Kings waiving papa morphed into Vlade sucks

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bogdan at age 19? sure
Have you seen Bogdan play when he was 19?!

As someone who has seen Bogdan play at that age (and well before) let me assure you, whoever drafted Bogdan at the age of 19 at pick 8 in ANY draft would be ripped to shreds by EVERYONE!

At the age of 19, Bogdan was riding the bench for Partizan. He barely played in the Serbian League, let alone Adriatic League and let's not even talk about the Euroleague.

Papagiannis was getting more minutes at the age of 18 in Euroleague that Bogdan was getting at the age of 19 at any level for Partizan's first team.

So let's not try and be too smart with the comments around here. Bogdan is a vastly different player now that he was at the age of 19. If any of these experts here saw him when he was 19, none of them would want to touch him with a 10 foot pole let alone draft him in the first round.
 
That's not revisionist history, it's all in the draft day thread from 2016. Evidently they did know something I didn't know about Bogdan Bogdanovic and he was the key piece here but the Papagiannis and Richardson picks are now confirmed to be wasted picks. Individually that's a pretty small thing -- we still got Skal and Bogdan right? But looking at the big picture -- first round picks are valuable assets that get traded every year for quality players. Getting literally nothing for two of them is a miss in the same way that trading an unprotected first round pick for cap space is a miss or failing to get a second first round pick for an All-NBA big man in his prime is a miss. It's part of a trend whereby Vlade has repeatedly taken assets and sold them off at below market value. It's only disappointing in the aggregate. None of these is a mistake per say. It's only hindsight that allows us to make that judgment. But you could say at the time that the returns on these trades didn't align with typical deals for the same level of asset. If you're going to be bold and challenge conventional wisdom than any eventual failures that result are going to be twice as noticeable.
How is that? He sold off the 8th pick in a super weak draft and got a better return. That is NOT selling the pick at below market value, He mitigated the risk of a weak draft and came away with the better asset (Bogs) and a couple of lottery shots in the draft. That is not selling at below market value. It is the complete opposite.
 
We've also seen a draft strategy start to take shape as Vlade has traded down with a mid-late lotto pick now in 2 consecutive drafts. In 2016 he traded the #8 for the draft rights to Bogdan, the #13 pick, and the #28 pick. In 2017 he traded the #10 pick for the #15 pick and the #20 pick. The strategy appears to be quantity over quality. This is a bit of an unconventional strategy. Most teams with multiple picks try to package them to move up in the draft. There are also teams that target specific players and buy picks or trade down to get them (ie Geoff Petrie trading down to take Jimmer and San Antonio buying the 15th pick to take Kawhi Leonard in 2011). I can think of one similar case: Philly famously did the same thing under Sam Hinkie with similarly mixed results. They basically had to dump Nerlens Noel and Jahlil Okafor for very little in return because they had blocked them with other players. They did manage to get a high draft pick in return for MCW though which they eventually used to trade up and draft Markelle Fultz last year. Stock-piling a bunch of young players does inevitably lead you into a roster crunch though and that means casting young players aside without really knowing who they will turn out to be. (See also: Isaiah Thomas, Wesley Matthews, Hassan Whiteside).
So are you saying that trading up is the better strategy?
 
How is that? He sold off the 8th pick in a super weak draft and got a better return. That is NOT selling the pick at below market value, He mitigated the risk of a weak draft and came away with the better asset (Bogs) and a couple of lottery shots in the draft. That is not selling at below market value. It is the complete opposite.
Yep....people can not wrap their head around this.......or they don't want to. I guess Vlade could have just kept 8 and we would have Marquis Chriss and I'm pretty sure most of the forum would be sick of him at this point. Traded it for multiple pieces to increase the odds of landing a guy or 2 and best case scenario would have been all 3 but admittedly Papa didnt work out. We got Bogi and Skal out of that pick at 8.......that doesn't suck.
 
There are two separate issues here. We might have had a good draft despite waiving Papa and Malachi due to the trade, and getting Bogdan/Skal, but these were still two wasted picks. I think people who are criticizing Vlade for the latter have a point. Turning Bellineli and 8th pick in a weak draft into Bogdan and Skal is decent return, but still doesn't absolve him from missing out on something more.

