Jason Jones: Kings to take the training wheels off

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#3
At this point, who knows? And none of this is cast in stone. It's just a comment made in April about what they're thinking about for October. IMHO people tend to take these comments as though they're scripture, and that's just not so. Too many things can happen between now and then.
 
#5
Well this makes sense because our young players are better than our vets....at least the way the roster sits currently.
That’s not what this article says. It’s says the Kings will play the best player available regardless of age. Unless players like Justin Jackson, Frank Mason and Skal improve you can expect them to get zero minutes over players like Temple, Shumpert, ZBo, and Koufus.

Right now only Bogdan, Fox, Hield and Giles are likely to get time.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#7
This isn't much of surprise. There is no #1 pick available for next year. The team should be fighting for every win, and they will play Zbo and Temple and whatever other vets they might get in FA in order to do so. Divac made this public as much to send a signal to the youngins that they will have to get better during the offseason to earn minutes in the regular season, as to provide a little interest to the fans.

There does seem to be somewhat of a contradiction though when it comes to Zbo and "playing fast." As of today, he's still one of the better Kings' players, so I'd like to hear from Divac how his slow-mo game fits with "playing fast."
 
#8
That’s not what this article says. It’s says the Kings will play the best player available regardless of age. Unless players like Justin Jackson, Frank Mason and Skal improve you can expect them to get zero minutes over players like Temple, Shumpert, ZBo, and Koufus.

Right now only Bogdan, Fox, Hield and Giles are likely to get time.
I agree with you for the most part. I thought Skal was deserving of his minutes before his shoulder thing though. He wasn't a star or anything but he was improving as a rebounder and making better decisions on offense and was showing more toughness on defense. I thought his impact was consistently positive. Giles is the big unknown though. I really really hope Giles and Skal are good enough to push Randolph to spot minutes.
 
#9
That’s not what this article says. It’s says the Kings will play the best player available regardless of age. Unless players like Justin Jackson, Frank Mason and Skal improve you can expect them to get zero minutes over players like Temple, Shumpert, ZBo, and Koufus.

Right now only Bogdan, Fox, Hield and Giles are likely to get time.
yes, the training wheels in the title refer to playing the youngsters instead of better options in order to give them exposure and experience. so now the "training" is over and its time to make the next step: improve the shortcomings identified during "training" and earn playing time showing that you are part of the team's future.

its a natural next step in the plan. its also a make or break step in the plan. if the assembled young guys are not able to take that next step and our best players are the vets, then the plan has pretty much failed.

and I think they will be more "strict" on Bogdan/Buddy/WCS/Skall, offer some more development time to Fox/Mason/Jackson, and the most to our draft pick and Giles.
 
#10
There does seem to be somewhat of a contradiction though when it comes to Zbo and "playing fast." As of today, he's still one of the better Kings' players, so I'd like to hear from Divac how his slow-mo game fits with "playing fast."
ZBo better be in the coming off the bench next year in the big man scorer role.

If WCS, Giles, Skal (and a possible 1st round pick) can't keep a 37 year old ZBo on the bench, we will be in a lot of trouble next year. :eek:
 
#11
We clearly don't want to do anyone any favors next year by being a bottom dweller with a high pick. Being on the playoff cusp would be nice though i dont want us playing vets for the sake of chasing wins.

We need to continue to develop our young players. That is the holy grail we have. If there development is paramount you dont stiffle their growth by playing vets ahead of them. You take your licks, related to not having a draft pick next year and you carry on.

Smells like damage control and saving face. Win as many games as we can at the detriment of youth development so when we look back we can all say, well losing that pick wasnt too bad because, hey it wasnt top 10 or whatever.

Keep playing the kids. They can all play, we have seen that. Going backwards now on playing time is not the next step.
 
#12
Well, this can go one of two ways......

If Joeger goes into we need to win every game, since we don't have our pick, this may stunt the growth of the young Kids, because we may see way too much of the vets and limited minutes for the young Kids....

