chances of going .500 for 08-09

tyrant

Starter
reasons why we will or wont go .500 this year

playoffs in 06

33-49 record in 07

38-44 record in 08

won 5 more games.

in theory we would do better than 38-44 next year. but, thats not garuanteed so i hit some points of why i think we can hit .500 next year.

1. kevin martin-not one of the best in the league or even western conference, but he's a good fit for sacramento right now. a pretty good shooter and loves to move without the ball. when he's aggressive our offense is better.
2. the role players- garcia, spencer, and beno. these are the guys that may stay a while. garcia and beno have become solid shooters for us. spencers 1st year wasnt that bad. he did show his ability to post up, square up and take the jumper. for this reason he reminds me more of vlade than brad miller. spencer has that crafty type of game.
3. coaching-i really cant give theus the edge over muss. both have shown great levels of incompetence. and 5 games isnt that many. and you also take into consideration that theus just wouldnt let up. not playing the kids and wearing down his vets even when everyone knew that our playoff hopes ended last december. but, i think the maloofs like him. he's young, he's committed.

on to the reasons why we wouldnt hit .500

1. the role players-though garcia has improved his shooting his ball handling is still questionable. his rookie year compared to last season you would see that he damn near doubled his turnovers without actually doubling his minutes. he averages 1 assist per game. his career total for assists is 309. his career total for turnovers is 273. this is going to hurt our offense if he cant handle the ball better. he's averaging 27 minutes a game. salmons, the human rubiks cube. unlike the other rubiks cube on the team salmons isnt a former all-star and could be playing for another team as early as next feb. non-production off the bench is another reason why the game shifts in the other teams favor during substitution time. john salmons as a starter averaged a little over 17 a game. as a sub only 7 a game. its understandable that with less minutes and coming off the bench you will average less, but if you take a look at his fg% you'll notice that its down. his 3 point percentage is WAY down. so it is mental. or just not caring

2. brad miller- dont know which brad miller we're going to see this year, but he might be traded pretty soon too. looked like he got a little slimmer and even changed the hair. some transformation, still not an allstar worthy year. he looked a tad quicker, but who are we kidding. most of us werent that impressed. im afraid his time has passed. if he doesnt play to his strength (which is take the open jumper) our offense will struggle. play off martin if you have to. i thought id never see the day that kevin martin would have more trade value than a former all star center thats barely in his 30's.

3. the ron artest trade. we have to get something of value. i wouldnt let him go for anything less than an expiring and a potential allstar. last year we played our vets maxed minutes and still ended at 6 games below .500. our guys have been improving every year, but i think they'll struggle hitting .500 without a positive addition from the artest trade
 
Last edited:
Reasons why we will or won't go .500 for 08-09? Isn't that a lot like "reasons why we will or won't be hit by a meteor"?
 
wIThoUT rON ArteST'S FaTE DECided tHEre IS jUST NowAY we CAN KnOW OR EVEN specULaTE

Man do we need a quick solution. Posters are now hitting the sauce. Who knows what will happen next? :D



I totally agree, btw.
 
Reasons why we will or won't go .500 for 08-09? Isn't that a lot like "reasons why we will or won't be hit by a meteor"?


its just putting down reasons why i think we could or may not go .500 next year. pros and cons of every situation. care to take a stab?
 
Does anyone actually want to go .500 next year? What will that actually achieve?

We need to have a worse record to improve in the long run.
 
Does anyone actually want to go .500 next year? What will that actually achieve?

We need to have a worse record to improve in the long run.


well getting over .500 will improve our playoff chances. though the west is so good .500 wont cut it anymore. you have to be at least .675:cool:

and are you implying that we tank?
 
its just putting down reasons why i think we could or may not go .500 next year. pros and cons of every situation. care to take a stab?

No, but thanks anyway. Going .500, in and of itself, is totally and completely meaningless. I understand some people really like to deal in fantasy scenarios, but it's just not my cup of tea. So we go .500. What does it prove? Nothing unless you know what all the other teams in the Western Conference are going to do...

Breaking even doesn't guarantee a good (or bad) draft pick; it doesn't guarantee a trip to the playoffs.

Dime Dropper said:
We need to have a worse record to improve in the long run.

So you're going to start this for next year already? Amazing...
 
well getting over .500 will improve our playoff chances. though the west is so good .500 wont cut it anymore. you have to be at least .675:cool:

and are you implying that we tank?

Playoffs? So we can play 4 extra games and go home, and have no long-term improvement. Whopee.

And yes, depending on what you define "tank" as, I am implying it needs to be done (as proven by every single team that's won a 'chip).
 
No, but thanks anyway. Going .500, in and of itself, is totally and completely meaningless. I understand some people really like to deal in fantasy scenarios, but it's just not my cup of tea. So we go .500. What does it prove? Nothing unless you know what all the other teams in the Western Conference are going to do...

Breaking even doesn't guarantee a good (or bad) draft pick; it doesn't guarantee a trip to the playoffs.



So you're going to start this for next year already? Amazing...


see my post above
 
Playoffs? So we can play 4 extra games and go home, and have no long-term improvement. Whopee.

And yes, depending on what you define "tank" as, I am implying it needs to be done (as proven by every single team that's won a 'chip).

Nope. Not gonna let you derail the thread. The "tank" discussion has been held about a gazillion times. While I don't necessarily agree with the premise of the OP, this isn't about "tanking"...

