Athletic Article On the Kings Today

I've never agreed with the "blame the players, blame the coach, blame the GM, blame the owner" hierarchy. It's so pointless. Can the players play better? Yes, I think so. I hope so. Can the coach prepare them and motivate them better? I certainly think this coach should be doing a better job of both. I don't like Vlade's draft decisions but I'm okay with most of his free agent acquisitions and trades. Vivek has put his foot in his mouth more than once and has been guilty of overestimating his own basketball expertise, especially early on in his tenure. But you don't trade owners so that's moot. It's far too easy for us to pat each other on the back and say we, the fans, deserve better. Is it really all that awful though? We have a young team with hard-working kids who want to win. I think maybe we've just been grumpy for so long that we've forgotten how to be anything else. 14 years of dedication and patience doesn't give us free license to now be jerks. Absolutely change needs to happen but change for the sake of change has been this organization's MO for this entire period. That's not working. There's a more rational way to go about building a team and I think a very small part of that could be us fans backing off a bit and allowing growth to happen at it's own pace. And failing that, lowering expectations might actually make the losing easier to tolerate.

Does any of that make sense? That's where I'm coming from. I don't mean to be rude about it, I'm just wading against the current in a lot of these discussions so it's hard to get people to understand what I'm trying to say.
I don't get this at all. And I also don't get some of the other commenters that seem to imply that we should not voice displeasure against the franchise and its main characters.

NBA is a business, and the Kings are one of the franchises. They put a product out there, and we fans are the main consumers. We buy tickets, season tickets, Game Pass, merchandise etc. We are loyal customers, more loyal than most customers of most other products. But when the product we receive has been bad for such a long time, we have the right to complain.

Moreover, the economic mechanism of the capitalist market is based on consumer behavior and feedback as a main driver for maximizing effort into improving the product. I know that there are some arguments for saying that the NBA is not a normal market, and does not have a normal product, but the point still stands, IMO.

This team got a new start with Vivek and a honeymoon period that has long passed. We can find all the excuses that we want, but this team is still far removed from being a contender, and I believe at least two years removed from securing a play-off spot. The dysfunction seems to be present in all levels of the franchise, from owner, to operations, to GM, to medical staff, to players.

We have all the right in the world to stand up and complain about the product, and that is one of the instruments to help push this organization to examine itself and better itself. Now, there are ways to do it. The personal attacks on individual players on social media is inexcusable and wrong. But whether people want to boo the team or the coaches, wear paper bags over their heads, pay for a billboard or do a rally outside G1C, good for them. It beats apathy, and IMO is more constructive than the blind optimism and gobbling up of excuses spouted by Grant Napear of some.
 
Buddy makes stupid decisions in very important times which leads to losing games. So until he figures out how to not turn the ball over, shoot better looks, and play adequate team defense he needs to shut up and ball. Plain and simple. And Cojo is not on the same talent level as Fox, you are comparing apples and strawberries.
You're not looking at the bigger picture though. Acquiring players isn't the only way to improve the team. You can also develop the players you already have. Presumably, when you draft somebody or trade for somebody and invest in them with a long-term contract you're doing it both because you like the player they are now and because you like the player they will grow into being. Actually putting in the work of making sure that development happens though is the organization's responsibility if they have aspirations of being anything good. The player has to do their part too but taking a guy out of the rotation and telling them to "figure it out" is hurting the team more than it's hurting the player. If he's never going to get it maybe we trade him but you'd like to think we'd have figured that out before signing him to a $94 million extension which will make it very difficult to get anything valuable in return. Especially if he does eventually demand a trade and/or isn't getting minutes.
 
You're not looking at the bigger picture though. Acquiring players isn't the only way to improve the team. You can also develop the players you already have. Presumably, when you draft somebody or trade for somebody and invest in them with a long-term contract you're doing it both because you like the player they are now and because you like the player they will grow into being. Actually putting in the work of making sure that development happens though is the organization's responsibility if they have aspirations of being anything good. The player has to do their part too but taking a guy out of the rotation and telling them to "figure it out" is hurting the team more than it's hurting the player. If he's never going to get it maybe we trade him but you'd like to think we'd have figured that out before signing him to a $94 million extension which will make it very difficult to get anything valuable in return. Especially if he does eventually demand a trade and/or isn't getting minutes.
I just think the team has to do what's best for the team. And it's hard to argue with the results. Buddy might think he is Kobesque but he isnt. And he needs to humble himself. He does need to figure it out. The coaches do need to help him but he HAS to stop hurting the team when its winning time. He needs to make better decisions and stop trying to be the hero.
 
I don't get this at all. And I also don't get some of the other commenters that seem to imply that we should not voice displeasure against the franchise and its main characters.

NBA is a business, and the Kings are one of the franchises. They put a product out there, and we fans are the main consumers. We buy tickets, season tickets, Game Pass, merchandise etc. We are loyal customers, more loyal than most customers of most other products. But when the product we receive has been bad for such a long time, we have the right to complain.

Moreover, the economic mechanism of the capitalist market is based on consumer behavior and feedback as a main driver for maximizing effort into improving the product. I know that there are some arguments for saying that the NBA is not a normal market, and does not have a normal product, but the point still stands, IMO.

