[Game] Kings @ Minnesota Timberwolves, 3/1/2024, 5:00p PT/8:00p ET

Status
Not open for further replies.

dude12

Hall of Famer
The bolded portion is especially hilarious considering you offered nothing but a baseless opinion. Which is likely why you expected to be “flamed”.

How about, you know, offering up some worthwhile, factually based evidence to support your assertion? I mean, you’re positioning yourself as a qualified expert on the subject. So, please, educate everyone.

Burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how it is undeniably a coaching issue.

Hint: Saying “how it is taught and practiced, how it is rewarded/punished, how it is mentally prepared for“ is not evidence. That’s nothing but speculative, unsubstantiated nonsense.




Except that he didn’t even make an argument. He simply posted a baseless claim. With not one shred of evidence to support it.

You know why? Because he can’t!

Isn’t it ironic how the guy that worked his way into a multimillion dollar gig that millions of fans wished they were smart or talented enough to secure themselves is the one that is dumb while the millions of fans that don’t have the job and are doing something completely different with their lives have all the answers?

You’d think these Billion dollar owners would have realized by now that all they need to do is scour internet message boards to find their next coaching and/or front office geniuses.
You articulated what needed to be said and in the process murdered GWD…….take a photo of the chalk outline of the body.
 

Tetsujin

The Game Thread Dude
Bro out here posting about his vendetta like he just discovered alien life or something. “Human beings fear the unknown,” I say as I ready my hot take about how the reigning coach of the year is bad at coaching.
 
This is where you just get downright silly and lose me. I think you're relatively smart then you go and say "poorly constructed"

How is a team 82-59 over the last 2 years poorly constructed? How could that even be possible?
is your goal to make the play in or win a Championship? I think based on Fox and Sabonis alone this team will certainly at least be in the play in. But they have too few longer wings to have an effective defense. That will hurt them in playoff time.
 
This team is definitely NOT "poorly constructed".

It's just not constructed well enough (yet).
We shall see. Good luck trading one of our smaller guards for a longer big. I think Monte’s inability to complete a trade this trade deadline that didn’t include Keegan showed the value of the Kings assets around the league.

Monk is going to command decent dollars in free agency but can we really commit more cap space to a smaller wing? I don’t think this team makes the second round of the play-offs as constructed.

Monte in my opinion may three critical errors.

1) Drafting Davion over a desperately needed wing

2) not using his cap space to acquire incremental assets like was done by OKC

3) not selling Barnes and bottoming out when we were bad. Far too many years finishing 7, 8, 9 in the lottery standings.
 
Oh but we do. Fox, Mitchell, and Ellis all have great lateral quickness yet Murray is chosen as the POA defender in that zone.

Also, Booker is not too quick for Murray. In fact, he’s really not too quick for most SGs so I’m not sure how that supports your claim.

Murray moves his feet and hips very well for a player with his size & length. His ideal position to defend is SF but he can certainly flex up (PF) and down (SG and sometimes even PG). I think it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that Murray can’t guard quicker wings when SF is largely considered to be a wing. If you define “wings” as SGs (Edwards & Booker) or PGs (SGA), perhaps the disagreement is in how we define that term differently.

Nobody is saying it wouldn’t be ideal to have more defenders on this team. Fox - 3&D SG - Murray - 3&D PF - Sabonis is basically the ideal starting lineup depending on if Murray becomes that 3rd star and how limited the 3&D players are (e.g., are they strictly C&S? Can they put the ball on the floor? Etc.).
we just flatly disagree.

And yes I agree Murray moves well but the Bookers and Vassell’s go for 30 against us for a reason. And yes Book goes off against everyone but Vassell doesn’t. We just don’t have anyone we play who can defend him.
 

Kingster

Hall of Famer
Isn't it interesting though that out of all the players you listed, the guy with the shortest wingspan (Fox) is the one leading the league in deflections per game? He's also second to SGA in steals per game.

