Last season's draft as a microcosm and comparison

[funkykingston]

Just looking at what happened on draft night last year:

I think we all remember, but just as a recap the Kings were involved in a three team trade where they sent out the #7 pick and Beno Udrih and got back the #10 pick and John Salmons. The #10 pick was used to draft Jimmer Fredette.

On the same night the Spurs traded George Hill for the #15 pick and selected Kawhi Leonard and used their pick (#26) to select Texas guard Cory Joseph.

Yes, it is easy to take one transaction from each franchise and create a skewed perception of things, but that's not my intent. It's to take a snapshot of a well run franchise and a poorly run franchise and highlight why they both fit that definition.

The Spurs' moves are much easier to understand and analyze. Hill is a bit of a tweener guard that they drafted out of tiny IUPUI and who eventually became a bench contributor whose value elevated when he filled in for an injured Tony Parker.

Knowing that a summer later they'd either pay a pretty penny to keep him as a RFA or lose him for nothing (likely the latter) they traded Hill for a rookie SF that could fill the role that has been vacant since they last had Bruce Bowen suiting up for them. And Leonard did exactly that. Meanwhile they drafted a tweener guard in Joseph who can hopefully fill the same role that Hill did. All in all a brilliant night for the Spurs.

As for the Kings, I think it's fair to say that most fans wish we had Beno last season, wish we could send Salmons back to Milwaukee and wish the team had drafted Leonard, Biyombo, Klay Thompson, etc.

It's hard for me to even argue what the FO thought the benefit would be to these moves. You take a guard that pairs well (at least offensively) with Tyreke and Thornton and trade him for a slow footed, dribble challenged, volume shooting combo guard? In a perfect world maybe he pairs well with Tyreke who handles and drives while Jimmer shoots from outside, but he and Thornton are an awful pairing in every way. And Salmons? Outside of being a veteran I can't see how the team thought he was a good fit.

A constant theme is that the Maloofs wanted Jimmer and Westy wanted Salmons. If true, that doesn't excuse Petrie but makes the moves all the more egregious. An organization needs to have a UNIFIED vision of how to construct and maintain a team, which clearly the Kings do not have.

Yes, the Spurs have been great during Duncan's tenure because he's one of the best to ever lace them up in the NBA. But compare the roster during Duncan's first championship season to the roster during his fourth championship season. Timmy is the ONLY player on both rosters. And they did it without ever having to rebuild per se. Tim Duncan has gone to the playoffs every year he's been in the league. 15 straight seasons.

This is a team that is in a smaller media market than Sacramento, has a city that, in and of itself, is not going to help attract free agents but who consistently wins because they have a culture that works. A coach and GM that work hand in hand, a superstar that completely buys in to the system and an owner that stays out of the way and let's them do their job.

The closest the Kings ever had to something similar was when Adelman was here. I think the first of many major mistakes by the Maloofs was their flirtation with Phil Jackson and subsequent firing of Rick.

But regardless, it's one thing to be upset about LeBron and Bosh joining Wade in Miami or LAL constantly adding firepower for next to nothing (Gasol, Nash, perhaps Howard) but it's another to be envious of San Antonio. Because the Kings can't be the Lakers or the Heat. But they could be the Spurs if things were done the right way.

 

[funkykingston]

And here's the thing. I can forgive moves that make a lot of sense at the time but don't work out. While I was hoping for Kawhi Leonard last year, the next name on my short list of draft picks was Jordan Hamilton who I thought would be a great fit with the Kings, followed by Biyombo. Obviously Hamilton so far has not shown what I thought he would. But at least he would have been a good fit on paper.

How was Jimmer a good fit? How was Chuck Hayes a good fit? Why scoop up Outlaw for four years when the team already had Donte and Garcia and just traded for Salmons? Is Johnson a big enough upgrade to bother making yet another play for what potentially seems like a mediocre SF who doesn't mesh well with the team's best players? Why make a move for Aaron Brooks when you already have Isiah Thomas and not enough minutes at the other guard spot to keep Evans and Thorton happy? Where's the three point shooting? Where's the rim protection? Our own GM stated these as goals for the offseason and then did absolutely nothing to address them. And why not bring back Terrance Williams who would have come cheap and obviously meshed well with Evans, Thomas and Cousins and who even made Jimmer start to look productive?

It isn't about talent, it's about making the pieces fit and at this point I've given up trying to ascertain if the Kings FO is even looking at the same puzzle I am.

The Maloofs need to sell because Sacramento deserves a team and that team deserves a new arena. But the Maloofs also need to sell because it is time for the culture of this team to change. I have long supported Geoff Petrie but whether his hands are being tied or he just doesn't get it, this team has absolutely languished on his watch and it shouldn't. Quite honestly, I see some parallels between the Scot McCloughan and Nolan/Singletary Niners and these current Kings as far as being a talented roster that is underachieving and needs a new leadership to turn things around. From the front office to the coaching staff.

 

[Kingster]

Just looking at what happened on draft night last year:

I think we all remember, but just as a recap the Kings were involved in a three team trade where they sent out the #7 pick and Beno Udrih and got back the #10 pick and John Salmons. The #10 pick was used to draft Jimmer Fredette.

On the same night the Spurs traded George Hill for the #15 pick and selected Kawhi Leonard and used their pick (#26) to select Texas guard Cory Joseph.

Yes, it is easy to take one transaction from each franchise and create a skewed perception of things, but that's not my intent. It's to take a snapshot of a well run franchise and a poorly run franchise and highlight why they both fit that definition.

The Spurs' moves are much easier to understand and analyze. Hill is a bit of a tweener guard that they drafted out of tiny IUPUI and who eventually became a bench contributor whose value elevated when he filled in for an injured Tony Parker.

Knowing that a summer later they'd either pay a pretty penny to keep him as a RFA or lose him for nothing (likely the latter) they traded Hill for a rookie SF that could fill the role that has been vacant since they last had Bruce Bowen suiting up for them. And Leonard did exactly that. Meanwhile they drafted a tweener guard in Joseph who can hopefully fill the same role that Hill did. All in all a brilliant night for the Spurs.

As for the Kings, I think it's fair to say that most fans wish we had Beno last season, wish we could send Salmons back to Milwaukee and wish the team had drafted Leonard, Biyombo, Klay Thompson, etc.

It's hard for me to even argue what the FO thought the benefit would be to these moves. You take a guard that pairs well (at least offensively) with Tyreke and Thornton and trade him for a slow footed, dribble challenged, volume shooting combo guard? In a perfect world maybe he pairs well with Tyreke who handles and drives while Jimmer shoots from outside, but he and Thornton are an awful pairing in every way. And Salmons? Outside of being a veteran I can't see how the team thought he was a good fit.

A constant theme is that the Maloofs wanted Jimmer and Westy wanted Salmons. If true, that doesn't excuse Petrie but makes the moves all the more egregious. An organization needs to have a UNIFIED vision of how to construct and maintain a team, which clearly the Kings do not have.

