Thoughts on Vets and Leadership

[mac]

Here's a quick question - do you think a "vet" can be respected if he doesn't contribute game-wise? Our team is short enough on vets as it is, but I'm beginning to worry that the young guys may be facing a problem on top of a shortage of veterans, which is that our veterans flat out suck. I don't know about you, but if said "veteran" tells me to work hard, get a good rest, but then helps the team lose more than win, I'd be darn tempted to follow the "party after a win, when on the road, get a good game followed by a crap game, at least I'm doing something" route.

I think having such ****ty vets is going to hurt us in the long run, or at very least lengthen the learning curve for our young guys. Also doesn't help when your coach insists on playing some of them despite repeated <5 point on 1-100 shooting performances, while allowing the guy they're guarding to get a career night.

I really think a trade is necessary.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

This is a good point. When I think of vets being important to a team I think of guys like Vlade. You know, guys who actually have leadership skills and can play. I can see young players listening to a guy like that. I can't see why a young player would listen to Salmons, Garcia, or Hayes, though. If I was a talented young player and one of those guys tried to mentor me I'd be thinking, dude, you suck, why should I listen to you? Just being a Veteran means very little if you aren't the caliber of player who garners respect.

 

[Bricklayer]

Here's a quick question - do you think a "vet" can be respected if he doesn't contribute game-wise? Our team is short enough on vets as it is, but I'm beginning to worry that the young guys may be facing a problem on top of a shortage of veterans, which is that our veterans flat out suck. I don't know about you, but if said "veteran" tells me to work hard, get a good rest, but then helps the team lose more than win, I'd be darn tempted to follow the "party after a win, when on the road, get a good game followed by a crap game, at least I'm doing something" route.

I think having such ****ty vets is going to hurt us in the long run, or at very least lengthen the learning curve for our young guys. Also doesn't help when your coach insists on playing some of them despite repeated <5 point on 1-100 shooting performances, while allowing the guy they're guarding to get a career night.

I really think a trade is necessary.

More important for the lockerroom at the moment. Trying to keep guys together, keep them focused, warn them away from partying their careers away etc. You can't lead on the court if you suck, but you can still be the voice of wisdom etc. You don't listen to your dad's advice because he can still lift more than you do. You listen because he's been there and knows the tricks.

It wasn't planned this way, but the young guys are kind of learning on their own in that starting lineup and have been making big strides. Maybe partially because their "veteran leader" now seems to be the coach. Makes me less concerned with the veteran leadership situation and more concerened with the "suck" situation. If we can add one or two QUALITY vets this summer, the kids might have figured out enough this season to actually be ready to win next year.

 

[mac]

More important for the lockerroom at the moment. Trying to keep guys together, keep them focused, warn them away from partying their careers away etc. You can't lead on the court if you suck, but you can still be the voice of wisdom etc. You don't listen to your dad's advice because he can still lift more than you do. You listen because he's been there and knows the tricks.

It wasn't planned this way, but the young guys are kind of learning on their own in that starting lineup and have been making big strides. Maybe partially because their "veteran leader" now seems to be the coach. Makes me less conccerend with the veteran situation and more concerene with the "suck" situation. If we can add one or two QUALITY vets this summer, the kids might have figured out enough this season to actually be ready to win next year.

That's the thing - he knows the tricks. Or he has at least gained your respect over the years because at some point, you knew nothing and he knew everything (or so it seemed). But with our vets, it's like they haven't accomplished anything. None of them have gone deep in the playoffs. Look at Cisco - he's in his howmany'th year and he still plays dumber than some rookies. Do you really think a guy like Cuz can look at them, and think "gee I should listen to their advice"?

Players often talk about how rookies (such as Jimmer) need to earn the respect of vets/ guys who have been playing longer. But err ... I'm not sure what there is about John Salmons or Cisco to respect. Hayes at least brings something ..

 

[Bricklayer]

That's the thing - he knows the tricks. Or he has at least gained your respect over the years because at some point, you knew nothing and he knew everything (or so it seemed). But with our vets, it's like they haven't accomplished anything. None of them have gone deep in the playoffs. Look at Cisco - he's in his howmany'th year and he still plays dumber than some rookies. Do you really think a guy like Cuz can look at them, and think "gee I should listen to their advice"?

Players often talk about how rookies (such as Jimmer) need to earn the respect of vets/ guys who have been playing longer. But err ... I'm not sure what there is about John Salmons or Cisco to respect. Hayes at least brings something ..

