Greg Oden?

[hrdboild]

One note? You said they should have been transparent. I think they have been. It was pointed out by either Vivek or Malone (I forget which) that it wasn't going to be about wins and losses at first. It was about changing the culture.

We're all Kings fans. Some of us are just more willing to let the process evolve while others want tangible proof of change right away. I don't think it makes any of us right or wrong.

Yeah, I remember that quote, I just read it differently. I thought bringing in a defensive coach, defensive role-players, and making playing time contingent on your willingness to work hard on defense were all ways to change the culture. I didn't think that comment was implying that they were going to let our second best player leave, trade for one of the worst defensive PGs in the league, and make their only big free agent signing a retread PF who was here a couple years ago and is notable for being both selfish with the ball and a poor defender. Changing the culture to me meant "we probably won't be making substantial changes to the team, but we're building things the right way and focusing on defense". I was all for that. It just looks to me right now like we're actually moving in the opposite direction -- making big changes which do not show a willingness to improve the defense and letting talent leave without compensation.

 

[HndsmCelt]

If popular sentiment is correct, that the front office is positioning the team for the 2014 draft, I feel for coach Malone. Trying to develop team play and young talent is hard enough on it's own, but it will MUCH harder with a bottom of the league loosing record, that is part of what we have been watching the past 4 years. Developing DMC's game with limited talent around him will be a Sisyfusian task I would not wish on any one. In short to distort the quote from Einstein "you can not simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." We can either loose games or build a team this year. We can not do both.

 

[VF21]

Yeah, I remember that quote, I just read it differently. I thought bringing in a defensive coach, defensive role-players, and making playing time contingent on your willingness to work hard on defense were all ways to change the culture. I didn't think that comment was implying that they were going to let our second best player leave, trade for one of the worst defensive PGs in the league, and make their only big free agent signing a retread PF who was here a couple years ago and is notable for being both selfish with the ball and a poor defender. Changing the culture to me meant "we probably won't be making substantial changes to the team, but we're building things the right way and focusing on defense". I was all for that. It just looks to me right now like we're actually moving in the opposite direction -- making big changes which do not show a willingness to improve the defense and letting talent leave without compensation.

We will certainly have to agree to disagree on this part. I firmly believe Evans is gone because TPTB decided to build the team around DMC, and not split the attention. And we didn't lose Evans for nothing. We did get Vasquez in return, and I'm anxious to see how he plays for us.

We both want the same thing for our Kings. I guess once again I'm just willing to be a little more patient before deciding whether these initial steps will prove to be beneficial.

 

[VF21]

Indeed, you added that comment while I was responding to your first one so I believe I inaccurately linked the two together instead of realizing that the two comments were made to different posters. I withdraw what I said about being facetious or argumentative, my mistake. But on the one hand you're saying that the team has shown a commitment to spending money (which we haven't spent, conveniently enough, so everyone is free to draw their own conclusions there) but on the other hand you're saying that we should give them time to see how they plan to change the roster when there's nothing available now in free agency and we spent the most active period of the off-season talking to people and getting nothing substantial done. I even said in my post that nobody can judge this front office on hypothetical moves that haven't been made yet, only what's transpired so far. And that's what we're looking at here.

About Igoudala, there was no preconceived narrative. It's just my understanding of the situation. You can go back and read what I said at the time if you like. I thought the knee jerk reaction to pull the offer so fast was a useless PR stunt which made us look bad. Upon further reflection, looking at the connection between Igoudala and D'Alessandro and at Igoudala's comments after the fact, I changed my mind. I now think it was Pete doing a favor for Igoudala. You don't have to agree, that's just how I see it. So to me that move in no way relates to our willingness to spend money because the money was never actually on the table. And our subsequent decision to let Tyreke go and let Salmon's contract remain on the books and let Outlaw waste a spot on the bench indicates to me the exact opposite. Salmons was an easy decision -- is he helping the team? No. Can we find better ways to spend that cap space? Yes. Is there any reason not to amnesty him? Save a few million on his contract buyout next year. Pretty cut and dried.

