Yet again. Which way to go

[whozit]

for what it is worth I heard Vivek wouldn’t allow Monte to trade Barnes either. But I guess that is what you get when you get the job by telling Vivek what he wants to hear instead of the truth.

The first sentence wouldn't surprise me based Vivek's reputation. But on the second, neither you or I were in the interview. We have no idea what was or wasn't said. No need to impunge his integrity regardless of what you think of his moves or in your case non-moves.

I personally gave McNair a pass on Walton last year, not this one. What I think we both agree on, he accepted the position with it’s wart of an owner. He gets to take ownership of the results.

 

[EIM86]

The first sentence wouldn't surprise me based Vivek's reputation. But on the second, neither you or I were in the interview. We have no idea what was or wasn't said. No need to impunge his integrity regardless of what you think of his moves or in your case non-moves.

I personally gave McNair a pass on Walton last year, not this one. What I think we both agree on, he accepted the position with it’s wart of an owner. He gets to take ownership of the results.

Unfortunately we need a GM that needs to build a team that can also make it seem like it was the owners idea by saying things like “if you went with so and so as head coach then the media will say how good of an owner you are blah blah blah” in order to get the coach and players he would want

 

[sactowndog]

The first sentence wouldn't surprise me based Vivek's reputation. But on the second, neither you or I were in the interview. We have no idea what was or wasn't said. No need to impunge his integrity regardless of what you think of his moves or in your case non-moves.

I personally gave McNair a pass on Walton last year, not this one. What I think we both agree on, he accepted the position with it’s wart of an owner. He gets to take ownership of the results.

well given Monte’s insistence from day 1 that making the play-offs was the goal and given 2 other well respected candidates withdrew their names from consideration…. We actually do have a pretty clear idea what was said and what Vivek wanted to hear.

 

[whozit]

well given Monte’s insistence from day 1 that making the play-offs was the goal and given 2 other well respected candidates withdrew their names from consideration…. We actually do have a pretty clear idea what was said and what Vivek wanted to hear.

There is the public imaging and messaging and then there is what is said behind the scenes. They are not necessarily one and the same.

 

[sactowndog]

There is the public imaging and messaging and then there is what is said behind the scenes. They are not necessarily one and the same.

True but the number of times it was repeated would indicate it’s true.

 

[SacTownKid]

well given Monte’s insistence from day 1 that making the play-offs was the goal and given 2 other well respected candidates withdrew their names from consideration…. We actually do have a pretty clear idea what was said and what Vivek wanted to hear.

Two words: JOE DUMARS. That's still the elephant in the room. No respected GM is going to come in with someone like that looking over their shoulder, nor is Joe D going to want to a GM with a backbone. Hence perhaps why Vlade had to go. Remember this all stemmed from Vlade having less input, and likely Joe having more. Vivek simply doesn't know how to structure a basketball organization. Cutthroat people scrambling to the same ladder might work in the corporate world, in sports it doesn't. You need a leader and everyone follows. And if that leader is a complete dumb *** you suck. The good thing about it is at least you get a decent draft pick out of it and another good thing is at least that person will be exposed in a matter of time. If this is a situation where they are putting human shields in front of Joe, who was once blinded by the sun as a GM and didn't like the heat after being the golden boy who took down the Lakers dynasty, then this is going to be drawn out until Vivek just finally hands the keys over someone with a proven track record and power. It's a game, not a tech company.

 

[The_Jamal]

Two words: JOE DUMARS. That's still the elephant in the room. No respected GM is going to come in with someone like that looking over their shoulder, nor is Joe D going to want to a GM with a backbone. Hence perhaps why Vlade had to go. Remember this all stemmed from Vlade having less input, and likely Joe having more. Vivek simply doesn't know how to structure a basketball organization. Cutthroat people scrambling to the same ladder might work in the corporate world, in sports it doesn't. You need a leader and everyone follows. And if that leader is a complete dumb *** you suck. The good thing about it is at least you get a decent draft pick out of it and another good thing is at least that person will be exposed in a matter of time. If this is a situation where they are putting human shields in front of Joe, who was once blinded by the sun as a GM and didn't like the heat after being the golden boy who took down the Lakers dynasty, then this is going to be drawn out until Vivek just finally hands the keys over someone with a proven track record and power. It's a game, not a tech company.

