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

[Showtime]

Personally, I think he's made some really head scratching moves. The Moore deal, the length of the Beno deal, the trade for Sergio, who isn't going to do anything for this team and cost the Kings Blair. The addition of Mason is another one. Sure Garcia got injured, but the team didn't need to go out and get a filler. They already had forwards who could split the minutes, such as Casspi and Donte. Donte got a DNP last night while Mason started. There's absolutely no need for him to be on this team, because the Kings aren't in contending mode where that might be an appropriate mentality. This is the worst team in the league, so they don't need mediocre patches.

And then of course you have the Webber trade still haunting us. Webber has been to 3 other teams and RETIRED for a full season while KT's deal is still on the books. If his expiring contract isn't used on a deal for this season, then that's a horrible black eye on GP.

Honestly, yes he did build a contender and brought winning to Sacramento, but if he owns that, then he must also own for building the worst team in Sacramento history, and the entire league. The problem with this, of course, is who would replace him? The Adelman lesson is that you don't replace somebody you don't like with somebody who is worse. But there must come a point where a fresh start is necessary. So the question to you kings fans is: do you think GP should still be the team's GM after this season?

 

[T4L3NT3D530]

Let me counter your question with a question of my own, do you know of a GM that you know for a fact will do a better job?

 

[John Galt]

I have not been a fan of Geoff's for a long time. When he got Doug Christie for Corliss - that was the last time I ever really pumped a fist and said "Geoff Petrie is the MAN". I won't be devastated if he leaves, or if he stays. But I would not mind some new blood. It is not like he's been outfoxing all the other GMs on a regular basis.

 

[bajaden]

I would have bet my life that this thread was coming. Hey, whatever, but it would be nice if we could leave this deadhorse buried for just a little while. We've been over this ground so many times that I really don't even want to participate.

But for the record. I would give Petrie at least two more years to see where this is going, and what the result is going to be. Right now the Kings have a decent to maybe good young core of players. Its a little early to make the call on how good this team can be with what they have now. And we don't know what additions will occur in the next year or two.

I won't go into the, where, why, who or when of the last few years. There's too much ambiguity to make a real judgement on where the responsiblity lies. I guess one could say that Petrie's the GM and is being paid to take the heat, so the buck stops there.. And thats fair. It may not be the total truth, but then we'll probably never know the total truth. Unless Petrie decides to write a book. And then, that will of course be open to judgement also..

I forgot to add one last note on this subject. At the moment, this franchise is in desperate need of stability and direction. So I believe that the last thing we need to do is cut off the head of the current brain trust. After three years of turmoil with revolving head coaches, I think its best to leave the current GM in place.

 

[Showtime]

Let me counter your question with a question of my own, do you know of a GM that you know for a fact will do a better job?

I already posed the issue in my post, so maybe you should read it.

 

[Warhawk]

I already posed the issue in my post, so maybe you should read it.

You posed the issue but didn't answer the question.

 

[VF21]

You posed the issue but didn't answer the question.

Picker of nits...

 

[Spike]

Blair is an unproven commodity - one good preseason game doesn't mean much, especially Blair's medical history which scared off a lot of GMs, not just Petrie. Petrie brought this franchise within shenanigans and free throws of a NBA title. He has steadily rebuilt this team through youth. So far, I'm willing to take a flier on the next year to see how it all pans out.

 

[Showtime]

Blair is an unproven commodity - one good preseason game doesn't mean much

lmao it's not just one game. He's been good in just about every game. But yes, he does have to prove he can last an entire NBA season.

Petrie brought this franchise within shenanigans and free throws of a NBA title. He has steadily rebuilt this team through youth. So far, I'm willing to take a flier on the next year to see how it all pans out.

I don't know how many years I can stand of taking Douby over Rondo, or a Sergio and Brockman that costs Blair, or other deals for mediocre fillers that cost the team future prospects.

 

[T4L3NT3D530]

I already posed the issue in my post, so maybe you should read it.

I did read it... but im still awaiting your answer.

 

[Showtime]

I did read it... but im still awaiting your answer.

I don't know what GMs will be available by then.

 

[Bricklayer]

Let me counter your question with a question of my own, do you know of a GM that you know for a fact will do a better job?

