Vlade Divac - Kings GM AKA 21

I just happened to listen an interview Vivek gave to Bloomberg TV yesterday (2/16/2018) in which he talks about the new arena and economic
benefits it has brought to downtown so I looked it up after reading your and !'s posts. The interview is 5 minutes long but the economic impact part is around the start of minute 3. Not from Sacramento so I don't know if this is true, but Vivek claimed billion $ impact to local economy and thousands of jobs. he said "downtown is popping" now. maybe you will find it interesting: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/vide...e-says-new-arena-exceeding-expectations-video
Vivek has his talking points. I find some of it to be way over simplified, or even just gross exaggeration. But the fact is, an economist can take the money going into current and future construction projects and project the increase in the area's Gross Regional Product across the whole economy (GRP is the measure of the market value of all final goods and services). And there are clearly a healthy number of construction projects going on in downtown Sac. Kind of a renaissance, which is exciting, but probably not quite to the degree that Vivek would like you to think.
 
He choose Buddy and protected #1 from the Pels over Ingram (and Randle or Russell) when he had Boggy in his back pocket.

Think about that one, Kings fans. Credit is due for identifying Boggy as a player. But you complement him with Ingram NOT Buddy!

There are a lot of fans talking about his bad decisions. This one goes to near the top of my list. Ingram is flourishing as lead ball handler for Lakers. He is far more dynamic and potent player than Lonzo Bust. If Ingram develops a shot he is an All-Star. This is not hindsight. Ingram was a player higher on my list than Buddy. And fans know I love me some Buddy Buckets! I take Ingram and Randle over what we settled for too readily one week before the trade deadline.
You do realize that the bolded statement above is false, right?

1519165993274.png


Although it's nice to dream about a lineup of....

PG - Fox / Mason
SG - Bogdanovic / Richardson
SF - Ingram
PF - Porter / Labissere
C - Cauley-Stein / Papagiannis
 
Last edited:
Yes but he has it within his power to say no. And in saying no that would tell other teams that they're going to have to offer more if they want something. Settling for a bad deal now tells other teams that he'll probably settle for a bad deal later. Why should it matter if anyone is moving the goal posts though? Whether I (or any other fan) says Vlade is doing a good job or not doesn't actually matter. What matters are the results. And unfortunately, the goalposts do keep moving every year -- Golden State adds Durant, Houston adds Chris Paul, Denver is starting to look like an actual playoff threat as Jokic and their young guards keep getting better, we traded an All Star big man to a western conference team we're now going to have to go through in the future to get to the Finals. Those are tangible changes which make his job even tougher.

Here's the part of your post I would take issue with:


Those "bad contracts" were two of his first round picks in 2016 and the guy he signed last summer to be the veteran mentor for his young PG. If you're going to call all three of the guys we got rid of "bad contracts" that reflects directly on Vlade doesn't it? He signed all of those deals and we would have had even more cap space this summer if he'd just not signed Hill in the first place. Even going by your own description of what you think is a good move, isn't that really just a veiled criticism of the three bad moves that preceded it? If you think I'm moving the goalposts and making unfair demands, at what point does it become fair to hold Vlade accountable in your eyes?
Memphis GM played it like you suggest Vlade should do. Tyreke is still there.
 
This is why I take issue:

A) George Hill - widely regarded to be a "win" in the offseason. Over and over it was the most significant free agent signing since Brad Miller or Vlade himself. Clearly he arrived with misguided expectations - whose fault is that? Let's be honest, nobody knows. But the team seems to acknowledge they weren't looking to win games this year and planned on rebuilding next year. Despite expectations, he has both underperformed and been a bad presence ever since he arrived, nobody seems to dispute this. Also Fox and Mason have clearly earned PT. He had to go.

B) Malachi and Papa - repeatedly over and over it has been hammered home these were bad picks and don't fit. Ok. It was a bad draft but sure I'm going to allow that. However - if they were bad picks, not NBA players, etc. it seems unfair to expect him to get something back for them (he got a flyer on one player at least). He also waived the other guy which is something he has been bashed for not doing with the guys in 2016. The fact is he actually realized these guys had no future and moved on. This is good. This is largely what his detractors have been asking him to do, and now that he does it in a way that doesn't hurt us, he somehow made another bad move???

