ESPN says front office is lazy
- Thread starter KingKong55
- Start date
Why are all of the teams (Lakers, Mavs, Suns, Jazz) that the Kings battled with in the 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 playoffs still in the upper echelon of the NBA? Is it because of bad luck? 
Martin's value was at a low point. He barely played at all this season and has missed countless games over the last three. When he was playing this season he was off due to the injury and no person, not even Geoff, could effectively gauge his value to an NBA team. What we got for him was decent, if not above average (time will tell).
In all reality, Geoff is a good GM, who has slipped slightly over the last few years. There has to be a reason for it and honestly, we can't know why. To call him or the front office "lazy" is overly presumptive. The Maloofs may be tightening the budget for all we know.
Geoff is the GM. Ultimately he is the one responsible. If the Maloofs were making it too hard for him to do his job, he could leave. Instead he signed an extension. His desk is where the responsibility ought to fall. It is hard to argue that the last 8 years of his job performance has been quite poor. In my opinion, this Kevin Martin trade is much of the same. So for me, if ESPN wants to conjecture that the front office is being lazy, so be it. They appear to have the data on their side.
I don't buy it. ESPN is notoriously East Coast Biased. They are pissed that the Celtics didn't get Martin for NOTHING. That is what it really boils down to. What else were the Celts willing to part with that the Kings wanted? I just dont buy it. I think Petrie made a decent trade and got some more cap space in the process. That should help this summer but who knows... ESPN is TOTALLY BIASED and if the trade didn't benefit an East Coast Team, it was a bad trade. HOGWASH!
We traded a future sixth man of the year candidate for a current sixth man of the year candidate. The issue is that some of the league still valued Kevin as a star shooting guard, and I am pretty sure Boston is one of those teams. What does Boston have to offer? You'd probably take one of their young bigs in a heartbeat if they offered, but is getting Ray Allen's contract in exchange for dumping KMart and Noc's worth it? Also, once the bubble bursts there(and it already is starting to tear apart), Boston's draft picks are going to be good.
I also feel like the front office settled for cap space when NY's draft picks or Hill would have been much better. We are not luring a big time FA. The winning is gone, the impeccable veneer of the front office is gone and Tyreke is not the type of star that attracts other stars to your team.
I also feel like the front office settled for cap space when NY's draft picks or Hill would have been much better. We are not luring a big time FA. The winning is gone, the impeccable veneer of the front office is gone and Tyreke is not the type of star that attracts other stars to your team.
There's an awful lot of assumption going on in this post. First off, you assume that K-Mart is a sixth man type player. I'm really not sure where you're getting this info. There's no indication that he would have gone to our bench if he remained here or that he will remain on the bench in Houston. You're assuming that the Celts offered a young big to us (Big Baby isn't that great and Perkins benefits from playing with four All-Star calibre players [put JT in there and there's a chance he'd be averaging better numbers]). You're also assuming that their draft pick would be a good one (considering the fact they have one of the top records in the league, this is anything but a sure thing). I fail to see what everyone sees in Hill. The fact that he was behind Darko and air on the NY depth chart isn't really speaking volumes about his potential. How are you to know that we aren't attracting a FA? Do you have a time machine stashed somewhere? The winning's been gone for a while now so I fail to see how that makes a sudden difference. I'm not sure why the veneer of the front office is gone? Because we didn't make the sexy move? Reke is probably more attractive to players than most others in the league. I don't really see where any other rookie "star" would have better luck in this regard.
Petrie getting bashed by ESPN is good news, and bodes well for our future. Regardless of what you think of the physics of the trade (and I loved it, by the way, don't think we could have done any better-- I mean a promising young post scorer and insane energy guy, big cap relief at the perfect time, and a throw in scrapper/shot blocker/rebounder who is better than Brockman. Face it folks, that is the absolute best thing for us to have gotten. It we trade him for Dalambert, we don't get the cap room.) Anyway regardless of that--if Petrie is hailed as having pulled off a steal of a trade it will only make other GMs leary of dealing with him. It was quite literally like that after his string of phenomenal trades in the late 90s early 2000s. In Geoff's business you want people to think you're stupid or lazy. It's perfect. Big picture.
