It's Official...The Nets were right (SAR)

[Packt]

The Nets were involved in a S&T with Portland for Reef using a Trade exception and a first rounder. The deal was for 6 years at around 39mil. Reef had already signed the contract but just had to pass the physical. He didn't and NJ tried to alter the deal so the last few years weren't guaranteed. Reef wouldn't allow it so NJ just rescinded the whole thing and used the exception on Marc Jackson and cash right before the exception expired. They used the pick to draft Boone. Reef signed with us for the guaranteed 5 years.

NJ never said what exactly they saw because they can't discuss publicly a players medical records. Reef and his agent came out and said it was the scar tissue in his knee from his high school days that spooked the Nets. If it was a loose tendon, Reef and Goodwin were lying.

 

[dude12]

Thanks for clearing that up, VF21. People are pilling on too fast. As bad as SAR played the last few years, I don't think his contract is that bad. He's a serviceable forward that cost us the MLE. Not a bargain, but hardly a disaster like trading for KThomas. My frustration w/ Petrie is utter lack of initiative to get things done. He's seem perfectly content for things to happen to him, instead of making things happen. Someone's got to lite a fire in this man.

How do you know he's not doing anything? He doesn't tip his hand one way or the other. To think he's not doing anything or looking into any deals is.................. I won't say it.

 

[dude12]

When parts of a knee goes bad, other parts of the body, namely the opposite knee, may also go bad. Petrie took that risk, on a player we really didnt need, and lost. He gambled 30 million away. Piling on? maybe. Just criticism? probably.

Far-fetched and spun to make your point. We should trade KMart now as his other groin is going to blow up.

 

[Jerryaki]

How do you know he's not doing anything? He doesn't tip his hand one way or the other. To think he's not doing anything or looking into any deals is.................. I won't say it.

this is a job where "effort" isn't going to cut it. sure petrie may be trying to pull deals and stuff behind the scenes, and we'll never know. but what we do know is that nothing is coming to fruition from his actions.

so we've either got someone who's not doing anything or someone who's ineffective. not exactly something to be proud of.

 

[dude12]

this is a job where "effort" isn't going to cut it. sure petrie may be trying to pull deals and stuff behind the scenes, and we'll never know. but what we do know is that nothing is coming to fruition from his actions.

so we've either got someone who's not doing anything or someone who's ineffective. not exactly something to be proud of.

Or someone who's not settling for a crappy deal....there is that thought process out there. This is the same old argument thats been hashed over hundreds of times on the forum. Last time I checked, Petrie signed Udrih to a contract and finally got a PG that deserved a deal as opposed to just signing or trading for someone....just to make a deal. How does signing Udrih fit into your "sitting on his rear" and doing nothing label?

 

[Jerryaki]

Or someone who's not settling for a crappy deal....there is that thought process out there. This is the same old argument thats been hashed over hundreds of times on the forum. Last time I checked, Petrie signed Udrih to a contract and finally got a PG that deserved a deal as opposed to just signing or trading for someone....just to make a deal. How does signing Udrih fit into your "sitting on his rear" and doing nothing label?

udrih was signed after 4 or 5 games into the season when it was clear we needed a point guard, after our camp invites did not pan out, and the platoon point guards were not cutting it. it was reactionary, not proactive. in short...petrie waited for something to force his hand.

now, last time i checked, we were unable to seal the deal with stan van gundy and also trading bibby over to cleveland.

 

[dude12]

udrih was signed after 4 or 5 games into the season when it was clear we needed a point guard, after our camp invites did not pan out, and the platoon point guards were not cutting it. it was reactionary, not proactive. in short...petrie waited for something to force his hand.

now, last time i checked, we were unable to seal the deal with stan van gundy and also trading bibby over to cleveland.

Your comment on the Udrih signing is just more spin control for the Petrie-bashers. Bottom line is that there will be people who are going to cap on the GM to remedy a situation that requires patience and time.....more like a few years and not months. Stan Van Gundy? Bibby to Cleveland? Is this what your using to support your point of view?

 

[Jerryaki]

Last time I checked, Petrie signed Udrih to a contract and finally got a PG that deserved a deal as opposed to just signing or trading for someone....just to make a deal.

that's funny, considering this is the logic you are using to support your views... mikki moore is the very definition of signing someone just to make a deal.

i was like you, once, circa the beginning of the 2004 offseason. we signed greg ostertag. it is now 2007. we've gotten worse. so you hold on to your "patience," i've got a feeling you are going to need it. x1,000

 

[Jerryaki]

Your comment on the Udrih signing is just more spin control for the Petrie-bashers.

btw, love the rebuttal. i like especially how you refute none of my points other than going "i am rubber, you are glue." petrie-basher? hardly. i like him. but he is partially responsible for the state we've been in for several years now.

