Bagley refused to come into game

But why? That's simply not what you do with players. You don't just move them for the sake of moving them. There are tons of journeymen in the NBA. The thing is, nobody denies Marvin's talent. That's the only reason why we've hung on to him as long as we have, because there's always the question of IF he can 1) stay healthy, 2) put it together. The only difference is that he's now in the last year of his contract. If you had a good deal for him, sure move him. But when you can barely get a late pick for him why move him for the sake of moving him?

Had Bagley not gotten injured again last season, I think things would have panned out very differently.
The injuries is the number 1 issue with Bagley. No doubt there.

As far as the rest, I was on record quite some time ago saying the Kings had to choose between Marvin and Holmes, because they both can't have success on this team. I was right. Fans can hope and dream, but a front office has to make business decisions. If I could see that Bagley and Holmes were not compatible, the FO should have. Once they chose Holmes, every game Bagley languished on the bench or sat in the corner watching the rest of the team play offense diminished his value.
 
I still don't understand why you think anybody is criticizing Bagley for roster imbalance. I believe CD's actual words were something along the lines of "if Marvin was half the player we thought he would be, the Kings would be in the playoffs". It's a very weird thing to hear a statement like that and interpret it as blaming Marvin for roster imbalance. And in any case, it doesn't make sense to pick and isolate one statement out of so many hours worth of conversation and discussion. It's one thing if a person only talks about Bagley and claims everything else is fine. If the person says the roster is flawed, we need to move multiple pieces, while also lamenting that Bagley isn't as good as we'd hoped then how can you in good faith claim that they are pinning everything on Bagley?

As far as responsibility goes - does your logic apply to coaches and FO as well? So I guess you can't wish to fire Luke cos he's only accountable and responsible for himself against his own expectations? I mean, I might not agree with Slim's "evolved" way of consuming sports, but if you're saying that basically fans shouldn't have any expectations of anybody then fair enough, but you can't only apply that to players and not the rest of the organization. And if you were truly a pure "consumer" of sports with a strong belief that there should be no fan opinion I frankly don't think you'd be spending time on a sports message board.
Saying, if Marvin was a better player, the Kings would be better is an asinine statement and only serves to bring him into the conversation after a loss. He's practically irrelevant to the Kings current streak of bad play, so why focus on him? If I want to give CD more of the benefit of the doubt, then we can say the reason to bring it up is to rile the fan base up and keep them emotional rather than apathetic. Because, while saying something like, if Buddy Hield were more like Steph Curry or Kobe Bryant, the Kings would make the playoffs may be true, there is no analytical value in that line of thought.

I also did not claim to be a "pure" consumer of sports. I enjoy the discussions here, including the one we're having right now. But I'm going to call out BS when I see it.
 
Saying, if Marvin was a better player, the Kings would be better is an asinine statement and only serves to bring him into the conversation after a loss. He's practically irrelevant to the Kings current streak of bad play, so why focus on him? If I want to give CD more of the benefit of the doubt, then we can say the reason to bring it up is to rile the fan base up and keep them emotional rather than apathetic. Because, while saying something like, if Buddy Hield were more like Steph Curry or Kobe Bryant, the Kings would make the playoffs may be true, there is no analytical value in that line of thought.

I also did not claim to be a "pure" consumer of sports. I enjoy the discussions here, including the one we're having right now. But I'm going to call out BS when I see it.
In don’t think those statement is totally true. There is an expectation from players based on their talent or potential. No one expects buddy to be Kobe, we just expect him to shoot +40% from the 3 and keep his turnovers down. Fox has been playing poorly, many people mentioned in the beginning of the year that if he played like the Fox from the past few years, we might have won some of those close games. To say if Marvin played up to his potential, 20/10 with avg defense or as well as his draft peers in the top 5 or so would make the team better is a true statement. It’s not shifting all the blame on him, just pointing out another reason how the team could be better.
 
