KHTK

[Chicken Chaser]

This isn't going anywhere. It's like an argument between an atheist and a religious man. Both sides are operating on different premises and neither side will step into the other's shoes and actually understand where they are coming from. I feel like CD is trying to explain his philosophy, which operates on more abstract beliefs and hypothetical scenarios than what most others on the board are willing or capable to take in. These abstract and hypothetical scenarios, however, are rather moot because they do not operate in the present physical world.

It's like asking a group of people how they would answer this philosophical dilemma: You're a train operator with a switch that can save a train with 100 people on board or a train with 150 people on board. You must choose to save a train, or both trains die. Which train do you save?

Perhaps CD would choose the train with 150 people, because without any other information, the only tipping point is quantity of lives.

But KingsFans.com forum members? I surmise that they would say to reject this scenario altogether. There is no context, no complete picture of what's going on. These questions exist in philosophical debates, in movie scripts, not in the real world.

And so what we are witnessing here is an outright rejection of CD's philosophical debate. Would it hurt to simply admit we would be willing to send Cousins to the Lakers if it meant a chance for title contention? Perhaps not. But perhaps the very discussion of this hypothetical undermines the very foundation and future of what currently exists in Sacramento. Where do we draw the line between discussing actual players, actual people on the court vs. discussing assets and commodities in your fantasy dream team? Should we entertain the idea whether we would trade Boogie to the Lakers if we somehow knew ahead of time that he would have a career crippling injury down the line? Great Twitter question, I'm sure. Retweet if YES, Favorite if NO. Ah, but it's just a hypothetical question; we're discussing schools of thought after all. Yeah, explain that to DeMarcus Cousins when there's a Twitter explosion of "fans" clamoring they would dump Cousins if he broke a leg. Like, what??? Next up, you've got the next crumby click bait headline: "SOURCES agree to dump COUSINS if he were to BREAK A LEG for Laker's #2 pick."

Discussing philosophy is fine. But the real world doesn't operate in a vacuum or closed system, and most people won't take kindly to having another's philosophy imposed unto them.

 

[John Galt]

I don't have any issue with CD at all. Not in the least. He has the biggest balls in the Sac media (no pun intended... well, yeah it was sorry it is a terrible pun).

It's just with Grant.. I mean he wants to have this tough New Yorker image - nobody tells him what to say - he's nobody's mouthpiece - "come over here and say that and I'll punch you in the face" kind of thing.

So he has to ask Karl: "(laughing) How does it feel to have the same fan base that campaigned on social media for you like crazy last year - suddenly they're calling for your head on social media? Do you have something to say to the fan base - has your position on DeMarcus been mis-represented in the media and/or misunderstood by the fans?"

I really honestly expected something like that out of him. And some glib answer from Karl about a communication problem, a misunderstanding etc.

These are supposed to be TWO guys who are straight shooter no bull pace guys. But they both weenied out big time as far as I was concerned. Honest to God, Grant would have been exactly as informative if he had simply read Karl's obviously spoon fed talking points right off the Jason Jones tweets from 20 minutes earlier. A disgrace.

And the way Grant deflected the first caller who called him out on it (who happened to be the first caller after the 'non-interview'), well I actually clicked the tune-in radio window closed on my computer. Made me sick of his whole hypocrisy - all at once. And I think Grant's credibility as a Tough Guy New Yorker is a bit banged up by the whole episode and I'm disappointed in him.

Love ya CD - keep coming back!

 

[VF21]

So he has to ask Karl: "(lau...ghing) How does it feel to have the same fan base that campaigned on social media for you like crazy last year - suddenly they're calling for your head on social media? Do you have something to say to the fan base - has your position on DeMarcus been mis-represented in the media and/or misunderstood by the fans?"

I really honestly expected something like that out of him. And some glib answer from Karl about a communication problem, a misunderstanding etc.

But your expectations don't dictate what happens in real life.

My instinct tells me there are valid reasons the whole issue of DMC wasn't discussed, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The whole situation is still precarious. Nothing has truly been resolved. Vlade is confident and hopeful, but DMC and Karl have yet to sit down and talk it out. ANY misspoken word on the radio at this point could be disastrous - and let's be honest. We've had enough disaster lately to last a very long time.