 

[Glenn]

Speculation and guessing on both sides of the argument is all I see. No one really knows what kinds of deals Petrie has instigated nor does anyone know what deals have come his way. If he makes a deal and it is a bad deal, would that take the complaint of "reactive" instead of "proactive" off his back. Would that be good?

I like Petrie and pretty universally so do the players who negotiate with him. I don't know who is the fault of anything definitively but last time I looked, 8 years straight in the playoffs is quite an accomplishment. Once one has done that there is only one way to go. I would like to look back and say that their were two major events that led to the downfall of the Kings - two documentable events. One was Webber blowing out his knee. Who is to say what would have happened if he had stayed healthy? The other is the Maloofs interjecting their personal feelings into the organization's relationship with Adelman. They were childish and I think that has been documented. If you don't like the word "childish," pick another word that describes their handling of Adelman.

These are two events out of Petrie's control and I think of all the things that have happened and not happened recently, the most important events.

The rest of this about Petrie is speculation. I don't understand how anyone can present their argument as if they know some fact about Petrie, positive or negative, that proves anything. A gradual down slide after many years of success is natural, isn't it? This is certainly as likely as the down slide being anyone's fault.

All we know for sure is the two events I have commented on and the fact that whatever goes up, must come down. That statement was too all inclusive, of course, but it seems to fit the surety of everyone else's opinions and speculation.

How many ways can we say the same thing over and over and over? Obviously no one is going to change their mind nor even bend a little. So what's the point of all the chatter if no one will acknowledge even the slightest point of another? Hasn't this argument reached the point of stagnation?

 

[Glenn]

that's funny, considering this is the logic you are using to support your views... mikki moore is the very definition of signing someone just to make a deal.

I couldn't disagree more heartily. The signing of Mikki gave us a starting power forward at a position filled with cannon fodder.

On that note I will leave the wheel spinning to the rest of you.

 

[Jerryaki]

These are two events out of Petrie's control and I think of all the things that have happened and not happened recently, the most important events.

The rest of this about Petrie is speculation. I don't understand how anyone can present their argument as if they know some fact about Petrie, positive or negative, that proves anything. A gradual down slide after many years of success is natural, isn't it? This is certainly as likely as the down slide being anyone's fault.

i think there is a lot of truth to what you say. i am relatively new to basketball compared to a lot of people on here (watching since 2002). in the time i've been watching though, the spurs have not declined one iota. so until they do, i still look at their front office as a model of sound team management, and hope that we can emulate that type of run.

as an aside, there was one event that was in petrie's control that did have some impact. signing anthony peeler to a two year contract but then letting the second year be a player option. that cost us gerald wallace in the expansion draft.

 

[Jerryaki]

I couldn't disagree more heartily. The signing of Mikki gave us a starting power forward at a position filled with cannon fodder.

On that note I will leave the wheel spinning to the rest of you.

that position is still cannon fodder. mikki moore is as much a starter as kenny thomas is.

 

[kupman]

Okay, I feel a bit honor-bound to clear up something.

I've been told the knee problems SAR had addressed with this most recent procedure were NOT related to the condition NJ used to back out of their deal with him. From what I understand, the problem that scared New Jersey away was/is a loose tendon which is entirely different than the condition that required arthroscopic procedure to remove bone spurs and joint lining from his right knee.

The tendon problem is no worse than it ever was but it was enough to scare away the Nets.

Nitpicking? Perhaps but I don't think it's right to assume NOW - three years later - that New Jersey was right all along. And, when you realize they were panicking about a totally different problem, it becomes clear IMHO that while SAR may not have been the selection some of us may have chosen, Petrie's decision wasn't wrong from the viewpoint of the existing medical condition.

Not nitpicking at all...and thanks for clarifying with the iformation that you have. This is another case of people jumping to conclusions without having all of the information, which is very common.

I wonder if people realize that professional sports organizations consult with top orthopedic specialists who have examined body part "x" first hand prior to signing them to multi-million dollar deal. Typically, a number of medical opinions are gathered and many times those opinions differ. You take risks based on the information that you have, and those folks are working with way, way more information than anyone on this board.

