RealGM

RipPizzaGuy wrote:

SactoKingsFan wrote:This is good news even if Dumars is GM for next season.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

If dumars is the gm this season, id like to see him given a longer term deal. No lame duck that sets us back even further.

Hes only remembered for what happened at the end. (Ben Gordon, Charlie V, Josh Smith) not good I totally get it.

But look what he did within 2 years of taking over that team. And further how they won 50+ games 7 years in a row and ultimately a chip. I would take a 7 year run like that any day of the week.

I'm not necessarily against giving him the job. But they need to decide soon. No way we go into thr draft and free agency then make a decision, that's awful management.

Sent from my SM-G988U1 using RealGM mobile app

I’m starting to talk myself into Dumars..

All good GMs have a snake bitten ending that switches them out at the end

May as well go with him than someone unproven and hope he’s learned from his first stint

I also hope he’s learned true rebuilding

I am surprised Walton is considered "safe" . His destruction of the speed offense plus his puzzling rotations would lead to an exit, I would think.

Lost in LA wrote:I am surprised Walton is considered "safe" . His destruction of the speed offense plus his puzzling rotations would lead to an exit, I would think.

Team should be rebuilding. I.e. getting high draft picks these next few years. Why is a better coach needed for that?

BoogieTime wrote:

Lost in LA wrote:I am surprised Walton is considered "safe" . His destruction of the speed offense plus his puzzling rotations would lead to an exit, I would think.

Team should be rebuilding. I.e. getting high draft picks these next few years. Why is a better coach needed for that?

Unless the Kings will be tanking, surely the coach should strive to get the best out of his players? I assume we won't keep Fox if this is a total rebuild? What a legacy...fail to sign Doncic and lose Fox..

Lost in LA wrote:

BoogieTime wrote:

Lost in LA wrote:I am surprised Walton is considered "safe" . His destruction of the speed offense plus his puzzling rotations would lead to an exit, I would think.

Team should be rebuilding. I.e. getting high draft picks these next few years. Why is a better coach needed for that?

Unless the Kings will be tanking, surely the coach should strive to get the best out of his players? I assume we won't keep Fox if this is a total rebuild? What a legacy...fail to sign Doncic and lose Fox..

I think the Kings will be tanking/rebuilding if they know what’s best for themselves. I think this current group has proven incapable. I’m expecting a youth movement around Fox starting next year. Fox will be in year one of a lengthy extension, I’m figuring, so you’d probably have time to start a rebuild around Fox

Cool can start caring again. Good move. Dumars gets hate but he had a good run. I think we don’t have a new gm or coach until end of next season due to financial reasons. Luke will go below .500 again and get fired next year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BoogieTime wrote:

Lost in LA wrote:I am surprised Walton is considered "safe" . His destruction of the speed offense plus his puzzling rotations would lead to an exit, I would think.

Team should be rebuilding. I.e. getting high draft picks these next few years. Why is a better coach needed for that?

The most important process of any rebuild is player development. Luke hasn't convinced me he is the coach for the job.

Buddy or Bogi? That's the Kings largest pending decision this offseason.

I look to unload Buddy and keep Bogi.

I would try to unload Buddy as well and keep Bogi.

But if we are stuck with him, the Kings need to start rocking with a Fox/Buddy/Bogi starting trio EVERY SINGLE GAME. Those trio need to start and end games for the team.

Bagley needs to lock himself in a gym and develop a killer jumper and gain muscle and strength. Dude needs to start producing real soon. He is tanking both his potential and value when he sits in the stands with his suit on.

Playing the trio plus Bagley as much as they can should be the goal for next season if things stay the same.

How F-in hard is that???

Walton is a F-in idiot.

I’ve been on the starting Buddy/BOgi together train for years

If I had to pick one it would be Buddy. I don’t like Bogdan inconsistency.

But to me now, the answer is neither. It’s justin James/and or our draft picks or young FAs. We need to be rebuilding, not keeping treadmill players

BoogieTime wrote:I’ve been on the starting Buddy/BOgi together train for years

If I had to pick one it would be Buddy. I don’t like Bogdan inconsistency.

But to me now, the answer is neither. It’s justin James/and or our draft picks or young FAs. We need to be rebuilding, not keeping treadmill players

As much as I want the Kings to bottom out and play scrubs, the Kings will (foolishly) try to redeem themselves and try to win games.

