Malone working on the attitude of the Kings

[Padrino]

well, you have to figure that ranadive/d'allesandro/malone are all on the exact same page... for the moment, at least. that said, malone's likely not saying anything that ranadive and d'allesandro don't also believe, so i think we can interpret many of coach's comments as reflective of the understanding of the steps the new regime needs to take in re-shaping this roster. there is exactly one truly obvious starting-quality player on this team: demarcus cousins. until mclemore develops, the rest of the roster is far too middling to justify itself as anything other than possible trade bait, and everyone knows it...

but, until those trades are made, malone expects x, y, and z from his team. in the last two games, the team simply hasn't delivered (although there were positives to take away from the clippers game). coach's bluntness doesn't bother me a bit. it's a refreshing change-of-pace from the inane babble-factory of someone like keith smart, or the uber-vague pronouncements of someone like geoff petrie...

 

[Chubbs]

If you're saying Michael Malone so far, has been similar to the last few coaches, then I just disagree. He's been great and exactly what we need.

As for why he might want those kinds of comments heard. Maybe they want find out who can handle the truth with composure and pride and an ability to step up when things aren't going their way. The quickest way to find out who is really committed to the team, is to observe reactions to adversity.

The big points so far have been "culture" and "attitude". If someone can't handle the truth at the highest level of competition in this game, then they won't be an asset to this team for what's it priorities are

I'm not saying Malone is like the last few coaches. Far too early.

In the building of the culture, he has to keep key players in his camp. If he loses cousins, it's disaster time. I understand what he has tried to say about teamwork, but he can do it in a way that doesn't denigrate the players so much. At least not the keepers. And there are a LOT of guys that won't be around in the next two years.

It's a really tough job to change the culture without moving players. It's basically the same team as last year with the same players with the same bad habits. And is worse on paper defensively with the loss of tyreke. It's not a good situation for a first year coach. He has to hope Vivek shows patience, cause it's going to be needed.

 

[Padrino]

I'm not saying Malone is like the last few coaches. Far too early.

In the building of the culture, he has to keep key players in his camp. If he loses cousins, it's disaster time. I understand what he has tried to say about teamwork, but he can do it in a way that doesn't denigrate the players so much. At least not the keepers. And there are a LOT of guys that won't be around in the next two years.

It's a really tough job to change the culture without moving players. It's basically the same team as last year with the same players with the same bad habits. And is worse on paper defensively with the loss of tyreke. It's not a good situation for a first year coach. He has to hope Vivek shows patience, cause it's going to be needed.

indeed. the team remains mostly unchanged, and carl landry, the kings' major free agent acquisition, already has a recent history with this team, and it was not a particularly successful stint. it is tremendous work to undo a half-decade's worth of soured culture and bad habits when personnel shifts are slow in coming. allowing tyreke evans to walk, the one significant loss this offseason, may sting for mike malone, whether he's aware of it or not. evans has a strong power game, but he doesn't have a strong personality to match. 'reke's just not the stubborn, willful type. he's very coachable, and he has great potential on the defensive end...

whereas greivis vasquez, while a valuable piece to bring back in a sign-and-trade for evans, still represents a talent bleed, and still represents a major drop-off, defensively. he's not a fraction of the chucker that a guy like marcus thornton is, but vasquez still likes to hoist ill-advised jumpers, and has a minor reputation for attempting to play "hero ball." the jury's out on how much luc richard mbah a moute will contribute to this team, but the few personnel changes we've witnessed at the outset of this "new era" are neither significant enough nor complementary enough to assist mike malone in effectively re-shaping the culture of this team. in his first offseason as the kings' gm, i'd say that d'allesandro made things a bit harder for malone, to be perfectly plain...

luckily, ranadive appears to understand how much patience will be required to turn this team's fortunes around. the question is whether or not his general manager is up to the challenge of providing mike malone with the kind of talented personnel that will affect a change in culture and represent a positive shift in the win/loss column. in the meantime, coach will do his best, and will expect the best possible effort from his team. i just don't expect that effort to result in more than 35 wins...

 

[Cold]

The quickest way to find out who is really committed to the team, is to observe reactions to adversity.

+1

 

[Glenn]

Vivek may show patience but I may not. I think the talent of the team took a hit with the loss of Tyreke and the somewhat confusing inability to sign Iggy. The long term change is what we must wait for as the major problems are still on the team. The fact that we may have to wait for salaries to expire is frustrating but must be accepted. I am not thrilled with the pickup of Vasquez or Landry, the latter mystifying me immensely. Perhaps he adds to the culture what he subtracts in fit. We didn't need a low post offensive presence. I presume this change of culture will reveal itself in the next few years. So far Ranadive has people on his side and I hope our faith in him translates to a better team.