This team got a new start with Vivek and a honeymoon period that has long passed. We can find all the excuses that we want, but this team is still far removed from being a contender, and I believe at least two years removed from securing a play-off spot. The dysfunction seems to be present in all levels of the franchise, from owner, to operations, to GM, to medical staff, to players.

We have all the right in the world to stand up and complain about the product, and that is one of the instruments to help push this organization to examine itself and better itself. Now, there are ways to do it. The personal attacks on individual players on social media is inexcusable and wrong. But whether people want to boo the team or the coaches, wear paper bags over their heads, pay for a billboard or do a rally outside G1C, good for them. It beats apathy, and IMO is more constructive than the blind optimism and gobbling up of excuses spouted by Grant Napear of some.
Let me simplify it down to one sentence then:

I think a lot of the poor decision-making we've seen has been the result of ownership and the front office trying to appease a mobilized and vocal fan base every year instead of taking the time to develop a long-term plan and slowly build the team into a winner.

By all means do what you feel you need to do. If I'm right though, than the more vocally we complain and demand accountability the worse things are going to get. Absolutely we have a right to voice our displeasure, and people are. I think it would be inaccurate to ever characterize Kings fans as apathetic. Thus far the main thrust of these complaints has been about getting rid of people though and I'm no longer convinced that anything meaningful is going to change if we keep firing people (or in the case of players, cutting and trading them). We've done that over and over again and we just keep repeating the same cycle all over with whoever takes their place. Vivek is the common element and we know he isn't stepping down. The alternative isn't blind optimism, it's constructive criticism. These players can get better, this front office can get better, this coach can get better but only if we give them the opportunity. There has to be a way to hold people accountable without dismissing them entirely.
 
Let me simplify it down to one sentence then:

I think a lot of the poor decision-making we've seen has been the result of ownership and the front office trying to appease a mobilized and vocal fan base every year instead of taking the time to develop a long-term plan and slowly build the team into a winner.

By all means do what you feel you need to do. If I'm right though, than the more vocally we complain and demand accountability the worse things are going to get. Absolutely we have a right to voice our displeasure, and people are. I think it would be inaccurate to ever characterize Kings fans as apathetic. Thus far the main thrust of these complaints has been about getting rid of people though and I'm no longer convinced that anything meaningful is going to change if we keep firing people (or in the case of players, cutting and trading them). We've done that over and over again and we just keep repeating the same cycle all over with whoever takes their place. Vivek is the common element and we know he isn't stepping down. The alternative isn't blind optimism, it's constructive criticism. These players can get better, this front office can get better, this coach can get better but only if we give them the opportunity. There has to be a way to hold people accountable without dismissing them entirely.
Thank you, but if ownership and the FO has been letting this fanbase, which overall has been very patient, mild and non-aggressive so far, dictate their actions in such a manner it is only more reason to replace them, IMO.

Sure, the FO coach and players can get better. With the baseline that this franchise has established, that will not be very difficult. But realistically, taken into account their performances so far, how much better? I would like to hear how that constructive criticism can explain that this team can be a team that vies for a 6th spot in the West, instead of rubbing seductively against the 8th spot for a little while. And that is a low bar.
 
I just think the team has to do what's best for the team. And it's hard to argue with the results. Buddy might think he is Kobesque but he isnt. And he needs to humble himself. He does need to figure it out. The coaches do need to help him but he HAS to stop hurting the team when its winning time. He needs to make better decisions and stop trying to be the hero.
Buddy might not be Kobe, but he is still the second best player on this team right now and our leading scorer. Marginalizing him probably isn't what's best for the team but letting him make mistakes out there unchecked isn't either. You can't just tell somebody to "figure it out" when what they need to figure out is shot-selection and decision-making. The more pressure he puts on himself the worse "it" gets (that part is a little Kobe-esque don't you think?) -- This is why we have a coaching staff. They need to figure this out together somehow. If keeping him on the bench is going to get him there faster that's a viable strategy but we also need to get him on-board with the plan then. It's a delicate balance with any player to build the positive aspects of the ego which enable them to excel while tempering the negative aspects of ego which are holding him back. With any person, really. That's why these coaches get paid the big bucks though.
 
Thank you, but if ownership and the FO has been letting this fanbase, which overall has been very patient, mild and non-aggressive so far, dictate their actions in such a manner it is only more reason to replace them, IMO.

Sure, the FO coach and players can get better. With the baseline that this franchise has established, that will not be very difficult. But realistically, taken into account their performances so far, how much better? I would like to hear how that constructive criticism can explain that this team can be a team that vies for a 6th spot in the West, instead of rubbing seductively against the 8th spot for a little while. And that is a low bar.
I agree with you but here's the issue: we don't get to replace the owner. That's not how it works. So we can stand outside the "castle" with torches and pitchforks until he relinquishes his stake but that's only going to lead to increasingly desperate attempts to "salvage" the situation and there's no guarantee he ever steps down. If we can accept that Vivek is our owner, for better or worse, than perhaps when you take into account his entire tenure so far, a change in strategy might be warranted....