With Larry Bird, I think it's pretty obvious that money was an issue in that situation. He wanted $5m a year and a small ownership share. We told him get lost, and he did. He took his executive of the year, coach of the year, hall of fame player experience back to Indiana and we got a rookie GM from Denver for a fraction of the price instead.

I'm not saying that they won't be willing to spend money in the future, just that so far -- in this off-season -- what Brick said above is accurate. There's nothing about this off-season which is inconsistent with what we saw from Petrie and the Maloofs in the past. Inexperienced and inexpensive coach, no major free agent signings, no draft movement, and stop gap trades to fill holes rather than longterm commitment to talent. Please don't read into any of this some kind of "sky is falling, it's all terrible" nonsense. We've been over that so many times already and that's not really what I'm saying. It's really just an expression of concern that, so far, what we've seen is more of the same and more of the same is not what this team needs to get better.

Larry Bird was never going to sign anywhere but Indiana. He may have been curious and tested the waters, but there was really no doubt where he'd end up.

People seem so willing to think that just because we make an offer to someone it's a failure if they do not accept. It's not.

 

[VF21]

But none of that really relates to basketball genius. There's book smarts, and there's street smarts. Vivek seems to have both. PDA might just be a book smart sort of guy.

Hey, I'm sure they have a grand plan. Whether it worked or not remains to be seen. Is everything we're seeing the result of "Plan B?" Did they expect things to be a lot easier in Sacramento during this off-season? We haven't a clue. I don't think anyone is really judging the "genius" of the FO, but judging the results of their basketball-related moves thus far, which certainly can be called into question. Landry really makes no sense, given what we already have at that position. Again, not questioning intelligence here, but questioning basketball related moves.

Anyway, we're currently bringing in middle-to-lower level talent under the guise (or reality) of "changing the culture." That's the mantra. I'm totally with that, this culture needs changing, but to assume that "changing the culture" means only removing Evans seems suspicious. Was Evans a locker cancer? Hardly. He never really said anything when he was jerked around. (Again, I don't want to make this another Evans discussion, but it currently fits my overall narrative.) If you're really looking to change the culture, you don't just keep adding players, you remove as well. Are you looking to "change the culture" in terms of the way a team plays? Then there should have been a bit more of a purge with regards to "me first" players. If the team, for example, jettisoned Thornton and IT as their first move (somehow - I'm not here to argue the particulars) and replaced them with a post player early in free agency, then you could say, "yeah, they're looking to change the culture to a defensive one." We just keep adding without subtracting.

My honest guess? They thought it would be easier. They thought McLemore would be more ready. They thought free agency would be a little easier. They thought they would be able to wheel and deal with some extras on this team for some extras on another team. But it hasn't been easy. They've whiffed on two of their Plan A guys (regardless of how the details went, they whiffed on AI and Calderon), which would have been the quick turnaround, and are now likely headed to Plan B, which is the longer term. This plan sucks as a fan, but that's what we're relegated to have to deal with this year.

Last bit: I don't think that ANY front office would dare tell their fans, "hey, we're going to suck this year." That would be a slap in the face to the fans as well as the current players on the team, some of which they might want to retain after this year. However, if you read the tea leaves, it seems they have said as much, depending on your point of view.

As it stands, there are probably, once again, only two players I would consider keeping on this roster. At the end of the year, there might be four, depending on how Vasquez pans out. I think someone already pointed out that there shouldn't be that many players on contract at the end of next year (with Landry being one of them...yeesh), so there's that, which also points towards my thought that the FO is actively involved in Plan B.

We're barely two months into the new ownership. I'm sure they have a lot of plans for the future of the team but you don't right years of wrongs in one fell swoop for the simple reason it takes two teams to make trades, and interest by both a player and a team to make a deal out of free agency. This is gonna be a work in process for at least a couple of years. Trying to judge them now is just not logical IMHO. I think the one thing we do know for sure is that they're bringing in players of character, guys who don't have criminal records or poor work ethics or a plethora of the other problems that have plagued us in recent years. We kept a "Problem" because our front office has faith in his talent to give him every opportunity to succeed. I think that's what they meant by changing the culture. Bring in players of good character and you establish an atmosphere of team play and success.

