Bagley needs to start or Joerger gone?

[KingsFanSince85]

I have to agree with KingsFanSince85 on this.

We all are just random names on a sports message board. It's not about it being your job to tell us your source. It's about you expecting us to believe you when we don't know you, we don't know your source and we are trying to get real confirmed information.

Exactly.

I'm genuinely puzzled over the touchy reaction. A voluntary claim of inside info was made and the counter to following up about that is to ignore??

Why does it have go to that level? SMH.

Carmichael Dave, whom I have known for nearly 20 years, has been extremely forthright in saying this story is not true and both Vlade and Vivek intend to get to the bottom of it. I'd take that to the bank. Dave has been openly critical of both Vlade and Vivek in the past over stuff like this so I tend to believe he would continue in that vein.

Regardless whether CD is right or wrong, at least it's a vetted source and -- most importantly -- an actual name.

I guess what I'm trying to say is sometimes even if you know something you might as well not post it because people will challenge it and you won't be able to defend it with anything other than the comment you made above, which does nothing to clarify the issue. We have a long history of people who have said they have insider knowledge and it never seems to work out.

100% spot on.

When someone like CD, Grant, Jerry, Katie, DC or Ham make a claim while also stating they can't or won't divulge their source, the info is still to be taken with a grain of salt until formerly announced. But we fans tend to take that preliminary info seriously since we're fully aware of their connection to the organization and the contacts they have.

However, when any member of this message board not already known to have contacts within the KINGS organization (or local media) make such a claim, it's only natural that it be followed up on and questioned.

If I ever made such a statement, I'd at least provide a vague explanation of my source(s) otherwise, what's the point of saying anything at all?

Nothing personal against sactowndog, as I would ask/expect the same of anyone else.

 

[burekijogurt]

For what its worth, I remember @sactowndog making a similar statement several days before the draft, something to the effect of "I'm hearing its Bagley", and that one turned out to be true. Not saying he does or does not have contacts within the Kings organization (becuase there is no way for me to know), just making an observation.

As far as what I think is happening, I do believe there is some disagreement over how minutes should be handled within the organization, but I don't think this disagreement is at the "rift" level and that it will cause changes in the organization. Now, the person who took it upon themselves to air this out in public, that guy/gal needs to go.

 

[King-Da-Yah]

Pretty easy solution move Bjelica to the 3 and start Marvin or just trade Bjelica while his value is still high. Weather he's playing the 3 or the 4 won't matter if we don't use him and give him touches he's not going to be effective regardless.

The problem with this, is that we become even less attractive to free agents. We sign players, then trade them after a few bad games? No thanks.

 

[Entity]

His defense is far from horrid he got schooled by JJJ who prior to that schooled Giannis on a similar number of plays he got Bjelica by going through/around and over him, his defense has been fine for most the season and he's come up with more clutch blocks/steals/deflections than anyone else on the team. Most the hate towards Bjelly stems from the fact he's looked at as taking minutes away from Bagley who has not shown out partly due to Bjelly good play so far to be as good as the guys drafted around him. Overall Bjelly has been a huge positive and the Kings would not be close to 8-8 without him and would be closer to like 2-14/3-13.

Will be interesting to see if the Kings start Bagley against the ultra athletic Jeremi Grant against OKC it's a pretty good match up for him.

i don't hate him at all. but the angst does not come from wanting bagley on the floor. First 4-5 games i loved him on the floor. after that he has been pedestrian. its not a subtle difference either. Its pretty bad.

 

[sactowndog]

I have to agree with KingsFanSince85 on this.

We all are just random names on a sports message board. It's not about it being your job to tell us your source. It's about you expecting us to believe you when we don't know you, we don't know your source and we are trying to get real confirmed information.

You may hear things because you're related to people in positions within other organizations but that doesn't mean their information is or isn't true. It's unsubstantiated.

People are unfairly blaming everybody right now. Carmichael Dave, whom I have known for nearly 20 years, has been extremely forthright in saying this story is not true and both Vlade and Vivek intend to get to the bottom of it. I'd take that to the bank. Dave has been openly critical of both Vlade and Vivek in the past over stuff like this so I tend to believe he would continue in that vein.

I guess what I'm trying to say is sometimes even if you know something you might as well not post it because people will challenge it and you won't be able to defend it with anything other than the comment you made above, which does nothing to clarify the issue. We have a long history of people who have said they have insider knowledge and it n
ever seems to work out.