Plenty of owners make mistakes in their first 5 years of ownership. Yes we've been dealing with a dysfunctional team for well over a decade but Vivek inherited that dysfunction less than 7 years ago. "Be more patient" doesn't feel like a productive course of action but that's what I'm arguing. Unlike the Maloofs, I don't think Vivek is actively sabotaging the team. He put trust in the wrong people and got burned. This was always a strong possibility with a rookie owner -- mistakes were going to be made, lessons learned the hard way. Now we have a GM who needs a better scouting department (or perhaps needs to be pressured to listen to them more) but otherwise isn't terrible. When you take the emotion out of it, we are building something here that has the potential to lead to success. I think there's a greater risk in cleaning house and re-setting the rebuild clock once again than in giving this group some more time.
 
In regards to Vivek, be careful what you wish for, because the next owner may not be as invested in the city as we'd like. When is that Golden1 lease up again?
What makes you think that Vivek is invested in the city? He is not from here and has no history with the Kings I believe, and was a owner of the Warriors. If he could have bought a team on the East coast he would have likely jumped on it just as fast.
 
What makes you think that Vivek is invested in the city? He is not from here and has no history with the Kings I believe, and was a owner of the Warriors. If he could have bought a team on the East coast he would have likely jumped on it just as fast.
You may be right. But he is here now with actual business investments in the city. The next owner may be even less invested is my point. An argument of bring in 'x' person is different than an argument of get rid of the current guy.
 
It's not any one thing, it's just the sum total of everything -- from ownership all the way to the fans. It's a feedback loop of negativity. Most likely nobody on staff is reading this message board (though I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they are). We already know they are reading some broad synthesis of twitter comments though, because that fed into the season where we fired Malone and replaced him with George Karl. We also know they've crowd-sourced the draft at least once and are way more connected into fan feedback than any prior Kings front office. What fans do and say in the arena also matters. What fans call into radio stations and rant about matters. This message board is just the tip of the iceberg but if things spill over into pervasive negativity here, I feel like that reflects how a lot of other people are thinking. Ownership will make moves out of fear if enough fans threaten economic retaliation. Local media is heading in that direction.

And it's not exactly that reading the comments here bothers me. It does bother me but I don't read most of it (thank god) and for the most part I just try to explain how I feel and don't care too much if anyone agrees with me or not. I only bring it up because there's been so much overreaction to the Buddy comments and the Dedmon trade demand and almost anything the team does or doesn't do, frankly, that I feel like someone needs to wade in from time to time and say "wait a minute, are we really going to be upset about this?" Cause it's all rather trivial stuff. For my own sanity I've tuned it out and I think a lot of long-suffering Kings fans would be a lot happier if they learned to do the same. If we're going to be bombarded with a media blitz of player-smearing propaganda we don't actually have to lap it all up as fact. Maybe if they notice it's not working anymore they'll stop doing it? Is it my place to tell you how to fan? Of course not. I'm one very small voice in a vast... well, moderately large sea... and y'all are going to do what you want anyway. But it doesn't hurt to try.

I have had something of an epiphany recently though. I've been the conductor of the Fire Vlade train for years already and I may have been the first one on that particular train so why the sudden change of heart? Because I sat down and I read through every transaction Vlade has made on basketball-reference and I typed out from memory how each of those seasons has gone and what changes were made and why and out of that exercise I came to realize that this front office is working very very hard to get our team to the playoffs every year and I think that's a big part of the problem, actually. First we were a veteran team, then we were rebuilding with draft picks, then we were clearing out draft picks and signing veteran mentors, now we're approaching luxury tax status and salary dumping to keep our core together -- all within the span of a few years. This constant roster turnover is madness and it's unlikely to work. What we need is more stability, more forgiveness, more constructive criticism and positive change. The front office is constantly scapegoating people and shipping them out of town. I'm not going to go down the list of names but it's massive. As fans we've been at "5 minutes to Midnight" since Vivek took over almost. We've got to keep Cousins happy, we've got to win so we don't give Philly a #1 pick, we've got to justify spending all this money. It's always something new but the tone of desperation is consistent through all of it. Enough is enough. Panic is not a viable long-term strategy.

So I realize this may seem counter-intuitive, but what I've come to believe is that we need to release the pressure. Stop acting like the team owes us something. Stop whining about the 2018 draft. (yes, really) It sucks that we've missed the playoffs for 14 years but things happen. Grow up, get over it, enjoy some basketball. Vlade and his staff are doing the best they can. I don't think anyone knows how to do that job. It's always a mix of pseudo-science and gut instinct. It's something you have to learn on the job and luck plays a large role in it as well. I've been in environments before where every mistake is met with a witch hunt rather than reconciliation. The result of that is that nobody wants to risk trying anything and everybody instead is just going through the motions whether they agree with management or not. That's how organizations destroy themselves.

I've never agreed with the "blame the players, blame the coach, blame the GM, blame the owner" hierarchy. It's so pointless. Can the players play better? Yes, I think so. I hope so. Can the coach prepare them and motivate them better? I certainly think this coach should be doing a better job of both. I don't like Vlade's draft decisions but I'm okay with most of his free agent acquisitions and trades. Vivek has put his foot in his mouth more than once and has been guilty of overestimating his own basketball expertise, especially early on in his tenure. But you don't trade owners so that's moot. It's far too easy for us to pat each other on the back and say we, the fans, deserve better. Is it really all that awful though? We have a young team with hard-working kids who want to win. I think maybe we've just been grumpy for so long that we've forgotten how to be anything else. 14 years of dedication and patience doesn't give us free license to now be jerks. Absolutely change needs to happen but change for the sake of change has been this organization's MO for this entire period. That's not working. There's a more rational way to go about building a team and I think a very small part of that could be us fans backing off a bit and allowing growth to happen at it's own pace. And failing that, lowering expectations might actually make the losing easier to tolerate.