BUT, IF Joeger is really committed to playing faster and uptempo, the Kids should be playing the majority of all the minutes, with ZBo coming off the deep bench.

I guess this puts the pressure on the Kids to improve and beat out the vets out of the gate!

I hope the kids respond this summer and work on their games, so not to leave the decision up to Joeger, but to make it clear to him that the Kids are ready to play!
 
Last edited:

bajaden

Hall of Famer
#13
sooo does that mean opening up the playbook more and playing them the majority of the minutes from the get go?
I think it means that this past season the young players were given a lot of minutes that maybe they hadn't earned by their play on the court. Justin Jackson for instance started and played a lot of minutes after the all star break, and one could argue that there were some games where he wasn't very good, and that's putting it mildly. But they kept giving him minutes to get him the experience, and the personal knowledge of where he needs to improve.

I think they mean that will change next season. The young players will have to earn their minutes and out play any veteran that plays the same position they do, whomever that may end up being. And that's as it should be. For instance if the Kings were to sign Hezonja to a contract, Jackson would have to beat him out for minutes. No more freebee's! Anyway that's my take on it.
 
#14
That’s not what this article says. It’s says the Kings will play the best player available regardless of age. Unless players like Justin Jackson, Frank Mason and Skal improve you can expect them to get zero minutes over players like Temple, Shumpert, ZBo, and Koufus.

Right now only Bogdan, Fox, Hield and Giles are likely to get time.
I know you're probably right, but I hate this way of thinking so much. Having young NBA players earn playing time by beating out vets is like you or I starting a new job and our boss comes to us and says if your quality of work isn't higher than the guy who has been here for 6 years then you get fired. Sure if you are a prodigy and everything clicks immediately you are fine and have a shot, but most often than not the guy who has been there longer will perform at a higher level. It drove me nuts when Skal would miss a defensive assignment or two and then Joerger would pull him out and put in Zbo or Koufos. I just don't see how that is any good for player development. It doesn't teach players to learn from mistakes and how to improve on them, only to just be scared of making them.
 
#15
ZBo better be in the coming off the bench next year in the big man scorer role.

If WCS, Giles, Skal (and a possible 1st round pick) can't keep a 37 year old ZBo on the bench, we will be in a lot of trouble next year. :eek:
To be fair, that may have less to do with those guys.

See, they're not just trying to beat out the vets; they also have to beat out Joerger's obvious bias. And if Iman ****ing Shumpert plays meaningful minutes at all, then I'm freakin' done.
 
#17
ZBo better be in the coming off the bench next year in the big man scorer role.

If WCS, Giles, Skal (and a possible 1st round pick) can't keep a 37 year old ZBo on the bench, we will be in a lot of trouble next year. :eek:
ZBo better start the season with another team :)

I only half-joke of course. I have huge respect for what he has achieved on court, and for the skills and grit he still displays. He is not part of our future though, and if we can trade him to get some long term value (not very likely I agree), I'll be thrilled.

In fact, we may have up to four such players next year, based on what Kosta, Temple, and Shumpert decide. I think Kosta and Temple could have value to other teams. Their pending FA will likely prevent other teams from giving up too much for them.
 
#18
I know you're probably right, but I hate this way of thinking so much. Having young NBA players earn playing time by beating out vets is like you or I starting a new job and our boss comes to us and says if your quality of work isn't higher than the guy who has been here for 6 years then you get fired. Sure if you are a prodigy and everything clicks immediately you are fine and have a shot, but most often than not the guy who has been there longer will perform at a higher level. It drove me nuts when Skal would miss a defensive assignment or two and then Joerger would pull him out and put in Zbo or Koufos. I just don't see how that is any good for player development. It doesn't teach players to learn from mistakes and how to improve on them, only to just be scared of making them.
My son just took up fencing this year. He's been doing it for about 4 months now, and he was having a private lesson after class with the instructor, because he was holding his epee incorrectly when trying to strike, which caused him to miss out on points. She kept explaining his incorrect motion, and he'd kinda get it, but then go back to an improper form, and then have to do pushups. Now, there was an older student (high schooler/freshman in college) practicing, and she was brought over so that my son could, from the sideline, see how he was holding his epee and how it was incorrect. She then showed him the proper way, and, by watching on the sideline, was able to correctly ingest the lesson that was being delivered. Hopefully he remembers this lesson for tomorrow's class.

