Assessing Petrie's trade history (split from Evans/Rubio thread)

[AriesMar27]

I read on because it is rude not too. I have to agree with KP, the results are a stretch to be optimistic at best. My example would be the Bibby trade. What good has come from that? The signing of Beno? A few more losses? The development of Sheldon Williams? How about the usefulness of Anthony Johnson or Tyron Lue? I do not get how a trade like that serves a purose. If anything its put us in a deeper hole now that we have Beno stuck here for 4 more years.

i agree 100% about the bibby trade.... we gained nothing and ended up with beno as our starting pg for the next few years. or even worse, 4 more years of beno trade threads. that was the main problem with thomas, his contract was untradeable. if we trade him now it doesnt count because he is now a huge expiring.... i didnt mind salmons, he was a good player and i had no real problem with keeping him. id rather have him starting at sf than nocioni or garcia....

trade mitch for webber, great....
trade jwill for bibby, great....
trade hedo for miller, great....

everything else sucked... i liked artest but we really didnt gain anything from having him because we couldnt resign bonzi or keep adelman. i think that bonzi probably wouldve had a cool career if he had resigned with the kings. if we had signed him we wouldve had martin signing a much smaller contract. probably the same size as garcia's.... i dont think we have benefitted from a trade since trading hedo for miller...

trading christie for mobley was a wasted half season rental. trading bobby for bonzi and ostertag was a 1 years rental. trading peja for artest was great for the remainder of that season but was a disaster afterwards.

if we hadnt made another trade after the miller trade we wouldve been an equally horrible team but with tons of capspace.... we are now a 17 win team, all of those moves have been a waste of time and money. the lakers have already rebuilt their team and won a title. even the bulls and hawks have a better team than we do. the hawks? you really cant say that the hawks or heat have a better team than the kings.

 

[VF21]

The Lakers already rebuilt their team? Are you freaking kidding me? Unless I really missed something THEY HAD KOBE!!!! Makes it a lot easier to find role-players when you have arguably the best in the league on your team already. Geez...

 

[Sptsjunkie]

The Lakers already rebuilt their team? Are you freaking kidding me? Unless I really missed something THEY HAD KOBE!!!! Makes it a lot easier to find role-players when you have arguably the best in the league on your team already. Geez...

Besides, we should never compare our rebuild to one LA will eventually do. They are the second biggest market in the country and are a very desirable location. All the Lakers need to do to rebuild is clear some cap space and a Lebron, Wade, Paul type superstar will likely come sign with them. The Kings have to maneuver a little differently.

 

[sdballer]

In every job, there are successes and failures and over time, its fair to evaluate someone's performance. So, for everyone that thinks Petrie has done a great job with trades and drafting, what would it take to define the last decade as a failure?

Just trying to figure out how everyone is defining "success".

 

[VF21]

It's not that he's done a GREAT job; I think he's done about as well as could be expected with all the other factors taken into consideration. The last decade is far from a total failure. In fact, about the only F I would give would be to Webber's knee. If it hadn't given out in Dallas, we might well be able to gaze on at least one championship trophy in the Arco trophy case.

 

[sdballer]

It's not that he's done a GREAT job; I think he's done about as well as could be expected with all the other factors taken into consideration. The last decade is far from a total failure. In fact, about the only F I would give would be to Webber's knee. If it hadn't given out in Dallas, we might well be able to gaze on at least one championship trophy in the Arco trophy case.

Ok, so what would a total failure look like to you?

