[Game] Kings @ Jazz - 12/10/16 - 6PT/9ET

[funkykingston]

Honestly, the fact that nobody in this rookie class outside of maybe 5 guys have shown any level of competence, makes me a lot more ok with Vlade's draft selections (still not a fan of it).

Still would've preferred he draft at least 1 guy who would be able to contribute for our team immediately though.

Vlade did a great job getting Belinelli for the 22nd overall pick. Trading down from 8 to 13+28 while picking up Bogdanovic was a steal imo. He did a great job acquiring assets, so I don't think anyone should fault him for that.

I've been as critical of Vlade as anyone else, but we have to give him more time than just 2 years. He's an intelligent guy, and he obviously knows that there's a chance we move on from Cousins. He's prepped for that if that move needs to be done.

I was very unhappy on draft night.

In hindsight the Kings have three guys (plus Bogdanovic) who could be as good as anyone drafted at #8 or later.

Right now I'd say the three best players from this draft are Jamal Murray, Pascal Siakam and Malcolm Brogdan with Sabonis, Ingram and McCaw probably the next three.

Jimmer over Klay or Kawhi was a disaster. Likewise with Robinson over Lillard or Drummond. Vlade hasn't made that kind of draft mistake yet. He gets the benefit of the doubt from me, at least for the time being.

 

[hrdboild]

What do you mean, it doesn't make sense? I don't interact with NBA fans, who are not Kings Fans, who do not want Cousins on their team. And I don't interact with other Kings Fans outside of KingsFans.com. What part of that doesn't make sense?

What does that have to do with what you asked me? There's a pretty big difference between having a wrong impression about a player based on his stats, and thinking, "Damn what his stats say, I still don't want him!"

It's frustrating trying to have a discussion with you because you often read my comments in a completely different way than I intended. I feel like I need to pull out a dictionary and define all of the words I'm using and how I'm using them before I can even begin to respond.

The part about relying on stats for players we really don't know all that well was directed at all sports fans. We're all sports fans here and we're interacting so I didn't see how you could say that the sports fans you associate with don't do this when this site alone is clear evidence that they do. But it seems you were referring only to the second comment about Cousins, that NBA fans of other teams would pass on him because of his reputation. I probably do interact with a different type of NBA fan than you do (Lakers fans mostly, which are their own special breed) but I've seen the same type of comments online as well on other fan message boards and on ESPN articles. Whenever Cousins comes up it's often "he's a good player, but I wouldn't want him on my team". Or more indirectly, I'd give up piece A and piece B for him that we don't really want anyway but that's about it. I don't know if they're just saying it to grind my gears or because somehow they think they can reverse-psychology me into giving up Cousins for less because of it (as if I have any say in the matter...) but I've personally witnessed a significant number of NBA fans making these comments.

As for the other part, I was mostly referring to the opposite case where we look at stats which seem to fit what we want without fully understanding the context of the team which produced those stats. Grievis Vasquez is one recent example that comes to mind. He averaged 9 assists one season in New Orleans and suddenly people who had maybe seen him play once or twice were talking about how he was going to save the offense with his distribution skills. Admittedly the sample size was pretty small with the Kings but he did nothing of the kind for us (or any other team since). It's an example of a stat-based assumption that turns out to be incorrect. To fully understand who a player is you actually have to watch them play. We've all watched Cousins play so that's not an issue here. But trying to point to just the stats, absent of context, and draw conclusions from them is. I would hesitate to say that the stats tell the full story with either Anthony Davis or DeMarcus Cousins just like any other player.

And since you brought up the comparison earlier... there are actually some pretty significant differences between Davis and Cousins. Anthony Davis isn't consistently among the league leaders in turnovers, personal fouls, and technical fouls. In addition to being a scorer he's the best shotblocker in the league and he's way up there in steals too. If he only scored 10 points per game he'd still be a monster because of defensive impact alone. He doesn't have a history of feuding with coaches. To my knowledge it's never been reported that he punched a teammate in the locker room or cussed out a broadcaster on the sideline. These are all things that are true of DeMarcus Cousins. The red flags are real even if you choose to ignore them and other teams/fans are wary of his potential for disruption for good reason. He's a flawed but gifted superstar who could be elite if he played within himself and learned to control his temper. And we're talking about the Hall of Fame which is a standard that very few players in any era can live up to. It's not just about the numbers. Part of being elite is being held to a higher standard than everyone else.

