The Kings' starting five is great, so why are they bad?

[Glenn]

IMO our starting 5 is very, very far from being great. Our back court is well below average and our PF is average at best.

So what do you want to do about this situation?

 

[Glenn]

I agree with the general sentiment, and before the Malone firing, my opinion was pretty similar. I actually don't think the front office did a bad job putting this team together. As bad as we were last season, having an effective starting unit is a huge win. Until you get that you don't even know what you need on your bench. Some of the parts they picked up haven't worked out (Stauskas, Sessions, Hollins, Williams) but some of them have (McLemore, Gay, Collison, Casspi). And that starting unit was playing well together and seemed to have everything you need from your starting lineup. Find a few key bench guys to compliment them and we're a solid all-around team.

Where I differ now is that losing Malone (and subsequently tanking the rest of the season) has afforded us a different set of possibilities going forward. For one thing, we are actually back in the draft picture again which is significant considering the depth of this draft. Rudy signing his extension early makes him a known asset rather than an off-season free-agency target. And while normally I would say it's cold blooded to sign a guy and then flip him 6 months later, cold blooded seems to be this front office's M.O. and I'm not so sure Rudy wouldn't appreciate a change of scenery now anyway. Also, the biggest fallout from the Malone fiasco has been the complete implosion of team morale. Rather than building chemistry together as an up and coming team, these guys are developing bad habits and a surly indifference to the coaching staff and front office. That's not a good sign for the future. The fact that our front office willfully created this situation is upsetting, but it is what it is. We have to accept it and move on with the new plan at this point.

So what should we do differently? It wouldn't bother me if we broke up the starting unit, provided we go about it in the right way. Actually, I wouldn't think about it as a starting unit and a bench unit anymore. We should try to make the substitution patterns both more well-defined and more fluid. What I mean by that is that you can have a third guard play big minutes if they split time at both positions. When looking at upgrading the PG position and adding SG depth off the bench, it would help if we could combine them in one "Jamal Crawford"-esque package (that's in terms of impact more than play style). Someone who could play PG alongside Ben and SG alongside Collison gives us a lot of options to split up their minutes and keep the backcourt consistent. The same idea could be applied to the frontcourt. Most teams have 3 solid bigs and another guy at each position for depth. Thompson is a solid third big so the ideal starting PF for us would be a defender who can also play some minutes at C.

In other words, the positions are fluid as our starting PF and PG also become our backup SG and C but the roles (and minute allotments) are well-defined. In theory this makes our starting lineup stronger and our bench stronger and establishes a player rotation where there's never a huge drop-off in talent on the floor because the whole starting unit is never on the bench at the same time.

Thinking about it this way means we're not necessarily looking for replacements for our current starters and we're not necessarily looking for value bench players. What we're looking for is the most talented 9 man rotation we can put together. And if that means breaking up our current starting unit either by shifting guys to the bench or packaging one or more of them in a trade, so be it.

My brain is tired.

We need a coach. That is #1 and as this FO seems willing to spend whatever they want and the cap rules put no limit on what they can spend, get a good one. (I think I read somewhere that the FO thought different coaches fit different team needs and that a team getting to know each other needed a "starter coach." When they are beyond the "getting to know you" stage, get a good coach. Maybe I misread this but if I got it even partially correct, THIS IS CRAZY.)

There are many options of how to improve this team and given a few players and a coach, we can be pretty good. I definitely don't like the constant shifting of important players. Let them to learn to work as a team and not wake up wondering who their team mates are. I'd be very careful in trading Rudy. Great athletes can adjust and he has already shown that he can discard Toronto Rudy and become more of an assist player. Let's be very sure he doesn't fit before we move him on.

 

[hrdboild]

My brain is tired.

We need a coach. That is #1 and as this FO seems willing to spend whatever they want and the cap rules put no limit on what they can spend, get a good one. (I think I read somewhere that the FO thought different coaches fit different team needs and that a team getting to know each other needed a "starter coach." When they are beyond the "getting to know you" stage, get a good coach. Maybe I misread this but if I got it even partially correct, THIS IS CRAZY.)

