ESPN on tanking & the Kings as "long-term losers"

[fansinceday1]

Now that last part is the silly part. Fans get realy too caught up in momentum both ways. Its etiher all light or all dark and they have a hard time turning corner's from one to another. But with the young talent on this team the light is blinding.

What makes you think we're gonna be able to keep what we do have? I don't think my pessimism about the future is silly at all. I have zero faith in our FO. And even if our FO pulled a golden goose out of their arse would we even have the money to keep them long term?

 

[Bricklayer]

What makes you think we're gonna be able to keep what we do have? I don't think my pessimism about the future is silly at all. I have zero faith in our FO. And even if our FO pulled a golden goose out of their arse would we even have the money to keep them long term?

Have we EVER lost a star player due to finances? EVER? Perhaps we could do it once before people become convinced its our norm. Under the new CBA minimum salary thresholds become very high, nearly as high as the cap itself. Everyone is forced to spend salary. We just happen to know ahead of time where ours will go.

 

[Bricklayer]

There just aren't very many young players, especially players drafted 1,2 or 3 that aren't going to want the ball, even if they shouldn't really have it. As it is right now there aren't enough shots to go around. Adding a top lottery pick, even a defensive minded one won't change that at all.

The three top picks in this draft are raw defensive athlets. I don't think any of them average more than 13ppg. The best of them doesn't really have an NBA body yet. Shots won't be a concern in the first ocuple of years for them. Noen are their team's goto guys even in college, and theirgreatest contributions come without the ball. We're in good shape if we can land #1/#2/#3. Ironically the further down in the lottery you go, the more gunner/ball oriented the guys become this year. I'm still of the opintion you should look to trade the pick if we we slide out of the Top 3 (or maybe 4 in hopes one of the Top 3 -- Drummond most likely -- slips).

 

[fansinceday1]

Have we EVER lost a star player due to finances? EVER? Perhaps we could do it once before people become convinced its our norm. Under the new CBA minimum salray thresholds become very high, nearly as high as the cap itself. Everyone is fored to spend salary. We just happen to know ahead of time where ours will go.

I understand exactly what your saying. I know we can offer more etc, etc. What it comes down to for me is over the past what, 6 years, there has been very little to look forward to. We've been "rebuilding" for as long as we've been bad. I just don't have very much faith. If that makes me a bad fan then I guess im a bad fan.

 

[rhythmless]

Petrie's contract history is quite bad. It just seems like he has no imagination, no creativity in the deals. Most are max year midlevels to players worth 50-75% of those contracts. His best deals in the past few years are the ones that players passed on. Crawford and Bonzi come to mind.

Petrie's spending habits look like the bad splurger friend that everyone has; they don't make as much as everyone else, but they try and buy just the same. Instead of getting something of quality, or shopping for value, they throw money at something with a good name brand, or spend to say they spent. The end result is that they have items that aren't the worst, but they overpaid for every single item instead of spending wisely. When that sale comes along for the near top of line item, they don't have enough money. Discouraged, they buy an inferior product at retail price. A few years later, those crappy items are all worn out/stop working, and said bad splurger friend repeats said process.

 

[Glenn]

I thought we couldn't trade our draft pick because of the theoretical possibility that we would have to give up our 1st round pick next year because of the deal with Cleveland and you can't trade away 1st round picks two years in a row. If we CAN trade the draft pick, I would say package our pick along with Thornton and offer it to whoever has the #1 pick. If not Thornton, whoever else the other team wants other than Tyreke and Cousins.

 

[spudfan]

I thought we couldn't trade our draft pick because of the theoretical possibility that we would have to give up our 1st round pick next year because of the deal with Cleveland and you can't trade away 1st round picks two years in a row. If we CAN trade the draft pick, I would say package our pick along with Thornton and offer it to whoever has the #1 pick. If not Thornton, whoever else the other team wants other than Tyreke and Cousins.

Is the rule you can't trade away a first round pick two years in a row or you must make a first round pick at least every other year?

 

[Npliam]

The three top picks in this draft are raw defensive athlets. I don't think any of them average more than 13ppg. The best of them doesn't really have an NBA body yet. Shots won't be a concern in the first ocuple of years for them. Noen are their team's goto guys even in college, and theirgreatest contributions come without the ball. We're in good shape if we can land #1/#2/#3. Ironically the further down in the lottery you go, the more gunner/ball oriented the guys become this year. I'm still of the opintion you should look to trade the pick if we we slide out of the Top 3 (or maybe 4 in hopes one of the Top 3 -- Drummond most likely -- slips).

