ESPN blurb shows the real situation

[swisshh]

Sacramento fired Eric Musselman on Friday, after he led the team to a 33-49 record in his only season as the team's head coach. The Kings' victory total has declined in each of the past five seasons -- they won 61 games in 2001-02 and recorded 59, 55, 50, 44 and 33 victories in the next five seasons. That's tied for the second-longest slide in NBA history. Philadelphia had a six-season streak after the 1989-90 season.

So Muss was just the head of the tail end of a long slow, progressive downgrade in talent and success. Right now, who we hire as coach matters less to me than what the Maloofs are willing to do with the team.

Here's the deal, at that 61 win point season, we were a better team than Dallas, but a similiar team with a similiar owner, coach and general vibe. The difference is, between that point and the current one, Cuban kept his pocketbook open, was more willing to trade and swallow the cost to keep the mavs competitive. The Kings meanwhile started getting more frugal and sacrificed depth to avoid the luxury tax. Depth and age eventually caught up to the Kings and they started falling off, while the Mavs actually ended up getting farther than the Kings did despite losing former key pieces(Nash, Finley).

My worry is not the coach. I don't even blame this season on Muss. It would have been a slightly different, but completely similiar outcome with Adleman or whomever. My worry is the Maloofs, their quiet frugalness, their involvement with the Artest trade(and to now want to send him packing), and their bugaboo with the arena.

The Maloofs got a lot of credit when they came here, and they gave the Kings 'credibility'. But when they arrived, they arrived to a good situation. The previous semi-owner or whatever had hired an excellent GM, that GM had made some big moves and got an experienced regular season coach. Before the Maloofs had really done anything, they had gotten a winning product. Now that they have their hands more into what is going on, the product is falling apart.

 

[Bricklayer]

What that slide really shows is the insanity of the "rebuild on the fly" policy, whether its been implemented by Geoff or the Maloofs. All teams eventuially fall back to Earth. All teams. But the smart ones, and I've been harping on this for two years now, INTENTIONALLY fall fast and fall hard, get a big bounce, and head back up the other way. They do not engage in pointless and tortuous rearguard actions fighting it every step of the way. That shows no understanding of NBA life cycles. You're going to get bad. Deal with it. The key is how you plan for that, how you bounce, and how quickly you can get headed back up the other way. But we have refused to play that game and have tried, and failed, to somehow cheat the system. And we're paying for it.

 

[SacTownKid]

What that slide really shows is the insanity of the "rebuild on the fly" policy, whether its been implemented by Geoff or the Maloofs. All teams eventuially fall back to Earth. All teams. But the smart ones, and I've been harping on this for two years now, INTENTIONALLY fall fast and fall hard, get a big bounce, and head back up the other way. They do not engage in pointless and tortuous rearguard actions fighting it every step of the way. That shows no understanding of NBA life cycles. You're going to get bad. Deal with it. The key is how you plan for that, how you bounce, and how quickly you can get headed back up the other way. But we have refused to play that game and have tried, and failed, to somehow cheat the system. And we're paying for it.

Well this offseason is their chance to get things heading the right way. If we come back next season, nothing changed, then there will be no way to keep up the so-called attendance streak alive!

 

[quick dog]

It is depressing to see all the former Kings in the playoffs, especially ones like Matt Barnes who was given away as "trade fodder".

I think both of you guys are correct. The Kings current situation was simply expressed in different terms.

Will Mark Cuban finally have a fatal stroke if the Mavericks are eliminated in the first round by the Golden State and Don Nelson?

 

[Rowdyone]

If you're pushing for a new, publicly financed arena then it does make a certain amount of sense to try to stay competitive and keep the enthusiasm alive rather than bite the bullet and do a complete makeover with a quick resurgence to the top....but we all know how that worked out.

