That was a well-reasoned counter argument and I appreciate you taking the time to make it. I disagree with a few points, mainly regarding what to prioritize for a rebuilding team and how different types of players play together, but that's to be expected. I've been making the same kinds of observations for years and I'm used to people disagreeing with me. I don't have a crystal ball but neither does anyone else. We can compare notes in 2 years and see which of us was more right. I don't think you really need one to make informed decisions on talent though. I hated the Spencer Hawes and Jimmer picks and was not shy about saying so. People kept telling me to give them a chance, and of course I never rooted for them to fail, but they're both exactly who they projected to be when the entered the league. It's really all in the details. I feel like I get an intuition about who a player is going to develop into if I watch them play enough and that's how I project who is worth taking a chance on and who isn't. The job of the GM requires them to do the same. Pete looked at the players on our roster and other players around the league and projected what he thought they were going to be in 3 or 4 years. In the end he'll most likely be like every other GM and guess wrong some of the time and guess right some of the time. I think he's wrong on these two decisions, doesn't mean he actually is. We'll see. And I expect he'll eventually make a move or two that I agree with (not that that's any guarantee of success either).
Striving for mediocrity?
- Thread starter spudfan
- Start date
I hated all of those deals, but they were nothing compared to this. Yes, I stand by that. Moore was a bad signing, but he was never anything more than a complimentary piece. Beno for Jimmer and Salmons? I was more upset because of who we didn't draft. And I was very very upset about it to the point where I basically just didn't read this forum again that whole off-season. Casspi and a pick for Hickson? Yeah I hated that one too. And I got called all sorts of names for criticizing that one, but low and behold Hickson was an offensive black hole who didn't play any defense after all. But mostly those were crimes of addition -- Petrie loved to fill our roster with junk -- but who did they actually cost us? Beno and Casspi were decent complimentary players, that's it. The trades were bad, losing them wasn't a disaster. Tyreke Evans is a 23 year old franchise cornerstone player. Not everyone agrees with me about that, which is fine. I've been called all sorts of names for saying that too, but I'm still calling them like I see them. He is going to be an All Star for someone else, or if not than at the very least a should've been All Star like Mike Bibby. Everybody telling me to calm down would probably be pissed if they thought we just traded away an All Star for nothing as well. And then giving Carl frickin Landry (who I do like incidentally, but not for our team) a deal which is 60% of what you refused to give to Tyreke Evans is just a huge slap in the face. Not a cap killing contract at all, but look at it context. How can anyone say that these two deals aren't related? We had to save cap space, we had to be fiscally responsible so we can sign somebody who can lead this team back to greatness. Okay, I can buy that. Still disagree, but it's not insane. But Carl Landry? If we'd told Webber to take a hike in 2001 and then taken the money we couldn't afford to give him and given $80 million of it to Shareef Abdur Rahim instead that would have been worse.
This is awful. It can only be salvaged with AK47. That would be satisfactory for me. Satisfactory and not great. Otherwise we have taken several steps backward. I'm confused very, very much. If this is tanking, it's a good job. Maybe we should trade away Cuz. Sarcasm is awful isn't it but now my fear that Vivek's desire for high character guys is leading us in the wrong direction on the court. Vasquez can barely say a sentence without mentioning his Christian beliefs so we know where he stands and Landry is obviously a high character guy. The one sore thumb on our team that appears to be low character is Cuz. Would Vivek sacrifice a basketball team for character?
I don't see it as tanking as the players we have I consider above average. The part that's hard for me to picture is how to move all the extra pieces we have. It is normally not easy to move players so I am currently struggling to see who we could move and how we get pieces of need in exchange. It'll take some wizardry, and when(if) it does happen I am sure we will all be excited.
I know people are trying to make this sound good but it's like putting lipstick on a pig. It's still a pig. Sure Landry will help with the transition but for 4 years? I've been tolerating the moves until this signing. Something is wrong and I think we are experiencing a trio of rookies (Vivek, PDA, and Malone) and will suffer for it. I am not even going to be so kind as to say I think they will improve. That's an assumption that is not backed up by the moves that have been made.
This all adds to the confusion, because if Vivek truly wants to build around high character guys, then why ship out Reke and build around Cuz before either has played 30 secs for you? I'd build around Cuz anyway but that isn't the point. If you preach character, then immediately start singing the praise of Cuz while shipping out a proven high character guy in Reke is largely hypocritical.
But I stopped taking things at face value a while ago. All I can judge are the actions.