 

[bajaden]

It's frustrating trying to have a discussion with you because you often read my comments in a completely different way than I intended. I feel like I need to pull out a dictionary and define all of the words I'm using and how I'm using them before I can even begin to respond.

The part about relying on stats for players we really don't know all that well was directed at all sports fans. We're all sports fans here and we're interacting so I didn't see how you could say that the sports fans you associate with don't do this when this site alone is clear evidence that they do. But it seems you were referring only to the second comment about Cousins, that NBA fans of other teams would pass on him because of his reputation. I probably do interact with a different type of NBA fan than you do (Lakers fans mostly, which are their own special breed) but I've seen the same type of comments online as well on other fan message boards and on ESPN articles. Whenever Cousins comes up it's often "he's a good player, but I wouldn't want him on my team". Or more indirectly, I'd give up piece A and piece B for him that we don't really want anyway but that's about it. I don't know if they're just saying it to grind my gears or because somehow they think they can reverse-psychology me into giving up Cousins for less because of it (as if I have any say in the matter...) but I've personally witnessed a significant number of NBA fans making these comments.

As for the other part, I was mostly referring to the opposite case where we look at stats which seem to fit what we want without fully understanding the context of the team which produced those stats. Grievis Vasquez is one recent example that comes to mind. He averaged 9 assists one season in New Orleans and suddenly people who had maybe seen him play once or twice were talking about how he was going to save the offense with his distribution skills. Admittedly the sample size was pretty small with the Kings but he did nothing of the kind for us (or any other team since). It's an example of a stat-based assumption that turns out to be incorrect. To fully understand who a player is you actually have to watch them play. We've all watched Cousins play so that's not an issue here. But trying to point to just the stats, absent of context, and draw conclusions from them is. I would hesitate to say that the stats tell the full story with either Anthony Davis or DeMarcus Cousins just like any other player.

And since you brought up the comparison earlier... there are actually some pretty significant differences between Davis and Cousins. Anthony Davis isn't consistently among the league leaders in turnovers, personal fouls, and technical fouls. In addition to being a scorer he's the best shotblocker in the league and he's way up there in steals too. If he only scored 10 points per game he'd still be a monster because of defensive impact alone. He doesn't have a history of feuding with coaches. To my knowledge it's never been reported that he punched a teammate in the locker room or cussed out a broadcaster on the sideline. These are all things that are true of DeMarcus Cousins. The red flags are real even if you choose to ignore them and other teams/fans are wary of his potential for disruption for good reason. He's a flawed but gifted superstar who could be elite if he played within himself and learned to control his temper. And we're talking about the Hall of Fame which is a standard that very few players in any era can live up to. It's not just about the numbers. Part of being elite is being held to a higher standard than everyone else.

You bring up one point that irritates me more often than not. And that's when people pass judgement on a player based totally on stats. To me, all stats can do is validate what I already know by watching a player play. I'm always amused when I watch a player come into a game and score 12 points in a quarter on 5 shots, grab 4 boards, dish out 3 assists, and end up with a minus 8 for the game. Really? Wow, my eyes must have been deceiving me. Or a player will be criticized for going 2 for 8 in a game, when a couple of his missed shots were a result of getting the ball with two ticks left on the clock, and one was a half court toss to end the half. Point is, you had to watch the game to know that.

 

[Bricklayer]

Part of being elite is being held to a higher standard than everyone else.

No, its really not.

Wilt claims to have boinked 20,000 women in his time. He refused to even live in Philadelphia, instead taking a train in everyday from New York forcing them to practice in the afternoon, not the morning.

Kareem was famously aloof and arrogant to the point he had no friends.

Magic killed a coach during his 3rd season, and ended up catching AIDS because he was ****ing everything in North America behind his wife's back. With James Worthy as a wingman apparently.

Karl Malone as it turns out may have had sex with a 13 year old.

Charles Barkley was Charles Barkley.

Michael Jordan probably had a gambling addiction, and used to hit his teammates in practice.

Kevin Garnett beat up Wally Sczerbiak in practice.

Jason Kidd hit his wife.

Patrick Ewing famously would refuse to outlet the ball up the court because he wanted to make sure he got down in time to get his touches.

Shaq was fat and lazy.

