Make yourself heard at Thunder Game

[Iced Espresso]

What a wonderful strawman. Like any of us think things would have been fixed that fast or even that we are that close to having it fixed. What we have an issue with is a FO and owner that can't find it's ass with both hands. This isn't a patience issue. It's a confidence issue that they know what the heck they're doing.

What has the FO done or the owner besides firing Malone that indicated they don't know what they are doing?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's true, and if some don't want to make a stand or boo, that's their prerogative.

I'm not sure we disagree. Everyone has a choice. To my business example if you're an unhappy customer/patron, you essentially have two choices, take your money and spend it elsewhere, or make your feelings known. Of course if you're not unhappy with the service, I doubt you'd consider either option. When you're happy, there's little reason to protest.

We don't disagree. I was objecting to your choice of words, which came across to me like you were picking a fight.

 

[Glenn]

They may be building towards a certain philosophy, and if the guy you have is not capable of that long term, you have to consider letting him go even if he is doing ok on his own

Honestly I'd have to make a change, be it Pete or Malone. I think they clash.

Which is the better "yes man?"

 

[Bricklayer]

So, who is going to make and hold up my "What has Golden State ever won??" sign for me?

 

[sdballer]

What has the FO done or the owner besides firing Malone that indicated they don't know what they are doing?

Let's see:

Coaching?: Hired a defensive minded coach first, didn't actually get him defenders

FO?: Hired a GM second and one of a completely different mindset than the coach

Style: Competing intentions in the FO and Coach compounded by acquisitions that don't fit the defensive players coach needs or the fast paced, shooting, passing style the FO prefers. Claimed winning was important, then fired the coach who was winning because he didn't match the style.

Drafting: Selected players that play the same position in back-to-back drafts

Trades: They've arguably only won one trade in two years.
Gay was a big win and a bold move.
They turned 2 seconds into Luc but Luc into Dwill who is a big disappointment.
They traded Thornton for Evans and Terry and then had to include 2 additional seconds just to move Terry. Meanwhile Thornton was already swapped for Jack (who would have been preferable to Sessions) and they expect Boston to use Thornton's expiring deal for more assets this year.
They wasted IT as an asset by not trading him earlier.

Signings (the best stuff they've done): Gay and Cousins extensions were great. Collison was really good and Casspi was a very nice cheap signing.
Besides that-Landry was awful, Sessions has been awful, Hollins meh.
The biggest issue with the signings is that they were neither the defensive players that would have worked in Malone's system, they aren't good compliments to our stars and perhaps most bizarrely, they aren't even good fits for the system they claim they want to run. Which basically means they just threw darts at names.

Have they been horrible? Not really, they had a bunch of junk to work with and have made important moves at the top of our player food chain. Where they have failed and are apparently commiting to failing more is in not recognizing the talents of our stars and instead focusing on their preferred style, which they haven't even built against.

That suggests to me they have no idea what they are doing.

 

[Iced Espresso]

Drafting Nik after McLemores start is not unreasonable, unless you thought Ben was going to be solid. Which most were concerned over. They selected one of the best floor spacers and pick and roll guys from college.

Landry was terrible, but he would be better surrounded by guys who can hit 3's opening it up on the inside for him some. I don't think they knew they'd be shooting this poorly long term. Hurts more with Thompson's contract combined.

The Moute deal for Williams was bad, but that is because his salary is so high to gamble on. I wouldn't of made that trade but he makes way too much to gamble on IMO so I agree.

Thronton was terrible, they broke up the contract into two smaller pieces, no one was going to take him then. That's a wash to me.

Maybe the demand was not there for IT? Who was really interested? Only a couple of teams really tried to even think about signing him. What could they of got back you think?

Sessions was bad.

Should have kept Lopez, or Withey.

Not a horrible make you wonder if they know what they are doing philosophy.

Vivek wanted Malone and Pete, maybe he thought they could coexist, I'd argue making changes now instead of waiting too long may be a sign of competence over indecisiveness or incompetence. It's too early to tell there.

They ended a bad working relationship between the coach and GM, was just not going to work with both involved. I think they've done enough positive or at least not enough negative to observe this for awhile over assuming they don't know what the hell they are doing.

 

[The Hammer]

The thing that just doesn't make any sense to me at all is that if Malone was so much Vivek's guy that he snatched him up even before hiring the GM... why then such the short leash?? You'd think that that scenario would give you support from up top, no matter what almost.

That's why I was so hopeful with this situation. Because I thought we had an owner who was going to support his coach and not make this kinds of decisions.