Fox is the Kings best player. Fox is at his best when he goes down hill and attack. Going slow and playing methodical was the dumbest move the Kings have done.

The problem with Fox, Buddy, and Bogi playing together is terrible defense. Besides Buddy's lack of defensive instincts and Bogi's lack of athleticism, there's just a huge lack of length. Then if you have Barnes/Bagley at the 4/5, our defense would just bleed constantly. I think it you have Buddy or Bogi at the 2 guard, you need a high level, long small forward to mask some of the weaknesses in our backcourt and we don't have that. I'm really hoping we get someone with those attributes in the draft that also has the potential and/or ability to hit 3's.

I also don't know who I'd keep of those two at this point. I know most people are for trading Buddy, but I'm not so sure. Buddy has bone-headed plays, but has far more explosive potential offensively. Bogi is smarter with the ball, but is pretty inconsistent and, besides a few games every now and again, doesn't really break out offensively. Although Buddy has been super inconsistent as well this year. I'd probably just feel out the league for who is more desired and trade that player to bring back greater value. I really hope we find a competent GM to start fixing this mess...

SmellingColors wrote:The problem with Fox, Buddy, and Bogi playing together is terrible defense. Besides Buddy's lack of defensive instincts and Bogi's lack of athleticism, there's just a huge lack of length. Then if you have Barnes/Bagley at the 4/5, our defense would just bleed constantly. I think it you have Buddy or Bogi at the 2 guard, you need a high level, long small forward to mask some of the weaknesses in our backcourt and we don't have that. I'm really hoping we get someone with those attributes in the draft that also has the potential and/or ability to hit 3's.

I also don't know who I'd keep of those two at this point. I know most people are for trading Buddy, but I'm not so sure. Buddy has bone-headed plays, but has far more explosive potential offensively. Bogi is smarter with the ball, but is pretty inconsistent and, besides a few games every now and again, doesn't really break out offensively. Although Buddy has been super inconsistent as well this year. I'd probably just feel out the league for who is more desired and trade that player to bring back greater value. I really hope we find a competent GM to start fixing this mess...

Yeah, this has been the main issue even when the Kings were the pleasant surprise of the NBA last year (and they had Iman Shumpert as their best option at guarding someone like Durant). Of course, these kind of players don't come cheap and without one you're kind of topping out as a scrappy underdog playoff contender at best. Obviously Vlade's tenure was more bad than good, but other than Bagley over Doncic (which is obviously made even easier to trash due to injuries that Vlade didn't have any control over) he wasn't great but wasn't awful the past few years. The team's over/under was 37.5 and they won the equivalent of 35 games despite Bagley and Fox being injured, which makes me feel like the firing was mostly due to a combination of irrational expectations for improvement and then Luka having a huge game against the Kings in the bubble to make the Luka/Bagley conversation even more mainstream.

Also for the bolded reasons, I don't even think drafting Luka over Bagley would've been the magic bullet some people seem to think. Putting aside how well Luka and Fox would fit together on offense (I personally think it would be much less than the sum of its parts, but feel free to disagree) you still have the same issue where you're completely deficient in terms of defending top-notch wing scorers and then the only bigs capable of making up for that are either duds on offense or stars who are basically untradeable. Sure they could make the playoffs (and I know that's a big deal to a lot of people) but in the long run I don't think that's a recipe to get very far and sooner or later it would just be a "Sacramento couldn't build a contender around Luka so he needs to leave for this big market" kind of thing.

nolang1 wrote:

SmellingColors wrote:The problem with Fox, Buddy, and Bogi playing together is terrible defense. Besides Buddy's lack of defensive instincts and Bogi's lack of athleticism, there's just a huge lack of length. Then if you have Barnes/Bagley at the 4/5, our defense would just bleed constantly. I think it you have Buddy or Bogi at the 2 guard, you need a high level, long small forward to mask some of the weaknesses in our backcourt and we don't have that. I'm really hoping we get someone with those attributes in the draft that also has the potential and/or ability to hit 3's.

I also don't know who I'd keep of those two at this point. I know most people are for trading Buddy, but I'm not so sure. Buddy has bone-headed plays, but has far more explosive potential offensively. Bogi is smarter with the ball, but is pretty inconsistent and, besides a few games every now and again, doesn't really break out offensively. Although Buddy has been super inconsistent as well this year. I'd probably just feel out the league for who is more desired and trade that player to bring back greater value. I really hope we find a competent GM to start fixing this mess...

