Kings are blowing it with fans

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Taking away minutes from a young developing player is hardly detrimental to the team as a whole if the player getting those minutes is better than the players he's taking the minutes from...

Yes it is. That's exactly what it is. Not giving playing time to developing players is detrimental to your team, and I can't grok why you would think otherwise. Your statement is only true when it applies to a team that is contending: you can justify not developing a Gerald Wallace when you've got a Peja Stojakovic and a Hedo Turkoglu and you're the top three contenders to win a championship. You can't justify it when you're barely one of the top three contenders for the eighth seed. On a young up-and-coming team like the Kings, that is probably still a good year away from making the playoffs, developing young talent is the single most important thing this team has to do. That's one of the most fundamental tennets of putting a team together: you don't mortgage your future unless you think you can win now.

The 2002 Kings could afford to not develop young talent; the 2010 Kings cannot.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Yes it is. That's exactly what it is. Not giving playing time to developing players is detrimental to your team, and I can't grok why you would think otherwise. Your statement is only true when it applies to a team that is contending: you can justify not developing a Gerald Wallace when you've got a Peja Stojakovic and a Hedo Turkoglu and you're the top three contenders to win a championship. You can't justify it when you're barely one of the top three contenders for the eighth seed. On a young up-and-coming team like the Kings, that is probably still a good year away from making the playoffs, developing young talent is the single most important thing this team has to do. That's one of the most fundamental tennets of putting a team together: you don't mortgage your future unless you think you can win now.

The 2002 Kings could afford to not develop young talent; the 2010 Kings cannot.

Young players don't have to play starters minutes to develop. That's part of developing, actually. Caspi, Greene, and Thompson are all quite a ways from being starters on a good team. That doesn't mean they can't still develop as players with good minutes off the bench. It's not as if anyone suggested they all of a sudden will get garbage minutes. Evans and Cousins are really the future and the hope of this team right now and they'll be getting their minutes regardless. Everyone else (with the exception of maybe Landry) is really a question mark at this point.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Young players don't have to play starters minutes to develop.

Cite?

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Cite?

You needn't look any further than past Kings for proof. Hedo not only developed, but was an important part of The Kings team in his first 3 seasons, and he did it averaging about 20 minutes a game.

 

[mac]

Young players don't have to play starters minutes to develop. That's part of developing, actually. Caspi, Greene, and Thompson are all quite a ways from being starters on a good team.

And so the way for them to become starters on a good team is to sit on the bench and play bench minutes. That my friend, is logic at it's best.

That doesn't mean they can't still develop as players with good minutes off the bench. It's not as if anyone suggested they all of a sudden will get garbage minutes. Evans and Cousins are really the future and the hope of this team right now and they'll be getting their minutes regardless. Everyone else (with the exception of maybe Landry) is really a question mark at this point.

But you said we should have signed Rudy GAY! So you'd pay a guy 20 million dollars a year for him to get what 28 minutes a game (which by the way would leave only 20 minutes at the SF position for BOTH Omri and Donte...so much for good minutes off the bench). Here you were saying how we'd have a number 3 option and all .. and then the next moment you say no, we still have minutes to give to both Omri and Donte.

You act as if Donte and Omri and JT have reached their potential and are on the decline of their careers. You are right, they are question marks, but the only way for them to not remain question marks is for them to play for crying out loud.

ARGH I feel like there's not enough logic to go around in this thread. Why don't you start by explaining how you would expect Donte and Omri to develop if we had a big name FA at the SF position. Just start there, and we can at least have something that resembles an intelligent discussion.

 

[bajaden]

Young players don't have to play starters minutes to develop. That's part of developing, actually. Caspi, Greene, and Thompson are all quite a ways from being starters on a good team. That doesn't mean they can't still develop as players with good minutes off the bench. It's not as if anyone suggested they all of a sudden will get garbage minutes. Evans and Cousins are really the future and the hope of this team right now and they'll be getting their minutes regardless. Everyone else (with the exception of maybe Landry) is really a question mark at this point.

If your the Lakers or the Spurs, etc. You'd be right. But the Kings aren't in that position. They were when they had Gerald Wallace, and he never got the minutes he needed at the time to become the player he is now. For some reason you seem to just ignore the fact that the league is facing a new CBA agreement at the end of next season. No one knows what the rules are going to be. For the Kings to max out on salaries now would be foolish. In just a few years the contracts of Greene, Thompson, Casspi, and Evans will be up for renewal. Landry's and Dalembert's are up at the end of this coming season. What if there's a hard cap in place as a result of the new agreement. If the Kings are maxed out ant facing a hard cap, there's no possiblity of them resigning either of those players. I'm not saying that they intend to anyway. But the team does have to plan for the future. It can't just live in the now.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

And so the way for them to become starters on a good team is to sit on the bench and play bench minutes. That my friend, is logic at it's best.



But you said we should have signed Rudy GAY! So you'd pay a guy 20 million dollars a year for him to get what 28 minutes a game (which by the way would leave only 20 minutes at the SF position for BOTH Omri and Donte...so much for good minutes off the bench). Here you were saying how we'd have a number 3 option and all .. and then the next moment you say no, we still have minutes to give to both Omri and Donte.

You act as if Donte and Omri and JT have reached their potential and are on the decline of their careers. You are right, they are question marks, but the only way for them to not remain question marks is for them to play for crying out loud.

ARGH I feel like there's not enough logic to go around in this thread. Why don't you start by explaining how you would expect Donte and Omri to develop if we had a big name FA at the SF position. Just start there, and we can at least have something that resembles an intelligent discussion.

For someone who speaks often of logic, you don't seem to exhibit much of it yourself. For, It only requires pedestrian logic (at best) to see that Donte and Omri losing some minutes to a better (key word, better) player is not a bad thing.

 

[thedofd]

how about this for an analogy

Your "out of shape" metaphor doesn't hold up, unless you don't consider drafting Cousins and Whiteside (clearly addressing a previous weakness in our team), or trading Hawes (addition by subtraction) and Nocioni (freeing up time for Greene and Casspi) to be evidence of "getting in shape."

Frankly, the reason why you're getting such strong opposition is not because of being defensive, but because nobody but a handful of people accept your premise, and you've done a terrible job of trying to convey why we should. Your argument requires us to accept your claim that we haven't gotten better, and we haven't taken steps to improve, and most of us simply don't agree with that.

Let's try this analogy: The Kings are trying to flip a house. They bought a fixer-upper, painted it, put in new cabinets, re-did the shabby front bathroom, put in new carpets, re-roofed and then put it on the market. They paid $185K for it, put in $35K worth of work, sold it for $260K. Nice, tidy profit. However, if they'd taken the extra steps of re-landscaping and upgrading the air conditioning, they might have gotten $310K.

Again, all credit is due for the makeover of the front line. I just agree with the premise that they stopped a bit short. In this free agent market, they could have strengthened the backcourt for a reasonable price with proven players. I'm not talking about taking playing time from young players -- Beno and Cisco pretty much are what they are -- just talking about prudent, conservative moves to ensure there is genuine NBA depth when someone is injured, slumping, etc.

I believe the lack of a free-agent signing is less about uncertainty regarding the CBA, the fact Sacramento is a small market, or any kind of personnel strategy on Petrie's part and more about the Maloofs' economic realities. While the team is well under the cap, Petrie was told to hold the line. I'm not criticizing the Maloofs, by the way; I appreciate their commitment to the team and the market.

Bottom line, the Kings will be improved -- maybe significantly improved -- and we'll all be happy about that. But, to use another analogy, I think another solid addition could have elevated the offseason from a solid 2-run double to a grand slam.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Let's try this analogy: The Kings are trying to flip a house. They bought a fixer-upper, painted it, put in new cabinets, re-did the shabby front bathroom, put in new carpets, re-roofed and then put it on the market. They paid $185K for it, put in $35K worth of work, sold it for $260K. Nice, tidy profit. However, if they'd taken the extra steps of re-landscaping and upgrading the air conditioning, they might have gotten $310K.

Again, all credit is due for the makeover of the front line. I just agree with the premise that they stopped a bit short. In this free agent market, they could have strengthened the backcourt for a reasonable price with proven players. I'm not talking about taking playing time from young players -- Beno and Cisco pretty much are what they are -- just talking about prudent, conservative moves to ensure there is genuine NBA depth when someone is injured, slumping, etc.

I believe the lack of a free-agent signing is less about uncertainty regarding the CBA, the fact Sacramento is a small market, or any kind of personnel strategy on Petrie's part and more about the Maloofs' economic realities. While the team is well under the cap, Petrie was told to hold the line. I'm not criticizing the Maloofs, by the way; I appreciate their commitment to the team and the market.

Bottom line, the Kings will be improved -- maybe significantly improved -- and we'll all be happy about that. But, to use another analogy, I think another solid addition could have elevated the offseason from a solid 2-run double to a grand slam.

Excellent post. That pretty much sums it it up perfectly.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

You needn't look any further than past Kings for proof. Hedo not only developed, but was an important part of The Kings team in his first 3 seasons, and he did it averaging about 20 minutes a game.

Turkoglu's career track in Sacramento would actually seem to refute your argument. In the first place, he had one decent season, bookended by two bad seasons, a rookie season where he didn't get any time, and a third season where he actually regressed, because he didn't get any time (ironically because Petrie did exactly what you are wanting him to do, and signed a free agent, Jim Jackson, who took Turkoglu's minutes, and regressed his development). And, in the second place, those Kings could afford to have Turkoglu's development plateau at Sixth Man, because that's all they needed him for. These Kings cannot. Between Thompson, Greene and Casspi, we need at least two of those guys to develop into quality starters, and you don't do that by giving them "off the bench" minutes.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Let's try this analogy: The Kings are trying to flip a house. They bought a fixer-upper, painted it, put in new cabinets, re-did the shabby front bathroom, put in new carpets, re-roofed and then put it on the market. They paid $185K for it, put in $35K worth of work, sold it for $260K. Nice, tidy profit. However, if they'd taken the extra steps of re-landscaping and upgrading the air conditioning, they might have gotten $310K.

Except that 1) the Kings didn't buy a fixer-upper, and 2) they aren't trying to flip it. They tore down the old house, and are building a new house on the old land. Your, and RookieoftheDay's, suggestion would be the equivalent of breaking up the foundation because you decided after the concrete had been poured to add another room, when the more practical solution would be to make an addition to the house after the rest of the house has been built.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

Turkoglu's career track in Sacramento would actually seem to refute your argument. In the first place, he had one decent season, bookended by two bad seasons, a rookie season where he didn't get any time, and a third season where he actually regressed, because he didn't get any time (ironically because Petrie did exactly what you are wanting him to do, and signed a free agent, Jim Jackson, who took Turkoglu's minutes, and regressed his development). And, in the second place, those Kings could afford to have Turkoglu's development plateau at Sixth Man, because that's all they needed him for. These Kings cannot. Between Thompson, Greene and Casspi, we need at least two of those guys to develop into quality starters, and you don't do that by giving them "off the bench" minutes.

Players that get more minutes, regress as well. Regression is not necessarily linked to less playing time. In fact, the opposite could just as easily be true. Correlation doesn't always mean causation.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Players that get more minutes, regress as well. Regression is not necessarily linked to less playing time. In fact, the opposite could just as easily be true.

I find the veracity of this statement to be highly questionable.

 

[RookieOfTheDay]

I find the veracity of this statement to be highly questionable.

Well, if a player regresses, it stands to reason they will probably end up seeing less playing time if the regression lasts long enough, assuming there are better options available. With Hedo, I think the important thing to remember is that he was an important part of the team even though he didn't play big minutes. Some people are acting as if the only options are playing 40 MPG or getting garbage time. There's the middle ground, which is being a valuable 6th, 7th, or 8th man on a good team.

 

[thedofd]

au contraire

Except that 1) the Kings didn't buy a fixer-upper, and 2) they aren't trying to flip it. They tore down the old house, and are building a new house on the old land. Your, and RookieoftheDay's, suggestion would be the equivalent of breaking up the foundation because you decided after the concrete had been poured to add another room, when the more practical solution would be to make an addition to the house after the rest of the house has been built.

I disagree. They're trying to flip a 25-win team into a 35- to 40-win team and ultimately to a solid playoff team. I'm not suggesting breaking up anything. To use your own terminology, all I advocate doing is an add-on, in the form of backcourt bench strength.

You can have a crappy 3,500 square foot house; by the same token, you can have a magnificent 1,500 square foot house. The difference is the extra touches, the finishing, the quality of the fixtures. We got some nice tile; all I'm saying is that granite would have been better.

 

[Nighthawk1]

I disagree. They're trying to flip a 25-win team into a 35- to 40-win team and ultimately to a solid playoff team. I'm not suggesting breaking up anything. To use your own terminology, all I advocate doing is an add-on, in the form of backcourt bench strength.

You can have a crappy 3,500 square foot house; by the same token, you can have a magnificent 1,500 square foot house. The difference is the extra touches, the finishing, the quality of the fixtures. We got some nice tile; all I'm saying is that granite would have been better.