As regards Bruno, we all want him to succeed. The possibilities are so tantalizing. That said, the kid saw barely any time with the Raptors. I would be very surprised if he were on the roster next year. The fact that we kept him around and waived Papa certainly suggests that the FO wanted to take a look at him, and had lost all confidence in Papa. Despite this, I think his chances of returning next year are very slim (roster spot might be another issue, depending on how many vets return. If Shumpert, Temple, and Kosta choose to return, and we sign both our picks, we'll have only one roster spot available, which we are likely to use on pursuing a FA/RFA. Too soon of course. We don't know if all of them will return, or if there will be any trades, etc.).
 
There are two separate issues here. We might have had a good draft despite waiving Papa and Malachi due to the trade, and getting Bogdan/Skal, but these were still two wasted picks. I think people who are criticizing Vlade for the latter have a point. Turning Bellineli and 8th pick in a weak draft into Bogdan and Skal is decent return, but still doesn't absolve him from missing out on something more.

As regards Bruno, we all want him to succeed. The possibilities are so tantalizing. That said, the kid saw barely any time with the Raptors. I would be very surprised if he were on the roster next year. The fact that we kept him around and waived Papa certainly suggests that the FO wanted to take a look at him, and had lost all confidence in Papa. Despite this, I think his chances of returning next year are very slim (roster spot might be another issue, depending on how many vets return. If Shumpert, Temple, and Kosta choose to return, and we sign both our picks, we'll have only one roster spot available, which we are likely to use on pursuing a FA/RFA. Too soon of course. We don't know if all of them will return, or if there will be any trades, etc.).
This is such a blanket approach which makes no sense. It the same as someone saying that with pick 1 in the draft you just have to get a franchise level player. Well, you really cannot if the best player in that draft pool is Mike Miller.

I would absolutely agree with the highlighted if this was in a strong draft but 2016 is NOT a strong draft nor was it ever labeled anything but the weakest draft in some time. You can't pick something that is not there. Majority of this board wanted Baldwin. He was out of the league much quicker than Papagiannis. When making comments like the highlighted all the factors must be considered unless of course people want to ignore them to suit their own argument.
 
Or... It's part of a trend whereby Vlade has repeatedly taken assets and sold them off at below market value.
I think there is some merit in this criticism. Tough for us to say, since we don't know what offers he's getting, but felt the same during DMC trade, and then again this time. Perhaps Hill was not worth a first round pick, particularly given the size of his contract. That said, we had relatively little incentive to make the trade. Lakers, who were fairly desperate, were able to create space, and land a first round pick in the process (though I agree that they gave up relatively valuable players).

One trouble is that if you get that reputation, rival GMs will always try to lowball you. I hope that's not the case.
 
This is such a blanket approach which makes no sense. It the same as someone saying that with pick 1 in the draft you just have to get a franchise level player. Well, you really cannot if the best player in that draft pool is Mike Miller.

I would absolutely agree with the highlighted if this was in a strong draft but 2016 is NOT a strong draft nor was it ever labeled anything but the weakest draft in some time. You can't pick something that is not there. Majority of this board wanted Baldwin. He was out of the league much quicker than Papagiannis. When making comments like the highlighted all the factors must be considered unless of course people want to ignore them to suit their own argument.
Valid point. I certainly don't know virtually anything about college ball, didn't have a suggestion regarding the pick in 16, and didn't comment on the thread. It's easy to be wise in hindsight.

Every GM will have some hits and misses, and sometimes, you have to swing for the fences, particularly in our position. If Vlade didn't like anyone too much at 13, but saw potential in Papa (particularly if there was a thought that we might trade DMC down the line), trying to hit one out of the park was a valid move.

My point was different. More than discussing the Papa pick, people are countering by saying that we need to ignore that since we got Bogdan (and Skal) from that trade. I feel that Papa pick should be discussed on its own merit.
 
