Kings meeting with Lebron?

[Hallama]

he's not coming here.

There is a .0001 chance LeBron would sign with the Kings, and that would be after the Maloof's whisper the words "Las Vegas" in his ears.

 

[kennadog]

I'd take LeBron any day. I just don't think that's going to happen, other than in my dreams. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if the Maloofs didn't even try to talk to him.

 

[Superman]

I'd take LeBron any day. I just don't think that's going to happen, other than in my dreams. On the other hand, I'd be surprised if the Maloofs didn't even try to talk to him.

I don't think it matters since they can't offer him a max contract. We don't have the cap space unless we trade Beno or Garcia or something in the next two days.

 

[Bricklayer]

I've seen him brick 3 pt all day long when the game is on the line. Did you see their playoff run? He's inconsistent. We need consistency from outside.

That's ridiculous too.

Yeah, darn, maybe one of the ten greatest players ever to lace them up isn't a great three point shooter. Guess we should pass and sign JJ Reddick instead.

That's all silly -- any stance except wanting LeBron James to sign with the Kings is just...dumb. Capital Dumb even. LeBron's atalent is obviously overwhlemingly more important thatn gee, we need a shooter, and combined with the huge pack of young talent we already have, we could be the most talented team in the league forever. But its just not remotely happening. So we will try to do it another way.

It should be noted for that amazing "I don't want LeBron because I want to be the underdog!?!" contingent, that you may have to swithc teams here. The whole hope for our future now is precisely that we are going to be the overdog, smash people with our own Kobe and Shaq combo of Reke and Cousins, punch them in the mouth, steal their lunch money, and then kick sand in their face on theway out the door. And it promises to be a lot of fun if it works out.

 

[Megalodon]

It should be noted for that amazing "I don't want LeBron because I want to be the underdog!?!" contingent, that you may have to swithc teams here. The whole hope for our future now is precisely that we are going to be the overdog, smash people with our own Kobe and Shaq combo of Reke and Cousins, punch them in the mouth, steal their lunch money, and then kick sand in their face on theway out the door. And it promises to be a lot of fun if it works out.

People were saying they wanted LeBron. What I said( or meant I'm not going back to look ) I would prefer to win as the underdog, because I don't like fans who just hop on the band wagon whenever a team starts doing good. People were calling the other guy crazy, and I was just saying that I can see where he was coming from. Would I deny LBJ ? Hell no. But if we could have the same success without him then I would choose that, and I believe that we are coming to a time when we have the opportunity to be dominate.

 

[kupman]

There is a .0001 chance LeBron would sign with the Kings, and that would be after the Maloof's whisper the words "Las Vegas" in his ears.

Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!*

 

[Kings Faithful]

It should be noted for that amazing "I don't want LeBron because I want to be the underdog!?!" contingent, that you may have to swithc teams here. The whole hope for our future now is precisely that we are going to be the overdog, smash people with our own Kobe and Shaq combo of Reke and Cousins, punch them in the mouth, steal their lunch money, and then kick sand in their face on theway out the door. And it promises to be a lot of fun if it works out.

You guys just don't understand what I'm saying. I'm fine with everything you said their... I just want our team to do it... i don't want Lebron doing it for us.

 

[TaxMan]

People were saying they wanted LeBron. What I said( or meant I'm not going back to look ) I would prefer to win as the underdog, because I don't like fans who just hop on the band wagon whenever a team starts doing good. People were calling the other guy crazy, and I was just saying that I can see where he was coming from. Would I deny LBJ ? Hell no. But if we could have the same success without him then I would choose that, and I believe that we are coming to a time when we have the opportunity to be dominate.

If you're progressing as you should be, you only get that "underdog" status once in the lifecycle of a team (ala the 1999/2000 Kings, the golden state warriors from a few years ago, etc.) Once you break-through as an underdog, you are no longer an underdog unless you're perpetually just an average team. If you get an opportunity for a quick jump into longstanding domination, you take that....regardless of whether you miss out on your initial underdog status.

But, as others have stated, its a moot point anyhow in this situation.

 

[Rookie]

Winning with or without him is still a win....I like to look at the end result.

If the best player is available you go after him if you can. The Maloof should try if it doesn't hurt their pocket or time...can't win the lottery if you don't buy the ticket.

