Now that things are starting to gel a little...

[bajaden]

That seems strange to me. So if the owners initiate a lockout for no apparent reason, that means they don't have to pay the players?

Yep! All the contracts were signed under the old CBA. When the CBA expires, everything is in limbo until the next CBA is in place. When we had the last lockout, no player recieved a check until the new CBA had been agreed to. Thats why the owners have leverage. The owners have stated, whether its true or not, that there are 5 or 6 teams that would actually save money by cancelling the entire season.

But this much is true. If your an owner, and, as is the case with most owners, you bought your team more for love of the sport, than making money. And, at the end of the year your just breaking even, you have little to lose by locking out the players for a year, except possible fan base. The players on the other hand will lose millions of dollars, and, a year of thier playing career. If your a Marcus Camby, that could be a huge thing. And while losing a year of NBA basketball might do some damage, I don't think that damage would compare to the damage suffered by the NHL, which is a league that has struggled to compete with the big three since its existance. Especially on the media level.

The owners have all the leverage. It might not endear them to the fans, but I think most true NBA fans will be waiting with bated breath for the return of basketball. Of course I speak from my own biased position, and I'm sure I'm somewhat blind to the average Joe Smoe on the street, looking for somewhere to spend his entertainment dollar.

 

[Bricklayer]

I don't think the question is whether we want Dalembert back next season or not. At least not to me. The question is, one, does he want to come back? And two, how much money is a realistic amount to resign him. After freeing ourselves of all unnecessary contracts at seasons end, we could have as much as 30 to 33 million dollars to play with, depending on where they set the cap. So lets say its 30 million. Do we want to dedicate 10 million of that to Dalembert? And if so, for how long?

Here's my question to you Bricky. Just how much would you be willing to pay him? And for how long? We all know what his value is to the team. Personally I'm having a hard time putting a price tag on that value. Were at a point where we don't want to make a major mistake, and we certainly want to add to the team. Dalembert isn't an addition. He's status quo. And you certainly want to maintain that. But you don't want to hinder future additions by overpaying either.

The answer to that largely depends on the viability of the Cousins/Daly pairing. I want him back anyway. But without that pairing he probably won't return, and I probably can't offer him enoguh to tempt him to return. For an 18-20mpg guy it would be hard to rationally go over $6-$7mil. Now, however, let's say Daly/Cousins is vaible. And its looked it thus far. Then Daly becomes part of a 3-man frontcourt rotation: Cousins/Daly/?? . Now you are talking about a 25min a game type guy. And then I'm willing to go ahead and pay thye way you normally pay for top defensive bigs, try to hold it in the 8-10mil range.

We are absolutely going to have to pay SOMEBODY to do the things Dalembert does, or we'll never be a seriosu threat to anybody. So somebody is going to get that money, or alternately we can just play fun, excitnig, losing basketball for eternity. If Dalembert can both backup and play alongside Cousins to get that defensive/shotblocking into our mix, then I have no qualms in the money going to him. You would like 3yrs, but probably get dragged a bit longer. In either case ina perfect world you are grooming Whiteside to take over eventually when Daly's contract runs out.

 

[bajaden]

Its worth noting that when the NHL lockout was over teams were forced to dump their star players and the league was literally turned on its head. The teams at the top went into cap hell and dumped stars, the Edmonton Oilers who's glory days had been long forgotten and were now perrenial cellar dwellars were able to makes some savvy moves and reach the finals that year.

I actually disagree with much of what Brick had to say except his conclusion that it would be a disastrous result for the NBA and its fans. Hockey has chased away a lot of longtime fans. The fact that the commissioner was Stern's right hand man in the 80s is not lost on many long time hockey fans who hate the direction the NHL took in the 90s and beyond and during the lockout many were actually hoping the lockout would destroy the NHL and a new league would form from its ashes. I'm a longtime Bruins fan who has just about given up trying to find the games on tv post lockout - I'm actually having more luck finding my college team on some of the newer sports channels (yes, I do know they are on Vs. in between WEC and the Rodeo).

