I'll try to dig up something on the expansion list and protecting who we did. I never said that Petrie hasn't made mistakes....looking back on a trade or a roster move that happened 3-5 years ago is very easy. Making those moves and decisions in the now is not an exact science. I DO believe that Petrie's made more good moves over the course of his tenure. Actually got us to a point where we were one of the best teams in the league. I'd rather have him steering the ship than not.
It's Official...The Nets were right (SAR)
- Thread starter SLAB
- Start date
I'll try to dig up something on the expansion list and protecting who we did. I never said that Petrie hasn't made mistakes....looking back on a trade or a roster move that happened 3-5 years ago is very easy. Making those moves and decisions in the now is not an exact science. I DO believe that Petrie's made more good moves over the course of his tenure. Actually got us to a point where we were one of the best teams in the league. I'd rather have him steering the ship than not.
Jerryaki
Starter
no no. what i'm saying and what others have said on this board is that had petrie not put in that second year as a player option on peeler's contract, we could have sent peeler to the expansion draft. we didn't protect peeler over wallace; peeler walked because his contract allowed him to.
it's not like the draft was a pop draft or something. everyone knew it was coming. peeler's contract should've been handled accordingly.
Heuge
Starter
I don't know about that. maybe tenure but certainly not since 2001, which is almost 7 years ago.
If this is the case, then it looks like we missed on a good player. So should we fire Petrie over this? Let me know when Wallace leads his team to the playoffs let alone a championship.
Geoff
Starter
That sure ain't it. I was one of the few who wondered why they didn't resign Jimmy Jackson; I don't even think he was with the team at that time. Somehow that move seems overlooked by those who think Petrie isn't what he used to be. I think it's a good piece of evidence for their case.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
No, your intiial instinct was right.
I am quite happy with the Beno signing -- basically that IS the bright point this season (although I wonder how we're going to keep him this summer since he will be a FA and it will further ruin our cap to sign him). That said, it is like everything else that Geoff has done well in the last few years (which ain't much) -- it just fell in his lap. He is a completely passive player at this point, and just rouses himself to be opportunistic. But he doesn't actually make anything happen. Reef? Fell in his lap after New Jersey backed out. That was in New Jersey's control, not his. Salmons? Fell in his lap after John had an attack fo the "God told me so"s up in Toronto and suddenly backed out of a contract he was signing with them. Again, we didn't make it happen, we jsut scooped up pieces when it fell apart. Kevin -- a late late pick. Good that we snagged him. But there were more than 20 teams ahead of us that could have taken him first. we didn't make a move for him. We just waited until ouor pick and took best player available. If the team ahead of us thinks Kevin is BPA, we never get him. Always true of the draft, but when you are drafting 20+, its especially so. Beno -- on another team, apparently undervalued, traded, and waived. Then we pick him up. That is so far from our doing its not even funny. San Antonio might not have traded him. Minnesota might not have waived him after he was traded. We just got lucky. Good on us on realizing he had potential. But kind of ridiculous is it not that if we knew he had THIS kind of potential that we would just sit back and let San Antonio sit on him and trade him aroudn the league to other teams? That's not planning. Its again just being opportunistic. Been a long time since we have seen Geoff show any signs of a) this is the plan; and b) I am now going to take affirmative steps to makle the plan happen. Its all jsut off the cuff.
Last edited:
Geoff
Starter
There is no good answer to this question. Gerald Wallace is a stud in Charlotte, but he wouldn't have gotten the chance to be a stud Sacramento because of the team composition at that time. If he had gone to, say, Dallas or San Antonio, then he wouldn't have achieved the level he has now.
Sometimes you have to leave the familiar to achieve your potential, and that's what Gerald did.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Gerald is a stud now but we needed a stud or at least a semi-stud back when we were making a run at the championship. If we had kept Wallace, he probably wouldn't have helped us in a championship run. If he was a stud with the Kings now we would be fighting for 6th place. Certainly he would be admired but we wouldn't be fighting for a championship.
Why weren't there all these complaints at the time several years ago?
Last edited:
Geoff
Starter
'Cause Gerald was in Adelman's doghouse. I'm not complaining, mind you; hindsight is 20/20 but who here would have kept Wallace over Songaila at the time? Who was playing more and producing more?
Heuge
Starter
Thought there were. People hated to see him go. At that time though most people were spouting in Petrie we trust.
"The Gerald Wallace Mistake", as it should be known, was a combination of a few things that happened all at once, leaving the Kings with few options. In hindsight, we should have signed Anthony Peeler to a two year deal and left him unprotected, but we didn't. Hindsight is 20/20. We all complained about it at the time, but I didn't see it as a reason to impeach the president.
And, as Glenn said, even with Gerald today, we wouldn't be one of the best teams in the NBA. We'd be the Bobcats. They are very entertaining to watch, but they aren't any better than we are.