We already know Cisco has their respect as the big brother. He was the peacemaker last year. Cousin already knows more basketball, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Its all we see as fans, but those guys in that lockerroom are talking aobut a lot more than that. Coaches, fans, players, teams, restaraunts, services, professionals, training tips, strip clubs, escort ser....er..anyway, lots of stuff. Not just basketball, life stuff. And Cisco has taken each of your rookie's under his wing the alst few years. No idea with Jimmer.

I've never at any point bought that Salmons could be anybody's leader.

Hayes is an interesting case, because he was planned to be the other guy, and people talk aobut him that way. He was praised by players and coaches, talks about how much he talsk to guys etc. But a lot of his talking I thoguht/it was implied was basketball related defensive stuff. And of course since he has sucked so bad that's precisely the sort of area where maybe the respect would be down.

 

[UK_King]

I can't think of anyone less suited to the leader role than John Salmons.

on the court the only leader i see at times is Isaiah Thomas. He even huddles the guys up at important moments.

 

[Arkitect]

I can't think of anyone less suited to the leader role than John Salmons.

on the court the only leader i see at times is Isaiah Thomas. He even huddles the guys up at important moments.

Both Reke and DMC have done the on court leadership thing at times this year.

 

[Kingster]

Here's a quick question - do you think a "vet" can be respected if he doesn't contribute game-wise? Our team is short enough on vets as it is, but I'm beginning to worry that the young guys may be facing a problem on top of a shortage of veterans, which is that our veterans flat out suck. I don't know about you, but if said "veteran" tells me to work hard, get a good rest, but then helps the team lose more than win, I'd be darn tempted to follow the "party after a win, when on the road, get a good game followed by a crap game, at least I'm doing something" route.

I think having such ****ty vets is going to hurt us in the long run, or at very least lengthen the learning curve for our young guys. Also doesn't help when your coach insists on playing some of them despite repeated <5 point on 1-100 shooting performances, while allowing the guy they're guarding to get a career night.

I really think a trade is necessary.

A vet can be respected, but not listened to. I think for many players it's monkey see, monkey do. When it comes to on-court stuff, they look to what a player does, then they'll listen to the player about the on-court stuff. As you imply in another post, do you think a player is going to listen to Garcia about making decisions on the floor? If he does, that player ain't all that smart. Same thing if the player hears something from Thompson. When it it comes to Hayes, his veteran leadership effectiveness may have been hurt by his injury. That shoulder is really hurting his game imo. A guy has to play well to be heard. The father can talk all he wants, but unless he walks the walk the adolescent kid is going to shine him on. Bottom line: Yes, we need a good veteran player, and preferably one of the point guard variety.

PS Garcia and Hayes may well help players in off-court matters. My post above reflects on-court assistance.

 

[IfAt1st]

I'm beginning to fear that the entire Kings organization, including it's fanbase, is incapable of acquiring a quality vet.

Reason?
They cost a lot of money.

It takes knowledge of what will work on the court, confidence, and balls to hire a solid vet. They usually come with fairly long contracts and make a lot.

The Kings simply don't know enough about what players they have and what they need that will work in this competitive sport.
And the fans always shoot down whatever quality vet idea does come up (I distinctly remember most KF's actually wouldn't have wanted Tony Parker to be a King when there was a rumor/chance of it around draft day).

There's a reason why you have to pay vets - because they've proven they can win in crunch time.That's exactly what the Kings need.
I'm getting real tired of seeing the Kings throw 20+ million down the toilet for middling vets that suck on the floor. They NEED to get more value for the money, and they need to spend more to get a quality vet.

 

[Kingster]

I'm beginning to fear that the entire Kings organization, including it's fanbase, is incapable of acquiring a quality vet.

Reason?
They cost a lot of money.

It takes knowledge of what will work on the court, confidence, and balls to hire a solid vet. They usually come with fairly long contracts and make a lot.

The Kings simply don't know enough about what players they have and what they need that will work in this competitive sport.
And the fans always shoot down whatever quality vet idea does come up (I distinctly remember most KF's actually wouldn't have wanted Tony Parker to be a King when there was a rumor/chance of it around draft day).

There's a reason why you have to pay vets - because they've proven they can win in crunch time.That's exactly what the Kings need.
I'm getting real tired of seeing the Kings throw 20+ million down the toilet for middling vets that suck on the floor. They NEED to get more value for the money, and they need to spend more to get a quality vet.

Yes, I think it was at least 50% didn't want Tony Parker for some strange reason. Some didn't like the idea of pairing Tyreke with a small. This team would have been soooo much better with Parker.

Because I think you're right about the Kings spending FA$, and their lowly status in the FA world, probably the only way the Kings get a vet is through a trade. And I wonder if the Kings have enough ammo to get that trade done.