The point is, you don't automatically fix issues by playing more. Sometimes there's a reason someone is pulled. If you pay attention to the sidelines, which we often can't do, I'd bet that someone nearby is explaining things during a timeout, or, during gameplay.
 
#20
We clearly don't want to do anyone any favors next year by being a bottom dweller with a high pick. Being on the playoff cusp would be nice though i dont want us playing vets for the sake of chasing wins.

We need to continue to develop our young players. That is the holy grail we have. If there development is paramount you dont stiffle their growth by playing vets ahead of them. You take your licks, related to not having a draft pick next year and you carry on.

Smells like damage control and saving face. Win as many games as we can at the detriment of youth development so when we look back we can all say, well losing that pick wasnt too bad because, hey it wasnt top 10 or whatever.

Keep playing the kids. They can all play, we have seen that. Going backwards now on playing time is not the next step.
Gonna disagree here, with no pick I want the mystical "Winning culture" to show me something. I don't care if that means Zbo playing 30 mpg, I want the coach to try and win period.

If the young guys earn their spot and can keep it, even better.

Now if we have 25 games left and are terrible, then fine, may as well go the development route.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#21
We clearly don't want to do anyone any favors next year by being a bottom dweller with a high pick. Being on the playoff cusp would be nice though i dont want us playing vets for the sake of chasing wins.

We need to continue to develop our young players. That is the holy grail we have. If there development is paramount you dont stiffle their growth by playing vets ahead of them. You take your licks, related to not having a draft pick next year and you carry on.

Smells like damage control and saving face. Win as many games as we can at the detriment of youth development so when we look back we can all say, well losing that pick wasnt too bad because, hey it wasnt top 10 or whatever.

Keep playing the kids. They can all play, we have seen that. Going backwards now on playing time is not the next step.
From the article:

For 2018-19, the younger players will have to hold off veterans for time based on merit as part of what general manager Vlade Divac called the "next phase" for the Kings.
"This year we decided in the second part of the season ... on minutes for the rookies," Divac said Thursday. "Sometimes it was automatic. Next year, it's going to be, 'Are you earning those minutes?' They have to fight for them."
That's exactly what I want. It's not about stifling growth; it's about making the young players earn their spots. They're supposed to be learning to take over from the vets. They should be able to do so.

Damage control and saving face? Au contraire. It's anything but. It's saying the kids won't get minutes just to get minutes. They will get treated like adults and rewarded accordingly. I'm not sure what you think "youth development" is but do you really want to pamper these young players forever? I happen to think the kids will do fine and will, in fact, earn those extra minutes. Taking the training wheels off means exactly that. They're ride or fall over on their own...and they should.
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#23
...

I guess this puts the pressure on the Kids to improve and beat out the vets out of the gate!

I hope the kids respond this summer and work on their games, so not to leave the decision up to Joeger, but to make it clear to him that the Kids are ready to play!
That's my take and I'm ready to see it, especially after summer league and training camp. There's no reason our young players shouldn't be able to step up and get it done.
 
#24
From the article:



That's exactly what I want. It's not about stifling growth; it's about making the young players earn their spots. They're supposed to be learning to take over from the vets. They should be able to do so.

