The Kings of Confusion
- Thread starter Chubbs
- Start date
This reads like two completely different articles...
One of them is about cap management and how the Kings front office is bucking the current trend of dumping vets for lottery picks and cap space and is instead trying to rebuild by scooping up valuable players whose basketball skills have been overshadowed by their questionable contracts or perceived attitude issues. Or at least they're making an attempt. We haven't actually traded for Josh Smith though, and it's unclear how seriously Detroit considered our offer. I'd hoped he would go more into the Rudy Gay wooing because that's the part of this plan which doesn't add up to me. Every other team in the league would have been praying for Rudy to decline his $19 million option. It's put us up against the luxury tax this season for a team that optimistically might win 40 games. When you're trying to go against conventional wisdom it's not surprising that you're going to attract a lot of naysayers. But it is just one year. If we cap ourselves out again next season and fail to make the playoffs or at least come close, at that point it'd probably be fair to say I told you so.
The second article has to do with floor spacing and analyzing why the Kings lost so many games last year. This is actually the more interesting part of the article I think. For his example regarding IT's efficiency on floaters (as if 42% is an efficient scoring average) he chose a picture which shows Ben, Derrick, and Rudy wide open while Isaiah drives the ball into 3 defenders and puts up a shot. Uh, way to completely overlook the obvious there Zach. Then he talks about Gay's tendency to dominate the ball and he's got another interesting example there:
Most of us think we know what happens next. Quincy thinks he's going to set a pick or something but he's really just bringing a second defender closer to Rudy while Ben and DeMarcus stand there and ball watch. Horrible possession right? But this is actually a good example of why Rudy and DeMarcus could work really well together next year without IT dominating the ball. The defense is way out of position here trying to load up on Rudy isolating close to the basket. DeMarcus is being guarded by the smallest player on the floor, Ray has a clear path to the basket with the defense turned away from him, and Ben has enough space to get a shot off. Three things could happen here which result in a good look: (1) DeMarcus slides across to the right block and receives a pass for a quick score or foul (2) Ray cuts to the basket and Rudy passes him the ball in motion which is either going to earn Ray a trip to the line or get DeMarcus or Quincy a dunk if the post defender steps out (3) Ben steps toward the middle of the court to open up a passing lane for a three which could also turn into a layup for Ray or Rudy if Ben catches the defense off balance with a hockey assist. All of these options are created by Rudy's isolation ability but they're wasted if guys aren't moving off the ball. I think we'll get better about recognizing these opportunities next season if summer league is any indication.
Not much to say about the defense other than the obvious -- rotations are horrible. We have to get better. I don't even know how to explain what we're seeing here. It seems like the defense gets sucked into the paint on every possession. There's no way this is what Malone has in mind. Looking a little closer, the first two examples here it looks like 4 guys are playing man to man and one guy doesn't get the memo. The OKC example shows how a few quick passes can throw an overly aggressive defense into chaos after Thompson overplays the pick and roll and Williams closes out poorly on Butler. That last example is the worst of the lot though as three defenders rush to cover Drew Gooden trying to create off the dribble. Talk about poor situational awareness. This is where we need to improve the most next season. Nothing we do on the offensive end is going to matter much if we continue to play defense like this. I think that was ultimately the thesis of the article.
As for his handling of the IT issue, I agree that Lowe was pretty balanced giving pros and cons to each side of the argument. I think he completely overlooked the biggest reason we passed on IT and signed Collison though. Collison at 5 million a year for 3 seasons is a stop-gap addition which keeps us competent at PG this season without blocking Ray McCallum from potentially taking over the starting spot or the possibility of aggressively going after a star PG in free agency next season, in particular Rajon Rondo. We can probably package Collison's 2yr/10 million contract in a trade next off-season if he becomes expendable. IT's remaining 3yr/20 million would probably be a lot harder to move.