So are you saying that trading up is the better strategy?
Generally speaking, I think so. The further down in the draft you go the greater the odds that you come away with nothing. If you can leverage that "potential value" to get something back from another team that isn't just a lottery ticket I think that's usually a better use of a pick in the 10 and up range (this applies to the Bogs trade for example even though it was a relatively high pick).

The exception would be if you see a player on the board that you think is undervalued (like a Rajon Rondo or Kawhi Leonard). In that case I think you want the player because you expect their value to improve once they get in the league (this may be the case with Harry Giles). Stockpiling multiple picks and using them almost always leads to some of those players cancelling each other out unless you can find a way to trade those picks for future assets.

How is that? He sold off the 8th pick in a super weak draft and got a better return. That is NOT selling the pick at below market value, He mitigated the risk of a weak draft and came away with the better asset (Bogs) and a couple of lottery shots in the draft. That is not selling at below market value. It is the complete opposite.
I see these as separate transactions. I like the decision to get Bogs and another pick for moving down only 5 spots. I liked it at the time and I still like it now. I also like that Vlade moved the Belinelli contract and got a first round pick out of it. This is the way the economics of picks usually works -- one veteran role-player on a decent deal for one pick in the 20s. In both of those cases he leveraged what he had and got good value in return. Part of that good value though assumes he doesn't dump two of those picks in year 2 of their rookie deals.

I've never been a fan of the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach to team building. It seems to assume a team can build itself if you just give the slot machine a few spins and get lucky. That's what's worrying here. The best player he drafted that year was Skal and it took him 3 picks to do it. If he knew he was going to be solid player while Malachi and Georgios were reaches then he wouldn't have passed over him twice. None of these players fit together all that well and every year the whole strategy appears to change. First Vlade drafted Willie Cauley-Stein and acquired Rondo, Koufos, and Belinelli. Rondo was let go, Belinelli was traded. Then he drafted PapaG, Skal, and Malachi and got Barnes, Tolliver, Afflalo, and Temple in Free Agency. Tolliver, Barnes and Afflalo were let go. Cousins was traded for expiring contracts and Buddy Hield. Then he drafted Fox, Jackson, Giles, and Mason and signed Carter, Hill, Bogs, and ZBo. Papa, Malachi, and Hill are now gone...

Can you see a clear strategy here? Some may see this flexibility as a good thing (Jazz band... improvisation right?) I just see it as grasping around in the dark. Using all of his cap space last year for a veteran that he then felt compelled to move half a season later (dumping two of his former first round picks in the process) does nothing to dispel that impression. We now find ourselves in a position where we have the worst team in the league and owe an unprotected pick next year to either Boston or Philly. We have a modest amount of cap space (not that anyone good will want to sign here anyway) and we're essentially down to hoping we get a franchise player in this draft or another team gets tired of theirs and takes pity on us. I don't see how anyone can look at this -- with the talent on the team getting worse year by year -- and come to the conclusion that Vlade is doing a good job.
 
Vlade got us Joeger, whom I think has many tricks yet to be revealed. I think Joerger is in a rough spot but seems like he is going to see it through.

Papa was a bad pick. Vlade got rid of him.

Malachi was picked because we have been horrible at SG for eons. Not since Kevin Martin have we had a decent 2. So, he grabbed Buddy, Malachi,Bogdan etc to see who is going to cut it. Then you get rid of the ones who don't.

Vlade didn't simply dump Richardson as some have indicated. I know Bruno is a long shot but he is a long shot at a position of great need, and Vlade took the extra SG who has not been able to show us much due to injury and turned him into another shot at a player who plays a position of great need.

Look, if I am being honest ( always) then I have to say I prefer we get another GM. However, I think Vlade is doing what he was brought on board to do. Clean up a big mess, chase out the snakes in the front office, and get us moving in an actual direction vs. treading water.

He knows he is on the clock, and I think we will have a new GM selected by him ( Brandon?) in the next few years. Then we can all shift our complaints to the new guy....:p
 
Generally speaking, I think so. The further down in the draft you go the greater the odds that you come away with nothing. If you can leverage that "potential value" to get something back from another team that isn't just a lottery ticket I think that's usually a better use of a pick in the 10 and up range (this applies to the Bogs trade for example even though it was a relatively high pick).