 

[Wuster]

What that slide really shows is the insanity of the "rebuild on the fly" policy, whether its been implemented by Geoff or the Maloofs. All teams eventuially fall back to Earth. All teams. But the smart ones, and I've been harping on this for two years now, INTENTIONALLY fall fast and fall hard, get a big bounce, and head back up the other way. They do not engage in pointless and tortuous rearguard actions fighting it every step of the way. That shows no understanding of NBA life cycles. You're going to get bad. Deal with it. The key is how you plan for that, how you bounce, and how quickly you can get headed back up the other way. But we have refused to play that game and have tried, and failed, to somehow cheat the system. And we're paying for it.

Hey Brick - can you give examples of some franchises that have successfully understood and executed this NBA life-cycle strategy, and what timeframes are reasonable expectations for recovery? I see a lot more teams that forever linger in mediocrity to just plain BAD.

 

[Kingster]

So Muss was just the head of the tail end of a long slow, progressive downgrade in talent and success. Right now, who we hire as coach matters less to me than what the Maloofs are willing to do with the team.

Here's the deal, at that 61 win point season, we were a better team than Dallas, but a similiar team with a similiar owner, coach and general vibe. The difference is, between that point and the current one, Cuban kept his pocketbook open, was more willing to trade and swallow the cost to keep the mavs competitive. The Kings meanwhile started getting more frugal and sacrificed depth to avoid the luxury tax. Depth and age eventually caught up to the Kings and they started falling off, while the Mavs actually ended up getting farther than the Kings did despite losing former key pieces(Nash, Finley).

My worry is not the coach. I don't even blame this season on Muss. It would have been a slightly different, but completely similiar outcome with Adleman or whomever. My worry is the Maloofs, their quiet frugalness, their involvement with the Artest trade(and to now want to send him packing), and their bugaboo with the arena.

The Maloofs got a lot of credit when they came here, and they gave the Kings 'credibility'. But when they arrived, they arrived to a good situation. The previous semi-owner or whatever had hired an excellent GM, that GM had made some big moves and got an experienced regular season coach. Before the Maloofs had really done anything, they had gotten a winning product. Now that they have their hands more into what is going on, the product is falling apart.

I really like getting historical trends like these. They put the situation in some perspective. I'm not totally sold though on the argument that the main reason for the slide is the Maloofs watching their pocketbooks. That may be part of it. But I think the main reason though is that Petrie hasn't been proactive. He's waited until the roof is caving in until he evacuates the building. Everything with him seems to be to "wait and see". He hasn't had the foresight to see that the Kings era was over 2 years ago and he needed to blow it up then and start anew. Instead, he just waits until a slow, steady, and agonizing deterioration occurs to make it politically palpable to trade someone like Bibby. Of course, another reason for the decline is the Artest decision, in which the Maloofs may have had a big part. There's been enough said on that.

 

[Kingster]

Hey Brick - can you give examples of some franchises that have successfully understood and executed this NBA life-cycle strategy, and what timeframes are reasonable expectations for recovery? I see a lot more teams that forever linger in mediocrity to just plain BAD.

I agree that most teams just linger in deterioration. Look at the T-Wolves. They should have traded Garnett already and started the rebuild. I think Petrie and McHale are two birds of a feather...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Hey Brick - can you give examples of some franchises that have successfully understood and executed this NBA life-cycle strategy, and what timeframes are reasonable expectations for recovery?

Miami Heat: bad for two seasons, completely overhauled their team after Alonzo Mourning "retired"/left. Replaced their entire team over a two year period.
gd lakers: they re-load EVERY time! have only lost as many as two years in a row twice in their franchise history.
Utah: overhauled their entire lineup after Stockton retired and Malone abandoned them; drafted well, and acquired quality free agents.

I see a lot more teams that forever linger in mediocrity to just plain BAD.

This is a Red Herring; a lot of teams "linger forever" in mediocrity precisely because they do not do as Bricklayer advises.

 

[kennadog]

The difference is, between that point and the current one, Cuban kept his pocketbook open, was more willing to trade and swallow the cost to keep the mavs competitive. The Kings meanwhile started getting more frugal and sacrificed depth to avoid the luxury tax.

Just a point....Cuban is a lot richer than any Maloof and apparently doesn't care about losing lots of money.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Just a point....Cuban is a lot richer than any Maloof and apparently doesn't care about losing lots of money.