Damage control and saving face? Au contraire. It's anything but. It's saying the kids won't get minutes just to get minutes. They will get treated like adults and rewarded accordingly. I'm not sure what you think "youth development" is but do you really want to pamper these young players forever? I happen to think the kids will do fine and will, in fact, earn those extra minutes. Taking the training wheels off means exactly that. They're ride or fall over on their own...and they should.
Here's my big problem, I think you need to let players play in order to get better. They need minutes to get better. We will not be a playoff team. Yes we want to win games, but that should not come at the expense of developing our key players. You have to think long-term success. What does a couple meaningless wins on the backs of Temple, Koufos, and Randolph mean for this team in 4 years? It means absolutely nothing. Wouldn't you rather let young players go through the entire motion? If that's their MO, then the Kings need to hold everyone accountable, not just the young players. George Hill played horribly until a month before the trade deadline. Why was there not the same standard set in place for him? The standard we used that sent Buddy to the bench?

Another thing... if our players really can't out-beat 37yearold Randolph or 32yearold Temple, doesn't that say A LOT about the FO's player evaluation? The same evaluation that drafted Papagiannis and Richardson..who we wound up cutting 1 1/2 years later?

I can't agree with this line of thinking. Look at how Donovan Mitchell started out his rookie year. First 5 games:

26mins: 3-11 FG, 10pts 4asts 3tos
20mins: 1-7 FG, 2pts 2asts 1to
22mins: 1-7 FG, 2pts 6asts 0tos
30mins: 7-20 FG, 19pts 1asts 4tos
13mins: 1-7FG, 2pts 1asts 3tos

If you're following the logic of Joerger and Vlade, do you think he should still deserves to get 20/mins game? Or would you say he's not earning his minutes and he needs to watch from the bench? Of course if you follow the FO's logic, Mitchell would've been benched. He'd be watching from the sidelines after his 5th game. If that happens, then you'd end up missing out on his next game where he goes 9-16 for 22pts 2asts 5tos. Would he still end up as a ROY candidate?

You see.. I just can't agree with that logic when it comes to young players. Of making them earn it. Steve Clifford had that same ideology and we saw him apply it to Malik Monk. Here's how Monk started out his first 5 games:

21mins: 1-9FG, 3pts 1asts 3tos
19mins: 2-7FG, 6pts 3tos
18mins: 1-6FG, 4pts 1asts 1tos
25mins: 7-14FG, 17pts 2asts 1tos
18mins: 1-8FG, 2pts 3asts 3tos

About 9 games later, Clifford benched Monk. He's only played 63 games this year, averaging 13.5mpg. You know how Monk finished his season? Here's what he averaged in his last 5 games:
24.8mins: 20.4pts 4asts 2tos on 48/41/100

What if Clifford had given a longer leash to Monk? What if Clifford didn't bench him after 14 games? Would Monk be able to explode the same way Mitchell has??? We don't know, and we'll never know. He didn't get the same leeway Mitchell did. Wouldn't you rather know, than not know?
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#25
Here's my big problem, I think you need to let players play in order to get better. They need minutes to get better. We will not be a playoff team. Yes we want to win games, but that should not come at the expense of developing our key players. You have to think long-term success. What does a couple meaningless wins on the backs of Temple, Koufos, and Randolph mean for this team in 4 years? It means absolutely nothing. Wouldn't you rather let young players go through the entire motion? If that's their MO, then the Kings need to hold everyone accountable, not just the young players. George Hill played horribly until a month before the trade deadline. Why was there not the same standard set in place for him? The standard we used that sent Buddy to the bench?

Another thing... if our players really can't out-beat 37yearold Randolph or 32yearold Temple, doesn't that say A LOT about the FO's player evaluation? The same evaluation that drafted Papagiannis and Richardson..who we wound up cutting 1 1/2 years later?

I can't agree with this line of thinking. Look at how Donovan Mitchell started out his rookie year. First 5 games:

26mins: 3-11 FG, 10pts 4asts 3tos
20mins: 1-7 FG, 2pts 2asts 1to
22mins: 1-7 FG, 2pts 6asts 0tos
30mins: 7-20 FG, 19pts 1asts 4tos
13mins: 1-7FG, 2pts 1asts 3tos

If you're following the logic of Joerger and Vlade, do you think he should still deserves to get 20/mins game? Or would you say he's not earning his minutes and he needs to watch from the bench? Of course if you follow the FO's logic, Mitchell would've been benched. He'd be watching from the sidelines after his 5th game. If that happens, then you'd end up missing out on his next game where he goes 9-16 for 22pts 2asts 5tos. Would he still end up as a ROY candidate?

