Kings: The best team that doesn't win?

[Lafayette]

I watch a lot of Kings games if not all (live in L.A.) and I can say that they are the best team out there that seems to lose all the time. The always blow a fourth quarter lead, take a lead and can't maintain it and then they have some players that love to just give it to the other team, bums.

I think the Kings need to get rid of Salmons and Moore and when Martin comes back along with Frisco then we need those 2 starting.

C - Brad/Spencer
PF - Jason/Sheldon
SF - Frisco/Greene
SG - K.Mart/Greene/Frisco
PG - Beno/Brown/Jackson

Should they trade Brad, not to sure but I don think are backups are so solid that the young guys need to always be the key ingredient for this team to win.

I feel like I missing some players from my line up but then again thats without John and potential trade players.

 

[Bricklayer]

We are clearly better than three teams (Oklahoma City, Minnesota, Memphis) -- all of them full of youngsters and in the early rebuilding stage.

We may be better than several others, but its up in the air. The Clippers might pass us up after all the trades and maneuverings...or they might be the Clippers. The Wizards should be better once they stabilize and get Arenas back...if they respond to the new coach. Charlotte has holes at PG and PF, but are at about our level pending the trrade they are looking for. Golden State now has Nellie back in charge of a wacky quartet of 20ppg type perimeter bombers (Ellis, Crawford, Maggette, Jackson) who he'll probably throw out there all together with Biedrins just to cause people fits. It's probably get him up into the 30s in wins, maybe even low 40s if it gels. Which means likely as good or better than us.

Anyway, thing is we are playing pretty hard in spots, but the defense is just awful. So its a bit deceptive. We look better losing than a team that slugs it out and loses 80-72, but losing 115-103 is really no closer. Just a more entertaining ride. And really, we should be looking to trade a couple of the vets to insure that we maximize the minutes and development of the Hawes/Thompson/Greene grouping. If they are the future, time to let them start working together (Greene does not deserve it yet, but needs at least some level consistent minutes if he is ever going to). And if we do aswap out some vets? We'll be a little worse still.

 

[SCKingsfan]

I agree about dealing some our vets to assure youngster get time in our rebuild. But the B. Miller issue is vexing for me. Beyond taking minutes, does he currently play a net positive or negative role for our yougins?

On the positive, he is a veteran, excellent passer, a good model for how to be an important cog in a big-man highpost set. this is something that hawes could learn how to do and be effective at. I mean, he's a decent shooter and JT might be the kind of guy we could look to post up down low. On the negative side, Miller is a soft player, is not a great post player (Hawes is debatably already better), and Hawes may be better off without a mentor whose game is to stand out on the perimeter and be a crisp passer and launch mid-range shoots when he ought to be "seeing" himself and developing himself as a low post player with the ability to pop out and hit a midrange J when he's got someone like Oden pushing him around down low. Plus, with all the work in the world, he may not ever be the kind of highpost passer that's made Miller mildly successful at his role.

So the question is not whether our future bigs have something valuable ot learn from Miller, it's whether we really want to make them in that mold.

 

[NME]

Is that anything like World's Tallest Midget?

 

[quick dog]

Brad is either dim or lazy. Watching him stand under the basket with his arms down is discouraging. He looks more like a very large bird watcher than an NBA center.

 

[G_M]

Brad is either dim or lazy.

That's begging for a marijuana joke....

 

[HighTopKicks]

I agree about dealing some our vets to assure youngster get time in our rebuild. But the B. Miller issue is vexing for me. Beyond taking minutes, does he currently play a net positive or negative role for our yougins?

On the positive, he is a veteran, excellent passer, a good model for how to be an important cog in a big-man highpost set. this is something that hawes could learn how to do and be effective at. I mean, he's a decent shooter and JT might be the kind of guy we could look to post up down low. On the negative side, Miller is a soft player, is not a great post player (Hawes is debatably already better), and Hawes may be better off without a mentor whose game is to stand out on the perimeter and be a crisp passer and launch mid-range shoots when he ought to be "seeing" himself and developing himself as a low post player with the ability to pop out and hit a midrange J when he's got someone like Oden pushing him around down low. Plus, with all the work in the world, he may not ever be the kind of highpost passer that's made Miller mildly successful at his role.

So the question is not whether our future bigs have something valuable ot learn from Miller, it's whether we really want to make them in that mold.

I love your final comment. First, is Hawes really going to learn how to pass simply by watching Miller do it. Wouldn't he learn just as well by simply doing it. Certainly Hawes is already better at the pick and roll than Miller and Hawes' outside shooting is as good or better.

But yours is the altimate question, "Do we really need Hawes to be as good a passer as Miller?". If the answer is no, then start running the offense through Hawes and let Miller play the PF and shoot from the corner at least occasionally. Then when Hawes learns to stay out of foul trouble, he starts and Miller can come off the bench where his conditioning won't be as big of a hinderence.

 

[KingKong]

We're the best team that doesn't have a superstar.

 

[HighFlyingMonkey]

We're the best team that doesn't have a superstar.

i.e. We're the gold medalists from the Special Olympics

 

[bajaden]

When I think of Miller's value, I think of his salary coming off the books for 2010. Ditto Kenny Thomas. If we trade Miller for a contract thats longer than his, it would have to be for young talent that would in some way compensate for whom ever we wouldn't be able to sign as a free agent in 2010. Same with KT. Otherwise we sould be trading for shorter contracts or one's of similar length.

I'm all for trading Miller and Mikkie, but only if its advantagous to us, and not just to open up playing time for the youngsters. My preference would be for shorter contracts to make us a player after 2009.

 

[Merdiesel]

This is exactly what I want though... Show heart, come together as a team, develop young players, loose majority of our games, DRAFT RICKY RUBIO.

 

[Lafayette]

They do it again... another last second loss... whats with this team... NETS stink... come on... Kings should have 8 wins by now... can't take this.

 

[Larry89]

The worst team in the nba that doesnt win

 

[Oscar]

I watch a lot of Kings games if not all (live in L.A.) and I can say that they are the best team out there that seems to lose all the time.

Being a bottom-line kinda guy, I have never understood this thinking. There are no bad wins or good losses. To me, when a team loses, you cannot use the words "best" and "team" together in the same sentence. When looking at the won/loss column down the road, nobody remembers how a team played or hustled.