Rick Barry was an arrogant ass.

Oscar Robertson used to yell at his teammates if they didn't give him the ball everytime.


In the end nobody cared. Not really. They all went into the HOF right on the same schedule they would have if they were all perfect princesses. And when Cousins has a few winning seasons the same phenomenon will quickly take hold.

I have noted before, arguing against DeMarcus Cousins as a HOF player requires the most extraordinary argument imaginable -- that DeMarcus Cousins is unique in the entire history of the NBA. The ONLY player in NBA history to successfully fake being a HOF by putting up HOF numbers and racking up HOF achievements (barring injury a bare minimum 6 All Star/All NBA teams, Golden Medal etc.) without being a HOFer. My argument is much the stronger by simply sticking to the facts and arguing that a spade is a spade.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

The part about relying on stats for players we really don't know all that well was directed at all sports fans. We're all sports fans here and we're interacting so I didn't see how you could say that the sports fans you associate with don't do this when this site alone is clear evidence that they do.

I don't really keep track of what other sports fans do; I don't care much for other team sports besides basketball. Like, my best friend is a football fan, but he doesn't talk about it around me, because he knows that I don't give a **** about football. Just like I don't talk about women's basketball around him, because I know that he doesn't give a **** about that.

But it seems you were referring only to the second comment about Cousins, that NBA fans of other teams would pass on him because of his reputation. I probably do interact with a different type of NBA fan than you do (Lakers fans mostly, which are their own special breed) but I've seen the same type of comments online as well on other fan message boards and on ESPN articles.

Well, there you have it: I don't particularly navigate those spaces on the internet. I don't really spend any of my time on the internet, outside of here, any place that's dedicated to talking about sports, except for the one women's basketball forum I also go to. I am mostly on pop culture sites, and culturally relevant (i.e., black people ****) sites, and general information message boards, which may have a sports sub-folder, and I stick to the NBA threads in those folders, and they are not populated by people who don't want Cousins on their team.

And since you brought up the comparison earlier... there are actually some pretty significant differences between Davis and Cousins. Anthony Davis isn't consistently among the league leaders in turnovers, personal fouls, and technical fouls.

I'll stipulate personal fouls and technicals. Turnovers, not so much: Davis appears to have much less responsibility in New Orleans' offense than Cousins has in ours. Davis has low turnover numbers for the same reason that Klay Thompson has low turnover numbers: can't turn it over if they don't give you the ball until it's time for you to shoot dunk it.

In addition to being a scorer he's the best shotblocker in the league and he's way up there in steals too.

Gobert may have something to say about that.

If he only scored 10 points per game he'd still be a monster because of defensive impact alone. He doesn't have a history of feuding with coaches. To my knowledge it's never been reported that he punched a teammate in the locker room or cussed out a broadcaster on the sideline. These are all things that are true of DeMarcus Cousins. The red flags are real even if you choose to ignore them and other teams/fans are wary of his potential for disruption for good reason. He's a flawed but gifted superstar who could be elite if he played within himself and learned to control his temper. And we're talking about the Hall of Fame which is a standard that very few players in any era can live up to. It's not just about the numbers. Part of being elite is being held to a higher standard than everyone else.

It may not just be about the numbers, but that doesn't change the fact that there has always been a certain level of numbers, that has never been denied.

 

[Kingster]

Alas, the internet is funny in preserving past opinions, and you had something against Vlade even being hired. Being subsequently in favor of firing him hardly represents some evolution of opinion based on results.

I was totally against Vlade being hired. It's no secret. I proclaimed it from the mountain top over and over. And why did I have the opinion that I did? He had no track record in identifying talent. He still doesn't have a track record in identifying talent. To say that my opinion didn't evolve is stating the obvious! I'm waiting for evidence to show that I was wrong. So far, it doesn't look like it.

 

[Kingster]

Vlade Divac has been GM for two drafts.

In the first he took the guy I wanted, who seemed like an ideal low usage big who was potentially a game changing defensive force whose main weaknesses (offense and rebounding) would be covered by Boogie's strengths. Advanced metrics showed Cauley-Stein's potential impact and while he didn't have star potential, he was a very solid choice on my mind.