Which is kinda amazing since Cuban does not own a major Las Vegas casino.

 

[Wuster]

Miami Heat: bad for two seasons, completely overhauled their team after Alonzo Mourning "retired"/left. Replaced their entire team over a two year period.
gd lakers: they re-load EVERY time! have only lost as many as two years in a row twice in their franchise history.
Utah: overhauled their entire lineup after Stockton retired and Malone abandoned them; drafted well, and acquired quality free agents.

This is a Red Herring; a lot of teams "linger forever" in mediocrity precisely because they do not do as Bricklayer advises.

Thanks Slim - seems to me those 3 teams have at least one thing in common. Top-notch coaching.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

That's relative: Pat Riley's coaching hasn't been so top-notch when he hasn't had a veteran team with a healthy superstar. And I hesitate to call Randy Pfund and Del Harris top-notch coaches in any particular respect.

 

[kupman]

Oh good, another day and another thread where we have people stating how dumb our owners and GM are. Apparently, there are people on this board who are smarter than GP and even more intelligent than most the GMs in the league. You guys really should not be giving away all your great ideas for free on this board. Why don't you go consult for the Hawks or something and turn that franchise into perineal champions? I mean, how can most NBA GMs be so dumb? They should come here to learn how an NBA franchise should be run.

About the ESPN blurb: "regression to the mean"

next topic.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Oh goody, another apology post...

I mean, seriously: Do you really honestly think that the only people in the world qualified to do what a GM does are the thirty people presently employed? Really? Because I really don't. Sports General Managers don't go to any kind to special school; they don't receive any sort of unique training in their field that the rest of the world doesn't have access to. Nothing makes them special, nothing makes them and them alone uniquely qualified to do what they do, and most of them just got their jobs due to being in the right place at the right time... Probably better than half the GM's in the league right now are former players: how many of them do you honestly believe would be in the positions they are in now if they didn't have the inside track?

The only thing that probably 93% of the GMs in the league that the rest of us don't have is connections; friends in high places. If they don't have those friends, they don't have those jobs. I mean, come on: there are lawyers, professors, journalists and engineers, among many other educated people that post here. Do you actually expect me to believe that, in a community of three thousand people, that NOBODY on this entire board is smart enough to do what Petrie does?

 

[kupman]

There are plenty of smart and well-educated people on this board. However, I am just shaking my head if you think that they could step-in and be a better GM than GP. I am going to guess that being a GM has far more complexities to it than most arm-chair GMs would be willing to assume.

I am also trying to figure out why all teams do not " royaly tank" every few years in the name of the "complete rebuild" to win championships. Every team should be doing this if it is so obviously successful.

But hey, it is easy to be critical when the team fails to live-up to expectations, so carry on if you like.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Oh good, another day and another thread where we have people stating how dumb our owners and GM are. Apparently, there are people on this board who are smarter than GP and even more intelligent than most the GMs in the league. You guys really should not be giving away all your great ideas for free on this board. Why don't you go consult for the Hawks or something and turn that franchise into perineal champions? I mean, how can most NBA GMs be so dumb? They should come here to learn how an NBA franchise should be run.

About the ESPN blurb: "regression to the mean"

next topic.

So the only argument you have is attacking people's credentials for criticism? If being capable of doing the same job as the person you're criticizing had to be requirement before you can criticize, there would be no critics. Attack the argument, not the person. It's just weak sauce, dude.

 

[kupman]

So the only argument you have is attacking people's credentials for criticism? If being capable of doing the same job as the person you're criticizing had to be requirement before you can criticize, there would be no critics. Attack the argument, not the person. It's just weak sauce, dude.

Dude, I did not attack anyone or their credentials. I do not even know what the credentials are. I am just saying that that being an arm-chair GM really oversimplifies what probably really happens inside a GMs office.

I am also not saying that you should not be able to criticize. I am just saying that the conversations that get turned into "the Kings would be more successful if I were GM" kind of conversations are really tiresome.