.
If that is the case. Then you undermine your point when you mentioned the Fultz trade. Actually proved the opposite Danny Ainge traded to move down and got better assets.
 
If that is the case. Then you undermine your point when you mentioned the Fultz trade. Actually proved the opposite Danny Ainge traded to move down and got better assets.
We're talking about the first to third there -- barely even a trade down. And that's a case of them targeting a specific player they wanted and finding a way to get him at a lower pick and pick up something extra which I specifically mentioned is a special case exception and probably the best way to use the draft in my opinion. The goal is to get the best talent available or failing that to leverage the supposed value of a particular draft slot to get a better player in trade than you could have acquired by keeping the pick and using it yourself.
 
I've never been a fan of the "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach to team building. It seems to assume a team can build itself if you just give the slot machine a few spins and get lucky. That's what's worrying here. The best player he drafted that year was Skal and it took him 3 picks to do it. If he knew he was going to be solid player while Malachi and Georgios were reaches then he wouldn't have passed over him twice. None of these players fit together all that well and every year the whole strategy appears to change. First Vlade drafted Willie Cauley-Stein and acquired Rondo, Koufos, and Belinelli. Rondo was let go, Belinelli was traded. Then he drafted PapaG, Skal, and Malachi and got Barnes, Tolliver, Afflalo, and Temple in Free Agency. Tolliver, Barnes and Afflalo were let go. Cousins was traded for expiring contracts and Buddy Hield. Then he drafted Fox, Jackson, Giles, and Mason and signed Carter, Hill, Bogs, and ZBo. Papa, Malachi, and Hill are now gone...
.
In a very weak draft and the position the Kings drafted was the right way to go. When there are no clear cut star or even NBA starting talent at the position you draft at, you might as well mitigate the risk by spreading out your chances of finding something. With getting Bogs Vlade knew he had talent hence the trade. He was then able to take a flyer on the remaining picks of that draft. It was the right strategy for this draft. Again tell me how was this selling below market value? It was the opposite.
 
We're talking about the first to third there -- barely even a trade down. And that's a case of them targeting a specific player they wanted and finding a way to get him at a lower pick and pick up something extra which I specifically mentioned is a special case exception and probably the best way to use the draft in my opinion. The goal is to get the best talent available or failing that to leverage the supposed value of a particular draft slot to get a better player in trade than you could have acquired by keeping the pick and using it yourself.
Exactly what Vlade did with Bogs.
 
Exactly what Vlade did with Bogs.
I acknowledged this already.

In a very weak draft and the position the Kings drafted was the right way to go. When there are no clear cut star or even NBA starting talent at the position you draft at, you might as well mitigate the risk by spreading out your chances of finding something. With getting Bogs Vlade knew he had talent hence the trade. He was then able to take a flyer on the remaining picks of that draft. It was the right strategy for this draft. Again tell me how was this selling below market value? It was the opposite.
I don't see how drafting 3 players and then releasing 2 of them mitigates any kind of risk. What is the risk here, that you will draft a bust? If that's the case then releasing 2 out of 3 players a year and a half later is pretty much the worst case scenario for those picks isn't it? You make it sound like having options in the draft is a bad thing -- as if drafting any player is a risk you can avoid by drafting lots of players and then only keeping one of them. People tried to use this same argument last year -- Vlade already got Fox at 5 and he traded the #10 pick for the #15 and #20 so (the argument goes) he could afford to take a risk on Giles at #20 that he couldn't afford at #10.

I don't agree with this line of thinking. Giles will either be a good player or he won't be. Fox and Jackson don't have much to do with that. If he's the best player in the draft then the prudent thing to do would have been to draft him at #5 and be done with it. I don't see prospects as lottery tickets I see them as basketball players. Every year there are a small group of them that I want on the Kings because I think they're good players who I expect to improve and a large group of them that I don't think will be much in the NBA. I might be wrong about who belongs in each group but I don't have a crystal ball I just use my best judgement. I don't think there's anything random about it though. Even the guys who don't make it fail for very different and specific reasons.
 