As an aside, I always get confused when thinking about this. I don't think Songaila was under contract for 2004, and that precluded us from being able to leave him unprotected. Same problem as with Peeler and Vlade; we only had nine players under contract, and didn't want to leave core players unprotected. Since Wallace wasn't being used, he was the one sacrificed. Sad, but true. But it didn't come down to Songaila vs. Wallace, if I remember correctly.
You have NO way of knowing if this is true, or not. It could also just as conceivably have been something Petrie had heard about and waited to take advantage of.
Your assertion is always that Petrie is simply sitting around down nothing and that just isn't true.
Bricklayer
Don't Make Me Use The Bat
Indeed I am sure that that mega deal the Spurs made with Minnesota was planned for years and years and years, but simply never executed, while we sat around and admired Beno from afar and waited patiently for it to happen so that we coud make our move.
Oh I mean obviously.
He is, I am sure, quite good at Minesweeper by now.
Likely Freecell as well.
LPKingsFan
All-Star
Hate to further derail the thread with the Wallace discussion, but... The Bobcats may not be any better than we are, but I'd trade spots with them nine times out of ten. They're still young and have a bright future ahead of them, while we're still mired in mediocrity.
beb0p
Starter
Some of you are assuming GW wanted to be here. He didn't. Gerald Wallace was going to leave Sacramento no matter what.
It was a while ago but I remember the Bee said something to the effect that his agent approached Geoff and asked for a trade, when that didn't happened he urged Geoff to put GW on the expansion list; otherwise, GW was just going to play out the remaining year and sign elsewhere.
So why keep a guy who didn't want to be here? If Petrie had protected GW, then what? He would have left anyway.
It wasn't a great mystery that the Bobcat would have taken Wallace if he was available. Petrie easily could have exposed other players. The fact of the matter is GW wanted to leave and Petrie said fine.
You can argue that GP should have traded Wallace instead of letting him go for nothing. But what could we get in return for a rookie salary match?
Wallace couldn't be happier when Sactown was out of sight, see below:
It was a while ago but I remember the Bee said something to the effect that his agent approached Geoff and asked for a trade, when that didn't happened he urged Geoff to put GW on the expansion list; otherwise, GW was just going to play out the remaining year and sign elsewhere.
So why keep a guy who didn't want to be here? If Petrie had protected GW, then what? He would have left anyway.
It wasn't a great mystery that the Bobcat would have taken Wallace if he was available. Petrie easily could have exposed other players. The fact of the matter is GW wanted to leave and Petrie said fine.
You can argue that GP should have traded Wallace instead of letting him go for nothing. But what could we get in return for a rookie salary match?
Wallace couldn't be happier when Sactown was out of sight, see below:
Last edited:
Jerryaki
Starter
Jerryaki
Starter
i think your argument has good points, and, yes, in that bigger picture wallace would've left. but even so, it would have cost nothing to properly negotiate peeler's contract, expose him in the draft, and keep wallace for an extra year. perhaps we could've gotten a first or second rounder for him. we likely could've gotten something. we just can't keep being a franchise that bleeds talent, because we're low enough as it is.
what's troubling is that it was just a completely avoidable situation, and to step into it like we did just makes me think about GP's judgment.
I hardly think it was completely up to the Kings to give Peeler a player option after one year. That was likely a contingency that he and his agent specifically lobbied for. Can't blame him; who wants to sign with a "contender" with the question marks we had (Webber's knee, Vlade's age, etc.), only to find yourself sinking with the ship? He was smart to demand a player option for a second year.
I don't think it's fair to second guess someone four years later and say what they should have done, and then call them incompetent because they should have seen what was happening. It's four years later. Again, hindsight is 20/20.
Another issue was brought up, also: Gerald didn't want to play for Rick anymore. He and Rick were never the best of buddies to begin with. It's likely that we would have lost him anyways.
That having been said, you never want to give up a player that can be useful for you or another team, and not get anything in return. "The Gerald Wallace Mistake" could definitely have been handled better, but I am not of the opinion that Geoff Petrie ruined this team by letting Gerald Wallace get selected by the Bobcats in the expansion draft. I think, when you look at the big picture, that is a minor issue, at best.
Now that was funny.
Jerryaki
Starter
i'll use a defense that a lot of people have been using in this thread: neither you nor i know that. but this is anthony peeler we are talking about, not an all-star. we should've picked up someone with a two year contract specifically to expose them in the expansion draft.
so keep him for a year and trade him for a second rounder, trade exception, something. what's the wisdom in losing him for nothing?
and speaking of losing for nothing:
gerald wallace (expansion), cuttino mobley (free agency), bonzi wells (free agency)...i mean, the minor issues eventually add up. GP, alone, did not ruin this team. there are a lot of factors that have contributed to the decline. but he is partly responsible.
Jerryaki
Starter
two things:
1) we can't land a tim duncan with our assets or a middle first rounder. so higher draft pick, please!
2) we've been in decline for about 3 years now. we haven't even really started the rebuild, IMO. how long, as a fan, are you willing to wait to see a turnaround?