I don't get it. Why hire Malone with such rapidity, force, and zest, only to fire him a year and a half later when he started winning ahead of schedule?

 

[Chubbs]

No... I have a different opinion to your statement;
"Malone was the right coach finally building this team's identity. And they're tearing it down. Why can't people see that?"

Fair enough. It may not be intentional. But that's what they did. Worse, it very well could be intentional. And that really bothers me a LOT.

 

[Dime Dropper]

The thing that just doesn't make any sense to me at all is that if Malone was so much Vivek's guy that he snatched him up even before hiring the GM... why then such the short leash?? You'd think that that scenario would give you support from up top, no matter what almost.

That's why I was so hopeful with this situation. Because I thought we had an owner who was going to support his coach and not make this kinds of decisions.

I don't get it. Why hire Malone with such rapidity, force, and zest, only to fire him a year and a half later when he started winning ahead of schedule?

I doubt Malone had nearly as much contact with Vivek as PDA and Mullin. Their whispering in his ear, particularly from the latter, surely made a big impact.

 

[lawlman91]

If you don't want to boo, make 2 posters: one that honors Peja, and another that honors Malone. GO! TO OFFICE DEPOT.

 

[Glenn]

The thing that just doesn't make any sense to me at all is that if Malone was so much Vivek's guy that he snatched him up even before hiring the GM... why then such the short leash?? You'd think that that scenario would give you support from up top, no matter what almost.

That's why I was so hopeful with this situation. Because I thought we had an owner who was going to support his coach and not make this kinds of decisions.

I don't get it. Why hire Malone with such rapidity, force, and zest, only to fire him a year and a half later when he started winning ahead of schedule?

You are trying too hard to make sense of this.

 

[Chubbs]

Drafting Nik after McLemores start is not unreasonable, unless you thought Ben was going to be solid. Which most were concerned over. They selected one of the best floor spacers and pick and roll guys from college.

Landry was terrible, but he would be better surrounded by guys who can hit 3's opening it up on the inside for him some. I don't think they knew they'd be shooting this poorly long term. Hurts more with Thompson's contract combined.

The Moute deal for Williams was bad, but that is because his salary is so high to gamble on. I wouldn't of made that trade but he makes way too much to gamble on IMO so I agree.

Thronton was terrible, they broke up the contract into two smaller pieces, no one was going to take him then. That's a wash to me.

Maybe the demand was not there for IT? Who was really interested? Only a couple of teams really tried to even think about signing him. What could they of got back you think?

Sessions was bad.

Should have kept Lopez, or Withey.

Not a horrible make you wonder if they know what they are doing philosophy.

Vivek wanted Malone and Pete, maybe he thought they could coexist, I'd argue making changes now instead of waiting too long may be a sign of competence over indecisiveness or incompetence. It's too early to tell there.

They ended a bad working relationship between the coach and GM, was just not going to work with both involved. I think they've done enough positive or at least not enough negative to observe this for awhile over assuming they don't know what the hell they are doing.

Vivek makes Malone his guy then gives him no support. What's up with that? I mean really.

AS for the Stauskas pick, the problem with that is that Malone probably had no desire for another SG. But the FO, you'll recall, envisioned positionless basketball and Ben and Nik being on the court together a lot. Malone clearly didn't think that would work.

Well, now we'll see how that works. I'm guessing it doesn't. At all.

We will go from being in every game to getting absolutely slaughtered. Probably starting tonight.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Drafting Stauskas was absolutely unreasonable; even if you don't have faith in McLemore, shooting guard is the easiest position in basketball to find a serviceable veteran. We passed on the opportunity to get a point guard or a power forward.

 

[Glenn]

Vivek makes Malone his guy then gives him no support. What's up with that? I mean really.

AS for the Stauskas pick, the problem with that is that Malone probably had no desire for another SG. But the FO, you'll recall, envisioned positionless basketball and Ben and Nik being on the court together a lot. Malone clearly didn't think that would work.

Well, now we'll see how that works. I'm guessing it doesn't. At all.

We will go from being in every game to getting absolutely slaughtered. Probably starting tonight.

Call Keenan Thompson.

 

[Iced Espresso]

Vivek makes Malone his guy then gives him no support. What's up with that? I mean really.

AS for the Stauskas pick, the problem with that is that Malone probably had no desire for another SG. But the FO, you'll recall, envisioned positionless basketball and Ben and Nik being on the court together a lot. Malone clearly didn't think that would work.

Well, now we'll see how that works. I'm guessing it doesn't. At all.

