Kings need to move on from Barnes.

#91
I don't know hrdboild, this sounds great in theory but it's really just equivalent to singing Kumbaya around a camp fire.

I think everyone knows that discussing anything on this site is futile. We all just do it for entertainment. You can't change natural human emotions with patience and culture building. No one is happy losing with no glimmer of hope in sight. That goes for players and fans. Patience, bridge building and attempts at reinforcing positive culture isn't going to change the natural human behavior of being angry about losing. It's tolerable when you can see wins on the horizon but that's about the only time it's tolerable.
I just think if you're a fan of the team than be a fan of the team, don't be a fan of some imaginary team that might exist just off the horizon when we're done mucking about with these losers. That's not fair to the players who are here right now trying to win games for Sacramento. I agree that much of the product has been unwatchable lately. There's no shame in finding something else to do with your time if that's how you feel. . The reality is Vlade built this team and he wanted Barnes here for 4 more years (he also wanted Dedmon for three and changed his mind in record time but I digress...) None of us has any control over it so what is there to argue about?

Not enough? Okay, here's the main point of contention for me. If you think the Barnes contract is a problem than unloading him for assets is really just going to result in us then moving those assets for another Barnes contract. How do I know this? Because the guys who built this roster brought Barnes here in the first place. They brought all of these players here actually. If the team is actually going to move on they need to move on from Vlade/Luke but as I already pointed out, that path of action feels equally futile to me. That would mean moving on from far more than just Barnes. So do we trade Barnes today for a different Barnes tomorrow or do we toss it all in the garbage and give someone else a shot? Or do we just shrug and appreciate that these guys don't play for the Seattle Supersonics? We can be lovable losers. We don't need to be seething disgruntled losers. Same record either way.

Also, I fully endorse the singing of songs around a campfire but I've never liked Kumaya, how about Mr. Tambourine Man instead? Have you read the lyrics to that one? It seems more appropriate to our situation.

That's not the question that should be answered though. That kind of thinking is why the team is bad. The question that should be answered is: "How does the team improve its position overall and maintain an advantage for future growth". Example: denying the option on Giles was a dumb move, regardless of their intent on retaining him, because it is a less advantageous position with fewer options the team has to work with. With Barnes, the question isn't "Who do we plug into the SF position that's better than who we have", because this team is a lottery team and Barnes isn't helping that effort. It doesn't matter at this point. What matters is having options, like picks, trades flexibility, etc. This team doesn't have flexibility because of bad deals, and doesn't have many picks for the same reason. They've limited their flexibility to obtain/retain talent, and it is the wrong talent that isn't helping.
I get it, I really do. This is something I would have written much earlier in this re-build. But right now I can't read it without laughing. I can give you a long list of reasons why this team is bad. They're all really the same reason though, aren't they? Opportunities are floating down the NBA river and we're very carefully and skillfully avoiding almost all of them. Kindof like the game of Frogger except the cars are All-Stars and most teams actually want to be hit by them. Picks? What matters is picks? Trades? Flexibility? Nice try but I wasn't born yesterday. I know exactly what this team has done and continues to do with their picks, trades, and flexibility. You should too. None of them is worth half of what they're made out to be. They sure do look nice in the brochure dressed up in Laker Purple and Gold or Celtic Green and White but they never seem to add up the same in Kings Purple and Black.

So I say to you again, what are we so angry about? We could write a million angry posts on the internet about how such and such veteran is holding us back... are they though? Are they really? That's why a hundred different players over 14 years have all failed in exactly the same way? I'm sure you think you're being logical, I once thought the same way. A man knows nothing though unless he first knows what he doesn't know. Or something. I'm paraphrasing. That is, what I really mean to say is that the players could be overpaid or they could be underpaid or they could just be paid but unless there's a system in place which maximizes the talent on the roster, continually develops the players we already have into better versions of themselves, and makes everyone happy to come to work everyday and fight like hell to be the best team on the floor that night, none of this even matters. I'll root for that. I don't care who is on the team, I care about the team culture being something I'm proud of. And yes, even the fans play a role in making that happen.
 
#92
Another prime example of how irrelevant Barnes is to the teams success tonight against the Heat a quiet game had no impact and a guy with worse offensive numbers in Bazemore was far more impactful in the win.
 

