John Hollinger's Kings preview on ESPN.com

#1
Edit -- Sorry folks, to try to avoid any copyright problems I had to go through and hack the crap out of a very thorough article. Tried to capture most of the flavor, but a lot of the reasoning has unfortunately been lost to the ...s. --brick

Sez Hollinger: "The most likely scenario is that they limp home a couple games short of .500, and a couple games short of a playoff spot."

Truthful - but nonetheless painful - look at our favorite team. I think he overstates the age issue a bit, but otherwise, I don't have many arguments with this. Our biggest strength is ballhandling? Geez.

http://proxy.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2597728&type=story

Hollinger's Team Forecast: Sacramento Kings

By John Hollinger
ESPN Insider

The uniforms were the same, but by the end of 2005-06 you'd have hardly recognized these Sacramento Kings. In a 12-month span the club changed out three-quarters of its roster...(cont.)

Artest immediately paid dividends, helping the Kings tidy up their defense....(cont.)

That said, the win-loss record exaggerates the extent of the improvement....(cont.)

[FONT=Arial,Hevetica,sans-serif]OFFSEASON MOVES[/FONT]

Kings GM Geoff Petrie has thrived over the past decade by staying a step ahead of the competition. This summer wasn't one of his better ones, though, with the lone major personnel move likely leaving the team much worse off.


• Fired Rick Adelman, hired Eric Musselman. After nine years in Sacramento, it wasn't easy to part with Adelman. One of the more underrated coaches of the past two decades, he's taken a lot of heat for his team's playoff failures. But few coaches have been better at maintaining cohesion, or picking out his seven guys at the start of the season and sticking to that rotation all season. One could argue his message was getting stale, but how stale could it have been to the 10 new players on the roster? It seems the real problem was that the owners were tired of the coach, not the players.
Fortunately, Adelman's replacement is a solid choice....(cont.)


• Signed John Salmons, let Wells leave. Letting Wells go was the easy part....I know he and Musselman are tight, but isn't having Wells and Artest in the same clubhouse a bit like lighting a cigarette at a gas station?
However, the decision to go after Salmons looks fishy. The Kings gave a five-year, $25 million deal to a guy whose production in Philadelphia was positively piddling....(cont.)

• Signed Loren Woods. ...The competition between him and Vitaly Potapenko for the backup center job promises to be the NBA's least-exciting training camp battle.

• Drafted Quincy Douby. A late first-round pick, Douby is another guy who probably will have to play right away because the Kings are so thin. He's a shoot-first, Eddie House type who will play both guard spots...(cont.)


[FONT=Arial,Hevetica,sans-serif]BIGGEST STRENGTH[/FONT] [FONT=verdana, arial, geneva]Mike Bibby helps the Kings keep a good handle on the ball.[/FONT]
Ballhandling. This always has been a Kings' strength and should again this year. From top to bottom, nearly every important player on this team is an above-average dribbler and passer for his size...(cont.)

BIGGEST WEAKNESS
Frontcourt size and depth. Um, these guys know they only have three big men …right?...(cont.)

Moreover, none of the three can give the team the interior presence it so desperately needs at the defensive end. Miller is a high-skill guy but has no elevation and little quickness, while Abdur-Rahim and Thomas both are small for power forwards -- let alone the center spot....(cont.)



[FONT=Arial,Hevetica,sans-serif]2006-07 OUTLOOK
[/FONT]

Because of the strong finish, a lot of people are expecting big things from the Kings this year. Don't count me as one of them...(cont.)

All told, I'm not sure Musselman realizes quite how difficult the task before him is. Sacramento can make a playoff run if nobody gets hurt in the frontcourt and Artest and Bibby perform near the top of their range, but everybody in the West can make an argument along those lines. The most likely scenario is that they limp home a couple games short of .500, and a couple games short of a playoff spot
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#2
My god why are we even playing this season :rolleyes:


Salmons old at 27??? I guess I need to sign up for my AARP benefits.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#3
thedofd, thanks a lot for posting this -- I decided to merge the two thread for cohesive discussion since it was all one article. Hope you don't mind.
 
