Fire PDA!
- Thread starter OptimusRhyme
- Start date
- Status
im a happy camper.
Shaking My Head @ this thread.
I may not like some of the moves so far, but come on now.....PDA hasn't even had a whole off season yet, hell you don't even know what the team will officially look like yet when the season starts. Not to mention, what if Malone is the best coach we've had since Rick and makes this team look dramatically better? You should relax and give him some time to build the team the way he thinks it should be built.
For Christs sake, we are lucky to still have the Kings and you are already trying to call for our new owners hand picked GM to be fired.......wow.
I may not like some of the moves so far, but come on now.....PDA hasn't even had a whole off season yet, hell you don't even know what the team will officially look like yet when the season starts. Not to mention, what if Malone is the best coach we've had since Rick and makes this team look dramatically better? You should relax and give him some time to build the team the way he thinks it should be built.
For Christs sake, we are lucky to still have the Kings and you are already trying to call for our new owners hand picked GM to be fired.......wow.
1st -- what happened with Reke was criminal. No comparison.
2nd -- Carl Landry isn't being judged on what he did in Kingsland, he's being judged on a whole career of the same crap. Sure, bad system (one who actually gave him the ball TOO much, the exact opposite of Reke) while he's here. But oh, must have been a bad system in New Orleans too. And Golden State. And Houston. There is an attempt here to say Landry failed in some special playing below his potential way when he was Sacrametno. he did not. He failed because he played EXACTLY like Carl Landry always has. There's nothing to correct. Nothing a 30 year old player is suddenly going to do to dramatically change things. And is he an ok player? Sure, he's an ok player. An aging undersized ok player who doesn't do the things we need done. Didn't then, didn't elsewhere, isn't going to here. The only interesting development with Landry is his aberrant rebounding last year. But that only makes things worse, as then you have a coach/front office basically falling into the "contract year" trap when a guy all of a sudden steps his game up, gets his big contract, and reverts to normal.
We're paying forward patience when it comes to PDA. His moves have sucked on their face. If there is going to be justification for them it has to lie in what other moves the original moves might allow him to make. So on this one overpaying for Landry can only be justified by then trading away JT or Patterson to fill another need, both of whom are similar level players, just as good guys, and younger.
2nd -- Carl Landry isn't being judged on what he did in Kingsland, he's being judged on a whole career of the same crap. Sure, bad system (one who actually gave him the ball TOO much, the exact opposite of Reke) while he's here. But oh, must have been a bad system in New Orleans too. And Golden State. And Houston. There is an attempt here to say Landry failed in some special playing below his potential way when he was Sacrametno. he did not. He failed because he played EXACTLY like Carl Landry always has. There's nothing to correct. Nothing a 30 year old player is suddenly going to do to dramatically change things. And is he an ok player? Sure, he's an ok player. An aging undersized ok player who doesn't do the things we need done. Didn't then, didn't elsewhere, isn't going to here. The only interesting development with Landry is his aberrant rebounding last year. But that only makes things worse, as then you have a coach/front office basically falling into the "contract year" trap when a guy all of a sudden steps his game up, gets his big contract, and reverts to normal.
We're paying forward patience when it comes to PDA. His moves have sucked on their face. If there is going to be justification for them it has to lie in what other moves the original moves might allow him to make. So on this one overpaying for Landry can only be justified by then trading away JT or Patterson to fill another need, both of whom are similar level players, just as good guys, and younger.
JT or Patterson might look similar based on statistics, but it seems to me, that Landry plays a different game underneath the basket. I can only judge round about 20 regular-season-games and the whole playoff-run of the Warriors this year, but it appears to me, that Landry loves to use his strength and loves to go full-contact, while adding a solid mid-range game too. JT and Patterson both play rather soft for a PF and dont use their body all that much. They rely almost entirely on mid-range-jumpshots and wide open layups.
So if its the goal to add some toughness and physicality to the Kings front-court, Landry might be a logical choice.