Does any of that make sense? That's where I'm coming from. I don't mean to be rude about it, I'm just wading against the current in a lot of these discussions so it's hard to get people to understand what I'm trying to say.
I get everything you're saying but I disagree that fan unrest and inconsistency have anything to do with the lack team success. Consistency is important and provides stability but it doesn't necessarily put you on a path to success. If the team is bad, staying consistent is more than likely just going to keep you consistently bad. The current situation they're in will not get any better with consistency.

We have a young team with hard working kids but it's not all that fun to watch because most of us have this pit in our stomachs that say this is all a waste of time because it's just not enough to win. Letting Walton poorly coach them for a few more years or for Vlade to mismanage the most important franchise decisions for the next couple years won't get this team into the playoffs. It'll provide consistency but it won't provide success.

Couple questions though. When did they crowd source the draft and also what did twitter comments have to do with the firing of Malone? I hadn't heard of either of these.
 
I get everything you're saying but I disagree that fan unrest and inconsistency have anything to do with the lack team success. Consistency is important and provides stability but it doesn't necessarily put you on a path to success. If the team is bad, staying consistent is more than likely just going to keep you consistently bad. The current situation they're in will not get any better with consistency.

We have a young team with hard working kids but it's not all that fun to watch because most of us have this pit in our stomachs that say this is all a waste of time because it's just not enough to win. Letting Walton poorly coach them for a few more years or for Vlade to mismanage the most important franchise decisions for the next couple years won't get this team into the playoffs. It'll provide consistency but it won't provide success.

Couple questions though. When did they crowd source the draft and also what did twitter comments have to do with the firing of Malone? I hadn't heard of either of these.
Regarding the draft, it was 2014 -- Vivek's second year as owner and the first draft he actually had time to prepare for with his staff. Here's the video about it. It came down to a choice between Elfrid Payton and Nik Stauskas and they picked Stauskas.


The Mike Malone thing is a little harder to trace because it was a combination of factors over a long period of time. I recall a whole media campaign that went on for months after including then GM Pete D'Alesasndro appearing on Carmichael Dave's radio program to defend the decision and George Karl using Twitter to make his interest known. The briefest way to characterize that decision is that Vivek hired a defensive coach on the basis of the recommendation of his contacts in the Golden State Warriors organization and then ran a search for a GM which concluded with the hiring of offensively-focused Pete D'Alessandro from the Denver Nuggets organization (where he was VP under Masai Ujiri after previously serving as assistant GM with the Golden State Warriors under Chris Mullin). Malone was an old-school guy and D'Alessandro was a numbers guy and their points of view never really lined up. It's probably true that Malone was outnumbered in the front office by the Mullin/D'Alessandro faction and was doomed regardless but there were some vocal fans who were very critical of Malone's offense at the time and that was part of Vivek's justification for removing him and looking for a "jazz director" who would restore the fast-paced offense he thought the fans wanted to see. After Malone was fired, the fanbase was very active in promoting George Karl as the guy they wanted to replace him and look how well that turned out! You could make a case that all the fan backlash regarding Pete D'Alessandro's treatment of the Malone firing and George Karl hire is why we have fan-favorite Vlade Divac as our GM in the first place. I'm sorry I don't have links to tweets or anything, I just don't even know how to go about finding them or posting them.
 
Regarding the draft, it was 2014 -- Vivek's second year as owner and the first draft he actually had time to prepare for with his staff. Here's the video about it. It came down to a choice between Elfrid Payton and Nik Stauskas and they picked Stauskas.


The Mike Malone thing is a little harder to trace because it was a combination of factors over a long period of time. I recall a whole media campaign that went on for months after including then GM Pete D'Alesasndro appearing on Carmichael Dave's radio program to defend the decision and George Karl using Twitter to make his interest known. The briefest way to characterize that decision is that Vivek hired a defensive coach on the basis of the recommendation of his contacts in the Golden State Warriors organization and then ran a search for a GM which concluded with the hiring of offensively-focused Pete D'Alessandro from the Denver Nuggets organization (where he was VP under Masai Ujiri after previously serving as assistant GM with the Golden State Warriors under Chris Mullin). Malone was an old-school guy and D'Alessandro was a numbers guy and their points of view never really lined up. It's probably true that Malone was outnumbered in the front office by the Mullin/D'Alessandro faction and was doomed regardless but there were some vocal fans who were very critical of Malone's offense at the time and that was part of Vivek's justification for removing him and looking for a "jazz director" who would restore the fast-paced offense he thought the fans wanted to see. After Malone was fired, the fanbase was very active in promoting George Karl as the guy they wanted to replace him and look how well that turned out! You could make a case that all the fan backlash regarding Pete D'Alessandro's treatment of the Malone firing and George Karl hire is why we have fan-favorite Vlade Divac as our GM in the first place. I'm sorry I don't have links to tweets or anything, I just don't even know how to go about finding them or posting them.
Chris Mullin is probably the worst person Vivek could have had as a confidant. Dude is straight up garbage as a resource for hoops.
 