In don’t think those statement is totally true. There is an expectation from players based on their talent or potential. No one expects buddy to be Kobe, we just expect him to shoot +40% from the 3 and keep his turnovers down. Fox has been playing poorly, many people mentioned in the beginning of the year that if he played like the Fox from the past few years, we might have won some of those close games. To say if Marvin played up to his potential, 20/10 with avg defense or as well as his draft peers in the top 5 or so would make the team better is a true statement. It’s not shifting all the blame on him, just pointing out another reason how the team could be better.
It's contextual though. The circumstances for Marvin was different than his peers of that draft class. Aside from the injuries, ee was the only player in the top 5 where his team thought they were ready to make the playoffs and couldn't afford to give him all the touches and experience he can handle. Phoenix and Hawks were already horrible. Memphis and Dallas gutted their teams to make room for young players. Kings....well, they were playoff ready, right?
 
It's contextual though. The circumstances for Marvin was different than his peers of that draft class. Aside from the injuries, ee was the only player in the top 5 where his team thought they were ready to make the playoffs and couldn't afford to give him all the touches and experience he can handle. Phoenix and Hawks were already horrible. Memphis and Dallas gutted their teams to make room for young players. Kings....well, they were playoff ready, right?
Wait so you think it's the organisation's fault that he hasn't had enough experience? He was literally handed the starting job despite being totally undeserving. Couldn't afford to give him all the touches? Am I missing some alternate universe where Marvin Bagley didn't attempt a shot every other time he touched the ball his rookie season? We literally passed on a generational talent that would have probably changes our fortunes for him and you think the organisation is the one that's let him down?

He got injured. Then got injured again. Then got injured AGAIN. That's reason #1, 2 and 3 why he hasn't developed. The Kings not giving him a chance to gain experience is probably the last reason.
 
Saying, if Marvin was a better player, the Kings would be better is an asinine statement and only serves to bring him into the conversation after a loss. He's practically irrelevant to the Kings current streak of bad play, so why focus on him? If I want to give CD more of the benefit of the doubt, then we can say the reason to bring it up is to rile the fan base up and keep them emotional rather than apathetic. Because, while saying something like, if Buddy Hield were more like Steph Curry or Kobe Bryant, the Kings would make the playoffs may be true, there is no analytical value in that line of thought.

I also did not claim to be a "pure" consumer of sports. I enjoy the discussions here, including the one we're having right now. But I'm going to call out BS when I see it.
Again, I think this is more your personal choice to interpret such statements as being more about Marvin than about the situation. You keep making it sound like he was singled out, that he was being pinned for losses, that he was "focused" on, when in reality he was talked about for a minute in 1.5 hours worth of Kings talk. Marvin was brought up simply as one aspect of a big picture as to why this team is once again disappointing and looking like playoffs will be missed..
 
Wait so you think it's the organisation's fault that he hasn't had enough experience? He was literally handed the starting job despite being totally undeserving. Couldn't afford to give him all the touches? Am I missing some alternate universe where Marvin Bagley didn't attempt a shot every other time he touched the ball his rookie season? We literally passed on a generational talent that would have probably changes our fortunes for him and you think the organisation is the one that's let him down?

He got injured. Then got injured again. Then got injured AGAIN. That's reason #1, 2 and 3 why he hasn't developed. The Kings not giving him a chance to gain experience is probably the last reason.
I've repeatedly stated that Bagley's injuries were the top issue.

No, he has not been given the same development opportunity of the other draft picks for the reasons stated in the previous post.

Putting someone on the court in a position that plays against his strengths is not an opportunity.
 
I've repeatedly stated that Bagley's injuries were the top issue.

No, he has not been given the same development opportunity of the other draft picks for the reasons stated in the previous post.

Putting someone on the court in a position that plays against his strengths is not an opportunity.
And what exactly are his strengths besides getting injured? And what makes you so sure that everyone else except Marvin was put in such great positions? Ever consider that maybe Marvin just isn't that good? Ever consider that had Marvin proved he was better than Holmes we wouldn't be having this discussion now? What is there some systemic discrimination against Marvin Bagley now?

Look, I'm a big Buddy supporter. Two years ago I thought he could be as good as Klay. Has he been put in the best position to succeed? No... But I'm not going to pretend like that's the only reason he isn't an all star - he just isn't that good and that's that. When he makes a dumb turnover or takes bad shots I call it what it is.
 
But why? That's simply not what you do with players. You don't just move them for the sake of moving them. There are tons of journeymen in the NBA. The thing is, nobody denies Marvin's talent. That's the only reason why we've hung on to him as long as we have, because there's always the question of IF he can 1) stay healthy, 2) put it together. The only difference is that he's now in the last year of his contract. If you had a good deal for him, sure move him. But when you can barely get a late pick for him why move him for the sake of moving him?

Had Bagley not gotten injured again last season, I think things would have panned out very differently.
Hey, I'm right here.
 
And what exactly are his strengths besides getting injured? And what makes you so sure that everyone else except Marvin was put in such great positions? Ever consider that maybe Marvin just isn't that good? Ever consider that had Marvin proved he was better than Holmes we wouldn't be having this discussion now? What is there some systemic discrimination against Marvin Bagley now?

Look, I'm a big Buddy supporter. Two years ago I thought he could be as good as Klay. Has he been put in the best position to succeed? No... But I'm not going to pretend like that's the only reason he isn't an all star - he just isn't that good and that's that. When he makes a dumb turnover or takes bad shots I call it what it is.
This is my point. Other teams didn't put vets in from of their top 5 draft pick and say prove you're better than them.

Fact is, I'm condemning the organization. Not blindingly defending Bagley.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
Wait so you think it's the organisation's fault that he hasn't had enough experience? He was literally handed the starting job despite being totally undeserving...
Now, hold on a minute: at the risk of derailing y'all's argument, what does this mean? Because, according to the game logs, Bagley's first career start wasn't until his 39th career game, and that was because Bjelica was unavailable. The game logs further indicate that, in his first start, he had 22 and 11, in a loss, and, in the very next game, went right back to the bench. He didn't start again until 11 games after that, when he put up 25 and 11, in a loss, and went right back to the bench, again, the following game. Overall, he only started four games in his rookie season, while averaging 15 and 7, on 50 percent shooting, and where did he start his sophomore season? On the bench.

Since I no longer root for the Kings, there may be some critical context that I'm missing, but it doesn't seem like he was handed anything.
 
And what exactly are his strengths besides getting injured? And what makes you so sure that everyone else except Marvin was put in such great positions? Ever consider that maybe Marvin just isn't that good? Ever consider that had Marvin proved he was better than Holmes we wouldn't be having this discussion now? What is there some systemic discrimination against Marvin Bagley now?

Look, I'm a big Buddy supporter. Two years ago I thought he could be as good as Klay. Has he been put in the best position to succeed? No... But I'm not going to pretend like that's the only reason he isn't an all star - he just isn't that good and that's that. When he makes a dumb turnover or takes bad shots I call it what it is.
I too like Buddy.

Buddy is a great shooter-one of the best in the NBA. If you notice his launch to release time and compare to other NBA shooters, you would recognize how quickly he can let it fly...reminds me of Chris Mullin. He is really an outstanding shooter. That is who he is. That is what you have with him.
Yes he can be effective and downright-sneaky defensively...like when the opposing team attempts to inbound the ball after a made basket, but he is a shooter. Was Peja a great defender..but his jersey is in the rafters.
 
Now, hold on a minute: at the risk of derailing y'all's argument, what does this mean? Because, according to the game logs, Bagley's first career start wasn't until his 39th career game, and that was because Bjelica was unavailable. The game logs further indicate that, in his first start, he had 22 and 11, in a loss, and, in the very next game, went right back to the bench. He didn't start again until 11 games after that, when he put up 25 and 11, in a loss, and went right back to the bench, again, the following game. Overall, he only started four games in his rookie season, while averaging 15 and 7, on 50 percent shooting, and where did he start his sophomore season? On the bench.

Since I no longer root for the Kings, there may be some critical context that I'm missing, but it doesn't seem like he was handed anything.
There is no critical context missing.
 