I guess my point is, call him out for one thing or call him out for another. Don't make one mistake into three mistakes by repeating them each time they happen (player signed/player shipped). And by god, if not flexing/waiving is a cardinal sin in 2016, flexing or waiving a player in 2018 is acceptable and if you claim both are unacceptable, that's just being dishonest.
The whole George Hill issue seems like it was framed poorly by the team or the media then. I don't pay a lot of attention to what gets written about the Kings in the off-season but if George Hill was set up as some kind of cornerstone player that partially explains all the backlash. He had one season in Utah where he was a featured player. The rest of his career he's been a steady player but not one who stands out in any way. You really have to appreciate team basketball to understand where his value lies because he's not making any highlight reel plays. And I still don't think that was a bad signing. He lost playing time to De'Aaron Fox once it was obvious we weren't going anywhere this season but I thought that was the idea from the beginning. I'm not counting this as two bad moves -- it's the decision to cut or trade him that I don't like. Or if we really wanted the cap space back badly enough to just take what we could get then hopefully Vlade spends it better this summer so we're not put in the same position again.

About Papa and Malachi, there's a big difference between a rookie on a 1.5 or 2 million dollar contract and a veteran on an immovable multi-year deal who's clogging up your salary cap. Vlade had to find a way to clear JT and Landry's contracts in order to do anything that summer and with DeMarcus rapidly approaching the end of his deal, qualifying for the playoffs did carry a certain level of urgency then that it doesn't now. Generally rebuilding teams want to have rookie deals because those are cheap players under contract for 4 years who are still young enough to see significant improvement by working with your development staff. Conversely, a veteran on a bloated contract is not going to get better and they're taking roster spots away from players who might.

I do see this as two separate decisions. [(1) The draft itself (2) When do you give up on a prospect?] During the draft you're scouting prospects and projecting how they will fit into your system with your personnel against NBA competition. If you're throwing darts at a board and hoping they work out you're not really doing the job are you? Granted there are times when you do all your homework and the pick still doesn't work out but neither pick inspired much confidence on the day they were made. Some people see this as a retroactive thing -- if they turn into a good player than it becomes a good decision. That no longer applies if the players aren't on the team any longer. I didn't like those picks but I hoped they would ultimately prove me wrong. They still might, actually. Which leads to...

The second decision is when to give up on a young player. Malachi I can understand -- through no fault of his own he got blocked by Buddy Hield and Bogdan Bogdanovic at SG and he's not a SF. There's nowhere to play him on this roster. Papagiannis though was a lottery pick and we still have a need at C with DeMarcus now gone and Koufos' contract expiring in a year. Giving up on a 20 year old project who you yourself said has All-Star potential a year and a half ago should raise an eyebrow or two shouldn't it? Some people have argued that you should cut bait on a bad prospect as soon as you realize they aren't going to cut it. I don't see how you can know that when the guy is 20 years old. Consider this example: drafting Hassan Whiteside in the second round... good decision! He was raw and immature and not physically ready but the potential was worth the gamble. Giving up on him after 2 seasons... bad decision. He led the league in BPG in 2016 and in RPG in 2017. He's still immature but he's a productive player in the league we no longer have.

Everything is contextual. The right decision in 2016 is not the same thing as the right decision in 2018. We had a different coach then, a franchise player and a #2 scoring option in Rudy Gay and a reasonable expectation that a couple key signings should put us in the playoffs. The point in 2016 isn't that waiving Jason and Carl or using the stretch provision was better than trading them, it's that we had other options so why did we settle for such a lopsided trade? The point this year is that Vlade put himself in an uncomfortable position where he needed roster spots in order to erase a salary from the books that he just added to the books in the previous off-season. Nothing about those two situations is the same so why should the same blanket answer apply to both of them equally? That's not moving the goalposts it's addressing the specifics of each situation.

Maybe the plan all along was to start cutting rookies once Coach Joerger settled on a rotation. Maybe Papagiannis was just a home run shot that didn't work out. Maybe Vlade sees someone on the Free Agent market this summer that he likes badly enough to adjust his plans for even if that means dumping two of his rookie deals and taking on a dead money contract. There are ways to paint this that make sense. The general perception outside of Sacramento that Vlade is some kind of bumbling barely coherent cartoon character is an exaggeration but there's an element of truth in it. This perception exists because of the trades he's made, and how he attempts to explain them in the press. Maybe he's just trying to conceal his hand until it's time to play it and he doesn't mind the negative perception. But he'd really better have a good hand at the end of this though. You can bluff in poker, you can't really bluff as a General Manager and expect good things to happen. Remember when we tried to convince ourselves that Pete D'Alessandro was some kind of scheming genius who was so many moves ahead that we couldn't see the big picture yet? Yeah, that turned out well didn't it? Sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one. Sometimes a bad deal is just that.
 