 

[Megalodon]

If you're progressing as you should be, you only get that "underdog" status once in the lifecycle of a team (ala the 1999/2000 Kings, the golden state warriors from a few years ago, etc.) Once you break-through as an underdog, you are no longer an underdog unless you're perpetually just an average team. If you get an opportunity for a quick jump into longstanding domination, you take that....regardless of whether you miss out on your initial underdog status.

But, as others have stated, its a moot point anyhow in this situation.

*sigh*

I give up trying to explain everything I feel, because I cant.

I agree with you though.

 

[Kings Faithful]

If you're progressing as you should be, you only get that "underdog" status once in the lifecycle of a team (ala the 1999/2000 Kings, the golden state warriors from a few years ago, etc.) Once you break-through as an underdog, you are no longer an underdog unless you're perpetually just an average team. If you get an opportunity for a quick jump into longstanding domination, you take that....regardless of whether you miss out on your initial underdog status.

But, as others have stated, its a moot point anyhow in this situation.

For most of you winning is winning regardless of how it is achieved. For me... how it is achieved is more importand. I'm sorry if the rest of you don't agree but I want to win it as a team of 12+ players... not a team of 2. I'd rather have lost as the 2002 kings than to have won as the 2002 Lakers.

 

[Kings Faithful]

*sigh*

I give up trying to explain everything I feel, because I cant.

I agree with you though.

Yeah, I'm done too. The feeling is hard to describe and just gets interperted into "you guys just dont want to win".

 

[Rookie]

For most of you winning is winning regardless of how it is achieved. For me... how it is achieved is more importand. I'm sorry if the rest of you don't agree but I want to win it as a team of 12+ players... not a team of 2. I'd rather have lost as the 2002 kings than to have won as the 2002 Lakers.

What do you mean? 11 players plus 1 awesome player is not a 12 player team? ???
Just because you got the best player doesn't mean you can't win as a team, in matter of fact you have to win as a team. One man can't win it all. I have no clue what you are thinking of. Every team require team effort to be champion but their best player will help them get out of tight situation.

12 equivalent value player = a snake without a head --- IMO

 

[Lafayette]

My favorite thing is how people are saying, "I don't want LeBron because I don't want the team to be HIS" - "I don't want him because we'll get more bandwagon fans." - "I want to win as an underdog." - "I want a young team..." So what your saying is that you don't want to win NOW and you don't want the best player in the league to join the REKE and COUSINS which are all young as is LBJ and you DON'T want to win now, you'll wait a few years when REKE has the option to leave, hmm, I see it now, not bad, HAHAHAHAHA!

The KINGS aren't going to get LeBron but as a fan to say, "NO WAY" is just crazy. I want quality over quantity just like the LAKERS who put together a 5 headed beast (Odom over Fisher) and won it all. Imagine the team with Landry, Cousins, LBJ and REKE along with JT on the bench. I mean, really, you would say NO to that, crazy!

Like I've said, not going to happen but to say NO to it makes you some crazy fan that hopes we lose and don't fill the seats.

Back to the original question: "DO YOU THINK THE MALOOFS WILL BOTHER WITH TALKING TO LEBRON?" Think about it, so they waste time or think they have a shot and how about players like Ray Allen, Reddick or a Grant Hill.

If the BULLS are pitching Rose, Deng, and Noah why can't the Kings pitch REKE, Caspi, Cousins, JT, Landry and even Greene who is going to step it up (maybe)... well the Bulls have money for 2 guys, so, that's that really.

Have fun with the question but don't ever shoot down LBJ, crazy.

 

[The Hammer]

For most of you winning is winning regardless of how it is achieved. For me... how it is achieved is more importand. I'm sorry if the rest of you don't agree but I want to win it as a team of 12+ players... not a team of 2. I'd rather have lost as the 2002 kings than to have won as the 2002 Lakers.

You can't win with 2 players. Lebron has learned that already in Cleveland. Basketball has been and always will be a team sport. You can have the best two players of all time and if they don't have the right supporting crew and a good coach, it ain't happenin.

If Lebron came here-- I think you'd be surprised how quickly he would become one of our own. The media would have a field day with the King is a King thing. It would almost seem like he was destined to be here.

By the way, we bought Vlade.

 

[NME]

So now we're too good to make use of the free agent market, and we must tie one hand behind our back relative to the rest of the league? Or is it only cheating to sign somebody who's TOO GOOD as a free agent and only mediocre MLE acquisitions are fair game?