 

[sdballer]

We will certainly have to agree to disagree on this part. I firmly believe Evans is gone because TPTB decided to build the team around DMC, and not split the attention. And we didn't lose Evans for nothing. We did get Vasquez in return, and I'm anxious to see how he plays for us.

We both want the same thing for our Kings. I guess once again I'm just willing to be a little more patient before deciding whether these initial steps will prove to be beneficial.

I'm genuinely perplexed by this argument. What does splitting attention between your two most talented players mean and how does it count as a strategy, especislly in a market with massive challenges attracting talent? I mean that question in all seriousness as I've seen it brought up a lot.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

We will certainly have to agree to disagree on this part. I firmly believe Evans is gone because TPTB decided to build the team around DMC, and not split the attention. And we didn't lose Evans for nothing. We did get Vasquez in return, and I'm anxious to see how he plays for us.

Maybe it's me, but every time I read something on this message board along the lines of "build the team around Cousins," I feel like I'm reading in some subtext of "and they wanted to avoid the potential for a Shaq/Kobe situation." Which confuses me, since I never saw so much as the faintest hint that anything remotely like that was likely to happen, ever.

Building around Cousins is all well, and to the good, but unless Cousins is capable of becoming Prime Olajuwon, we can't just have Cousins; and, even Prime Olajuwon didn't win a championship until the G.O.A.T. took a sabbatical from the game so, unless the plan is to wait until LeBron retires, Superman needs a Batman. And probably a Robin, too. Who's supposed to be Batman on this team? MacLemore? Thornton? Someone please tell me that we're not really going all-in on Andrew Wiggins! There are a couple dozen very astute posters on this message board; one of you please assure me that that isn't the master plan!

ISTM that there aren't many, if any, perimeter players we'd be capable of getting who are better suited, both in terms of talent and temperament, to be a "building block" to place around DeMarcus Cousins than Tyreke Evans. Obviously TPTB didn't want him as part of the Kings' future, and that's fine, but I am incapable of being convinced that it was because they want to build a team around Cousins, because a team built around Cousins should, reasonably, have Evans on it.

And that's what it comes down to, for me, anyway. I won't presume to speak for anyone else who still continues to stump for Evans but, for my part, I don't accept the "reason given" for why he's gone at face value. And I'm not going to. So, I'm probably going to keep "picking the scab," so to speak, until I hear an acceptable explanation. Or, at the very least, a better one than that. They let Evans walk because they want to build a team around Cousins? Really? Hell, I'd sooner believe that they let him go because they didn't like his PowerPoint presentation than that.

 

[VF21]

I'm genuinely perplexed by this argument. What does splitting attention between your two most talented players mean and how does it count as a strategy, especislly in a market with massive challenges attracting talent? I mean that question in all seriousness as I've seen it brought up a lot.

My take - and it is only my take - is that both Tyreke Evans and Demarcus Cousins are players who work best as the primary focus. I have said elsewhere that it is my observation that Evans and Cousins seem to be the best when the other is not on the court. It is merely my observation and not something I have tried to justify with a lot of stats, etc. The front office made the decision to anoint Cousins as the centerpiece and keystone player for the franchise. Once that decision was made, it was pretty clear that Evans would not be retained. Is it the right decision? I have no idea but if I had to choose between DMC and Evans to build my team around, I would have made the same decision.

Again, I'm just guessing. Vivek doesn't include me in his strategy meetings.

 

[hrdboild]

Larry Bird was never going to sign anywhere but Indiana. He may have been curious and tested the waters, but there was really no doubt where he'd end up.

People seem so willing to think that just because we make an offer to someone it's a failure if they do not accept. It's not.

