Greg Oden?

[Spike]

If that is indeed their plan, then I would expect to see some sort of fire sale at the trade deadline - our assets aren't at all that great, but several of them can be useful pieces to teams looking to improve their standings if there is a tight playoff race. The pieces, remarkably, fit together even less than they did last year and we have plenty of stubby spares...Thornton, Thompson, Landry (although I doubt he'll be moved), IT, etc. are nice filler pieces for teams looking for that last little "oomph" of something later in the season, especially if a bench player happens to go down and they need a body - hey, we've got bodies!

We might luck into someone willing to overpay with their draft pick in the hopes that they can squeak into the playoffs or improve their seeding. I don't know how Cousins feels about this, but it does indeed look like assembling bodies just to look busy with the latent text of improving your draft stock. I do expect Thornton to be featured early on, and hopefully someone will bite, but as the season progresses, I expect to see more of McLemore. I doubt that we'll see McCollum, unless he really impresses. I actually like his game a lot more than pretty much everyone else at the position (probably unfair to Vasquez, but I haven't seen him much - I just know the numbers), but we'll see how he fits into the lineup. At the very least, he stood out in a positive way at SL, which is what you want your draft picks to do.

 

[Mojo]

That plan would line up with what Dave said earlier in the offseason. When he said the FO was not looking to retain Tyreke for anything past the QO, everybody dismissed him but he had it right. Something else that he had said around that time...

Carmichael Dave ‏@CarmichaelDave

Philosophy being to build from this and next year's draft, hope for a shot at Wiggins, and surround Cousins with strength, maybe a vet. (Carl Landry?)

 

[hrdboild]

That plan would line up with what Dave said earlier in the offseason. When he said the FO was not looking to retain Tyreke for anything past the QO, everybody dismissed him but he had it right. Something else that he had said around that time...

Carmichael Dave ‏@CarmichaelDave

Philosophy being to build from this and next year's draft, hope for a shot at Wiggins, and surround Cousins with strength, maybe a vet.

Which is crazy in my opinion. One team is going to get Wiggins who may or may not live up to his potential. But I guess we'll revisit this again in 10 months.

 

[Kingster]

Which is crazy in my opinion. One team is going to get Wiggins who may or may not live up to his potential. But I guess we'll revisit this again in 10 months.

Like I said in a post above, it's not just Wiggins. Otherwise, you'd be correct - it would be basing a strategy on a low risk probability event. I highly doubt Wiggins or bust is the strategy.

 

[Bricklayer]

Like I said in a post above, it's not just Wiggins. Otherwise, you'd be correct - it would be basing a strategy on a low risk probability event. I highly doubt Wiggins or bust is the strategy.

A great draft, a GREAT draft, might produce 4 superstars. We meanwhile are returning substantially the same roster as last year, while asking Cousins to step up his game and lead us, and while hiring what presumably is a much better coach than the one we left. We won 28 games last year. Were the #7 seed.

Now, unless you want to make the argument of the other side that losing Reke was ****ing stupid and is going to hurt, how is "return same team/get improved Cousins/get improved coach" going to turn a 28 win team into a bottom 4-5 team in a year when everybody is tanking? If you are the #8 seed, your chances of scoring a Top 3 pick are 10.0%. Otherwise you are picking 8 and up. For the 9th seed its 6.1%. For the 10th seed its 4.0%.

If you think there are 10 guys in this upcoming draft better than the 2009 rookie of the year, I've got a bridge to sell you. So what is the plan here? In order to tank, you need to lose talent, not sit on your hands. In order to win you have to gain talent, not let it walk. But no, we are awkwardly perched right where we normally are, in no real position to win, or to win the lottery. Great strategy.

 

[Bballkingsrock]

A great draft, a GREAT draft, might produce 4 superstars. We meanwhile are returning substantially the same roster as last year, while asking Cousins to step up his game and lead us, and while hiring what presumably is a much better coach than the one we left. We won 28 games last year. Were the #7 seed.

