Geoff Petrie to Portland Resurfaces AGAIN!!

[Sptsjunkie]

yes, Mikki...not sure WTF was up with that...

Funny thing to me is that Mikki was a pretty defensible move that constantly gets brought up. We signed him to 2.5 years (odd team option clause). We had just drafted a younger center and wanted a veteran who could start at first and then have Hawes hopefully take over and not have the vet care. Mikki was probably one of the few free agents who was willing to come to Sac. He was a hard worker and a great locker room presence who didn't mind being a bench player when he lost his starting role. Yeah, we probably overpaid him a bit versus the market because out team stunk. However, we were already over the cap, so his contract didn't harm us in anyway. It was also nice bait around the trade deadline, which is why I am guessing Petrie had a team option that somehow ended just after the deadline. This was as neutral as a move gets. I don't think Petrie ever signed him to be a major piece of our rebuild.

 

[mr. moustache]

2011 minus 2001 equals 10. Yup, 10 years of overall crap moves.

Like I said. Terrible math. You are literally claiming that signing Webber and trading for Bibby were "crap moves". Obtuse or ignorant?

2001-2004 were an unqualified success from the front office. 2005-2008 are the "bad" years and even they aren't all bad. He's been knocking it out of the park since 2009.

You're off by a huge margin.

 

[Bricklayer]

Like I said. Terrible math. You are literally claiming that signing Webber and trading for Bibby were "crap moves". Obtuse or ignorant?

2001-2004 were an unqualified success from the front office. 2005-2008 are the "bad" years and even they aren't all bad. He's been knocking it out of the park since 2009.

You're off by a huge margin.

Turning point was actually summer of '03, although there the acquisition of Brad Miller was still a win. But in general that was still the summer we said goodbye to so much of our length and defense and started replacing it with stubby soft players. Of course the decline accelerated through the deconstruction, and was yes, VERY ****ty for a period of about 4 years as he flopped around trying to secure #8 seeds with various MLE veteran crap. Thing is though, when that changed about 3 years ago, it was not that he suddenly regained his ability to evaluate players, it was a blatant, and fairly dramatic, philosophical switch. One day he was thinking one way (I want old stubby, unathletic shooters!!), and killing the franchise in the process. The next he woke up and it was a whole new approach (let's go young, big, physical and competitive!). One that he has been able to execute very well. Why the stupidity there for the years in the mid 2000s I don't know. It was perfectly obvious to ME that he was ****ing up, and I was completely unafraid of saying so and challenging every stupid move from that era. It wasn't like they were grey area moves. They were dumb soul sapping moves. Again and again. And then the same man wakes up one day, and the excuses stop and he just sets about a true rebuild. And that's where Heugue's point falls down. You don't fire a guy who has been doing good work for you for years by saying "but you were crap back in 2005". He was crap. Now he's not. Hence firing him then would have been an option. Now? Makes no sense.

 

[Glenn]

And it depends on the Maloofs intrusion on the decision process.

 

[Warhawk]

And it depends on the Maloofs intrusion on the decision process.

Agreed. 100%.

 

[bajaden]

Agreed. 100%.

Which we don't know. Therefore we assume, and too often, those assumptions are based on personal bias. Unless one has all the facts, and those fact include the internal workings of the decision making at the time, its nothing more than a popularity contest and an exercise in futility.

 

[pshn80]

I like what Petrie has done here during the years. Mostly good moves and lots of smart moves. I want to keep him here because I don't trust anyone else to do as well, and, particularly, don't want to suffer fools, that is, people I'm not sure about. Someone offer to cut his lawn.

 

[Circa_1985_Fan]

Oh yeah, also in the Petrie 'down' years was John 'Sexy' Salmons...mediocre move I guess, when he started he was good, horrible his first year with us off the bench.

 

[PurpleHaze]

Now we hear (or ESPN reports) that Rick Adelman is interested in Portland GM postion.

 

[Heuge]

Like I said. Terrible math. You are literally claiming that signing Webber and trading for Bibby were "crap moves". Obtuse or ignorant?

2001-2004 were an unqualified success from the front office. 2005-2008 are the "bad" years and even they aren't all bad. He's been knocking it out of the park since 2009.

You're off by a huge margin.

2001 was the high point. It has been downhill since. Yes, good things happened but overall the moves have been horrible. The pseudo rebuild mode put in place with the Weber trade was downright awful, bang head on wall worthy.
I have no idea how one can call 2005-2008 anything other then pitiful. The Kings have been doormats much much longer then they should. The losing record speaks for itself. Its nice to see the rise again, but Petrie's lack of effectiveness has lingered on way too long. You want a better candidate to replace Petrie? Fine, Pritchard is out there.

oh, and we had Bibby in 2001.

 

[bajaden]

2001 was the high point. It has been downhill since. Yes, good things happened but overall the moves have been horrible. The pseudo rebuild mode put in place with the Weber trade was downright awful, bang head on wall worthy.
I have no idea how one can call 2005-2008 anything other then pitiful. The Kings have been doormats much much longer then they should. The losing record speaks for itself. Its nice to see the rise again, but Petrie's lack of effectiveness has lingered on way too long. You want a better candidate to replace Petrie? Fine, Pritchard is out there.

oh, and we had Bibby in 2001.

So, does this mean you don't like him?

 

[Capt. Factorial]

2001 was the high point. It has been downhill since. Yes, good things happened but overall the moves have been horrible. The pseudo rebuild mode put in place with the Weber trade was downright awful, bang head on wall worthy.
I have no idea how one can call 2005-2008 anything other then pitiful. The Kings have been doormats much much longer then they should. The losing record speaks for itself. Its nice to see the rise again, but Petrie's lack of effectiveness has lingered on way too long. You want a better candidate to replace Petrie? Fine, Pritchard is out there.

oh, and we had Bibby in 2001.

We acquired Bibby in 2001 - June 27th to be exact. And while the 2005-2008 period wasn't great, I think it might be a little late to say that Petrie's "lack of effectiveness" is lingering on. Evans, Cousins, trading Hawes and Nocioni for Dalembert, trading Landry for Thornton...and now money to spend this summer.

It's also widely believed that the slow rebuild which is obviously the worst part of Petrie's tenure was due to direction from ownership. The owners wanted to keep the ball rolling, so Petrie obliged and did what he could. Once the owners greenlighted the rebuild, he began it in earnest and we're on the way back up. The guy you want to replace Petrie was fired for insubordination, largely for offering a max contact extension to Brandon Roy when the ownership knew his bad knees would begin to dog his career. So basically, you want to send a good GM who can follow instructions packing so that you can bring in a good GM who has a history of not being able to follow instructions and getting fired for it. That sure sounds like a step down to me.

 

[rainmaker]

2001 was the high point. It has been downhill since. Yes, good things happened but overall the moves have been horrible. The pseudo rebuild mode put in place with the Weber trade was downright awful, bang head on wall worthy.
I have no idea how one can call 2005-2008 anything other then pitiful. The Kings have been doormats much much longer then they should. The losing record speaks for itself. Its nice to see the rise again, but Petrie's lack of effectiveness has lingered on way too long. You want a better candidate to replace Petrie? Fine, Pritchard is out there.

oh, and we had Bibby in 2001.

Every gm has his ups and downs. Part of the job. Petrie's lack of effectiveness? I really question how much you know about how the league works, and what a rebuild entails.

Ainge had some terrible years, before getting the big 3. Is he as bad of a gm as the Celtics record prior to 07 suggests, or is he as good a gm as their consecitive trips to the finals suggests? Miami barely made the playoffs before getting Lebron and Bosh. They have had a season or two with Wade, where they didn't make the playoffs. Does that make Riley a horrible gm. There record without Shaq, and pre-Lebron/Wade, is not too impressive. So is Riley a horrible gm, or is he phenomenal given Miami is heading to the finals? He let their record plummet, in order to clear cap space for signing the big 3. They weren't good for years. Going by your logic, Miami should have fired riley a few months before signing the big 3. Brilliant on your part.

Petrie has done similar. We have been bad while collecting some very good young talent, and clearing more cap space than any other team. Yet he's done nothing for you. Well, Riley didn't do anything but lose and clear cap space before signing the big 3. But you would have fired him before allowing him to follow through on his plan, and use the space he created. You would have cost Miami a shot at a ring.

You also seem clueless when it comes to how important collecting young talent is. We got Reke, the 2nd best player in that draft, with the 4th pick. We got Cousins, the 1st or 2nd best player in his draft, with the 5th pick. We traded KMart for Landry, and turned that into 20ppg thornton, plus cap space we haven't used yet. We arguably have 3 of the top 10 players taken in the last 2 drafts, with Reke/Cousins/Thornton. Horrible!

I'm not sure what little bubble you're living in, but in the real world, and the NBA, what Petrie did has to be done for future success. Take a look around, and name one single gm who hasn't had his ups and downs. I'll wait.

And Pritchard? That Roy contract is looking great right now isn't it? You do realize there is talk in Por at the moment of whether or not they will either buy out his contract, or ask Roy to retire, right?

 

[est.1999]

What a Heuge pile of crap.

 

[JJ22L]

We acquired Bibby in 2001 - June 27th to be exact. And while the 2005-2008 period wasn't great, I think it might be a little late to say that Petrie's "lack of effectiveness" is lingering on. Evans, Cousins, trading Hawes and Nocioni for Dalembert, trading Landry for Thornton...and now money to spend this summer.

It's also widely believed that the slow rebuild which is obviously the worst part of Petrie's tenure was due to direction from ownership. The owners wanted to keep the ball rolling, so Petrie obliged and did what he could. Once the owners greenlighted the rebuild, he began it in earnest and we're on the way back up. The guy you want to replace Petrie was fired for insubordination, largely for offering a max contact extension to Brandon Roy when the ownership knew his bad knees would begin to dog his career. So basically, you want to send a good GM who can follow instructions packing so that you can bring in a good GM who has a history of not being able to follow instructions and getting fired for it. That sure sounds like a step down to me.

I think this is the part a lot of people are missing. I am of the opinion that the Maloof's tied Petrie's hands in an attempt to keep the city's interest in the Kings (and ultimately profits) as high as possible.

But, I have absolutely no evidence to support this theory.

 

[Tetsujin]

I think this is the part a lot of people are missing. I am of the opinion that the Maloof's tied Petrie's hands in an attempt to keep the city's interest in the Kings (and ultimately profits) as high as possible.

But, I have absolutely no evidence to support this theory.

I have a fancy powerpoint presentation-giving coach who agrees with you.

 

[Heuge]

What a Heuge pile of crap.

Really???

It is ok to disagree and not be a chump. So I don't like what Petrie has done to my team. Can you blame me? The rebuild has sucked up until just recently, and the verdict is still out on this one. I do not buy the owners-made-me-do-it argument. He did not have to stay. He knew who he was working with.

To come at this discussion with an attitude of Petrie has been awesome and I have no doubts about him is shortsighted and naive. I simply do not get that sort of ignorance.

As an aside, this comment by the poster is not in the spirit of this website and I hope disrespect like this is not allowed.

 

[est.1999]

Take a joke man.

And instead of answering to me, why didn't you respond to what rainmaker said? Because he had a thorough and well written response that made a whole lot of sense to counter your weak argument.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

I do not buy the owners-made-me-do-it argument. He did not have to stay. He knew who he was working with.

Why don't you buy it?

Here, let me propose to you a scenario. You have worked your way up to the top of your field. You have acquired a job position which you enjoy, a position for which there are only a few dozen slots in the world and which is competitively sought after, and one that pays you multiple millions of dollars per year. In fact, you have recently signed a four-year contract extension. You believe your company should move in one direction, perhaps you are even prepared to implement that direction, but your bosses believe the company should move in a different direction. Do you:

A) Suck it up and follow your bosses' instructions for the meantime even though you believe your original plan will need to be implemented someday, but keep your dream job (Petrie Plan)
B) Go against your bosses wishes, implement your own plan, and get yourself fired from your dream job (Pritchard Plan)
C) Quit your dream job on a matter of principle (apparently, the Heuge Plan)

In all honesty, I pick A. I'm pretty sure most of us here would. I can't quite get how you find such a choice so unlikely that you don't buy it.

 

[The Hammer]

Just so everyone knows where I stand:

1. I think Heuge hasn't the dimmest clue about things in this regard.

2. I think Petrie is a very good GM, and if we fired him, we'd be lamenting it forever.

3. I also believe that while he may have made a few questionable moves, far and away the bulk of the mediocre lingering was due to the Maloofs having their hand in things.

To say that "our record speaks for itself" as a way of indicting Petrie shows a pre-kindergarten level of understanding of how the NBA works.

 

[bajaden]

Really???

It is ok to disagree and not be a chump. So I don't like what Petrie has done to my team. Can you blame me? The rebuild has sucked up until just recently, and the verdict is still out on this one. I do not buy the owners-made-me-do-it argument. He did not have to stay. He knew who he was working with.

Really! See, we both can do it. Are you living in the real world? Have you ever worked for someone, didn't agree with what they told you to do, and then just told them to shove it? If so, you've burned a lot of bridges in your life. I've had to swallow hard thousands of times in my life, and I'm sure most hard working folks out there have as well.

In the real world, your paid to do what the employer tells you to do. Thats the primary reason he's paying you. But you think Petrie, who has lived in sacramento for the last 15 or so years. Has a nice house and family, and is very happy in the community, should just up and quit, because the Maloof's decide to go in a different direction than he would go. What kind of idealistic, fairytale world do you live in? You don't like Petrie! We get that. I'm not totally thrilled with every move he's made either. But I just don't just cherry pick the things I don't like, and understate the things I do like, and then make assumptions on the things I don't know to be facts.

You want to assume, based on some fairytale notion you have about employee/employer relationships, that Petrie is solely responsible for every single decision, and particularly the decision to delay the rebuild. Well, you could be right. But the truth is, we don't know for sure, do we? I could assume, that if Petrie hadn't been there through that period, it might have even been worse. I could assume that Petrie might have talked the Maloofs out of a number of bad moves that they wanted to make. And my assumptions carry about as much weight as yours do. I can't prove mine, and you can't prove yours.

So I'll deal with what I do know. And the record speaks for itself. Is it the best record in the NBA. Probably not, but its far from the worse. We could have Kahn or Issiah Thomas. I don't like the Maloof's track record when it comes to hiring people. Theus was their choice. So was Musslehead. They're smitten by good fast talkers. Maybe because they themselves are salesmen. They disposed of Rick Adelman because he wasn't a vocal personality. He didn't socialize enough for the Maloof's. So the idea of them hiring another GM scares the hell out me. So be careful what you wish for. A lot of folks on this fourm wished for Adelman to be replaced. How'd that work out for you?

 

[Big Cuz 15]

How dare he draft Tyreke Evans, Demarcus Cousins, JT, and trade for Marcus Thornton and Samuel Dalembert all while simultaneously building up massive amounts of cap flexibility. I wish we had a genius like Kahn running our front office.

you. did. not. go. there. lol

 

[mr. moustache]

It just seems like a weird time to get publicly disgruntled with Petrie. Ask me if I want him fired in '08 and I say yes. Now?! Not at all.

I also don't blame the owners. It's too convenient to push his bad moves onto the Maloofs. The Artest/Bonzi team was interesting, the team was BORING until Tyreke showed up.

 

[Heuge]

Just so everyone knows where I stand:

1. I think Heuge hasn't the dimmest clue about things in this regard.

2. I think Petrie is a very good GM, and if we fired him, we'd be lamenting it forever.

3. I also believe that while he may have made a few questionable moves, far and away the bulk of the mediocre lingering was due to the Maloofs having their hand in things.

To say that "our record speaks for itself" as a way of indicting Petrie shows a pre-kindergarten level of understanding of how the NBA works.

I really don't get the need to insult my intelligence because I disagree with you. But if thats what you need to do to feel good about yourself, so be it. I do not think he has done a great job rebuilding this team. There are some legitimate reasons that should not be overlooked. The Kings have finished in the bottom 5 the last 4 years, and the 2 years previous to that, mediocrity had already set in. To blindly give this guy a free pass is odd. I really don't get it.

 

[Heuge]

Really! See, we both can do it. Are you living in the real world? Have you ever worked for someone, didn't agree with what they told you to do, and then just told them to shove it? If so, you've burned a lot of bridges in your life. I've had to swallow hard thousands of times in my life, and I'm sure most hard working folks out there have as well.

In the real world, your paid to do what the employer tells you to do. Thats the primary reason he's paying you. But you think Petrie, who has lived in sacramento for the last 15 or so years. Has a nice house and family, and is very happy in the community, should just up and quit, because the Maloof's decide to go in a different direction than he would go. What kind of idealistic, fairytale world do you live in? You don't like Petrie! We get that. I'm not totally thrilled with every move he's made either. But I just don't just cherry pick the things I don't like, and understate the things I do like, and then make assumptions on the things I don't know to be facts.

You want to assume, based on some fairytale notion you have about employee/employer relationships, that Petrie is solely responsible for every single decision, and particularly the decision to delay the rebuild. Well, you could be right. But the truth is, we don't know for sure, do we? I could assume, that if Petrie hadn't been there through that period, it might have even been worse. I could assume that Petrie might have talked the Maloofs out of a number of bad moves that they wanted to make. And my assumptions carry about as much weight as yours do. I can't prove mine, and you can't prove yours.

So I'll deal with what I do know. And the record speaks for itself. Is it the best record in the NBA. Probably not, but its far from the worse. We could have Kahn or Issiah Thomas. I don't like the Maloof's track record when it comes to hiring people. Theus was their choice. So was Musslehead. They're smitten by good fast talkers. Maybe because they themselves are salesmen. They disposed of Rick Adelman because he wasn't a vocal personality. He didn't socialize enough for the Maloof's. So the idea of them hiring another GM scares the hell out me. So be careful what you wish for. A lot of folks on this fourm wished for Adelman to be replaced. How'd that work out for you?

I think you make some reasonable points here. I totally agree that the Maloofs are poor at hiring and I fear what they would bring in instead of Petrie. (Though I think Pritchard is an excellent choice- you cannot blame him for Roy's injury).

I understand your argument about employee/ employer relationships. I also know that when I am responsible for a particular task with regard to my job, and I suck at it; I am accountable for that. But ultimately, you are right, "I can't prove mine, you cant prove yours." So we go back to the notion that the Maloofs hiring someone else is dangerous. I simply want to be the one that says, "Hold up, this guy is not a slam dunk GM, he has made some good choices, but unfortunately in the last, lets say 7 years, more of his personnel choices has been poor then good."

Lastly, I want him to succeed. I'm tired of my team sucking.