While WCS hasn't developed as hoped, I'm not ready to slam the pick. Mudiay has shown flashes but is still putting up horrendous shooting and efficiency numbers. Stanley Johnson just got sent to the D-League. Justise Winslow is nice defensively but hasn't yet shown signs of turning into the player I thought he could be and Frank Kaminsky is still shooting poor percentages while rebounding at an even lower rate than Trill.

Vlade obviously missed on Myles Turner (who I liked a lot predraft) and Devin Booker (who is had pegged as a one dimensional shooter and was really wrong on) and while Turner might be a questionable fit next to Cousins, Booker would have been perfect AND fit a need. So yes, there was a better prospect available but I'm not going over criticize that draft on Divac's part.

This last draft I was amazed that Vlade got the 22nd pick for Belinelli and was onboard with the trade down from 8 for 13, 28 & the rights to Bogdanovic, especially when Chris's was the player from the top 8 left.

That said I was flabbergasted when Adam Silver called Papagiannis' name at 13. Richardson was one of my least favorite prospects. So was Skal but I liked the gamble at 28.

That said, the early returns on this draft as a whole have been awful. Even the picks above #8 have looked underwhelming and if not for Embiid (and possibly Simmons when he returns) this would probably be the worst ROY race since 2000.

Vlade said he tried to trade up for Dunn (who was my favorite prospect but is currently disappointing) but the price was too high. So I have to look at who he took vs who was taken afterward.

Chriss still has potential but even though he's currently a starter he only plays around 10-12 mpg and seems to average more fouls than rebounds. After that? Maker doesn't play, Valentine doesn't look like he can play at the NBA level, Baldwin (who I wanted) isn't even the best rookie PG on the Grizzlies, Poeltl was a terrible fit on the Kings and hasn't shown a ton. Really only Sabonis is a contributor and while he's starting and showing better than expected shooting and good passing he's only putting up 6ppg and 3rpg while not being a post scorer or rim protector.

So right now the jury is out on Vlade's draft acumen. None of this year's rookies are doing anything but they didn't miss on anyone big either and there's three of them on cheap deals (plus potentially Bogdanovic) that might turn out to be something. We'll have to wait and see.

But again, it doesn't matter whether Vlade is a good talent evaluator or not. I don't see another path forward other than a rebuild so you give him a shot and reevaluate next year when the team is still rebuilding anyway.

You'll have to clarify something for me. You say it doesn't matter whether Vlade is a good talent evaluator or not? I don't get that. So, he could end up trading Gay and/or Cousins, and it doesn't matter to you whether the talent you get in return is good or not? He could trade both those guys and get draft picks and you're not concerned whether he can identify good player to draft or not? Please clarify.

 

[hrdboild]

Gobert may have something to say about that.

He probably does have something to say about it, but he hasn't led the league in blocks per game in 2 of the last 3 seasons like Anthony Davis has. Actually, he's never led the league in blocks per game and this season he's currently in second... behind Anthony Davis. But both guys are really good so it's not really worth arguing about. You could probably make a case for Rudy Gobert as the better shotblocker if you wanted to. And he does have the better nicknames: (The Stifle Tower, The French Rejection, The Gobert Report, Gobzilla) These are all straight fire!

 

[funkykingston]

You'll have to clarify something for me. You say it doesn't matter whether Vlade is a good talent evaluator or not? I don't get that. So, he could end up trading Gay and/or Cousins, and it doesn't matter to you whether the talent you get in return is good or not? He could trade both those guys and get draft picks and you're not concerned whether he can identify good player to draft or not? Please clarify.

Obviously it matter so for the future of the Kings and if the team will have two top picks in what looks like a stacked draft (the Nets and their own) you want to hit at least one homerun if not two.

But my point is that it doesn't change the strategy. The Kings have to tear down and rebuild. If Vlade were to screw up the picks it's awful but they are still in the same position of rebuilding and the strategy remains the same though.

That said, I don't think Vlade would completely screw up the picks. In my mind he's shown enough signs that he gets it. Not all of his moves have worked out but there has been logic behind them. I think Ranadive asked him to try and win now and he tried to oblige.

He made some very savvy moves on draft night.

And he's shown himself to be adaptable to the coach he's working with. All good signs.

 

[hrdboild]

No, its really not.

Wilt claims to have boinked 20,000 women in his time. He refused to even live in Philadelphia, instead taking a train in everyday from New York forcing them to practice in the afternoon, not the morning.

Kareem was famously aloof and arrogant to the point he had no friends.