I feel half of this thread is trolling...
But I will thusly counter with - what granite was available at the correct price? All I saw was some epoxy knock-offs going for granite prices.
I understand people wanted to do something big this off-season - we did I think. We have burned all the negative contracts last season and this season and have financially turned this team around from the state we were in as a 17 win team with nothing but epoxy granite knockoffs holding our team together at granite prices. There was talent available, but not for us and not at the prices we should have to pay and I think people need to put more value in that. We upgraded our front court from being completely dismal last season into what most would say is probably our strong suite now.

GP's strengths are trades and drafting. I would say his weakness is signing players (which usually end in absurd deals). I'm happy he signed almost no one - we still have assets and cap space for trades in which he can work wonders.

 

[Kingsguy881]

Cite?

Lakers trading Eddie Jones so Kobe could get the minutes as a starter and develop into what he is now.

 

[Spike]

This is quite the doozy of a thread. Kudos for pulling everyone out of the woodworks for a TDOS thread.

• If you've played the game, hell, any game, you know that you don't get better by watching someone else play. You never get better by watching. Especially in basketball. You might say, "hey, that was a pretty good move," but that's about it. You get better by getting out on the court in actual game situations and making mistakes. To assume Greene, Casspi, et al. would get better by watching is folly.
• The house analogy is terrible. A flip would occur when you're trying to create a quick sell, which is what the Maloofs were trying to do earlier, when plugging in holes to try and keep the team fighting for the last playoff spot.
• Answer the questions: Whose minutes and development would you sacrifice for a Free Agent? Thompson? Greene? Casspi? It will be more than one person.
  
  ​
• Why ignore the CBA problem? It's a real one, especially for a small market like Sacramento, which will end up much stronger when all is said and done.

Finally, a thought:

As a senior citizen was driving down the freeway, his car phone rang. Answering, he heard his wife's voice urgently warning him, "Herman, I just heard on the news that there's a car going the wrong way on 280. Please be careful!"

"Hell," said Herman, "It's not just one car. It's hundreds of them!"

 

[bajaden]

Some of the suggestions, like more playing time being counterproductive is simply ridiculous. The idea of giving a player playing time is to find out what you have. If you give a player more playing time and he doesn't improve in a certain period of time, then I think you've found out what you have and you rid yourself of that player, or delegate him to a help off the bench player.. I can relate countless stories of players that sat on the bench of a team and played limited minutes, that were traded to another team and became very good and in some cases, stars. Jermaine O'Neal springs to mind. John Salmons, whether you like his game or not, became a better player once free of Philly and playing behind Iverson.

When you sign a player to a 4 year contract, its an investment for the team. Maybe a small investment in relationship to what other players are making, but we're still talking about several million dollars over that 4 year period. At the end of that 4 year period you better know just how good that player is going to be, because its decision time. And the more information you have the better decision you'll make. Now I know we live in an instant gratification society. But you can't run a basketball team that way. There have been plenty of thoughtful ideas put forth on this thread by knowledgable posters. I have found that certain people in disagreement with the majority have been condesending in some of their responses. Condesention is a sign of ignorance, and shows a lack of self esteem in the person that uses it. If the shoe fits, wear it. I think you can have a healthy discussion without putting the other person down.

 

[Kingster]

Some of the suggestions, like more playing time being counterproductive is simply ridiculous. The idea of giving a player playing time is to find out what you have. If you give a player more playing time and he doesn't improve in a certain period of time, then I think you've found out what you have and you rid yourself of that player, or delegate him to a help off the bench player.. I can relate countless stories of players that sat on the bench of a team and played limited minutes, that were traded to another team and became very good and in some cases, stars. Jermaine O'Neal springs to mind. John Salmons, whether you like his game or not, became a better player once free of Philly and playing behind Iverson.

When you sign a player to a 4 year contract, its an investment for the team. Maybe a small investment in relationship to what other players are making, but we're still talking about several million dollars over that 4 year period. At the end of that 4 year period you better know just how good that player is going to be, because its decision time. And the more information you have the better decision you'll make. Now I know we live in an instant gratification society. But you can't run a basketball team that way. There have been plenty of thoughtful ideas put forth on this thread by knowledgable posters. I have found that certain people in disagreement with the majority have been condesending in some of their responses. Condesention is a sign of ignorance, and shows a lack of self esteem in the person that uses it. If the shoe fits, wear it. I think you can have a healthy discussion without putting the other person down.

It's also a sign that you think the other person is an idiot.

