Russell Westbrook

QWERTYLICIOUS said:
I doubt that it's a cultural thing (unless I am so out of touch with my own culture that I have been severely blind to that fact).
I do think it's a personal issue/ego issue. And, unfortunately for all of us, only Vivek can fix it. No one's gonna do it for him.
Click to expand...
I don't personally know enough Indian people to say if there is some weird pride in doing it "the right way" but figured you might. I kind of get why he wanted to end the drought as it was embarrassing, now that we're ass again may as well rip off the bandaid.
 
Padrino said:
Any questions? Yes, plenty. Like, for example, what are we doing here? This is pretty much what I feared when the Kings announced the signing. Russ gets big minutes, gets to dominate the ball, gets his numbers, helps the Kings eke out wins against lesser and injury-depleted teams, and all at the expense of the team's younger and longer-term talent (Ellis w/ 17 mins, Carter w/ 5). I'm not particularly thrilled to watch the Kings milk the last ounce of basketball Westbrook's got left just to keep their sad, middling play-in dreams alive.
Click to expand...
Damn my man, that’s about as dark as Sylvia Plath’s Burn Book!
 
Padrino said:
Any questions? Yes, plenty. Like, for example, what are we doing here? This is pretty much what I feared when the Kings announced the signing. Russ gets big minutes, gets to dominate the ball, gets his numbers, helps the Kings eke out wins against lesser and injury-depleted teams, and all at the expense of the team's younger and longer-term talent (Ellis w/ 17 mins, Carter w/ 5). I'm not particularly thrilled to watch the Kings milk the last ounce of basketball Westbrook's got left just to keep their sad, middling play-in dreams alive.
Click to expand...
Even worse, by entertaining all those vets, the Kings have mastered the art of mediocrity, perfectly floating in no man’s land, stuck between a bottom feeder and a fringe playoff team. They’re not strong enough to seriously contend for the final playoff spots, yet not bad enough to land a high draft pick either. The NBA’s version of purgatory.
 
Last edited:
pdxKingsFan said:
I've heard many people that have sat in a room for a one on one conversation say he cares passionately about winning and I am inclined to believe them I just don't think he is willing to accept that putting a G-League team on the NBA court is an acceptable way to get there.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that he cares and wants to win. I also think he's generally doing what he thinks is best for the team and has rightly allowed his GMs to handle most of the decision making. But he's crippled this team by being unable to settle on one long-term leadership vision. Vlade was there to appease the fans and he was generally pretty good at being an ambassador for the team but he was terrible at anything related to talent recognition and negotiation. The Monte McNair firing is hard for me to understand considering he was doing a very good job at the tasks which are essential to his role as GM. He never got that one big deal done which would propel the team forward but who's to say he wouldn't have if given another 5 years? If he kept finding success in the draft at the same rate, the team was bound to continue ascending while much of our competition in the Western Conference is rapidly aging out of relevance. Based on early returns, Scott Perry seems like he will land closer to Vlade than Monte in terms of his front office skillset so now the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

And the whole false dichotomy that we're either pushing for the play-in or we're a G-League team nobody will want to watch is exactly the problem. We did not need Zach LaVine, Dennis Schröder, and Russell Westbrook. Would we have been a worse team without them? Maybe -- but with more minutes for better defensive players and an offensive system that emphasized patience and efficiency I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that tanking was the only alternative. Look at what Chicago is doing right now with a roster full of mostly unknowns that the experts picked to finish in the bottom 5 of their conference. Look at what OKC did in 5 years by selling high on their aging vets and steadily building around young talent instead. Identity a style of basketball than can lead to wins, jettison everyone who doesn't fit that style of basketball, and look for opportunities to either trade for or draft and develop players who do. That's what a long-term plan would look like.
 
hrdboild said:
And the whole false dichotomy that we're either pushing for the play-in or we're a G-League team nobody will want to watch is exactly the problem. We did not need Zach LaVine, Dennis Schröder, and Russell Westbrook. Would we have been a worse team without them? Maybe -- but with more minutes for better defensive players and an offensive system that emphasized patience and efficiency I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that tanking was the only alternative. Look at what Chicago is doing right now with a roster full of mostly unknowns that the experts picked to finish in the bottom 5 of their conference. Look at what OKC did in 5 years by selling high on their aging vets and steadily building around young talent instead. Identity a style of basketball than can lead to wins, jettison everyone who doesn't fit that style of basketball, and look for opportunities to either trade for or draft and develop players who do. That's what a long-term plan would look like.
Click to expand...

On this point I 100% agree.

