Do you think GP should be the GM after this season?

Do you think GP should be the GM next season?

  • Yes. He's done it before, he will do it again.

    Votes: 29 59.2%
  • No. He has run his course, and the team needs a fresh start.

    Votes: 7 14.3%
  • Let's first wait to see how the team does this year.

    Votes: 13 26.5%

  • Total voters
    49
Some of this argument is whether Petrie has a plan or not? Or is he even capable of having a plan? He came here in 1994 and he inherited a mess and an ownership with limited resources. The team had traded away future draft choices and was over the cap with no immediate end in sight. For fours years all he did was draft players and bide his time. He made a great pick in Brian Grant in 1994 along with Micheal Smith and Funderburke in the second round. Unfortunately Grant walked before the 1998 season where Petrie finally made some moves. He traded Richmond for Webber, signed Vlade Divac, Coaxed Peja from europe, and drafted Jason Williams.. 1998 was the first time the Kings had any cap space to work with. Prior to that, there were rumblings that the Kings had improved under Petrie, but that didn't seem to be any type of plan.

One could argue that he simply got lucky. Or one could argue that he used what was available that off season and chose wisely. Just depends on which side of the fence your on. Having the Maloof's buy in certainly helped on the financial side. But in the end, it appeared that he did have a plan. He's a very patient man. And frankly at times it drives me nuts.

As an aside. Although Douby seems to be the poster boy for Petrie when it comes to bad draft picks. He has had some picks that one could argue over. Ryan Robertson in the second round instead of Manu Ginobili, just leaps off the page. Olivier St. James in 1997 doesn't stand out as anything special, although it was a weak draft. But he did pass on Bobby Jackson and Anthony Parker. And in 1998, although Jason Williams helped turn the franchise around, and no one can argue with the ultimate result, he did pass on Dirk Nowitzki, Paul Pierce, and Bonzi Wells.

So he's far from perfect, but all in all his track record in the draft is better than average in general, and excellent at times. When you look at his predecessors, he looks like a genious.

!985 the Kings draft Joe Kleine. Definitely a pick based on need. They passed on Chris Mullin, Detlef Schrempf, Charles Oakley, Karl Malone, Joe Dumars, Terry Porter, and way down in the fourth round ( thats right folks, they used to have four rounds ) Spud Webb.

In 1986 the Kings drafted Harold Presley. Strickly name recognition, and I don't mean Elvis. I mean the fact that he had just come off an NCCA title. But they passed on Scott Skiles, Arvidas Sabonis, Mark Price, Dennis Rodman, Nate McMillan, Jeff Hornacek, Otis Smith, and Drazen Petrovic.

In 1987 the Kings drafted Kenny Smith. Once again name recognition, this time big school name recognition. North Carolina: Not a terrible pick, but they did pass on Kevin Johnson, Horace Grant, Reggie Miller, Mark Jackson and Derrick McKey. The Kings drafted for need with this pick. They were in desperate need of a point guard. Smith wasn't that bad, but the irony is that they passed on two of the all time great point guards in Jackson and Johnson.

In 1988 they traded to acquire a first round pick and picked Rickey Berry. He ended up being a terrific pick in a very weak draft. The rest is history.

In 1989 the infamous Pervis Ellison pick. Turned out to be a very bad pick. Pervis wasn't my pick. I wanted Sean Elliott, but I couldn't fault the pick. But we also passed on Glenn Rice, Tim Hardaway, Shawn Kemp, Vlade Divac, Cliff Robertson, and B.J. Armstrong.

The last one I'll hit you with is the 1990 draft. The Kings had four first round picks. First let me say that it wasn't a particularly deep draft. But with four picks, one would think you could just throw a dart at a board with all the picks and do better than the Kings did.
Lionel Simmons, Travis Mays, Duane Causwell, and Anthony Bonner. Of the four only Simmons was a credible pick, and except for a knee injury might have been a great pick. They passed on Tyrone Hill, Terry Mills, Dee Brown, Gerold Glass, Elden Campbell, Toni Kukoc, A.J. English, Jud Beuchler, Cedric Ceballos, Derek Strong, and Sean Higgins. Maybe none of these players are hall of famers, but all of them, and I mean all of them are better than Mays, Causwell, and Bonner.