Yeah, this has been the main issue even when the Kings were the pleasant surprise of the NBA last year (and they had Iman Shumpert as their best option at guarding someone like Durant). Of course, these kind of players don't come cheap and without one you're kind of topping out as a scrappy underdog playoff contender at best. Obviously Vlade's tenure was more bad than good, but other than Bagley over Doncic (which is obviously made even easier to trash due to injuries that Vlade didn't have any control over) he wasn't great but wasn't awful the past few years. The team's over/under was 37.5 and they won the equivalent of 35 games despite Bagley and Fox being injured, which makes me feel like the firing was mostly due to a combination of irrational expectations for improvement and then Luka having a huge game against the Kings in the bubble to make the Luka/Bagley conversation even more mainstream.

Also for the bolded reasons, I don't even think drafting Luka over Bagley would've been the magic bullet some people seem to think. Putting aside how well Luka and Fox would fit together on offense (I personally think it would be much less than the sum of its parts, but feel free to disagree) you still have the same issue where you're completely deficient in terms of defending top-notch wing scorers and then the only bigs capable of making up for that are either duds on offense or stars who are basically untradeable. Sure they could make the playoffs (and I know that's a big deal to a lot of people) but in the long run I don't think that's a recipe to get very far and sooner or later it would just be a "Sacramento couldn't build a contender around Luka so he needs to leave for this big market" kind of thing.

I mean, sure, Luka's not a magic bullet for a championship, but neither is any single player. I was saying that long, high-level guarding 3 because of our roster. But the dude just put up 42 and almost a triple double last night against the Clippers who have 2 of those elite defensive wings. They very easily could have won that game if Porzingis didn't get ejected. I agree that offensively Fox and Luka may have clashed in some ways, but Vlade just missed on Luka. Period.

SmellingColors wrote:

nolang1 wrote:

SmellingColors wrote:The problem with Fox, Buddy, and Bogi playing together is terrible defense. Besides Buddy's lack of defensive instincts and Bogi's lack of athleticism, there's just a huge lack of length. Then if you have Barnes/Bagley at the 4/5, our defense would just bleed constantly. I think it you have Buddy or Bogi at the 2 guard, you need a high level, long small forward to mask some of the weaknesses in our backcourt and we don't have that. I'm really hoping we get someone with those attributes in the draft that also has the potential and/or ability to hit 3's.

I also don't know who I'd keep of those two at this point. I know most people are for trading Buddy, but I'm not so sure. Buddy has bone-headed plays, but has far more explosive potential offensively. Bogi is smarter with the ball, but is pretty inconsistent and, besides a few games every now and again, doesn't really break out offensively. Although Buddy has been super inconsistent as well this year. I'd probably just feel out the league for who is more desired and trade that player to bring back greater value. I really hope we find a competent GM to start fixing this mess...

Yeah, this has been the main issue even when the Kings were the pleasant surprise of the NBA last year (and they had Iman Shumpert as their best option at guarding someone like Durant). Of course, these kind of players don't come cheap and without one you're kind of topping out as a scrappy underdog playoff contender at best. Obviously Vlade's tenure was more bad than good, but other than Bagley over Doncic (which is obviously made even easier to trash due to injuries that Vlade didn't have any control over) he wasn't great but wasn't awful the past few years. The team's over/under was 37.5 and they won the equivalent of 35 games despite Bagley and Fox being injured, which makes me feel like the firing was mostly due to a combination of irrational expectations for improvement and then Luka having a huge game against the Kings in the bubble to make the Luka/Bagley conversation even more mainstream.

Also for the bolded reasons, I don't even think drafting Luka over Bagley would've been the magic bullet some people seem to think. Putting aside how well Luka and Fox would fit together on offense (I personally think it would be much less than the sum of its parts, but feel free to disagree) you still have the same issue where you're completely deficient in terms of defending top-notch wing scorers and then the only bigs capable of making up for that are either duds on offense or stars who are basically untradeable. Sure they could make the playoffs (and I know that's a big deal to a lot of people) but in the long run I don't think that's a recipe to get very far and sooner or later it would just be a "Sacramento couldn't build a contender around Luka so he needs to leave for this big market" kind of thing.