Let me simplify it down to one sentence then:

I think a lot of the poor decision-making we've seen has been the result of ownership and the front office trying to appease a mobilized and vocal fan base every year instead of taking the time to develop a long-term plan and slowly build the team into a winner.

By all means do what you feel you need to do. If I'm right though, than the more vocally we complain and demand accountability the worse things are going to get. Absolutely we have a right to voice our displeasure, and people are. I think it would be inaccurate to ever characterize Kings fans as apathetic. Thus far the main thrust of these complaints has been about getting rid of people though and I'm no longer convinced that anything meaningful is going to change if we keep firing people (or in the case of players, cutting and trading them). We've done that over and over again and we just keep repeating the same cycle all over with whoever takes their place. Vivek is the common element and we know he isn't stepping down. The alternative isn't blind optimism, it's constructive criticism. These players can get better, this front office can get better, this coach can get better but only if we give them the opportunity. There has to be a way to hold people accountable without dismissing them entirely.

My point of view in this is that we can do this "win now lets get the 8th seed" for another 13 years and its just not a good strategy. The core isnt there, cap flexibilty is done and we have no meaningful future draft assets. Continuity for the sake of continuity isnt always great. When you have a guy making the decisions that has very bad track record for the past 5 years with his strategy, fa signings and draft picks, continuity isnt a positive.


When you take the emotion out of it, we are building something here that has the potential to lead to success. I think there's a greater risk in cleaning house and re-setting the rebuild clock once again than in giving this group some more time.
What we are building is a team that in a good year with good (injury) luck can win 42 games and in a bad year with bad (injury) luck win 32 games. We are approaching luxury tax if we retain all of our (core) players.

I respectfully disagree with you on that there would be greater risk in cleaning the house and rebuilding. First of all Vlade has been a very bad GM. He came without experience and has been bad to this day. Some good moves here and there but the overall strategy and results have been bad. Win now moves right after trading the franchise player, zero moves for future 1sts for cap space and trying to take shortcuts during the rebuild and this is the result.

Also to me it was very worrying to read the part where the front office thought that it would be better to pair up Fox with a big man. Thats outdated. Thats not a good strategy to build a team. Thats a horrible way of thinking. I dont want any of the people that think like this making any of these draft/FA decisions. These mistakes can cost so much as it did for us so we cant base our organisational strategy on a view that is outdated and doesnt have any analytic/statistical support. Replacing Vlade with a competent GM would be a huge plus.

I also dont think that rebuilding would be a big risk. What could we miss? Few 34-40 win seasons just missing the 8th seed with zero flexibility to improve the team. Or maybe we would get the 8th seed once or twice and get swept. Thats pretty much the limit and exceding it would take a lot considering there are very few ways to improve the team.

Rebuild doesnt have to mean trading everybody. At the moment Fox is the guy that can be seen as a big part of the future core. Otherwise let the new competent gm determine the players that can be a part of the future contender, trade others away for assets, rent cap for picks. Instead of winning 37 games for three years with a team near luxury tax we would win ~20-30 games with gaining future assets. That way we would have at least a chance to be a serious playoff team. Its a strategy we haven't actually tried in this 13 years of misery.

At least to me it sounds a lot better than trying to reach for 40 wins every year signing different vets. We are losing anyway, might as well be smart during losing. In three years we could be a respectable team with flexibilty, future assets and three years worth of high (top 4) 1st rd picks in our roster.
 
My point of view in this is that we can do this "win now lets get the 8th seed" for another 13 years and its just not a good strategy. The core isnt there, cap flexibilty is done and we have no meaningful future draft assets. Continuity for the sake of continuity isnt always great. When you have a guy making the decisions that has very bad track record for the past 5 years with his strategy, fa signings and draft picks, continuity isnt a positive.




What we are building is a team that in a good year with good (injury) luck can win 42 games and in a bad year with bad (injury) luck win 32 games. We are approaching luxury tax if we retain all of our (core) players.

I respectfully disagree with you on that there would be greater risk in cleaning the house and rebuilding. First of all Vlade has been a very bad GM. He came without experience and has been bad to this day. Some good moves here and there but the overall strategy and results have been bad. Win now moves right after trading the franchise player, zero moves for future 1sts for cap space and trying to take shortcuts during the rebuild and this is the result.

Also to me it was very worrying to read the part where the front office thought that it would be better to pair up Fox with a big man. Thats outdated. Thats not a good strategy to build a team. Thats a horrible way of thinking. I dont want any of the people that think like this making any of these draft/FA decisions. These mistakes can cost so much as it did for us so we cant base our organisational strategy on a view that is outdated and doesnt have any analytic/statistical support. Replacing Vlade with a competent GM would be a huge plus.

I also dont think that rebuilding would be a big risk. What could we miss? Few 34-40 win seasons just missing the 8th seed with zero flexibility to improve the team. Or maybe we would get the 8th seed once or twice and get swept. Thats pretty much the limit and exceding it would take a lot considering there are very few ways to improve the team.

Rebuild doesnt have to mean trading everybody. At the moment Fox is the guy that can be seen as a big part of the future core. Otherwise let the new competent gm determine the players that can be a part of the future contender, trade others away for assets, rent cap for picks. Instead of winning 37 games for three years with a team near luxury tax we would win ~20-30 games with gaining future assets. That way we would have at least a chance to be a serious playoff team. Its a strategy we haven't actually tried in this 13 years of misery.

