Assessing Petrie's trade history (split from Evans/Rubio thread)
- Thread starter Capt. Factorial
- Start date
It is fairly remarkable.
After declining win totals in 7 of the last 8 seasons and a 17 win franchise worst record this past year, one does wonder where we would be if our GM wasn't infallible.
After declining win totals in 7 of the last 8 seasons and a 17 win franchise worst record this past year, one does wonder where we would be if our GM wasn't infallible.
Yes, the Kings stunk up the court last season but it's not all Petrie's fault. No one that I can think of has said he's infallible.
There are a lot of factors that have contributed to our troubles; I actually believe we've passed the worst and, based on the youth and excitement I'm seeing this TDOS, I think we may have turned a corner.
The idea that Petrie is totally without merit is just as wrong as saying he's infallible. This isn't as clear-cut as some of you want to make it out to be. There are a myriad of factors that contribute to winning ... and to losing.
If those are excuses, so be it. I prefer to think of them as talking points, various factors people on message boards can talk about and debate that might or might not be valid.
The Kings have had a horrible run of bad luck, some questionable trades, some trades that may have been refused, some coaching decisions that were not the right way to go, and some poor choices by the ownership. I'm pretty sure that's run of the mill for just about every team in the league, with the possible exception of the Lakers. It hasn't all been bad, however, and I know I tend to defend Petrie when people want to paint his whole time here with the failure brush.
I fear that your wasting your breath, and your words are falling upon deaf ears. When someone makes a well thought out post to make a point, and the response is " Excuses, excuses, excuses! Your dealing with an intellectually lazy person. Its not really a matter of whether he's wrong or not. Its a matter of him not being willing to at least respond to the points made, in a civil manner. To me thats arrogant, and disrespectful to the person he was responding to.
On a personal level, I don't give a rats behind about the last 10 years. I only care about the now and the future. If you think throwing mud at an image is going to make you feel better, have at it. Petrie is the GM. And he's the one making the decisions. At least I hope he is. He's certainly open to criticism and rightly so. But the past is the past. Its not going to change. And trying to lay blame for the past, is, in my opinion wasted energy. Nothing will change, other than perhaps to make those indivuals temporarily feel better. If you have no power to change something, its counterproductive to beat your head against the wall. But its your head. Feel free.
On a personal level, I don't give a rats behind about the last 10 years. I only care about the now and the future. If you think throwing mud at an image is going to make you feel better, have at it. Petrie is the GM. And he's the one making the decisions. At least I hope he is. He's certainly open to criticism and rightly so. But the past is the past. Its not going to change. And trying to lay blame for the past, is, in my opinion wasted energy. Nothing will change, other than perhaps to make those indivuals temporarily feel better. If you have no power to change something, its counterproductive to beat your head against the wall. But its your head. Feel free.
Beyond the losing seasons what is most distressing to me is that we have not had a player in any event at All Star Weekend since 04.
All Star Game 04 Peja and Brad
Dunk Contest 02 Gerald Wallace
Rookie/Sophmore Game 02 Hedo
Skills - Never
3-Point Shooting contest 04 Peja
Back when the streak was three years, it was the longest in the NBA. Now that it is five years is it the longest in NBA history?
Secondly back to Capt. Factorials original point about who got the better of which trades, I think using Win Shares is the wrong methodology. If our stated goal is to win a championship then I think trades should be measured in terms of if it brings us closer or further from that goal. For instance by trading for Ron Artest and our 33 and 38 win seasons is we missed out on Durant and Rose in my opinion.
All Star Game 04 Peja and Brad
Dunk Contest 02 Gerald Wallace
Rookie/Sophmore Game 02 Hedo
Skills - Never
3-Point Shooting contest 04 Peja
Back when the streak was three years, it was the longest in the NBA. Now that it is five years is it the longest in NBA history?
Secondly back to Capt. Factorials original point about who got the better of which trades, I think using Win Shares is the wrong methodology. If our stated goal is to win a championship then I think trades should be measured in terms of if it brings us closer or further from that goal. For instance by trading for Ron Artest and our 33 and 38 win seasons is we missed out on Durant and Rose in my opinion.
Your point is well taken, and you might notice that when we officially began the blow-it-up era, I stopped looking at win shares and started looking at the financial bottom line.
A lot of folks here think we should have started the rebuild sooner. Well, it did have to start sometime, but in my opinion that wouldn't have actually changed the Misery Factor of the rebuild, it would have just shifted it in time. Keep in mind that we would only have missed out on a chance for Rose/Durant (as our #4 pick this year illustrates). And for all we know, Evans might turn out to be a great pick.