When the Kings arrived from Kansas City they had the makings of a good young team. Players like Theus, Mike Woodson, John Drew, Otis Thorpe, Eddie Johnson, and Tank Thompson were the core of this team. The team had been sucessful in KC with players like Otis Birdsong and Michael Ray Richardson. In just a few short years most of these players had been traded away for the likes of Derek Smith and Franklin Edwards ( both arriving injured), Junior Bridgeman. Later Otis went for Jim Peterson and Rodney McCray, and then Jim Peterson to the Warriors for Ralph Sampson and his big contract. ( also arriving injured )

From 1985 to at least 1990 a a good young team had been destroyed and replaced with bad draft choices and injured players with big contracts through trades. There were other less than stellar moves and misfortunes. Such as the injury to Bobby Hurley. But most of the damage had been done between 1985 and 1990. It wasn't until 1998 that the Kings emerged from the finanical abyss. So don't think things can't get worse. I doubt that they could ever get that bad again, but never say never. This ended up being a pretty big Aside. But there are probably people out there that don't know the history of this franchise since it came here. Sorry for being so long winded...:)
 
Last edited:
Sergio and Brockman didn't cost us Blair. The only way they would have cost us Blair is if there was a real time choice between Blair and Brockman and Sergio. That never happened!

No, I've been over this several times. GP's mentality cost the Kings the opportunity to MAKE that choice. They never got the choice of Blair because GP's decision to make an irrelevant move to acquire Sergio cost the Kings that choice. So, his decisions cost the opportunity to have Blair. This shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend.

Your operating on hindsight and making subjective decisions based on that. No offense intended, but thats just plain stupid.

1. If you are going to call somebody stupid, then I would suggest you understand the difference between "your" and "you're".

2. I'm using hindsight to evaluate his decision. At the time of the trade, it was still a pointless move, regardless of who would be available in the second round. After the draft, it was a pointless move that cost the team a promising prospect.

There is no way in hell that Petrie or anyone else could have forseen that Blair would slip all the way to the 31st pick.

I would suggest you try to read again, because I've clearly addressed this type of post. GP's mentality to acquire mediocre players as fillers is what cost the Kings the opportunity to pick #31, and get a prospect player. He didn't choose Sergio over Blair, he gambled that nobody would be there instead, and he lost.

Everyone raves about how brilliant the GM of Portland is and when he had the chance to pick Blair with the 31st pick, he wanted Pendegraph instead. By the way I'm not a fan of Pendegraph. The point is that a lot of GM's passed on Blair, and a few did it twice.

And none of those GM's are with the Kings. All that matters is the Kings, because GP is supposed to make the team better. That's his job. So I don't care if 29 other GM's passed, because GP is supposed to be the guy who is better than most. Using that argument is weak, because you are basically saying it's ok to make the wrong decision because others did it too.

And yet you want to single out Petrie as being the stupid one. Where's the logic in that.

I suggest you improve your reading comprehension skills, because it seems by your response you don't understand any point I made.

And let me make one more thing clear: I'm not presenting my take on recent moves to call for GP's dismissal. I'm simply expressing my dissatisfaction with the front office in the last few years. So if anybody thinks I'm saying GP needs to be fired because of the Blair issue, then think again. I am, however, becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the direction of the team, and using that as a basis of this poll to get the opinions of other kings fans on the subject.
 
Last edited:
I'd be down with a new GM honestly. We've been on a downhill slide for what? 6 seasons now? 7?

Maybe some of that was the Maloofs....The rebuild was delayed for way to many seasons, one could argue that it didnt really start until a couple seasons ago.

But Petrie is Petrie...He likes a certain type of player (softies with skill), and builds the team with said players. He isnt a very active GM. And he hasnt done anything really mind blowing yet. And if Tyreke turns out to be a 20+/6/5 player in his prime, you cant really give props to Petrie, because Evans was such a beast in workouts he kind of made it a no brainer BPA type of pick.

On the other hand, Petrie has been targeting 2010 for some time...So ah, fire him in 2011 if we arnt a PO team :p
 
Showtime said:
No, I've been over this several times. GP's mentality cost the Kings the opportunity to MAKE that choice. They never got the choice of Blair because GP's decision to make an irrelevant move to acquire Sergio cost the Kings that choice. So, his decisions cost the opportunity to have Blair. This shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend.

"Irrelevant move" is so subjective it tarnishes the rest of your already faulty logic IMHO, and apparently others feel the same. Simply presenting an assumption as fact doesn't make it a fact.