Yep. An owner should make one hire; their president of basketball operations. And then he has complete control to build the power structure how he sees fit. And if things go bad, it's real easy to put the blame on your president if things go wrong, because he was responsible for all the decisions.

Vivek has refused to do this since he took over. Hiring Malone before PDA, letting coaches stay past the GM that hired them. Brandon Williams, Joe Dumars involvement. There's just no cohesion and it's near impossible to get everyone on the same page because the people in charge are all pulling in different directions and different regimes.

 

[miltonap]

Why is Joe Dumars even here ? Shouldn't it just be one hire like someone above alluded to, then everything flows beneath that

 

[whozit]

Why is Joe Dumars even here ? Shouldn't it just be one hire like someone above alluded to, then everything flows beneath that

Remember the role Vlade had before he became GM? Same role. Dumars just didn't take the GM position. Probably safer.

 

[miltonap]

Remember the role Vlade had before he became GM? Same role. Dumars just didn't take the GM position. Probably safer.

Isn't this the same issue though. In this case Dumars would need to be 100% on board with the new GM, in this case Monte.

I understand that Monte was found through a sports agency, if Dumars wasn't 100% on board with the Monte hire I see that as an issue.

If he was then I think everything's all good.

But I seem to recall Vivek and his other associates being involved in the Monte hire, like his son wanting Gupta and him wanting Monte.

I think the important thing here would just be that Dumars was on board with the Monte hire.

 

[whozit]

Isn't this the same issue though. In this case Dumars would need to be 100% on board with the new GM, in this case Monte.

I understand that Monte was found through a sports agency, if Dumars wasn't 100% on board with the Monte hire I see that as an issue.

If he was then I think everything's all good.

But I seem to recall Vivek and his other associates being involved in the Monte hire, like his son wanting Gupta and him wanting Monte.

I think the important thing here would just be that Dumars was on board with the Monte hire.

I probably wasn't clear. It being safer was safer for Dumars not for the organization. I see it as a problem mainly because of Vivek's reputation of being a micromanager. If he was hands off then an advisor is more understanding. Just getting another perspective from a distance. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of owners have them. Vivek being a micromanager makes Dumars the advisor one too many cooks in the kitchen.

 

[gunks]

Why is Joe Dumars even here ? Shouldn't it just be one hire like someone above alluded to, then everything flows beneath that

Because Vivek thinks you can run a franchise like a tech startup and more heads = better.

But then he only hires morons and has-beens….

 

[EIM86]

Because Vivek thinks you can run a franchise like a tech startup and more heads = better.

But then he only hires morons and has-beens….

He’s running a wannabe tech company a la Ford instead of running it like Tesla or Apple

 

[mrlaze]

The flaw of this argument is the fact that the argument has assumed some information. ... When an argument fails to provide sufficient evidence for its conclusion - when it assumes that some important piece of evidence is true rather than demonstrating that it's true - that argument has failed.

Person A is <insert any accusations>, comes up with zero proof.
Person A is a public figure, thus he/she won't be able/allowed to say how he/she truly feels.
Thus, person A must be committing what I accused of him/her.

Is it not a flaw in logic?

Get out of here with your logic. This is a fan(atic) forum.

 

[kb02]

He’s running a wannabe tech company a la Ford instead of running it like Tesla or Apple

Wouldn’t say that. I know folks in management roles at those companies. They’re as toxic, if not more than the Kings.

 

[kb02]

Because Vivek thinks you can run a franchise like a tech startup and more heads = better.

But then he only hires morons and has-beens….

I think Vivek’s biggest issue is his inconsistency. He’s been running through execs (GMs and coaches) and has given them a two to three year runways. The one time he didn’t, it gave us 5 yrs of Vlade. Shoulda axed Vlade after 3.

