Sam Amick interview this morning talking about potential Kings FO changes

#1
At 8:00 mark, when Jason Ross asked a question regarding a change in the FO, Sam Amick talks about some potential personnel coming forward to see what the Kings plans are and would love to have Vlade's job, and more specifically, someone who has putting fillers out about working ALONG with Vlade. (He can't get into it for more info but he said this person would be a very good fit WITH Vlade)

 
#3
Its got to be a quant who lacks charisma—a guy who would great at the nuts and bolts of GMing, but wouldn’t want the front-facing media interactions or owner gladhanding.
 
#16
That would be my bet as well. Someone creative, which Vlade lacks.

1. Don’t need a talent guy. That would be Peja, Dumars, n Vlade.
2. Don’t need a numbers guy. That would be Cantenella.
3. Need a creativity guy. Hinkie.
I need to do a deep dive on Hinkie. I’ve always been reticent because the analytics hipsters were such groupies, and he was so profligate with top 10 picks. He found value elsewhere in the draft, to be sure, but Okafor and Noel are pretty rough. I wonder if he would full process here or not. He may not. For one thing, I assume his first move would be trading for Embiid. Might be a faulty assumption—I don’t know. I’m also really on the fence as to whether an analytics guy would view Fox as a superstar given his 3pt shooting. I kind of think a Morey or Hinkie type would trade Fox—not saying that’s good or bad, just an interesting potential outcome. I just can’t see them maxing a PG with those shooting splits who is also not really a great leader. Good, to be sure, but not great.
 
#17
That would be my bet as well. Someone creative, which Vlade lacks.

1. Don’t need a talent guy. That would be Peja, Dumars, n Vlade.
2. Don’t need a numbers guy. That would be Cantenella.
3. Need a creativity guy. Hinkie.
I dont like these "talent guys". That talent evaluation hasnt been good enough. Either drop some of them or add a bunch of new talent evaluaters.

I need to do a deep dive on Hinkie. I’ve always been reticent because the analytics hipsters were such groupies, and he was so profligate with top 10 picks. He found value elsewhere in the draft, to be sure, but Okafor and Noel are pretty rough. I wonder if he would full process here or not. He may not. For one thing, I assume his first move would be trading for Embiid. Might be a faulty assumption—I don’t know. I’m also really on the fence as to whether an analytics guy would view Fox as a superstar given his 3pt shooting. I kind of think a Morey or Hinkie type would trade Fox—not saying that’s good or bad, just an interesting potential outcome. I just can’t see them maxing a PG with those shooting splits who is also not really a great leader. Good, to be sure, but not great.
Hinkie could be a good strategy guy. A guy that implements a three year plan for the rebuild/retooling and he could even leave drafting and fa signing for the new gm. Thats of cource if Hinkie would accept that role but whatever the case is, Vlade is/should be gone. Have him as an ambassador or mascot I dont care but he shouldnt be doing any major decisions anymore.
 
#20
I dont like these "talent guys". That talent evaluation hasnt been good enough. Either drop some of them or add a bunch of new talent evaluaters.



Hinkie could be a good strategy guy. A guy that implements a three year plan for the rebuild/retooling and he could even leave drafting and fa signing for the new gm. Thats of cource if Hinkie would accept that role but whatever the case is, Vlade is/should be gone. Have him as an ambassador or mascot I dont care but he shouldnt be doing any major decisions anymore.
I’m not saying the talent evaluators are good. Just saying that’s the role they operate.

As for Hinkie, yes, strategy. He had a bunch of failures, but he anticipated that. The process was a pure volume play.
 
#21
I’m not saying the talent evaluators are good. Just saying that’s the role they operate.

As for Hinkie, yes, strategy. He had a bunch of failures, but he anticipated that. The process was a pure volume play.
Well, you literally said that we "don't need a talent guy", which really implies that you think the talent evaluators are fine.

