Peja responds to trade talk (merged)
- Thread starter ReinadelosReys
- Start date
You (Never) Hear It First
Raise your hand if you personally could see the trade for Chris Webber developing...
Now, for Mike Bibby
Anyone know about the trade for Brad Miller?
.....
How about the Cat, Cuttino Mobley?????
if we were going to trade peja, would we know about it....???
have we ever been in the mind of Petrie???
did anyone read the article about how the Maloofs and Petrie's wife don't even know what is going on with the kings, player managment wise?
i rest my case
(even if we did trade peja and somehow knew about it, would it be a bad trade?has petrie EVER made a bad trade?especially when its one of his closest friends hes trading away...)
Raise your hand if you personally could see the trade for Chris Webber developing...
Now, for Mike Bibby
Anyone know about the trade for Brad Miller?
.....
How about the Cat, Cuttino Mobley?????
if we were going to trade peja, would we know about it....???
have we ever been in the mind of Petrie???
did anyone read the article about how the Maloofs and Petrie's wife don't even know what is going on with the kings, player managment wise?
i rest my case
(even if we did trade peja and somehow knew about it, would it be a bad trade?has petrie EVER made a bad trade?especially when its one of his closest friends hes trading away...)
Sorry, Brick. The genius of Petrie does not agree with you that it should be Pedja that should be traded. If you think about it, our whole team except for Evans and somewhat Mobley is unathletic, and you could be searching for an answer elsewhere... perhaps get something ahtletic and get rid of a humongous contract ...
ReinadelosReys said:
But up until last season, neither had a team with no "superstars/potental/futureHOF'ers." Screw conventional wisdom! It can happen two years in a row! 
The genius of Petrie is both fallible and thus far ringless if you will note. He's very good, but he's also unfortunately dealing with a friend.
In any case, none of us (as usual) has any idea what he's thinking. The only person who ever really claims to is Ailene Voison, and of course that's a sad sad joke given that nobody will even talk to her.
In any case, none of us (as usual) has any idea what he's thinking. The only person who ever really claims to is Ailene Voison, and of course that's a sad sad joke given that nobody will even talk to her.
You may WANT it to be so, but wanting it to be so does not make it work that way in the real world. The real world says that since Magic and Bird entered the league EVERY team that has ever won a championship before last season was led by a HOF superstar. EVERY one. A one year blip going through injured teams and running into a team in full fledge internal meltdown doesn't suddenly trump the previous 25 years.
Freak occurrence.
Freak occurrence.
i am with sloter: team is much more important than a superstar. the recent championship teams with superstars were great teams. lakers had very good penalizing shooters, defensive stoppers; ditto for the spurs. ditto for the bulls, rockets, etc. having a superstar or two buying into the concept of a team is what makes a team special. but if kobe-ism (there is "me" in "team") becomes ubiquitous, which is in the process of becoming safe for a few special players, teams like the pistons will be the heros of more and more freaky occurrences.
You are contradicting yourself -- or perhaps drawing the wrong conclusions. Championship teams DO need teamwork, but too much teamwork is just as harmful to your chances in the end as too much "me"ism. There has always had to be "the man" -- the one incredible talent powering the team, taking the big shots, the goto guy defining the team and the guy who you turn to when the going gets tough. That's not "unteam", that is simply the optimum "team" structure to win a championship with. One man takes the point, the rest of the team gets behind him and pushes.
Team does NOT equal parity.
But what makes the great teams Great is that not only do they have a defining player or players, superstars to lead and carry them, but that a) everyone else acknowledges them and follows them; and b) that the superstars understand that the path to greatness involves making everybody else better too.
The guys who never figure out b) will not win (see Kobe), and of course teams with superstars who don't put aside their individual agendas will not win either (see Lakers last year or Minnesota this year) but it does not invalidate the winning structure for every championship team except one since disco was still king. You get a Hall of Famer, and have both a) and b), it has always trumped any non-superstar structure.
Team does NOT equal parity.
But what makes the great teams Great is that not only do they have a defining player or players, superstars to lead and carry them, but that a) everyone else acknowledges them and follows them; and b) that the superstars understand that the path to greatness involves making everybody else better too.
The guys who never figure out b) will not win (see Kobe), and of course teams with superstars who don't put aside their individual agendas will not win either (see Lakers last year or Minnesota this year) but it does not invalidate the winning structure for every championship team except one since disco was still king. You get a Hall of Famer, and have both a) and b), it has always trumped any non-superstar structure.
#1sacfan, although the team NBA that represented the USA was filled with a bunch of All-Stars they did not represent the best in the USA. First of all we needed a real PG like Bibby or something, 2nd of all their was no Shaq, KG, Kobe, Tracy, etc. etc., yes their was TD, yes there was LBJ, yes there was Amare, but your right we needed a team not a bunch of superstars. On top of that they were not ready for the Euro game and when you don't have a great team your not going to be able to beat a quality team like Argentina was who is used to the game.
No, the problem with those teams is that do NOT have recognized superstars -- and I'm not talking about talent. They are disorganized blobs where everybody thinks they are "the man", nobody has any roles, and eveybody runs around playing 1 on 5 with little or no concern for what the rest of the team is doing. See b) above.
You actually CAN stack a team with too much talent if that talent does not buy into things.
You actually CAN stack a team with too much talent if that talent does not buy into things.
Last edited: