Fire Christie

[KingsFanSince85]

. "Tanking" doesn't have to mean the absolute obliteration of your franchise's reputation.

This is where you and I couldn’t disagree more.

“Tanking” i.e. intentionally losing, not competing at the highest level possible, angling for a higher draft pick, etc, etc, accomplishes the same things you seem to be so concerned about.

Tanking is bush league nonsense. It lacks integrity and is completely at odds with the spirit of competition.

It’s laughable to me that you believe there to be a separation between the unscrupulous tactic and obliterating a reputation. They are one and the same.

 

[sono]

I would love to bench the vets btw but I've heard questions if by benching them we could actually run afoul of the anti-tank rules.

The second unit is quite capable of switching from hard to soft reset and rain my parade.
I would take my chances with the bench if I care more about wins. These trade rumors around the vets are basically shutting them down.

 

[Padrino]

This is where you and I couldn’t disagree more.

“Tanking” i.e. intentionally losing, not competing at the highest level possible, angling for a higher draft pick, etc, etc, accomplishes the same things you seem to be so concerned about.

Tanking is bush league nonsense. It lacks integrity and is completely at odds with the spirit of competition.

It’s laughable to me that you believe there to be a separation between the unscrupulous tactic and obliterating a reputation. They are one and the same.

Well it appears you and I differ on the definition of tanking. Putting a roster in a position to lose due to its inexperience is not the same thing as intentionally losing. I'm not talking about "throwing" games. I'm talking about losing well by losing with purpose. Development of young talent is always a worthy goal in the NBA, and young talent by virtue of its inexperience struggles to win in the NBA. If you fail to see the dignity in such a strategy, as opposed to the humiliation we witnessed last night, I can do nothing for you.

 

[Dime Dropper]

No benefit to firing Doug. I think he's in over his head which is ideal for the tank. Any coach that would come in after is doomed to fail as this team flat out sucks. Time to take off the rose tinted glasses, the writing was on the wall for this season long before it started.

 

[Srzly]

I’m not sure there isn’t some benefit to firing him if he refuses to play the young guys.

This season is toast, and for some reason Doug is hell bent on playing these old vets that don’t play winning basketball.

Might as well let the young guys grow together and get experience.

Under Doug, we only watch them come in, stand around on offense and watch Zach, DDR, Dennis, and Russ take turns playing 1-on-1, while also expecting to pick up those same guys’ slack on the defensive end.

The roster construction is awful, but I’m still shocked at how bad he has been as HC.

 

[Dime Dropper]

My presumption is that they want to maximise trade value for the vets by playing them. Apart from Keon, which is straight up incompetence. I am also assuming in this case that something happened behind the scenes and that the FO instructed him to limit Keon's minutes because it just doesn't make sense otherwise. He's gone after this season 100%, which will be yet another Kangz move.

I'm not defending Doug at all but the young guys are not going to play ahead of our vets. Hopefully there will be a fire sale at the trade deadline to create space for that.

 

[kingsboi]

let's get real here, Doug has been set up to fail the moment Vivek wanted him as head coach. You don't go from play by play with Napear to head coach and expect great results without having years of assistant coaching experience and even the good ones out there don't get an opportunity. Doug's biggest mistake was leaving a good thing he had going watching the games from a chair with a headphone set on his ears.

 

[GWD]

I’m not sure there isn’t some benefit to firing him if he refuses to play the young guys.

This season is toast, and for some reason Doug is hell bent on playing these old vets that don’t play winning basketball.

Might as well let the young guys grow together and get experience.

Under Doug, we only watch them come in, stand around on offense and watch Zach, DDR, Dennis, and Russ take turns playing 1-on-1, while also expecting to pick up those same guys’ slack on the defensive end.

The roster construction is awful, but I’m still shocked at how bad he has been as HC.

This take is based on the assumption that Christie is in total control of his coaching decisions. If so, agree.

However, some of the decisions made are so atypical to his philosophy that those decisions seem to come from some other source. The "for some reason" viewpoint tells much.

 

[Srzly]

This take is based on the assumption that Christie is in total control of his coaching decisions. If so, agree.

However, some of the decisions made are so atypical to his philosophy that those decisions seem to come from some other source. The "for some reason" viewpoint tells much.

But why would Doug constantly talk about “I’m going to play guys that play defense” if he isn’t in control?

To me, that is almost worse if he is out there spouting all of these things to the media when he knows he can’t change it.

 

[sactowndog]

Admittedly, I’ve not watched this team play lately and have only seen a few plays here and there. But if DC is as bad as the OP and others suggest — you’d think they’d over-the-moon about it.

The pro-tank crowd seemingly finally has their tank commander and roster that’s dreadful enough to land top 3 lottery odds yet they still aren’t happy. Go figure.

Says who?

 

[Spike]

Well it appears you and I differ on the definition of tanking. Putting a roster in a position to lose due to its inexperience is not the same thing as intentionally losing. I'm not talking about "throwing" games. I'm talking about losing well by losing with purpose. Development of young talent is always a worthy goal in the NBA, and young talent by virtue of its inexperience struggles to win in the NBA. If you fail to see the dignity in such a strategy, as opposed to the humiliation we witnessed last night, I can do nothing for you.

I would posit that what we're seeing is tanking. It's the ugly kind. But instead of using low-cost vets or youth, we're using big-name ill-fitting pieces. You can't possibly think a lineup of:

Shröder
LaVine
DeRozan
Murray
Sabonis

was going to put a lot of notches in the W column. Unless you're delusional and believe that these guys are all pros, and a "cheerleader" is all they need to will themselves to wins.

This lineup is old (relative to other starting 5s), not good defensively, not really all that great athletically, and small. Only Murray has a decent wingspan.

You don't put this team together if you're planning on playing any semblance of defense. You don't hire Christie, who is preaching defense, if you want to run this lineup and try to get better on that end. It's nonsensical.

My tinfoil hat opinion:

• Perry did this on purpose, hoping that he could clean it up mid-year.
• Playing the youth more consistently with a young coach might lead to more winning than our current results show.
• Perry wants to lose games. ("Gap Year" BS)

Why I don't think it'll work:

• The vets are overpaid and older. If there were good offers on the table, they would have been gone.
• Vivek really doesn't want to "tank" in the traditional sense of going with a youth movement.

I think Vivek was sold a plan by Perry that would make the process palatable, ie, losing with big-names and ill-fitting pieces, but didn't really take into account the human element of it all. These are actual players who are skilled and play with pride - they also know that they're ill-fitting. There's more to say and different tangents it could all take, so I'll just pause here for now.

 

[Padrino]

I would posit that what we're seeing is tanking. It's the ugly kind. But instead of using low-cost vets or youth, we're using big-name ill-fitting pieces. You can't possibly think a lineup of:

Shröder
LaVine
DeRozan
Murray
Sabonis

was going to put a lot of notches in the W column. Unless you're delusional and believe that these guys are all pros, and a "cheerleader" is all they need to will themselves to wins.

This lineup is old (relative to other starting 5s), not good defensively, not really all that great athletically, and small. Only Murray has a decent wingspan.

You don't put this team together if you're planning on playing any semblance of defense. You don't hire Christie, who is preaching defense, if you want to run this lineup and try to get better on that end. It's nonsensical.

My tinfoil hat opinion:

• Perry did this on purpose, hoping that he could clean it up mid-year.
• Playing the youth more consistently with a young coach might lead to more winning than our current results show.
• Perry wants to lose games. ("Gap Year" BS)

Why I don't think it'll work:

• The vets are overpaid and older. If there were good offers on the table, they would have been gone.
• Vivek really doesn't want to "tank" in the traditional sense of going with a youth movement.

I think Vivek was sold a plan by Perry that would make the process palatable, ie, losing with big-names and ill-fitting pieces, but didn't really take into account the human element of it all. These are actual players who are skilled and play with pride - they also know that they're ill-fitting. There's more to say and different tangents it could all take, so I'll just pause here for now.

I suppose it's a "your mileage may vary" kind of situation. It's natural to ask "Why?" and reach for tinfoil hat responses to the inexplicable, especially when it's hard to find much in the way of sense in someone else's decision-making. As a thinker, I tend to lean towards not attributing grand conspiratorial design to what can be attributed to incompetence. The simplest answer might be that Scott Perry genuinely believed he was adding veteran know-how and "toughness" to the roster this off-season, and is himself surprised by how awful this team has been.

We may never know Perry's true intentions heading into this season, but I'm less focused on what he thought then and more focused on how the organization intends to respond to this mess now. Will they hold themselves accountable for so swiftly crashing and burning into the basement of the Western Conference? Do they understand what it means to cut bait and rebuild? Do they intend to prioritize younger talent so that this team has an actual competitive future? Or are they going to fumble the ball and try to "reload" with some other combination of aging and ineffectual veteran players, because somehow this time it'll be different?

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I think Vivek was sold a plan by Perry that would make the process palatable, ie, losing with big-names and ill-fitting pieces, but didn't really take into account the human element of it all. These are actual players who are skilled and play with pride - they also know that they're ill-fitting. There's more to say and different tangents it could all take, so I'll just pause here for now.

Had me until there. But yes.

I really don't think we can stop playing the vets until they are moved unfortunately. I am hopeful everyone gets shipped by the deadline though. The good thing is that this team is such a wreck it's totally possible other GMs think they can get more from these guys than we can. I don't know that it will lead to any value but I am hopeful it will help us clear the decks of anyone who has quit on the team and anyone we don't see worth keeping.

 

[ESP47]

Keep Doug for the tank but spank his pp for not playing Carter in a blowout.

 

[sactowndog]

I suppose it's a "your mileage may vary" kind of situation. It's natural to ask "Why?" and reach for tinfoil hat responses to the inexplicable, especially when it's hard to find much in the way of sense in someone else's decision-making. As a thinker, I tend to lean towards not attributing grand conspiratorial design to what can be attributed to incompetence. The simplest answer might be that Scott Perry genuinely believed he was adding veteran know-how and "toughness" to the roster this off-season, and is himself surprised by how awful this team has been.

We may never know Perry's true intentions heading into this season, but I'm less focused on what he thought then and more focused on how the organization intends to respond to this mess now. Will they hold themselves accountable for so swiftly crashing and burning into the basement of the Western Conference? Do they understand what it means to cut bait and rebuild? Do they intend to prioritize younger talent so that this team has an actual competitive future? Or are they going to fumble the ball and try to "reload" with some other combination of aging and ineffectual veteran players, because somehow this time it'll be different?

Just to comment on these questions:

Will they hold themselves accountable for so swiftly crashing and burning into the basement of the Western Conference?
If Perry wanted to rebuild what would you do different?

Do they understand what it means to cut bait and rebuild?
Does cut bait mean trading the vets? Who do you think is actually tradable on this team? I think people still underestimate how bad the Monte era was whether it was Monte or Vivek’s fault.

Do they intend to prioritize younger talent so that this team has an actual competitive future?
It’s possible playing the younger guys would result in more wins. Does that move you towards your ultimate goals?

 

[gunks]

Dumbest post. Fire Doug, and WHO ON EARTH IS TAKING THIS JOB ???

Somebody who wants free money since every Kings coach gets fired a few years into their contract.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Do they understand what it means to cut bait and rebuild?
Does cut bait mean trading the vets? Who do you think is actually tradable on this team? I think people still underestimate how bad the Monte era was whether it was Monte or Vivek’s fault.

I think Domas, Demar, and Monk are all movable this season. Probably stuck with Zach another year, probably doesn't matter given winning won't be a priority next year either.

Do they intend to prioritize younger talent so that this team has an actual competitive future?
It’s possible playing the younger guys would result in more wins. Does that move you towards your ultimate goals?

It really is possible if we benched Zach or DDR the league could say "you aren't playing star players you are tanking, you will be punished".

The young guys will get time eventually. If they don't it means they probably aren't good enough. I think it's quite possible that Carter is in that camp. Pretty clearly a horrible pick by Monte even if he pans out a year or two from now. This roster is too small and only Zach can be 100% blamed on Vivek if that's your thing. Keon needs more time but he really is getting a lot of bad fouls right now. I guess who cares if you foul a 3-pt shooter if you're losing by 30 every night but he isn't going to save this team. And do we want to be saved? You are right to ask.

 

[Padrino]

Just to comment on these questions:

Will they hold themselves accountable for so swiftly crashing and burning into the basement of the Western Conference?
If Perry wanted to rebuild what would you do different?

I would instruct Doug Christie to get Keon Ellis, Devin Carter, and Nique Clifford at least 25 mpg of playing time until more time could be cleared for them in the starting unit. By the deadline, I would find trade partners for DeRozan, Schroder, and Westbrook. I would take back whatever I could get for them. Monk's a viable trade target for a team in need of a microwave sccorer. I would also test the market for Domantas Sabonis, and if I can grab a decent first rounder as part of a Sabonis package, I would pull the trigger. In the offseason, I would work towards finding a new home for Domas if I couldn't do so at the deadline, and I would do the same with Malik Monk. I would also see if I could move off LaVine as an ender in the offseason. There may be a cap space-seeking taker.

Do they understand what it means to cut bait and rebuild?
Does cut bait mean trading the vets? Who do you think is actually tradable on this team? I think people still underestimate how bad the Monte era was whether it was Monte or Vivek’s fault.

It does mean trading the vets. All of them except LaVine are tradeable before the deadline, and LaVine is potentially tradeable in the offseason as a massive expiring. There is not significant trade value to be had amongst any of the vets, but "cut bait" means "dump regardless of value returned." My motto heading into this season was "Get on with it." There's no sense dithering here. A rebuild needs to happen regardless of how much value the Kings can extract from their veteran deadweight. Move DeRozan, Schroder, and Westbrook for seconds for all I care.

Do they intend to prioritize younger talent so that this team has an actual competitive future?
It’s possible playing the younger guys would result in more wins. Does that move you towards your ultimate goals?

Yes, if those younger guys could potentially become long-term pieces. It's highly unlikely that the Kings will be able to out-suck the likes of Indiana, Brooklyn, and Washington, and it's highly unlikely that the younger guys are going to add wins significant enough in number to harm the Kings' goal of positioning themselves well for a high draft pick. The flattened lottery odds are the Kings' friend in this particular case.