[Game] Kings v. Magic - Monday, Jan. 13 - 7PT/10ET

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can we really say that Bagley is slow to develop? Or slower to develop than we hoped? After the all-star break last season he was showing signs of having just as much potential as Luka or Trae or anyone. His per minute numbers were great, he had developed a three point shot, and he just needed to be let loose (start) to dominate the league. That's how I felt entering this season.

And nothing has changed about my view of his POTENTIAL. But how is he supposed to progress when starting only 3 games this season and playing in 10 total? In only two games has he played 27 or more minutes. It's frustrating and unfortunate that he has been injured all season, but to say he hasn't lived up or isn't as good as he should be makes no sense. First, it's too small a sample size. Second, 9 of those 10 games have been after missing significant time with injury and needing to get back into game rhythm.

Let's be real, this season sucks, and this team has been bad. Really bad. But I don't think this is a bad team. I think this is a badly coached team that hasn't gotten into a groove because of significant injuries to four of its five most important players (Fox, Bagley, Bogi, and now Holmes). To be honest, I feel for management. How are you supposed to evaluate the team, players, or coach with this kind of season? I'd rather suck at full strength so that an informed decision of how to proceed could be made.
 
Can we really say that Bagley is slow to develop? Or slower to develop than we hoped? After the all-star break last season he was showing signs of having just as much potential as Luka or Trae or anyone. His per minute numbers were great, he had developed a three point shot, and he just needed to be let loose (start) to dominate the league. That's how I felt entering this season.

And nothing has changed about my view of his POTENTIAL. But how is he supposed to progress when starting only 3 games this season and playing in 10 total? In only two games has he played 27 or more minutes. It's frustrating and unfortunate that he has been injured all season, but to say he hasn't lived up or isn't as good as he should be makes no sense. First, it's too small a sample size. Second, 9 of those 10 games have been after missing significant time with injury and needing to get back into game rhythm.

Let's be real, this season sucks, and this team has been bad. Really bad. But I don't think this is a bad team. I think this is a badly coached team that hasn't gotten into a groove because of significant injuries to four of its five most important players (Fox, Bagley, Bogi, and now Holmes). To be honest, I feel for management. How are you supposed to evaluate the team, players, or coach with this kind of season? I'd rather suck at full strength so that an informed decision of how to proceed could be made.
This is an absurd statement and is flat out wrong how can he show half the potential of two guys putting up historic rookie numbers and creating all the offense for there teams. Those two were at 20/9 guys while leading offense while Bagley was spoon fed points. Crazy talk to say he needs a 3 to be dominant let’s first see if he can even create his own points when teams don’t game plan for him
 
I have been slow to come around to the season being over for a playoff slot. The 8th spot in the West is wide open but the way we have played lately it is hard to believe we are better than a few others fighting for the same thing.

The season is like half over and we are going to have to win 3/4 of our last games to sniff 50/50 and I just don’t see it.
I was hoping by the trade deadline we just needed to tweak the line up. But there are some glaring holes that need to be addressed.
 
Bagley has plenty to work on, but I’m surprised some are coming down on him so hard after this last game. In limited min (23) 18 points on 47% shooting and 2 blocks is nothing to scoff at. Really. It shows that higher ceiling talent is there. There are many players who couldn’t put up 18 in limited min. if they wanted to. I’m so over the constant comparisons and was glad he looks fully healthy again and had a solid game.
 
The expectations that you draft a player and in that first season, the franchise is magically transformed is not realistic at all. Some of the hate thrown at Bagley is that he hasn't, in a season and 10 games, made all of the franchise's woes go away. We shake our heads and wish we had drafted almost any rookie last year except Bagley. But those other rookies aren't winning either. Save for Luka, but that team has a legit coach and that's a different argument for a different thread.

There is a ton of misplaced anger, which actually makes the situation worse when calling for everyone to be traded. The reality is that we're trying to use journeyman veterans to prop up a very young core. Those journeyman look good in context because SOMEONE is going to score points and make plays on any team and those vets are getting the minutes. But in reality, those guys are just average. Go back and watch Fournier burn Cojo play after play in the 4th last night and then try to argue CoJo is the defensive guy the team should look up to. It doesn't work.

