We've made an offer to Monta?

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

A good coach is not going to add 10-15 wins on pure coaching ability alone. Let's get that out of the way when determining if the moves will be successful.

Says who? It happened with the Pacers. It happened with the Bulls. It happened with the Grizzliers, twice, in the last ten years.

 

[dude12]

I have never considered anyone who states opinions, backs them up with concise proofs, and who are also confident in their convictions to be people who are "inflated". If it were not for people like Brick and padrino, we would be victims of the deadly groupthink (coming to decisions too quickly, without weighing all options) with the new FO and like it or not, and whether you notice it or not, that is blindly following. The people who play devils advocate are crucial in communication.

Not saying that is what people are doing, blindly following whatever FO does that is, I'm just simply suggesting that it is a valid concern that we should have, as any business and customers of that business should be wary of this. It's human nature to go with the herd, so i dont see it stopping anytime soon, but don't lose sight of what your gut and heart tell you.

I don't disagree with anything you say.... but as far as the possible herd mentality, it goes both ways. Because a player is traded away, maybe there is a herd mentality against the FO. I get the different opinions on how business is done and differing opinions on players worth and talent and value. I guess some times the delivery of those opinions are what gets me to shaking my head.

 

[Dime Dropper]

If the above statements were even remotely true, then why is it that, on the regular, 45-50 percent of the teams in the league have losing records? And, more to the point, why is it always the same 45-50 percent? If these guys were all as smart/good at their jobs as you claim they are, wouldn't there be more parity? If the whole "He's a GM, and you're not, therefore he must be smart/qualified, and you're not" paradigm were true, then explain why it is that, year in and year out, the same 12-14 teams make the playoffs, with the occasional cameo appearance by some interloper or other, and the same 9-10 teams go five, six, seven, eight years without making the playoffs?

I've said this before, and I feel like it bears repeating, from time to time, it's not that people feel as though specific posters here are blowing it out their *** when they say they could be a GM that's pejorative, it's the corollary sentiment that seems to more or less go like this: "The 60 ****s who are currently holding down these jobs (GM and head coach) are the only ones on earth capable of holding down the jobs," which also seems to invariably be followed up by "everyone who posts on a message board is a blithering idiot, who couldn't possibly hold down those jobs." That's the part that's ridiculous, almost to the point of being offensive.

I know that it's the thing to just dismiss the opinions of people online, and call them "internet tough," or "internet smart," but that can, and often does, go too extreme in the opposite direction. It's not like this place is 4Chan, or Reddit, or even RealGM: there's a significant percentage of intelligent people on KF.com, many of whom hold advanced degrees, as high or higher than many, if not all of the general managers in the league. I mean, we're not all working the register, or slinging hash to make a living around here: there are doctors who post here. Lawyers who post here. Teachers, engineers, journalists. People who have succeeded in business. The math alone says there's probably at least two people who post on this message board qualified to run an NBA team... TTBOMK, there's no university in the world handing out PhD's in basketball; there's nobody doing the job right now with any special qualifications that "the little people" can't get. The very idea strains credulity, even the military doesn't want recruits to be that dogmatic.

Frankly, even the people whom, allegedly, are actually qualified don't always seem that impressive: the season before last, the Charlotte Bobcats won seven games all season. Seven, out of sixty-six. I've never coached organized basketball on any level, and I'm reasonably sure that I could coach an NBA team to four wins, just by accident. Isiah Thomas literally, literally, put an entire league out of business, and then got another job. He then nearly ran an NBA team into the ground, and was rewarded with yet another job. I could put an entire league out of business: what sort of special skills are required to bankrupt a league? You mean to tell me that you see a guy at the helm of a team that posts back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back sub-30 win seasons, and you think that it's ridiculous to even suggest that a guy off the street could do a better job? How smart do you have to be to do a ****ty job?

Thing of beauty, Slim. Best post I've seen in a while.