One of them is about cap management and how the Kings front office is bucking the current trend of dumping vets for lottery picks and cap space and is instead trying to rebuild by scooping up valuable players whose basketball skills have been overshadowed by their questionable contracts or perceived attitude issues. Or at least they're making an attempt. We haven't actually traded for Josh Smith though, and it's unclear how seriously Detroit considered our offer. I'd hoped he would go more into the Rudy Gay wooing because that's the part of this plan which doesn't add up to me. Every other team in the league would have been praying for Rudy to decline his $19 million option. It's put us up against the luxury tax this season for a team that optimistically might win 40 games. When you're trying to go against conventional wisdom it's not surprising that you're going to attract a lot of naysayers. But it is just one year. If we cap ourselves out again next season and fail to make the playoffs or at least come close, at that point it'd probably be fair to say I told you so.
The second article has to do with floor spacing and analyzing why the Kings lost so many games last year. This is actually the more interesting part of the article I think. For his example regarding IT's efficiency on floaters (as if 42% is an efficient scoring average) he chose a picture which shows Ben, Derrick, and Rudy wide open while Isaiah drives the ball into 3 defenders and puts up a shot. Uh, way to completely overlook the obvious there Zach. Then he talks about Gay's tendency to dominate the ball and he's got another interesting example there:
Most of us think we know what happens next. Quincy thinks he's going to set a pick or something but he's really just bringing a second defender closer to Rudy while Ben and DeMarcus stand there and ball watch. Horrible possession right? But this is actually a good example of why Rudy and DeMarcus could work really well together next year without IT dominating the ball. The defense is way out of position here trying to load up on Rudy isolating close to the basket. DeMarcus is being guarded by the smallest player on the floor, Ray has a clear path to the basket with the defense turned away from him, and Ben has enough space to get a shot off. Three things could happen here which result in a good look: (1) DeMarcus slides across to the right block and receives a pass for a quick score or foul (2) Ray cuts to the basket and Rudy passes him the ball in motion which is either going to earn Ray a trip to the line or get DeMarcus or Quincy a dunk if the post defender steps out (3) Ben steps toward the middle of the court to open up a passing lane for a three which could also turn into a layup for Ray or Rudy if Ben catches the defense off balance with a hockey assist. All of these options are created by Rudy's isolation ability but they're wasted if guys aren't moving off the ball. I think we'll get better about recognizing these opportunities next season if summer league is any indication.
Not much to say about the defense other than the obvious -- rotations are horrible. We have to get better. I don't even know how to explain what we're seeing here. It seems like the defense gets sucked into the paint on every possession. There's no way this is what Malone has in mind. Looking a little closer, the first two examples here it looks like 4 guys are playing man to man and one guy doesn't get the memo. The OKC example shows how a few quick passes can throw an overly aggressive defense into chaos after Thompson overplays the pick and roll and Williams closes out poorly on Butler. That last example is the worst of the lot though as three defenders rush to cover Drew Gooden trying to create off the dribble. Talk about poor situational awareness. This is where we need to improve the most next season. Nothing we do on the offensive end is going to matter much if we continue to play defense like this. I think that was ultimately the thesis of the article.
As for his handling of the IT issue, I agree that Lowe was pretty balanced giving pros and cons to each side of the argument. I think he completely overlooked the biggest reason we passed on IT and signed Collison though. Collison at 5 million a year for 3 seasons is a stop-gap addition which keeps us competent at PG this season without blocking Ray McCallum from potentially taking over the starting spot or the possibility of aggressively going after a star PG in free agency next season, in particular Rajon Rondo. We can probably package Collison's 2yr/10 million contract in a trade next off-season if he becomes expendable. IT's remaining 3yr/20 million would probably be a lot harder to move.
This reads like two completely different articles...
One of them is about cap management and how the Kings front office is bucking the current trend of dumping vets for lottery picks and cap space and is instead trying to rebuild by scooping up valuable players whose basketball skills have been overshadowed by their questionable contracts or perceived attitude issues. Or at least they're making an attempt. We haven't actually traded for Josh Smith though, and it's unclear how seriously Detroit considered our offer. I'd hoped he would go more into the Rudy Gay wooing because that's the part of this plan which doesn't add up to me. Every other team in the league would have been praying for Rudy to decline his $19 million option. It's put us up against the luxury tax this season for a team that optimistically might win 40 games. When you're trying to go against conventional wisdom it's not surprising that you're going to attract a lot of naysayers. But it is just one year. If we cap ourselves out again next season and fail to make the playoffs or at least come close, at that point it'd probably be fair to say I told you so.
