JJackson, Zbo to Dallas for Harrison Barnes

[KingsFanSince85]

I'm sure the chance to play with Peja had a lot to do with Vlade deciding to come here. Webber had just been in trouble because of pot and his choices were between coming to Sacramento and not getting paid. If you want to claim that Sacramento is just as appealing a destination as any other place you'll need better examples than that.

C'mon, dude. I said things have and are changing compared to how they've been previously. How can anyone not acknowledge that? I already listed several things as an example. All anyone wants to do to counter is using the 'liar liar pants on fire' defense. SMH.

Secondly, you're 100% wrong about Webber. He had been in trouble before he arrived in SAC, which is what aided Petrie to net him in trade. But after several years in SAC and all the winning and success, CWEBB was a very hot commodity upon entering FA. And every sports writer in America (I remember Jim Rome saying nearly every day) was saying that SAC had no chance to keep him and that he was going to one of several other locations -- NY and LA chief among them. You're old enough to remember all that so I don't know why you're debating with me over it.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

No disrespect to Vlade, but was he a top center when he joined the Kings? He was turning 30 and had averaged 10, 8,and 3 with the Hornets. It felt like a big get for the Kings since they struggle getting quality free agents, but I don't think most people thought Vlade was in his prime.

He wasn't Shaq or Duncan, by any means, but he still was a top FA. Not some scrub or marginal talent.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Of course I am speculating, but it is based on 33 years of observation.

And the point I'm making to you is that those 33 years don't dictate what happens today.

Case in point. Up until the past 2 drafts, the KINGS rarely got lucky in the draft lottery. Only 2 times in 32 years. And 1 of those occurrences was a year when it was a very poor draft. One of the worst in recent history (1989). But the past 2 years, they've had a fortunate change of events not once but twice -- both in deep drafts. Leading up to the 2017 draft lottery, a pessimist would also have had 32 years of history on their side in saying 'it's not going to happen'. But it did.

Secondly, for most of the past 33 years the city was much different. There wasn't a top notch arena residing downtown. There wasn't a state-of-the-art practice and training facility for the KINGS to use. Downtown was mostly or completely dead.

Times have changed. All of the above has changed. Just in the past 5-10 years. Soon there's likely to be a 20K soccer stadium and an additional entertainment district in the railyard, just a few blocks from Golden 1 Center and K Street and Old Sac, which, along with some other big projects, will spearhead development of one of the largest undeveloped downtown areas in the Nation. There's a lot more to do in and around SAC than ever before. And if the KINGS franchise continues to win, all of those factors make them a much more attractive destination than at any time over the 33 years you're referring to.

None of the above means that any the top FA's or even above average ones will automatically begin to flock here. I'm just saying that it's possible that the tide is beginning to turn. There are reasons beyond the past to try.

I'll end my side of the discussion by quoting a line from the movie 'Wedding Crashers' in a tongue-in-cheek fashion:

"You shoot me down with your negativity. Your $%^&*@ negativity. I don't need it. I'm an idea man. I thrive on enthusiasm. Don't take the wind out of my sails."

 

[Dime Dropper]

And the point I'm making to you is that those 33 years don't dictate what happens today.

Case in point. Up until the past 2 drafts, the KINGS rarely got lucky in the draft lottery. Only 2 times in 32 years. And 1 of those occurrences was a year when it was a very poor draft. One of the worst in recent history (1989). But the past 2 years, they've had a fortunate change of events not once but twice -- both in deep drafts. Leading up to the 2017 draft lottery, a pessimist would also have had 32 years of history on their side in saying 'it's not going to happen'. But it did.

Secondly, for most of the past 33 years the city was much different. There wasn't a top notch arena residing downtown. There wasn't a state-of-the-art practice and training facility for the KINGS to use. Downtown was mostly or completely dead.

Times have changed. All of the above has changed. Just in the past 5-10 years. Soon there's likely to be a 20K soccer stadium and an additional entertainment district in the railyard, just a few blocks from Golden 1 Center and K Street and Old Sac, which, along with some other big projects, will spearhead development of one of the largest undeveloped downtown areas in the Nation. There's a lot more to do in and around SAC than ever before. And if the KINGS franchise continues to win, all of those factors make them a much more attractive destination than at any time over the 33 years you're referring to.

None of the above means that any the top FA's or even above average ones will automatically begin to flock here. I'm just saying that it's possible that the tide is beginning to turn. There are reasons beyond the past to try.

I'll end my side of the discussion by quoting a line from the movie 'Wedding Crashers' in a tongue-in-cheek fashion:

"You shoot me down with your negativity. Your $%^&*@ negativity. I don't need it. I'm an idea man. I thrive on enthusiasm. Don't take the wind out of my sails."