Magic killed a coach during his 3rd season, and ended up catching AIDS because he was ****ing everything in North America behind his wife's back. With James Worthy as a wingman apparently.

Karl Malone as it turns out may have had sex with a 13 year old.

Charles Barkley was Charles Barkley.

Michael Jordan probably had a gambling addiction, and used to hit his teammates in practice.

Kevin Garnett beat up Wally Sczerbiak in practice.

Jason Kidd hit his wife.

Patrick Ewing famously would refuse to outlet the ball up the court because he wanted to make sure he got down in time to get his touches.

Shaq was fat and lazy.

Rick Barry was an arrogant ass.

Oscar Robertson used to yell at his teammates if they didn't give him the ball everytime.


In the end nobody cared. Not really. They all went into the HOF right on the same schedule they would have if they were all perfect princesses. And when Cousins has a few winning seasons the same phenomenon will quickly take hold.

I have noted before, arguing against DeMarcus Cousins as a HOF player requires the most extraordinary argument imaginable -- that DeMarcus Cousins is unique in the entire history of the NBA. The ONLY player in NBA history to successfully fake being a HOF by putting up HOF numbers and racking up HOF achievements (barring injury a bare minimum 6 All Star/All NBA teams, Golden Medal etc.) without being a HOFer. My argument is much the stronger by simply sticking to the facts and arguing that a spade is a spade.

You left out the bit about KG barking like a dog and crawling on all fours during a game. I'm sympathetic to your argument... it's probably just that I'm in a bad mood which is causing me to make an issue of it at all. These kinds of distinctions (who is a HOF and who isn't) always strike me as arbitrary anyway and they're more about the personal biases of the sports writer (or fan) than the actual performance. But devil's advocate here... all those guys you mentioned have something in common that DeMarcus does not have. They've all played on NBA teams that won more than 40% of their games. So many of the NBA's honors are reserved for players who lead winning teams. Until 2015 the Western Conference coaches didn't think Cousins deserved a spot on the All-Star team because of it. He's yet to make an All-NBA first team because of it. He's never been in the conversation for league MVP because of it. That may not be fair, but that's how this is done. I think DeMarcus is good enough to be mentioned with all these guys -- but I also think he costs this team games at times because of his antics. I hope Vlade can actually put a winning team around him because he's been more loyal to this franchise (and that means us, the fans) than its owners have really deserved. Just because I want him to grow up a little doesn't mean I'm ready to show him the door.

 

[kingjatt]

I havent liked any of the picks that Vlade has made although the jury is still out on this years class. Chances are one of the guys we passed on (baldwin,chriss, brogdan etc) will be better than any of the 3 we picked.

I dont like Vlade's rule of not drafting guys who wont work out for him. He should know better than anyone that this isnt the lakers, its sacramento, we have to force any worthy talent into the building, no one worth having is running to us, in fact they are avoiding us at all costs.

Im concerned about the forthcoming rebuild, vlade is heading into uncharted waters for us and a screwed up draft here and there could be the difference between 5 year rebuild vs a 10 year rebuild. Excited to watch young players lose with effort and hustle while they develop over what we have been seeing the past 6 years.

 

[KingsFan80]

I havent liked any of the picks that Vlade has made although the jury is still out on this years class. Chances are one of the guys we passed on (baldwin,chriss, brogdan etc) will be better than any of the 3 we picked.

I dont like Vlade's rule of not drafting guys who wont work out for him. He should know better than anyone that this isnt the lakers, its sacramento, we have to force any worthy talent into the building, no one worth having is running to us, in fact they are avoiding us at all costs.

Im concerned about the forthcoming rebuild, vlade is heading into uncharted waters for us and a screwed up draft here and there could be the difference between 5 year rebuild vs a 10 year rebuild. Excited to watch young players lose with effort and hustle while they develop over what we have been seeing the past 6 years.

You should be concerned, as should any fan who cares about the Kings. This ownership group is a mess and Vlade is learning on the job.

 

[funkykingston]

I havent liked any of the picks that Vlade has made although the jury is still out on this years class. Chances are one of the guys we passed on (baldwin,chriss, brogdan etc) will be better than any of the 3 we picked.

I dont like Vlade's rule of not drafting guys who wont work out for him. He should know better than anyone that this isnt the lakers, its sacramento, we have to force any worthy talent into the building, no one worth having is running to us, in fact they are avoiding us at all costs.