I mean, sure, Luka's not a magic bullet for a championship, but neither is any single player. I was saying that long, high-level guarding 3 because of our roster. But the dude just put up 42 and almost a triple double last night against the Clippers who have 2 of those elite defensive wings. They very easily could have won that game if Porzingis didn't get ejected. I agree that offensively Fox and Luka may have clashed in some ways, but Vlade just missed on Luka. Period.

Yeah and my main issue with that line of thinking is that this time last year he got extended and the general feeling was "yeah he missed on Luka but Bagley is still first-team all-rookie in a talented class and they've turned things around since the Cousins trade better than expected." Obviously it's a tough business and I totally understand if the rationale is "he has definitely not been a good GM on balance and we believe we can hire someone who's better" or even "hey, we messed up by extending him last summer and we own up to that" but the timing of the whole thing (one year after the extension when there was not really that much talk during the 'normal' regular season about wanting to fire him) makes me suspicious it might be more of a PR thing or overreacting to injury luck.

I'm not a super huge Kings fan but liked both Fox and Bagley coming out of college and was interested in seeing if they could become a modern Nash-Stoudemire type of pairing on offense, plus they were definitely one of the most fun teams to watch last year. From my more neutral perspective, once you factor in the increased injuries when they were relatively lucky last year in terms of avoiding them outside of Bagley and the difficulty of playing in the loaded West (and not only in terms of opposing teams' talent but also them taking Sacramento more seriously), this team was not really underperforming relative to its non-injured talent. The idea that the season was particularly disastrous would have more to do with injuries and lack of development time for Fox and Bagley (combined with Luka taking a bigger leap sooner than people imagined) than any transactions made after Vlade had already been extended. The other weird thing about it to me is that I would also say a downgrade in coaching was one of the biggest reasons as well, but it seems like they definitely want to keep Walton around.

As for Luka, obviously he's amazing but the Mavs have really done a good job in terms of knowing what kind of player he is and building in ways to optimize his production. Even among people who had Luka #1 in the draft there was a lot of "what position does he play?" kind of talk whereas Dallas correctly realized he was a James Harden type of player on offense, put him in that role immediately, and had someone who was already established as one of the best coaches in the game who was willing to adapt to fit Luka's style. It's very likely Vlade/the Kings would have done a worse job at this, but it's also likely that many other teams would have as well and there's a curve where an organization like Dallas has an easier time acquiring complementary talent due to playing in a bigger market and having more of a winning tradition. So it seems to me like a lot of this discussion is due to factors beyond Vlade's control with the injuries and then Luka ending up on an organization that had a particularly good front office, was a good destination for players (you can't do a Porzingis type of trade if you're not definitely sure he's going to want to sign with you) and was willing to give Luka the keys from day 1.

nolang1 wrote:

SmellingColors wrote:

nolang1 wrote:
Yeah, this has been the main issue even when the Kings were the pleasant surprise of the NBA last year (and they had Iman Shumpert as their best option at guarding someone like Durant). Of course, these kind of players don't come cheap and without one you're kind of topping out as a scrappy underdog playoff contender at best. Obviously Vlade's tenure was more bad than good, but other than Bagley over Doncic (which is obviously made even easier to trash due to injuries that Vlade didn't have any control over) he wasn't great but wasn't awful the past few years. The team's over/under was 37.5 and they won the equivalent of 35 games despite Bagley and Fox being injured, which makes me feel like the firing was mostly due to a combination of irrational expectations for improvement and then Luka having a huge game against the Kings in the bubble to make the Luka/Bagley conversation even more mainstream.

Also for the bolded reasons, I don't even think drafting Luka over Bagley would've been the magic bullet some people seem to think. Putting aside how well Luka and Fox would fit together on offense (I personally think it would be much less than the sum of its parts, but feel free to disagree) you still have the same issue where you're completely deficient in terms of defending top-notch wing scorers and then the only bigs capable of making up for that are either duds on offense or stars who are basically untradeable. Sure they could make the playoffs (and I know that's a big deal to a lot of people) but in the long run I don't think that's a recipe to get very far and sooner or later it would just be a "Sacramento couldn't build a contender around Luka so he needs to leave for this big market" kind of thing.

I mean, sure, Luka's not a magic bullet for a championship, but neither is any single player. I was saying that long, high-level guarding 3 because of our roster. But the dude just put up 42 and almost a triple double last night against the Clippers who have 2 of those elite defensive wings. They very easily could have won that game if Porzingis didn't get ejected. I agree that offensively Fox and Luka may have clashed in some ways, but Vlade just missed on Luka. Period.