If were going to be honest here, and let me say that I'm a hockey fan going back to the old St. Louis Flyers, hockey has never been as popular in this country as Baseball, football and basketball. Especially in TV ratings. I don't think the hockey lockout had anything to do with the post lockout TV situation. The TV ratings were already in the dumpster. Not hockeys fault. I just don't think that hockey translates well to TV. And television is the only way to build a national fanbase. In person, and I highly advise anyone that hasn't seen a game in person to do so, its an entirely different game loaded with excitement.

I also don't think a lockout will chase away true fans of any sport. It might anger them, but in the end, they can't wait for the sport to return. Casual fans are an entirely different matter. Take away one form of entertainment, and they turn to another. But, by the same token, they're less likely to harbor any deep anger over the entire thing.. All you have to do is find a way to intice them back. Convince them that your the best intertainment for the buck in town and they return.

 

[bajaden]

The answer to that largely depends on the viability of the Cousins/Daly pairing. I want him back anyway. But without that pairing he probably won't return, and I probably can't offer him enoguh to tempt him to return. For an 18-20mpg guy it would be hard to rationally go over $6-$7mil. Now, however, let's say Daly/Cousins is vaible. And its looked it thus far. Then Daly becomes part of a 3-man frontcourt rotation: Cousins/Daly/?? . Now you are talking about a 25min a game type guy. And then I'm willing to go ahead and pay thye way you normally pay for top defensive bigs, try to hold it in the 8-10mil range.

We are absolutely going to have to pay SOMEBODY to do the things Dalembert does, or we'll never be a seriosu threat to anybody. So somebody is going to get that money, or alternately we can just play fun, excitnig, losing basketball for eternity. If Dalembert can both backup and play alongside Cousins to get that defensive/shotblocking into our mix, then I have no qualms in the money going to him. You would like 3yrs, but probably get dragged a bit longer. In either case ina perfect world you are grooming Whiteside to take over eventually when Daly's contract runs out.

Your pretty close to what I was thinking. And I'm on the same page with the pairing of Cousins and Dalembert together as the front line. You have Thompson who can back up either position, and perhaps we draft a young player thats also capable of playing either position. Such as Jared Sullinger or a Enes Kanter, if his knee's check out. That would give you four interchangable parts. My perference would be to start Dalembert at 8 mil and for 3 years. I also agree that he'll want at least 4 years. So I would give him 4 years, but with the second year a player option, and with the last two a team option. That way if he's unhappy with how he's being used after one year, he can opt out. And after the first two years if the Kings aren't happy with how its working out, they can opt out.

Sounds unlikely, but its this kind of thing the owners are shooting for in the new CBA. Fewer guaranteed years. So its possible that the new CBA could be on our side in a situation like this. Bottom line though, is I want him back. When you think how well the two of them playing together has worked, and that they're still getting used to one another out there, it can only get better.

 

[rhythmless]

It's not that hard to look @ Dalembert's options. He will be 30 years old. What does this mean? This is his last big contract. After 32, he will decline judiciously, like most big men. He wants the security of a long contract.

Proven defensive centers are always hot commodities. He will either go for the big payday in current CBA ~10 mil/year) or go to a championship contender for a slight discount, probably ~8 mil a year.

Another thing you have to understand is Dalembert's notrious struggles with playing time in Phi. He wanted to come here because he thought we would give him more minutes, not less. Unless we have plans for him to average at least what he was getting (26 min), I do not see Dalembert signing here for any amount of money. Add in the fact that Maloofs have been cheapies for the past few years, I don't see them willing to compete on a financial scale of other teams.

 

[rhythmless]

My perference would be to start Dalembert at 8 mil and for 3 years. I also agree that he'll want at least 4 years. So I would give him 4 years, but with the second year a player option, and with the last two a team option. That way if he's unhappy with how he's being used after one year, he can opt out. And after the first two years if the Kings aren't happy with how its working out, they can opt out.

Sounds unlikely, but its this kind of thing the owners are shooting for in the new CBA. Fewer guaranteed years. So its possible that the new CBA could be on our side in a situation like this. Bottom line though, is I want him back. When you think how well the two of them playing together has worked, and that they're still getting used to one another out there, it can only get better.

2 team option years on a 4 year contract? For a defensive big? That's 30? No way, no how.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

You are right bajaden, and hockey did seem to hit its peak in the mid 90s largely driven by video game popularity and Gretzky in LA which lead to hyperexpansion and rode that to a TV deal that ultimately wouldn't be renewed with or without the lockout. But it still seems like it was easier to watch hockey in the 80s pre-boom than now, it was all over ESPN before ESPN2 even, and the SportsChannels pre-Fox. Then again ESPN and the Sportschannels didn't have NBA or NFL then either so in some ways being relegated to Vs. now is no different.

I know hockey has always considered itself something of a niche in the US and a vocal chunk of fanbase rejects the big 3 sports but I do consider myself a true fan who also loves the NBA and NFL, NCAA and have other hobbies and now that I have other responsibilities I just don't have time to hunt down the games and hope I can find time to watch them. When the playoffs are on and I know a game is on every night and what time I am pretty much glued to the set so I definitely think that any TV deal that advertised across networks would be better than what they have.

 

[Superman]

It's not that hard to look @ Dalembert's options. He will be 30 years old. What does this mean? This is his last big contract. After 32, he will decline judiciously, like most big men. He wants the security of a long contract.

Proven defensive centers are always hot commodities. He will either go for the big payday in current CBA ~10 mil/year) or go to a championship contender for a slight discount, probably ~8 mil a year.

Another thing you have to understand is Dalembert's notrious struggles with playing time in Phi. He wanted to come here because he thought we would give him more minutes, not less. Unless we have plans for him to average at least what he was getting (26 min), I do not see Dalembert signing here for any amount of money. Add in the fact that Maloofs have been cheapies for the past few years, I don't see them willing to compete on a financial scale of other teams.

Okay, so at this stage of the rebuild, do you pay a 30 year old one-dimensional center $10 million a year for 20-25 minutes a game? We have three young bigs that need minutes to either determine how they fit into our plans or if we need to part ways with them. We're not winning a championship next year. We're still trying to figure out exactly what we do have. There's going to be extensions for Evans and Cousins in the not too distant future. And the new CBA may be more restrictive when it comes to going over the cap, even to keep your own players. So we also have to think about the real world costs to ownership to keep Dalembert, as a very functional piece of the team, but at a rate that would make him the highest paid player on the roster for the duration of his contract.

 

[Big Cuz 15]

i'd offer daly a 5 year deal 8-10mill/yr. the last 2 yrs are team options. this coincides w/ whitesides contract. he has 3 more years, 1 guaranteed and 2 team options. if whiteside realizes his potential we could trade daly the third year which would act as a expiring since the following years would be team options.

 

[Capt. Factorial]

2 team option years on a 4 year contract? For a defensive big? That's 30? No way, no how.

Are you saying we shouldn't do that? I can't see why it would be a bad idea for us. Maybe Dally wouldn't take a contract with that kind of uncertainty, but how could it be bad for us?

 

[ParniValjak]

Do you understand that signing Dally for three years might require a $30 million contract? If so, do you still think we should retain him at that price?

Absolutely!

Take a look around the league and you will see that outside of the stars, big man of Dalembert's caliber are the next highest paid group of players.

What Dalembert brings to the table is rare and very hard to find. He is a great defender, shot-blocker and a rebounder. He is a goof FT shooter for a big man. In other words an ultimate defensive role playing big and those are as rare as superstars. After years of watching the lay up drills that teams ran against the Kings its refreshing to FINALLY get a player that changes that. Now that we have him, people want to let him go.


Dalembert has shown that he can play with Cousins so there is no reason why he can't be an integral part of a 3 man front court rotation where he would be getting 25-30 minutes a night and provide you with almost a double double and a couple of blocks in that time.

Now if we can keep Dalembert at approximately $10million per year over 3 years and add Nene in the free agency, we would have a front court that would beast it against any other team in the league and the beauty of it is that all 3 players should be able to play with each other and Nene happens to be a pretty good low post defender, if not a good shot blocker.