Since the organization, which includes Petrie, took one of the acknowledged laughing-stock professional franchises and turned them into a near championship team, I think the opportunity is there to do it again but it takes time. My view is that the rebuilding process is underway but we haven't made the big deal that really escalates the rebuild. What I don't want to see is a move just to make a move invloving Bibby and/or Artest.
Glenn
Hall of Famer
Until the day I die.
I don't see how it matters whether we know or not. I mean, we picked Peeler up for a reason: he came relatively cheap, and he was a backup swingman who could score. That's what we were looking for that offseason. It's pretty obvious that, when you offer a contract to a player, they have an idea of what they're looking for, and there are going to be contingencies. That's why there are negotiations. There was no upside for the Kings to give Peeler a second-year option, so it's pretty obvious that he lobbied for it, probably for the reasons I mentioned in the previous post.
I agree that we've been bleeding talent for years, and it's definitely not something that you can just shrug your shoulders at and say: "It's just one of those things." The blame lies with several people, but it's GP's job to keep the team competitive, so he is definitely accountable.
However, Gerald Wallace, Cuttino Mobley and Bonzi Wells, even all three of them together, do NOT make us a significantly better team. Might as well go all the way back to Jimmy Jackson with that argument. It's not like we gave up Shaq for Odom... (!) It's not like there have been all these DDD's (definitely doable deals
) that we have passed up over the years.We should have gotten something in exchange for Wallace, but then who do we leave unprotected? Webber? I mean, you can bang on Petrie for us only having eight contracts that offseason, but it's four years later. It's not realistic to grade someone on a decision they made four years ago.
Heuge
Starter
Here, Here!
beb0p
Starter
I disagree with you on this, Bricklayer. Let's look at the timeline: we learned of Bibby's injury on a Friday; and then the following Monday the Spurs traded Beno to the T-Wolves. It is apparent that the Beno trade was discussed and maybe even agreed upon by the Spurs and T-Wolves prior to Geoff learning that a new PG is needed.
Furthermore, Petrie waited to see if Salmons, Garcia or Douby can fill in for Bibby, as indeed he should. They couldn't, so he signed Beno, even though Beno was still recovering from an injury and missed preseason. I don't see anything here that would suggest a passive GM. I see patience and very good talent evaluator.
As for the Salmons signing. We were targeting Bonzi Wells when Salmons were courted by other teams. Then Geoff realized negotiations were going nowhere and quickly snatched Salmons. A passive GM would have let Salmons go while still waiting for Bonzi to come around.
Last edited:
A 5 year decline? So starting in 2002 when we won 59 games and was considered an upper-tier team, we went to 55-27 in 2003 and was considered an....upper tier team. In 2004 we slid to a meager 50-32 record, which would make the Kings......an upper tier team. Problems arise in 2004 as CWebb trade is consumated. Even if he's not traded, the knee injury is a crippling blow for the team. If CWebb stays healthy...what might have happened? Never know. Also in 2004, Miller is hurt for 26 games and Doug Christie is traded. Christie's injuries basically end his career as he is never the same. In 2005, the Artest/Peja trade occurs, Bonzi is brought in, Reef is playing well as is KT, KMart averages 11 points on the year in a semi-break out year. Kings push SA in the 1st round but finally succumb. Bibby and B Miller both played well that year. We finally are not an upper-tier team but a playoff team none the less.
Really its after that year that any kind of slide can be considered. 2006 was a train wreck with the hiring of Musselman, the Bibby injury and playing through the year with the injury, Miller again missing 19 games but really underachieved when healthy, SAR has good 48 min / gm numbers but is limited to playing half the games. KT's game is in a full slide. Salmons is brought in and plays well. Artest and KMart play well.
2007 is off to a rough start but the team shows improvement lately. Miller has recaptured his career, Artest is playing well, KMart is having an even better year and then is injured, Bibby hasn't played a game, Salmons proves to be a valuable sub as is Cisco at times. 1st rounder Hawes shows enough potential that he looks like at least a solid pro with potential for more. Udrih is signed and plays well in his opportunity. Mikki is signed and whether you agree or not, is starting for Kings and providing some solid play and some not so solid play. SAR is in complete decline and his career is potenially over. KT continues his slide into oblivion.
From 2002 to 2004, this is an upper echelon team with real championship aspirations. They win at least 50 games every year despite some key injuries. In 2005, which is not to long ago, they are a playoff team with aspirations to be a championship team but its a longshot. 2006 and this year are what they are. Is this the 5 year slide your talking about?
Jerryaki
Starter
if you were in a court of law trying to prove a point, wouldn't you want to bring up evidence that establishes a behavioral pattern?
the tone of this thread is "you can't judge petrie on the moves he's doing now, have patience, a rebuild takes a few years." and then i'm told, "you can't use hindsight, those deals are in the past." so when, exactly, can i analyze his moves???
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