I think he was reluctant to take a GM offer anywhere but Indiana, which is why he asked for so much. But if we did agree to pay him what he wanted I think he would have come here. That's the bottom line for Sacramento -- if you want to sign talent you have to overpay. It's always been this way. It's not a big market, it doesn't promise a lot of media exposure, most Americans probably can't even point out Sacramento on a map. People who are from the area seem to like it a lot anyway, but well I guess you could say the same thing about Indiana in this case. If you really want somebody and they have no ties to the area than you have to overpay. I'm not surprised Igoudala signed somewhere else for less, for instance. But I am surprised that we didn't even make him a serious offer. And the same goes for Larry. He was not only the best GM candidate available by far, he's one of the best GMs in the league period, not to mention a name that people in basketball respect when he gets them on the line. That would have been a huge win for us.

I know it's a tough situation, you also have the salary cap to worry about. It's not necessarily the results that I'm unhappy about, the mindset itself seems questionable in regards to who we targeted, who we didn't target, who we offered money to and how big those offers were. We all have certain biases in regards to how we think a team should be built. I often disagreed with Petrie's decisions for this reason. So starting over with a blank slate I'd hoped maybe there was a chance at a fresh perspective. So far it doesn't look like that's in the cards.

It doesn't have to be a good cop, bad cop kind of thing though. I mean, I'm still optimistic that things will work out one way or another. I'm just critical of what I've seen so far. And it was painfully evident these past four years with Evans that the development time lost to incompetent management/coaching was a huge factor in stalling his progress and that of the team as a whole. I'd hate to see the same thing happen with Cousins and McLemore. Sure the draft is nice and all, but at some point we have to look after the players we already have and that means developing a winning culture now, not waiting for next season. Just my 2c.

 

[VF21]

I think he was reluctant to take a GM offer anywhere but Indiana, which is why he asked for so much. But if we did agree to pay him what he wanted I think he would have come here. That's the bottom line for Sacramento -- if you want to sign talent you have to overpay. It's always been this way. It's not a big market, it doesn't promise a lot of media exposure, most Americans probably can't even point out Sacramento on a map. People who are from the area seem to like it a lot anyway, but well I guess you could say the same thing about Indiana in this case. If you really want somebody and they have no ties to the area than you have to overpay. I'm not surprised Igoudala signed somewhere else for less, for instance. But I am surprised that we didn't even make him a serious offer. And the same goes for Larry. He was not only the best GM candidate available by far, he's one of the best GMs in the league period, not to mention a name that people in basketball respect when he gets them on the line. That would have been a huge win for us.

I know it's a tough situation, you also have the salary cap to worry about. It's not necessarily the results that I'm unhappy about, the mindset itself seems questionable in regards to who we targeted, who we didn't target, who we offered money to and how big those offers were. We all have certain biases in regards to how we think a team should be built. I often disagreed with Petrie's decisions for this reason. So starting over with a blank slate I'd hoped maybe there was a chance at a fresh perspective. So far it doesn't look like that's in the cards.

It doesn't have to be a good cop, bad cop kind of thing though. I mean, I'm still optimistic that things will work out one way or another. I'm just critical of what I've seen so far. And it was painfully evident these past four years with Evans that the development time lost to incompetent management/coaching was a huge factor in stalling his progress and that of the team as a whole. I'd hate to see the same thing happen with Cousins and McLemore. Sure the draft is nice and all, but at some point we have to look after the players we already have and that means developing a winning culture now, not waiting for next season. Just my 2c.

I don't really disagree with anything you've said. I'm not going to make what I think are assessments based on incomplete data. I fully understand that some feel they have enough info to make a preliminary judgment. I'm just not there yet.

As far as Bird is concerned, I read a lot of stuff over at PacersDigest, and I do not think Bird would have signed here. AND, I do not see Vivek and co. setting a precedent by granting a small ownership share as a condition of employment, no matter who they were negotiating with.

 

[Double-K]

Maybe it's me, but every time I read something on this message board along the lines of "build the team around Cousins," I feel like I'm reading in some subtext of "and they wanted to avoid the potential for a Shaq/Kobe situation." Which confuses me, since I never saw so much as the faintest hint that anything remotely like that was likely to happen, ever.