Kings fans are a strange group. We have been through more than any other fan base could ever imagine and yet we're still here. We are, however, now so shellshocked that we feel we have the right to know every single thing that goes on. We don't want to be surprised and we do not want anything to go on that we do not approve of. We can want all we want, however, and it won't change the reality that the NBA and the Sacramento Kings are businesses, and businesses do not conduct all their affairs in public. What we saw this last year was a travesty. The idea the GM of the Kings used social media, fans, local writers, etc. to further his own agenda is so repugnant to me I still find it hard to comprehend the scope of his duplicity.

Thank God for Vlade Divac. He has already restored a bit of sanity to this circus and it appears he has the full and total support of our once meddling owner in whatever he does.

We need to let Vlade, George, DMC and whomever else needs to be involved settle this thing AWAY from the public eye. So, although I find myself somewhat surprised, I fully defend Grant on NOT going for the questions that might have temporarily appeased a segment of the fan base but done permanent damage to the relationship between management and the players.

 

[Rain man]

But your expectations don't dictate what happens in real life.

My instinct tells me there are valid reasons the whole issue of DMC wasn't discussed, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. The whole situation is still precarious. Nothing has truly been resolved. Vlade is confident and hopeful, but DMC and Karl have yet to sit down and talk it out. ANY misspoken word on the radio at this point could be disastrous - and let's be honest. We've had enough disaster lately to last a very long time.

Kings fans are a strange group. We have been through more than any other fan base could ever imagine and yet we're still here. We are, however, now so shellshocked that we feel we have the right to know every single thing that goes on. We don't want to be surprised and we do not want anything to go on that we do not approve of. We can want all we want, however, and it won't change the reality that the NBA and the Sacramento Kings are businesses, and businesses do not conduct all their affairs in public. What we saw this last year was a travesty. The idea the GM of the Kings used social media, fans, local writers, etc. to further his own agenda is so repugnant to me I still find it hard to comprehend the scope of his duplicity.

Thank God for Vlade Divac. He has already restored a bit of sanity to this circus and it appears he has the full and total support of our once meddling owner in whatever he does.

We need to let Vlade, George, DMC and whomever else needs to be involved settle this thing AWAY from the public eye. So, although I find myself somewhat surprised, I fully defend Grant on NOT going for the questions that might have temporarily appeased a segment of the fan base but done permanent damage to the relationship between management and the players.

While I generally agree with everything you say about how important it is not to do anything to jeopardize the situation, I will not defend Grant or give him a pass, because I do not believe he avoided the questions because he is trying to prevent a tenuous peace from blowing up. If Grant cared so much about "avoiding disaster" by saying the wrong thing on the air, he would not have eviscerated Boogie on the air last week, blaming Boogie and his agent for all the problems. He would not have implied (or directly stated) that Boogie is a malcontent, locker room problem, and that the Kings need to stop appeasing him. If he (the freaking play by play voice of the TEAM) was so concerned about towing the "team line' and helping to broker peace, he wouldn't have used his position as a team insider (and he said several times that he travels with the team, has access to the team, and sees things others wouldn't know) to lay out Boogie with a bunch of allegations and accusations none of us "non-insiders" can dispute. I can't see how that does anything but fan the existing flames.

So when I hear that Grant had a bunch of softballs for Karl, I don't think it was for the betterment of the team. It was because going after Karl didn't meet Grant's agenda. Grant is already on record as pitting Karl against Cousins, and has come out pro-Karl.

And that is my two cents...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Next week, another in-depth interview with Sacramento Kings head coach George Karl, on the Grant Napear show, featuring such hard-hitting questions as, "So, George, how was lunch?" and "What did you hit at Serrano this morning?"

Followed by a fifteen-minute Grant's Rant™ on DeMarcus Cousins. Be sure to tune in, you won't want to miss it!

 

[VF21]

While I generally agree with everything you say about how important it is not to do anything to jeopardize the situation, I will not defend Grant or give him a pass, because I do not believe he avoided the questions because he is trying to prevent a tenuous peace from blowing up. If Grant cared so much about "avoiding disaster" by saying the wrong thing on the air, he would not have eviscerated Boogie on the air last week, blaming Boogie and his agent for all the problems. He would not have implied (or directly stated) that Boogie is a malcontent, locker room problem, and that the Kings need to stop appeasing him. If he (the freaking play by play voice of the TEAM) was so concerned about towing the "team line' and helping to broker peace, he wouldn't have used his position as a team insider (and he said several times that he travels with the team, has access to the team, and sees things others wouldn't know) to lay out Boogie with a bunch of allegations and accusations none of us "non-insiders" can dispute. I can't see how that does anything but fan the existing flames.