Now, unless you want to make the argument of the other side that losing Reke was ****ing stupid and is going to hurt, how is "return same team/get improved Cousins/get improved coach" going to turn a 28 win team into a bottom 4-5 team in a year when everybody is tanking? If you are the #8 seed, your chances of scoring a Top 3 pick are 10.0%. Otherwise you are picking 8 and up. For the 9th seed its 6.1%. For the 10th seed its 4.0%.

If you think there are 10 guys in this upcoming draft better than the 2009 rookie of the year, I've got a bridge to sell you. So what is the plan here? In order to tank, you need to lose talent, not sit on your hands. In order to win you have to gain talent, not let it walk. But no, we are awkwardly perched right where we normally are, in no real position to win, or to win the lottery. Great strategy.

I still believe there will be one more move made before the season starts. We have way too many guards and way too many power forwards. We probably will trade either Thompson or Hayes and IT/Jimmer/Thornton for the right price.

 

[Darth Divac]

A great draft, a GREAT draft, might produce 4 superstars. We meanwhile are returning substantially the same roster as last year, while asking Cousins to step up his game and lead us, and while hiring what presumably is a much better coach than the one we left. We won 28 games last year. Were the #7 seed.

Now, unless you want to make the argument of the other side that losing Reke was ****ing stupid and is going to hurt, how is "return same team/get improved Cousins/get improved coach" going to turn a 28 win team into a bottom 4-5 team in a year when everybody is tanking? If you are the #8 seed, your chances of scoring a Top 3 pick are 10.0%. Otherwise you are picking 8 and up. For the 9th seed its 6.1%. For the 10th seed its 4.0%.

If you think there are 10 guys in this upcoming draft better than the 2009 rookie of the year, I've got a bridge to sell you. So what is the plan here? In order to tank, you need to lose talent, not sit on your hands. In order to win you have to gain talent, not let it walk. But no, we are awkwardly perched right where we normally are, in no real position to win, or to win the lottery. Great strategy.

I got riddiculed for a similar comment.

 

[VF21]

I got riddiculed for a similar comment.

Where?

 

[Kingster]

A great draft, a GREAT draft, might produce 4 superstars. We meanwhile are returning substantially the same roster as last year, while asking Cousins to step up his game and lead us, and while hiring what presumably is a much better coach than the one we left. We won 28 games last year. Were the #7 seed.

Now, unless you want to make the argument of the other side that losing Reke was ****ing stupid and is going to hurt, how is "return same team/get improved Cousins/get improved coach" going to turn a 28 win team into a bottom 4-5 team in a year when everybody is tanking? If you are the #8 seed, your chances of scoring a Top 3 pick are 10.0%. Otherwise you are picking 8 and up. For the 9th seed its 6.1%. For the 10th seed its 4.0%.

If you think there are 10 guys in this upcoming draft better than the 2009 rookie of the year, I've got a bridge to sell you. So what is the plan here? In order to tank, you need to lose talent, not sit on your hands. In order to win you have to gain talent, not let it walk. But no, we are awkwardly perched right where we normally are, in no real position to win, or to win the lottery. Great strategy.

I don't think it's static plan. It's a strategy, which can take into account fluid events. And like I said before, I believe the upcoming draft is part of the strategy. It's not the entire strategy. I highly doubt that every move they are making is to get a high #1 pick in the next draft. But it may be a corollary effect of that strategy, And they'd have to be stupid to not realize it. They aren't stupid.

 

[sidney]

Definitely not the same team as last year. I expect the team to feel a LOT different. We've essentially got a new starting QB (Vasquez) and a new starting DB (MAM). Thornton is going to go back to being a major scorer, Cousins will get a lot more touches, and Ben is a wildcard. I suppose if you quantify the collective talent we did not move forward but the on court chemistry is going to be way different.