I also think there's an aspect of this that you've overlooked -- you mention Keegan struggling against Booker this season defensively (which is true) but I don't think that's because Booker is too small/quick for him to stay in front of. Booker is incredibly crafty at pump faking and drawing fouls even when you do stay in front of him. In fact, a lot of his points are scored on back to the basket mid-range shots where he puts the defender on his back and leverages them to create space for a fadeaway jumper -- a skill which obviously has nothing to do with speed and requires rather a disciplined defender who won't fall for the fakes and can contest a fadeaway without getting into Booker's body. Those are incredibly difficult plays for anyone to defend, let alone a second year player who has not yet been able to receive the benefit of the doubt from the officials.

Shai just straight up jumps into people for calls though and there's no beating that in 2024 unless you're the Lakers and you have the anti-"ref mode" cheat code.
Yet I do recall a game earlier in the season when Booker repeatedly drove at will to the basket while Keegan was guarding him. Murray couldn't stay with him. I kept wondering why Murray was so closely guarding him far beyond the three point line. (This was when Booker was bringing the ball up the floor). Was it the coaches' defensive scheme? Murray's choice? I'm not sure, but if it was Murray's "choice" then I was hoping he would alternate somewhat between pressure and semi-pressure to at least make Booker think a little about it. If the Kings had some help at the rim for Murray his pressure defense would have made more sense. In the end, my best guess was the Kings figured they would wear Booker out by the 4th quarter so they would rather deal with his drives earlier in the game rather than later.
 
How people expected us to go from Vlade as GM, straight into the 90's Bulls ovenight is beyond me.
opportunities were there. Monte just missed them.

Barnes was tradeable. Forwards were available with the Davion Pick. The team had cap space that could be rented for assets instead of selling assets for journeyman. The team could have committed to a rebuild and improved their lottery odds instead of sitting 9 or so.
 
Yet I do recall a game earlier in the season when Booker repeatedly drove at will to the basket while Keegan was guarding him. Murray couldn't stay with him. I kept wondering why Murray was so closely guarding him far beyond the three point line. (This was when Booker was bringing the ball up the floor). Was it the coaches' defensive scheme? Murray's choice? I'm not sure, but if it was Murray's "choice" then I was hoping he would alternate somewhat between pressure and semi-pressure to at least make Booker think a little about it. If the Kings had some help at the rim for Murray his pressure defense would have made more sense. In the end, my best guess was the Kings figured they would wear Booker out by the 4th quarter so they would rather deal with his drives earlier in the game rather than later.
I want to make clear, I love Keegan’s game. I think he could end up as the best stretch 4 in the league. He can score at 3 levels. He can stay in front of most 3-4’s on defense. He, to me, is the 2nd least tradable player on the team.
 
we just flatly disagree.

And yes I agree Murray moves well but the Bookers and Vassell’s go for 30 against us for a reason. And yes Book goes off against everyone but Vassell doesn’t. We just don’t have anyone we play who can defend him.
We disagree in that you think a wing is defined as a SG (Booker, Edwards) or a PG (SGA)?

Regarding Vassell, there were many possessions where Murray did a really good job defending him, and he just ended up making a difficult shot. This is exactly why you don’t look at 1 game sample sizes as that will normalize across a larger sample. Sometimes the offensive player just can’t miss. It’s why the quote “great offense beats great defense” exists. Sometimes you just have to tip your cap to the opposing player.
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
opportunities were there. Monte just missed them.

Barnes was tradeable. Forwards were available with the Davion Pick. The team had cap space that could be rented for assets instead of selling assets for journeyman. The team could have committed to a rebuild and improved their lottery odds instead of sitting 9 or so.
You're asking for perfection. That's just too high of a bar. Yes, the Davion pick seems to have been a poor one, but that draft wasn't exactly peppered with talent at the #9 spot. Hindsight can identify some players, but it is 20/20.