I acknowledged this already.



I don't see how drafting 3 players and then releasing 2 of them mitigates any kind of risk. What is the risk here, that you will draft a bust? If that's the case then releasing 2 out of 3 players a year and a half later is pretty much the worst case scenario for those picks isn't it? You make it sound like having options in the draft is a bad thing -- as if drafting any player is a risk you can avoid by drafting lots of players and then only keeping one of them. People tried to use this same argument last year -- Vlade already got Fox at 5 and he traded the #10 pick for the #15 and #20 so (the argument goes) he could afford to take a risk on Giles at #20 that he couldn't afford at #10.
Of course it does. When you have 3 chances of a weak draft you take it. You found the player you wanted in Bogs so you definitely do it in a super wreak draft opposed to having only one pick in a super weak draft. How can you not grasp that? He got value in the draft with that trade. Which you already admit it in previous posts.
 
I think there is some merit in this criticism. Tough for us to say, since we don't know what offers he's getting, but felt the same during DMC trade, and then again this time. Perhaps Hill was not worth a first round pick, particularly given the size of his contract. That said, we had relatively little incentive to make the trade. Lakers, who were fairly desperate, were able to create space, and land a first round pick in the process (though I agree that they gave up relatively valuable players).

One trouble is that if you get that reputation, rival GMs will always try to lowball you. I hope that's not the case.
I was one of the most vocal around here when it came to DMC traded. Partly because I didn’t want us to trade him and partly because I didn’t think we got enough for him.

Now, I look at the deals for all-stars since then and I am not sure we could have extracted much more when all things are considered. When I compare DMC trade to CP3, even Blake, it’s somewhere in the ball park.

Now I still would have kept DMC and try to build around him but reality is, you are never going to get market value for star player that you are pushing out the door.
 
I acknowledged this already.



I don't see how drafting 3 players and then releasing 2 of them mitigates any kind of risk. What is the risk here, that you will draft a bust? If that's the case then releasing 2 out of 3 players a year and a half later is pretty much the worst case scenario for those picks isn't it? You make it sound like having options in the draft is a bad thing -- as if drafting any player is a risk you can avoid by drafting lots of players and then only keeping one of them. People tried to use this same argument last year -- Vlade already got Fox at 5 and he traded the #10 pick for the #15 and #20 so (the argument goes) he could afford to take a risk on Giles at #20 that he couldn't afford at #10.

I don't agree with this line of thinking. Giles will either be a good player or he won't be. Fox and Jackson don't have much to do with that. If he's the best player in the draft then the prudent thing to do would have been to draft him at #5 and be done with it. I don't see prospects as lottery tickets I see them as basketball players. Every year there are a small group of them that I want on the Kings because I think they're good players who I expect to improve and a large group of them that I don't think will be much in the NBA. I might be wrong about who belongs in each group but I don't have a crystal ball I just use my best judgement. I don't think there's anything random about it though. Even the guys who don't make it fail for very different and specific reasons.
But your Giles comment makes little sense. Sorry! Why would you pick him at 5 when you can get him much lower than that AND keep pick 5 to add another quality player?! You are essentially getting what you think are two great players instead of one?! Who wouldn’t do that if they could?

Now I am not saying Giles will be as good or better than Fox but if I go to the shops to buy a good steak that I think is worth $50 but I know I can get it for $25 then I would rather get two good steaks for $50 than give up that money for one.

It’s like saying if the Spurs though Leonard was going to be the top 5 player from his draft they should have traded for a top 5 pick and not pick 15 like they did! Sorry but that just makes no sense!
 
But your Giles comment makes little sense. Sorry! Why would you pick him at 5 when you can get him much lower than that AND keep pick 5 to add another quality player?! You are essentially getting what you think are two great players instead of one?! Who wouldn’t do that if they could?

Now I am not saying Giles will be as good or better than Fox but if I go to the shops to buy a good steak that I think is worth $50 but I know I can get it for $25 then I would rather get two good steaks for $50 than give up that money for one.