 

[funkykingston]

So who does that leave? Atlanta out, Mavs presumably out. Charlotte?, if Ellis agrees to come at $8 or $9 million i would do it in a second. It's an instant talent upgrade and a value contract that can be easily moved.

Here's where I MIGHT be interested in the Kings signing Ellis. IF he gets to the point where he has few suitors and starts to consider smaller offers then he could have some value as a sixth man/combo guard.

In my mind that only works if (1) D'Allesandro can clear the logjam of guards with trades that bring back either cap flexibility and/or players that fill holes and (2) Ellis can be signed to a one or two year deal.

I had serious doubts of the second happening but if Ellis' market value has dropped then he may well NOT want to get locked into a 3 or 4 year deal at what he and Fegan think is below his market value. And a 1 or 2 year deal still preserves most of the caproom that could exist two offseasons from now.

 

[John Galt]

I see.

I do, however, find it fascinating that one is always so willing to cast one's opponents as zealots, but never at all considers placing that label on oneself.

Reke true believers was not meant pejorative here. You're boxing air here - feels like you're laying in wait to swing at me lately for some reason I have taken more personal attacks than I've dished out

 

[sidney]

I see.

I do, however, find it fascinating that one is always so willing to cast one's opponents as zealots, but never at all considers placing that label on oneself.

This is surprising from a guy named John Galt?

 

[Kingster]

that is just a terribly misguided view. sorry, but seriously, be realistic. did you see the insane amount of recruiting teams, real successful teams, like Dallas, Houston, GSW and even the *ohsoproud* Lakers went through to get Dwight Howard? do you remember LeBron's free agency circus? and you're telling me a bottom-dweller like us, in a state with as high an income tax as California and none of the big city benefits other teams have going for them can afford to play hardball? really?

Don't equate the recruiting circus with getting jerked around by giving an open-ended option of time to the player that is being recruited. Also know that players of different caliber should be treated differently in terms of awarding them flexibility in negotiations. Obviously, LBJ would be given a very, very wide latitude because of the potential gain of recruiting him. You shouldn't give the same option of time to a player of lower reward potential. Makes no sense because of opportunity cost.

 

[Spike]

This is surprising from a guy named John Galt?

Slow clap.

 

[Padrino]

Don't equate the recruiting circus with getting jerked around by giving an open-ended option of time to the player that is being recruited. Also know that players of different caliber should be treated differently in terms of awarding them flexibility in negotiations. Obviously, LBJ would be given a very, very wide latitude because of the potential gain of recruiting him. You shouldn't give the same option of time to a player of lower reward potential. Makes no sense because of opportunity cost.

it's relative. a player like LBJ ain't comin' to sac. so, relatively speaking, a player like andre iguodala represents about the maximum reward potential the kings could expect to successfully court on the free agent market...

 

[Kingster]

If the above statements were even remotely true, then why is it that, on the regular, 45-50 percent of the teams in the league have losing records? And, more to the point, why is it always the same 45-50 percent? If these guys were all as smart/good at their jobs as you claim they are, wouldn't there be more parity? If the whole "He's a GM, and you're not, therefore he must be smart/qualified, and you're not" paradigm were true, then explain why it is that, year in and year out, the same 12-14 teams make the playoffs, with the occasional cameo appearance by some interloper or other, and the same 9-10 teams go five, six, seven, eight years without making the playoffs?

I've said this before, and I feel like it bears repeating, from time to time, it's not that people feel as though specific posters here are blowing it out their *** when they say they could be a GM that's pejorative, it's the corollary sentiment that seems to more or less go like this: "The 60 ****s who are currently holding down these jobs (GM and head coach) are the only ones on earth capable of holding down the jobs," which also seems to invariably be followed up by "everyone who posts on a message board is a blithering idiot, who couldn't possibly hold down those jobs." That's the part that's ridiculous, almost to the point of being offensive.
I know that it's the thing to just dismiss the opinions of people online, and call them "internet tough," or "internet smart," but that can, and often does, go too extreme in the opposite direction. It's not like this place is 4Chan, or Reddit, or even RealGM: there's a significant percentage of intelligent people on KF.com, many of whom hold advanced degrees, as high or higher than many, if not all of the general managers in the league. I mean, we're not all working the register, or slinging hash to make a living around here: there are doctors who post here. Lawyers who post here. Teachers, engineers, journalists. People who have succeeded in business. The math alone says there's probably at least two people who post on this message board qualified to run an NBA team... TTBOMK, there's no university in the world handing out PhD's in basketball; there's nobody doing the job right now with any special qualifications that "the little people" can't get. The very idea strains credulity, even the military doesn't want recruits to be that dogmatic.