Generally I don’t post stuff but people were speculating unfairly about Bagley’s parents. In that case, I choose to post what I know and your right people are free to believe me or not. I’m not arguing with anyone about it.

As I said originally, instead of blaming people, we may want to wait and see how it plays out.

 

[Livinthedream]

I agree that it's irresponsible to put this on Bagley or his parents without proof. Not sure anything in the article led us towards one player.

 

[dude12]

I don’t get this unfair and irresponsible talk when forum members are just speculating. There’s nothing unfair about that.

 

[sactowndog]

Exactly.

I'm genuinely puzzled over the touchy reaction. A voluntary claim of inside info was made and the counter to following up about that is to ignore??

Why does it have go to that level? SMH.



Regardless whether CD is right or wrong, at least it's a vetted source and -- most importantly -- an actual name.



100% spot on.

When someone like CD, Grant, Jerry, Katie, DC or Ham make a claim while also stating they can't or won't divulge their source, the info is still to be taken with a grain of salt until formerly announced. But we fans tend to take that preliminary info seriously since we're fully aware of their connection to the organization and the contacts they have.

However, when any member of this message board not already known to have contacts within the KINGS organization (or local media) make such a claim, it's only natural that it be followed up on and questioned.

If I ever made such a statement, I'd at least provide a vague explanation of my source(s) otherwise, what's the point of saying anything at all?

Nothing personal against sactowndog, as I would ask/expect the same of anyone else.

The thing is you will never know what contacts a person does or doesn’t have. Asking someone to say how they know it is pointless. The most you will get from me is I’m hearing..... It’s not a statement of absolute fact and I’m not representing it as such. CD has heard other things and that is a valid data point. You can do the same as me, which is take the data for what it is: a data point.

What shouldn’t be done is speculate and start impugning family members of players based on wild speculation.

 

[Livinthedream]

I don’t get this unfair and irresponsible talk when forum members are just speculating. There’s nothing unfair about that.

That's fine. Just my opinion.

 

[Kingsfan23]

I agree that it's irresponsible to put this on Bagley or his parents without proof. Not sure anything in the article led us towards one player.

I think it was Bagley dominant..

On a side note, I agree with Joerger’s distribution among Bagley/Giles/Skal. all have been disappointing and that reflects their minutes as the team competes to the fairness of the rest of the roster/fans

 

[Blob]

I think it was Bagley dominant..

On a side note, I agree with Joerger’s distribution among Bagley/Giles/Skal. all have been disappointing and that reflects their minutes as the team competes to the fairness of the rest of the roster/fans

Don't group Bagley with Giles and Skal. Night and day. Be honest, didn't you also say you were disappointed with D-Fox last year? His shot and decision making and other facets were constantly repudiated for their inferiority. Now he is having a better year than Donovan, DSJ (your favorite?) and Fultz. Everything I have envisioned for this kid from Day One is coming to fruition. D-Fox is scratching the surface, because he can boost his usage from 24.5% to near 30% as his scoring and passing efficiency holds or improves (less TOs). Interestingly, D-Fox usage has only gone from 23.4% to 24.5% Year One to Two. He is keenly selective in asserting himself. As his game evolves and gets comfortable with his new level of takeover ability, I expect his usage to go up along with the fortunes of the team. Bagley is on the same level. What I did not anticipate is Bagley may be best at center and we have to get rid of Willie so Bagley can realize his potential. Regardless, you cannot get a star caliber player down. Just like D-Fox, Bagley is too good to play a secondary role for long. It ultimately doesn't matter Bjelica is currently in front of him or the log jam in place or other team politics. A star will find a way to shine.

 

[Blob]

Bad Bjelica still gets more rebounds than Bagley. oooooh snap. no he didn't!

Bagley has a rebound rate of 13%. Bjelica has a rebound rate of 11%. Reverse snap!

 

[KingsFanSince85]

What shouldn’t be done is speculate and start impugning family members of players based on wild speculation.

Totally agree with this point. But I also feel anybody saying they know something is or isn’t true because they are ‘hearing’ things should at least explain what that means.

I’ve heard things too. But they’re all from 3rd party sources such as Yahoo and this message board. See how easy that was?