 

[dude12]

btw, love the rebuttal. i like especially how you refute none of my points other than going "i am rubber, you are glue." petrie-basher? hardly. i like him. but he is partially responsible for the state we've been in for several years now.

Signing Udrih was a good sign but you say it was out of being forced to do it and that it was literally a stroke of luck. It's nonsense. How does one go about addressing nonsense. He made a good sign, he didn't sign Shakur, Wilks, Dee Brown, etc. He waited for the right deal or opportunity to come along. Its a solid move and perfect example of waiting patiently for the right deal.

 

[dude12]

Not nitpicking at all...and thanks for clarifying with the iformation that you have. This is another case of people jumping to conclusions without having all of the information, which is very common.

I wonder if people realize that professional sports organizations consult with top orthopedic specialists who have examined body part "x" first hand prior to signing them to multi-million dollar deal. Typically, a number of medical opinions are gathered and many times those opinions differ. You take risks based on the information that you have, and those folks are working with way, way more information than anyone on this board.

Great post!!

 

[dude12]

i think there is a lot of truth to what you say. i am relatively new to basketball compared to a lot of people on here (watching since 2002). in the time i've been watching though, the spurs have not declined one iota. so until they do, i still look at their front office as a model of sound team management, and hope that we can emulate that type of run.

as an aside, there was one event that was in petrie's control that did have some impact. signing anthony peeler to a two year contract but then letting the second year be a player option. that cost us gerald wallace in the expansion draft.

Would have to check that on Peeler but I'm sure that isn't true. When Tim Duncan is gone, you are going to see the Spurs decline. Don't fool yourself into thinking they won't. Stars, good players, and franchise players get hurt, get old or retire. When that happens, all franchises go on a decline. All of them.

 

[Jerryaki]

Signing Udrih was a good sign but you say it was out of being forced to do it and that it was literally a stroke of luck. It's nonsense. How does one go about addressing nonsense. He made a good sign, he didn't sign Shakur, Wilks, Dee Brown, etc. He waited for the right deal or opportunity to come along. Its a solid move and perfect example of waiting patiently for the right deal.

wow, how is this a deal that "came along?" beno was available all summer, and you wish me to believe that petrie signing him a few games into the season was all a part of his master plan? what if miami had had the foresight to sign beno during the summer?

 

[Jerryaki]

Would have to check that on Peeler but I'm sure that isn't true. When Tim Duncan is gone, you are going to see the Spurs decline. Don't fool yourself into thinking they won't. Stars, good players, and franchise players get hurt, get old or retire. When that happens, all franchises go on a decline. All of them.

um, why? http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1827185

 

[VF21]

Anthony Peeler was signed to a two-year deal (2nd year player option) that left us few choices but Gerald Wallace to expose to the expansion draft. But I think that's a totally different argument, isn't it?

 

[VF21]

wow, how is this a deal that "came along?" beno was available all summer, and you wish me to believe that petrie signing him a few games into the season was all a part of his master plan? what if miami had had the foresight to sign beno during the summer?

???

I think Beno was traded to Minnesota, dropped and then signed by the Kings a few days later, wasn't he???

 

[Warhawk]

???

I think Beno was traded to Minnesota, dropped and then signed by the Kings a few days later, wasn't he???

Yes. He was waived by Minny then picked up by the Kings soon thereafter.

 

[Jerryaki]

???

I think Beno was traded to Minnesota, dropped and then signed by the Kings a few days later, wasn't he???

hmm, i stand corrected. didn't realize beno was traded. so good patience, move, and opportunity for geoff. my bad.

as for the peeler thing, i was using it to illustrate that not all of geoff petrie's moves are infallible. once you accept that point, then i feel every move that he makes is open to criticism. it seems though, that petrie supporters (such as dude12) think that GP is above reproach (case in point, without having done any research, he/she automatically assumes that geoff couldn't have blundered the expansion draft).

 

[Glenn]

that position is still cannon fodder. mikki moore is as much a starter as kenny thomas is.

I swore I would stay out of this after that last note I wrote but I think you don't know much about basketball. First of all, the facts speak for themselves: Mikki is starting and KT isn't.

Pay attention to what Mikki does and compare it to what KT does. We are comparing low level players but one is a journeyman and the other is washed up. You are insinuating that they are equals.

I've been watching basketball since it has been on the air initially as late Friday night games of the week (replays) in the late 50's or so. I have followed it as best I could what with the general disinterest in that era since George Mikan played with the Lakers, the Minneapolis Lakers. Google Mikan.