Frankly, even the people whom, allegedly, are actually qualified don't always seem that impressive: the season before last, the Charlotte Bobcats won seven games all season. Seven, out of sixty-six. I've never coached organized basketball on any level, and I'm reasonably sure that I could coach an NBA team to four wins, just by accident. Isiah Thomas literally, literally, put an entire league out of business, and then got another job. He then nearly ran an NBA team into the ground, and was rewarded with yet another job. I could put an entire league out of business: what sort of special skills are required to bankrupt a league? You mean to tell me that you see a guy at the helm of a team that posts back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back sub-30 win seasons, and you think that it's ridiculous to even suggest that a guy off the street could do a better job? How smart do you have to be to do a ****ty job?

I'd seriously like to know who on this board has made that statement. I, for one, haven't seen it. Who on this board has said that nobody on this board could possibly do a credible job as a GM?

 

[Kingster]

it's relative. a player like LBJ ain't comin' to sac. so, relatively speaking, a player like andre iguodala represents about the maximum reward potential the kings could expect to successfully court on the free agent market...

It's a judgement call when to close the door on Iggy. They obviously thought that there was no point to continuing with the exercise. Why is that so difficult to accept?

Also, back to my original point. If they come to a judgment that they are in fact wasting time on Iggy (opportunity cost), that could have allowed them to obtain Luc (the potential gain). I don't see why it's so terribly difficult for some to accept that. What do they want the FO to do - hold their offer open indefinitely no matter what? There is discretionary judgement in all of this.

 

[HndsmCelt]

I guess losing Bonzi had nothing to do with that.

you mean they guy that took a blue light special offer to struggle his last year in the league? Rick Adelman being a very good coach knew HOW to use Bonzi's talents tothe teams advantage while limiting his down side ( his size and skill at going to the rim were ungaurdable by 2', but he was slower and never was a consistent shooter) Had bonzi satyed with the Kings his numbers under Adelman in Hou would have hung around our neck, but instead KM put up pretty good numbers with some pretty dam fine shooting. I guess you could say that we would have won FEWER games had we kept Wells.

 

[rainmaker]

It's a judgement call when to close the door on Iggy. They obviously thought that there was no point to continuing with the exercise. Why is that so difficult to accept?

They thought there was no point in continuing an exercise they started hours earlier?

Sounds like a serious case of ADHD to me. And the ADHD has apparently disappeared in regards to Monta.

 

[Padrino]

It's a judgement call when to close the door on Iggy. They obviously thought that there was no point to continuing with the exercise. Why is that so difficult to accept?

why does the door need closing? you put a hefty offer on the table and give him adequate time to continue perusing the market place, which is every free agent's right. eventually, iguodala says "yes" or "no." if "yes," great. if "no," then you move on with your free agent search. it ain't like the kings had other suitors knocking down their door that they were waiting on. they clearly weren't planning to retain tyreke evans, either, which would have been the only practical reason to pull the offer to iggy...

in fact, that's precisely why i thought they pulled the offer to iggy in the first place. i figured they wanted an immediate answer so they could decide whether or not to re-sign evans. if iggy wouldn't commit, they'd move forward with tyreke. but that wasn't the case, so i don't accept that it's justifiable for an undesirable small market franchise coming off seven straight losing seasons to pretend like they can wave a big stick around. they can't. they've got no bargaining power, and pulling offers for major free agents off the table because of an inferiority complex does nothing to enhance their bargaining position when just about every other nba city outside of sacramento has more to offer any given major free agent, whether it be big city amenities, a lower income tax rate, or a winning culture...

