Respecting a person, doesn't mean I need to respect every decision they make. When people make decisions, they always think they have good reasons to back up their decision. That doesn't necessarily mean that's really the case or that a different person wouldn't net a better overall result, when faced with the same kind of decisive situation. Respect for decisions has to be earned. Universal respect for the person is a given.
Vlade will earn my respect for his decisions, when it's proven he made the right moves. Until this is the case and the Kings actually start winning, I will remain critical. But being critical is not the same as disrespecting Vlade on a personal level, much like disagreeing with people on this board doesn't mean I disrespect them as persons.
We can't comment about what leverage Vlade actually had. At least we can't comment in a way, that apppears like we actually know something for sure about it. But that doesn't mean we are not allowed to express some doubts.
Usually negotiations don't work like this: You get an offer and the only thing you can do is take it or leave it. The outcome of negotiations is to some extent a result of the negotiating skills of the people involved.
Now when a GM makes two trades and both trades are universally viewed as lopsided and not even valued, where is the problem with expressing doubts about the negotiating skills of said GM, even if we don't know excactly what kind of leverage he had, going into the negotiations? That has nothing to do with Vlade being a sophisticated and intelligent man. Being intelligent doesn't mean you are a good negotiator.
You act like the trades somehow happened in a vacuum and Vlade had no control over the circumstances that led to the overall disappointing results. That's not the case from my point of view.
It was Vlade, who couldn't convince Wes Matthews to sign with the Kings. It was Vlade, who settled for Bellinelli, who didn't pan out at all with the Kings. It was Vlade, who decided to keep Karl in place despite the doubts of the possible friction between Karl and the team. In fact he decided to keep Karl in place twice, even after the team just quit on the coach.
Of course for every decision Vlade made there is some rational. Nobody is saying that Vlade is acting irrattional. What people are doubting is, if Vlade's decisions were right or if he was achieving the best possible result.
He decided to try to win now. It didn't work. Of course people will doubt his decisionmaking. That's how those things work.
What really concerns me though is the lack of strategic continuity. We try to win now for one season, only to go for a somewhat double edged strategy between win now with low key vets+ DMC and draft raw, young prospects the next year and than complain about the lack of results and blow it up completely half way in.
I personally never expected the team constructed by Vlade before this past season to be a real competitor for the Playoffs. This doesn't change the fact, that it was Vlade's team and that he is responsible for the result. But instead the blaim for the season was almost entirely shifted to DMC by some people and that's something I have a very hard time to understand. DMC didn't sign FA's, he didn't draft rookies, who were redundant to the current personell and he also didn't hire a coach, who maybe rightfully refused to give those rookies playing time until the season was basically over.
Again of course there are reasons, why Vlade did all this. Some are obvious, some are the object of fruitless speculations by fans - but ultimately Vlade's approach of winning with vets didn't work and he is responsible for that.
So again why should we give Vlade the benefit of the doubt? He failed to reach the goal for two seasons in a row. He didn't provide stability in the organisation. He came out of two trades with underwhelming results. That's part of his body of work and there is no need to sugarcoat this.
Now of course Vlade did some good work. Nobody is denying that. He made a very decent draft day trade for Bellinelli and therefore cleaned up his own mess a bit. His draft picks looked solid against NBA level competition late in the season, with only the small questionmark attached how hard some teams at this time of the schedule were actually playing.
This is also Vlade's body of work and he should be given some credit for it.
But we can't overvalue the good things and downplay the bad things. That's doesn't lead anywhere. I get that's the comfortable thing to do, because it gives us hope for the future, but I simply can't do that and I won't apologize for it, just because it bothers some people on this board.
The Vlade critics on this board are civil and besides some mockery of the culture thing Vlade started (I mean some fun has to be allowed right?
), provide some well thought out arguments and interesting posts. Nothing wrong with that.
I want to add a final thought. I won't ever criticize Vlade for his language skills. Heck Vlade sure as hell does a better job talking live in english than I do. My grammar also might be worse.
The thing that bothers me though is, that his comment about the better offer being pulled two days ago, had nothing to do with language skills. Even if I'm not fluent in english, I can very well think about it in advance, what kind of information I want to share with certain people and what information I keep for myself. Sharing this kind of information with the media, was terrible for Vlade and for the Kings, because this made us look unprofessional. There was no need for that. And I still can't really grasp the fact, that a GM of an NBA franchise actually did this.
It'll be our version of the Cleveland Cavs wherein LeBron left so that they could load their roster with 1st round draft picks upon his return. 