 

[AriesMar27]

when shaq was traded to miami the kings had a better team than the lakers... they didnt make the playoffs that first year and lost in the 1st round the next 2 years. then they smart trades... they stole pau gasol, traded cook for ariza, traded radmonovic and developed their young players (ariza and farmar)... the kings did none of those things... besides wasting their mle on all of the wrong players. the kings have not made a single good move in that same time frame. i mention the lakers because they began their rebuild at the exact same time as the kings.

i know we dont have a player on the same level as kobe but up until earlier this month kobe wasnt good enough to do it all by himself. petrie kept his mouth shut and didnt take any risks, he played it safe and we as fans had to pay the price. im tired of fans talking about how we dont have superstars on our roster, most of them would lose their minds if we traded one of or mediocre but likeable young player for a superstar who hasnt already won it all... before the celtics got kg and ray allen none of us would have traded kevin for paul pierce but he ended up becoming final mvp.

granted he is always hurt but how many of us wouldve traded kevin for mcgrady last summer or before he got hurt? how many of us wouldve liked trading him for vince carter? not many if any... no one wants to trade thompson for amare. petrie sat on his back side and let the rest of the league run right by him. look at how aggressive the moves were before webber got hurt against dallas... traded for bibby, signed jim jackson, keon clark. miller came in that very summer... now he is getting out petried by kevin pritchard... portland is the team that the kings should be right now. not the clippers 2.0....

the kings as a team are just as good as the blazers, bulls, hawks and sixers yet we ended up with the worst record in the league and the worst record in team history. how many coaches have we had in the past 4 years? 4... 5 if you count our new coach and we havent made the playoffs since we had adelman which was the 1st of the 4 coaches. thas a damn shame.

what has petrie done right in the past 4 that is worth mentioning in a positive way? nothing.... petries last good move was drafting kevin martin. though he did give away gerald wallace in the same summer if im not mistaken...

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Ok, so what would a total failure look like to you?

Well, you could start with the Los Angeles Clippers.

Over the last 10 seasons, we made the playoffs 7 times, had 7 seasons of winning records, and were arguably the best team in the league for two years (01-02 and 02-03). Barring an Horry shot and a Webber knee, we probably win the championship both years. Despite our dismal year last year, our 10-year record is 456-364, which is a 56% winning percentage. We are a small market team, and we have been able to sign a grand total of two major free agents (that were not our own players) in that time period: Brad Miller in a sign-and-trade and Vlade Divac (who was technically signed more than 10 years ago). During that same time frame, the highest draft pick we have had was Hawes at #10 (Williams at #7 was 11 years out). Yet, we have done quite a bit better than average.

How about the Clippers? Despite being a large-market team, over the past 10 seasons they have made the playoffs 1 time, and had 1 season of winning record. Their combined record over that span is 306-514, or 37%. Although the Olowokandi debacle was 11 years ago, in the past 10 drafts they have had 8 top-ten draft choices (and I'm not counting this year's draft with Griffin as he hasn't played yet). That's a #2, #3, #4, #4, #6, #7, #8, and #10.

That's your total failure. We have been far and away the better franchise over the past decade despite having fewer financial resources, being a less-desirable free agent location, and having next to nothing to work with in the way of draft picks.

Honestly, this we-are-the-worst-run-franchise-in-the-history-of-sports-oh-woe-is-me stuff is getting ridiculous. We had a really good run over the past decade, and in the natural cycle of things, we've taken a downturn. Unlike large-market franchises, we don't have the spend-it-all ability to stay competitive when we reach the end of our cycle; we have to rebuild. That's what we're doing. It hurts a bit, and without a major move or some major luck, we're not going to make the playoffs next year. But we are seeing the beginnings of a young nucleus being put together. It should be a fun ride back up to the top, so why not enjoy it?

 

[AriesMar27]

you gotta start somewhere.... we have become the clippers north.... or as my roommate calls the kings, "the norclips"....

 

[Sptsjunkie]

you gotta start somewhere.... we have become the clippers north.... or as my roommate calls the kings, "the norclips"....

