Mr. S£im Citrus said:
Alright, I'll elaborate: Shareef Abdur-Rahim is not a player that can make a team that is constructed the way the Kings are presently (or have been recently) constructed into a contender. Shareef Abdur-Rahim is a complimentary player. He could go to a good team with an established superstar, and become an "x-factor" caliber difference maker; the thought of a player like Abdur-Rahim coming off the bench for a team like San Antonio, for example, gives me the shakes. But, on the Kings, his impact would be minimal, seeing as how Abdur-Rahim, an undersized PF, is only marginally better than the undersized PF that we already have. Not only that, but this team doesn't have an established superstar; on the contrary, our three best players are all complimentary players. Put them all together and it doesn't add up to anything special. Four complimentary players =/= championship contender.
I disagree. For one thing, you can never have too much defense, in my opinion. And, for another thing, Many successful teams have defensive specialists. Bruce Bowen being virtually useless on the defensive end doesn't seem to handicap San Antonio all that much.
Funny you should say that, because that's exactly how I feel about shooting.
Oh, yes it is. Talking about passing up 7 (Abdur-Rahim) for a 5 (Evans) isn't nearly as ridiculous as the notion of passing up a 9 (McGrady) for a 4 (Buckner). On the right team, with the right coach, a 5 that knows his role can be more valuable than a 7 (the afore-mentioned Bowen cited as an example). On the other hand, a 9 is such a substantial difference in talent from a 4, that you'd have to have brain damage to choose one over the other.
I don't think I ever intended to suggest that Kings + SAR = championship, I just think that it was the only feasible offseason move that would give the Kings a shot, however small. I think that adding a borderline All-Star caliber forward for virtually nothing would have vaulted the Kings up a notch, and who knows, with the right chemistry, a catastrophic injury to Tim Duncan and a few lucky bounces the Kings might have sniffed a championship. Of course that's just my opinion, there's no way to measure these things.
I just think SAR would have been a very good fit for the Kings. He's a good passer, a good team player, a good low-post scorer, a good rebounder, and a decent-not-great defender. The fact that the Kings didn't pick him up in the offseason means they lost basically one of only two opportunities they had (Cuttino for Nene being the other) to appreciably improve.
So ultimately, my point is that losing SAR is the difference between the Kings possibly maybe somehow getting in the general vicinity of the championship trophy and being solidly in the second tier, which is where they are now.
In the abstract, you're right, you can't have too much defense and it should always should be a priority. Defensive specialists can always help, although usually they help most on a team that has a superstar that is going to shoulder most of the scoring load (Bowen to Duncan, Rodman to Jordan, Tyrone Hill to AI, etc.)
On a team like the Kings, I just don't think it makes sense to pass up a 7 for a 5, even if that 5 is a good rebounder (and 5 is extreeeeemely generous for Evans). As you've said, the Kings don't have a superstar, they rely on ball movement for their offense so someone who can't pass will kill the offense, and they need a talent boost. Better to get multitalented players at every position and hope for the best.
P.S. I agree with you completely on the shooting thing being way overvalued on this board (especially in the case of people wanting House over Hart). I would also say that "toughness" is becoming the new "shooting" .