The second article has to do with floor spacing and analyzing why the Kings lost so many games last year. This is actually the more interesting part of the article I think. For his example regarding IT's efficiency on floaters (as if 42% is an efficient scoring average) he chose a picture which shows Ben, Derrick, and Rudy wide open while Isaiah drives the ball into 3 defenders and puts up a shot. Uh, way to completely overlook the obvious there Zach. Then he talks about Gay's tendency to dominate the ball and he's got another interesting example there:
Most of us think we know what happens next. Quincy thinks he's going to set a pick or something but he's really just bringing a second defender closer to Rudy while Ben and DeMarcus stand there and ball watch. Horrible possession right? But this is actually a good example of why Rudy and DeMarcus could work really well together next year without IT dominating the ball. The defense is way out of position here trying to load up on Rudy isolating close to the basket. DeMarcus is being guarded by the smallest player on the floor, Ray has a clear path to the basket with the defense turned away from him, and Ben has enough space to get a shot off. Three things could happen here which result in a good look: (1) DeMarcus slides across to the right block and receives a pass for a quick score or foul (2) Ray cuts to the basket and Rudy passes him the ball in motion which is either going to earn Ray a trip to the line or get DeMarcus or Quincy a dunk if the post defender steps out (3) Ben steps toward the middle of the court to open up a passing lane for a three which could also turn into a layup for Ray or Rudy if Ben catches the defense off balance with a hockey assist. All of these options are created by Rudy's isolation ability but they're wasted if guys aren't moving off the ball. I think we'll get better about recognizing these opportunities next season if summer league is any indication.
Not much to say about the defense other than the obvious -- rotations are horrible. We have to get better. I don't even know how to explain what we're seeing here. It seems like the defense gets sucked into the paint on every possession. There's no way this is what Malone has in mind. Looking a little closer, the first two examples here it looks like 4 guys are playing man to man and one guy doesn't get the memo. The OKC example shows how a few quick passes can throw an overly aggressive defense into chaos after Thompson overplays the pick and roll and Williams closes out poorly on Butler. That last example is the worst of the lot though as three defenders rush to cover Drew Gooden trying to create off the dribble. Talk about poor situational awareness. This is where we need to improve the most next season. Nothing we do on the offensive end is going to matter much if we continue to play defense like this. I think that was ultimately the thesis of the article.
As for his handling of the IT issue, I agree that Lowe was pretty balanced giving pros and cons to each side of the argument. I think he completely overlooked the biggest reason we passed on IT and signed Collison though. Collison at 5 million a year for 3 seasons is a stop-gap addition which keeps us competent at PG this season without blocking Ray McCallum from potentially taking over the starting spot or the possibility of aggressively going after a star PG in free agency next season, in particular Rajon Rondo. We can probably package Collison's 2yr/10 million contract in a trade next off-season if he becomes expendable. IT's remaining 3yr/20 million would probably be a lot harder to move.
One of them is about cap management and how the Kings front office is bucking the current trend of dumping vets for lottery picks and cap space and is instead trying to rebuild by scooping up valuable players whose basketball skills have been overshadowed by their questionable contracts or perceived attitude issues. Or at least they're making an attempt. We haven't actually traded for Josh Smith though, and it's unclear how seriously Detroit considered our offer. I'd hoped he would go more into the Rudy Gay wooing because that's the part of this plan which doesn't add up to me. Every other team in the league would have been praying for Rudy to decline his $19 million option. It's put us up against the luxury tax this season for a team that optimistically might win 40 games. When you're trying to go against conventional wisdom it's not surprising that you're going to attract a lot of naysayers. But it is just one year. If we cap ourselves out again next season and fail to make the playoffs or at least come close, at that point it'd probably be fair to say I told you so.