Building around Cousins is all well, and to the good, but unless Cousins is capable of becoming Prime Olajuwon, we can't just have Cousins; and, even Prime Olajuwon didn't win a championship until the G.O.A.T. took a sabbatical from the game so, unless the plan is to wait until LeBron retires, Superman needs a Batman. And probably a Robin, too. Who's supposed to be Batman on this team? MacLemore? Thornton? Someone please tell me that we're not really going all-in on Andrew Wiggins! There are a couple dozen very astute posters on this message board; one of you please assure me that that isn't the master plan!

ISTM that there aren't many, if any, perimeter players we'd be capable of getting who are better suited, both in terms of talent and temperament, to be a "building block" to place around DeMarcus Cousins than Tyreke Evans. Obviously TPTB didn't want him as part of the Kings' future, and that's fine, but I am incapable of being convinced that it was because they want to build a team around Cousins, because a team built around Cousins should, reasonably, have Evans on it.

And that's what it comes down to, for me, anyway. I won't presume to speak for anyone else who still continues to stump for Evans but, for my part, I don't accept the "reason given" for why he's gone at face value. And I'm not going to. So, I'm probably going to keep "picking the scab," so to speak, until I hear an acceptable explanation. Or, at the very least, a better one than that. They let Evans walk because they want to build a team around Cousins? Really? Hell, I'd sooner believe that they let him go because they didn't like his PowerPoint presentation than that.

I don't always agree with you, but this is pretty much 100% how I feel too.




I also find it funny that we are talking about complete different things right now in the Greg Oden thread...

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

:: shrugs ::

The ship has sailed on Oden; might as well.

So... Anyone else watching Storm vs. Mercury?

 

[Padrino]

Maybe it's me, but every time I read something on this message board along the lines of "build the team around Cousins," I feel like I'm reading in some subtext of "and they wanted to avoid the potential for a Shaq/Kobe situation." Which confuses me, since I never saw so much as the faintest hint that anything remotely like that was likely to happen, ever.

Building around Cousins is all well, and to the good, but unless Cousins is capable of becoming Prime Olajuwon, we can't just have Cousins; and, even Prime Olajuwon didn't win a championship until the G.O.A.T. took a sabbatical from the game so, unless the plan is to wait until LeBron retires, Superman needs a Batman. And probably a Robin, too. Who's supposed to be Batman on this team? MacLemore? Thornton? Someone please tell me that we're not really going all-in on Andrew Wiggins! There are a couple dozen very astute posters on this message board; one of you please assure me that that isn't the master plan!

ISTM that there aren't many, if any, perimeter players we'd be capable of getting who are better suited, both in terms of talent and temperament, to be a "building block" to place around DeMarcus Cousins than Tyreke Evans. Obviously TPTB didn't want him as part of the Kings' future, and that's fine, but I am incapable of being convinced that it was because they want to build a team around Cousins, because a team built around Cousins should, reasonably, have Evans on it.

And that's what it comes down to, for me, anyway. I won't presume to speak for anyone else who still continues to stump for Evans but, for my part, I don't accept the "reason given" for why he's gone at face value. And I'm not going to. So, I'm probably going to keep "picking the scab," so to speak, until I hear an acceptable explanation. Or, at the very least, a better one than that. They let Evans walk because they want to build a team around Cousins? Really? Hell, I'd sooner believe that they let him go because they didn't like his PowerPoint presentation than that.

 

[Kingster]

Maybe it's me, but every time I read something on this message board along the lines of "build the team around Cousins," I feel like I'm reading in some subtext of "and they wanted to avoid the potential for a Shaq/Kobe situation." Which confuses me, since I never saw so much as the faintest hint that anything remotely like that was likely to happen, ever.

Building around Cousins is all well, and to the good, but unless Cousins is capable of becoming Prime Olajuwon, we can't just have Cousins; and, even Prime Olajuwon didn't win a championship until the G.O.A.T. took a sabbatical from the game so, unless the plan is to wait until LeBron retires, Superman needs a Batman. And probably a Robin, too. Who's supposed to be Batman on this team? MacLemore? Thornton? Someone please tell me that we're not really going all-in on Andrew Wiggins! There are a couple dozen very astute posters on this message board; one of you please assure me that that isn't the master plan!