It's actually nothing like that. My WAG is that @NewArena may have been conflating the practice of tarring and feathering with the actually racist "Tar Baby" trope. And the spelling error in question had nothing to do with either one of those things, but rather was pertaining to a misspelling of the word "tarred," which another mod thought may have been misinterpreted as something else.

Now, if you all would get off this tangent, and return to the topic of the thread, the rest of the Staff and I would take it as a kindness.
This
 
Lol I just noticed the titles, bench, all stars lol. Cute. I noticed my response to that accusation may have been deleted. I understand we need to keep the forum focused on what it really should be focused on. Kings basketball. Just wanted to clear my name of that garbage comment. But at least some gave good clarification. I hope Bagley starts and plays out his Contract and we get some value back for him
 
Now, hold on a minute: at the risk of derailing y'all's argument, what does this mean? Because, according to the game logs, Bagley's first career start wasn't until his 39th career game, and that was because Bjelica was unavailable. The game logs further indicate that, in his first start, he had 22 and 11, in a loss, and, in the very next game, went right back to the bench. He didn't start again until 11 games after that, when he put up 25 and 11, in a loss, and went right back to the bench, again, the following game. Overall, he only started four games in his rookie season, while averaging 15 and 7, on 50 percent shooting, and where did he start his sophomore season? On the bench.

Since I no longer root for the Kings, there may be some critical context that I'm missing, but it doesn't seem like he was handed anything.
I was referring to year 2 and 3. He started his sophomore season as a starter and then got injured in game 1, so not sure why you said he started his sophomore season on the bench. He started 42 out of 43 games in year 3. You may disagree that that's being "handed" the starting gig, but to claim that Marvin's development was somehow stunted by the Kings not giving him enough limelight when he averaged 25 mpg as a rookie and pretty much had the starting job from year 2 onwards is questionable don't you think? And for year 4, what's to say that he wouldn't have had the role again? Even putting aside his offseason comments, he started in the first preseason game against the Suns, and then got banged up AGAIN after game 2 of the preseason. Thereafter his agent put out that statement and the rest is history.

There are more than a handful of guys in every draft class who have turned themselves into very serviceable and valuable players despite not being given the starting job from day 1. The NBA is full of journeymen. Livinthedream seems to think that Marvin should have some sort of special privilege.

Put it this way - if a player's success is conditional on everything else around him being primed for his success, then the logical conclusion is that said player is not very good to begin wtih.
 
Last edited:

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
I was referring to year 2 and 3. He started his sophomore season as a starter and then got injured in game 1, so not sure why you said he started his sophomore season on the bench. He started 42 out of 43 games in year 3.
Ah, so. Skimmed through the game logs too hastily. I stand corrected.

You may disagree that that's being "handed" the starting gig, but to claim that Marvin's development was somehow stunted by the Kings not giving him enough limelight when he averaged 25 mpg as a rookie and pretty much had the starting job from year 2 onwards is questionable don't you think?
I suppose I would... if that was how I interpreted @Livinthedream's post.

Put it this way - if a player's success is conditional on everything else around him being primed for his success, then the logical conclusion is that said player is not very good to begin wtih.
#TodayILearned... Julius Randle: not very good.
 
Ah, so. Skimmed through the game logs too hastily. I stand corrected.


I suppose I would... if that was how I interpreted @Livinthedream's post.


#TodayILearned... Julius Randle: not very good.
To be clear on the last point, I'm not equating success to all star level production. I'm saying being even a rotational player (to contextualise it for Marvin, it'd be that "half as good as we thought he'd be" statement CD made). Don't think you'd disagree with my conclusion on that basis.
 
read into walton's answer to jason anderson (around 8 1/2 minutes in) what you want:


what i get from this is that he will be gone by the end of next week.

well, i guess by leaving "he" fairly vague, given that luke was fired on a sunday (what i consider the last day of the week - a day of rest), i'd say i called it right.

the surprise was that luke was instructed to start playing marvin "bad news" bagley again, like his refusal to play yielded some benefits.

truth be told, i did think that the kings would move marvin at a loss in order to show the team that the coach doesn't have to put up with prima donnas who will only go into a game when they feel like it - but it appears that the kings had already decided to fire luke - and marvin's stunt simply primed the pump. no coach can retain the respect of the team when a bust of a player can dictate his own terms of employment.

gentry was big on "we have to find a way to win" on last night's postgame presser, but i think we already knew that. portland coming in on a h/r back to back - if they can't win this one, it's time to rev up the tankmobile.
 