The Kings had already been bottoming out for a full decade+ at the time Monte took over. The Kings' previous 10 first round picks before Monte were at an average of 5.7 - and none higher than 8. They managed to hit the lottery only once in those entire ten years (including MISSING the top three spots when they had the #1 overall odds) and for ten top-8 picks, there were only two players that really amounted to anything (Fox, Cousins). Bottoming out hadn't worked for a whole decade...but now that they're in a new arena (when Monte took over 4 yrs old) and ownership wants to compete...keep bottoming out? "Compete Now" was very clearly a Vivek mandate. And so, in the next three drafts, Monte hit at #12, missed at #9, and hit at #4 (with some lottery luck). That's two hits in three drafts (on an average 8.33 pick) rather than two hits in ten drafts (on an average 5.7 pick). That's a huge step up.

And now, we're a playoff team for the first time in a decade and a half. Focus on perfection, miss the forest for the trees.
 
is your goal to make the play in or win a Championship? I think based on Fox and Sabonis alone this team will certainly at least be in the play in. But they have too few longer wings to have an effective defense. That will hurt them in playoff time.
You have a bad habit of validating your point of view by proclaiming because we're not the best in the NBA, that it's bad or wrong.

-Monte isn't Presti,so he's not a good GM
-We aren't a title contender so our team build is bad.

Frankly, I don't think we can evaluate whether or not this core is a title contender or not. We're in the middle of year 2 under the Monte/Brown/Domas/Fox era. We're 82-59 with them running the show after FIFTEEN years of pure incompetence. I'm just never going to agree with you that he's doing a bad job. Perfect? No. Best the Kings have had in 20 years? Absolutely.

Remember, Petrie really started to fall off the last few years of his tenure with us too, after he built the core up.
 
You have a bad habit of validating your point of view by proclaiming because we're not the best in the NBA, that it's bad or wrong.

-Monte isn't Presti,so he's not a good GM
-We aren't a title contender so our team build is bad.

Frankly, I don't think we can evaluate whether or not this core is a title contender or not. We're in the middle of year 2 under the Monte/Brown/Domas/Fox era. We're 82-59 with them running the show after FIFTEEN years of pure incompetence. I'm just never going to agree with you that he's doing a bad job. Perfect? No. Best the Kings have had in 20 years? Absolutely.

Remember, Petrie really started to fall off the last few years of his tenure with us too, after he built the core up.
This is a little off topic, but off the record Petrie said his hands were really tied those last few years. Ownership just wouldn’t allow him to spend money, and then after the sale and the following draft the whole Giannis disaster smh
 
We shall see. Good luck trading one of our smaller guards for a longer big. I think Monte’s inability to complete a trade this trade deadline that didn’t include Keegan showed the value of the Kings assets around the league.

Monk is going to command decent dollars in free agency but can we really commit more cap space to a smaller wing? I don’t think this team makes the second round of the play-offs as constructed.

Monte in my opinion may three critical errors.

1) Drafting Davion over a desperately needed wing

2) not using his cap space to acquire incremental assets like was done by OKC

3) not selling Barnes and bottoming out when we were bad. Far too many years finishing 7, 8, 9 in the lottery standings.
Be specific name the player they should have drafted not some mythical 3 and d player.
 
You're asking for perfection. That's just too high of a bar. Yes, the Davion pick seems to have been a poor one, but that draft wasn't exactly peppered with talent at the #9 spot. Hindsight can identify some players, but it is 20/20.

The Kings had already been bottoming out for a full decade+ at the time Monte took over. The Kings' previous 10 first round picks before Monte were at an average of 5.7 - and none higher than 8. They managed to hit the lottery only once in those entire ten years (including MISSING the top three spots when they had the #1 overall odds) and for ten top-8 picks, there were only two players that really amounted to anything (Fox, Cousins). Bottoming out hadn't worked for a whole decade...but now that they're in a new arena (when Monte took over 4 yrs old) and ownership wants to compete...keep bottoming out? "Compete Now" was very clearly a Vivek mandate. And so, in the next three drafts, Monte hit at #12, missed at #9, and hit at #4 (with some lottery luck). That's two hits in three drafts (on an average 8.33 pick) rather than two hits in ten drafts (on an average 5.7 pick). That's a huge step up.