There are many options of how to improve this team and given a few players and a coach, we can be pretty good. I definitely don't like the constant shifting of important players. Let them to learn to work as a team and not wake up wondering who their team mates are. I'd be very careful in trading Rudy. Great athletes can adjust and he has already shown that he can discard Toronto Rudy and become more of an assist player. Let's be very sure he doesn't fit before we move him on.

Agreed on this point for sure. All else is moot until we have a good coach in place (which is easier said than done!)

I don't think we should trade Rudy, at least not at this point in time, but resolving his contract situation early is what gave the front office license to tank this season without worrying about losing him in the off-season for nothing. And if we're shifting away from a win-now plan toward more of a long-term one (which, at 17-30, you'd think we have to be) he's now in play again as a trade -able asset just like everyone else not named Cousins.

...

I tend to get bogged down in specifics, but essentially what I wanted to say was this:

If the point of the topic was "look how bad our bench is, Malone was just a scapegoat" I completely agree. If the point was "our starting five is set, we just need a new coach and a bench", I don't think it's going to be that easy. The starting lineup was working because they had spent time working with Malone and together they'd built a system that worked. Without Malone on the sideline they've played like a team that had their heart ripped out. The shadow of Malone's personality is still there, but effectively the players have been left to manage themselves and many of them aren't mature or developed enough to do that. Bring in a new coach with a different philosophy and that same group might not be as effective anymore. We're starting over from a system standpoint and that might entail more dramatic changes in personnel.

 

[Glenn]

Agreed on this point for sure. All else is moot until we have a good coach in place (which is easier said than done!)

I don't think we should trade Rudy, at least not at this point in time, but resolving his contract situation early is what gave the front office license to tank this season without worrying about losing him in the off-season for nothing. And if we're shifting away from a win-now plan toward more of a long-term one (which, at 17-30, you'd think we have to be) he's now in play again as a trade -able asset just like everyone else not named Cousins.

...

I tend to get bogged down in specifics, but essentially what I wanted to say was this:

If the point of the topic was "look how bad our bench is, Malone was just a scapegoat" I completely agree. If the point was "our starting five is set, we just need a new coach and a bench", I don't think it's going to be that easy. The starting lineup was working because they had spent time working with Malone and together they'd built a system that worked. Without Malone on the sideline they've played like a team that had their heart ripped out. The shadow of Malone's personality is still there, but effectively the players have been left to manage themselves and many of them aren't mature or developed enough to do that. Bring in a new coach with a different philosophy and that same group might not be as effective anymore. We're starting over from a system standpoint and that might entail more dramatic changes in personnel.

Nothing is perfectly set. We need to focus on the bench first after the coach. I need a nappy.

 

[jcassio]

I can't believe that only one poster took direct issue with the basic assumption of this thread - that "the starting five are great." Because great they are not.

Every one of them have weaknesses that good coaches can take advantage of. Only bad coaches (like ours) are unable to exploit an opponent's weaknesses.

I think we'd win more games (even with our current coach) if we either upgraded 2-3 of our bench players, or upgraded one of our starters. JT is the one starter that most needs upgrading. (I say that knowing that the 12 or so JT apologists around here are now going to tell us how great JT's defense is when what I see is a very average defender who has some good games and some not so good games...)

 

[VF21]

I can't believe that only one poster took direct issue with the basic assumption of this thread - that "the starting five are great." Because great they are not.

Every one of them have weaknesses that good coaches can take advantage of. Only bad coaches (like ours) are unable to exploit an opponent's weaknesses.

I think we'd win more games (even with our current coach) if we either upgraded 2-3 of our bench players, or upgraded one of our starters. JT is the one starter that most needs upgrading.

I think most people have gotten to the point where it's too much trouble to argue about much of anything any more.