You see.. I just can't agree with that logic when it comes to young players. Of making them earn it. Steve Clifford had that same ideology and we saw him apply it to Malik Monk. Here's how Monk started out his first 5 games:

21mins: 1-9FG, 3pts 1asts 3tos
19mins: 2-7FG, 6pts 3tos
18mins: 1-6FG, 4pts 1asts 1tos
25mins: 7-14FG, 17pts 2asts 1tos
18mins: 1-8FG, 2pts 3asts 3tos

About 9 games later, Clifford benched Monk. He's only played 63 games this year, averaging 13.5mpg. You know how Monk finished his season? Here's what he averaged in his last 5 games:
24.8mins: 20.4pts 4asts 2tos on 48/41/100

What if Clifford had given a longer leash to Monk? What if Clifford didn't bench him after 14 games? Would Monk be able to explode the same way Mitchell has??? We don't know, and we'll never know. He didn't get the same leeway Mitchell did. Wouldn't you rather know, than not know?
I understand what you're saying but I disagree with basic premise. These aren't untried walk-ins off the street. These are kids who grew up being big fish, often in small ponds. They have basic skills that may or may not translate effectively to the NBA. They've had the bike with the training wheels. None of them truly deserved to start at the beginning of the season with the real and possible exception of Bogs.

You think they need to play to get better. I think they need to prove they're better to play. I'll agree that we have basic fundamental differences of opinion and leave it at that.

As far as George Hill goes, we do not know what went on behind the scenes and we do not know why he played so badly. NOBODY expected that. Bottom line? He's gone so I don't see the need to try and dissect his particular circumstances any further.

EDIT: A lot of your post, while interesting, was of the "what if?" variety. I rarely play "what if", which is why I didn't respond further in that regard. :)
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#26
It's a message to the young guys to not slack off. Get to work or you wont be playing.
I mean it's not as if the young guys are slacking, Buddy, Bogs, Fox & Skal are all gym rats from what I hear but it takes some time to translate on the court and we mostly see glimpses of this from Bogs & Buddy, as expected. They have filled out more in their body frame so they can take the punishment and they've played more basketball too.
 
#27
Here's my big problem, I think you need to let players play in order to get better. They need minutes to get better. We will not be a playoff team. Yes we want to win games, but that should not come at the expense of developing our key players. You have to think long-term success. What does a couple meaningless wins on the backs of Temple, Koufos, and Randolph mean for this team in 4 years? It means absolutely nothing. Wouldn't you rather let young players go through the entire motion? If that's their MO, then the Kings need to hold everyone accountable, not just the young players. George Hill played horribly until a month before the trade deadline. Why was there not the same standard set in place for him? The standard we used that sent Buddy to the bench?

Another thing... if our players really can't out-beat 37yearold Randolph or 32yearold Temple, doesn't that say A LOT about the FO's player evaluation? The same evaluation that drafted Papagiannis and Richardson..who we wound up cutting 1 1/2 years later?

I can't agree with this line of thinking. Look at how Donovan Mitchell started out his rookie year. First 5 games:

26mins: 3-11 FG, 10pts 4asts 3tos
20mins: 1-7 FG, 2pts 2asts 1to
22mins: 1-7 FG, 2pts 6asts 0tos
30mins: 7-20 FG, 19pts 1asts 4tos
13mins: 1-7FG, 2pts 1asts 3tos

If you're following the logic of Joerger and Vlade, do you think he should still deserves to get 20/mins game? Or would you say he's not earning his minutes and he needs to watch from the bench? Of course if you follow the FO's logic, Mitchell would've been benched. He'd be watching from the sidelines after his 5th game. If that happens, then you'd end up missing out on his next game where he goes 9-16 for 22pts 2asts 5tos. Would he still end up as a ROY candidate?