At least to me it sounds a lot better than trying to reach for 40 wins every year signing different vets. We are losing anyway, might as well be smart during losing. In three years we could be a respectable team with flexibilty, future assets and three years worth of high (top 4) 1st rd picks in our roster.
If you can guarantee me that the next GM/Coach combo will be better than this current one I would agree with you. Absolutely I would be in favor of that. It's nice to think these hypothetical people would pick the right pieces to retain, make smart trades with the rest, utilize the draft effectively, properly develop talent and so on but we just don't know. In both cases, when we transitioned from Geoff Petrie to Pete D'Alessandro and when we transitioned from Pete D'Alessandro to Vlade Divac, the front office has turned over the entire roster in a couple years. They've also had contentious relationships with inherited players and coaches until they managed to move them. We've had many different combinations of coach, GM, and owner all fail in different but similar ways. I mentioned the GMs, we already know the owners, and the long list of recent coaches is unfit for sensitive eyes. It's not like there's a long list of proven executives out there waiting for this chance. If this front office realizes that they made a mistake with Bagley they should take that wisdom into their future draft decisions.

Also, we did try winning 20-30 games so we could stockpile draft picks. Petrie did it in 2009-2010 when we drafted Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins. Vlade did it in 2017-2018 when we drafted DeAaron Fox and Marvin Bagley. Heck, we won 20-30 games while slashing payroll for 7 straight seasons from 2007 to 2015. What we haven't tried even once in the post-Adelman era which spans from 2006 to 2020 is stick with the same coach and GM long enough for them to learn from their mistakes and get better at their jobs. The Vlade Divac/Dave Joerger pairing got the longest stretch of building a team together -- lasting 3 full seasons -- and the culmination of that was our best season since Rick Adelman was the coach.
 
I think the main question is not if Hield is better off the bench or playing as a starter, but whether Hield is indeed so unhappy that he would demand a trade if he won't start.

I understand that this is a player's league, and some people are much more invested in their own stats/image/brand or whatever you call it. I don't like it, but I understand it. However, IMO, only superstars get away with it. We have no superstars yet, and the chance that Hield will become one is slim.

We have a team with a talent level where we need everyone to buy in and play hard for each other (see Toronto) in order to have success and play to their perceived level, let alone overachieve. If there are players here who believe that he is bigger than the team, we are better off trading him.

I don't know if Buddy is indeed at that point, BTW, but I believe that two of the three writers are very good and reputable.
What do you mean only superstars get away with it? We literally just traded Dedmond
 
If you can guarantee me that the next GM/Coach combo will be better than this current one I would agree with you. Absolutely I would be in favor of that. It's nice to think these hypothetical people would pick the right pieces to retain, make smart trades with the rest, utilize the draft effectively, properly develop talent and so on but we just don't know. In both cases, when we transitioned from Geoff Petrie to Pete D'Alessandro and when we transitioned from Pete D'Alessandro to Vlade Divac, the front office has turned over the entire roster in a couple years. They've also had contentious relationships with inherited players and coaches until they managed to move them. We've had many different combinations of coach, GM, and owner all fail in different but similar ways. I mentioned the GMs, we already know the owners, and the long list of recent coaches is unfit for sensitive eyes. It's not like there's a long list of proven executives out there waiting for this chance. If this front office realizes that they made a mistake with Bagley they should take that wisdom into their future draft decisions.
The next GM would most likely be an upgrade to Vlade so to me that isnt an issue. If we recognize that our current gm is bad, we have to make a change. To me the argument "what if the next gm is bad too" isnt that relevant. If you as an owner really cant hire even an average gm, you cycle them as long as you have one. No reason to stick with bad and hope for improvement when the track record is mostly five years of incompetence.

Also, we did try winning 20-30 games so we could stockpile draft picks. Petrie did it in 2009-2010 when we drafted Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins. Vlade did it in 2017-2018 when we drafted DeAaron Fox and Marvin Bagley. Heck, we won 20-30 games while slashing payroll for 7 straight seasons from 2007 to 2015. What we haven't tried even once in the post-Adelman era which spans from 2006 to 2020 is stick with the same coach and GM long enough for them to learn from their mistakes and get better at their jobs. The Vlade Divac/Dave Joerger pairing got the longest stretch of building a team together -- lasting 3 full seasons -- and the culmination of that was our best season since Rick Adelman was the coach.
"Tanking" for one year and after that signing vets isnt the thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about commiting for 2,3 or even 4 years for building an asset base (renting cap space for picks and young players), finnishing with top 4 draft pick and making sure we have flexibilty in the year 3 or 4 when we are actually ready to compete. We havent done that once for the past 13 years. Not once.

Tanking for one season to get a high pick is pretty meaningless for a horrible team if you are starting win now moves right after that. We havent tried that -commiting for future for multiple years aproach. We havent done that properly during this 13 years of misery. It has always been too early win now moves and not enough commiting even 2 or 3 years to be actually good in the future. Instead its been trying to desperately fight for the 8th seed while not thinking about the future.
 