And so were most of the current playoff teams at one point. The Clippers are a model of sustained mediocrity with very minimal and short lived high points. They are also a total mess. Our owners wanted to hold onto past glory for too long, but we are now rebuilding and have a good, young core. We are headed in the right direction and aren't making short sighted moves.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

Honestly, this we-are-the-worst-run-franchise-in-the-history-of-sports-oh-woe-is-me stuff is getting ridiculous. We had a really good run over the past decade, and in the natural cycle of things, we've taken a downturn. Unlike large-market franchises, we don't have the spend-it-all ability to stay competitive when we reach the end of our cycle; we have to rebuild. That's what we're doing. It hurts a bit, and without a major move or some major luck, we're not going to make the playoffs next year. But we are seeing the beginnings of a young nucleus being put together. It should be a fun ride back up to the top, so why not enjoy it?

Thank you. Well said!!!!!

 

[AriesMar27]

And so were most of the current playoff teams at one point. The Clippers are a model of sustained mediocrity with very minimal and short lived high points. They are also a total mess. Our owners wanted to hold onto past glory for too long, but we are now rebuilding and have a good, young core. We are headed in the right direction and aren't making short sighted moves.

true we had our time in the spotlight... but our fall from grace was worse than our rise to glory... the last 3 seasons were horrible... musselman and theus were horrible, i so wanted to like theus but he was just a bad coach. i cant think of a single team with a worse coach than the kings have had with the last 2 coaches that we've had... maybe sam mitchell but id rather have him than theus or his substitute than finished the season.

we have too many problems and our gm is too affraid to take a real risk unless he's hiring a coach who has no business coaching in the nba or drafting safe picks.....

 

[Chupacabra]

Just because Petrie hasnt brought another superstar to the kings yet doesnt mean hes all washed up. Trading Miller and Bibby was necessary in order to free up cap room and divide those old players into multiple smaller contracts. Whos foolish enough to give up good talent for an old Bibby and Miller? Isiah Thomas isnt a GM anymore. Sacramento is like saying Jacksonville or Buffalo etc. when it comes to small media market cities with sports teams, so star talent isnt exactly going to rush over here. The Kings had one of the winningest records over almost 10 years. Sometimes its time for teams to suck.

 

[Chupacabra]

true we had our time in the spotlight... but our fall from grace was worse than our rise to glory... the last 3 seasons were horrible... musselman and theus were horrible, i so wanted to like theus but he was just a bad coach. i cant think of a single team with a worse coach than the kings have had with the last 2 coaches that we've had... maybe sam mitchell but id rather have him than theus or his substitute than finished the season.

we have too many problems and our gm is too affraid to take a real risk unless he's hiring a coach who has no business coaching in the nba or drafting safe picks.....

I wonder if Jeff VanGundy is getting tired of commentating.

 

[Sptsjunkie]

true we had our time in the spotlight... but our fall from grace was worse than our rise to glory... the last 3 seasons were horrible... musselman and theus were horrible, i so wanted to like theus but he was just a bad coach. i cant think of a single team with a worse coach than the kings have had with the last 2 coaches that we've had... maybe sam mitchell but id rather have him than theus or his substitute than finished the season.

we have too many problems and our gm is too affraid to take a real risk unless he's hiring a coach who has no business coaching in the nba or drafting safe picks.....

Not really, our rise to glory was much better than having a couple of subpar seasons. And Muss and Theus were Maloof choices, we'll see how Westphal fares since he is a Petrie choice. And it seems pretty ridiculous to say a GM who reached for a small school prospect and grabbed a player he liked over a more heralded prospect in back to back drafts is not completely risk adverse. Now that we are actually rebuilding, let's see what happens the next year or two. As I said before, my expectations are 20-30 wins this year, 30-40 next year and then .500 ball and making a run for the 6-8 seed in three years.

 

[Heuge]

Honestly, this we-are-the-worst-run-franchise-in-the-history-of-sports-oh-woe-is-me stuff is getting ridiculous. We had a really good run over the past decade, and in the natural cycle of things, we've taken a downturn. Unlike large-market franchises, we don't have the spend-it-all ability to stay competitive when we reach the end of our cycle; we have to rebuild. That's what we're doing. It hurts a bit, and without a major move or some major luck, we're not going to make the playoffs next year. But we are seeing the beginnings of a young nucleus being put together. It should be a fun ride back up to the top, so why not enjoy it?