 

[St00]

cmon guys... it's all just nba oragnization's games for the show to keep running... keep it interesting... make up topics (though i'm little bit disgusted by those topics, not just in nba.... problems...arguing.... you know, durant-green, butler thing and so on).... this particular situation is probably just to justify giving minutes to skal to up his value prior to trading or something.... or is just that we need to lose some games or similar conspiracy theory

too many things in nba seems illogical to me that i simply refuse to just go after them and accept just like that... it's sport... it's for fun... it's for entertainment... it's for getting money....

enjoy nice moves and that's the most you can gain from basketball

 

[burekijogurt]

Bagley has a rebound rate of 13%. Bjelica has a rebound rate of 11%. Reverse snap!

they are both "killing it".

 

[Kingsfan23]

Bagley is the second worst RPM in the league, which reflects the impact I thought I’ve seen. Hard to blame Joerger for not feeling comfortable with him as opposed to Bjelica/WCS yet

 

[sactowndog]

I mean, clearly you do understand the issue here, right?

Let's say I tell you that your house is on fire right now and you should head back to save your belongings, it is a legitimate question for you to ask me, "how do I know of this bit of information?" If my answer is, "You can ignore me if you don't believe me, but you can never know what contacts I have or don't have, and I can't tell you how I know that your house is on fire."

Shouldn't anyone genuinely feel that I might not have authority on such information?



I actually would say, if one is to present some information on a public forum, it is definitely one's job to present his/her evidence of such information. Otherwise, what's stopping me or anyone from claiming that your house is on fire right now?

I didn’t say the house was on fire.

 

[sactowndog]

Totally agree with this point. But I also feel anybody saying they know something is or isn’t true because they are ‘hearing’ things should at least explain what that means.

I’ve heard things too. But they’re all from 3rd party sources such as Yahoo and this message board. See how easy that was?

Fine. I’m done saying anything to you guys.

BTW as the focus has now shifted to BW, I happened to be correct while you all blamed Bagley’s dad.

But I will happily keep my information to myself which I usually do anyway.

 

[VF21]

Fine. I’m done saying anything to you guys.

BTW as the focus has now shifted to BW, I happened to be correct while you all blamed Bagley’s dad.

But I will happily keep my information to myself which I usually do anyway.

Nope. Not true.

I explained to you why sharing "insider info" never works on a message board unless you're willing to name your source - which no one would/should do without risking the source's job.

 

[sactowndog]

Nope. Not true.

I explained to you why sharing "insider info" never works on a message board unless you're willing to name your source - which no one would/should do without risking the source's job.

What’s not true. I said I heard it came from the Kings FO. Last I checked BW was part of it. But as I said fine I won’t share anything. No skin off my nose.

 

[VF21]

What’s not true. I said I heard it came from the Kings FO. Last I checked BW was part of it. But as I said fine I won’t share anything. No skin off my nose.

Not true that everyone here was blaming Bagley's dad.

 

[sergmatt]

Not true that everyone here was blaming Bagley's dad.

Not everybody but the new resident "Brick wannabe" guy on Page 3 ran his mouth so much that it sure seemed like multiple people.

To his credit sactowndog did apparently have reliable info and get it right early. The problem is the delivery and being an anonymous poster on a message board makes the initial message suspect or at the very least one of many. Personally I'd pay attention to what he has to say in the future and if he proves to be right over and over......then we all have a new source.

 

[ESP47]

The whole point of a source is to not give away your source. Otherwise they'd never leak the information out because it would mean they would get fired.

I can't recall sactowndog ever making any outrageous claims. If you don't want to believe him then don't believe him but certainly don't act as if he can't talk about it unless he names exactly who it is what he's talking to. That's ridiculous. Woj has built an entire empire on sources so don't act like people are full of crap if they don't give up their sources.

 

[sactowndog]

Not true that everyone here was blaming Bagley's dad.

Of course not but many were

 

[KingsFanSince85]

BTW as the focus has now shifted to BW, I happened to be correct while you all blamed Bagley’s dad.

But I will happily keep my information to myself which I usually do anyway.

Nope. Not true.

VF21 is spot on. Neither of us blamed anyone, let alone Bagley's dad. Don't lump us in with others you've been reading. All I did was ask you to clarify what you meant by 'hearing' and whether it was a 3rd party source or an inside source. I never knew enough of anything to even form an opinion on whom the alleged info came from. So stop with that.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

The whole point of a source is to not give away your source. Otherwise they'd never leak the information out because it would mean they would get fired.

I call BS. That's a bogus excuse.