 

[Tetsujin]

https://twitter.com/statuses/1468721526308413441

 

[EIM86]

Wouldn’t say that. I know folks in management roles at those companies. They’re as toxic, if not more than the Kings.

As do I and they’ve worked for Viveks company as well

 

[kb02]

As do I and they’ve worked for Viveks company as well

Burn out rate is high. The stories are crazy.

 

[sactowndog]

Kings and TWolves in 9 and 10 with significantly under 500 records. Who wants to bet the two stellar franchises chase the 9 and 10 seed no matter what their record.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Kings and TWolves in 9 and 10 with significantly under 500 records. Who wants to bet the two stellar franchises chase the 9 and 10 seed no matter what their record.

If we're lucky, maybe this is what moves the NBA to get rid of the play-in for next season

 

[EIM86]

If we're lucky, maybe this is what moves the NBA to get rid of the play-in for next season

this is the best way to go. I think if ANYTHING, play-in teams should only be allowed if they’re I don’t know something behind like 2 games or less at best of the 8th seed

 

[kingsfan101]

Apologies for digressing from the game thread, but wanted to comment on a recent post by STD, but the thread is closed

https://community.kingsfans.com/thr...21-3pm-pacific-6pm-eastern.82780/post-1612967

Thought it wasn't worth to create a new thread. Hopefully, the admins let it pass.

On this topic, I do think that it's really difficult to build a contender with just draft picks. You can get very very lucky and land a generational talent like Duncan/James, but most teams hope to achieve a superstar and potentially another good player if they fall to the top of the lottery and build around them. The luck of the ping pong balls, the strength of the class, a little luck in identifying and picking the right talent, and then developing that talent, all play a part.

If we consider some of the recent teams that built contenders through the draft (mostly), a common theme is that they either sucked for a few years and got very very lucky, or they found some gems late in the draft. I think the latter is the key. Let's take a look at some of these teams (ad-hoc list, mostly from memory. Please feel free to add. Also, I am listing teams that won, or were in serious contention, even if they eventually fell short). Discounting teams that had significant pieces acquired via trades/FA.

1. Spurs: They shut down DR the year TD was available, and got really lucky in the draft to pick the best PF of all times, who also was a great leader and team player. The dynasty continued since they picked TP, Manu, Kawhi with late draft picks.
2. OKC: In 3 successive years, they drafted 3 future MVPs (KD, Russ, Harden), including two of the all time best scorers. Good luck replicating that.
3. GSW: Within a span of 3 years, they picked Curry (7), Klay (11), and Green (35). While they added KD via FA later, this core had already won prior to his joining.
4. The Philly "Process": In four successive drafts starting 2014, they picked in top 4. Embiid (3), Jahlil Okafor (3), Ben Simmons (1), and Fultz (1). They took a chance on Embiid, who sat out 2 full seasons. It allowed them to continue to suck, and continue the process. Had he played, at least their own draft picks would not have been so good, and the process likely would have suffered from the same problem you point out for Memphis.
5. Celtics: Including them here since their current core consists of two guys they drafted in successive years (Brown, Tatum), even though a lot of their plans were to build a team via the usual routes. Think they were unlucky. Else, the team at different times had IT/Kyrie/Hayward/Horford/Kemba, along with the two studs they drafted. They could have been a dynasty, but somehow it never worked out.

Any team(s) folks would like to add to this discussion. The point I'm making is that it's extremely difficult and rare to build a contender primarily through the draft. For folks who are always talking of tanking, in the hopes of getting a superstar, even if we suck quite bad, with the new lottery rules in particular, we would be lucky to get a superstar. And then, we will need to continue to suck to hopefully get another. And then, we shall need to surround them with a good coach, veteran leaders, solid support cast and role players to become meaningful. In short, we will need to become a good organization, which we have shown to be quite incapable of.