Last edited:
Memphis GM played it like you suggest Vlade should do. Tyreke is still there.
Tyreke has an expiring contract, George Hill doesn't. Those are different situations. Tyreke still being in Memphis doesn't hurt them in any way except that they might lose him for nothing. Or they might decide to re-sign him.
 
Tyreke has an expiring contract, George Hill doesn't. Those are different situations. Tyreke still being in Memphis doesn't hurt them in any way except that they might lose him for nothing. Or they might decide to re-sign him.
The Memphis GM held out for what he wanted, instead of taking what was offered and then perhaps asking for a few million bucks on top:)
 
The whole George Hill issue seems like it was framed poorly by the team or the media then. I don't pay a lot of attention to what gets written about the Kings in the off-season but if George Hill was set up as some kind of cornerstone player that partially explains all the backlash. He had one season in Utah where he was a featured player. The rest of his career he's been a steady player but not one who stands out in any way. You really have to appreciate team basketball to understand where his value lies because he's not making any highlight reel plays. And I still don't think that was a bad signing. He lost playing time to De'Aaron Fox once it was obvious we weren't going anywhere this season but I thought that was the idea from the beginning. I'm not counting this as two bad moves -- it's the decision to cut or trade him that I don't like. Or if we really wanted the cap space back badly enough to just take what we could get then hopefully Vlade spends it better this summer so we're not put in the same position again.

About Papa and Malachi, there's a big difference between a rookie on a 1.5 or 2 million dollar contract and a veteran on an immovable multi-year deal who's clogging up your salary cap. Vlade had to find a way to clear JT and Landry's contracts in order to do anything that summer and with DeMarcus rapidly approaching the end of his deal, qualifying for the playoffs did carry a certain level of urgency then that it doesn't now. Generally rebuilding teams want to have rookie deals because those are cheap players under contract for 4 years who are still young enough to see significant improvement by working with your development staff. Conversely, a veteran on a bloated contract is not going to get better and they're taking roster spots away from players who might.

I do see this as two separate decisions. [(1) The draft itself (2) When do you give up on a prospect?] During the draft you're scouting prospects and projecting how they will fit into your system with your personnel against NBA competition. If you're throwing darts at a board and hoping they work out you're not really doing the job are you? Granted there are times when you do all your homework and the pick still doesn't work out but neither pick inspired much confidence on the day they were made. Some people see this as a retroactive thing -- if they turn into a good player than it becomes a good decision. That no longer applies if the players aren't on the team any longer. I didn't like those picks but I hoped they would ultimately prove me wrong. They still might, actually. Which leads to...

The second decision is when to give up on a young player. Malachi I can understand -- through no fault of his own he got blocked by Buddy Hield and Bogdan Bogdanovic at SG and he's not a SF. There's nowhere to play him on this roster. Papagiannis though was a lottery pick and we still have a need at C with DeMarcus now gone and Koufos' contract expiring in a year. Giving up on a 20 year old project who you yourself said has All-Star potential a year and a half ago should raise an eyebrow or two shouldn't it? Some people have argued that you should cut bait on a bad prospect as soon as you realize they aren't going to cut it. I don't see how you can know that when the guy is 20 years old. Consider this example: drafting Hassan Whiteside in the second round... good decision! He was raw and immature and not physically ready but the potential was worth the gamble. Giving up on him after 2 seasons... bad decision. He led the league in BPG in 2016 and in RPG in 2017. He's still immature but he's a productive player in the league we no longer have.

Everything is contextual. The right decision in 2016 is not the same thing as the right decision in 2018. We had a different coach then, a franchise player and a #2 scoring option in Rudy Gay and a reasonable expectation that a couple key signings should put us in the playoffs. The point in 2016 isn't that waiving Jason and Carl or using the stretch provision was better than trading them, it's that we had other options so why did we settle for such a lopsided trade? The point this year is that Vlade put himself in an uncomfortable position where he needed roster spots in order to erase a salary from the books that he just added to the books in the previous off-season. Nothing about those two situations is the same so why should the same blanket answer apply to both of them equally? That's not moving the goalposts it's addressing the specifics of each situation.