Don't let my athletic good looks fool you. I'm old.

 

[Jerryaki]

I swore I would stay out of this after that last note I wrote but I think you don't know much about basketball. First of all, the facts speak for themselves: Mikki is starting and KT isn't.

actually, first of all, i take offense at that. you may have watched it far longer than me, but that does not discount nor discredit what i've come to learn about the game. it may not have been your intent, just saying that's how it came across.

second, as short as two seasons ago, kenny thomas was averaging 9 points and 7 rebounds for the kings. last season, on a hobbled team and playing under muss, we saw his points drop to 5 per game, but he could still rebound about 6 per game for the team. mikki moore right now is averaging 7 points and 5 rebounds. last season with the nets he was at about 10 points and 5 rebounds. i fail to see how moore is an upgrade over KT.

look at them over their careers and tell me who's better. washed up? kenny thomas is two years younger than moore!!!!

 

[Glenn]

actually, first of all, i take offense at that. you may have watched it far longer than me, but that does not discount nor discredit what i've come to learn about the game.

second, as short as two seasons ago, kenny thomas was averaging 9 points and 7 rebounds for the kings. last season, on a hobbled team and playing under muss, we saw his points drop to 5 per game, but he could still rebound about 6 per game for the team. mikki moore right now is averaging 7 points and 5 rebounds. last season with the nets he was at about 10 points and 5 rebounds. i fail to see how moore is an upgrade over KT.

look at them over their careers and tell me who's better. washed up? kenny thomas is two years younger than moore!!!!

I thought you might take offense and tried to word it better. Sorry.

Mikki's stats are improving over the last few weeks. Kenny actually used to be a great rebounder and now can't do that. I think Mikki is creeping up near double digits in rebounds the last few games.

 

[dude12]

um, why? http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=1827185

I see the link but I don't believe that we protected Peeler over Wallace. I could be wrong. I thought it came down to us wanting to protect Jimmy Jackson instead of Wallace because of where we were as far as contending for a championship. Would have to check it out.

 

[Heuge]

Far-fetched and spun to make your point. We should trade KMart now as his other groin is going to blow up.

Just saying risk. And it isnt far fetched, not like teams are turing kevin down due to injury.

 

[Heuge]

Oh and for the record (since I am considered in the Petrie basher camp)

Udrih was a good signing.

 

[Bricklayer]

I see the link but I don't believe that we protected Peeler over Wallace. I could be wrong. I thought it came down to us wanting to protect Jimmy Jackson instead of Wallace because of where we were as far as contending for a championship. Would have to check it out.

We protected Peeler instead of Wallace.

Not necessarily because we wanted to, but because Geoof ****ed up and gave Peeler an opt out in his contract.

The situation went like this: you could protect up to 8 players under contract, but no matter how few you actually had to protect (i.e. if you only had 4 guys under contract) you always had to expose at least one ot the expansion draft. So if you have 4 playes under contract, you can only protect three, and have to expose one. If you have 9 players under contract, you can protect 8, and have to expose one. If you have 11 players under contract, you can still only protect 8, and have to expose the other three. And everybody of course knew that these would be the rules and that an expansion draft was coming up after the season.

Well, we failed to plan for it. And so we had Webb/Peja/Christie/Bibby/BJax/Miller/Songaila/Wallace to protect, adn that;s 8 guys, so we could have protected all 8 of them...but ONLY if we had one other player to expose. Because rememebr you always had to expose one. Well that extra "one" was Anthony Peeler. Who we signed before the season. And if he had been signed to a 2 yr guaranteed contract, we could have exposed him to the expansion draft, and protected all 8 of the guys above. But Geoff didn't. Geoff signed him to a 2yr deal alright, but inexplicably the second year had an opt out clause. So Peeler opts out, we can no longer use him as trhe guy to expose, and we are now forced to expose one fo the other eight. Geoff chooses to make that guy Wallace (in itself a mistake obviously as Wallace >>> Songaila, and Geoff traded Christie, Webb and BJax within the year.

So we didn't ptotect Peeler instead of Wallace. But we lost Wallace because we made a stupid error int he contract we gave Peeler. Everybody knew the expansion draft was coming. Not being prepared for it, and prepared to protect everybody you would want to protect, was inexcusable and turned out to be a major blow to us as Gerald has blossomed into a near All-Star.

Well,