In retrospect...

[Arena Skeptic]

I just have a hard time believing that Nellie had nothing to do with that trade. If you had Don Nelson on the bench, as a GM, wouldn't it be almost irresponsible to not ask him his opinion on personnel matters? Whether he initiated the trade, or whether he was consulted about it, or both, I have no idea. But I've got to believe that he was very much involved in it. AT THE VERY LEAST, Don Nelson was involved in this trade because Nelson determined that the guys who were traded to Indiana (Dunleavy, etc) did not fit with his vision on the team that he wanted to put together. So, he must have had discussions with Mullin, which led one way or another to the trade.

As I understand it, Nelson had everything to do with that trade. He told Mullin that Murphy and Dunleavy had to go; he didn't sit idly by while Mullin tried to figure things out.

One thing about Petrie I've never liked is, well, it's two-fold, really:

1) He seems a little arrogant about his decisions, which leads to...

2) He is convinced he can rebuild on the fly.

But his track record for rebuilding on the fly is, well, unfortunate. Look what happened to the Blazers when he tried to rebuild them on the fly.

I didn't read the reax here to the Bee article on the Kings long slide; I imagine it was mostly negative, but with no real consensus opinion on it. To me, it rang true; as if too high a percentage of moves, in the long run, made things just a little worse than before. No real disasters; just turned a lot of doubles into singles.

I think that's generally true.

One thing for sure, Nelson and Petrie don't like each other much. They actually have a fairly long history. I don't think there's a point at which Petrie would have hired Nelson. I simply do not see it. Petrie would have hired Fratello first. So part of what Nelson is saying, that he called the Kings, is, I think, bluster. I don't believe it.

I absolutely do not like Musselman. The season he came up with was no surprise to me. But folks here are saying Nelson would have gotten as much out of Bibby and Miller as he got out of Davis and Biedrins, and that's something I find preposterous. Bibby is not in the same category as Davis. People around here give Biedrins nowhere near enough credit. He finished fifth in the MIP vote.

There just wasn't enough talent on Petrie's team. That's the bottom-line. And now, he's still in charge.

If Petrie turns one or two more doubles into singles, they'll win about 25 next year, and I don't care who the coach is. Theus, Nelson, Elie... Doesn't matter. Many more problems with this GM than many think (I partly cite the Bee article when I say this).

Thank goodness Bonzi foolishly declined the Kings offer, or else 25 wins next year would have been a lock. That was Petrie turning hitting into a triple play into merely hitting into a double play...

 

[HndsmCelt]

NO! Nelly probabblly would have gotten the team into the play off... and then what? Heck the problem with Muss was not that the team lost games under him, they just did not loose ENOUGH games.

 

[kupman]

One thing about Petrie I've never liked is, well, it's two-fold, really:

1) He seems a little arrogant about his decisions, which leads to...

2) He is convinced he can rebuild on the fly.

But his track record for rebuilding on the fly is, well, unfortunate. Look what happened to the Blazers when he tried to rebuild them on the fly.

That's pretty critical of a guy who turned this franchise around. How many playoff wins did the Kings have before Petrie's arrival?

Could someone supply me an operational definition of "rebuild on the fly?"

 

[Bricklayer]

That's pretty critical of a guy who turned this franchise around. How many playoff wins did the Kings have before Petrie's arrival?

Could someone supply me an operational definition of "rebuild on the fly?"

Sure: attempting to become a great team again without ever accepting a bad year or two. Hence almost inevitably attempting to become a great team again without ever benefitting from a high lottery pick or masive cap room.

And its absolutely what Geoff has been up to. And failed at. And while its fashionable, and at least partially accurate to point a finger at the Maloofs, Geoff comes from the great Portland tradition of doing exactly what he was trying to do here. That would be the great Portland tradition of winning no titles in 30 years BTW.

Geoff assembled one great team. That is the hope. Its also overstated. He had been here 5 years before he assmebled that team and was about one more year of failure from getting his *** canned for the second time in his career. And during those 3-5 years of brilliance, he was ably supported by a uniquely dedicated ownership who poured enormouos sums of money into a small market team. He was also operating, unlike this offseason, with both a higher draft pick and massive caproom.

He did it once before. ONCE. In a 15 year career. Its enough to have hope, and the cubbard is not bare here. A lesser GM than the deity the worshipites make him out to be could do some real work this summer. On the other hand the either lazy, confused, misguided or neutered GM of the last 3 years would probably enter next season with the same starting lineup and some faux-philosophic can-fool-some-of-the-people-all-of-the-time quote about barnyard geese and tether ball poles.

The ball is in Geoff's court. No more excuses. If he's been asleep, he needs to wake up. If he's been neutered, I'm not buying the Maloofs standing in the way after the debacle this season. If he's been misguided, time to learn from his mistakes. But this offseason is going to have an awful lot to say about his legacy. Unfortunately he has prepared so poorly for it that he is hamstrung from the start and is going to have to fight hard just to secure the cap room and top picks you need to pull one of these puppies off.

 

[kupman]

Sure: attempting to become a great team again without ever accepting a bad year or two. Hence almost inevitably attempting to become a great team again without ever benefitting from a high lottery pick or masive cap room.

Okay, now we may getting somewhere (aside from the other Petrie commentary).

'Rebuild on the Fly' - must meet the following criteria:

original team is a 50+ win team; roster changes for new team must be at least 50%; no benefit of high draft pick (1-10 or something else?); not much cap space (how much is allowable within definition?)

The "new" team continues to make playoffs.

I do not mean to be picky, but without an anchored definition of 'rebuild on the fly' the term can begin to mean anything that one wishes in order to support a position.

 

[GoGoGadget]

some faux-philosophic can-fool-some-of-the-people-all-of-the-time quote about barnyard geese and tether ball poles.

Those poor, poor geese.




Oodle, indeed.