But now that you don't, does that mean that you would hire a talent evaluator to complement Hinkie? And if so, who would that be?
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#22
I look at other teams like Miami or the Thunder, for example, who have gotten guys from summer league or the G league that have made positive impacts on their team, and then I look at the Kings and I don't see anybody of that sort. Miami signed undrafted Nunn after seeing him in summer league. He looks to be a legit player. The Thunder signed the undrafted Dort. He looks like he's a legitimate player. Other teams make these kind of signings, but not the Kings. Why not? It's got to be the lack of scouting. The Kings need better talent scouts. I've said it for years. I'll keep saying it until I finally see it on the court.

The Kings should scout the scouts. Who are the scouts that are instrumental in these plum signings? Who are the best talent scouts in the league? If Vivek wants to get serious he should spend the $$$ to hire them onto the Kings' staff. Quit complaining, and start putting the $$$ where your mouth is.
 
#23
I look at other teams like Miami or the Thunder, for example, who have gotten guys from summer league or the G league that have made positive impacts on their team, and then I look at the Kings and I don't see anybody of that sort. Miami signed undrafted Nunn after seeing him in summer league. He looks to be a legit player. The Thunder signed the undrafted Dort. He looks like he's a legitimate player. Other teams make these kind of signings, but not the Kings. Why not? It's got to be the lack of scouting. The Kings need better talent scouts. I've said it for years. I'll keep saying it until I finally see it on the court.

The Kings should scout the scouts. Who are the scouts that are instrumental in these plum signings? Who are the best talent scouts in the league? If Vivek wants to get serious he should spend the $$$ to hire them onto the Kings' staff. Quit complaining, and start putting the $$$ where your mouth is.
Toronto whole roster seems to be guys that spent time in the GLeague
 
#24
I look at other teams like Miami or the Thunder, for example, who have gotten guys from summer league or the G league that have made positive impacts on their team, and then I look at the Kings and I don't see anybody of that sort.
You realize that a lot of that is merely good fortune? Every team with a developmental squad has hopes of finding talent just the same. You named two teams, which neither are turning out super studs every few years.

That said, seeing how the developmental league has grown and ‘developed’ over the past decade, we’re starting to see more NBA players come from it. And the trend is likely to continue to the point where it’s more akin to how MLB develops future stars.

I think G-League and all NBA franchises use of it is still at a stage where the sample size is small enough not to know that any one franchise is better or worse at it. Hell, a couple franchises still don’t even have a developmental team yet.

And the ones that have had one were limited in the players they could retain thus reserved in how much time and resources they devoted toward it. However rules have slowly been changing in that regard (2-way contracts, branding, etc.), so we should start to get a better grasp over the next few years.
 
Last edited:

Kingster

Hall of Famer
#25
You realize that a lot of that is merely good fortune? Every team with a developmental squad has hopes of finding talent just the same. You named two teams, which neither are turning out super studs every few years.

That said, seeing how the developmental league has grown and ‘developed’ over the past decade, we’re starting to see more NBA players come from it. And the trend is likely to continue to the point where it’s more akin to how MLB develops future stars.

I think G-League and all NBA franchises use of it is still at a stage where the sample size is small enough not to know that any one franchise is better or worse at it. Hell, a couple franchises still don’t even have a developmental team yet.

And the ones that have had one were limited in the players they could retain thus reserved in how much time and resources they devoted toward it. However rules have slowly been changing in that regard (2-way contracts, branding, etc.), so we should start to get a better grasp over the next few years.
I don't buy that it's just luck. It turns out the lucky one's are usually the smarter, more prepared one's.
 
#26
I don't buy that it's just luck. It turns out the lucky one's are usually the smarter, more prepared one's.
I didn’t say ‘just luck’. I said a lot of it is good fortune. There’s a difference.

Again, it’s very early in the developmental game. Not all franchises are invested equally and the process hasn’t fully formed yet.