 

[ParniValjak]

Okay, so at this stage of the rebuild, do you pay a 30 year old one-dimensional center $10 million a year for 20-25 minutes a game? We have three young bigs that need minutes to either determine how they fit into our plans or if we need to part ways with them. We're not winning a championship next year. We're still trying to figure out exactly what we do have. There's going to be extensions for Evans and Cousins in the not too distant future. And the new CBA may be more restrictive when it comes to going over the cap, even to keep your own players. So we also have to think about the real world costs to ownership to keep Dalembert, as a very functional piece of the team, but at a rate that would make him the highest paid player on the roster for the duration of his contract.

I think you seriously underestimate what one or 2 very good free agents would do for this team along with the continued development of the youngs kids already in town. Here is the thing, we can have Cousins and we can have Evans but we will NEVER win the championship unless you have a player that brings to the table what Dalembert brings. There is a reason why those sort of players are getting the sort of money that they are. Its because without interior defence and shot blocking, you don't win in this league. Simple as that.

Dalembert might be 30 and he might only give you 25 minutes a night but he can change a game for you defensively in those 25 minutes. If you are letting Dalembert go, then you better make sure you are finding his replacement quick smart and someone that has actually done something in this league and not Whiteside.

I can guarantee you that if the kings draft a good guard with their 1st pick this year, go out and re-sign Dalembert and sign Nene and Prince type players thay will be in the play offs next season and contending every year after that.

 

[Section 101]

I don't see the Kings setting the market value for the new CBA whatever it will be. He either gets an offer from another team or the Kings pay him the low end.

 

[Superman]

I think you seriously underestimate what one or 2 very good free agents would do for this team along with the continued development of the youngs kids already in town. Here is the thing, we can have Cousins and we can have Evans but we will NEVER win the championship unless you have a player that brings to the table what Dalembert brings. There is a reason why those sort of players are getting the sort of money that they are. Its because without interior defence and shot blocking, you don't win in this league. Simple as that.

Dalembert might be 30 and he might only give you 25 minutes a night but he can change a game for you defensively in those 25 minutes. If you are letting Dalembert go, then you better make sure you are finding his replacement quick smart and someone that has actually done something in this league and not Whiteside.

I can guarantee you that if the kings draft a good guard with their 1st pick this year, go out and re-sign Dalembert and sign Nene and Prince type players thay will be in the play offs next season and contending every year after that.

Why do you say I'm underestimating the value of a free agent signing or two? I'm assuming that our team looks similar to how it looks now, personnel-wise, with the addition of a first rounder. And let's say we knock that out of the park like we have the last two years, we're still talking about a rookie addition that we'd presumably be relying on to score points for us on a consistent basis. That's not a championship caliber team.

IF we were to add a veteran guard or small forward who can score without needing the ball (a Rip Hamilton circa 2004 type), which would presumably improve our offense right away, and couple that with Cousins and Evans development, and some defensive consistency -- including Dalembert -- then we're in the mix, but our two best players would still be 21 and 22 years old. I'm just tempering my expectations of what we're going to do next season, barring a serious roster overhaul, which would be ill-advised at this point.

And yes, if we can keep Dalembert, it's a huge boon to our championship chances, assuming we are in position for that to matter within the next three seasons or so. But the question is do you sign a 30 year old shotblocker to a $10 million/year contract, when you're in our position? I'm not sure you do, especially when you have Whiteside on the bench. Not a proven commodity like we hope Dalembert is, but I have to question the wisdom of signing an auxiliary player to such a rich contract when you're still not a championship contender.

 

[Section 101]

Why do you say I'm underestimating the value of a free agent signing or two? I'm assuming that our team looks similar to how it looks now, personnel-wise, with the addition of a first rounder. And let's say we knock that out of the park like we have the last two years, we're still talking about a rookie addition that we'd presumably be relying on to score points for us on a consistent basis. That's not a championship caliber team.