We will go from being in every game to getting absolutely slaughtered. Probably starting tonight.

Maybe there was stuff going on that we have not heard about. I don't think Malone should have catered at all. I also don't think you want a yes man as a coach. I doubt Malone was.

Whatever image Pete has planted in Vivek's head is there, the moves made were most likely to fulfill that objective rather than give Malone what he needs on the short term.

Malone supposedly liked the Stauskas pick, but how do we really know? Is he going to say the GM or owner are fools?

But whatever Pete's long term plans are, if the coach is not going to do what you want to build that, well you have to make a change.

Vivek chose Pete, so here we are.

I think some of you guys should try and see what happens next, before getting outraged.

Maybe you would have rather saw Pete out over Malone. I just wanted to see either of them gone to tell you the truth, get two people on the same page.

 

[Iced Espresso]

Drafting Stauskas was absolutely unreasonable; even if you don't have faith in McLemore, shooting guard is the easiest position in basketball to find a serviceable veteran. We passed on the opportunity to get a point guard or a power forward.

I take best player available 9 times out of 10, or highest reasonable ceiling. Fine if think someone else was that over Nik.

 

[Bricklayer]

The thing that just doesn't make any sense to me at all is that if Malone was so much Vivek's guy that he snatched him up even before hiring the GM... why then such the short leash?? You'd think that that scenario would give you support from up top, no matter what almost.

That's why I was so hopeful with this situation. Because I thought we had an owner who was going to support his coach and not make this kinds of decisions.

I don't get it. Why hire Malone with such rapidity, force, and zest, only to fire him a year and a half later when he started winning ahead of schedule?

My guess?

Basically because he was around the Warriors that last year, and like a wide eyed kid absorbing all the fun stuff happening around him he heard what a whiz that Malone guy was. He starts getting pulled into the Kings thing, asks for advisors, somebody says, hey Mullin might help out, we don't need him much around here anymore, and he was a HOFer. Vivek says gee thx fellas, and thinks he's the luckiest boy in the whole wide world and he hires the coach that everybody said was so perfect, and they threw in this HOFer for free to sit at my elbow, and he tells lots of fun stories about the legendary coach of my Warriors' Don Nelson, and gee whiz, I hope it can be just like this forever!

I think he was told Malone was great, by people at Golden State, which would be the only NBA voices he is cognizant of, being new at all this and not knowing there has been a big ole league for 70 years. He hired this great coach, who was part of Golden State, and hence great, and people said was great, and he was just great. Great great great great great. But then Vivek sat down to watch some games, and they didn't always win, and they didn't score as much as my Warriors (*sigh*), and there weren't as many people in the stands, and it just wasn't as fun as I remembered. But Mully says he can make it fun again, and that funny little guy I hired out of the basement in Denver to get me doughnuts and do what I said. And they say maybe that Malone guy isn't so great afterall. He's not very fun really. He wouldn't even listen to my innovative ideas and he won't play all my favorite guys. He didn't even want Josh Smith. And Josh can dunk and everything! I bet Mully could do better. He tells good stories. And he knew Don Nelson. And Don Nelson used to be the famous coach of my Warriors (*sigh*).

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I take best player available 9 times out of 10, or highest reasonable ceiling. Fine if think someone else was that over Nik.

I'm far from thinking that Stauskus was the best available and, if I had, I'd have traded the pick.

 

[Amit149]

I'm far from thinking that Stauskus was the best available and, if I had, I'd have traded the pick.

Stauskus wasn't a great pick, both at the moment and in hindsight.

This draft class was over-hyped, but selecting a SG that can't really play at a different position in 2014 draft after selecting a SG that can't really play at a different position in 2013 isn't the greatest decision in the world, especially not considering Ben wasn't a bust or someone you treat as a reserve. you basically wasted 2 top 10 picks on the same position with guys that can't play together.

Assuming that teams usually draft for two reasons: ceiling or need. Nik doesn't really fit either one. a good scenario for his career was described by most people as JJ Redick. with a glaring hole in our PG at the time of the draft, Payton could have been OK. and there were other upside picks to be made (Vonleh for example).

but I really think we sould've traded it- it's a too big of an assett to get something OK from it, trade it in a package for a player, or try and make one pick you are not crazy about to more picks- especially considering there werent a talent gap and it's not like it's unrealistic:

76ers traded the 10th pick for the 12th pick, and also got the magic's 2nd rounder in 2015 (which is very likely a very high), and a protected first round pick from the sixers sent in the howard trade (this pick is top 11 protected through 2018, and worst case is 2018 and 2019 2nd round picks from the sixers- which is still pretty good).
so basically either a first and 2nd rounder or 3 high 2nd rounders- I would prefer that than what we got.
Denver got the 16th and 19th for the 11th- that's a good deal, we could have easily made it.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I am much less concerned with the fact that they didn't explicitly mention wins than I am with the fact that they did explicitly mention style. You mentioned in another thread that you care more about if they win than how they win. So, my question to you would be, why doesn't it bother you that the guys running the team don't feel the same way?