I just think the team has to do what's best for the team. And it's hard to argue with the results. Buddy might think he is Kobesque but he isnt. And he needs to humble himself. He does need to figure it out. The coaches do need to help him but he HAS to stop hurting the team when its winning time. He needs to make better decisions and stop trying to be the hero.
If Buddy Hield wanted to emulate someone, he should emulate Klay Thompson who is a deadly shooter, stays within his lane playing to his strengths, is an excellent defender and makes winning plays. Hes also recognized as an all star level player. Buddy has all star potential. Hes currently a borderline all star. The problem is when Buddy Hield thinks he is superstar Kobe he makes boneheaded plays and contributes to the other team winning. More Klay and less Kobe and he would be fine. But Buddy has to be cool with that. Is he?
 
The next GM would most likely be an upgrade to Vlade so to me that isnt an issue. If we recognize that our current gm is bad, we have to make a change. To me the argument "what if the next gm is bad too" isnt that relevant. If you as an owner really cant hire even an average gm, you cycle them as long as you have one. No reason to stick with bad and hope for improvement when the track record is mostly five years of incompetence.



"Tanking" for one year and after that signing vets isnt the thing I'm talking about. I'm talking about commiting for 2,3 or even 4 years for building an asset base (renting cap space for picks and young players), finnishing with top 4 draft pick and making sure we have flexibilty in the year 3 or 4 when we are actually ready to compete. We havent done that once for the past 13 years. Not once.

Tanking for one season to get a high pick is pretty meaningless for a horrible team if you are starting win now moves right after that. We havent tried that -commiting for future for multiple years aproach. We havent done that properly during this 13 years of misery. It has always been too early win now moves and not enough commiting even 2 or 3 years to be actually good in the future. Instead its been trying to desperately fight for the 8th seed while not thinking about the future.
I think these points are more or less right. The one thing this team has to do is evaluate what we do have, whoever is in charge. What do we have? How do we value Fox and Buddy and Bagley and Holmes etc. What types of pieces do we have? What does the decision maker see in these players? To me, looking at the team, what I see is the following:
Fox- Superstar potential with NBA all defense potential as well. Likely an all star, worst case is borderline all star. Question is what does the team see him likely reaching?
Hield- Borderline All star, possible all star, worst case is super sixth man (not necessarily a bad thing see Lou William's, Jamal Crawford etc)
Barnes- Solid role player, overpaid, has flashes but never consistent enough. Nice player but not at that price
Holmes- Defensive monster, an elite role player who has the potential to grow even more, sort of like Montrzel Harrell. Excellent piece. Every team needs someone like him.
Bogi- Solid all around player, high basketball IQ, plays too much year round basketball which takes away from his NBA contribution, clutch, every team could use him, is only useful once you have an accepted core.
Bagley- is he Miami good? As a Center? Seems to stall ball movement, injury prone, helps with rebounds. Still raw but shows potential to be anywhere from a solid role player to all star or possibly even a superstar if he puts everything together. Huge range of outcomes on him. Joeger compared him to Durant, Walton compared him to Giannis. Coaches dont just say those things no matter what you think of a particular coach. Health comes into question as does that athletic article. If he works out his health issues seems like his most likely outcome is all star Chris Bosh like. One thing that bothers me is his tunnel vision and lack of passing overall but that Miami game made him look good. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Bazemore- Perfect fit for our team. Hes 30 but has four to six good years. Reminds me of Doug Christie a little bit. Makes winning plays. His shot has been more consistent. Good role player if we become a playoff team. Otherwise he doesnt fit a rebuild.
Giles- Love Harry. Love his story. Love his potential. He has a good motor. He tries hard. He makes amazing moves from time to time showing his potential. He doesnt get much of a chance to play 25 plus minutes bc of Vlades decision etc but give him a chance to play minutes with Holmes and he will produce. Give him a chance. Anywhere from role player to elite role player to all star. Something tells me hes going to be an all star. It might not be here but he will somewhere.
Justin James- Excellent defender and was known more so for his offense in college so his potential is there. He needs minutes to produce. In limited action he looks like a plus defender and it's actually surprising his offense is off because he could really score. Potential ranges from spot contributor to elite role player.

Others I'm not really gonna go into detail about but this is what the team needs to do. How do they see the team? If there aren't projections for multiple all stars and/or a superstar then they need to rebuild either partially or in full.
 