But as for win shares, I think it is a valid way of assessing the trades we were actually trying to improve with. Arguing against the intent of the trade is a valid thing to do, but it falls outside the scope of what I was looking at. It's somewhat akin to holding a GM accountable for trades that didn't happen -- arguing that the GM has done a poor job of directing the franchise rather than specifically assessing what the GM has done. What I was basically asking above is the following: "Petrie had a goal in mind when he made this trade. How did he do?"
A lot of folks here think we should have started the rebuild sooner. Well, it did have to start sometime, but in my opinion that wouldn't have actually changed the Misery Factor of the rebuild, it would have just shifted it in time. Keep in mind that we would only have missed out on a chance for Rose/Durant (as our #4 pick this year illustrates). And for all we know, Evans might turn out to be a great pick.
But as for win shares, I think it is a valid way of assessing the trades we were actually trying to improve with. Arguing against the intent of the trade is a valid thing to do, but it falls outside the scope of what I was looking at. It's somewhat akin to holding a GM accountable for trades that didn't happen -- arguing that the GM has done a poor job of directing the franchise rather than specifically assessing what the GM has done. What I was basically asking above is the following: "Petrie had a goal in mind when he made this trade. How did he do?"
Can you explain how you got 8.9 for Webber and 9.0 for Kenny Thomas? Looking at basketball-reference.com I am not getting the same totals.
Also would you say this is a fair summary of your post:
Good
Christie->Mobley
Webber->Movable Pieces
Peja->Artest
Bibby->Nothing
Artest->Picks
Miller->Nocioni
Pick->Sergio
Neutral
Jackson->Bonzi
Skinner->Whatever
Pick->Cassel
Sheldon->McCants
Pick->Cash
Bad
->Hart
Using your criteria that is probably fairly accurate. I would suggest that the Bibby and Miller trades was not as good if you add the fact that we waited so long to trade him. I think a part of any trade is knowing how long to hold onto a player. Bill Walsh always took a lot of grief for trading players before others thought he should, but he always sold high.
I think the fans who are arguing against you are looking at Petrie's career as a whole, when you are looking at just trades. So I think you demonstrated the Petrie's real weakness is free agent signings. SAR, Salmons, Maurice Taylor, Mikki Moore, Beno's Extention. I know it is more than five years ago but I want to throw Tony Massenburg in there too.
Also would you say this is a fair summary of your post:
Good
Christie->Mobley
Webber->Movable Pieces
Peja->Artest
Bibby->Nothing
Artest->Picks
Miller->Nocioni
Pick->Sergio
Neutral
Jackson->Bonzi
Skinner->Whatever
Pick->Cassel
Sheldon->McCants
Pick->Cash
Bad
->Hart
Using your criteria that is probably fairly accurate. I would suggest that the Bibby and Miller trades was not as good if you add the fact that we waited so long to trade him. I think a part of any trade is knowing how long to hold onto a player. Bill Walsh always took a lot of grief for trading players before others thought he should, but he always sold high.
I think the fans who are arguing against you are looking at Petrie's career as a whole, when you are looking at just trades. So I think you demonstrated the Petrie's real weakness is free agent signings. SAR, Salmons, Maurice Taylor, Mikki Moore, Beno's Extention. I know it is more than five years ago but I want to throw Tony Massenburg in there too.
I don't even count Maurice Taylor. He just stopped by for a cup of coffee. I agree on SAR to a certain extent. And thats on how it turned out. At the time of the signing it didn't seem like such a bad deal. He apparently passed the team physcial. But in fairness, there were some red flags about his knee's. Whereas I have no use for Mikki Moore now, or when he was signed, you get no argument from me on that one. Beno seemed like a decent deal at the time based on how he played when he came here. But, once again, there were red flags about him. He still has time to redeem himself, but so far I would give him an F. Salmons, I'm going to disagree with. I think he was worth the money. I agree that he didn't, for whatever reason, play well off the bench. But by and large, he played pretty well for us. And he was a good defender. But he didn't fit this team.
Ahhh, Massenburg! To be honest, he didn't play that badly. He just happened to be a head case and at times thought he was an all star. We had been lucky with head cases before. This is just one that didn't turn out.
Ahhh, Massenburg! To be honest, he didn't play that badly. He just happened to be a head case and at times thought he was an all star. We had been lucky with head cases before. This is just one that didn't turn out.
You're right - I made an addition error on Webber. Webber's career totals after leaving Sac were: 0.0, 4.5, 3.3, 0.1 for a total of 7.9.
KT's after arriving in Sac were: 2.4, 5.6, 1.2, -0.3, 0.1 for a total of 9.0.
These numbers are also from basketball-reference.com.
Yeah, more or less. Obviously the Webber trade was many-faceted, with both good AND bad financial ramifications and it was a big sentimental loser. On overall cumulative basketball talent we seem to have squeaked out a win. I certainly don't want to take too strong a stand on a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on that one.
