Our FO/Ownership Has Let The Fans Down
- Thread starter rainmaker
- Start date
They were hardly mentioned if ever mentioned in regards to the top FAs. They weren't a part of Chandler, Gasol or Nenes free agency discussion. Of course, there is the chance they gave some sort of offer and weren't paid attention to, but there is a chance they simply said "TOO MUCH MONEY" and bailed out.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
To be fair, we were frustrated when we were good. Hell, Patriots fans were complaining the year they went 16-0 - the superbowl loss not withstanding. Complain is what sportsfans do. What I'm mostly referring to here is the fact that we are complaining about a product that we have yet to see on the court this season. Will losing the Samuel Dalembert that we had at the end of last season hurt our team in the short haul? Yes but for all we know Sammy D could have Shawn Kemp'd during the lockout (There are reports of this being the case, not to mention it happened last offseason to an extent) and been a complete Kenny Thomas for us.
The front office has made plenty of overtures this offseason whether successful or not. We tried to sign several players (Chandler, Crawford, AK47, Dalmebert) to no avail. We signed Hayes. It's not as if the front office then gave him a heart condition. Bar trading Tyreke, Demarcus, and Marcus for Chris Paul or Dwight Howard, what the hell was the front office supposed to do this season. We've been steadily building through the draft for a couple of years and finally have a solid core in place that we will have to pay (yes, good players cost money, even if they are already on your team) to keep on our team in the future. Why then would we risk having the ability to do so by throwing the entire tackle box at the first tuna we see swimming at the surface of the ocean?
I know we want results and we want them now. But the Kings are still the SACRAMENTO KINGS and by god unless we trade the entire team for Laurence Funderburke, that is all that matters.
rainmaker
Hall of Famer
It could definitely be that kind of a scenario. There is no proof either way.
Telemachus, you say by all appearances the Maloofs went after the top FA's. When? Where? I didn't hear/see any of that. I saw us turn all our attention to Chuck Hayes. I saw nothing that would leave me to believe we went hard after the better FA's.
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
They made overtures to spend the money but it's kind of hard to spend the money if no one wants it.
Telemachus
Starter
I heard reports of them talking to both Nene and Chandler early on, but when both made it clear they were looking for $14 million or more a year, the Kings moved on. Never heard them in the talks for Jordan or Gasol, but reports were they both teams would match any offer (and that proved to be true).
For some, that's simply not good enough. To paraphrase Yoda, "Do or not do. There is no try."
So trade. People defended lack of trades in the past because they said we werent taking on salary to have room for free agents. Now we arent making free agent moves because no one wants to come here and there is nothing we can do about that. Kind of a dead end that leads to anaheim
TehSwimGuy
Bench
Wow. Petrie says via twitter that "It's not a panic situation at all". So...when do we panic?
It's really too bad the Kings can't get someone like Howard, who wants out so bad. Or some good Center.
Hey! Hey you, Vlade! Get back over here. We need you for a season.
It's really too bad the Kings can't get someone like Howard, who wants out so bad. Or some good Center.
Hey! Hey you, Vlade! Get back over here. We need you for a season.
Petrie isn't in a panic because he is out of touch with how to win in the NBA.
He'll probably be surprised when this team doesn't improve, and if the roster stays as it is now, might even drop off a bit. Then he'll panic and trade away good assets for middling players on bad contracts, because "clearly it wasn't working." He'll then rebuild around a new semi-questionable nucleus and fail to get the complimentary pieces needed for that nucleus to succeed, resulting in the cycle starting all over again.
He'll probably be surprised when this team doesn't improve, and if the roster stays as it is now, might even drop off a bit. Then he'll panic and trade away good assets for middling players on bad contracts, because "clearly it wasn't working." He'll then rebuild around a new semi-questionable nucleus and fail to get the complimentary pieces needed for that nucleus to succeed, resulting in the cycle starting all over again.
Telemachus
Starter
mr. moustache
Bench
I think everyone expecting a splash in free agency this year was deluded. I'm frankly glad we didn't pay Nene, Gasol, or Chandler max money.
I'm totally down with signing AK for 10m or so because he'd be a good fit for the team and I would have been happy with SD for 8m or so, but he didn't want to play here. The Chuck thing is unfortunate for all involved. I thought he'd be a good fit and is a fair price at 5m.
Anyway, collecting bad contracts isn't a recipe for deep playoff runs. Let the young guys age and cross your fingers we can make a trade that makes use of our cap space.