Im concerned about the forthcoming rebuild, vlade is heading into uncharted waters for us and a screwed up draft here and there could be the difference between 5 year rebuild vs a 10 year rebuild. Excited to watch young players lose with effort and hustle while they develop over what we have been seeing the past 6 years.

Baldwin and Chriss are legitimate players to keep tabs on and compare to the kids Vlade picked. And I definitely have been. So far neither has shown enough to really criticize Vlade over. And whether any of them is better than the guys Divac picked isn't a big deal. If one of them ends up being more valuable than Papagiannis, Labissiere AND Bogdanovic combined is the real question.

Brogdan is a bit of a cherry pick though. He was always expected to be a 2nd rounder and his appeal was that he was an older player that represented a high floor, low ceiling pick. I don't think most of us expected him to be one of the best rookies in this class but to me that's more an indictment of this rookie group than anything.

As for a bad draft, it would set back a rebuild exactly one year. If the Kings trade Cousins to Boston for this year's pick swap and next year's Nets pick, the Kings would likely have 4 top 8 picks - 2 in each of the next two drafts from Brookly and then their own picks. Maybe another late first rounder from trading Rudy.

Ideally they walk away with two stars and two contributors/possible starters from those picks. One lousy draft means there's extra pressure on the next draft. Worst case scenario you go into 2019 without a franchise player, lose that pick to Philly and are try again the next season.

The only way a rebuild is set back five years is if you have five years of bad decisions. But outside of drafting Cousins the Kings have essentially done that anyway, just minus the top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

For small market teams you need to land stars on the draft or ride a treadmill of mediocrity. They had a shot with Cousins but now they are in a bad position moving forward if they don't move him and start another rebuild attempt.

 

[kingjatt]

Baldwin and Chriss are legitimate players to keep tabs on and compare to the kids Vlade picked. And I definitely have been. So far neither has shown enough to really criticize Vlade over. And whether any of them is better than the guys Divac picked isn't a big deal. If one of them ends up being more valuable than Papagiannis, Labissiere AND Bogdanovic combined is the real question.

Brogdan is a bit of a cherry pick though. He was always expected to be a 2nd rounder and his appeal was that he was an older player that represented a high floor, low ceiling pick. I don't think most of us expected him to be one of the best rookies in this class but to me that's more an indictment of this rookie group than anything.

As for a bad draft, it would set back a rebuild exactly one year. If the Kings trade Cousins to Boston for this year's pick swap and next year's Nets pick, the Kings would likely have 4 top 8 picks - 2 in each of the next two drafts from Brookly and then their own picks. Maybe another late first rounder from trading Rudy.

Ideally they walk away with two stars and two contributors/possible starters from those picks. One lousy draft means there's extra pressure on the next draft. Worst case scenario you go into 2019 without a franchise player, lose that pick to Philly and are try again the next season.

The only way a rebuild is set back five years is if you have five years of bad decisions. But outside of drafting Cousins the Kings have essentially done that anyway, just minus the top 3 or top 5 draft picks.

For small market teams you need to land stars on the draft or ride a treadmill of mediocrity. They had a shot with Cousins but now they are in a bad position moving forward if they don't move him and start another rebuild attempt.

I agree with your general assessment of the situation. We had our chance to get it together with Cousins this year. It has not happend and there are no means for it to happen that align with DMC's prime timeline. Our asset value is dropping by each passing game and the time to make moves is ideally this upcoming week. IMO It should happen quick and out of nowhere because rumors of us being complete sellers will drive down prices and make us more of clown show than we already are.

The other problem (outside of the no experiance for vlade/ a list of moves that have been bad since PDA.) is whats Viveks thoughts on all of this? Is he still medaling but now with the PR shield of Vlade?

Everything points to him loving Cuz, would he really keep Cuz and try to put a scrub free agent team around Cuz again? Would he risk our top 10 pick all for a pipe dream at this point? Regardless of what is said around here Vivek still signs the checks, he will have a large say in what goes on moving forward and he doesn't exactly have the lets be patient and rebuild correctly vibe to him either.

That building cost him a good chunk of his net worth and he wants to see a return. He did not take revenue sharing and now was suppose to be the time that we would be a perinial playoff team. His financial projections were probably based on us being a success by now. How much does money motivate his decsion making moving forward? We may be ready to move to forward and go years without winning but is Vivek ready?