It's not the young talented guys that's the issue. Mgmt jumped the gun in trying to win now.
 
Bagley has plenty to work on, but I’m surprised some are coming down on him so hard after this last game. In limited min (23) 18 points on 47% shooting and 2 blocks is nothing to scoff at. Really. It shows that higher ceiling talent is there. There are many players who couldn’t put up 18 in limited min. if they wanted to. I’m so over the constant comparisons and was glad he looks fully healthy again and had a solid game.
I think everyone has acknowledged Bagley has immense physical gifts. The problem is in his team defense and outside shooting. Both of which are significantly sub-standard. In Bagley’s case the jury is still out if he can develop those capabilities.

Ideally Bagley would get 36 mins a game to play and learn. But if he is going to do that now the team will likely be worse in the near term. Or he could do it in the G-league.
 
Bjelica was awesome and is an underrated player (by the league). Nobody ever talks about trading Bjelica but would be interesting to see if a contender is looking at him and if the Kings could pry a first round pick out of someone. He could help a lot of teams. He's doing his best to try and help this one but not enough guys around him playing well.
Would it be worth it for us to trade Bjelica for a presumably late first round pick, or does Bjelica hold more value himself. I say the latter.
 
Would it be worth it for us to trade Bjelica for a presumably late first round pick, or does Bjelica hold more value himself. I say the latter.
Short term he's obviously very valuable to this team but he'll be 32 in the Spring and the 2019-2020 Kings are going nowhere. Long term the Kings also need to see if Bagley/Holmes can play together. I'm not sure I'd trade him if I thought the pick was going to be late 20's but if they could get a pick in the late teens to early 20's then it's something you gotta consider.

Really comes down to how good will Bjelica be in 2-3 years when he's 34 or 35.
 
This is an absurd statement and is flat out wrong how can he show half the potential of two guys putting up historic rookie numbers and creating all the offense for there teams. Those two were at 20/9 guys while leading offense while Bagley was spoon fed points. Crazy talk to say he needs a 3 to be dominant let’s first see if he can even create his own points when teams don’t game plan for him
Disagree with it all you want, but that was the sentiment of many here. People at the end of last season were saying the Kings won by drafting Bagley instead of Luka. Maybe not everyone, but a good contingent of (biased) people. And just because you disagree, it doesn't make the statement absurd. That's the idea of projecting a player's potential. Zion hasn't played an NBA game yet and people are saying he can be as impactful as LeBron. Is it absurd to compare a player who hasn't played in the NBA to one of the top 3-5 players ever? Not when you're saying he has the POTENTIAL to be that good. So regardless of what is happening this season and even their rookie stats (you know, when Bagley's coach didn't even start him and only played him 25 min/game), he showed the POTENTIAL of Luka or Trae the end of last year.

Obviously, Luka and Trae had better rookie seasons than Bagley...
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
I think everyone has acknowledged Bagley has immense physical gifts. The problem is in his team defense and outside shooting. Both of which are significantly sub-standard. In Bagley’s case the jury is still out if he can develop those capabilities.
At the same time, team defense and outside shooting are two traits that traditionally improve over a player's first five seasons or so, as opposed to physical gifts, which are either there or not. Will Bagley develop his outside shooting and team defense? Almost certainly. Will he develop them enough to be a star? We'll have to wait and find out. But it's not like we're closing our eyes and wishing. It's within the realm not only of the possible but of the normal.
 
I feel like I kind of started this whole idea about roster revamping in this thread and it's obvious that some of the stuff I wrote is misinterpreted. Maybe it's the language barrier, I apologize if that's the case.

First off, I didn't say Bagley is the only one who could be traded, nor I said he's a bad player. I'm saying we've been trying to develop young players for a while now and it didn't result in a single playoff appearance. We all thought this season could be the one because we finally have a clear, natural leader (Fox), a great shooter (Buddy) and a possible superstar (Bagley).

However, this season so far hasn't been better than any of the previous ones, which is why I'm saying - let's send away some talent (e.g. Bagley, Bogdan, Hield or Barnes...) and finally get a high-level player that can push this organization to the next level. It doesn't have to be Bagley, but I don't think we can get an All-Star player caliber if we trade CoJo or Bjelica.