And one more thing? Please check our tips for posting. Taking personal snipes against others for things like grammatical errors is uncalled for and unacceptable. Keep your arguments civil and on topic and you'll do fine. Start turning it into insults, etc. and it's not gonna work out...
 
"Irrelevant move" is so subjective it tarnishes the rest of your already faulty logic IMHO, and apparently others feel the same. Simply presenting an assumption as fact doesn't make it a fact.
OK, let me define "irrelevant": the Kings are lottery bound with or without Sergio.

1. Sergio, based upon his level of play in his career up to this point, hasn't even shown he's superior to Beno.

2. Unless Beno is moved (which is a difficult assumption to make in itself), Sergio would be splitting minutes with Beno and Evans. So, it's reasonable to expect his opportunity for production is not ideal.

3. In the grand scheme of this season (Sergio's last with a Q.O. option for next season), is the addition of Sergio going to make any tangible difference? Is he going to help this team reach the playoffs, or make any significant improvement? This is an assumption, but I feel it's a safe one to say: "No" based on the previous two points.

So, looking at those 3 issues, I don't think it's far fetched to say that the acquisition is irrelevant from the perspective of making the team better. If you could make the counter argument, I am all ears. Assumption? Yes, some of it is assumptions based upon evaluation of the circumstances surrounding him. I tend to think of it as an informed projection rather than a baseless assumption.

For example, if I say Kenny Thomas will not be a starter for the Kings, am I making a subjective assumption with faulty logic? I think not. If I say the Kings won't win the Pacific, is that another assumption presented as fact, and therefore has no merit?

And one more thing? Please check our tips for posting. Taking personal snipes against others for things like grammatical errors is uncalled for and unacceptable.

Well, I'm only reacting to the several instances of him taking jabs at me. I don't care how long he's been a member.

Keep your arguments civil and on topic and you'll do fine. Start turning it into insults, etc. and it's not gonna work out...
As long as this applies to everybody, I'm fine with it.
 
Last edited:
If you think someone is taking personal jabs at you, use the "refer a post" icon (the exclamation point in the red triangle) to ask for a moderator's attention. It's one of the reasons we're here. Thanks.
 
Then again, to attack my own position a little...

Brick is right that things have changed over the last 20 years. The NBA is a much bigger business than it used to be, and a lot more money is riding on draft picks. You don't rely on some bozo like Jerry Reynolds to make your picks, and you don't have to, because there's a lot of good info available about players that used to be known only to scouts... and maybe not even to most of them.

As it is, it's not clear that we'd have done any worse if we'd plastered the wall with printouts of mock drafts, and thrown a dart in their general direction, to make our choice. Look at the last batch of mocks to see what I mean: http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/06/10/consensus/index.html Same for 2008, where we'd probably have picked Randolph: http://www.nba.com/draft2008/board/mock.html In 2007, with our consensus pick (Green) already gone, we'd most likely have gone for Thornton, with some chance of Hawes. http://www.nba.com/features/draft2007_consensus.html

So, instead of having Hawes/JT, odds would favor our having Thornton/Randolph, and either Evans or Rubio. We'd have had to scramble to pick up a C someplace, but probably wouldn't be neck-deep in not quite good enough SFs, since Thornton's pretty decent. No signs of disaster, no Kleine over Malone situations there.

This totally ignores the duties of the GM which occupy the 364.25 days of the year which aren't draft day, but if we had a GM who just followed consensus in making our picks, it seems like we would have done just fine. Judging on that alone (not trades, FA hirings/dismissals, etc.), Geoff seems easy to replace. Just don't get a total idiot.

The "let Petrie go" camp may yet manage to recruit me, this is going to take a bit more thought.

----
Note for draftexpress fans: although they have a rep for being more reliably accurate than most other mocks, in our case, I would not want to have taken their picks, we'd have: DJ Augustin, the injury-plagued Brandan Wright, and Evans. Those choices would not have made me happy.
 
Geoff seems easy to replace. Just don't get a total idiot.

Based on the hiring of Eric Musselman and Reggie Theus, (and some of the hirings of personnel for marketing, etc) I think that part right there is what most people would fear. What's the old expression? It's better to go with the evil you know?
 
GP just seems to be burned out.

Granted the lack of moves could be a result of our lack of tradeable pieces...But given the duration of our slide into irrelevance, you'd think we'd have more then just Evans/JT/Hawes/Martin by now.