Yeah and my main issue with that line of thinking is that this time last year he got extended and the general feeling was "yeah he missed on Luka but Bagley is still first-team all-rookie in a talented class and they've turned things around since the Cousins trade better than expected." Obviously it's a tough business and I totally understand if the rationale is "he has definitely not been a good GM on balance and we believe we can hire someone who's better" or even "hey, we messed up by extending him last summer and we own up to that" but the timing of the whole thing (one year after the extension when there was not really that much talk during the 'normal' regular season about wanting to fire him) makes me suspicious it might be more of a PR thing or overreacting to injury luck.

I'm not a super huge Kings fan but liked both Fox and Bagley coming out of college and was interested in seeing if they could become a modern Nash-Stoudemire type of pairing on offense, plus they were definitely one of the most fun teams to watch last year. From my more neutral perspective, once you factor in the increased injuries when they were relatively lucky last year in terms of avoiding them outside of Bagley and the difficulty of playing in the loaded West (and not only in terms of opposing teams' talent but also them taking Sacramento more seriously), this team was not really underperforming relative to its non-injured talent. The idea that the season was particularly disastrous would have more to do with injuries and lack of development time for Fox and Bagley (combined with Luka taking a bigger leap sooner than people imagined) than any transactions made after Vlade had already been extended. The other weird thing about it to me is that I would also say a downgrade in coaching was one of the biggest reasons as well, but it seems like they definitely want to keep Walton around.

As for Luka, obviously he's amazing but the Mavs have really done a good job in terms of knowing what kind of player he is and building in ways to optimize his production. Even among people who had Luka #1 in the draft there was a lot of "what position does he play?" kind of talk whereas Dallas correctly realized he was a James Harden type of player on offense, put him in that role immediately, and had someone who was already established as one of the best coaches in the game who was willing to adapt to fit Luka's style. It's very likely Vlade/the Kings would have done a worse job at this, but it's also likely that many other teams would have as well and there's a curve where an organization like Dallas has an easier time acquiring complementary talent due to playing in a bigger market and having more of a winning tradition. So it seems to me like a lot of this discussion is due to factors beyond Vlade's control with the injuries and then Luka ending up on an organization that had a particularly good front office, was a good destination for players (you can't do a Porzingis type of trade if you're not definitely sure he's going to want to sign with you) and was willing to give Luka the keys from day 1.

All very fair points. Only thing I'd say is I doubt Walton stays past this year. Seems like a move to keep some semblance of stability as the FO goes through changes, but GM's seem to like hiring their own coaches. But other than that nitpicking, I think you're mostly spot on.

SmellingColors wrote:

nolang1 wrote:

SmellingColors wrote:
I mean, sure, Luka's not a magic bullet for a championship, but neither is any single player. I was saying that long, high-level guarding 3 because of our roster. But the dude just put up 42 and almost a triple double last night against the Clippers who have 2 of those elite defensive wings. They very easily could have won that game if Porzingis didn't get ejected. I agree that offensively Fox and Luka may have clashed in some ways, but Vlade just missed on Luka. Period.

Yeah and my main issue with that line of thinking is that this time last year he got extended and the general feeling was "yeah he missed on Luka but Bagley is still first-team all-rookie in a talented class and they've turned things around since the Cousins trade better than expected." Obviously it's a tough business and I totally understand if the rationale is "he has definitely not been a good GM on balance and we believe we can hire someone who's better" or even "hey, we messed up by extending him last summer and we own up to that" but the timing of the whole thing (one year after the extension when there was not really that much talk during the 'normal' regular season about wanting to fire him) makes me suspicious it might be more of a PR thing or overreacting to injury luck.

I'm not a super huge Kings fan but liked both Fox and Bagley coming out of college and was interested in seeing if they could become a modern Nash-Stoudemire type of pairing on offense, plus they were definitely one of the most fun teams to watch last year. From my more neutral perspective, once you factor in the increased injuries when they were relatively lucky last year in terms of avoiding them outside of Bagley and the difficulty of playing in the loaded West (and not only in terms of opposing teams' talent but also them taking Sacramento more seriously), this team was not really underperforming relative to its non-injured talent. The idea that the season was particularly disastrous would have more to do with injuries and lack of development time for Fox and Bagley (combined with Luka taking a bigger leap sooner than people imagined) than any transactions made after Vlade had already been extended. The other weird thing about it to me is that I would also say a downgrade in coaching was one of the biggest reasons as well, but it seems like they definitely want to keep Walton around.