Not going to get very involved in this debate, but your first paragraph about the lottery is not comparable at all, nor is it relevant. That's a lottery based system with the outcome dependant fully on luck/chance. FAs have a choice whether to sign here, their names aren't drawn out of a hat to see who has to play here. Just not relevant.

That said, I tend to side with Taxman anyway. It's unlikely we're a realistic destination for any big name FAs. We might be getting more attractive as you said, but we're still not a huge market. The biggest thing we can do to attract the elite FAs is to become a 50+ win team.

It doesn't mean our odds of it are 0%. But it's unlikely IMO. Obviously I'd be happy to eat crow.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

Not going to get very involved in this debate, but your first paragraph about the lottery is not comparable at all, nor is it relevant. That's a lottery based system with the outcome dependant fully on luck/chance. FAs have a choice whether to sign here, their names aren't drawn out of a hat to see who has to play here. Just not relevant.

I knew I was gonna get this response from someone. In the context I used it, it most certainly is relevant. It's an example of something consistently occurring over a long period of time that suddenly changed. You're choosing to lock in to the math or luck behind it. But that's actually the irrelevant part, as I wasn't comparing the two by that standard. Regardless, someone could justify a FA's choice on luck or chance too. Not only where the player is from, but also how odds are better when a team is successful.

For example, if SAC had been as successful as long as say the Spurs the past 30 years, odds are they have attracted a lot more FA's than they have despite whatever the city lacked. Conversely, if SA had been awful like the KINGS all that time, their FA fortunes would have been different too. There's are a lot of factors involved, some within control and many not aka luck.

Regardless, the point was about citing history as an example why something will or won't happen and not the luck or math behind it.

 

[KingsFanSince85]

I just thought of another example how FA fortunes can change. Just look at Yogi Ferrell.

Sure, he's not a top FA. I get that. But he's a valuable player that had options of places to play aside from SAC. In fact, he had a new deal in place with Dallas and changed his mind to come here because he liked what the KINGS are doing and his potential fit. He didn't opt to stay in Dallas because there's more to do or because the city is considered to be more attractive. The differences in the contract offers he received weren't hugely different either. He simply thought SAC was a better place for him. If he can make that choice, why is beyond imagination that someone else could too -- especially a year or two down the line if the team is starting to contend? That's the point.

 

[Dime Dropper]

I knew I was gonna get this response from someone. In the context I used it, it most certainly is relevant. It's an example of something consistently occurring over a long period of time that suddenly changed. You're choosing to lock in to the math or luck behind it. But that's actually the irrelevant part, as I wasn't comparing the two by that standard. Regardless, someone could justify a FA's choice on luck or chance too. Not only where the player is from, but also how odds are better when a team is successful.

For example, if SAC had been as successful as long as say the Spurs the past 30 years, odds are they have attracted a lot more FA's than they have despite whatever the city lacked. Conversely, if SA had been awful like the KINGS all that time, their FA fortunes would have been different too. There's are a lot of factors involved, some within control and many not aka luck.

Regardless, the point was about citing history as an example why something will or won't happen and not the luck or math behind it.

OK, we'll agree to disagree, because I don't think it's relevant at all and actually think it's nonsensical to use it in your argument.

Re Yogi, he saw more of an opportunity in Sacramento. The big FAs don't have to worry about playing time. It's a stretch to say that because he had other choices, he saw Sacramento as the most attractive destination.

Like I said, the best way to attract FAs will be to become a good team, which I think is basically what you're saying anyway, so I'm not sure we disagree that much. You basically said as much with the Spurs analogy, which was true.

 

[Ozymandias]

Justin Jackson is an interesting fit for the Mavs moving forward. Wish him all the luck in the world. He's an essential piece to this trade, the kid was really starting to come around in 2019.

JJ was not a perfect fit here on the Kings though, especially on defense. His skillset is actually slightly redundant with Marvin, Barnes and Marvin is a much better match/pairing.

Super excited bout tonight.... The new look Kings are gonna be fun!!!

 

[63royals]

C'mon, dude. I said things have and are changing compared to how they've been previously. How can anyone not acknowledge that? I already listed several things as an example. All anyone wants to do to counter is using the 'liar liar pants on fire' defense. SMH.

Secondly, you're 100% wrong about Webber. He had been in trouble before he arrived in SAC, which is what aided Petrie to net him in trade. But after several years in SAC and all the winning and success, CWEBB was a very hot commodity upon entering FA. And every sports writer in America (I remember Jim Rome saying nearly every day) was saying that SAC had no chance to keep him and that he was going to one of several other locations -- NY and LA chief among them. You're old enough to remember all that so I don't know why you're debating with me over it.

No moving the goalposts. I was reacting very specifically to the condescending 'have you ever heard of Chris and Vlade'. Believe it or not, we've all heard of him.

That's exactly the scenario under which Webber came to Sacramento. Once he got here, and discovered how good the situation was, THEN everything was different.