Noone has said we are the worst run franchise and noone has even compared our fall to the Clippers. 8 straight years of getting worse is not the natural cycle of things. That is a pattern which shows a GM who should have stepped in earlier and differently to rebuild. We have basically the same amount of money to spend as all the other team, so I find that argument yet another copout.
I look at the Pistons for an example of how a rebuild should happen. They did it once back when they knew when to get rid of Grant Hil and for how much. And now they knew when to get rid of Billups and also for how much. They're current rebuild is going to take one maybe two years, and they may not even miss the playoffs in the procress. Why is this the case? They have a GM how thinks ahead and has made smart risks. Sure, Geoff has made risks, but Webber for spareparts and Bibby for no future stuff, are not smart. If that was all he could have gotten for those players then he pulled the trigger too late.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Noone has said we are the worst run franchise and noone has even compared our fall to the Clippers.

No, nobody compared us to the Clippers. But the challenge was made to define a decade of "total failure" with the clear implication that our last decade was exactly that. I tried to put a bit of perspective on what constitutes a decade of "total failure", as requested.

8 straight years of getting worse is not the natural cycle of things.

Again, a bit of perspective helps out here. The first year of "getting worse" we got worse by two games, 61 wins to 59 wins. That's a statistical blip, not "getting worse". The second year, we dropped another 4 games to a still-respectable 55 wins despite spending most of the season waiting for our star to recover from surgery. And the third year of getting worse was the year we realized our star was pretty much done.

None of what happened between our peak regular-season record in '01-'02 and our trade of Webber late in '04-'05 looks remotely to me like "getting worse". (Certainly not by mismanagement..."getting worse by major knee injury" is tough to dodge.) Are you going to argue that we should have immediately given up on Webber and a team that had averaged 60 wins over the past two years when his knee went out? We stuck out one season while Webb recovered from surgery (and the rest of our core held the team together admirably) and then another half-a-season to see what Webber's knee had left. I don't even see how in retrospect that course of action can be argued with.

The clock shouldn't even START until the '05-'06 season when we regrouped without Webber to see what we had. And yes, we declined from there -- three straight years of decline. And now we're on our way up. That seems to be a reasonable cycle to me. It wasn't eight years of decline in anything beyond a look-at-the-numbers-and-forget-it analysis. It was four years of holding steady, two of those in the face of a major knee injury, then three consecutive years of decline after changing the direction of the team. Seems to be a big difference to me.

 

[Heuge]

No, nobody compared us to the Clippers. But the challenge was made to define a decade of "total failure" with the clear implication that our last decade was exactly that. I tried to put a bit of perspective on what constitutes a decade of "total failure", as requested.



Again, a bit of perspective helps out here. The first year of "getting worse" we got worse by two games, 61 wins to 59 wins. That's a statistical blip, not "getting worse". The second year, we dropped another 4 games to a still-respectable 55 wins despite spending most of the season waiting for our star to recover from surgery. And the third year of getting worse was the year we realized our star was pretty much done.

None of what happened between our peak regular-season record in '01-'02 and our trade of Webber late in '04-'05 looks remotely to me like "getting worse". (Certainly not by mismanagement..."getting worse by major knee injury" is tough to dodge.) Are you going to argue that we should have immediately given up on Webber and a team that had averaged 60 wins over the past two years when his knee went out? We stuck out one season while Webb recovered from surgery (and the rest of our core held the team together admirably) and then another half-a-season to see what Webber's knee had left. I don't even see how in retrospect that course of action can be argued with.

The clock shouldn't even START until the '05-'06 season when we regrouped without Webber to see what we had. And yes, we declined from there -- three straight years of decline. And now we're on our way up. That seems to be a reasonable cycle to me. It wasn't eight years of decline in anything beyond a look-at-the-numbers-and-forget-it analysis. It was four years of holding steady, two of those in the face of a major knee injury, then three consecutive years of decline after changing the direction of the team. Seems to be a big difference to me.