#4
Hm. That assessment of the Kings felt like a nice swift slap to the face. I don't see us finishing under .500 but maybe that's the slap I need.

Is today picture day for the Kings or is that tomorrow?
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#9
I agree with much of this article (and see, I TOLD YOU I was an optimist, at least compared to these national guys ;) ), but that said:

1) this article was actually much more about basketball than many Hollinger writes, and I was generally impressed. My complaint about him typically is that he is just a number cruncher who doesn't look beyond stats, specifically his own made up stats. But even in this one, you can still see him overrelying on his "player efficiency/shooting efficiency" crutches as a substitute for analysis. John Salmons could have value to us even with a weak efficiency rating, and while I think Holinger has the flukishness of Kevin's shooting efficiency pegged, if Kevin steps up and scores 17-18ppg on 46% shooting that does NOT mean he's no more effective than he was scoring 11ppg on 51% shooting.

2) I think he overplays the age card a little bit. Know what he is saying -- we LOOK old, we play old. Brad plays old, Mike plays old, Reef plays old, even Ron plays old on offense. But while we've got some guys headed that way, we really are not an old team. Ron is young, Bibby is in his prime, the rest of the backcourt are kids (sans Salmons, who I think he was pointing out is getting a little old to show huge improvement). Its really the frontcourt that is on the brink of aging. But even it is not so old that it should be in serious decline yet. I hope. Our issue is more being too old amongst our major players to get much better than it is being so old we should actually deteriorate because of it.
 
Last edited:
#10
If we are old, then what about the Spurs --Ducan is 30 and according to Hollinger, should be ready to drop dead any day now. Going 25-11 is great no matter where you play and its much better than 19-27.
 

Bricklayer

Don't Make Me Use The Bat
#11
If we are old, then what about the Spurs --Ducan is 30 and according to Hollinger, should be rerady to drop dead any day now. Going 25-11 is great no matter where you play and its much better than 19-27.
Well if you note, Duncan has actuallly been in decline for the last couple of years. He kind of needs a bounceback year here to prove that he isn't prematurely starting to slide.
 
#12
Hm. That assessment of the Kings felt like a nice swift slap to the face.
More effective than "Lectric Shave, if you're old enough to remember that commercial.

Sometimes, because we're fans, we tend to attach too much value to our players. For example, most of us seem to think that Garcia is going to be a big contributor this season. Hollinger, who probably is a bit more objective, says Garcia "needs to improve just to be a decent bench player." Ouch, but realistically, a fair assessment.

Perhaps the most troubling thing is that the Kings have had the same issue since Scot Pollard and Keon Clark left -- a lack of quality depth and athleticism up front -- and have never found a way to address it.

I can hardly wait for the season to start; at the same time, I'm a little bit fearful...
 
#13
He failed to mention one (or two) big men rooks we have coming out of summer league in Amundson and Williams that could possibly make the team. I still prefer that we would sign a big man vet for help in the post if possible. We had a lot of chances to get players, but no, we had to wait for Bonzi to leave first and then go after the scraps. We could have signed salmons and someone like Wright with parts of the MLE and our bench problems wouldn't be that much of a problem then.
 
#15
because we can still beat LA

Exactly!:D

Anyway I agree with some of this but I don't agree with other parts. I think Hollinger's been overly pessimistic but we do have some weaknesses. Hopefully the guys just prove everyone wrong this year, because last year we had high expectations by a lot of people and the team wasn't very good. Well now that the expectations are lower, maybe the team will prove people wrong again? I can hope.
 

SLAB

Hall of Famer
#18
This guy has read every single thing I have thought about John Salmons stright from my mind and published it nationally...I demand to be given credit.

But hey, Im much like probably a good 70% of the fans, so cancel that.

And I generally tend to agree...As much as I want to be optimistic, I can't without a decent sparkplug off the bench, a decent backup, or any sort of interior defense.
 
#19
he said we'd win a few less games becasue bonzis gone, but i think were gonna win more now that ron's here for a whole year, and i think that should offset the bonzi thing
 

CruzDude

Senior Member sharing a brew with bajaden
#20
This pre-season is like 1998 (not in + or - but rather in change) when there were so many new faces and what we thought was the disgruntled CWebb and the wild JC. Everyone has an opinion from womb and doom to 55 wins.