Yes, the Spurs have been great during Duncan's tenure because he's one of the best to ever lace them up in the NBA. But compare the roster during Duncan's first championship season to the roster during his fourth championship season. Timmy is the ONLY player on both rosters. And they did it without ever having to rebuild per se. Tim Duncan has gone to the playoffs every year he's been in the league. 15 straight seasons.

This is a team that is in a smaller media market than Sacramento, has a city that, in and of itself, is not going to help attract free agents but who consistently wins because they have a culture that works. A coach and GM that work hand in hand, a superstar that completely buys in to the system and an owner that stays out of the way and let's them do their job.

The closest the Kings ever had to something similar was when Adelman was here. I think the first of many major mistakes by the Maloofs was their flirtation with Phil Jackson and subsequent firing of Rick.

But regardless, it's one thing to be upset about LeBron and Bosh joining Wade in Miami or LAL constantly adding firepower for next to nothing (Gasol, Nash, perhaps Howard) but it's another to be envious of San Antonio. Because the Kings can't be the Lakers or the Heat. But they could be the Spurs if things were done the right way.

I have a different take on the motivations behind the Salmons-Jimmer trade. I think the reason for the additions of Jimmer and Salmons had to do more with trying to help out Tyreke than anything else. The FO wanted outside shooting at the 2 and the 3 in order to complement Tyreke's game. They thought Jimmer and Salmons were going to fit hand and glove with Tyreke's game. (Remember when Tyreke was talking about how he was looking forward to playing with the outside shooting phenom in Jimmer because he opened up the floor?) Instead, they got a guy who can't play at the point and an overpriced guy who couldn't start at the 3, and very ironically, because the overpriced guy couldn't play at the 3, they moved Tyreke to the 3. The experiment was a disaster. An absolute disaster. They thought were being brilliant with these fantastic Tyreke complements and it was just the opposite.

 

[funkykingston]

I have a different take on the motivations behind the Salmons-Jimmer trade. I think the reason for the additions of Jimmer and Salmons had to do more with trying to help out Tyreke than anything else. The FO wanted outside shooting at the 2 and the 3 in order to complement Tyreke's game. They thought Jimmer and Salmons were going to fit hand and glove with Tyreke's game. (Remember when Tyreke was talking about how he was looking forward to playing with the outside shooting phenom in Jimmer because he opened up the floor?) Instead, they got a guy who can't play at the point and an overpriced guy who couldn't start at the 3, and very ironically, because the overpriced guy couldn't play at the 3, they moved Tyreke to the 3. The experiment was a disaster. An absolute disaster. They thought were being brilliant with these fantastic Tyreke complements and it was just the opposite.

I can't disagree with you in terms of your view of what the FO was thinking, but they must have been the ONLY one that thought it would work out. Did anyone think Salmons was a good compliment to Tyreke? Yeah, he's a good defender who can handle the ball but he's never been a consistent outside threat, has never been a great locker room or veteran presence and worst of all he's very ball dominant and does most of his damage attacking the basket. Basically a weak version of Tyreke.

And if Thornton didn't compliment Tyreke, why did they think Jimmer would? As an off the bench poor man's JJ Redick/Eddie House type I'd take a flyer on Jimmer in the late first round. But did they really think he was going to supplant Thornton in the starting lineup? And even if he did, they had to realize that he'd make the team slower and weaker defensively, which is saying something since Thornton is no stalwart himself.

There is no rhyme or reason to the moves this team makes. This team lacks a quality starting SF, has a log jam at the guard spots, and hasn't addressed the two major needs that Petrie himself identified (3 point shooting and interior defense) and yet they go after a guy like Aaron Brooks. I simply can't understand what they think they are accomplishing other than gearing up for another 5-7 pick in the draft next year.

And barring TRob really showing a lot more in the regular season than what we've all seen in the summer league so far, I'm guessing that's exactly where this team will end up. Which is sad because things could easily be so much better for the Kings.

 

[Kingster]

I can't disagree with you in terms of your view of what the FO was thinking, but they must have been the ONLY one that thought it would work out. Did anyone think Salmons was a good compliment to Tyreke? Yeah, he's a good defender who can handle the ball but he's never been a consistent outside threat, has never been a great locker room or veteran presence and worst of all he's very ball dominant and does most of his damage attacking the basket. Basically a weak version of Tyreke.

And if Thornton didn't compliment Tyreke, why did they think Jimmer would? As an off the bench poor man's JJ Redick/Eddie House type I'd take a flyer on Jimmer in the late first round. But did they really think he was going to supplant Thornton in the starting lineup? And even if he did, they had to realize that he'd make the team slower and weaker defensively, which is saying something since Thornton is no stalwart himself.

There is no rhyme or reason to the moves this team makes. This team lacks a quality starting SF, has a log jam at the guard spots, and hasn't addressed the two major needs that Petrie himself identified (3 point shooting and interior defense) and yet they go after a guy like Aaron Brooks. I simply can't understand what they think they are accomplishing other than gearing up for another 5-7 pick in the draft next year.

And barring TRob really showing a lot more in the regular season than what we've all seen in the summer league so far, I'm guessing that's exactly where this team will end up. Which is sad because things could easily be so much better for the Kings.

We don't disagree. Petrie overvalued Salmons, who he thought would be a starter next to Tyreke, and Jimmer, who he thought could be a point guard next to Tyreke. By the way, there were some on this board who thought that Jimmer could handle the point and Salmons could be at least an average starter at the three. So, Petrie wasn't entirely on drugs. I really think he was trying to find the right fit.

I want to go one step further in the history lesson. There were three reasons Tyreke was moved to the 3. One, he was a so-so point guard. Two, the emergence of IT. But maybe the biggest reason was three, the massive fail of the Salmons-Jimmer trade. If the Salmons-Jimmer trade would have worked, if it had provided a ballhandling outside shooting phenom in Jimmer and at least a legit starting 3 in Salmons, what would have been the fate of Tyreke? Would he still be a point guard on the Kings? Or, would Petrie & Co have moved him to a different position, regardless? We'll never know, but it is interesting to ponder, especially when you consider the fact that it's not Tyreke that Petrie is building around now, it's Cousins. The worm has turned.

 

[hrdboild]

I like you funkykingston, you put a lot of effort into analyzing the roster situation and the conclusions you come to I usually agree with, at least partially if not entirely. The only thing I would add to this is that it's difficult for me to separate the basketball related decisions being made by this front office from the business related decisions. And from a business perspective, the owners gave up on the Sacramento market years ago so I don't think they're really committed to fielding a competitive team anymore. What they are still committed to is selling tickets, because they have to to remain financially solvent. At least until they can move the team to a bigger market and rake in money hand over fist (this magical untapped bigger market doesn't actually exist, but George hasn't figured that out yet).