 

[jalfa]

It's a judgement call when to close the door on Iggy. They obviously thought that there was no point to continuing with the exercise. Why is that so difficult to accept?

it isn't difficult to accept. what is difficult to accept is the interpretation that this move came from a position of strength, or that it was some grand precedent setting gesture that would help in future negotiations with free agents. it did nothing but demonstrate that we are, as of now, not in the position to attract any impact free agents and were, apparently, somewhat shocked by that realisation. nothing less, nothing more.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'd seriously like to know who on this board has made that statement. I, for one, haven't seen it. Who on this board has said that nobody on this board could possibly do a credible job as a GM?

Is it really necessary to play this game? One would think you would have noticed the use of the words, "more or less," which most people would understand to mean that what I said wasn't a direct quote from anyone, and more of a general expression of sentiment. If your counter-argument is going to rely on continuum fallacy, we'll just have to go our separate ways in this conversation.

 

[The_Jamal]

They thought there was no point in continuing an exercise they started hours earlier?

Sounds like a serious case of ADHD to me. And the ADHD has apparently disappeared in regards to Monta.

Did we make an offer to Monta?

Must have missed it

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Reke true believers was not meant pejorative here. You're boxing air here - feels like you're laying in wait to swing at me lately for some reason I have taken more personal attacks than I've dished out

1) In what way do you think that calling your ideological counterpart a "true believer" is NOT pejorative?

2) In what way is pointing out a personal attack a personal attack?

I haven't been lying in wait to jump on your posts specifically. In fact it's got nothing to do with you at all. I suppose a disproportional percentage of the provocative and "debating dirty" posts that I've seen recently have been written by you, though.

 

[Kingsfan23]

why does the door need closing? you put a hefty offer on the table and give him adequate time to continue perusing the market place, which is every free agent's right. eventually, iguodala says "yes" or "no." if "yes," great. if "no," then you move on with your free agent search. it ain't like the kings had other suitors knocking down their door that they were waiting on. they clearly weren't planning to retain tyreke evans, either, which would have been the only practical reason to pull the offer to iggy...

in fact, that's precisely why i thought they pulled the offer to iggy in the first place. i figured they wanted an immediate answer so they could decide whether or not to re-sign evans. if iggy wouldn't commit, they'd move forward with tyreke. but that wasn't the case, so i don't accept that it's justifiable for an undesirable small market franchise coming off seven straight losing seasons to pretend like they can wave a big stick around. they can't. they've got no bargaining power, and pulling offers for major free agents off the table because of an inferiority complex does nothing to enhance their bargaining position when just about every other nba city outside of sacramento has more to offer any given major free agent, whether it be big city amenities, a lower income tax rate, or a winning culture...

I think your missing a key point in the Iggy saga, and that is the kings may have felt Iggy's agent was actively misrepresenting their offer to other suitors/media. The Kings offered 4/52, yet it came out to the media as 4/56 or 4/58. How? As far as I know the kings brass and Iggy and his representation were the only parties involved in the talks. I'm sure PDA verified with his old Denver colleagues whether or not Iggy's representation went to them with a bogus Kings offer.
So if indeed this was the case, that Iggy's agent rob Pelinka was shopping around a misrepresented kings offer, what would that signify? If the Kings gave Iggy a day to decide if he wanted to accept that offer, and if at the end of the day the Kings only got back false reports of their offer in the media, how should they have handled that?

 

[rainmaker]

Did we make an offer to Monta?

Must have missed it

Given evidence points to that we have, yes you must have missed it. Not surprising though.

 

[Kingster]

They thought there was no point in continuing an exercise they started hours earlier?

Sounds like a serious case of ADHD to me. And the ADHD has apparently disappeared in regards to Monta.