IF we were to add a veteran guard or small forward who can score without needing the ball (a Rip Hamilton circa 2004 type), which would presumably improve our offense right away, and couple that with Cousins and Evans development, and some defensive consistency -- including Dalembert -- then we're in the mix, but our two best players would still be 21 and 22 years old. I'm just tempering my expectations of what we're going to do next season, barring a serious roster overhaul, which would be ill-advised at this point.

And yes, if we can keep Dalembert, it's a huge boon to our championship chances, assuming we are in position for that to matter within the next three seasons or so. But the question is do you sign a 30 year old shotblocker to a $10 million/year contract, when you're in our position? I'm not sure you do, especially when you have Whiteside on the bench. Not a proven commodity like we hope Dalembert is, but I have to question the wisdom of signing an auxiliary player to such a rich contract when you're still not a championship contender.

Here is a list of the free agents:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FreeAgents-11-12

So stop using hypothetical players and use real ones.

 

[Superman]

Here is a list of the free agents:

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?page=FreeAgents-11-12

So stop using hypothetical players and use real ones.

What difference does that make? That's not even the topic of conversation. I didn't say we should sign Rip Hamilton. I said a player like him, who can score without dominating the ball.

 

[Section 101]

What difference does that make? That's not even the topic of conversation. I didn't say we should sign Rip Hamilton. I said a player like him, who can score without dominating the ball.

So who on that list is it? Like I said if you don't name an available player its all hypothetical.

 

[Superman]

So who on that list is it? Like I said if you don't name an available player its all hypothetical.

What difference does it make? We're talking about Sam Dalembert, not anyone else.

 

[Section 101]

Why do you say I'm underestimating the value of a free agent signing or two? I'm assuming that our team looks similar to how it looks now, personnel-wise, with the addition of a first rounder. And let's say we knock that out of the park like we have the last two years, we're still talking about a rookie addition that we'd presumably be relying on to score points for us on a consistent basis. That's not a championship caliber team.

IF we were to add a veteran guard or small forward who can score without needing the ball (a Rip Hamilton circa 2004 type), which would presumably improve our offense right away, and couple that with Cousins and Evans development, and some defensive consistency -- including Dalembert -- then we're in the mix, but our two best players would still be 21 and 22 years old. I'm just tempering my expectations of what we're going to do next season, barring a serious roster overhaul, which would be ill-advised at this point.

But your whole analysis on keeping Dalembert is on getting a vet guard or SF who can score w/o the ball. I gave you the list to see if anyone fits that description.

IMO the whole free agent market the next 2 years is crap unless Howard exercises his option.

 

[Superman]

But your whole analysis on keeping Dalembert is on getting a vet guard or SF who can score w/o the ball. I gave you the list to see if anyone fits that description.

IMO the whole free agent market the next 2 years is crap unless Howard exercises his option.

The idea the other poster presented was that adding a free agent or two might make us a contender as earlier as next year. I'm saying that even if we do add a player or two, and even if there's marked improvement, I still don't think we're a contender. On the way, maybe, but not knocking the door down just yet. That potential free agent isn't what's important in the discussion.

It's not really critical to my analysis at all. It was an either/or, and that was just one scenario.

 

[moosehog]

Would Tyson Chandler be worth signing? How much do you think it would take to sign him?
Doesn't he basically bring the same skillset at Dally?

 

[ParniValjak]

The idea the other poster presented was that adding a free agent or two might make us a contender as earlier as next year. I'm saying that even if we do add a player or two, and even if there's marked improvement, I still don't think we're a contender. On the way, maybe, but not knocking the door down just yet. That potential free agent isn't what's important in the discussion.

It's not really critical to my analysis at all. It was an either/or, and that was just one scenario.

Errr....I nver said we would be a contender next year! What I said is we would make the play-offs next and be a contender from the year after onwards.

I still stand by that provided that we keep Dalembert (or get his replacements that brings the same sort of things to the table), sign 2 VERY good free agents and draft a good guard with our pick

 

[Section 101]

Errr....I nver said we would be a contender next year! What I said is we would make the play-offs next and be a contender from the year after onwards.

I still stand by that provided that we keep Dalembert (or get his replacements that brings the same sort of things to the table), sign 2 VERY good free agents and draft a good guard with our pick

And like I said he free agents next year are crap.