So Jimmer becomes a target because he's popular; he already has his own fanbase. We could try to identify and develop talent or we could go after anyone with a recognizable name and get our mouthpiece to hype them up as difference makers. This only works as long as they actually perform on the court though. And when your decisions have more to do with marketing than basketball expertise, sooner or later the performance on the court is going to reflect that. That's my intuition anyway, I'd have to put more thought into it to see if the pattern actually fits.

 

[beb0p]

I have a different take on it, I honestly don't think the Kings would have drafted Jimmer without Westphal and GP fully buying in. Westy's job was on the line and he would have put up a real fight if he didn't think Jimmer was going to help with the Ws. Bottom line is that Jimmer was drafted because they grossly mis-evaluated him. They thought he is the next Mark Price and furthermore, he was NBA-ready (or so they thought). They passed on Brandon Knight for Jimmer, that action speaks volume - they probably thought that Knight was too raw and Jimmer was ready (and can shoot and play PG). The Kings entered into last year's draft pretty much set on taking a PG. They worked out Knight before anyone else. So it's not like they weren't interested in Knight on some level.

Plus, it makes sense if you believe Voisin's reporting that the Kings were planning to move Tyreke to SF entering into last season. They envisioned a Jimmer/Thornton backcourt with Reke at the 3. Now, if you buy into the notion that Jimmer is the second coming of Mark Price, this lineup looks great on paper. The Kings probably thought they had three potential future All-Stars there.

The Salmons acquisition is to give Westy help short-term and buy some time for Jimmer to develop. Likely thinking that they can get away without a true PG in a shortened season by having three shoot-first guards who can handle the ball. The Kings might even have expected Jimmer to shine and claim major mins at some point last season. There's no doubt in my mind that they expected Jimmer to fill Beno's role because if it was just the Maloofs wanting to sell more jerseys, they could drafted Jimmer, kept Beno (I'm sure the Bucks wouldn't have minded if they had gotten Garcia instead of Beno), and just have a deep guard rotation (we all know the Kings are not opposed to a deep guard rotation).

I also think Jimmer's NBA-readiness played a big part. I suspect GP is growing impatient and wants to win now (now as in last season), hence the acquisition of Outlaw and Hayes. Those are guys that can be useful for a playoff team or at least one trying to make the playoff instead of tanking. GP did not wanted to tank - you don't sign Chuck Hayes if you wanted to tank the season. Maybe it's the Maloofs who are growing impatient and are putting pressure on GP, but the FO wanted NBA ready guys. What does Jimmer and TRob have in common? NBA readiness (or perceived NBA readiness).

 

[funkykingston]

I like you funkykingston, you put a lot of effort into analyzing the roster situation and the conclusions you come to I usually agree with, at least partially if not entirely. The only thing I would add to this is that it's difficult for me to separate the basketball related decisions being made by this front office from the business related decisions. And from a business perspective, the owners gave up on the Sacramento market years ago so I don't think they're really committed to fielding a competitive team anymore. What they are still committed to is selling tickets, because they have to to remain financially solvent. At least until they can move the team to a bigger market and rake in money hand over fist (this magical untapped bigger market doesn't actually exist, but George hasn't figured that out yet).

So Jimmer becomes a target because he's popular; he already has his own fanbase. We could try to identify and develop talent or we could go after anyone with a recognizable name and get our mouthpiece to hype them up as difference makers. This only works as long as they actually perform on the court though. And when your decisions have more to do with marketing than basketball expertise, sooner or later the performance on the court is going to reflect that. That's my intuition anyway, I'd have to put more thought into it to see if the pattern actually fits.

And I'm with you to a point. If the Maloofs don't care about wins and losses then why spend money to get to the cap? Why bring in brooks and Johnson and spend that extra money? Unless the league was putting pressure on them to show that they would actually spend money and not just have the lowest payroll in the league.

As best I can tell, The Kings are right at the cap after the trade for Johnson and Brooks contract and subtracting what Whiteside would have made.

Here's the breakdown for the $58 million or so the Kings are spending, arranged in my guess at a starting lineup and bench.

Cousins: $3.9 million
Thompson: $5.3 million
Johnson: $2.8 million
Evans: $5.2 million
Thomas: $0.8 million

Thornton: $7.6 million
Robinson: $3.4 million
Brooks: $3.3 million
Salmons: $8.1 million
Hayes: $5.5 million
Fredette: $2.4 million
Outlaw: $3.0 million
Garcia: $6.1 million
Honeycutt: $0.9 million

Now, obviously the starting SF could be Salmons or Outlaw but otherwise I think that's roughly the starters and bench and their salaries. The Maloofs aren't Prokhorov scoffing at the notion of a luxury tax, but the did actually allow Geoff to get to or somewhat above the cap so he had somewhat of an opportunity to improve the team and in my mind he didn't. He added some talent, but not in a way that I think will translate to wins and losses, again, barring Robinson becoming a lot more than what we've seen thus far.

As for Fredette, I can accept the idea that the Maloofs might have been pushing for him from a marketing standpoint, but can they really be so dense as to not realize that a winning/improving team is the absolute best marketing a franchise can have? You can only market a guy if he succeeds. And let's be honest, if marketing decisions were really the primary consideration for the draft would the team really have taken Evans over Rubio? Or drafted Cousins at all given his poor reputation?

No, I think the Maloofs may have been nudging Geoff but at the end of the day I think it was a bad basketball move much more than an unsuccessful marketing strategy.

I suppose we'll never get the full story of what goes on behind the scenes in terms of the interactions of Stern and the Maloofs or Petrie and the Maloofs or even how much input the coaching staff has in personnel matters. But regardless of why these decisions have been made, they were poor ones. Take a look at the salary numbers above. If the NBA were like the NFL and contracts were non-guaranteed how many of those guys would you cut to have the money to spend on other players?

 

[funkykingston]

I have a different take on it, I honestly don't think the Kings would have drafted Jimmer without Westphal and GP fully buying in. Westy's job was on the line and he would have put up a real fight if he didn't think Jimmer was going to help with the Ws. Bottom line is that Jimmer was drafted because they grossly mis-evaluated him. They thought he is the next Mark Price and furthermore, he was NBA-ready (or so they thought). They passed on Brandon Knight for Jimmer, that action speaks volume - they probably thought that Knight was too raw and Jimmer was ready (and can shoot and play PG). The Kings entered into last year's draft pretty much set on taking a PG. They worked out Knight before anyone else. So it's not like they weren't interested in Knight on some level.

Plus, it makes sense if you believe Voisin's reporting that the Kings were planning to move Tyreke to SF entering into last season. They envisioned a Jimmer/Thornton backcourt with Reke at the 3. Now, if you buy into the notion that Jimmer is the second coming of Mark Price, this lineup looks great on paper. The Kings probably thought they had three potential future All-Stars there.

As I said before, if the team is making a move that makes sense to me but it just doesn't work out then I won't be that upset. But even in the best case scenario that thought process makes no sense to me.