The second article has to do with floor spacing and analyzing why the Kings lost so many games last year. This is actually the more interesting part of the article I think. For his example regarding IT's efficiency on floaters (as if 42% is an efficient scoring average) he chose a picture which shows Ben, Derrick, and Rudy wide open while Isaiah drives the ball into 3 defenders and puts up a shot. Uh, way to completely overlook the obvious there Zach. Then he talks about Gay's tendency to dominate the ball and he's got another interesting example there:
Most of us think we know what happens next. Quincy thinks he's going to set a pick or something but he's really just bringing a second defender closer to Rudy while Ben and DeMarcus stand there and ball watch. Horrible possession right? But this is actually a good example of why Rudy and DeMarcus could work really well together next year without IT dominating the ball. The defense is way out of position here trying to load up on Rudy isolating close to the basket. DeMarcus is being guarded by the smallest player on the floor, Ray has a clear path to the basket with the defense turned away from him, and Ben has enough space to get a shot off. Three things could happen here which result in a good look: (1) DeMarcus slides across to the right block and receives a pass for a quick score or foul (2) Ray cuts to the basket and Rudy passes him the ball in motion which is either going to earn Ray a trip to the line or get DeMarcus or Quincy a dunk if the post defender steps out (3) Ben steps toward the middle of the court to open up a passing lane for a three which could also turn into a layup for Ray or Rudy if Ben catches the defense off balance with a hockey assist. All of these options are created by Rudy's isolation ability but they're wasted if guys aren't moving off the ball. I think we'll get better about recognizing these opportunities next season if summer league is any indication.
Not much to say about the defense other than the obvious -- rotations are horrible. We have to get better. I don't even know how to explain what we're seeing here. It seems like the defense gets sucked into the paint on every possession. There's no way this is what Malone has in mind. Looking a little closer, the first two examples here it looks like 4 guys are playing man to man and one guy doesn't get the memo. The OKC example shows how a few quick passes can throw an overly aggressive defense into chaos after Thompson overplays the pick and roll and Williams closes out poorly on Butler. That last example is the worst of the lot though as three defenders rush to cover Drew Gooden trying to create off the dribble. Talk about poor situational awareness. This is where we need to improve the most next season. Nothing we do on the offensive end is going to matter much if we continue to play defense like this. I think that was ultimately the thesis of the article.
As for his handling of the IT issue, I agree that Lowe was pretty balanced giving pros and cons to each side of the argument. I think he completely overlooked the biggest reason we passed on IT and signed Collison though. Collison at 5 million a year for 3 seasons is a stop-gap addition which keeps us competent at PG this season without blocking Ray McCallum from potentially taking over the starting spot or the possibility of aggressively going after a star PG in free agency next season, in particular Rajon Rondo. We can probably package Collison's 2yr/10 million contract in a trade next off-season if he becomes expendable. IT's remaining 3yr/20 million would probably be a lot harder to move.
Funny thing is that out of that muddled mess you could easily create an excellent play.
1) Acy picks Boogie's man.
2) Boogie races up to the top of the key to his j9umepr spot.
3) Ben circls 10 feet to his right to the wing, just to get out of the way
4) Ray darts to the corner
and all of a sudden you have spacing, with multiple shooters in prime position, Ray and Cuz likely open for a few seconds too, and Acy still lingering at the back of the paint to board if the shot is missed.
You could also more simply just have Acy step up and back pick Ray's man to truly free that back corner three and leave the superior rebounder (Boogie) there on the back corner of the paint to occupy his man and screen any race out challenge along the baseline.
Finally read that article that was not written by me, I swear, and
a) it was generally fair, if of course revealing Zach's Thomas fetish.
b) I was flummoxed by these passages:
They've got exclusive stats? Pretty dead on point to stuff we've been trying to quantify too, but apparently not made available to the rank and file.
a) it was generally fair, if of course revealing Zach's Thomas fetish.
b) I was flummoxed by these passages:
They've got exclusive stats? Pretty dead on point to stuff we've been trying to quantify too, but apparently not made available to the rank and file.