 

[rings4Kings]

Miami Heat: bad for two seasons, completely overhauled their team after Alonzo Mourning "retired"/left. Replaced their entire team over a two year period.
gd lakers: they re-load EVERY time! have only lost as many as two years in a row twice in their franchise history.
Utah: overhauled their entire lineup after Stockton retired and Malone abandoned them; drafted well, and acquired quality free agents.

This is a Red Herring; a lot of teams "linger forever" in mediocrity precisely because they do not do as Bricklayer advises.

To add to this point... The Suns. Just three or four years ago they were horrible. In mid season they decided to tank and traded all of their "stars" for enders, youngsters or picks. The following year they were much improved, and two years after they tanked they won their division. This is the model I think we should have looked at before the trade deadline or need to look at before next years trade deadline.

 

[Jerryaki]

Dude, I did not attack anyone or their credentials. I do not even know what the credentials are. I am just saying that that being an arm-chair GM really oversimplifies what probably really happens inside a GMs office.

I am also not saying that you should not be able to criticize. I am just saying that the conversations that get turned into "the Kings would be more successful if I were GM" kind of conversations are really tiresome.

now i see. i didn't get your meanings earlier, what with them being wrapped in that sarcastic putdown and all.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Dude, I did not attack anyone or their credentials. I do not even know what the credentials are. I am just saying that that being an arm-chair GM really oversimplifies what probably really happens inside a GMs office.

I am also not saying that you should not be able to criticize. I am just saying that the conversations that get turned into "the Kings would be more successful if I were GM" kind of conversations are really tiresome.

"Apparently, there are people on this board who are smarter than GP and even more intelligent than most the GMs in the league. You guys really should not be giving away all your great ideas for free on this board. Why don't you go consult for the Hawks or something and turn that franchise into perineal champions?"

That sounds very condescending to me and definitely oozes sarcasm. You're trying to discredit arguments by challenging people's intelligence and capabilities (i.e. credentials) on the subject. That's going after the person and not the argument IMO. Do movie critics claim they can make a better movie? Do political talk show hosts claim they can be a better president or politician? No, for the most part they don't.

I think a lot of smart NBA fans understand what's involved in being a GM and have the intellegence for it. That probably doesn't mean they can physically do the job, but it means they can understand faults in decisions and non-decisions.

Also I didn't see one person saying they'd do a better job as GM.

 

[sidney]

I am also trying to figure out why all teams do not " royaly tank" every few years in the name of the "complete rebuild" to win championships. Every team should be doing this if it is so obviously successful.

Good question.

The reason is that there is way more to owning and running a franchise than building a roster. I do think some posters here don't consider that.

Tanking is best for scooping up the next elite talent but to the average fan it comes off as uncompetitive and lazy. 2-3 years in the hole can damage the owners' bottom line and lose fan loyalty in very competitive entertainment markets.

Strickly from a business perspective if it was the best path to tank regularly, I think you'd see a lot more teams doing it.

 

[VF21]

I am also not saying that you should not be able to criticize. I am just saying that the conversations that get turned into "the Kings would be more successful if I were GM" kind of conversations are really tiresome.

Then don't read them.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I am also trying to figure out why all teams do not " royaly tank" every few years in the name of the "complete rebuild" to win championships. Every team should be doing this if it is so obviously successful.

Apparently because they think their way works better... and how often are they right? How many teams have been meandering around in mediocrity for years precisely because they won't commit to a full rebuild, or try to rebuild around the wrong talent? Portland, Boston, Minnesota, Seattle, Atlanta. All teams that have been perpetually lousy because they either refuse to go all-out with a rebuild, or try to rebuild around the wrong talent.

 

[kupman]

"Apparently, there are people on this board who are smarter than GP and even more intelligent than most the GMs in the league. You guys really should not be giving away all your great ideas for free on this board. Why don't you go consult for the Hawks or something and turn that franchise into perineal champions?"

That sounds very condescending to me and definitely oozes sarcasm. You're trying to discredit arguments by challenging people's intelligence and capabilities (i.e. credentials) on the subject. That's going after the person and not the argument IMO. Do movie critics claim they can make a better movie? Do political talk show hosts claim they can be a better president or politician? No, for the most part they don't.