I can accept the idea of bringing in a PG and moving Tyreke off the ball but considering he won ROY as a ball dominant PG who physically overpowered opposing players, why would they think not only moving him off the ball but pitting him against opposing SFs would be a good idea? Especially when Thornton and Jimmer are worse ball handlers and defenders at the guard spot than Tyreke?

In the best case scenario that Jimmer is the 2nd coming of Mark Price, you have a volume shooting backcourt that is undersized, lacks ball handling and is deficient defensively while moving the 2nd best talent on the team to a position where you negate his strengths. And I think such a move actually makes things worse for the best talent on the team as Cousins now has three offensive minded guards (two shooters and one slasher), none of whom are going to get him easy baskets and all of whom are going to make him have to work harder defensively to make up for their shortcomings. And that's a losing game since DMC's strengths lie on the offensive end and certainly not in anchoring the middle defensively.

The Salmons/Jimmer moves don't even pass the logic test for me. They didn't when they happened and they don't now. And more importantly they feed directly into my biggest point which is that there does not seem to be any real plan in place for shaping this roster.

And I'd be lying if I said I was all that excited by the Thomas Robinson pick. I thought he'd be a lot better than what he's shown so far, but I still never saw him as a good fit for this Kings team. I'd have preferred to either draft Drummond or trade with Houston for Lowry and picks (to get either a SF or interior defender) and then deal Thornton for whichever we didn't get. Robinson will likely be a better player than Drummond or Lowry & whoever was drafted with the Rocket's pick but a better fit with this Kings team? I don't know.

 

[beb0p]

As I said before, if the team is making a move that makes sense to me but it just doesn't work out then I won't be that upset. But even in the best case scenario that thought process makes no sense to me.

I can accept the idea of bringing in a PG and moving Tyreke off the ball but considering he won ROY as a ball dominant PG who physically overpowered opposing players, why would they think not only moving him off the ball but pitting him against opposing SFs would be a good idea? Especially when Thornton and Jimmer are worse ball handlers and defenders at the guard spot than Tyreke?

Well, your mistake is that you are using logic and commonsense. To make sense of the Kings' FO moves, you have to let go of such nonsense and embrace the fantasyland. Imagine a world where Jimmer is Mark Price, MT is Joe Dumars, and Reke a bigger Dwyne Wade. This is a world where Jimmer and MT spread the floor (and can score on their own if necessary) allowing Reke and Cousins room to operate inside. Jimmer can run the offense but Reke (and MT) can also take over PG duty in spots allowing Jimmer to play off the ball a la Bibby. As you've said, this scenario has a lot of holes; I'll add that the chance of all the moving pieces (Jimmer turning into a good PG, Tyreke turning into a good SF, Thornton learning to embrace a reduced offensive role, and all three guys learning to play off each other while at the same time supporting Cousins) turning out well in the real world is almost nill, but in the fantasy world it works wonders. My point is that the Kings fully bought into that vision, imo. A very childish and optimistic vision but they bought into it. And based on some of the comments from FO and coaches, I believe the FO still think that Jimmer will be a PG... eventually.

One of the things that is more apparent since last summer is that our FO has lost grip with reality. Every sane person who's not drinking the koolaid could have predicted the Salmons trade fiasco and the Hickson outcome. I've stated how much I hated the Hickson trade almost as soon as it was done. It defies logic that the solution to better defense and shot blocking is.... JJ Hickson. You know that even if Hickson were to perform well, he'd have left the team and sign elsewhere anyway. Our FO (and a few posters here) are the only ones who don't see that. It's not good.

I like Jordan Hamilton too, that kid is going to be a good player if and when he gets playing time (btw, the Kings never worked him out). I was very skeptical of the Jimmer pick, if it was my call I would have drafted Brandon Knight and called it a day (but in hindsight would have taken Klay Thompson).

I've also stated months before the draft that I don't think TRob is a good fit and also think he's overrated. Don't get me wrong, TRob is going to be a nice solid pro with a long career; I just think there are 1) better players and 2) players who fit the team better still available. As far as I'm concerned the Kings neither drafted for need nor taken the best player in this draft. Hope I'm wrong. I was very high on Meyers Leonard, intrigue with Drummond and warming up to Barnes as the draft approached; but would have gladly traded down for either Lowdry (+ pick) or two lower picks.

 

[Prince_XY]

The single and most important influential factor in all these mess is the GM. He is the one directly connected to all these debacles. You fire your ineffective and lazy manager, gamble on a new GM, and suddenly you've changed the direction of the team with some fresh ideas and therefore changed the culture of the team.

But of course it will be next to impossible. The Petrie Cult is almost permanently established with lots of fans and the owner themselves as members.

 

[Siranthony]

Well a lot of people on this board were high on Jimmer. It was funny because I remember mentioning him early because I fell for Jimmer's hype video. Then the Kings brought him in for a work out and someone crawled out of the bushes to get his autograph (probably a set up). After that there was serious man love on this board for him. I saw the work out the Kings released and I was not impressed at all and changed my mind about Jimmer. To be fair I thought Leonard looked even worse. But anyway People here wanted him.

 

[mac]

I think the hope for Jimmer was that he would take over Beno's role but add better outside shooting, and more importantly that he would be able to step in and do so right away. I think it's quite fair to classify drafting Jimmer as one of those things that simply hasn't worked out so far.

If you recall a year ago Westy was going after more ballhandlers. He wanted a lineup where anyone from 1-3 could set up the offense and create. In that sense, John Salmons was a very good fit for what they wanted - another guy who could handle the ball, a veteran who could play D at the 2/3 and a guy who could (supposedly) hit 3s, based on his career %. What they failed to take into consideration was that Salmons is a ballhog with tunnel vision. They also didn't know that he would lose his shooting touch.

The real reason why last offseason's acquisitions seem to be so terrible is because NONE of our SFs played to the level expected of them. Who here thought that Garcia would go from a regular rotation player who could knock down 3s into a bench warmer who couldn't shoot? I doubt the FO expected Salmons to brick as many 3s as he did too. If any one of Garcia/Salmons/Outlaw played at a level they've proven capable of in the past, Tyreke may not have been moved to SF and it wouldn't seem like we are spending 20mil/year on a bunch of scrubs.

In that sense, you can blame the FO for not just keeping things simple by keeping Beno and drafting Leonard, for example. But I do think there's a certain rationale behind what they did (and with Jimmer perhaps the marketing/business aspects come into play as well). But as much as the FO deserves blame a lot of the blame should fall on our players. John Salmons, Francisco Garcia, Travis Outlaw and Donte all played below expectations.

Anyway, that's all in the past. Right now my biggest concern is that Smart believes we can become a good playoff team playing a 10-12 man rotation. Issue #1 - Minutes. Issue #2 - Lineup Chemistry.

 

[Section 101]

The Maloofs aren't Prokhorov scoffing at the notion of a luxury tax, but the did actually allow Geoff to get to or somewhat above the cap so he had somewhat of an opportunity to improve the team and in my mind he didn't. He added some talent, but not in a way that I think will translate to wins and losses, again, barring Robinson becoming a lot more than what we've seen thus far.

