Talent evaluation is an organization's job. Scouts, GM's, sometimes coaches, they all have a hand in it. Advance scouts probably make the initial observation after players have been pinpointed. GM's make the final call on the draft pick...at least for most organizations.
Geoff Petrie
- Thread starter Kingzrool
- Start date
Talent evaluation is an organization's job. Scouts, GM's, sometimes coaches, they all have a hand in it. Advance scouts probably make the initial observation after players have been pinpointed. GM's make the final call on the draft pick...at least for most organizations.
Don't mean to nitpick, but I believe the Pacers signed Peja to that contract. May have been a sign-and-trade...
It might have been a sign and trade.....don't think it was......but that was on NO and their GM.
You are right. He's as good as there is in the NBA. Putting Pritchard and Bowers into elite status is a stretch at this point.....but Pritchard has something cooking in Portland.
How do you measure "better"? Wasn't Michael Jordan "better" than Karl Malone because of the titles? Success is how you measure how good someone is, in most fields. I mean, we can open up a whole 'nother can of worms here, but I'd say that "more successful" is pretty much right there with "better". Maybe not synonymous, but just about.
Secondly, I didn't mention 13 years with nothing to show. I made the point that Geoff has been running the show for 13 years, and he is responsible for what we have on our hands right now. He didn't inherit this mess. He signed SAR, he signed Moore, he traded for Kenny F. Thomas (a more flexible piece, mind you), etc. The fact that we are 15-23 with no cap space and discernible plan for the future is due to the fact that Geoff Petrie put us here. I am talking about the here and now; you're hanging on to the past, as if the fact that he built a contender FIVE YEARS AGO means that he can/is going to do it again. It doesn't. It doesn't mean anything except that he built a contender FIVE YEARS AGO.
He also let the damn thing fall the hell apart.
I give Geoff all the credit in the world for taking us as far as he could. But if he's going to accept that credit, he has to accept the blame for where we are right now. Doesn't matter if he can spot a diamond in the rough; we're 15-23, getting ready to miss the playoffs for a second straight year, and the "R" word hasn't escaped his lips not once. If we have to accept the good with the bad, then so does Geoff.
And that would be the case even if we'd won the championship in '02 and/03. Because we'd still suck now, and we'd still be in a sucky situation now. If Webber doesn't go down, then maybe we don't implode the way we did, but then what? We're building around 38 year old Chris Webber? Does Kevin Martin ever get minutes? Does Peja stick around after his contract expires? That's too many ifs.
All we can deal with is the reality, and the reality is that, even though we were once good, we're not any more. I'd have to take my shoes off to count the number of bad teams in the NBA with no shot at the title this year that will be better than us next year because they had the balls to start over and do it right. [/hyperbole] Can't live on yesterday forever. Tomorrow starts today. Unless you're Geoff Petrie, I guess.
Last edited:
Kingster
Hall of Famer
Mr. Ad Hoc
Excellent analysis. Petrie is Mr. Ad Hoc, not Mr. Vision. If he could get a good 32 yr old guy with 3 yrs left on his contract by the Feb trade deadline, he'd probably do it. Really, when you think about it, the team we have now, including Bibby and Artest, are taking Petrie's ad hoc approach to an absurd extreme in which too few minutes are there for too many players of the same type. Now, even Petrie should be able to "see" it. Unfortunately, the teams that he's discussing potential trades with will also see it.
Excellent analysis. Petrie is Mr. Ad Hoc, not Mr. Vision. If he could get a good 32 yr old guy with 3 yrs left on his contract by the Feb trade deadline, he'd probably do it. Really, when you think about it, the team we have now, including Bibby and Artest, are taking Petrie's ad hoc approach to an absurd extreme in which too few minutes are there for too many players of the same type. Now, even Petrie should be able to "see" it. Unfortunately, the teams that he's discussing potential trades with will also see it.
Superman - So are you saying Petrie is bad because he couldn't keep us at the top indefinitely? Every team has ebbs and flows. That's reality. We were good, now we're not. That's reality. And it's also reality that the same can be said at various times of virtually every team in the league. Why is it that Petrie has to be demonized for being part of a natural cycle? I honestly just don't understand...
Heuge
Starter
He has made bad choices during that cyclical processes.
It's like I said before, there is no "natural cycle". It takes hard work, good decisions, guts and some luck. It's not natural to win in professional sports. That's why so many people lose.
And, again, I am not one of the people who thinks that Geoff Petrie has to go. I just don't think his past achievements should keep him labeled as a "top tier," "elite," "genius" GM, in spite of the fact that his team is in a bad salary cap situation, doesn't have a whole lot of spare talent, and has no discernible plan for the future. I think that, if we're going to look at how good we were, we have to also look at how bad we are. And we're pretty doggone bad, man.
No franchise player. No budding big men (necessary for a title run). No high draft picks in nine years (Jason Williams). No trades to make us better in four years (Brad Miller for Pollard and Turkoglu). No extended playoff runs in four years ('04, second round, Timberwolves). No playoffs in two years. No cap room for two years. I mean, what's the silver lining? Kevin Martin? I like him, but he's not a player that you build around. He's a complementary piece; a good one, no doubt, but not a franchise player by any stretch of the imagination.
Why should I believe that Geoff Petrie is one of the best GMs in the League because he once built a contender? So did Pat Riley. Now look at the Heat. They're in a bad situation also, but they have a #1 in Wade. We don't.
I don't agree that this is "ebb and flow". I think that, due to lack of action on Geoff's part (with some restraint from the Maloofs, I'll grant you that), we are now one of the worst teams in the NBA. He has to accept the blame for that, the same as he gets credit for the glory years.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Or perhaps choose not to in this case?
In any case, you yourself have routinely expressed the problematic must-not-rebuild attitude that is the source of so much angst, so I ssupect you have some insight here. But you're just a fan. Such an attitude is more understandable. But Geoff...
You are correct that every team in the league gets bad. Every team. The issue is, and the distinction is, the lack of preparation for and planning for that phase. Every team gets bad, but Geoff acts like this is a new concept to him. Getting bad IS part of the life cycle....which is precisely why it has to be accepted and planned for and maximized just like the good years. Geoff has performed like the family breadwinner that had a good job, but never saved for the future, never bought life insurance, and never made out a will. Too scared to face his, and our, mortality.
Ironically it is fans on the must-not-rebuild side who threaten mutiny over this, but the Kings could be very bad right now and Geoff Petrie could be smelling like roses. If the bad was done right. If we were getting the things out of it we needed to be good. We are not. We are bad, without gaining any of the advantages that normally come from being bad (cap room, high draft picks etc.). It is truly the worst of both worlds.
I could easily construct a scenario where we won 21 games total this year and yet Geoff was doing a brilliant job. Its not about losing. Its about how you go about it.
Last edited:
Kingzrool
Starter
You have not really addressed any of my points in this post.
Or this one.
I did.
Just because you think this team is fun to watch, are happy when they win doesn't mean that you can't see the big picture and are in a must-not-rebuild mode. I agree that it has to be done. But, this is now, this is the team we have until changes are hopefully made and I am going to make the best of it.
Warhawk was right (and I said so months ago in another Petrie thread) when he said we REALLY DON'T KNOW what transpires in Petrie's office.
Still, I am still trying to see what Mikki Moore is doing to help in any way. That was a bad signing, in my opinion. Annie.
Warhawk was right (and I said so months ago in another Petrie thread) when he said we REALLY DON'T KNOW what transpires in Petrie's office.
Still, I am still trying to see what Mikki Moore is doing to help in any way. That was a bad signing, in my opinion. Annie.
Kingzrool
Starter
Okay.
I measure better not by success, but by who is better. Please do not tell me that you do not understand that those who are best at things are not necessarily the most successfull. Success is as much about opportunity and timing than skill and most anyone knows that.
I would argue that there are hundreds of people out there in this world that would make better GM's of NBA teams than anyone that actually is, except they never had the opportunity to develope or showcase that particular skill.
My point was that you did not acknowledge that he basically did as much as any GM could to make his team a contender. Or that the natural cycle is that after you are great, you have to suck. You cannot remain great. He made the team really, really great. After teams are great they have to suck.
You disregarded that they were ever great AND that because of that they now have to suck.
I still do not see several of my points addressed. Like the Maloofs expectations as an EMPLOYER and others.
I measure better not by success, but by who is better. Please do not tell me that you do not understand that those who are best at things are not necessarily the most successfull. Success is as much about opportunity and timing than skill and most anyone knows that.
I would argue that there are hundreds of people out there in this world that would make better GM's of NBA teams than anyone that actually is, except they never had the opportunity to develope or showcase that particular skill.
My point was that you did not acknowledge that he basically did as much as any GM could to make his team a contender. Or that the natural cycle is that after you are great, you have to suck. You cannot remain great. He made the team really, really great. After teams are great they have to suck.
You disregarded that they were ever great AND that because of that they now have to suck.
I still do not see several of my points addressed. Like the Maloofs expectations as an EMPLOYER and others.
Last edited:
These discussions always come down to this, and they kind of have to, since we have little idea what goes on between Petrie and the Maloofs. And, once we acknowledge that, it becomes very unclear who should get credit or blame for various things. Which makes the notion of either giving Petrie props, or saying that he doesn't deserve any, kind of hard to defend. All we know for sure is that the front office's performance was stellar for a while, but has been very uninspiring for several years. And what we can decisively say about the situation pretty much ends right there.
I wholeheartedly agree - but if we limit our conversations to "what we can decisively say" it's gonna be pretty quiet around here.
I wholeheartedly agree - but if we limit our conversations to "what we can decisively say" it's gonna be pretty quiet around here.
True. But the alternative is to have endless discussions, where neither side knows for sure what they're talking about, and where the lack of clear information makes final resolution of the debate impossible.
I'm waiting for someone to write a tell-all book about the secret goings on in Arco, so that we'll have a third, non-sucky option.
Then how do you determine who is good? Just by how good they are? You can't define a term with the same term.
By your explanation, being successful is half luck. If it's "as much about opportunity and timing than skill", then why does it matter who the GM is? When the opportunities present themselves, anyone can jump on them. Why keep Geoff? Why defend him? That means the team was a contender just because he had opportunities; we're bad because there are no oportunities.
I'm stretching it, but that's essentially what you're saying. I disagree. I think you measure who's good by the success they have. That's why the best are generally successful. The best business people are successful, and that's why they're the best. The best players are successful, and that's why they're the best. You can plug this formula into any field, position, job, etc.
And, by the way, that doesn't mean that just because the Kings didn't win a championship that Geoff wasn't successful. He did have some success, and I never look over that success. I just don't see why it's necessary to mention and acknowledge his past successes before we can criticize his recent failures.
Obviously the Maloofs are satisfied, or else Geoff would be unemployed. I don't see that as a justification for the fact that the team Geoff built sucks and there's no discernible framework for building us back up.
I don't know what else really matters other than that. We're bad right now, and as Brick mentioned, the bad isn't being done right. We're in a rut, more than anything else, and until someone decides to swallow the pill and take a couple of steps backward so we can go forward, we're going to stay in this rut. This "not good enough to contend, not bad enough to improve" rut. It's been four years now.
This isn't the AP. This is a fan message board. It's not our job to be decisive.
Ah, but we can certainly discuss whether or not we need to be decisive.
Ad nauseum, even.
kingsfan101
Starter
They certainly are on a downslide. They are still a very good team, but no longer the elite they were for two years, one, when they won the title, and the next, when they lost a close series to SA.
After that, they have been a good regular season team, but have imploded in the playoffs. Being in the East, they have still done well. Out West, it wouldn't have surprised anyone if they had even lost in the first round an year or two.
They are looking good this year though.
Balloonjuice. They have not been considered any worse than one of the five-best in the league since 2003, and have been the ONLY team in the eastern conference to be considered a legitimate title contender for that whole span of time. That's elite.
They're considered by pretty much anyone with a reputable opinion in basketball to be one of the top 2 or 3 teams in the league right now, and the front runner to make the Finals from the east. That ain't no downslide.
kingsfan101
Starter
That's the point. Being in the East has masked their relative downslide. Again, I am not saying that they are a bad team. They are a very good team, and this year too are looking good.
That said, had they been out West, would it have really surprised anyone if they lost in the first round to someone like Spurs, Mavs, Suns, or even Jazz or Lakers? That would hardly qualify as elite.
AleksandarN
Starter
You know the more I think of it the clearly it is to me. Petrie trying to be completive in the short term instead of biting the bullet and rebuilding might of been due to the Maloofs. It could be possible the Maloofs not wanting to rebuild especially with the arena thing going still and problems they had with getting a new TV contract. The Maloofs wanting to stay completive in short term to easier reach their personal goals.
If that's the point, then the point was poorly argued.
Yes. I would have been astonished if they had lost to anyone in the west between 2003 and 2007, other than the Spurs, and possibly the Mavericks. The Suns are so overrated it's not even funny, and the Jazz and Lakers have only even been relevant in the last season.
kingsfan101
Starter
Hmm. This is what I had written originally.
"They certainly are on a downslide. They are still a very good team, but no longer the elite they were for two years, one, when they won the title, and the next, when they lost a close series to SA.
After that, they have been a good regular season team, but have imploded in the playoffs. Being in the East, they have still done well. Out West, it wouldn't have surprised anyone if they had even lost in the first round an year or two.
They are looking good this year though."
How is it different than my later posting? You can disagree with it, but I certainly don't see the need for a snide remark.
Here again we disagree. I too think that the Suns are overrated, but over the last two years, they were good enough to beat the Pistons. Also, last year in particular, I think both Jazz and Lakers could have beaten them.
For two years, they were very very good. Since they hired Flip as a coach though, they have gone down a notch (third season now, I think), especially in the playoffs. Let's see how they do this year.
I didn't say it was different; I said it was poorly argued. I stand by that, whether you think it was snide or not.
The Suns would not have beaten the Pistons. Neither would the Lakers. And especially not the Jazz. And the Pistons did go down a notch; they hired an inferior coach. And even that no longer appears to be a handicap for them.
Jerryaki
Starter
but by that reasoning, are you implying that if the spurs, mavs, or suns somehow met in the first round and lost, that the losing team is not elite??
kennadog
Dog On It!
I do strongly think the Maloofs have resisted the idea of a real rebuilding process. They still seem to be resisting a real blow it up rebuild, when you hear them talk.
kupman
Starter
There is more than the rebuild vs. not re-build perspectives. I think that I may be in a very small minority that believes the Kings have been "rebuilding" for several years now and I actually like what I see. I think we could be good in the next 1-3 years and very good after that. Martin, Cisco, Hawes and perhaps even Beno and Douby make a decent group of young guys being coached by a young coach who seems to know where he wants the team to go and how to get them there. I think we are only 1 good PF away from being a very good team.
Note: I don't really like the term "rebuild" because I just think it means "we aren't very good, but are trying to get better."
Note: I don't really like the term "rebuild" because I just think it means "we aren't very good, but are trying to get better."
Similar threads