As for Luka, obviously he's amazing but the Mavs have really done a good job in terms of knowing what kind of player he is and building in ways to optimize his production. Even among people who had Luka #1 in the draft there was a lot of "what position does he play?" kind of talk whereas Dallas correctly realized he was a James Harden type of player on offense, put him in that role immediately, and had someone who was already established as one of the best coaches in the game who was willing to adapt to fit Luka's style. It's very likely Vlade/the Kings would have done a worse job at this, but it's also likely that many other teams would have as well and there's a curve where an organization like Dallas has an easier time acquiring complementary talent due to playing in a bigger market and having more of a winning tradition. So it seems to me like a lot of this discussion is due to factors beyond Vlade's control with the injuries and then Luka ending up on an organization that had a particularly good front office, was a good destination for players (you can't do a Porzingis type of trade if you're not definitely sure he's going to want to sign with you) and was willing to give Luka the keys from day 1.

All very fair points. Only thing I'd say is I doubt Walton stays past this year. Seems like a move to keep some semblance of stability as the FO goes through changes, but GM's seem to like hiring their own coaches. But other than that nitpicking, I think you're mostly spot on.

And trying to create a 'semblance of stability' rather than actual stability seems similar to me in terms of being more of a PR type of move than one that addresses the situation the Kings are in and what it would take to really change things rather than just shuffling deck chairs. Like if they don't think Walton is a great coach and there are better ones out there, all that's keeping them from moving on is that desire to save face (especially when they really went to bat for him by firing someone who wasn't horrible to get him and then sticking with him despite the sexual assault allegations) or save money by not paying multiple coaches.

Like what players would be looking at the Kings and saying "well they've missed the playoffs for however many straight seasons, will almost certainly be in the bottom 2 in their division (if not last) next year, and have gone through however many coaches and GMs in that time, but now that Luke Walton's going to be the coach for at least 2 years I'm comfortable with that level of stability?"

nolang1 wrote:

SmellingColors wrote:

nolang1 wrote:
Yeah and my main issue with that line of thinking is that this time last year he got extended and the general feeling was "yeah he missed on Luka but Bagley is still first-team all-rookie in a talented class and they've turned things around since the Cousins trade better than expected." Obviously it's a tough business and I totally understand if the rationale is "he has definitely not been a good GM on balance and we believe we can hire someone who's better" or even "hey, we messed up by extending him last summer and we own up to that" but the timing of the whole thing (one year after the extension when there was not really that much talk during the 'normal' regular season about wanting to fire him) makes me suspicious it might be more of a PR thing or overreacting to injury luck.

I'm not a super huge Kings fan but liked both Fox and Bagley coming out of college and was interested in seeing if they could become a modern Nash-Stoudemire type of pairing on offense, plus they were definitely one of the most fun teams to watch last year. From my more neutral perspective, once you factor in the increased injuries when they were relatively lucky last year in terms of avoiding them outside of Bagley and the difficulty of playing in the loaded West (and not only in terms of opposing teams' talent but also them taking Sacramento more seriously), this team was not really underperforming relative to its non-injured talent. The idea that the season was particularly disastrous would have more to do with injuries and lack of development time for Fox and Bagley (combined with Luka taking a bigger leap sooner than people imagined) than any transactions made after Vlade had already been extended. The other weird thing about it to me is that I would also say a downgrade in coaching was one of the biggest reasons as well, but it seems like they definitely want to keep Walton around.

As for Luka, obviously he's amazing but the Mavs have really done a good job in terms of knowing what kind of player he is and building in ways to optimize his production. Even among people who had Luka #1 in the draft there was a lot of "what position does he play?" kind of talk whereas Dallas correctly realized he was a James Harden type of player on offense, put him in that role immediately, and had someone who was already established as one of the best coaches in the game who was willing to adapt to fit Luka's style. It's very likely Vlade/the Kings would have done a worse job at this, but it's also likely that many other teams would have as well and there's a curve where an organization like Dallas has an easier time acquiring complementary talent due to playing in a bigger market and having more of a winning tradition. So it seems to me like a lot of this discussion is due to factors beyond Vlade's control with the injuries and then Luka ending up on an organization that had a particularly good front office, was a good destination for players (you can't do a Porzingis type of trade if you're not definitely sure he's going to want to sign with you) and was willing to give Luka the keys from day 1.