Also, I don't expect another major move until the deadline or next summer. A year from now Salmons is gone and Hayes/Outlaw are expiring which will make them easier to move. We'd have better luck selling ice to eskimos than trading those guys right now.

 

[Darth Divac]

Where?

Here.

The new ownership is NOT going to go into tank mode. They are working too hard to restore the faith of the average fan/season ticket holder in the franchise. They will not be doing anything to disappoint the fanbase, and no matter how much the idea of tanking to get a shot at Wiggins may appeal to some, fans have had enough of the losing. If they do not see honest effort and an attempt to win, things could get very ugly. And that doesn't even take into account our franchise center, who wants to win. Period.

You cannot put a team together and then undermine them without destroying some of the very culture you're trying to build. You just don't.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You have a very interesting sense of the word "ridicule."

 

[Gary]

Definitely not the same team as last year. I expect the team to feel a LOT different. We've essentially got a new starting QB (Vasquez) and a new starting DB (MAM). Thornton is going to go back to being a major scorer, Cousins will get a lot more touches, and Ben is a wildcard. I suppose if you quantify the collective talent we did not move forward but the on court chemistry is going to be way different.

Also, I don't expect another major move until the deadline or next summer. A year from now Salmons is gone and Hayes/Outlaw are expiring which will make them easier to move. We'd have better luck selling ice to eskimos than trading those guys right now.

More defined roles for the players we have which I hope will = success. We won't be worse than last year that's for sure. The players actually have roles now.

 

[rainmaker]

They aren't stupid.

Says who? Where's the track record of our new FO officials which shows they aren't stupid when it comes to basketball related decisions?

And I'm not saying they are stupid, but there's no evidence at this point to suggest they aren't either.

Many of Petrie's moves the last few years were categorized as stupid by many. The actual FO moves thus far of this new regime aren't much different than the moves we made in the Maloof/Petrie era.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't get the sense that either Malone or D'Alessandro are, in any way, stupid. Unfortunately, being stupid isn't a prerequisite for being wrong. I am trying my damndest to maintain a sense of (very guarded) optimism, but looking at the glass "half full" is not in my nature, especially when it looks like we are repeating the same personnel mistakes we made under the old regime.

 

[pshn80]

Definitely not the same team as last year. I expect the team to feel a LOT different. We've essentially got a new starting QB (Vasquez) and a new starting DB (MAM). Thornton is going to go back to being a major scorer, Cousins will get a lot more touches, and Ben is a wildcard. I suppose if you quantify the collective talent we did not move forward but the on court chemistry is going to be way different.

Also, I don't expect another major move until the deadline or next summer. A year from now Salmons is gone and Hayes/Outlaw are expiring which will make them easier to move. We'd have better luck selling ice to eskimos than trading those guys right now.

Agree that even as it is we will not be fielding "the same team". Whether or not it's better is a fair question. It will be differ trot.

what is your definition of "another major trade/transaction? If we would trade at least two of ours for an improvement at offensive SF or at defensive big, would that be major for you? I think that is liable to happen and may be the only one that comes off. It is about all I expect.

 

[VF21]

Here.

The new ownership is NOT going to go into tank mode. They are working too hard to restore the faith of the average fan/season ticket holder in the franchise. They will not be doing anything to disappoint the fanbase, and no matter how much the idea of tanking to get a shot at Wiggins may appeal to some, fans have had enough of the losing. If they do not see honest effort and an attempt to win, things could get very ugly. And that doesn't even take into account our franchise center, who wants to win. Period.

You cannot put a team together and then undermine them without destroying some of the very culture you're trying to build. You just don't.

That was not ridicule. I was responding to your post:

With a starting lineup of

Grievis Vasquez
Marcus Thornton
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute
Patrick Patterson
DeMarcus Cousins

you really can't expect much unless Cousins blows up and becomes an All-Star, and Malone turns around the defense. If both of those things happen, and Mclemore plays well, we can reach an absolute maximum of maybe, maybe 40 wins. I expect around a 4-5 game improvement, unless Coach Mike hits the tank when he knows we can't make the playoffs.