 

[Superman]

You can't win with 2 players. Lebron has learned that already in Cleveland. Basketball has been and always will be a team sport. You can have the best two players of all time and if they don't have the right supporting crew and a good coach, it ain't happenin.

If Lebron came here-- I think you'd be surprised how quickly he would become one of our own. The media would have a field day with the King is a King thing. It would almost seem like he was destined to be here.

By the way, we bought Vlade.

Who else did LeBron have in Cleveland? The problem is that they don't have a legitimate #2. He's Batman with no Robin, and that's why they couldn't beat the Celtics. It wasn't due to some failing of his.

And considering the fact that the Lakers won three titles in a row with a rag tag supporting cast (all those guys were great in their respective roles, but their other three starters wouldn't have started for any other contender) kind of blows your whole "can't win with two players" argument out of the water. What you really need is a top heavy team, as long as you have two really good guys. We learned the hard way that depth don't mean **** when your best player isn't on the floor. Gotta have a superstar -- and another star alongside him -- if you want to win a title these days. Once you have those two guys, you can worry about the peripherals. But having the nicest peripherals in the world isn't gonna make up for not having really good guys at the top.

 

[Superman]

So now we're too good to make use of the free agent market, and we must tie one hand behind our back relative to the rest of the league? Or is it only cheating to sign somebody who's TOO GOOD as a free agent and only mediocre MLE acquisitions are fair game?

Exactly. A couple of good draft picks (one of which hasn't even played yet), and we don't need to grab the best and most sought after free agent in forever. We all know that we aren't in the picture for LeBron, but all this "I don't want to win with LeBron, I want to win OUR WAY" stuff is crazy. And it's not just about LeBron. Any superstar who is willing to sign with your team, if he's gonna make you better, you sign him and turn your much improved roster loose on the rest of the league. You don't turn your nose up just because he's not homegrown.

 

[The Hammer]

Who else did LeBron have in Cleveland? The problem is that they don't have a legitimate #2. He's Batman with no Robin, and that's why they couldn't beat the Celtics. It wasn't due to some failing of his.

And considering the fact that the Lakers won three titles in a row with a rag tag supporting cast (all those guys were great in their respective roles, but their other three starters wouldn't have started for any other contender) kind of blows your whole "can't win with two players" argument out of the water. What you really need is a top heavy team, as long as you have two really good guys. We learned the hard way that depth don't mean **** when your best player isn't on the floor. Gotta have a superstar -- and another star alongside him -- if you want to win a title these days. Once you have those two guys, you can worry about the peripherals. But having the nicest peripherals in the world isn't gonna make up for not having really good guys at the top.

Even Jordan couldn't win with only a Robin. He had a damn good rest of the team. Yes the Shaq Kobe Lakers won, but that was pretty much an exception, especially since one was such a dominant big man. We're talking two of the top ten players of all time. Jordan and Pippen don't win it without Horace Grant, Rodman, etc... they had a monster defensive team 1 through 5.

And yes, Lebron didn't really have a second. I don't think Mo Williams counts. You are right. But I don't think he does it with just he and Wade, or he and whoever, and a rag tag crew. You've got to have some elite defenders, and you've GOT to have at least one good/great defensive big. Cavs did not. Lebron has got to be thinking yes at least on other star/superstar, but you can't just go with rag tag quality role players to fill it out.

 

[The Hammer]

Exactly. A couple of good draft picks (one of which hasn't even played yet), and we don't need to grab the best and most sought after free agent in forever. We all know that we aren't in the picture for LeBron, but all this "I don't want to win with LeBron, I want to win OUR WAY" stuff is crazy. And it's not just about LeBron. Any superstar who is willing to sign with your team, if he's gonna make you better, you sign him and turn your much improved roster loose on the rest of the league. You don't turn your nose up just because he's not homegrown.

Well said.

 

[Jerryaki]

You don't turn your nose up just because he's not homegrown.

can i turn up my nose at said superstar because i think he's a d-bag?

 

[Superman]

Even Jordan couldn't win with only a Robin. He had a damn good rest of the team. Yes the Shaq Kobe Lakers won, but that was pretty much an exception, especially since one was such a dominant big man. We're talking two of the top ten players of all time. Jordan and Pippen don't win it without Horace Grant, Rodman, etc... they had a monster defensive team 1 through 5.

