Fans: does it bother you?

Showtime

Starter
...to watch Curry, Thompson, Lillard, etc? Or are you numb to it?

Personally, I doubt any of these guys would be as good if they spent their developing years in Sac. However I try not to think about it at all, and not even consider they could have been Kings. When watching other teams, does it bother you?
 
Yes it bothers me, not because the Kings passed on some real talent, but that the FO were just that bad - incompetent to the point that me sitting behind the keyboard could have done a much better job that the NBA FO with budget in the millions.

The Jimmer pick made absolutely no sense, during and after. Up to that point I thought Petrie was doing a good job building a physical team with tough dudes. And then suddenly Jimmer (and also Hickson) entered the picture??? In what way did those guys remotely fit the mold? It makes absolutely no sense. And spare me the "Maloof wanted jimmer to sell jerseys" logic. I don't buy it. If the Maloofs had wanted to sell more jerseys they'd have picked Rubio over Tyreke. Btw, Brandon Knight and Kawhi Leonard were my guys and I don't see any reason why they'd not be as good as they are today if they had gone to the Kings.

Coming into the draft, TRob was someone what I really, really disliked. I thought he was overrated to the point of conspiracy. I thought he was the second coming of Udonis Haslem/Chris Wilcox, and in hindsight I probably still overrated him. He wasn't even the fifth best big man in the draft, let alone the fifth best player. When TRob was supposed to go second and then none of the top four teams picked him, I remember saying to myself, "Please don't draft Robinson, please don't draft Robinson...." And then.... Oh F!!!
.
 
It doesn't bother me watching Lillard, Curry, Leonard, etc. and it's not that I'm numb to it. I love the game of basketball. I love watching it played well. It isn't always about the Kings.

It doesn't bother me if there are players doing well that were available to us when we drafted. I just remember how lucky we are we didn't get the #1 pick the year Greg Oden came out.
 
I'll say watching Curry and Thompson playing for other teams bothers me. Kawhi, not so much because I don't think he develops anywhere besides SAS. Pop did a great job with that.

As for Curry and Thompson, they would be great regarldess where they played. They've had the work ethic from an early age being a product of NBA DNA. The Thompson one bothers more tho, since AT least we got Tyreke in Curry's draft, in Klays we got Jimmer lol.
 
Yes it bothers me, not because the Kings passed on some real talent, but that the FO were just that bad - incompetent to the point that me sitting behind the keyboard could have done a much better job that the NBA FO with budget in the millions.

The Jimmer pick made absolutely no sense, during and after. Up to that point I thought Petrie was doing a good job building a physical team with tough dudes. And then suddenly Jimmer (and also Hickson) entered the picture??? In what way did those guys remotely fit the mold? It makes absolutely no sense. And spare me the "Maloof wanted jimmer to sell jerseys" logic. I don't buy it. If the Maloofs had wanted to sell more jerseys they'd have picked Rubio over Tyreke. Btw, Brandon Knight and Kawhi Leonard were my guys and I don't see any reason why they'd not be as good as they are today if they had gone to the Kings.

Coming into the draft, TRob was someone what I really, really disliked. I thought he was overrated to the point of conspiracy. I thought he was the second coming of Udonis Haslem/Chris Wilcox, and in hindsight I probably still overrated him. He wasn't even the fifth best big man in the draft, let alone the fifth best player. When TRob was supposed to go second and then none of the top four teams picked him, I remember saying to myself, "Please don't draft Robinson, please don't draft Robinson...." And then.... Oh F!!!
.

I was actually happy when we drafted Jimmer. On paper he was a good fit, having a ball-handling and shooting guard to play alongside Tyreke. I doubt anyone thought he'd be this limited in the NBA.. at worst he would have been a good spot up shooter. The real issue IMO was trading Beno away to get Salmons.
 
I don't really don't care that much about missing in the draft. I am just tired of incompetence by management, coaches and players for such a long time. It's getting hard watching all these games and seeing the team collapse for no sensible reason.
 
Curry, not so much since nobody knew he would be this good and it's not like we "whiffed" on Tyreke. Missing out On Lillard and Klay/Leonard hurts but who knows how they would have turned out here. Lillard would have probably turned out fine but Klay and Leonard took some time to be developed especially Leonard. That's another reason why I don't wanna give up on McLemore just yet. I feel he's another off season away from being good.
 
It only bothers me if the guy I wanted to take ends up being considerably better than the player we took. Leonard & Barnes are the ones that give me the most pain since I wanted both of them at the time.

2009: Wanted Evans. We drafted Evans.
2010: Wanted Cousins. We drafted Cousins.
2011: Wanted Leonard. We drafted Fredette. (I was hoping we would trade back and take him)
2012: Wanted Barnes. We drafted Robinson. (This might have changed if we already had Leonard on the team, but I wasn't too sold on Lillard or Drummond at the time so miss on my part)
2013: Wanted McLemore. We drafted McLemore.
2014: Wanted Vonleh. We drafted Stauskas (although I really liked Stauskas at the time, just didn't see the reason with McLemore already on the roster. I still think he'll be a good player. Just needs more time to mature).
2015: Wanted Cauley-Stein. We drafted Cauley-Stein.
2016: I want Hield (so far). We will daft ???

PG - Evans
SG - Leonard/McLemore
SF - Barnes
PF - Cauley-Stein/Vonleh
C - Cousins

Oh what could have been...
 
Curry is having the greatest NBA season in history. It's a treat to watch him.
 
I was actually happy when we drafted Jimmer. On paper he was a good fit, having a ball-handling and shooting guard to play alongside Tyreke. I doubt anyone thought he'd be this limited in the NBA.. at worst he would have been a good spot up shooter. The real issue IMO was trading Beno away to get Salmons.

Here's the thing, I didn't dislike Jimmer as a player coming out of BYU. I just couldn't figure out how he would fit and why picked him when there were other less risky and just as solid players available.

If you have to imagine a team for a young Jimmer, that team would probably consists of a big PG and stellar defense to cover up for his size and lack of D. But the Kings 1) did not have a big PG when they've already decided at that point to move Reke to SG/SF and traded away Beno. 2) the Kings' defense. So even if Jimmer had lived up to his billing he was still being set up to fail. Add to that, they were trying to convert Jimmer to a new position. Jeez, there were already PGs (Knight and Kemba) that you know are solid and could play PG from day one. So why go through all that trouble? If Jimmer was a once-in-a-generation talent then maybe you take that chance, but he wasn't.

The sheer stupidity is what bothers me. That the FO somehow managed to miss the most obvious things that average fans can see from miles away is what's really bothers me. I am still astounded by the sheer incompetence years later. The decisions made were so poor and so utterly unrealistic that if you tell me Petrie was purposely sabotaging the thing, I'd believe it. It was just mean and jerkish to treat fans to a tanking season because of the pick, and then lazily F up the pick.

I saw a lot of things wrong with that period and it really points to laziness and incompetence. I didn't dislike the Reke pick but I hated the rationale they used to pick him "Oh, he was physically bullying all the PGs in the work out." No Sh! You brought in a big strong SG, unleashed him against a bunch of little PGs and what did you expect to happen? Did anyone tell Petrie that PG is not about size and bullying?

They brought in Jimmer and had him went against some no-name undrafted PG. Wow, Jimmer dominated that guy, he was great! Pleazzzee! Why wasn't there a guard showdown like they had with Reke? There were no shortage of defensive wings in that draft who'd lick their chops at going against a supposed lottery pick. Why didn't they want to see Jimmer go against Knight, Kemba, Klay, Leonard, Shumpert, Singleton, Jimmy Butler and see how he fared? My guess is, Jimmer would have been exposed and someone in the FO didn't want to see that.

And of course in TRob, they picked a guy who didn't work out for the Kings and a review of the Final game against Kentucky would have made obvious he had trouble against NBA size and athleticism. In fact, all the Kings FO had to do was study that one game and they'd see that Robinson's stats were heavily padded (he had 11 rebounds in that game but he was credited with 17, they gave some of his teammates' rebound to him) and his entire profile from his size (6'9? lol) to his stats is not real. But no, all the draft site like DraftExpress said TRob is the 2nd best player in the draft, so we must take him! No thoughts. No research. No analysis. How freakin lazy is that!

I just think that more work, more logic, and less prayers would have made a huge difference. They made us endured years of tanking but behind the scene they were being just Fing it up. That's what's bothering me.
.
 
Last edited:
seeing any of those individual players succeed doesn't necessarily bother me, but witnessing in aggregate the sum total of the kings' failures in the draft in the last half-decade is maddening. a small market franchise dragging years of misery behind it that has little draw for marquee free agents simply cannot blow four straight first round picks in a row as the kings' did before they finally got one right in willie cauley-stein. for all of this franchise's dysfunction, that really is the single biggest contributor to their inability to build a winner around demarcus cousins...
 
And of course in TRob, they picked a guy who didn't work out for the Kings and a review of the Final game against Kentucky would have made obvious he had trouble against NBA size and athleticism. In fact, all the Kings FO had to do was study that one game and they'd see that Robinson's stats were heavily padded (he had 11 rebounds in that game but he was credited with 17, they gave some of his teammates' rebound to him) and his entire profile from his size (6'9? lol) to his stats is not real. But no, all the draft site like DraftExpress said TRob is the 2nd best player in the draft, so we must take him! No thoughts. No research. No analysis. How freakin lazy is that!

With TRob, we're talking about the Maloof/Petrie front office and not the current one. But if you want to believe that Geoff Petrie did zero scouting and zero work on the draft, and that the morning of the draft he went to freaking DraftExpress and decided who to pick based on that, I guess whatever fuels your anger, man.

The Robinson pick has been dissected a thousand times, and we actually know quite a bit about it. Do you know which player Petrie loved in that draft? Any guesses? The answer is Damian Lillard. But the problem is that the Maloofs wouldn't commit to Petrie that they would even spring the money necessary the next year to re-sign Jason Thompson, because they were trying to move the team. Petrie, worried that he would have to go into the season without a power forward at all, selected Robinson because he was the most ready as insurance against not having a power forward the next season. He wanted Lillard, and it was Maloofery that forced his hand. Not laziness.
 
what bothers me is the Kings working out players like Klay, Lillard, Drummond, McCollum and not drafting any of them. The Kings were better off drafting outside the top 10 as far as I'm concerned, that way at least they couldn't reach for a player too early. Doesn't matter now anyway, I'm over it. I realize the Kings held themselves back for a number of years based on their incapable drafting, accept it and hope one day they get it right.
 
If I believed that Petrie, who was working on behalf of the Maloofs at the time, remember - was actually trying to draft for the best player, yeah it would bother me quite a damn bit!

But it is very clear that the MAloofs were deliberately trying to field as bad a team as they realistically could, so they intentionally messed up quite a few drafts and trades around those years.
 
With TRob, we're talking about the Maloof/Petrie front office and not the current one. But if you want to believe that Geoff Petrie did zero scouting and zero work on the draft, and that the morning of the draft he went to freaking DraftExpress and decided who to pick based on that, I guess whatever fuels your anger, man.

The Robinson pick has been dissected a thousand times, and we actually know quite a bit about it. Do you know which player Petrie loved in that draft? Any guesses? The answer is Damian Lillard. But the problem is that the Maloofs wouldn't commit to Petrie that they would even spring the money necessary the next year to re-sign Jason Thompson, because they were trying to move the team. Petrie, worried that he would have to go into the season without a power forward at all, selected Robinson because he was the most ready as insurance against not having a power forward the next season. He wanted Lillard, and it was Maloofery that forced his hand. Not laziness.

Oh please, that is hogwash. There were plenty of bigs available besides TRob. Drummond? Terence Jones? Henson? Sullinger? Leonard? I am not faulting the FO for picking a big man, I AM faulting them for picking TRob. Seriously, if they were laser focused on a big man, how could they have decided TRob was better than Drummond? It defies logic. They were both horrible offensive player but one guy is bigger, a shot blocker, more athletic, and younger. So Petrie took a look and decided the smaller, more limited player was the better choice??

If Petrie loves Lillard then it's on him for not making the right pick. The draft is for building the future, not plucking a hole. Let's step back for a minute, you're telling me that the need to replace a below average starting PF was so great that Petrie needed to use the #5 pick to pluck that hole at the expense of a potentially starting quality PG? That right there exemplifies what I was talking about - bad logic leading to dumb decisions. Any good GM would have done the opposite of what Petrie did, that GM would have drafted the young stud and worry about replacing 9 pts, 7 rebs, and average defense via trade/FA.
.
 
Oh please, that is hogwash. There were plenty of bigs available besides TRob. Drummond? Terence Jones? Henson? Sullinger? Leonard? I am not faulting the FO for picking a big man, I AM faulting them for picking TRob. Seriously, if they were laser focused on a big man, how could they have decided TRob was better than Drummond? It defies logic. They were both horrible offensive player but one guy is bigger, a shot blocker, more athletic, and younger. So Petrie took a look and decided the smaller, more limited player was the better choice??

Did you watch Drummond in college? He played one year, and he didn't come close to putting it all together. He had the body and the athleticism and then red flags up and down on his attitude and work ethic. Now, those red flags have been resolved but at the time of that draft counting on Drummond to be a starting power forward as a rookie would have been insanity.

If Petrie loves Lillard then it's on him for not making the right pick. The draft is for building the future, not plucking a hole. Let's step back for a minute, you're telling me that the need to replace a below average starting PF was so great that Petrie needed to use the #5 pick to pluck that hole at the expense of a potentially starting quality PG? That right there exemplifies what I was talking about - bad logic leading to dumb decisions. Any good GM would have done the opposite of what Petrie did, that GM would have drafted the young stud and worry about replacing 9 pts, 7 rebs, and average defense via trade/FA.

You're moving the bar. Your initial complaint was that the front office was too lazy to do any research or analysis on the draft and they just picked Drummond because he was high on the mock drafts. However, the logic behind the selection (however much you disagree with it) has been known for some time and that's clearly not the case. So now, you are arguing a different point - it's not that the front office was lazy, it's that they made a strategic error. That's as may be, my only intent was to put the laziness argument to rest.
 
Did you watch Drummond in college? He played one year, and he didn't come close to putting it all together. He had the body and the athleticism and then red flags up and down on his attitude and work ethic. Now, those red flags have been resolved but at the time of that draft counting on Drummond to be a starting power forward as a rookie would have been insanity.

It cuts both ways you know. It was equally insanity to count on TRob to be the starting PF. In fact, we KNOW the Kings didn't think TRob was a starting PF because just weeks after they drafted him they re-signed JT to be the starting PF. So basically we have two equally unready PFs (perceived at the time), if TRob was NBA ready then maybe you had an argument there but he wasn't and clearly the Kings didn't think he was ready.

And that's another example of laziness and bad logic - if they thought they had found a JT replacement in TRob, that's one thing. But they didn't think that. They drafted TRob despite their apprehension that he wasn't ready, but somehow they surged ahead with the pick.... why?? I don't know. The best reason I can think of is because they didn't want to bother with finding a JT replacement and a raw rookie is better than nothing. They didn't want the work of finding a JT replacement after the draft, that's laziness.

I saw both TRob and Drummond many times in college. I was not sold on Drummond but I was absolutely certain he would be at least as good as TRob and I was certain his floor is JT. I wrote at the time on this board that Drummond was a freak of nature but not a basketball player; and he was the type of project that you don't want to pass to another team. Now, if you want to argue that the Kings' FO cannot possibly live up to my prowess as a talent evaluator, I am not going to argue with you. But here's the thing, how come I could see stuff that they couldn't?? When fans can make better decision than the FO, something is terribly wrong.


You're moving the bar. Your initial complaint was that the front office was too lazy to do any research or analysis on the draft and they just picked Drummond because he was high on the mock drafts. However, the logic behind the selection (however much you disagree with it) has been known for some time and that's clearly not the case. So now, you are arguing a different point - it's not that the front office was lazy, it's that they made a strategic error. That's as may be, my only intent was to put the laziness argument to rest.

I have been arguing bad decisions, bad logic, and incompetence in addition to laziness. I haven't moved the bar, I am reiterating what I said.

The laziness comes in the form of not doing enough research. Not making Jimmer go against top defenders in workout.... laziness - they didn't want to take the time to evaluate him fully. Not wanting to work the phones in the off season to find a JT replacement.... laziness. Not doing enough research on TRob.... laziness.

Need I remind people that just a few months prior, the Kings traded away an undersized, good rebounding, no jumpshot PF due in part to not being a good fit (and also locker room). So then they proceed to draft another undersized, good rebounding, no jumpshot PF? Did the FO collectively had amnesia? I seriously doubt that, the only logical reason I can think of is that the Kings wrongly evaluated Robinson - they simply thought he is a different type of player than he actually is. TRob is exactly the same player he is in college, he didn't suddenly forgot how to rebound, had a serious injury, refuse to fly, or another unforseeable that changed him. And why would they be so wrong about him? The only explanation in this case is because the Kings FO didn't do enough research. That's laziness. The FO talked about TRob's defense when it was Jeff Whithey who guarded the best offensive player and after TRob got schooled by Terrence Jones in the final. They drafted a guy whom they didn't know as much as they should have about him. The insufficient knowledge points to laziness, which includes lack of preparation, lack of research, lack of foresight.

Of course, a few months after drafting TRob, the Kings realized they made a mistake and traded him away. Would a team trade away a high draft pick in the middle of his rookie year if they believe they drafted the right player? No way. We know some rookies take more time than others right? You don't see the Sixers trading away Embiid or the Lakers trading away Russell do you? Teams that are confident they made the right pick don't trade away that player despite struggles. So why did the Kings do it? Obviously, it's because they F up! They got TRob wrong and they panic. Why did they judged TRob so incorrectly? What I said above.
.
 
Last edited:
No.

I'm more annoyed with the Hickson trade, IT for nothing, Malone firing, Dirty Laundry contract.

I expect some misses in the draft, even when fans had it nailed. But those still sting to this day and were terrible decisions.

Minorly still annoyed by the Pervis draft, even after all these years.
 
I don't think the Robinson pick had much to do with poor talent evaluation. I think it was a business decision, like every other decision made at that time, which was geared primarily toward cutting long-term payroll obligations and making the team more valuable to potential buyers. Thomas Robinson was labeled by most as an NBA ready prospect. Even though he didn't have the ceiling of a player like Andre Drummond, he was expected to step in and have some impact right away. Considering how and when he was traded (months into his rookie season, months before the team was going to be sold) -- it seems to me that it wouldn't have mattered who we drafted that year, they were going to be traded regardless. Robinson was the pick only because he was the consensus "top pick on the board" at #5 and his short-term value was projected to be higher than most. They probably should have just traded the pick, but then how do you trade a top 5 pick on draft day without taking salary back? If they could have just traded the pick for cash right then and there they probably would have but I think the NBA would have vetoed it.
 
Kawhi hurts the most. Didn't know much about basketball then but I knew he was better than Jimmer. How I could see that at the time when our dumb owners didn't makes me sick to this day.
 
We worked out Kawhi too, right? We were also in need of a small forward more than any posistion at that time. Maloofs were just trying to sell ****ing Jimmer jerseys. We fans got completely ****ed in that draft.
I agree with your last sentence but I don't remmeber Leonard appearing to be a great star. He's been a star and although many give credit to his coach, his coach isn't on the court.
 
I don't think the Robinson pick had much to do with poor talent evaluation. I think it was a business decision, like every other decision made at that time, which was geared primarily toward cutting long-term payroll obligations and making the team more valuable to potential buyers. Thomas Robinson was labeled by most as an NBA ready prospect. Even though he didn't have the ceiling of a player like Andre Drummond, he was expected to step in and have some impact right away. Considering how and when he was traded (months into his rookie season, months before the team was going to be sold) -- it seems to me that it wouldn't have mattered who we drafted that year, they were going to be traded regardless. Robinson was the pick only because he was the consensus "top pick on the board" at #5 and his short-term value was projected to be higher than most. They probably should have just traded the pick, but then how do you trade a top 5 pick on draft day without taking salary back? If they could have just traded the pick for cash right then and there they probably would have but I think the NBA would have vetoed it.

If Maloofs had wanted to trim payroll, it makes no sense that they'd open up their wallet to bring back JT. Furthermore, even if the FO were instructed to trade the player soon after drafting him, it still doesn't relieve the need to draft the best player available. Afterall, the better the player, the easier to trade. Also, the better way to trim salary is to package the #5 with a contract or two (say #5 + Chuck Hayes) for a lower pick and one of those partially guaranteed contract. They could still trade the lower pick rookie during the season; this let them save even more money.

If they really thought Robinson was NBA ready, they wouldn't have re-signed JT. That's the key, the fact that they brought back JT shows the Kings were not at all sold on TRob. They basically treated him like a roster filler, like you'd an Art Long type instead of the #5 pick. And then they essentially gave up on him in less than a season. This is how a team treats a player whom they don't care for much - plays him sparingly and then discard him. Needless the say, that's highly unusual treatment for a #5 pick. There is a disconnect here. The only explanation is that the Kings didn't know who they were drafting and was disappointed with what they got.

Yes, the TRob saved them some money, but I think it only came into play after the disappointment with TRob.
.
 
Back
Top