A picture worth a thousand words

[Section 101]

But you can emulate the Spurs. You emulate the principles by which they run their operation. The manifestation may be different, but the principles remain the same. From what I've seen, this Kings' organization has only one principle - to make the most people happy at any mini-moment in time. That's why they lurch and veer from one direction to another direction, from one coach to another, from one strategy to another. That's why you see the unprincipled PDA phenomenon; that's why you see the grasping at straws with the popular Karl hire; that's why you see the fan-favorite Divac hire; that's why you see the support of Karl with one stroke, and then undercutting him the next; that's why you see the coddling of Cousins. That's why this organization appears soooooooo incredibly inept. They talk about culture...yeah, right. What a freaking joke. The culture of this organization is based on the principle of a pandering politician, not a successful organization, which must have a bedrock of principles to steer the course through difficult times.

How is that working out for the Hawks? They had a good run last year, but this year came back down and are talking about a full rebuild.

 

[Amit149]

How is that working out for the Hawks? They had a good run last year, but this year came back down and are talking about a full rebuild.

Yes those dumb Hawks... all they achieved is 60 wins and going to the conference finals...

 

[Kingster]

How is that working out for the Hawks? They had a good run last year, but this year came back down and are talking about a full rebuild.

I'm not familiar with the Hawks management, so I don't know if the example even applies. Regardless, to look at one year tells you nothing other than a short-term orientation. That's part of the problem with the Kings's management - it's always looking at the short term polls of what have you done for me lately. Such an approach is doomed to inevitable failure.

 

[Showtime]

Maybe not this season but moving forward, you don't let a talent like that just get away, even if the assists are an illusion.

A talent like what? A below-average defender with a history of injuries that has ten seasons under his belt that can't shoot and will demand 15mil+ per season for his double-digit assist capabilities? What happens as he regresses physically in the next few years? Do you think he's suddenly going to become better on D or suddenly develop a shot? No.

 

[kingsboi]

A talent like what? A below-average defender with a history of injuries that has ten seasons under his belt that can't shoot and will demand 15mil+ per season for his double-digit assist capabilities? What happens as he regresses physically in the next few years? Do you think he's suddenly going to become better on D or suddenly develop a shot? No.

So if that's the way you see it, who do you, realistically see the Kings bringing in at PG then?

 

[Bricklayer]

A talent like what? A below-average defender with a history of injuries that has ten seasons under his belt that can't shoot and will demand 15mil+ per season for his double-digit assist capabilities? What happens as he regresses physically in the next few years? Do you think he's suddenly going to become better on D or suddenly develop a shot? No.

Rondo's actually exactly the style of PG who typically can play late into his 30s. Dre, Kidd, Nash etc. Legs go before brains.

 

[Section 101]

I'm not familiar with the Hawks management, so I don't know if the example even applies. Regardless, to look at one year tells you nothing other than a short-term orientation. That's part of the problem with the Kings's management - it's always looking at the short term polls of what have you done for me lately. Such an approach is doomed to inevitable failure.

Not about short term. Just very hard to copy another team over a long period of time. That's why it doesn't happen often.

 

[bajaden]

Rondo's actually exactly the style of PG who typically can play late into his 30s. Dre, Kidd, Nash etc. Legs go before brains.

I think you can live with Rondo as long as he's surrounded by good defenders ( aka Cauley Stein ) that can help cover for him. I don't think Rondo's lapses would be that noticeable if we were solid defensively at SF and SG. But make no mistake, Rondo is a terrible defender, and sometimes, it appears that he putting zero effort into it. As I've said before. The question with Rondo is, is what he does offensively offset what he does defensively. I'll leave that answer up to you, because I'm not sure one way or the other.

 

[bajaden]

Not about short term. Just very hard to copy another team over a long period of time. That's why it doesn't happen often.