Yes. (I'll take your word for it that it was hours earlier). Yes. Yes. Yes. It's their call. They are there. You're not. They are getting the info on this potential deal on a realtime basis. You're not. So you want to call them names for using their judgement? Why? Because you're dissapointed they didn't get Iggy? Come on.

 

[Kingster]

it isn't difficult to accept. what is difficult to accept is the interpretation that this move came from a position of strength, or that it was some grand precedent setting gesture that would help in future negotiations with free agents. it did nothing but demonstrate that we are, as of now, not in the position to attract any impact free agents and were, apparently, somewhat shocked by that realisation. nothing less, nothing more.

It is a precedent. First time. New owner. New GM. Yes, it is literally a precedent. Is it earth-shattering? No, it isn't. Just one data point among many.

 

[rainmaker]

Yes. (I'll take your word for it that it was hours earlier). Yes. Yes. Yes. It's their call. They are there. You're not. They are getting the info on this potential deal on a realtime basis. You're not. So you want to call them names for using their judgement? Why? Because you're dissapointed they didn't get Iggy? Come on.

Calling them names?

The reading comprehension around here has really suffered lately.

 

[Kingster]

Is it really necessary to play this game? One would think you would have noticed the use of the words, "more or less," which most people would understand to mean that what I said wasn't a direct quote from anyone, and more of a general expression of sentiment. If your counter-argument is going to rely on continuum fallacy, we'll just have to go our separate ways in this conversation.

"I've said this before, and I feel like it bears repeating, from time to time, it's not that people feel as though specific posters here are blowing it out their *** when they say they could be a GM that's pejorative, it's the corollary sentiment that seems to more or less go like this: "The 60 ****s who are currently holding down these jobs (GM and head coach) are the only ones on earth capable of holding down the jobs," which also seems to invariably be followed up by "everyone who posts on a message board is a blithering idiot, who couldn't possibly hold down those jobs." That's the part that's ridiculous, almost to the point of being offensive."

I missed the "more or less" part in this statement of yours. If anything, I've run across posters on this board who have said some other posters on this board should be GMs. I've never run across anybody that said nobody on this board could possibly be a GM. As far as the statement that some have said everybody on this board is a blithering idiot, yeah, there could be a few of those...

 

[Dime Dropper]

Calling them names?

The reading comprehension around here has really suffered lately.

There's a common denominator for the reading mistakes. And responses are usually ignored.

 

[Gary]

If the above statements were even remotely true, then why is it that, on the regular, 45-50 percent of the teams in the league have losing records? And, more to the point, why is it always the same 45-50 percent? If these guys were all as smart/good at their jobs as you claim they are, wouldn't there be more parity? If the whole "He's a GM, and you're not, therefore he must be smart/qualified, and you're not" paradigm were true, then explain why it is that, year in and year out, the same 12-14 teams make the playoffs, with the occasional cameo appearance by some interloper or other, and the same 9-10 teams go five, six, seven, eight years without making the playoffs?

I've said this before, and I feel like it bears repeating, from time to time, it's not that people feel as though specific posters here are blowing it out their *** when they say they could be a GM that's pejorative, it's the corollary sentiment that seems to more or less go like this: "The 60 ****s who are currently holding down these jobs (GM and head coach) are the only ones on earth capable of holding down the jobs," which also seems to invariably be followed up by "everyone who posts on a message board is a blithering idiot, who couldn't possibly hold down those jobs." That's the part that's ridiculous, almost to the point of being offensive.

I know that it's the thing to just dismiss the opinions of people online, and call them "internet tough," or "internet smart," but that can, and often does, go too extreme in the opposite direction. It's not like this place is 4Chan, or Reddit, or even RealGM: there's a significant percentage of intelligent people on KF.com, many of whom hold advanced degrees, as high or higher than many, if not all of the general managers in the league. I mean, we're not all working the register, or slinging hash to make a living around here: there are doctors who post here. Lawyers who post here. Teachers, engineers, journalists. People who have succeeded in business. The math alone says there's probably at least two people who post on this message board qualified to run an NBA team... TTBOMK, there's no university in the world handing out PhD's in basketball; there's nobody doing the job right now with any special qualifications that "the little people" can't get. The very idea strains credulity, even the military doesn't want recruits to be that dogmatic.

