Must read article to understand Vivek.

[fansinceday1]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/0...ors.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/MHcGAOQRuc

this article is about the joe lacob and the Warriors but in it, you can see why Vivek wants to be the Warriors.
Heck, he wants to be Lacob.
Its actually kinda depressing because Vivek is no joe Lacob. He would be better off establishing his own team than trying to copy the Warriors from the top down.

 

[kingsboi]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/0...ors.html?_r=0&referer=https://t.co/MHcGAOQRuc

this article is about the joe lacob and the Warriors but in it, you can see why Vivek wants to be the Warriors.
Heck, he wants to be Lacob.
Its actually kinda depressing because Vivek is no joe Lacob. He would be better off establishing his own team than trying to copy the Warriors from the top down.

The sooner he realizes this, the better off this organization will be.

 

[KingsFanGER]

After reading the article I really wonder, why one should criticize Vivek for trying to apply the same structure and culture to the Kings.

The biggest takeaways for me are:
1. An open culture where ideas are heard no matter the source might be beneficial.
2.getting an experienced basketball mind like Jerry West as an advisor is key
3.taking risks and not shying away of dismantling a team when necessary before rebuilding it might turn out as the right thing to do
4.nurturing your star player and providing him with the support he needs is the key for success.

Ok - nothing all too fancy. A lot of common sense and contemporary management philosophies. Following this strategies wouldn't mean copying the Warriors playstyle. In fact we never tried to copy the Warriors playstyle. What we tried is to play faster, while still incorporating Cousins as our main offensive weapon. We even went full anti Warriors, when we decided to sign Rondo and Bellinelli and didn't adress our weak wing spots.
Instead of relying on the pick&roll we tried to run the dribble drive, which is nowhere close to the way the Warriors play.

So where is the weak link in Viveks way to run our team? I would say, that his hirings simply weren't successful. In theory he did a lot right. He hired experienced basketball advisors, he tried to give a young, seemingly smart GM a chance, he hired a young energetic coach.
What he didn't accomplish was to hire the right guys and even more to get these guys on the same page. And once his first attempt failed he went full panic mode and hired the most experienced guy to coach this team he could find and repeated his mistake to hire an advisor with no track record.

Long story short: the general strategy is fine. But Vivek just failed to hire the right people to make it work. To be fair, the same could have happened to Lacob, even though it's possible that he has a better feeling for the right hirings than Vivek.
Karl is not Kerr. Vlade is not West. Mullin is a disaster and D'Allessandro is no Myers. The only solid hiring Vivek made was Malone, but the guy also seems to be on a different level than Kerr.
After all personell matters. You can salivate all you want about great management strategies. They won't be successful when you don't hire the right guys.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

His biggest failure was hiring a coach before a GM, and then that GM turning out to be a complete weasel which lead to us hiring a coach and dumping the GM and a new GM not in sync with the coach or star player. This is why all failing teams fail.

 

[Sac.1989]

After reading the article I really wonder, why one should criticize Vivek for trying to apply the same structure and culture to the Kings.

The biggest takeaways for me are:
1. An open culture where ideas are heard no matter the source might be beneficial.
2.getting an experienced basketball mind like Jerry West as an advisor is key
3.taking risks and not shying away of dismantling a team when necessary before rebuilding it might turn out as the right thing to do
4.nurturing your star player and providing him with the support he needs is the key for success.

we havent done a good enough job of point 4.

That should trump all else but his infatuation with points 1-3 have lead to the instability we have.

To me the man cant hold a thought process related to the team long enough to garner consistency. Point 4 should be his sole purpose in life currently but too often i feel he wakes up, see's the warriors and off we go down that road.

If he wants to blow this team up then he needs to be all in in that process and not in 3 years time fall for whatever is the most attractive style of play/thought process in the league and start chasing that.

 

[VF21]

we havent done a good enough job of point 4.

That should trump all else but his infatuation with points 1-3 have lead to the instability we have.

To me the man cant hold a thought process related to the team long enough to garner consistency. Point 4 should be his sole purpose in life currently but too often i feel he wakes up, see's the warriors and off we go down that road.

If he wants to blow this team up then he needs to be all in in that process and not in 3 years time fall for whatever is the most attractive style of play/thought process in the league and start chasing that.

I think this year has been a step away from your view of Vivek. Since he hired Vlade he has not meddled in the team business (by all appearances). I think today was a real turning point for the franchise as the last holdover from Vivek's failed experiment is gone. The future is in Vlade's hands and I feel pretty good about it.

 

[Sac.1989]

I think this year has been a step away from your view of Vivek. Since he hired Vlade he has not meddled in the team business (by all appearances). I think today was a real turning point for the franchise as the last holdover from Vivek's failed experiment is gone. The future is in Vlade's hands and I feel pretty good about it.

ill feel better when we have hired a coach who will emphasise both sides of the ball, slow the pace down and play demarcus in the paint.