I agree that you can't copy a team exactly. Especially when it comes to personnel. But you can copy what they do from a management point of view. Player development, scouting, all the way down the line. Kingster has a point. It's almost impossible to have a successful organization when there's a new Coach/GM every year. Each new group has it's own idea about how things should be done, and, if we were to stick with one, maybe, just maybe something solid would eventually emerge. But right now, rightly or wrongly, everything is based on winning right now so we can brag that we have a playoff team going into the new arena.

From a PR point of view, I get it. But that puts tremendous pressure on Vlade to make the right moves to make the Kings into a playoff team in one off season. That's how mistakes get made. Regardless of how the seasons ends up, I'm not putting too much blame on Vlade. I have to credit him for making moves that on paper at least, gave the team the appearance of a potential playoff team. It's apparent that the team will indeed win more games than last year. So I guess that's at least one small victory. If I put the blame anywhere, I put it on Vivek, for putting that much pressure on Vlade, and I put it on Karl, who Vlade didn't hire. Vivek was looking for a shortcut, and there really isn't one. Good teams are built methodically one piece at a time, and within an outline of what you want the team to look like. Then add in a bit of luck along the way.

I sat the other night in admiration, watching the Spurs take the Kings apart piece by piece. I mean it was a thing of beauty. I didn't like seeing it, but I had to admire it. They have a method to their madness and we don't. Not yet anyway. I think the Kings have forfeited the future to some extent in the last 3 or 4 years. We've drafted for position rather than taking the best player available. Now that can work if the best player available happens to play the position you need to fill. But when you take Jimmer Fredette for PR reasons instead of Klay Thompson or Kawhi Leonard, or Thomas Robinson because you need a PF instead of Damian Lillard or Harrison Barnes. And, maybe you decide not to take Lillard because you just drafted a PG the year before.

At this point it doesn't matter who you blame. That's water under the bridge. The point is, if you make the right decisions when you have the opportunity, your team looks entirely different, and you have success. But you know what bad teams do? The start trying to play catch up. They think that they can make up for all their bad moves, and do it quickly. Really? Your a franchise that has stumbled around for the last 8 or 9 years, trying to put a band aid on wound that requires surgery. The result is usually more mistakes, and a wound that just keeps bleeding, resulting in a franchise that's in chaos.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the fan base would endure the team improving slowly as long as it appeared stable, and that there was a plan. I mean, just what is the identity of this team? What kind of team is being built? To me, it looks like a smorgasbord where your trying to please everyone's appetite. There doesn't seem to be a plan. I know some don't like Petrie, but when he came to the Kings, he had a plan, and it didn't happen overnight. Peja didn't come until two years after being drafted. He had to wait for almost 4 years until he had the cap space to sign Vlade. He had the forsight to see that Webber, who sitting there waiting to be plucked, was the perfect fit for the team he trying to build (that was the luck part). None of this happened overnight, it just seemed that way.

The difference between then and now, and I know because I was a season ticket holder then, was that the fan base was just thrilled to have a professional team that they could watch. Most of us thought that the team would never be competitive enough to vie for a championship, and that was OK in some strange sort of way. But now, the fan base has tasted the blood and wants more. The patience of yesteryear is gone, and while understandable, it's not realistic, and it becomes even more unrealistic when the franchise is floundering all over the place. I'm not telling you anything new. I'm hoping that Vlade can bring stability to the team, and that Vivek butts out long enough for him to do it. And quit making promises that you can't keep.

 

[IfAt1st]

Everyone crying out this year for a system, and a plan, and an identity to this team just make me remember how many of ya'll were against the Kings hiring Jerry Sloan.

Yep, this elephant never forgets - you thought I would, didn't ya?

 

[kingsboi]

I agree that you can't copy a team exactly. Especially when it comes to personnel. But you can copy what they do from a management point of view. Player development, scouting, all the way down the line. Kingster has a point. It's almost impossible to have a successful organization when there's a new Coach/GM every year. Each new group has it's own idea about how things should be done, and, if we were to stick with one, maybe, just maybe something solid would eventually emerge. But right now, rightly or wrongly, everything is based on winning right now so we can brag that we have a playoff team going into the new arena.