Maybe the plan all along was to start cutting rookies once Coach Joerger settled on a rotation. Maybe Papagiannis was just a home run shot that didn't work out. Maybe Vlade sees someone on the Free Agent market this summer that he likes badly enough to adjust his plans for even if that means dumping two of his rookie deals and taking on a dead money contract. There are ways to paint this that make sense. The general perception outside of Sacramento that Vlade is some kind of bumbling barely coherent cartoon character is an exaggeration but there's an element of truth in it. This perception exists because of the trades he's made, and how he attempts to explain them in the press. Maybe he's just trying to conceal his hand until it's time to play it and doesn't mind the negative perception. But he's really better have a good hand at the end of this though. You can bluff in poker, you can't really bluff as a General Manager and expect good things to happen.
Hill was paid 20 mil to step in and be a 15-20 ppg scorer and leader for this team IMO, and failed miserably IMO
 
The main complaint about Vlade imo has been his inability to add assets by using cap space. Cap space is great way for a rebuilding team to develope their future but Vlade has rather used it on vets like Hill and Zbo and missed on trades like Carrol trade ect. Because of last year alone, we have 23million useless cap in Zbo and Shumpert. We could have had +40mil cap space next summer but unfortunately we wont.

And the reason why the sixers trade is still a conversation is because for some reason there still are some people who wants to defend it. If Vlade hadnt done that trade, if he had utilized our cap space smartly and on top of that done those trade backs, I would be singing his praises. Unfortunately he havent done that so im not gonna sing
I believe the fundamental difference in our views are this. I look at the team Vlade has built and see all the young talented players. The positive if you will. You prefer to focus on the moves you perceive as the negative. We just have different ways of looking at things:)

GO KINGS!!!
 
Everything is contextual. The right decision in 2016 is not the same thing as the right decision in 2018. We had a different coach then, a franchise player and a #2 scoring option in Rudy Gay and a reasonable expectation that a couple key signings should put us in the playoffs. The point in 2016 isn't that waiving Jason and Carl or using the stretch provision was better than trading them, it's that we had other options so why did we settle for such a lopsided trade? The point this year is that Vlade put himself in an uncomfortable position where he needed roster spots in order to erase a salary from the books that he just added to the books in the previous off-season. Nothing about those two situations is the same so why should the same blanket answer apply to both of them equally? That's not moving the goalposts it's addressing the specifics of each situation.
Great point that could be said again about 2016 draft it was super weak draft. By getting more picks that draft quantity over quality was the right decision by Vlade to trade for picks. Again this trade afforded Vlade to take chances in the draft which you normally would not do in a strong draft. You bias of vlade is showing up again
 
The whole George Hill issue seems like it was framed poorly by the team or the media then. I don't pay a lot of attention to what gets written about the Kings in the off-season but if George Hill was set up as some kind of cornerstone player that partially explains all the backlash. He had one season in Utah where he was a featured player. The rest of his career he's been a steady player but not one who stands out in any way. You really have to appreciate team basketball to understand where his value lies because he's not making any highlight reel plays. And I still don't think that was a bad signing. He lost playing time to De'Aaron Fox once it was obvious we weren't going anywhere this season but I thought that was the idea from the beginning. I'm not counting this as two bad moves -- it's the decision to cut or trade him that I don't like. Or if we really wanted the cap space back badly enough to just take what we could get then hopefully Vlade spends it better this summer so we're not put in the same position again.
We traded him not cut him. I don't know why you mentioned cut at all. We also got a second round pick out of the deal and cap space next summer.
 
I do see this as two separate decisions. [(1) The draft itself (2) When do you give up on a prospect?] During the draft you're scouting prospects and projecting how they will fit into your system with your personnel against NBA competition. If you're throwing darts at a board and hoping they work out you're not really doing the job are you? Granted there are times when you do all your homework and the pick still doesn't work out but neither pick inspired much confidence on the day they were made. Some people see this as a retroactive thing -- if they turn into a good player than it becomes a good decision. That no longer applies if the players aren't on the team any longer. I didn't like those picks but I hoped they would ultimately prove me wrong. They still might, actually. Which leads to...
This is about a super weak draft and mitigating the possibilities of finding talent with the pick he had originally had(the 8th pick overall). He turned that into the prospect he wanted all along(Bogs) and several picks where he took a chance on(higher reward type of players). Some of them, considering how bad the draft is, did not turn out. This is the type of draft where you choose quantity over quality because it had like few or zero known quality players at 8. Your, admitly, anti Vlade bias is really showing when you still keep on arguing the 2016 draft.
 