Well it seems like he doesn't actually criticize any of our moves. He says the Gay trade is fine because it didn't hurt long term cap space. He said it was good that we didn't give up long term assets (other than Thomas). The questionable move is dropping Thomas, who is obviously more valuable long term, in favor of winning more next season.
Basically, it says that next summer is the test. To me it's almost backhand praise- no one knows what the hell were doing, but we've both added talented vets, preserved cap space, and kept young assets
The point is that the Kings are making all the right moves to leave the future open, without knowing what the future will be. Which seems like the smarter approach to dealing with a bad team, but defies the logic of the win-now or tank NBA. Hence, "confusion"
Basically, it says that next summer is the test. To me it's almost backhand praise- no one knows what the hell were doing, but we've both added talented vets, preserved cap space, and kept young assets
The point is that the Kings are making all the right moves to leave the future open, without knowing what the future will be. Which seems like the smarter approach to dealing with a bad team, but defies the logic of the win-now or tank NBA. Hence, "confusion"
I didn't find anything unreasonable about the article other than the giant hard on for Thomas. I think if IT were willing to stick around as 6th man for this team it would have been great, but let's get real, NBA GMs weren't all over IT, we had him pegged at our valuation and role and it wasn't a match. It's done.
Also I know Zach has been working on this article for two or three weeks and he definitely should have gotten it in on Friday so they could publish it before we won the summer league
Also I know Zach has been working on this article for two or three weeks and he definitely should have gotten it in on Friday so they could publish it before we won the summer league
It's not really all that confusing, as Zach starts to figure out as he writes. It's not all that bad of a strategy for a small market team with a franchise center.
The Kings didn't want a shoot first PG with Gay and Cousins.
They are trying to unload their crap contracts/players now, and if they can get a team to bite, great. If not, next offseason they will go hard after Rondo or another max player. Resign Gay, and there you go...not a bad team in 2015/16.
They also know they'll probably (finally) lose that 1st round pick (top 10 protected) next season, so tanking isn't really a great plan.
The Kings didn't want a shoot first PG with Gay and Cousins.
They are trying to unload their crap contracts/players now, and if they can get a team to bite, great. If not, next offseason they will go hard after Rondo or another max player. Resign Gay, and there you go...not a bad team in 2015/16.
They also know they'll probably (finally) lose that 1st round pick (top 10 protected) next season, so tanking isn't really a great plan.
Thanks so much Livinthedream, that means a lot. I like to play and watch a lot of different sports but basketball is definitely the one that I feel I understand the best. Or at least now I do. Back when I actually played on a team in school I didn't really know what I was doing. Anyone can learn to dribble, pass, and shoot but the deeper understanding of positioning and roles and the subtle things you can do to gain advantages over the other team take a lot longer to figure out. That's why I enjoy posting here so much -- it's fun to talk shop with so many other knowledgeable basketball junkies. Where do you coach?
I like to play and watch a lot of different sports but basketball is definitely the one that I feel I understand the best. Or at least now I do. Back when I actually played on a team in school I didn't really know what I was doing. Anyone can learn to dribble, pass, and shoot but the deeper understanding of positioning and roles and the subtle things you can do to gain advantages over the other team take a lot longer to figure out. That's why I enjoy posting here so much -- it's fun to talk shop with so many other knowledgeable basketball junkies. Where do you coach?
Thanks so much Livinthedream, that means a lot. I like to play and watch a lot of different sports but basketball is definitely the one that I feel I understand the best. Or at least now I do. Back when I actually played on a team in school I didn't really know what I was doing. Anyone can learn to dribble, pass, and shoot but the deeper understanding of positioning and roles and the subtle things you can do to gain advantages over the other team take a lot longer to figure out. That's why I enjoy posting here so much -- it's fun to talk shop with so many other knowledgeable basketball junkies. Where do you coach?