I see some people suggest trading Bjelica for new picks. That's another 2-3-4 years of developing a young player and praying for him to accomplish something. And historically, we placed our bets on Tyreke, Cousins, WCS, Nick Stauskas, Ben McLemore... all those guys were high picks that didn't transform our organization into a playoff team. I'm just saying - let's try a different approach and trade 2-3 players for a player who is a game-changer. I don't care if it's Bagley, Bogdan, Buddy or whoever. If I need to choose between seeing this team in playoffs and maybe developing some players 3 years from now, I choose playoffs.
 
Disagree with it all you want, but that was the sentiment of many here. People at the end of last season were saying the Kings won by drafting Bagley instead of Luka. Maybe not everyone, but a good contingent of (biased) people. And just because you disagree, it doesn't make the statement absurd. That's the idea of projecting a player's potential. Zion hasn't played an NBA game yet and people are saying he can be as impactful as LeBron. Is it absurd to compare a player who hasn't played in the NBA to one of the top 3-5 players ever? Not when you're saying he has the POTENTIAL to be that good. So regardless of what is happening this season and even their rookie stats (you know, when Bagley's coach didn't even start him and only played him 25 min/game), he showed the POTENTIAL of Luka or Trae the end of last year.

Obviously, Luka and Trae had better rookie seasons than Bagley...
I don’t get where you see this phantom potential of Luka that you think he has he doesn’t have it never showed it. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have good potential or won’t be a good player but when you say someone has the potential of a kid averaging 29-9-9 that’s absurd. One has his team in the playoffs the other isn’t a top 4 option on a lottery team but somehow both have the same potential, no
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bagley has plenty to work on, but I’m surprised some are coming down on him so hard after this last game. In limited min (23) 18 points on 47% shooting and 2 blocks is nothing to scoff at. Really. It shows that higher ceiling talent is there. There are many players who couldn’t put up 18 in limited min. if they wanted to. I’m so over the constant comparisons and was glad he looks fully healthy again and had a solid game.
He jacked up 17 shots in those 23 minutes when Fox and Bjelica were having career games to the tune of 0 assists, threw up 2 threes the moment he touched the ball (he's at 18% on the year), and blew two wide-open layups when he tried to use his right hand.

Amid all the Luka comparisons and talk of team defense, this was a prime example of the thing I hate the most about Bagley and the thing I have the least confidence he'll ever fix.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
... This team needs to dive headlong into a proper rebuild. No more marginal but non-needle moving vets. The Kings have tried this song and dance dating back to the DeMarcus era. Trade Bjeli. Trade Bogi. Trade Dedmon. Trade Ariza. Try to stockpile picks. Maybe do something with said stockpiled picks. I don’t know exactly what, but what they’re doing isn’t working. The team is bad. Bad bad bad.
...
Er, the Kings have had a proper rebuild. They jettisoned all their old players, and went all-in on a core of new dudes. You can talk about "marginal but non-needle moving vets" if you want to but, they flipped their franchise player for a young prospect, and a ton of draft picks. and then dumped all the vets that had teamed with him. The first full season that the Kings played without Cousins, six of their top seven players in usage for the season had a combined four years NBA experience on opening night, and the year after that, their top eight players in usage still only had a combined twelve years experience on opening night. That's as close to a "proper rebuild" as makes no odds. You can't act like what they did doesn't count, just because it didn't work.

And you have to have some of those "marginal but non-needle moving vets," even if you don't want to. You just field a team of thirteen players on rookie contracts, because there's a salary floor in the NBA. I mean, technically, you could, but I don't see the Kings becoming the first team to invoke the "I guess we'll give everybody a raise, because we don't have enough payroll to meet the floor" clause.
 
Er, the Kings have had a proper rebuild. They jettisoned all their old players, and went all-in on a core of new dudes. You can talk about "marginal but non-needle moving vets" if you want to but, they flipped their franchise player for a young prospect, and a ton of draft picks. and then dumped all the vets that had teamed with him. The first full season that the Kings played without Cousins, six of their top seven players in usage for the season had a combined four years NBA experience on opening night, and the year after that, their top eight players in usage still only had a combined twelve years experience on opening night. That's as close to a "proper rebuild" as makes no odds. You can't act like what they did doesn't count, just because it didn't work.