Last edited:
Ok, you are 1/2 right. The "flexible pieces" gamble backfired and the trade hurt us and set us back. However, pretending the Webber we traded was an elite PF shows little consideration for the reality of that season. Webber had multiple knee injuries at that point and was a shadow of his former self. He dominated the ball, even though his offense was clearly diminished and he was one of the worst defensive PFs in the league due to his inability to move. Remember, many people said he was untradeable with his contract. There was no market for him. No demand whatsoever. Now, we managed to find a terrible trade for him, but it's not as if we got "taken" in the deal. Webber was a shell of his former self. It's not like we got to trade KG in his prime a la Minnesota.
Why are all of the teams (Lakers, Mavs, Suns, Jazz) that the Kings battled with in the 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 playoffs still in the upper echelon of the NBA? Is it because of bad luck?
Lakers - Still have Kobe. End of story, he has bridged the gap between the old and new Lakers. Easier to rebuild when you have a Top 10 all time player in his prime on your roster.
Spurs - Still have Duncan. Perhaps the top PF of all time. End of story.
Mavs - Still have Dirk. One of the top, elite players this decade. End of story.
Jazz - Their last year battling was 2000 and that ended in a second round exit, then they had some bad seasons. They rebuilt by drafting Deron and signing Boozer. Still have not gotten back to the elite level, as they would have been hard pressed to win a championship any of the last few seasons, but are very good again.
Suns - They were never elite during the 2000-2003 seasons. They lost to us in the first round, lost to the Spurs with Starbury, and missed the playoffs. They had their own elite run, as Coangelo made a great move and hit an absolute HR with Steve Nash. However, for the last two seasons they have been a borderline playoff team and are at a crossroads right now.
Pistons - They peaked as we were fading and are now stuck in a pretty hopeless situation. Bad contracts. No promising youth. I'll take our core over theirs any day of the week.
Nets - Do we really need to go over this one?
Pacers - See Pistons, but with more upside as they have Granger and Hibbert.
Celtics - Rode Pierce and Walker in the EC as long as they could. Were miserable for a few years and then had the ultimate "Supernova team" trading their youth and picks for a collection of available all stars. Give Ainge credit, but they are about to go through another rebuild.
So that's it. The contending team's from that time frame who are still contending on any level (a stretch to say the Spurs at this point) still have the same, healthy superstars they did back then.
The other team's who lost their superstars are all mediocre right now.
The team's who peaked after us are all in the same descent we went through.
This is not to absolve us. The Webber trade backfired. Some part of our organization wanted to follow the Knicks' blueprint and chase the 8th seed for too long (we can argue all day if it was Petrie or the Maloofs). However, the difference between us and the Lakers, Spurs and Mavs is our superstar absolutely wrecked his knee taking that element off of our team and robbing him of any trade value.
So the key is starting 1-2 seasons ago when the Kings started to go into rebuilding mode, and asking how have we been doing? Well so far we have a budding superstar, a promising young nucleus, ample cap room, and a plethora of assets.
I for one applaud Morey and the Rockets for being willing to spend and getting a nice haul from the Knicks. Maybe we could have done better. Overall though, our team has gotten good grades from analysts on this trade and I think we did well.
Bricklayer laid out an argument before the trade that he would be willing to trade KMart for pure cap room for a variety of reasons and we got a good, young big as well. Could we have done better? Maybe. Did we get taken? Not at all. We got a nice haul back and are still moving in the right direction.
I think I'd take the deal we got with Houston over the Boston one. Yeah this article does bring up some concerning points but unless they can show a team with a player we really want had something to offer then I don't want to hear about other "yeah but" trades. We could have made the NY deal instead we opted to have Houston take NY's garbage to get their picks. I think we played it a little safe but I'm ok with that.
His point wasnt a comparison between the houston and boston deals. The point was to highlight how aggressive houston was in trying to make trades. They were doing everything they could to talk to teams and come up with deals. Hollinger's argument is that the Kings could have easily ended up with the knicks package that houston got while trading martin to boston to get cap relief.
Basically its not a question of which deal individually was better, its just a critique of the way different front offices are run.
Basically its not a question of which deal individually was better, its just a critique of the way different front offices are run.
I say bull****!
Every message-board linked with NBA were talking about this possibility for months. And you believe that those kind of speculations went by execs unnoticed? Really?
I have a feeling that some of that "uninformed" execs didn't do their job as they should and are now trying to shift the blame.
Every message-board linked with NBA were talking about this possibility for months. And you believe that those kind of speculations went by execs unnoticed? Really?
I have a feeling that some of that "uninformed" execs didn't do their job as they should and are now trying to shift the blame.
This thread.
We could of done a whole lot better.
Just like the story of a women shopping for a husband, there's always something better on the next floor.
As for other GMs if they can't sense that KMart is one of their option base on how the team is suffering with him, the booing, Grant rambling and him not being happy than they're just idiots.
But I doubt that..so I tend to lean more on that they wanted KMart but didn't give the offer that GP was looking for.
We could of done a whole lot better.
Just like the story of a women shopping for a husband, there's always something better on the next floor.
As for other GMs if they can't sense that KMart is one of their option base on how the team is suffering with him, the booing, Grant rambling and him not being happy than they're just idiots.
But I doubt that..so I tend to lean more on that they wanted KMart but didn't give the offer that GP was looking for.
Last edited:
I say bull****!
Every message-board linked with NBA were talking about this possibility for months. And you believe that those kind of speculations went by execs unnoticed? Really?
I have a feeling that some of that "uninformed" execs didn't do their job as they should and are now trying to shift the blame.
Every message-board linked with NBA were talking about this possibility for months. And you believe that those kind of speculations went by execs unnoticed? Really?
I have a feeling that some of that "uninformed" execs didn't do their job as they should and are now trying to shift the blame.
Oh well, let me answer your question with my ignorant post ( according to NewArena ) which seems to be ....well.....somehow vindicated by people more knowledgeable about what is going in the trading block......
Also.....
And also, and as I expected, some of Petrie's relatives will come to his rescue giving reason/alibi/defense for him even when those ESPN writers are clearly much knowledgeable than them about how and what goes on in the trading block.
Also.....
And also, and as I expected, some of Petrie's relatives will come to his rescue giving reason/alibi/defense for him even when those ESPN writers are clearly much knowledgeable than them about how and what goes on in the trading block.
Beside calling him names and calling us who think he had done a decent job as a GM homers..what are your basis of reasoning?
For example, the KMart trade? Was it a good trade for you if not what could of been a better trade? Is there evidence that it exist. If not then how can you judge a man when you don't have all the facts.
If you do have facts then link the source because I would like to know the better option of the trade.
Facts: We got rid of a log jam. We got $$ for the future + Carl Landry. Evans+Kmart hasn't work. KMart not happy and losing confidence. We needed more player at the 4/5 and we got it.
Opinions: KMart is still a stud worth a lot...KMart is falling we got more than expected. (Either ways we still set our self for the future , the goal of a rebuilding team.)
Speculations doesn't work well with me when you don't give me all the facts. I be on your side when you present me with concrete reasoning and evidence.
For example, the KMart trade? Was it a good trade for you if not what could of been a better trade? Is there evidence that it exist. If not then how can you judge a man when you don't have all the facts.
If you do have facts then link the source because I would like to know the better option of the trade.
Facts: We got rid of a log jam. We got $$ for the future + Carl Landry. Evans+Kmart hasn't work. KMart not happy and losing confidence. We needed more player at the 4/5 and we got it.
Opinions: KMart is still a stud worth a lot...KMart is falling we got more than expected. (Either ways we still set our self for the future , the goal of a rebuilding team.)
Speculations doesn't work well with me when you don't give me all the facts. I be on your side when you present me with concrete reasoning and evidence.
You know, the ad hominem against people who disagree with you won't be particularly effective in convincing them you have a valid argument.
As far as the merits of the article itself go, the "expert" author suggested that the Celtics - the Celtics! - had the pieces to make a great trade for Martin on the Kings' side. This has been discussed already here, and the conclusion seems to be that the Celtics had absolutely nothing of use to the Kings. They weren't going to give up Perkins or Rondo. What else do they have? A high-20s pick and expiring contracts? We got our expiring contracts, and the known of Landry is clearly better than the unknown of a late pick.
I don't particularly like the trade - I do think we didn't get enough. I'd have preferred to have held tight, and if we really wanted to move Martin, try again in the offseason (please note that you could have laid out your accusations in bold against this outcome as well). But I'm not going to claim Petrie could have gotten a better deal. Certainly not from the Celtics. Outside of Hollinger's handwaving, is there actually any evidence he could have?
As far as the merits of the article itself go, the "expert" author suggested that the Celtics - the Celtics! - had the pieces to make a great trade for Martin on the Kings' side. This has been discussed already here, and the conclusion seems to be that the Celtics had absolutely nothing of use to the Kings. They weren't going to give up Perkins or Rondo. What else do they have? A high-20s pick and expiring contracts? We got our expiring contracts, and the known of Landry is clearly better than the unknown of a late pick.
I don't particularly like the trade - I do think we didn't get enough. I'd have preferred to have held tight, and if we really wanted to move Martin, try again in the offseason (please note that you could have laid out your accusations in bold against this outcome as well). But I'm not going to claim Petrie could have gotten a better deal. Certainly not from the Celtics. Outside of Hollinger's handwaving, is there actually any evidence he could have?
i am gonna say this again, when a team has a valueable trade piece the GM is not going to come out and say we need to trade this player before the deadline.
for example i went to a garage sale a couple weeks back and this lady was selling a nice acoustic guitar (probably worth at least $100), selling for $40. i say "how much for the guitar?" now i already saw the price tag on, i only asked the question so see if she really had a need for it. she answered "oh yea i really need to get rid of it, i have no use for it since my son moved out". i say all i got is $20, and she happily sells it to me. Now i would have gladly paid 40 for it but since i knew she was just trying to get rid of it i was able to get a deal.
for example i went to a garage sale a couple weeks back and this lady was selling a nice acoustic guitar (probably worth at least $100), selling for $40. i say "how much for the guitar?" now i already saw the price tag on, i only asked the question so see if she really had a need for it. she answered "oh yea i really need to get rid of it, i have no use for it since my son moved out". i say all i got is $20, and she happily sells it to me. Now i would have gladly paid 40 for it but since i knew she was just trying to get rid of it i was able to get a deal.
i am gonna say this again, when a team has a valueable trade piece the GM is not going to come out and say we need to trade this player before the deadline.
for example i went to a garage sale a couple weeks back and this lady was selling a nice acoustic guitar (probably worth at least $100), selling for $40. i say "how much for the guitar?" now i already saw the price tag on, i only asked the question so see if she really had a need for it. she answered "oh yea i really need to get rid of it, i have no use for it since my son moved out". i say all i got is $20, and she happily sells it to me. Now i would have gladly paid 40 for it but since i knew she was just trying to get rid of it i was able to get a deal.
for example i went to a garage sale a couple weeks back and this lady was selling a nice acoustic guitar (probably worth at least $100), selling for $40. i say "how much for the guitar?" now i already saw the price tag on, i only asked the question so see if she really had a need for it. she answered "oh yea i really need to get rid of it, i have no use for it since my son moved out". i say all i got is $20, and she happily sells it to me. Now i would have gladly paid 40 for it but since i knew she was just trying to get rid of it i was able to get a deal.
Well, like you, I also feel that Kings GM needs a few pointers from this Prince_XY market wizard. He would teach those other execs a thing or two.
Petrie, you lazy bastard!
L
i am gonna say this again, when a team has a valueable trade piece the GM is not going to come out and say we need to trade this player before the deadline.
for example i went to a garage sale a couple weeks back and this lady was selling a nice acoustic guitar (probably worth at least $100), selling for $40. i say "how much for the guitar?" now i already saw the price tag on, i only asked the question so see if she really had a need for it. she answered "oh yea i really need to get rid of it, i have no use for it since my son moved out". i say all i got is $20, and she happily sells it to me. Now i would have gladly paid 40 for it but since i knew she was just trying to get rid of it i was able to get a deal.
for example i went to a garage sale a couple weeks back and this lady was selling a nice acoustic guitar (probably worth at least $100), selling for $40. i say "how much for the guitar?" now i already saw the price tag on, i only asked the question so see if she really had a need for it. she answered "oh yea i really need to get rid of it, i have no use for it since my son moved out". i say all i got is $20, and she happily sells it to me. Now i would have gladly paid 40 for it but since i knew she was just trying to get rid of it i was able to get a deal.