Frankly, even the people whom, allegedly, are actually qualified don't always seem that impressive: the season before last, the Charlotte Bobcats won seven games all season. Seven, out of sixty-six. I've never coached organized basketball on any level, and I'm reasonably sure that I could coach an NBA team to four wins, just by accident. Isiah Thomas literally, literally, put an entire league out of business, and then got another job. He then nearly ran an NBA team into the ground, and was rewarded with yet another job. I could put an entire league out of business: what sort of special skills are required to bankrupt a league? You mean to tell me that you see a guy at the helm of a team that posts back-to-back-to-back-to-back-to-back sub-30 win seasons, and you think that it's ridiculous to even suggest that a guy off the street could do a better job? How smart do you have to be to do a ****ty job?

Good post but I think GMs are GMs for a reason. Not saying they're smarter than us by any means but they are put into the position to be a GM because they had most likely been a player or have been around the game their entire life which still gives them more experience than pretty much all of us.

As for the good/bad jobs that GMs do? Well you know that most of us here has had better drafts than Petrie has had in the last 6-8 years. Hell, my draft picks have blown Petrie's out of the water, but I don't think I know more than he does about basketball. I just think I had a direction I liked and went with it, including players I wanted. It just so happened that most of them turned out pretty good.

But I agree, GMs aren't very impressive unless they are good GMs.

 

[Padrino]

Good post but I think GMs are GMs for a reason. Not saying they're smarter than us by any means but they are put into the position to be a GM because they had most likely been a player or have been around the game their entire life which still gives them more experience than pretty much all of us.

As for the good/bad jobs that GMs do? Well you know that most of us here has had better drafts than Petrie has had in the last 6-8 years. Hell, my draft picks have blown Petrie's out of the water, but I don't think I know more than he does about basketball. I just think I had a direction I liked and went with it, including players I wanted. It just so happened that most of them turned out pretty good.

But I agree, GMs aren't very impressive unless they are good GMs.

that's the thing: a great many of this new crop of gm's are not ex-players, and haven't been around the game that long, at the professional level. they're lawyers and stat geeks, and the success rate of these gm's is scattershot, at best...

 

[The_Jamal]

Given evidence points to that we have, yes you must have missed it. Not surprising though.

Why haven't we heard a number then? And there's that whole issue where we have to either amnesty Salmons or deal a contract like JT/thornton to make an Ellis deal work. Neither of which we've been reported of doing thus far.

Talking to a FA and making an offer are two entirely different things. Not surprising you don't understand that though

 

[Telemachus]

A good coach is not going to add 10-15 wins on pure coaching ability alone. Let's get that out of the way when determining if the moves will be successful.

Generally I would agree with you on this. I think you need to look at it from a different angle. A bad coach can do more to cause a team to lose games than a good coach can to help them win IMO. Smart's poor coaching (rotations, jerking player around, no set roles, etc) cost the Kings a lot of wins last season. Now that doesn't mean the Kings will win that many more games this year because teams will be different around the league. I do think it will make a big difference though.

 

[Telemachus]

They thought there was no point in continuing an exercise they started hours earlier?

Sounds like a serious case of ADHD to me. And the ADHD has apparently disappeared in regards to Monta.

I think once it became obvious that they were being used as leverage to get a better contract elsewhere, they decided to pull the plug. If a player doesn't want to commit to your team (at more than a reasonable price), and then turns around and leaks your offer (inflated) it becomes obvious that you are nothing more than a patsy being used. There is no point in continuing the pursuit when that happens. And when you then see that same player sign with another team (playoff team) for less money it becomes even more obvious that he wasn't coming here. It was even reported that he also turned down an offer from Denver in the same neighborhood as what the Kings offered.