Yet again. Which way to go

Annual which way do we go

  • Total voters
    47
I'm from Sacramento. Been a fan my whole life. Used to go to and watch city council meetings. Did all I could to help keep team in sac. I feel my efforts and this city's efforts were taken for granted. So I'm at the end of my rope. If they leave, don't care. If they stay, cool - make it worthwhile.
 
I’m definitely not looking to go the Thunder route. They just lost by 73 and no one has more draft picks than they do. At some point, it can’t just be about the draft and acquiring a bunch of lottery picks. Gross
 
The_Jamal said:
Yikes dude, come on. McNair having to clean up Vlades 100 million losing core is why he hasn't been able to make any impact moves and have to win on the fringes. I think that value has probably changed over this season with Buddy/Barnes/Holmes all playing so well, so I think it'd be reasonable to say he could get fair value for them now. But unless you were suggesting he just dump the core for nothing, what's he supposed to do? Stuck with big contracts on long-term deals.

He took over for a losing core, no future assets, a loser coach he wasn't allowed to fire and install his own guy. This was never going to be a 2 year turn-around.
Click to expand...

How do you know he wasn't allowed to fire Walton?

We also should never have given Fox the max/planned to build around him. That's on Monte as much as it is on Vlade. Now we stuck.
 
mac said:
How do you know he wasn't allowed to fire Walton?

We also should never have given Fox the max/planned to build around him. That's on Monte as much as it is on Vlade. Now we stuck.
Click to expand...

How many GM's take over for a bad team and don't get to install their own coach? Why would he fire Walton 17 games into his 2nd season if he truly was "his coach"?

And it's just using logic with how Vivek has run this franchise over the last 8 years. It's far more likely any GM who took this job had to stomach Walton for awhile because of finances than McNair coming in as his first stint of a GM and tying his rep to a losing coach from an old regime.

But, I will say that excuse is gone. We'll see what McNair does here in the coming weeks if he ties his rep to the Vlade core, or if he blows it up and rebuilds. My guess is he'll get next season with his coach if he tries to win before he's on the hot-seat if things still look bad heading into year 4. If he resets, I think year 3 and year 4 will be a "pass" before expecting results in year 5.
 
The_Jamal said:
How many GM's take over for a bad team and don't get to install their own coach? Why would he fire Walton 17 games into his 2nd season if he truly was "his coach"?

And it's just using logic with how Vivek has run this franchise over the last 8 years. It's far more likely any GM who took this job had to stomach Walton for awhile because of finances than McNair coming in as his first stint of a GM and tying his rep to a losing coach from an old regime.

But, I will say that excuse is gone. We'll see what McNair does here in the coming weeks if he ties his rep to the Vlade core, or if he blows it up and rebuilds. My guess is he'll get next season with his coach if he tries to win before he's on the hot-seat if things still look bad heading into year 4. If he resets, I think year 3 and year 4 will be a "pass" before expecting results in year 5.
Click to expand...

Monte has said his strategy was to “keep all options open” from day 1. This middling approach has been his strategy all along so not sure how you can’t “pin it on him” when he is doing exactly what he articulated.

the roster construction is also on him. He traded for Thompson, drafted Queeta and signed Len and Jones. He spent second round picks on more guards in Davis and Wright when he really needed wings. And yes 2nd round picks are low probability which is why you need more of them.
 
sactowndog said:
Monte has said his strategy was to “keep all options open” from day 1. This middling approach has been his strategy all along so not sure how you can’t “pin it on him” when he is doing exactly what he articulated.

the roster construction is also on him. He traded for Thompson, drafted Queeta and signed Len and Jones. He spent second round picks on more guards in Davis and Wright when he really needed wings. And yes 2nd round picks are low probability which is why you need more of them.
Click to expand...

After the crap GM's we've had who've rushed into horrible trades/contracts over the last 10 years, how is this not a good thing? Monte not making moves just to make moves is exactly what we should be striving for. Had he followed your advice, Buddy/Barnes would have been gone for absolute peanuts and well below their value last season. If we do trade them, both should bring back a solid haul after their starts to the year.

Funny you should bring up 2nd round picks, because Monte is the only GM to actually build a farm system of good developmental prospects. Vlade and Pete ignored it. King, Ramsey, Queta, Woodard, Metu, Jones, and T. Davis along with Hali/Mitchell is as good as building for the future as this team has seen in a long long time. And basically got all of them for insanely cheap assets.

The TT trade we agree on. That's easily his worst move and wasn't at all necessary with the Len signing and Damian Jones still in tow. Otherwise, he's running things pretty damn close to what I consider ideal; up to this point at least.
 
All the talk of the greatness of the GMs amazing drafting skill I'm not seeing, Hali and Mitchell have proven nothing and both have limited upside and the talk of the Kings second round picks or G-Leaguers like King, Ramsey, Queta and Woodard is literally the same as Giles (next C-Webb guys just wait), Gabriel (elite 3 and D guy who had the skills of a C) and whoever that wing defender was who washed out of the L.

I'm not saying he's bad at drafting but there is nothing to point to him being good at it either lets wait a bit before claiming that imo.
 
serbiangoat said:
All the talk of the greatness of the GMs amazing drafting skill I'm not seeing, Hali and Mitchell have proven nothing and both have limited upside and the talk of the Kings second round picks or G-Leaguers like King, Ramsey, Queta and Woodard is literally the same as Giles (next C-Webb guys just wait), Gabriel (elite 3 and D guy who had the skills of a C) and whoever that wing defender was who washed out of the L.

I'm not saying he's bad at drafting but there is nothing to point to him being good at it either lets wait a bit before claiming that imo.
Click to expand...

I agree. The only thing is that he went with the dropper in each draft lotto wise which is never a true losing proposition but we will see if them stacking players at the same position as his star is going to work out. History says no, but it also said no about Walton sticking as a holdover and that fizzled a few months too late so now this season is on the ledge from here on out. Monte being a good GM isn't the question, he's a newbie. The question now is whether he learns from his own mistakes and understands the timing of getting out of those mistakes before it's too late. If he does then there's a chance. So far, HE, if he's actually making the moves, thought this team was just another summer of work and a few more big bodies away from making it to the playoffs. And the answer to this point is WRONG.
 
The_Jamal said:
How many GM's take over for a bad team and don't get to install their own coach? Why would he fire Walton 17 games into his 2nd season if he truly was "his coach"?

And it's just using logic with how Vivek has run this franchise over the last 8 years. It's far more likely any GM who took this job had to stomach Walton for awhile because of finances than McNair coming in as his first stint of a GM and tying his rep to a losing coach from an old regime.

But, I will say that excuse is gone. We'll see what McNair does here in the coming weeks if he ties his rep to the Vlade core, or if he blows it up and rebuilds. My guess is he'll get next season with his coach if he tries to win before he's on the hot-seat if things still look bad heading into year 4. If he resets, I think year 3 and year 4 will be a "pass" before expecting results in year 5.
Click to expand...

Err because Luke clearly wasn't getting it done? He might not have been Monte's first pick as coach, but I don't think you can just say that Monte had his hands tied and wasnt allowed to fire Luke from last season.

That's not logic, that's you just choosing to absolve him (and Fox and players who voiced their support of Luke) of responsibility and blaming Vivek instead, and essentially calling Monte a liar in the process. Monte has very publicly and clearly asserted that he had complete choice around keeping Walton, so you saying it wasn't is you peddling some conspiracy theory. Just because Vivek has meddled in the past doesn't mean he's meddled much under Monte.
 
mac said:
Err because Luke clearly wasn't getting it done? He might not have been Monte's first pick as coach, but I don't think you can just say that Monte had his hands tied and wasnt allowed to fire Luke from last season.

That's not logic, that's you just choosing to absolve him (and Fox and players who voiced their support of Luke) of responsibility and blaming Vivek instead, and essentially calling Monte a liar in the process. Monte has very publicly and clearly asserted that he had complete choice around keeping Walton, so you saying it wasn't is you peddling some conspiracy theory. Just because Vivek has meddled in the past doesn't mean he's meddled much under Monte.
Click to expand...

What's he supposed to say pubically? "I would have fired Walton instantly, but ownership really didn't want to pay for another coach". Of course he's going to gas up Luke in PR.

Whatever. Clearly, differing opinions and I'm not going to take the side of our crap ownership team over the only good FO exec we've had in 10+ years. Feel strongly I'll be on the right side of that
 
The_Jamal said:
What's he supposed to say pubically? "I would have fired Walton instantly, but ownership really didn't want to pay for another coach". Of course he's going to gas up Luke in PR.

Whatever. Clearly, differing opinions and I'm not going to take the side of our crap ownership team over the only good FO exec we've had in 10+ years. Feel strongly I'll be on the right side of that
Click to expand...

So Monte's a liar then. Funny how easy it is to assume or interpret things to fit your narrative right, that's basically how conspiracy theories work.

This kind of thinking is whats wrong with the Kings fanbase. No room for a measured approach. Why can't Monte simply have made a mistake with his coaching choice/choosing to try for stability, while being a good GM in his drafting and attempts for roster construction? Why is it an either/or? It was the same with Fox - he could do no wrong and fans crowned him saviour of the franchise future superstar because he said he liked Sac. No room to see that he had flaws and hadn't proven the ability to lead a team to winning. No, that must have been someone else's fault, because how could it be the fault of the guy putting up 25 and 7 on a bad team? The same thing is going to happen with Davion and Hali because fans just can't accept that players/people they like can have flaws too.
 
mac said:
Err because Luke clearly wasn't getting it done? He might not have been Monte's first pick as coach, but I don't think you can just say that Monte had his hands tied and wasnt allowed to fire Luke from last season.

That's not logic, that's you just choosing to absolve him (and Fox and players who voiced their support of Luke) of responsibility and blaming Vivek instead, and essentially calling Monte a liar in the process. Monte has very publicly and clearly asserted that he had complete choice around keeping Walton, so you saying it wasn't is you peddling some conspiracy theory. Just because Vivek has meddled in the past doesn't mean he's meddled much under Monte.
Click to expand...
Sorry, Monte was not allowed to fire the Coach until Vivek told him too.
 
24 rick barry said:
Sorry, Monte was not allowed to fire the Coach until Vivek told him too.
Click to expand...

Great input, thanks. My sources also tell me that despite Fox saying otherwise, he is actually a lizard-person. I'm surprised you can't see it - why else would he be so disengaged and cold in press conferences?
 
mac said:
So Monte's a liar then. Funny how easy it is to assume or interpret things to fit your narrative right, that's basically how conspiracy theories work.

This kind of thinking is whats wrong with the Kings fanbase. No room for a measured approach. Why can't Monte simply have made a mistake with his coaching choice/choosing to try for stability, while being a good GM in his drafting and attempts for roster construction? Why is it an either/or? It was the same with Fox - he could do no wrong and fans crowned him saviour of the franchise future superstar because he said he liked Sac. No room to see that he had flaws and hadn't proven the ability to lead a team to winning. No, that must have been someone else's fault, because how could it be the fault of the guy putting up 25 and 7 on a bad team? The same thing is going to happen with Davion and Hali because fans just can't accept that players/people they like can have flaws too.
Click to expand...

It's called making logical conclusions based on large sample of previous data. It's more logical to me that the new GM had to accept Walton because ownership didn't want to pay for a new coach. Why would a rookie GM tie is record to a losing coach from a losing regime? You disagree, so you call my take a conspiracy theory.

So who's really not taking the measured approach here?
 
The_Jamal said:
It's called making logical conclusions based on large sample of previous data. It's more logical to me that the new GM had to accept Walton because ownership didn't want to pay for a new coach. Why would a rookie GM tie is record to a losing coach from a losing regime? You disagree, so you call my take a conspiracy theory.

So who's really not taking the measured approach here?
Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not talking about Monte being able to hire the coach he wanted from day 1. I'm talking about retaining Luke this past offseason.

Why would he tie is record to said coach? I don't know, let's ask Monte?

“Luke [Walton] will continue to be our head coach. The team finished strong down the stretch, obviously did not ultimately reach our goal, but he has the support of our players,” McNair said. “We have a great working relationship, and we both acknowledge that we have to become better in many areas.”

“I understand that’s kind of out there, but I’ve been given every resource I need to get this team back to the playoffs, and this was a basketball decision,” McNair said.

Or let's ask Fox?

“Everybody wants to continue to grow together and keep this group together, and continue to play for a coach that you trust in"


So maybe, just maybe, the reason why Monte didn't fire Luke after last season is because he opted for consistency with a coach the players liked, and not because evil Vivek didn't let him fire him?
 
mac said:
To be clear, I'm not talking about Monte being able to hire the coach he wanted from day 1. I'm talking about retaining Luke this past offseason.

Why would he tie is record to said coach? I don't know, let's ask Monte?

“Luke [Walton] will continue to be our head coach. The team finished strong down the stretch, obviously did not ultimately reach our goal, but he has the support of our players,” McNair said. “We have a great working relationship, and we both acknowledge that we have to become better in many areas.”

“I understand that’s kind of out there, but I’ve been given every resource I need to get this team back to the playoffs, and this was a basketball decision,” McNair said.

Or let's ask Fox?

“Everybody wants to continue to grow together and keep this group together, and continue to play for a coach that you trust in"


So maybe, just maybe, the reason why Monte didn't fire Luke after last season is because he opted for consistency with a coach the players liked, and not because evil Vivek didn't let him fire him?
Click to expand...

Let's pretend I'm right, and Monte was forced to retain Walton this whole time. What would his comments looks like to the public?
 
The_Jamal said:
Let's pretend I'm right, and Monte was forced to retain Walton this whole time. What would his comments looks like to the public?
Click to expand...

I don't know that's not for me to say - all I know is you're accusing Monte McNair of being a liar with no backbone, so you do you I guess.

Hey, maybe Vivek was the one who actually picked Haliburton and Davion then right, because of the large sample of previous data?

Ironically, your "large sample of previous data" if anything supports an ownership group that is more than willing to hire and fire coaches at will rather than one that is tight with the purse strings.

Edit: Kain Lear did a good job explaining the fallacy of the argument, so removing a conspiracy theory example I gave lest anyone get upset about that
 
Last edited:
The_Jamal said:
After the crap GM's we've had who've rushed into horrible trades/contracts over the last 10 years, how is this not a good thing? Monte not making moves just to make moves is exactly what we should be striving for. Had he followed your advice, Buddy/Barnes would have been gone for absolute peanuts and well below their value last season. If we do trade them, both should bring back a solid haul after their starts to the year.

Funny you should bring up 2nd round picks, because Monte is the only GM to actually build a farm system of good developmental prospects. Vlade and Pete ignored it. King, Ramsey, Queta, Woodard, Metu, Jones, and T. Davis along with Hali/Mitchell is as good as building for the future as this team has seen in a long long time. And basically got all of them for insanely cheap assets.

The TT trade we agree on. That's easily his worst move and wasn't at all necessary with the Len signing and Damian Jones still in tow. Otherwise, he's running things pretty damn close to what I consider ideal; up to this point at least.
Click to expand...

Let’s review that point shall we?

If we had traded Barnes ( I didn’t advocate trading Buddy) we would have lost likely at least 1 additional game which would have made us 8th and picking Wagner. If we lost a couple more we could have been in Toronto’s spot and gotten Barnes

at 16 we could have picked Sengun, Murphy or Jalen Johnson. I would have taken Johnson but the analytics based Monte would likely have taken Sengun.

in addition we would have Nesmith and a trade exception.

so our roster would have been:

Center: Holmes, Len, Jones, Queeta
Power Foward: Sengun / Johnson, Metu, Bagley
Small Forward: Wagner or Barnes, Nesmith, Harkless, King
Shooting Guard: Haliburton, Hield, Davis
Point Guard: Fox, Delon Wright

sorry but I like the look of that roster much more than the unbalanced POS roster we currently have. we would have had 3 high IQ ball movers in Sengun, Wagner and Hali.

Not to mention what might have been brought in with a 20M trade exception at this upcoming trade deadline.
 
The_Jamal said:
It's called making logical conclusions based on large sample of previous data. It's more logical to me that the new GM had to accept Walton because ownership didn't want to pay for a new coach. Why would a rookie GM tie is record to a losing coach from a losing regime? You disagree, so you call my take a conspiracy theory.

So who's really not taking the measured approach here?
Click to expand...

The_Jamal said:
Let's pretend I'm right, and Monte was forced to retain Walton this whole time. What would his comments looks like to the public?
Click to expand...

The flaw of this argument is the fact that the argument has assumed some information. ... When an argument fails to provide sufficient evidence for its conclusion - when it assumes that some important piece of evidence is true rather than demonstrating that it's true - that argument has failed.

Person A is <insert any accusations>, comes up with zero proof.
Person A is a public figure, thus he/she won't be able/allowed to say how he/she truly feels.
Thus, person A must be committing what I accused of him/her.

Is it not a flaw in logic?
 
mac said:
To be clear, I'm not talking about Monte being able to hire the coach he wanted from day 1. I'm talking about retaining Luke this past offseason.

Why would he tie is record to said coach? I don't know, let's ask Monte?

“Luke [Walton] will continue to be our head coach. The team finished strong down the stretch, obviously did not ultimately reach our goal, but he has the support of our players,” McNair said. “We have a great working relationship, and we both acknowledge that we have to become better in many areas.”

“I understand that’s kind of out there, but I’ve been given every resource I need to get this team back to the playoffs, and this was a basketball decision,” McNair said.

Or let's ask Fox?

“Everybody wants to continue to grow together and keep this group together, and continue to play for a coach that you trust in"


So maybe, just maybe, the reason why Monte didn't fire Luke after last season is because he opted for consistency with a coach the players liked, and not because evil Vivek didn't let him fire him?
Click to expand...
Sorry, Monte was not allowed to fire the Coach until Vivek told him too.
 
mac said:
I don't know that's not for me to say - all I know is you're accusing Monte McNair of being a liar with no backbone, so you do you I guess.

Hey, maybe Vivek was the one who actually picked Haliburton and Davion then right, because of the large sample of previous data?

Ironically, your "large sample of previous data" if anything supports an ownership group that is more than willing to hire and fire coaches at will rather than one that is tight with the purse strings.

Edit: Kain Lear did a good job explaining the fallacy of the argument, so removing a conspiracy theory example I gave lest anyone get upset about that
Click to expand...

Don't put words in my mouth
 
The_Jamal said:
Don't put words in my mouth
Click to expand...

Dude, you are making zero sense. Was Monte lying or was he not lying when he said "I understand that’s kind of out there, but I’ve been given every resource I need to get this team back to the playoffs, and this was a basketball decision"?

Could he or could he not have resigned if he was being forced to say something he didn't mean?

Edit: I want to add that I gave the "backbone" comment a second thought, and I stand by it. Monte McNair isn't some poor soul struggling to put food on the table who has no choice but to suck it up to his bosses or starve. Heck, if ownership is really so bad and the whole league knows about it, I doubt he would even be black-listed by other teams if he chose to resign because he was being unfairly hamstrung.
 
Last edited:
mac said:
Dude, you are making zero sense. Was Monte lying or was he not lying when he said "I understand that’s kind of out there, but I’ve been given every resource I need to get this team back to the playoffs, and this was a basketball decision"?

Could he or could he not have resigned if he was being forced to say something he didn't mean?

Edit: I want to add that I gave the "backbone" comment a second thought, and I stand by it. Monte McNair isn't some poor soul struggling to put food on the table who has no choice but to suck it up to his bosses or starve. Heck, if ownership is really so bad and the whole league knows about it, I doubt he would even be black-listed by other teams if he chose to resign because he was being unfairly hamstrung.
Click to expand...

for what it is worth I heard Vivek wouldn’t allow Monte to trade Barnes either. But I guess that is what you get when you get the job by telling Vivek what he wants to hear instead of the truth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

sactowndog
Direction.
Replies
16
Views
860
sactowndog
sactowndog
Spike
  • Poll Poll
NBA Power Rankings, Week of 11/28
Replies
0
Views
166
Spike
Spike
Spike
What Do The Kings Mean to You?
Replies
6
Views
436
Siranthony
S
Spike
  • Poll Poll
Power Rankings, Week of 12/5
Replies
0
Views
151
Spike
Spike
Spike
  • Poll Poll
Power Rankings, Week of 12/12
Replies
0
Views
201
Spike
Spike
Back
Top