Carter
Ellis
Clifford
Murray
Sabonis

This is not a G-League team. Not even close. Ship out Sabonis, it's still not a G-League team. It's also not a winning team in the West, more than likely, but they're not a winning team as currently constructed! They're just spinning their wheels and letting guys like Ellis and Carter languish while guys approaching their 40s eat up all the minutes. It just makes... no sense whatsoever.
 
hrdboild said:
I'm sure that he cares and wants to win. I also think he's generally doing what he thinks is best for the team and has rightly allowed his GMs to handle most of the decision making. But he's crippled this team by being unable to settle on one long-term leadership vision. Vlade was there to appease the fans and he was generally pretty good at being an ambassador for the team but he was terrible at anything related to talent recognition and negotiation. The Monte McNair firing is hard for me to understand considering he was doing a very good job at the tasks which are essential to his role as GM. He never got that one big deal done which would propel the team forward but who's to say he wouldn't have if given another 5 years? If he kept finding success in the draft at the same rate, the team was bound to continue ascending while much of our competition in the Western Conference is rapidly aging out of relevance. Based on early returns, Scott Perry seems like he will land closer to Vlade than Monte in terms of his front office skillset so now the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

And the whole false dichotomy that we're either pushing for the play-in or we're a G-League team nobody will want to watch is exactly the problem. We did not need Zach LaVine, Dennis Schröder, and Russell Westbrook. Would we have been a worse team without them? Maybe -- but with more minutes for better defensive players and an offensive system that emphasized patience and efficiency I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that tanking was the only alternative. Look at what Chicago is doing right now with a roster full of mostly unknowns that the experts picked to finish in the bottom 5 of their conference. Look at what OKC did in 5 years by selling high on their aging vets and steadily building around young talent instead. Identity a style of basketball than can lead to wins, jettison everyone who doesn't fit that style of basketball, and look for opportunities to either trade for or draft and develop players who do. That's what a long-term plan would look like.
Click to expand...
OKC was one year removed from a finals run when they started selling. I mean, it worked out for them, but that's because Presti is a wizard. Not because their ownership is great. Chicago has to win something before we pat them on the back.

The average tenure of a GM across all sporting leagues is five years, aside from the first team he hired he gave them a fair chance. Do I wish that Monte had maybe been given one more year? I think that would have been fine by me, if only because we could see whatever he was trying to do if he was allowed to do anything once Fox quit on us.

I'm not impressed by Perry right now either, though he does seem to be good at building relationships where Monte may have stumbled in that department. Will that pay off over a similar time frame? Time will tell. A lot depends on if we carry DDR and Monk past the trade deadline and retain Keon. I am not feeling good about any of that right now. But hell, he could possibly have bought so low on Russ he turns into a FRP at the deadline from a contender, grab another Nique by moving him and that's a win moving forward. He doesn't seem to be a fan of Zach and if he can move his huge contract as an expiring for bad money and multiple picks, now we're talking.

I will say the one thing Perry hasn't done is made a terrible trade. I guess we will also find out in two years if we blew it with Kuminga when we see where we pick in 2027 and if Kuminga has reached potential. That may define his tenure here.

Will Vivek allow this? It will really define his ownership more than any past action imho.
 
Padrino said:
On this point I 100% agree.

Carter
Ellis
Clifford
Murray
Sabonis

This is not a G-League team. Not even close. Ship out Sabonis, it's still not a G-League team. It's also not a winning team in the West, more than likely, but they're not a winning team as currently constructed! They're just spinning their wheels and letting guys like Ellis and Carter languish while guys approaching their 40s eat up all the minutes. It just makes... no sense whatsoever.
Click to expand...

And the HUGE difference is if this team wins 40 games... fine. Its off the backs of our younger guys getting development, learning how to play in clutch situations, learning how to play together, etc. They can hopefully take that experience and progress further next season if/when some of that core takes a leap.

If they're bad, then at least we know and can move on. Or accept that they're capped at role players ans you need to find the right franchise cornerstones. You're not left wondering what Carter/Keon could be. You get an idea if Clifford is more a role player or someone who can be a feature option.
 
hrdboild said:
I'm sure that he cares and wants to win. I also think he's generally doing what he thinks is best for the team and has rightly allowed his GMs to handle most of the decision making. But he's crippled this team by being unable to settle on one long-term leadership vision. Vlade was there to appease the fans and he was generally pretty good at being an ambassador for the team but he was terrible at anything related to talent recognition and negotiation. The Monte McNair firing is hard for me to understand considering he was doing a very good job at the tasks which are essential to his role as GM. He never got that one big deal done which would propel the team forward but who's to say he wouldn't have if given another 5 years? If he kept finding success in the draft at the same rate, the team was bound to continue ascending while much of our competition in the Western Conference is rapidly aging out of relevance. Based on early returns, Scott Perry seems like he will land closer to Vlade than Monte in terms of his front office skillset so now the pendulum is swinging back the other way.

And the whole false dichotomy that we're either pushing for the play-in or we're a G-League team nobody will want to watch is exactly the problem. We did not need Zach LaVine, Dennis Schröder, and Russell Westbrook. Would we have been a worse team without them? Maybe -- but with more minutes for better defensive players and an offensive system that emphasized patience and efficiency I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that tanking was the only alternative. Look at what Chicago is doing right now with a roster full of mostly unknowns that the experts picked to finish in the bottom 5 of their conference. Look at what OKC did in 5 years by selling high on their aging vets and steadily building around young talent instead. Identity a style of basketball than can lead to wins, jettison everyone who doesn't fit that style of basketball, and look for opportunities to either trade for or draft and develop players who do. That's what a long-term plan would look like.
Click to expand...

two other teams that come to mind here are the Pacers and Mavericks, different set of circumstances of course considering star players are out for the year for both teams but they want to get in on this supposed deep draft and stockpile around what they have and they will be sitting pretty should they hit on those picks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top