ImageImageImageImageImage

Vivek interview

Moderators: KF10, codydaze

User avatar
SacTown Kings
Lead Assistant
Posts: 4,865
And1: 180
Joined: May 12, 2003

Vivek interview 

Post#1 » by SacTown Kings » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:16 pm

I just read this and found it interesting Vivek saying first thing previous management told him was to get rid of cousins. Do you think that was coming from Petrie or the magoofs? While not perfect its so nice to have a competent
Ownership group and management.

What about your personnel moves? Greivis Vasquez didn’t work out, but you were able to shed several contracts in the trade for Rudy Gay. And re-signing DeMarcus Cousins to an extension was another major commitment. Those are two major talents. Are you getting a return on the investment? I’m very pleased with those decisions. When I bought the team, everybody told me the first thing you should do is get rid of DeMarcus, including the previous management. But I just kept an open mind, and I interacted with the young man. And what I saw was a young man who wanted to win and had experienced nothing but chaos during his time with the Kings. Throughout the season he has proven that he wants to win, and he is maturing. I can’t fault him because he wants to win so much. Sacramento Bee - See more at: http://hoopshype.com/rumors.htm#sthash.TK7QDgMN.dpuf
User avatar
blind prophet
RealGM
Posts: 10,574
And1: 3,306
Joined: Dec 08, 2011
 

Re: Vivek interview 

Post#2 » by blind prophet » Mon Feb 17, 2014 5:39 pm

Voison---Well, no team with DeMarcus Cousins will ever be boring.

Vivek---Fans, they love a bad ass! (laugh).

:lol:
ICMTM
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,347
And1: 176
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Sacramento, Ca
     

Re: Vivek interview 

Post#3 » by ICMTM » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:53 pm

It appears to me as the new management group did their due diligence before starting over. With both Evans and Cousins needing to be addressed they had to figure out what was and was not working. After reading DMC's comments about how the old regime treated him it lines up with the way he acted. After seeing how the new regime is treating Cousins it lines up with not only his behavior but his play. It kind of makes me wonder had Evans took less money and stayed how that would have looked on the court?

I say that because we didn't "trade for" Greivis Vasquez. He was a piece that may have fit for where Tyreke Evans decided to go. In other words it made more business sense to acquire that piece then it did to let Evans walk. Great decision, as it kind of led us to Rudy Gay. Which is why I think the ownership group is doing well considering where they started (ultimate grades are with W/L's though).
KANGZZZZZ!
User avatar
blind prophet
RealGM
Posts: 10,574
And1: 3,306
Joined: Dec 08, 2011
 

Re: Vivek interview 

Post#4 » by blind prophet » Tue Feb 18, 2014 8:58 pm

ICMTM wrote:It appears to me as the new management group did their due diligence before starting over. With both Evans and Cousins needing to be addressed they had to figure out what was and was not working. After reading DMC's comments about how the old regime treated him it lines up with the way he acted. After seeing how the new regime is treating Cousins it lines up with not only his behavior but his play. It kind of makes me wonder had Evans took less money and stayed how that would have looked on the court?

I say that because we didn't "trade for" Greivis Vasquez. He was a piece that may have fit for where Tyreke Evans decided to go. In other words it made more business sense to acquire that piece then it did to let Evans walk. Great decision, as it kind of led us to Rudy Gay. Which is why I think the ownership group is doing well considering where they started (ultimate grades are with W/L's though).


Grabbing Gay, while refusing to over pay for Evans A+

Signing Landry F

Side note, Acy could turn into some value next season as well, if we can dump JT or Landry.
SacKingsPejaFan
Sixth Man
Posts: 1,627
And1: 114
Joined: May 27, 2010
Location: New York, NY

Re: Vivek interview 

Post#5 » by SacKingsPejaFan » Wed Feb 19, 2014 7:05 am

"We want to be like the Spurs, but exciting."

Vivek is the man.
ICMTM
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 16,347
And1: 176
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Location: Sacramento, Ca
     

Re: Vivek interview 

Post#6 » by ICMTM » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:36 pm

The Landry signing is kind of bugging me, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about it. We are hearing about deals, we're in the mix for players, so it's a different vibe. We're an active team so finally it's nice.
KANGZZZZZ!
User avatar
pillwenney
Retired Mod
Retired Mod
Posts: 48,887
And1: 2,603
Joined: Sep 19, 2004
Location: Avidly reading pstyousuck.blogspot.com/
Contact:
 

Re: Vivek interview 

Post#7 » by pillwenney » Thu Feb 20, 2014 10:01 pm

We really can't grade the Landry signing right now. That injury has obviously greatly affected his play. Not a fair assessment.
User avatar
blind prophet
RealGM
Posts: 10,574
And1: 3,306
Joined: Dec 08, 2011
 

Re: Vivek interview 

Post#8 » by blind prophet » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:22 pm

pillwenney wrote:We really can't grade the Landry signing right now. That injury has obviously greatly affected his play. Not a fair assessment.


Would you agree if IT walks for nothing, and no decent pg is brought back in the off season?

Would you agree that because of his contract clutter it is F worthy?
User avatar
blind prophet
RealGM
Posts: 10,574
And1: 3,306
Joined: Dec 08, 2011
 

Re: Vivek interview 

Post#9 » by blind prophet » Thu Feb 20, 2014 11:35 pm

Another thing with Williams.

Grade for front office balls A

Things to consider, Moute makes just 4 million per, is much easier to move if need be for cap reasons...as a specialist is always in demand, and he makes less money.

Williams due $6,679,866 next season, and qualifying offer of $8,717,225 the year after.

So that grade is incomplete for me, I was against the trade for cap reasons, but I am open to seeing how he preforms till next deadline, or what we do with him.

So incomplete for now.

Return to Sacramento Kings