You see.. I just can't agree with that logic when it comes to young players. Of making them earn it. Steve Clifford had that same ideology and we saw him apply it to Malik Monk. Here's how Monk started out his first 5 games:

21mins: 1-9FG, 3pts 1asts 3tos
19mins: 2-7FG, 6pts 3tos
18mins: 1-6FG, 4pts 1asts 1tos
25mins: 7-14FG, 17pts 2asts 1tos
18mins: 1-8FG, 2pts 3asts 3tos

About 9 games later, Clifford benched Monk. He's only played 63 games this year, averaging 13.5mpg. You know how Monk finished his season? Here's what he averaged in his last 5 games:
24.8mins: 20.4pts 4asts 2tos on 48/41/100

What if Clifford had given a longer leash to Monk? What if Clifford didn't bench him after 14 games? Would Monk be able to explode the same way Mitchell has??? We don't know, and we'll never know. He didn't get the same leeway Mitchell did. Wouldn't you rather know, than not know?
I think their process was more nuanced then just sitting/playing a player based on performance. I think their goal this season was to extract maximum benefit development vise and evaluation vise. Their goal was not to win for the sake of winning meaningless games, but to create situations that are competative and in which something of value can be learned by the player and about a player.

I tried to make my case by going through all the decisions Joeger was making but it got too long so I'm just going to use Buddy Hield as an example and cut to the point: I think the improvement Buddy Hield showed this season would probably NOT have happened if they did not do what they did. I think the situations he was put in because the vets kept the team functioning, the punishment/guidance he got when not doing the right thing defensively, and the opportunity to build on those lessons later in the season all contributed to the improvement we saw. I do not think one can claim with certainty that this would have happened anyway if he was just given more minutes from the getgo.
 
#28
I mean it's not as if the young guys are slacking, Buddy, Bogs, Fox & Skal are all gym rats from what I hear but it takes some time to translate on the court and we mostly see glimpses of this from Bogs & Buddy, as expected. They have filled out more in their body frame so they can take the punishment and they've played more basketball too.
Notice you didn't mention someone.
 
#29
From the article:



That's exactly what I want. It's not about stifling growth; it's about making the young players earn their spots. They're supposed to be learning to take over from the vets. They should be able to do so.

Damage control and saving face? Au contraire. It's anything but. It's saying the kids won't get minutes just to get minutes. They will get treated like adults and rewarded accordingly. I'm not sure what you think "youth development" is but do you really want to pamper these young players forever? I happen to think the kids will do fine and will, in fact, earn those extra minutes. Taking the training wheels off means exactly that. They're ride or fall over on their own...and they should.
Pamper, no. But if we are to fail i want to fail fast and reset quickly, the whole idea of trading cousins was to facilitate a youth movement and move forward. We need to embrace our youth and back them to succeed.

They dont need to be baby'ied and that is exactly why they need to have increased playing time. What value are the vets going to bring us if we are building long term ? This year we saw that the kids can very well play, the vets played their role and supported well but next season i would like them to take an even further back seat, let the kids fall over and let Vlade right ship quickly if they do not fit long term
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#30
Pamper, no. But if we are to fail i want to fail fast and reset quickly, the whole idea of trading cousins was to facilitate a youth movement and move forward. We need to embrace our youth and back them to succeed.

They dont need to be baby'ied and that is exactly why they need to have increased playing time. What value are the vets going to bring us if we are building long term ? This year we saw that the kids can very well play, the vets played their role and supported well but next season i would like them to take an even further back seat, let the kids fall over and let Vlade right ship quickly if they do not fit long term
I think they will, but at the same time the kids still need to learn that they aren't just gonna get minutes unless they earn them. I think the message will and should be that they'll get every opportunity but if they don't work hard there are some veterans sitting on the bench who would be willing and able to come in and take their place. A season or so of that (and perhaps even less) and we should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff pretty easily.