You can thank Stern not the Maloofs. The threat to take away revenue sharing meant they had to spend more than the minimum. Think of it this way. The difference in money spent is probably pretty close to the amount they received in revenue sharing.

 

[IfAt1st]

The only thing I would add to this is that it's difficult for me to separate the basketball related decisions being made by this front office from the business related decisions. And from a business perspective, the owners gave up on the Sacramento market years ago so I don't think they're really committed to fielding a competitive team anymore. What they are still committed to is selling tickets, because they have to to remain financially solvent. At least until they can move the team to a bigger market and rake in money hand over fist (this magical untapped bigger market doesn't actually exist, but George hasn't figured that out yet).

So Jimmer becomes a target because he's popular; he already has his own fanbase. We could try to identify and develop talent or we could go after anyone with a recognizable name and get our mouthpiece to hype them up as difference makers. This only works as long as they actually perform on the court though. And when your decisions have more to do with marketing than basketball expertise, sooner or later the performance on the court is going to reflect that. That's my intuition anyway, I'd have to put more thought into it to see if the pattern actually fits.

I share everyone else's bafflement about the Kings decisions the past couple seasons, but the only way it makes sense to me is if I look at it like a business, as hrdboiled did here ^^^^^

We all know that the decisions make NO SENSE from a basketball perspective, or from a salary management perspective.

So let's go with what we DO KNOW:
* The Maloofs are broke and desperate.
* They have a move lined up to Anaheim and had to be forced to stop.
* They reneged on the Arena plan(s).
* They are biding their time and trying to put pressure on the NBA (and I'm sure the city) to allow them to move.

It simply doesn't make sense that they would want a successful team, with an active, enthusiastic, supportive fanbase.

Adding up the simple math, I think it's clear the Maloofs are pulling a Major League move, and purposely getting pieces that don't fit, buying bad contracts, and keeping a coaching staff that couldn't instill an NBA system if they had 20 offseasons.

All they have to do is weather the threat of Tyreke becoming a great player for one more year, and Cousins getting pissed off enough to leave as soon as he can. They have already proven, stated many times, and shown they don't believe Sacramento is a viable, long-term location for the Kings.

They have all the cards, guys, and the clock is in their favor.

 

[Prince_XY]

I share everyone else's bafflement about the Kings decisions the past couple seasons, but the only way it makes sense to me is if I look at it like a business, as hrdboiled did here ^^^^^

We all know that the decisions make NO SENSE from a basketball perspective, or from a salary management perspective.

So let's go with what we DO KNOW:
* The Maloofs are broke and desperate.
* They have a move lined up to Anaheim and had to be forced to stop.
* They reneged on the Arena plan(s).
* They are biding their time and trying to put pressure on the NBA (and I'm sure the city) to allow them to move.

It simply doesn't make sense that they would want a successful team, with an active, enthusiastic, supportive fanbase.

Adding up the simple math, I think it's clear the Maloofs are pulling a Major League move, and purposely getting pieces that don't fit, buying bad contracts, and keeping a coaching staff that couldn't instill an NBA system if they had 20 offseasons.

All they have to do is weather the threat of Tyreke becoming a great player for one more year, and Cousins getting pissed off enough to leave as soon as he can. They have already proven, stated many times, and shown they don't believe Sacramento is a viable, long-term location for the Kings.

They have all the cards, guys, and the clock is in their favor.

What you are saying kind of make sense, but somehow I feel like it could only happen in hollywood movies. There would have been too much collusion between the Maloofs and Petrie (or even the coaches) for this to happen.

Correct me if I am wrong.

So, in your theory Petrie let himself be used by the Maloofs and purposely allowed bad decisions after bad decisions so the product on the court sucks?

I think Petrie is inefficient as a GM, but I don't think Petrie is that morally bad to let himself be used against the people/fans in Sacramento.

 

[beb0p]

I share everyone else's bafflement about the Kings decisions the past couple seasons, but the only way it makes sense to me is if I look at it like a business, as hrdboiled did here ^^^^^

We all know that the decisions make NO SENSE from a basketball perspective, or from a salary management perspective.

So let's go with what we DO KNOW:
* The Maloofs are broke and desperate.
* They have a move lined up to Anaheim and had to be forced to stop.
* They reneged on the Arena plan(s).
* They are biding their time and trying to put pressure on the NBA (and I'm sure the city) to allow them to move.

It simply doesn't make sense that they would want a successful team, with an active, enthusiastic, supportive fanbase.

I know this is a common belief among some Kings fans, but it makes no sense to me. Between MT, Salmons, Hayes, and Outlaw the Maloof added $60+ millions in salary.... to tank the team? That's a lot of money to accomplish something that can be easily done for way, way cheaper. Certainly, each one of us can think of much, much cheaper way to tank the team and turn off the fan base! And on top of it they somehow convinced Westphal, who is trying to make a comeback in the league, to tank his reputation and go along with their crazy idea? And then when Westphal was doing a marvelous job of fulfilling the Maloof's supposed evil scheme, they fired him??! Just don't see it.

I think this is just good old fashion incompetency. No need to make a conspiracy out of it.

 

[beb0p]

But as much as the FO deserves blame a lot of the blame should fall on our players. John Salmons, Francisco Garcia, Travis Outlaw and Donte all played below expectations.

Outlaw was a PF when he played for Portland and he sucked when the Nets converted him to SF, and his game was in rapid decline starting in his last year with the Blazers. Salmons was never the same since his injury over two years ago and he came to the Kings still recovering from yet another injury. Garcia, the Kings probably knew he wasn't quite right, hence all the moves to bring in SFs.

Those three guys pretty much performed up to their normal form at this stage in their career. That's why I called our FO detached from reality. All they had to do was watch a few recent games of Outlaw and Salmons to see that those guys are done as good players. But they apparently are still living in 2007.

And the curious thing is, GP then tried to sign AK-47. So he got Salmons to be the starting SF then a short time later changed his mind and went after the Russian. As if he knew Salmons would suck. A good GM doesn't do that. A good GM doesn't trade for a 8 millions/season player to start and then kick him to the bench just mere weeks later. This tells me our GM has no clear vision on how he wants to build this team.

 

[funkykingston]

And the curious thing is, GP then tried to sign AK-47. So he got Salmons to be the starting SF then a short time later changed his mind and went after the Russian. As if he knew Salmons would suck. A good GM doesn't do that. A good GM doesn't trade for a 8 millions/season player to start and then kick him to the bench just mere weeks later. This tells me our GM has no clear vision on how he wants to build this team.

Really good point. And it comes back to the FO & coaching staff not having a system in place such that they know what type of player they want. Kirilenko and Salmons are very different SF options. You can argue that they are somewhat complimentary but even then, acquiring both means that you are vastly overpaying one of them to be a backup. In hindsight it would obviously have been Salmons, but even at the time I think the presumption was that AK-47 would start at SF if signed. Which means the Kings would have traded down to get rid of Beno and his decent (perhaps slightly inflated) contract to acquire a backup SF making $8 million for a few more seasons. Really?