Oh, and will someone finally repossess this team from the Maloofs? They suck, but it's for reasons other than Petrie's performance this summer.
I'm totally down with signing AK for 10m or so because he'd be a good fit for the team and I would have been happy with SD for 8m or so, but he didn't want to play here. The Chuck thing is unfortunate for all involved. I thought he'd be a good fit and is a fair price at 5m.
Anyway, collecting bad contracts isn't a recipe for deep playoff runs. Let the young guys age and cross your fingers we can make a trade that makes use of our cap space.
Oh, and will someone finally repossess this team from the Maloofs? They suck, but it's for reasons other than Petrie's performance this summer.
Padrino
All-Star
you complainers are all aware that this "offseason" will total just over two weeks once the regular season kicks off right?! that's not much time to get much done. the deck was always stacked against sacramento in this scenario. the front office did the best they could. i commend them for locking up chuck hayes as quickly as they did, given dalembert's now-obvious desire to play elsewhere. they considered it a coup to come up with a strong, veteran frontcourt defender on the cheap in hayes, stubby though he may be. remember: they had very little time before "training camp" opened. less than a week!! the entire league was scrambling, and if the kings were going to begin the season with an improved roster, they needed to act fast. and its clear that dalembert was just going to leverage the kings' offers into better deals with other teams, no matter how good the money was here. so they had a sound backup plan to pursue chuck hayes. it wasn't the sexiest of signings, but it was a move in the name of utility that communicated a still-existing focus on defense. its just a shame that hayes' heart condition will keep him from suiting up for the kings. no one could have predicted that...
look, there are exactly three ways with which to build a team: draft, trade, sign. period. that's it. you can't conjure superstars out of thin air. and, in a small market like sacramento, unappealing as it is to young millionaire basketball players, you're rarely going to have luck in free agency. who are the kings big time free agent signings since the team moved to sacramento? vlade divac rings out as one of the strongest of the bunch. as great as vlade was, it was not exactly the kind of home run everyone seems to be expecting now. and why the expectation? just because the maloofs promised to spend this "offseason"? what were they supposed to say?! "uhm, no, we have zero desire to improve this team. we won't be pursuing free agents. we'll settle for mediocrity." they said they'd spend. they chased talent. the talent signed elsewhere. that's par for the course in a small market. its certainly not headline-making news here in sacramento...
that said, despite the consistency of free agency busts for small market franchises, you still have two remaining options: draft, trade. the kings have done very well in the draft the last few years. they've also traded well. bringing an undervalued marcus thornton over last season was brilliant. and while i was not fond of the recent draft day trade to acquire salmons, i understand the logic of it. the kings needed a solid veteran presence who could swing between the 2 and 3 spots, especially with marcus thornton's contract status in sacramento up-in-the-air at the time. the kings are currently loaded with intriguing prospects and young role players. they've got flexible pieces and enough duplicative talent to swing an additional trade for a defensive-minded frontcourt player before the deadline in march, if such an opportunity should present itself. all of this doom and gloom over an "unsuccessful" two-week offseason seems extremely overstated to me. most teams made few additions of note. many were left empty-handed, or were left bidding for scraps. many simply stood pat...
i saw the kings' pursuit of jamal crawford as the only misstep of this "offseason." it made little sense to me, except as a move to stockpile talented players with the knowledge that future trades would eventually reshape the roster. in the end, i'm glad crawford decided to sign with portland. the kings will have further opportunities to improve in-house and via trade as the regular season commences. it is a short season, after all. only 66 games. the lockout threw the entire league off-balance. its a good year for a young, talented team to make some noise. its a good year for evans, cousins, and thornton to establish themselves as one gnarly, versatile, three-headed dragon. with no lockout on the horizon, no hyperactive transitional phase, and no unstable timetable, i expect a more measured and intentional approach from the kings front office next offseason, and before the trade deadline this season. if the roster remains mismatched and incomplete as we head into the 2012-2013 season, then i will join in the complaint fest. but at the moment, i find it hard to criticize a front office who had so little time to work with so little commodity...
look, there are exactly three ways with which to build a team: draft, trade, sign. period. that's it. you can't conjure superstars out of thin air. and, in a small market like sacramento, unappealing as it is to young millionaire basketball players, you're rarely going to have luck in free agency. who are the kings big time free agent signings since the team moved to sacramento? vlade divac rings out as one of the strongest of the bunch. as great as vlade was, it was not exactly the kind of home run everyone seems to be expecting now. and why the expectation? just because the maloofs promised to spend this "offseason"? what were they supposed to say?! "uhm, no, we have zero desire to improve this team. we won't be pursuing free agents. we'll settle for mediocrity." they said they'd spend. they chased talent. the talent signed elsewhere. that's par for the course in a small market. its certainly not headline-making news here in sacramento...