I do agree with your assessment and disagreed with the original premise. I just couldn't muster up enough strength to bother pointing out the basic flaw.

 

[kupman]

So what do you want to do about this situation?

That is the million dollar question. I could be cynical and say "draft better," because our drafting has obviously been poor for about 10 years. More to the point though is I would have players with "potential" on the trading block. The list would start with BMac and DWill.

 

[Bricklayer]

Its been true all year, and not true all year.

The true: by almost all statistical measures we are a 4-man team, with those 4 guys all in the starting lineup, and then JT being tagged along to mediocrity by the others doing so well.

The not so true: its not at all clear that this is a formidable starting lineup, or merely a formidable player who happens to be in the staring lineup, elevating all the rest. Also, the names on the bench are not as bad as the performance has been.

Problems:

1) no real 6th man, no leader. Carl is as close as we have, there are difficulties playing him minutes, and he doesn't control the ball
2) teamwide lack of creative passers/players. Collison is mediocre, it all goes downhill after that. NO creative players for others off the bench at all. Sessions/DWill/McLemore/Landry/Evans/Hollins are all poor creaters, and Nik has played like one despite potential to be more. When you rely on Omri Casspi as your most creative bench guy, that's trouble.
3) lack of size off the bench. Hollins is a 12th man type. Nobody else is taller than a stubby 6'8"/6"9. No rim defense at all.
4) No perimeter defense aside from occasional middling little spurts from McCallum. Sessions/Nik/Dwill routinely bad.

There are probably a few salvageable pieces there. but if you wanted to do even halfway decently THIS year you would need at the very least to:

1) crapcan DWill and Sessions, and banish Nik to Reno
2) add a steady pass first PG, a steady veteran shooting guard/swingman, and a tall shotblocker/rim protector. Then scrappers like Omri, Carl and Reggie could fill out things.

 

[King Baller]

IMO our starting 5 is very, very far from being great. Our back court is well below average and our PF is average at best.

The Coaching of Mike Malone made the Kings starting Five better than they actually are. They had bought in and were playing his brand of team defense.

 

[alonshin]

Couldn't help but noticing that Omri Casspi was not even mentioned in the article as part of the bench/ team. Under Malone he really flourished, now he's pretty much ignored. I know, he plays worse than he used to play under Malone, but he does have good potential, and surely in comparison to the rest of our bench he's one of the bright spots.

 

[biltalent]

Its been true all year, and not true all year.

There are probably a few salvageable pieces there. but if you wanted to do even halfway decently THIS year you would need at the very least to:

1) poopoocan DWill and Sessions, and banish Nik to Reno
2) add a steady pass first PG, a steady veteran shooting guard/swingman, and a tall shotblocker/rim protector. Then scrappers like Omri, Carl and Reggie could fill out things.

That's exactly the reasoning why I would have loved to deal with Orlando and give them Dwill, McCallum and a future second for Afflalo (considering they gave him up for Evan Fournier and the 56th draft pick I think they would be interested) and then maybe call Phoenix and try to get Ennis and Plummlee for Stauskas.
though we probably have to wait 1-2 years for Ennis to become a steady pass first bench pg.

 

[Amit149]

Our roster is not good right now but there are good things about it.
The way I see it we shouldn't spend on the SF position- Rudy is a strong starter and Omri is a good back-up as a SF.
looking at our roster I see Cousins, Rudy and Ben as definite starters (Ben is not that good but he is a good role-player and the SG position is bad right now) and Collison as an important guard (as a starter or as a great backup).

we should try and get: 1. Starter level PG, good PF, Back-up Center
now we can go in two different ways here: a. bring a decent starter- a guy like Patrick Beverley, with him you will have better defense and he will let you bring Collison of the bench as a scorer. b. bring in a scoring back-up- a guy like Lou Williams that will carry the offense for the 2nd unit. each option brings you something else (both are FA) and I kinda like both of them because they can slide to the SG and play with your starters, but overall I think our lack of creative guys put Lou ahead of Pat because Beverley is not much of a creator.
now that you have a guard rotation of Collison, Ben, Lou/Pat you can sign a cheap guard for minimum or let Ray and Nik play.