So when I hear that Grant had a bunch of softballs for Karl, I don't think it was for the betterment of the team. It was because going after Karl didn't meet Grant's agenda. Grant is already on record as pitting Karl against Cousins, and has come out pro-Karl.

And that is my two cents...

Please just CONSIDER the possibility that someone approached Grant and asked him, for the good of the fans, the city and the team, to not pursue a particular line of questioning. It wouldn't be the first time, and it would certainly explain his apparent change.

I am no big fan of Grant Napear, which I'm pretty sure anyone who has read my posts for any length of time knows. In this case, however, I think he may just have been convinced that not stirring the pot right now was the best for ALL involved.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Please just CONSIDER the possibility that someone approached Grant and asked him, for the good of the fans, the city and the team, to not pursue a particular line of questioning. It wouldn't be the first time, and it would certainly explain his apparent change.

I am no big fan of Grant Napear, which I'm pretty sure anyone who has read my posts for any length of time knows. In this case, however, I think he may just have been convinced that not stirring the pot right now was the best for ALL involved.

Tell you what: I'll buy that if, and only if, he extends Cousins the same consideration. Is that fair enough?

 

[VF21]

Tell you what: I'll buy that if, and only if, he extends Cousins the same consideration. Is that fair enough?

Not my judgment to make.

 

[Larry David]

In Grant, we are talking about somebody that valued his position with the Maloofs over the fans, facts, logic, integrity and any shame that, between the time the Maloof blew up the deal from Orlando and later announced they would move to a city that would replace Grant with Kevin Calabro, he got on the air and told fans that a new arena just wasn't going to happen in this town, but the team could stay long term if we renovated Arco. Grant did the same with the Maloofs money problem, likelihood they would seek to move the team, and pretty much all major bad news. He is Bagdad Bob. And it has nothing to do with the good fans or the city, it has to do with protecting the station, both by keeping the sponsors happy and enough Kings fans following the flaming train wreck of a franchise on KHTK to pay their salaries.

What's been interesting is watching Dave morph from trying to call balls and strikes with rose colored glasses on ... into Grant at times, but yet not all the time. During the last 30 minutes of the show, which is all I caught, he often just couldn't speak and was all over the place. He'd concede the parts of the story that were either true or logical, get mad a ownership, give up and go silent, prop up some straw men, but then knock them down, pivot to a hypothetical that wasn't going to come true but then acknowledge as much.

I will not try to get inside his head ... but perhaps we're starting to approach the point where even one of the most appreciative and ardent supporters of the new ownership group is coming around the notion that things are such a mess that, while we can still pull for him to turn it around, Vivek's adage of fail fast might need to apply to him as well.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Not my judgment to make.

Okay, let me rephrase: you appear to be asking us to be fair to Napear, behind him not taking Karl to task, by asking him tough questions. Do you agree or disagree that it's reasonable on our part to expect the same courtesy to be extended to Cousins as a prerequisite for being fair to Napear?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

In Grant, we are talking about somebody that valued his position with the Maloofs over the fans, facts, logic, integrity and any shame that, between the time the Maloof blew up the deal from Orlando and later announced they would move to a city that would replace Grant with Kevin Calabro, he got on the air and told fans that a new arena just wasn't going to happen in this town, but the team could stay long term if we renovated Arco. Grant did the same with the Maloofs money problem, likelihood they would seek to move the team, and pretty much all major bad news. He is Bagdad Bob. And it has nothing to do with the good fans or the city, it has to do with protecting the station, both by keeping the sponsors happy and enough Kings fans following the flaming train wreck of a franchise on KHTK to pay their salaries.

What's been interesting is watching Dave morph from trying to call balls and strikes with rose colored glasses on ... into Grant at times, but yet not all the time. During the last 30 minutes of the show, which is all I caught, he often just couldn't speak and was all over the place. He'd concede the parts of the story that were either true or logical, get mad a ownership, give up and go silent, prop up some straw men, but then knock them down, pivot to a hypothetical that wasn't going to come true but then acknowledge as much.