But my opinion is not backed up by stats, so i might be mistaken. We ll see.
So if its the goal to add some toughness and physicality to the Kings front-court, Landry might be a logical choice.
But my opinion is not backed up by stats, so i might be mistaken. We ll see.
Good. Get out of here if you can't take the "negativity". Complete and utter BS that anybody here was expecting the team to be turned into a championship contender in 6 days. Is calling for his head over the top? Yeah it is, but the OP has already admitted that. Let the fans who want to critique the moves do so please, without insinuating that just because we aren't happy with the moves thus far we are bad fans or aren't grateful for what vivek has done.
I'm tired if this argument. Find me where anyone posts where they expected this. Or that they expected a championship team in 5 or 6 days. I would have been happy with a resigned tyreke and dorell wright at 3 mil a year for 2 years. All we want is for the gm to fill our needs. We need a sf, and so far we got a guard when we have plenty, and now a pf when we have 2 that are as good if not better. Now I'm not ready to fire him, but he isn't starting out well.
How is bringing Carl Landry in supposed to change the culture when he was just here two years ago? He already had playoff experience when he came here the first time yet we remained terrible then, did he change the culture? Actually he didn't rebound well for his position, didn't play defense, and was a complete black hole on offense. So in a way you could say the he helped to create the culture that Pete is now hoping to change. I wonder if he even realizes that we already had Carl Landry here as part of this endless rebuild. A lot of the people who commented about this signing earlier in the day didn't seem to realize it.
But that wasn't even what I was referring to. Yesterday, pre-Landry signing, a lot of trouble was made to point out that it was necessary to get rid of Tyreke because we were a 28 win team and he wasn't helping us to win. Actually, this is pretty much the only argument that has been made as to why we shouldn't have re-signed Tyreke. Bad fit, couldn't get along with the rest of the team, big changes were needed. Some of us thought that just maybe adding a new coach and a guard who can actually shoot the ball reliably and trading away the rest of our inefficient combo-guard dominated backline would make a difference in some way and we were told that was completely illogical, coaches don't matter, and Tyreke just is what he is. Fast forward 24 hours and .. um, Carl Landry happened. Uh oh guys, what do you have to say now about your 'coaching is irrelevant and everyone associated with a bad team is cursed with the taint of loserdom' argument? Of course, now everything we said to defend our point of view is being thrown back in our face to once again explain how wrong we are. I don't even have a huge problem with bringing Landry back. Maybe Mike Malone is going to use him better than Westphal and Smart did. After all, that is what I said yesterday about Tyreke isn't it? You want to re-sign Tyreke and then mess around with bringing back Landry for a veteran presence that the coach is familiar with? Fine. At least you're being consistent. But a difference of $4 million per year for a 29 year old undersized PF who peaked as a sixth man over a 23 year old who has one of the best rookie seasons of all time on his resume? Taken together, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It just seems more and more like we're moving backwards.
But that wasn't even what I was referring to. Yesterday, pre-Landry signing, a lot of trouble was made to point out that it was necessary to get rid of Tyreke because we were a 28 win team and he wasn't helping us to win. Actually, this is pretty much the only argument that has been made as to why we shouldn't have re-signed Tyreke. Bad fit, couldn't get along with the rest of the team, big changes were needed. Some of us thought that just maybe adding a new coach and a guard who can actually shoot the ball reliably and trading away the rest of our inefficient combo-guard dominated backline would make a difference in some way and we were told that was completely illogical, coaches don't matter, and Tyreke just is what he is. Fast forward 24 hours and .. um, Carl Landry happened. Uh oh guys, what do you have to say now about your 'coaching is irrelevant and everyone associated with a bad team is cursed with the taint of loserdom' argument? Of course, now everything we said to defend our point of view is being thrown back in our face to once again explain how wrong we are. I don't even have a huge problem with bringing Landry back. Maybe Mike Malone is going to use him better than Westphal and Smart did. After all, that is what I said yesterday about Tyreke isn't it? You want to re-sign Tyreke and then mess around with bringing back Landry for a veteran presence that the coach is familiar with? Fine. At least you're being consistent. But a difference of $4 million per year for a 29 year old undersized PF who peaked as a sixth man over a 23 year old who has one of the best rookie seasons of all time on his resume? Taken together, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It just seems more and more like we're moving backwards.