Here is a hoopsworld ranking of the FA. http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=17517 Older one because Parker signed an extension.

If you look at per right now Zack Randolph is the highest at 22.2.
Nene 21.39 (player option, most think he will not opt out)
Duncan 21.37 (player option)
West 20.89
Melo 20.18
Chandler 18.86
Ak47 -16.41
Barbosa 16.48
Crawford 16.15
Prince 16.03
Landry 15.18
Dalembert 13.08

 

[Superman]

Would Tyson Chandler be worth signing? How much do you think it would take to sign him?
Doesn't he basically bring the same skillset at Dally?

Tyson Chandler is a good shot blocker and rebounder, but has a chronic inability to stay healthy.

 

[Superman]

Errr....I nver said we would be a contender next year! What I said is we would make the play-offs next and be a contender from the year after onwards.

I still stand by that provided that we keep Dalembert (or get his replacements that brings the same sort of things to the table), sign 2 VERY good free agents and draft a good guard with our pick

Ah. Point taken.

 

[ParniValjak]

And like I said he free agents next year are crap.

Here is a hoopsworld ranking of the FA. http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=17517 Older one because Parker signed an extension.

If you look at per right now Zack Randolph is the highest at 22.2.
Nene 21.39 (player option, most think he will not opt out)
Duncan 21.37 (player option)
West 20.89
Melo 20.18
Chandler 18.86
Ak47 -16.41
Barbosa 16.48
Crawford 16.15
Prince 16.03
Landry 15.18
Dalembert 13.08

And the point is that this team does not need LeBron James type player to get over the hump (though it definetely wouldn't hurt).

My point is that id from that list we keep Dalembert, sign Nene and Prince, draft a good guard with our pick or get one via trade, we would be a play off team next year and contender for years after that. This is the line up we are talking about here:

C: Cousins
PF: Nene
SF: Prince
SG: Evans
PG: Udrih

Bench consisting of Dalembert, Casspi, Garcia, Thompson (although would likely trade him for that 3rd guard), Draft pick, Whiteside, Jeter

The front court rotation of Cousins (with another year of development), Nene and Dalembert would be beastly night in night out.

Prince would provide length, defence and long range shooting while stabilizing the SF position and giving Omri more time to develop and mature as a player.

Evans, Beno, Garcia and the drafted rookie and/or traded in guard woudl stabilize the backcourt and provide us with some depth.

That team is good enough to be a play off team in the West next year and with another trade and/or signing or 2 along the way would be contending in 2-3 years.

The point is that we don't need the main guys from the free agency. Those guys are already here!

 

[Bricklayer]

And the point is that this team does not need LeBron James type player to get over the hump (though it definetely wouldn't hurt).

My point is that id from that list we keep Dalembert, sign Nene and Prince, draft a good guard with our pick or get one via trade, we would be a play off team next year and contender for years after that. This is the line up we are talking about here:

C: Cousins
PF: Nene
SF: Prince
SG: Evans
PG: Udrih

Bench consisting of Dalembert, Casspi, Garcia, Thompson (although would likely trade him for that 3rd guard), Draft pick, Whiteside, Jeter

The front court rotation of Cousins (with another year of development), Nene and Dalembert would be beastly night in night out.

Prince would provide length, defence and long range shooting while stabilizing the SF position and giving Omri more time to develop and mature as a player.

Evans, Beno, Garcia and the drafted rookie and/or traded in guard woudl stabilize the backcourt and provide us with some depth.

That team is good enough to be a play off team in the West next year and with another trade and/or signing or 2 along the way would be contending in 2-3 years.

The point is that we don't need the main guys from the free agency. Those guys are already here!

Yeah, that last line really is the point. And the duo of guys you are proposing there is right on target with the sort of thing I think has to happen, although age will have to be a considration. In any case I see this free agency/summer as about picking up 2-3 strong but not overwhelming vets to bring proven talent and stability to those forward positons, and maybe a third guard, although that one could be filled by that draft pick. Most of the guys we keep or pick up have to be solid to strong defenders, because most of the shots will be going to Cousins and Evans, and if guys come in and the only wya they contribute to a tema is with shooting, they aren't going to help or be happy. I will also say this -- earlier this season people were panicking and trying to accuse us of being the least talented team in the league, and it was just a head shaking experience. But the lineup you proposed above is jus the MOST talented in the leage.