Now THAT's a strawman on at least two fronts, as obviously nobody can know anything about the future "for a fact", and very few are going to have any comprehensive idea of who is out there as potential replacement GMs, let alone who is going to be successful. You could pose the exact same question on a Memphis board about Chris Wallace and make it just as confounding.

Now let me tweak the question a bit and counter myself:

Can you, or anyone here, imagine a GM doing a better job?

Now for those that answer "no", you are suffeirng from terminal hero worship and potential vision impairment from the purple tinted shades you wear day and night. For those that answer "yes", which should be just about everyone, things then get interesting. Because then we move out of the realm of silly absolutes and into the uncertainties of "maybe", with answers to the poll question depending on the % chance you think there is that we could do better, you stomach for risk, and yes, the strength of lingering sentiment.

 

[fnordius]

Well, let's look at how we did in a few drafts with a different GM...

Harold Pressley over:
Dennis Rodman, Mark Price, Arvydas Sabonis, Scott Skiles, and Kevin Duckworth. Second round: Johnny Rogers over Jeff Hornacek and Drazen Petrovic.

Pervis Ellison over:
Glen Rice, Tim Hardaway, Vlade Divac, BJ Armstrong, Mookie Blaylock and Sean Elliott.

Kenny Smith over:
Kevin Johnson, Reggie Miller, Horace Grant, Reggie Lewis, Mark Jackson.

Okay, clearly things can be worse than they have lately. Much worse.

Looking over the last several years, I think that Geoff has sometimes blown it in how he balanced BPA against need. I say that not because I don't like getting BPA, I do! But because guesses at the BPA are often wrong, while guesses at need never are. JT was probably not BPA, but we really needed someone like him, so we have, worst case, a perfectly decent role player. Douby was not BPA, and also didn't fit our needs, so we got... nothin'. Prioritizing picks that way is a habit that Geoff can overcome, it's not hopeless.

I don't know how serious Geoff is about signing another long contract, but I have a hard time reaching any conclusion without knowing who the Maloofs would replace him with. Levien? Whisenant? Other?

Saying that I'd like Geoff to move on would mean having a lot of confidence in the Maloofs judgment in picking a successor. Although Petrie has really frustrated me lately, I fear what might be behind Door #3. So call me neutral... ish.

 

[Bricklayer]

Well, let's look at how we did in a few drafts with a different GM...

This too is of course a straw man, the equivalent of answering somebody's question "should I leave my girlfriend" by providing a picture of Roseanne Barr as the alternative. Works in politics too -- whenever anything is sugegsted simply throw out the absolute worst case scenario outcome and scare the crap out of as many people as you can.

 

[bajaden]

lmao it's not just one game. He's been good in just about every game. But yes, he does have to prove he can last an entire NBA season.



I don't know how many years I can stand of taking Douby over Rondo, or a Sergio and Brockman that costs Blair, or other deals for mediocre fillers that cost the team future prospects.

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! Your operating on hindsight and making subjective decisions based on that. No offense intended, but thats just plain stupid. 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. 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 yet you want to single out Petrie as being the stupid one. Where's the logic in that. By the way I'm getting you a statue of Douby for Christmas...

 

[King Baller]

Yes.

 

[bajaden]

Well, let's look at how we did in a few drafts with a different GM...

Harold Pressley over:
Dennis Rodman, Mark Price, Arvydas Sabonis, Scott Skiles, and Kevin Duckworth. Second round: Johnny Rogers over Jeff Hornacek and Drazen Petrovic.

Pervis Ellison over:
Glen Rice, Tim Hardaway, Vlade Divac, BJ Armstrong, Mookie Blaylock and Sean Elliott.

Kenny Smith over:
Kevin Johnson, Reggie Miller, Horace Grant, Reggie Lewis, Mark Jackson.

Okay, clearly things can be worse than they have lately. Much worse.

Looking over the last several years, I think that Geoff has sometimes blown it in how he balanced BPA against need. I say that not because I don't like getting BPA, I do! But because guesses at the BPA are often wrong, while guesses at need never are. JT was probably not BPA, but we really needed someone like him, so we have, worst case, a perfectly decent role player. Douby was not BPA, and also didn't fit our needs, so we got... nothin'. Prioritizing picks that way is a habit that Geoff can overcome, it's not hopeless.