ISTM that there aren't many, if any, perimeter players we'd be capable of getting who are better suited, both in terms of talent and temperament, to be a "building block" to place around DeMarcus Cousins than Tyreke Evans. Obviously TPTB didn't want him as part of the Kings' future, and that's fine, but I am incapable of being convinced that it was because they want to build a team around Cousins, because a team built around Cousins should, reasonably, have Evans on it.

And that's what it comes down to, for me, anyway. I won't presume to speak for anyone else who still continues to stump for Evans but, for my part, I don't accept the "reason given" for why he's gone at face value. And I'm not going to. So, I'm probably going to keep "picking the scab," so to speak, until I hear an acceptable explanation. Or, at the very least, a better one than that. They let Evans walk because they want to build a team around Cousins? Really? Hell, I'd sooner believe that they let him go because they didn't like his PowerPoint presentation than that.

I don't think they liked the mismatch of Tyreke's skills and Cousins' skills. They wanted an outside shooting SG (See McLemore pick and the Golden State experience). The $11 mill didn't help either. If they thought they could easily trade him down the line for $11 mill they'd probably have pulled the trigger. At least that's my take.

 

[Spike]

So did we keep Charlie Sheen or Emilio Estevez?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I don't think they liked the mismatch of Tyreke's skills and Cousins' skills. They wanted an outside shooting SG (See McLemore pick and the Golden State experience). The $11 mill didn't help either. If they thought they could easily trade him down the line for $11 mill they'd probably have pulled the trigger. At least that's my take.

The Warriors don't have a big who plays like Cousins. Now that would be a mismatch in skills.

 

[Kingster]

The Warriors don't have a big who plays like Cousins. Now that would be a mismatch in skills.

What are you talking about?

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

What are you talking about?

You seemed to be trying to say that you think that Evans' skillset and Cousins' skillset are incompatible, and that the new regime may have wanted to pair him with someone like Stephen Curry, and/or Klay Thompson (since there's not really any other reason to mention Golden State in the first place). I was pointing out that neither Curry nor Thompson have ever played with a big man who can do what Cousins can do, and that their respective skillsets are, arguably, less compatible with Cousins than our last lead guard.

 

[Kingster]

You seemed to be trying to say that you think that Evans' skillset and Cousins' skillset are incompatible, and that the new regime may have wanted to pair him with someone like Stephen Curry, and/or Klay Thompson (since there's not really any other reason to mention Golden State in the first place). I was pointing out that neither Curry nor Thompson have ever played with a big man who can do what Cousins can do, and that their respective skillsets are, arguably, less compatible with Cousins than our last lead guard.

I can understand now why you can't figure out why they traded Tyreke: You think an outside shooter like Klay Thompson is less compatible with Cousins than Tyreke and his lack thereof. I think may be a long time before you figure it out.

 

[Bricklayer]

I can understand now why you can't figure out why they traded Tyreke: You think an outside shooter like Klay Thompson is less compatible with Cousins than Tyreke and his lack thereof. I think may be a long time before you figure it out.

I get tired of pointing out the obvious that very few great coaches have decided they needed all long ball chuckers surrounding their big men.

Hey, what do Dwayne Wade, Clyde Drexler and Tony Parker all have in common? They've all won titles wingmanning for a great big man and have ahell of a lot more similarities to Reke than they do some weenie three point chucker hiding over in the corner.

You win titles with great, physically dominant players. The shooters are typically just your roleplayers. Your place kickers brought in to do a job and stay out of the way of the real basketball players.

Admittedly its possible the new front office doesn't know this. In which case they are NBA ignorant and are going to lose and lose some more until its beaten into their NBA virgin heads.

 

[Sac.Kings]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Cousins said, for the first time, he was asked about personnel decisions. Perhaps it isn't the front office that didn't want Tyreke... Maybe it was Cousins. It's plausible. Perhaps the front office saying we want to build around Cousins indicates that Cousins himself made the decision or had heavy input.