I will not try to get inside his head ... but perhaps we're starting to approach the point where even one of the most appreciative and ardent supporters of the new ownership group is coming around the notion that things are such a mess that, while we can still pull for him to turn it around, Vivek's adage of fail fast might need to apply to him as well.

I feel like I listened to a different morning show than you did?

 

[Rain man]

Please just CONSIDER the possibility that someone approached Grant and asked him, for the good of the fans, the city and the team, to not pursue a particular line of questioning. It wouldn't be the first time, and it would certainly explain his apparent change.

I am no big fan of Grant Napear, which I'm pretty sure anyone who has read my posts for any length of time knows. In this case, however, I think he may just have been convinced that not stirring the pot right now was the best for ALL involved.

That's the thing- I don't think there was any change. Anyone who was expecting Grant to go after Karl has a serious misunderstanding of Grant. Honestly, can anyone on this board recall any time EVER, when Grant has ever gone after a show guest, attacked an interview subject, or asked a remotely difficult question to someone on air? I am being serious, and that is a serious question. In all of my years listening to Grant, I cannot think of one "aggressive interview" he has ever done. He will call people out, take people to task, and carry an agenda on his show, in his "rants", and with his callers, but he has never done anything that can be considered hard-hitting with a guest. He is a true paper tiger.

The few times he has interviewed Boogie he has kissed his ass. No questions about his supposed "locker room issues," or that the team is coddling him (those issues only get raised when he is ranting to his listeners and "blaming" people for the Kings' problems). He rails about lack of basketball IQ, implies the problem is JT, and then has JT on his show as a guest and asks him no questions about basketball (they talk Giants-Eagles). He used to have Petrie on all the time, and never asked him a relevant question, or questioned things (among many examples) like why he would sign Mikki Moore to the MLE. He is good buddies with Jason Jones, so we get countless, pointless interviews with Jones spewing his garbage.

The point is that Grant is all about access. He made the choice long ago that his show will be about him getting good guests. He gets good guests by kissing their asses. I guarantee he would not have gone after Boogie last week if Boogie had a regular weekly/monthly show/interview with Grant. That isn't good for business. That is how I knew he wouldn't go after Karl; Karl has given him pretty good access and interviews.

If someone from the team approached Grant to act for the betterment of the team, he wouldn't be poisoning the situation by going after Cousins ever day. Just saying...

 

[Rain man]

What's been interesting is watching Dave morph from trying to call balls and strikes with rose colored glasses on ... into Grant at times.

This is beyond silly. The day Dave morphs into Grant is the day Lebron signs with the Kings.

 

[John Galt]

That's the thing- I don't think there was any change. Anyone who was expecting Grant to go after Karl has a serious misunderstanding of Grant. Honestly, can anyone on this board recall any time EVER, when Grant has ever gone after a show guest, attacked an interview subject, or asked a remotely difficult question to someone on air? I am being serious, and that is a serious question. In all of my years listening to Grant, I cannot think of one "aggressive interview" he has ever done. He will call people out, take people to task, and carry an agenda on his show, in his "rants", and with his callers, but he has never done anything that can be considered hard-hitting with a guest. He is a true paper tiger.

The few times he has interviewed Boogie he has kissed his ass. No questions about his supposed "locker room issues," or that the team is coddling him (those issues only get raised when he is ranting to his listeners and "blaming" people for the Kings' problems). He rails about lack of basketball IQ, implies the problem is JT, and then has JT on his show as a guest and asks him no questions about basketball (they talk Giants-Eagles). He used to have Petrie on all the time, and never asked him a relevant question, or questioned things (among many examples) like why he would sign Mikki Moore to the MLE. He is good buddies with Jason Jones, so we get countless, pointless interviews with Jones spewing his garbage.

The point is that Grant is all about access. He made the choice long ago that his show will be about him getting good guests. He gets good guests by kissing their asses. I guarantee he would not have gone after Boogie last week if Boogie had a regular weekly/monthly show/interview with Grant. That isn't good for business. That is how I knew he wouldn't go after Karl; Karl has given him pretty good access and interviews.

If someone from the team approached Grant to act for the betterment of the team, he wouldn't be poisoning the situation by going after Cousins ever day. Just saying...

You may not have heard the debacle Chris Webber interview, where CWebb pretty much hung up on him. But I agree with your point - he has done most of his "tough talk" behind the subjects backs - not to their face.