that said, despite the consistency of free agency busts for small market franchises, you still have two remaining options: draft, trade. the kings have done very well in the draft the last few years. they've also traded well. bringing an undervalued marcus thornton over last season was brilliant. and while i was not fond of the recent draft day trade to acquire salmons, i understand the logic of it. the kings needed a solid veteran presence who could swing between the 2 and 3 spots, especially with marcus thornton's contract status in sacramento up-in-the-air at the time. the kings are currently loaded with intriguing prospects and young role players. they've got flexible pieces and enough duplicative talent to swing an additional trade for a defensive-minded frontcourt player before the deadline in march, if such an opportunity should present itself. all of this doom and gloom over an "unsuccessful" two-week offseason seems extremely overstated to me. most teams made few additions of note. many were left empty-handed, or were left bidding for scraps. many simply stood pat...
i saw the kings' pursuit of jamal crawford as the only misstep of this "offseason." it made little sense to me, except as a move to stockpile talented players with the knowledge that future trades would eventually reshape the roster. in the end, i'm glad crawford decided to sign with portland. the kings will have further opportunities to improve in-house and via trade as the regular season commences. it is a short season, after all. only 66 games. the lockout threw the entire league off-balance. its a good year for a young, talented team to make some noise. its a good year for evans, cousins, and thornton to establish themselves as one gnarly, versatile, three-headed dragon. with no lockout on the horizon, no hyperactive transitional phase, and no unstable timetable, i expect a more measured and intentional approach from the kings front office next offseason, and before the trade deadline this season. if the roster remains mismatched and incomplete as we head into the 2012-2013 season, then i will join in the complaint fest. but at the moment, i find it hard to criticize a front office who had so little time to work with so little commodity...
Tetsujin
The Game Thread Dude
Contrary to popular belief, trading is not, in fact, as easy as pie.
We couldn't sign free agents when we were winning 50 games a year. The only one we ever landed was Vlade, and that was when we still sucked. We retained Webb due to Bird rights. We retained Bibby by massively overpaying. Who else did we sign? Jimmy Johnson?
The difficulty in signing free agents is about being a small market team. Nothing else to it. If we were classically mismanaged, that would be one thing. But Sacramento has never been a destination city. The ownership/management has nothing to do with it.
Section 101
All-Star
Simple. They have a coach players want to play for.
The Kings didn't have a lot of capspace to sign big FAs when they were winning, but they still had interest from players. Guys like Keon Clark, Jim Jackson and Bobby Jackson were all signings that this current situation could not hope to attain. Brad Miller was one of the bigger Free Agents when the Kings got him through a sign and trade. Even a solid vet guy like Anthony Peeler was would help this team, but they can't get that sort of player anymore.
Why? Because there was some real respect for that team. Now people see the Maloofs as the owners who tried to back out of town with empty wallets. They see Petrie making a mess of the roster. They see losing year after losing year. Management has a LOT to do with it.
Why? Because there was some real respect for that team. Now people see the Maloofs as the owners who tried to back out of town with empty wallets. They see Petrie making a mess of the roster. They see losing year after losing year. Management has a LOT to do with it.
Last edited:
Let's see if I get this right, and this is a real attempt at trying to understand you (and perhaps your like-minded posters). You're not happy with the coach, not happy with the management, the FO, the owners. You're also not happy with the direction that the team is taking, building around Tyreke and DMC. So what is it exactly that keeps you watching game after game? It's quite clear that you and a few other posters only want to see this whole "ball movement" Kings of old playing style, and I don't blame you for that. I just think that there are other ways that the team can be successful and building around Tyreke and DMC is one possible way. Maybe the offense and style of play won't look as nice as we would like, but as long as we are getting wins I don't really care.
Which then brings up the issue of winning. If we were winning more games, would you still be b****ing about Tyreke's play, even if it stayed the same? At this point I feel that we are still a few years away from being a really good team, and we need to add some pieces and the young guys also have to develop. Development involves coaching as well as a good work ethic, and yes, perhaps Paul Westphal is not the answer here. We can't control work ethic and just have to hope that the young guys develop well over time. As for adding players, I really feel that the FO couldn't do that much more. They wanted Hayes, and we didn't even get a chance to see what the full product on the court would be with him in the lineup, so we have no way to judge whether adding Hayes instead of Dalembert was a good decision or not. Remember that they also didn't exactly rule out having Dalembert after Hayes too. Aside from that, I don't think it's a good idea to overpay for someone that isn't going to have that much of a role here - i.e. Nene, Gasol, when our target timeline for real contention is a few years down the road.