All very fair points. Only thing I'd say is I doubt Walton stays past this year. Seems like a move to keep some semblance of stability as the FO goes through changes, but GM's seem to like hiring their own coaches. But other than that nitpicking, I think you're mostly spot on.

And trying to create a 'semblance of stability' rather than actual stability seems similar to me in terms of being more of a PR type of move than one that addresses the situation the Kings are in and what it would take to really change things rather than just shuffling deck chairs. Like if they don't think Walton is a great coach and there are better ones out there, all that's keeping them from moving on is that desire to save face (especially when they really went to bat for him by firing someone who wasn't horrible to get him and then sticking with him despite the sexual assault allegations) or save money by not paying multiple coaches.

Like what players would be looking at the Kings and saying "well they've missed the playoffs for however many straight seasons, will almost certainly be in the bottom 2 in their division (if not last) next year, and have gone through however many coaches and GMs in that time, but now that Luke Walton's going to be the coach for at least 2 years I'm comfortable with that level of stability?"

I mean firing or keeping Luke isn't going to change whether we attract anyone. We've always had to get better through the draft or trades. That's not changing any time soon.

But I definitely agree this could be a PR move. How they conduct this search will be telling whether it is or not. So far, I like the hiring or the sports consulting firm and that Dumars is not being considered for the GM job, but I'm hoping he is also asked to just be an advisor and we have a different VP.

Still, I'm glad that Vlade's gone and I don't mind keeping Luke for a year (even though I never liked the hiring) because I would rather the coaching decision be made by a GM that has the time to really do a thorough search/interview to make the right choice for the future. I'm hoping that's the reason for keeping Luke on instead of saving face, but who knows.

SmellingColors wrote:

nolang1 wrote:

SmellingColors wrote:
All very fair points. Only thing I'd say is I doubt Walton stays past this year. Seems like a move to keep some semblance of stability as the FO goes through changes, but GM's seem to like hiring their own coaches. But other than that nitpicking, I think you're mostly spot on.

And trying to create a 'semblance of stability' rather than actual stability seems similar to me in terms of being more of a PR type of move than one that addresses the situation the Kings are in and what it would take to really change things rather than just shuffling deck chairs. Like if they don't think Walton is a great coach and there are better ones out there, all that's keeping them from moving on is that desire to save face (especially when they really went to bat for him by firing someone who wasn't horrible to get him and then sticking with him despite the sexual assault allegations) or save money by not paying multiple coaches.

Like what players would be looking at the Kings and saying "well they've missed the playoffs for however many straight seasons, will almost certainly be in the bottom 2 in their division (if not last) next year, and have gone through however many coaches and GMs in that time, but now that Luke Walton's going to be the coach for at least 2 years I'm comfortable with that level of stability?"

I mean firing or keeping Luke isn't going to change whether we attract anyone. We've always had to get better through the draft or trades. That's not changing any time soon.

But I definitely agree this could be a PR move. How they conduct this search will be telling whether it is or not. So far, I like the hiring or the sports consulting firm and that Dumars is not being considered for the GM job, but I'm hoping he is also asked to just be an advisor and we have a different VP.

Still, I'm glad that Vlade's gone and I don't mind keeping Luke for a year (even though I never liked the hiring) because I would rather the coaching decision be made by a GM that has the time to really do a thorough search/interview to make the right choice for the future. I'm hoping that's the reason for keeping Luke on instead of saving face, but who knows.

Yeah I do have that hope that the decision to play super fast was more of a front office mandate than an exclusively Joerger decision, so I'm at least open to the possibility that Walton's not particularly horrible and was mostly just reacting to Fox and Bagley being injured.

BoogieTime wrote:I’ve been on the starting Buddy/BOgi together train for years

If I had to pick one it would be Buddy. I don’t like Bogdan inconsistency.

But to me now, the answer is neither. It’s justin James/and or our draft picks or young FAs. We need to be rebuilding, not keeping treadmill players

Agree. If I have to choose, I'd prefer Buddy because he has elite skill. Bogi is better overall but not good enough in anything to use him as some one to build aroud. We are not at position to overpay role players.