Are you arguing that this rebuild started when it should?

It is worth adding, we are a long long way from out of this rebuilding process.

 

[bajaden]

Is that not a pattern of failure? As I said in the post you quoted, we are getting worse and have been. Partly due to some bad luck and the cyclical nature of the haves and havenots of the NBA but ultimately do to some poor player personnel decisions. You can call yourself an apologist or not. I really dont care. What I am becoming weary of is excuses on Petrie's behalf. It is time for those to disappear. Lets look at the track record. We have become worse every year since 2002. Its 2009-2010! I believe there have been moves, some of the moves even touted as good by the originol post, which have caused us to stay in this downturn much longer then we needed to be.

As for saying I am making blanket statements about how much Petrie sucks, I really dont get. I have used one major argument. His last 8 year track record. I really don't think I need much more. This is almost a decade of decline we are talking about here. And in that 8 year span it is hard to find many good decisions which would lead someone to think that maybe it isnt the GMs fault. If drafting KMart and trading Peja for the exploding RonRon are the two highlights, we have real problems.

Your blanket statement was that the Kings have had 8 losing seasons in a row. You were wrong!!!! They have had three. You don't like Petrie, fine. Your entitled to your opinion. I just happen to disagree with part of it. Not all of it. You apparently have you mind closed on the matter, so there's no need in my wasting my time any longer.

 

[bajaden]

Ok, so what would a total failure look like to you?

The Clippers, The Knicks. Issiah Thomas!!

 

[Heuge]

Your blanket statement was that the Kings have had 8 losing seasons in a row. You were wrong!!!! They have had three. You don't like Petrie, fine. Your entitled to your opinion. I just happen to disagree with part of it. Not all of it. You apparently have you mind closed on the matter, so there's no need in my wasting my time any longer.

I have never said 8 losing seasons, rather have been become worse for 8 seasons. So I guess someone else is wrong here....If I had a closed mind in the matter I would not be discussing it. Just as you, however, my opinion has not changed based on the arguments being laid out. Does that make you or I, close minded? Hardly, but the personally attacks you keep bringing in, makes this discussion difficult to continue. I can be persuaded by sound argument, as has been seen a number of times in my 7 years of posting at KF.com.

 

[BonziFan]

Are you arguing that this rebuild started when it should?

It is worth adding, we are a long long way from out of this rebuilding process.

Lets also keep in mindthat this is the first true year that the Maloofs have let Petrie have all the say. They had to be involved in every move since they have been here. I will never forget when they made it very clear that Musselmen was agreed upon 100% by "the entire Maloof family. He is the guy we all wanted."

I think it is clear now that they have taken a step back to let Petrie do the job they are paying him to do. If the Maloofs had there way, Rubio would be a King if only for the financial side of the pick. They let Geoff and his staff do things to make this team better and I believe we will all be seeing that very shortly.

 

[Section 101]

I have never said 8 losing seasons, rather have been become worse for 8 seasons. So I guess someone else is wrong here....If I had a closed mind in the matter I would not be discussing it. Just as you, however, my opinion has not changed based on the arguments being laid out. Does that make you or I, close minded? Hardly, but the personally attacks you keep bringing in, makes this discussion difficult to continue. I can be persuaded by sound argument, as has been seen a number of times in my 7 years of posting at KF.com.

That is wrong too. They went from 44 (Adleman) to 33 wins under Muss. Reggie won 38 games his first year then 17 last year.

So they are on a 1 year downward spiral. However, the 61 to 33 wins tied the longest streak without improving.