 

[The Hammer]

Let's try this analogy: The Kings are trying to flip a house. They bought a fixer-upper, painted it, put in new cabinets, re-did the shabby front bathroom, put in new carpets, re-roofed and then put it on the market. They paid $185K for it, put in $35K worth of work, sold it for $260K. Nice, tidy profit. However, if they'd taken the extra steps of re-landscaping and upgrading the air conditioning, they might have gotten $310K.

Again, all credit is due for the makeover of the front line. I just agree with the premise that they stopped a bit short. In this free agent market, they could have strengthened the backcourt for a reasonable price with proven players. I'm not talking about taking playing time from young players -- Beno and Cisco pretty much are what they are -- just talking about prudent, conservative moves to ensure there is genuine NBA depth when someone is injured, slumping, etc.

I believe the lack of a free-agent signing is less about uncertainty regarding the CBA, the fact Sacramento is a small market, or any kind of personnel strategy on Petrie's part and more about the Maloofs' economic realities. While the team is well under the cap, Petrie was told to hold the line. I'm not criticizing the Maloofs, by the way; I appreciate their commitment to the team and the market.

Bottom line, the Kings will be improved -- maybe significantly improved -- and we'll all be happy about that. But, to use another analogy, I think another solid addition could have elevated the offseason from a solid 2-run double to a grand slam.

Who?

 

[Chupacabra]

I will ask this question AGAIN...is anyone here suggesting that they would have been willing to outbid Memphis for Rudy Gay?

 

[bajaden]

It's also a sign that you think the other person is an idiot.

I resemble that remark!! Wait! Are you talking about me or the other guy? Hmmm! He who protests the loudest.......... I think I'd better shut up now...

 

[kennadog]

Funny. Some are disappointed, not because we didn't sign a major piece, but because we didn't aggressively pursue any FAs. So if Petrie told the press every day that he was aggressively pursuing certain FAs, these people would have been happy, even if we signed no one they think would improve the team? That's a real head scratcher to me.

Since it took the team awhile to decide to get out of salary cap hell, I'm glad the GM and owners didn't go overspend in the manner of so many teams this summer (including for Rudy Gay.)

At the end of their rookie contracts, we will likely want to resign Evans and very possibly Cousins to what will be big contracts. If Greene or Casspi or Whiteside prove themselves more than capable role players to the primary two, we will want to resign one or all at the end of their rookie contracts, more money than they are earning now, probably. It behooves us to not overpay some veteran for the next five years who may be too old when we become contenders or might prevent us from re-signing our own good rookies. Remember, the owners want a hard salary cap in the new CBA. That may or may not happen, but a team is smarter if it watches total salary right now and keeps room to re-sign the rookies it wants to keep.

It might not be sexy or exciting to do little in free agency, but sometimes no move is the smartest move of all. I happen to think a whole lot has happened on this team in the last two years, so I'm not disappointed by no major FA signings at all.

 

[Telemachus]

Well, if a player regresses, it stands to reason they will probably end up seeing less playing time if the regression lasts long enough, assuming there are better options available. With Hedo, I think the important thing to remember is that he was an important part of the team even though he didn't play big minutes. Some people are acting as if the only options are playing 40 MPG or getting garbage time. There's the middle ground, which is being a valuable 6th, 7th, or 8th man on a good team.

I think the point you are missing that that players like Hedo and Gerald Wallace BOTH had to go to other teams where they became starters to fully develop to their potential. Neither of them did this on the Kings' bench. You can look at young players over the years that were 6th, 7th, or 8th men off the bench on contending teams only to see those same players become much better as starters after they go to other teams. This has long been the way of the NBA.

 

[mac]

Let's try this analogy: The Kings are trying to flip a house. They bought a fixer-upper, painted it, put in new cabinets, re-did the shabby front bathroom, put in new carpets, re-roofed and then put it on the market. They paid $185K for it, put in $35K worth of work, sold it for $260K. Nice, tidy profit. However, if they'd taken the extra steps of re-landscaping and upgrading the air conditioning, they might have gotten $310K.

Again, all credit is due for the makeover of the front line. I just agree with the premise that they stopped a bit short. In this free agent market, they could have strengthened the backcourt for a reasonable price with proven players. I'm not talking about taking playing time from young players -- Beno and Cisco pretty much are what they are -- just talking about prudent, conservative moves to ensure there is genuine NBA depth when someone is injured, slumping, etc.