I don't know how serious Geoff is about signing another long contract, but I have a hard time reaching any conclusion without knowing who the Maloofs would replace him with. Levien? Whisenant? Other?

Saying that I'd like Geoff to move on would mean having a lot of confidence in the Maloofs judgment in picking a successor. Although Petrie has really frustrated me lately, I fear what might be behind Door #3. So call me neutral... ish.

First off, how could you possibly leave out Joe Kleine over Karl Malone. Ugh!

But to answer Bricky's question, yes I can picture someone else doing a better job than Petrie. To me thats not the question. There's always someone that can do a better job. The question is who? And what are the odds of the Kings finding this better person. Knowing the Maloof's history, it scares me to death. I'm not in love with Petrie, I'm just scared of what the alternative will be.

Having owned my own business and having hired and fired. I can tell you that there are more pretenders than there are contenders. And it wouldn't take much time for a pretender to screw up the Kings team far worse than it is right now. I'll stick with my orginal premise that if a change is needed, this is not the time. I would give him the next two years..

 

[Warhawk]

Now THAT's a strawman on at least two fronts, as obviously nobody can know anything about the future "for a fact", and very few are going to have any comprehensive idea of who is out there as potential replacement GMs, let alone who is going to be successful. You could pose the exact same question on a Memphis board about Chris Wallace and make it just as confounding.

Now let me tweak the question a bit and counter myself:

Can you, or anyone here, imagine a GM doing a better job?

Now for those that answer "no", you are suffeirng from terminal hero worship and potential vision impairment from the purple tinted shades you wear day and night. For those that answer "yes", which should be just about everyone, things then get interesting. Because then we move out of the realm of silly absolutes and into the uncertainties of "maybe", with answers to the poll question depending on the % chance you think there is that we could do better, you stomach for risk, and yes, the strength of lingering sentiment.

Oh sure, anyone can imagine someone doing a better job. Question is, who has demonstrated doing a better job that is available?

Edit - ack - bajaden beat me to it.

 

[fnordius]

This too is of course a straw man, the equivalent of answering somebody's question "should I leave my girlfriend" by providing a picture of Roseanne Barr as the alternative. Works in politics too -- whenever anything is sugegsted simply throw out the absolute worst case scenario outcome and scare the crap out of as many people as you can.

And yet, it's our franchise's history. What more realistic standards of comparison are there?

Sure, I can imagine having a much better GM. I can also imagine being married to Scarlett Johansen. But I can much more easily imagine being wrestled to the ground by her bodyguards.

Some other GMs around the league have better records than Geoff, but I don't think any of those are available. Most have records that are no better. Just as almost all of us could get annoyed with certain habits of Adelman's, all of us who are paying attention have GOT to be annoyed at some of the disheartening patterns Geoff has displayed (abject, grovelling fanbois excepted). But, once Adelman was gone, we would have had WORSE THAN MUSS if the Maloofs hadn't had Geoff suggest otherwise. Then the Maloofs got man crushes on Theus. I'm supposed to trust their judgment?

A head of state once privately referred to his obviously weak second-in-command as "impeachment insurance," because nobody would really have wanted that guy taking the reins of power. I think the Maloofs are, quite unintentionally, Geoff's impeachment insurance.

I don't like how Geoff's been running the team. I think he's been lethargic, timid, shown misplaced priorities, and hasn't held his ground well when his bosses had wrong-headed ideas. I would LOVE to see someone do it better. But I am VERY uncertain that we would get such a person. If he walks, I won't scream, I'll be biting my nails and hoping for the best. But I wouldn't be expecting improvement. I'd mostly be praying that it wasn't a disaster.

 

[fnordius]

Edit - ack - bajaden beat me to it.

Me too!

 

[Bricklayer]

But to answer Bricky's question, yes I can picture someone else doing a better job than Petrie. To me thats not the question. There's always someone that can do a better job. The question is who? And what are the odds of the Kings finding this better person. Knowing the Maloof's history, it scares me to death. I'm not in love with Petrie, I'm just scared of what the alternative will be.