That said, I have come around to the view that the team should trade Buddy and Barnes. Till some time back, I was of the opinion that the team should try and push for the post season, and that while we might fall short, it will be good for the long term development. I don't subscribe to that any more, since the team seems too far off. If Monte can trade these guys for enders and prospects/picks, I would be happy. It might be good for Buddy and Barnes too, since the team that takes them will likely be in a better position than us, hoping for a push to land unknown to the current group of guys.

 

[mac]

Apologies for digressing from the game thread, but wanted to comment on a recent post by STD, but the thread is closed

https://community.kingsfans.com/thr...21-3pm-pacific-6pm-eastern.82780/post-1612967

Thought it wasn't worth to create a new thread. Hopefully, the admins let it pass.

On this topic, I do think that it's really difficult to build a contender with just draft picks. You can get very very lucky and land a generational talent like Duncan/James, but most teams hope to achieve a superstar and potentially another good player if they fall to the top of the lottery and build around them. The luck of the ping pong balls, the strength of the class, a little luck in identifying and picking the right talent, and then developing that talent, all play a part.

If we consider some of the recent teams that built contenders through the draft (mostly), a common theme is that they either sucked for a few years and got very very lucky, or they found some gems late in the draft. I think the latter is the key. Let's take a look at some of these teams (ad-hoc list, mostly from memory. Please feel free to add. Also, I am listing teams that won, or were in serious contention, even if they eventually fell short). Discounting teams that had significant pieces acquired via trades/FA.

1. Spurs: They shut down DR the year TD was available, and got really lucky in the draft to pick the best PF of all times, who also was a great leader and team player. The dynasty continued since they picked TP, Manu, Kawhi with late draft picks.
2. OKC: In 3 successive years, they drafted 3 future MVPs (KD, Russ, Harden), including two of the all time best scorers. Good luck replicating that.
3. GSW: Within a span of 3 years, they picked Curry (7), Klay (11), and Green (35). While they added KD via FA later, this core had already won prior to his joining.
4. The Philly "Process": In four successive drafts starting 2014, they picked in top 4. Embiid (3), Jahlil Okafor (3), Ben Simmons (1), and Fultz (1). They took a chance on Embiid, who sat out 2 full seasons. It allowed them to continue to suck, and continue the process. Had he played, at least their own draft picks would not have been so good, and the process likely would have suffered from the same problem you point out for Memphis.
5. Celtics: Including them here since their current core consists of two guys they drafted in successive years (Brown, Tatum), even though a lot of their plans were to build a team via the usual routes. Think they were unlucky. Else, the team at different times had IT/Kyrie/Hayward/Horford/Kemba, along with the two studs they drafted. They could have been a dynasty, but somehow it never worked out.

Any team(s) folks would like to add to this discussion. The point I'm making is that it's extremely difficult and rare to build a contender primarily through the draft. For folks who are always talking of tanking, in the hopes of getting a superstar, even if we suck quite bad, with the new lottery rules in particular, we would be lucky to get a superstar. And then, we will need to continue to suck to hopefully get another. And then, we shall need to surround them with a good coach, veteran leaders, solid support cast and role players to become meaningful. In short, we will need to become a good organization, which we have shown to be quite incapable of.

That said, I have come around to the view that the team should trade Buddy and Barnes. Till some time back, I was of the opinion that the team should try and push for the post season, and that while we might fall short, it will be good for the long term development. I don't subscribe to that any more, since the team seems too far off. If Monte can trade these guys for enders and prospects/picks, I would be happy. It might be good for Buddy and Barnes too, since the team that takes them will likely be in a better position than us, hoping for a push to land unknown to the current group of guys.

I think you start from the basics - draft, free agency or trade. Free agency - good luck with that, so we're only left with the draft and trade.

You don't get stars through trade without giving up something. Let's be real, any trade involving Buddy/Barnes without Hali or Fox isn't going to bring us back a star, but some fans are unwilling to part with Hali/Fox/Davion.