 

[bajaden]

Noone has said we are the worst run franchise and noone has even compared our fall to the Clippers. 8 straight years of getting worse is not the natural cycle of things. That is a pattern which shows a GM who should have stepped in earlier and differently to rebuild. We have basically the same amount of money to spend as all the other team, so I find that argument yet another copout.
I look at the Pistons for an example of how a rebuild should happen. They did it once back when they knew when to get rid of Grant Hil and for how much. And now they knew when to get rid of Billups and also for how much. They're current rebuild is going to take one maybe two years, and they may not even miss the playoffs in the procress. Why is this the case? They have a GM how thinks ahead and has made smart risks. Sure, Geoff has made risks, but Webber for spareparts and Bibby for no future stuff, are not smart. If that was all he could have gotten for those players then he pulled the trigger too late.

One could argue that getting rid of Billups didn't turn out so well for them, considering how he led Denver into the playoffs.

This all comes down to whether you believe Petrie has made every decison. I don't think he has. I beleive the Maloof's have meddled and it started with Adleman. Who I beleive was the last coach picked by Petrie until Westphal. There's no way Petrie would have fired Rick. They were good friends, and Petrie took a bullet for him once in Portland. I'm not going to cherry pick which moves I believe were influenced by the Maloof's because its pure speculation.

Just ask yourself this. How did a guy that was thought of as one of the best GM's in basketball suddenly become inept. This is guy who turned almost every move he made into gold. To aquiring Tony Delk to Jon Barry etc. They always seemed to fit the need at the time and make contributions. Suddenly he becomes stupid and is incapable of making one right decision?

Just my opinion, but I think the Maloofs have meddled to the point that Petrie has had enough. I think thats why he turned down their offer for an extension. I think he finally hired a coach he wanted. I think the Maloofs would have loved to draft Rubio, but Petrie took Evans. I believe that Petrie decided that if he was going to take the hits then he was going to make the decisions. By not signing the extension, he has flexability. I think his message to the Maloofs is that either I'm doing it my way, or I'm down the highway.

As I said, just my opinion. I could be dead wrong. He could have just been lucky before. But I doubt it.

 

[sdballer]

One could argue that getting rid of Billups didn't turn out so well for them, considering how he led Denver into the playoffs.

This all comes down to whether you believe Petrie has made every decison. I don't think he has. I beleive the Maloof's have meddled and it started with Adleman. Who I beleive was the last coach picked by Petrie until Westphal. There's no way Petrie would have fired Rick. They were good friends, and Petrie took a bullet for him once in Portland. I'm not going to cherry pick which moves I believe were influenced by the Maloof's because its pure speculation.

Just ask yourself this. How did a guy that was thought of as one of the best GM's in basketball suddenly become inept. This is guy who turned almost every move he made into gold. To aquiring Tony Delk to Jon Barry etc. They always seemed to fit the need at the time and make contributions. Suddenly he becomes stupid and is incapable of making one right decision?

Just my opinion, but I think the Maloofs have meddled to the point that Petrie has had enough. I think thats why he turned down their offer for an extension. I think he finally hired a coach he wanted. I think the Maloofs would have loved to draft Rubio, but Petrie took Evans. I believe that Petrie decided that if he was going to take the hits then he was going to make the decisions. By not signing the extension, he has flexability. I think his message to the Maloofs is that either I'm doing it my way, or I'm down the highway.

As I said, just my opinion. I could be dead wrong. He could have just been lucky before. But I doubt it.

I think its very possible that the Maloof's have over-extended their reach. But that doesn't excuse him. In most executive positions, regardless of the business, you'll have CEO's, boards, etc. that try and dictate decisions. Your job is to work around those and meet the objectives laid out before you. To pass off the lack of success the past 5-10 years as owner influence doesn't excuse Petrie.

That's why I originally asked people to define success. If it's about Petrie, his defenders try and spin every move he makes as subtle genius. But when pushed on actual organizational progress, its all the Maloof's fault. Doesn't quite work for me.

 

[bajaden]

Are you arguing that this rebuild started when it should?

It is worth adding, we are a long long way from out of this rebuilding process.