 

[Asaf]

Yeah, that last line really is the point. And the duo of guys you are proposing there is right on target with the sort of thing I think has to happen, although age will have to be a considration. In any case I see this free agency/summer as about picking up 2-3 strong but not overwhelming vets to bring proven talent and stability to those forward positons, and maybe a third guard, although that one could be filled by that draft pick. Most of the guys we keep or pick up have to be solid to strong defenders, because most of the shots will be going to Cousins and Evans, and if guys come in and the only wya they contribute to a tema is with shooting, they aren't going to help or be happy. I will also say this -- earlier this season people were panicking and trying to accuse us of being the least talented team in the league, and it was just a head shaking experience. But the lineup you proposed above is jus the MOST talented in the leage.

That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?...

 

[The Hammer]

That's a bit of an exaggeration, isn't it?...

I'll chime in here. And this is something I was talking about a few months ago. See the funny things is, Brick is probably right. But we should differentiate between talent and team record/performance. The latter takes time to develop. Chemistry, guys learning each other's games, etc. But on talent alone, you've got to say that DMC is a top three center, RIGHT NOW. And on talent alone you'd also have to say that Tyreke is a top 10 guard (not just point guard) right now. He's pretty much owned Chris Paul since their first match-up. Not many guys can say that. Throw in the other three, plus our bench, and another half season to mature and yeah, we're right there, talent wise.

I know it's funny to think of the Kings in that way, but sometimes there is a bit of lag time when a team turns the corner. Fans are still used to thinking of them as cellar dwellars, and it affects the perception of the team, even as things change. But that'll catch up.

Keep in mind our frontcourt just completely shut down in a non fluke way the supposed best frontcourt in the league, that one team from LA. To quote Ricky Bobby: "That. Just. Happened."

 

[Padrino]

I'll chime in here. And this is something I was talking about a few months ago. See the funny things is, Brick is probably right. But we should differentiate between talent and team record/performance. The latter takes time to develop. Chemistry, guys learning each other's games, etc. But on talent alone, you've got to say that DMC is a top three center, RIGHT NOW. And on talent alone you'd also have to say that Tyreke is a top 10 guard (not just point guard) right now. He's pretty much owned Chris Paul since their first match-up. Not many guys can say that. Throw in the other three, plus our bench, and another half season to mature and yeah, we're right there, talent wise.

I know it's funny to think of the Kings in that way, but sometimes there is a bit of lag time when a team turns the corner. Fans are still used to thinking of them as cellar dwellars, and it affects the perception of the team, even as things change. But that'll catch up.

Keep in mind our frontcourt just completely shut down in a non fluke way the supposed best frontcourt in the league, that one team from LA. To quote Ricky Bobby: "That. Just. Happened."

its old hat by now to reference the oklahoma city thunder's rise to playoff contention in the west, but, apart from drafting james harden with the #3 pick in the '09 draft, that team didn't change much between the '08-'09 season and the '09-'10 season, except for their record (23-59 in '09, 50-32 in '10). that's not to say that the kings will ever experience a similarly meteoric rise in the standings, but it is encouraging to me that the talent is already in place in sacramento. the most important pieces are, anyway. if you look oklahoma city's roster up and down, there's some solid contributors, but two names very obviously stick out: kevin durant and russell westbrook. those are cornerstone players. tyreke evans and demarcus cousins are also, without question, cornerstone types of players. kings management just needs to decide which of the other pieces are worth keeping, and then needs to fill out the remaining roster with skill sets that complement evans and cousins. a defensive big like samuel dalembert is proving his worth. a small forward with the 3-point shooting ability that omri casspi only occasionally displays would also be a benefit. but, in truth, the kings return to playoff contention does not hinge on the retention or future acquisition of mid-level players nearly as much as it does on the continued growth and excellence of evans and cousins...