Are you forgetting that Landry spent an entire year with us, during which many on this board watched every single game? It's like some of you are new to this team or something. I will guarantee you that if you ask anybody who was around at that time they will tell you that Landry is a bigger scoring threat than JT, and that he finishes very well around the basket (whereas JT at that time was often crucified for missing point blank shots every game). The problem is that Landry's post scoring became obsolete once we drafted Cousins, and coupled with the fact that he was neither a good rebounder on the defensive boards nor a good defender, and that he was literally the biggest ball hog on the team, led to his being traded. He did not mix well with Cousins and there's no reason to believe that he will now. Perhaps he's accepted more of a role-player mentality and is no longer such a black hole on offense, but at this moment he does not bring anything more to the table than Ppat or JT would based on his previous stint with us. Now if JT or Pat is traded the story could be different.
How about we give the new regime more then say a week to build a team before everyone freaks out? The reality of the situation is that it's likely going to take them a couple of years to build the team that they are envisioning. If in 2-3 years we still stink then you can get the pitchforks back out.
While this thread is the doing of a drunk man, I figure its the most appropriate for adding criticism. The one thing that Im a little frustrated with is the the FO felt that we didn't need to receive Lopez in the Evans/Vasquez trade and then they sought out Landry. If Landry was only required as a trade asset or insurance for a future trade, wouldn't Lopez carry the same value if not more while also filling an area of need for us while he's on our roster? This is what I don't get.
Many people don't agree with this. Many people think the team was a hot mess and not close to anything in particular.
I think the less familiar the team is in October, the better. The team from last year sucked.
Grievis is a couple ppg away from all star stats, and he's a big guard. I like big guards (ie Christie). Statistically, he was closer to "star" performance last year than Evans was.
Landry is an upgrade over JT in my opinion, and JT on paper is probably tradeable.
I think PDA is trudging forward with an OVERHAUL. If you wanted a tweak, you won't like this FO. If you wanted an OVERHAUL you may not be so panicked at this stage of things.
I think the less familiar the team is in October, the better. The team from last year sucked.
Grievis is a couple ppg away from all star stats, and he's a big guard. I like big guards (ie Christie). Statistically, he was closer to "star" performance last year than Evans was.
Landry is an upgrade over JT in my opinion, and JT on paper is probably tradeable.
I think PDA is trudging forward with an OVERHAUL. If you wanted a tweak, you won't like this FO. If you wanted an OVERHAUL you may not be so panicked at this stage of things.
The team from last year sucked. But it doesn't take an analytics master to tell you that the REASON the team from last year sucked was because of defense and rebounding. We scored lots of points. We scored lots more points than Grievez's Hornets. We scored 1ppg less than Landry's Warriors. But we simply could not stop anyone, and we could not close off possessions. As a longtime observer of the team with a better feel for it than our new front office I think, I'll even go into details why: we got no guard rebounding at all outside of Reke, JT had his worst boarding year, and John Salmons was the worst rebounding SF in the game. Meanwhile on defense we were disorganized, our PGs were tiny, our SF was undersized, there was no shotblocking up front, and our center was easily distracted and would take 1 out of 3 plays off.
Ok, so, point being, we lost by being terrible at all the things that serious teams are not terrible at. And so how does the front office address our terribleness? By ignoring defense and rebounding, in fact shipping it out. You can overhaul all you want, but if you don't even understand the problem or you're overhauling just to say you overhauled, you aren't going to get anywhere. In fact you can easily go backwards. Its a lazy and arrogant way to go about things.
