[SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
[SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 266
- And1: 164
- Joined: Aug 19, 2013
[SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
Hi I'm visiting here. I was always intrigued with the Kings during the Webber era. Seriously asking since I haven't followed them since. Why have they been so bad for so many years? They had some pretty good players over the years, one of the best crowds, best fans, good looking jersey's, logo, color scheme. I guess I'm looking for a pretty elaborate answer that'll make me understand why they have been bad.
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,085
- And1: 1,084
- Joined: Feb 19, 2005
- Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
This could take forever. Long story short, never fully committing to winning or rebuilding and trying to do both at the same time. The Maloof era was obviously hamstrung for a variety of reasons but I'll say this for Viveks tenure:
1. Hired the wrong management (PDA, Mullin, horrible)
2. Hired the wrong coach (Karl) for their franchise player (Cuz).
3. Instead of building a team around him they went BPA with the only assets they had (draft picks) and watched all their value die on the vine because they weren't allowed to produce (Even Trob could have put up some numbers, winning? Probably not but still. Build him up and flip him).
4. Hired the right coach (Joerger) for their star but had little assets at that point to build a team around him so they traded him.
5. Now we sit in position where perhaps they again have the wrong coach for their young team. If so then the path continues on as all value is leeched from their young talent.
It always seems like the right move finally comes but too late or at the wrong time. Had they not fired Karl and instead traded Cousins they might have a coach that fits the young players they have now much better. At this point it comes down to how much Joerger can either get these young players to shine in his system, or play the right system for them.
1. Hired the wrong management (PDA, Mullin, horrible)
2. Hired the wrong coach (Karl) for their franchise player (Cuz).
3. Instead of building a team around him they went BPA with the only assets they had (draft picks) and watched all their value die on the vine because they weren't allowed to produce (Even Trob could have put up some numbers, winning? Probably not but still. Build him up and flip him).
4. Hired the right coach (Joerger) for their star but had little assets at that point to build a team around him so they traded him.
5. Now we sit in position where perhaps they again have the wrong coach for their young team. If so then the path continues on as all value is leeched from their young talent.
It always seems like the right move finally comes but too late or at the wrong time. Had they not fired Karl and instead traded Cousins they might have a coach that fits the young players they have now much better. At this point it comes down to how much Joerger can either get these young players to shine in his system, or play the right system for them.
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- Junior
- Posts: 266
- And1: 164
- Joined: Aug 19, 2013
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
SacKingZZZ wrote:This could take forever. Long story short, never fully committing to winning or rebuilding and trying to do both at the same time. The Maloof era was obviously hamstrung for a variety of reasons but I'll say this for Viveks tenure:
1. Hired the wrong management (PDA, Mullin, horrible)
2. Hired the wrong coach (Karl) for their franchise player (Cuz).
3. Instead of building a team around him they went BPA with the only assets they had (draft picks) and watched all their value die on the vine because they weren't allowed to produce (Even Trob could have put up some numbers, winning? Probably not but still. Build him up and flip him).
4. Hired the right coach (Joerger) for their star but had little assets at that point to build a team around him so they traded him.
5. Now we sit in position where perhaps they again have the wrong coach for their young team. If so then the path continues on as all value is leeched from their young talent.
It always seems like the right move finally comes but too late or at the wrong time. Had they not fired Karl and instead traded Cousins they might have a coach that fits the young players they have now much better. At this point it comes down to how much Joerger can either get these young players to shine in his system, or play the right system for them.
Ok thank you for the answer. My understanding is that they just had some unfortunate timing with their moves because the pieces were always there..
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,085
- And1: 1,084
- Joined: Feb 19, 2005
- Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
dark shark wrote:SacKingZZZ wrote:This could take forever. Long story short, never fully committing to winning or rebuilding and trying to do both at the same time. The Maloof era was obviously hamstrung for a variety of reasons but I'll say this for Viveks tenure:
1. Hired the wrong management (PDA, Mullin, horrible)
2. Hired the wrong coach (Karl) for their franchise player (Cuz).
3. Instead of building a team around him they went BPA with the only assets they had (draft picks) and watched all their value die on the vine because they weren't allowed to produce (Even Trob could have put up some numbers, winning? Probably not but still. Build him up and flip him).
4. Hired the right coach (Joerger) for their star but had little assets at that point to build a team around him so they traded him.
5. Now we sit in position where perhaps they again have the wrong coach for their young team. If so then the path continues on as all value is leeched from their young talent.
It always seems like the right move finally comes but too late or at the wrong time. Had they not fired Karl and instead traded Cousins they might have a coach that fits the young players they have now much better. At this point it comes down to how much Joerger can either get these young players to shine in his system, or play the right system for them.
Ok thank you for the answer. My understanding is that they just had some unfortunate timing with their moves because the pieces were always there..
I'd say it's timing along with some poor decisions for sure. The pieces and moves never seem to sink up at the right time. When their plans shift they don't make the necessary moves around that shift in order to make it work.
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- General Manager
- Posts: 8,370
- And1: 3,059
- Joined: Feb 09, 2017
-
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
Bad time to bring up Kings don’t have a representative in SI’s top 100 in 2019 list (only team without a member)?
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
- codydaze
- Forum Mod - Kings
- Posts: 6,470
- And1: 5,024
- Joined: Jul 06, 2013
- Location: Sacramento, CA
-
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
BoogieTime wrote:Bad time to bring up Kings don’t have a representative in SI’s top 100 in 2019 list (only team without a member)?
Eh, it's just a list, it's not a big deal. Even though I'm one of the bigger WCS critics, I'd still take him over Brook Lopez, Pau Gasol or Dirk at this point in their careers. Buddy and Bogdan will likely prove they deserved a spot on that list as well this year.
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,085
- And1: 1,084
- Joined: Feb 19, 2005
- Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
BoogieTime wrote:Bad time to bring up Kings don’t have a representative in SI’s top 100 in 2019 list (only team without a member)?
When you run 12 man rotations and spread roughly amount equal amount of minutes to role players over your best talent this is what happens. No Kings player was even allowed to do anything more than average and if the Kings don't change that they have no shot. It's time to narrow that rotation down and start letting the talent you saw all that value in with high picks or as trade targets shine. No more 2nd rounder role player love until you have some breakout players and recoup some of that value.
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- Pro Prospect
- Posts: 905
- And1: 92
- Joined: Dec 27, 2007
-
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
Why are the Kings bad?
-The Kings really don't have a guy that leads them, there is no "star player".
-We have too many big men and too few wings in a league that favors wing and guard play.
-Too many elite "athletes" without elite skills.
-Poor front office decision making in trades, free agent signings,
-Too many under-performers taken with high draft picks.
-The Kings as an organization have lost credibility with the players and media. We can't attract marquee free agents unless we significantly overpay, so the draft is our best chance at improving talent... but we keep leaving draft day feeling like we didn't get the best or even the right players available.
-Last year there was such a discrepancy between the style that would benefit the young players and the style that was actually played in games.
Is there reason for hope?
-Sure! Fox, Buddy, Bogdan, and Giles look to me like they could all be legitimate starting caliber players this season. WCS, Kosta, Bjelica, and Yogi are all rotation NBA players. Sadly, we're still looking for consistent signs of life from JJ and Skal, while Frank Mason is not yet ready to handle the backup PG spot.
-My hope is definitely tempered. Hopefully the Kings will be a "fun" team this year, but they won't be a good team.
-The path to improvement seems to be somewhat clear: invest in player development, target a wing, improve front office competency (Vlade is not the man for the job). Unfortunately, since we don't have a draft pick this year, I don't expect to see signs of a "good team" until at least another 2 seasons have played out. I'm looking at you draft of 2020!
-The Kings really don't have a guy that leads them, there is no "star player".
-We have too many big men and too few wings in a league that favors wing and guard play.
-Too many elite "athletes" without elite skills.
-Poor front office decision making in trades, free agent signings,
-Too many under-performers taken with high draft picks.
-The Kings as an organization have lost credibility with the players and media. We can't attract marquee free agents unless we significantly overpay, so the draft is our best chance at improving talent... but we keep leaving draft day feeling like we didn't get the best or even the right players available.
-Last year there was such a discrepancy between the style that would benefit the young players and the style that was actually played in games.
Is there reason for hope?
-Sure! Fox, Buddy, Bogdan, and Giles look to me like they could all be legitimate starting caliber players this season. WCS, Kosta, Bjelica, and Yogi are all rotation NBA players. Sadly, we're still looking for consistent signs of life from JJ and Skal, while Frank Mason is not yet ready to handle the backup PG spot.
-My hope is definitely tempered. Hopefully the Kings will be a "fun" team this year, but they won't be a good team.
-The path to improvement seems to be somewhat clear: invest in player development, target a wing, improve front office competency (Vlade is not the man for the job). Unfortunately, since we don't have a draft pick this year, I don't expect to see signs of a "good team" until at least another 2 seasons have played out. I'm looking at you draft of 2020!
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- Veteran
- Posts: 2,604
- And1: 1,844
- Joined: May 07, 2017
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
My opinion is not going to be very popular around here, but I was always believing that Sacramento fan base cares more about having fun than about winning. And the FO adapts to that. If Sac FO is not the worst in the league it has to be one of the bottom 3. The FO has been making decision just for the sake of making decisions, without rational reasoning and without basic if-then thought process. There is a RFA available and he has problems? Vlade is going to offer him major money, no problem. Why? Just because he can.
The draft decision is another example of incompetent deliberation process. There is no excuse. Vlade got something into his skull and once that happens, it's done. If Sacramento had 2nd AND 3rd pick in the draft, they would have picked Bagley and MPJ, that's how crazy Vlade and his gang is.
It's just supposed to be a fun team, nobody even dares to imagine they could ever contend for anything. Kind of like Clippers, especially Clippers from 15+ years ago. I was actually intrigued by identical perception of both teams, in slightly different era's so I googled jokes associated with either team. You notice anything interesting?
The draft decision is another example of incompetent deliberation process. There is no excuse. Vlade got something into his skull and once that happens, it's done. If Sacramento had 2nd AND 3rd pick in the draft, they would have picked Bagley and MPJ, that's how crazy Vlade and his gang is.
It's just supposed to be a fun team, nobody even dares to imagine they could ever contend for anything. Kind of like Clippers, especially Clippers from 15+ years ago. I was actually intrigued by identical perception of both teams, in slightly different era's so I googled jokes associated with either team. You notice anything interesting?
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
-
- RealGM
- Posts: 24,085
- And1: 1,084
- Joined: Feb 19, 2005
- Location: "Look at me, Dave, look. Come and touch it, Dave."
Re: [SERIOUS] Why are the Kings bad?
OhioKingsFan wrote:Why are the Kings bad?
-The Kings really don't have a guy that leads them, there is no "star player".
-We have too many big men and too few wings in a league that favors wing and guard play.
-Too many elite "athletes" without elite skills.
-Poor front office decision making in trades, free agent signings,
-Too many under-performers taken with high draft picks.
-The Kings as an organization have lost credibility with the players and media. We can't attract marquee free agents unless we significantly overpay, so the draft is our best chance at improving talent... but we keep leaving draft day feeling like we didn't get the best or even the right players available.
-Last year there was such a discrepancy between the style that would benefit the young players and the style that was actually played in games.
Is there reason for hope?
-Sure! Fox, Buddy, Bogdan, and Giles look to me like they could all be legitimate starting caliber players this season. WCS, Kosta, Bjelica, and Yogi are all rotation NBA players. Sadly, we're still looking for consistent signs of life from JJ and Skal, while Frank Mason is not yet ready to handle the backup PG spot.
-My hope is definitely tempered. Hopefully the Kings will be a "fun" team this year, but they won't be a good team.
-The path to improvement seems to be somewhat clear: invest in player development, target a wing, improve front office competency (Vlade is not the man for the job). Unfortunately, since we don't have a draft pick this year, I don't expect to see signs of a "good team" until at least another 2 seasons have played out. I'm looking at you draft of 2020!
It depends on what way you're talking about. In terms of productivity every team has a "star". You can take a player out of the freaking G league and put them in a position to be a "star". The Kings have haven't exactly taken question mark after question mark in the top of the draft lately. If they all fail it's on the coaching/development staff period.