If you're ''man' enough to make a claim you know something on a public website, then you should also be 'man' enough to at least give a clue why your info should be taken seriously. Otherwise, don't say anything at all!

When an accredited member of the media, specifically someone that regularly covers the KINGS organization, says he/she is 'hearing' something -- it's completely understood what that means. And they don't have to provide the name of their source(s) for it to be taken seriously.

But when someone on this site that's not known to have inside sources makes a similar vague claim, it should be questioned. It's not hard at all to answer. You guys are making this out to be espionage or something. Give me a break.

If you tell the members of this site you're 'hearing' a trade is going down next week and somebody asks you "How do you know this? Are you reading the rumors on a website or forum or are you getting the info from an inside source?" ..... All you have to do is acknowledge that it's an inside source and not hearsay from elsewhere. What's so tough about that? That's in no way ratting a source out. Good grief.

 

[ESP47]

I call BS. That's a bogus excuse.

If you're ''man' enough to make a claim you know something on a public website, then you should also be 'man' enough to at least give a clue why your info should be taken seriously. Otherwise, don't say anything at all!

When an accredited member of the media, specifically someone that regularly covers the KINGS organization, says he/she is 'hearing' something -- it's completely understood what that means. And they don't have to provide the name of their source(s) for it to be taken seriously.

But when someone on this site that's not known to have inside sources makes a similar vague claim, it should be questioned. It's not hard at all to answer. You guys are making this out to be espionage or something. Give me a break.

If you tell the members of this site you're 'hearing' a trade is going down next week and somebody asks you "How do you know this? Are you reading the rumors on a website or forum or are you getting the info from an inside source?" ..... All you have to do is acknowledge that it's an inside source and not hearsay from elsewhere. What's so tough about that? That's in no way ratting a source out. Good grief.

What's it matter anyway? It's just words on a computer screen from someone you've never met before. Would it really set all your worries at ease if some random poster on this forum said "I got it from an inside source". Really dude? That's your form of accountability on here?

If I was sactowndog, I wouldn't be responding to you either. If I had legit inside information and I tried sharing it and people came at me talking "If you're "man" enough to make a claim" and all that nonsense, I wouldn't tell you jack. Either believe him or don't believe him but just leave it alone. He will either get a reputation for making outrageous claims or he will have a reputation for knowing some inside information. Either way your attitude and the attitude of others is exactly why there aren't very many people with inside information on this board. They get jumped on immediately if they claim to know anything from inside the F.O. Just because you aren't Woj or Shams doesn't mean you can't know someone that works with or close to the Kings organization and if you do you certainly aren't going to risk their job so you can prove to a bunch of angry posters on a message board that you're right.

 

[bubulina]

I am totally siding with sactowndog on this. First, he cannot share his source. Impossible. You can check his track records and choose to believe him/her or not. Second, he/she seldom shares any information unless he/she sees it relevant. And again, you have the free will to believe there are legitimate sources or not. So why are we debating this? If you think sactowndog doesn't tell the truth, ignore what he/she says. But how can you call a bogus excuse not wanting to reveal the source? If you want to keep the insider information coming, you have to be very careful not revealing your sources.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

What's it matter anyway? It's just words on a computer screen from someone you've never met before. Would it really set all your worries at ease if some random poster on this forum said "I got it from an inside source". Really dude? That's your form of accountability on here?

Ok, last reply on this as I've clearly explained my stance. I simply wanted to know if his comment was based upon all the hearsay that was going around that night or based on something else. He could have made it easy by answering instead of playing coy. You obviously feel the same way. No worries. We just won't ever agree on this point.

My last comment on this is if someone is paranoid to admit that they have an inside source, then they probably shouldn't bother admitting they know something confidential in the first place. Then they won't be bothered by anyone having the audacity to ask how they know something. Pretty simple concept IMO.

I'm really baffled how you guys are taken back by the follow up on this, but whatever. C'est la vie. I still enjoy bantering with both you guys about the KINGS. Now I'll move on.....

 

[sactowndog]

Oh... errmmm... so long? Don't let the door hit you?

Who said I would stop posting. Just I would stop posting any comments about what I’m hearing. Not that I post that very often anyway. I think all I have posted:

1) I’m hearing Bagley would be drafted
2) The Kings FO really likes Giles
3) That the story had some truth to it

But clearly it’s not appreciated by a large vocal group on this board so why bother. Some of you clearly seem to know it all anyway.