Of course that's the question -- that's the threshold question that determines whetehr this is a stupid topic or one worthy of conversation. There are those who would label it stupid, I would spin that label around myself.

Now the questions beyond that, the fears that the Maloofs might flub the next hire, the bred in fear of it being even worse (than being the worst team in the NBA), those are all subsidiary questions beyond the first one. They only become relevant if in fact you can imagine somebody doing a better job than Petrie. If you can, then all the other considerations come in and people come down wherever, but mostly in a reasonable, debatable, arena.

I've got my own calculus going, one including Maloof incompetence but ignoring Jerrry Reynolds/Bill Russel fear as monster in the closet phobia. And centered around an overarching trend that has nothing to do with Petrie -- we have bottomed out. We are on pace to, wiht solid drafting, be back to mattering in the space of about 10-12 years since our last emergence. Which BTW is completely NBA standard and I don;t want to hear it baout what a great F.O. office we have to pull it off. Its Atlanta Hawks standard. Clevelnad standard. Orlando standard. Its just standard. So if we are pokeying along toward a standard decade out of power rebuild keyed by the NBA's draft mechanics like it normally is for most teams, what are the odds at this late date of a new guy speeding up the process as opposed to slowing it down? Because its going to happen sooner or later. If Petrie never wakes up from one of his eternal naps again, it will happen just by sheer mechanics. So what are the odds of speeding that up vs. slowing that down, and is it worth it to change things up to bring about the edge. Five years ago a new voice coould have had a dramatic effect on the time period. At this point a new voice can probably only make a difference of a couple of seasons.

 

[Bricklayer]

And yet, it's our franchise's history. What more realistic standards of comparison are there?

Franchise's don't exist. Not like that. Its like comparing "all time records" vs. another team. Bunk. The 1990 Kings have absolutely nothing to do wiht the 2010 Kings. Maybe one single common denominator, and now he's an idiot annoucner rather than an idiot GM.

 

[fnordius]

Franchise's don't exist. Not like that. Its like comparing "all time records" vs. another team. Bunk. The 1990 Kings have absolutely nothing to do wiht the 2010 Kings. Maybe one single common denominator, and now he's an idiot annoucner rather than an idiot GM.

Okay, but I don't find the imaginability standard much more satisfying. I can imagine having a GM that is a zeppelin-sized, 8-headed, magenta unicorn, but I don't think that's going to happen.

I'm waiting for someone to throw out a list, however short, of candidates who seem pretty sure to be better, who would want to take the job, and who the Maloofs would be quite likely to hire. Until I see, or think of, such a list, I'm not prepared to call for Geoff's head.

 

[cstorm]

Let me counter your question with a question of my own, do you know of a GM that you know for a fact will do a better job?

...and that's willing to do it for the Sacramento Kings.

 

[Bricklayer]

I'm waiting for someone to throw out a list, however short, of candidates who seem pretty sure to be better, who would want to take the job, and who the Maloofs would be quite likely to hire. Until I see, or think of, such a list, I'm not prepared to call for Geoff's head.

And as I've mentioned that's a ridiculous standard by which to judge a change in GMs. You couldn't have fired Isiah Thomas under that standard, because nobody not in an NBA front office has any sort of comprehensive idea of who the next great young GM might be, who else is available, which coaches are looking to move up, or whatever.

 

[fnordius]

And as I've mentioned that's a ridiculous standard by which to judge a change in GMs. You couldn't have fired Isiah Thomas under that standard, because nobody not in an NBA front office has any sort of comprehensive idea of who the next great young GM might be, who else is available, which coaches are looking to move up, or whatever.

If I were the owner of the Knicks, I'd have no problem finding a replacement. >$5M a year office job in uptown NYC. The fans will always boo, but no matter how bad the team sucks, no matter how much it wastes money, it will still turn a profit. Not a bad job at all.

For us, harder. Names get floated all the time. Mike Dunleavy: getting $5M a year right now, but would be willing to relocate to escape Donald Sterling. Might be willing to take a pay cut. But it would be wrong on so many levels if we hired him. "Able to run an accursed team while taking abuse from psychotic ownership" is not what I'm looking for.