Now that the team is getting better it's obviously a more attractive destination for free agents, and that's where we are now. The curse of the small market franchise is that if you're not already good, free agents have no interest unless there's a ton of money involved.

 

[John Galt]

JJ was not a perfect fit here on the Kings though, especially on defense. His skillset is actually slightly redundant with Marvin

extra credit for a totally original thought there.

ok seriously - what do you mean by that? I'm scratching my head over that comment.

 

[macadocious]

JJ was a perfect for here, he’s just not a starter. He has a chance to be a rotational piece.

 

[New Era]

As much as JJ seemed like a GREAT guy, I just don't think anybody can say that he was going to be a good player and keep a straight face. He literally had like a 7-10 day stretch this year where he looked like he might find a role, but other than that he's really been terrible. He's shooing something like 18% from 3 point range the past 12 games and the sad thing is most of those looks are wide open or contested very little. For the 5th option on the floor, he absolutely has to be a 40% shooter from out there to be effective at all.

 

[Sactown ExPat]

And the point I'm making to you is that those 33 years don't dictate what happens today.

Case in point. Up until the past 2 drafts, the KINGS rarely got lucky in the draft lottery. Only 2 times in 32 years. And 1 of those occurrences was a year when it was a very poor draft. One of the worst in recent history (1989). But the past 2 years, they've had a fortunate change of events not once but twice -- both in deep drafts. Leading up to the 2017 draft lottery, a pessimist would also have had 32 years of history on their side in saying 'it's not going to happen'. But it did.

Secondly, for most of the past 33 years the city was much different. There wasn't a top notch arena residing downtown. There wasn't a state-of-the-art practice and training facility for the KINGS to use. Downtown was mostly or completely dead.

Times have changed. All of the above has changed. Just in the past 5-10 years. Soon there's likely to be a 20K soccer stadium and an additional entertainment district in the railyard, just a few blocks from Golden 1 Center and K Street and Old Sac, which, along with some other big projects, will spearhead development of one of the largest undeveloped downtown areas in the Nation. There's a lot more to do in and around SAC than ever before. And if the KINGS franchise continues to win, all of those factors make them a much more attractive destination than at any time over the 33 years you're referring to.

None of the above means that any the top FA's or even above average ones will automatically begin to flock here. I'm just saying that it's possible that the tide is beginning to turn. There are reasons beyond the past to try.

I'll end my side of the discussion by quoting a line from the movie 'Wedding Crashers' in a tongue-in-cheek fashion:

"You shoot me down with your negativity. Your $%^&*@ negativity. I don't need it. I'm an idea man. I thrive on enthusiasm. Don't take the wind out of my sails."

This. Nobody is a free agent “destination” outside of Miami and the Lakers. No other franchise, that I can recall, has built a championship team primarily via free agency. And for good reason, outside of the Lakers and Miami, NBA cities are pretty fungible. Yes, NY stands out too, but they’ve had probably 8 years of relevance in the last 50. Why? Anyway, all other NBA cities are somewhere on the continuum. If the team is good, free agents will come. If not, they won’t. Miami and the Lakers are the only franchises that can be dead in the water and still land a superstar, for better or worse. For instance, Lebron has imploded a really nice Lakers rebuild. Is that good for them?

We’ll get a big name this July if we want to.

 

[TaxMan]

I just thought of another example how FA fortunes can change. Just look at Yogi Ferrell.

Sure, he's not a top FA. I get that. But he's a valuable player that had options of places to play aside from SAC. In fact, he had a new deal in place with Dallas and changed his mind to come here because he liked what the KINGS are doing and his potential fit. He didn't opt to stay in Dallas because there's more to do or because the city is considered to be more attractive. The differences in the contract offers he received weren't hugely different either. He simply thought SAC was a better place for him. If he can make that choice, why is beyond imagination that someone else could too -- especially a year or two down the line if the team is starting to contend? That's the point.

I don't know man. Maybe we just weren't on the same page with respect to the point of our debate. My point was originally that saving our cap space for the hopes of a significant FA add is not the wisest strategy. Can and will we sign someone? Highly likely and we do every year. If it's a Yogi Ferrell level free agent, that just doesn't move the needle enough to save cap space (no disrespect to Yogi, I love him and he is a solid contributor for the team). Can they attract Vucevic? I think it's a possibility. I would put him on the same tier as Vlade as a free agent. Would be fantastic.

I think you're reading my comments as somehow bagging on Sacramento as a city and/or the Kings organization and you couldn't be farther from the truth. The point is that you cannot build a team the same way in Sac as you can in LA. That means the organization's strategy has to be matched to that reality to be successful.....which was the case in 1998 and I believe is the case now. I'm not looking for a fight on this one because I think we're basically saying the same thing. You just seem to have an issue with my contention that we will never attract a top level superstar as a free agent. Peace man....lets get a win tonight!