And now, we're a playoff team for the first time in a decade and a half. Focus on perfection, miss the forest for the trees.
Just for my clarity are you averaging picks or lottery finish?

btw I am not arguing against Monte’s draft acumen as much as strategy and asset management. And yes he is much better than Vlade but do we really want to make that our bar?
 
Be specific name the player they should have drafted not some mythical 3 and d player.
well one they shouldn’t have been in that spot.

But at that point I liked Jalen Johnson but acknowledge he was a reach. Franz was the player I wanted to fall. But Johnson, Murphy and Moody were the players on the board with the length (defined as wingspan and standing reach) the Kings needed.

I would not have argued with any of the 3. I hated the Davion pick at the time. Not because Davion is not an NBA rotation player. He clearly is. Davion was an obvious poor strategic fit.
 
Last edited:
You have a bad habit of validating your point of view by proclaiming because we're not the best in the NBA, that it's bad or wrong.

-Monte isn't Presti,so he's not a good GM
-We aren't a title contender so our team build is bad.

Frankly, I don't think we can evaluate whether or not this core is a title contender or not. We're in the middle of year 2 under the Monte/Brown/Domas/Fox era. We're 82-59 with them running the show after FIFTEEN years of pure incompetence. I'm just never going to agree with you that he's doing a bad job. Perfect? No. Best the Kings have had in 20 years? Absolutely.

Remember, Petrie really started to fall off the last few years of his tenure with us too, after he built the core up.
maybe best in 15 years but I agree that Jeff’s hands were tied. To some extent Monte’s hands have been also. It’s hard to tell if Monte’s keep all options open comments from day one were fully his or Vivek inspired.

we will see. I think first round exit is this teams ceiling as currently constructed. But hey I’m spending money on tickets.
 
You're asking for perfection. That's just too high of a bar. Yes, the Davion pick seems to have been a poor one, but that draft wasn't exactly peppered with talent at the #9 spot. Hindsight can identify some players, but it is 20/20.

The Kings had already been bottoming out for a full decade+ at the time Monte took over. The Kings' previous 10 first round picks before Monte were at an average of 5.7 - and none higher than 8. They managed to hit the lottery only once in those entire ten years (including MISSING the top three spots when they had the #1 overall odds) and for ten top-8 picks, there were only two players that really amounted to anything (Fox, Cousins). Bottoming out hadn't worked for a whole decade...but now that they're in a new arena (when Monte took over 4 yrs old) and ownership wants to compete...keep bottoming out? "Compete Now" was very clearly a Vivek mandate. And so, in the next three drafts, Monte hit at #12, missed at #9, and hit at #4 (with some lottery luck). That's two hits in three drafts (on an average 8.33 pick) rather than two hits in ten drafts (on an average 5.7 pick). That's a huge step up.

And now, we're a playoff team for the first time in a decade and a half. Focus on perfection, miss the forest for the trees.
by the way the fact Vlade was completely incapable of executing in the draft was not a rejection of the strategy to bottom out. Very few GM’s were as bad at drafting as Vlade. Vlade was probably in the bottom 10% of all GM’s.

consider what was on the board when Vlade had the 10 pick:

10) Zach Collins
11) Malik Monk
12) Luke Kennard
13) Donovan Mitchell all-star
14) Bam Adabeyo all-star
15) Justin Jackson
16) Justin Patton
17) DJ Wilson
18) TJ Leaf

19) John Collins
20) Harry Giles
21) Terrance Ferguson

22) Jarret Allen all-star
23) OG Anunoby
24) Tyler Lydon
25) Anzej P
26) Cale Swanigan

27) Kyle Kuzma
28) Tony Bradley
29) Derrick White
30) Josh Hart.