And yes, Lebron didn't really have a second. I don't think Mo Williams counts. You are right. But I don't think he does it with just he and Wade, or he and whoever, and a rag tag crew. You've got to have some elite defenders, and you've GOT to have at least one good/great defensive big. Cavs did not. Lebron has got to be thinking yes at least on other star/superstar, but you can't just go with rag tag quality role players to fill it out.

Considering the fact that the Cavs have been contenders -- if not favorites -- the past four seasons, with ONLY LeBron, adding a Robin would be a huge step, and might just be enough to get them there. It takes pressure off the other guys on the team and lets them settle into their complementary roles, rather than trying to be that #2 that is needed. Imagine Derek Fisher or Rick Fox trying to be a second option. The very notion is laughable. But put them in their respective roles on a contender with a true 1-2 punch, and all of a sudden they're two of the best roleplayers in the NBA.

Look at the Cavs. I can't stand Varejao, but a title contender needs a player like him. Mo Williams is good and can provide a lot offensively, but he's not a #2. Same thing for Jamison. JJ Hickson and Delonte West could play excellent complementary roles. There's nothing really wrong with the Cavs roleplayers, it's just that they don't have a true, bonafide #2. That's why the got Jamison, but he's not been that kind of guy since Golden State.

And of course the Bulls don't win without Grant, or Rodman, BJ Armstrong, Cliff Levingston, John Paxson, Steve Kerr, Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, Randy Brown, etc., etc. But more importantly, they don't win without Jordan AND Pippen, not one or the other, but both. The other guys are replaceable. But Jordan and Pippen can be built around with those kinds of complementary players.

 

[Superman]

can i turn up my nose at said superstar because i think he's a d-bag?

Sure.

 

[Kings Faithful]

can i turn up my nose at said superstar because i think he's a d-bag?

Thats how I feel. Maybe I don't want players like Lebron and Kobe because they are douchebags... not because they are too good. Now that I thinik of it I wouldn't mind aquiring players like Dwight Howard or Dwayne Wade...but Lebron I don't like. In fact Lebron, Kobe, and Shaq are probably the only players I would not sign no matter how good they are. Their might be a few others if I think about it longer but those are players off the top of my head that I just don't like. O yeah, Jennings. I don't like his cocky *** either.

 

[The Hammer]

Considering the fact that the Cavs have been contenders -- if not favorites -- the past four seasons, with ONLY LeBron, adding a Robin would be a huge step, and might just be enough to get them there. It takes pressure off the other guys on the team and lets them settle into their complementary roles, rather than trying to be that #2 that is needed. Imagine Derek Fisher or Rick Fox trying to be a second option. The very notion is laughable. But put them in their respective roles on a contender with a true 1-2 punch, and all of a sudden they're two of the best roleplayers in the NBA.

Look at the Cavs. I can't stand Varejao, but a title contender needs a player like him. Mo Williams is good and can provide a lot offensively, but he's not a #2. Same thing for Jamison. JJ Hickson and Delonte West could play excellent complementary roles. There's nothing really wrong with the Cavs roleplayers, it's just that they don't have a true, bonafide #2. That's why the got Jamison, but he's not been that kind of guy since Golden State.

And of course the Bulls don't win without Grant, or Rodman, BJ Armstrong, Cliff Levingston, John Paxson, Steve Kerr, Luc Longley, Toni Kukoc, Randy Brown, etc., etc. But more importantly, they don't win without Jordan AND Pippen, not one or the other, but both. The other guys are replaceable. But Jordan and Pippen can be built around with those kinds of complementary players.

You make good points. The Cavs probably win it all with a legit number two, probably a little easier if that number two is a big.

 

[Jerryaki]

Thats how I feel. Maybe I don't want players like Lebron and Kobe because they are douchebags... not because they are too good. Now that I thinik of it I wouldn't mind aquiring players like Dwight Howard or Dwayne Wade...but Lebron I don't like. In fact Lebron, Kobe, and Shaq are probably the only players I would not sign no matter how good they are. Their might be a few others if I think about it longer but those are players off the top of my head that I just don't like. O yeah, Jennings. I don't like his cocky *** either.

this probably puts me at odds with a lot of people on this board, but my preference here is:

1) win with a team that i am proud of.
2) have a team that i am proud of.
3) win.

if we somehow got LBJ, that only gets me to #3.