I think we have two and maybe four positions filled in a 10 man rotation and they are Boogie, IT, and hopefully McLemore. Mbah a Moute may be a nice pickup if Patterson becomes a long range threat and those two are an inter-related problem. The Prince may be a great defender but without an effective stretch 4, his lack of offense makes the sum total of this Prince/PPat package to be negative. So, add Mbah a Moute to the list to solve 4 positions only if Patterson lives up to his hype. This IS a team game.

Malone was a great signing.

I don't look forward to this season and never have. What happened with Tyreke, Landry, and Iggy really took a hit on my enthusiasm. I enjoy good basketball and I think we have a decent start to creating a good team. The proof will be when the team sits and ferments a few years.

 

[ShastaKingsFan]

Iguadala was never going to sign with the kings. Why would he? The Warriors are ready to win a ton of games right now. He's still in his prime, but if he has to wait 2-3 seasons to be a legit contender, why would he sign with that team (us, the Kings)? He would effectively be 'wasting' 2-3 seasons of the later half of his prime. Doesn't make any sense.

At the moment, Jeff Green or Brandon Rush

 

[Cold]

Iggy wouldn't be a good signing for this team. In Sacramento, Iggy would be a 56-mil star who can't carry the team offensively due to his ordinary efficiency. We would become the 2009-2011 Sixers (remember how much trade talk surrounded Iggy every year who at the time wasn't even in his prime yet).

 

[Glenn]

This thread is going to drift on its merry way, I see. My discontent isn't specifically that we didn't sign Iggy (I happen to believe he would have been perfect) but the "loss" if that's a proper word, of Tyreke with no adequate replacement bugs me. Iggy was dangled in front of us in the media and as I am not a friend of Iggy, I have no idea what his intention was.

I saw a chance for this team to improve and I think the sum total is that it got worse. My enthusiasm was deflated. We will win more but that is because of Malone who so far is looking good.

 

[pshn80]

Why should Malone bother when people on this site right now are discussing "tanking". Unbelievable.

 

[Cold]

Why should Malone bother when people on this site right now are discussing "tanking". Unbelievable.

Popovich, Mark Jackson, Thibodeau, Doc Rivers all went through a "tanking" period before things turned around. There's still a job to do.

Malone was with the Warriors when they tanked hard in 2012. And I believe he was with the Cavs when they tanked for Lebron.

 

[Padrino]

Iggy wouldn't be a good signing for this team. In Sacramento, Iggy would be a 56-mil star who can't carry the team offensively due to his ordinary efficiency. We would become the 2009-2011 Sixers (remember how much trade talk surrounded Iggy every year who at the time wasn't even in his prime yet).

in sacramento, iguodala would hardly have needed to "carry the team." he would have been a part of a starting frontcourt unit that features demarcus cousins, who, for better or worse, bears the burden of carrying these kings forward. as a strong perimeter defender with the ability to penetrate on offense, iggy would have been a stellar signing for this team, in my estimation. in the absence of such a player, the kings will have difficulty containing opposing wing talents, and they will have difficulty scoring at the rim, as evidenced by the preseason and first three games of the regular season...

 

[pshn80]

Popovich, Mark Jackson, Thibodeau, Doc Rivers all went through a "tanking" period before things turned around. There's still a job to do.

Malone was with the Warriors when they tanked hard in 2012. And I believe he was with the Cavs when they tanked for Lebron.

You may be right but I absolutely don't believe it. Please re- read my post you quote. Unbelievable!

 

[Cold]

in sacramento, iguodala would hardly have needed to "carry the team." he would have been a part of a starting frontcourt unit that features demarcus cousins, who, for better or worse, bears the burden of carrying these kings forward. as a strong perimeter defender with the ability to penetrate on offense, iggy would have been a stellar signing for this team, in my estimation. in the absence of such a player, the kings will have difficulty containing opposing wing talents, and they will have difficulty scoring at the rim, as evidenced by the preseason and first three games of the regular season...

No doubt Iggy would be great help to any NBA team, but not for 56 million, on a team not expected to contend for a title now, with or without Iggy. Iggy is turning 30, also.

The Kings with Iggy/Cousins making 60 each is still not a great team. Let's say McLeMore improves greatly and becomes Klay Thompson, he will command about 10-13 mil per year. That's a lot of money into 3 guys. Is a trio of Klay/Iggy/Cousins a great core? I would say no.

 

[Glenn]

No doubt Iggy would be great help to any NBA team, but not for 56 million, on a team not expected to contend for a title now, with or without Iggy. Iggy is turning 30, also.

The Kings with Iggy/Cousins making 60 each is still not a great team. Let's say McLeMore improves greatly and becomes Klay Thompson, he will command about 10-13 mil per year. That's a lot of money into 3 guys. Is a trio of Klay/Iggy/Cousins a great core? I would say no.

Boy do I disagree but these discussions of things that will never happen end up in the fantasy section of my brain to be opened when unusually bored. I am seldom unusually bored.

 

[randymoss1881]

Anyone that thinks iggy was even thinking if signing with us is a clown. He was using us as leverage