So much uncertainty surrounding this toxic franchise, its going to take years to wipe this stink off that we thought was gone when the maloofs and PDA and Karl left. Next up its the best thing to happen to this franchise in over a decade, Demarcus Cousins. Lets see what happens....

 

[jcwkings]

I was very unhappy on draft night.

In hindsight the Kings have three guys (plus Bogdanovic) who could be as good as anyone drafted at #8 or later.

Right now I'd say the three best players from this draft are Jamal Murray, Pascal Siakam and Malcolm Brogdan with Sabonis, Ingram and McCaw probably the next three.

Jimmer over Klay or Kawhi was a disaster. Likewise with Robinson over Lillard or Drummond. Vlade hasn't made that kind of draft mistake yet. He gets the benefit of the doubt from me, at least for the time being.

I feel pretty safe in saying Simmons, Ingram and Murray will be the three big stars from this draft. Murray can be a star if he masters his handle. Great feel for the game, can shoot from anywhere and plays with a swagger. Has a good handle, but much like Curry if he can become a top ball handler he could actually end up being the best player in this draft. Reminds me of Devin Booker from last year.

 

[funkykingston]

I feel pretty safe in saying Simmons, Ingram and Murray will be the three big stars from this draft. Murray can be a star if he masters his handle. Great feel for the game, can shoot from anywhere and plays with a swagger. Has a good handle, but much like Curry if he can become a top ball handler he could actually end up being the best player in this draft. Reminds me of Devin Booker from last year.

I wouldn't quibble with that assessment too much.

Murray sure looks like the real deal and with Simmons it will likely be a question of whether he's Magic/LeBron lite or a 6'10" Rondo but I think either way he'll be an impact player. Ingram I'm not sure on. I think he'll be a contributor but I'm not sure he'll be a star. There's likely one very young player who will make a leap. Dejounte Murray has a chance with the Spurs developing him. Chriss too though I struggle with a big man who can't rebound or defend and his fouling issue looks chronic at the moment. I'm not sure Papa or Skal have that kind of potential and I think Richardson has a good chance of being a solid 3&D guy but I can't see him being a star.

But I was just looking at which rookies are performing the best right now not counting Embiid and Saric.

But as far as the Kings go, none of those guys were available when they picked and Vlade said the price to trade up was too high as they apparently tried to go after Dunn.

Anyway, my only point was that given where the Kings picked no one can yet say that Vlade had a disasterous or even a bad draft. We already knew Jimmer & Robinson were bad picks at this point of the season and knew or would soon know how good the guys they passed on (Klay, Kawhi, Lillard, Drummond) were.

It may be the case that he did but we don't know yet. And in my mind it's also premature to call for Divac to be fired.

People keep talking about Vlade not having experience when in reality some of the best GMs have been former players who had no experience. Scott Layden has GM experience. David Kahn has experience. Joe Dumars built a championship team without experience. It's an odd job without clear markers that do or don't indicate future success and in which luck plays a substantial role. You can really only go by the results and I don't think there's quite enough to go on with Vlade Divac.

 

[KingsFanGER]

I think all this Vlade talk is missing the point to a certain extent and I'm certainly not convinced, that Vlade is the right man going forward.
But he recently hired Dave Joerger - a coach widely regarded as competent. This is the first time, that the GM hired his candidate for the coaching position in Viveks tenure and they appear to be on the same page. He got Joerger, because he sold him the vision of a SAC team with the needed cornerstones already in place. Joerger said so himself.
Now if you fire Vlade to start a full scale rebuild, not only do you fire the GM, that hired our coach with no guarantee, that the next GM is on the same page with Joerger, who experienced just that in Memphis and is unlikely willing to suffer through that again, you also try to sell a full scale rebuild to a coach not wanting to coach a rebuilding team.
To me that looks like the same old unstable Kangz scenario bound to end in a desaster.

If you hire a new GM, you need to give him the chance to start from scratch and choose his coach.

 

[dude12]

Vlade hired Joerger and he hired Catanella unless I'm mistaken. Those are two very good hirings and in hiring Catanella it's a nod that he needed a capologist and he hired a good one. I believe, from what I'm told, that Catanella was instrumental in the Bellinelli deal.