From a PR point of view, I get it. But that puts tremendous pressure on Vlade to make the right moves to make the Kings into a playoff team in one off season. That's how mistakes get made. Regardless of how the seasons ends up, I'm not putting too much blame on Vlade. I have to credit him for making moves that on paper at least, gave the team the appearance of a potential playoff team. It's apparent that the team will indeed win more games than last year. So I guess that's at least one small victory. If I put the blame anywhere, I put it on Vivek, for putting that much pressure on Vlade, and I put it on Karl, who Vlade didn't hire. Vivek was looking for a shortcut, and there really isn't one. Good teams are built methodically one piece at a time, and within an outline of what you want the team to look like. Then add in a bit of luck along the way.

I sat the other night in admiration, watching the Spurs take the Kings apart piece by piece. I mean it was a thing of beauty. I didn't like seeing it, but I had to admire it. They have a method to their madness and we don't. Not yet anyway. I think the Kings have forfeited the future to some extent in the last 3 or 4 years. We've drafted for position rather than taking the best player available. Now that can work if the best player available happens to play the position you need to fill. But when you take Jimmer Fredette for PR reasons instead of Klay Thompson or Kawhi Leonard, or Thomas Robinson because you need a PF instead of Damian Lillard or Harrison Barnes. And, maybe you decide not to take Lillard because you just drafted a PG the year before.

At this point it doesn't matter who you blame. That's water under the bridge. The point is, if you make the right decisions when you have the opportunity, your team looks entirely different, and you have success. But you know what bad teams do? The start trying to play catch up. They think that they can make up for all their bad moves, and do it quickly. Really? Your a franchise that has stumbled around for the last 8 or 9 years, trying to put a band aid on wound that requires surgery. The result is usually more mistakes, and a wound that just keeps bleeding, resulting in a franchise that's in chaos.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the fan base would endure the team improving slowly as long as it appeared stable, and that there was a plan. I mean, just what is the identity of this team? What kind of team is being built? To me, it looks like a smorgasbord where your trying to please everyone's appetite. There doesn't seem to be a plan. I know some don't like Petrie, but when he came to the Kings, he had a plan, and it didn't happen overnight. Peja didn't come until two years after being drafted. He had to wait for almost 4 years until he had the cap space to sign Vlade. He had the forsight to see that Webber, who sitting there waiting to be plucked, was the perfect fit for the team he trying to build (that was the luck part). None of this happened overnight, it just seemed that way.

The difference between then and now, and I know because I was a season ticket holder then, was that the fan base was just thrilled to have a professional team that they could watch. Most of us thought that the team would never be competitive enough to vie for a championship, and that was OK in some strange sort of way. But now, the fan base has tasted the blood and wants more. The patience of yesteryear is gone, and while understandable, it's not realistic, and it becomes even more unrealistic when the franchise is floundering all over the place. I'm not telling you anything new. I'm hoping that Vlade can bring stability to the team, and that Vivek butts out long enough for him to do it. And quit making promises that you can't keep.

I'm glad you bring up Petrie here. When he was with the Kings the last couple of years prior to leaving, I couldn't wait to get the guy out of town and get a new face in the front office. Now I look back at it, stability was such an underrated aspect and we all want instant results, this isn't the NFL where that is possible, this is the NBA...it takes a long time to build a winner in the NBA and everything has to go right in order for that to be achieved. I yearn for the day where we finally can sit down and not worry about talking about the front office anymore and focus more on the product on the floor and the players.

 

[Henkel]

I agree that you can't copy a team exactly. Especially when it comes to personnel. But you can copy what they do from a management point of view. Player development, scouting, all the way down the line. Kingster has a point. It's almost impossible to have a successful organization when there's a new Coach/GM every year. Each new group has it's own idea about how things should be done, and, if we were to stick with one, maybe, just maybe something solid would eventually emerge. But right now, rightly or wrongly, everything is based on winning right now so we can brag that we have a playoff team going into the new arena.