The pick-for-Sergio is probably too early to take out of the neutral category from any objective point of view, but I did like the move.
I'm not going to disagree here, because I do understand where you are coming from, but I do want to make two points.
First, the entire post was spawned by the statement "Petrie hasn't made a good trade in 5 years." My original intent was to evaluate that statement at face value to determine how much merit the statement had. I would suggest that that statement had very little merit, and that this conclusion is independent of what Petrie didn't do. When he has acted to make trades, they have usually been good or neutral. (Obviously there is nothing so good as a Pau Gasol rip-off in there, but how often do those come up?)
Second, while it's valid to critique the general direction that a GM is pointing a franchise in, it's very difficult to do it objectively. Some people would have preferred us to have blown up the team two years earlier than we did. They seem to critique Petrie's career in terms of how they would have liked him to have done things. If Petrie's goals do not mesh with their own, they consider him to be unsuccessful. But how can we evaluate the what-ifs? We don't know what trade opportunities we passed on, we don't know what trades we could (or couldn't) have made if we were more aggressive in trying to deal our core away...in short, one can say "it would have been better if..." but without knowing what the alternative is, it's all speculation.
But what I've been doing in evaluating the trades does have an obvious alternative: doing nothing. And in retrospect we can see how the players involved did, or what the salary ramifications were, depending on the goal of the trade. I've been taking Petrie's goals into account, and seeing how well his moves have accomplished those goals. When we look at the trades he has made, he seems to have done a pretty good job of moving towards his goals. This does not equate to "infallibility" (not your accusation) in any sense, but when your moves tend to accomplish your goals rather than thwart them, I would say that it puts you in the realm of success rather than failure.
Obviously free agency (bad, but I would actually rate Salmons as a good signing) and the draft (very good) also are components of an overall evaluation...
KT's after arriving in Sac were: 2.4, 5.6, 1.2, -0.3, 0.1 for a total of 9.0.
These numbers are also from basketball-reference.com.
Yeah, more or less. Obviously the Webber trade was many-faceted, with both good AND bad financial ramifications and it was a big sentimental loser. On overall cumulative basketball talent we seem to have squeaked out a win. I certainly don't want to take too strong a stand on a thumbs-up/thumbs-down on that one.
The pick-for-Sergio is probably too early to take out of the neutral category from any objective point of view, but I did like the move.
I'm not going to disagree here, because I do understand where you are coming from, but I do want to make two points.
First, the entire post was spawned by the statement "Petrie hasn't made a good trade in 5 years." My original intent was to evaluate that statement at face value to determine how much merit the statement had. I would suggest that that statement had very little merit, and that this conclusion is independent of what Petrie didn't do. When he has acted to make trades, they have usually been good or neutral. (Obviously there is nothing so good as a Pau Gasol rip-off in there, but how often do those come up?)
Second, while it's valid to critique the general direction that a GM is pointing a franchise in, it's very difficult to do it objectively. Some people would have preferred us to have blown up the team two years earlier than we did. They seem to critique Petrie's career in terms of how they would have liked him to have done things. If Petrie's goals do not mesh with their own, they consider him to be unsuccessful. But how can we evaluate the what-ifs? We don't know what trade opportunities we passed on, we don't know what trades we could (or couldn't) have made if we were more aggressive in trying to deal our core away...in short, one can say "it would have been better if..." but without knowing what the alternative is, it's all speculation.
But what I've been doing in evaluating the trades does have an obvious alternative: doing nothing. And in retrospect we can see how the players involved did, or what the salary ramifications were, depending on the goal of the trade. I've been taking Petrie's goals into account, and seeing how well his moves have accomplished those goals. When we look at the trades he has made, he seems to have done a pretty good job of moving towards his goals. This does not equate to "infallibility" (not your accusation) in any sense, but when your moves tend to accomplish your goals rather than thwart them, I would say that it puts you in the realm of success rather than failure.
Obviously free agency (bad, but I would actually rate Salmons as a good signing) and the draft (very good) also are components of an overall evaluation...
What I don't think you're factoring in is that the Kings traded all their core players at the low end of their value. You have to fault Petrie on being slow on moving guys that weren't advancing the team. By the time we traded most of the core, their value was far lower than what we got them for. We bought high and sold low over and over again.
The only exception being Christie and Bobby, who we got decent 1 year returns on. But if you look at the value of Brad, what we gave up for him and what we got in exchange at the end, it's nigh disastrous.
The only exception being Christie and Bobby, who we got decent 1 year returns on. But if you look at the value of Brad, what we gave up for him and what we got in exchange at the end, it's nigh disastrous.
