Yep, I think the way your center that shoots 43% (which is horrible for a big) and plays bad, disinterested defense most of the game and makes terrible decisions on a regular basis hurts you more often than he helps. He has great potential but he is very far from a dominate big on a consistent basis. BTW I am not the only person that feels this way.
ESPN on tanking & the Kings as "long-term losers"
- Thread starter Jose
- Start date
Yep, I think the way your center that shoots 43% (which is horrible for a big) and plays bad, disinterested defense most of the game and makes terrible decisions on a regular basis hurts you more often than he helps. He has great potential but he is very far from a dominate big on a consistent basis. BTW I am not the only person that feels this way.
kingsfan101
Starter
Bonzi was an excellent player for several years in the league, not a one series wonder. His problems were always mental. Talent and toughness was never an issue with him.
That said, I'm not supporting the offer we made to Bonzi. It was a bad idea, and we were lucky he turned it down. Once the owners decided not to bring back RA in particular, Bonzi could have turned into a problem child sooner than later.
The issue of integrating another lottery pick into the team and the issue of balancing who takes the shots and how they get those shots are almost two separate issues for me. That's not to say that they aren't related, but we already have the second problem whether a new guy comes in or not. And that's part of the reason why this team can't seem to play up to it's talent level.
We've been fortunate enough to find a player in Marcus Thornton who was probably undervalued in the league and we've managed to lock him up for a few years at a reasonable price. Furthermore we've been fortunate enough to draft a guy in Isaiah Thomas who came ready to play and has a toughness and swagger about him which is atypical of his age and experience (sound familiar?) Independently these are great developments for a struggling team, but the net result has been a guard-oriented offense which too often falls apart late in games as our player's inexperience catches up with them.
So when someone asks about who we need to get rid of to make the pieces fit, I think you're looking at our situation from the wrong angle. We don't need to get rid of anyone (well, except Outlaw and Salmons -- addition by subtraction there), what we need to do is put together a coherent team either with the pieces we have or by acquiring new pieces. Rather than starting with a terrible team and trying to adjust it or correct it, maybe we should start with a blank slate and put the pieces who do fit into it, and re-shuffle up the rest. (Don't get me wrong, I love this team. And I see a ton of potential there. But let's not kid ourselves, it's a terrible team by any measure.)
For example, start with Cousins. He's a league leading rebounder, looking more and more like a go-to scorer, and a capable albeit limited defensive presence. That's a pretty good start to any team. So what would fit next to him? We probably don't need another high volume scorer. We should have someone who compliments his game with length, athleticism, good defensive instincts. Someone who won't get unhappy if they don't get many shots but could also provide a scoring threat when Cousins gets doubled. That could be Davis or Drummond. It could be a veteran free agent or a trade target. Heck, it could even be Hassan Whiteside. But whoever it is, how many shots they'll have per game is about the last thing you should even be concerned about. It's just a total non-issue.
The backcourt dynamic is similar. We've tried having two high volume scorers whether it be Bibby and Martin, Tyreke and Martin, or Tyreke and Thornton. It's not working. It rarely works. Thornton and Thomas doesn't work either for defensive reasons (as we're seeing right now). A lot of people seem to want to make this about picking favorite players but it's really just pragmatics. All three of these guys are valuable assets (I would even throw Jimmer into the equation as well since he's got a lot of potential even if he hasn't found a role yet this year). It's great that we have all of them -- especially since Thornton and Isaiah didn't cost us much to acquire. But that doesn't mean they all have to be Kings for life. If we can trade all of them and make the team better than that's what we should do.
And lastly, playing Tyreke at SF is just so wrong-headed I don't even know what to say about it. I predicted Westphal would do it way back when we drafted Jimmer -- though I didn't know Smart would be the culprit and the third guard in the equation would be Thomas which makes it not just a smallball lineup but a ridiculously smallball lineup. It's almost as wrong-headed as the three iso-guard attack of Tyreke/Thornton/Salmons that started out the season. We need a true wing player to man that position -- someone who can shoot, drive, defend, rebound. When we had that we were a playoff team. Obviously it can't be the only thing you have, but right now we've got a dominant big man and a variety of scoring guards. That's our roster so that's who we play. That multi-faceted wing player is desperately needed to push everyone back to their natural positions and tie it all together.
Greene isn't ready for the responsibility but putting him out there at SF every night would be a lot better than what we are doing. Getting Gilchrist, Barnes, Batum, or Wallace would be ideal.