 

[Superman]

Thats how I feel. Maybe I don't want players like Lebron and Kobe because they are douchebags... not because they are too good. Now that I thinik of it I wouldn't mind aquiring players like Dwight Howard or Dwayne Wade...but Lebron I don't like. In fact Lebron, Kobe, and Shaq are probably the only players I would not sign no matter how good they are. Their might be a few others if I think about it longer but those are players off the top of my head that I just don't like. O yeah, Jennings. I don't like his cocky *** either.

I agree on Jennings. Kobe and Shaq, too. But I don't get the whole "LeBron is a douche" thing. I just don't see it. Maybe I'm naive. I don't blame him for putting pressure on his team to build a winner by opting out; that's better than demanding a trade. God complex? Sure. The media fueled it, he's embraced it, but that's a superduperstar for you. Can't complain about that if you want a superduperstar/best player alive on your team. I also think that if he's holding the team hostage because he wants his hand-chosen coach and GM hired before he'll sign, that's ridiculous. But all that said, he's the best player in the NBA, and he's only 25. I'd give him a six year, max contract deal to play for my team any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Thats how I feel. Maybe I don't want players like Lebron and Kobe because they are douchebags... not because they are too good. Now that I thinik of it I wouldn't mind aquiring players like Dwight Howard or Dwayne Wade...but Lebron I don't like. In fact Lebron, Kobe, and Shaq are probably the only players I would not sign no matter how good they are. Their might be a few others if I think about it longer but those are players off the top of my head that I just don't like. O yeah, Jennings. I don't like his cocky *** either.

I guess I'm in this camp. Prior to a few months ago I really had no problem with LeBron, in fact I found it a little refreshing that he didn't feel the need to play up this "I'm a good guy" crap off the court like MJ and Kobe who both turned out to be total creeps. But the way he's handled this whole free agency thing, and honestly it dates back beyond 2 years, is disgraceful. It's a total slap in the face to Cleveland fans but everyone tolerates it because he's "the best". Unlike NY, NJ, the Cavs and the Clippers who pretty much suck whatever they do we seem to be building something nice on our own so we don't need LeBron. But if he came here of course I'd welcome him as I did with plenty of other guys I disliked before they were Kings - a group that also includes two of the greatest players the Sacramento era ever knew.

 

[bajaden]

Exactly. I would like to have an awesome dynasty... but I just find something wrong with going from a 20+ win team to a 50+ win team in one season because we paid enough money to one guy in order to have it done.

Really! So if we had won a championship by trading for Webber and signing Vlade, both of whom wern't home grown, you wouldn't have enjoyed winning that championship. Are is it that they're OK, but LeBron isn't, because LeBron is just too good? Meaning our GM shouldn't really go after the best freeagents, but should go after freeagents that won't bring the reputation of winning with them. To quote Vince Lombardi. " Winning isn't everything, winning is the only thing". If the Kings were lucky enough to lure LeBron and we were to win a title or two. Twenty years from now when people look up at the championship banners in the arena, they won't care how we got LeBron or how we won. They'll just be happy to have the titles.

I'm sorry, but I have a warriors mentality. If I'm fighting a war and my opponent only has a single shot rifle, and I have a machine gun. He loses! Because I'm not going to give up my machine gun to be fair. And If he goes out and buys a machine gun, then I'm going to go out and buy a bomb. Thats how you win. You win by being better than the other guy. And in basketball, if everything is legal and above board, then I'm fine with it. Now I'm not saying we can't win with the players we have. Thats really a seperate issue. I'm saying that you don't pass up an opportunity to get better quicker if it presents itself. So to say that you would pass on LeBron, who I think is the best player in the NBA right now (no disrespect to Kobe) is unbelievable..

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I also think that if he's holding the team hostage because he wants his hand-chosen coach and GM hired before he'll sign, that's ridiculous.

More than anything the reports that that is exactly what he is doing are what have really soured me on LeBron. He's played what, 7 seasons? He needs a coach that will challenge him not someone that will acquiesce to his every desire. If he gets to hand pick his coach I suspect he wins one championship at most. Which would be fantastic but hardly living up to expectations for someone touted as the guy that can be better than Mike.