It’s like saying if the Spurs though Leonard was going to be the top 5 player from his draft they should have traded for a top 5 pick and not pick 15 like they did! Sorry but that just makes no sense!
That's only because you already know the outcome of the draft. That's cheating. If you go into the draft thinking that Kawhi Leonard is a superstar in the making are you really going to wait to see if he lasts until the 15th pick? That would be pretty dumb from my point of view. Of course you want the $50 steak for $25 but so does everyone else. Maybe you should just pay $40 for it and count yourself lucky you still got a deal.

I don't think this is a very accurate representation of what's going on with the draft though. The team that thinks a prospect is a lottery ticket and they need to stockpile as many of them as possible to increase their odds of finding a gem is actually sabotaging themselves. Why do you think the Spurs have such a great track record with the draft? Is it because they have amazing powers of deduction? That defies common sense. I submit a more plausible theory: they simply draft players who they think will fit a role in their system and then they invest in helping them to fit that role. Anybody the Spurs draft is likely to become an NBA player because they invest in their players and they specifically target players who have skillsets that they know how to work with.

And this is where I hope the Giles pick pays off for us. The organization is treating him like a high lotto pick... getting him healthy, improving his skillset and endurance. That's an exception though. As a rule we give up on prospects way too soon. Many of them don't pan out but I don't think there's one predetermined outcome which is irrespective of which team drafts a player and how hard they work to support their development. Just as the Spurs make their own good luck we seem determined to make our own bad luck and that starts with exactly this line of thinking AleksandarN so passionately endorses. They're not lottery tickets they're people. And it's no coincidence that even in a "weak draft year" " you can scan through the list for names that still exhibit promise and there's always a winner next to San Antonio. It's also no surprise to me that two more Kings rookies got released before they had a chance to prove much of anything. We seem to have our own cottage industry in discarding prospects as fast as possible. Like a gambler still looking for that next big score.
 
Last edited:
I don't think this is a very accurate representation of what's going on with the draft though. The team that thinks a prospect is a lottery ticket and they need to stockpile as many of them as possible to increase their odds of finding a gem is actually sabotaging themselves. Why do you think the Spurs have such a great track record with the draft? Is it because they have amazing powers of deduction? That defies common sense. I submit a more plausible theory: they simply draft players who they think will fit a role in their system and then they invest in helping them to fit that role. Anybody the Spurs draft is likely to become an NBA player because they invest in their players and they specifically target players who have skillsets that they know how to work with.
It has worked well for Danny Anige.
 
Have you seen Bogdan play when he was 19?!

As someone who has seen Bogdan play at that age (and well before) let me assure you, whoever drafted Bogdan at the age of 19 at pick 8 in ANY draft would be ripped to shreds by EVERYONE!

At the age of 19, Bogdan was riding the bench for Partizan. He barely played in the Serbian League, let alone Adriatic League and let's not even talk about the Euroleague.

Papagiannis was getting more minutes at the age of 18 in Euroleague that Bogdan was getting at the age of 19 at any level for Partizan's first team.

So let's not try and be too smart with the comments around here. Bogdan is a vastly different player now that he was at the age of 19. If any of these experts here saw him when he was 19, none of them would want to touch him with a 10 foot pole let alone draft him in the first round.
So you think he was worth the 8th pick in the draft at age 25?
 
Yep....people can not wrap their head around this.......or they don't want to. I guess Vlade could have just kept 8 and we would have Marquis Chriss and I'm pretty sure most of the forum would be sick of him at this point. Traded it for multiple pieces to increase the odds of landing a guy or 2 and best case scenario would have been all 3 but admittedly Papa didnt work out. We got Bogi and Skal out of that pick at 8.......that doesn't suck.
Chriss is 19 years old. A little too early to throw in the towel.
 
Now I still would have kept DMC and try to build around him but reality is, you are never going to get market value for star player that you are pushing out the door.
As much as I hated the deal, I just feel that had we signed DMC to the super max deal before getting to 40 wins, we'd be lottery lifers. For all his strengths it didn't seem like he had any "come play with me" ability to help us get FA signings, though I can see him potentially being recruited to a super team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.