20 players with half still on full contracts 9 rotation players and a number of all-stars. To draft two players in that group not on full time league contracts was all time bad. It was probably worse than the Bagley pick…..

Vlade had good strategic sense / asset management and next world bad talent evaluation. ( Imagine a team of Fox, Bogdan, OG Anunoby, Jaren Jackson, Jarret Allen).

Monte meanwhile has good talent evaluation (even Davion in the right spot is a full rotation player) but poor strategic sense asset management.
 
Last edited:
Vlade had good strategic sense / asset management and next world bad talent evaluation. ( Imagine a team of Fox, Bogdan, OG Anunoby, Jaren Jackson, Jarret Allen).
But it doesn't work that way. As just one example, the Kings would have most certainly not been in a position to draft Jaren Jackson had they previously drafted OG and Allen. We would have been better than picking #2 in that draft.

That is the problem with these "could have, would have, should have" type posts. Its the butterfly effect. If you change any one personnel decision you change the entire course of the league. Drafting OG at 15 would have completely and directly altered the Kings and Raptors histories, as well as every team drafting after the Kings that would have made different picks. Pretty much every game that season would have had different outcomes, different players would have had different minutes, different guys would have been injured, and whole different teams could have risen and fallen in the standings, thus changing future moves they made...
 
But it doesn't work that way. As just one example, the Kings would have most certainly not been in a position to draft Jaren Jackson had they previously drafted OG and Allen. We would have been better than picking #2 in that draft.

That is the problem with these "could have, would have, should have" type posts. Its the butterfly effect. If you change any one personnel decision you change the entire course of the league. Drafting OG at 15 would have completely and directly altered the Kings and Raptors histories, as well as every team drafting after the Kings that would have made different picks. Pretty much every game that season would have had different outcomes, different players would have had different minutes, different guys would have been injured, and whole different teams could have risen and fallen in the standings, thus changing future moves they made...
Except the example of drafting Haliburton and having Fox, didn't seem to then change the decision to draft Mitchell. They were in an ideal position to draft a different type of player. I would have taken Moody at the time
 

Capt. Factorial

trifolium contra tempestatem subrigere certum est
Staff member
Just for my clarity are you averaging picks or lottery finish?
The value I gave was lottery finish post-draw (but before any draft-day trades - we traded down twice in that span if I recall correctly). It doesn't change much if you look in terms of pre-lottery - I think the number was 5.8 or 5.9 - because we moved up once to #2 and won a couple of tiebreakers, but we also slipped down multiple times so it basically evened out. I just skipped over Vlade's final year, when we didn't have our pick at all, as if it didn't happen for the purposes of that calculation.
 
Except the example of drafting Haliburton and having Fox, didn't seem to then change the decision to draft Mitchell. They were in an ideal position to draft a different type of player. I would have taken Moody at the time
That's not my point. I am not saying "we wouldn't have taken player x if we had player y." Your example is a good reason of why that argument doesn't work. Just because you have two young point guards doesn't mean your franchise won't draft a third.

My point is more fundamental. The poster said to imagine a lineup of Fox, Bogi, OG, Allen, and JJJ, as though we could have had THAT lineup. My point is that likely could have never happened. We likely would have never been in position to draft JJJ if we had taken Allen and OG the year prior. Not because we would have been so much better, but because the entire NBA would have been different if we drafted OG instead of Justin Jackson. Other teams would have made different decisions, most games would have had different outcomes, players and teams would have had totally different arcs. You can't just say "if we had done this in 2021, and then used our 2022 draft pick to do this, we would be amazing," because you doing something different with your 2021 draft pick would have fundamentally changed everything about 2022.
 
But it doesn't work that way. As just one example, the Kings would have most certainly not been in a position to draft Jaren Jackson had they previously drafted OG and Allen. We would have been better than picking #2 in that draft.