Outlaw was a PF when he played for Portland and he sucked when the Nets converted him to SF, and his game was in rapid decline starting in his last year with the Blazers. Salmons was never the same since his injury over two years ago and he came to the Kings still recovering from yet another injury. Garcia, the Kings probably knew he wasn't quite right, hence all the moves to bring in SFs.

Those three guys pretty much performed up to their normal form at this stage in their career. That's why I called our FO detached from reality. All they had to do was watch a few recent games of Outlaw and Salmons to see that those guys are done as good players. But they apparently are still living in 2007.

Geoff's recent comments about Brooks give more credence to this notion. He talks about liking Brooks from the time he was drafted and that he had "3 very good years in Houston" which would be fine if those three years were the most RECENT three years of his career. But they weren't.

 

[hrdboild]

I was in a bit of a rush when I posted before so I didn't really get to fully explain my point. When I said the decisions were based more in marketing than basketball expertise, I'm not separating the players themselves from the win total. It's generally assumed in professional sports that fans come to games when the team is winning. There are exceptions, but that's what I would expect to happen in Sacramento. Now if my goal is to build the best team possible, I'm going to target players that I expect to develop into stars and then I'm going to look for complimentary players who fit particular roles. That's what San Antonio has done so well over the years, pulling in guys like Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili that they can mold into stars and then surrounding them with system guys who do one or two things well enough to find a consistent role.

If, on the other hand, my goal is to increase the win total as much as possible in the short-term I'm going to be looking more at NBA-ready talent in the draft as opposed to long-term potential and I'm going to be looking for guys who are available that put up numbers in the recent past. Aaron Brooks is almost a worst-possible fit for us at PG, for instance, but maybe they see 19 and 5 and think "that's a guy who's going to help us win, no matter where or how we play him". It doesn't work like that in the real world because most of his production is going to come at the expense of IT, Tyreke, and Thornton -- but you actually have to have a plan to see that. I don't think they're even concerned with fit. I think they want to get to the playoffs as soon as possible even if there's no chance of getting past the first round.

In the draft -- Brandon Knight, Bismack Biyombo, or Kawhi Leonard looked like better long-term picks but our front office passed on all of them for a guy who was perceived as NBA ready. They thought they could get a cheap rookie to replace Beno, and then swap out Beno's contract for a veteran SF to get more bang for their buck; more production for the same cost. Where this whole plan falls apart though is that you can't just take individual stats out of context and expect them to replicate that performance without also making sure you give them conditions which are favorable to their style of play. Jimmer was given the green light to shoot whenever he wanted at BYU. Salmons is an isolation scorer who only produces when he's allowed to use up a large chunk of his team's possessions. Adding both of them to a team which already featured Tyreke Evans and Marcus Thornton and then expecting all of them to perform at a high level without consequences was idiotic. And a lot of people here pointed that out. That's why I've said before that what happened last year was not at all surprising.

This year we could have fixed some of our problems by trading with Houston for Kyle Lowry and then taking Moe Harkless and Arnett Moultrie. Lowry is a perfect compliment to Tyreke in that he can handle the ball and setup teammates but he can also play off the ball. And he can hold his own defensively. But Harkless and Moultrie are both longterm projects whereas Robinson looked like the most NBA ready player in the draft. You could say the same for Barnes or Drummond who both fit very well with Cousins and Evans, but are going to take some more grooming to find that potential. We could have amnestied John Salmons and/or bought out Garcia and tried to sign a defensive SF like Batum or Wallace. Both of those guys would have required a longterm commitment of $40+ million dollars though. Instead we traded for a guy who's owed only $2.8 million and plays competent defense. Maybe these moves get us an 8th seed on talent alone, maybe. But where are we at in 2 or 3 years as a result of these moves? Where's the long-term planning?

And this is the real kicker for me, that elevates this whole miserable situation into "painful to watch" territory: we spent all of our cap space this summer. With some proper planning we could have put together a very good team that wouldn't have cost the Maloofs any more money than they're going to spend now. Granted amnestying Salmons has implications beyond just this season, but that's a small price to pay for fielding a competitive team. As it is we'll have to rely on our current players elevating their play considerably to even get close to a .500 winning percentage. We already have two cornerstone star players and we've seen them play enough to know what their strengths and weaknesses are. How hard can it be to build a complimentary team around them? Chasing short-term wins is fools gold. But that seems to be the only plan our front-office has had for years now.

 

[funkykingston]

I was in a bit of a rush when I posted before so I didn't really get to fully explain my point. When I said the decisions were based more in marketing than basketball expertise, I'm not separating the players themselves from the win total. It's generally assumed in professional sports that fans come to games when the team is winning. There are exceptions, but that's what I would expect to happen in Sacramento. Now if my goal is to build the best team possible, I'm going to target players that I expect to develop into stars and then I'm going to look for complimentary players who fit particular roles. That's what San Antonio has done so well over the years, pulling in guys like Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili that they can mold into stars and then surrounding them with system guys who do one or two things well enough to find a consistent role.

If, on the other hand, my goal is to increase the win total as much as possible in the short-term I'm going to be looking more at NBA-ready talent in the draft as opposed to long-term potential and I'm going to be looking for guys who are available that put up numbers in the recent past. Aaron Brooks is almost a worst-possible fit for us at PG, for instance, but maybe they see 19 and 5 and think "that's a guy who's going to help us win, no matter where or how we play him". It doesn't work like that in the real world because most of his production is going to come at the expense of IT, Tyreke, and Thornton -- but you actually have to have a plan to see that. I don't think they're even concerned with fit. I think they want to get to the playoffs as soon as possible even if there's no chance of getting past the first round.

In the draft -- Brandon Knight, Bismack Biyombo, or Kawhi Leonard looked like better long-term picks but our front office passed on all of them for a guy who was perceived as NBA ready. They thought they could get a cheap rookie to replace Beno, and then swap out Beno's contract for a veteran SF to get more bang for their buck; more production for the same cost. Where this whole plan falls apart though is that you can't just take individual stats out of context and expect them to replicate that performance without also making sure you give them conditions which are favorable to their style of play. Jimmer was given the green light to shoot whenever he wanted at BYU. Salmons is an isolation scorer who only produces when he's allowed to use up a large chunk of his team's possessions. Adding both of them to a team which already featured Tyreke Evans and Marcus Thornton and then expecting all of them to perform at a high level without consequences was idiotic. And a lot of people here pointed that out. That's why I've said before that what happened last year was not at all surprising.