So ... we got Hayes like we wanted, but that didn't work out. Tried to add AK, and so far hasn't worked out. Tried to get Dalembert, didn't work out. So what more could they do without grossly overpaying? It's true that having a good, winning system will attract more FAs. But it's also hard to get such a system out of nothing unless you happen to draft Superstar level players. The way I see it, it's a cyclic problem. We can't get a very good team without FAs, and can't get FAs without a very good team.
Why do I keep watching? I'm a fan of the Kings. That's kind of a silly question to be honest. I don't think the team has to be just like the team of old, but a real offensive system and a balanced roster are pretty much must-haves for any NBA team.
If we were winning then parts of my assessment of Tyreke would be wrong, but my assessment of Reke comes from before he was even drafted and unfortunately it's been true so far. I wish it wasn't because I want the team to win. You can win with a player like Reke if he expands his game and you put players around him that help him, but the team hasn't done that. They wasted time trying to play him out of position and haven't really gotten the complimentary players a young star needs to develop. You need either a vet with the right toolset and authority or a coach who knows what he's doing, but the Kings have gotten neither. It's best if you have both.
Also, they overpaid Hayes for the role of starting next to Cousins and helping facilitate the offense a little. This is basically the same role Dalembert had. BTW, Houston fans consider Sam to be an upgrade over Chuck Hayes. They realize the problem of a 6'6" starting center.
And why did it not work out? (Besides Hayes, which is a questionable contract to begin with.) Why it has not work out is exactly my point.
Here's a question for you: At what point did you decide being a fan and customer meant not having standards or criticisms? That is precisely the role of the fan. We root, but we demand. We pay the bills. The NBA is a bunch of guys in an empty arena making zilch without us. When management misleads and acts dicey, then it is on the fans and the press to call them out.
MassachusettsKingsFan
All-Star
I put Evans 'failures' on Evans, not the team.
And that is not to say that I don't think Evans is good, just that I think he could be better ... And more importantly I think he can play smarter. From the teams perspective though, how much more freedom could Evans have? One of bigger problems with him is how ineffective he is without the ball in his hands. On top of this, he usually needs the ball in his hands for a large amount of time (over 4-5 seconds is a lot) in order to size up his man and make a move.
If Evans was putting up these numbers as a rookie, without any team expectations everyone would be happy. Well, now we have goals .. we should have goals, and Evans is playing very similar to how he has always played. The problem is now that we are actually trying to win his mistakes are magnified.
The biggest issue with Evans is his failure to make that 'leap'. He's largely the same guy playing against defenses that are aware of his abilities now. And you know what? if Evans doesn't make one improvement to his actual game, but improves his decision making he'll be fine. He really seems to have a hard time knowing when to shoot, when to pass, how to pass, when to drive ... I don't know how you fix that any other way then time on the court.
There is also that big elephant in the room with Evans ... is he surrounding himself with the best people? He seems like the kind of guy who is extremely easy to influence, and I wish I knew the people influencing him had basketball as their number one priority.
And that is not to say that I don't think Evans is good, just that I think he could be better ... And more importantly I think he can play smarter. From the teams perspective though, how much more freedom could Evans have? One of bigger problems with him is how ineffective he is without the ball in his hands. On top of this, he usually needs the ball in his hands for a large amount of time (over 4-5 seconds is a lot) in order to size up his man and make a move.
If Evans was putting up these numbers as a rookie, without any team expectations everyone would be happy. Well, now we have goals .. we should have goals, and Evans is playing very similar to how he has always played. The problem is now that we are actually trying to win his mistakes are magnified.
The biggest issue with Evans is his failure to make that 'leap'. He's largely the same guy playing against defenses that are aware of his abilities now. And you know what? if Evans doesn't make one improvement to his actual game, but improves his decision making he'll be fine. He really seems to have a hard time knowing when to shoot, when to pass, how to pass, when to drive ... I don't know how you fix that any other way then time on the court.
There is also that big elephant in the room with Evans ... is he surrounding himself with the best people? He seems like the kind of guy who is extremely easy to influence, and I wish I knew the people influencing him had basketball as their number one priority.
