Roch Royals Fan said:Let's be realistic here:
1. The Maloofs are NOT obligated to over-spend to have a competitive team in Sacramento. It's valid to criticize them if they are like Donald Serling, but haven't been, and they're still not. You might recall last year when you were wondering what the economic payoff to a championship was. Well, I distinctly remember that the increase in franchise value over the last twenty years was pretty similar between the Clippers and the Lakers. FOR MOST FRANCHISES, WINNING DOESN'T MEAN A WHOLE HECK OF A LOT TO THE BOTTOM LINE. For example, I don't blame the Maloofs if they don't want to sign and trade Mobley if it means that they will be over the luxury tax threshold.
Never said they were obligated. I said, "The owners, for whatever reason, tightened the purse strings." And I have no idea what you're trying to get to with the comment about the Maloofs and Mobley. We're already FAR over the salary cap. Doing a sign and trade to get a player of value in return isn't going to have a negative effect on anything.
I said it appeared the family wasn't as interested ... I said several times "IT SEEMED" like they weren't as enthusiastic.2. I also don't understand your criticism of the Maloof brothers not being as interested in the team as before. They made a SERIOUS effort to get Phil Jackson (whether or not you thought it was a good idea, he wouldn't have come cheap!) And he wouldn't have counted against the salary cap. They're obviously not fully satisfied with Adelman, even though he's done a good job. A disinterested owner would keep Rick around, while the Maloofs are looking for possible improvement.
And? I said the gentle giant left amid cries of angst from his loyal followers. That's not an exaggeration. People WERE unhappy when Vlade left.3. It's now clear the the Vlade's time had passed, and the Kings made the right move in letting him go. I bet you that LA wishes they had passed on him.
So? You're reading way too much into a story - and only part 1 of the story at that.4. Team's have cycles. It's just unfortunate that Sacramento's prime years coincided with LA (four WC championships in 5 years) and SA (three NBA titles in 7 years). The Kings will forever be likened to the Milwaukee Bucks of the early 80s, with Moncrief and Lanier, they were never able to get by either the Celtics or 76ers.
Again, that's not the point. Webber was shipped off. Some were happy; others were very sad. That's all I said...5. Yes, it was sad to lose CWebb last season. And yes, I wish we'd gotten more for him. Yet, he's one slip away from a career-ending injury. You can't possibly blame ownership for wanting to move that contract. Most owners would have done something similiar.
And this relates to my story how exactly?6. There's nothing that ownership could have reasonable done to reverse this cycle. IN FACT, IT'S THEIR WILLINGNESS TO CLEVERLY MAKE DEALS AND STAY OVER THE SALARY CAP (OVERSPEND) THAT HAS LED THEM TO BE SO GOOD FOR SO LONG. (trading JWill for Bibby and Pollard/Hedo for Brad has actually extended the natural cycle).
And, for the third time, so? It's a story...and it's only part 1 of the story.7. In fact, the Kings will still be good next year. I fully expect them to contend for a playoff spot, and maybe win 50 games next year. It's not like they're going to be basement feeders. IT'S NOT LIKE THE MALOOFS ARE PULLING A BRUCE RATNER (OWNER OF THE NETS), AND SALARY DUMPING QUALITY PLAYERS LIKE KMART AND ALONZO FOR VERY LITTLE.
Whatever. You have missed the point so badly I feel remiss as the author.So relax. At least the Lakers won't be winning anytime soon!!