This year we could have fixed some of our problems by trading with Houston for Kyle Lowry and then taking Moe Harkless and Arnett Moultrie. Lowry is a perfect compliment to Tyreke in that he can handle the ball and setup teammates but he can also play off the ball. And he can hold his own defensively. But Harkless and Moultrie are both longterm projects whereas Robinson looked like the most NBA ready player in the draft. You could say the same for Barnes or Drummond who both fit very well with Cousins and Evans, but are going to take some more grooming to find that potential. We could have amnestied John Salmons and/or bought out Garcia and tried to sign a defensive SF like Batum or Wallace. Both of those guys would have required a longterm commitment of $40+ million dollars though. Instead we traded for a guy who's owed only $2.8 million and plays competent defense. Maybe these moves get us an 8th seed on talent alone, maybe. But where are we at in 2 or 3 years as a result of these moves? Where's the long-term planning?

And this is the real kicker for me, that elevates this whole miserable situation into "painful to watch" territory: we spent all of our cap space this summer. With some proper planning we could have put together a very good team that wouldn't have cost the Maloofs any more money than they're going to spend now. Granted amnestying Salmons has implications beyond just this season, but that's a small price to pay for fielding a competitive team. As it is we'll have to rely on our current players elevating their play considerably to even get close to a .500 winning percentage. We already have two cornerstone star players and we've seen them play enough to know what their strengths and weaknesses are. How hard can it be to build a complimentary team around them? Chasing short-term wins is fools gold. But that seems to be the only plan our front-office has had for years now.

Nothing I can disagree with there - I think we have a very similar outlook on things.

And the bit about chasing short term wins being fool's gold is exactly right.

What is the BEST case scenario for moves like Salmons and Brooks? That the team claws it's way into an 8th seed and gets bounced in the first round? Then what? Without the infrastructure to allow for growth and all the cap money tied up in mediocre players where does further advancement come from? Maybe from the draft, but you're now picking out of the lottery, where good teams grab role players and occasionally take a gamble on a high risk/high reward player because it doesn't hurt their team if he doesn't work out. Fool's gold is right.

And if what I posted above is the correct starting lineup to begin this season, it's interesting to note that the starting five will be paid a collective $18 million while the bench will make $40 million. Lots of sixth men get (justifiably) paid like starters so even if you move Thornton into that group the salary distribution is $25 million for the top 6 of the rotation and $33 million for the rest of the team.

Yes, of the proposed starters all but JT are playing on rookie contracts so the numbers are going to be skewed, but honestly, if more than half your cap room is for guys sitting on the bench, why not find guys that compliment your young talent better. Is Hayes really the best fit the team can find to play behind or with DeMarcus? Is Salmons the best guy to pair with our young guards?

The approach should never be a patch job. It should always be to be building or maintaining a contender.

 

[IfAt1st]

I don't buy any theory about this Kings organization that concludes they are trying to win right now - not when they are employing Keith Smart as a head coach.

This guy is simply not qualified (proven by his (lack of) performance in his coaching career) to instill an NBA-quality offense or defense.
He is not qualified to evaluate or build talent (Jeremy Lin, anyone?).
He is not qualified to come up with rosters.
He is not qualified to substitute.

The fact that the Kings picked up his contract WAY prematurely, and haven't hired any of the eminently-qualified, experienced coaches available this year shows without a doubt that they are not serious about winning in any form, to me.

 

[funkykingston]

But that is also true of Westphal, Natt, Theus and Musselman.

Whether it's because the owners are cheap or because the front office makes terrible choices or both, the track record of recent Kings coaches more than speaks for itself.

 

[Glenn]

I don't buy any theory about this Kings organization that concludes they are trying to win right now - not when they are employing Keith Smart as a head coach.

This guy is simply not qualified (proven by his (lack of) performance in his coaching career) to instill an NBA-quality offense or defense.
He is not qualified to evaluate or build talent (Jeremy Lin, anyone?).
He is not qualified to come up with rosters.
He is not qualified to substitute.

The fact that the Kings picked up his contract WAY prematurely, and haven't hired any of the eminently-qualified, experienced coaches available this year shows without a doubt that they are not serious about winning in any form, to me.

No kidding. I assume you heard the howls of indignation when they extended him so quickly. Did they think they would lose him?

 

[gunks]

Maloofs are broke, GP is flailing half assedly (when he does anything at all), and Smart is anything but. I'm just waiting for Reke and Cousins to jump ship so I can have new teams to root for.

Or the Magoofs selling, but thats probably not going to happen until we lose our young stars.

 

[beb0p]

I don't buy any theory about this Kings organization that concludes they are trying to win right now - not when they are employing Keith Smart as a head coach.

This guy is simply not qualified (proven by his (lack of) performance in his coaching career) to instill an NBA-quality offense or defense.
He is not qualified to evaluate or build talent (Jeremy Lin, anyone?).
He is not qualified to come up with rosters.
He is not qualified to substitute.

The fact that the Kings picked up his contract WAY prematurely, and haven't hired any of the eminently-qualified, experienced coaches available this year shows without a doubt that they are not serious about winning in any form, to me.

You're just cherry picking now. Smart's extension can easily be explained by his working relationship with Cousins.

 

[Kingster]

I have a different take on it, I honestly don't think the Kings would have drafted Jimmer without Westphal and GP fully buying in. Westy's job was on the line and he would have put up a real fight if he didn't think Jimmer was going to help with the Ws. Bottom line is that Jimmer was drafted because they grossly mis-evaluated him. They thought he is the next Mark Price and furthermore, he was NBA-ready (or so they thought). They passed on Brandon Knight for Jimmer, that action speaks volume - they probably thought that Knight was too raw and Jimmer was ready (and can shoot and play PG). The Kings entered into last year's draft pretty much set on taking a PG. They worked out Knight before anyone else. So it's not like they weren't interested in Knight on some level.

Plus, it makes sense if you believe Voisin's reporting that the Kings were planning to move Tyreke to SF entering into last season. They envisioned a Jimmer/Thornton backcourt with Reke at the 3. Now, if you buy into the notion that Jimmer is the second coming of Mark Price, this lineup looks great on paper. The Kings probably thought they had three potential future All-Stars there.

The Salmons acquisition is to give Westy help short-term and buy some time for Jimmer to develop. Likely thinking that they can get away without a true PG in a shortened season by having three shoot-first guards who can handle the ball. The Kings might even have expected Jimmer to shine and claim major mins at some point last season. There's no doubt in my mind that they expected Jimmer to fill Beno's role because if it was just the Maloofs wanting to sell more jerseys, they could drafted Jimmer, kept Beno (I'm sure the Bucks wouldn't have minded if they had gotten Garcia instead of Beno), and just have a deep guard rotation (we all know the Kings are not opposed to a deep guard rotation).

I also think Jimmer's NBA-readiness played a big part. I suspect GP is growing impatient and wants to win now (now as in last season), hence the acquisition of Outlaw and Hayes. Those are guys that can be useful for a playoff team or at least one trying to make the playoff instead of tanking. GP did not wanted to tank - you don't sign Chuck Hayes if you wanted to tank the season. Maybe it's the Maloofs who are growing impatient and are putting pressure on GP, but the FO wanted NBA ready guys. What does Jimmer and TRob have in common? NBA readiness (or perceived NBA readiness).