The only way shots won't be a concern is if the player is a big enough project that he doesn't play a lot. I don't think the Tyreke, Thornton, Cousins and IT can stay on a winning team long term unless one of them is willing to change their roles and Tyreke and Cousins drastically increase their FG%.

 

[Elektrik]

Downright brutal assessment of Petrie and Maloofs.

...yet completely accurate. "In Petrie we trust"...pleeeeeease....

 

[bajaden]

There just aren't very many young players, especially players drafted 1,2 or 3 that aren't going to want the ball, even if they shouldn't really have it. As it is right now there aren't enough shots to go around. Adding a top lottery pick, even a defensive minded one won't change that at all.

To assume, that you can't find a place for an Anthony Davis, who will probably be better than anyone on the team not named Cousins, or Michael Gilchrist, who will automaticly be the best SF on the team, and its not even close. is totally ridiculous. We're sitting at the bottom of the standings, and to think that a couple of the best players in college would create a problem, because we're worried about taking away shots, totally befuddles me. I guess we wouldn't want Kobe either, because he would take away shots.

And by the way, both Davis and Gilchrist are consumate team players, and very unselfish players. Something this team is in desperate need of. If I have to watch Cousins standing under the basket with no one within twenty feet of him waving his arms in the air, while Thornton is takiing a three point shot with a hand in his face while falling away, I swear I'll pull my hair out. You want to take away shots? Then take them away from the selfish idiots on our team that think they can win the game all by themselves. Thornton and IT both suffer from the hero complex a little too much for me at times.

 

[Npliam]

To assume, that you can't find a place for an Anthony Davis, who will probably be better than anyone on the team not named Cousins, or Michael Gilchrist, who will automaticly be the best SF on the team, and its not even close. is totally ridiculous. We're sitting at the bottom of the standings, and to think that a couple of the best players in college would create a problem, because we're worried about taking away shots, totally befuddles me. I guess we wouldn't want Kobe either, because he would take away shots.

And by the way, both Davis and Gilchrist are consumate team players, and very unselfish players. Something this team is in desperate need of. If I have to watch Cousins standing under the basket with no one within twenty feet of him waving his arms in the air, while Thornton is takiing a three point shot with a hand in his face while falling away, I swear I'll pull my hair out. You want to take away shots? Then take them away from the selfish idiots on our team that think they can win the game all by themselves. Thornton and IT both suffer from the hero complex a little too much for me at times.

My original question was who would you get rid of to make shots for the new guy. So you would get rid of Thornton?

 

[rhythmless]

To assume, that you can't find a place for an Anthony Davis, who will probably be better than anyone on the team not named Cousins, or Michael Gilchrist, who will automaticly be the best SF on the team, and its not even close. is totally ridiculous. We're sitting at the bottom of the standings, and to think that a couple of the best players in college would create a problem, because we're worried about taking away shots, totally befuddles me. I guess we wouldn't want Kobe either, because he would take away shots.

And by the way, both Davis and Gilchrist are consumate team players, and very unselfish players. Something this team is in desperate need of. If I have to watch Cousins standing under the basket with no one within twenty feet of him waving his arms in the air, while Thornton is takiing a three point shot with a hand in his face while falling away, I swear I'll pull my hair out. You want to take away shots? Then take them away from the selfish idiots on our team that think they can win the game all by themselves. Thornton and IT both suffer from the hero complex a little too much for me at times.

Gilchrist and Robinson seem like great fits for us (athleticism, motor, defense, length), except Robinson doesn't even average a block per game at the college level.

 

[rhythmless]

My original question was who would you get rid of to make shots for the new guy. So you would get rid of Thornton?

I would "get rid" of Thornton. You will not win with him as your leader scorer and shot taker. You can win with him as your 12ppg 6th man off the bench.

 

[Glenn]

My original question was who would you get rid of to make shots for the new guy. So you would get rid of Thornton?

The problem with your "original question" is that it makes an asumption that now four people have rejected. These people have said that the top 3 picks are defensive players and will not need shots. Despite being told what is the truth, you go barreling onward as if there is a need to get rid of someone. There is no such need no matter how often you say it.