I think these points are more or less right. The one thing this team has to do is evaluate what we do have, whoever is in charge. What do we have? How do we value Fox and Buddy and Bagley and Holmes etc. What types of pieces do we have? What does the decision maker see in these players? To me, looking at the team, what I see is the following:
Fox- Superstar potential with NBA all defense potential as well. Likely an all star, worst case is borderline all star. Question is what does the team see him likely reaching?
Hield- Borderline All star, possible all star, worst case is super sixth man (not necessarily a bad thing see Lou William's, Jamal Crawford etc)
Barnes- Solid role player, overpaid, has flashes but never consistent enough. Nice player but not at that price
Holmes- Defensive monster, an elite role player who has the potential to grow even more, sort of like Montrzel Harrell. Excellent piece. Every team needs someone like him.
Bogi- Solid all around player, high basketball IQ, plays too much year round basketball which takes away from his NBA contribution, clutch, every team could use him, is only useful once you have an accepted core.
Bagley- is he Miami good? As a Center? Seems to stall ball movement, injury prone, helps with rebounds. Still raw but shows potential to be anywhere from a solid role player to all star or possibly even a superstar if he puts everything together. Huge range of outcomes on him. Joeger compared him to Durant, Walton compared him to Giannis. Coaches dont just say those things no matter what you think of a particular coach. Health comes into question as does that athletic article. If he works out his health issues seems like his most likely outcome is all star Chris Bosh like. One thing that bothers me is his tunnel vision and lack of passing overall but that Miami game made him look good. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Bazemore- Perfect fit for our team. Hes 30 but has four to six good years. Reminds me of Doug Christie a little bit. Makes winning plays. His shot has been more consistent. Good role player if we become a playoff team. Otherwise he doesnt fit a rebuild.
Giles- Love Harry. Love his story. Love his potential. He has a good motor. He tries hard. He makes amazing moves from time to time showing his potential. He doesnt get much of a chance to play 25 plus minutes bc of Vlades decision etc but give him a chance to play minutes with Holmes and he will produce. Give him a chance. Anywhere from role player to elite role player to all star. Something tells me hes going to be an all star. It might not be here but he will somewhere.
Justin James- Excellent defender and was known more so for his offense in college so his potential is there. He needs minutes to produce. In limited action he looks like a plus defender and it's actually surprising his offense is off because he could really score. Potential ranges from spot contributor to elite role player.

Others I'm not really gonna go into detail about but this is what the team needs to do. How do they see the team? If there aren't projections for multiple all stars and/or a superstar then they need to rebuild either partially or in full.
Also, as I look at what I wrote about Bagley, this is precisely why the Kings drafted him. They are betting on the the superstar outcome whereas they saw Luka Doncic more so as a solid NBA player and perhaps even an all star. They didnt see him as a superstar. To be fair most teams saw him a "safe pick" and narratives about him were more so about him being an all star than a superstar. Unfortunately those narratives were wrong and Divac went for the home run. The "safe pick" has proven to be the right pick until proven otherwise. It almost would have been better to stay at 7 or 8 and let Divac go for the home run, because he probably would have hit a home run with Porter and looked good doing so. It's funny how these things look in context.
 
If Buddy Hield wanted to emulate someone, he should emulate Klay Thompson who is a deadly shooter, stays within his lane playing to his strengths, is an excellent defender and makes winning plays. Hes also recognized as an all star level player. Buddy has all star potential. Hes currently a borderline all star. The problem is when Buddy Hield thinks he is superstar Kobe he makes boneheaded plays and contributes to the other team winning. More Klay and less Kobe and he would be fine. But Buddy has to be cool with that. Is he?
Klay also does not come off the bench and isn't expected to come in and give instant offense. I'm pretty sure Buddy is happy being Klay, but that's a bit hard when your version of Steph Curry won't take shots outside of 3 ft (I'm not so much knocking Fox as I am saying all this talk about Klay not needing to dribble etc really is predicated on him playing with another of the greatest shooters of all time).
 
Klay also does not come off the bench and isn't expected to come in and give instant offense. I'm pretty sure Buddy is happy being Klay, but that's a bit hard when your version of Steph Curry won't take shots outside of 3 ft (I'm not so much knocking Fox as I am saying all this talk about Klay not needing to dribble etc really is predicated on him playing with another of the greatest shooters of all time).
If Buddy was 90% the player Klay is we wouldn’t be having this conversation
 
If Buddy was 90% the player Klay is we wouldn’t be having this conversation
Circular argument

Year 3: 18.4ppg/FG.444/3P.417/1.7TO
Year 3: 20.7ppg/FG.458/3P.427/1.8TO

One of these is Klay, the other Buddy

If Fox was 90% the player Curry is we wouldn't be having this conversation either lol
 
Last edited:
Klay also does not come off the bench and isn't expected to come in and give instant offense. I'm pretty sure Buddy is happy being Klay, but that's a bit hard when your version of Steph Curry won't take shots outside of 3 ft (I'm not so much knocking Fox as I am saying all this talk about Klay not needing to dribble etc really is predicated on him playing with another of the greatest shooters of all time).
The point is he went to the bench bc as a starter he was trying to be Kobe and not Klay
 
Circular argument

Year 3: 18.4ppg/FG.444/3P.417/1.7TO
Year 3: 20.7ppg/FG.458/3P.427/1.8TO

One of these is Klay, the other Buddy

If Fox was 90% the player Curry is we wouldn't be having this conversation either lol
Player 1; Age 23 season
Player 2; Age 27 season

Player 1; High IQ, excellent defender
Player 2; ....

@Joshoua you beat me to it because I didn’t hit “post” before getting distracted. Lol
 
If Buddy Hield wanted to emulate someone, he should emulate Klay Thompson who is a deadly shooter, stays within his lane playing to his strengths, is an excellent defender and makes winning plays. Hes also recognized as an all star level player. Buddy has all star potential. Hes currently a borderline all star. The problem is when Buddy Hield thinks he is superstar Kobe he makes boneheaded plays and contributes to the other team winning. More Klay and less Kobe and he would be fine. But Buddy has to be cool with that. Is he?
No I dont think he is. He hasnt shown to be much of a role player, mentality wise. He thinks he is a star and he plays like he does too. And hes not. He is a super role player.

Buddy Hield will never carry a team to a championship, let's not even try to kid ourselves. The only person who thinks he can is Buddy. And he is wholly mistake