I think Coach sees the FAs and rooks right away, gets the 4 and 5 spot competitions going immediately and then plays the the starting 5+3 a bunch. The west is going short this year. Nellie is going to do it, so is Utah, Phoenix, Seattle and a bunch of others.

Don't be suprised to see SAR at the 5 and KT at the 4 with Brad off the bench. Or brad starting but the others getting bigger minutes. But who the heck knows? surely not me. Every other spot except maybe Bibby's, is up for grabs. Kevin at the 3 then Price at the 1 or Bibby at the 1, Kevin at the 2 then XXXXXX at the 3.

akkkk........
 

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#21
Don't be suprised to see SAR at the 5 and KT at the 4 with Brad off the bench. Or brad starting but the others getting bigger minutes. But who the heck knows? surely not me. Every other spot except maybe Bibby's, is up for grabs. Kevin at the 3 then Price at the 1 or Bibby at the 1, Kevin at the 2 then XXXXXX at the 3.

akkkk........
I'd be VERY surprised to see Brad coming off the bench. In fact, my feeling would go well beyond "surprised" and into the "shocked" category. If we're not going to utilize Brad at the starting 5, I think we need to get rid of him. I simply don't see a scenario whereby him coming off the bench would do us any good.
 
#22
This pre-season is like 1998 (not in + or - but rather in change) when there were so many new faces and what we thought was the disgruntled CWebb and the wild JC. Everyone has an opinion from womb and doom to 55 wins.

I think Coach sees the FAs and rooks right away, gets the 4 and 5 spot competitions going immediately and then plays the the starting 5+3 a bunch. The west is going short this year. Nellie is going to do it, so is Utah, Phoenix, Seattle and a bunch of others.

Don't be suprised to see SAR at the 5 and KT at the 4 with Brad off the bench. Or brad starting but the others getting bigger minutes. But who the heck knows? surely not me. Every other spot except maybe Bibby's, is up for grabs. Kevin at the 3 then Price at the 1 or Bibby at the 1, Kevin at the 2 then XXXXXX at the 3.

akkkk........

kevin at the 3, and only mike's spot is guranteed, brad wont come off the bench, even if muss hates brad, they'res till going to play him so they can get somewhere near his value in a trade, but i thunk he starts and stays, and what about artest, his spot isnt guarnateed?
 
#24
Mr. Slim Citrus said:
If we went 4-78, but all four wins were against the Lakers, I'd chalk the season up to a moral victory.
I rather have the Kings have sucess then worrie about how many times we win against the Lakers regardless if we're out of the playoffs.

our team is more important then winning against the Lakers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

VF21

Super Moderator Emeritus
SME
#25
I rather have the Kings have sucess then worrie about how many times we win against the Lakers regardless if we're out of the playoffs.

our team is more important then winning against the Lakers.
If the team is going to go 4 and 78, there's not much to be happy about. What Slim is saying, should that happen, the one bright spot would be if those 4 victories were against the Lakers.
 
Last edited:

Mr. S£im Citrus

Doryphore of KingsFans.com
Staff member
#26
"Important" is relative. Nothing about basketball whatsoever is really important. And, as far as I'm concerned, nothing related to basketball is more important than beating the Lakers.
 

Entity

Hall of Famer
#27
OK here we go with my little take on things take them for what they are worth. Last season with Ron and Without Bonzi with played 11 games 6 of those on the road.

In those 11 games we were 8-3. Now Shareef only played in the last 3 of those games at very limited min. Also Garcia being a rookie

So with this lineup we went 8-3

Bibby,Hart
Martin,Garcia
Artest,Garcia
Thomas,Skinner
Miller,Skinner

That was it nobody else coming off the bench no Well no Sar and we went 8-3

Now we have the same starting linup give or take Sar over Thomas and another year under Martins and Garcias belt. Plus Woods, Salmons, Douby, Amundson.
 
#29
That's the same idiot writer that said we wouldn't make the playoffs last year.
He was almost right though so got to give him some credit. However, he probably looked like like an idiot last year because many thought that the kings would make some serious noise, including me.