Petrie's MO for the past 5 seasons has seemed to be: Sign vet journyman for the minimum...The end.

I feel like we could almost be better off with a dynamic, hungry, young GM...When coming off of a 17 win season any moves are good moves... As long as we dont end up like the Knicks that is. But even the Knicks will probably get at least 20 more wins than us this season.
 
One more thing I have yet to inject into this discussion:

the coach is also a decision that GP has a hand in, so seeing how Westy manages this squad is another factor. We know in the past GP hasn't exactly been given the power to decide in this matter, but we know from comments of those involved that GP's opinoin on this choice was heavily considered. I think the Maloofs learned their lessons and GP endorsed Westy. So his performance is yet another thing to consider.
 
Granted the lack of moves could be a result of our lack of tradeable pieces...But given the duration of our slide into irrelevance, you'd think we'd have more then just Evans/JT/Hawes/Martin by now.

Honestly, if KT's 8 mil expiring deal can't nab somebody in this time with teams taking an economic hit, then I seriously question his ability to make deals happen. Now, I get the value in not doing a deal so his contract is off the books next season and thus the team has cap flexibility, but let's be real: he's not going to get a good FA to come to Sac unless he really overpays him. And I don't think that's going to happen, because the Maloofs just made him try to dump salary for the short term which he was able to accomplish with the Chicago trade. So despite the Maloofs' comments about their willingness to spend to win, I doubt that will happen next year. And if that is the case, and they really do just keep KT so he can walk, then that's another issue I have with them not aggressively attempting to negotiate a buyout in the past few years.

It's really simple: "Hey KT, you are almost 30, and while you have a great deal now, you probably want another contract after this and to retire on your own terms. Let's get something worked out for a reduced price, because if we don't, then you sit on the bench until you are a 32 year old free agent who hasn't played in three seasons on a lottery team." I'm sure he would probably have been willing to negotiate terms.
 
Last edited:
Another GM?

Yes, there are other GM's out there that are good enough to replace Petrie. Given the Maloof's connection to Las Vegas, I don't think whoever they would pick would be a flip of the coin, but more of a crap shoot. That being the case I think I would take my chances with Petrie for a while longer.
 
Honestly, if KT's 8 mil expiring deal can't nab somebody in this time with teams taking an economic hit, then I seriously question his ability to make deals happen. Now, I get the value in not doing a deal so his contract is off the books next season and thus the team has cap flexibility, but let's be real: he's not going to get a good FA to come to Sac unless he really overpays him. And I don't think that's going to happen, because the Maloofs just made him try to dump salary for the short term which he was able to accomplish with the Chicago trade. So despite the Maloofs' comments about their willingness to spend to win, I doubt that will happen next year. And if that is the case, and they really do just keep KT so he can walk, then that's another issue I have with them not aggressively attempting to negotiate a buyout in the past few years.

It's really simple: "Hey KT, you are almost 30, and while you have a great deal now, you probably want another contract after this and to retire on your own terms. Let's get something worked out for a reduced price, because if we don't, then you sit on the bench until you are a 32 year old free agent who hasn't played in three seasons on a lottery team." I'm sure he would probably have been willing to negotiate terms.

We don't know that they didn't try. Buyouts are a little tricky, and if not done right, you end up with the player on your books longer than you wanted. It also takes two to tango. There's always that grey line out there that neither side wants to cross, where the deal is too low for the player and too high for the team.

I agree that ideally it would have been the best situation for both parties, and considering the way things have worked out, I can't believe that it didn't come up. I do think there was a point of diminishing return. By that, I mean there is a point where the player might believe that his reputation is so screwed that if he takes a buyout, he'll never get another contract big enough to make up for what he lost in the buyout. No way of knowing though. At this point it doesn't matter. At least he finally has some value to the team. And, I have to admit, he's been a good soldier despite everything.:)
 
No.. I think we need a more aggressive GM.. Someone that is willing to take chances rather than sit on their hands.. Especially when it has something to do with getting 2nd round prospects.
 
Showtime said:
he's not going to get a good FA to come to Sac unless he really overpays him. And I don't think that's going to happen, because the Maloofs just made him try to dump salary for the short term which he was able to accomplish with the Chicago trade. So despite the Maloofs' comments about their willingness to spend to win, I doubt that will happen next year.