We've been fortunate enough to find a player in Marcus Thornton who was probably undervalued in the league and we've managed to lock him up for a few years at a reasonable price. Furthermore we've been fortunate enough to draft a guy in Isaiah Thomas who came ready to play and has a toughness and swagger about him which is atypical of his age and experience (sound familiar?) Independently these are great developments for a struggling team, but the net result has been a guard-oriented offense which too often falls apart late in games as our player's inexperience catches up with them.
So when someone asks about who we need to get rid of to make the pieces fit, I think you're looking at our situation from the wrong angle. We don't need to get rid of anyone (well, except Outlaw and Salmons -- addition by subtraction there), what we need to do is put together a coherent team either with the pieces we have or by acquiring new pieces. Rather than starting with a terrible team and trying to adjust it or correct it, maybe we should start with a blank slate and put the pieces who do fit into it, and re-shuffle up the rest. (Don't get me wrong, I love this team. And I see a ton of potential there. But let's not kid ourselves, it's a terrible team by any measure.)
For example, start with Cousins. He's a league leading rebounder, looking more and more like a go-to scorer, and a capable albeit limited defensive presence. That's a pretty good start to any team. So what would fit next to him? We probably don't need another high volume scorer. We should have someone who compliments his game with length, athleticism, good defensive instincts. Someone who won't get unhappy if they don't get many shots but could also provide a scoring threat when Cousins gets doubled. That could be Davis or Drummond. It could be a veteran free agent or a trade target. Heck, it could even be Hassan Whiteside. But whoever it is, how many shots they'll have per game is about the last thing you should even be concerned about. It's just a total non-issue.
The backcourt dynamic is similar. We've tried having two high volume scorers whether it be Bibby and Martin, Tyreke and Martin, or Tyreke and Thornton. It's not working. It rarely works. Thornton and Thomas doesn't work either for defensive reasons (as we're seeing right now). A lot of people seem to want to make this about picking favorite players but it's really just pragmatics. All three of these guys are valuable assets (I would even throw Jimmer into the equation as well since he's got a lot of potential even if he hasn't found a role yet this year). It's great that we have all of them -- especially since Thornton and Isaiah didn't cost us much to acquire. But that doesn't mean they all have to be Kings for life. If we can trade all of them and make the team better than that's what we should do.
And lastly, playing Tyreke at SF is just so wrong-headed I don't even know what to say about it. I predicted Westphal would do it way back when we drafted Jimmer -- though I didn't know Smart would be the culprit and the third guard in the equation would be Thomas which makes it not just a smallball lineup but a ridiculously smallball lineup. It's almost as wrong-headed as the three iso-guard attack of Tyreke/Thornton/Salmons that started out the season. We need a true wing player to man that position -- someone who can shoot, drive, defend, rebound. When we had that we were a playoff team. Obviously it can't be the only thing you have, but right now we've got a dominant big man and a variety of scoring guards. That's our roster so that's who we play. That multi-faceted wing player is desperately needed to push everyone back to their natural positions and tie it all together.
Greene isn't ready for the responsibility but putting him out there at SF every night would be a lot better than what we are doing. Getting Gilchrist, Barnes, Batum, or Wallace would be ideal.
Last edited:
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
That is a good post. You bring up many good points. I do agree that having IT/MT isn't a problem per se, as we've acquired more talent, it wasn't expensive, and it should make us a deeper team. Problem is none of them are being used correctly, nor do I think roles have been set in place. We need a coach who can come in and not only put the players in their correct roles, but make them buy in. Every game IT/MT/Reke/Jimmer seem to play a different role. And that includes everything from shot selection and scoring aggressiveness, to stepping back and creating for others, to not even knowing when they're coming in and out of games or who will finish games. It's a mess, but it doesn't have to be.
The truly puzzling thing is that the 3 guard lineup isn't taking us anywhere, we're getting killed defensively, and Smart won't give another lineup a chance. I mean, why settle on that lineup above all others?
TheWileyVet
Starter
Unfortunately I agree with a couple of those I'm regards coaching/trades/signings.
He's an idiot for implying we missed on the drafts. We should have taken the frail often injured Curry over a player who is a jumper away from being a legit star? And Monroe is doing great but to imply we should have taken him over Cousins? Hah.
In fact the only player I'd take over Cuz in the last 3 drafts is Blake Griffin.
He's an idiot for implying we missed on the drafts. We should have taken the frail often injured Curry over a player who is a jumper away from being a legit star? And Monroe is doing great but to imply we should have taken him over Cousins? Hah.
In fact the only player I'd take over Cuz in the last 3 drafts is Blake Griffin.
Totally irrelevant and generally used by those who realize their argument is specious at best.
Here's the deal...wanna come here and talk hoops and play nice? Cool.
Wanna just make ridiculous comments and toss crap out there to see what kind of **** you can stir up? There are other places you could be and you're welcome to go find them.
bluntsnbball
G-League
Kings have been in the lotto a lot recently, no denying that. HOWEVER, it aint like we've had amazing slots in the drafts. I think the last 4 years we drafted 12, 10, 4, and 5 right? The thunder went 2,4,and 3 i believe, in consecutive years. We've made the most out of what where we've drafted but sometimes from 3-4 can be a huge drop off in players. Those picks are not exactly the only reason theyre a dominant team right now, but those are really the main reasons, the only other main factor is the emphasis the team has on D. If our GM and coach(es) put as much emphasis on shutting other teams down as they did looking for scorers, i think the team would look better right now.
ALSO, we would have been in the playoffs if we were in the Eastern conference a couple of the yeas that we've been in the lottery. Think about that!
ALSO, we would have been in the playoffs if we were in the Eastern conference a couple of the yeas that we've been in the lottery. Think about that!
Whatever. If I get banned for my opinion then fine.
You mean there are other people on this board with poor basketball knowledge? Yeah, we already knew that.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
I agree that drafting Durant/Westbrook/Harden is what really set the foundation for OKC. But I disagree in that there are other key differences. One being, Brooks. PJ Carlisemo played guys out of position, namely Durant, didn't emphasize defense as much and they were losing a lot of games partially because of it. Hired Brooks, he played Durant in his natural position, and they went on a tear to end the season and never looked back.
Also, one of their big 3, Harden, comes off the bench which allows Durant/Westbrook to be aggressive when starting, and when one is subbed out Harden comes in and can be aggressive. They aren't fighting over the ball as our big 3 are. Generally only time they're on the floor together is the last 6 mins. Their playing time isn't all over the place either and they don't constantly get iced on the bench by their coach.
Also much more balance in their lineup. We have 4 guys looking to shoot. If Smart was coaching OKC, Harden would be starting. Durant would probably play PF. But they have Sefolosha, a great defender who doesn't eat up shots, yet can hit open jumpers. They have Ibaka, who just defends, blocks, and rebounds the hell out of the ball. Doesn't eat up shots. They have Perkins/Collison. They have size. Good defenders, don't need shots. We went away from size.
So I'd say aside from their draft picks, the big difference is in coaching, balanced lineups both offensively and defensively, and size up front.
Last edited:
So why the low shooting percentage for a big and why does he get lit up all the time? Why is a team with a big that is dominate more often than not lose all the time? You, with your superior knowledge of basketball should be able to explain it to me. Oh I am sure it is the coach or the other players (not Reke of course, he is close to being a once in a generation player too) or bad luck of the other team going off. Or it could be that je just isn't nearly as good as most on this board think he is.
I am not saying he isn't going to be good or even great but 43% is pretty much not acceptable. Allowing your man to go off every night is never going to fly. He is an outstanding rebounder.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
I've been thinking about that last part for the past few days, and then something kind of came to me.
What if Keith Smart knows that THIS current lineup is the only possible long-term lineup he can create with the current roster, which I can actually agree with if it is how he is thinking.
Cisco/Salmons/Greene may be a better short term fit. They may balance out the roster, but what do you really gain long term with those guys? And by long term I only really mean till next season. A team that starts Cisco/Salmons/Greene at the 3 is not getting you anywhere.
The approach being "I don't think I have a winning future starting lineup with this roster, BUT IF I DO it is going to hinge on Tyreke being able to play the 3 without getting murdered on defense because of the size of Thornton and Thomas"
And it has failed, or 'is' failing.
I don't agree with the logic, but if he came out and said this it would ease my mind a little bit. At least I know how he's thinking instead of just going small because that's his philosophy.
What a wild ride! The guy writes an outrageous article about old news which I called a cheap shot .......... and in response we have gone on a world tour. We can't draft because our present team is too good. Our present team is the pits and it's because Cousins is lousy. Three guards, four no two .... what should WE do? Can't leave it in the hands of ....... you fill in the blank. At least from skimming all this, it sounds like nobody thinks we're tanking it, right?
rhythmless
Starter
It's just that Petrie doesn't even negotiate. He never even tries to pay market value. Garcia didn't have suitors, MT had no suitors, yet we agreed to give him 8 per? Crawford had other offers and thank god he took those, as Crawford fits nowhere. Bonzi did not have suitors either, which is why he balked at his ONLY offer.
For a GM operating on a supposedly tight budget, he sure is generous in giving random contracts to players. Again, I will point you to the bad spending friend analogy.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
well given that the only other great center to enter the NBA at such a young age is Dwight, and Dwight took until his 4th year to finally post a winning record, maybe, just maybe the part about being a junior in college might have something to do with it. Moreso since half of his teammates are still in college or a year or two out themselves.
Dwight Howard shot 52% and 53% his first 2 years and his defense was much, much better than DMC. By his third year his team made the playoffs (with a losing record). Oh and Dwight didn't have a year of college to get him ready for the NBA.
I would have simply said that its cos we're not playing Jimmer enough.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Dwight shot 52% and 53% his first two years because all he did was dunk. He had, and still has, a fraction of Boogie's offensive talent.
He will always be a better defender. Hardly the point. Point is as a center who shot 52% and 53% and played better defense, he still lost for years before they got the team and coach in place around him.
It always happens for great centers sooner or later. Just sometimes it takes a few years. Wasn't until Ewing's 4th year they started winning either, and he was already 25. Daugherty lost his first year, was .500 his second. Hakeem walked onto a team with Sampson and was a smidge over .500 at 22. Admiral did not even hit the league until he was 25.
Kingsfan23
All-Star
Npliam's point remains unrefuted - Cousins has no business shooting that low a % and still has yet to impose himself on defense. I think he does however have the most potential out of any King..
There are some things I like and dislike heading into the future.. Aside from Cousins and Evans, Thornton, JT and IT are solid, so you have five core players already who will grow together.
Things I dislike, well obviously I am not an Evans supporter.. and how he has went from supposed-to-be franchise savior 2 years ago to hopefuly good role player annoys me. Fredette just doesn't have the body to play NBA basketball
There are some things I like and dislike heading into the future.. Aside from Cousins and Evans, Thornton, JT and IT are solid, so you have five core players already who will grow together.
Things I dislike, well obviously I am not an Evans supporter.. and how he has went from supposed-to-be franchise savior 2 years ago to hopefuly good role player annoys me. Fredette just doesn't have the body to play NBA basketball
You can't watch Cousins and not think he has a ton of talent. The difference between Dwight and him coming into the league is one plays above the rim and the other below. That doesn't mean Cousins won't have a better career when they are both done though. Cousins can do too much and he needs to figure out what works and what doesn't and why and to who, then his % will come up.
While I won't kick a top 3 pick in the teeth the likely hood is low. Really we have too much talent on our roster to have the record we have both this and last year and it comes down to coaching and it comes down to putting players in the right spots and it comes down to getting the right roleplayers. This article had me go back and review Petrie's moves again and I have to say I am over him at this point (even his drafts). When you look at how we died last offseason when all we needed to do was resign, and draft/sign a SF, and fire WF its absurd.
The only respectful(honorable,sportsmanlike) way to tank a season is to play the youth and if you aren't playing guys you aren't sure of or that need minutes to grow and figure stuff out your wasting valuable time and hurting your future. When a season is lost the way you tank is you decide who is not going to be there next season or who is but isn't going to be part of the teams future and you cut their minutes. Then you take your projects and you play them till they double over if you have a question about a player get it answered. If we are tanking, we aren't even doing that right....
The only answer I have seen in the last few weeks is small ball sucks and smart doesn't have the backbone to make a player buy into being the first option from the bench.
While I won't kick a top 3 pick in the teeth the likely hood is low. Really we have too much talent on our roster to have the record we have both this and last year and it comes down to coaching and it comes down to putting players in the right spots and it comes down to getting the right roleplayers. This article had me go back and review Petrie's moves again and I have to say I am over him at this point (even his drafts). When you look at how we died last offseason when all we needed to do was resign, and draft/sign a SF, and fire WF its absurd.
The only respectful(honorable,sportsmanlike) way to tank a season is to play the youth and if you aren't playing guys you aren't sure of or that need minutes to grow and figure stuff out your wasting valuable time and hurting your future. When a season is lost the way you tank is you decide who is not going to be there next season or who is but isn't going to be part of the teams future and you cut their minutes. Then you take your projects and you play them till they double over if you have a question about a player get it answered. If we are tanking, we aren't even doing that right....
The only answer I have seen in the last few weeks is small ball sucks and smart doesn't have the backbone to make a player buy into being the first option from the bench.
twslam07
All-Star
I would be so happy to see our 4 guard rotation be Thomas at PG, Evans at SG, Fredette backup PG, Thornton backup SG and leave it at that. Let Garcia and Salmons take care of the 3.
Thomas/Fredette
Evans/Thornton
Garcia/Salmons/Outlaw/Honeycutt
Thompson/Hayes/Greene
Cousins/Whiteside
This automatically brings balance to the lineup. All starters are good defenders for their position, and we would have good scoring coming off the bench. This lineup looks pretty strong. Obviously we would need to upgrade the SF and PF spot but all the rotations should stay the same. If we sign/draft a SF and sign/draft a PF, it could look like this:
Thomas/Fredette
Evans/Thornton
Kirilenko/Garcia/Outlaw/Honeycutt
Drummond/Thompson/Hayes
Cousins/Whiteside
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Krunker
Northernmost Kings Fan
Speaking of Hickson, the guy just shot 9-10 and scored 21 points and got 3 steals and a block for Portland. I doubt he will keep those numbers up, but it makes you wonder if Hickson really sucked or if the Kings just didn't use him right.
1 game means literally nothing.
A lot of people underestimate Cousins because he doesn't look as strong statistically, but the difference in him on the court and off the court is pretty huge. If given the choice between facing Greg Monroe or Cousins, most teams would rather face Monroe. On the other hand, if given the choice of facing the Pistons or the Kings, most teams would rather face the Kings because the roster is dysfunctional and the Pistons make much better use out of Monroe.
But as for the article, I hope you guys realize this is part of an entire series on dealing with competitive basketball in the NBA. It doesn't answer the problem it states because it's part of a running dialogue on the issue. There's another article about the Thunder and how they succeeded, but that their model is not a guarantee of a successful rebuild.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post?id=39546
But as for the article, I hope you guys realize this is part of an entire series on dealing with competitive basketball in the NBA. It doesn't answer the problem it states because it's part of a running dialogue on the issue. There's another article about the Thunder and how they succeeded, but that their model is not a guarantee of a successful rebuild.
http://espn.go.com/blog/truehoop/post?id=39546
bajaden
Hall of Famer
If we were lucky enough to draft Anthony Davis, it would in no way affect Thornton, or anyone else. This isn't an either/or situation. Most of Davis points are scored on putbacks off offensive rebounds. He will take the occasional 15 foot jumper, but for the most part, he's a defensive stopper. Thats not to say that he won't become a better offensive player in the future. The point is, no one should have a predetermined amount of shots coming to them. They don't hand out shot cards before the game. Ideally, everyone should take shots within the flow of the game, and when open. If one player happens to get hot, then you feed that player as much as possible, regardless of who it is. If that happens to be Thornton, so be it. Its going to vary from night to night.
Michael Gilchrist is a perfect example of that. You will seldom see Gilchrist drive into traffic, or throw up a contested 3 pt shot. The majority of his scoring comes from steals and beating the other team in transition. The more his team needs offense from him, the more aggressive he'll become. If they don't need him, he'll defer to someone else. I have loved this kid since his junior year in highschool. He's tough, and is a leader. If your on his team, and your slacking off, he'll get in your face. If you had five Michael Gilchrist's on our team, you wouldn't lose many games.
I know everyone wants a "go to guy". I think that will eventually happen. And everyone will know who it is when it does. But you don't appoint someone. They have to earn it. And the key word is "consistent". We don't quite have that yet. But it will happen!
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Chris Chandler!!!!! Bill Russell!!!!! Tony Allen!!! Bruce Bowen!!! Shane Battier!!!! And I think Michael Gilchrist and Anthony Davis will be added to that group. In all honesty, your really over thinking this thing. Anytime you can add quality players to your team, the only players you get rid of are the one's at the end of the bench. You can't have too many good players!!!!!!!!!
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
mmm..wouldn't be so sure. He won't keep up THOSE numbers, but he didn't just magically lose the skills that let him finish last season at 17pts 11rebs per. I am in no way shape or form surprised he would revive with a new team. He's a scprer, and if gets to a team who needs one and will feeed him, he will score. Everything else...eh...if he focuses, and I'm sure he will while playing for his career, he will also board. Did here actually, not that peeps noticed. But just a fish out of water as a roleplayer off the bench. On a team with far too many competing chuckers.
Last edited:
bajaden
Hall of Famer
Dude, your not making any sense now at all. Using your scenario, Lebron James wouldn't make a difference on this team. He was a lottery pick you know. How about Jordan, Bird etc. Come on, engage your brain. So you think that were so bad defensively, that we shouldn't even try to add a defensive player. Its all futile and nothing will help. Maybe we should all just go and shoot ourselves because there's no hope. I wouldn't want you in my foxhole.
bajaden
Hall of Famer
We had Jerome James!
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Yahoo! Sports - NBA - Sacramento Kings News
- Kings News Links
- Sacramento Kings On SI
- Kings News Links
- Locked
- Poll
- Sacramento Kings On SI
- Kings News Links