I think that with this draft class we should draft (if we'll keep our pick) a PF, my favourite choice here is Kristaps Porzingis. He is a legit 7 footer who plays a little bit like a SF- good jump shot and atheleticism a decent defender (very good as a weak side defender not so much one-on-one). I think he would fit great next to Cousins, and because his main weakness is Strength and one-on-one defense JT can complete him great.

At center i'd really like to see Koufos signing here but a guy like Alexis Ajinca would be good too.

With the cap set at about 65 mil next year we will probably need to shave some salary- Sessions should be pretty easy to move and if we can trade him and Landry we'll be looking at about 45 mil before renewing our guys- I think we can assemble something like:

PG- Collison, Williams, Ray
SG- Ben, Nik (Minutes of Lou)
SF- Rudy, Casspi
PF- Porzingis, JT, Evans
C- Cousins, Koufos/Ajinca

that's a pretty good roster imo and you'll still have a lot of money free under the tax to sign more players if the cap goes way up like predicted in 2016 summer.

 

['89 Kings Fan]

Actually, Brendan Malone identified our number 1 problem at the beginning of last season: this team has no shooters. How many turnovers have we committed because teams can just pack the paint against us? Here are the shot charts for our bench wing players. It isn't pretty.


Nik was drafted as a shooter and even though he has disappointed so far this season, I think he has potential. And he is our best shooter off the bench, it's all downhill from here.


Derrick Williams is really good at dunking the ball, and that's about it:


Ray is obviously best in the 5-10 foot area around the basket, of course it's a lot harder to get off shots there when it's
a. Not Summer League
b. There are no 3 point threats on the floor with him


What makes Ramon shoot chart even worse (if it could be) is the Refs must have gotten a memo to not give him foul calls when he does the drive into the paint, fall down move which seems to be his goto:


At least Omri knows he can't shoot, so he doesn't even try. However, that makes it really easy to pack the paint when the bench is in:



For comparison, here is our starting backcourt:
Ben:

Darren:

 

[MizzouKing]

...Without Malone on the sideline they've played like a team that had their heart ripped out. The shadow of Malone's personality is still there, but effectively the players have been left to manage themselves and many of them aren't mature or developed enough to do that. Bring in a new coach with a different philosophy and that same group might not be as effective anymore. We're starting over from a system standpoint and that might entail more dramatic changes in personnel.

EXACTLY! Keep in mind, the damage that is being done to the relationships between players is probably pretty significant. If you want to build chemistry, that ship is sinking with every game.

 

[GQ_Gabriel]

Darren Collison doesn't cut it for me.

We need a serious upgrade at point guard. You need to have an elite PG who is a threat to either create or score every trip. I would love Darren Collison off the bench.

 

[Chubbs]

Darren Collison doesn't cut it for me.

We need a serious upgrade at point guard. You need to have an elite PG who is a threat to either create or score every trip. I would love Darren Collison off the bench.

Lucky for you, he's hurt. Let's see how Ray and Ramon work out for you since DC doesn't cut it.

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to me when people focus on one of our 3-4 keeper players as a problem.

DC, Rudy, Boogie, Ben, not the problem.

Everyone else is. That includes the coach, GM, and owner, plus all dbag advisors rocking flat tops.

 

[GQ_Gabriel]

Lucky for you, he's hurt. Let's see how Ray and Ramon work out for you since DC doesn't cut it.

I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to me when people focus on one of our 3-4 keeper players as a problem.

DC, Rudy, Boogie, Ben, not the problem.

Everyone else is. That includes the coach, GM, and owner, plus all dbag advisors rocking flat tops.

I never said anyone else on this team should take his place, though.

The answer/replacement is not on this roster, I can tell you that much. Ramon Sessions and Ray McCallum don't cut it, not even as backups, if you have high aspirations. Let's be real.