I'm not convinced they don't feel the same way. If I did, I'd be quite a bit more upset. But nothing they have said has made me think that they value faster pace over winning. Their comments have made me think that they value a faster pace because they believe that will lead to more winning. They could be right, they could be wrong. I know some here prefer to take a hard-line stance that smash-mouth defensive basketball is The Only Way. But you know me and you know that I'm very data-driven: investigate, tweak, learn, tweak some more, and see what the numbers tell you. Our front office seems to have a similar philosophy, and if they've got numbers that suggest that a fast pace will help us win more games, then I'm all for it (conversely, if their numbers say defense defense defense, I'm also all for it). They don't say they have these numbers (and they wouldn't announce it), but their actions suggest that maybe they do have some data resembling that. I do think they're trying their best to win. Perhaps that's a naive position, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

 

[Glenn]

My guess?

Basically because he was around the Warriors that last year, and like a wide eyed kid absorbing all the fun stuff happening around him he heard what a whiz that Malone guy was. He starts getting pulled into the Kings thing, asks for advisors, somebody says, hey Mullin might help out, we don't need him much around here anymore, and he was a HOFer. Vivek says gee thx fellas, and thinks he's the luckiest boy in the whole wide world and he hires the coach that everybody said was so perfect, and they threw in this HOFer for free to sit at my elbow, and he tells lots of fun stories about the legendary coach of my Warriors' Don Nelson, and gee whiz, I hope it can be just like this forever!

I think he was told Malone was great, by people at Golden State, which would be the only NBA voices he is cognizant of, being new at all this and not knowing there has been a big ole league for 70 years. He hired this great coach, who was part of Golden State, and hence great, and people said was great, and he was just great. Great great great great great. But then Vivek sat down to watch some games, and they didn't always win, and they didn't score as much as my Warriors (*sigh*), and there weren't as many people in the stands, and it just wasn't as fun as I remembered. But Mully says he can make it fun again, and that funny little guy I hired out of the basement in Denver to get me doughnuts and do what I said. And they say maybe that Malone guy isn't so great afterall. He's not very fun really. He wouldn't even listen to my innovative ideas and he won't play all my favorite guys. He didn't even want Josh Smith. And Josh can dunk and everything! I bet Mully could do better. He tells good stories. And he knew Don Nelson. And Don Nelson used to be the famous coach of my Warriors (*sigh*).

Oh for cripe's sack, brick!! I just urpped on the keyboard. Thanks.

 

[Glenn]

I'm far from thinking that Stauskus was the best available and, if I had, I'd have traded the pick.

I think Stauskas will be OK. Not trying to start an argument as I have no ammo to fire. I think he was picked to fill a spot and not as best player available. We'll see the wisdom of that, won't we?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

If you or anyone else wants to decide that he didn't really mean that or that winning is most important should be implied (even though he said the opposite), great.

The opposite of saying that "winning is the most important thing" is saying that "winning is NOT the most important thing". PDA certainly did not say that. He said that Malone's firing was not about wins and losses, and that is completely different.

If you want to rip on the front office for Vivek (and PDA?) saying over the summer that this year would be about wins and losses, and then PDA now saying the firing was not about wins and losses, well, there you've got a point.

 

[LPKingsFan]

I'm far from thinking that Stauskus was the best available and, if I had, I'd have traded the pick.

That's fair, but I've seen plenty of criticism from others of the pick simply on the grounds that he was a SG. Don't claim you're all about drafting BPA, until you're not.

Whether Stauskas was BPA or or not, that's a legit question.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm not convinced they don't feel the same way. If I did, I'd be quite a bit more upset. But nothing they have said has made me think that they value faster pace over winning. Their comments have made me think that they value a faster pace because they believe that will lead to more winning. They could be right, they could be wrong. I know some here prefer to take a hard-line stance that smash-mouth defensive basketball is The Only Way. But you know me and you know that I'm very data-driven: investigate, tweak, learn, tweak some more, and see what the numbers tell you. Our front office seems to have a similar philosophy, and if they've got numbers that suggest that a fast pace will help us win more games, then I'm all for it (conversely, if their numbers say defense defense defense, I'm also all for it). They don't say they have these numbers (and they wouldn't announce it), but their actions suggest that maybe they do have some data resembling that. I do think they're trying their best to win. Perhaps that's a naive position, but it doesn't seem that way to me.