VF21

#KingsFansForever
Staff member
#93
Another prime example of how irrelevant Barnes is to the teams success tonight against the Heat a quiet game had no impact and a guy with worse offensive numbers in Bazemore was far more impactful in the win.
9/5/3 isn't irrelevant. We do need more than 5 players a night, especially on the first of a back-to-back.
 

kingsboi

Hall of Famer
#97
When Barnes is good, he’s so dang solid. Hopefully it is a whole “he’s really tired” thing and gets back to what he can do.
I mean the whole "he's tired" thing might be a thing considering he's been rocking some type of scruffy beard which is usually clean
 
When Barnes is good, he’s so dang solid. Hopefully it is a whole “he’s really tired” thing and gets back to what he can do.
I think Walton and his teammates are learning how to take advantage of his skill set. He’s a legitimate post up threat, especially against small lineups. Whenever the team goes through scoring slumps and the threes aren’t falling, Barnes is a guy they can go to in order to end droughts. That’s what MB3 is supposed to provide, but obviously isn’t around to provide it.

And Barnes can also hit some open threes and make some open passes when defenses start collapsing. I really like the way he’s playing right now.
 
Yeah he was real good tonight, wish I could say that about his whole tenure with the Kings.
You can swap out his name for almost everyone on the roster. And that is one of the problems here.

If I understand hrdboild comment above, one of his main issues is the lack of identity of this team. It is for me anyway.

What kind of team we are trying to build? What kind of offensive identity are we trying to forge? What is the midterm and longterm plan? When do we build on continuity?

How can we judge Barnes’ contract and others when every season we play a different style and tempo?

This FO is just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. That is setting us up for failure. We can get angry at players like Barnes for a perceived lack of earning their contracts, but the problem is higher up.
 
This discussion is a little premature.
Barnes is very capable, but the coach has to ask for it.
He is actually a very physical player at the 3.
 
You can swap out his name for almost everyone on the roster. And that is one of the problems here.

If I understand hrdboild comment above, one of his main issues is the lack of identity of this team. It is for me anyway.

What kind of team we are trying to build? What kind of offensive identity are we trying to forge? What is the midterm and longterm plan? When do we build on continuity?

How can we judge Barnes’ contract and others when every season we play a different style and tempo?

This FO is just throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks. That is setting us up for failure. We can get angry at players like Barnes for a perceived lack of earning their contracts, but the problem is higher up.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. The players don't design the offense or dictate the tempo or come up with the defensive game plan. To a large extent they have to do what they're told. If they don't they get called uncoachable. But they hate losing even more than we do and when you're losing a lot you start to lose faith in sticking to the gameplan. Maybe you don't execute the plays quite as crisply if you don't think they're actually working. We perceive that as lack of effort or disinterest but if you've ever been in a position where you're told to do something that you know is counterproductive but you know you have to do it any way, it's easy to slip into the position of "eff it, I'm getting paid, let them worry about it". That's just frustration. And that explains why we often see players decline in productivity the longer they stay. We're all too willing to blame the players because that's who we see when we turn on the games but when a team is this bad for this long you have to understand that the problems run much deeper than the surface level and aren't going to be solved by simply swapping out players for different ones.
 
Last edited:
If Barnes is the biggest problem amongst the starters then the team is in pretty damn good shape.
What are you talking about? He's been arguably the worst starter for most the season along with Buddy when he was starting, Fox/Holmes/Bjelly have been way better (while all 3 combined make less than Barnes).

It's amazing two games occur (he played excellent) and the other 50 don't matter. The exact same thing occurred with Dedmon who could not make a pass or shot he has 1 good game and now everyone is we should not trade him.....
 
What are you talking about? He's been arguably the worst starter for most the season along with Buddy when he was starting, Fox/Holmes/Bjelly have been way better (while all 3 combined make less than Barnes).

It's amazing two games occur (he played excellent) and the other 50 don't matter. The exact same thing occurred with Dedmon who could not make a pass or shot he has 1 good game and now everyone is we should not trade him.....
You have to look at some of the changes around the player as well. It's not a coincidence when you see a difference in effect depending on how the player is used or the position they play. Some players get hot, go on long cold spells. But Walton to his credit has tried a variety of things out but it shouldn't have taken him this long to see the things that were working for most of that time. Let alone let injuries dictate the necessity to do those things.
 
What are you talking about? He's been arguably the worst starter for most the season along with Buddy when he was starting, Fox/Holmes/Bjelly have been way better (while all 3 combined make less than Barnes).

It's amazing two games occur (he played excellent) and the other 50 don't matter. The exact same thing occurred with Dedmon who could not make a pass or shot he has 1 good game and now everyone is we should not trade him.....
2 games? He was our most consistent player in November when a lot of our guys were hurt and the Kings were playing our best stretch.