 

[Agent23]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Cousins said, for the first time, he was asked about personnel decisions. Perhaps it isn't the front office that didn't want Tyreke... Maybe it was Cousins. It's plausible. Perhaps the front office saying we want to build around Cousins indicates that Cousins himself made the decision or had heavy input.

I've been thinking that since it went down. I'm still pissed it happened, but I understand why. Too bad they couldn't make it work.

 

[sdballer]

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Cousins said, for the first time, he was asked about personnel decisions. Perhaps it isn't the front office that didn't want Tyreke... Maybe it was Cousins. It's plausible. Perhaps the front office saying we want to build around Cousins indicates that Cousins himself made the decision or had heavy input.

I have no problem with the team committing to cuz and even asking input but you don't lose the second most talented guy on a team with little talent because your extremely immature center is ok with it. You had to have more strategic use for your assets than that.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

I can understand now why you can't figure out why they traded Tyreke: You think an outside shooter like Klay Thompson is less compatible with Cousins than Tyreke and his lack thereof. I think may be a long time before you figure it out.

Having to figure it out would imply that there's a flaw in my reasoning, and there isn't one, based on the evidence. A guy like Klay Thompson is fine... as a third option. The next team to win a championship with a player like him any higher up in the pecking order than that will be the very first one. No team has ever done it, not even the '04 Pistons.

MacLemore may well develop into a player as good as Thompson. But Thompson is a guy you ask to be Robin, not Batman. And definitely not Superman. We've already got our Superman. And we've got a couple of guys who could, conceivably, be Robin. We need a guy who can be Batman, and we don't have one. Could Evans have been that Batman? Maybe, maybe not. It's evident that TPTB decided that the answer was "not," and that's fine, as far as it goes. But, I sure as hell hope that they've got a better plan set up than, "We'll get our Batman in the next draft" because, frankly, I'm sick of that song.

 

[Spike]

At this point I'll take Aquaman. And possibly even J'onn J'onzz.

So far we've got the Wonder Twins and Gleek.

 

[Bricklayer]

At this point I'll take Aquaman. And possibly even J'onn J'onzz.

So far we've got the Wonder Twins and Gleek.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

At this point I'll take Aquaman. And possibly even J'onn J'onzz.

So far we've got the Wonder Twins and Gleek.

More like Wendy, Marvin and Wonder Dog.

 

[Spike]

More like Wendy, Marvin and Wonder Dog.

At least they knew their roles.

 

[bajaden]

I don't think they liked the mismatch of Tyreke's skills and Cousins' skills. They wanted an outside shooting SG (See McLemore pick and the Golden State experience). The $11 mill didn't help either. If they thought they could easily trade him down the line for $11 mill they'd probably have pulled the trigger. At least that's my take.

You and I agree on this. As I stated in another thread, that if you forget about how much you like or dislike the players involved, and take into consideration the type of team they said their trying to put together around Cousins, and then write down a job description for each position, you don't come up with Tyreke at SG. That doesn't mean you couldn't make it work, or at least try to make it work. But apparently they set a price they were willing to pay in order to try the experiment. Tyreke wanted more, and found someone willing to pay that price. The rest is history. Whether McLemore is the answer remains to be seen. But on paper he fits the job description.

I agree that if you could have signed Tyreke for 8 or 9 mil a year, he's very tradable at that price. But at 11 mil, he becomes much harder to move if that becomes your intent. Especially under the new CBA with severe penalties for going over the luxury tax. None of this has anything to do with whether I like or dislike Tyreke. He was one of my favorite players, and I'm sad to see him go. I wish him well, and hope he's found a place where he fits at New Orleans.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You and I agree on this. As I stated in another thread, that if you forget about how much you like or dislike the players involved, and take into consideration the type of team they said their trying to put together around Cousins, and then write down a job description for each position, you don't come up with Tyreke at SG...

Well, as far as that goes, I'm in agreement with Padrino, in terms of placing a much lower premium on jump shooting than guys like you and Kingster. In fact, I generally consider it to be the least important skill for a basketball player to have, even for one that is, ostensibly, classified as a "shooting" guard... It seems as though Malone and D'Alessandro are closer to being in agreement with the two of you, which I, personally, find disappointing.