I bolded the last line in my initial response to emphasize what I was responding to. You indicated you thought Mike Malone might go into tank mode at some point in the season. I was disagreeing for the reasons I stated. That is not ridicule. It is disagreeing with what you view as a potential scenario.

 

[randymoss1881]

That plan would line up with what Dave said earlier in the offseason. When he said the FO was not looking to retain Tyreke for anything past the QO, everybody dismissed him but he had it right. Something else that he had said around that time...

Carmichael Dave ‏@CarmichaelDave

Philosophy being to build from this and next year's draft, hope for a shot at Wiggins, and surround Cousins with strength, maybe a vet. (Carl Landry?)

Chad Ford said the same thing in his Q&A section on espn.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I generally disagree with your entire opinion of the front office ( ) but the part about Reke is particularly misleading. I think it's been made pretty clear that it wasn't about the money. It was about deciding to put the team in Cousins' hands and build around him. I don't have stats and a lot of numbers to throw out there, but I will honestly state that I thought the team did better when EITHER Cousins or Evans was on the court, not both. If it did come down to a decision of either/or as far as Evans, and I think it did, I have no problem with Evans getting a nice payday from the Pelicans. Now all he has to do is earn it.

Indeed. The ownership group that paid the record for a new team, was offering $13 million for Iguodala, is attempting to buy the d-league team... is cheap. Now that is rich

 

[LPKingsFan]

well to be fair, we don't really have capspace to sign anybody out there aside from the minimum guys at this point. So, unless we do some heavy moving (which I sincerely hope we still will) to clear some space, we will be relegated to this, for this season at least.

There's no one out there worth more than the minimum, anyway (save for Pekovic, who's restricted and likely subject to matching by Minnesota of any offer).

I don't think there's any reason to consider this team a finished product by any means, but things seemed to have slowed down across the league, and I'd guess that more moves may have to wait til during the season or so.

 

[hrdboild]

Indeed. The ownership group that paid the record for a new team, was offering $13 million for Iguodala, is attempting to buy the d-league team... is cheap. Now that is rich

Considering how quickly it was pulled off the table, it's questionable whether the offer to Igoudala was ever serious in the first place. That rumor seems tailor made for a headline to put some pressure on Denver, and nothing more. Also they didn't buy the Bighorns, they negotiated a 2 year agreement to take over basketball operations. I don't know what monetary value that entails, but probably not much more than a minimum player salary at most. Obviously buying the Kings was a huge expense, but they lowballed all of the free agents they were supposedly interested in (that includes Evans) and they declined to create cap space by amnestying Salmon's contract. And we've got a first year coach and a first year GM. Nobody can judge the deals that haven't happened yet obviously, but based on what we do know there has not been a substantial commitment to spending money on personnel. It's a fair criticism I think.

Then again, if it turns out the money is going to be tight until the new arena project is complete, I can live with that. Some transparency would have been nice though. They could have said "look everybody, we plan on getting worse before we get better so sit tight". For those of us who've been following this team for a long time I think that would have been taken the right way. Lacking that, a number of us had assumed that buying into the franchise meant doing whatever they could to improve the team on the floor and it's clear now that was not the priority. Fair enough, we know that now. But the old regime backed us into a corner with big decisions on Tyreke and Cousins looming and for better or worse those decisions have to be made right now and they have long term implications. Preach patience to your fans, but by all means be proactive behind the scenes about turning things around. I don't see Landry/Vasquez/Mbah A Moute as anything more than a stopgap to get us through a couple seasons in the old arena before the revenue stream picks up. That's the hard reality of sports fandom. All of our interest is on improving the team, but that's often not the top priority for the folks with the means to buy a franchise (the occasional Mark Cuban or George Steinbrenner excepted).

There's no one out there worth more than the minimum, anyway (save for Pekovic, who's restricted and likely subject to matching by Minnesota of any offer).