And you have to have some of those "marginal but non-needle moving vets," even if you don't want to. You just field a team of thirteen players on rookie contracts, because there's a salary floor in the NBA. I mean, technically, you could, but I don't see the Kings becoming the first team to invoke the "I guess we'll give everybody a raise, because we don't have enough payroll to meet the floor" clause.
this is a whole separate can of worms, but I also wonder whether the best way to develop your key prospects is to surround them with other kids, or whether to bring in a couple/few vets that actually know how to play.
 
Er, the Kings have had a proper rebuild. They jettisoned all their old players, and went all-in on a core of new dudes. You can talk about "marginal but non-needle moving vets" if you want to but, they flipped their franchise player for a young prospect, and a ton of draft picks. and then dumped all the vets that had teamed with him. The first full season that the Kings played without Cousins, six of their top seven players in usage for the season had a combined four years NBA experience on opening night, and the year after that, their top eight players in usage still only had a combined twelve years experience on opening night. That's as close to a "proper rebuild" as makes no odds. You can't act like what they did doesn't count, just because it didn't work.

And you have to have some of those "marginal but non-needle moving vets," even if you don't want to. You just field a team of thirteen players on rookie contracts, because there's a salary floor in the NBA. I mean, technically, you could, but I don't see the Kings becoming the first team to invoke the "I guess we'll give everybody a raise, because we don't have enough payroll to meet the floor" clause.
The Kings did not have a proper rebuild. After they traded Cousins, the next offseason they used 40millon dollars per year on below average vets. We had tons and tons of cap space while there were teams giving up first round picks (for example Demarre Carrol) or all star players (Russel) for salary dumps. If we did a proper rebuild, we would have gotten at least one of those deals and been realistic about our timeline. You need some vet mentors but you definetly dont need to spend 40mil/year on them. Teammate of the year award winners like Tolliver were available for basically a minimum contract.

Also the salary floor doesnt mean anything. First of all if you trade away your best player and recognize you wont be competitive for at least couple of years, you should take in some bad salary for those couple of years for some extra future assets. Also "giving a raise" for players if we stayed below the salary floor wouldn't have impacted the cap numbers so salary floor isnt any excuse for either not taking in bad salary for picks or offering horrible contracts to below average vets.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
The Kings did not have a proper rebuild. After they traded Cousins, the next offseason they used 40millon dollars per year on below average vets. We had tons and tons of cap space while there were teams giving up first round picks (for example Demarre Carrol) or all star players (Russel) for salary dumps. If we did a proper rebuild, we would have gotten at least one of those deals and been realistic about our timeline. You need some vet mentors but you definetly dont need to spend 40mil/year on them. Teammate of the year award winners like Tolliver were available for basically a minimum contract.

Also the salary floor doesnt mean anything. First of all if you trade away your best player and recognize you wont be competitive for at least couple of years, you should take in some bad salary for those couple of years for some extra future assets. Also "giving a raise" for players if we stayed below the salary floor wouldn't have impacted the cap numbers so salary floor isnt any excuse for either not taking in bad salary for picks or offering horrible contracts to below average vets.
That ain't how that works. You're applying the same flawed reasoning that @SLAB is, which is basically that, if the overpaid veteran that the Kings traded for isn't a borderline All-Star, then it doesn't count. The Kings traded their franchise player, and all of the veterans that had been part of the "culture of losing." They created a core of young players, and filled out the cap/roster with overpaid veterans. That's a rebuild.

And, also, the Kings did trade a veteran to get back multiple draft picks. His name was George Hill, you may have heard of him.
 
Can we really say that Bagley is slow to develop? Or slower to develop than we hoped?.
No.

For two reasons.

One, he’s freaking 20. And only in his 2nd season — which he’s barely played.

Second, his injuries. The kid has played 72 games in total over 1 1/2 seasons. Not even a season‘s worth.

Big men, specifically young ones, historically have taken a few years to develop. While I was one of those in the ‘draft #77’ crowd and will forever proclaim they got that one wrong, I can also readily admit that it’s far too early to know what MB3 is or isn’t gonna be.