I believe the fundamental difference in our views are this. I look at the team Vlade has built and see all the young talented players. The positive if you will. You prefer to focus on the moves you perceive as the negative. We just have different ways of looking at things:)

GO KINGS!!!
Well for multiple times in this thread I've acknowledged the positive things Vlade has done. I'd say the fundamental difference is that you refuse to acknowledge any mistakes he has made

E: but yeah at the end of the day we both want the same thing, Vlade to become a great gm
 
Last edited:
Great point that could be said again about 2016 draft it was super weak draft. By getting more picks that draft quantity over quality was the right decision by Vlade to trade for picks. Again this trade afforded Vlade to take chances in the draft which you normally would not do in a strong draft. You bias of vlade is showing up again
Yes the draft was supposed to be weak but it ended up pretty good. I keep hearing posters on this site say it was a weak class but I'm guessing those who say that don't watch much of the NBA, they probably just watch the Kings (nothing wrong with that). I don't think it was the best draft ever but for posters to keep harping on how "it was a super weak draft" is just flat out wrong
 
Yes the draft was supposed to be weak but it ended up pretty good. I keep hearing posters on this site say it was a weak class but I'm guessing those who say that don't watch much of the NBA, they probably just watch the Kings (nothing wrong with that). I don't think it was the best draft ever but for posters to keep harping on how "it was a super weak draft" is just flat out wrong
It was top heavy and the rest of the draft was super weak. And it still is. At pick 8 and beyond is super weak.
 
It was top heavy and the rest of the draft was super weak. And it still is. At pick 8 and beyond is super weak.
9)Polti-22 yo averaging 18 mins a game on the team with the best record in the East
10)Thon Maker-young project averaging 18 mpg on a playoff team
11)Sabonis-21 yo having a really good season
12)Taureen Prince-Looks to be a good role player, maybe more
13)Papa-Gone
14)Valentine-Useful role player
15)Juan Hermangomez-Nice young player
16)Yabusele-Upside guy who is in his rookie season. He was stashed last year
19)Malik Beasley-Stuck in a log jam in Denver
20)Caris LeVert-Part of Nets future
21)Bembry-Injuries have limited him but will see a lot of him the rest of the season
24)TLC-Jury is still out on him
26)Korkmaz-young, really hasnt got a chance yet
27)Siakam-playing real minutes on the team with the best record in the East
28)Skal-Is he a bust or not? Some have him as a core piece
29)Murray-Starter on the Spurs

Not saying these guys are superstars but they're 1 1/2 years into their NBA career. The top of the draft produced some nice players in Simmions, Brown and Ingram, the rest of the draft IMO wasn't bad. When you pick outside of the top ten most of the time you get role players. Thats what this list looks like to me.
 
LeVert is a nice player but is oft-injured, and Sabonis is nice too but in a great situation to succeed after the trade to Indiana. The rest of those guys the jury is still out. I like Siakam and Murray, but they aren’t locks as starter-caliber for the future. Murray starts now but the Spurs situation is t necessarily generalizable to most of the league...fact is that he doesn’t have a respected shot.

The draft is such a crapshoot that I believe it’s a difficult task to evaluate Vlade based on the Papa pick alone. And...It isn’t just one guy making the decision on these picks, and I’m not sure any of us really know the decision hierarchery in the Kings ownership group and front office.

Also, why has no one brought up Wade Baldwin? Many here clamored for him in the draft, and bemoaned Vlade not taking him. He was waived faster than Papa. Sometimes misses happen.

At the end of the day, it’s hard for me to evaluate Vlade because I’m not sure what his actual position is and what decisions are actually his.
 
...

At the end of the day, it’s hard for me to evaluate Vlade because I’m not sure what his actual position is and what decisions are actually his.
He is the GM. He has taken ownership of the decisions. Irregardless of the hierarchy, he gets both the credit or the blame. Part of the job.

His critics have legitimate concerns. Time will tell the validity of them. For me the bottom line is the organization is in better shape now than when he took over despite any missteps he might have made.
 
He is the GM. He has taken ownership of the decisions. Irregardless of the hierarchy, he gets both the credit or the blame. Part of the job.