Jerry West. Undoubtedly competent. Dyed-in-the-wool Laker. Rumored to have sold out Memphis by recommending to their owners that they trade Gasol to LA for a bag of stale chips. Would never fly with the fans, or probably with the owners, even if he were interested, which is extremely doubtful.

And there are a lot of others who can't make the cut, for one reason or another.

The only one I can think of who is even close would be Randy Pfund. He turned down the Minnesota GM job a while back, and he still slightly stinks of Lakers, but could maybe be talked into doing that for an even worse Kings team. After all, it's warmer here. But that's a kind of long shot, and would we want him?

Anyone who has heard of a candidate who didn't suck, and who might conceivably be willing to come here, feel free to comment, we could use the help...

 

[Widowmaker2k]

I think that a lot of people look at the GM position as if it exists in a vacuum, where a talented GM can suddenly show up and turn a franchise around all by himself. Now, don't get me wrong, there are good GMs and there are bad ones, and a certain amount of savvy is required to be good, but there are other factors to take into consideration. Namely, owners with deep pockets, market size, and luck.

Take Pritchard for example, he looks like a genius right now, and he's certainly made some very intuitive moves, but on the other hand, going from drafting 8th to 1st (and lucking out by having a franchise level center there waiting for him) was luck. Also, it's not like Paul Allen is afraid to spend money. The Kings, on the other hand, have pretty bad luck, fairly consistently (worst possible outcome in the lottery, though no Durants or Odens in this one, so it might not matter anyhow).


All that being said, I've soured on Petrie as of late. The Webber trade was my first "what the hell?" moment, but at the time I wrote it off as the Maloofs being meddlesome. As time progressed however, I became, and it's getting worse, increasingly frustrated with the lack of action taken by the front office. It's as if Petrie has become so accustomed to being the golden boy GM that he's now afraid of making big moves, for fear of failing and thus tarnishing his good name. I'm getting increasingly weary of the same old off season routine (make your draft picks, sign some sub-par veteran, go on vacation to Florida). What's the biggest thing he's done this off season, an off season which could literally determine the fate of the franchise staying or leaving? Apart from making his draft picks, which he is required to do, it was to trade #31 for #37 for Sergio. I don't know the full story, and perhaps he tried all kinds of trades that were shot down by the other GM's, or maybe he's planning on making a splash in the 2011 free agency? Maybe he really likes Southern California, and is hoping he gets to stay with the team when/if they move to Anaheim? Anyways, it's late, and this is just trailing off in to a pointless speculative rant, so I digress.

 

[Chupacabra]

lmao it's not just one game. He's been good in just about every game. But yes, he does have to prove he can last an entire NBA season.



I don't know how many years I can stand of taking Douby over Rondo, or a Sergio and Brockman that costs Blair, or other deals for mediocre fillers that cost the team future prospects.

Blair has yet to play 1 season. Same with Brockman. Its pretty tough to make the distinction that Blair is superior to Brockman at this point.Dont forget that Rondo plays for Boston which is loaded with superstars. Rondo had a great postseason but will that carryover to the rest of his career? That remains to be seen.
If it were my decision i'd definitely keep Petrie around. Atleast long enough to give him a shot at putting another competitive team together. Like all things its going to take some time. Give it 2-3 more years and if the Kings are still terrible then i'll have no problem looking for another GM.

 

[bajaden]

And as I've mentioned that's a ridiculous standard by which to judge a change in GMs. You couldn't have fired Isiah Thomas under that standard, because nobody not in an NBA front office has any sort of comprehensive idea of who the next great young GM might be, who else is available, which coaches are looking to move up, or whatever.

I have to argue with you on this one Bricky. Just about anyone on the street with any baskeball knowledge, including you ( no slight intended ) could have done a better job than Thomas. I doubt there was any fear amongst the fans about his departure. As a matter of fact, if there was fear, it was that he wasn't going to depart.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

Maybe he really likes Southern California, and is hoping he gets to stay with the team when/if they move to Anaheim?

You know, I think Petrie has enough money that if he wants to retire and move to Southern California, he can do it without sabotaging the franchise he's worked for for the past 15 years.