First thing, though, is the kid has to overcome his availability problem or there’s not going to be any any development. But assuming he can stay on the court, he has to get stronger and fill out. Again, he’s only 20. So some of that will happen naturally. But hopefully he’s willing to put in some hard work in the gym too.
 
That ain't how that works. You're applying the same flawed reasoning that @SLAB is, which is basically that, if the overpaid veteran that the Kings traded for isn't a borderline All-Star, then it doesn't count. The Kings traded their franchise player, and all of the veterans that had been part of the "culture of losing." They created a core of young players, and filled out the cap/roster with overpaid veterans. That's a rebuild.
You can call that a proper rebuild if you want, imo its not properly rebuilding to miss on numerous deals that could give you future assets and instead using the cap for 40mil/year on below average veterans. Cap space is an asset for rebuilding team and we didnt utilize it like a properly rebuilding team should've

And, also, the Kings did trade a veteran to get back multiple draft picks. His name was George Hill, you may have heard of him.
I recall that only draft pick we got for Hill was 2020 Heat 2nd. I could be wrong but for the salary we paid Hill, we would've been able to do better than one or two second rounders.
 

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
You can call that a proper rebuild if you want, imo its not properly rebuilding to miss on numerous deals that could give you future assets and instead using the cap for 40mil/year on below average veterans. Cap space is an asset for rebuilding team and we didnt utilize it like a properly rebuilding team should've

That's just saying that it only counts if it works. I don't accept that premise.



I recall that only draft pick we got for Hill was 2020 Heat 2nd. I could be wrong but for the salary we paid Hill, we would've been able to do better than one or two second rounders.
According to Doctor Internet, the Kings traded George Hill (and the rights to Artūras Gudaitis), and got back Iman Shumpert, a pick from the Cavs (via the Heat), Joe Johnson, a pick from the Jazz, and cash. I allow for the possibility that I may be reading the internet wrong.
 

Capt. Factorial

This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things
Staff member
According to Doctor Internet, the Kings traded George Hill (and the rights to Artūras Gudaitis), and got back Iman Shumpert, a pick from the Cavs (via the Heat), Joe Johnson, a pick from the Jazz, and cash. I allow for the possibility that I may be reading the internet wrong.
The Heat pick and players appear to be correct. The Kings did not receive a Jazz pick in that trade - the only other pick in that trade appears to be a right-to-swap second rounder in 2024 sent from the Cavs to the Jazz.
 
That's just saying that it only counts if it works. I don't accept that premise.
That's not at all what @Gguod is saying. He's saying instead of spending big money on role playing veterans, that we should have first looked to trade that cap space away for bad contracts w/ picks tied to them.

Whether that team we build following this process is successful is completely irrelevant. He's stating a process that we should have followed for a rebuild and he's calling out that we didn't follow it. We could easily have drafted the next Papagiannis with that pick we acquired. That's not his point. His point is we should have been in the business of collecting young assets/picks by trading away our cap space and we simply were looking to cut corners and use our cap space to sign veterans to help us win now.

That's not a proper rebuild.

According to Doctor Internet, the Kings traded George Hill (and the rights to Artūras Gudaitis), and got back Iman Shumpert, a pick from the Cavs (via the Heat), Joe Johnson, a pick from the Jazz, and cash. I allow for the possibility that I may be reading the internet wrong.
No, this isn't correct. We received Iman Shumpert, Joe Johnson, draft rights to Dimitrios Agravanis, & MIA 2020 2nd (which is projected for #55 right now).
 
At the same time, team defense and outside shooting are two traits that traditionally improve over a player's first five seasons or so, as opposed to physical gifts, which are either there or not. Will Bagley develop his outside shooting and team defense? Almost certainly. Will he develop them enough to be a star? We'll have to wait and find out. But it's not like we're closing our eyes and wishing. It's within the realm not only of the possible but of the normal.
For me it's the low BBIQ that's his limitation. Poor shot selection and doesn't make the right basketball plays. Basically, once he gets the ball he's shooting a jumper or going to the basket. He needs to get his touches in the flow, pick and rolls, moving the basket, kick outs. If your giving him the ball in the low/high post the offense stalls.

It's ironic that Vlade drafted him then hired a coach who's system he doesn't fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.