His critics have legitimate concerns. Time will tell the validity of them. For me the bottom line is the organization is in better shape now than when he took over despite any missteps he might have made.
He may have that title and maybe his job is to take ownership of the decisions whether he made them or not. Vivek was quoted in the Ailene piece that the Boogie trade was his toughest decision so far and the Woj piece that spoke to Vlade not being involved with trade calls.

For me, that raises the question of what is Vlade’s actual role in decision making regardless of his title.
 
9)Polti-22 yo averaging 18 mins a game on the team with the best record in the East
10)Thon Maker-young project averaging 18 mpg on a playoff team
11)Sabonis-21 yo having a really good season
12)Taureen Prince-Looks to be a good role player, maybe more
13)Papa-Gone
14)Valentine-Useful role player
15)Juan Hermangomez-Nice young player
16)Yabusele-Upside guy who is in his rookie season. He was stashed last year
19)Malik Beasley-Stuck in a log jam in Denver
20)Caris LeVert-Part of Nets future
21)Bembry-Injuries have limited him but will see a lot of him the rest of the season
24)TLC-Jury is still out on him
26)Korkmaz-young, really hasnt got a chance yet
27)Siakam-playing real minutes on the team with the best record in the East
28)Skal-Is he a bust or not? Some have him as a core piece
29)Murray-Starter on the Spurs

Not saying these guys are superstars but they're 1 1/2 years into their NBA career. The top of the draft produced some nice players in Simmions, Brown and Ingram, the rest of the draft IMO wasn't bad. When you pick outside of the top ten most of the time you get role players. Thats what this list looks like to me.
I guess in a draft like that I can see the value of taking a chance. either you select a sure jury-out/useful-role-player or you roll the dice. this time it did not work out and we lost out on a jury-out/useful-role-player. opinions differ on whether it is worth making a gamble like that.
 
He may have that title and maybe his job is to take ownership of the decisions whether he made them or not. Vivek was quoted in the Ailene piece that the Boogie trade was his toughest decision so far and the Woj piece that spoke to Vlade not being involved with trade calls.

For me, that raises the question of what is Vlade’s actual role in decision making regardless of his title.
Seriously. Who would we have gotten in that better deal that Vlade wanted and Vivek rejected or hesitated on?
That huge trade makes up half of his reputation as our GM.
 
Hill was paid 20 mil to step in and be a 15-20 ppg scorer and leader for this team IMO, and failed miserably IMO
I think that was an unrealistic expectation then. Betting on a player to achieve a scoring mark that he's previously reached twice in the nine preceding seasons is a pretty bad bet, especially if he's in his early 30s already which is when NBA careers on average start to tail off. It's also an unsophisticated way to judge scoring. Most people are more concerned with efficiency at this point than counting stats. His career field goal percentage is 45% and he shot 47% this season in Sacramento. His career three point percentage is 38% and he shot 45% in Sacramento. Among regulars he had the highest TS% on the team. Maybe the issue is more with the team distribution of shots. If a guy leads the team in TS% why is he seventh in FGA? That's on the coach isn't it?
 
I think that was an unrealistic expectation then. Betting on a player to achieve a scoring mark that he's previously reached twice in the nine preceding seasons is a pretty bad bet, especially if he's in his early 30s already which is when NBA careers on average start to tail off. It's also an unsophisticated way to judge scoring. Most people are more concerned with efficiency at this point than counting stats. His career field goal percentage is 45% and he shot 47% this season in Sacramento. His career three point percentage is 38% and he shot 45% in Sacramento. Among regulars he had the highest TS% on the team. Maybe the issue is more with the team distribution of shots. If a guy leads the team in TS% why is he seventh in FGA? That's on the coach isn't it?
No, it’s on him for playing nonchalant, half spirited and not wanting to make his imprint felt from my perspective. We don’t know Joerger’s game plan but I’d assume more it was Hill not stepping forward than being stymied by game plan

I’m guessing he was paid 20 mil with the expectation that he was now supposed to be one of the more talented players on the team, and thus able to provide more of a role than he had in previous stops where he was a ~third option
 
Yes the draft was supposed to be weak but it ended up pretty good. I keep hearing posters on this site say it was a weak class but I'm guessing those who say that don't watch much of the NBA, they probably just watch the Kings (nothing wrong with that). I don't think it was the best draft ever but for posters to keep harping on how "it was a super weak draft" is just flat out wrong
Who do you like in that draft picked after Sabonis?
 