Well there isn't now anyway. There was a month ago when free agency started or even before that actually, during the draft where we also did nothing. I mean really, you're going to say there were no available options out there to improve the team? You can't seriously mean that. You're either being facetious here or argumentative.

 

[VF21]

One note? You said they should have been transparent. I think they have been. It was pointed out by either Vivek or Malone (I forget which) that it wasn't going to be about wins and losses at first. It was about changing the culture.

We're all Kings fans. Some of us are just more willing to let the process evolve while others want tangible proof of change right away. I don't think it makes any of us right or wrong.

 

[mac]

One note? You said they should have been transparent. I think they have been. It was pointed out by either Vivek or Malone (I forget which) that it wasn't going to be about wins and losses at first. It was about changing the culture.

We're all Kings fans. Some of us are just more willing to let the process evolve while others want tangible proof of change right away. I don't think it makes any of us right or wrong.

I can't speak for others, but my interpretation of "not about wins and losses" was that it was going to take time to "change the culture" and get the team playing together under a new coach and system. Not so much "screw this offseason, we're gonna suck for another year and get a good pick and then playoffs baby!". As I've posted in another thread, other bad teams have made far more significant moves adding big name veteran players or FAs while getting equally high draft picks. If the league were a static one then adding Carl Landry and Mbah a Moute could be seen as a positive, but the fact is while we're still waiting for our next big impact player it is the Golden State Warriors that have Andre Iguodala. The Detroit Pistons have Josh Smith. The Pelicans added Jrue Holiday and our own Tyreke Evans. The Cavs got Andrew Bynum. The Raptors now have a full season with Rudy Gay. In the thread about expectations for next season some fans said that they expect a similar number of wins, but that they will be happy as long as the culture changes. To me that doesn't make any sense. If the culture changes and improves then we should be seeing more wins. Our beloved Keith Smart in his exit interview said he was disappointed because next season was the year that he had planned for everything to change. It was a 3 year plan he said. Well why weren't you and I patient to let his process evolve?

Vivek himself was the one who said that the Kings have been losing for too long, and the fans deserve to have a winning team ASAP. I don't know what's going to happen next offseason, but at this moment a lot of teams that were kinda in the same losing boat as us the last few years look far more poised on paper to make a run at the playoffs next season than we do.

 

[Kingster]

Says who? Where's the track record of our new FO officials which shows they aren't stupid when it comes to basketball related decisions?

And I'm not saying they are stupid, but there's no evidence at this point to suggest they aren't either.

Many of Petrie's moves the last few years were categorized as stupid by many. The actual FO moves thus far of this new regime aren't much different than the moves we made in the Maloof/Petrie era.

A simple reading of Vivek's bio leads to an entirely different conclusion: He's a genius. You don't arrive in the US with $50 in your pocket, get a degree in mechanical engineering at MIT, an MBA at Harvard, and start a software company from scratch and become a billionare along the way without being in a different stratosphere than the ordinary joe. I tend to give guys like that the benefit of the doubt rather than a "you have to prove it to me that you aren't a basketball idiot" approach.

 

[Spike]

A simple reading of Vivek's bio leads to an entirely different conclusion: He's a genius. You don't arrive in the US with $50 in your pocket, get a degree in mechanical engineering at MIT, an MBA at Harvard, and start a software company from scratch and become a billionare along the way without being in a different stratosphere than the ordinary joe. I tend to give guys like that the benefit of the doubt rather than a "you have to prove it to me that you aren't a basketball idiot" approach.

But none of that really relates to basketball genius. There's book smarts, and there's street smarts. Vivek seems to have both. PDA might just be a book smart sort of guy.

Hey, I'm sure they have a grand plan. Whether it worked or not remains to be seen. Is everything we're seeing the result of "Plan B?" Did they expect things to be a lot easier in Sacramento during this off-season? We haven't a clue. I don't think anyone is really judging the "genius" of the FO, but judging the results of their basketball-related moves thus far, which certainly can be called into question. Landry really makes no sense, given what we already have at that position. Again, not questioning intelligence here, but questioning basketball related moves.