I like to play and watch a lot of different sports but basketball is definitely the one that I feel I understand the best. Or at least now I do. Back when I actually played on a team in school I didn't really know what I was doing. Anyone can learn to dribble, pass, and shoot but the deeper understanding of positioning and roles and the subtle things you can do to gain advantages over the other team take a lot longer to figure out. That's why I enjoy posting here so much -- it's fun to talk shop with so many other knowledgeable basketball junkies. Where do you coach?
Yes, skills can be taught to the athletic and coordinated. Getting players in the right position to succeed is the most important thing a coach can do.
A player also knowing what his role is and accepting it is key. That point guard position is crucial when building a team. He has to know what the team needs and be willing to do it. I played SG in high school and it wasn't just if the pg passed me the ball. It was when and where he gave it to me that increased my scoring chances. I could still score, but the difficulty level fluctuated by who played point. I marveled at IT's scoring prowess, but he doesn't have the when and where. Our summer league team won in large part because Ray knows the when and where to make plays or give the guy the ball. Guys don't stand around on the court as much if they know they will get the ball for their efforts. It's human nature.
I don't have as much time as I'd like to break down plays and go through stats. But it doesn't take me much time at all to recognize how IT was negatively impacting the players who needed the ball within the flow of the offense to be effective. For all of ITs gifts, he wasn't making the team better.
Well, I've been on Zach's ass ever since the asinine hit piece on Boogie last year, so unless I have multiple personalities and am fighting myself, it ain't me.
then he went on to say that he doesn't always talk down about the Kings........
Well, I think it was an article of confusion. He starts out by speaking about the front office in general, in connection with the last ten years of mistakes. But later, he finally mentions the fact that the Kings are under new ownership. Really? If your article is about the moves the Kings are making now, then why bring up what an entirely different organization did? One has nothing to do with the other, other than the current one has to deal with the leftovers from the previous organization. He bemoans the fact that the Kings let IT go. He then lists all IT's shortcomings and why the Kings didn't think IT was the proper fit as a starting PG for the team. And then, once again the berates the Kings for their decision of letting him go. Amazingly, he couldn't find one good thing to say about Collison. Fair and balanced?
It appeared to me that he couldn't make up his mind about what the Kings were doing, and whether it was the right direction of not. I suppose that if your still in mourning over IT, you'll like the article, and if your not, you'll be critical of the article. Personally, I could care less what he thinks. I place more value on the opinions of those on this forum who have lived through game after game, many painful to watch. While I'm on the subject of IT, I wish he could have kept it classy instead of saying he felt disrespected by the Kings. I think the Kings had the upmost respect for IT, they just disagreed about what role he should play on the team. One of the national pundits said that he was happy to see IT finaly get into a good situation. Really? Are you kidding me? IT was basically handed the reigns to the team and told to do whatever he wanted on the floor. That's not a bad gig for the 60th pick in the draft. I doubt that's going to happen in Phoenix. IT also said it was nice to be some place that wanted him. Now while I can understand some of the emotion involved, I don't think management, or especially the fanbase ever made him feel unwanted.
IT got an opportunity with the Kings, an opportunity he may not have gotten with many other organization, and he took supreme advantage of it. It ended up being a mutually beneficial marriage. It's a shame there had to be a divorce, but he ended up with a very nice reward in the form of a shinny new contract. I'm sorry he's gone. I really like IT. But he is gone, and I personally can't do anything about it. So therefore I'm moving on. I just hope that the Kings'decision works out for all the parties involved.
It appeared to me that he couldn't make up his mind about what the Kings were doing, and whether it was the right direction of not. I suppose that if your still in mourning over IT, you'll like the article, and if your not, you'll be critical of the article. Personally, I could care less what he thinks. I place more value on the opinions of those on this forum who have lived through game after game, many painful to watch. While I'm on the subject of IT, I wish he could have kept it classy instead of saying he felt disrespected by the Kings. I think the Kings had the upmost respect for IT, they just disagreed about what role he should play on the team. One of the national pundits said that he was happy to see IT finaly get into a good situation. Really? Are you kidding me? IT was basically handed the reigns to the team and told to do whatever he wanted on the floor. That's not a bad gig for the 60th pick in the draft. I doubt that's going to happen in Phoenix. IT also said it was nice to be some place that wanted him. Now while I can understand some of the emotion involved, I don't think management, or especially the fanbase ever made him feel unwanted.