From a PR point of view, I get it. But that puts tremendous pressure on Vlade to make the right moves to make the Kings into a playoff team in one off season. That's how mistakes get made. Regardless of how the seasons ends up, I'm not putting too much blame on Vlade. I have to credit him for making moves that on paper at least, gave the team the appearance of a potential playoff team. It's apparent that the team will indeed win more games than last year. So I guess that's at least one small victory. If I put the blame anywhere, I put it on Vivek, for putting that much pressure on Vlade, and I put it on Karl, who Vlade didn't hire. Vivek was looking for a shortcut, and there really isn't one. Good teams are built methodically one piece at a time, and within an outline of what you want the team to look like. Then add in a bit of luck along the way.

I sat the other night in admiration, watching the Spurs take the Kings apart piece by piece. I mean it was a thing of beauty. I didn't like seeing it, but I had to admire it. They have a method to their madness and we don't. Not yet anyway. I think the Kings have forfeited the future to some extent in the last 3 or 4 years. We've drafted for position rather than taking the best player available. Now that can work if the best player available happens to play the position you need to fill. But when you take Jimmer Fredette for PR reasons instead of Klay Thompson or Kawhi Leonard, or Thomas Robinson because you need a PF instead of Damian Lillard or Harrison Barnes. And, maybe you decide not to take Lillard because you just drafted a PG the year before.

At this point it doesn't matter who you blame. That's water under the bridge. The point is, if you make the right decisions when you have the opportunity, your team looks entirely different, and you have success. But you know what bad teams do? The start trying to play catch up. They think that they can make up for all their bad moves, and do it quickly. Really? Your a franchise that has stumbled around for the last 8 or 9 years, trying to put a band aid on wound that requires surgery. The result is usually more mistakes, and a wound that just keeps bleeding, resulting in a franchise that's in chaos.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the fan base would endure the team improving slowly as long as it appeared stable, and that there was a plan. I mean, just what is the identity of this team? What kind of team is being built? To me, it looks like a smorgasbord where your trying to please everyone's appetite. There doesn't seem to be a plan. I know some don't like Petrie, but when he came to the Kings, he had a plan, and it didn't happen overnight. Peja didn't come until two years after being drafted. He had to wait for almost 4 years until he had the cap space to sign Vlade. He had the forsight to see that Webber, who sitting there waiting to be plucked, was the perfect fit for the team he trying to build (that was the luck part). None of this happened overnight, it just seemed that way.

The difference between then and now, and I know because I was a season ticket holder then, was that the fan base was just thrilled to have a professional team that they could watch. Most of us thought that the team would never be competitive enough to vie for a championship, and that was OK in some strange sort of way. But now, the fan base has tasted the blood and wants more. The patience of yesteryear is gone, and while understandable, it's not realistic, and it becomes even more unrealistic when the franchise is floundering all over the place. I'm not telling you anything new. I'm hoping that Vlade can bring stability to the team, and that Vivek butts out long enough for him to do it. And quit making promises that you can't keep.

What a great thoughtful post. It's always a pleasure getting your perspective.

 

[bajaden]

I'm glad you bring up Petrie here. When he was with the Kings the last couple of years prior to leaving, I couldn't wait to get the guy out of town and get a new face in the front office. Now I look back at it, stability was such an underrated aspect and we all want instant results, this isn't the NFL where that is possible, this is the NBA...it takes a long time to build a winner in the NBA and everything has to go right in order for that to be achieved. I yearn for the day where we finally can sit down and not worry about talking about the front office anymore and focus more on the product on the floor and the players.

Amen to that brother....

 

[ppine]

Offense is not the problem, and has not been for a couple of years.

 

[Showtime]

Rondo's actually exactly the style of PG who typically can play late into his 30s. Dre, Kidd, Nash etc. Legs go before brains.

Dre and Kidd could still play some defense, and Nash is one of the best shooting PG's of all time. Again, once Rondo loses a step on offense, his weaknesses will not be able to be covered up with his passing abilities and we will be lamenting such a contract on our hands at that point.

We should be building for the future, not hanging on to players who have nothing to look forward to but an upcoming decline with a hefty contract.