If this is true (and it is)... this is an absolute train wreck of an organization. I grew up a Kings fan. Hardcore. But I'm about done with an organization as garbage as this one. Of course this is a horrible move by Bagley, but can you imagine the culture of an organization where this is even thinkable? How can you let it get to this point? I'd actually just waive Bagley right now, without even a second thought. Make a statement of it. Of course, an org that let things get to this point isn't an org that has the backbone to actually stand up to selfish chumps like Bagley. It's going to get worse before it gets better and I'm not sure it will get better anytime soon.

The Cubs didn't win a championship for 108 years. I hope you have a good health plan for living that long.
 
i'm wondering why the kings didn't call marvin's bluff after he refused to go in against phoenix.

marvin is making 11 million this season.

why not simply ask him if he wants to be made a free agent immediately.

that is, he and the team simply tear up his current contract and let's see what he can get elsewhere (i'm guessing, "nowhere near 11 mil").

if marvin demurs (keeps the 11 mil coming in), then send him home on a two week suspension and allow him to return to the deep end of the bench after that.

i understand that we dream of getting "value" for him but his value is now zero.

if he thinks differently, let him (and the team) renounce his current contract and see where the interest is.

(unless, of course, nba "rules" forbid such a free market decision).

marvin "bad news" bagley needs to be somewhere else and it isn't like we would be subtracting a major contribution from the roster.

if gentry is told to play him (over more deserving players), then gentry should resign and save face.
 
i'm wondering why the kings didn't call marvin's bluff after he refused to go in against phoenix.

marvin is making 11 million this season.

why not simply ask him if he wants to be made a free agent immediately.

that is, he and the team simply tear up his current contract and let's see what he can get elsewhere (i'm guessing, "nowhere near 11 mil").

if marvin demurs (keeps the 11 mil coming in), then send him home on a two week suspension and allow him to return to the deep end of the bench after that.

i understand that we dream of getting "value" for him but his value is now zero.

if he thinks differently, let him (and the team) renounce his current contract and see where the interest is.

(unless, of course, nba "rules" forbid such a free market decision).

marvin "bad news" bagley needs to be somewhere else and it isn't like we would be subtracting a major contribution from the roster.

if gentry is told to play him (over more deserving players), then gentry should resign and save face.
There are a lot of assumptions in this post. If I'm allowed to assume as well, then I would assume that whatever went on, it wasn't as serious as some fans wish it was.

Out of the mouth of Sean Cunningham, who broke the story, he says that it's not unheard of for a player to refuse to enter a game. It's not every day, but it happens.
 
i'm not sure what the "assumptions" are.

and i'm not sure how often it happens (perhaps cunningham gave examples - maybe not).

but any player can tell any (assistant or head) coach if he isn't ready to go - even if something he ate makes him think he might, oh, i don't know, puke on the court maybe.

but to wait until the coach says "you're in" and the player THEN says, "not today", well, i just don't believe that happens very often and when it does, it is usually to send a message - i would need some specific "for instances".

let's face it - marvin sent a message and the kings had to choose.

fine marvin or send him home on a short suspension and the coach retains control of the team.

force the coach to downplay the situation, to begin PLAYING marvin again and the coach definitely loses the team and needs to be relieved of his duties.

maybe we will never know if walton WAS deliberately holding marvin back and the team simply had to protect a financial asset.

but it seems like the team was forced to make a choice, possibly earlier than they had projected.

i was pretty sure that walton had until the all-star break to be in contention for a play-in spot (not a very high bar).

and we know that vivek can't be happy about paying two coaches for the same two years (this and next).

but IF everyone believes that the kings opened with a "tough schedule" (i disagree and think they got a very easy beginning to the season compared to other teams), then why would walton be fired so quickly?

i think you can add "coach killer" to the resume of marvin "bad news" bagley