So we're blaming Vlade for not being able to see into the future?
Well as a GM predicting the future and making decisions based on those predictions is a pretty large part of the job. Wether a GM uses analytics or is an old school eye test and chemistry guy - he will always try to make decisions based on predictions of the future. So objectively speaking it's perfectly fine to criticize Vlade for making false predicitons of the future. There may be plenty of reasons, why he made certain decisions at a certain time, but it's still the outcome that matters most.
Can't blame Vlade for Hill. It looked and sounded great on paper. We all thought highly of it for the most part..
I agree that most fans on this board were happy, when we signed Hill. But Vlade is not a fan. He is supposed to know more, than the average non basketball lifer. And because it's his decisions to sign Hill, it's perfectly reasonable to criticize, when this decision proofs to be bad. Now it's still early in the season, players will go through slumps, preseason and training camp were short and Hill may have personal issues, that bother him. So obviously nobody can determine yet, if signing Hill was a mistake or not. Therefore the jury is still out on the decision to sign him, but so far it doesn't look good.
And that is hampering us how? We have absolutely nothing looming contract wise and are a non-factor getting top tier FAs. It was obviously an overpay, but we needed some bit of competence among an extremely young and raw team. Obviously Hill hasn't provided that, but he very much looked the part coming in.
The Sixers trade was abysmal, but he has done an otherwise great job of getting us in a position for the future.
Zbo and Hill both are on the roster for 2 years. That's 32 million per year tied into two vets. Wether SAC is a non factor in getting top tier FAs doesn't matter at all. As a rebuilding team it's perfectly reasonable to keep as much capspace as possible, to absorb bad contracts from teams trying to contend, as long as you get assets like picks or promising talents for it. Teams like Portland or NOLA (they have a first rounder and some young dudes like Diallo or Jackson and needed to get rid of Asik or/and Ajinca) come to mind or it's easy to point at the Carroll trade of the last offseason.
And even if SAC has no chance to sign top tier FA's, there were interesting players every year Vlade has been around, who would have made a ton of sense and who were obtainable in FA, which we passed on. Just take a look at this offseason. Jonathan Simmons obviously was available and was looking to get paid. A 6'6 prototypical wing, who is a blue collar dude like Temple and a perfect role model for any rookie. He signed for 3 and 20 with Orlando, with only 2 years guaranteed. Now do you prefer one year of Vince Carter or 2 years of Simmons?
What is the vision of this team going forward?
Right now the league is all about 3 point shooting and positionsless basketball. Until the Pelicans proof, that you can dominate teams inside the paint and win a good amount of games doing it, that won't change (and to be fair even the Pel's shoot plenty of 3's and play 4 guys outside the 3 point line most of the time).
Teams more often than not play 4 or even 5 guys, that can shoot 3's at the same time.
When I take a look at Bostons roster for example it's obvious, what Ainge and Stevens are trying to accomplish and the benefits are already for everyone to be seen, meaning having lots of mobile, interchangeable guys already pays dividents in having one of the best 3point defenses in the league and having maximum spacing allows Irving or young guys like Tatum and Brown to flourish.
When looking at the Kings roster though I simply can't figure out, what we are trying to do. Our roster has 7 spots locked into the big man position. Out of those 7 guys only 2 are able to stretch the floor out to the 3 point line and one of those two barely shoots 3's so the sample size is rather small. And to make things even worse Zbo is old, can't guard the perimeter and is not a rim protector and Skal is an aweful rebounder, making both a poor choice as lone bigs in small lineups, that provide maximum floor spacing. So what are we trying to accomplish with our roster? Because for me as simple fan, that is pretty difficult to determine. When we play two of our bigs at the same time, we either shrink the floor or we have trouble guarding the 3 point line. On the other hand we only have 2 wings big enough to play small ball PF on the roster and one guy is a rookie, while the other guy is a G-league player with a questionable jumpshot.
Teams shoot a lot of threes against us (33.1 per game/ ranked 26th leaguewide) and make a good amount of them (38.6%/ ranked 27th leaguewide).
So generally speaking in a league, that is all about 3 point shots, we don't have a roster to defend the 3 point line.
On the other hand we are last in 3 pointers attempted per game (20.9 per game even less than the Spurs), while we shoot them at average percentages.
Therefore we also haven't assembled a roster, which follows the trend of shooting 3's at volume or at least that's not what we want to do.
But if we aren't invested in 3 point defense and shooting, what's the direction of our roster building process? Do we want to play big and mold our roster after the grit&grind Grizzlies? Is that the plan?
Because honestly I can't envision guys like Willie, Skal or Papa playing like young versions of Zbo and Gasol.
Also the grit&grind clearly had it's limitations and so far it looks like a concious decision by Memphis to move on and follow a bit more contemporary attempt, built more on wings, than on 2 bigs.
If it's not grit&grind, what's the plan moving forward?
Vlade obviously has assembled a young group of guys and he deserves credit for it.
But I as a mere fan would feel a lot more optimistic, if I could spot a vision behind the roster construction.
So far it looks like a lot of ill fitting parts to me and I'm not convinced at all, that Vlade has set us up for a great future. Teams with lots of ill fitting parts usually get to a point, where they have to sell low. Most recent example are the 76ers with their clogged center spot. I'm really hoping that's not the Kings future, because unlike the 76ers we don't have that many young assets to cover the losses.