IT got an opportunity with the Kings, an opportunity he may not have gotten with many other organization, and he took supreme advantage of it. It ended up being a mutually beneficial marriage. It's a shame there had to be a divorce, but he ended up with a very nice reward in the form of a shinny new contract. I'm sorry he's gone. I really like IT. But he is gone, and I personally can't do anything about it. So therefore I'm moving on. I just hope that the Kings'decision works out for all the parties involved.
It's a fair article. Yes, the Kings are confusing. Yes, there appears to be a desperateness about the organization to have arrived by the time of the arena opening. The article details the stats of Thomas's strengths and weaknesses, though it doesn't go into the granular detail of how those stats changed after the Gay trade. Positionless players, thinking outside the box, 3.0, chemistry, playing fast, it makes you sound smart if you have the talent and if you guess right. But if you're wrong, that's another story. D-Will, for example, is fast, he's positionless, and he's a bust. Cousin's positionless adventure into pointguardom is an exercise in narcissistic enabling. Josh Smith is positionless: To be a 3 or not to be a 3, that is the question. We, and Vivek and Co., are going to find out fairly soon what happens when the theory meets reality.
Nailed it. It's kind of like he started with a conclusion - nobody knows what the hell we're doing, got all the answers, but decided to ignore them and run with the thesis anyway.
And yeah, we were the only team in the NBA to show any faith in IT, but somehow we're the team that disrespected him. Good luck in Phoenix.
And yeah, we were the only team in the NBA to show any faith in IT, but somehow we're the team that disrespected him. Good luck in Phoenix.
I agree with you 100%. Having played on a few teams in my day, I think people are a little confused by the word chemistry. It's sort of a magical thing in some peoples mind. To me, unless everyone on the team is on the same page, so called chemistry is almost impossible. The word "team" has meaning. It means everyone on that team participates in some way. It means they're involved. If you don't keep everyone involved, they will subconsciously lose interest. Particularly if their non-involvement is a result of selfish play by one of their teammates. I've been on teams with some people I didn't particularly care for, but when we went on the field, that never entered my mind. So chemistry isn't about everyone being in love with one another. It's about everyone accepting the game plan, believing in it, and executing it.
Of course it starts at the top. If the coach can't convince the team that his plan will work, then you have a problem. As a coach, I'm sure you know that you have to work with the hand you were dealt. I've always admired coaches that can change the style of play depending on the players that they have to work with. You can't put a square peg in a round hole. Or, you can't decide to have a running team with a bunch of slow footed players. Riley went from Showtime, to lets put bruises on you when he went from the Lakers to the Knicks, and he was successful in both places. Anyway, this is just a long winded way of saying that I agree with you.
Of course it starts at the top. If the coach can't convince the team that his plan will work, then you have a problem. As a coach, I'm sure you know that you have to work with the hand you were dealt. I've always admired coaches that can change the style of play depending on the players that they have to work with. You can't put a square peg in a round hole. Or, you can't decide to have a running team with a bunch of slow footed players. Riley went from Showtime, to lets put bruises on you when he went from the Lakers to the Knicks, and he was successful in both places. Anyway, this is just a long winded way of saying that I agree with you.
There is a lot to like about Isaiah Thomas. But if you want a ball movement offense, he's simply not your guy. He's got a chip on his shoulder and while it fueled him to make it as far as he has it also seems to be what drives him to be a "scoring PG" regardless of whether that's what his coach wants or his team needs. I wish him well in Phoenix and I would have loved to have him as a sixth man, but I'm happy to not have him as a starting PG going into next season.
Well I think most things, and that includes the current Kings organization is in the eye of the beholder. I mean Petrie was often criticized for appearing to be doing nothing. Now that PDA appears to be involved in just about every trade that's mentioned, he's now looked upon as being desperate. Truth is, Petrie may have been involved in just as many discussions, but we never knew about them. If you want to look for negatives, I'm sure you can find a way to look at just about every move they make as desperate, or amateurish. If there is a little desperation, its probably to have a solid competitive team ready for the opening of the new arena in 2016.