I think a lot of smart NBA fans understand what's involved in being a GM and have the intelligence for it. That probably doesn't mean they can physically do the job, but it means they can understand faults in decisions and non-decisions.

Also I didn't see one person saying they'd do a better job as GM.

OK, you make some really good points and my original comments were indeed dripping with sarcasm. You also make a very nice analogy with the movie critics. I am certainly alright with "movie critic" comments. I would even say that is one of the major reasons that a board like this exists.

The only part that I would disagree with is that I do think that there are some on this board who really do believe they could do a better job than GP. That is the part that I find tiresome, just as I find many of the political talk show hosts tiresome.

Peace (and very nice job on the rebuttal).

 

[kupman]

Then don't read them.

are you trying to take away my fun?

 

[VF21]

Could we please stay on topic?

 

[fnordius]

Tanking is, at minimum, in violation of NBA rules, but if you look at the second half of this last season, it's very easy to see. Example: the way that Memphis played absolutely horribly -- 19-60 -- until they'd clinched the #1 spot, then beat Denver by 15, San Antonio by 10, and Minnesota by 22 to finish off the season. Minnesota themselves were tanking, to quote the Wikipedia page on "NBA Draft Lottery":

The heavy weighting of the current lottery has been ridiculed as providing incentives for lottery-bound teams to "tank" at the end of the season. For example, at the end of the 2006-2007 season, the Minnesota Timberwolves lost their last 7 games, and Kevin Garnett ended the season with a dubious quad injury in Malibu seeing a specialist. The tactic proved successful as the Wolves finished tied for 6th-worst record in the league, thereby ensuring they would maintain their top-10 protected draft pick owed to the Clippers in the Sam Cassell-Marko Jarić trade. Had they finished with just two more wins, the Wolves would have most likely lost the pick to the Clippers.

Ryan Gomes, Boston Celtics F:

"I probably (would have played), but since we were in the hunt for a high draft pick, of course things are different. I understand that. Hopefully things get better. Now that we clinched at least having the second-most balls in the lottery, the last three games we'll see what happens. We'll see if we can go out and finish some games."

Just last week Stern was talking about changing the lottery system due to widespread and obvious tanking, so it's not something that we at kingsfans are simply imagining.

 

[sono]

...
Here's the deal, at that 61 win point season, we were a better team than Dallas, but a similiar team with a similiar owner, coach and general vibe. The difference is, between that point and the current one, Cuban kept his pocketbook open, was more willing to trade and swallow the cost to keep the mavs competitive. The Kings meanwhile started getting more frugal and sacrificed depth to avoid the luxury tax. Depth and age eventually caught up to the Kings and they started falling off, while the Mavs actually ended up getting farther than the Kings did despite losing former key pieces(Nash, Finley). ......

You forgot they had and still have a stepping stone in Dirk, on the contrary we had well balanced team with role players. We know now, its hard to find corresponding pieces from the market, trading some of the pieces from this jigsaw puzzle.
Maloofs could have opened their wallet pursuing a star, then RA & the rest of the roster would have to be forced to change their style of play adjusting to the star. Wait a minute am I making a sense?
Anyway, I don't think anyother GM or owners would have done a daring move dismantling the entire roster & start from a scratch if they were in GP's or Maloofs shoes based on the roster they had.

 

[Vlade4GM]

Tanking is, at minimum, in violation of NBA rules, but if you look at the second half of this last season, it's very easy to see. Example: the way that Memphis played absolutely horribly -- 19-60 -- until they'd clinched the #1 spot, then beat Denver by 15, San Antonio by 10, and Minnesota by 22 to finish off the season. Minnesota themselves were tanking, to quote the Wikipedia page on "NBA Draft Lottery":


Ryan Gomes, Boston Celtics F:


Just last week Stern was talking about changing the lottery system due to widespread and obvious tanking, so it's not something that we at kingsfans are simply imagining.

Wow, Gomes shouldn't have said that. It's kind of supposed to be an unspoken thing. I think there should be no blatant tanking, but the solutions to ridding the NBA of tanking all together are just unacceptable.