 

[carmichaeldave]

Let's also acknowledge that while most of us have the (privilege?) of lobbing whatever we want at players/coaches/owners from message boards (or microphones), he rides on buses, airplanes, and is in locker rooms with those being lobbed at. It's not the easiest position in the world to be in, but to say that he doesn't face to face these people just isn't accurate. We just don't always see it.

I'm not here to tell you how to think, I've made that clear. But I do see some of the other side, and it's not often talked about. I don't envy the man for the tightrope he walks, I see it every day.

And Larry, you can't get inside my head, because I can't get inside my head these days. What I can tell you is that the last half hour of the show today was me learning stuff on the fly, and with nowhere to hide and disseminate info. I have a hard time covering my emotions, they are on my sleeve, and I understand (sometimes) the responsibility I have in times like these. I have learned a powerful lesson to ask questions before I shoot, but anyone who thinks (not that you do) that I won't put me being a fan before everything just isn't familiar with my history. I've been fired once, I hope I won't get fired again. Ever.

But I'd rather be collecting cans somewhere than be in an environment where I cannot speak my mind. That will never, ever happen.

 

[chasen4r1]

And the way Grant deflected the first caller who called him out on it (who happened to be the first caller after the 'non-interview'), well I actually clicked the tune-in radio window closed on my computer. Made me sick of his whole hypocrisy - all at once. And I think Grant's credibility as a Tough Guy New Yorker is a bit banged up by the whole episode and I'm disappointed in him.

This is where I about had it as well. He repeated over, and over, and over again that "Karl doesn't make trades, so why would I ask him?", or "Vlade already addressed it, so why would I ask him?" Well, gee, I dont know.. maybe because Karl is the one who was actively shopping DeMarcus behind Vlade's back? There are two sides to every story and it baffled me that he'd go on air and act like Karl is innocent and is on the same page as Vlade.

 

[VF21]

Okay, let me rephrase: you appear to be asking us to be fair to Napear, behind him not taking Karl to task, by asking him tough questions. Do you agree or disagree that it's reasonable on our part to expect the same courtesy to be extended to Cousins as a prerequisite for being fair to Napear?

Your premise is faulty. I am not asking you to be fair to Napear in general. I'm saying that IN THIS CASE there could be genuine extenuating circumstances. I repeat, IN THIS CASE.

I neither agree nor disagree about anything else.

 

[IfAt1st]

Who cares if he was a softball cookie-question-provider for Karl and completely abrogated his responsibility to ask important questions of his guest?

His continual slander of Cousins, grinding his personal axe for years, laying the groundwork for Cousins to be unappreciated by the Kings fans enough to get him traded, is the biggest issue with Grant currently.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Your premise is faulty. I am not asking you to be fair to Napear in general. I'm saying that IN THIS CASE there could be genuine extenuating circumstances. I repeat, IN THIS CASE.

I neither agree nor disagree about anything else.

Why should we make an exception "IN THIS CASE"? What makes THIS CASE different from all of the other times he's done it?

In other words, I'm not typically in the habit of making exceptions, and I'm absolutely not in the habit of making exceptions for Grant ****ing Napear, especially not for a "maybe." Find me a reason to believe that someone actually asked him to take it easy on Karl, "for the good of the fans, the city and the team," and I might change my mind.

On second thought, no, not even then. Not until Napear starts taking it easy on everybody else, too, "for the good of the fans, the city and the team."

Napear's a bum, and he gets no free passes from me.

 

[VF21]

Why should we make an exception "IN THIS CASE"? What makes THIS CASE different from all of the other times he's done it?

In other words, I'm not typically in the habit of making exceptions, and I'm absolutely not in the habit of making exceptions for Grant ****ing Napear, especially not for a "maybe." Find me a reason to believe that someone actually asked him to take it easy on Karl, "for the good of the fans, the city and the team," and I might change my mind.

On second thought, no, not even then. Not until Napear starts taking it easy on everybody else, too, "for the good of the fans, the city and the team."

Napear's a bum, and he gets no free passes from me.

I didn't ask for nor do I expect you or anyone else to give Napear a free pass. What I thought I was doing (silly me) was adding a potential reason for what was done.

I don't care if you or anyone else change your mind. In fact, at this point, I'm pretty much sorry I brought up the whole damned thing.