Anyway, we're currently bringing in middle-to-lower level talent under the guise (or reality) of "changing the culture." That's the mantra. I'm totally with that, this culture needs changing, but to assume that "changing the culture" means only removing Evans seems suspicious. Was Evans a locker cancer? Hardly. He never really said anything when he was jerked around. (Again, I don't want to make this another Evans discussion, but it currently fits my overall narrative.) If you're really looking to change the culture, you don't just keep adding players, you remove as well. Are you looking to "change the culture" in terms of the way a team plays? Then there should have been a bit more of a purge with regards to "me first" players. If the team, for example, jettisoned Thornton and IT as their first move (somehow - I'm not here to argue the particulars) and replaced them with a post player early in free agency, then you could say, "yeah, they're looking to change the culture to a defensive one." We just keep adding without subtracting.

My honest guess? They thought it would be easier. They thought McLemore would be more ready. They thought free agency would be a little easier. They thought they would be able to wheel and deal with some extras on this team for some extras on another team. But it hasn't been easy. They've whiffed on two of their Plan A guys (regardless of how the details went, they whiffed on AI and Calderon), which would have been the quick turnaround, and are now likely headed to Plan B, which is the longer term. This plan sucks as a fan, but that's what we're relegated to have to deal with this year.

Last bit: I don't think that ANY front office would dare tell their fans, "hey, we're going to suck this year." That would be a slap in the face to the fans as well as the current players on the team, some of which they might want to retain after this year. However, if you read the tea leaves, it seems they have said as much, depending on your point of view.

As it stands, there are probably, once again, only two players I would consider keeping on this roster. At the end of the year, there might be four, depending on how Vasquez pans out. I think someone already pointed out that there shouldn't be that many players on contract at the end of next year (with Landry being one of them...yeesh), so there's that, which also points towards my thought that the FO is actively involved in Plan B.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Considering how quickly it was pulled off the table, it's questionable whether the offer to Igoudala was ever serious in the first place. That rumor seems tailor made for a headline to put some pressure on Denver, and nothing more. Also they didn't buy the Bighorns, they negotiated a 2 year agreement to take over basketball operations. I don't know what monetary value that entails, but probably not much more than a minimum player salary at most. Obviously buying the Kings was a huge expense, but they lowballed all of the free agents they were supposedly interested in (that includes Evans) and they declined to create cap space by amnestying Salmon's contract. And we've got a first year coach and a first year GM. Nobody can judge the deals that haven't happened yet obviously, but based on what we do know there has not been a substantial commitment to spending money on personnel. It's a fair criticism I think.
.

I think that's one reading of the Iguodala situation, but certainly not one I'm willing to share. You can question their tactics on pulling the offer, sure, but questioning the willingness to commit financially seems like an effort to fit an ambiguous situation into a preconceived narrative.

And, as for Reno, they wanted to buy the Bighorns, but the owner wouldn't sell. So, they ended with the basketball operations agreement.

They do have a first year GM. But they were out there talking to Bird, Wallace, etc. Larry Legend wanted to go back to Indy. Do you think it was money that stopped him from coming here? I don't.

I know we're all jaded from the Maloof years, and I understand the skepticism. But unless you're really willing to believe this was all just PR puffery to pull the wool over the fans' eyes, I see a pretty strong commitment to spending that just hasn't worked out on several occasions. The new regime may be many things, but "cheap" is not one of them.

Well there isn't now anyway. There was a month ago when free agency started or even before that actually, during the draft where we also did nothing. I mean really, you're going to say there were no available options out there to improve the team? You can't seriously mean that. You're either being facetious here or argumentative.

You either didn't read the context of my post, or are being argumentative. I'm assuming the latter. Good luck finding where I said there WERE no available options to improve the team.