So that leaves us with the draft, and I think you hit the nail on the head that ultimately you need to nail your picks, whether they are lotto or late picks, but again the reality is that you stand a much better chance getting a contributor from a lotto pick than you do from late picks. Until we have a solid core and a franchise player, you can find all the G-league Duncan Robinsons you want and you're not going to be successful.

And another issue is that of development. I really can't confidently that tell you that Draymond/Kawhi become Draymond/Kawhi if they're playing on a losing team and being asked to shoulder the burden as a scorer from day 1 rather than a defensive playmaker.

Barring some ridiculous 40/10 statline in Jan I think we can safely say Fox isn't making the all star team this year. Which (to me at least) suggests we don't have a franchise player; unless anyone else can point me to another franchise player who didn't make the all-star team by their 5th year. So are you really banking on picking said player at #10-12 in the upcoming drafts?

 

[iowamcnabb]

I think you start from the basics - draft, free agency or trade. Free agency - good luck with that, so we're only left with the draft and trade.

You don't get stars through trade without giving up something. Let's be real, any trade involving Buddy/Barnes without Hali or Fox isn't going to bring us back a star, but some fans are unwilling to part with Hali/Fox/Davion.

So that leaves us with the draft, and I think you hit the nail on the head that ultimately you need to nail your picks, whether they are lotto or late picks, but again the reality is that you stand a much better chance getting a contributor from a lotto pick than you do from late picks. Until we have a solid core and a franchise player, you can find all the G-league Duncan Robinsons you want and you're not going to be successful.

And another issue is that of development. I really can't confidently that tell you that Draymond/Kawhi become Draymond/Kawhi if they're playing on a losing team and being asked to shoulder the burden as a scorer from day 1 rather than a defensive playmaker.

Barring some ridiculous 40/10 statline in Jan I think we can safely say Fox isn't making the all star team this year. Which (to me at least) suggests we don't have a franchise player; unless anyone else can point me to another franchise player who didn't make the all-star team by their 5th year. So are you really banking on picking said player at #10-12 in the upcoming drafts?

I think it’s also much harder and more complicated to win in the NBA than fans are willing to admit. A lot of things have to come together for a team to win consistently. See the Lakers. See the darlings of last season, the Hawks. Denver has a top 5 player and they have one more win than loss. Boston has two alleged franchise cornerstones and can’t get to .500. Dallas Doncic’s haven’t consistently won. Dame dolla and the Blaze are several games below .500. Beal and the Wiz. The Grizz have one franchise altering player but have a better record so far this season without him. And since a lot of forum members are championship or bust, we could list a ton of all stars/ better franchises that are total failures from that perspective. IE most of the league. My bigger point is although the Kings have been full of incompetence over the years, they are in the majority (failure) if a chip is the one and only goal. This post isn’t directed at you or anyone in particular, just a frustration on my part.

 

[kb02]

Apologies for digressing from the game thread, but wanted to comment on a recent post by STD, but the thread is closed

https://community.kingsfans.com/thr...21-3pm-pacific-6pm-eastern.82780/post-1612967

Thought it wasn't worth to create a new thread. Hopefully, the admins let it pass.

On this topic, I do think that it's really difficult to build a contender with just draft picks. You can get very very lucky and land a generational talent like Duncan/James, but most teams hope to achieve a superstar and potentially another good player if they fall to the top of the lottery and build around them. The luck of the ping pong balls, the strength of the class, a little luck in identifying and picking the right talent, and then developing that talent, all play a part.

If we consider some of the recent teams that built contenders through the draft (mostly), a common theme is that they either sucked for a few years and got very very lucky, or they found some gems late in the draft. I think the latter is the key. Let's take a look at some of these teams (ad-hoc list, mostly from memory. Please feel free to add. Also, I am listing teams that won, or were in serious contention, even if they eventually fell short). Discounting teams that had significant pieces acquired via trades/FA.