I will say one thing. I hazard a very strong guess that HAD Napear gone after George Karl in an attempt to get information, he would have run afoul of Vlade, who has made it pretty clear that he is the one making the decisions. I don't think that would have done anyone any good, especially if we truly want to find a solution to the apparent "problems in communication."

YMMV.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Maybe I'm just retarded today: I'm going to need for you to explain the difference between giving Napear a free pass, and "considering the possibility", so that I can understand it.

Does it make a difference if I say that I "considered the possibility," and rejected it outright?

 

[VF21]

Maybe I'm just retarded today: I'm going to need for you to explain the difference between giving Napear a free pass, and "considering the possibility", so that I can understand it.

Does it make a difference if I say that I "considered the possibility," and rejected it outright?

I'm not going to continue to debate this. You pedantic, me too freaking hot to give a rat's ass about continuing the discussion. You have made it abundantly clear how you feel. That's fine.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I'm not going to continue to debate this. You pedantic, me too freaking hot to give a rat's ass about continuing the discussion. You have made it abundantly clear how you feel. That's fine.

I'm just trying to reach an understanding, here. I don't mind being thought of as intransigent, but I can't abide by being thought of as ignorant.

Look, you asked us to consider the possibility that Napear was asked to back off. I said that I'm not giving Napear a pass, and you replied that you didn't ask anyone to give him a pass. But to me, those two things mean the same thing. How are they different? I'd take it as a kindness if you'd answer the question in good faith, explain the difference using words a poor sailor will understand, and not assume that I'm trying to play word games with you.

 

[VF21]

...sigh...

To ME:

1. Giving him a pass means letting him get away with not doing his job (for those who think his job should have included grilling George Karl).
2. I didn't advocate giving him a pass. I advocated accepting the very real possibility that he was, in fact, doing his job by not grilling George Karl and creating more problems that would have done NO ONE any good.

I do not like Grant Napear. I do not generally do anything to make excuses for him or provide explanations. In this case, however, I do feel very strongly that Napear did the right thing ... and he might well have done it for a very good reason that benefits fans, the players, the management, etc. Not all sports journalism has to be confrontational to be valid.

And that's it. If that doesn't explain it, I have nothing more. Nada. Zip. Zilch.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Come on, Dave! Horrific, really? You couldn't think of a better word than horrific?

 

[carmichaeldave]

Huh

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Huh

It's like I said, way back in the OP: I've made my peace with the fact that other people like sports that I don't like, and that I'm a big fan of sports that are not only unpopular, but actively ridiculed. The only real expectation that I have, at this point, for people who have a forum to influence other people, like radio or television, to not denigrate things that they don't like, which otherwise do them no harm.

I mean, I would probably believe you if you said that you didn't intend to be insulting when you said that watching the WNBA is horrific to you (and before you say it, yes, I did hear the whole segment, so I'm pretty sure that I grok the context). But, come on, man, you talk for a living: you can't not know that horrific is not a neutral word. It's a word with negative connotations, that poisons the well for anyone who might otherwise be neutral.

Look at it like this: the Monarchs have been gone since 2009, so chances are 50-50 that there's someone who listens to your show every morning, who heard what you had to say, and thought something like, "Well, you know, I've never actually watched a WNBA game... but, I know Carmichael Dave, I like Carmichael Dave, we agree on a lot of stuff, and I trust his input on sports. If he says that the WNBA is horrific, there's no reason for me to waste time watching, and deciding for myself; I'll just take his word for it."

 

[Larry David]

Grant is such a shill for the Kings that prostitutes are offended when Grant is called a whore for the team.

 

[Larry David]

Wow, KHTK fires two long, long time producers within a few months of each other. First, Little Joe. Now, Jodi Bacon.

Money issues? Because the Kings remain crummy, you'd have to think listeners / revenue are an issue. Plus, the station probably should have rehired the Rise Guys when they became available, but didn't want to hire guys that had previously left them. Instead, they stuck with Keith Brooks way too long. Now, the Rise Guys are cutting into KHTK's ratings particularly with the hit and miss schedule caused by choosing to air A's games.

 

[CaminoChaos]

KHTK is a joke. Home of the Kings? They play games of a team that is in the bay area over talking about one of the single most important days in the NBA. Its no wonder they're struggling.

They got rid of there highest rated show(Don Geronimo), fire Phantom, fire Little Joe, fire Jodi Bacon. The GM should fire himself to save money.