Ok, so, point being, we lost by being terrible at all the things that serious teams are not terrible at. And so how does the front office address our terribleness? By ignoring defense and rebounding, in fact shipping it out. You can overhaul all you want, but if you don't even understand the problem or you're overhauling just to say you overhauled, you aren't going to get anywhere. In fact you can easily go backwards. Its a lazy and arrogant way to go about things.
This team wasn't close to being good. Only delusional homers who over-value their own players (and place way too much blame on the coach) thought this team was close to being good.
The Kings would have needed to win about 18 more games this year than last year in order to make the playoffs. If anybody honestly thinks that getting rid of Keith Smart and getting a little better at SF makes you 18 wins better and a playoff team they are crazy. Coaching matters but only to an extent.....it doesn't nearly double your win or loss total.
Ultimately talent and how well a team gels together determine how many games you win. I think a big part of them letting Tyreke walk is that PDA doesn't feel that Tyreke gels well with Cousins and McLemore. Perhaps he also thinks that Tyreke just doesn't gel well period with most players and won't make a team a winning team.
D'Allesandro may very well be wrong but then again it may have been even more foolish to just assume changing coaches and getting a new SF suddenly puts you on your way.
The Kings would have needed to win about 18 more games this year than last year in order to make the playoffs. If anybody honestly thinks that getting rid of Keith Smart and getting a little better at SF makes you 18 wins better and a playoff team they are crazy. Coaching matters but only to an extent.....it doesn't nearly double your win or loss total.
Ultimately talent and how well a team gels together determine how many games you win. I think a big part of them letting Tyreke walk is that PDA doesn't feel that Tyreke gels well with Cousins and McLemore. Perhaps he also thinks that Tyreke just doesn't gel well period with most players and won't make a team a winning team.
D'Allesandro may very well be wrong but then again it may have been even more foolish to just assume changing coaches and getting a new SF suddenly puts you on your way.
Again you have to figure (and certainly hope) that they are not done yet. Another move has to be coming. If not maybe PDA really doesn't know what he is doing but nobody can make that determination until a team he puts together actually plays some games. The wins/losses will ultimately tell the story.
One more thing you used the terms "lazy" and "arrogant". It's only lazy if he's not done yet and if what he has done so far doesn't work. As for being "arrogant", that's ironic considering you are always the guy on a message board claiming to know more than all of the recent coaches and GM's this team has had. Isn't that kind of arrogant?
One more thing you used the terms "lazy" and "arrogant". It's only lazy if he's not done yet and if what he has done so far doesn't work. As for being "arrogant", that's ironic considering you are always the guy on a message board claiming to know more than all of the recent coaches and GM's this team has had. Isn't that kind of arrogant?
Agreed!
Ranadive has been intimately involved with every organizational move thus far. You think he wasn't consulted in Tyreke not being matched and Landry being signed? You think that he didn't ask PDA what his strategy was with Tyreke and Cousins during his interviews? Fire Ranadive!!! You're ruining our....er...your team!
Ranadive has been intimately involved with every organizational move thus far. You think he wasn't consulted in Tyreke not being matched and Landry being signed? You think that he didn't ask PDA what his strategy was with Tyreke and Cousins during his interviews? Fire Ranadive!!! You're ruining our....er...your team!
I know only an idiot would think you're serious... but seeing as somebody already thought you were serious, I guess I need to say that I'm not. -.-
Cool. We'll see. I'll be laughing when Tyreke comes back and rips Vasquez a new one and watch him struggle to defend other PG like he did last year. I swear some of you only watch Kings basketball and have no IDEA about anything else in the NBA. YES VASQUEZ AVERAGED 9 ASSISTS A GAME. You know the Hornets averaged the same amount as us as a team. OFFENSE WASN'T THE PROBLEM!! It was defense. BUT BUT BUT TYREKE CAN'T SHOOT. Sissy basketball.
- Status