1. Spurs: They shut down DR the year TD was available, and got really lucky in the draft to pick the best PF of all times, who also was a great leader and team player. The dynasty continued since they picked TP, Manu, Kawhi with late draft picks.
2. OKC: In 3 successive years, they drafted 3 future MVPs (KD, Russ, Harden), including two of the all time best scorers. Good luck replicating that.
3. GSW: Within a span of 3 years, they picked Curry (7), Klay (11), and Green (35). While they added KD via FA later, this core had already won prior to his joining.
4. The Philly "Process": In four successive drafts starting 2014, they picked in top 4. Embiid (3), Jahlil Okafor (3), Ben Simmons (1), and Fultz (1). They took a chance on Embiid, who sat out 2 full seasons. It allowed them to continue to suck, and continue the process. Had he played, at least their own draft picks would not have been so good, and the process likely would have suffered from the same problem you point out for Memphis.
5. Celtics: Including them here since their current core consists of two guys they drafted in successive years (Brown, Tatum), even though a lot of their plans were to build a team via the usual routes. Think they were unlucky. Else, the team at different times had IT/Kyrie/Hayward/Horford/Kemba, along with the two studs they drafted. They could have been a dynasty, but somehow it never worked out.

Any team(s) folks would like to add to this discussion. The point I'm making is that it's extremely difficult and rare to build a contender primarily through the draft. For folks who are always talking of tanking, in the hopes of getting a superstar, even if we suck quite bad, with the new lottery rules in particular, we would be lucky to get a superstar. And then, we will need to continue to suck to hopefully get another. And then, we shall need to surround them with a good coach, veteran leaders, solid support cast and role players to become meaningful. In short, we will need to become a good organization, which we have shown to be quite incapable of.

That said, I have come around to the view that the team should trade Buddy and Barnes. Till some time back, I was of the opinion that the team should try and push for the post season, and that while we might fall short, it will be good for the long term development. I don't subscribe to that any more, since the team seems too far off. If Monte can trade these guys for enders and prospects/picks, I would be happy. It might be good for Buddy and Barnes too, since the team that takes them will likely be in a better position than us, hoping for a push to land unknown to the current group of guys.

Yea, trade for elite talent like Simmons.

 

[mac]

I think it’s also much harder and more complicated to win in the NBA than fans are willing to admit. A lot of things have to come together for a team to win consistently. See the Lakers. See the darlings of last season, the Hawks. Denver has a top 5 player and they have one more win than loss. Boston has two alleged franchise cornerstones and can’t get to .500. Dallas Doncic’s haven’t consistently won. Dame dolla and the Blaze are several games below .500. Beal and the Wiz. The Grizz have one franchise altering player but have a better record so far this season without him. And since a lot of forum members are championship or bust, we could list a ton of all stars/ better franchises that are total failures from that perspective. IE most of the league. My bigger point is although the Kings have been full of incompetence over the years, they are in the majority (failure) if a chip is the one and only goal. This post isn’t directed at you or anyone in particular, just a frustration on my part.

Yeah I agree, championship or bust thinking is dumb for a franchise like ours. While we should by no means sacrifice everything just to make the playoffs once, the whole idea of taking some long path to build a championship team is dumb when we can't even make the playoffs year after year. Nobody is coming to Sac until we at the very least show some signs of hope.

 

[sactowndog]

Apologies for digressing from the game thread, but wanted to comment on a recent post by STD, but the thread is closed

https://community.kingsfans.com/thr...21-3pm-pacific-6pm-eastern.82780/post-1612967

Thought it wasn't worth to create a new thread. Hopefully, the admins let it pass.

On this topic, I do think that it's really difficult to build a contender with just draft picks. You can get very very lucky and land a generational talent like Duncan/James, but most teams hope to achieve a superstar and potentially another good player if they fall to the top of the lottery and build around them. The luck of the ping pong balls, the strength of the class, a little luck in identifying and picking the right talent, and then developing that talent, all play a part.

If we consider some of the recent teams that built contenders through the draft (mostly), a common theme is that they either sucked for a few years and got very very lucky, or they found some gems late in the draft. I think the latter is the key. Let's take a look at some of these teams (ad-hoc list, mostly from memory. Please feel free to add. Also, I am listing teams that won, or were in serious contention, even if they eventually fell short). Discounting teams that had significant pieces acquired via trades/FA.