I think that was an unrealistic expectation then. Betting on a player to achieve a scoring mark that he's previously reached twice in the nine preceding seasons is a pretty bad bet, especially if he's in his early 30s already which is when NBA careers on average start to tail off. It's also an unsophisticated way to judge scoring. Most people are more concerned with efficiency at this point than counting stats. His career field goal percentage is 45% and he shot 47% this season in Sacramento. His career three point percentage is 38% and he shot 45% in Sacramento. Among regulars he had the highest TS% on the team. Maybe the issue is more with the team distribution of shots. If a guy leads the team in TS% why is he seventh in FGA? That's on the coach isn't it?

I have not missed a Kings game this year. I say that to establish my bonafides . Hill just appeared very unengaged for most games he played for the Kings. There was little aggression in his play. When he shot the ball he shot it well. It was like he seldom looked for his own shot.
 
9)Polti-22 yo averaging 18 mins a game on the team with the best record in the East
10)Thon Maker-young project averaging 18 mpg on a playoff team
11)Sabonis-21 yo having a really good season
12)Taureen Prince-Looks to be a good role player, maybe more
13)Papa-Gone
14)Valentine-Useful role player
15)Juan Hermangomez-Nice young player
16)Yabusele-Upside guy who is in his rookie season. He was stashed last year
19)Malik Beasley-Stuck in a log jam in Denver
20)Caris LeVert-Part of Nets future
21)Bembry-Injuries have limited him but will see a lot of him the rest of the season
24)TLC-Jury is still out on him
26)Korkmaz-young, really hasnt got a chance yet
27)Siakam-playing real minutes on the team with the best record in the East
28)Skal-Is he a bust or not? Some have him as a core piece
29)Murray-Starter on the Spurs

Not saying these guys are superstars but they're 1 1/2 years into their NBA career. The top of the draft produced some nice players in Simmions, Brown and Ingram, the rest of the draft IMO wasn't bad. When you pick outside of the top ten most of the time you get role players. Thats what this list looks like to me.
If next to Papa instead of “gone” it said “high risk high reward project big. Very young and probably a contributor next year - potentially an all star some day” .... you would be happy?
 
I have not missed a Kings game this year. I say that to establish my bonafides . Hill just appeared very unengaged for most games he played for the Kings. There was little aggression in his play. When he shot the ball he shot it well. It was like he seldom looked for his own shot.
Again, I just think that's part of his MO. He's never been a guy that hunts his own shot in the NBA. One season he led his team in shot attempts but that was a fairly modest 12.4 per game. If you take a guy who's always been on playoff teams where he was instructed to move the ball and take open shots and put him on a team of mostly rookies with no go-to scoring options outside of Slo-Bo and expect him to create shots off the dribble and lead the team in scoring you're setting him up to fail. He certainly could have performed better but he was not a bad player when he was here, just a mediocre one with an inflated contract.

There's also the issue of playing time. We're 2/3 of the way through the season and not a single player on the team is averaging what most would consider to be "starter's minutes". Look at Jimmy Butler in Minnesota -- an All-Star this year averaging 22, 5, and 5. He's getting those numbers in 37 minutes per game on a very good 59.3 TS%. George Hill's was an even higher 59.7%. Who's to say in 10 more minutes per game George Hill wouldn't have averaged in the 15-20 ppg range? If he was able to maintain that TS% it would have been hard for him not to. And then you had other fans demanding Joerger play Fox even more right from the start of the season. He can't win either way.

The thing that bothers me the most is when it's been suggested that he was a negative influence on the team and in the locker room because he wasn't smiling all the time and waving a towel on the bench. There are reports that he was a great influence in the locker room and all of our young guards went to him constantly for advice about match ups. Not everyone has a "big" personality. I might be wrong but this just seems like a classic case of perception "creating" reality for a lot of people. Hill had a target on his back from the beginning because Fox was hyped up as our new franchise guy and Hill was in the way. Then on top of that you give him a huge paycheck and saddle the team with the inevitable grossly optimistic pre-season projections (playoffs?!) and it's no surprise he's getting a disproportionate percentage of the blame for our poor record.

My attitude all season has been -- the team is bad. That was the plan. We'll hopefully get a top 5 pick and be less bad next year. Why are we stressing out over wins and losses in the meantime? There's nothing to stress about anymore. Some of these game threads this season are just unreadable. The way Dave Joerger has been treated has been equally shameful IMO. The guy is just doing his job.