. When that playing time opened up, Marvin played well.
4. New coach.
But whatever. Props to Marvin playing well after being gifted playing time again, I guess.
Ps: My response is to the original CD tweet that said Marvin is only playing because of an agreement between him, Monte and his agent.
Bagley IS probably gone by the trade deadline. But to throw it out there that Marvin is only playing because of an agreement to get his value up? Ok. That works if Marvin is capable if playing well enough to get the value up. If he's capable of that and adding value to the team, why park him on the bench to begin with?
This is also completely ignoring what is actually happening on the court.
1. The 3 and 4 guard line-up wasn't working the way the team planned.
2. There were several injuries to key big men that opened up playing time.
3. When that playing time opened up, Marvin played well.
4. New coach.
But whatever. Props to Marvin playing well after being gifted playing time again, I guess.
Ps: My response is to the original CD tweet that said Marvin is only playing because of an agreement between him, Monte and his agent.
Last edited: