Hrm.. If Petrie is talking about drafting a Euro, the only two choices are SFs/SGs in Gallinari, and Batum.. Gallinari will most likely (95% chance) be drafted by the time we pick, and Batum I am not too fond of. He had a sub-par year in the Euro league.
He's been more hit-or-miss with the American-born players, as we seem to end up with three Tariq Abdul-Wahads for every Kevin Martin (or, at least, that's how it seems to me).
It's all well and to the good that Petrie puts so much attention/effort into scouting the European players. What I would be interested in knowing, however, is how much attention/effort Petrie and his staff put into scouting the players in Division I?
Let's see. There's Hawes, who looks like he will be better than TA-W. Kevin Martin. Francisco Garcia. Gerald Wallace. Jason Williams. Corliss Williamson. All of whom are better than TA-W
That leaves Quincy Douby as the only American-born player Petrie has drafted in the first round who has the potential to bust like Tariq. Every other one. So looks like our ratio is one bust (tops, assuming Douby busts) to three solid players, not the other way around.
In the first place, I went out of my way to say Petrie "and his staff" to make it clear that I'm not putting it all on Petrie alone. And, in the second place, I don't accept your "in the first round" qualifier. Good players go in the second round all the time. Arenas went in the second round, Rashard Lewis went in the second round. Bam-Boozer, too. Michael Redd, Mehmet Okur, Mo Williams, Paul Milsap, Cuttino Mobley... they all went in the second round, and I could go on. Why do we always get stuck with the Ryan Robertsons and Ricky Minards and Corsley Edwards of the world?
How many second round picks did we give up for nothing? Am I supposed to believe that, instead of blowing the 45th pick in 1999 on Robertson, that we couldn't have traded the 1999 second-rounder and the 2000 second rounder to get a higher pick in the second round of either of those drafts? We all know how averse The Great and Powerful Oz is to moving up in the draft, but maybe he might actually want to think about it once in a while: surely he can do better than trading a rotation player and two second-rounders in order to get a future second-rounder...
Or can he?
How many second round picks did we give up for nothing? Am I supposed to believe that, instead of blowing the 45th pick in 1999 on Robertson, that we couldn't have traded the 1999 second-rounder and the 2000 second rounder to get a higher pick in the second round of either of those drafts? We all know how averse The Great and Powerful Oz is to moving up in the draft, but maybe he might actually want to think about it once in a while: surely he can do better than trading a rotation player and two second-rounders in order to get a future second-rounder...
Or can he?
Michael Redd? Monta Ellis?Trade up to draft who? Calvin Booth? Michael Ruffin?
No, it's not two different arguments. Here's how it works: Petrie's staff scouts a kid, Petrie's staff recognizes that the kid may likely not be there at the Kings' pick, Petrie trades to move up in the draft. That's how you're supposed to do that there.Two completley different arguments. If you want to evaluate every trade and decide if it was worth giving up a second round pick, feel free. However, your point was that Petrie was not spending enough times evaluating American players because we weren't getting good players in the second round. My point stands that the only one we ever passed on in the second round was Mobley.
Michael Redd? Monta Ellis?
Well, actually, what I actually said was:In your post you suggested we trade the pick we use to draft Ryan Robertson and trade it along with the next year's pick to move up in that draft.
Are either of you trying to suggest that nobody was available in the early second round of either of those drafts? Am I meant to believe that Team A's 1999 2nd-rounder + Team A's 2000 2nd-rounder for Team B's 1999 2nd-rounder or Team B's 2000 2nd-rounder wouldn't have worked out? I'm sure that the Great and Powerful Oz has been doing this long enough to know that most teams, with very few exceptions, don't go from early lottery to mid/late first round in one season, so it makes sense that he could have traded with a team that was bad in 1999, and had a better than fifty-percent chance that that team was still going to be bad in 2000. So, the question becomes whether you believe he couldn't have, or whether you believe that he could have, but didn't. I lean towards the latter.Am I supposed to believe that, instead of blowing the 45th pick in 1999 on Robertson, that we couldn't have traded the 1999 second-rounder and the 2000 second rounder to get a higher pick in the second round of either of those drafts?
No, it's not two different arguments. Here's how it works: Petrie's staff scouts a kid, Petrie's staff recognizes that the kid may likely not be there at the Kings' pick, Petrie trades to move up in the draft. That's how you're supposed to do that there.
Now, maybe he tried to move up and couldn't, but Petrie lost benefit of the doubt with me a long time ago. I have no reason to believe he had a shot and didn't take it.
In the first place, I went out of my way to say Petrie "and his staff" to make it clear that I'm not putting it all on Petrie alone. And, in the second place, I don't accept your "in the first round" qualifier. Good players go in the second round all the time. Arenas went in the second round, Rashard Lewis went in the second round. Bam-Boozer, too. Michael Redd, Mehmet Okur, Mo Williams, Paul Milsap, Cuttino Mobley... they all went in the second round, and I could go on. Why do we always get stuck with the Ryan Robertsons and Ricky Minards and Corsley Edwards of the world?
Well, actually, what I actually said was:
Are either of you trying to suggest that nobody was available in the early second round of either of those drafts? Am I meant to believe that Team A's 1999 2nd-rounder + Team A's 2000 2nd-rounder for Team B's 1999 2nd-rounder or Team B's 2000 2nd-rounder wouldn't have worked out? I'm sure that the Great and Powerful Oz has been doing this long enough to know that most teams, with very few exceptions, don't go from early lottery to mid/late first round in one season, so it makes sense that he could have traded with a team that was bad in 1999, and had a better than fifty-percent chance that that team was still going to be bad in 2000. So, the question becomes whether you believe he couldn't have, or whether you believe that he could have, but didn't. I lean towards the latter.
This is false. He had picks in 1999 and 2000. He didn't trade them. You're expecting me to believe that he couldn't have gotten one high second-rounder in exchange for two mid/low second-rounders; I don't accept that premise. I contend that he could have done exactly that, and did not. Why he didn't is anyone's guess, but I don't skew towards the positive.If Petrie did not have a second round pick from a prior deal, he likely did not have the necessary resources to move up in the draft. Unless you are suggesting he traded a future first rounder in order to take a chance on a player in the second round.
I concede that my statement was hyperbole, but it was not an argument, it was an opinion. I said "it seems to me," I did not attempt to portray it as fact. I could have used the exact words "in my opinion," but "it seems to me" is semantically equivalent. So chalk it up to piksimism, I guess, but I stand by the principle notion of my opinion, even if it is hyperbole.I get that you do not like Petrie, but you are really taking blind pot shots at him here. Your original argument that we draft 3 Wahad's (i.e. busts) for every one Martin (i.e. good picks) has slowly eroded into Petrie should have made trades to move up in the second round, with resources the team may or may not have had.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that 1) I needed to do your homework for you, or 2) that you were going to no-sell the statement if I didn't name enough players. So, okay, here's a few players, some good, some not so good, but all of whom are rotation players that were acquired in the second round with a traded draft pick:BTW, not one of the players you mentioned was acquired with a traded pick. So this argument also amounts to the fact that Petrie is an idiot for poossibly not trying to make the moves that no other GM in the entire leauge made.
This is false. He had picks in 1999 and 2000. He didn't trade them. You're expecting me to believe that he couldn't have gotten one high second-rounder in exchange for two mid/low second-rounders; I don't accept that premise. I contend that he could have done exactly that, and did not. Why he didn't is anyone's guess, but I don't skew towards the positive
You say that he may or may not have had the resources, but Petrie made picks in the second round of the 1999 and 2000 drafts, which were not acquired through trades. Whether or not he had the resources is undisputed; he had them.
COLOR=#008080]While you did mention you wanted up to trade up from the R. Robertson slot in '99, the greater debate was about Petrie moving up in general and the players you had mentioned earlier came from a number of years. For many of the players and years other than '99-'00 the Kings did not have secound round picks as they were thrown into other deals. Unless your suggesting that Petrie should have traded those 99'/'00 picks for a second rounder 4-5 years later to get Monta Ellis. In that case I will concede that Petrie's scouting of 7th-8th graders leaves a lot to be desired.[/COLOR]
I concede that my statement was hyperbole, but it was not an argument, it was an opinion. I said "it seems to me," I did not attempt to portray it as fact. I could have used the exact words "in my opinion," but "it seems to me" is semantically equivalent. So chalk it up to piksimism, I guess, but I stand by the principle notion of my opinion, even if it is hyperbole.
I'm not holding you to a strict 3-1 standard here. But you essentially challenged Petrie saying that he had a bad draft record with more busts than successes. When you put it on a board like this you can expect for people to ask you to back up that up with some facts. Your current explanationof that notion is now based around trades we supposedly should have made with non-existing assets for more 2nd round picks. Fine, you are entitled to your opinion.[/FONT]
.I'm sorry, I didn't realize that 1) I needed to do your homework for you, or 2) that you were going to no-sell the statement if I didn't name enough players. So, okay, here's a few players, some good, some not so good, but all of whom are rotation players that were acquired in the second round with a traded draft pick:
Daniel Gibson
Ryan Hollins
Royal Ivey
Chris Duhon
Luke Walton
Dan Gadzuric
Luis Scola * yeah, I know San Antonio traded him without even playing him, but he technically counts.
Earl Watson
Eddie House
Oh, and since I'm sure you're getting ready to no-sell this by saying "big deal, none of those guys are stars," I'd also like to point out that your claim of none of the guys I've named in previous posts were taken with traded picks is false: Rashard Lewis was acquired with a pick that they got from Detroit in a trade.
And, while I'm on the subject (and, no, I'm not saying that Petrie is the only GM guilty of this, but he's the only one *I* care about), Brad Miller went undrafted the same year that we took Jerome James with the 36th pick. Raja Bell went undrafted the year we took Ryan Robertson with the 45th. Ime Udoka went undrafted the year we took Jabari Smith with the 45th. Carlos Arroyo, Charlie Bell, Maurice Evans and Jamario Moon went undrafted the year we took Maurice Jeffers with the 55th. Devin Brown, Reggie Evans, Udonis Haslem and Janerro Pargo went undrafted the year we took Corsley Edwards with the 58th.
Oh, I forgot, when Petrie drops the ball, it's always "well, other GM's did, too!" Man, I hope you're not a defense attorney..