Let's just let this one be about breaking .500, okay? Thanks...
 
I'm confused as to what you think I meant by that. I was saying that I don't want to reach .500. Hardly a shocker, is it?
I think it's the way you said it. The OP doesn't want to know if you want .500 or not, but rather, is it feasible.

Personally, as much as I know tyrant wants to hear about Ron Artest, he's the wildcard in this scenario. I will withhold any speculation until he's gone. If he's not gone, then I'm just going to curl up in the fetal position and die, because it'll be another wasted year regardless of outcome.
 
Nope. Not gonna let you derail the thread. The "tank" discussion has been held about a gazillion times. While I don't necessarily agree with the premise of the OP, this isn't about "tanking"...
Let's just let this one be about breaking .500, okay? Thanks...

Um, what? I answered a simple question by the OP. I fail to see how it's me that's derailing the thread. I intentionally didn't go into the meaning of tanking so as not to derail the thread... that's why I said "depending on how you define tank".
Let's not try to put the blame on me here, OK? I've only answered a question by the OP, not brought it on myself.
Anyway, I'm not going to post in this thread again for fear of being the "baddy". I'm not going to be anybodys scapegoat.
 
see my post above

Re-read mine. I've made my response. It's not going to matter anyway. This thread will end up being another totally meaningless discussion of whether or not the Kings need to "tank" along with the erroneous proclamation that every team that's won a championship has tanked.

Quite frankly, that kind of discussion got old a very long time ago IMHO.

I tried to stop it, but I'm not going to jump in front of the runaway train. I'm just gonna get out of the way.

;)
 
Um, what? I answered a simple question by the OP. I fail to see how it's me that's derailing the thread. I intentionally didn't go into the meaning of tanking so as not to derail the thread... that's why I said "depending on how you define tank".
Let's not try to put the blame on me here, OK? I've only answered a question by the OP, not brought it on myself.
Anyway, I'm not going to post in this thread again for fear of being the "baddy". I'm not going to be anybodys scapegoat.

Um, so by not defining "tank" you leave it open to what? You think perhaps people will argue about what definition you meant?

The whole tank argument is old and tired and totally circular. But whatever. You want to discuss/debate/argue it again, feel free. I'd actually rather see comments about the OP myself, and I didn't even agree with it. At least it was something different than the tired old "tank" topic.
 
i just wana stay on topic. if a specific someone cant leave the tank issue alone then please delete his or her posts. im simply trying to discuss something else. peace out dd
 
Um, so by not defining "tank" you leave it open to what? You think perhaps people will argue about what definition you meant?

The whole tank argument is old and tired and totally circular. But whatever. You want to discuss/debate/argue it again, feel free. I'd actually rather see comments about the OP myself, and I didn't even agree with it. At least it was something different than the tired old "tank" topic.

By not defining it I'm not going into details, and not leaving my opinion open to be agreed or disagreed with. I do not want to discuss tanking. "But, whatever". If you want to insinuate that I want to get this thread off topic, fine.

Thanks for the warning, btw. I'm sorry but you're completely blind if you didn't see what I saw in the other post. It's nice to know you're free to take out your frustrations unnecessarily whenever you like.

And before you go accusing me of derailing the thread, it takes two to tango. You were the one that started it. I'm pretty sure the thread would have continued as normal had you not decided to make a mountain out of a molehill.


Anyway, to get back on track - I don't think we will go .500. At this stage it's too hard to know, but I'm guessing there'll be some movement before the new season. Thus I think our record is more likely to be a depovement than an improvement.
 
Thanks for the warning, btw. I'm sorry but you're completely blind if you didn't see what I saw in the other post. It's nice to know you're free to take out your frustrations unnecessarily whenever you like.

The reason you received the warning was made quite clear in the warning. If you want to discuss it further, take it to PMs.
 
I agree with VF on this. Fantasy scenarios on how a rebuilt team will do or not do is, well, not worth the time. Asking this question near the end of October makes some sense but even then we won't know how the new pieces mesh until near the end of the year. And even then something to keep in mind is that teams that have tended to go on win streaks at the start of the season tend not to do that well at the end of the season. I said "tend not to".
 
well you cant paint a specific thing without a specific image. martin,garcia,salmons,beno,spencer, moore will be here at the start of the season. artest and miller maybe. so pretty much basing this on what i saw from the same group of players we've had for the past 2 years. i dont expect thompson,$$, ewing and brown to come in and change this team for the worse
 
so pretty much basing this on what i saw from the same group of players we've had for the past 2 years. i dont expect thompson,$$, ewing and brown to come in and change this team for the worse

We AREN'T the same team.

1. Mike Bibby is no longer the starting PG.

2. Brad Miller will not be the starting C, at least for the first 5 games.

3. The starting SF will hopefully not be named Ron Artest.

Sorry, but that's not the same team we've had for the past two years. AND please do not forget about Reggie Theus. He's survived the rookie coaching year and will be putting his style more in to play this season.
 
Yet to be determined schedule vs. depth chart vs. ongoing arena negotiation vs. dipping ticket sales(economy reference) vs. unproven coach vs. two years of sub .500 teams = a small chance of going above .500 by the end of the season.
 
Yet to be determined schedule vs. depth chart vs. ongoing arena negotiation vs. dipping ticket sales(economy reference) vs. unproven coach vs. two years of sub .500 teams = a small chance of going above .500 by the end of the season.


yet to be determined schedule when you play the same teams every year. gimie a :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top