My post was a direct response to a post talking about making moves NOW to open up more space for current free agents. Hence, my reply that such a move wouldn't be productive, because any free agent left isn't worth much more than the minimum anyway.

If you'd rather re-hash the tired debates as to whether this summer's moves are an upgrade, be my guest. I'm more interested in talking about what more moves can and should be made.

 

[pshn80]

Spike, my guess is they are not done yet for this coming season. I think your careful analysis above seems to point to the fact that they are no done. My guess is that they will get rid of at least two and gain at least one. The plan not only includes A and B but also C. As you know, planning team moves at this point of in the year is really like herding cats - we need luck and we need to hope for no big mistakes and for some net positive results. Like with the cats, it ain't easy.

 

[Spike]

My gut tells me they want to make a move, but I don't think it'll happen until training camp, when some other team realizes that they need "x", at which point we might be able to offer something. Ditto at the trading deadline. I fully expect us to be sellers this year, which is fine - hopefully someone wants to buy. I'm resigned to the fact that we're in Plan B (C?) mode right now. I don't like it, and I don't have to like it, but I'm completely aware that this is where we are now.

 

[Kingster]

But none of that really relates to basketball genius. There's book smarts, and there's street smarts. Vivek seems to have both. PDA might just be a book smart sort of guy.

Hey, I'm sure they have a grand plan. Whether it worked or not remains to be seen. Is everything we're seeing the result of "Plan B?" Did they expect things to be a lot easier in Sacramento during this off-season? We haven't a clue. I don't think anyone is really judging the "genius" of the FO, but judging the results of their basketball-related moves thus far, which certainly can be called into question. Landry really makes no sense, given what we already have at that position. Again, not questioning intelligence here, but questioning basketball related moves.

Anyway, we're currently bringing in middle-to-lower level talent under the guise (or reality) of "changing the culture." That's the mantra. I'm totally with that, this culture needs changing, but to assume that "changing the culture" means only removing Evans seems suspicious. Was Evans a locker cancer? Hardly. He never really said anything when he was jerked around. (Again, I don't want to make this another Evans discussion, but it currently fits my overall narrative.) If you're really looking to change the culture, you don't just keep adding players, you remove as well. Are you looking to "change the culture" in terms of the way a team plays? Then there should have been a bit more of a purge with regards to "me first" players. If the team, for example, jettisoned Thornton and IT as their first move (somehow - I'm not here to argue the particulars) and replaced them with a post player early in free agency, then you could say, "yeah, they're looking to change the culture to a defensive one." We just keep adding without subtracting.

My honest guess? They thought it would be easier. They thought McLemore would be more ready. They thought free agency would be a little easier. They thought they would be able to wheel and deal with some extras on this team for some extras on another team. But it hasn't been easy. They've whiffed on two of their Plan A guys (regardless of how the details went, they whiffed on AI and Calderon), which would have been the quick turnaround, and are now likely headed to Plan B, which is the longer term. This plan sucks as a fan, but that's what we're relegated to have to deal with this year.

Last bit: I don't think that ANY front office would dare tell their fans, "hey, we're going to suck this year." That would be a slap in the face to the fans as well as the current players on the team, some of which they might want to retain after this year. However, if you read the tea leaves, it seems they have said as much, depending on your point of view.

As it stands, there are probably, once again, only two players I would consider keeping on this roster. At the end of the year, there might be four, depending on how Vasquez pans out. I think someone already pointed out that there shouldn't be that many players on contract at the end of next year (with Landry being one of them...yeesh), so there's that, which also points towards my thought that the FO is actively involved in Plan B.

They might have thought it would be easier. Then again, maybe the fans thought it would be easier: Start with Cousins, add a dash of Tyreke and maybe a three from trade/FA and voila! - a playoff contender. From the very beginning Vivek & Co. gave no indication that Year 1 would be a swift rise to the top. Does that sound like they thought it would be easy? Not to me it doesn't. There's no doubt that these guys are on a steep learning curve, but I feel very comfortable riding the curve with Vivek. Thank God we're riding the curve with Vivek as opposed to the Maloofs.