Now I will agree that some of the moves they've made were a gamble, and they admitted as much. No one thought that D Will was going to come here and suddenly become and all star. I guess many hoped for that sort of miracle. Personally, I just hoped he could show some of the reason he was drafted so high. I'd be happy if he could just become a solid rotational player. At the moment, that doesn't look likely, but the jury is still out. Or at least I think it is. One thing I'd like to try and clear up is the idea of Cousins wanting to play PG. That started at Kentucky when Cousins tried to convince Calapari to allow him to play away from the basket. Calapari responed by saying something along the lines of, and I suppose you want to play PG too. To which Cousins said that he'd love to play the point and show off his ballhandling skills. In other words, it was all a joke. Cousins never actually implied that he really wanted to play the point. I have no doubt that he's probably joked about it with the Kings as well.
As for Josh Smith, I don't think he's positionless. He's played PF for most of his career until last season when he was asked to play SF. And the only reason for that was that they wanted to get Monroe and Smith on the floor at the same time. They certainly weren't going to ask Monroe to play SF. Put Smith at PF and you have an entirely different player. Smith by the way, is an outstanding passer, and that aspect of his game would fit well with the Kings. Even if his salary doesn't.
Now I will agree that some of the moves they've made were a gamble, and they admitted as much. No one thought that D Will was going to come here and suddenly become and all star. I guess many hoped for that sort of miracle. Personally, I just hoped he could show some of the reason he was drafted so high. I'd be happy if he could just become a solid rotational player. At the moment, that doesn't look likely, but the jury is still out. Or at least I think it is. One thing I'd like to try and clear up is the idea of Cousins wanting to play PG. That started at Kentucky when Cousins tried to convince Calapari to allow him to play away from the basket. Calapari responed by saying something along the lines of, and I suppose you want to play PG too. To which Cousins said that he'd love to play the point and show off his ballhandling skills. In other words, it was all a joke. Cousins never actually implied that he really wanted to play the point. I have no doubt that he's probably joked about it with the Kings as well.
As for Josh Smith, I don't think he's positionless. He's played PF for most of his career until last season when he was asked to play SF. And the only reason for that was that they wanted to get Monroe and Smith on the floor at the same time. They certainly weren't going to ask Monroe to play SF. Put Smith at PF and you have an entirely different player. Smith by the way, is an outstanding passer, and that aspect of his game would fit well with the Kings. Even if his salary doesn't.
uhh how?
Not like we offered Casspi 4 years/20 mil or something. He's better than D-Will or Outlaw. He fits better with Gay and Cousins. He adds floor spacing to a team seriously devoid of floor spacing.
As MassKingsfan said, nothing to be up in arms about here. Getting a good role player who played 18 MPG on one of the best teams in the NBA last year for a vet min. contract is good value.
Not like we offered Casspi 4 years/20 mil or something. He's better than D-Will or Outlaw. He fits better with Gay and Cousins. He adds floor spacing to a team seriously devoid of floor spacing.
As MassKingsfan said, nothing to be up in arms about here. Getting a good role player who played 18 MPG on one of the best teams in the NBA last year for a vet min. contract is good value.
It's a bit crazy to me that anyone could think we did anything less here in sac than roll out a red carpet for the guy and let him do whatever he wanted. 5.7 dribbles per touch for #2 in the entire nba. Bad situation? You mean when he had to beat out stellar talents like jimmer and Aaron brooks? Good luck beating out Bledsoe and Dragic. Those are real nba PGs. Isaiah was in the absolute best situation he could have ever dreamed of and he owes that contract to us letting him run absolutely wild.
The reason IT is such a great 6th man, imo, is that when you put your bench unit out there, ball movement isn't as important as it is with the starting five. IT can play his natural game and look for his shot first. But as a starter, he HAS to look for others first, creating a role that doesn't suit him as well as the 6th man tole does.