I believe the lack of a free-agent signing is less about uncertainty regarding the CBA, the fact Sacramento is a small market, or any kind of personnel strategy on Petrie's part and more about the Maloofs' economic realities. While the team is well under the cap, Petrie was told to hold the line. I'm not criticizing the Maloofs, by the way; I appreciate their commitment to the team and the market.

Bottom line, the Kings will be improved -- maybe significantly improved -- and we'll all be happy about that. But, to use another analogy, I think another solid addition could have elevated the offseason from a solid 2-run double to a grand slam.

While I get what you're getting at, I don't think the analogy is perfectly suitable to describe the situation. On a basketball team, adding a player may not necessarily increase the value of the team. How so? Well ok I'll give you this, say we sign Rudy Gay. Our win total would definitely be higher than if we didn't sign Rudy Gay. If you're looking at the value of a team solely based on how many wins it gets in a season then sure, Rudy Gay would have increase the value of our team for the coming season. But unlike Rudy Gay, air condition and re-landscaping do not make the bathrooms and carpet any worse off.

I still haven't received any explanation (from the other guy) as to how
a) signing a big name free agent would leave good minutes for Donte and Omri
b) Donte and Omri would get the chance to develop not getting such good minutes

RookieOfTheDay said that I lack logic in seeing that Donte and Omri losing minutes to a better player is not a bad thing - I'm assuming he means not a bad thing to their development since that's what we're all talking about anyway. Could someone please enlighten me? Perhaps Baja you could spare me some logic and explain how the **** this makes sense? Because as hard as I try, I simply come to one conclusion - that a certain poster has his underwear on too tight.

Following this same logic you would play Samuel D way way more minutes than DMC. Why are Donte and Omri question marks but DMC is a sure thing who should get his minutes when you haven't even seem him play?

I ask so many questions, get so few answers, and expect to simply get a "Duh because err ... Because Kings said they're not gonna bid for Free Agent duh..."

 

[steelevt]

While I get what you're getting at, I don't think the analogy is perfectly suitable to describe the situation. On a basketball team, adding a player may not necessarily increase the value of the team. How so? Well ok I'll give you this, say we sign Rudy Gay. Our win total would definitely be higher than if we didn't sign Rudy Gay. If you're looking at the value of a team solely based on how many wins it gets in a season then sure, Rudy Gay would have increase the value of our team for the coming season. But unlike Rudy Gay, air condition and re-landscaping do not make the bathrooms and carpet any worse off.

sorry, i know you were trying to get back to a certain topic but this got me thinking. the whole point of giving omri or donte playing time is so that they hopefully develop into a great player right? someone hopefully as good as...i dunno rudy gay. if we could get a rudy gay type player, wouldnt that just be getting from point A to point B without having to waste another season seeing if omri or donte live up to expectation? it wouldnt matter about them getting playing time or progressing if we already have that position filled. so it would make this whole argument of them needing playing time pointless. since we are working with the house analogy, and this hypothetical FA would be the same position as omri or donte. i see it as now that we have an air conditioner(FA), no need to see if the fans(omri or donte) will cool the house.

now i want to make it clear that in no way wanted to overpay for rudy gay or any other free agent. i just wanted to bring up the fact that a lot of people bring up PT for the youngs as an argument but that was my answer to that question. IMO the point of developing the younger players is if you believe they have the potential to be a key piece to the team. to develop into a star. if you believe omri or donte will be better than a FA you can get...i agree pass on the FA and develop them. but if their ceiling is lower than who you can get, PT doesnt matter as long as it isnt just garbage minutes. the exception would be cousins over SD. we all believe cousins "can" be a great player so its better not to stunt his progression by limiting his pt. i hope he gets as much time as possible to learn the game and become our second key piece to this team. again this point isnt directed only towards you. others have brought up that argument but yours was just the last post i read

 

[Tetsujin]

I think the point you are missing that that players like Hedo and Gerald Wallace BOTH had to go to other teams where they became starters to fully develop to their potential. Neither of them did this on the Kings' bench. You can look at young players over the years that were 6th, 7th, or 8th men off the bench on contending teams only to see those same players become much better as starters after they go to other teams. This has long been the way of the NBA.

Trevor Ariza and Carl Landry are both recent examples of this.

 

[Gary]

I'm upset that they haven't extended a camp invite to Antonio Anderson yet... Geez Petrie, hurry up!

 

[Nighthawk1]

We should offer Adam Morrison a 5yr $50m contract before some else grabs him