Last edited:
Telemachus
Starter
Not one of the players that you mentioned were "big name" FAs at the time. When the Kings were winning, they were still spurned by the big names on the market and always had to settle for second tier players. Petrie became very good at finding players who were coming off bad seasons and helping them revive their careers (only to have them turn around a sign with another team). This has been the story in Sac since they moved here in '85. Even Vlade when he signed was coming out of a situation where he was splitting minutes at center in Charlotte. Many felt that he was on the downside of his career already.
ParniValjak
All-Star
And how would that be wrong?!
This is not NBA 2K12 or something like that where you stack your roster with players that can score and off you go. The roster as it is currently constructed is worse than at the end of last year. The individuals might be more talented but they are a terrible fit as a team together. Cousins - Hickson front court is not going to stop anyone.
Are you also one of those homies that think that its not ownership's fault that LeBron bolted for Miami?! I cannot stand LeBron, but what have Cavs done in his time there to build a legitimate team around him?! Get Mo Williams?! Trade for Jamison?! Not willing to part with JJ Hickson to get Amare from the Suns only to trade him 12 or so months later for Casspi and 1st round pick?!
This is the problem with us. We are trying to fill the roster on the cheap. Get as many players that we can that can play and have a complete disregard for how those pieces fit together. Currently it is a shocking fit and every player that we have gone after during this off-season (apart from AK) is a terrible fit. Its reminiscent of Dallas under Don Nelson where they stacked their roster with gunners and hoped to win the championship!
If either Reke or Cousins do leave it is absolutely on ownership and the front office and no one else. People come up with this rubbish that players don't want to play in small market teams well I see no other small market teams having the same problem. Its only the Kings. Portland doesn't have that problem. Neither does OKC! I guess it pays when you have owners and people in the front office than know how to build a contender and have a plan in place to get there. We are directionless and incompetent and keeping our own free agents, let alone getting someone else to come to Sacramento.
ParniValjak
All-Star
Like always people tend to look at the end result and not the symptom. Why did Dalembert accept less money to play for Houston?! Every asked yourself that question? I assume your answer is because he didn't want to be here? My question is why?!
Good franchises, those that have clear plan, culture and know what they are doing can keep their own free agents. Our team can't. If someone wants to get away so bad that he is prepared to take less money, it means that something in our franchise stinks. I think our attitude from the end of last season until this very day was stand offish to Dalembert. We were never really keen on him and were never really wanting him back. We had other plans. We wanted Chuck Hayes. Never mind that we got shorter, lost interior defence, lost shot blocking, lost in rebounding...never mind all that. We want to play sexy we don't want to win ugly and go far. We would rather play junk ball and score 120 but keep our opponent to 119. Now that we lose Hayes and all of sudden we start kissing Dalembert's *** again and which point any normal human being that has any self respect would be pretty pissed off by that.
We keep saying how we are offering more money but FAs keep turning us down because we are small market team. That is bull****! Other small market teams don't seem to have that problem. They not only keep their FA but they get others in. They have a clear plan. A blueprint on how to get to the ultimate goal. We don't and never have. I can understand not being able to attract the superstars. That is understandable! But what we need as a team are role players that fit. History will say those guys will go anywhere where they can get the money and/or the team that they are signing with has a clear direction. We lack that and that and only that is the reason why we are not getting players into the team. Its got nothing to do with it being Sacramento and everything to do with the direction this team is choosing to head in.
I agree, but a lot of the people here seem to have this idea that for us to win we NEED to play like the Kings of old, that somehow ball dominant guards don't exist on winning teams. Everybody agrees that Tyreke needs to learn to pass the ball, to play within an offense better. Everybody agrees that to this point (or rather last season) Westphal pretty much didn't have much of a system in place. What I don't understand is why so many posters here can't seem to be patient and give the team a bit of time.
Again, I agree on the importance of having good vets and a good coach. The lone article concerning the NBA in my local newspaper today was about Kobe Bryant and Mike Brown. Here's a link to the same thing being reported:
http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/nba/...-angeles-lakers-coach-mike-brown-not-pushover
That's the kind of attitude that star players and good coaches need to have. As a coach you can't be afraid to correct a player when he's wrong, and as a player you can't be sensitive to such criticism in a bad way. I agree that Tyreke was largely given a lot of freedom in his rookie year, but again, I feel that we really didn't have anyone else to rely on. Fair criticism of his play is absolutely acceptable. But I really can't stand the trolls who suggest things like "Trade Tyreke + JT for Steve Nash and Gortat". It's one thing to not be sold on the Tyrekeisgoingtobeasuperstar bandwagon. It's another thing to say that he's of no value/future worth to this team when he hasn't even played 2 complete seasons, hasn't been given a proper offensive system to TRY to perform in, and spent less than a season working with a rookie Cousins who we all feel is a big part of our future.