I think you hit on the essence of argument is how do we quantify a trade as good? Kenny Thomas's win shares of 9 vs. Webbers 7.9 is ~ 14% better. But I think when the Petrie detractors think of a good trade they are thinking of a Webber for Mitch or Christie for Corilss or Bibby for JWill trade where we get the obviously supperior player.
My point on the Bibby and Miller trades is I would consider them Neutral in terms of value. Since in the end the only player we have left is Nocinoni.
Would you not say determining Petrie's goals is part of the problem? He has been so tight lipped with the media and fan base over the last 14 years that most of the time we can only speculate on his intentions.
My point on the Bibby and Miller trades is I would consider them Neutral in terms of value. Since in the end the only player we have left is Nocinoni.
Would you not say determining Petrie's goals is part of the problem? He has been so tight lipped with the media and fan base over the last 14 years that most of the time we can only speculate on his intentions.
reason why I think once the Rodriguez trade went down. That Beno is gone for sure. I am not sure with whom or for what. I just have a feeling they really want Evans to start and know what that would do to the chemistry involving Beno. He is a must go at all cost. We may work out a deal for Camby while giving them a SF or KT's expiring.
I would say that there's no doubt that we sold low. At least in the case of Webber and Bibby. The problem with the Webber scenario is that we were on top of the world and then in a heartbeat, it was gone. At least where Webber was concerned. so I'm not sure how you would have sold high with him. Bibby yeah, maybe. But once again, two years in a row he was suffering with a wrist injury, which might have lowered his value on the market.
As far as buying high, I wouldn't say that trading Richmond for Webber was buying high. I think we easily got the best of that deal. Ditto the Bibby deal. Peja we drafted, and Vlade, as it turned out was a hell of a deal. I would say that Bibby should have been traded sooner, and, had that happened then the rebuild would have probably started sooner also.
As far as buying high, I wouldn't say that trading Richmond for Webber was buying high. I think we easily got the best of that deal. Ditto the Bibby deal. Peja we drafted, and Vlade, as it turned out was a hell of a deal. I would say that Bibby should have been traded sooner, and, had that happened then the rebuild would have probably started sooner also.
I think any evaluation process that deems the Webber for Kenny Thomas, Skinner and ? a success is seriously flawed. That trade was a disaster. It was a poor exchange talent-wise. It hurt the team's connection with its fans, and it sent a message across the league that the Kings glory days were over. And even though Webber has long since retired we have Kenny Thomas still on the books. Bleh.
Evaluating individual moves is missing the point. The goal of a GM is to put together enough talent that meshes to get close to winning a ring. Petrie has now done that in two separate runs, one with Portland and one with Sacramento. A GM cannot be blamed for bad luck or individual games- that's on coaches and players. Could drafting Dirk over JWill given the Kings a better chance to beat the Lakers? Maybe but that's really a moot point as the unknowns would then be humongous.
Bottom line: if this current crop of talent is able to make a serious run at a title in the next 2-5 years, GP will have solidified his reputation as one of the best GMs in the game. If it is another close but no cigar one can argue that his approach is good but his blueprint will never get a ring (a la Princeton players can't win it all).
People arguing over specific moves are missing the point entirely. GM's should be thinking in terms of eras of teams, not whether this or that move was good enough. Long term management always wins out of grabbing the best talent or name every time.
Bottom line: if this current crop of talent is able to make a serious run at a title in the next 2-5 years, GP will have solidified his reputation as one of the best GMs in the game. If it is another close but no cigar one can argue that his approach is good but his blueprint will never get a ring (a la Princeton players can't win it all).
People arguing over specific moves are missing the point entirely. GM's should be thinking in terms of eras of teams, not whether this or that move was good enough. Long term management always wins out of grabbing the best talent or name every time.
It should be noted that Petrie did not put together the Portland team -- he took over as GM in the middle of their run. Drexler, Porter, Buck etc. were all already there when he got the job.
But the real problem with trying to isolate intent as the key to whether a move was successful is that to a large degree a GMs job is precisely to exercise judment about that intent. If I take over the Cavs and immediately trade Lebron for Kevin Martin because I intend to make my team into a bunch of flopping weenies, well I have succeeded in my intent -- yay me! -- but I am still a fricking idiot and would deserve to be dragged from my car and thrown in one of Cleveland's polluted rivers.
But the real problem with trying to isolate intent as the key to whether a move was successful is that to a large degree a GMs job is precisely to exercise judment about that intent. If I take over the Cavs and immediately trade Lebron for Kevin Martin because I intend to make my team into a bunch of flopping weenies, well I have succeeded in my intent -- yay me! -- but I am still a fricking idiot and would deserve to be dragged from my car and thrown in one of Cleveland's polluted rivers.