I can't speak for the Capt, but no, I think it should have started sooner. At least a year sooner, if not two. Now I say that with hindsight. But as I stated in my prior post, I believe the Maloofs were reluctant to let go of the glory days. Thats why the Artest trade was made, and almost admitedly by them. I don't think Petrie would have traded for Artest. Thats not say he wouldn't have trade Peja. He's traded popular players before. Richmond, Walt Williams, Pollard etc. But he's always traded for players that fit his scheme of things, and Artest didn't.

The irony of the whole thing is, that if the rebuild had started sooner, then maybe the current recession wouldn't be such a dark cloud. The team would have been better by now and perhaps more people would be going to ARCO. But it is what it is. So we live with it.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Are you arguing that this rebuild started when it should?

It's hard to identify exactly when the rebuild began. In earnest, probably with the Bibby trade.

In the post you were responding to, I was talking about letting go of Webber (which I suppose could be seen as the very first move in a rebuild, but I don't think I would classify it as such). The Webber trade probably couldn't have happened before it did. We were coming off 120 regular season wins in two seasons, with a great roster so long as Webber came back full strength. We absolutely HAD to be patient and see his rehab through until it was clear he couldn't get back to where he was. We didn't trade him until he played 69 games after his injury, and I think that's at least giving our star player a fair chance to get back.

As far as the timing of the rebuild start, was it late? Yeah, probably a bit. We tried a couple of things that didn't work out (Artest, Bonzi) before giving up. But was it horribly, unforgivably late? Not in my mind.

It is worth adding, we are a long long way from out of this rebuilding process.

True, but I think we're on the way up, not down.

 

[Heuge]

Just my opinion, but I think the Maloofs have meddled to the point that Petrie has had enough. I think thats why he turned down their offer for an extension. I think he finally hired a coach he wanted. I think the Maloofs would have loved to draft Rubio, but Petrie took Evans. I believe that Petrie decided that if he was going to take the hits then he was going to make the decisions. By not signing the extension, he has flexability. I think his message to the Maloofs is that either I'm doing it my way, or I'm down the highway.

As I said, just my opinion. I could be dead wrong. He could have just been lucky before. But I doubt it.

What I find hilarious here is this, I would have thought the other way around. Petrie wanted Rubio and the Maloofs convinced him otherwise.

This, I believe, is the most plausible argument in Petrie's favor as to why his moves have been crappy for so long. But for me, whether I buy it or not is mute. If he doesnt feel like he can do his job the way he wants to do his job, he could just resign. He has value enough to get another job.

Now, if you are going to argue Petrie has done a good job and argue that the Maloofs have messed things up in the same breath, I think you are using unfair arguments. It is either Petrie has been good, or the Maloof have kept Petrie from being good. I dont think you can have it both ways.

 

[Section 101]

True, but I think we're on the way up, not down.

That's what I thought until last year. I don't see them improving much over last year.

 

[bajaden]

I have never said 8 losing seasons, rather have been become worse for 8 seasons. So I guess someone else is wrong here....If I had a closed mind in the matter I would not be discussing it. Just as you, however, my opinion has not changed based on the arguments being laid out. Does that make you or I, close minded? Hardly, but the personally attacks you keep bringing in, makes this discussion difficult to continue. I can be persuaded by sound argument, as has been seen a number of times in my 7 years of posting at KF.com.

Here is your quote.

Bottom line....8 straight years of losing (getting worse), the aggregate total of the trades have been total failure. I'm just looking at the facts, "the apologist" tries to make excuses for what is read in the facts. You can be tired of my type all you want, but those that believe Petrie has been awful are backed by the records and the current state of this franchise.

Now you may not intended to say it that way, but you did say it. Also, I haven't attacked you personally by calling you names. I mostly started his debate over the fact that you called people names. Such as apologists, just because they didn't agree with what you said. As far as being close minded. Just discussing it doesn't mean your not. I have at least acknowledged that I didn't think your were totally wrong in your assessment. You've acknowledged nothing I've posted. Have a good day!