Unfortunately, I don't fancy the idea of Tyreke at SF as some have suggested. I think he still has to have the ball quite a fair bit, and I'll give him this season to show that he's not a selfish player. IMO, on the offensive side of things, we need to surround Tyreke and DMC with good outside shooters (check) and some veterans who can set good screens/ won't fumble passes (not so check). Defensively is where our problems mainly lie. Face it, offensive system or not, messy or not, our team is not going to struggle to score the ball much. It's going to be defense that determines whether we win games or not, at least against non-elite competition.
My point is that the team is very much still a work in progress, and I understand that fans want to see results now. Our losing has been prolonged because we didn't start the rebuild early enough, and even when we kinda did we were building around Kevin Martin as our franchise player, who's completely different from Evans. That kinda "wastes" our efforts a little.
For a small market team to win, it needs to draft good players. That's most important because we can't really lure a lot of FAs. That's where I feel the source of our problems is. Douby, Hawes, JT, Greene. All these guys didn't turn out the way they were "supposed" to, and Hawes, JT and Greene all showed flashes of being able to fill certain gaps in our team. The problem is Hawes played like a softy 78 games of the year (the other 4 good games were aginst the Lakers or Philly), JT still isn't reliable enough for a good playoff team, and Greene ... Well let's just say our 6'10 defensive good shooting SF dreams haven't exactly been realised.
All that said, I do think we are right there, and our young guys just need to make that leap for us to compete for a playoff spot. Our core of DMC, Tyreke and Thornton CAN take us deep into the playoffs if we surround them with the right cast, as you said. It's fine to demand a good product on the court, but let's not get so carried away that we start turning on the very players who we're counting on to hopefully bring us to another championship run. Tyreke Evans for Steve Nash is not the answer.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
I already explained why it seemed like you were giving him a pass.
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Because if the team still isn’t good by then, a lot of that will be on Tyreke’s shoulders.
Are you one of those folks who doesn’t realize that like Dwight Howard, Chris Paul, etc. LeBron suffers from “the grass is always greener” syndrome and wants an easy road to championships? His Cleveland teams were good enough to make the finals and win 60+ games. Maybe HE just wasn’t good enough to close the deal!
Well maybe the Kings need to retain your services, then, since you’re clearly such and expert. Maybe with you around to tell them everything they’re doing is wrong they can get their act together.
OKC got lucky by drafting a superstar caliber player. Then they got lucky again with Westbrook. OKC is good because Durant and Westbrook are just that good, not because they have some amazing supporting cast.
To further prove my point, if you swapped Durant and Westbrook on OKC for Tyreke and Cousins, would they still be as good a team? Obviously not.
Do the swap the other way, are the Kings much better? Obviously so. This team will fail or succeed on how their draft picks from the last three years develop, not on whether or not they sing Dalembert.
shockdoc
Prospect
I'm still not sure why Petrie is getting a pass. Most of the bball websites and magazines have us picked last place of the Pacific, and near last in the conference (with the exception of the NBA owned "soon the be contracted" New Orleans).
Yet "No Panic" Petrie loves the status quo.
Since when did this become acceptable, especially how Anaheim is waiting in the wings?
Yet "No Panic" Petrie loves the status quo.
Since when did this become acceptable, especially how Anaheim is waiting in the wings?
RookieOfTheDay
Starter
Well it's not like he's going to say, "Yeah, we're panicking. We're screwed now. We may as well forfeit the season". I'm sure there's a sense of desperation among the Kings behind the scenes after losing Hayes and then having Dalembert bail at the last minute. They aren't going to come out and say as much, though. Any professional organization is going to put forward a facade that they're in control and not worried about anything.
sidney
Starter
Your'e completely off on this and I'll tell you why. The way rookie deals are structured, no young stars are leaving after their rookie deals. Lebron didn't leave after his rookie deal nor did Bosh, Paul, Dwight, Deron and on and on and on.
If they leave, it's after their second deal when they are unrestricted FA. We don't have to be peaking in the next year or two, we have to be peaking and making deep playoff runs in about 5-7 years. That's when the real danger zone for this franchise is. Cleveland and Orlando didn't time it right and ended up with a bunch of unpromising older players right when their star became an unrestricted FA. And they didn't get the title. Stupid. Absolutely on them for poor planning.