They passed on Knight because his game at this stage of his career was much more like Tyreke's. Maybe perceived NBA readiness was a factor, but a minor one, imo, especially when you take into account that Jimmer hadn't really been a point guard in college. They needed a guy that complemented Tyreke, not more of the same, which meant a serious outside shooter. That's why it was Jimmer. It's the same tune that they are playing to this day - the need for more outside shooting. It stretches the bounds to believe that the primary reason for the Kings picking Jimmer was that they thought that Jimmer was more ready for the NBA game than Knight, but it doesn't to believe that he would provide the outside shooting that Knight couldn't.

Also, I don't think Jimmer and T-Robb have anything in common, other than you could make the case they are both hard workers, as evidenced by how they improved their games over time in college. I haven't heard anything from the Kings org that has led my to believe that they think T-Robb is going to start immediately and get major minutes. Just the opposite in fact.

As for "winning now", it's a question of degree. If they really wanted to win now, and that's the only thing they wanted to do, they could trade Tyreke, Cousins, T-Robb and IT and get some veterans in here who could "win now". They would get into the playoffs, but that's all they would ever do, because they wouldn't have the ceiling of the aforementioned group.

 

[beb0p]

They passed on Knight because his game at this stage of his career was much more like Tyreke's. Maybe perceived NBA readiness was a factor, but a minor one, imo, especially when you take into account that Jimmer hadn't really been a point guard in college. They needed a guy that complemented Tyreke, not more of the same, which meant a serious outside shooter. That's why it was Jimmer. It's the same tune that they are playing to this day - the need for more outside shooting. It stretches the bounds to believe that the primary reason for the Kings picking Jimmer was that they thought that Jimmer was more ready for the NBA game than Knight, but it doesn't to believe that he would provide the outside shooting that Knight couldn't.

Also, I don't think Jimmer and T-Robb have anything in common, other than you could make the case they are both hard workers, as evidenced by how they improved their games over time in college. I haven't heard anything from the Kings org that has led my to believe that they think T-Robb is going to start immediately and get major minutes. Just the opposite in fact.

As for "winning now", it's a question of degree. If they really wanted to win now, and that's the only thing they wanted to do, they could trade Tyreke, Cousins, T-Robb and IT and get some veterans in here who could "win now". They would get into the playoffs, but that's all they would ever do, because they wouldn't have the ceiling of the aforementioned group.

Puzzled. Knight's game is not similar to Tyreke's. You know who's similar to Reke? Rodney Stuckey (similar but not exact, obviously Reke is more talented)! Who just so happen to be Knight's backcourt partner in Detroit. So is Detroit dumb for drafting a player that GP passed to partner a similar player to Reke? Why does Knight compliment Stuckey in Detroit but can't compliment Reke in Sacramento?

Furthermore, if you want to talk 3pt shooting, Knight shot 38% treys vs Jimmer's 36%. In fact, Knight shot 38% treys in college (vs Jimmer's 39%) so he is no liability from beyond the arc. I know Jimmer has the reputation, but Knight is a good 3 pt shooter, let's not distort that fact.

If one guy can hit threes but unathletic and questionable in running an offense, while a second guy can hit three, is athletic, can run an offense, and is also a bit bigger than the first guy; why oh why would a team pick the former over the later? It's got to be because some quality Jimmer had that Knight didn't. It can't be because of 3-pt shooting because they both can hit threes! Maybe marketing, maybe NBA readiness, maybe the Kings like Mormons, whatever. But I just don't think it's skill related because if that's the case, it'd have been Knight who was drafted instead of Jimmer.

Also, no team in its right mind would do what you suggested just to win a few more games. Maybe you're suggesting that the Kings have indeed lost their minds? But to do what you suggest they would do, they'd have completely gone insane.

 

[Kingster]

Puzzled. Knight's game is not similar to Tyreke's. You know who's similar to Reke? Rodney Stuckey (similar but not exact, obviously Reke is more talented)! Who just so happen to be Knight's backcourt partner in Detroit. So is Detroit dumb for drafting a player that GP passed to partner a similar player to Reke? Why does Knight compliment Stuckey in Detroit but can't compliment Reke in Sacramento?

Furthermore, if you want to talk 3pt shooting, Knight shot 38% treys vs Jimmer's 36%. In fact, Knight shot 38% treys in college (vs Jimmer's 39%) so he is no liability from beyond the arc. I know Jimmer has the reputation, but Knight is a good 3 pt shooter, let's not distort that fact.

If one guy can hit threes but unathletic and questionable in running an offense, while a second guy can hit three, is athletic, can run an offense, and is also a bit bigger than the first guy; why oh why would a team pick the former over the later? It's got to be because some quality Jimmer had that Knight didn't. It can't be because of 3-pt shooting because they both can hit threes! Maybe marketing, maybe NBA readiness, maybe the Kings like Mormons, whatever. But I just don't think it's skill related because if that's the case, it'd have been Knight who was drafted instead of Jimmer.

Also, no team in its right mind would do what you suggested just to win a few more games. Maybe you're suggesting that the Kings have indeed lost their minds? But to do what you suggest they would do, they'd have completely gone insane.

He's a heckuvalot more similar than Jimmer's. Combo type guard, not a great outside shooter, has potential to be a good defender, likes the ball in his hands - all similarities. Compare that to Jimmer's.....................................no similarities whatsoever. Also, think about it, it wasn't just a Knight/Jimmer decision. There were several other good players on the board. But who did Petrie pick - the one who could could shoot the best and (hopefully) complement Tyreke's game the best. They could have picked Clay Thompson, but they wanted somebody with ballhandling skills to reduce the load for Tyreke. They thought Jimmer take some of the ballhandling chores from Tyreke. But they were wrong. He couldn't.

And yes, I agree: Detroit was smarter than Petrie. They didn't get caught up in the overlapping games of Stuckey and Knight.

I sure don't think Mormonism had anything to do with the decision. Nor marketability. Though no doubt the Maloofs were hoping that the Jimmermania could continue in the NBA. I just think that was a sideshow though....

 

[IfAt1st]

No kidding. I assume you heard the howls of indignation when they extended him so quickly. Did they think they would lose him?

I was the first howl of indignation when they extended him. Seriously.

I knew that once they did that, the only way the Kings future was not destroyed was if they choose to eat his contract once he fails this upcoming season, and get a better coach to replace him.
Coaching is the most important aspect of an organization - a good coach can get mediocre players to get better, and good players to become great.
A bad coach causes talent to wither and players to play worse than they are, and makes the whole organization look bad out there by not being able to run plays or compete when the games are close.

The problem is, by extending Smart, they completely obliterated any chance they would replace him for that better coach during this offseason.

So IMO, there's really not much hope for this Kings team (neglecting everything going on with the Maloofs and how I think they are TRYING to get a bad product on the floor) since the chance of getting an experienced, proven NBA coach mid-season to replace Smart is a pretty big longshot, and dependent on the Kings to bite the bullet, make the move, and eat his salary.