But I stopped taking things at face value a while ago. All I can judge are the actions.
I hear ya, but Reke is not a PG. He just simply isn't. A talent, yes. Can probably play PG in spurts, yes. But a full-time PG? No. Barring a Chauncey Billups-like awakening, Reke will never be a PG. And that's fine, he's a good SG.
Sometimes you have to let go of a player who doesn't fit. It was obvious for a couple seasons that Reke doesn't know how to play with Cousins. It's not the coach, Reke simply isn't that good playing without the ball. So either you sign Reke and hope he figures it out or you cut ties and get guys who you know for sure can play off of Cousins. The FO chose the later approach and that's nothing wrong with that.
No it isn't. They are viewing Cousins with an open mind. They will let Cousins' behavior this coming season dictate their opinion of him. What could be fairer than that? Also, they chose not to resign Tyreke not because of character issues, but because in their view $11 mill + was too much for what Tyreke brought to the table. Also, because they value character doesn't mean that will keep all the high character guys on this team. That's just silliness; there are other considerations they certainly will keep in mind.
If Cousins does his Cousinisms this coming season and they still resign him, then yes, you'd have a point about a hypocritical FO. My hunch is that isn't going to occur. We'll see.
If Cousins does his Cousinisms this coming season and they still resign him, then yes, you'd have a point about a hypocritical FO. My hunch is that isn't going to occur. We'll see.
I'm a littleconfused here.
Before July 1,2013, the Kings weren't a mediocre team. They were a badteam. Rock solid in the bottom 1/3 of the league. Firmlyin the bottom 6-7. Mediocre is an improvement,no?
The pack ismoving forward. The Cavs andPelicans are clearly better, and those are just the teams behind us. I’m not sure the Jazz or Celts will get underus.
Most people aresaying that since July 1, 2013 we are worse, and I agree. I think it’sneeded but that’s not my point here.
While there is always some risk, the lottery appears to have at least 4, perhaps 6-8 major impactplayers.
So … if we werealready a bad team and our GM is blowing it up seeking to add a 3[SUP]rd[/SUP]building block to the core … is “striving for mediocrity” a good title?
Wouldn’tlocking up a core that annually wins .333 of its game and hoping Mike Malonecan turn them around be closer to mediocrity
Why do I keepreading we’re worse but not bad enough to have good mathematical shot to pickin the top 5?
Before July 1,2013, the Kings weren't a mediocre team. They were a badteam. Rock solid in the bottom 1/3 of the league. Firmlyin the bottom 6-7. Mediocre is an improvement,no?
The pack ismoving forward. The Cavs andPelicans are clearly better, and those are just the teams behind us. I’m not sure the Jazz or Celts will get underus.
Most people aresaying that since July 1, 2013 we are worse, and I agree. I think it’sneeded but that’s not my point here.
While there is always some risk, the lottery appears to have at least 4, perhaps 6-8 major impactplayers.
So … if we werealready a bad team and our GM is blowing it up seeking to add a 3[SUP]rd[/SUP]building block to the core … is “striving for mediocrity” a good title?
Wouldn’tlocking up a core that annually wins .333 of its game and hoping Mike Malonecan turn them around be closer to mediocrity
Why do I keepreading we’re worse but not bad enough to have good mathematical shot to pickin the top 5?
Here is my problem with this. If we felt Reke could only play sg and we drafted Mac because he was our guy, why not match Reke and look for the best possible deal with any team around the league. It's unlikely Vasquez was the best offer you'd get as there are many teams that couldn't bid on him as a rfa but would still want him, especially now that the free agent pool has dried up.
Instead we let him go since he would be redundant and not part of our future plans then picked up a different, less talented redundant piece where what's left will be even harder to trade.
So what's better, dumping Reke for Vasquez/Landry and now trying to unload our garbage or
Matching for Reke and using him as the trade bait?
To me it's an issue of maximizing assets and we didn't do that.
Instead we let him go since he would be redundant and not part of our future plans then picked up a different, less talented redundant piece where what's left will be even harder to trade.
So what's better, dumping Reke for Vasquez/Landry and now trying to unload our garbage or
Matching for Reke and using him as the trade bait?
To me it's an issue of maximizing assets and we didn't do that.
Last edited:
Actually that's not really true. They are largely separate tracks. you choose which one to go down. Mediocrity is easy to reach, but you become trapped by contracts, lack of assets, lack of high picks, lap of caproom. And then sooner or later your franchise player gets tired of your dawdling and leaves you. Greatness requires risk and vision, not short term moves.