1. Spurs: They shut down DR the year TD was available, and got really lucky in the draft to pick the best PF of all times, who also was a great leader and team player. The dynasty continued since they picked TP, Manu, Kawhi with late draft picks.
2. OKC: In 3 successive years, they drafted 3 future MVPs (KD, Russ, Harden), including two of the all time best scorers. Good luck replicating that.
3. GSW: Within a span of 3 years, they picked Curry (7), Klay (11), and Green (35). While they added KD via FA later, this core had already won prior to his joining.
4. The Philly "Process": In four successive drafts starting 2014, they picked in top 4. Embiid (3), Jahlil Okafor (3), Ben Simmons (1), and Fultz (1). They took a chance on Embiid, who sat out 2 full seasons. It allowed them to continue to suck, and continue the process. Had he played, at least their own draft picks would not have been so good, and the process likely would have suffered from the same problem you point out for Memphis.
5. Celtics: Including them here since their current core consists of two guys they drafted in successive years (Brown, Tatum), even though a lot of their plans were to build a team via the usual routes. Think they were unlucky. Else, the team at different times had IT/Kyrie/Hayward/Horford/Kemba, along with the two studs they drafted. They could have been a dynasty, but somehow it never worked out.

Any team(s) folks would like to add to this discussion. The point I'm making is that it's extremely difficult and rare to build a contender primarily through the draft. For folks who are always talking of tanking, in the hopes of getting a superstar, even if we suck quite bad, with the new lottery rules in particular, we would be lucky to get a superstar. And then, we will need to continue to suck to hopefully get another. And then, we shall need to surround them with a good coach, veteran leaders, solid support cast and role players to become meaningful. In short, we will need to become a good organization, which we have shown to be quite incapable of.

That said, I have come around to the view that the team should trade Buddy and Barnes. Till some time back, I was of the opinion that the team should try and push for the post season, and that while we might fall short, it will be good for the long term development. I don't subscribe to that any more, since the team seems too far off. If Monte can trade these guys for enders and prospects/picks, I would be happy. It might be good for Buddy and Barnes too, since the team that takes them will likely be in a better position than us, hoping for a push to land unknown to the current group of guys.

Spurs also drafted Robinson #1 at the start before landing Duncan.

 

[The_Jamal]

Yeah I agree, championship or bust thinking is dumb for a franchise like ours. While we should by no means sacrifice everything just to make the playoffs once, the whole idea of taking some long path to build a championship team is dumb when we can't even make the playoffs year after year. Nobody is coming to Sac until we at the very least show some signs of hope.

Yeah, the reality is if you aren't one of the 5 teams with a generational type talent (Steph, KD, LeBron, Giannis, Jokic, Kawhi types), your team needs incredible depth and/or a bunch of top 30-50 players (think the Bulls this season). I'd put Fox in that category of the Bulls guys (Vuc, Derozan,Lavine) where all of them are all-star/fringe all-star types, but aren't near good enough to carry a team by themselves. So holding on to Fox, that'd be the blueprint where we'd need to find 2 or 3 more top 30-50 type talents around him.

 

[steelevt]

Yeah, the reality is if you aren't one of the 5 teams with a generational type talent (Steph, KD, LeBron, Giannis, Jokic, Kawhi types), your team needs incredible depth and/or a bunch of top 30-50 players (think the Bulls this season). I'd put Fox in that category of the Bulls guys (Vuc, Derozan,Lavine) where all of them are all-star/fringe all-star types, but aren't near good enough to carry a team by themselves. So holding on to Fox, that'd be the blueprint where we'd need to find 2 or 3 more top 30-50 type talents around him.

Are you saying if we drafted 7 or worse we can get a generational talent like steph, Giannis, jokic or kawhi? Or even a allstar like Vuc, derozan or lavine to go with fox and haliburton? Hmm maybe having a good gm might be more important than tanking