I think you brought up some interesting points here. I don't have a problem with the salary dumping. Miller and Salmons weren't part of the future here anyway. One could argue that we should have gotten more, but thats another discussion. Anyway, I understand the short term salary dump. Now getting a good player to come here is certainly open for discussion. I've been doing research for starting a thread on next years freeagency. First off, let me say that its damm difficult to get solid information from one site that doesn't contradict info from another site.

But that aside, it appears the almost half the players in the NBA will be unrestricted freeagents next offseason. Especially when you include all the players with an early termination or player option. So to my minds eye, I believe that there are going to be more sellers than buyers. Especially with the cap going down again. At least a third of the teams will have little or no cap space.

The Kings worse case senario would be having no more than 12 mil to work with, barring anything they might do between now and then. Best case is probably 14 mil. I have no idea what direction they might lean in, but thats certainly enough money to aquire one very good player, or a couple of young prospects with promise for the future. Fesenko springs to mind. Or perhaps a Travis Outlaw, if our SF situation hasn't resolved itself. Or Joel Przbilla, if he doesn't agree to an extension between now and then.

So getting to your last point of the paragraph. If the Maloof's don't spend money next year, when they actually have the money to spend, and there's plenty of talent to spend it on, then they lose all credibilty. At that point one would have to question what their agenda is. Personally, I think this is the off season Petrie has been waiting for. If I'm wrong, then he's made a fool out of me. But hey, I've been a fool before. :p
 
Last edited:
I think every GM, CEO, CFO, and President has a useful lifespan. I believe that's 8-10 years. That's just my opinion.....
 
i heard isiah thomas is available :rolleyes:
d34fc96f.gif
 
Just skimmed this thread... but no mention of Jason Levien? If Petrie retires/isn't resigned, wouldn't we just expect Levien to be promoted? That's what I'm expecting at least. The only alternative I imagine is if Westphal doesn't work out and we bring in someone to be both coach/GM.
 
Yes, Petrie should get another contract from the Kings. The only way you don't re-up him is if you know you have someone like San Antonio's GM in your hip pocket, and that seems incredibly unlikely.
 
When I think how things might be if Petrie is not retained I see the ghost of Joe Axelson:eek: I support offering him a new contract especially since it now seems the Maloofs have FINALLY determined their GM knows MUCH more about Kings basketball than they do.
 
Tough question to answer for me. I'm not a strong believer in change for the sake of change. Give me something concrete to consider before deciding if I even want to change. Since it would fall on the Maloofs to make that hire, I have to be very skeptical. I'm not too keen on their track record in finding good A list guys.
 
When I think how things might be if Petrie is not retained I see the ghost of Joe Axelson:eek: I support offering him a new contract especially since it now seems the Maloofs have FINALLY determined their GM knows MUCH more about Kings basketball than they do.

Yeah, based on the coaching decisions we've seen from the Maloofs in the past few years, can you just imagine the GM carousel they would put us on? Maybe they'd ask Bill Russell to give another try...
 
Players via draft or picks that were traded for
Martin
Garcia
Hawes
Thompson
T. Evans
Casspi
Brockman
Greene

Players via free agency or trade
Thomas
Nocioni
Beno
Sergio
Mason
May

It's not hard to see Petrie's weaknesses. He's a good to very good drafter and has been absolutely pathetic at trading and FA signings.
 
It's hard to objectively look at Nocioni, Sergio, Mason, and May as "pathetic" signings. The season hasn't even started yet. Mason and May, IIRC, are for the NBA minimum, no?
Basically, there are two things to consider:
Has GP been limited by the Maloofs in recent years due to economic issues? These FA signings look to be more tight-budget choices knowing that there will be a large FA market THIS year, and to be fair, the FA crop in recent years has not been great, with marquee players generally sticking with their team.
Secondly, I have no confidence that management will find a better GM. Not because one doesn't exist, but because they don't seem to have the sense to separate themselves from basketball decisions and will most likely hire a toady to do their bidding.
 
It's hard to objectively look at Nocioni, Sergio, Mason, and May as "pathetic" signings.


It's really not even if you take out the minimum guys.

It's not even so much what is there (mediocre to poor players, old, expensive) as what is not. No abundance of cap space, no impact players traded for, etc.

Best recent move Petrie made IMO was the Artest for Jackson, Greene, and Casspi move. Very solid. Just about nothing else I like outside of the draft over the last several years.
 
Back
Top