That is the problem with these "could have, would have, should have" type posts. It’s the butterfly effect. If you change any one personnel decision you change the entire course of the league. Drafting OG at 15 would have completely and directly altered the Kings and Raptors histories, as well as every team drafting after the Kings that would have made different picks. Pretty much every game that season would have had different outcomes, different players would have had different minutes, different guys would have been injured, and whole different teams could have risen and fallen in the standings, thus changing future moves they made...
Maybe though remember we got lucky in the lottery and playing 2 Rookies one of whom was out for the year if I recall in Jackson was unlike to result in a bunch more wins. But yes it would have had an impact of some sort.
 
The value I gave was lottery finish post-draw (but before any draft-day trades - we traded down twice in that span if I recall correctly). It doesn't change much if you look in terms of pre-lottery - I think the number was 5.8 or 5.9 - because we moved up once to #2 and won a couple of tiebreakers, but we also slipped down multiple times so it basically evened out. I just skipped over Vlade's final year, when we didn't have our pick at all, as if it didn't happen for the purposes of that calculation.
curious what the two numbers looked like.

but regardless the strategy was actually pretty good. The execution was horrible because darts would have been better than Vlade’s talent evaluation. But people mix up the strategy and asset accumulation with talent evaluation. They are two different skills.
 
That's not my point. I am not saying "we wouldn't have taken player x if we had player y." Your example is a good reason of why that argument doesn't work. Just because you have two young point guards doesn't mean your franchise won't draft a third.

My point is more fundamental. The poster said to imagine a lineup of Fox, Bogi, OG, Allen, and JJJ, as though we could have had THAT lineup. My point is that likely could have never happened. We likely would have never been in position to draft JJJ if we had taken Allen and OG the year prior. Not because we would have been so much better, but because the entire NBA would have been different if we drafted OG instead of Justin Jackson. Other teams would have made different decisions, most games would have had different outcomes, players and teams would have had totally different arcs. You can't just say "if we had done this in 2021, and then used our 2022 draft pick to do this, we would be amazing," because you doing something different with your 2021 draft pick would have fundamentally changed everything about 2022.
Rookies just don’t impact a teams finish that highly ….. especially rookies on the second half of the draft. You point is somewhat valid but you are way overstating the impact rookies have on a team. ..

for example
OG played 20 min per game and averaged 5.5 points.

Allen played 20 min per game and averaged 8 points.
 
That's not my point. I am not saying "we wouldn't have taken player x if we had player y." Your example is a good reason of why that argument doesn't work. Just because you have two young point guards doesn't mean your franchise won't draft a third.
When you need a young shooting guard or wing with length, you really shouldn't draft a third point guard....unless he's a potential all star type talent or there is nobody that fits your need that is anywhere close to your draft slot. This wasn't the case and was a perfect example of when reaching down the draft projections would have been a great move. Heck, even Kispert would have been a much better fit, but Moody or Trey Murphy would have been ideal
 
we just flatly disagree.

And yes I agree Murray moves well but the Bookers and Vassell’s go for 30 against us for a reason. And yes Book goes off against everyone but Vassell doesn’t. We just don’t have anyone we play who can defend him.
Keegan doesn't shut down everyone, but I think he has been playing defense at an all-NBA level most nights this season. I just am not aware of any defenders that guard 1-5 and shutdown the best offensive player every single night. I recall Keegan getting the better of Booker in one of the matchups, but when you're guarding the best offensive players in the NBA, they are bound to get the better of you some nights for sure. Murray has been able to stay in front of quick players many games this season.

Side note: I also think Keon is an excellent defender and love seeing him and Keegan out there together. Add in Fox and that is a nasty perimeter defense that can virtually switch anything.

Also, SGA was brought up earlier as an example and no one is allowed to play defense on SGA. Every night the best defender from every team is on him and its impossible with the way he is officiated this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.