 

[rainmaker]

MT isn't a go to player,even though you might get punched if you told him that to his face. What he is, is a potential killer support player. A go to player has to be able to either create a good shot for himself, or teammates, even when the defense is geared towards stopping them and everyone in the arena knows where the ball is going. We have two guys who can do that, Cuz being the first option, Reke being the 2nd. Are they great at it? No. But if Smart would actually put them into a position to grow into it and get used to it, they'll get there quicker. I don't see another guy on the roster with the potential to pull this role off.

Then there's MT. He shoots like a #1 option. But really, where he's at his best, is when Cuz or Reke draws attention, the ball is swung or kicked, and there's MT coming off a screen, spotting up, or slashing to the hoop. Killer 3rd option. Can be great playing off others. However, a funny thing has happened of late, where others are put in a position to play off him. That won't work, not for MT, not for the other guys.

You need a guy or two who can shift the defense, cause double teams, cause rotations, and generally command so much attention if makes life easier for others. Reke and Cuz have both shown they are that type. MT can not cause a defense to do that. He can however, be one of the better options for when the rock is swung out of a double team, or when the defense is scrambling. Just not sure it'll happen with this team or with this coach.

 

[rhythmless]

MT isn't a go to player,even though you might get punched if you told him that to his face. What he is, is a potential killer support player. A go to player has to be able to either create a good shot for himself, or teammates, even when the defense is geared towards stopping them and everyone in the arena knows where the ball is going. We have two guys who can do that, Cuz being the first option, Reke being the 2nd. Are they great at it? No. But if Smart would actually put them into a position to grow into it and get used to it, they'll get there quicker. I don't see another guy on the roster with the potential to pull this role off.

Then there's MT. He shoots like a #1 option. But really, where he's at his best, is when Cuz or Reke draws attention, the ball is swung or kicked, and there's MT coming off a screen, spotting up, or slashing to the hoop. Killer 3rd option. Can be great playing off others. However, a funny thing has happened of late, where others are put in a position to play off him. That won't work, not for MT, not for the other guys.

You need a guy or two who can shift the defense, cause double teams, cause rotations, and generally command so much attention if makes life easier for others. Reke and Cuz have both shown they are that type. MT can not cause a defense to do that. He can however, be one of the better options for when the rock is swung out of a double team, or when the defense is scrambling. Just not sure it'll happen with this team or with this coach.

What you're describing happens in lots of different species. Alpha status, and vying for such. Take dogs with strong pack sense; they will fall in line when there is an established alpha. Thornton looks around the team and to be quite honest, he has a shot at being "alpha." He makes shots, he can score from anywhere, he's not afraid of big time moments. He can get his own shot. To make him OK with a diminished role, you need to have talent around him so that he accepts that diminished role. He needs to accept, on his own accord, that there are players better than him at that specific moment. Dogs only stay accepting of an alpha as long as the alpha stays strong. There are accounts of wolf/dog hybrids that are submissive to their masters, but when they notice a limp, they may attack. Some dogs attack babies because it had not been made plain to them that the baby's status is above theirs. But I digress.

Thornton looks like he wants to win. You install a winning culture, bring a good cohesive starting five that wins, let him know this is the plan going forward, let him know he's going to get his in the 2nd unit, and you satisfy everyone. Does he want his own team? Sure, most everyone does. But if he accepts that he will be successful off the bench and he accepts that there are better fitted players in front of him, he will be fine.

The issue now is that you can't tell your leading scorer and best traditional backcourt guard that he's gotta take a backseat role so Salmons could start at SF. That'll just miff him. And if you tell him that a last second shot should be given to Tyreke, well, I'd agree that Thornton should take it. The best team isn't the best guys; it's the best #1 option, the best #2 option, the best corner 3 shooter, etc. Kings don't have that yet. Blame Petrie, because he has a collection of young alpha/beta talent, but nothing that resembles a successful role player outside of JT. Garcia has the mindset, but his trajectory has already been written. Leonard, whom I wanted last year, would have been perfect.

 

[twslam07]

I actually think a Reke/TWill backcourt with IT/MT coming off the bench might give us better results. Imposing backcourt on both ends, very good defensively, both can get to the rim, TWill can shoot from outside, and our bench would be twice as potent. But why even torture myself considering other options...

Interesting idea. I still think the majority of our guard minutes need to go to Evans, Thornton, and Thomas. Between the two guard positions there are 96 minutes available. I would like to see Evans and Thornton be in the 30s and Thomas in the 20s. I still see Thomas and Thornton as bench players, but I don't see how having 2 bench guards who are going to demand a lot of minutes will work. That's why I think it would be in our best interest to trade one of them at some point in the future.

 

[Npliam]

The problem with your "original question" is that it makes an asumption that now four people have rejected. These people have said that the top 3 picks are defensive players and will not need shots. Despite being told what is the truth, you go barreling onward as if there is a need to get rid of someone. There is no such need no matter how often you say it.

Just for fun give me an example of the player you think will come in, make an impact to wins and losses and do so without wanting shots.

 

[rainmaker]

Just for fun give me an example of the player you think will come in, make an impact to wins and losses and do so without wanting shots.

I won't speak for Glenn. But the type of player who could help us without eating up shots, or really looking for his more than obviously shooting the open jumper?

AK, Gerald Wallace, Batum, Battier type. Maybe Mike Miller if he's ever healthy. Kidd-Gilchrest in this draft. Kawhi Leonard who we could have drafted last year and is starting at SF for SA. We'll see him tomorrow.

What many of us are looking for is a legit NBA SF(size wise) who is a very good defender, both man and team defense, good passer, good rebounder, and can hit the open jumper. I personally think AK would be the ideal fit. But here I'm answering the question about type of player, not ranking the players we actually have a shot at getting.

 

[Glenn]

Just for fun give me an example of the player you think will come in, make an impact to wins and losses and do so without wanting shots.

Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, and Thomas Robinson are three who just might go 1, 2, and 3 in the draft. They have all been mentioned to you before and you have sluffed them off for whatever reason you have. We are not communicating but if you want a different answer, you won't get it.

 

[kingsfan101]

The fact that Bonzi was too dumb to take it, does not negate the fact that offering the contract to Bonzi was a very bad move by Petrie. There were a lot of people, myself included, saying, "He had a nice season, but this is crazy. He's old and heavy for a guard."

It's yet another example of where Petrie is bad with a cap.

Agree. As for Bonzi, while I do agree that the contract was too generous, and we were lucky that he pulled a Bonzi on us, do try to remember his performance against the Spurs (against the Spurs). It was a top tier superstar level performance. Between him and Artest, we had the most physical 2/3 in the league.

For me, the offer to Bonzi, earlier to Reef, and then later, to Salmons, Miki etc., signify a different problem. We were not ready to rebuild. When ESPN talks about our regular visits to lottery, he doesn't mention that part of the reason was that we tried to hang on to our glory days for too long, and never did commit to a rebuild. We had a chance to get something useful for our vets, be it Bibby, or Brad or Artest. They all had value at a certain time. We should have traded them for picks and prospects, when they had value, and our rebuild would have been much much quicker.

I do believe we are close now (though honestly, I thought that last year too). Hitting big in the draft shall be critical this year.

And finally, can someone get Smart to quit small ball?

 

[Npliam]

Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, and Thomas Robinson are three who just might go 1, 2, and 3 in the draft. They have all been mentioned to you before and you have sluffed them off for whatever reason you have. We are not communicating but if you want a different answer, you won't get it.

You don't think they are going to want shots? Really? You really think that they will make a big difference on the defensive end and not want to shoot or be involved in the offense.

My broader point is that with this Kings team as it is currently constituted a lottery pick next year, even a top 3 lottery pick isn't going to make a significant difference. The team has major flaws. The current team makeup won't win. There are too many ball stoppers and gunners and even if your lottery pick is a good defensive minded SF there are still way too many defensive problems.

 

[rhythmless]

Agree. As for Bonzi, while I do agree that the contract was too generous, and we were lucky that he pulled a Bonzi on us, do try to remember his performance against the Spurs (against the Spurs). It was a top tier superstar level performance. Between him and Artest, we had the most physical 2/3 in the league.

For me, the offer to Bonzi, earlier to Reef, and then later, to Salmons, Miki etc., signify a different problem. We were not ready to rebuild. When ESPN talks about our regular visits to lottery, he doesn't mention that part of the reason was that we tried to hang on to our glory days for too long, and never did commit to a rebuild. We had a chance to get something useful for our vets, be it Bibby, or Brad or Artest. They all had value at a certain time. We should have traded them for picks and prospects, when they had value, and our rebuild would have been much much quicker.

I do believe we are close now (though honestly, I thought that last year too). Hitting big in the draft shall be critical this year.

And finally, can someone get Smart to quit small ball?

One great game/series does not a contract make. That is, unless your name is Isiah Thomas. Just like one great shooting workout does not a player make (Douby).

 

[rhythmless]

You don't think they are going to want shots? Really? You really think that they will make a big difference on the defensive end and not want to shoot or be involved in the offense.

My broader point is that with this Kings team as it is currently constituted a lottery pick next year, even a top 3 lottery pick isn't going to make a significant difference. The team has major flaws. The current team makeup won't win. There are too many ball stoppers and gunners and even if your lottery pick is a good defensive minded SF there are still way too many defensive problems.

So from your assessment, we have defensive issues. Yet, the way to fix the defense ISN'T to get defensive players?

Your plan seems to be to sit on your hands and shout woe is me.

 

[jpsls]

So from your assessment, we have defensive issues. Yet, the way to fix the defense ISN'T to get defensive players?

Your plan seems to be to sit on your hands and shout woe is me.

Bonzi could have been our Jerome James

 

[Npliam]

So from your assessment, we have defensive issues. Yet, the way to fix the defense ISN'T to get defensive players?

Your plan seems to be to sit on your hands and shout woe is me.

I guess I am not being clear. Let me try again. IT, MT, Reke, Cousins are not a winning combination, even if you draft a defensive lottery pick. One or more of those 4 needs to change roles, greatly change their game or be traded.

 

[sdballer]

You don't think they are going to want shots? Really? You really think that they will make a big difference on the defensive end and not want to shoot or be involved in the offense.

My broader point is that with this Kings team as it is currently constituted a lottery pick next year, even a top 3 lottery pick isn't going to make a significant difference. The team has major flaws. The current team makeup won't win. There are too many ball stoppers and gunners and even if your lottery pick is a good defensive minded SF there are still way too many defensive problems.

Now you are just arguing for the sake of it and frankly your coming off as extremely ignorant of the game. Your point is that we have big defensive problems and too many guys that want shots which just about every kings fan will agree with. But you are arguing that drafting a couple guys (Davis and mkg) who may be two of the most polished defensive players of the last decade in college hoops and neither of whom are volume shooters won't help the team. Even one of those guys would make a huge difference if for no other reason that adding major pieces that are unselfish and defend well not only improves overall team performance but also leads to easier baskets, more balanced team play and generally happier teams.

Unless your basic argument is that nothing the kings ever do is going to make a difference I'm not sure how these potential draftees are such a waste of time

 

[rhythmless]

I guess I am not being clear. Let me try again. IT, MT, Reke, Cousins are not a winning combination, even if you draft a defensive lottery pick. One or more of those 4 needs to change roles, greatly change their game or be traded.

That's fine, but it's not a one or the other type of thing. We have a pick, and I am hoping it's at the 4th position (best we can do barring lotto luck). Do not forget that an SF capable of starting will push MT/Reke/IT to the two guard spots, so something will HAVE to change in terms of roles.

 

[rainmaker]

So from your assessment, we have defensive issues. Yet, the way to fix the defense ISN'T to get defensive players?

Your plan seems to be to sit on your hands and shout woe is me.

Surprised? He thinks Cuz hurts us more than helps. Above he said a top 3 pick won't really help. So is anyone surprised he thinks Davis wouldn't help us, just as he thinks Cuz doesn't help us?

 

[kingsfan101]

Yeah, I know, after JT and Cousins, Smart doesn't have anyone else to go to. But whose fault is that??????????

Part of it is Smart's. He has often refused to use our size when it's available. Reke is seeing lot more time at 3, Greene often goes DNP(CD), Whitside has rarely seen the court, and JJ was seeing very inconsistent time while he was here.

I can understand that the coach might expect players to do something, and feel comfortable with some of them. However, there was a time when Salmons was playing absolutely horribly, but he insisted on starting him all the time, keeping Greene on the pine. Geoff can be blamed for going after Hayes at the expense of Dalembert (though the exact details behind those negotiations are iffy). But he can't be blamed if Smart wants to play Reke at 3 and Salmons at 4, while 4 big guys (DMC, JT, JJ and Whitside) sit on the bench.

Also, we are starting one of the smallest (probably the smallest) 1-2-3 combination in the league. This when we can potentially have huge size at every position. At least part of this blame has to go on Smart.