I'm going to beg to differ. My response to that is to say that they don't feel the same way because D'Alessandro's words are not otherwise consistent with what you say you believe. If Ranadive and D'Alessandro didn't care how they won, they wouldn't have fired Malone in the first place.

If winning was more important to them than how they won, or even as important, then he wouldn't have actually said that he fired a guy he thought was a good coach because of style.

 

[The Hammer]

My guess?

Basically because he was around the Warriors that last year, and like a wide eyed kid absorbing all the fun stuff happening around him he heard what a whiz that Malone guy was. He starts getting pulled into the Kings thing, asks for advisors, somebody says, hey Mullin might help out, we don't need him much around here anymore, and he was a HOFer. Vivek says gee thx fellas, and thinks he's the luckiest boy in the whole wide world and he hires the coach that everybody said was so perfect, and they threw in this HOFer for free to sit at my elbow, and he tells lots of fun stories about the legendary coach of my Warriors' Don Nelson, and gee whiz, I hope it can be just like this forever!

I think he was told Malone was great, by people at Golden State, which would be the only NBA voices he is cognizant of, being new at all this and not knowing there has been a big ole league for 70 years. He hired this great coach, who was part of Golden State, and hence great, and people said was great, and he was just great. Great great great great great. But then Vivek sat down to watch some games, and they didn't always win, and they didn't score as much as my Warriors (*sigh*), and there weren't as many people in the stands, and it just wasn't as fun as I remembered. But Mully says he can make it fun again, and that funny little guy I hired out of the basement in Denver to get me doughnuts and do what I said. And they say maybe that Malone guy isn't so great afterall. He's not very fun really. He wouldn't even listen to my innovative ideas and he won't play all my favorite guys. He didn't even want Josh Smith. And Josh can dunk and everything! I bet Mully could do better. He tells good stories. And he knew Don Nelson. And Don Nelson used to be the famous coach of my Warriors (*sigh*).

Along the lines of what I was guessing.

God I hope we're wrong. What I hope more than us being wrong, is that this is not driven by attendance. If that indeed is the case, they have MAJORLY misjudged our fanbase, as being more interested in scoring than winning. That would be an epic, epic misjudgement.

 

[lawlman91]

time to see some 4 on 5 basketball

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I'm going to beg to differ. My response to that is to say that they don't feel the same way because D'Alessandro's words are not otherwise consistent with what you say you believe. If Ranadive and D'Alessandro didn't care how they won, they wouldn't have fired Malone in the first place.

I don't think it's that simple. Let's assume for sake of argument that had Cousins not fallen ill we would be 15-9 under Malone. It's perfectly plausible that the front office believes that under a coach that ran a more uptempo system, that would be 17-7. Would that fall under the category of caring how you win or caring how much you win?

There seem to be two alternatives here. Either:
1) The front office fired Malone because they thought an up-tempo game would result in more Kings wins, or
2) The front office fired Malone because although they thought an up-tempo game would result in fewer wins, they sure love watching fast breaks.

I have a very hard time believing that they think #2.

 

[Amit149]

I don't think it's that simple. Let's assume for sake of argument that had Cousins not fallen ill we would be 15-9 under Malone. It's perfectly plausible that the front office believes that under a coach that ran a more uptempo system, that would be 17-7. Would that fall under the category of caring how you win or caring how much you win?

There seem to be two alternatives here. Either:
1) The front office fired Malone because they thought an up-tempo game would result in more Kings wins, or
2) The front office fired Malone because although they thought an up-tempo game would result in fewer wins, they sure love watching fast breaks.

I have a very hard time believing that they think #2.

or option 3) the fron office fired Malone because they wanted to implement their "innovative" ideas, and were indifferent about how this will affect the team short term, believing it will payoff in the (maybe very far) future.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't think it's that simple. Let's assume for sake of argument that had Cousins not fallen ill we would be 15-9 under Malone. It's perfectly plausible that the front office believes that under a coach that ran a more uptempo system, that would be 17-7. Would that fall under the category of caring how you win or caring how much you win?

???

I don't even understand why you think that's a question? I think that unequivocally falls under the category of caring more about how. Let's follow your hypothetical to the conclusion: are you telling me that you actually believe that firing a guy over a two-win differential wouldn't be a decision made all about style?