FWIW, I don't think we're in Operation B mode at all. We're still in Operation A. If Cousins doesn't buy in, then they'll go to B.

 

[hrdboild]

I think that's one reading of the Iguodala situation, but certainly not one I'm willing to share. You can question their tactics on pulling the offer, sure, but questioning the willingness to commit financially seems like an effort to fit an ambiguous situation into a preconceived narrative.

And, as for Reno, they wanted to buy the Bighorns, but the owner wouldn't sell. So, they ended with the basketball operations agreement.

They do have a first year GM. But they were out there talking to Bird, Wallace, etc. Larry Legend wanted to go back to Indy. Do you think it was money that stopped him from coming here? I don't.

I know we're all jaded from the Maloof years, and I understand the skepticism. But unless you're really willing to believe this was all just PR puffery to pull the wool over the fans' eyes, I see a pretty strong commitment to spending that just hasn't worked out on several occasions. The new regime may be many things, but "cheap" is not one of them.



You either didn't read the context of my post, or are being argumentative. I'm assuming the latter. Good luck finding where I said there WERE no available options to improve the team.

My post was a direct response to a post talking about making moves NOW to open up more space for current free agents. Hence, my reply that such a move wouldn't be productive, because any free agent left isn't worth much more than the minimum anyway.

If you'd rather re-hash the tired debates as to whether this summer's moves are an upgrade, be my guest. I'm more interested in talking about what more moves can and should be made.

Indeed, you added that comment while I was responding to your first one so I believe I inaccurately linked the two together instead of realizing that the two comments were made to different posters. I withdraw what I said about being facetious or argumentative, my mistake. But on the one hand you're saying that the team has shown a commitment to spending money (which we haven't spent, conveniently enough, so everyone is free to draw their own conclusions there) but on the other hand you're saying that we should give them time to see how they plan to change the roster when there's nothing available now in free agency and we spent the most active period of the off-season talking to people and getting nothing substantial done. I even said in my post that nobody can judge this front office on hypothetical moves that haven't been made yet, only what's transpired so far. And that's what we're looking at here.

About Igoudala, there was no preconceived narrative. It's just my understanding of the situation. You can go back and read what I said at the time if you like. I thought the knee jerk reaction to pull the offer so fast was a useless PR stunt which made us look bad. Upon further reflection, looking at the connection between Igoudala and D'Alessandro and at Igoudala's comments after the fact, I changed my mind. I now think it was Pete doing a favor for Igoudala. You don't have to agree, that's just how I see it. So to me that move in no way relates to our willingness to spend money because the money was never actually on the table. And our subsequent decision to let Tyreke go and let Salmon's contract remain on the books and let Outlaw waste a spot on the bench indicates to me the exact opposite. Salmons was an easy decision -- is he helping the team? No. Can we find better ways to spend that cap space? Yes. Is there any reason not to amnesty him? Save a few million on his contract buyout next year. Pretty cut and dried.

With Larry Bird, I think it's pretty obvious that money was an issue in that situation. He wanted $5m a year and a small ownership share. We told him get lost, and he did. He took his executive of the year, coach of the year, hall of fame player experience back to Indiana and we got a rookie GM from Denver for a fraction of the price instead.

I'm not saying that they won't be willing to spend money in the future, just that so far -- in this off-season -- what Brick said above is accurate. There's nothing about this off-season which is inconsistent with what we saw from Petrie and the Maloofs in the past. Inexperienced and inexpensive coach, no major free agent signings, no draft movement, and stop gap trades to fill holes rather than longterm commitment to talent. Please don't read into any of this some kind of "sky is falling, it's all terrible" nonsense. We've been over that so many times already and that's not really what I'm saying. It's really just an expression of concern that, so far, what we've seen is more of the same and more of the same is not what this team needs to get better.